Bill Overview
Title: To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide for protective regulations when a species is listed as an endangered species.
Description: This bill authorizes protective regulations for conserving species that are listed as endangered.
Sponsors: Rep. Stauber, Pete [R-MN-8]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals globally impacted by changes to biodiversity and species conservation efforts
Estimated Size: 333000000
- The bill pertains to species listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which has a direct impact on the environment and biodiversity.
- The wellbeing of people is influenced by healthy ecosystems, which depend on biodiversity and species conservation.
- Protective regulations will guide activities such as land use, development, and resource extraction that can affect endangered species.
- Farmers, developers, and businesses might need to comply with new regulations to conserve endangered species.
- The bill's impact might vary geographically based on where endangered species are located, influencing local communities and industries in these areas.
- Environmental advocates and organizations dedicated to wildlife conservation will be directly interested in and affected by the bill.
- Tourism can be impacted as many wildlife tourism activities depend on thriving populations of certain species, contributing to local economies.
Reasoning
- The policy is likely to impact people connected with land use, agriculture, conservation, and tourism the most. There will be variability in the impact due to geographic and industry factors.
- Since the policy concerns endangered species, the most affected people will likely be those living in areas where such species are present or where conservation measures are more intensive.
- The policy's budget limitations might mean that not all endangered areas or species can be covered in the initial years, directing the focus to high-priority or high-risk areas.
- Individuals engaged in environmental advocacy or already involved in conservation work are expected to perceive the impact positively, as it aligns with their interests and goals.
- President of small-scale farming operations might need to adjust practices to comply with new regulations, leading to potential changes in their wellbeing.
- Major developmental projects might face new challenges or delays, affecting industries and employees associated with such projects, potentially affecting job security and income.
- Long-term effects on wellbeing for the general population might be positive given the stabilizing benefits of a healthy ecosystem and biodiversity.
- People might experience different scales of impact based on how directly their livelihood or activities interact with endangered species habitats.
Simulated Interviews
Environmental Lawyer (California)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am hopeful about the policy because it strengthens conservation efforts.
- This policy will offer additional legal tools we can use to protect vital species.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Ranch Owner (Montana)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned that new regulations will complicate our operations.
- Balancing conservation and ranching is getting more challenging but is necessary.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Wildlife Biologist (Florida)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill is essential for the long-term survival of endangered ecosystems.
- It's a step forward but more funding will be necessary for effective conservation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 5 |
Oil and Gas Executive (Texas)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could increase operational costs due to stricter regulations.
- Balancing energy needs and conservation is critical for future strategy.
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 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Environmental Policy Intern (New York)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This aligns with my career goals and offers a clear path for impactful work.
- Such policies signal to young professionals that there's a future in conservation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Tourism Operator (Virginia)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Protective measures can only help us sustain our business for the long term.
- A rich natural environment is our main selling point, so conservation is key.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Indigenous Community Leader (Alaska)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We need to ensure that policies respect indigenous knowledge and rights.
- Conservation is important, but it must be inclusive and equitable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Urban Developer (Illinois)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- New regulations might slow down projects but are manageable.
- It's important to integrate environmental concerns early in planning.
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 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Graduate Student in Ecology (Oregon)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill can make my research more relevant and impactful.
- It introduces optimism about real change in policies affecting ecosystems.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Federal Conservation Agency Employee (Washington)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill is critical for the evolution of effective wildlife protection.
- We need more comprehensive regulations to bolster efforts in facing these crises.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1500000000 (Low: $1200000000, High: $1800000000)
Year 2: $1600000000 (Low: $1300000000, High: $1900000000)
Year 3: $1700000000 (Low: $1400000000, High: $2000000000)
Year 5: $1900000000 (Low: $1600000000, High: $2200000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Coordination between federal, state, and local governments is crucial to minimize costs and enhance effectiveness.
- Balancing economic activity with conservation aims will be an ongoing challenge for policymakers.
- Compliance costs for private entities could be significant, influencing the overall economic outcomes.
- Educating and engaging with stakeholders including industries, communities, and NGOs can help smooth implementation.