Montana’s new Grizzly Bear Plan says it’s ready to take back control of the feds

On September 26, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks was released a decision document establishing the final environmental impact assessment and the proposed measures for it Statewide Grizzly Bear Management Plan 2024. The final plan is intended to prepare the state wildlife agency if grizzly bears are removed from the Endangered Species Act, which could happen in three months.

“The 2024 Grizzly Bear Plan will serve to inform both FWP’s state management of grizzly bears as an ESA-listed species and to articulate FWP’s vision that grizzly bear management should be returned to the state,” the plan reads .

The grizzly population in the Lower 48 has been federally protected since they were listed under the Endangered Species Act in 1975. But that could soon change, as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said in July that it will make a decision on whether or not the species should be protected. deleted in January 2025.

Grizzlies in Montana

Since the 1970s, grizzly bear populations have largely been on the rise in both the Greater Yellowstone and Northern Continental Divide ecosystems, two of six recovery zones identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (The GYE is primarily in Wyoming, but its northern border extends well into Montana.) In recent years, bear populations have also expanded into other habitats within those two zones as they have spread and expanded their range.

As of 2022, the approximately 965 grizzly bears living in the GYE used 98% of their suitable habitat there, according to the USFWS Grizzly Bear Recovery Report. Similarly, from 2017 to 2022 in the NCDE, sows with dependent cubs occupied all 23 boar management units within the recovery zone. That recovery zone now has the highest grizzly population in the Lower 48, with recent estimates suggesting about 1,110 bears there.

Based on the size of these populations and the amount of habitat they occupy, grizzly bears in both recovery zones have met many of the recovery criteria established by the USFWS. But the question is whether delisting is in the best interests of the species reproduces at a glacial pace compared to other mammals – remains a source of controversial debate. States like Montana and Wyoming have long argued that they should be able to manage their own grizzly populations, while grizzly bear advocates and animal rights groups have repeatedly filed lawsuits to prevent that.

Then there are ordinary citizens, some of whom want to see the species preserved at all costs, and others who believe that top predators like grizzly bears should be actively managed. A research conducted in 2020 found that most Montanans lean toward the latter, according to the Montana Free Press. More than 83 percent of respondents said there should be some form of grizzly bear hunting (although more than a third of those people said this should be “a very limited hunt that does not impact population size”), while only 17 percent said grizzly bears should never be hunted.

This debate makes things even more challenging for Montana’s grizzly bear managers, who are also required by state law to protect people, pets and livestock from conflicts with grizzlies. Some of the language in MFWP’s new management plan is a nod to this complicated balancing act.

“FWP considers grizzly bears to be ‘conservation-dependent’ and ‘conflict-prone,’ and embraces the challenges of ensuring the healthy future of the species while ensuring the safety of people and their property,” the plan reads. “While Montana supports a thriving grizzly bear population, FWP will continue its internationally recognized conflict prevention and response program.”

A threatening decision

On July 26, USFWS Regional Director Matthew Hogan submitted an application a statement to the U.S. District Court for Wyoming, indicating that the agency plans to finalize its decision on the status of grizzly bears in the Lower 48 by January 31, 2025. The deadline marks the potential end of what has been a dramatic and protracted series of petitions and lawsuits over that listing status from both Western states and interest groups. With that date less than four months away, it is critical that an updated management plan is in place, said Greg Lemon, administrator of MFWP’s communications and education division. Outdoor living.

“We’re not just sitting around doing nothing,” Lemon says, pointing out how MFWP moved two grizzly bears from the NCDE to the GYE in August to encourage genetic diversity between the two population segments, another criterion for delisting. “Today, this management plan provides us with guidance for some parts of grizzly bear management, but obviously not for everything.”

Some details of the plan reflect a range of updates to Montana administrative rules regarding the state management of grizzly bears in the event of their delisting. The updated ARM addresses a variety of specifics about grizzly management, such as a rancher’s lawful ability to kill a grizzly while attacking his livestock (even on public lands, where OL Hunting and Conservation Editor Andrew McKean , will discuss this further). It also calls for a five-year delay from the time of delisting before the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission could consider a grizzly bear hunt.

Read next: The clock is ticking as the FBI struggles to delist grizzly bears

“FWP would prepare for a conservative hunting season for grizzly bears if it were not federally listed, but the decision on whether to establish a hunting season would rest with the Commission,” the plan reads. Like most other states, the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission is a governor-appointed group of citizens that makes wildlife management decisions based on input from MFWP biologists, other experts and the public.

“FWP recognizes the strong views of many members of the public,” the plan reads. “FWP will not recommend a hunting season for at least five years after an ecosystem is delisted.”

The final plan

According to the decision, MFWP briefly considered a number of alternative measures, but most of them have not been studied in depth. These ranged from treating grizzly bears as an “undesirable pest species similar to feral swine” (which, MFWP wrote in the plan, “is contrary to the ESA, state law, and FWP’s vision”) to ensuring that outcomes of human-bear attack conflicts always prioritize the bears “regardless of the cost of human subsistence or safety.” (That approach would also violate state law.)

Read Next: Montana lawmakers, don’t waste our best chance to delist grizzly bears

Ultimately, Montana’s resulting management plan — similar to plans for other native wildlife — falls somewhere in the middle.

“Black bears and elk are great examples,” Lemon says. “We have regulated hunting seasons, we monitor populations, we adjust catches and we deal with conflicts. There must be a balance. We cannot manage the species from a population perspective, and we cannot address conflict alone in a vacuum. Population monitoring is important. Connectivity between population groups is important. It will be important to address conflict with all the tools we have in the toolbox.”