Eggs are pricey again. What’s the government doing about it?

And four other burning bird flu questions, answered.

by Jess Craig

Jan 26, 2025, 3:00 AM PST

US-ECONOMY-FOOD-RETAIL-EGGS

Egg shortage signage is displayed on partially empty shelves at a Sprouts Farmer’s Market grocery store in Lawndale, California, on January 2, 2025.Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images

Jess Craig

Jess Craig is a Future Perfect fellow covering global public health, science, and environment. Previously, she worked as an infectious diseases epidemiologist and global health security adviser supporting various US government agencies, multilateral organizations, and private research institutes.

Bird flu is surging in the US again and has, once again, sent egg prices skyrocketing. Nearly 13 million birds have been infected or culled in the past month alone, contributing to shortages. A carton of eggs today costs more than $4 on average, up from about $2.50 a year ago.

Prices aren’t the only thing making headlines — the virus has recently taken a human life, too. After nearly three years of warnings from leading public health and animal agriculture experts that bird flu was becoming a threat to human beings, Louisiana health officials reported earlier this month that an individual died from the virus, the first reported human death in the US from bird flu.

This particular strain of bird flu, H5N1, has been circulating in the US and infecting poultry since February 2022. So far, millions of birds have been infected or were culled to prevent further spread. But, as Vox reported previously, the concern has always been that this strain could jump from birds, then to another animal, and then to humans, and evolve along the way into something much deadlier to humans.

Future Perfect

Explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week.Email (required)Sign Up

Last March, the virus made its way to US dairy cows. About a month later, Americans began getting infected in greater numbers — the majority of those infected, health officials say, were exposed to commercial cattle or poultry farms. Today, nearly 1,000 cattle herds across 16 states have been affected, according to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA).

The deceased Louisiana patient, however, was infected by backyard poultry wild birds. The individual was older than 65 years old and had underlying medical conditions, which likely increased their risk for severe disease and death, as it does for conventional flu.

This case brings the total number of documented human infections in the US to 67. Human infections have been reported in 10 states so far, but most cases have occurred in California, where the governor declared a state of emergency in December.


Featured Videos From Vox

Why everything you buy is worse now

Skip Ad

From clothes to tech, why is everything so poorly made?


As much as the death set off alarm bells, the risk to most people in the US from bird flu remains very low. Humans aren’t catching bird flu from one another right now. That could always change, though. The H5N1 virus could mutate in some way that makes it easily transmissible between humans. This is how a flu pandemic would begin.

And as long as that possibility remains, it’s easy to feel as though not enough is being done to prevent the possibility of another terrible pandemic, especially when influencers are touting raw milk as a potential, natural “medicine” for various ailments (it’s not) or when official government responses feel unclear or insufficient. (There is some truth to that.)

From egg prices and vaccines to pandemic potential and disease monitoring, here are five answers about the ongoing response to bird flu.

Related

How is the government responding to bird flu — and is it doing enough?

Bird flu mostly spreads among wild and domestic birds, but the virus sometimes does spill over and infect other animals. In the past three years, bird flu has infected cows, seals, bears, dogs, cats, and a number of other mammals.

As with any major disease, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are working alongside state agencies to track cases in humans. But because most people eat animals for food, there are two other key players involved: the USDA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The USDA leads federal efforts to monitor and contain bird flu among farm animals, live bird markets, backyard flocks, and wild animals. The agency develops biosafety and biosecurity standards to prevent the spread of bird flu, and then assists state agencies and commercial farmers to implement those measures. In addition, the agency runs a bird flu surveillance program that involves trapping wild birds, collecting samples from them, and testing them for H5N1 and other pathogens. Wild birds are a reservoir for bird flu, meaning that the virus is normally spread among them and from there spills over to infect domestic birds and other mammals.

Farmers and poultry or cow owners who suspect their flock or herd is infected with bird flu can report the cases to the USDA and to state animal health officials or to their veterinarian, who can then report the cases up the chain. The USDA has a network of laboratories that tests samples from flocks and herds across the country for H5N1 and other pathogens.

But while this might seem like the USDA has broad reach to closely monitor poultry and cattle across the country, it is, in reality, a deeply faulty system. A lot of farmers don’t report illnesses to their veterinarian or state health officials, citing distrust in the government or because they think the epidemic is a hoax. Other farmers do not allow veterinarians to test their flocks or herds for the virus.

If bird flu is detected on a farm or in a live bird market, the USDA mobilizes funding and personnel to those areas to cull — in particularly gruesome ways, such as spraying birds with a water-based foam to suffocate them or closing barn vents and causing birds to die of heat stroke — and dispose of infected animals to prevent further spread. Cows are spared this horrific end because they don’t get so severely sick from bird flu and are too expensive to kill en masse.

Signage for the Department of Agriculture seen outside the Jamie L Whitten Federal Building

J. David Ake/Getty Images

While the USDA works closely with the agricultural sector, the FDA is more consumer-facing, ensuring food products are safe. The FDA monitors egg-laying chickens and those slaughtered for meat for signs of infection. Commercial eggs are tested for H5N1 before they are transported to grocery stores and animals are inspected before and after slaughter for any signs of disease. (We’ll get to how effective this process is in the next section.)

Since the beginning of the outbreak, the FDA has also led a number of studies to test dairy products for H5N1 and to determine how to make contaminated dairy products safe for consumption. The administration also funds academic researchers to test methods for killing the virus in dairy products and even to experiment with gene-edited chickens that are immune to H5N1.

The CDC, meanwhile, monitors H5N1 infections among humans, tracks people who were exposed to infected animals, and investigates each reported case to determine how the person was infected and if any close contacts of the infected person may also be at risk of contracting bird flu.

State health departments are required to report cases to the CDC; doctors and physicians are, in turn, mandated to report H5N1 cases to state health departments. The CDC also gathers and analyzes data from emergency departments around the US to understand if there might be an uptick in H5N1 cases. But, as we have seen with Covid and Mpox, this system does not always function perfectly, or at times even well, because of reporting lags and a lack of infrastructure or human resources. The CDC also runs a wastewater surveillance system and regularly tests wastewater samples from hundreds of collection sites for H5N1.

Although the FDA, USDA, and CDC might seem to have all the legislation, policies, monitoring, and surveillance programs in place, federal government agencies seem to have resigned themselves to largely sitting back and watching this epidemic unfold. Veterinarians and public health experts have criticized the USDA for prioritizing industry profits and exports instead of rolling out a vaccination program that may have prevented bird flu from spilling over into cows or humans in the first place. The USDA has also failed to take obvious measures such as shutting down cross-state transportation of cattle, which has led to hundreds of infected herds in multiple states.

Other efforts — such as the USDA’s national milk testing program — have been too little, too late and still do not require mandatory participation from every US state where bird flu has been reported. And while most of the failure to contain bird flu lies with the FDA and USDA, the CDC has not pushed to expedite research and development for a bird flu vaccine in humans, which might be needed if the disease becomes more widespread and more severe in people, especially farm workers in close contact with infected animals.

It’s currently unclear what new policies the Trump administration might usher in to combat bird flu in humans or animals. President Donald Trump has vowed to cut federal funding which may impact how the various federal agencies operate. Concerningly, on Tuesday, the Trump administration ordered staff at agencies including the CDC and FDA to pause external communications, including social media and web posts, to the public.

When will egg prices go down?

The USDA forecasts that egg prices will continue to rise through the first few months of 2025 before dropping to about half the peak price, according to the agency’s January forecasts. However, new or expanding outbreaks in the US could disrupt this.

Can you contract bird flu from contaminated eggs, milk, and other meat and dairy products?

In short, it’s very unlikely that the average American will contract bird flu from consuming milk, eggs, cheese, meat, or other animal products. Although the FDA found last year that about 20 percent of milk, cheese, and other dairy products contained genetic material from the bird flu virus, researchers at the agency also confirmed that pasteurization — the process of briefly heating milk — kills the virus. Fortunately, 99 percent of the country’s milk supply comes from farms that participate in the agency’s milk safety program which mandates that milk is pasteurized. This means that buying milk or cheese from a grocery store in the US is a safe bet. To be sure, check the label to make sure it contains the word “pasteurized.”

What might be riskier is buying milk from noncommercial farms, like a vendor at your local farmers market or your neighbor down the street who sells milk or cheese out of their house. If that vendor or neighbor pasteurizes their milk, then you’re probably good to go.

Bottles of 100% raw milk

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

There is also a growing trend of consuming raw milk, or milk that has not been pasteurized. Some social media influencers claim that raw milk is healthier than pasteurized milk. A handful of scientific studies have even reported a link between consuming “farm” milk, which sometimes includes raw milk, with a lower risk of developing allergies and asthma. The FDA has, however, debunked many of the health claims associated with raw milk and further warns that drinking raw milk may expose people to H5N1 and a host of other disease-causing pathogens. (Between 1998 and 2018, consuming raw milk caused more than 2,600 illnesses, more than 200 of which required hospitalization.)

So, your best bet is to avoid drinking raw milk and stick to the pasteurized stuff.

Eggs and chicken are also safe to consume. Avian influenza causes such severe disease in chickens and other egg-producing poultry that infected animals are most likely too sick to even produce eggs. But even if sick chickens were producing eggs or were slaughtered for their meat, all commercial poultry flocks in the US are monitored for signs of infection. All eggs are tested for H5N1 before they are transported to grocery stores and animals are inspected before and after slaughter for any signs of disease.

But such inspections aren’t 100 percent foolproof. While the FDA also requires eggs to be tested for other pathogens such as salmonella before they leave the farm, outbreaks of those diseases still occur from time to time. (A salmonella outbreak in 2024, for instance, spanned 12 states and landed 34 people in the hospital.) This may be, in part, because not every single egg is tested for salmonella. Egg producers are required only to test a representative sample of eggs from each batch. Eggs can also be contaminated during packing or transportation from the farm to the grocery store.

The good news is that cooking eggs and meat to recommended temperatures and using proper precautions when handling eggs or meat (like washing your hands after handling them) would also kill the bird flu virus.

What’s the deal with bird flu vaccines?

Currently, there are no bird flu vaccines available for humans or poultry or cows. The CDC has developed a few vaccine candidates for humans that the agency says could be used to develop a vaccine. Additional data regarding the vaccine’s effectiveness has not been released. According to the CDC, the annual flu shot offers no protection against bird flu, but it is unclear if or how the agency actually tested this.

While it is critical for the US government to continue funding vaccine research and development in case a deadlier pandemic emerges, the CDC says there is not an immediate need for widespread vaccination efforts. There have been fewer than 100 documented human infections in the US in the past year. This is likely an undercount given that farm workers are most likely to be infected and may be less likely to seek medical treatment. But more importantly, health officials have documented only three severe bird flu cases, and only one case resulted in death. Globally, there have been nearly 1,000 H5N1 infections among humans between 2003 and 2024, and about half of those people died.

Any threat from the virus now has to be weighed against potential side effects of vaccines, such as Guillain-Barré Syndrome, a condition triggered by an infection that causes the immune system to attack nerves. Given that the current H5N1 strain is causing mostly mild disease, then, at least as of right now, most people would not need to get vaccinated against bird flu even if a vaccine was available.

However, this could change rapidly. Any day, the H5N1 virus might mutate to spread from person to person or to cause more severe illness, in which case vaccination might become an important tool.

Another approach for vaccination might be to only vaccinate farm workers and other populations who are exposed to infected birds or cattle, and therefore at a higher risk of developing bird flu. Last year, Finland adopted this approach and started offering bird flu vaccines to farm workers.

Perhaps the better question to ask here is why we aren’t vaccinating birds or cows against bird flu. I posed that question to infectious disease experts and an economist at the Food and Agriculture Organization last May. I learned that, in short, vaccinating poultry against bird flu would impact trade and would require US trade agreements with foreign countries to be rewritten. The veterinarians I interviewed were particularly frustrated with this reasoning.

“I’m a poultry veterinarian, and as a veterinarian, I don’t like the idea that you tell me to go fight the biggest fight of my career and you say, here’s your gun; first, let’s unload it. Now, go,” Carol Cardona, a professor at the University of Minnesota’s College of Veterinary Medicine, told me last year.

Last week, the USDA said it was beginning to stockpile bird flu vaccines for use in poultry but still hasn’t pushed for actual vaccination efforts. The USDA has a history of this. During the 2014–2015 bird flu outbreak, the US government stockpiled almost 5 million doses of a vaccine for poultry but never used them. But because bird flu, like the seasonal flu, is a rapidly mutating virus, those vaccines are now useless.

Will bird flu cause the next pandemic?

In the US, bird flu has been circulating among birds for nearly three years now and has been sporadically spreading from birds to humans for about a year. It hasn’t caused a widespread pandemic among humans yet. That might indicate that the potential for a future pandemic is low, but, in truth, scientists and public health officials really aren’t great at predicting or even understanding why certain viruses suddenly escalate into uncontrollable worldwide outbreaks.

The key ingredient this epidemic needs to become a widespread pandemic among people is human-to-human transmission. So far, there have been no documented instances of this. For this reason, the CDC says that bird flu presents a low risk to the general public. Farm workers, hunters, and other people who come into contact with wild birds, poultry, and cows are at a higher risk of contracting H5N1.

However, while the risk to most people might be low now, the longer the epidemic in poultry continues and the more opportunities the virus has to adapt to spread amongst humans, the more likely the risk for a pandemic becomes.

Americans grapple with egg shortage as bird flu devastates flocks

By 

Christine Rousselle, Fox News

Published Jan. 24, 2025, 2:23 p.m. ET20 Comments

Bird flu outbreak affecting egg prices

00:00

/

00:35

Originally Published by:

Fox News

Americans around the United States are heading to grocery stores and noticing that many egg shelves are nearly empty or empty, period. 

“You can’t get eggs anywhere, I mean anywhere,” Fox News host Jesse Watters said on “Jesse Watters Primetime” on Wednesday evening, Jan. 22. “I can only get the bad ones that just are not yellow and aren’t fluffy.” 

In New Jersey, said Watters, “you just can’t get the good, pasture-raised, nice, organic eggs.” 

“So Donald Trump, before you settle the drone issue, we need eggs,” said Watters. “And we need them fast.” 

00:01

03:58

Eggs are indeed in short supply and Watters’ favorite pasture-raised eggs are even harder to find. 

“The national egg supply has been strained due to Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza — also known as HPAI or bird flu — which is devastating to egg farmers,” Emily Metz, president and CEO of the Chicago-based American Egg Board, said in a statement provided to Fox News Digital.

A sign in the egg section of a Miami grocery store indicating limited availability due to egg shortage
Bird flu is contributing to the egg shortage in the United States.Getty Images

The nonprofit organization provides resources for “national category-level egg marketing,” according to its website. 

The U.S. alone lost more than 40 million laying hens to bird flu in 2024, said Metz.  

While the entire country is experiencing egg shortages to some degree, Metz said it is worse in states with laws requiring that grocery store eggs be “cage-free.”

The states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon and Washington all have this legislation, according to CageFreeLaws.com, which tracks cage-free legislation by state.

“Supply disruptions may be more pronounced [among] retailers and in states that exclusively sell cage-free eggs due to impacts from HPAI on cage-free farms, which were disproportionately affected late last year,” Metz told Fox News Digital. 

Empty shelves in the egg section of a grocery store
“So Donald Trump, before you settle the drone issue, we need eggs,” said Fox News host Jesse Watters. “And we need them fast.” Getty Images

About 40% of laying hens in the U.S. are “cage-free,” she said. 

Of birds lost to bird flu, more than half of these birds are cage-free, Metz added. “It’s important to know that bird flu does not discriminate based on farm size or housing environment. The disease is carried by wild birds,” she said. 

Once a laying hen tests positive for bird flu, the entire flock is culled to prevent spread, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).  

“When an egg farm is impacted with HPAI, it must go through multiple steps with government approvals before it can repopulate new flocks, a necessary process that can take six months to a year,” further adding to the supply issues, Metz said. 

Empty egg shelves in a grocery store due to nationwide egg shortages
According to Emily Metz, president and CEO of the Chicago-based American Egg Board, the U.S. alone lost more than 40 million laying hens to bird flu in 2024.Getty Images

Egg production, she said, is “both complex and time sensitive,” she said. 

“What we know right now is that our system is strained — and HPAI remains a clear and present risk to poultry flocks,” Metz said. 

“The volume of eggs sold at retail has been up year-over-year for 22 consecutive months, and we’re just coming out of the highest demand season of the year — the winter holidays — when egg sales increase significantly due to holiday baking and entertaining,” Metz said.

Also impacting the U.S. egg supply is increased demand. 

Despite these challenges, Metz said there is reason to be hopeful for the future.

“The good news is that egg farmers have a lot of experience working together to move eggs across the country to where they’re needed most — and that’s exactly what they’re doing now,” she said. 20

What do you think? Post a comment.

“Keeping their birds safe and healthy is every egg farmer’s top priority, and they are working around the clock to protect their birds, replenish supply and keep those eggs coming.”

Fox News Digital reached out to Costco for comment, where customers have noticed recent egg shortages. Many local grocery stores across the country also have seen supplies shrink and prices rise. 

Not Out of the Woods: Grizzly Bears Stay on Endangered List but Trouble Looms

Environment

Srividya Maganti 01/21/25

The grizzly bear will continue to be protected under the Endangered Species Act, but the recovery of the species still remains at risk.

Listen To This Story

When the Biden administration announced earlier this month that grizzly bears would continue to be protected under the Endangered Species Act, it seemed like a resounding victory for conservationists. But the fine print tells a much more nuanced story.

Instead of continuing blanket protection to a species that is slowly recovering from being pushed to the brink of extinction, the new rules only protect grizzlies in the Northern Rockies and Washington, and also create more exemptions for the bears to be legally killed.

And, with the incoming Trump administration likely to favor ranchers who want to see the species delisted, the future of the grizzly hangs in the balance. Advocates like Thomas Mangelsen will have to keep on fighting to protect the species at a time when human-bear interactions are on the rise. 

Mangelsen, a prominent wildlife photographer, has perhaps the most intimate insight into the lives of grizzly bears out of anyone in the world. He’s spent nearly two decades of his life documenting, photographing, and filming these bears, including one of the most famous: Grizzly 399, a female frequently seen roaming roadside areas — often with her cubs — in the Greater Yellowstone area.

Before the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) released its updated plan on the listing and management of the grizzly bear under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Mangelsen talked to WhoWhatWhy about what makes these creatures, the largest bears in the contiguous United States, so special. 

The photographer-turned-activist reminisced on the moments in which he has witnessed the tenderness of Grizzly 399’s motherhood and the challenges the species faces to survive in today’s complicated world.

“She only had one cub about 10 years ago called Snowy. It got run over by a car at dusk,” Mangelsen recalled. “Then she went out to the highway, picked up the little carcass, took it into the woods, laid it down, and ran up and down the highway like a crazed person: moaning, groaning, slobbering, standing, and looking like his death didn’t quite register.” 

In October, at 28 years old and with at least one yearling cub called Spirit — whom Mangelsen named — Grizzly 399 was also killed in a vehicle collision. Their deaths highlight the challenges at the intersection between human development and the natural world.

* * *

Grizzly bears were added to the endangered species list in 1975 when, as a result of aggressive hunting and habitat loss, their population had dwindled from their peak pre-1800 numbers of around 50,000 to 136. 

Since then, environmental groups thwarted two attempts of the USFWS to delist the grizzly. Both times, in 2007 and 2017, activists challenged the decisions, and, citing an inadequate recovery of the species, federal courts sided with them.

It is worth noting that a Republican was in the White House each time USFWS tried to delist the bears. And though the Biden administration kept the species protected under the ESA, the specifics of the decision elicited a mixed reaction among conservationists. 

The January 8 proposal for managing grizzlies under the ESA combines the formerly separated recovery zones in the Northern Rockies into a single “distinct population segment.” Importantly, only grizzly bears within this area would be protected by the ESA, a change of course from the 1975 rule, which has since protected grizzlies in all the lower 48 states.

lower 48, grizzly bear, DPS boundary, current recovery zones
Proposed boundary within which grizzly bears would be protected by the ESA, overlaid with current recovery zones.
Photo credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Further, the plan grants management agencies and landowners “greater flexibility and tools” to kill grizzly bears for research and conflict management.

USFWS had revisited the issue after Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho requested the bears to be delisted. In each of these states, human-grizzly conflicts are on the rise and ranchers, who have lost livestock to grizzlies, are a powerful interest group. Proponents of delisting the bears also argue that the species has achieved a recovery, with its population in the contiguous US having reached close to 2,000.

And it seems unlikely that they will accept the decision made by the outgoing administration without a fight.

Republican officials have already voiced their grievances, claiming that the updated plan was a political decision that “disregards the science” proving the species’ successful recovery. 

On the other hand, some environmental advocacy organizations, while lauding that the bears were not delisted altogether, expressed disappointment in the decision to remove ESA protections outside the Northern Rockies and Washington, and voiced concerns that the new rules will result in increased grizzly mortality even in protected areas. 

So, what does the future look like for grizzlies? A closer look at the science and stakes behind the updated plan from the USFWS could provide some answers.

The Science: Grizzlies’ Fragile Recovery

While proponents of delisting claim that keeping the bear protected under the ESA is a decision not rooted in science, most scientists themselves disagree. 

“Recovery is more than just numbers of bears,” stated Christopher Servheen, president and board chair of Montana Wildlife Federation and former grizzly bear recovery coordinator for the USFWS. 

For a species to achieve long-term viability and resilience, it must have a significant level of genetic diversity, which occurs through well-connected populations. Grizzly bear geneticists believe that there must be a unified population of grizzlies in the Northern Rockies with a population of closer to 5,000 bears to ensure the long-term success of the species.

Until now, the USFWS operated on its 1993 grizzly bear recovery plan, which focused on achieving increasing population numbers and “did not consider long-term genetic health and population connectivity,” according to its own report. It is these outdated recovery criteria that proponents of delisting cite when they say that the bear has recovered and should be delisted.

The updated plan, which designates a unified population zone of grizzlies that focuses on protecting the bears in important connectivity areas reflects advancements in conservation science made over the last 30 years.

“The call for a larger population throughout the Northern Rockies was backed by a tremendous amount of science,” said Nick Gevock, campaign organizing strategist for the Northern Rockies region of the Sierra Club. Acknowledging the need for connectivity in species recovery was a significant victory, he added.

Delisting advocates have also argued that an increased presence of the bears outside established recovery zones is a sign of population connection and recovery.

She added that the rule also allows people who are not associated with a professional agency to kill conflict grizzlies, and it allows these bears to be killed without first trying nonlethal measures, like relocation.

 That is a false assertion, according to Adam Rissien, reWilding manager at WildEarth Guardians, a nonprofit that protects and restores the wildlife of the American West.

Climate change is affecting the abundance and distribution of the whitebark pine, huckleberries, and other food sources of the grizzly, said Rissien. As a result, the bears are leaving their established recovery zones in search of food.

The Stakes: Bear Survival, Livestock Loss, and Public Lands

Under the new plan for grizzly management, stakes are high for both the bears and for those living in grizzly habitats.

While grizzly advocates are celebrating the establishment of a unified, protected population of grizzlies, some are disappointed with the removal of protections of bears in the rest of the lower 48 outside the Northern Rockies and Washington.

Currently, the grizzly bear does not reside outside this region within the contiguous US, but by removing protections for grizzlies outside this region, some conservationists believe the USFWS is “essentially giving up on returning grizzlies to much of their historic range.”

Lizzy Pennock, carnivore coexistence attorney at WildEarth Guardians, added that the plan’s boundaries leave out important regions for grizzly recovery in Oregon.

Additionally, within the protected region, the plan permits increased killing of grizzlies in certain situations, for example when they hunt livestock.

“Under the new rule, USFWS would hand out lethal kill permits to individuals for livestock conflicts” explained Pennock.

She added that the rule also allows people who are not associated with a professional agency to kill conflict grizzlies, and it allows these bears to be killed without first trying nonlethal measures, like relocation.

Even under prior protections with stronger restrictions around so-called management killings, many livestock owners or hunters that accidentally came across a grizzly bear and killed it were not being held liable for violating the ESA, according to Rissien. 

The deadliest year for grizzlies since their listing on the ESA was 2024, with at least 90 bear deaths in the Northern Rockies caused by humans. According to USFWS data, between 2002 and 2022, 838 grizzlies in the four major ecosystems in the lower 48 have died due to human causes. And management-related killings and removals are the primary cause of grizzly bear deaths.

Another major concern for Pennock and other environmental advocates is that states could be allowed to kill bears without federal approval.

“These are the states that wanted to delist the bears, that want a grizzly bear trophy hunting season, and that have loosened trapping and hunting laws for other carnivore species to drive those populations into the ground,” she explained.

Additionally, land development, a primary and increasing threat to grizzly recovery, according to Servheen, exacerbates the likelihood of human-grizzly conflicts. And under the new management plan containing greater allowances for the lethal management of such conflicts, grizzly mortality could be compounded.

Some environmental advocates are concerned that this could jeopardize the already fragile recovery of species. 

“Grizzly bears reproduce very slowly. The loss of a single cub can set back population growth significantly,” explained Rissien. 

But in permitting more grizzlies to be killed during conflicts, the USFWS says it “recognizes the need for greater flexibility and responsiveness on private lands and areas where grizzly bear populations are impacting private landowners and livestock producers.”

Colter Brown, a member of Montana’s ranching community and the director of Northern Ag Network, a radio network covering agricultural news in Montana and Wyoming, vouches for the fact that livestock owners have been encountering more grizzly bears, and further from the bears’ established ecosystems. 

“Now, they’re reaching places like Lewistown and Garfield County, which are about 250 miles and 90 miles from the Rocky Mountain Front,” he said.

This means increasing conflicts between ranchers and bears. One such incident stands out to Brown in particular.

“Some folks in Choteau lost 25 head of sheep in two nights because a sow was teaching her cubs how to hunt,” he described. “They didn’t even eat the lambs that they killed.”

Balancing the interests of grizzly recovery with those of livestock owners is ultimately a question of the sanctity and significance of wildlife on public lands, according to Gevock.

He has found that some of the largest proponents of delisting grizzlies are ranchers with livestock that grazes on public lands.

However, not only are there livestock loss compensation programs, but ranchers pay extremely low prices to graze their livestock on public lands, Gevock said.

“What are we giving up to accommodate a handful of ranchers on our public lands?” asked Gevock. “They are getting grass for pennies on the dollar for their livestock. They are compensated for their losses to carnivore species. And yet we continue this attack on this species to accommodate them.”

But Brown argued that loss compensation is not as high as the price of the animals, and does not cover other expenses like nonlethal measures to deter grizzlies, such as guard dogs, range riding, carcass removal, electric fences, and night penning sheep.

What the Future Holds: Delisting or Coexistence?

Republicans have vowed to continue the push to delist the bear under the incoming Trump administration, with Rep. Harriet Hageman (WY) reintroducing legislation to remove the grizzly from the ESA.

Servheen also fears “that politicians in Congress will insert language to delist grizzlies into other legislation like budget bills, and thus go around the legal requirements of the ESA.” He says that such a “political delisting” of grizzlies would reverse the recovery that has been built over the last 40 years.

If the grizzly is eventually delisted, the species would face a barrage of new threats to their survival.

For example, they would become a target for trophy hunters, which could also spell catastrophe for the recovery of the species. 

“This is the second slowest reproducing mammal in North America,” explained Gevock. “So from a genetic diversity and population recovery standpoint, trophy hunting could undo decades of conservation work very quickly.”

Servheen believes that one of the most significant threats delisted grizzlies would face is inadvertent killing through wolf trapping, wolf neck snaring, and black bear hound hunting in grizzly habitats.

Conservationists also worry about the prospect of states managing grizzlies if they are delisted, pointing to the state management of gray wolves — also seen as threats to livestock — after their regional removal from the ESA as a troubling precedent.

Following the delisting of wolves, states “have implemented some of the most unethical — candidly — disgraceful practices imaginable: baiting, snaring, night vision hunting, unlimited bag limits,” said Gevock. “Things that look like an eradication effort from the 1800s.” 

“If bears are delisted, the state politicians will do to grizzly bears what they are currently doing to wolves,” said Servheen. “Idaho wants to reduce wolves 90 percent — 1,500 to 150 — and Montana wants to reduce wolves 62 percent — from 1,200 to 450. Grizzly bears do not have the resilience to survive this level of killing if they are delisted.”

A more harmonious future between humans and grizzlies may depend on collective efforts to mitigate grizzly threats to livestock losses and public safety.

Gevock points to successful bear safety programs in Blackfoot Valley, MT, where residents secure waste, fence off bear attractants, use range riders to protect livestock, and pick up livestock carcasses. 

Communities in this area have implemented these programs for over 25 years, resulting in a reduction of human-grizzly conflicts by 93 percent, according to Gevock.

Mary Cochenour, senior attorney at Earthjustice, believes that the story of Grizzly 399, who resided near the city of Jackson Hole, is “proof positive” of the potential for the coexistence of human and grizzly interests.

“There are videos of 399 walking through downtown Jackson in the middle of the night with her four cubs…She could have very easily been attracted to garbage and such, but the community always pulled together and worked really hard to remove those attractants in order to keep her safe from those,” explained Cochenour. 

Grizzly 399, Jackson Hole, WY, November, 2021
Grizzly 399 and her four cubs wandering around downtown Jackson Hole, WY, in November 2021.
Photo credit: CBS News

Others emphasize the necessity of a deeper appreciation of the grizzly bear’s value to ecosystems and economies.

As a keystone species, grizzlies have a disproportionately beneficial impact on the biodiversity of their habitat. And studies find that the presence and conservation of the grizzly leads to significant benefits for local economies. One estimates that grizzly bears in Yellowstone National Park bring in $6.9 million annually.

* * *

In his decades of following the bears and encountering visitors who come just to see the bears in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, Mangelsen has met visitors even in recent years who very rarely get to encounter grizzly bears. He recalled:

About five years ago, I saw 399 and two of her cubs feeding. And there were these three van loads of kids, between eight and 12 years old. One of them came up to me and asked me to sign his copy of Grizzlies of Pilgrim Creek. And his teacher said, “You know, Tom, we’ve been to Mount Rushmore and Glacier Park and Yellowstone. And now we’re here on our way home. And these are the first bears we’ve seen. These kids will remember this for the rest of their lives because they may never see a bear again.”

Mangelsen believes that stripping grizzlies of protections robs people of these rare moments that forge a bond with nature — experiences already vanishing in today’s world.