The Price of a Yellowstone Grizzly

NPS and USGS research shows the exact economic "viewing value" of the bears of Yellowstone

Grizzly bears are not only apex predators and cultural icons. They’re also measurable economic drivers in America’s national parks.

Research by the National Park Service (NPS) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) sheds light on just how much value these animals represent—numbers that reshape how we think about conservation.

Especially on today’s anniversary of the death of legendary grizzly 399, these numbers are significant for a multitude of reasons: they provide a sharp argument against grizzly delisting, they support the necessity of roadless areas, and they show that conservation done correctly lifts up local economies.

“In general, goods and services that don’t have market prices tend to be under-valued, potentially even ignored altogether in things like benefit-cost analysis. For example, you might hear about a high-profile wildlife damage incident in the news, where an animal caused $X in property damages. That number sticks in your mind because that’s devastating news for some unlucky household. But you often don’t hear anything nearly as specific from the benefits side. A big chunk of what I try to do in my job is quantify values for things that don’t have market prices, to create a fuller picture of the total value, both good and bad, generated by a natural resource” - Aaron Enriquez, Research Economist, USGS

In Yellowstone National Park, wildlife viewing is one of the park’s top attractions, with 70–80% of visitors ranking the chance to see a bear as one of their main reasons for coming.

Economists applied the “travel cost method” to determine what visitors are willing to pay—through gas, park fees, lodging, and time away from work—for that opportunity.

On average, a single bear-viewing trip generated $305 in consumer surplus, adjusted to 2022 dollars.

Narrow that down further: each individual grizzly sighting was worth about $15.91 per visitor, compared with $14.08 for a black bear.

Aggregated across millions of annual visitors, the numbers swell. Grizzly bear sightings in Yellowstone represent about $6.9 million in yearly value. Black bears account for another $8.7 million.

Summer months alone drive the bulk of this—nearly $5 million in grizzly viewing value during peak visitation.

Perhaps most striking is the calculation of value at the individual animal level. On average, one grizzly bear contributes roughly $46,000 per year on average to Yellowstone’s viewing economy, compared with about $15,000 for a black bear. (That’s because there are way more black bears in Yellowstone than grizzlies.)

Because only 5–10% of bears are visible from roadsides, those few individuals carry disproportionate weight. If a single roadside grizzly is lost to a vehicle collision or conflict removal, the reduction in visitor value is tremendous.

As we mark the anniversary of the heartbreaking death of 399—arguably the most photographed, famous, and loved wild animal in history—it’s worth reflecting on this.

As problematic as some of her behavior may occasionally have been, the value she added to conservation and wildlife viewing appreciation is unquantifiable—many multitudes of that $46,000 of single-bear viewing value.

What do those numbers mean for conservation in general? They quantify something often overlooked: losing even one roadside grizzly has disproportionate ripple effects. If only a handful of visible bears generate millions in visitor satisfaction, the death of a single animal can wipe out a season’s worth of value.

This shifts the policy discussion. Rather than treating bear protection as an abstract moral or ecological imperative, it places it squarely in the realm of economics and public land management. Protecting grizzlies is not just about biodiversity. It’s about preserving one of Yellowstone’s most lucrative and defining visitor experiences.

In Yellowstone, wildlife tourism already sustains thousands of local jobs and injects hundreds of millions of dollars into surrounding communities.

Grizzlies—one of the park’s most sought-after species alongside wolves and bison—are a linchpin of that system. Their survival supports guides, lodges, restaurants, and entire gateway economies.

Linking this to public lands more broadly, grizzlies exemplify the layered benefits of conservation. National parks are not just expenses on a federal balance sheet—they are revenue generators, community stabilizers, and cultural treasures.

Every dollar invested in protecting grizzly habitat returns many more in visitor spending, tourism jobs, and local economic growth.

Beyond dollars, however, the numbers highlight something else: the unique role of public lands, and national parks specifically, as spaces where people encounter wildlife in ways that are impossible in privatized or degraded landscapes.

If Yellowstone were a commercial resort, the disappearance of wild grizzlies might be offset with substitutes: captive animals, staged experiences, or advertising. In a public park, by contrast, the entire value derives from authenticity—the chance to glimpse a free-roaming grizzly in its ancestral range.

At a time when agencies debate delisting grizzlies from the Endangered Species Act, these findings provide a hard-nosed counterargument. Removing protections could increase mortality from hunting, vehicle collisions, or management removals.

In fact, through September of this year alone, no fewer than 63 grizzlies have died in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem—a number that’s on track to set an all-time record high.

Collectively, based on the research’s $46,000 average viewing value of a grizzly, that’s almost $3 million of economic revenue lost just this year.

The science and data show that every lost bear isn’t just a biological tragedy—it represents tens of thousands of dollars in lost visitor experience, and millions in aggregate economic harm to the region.

When lawmakers weigh short-term pressures against long-term stewardship, these numbers should be front and center.

The lesson extends beyond Yellowstone. Other parks and wilderness areas—from Glacier to Denali—harbor iconic species whose value to visitors remains largely unquantified. Wolves, bald eagles, mountain goats, elk, caribou, even bison all generate immense economic and cultural value simply by being visible.

Grizzly conservation, then, is not just about one species but about creating a framework that recognizes wildlife as an asset inseparable from the public lands that protect it.

It’s also worth pointing out that there are four states that have restitution values for grizzlies, which is the monetary compensation a convicted offender must pay the state for the illegal killing, waste, or possession of a grizzly bear. It’s the monetary value a state places on the life of a grizzly bear.

That restitution amount averages about $9,000 per grizzly, according to the NPS/USGS study. Many states also have restitution values for black bears, which averages around $3,000 per black bear.

The per-bear viewing values identified in the study—$46,000 and $15,000 respectively—are five times those averages.

In short, to put it bluntly, a grizzly bear is worth much more alive than dead—worth more wandering meadows and crossing roadsides than hanging in a trophy room. The same goes for black bears.

The numbers are clear: a living grizzly fuels a multi-million-dollar national park experience economy, sustains local communities, and embodies the wildness that defines Yellowstone.

Protecting these bears is not sentimentalism. Instead, it’s sound economics, sound ecology, and sound policy for America’s public lands.

Some might say that it’s outrageous to put a monetary value on a single wild animal, but fact of the matter is that conservation policies are inherently political. And politicians typically have one huge priority: the economy.

So, in order to justify (new) laws and legislation, politicians often need financial data. And this NPS/USGS analysis provides that information when it comes to grizzly conservation.

Grizzly bears have always carried symbolic weight. Now the evidence shows they carry hard economic weight as well. Protecting them is not just about awe or heritage—it’s a matter of measurable public value.

And by that measure, the argument for their continued protection is overwhelming.

“What we’ve done is tried to quantify just one small piece of the total economic value of bears, by estimating a ‘use’ value from bear sightings. The entire total value of bears would be higher, especially if one accounted for ‘non-use’ values like existence value. As more types of values get filled in over time, we’ll continue to have a better picture of how much society benefits from bears.” - Aaron Enriquez, Research Economist, USGS