Pressure brought to bear to delist ‘threatened’ grizzlies
Photo Credit: Getty
On February 5th, Reps. Harriet Hageman (R-WY), Russ Fulcher (R-ID), Ryan Zinke (R-MT), and Troy Downing (R-MT) sent a letter to President Donald Trump and Secretary of Interior Doug Burgum urging them to take action on the last minute Biden administration decision to keep recovered grizzly bear populations listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Grizzly bears have been listed as threatened since 1975 in the lower 48 states. To foster their recovery, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) created a plan in 1993 that outlined specific goals for six recovery zones where high quality habitat exists in the Northern Rockies.
The plan details how the grizzly bears in each recovery zone would be delisted as certain goals are met. It states that the recovery objective is the “[d]elisting of each of the remaining populations by population as they achieve their recovery targets.” It can be inferred that the FWS developed this objective with the plan to delist the populations via distinct population segment designations because there is no other way to delist populations one by one.
A distinct population segment is “a vertebrate population or group of populations that is discrete from other populations of the species and significant in relation to the entire species.”
Grizzly bears in two of the recovery zones from the 1993 plan have made a remarkable recovery, the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) and the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE). According to the FWS 2023 Grizzly Bear Recovery Program Annual Report, the number of grizzly bears in the GYE and the NCDE is approximately double their recovery goals and meeting other federal recovery metrics. Yet, both populations are still listed under the ESA.
The governors of Montana and Wyoming each submitted petitions requesting that the NCDE and GYE populations respectively be delisted in accordance with the 1993 plan, but those were each rejected by the FWS on January 8th.
FWS claimed that the NCDE and GYE grizzlies could no longer be considered distinct population segments because they are no longer “discrete” from each other. In short, they claim that the bears have recovered and expanded too much; that the recovery zones are no longer separated from each other.
The legislators capture this in their letter,
According to the Service, the basis for not delisting is that the DPSs proposed by the states would not be considered ‘discrete’ because bears have expanded outside their proposed boundaries. This justification is unconscionable, as it signals to the states that their conservation efforts have been too successful. In other words, bears in the GYE and NCDE are expanding into other ecosystems, therefore they cannot be delisted on their own. If this decision is allowed to stand, it will further disincentivize states from working with the federal government to recover other listed species.
The idea that the bears have recovered too much to be delisted is preposterous to many, including the states who provide habitat for grizzlies. Since the original listing, states like Wyoming have contributed tens of millions of dollars towards grizzly recovery; they’ve certainly played a major role in this success story. They should be rewarded, but with the recent actions by FWS, they are being punished for recovering the bears too much.
Congress should pass legislation to delist the GYE and NCDE grizzly bears in part because it would avoid the inevitable litigation the FWS would face if they delist them on their own. Fortunately, Rep. Harriet Hageman and Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) have each introduced legislation, H.R.281 and S.316, that would direct Secretary Burgum to delist the GYE bears. Legislators should also introduce a bill to address the NCDE bears so that both populations can be handed over to state management.
The purpose of the ESA is to help protect species and delist them when recovery goals have been met. The recovery and delisting of these grizzlies should be a bipartisan cause for celebration, not a point of contention.