Bill Overview
Title: Prohibit Wildlife Killing Contests Act of 2022
Description: This bill makes it unlawful for any persons, except as provided below, to organize, sponsor, conduct, or participate in wildlife killing contests on public lands. This bill shall not apply to field trials, wildlife killing contests that exclusively target ungulates (e.g., deer) or birds of the orders Galliformes (e.g., turkeys) or Anatidae (e.g., ducks), or lethal control actions by state or federal agencies that target wildlife classified as invasive by the National Invasive Species Information Center.
Sponsors: Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals who organize, sponsor, conduct, or participate in wildlife killing contests
Estimated Size: 250000
- Wildlife killing contests are events where participants compete to kill the most or the largest animals, often predator species, within a given timeframe.
- Preventing these contests can lead to ecological benefits, such as maintaining predator populations that play critical roles in ecosystems.
- These contests are most common in rural regions where hunting and wildlife activities are prevalent.
- The prohibition's impact includes changes in income for individuals and businesses that rely on hosting and attending these contests, including hunters, event organizers, and local businesses that benefit from contest-related tourism.
- Animal rights activists and environmental groups, who often oppose killing contests, will be positively impacted as the legislation aligns with their goals.
- The ecological and recreational hunting communities, who prioritize conservation and ethical hunting practices, may also be positively influenced.
- The bill does not affect killing contests targeting certain animals like ungulates or birds, which may limit its scope and impact on other sectors.
Reasoning
- The target population for this policy includes individuals who derive economic or recreational benefits from wildlife killing contests. This includes organizers, sponsors, participants, and possibly local businesses. Considering the niche nature of these contests, the number affected directly may be relatively small compared to the general population.
- There is a potential for positive ecological impacts due to the maintenance of balanced predator populations, which in turn can benefit broader ecosystems. This could gradually improve the general well-being of communities who benefit from ecosystem services.
- Animal rights supporters, who are often urban or suburban residents, will likely feel positively about the prevention of such contests, reflecting in increased self-reported wellbeing.
- Conversely, those economically dependent on these events might see a decrease in wellbeing due to financial impacts.
- The policy budget constraints mean that efforts to compensate or support those negatively impacted economically must be carefully managed.
Simulated Interviews
Event Organizer (Wyoming)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These contests are a tradition in our area and a big part of our community's economy.
- Without these events, I'll lose a significant portion of my income.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Wildlife Biologist (California)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a major victory for conservation efforts.
- Eradicating these contests helps preserve ecosystem balance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Hunter (Texas)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I enjoy these contests as a part of my hunting activities.
- This feels like an unnecessary restriction on my hobbies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired, Animal Rights Activist (Vermont)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill is a dream come true, reflecting our decades of advocacy.
- I'm hopeful it will lead to further animal protections.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Wildlife Conservationist (Colorado)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy supports our ongoing efforts to maintain healthy ecosystems.
- I wish the policy was more expansive to include all wildlife.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Local Business Owner (Idaho)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My business relies on the crowd these contests attract.
- The ban can harm my business unless alternative events arise.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
College Student (New York)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad to see a legislative push for wildlife protection.
- It's inspiring for someone in my field of study.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Farmer (Montana)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The contests disrupt my farm but bring business to nearby stores.
- Mixed feelings but overall supportive if ecosystem benefits are real.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Outdoor Gear Retailer (Nevada)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I might see a drop in sales without these contests driving people to shop.
- I hope the government can compensate affected businesses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Teacher (Ohio)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Good teaching opportunity about responsible wildlife management.
- Reflective of shifting norms towards better animal welfare in our laws.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $4500000 (Low: $2700000, High: $6300000)
Year 3: $4000000 (Low: $2400000, High: $5600000)
Year 5: $3000000 (Low: $1800000, High: $4200000)
Year 10: $1000000 (Low: $600000, High: $1400000)
Year 100: $200000 (Low: $120000, High: $280000)
Key Considerations
- The administrative burden on federal agencies for monitoring compliance.
- Legal challenges which could arise from contest organizers.
- Impact on rural communities economically dependent on these contests.