Congress funds voluntary wildlife habitat grants, protects private property rights
H.R. 717 — Wildlife Movement Through Partnerships Act of 2025 · Filed by Ryan Zinke (R-MT) · 8 cosponsors · Introduced Jan 23, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill establishes two grant programs to help states, tribes, nonprofits, and landowners improve wildlife habitat in migration corridors and seasonal ranges for big game and other wildlife. The Wildlife Movement Grant Program provides federal matching grants (up to 90% federal share) for habitat projects like fence modification, land acquisition, and road safety improvements, administered through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. A companion State and Tribal Migration Research Program funds data collection on wildlife movement patterns. The bill also reauthorizes and expands the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and directs the USGS to map migration corridors—all voluntary, with explicit protections for private property, hunting rights, and existing agricultural and energy development.
Why we flagged it
The bill's core mechanism is voluntary, matching-grant funding for habitat improvement in wildlife movement areas, administered through existing federal and nonprofit infrastructure. It is a conservation incentive program, not a regulatory mandate or land-use restriction.
What the text implies
- USGS Corridor Mapping Team continuation may generate sensitive location data on wildlife and private property; bill includes explicit protections for privacy and anti-poaching measures, but data governance and inter-agency sharing protocols are not detailed in the text.
- Coordination requirement (Section 9) creates a new Senior Executive Service position and mandates regular interagency convenings; administrative cost and scope of coordination authority are not quantified.
- 50% set-aside for big game projects (Sections 4 and 8) may create implicit prioritization of charismatic megafauna over other native wildlife, potentially affecting funding distribution across species.
- Waiver of cost-sharing requirements for Indian Tribes and disadvantaged communities (Section 4(d)(C)) is discretionary ('may waive'), not mandatory, leaving equity outcomes dependent on Foundation interpretation.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
Ordinary citizens and landowners benefit from voluntary, incentive-based habitat conservation that improves wildlife connectivity and ecosystem health without imposing mandatory restrictions on property use, agriculture, or hunting. The bill explicitly protects private property rights, existing agricultural practices, and public access to hunting and recreation.
Who stands to gain
- State fish and wildlife agencies
- Indian Tribes
- Nonprofit conservation organizations
- Private landowners (through voluntary easements and habitat improvement grants)
- Institutions of higher education (research funding)
- National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (administrative role and investment income)
Named in the bill
Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, United States Geological Survey, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Department of Transportation, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, State fish and wildlife agencies, Indian Tribes — and 2 more
Where it stands
8 cosponsors: 7 Democrats, 1 Republicans.
- Jan 23, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- Jan 23, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Natural Resources · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
Money around this bill
8 lobbying clients named this bill on 11 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $939,154 in lobbying spend. A filing names 20 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.
More lobbying clients named this bill than 88% of bills with at least one filing.
- National Parks Conservation Association — $290,154 on 2 filings
- Defenders of Wildlife — $270,000 on 1 filing
- Southern Environmental Law Center — $200,000 on 2 filings
- Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation — $60,000 on 2 filings
- Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership — $50,000 on 1 filing
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (15,335 characters) on Oct 26, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,580 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them.
As of — lobbying records through Jul 20, 2026 · page rendered 2026-10-26.
“Congress funds voluntary wildlife habitat grants, protects private property rights” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr717 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.