To remove certain species from the lists of threatened species and endangered species published pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Bill Number

H.R. 2608

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Animals

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-04-02: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.

Last Updated

2025-10-09T03:26:19Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

This bill, H.R. 2608, aims to remove specific animal species from the official lists of threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). The ESA is a U.S. law that protects wildlife at risk of extinction by restricting activities that could harm them or their habitats. By delisting these species, the bill would end federal protections for them, potentially allowing more flexibility in activities like hunting or land use.

Key Provisions

• Direct Removal of Species: The bill immediately removes seven species from the ESA's lists of threatened or endangered species, regardless of other laws:
• Arabian oryx (Oryx leucoryx)
• Banteng (Bos javanicus)
• Eld's brow-antlered deer (Cervus eldi)
• Grevy's zebra (Equus grevyi)
• Red lechwe (Kobus leche)
• Seledang (Bos gaurus)
• Swamp deer (Cervus duvauceli)
• Amendment for Bukharan Markhor: The bill changes Section 4(a) of the ESA to prohibit the Secretary of the Interior (who oversees the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) from ever listing the Bukharan markhor (Capra falconeri heptneri) as threatened or endangered in the future. This creates a permanent exception for this subspecies.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• The ESA normally requires a scientific review process by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to add, remove, or change a species' status on the lists, based on evidence of extinction risk. This bill bypasses that process for the seven listed species by mandating their immediate removal.
• For the Bukharan markhor, it adds a new paragraph to the ESA that blocks future listings, overriding the standard determination authority of the Secretary. This is a targeted amendment that creates an unprecedented carve-out for one specific animal.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would lose authority to enforce protections for these species, reducing monitoring and recovery efforts. This could free up resources but might increase legal challenges or administrative burdens if conservation groups contest the changes.
• On Citizens: Landowners, hunters, and businesses (e.g., in wildlife tourism or agriculture) might benefit from fewer restrictions on activities in habitats where these species live, such as reduced limits on hunting or development. However, it could lead to population declines if protections end without alternative safeguards.
• On International Relations: These species are native to countries in Africa and Asia (e.g., oryx in the Middle East, zebras in East Africa). Delisting could affect U.S. cooperation on global conservation treaties like CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species), potentially straining diplomatic ties if other nations view it as undermining wildlife protection.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Conservation Organizations: Groups like the World Wildlife Fund or Sierra Club may oppose the bill, as it reduces federal safeguards for species they work to protect.
• Hunting and Wildlife Enthusiasts: Organizations or individuals interested in trophy hunting (e.g., for markhor or oryx) could gain more opportunities, as some of these species are already managed through limited hunting programs.
• Government Entities: The Department of the Interior and state wildlife agencies would need to adjust enforcement, while international partners in species' home countries might be indirectly impacted.
• Local Communities and Businesses: In areas with these species (or imported populations, like in U.S. zoos or ranches), farmers or ranchers could face fewer regulatory hurdles.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal: The bill's override of the ESA's scientific review process could invite lawsuits claiming it violates the Administrative Procedure Act (which requires evidence-based rulemaking) or the ESA's intent to protect species based on biology, not legislation.
• Constitutional: It raises questions about separation of powers, as Congress is directly intervening in executive agency decisions (the Secretary's listing authority), potentially seen as an improper legislative encroachment.
• Political: Introduced by Republican representatives, the bill reflects debates over balancing conservation with economic interests like hunting and land use. It could polarize views on environmental policy, with supporters arguing for streamlined protections and critics warning of weakened biodiversity safeguards. No direct impact on voting rights or free speech, but it exemplifies congressional efforts to modify environmental laws without broad debate.

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

Sponsor

Rep. Roy, Chip [R-TX-21]

Cosponsors (2)

Rep. Pfluger, August [R-TX-11], Rep. Babin, Brian [R-TX-36]

Recent Actions

• 2025-04-02: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
• 2025-04-02: Introduced in House
• 2025-04-02: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• To remove certain species from the lists of threatened species and endangered species published pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973. — issued 2025-04-02 — PDF (2 pages)