This article was originally published in The Washington Post.
Fifty years ago, when the grizzly bear was listed as a threatened species, the federal government intervened to save this iconic American animal. Its recovery is one of the nation’s signature conservation success stories: In 1975, there were at least 700 bears in the northern Rockies. Today, thanks in large part to the Endangered Species Act, there are more than 2,300, and grizzly bears are expanding their range into areas where they haven’t been seen for more than a century.
The recovery of the grizzly bear is, of course, fantastic news. But, oddly, the government, in the waning days of the Biden administration, continued to treat recovered bear populations as though they still needed federal life support.
In January, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service denied requests from Montana and Wyoming to delist Greater Yellowstone and Northern Continental Divide grizzlies—two distinct populations that have met recovery goals for years.
The reasoning? That these bear populations have actually recovered too much; the bears, the government argued, have expanded their range so widely that they should no longer be considered distinct and separate populations.
This decision essentially redefines recovery under the Endangered Species Act. The Greater Yellowstone and Northern Continental Divide populations have met or exceededtheirrecovery targets, while some other distinct bear populations don’t even have such targets. Established populations in the Bitterroot and North Cascades ecosystems, for example, no longer exist. But by grouping all distinct populations into a single whole — one that remains threatened overall — the Fish and Wildlife Service has moved the goalposts and diluted the recovered populations, giving the impression that the bear hasn’t met its recovery targets in those locations.
This bureaucratic logic is as frustrating as it is counterproductive.
Refusing to delist recovered populations disincentivizes future recovery efforts and ultimately harms species that are still endangered. The Endangered Species Act is one of the strictest legal measures to protect a species; keeping species listed, even when they are no longer endangered, risks the legitimacy and respect for the measure. If progress is ignored and federal oversight becomes indefinite, why would states or landowners invest in helping other populations recover?
Indeed, state and federal investment in recovery efforts for grizzly bears was almost $200 million from 1994 to 2020, with the end goal of delisting each of the populations of bears. With this recent decision, the end goal is being delayed indefinitely.
As leaders of organizations deeply committed to the continued success of grizzly bear recovery, we urge the Fish and Wildlife Service to revise federal regulations and develop a rule to let states manage recovered populations such as those in the Greater Yellowstone and Northern Continental Divide ecosystems, and to enable a gradual transition to state management for other populations as they meet their recovery goals. If grizzly bears aren’t going to be delisted, this is the next-best alternative.
Such a management rule should also lay out clear safeguards, including population thresholds that could trigger renewed federal oversight if needed. This approach would motivate states to keep bear numbers healthy.
There is no reason to doubt the ability of states to manage their own wildlife populations. States are primarily responsible for managing wildlife in America, with the federal government playing a supporting role. And no recovered species has gone backward under state management and been relisted. States have a proven conservation track record: One need only look at the success of state-led efforts to conserve the Louisiana black bear and the American alligator.
Equally important is that giving states authority to manage recovered populations before delisting would make litigation far less disruptive. Right now, when a species bounces on and off the endangered list because of lawsuits, bear management can swing overnight from complete federal control to complete state control, leaving landowners, conservationists and agencies in limbo and creating confusion about whom to hold accountable for conservation efforts. Granting states control would reduce the impact of litigation.
If we want more success stories for endangered or threatened species, we have to celebrate recovery, not punish it with endless federal purgatory. America’s wildlife benefits most when we show that the Endangered Species Act has worked, and wildlife can now be managed by the people and places that live alongside these animals every day. Doing so will ensure that the Endangered Species Act remains a tool for recovery, not a permanent holding pen for species that have already beaten the odds.
