Grizzly Bear State Management Act
Summary
The "Grizzly Bear State Management Act" directs the Secretary of the Interior to reissue a final rule removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population of grizzly bears from the Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife. This reissuance must occur within 180 days of the Act's enactment. The Act also stipulates that the reissuance of this final rule will not be subject to judicial review.
Expected Effects
The primary effect will be the delisting of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly bear population, transferring management authority to the states. This could lead to changes in conservation strategies and potential hunting regulations. The preclusion of judicial review limits legal challenges to the delisting decision.
Potential Benefits
- States gain autonomy in managing grizzly bear populations within their borders.
- Potential for increased economic activity related to tourism and hunting (if permitted by the states).
- Streamlines the regulatory process by preventing further legal delays.
- Could allow for more focused conservation efforts based on state-specific needs.
- May reduce the financial burden on the federal government for grizzly bear management in this specific ecosystem.
Potential Disadvantages
- Potential for inconsistent management practices across different states, potentially harming the overall grizzly bear population.
- Reduced federal oversight could lead to over-hunting or habitat degradation.
- Environmental groups may be unable to challenge the delisting in court, limiting accountability.
- Loss of federal funding and resources for grizzly bear conservation in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.
- Possible negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem health due to changes in grizzly bear management.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The Act's directive to the Secretary of the Interior falls under Congress's power to regulate wildlife and manage federal lands, as implied by the Property Clause (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2). The limitation on judicial review raises questions regarding due process and access to the courts, potentially conflicting with constitutional principles. However, Congress has broad authority to define the jurisdiction of federal courts.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).