Sponsor
Tom McClintock
Representative · R-CA
Representative · R-CA
The bill expands and clarifies protections by treating captive-bred animals like wild ones and applying coverage broadly (including retroactively), which can accelerate recovery and reduce regulatory uncertainty for some stakeholders but raises compliance costs, land‑use constraints, ecological risks from over-reliance on captive breeding, and potential legal and fiscal liabilities.
Conservation programs, captive-breeding facilities, and imperiled species: captive-bred/artificially propagated animals will be treated the same as wild individuals for protection and recovery decisions, allowing these animals to count toward delisting and reintroduction goals and potentially accelerating recoveries.
State and local governments, land managers, and project proponents (including utilities): gain a clearer, consistent authorization path to use artificial propagation to satisfy ESA mitigation obligations, reducing regulatory uncertainty and enabling earlier compliance planning.
State and local land managers and rural communities: artificial propagation can make mitigation and population supplementation more feasible and timely by supplying individuals for reintroduction or mitigation actions.
Landowners, developers, utilities, and homeowners: treating captive-bred animals like wild ones and applying protections retroactively can impose stricter land-use constraints and permitting requirements, potentially lowering property values and increasing project costs.
Federal, state, and local agencies and project proponents: will face increased administrative, permitting, monitoring, and compliance costs to apply and enforce the Act's broader protections and to establish authorized artificial propagation programs.
Species and conservation outcomes: treating artificially propagated individuals identically to wild ones and relying more on captive-breeding risks masking genetic, behavioral, or ecological differences (reduced genetic diversity, disease transmission, maladaptation) that could undermine long-term recovery.
Based on analysis of 3 sections of legislative text.
Mandates that artificially propagated animals be treated the same as naturally propagated animals for all Endangered Species Act decisions and requires artificial propagation be authorized for ESA mitigation.
Official title: To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide that artificially propagated animals shall be treated the same under that Act as naturally propagated animals, and for other purposes.
Introduced January 3, 2025 by Tom McClintock · Last progress January 3, 2025
Requires federal wildlife agencies to treat artificially propagated animals the same as naturally propagated animals for all Endangered Species Act (ESA) decisions, including listing, critical habitat, delisting, and mitigation. Also requires the Secretary to allow artificial propagation to be used to meet any mitigation obligations under the ESA. Applies these rules to all species regardless of when they were listed, giving the changes retrospective, current, and prospective effect.