SUBMIT A LTE
Use your voice to keep grizzly bears protected and to push back on misinformation. Letters to the editor are one of the fastest ways to reach decision‑makers and your community. This page walks you through what to write, where to send it, and how to make it count.
WHY LTES MATTER
Editors read them. Lawmakers’ staff compile them. Community members talk about them. A steady drumbeat of short, local letters shapes public opinion and signals that people in your town want science‑based, humane grizzly policy.
WHAT TO WRITE
Keep it local. Start with a clear connection to place: your town, nearby forests, a recent local article, or an upcoming meeting. One sentence of local context can double your chance of publication.
Stay concise. Most outlets want 150–250 words. Aim for 180–200 unless the outlet says otherwise. One idea, one story, one clear ask.
Make a specific ask. Tell leaders and agencies exactly what you want (e.g., oppose delisting, oppose recent legislation, reject trophy hunts, invest in coexistence tools, follow best‑available science).
Write like you talk. Simple, direct sentences. Avoid jargon and acronyms. You don’t need citations in LTEs; if you reference data, attribute it in plain language (for example, “state biologists,” “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service”).
LOCALIZE IT
Answer two or three of these in a sentence or two each:
Where do you live and what public lands or waters connect you to bears?
What recent news, agency proposal, or local event prompted your letter (e.g., House markup of H.R. 281)?
How have you or your community used coexistence tools (bear‑resistant trash, electric fencing, hazing, carcass pickup)?
What is one concrete action you want leaders to take?
STRUCTURE
Hook (1–2 sentences). React to a recent story or open with a local fact or personal scene.
Core point (3–4 sentences). State your main argument and one supporting example.
Specific ask (1–2 sentences). Name who should act and what they should do—e.g., “Congress must reject H.R. 281/S. 316.”
Close (1 sentence). Reaffirm values and restate why this matters where you live.
Please edit this samples to reflect your own voice, and you can incorporate different talking points to help make your letter more unique.
LTE SAMPLE
To the Editor,
For more than fifty years, the Endangered Species Act has worked because it relies on science, protects the habitat species need to recover, and shields wildlife decisions from political interference. Several proposals now moving through Congress would weaken each of those foundations.
The Endangered Species Amendments Act (H.R. 1897), advanced by House Natural Resources Chair Bruce Westerman, would allow economic considerations to influence listing decisions, narrow the definition of critical habitat, and reduce the role of independent science in determining whether species qualify for protection. At the same time, bills introduced by Representative Harriet Hageman and Senator Cynthia Lummis would legislatively strip Endangered Species Act protections from grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone and Northern Continental Divide ecosystems while blocking courts from reviewing the decision.
Grizzly bears still occupy only a fraction of their historic range, and the remaining populations in the Northern Rockies remain largely isolated. Long-term recovery depends on maintaining secure habitat and reconnecting these populations across the region.
Congress should not be deciding the fate of endangered wildlife. The Endangered Species Act works because it is guided by science. Weakening that principle now risks undoing decades of recovery.
WHERE AND HOW TO SUBMIT
Most papers publish submission guidelines on a “Letters” page. Do a Google search of “Letters to the Editor + [newspaper name].” Read the rules and watch for word limit, exclusivity, and one‑letter‑per‑month policies.
Have this ready when you submit: full name, street address (not printed), phone number, email, and your word‑count‑friendly letter pasted into the form. If you email your LTE, put the text in the body and use a clear subject line.
Subject line ideas:
OPINION: Lawmakers Should Not Decide the Fate of Grizzly Bears
OPINION: Grizzly Bears Deserve Science-Based Protection
OPINION: Congress Should Not Override Science on Grizzly Bears