Uncertainty is swirling around what will become of plans to retain grizzly bears’ federally protected status following a change of presidential administrations and an Interior secretary nominee who’s pledged to delist the bruins and return jurisdiction to the states. 

What will become of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s long-awaited and heavily litigated grizzly bear proposal became even cloudier Monday, when the agency announced it was scratching already scheduled public hearings. Federal officials had planned to hold a public hearing in Cody, but that and three other meetings were nixed, “in light of the recent transition and the need for this Administration to review the recent grizzly bear proposed rule,” according to an agency notice.    

It’s unclear if the meetings will be rescheduled and equally hazy if Fish and Wildlife’s draft rule is still on the table following a Trump administration regulatory freeze and shift in leadership at the U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Fish and Wildlife Service provided no additional information in response to WyoFile inquiries and declined to grant an interview.

Bear bills

Meantime, Wyoming lawmakers will consider two measures that prescribe changes to the future of grizzly bear management in the Equality State.

One proposal, outlined in House Bill 186, “Bear coupons-game and fish,” would allow heavy grizzly bear hunting in 2026 and 2027 on the outskirts of current grizzly range in Wyoming. The measure would require the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to attach a free “bear coupon” to all resident elk licenses issued for areas outside of the grizzly recovery zone, located in the core of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Those coupon holders would then be authorized to kill a “brown or black bear or grizzly bear.” 

The proposed law declares that the Wyoming Legislature “finds that grizzly bears have recovered in Wyoming and should be removed from the endangered species and threatened species list and that the state should be responsible for management.” As now written, the bill could allow for the start of grizzly bear hunting even while Ursus arctos horribilis remains protected under the Endangered Species Act, which would be a federal crime. It would take effect either 10 days after grizzly bears have been delisted or on Jan. 1, 2026, whichever comes earlier. 

Rep. Bob Wharff, R-Evanston, HB 186’s lead sponsor, was unable to be reached for an interview. The all-Republican and mostly Wyoming Freedom Caucus-aligned list of cosponsors include: Reps. Rachel Rodriguez-Williams of Cody, Mike Schmid of La Barge, Nina Webber of Cody, John Winter of Thermopolis and Sens. Dan Dockstader of Afton, Tim French of Powell, Bob Ide of Casper and Troy McKeown of Gillette. 

‘You go manage the bears’

Sen. Larry Hicks, a Republican from Baggs, brought the other grizzly-related measure, “Senate File 170, Grizzly bear management prohibition.” In essence, the bill would prohibit the Wyoming Game and Fish Department from using its resources to help manage grizzly bears unless the state is granted jurisdiction. 

“We’re just saying [to the federal government], ‘You go manage the bears,’” Hicks told WyoFile. “We’re tired of spending all of the money doing it for you.” 

Although grizzly bears have been safeguarded by the Endangered Species Act and managed by the federal government since 1973, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department handles the brunt of the day-to-day duties and has spent over $50 million on grizzly management to date, according to agency estimates. Costs are incurred, for example, when state officials head out to verify if dead free-range cattle were casualties of grizzly depredation, and by red-shirted biologists who’ve shadowed celebrity bruins to keep the animals safe.  

Those types of duties would no longer be allowed, though the state senator’s proposal does provide some exceptions. Grizzly management could still occur if it’s “expressly required by statute” or needed for “public safety and welfare.” 

“Compensation for grizzly damage doesn’t go away,” Hicks said. “If you’ve got a bear around people’s private property … and they’re a threat to public safety, the Game and Fish Department can still act.” 

If SF 170 advances, Hicks intends to amend it. Currently, it’s written so that it would take effect immediately, but he wants to move that back two years because of the change in presidential administrations and makeup of Congress.

“It’ll say, ‘in 24 months, if you haven’t resolved this issue’ — your bears, you manage them,” Hicks said. 

Senate File 170’s all-Republican co-sponsors include Winter, Driskill and Rep. Paul Hoeft of Powell. 

Neither grizzly bear bill has moved beyond being introduced, though Wharff’s “bear coupon” proposal was referred to the House Agriculture, State and Public Lands and Water Resources Committee and has until Feb. 7 to be heard there. 

Conservation response

Hunting advocacy groups don’t like what they see. The Wyoming Wildlife Federation came out “strongly against” the Fish and Wildlife Service’s grizzly decision, but is leery of “emotional” responses stemming from frustration over not having management. 

“These bills are a bit of a tantrum,” said Jess Johnson, the federation’s government affairs director. “I agree that we need state management of grizzly bears. I don’t believe that these bills help our case at all.” 

Overzealous state legislatures, she said, are contributing to the consternation some parties have for the federal government relinquishing authority over grizzlies.

“If we could back off, let our incredible professionals do their jobs and stay at the table without this rhetorical pushback, we might be in a better position for grizzlies in the long term,” Johnson said. 

Chris Servheen, a retired grizzly bear recovery coordinator for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is a delisting opponent who agreed that lawmakers aren’t helping their state’s cases. 

“I do trust the state biologists, but it’s the politicians that have overwhelmed the system,” he said. 

House Bill 186, he said, is an example of inappropriate, legislature-driven wildlife management that grizzly bears would face if they were delisted. 

“They wouldn’t last very long,” Servheen. “We’re going back to the 1800s. These animals can’t take that kind of pressure. They will disappear. Grizzly bears are way too vulnerable.”