The federal government announced on Tuesday that it is planning to shift management of grizzly bears in the contiguous U.S. to the states.
In a windy field south of Bozeman, Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte, flanked by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Idaho Gov. Brad Little and Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon, praised the recovery of the species from a few hundred bears in 1975 to a population exceeding 2,000 along the Continental Divide.
Idaho U.S. Rep. Russ Fulcher seeks input on federal land management in survey
“Idaho has proven we can successfully conserve grizzly bears while responsibly managing wildlife and protecting our communities,” Little said in an emailed statement. “This proposal is another important step toward returning wildlife management to the states, where decisions are guided by science and those closest to the land.”
The proposed rule from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not remove the grizzly bear from the Endangered Species list (though it notes the agency is considering a separate determination related to the listing) or change geographic boundaries of the management plan.
Instead, it is the first step toward increasing state management of grizzly bears, Burgum said.
But many environmental groups criticized the proposed rule as harmful to the species, which they say could lead to increased mortality for the bears and risk their recovery.
“This is a decision being made for political reasons, it is not based on science, in the best interest of the survival of the species, or in compliance with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act,” Greg LeDonne, Idaho director of Western Watersheds Project, said in a statement. “It’s clearly too soon to remove federal protections in light of the continued lack of connectivity, ongoing habitat destruction and modification due to climate change, and record numbers of grizzly bear mortalities in 2025 even under existing protections.”
Idaho’s U.S. Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch, both Republicans, said the species has recovered well under the federal protections and urged that continued management of grizzlies should be delegated to locals.
“Increasing state authority to manage grizzly bears ensures our own local wildlife agencies, who understand Idaho’s environment best, can follow the science and make commonsense conservation decisions without bureaucratic inefficiencies,” Risch said in an emailed statement.
In an emailed statement, Crapo said the species’ recovery in the West is a “conservation success story made possible by decades of work from state, tribal, federal and local conservation partners.”
“For years, I have advocated for returning grizzly bear management to the states as recovery objectives and benchmarks have been achieved,” Crapo said. “Secretary Burgum’s announcement moves us one step closer to allowing Idaho wildlife professionals to manage a recovered grizzly population in a way that protects both the species and Idaho communities.”
What would the proposed rule change mean for grizzlies?
The change focuses on a set of protective regulations in the Endangered Species Act known as “4(d),” which allow the agency to create specific rules for a species with a “threatened” designation.
Under the current system, “taking” grizzlies — which includes harassing, harming or killing them — is illegal unless specifically permitted by federal authorities.
The proposed rule looks to create two tiers of additional exceptions to “taking,” which will broadly apply to state or tribal agencies, including Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, designated by the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Western stockgrowers cheer loosened grazing regs on public land as feds slash rangeland staff
That includes expanding the allowable killing of bears by designated state or tribal wildlife managers.
Gianforte specified that under the rule change, “we do not have the authority to have a hunting season.”
The rule will be published in the Federal Register on July 17 for a 30-day public comment period. Previously submitted comments for the proposed 2025 rule will be considered.
A saga of proposed grizzly bear delisting actions, lawsuits
Grizzly bears throughout the contiguous states were listed under the Endangered Species Act in 1975 when there were only an estimated 300 to 400 animals left in the wild. During the last decade, a saga of proposed delisting actions, lawsuits and petitions have raised questions about the fate of grizzly bears.
In January 2025, during the final days of the Biden administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rejected petitions from Montana and Wyoming that called for ending the “threatened” designation for the species in specific recovery zones, specifically the Greater Yellowstone Area and Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem.
Instead, wildlife managers proposed a draft rule retaining federal protections in the region and managing grizzlies as a single population across Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and Washington, rather than as geographically distinct populations. The proposal drew more than 200,000 public comments.
Earlier this year, the Trump administration pushed back a deadline to determine whether Yellowstone-area grizzlies should retain Endangered Species Act protections.
Delisting proposals have bubbled up in Congress over the years, often pushed by Montana’s delegation, including Rep. Ryan Zinke, a Republican former Interior secretary, backed by state officials.
“Over the last several years, we’ve had a steady message for our federal partners: Montana is ready to have full authority to manage grizzly bears,” Gianforte said. “The state wildlife managers have experience, expertise, local knowledge, and community relationships to make them best suited to do the daily work required to manage this population using the best available scientific information.”
Environmental groups push back
Earthjustice, an environmental law organization that is actively litigating several lawsuits over grizzly management, said in a press release that it has concerns about handing management over to states with “extreme anti-science and anti-grizzly attitudes” and is prepared to take the administration to court.
The proposal is light on details, Jenny Harbine, managing attorney for Earthjustice’s Northern Rockies Office, said, but it appears to “put grizzly bears at greater risk at a time of record mortality for the species.”
“The proposal defers details about how states would manage grizzly bears to as-yet undisclosed Memorandums of Understanding. The proposal does not identify parameters for management in areas essential for habitat connectivity. And it appears to afford states significant discretion to relocate or kill bears,” Harbine said. “All of these provisions worsen conditions for grizzly bears that need protections now, more than ever.”
Data from the U.S. Geological Survey from 2025 indicated a record number of grizzlies — 72 — died in the Greater Yellowstone Area last year, an increase from the 10-year average of 54 deaths.
Other environmental groups also said the proposal leaves more questions, pointing to the dearth of specifics in the rule around when additional management actions, such as removing bears, conflict with people or livestock, is warranted.
“The proposed 4(d) 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,” said Jake Li, with Defenders of Wildlife. “It also gives the Service room to let states maintain management control even if they are not meeting required conditions.”
But some organizations applauded the actions as empowering.
“Grizzly populations have grown steadily for decades, exceeding ESA recovery goals, yet state wildlife agencies and affected landowners have been handcuffed with very limited management options,” said Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation President and CEO Kyle Weaver. “We agree with biologists that grizzlies met and exceeded recovery goals years ago and should be delisted. This proposal allows state wildlife agencies and private landowners to effectively manage the impacts of grizzlies as populations continue to swell and expand.”
As grizzly populations have grown, there has been increased conflict with humans and livestock. Gianforte, in his remarks, honed in on those as proof that bears are well-past recovery status.
“We’ve all heard of the stories of these encounters,” Gianforte said. “A mom in Choteau who is afraid to let her kids play at the local park, bears actually frequenting people’s backyards and requiring homeowners to put bars over their windows, or a rancher in Lewistown or Stanford who has lost livestock.”
Allowing state officials to take management actions will benefit Montanans who are on the forefront of these conflict zones, the governor said.
“The states are managing all manner of wildlife in their states, not just a single species, and they have an opportunity to look holistically across this and do what’s needed,” Burgum said. “So this is about common sense.”
Daily Montanan, like the Idaho Capital Sun, is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Daily Montanan maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Darrell Ehrlick for questions: info@dailymontanan.com.
Idaho Capital Sun is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Idaho Capital Sun maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Christina Lords for questions: info@idahocapitalsun.com.