Together with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Boone and Crockett Club, and Wyoming Wildlife Federation, we’re applauding the Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposal to separate the grizzly bear listing revision from the 4(d) rule revision—and to embrace a tiered approach to the 4(d) rule that encourages and extends recovery progress. It’s a fitting next step for one of the Endangered Species Act’s signature conservation success stories: the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem’s grizzly population has grown from a mere 136 bears in 1975 to more than 1,055 bears today. We’re also glad to see the Service abandon its earlier “distinct population segment” proposal, which we argued disregarded connectivity between bears in the lower 48 and Canada while penalizing connectivity between populations in the lower 48—contradicting Congressional intent on when this provision should apply.
This tiered approach is a truly innovative one that promises to improve conservation not only of grizzly bears but many other species, tying additional flexibility for states to demographic progress rather than treating 4(d) rules as static regardless of whether a species is improving or declining. In our comment, we offer two recommendations to strengthen the rule further: incorporating demographic objectives directly into the rule itself rather than leaving them to an uncertain, discretionary MOU process, and clarifying the scope of the incidental take exemption so landowners and states know exactly where they stand.
Read our full comment below.
