Shawn Regan’s Sept. 10 op-ed, “Grizzlies are thriving. The next step shouldn’t be controversial,” made some reasonable arguments about grizzly bear management, but it ignored massive flaws in the Trump administration’s recently proposed plan that would wreak havoc on this still-imperiled species.
I agree that a well-constructed and flexible management rule, coupled with retaining grizzlies’ threatened status under the Endangered Species Act, is a viable pathway to conserving the species. Unfortunately, President Donald Trump’s proposal gives too much power to states, including those that have already proved to be poor conservation partners at best, and hostile at worst.
Look no further than what happened when management of wolves was kicked down to the states in places such as Montana and Idaho. Montana recently approved the killing of up to 300 wolves during the hunting season that started Sept. 5. That means nearly half of its wolves could be killed, according to one estimate from the Montana Gray Wolf Conservation and Management’s 2025 annual report. Idaho has no limit. I’m hard-pressed to believe these states would treat grizzlies any better if they’re allowed to take the reins on management.
It’s also clear that grizzly bears haven’t truly recovered. As of 2021, roughly 2,000 bears survived in just 6 percent of their historical range in the Lower 48 states, scattered across four isolated populations in the northern Rockies. Recovery of grizzlies requires connections to be forged between these dispersed populations. That means we need more grizzlies on the landscape, not fewer.
The states have shown us how they manage wildlife. America’s grizzly bears deserve so much better.
Collette Adkins, Minneapolis
The writer is the director of the Carnivore Conservation Program and a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity.
The argument for handing over grizzly bear management to Idaho, Montana and Wyoming rests on the premise that it now makes sense to do so. It doesn’t. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acknowledges that only about 2,000 grizzly bears inhabit the Lower 48 states across six designated recovery zones, some of which contain no bears at all. Their populations are not “surging.” When grizzlies were listed under the Endangered Species Act in 1975, about 700 to 800 bears existed. After half a century of federal protection, the population in the Lower 48 states remains small.
The irresponsible management record of the range states is unambiguous. Grizzly bears are slow to reproduce. A female takes a decade to replace herself in a population. She produces few litters over her lifetime, and many cubs won’t survive.
There may come a time to trust the states with the fate of grizzlies. But this is not that time.
Jennifer Hillman, Washington
The writer is the vice president of wildlife protection at the nonprofit Humane World for Animals.
Data centers across the street
Taylor Budowich’s Sept. 3 op-ed, “Data centers are blowing the PR game. Here’s how to fix that,” addressed, in particular, how data centers have affected Loudoun County, Virginia, which he identified as “the data center capital of the world.” He reported on the benefits and addressed critics’ concerns: Data centers pay $26 in taxes for every $1 in services they use, and without data centers, the typical Loudoun homeowner would pay about $5,800 more per year in property taxes. I would add that in my opinion, Loudoun County has done its homework when it has placed data centers across the street from housing developments.
I would rather live across the street from a data center than brightly lit sports fields or a shopping center.
John Younger, Ashburn
Taylor Budowich is correct that supporters of artificial intelligence have not adequately explained the economic benefits of data centers. But he omitted another important problem that must be overcome: aesthetics. Data centers are big and ugly. Residents should not have to look out at their backyards and see concrete blocks. One solution would be to provide buffer zones with trees to block the view of the data centers. Another would be to design the data centers using architecture that makes them attractive.
There surely are other solutions as well. But unless the proponents of data centers come to grips with the aesthetics problem, they will not get the public support they need no matter the economic benefits.
Bob Benna, Potomac
Taylor Budowich is right that data centers are losing the public argument, and they’re losing it in communities that stand to gain the most. But there’s another way the industry can appeal to communities: innovate on what to do with data center waste products.
Every data center rejects enormous amounts of low-grade heat, which is exactly what a commercial greenhouse needs. Today, that heat is thrown into the sky by cooling equipment the developer pays to run. It could instead be piped a few hundred feet into a community farm that grows food for the town year-round. This is what my company builds. Tomatoes, greens and herbs, grown on the community’s side of the fence, from heat that was being wasted anyway. It’s a building the town can see, staffed by people the town knows, producing something the town eats.
Virginia, the data center capital of the world, has already figured this out. This year, the state Senate passed H.B. 323 — the first law in the country directing action on data center waste-heat reuse — by a vote of 39-0. And it became law in April.
Instead of debating whether data centers should exist, the commonwealth has moved on to a better question: What else can it do with data centers?
Andrew Potter, Lynchburg
The writer is the founder and CEO of Intelligent Harvest.
Letter submissions
Send letters to [email protected].
Submissions must be exclusive to The Post and should include the writer’s address and day and evening telephone numbers. Letters are subject to editing and abridgment. Please do not send letters as attachments. Because of the volume of material we receive, we are unable to acknowledge submissions; writers whose letters are under consideration for publication will be contacted.
The post Let states manage bears? Not so fast. appeared first on Washington Post.
