House hearing pits ranchers against conservationists over ESA section 10(j) reintroductions

WASHINGTON — At a House Natural Resources subcommittee hearing on understanding the consequences of experimental populations under the Endangered Species Act, ranchers from Arizona, Washington and Colorado on Thursday told members that reintroductions of wolves and grizzly bears under section 10(j) have caused economic losses, disrupted grazing and increased safety concerns, while a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service official said 10(j) remains an effective conservation mechanism and urged better implementation rather than repeal.

The dispute centered on how much flexibility managers should have when reintroducing or managing predators and who should bear the costs of depredation. Dalton Dobson, introduced to the committee as a fifth-generation rancher and representative of the Arizona Farm Bureau, described repeated livestock attacks and changes to Fish and Wildlife Service confirmation guidelines that he said reduced ranchers’ compensation prospects. “In January 2024, we had a clear wolf kill…distant office staff downgraded it to probable because no soft tissue remained,” Dobson said, criticizing a 2023 change to depredation-confirmation standards and urging 100% reimbursement of market value for confirmed kills rather than the current 75%.

The hearing drew testimony from other livestock producers. Kent Clark, manager of the Double R Ranch in Loomis, Washington, told the panel he and neighbors lack timely tools to remove depredating animals in federal recovery zones and said introducing grizzly bears into the North Cascades threatened to compound existing wolf conflicts. “The decision felt rushed, driven more by political pressure than sound science or responsible management,” Clark said of a recent North Cascades grizzly plan, adding that federal and state management lines can produce inconsistent responses.

Robbie LaValle, secretary of the Public Lands Council and a Hotchkiss, Colorado rancher, said reintroduction under Colorado’s Proposition 114 had produced regulatory uncertainty for West Slope operations and that state compensation funds were strained: “Two Colorado producers submitted a $582,000 depredation compensation claim, exhausting the state's fund in one year,” she told the committee.

Asked to respond, Dr. Chris Servine, introduced as former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service grizzly bear recovery coordinator and currently president and board chair of the Montana Wildlife Federation, defended 10(j) as a statutory tool Congress designed to allow reintroduction with management flexibility. Servine said hundreds of experimental populations and related rules such as ESA section 4(d) have supported successful recoveries — citing the gray wolf, California condor and black-footed ferret — and noting that, in his experience, “most grizzly bears and wolves do not kill livestock.” He also said managers can remove habituated or conflict animals: “There are ways that we can balance the needs of people with the needs of those animals.”

Members from both parties pressed witnesses. Representative Tiffany displayed constituent reports of livestock losses, calling them “the slaughter that is going on” in some states; Representative Tom Tiffany’s remarks reflected concerns by several members about public safety and property impacts. Ranking members and Democrats countered that the ESA has a strong conservation record and worried that recent and proposed staff cuts at federal wildlife agencies would undermine both recovery and local response. One Democratic member said, “these are skilled professionals…If you remove the skills that are out there, then the ability for the agencies to function and the ability for the public to be, be okay with this…won't exist.” Dr. Servine agreed, saying layoffs of field staff would reduce the agencies’ ability to investigate depredations and manage recovery programs.

Witnesses and lawmakers offered several specific policy concerns and fixes. Ranchers asked for broader compensation that accounts for indirect losses — for example, a University of Montana study cited at the hearing reported an average 3.5% reduction in weaning weight on ranches with at least one wolf predation — and for clearer, faster evidence standards or new field DNA tools to verify depredations. Producers also urged clearer local consultation before releasing experimental populations and faster on-the-ground authority to remove problem animals. Conservation witnesses urged improving implementation and funding for state–federal cooperation and monitoring rather than eliminating section 10(j), noting that premature delisting or poorly designed management can lead to population declines.

The committee did not vote on legislation at the hearing. Several members said they will pursue oversight or statutory fixes in coming weeks, including proposals to amend confirmation standards, expand compensation programs, and examine agency staffing. The hearing record contains draft and written testimony from the witnesses and will remain the official source for claims and data presented at the session.

Members adjourned the subcommittee after the witnesses answered questions and the chair closed the hearing.