Sponsors (6)
The bill shifts grizzly management from federal to state/local control and reduces regulatory burdens for some rural users, but it raises risks to grizzly conservation, public safety, legal oversight, and may create costs for taxpayers and local governments.
Local and state wildlife agencies and local governments regain primary management authority over grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone area, shifting control from federal ESA management to state/local decision-making.
Ranchers and rural residents in the Greater Yellowstone area face fewer federal restrictions on land use and wildlife management because grizzlies would be delisted, potentially reducing constraints on grazing, livestock protection, and land-use practices.
The Greater Yellowstone grizzly population could face increased extinction or long-term decline risk because delisting removes ESA safeguards and bypasses scientific and legal review.
Citizens and conservation groups lose the ability to seek judicial review of federal decisions in the delisted area, reducing public oversight and accountability of wildlife management.
People in and near the Greater Yellowstone area may face higher risks to personal safety and property due to reduced federal protections for grizzly bears, increasing chances of human-bear interactions and livestock losses.
Based on analysis of 2 sections of legislative text.
Introduced January 29, 2025 by Cynthia M. Lummis · Last progress January 29, 2025
Requires the Secretary of the Interior to reissue, within 180 days of enactment, a previously published final rule that removed the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population of grizzly bears from the federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife. The bill directs the reissuance to occur without regard to other laws that normally apply to issuing rules and makes that action not subject to judicial review. Effectively, this directs federal officials to restore a 2017 rule that ends federal endangered-species protections for that grizzly population and limits federal oversight and court challenges of that action. The provision does not appropriate funds or create new programs; it changes legal protection and the administrative process for that grizzly population.