[House Report 118-206]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


118th Congress    }                                      {      Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session      }                                      {     118-206

======================================================================



 
                         TRUST THE SCIENCE ACT

                                _______
                                

 September 20, 2023.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Westerman, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 764]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 764) 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, having considered the same, reports favorably 
thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

                       PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION

    The purpose of H.R. 764 is 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.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    The bill requires the Department of the Interior to reissue 
the final rule titled ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
Plants; Removing the gray wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife'' and published on November 
3, 2020 (85 Fed. Reg. 69778). The rule removed the gray wolf in 
the lower 48 United States, except for the Mexican wolf (C. l. 
baileyi) subspecies, from the list of protected species under 
the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The bill also prohibits the 
rule from being subject to judicial review.
    Prior to the enactment of the ESA in 1973, the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) had listed some gray wolf 
subspecies for protection.\1\ In 1978, after the passage of the 
ESA, the USFWS combined these listings into one listing the 
gray wolf species as endangered throughout the lower 48 states 
(except Minnesota) and a separate listing for the gray wolf in 
Minnesota as threatened.\2\ The 1978 rule specified that 
``biological subspecies would continue to be maintained and 
dealt with as separate entities.''\3\ As such, the USFWS 
implemented gray wolf recovery programs in three regions: the 
northern Rocky Mountains, the southwestern United States (for 
the Mexican wolf), and the eastern United States (including the 
Great Lakes States) for the eastern timber wolf.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\The USFWS listed the first gray wolf subspecies, the eastern 
timber wolf as endangered in 1967 under the Endangered Species 
Preservation Act of 1966. In 1973, the USFWS listed the northern Rocky 
Mountain wolf (C. lupus irremotus) as endangered.
    \2\``U.S. District Court Vacates Gray Wolf Delisting Rule.'' Erin 
H. Ward. Congressional Research Service. LSB10697 (congress.gov).
    \3\43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978.
    \4\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Great Lakes region has the largest concentration of 
gray wolves in the lower 48 states, with approximately 4,200 
wolves that inhabit the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and 
Michigan.\5\ Under the current management framework, wolves in 
Minnesota are listed as threatened, whereas wolves in Wisconsin 
and Michigan are listed as endangered.\6\ The recovery plan for 
the gray wolf in the Great Lakes is quite clear when it comes 
to criteria for delisting: a stable or increasing population of 
wolves in Minnesota and at least 200 wolves outside of the 
Minnesota population.\7\ According to a former wildlife 
biologist for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 
Nathan Roberts, ``these goals have been met since at least 
1994.'' He went on to say, ``It is remarkable to note that, 
given the natural life span of wolves, every wolf on the 
landscape in the Great Lakes region was born long after 
recovery goals were met.''\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\``America's Gray Wolves Get Another Chance at Real Recovery.'' 
Natural Resources Defense Council. Shelia Hu. April 21, 2022. America's 
Gray Wolves Get Another Chance at Real Recovery (nrdc.org).
    \6\``U.S. District Court Vacates Gray Wolf Delisting Rule.'' Erin 
H. Ward. Congressional Research Service. LSB10697 (congress.gov).
    \7\``Recovery Plan For the Eastern Timber Wolf.'' U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Region 3. January 31, 1992. https://www.govinfo.gov/
content/pkg/GOVPUB-I49-PURL-LPS37439/pdf/GOVPUB-I49-PURL-LPS37439.pdf.
    \8\``Testimony of Nathan Roberts.'' House Committee on Natural 
Resources. March 23, 2023. testimony_roberts.pdf (house.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Between 2003 and 2015, the USFWS published several rules 
revising the 1978 rule to incorporate new information and 
recognize the biological recovery of gray wolves in the 
northern Rocky Mountains and eastern United States (including 
the Great Lakes States). These rules were challenged in court 
and invalidated or vacated, in part, on the determinations that 
the USFWS distinct population segment (DPS) designations were 
legally flawed.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2009, the USFWS published final rules designating and 
delisting the western Great Lakes DPS and the northern Rocky 
Mountain DPS, except it did not delist the gray wolf in Wyoming 
after finding the state's management plan inadequate.\10\ The 
western Great Lakes DPS was challenged by the Humane Society on 
the grounds that the USFWS violated the Administrative 
Procedures Act's notice and comment requirements. Ultimately, 
the USFWS reached a settlement agreement and withdrew the 
rule.\11\ The northern Rocky Mountain DPS rule was challenged 
by Defenders of Wildlife and the Montana federal district court 
vacated the 2009 Northern Rocky Mountain DPS rule after 
concluding that the ESA did not allow the USFWS to list a 
partial DPS.\12\ However, an act of Congress in 2011 directed 
the USFWS to reinstate the 2009 rule designating and delisting 
the northern Rocky Mountain DPS without Wyoming.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\74 Fed. Reg. 15,070 (Apr. 2, 2009); 74 Fed. Reg. 15,123 (Apr. 
2, 2009).
    \11\Humane Soc'y of the U.S. v. Salazar, No. 1:09-CV-1092 (D.D.C. 
July 2, 2009) (settlement order).
    \12\Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 812 F. Supp. 2d 1205, 1207 
(D. Mont. 2009).
    \13\Public Law 112-10, Department of Defense and Full-year 
Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011, Section 1713.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2017, after several years of litigation, the USFWS 
delisted the gray wolf in Wyoming. Therefore, starting in 2017 
there were three distinct regulatory frameworks for gray wolf 
population areas: (1) the northern Rockies Mountains (Idaho, 
Montana, and Wyoming), where the wolf was not listed; (2) in 
Minnesota, were the gray wolf is listed as threatened; and (3) 
in all other areas of the lower 48 states, where the gray wolf 
is listed as endangered.\14\ In November 2020, the Trump 
administration finalized a rule that delisted the gray wolf, 
except for the Mexican wolf, and returned management of the 
species to each of the lower 48 states.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\``U.S. District Court Vacates Gray Wolf Delisting Rule.'' Erin 
H. Ward. Congressional Research Service. LSB10697 (congress.gov).
    \15\85 Fed. Reg. 69,778 (Nov. 3, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 2020 rule was challenged by Defenders of Wildlife, 
WildEarth Guardians, and other environmental groups and in 
February 2022, The U.S. District Court for the Northern 
District of California vacated the rule.\16\ The court found 
that the USFWS had failed to show that gray wolf populations 
could be sustained outside of the core populations in the 
western Great Lakes and northern Rocky Mountains.\17\ This 
ruling reinstated ESA protections for the gray wolf in the 
lower 48 states. This decision does not impact the Northern 
Rockies Ecosystem.\18\ The Biden administration's Department of 
Justice appealed the ruling.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\``U.S. District Court Vacates Gray Wolf Delisting Rule.'' Erin 
H. Ward. Congressional Research Service. LSB10697 (congress.gov).
    \17\U.S. District Court Northern District of California. Defenders 
of Wildlife, Et. Al. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Et Al. February 
10, 2022.
    \18\``Judge restores gray wolf protections.'' Michael Doyle. E&E 
News. February 10 2022. Judge restores gray wolf protections--E&E News 
(eenews.net).
    \19\``Shocking News as U.S. Department of Justice Appeals 
Restoration of Gray Wolf Protections in Most of the Lower 48 States.'' 
Lauren Lewis. World Animal News. May 2, 2022. https://
worldanimalnews.com/breaking-disheartening-news-as-u-s-department-of-
justice-appeals-
restoration-of-gray-wolf-protections-in-most-of-the-lower-48-states/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Delisting the gray wolf in the lower 48 states has 
traditionally had bipartisan support. In 2013, the Obama 
administration proposed delisting the gray wolf in the lower 48 
states, but the rule was never finalized due to backlash from 
environmental groups.\20\ In the 115th Congress, the House of 
Representatives passed similar legislation to H.R. 764 by a 
vote of 196-180 (with 9 Democrats voting in favor of the 
legislation).\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\``Obama Administration Strips Wolf Protections Across Most of 
the Lower 48 States.'' Center for Biological Diversity. July 7, 2013. 
Obama Administration Strips Wolf Protections Across Most of Lower 48 
States (biologicaldiversity.org).
    \21\H.R. 6784, ``Manage our Wolves Act''. H.R.6784--115th Congress 
(2017-2018): Manage our Wolves Act | Congress.gov | Library of 
Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    H.R. 764 was introduced on February 2, 2023, by Rep. Lauren 
Boebert (R-CO). The bill was referred to the Committee on 
Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee 
on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries. On March 23, 2023, the 
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries held a hearing on 
the bill. On April 27-28, 2023, the Committee on Natural 
Resources met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee on Water, 
Wildlife and Fisheries was discharged from further 
consideration of H.R. 764 by unanimous consent. Rep. Jared 
Huffman (D-CA) offered an amendment designated Huffman #1. The 
amendment was not adopted by a roll call vote of 13 yeas to 19 
nays, as follows:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) offered an amendment designated 
Dingell #3. The amendment was not adopted by a roll call vote 
of 15 yeas to 20 nays, as follows:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA) offered an amendment designated 
Huffman #4. The amendment was not adopted by a roll call vote 
of 16 yeas to 20 nays, as follows:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) offered an amendment designated 
Dingell #6. The amendment was not adopted by a roll call vote 
of 16 yeas to 20 nays, as follows:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) offered an amendment designated 
Dingell #7. The amendment was not adopted by a roll call vote 
of 16 yeas to 21 nays, as follows:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ranking Member Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) offered an amendment, 
on behalf of Rep. Ed Case (D-HI), designated Case #5. The 
amendment was not adopted by a roll call vote of 16 yeas to 21 
nays, as follows:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The bill was then ordered favorably reported to the House 
of Representatives by a roll call vote of 21 yeas to 16 nays, 
as follows:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                HEARINGS

    For the purposes of clause 3(c)(6) of House rule XIII, the 
following hearing was used to develop or consider this measure: 
hearing by the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries 
held on March 23, 2023.

                      SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title

    Section 1 establishes the short title of the bill as the 
``Trust the Science Act.''

Section 2. Removing the Gray Wolf From the List of Endangered and 
        Threatened Wildlife

    Section 2 requires the Secretary of the Interior, not later 
than 60 days after the date of enactment of this section, to 
reissue the final rule entitled ``Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) From 
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife'' and published 
on November 3, 2020 (85 Fed. Reg. 69778).

Section 3. No judicial review

    Section 3 precludes reissuance of the final rule under 
section 2 from judicial review.

            COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

           COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII AND CONGRESSIONAL 
                               BUDGET ACT

    1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act. 
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 308(a) and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 
the Committee has received the following estimate for the bill 
from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    H.R. 764 would require the Secretary of the Interior within 
60 days of the bill's enactment to reissue a final rule, 
``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the 
Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife,'' which was submitted by the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (USFWS) and published in the Federal Register 
on November 3, 2020. The bill also would prohibit judicial 
review of that rule. The rule removed from the list all gray 
wolves (except the Mexican wolf) in the continental United 
States and Mexico, effective January 4, 2021. A court order in 
February 2022 reinstated the gray wolves' protections under the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA); they are currently listed as 
threatened in Minnesota and endangered elsewhere.
    USFWS is authorized to collect permitting fees for lawful 
activities that involve protected species, including scientific 
research, conservation, and unintentional taking of the animals 
while performing permitted activities. Under H.R. 764, permits 
would no longer be required for activities involving gray 
wolves in the continental United States. Permitting fees are 
recorded in the budget as offsetting receipts (reductions in 
direct spending) and are available to be spent without further 
appropriation. Using information from USFWS, CBO estimates that 
enacting H.R. 764 would reduce those receipts and the 
consequent spending by an insignificant amount over the 2024-
2033 period.
    Violators of the ESA are subject to civil and criminal 
penalties, which are recorded as revenues and available for 
spending without further appropriation. Using information from 
USFWS, CBO estimates that any reductions in collections or 
associated spending would be insignificant because of the small 
number of related cases expected to occur over the 2024-2033 
period.
    Under current law, plaintiffs who challenge the federal 
government under the ESA may be entitled to the repayment of 
attorneys' fees. Such payments are made from the federal 
government's Judgment Fund, which has a permanent indefinite 
appropriation. CBO expects that by prohibiting judicial review, 
H.R. 764 could reduce the number of civil actions that 
otherwise would be filed and thus the potential for payments 
from the fund. Based on the amount of such payments in the 
past, CBO estimates that any decrease in direct spending would 
be insignificant over the 2024-2033 period.
    Finally, using information from USFWS, CBO estimates that 
the administrative costs to reissue the final rule under H.R. 
764 would be insignificant; any spending would be subject to 
the availability of appropriated funds.
    H.R. 764 would impose an intergovernmental and private-
sector mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
(UMRA) by eliminating a right of action for entities to seek 
judicial review of the administrative rule required by the 
bill. Because the rights of action precluded under the bill 
generally do not result in monetary damages, CBO estimates that 
the cost of the mandates would fall well below the 
intergovernmental and private-sector thresholds established in 
UMRA ($99 million and $198 million in 2023, respectively, 
adjusted annually for inflation).
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Lilia Ledezma 
(for federal costs) and Brandon Lever (for mandates). The 
estimate was reviewed by Chad Chirico, Director of Budget 
Analysis.

                                         Phillip L. Swagel,
                             Director, Congressional Budget Office.

    2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or 
objective of this bill is 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.

                           EARMARK STATEMENT

    This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined 
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives.

                 UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT STATEMENT

    According to the Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 764 
would impose an intergovernmental and private-sector mandate as 
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act by eliminating a 
right of action for entities to seek judicial review of the 
administrative proceedings required by the bill. However, the 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost of the 
mandates would fall well below the intergovernmental and 
private-sector thresholds established in the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act, which are $99 million and $198 million in 2023, 
respectively, adjusted annually for inflation.

                           EXISTING PROGRAMS

    Directed Rule Making. This bill directs the Secretary of 
the Interior, an executive branch official, to reissue the 
final rule entitled ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
Plants; Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife'' and published on November 
3, 2020 (85 Fed. Reg. 69778).
    Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not 
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government 
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was 
not included in any report from the Government Accountability 
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139 
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program 
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law 
98-169) as relating to other programs.

                  APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

                PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

    Any preemptive effect of this bill over state, local, or 
tribal law is intended to be consistent with the bill's 
purposes and text and the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the 
U.S. Constitution.

                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    As reported by the Committee on Natural Resources, H.R. 764 
makes no changes in existing law.

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    H.R. 764 would undermine science-based endangered species 
recovery by requiring the Secretary of the Interior to reissue 
a Trump-era Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) rule de-listing the 
gray wolf in the lower 48 states under the Endangered Species 
Act (ESA).\1\ The legislation ignores the established 
regulatory process for evaluating the population status and 
ensuring adequate conservation measures for the species after 
it is delisted, ignores tribal consultation, and prohibits 
judicial review of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\See Erin H. Ward, CRS, R46184, The Gray Wolf Under the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA): A Case Study in Listing and Delisting 
Challenges (2020), https://www.crs.gov/
Reports/R46184.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The gray wolf is a native North American wolf species 
comprised of nearly 30 subspecies. Despite their cultural and 
environmental significance, wolves are often vilified as 
threats to livestock, driving farmers and ranchers to hunt them 
close to extinction before they were granted protections under 
the ESA. In 1974, FWS listed gray wolves as endangered 
throughout the lower 48 states, except for Minnesota, where 
they were listed as threatened.\2\ In November 2020, the Trump 
administration finalized a decision to de-list the gray wolf in 
the lower 48 states, stating that the ``best available 
scientific and commercial data available establish[es] that the 
gray wolf entities in the lower 48 United States do not meet 
the definitions of a threatened species or an endangered 
species under the [Endangered Species] Act.''\3\ This rule 
ended 45 years of ESA protections for gray wolves, despite 
strong disagreement from experts who noted that the wolf's 
recovery hinged on continued protection.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Erin H. Ward, CRS, LSB10697, U.S. District Court Vacates Gray 
Wolf Delisting Rule (2022), https://www.crs.gov/Reports/LSB10697.
    \3\Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Gray 
Wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 
85 Fed. Reg. 69,778, 69,778 (Nov. 3, 2020), https://www.govinfo.gov/
content/pkg/FR-2020-11-03/pdf/2020-24171.pdf.
    \4\See, e.g., Gray Wolves Regain Federal Endangered Species Act 
Protections, Earthjustice (Feb. 10, 2022), https://earthjustice.org/
press/2022/gray-wolves-regain-federal-endangered-
species-act-protections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In February 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Northern 
District of California struck down the Trump-era de-listing. 
The court's decision reinstated the threatened status for 
Minnesota wolves and the endangered status for wolves across 44 
states. The Northern Rocky Mountain DPS did not receive 
protections from the court ruling because Congress de-listed it 
in 2011.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\See id.; Ward, supra note 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 764 should be called ``ignore the science'' rather 
than ``trust the science.'' It undermines the scientific basis 
for listing and de-listing the gray wolf. It prohibits judicial 
review, which is the check on whether an agency has based its 
decision on the best available scientific and commercial data. 
Furthermore, the bill ignores tribal input and consultation. 
This bill would take a significant step backward in protecting 
gray wolves from extinction by legislatively de-listing the 
species across its range without any scientific analysis of 
whether the wolf qualifies for de-listing based on population 
numbers, range, and threats to the existence of the species. 
Unfortunately, if Congress de-lists the species, states that 
allow for inhumane trapping, hunting, and other predator 
control measures aimed at wolves will lead recovery and 
management efforts.
    We already know how those efforts will go. When the Trump 
administration de-listed the gray wolf in 2020, Idaho passed 
legislation allowing for 90% of their gray wolf population to 
be culled by nearly any means, including killing pups,\6\ and 
in Wisconsin, one hunting season wiped out over 30% of the 
state's gray wolf population.\7\ Montana allowed increased bag 
limits and hunting of wolves outside of National Parks.\8\ 
Idaho authorized bounties up to $2,500 per gray wolf kill, and 
states authorized expanded killing methods, including the use 
of traps, snares, night-vision equipment, bait, and motor 
vehicles and dogs to track and kill.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\See, e.g., Bob D'Angelo, Idaho Governor Signs Bill That Will 
Allow Killing of Up To 90% of State's Wolf Population, KIRO7 (May 7, 
2021, 4:18 pm PDT), https://www.kiro7.com/news/trending/idaho-governor-
signs-bill-that-will-allow-killing-up-90-states-wolf-population/
NXTIGBZ4HFAIFAETVNWZK5EQFY/; see also Tess Joosse, Wolf Populations 
Drop as More States Allow Hunting, Sci. Am. (Sept. 7, 2021), https://
www.scientificamerican.com/article/wolf-populations-drop-as-more-
states-allow-hunting/.
    \7\Adrian Treves, Francisco J. Santiago-Avila & Karann Putrevu, 
Quantifying the Effects of Delisting Wolves after the First State Began 
Lethal Management, PeerJ 9:e11666 (2021), https://doi.org/10.7717/
peerj.11666.
    \8\Tom Kuglin, Judge Issues Immediate Temporary Changes to 
Montana's Wolf Hunting, Trapping Seasons, Indep. Rec. (Nov. 16, 2022), 
https://helenair.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/judge-
issues-immediate-temporary-changes-to-montanas-wolf-hunting-trapping-
seasons/article_4ebc04b2_9efb-5b86-b659-0ce96bbfaa9f.html.
    \9\Keith Ridler, Idaho Reaches Deal to Reimburse Hunters who Kill 
Wolves, AP (Oct. 11, 2021), https://apnews.com/article/science-
business-lifestyle-wolves-environment-d90402905576067da4726068e8ebd563.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FWS is currently assessing the status of the gray wolf and 
whether delisting is warranted through a 12-month status 
review. This legislation cuts that thorough, science-based 
process short and undermines the successful work of wolf 
recovery.
                                  Raul M. Grijalva,
              Ranking Member, House Committee on Natural Resources.

                                  [all]