Following an announcement by the Trump administration, states may soon gain more control over grizzly bear management after over 50 years of federal protections.
Nearly two weeks later, confusion around the announcement remains.
On July 14, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced a proposal that would maintain grizzly bears’ Endangered Species Act (ESA) “threatened” status. However, a new revision of section 4(d) of the ESA could hand more management of the species over to the states in the lower 48.
The 4(d) provision allows for specific agencies to “take,” meaning capture and kill, grizzlies for the purpose of community safety and species conservation.
“I have been worried about this bear since 1975,” Gov. Mark Gordon said during the announcement. “It has excelled in its recovery.”
Proponents of the new revision say that it wouldn’t cause more grizzly bear deaths and would incentivize further recovery efforts. But many conservation groups highlight low habitat recovery as a reason for concern.
“These rules are really for the benefit of states and other actors and not really the species,” said Andrea Zaccardi, carnivore conservation legal director for the Center for Biological Diversity, which advocates for more federal protections for grizzlies.
Confusion around the proposed changes stemmed from limited details in the original announcement made during the windy July 14 press conference with U.S. Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum and the governors of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.
“Even for someone like me that's been working on this for a long time and digging into the weeds, it's really confusing,” Zaccardi said.
What do we know?
The Department of the Interior announced that it intends to maintain part of a 2025 management approach released during the final days of the Biden administration. That proposal maintains grizzly bears' ESA protections. It would continue to prohibit hunting and killing of grizzly bears, with the exception of specific killings done by management agencies under a set of narrowly defined circumstances, as well as some accidental grizzly deaths.
However, by handing over management decisions to states, decisions surrounding when captures and kills are necessary could fall more heavily on state agencies. States manage the wildlife within their boundaries, but species on the ESA list are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service.
“By providing additional management flexibility in areas where conservation benchmarks and population objectives have been achieved, the proposal would help wildlife managers address conflicts and public safety concerns while continuing to support the long-term conservation of grizzly bears,” the announcement by the Interior Department outlined.
Dan Thompson, large carnivore supervisor for Wyoming Game and Fish Department, said this likely won’t mean that Wyoming will get a hunting season for grizzly bears anytime soon. He said it recognizes work that has been done previously to restore the bear populations.
“I think an acknowledgement of the on-the-ground work is momentum forward for delisting. So, I mean, I think that's a good thing,” Thompson said.
Thompson said that “lethal removals,” or killings, have always been an element of grizzly management. He said the proposal could reduce federal oversight on decision making of when those kills occur.
For example, right now, when a bear that has a history of conflict is harming livestock, and Game and Fish decides it needs to be euthanized, Thompson has to ask for permission from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He said the federal agency is typically on board with those decisions, but if the proposal goes through, there could be “one less step.”
At the July 14 press conference, Gov. Gordon highlighted the notable increase in grizzly populations as a reason why decreased federal management is now needed.
“It is important to recognize when success happens,” Gordon said.
The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) and the North Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) have both seen significant growth of grizzly bear populations and account for a majority of the bears’ recovery. However, despite the recovery success in these systems, the four other grizzly bear populations have seen little or no population growth.
“It's still compelling that we went from 136 bears in the GYE when they were listed to 1,100 today,” said Jonathan Wood, vice president of law and policy for the Property and Environment Research Center, which advocates for free-market solutions. “But at the same time, we went from zero bears in the Bitterroot [in Idaho and Montana] to zero bears.”
The proposal also offers a two-tiered management approach, which would further reduce oversight by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for populations that have achieved demographic objectives. In areas with greater recovery that qualify for a Tier 2 designation, state management agencies will sign memorandums of understanding with the federal agency. This could give them more unregulated control over when killing or capturing and removing bears is warranted. States will need to apply for the Tier 2 designation.
How are people responding?
Proponents of the proposal say that this new tiered approach to managing grizzlies could promote grizzly bear recovery. According to Wood, management for grizzly bear populations has long been largely uniform. He said that the current structure does not account for the recovery growth in some regions, or the lack of growth in others.
Wood said the proposed tiered approach is important to taking gradual steps toward delisting while maintaining necessary protections and preserving the relationship between conservation groups and state and federal agencies.
“What we've instead had for 50 years is this diametric opposition of one day [going from] total federal control … [to] no federal control whatsoever, and that's scary,” Wood said. “Those stakes are too high. This tiered approach is a way to potentially even out the stakes of recovery progress and make it more gradual.”
Yet by handing more control to the states, Zaccardi said many of the protections that have been implemented in the past are at risk of being undone. Zaccardi said many state laws have reduced the likelihood that grizzlies may accidentally be caught in traps intended for wolves. She said these accidental trappings will likely go unaddressed if the new proposal is implemented.
“It seems like in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and the Northern Continental Divide … they are going to have [a] kind of carte blanche in terms of grizzly bear taking incidental to trapping,” Zaccardi said.
However, Thompson said that as more bears are entering new environments closer to homes, increasing deterrent options is critical for community safety. This includes situations where bears kill livestock or become accustomed to human food.
“The goal is not to kill more grizzly bears,” Thompson with Game and Fish said. “The goal is to be able to address issues as grizzly bears have expanded into places way beyond original recovery areas and beyond suitable habitats, and allow people to have the tools available to them to build tolerance for grizzly bears and deal with those situations. But it's not a carte blanche unregulated open season on grizzly bears like these groups will state.”
Previous lawsuits in Montana and Idaho, Zaccardi said, have worked to limit accidental grizzly bear trapping through regulations on when and where wolves can be trapped. She said wolf traps are one of the most common places that grizzly bears are accidentally trapped, injured or killed. These state-specific rulings may be reworked, Zaccardi warned, if the new proposal moves forward.
“If it's not a violation of the Endangered Species Act anymore to accidentally trap grizzly bears, which is what would happen if this was finalized in some places, then those restrictions in Montana and the restrictions that we currently have in Idaho potentially go away,” she said.
Zaccardi, along with several other conservation groups, are concerned that this will cause an increase in accidental trapping with reduced penalties for hunters and landowners responsible for injuring and killing bears.
“The proposed rule puts politics over science in a push to allow anti-wildlife states to kill more grizzly bears with less oversight,” Lizzy Pennock, carnivore coexistence attorney with WildEarth Guardians, said in a statement last week. “At a time when environmental protections are being rolled back across the board, grizzly bears need more protection–not less.”
Advocates have said they are reviewing the proposal and could sue when it is finalized.
As of June 30, federal data show humans have killed 19 bears in the GYE this year. That includes cases involving vehicle strikes, cattle attacks, food habituation and self-defense.
The proposed changes to grizzly protections come in tandem with other ESA changes proposed by the Trump administration. This includes reduced protections to habitat used by threatened and endangered species and new differentiation between threatened and endangered species protections.
How did we get here and what’s next?
Grizzly bears were added to the ESA list in 1975. Since then, the bear was delisted, or removed, from the ESA, once in 2007 and again in 2017. In both instances, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service claimed grizzly bear populations had risen to recovery goal amounts, but protections were restored and grizzly bears were back on the ESA after conservation groups sued.
The most recent proposal, drafted during the final days of the Biden administration, received over 200,000 public comments. Now, that comment period is back open for public input on the Trump administration’s 4(d) revision.
The proposed 4(d) ruling is currently open for comments for 30 days until Aug. 17. The public can make comments here.
