PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Wied, Tony [R-WI-8] · R–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Mar 11, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1150 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1150 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1150 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1150 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-07 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
H.R. 1150 would bar the responsible federal official from designating any lake sturgeon population in Wisconsin as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act’s listing provisions. The proposed exception covers populations throughout Wisconsin. The bill presents this change as protecting Wisconsin’s sturgeon management and spearing tradition; its findings do not establish what effects the change would have.
The Secretary may not make a determination under this subsection that any population of the lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) in Wisconsin is threatened or endangered.
It is vital that this long-standing and cherished tradition be protected and that Wisconsin is allowed to continue its successful Winnebago System and statewide management of lake sturgeon.
Section 1 would name the bill the SPEAR Act of 2025.
This Act may be cited as the Sturgeon Protected and Exempt from Absurd Regulations Act of 2025 or the SPEAR Act of 2025.
Section 2’s findings describe the annual sturgeon spearing season as a source of fish population data and an important tradition supporting local livelihoods. These are the bill’s stated reasons for the proposal, rather than new requirements for fishing or data collection.
(a) Findings Congress finds the following:
An integral component of this management plan is the annual sturgeon spearing season that is meticulously managed and provides the data necessary, along with data from detailed spawning assessments, to maintain an accurate account of population levels needed and allowable maximum harvest rates to ensure the health and sustainability of the species.
The spearing season has grown into a unique cultural event filled with strong traditions and community ties, drawing participants from throughout Wisconsin and many other States, and is crucial to the livelihoods of local communities and small businesses near the Winnebago System who rely on the annual season.
Section 2(b) would amend section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act to create a mandatory exception for Wisconsin lake sturgeon populations. It would make the existing determination requirement subject to that exception and prohibit the Secretary from determining under that subsection that those populations are threatened or endangered.
Section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)) is amended— (1) in paragraph (1), by striking The Secretary shall by regulation and inserting Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Secretary shall by regulation;
(4) Applicability to lake sturgeon The Secretary may not make a determination under this subsection that any population of the lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) in Wisconsin is threatened or endangered.
The official-actions snapshot updated March 11, 2025, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Natural Resources on February 7, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2025-03-11T17:56:29Z. 2025-02-07: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. 2025-02-07: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-07. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish what other versions or accompanying materials contain.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; accompanying earmark materials are not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The supplied introduced text contains a geographically limited exception that is central to the bill’s policy. This classification does not establish whether the exception is justified.
The bill would give lake sturgeon populations in Wisconsin a specific exception from threatened or endangered determinations under the amended subsection. Its stated purpose includes protecting Wisconsin’s management and spearing tradition, which the findings describe as supporting nearby communities and small businesses.
The Secretary may not make a determination under this subsection that any population of the lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) in Wisconsin is threatened or endangered.
The spearing season has grown into a unique cultural event filled with strong traditions and community ties, drawing participants from throughout Wisconsin and many other States, and is crucial to the livelihoods of local communities and small businesses near the Winnebago System who rely on the annual season.
It is vital that this long-standing and cherished tradition be protected and that Wisconsin is allowed to continue its successful Winnebago System and statewide management of lake sturgeon.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Mar 11, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI