Read the full documents and comment online here:
https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R6-ES-2024-0186/document
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is changing direction on grizzly bear management in the Northern Rockies. This proposed rule would guide management and set rules on human activities throughout the region.
Biologists and wildlife activists have long advocated for grizzly bears to be managed as one large population instead of isolated islands in the national parks. One connected population of a minimum of 3,000 to 5,000 grizzly bears is necessary to prevent extinction long term, especially with the onset of dramatic climate change.
We do need a large, connected population of bears in the Northern Rockies, which this rule claims to do.
Unfortunately, this rule aims to create a distinct population segment (DPS) for only the Northern Rockies, meaning that restoration of grizzly bears in the Wasatch Front, Southern Rockies, Sierra Nevada, and elsewhere is off the table. Any grizzlies outside the Northern Rockies would lose ESA protections. Even this DPS boundary is political and arbitrary—Oregon's Blue Mountains and Utah's Uinta Mountains are left off.
It doesn't. The proposed rule uses the same five "recovery areas" that are in place today, which do not connect. The proposed rule acknowledges the need for connective habitat, but such places should be explicitly included in recovery area boundaries. Additionally, because of the 4(d) change, grizzly bears outside of recovery zones would have less protection.
The recovery areas in Idaho in this proposed rule are the same as they currently are. This includes part of the Selkirk, a portion of the Cabinet-Yaak, a portion of the Greater Yellowstone, and the so-called Bitterroot Ecosystem, which is the combination of the Selway-Bitterroot and Frank Church-River of No Return Wildernesses.
No! They are political boundaries that would allow grizzlies in some wilderness and little else. There are better alternatives to these that are based on habitat quality, while still remaining on public land.
The map below, created by Mike Bader and Paul Sieracki, shows what a larger Bitterroot Recovery Area would look like. This map includes important habitat outside of wilderness like in the Nez Perce-Clearwater, Payette, Boise, and Custer-Gallatin National Forests.
Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act details regulations on harming threatened and endangered species. It also, controversially, allows for limited "take" or harm of a species under certain conditions.
In this version of the rule, state agencies and livestock producers would be granted broad authority to kill grizzlies they deem a threat—even when non-lethal deterrents haven’t been exhausted.
The rule could lead to:
No! Grizzly bears have no fear when food is near. The primary conflict between humans and bears is because of unsecured (human) food, trash, and livestock. This usually results in humans shooting the bear. Even as a protected species, 85% of grizzly bear mortality is human caused.
Creating serious standards for food and livestock in bear country is critical to reducing conflict, something that this proposed rule does not seriously address.
This version of the rule has problems. Public opinion swayed the USFWS before, and we can do it again. It's important to urge for strong protections for wildlife that are based in science and can make coexistence possible.
Friends of the Clearwater and our allies have created an outline for what better grizzly bear management in the Northern Rockies might look like.
You can read that PDF below!
New-vision-for-grizzly-bear-recovery-in-the-northern-rocky-mountains-FINAL
