End of Grizzly Delisting?

[Big Fin]

I had heard rumors that things at the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) were starting to unravel with the impacts of the "Government Efficiency" mandates taking hold at every level of Federal agencies.

I first was introduced to the work of the IGBST as one of five Montanans Governor Racicot placed on the Governor's Grizzly Bear Roundtable. That was back in 1998. Five people from each state, MT, ID, WY worked with USFWS and IGBST to craft the Conservation Strategy for eventual delisting of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem subpopulation of grizzly bears.

The Roundtable met quarterly for three years, with the eventual product being the current Management Plan for GYE grizzlies. Following that, my friend Arnie Dood, who was the MT endangered species coordinator at FWP, roped me into serving on Montana's committee for our grizzly bear management plan.

It was pretty exciting to see the USFWS petition the GYE grizzlies for delisting, twice. It was equally disappointing to see a judge rescind that delisting ruling, both times. I have always held hope that eventually we would get there. The science on these bears that is contained among the scientists of the IGBST is the best in the world. They are the smartest grizzly bear people I know.

When that IGBST group gave their case of how the bears are recovered and they worked to support the delisting effort, I was stunned that a judge would overrule their science in favor of supposed legal technicalities or "hired scientists" of the litigators. Yet, such is how messed up our legal process is for the ESA, a much bigger symptom of problems in well-intended legislation that needs to be addressed.

Roll that forward to this week. Now, coming out of the Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center here in Bozeman, the place that houses the IGBST and many other important Federal science projects, is the news that the IGBST has been impacted due to "DOGE" efforts. That is going to remove any possibility of grizzly bear delisting.

Some may call that claim, the claim that this will eliminate any chance of grizzly delisting in the Lower 48, hyperbole. It's not. It is fact. Those familiar with the ESA, the monitoring requirements for species population and habitat criteria is a basic necessity for delisting. That monitoring on grizzlies is coordinated by the IGBST. A delisting will never stand up to legal scrutiny without the basics of population and habitat monitoring. That's just a fact, proven by how hard it has been to demonstrate to the courts those monitoring safety nets that protect a species once it is delisted. In the case of grizzly bears, coordination of that monitoring is done by the IGBST, and as such, once that group of scientists is dismantled, so goes the monitoring mechanisms necessary for delisting under the ESA.

Like many others, the number of hours/days I've spent working on grizzly bears/grizzly bear management/grizzly bear ESA issues, is more than I want to think about. All of that was out of my interest in this amazing animal and seeing it removed from the ESA, whether we had hunting seasons or not. Seeing this news, it seems that the effort of so many, will yield no results. The likelihood of grizzly delisting is close to zero without the IGBST and the talent within that group.

The IGBST is a handful of scientist who have made their life's work around the study of grizzlies. With that talent/knowledge pool being such a small group of people with collective centuries of studying these bears, it's not like you can post a job opening and fill that talent loss in a month or two. The IGBST has been our biggest advocate towards the effort of getting these bears delisted.

Here is a link to a story that gives a bit more commentary to the issue. I'm not a fan of the header, as it seems that header was chosen merely for the effect of putting Trump and Musk in the headlines - https://wyofile.com/trump-and-musks...ng-historic-yellowstone-grizzly-science-team/

To me, this topic could easily stand on its own without wrapping it in a lens of politics. DOGE has consequences. Using a hatchet when a scalpel would be far more efficient and effective, results in some serious damage. If this unwinding of the IGBST happens, the future possibility of delisting grizzly bears in the Lower 48 disappears with it. That would suck, not just for the bears, but for us.

I'll be contacting my delegation to see if it is possible to keep this Team together.

 

[nrpate05]

Geez, Happy Friday to you too, Randy! Unfortunately, DOGE has been acting without really thinking about the implications of their actions. Living in an area surrounded by public land we've seen many many folks lose jobs, then be hired back, but ultimately not really know what the next day holds. This would be very unfortunate for grizzlies, the people who live and work with them, and, ultimately the future of the ESA. How does a congressional delisting look at this point? Thank you for sharing.

 

[KingOfTagSoup]

I had heard rumors that things at the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) were starting to unravel with the impacts of the "Government Efficiency" mandates taking hold at every level of Federal agencies.

I first was introduced to the work of the IGBST as one of five Montanans Governor Racicot placed on the Governor's Grizzly Bear Roundtable. That was back in 1998. Five people from each state, MT, ID, WY worked with USFWS and IGBST to craft the Conservation Strategy for eventual delisting of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem subpopulation of grizzly bears.

The Roundtable met quarterly for three years, with the eventual product being the current Management Plan for GYE grizzlies. Following that, my friend Arnie Dood, who was the MT endangered species coordinator at FWP, roped me into serving on Montana's committee for our grizzly bear management plan.

It was pretty exciting to see the USFWS petition the GYE grizzlies for delisting, twice. It was equally disappointing to see a judge rescind that delisting ruling, both times. I have always held hope that eventually we would get there. The science on these bears that is contained among the scientists of the IGBST is the best in the world. They are the smartest grizzly bear people I know.

When that IGBST group gave their case of how the bears are recovered and they worked to support the delisting effort, I was stunned that a judge would overrule their science in favor of supposed legal technicalities or "hired scientists" of the litigators. Yet, such is how messed up our legal process is for the ESA, a much bigger symptom of problems in well-intended legislation that needs to be addressed.

Roll that forward to this week. Now, coming out of the Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center here in Bozeman, the place that houses the IGBST and many other important Federal science projects, is the news that the IGBST has been impacted due to "DOGE" efforts. That is going to remove any possibility of grizzly bear delisting.

Some may call that claim, the claim that this will eliminate any chance of grizzly delisting in the Lower 48, hyperbole. It's not. It is fact. Those familiar with the ESA, the monitoring requirements for species population and habitat criteria is coordinated by the IGBST. A delisting will never stand up to legal scrutiny without the basics of population and habitat monitoring. That's just a fact, proven by how hard it has been to demonstrate to the courts those monitoring safety nets that protect a species once it is delisted. In the case of grizzly bears, coordination of that monitoring is done by the IGBST. Once that group is dismantled, so goes the monitoring mechanisms necessary for delisting under the ESA.

Like many others, the number of hours/days I've spent working on grizzly bears/grizzly bear management/grizzly bear ESA issues, is more than I want to think about. All of that was out of my interest in this amazing animal and seeing it removed from the ESA, whether we had hunting seasons or not. Seeing this news, it seems that the effort of so many, will yield no results. The likelihood of grizzly delisting is close to zero without the IGBST and the talent within that group.

The IGBST is a handful of scientist who have made their life's work around the study of grizzlies. With that talent/knowledge pool being such a small group of people with collective centuries of studying these bears, it's not like you can post a job opening and fill that talent loss in a month or two. The IGBST has been our biggest advocate towards the effort of getting these bears delisted.

Here is a link to a story that gives a bit more commentary to the issue. I'm not a fan of the header, as it seems that header was chosen merely for the effect of putting Trump and Musk in the headlines - https://wyofile.com/trump-and-musks...ng-historic-yellowstone-grizzly-science-team/

To me, this topic could easily stand on its own without wrapping it in a lens of politics. DOGE has consequences. Using a hatchet when a scalpel would be far more efficient and effective, results in some serious damage. If this unwinding of the IGBST happens, the future possibility of delisting grizzly bears in the Lower 48 disappears with it. That would suck, not just for the bears, but for us.

I'll be contacting my delegation to see if it is possible to keep this Team together.

I have a question, not sure you have the answer. Let's say down the road things get settled down and another attempt to delist grizzlies is made. Is there a particular act or law that needs to be amended or passed that would protect the effort from the drive by litigators that have no stake or standing on the issue?

 

[Treeshark]

I could see a scenario in which the ESA is eliminated completely and management is shifted to individual states.

*Or at least an attempt is made to eliminate.

 

[Big Fin]

Geez, Happy Friday to you too, Randy! Unfortunately, DOGE has been acting without really thinking about the implications of their actions. Living in an area surrounded by public land we've seen many many folks lose jobs, then be hired back, but ultimately not really know what the next day holds. This would be very unfortunate for grizzlies, the people who live and work with them, and, ultimately the future of the ESA. How does a congressional delisting look at this point? Thank you for sharing.

Congressional delisting is pipe dream. It takes 60 votes in the Senate to stop debate and actually get a bill to a vote (other than budget bills). There is not a chance there are 60 votes in the US Senate for Congressional delisting, unless it is attached to a budget bill.

The folks I talk to who lobby for the national hunting/conservation orgs have made it clear to move on from that idea. And without the IGBST and their science/data to support delisting, the likelihood is that a Congressional delisting would be overruled in some manner by litigation via other Federal laws.

Point to me is this - hunters claim we are all about science-based decisions. I agree with that principle. Without the IGBST, we lose any claim to the notion when it comes to GBears.

 

[Big Fin]

I could see a scenario in which the ESA is eliminated completely and management is shifted to individual states.

*Or at least an attempt is made to eliminate.

What you mention is a scenario many dream of. I don't have that dream. Like I said above, there will likely never be 60 votes in the Senate to repeal the ESA. Just a fact.

I would like to see some small tweaks to the ESA, but even those will never happen. When any of the small tweaks are considered, it quickly becomes apparent that the ESA is an "untouchable" for many in Congress. There are not 60 Senators who are going to let their political careers die on that hill.

That moves any ESA issues so way down the list of priorities for 90% of those in Congress. And that makes all of this just a dream, with not practical chance of that becoming reality.

 

[Dave N]

Unfortunately, when the hammer comes down it doesn't care who's thumb is under it. Hopefully cooler heads will sift through the rubble.

 

[Treeshark]

On the topic:

ESA Reform

 

[Big Fin]

On the topic:

ESA Reform

Westerman is good on hunting issues. He's a big time hunter. He gets hammered by some, but I like his pragmatic approach to most issues. Unfortunately, this effort will die in the Senate and it will be used as a fund raising option for the litigator groups.

I wish it was different. If we watch this bill and how it moves forward, it will go something like this - Passes the House Committee along party lines. Will be a very close vote in the House, if it is even given a vote. In the Senate, it will be another party line vote, if it gets a vote at all (just very low on the current priority list). It will never meet the 60 vote requirement in the Senate to allow a full Senate vote. All the while the litigators will be using it to raise money and membership. The bill dies in the Senate lacking the 60 votes needed.

Sucks, but that's a reality.

 

[thomas89]

Torn on this. Agreed that these cuts are absurd in many organizations.

I almost see researching the recovery of lots of these animals (bears, wolves, seals/sea lions etc.) as a bit redundant. IMO once populations are shown as recovered and stable and/or growing, close the book and be done with it. Take that money and funnel it towards the court battles with these anti groups, or move on to another species that needs help. Need current data to justify management levels? Cool, fire it up again for a couple years. Probably a terrible oversimplification on my part.

Grizzlies probably the most recent to explore being delisted, but take wolves for example, they have been recovered to the initial objectives for decades in Great Lakes region ... season going nowhere.

Until these issues are left with trained specialists and out of courtrooms, I can see the waste aspect with continued research.

 

[hank4elk]

There is going to be a lot of work to do as it is.

 

[Gellar]

I like your analogy of using a hatchet when a scalpel is needed.

 

[Big Fin]

Torn on this. Agreed that these cuts are absurd in many organizations.

I almost see researching the recovery of lots of these animals (bears, wolves, seals/sea lions etc.) as a bit redundant. IMO once populations are shown as recovered and stable and/or growing, close the book and be done with it. Take that money and funnel it towards the court battles with these anti groups, or move on to another species that needs help. Need current data to justify management levels? Cool, fire it up again for a couple years. Probably a terrible oversimplification on my part.

Grizzlies probably the most recent to explore being delisted, but take wolves for example, they have been recovered to the initial objectives for decades in Great Lakes region ... season going nowhere.

Until these issues are left with trained specialists and out of courtrooms, I can see the waste aspect with continued research.

The bolded parts are not that easy under the ESA and other Federal laws.

The agencies must demonstrate that the mechanisms are in place so that the species cannot be endangered in the future by changes in habitat, state laws and governance for that species at the state level, etc. If the Feds "close the book and are done with it," the delisting will never be allowed by the courts. Monitoring is one of the key requirements for delisting. Monitoring protocols for grizzlies exist and thus meet that legal requirement. Yet without the IGBST, those protocols go away and thus any chance for delisting.

As for leaving these to the trained specialists, I agree. Yet, science is not a "one and done" snapshot. Science is ever changing as landscapes, conditions, environments, habitat, and human expansion change. Continued research and monitoring is a cost of having/maintaining robust wildlife populations, making it hard for me to consider continued research as a waste, especially when I know the courts/litigation are a reality of the society/country we live in. To reduce the impacts of litigation the more complete and current our scientific data needs to be.

 

[Addicting]

@Big Fin this seemed like it was an easier move than feral horse reform. Guessing that one is DOA in Washington as well?

 

[Big Fin]

@Big Fin this seemed like it was an easier move than feral horse reform. Guessing that one is DOA in Washington as well?

Correct. And yes, DOA in the Senate.

The best route on feral horses will be to use the same litigation tactics we see from the other side. Our failure to litigate gives the BLM and the courts a path of least resistance. So long as there is a path of less resistance, that is the path it will follow on feral horses.

 

[Treeshark]

I am not rooting for this, but do you see a potential for executive order to be used on any of these issues (specifically (de)funding) @Big Fin?

 

[Big Sky Guy]

Always seemed like a big kick in the nuts to those scientists that spent a career and/or lifetime studying them to bring them back only to be told by a federal judge with zero science/wildlife experience “not good enough” - Twice to boot, just as you mention.

What could be an even bigger kick? Telling them the 50 years of work is all for not.

@Sytes you got any bets on federal delisting of lower 48 griz in next 5, 10 or lifetime years?

@Big Fin how does this jive with the rumor of the new USFWS director Brian Nesvik being appointed with goal of delisting griz? From what I gather it doesn’t matter who leads USFWS if the decision is ultimately in the hands of the courts?

If the “right” (trying to make a pun) judges get appointed couldn’t they still be delisted?

 

[Big Fin]

I am not rooting for this, but do you see a potential for executive order to be used on any of these issues (specifically (de)funding) @Big Fin?

That is hard to envision, given how far down the priority list these issues are when compared to economy, budgets, tax cuts, immigration, tariff, etc.

Both sides, in Congress and the Administration, are ready to burn most of their political capital on those topics at the top of their lists. They won't waste any of that capital on issues this far down their priority list.

 

[Big Fin]

Always seemed like a big kick in the nuts to those scientists that spent a career and/or lifetime studying them to bring them back only to be told by a federal judge with zero science/wildlife experience “not good enough” - Twice to boot, just as you mention.

What could be an even bigger kick? Telling them the 50 years of work is all for not.

@Sytes you got any bets on federal delisting of lower 48 griz in next 5, 10 or lifetime years?

@Big Fin how does this jive with the rumor of the new USFWS director Brian Nesvik being appointed with goal of delisting griz? From what I gather it doesn’t matter who leads USFWS if the decision is ultimately in the hands of the courts?

If the “right” (trying to make a pun) judges get appointed couldn’t they still be delisted?

That is surely the rumor around his appointment. And in politics, rumors gain a lot of traction.

I think his selection was more of his understanding of the ESA, coming from his experience in Wyoming where so many ESA surface. Also Wyoming giving him experience in many other wildlife issues of energy, migration, coordination between State and Federal agencies. Some extrapolate that to mean he could navigate grizzly delisting. I think I've made the case that such delisting was pretty low in the Senate, and getting close to zero chance in the courts without the monitoring coordinated by the folks on the IGBST.

To your other question, I think you are correct that leader of the USFWS is far less of a determining factor on ESA and delistings than the courts. The USFWS needs a good Director with background and experience to understand the many complicated issues. They also need leadership skills. And most importantly, the courage to support their scientists, however uncomfortable the science may/may not be.

 

[nrpate05]

Always seemed like a big kick in the nuts to those scientists that spent a career and/or lifetime studying them to bring them back only to be told by a federal judge with zero science/wildlife experience “not good enough” - Twice to boot, just as you mention.

What could be an even bigger kick? Telling them the 50 years of work is all for not.

@Sytes you got any bets on federal delisting of lower 48 griz in next 5, 10 or lifetime years?

@Big Fin how does this jive with the rumor of the new USFWS director Brian Nesvik being appointed with goal of delisting griz? From what I gather it doesn’t matter who leads USFWS if the decision is ultimately in the hands of the courts?

If the “right” (trying to make a pun) judges get appointed couldn’t they still be delisted?

I think Nesvik will likely have to recuse himself from any discussion on delisting G bears. At this point, I think it is important that hunters take a close look at the recent USFWS Grizzly bear proposal and focus on the 4(d) rule. It won't be a delisting, but if we can get 4(d) rule language that emphasizes state management, at least for the GYE and NCDE populations, I think we'll be better off. Hunting would be a stretch, but it would not necessarily be off the table. States have conservations plans in place for post delisting that are very detailed and quite good. If delisting is basically off the table until Judge Christensen is no longer making decisions, why not carve out a spot for state management while still having a listed bear? May be the best we can do for some time.