Report on the Proposed Delisting of the Greater Yellowstone Grizzly Bear and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Executive Summary

A legislative proposal, H.R. 281, has advanced through the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee, seeking to remove the grizzly bear of the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem from the protections of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This action has ignited a significant debate that intersects with several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), primarily SDG 15 (Life on Land), but also SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). The core of the issue is whether the grizzly bear’s population has recovered sufficiently to warrant state management, or if federal protections remain necessary to ensure its long-term survival amidst ongoing environmental pressures.

2.0 Legislative and Institutional Context

The proposed legislation, titled the Grizzly Bear State Management Act of 2025 (H.R. 281), is sponsored by legislators from Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and Minnesota. The bill’s primary objectives are to:

• Mandate that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reinstate its 2017 ruling which delisted the grizzly bear.
• Exempt this directive from future judicial review.

This legislative approach directly engages with SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) by attempting to use congressional authority to override previous judicial and executive agency decisions. A 2018 federal court ruling vacated the 2017 delisting, citing a lack of scientific evidence and an “arbitrary and capricious” application of the threat analysis required by the ESA. The current bill represents a challenge to these institutional checks and balances in the governance of environmental law.

3.0 Analysis in Relation to SDG 15: Life on Land

The debate over H.R. 281 is fundamentally a discussion about the implementation of SDG 15 (Life on Land), which aims to protect, restore, and promote the sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems and halt biodiversity loss.

3.1 Arguments for Delisting: A Conservation Success

Proponents of the bill argue that the grizzly bear represents a major success story for the ESA, aligning with the goals of SDG 15. Key points include:

• The grizzly bear was listed as threatened in 1975 when its population was critically low.
• The established recovery goal of approximately 500 bears in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem was exceeded in 1997.
• Proponents, such as Rep. Harriet Hageman, assert that the population has remained above recovery targets for nearly three decades, indicating that the species is no longer threatened and that management should be returned to the states.
• This perspective suggests that successful conservation programs should transition from federal protection to sustainable state-led management, thereby demonstrating the effectiveness of the ESA framework.

3.2 Arguments Against Delisting: A Premature Action

Conservation groups and researchers contend that delisting would undermine the long-term objectives of SDG 15. Their arguments are rooted in a broader historical and ecological context:

• Historical Depletion: The historic population of over 50,000 grizzly bears was reduced by 98% due to westward expansion, with the current population of approximately 2,000 in the northwestern states representing only a fraction of its former numbers and range.
• Incomplete Recovery: Critics like Louisa Wilcox of Grizzly Times argue that a population of less than 800 bears in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem is not a fully recovered population but a fragile one, still isolated and vulnerable.
• Ongoing Threats: The long-term survival of the species is threatened by factors such as climate change impacting food sources and continued human encroachment on habitats, which are critical considerations under SDG 15.

4.0 Human-Wildlife Conflict and Community Safety: SDG 11

The expansion of the grizzly bear population has led to increased interaction with human populations, a challenge directly related to SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), which seeks to make human settlements safe and resilient.

• Rep. Hageman noted that grizzly bears now roam over 26,000 square miles in Wyoming and are appearing outside this range.
• There are over 230 reported grizzly incidents annually in Wyoming, occurring within a 6-7 month period when the bears are not hibernating.
• Proponents of delisting argue that state management is necessary to address these conflicts and ensure the safety of residents and ranchers, thereby promoting a sustainable coexistence between humans and wildlife.

5.0 Historical Timeline of Grizzly Bear Management

1. Pre-1900s: An estimated 50,000 grizzly bears roamed the American West.
2. 1973: The Endangered Species Act is passed into law, partly in recognition of the grizzly’s decline. By this time, only a few hundred remained in the lower 48 states.
3. 1975: The grizzly bear is officially listed as a “threatened” species.
4. 1997: The Greater Yellowstone grizzly population surpasses its recovery goal of 500 individuals.
5. 2017: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removes the Greater Yellowstone grizzly from the threatened species list.
6. 2018: A federal judge reverses the delisting, restoring federal protections.
7. 2024: H.R. 281 is advanced to legislate the delisting of the grizzly bear.

6.0 Conclusion: The Path to Sustainable Coexistence

The effort to delist the grizzly bear highlights a fundamental tension in conservation policy: determining the point at which a species is considered “recovered.” The outcome of H.R. 281 will have profound implications for the application of the Endangered Species Act and the nation’s commitment to SDG 15. While proponents view delisting as the logical conclusion of a successful recovery program, opponents warn it is a shortsighted move that ignores broader ecological and historical realities. Achieving a durable solution requires a balanced approach that respects both the success of conservation efforts and the ongoing vulnerabilities of the species. This necessitates robust partnerships between federal, state, and local stakeholders, embodying the principles of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), to ensure the long-term, sustainable management of this iconic species.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article on the proposed delisting of the grizzly bear from the Endangered Species Act (ESA) connects to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The analysis identifies the following primary and secondary SDGs:

• SDG 15: Life on Land: This is the most central SDG addressed. The article is fundamentally about the conservation of a specific terrestrial species (the grizzly bear), the protection of its habitat (the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem), and the debate over halting biodiversity loss. It discusses the history of the species’ decline, recovery efforts under the Endangered Species Act, and ongoing threats.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article details the legislative and legal processes surrounding wildlife management. It highlights the roles of various institutions, including the U.S. Congress (House Natural Resources Committee), federal agencies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), and the judiciary. The conflict between these bodies and different stakeholder groups over the interpretation of science and law (“arbitrary and capricious” ruling) directly relates to the goal of having effective, accountable, and transparent institutions.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: This SDG is relevant through the lens of human-wildlife conflict. The article mentions the expansion of the grizzly bear’s range into areas inhabited by people, leading to safety concerns for “ranchers and people who live near these ‘very dangerous animals’.” The discussion about managing bears that show up outside their designated range touches upon the challenge of ensuring the safety and sustainability of human settlements that border natural habitats.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the article’s content, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Target 15.5: Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity and, by 2020, protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species.
   • Explanation: The entire article revolves around this target. The grizzly bear was listed as “threatened” in 1975 to prevent its extinction. The debate now is whether the population has recovered sufficiently to no longer be considered threatened. The historical context provided, noting that “By 1973, there were only a few hundred left in the lower 48,” underscores the initial urgency. The ongoing debate, with conservationists arguing that bears “are still at risk due to the overwhelming threats posed by changing climates and the encroachment of humans,” shows the continued relevance of protecting threatened species.
2. Target 15.7: Take urgent action to end poaching and trafficking of protected species of flora and fauna and address both demand and supply of illegal wildlife products.
   • Explanation: While not about illegal trafficking, the article addresses the legal framework for protecting a species. The Endangered Species Act makes it illegal to harm or kill a grizzly bear. The proposed delisting would transfer management to the states, which could allow for legal hunting. This directly impacts the regulations concerning the “taking” of a protected species and is central to the conflict between those who want to “manage” the population through hunting and those who believe the bears still need federal protection from being killed.
3. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
   • Explanation: The article showcases the complex interaction and, at times, conflict between different institutions. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2017 decision to delist the bear was overturned by a federal judge who found the agency’s process “arbitrary and capricious.” Now, Congress is attempting to legislate the delisting through H.R. 281, explicitly to “exempt it from future judicial review.” This entire narrative is a case study in the functioning, accountability, and effectiveness of governmental institutions responsible for environmental management.
4. Target 11.a: Support positive economic, social and environmental links between urban, peri-urban and rural areas by strengthening national and regional development planning.
   • Explanation: The article describes the friction at the boundary of wildlife habitat and human communities. Rep. Hageman notes that bears “are showing up outside that range, which is dangerous for the bears and for humans.” The mention of “over 230 grizzly incidents a year” in Wyoming highlights the negative social and environmental links. The debate over delisting is, in effect, a debate about regional planning and how to manage the interface between rural communities and the natural environment they inhabit.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article explicitly and implicitly mentions several quantitative and qualitative indicators that can be used to measure progress.

1. For Target 15.5 (Protect threatened species):
   • Population Size: The article provides numerous figures that serve as direct indicators of the grizzly bear population status. These include the historical population (“Over 50,000”), the population at the time of listing (“a few hundred left”), the recovery goal (“about 500 bears”), and the current estimated population (“approximately 2,000 grizzlies in America’s northwestern states, with less than 800 in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem”).
   • Geographic Range / Habitat Area: The article uses the size of the bear’s habitat as an indicator of its historical decline and current status. It states the historical range was “740,000 square miles” and that it was reduced to “about 37,000 square miles.” It also mentions the current range in Wyoming is “over 26,000 square miles.”
   • Conservation Status: The official listing of the species under the Endangered Species Act (“threatened”) is itself an indicator. The proposed bill to delist the bear represents a potential change in this indicator.
2. For Target 11.a (Strengthen regional planning):
   • Number of Human-Wildlife Incidents: The article provides a specific metric for the conflict between humans and grizzlies: “In Wyoming, there are over 230 grizzly incidents a year, some causing serious injury and death.” This number serves as a direct indicator of the challenges in managing the boundary between human settlements and wildlife habitats.
3. For Target 16.6 (Effective institutions):
   • Legislative and Judicial Actions: The article points to specific institutional actions as indicators of how the system is functioning. These include the introduction of legislation (“Grizzly Bear State Management Act of 2025, or H.R. 281”), the administrative ruling by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2017, and the subsequent judicial decision that “vacated the decision” in 2018. These actions serve as qualitative indicators of institutional processes and accountability.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: deseret.com