The US Fish and Wildlife Service released a proposed update to the Grizzly Bear 4(d) Rule, which would allow state wildlife agencies to control more management of grizzlies, including some freedom to remove conflict bears without FWS approval in some areas.
Grizzly Bears are not delisted, and USFWS is still the managing agency. To read the proposal, and submit comments, go to the Federal Register. The comment period ends August 17, 2026.
What FWS Is Asking For:
The agency is specifically requesting public input on:
– Economic impacts to producers
– Frequency and geography of regulated activities
– Whether prohibitions or exceptions should be added, removed, or clarified
Following is a basic rundown of how this proposal applies to livestock producers:
Grizzly Bear 4(d) Rule: What Livestock Producers Need to Know
Grizzly bears are expanding into more working landscapes. The proposed 4(d) rule outlines what producers, agencies, and communities can—and cannot—do when bears threaten livestock, property, or human safety.
Key Challenges for Producers
– Grizzly bears sometimes kill or injure livestock.
– Bears accessing livestock feed, carcasses, or attractants can become food‑conditioned.
– Chronic conflicts reduce tolerance and increase management removals.
The rule aims to reduce these conflicts while maintaining protections for the species.
Tools Producers & Agencies Can Use
1. Nonlethal Deterrence (Allowed)
Individuals may haze or deter bears near homes or human‑occupied areas as long as they do not cause lasting injury. Examples include:
– Bear spray
– Loud noises
– Visual deterrents
– Soft, non‑powder‑actuated projectiles
Deterrence must follow FWS hazing guidelines.
2. Relocation of Conflict Bears (Agency‑Only, With Authorization)
Authorized agencies may:
– Live‑capture and relocate bears
– Act preemptively if conflict appears imminent
– Break habituated behavior near ranch infrastructure
All relocations must be coordinated with FWS.
3. Lethal Control (Agency‑Only, With Authorization)
Agencies may lethally remove bears involved in conflict, but only:
– With prior FWS authorization
– After attractants are secured
– After deterrence or relocation is attempted when feasible
This is the primary tool for dealing with depredating bears.
4. Incidental Take During Regulated Trapping
In areas and seasons defined by FWS:
– Incidental take of grizzly bears during lawful trapping of other species may be excepted.
– Helps ensure predator control trapping can continue with fewer ESA complications.
Depredating Bears
The rule defines depredating bears as those that:
– Kill livestock
– Injure livestock
– Cause damage or loss to producers
Tiered Management System: More Flexibility Over Time
Tier 1
(Management plans + conservation strategies finalized; MOU with FWS complete) Agencies gain:
– Expanded incidental‑take exceptions for regulated trapping
– More flexibility responding to conflicts
Tier 2
(Tier 1 + population demographic objectives achieved)
Agencies gain:
– Broader management authority
– Orphaned cub rescue without prior authorization
– Deterrence governed by State/Tribal law
– Additional incidental‑take flexibility
For producers, Tier 2 means faster response times and more local control.
Bottom Line for Producers
This rule keeps strong protections for grizzly bears but provides practical tools to reduce livestock losses, including deterrence, relocation, and—when necessary—lethal control under agency authorization. It also sets up a system where States and Tribes can gain more authority as conservation benchmarks are met.
This proposal does not allow lethal take by private individuals, except in one very narrow circumstance: true self‑defense.
Everything else—any lethal removal for conflict, livestock depredation, property protection, or management—can only be done by authorized agencies and only with prior authorization from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
What private individuals cannot do:
The proposed rule does NOT allow private individuals to:
– Kill a grizzly bear to protect livestock
– Kill a grizzly bear to protect property
– Kill a grizzly bear to stop depredation
– Kill a grizzly bear because it is food‑conditioned
– Kill a grizzly bear during deterrence
– Kill a grizzly bear in any “management” situation
All of these actions remain prohibited take unless performed by an authorized agency with prior FWS authorization.
The rule is very explicit:
👉 Lethal control of a grizzly bear involved in conflict requires prior authorization from the Service and is limited to authorized agencies.
The ONLY lethal take allowed for private individuals:
Defense of human life (self‑defense)
|The proposal allows any person to kill a grizzly bear only if:
– The person is defending their own life, or
– Defending the life of another person
This is the same narrow exception that exists today.
The rule states:
👉 “Any person may take a grizzly bear in defense of their own life or the lives of others.”
Importantly:
Self‑defense does not include defense of livestock, pets, or property.
What agencies can do (but individuals cannot)
Authorized Federal, State, or Tribal agencies—not private individuals—may lethally remove a bear in conflict situations, but only:
– With prior authorization from FWS
– After attractants are secured
– After deterrence or relocation has been attempted when feasible
– Under reporting and monitoring requirements
Summary
Private individuals:
– ❌ Cannot lethally take a grizzly bear for livestock protection
– ❌ Cannot lethally take a bear during deterrence
– ❌ Cannot lethally take a bear for property protection
– ❌ Cannot lethally take a bear for conflict management
– ✔️ Can kill a bear only in true self‑defense (human life)
Agencies:
– ✔️ Can lethally remove conflict bears with prior FWS authorization
– ✔️ Gain more flexibility under Tier 1 and Tier 2
What the Proposed 4(d) Rule Says About Trapping Other Species
The document addresses trapping in one specific context:
👉 Incidental take of grizzly bears during regulated trapping of other species.
This is not about trapping grizzly bears.
It is about what happens if a grizzly bear is accidentally caught while someone is legally trapping another species (e.g., wolves, coyotes, bobcats, etc.).
Below is the full breakdown.
1. Incidental take from regulated trapping can be excepted — but only under strict conditions
The rule proposes an exception that allows incidental take only if ALL of the following are true:
A. The trapping occurs in specific geographic areas and time periods defined by the Service
These areas and seasons will be spelled out in a Technical Letter of Assistance (TLA).
The Service will choose these areas/times based on:
– Where grizzly bears are not known to occur
– When bears are likely to be denning
– Verified bear activity data
– Population impacts
This means the exception applies only where the risk of catching a bear is extremely low.
B. Trapping must comply with Federal, State, and Tribal laws
The exception applies only to trapping that is already legal under other jurisdictions.
C. Annual reporting is required
Agencies using this exception must submit a report to FWS by February 15 each year documenting any incidental take.
2. Without a TLA or MOU, incidental take during trapping is not excepted
If an agency does not have:
– a TLA from the Service, or
– an MOU documenting Tier 1 or Tier 2 exceptions
…then any incidental take of a grizzly bear during trapping remains prohibited.
This is a major point for producers and wildlife managers:
👉 Trapping alone does not protect you from ESA liability unless the Service has formally authorized the area and season.
3. Tier 1 and Tier 2 expand trapping flexibility
Tier 1
Once management plans + conservation strategies + an MOU are complete:
– Incidental take from regulated trapping is excepted in approved areas/seasons.
Tier 2
Once demographic objectives are met:
– Incidental take is excepted more broadly, as long as trapping follows Federal, State, and Tribal laws.
Tier 2 essentially removes the need for the Service to pre‑define areas/seasons in a TLA.
4. Why this matters for livestock producers
Many producers rely on trapping for predator control.
This rule acknowledges that reality and creates a pathway for trapping to continue without triggering ESA violations, but only when:
– Bears are unlikely to be present
– Agencies coordinate with FWS
– Reporting and monitoring occur
The Service explicitly states it expects incidental take under these conditions to be de minimis.
In short
The rule allows incidental take of grizzly bears during regulated trapping of other species only in carefully defined places and times, and only with proper authorization.
Tier 1 and Tier 2 expand that flexibility once conservation benchmarks are met.
How This Proposal Is Different From Current Practice
1. Today: The old 4(d) rule at 50 CFR 17.40(b) is still in effect
Right now, grizzly bears are managed under the existing species‑specific 4(d) rule written decades ago.
That rule:
– Has fewer exceptions
– Has no tiered management system
– Does not include modern deterrence guidance
– Does not include incidental take exceptions for regulated trapping
– Requires more frequent use of section 10 permits for actions involving take
The current system is more rigid, slower, and less tailored to today’s conflict realities.
2. The new proposal adds MANY new exceptions and flexibilities
The proposed rule introduces a whole suite of new exceptions that do not exist today.
These include:
A. Deterrence exception for individuals
Today: Deterrence is allowed only in very narrow circumstances.
Proposed: Any person may deter bears near homes/human‑occupied areas as long as no lasting injury occurs and hazing guidelines are followed.
This is a major expansion.
B. Management activities exception for agencies
Today: Agencies often need permits for relocation or conflict response.
Proposed: Agencies can relocate bears, break habituation cycles, and—when authorized—lethally remove conflict bears without needing a separate permit each time.
C. Incidental take during regulated trapping
Today: No exception exists.
Any incidental capture of a grizzly bear during trapping of other species is a prohibited take.
Proposed: Incidental take can be excepted in defined areas/seasons (Tier 1) or more broadly (Tier 2).
D. Nonlethal research/management of other species
Today: Agencies often need permits.
Proposed: Incidental take during nonlethal research or management of other species is excepted if covered by a TLA or MOU.
E. Orphaned cub rescue
Today: Always requires prior authorization.
Proposed: Under Tier 2, agencies can rescue orphaned cubs without prior authorization.
3. The proposal creates a new Tier 1 / Tier 2 system
This is one of the biggest changes.
Today:
There is no tier system.
All agencies operate under the same restrictions regardless of population status or management capacity.
Proposed:
Two tiers unlock additional flexibility:
Tier 1
Activated when:
– Management plans + conservation strategies are finalized
– An MOU with FWS is completed
Provides:
– Expanded incidental take exceptions for regulated trapping
– More flexibility for conflict response
Tier 2
Activated when:
– Tier 1 conditions are met
– Population demographic objectives are achieved
Provides:
– Broader management authority
– Deterrence governed by State/Tribal law
– Orphaned cub rescue without prior authorization
– More incidental take flexibility
This is a major structural change that does not exist today.
4. The proposal modernizes deterrence rules
Today:
Deterrence is limited, inconsistently defined, and often requires agency involvement.
Proposed:
Deterrence is clearly defined and allowed for individuals using:
– Bear spray
– Loud noises
– Visual deterrents
– Soft projectiles
– Other nonlethal hazing tools
This is a significant expansion of what people can legally do without a permit. (Keep in mind the service has allowed this for years, it was just never officially written into the 4(d) rule.)
5. The proposal clarifies and expands agency authority
Today:
Agencies often need case‑by‑case authorization or permits for:
– Relocation
– Preemptive conflict prevention
– Lethal removal
– Nonlethal research involving other species
Proposed:
Agencies can:
– Relocate bears preemptively
– Break habituation cycles
– Use contracted services for deterrence
– Lethally remove conflict bears with prior authorization
– Operate under TLAs and MOUs instead of repeated permits
This streamlines management dramatically.
6. The proposal adds new reporting and monitoring requirements
Today:
Reporting is less standardized.
Proposed:
Annual reports (due Feb 15) are required for:
– Management activities
– Incidental take during trapping
– Tier‑based exceptions
This creates a more structured oversight system.
7. The proposal explicitly acknowledges livestock conflicts
Today:
Livestock depredation is recognized but not deeply integrated into regulatory structure.
Proposed:
The rule directly states that:
– Depredating bears affect ranchers’ livelihoods
– Deterrence, relocation, and timely removal reduce livestock losses
– These tools are essential for public tolerance and conservation
This is a more explicit and producer‑focused framing than the current rule.
8. The proposal expands what is excepted vs. what requires a permit
Today:
Many actions require section 10 permits.
Proposed:
More actions are excepted under the 4(d) rule itself, reducing permit burden.
In short: What’s different?
Today:
Management is slower, more rigid, more permit‑heavy, and less flexible.
Proposed:
The new rule:
– Adds many new exceptions
– Expands deterrence
– Allows incidental take during trapping
– Creates Tier 1 and Tier 2 flexibility
– Streamlines agency authority
– Reduces permit requirements
– Explicitly supports livestock conflict response
– Modernizes tools for coexistence
It is a major overhaul of how grizzly bears are managed in the lower 48.
Rocky Mountain Front Ranchlands Group 