Would grizzlies be protected in name only?
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has proposed a new rule to govern grizzly bear management in the lower 48 states.
Announced on July 17th, the proposal would fundamentally shift management authority to state agencies while maintaining the bears’ official status as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Unlike nearly any previous ESA rule, it risks leaving grizzly bears protected in name only.
This proposal is only a draft, with few details that explain how management would work on the ground. The agencies plan to develop more detailed memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with the States to iron out management.
However, we strongly recommend you comment now, because there is no guarantee of further public participation.
Why should state bureaucrats manage rare carnivores?
State bureaucrats in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have made it abundantly clear: they don’t want grizzly bears protected. Some don’t want any native carnivores in the states, period. Idaho and Montana have passed the most regressive wolf hunting laws in the country, including placing bounties on wolves and killing pups in dens.
Is this sensible state management of a rare carnivore?
Consider how Idaho has already approached grizzly bears. In 2024, a young explorer bear was documented at a black bear bait near Saint Maries, Idaho. Idaho Fish and Game misidentified it as a black bear. When the hunter killed the grizzly, he turned it into the authorities. One Idaho Fish and Game agent even said, “we don’t need [grizzly bears] in the [St.] Joe.”
Grizzly bears belong in Idaho. They are a key part of the ecosystem, and have been native to our region for tens of thousands of years.
Today, wildlife agencies estimate about 60 grizzly bears inhabit the Gem State, tucked in the panhandle and near Yellowstone National Park. Idaho’s undeveloped center, the sprawling Big Wild, has no known breeding population of grizzly bears. Leading expert wildlife researchers have called this area the grizzly bear promised land, an essential area for nationwide recovery of grizzly bears.
Comment Suggestions
As always, we suggest writing your own comment (not copy-pasting). Here are the main points we recommend expressing:
1. Management of grizzly bears, an ESA-listed, species is the responsibility of the USFWS, not the States.
A new proposal should be developed with the USFWS as the primary manager of grizzly bear recovery.
2. The governments and wildlife agencies of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have demonstrated they cannot be trusted with grizzly management.
Just look attheir approach to native carnivores like wolves and their stated goals for grizzly trophy hunting.
3. Grizzlies in the lower 48 require large, interconnected populations to survive longterm.
This means that central Idaho must have a sustainable grizzly population, and all major grizzly populations in the Western US must have natural genetic interchange through protected, connected land corridors.
Link to comment: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2026-14450