MISSOULA — After losing a recent lawsuit, a federal agency that moves or kills predators, mostly at the request of livestock producers, is initiating an in-depth environmental study of how its actions affect grizzly bears.
Two weeks ago, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services program announced it’s preparing to write an environmental impact statement to evaluate the effects of and consider some possible changes to its Grizzly Bear Damage Management activities in Montana. So Wildlife Services is asking for public input on the five alternatives it’s considering. The comment period runs until May 14.
The first is the “no-action” alternative, where Wildlife Services doesn’t change what it’s been doing for decades. That is, the program would continue to use traps, snares, aerial shooting, chemicals, toxicants, and other methods to capture and often kill a variety of predators at the behest of agricultural producers. In particular, it would remove grizzly bears that are reported to be a problem. Wildlife Services refers to this as the preferred alternative.
Not every grizzly bear removal is lethal. For example, in 2019, Wildlife Services killed one bear, moved one themselves and transferred 14 to Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. But translocating bears to somewhere else can detract from a struggling grizzly population, and Wildlife Services doesn’t track the outcome once a bear is handed over to FWP.
That’s partly what promptedthe 2023 lawsuit filed by WildEarth Guardians, along with Western Watersheds Project and Trap Free Montana. In addition, they protested that Wildlife Services has never done an environmental impact study of what it does to grizzly bears - instead, it’s published less thorough environmental assessments that recycled information from 1997.
For grizzly bear populations to endure, bears need to be able to move between populations to interbreed. But, migrating bears often have to travel through human-populated areas and are more likely to be branded as a problem. Removal of such bears hinders connectivity.
In its 2022 Grizzly Bear Species Status Assessment, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stated that connectivity between populations was necessary because “grizzly bears in the lower-48 States need genetic and ecological diversity in order to preserve variation and the ability to adapt to changing conditions.”
The remaining four proposed alternatives for the environmental impact statement would temper what Wildlife Services currently does. One alternative would allow Wildlife Services to assist in nonlethal removals, but for lethal removals, it could only give technical assistance. A second alternative would require Wildlife Services to always use nonlethal measures before using lethal removal. A third alternative would allow only nonlethal management except in the case of a direct threat to people. The last alternative would withdraw Wildlife Services from grizzly bear management altogether.
Some Montana ranchers would definitely oppose the last alternative and probably the other three. Andrew Bardwell, a rancher from Augusta, Montana, told National Public Radio in October that he depends on Wildlife Services, immediately calling his “government trapper” if he thinks a grizzly may have gone after one of his cows.
In recent years, the frequency of those calls have increased. Bardwell needs the agent to confirm a predator was responsible so he can get reimbursed by the Montana Livestock Loss Board, but he may also want to get rid of a particular bear that he considers to be a problem. Trapping a grizzly takes more skill and resources than some ranchers possess.
Patrick Kelly of Western Watersheds Project said the organizations involved in the lawsuit were still reviewing the five alternatives and couldn't yet say which they preferred.
"The litigation we brought focused largely on the fact that Wildlife Services essentially operated in a black box when it came to making these decisions," Kelly said. "Their previous Environmental Assessment offered little to no specific or accurate information regarding where grizzlies are killed, the sex of the bears killed, and why and how they are killed. This is crucial information that, along with using the best available science, needs to be included and meaningfully analyzed in the Environmental Impact Statement that Wildlife Services has begun."
After Wildlife Services compiles all the comments received by May 14, it will analyze the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the different alternatives, according to the April 15 announcement. The environmental impact statement will include the best available information on where, why, and how grizzly bears are lethally removed, including the sex of the bear; how lethally removing grizzly bears may adversely affect dispersal and connectivity between recovery zones; and the cumulative effects of lethally removing grizzly bears.
This is what Missoula federal district judge Dana Christensen ordered when he sided with the plaintiffs against Wildlife Services on Nov. 7. Christensen ruled that Wildlife Services violated the National Environmental Policy Act and had not adequately shown in its environmental assessments that killing problem grizzlies was justified. He gave the agency two years to thoroughly analyze how its predator removals affect federally protected grizzly bears, particularly those trying to move between recovery areas. He ordered the agency to complete a full environmental impact statement by Nov. 1, 2026.
“Because Wildlife Services disregarded a substantial body of scientific evidence and unconvincingly dismissed critical concerns about the effects and effectiveness of lethally removing grizzly bears and other apex predators, the [environmental assessment] is insufficient,” Christensen wrote in his Nov. 7 decision.
Any public comments submitted to Wildlife Services should address the proposed alternatives and provide additional biological information or potential effects on grizzlies, other species or human aspects.
To submit comments, go to www.regulations.gov and enter “APHIS-2025-0004” in the Search field. Select the Documents tab, and then select the Comment button in the list of documents. Or mail to Public Comments Processing; Attn: Docket No. APHIS-2025-0004; USDA, APHIS, Wildlife Services, P.O. Box 1938, Billings, MT 59103.
Contact Laura Lundquist at lundquist@missoulacurrent.com.
