[House Report 119-332]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
119th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 119-332
=======================================================================
PET AND LIVESTOCK PROTECTION ACT
----------------
October 3, 2025.--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. 845]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 845) 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 with an amendment and recommends that the bill as
amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Pet and Livestock Protection Act''.
SEC. 2. REMOVING THE GRAY WOLF FROM THE LIST OF ENDANGERED AND
THREATENED WILDLIFE.
Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this section,
the Secretary of the Interior shall 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).
SEC. 3. NO JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Reissuance of the final rule under section 2 shall not be subject to
judicial review.
PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION
The purpose of H.R. 845 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
This bill would require the Department of the Interior 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'' published on
November 3, 2020 (85 Fed. Reg. 69778). The bill would also
prohibit the rule from being subject to judicial review.
In 1978, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) listed
the gray wolf as threatened in Minnesota, and endangered in the
remainder of the lower 48 states, under the Endangered Species
Act.\1\ The rule specified that ``biological subspecies would
continue to be maintained and dealt with as separate
entities.''\2\ FWS thus implemented gray wolf recovery programs
in three regions: the northern Rocky Mountains for the northern
Rocky Mountain wolf, the southwestern United States for the
Mexican wolf, and the eastern United States (including the
Great Lakes States) for the eastern timber wolf.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\``U.S. District Court Vacates Gray Wolf Delisting Rule.'' Erin
H. Ward. Congressional Research Service. LSB10697 (congress.gov).
\2\43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978.
\3\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Great Lakes region has the largest concentration of
gray wolves in the lower 48 states, with approximately 4,200
wolves inhabiting Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan.\4\ Under
the current management framework, wolves in Minnesota are
listed as threatened, whereas wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan
are listed as endangered.\5\ The recovery plan for the gray
wolf in the Great Lakes is quite clear regarding the criteria
for delisting: a stable or increasing population of wolves in
Minnesota and a population of at least 200 wolves outside of
Minnesota.\6\ According to former wildlife biologist at 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.''\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\``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).
\5\``U.S. District Court Vacates Gray Wolf Delisting Rule.'' Erin
H. Ward. Congressional Research Service. LSB10697 (congress.gov).
\6\``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.
\7\``Testimony of Nathan Roberts.'' House Committee on Natural
Resources. March 23, 2023. testimony_roberts.pdf (house.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between 2003 and 2015, the FWS 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 FWS distinct population segment (DPS) designations were
legally flawed.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2009, the FWS 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.\9\ The
Humane Society challenged the western Great Lakes DPS rule on
the grounds that the FWS violated the Administrative Procedures
Act's notice and comment requirements. Ultimately, the FWS
reached a settlement agreement and withdrew the rule.\10\
Defenders of Wildlife challenged the northern Rocky Mountain
DPS rule, and the Montana federal district court vacated the
2009 Northern Rocky Mountain DPS rule after concluding that the
ESA did not allow the FWS to list a partial DPS.\11\ However,
an act of Congress in 2011 directed the FWS to reinstate the
2009 rule designating and delisting the northern Rocky Mountain
DPS without Wyoming.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\74 Fed. Reg. 15,070 (Apr. 2, 2009); 74 Fed. Reg. 15,123 (Apr. 2,
2009).
\10\Humane Soc'y of the U.S. v. Salazar, No. 1:09-CV-1092 (D.D.C.
July 2, 2009) (settlement order).
\11\Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 812 F. Supp. 2d 1205, 1207
(D. Mont. 2009).
\12\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 FWS
delisted the gray wolf in Wyoming. As a result, starting in
2017 there were three distinct regulatory frameworks for gray
wolf population areas: (1) the northern Rockies Mountains,
where the wolf was not listed; (2) in Minnesota, where 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.\13\ In November 2020, the Trump administration
finalized a rule that delisted the gray wolf, except for the
Mexican wolf, and returned management to each of the lower 48
states.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\``U.S. District Court Vacates Gray Wolf Delisting Rule.'' Erin
H. Ward. Congressional Research Service. LSB10697 (congress.gov).
\14\85 Fed. Reg. 69,778 (Nov. 3, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defenders of Wildlife, WildEarth Guardians, and other
environmental groups challenged the 2020 rule, and the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California vacated
it in February 2022.\15\ The court found that the FWS 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.\16\ This ruling reinstated ESA
protections for the gray wolf in the lower 48 states, except
for the congressionally delisted Northern Rockies
Ecosystem.\17\ The Biden administration's Department of Justice
appealed the ruling and continued to submit legal filings in
support of the 2020 rule as late as September 2024.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\``U.S. District Court Vacates Gray Wolf Delisting Rule.'' Erin
H. Ward. Congressional Research Service. LSB10697 (congress.gov).
\16\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.
\17\``Judge restores gray wolf protections.'' Michael Doyle. E&E
News. February 10, 2022. Judge restores gray wolf protections--E&E News
(eenews.net).
\18\Federal Appellants' Opening Brief. Defenders of Wildlife, et
al., v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife, et al., and State of Utah, et al.
September 13, 2024. https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/
chairman_westerman_ftr_--_9th_cir._court_defenders_v_usfws_--
_wolves.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 118th Congress, the House of Representatives passed
legislation identical to H.R. 845, the ``Trust the Science
Act,'' by a vote of 209-205, with four Democrats voting in
support of the legislation.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\H.R. 764, ``Trust the Science Act.'' H.R. 764--118th Congress
(2023-2024): Trust the Science Act Congress.gov
Library of Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 845 was introduced on January 31, 2025, by
Representative 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 25,
2025, the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries held a
hearing on the bill. On April 9, 2025, 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. 845 by unanimous consent. Representative
Lauren Boebert (R-CO) offered an Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute designated Boebert_014 ANS. The Amendment in the
Nature of a Substitute was agreed to by voice vote.
Representative Val Hoyle (D-OR) offered an amendment to the
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute designated Hoyle #2.
The amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17 yeas to 24 nays, as
follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ranking Member Jared Huffman (D-CA) offered an amendment to
the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute designated Huffman
#6. The amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17 yeas to
24 nays, as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Representative Maxine Dexter (D-OR) offered an amendment to
the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute designated Dexter
#1. The amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17 yeas to
24 nays, as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The bill, as amended, was then ordered favorably reported
to the House of Representatives by a roll call vote of 24 yeas
to 17 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 25, 2025.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1. Short title
Establishes the short title of this act as the ``Pet and
Livestock Protection Act''.
Section 2. Removing the Gray Wolf from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife
Requires the Secretary of the Interior 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'' not later than 60 days
after the date of enactment.
Section 3. No judicial review
Prohibits judicial review on the reissuance of the final
rule under section 2.
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
sections 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. 845 would require the Department 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.
Under current law, USFWS collects 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.
845, 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 (that is, as reductions in direct spending) and are
available to be spent without further appropriation. Using
information from USFWS, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 845
would reduce those receipts and the consequent spending by an
insignificant amount over the 2025-2035 period.
Violators of the ESA are subject to civil and criminal
penalties, which are recorded in the budget as revenues; those
penalties can be spent without further appropriation. Using
information from USFWS, CBO estimates that any reductions in
penalties and the associated spending would be insignificant
because of the small number of related cases expected to occur
over the 2025-2035 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. 845 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 for
those payments would be insignificant over the 2025-2035
period.
Finally, using information from USFWS, CBO estimates that
the administrative costs to reissue the final rule under H.R.
845 would be insignificant; any related spending would be
subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
H.R. 845 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 a
judicial review of the administrative rule required by the
bill. Because the rights of action precluded under the bill do
not generally 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 ($103 million and $206 million in 2025, respectively,
adjusted annually for inflation).
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Lilia Ledezma
(for federal costs) and Erich Dvorak (for mandates). The
estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy 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. 845
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 a judicial
review of the administrative rule required by the bill. Because
the rights of action precluded under the bill do not generally
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 ($103 million and
$206 million in 2025, 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 ordered reported by the Committee on Natural Resources,
H.R. 845 would make no changes in existing law.
DISSENTING VIEWS
H.R. 845, the ``Pet and Livestock Protection Act of 2025,''
would prematurely strip federal protections for the gray wolf
across the lower 48 states, ignoring scientific evidence that
the species remains vulnerable in many parts of its historic
range.\1\ This bill would undermine the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) by mandating the reissuance of a 2020 rule that was
overturned by the courts in 2022.\2\ By explicitly blocking
judicial review, it would remove a critical legal safeguard
that ensures species protection decisions are based on science,
not politics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\E.g., CRS Report R47581. Experimental Populations Under the
Endangered Species Act and Gray Wolves Report (2023).
\2\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gray wolf plays a crucial role in healthy ecosystems by
regulating prey populations, such as deer and elk, preventing
overgrazing, and promoting biodiversity. While wolf numbers
have rebounded in limited areas, such as the Northern Rockies
and Great Lakes, the species remains absent from much of its
former range and continues to face threats from habitat
fragmentation, human conflict, and genetic isolation.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\E.g., O'Shaughnessy, Sydney. ``As U.S. Wolf Populations Slowly
Rebound, A Conservation Expert Reflects on Her Decades of Research''.
National Academies. October 16, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than supporting science-based recovery, H.R. 845
would turn wolf management over to individual states. In the
past, state-led management has resulted in mass killings of
wolves, endangering population stability and undoing decades of
progress under the ESA.\4\ After the Trump Administration de-
listed gray wolves in 2020,\5\ Wisconsin's rushed wolf hunt
killed over 30% of the state's population in just one
season.\6\ Idaho passed a law allowing the killing of up to 90%
of its wolves, including pups.\7\ Montana removed protections
around Yellowstone, raised bag limits, and expanded
trapping.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Tess Joosse, Wolf Populations Drop as More States Allow Hunting,
Sci. Am. (Sept. 7, 2021), Wolf Populations Drop as More States Allow
Hunting Scientific American.
\5\Ibid.
\6\Adrian Treves, Francisco J. Santiago-Avila & Karann Putrevu,
Quantifying the Effects of Delisting Wolves after the First State Began
Lethal Management, (2021), Quantifying the effects of delisting wolves
after the first state began lethal management--PubMed.
\7\Bob D'Angelo, Idaho Governor Signs Bill That Will Allow Killing
of Up To 90% of State's Wolf Population, KIRO7 (May 7, 2021), Idaho
Gov. Signs Bill To Allow Killing 90% of State's Wolves
HuffPost Impact.
\8\Tom Kuglin, Judge Issues Immediate Temporary Changes to
Montana's Wolf Hunting, Trapping Seasons, Indep. Rec. (Nov. 16, 2022),
Judge issues immediate temporary changes to Montana's wolf hunting,
trapping seasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By removing judicial review, H.R. 845 would erode the
transparency and accountability of the ESA process. Courts play
an essential role in ensuring that delisting decisions meet
legal and scientific standards. Without this oversight, the
integrity of the ESA is at risk, and future decisions could be
driven by political pressure rather than ecological necessity.
This bill prioritizes fear-based policies over the
ecological importance of keystone species and could trigger
population declines that require costly federal re-listing and
intervention in the future. The best available science shows
that the gray wolf's recovery remains incomplete. H.R. 845 not
only ignores the best available science but also sets a
dangerous precedent for legislating species-specific delisting
actions that bypass expert agency review and public input.
Jared Huffman,
Ranking Member.
[all]