89–006 

115TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 115–1012 

MANAGE OUR WOLVES ACT 

NOVEMBER 9, 2018.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. BISHOP of Utah, from the Committee on Natural Resources, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 6784] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 6784) to provide for removal of the gray wolf in the contiguous 48 States from the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife published under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 6784 is to provide for the removal of the 

gray wolf in the contiguous 48 States from the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife published under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

H.R. 6784 is a bipartisan bill that would exempt from judicial review the 2012 rule (later reinstated in 2017) delisting of the gray 

wolf (canis lupus irremotus) in Wyoming under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973. The bill further directs the Secretary of the Interior to reissue a 2011 rule to delist the gray wolf in the Western 

Great Lakes region and would exempt this rule from judicial review. Finally, the bill directs the Secretary to issue a rule to remove the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in each of the 48 contiguous 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
2 

1 Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531. 

2See, Wolf Restoration, Nat’l Park Serv., https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/wolf-restoration.htm (last visited July 12, 2017). 3See, Letter from C.L. ‘‘Butch’’ Otter, Governor, State of Idaho, to Ken Salazar, Secretary, 

U.S. Department of the Interior (October 18, 2010) (available at: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/ 

public/wildlife/wolves/?getPage=161). 4See, State of Idaho, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Idaho Wolf Management Plan 

(2002) (available at: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/plan02.pdf). See also, State 

of Montana, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Montana Wolf Conservation and 

Management Plan (2002) (available at: http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/management/wolf/management.html). See also, Wyoming Farm Bureau v. Babbitt, 987 F. Supp. 1349 (D. Wyo. 1997). 5Wyoming Farm Bureau v. Babbitt, 987 F. Supp. 1349 (D. Wyo. 1997). See also, Press Release, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv. Service Removes Western Great Lakes, Portion of Northern 

Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf Populations From Endangered Species List Wolves in Wyoming to 

Remain Protected by Endangered Species Act (Jan. 14, 2009) (https://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/pressrel/09-02.htm). 6See, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to Identify the Western 

Great Lakes populations of Gray Wolves as a Distinct Population Segment and to Revise the 

List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 74 Fed. Reg. 15070 (Apr. 2, 2009) (available at: 

https://www.fws.gov/Midwest/wolf/archives/2009delisting/pdf/fnlruleFR02april2009.pdf). 7See, Press Release, State of Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Idaho’s First Wolf Hunt 

is Over (Apr. 5, 2010) (available at https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/news10.pdf). 

See also, State of Montana, Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, The 2009 Montana Wolf 

Hunting Season (2010) (available at file:///C:/Users/molmstead/Downloads/ 

2009%20Wolf%20Hunting%20Season%20Summary.pdf). See also, The Status of the Federal Government’s Management of Wolves: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Natural Resources Subcomm. 

on Oversight and Investigations, 114th Cong. (2016) (The State of Idaho has successfully managed thriving wolf populations since delisting). 8See, Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (D. MT 2010). See also, Defenders 

of Wildlife v. Hall, 565 F.2d 1160 (D. Mont. 2008); Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 354 F. Supp. 

2d 1156 (D. Or. 2005). 

States from the list of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

prohibits judicial review of this action. 

Gray wolves were first listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) in 1974.1

Existing wolves present in the Western Great Lakes region at the 

time were protected, and the federal government subsequently introduced the species to the western U.S. by relocating wolves from 

Canada and releasing them in central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park in 1994 and 1995.2 States, local citizens, livestock 

groups, and sportsmen mostly opposed the reintroduction effort.3

The reintroduced wolf population in the West expanded more 

quickly than many had anticipated. As a result, in September 

2001, affected States and tribes began working with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS) to formulate plans that would effectively transition management responsibility of the species to the 

States upon delisting under the ESA.4 FWS deemed the Idaho and 

Montana wolf management plans adequate, but did not approve 

the Wyoming plan.5

Gray wolves were removed from the endangered species list on 

January 14, 2009.6 As part of their management plans, Idaho and 

Montana conducted tightly controlled wolf hunts beginning in the 

autumn of 2009.7 Sales of wolf hunt tags traditionally provide 

funding for wildlife management activities, and hunts are conducted in a similar fashion to those of large ungulates and other 

wild animals under State management. 

Activist groups challenged the FWS decision to delist the wolves 

in Idaho, Montana, and the Western Great Lakes, arguing that the 

rule had been politically motivated and did not comply with certain 

provisions of the ESA.8 The U.S. District Court for the District of 

Montana held that the rule was a ‘‘political solution that does not 

comply with ESA’’ and that delisting of a species which was still 

endangered in a portion of its historic range (Wyoming) was not apVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:52 Nov 10, 2018 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR1012.XXX HR1012

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
3 

9Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1227, 1228 (D. MT 2010). 10Press Release, Rep. Mike Simpson, Simpson’s Wolf Language Included in Final 

Funding Bill (Apr. 12, 2011), available at http://simpson.house.gov/News/ 

DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=235258. See also, Consolidated Appropriations Act 2012, 

Pub. L. No. 112–74 (2011), available at https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/ 

Appropriations+for+Fiscal+Year+2012#AppropriationsforFiscalYear2012- 

omnibusappropriations). 11 HR 1473 (112th Cong.); H.R. 2584 (112th Cong.); H.R. 6091 (112th Cong.); H.R. 5538 (114th 

Cong.). 12See, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Gray Wolf Recovery 

in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan (2011) (available at: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/ 

aboutwolves/r3wolfrec.htm) and Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revising the 

Listing of the Gray Wolf (Canis Lupus) in the Western Great Lakes, 76 Fed. Reg. 81666 (Dec. 

28, 2011) (available at: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/archives/2011FinalDelisting/pdf/ 

FR_grwoWGLDelist28Dec2011.pdf). 13 Endangered and Threatened Plants; Removal of the Gray Wolf in Wyoming from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Removal of the Wyoming Wolf Population’s 

Status as an Experimental Population, 76 Fed. Reg. 81666 (Sep. 10, 2012). 14See, Humane Society v. Jewell, 2014 WL 7237702 (D.D.C 2014), and Defenders of Wildlife 

v. Jewell, 2014 WL 4714847 (D.D.C. 2014). 15Defenders of Wildlife et al v. Zinke, No. 14–5300, 2017 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 3, 2017) at https:// www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/E2381C96826F09F4852580D80057B29F/$file/14- 

5300-1664135.pdf. 16 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reinstatement of Removal of Federal Protections for Gray Wolves in Wyoming, 82 Fed. Reg. 20284–85 (May 1, 2017). 17 Humane Society of the United States v. U.S. Secretary of the Interior, (2017). https:// 

www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/9EDB5CE0814D2B948525816F00511636/$file/15- 

5041.pdf. 

propriate.9 The delisting of the wolves was halted in all States 

until the Wyoming plan was acceptable to FWS. 

Congressman Michael K. Simpson (R–ID) and Senator Jon Tester 

(D–MT) sponsored a provision in the Fiscal Year 2012 Consolidated 

Appropriations bill clarifying Congressional intent to remove the 

recovered wolves in Idaho and Montana from the endangered species list, and return the species to State management.10 Provisions 

to delist the wolf and allow States to retain management authority 

have been included in appropriations acts each successive year.11

Populations of gray wolves present in the Western Great Lakes 

increased in number through the 1990s and 2000s. FWS delisted 

wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan in a new rule in 

2011.12 Wyoming wolves were delisted by FWS in 2012.13 Wolves 

in Wyoming and in the Western Great Lakes region were, however, 

re-listed in 2014 due to additional court decisions that challenged 

the adequacy of State management plans.14

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the 2014 decision on 

March 3, 2017, regarding gray wolves in Wyoming only.15 FWS 

published a final rule delisting them in accordance with the court 

order on May 1, 2017, and Wyoming wolves are again managed by 

the State of Wyoming.16 As such, this bill would safeguard the 

FWS’ delisting decision from litigious groups’ lawsuits by exempting this delisting from judicial review. On August 1, 2017, the D.C. 

Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling upholding a U.S. District 

Court order overruling FWS’ determination that the wolves had 

sufficiently recovered within the Western Great Lakes region.17

This bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to reissue the 

rule to delist the gray wolf in the Western Great Lakes region and 

exempt this rule from judicial review to prevent continued litigation. 

Finally, the last section of this bill seeks to empower the States 

to manage their individual gray wolf populations by directing the 

Secretary to issue a rule to delist the gray wolf in each of the 48 

contiguous States and the District of Columbia. To ensure that 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
4 

18 H.R. 884, 114th Cong. (2015). 19Fiscal Year 2017 Interior and Environment Appropriations bill, H.R. 5538, 114th 

Cong. (2016) (available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114hr5538eh/pdf/BILLS114hr5538eh.pdf). 20SHARE Act, H.R. 2406, 114th Cong. (2016) (available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ 

BILLS-114hr2406eh/pdf/BILLS-114hr2406eh.pdf). 21 North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2016, S. 2012, 114th 

Cong. (2016) (available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114s2012es/pdf/BILLS114s2012es.pdf). 22Gray Wolf State Management Act of 2017, (2017). https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS115hr424rh/pdf/BILLS-115hr424rh.pdf. 

States are provided certainty when developing State management 

plans, this bill would also exempt this delisting decision from judicial review. 

The gray wolf delisting issue is not a new one for Congress and 

has been bipartisan. As mentioned above, appropriations riders affecting the gray wolf have been enacted since 2012. In the 112th 

Congress, Congressman Denny Rehberg (R–MT) introduced H.R. 

509, Congresswoman Candice Miller (R–MI) introduced H.R. 1819, 

Senator Orrin Hatch (R–UT) introduced S. 249 and Senator Max 

Baucus (D–MT) introduced S. 321—all affected gray wolves. In the 

114th Congress, Congressman Reid J. Ribble (R–WI) introduced a 

similar bill,18 and Senator Ron Johnson (R–WI) introduced S. 2281. 

The Department of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act, 2017 (H.R. 5538) included a provision to prohibit the use of federal funds to list the gray wolf under the ESA 

in the lower 48 States after June 13, 2017.19 Also during the 114th 

Congress, the House passed the SHARE Act (H.R. 2406) in February 2016, which included the directive to reissue gray wolf rules 

for the Western Great Lakes and Wyoming.20 The wolf provisions 

from the SHARE Act were also included in the House amendment 

to the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 

2016 (S. 2012).21 In the 115th Congress, Congressman Collin Peterson (D–MN) introduced a gray wolf bill (H.R. 424); the Natural Resources Committee reported the bill favorably on January 8, 

2018.22 Senator Ron Johnson (R–WI) also introduced a gray wolf 

bill, S. 164, this Congress. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 6784 was introduced on September 12, 2018, by Congressman Sean P. Duffy (R–WI). The bill was referred to the Natural 

Resources Committee. On September 26, 2018, the Natural Resources Committee met to consider the bill. No amendments were 

offered, and the bill was ordered favorably reported to the House 

of Representatives by a roll call vote of 19 yeas and 15 nays, as 

follows: 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
5 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 6 here HR1012.001
6 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on 

Natural Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET

ACT

1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act. With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives and sections 308(a) and 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has 

received the following estimate for the bill from the Director of the 

Congressional Budget Office: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, October 12, 2018. 

Hon. ROB BISHOP, 

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 6784, the Manage our 

Wolves Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Janani Shankaran. 

Sincerely, 

MARK P. HADLEY

(For Keith Hall, Director). 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 6784—Manage our Wolves Act 

H.R. 6784 would direct the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) to issue a rule that removes the gray wolf from the endangered species list in the 48 contiguous states and to reissue a 

2011 rule that delisted the gray wolf in the Western Great Lakes. 

The bill also would prohibit judicial review of those rules and of a 

recently reinstated 2012 rule delisting the gray wolf in Wyoming. 

According to USFWS, the agency is reviewing the status of the 

gray wolf in the 48 contiguous states. If the agency determines that 

the species has exceeded recovery goals, it will propose a rule to 

delist the gray wolf. Conversely, if the finding is that recovery 

goals are unmet, the agency will not propose a rule. Using information from USFWS, CBO estimates that directing USFWS to issue 

a rule to remove the grey wolf from the endangered species list 

would cost less than $500,000; such spending would be subject to 

the availability of appropriated funds. 

Under current law, plaintiffs who challenge the federal government under the Endangered Species Act may be entitled to the repayment of attorneys’ fees. Such payments are made from the federal government’s Judgment Fund, which has a permanent indefinite appropriation. By prohibiting judicial review, CBO expects, 

H.R. 6784 could reduce the number of civil actions that otherwise 

would be filed and thus the potential for payments from the JudgVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:52 Nov 10, 2018 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR1012.XXX HR1012

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
7 

ment Fund. Based on the amount of such payments in the past, 

CBO estimates that any decrease in direct spending would be insignificant over the 2019–2028 period. 

Because enacting H.R. 6784 could affect direct spending, pay-asyou-go procedures apply. The bill would not affect revenues. 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 6784 would not increase net 

direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 

10-year periods beginning in 2029. 

H.R. 6784 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

On November 8, 2017, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 

424, the Gray Wolf State Management Act of 2017, as ordered reported by the House Committee on Natural Resources on October 

4, 2017. Both pieces of legislation contain similar provisions, but 

H.R. 6784 would require USFWS to issue a new rule and would 

prohibit judicial review of that rule. The estimates of budgetary effects reflect those differences. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Janani Shankaran. 

The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 

clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or objective 

of this bill is to provide for the removal of the gray wolf in the contiguous 48 States from the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife published under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

EARMARK STATEMENT

This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined under clause 9(e), 

9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

This bill contains no unfunded mandates. 

COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5

Directed Rule Making. Section 2 of this bill directs the Secretary 

of the Interior to reissue a regulation regarding gray wolves in the 

Western Great Lakes. Section 3 of the bill directs the Secretary of 

the Interior to issue a regulation to remove the gray wolf from the 

List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife that would apply to 

each of the 48 contiguous States. 

Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not establish or 

reauthorize a program of the federal government known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was not included in 

any report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 

pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111–139 or identified in the 

most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program Information Act (Public Law 95–220, 

as amended by Public Law 98–169) as relating to other programs. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
8 

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or tribal law. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

If enacted, this bill would make no changes to existing law. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
(9) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

H.R. 6784 would remove Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections for gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes region and in the 

contiguous 48 States and prevent judicial review of a recent federal 

court decision upholding a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

rule to delist wolves in Wyoming. The bill short-circuits the 

science-based ESA process of determining when species are recovered to the point that protections can be removed. 

Gray wolves currently enjoy ESA protections in the lower 48 outside of Wyoming and the Northern Rocky Mountains area where 

they were legislatively delisted. Historically, gray wolves were 

present throughout most of the continental United States, Canada, 

and northern Mexico, but because they were viewed as a threat to 

livestock, wolves were hunted to the brink of extinction. By 1965, 

wolves had been nearly extirpated from the continental United 

States. By the time they received ESA protection in the early 

1970s, only several hundred gray wolves remained in the wild in 

northern Minnesota and Michigan. While the population of the 

gray wolf has increased, the species currently only occupies five 

percent of its historic range in the lower 48 states. Gray wolves can 

only be found in the Great Lakes, northern Rockies, and Pacific 

Northwest. 

Wolves still face persecution from hunters and agricultural interests and are only beginning to recolonize areas where they were 

long a critical part of ecosystems. The continued threat to wolves 

is evidenced by the fact that in the states where Congress delisted 

the species in 2011, more than 5,000 wolves have been killed. 

This legislation would strike a damaging blow to the continued 

recovery of gray wolves in the contiguous 48 states. For these reasons, we oppose the bill as reported. 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, 

Ranking Member, Committee 

on Natural Resources. 

NIKI TSONGAS. 

JARED HUFFMAN. 

A. DONALD MCEACHIN. 

WM. LACY CLAY. 

NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGA ́ N. 

DONALD S. BEYER, JR. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS