Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
House subcommittee hears competing views as Rep. Gosar seeks to delist Mexican gray wolf
Loading...
Summary
Lawmakers, ranchers and tribal leaders clashed at a House Natural Resources subcommittee hearing over HR 42 55, a bill from Rep. Paul Gosar that would delist the Mexican gray wolf from the Endangered Species Act; witnesses disputed population numbers, public-safety claims and whether delisting should be conditioned on recovery in Mexico.
WASHINGTON — The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries heard sharply divided testimony on HR 42 55 on Thursday, a bill sponsored by Rep. Paul Gosar that would remove Mexican gray wolves designated as a ‘‘nonessential experimental population’’ from the Endangered Species Act. Gosar and ranching representatives said delisting is needed to protect rural communities and livestock; tribal leaders and conservation advocates urged continued ESA protections and broader recovery work.
Gosar, the bill’s sponsor, told the panel the law should ‘‘give local communities the flexibility’’ to manage wolves and said federal protections have created a financial burden for ranching communities. He and witnesses described repeated livestock losses and said counties have passed emergency declarations in response to wolf impacts. ‘‘We don't need these experimental populations,’’ Gosar said in graphic testimony that included descriptions of depredation incidents.
Opponents, including Ranking Member Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler Hoyle and Tom Patterson, president-elect of the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association, and tribal representatives, disputed some of the bill’s premises. Hoyle noted that only ‘‘about 286 wolves exist in the wild’’ in the United States and said the species ‘‘is not ready to be delisted,’’ urging binational recovery work with Mexico. Shannon Wheeler, chairman of the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee, emphasized treaty and cultural obligations tied to salmon and watershed restoration and urged continued science-based recovery for listed species; while Wheeler’s testimony focused primarily on salmon and dams, tribal leaders generally opposed measures that would undermine species protections.
Ranching witnesses argued the wolf population in the U.S. has reached recovery thresholds and cited economic costs. Tom Patterson told the committee the Fish and Wildlife Service’s own figures show the U.S. population meets the recovery threshold and raised concerns about a U.S.–Mexico delisting linkage that ties U.S. regulation to recovery in another sovereign nation. He said the federal program has cost taxpayers ‘‘nearly $260,000 for each wolf now on the ground’’ and cited a total agency spend figure of about $74.6 million to date.
Lawmakers pressed witnesses on numbers, management tools and public safety. Some members recounted personal accounts of pets or livestock taken by wolves and cited academic studies on psychological harm in communities that have experienced close encounters; others demanded continued scientific monitoring and cautioned against premature delisting. Several members — including those representing New Mexico and Arizona — expressed hope for targeted compensation programs and improved local management while also warning that delisting without a clear, enforceable transition plan could lead to legal and ecological complications.
No formal vote was taken at the hearing. The bill remains at the subcommittee stage; proponents asked the committee to advance legislation that would remove the Mexican wolf from federal ESA protections in the U.S. and would ‘‘delink’’ U.S. and Mexican recovery requirements, while opponents asked lawmakers to reject or amend the bill and to pursue measures such as improved compensation and management tools that retain ESA safeguards.
The hearing record contains extensive testimony from both sides, including graphic accounts of depredation and detailed critiques of federal policy. Committee members indicated they would submit follow-up questions for the record and requested additional data on confirmed depredations, compensation payments, and Fish and Wildlife Service population estimates.
Ending — The subcommittee left the hearing open for written questions and requested additional documentation. Lawmakers on both sides said they want more data; the outcome will depend on whether sponsors can secure support to move the bill out of committee and whether the Fish and Wildlife Service or other agencies produce new analyses documenting recovery, risk, or management alternatives.
