Overview
Title
To require the Secretary of the Interior to reissue regulations removing the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
ELI5 AI
H. R. 845 is a plan to stop protecting gray wolves as endangered animals in America, and it also says that no one can use the court to change this decision once it's made.
Summary AI
H. R. 845, titled the “Pet and Livestock Protection Act of 2025,” requires the Secretary of the Interior to reissue regulations that remove the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The Secretary must reissue this rule within 60 days of the bill's enactment. Furthermore, the bill specifies that this reissuance is not open to judicial review, meaning that no court can challenge or overturn the decision.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
H.R. 845, introduced in the 119th Congress, is titled the "Pet and Livestock Protection Act of 2025." The primary objective of this proposed legislation is to mandate the Secretary of the Interior to reissue a rule that removes the gray wolf (Canis lupus) from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. This rule was initially published in 2020. Additionally, the bill includes a provision that prohibits any judicial review of this reissued rule.
Summary of Significant Issues
Central to the issues surrounding this bill is the proposal to eliminate the gray wolf from federal protection without the possibility of judicial review. Section 2 of the bill calls for the reissuance of the rule within 60 days, but it does not provide any financial implications or address potential administrative challenges involved in reimplementing the rule. There is also a lack of transparency about the scientific rationale behind this decision, which could lead to environmental concerns from stakeholders advocating for the preservation of wildlife.
Furthermore, Section 3 eliminates the option of judicial review, thereby blocking any court challenges to the reissuance of the rule. This raises potential ethical and legal concerns about oversight, accountability, and transparency. By removing the check of judicial review, the bill limits a critical mechanism for ensuring that the decision to delist the gray wolf adheres to legal standards and is fair.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
The impact of H.R. 845 on the public could be broad and varied. For communities reliant on livestock and those who favor expanded hunting rights, the removal of gray wolves from the endangered and threatened species list could be seen positively. These groups often view wolves as threats to livestock and seek ways to manage or control wolf populations to protect their economic interests.
Conversely, this bill could negatively impact conservationists, environmentalists, and scientists who argue that gray wolves play a crucial role in maintaining ecological balance. Without protected status, gray wolf populations might decline due to increased hunting and habitat loss, potentially leading to negative effects on ecosystems where they play a key role as apex predators.
Removing the potential for judicial review further complicates these impacts by limiting the avenues through which stakeholders can challenge or support the decisions made regarding wildlife management. This could stifle public discourse and diminish the capacity for scientific evidence to contribute to policymaking processes.
Overall, while the bill addresses the concerns of those seeking to protect pets and livestock from gray wolves, it simultaneously raises complex issues about wildlife management, legal processes, and the balance between economic interests and ecological preservation.
Issues
The decision to remove the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife under Section 2 lacks a clear rationale, raising concerns about the ecological impact and the sufficiency of scientific data supporting this decision. This could be controversial given the potential negative outcomes on ecosystems and biodiversity.
Section 3 prohibits judicial review of the reissuance of the rule, which raises significant legal and ethical concerns about accountability and oversight. Preventing judicial challenges may limit transparency and checks and balances, as it removes a critical avenue for ensuring the rule's legality and fairness.
Section 2 does not address possible financial impacts or costs involved with reissuing the rule, such as administrative expenses or resource allocation, which could be significant for implementation.
The language of Section 2 assumes that reissuing the rule is straightforward within a 60-day timeframe but does not account for procedural or legal obstacles that might delay or complicate the process. This oversight could lead to practical implementation challenges.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of this act specifies that it can be referred to as the "Pet and Livestock Protection Act of 2025."
2. Removing the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Secretary of the Interior to reissue a rule to remove the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife within 60 days after this section is enacted. This rule was originally published on November 3, 2020.
3. No judicial review Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The third section states that the final rule being reissued, as mentioned in the second section, cannot be challenged or reviewed in court.