Western Lawmakers Demand Grizzly Delisting, Call USFWS Plan “Ludicrous”

A coalition of 11 Western lawmakers, led by U.S. Senator Steve Daines (R-MT), sent a strongly worded letter to Paul Souza, acting director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), urging the agency to reverse its January 2025 decision to keep grizzly bears listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

Representing Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, the lawmakers praised the impressive recovery of grizzly populations while criticizing the agency’s new approach of managing bears. As the feds continue to push forward with their plan to manage grizzlies as a single population across the Lower 48, these western lawmakers regard the idea as impractical and one that openly dismisses conservation achievements.

“We should be celebrating the recovery grizzly bears have made through the dedication and sacrifice of the people who must live with these bears in their backyards,” the letter states. “We strongly oppose the proposed [4(d) rule] and urge you to review the population data to acknowledge the recovery of grizzlies.” 

In all honesty, the grizzly bear’s recovery is a shining example of the ESA at its best. In the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), grizzly numbers have soared to over 1,000 bears, more than doubling the USFWS’s original recovery goal of 500. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks and other state agencies have hailed this milestone, noting that grizzlies now occupy vast swaths of suitable habitat across the region. The lawmakers argue that this success story warrants delisting, allowing states to take the reins on management - a move they say would reward decades of hard work by local communities, ranchers, and wildlife managers.

Yet, the USFWS’s January 8 decision to deny delisting petitions from Montana and Wyoming has sparked outrage. The agency’s proposal to treat grizzlies across Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and parts of Washington as a single population ignores the reality of fragmented habitats. Human development, including roads, towns, and ranches, has made a fully interconnected grizzly population a pipe dream. The lawmakers called this shift in recovery criteria “changing the playbook” mid-game, undermining trust in the ESA and punishing states for meeting long-established goals.

The case for delisting is compelling. State wildlife agencies in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho have proven their ability to manage grizzlies effectively, balancing conservation with the needs of rural communities. Montana’s management plans, for instance, prioritize habitat protection while addressing rising grizzly-human conflicts. These types of incidents highlight the challenges of a growing bear population in a human-dominated landscape, challenges many believe that individual states are better equipped to handle with localized strategies.

Delisting would also restore credibility to the ESA. When recovery goals are met, as they undeniably have been in the GYE, maintaining federal protections risks sending a message that success doesn’t matter. The lawmakers argue this could discourage future conservation efforts, as stakeholders lose faith in a system that continually moves the goalposts.

“For FWS to take this remarkable recovery data and say that recovery is too effective to warrant delisting is ludicrous,” the letter went on to say. “It is time to celebrate the recovery of grizzly bears by delisting them and returning management to the states where it belongs.”

The USFWS defends its decision by pointing to grizzly dispersal and breeding between recovery zones, such as a male grizzly successfully mating in a new area. While this shows progress, it’s a flimsy justification for keeping bears listed. Grizzly reproduction is slow, and expecting a seamless, single population across four states ignores ecological realities. The lawmakers rightly question why the agency is doubling down on an unattainable standard when the original recovery metrics such as population size and habitat occupancy have been exceeded.

The lawmakers’ letter is yet another example of a continued rallying cry for practical wildlife management. By delisting grizzlies, the USFWS can honor the ESA’s purpose: to recover species and then step back when the job is done. States like Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho stand ready to manage their grizzly populations, ensuring the bears’ long-term survival while addressing the needs of communities grappling with an expanding bear presence. 

The USFWS public comment period on its proposed grizzly bear rule, which was extended to May 16 (tomorrow) after the cancellation of public hearings in January, remains open. Public comments are being accepted at https://www.fws.gov/grizzlyrulemaking.