PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 25, 2019
Gray Wolf State Management Act of 2019
This bill requires the Department of the Interior to reissue a rule that removed protections under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 for the gray wolf populations located in the western Great Lakes (all of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota, as well as portions of North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio).
The bill expresses the sense of Congress that Native American tribes in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan are sovereign governments and retain certain rights to regulate natural resources used by their members on tribal lands and public lands on reservations. In addition, the bill urges Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan to consult early and fully with each affected tribal government when drafting state wolf management plans.
People & committees
Rep. Peterson, Collin C. [D-MN-7] · D–MN
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 Water, Oceans, and Wildlife.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 3, 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.4494 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.4494 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.4494 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.4494 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.