Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
This bill removes the lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) from the Endangered Species Act (ESA) lists and amends the ESA to bar the Secretary from determining the species is threatened or endangered in the future. It explicitly excludes the lesser prairie-chicken and all its distinct population segments from the Act’s listing authority.
Liberals view permanent exclusion as conservation rollback; conservatives view it as restoring local control.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive statutory amendment that clearly and precisely accomplishes the single legal change it proposes—removing the lesser prairie-chicken from the ESA lists and prohibiting future ESA listing for that species.
This bill removes the lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) from the Endangered Species Act (ESA) lists and amends the ESA to bar the Secretary from determining the species is threatened or endangered in the future.
It explicitly excludes the lesser prairie-chicken and all its distinct population segments from the Act’s listing authority.
Bill is narrow and administratively simple but politically contentious; easier in a favorable House, much harder in the Senate without broad bipartisan support.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive statutory amendment that clearly and precisely accomplishes the single legal change it proposes—removing the lesser prairie-chicken from the ESA lists and prohibiting future ESA listing for that species.
Liberals view permanent exclusion as conservation rollback; conservatives view it as restoring local control.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals view permanent exclusion as conservation rollback; conservatives view it as restoring local control.
Likely strongly opposed.
The bill permanently strips federal ESA protections and forbids future federal listing, raising concerns about conservation rollback and species extinction risk.
Supporters’ claims about local control will be viewed with skepticism absent binding state safeguards.
Cautiously skeptical or mixed.
A centrist will note the bill’s clarity in removing federal authority while worrying about absent replacement management, monitoring, or funding.
They will look for evidence-based justification, risk assessment, and options for compromise such as state plans or review triggers.
Likely broadly supportive.
This persona views the bill as protecting landowner rights and limiting federal overreach by removing ESA constraints and future federal listing authority.
They see benefits for agriculture, energy, and private property use in the species’ range.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Bill is narrow and administratively simple but politically contentious; easier in a favorable House, much harder in the Senate without broad bipartisan support.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals view permanent exclusion as conservation rollback; conservatives view it as restoring local control.
Bill is narrow and administratively simple but politically contentious; easier in a favorable House, much harder in the Senate without broa…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive statutory amendment that clearly and precisely accomplishes the single legal change it proposes—removing the lesser prairie-chicken from the…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.