A meaningful comment should reflect your personal experiences and perspectives, especially if you live or work in areas with grizzly bears. Address specific aspects of the proposed rule, such as the 4(d) exemptions and the boundaries of the revised Distinct Population Segment (DPS) map. Specific suggestions of how to revise language or noting specific terms or passages that are unclear to you as a livestock producer/landowner/etc. are especially helpful. 

1. The agency has not held any public meetings about the rule with the public. The agency needs to withdraw the rule or extend the deadline once the FSW has a confirmed director so that public meetings can take place.
2. States need additional resources and support to manage grizzly bears, as they are the primary agencies handling human-wildlife conflicts. The FWS should provide more direct funding to states through grants and support economic models—such as habitat leasing—to help offset the impacts of grizzly bears on private landowners.
3. If the proposed rule is implemented, FWS should allow ranchers and producers to manage grizzly bear conflicts—including through authorized take—within recovery areas and on public lands where recovery criteria have been met, rather than restricting such measures to private lands outside these areas. Producers grazing livestock on public land allotments in high-density grizzly areas face significant challenges and need greater support and management flexibility to ensure both their operations and bear conservation efforts remain viable. Expanding these tools within established recovery zones would better align management with on-the-ground realities.
4. More clarity is needed regarding compliance requirements for take. What would an investigation entail? What liability would a producer face? What additional resources will states receive to conduct these investigations?
5. The FWS should clearly define grizzly bear connectivity corridors and important habitat to ensure authorized agencies understand where take can occur without additional FWS approval.
6. We urge the agency to consider the unintended consequences of the DPS designation and provide further clarification on the proposed boundary map.

The FWS is publishing a rule about grizzly bears because of ongoing discussions about their management, increased human-bear conflicts, legal settlements, and court orders. Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, have petitioned for grizzly bears to be removed from Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections, arguing that populations in certain areas, like the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) and Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE), have recovered. Federal courts have repeatedly overturned attempts to delist grizzly bear populations, particularly in the GYE and the NCDE. Courts have cited concerns about genetic connectivity, long-term viability, and inadequate state management plans. The FWS has taken court orders and settlements into consideration in the proposed rule.

This is a summary prepared by WLA: The proposed rule is long, but deserves careful scrutiny if you live in an area with grizzly bears.

Refining the region of where bears are listed as threatened under the ESA:

Under the proposed rule, bears would no longer be listed as threatened across the entire lower 48 states. Instead, they would remain listed as threatened under the ESA in a newly designated boundary called a ‘Distinct Population Segment’ (or DPS)—that includes all of Washington and parts of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. The DPS establishes one discrete and distinct population of bears. The DPS is not a recovery zone, nor a recovery plan. No changes have been made to the 6 recovery zones within the DPS at this time. In essence, the agency has reduced the area where the bear is listed to where bears are likely to be or could be. A bear found outside the DPS would not be protected by the ESA.

Adding exemptions to the rules established under section 4(d) of the ESA:

Normally, the ESA prohibits the "take" (harming, harassing, killing, etc.) of listed species, but 4(d) rules can exempt certain activities from these restrictions. The proposed rule adds these exemptions:

1. Take by the service or authorized agency (state wildlife agency, tribe, or wildlife services) on public land grazing allotments outside recovery zones when depredation of livestock occurs or when grizzly bear poses a demonstrable and ongoing threat.
2. Take by producers, lessees, or designees when a bear is attacking livestock or dogs on private land operations outside recovery zones provided that:
   1. there was no intentional feeding or baiting of the grizzly bear or other wildlife;
   2. the carcass of any grizzly bear and the area surrounding area is not disturbed;
   3. take is reported within 24 hours; and
   4. livestock or working dog injured or killed by a grizzly bear.

3. Take by authorized agency or service on private lands outside the recovery zone when the bear poses an ongoing threat to human safety or to other property.
4. Take by authorized agency outside areas of important recovery or connectivity without prior authorization from the service.
5. Nonlethal deterrence of grizzly bears near homes or conflict areas (within 200 meters) to prevent human-bear conflicts, as long as it follows FWS-approved methods.
6. Incidental take of grizzly bears during authorized trapping of other species if traps are securely anchored and checked every 24 hours, but neck snares are prohibited and trapping must follow state/FWS-approved protocols. Intentional trapping of grizzlies remains prohibited. State wildlife agencies with agreements under the ESA can conduct grizzly-related research, habitat management, and conflict mitigation, including lethal removal if approved by FWS.

Conflict response is primarily conducted by state wildlife agencies in MT, ID, WA, & WY, tribes, and USDA Wildlife Services under the authority of FWS.

1. Grizzly bears may be taken in self-defense or in defense of others.
2. Nuisance bears may be removed, but only after attempts to live-capture and relocate them to remote areas have failed.