The Balancing Act: A Case for the Delisting of Grizzly Bears

The majestic grizzly bear – a symbol of the wild, untamed beauty of nature. These iconic creatures, once teetering on the brink of extinction, have made an astonishing comeback, thanks in large part to extensive conservation efforts over the past several decades. Now, there is a growing conversation on whether it is time to ‘delist’ grizzlies from the Endangered Species Act (ESA), an act that has protected them since 1975.

Delisting a species sounds scary, especially when it comes to an animal as charismatic and iconic as the grizzly bear. However, it’s important to understand that this step doesn’t necessarily translate into an invitation for rampant hunting or a signal that we care less about their survival. On the contrary, delisting can be a testament to successful conservation efforts, leading to a transition into effective long-term management.

Firstly, the grizzly bear population in regions such as the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem has reached a level where scientists consider them biologically recovered. Thanks to the ESA’s protection, grizzlies now number over 700 in this region alone, a dramatic recovery from less than 150 in the mid-1970s. Thus, the conversation about delisting is fundamentally a positive one, a testament to our ability to safeguard and restore a species on the brink of extinction.

Moreover, delisting doesn’t mean the grizzly bear will be left unprotected. It means that management of the grizzly population would shift from the federal to the state level. This could be beneficial because the needs and circumstances of grizzlies vary between states, and local management can be better equipped to address these specific needs.

Critically, well-managed delisting could balance the interests of both grizzly bears and people living in grizzly territory. Over the years, there have been increasing instances of human-bear conflicts due to the expanding grizzly population. By implementing effective, science-based state management, we can prioritize human safety and welfare while still maintaining a stable grizzly population.

Hunters, meanwhile, have a vested interest in sustainable game populations. Their activities are often governed by rigorous regulations and quotas that are set with a keen eye on the scientific data. These ensure that hunting doesn’t endanger the long-term survival of the species, and fees from hunting licenses contribute significantly to conservation efforts. In a well-regulated context, hunting can be an effective tool for managing animal populations, and it can also help to reduce human-animal conflict.

In fact, the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, largely funded by hunting and angling activities, has proven instrumental in helping numerous species rebound. If grizzly bears are delisted and a well-regulated hunting program is established, the additional revenue generated could be channeled back into conservation efforts.

However, delisting should not be seen as an end to our responsibilities towards grizzly bears. It should be part of an evolving strategy to ensure their survival, one that prioritizes habitat conservation, education about living with wildlife, and strict regulations on hunting. Crucially, decisions about delisting and subsequent management must be guided by the best available science and ongoing monitoring to ensure grizzlies continue to thrive.

Delisting the grizzly bear can be a positive step, one that marks a triumphant turnaround from the brink of extinction. However, it needs to be done right. We owe it to these magnificent creatures to ensure that our actions are driven by a commitment to their long-term survival, to the health of the ecosystems they inhabit, and to our coexistence with them in our shared home: the wild.

Charles Whitwam
www.howlforwildlife.org