Letter from western legislators to delist Grizzly bears

[Forkyfinder]

Saw the news this morning, see below.

I hope that it goes through, the states have been footing the bill for management - and i think revenue from hunting would at least start to offset those costs.

“In early January, the Biden Administration’s Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a new proposal for the Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing of grizzly bears in the lower 48. This decision punishes Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho’s successful grizzly bear recovery efforts. As members who represent these states, we believe that this flawed decision will severely damage trust in ESA listing decisions and undermine future recovery efforts. We strongly oppose the proposed “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Grizzly Bear Listing on the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife With a Revised Section 4(d) Rule” and urge you to review the population data to acknowledge the recovery of grizzlies and delist and return management to the states where it belongs,”

Daines Leads Letter to FWS Urging Reversal of Biden-Era Red Tape that Slows Grizzly Bear Delisting - Senator Steve Daines

U.S. SENATE – U.S. Senator Steve Daines led his colleagues in sending a bicameral letter today to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service raising concerns with a Biden-era policy that unnecessarily slows the grizzly bear delisting process by creating a single recovery zone that stretches from...

www.daines.senate.gov

 

[Big Fin]

I get all of that and I'm on board with delisting grizzlies, but there's a lot of missing stuff that make it a pretty big pipe dream.

The ESA requires safety nets to prevent "re-listing." Those safety nets are designed to protect habitat and reduce human-caused mortality within the allowed mortality limits. The courts, which is where this will end up, have determined that such safety nets were not adequate when the USFWS delisted in 2007 and again in 2017.

Add in the rapid changes in potential habitat disruption under new policies and EOs, along with far fewer resources to monitory habitat and mortality, and the likelihood of the courts allowing for delisting, even with a liberal interpretation of the 4(d) rule, is likely another lost delisting battle.

I wish that wasn't the case. The bears have far exceeded the recovery goals. We almost got there and I think we would have if we had stayed the course of funding the study/monitoring of habitat and mortality. Yet, when states start cutting the funding for positions that would do such, if/when delisting were to occur, it makes the legal case stronger for the other side and weaker for the cause of delisting.

When we decide to defund the most important group of monitoring habitat, mortality, and population, as I expressed in this grizzly delisting thread, we virtually assure the other side a victory in the courts.

The ESA is a reality. We either change the ESA, which nobody in Congress has the stomach for, or we do the necessary things the ESA requires, however cumbersome and frustrating that can be. Cutting the positions and the science that provide the key safety nets that allow for delisting is not going to be looked at favorably by the courts.

I wish it was different. Right now, the political cards are aligned that changes could be made to the ESA. Yet, that is not what anyone is doing, rather a lot of public complaining and even helping the other side by other policies/action taken.

I've spent way too much of my life engaged in grizzly bear policy. I was confident delisting would happen in my lifetime. I no longer expect that to happen in my lifetime. Hope it happens in the lifetime of some of you younger folks.

 

[El Jason]

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on April 17, 2025, published "Rescinding the Definition of 'Harm' Under the Endangered Species Act."1 The main purpose of the proposed rule is to rescind the regulatory definition of "harm" currently found in agency regulations implementing the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which includes significant habitat modification that directly or indirectly harms species by impairing essential behaviors such as breeding, feeding or sheltering. The agencies argue that defining "harm" is extraneous and inconsistent with the best meaning of the term "take" under the ESA, because "take" is already defined under the statute and includes "harm." The effect of the recission, if adopted, would be to narrow the scope of activities requiring permits under the ESA. The comment period for the proposed rule ends May 19, 2025.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I get all of that and I'm on board with delisting grizzlies, but there's a lot of missing stuff that make it a pretty big pipe dream.

The ESA requires safety nets to prevent "re-listing." Those safety nets are designed to protect habitat and reduce human-caused mortality within the allowed mortality limits. The courts, which is where this will end up, have determined that such safety nets were not adequate when the USFWS delisted in 2007 and again in 2017.

Add in the rapid changes in potential habitat disruption under new policies and EOs, along with far fewer resources to monitory habitat and mortality, and the likelihood of the courts allowing for delisting, even with a liberal interpretation of the 4(d) rule, is likely another lost delisting battle.

I wish that wasn't the case. The bears have far exceeded the recovery goals. We almost got there and I think we would have if we had stayed the course of funding the study/monitoring of habitat and mortality. Yet, when states start cutting the funding for positions that would do such, if/when delisting were to occur, it makes the legal case stronger for the other side and weaker for the cause of delisting.

When we decide to defund the most important group of monitoring habitat, mortality, and population, as I expressed in this grizzly delisting thread, we virtually assure the other side a victory in the courts.

The ESA is a reality. We either change the ESA, which nobody in Congress has the stomach for, or we do the necessary things the ESA requires, however cumbersome and frustrating that can be. Cutting the positions and the science that provide the key safety nets that allow for delisting is not going to be looked at favorably by the courts.

I wish it was different. Right now, the political cards are aligned that changes could be made to the ESA. Yet, that is not what anyone is doing, rather a lot of public complaining and even helping the other side by other policies/action taken.

I've spent way too much of my life engaged in grizzly bear policy. I was confident delisting would happen in my lifetime. I no longer expect that to happen in my lifetime. Hope it happens in the lifetime of some of you younger folks.

Hypothetical, @Big Fin, but would other reaearch work?

I.e. if the universities in the states did a multi year study, directed to proving or disproving ESA requirements would that suffice? Or - say the RMEF foundation funded a private study by professional bios?

I dont want to sound negative, but science funding, especially science focused on conservation looks to have a significant uphill funding battle for the forseeable future.

 

[Big Fin]

Good question. That depends on the court/judge. Just the research is likely not enough to satisfy the courts, no matter where the research comes from. You'd likely still need to have some sort of authority/mechanism/process by which the science/data would result in protection for the species in question, if such science demonstrated concerns for habitat/populations.

Reading the other cases where the courts have twice overturned grizzly delisting, I suspect the courts are going to look unfavorably at reducing the safety nets, rather than favorably.

I could be wrong. We were getting so close, but "performative politics" seems to have cut off that possibility. Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but I'd bet a lot of money I'd be proven correct.

 

[nrpate05]

If the proposal for the single DPS gets adopted, delisting is a long way off. Fortunately unfortunately the GYE states have done too good of a job at recovering bears and are now being punished for that work. I suspect that if any part of this makes it way to the courts the same judge will issue the same decision. Really the only hope is that a new 4(d) rule is adopted that allows increased state management and even, dare I say it, hunting. This rule would have to be totally bulletproof, but all the data, plans, etc. are there to make it possible. Let's not forget that there was a hunting season in the NCDE population many decades ago. Of course, that was struck down by the courts eventually. The ESA allows hunting only when there are 'extraordinary population pressures,' which one could argue is occurring in, at least, the GYE.

 

[Hunting Wife]

With the administration going after the ESA on a couple of fronts (revising the definition of “harm”, reducing protections for critical habitat, sunsetting regulations under the ESA), and with directives to pursue delisting of species whenever possible, I don’t think delisting is out of the realm of possibility.