In a bold move that has left conservationists scratching their heads and wildlife enthusiasts in disbelief, several states have decided to take a giant leap backward in time by filing lawsuits aimed at stripping the grizzly bear of its “Endangered” status. This innovative strategy appears to embrace the mantra of “Who needs biodiversity anyway?” as state officials argue that limiting the number of apex predators is essential to their vision of a perfect society. The ruling class in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho—a trio of states where the bears are as iconic as cowboy hats and plaid shirts—believes that a robust grizzly population is vastly overrated. “Sure, they’re beautiful and all,” said one state representative, “but have you ever tried to barbecue in a national park? It’s a nightmare. We should be able to enjoy our summer picnics without fear of a bear crashing the party.” The lawsuits come in the wake of a robust grizzly population increase, which experts claim is a success story for conservation efforts. However, these states are unyielding in their desire to take the term “bear market” to a whole new level. “We want to create a balance,” explained a local senator, “a balance where bears are a little less abundant and Americans can freely hunt for a parking spot rather than watch for hungry wildlife.” Supporters of the lawsuits have pointed to the success of state-managed hunting seasons as a blending of human ingenuity and animal management. “If we can manage the number of cars on the road, surely we can manage the number of bears in the woods,” said a spokesperson for a state wildlife agency. “It’s basic math, folks: fewer bears equal more parking.” The latest move has triggered waves of backlash from the scientific community. Wildlife biologists have banded together to express concerns that stripping the grizzly's protections could lead to dire ecological consequences, such as uncontrollable populations of smaller prey animals or an overabundance of wildflowers, which apparently no one wants to deal with. “What will happen if the grizzlies are removed from their natural habitat?” asked one environmental scientist as she fought back tears, “We might as well invite deer to run for public office!” In a public statement, the governors of the implicated states came together for a rare joint press conference, dazzling journalists with their mantra of “Let’s bring back our freedoms.” Amid applause, they even unveiled a new tourism campaign: “Bear-Free States—Where BBQs Roam Free!” State officials encourage tourists to come visit areas that historically hosted significant grizzly populations—now completely bear-proofed and ready for uninhibited outdoor fun. “Why let wildlife dictate your summer plans?” they cheered in unison. Critics have pointed out that if the states are successful in removing the grizzly's protections, it could pave the way for other states to start suing to strip protections from other creatures such as wolves, mountain lions, and bald eagles. “If we can take bears off the endangered list with ease,” said one enthusiast, “what’s next? The bald eagle for being too patriotic? The American buffalo for getting sentimental?” As the dust settles on this momentous legal battle, one thing is clear: the future of biodiversity is hanging on a thread as delicate as a bear's belief in human benevolence. But don’t worry, states insist that they are looking out for the greater good—namely, making sure everyone can grill their burgers in peace. And with that reassuring thought, who needs biodiversity anyway?