Back in January, we discussed a proposed sweeping new rule from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to manage grizzly bears in Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming under a single Distinct Population Segment (DPS). This rule would expand and combine the zones where Grizzly Bears would be managed and locks in their threatened status under the Endangered Species Act. Though wrapped in the language of conservation, this rule threatens to sideline the real successes states have achieved—and hand over critical management decisions to distant bureaucrats who don’t live with the consequences.
Fortunately, the comment period on the rule has been extended until mid-May! We can still submit comments on the proposal. I urge you to oppose the expansion of the grizzly bear management area (the DPS) into one giant multi-state bear “paradise”.
(Instructions and links near the end… 👇🏻)
Large, multi-state management units remove local control of what can become local problem animals and populations. Washington’s residents love wildlife, but we also know the most effective conservation is local. This federal expansion and overreach endangers the balance between protecting wildlife, preserving public safety, and sustaining rural economies.
State Expertise Matters More Than USFWS Mandates
For decades, states like Montana have led the way in grizzly conservation. Montana’s Statewide Grizzly Bear Management Plan, completed in 2024, pulls together science, local experience, and public input through the Grizzly Bear Advisory Council. It respects the reality that grizzly recovery isn’t the same in every region. Montana’s Northern Continental Divide needs a different approach than Washington’s North Cascades.
The proposed USFWS plan ignores these crucial differences. A blanket policy will only produce one thing: ineffective management that neither helps the bears nor the communities that live alongside them.
Fast Action Saves Lives and Livelihoods
When grizzlies attack livestock or threaten people, seconds count. Montana law rightly empowers ranchers to defend their herds immediately, with common-sense safeguards like reporting and annual quotas. In 2024, a grizzly killed four calves in Montana’s Blackfoot Valley before it was put down—a swift response that prevented more loss.
Federal rules could bog down life-or-death decisions in red tape, leaving ranchers helpless while their animals—and sometimes even their families—pay the price.
Public Lands Need Balanced Stewardship
In the West, public lands are the backbone of rural life. Montana’s grizzly management has struck a smart balance, allowing ranchers, recreationists, and conservationists to share the land. The Blackfoot Valley Targeted Implementation Plan has driven conflicts down from 77 to about a dozen per year, using affordable tools like electric fencing and drive-over mats funded through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program program.
These victories didn’t come from the federal government. They came from local partnerships and hard work. A heavy-handed, federally expanded population boundary risks throwing that balance away to serve abstract agendas.
Federal Rules Would Undermine What States Already Achieved
Montana’s grizzly bear population is strong and stable, with over 2,000 bears and transparent conflict management through tools like the Grizzly Bear Mortality Dashboard. State leadership achieved these gains, not federal dictates.
Now the USFWS wants to impose a new layer of regulation on states that have already proven they know how to manage grizzlies. It’s insulting—and it’s dangerous for both people and bears.
Washingtonians have experienced our state’s mismanagement of the gray wolf. While fully recovered in eastern Washington, the state stubbornly refuses to delist the wolves there because the wolf population hasn’t recovered in western Washington.
I can imagine the same scenario playing out with grizzly bears. Bears have recovered in Montana, but will that state then be held hostage until the bears are “recovered” across the entire multi-state population boundary? It’s very unlikely for the distant bureaucrats to use any common sense with problem bears or wolves.
Protect State Rights, Protect Rural Communities
Montana and other states have fought hard to preserve the right to manage predators locally. Montana’s laws allowing lethal control of aggressive bears are tailored to real-world needs, not the ivory tower theories of East Coast activists.
Citizens in Washington’s Okanogan County fought hard against importing grizzly bears into their area in 2023. An expanded population boundary could strip away their right to local control and flexibility, leaving Washington’s ranchers, orchardists and property owners at the mercy of a system that doesn't understand their unique challenges.
Furthermore, this new population boundary doesn’t include ALL historic grizzly ranges in the lower 48 states, calling into question whether it’s about conservation at all—or just about consolidating USFWS power in the Northwest region.
The Other Side’s Argument Falls Flat
Yes, genetic connectivity matters for long-term bear recovery. But states and tribes aren’t ignoring this issue. Montana already works closely with neighboring states, federal agencies, and tribal governments to support healthy, connected populations. We don’t need a federal takeover to keep doing the right thing.
What Washingtonians Can Do Now
It’s time for Eastern Washington commissioners and local leaders to demand a seat at the table in shaping this policy. The current proposed plan disregards our state’s unique concerns and fails to engage the communities most affected by grizzly management.
Call for Public Meetings in Washington State
Petition the USFWS to hold public meetings in our state. Washington’s connection to grizzly conservation—particularly in the North Cascades—makes our input critical.
Contact Elected Officials
Urge county, state, and federal representatives to advocate for Washington-specific considerations in the proposal. Let them know that this policy must balance conservation goals with the practical realities of rural life.
Make sure you comment before May 16!
It’s clear when reviewing the comments that have been submitted on the proposed rule that environmental groups are trying to manipulate the comment system. Many of these environmental activists don’t even live in the impacted area! Don’t let them win by default. Make sure your voice is counted!
The USFWS grizzly bear rule is more than just bad policy. It's an attack on state rights, rural livelihoods, and the principle that local communities know best how to manage their land and wildlife.
The public comment period is open until May 16, 2025. We must not sit quietly. Commenting matters—it is our strongest tool right now to stop this federal overreach.
I urge every rancher, hunter, landowner, and citizen who believes in local control and real conservation to submit a comment opposing the proposed rule to expand the DPS boundaries. We want local control of our bear populations, not regional or federal control. Demand a future where grizzly conservation is led by the states, not by faraway bureaucrats.
Simply say: “I oppose the proposed expanded DPS boundaries and advocate for local control of the existing population segments.”
Stand up now—before federal bureaucrats and power-hungry environmentalists lock local citizens out of the process for good!
Nancy Churchill is a writer and educator in rural eastern Washington State, and the chair of the Ferry County Republican Party. She may be reached at DangerousRhetoric@pm.me. The opinions expressed in Dangerous Rhetoric are her own. Dangerous Rhetoric is available on Substack, X, and occasionally Rumble.
SOURCES:
(1) USFWS Proposes Update to Grizzly Bear ESA Listing and Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, January 8, 2025, https://bit.ly/44eRwNq
(2) Wildlife Advocates Frown on USFWS Promised Grizzly Ruling, Laura Lundquist, Missoula Current, July 31, 2024, https://bit.ly/4cQZDlf
(3) Grizzly Bear Euthanized in Blackfoot Valley, MTN News, August 21, 2024, https://bit.ly/432qMhQ
(4) Montana’s New Grizzly Bear Plan Says It’s Ready to Take Back Management from the Feds, Katie Hill, Outdoor Life, October 18, 2024, https://bit.ly/42QoVvp
(5) USDA, USFWS, State Partners Find Non-Lethal Answers to Grizzly Bear Interactions on Montana Ranches, Natural Resources Conservation Service, June 20, 2024, https://bit.ly/42OD8Jj
6) Many in Okanogan County Say 'Don't Bring in' Grizzlies, Courtney Flatt, Northwest Public Broadcasting, November 3, 2023, https://bit.ly/4jqGYPL
7) Grizzly Bears in Lower 48 to Remain Protected Under ESA, Robert Chaney, Mountain Journal, January 8, 2025,https://bit.ly/4jojMBP
8) Grizzly Bear Lower 48 Rulemaking, 1-8-25, https://bit.ly/3WeXQj9
I oppose the proposed expanded DPS boundaries and advocate for local control of the existing population segment. We do not need an extremely dangerous Apex predator in Washington State!
I just submitted my comment opposing this federal overreach. The USFWS has no business hijacking local wildlife management from the folks who actually live with the consequences. I fully support your efforts to stop this power grab and keep grizzly control in the hands of the states, where it belongs. Keep sounding the alarm. These D.C. agencies only back down when enough of us push back, loudly and unapologetically. Keep up the great work Nancy!