To amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act to make supplemental funds available for management of fish and wildlife species of greatest conservation need as determined by State fish and wildlife agencies, and for other purposes.
This legislation is structured to significantly impact state-level wildlife management strategies and conservation initiatives. By providing substantial federal financial support—totaling up to $1.3 billion annually after 2028—the bill emphasizes partnership with states in wildlife conservation efforts. Notably, it aims to prevent the listing of at-risk species by funding proactive management strategies. The Act's provisions also emphasize collaboration with federal entities, state agencies, and nonprofit organizations to enhance habitat conservation and species recovery plans, thereby influencing existing state laws related to wildlife management.
House Bill 10390, titled the 'Recovering America’s Wildlife Act of 2024,' seeks to amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act to allocate supplemental funding for the management of fish and wildlife species deemed to be of greatest conservation need, as identified by state fish and wildlife agencies. Specifically, the bill proposes an annual federal investment to various states, territories, and tribes ensuring assistance in avoiding the need to list species currently identified as threatened or endangered under federal or state law. The funding structure is set to allow direct financial assistance to bolster conservation efforts across diverse regions.
While the measure enjoys bipartisan support, there are notable points of contention among stakeholders. Critics raise concerns regarding the sufficiency of the allocated funds, the potential for federal overreach in wildlife management, and the effectiveness of proposed conservation strategies. Additionally, there are worries that the support models could emphasize specific species or areas disproportionately, possibly neglecting broader ecological needs. The requirement for state collaboration also raises questions about resource allocation efficiency and the administrative burden placed on state wildlife agencies, which may have varying capacities for implementation.