Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
The Black Vulture Relief Act of 2025 authorizes livestock producers and their employees to take (capture, kill, disperse, or transport carcasses of) black vultures notwithstanding the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, when the bird is causing or reasonably believed will cause death, injury, or destruction to livestock. The bill prohibits use of poison, requires covered persons to file an annual report to the appropriate U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office, and requires the Director of FWS to publish a reporting form within 180 days of enactment.
Progressives stress conservation harms and MBTA erosion
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly accomplishes a narrow substantive change (an explicit statutory exception permitting covered persons to take black vultures and requiring annual reports) and includes basic administrative hooks (definitions, a Director-developed form, reporting deadlines).
The Black Vulture Relief Act of 2025 authorizes livestock producers and their employees to take (capture, kill, disperse, or transport carcasses of) black vultures notwithstanding the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, when the bird is causing or reasonably believed will cause death, injury, or destruction to livestock.
The bill prohibits use of poison, requires covered persons to file an annual report to the appropriate U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office, and requires the Director of FWS to publish a reporting form within 180 days of enactment.
Definitions for covered terms (black vulture, covered person, livestock, take, etc.) are included.
Very narrow, low-cost change improves prospects, but despite limited scope it alters a major federal wildlife statute and may attract targeted opposition.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly accomplishes a narrow substantive change (an explicit statutory exception permitting covered persons to take black vultures and requiring annual reports) and includes basic administrative hooks (definitions, a Director-developed form, reporting deadlines).
Progressives stress conservation harms and MBTA erosion
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives stress conservation harms and MBTA erosion
Likely skeptical or opposed.
Views the bill as a carve-out from long-standing federal bird protections that risks harming wildlife and ecosystem services.
Would push for nonlethal alternatives and stronger oversight.
Cautious support if narrowly implemented with clear safeguards.
Balances property rights with conservation concerns and seeks measurable oversight and limited scope.
Broadly supportive.
Sees the bill as correcting an overbroad federal restriction that hindered producers defending livestock.
Values property protections and practical solutions over regulatory rigidity.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Very narrow, low-cost change improves prospects, but despite limited scope it alters a major federal wildlife statute and may attract targeted opposition.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives stress conservation harms and MBTA erosion
Very narrow, low-cost change improves prospects, but despite limited scope it alters a major federal wildlife statute and may attract targe…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly accomplishes a narrow substantive change (an explicit statutory exception permitting covered persons to take black vultures and requiring annual reports) and…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.