TL;DR
After two recent fatal and serious grizzly bear attacks in Glacier and Yellowstone, Montana Rep. Ryan Zinke has proposed removing federal protections for grizzlies. Experts criticize this move as misleading and unsupported by current science.
Montana Rep. Ryan Zinke has called for the removal of federal protections for grizzly bears after recent attacks in Glacier and Yellowstone national parks resulted in one death and two serious injuries.
On May 3, a 33-year-old hiker was killed by a grizzly bear in Glacier National Park, marking the first fatal attack there since 1998. The following day, two brothers, aged 14 and 28, were seriously injured in a grizzly attack near Old Faithful in Yellowstone. In response, Zinke posted on X (formerly Twitter) on May 12, advocating for the delisting of grizzlies, claiming their populations have recovered beyond sustainable levels.
Zinke’s proposal suggests that states should be given authority to manage these predators. However, wildlife biologists, including Chris Servheen, a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) grizzly recovery coordinator, dispute the claim that populations are overabundant or that delisting is justified. Servheen emphasized that human-bear interactions are chance events, unrelated to the species’ protected status, and that the attacks occurred on federal land where states have no authority to manage bears.
FWS currently requires a scientific review before delisting a species, and recent agency reports in 2025 indicated that grizzlies should remain protected under the Endangered Species Act. Legal experts also note that Congress could bypass scientific review and legislatively delist the species, a move that would likely face legal challenges.
Why It Matters
This development is significant because it highlights ongoing debates over wildlife management and conservation priorities. The push to delist grizzlies comes amid heightened public attention following recent attacks, but experts warn that such incidents are rare and often misinterpreted as justification for removing protections. The controversy underscores tensions between conservation efforts, public safety, and state management authority.
SABRE Frontiersman MAX Bear Spray & Mountain Lion Deterrent – 40‑Foot Range, Max Strength 2% Major Capsaicinoids, EPA‑Registered, Self Defense for Hiking, Camping, Hunting, Fishing & Biking, 7.9 oz
- EPA-Registered Deterrent: Deters bears and mountain lions
- Maximum Strength Formula: 2% Major Capsaicinoids concentration
- Long-Range Spray: Effective up to 40 feet
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Background
Grizzly bears have been protected under the Endangered Species Act since 1975, with their population growing from about 700 to nearly 2,000 in the contiguous U.S. over the past five decades. Recent attacks have reignited discussions about the species’ recovery and management. Zinke’s comments follow a pattern of political efforts to shift authority from federal to state control, despite scientific consensus indicating the species remains vulnerable in some areas.
“These interactions are chance events that would occur whether the grizzly was managed by state authorities or not.”
— Chris Servheen, former FWS grizzly bear recovery coordinator
“Saying delisting is necessary because there have been two attacks recently is extremely misleading and ignores basic science.”
— Andrea Zaccardi, legal director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Carnivore Conservation program
Coghlan's Magnetic Bear Bell with Silencer – Hiking Safety Gear for Wildlife Alert -Silver
- Wildlife Alert Bell: Warns bears and animals of your presence
- Magnetic Silencer: Eliminates noise when not in use
- Versatile Attachment: Attaches to clothing, boots, hats, and packs
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What Remains Unclear
It is unclear whether the FWS will initiate a scientific review to consider delisting or if Congress will pursue legislation to remove protections. The legal and political processes involved remain uncertain, and the impact of recent attacks on policy decisions is still developing.
SABRE Frontiersman MAX Bear Spray & Mountain Lion Deterrent – 40‑Foot Range, Max Strength 2% Major Capsaicinoids, EPA‑Registered, Self Defense for Hiking, Camping, Hunting, Fishing & Biking, 7.9 oz
- EPA-Registered Deterrent: Deters bears and mountain lions
- Maximum Strength Formula: 2% Major Capsaicinoids concentration
- Long-Range Spray: Effective up to 40 feet
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What’s Next
The FWS is expected to conduct or review existing scientific assessments regarding the status of grizzly populations. Legislative proposals to delist the species may be introduced or debated in Congress. Public and expert reactions will likely influence the final decision.
BearVault BV500 Journey Bear Resistant Food Container – Extra Large
- High Capacity for Extended Trips: Lightweight, spacious bear canister for 7+ days
- Easy to Use and Access: Transparent sides, wide opening, tool-free setup
- Bear-Resistant Certification: IGBC and SIBBG certified for bear resistance
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
Could the federal government delist grizzly bears soon?
It is uncertain. The FWS would need to conduct a scientific review, but Congress could also pass legislation to bypass this process, making the timeline unclear.
Are grizzly bear attacks common?
No, attacks are rare. Experts emphasize that such incidents are typically chance encounters and not indicative of the species’ overall safety or management status.
What are the implications of delisting grizzlies?
If delisted, states would manage the bears, potentially allowing for hunting and habitat management changes. Conservationists warn this could threaten the species’ recovery in some areas.
Why does Zinke want to remove protections now?
Zinke claims the population has recovered beyond sustainable levels and cites recent attacks as justification, though scientists dispute this reasoning.
