PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 19, 2007
Declares that nothing in section 4 of 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 any other applicable law prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from using the services of qualified individuals, as volunteers or pursuant to a contract with the Secretary, to assist in carrying out 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 potential participation by it in carrying out such Plan.
Prohibits anything in this Act from applying to a taking of wildlife (within the meaning of "take" under the Endangered Species Act of 1973) within Rocky Mountain National Park for any purpose other than the implementation of the Elk and Vegetation Management Plan.
People & committees
Sen. Allard, Wayne [R-CO] · R–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. 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 S.917 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 S.917 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 S.917 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 S.917 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.