Grizzly Bear State Management Act of 2025
- Bill Number
- S. 316
- Origin Chamber
- Senate
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Environmental Protection
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-01-29: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
- Last Updated
- 2026-02-25T12:50:28Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
This bill, titled the "Grizzly Bear State Management Act of 2025," aims to reinstate a previous federal decision to remove the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) population of grizzly bears from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). By doing so, it seeks to shift management authority from the federal government to state agencies, allowing for local oversight of the bear population.
Key Provisions
- Reissuance Directive: The Secretary of the Interior must reissue the 2017 final rule (published in the Federal Register on June 30, 2017) that delisted the GYE grizzly bears, within 180 days of the bill's enactment.
- Bypass of Legal Requirements: The reissuance must occur without considering other laws or regulations that normally apply to rulemaking processes under the ESA or administrative procedures.
- Protection from Challenges: The reissuance and the bill itself cannot be challenged in court (no judicial review).
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- The 2017 rule was previously vacated by federal courts due to concerns over the adequacy of habitat protections and threats like climate change impacts on whitebark pine (a key food source for grizzlies). This bill overrides those judicial decisions by mandating reissuance without standard procedural hurdles.
- It alters the ESA's typical delisting process, which requires scientific review and public input, by exempting this action from such requirements and barring court oversight, effectively fast-tracking delisting.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (part of the Department of the Interior) would lose federal oversight of the GYE grizzly population, reducing its role in monitoring and conservation. States would gain primary responsibility for management, potentially including hunting seasons if populations are deemed stable.
- On Citizens: Residents in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho (the core GYE states) may see expanded opportunities for activities like hunting or livestock protection, but conservation groups could face challenges in advocating for federal protections. Tourists and ecosystems might experience shifts in bear-human interactions without federal safeguards.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though it could influence U.S. wildlife conservation credibility in international forums, as grizzly bears are a shared North American species with Canada.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- State Governments: Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho would assume management control, benefiting from reduced federal involvement and potential economic gains from hunting licenses.
- Local Communities and Landowners: Ranchers and rural residents in the GYE may gain tools to address bear-livestock conflicts, while outdoor recreation users (e.g., hikers, hunters) could see policy changes.
- Environmental and Conservation Groups: Organizations like the Sierra Club or Center for Biological Diversity, which successfully challenged the 2017 rule, would lose federal protections they fought for, potentially leading to increased litigation outside this bill.
- Federal Agencies: The Department of the Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would implement the reissuance but face constraints on future involvement.
- Indigenous Tribes: Tribes in the region, such as the Shoshone-Bannock, may be indirectly affected through changes in traditional lands and wildlife management.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal Implications: By prohibiting judicial review, the bill limits courts' ability to ensure compliance with the ESA's scientific standards, potentially setting a precedent for bypassing administrative law in species management.
- Constitutional Implications: This could raise separation of powers concerns, as Congress is directing executive action in a way that insulates it from typical checks by the judiciary, though it aligns with Congress's authority to amend or direct implementation of laws like the ESA.
- Political Implications: Introduced by senators from Western states, it reflects regional priorities for state sovereignty over wildlife, amid ongoing debates between federal conservation mandates and local economic interests; passage would signal a policy shift toward decentralization in environmental regulation.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Sen. Lummis, Cynthia M. [R-WY]
Cosponsors (5)
Sen. Barrasso, John [R-WY], Sen. Sheehy, Tim [R-MT], Sen. Daines, Steve [R-MT], Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID], Sen. Crapo, Mike [R-ID]
Recent Actions
- 2025-01-29: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
- 2025-01-29: Introduced in Senate
Bill Versions
- Grizzly Bear State Management Act of 2025 — issued 2025-01-29 — PDF (2 pages)