1. Proposal details

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has denied petitions from states seeking to have grizzly bears delisted under the Endangered Species Act, but has unveiled a new management strategy that it says will provide more flexibility.

Grizzly bears were listed as a threatened species under the ESA in 1975 throughout the lower 48 states. A Fish and Wildlife proposed rule would revise the listing to establish a single distinct population segment encompassing areas in Idaho, Montana, Washington and Wyoming, “where suitable habitat exists and where grizzly bears currently reside or are expected to establish as populations recover,” according to a Jan. 8 news release.

Bears within the distinct segment would retain threatened status under the ESA. Protections would be removed outside the area.

The proposed rule is a first step toward fulfilling a settlement agreement with Idaho requiring an evaluation of the ESA listing in the lower 48 by January 2026, according to the service.

Idaho’s governor and attorney general in February 2024 stated ESA protections and regulations were unnecessary given a robust grizzly population and the state’s capability to manage wildlife. An Idaho delisting petition that Fish and Wildlife denied in February 2023 prompted litigation.

In announcing the proposed rule as well as proposed regulatory changes to provide “additional management flexibility for authorized agencies and individuals experiencing conflicts with grizzly bears,” the agency denied petitions by Montana and Wyoming to establish and delist distinct population segments for the Northern Continental Divide and Greater Yellowstone ecosystems.

Those populations “do not, on their own, represent valid DPSs,” according to the service’s press release.

The proposed rule will “facilitate recovery of grizzly bears and provide a stronger foundation for delisting” while the proposed regulatory change will “provide management agencies and landowners more tools and flexibility to deal with human/bear conflicts, an essential part of grizzly bear recovery,” said Fish and Wildlife Service director Martha Williams.

Grizzly populations are closer to each other than ever, and establishing a single distinct population segment that encompasses the six existing recovery zones will provide a comprehensive, scientifically based framework for recovery, according to the agency. Bear distribution “has significantly expanded, largely due to the commitments of state, federal and tribal agencies” at the same time private landowners “have made sacrifices to accommodate grizzly bears.”

The agency will take comments for 60 days.

The proposed rule and rejected delisting petitions “do nothing other than move the goal posts for species recovery and deny sound science,” National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and Public Lands Council spokesman Garrett Edmonds said in a statement. Grizzly populations have recovered in the proposed single distinct population segment, and “combining multiple distinct ecosystems into one giant population segment for a solitary, apex predator further muddies the waters of what species recovery looks like and only makes it harder for recovered species to be delisted in the future.”

Bear advocates respond

“I’m relieved the Fish and Wildlife Service found that grizzly bears still need Endangered Species Act safeguards,” Center for Biological Diversity carnivore conservation program legal director Andrea Zaccardi said in a statement. “With ongoing federal protections, grizzlies in the Northern Rocky Mountains and North Cascades will have a real chance at long-term recovery.”

Killing would be permitted in more situations, she said. Property owners would be allowed to kill bears actively attacking livestock, for example.

Science shows grizzlies are not recovered, and “the states have a demonstrated record of failing to manage grizzly bears responsibly,” Drew Caputo, Earthjustice vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife and oceans, said in a statement. Given increasing threats such as habitat loss, climate change and human conflicts, “stripping them of federal protections now would only raise their death count and threaten to reverse decades of conservation work.”