For the Wyoming Wildlife Federation, success is a balance of addressing the biological needs of bears and the anthropogenic needs of humanity. This proposal disregards both.
The Wyoming Wildlife Federation is disappointed by the proposal from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to not delist the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly bear population. The GYE grizzly bear population has recovered and has been at or above the population objective for over a decade. This decision was an opportunity to celebrate an incredible conservation win, but instead served to further political divides. The results of this current proposal will ensure that grizzly bears and the managers who work to conserve them will remain in the crosshairs of politics for years to come.
Wyoming Wildlife Federation applauds the Staff of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, particularly the large carnivore team, on their exhaustive and excellent work on behalf of the animals within their charge. Without these hard-working individuals, in the face of ugly politics, social pressures, and emotion-driven narratives, the grizzly bear would not be the success story it is today. The proposal coming out of D.C. not only ignores the science but blatantly disregards the experts on the ground who manage these bears on a daily basis.
The Federation knows that the populus of Wyoming must put our best foot forward and continue to uphold our commitment to the long-term sustainability of wildlife and wildlife policy. Science-based, peer-reviewed management is how these decisions must be made. The Wyoming Wildlife Federation is disheartened by the proposal, but we remain at the table ready to work to ensure balanced large carnivore management is upheld.
Acronym Key
ESA = Endangered Species Act
GYE = Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem - a recovery area set in policy encompassing habitat in ID, MT, and WY
NCDE = Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem - a recovery area for grizzly bears set in policy in MT - largely encompassing the areas in and around Glacier National Park.
DPS = Distinct population segment (A distinct population segment is a group of vertebrate species separate from but related to other populations of a species. Distinct population segments can be listed as endangered or threatened species.)
FWS = Fish and Wildlife Service (The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is a bureau within the U.S. Department of the Interior and the nation's oldest conservation agency.)
4(d) Rule = is one of many tools in the ESA for protecting threatened species. These rules get their name from section 4(d) of the ESA, which directs the Secretary of the Interior to issue protective regulations deemed “necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of” threatened species.
What does this proposal do?:
- The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) denied Montana's and Wyoming's petitions to delist the NCDE and GYE grizzly populations on the grounds that those populations have recovered and expanded too much to qualify as a distinct population segment.
- Instead of delisting the NCDE and GYE population, FWS created a single DPS (distinct population segment) to cover all current grizzly populations in the lower 48. The new DPS proposed covers habitat in 4 states: WA, ID, MT, and WY and is substantially larger than the six recovery zones that FWS has previously used.
- FWS proposes to amend the existing 4(d) rule to give states and private landowners greater flexibility with less oversight while dealing with conflict.
Perspectives on Problems with this Proposal:
-
- This proposal penalizes successful recovery by moving the goal posts for success a third time. The GYE grizzlies have been well above objectives for over a decade and are in a place where they don’t have room to expand further without the detriment to themselves and the people who live with bears in their backyards.
-
- Because of the way the FWS’s distinct population segment policy is crafted, and when the ESA was amended to allow for listing DPSs, success in recovering a DPS means it will be incredibly hard to delist a remnant population outside of the DPS. Stated another way, because the FWS felt it had to reclassify the DPS boundaries due to expanding populations, WY, MT, and ID are now victims of their own success.
-
- The proposal of the 4(d) rule is oversold to the degree of its proposed changes, especially because of the huge impacts to states with continued listing status. The only changes it offers is to give states more authority to issue take permits in areas outside the recovery zones without having to have each one approved by FWS while keeping all other conflict management rules status quo.
-
- The point of the ESA is not about recovery but about the probability of a species to become extinct. This proposal twists the intention to focus on a recovery plan rather than the long term scientifically proven sustainability of a population that lives within fraught political and social pendulum swings. When rules erode and abuse the intentions and successes of a piece of policy - the policy no longer works.
-
- This decision doesn’t just affect a single species, it has the very real potential to monumentally change the future of the ESA. Likely, it will encourage calls to repeal or overhaul the ESA entirely. Divided opinions will become further entrenched, and wildlife will pay the cost when overall funding and support for species recovery declines.
