Topline Framing

Grizzly bears are not recovered—not by a long shot. With only ~2,300 in the lower 48 and less than 4% of their historic range occupied, removing federal protections now would be ecological sabotage. Behind this push is a dangerous trifecta: anti-wildlife states, extractive industries, and a dismantled federal science apparatus under the Trump administration.

This isn’t about “management.” It’s about clearing grizzlies out of the way for mining, logging, grazing and development.

Myth

Grizzlies are recovered. 

Fact 

Grizzlies are still recovering. True recovery requires viable populations across connected habitats—not just numerical benchmarks. Only ~2,300 bears remain, isolated in fragmented ecosystems.

• “Grizzly bears occupy less than 4% of their historic range and number only ~2,300 in the lower 48. That’s not recovery—that’s survival on the edge. Real recovery means long-term security, connected habitats, and protections that stick.”

• “Recovery isn’t just about numbers. A fragmented grizzly population occupying 4% of its range is not a success—it’s a warning sign.”

• “A species isn’t recovered just because it’s not extinct. Grizzlies remain isolated, vulnerable, and confined to fragments of their former range. Survival is not the same as security.”

• “Grizzlies are surviving, not thriving. Their range is a shadow of what it once was—and without continued protections, even that won’t last.”

Myth

Grizzlies should be removed from the ESA

Fact

The science says: not yet. Repeated court rulings have blocked delisting efforts for failing to account for genetic diversity, habitat threats, and climate change. 

• “Grizzly bears didn’t bounce back on their own—it took decades of protection. Now, with just 4% of their range occupied, calling them ‘recovered’ is wishful thinking at best, political spin at worst.”

• “Around 2,300 bears remain in fragmented subpopulations. They are genetically isolated and vulnerable to inbreeding and collapse. A healthy population needs connectivity and  expansion—not restriction and culling.”

• “Science—not spin—should drive species recovery. And the science is clear: grizzlies are still isolated, still at risk, and still need federal protection.”

• “Courts have repeatedly blocked delisting because the federal government keeps ignoring basic ecological reality: fragmented, isolated bear populations are not secure.”

• “Grizzly recovery isn’t stalled because of lawsuits—it’s stalled because agencies keep pushing politically driven plans that fail to meet scientific standards.”

• “Genetic diversity, climate resilience, habitat connectivity—none of these are luxuries. They are the foundation of real recovery. And right now, we don’t have them.”

• “If recovery plans can’t hold up in court, maybe the problem isn’t the courts—it’s the plans.”

Myth

Delisting allows for adaptive, local control. States have effective management plans in place.

Fact

States are not ready. Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana are aggressively killing wolves and have signaled their intent to treat grizzlies the same way.

• “Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have made it clear that their priority is killing predators—not conserving them. That’s not responsible management.”

• “Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have made a blood sport out of wolf killing. Now they want to do the same to grizzlies. State ‘management’ means baiting, trapping, and trophy hunting—not conservation.”

• “States like Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have shown us exactly how they’ll treat grizzlies—just look at the war they’ve waged on wolves. That’s not management. It’s political extermination.”

• “Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming turned wolves into targets. Now they want to do the same to grizzlies. That’s not management—it’s a death sentence.”

• “State-level policies on wolves reveal a pattern of lethal, politically driven wildlife management. Grizzlies require consistent, science-based federal protections—not a patchwork of state-level kill programs.”

• “Grizzlies don’t need to be handed over to states already running kill campaigns against predators. We’ve seen what they do when left unchecked, and the consequences are deadly.”

Myth

Delisting is proof of success—not a threat to it.

Fact

Delisting now would undo decades of recovery. The ESA succeeded in pulling grizzlies back from extinction. Weakening protections now, as federal science is under attack, would reverse that progress.

• “Grizzly bears didn’t bounce back on their own—it took decades of protection. Now, with just 4% of their range occupied, calling them ‘recovered’ is wishful thinking at best, political spin at worst.”

• “Federal protections exist for a reason: to ensure the long-term survival of species against short-term political whims.”

• “We owe it to future generations to protect what’s wild, not hand it over to states with a proven record of extermination campaigns.”

• “Delisting grizzlies doesn’t mean we’ve succeeded—it means we’ve surrendered.”

Myth

Delisting doesn’t remove habitat protections.

Fact

Delisting opens the door for exploitation. Protected status restricts industrial development on key habitats. Stripping that protection benefits corporations—not bears, ecosystems, or the public.

• “Grizzly bears are a roadblock—not to progress, but to profiteering. That’s why they’re being targeted: not because they’ve recovered, but because they stand in the way of bulldozers, chainsaws, and drill rigs.”

• “Federal protections don’t just shield grizzlies—they shield the lands they depend on. Remove the bear, and you remove the last line of defense against industrial takeover.”

• “Delisting isn’t about biology. It’s about deregulation. The moment protections disappear, so do the barriers to drilling, logging, and road-building in some of the West’s most intact ecosystems.”

Myth

Moving the Goalposts. Conservationists keep changing recovery criteria, making it impossible to delist grizzlies.

Fact

Grizzly recovery must adapt to new scientific information, and hostile governmental policies require stronger grizzly bear protections.

• “The goalposts have already moved—thanks to hostile state policies, climate change, unchecked development, and rising recreation pressure.”

• “Science evolves—and recovery efforts must too. Protecting grizzlies means confronting new threats like climate change, shrinking habitat, and food scarcity, not denying they’re real.”

• “The real goalpost shuffling is coming from politicians eager to declare victory before the work is done.”