Bill Overview
Title: A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to reissue final rules relating to listing the gray wolf in the Western Great Lakes and Wyoming under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
Description: This bill addresses the removal of federal protections for the gray wolf ( Canis lupus ). Specifically, the Department of the Interior must reinstate a rule that removed the gray wolf in the Western Great Lakes region from the endangered and threatened species list. The bill exempts the reinstated rule from judicial review. In addition, it exempts from judicial review a reinstated rule that removes the gray wolf in Wyoming from the list.
Sponsors: Sen. Johnson, Ron [R-WI]
Target Audience
Population: People living in areas affected by gray wolf population changes due to delisting in Western Great Lakes and Wyoming
Estimated Size: 3000000
- The gray wolf is an apex predator and plays a crucial role in the biodiversity and ecosystem of the Great Lakes and Wyoming regions.
- Farmers and ranchers in the Western Great Lakes and Wyoming may be directly affected as changes in wolf populations can impact livestock safety and require changes in protective measures.
- Environmental and wildlife conservation groups are stakeholders as they often advocate for the protection and recovery of endangered species.
- Hunters in these regions might be impacted since wolves might be competitors for game species.
- Local communities and Indigenous groups that have cultural ties to the gray wolf may be affected by the presence or absence of the species.
Reasoning
- The population affected by the removal of gray wolf protections is diverse, including farmers, ranchers, conservationists, hunters, and local communities, including Indigenous peoples, living in or near wolf habitats.
- The budget constraint necessitates targeting initiatives that benefit multiple stakeholders, potentially involving compensatory measures for livestock losses and support for biodiversity conservation efforts.
- The policy impacts are varied: positively influencing those who believe in ecosystem-based conservation approaches while negatively affecting those dependent on livestock safety.
- The monetary allocation should ensure the inclusion of local and Indigenous knowledge systems, offering financial and technical support to adapt to changes.
Simulated Interviews
Rancher (Western Great Lakes)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I fear more attacks on my cattle if the wolves are not managed properly.
- The policy might lead to increased costs for protective measures on my ranch.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Wildlife Biologist (Minnesota)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy undoes years of conservation efforts.
- Gray wolves are crucial for maintaining a balanced ecosystem.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
Local Hunter (Wyoming)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Wolf delisting might increase game competition.
- As a local hunter, I see impacts on deer and elk availability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Environmental Lawyer (Wisconsin)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The removal from the endangered list sets a dangerous precedent.
- It undermines ongoing judicial processes for wildlife protection.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 9 |
Indigenous Community Leader (Michigan)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The gray wolf is a symbol of balance in our culture.
- This decision disregards the spiritual and cultural significance for Indigenous peoples.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Retired Farmer (Wyoming)
Age: 61 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about my family's safety with more wolves around.
- Balancing between wildlife preservation and human safety is challenging.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Animal Rights Activist (Minnesota)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The gray wolf should remain protected to uphold biodiversity.
- This policy reflects negligence towards animal rights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 10 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 10 |
School Teacher (Western Great Lakes)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's important for students to understand the interplay between humans and wildlife.
- This policy complicates our educational outreach on endangered species.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Tour Guide (Wisconsin)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Wolf tours are a major attraction and their protection status affects my business.
- People come here to learn about secure wolf populations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 10 |
State Policymaker (Wyoming)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- State policies will need to adapt; this affects tourism and environmental reputation.
- Wolves play a crucial role but balancing livestock concerns is necessary.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $3000000)
Year 2: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $3000000)
Year 3: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $3000000)
Year 5: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $3000000)
Year 10: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $3000000)
Year 100: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $3000000)
Key Considerations
- Public opinion on endangered species protections could affect later policy or regulatory decisions.
- Economic impacts on local agriculture due to potential changes in livestock predation and protection efforts.
- Implications of federal versus state-level management of wildlife.
- Potential international attention and cooperation on biodiversity and endangered species issues.