Is It Time to Cease Grizzly Bear Protections?

In the early 20th century, the allure of Yellowstone National Park went beyond geysers; people were captivated by an alarming spectacle: grizzly bears scavenging garbage from open dumps, reminiscent of famished, plundering pirates.

These bears roamed precariously close to humans: famished bears clawed at car windows, and tourists with film cameras stood dangerously near them. Park rangers at Yellowstone documented numerous injuries annually during this time.

Ultimately, the nightly bear displays at dumps were halted by the Park Service, recognizing the peril and abnormality of feeding wildlife human scraps. Ecologists insisted bears should naturally consume berries, nuts, and elk, rather than human leftovers. By 1970, the makeshift dumps were permanently shut.

However, by this time, the grizzly bear population had significantly dwindled. A mere 700 bears remained in the lower 48 states, a drastic decline from the estimated 50,000 that once roamed. Decades of excessive hunting and habitat encroachment had brought them to near-extinction levels. Many bears adapted to scavenging human waste struggled to forage anew.

With more bears perishing, their numbers in the Yellowstone region fell to concerningly low levels, perhaps fewer than 180, noted by expert Frank van Manen, who previously led a comprehensive study on these bears.

Accustomed to human leftovers, the grizzly bear population took a dramatic nosedive when people stopped feeding them.

In 1975, in a monumental move, the US Fish and Wildlife Service included grizzly bears on the endangered species list, offering them critical legal protections aimed at preventing their extinction.

Being listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) meant grizzlies were safeguarded from hunting and other harmful human activities, with strict measures put in place to protect their natural habitats. Gradually, the bear population began its recovery.

In the mid-20th century, encounters with bears were worryingly close, often resulting in photo opportunities far too risky by today’s standards.

Currently, more than 1,000 grizzlies inhabit Yellowstone and its environs. Visitors today see bears in more natural settings—no longer rummaging through trash, but wandering meadows with their young or enjoying a natural diet.

The success of the recovery program has introduced new issues.

Recently, bears have moved from their sanctuary in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, comprising regions of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, into human-occupied areas, leading to conflicts. In 2024, over 60 grizzlies in Wyoming alone were lethally removed due to conflicts with humans.

This phenomenon illustrates a classic recovery conundrum: as bear populations grow, so too do their clashes with human activities.

Currently, the contentious question is whether the grizzly bear should be delisted from the endangered species list. No species is intended to remain there indefinitely; the goal of the ESA is to push species to recover. Delisting grizzlies would indicate their thriving presence, yet some biologists argue the population's sustainability is precarious.

The implications extend beyond grizzly bears. The situation represents the efficacy of the ESA—proving it works involves showing species recovery is attainable. If grizzlies, having met the criteria, can’t be delisted, then the ESA’s purpose comes into question.

Kelly Heber Dunning, an expert on wildlife conflict, stresses that the ESA’s effectiveness hinges on respect and perceived integrity. If it becomes politicized, acceptance may wane.

Understanding the Function of the Endangered Species Act

Since President Donald Trump's tenure, the Republican efforts to modify the Endangered Species Act have been discernible.

While measures like the Fix Our Forests Act appear beneficial for wildfire management, their true intent often fast-tracks development at the cost of delicate ecosystems and endangered species. This administration's allies seem to favor political motives over scientific recommendations, according to environmental advocacy groups.

To prevent weakening one of the strongest protections for wildlife, conservationists must address the ESA's tendencies to overreach its mission.

Originally signed by Republican President Richard Nixon in 1973, the ESA responded to a national decline in wildlife due to rampant destruction and exploitation.

Globally renowned, the ESA has successfully removed some species from its list due to their recovery. Nonetheless, others continue to face existential threats decades after being listed.

Over 2,300 species enjoy ESA-protection today, but backlogs and limited resources leave many more waiting for assessment.

David Willms, an advocate for national wildlife policies, contends that the debate over the grizzly distills down to what the Endangered Species Act genuinely aims to achieve.

The ESA is designed to operate on scientific bases: once recovery criteria are met, species should technically be delisted.

Issues emerge if species remain indefinitely due to hypothetical threats, diverging from the ESA’s focus on reasonably foreseeable ones.

Alternatively, if grizzlies are kept on the list too long, Congress could intervene and delist them, as happened with gray wolves.

Political interference tends to overshadow scientific input, setting troubling precedents, like recent efforts targeting the lesser prairie chicken.

As public trust in scientific research wanes, the risk grows that broader support for conserving any endangered species could erode.

Why Delisting Grizzlies Could Be Justified

Dan Thompson oversees carnivore management in Wyoming and argues if a population is recovered, and data shows stability, delisting should follow.

Many, including Frank van Manen, agree the Greater Yellowstone bear population is thriving, achieving recovery milestones two decades ago.

Bear conservation required a concerted, prolonged effort from various groups, which paid off remarkably well.

Despite challenges, the bears have demonstrated adaptability with a broad and varied diet, diminishing concerns over specific food shortages.

But legal and governmental challenges, such as lawsuits over delisting, continue to influence decisions.

There’s consensus that bears and human interests can coexist more successfully with careful management post-delisting.

Still, wariness persists among scientists and environmentalists about the potential pitfalls of lifting federal protections too soon.

The Risks of Delisting Now

While grizzlies in Yellowstone are flourishing now, total state control post-delisting raises concerns for continued protection.

The transition to state management involves challenges, given current political climates and potential policies less favorable to conservation.

Experts emphasize the risk of reinstating hunting seasons, posing additional threats to stability achieved after decades of effort.

The gamble lies not just in ensuing survival of individual bears, but in maintaining faith in conservation policy.