When I arrived at a last-minute press conference on the Gallatin River near Big Sky a couple weeks ago, I had to pass multiple security checkpoints just to access the makeshift stage. As the sky cleared from a summer downpour, a sign read, “Return Management to the States.”
U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, joined by the governors of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, praised the recovery of Yellowstone-area grizzly bears and blasted the Endangered Species Act — the legislation that’s protected the bears since 1975.
“What we’ve been doing hasn’t been working,” Burgum said, noting that only 3 percent of listed species have ever had federal protections removed. “If you have a 97 percent fail rate, then there’s probably something wrong.”
Given the rhetoric and signage, the announcement seemed headed toward a familiar destination: The federal government has tried twice, over nearly two decades, to remove ESA protections for Yellowstone-area grizzlies. Courts shut down both attempts.
But despite the fanfare, the Trump administration stopped short of announcing yet another attempt to remove grizzlies from the endangered species list. Instead, it unveiled something unexpected: a proposal that would keep grizzlies listed under the ESA while also shifting management authority to the states of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming.
At stake is the future of an ESA that some perceive as nonfunctional, as delisting attempts for charismatic species like grizzlies end up in court time and again. “The Endangered Species List is not a Dean’s List,” said Governor Mark Gordon of Wyoming. “It’s time that this bear graduates. It has excelled in its recovery.”
Traditionally, listed species are under federal control until management transfers back to the states upon delisting. This new proposal attempts to create a middle ground: a stepping-stone toward full state management that supporters argue could reshape not only who has authority over grizzly bears, but also how other federally protected species might be delisted in the future.
What does the rule actually mean?
The proposed federal rule revises section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act for grizzly bears, which allows the federal government to tinker with custom regulations to fit the needs of specific protected species.
The 18-page document is laden with dense, technical language. In broad terms, the proposal clarifies when “take” — in general, killing or harming bears — is allowed and by whom. It sets up a new, two-tiered structure for management centered around “memorandums of understanding” between the states and the federal government. Under the first tier, when those agreements are in place and a bear population is still on the road to recovery, protections remain largely the same, save for more permissiveness around trappers accidentally killing grizzlies when targeting other species.
But once a given grizzly bear population has ventured closer to recovery and met criteria laid out in its conservation strategy, the second tier of management would go into effect. In Tier 2, states would assume much broader authority over day-to-day grizzly management, even while the species remains federally protected. In short, depending on the specifics of the yet-to-be-seen MOUs, state wildlife managers likely wouldn’t need federal permission before trapping and killing grizzlies in areas like Greater Yellowstone and around Glacier National Park, where the bears have met demographic goals for years.
The added “management flexibilities” could help local residents better tolerate bears on the landscape, the rule suggests, and if things go awry the federal government could always reassume management authority. Additional specifics are in large part determined by the new MOUs, which aren’t yet publicly available.
The new grizzly proposal would not eliminate federal oversight entirely. Agencies like the U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service would still consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on projects that could impact grizzlies, and the rule would not immediately authorize public hunting seasons.
“Decisions should be made as close to the people affected by them as possible,” Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte said during the press conference. “The state wildlife managers have experience, expertise, local knowledge and community relationships that make them best-suited to do the daily work required to manage this population using the best available scientific information.”
The aftermath
After the draft of the proposed rule came out July 17, wildlife advocacy groups were perplexed by the model the government put forward.
“The text leaves a lot to be desired,” said Jenny Harbine of the nonprofit public interest law firm Earthjustice.
“I was hoping it would be more clear,” said Andrea Zaccardi of the Center for Biological Diversity, a nonprofit law organization focused on species conservation.
Much of that uncertainty centers on the memorandums of understanding between the states and the federal government. Those agreements weren’t included as part of the proposed rule, critics say, leaving unanswered questions about the extent to which states will truly run the show when it comes to grizzly bear management.
The rule “punts on important details, such that the real world impacts of the proposal are in large part determined by later agreements that will be developed outside the rulemaking process,” Defenders of Wildlife said in a statement.
The uncertainty around the MOUs has fueled concerns that states, influenced by ranching and hunting interests, could kill too many bears without federal checks. Already this year, at least 24 grizzlies have died in Montana and another 24 were killed in Idaho and Wyoming. The majority of those mortalities are caused by humans.
However, those involved with on-the-ground conflict work describe a system in which states already play a lead role.
Martha Williams, former director of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks and head of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under President Biden called the announcement “something of a nothingburger” after the press conference and before the text of the proposed rule was released, arguing that states already conduct the vast majority of day-to-day grizzly management under existing agreements.
FWP employs a dozen bear management specialists across Montana, which is home to roughly 2,000 grizzly bears, more than anywhere else in the Lower 48. They work with landowners to reduce attractants for bears, trap and relocate grizzlies and, when necessary, remove bruins that threaten people or livestock.
“I’m not seeing a huge difference,” said Evan Stout, manager of Bear Awareness Gardiner, an organization dedicated to helping humans and grizzlies coexist north of Yellowstone. “They are the front line. They’re the ones with their hands in the dirt and their boots on the ground. It’s the state guys who are doing all that work right now anyways.”
Ryan Callaghan, President and CEO of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, agrees. As things currently stand, he says, it’s not hard for state wildlife professionals to get clearance to kill a problem bear.
“Saying that state management is something novel right now would be just wholly inaccurate and untrue,” Callaghan said. “Questioning whether or not the states could effectively manage the bear that they are already effectively managing is just not a great approach.”
A new era for the ESA?
Whether or not the change in grizzly management amounts to much on the ground, other supporters argue the new model could herald a new path forward for endangered species management by providing a stronger and more durable runway to removing federal protections in the long run.
Other supporters of the rule argue the new model could provide a stronger and more durable pathway to removing federal protections in the long run.
Jonathan Wood, vice president of law and policy at Property and Environment Research Center, a thinktank devoted to market-oriented conservation solutions, described the rule as a “training wheels” approach to delisting.
“One of the reasons why I think it’s so impossible to delist species like the grizzly bear is that moving from 100 percent federal control on one day to 100 percent state control the next is too dramatic,” he said. “It doesn’t give anyone an opportunity to build trust, and it’s scary because it’s uncertain.”
Rather than forcing courts to decide if a species should remain listed or have management entirely relinquished to states, he says, the rule creates a pathway where states can gradually gain more control while the federal government continues to retain ultimate authority. That gradual approach, he argues, could give states a chance to convince the public and courts alike they’re trustworthy and ready for full management if delisting occurs.
The text of the new proposal echoed a comment PERC submitted with a coalition of other conservation groups on a previous grizzly rule proposed in the final days of the Biden administration. However, the MOU process remains separate from the formal process under which the new rule will be adopted. And this adds a layer of uncertainty, according to Wood. “Fundamentally, their idea of saying we’re going to manage a species differently based on how the populations are doing and we’re going to reward states for their role in recovering populations is exactly right,” he said.
PERC has rallied for other ESA changes championed by the Trump administration like removing the “blanket 4(d) rule,” which gives threatened species many of the same protections as those listed as endangered. It has also long advocated charging international visitors at national parks more than domestic tourists, a policy the administration implemented in January.
“One of the reasons why I think it’s so impossible to delist species like the grizzly bear is that moving from 100 percent federal control on one day to 100 percent state control the next is too dramatic.”
Jonathan Wood, vice president of law and policy, PERC
A 2023 study from the organization found that of 300 listed species projected to recover, only 57 had actually done so. “Most species remain listed for years, if not decades, longer than anticipated,” the study said. The study reflects one of the longest-running arguments over the ESA: Supporters see it as a success story, staving off extinction until habitat and long-lasting recovery is secure; 99 percent of listed species are still with us today. Critics argue it has become a “Hotel California” — species can check in but can never leave.
Wood believes the new model proposed for grizzlies could eventually apply to other species as well. By providing tangible incentives for recovery, he says, the model could encourage states and landowners alike to take meaningful steps toward protecting species and habitats.
“It makes sense to signal in advance to states and landowners that as species progress to recovery, we’re going to provide you regulatory relief incrementally rather than putting everything on a delisting that may never happen,” he said.
Whether the proposal represents a “nothingburger” or the beginning of a new model for recovering species may ultimately depend on documents the public still hasn’t seen. The MOUs that would dictate how the new system operates on the ground remain in development, and there’s no indication for when they will be released.
In the two weeks since the rule was published, more than 16,000 public comments have streamed in. A cursory look shows broad disagreement over how many grizzlies there should be and where, and over who should manage them. Thousands more submissions are likely by the end of the comment period in mid-August. The government will finalize the rule sometime after the comment period closes.
Until then, the federal government’s draft proposal marks a potential new twist in the drama over grizzly management that’s been simmering for two decades.
At the July 14 press conference north of West Yellowstone, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum clutched his cowboy hat as a gale of Montana wind tried to send it flying from his head.
“It’s not often you have the federal government coming and making an announcement [about] how we’re going to give up power at the federal level. But that’s exactly what’s going on today.”
Nick Mott is a Western Environmental Reporting Collaborative reporter for Mountain Journal and High Country News. He is a multimedia journalist based in Livingston, Montana, who focuses on the environment, wildlife, climate and public lands.
