Idaho Senate proposes delisting grizzly bears to enhance local management

In a recent Senate Resources & Environment meeting held on March 5, 2025, significant discussions centered around the management of grizzly bear populations in Idaho and surrounding states. Senator Bertenshaw highlighted the growing number of grizzly bears, which have expanded their range and population since being listed as endangered in 1975. Current estimates suggest there are over 60,000 grizzlies in North America, with about 2,000 residing in Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming.

The senator raised concerns about the implications of a recent federal proposal that would redefine the grizzly bear's distinct population segment, potentially affecting vast areas across several states. This change could impact numerous cattle and sheep operations, raising questions about the federal government's role in managing wildlife and its effects on local ranchers.

Senator Bertenshaw advocated for the delisting of the grizzly bear, arguing that state authorities possess the necessary expertise and resources to manage the population effectively. He emphasized the need for local control over wildlife management, particularly in light of increasing bear encounters in the region.

The committee moved forward with House Joint Memorial 4, which supports the call for the federal government to reconsider its stance on grizzly bear management. The motion to send the memorial to the Senate floor passed without opposition, indicating a unified front among committee members on this issue.

Following the discussion on grizzly bears, Jim Fredericks, the director of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, provided an agency update that included topics such as chronic wasting disease and wolf populations, further emphasizing the ongoing challenges in wildlife management in Idaho.

As the state grapples with these wildlife management issues, the outcomes of this meeting could have lasting implications for local ranchers and the broader community, highlighting the delicate balance between conservation efforts and agricultural interests.