WyFB submits Grizzly Bear comments to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

BY COURTNEY BEENE AND DARBY THAYER SIMS

“Our member driven policy supports and promotes the immediate delisting of grizzly bears, and management by states as a trophy animal. WyFB policies further support any legislative actions that any person may take a bear posing an imminent or perceived threat to livestock or pets. While not all aspects of this Proposed (4d) Rule change address these policies, WyFB encourages continued action toward delisting grizzly bears and returning the tasks of managing this species to State and Tribal authorities,” said the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation in recent comments to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

General Definition Changes:

Regarding conservation strategy, WyFB supports adding the definition “...habitat and population management mechanisms that will achieve and maintain demographic and habitat objectives...” as it properly aligns with the original intent of the ESA in three ways:

? Management is Conservation:
In this definition, “Conservation” is legally defined to include active and deliberate intervention as a core piece of species recovery. WyFB appreciates that activities tied to scientific resource management could therefore legally be considered valid conservation methods. This is compliant with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, § 3(3) which defines “conserve” and “conservation” to include “all activities associated with scientific resources management” as a valid method to bring a species to recovery.

? Targeted Objectives: Management must actively achieve and maintain demographic and habitat objectives. This is in alignment with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, § 4(f) that mandates the development and implementation of a Recovery Plan for listed species.

? Long-Term Framework: The definition change also ensures that populations of grizzly bears will be able to remain stable and intact even after it is eventually delisted. This is compliant with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, § 4(g) requiring the federal government, along with state agencies, to monitor recovered species for at least five years after they are delisted to ensure species recovery has been effective.

Deterrence as a definition is proposed to be included as “an intentional, nonlethal action to haze, disrupt, or annoy a grizzly bear,” therefore, the language “to promote human safety, prevent conflict or protect property” is noted as important in WyFB’s comments. As grizzly bear population expands beyond their demographic area due to overpopulation, they are pushed into human-occupied areas. Deterrence of grizzly bears, especially grizzly bears in proximity to human-occupied areas, is essential to protecting and preserving human life and safety.

Adding livestock to the definition allows for further management in depredation, deterrence and additional techniques determined by Federal, State and Tribal laws and regulations. According to WyFB comments, this could also allow flexibility for agents of the Service, acting within their official duties, to take a grizzly bear in conflict, which includes harm to livestock.

Management protections for livestock are already in place within Wyoming and actively followed through the state management plan by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. The ambiguity of “livestock” not being mentioned in the Proposed (4d) Rule beyond a definition creates confusion for livestock owners for what they can do to actively protect their livestock WyFB comments requested adding additional language that truly specifies the flexibility allowed to individuals within the Proposed (4d) Rule to protect livestock from grizzly bear presence and conflicts.

Management Plan:

WyFB especially appreciated the allowance of State and Tribal contributions to management programs and plans. This is supported by our member driven policy of returning grizzly bear management back to the States. While Wyoming has their own state management plan for grizzly bears, allowing other states to develop a flexible plan is supported. Sister states Idaho and Montana struggle with flexibility in management of grizzly bears. Therefore, WyFB is supportive of this specific language.

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU):

WyFB appreciates the focus of the definition of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) supporting grizzly bear management given to states. WyFB believes the final rule should be more specific about the reasons for a FWS revocation of Tier status within an MOU. States should have a clear picture of the expectations and metrics to retain their Tier status from FWS. Terms within the Proposed (4d) Rule such as “depart significantly” and “substantial grizzly bear mortality” are open to various interpretations. WyFB requested more clarity about what MOUs contain and how they are obtained and maintained.

Tier 1 and Tier 2 Adoptions:

WyFB supports the conflict reduction tools provided by the proposal. Our organization also supports clarification in the final rule that federal agencies providing permits for activities like grazing and forest management will not default to reductions or removal of these activities as conflicts arise. Instead, entities holding Tier 1 or 2 status should work in partnership with impacted farmers, ranchers, and foresters to address the issue in a localized way, supporting continued working lands activities.

WyFB appreciates the Tier 2 designations in defense of life and property and added deterrence measures for high-conflict bears. While WyFB policy advocates for the efficient removal of persistent problem bears, this Proposed (4d) Rule is an important, constructive step toward achieving that management standard.

Conclusion:

In 2025 alone, 46 grizzly bears were captured by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to prevent or resolve conflicts. Wildlife officials took 21 grizzly bears due to conflicts with livestock. This is a reality for agricultural producers and bear populations alike within and surrounding the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Every year there is high mortality of grizzly bears due to overpopulation, yet management removals of bears due to livestock depredation have never been negative to the grizzly bear population. The population has continued to grow and expand beyond feasible levels for the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. The Proposed changes to the 4(d) Rule address this challenge directly by providing the practical, responsive flexibility required to avoid conflicts entirely, while supplying vital management tools when interactions are unavoidable. While the ultimate goal is the eventual delisting and return to state control of grizzly bears, WyFB applauds the Service for this step in the right direction.