Overview
Title
To require the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to reissue a final rule removing the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
ELI5 AI
This bill is like telling the people in charge of animal protection to say that gray wolves are no longer in danger and cannot be taken to court for this decision. They have to make this announcement within two months.
Summary AI
S. 1306 is a bill that requires the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to issue a final rule to remove the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. This rule needs to be reissued within 60 days from the enactment of the bill and will not be open to judicial review, meaning courts cannot challenge it. The bill was introduced by Senator Johnson, along with Senators Barrasso and Lee, and has been sent to the Committee on Environment and Public Works for further consideration.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, identified as S. 1306, puts forth a requirement for the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to reissue a rule that would remove the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. This action is mandated to occur within 60 days after the law’s passage, and notably, the decision is protected from judicial review, meaning it cannot be challenged in court once issued.
Significant Issues
Several issues stand out within this bill. Firstly, the clause that the reissue of this rule cannot be subjected to judicial review introduces a potential bypass of judicial oversight. This could raise concerns about the balance of power and the role of checks and balances in governmental decision-making processes, as it limits potential challenges and broader public debate.
Additionally, the requirement to reissue this rule within 60 days demands prompt action from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This timeline may be criticized as too short for careful and comprehensive consideration of the environmental and ecological repercussions that such a decision may entail.
Finally, overriding regular procedures for wildlife conservation with a direct legislative mandate might provoke controversies, especially among conservationists and environmental groups advocating for data-driven and conservation-focused policies.
Broad Impact on the Public
The bill’s impact on the general public may involve mixed perceptions. On one hand, those who prioritize agricultural interests and view gray wolves as a threat to livestock might welcome the delisting, seeing it as an opportunity to manage wolf populations more flexibly. On the other hand, individuals who are concerned about biodiversity and ecological preservation might perceive this move as rash and potentially damaging to the fragile ecosystems where these wolves reside.
By removing legal protections for gray wolves, the public discourse on wildlife management and conservation priorities may intensify, reflecting divergent values regarding animal rights and ecosystem management.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For environmental organizations and wildlife conservationists, this bill might be seen as a negative development. The lack of judicial review and the swift timeline could be interpreted as circumventing thorough environmental assessments and community input. These stakeholders may argue that the decision undermines scientific assessments and conservation efforts designed to protect the integrity of various ecosystems.
Conversely, stakeholders such as ranchers and farmers may experience positive impacts due to increased capabilities to protect livestock without federal restrictions. With less regulatory oversight, they may find greater ease in managing wolf populations to prevent loss and damage.
In conclusion, while S. 1306 proposes a specific regulatory change regarding the gray wolf, the broader implications touch on governance, environmental stewardship, and stakeholder interests that could have lasting effects on public policy and ecological health. The controversy surrounding these issues underscores the complexity of balancing ecological conservation with economic and management considerations.
Issues
The provision 'No judicial review' in Section 1(b) raises a significant concern regarding the bypassing of judicial oversight. This could be perceived as an attempt to limit checks and balances that are fundamental to the democratic process, which may lead to controversies about governmental overreach.
Section 1(a) mandates the reissuance of a rule to remove the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife, bypassing regular wildlife conservation procedures. This could be controversial for environmental groups and conservationists who argue for a more methodical and science-based approach to wildlife management.
The timeframe specified in Section 1(a), 'Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act,' may be scrutinized as potentially inadequate or placing undue pressure on the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, raising concerns about whether such a timeline allows for thorough evaluation and consideration of environmental impacts.
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. Reissuance of rule removing the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines that within 60 days of this law being passed, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must issue a rule to officially remove the gray wolf from the endangered species list, and this decision cannot be challenged in court.