The Trump Administration has proposed to transfer substantial authority for grizzly bear management over to the states. While this could have been a well-designed step on the path to sustained grizzly bear recovery and eventual delisting from the Endangered Species Act, it is not. Rather than facilitating investment in proven, non-lethal conflict reduction strategies and providing some greater flexibility for on-the ground management decisions – all while maintaining strong sideboards to limit total mortality – the new rule instead provides expansive authority for states to decide when to kill or relocate grizzly bears, with limited oversight and practically no limits of how many bears could be killed in some areas or circumstances, including in areas critical for connectivity. The rule’s overly broad, permissive, and vague language leaves grizzly bear management subject to shifting political pressures, rather than based on science, public trust, and community needs.  

What’s At Stake

Grizzly bears have made a remarkable recovery in parts of Montana, especially here in northwest Montana. The proposed rule, which delegates broad authority to the states, is unprecedented in nature, likely unlawful, and could undermine bears' continued recovery. It will likely lead to excessive mortality and relocations that hinder establishing the connectivity bears need, legally and biologically, to sustain their recovery. The Service should withdraw this rule, and focus instead on developing an updated recovery plan, based on the current scientific understanding of what is actually needed for sustained recovery across the northern Rockies, then empower the states and tribes with the authority, flexibility and accountability necessary to achieve it.