PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 16, 2007
Declares that nothing in the Act of March 2, 1929, (relating to prohibited acts of killing, wounding, or capturing wild birds and animals and fish in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado) or other applicable law shall be construed as prohibiting the Secretary of the Interior from using the services of qualified individuals, as volunteers or under contract with the Secretary, to assist in the implementation of the Elk and Vegetation Management Plan for the Park by using lethal means to reduce the population of elk within the Park. Instructs the Secretary to consult with the Colorado Division of Wildlife regarding possible participation by it in the implementation of such Plan.
Prohibits anything in this Act from being construed as applicable to the taking of wildlife within Rocky Mountain National Park for any purpose other than the implementation of the Elk and Vegetation Management Plan.
People & committees
Rep. Udall, Mark [D-CO-2] · D–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E376-377)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 2, 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.1179 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.1179 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.1179 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.1179 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.