Various livestock and agriculture industry groups, as well as state and local governments, oppose the Biden administration’s plan to release grizzly bears in Washington forests located near rural communities.
The groups, which include the National Cattlemen’s Association (NCBA), the Public Lands Council (PLC) and the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), argued in comments filed with the federal government this week that releasing grizzly bears near communities would harm them. members in the region.
They also said such a move would threaten public safety and jeopardize future conservation efforts.
“Introducing an apex predator like the grizzly bear to a new area of Washington state is a mistake and poses a huge threat to rural communities and hard-working farmers and ranchers,” said Mark Eisele, a Wyoming rancher and incoming NCBA president.
“This plan is being driven by bureaucrats thousands of miles away in the West who do not fully understand the dangers this species will pose to producers. The Biden administration should listen to rural residents and rethink this plan.”
Livestock and agriculture groups oppose the Biden administration’s plan to release grizzly bears into the wild.Getty Images/iStockphoto
“Grizzly bears are 20 times more dangerous than black bears and are notorious for aggressive and deadly attacks,” added PLC President Mark Roeber, a Colorado rancher. “Their broad diet means they can harm anyone – corn producers, gardeners, cattle farmers, sheep farmers. The list goes on and on.”
Roeber argued the decision to send the bears to a new environment should not be taken lightly and said he has faced livestock devastation from gray wolf populations near his farm. Grizzly bears, he added, are larger predators that “will only cause more harm to our livestock producers in Washington state.”
In late September, the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed regulations and a draft environmental impact statement that opens the door to releasing grizzly bears in North Cascades National Park located in northern Washington along the US-Canada border. The proposal was welcomed by left-leaning eco groups but strongly criticized by lawmakers and local residents.
North Cascades National Park in Washington.Getty Images
Under the proposal, the federal government would release up to seven grizzly bears annually into the North Cascades ecosystem (NCE) over the next five to 10 years.
The federal government’s overall goal is to create a grizzly bear population of about 200 within the next decade.
“In addition to the threat to human safety, the reintroduction of grizzly bears to the NCE would pose a real risk to the economic viability of farm families and ranches that support the rural economy throughout Washington state,” NCBA, PLC, AFBF, the American Sheep Industry Association and several local affiliates wrote in comments filed on Monday.
“There is significant economic harm to private and public land producers, as well as a severe increase in risk to human safety. These consequences are bad enough on their own, but they are even harder for producers to bear when these reintroductions are not necessary for the continued growth of grizzly bear populations across the country.”
The federal plan released in September includes three options, two that would involve actively restoring populations of endangered grizzly bear species and a “no action” alternative that would maintain current management practices.
The public comment period for the proposal ends on Monday.
“We reiterate our opposition to the reintroduction of grizzly bears given the potential adverse effects on our local communities and the lack of local government involvement by federal agencies,” the Chelan County Board of Commissioners, the local governing body near NCE, wrote in its own comment letter.
Up to seven grizzly bears will be released each year in the show.Getty Images/iStockphoto
“At the very least, we hope you will consider our comments and develop a draft EIS and proposed rule 10(j) that more accurately reflect the current science, management needs and local community impacts of grizzly bear reintroduction.”
Both the state governments of Montana and Idaho also considered the proposal, arguing that the federal government’s proposal would be harmful.
“Grizzly bears will occupy a variety of habitats, regardless of land ownership or zoning. It is naive to think that there will only be bears on public land, unless the intent is to manage bears to exclude any that wander onto private land,” wrote Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Director Dustin Temple. “If that is the intent, then more many bears will be needed to reach the desired population.”
According to the NPS, grizzly bears occupy the North Cascades and have served as an “important part of the ecosystem” for thousands of years.
However, in the 20th century, as a result of aggressive hunting practices, the species was almost extinct and the last confirmed sighting of a grizzly bear in the NCE was in 1996.
The last confirmed sighting of a grizzly bear in the North Cascades was in 1996.Getty Images/iStockphoto
Hugh Morrison, regional FWS director, said in September that grizzly bears are part of the region’s heritage and that restoring them can be done in a way that ensures communities, residents and animals “can all live together in peace.”
The plan would release grizzly bears near communities, and, according to the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, accidentally or intentionally killing a grizzly bear in the state could result in large fines and penalties because the species is federally and state-listed as endangered. as endangered.
Plans to reintroduce grizzly bears to the North Cascades date to the Obama administration.
Then, after major state opposition led by Congressman Dan Newhouse, the Trump administration concluded that grizzly bears would not be restored in the ecosystem.
The Biden administration is reviving plans to release the bear.REUTERS
Former Interior Secretary David Bernhardt stated in July 2020 that grizzly bears are not in danger of extinction and that his agency can manage populations across their existing range.
However, late last year, following widespread litigation from environmental groups, the Biden administration announced it would review whether to proceed with the restoration, a process that led to the proposal in September.
Categories: Trending
Source: thtrangdai.edu.vn/en/
