The House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 14 conducted a public hearing on House Bill 1825, which would repeal statutory language that restricts the state Fish and Wildlife Commission and Department of Fish and Wildlife from engaging in certain grizzly-bear management actions, including a prohibition on transporting or introducing grizzly bears into Washington.

Rebecca Lewis, committee staff, advised members that grizzly bears are listed as a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act and as endangered under Washington state law. Lewis said the bill would repeal the statute that assigns certain duties related to grizzly bear management to the commission and department and would remove the prohibition on transporting or introducing grizzly bears into the state.

Representative Larry Springer (45th District), the bill's sponsor, said the 1995 statute that effectively prohibited the state from engaging in reintroduction discussions is outdated. "We know a lot more about how to recover and how to protect public health and safety," Springer said, and described the repeal as allowing the state to participate in conversations and planning with federal and Canadian partners.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) staff testified the department is signed in "pro" because repeal would unify their authority and allow the department to participate fully as a co-manager; Dr. Shubhadeep Bhattacharjee, WDFW wolf and grizzly policy lead, said the department has no plans to translocate grizzly bears at this time but that if such plans were considered, a robust public process and coordination with tribes and other agencies would be required.

Testimony was sharply divided. Conservation groups, tribal representatives and independent bear biologists supported the bill, saying the North Cascades ecosystem could support grizzly-bear recovery and that state agencies should be able to participate in recovery planning and translocations as a co-manager. Scott Schuyler for the Upper Skagit Tribe and several bear biologists urged the committee that the state should be able to work with federal partners and tribal co-managers.

Opponents included the Washington Farm Bureau and certain local residents who raised concerns about livestock safety, worker safety in orchards and the practical impacts of adding another apex predator to landscapes where people work and live. Caleb Gorder of the Washington Farm Bureau said producers in livestock and tree fruit industries worry that employers must provide safe work environments and that reintroduction could create new safety challenges.

Several testifiers urged caution and dialog with local communities; others emphasized that HB 1825 does not itself direct any translocations, does not allocate state funds, and does not change federal processes. The committee received both in-person and remote testimony; staff recorded 663 pro, 883 con and 4 other entries among those signed in but not wishing to testify. No committee vote was taken on HB 1825 during the Feb. 14 meeting.