PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 23, 2015
Refuge From Cruel Trapping Act
Amends the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 to prohibit the use or possession of body-gripping traps in the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Imposes on persons who possess or use such traps in the System: (1) for a first offense, a civil fine of up to $500 for each body-gripping trap possessed or used; and (2) for subsequent offenses, a civil fine of up to $1,000 for each body-gripping trap possessed or used, imprisonment for up to 180 days, or both such a civil fine and imprisonment.
Makes any body-gripping traps that are possessed or used in violation of this Act, and any wildlife captured by the use of such traps, including the pelts and raw fur, subject to civil forfeiture.
Requires persons found to be in violation of such prohibition to pay all associated court costs.
People & committees
Rep. Lowey, Nita M. [D-NY-17] · D–NY
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 Federal Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 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.2016 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.2016 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.2016 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.2016 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.