Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Foreign Affairs, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker…
The bill (Bear Poaching Elimination Act) prohibits importing, exporting, selling, buying, possessing, transporting, or receiving bear viscera and products containing bear viscera in interstate or international commerce. It defines bear viscera (including gallbladders, excluding blood and brains), creates criminal (up to one year or fine) and civil penalties (up to $25,000 per violation), and authorizes seizure and forfeiture.
Liberals emphasize conservation and animal-welfare gains
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly defines a conservation problem and establishes substantive prohibitions with defined penalties and some integration with existing statutory enforcement frameworks.
The bill (Bear Poaching Elimination Act) prohibits importing, exporting, selling, buying, possessing, transporting, or receiving bear viscera and products containing bear viscera in interstate or international commerce.
It defines bear viscera (including gallbladders, excluding blood and brains), creates criminal (up to one year or fine) and civil penalties (up to $25,000 per violation), and authorizes seizure and forfeiture.
The Secretary of the Interior must issue regulations in consultation with Treasury and USTR, coordinate enforcement with relevant agencies, and pursue international discussions.
Content is narrow, administrable, and conservation‑oriented—features that often clear committees—yet trade implications and possible stakeholder opposition reduce near‑term likelihood.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly defines a conservation problem and establishes substantive prohibitions with defined penalties and some integration with existing statutory enforcement frameworks. It leaves several operational and administrative details to subsequent regulation and omits fiscal and measurement provisions.
Liberals emphasize conservation and animal-welfare gains
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize conservation and animal-welfare gains
Likely supportive because it targets wildlife trafficking, aligns with CITES, and explicitly aims to reduce poaching and animal cruelty.
May press for stronger penalties, funded enforcement, and broader bans on other bear parts.
Support is conditional on effective implementation and international cooperation.
Generally favorable to the bill’s narrow conservation goal and CITES alignment, but cautious about implementation details, enforcement costs, and unintended consequences.
Wants clear rules for lawful hunters, trade partners, and measurable outcomes before full endorsement.
Skeptical due to increased federal regulation of interstate commerce and potential burdens on lawful commerce and hunters.
May support conservation goals but worries about federal overreach, trade restrictions, and added enforcement costs.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is narrow, administrable, and conservation‑oriented—features that often clear committees—yet trade implications and possible stakeholder opposition reduce near‑term likelihood.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize conservation and animal-welfare gains
Content is narrow, administrable, and conservation‑oriented—features that often clear committees—yet trade implications and possible stakeh…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly defines a conservation problem and establishes substantive prohibitions with defined penalties and some integration with existing statutory enforcement framew…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.