The bear in the (court)room: who decides on removing grizzly bears from the endangered species list?

(Press-News.org) By Dr Kelly Dunning

The Endangered Species Act (ESA), now 50 years old, was once a rare beacon of bipartisan unity, signed into law by President Richard Nixon with near-unanimous political support. Its purpose was clear: protect imperiled species and enable their recovery using the best available science to do so. Yet, as our case study on the grizzly bear in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem reveals, wildlife management under the ESA has changed, becoming a political battleground where science is increasingly drowned out by partisan ideology, bureaucratic delays, power struggles, and competing political interests. The survival of the ESA, a wildlife policy mimicked all over the world, may depend on our ability to navigate these waters.

The grizzly bear, a cultural symbol of the American West, embodies this shift. Listed as threatened in 1975 when its numbers dwindled to fewer than 1,000 and its range contracted by 98%, the species has managed to come back from the brink. In the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, the population now exceeds 700, a number that surpassed recovery goals set by the federal wildlife management agency tasked with recovery, the US Fish & Wildlife Service. By the ESA’s own metrics, this is a success story, which now means the grizzly bear is eligible for ‘delisting’. Yet, attempts to remove federal protections in 2007 and 2017 were overturned by courts, not because the science was lacking, but because the process has become a lightning rod for political interests.

Our study looks at 750 documents and 2,832 stakeholder quotes to track this politicization. Historically, wildlife management is the strict domain of agency scientists in the executive branch. These scientists are experts trained to interpret interdisciplinary scientific data and balance both human and ecological needs.

Our work shows that today, the most dominant voices belong to legislators, legal advocates, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who are increasingly crowding out the agency scientists. Senators, elected politicians, like Wyoming’s John Barrasso proclaim, “The grizzly is fully recovered in Wyoming. End of story,” pushing for state control and criticizing the ESA as sluggish and outdated. Can you blame him though? Senator Barraso advocates for his Wyoming constituents who have collaborated in grizzly recovery and are now on the frontlines of human-wildlife conflict issues where grizzlies might harm livestock or tourists. All the while, population targets set by the ESA have been met, and the species remains listed.

Meanwhile, NGOs and their attorneys, such as the well-known environmental advocacy group Earthjustice, argue that delisting is premature, citing ‘political pressure’ overriding ‘biological evidence.’ The courts, too, have flexed their muscle, with rulings hinging on genetic connectivity’s role in population recovery. Ranchers with increasing grizzly conflict see these scientific developments as intentional delays to delisting rather than advancements in the field of conservation. There are no easy answers.

Wildlife management turned politics

This conflict reveals a stark reality: wildlife management is no longer just about science, it's about who dominates the political discourse, and the power that accompanies it. Legislators see delisting as a way to reclaim state authority from what they consider federal overreach. Their rhetoric, steeped in populist appeals to the Western ranching community, frames grizzlies as a recovered species with bureaucrats in Washington stalling the process of handing management back over to the states.

Montana Senator Steve Daines, for instance, highlights ‘skyrocketing’ livestock losses and bears roaming beyond their historic range. These issues resonate with rural constituents tired of federal wildlife law superseding local management by trusted state agencies. On the other hand, NGOs and legal advocates rely on the courts to maintain federal oversight, warning that state management could unleash ‘trigger-happy’ hunting seasons and jeopardize long-term survival. These advocates argue that we are facing a generational extinction crisis, where every decision we make about imperiled species could approach extinction, a route that we cannot come back from. The public, caught in the middle, may be unaware that conversations over wildlife protection have shifted from credentialed agency biologists and scientists over to politicians.

Our data underscore this shift in power. While executive branch officials, with whom scientific expertise resides, once dominated the discourse (eg fish and wildlife agency personnel at the federal and state level), they are no longer the leading voices in ESA recovery conversations. Elected politicians now lead the charge. Their influence is growing threefold over time compared to scientific agency voices. Legal advocates and NGOs, meanwhile, are shaping the debate over wildlife science with their roles amplified by lawsuits that keep grizzlies listed. Even tribes, historically sidelined, find their strongest platform in court, a sign that political systems still fail to integrate Indigenous perspectives outside litigation.

What’s lost in this debate is the ESA’s original intent: a science-driven process to recover species and then allow federal agency experts to step back so that states, who may better represent local interests, can manage species.

The path forward

This politicization threatens the ESA’s future. When politicians outshout scientists, when courts dictate biology or delay timely management responses, and when recovery becomes a bargaining chip, the law risks losing its credibility with the public. The grizzly saga suggests a path forward: agencies must adapt to this political reality, not retreat from it. Scientists can’t afford to ‘stay out of politics’ when protected species like grizzlies are lightning rods for political debate. Multi-stakeholder groups, like the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, offer a model bridging agencies, states, tribes, and NGOs to tackle thorny issues like genetics collaboratively rather than through unending lawsuits in the courts.

The grizzly bear’s fate isn’t just about one species: this pattern is playing out across a range of species in the West and beyond. It will prove itself as the greatest challenge for wildlife managers in an era of increased polarization. If the ESA is to endure another 50 years, it must evolve beyond a scientific ideal into a framework that navigates the messy, human politics of conservation. Otherwise, the grizzly’s roar will be drowned out by an even greater sound: the chaos of our own imperfect politics.

END