S.316 - Grizzly Bear State Management Act of 2025 (119th Congress)
Summary
The "Grizzly Bear State Management Act of 2025" directs the Secretary of the Interior to reissue a final rule removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) population of grizzly bears from the Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife. This reissuance is based on a previous rule from 2017 (82 Fed. Reg. 30502). The bill also stipulates that the reissuance of this rule will not be subject to judicial review.
Expected Effects
The primary effect of this act would be to transfer the management of the GYE grizzly bear population from the federal government to the states. This would allow states to implement their own management plans, potentially including hunting and other population control measures. The preclusion of judicial review would prevent legal challenges to the delisting decision.
Potential Benefits
- State Control: Allows states to manage grizzly bear populations according to local needs and priorities.
- Resource Allocation: Frees up federal resources previously dedicated to grizzly bear management in the GYE.
- Economic Opportunities: Could lead to increased tourism and hunting revenue for states.
- Reduced Human-Wildlife Conflict: State management may be more responsive to local concerns about human-wildlife conflict.
- Streamlined Process: Avoids further delays and legal challenges associated with federal management.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Potential for Over-Hunting: State management could lead to unsustainable hunting practices, threatening the grizzly bear population.
- Loss of Federal Protection: Removal from the endangered species list eliminates federal protections and oversight.
- Inconsistent Management: Different states may have conflicting management goals, hindering regional conservation efforts.
- Environmental Concerns: Delisting could negatively impact the broader ecosystem and biodiversity.
- Limited Public Input: Precluding judicial review limits public input and accountability in the delisting process.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The act raises questions regarding the balance of power between the federal government and state governments, particularly concerning the management of endangered species. While the Constitution grants Congress the authority to regulate wildlife through the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8), the Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states. The preclusion of judicial review may also raise concerns about due process and access to the 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).