The states of Montana and Wyoming have each submitted a petition for the Northern Continental Divide System and the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, respectively, to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to delist grizzly bears. Wildlife advocates in both states worry about the future of grizzlies, which are an endangered species, as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is expected to make a decision on Wyoming's petition to delist the bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in January. An animal lover, grizzly bears and other wildlife were the reason why Kristin Combs, the executive director of nonprofit Wyoming Wildlife Advocates, moved to the Cowboy State from her home in Ohio in the first place. "[I] have lived in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem now for almost 20 years. Well, yeah, 20 years as of today, actually," said Combs in a video call Monday. "That literally is the reason why we moved out here, is just to be closer to wildlife."Combs has been doing wildlife advocacy work for a decade and has been in her position at the nonprofit for the past seven years. "It's never boring. I'll say that...We do take on some of the more controversial things and are really trying to focus on ecosystem health rather than specific species," Combs said. "We really focus on advocating for the preservation of large carnivores, which often leads to healthier ecosystems in the long run."When grizzly bears were put on the endangered species list in 1975, there were only an estimated 150 in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. A goal of 400 bears was initially set and moved to 500 as recovery progressed."It's taken us from then to now just to get to having this small island population in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and then there's also some up in the Northern Continental Divide up near Glacier," said Combs. "But what we don't have is, and this was in the original recovery plan, is that there needed to be bears in the Northern Cascades, in the Bitterroot Ecosystem, and in the Selkirk and Cabinet Yak."With about 2,200 grizzly bears in the lower 48 states, Combs says the grizzly population still has room to grow. "If you look at biological principles, you need a solid 5,000 of a mammal that is this size and this slowly reproducing...They're the slowest reproducing animal mammal. The recovery of bears, it takes so long because yeah, they're having like one or two cubs at a time," said Combs. "I think then we could say, okay, we've got bears, and that would be bears traveling between different ecosystems, having that secured habitat."She is part of a community of wildlife advocates who fear big changes could be on the horizon that would halt the recovery."Even with Endangered Species Act protections, this year we're seeing a record number of grizzly bears that have died. There's 72 so far in just in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. And I think there's only two of those that have been from natural causes," Combs said.Combs and others are worried the new Trump administration in the White House, coupled with a Republican-controlled Congress, could lead to a new push to delist grizzlies. "There are these petitions from the states of Montana and Wyoming to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to delist grizzlies in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem and the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem," said Combs. "Unfortunately, grizzly bears have become like this political pawn." Wyoming's congressional delegation introduced a Senate bill to delist the bears last year. Several Wyoming political leaders have also expressed interest in a limited hunting season should grizzlies be delisted."I'm very worried about that decision. And I think if grizzly bears are turned over to the states under the prescient regimes, that the future of grizzly bears would be highly questionable. And I think there would be efforts to reduce grizzly bear numbers and range immediately upon delisting," said Chris Servheen, president of the Montana Wildlife Federation.Before attaining his current position, Servheen was the Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for 35 years."My job was to implement the recovery plan and to supervise all the research and management and the recovery program on grizzly bears in the four states of Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and Washington," Servheen said. "I promoted recovery of grizzly bears and eventually delisting grizzly bears when they got to recovered status." He says he's since changed his perspective on delisting grizzlies."I've begun to change my mind about the idea of delisting grizzly bears and turning them over to state management because of the attitudes of the states that have not been very positive toward carnivores in general and have put grizzly bears at risk," said Servheen. Last year, Wyoming's now retired Game and Fish Director Brian Desvik told members of Congress that bears are ready to be delisted with management handed over to the states."I think the long-term health of grizzly bears in the Northern Rockies would be negatively affected by delisting them now under the present conditions," Servheen said. He also mentioned the economic boost that wildlife animals like grizzly bears bring to the area. "They are animals that bring hundreds of millions of dollars of tourist dollars to Montana and in Wyoming, where people come to see the parks and to see our wild areas where there are bears and wolves," said Servheen. "So they're a tremendous economic driver for Montana and Montana tourism."That's why both Servheen and Combs say it's not the time to delist."We need to be proud of the fact that we are one of the few places left in the lower 48 states where these animals still exist," Servheen added. "We should take care of bears instead of demonizing them and trying to remove them and reduce their numbers.""Because the bottom line is, is that bears matter, and if we don't do something, if we let the states take over management of them, we will have very few bears left," said Combs. "We'll just, we'll be right back to the situation that we were in. And I think that that is, that's really sad to think about."