119-HR-281 Data-Driven Journalist Impact Analysis

Summary

What the bill does: directs the Secretary of the Interior to reissue the June 30, 2017 final rule delisting the GYE grizzly bear and specifies that the reissued rule (and Section 2) is not subject to judicial review. Practically, this would return primary management to Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho under the 2016 Conservation Strategy and subsequent tri‑state MOA updates. [1]Library of Congress — H. Rept. 119-328 - GRIZZLY BEAR STATE MANAGEMENT ACT | Co…[6]U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service — FWS – 2017 Delisting press release (Yellowstone…[7]Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee — IGBC – 2016 Conservation Strategy for the…[3]Idaho Fish and Game — Idaho Fish & Game – Updated tri-state MOA on GYE grizzly…

• Population context: GYE grizzlies are one of two robust lower‑48 populations; 2021 estimates placed GYE at ~727 bears (methodology subsequently recalibrated upward in state materials), with continued range expansion and predominantly human‑caused mortality. [8]Congressional Research Service — CRS Report R48116 (June 28, 2024): Grizzly Bea…[4]U.S. Geological Survey — USGS – Occupied Range of the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear…[9]U.S. Geological Survey — USGS – Documented GYE grizzly mortalities 2015–2024 (v…
• Policy context: The 2017 delisting was vacated and remanded; appeals in 2020 upheld key deficiencies (genetics/connectivity, recalibration commitment). H.R. 281 would bypass further review by statute. [2]Justia — Crow Indian Tribe v. United States (9th Cir. 2020) – opinion summary[10]U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service — FWS – Yellowstone grizzly listing reinstated by…
• Bottom line: Short‑run effects are administrative (management hand‑off, state rules in force); long‑run outcomes hinge on adherence to mortality thresholds, genetic connectivity commitments, and conflict trends. The no‑review clause increases governance risk by limiting recourse if implementation falters. [3]Idaho Fish and Game — Idaho Fish & Game – Updated tri-state MOA on GYE grizzly…

Economic Effects

Key channels likely to be affected if delisting proceeds.

• Tourism: Yellowstone tourism is a major regional driver (≈$828M local economic benefit in 2023; methodology: IMPLAN input‑output using NPS VSE). No strong evidence that delisting itself materially changes visitation in the short term, but publicized hunts near park boundaries can shift visitor sentiment at the margin. [11]National Park Service — NPS – Tourism to Yellowstone contributes $828M to local…
• State revenues/costs: If states authorize limited hunts when thresholds permit, fee revenue is possible but small versus tourism (e.g., WY statute sets grizzly license fees at $600 resident/$6,000 nonresident; 2018 plans envisioned up to 22 tags). Implementation and enforcement, monitoring, and conflict response continue to impose agency costs. [12]Justia (Wyoming Statutes) — Wyoming statute §23‑2‑101 – license fees (incl. gri…[13]Wyoming Game & Fish Department — Wyoming Game & Fish – Governor approved rules…
• Livestock depredation/compensation: Depredation losses and compensation outlays are concentrated in specific counties and vary annually; Montana and Wyoming operate programs that reimburse confirmed grizzly losses (payments depend on verified cause and multipliers). Delisting would not eliminate compensation needs; it may enable faster management removals in conflict hot spots. [14]State of Montana — Montana Livestock Loss Board – program overview/reimbursemen…[15]Wyoming Game & Fish Department — Wyoming Game & Fish – Grizzly bears in Wyoming…
• Risk to gateway economies: Isolated, high‑profile mortality of well‑known bears (e.g., collisions or legal take near park borders) can trigger reputational effects for wildlife‑watching businesses; the magnitude is uncertain relative to the overall visitor economy. [16]News result · turn 5 #12

Social Effects

Stakeholder impacts and distributional considerations.

• Tribal interests: Many Tribal Nations have opposed delisting and trophy hunts, citing cultural and spiritual significance and deficiencies in consultation; others have noted more diverse views. Expect continued objections under a no‑review statutory delisting. [17]The Wildlife Society — The Wildlife Society – Native American tribes oppose Yel…[18]The Washington Post — Washington Post – Yellowstone grizzly delisting coverage…[19]Web search · turn 7 #7
• Ranching communities: Potential benefit from more flexible, state‑led conflict response (relocations, removals) and, outside recovery zones under other federal actions, limited take during active depredations; however, conflict incidence is path‑dependent on local husbandry practices and bear distribution. [20]News result · turn 2 #12
• General public and recreationists: Human safety risk remains low on a per‑visit basis in and near parks, with most incidents arising from surprise encounters off‑road; delisting does not materially change best‑practice safety protocols (e.g., bear spray). [21]National Parks Traveler — National Parks Traveler – Odds of grizzly attack in Y…

Environmental Effects

Population, habitat, and ecosystem considerations tied to a delisting reissue.

• Population status and trend: The GYE population has expanded its occupied range (2008–2022) and stabilized at levels that agencies deemed biologically recovered, but annual mortality varies and is mostly human‑caused. State frameworks cap mortality via sex‑ and age‑specific limits. [4]U.S. Geological Survey — USGS – Occupied Range of the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear…[6]U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service — FWS – 2017 Delisting press release (Yellowstone…[9]U.S. Geological Survey — USGS – Documented GYE grizzly mortalities 2015–2024 (v…[3]Idaho Fish and Game — Idaho Fish & Game – Updated tri-state MOA on GYE grizzly…
• Genetic connectivity: Courts flagged FWS’s treatment of long‑term genetic health and connectivity between the GYE and other populations; the updated tri‑state MOA commits to periodic assessment and, absent natural migrants, translocation of ≥2 bears into the GYE to maintain diversity. Execution quality will determine outcomes. [2]Justia — Crow Indian Tribe v. United States (9th Cir. 2020) – opinion summary[3]Idaho Fish and Game — Idaho Fish & Game – Updated tri-state MOA on GYE grizzly…
• Key ecological drivers: Decline of whitebark pine has altered seasonal foraging; IGBST synthesis indicates bears adapted via diet shifts, coincident with slowed growth rates in the 2000s—implicating sensitivity to adult female mortality. Management choices post‑delisting must account for these constraints. [5]U.S. Geological Survey — USGS/IGBST – Grizzly Bear Food Synthesis (whitebark pi…
• Edge effects: If states authorize limited hunting, mortality may concentrate along park peripheries where human‑bear overlap is high, potentially removing habituated bears; conservation strategies exclude national parks from discretionary mortality. [3]Idaho Fish and Game — Idaho Fish & Game – Updated tri-state MOA on GYE grizzly…

Temporal Analysis

Unintended Consequences and Risks

Risks documented in the record or foreseeable from analogous cases.

• Policy reversal risk: Statutory delistings can be durable, but subsequent Congresses or agencies could pursue new actions if monitoring reveals declines, creating planning uncertainty for states and stakeholders. [8]Congressional Research Service — CRS Report R48116 (June 28, 2024): Grizzly Bea…
• Spatial externalities: Mortality concentrated near park boundaries could erode non‑consumptive wildlife values (photography/wildlife watching) while providing limited systemic conflict relief if conflicts are driven by specific allotments or attractants. Evidence base is mixed and context‑specific. [13]Wyoming Game & Fish Department — Wyoming Game & Fish – Governor approved rules…
• Equity and sovereignty: Tribes have cited inadequate consultation in past delisting efforts; repeating that pattern could exacerbate trust deficits and lead to political—not judicial—contestation. [17]The Wildlife Society — The Wildlife Society – Native American tribes oppose Yel…

Assessment (Analytical)

On balance, the expected impact of H.R. 281 is neutral in aggregate but risk‑bearing on governance and long‑term conservation. In the short run, states can manage a stabilized, range‑expanded population under mortality limits and a genetics plan, with potential localized benefits for conflict response and modest licensing revenue. In the long run, outcomes depend on disciplined adherence to mortality thresholds, delivery on connectivity commitments, and transparent reporting—conditions that judicial review would ordinarily help enforce but that this bill forecloses. [3]Idaho Fish and Game — Idaho Fish & Game – Updated tri-state MOA on GYE grizzly…[1]Library of Congress — H. Rept. 119-328 - GRIZZLY BEAR STATE MANAGEMENT ACT | Co…

Sourcing (selected)

Key sources underlying this assessment.

• Bill text and committee report: Congress.gov, H. Rept. 119‑328 (H.R. 281). [1]Library of Congress — H. Rept. 119-328 - GRIZZLY BEAR STATE MANAGEMENT ACT | Co…
• 2017/2018 FWS actions and review; 2019 relisting notice: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service press and Federal Register pages. [6]U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service — FWS – 2017 Delisting press release (Yellowstone…[23]Web search · turn 11 #4[10]U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service — FWS – Yellowstone grizzly listing reinstated by…
• Litigation: Crow Indian Tribe v. United States (9th Cir. 2020). [2]Justia — Crow Indian Tribe v. United States (9th Cir. 2020) – opinion summary
• Population, range, mortality: USGS IGBST (range and mortality dataset). [4]U.S. Geological Survey — USGS – Occupied Range of the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear…[9]U.S. Geological Survey — USGS – Documented GYE grizzly mortalities 2015–2024 (v…
• Tri‑state MOA and rules: Idaho Fish & Game (2021 MOA update); Wyoming regulations. [3]Idaho Fish and Game — Idaho Fish & Game – Updated tri-state MOA on GYE grizzly…[24]Web search · turn 9 #1
• Whitebark pine/diet synthesis: USGS IGBST Food Synthesis Report. [5]U.S. Geological Survey — USGS/IGBST – Grizzly Bear Food Synthesis (whitebark pi…
• Economic context: NPS Visitor Spending Effects (Yellowstone local and national). [11]National Park Service — NPS – Tourism to Yellowstone contributes $828M to local…[25]National Park Service — NPS – National Park Visitor Spending (2024 report; $56.…
• Hunting context and fees: WY 2018 hunt approvals and statutory fee schedule. [13]Wyoming Game & Fish Department — Wyoming Game & Fish – Governor approved rules…[12]Justia (Wyoming Statutes) — Wyoming statute §23‑2‑101 – license fees (incl. gri…
• Tribal perspectives: Tribal treaty reporting and national coverage. [17]The Wildlife Society — The Wildlife Society – Native American tribes oppose Yel…[18]The Washington Post — Washington Post – Yellowstone grizzly delisting coverage…