Bill Overview
Title: Trust the Science Act
Description: This bill directs the Department of the Interior to remove protections for the gray wolf under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). Specifically, the bill requires 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. The rule removed the gray wolf in the lower 48 United States, except for the Mexican wolf ( C. l. baileyi ) subspecies, from the endangered and threatened species list. However, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California vacated the rule on February 10, 2022. As a result, the gray wolf reattained the protection status it had prior to the rule's promulgation. The bill also prohibits the reissuance of the rule from being subject to judicial review.
Sponsors: Rep. Boebert, Lauren [R-CO-3]
Target Audience
Population: People interested in or affected by gray wolf conservation and predation issues
Estimated Size: 2000000
- The bill focuses on removing protections for the gray wolf under the Endangered Species Act in the lower 48 United States, impacting wildlife conservation efforts.
- Farmers, ranchers, and those in agriculture may be impacted as the removal of protections could affect livestock predation by wolves.
- Wildlife conservationists and environmental organizations might be impacted due to the ecological implications of changing the status of the gray wolf.
- The bill involves legal and regulatory frameworks, impacting those working within wildlife law and policy.
Reasoning
- The potential impact of the policy varies significantly among stakeholders. Farmers and ranchers may experience reduced predation on livestock, potentially increasing their wellbeing scores over time.
- Conservationists may perceive the policy negatively, concerned about potential ecological damage following the removal of protections for gray wolves.
- The impacts are most pronounced in states with active gray wolf populations, such as Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and the Great Lakes region.
- People not directly involved in agriculture or conservation may have neutral or less pronounced impacts, highlighting the importance of including a diverse sample of interviewees to reflect varied perspectives.
Simulated Interviews
rancher (Montana)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy is a step in the right direction. Wolves have been a threat to my livestock for years, and this will help manage their numbers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
environmental lawyer (Wyoming)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy undermines years of conservation work. Wolves play a crucial role in the ecosystem, and removing protections will have devastating effects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 8 |
beef farmer (Idaho)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Finally a policy that seems to understand the struggles farmers face with wolves. This change should help reduce the losses I've been suffering.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
wildlife biologist (Minnesota)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems short-sighted. Gray wolves are integral to the restoration of many ecosystems, and legal protection is crucial for their survival.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 7 |
law professor (California)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This removal of protections sets a dangerous precedent. It could lead to a rollback of environmental protections across other species as well.
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 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
retired teacher (Wisconsin)
Age: 63 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Wolves are part of our heritage and ecosystem, this act jeopardizes their safety and should not proceed without critical scientific review.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
science communicator (Idaho)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Educating people about the importance of predators seems even more crucial now. This policy may set back ecological balances and diversities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 6 |
conservationist (Michigan)
Age: 41 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Conservation is an ongoing effort. Removing protective measures without clear scientific backing risks decades of progress.
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 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 7 |
tech employee (Oregon)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Although I am not directly affected, I feel concerned about the broader implications for environmental policies and protections.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
state wildlife officer (Washington)
Age: 58 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This decision seems politically motivated rather than science-based. Wildlife management needs to build off adaptive management strategies.
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 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Year 2: $2500000 (Low: $1500000, High: $4500000)
Year 3: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $3500000)
Year 5: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $3500000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The impact on state versus federal responsibilities with respect to wildlife management.
- Short-term costs associated with transition and implementation of state management plans.
- Long-term ecological impacts, which might affect subsequent conservation funding needs.