HB 1825
In CommitteeHouse
Grizzly bear management
Concerning grizzly bear management.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill repeals the law that previously required Washington’s wildlife agency to negotiate with federal and state agencies before moving or introducing grizzly bears. It removes specific statutory language about grizzly bear management that had been in place since 1995 and 2000.
- Repeals RCW 77.12.035, the statute that previously required the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to negotiate with federal and state agencies before transplanting or introducing grizzly bears.
- Removes the legal requirement for formal negotiations with federal and state agencies regarding grizzly bear management actions.
- Eliminates statutory language from chapter 107, laws of 2000 (section 211) and chapter 370, laws of 1995 (section 1) that were incorporated into RCW 77.12.035.
Who is affected
- Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) — The state's wildlife management agency will no longer be required to follow specific statutory procedures for grizzly bear transplantation or introduction, and will instead operate under existing administrative rules and federal consultation requirements.
- Federal wildlife agencies — Federal agencies (e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) may need to adjust coordination protocols with the state, as the statutory mandate for formal negotiations is removed.
- Tribal governments in Washington — Tribal nations with historical and treaty-based interests in grizzly bear management may experience shifts in consultation expectations, as statutory negotiation requirements are eliminated.
- Residents and land users in potential grizzly bear range — Residents and stakeholders in areas where grizzly bears may expand (e.g., North Cascades) may see changes in how future bear management decisions are developed and implemented.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (2)
Streamlines decision-making authority for grizzly bear management by removing redundant statutory layers, potentially enabling faster, more adaptive responses to emerging ecological conditions or human-wildlife conflicts.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1 repealing RCW 77.12.035 and 2000 c 107 s 211 & 1995 c 370 s 1Aligns state management authority with current federal recovery planning (e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2022 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan), which emphasizes flexibility and science-based decision-making over rigid statutory procedures that may no longer reflect best practices.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 1 repealing RCW 77.12.035 and 2000 c 107 s 211 & 1995 c 370 s 1
Potential Concerns (3)
Removal of mandatory interagency negotiation requirements may reduce procedural safeguards and transparency around high-stakes decisions involving apex predator reintroduction, potentially weakening public confidence in the objectivity and preparedness of future grizzly bear management decisions.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 1 repealing RCW 77.12.035 and 2000 c 107 s 211 & 1995 c 370 s 1Counties and local jurisdictions in potential grizzly bear range (e.g., Okanogan, Skagit, and Chelan) may lose statutory assurance that federal and state agencies coordinated before any translocation, reducing their ability to anticipate or prepare for ecological and safety implications of such actions.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1 repealing RCW 77.12.035 and 2000 c 107 s 211 & 1995 c 370 s 1Eliminating the statutory negotiation requirement may reduce external scientific and regulatory oversight during early stages of grizzly bear management planning, potentially increasing risk of biologically unsound or politically expedient decisions that could undermine long-term ecosystem health.
EnvironmentRef: Sec. 1 repealing RCW 77.12.035 and 2000 c 107 s 211 & 1995 c 370 s 1
Who Is Most Affected
WDFW gains administrative flexibility to manage grizzly bear translocations under existing rules and federal consultation requirements, but may face increased scrutiny over transparency and interagency coordination in the absence of statutory mandates.
Federal agencies (e.g., USFWS) retain primary authority under the Endangered Species Act but lose a statutory obligation for formal consultation with Washington, potentially shifting coordination to informal or administrative channels.
Tribal governments may see reduced formal consultation expectations, though their treaty-reserved rights and co-stewardship roles remain intact—impact depends on whether future administrative protocols preserve meaningful tribal input.
Residents in the North Cascades and other potential grizzly range may experience less predictable decision timelines and reduced early-stage public involvement, potentially eroding trust in management outcomes.