Daines’ bill retains Trump-era endangered species regulations

U.S. Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) recently offered legislation that would prevent the Biden administration from finalizing three proposed rules to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

“I am proud to continue fighting for common-sense proposals to improve wildlife recovery and against the weaponization of the Endangered Species Act so both our agriculture communities and our wildlife can continue to thrive without the barrier of big government,” Sen. Daines said on Monday.

On Sept. 14, Sen. Daines signed on as one of 16 Republican original cosponsors of S. 2811, which is sponsored by U.S. Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY). Among the other cosponsors of the bill are U.S. Sens. Roger Wicker (R-MS), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Jerry Moran (R-KS), John Hoeven (R-ND), and Mike Rounds (R-SD).

If enacted, S. 2811 would require the director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the assistant administrator for fisheries of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to withdraw proposed rules related to the Endangered Species Act: “the Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revision of Regulations for Interagency Cooperation;” the “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Endangered and Threatened Species and Designating Critical Habitat;” and the “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Regulations Pertaining to Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.”

By removing the three proposed rules, the Trump-era regulations within the Endangered Species Act would be retained, according to Sen. Daines’ office, and S. 2811 would preserve legal clarity for landowners and businesses, while also keeping flexibility that has improved species recovery by following specific science-based recommendations rather than arbitrary requirements.

“President Biden is once again forcing one-size-fits-all mandates on rural Montana communities,” said Sen. Daines. “Species recovery depends on science-based decisions and the voluntary cooperation of private landowners, and these proposals are a step backwards to policies that have proven ineffective.”