Bill Overview
Title: Bear Poaching Elimination Act of 2022
Description: This bill makes it unlawful for a person to knowingly import, export, sell, purchase, possess, transport, deliver, or receive bear viscera or related products except for limited acts carried out solely to enforce wildlife protection laws.
Sponsors: Sen. Kennedy, John [R-LA]
Target Audience
Population: People participating in or affected by trade and enforcement of bear parts
Estimated Size: 50000
- The bill aims to prevent the poaching and illegal trade of bear viscera, affecting those engaged in wildlife trade.
- Bear poachers and illegal traders will directly feel the impact due to restrictions on their activities.
- The law will affect enforcers such as wildlife protection agencies who will see changes in enforcement duties.
- Countries engaged in the trade of bear parts will see impacts due to import/export bans.
Reasoning
- The Bear Poaching Elimination Act primarily affects those involved in the illegal wildlife trade, a relatively small community in the US, estimated at about 50,000 people.
- The policy will require enforcement resources, thus involving and affecting wildlife officials in terms of job duties and focus.
- Given the policy's focus, the direct impact on average US citizens who aren't involved in this trade will be minimal or non-existent.
- The budget constraint suggests a focus on enforcement rather than widespread public impact.
- Cantril well-being scores will vary significantly for affected trade participants (decrease due to loss of income) and enforcement officers (potential increase due to job satisfaction from a clearer mandate).
Simulated Interviews
wildlife enforcement officer (Montana)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy will help us protect local wildlife more effectively.
- It's good to see stricter laws. It gives our work more weight.
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 | 7 | 7 |
import/export business owner (California)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could damage my business significantly since a portion relied on bear products.
- I understand the need for conservation, but it's too restrictive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 6 |
student (New York)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm really happy about this policy. It's a win for conservation efforts everywhere.
- Hopefully, it sends a message globally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
wildlife biologist (Texas)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The Bear Poaching Elimination Act is a necessary step to preserve ecosystems.
- It's a solid start, though implementation will be key.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
policy analyst (Chicago)
Age: 31 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this as a balanced approach to tackling illegal trade.
- Effective only if enforcement is robust and international cooperation increases.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
bear hunter (Alaska)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I support legal hunting, I oppose poaching.
- This law could deter illegal activities that unfairly tarnish the profession.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
retail worker (New Jersey)
Age: 43 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is good in theory, but enforcement and results will really matter.
- Hopeful it signals better protection for species.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
unemployed (Oregon)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I fear this policy could make it hard for people like me to find legitimate work.
- Maybe it will push for more awareness about alternative occupations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
lawyer (Florida)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislation presents new opportunities for legal work related to environmental laws.
- It's a positive shift towards prioritizing wildlife protection.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
veterinarian (Virginia)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It’s a crucial step towards more sustainable ecosystems.
- Hopefully, this means better funding for rescue centers as well.
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 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $4800000 (Low: $3800000, High: $6800000)
Year 3: $4600000 (Low: $3600000, High: $6600000)
Year 5: $4300000 (Low: $3300000, High: $6300000)
Year 10: $4000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $6000000)
Year 100: $4000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $6000000)
Key Considerations
- Legal implications of enforcement and how agencies will handle illegal cases.
- Existing international trade agreements and their impact on enforcement capabilities.
- The necessity for cross-border cooperation on illegal wildlife trade.