Divergent values and perspectives drive three distinct viewpoints on grizzly bear reintroduction in Washington, the United States

The last confirmed sighting of a grizzly bear in the North Cascades of Washington State (USA) was in 1996. Federal agencies have, therefore, long debated the need to restore this population, and in 2017 the US National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service put forth an official proposal to reintroduce grizzly bears to the North Cascades. However, reintroducing large carnivores ­– particularly where they have been largely absent for a long time – is a controversial endeavor, and this proposal received mixed reactions from the public.

It is crucial to understand and address peoples’ diverse concerns and desires in order for reintroduction to succeed. We explored the various perspectives to understand the drivers of support and opposition to bear reintroduction. We surveyed recreationists, local community members, environmental advocates, government agency staff, and others. We characterized three distinct viewpoints from their responses.

The first viewpoint asserts that reintroducing grizzly bears is our moral duty. This perspective carries a strong sense of responsibility towards both bears and the ecosystem. In contrast, the second viewpoint opposes reintroduction, because it sees reintroduction as inappropriate and risky. This group expresses concerns about dangers and challenges associated with bringing back grizzly bears. These two viewpoints differ widely on what they see as our responsibilities to other people, to the environment, and to the grizzly bears. In contrast to these two polarized perspectives, the third viewpoint is more concerned with practical issues, seeing reintroduction as impractical and not sensible. This viewpoint may be overlooked in emotionally charged debates on large carnivore recovery.

Our findings demonstrate how people draw from different values and perceptions to form opinions on the acceptability of reintroducing large carnivores. Additionally, we found that people who belong to different interest groups do not all think similarly about such efforts. This suggests we should not assume someone’s opinion based on groups they identify with. Conservation practitioners should explore interest groups’ diverse values, perceptions of risks and benefits, and beliefs about responsibilities to others in order to mitigate conflicts and build trust between groups.