Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
This bill amends the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to explicitly cover incidental take and directs the Secretary of the Interior (FWS) to promulgate regulations and issue authorizations, including general permits, for incidental take. It creates civil penalties (up to $10,000 per violation) for unauthorized incidental take, preserves criminal penalties for reckless or grossly negligent conduct, and requires notice and hearings before penalties.
Liberals worry permitting could weaken enforcement; conservatives favor certainty.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive policy change that establishes a new statutory authorization framework for incidental take under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, paired with administrative delegations and reporting/research requirements.
This bill amends the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to explicitly cover incidental take and directs the Secretary of the Interior (FWS) to promulgate regulations and issue authorizations, including general permits, for incidental take.
It creates civil penalties (up to $10,000 per violation) for unauthorized incidental take, preserves criminal penalties for reckless or grossly negligent conduct, and requires notice and hearings before penalties.
The bill authorizes fee collection, creates a Migratory Bird Recovery Fund to hold fees, penalties, donations, and appropriations, and authorizes $10 million annually.
Moderate administrative reform with constituency impacts; plausible bipartisan pathway but significant stakeholder and Senate hurdles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive policy change that establishes a new statutory authorization framework for incidental take under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, paired with administrative delegations and reporting/research requirements. It provides several core authorities and resources but relies heavily on subsequent agency rulemaking for operational specifics.
Liberals worry permitting could weaken enforcement; conservatives favor certainty.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals worry permitting could weaken enforcement; conservatives favor certainty.
Likely cautiously supportive: the bill creates a permitting and funding framework for conservation and research, but may create loopholes.
Progressives will welcome explicit conservation provisions and funding, while worrying authorizations might weaken strict liability protections.
Generally supportive as a pragmatic compromise balancing conservation and regulatory certainty.
Centrist observers will value the explicit authorization process, fee-funded administration, and research obligations but watch implementation costs and regulatory clarity.
Mixed to somewhat skeptical: conservatives will appreciate clarified liability and permitting but worry about new federal programs, fees, and ongoing regulatory expansion.
Some private‑sector stakeholders may favor permits, yet many conservatives dislike added bureaucracy and federal appropriations.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Moderate administrative reform with constituency impacts; plausible bipartisan pathway but significant stakeholder and Senate hurdles.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals worry permitting could weaken enforcement; conservatives favor certainty.
Moderate administrative reform with constituency impacts; plausible bipartisan pathway but significant stakeholder and Senate hurdles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive policy change that establishes a new statutory authorization framework for incidental take under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, paired with administr…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.