PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 8, 2016
Limiting Inhumane Federal Trapping for Public Safety Act
This bill prohibits any personnel of the Department of the Interior or the Department of Agriculture (USDA), in performing their duties, from using, recommending, training in the use of, or planning for the use of, any body-gripping trap used to kill or capture an animal. This prohibition does not apply to training in the dismantling of body-gripping traps that have been illegally placed.
No person shall use or possess any body-gripping trap on property under the administrative jurisdiction of Interior or USDA, except in Indian country, regardless of whether the person is employed by, or is working under a contract with, Interior or USDA.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Such prohibitions shall not apply to the use of a body-gripping trap to:
control documented, invasive species to achieve resource management objectives where alternative methods have failed; or
protect a species that is listed as an endangered or threatened species or treated by the Forest Service as a sensitive species.
Such exceptions shall not apply unless:
such use of a body-gripping trap is in accordance with state and federal law;
prior to using such a trap, all available and viable nonlethal methods for such control or protection have been attempted; and
such attempts have been documented in writing, and the documentation is maintained at the headquarters of the department that employs the individual engaging in such attempt.
The bill imposes criminal penalties for violating the prohibitions in this bill.
People & committees
Rep. Blumenauer, Earl [D-OR-3] · D–OR
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 Conservation and Forestry.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1225-1226)
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.5954 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.5954 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.5954 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.5954 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.