Federal wildlife managers won’t make any jurisdictional decisions about Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly bears until early 2025 — two full years after the agency was supposed to proceed with or deny Wyoming’s petition to cease Endangered Species Act protections for the region’s grizzlies.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Director Matt Hogan announced the delay in a legal filing last week, citing a mess of lawsuits and grizzly-related decisions that “directly impact one another.”
“To ensure consistency between these decisions, the Service currently intends to finalize all three of these documents — the [Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem] 12-month finding, the [Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem] 12-month finding, and the proposed rule revising or removing the entire ESA listing of grizzly bears in the lower 48 states — simultaneously,” Hogan wrote in a filing Friday. “Therefore, the Service anticipates finalizing the [documents] … for publication no later than January 31, 2025.”
The state of Wyoming, which had already sued over the federal agency’s tardiness, wasn’t happy about it. In response to that litigation, Hogan estimated the state would receive a response by Wednesday. Now the delisting decision has been bumped another six months.
(Bradly J. Boner/WyoFile/Jackson Hole News&Guide/pool)
“An additional six month delay in making the final determination on the Wyoming petition will lay waste to the statutory safeguards codified in the ESA petition process and thereby unfairly deprive the State of Wyoming of its statutorily protected rights,” Wyoming Special Assistant Attorney General Jay Jerde wrote in a legal response filing Thursday.
At the onset of Jerde’s response, he wrote that the Fish and Wildlife Service’s “willingness to flout the law knows no bounds” and that it was “a move that reeks of arrogance and entitlement.”
Gov. Mark Gordon also “slammed” the agency’s “disregard” for the deadline in a statement seeking a speedier decision.
“We will not accept a 6-month delay to Wyoming’s petition — and one that costs the State $2 million annually to manage a species we have no authority over,” the governor stated. “Wyoming will accept nothing less than the Service to expeditiously complete the delisting decision for the GYE bear no later than Oct. 31, 2024.”
Under federal policy, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has one year to respond to petitions seeking ESA protections for species — or in Wyoming’s case, to relinquish the species’ “threatened” status. The state’s 27-page petition, which calls for the Northern Rocky states to manage Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzlies, was submitted back in January 2022.
Yellowstone region grizzlies have been delisted from the ESA twice in the last 17 years, most recently in 2017. Lawsuits from environmental advocacy groups successfully overturned both the earlier decisions — and they’re very likely to sue again come a third delisting attempt.
Opposition to delisting is partly motivated by Wyoming’s plans to pursue grizzly bear hunting.
For now, environmentalists who have litigated the issue are OK with Fish and Wildlife Service’s delay.
“I hope they’re taking the time and looking at the science and will make the right decision based on that,” said Andrea Zaccardi, the Victor, Idaho-based legal director for the Center for Biological Diversity’s carnivore conservation program.
Zaccardi doubted that she’ll get her wishes, though: keeping grizzly bears listed.
“I would be surprised if they don’t [delist],” she said. “They’ve caved to pressure from the states twice in the past.”
The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem’s grizzly population is now about double the 500-animal recovery goal — though federal scientists say the species is running out of room to expand. Stemming from the legal dispute following the 2017 delisting decision, Wyoming will receive imported grizzly bears from northern Montana populations as soon as this summer to bolster genetic diversity.
The half-truth here is there is a lot of “arrogance and entitlement” immersed in the Grizzly issue in Wyoming. But it’s all in Cheyenne, divvied up between the Governor’s staff, the AG office, the Lej , and Game & Fish HQ.
If only Wyoming would bring a sound reasonable well articulated lawsuit before the Courts that justifies their beliefs, they’d stand a chance of seeing some progress. That hasn’t happened. Wyoming keeps shooting itself in various body parts with lousy lawyering. The Judges aren’t stupid. The Wyoming AG office might be, though.
You don’t have to take my word for it. The actual court hearings can usually be found on YouTube in entirety. There you would see how truly awful Wyoming’s side of the litigation can be when they put their spleens to it…
Save 399!
I think it should be of note that Grizzlies have had no reason to fear humans, instead they can equate them to an easy source of food (big game carcasses, trash, livestock/pets, etc). Hunting wouldn’t totally solve negative bear encounters but I do believe it would help.
I am not a resident of WY. Here in Minnesota a similar issue as well. Enter the Grey or Timber Wolf, they had been delisted as Department of Natural Resources efforts to bring back the population, was more than successful. A hunting season had been implemented and when x amount of wolves had been harvested the season was closed. It did not satisfy the hand wrenching do gooders. So now the wolf population has spread to areas not typical of the wolf range. I have live stock producers friends that lose stock to the wolf and have to wait for federal trappers to solve their problem. It’s to bad that what ever the species could be relocated to their backyards! Until that certain populations are educated in management of wildlife species it will be that their uneducated ideas will be on going for ever!
“The state’s 27-page petition, which calls for the Northern Rocky states to manage Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzlies. . .”
State ‘management’ == a legally, but not biologically, justified killing spree.
When we de-list the feds.
As a conservationist and someone who cares about the habitat and wildlife, I feel its way over due to delisting the Grizzly Bear. It has been a success story and the endangered specie’s act worked, however the act that saved the bear could soon be endangered if it is used for political reasons. Why would another state willingly take relocatable bears if they cant see a light at the end of the tunnel. Also we need diversity in the bear and wolf population this will not happen without cooperation from other states and special interests groups. If you really want to see the bears and other wildlife thrive seek to have the bear delisted with management by the states. Why would the state of Wy. or another state let the bear go back on the endangered list, after all the time and money spent to get it delisted. Yes delisting will lead to a very limited amount of hunting, however dozens of bears are being eliminated each year because of habitat limitations and they are being eliminated at the tax payers expense. Using the endangered species act to stop hunting will sooner or later fail, and may come about soon after the November elections.
The Governor needs to tell the feds they have 10 days to delist or he will do it. The Constitution gives management of wildlife to the states under the Tenth Amendment.
You are totally wrong, Mark. About both the national Constitution and the State of Wyoming Constitution. Guv Gordo couldn’t do this if he wanted to.
OBTW- when the state Constitution says plainly the Public in Wyoming owns all the wildlife inside its borders and the State of Wyoming manages wildlife on behalf of the Public, that is overwritten by the US Constitution’s supremacy clause. The 10th Amendment has no bearing here ( pun intended). Fish & Wildlife Service and the ESA prevail. Neither are doing it right, though . Wyoming is doing it w-a-a-y wrong.
The grizzly bear population in Wyoming should have been de-listed long ago. NGOs do not want it de-listed because they use it as a pawn in public land disputes. The federal Endangered Species Act was meant to help species be recovered then de-listed. The integrity of the law and the ESA programs depend on objective and scientific delisting decisions. Delaying de-listing for years and years erodes public trust in the ESA and in federal wildlife management and ultimately hurts the species in question. The grizzly recovery program has been a great success –now declare victory and move on. Also other species need the resources. It is time for the gamesmanship to stop. De-list now.
Roger: Well stated and I couldn’t agree more. Certainly creates a lack of confidence in the USFWS and indicates the ESA is not working as intended. Ultimately, the Wyoming congressional delegation will have to introduce legislation which is attached to an appropriations bill – the intent of which is to circumvent the normal delisting procedure contained in the ESA. This was one of Harriet Hagemann’s top priorities. Grizzly bear management as a T&E species under USFWS overall supervision has been highly successful as far as population goals being met – however, Wyoming Game and Fish has been forced to absorb the financial cost of actually managing the great bears in the field. It makes no sense for the State of Wyoming to pay the cost of managing federal wildlife whose domain is predominately on Federal land – USFWS should reimburse Wyoming for the tens of millions Wyoming has invested in grizzly recovery. Bottom line is that the system is broken.
.
Sorry, but no three letter agency, nor agents, get one iota of confidence from me. It should be clear to everyone that none of these agencies or people within them, has any interest in anything other than money and power. How is that not the takeaway? We’ve only been at this 50 years. Not even Moses and the Israelites spent that much time in the desert. Yet, here we are.
When will we de-list the Feds?
When will we de-list cows on public lands?