S-5519-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Sponsored by Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
What it does
The bill would require the Fish and Wildlife Service Director, within 1 year and in consultation with a new advisory committee, to update the 2008 post-delisting monitoring plan for gray wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan's Upper Peninsula. After that update, the Secretary of the Interior would be required to issue a rule removing gray wolves in that region from the Endangered Species Act list. The bill would also treat the region's wolves as part of the 1978 rule's "Minnesota population," would create an advisory committee within 30 days, and would have the committee consult during a 5-year post-delisting monitoring period. Wolf populations covered by the 1978 rule elsewhere would not change.
Who benefits
Livestock producers and landowners in the three-state region who may gain more flexibility to manage wolves after delisting. State wildlife agencies that could gain management authority. Tribal governments, state agencies, and wolf experts who would get a formal advisory role in monitoring. Wolf advocates who favor a defined monitoring structure and a single regional framework in place of litigation-driven status changes.
Who is hurt
Wolf conservation groups that oppose delisting and may lose federal protections and court-review avenues, since the rule is required by statute. Wolves in the region, which could face lethal control or hunting depending on state law. Tribal nations that hold cultural and spiritual ties to wolves and may disagree with the outcome despite a committee seat. The Fish and Wildlife Service, which would bear costs for the monitoring plan, committee, and rulemaking, and which would lose discretion over the delisting decision.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that wolf numbers in the Great Lakes region have exceeded federal recovery goals for years, and that repeated court reversals of delisting decisions have left management in doubt. They contend that pairing a required delisting with an updated monitoring plan and a committee of Tribes, states, and federal agencies provides certainty while keeping a 5-year safeguard to watch for population decline.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a statutory delisting order removes the scientific, case-by-case review the Endangered Species Act requires and cuts off the court review that has previously corrected premature delistings. They contend that the 2008 plan is outdated, that a committee giving states and agencies seats may favor management over conservation, and that a 5-year monitoring period is too short to catch a decline.
Constitutional context
Congress may regulate wildlife under its Commerce Clause and Property Clause powers and may change the underlying law that agencies and courts apply, as Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Society (1992) recognized. The bill directs a specific outcome in place of agency discretion, so it avoids major-questions and Loper Bright concerns about agency authority.
Checks and balances
Congress gains power by directing a listing decision that the executive branch would otherwise make, and the Fish and Wildlife Service loses discretion; courts could still review whether the implementing steps follow the statute, and the advisory committee only consults.
Historical precedent
Congress previously removed gray wolf protections in the Northern Rocky Mountains through a 2011 appropriations rider, which the Ninth Circuit upheld in Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Salazar (2012).