A new federal rule granted by the Interior Department grants Wyoming and neighboring states greater flexibility to manage the grizzly bear population in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.
The grizzly bear population in the region has expanded dramatically since the species was listed under the Endangered Species Act. In 1975 the population numbered about 136 bears; recent estimates place the number at roughly 1,000, exceeding every recovery target set for the species.
Recovery benchmarks established under federal law were met in 2004, and the species has since continued to thrive and spread beyond the original Yellowstone boundaries.
Over the past two decades, Wyoming has invested tens of millions of dollars in biologists, conflict response teams, and monitoring programs to support the recovery effort.
The state’s Bear Wise program has trained ranchers and recreationists on coexistence strategies, and its success is reflected in the number of conflicts resolved before they escalated.
Biologists relocate bears that pose a threat to livestock, and a recent relocation from Sublette County followed a cattle conflict earlier in the summer.
The grizzly bear was briefly removed from the endangered list in 2007, only to be reinstated in 2009 after litigation. The pattern repeated under subsequent administrations.
During a review under the current administration, the agency delayed the decision for several years and ultimately rejected Wyoming’s petition to delist in 2023, citing litigation concerns rather than recovery data.
On January 8, 2025, the agency issued a final decision rejecting delisting petitions from Wyoming and Montana, offering a limited permit for lethal removal only after livestock were already in imminent danger.
The new rule is intended to restore state authority over management decisions for species that have recovered, aligning with the original purpose of the Endangered Species Act.
Legislators from the region have introduced bills to formalize the delisting of the Greater Yellowstone grizzly bear population, arguing that continued federal oversight could undermine local conservation efforts.
The rule marks a shift toward state-led wildlife management and reflects the federal government’s recognition of the species’ recovery status in the area.
