Three of the four states that still have grizzlies in the contiguous U.S.—Wyoming, Montana and Idaho—have each taken legal actions to remove the bears from the endangered species list and take over their management. But while the brown bear populations have recovered in some of their habitats, opponents of their delisting say that it’s too soon to give their oversight to states that could allow hunting and management practices that aren’t based on science, while climate change and development are pressuring the species’ habitats and food sources.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the federal agency responsible for managing species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), recently announced that it will decide in January 2025 whether to delist grizzly bears, as requested by several states. But the states have already begun preparing for how they will proceed, anticipating the lifting of the federal restrictions. From relaxing regulations outside protected areas to introducing new provisions for handling human-bear conflicts and eventually allowing grizzly hunting, the states have ambitious, multifaceted plans to manage the iconic species. The agencies claim these efforts will better serve the economies and residents of their states while also ensuring the bears’ safety and the species’ survival. 

Wyoming Governor Mike Gordon submitted a petition in January 2022 to the USFWS, requesting that the agency drop federal Endangered Species Act protections for grizzly bears in the lower 48 states and put Wyoming, Montana and Idaho in charge of the grizzlies in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE).

The petition required the federal agency to release a review of grizzly protections within 12 months, but the agency missed the deadline, prompting Wyoming to sue in June 2023. Following the lawsuit, the FWS had until July 2024 to release its review, as outlined under Section 4 of the ESA, which gives the agency 12 months to fully assess a petition to protect or remove protections for a species after an initial finding of substantial grounds for review.

As that deadline approached in July, Montana filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue the USFWS for failing to respond to its 2021 petition to delist grizzly bears in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem, which includes Glacier National Park. The USFWS also missed the 12-month deadline to issue a review in response to this petition, prompting the state to consider yet another legal action.

And, according to a filing from the USFWS, Idaho also submitted a petition in March 2022 to delist grizzlies, but the USFWS denied the request in February 2023.

The USFWS has now delayed its decision until January to allow time to deal with all the legal actions aimed at changing how the bears are protected, according to a court filing in July by the agency’s Mountain-Prairie Regional Director Matt Hogan.

“To ensure consistency between these decisions, the Service currently intends to finalize all three of these documents – the GYE 12-month finding, the NCDE 12-month finding, and the proposed rule revising or removing the entire ESA listing of grizzly bears in the lower-48 states—simultaneously,” Hogan said in the filing. 

Grizzlies were first listed under the ESA in 1975 after their population dwindled to fewer than 1,000 in the lower 48 states. Typically, a species is listed under the ESA when it meets criteria indicating it is at risk of extinction. The risk is determined in a structured review process by the USFWS of scientific evidence such as habitat loss, overutilization, disease or predation, inadequate legal protections or other natural or human-related threats.

Grizzlies have been delisted from the ESA twice before, in 2007 and 2017, but both decisions were overturned by lawsuits from environmental advocacy groups.

According to the USFWS’s 1993 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan, to delist the grizzly bear in the Yellowstone region, the area must maintain a minimum population of 500 bears. Recent estimates show grizzly populations have surged, with around 1,000 bears each in the GYE and NCDE. That recovery is the main justification the states have presented for delisting grizzlies as they rally to take control of the iconic species, whose range once extended across the Great Plains and into Mexico but is now found only in four northwestern states of the contiguous U.S.

“The states want to be in charge of management, and that is historically their role,” said Mike Leahy, senior director of Wildlife, Hunting, and Fishing Policy at the National Wildlife Federation. “State agencies manage most species that aren’t federally endangered, and they take a lot of pride in their ability to do so.”

However, stakeholders from various organizations have raised concerns that, while state agencies may be capable, the conditions are not yet ideal for removing grizzlies from federal protection. 

They point to unmet requirements under the ESA, anti-carnivore legislation in some states, aggressive hunting practices and increasing human-bear conflicts as key reasons why many believe it’s premature to lift protections for the bears. Additionally, the decline in the Northern Rockies of the whitebark pine— one of the grizzlies’ crucial food sources—due to the warming of the climate, excess fire suppression and pest infestations serves as further evidence for some bear researchers that the species lacks the resources needed for survival without special protections.

Unmet Conditions for ESA Delisting 

In July, two grizzly bears were relocated from Montana to Wyoming as part of a tri-state partnership between Montana, Wyoming and Idaho to boost the bruins’ numbers and maintain genetic diversity in the Yellowstone ecosystem. Experts note that increasing population size helps the animals’ genetics by reducing inbreeding and promoting gene flow between groups, which strengthens the bears’ ability to adapt, resist disease and ensure long-term survival.

However, some experts argue that the ESA prioritizes natural recovery over artificial relocation to boost population numbers.

“We don’t want to see bears transplanted from one region to another. We want to restore these connections naturally and enhance genetic diversity,” said Kelsey Yarzab, the associate organizer of the Sierra Club’s Jackson, Wyoming, chapter. “It’s really about the long-term health of the species, not what each state thinks they should or shouldn’t do with one of the most charismatic and important animals, culturally, ecologically and economically, in our country,”

The USFWS requires that multiple threats be eliminated or controlled before a species can be delisted. This includes managing population trends, maintaining habitat quality and quantity and ensuring adequate protective measures are in place to prevent future harm to the species.

Christopher Servheen, a former Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator for the USFWS and current president of the Montana Wildlife Federation, initially supported delisting grizzly bears but has since lost confidence in the states’ commitment to protect them. In 2023, he testified before the Congressional Natural Resources Committee, arguing against delisting under current conditions.

Once delisted, individual land management agencies, such as state fish and game or parks departments, or tribal councils, would assume responsibility for managing grizzly bears. However, Servheen points out that current regulations and policies, such as those in Montana and Idaho, could be detrimental to grizzly bear populations.

In 2021, Montana passed laws on wolf hunting and trapping that allowed bounties for kills, expanded the use of neck snares and permitted bait near traps. But the bait could potentially attract grizzly bears too, and Servheen argues neck snares for large canines can inadvertently capture and strangle grizzly bears. Unintentional capture, he said, poses a significant threat to grizzly populations, particularly in areas where their habitats overlap with areas where lethal wolf management is allowed.

Idaho implemented similar policies, including night hunting of wolves with bait and night-vision equipment, which raises concerns about ethical hunting practices and potential accidental killings of grizzlies, he added.

Low reporting rates from hunters often leave state fish and game agencies unaware of grizzly bear deaths resulting from some methods of hunting and trapping, Servheen noted.

“What this means in practice is that state fish and game agencies have no way to regulate the mortality of grizzly bears due to hound hunting or wolf trapping and snaring because they will never know about these deaths,” Servheen said.

Experts are concerned that grizzlies might encounter similar challenges to those faced by gray wolves, which were delisted in January 2021 after being safeguarded by the ESA since 1974, pointing to anti-predator sentiment in Northern Rocky Mountain states as a driver of increasing human-animal conflicts that have left the large canine’s habitats unsafe.

“Unfortunately, predator conservation has become politicized, and there is significant political opposition to predator restoration,” said Leahy. “Montana, in particular, is not showing a strong commitment to sustaining predator populations.”

Public commitment to wildlife conservation appears to be waning, he noted, especially as attention shifts from well-known species to those that are less popular or are controversial. Strategies that have succeeded with deer, elk and turkeys are now being used with predators, he said, but fears and misconceptions about the vital role predators play in ecosystems often leads to public resistance to the application of such techniques.

From Havens to Hunting Grounds 

While Montana, Wyoming and Idaho allow regulated black bear hunting, the situation for grizzlies if they lost ESA protections remains unclear. 

In late September, Montana took proactive steps towards managing the bears itself by launching a grizzly bear mortality dashboard and releasing its final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on its management of the animals, signaling the state’s readiness to oversee the species if it’s delisted in January. The agency studied 30 counties in western and central Montana that constitute 51 percent of the state’s total area and are considered as host areas for grizzlies. 

The dashboard tracks human-caused grizzly bear deaths and shows that, so far this year, 23 grizzlies died from human activities. 

In a news release, FWP stated that the dashboard is part of a broader effort to increase transparency and educate Montanans on the reasons behind grizzly deaths, even while the species remains federally protected. The tool also showcases the state’s readiness to manage the grizzly population independently in certain areas.

“Tracking grizzly bear mortality is a key metric when we look at bear management,” said Quentin Kujala, FWP’s chief of conservation policy. “This dashboard allows us to be transparent with the public on what kinds of mortality we’re seeing and what the causes are.”

The dashboard is also intended to encourage the state’s residents and visitors to properly secure garbage, food and other things that can attract grizzlies into conflicts with humans, and to teach the public to be “bear aware.” 

The 224-page environmental impact statement outlines strategies for managing grizzly populations statewide, with a focus on habitat connectivity and addressing human-bear conflicts. It consolidates management into a single framework, replacing the separate plans for the Greater Yellowstone and Northern Continental Divide ecosystems. The latest plan would be stricter with the bears, particularly those found outside designated habitats, than federal authorities currently are.

The plan permits ranchers to apply for lethal removal permits if bears are preying livestock. Additionally, the state may relocate two to four grizzly bears every decade to enhance genetic diversity, targeting areas with suitable habitat, low potential for conflict, and a high likelihood of successful breeding for the translocated bears.

“FWP views grizzly bears as both ‘conservation-reliant’ and ‘conflict-prone,’ and embraces the challenges of ensuring the species’ healthy future while protecting people and their property,” the final EIS states. While the state has indicated that hunting could be part of its management plan, that wouldn’t happen until at least five years after delisting.

When grizzly bears briefly lost federal protections in 2017, Wyoming promptly approved a hunting season allowing up to 22 bears to be taken in areas surrounding Yellowstone National Park, marking the first time in over 40 years that grizzlies were hunted in the state. 

Grizzly hunting could be a source of income for states that allow it.

“There is a market for everything in America,” said Yarzab. “People spend tens of thousands of dollars to hunt big game on different continents.” 

States like Wyoming, Montana and Idaho typically charge between $600 and $6,000 for hunting permits for big game species like deer, elk, moose and black bear, with higher fees for non-residents. If Wyoming sold all the grizzly hunting permits it made available in 2017, the state could potentially have earned up to $132,000, before tallying up tourism revenue brought in by the hunters.

“I don’t think states are going to make a significant amount of money from grizzly bear hunting,” Leahy said, noting that interest in grizzly hunting remains too limited for it to generate substantial revenue for communities or states.

Do Thriving Recovery Zones Still Need Protections?

Endangered Species Act protections designate six core grizzly recovery areas, and Leahy believes the Greater Yellowstone and Northern Continental Divide ecosystems have made significant progress in the recovery of grizzly bear populations. He suggests one way to resolve the ongoing debate is by delisting grizzlies only in these two regions, where they would remain off limits to hunting within the boundaries of national parks.

“We believe that, under the right terms and conditions, grizzlies in these areas could be removed from ESA protections,” he said. “The population around Yellowstone National Park has done really well, and we’re optimistic about the prospects for delisting, depending on the final rule.” 

However, he pointed out that four areas, including the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem between northwest Montana and northeast Idaho and the Selkirk Ecosystem in Idaho, still require protections, as grizzly populations in these regions have not yet recovered to the 500-individual threshold.

Decisions about wildlife management, particularly for controversial species, are increasingly driven by politics rather than science, according to some researchers and wildlife advocates. Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon criticized the FWS after they postponed their decision on delisting grizzly bears.

“We will not accept a 6-month delay to Wyoming’s petition—especially one that costs the state $2 million annually to manage a species we have no authority over,” Gordon said in a press release, demanding the FWS complete the delisting process for GYE grizzlies by Oct. 31.

The governor didn’t break it down where exactly this money is being spent, but the states largely spend their money to monitor grizzly populations, manage human-bear conflicts, educate the public and implement conservation efforts. 

But grizzlies bring far more economic benefit to Wyoming than they cost, Servheen said.

“Millions of tourists come to Wyoming every year, spending hundreds of millions of dollars to see wolves and grizzly bears,” he said. “The economic benefit far outweighs the costs of managing the species.” 

And many people living near Wyoming’s border with Yellowstone, particularly those living in Teton County, don’t want a hasty delisting of grizzlies.

“In 2018, when the grizzly bears in the GYE faced delisting and a potential bear hunt, it really aggravated our community,” said Yarzab. “It felt like a major overstep to even consider hunting the species.” 

Experts are concerned about the declining support for science-based wildlife management—not just for grizzlies, but also for species like elk, deer and wolves. They warn that if this continues, grizzlies and other wildlife will face increasing challenges to their survival.

“Science-based management has been the cornerstone of wildlife conservation in the United States,” Leahy said. “Instead, we’re seeing politicized decision-making, with politicians stepping in where scientists and biologists should be leading.”