Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
This bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to reissue, within 60 days of enactment, the final rule published at 85 Fed. Reg. 69778 (Nov. 3, 2020) titled 'Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.' The reissued rule, per the bill, would apply only to gray wolf populations in the States of Oregon and Washington.
Whether federal Endangered Species Act protections should be removed vs. retained until stronger safeguards are in place.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill provides a concise, directive mandate to an agency to reissue a specific final rule within a short timeline and with a geographic limitation, but it lacks procedural, fiscal, and oversight detail that would help ensure effective and legally coherent implementation.
This bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to reissue, within 60 days of enactment, the final rule published at 85 Fed.
Reg. 69778 (Nov. 3, 2020) titled 'Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.' The reissued rule, per the bill, would apply only to gray wolf populations in the States of Oregon and Washington.
The bill does not add implementation details, monitoring requirements, funding, or procedures beyond the 60-day reissuance directive and the geographic limitation to Oregon and Washington.
On content alone the bill is simple and narrowly targeted, which helps procedural handling, but it addresses a high‑visibility, contentious environmental topic (wolf delisting) with organized opposition and limited built‑in compromises. The Senate procedural hurdles and risk of litigation further reduce the chances that this specific statutory directive would clear both chambers and become law.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill provides a concise, directive mandate to an agency to reissue a specific final rule within a short timeline and with a geographic limitation, but it lacks procedural, fiscal, and oversight detail that would help ensure effective and legally coherent implementation.
Whether federal Endangered Species Act protections should be removed vs. retained until stronger safeguards are in place.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Whether federal Endangered Species Act protections should be removed vs. retained until stronger safeguards are in place.
A mainstream liberal would likely view this bill skeptically or negatively because it mandates federal removal of Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves in Oregon and Washington without specifying scientific criteria, monitoring, or safeguards.
They would be concerned about potential declines in wolf populations, loss of federal enforcement, and increased state-level hunting or control measures.
They would also note the absence of required tribal consultation, funding for monitoring or mitigation, and explicit relisting triggers.
A centrist would have a mixed reaction: supportive of deference to state management if there is solid scientific evidence of recovery, but concerned about the bill's lack of procedural safeguards.
They would look for assurances that reissuance is based on current population data, that state management plans are sufficient, and that there are mechanisms for monitoring and relisting if needed.
The fixed 60-day reissuance window without added conditions would be a notable procedural concern.
A mainstream conservative would likely view the bill favorably because it directs the federal government to restore state authority over wolf management by removing federal endangered species status in Oregon and Washington.
They would appreciate the move toward state control, potential relief for ranchers facing wolf-livestock conflicts, and reduction of perceived federal overreach.
However, some may want additional protections against litigation or uncertainty about management after delisting.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On content alone the bill is simple and narrowly targeted, which helps procedural handling, but it addresses a high‑visibility, contentious environmental topic (wolf delisting) with organized opposition and limited built‑in compromises. The Senate procedural hurdles and risk of litigation further reduce the chances that this specific statutory directive would clear both chambers and become law.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Whether federal Endangered Species Act protections should be removed vs. retained until stronger safeguards are in place.
On content alone the bill is simple and narrowly targeted, which helps procedural handling, but it addresses a high‑visibility, contentious…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill provides a concise, directive mandate to an agency to reissue a specific final rule within a short timeline and with a geographic limitation, but it lacks procedural,…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.