Dear editor:

We respectfully disagree with Rep. Harriet Hageman’s opinion that the Grizzly Bear State Management Act (H.R. 281) should advance. The letter claiming that grizzlies have “fully recovered” and that management should transition to the states overlooks key scientific, legal and ecological concerns.

The Endangered Species Act is more than just a numbers game. There are other criteria that have to be met before protections can be removed from an endangered species. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) recently declined to delist GYE grizzlies. Their most recent assessment concluded that reducing federal protections would threaten population resilience, geographic connectivity, and long-term viability.

Hageman’s bill eliminates courts’ ability to challenge the delisting rule. Yet the 2017 delisting was overturned in court for disregarding long‑term genetic impacts and relying on weak conclusions. Removing judicial oversight jeopardizes legal accountability and undermines the sound science mandated by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Removing a branch of government from the American people is undemocratic. It isn’t “activist judges” who have made these decisions, it has been judges doing their jobs to uphold the law.

Returning authority to state agencies like Wyoming or Montana threatens increased mortality through hunts or predator control. Experts, including retired USFWS grizzly recovery coordinator Chris Servheen, warn that turning management over to the states without strong safeguards could undo decades of conservation progress. Wyoming has proven hostile to carnivore recovery. Post-delisting plans include trophy hunts, aggressive predator control and policies that would undermine decades of recovery work.

Additionally, grizzlies hold deep spiritual significance for most Indigenous nations. Congresswoman Hageman’s assertion that tribes have been adequately consulted when it comes to the Wyoming State Grizzly Bear Management Plan is wholly false. Critics have objected that the bill lacks adequate tribal consultation and dismisses broader public input, which is critical when removing protections for culturally sacred wildlife. In 2016, over 200 tribes signed a treaty to keep grizzly bears recovered including the Northern Arapahoe and Eastern Shoshone of the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming. It was the most signed treaty by tribes in history.

The primary focus for grizzlies should be on human/bear conflict prevention. Most conflict can be prevented through nonlethal means such as electric fencing, garbage management, carcass removal and public education. ESA protections do not prohibit conflict management, but they ensure that lethal actions are a last resort, not a first response. Grizzlies involved in repeated conflicts are already removed under federal oversight when needed.

The grizzly’s recovery journey remains unfinished. Recovery is incomplete and fragile. While numbers have improved, the population remains genetically isolated, with no natural connection to other grizzly populations. Without gene flow, this population is vulnerable to inbreeding, disease and environmental change, a key concern identified in federal court rulings and the 2025 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species status assessment.

Lastly, a January 2025 national survey by Michigan Technological University and The Ohio State University found overwhelming public support for continued ESA protections for grizzly bears, including in the three states pushing hardest for delisting. Westerners enjoy having grizzlies on the landscape as part of our Western way of life. The large landscapes protected by grizzlies are why most of us live here.

Delisting should only occur after populations are robust, connected, and resilient, and only when federal oversight and legal checks remain in place. An ESA “success story” demands patience and conservation integrity, not political expediency. We urge rejection of H.R. 281 and continued reliance on federally guided, science-based management of this iconic species.

Kristin Combs

Wilson