Pet and Livestock Protection Act

Bill Number: H.R. 845
Origin Chamber: House
Congress: 119th Congress, Session 1
Policy Area: Environmental Protection
Status: Passed House
Latest Action: 2025-12-18: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Last Updated: 2026-02-04T05:06:25Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

This legislation, titled the "Pet and Livestock Protection Act," aims to remove federal protections for the gray wolf under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), a law that protects animal and plant species at risk of extinction. By doing so, it seeks to address concerns about wolves preying on pets and livestock, allowing states more flexibility in managing wolf populations.

Key Provisions

Reissuance of Delisting Rule (Section 2): Within 60 days of the bill's enactment, the Secretary of the Interior (who oversees the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the agency responsible for ESA implementation) must reissue a specific 2020 final rule. That rule, published on November 3, 2020, removed the gray wolf (Canis lupus) from the federal lists of endangered (at high risk of extinction) and threatened (likely to become endangered) wildlife.
Prohibition on Judicial Review (Section 3): The reissuance of this rule cannot be challenged in court, preventing lawsuits that might delay or block the delisting.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

This bill reverses any prior federal relisting of the gray wolf under the ESA, which may have occurred due to court rulings or administrative actions after the 2020 delisting. It mandates a swift return to the 2020 status without the usual public comment periods or environmental impact assessments required under the ESA and related laws.
It introduces a rare exemption from judicial review, altering standard procedures where delistings can be contested in federal courts for compliance with the ESA.

Potential Impacts

On Government Agencies: The Department of the Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would lose authority over gray wolf protections, shifting management primarily to state wildlife agencies. This could reduce federal oversight and funding related to wolf conservation.
On Citizens: Ranchers, farmers, and pet owners in wolf-populated areas (e.g., parts of the Midwest, West, and Northeast) may benefit from fewer restrictions on actions like hunting or lethal control to protect livestock and pets. However, environmental groups and some communities might face increased wolf populations without federal safeguards, potentially leading to more human-wildlife conflicts.
On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though it could affect U.S. cooperation with Canada and Mexico on cross-border wolf conservation efforts under treaties like the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation.

Main Stakeholders Affected

Livestock and Pet Owners: Primary beneficiaries, as delisting could enable quicker responses to wolf attacks on animals.
State Governments and Wildlife Agencies: Gain more control over wolf management, including hunting seasons, but may face pressure to balance conservation with local economic interests.
Environmental and Conservation Groups: Likely opponents, as reduced protections could hinder gray wolf recovery in certain regions.
Rural Communities: Positive for agriculture-dependent areas; potential challenges for tourism or ecosystems reliant on wolves (e.g., as apex predators controlling prey populations).
Federal Agencies: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would implement the change but lose ongoing ESA-related responsibilities.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

Legal Implications: The ban on judicial review is unusual and could limit challenges under the Administrative Procedure Act (which governs federal rulemaking) or the ESA, potentially setting a precedent for Congress to insulate agency actions from court scrutiny.
Constitutional Implications: This might raise questions about separation of powers, as it directs executive branch actions and restricts the judiciary's role in reviewing federal decisions, possibly conflicting with Article III of the U.S. Constitution (which establishes the judicial branch).
Political Implications: The bill reflects tensions between rural economic interests (e.g., agriculture) and national environmental policy, potentially fueling debates over federal vs. state authority on wildlife management. Passed by the House on December 18, 2025, it highlights partisan divides, with support from agricultural lobbies and opposition from conservation advocates.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Boebert, Lauren [R-CO-4]

Cosponsors (37)

Rep. Tiffany, Thomas P. [R-WI-7], Rep. Begich, Nicholas [R-AK-At Large], Rep. Bergman, Jack [R-MI-1], Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5], Rep. Bentz, Cliff [R-OR-2], Rep. Crank, Jeff [R-CO-5], Rep. Crane, Elijah [R-AZ-2], Rep. Downing, Troy [R-MT-2], Rep. Emmer, Tom [R-MN-6], Rep. Evans, Gabe [R-CO-8], Rep. Fitzgerald, Scott [R-WI-5], Rep. Finstad, Brad [R-MN-1], Rep. Fischbach, Michelle [R-MN-7], Rep. Fulcher, Russ [R-ID-1], Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ-9], Rep. Grothman, Glenn [R-WI-6], Rep. Hageman, Harriet M. [R-WY-At Large], Rep. Harris, Andy [R-MD-1], Rep. Hurd, Jeff [R-CO-3], Rep. Hudson, Richard [R-NC-9], Rep. Kennedy, Mike [R-UT-3], Rep. Moolenaar, John R. [R-MI-2], Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1], Rep. Newhouse, Dan [R-WA-4], Rep. Nehls, Troy E. [R-TX-22], Rep. Ogles, Andrew [R-TN-5], Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA-10], Rep. Steil, Bryan [R-WI-1], Rep. Stauber, Pete [R-MN-8], Rep. Van Orden, Derrick [R-WI-3], Rep. Wied, Tony [R-WI-8], Rep. Miller, Max L. [R-OH-7], Rep. Joyce, David P. [R-OH-14], Rep. Clyde, Andrew S. [R-GA-9], Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA-1], Rep. Rulli, Michael A. [R-OH-6], Rep. Baumgartner, Michael [R-WA-5]

Recent Actions

2025-12-18: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
2025-12-18: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
2025-12-18: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 211 - 204 (Roll no. 360). (text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: CR H6050) (Roll call 360)
2025-12-18: Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 211 - 204 (Roll no. 360). (Roll call 360)
2025-12-18: On motion to recommit Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 204 - 213 (Roll no. 359). (Roll call 359)
2025-12-18: Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H6070-6072)
2025-12-18: POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H.R. 845, the Chair put the question on motion to recommit and by voice vote announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Huffman demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
2025-12-18: The previous question on the motion to recommit was ordered pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX.
2025-12-18: Mr. Huffman moved to recommit to the Committee on Natural Resources. (text: CR H6056)
2025-12-18: The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
2025-12-18: DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 845.
2025-12-18: Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4776, H.R. 1366, H.R. 845, H.R. 3616, H.R. 3632 and H.R. 4371. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 4776, under a structured rule and H.R. 1366, H.R. 845, H.R. 3616, H.R. 3632, and H.R. 4371 under a closed rule. The resolution provides one motion to recommit on each bill.
2025-12-18: Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 951. (consideration: CR H6049-6056)
2025-12-16: Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 951 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4776, H.R. 1366, H.R. 845, H.R. 3616, H.R. 3632 and H.R. 4371. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 4776, under a structured rule and H.R. 1366, H.R. 845, H.R. 3616, H.R. 3632, and H.R. 4371 under a closed rule. The resolution provides one motion to recommit on each bill.
2025-10-03: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 285.

Bill Versions

Pet and Livestock Protection Act — issued 2025-12-18 — PDF (4 pages)
Pet and Livestock Protection Act of 2025 — issued 2025-01-31 — PDF (2 pages)
Pet and Livestock Protection Act — issued 2025-12-18 — PDF (2 pages)
Pet and Livestock Protection Act — issued 2025-10-03 — PDF (4 pages)