THE SILENT SABOTEURS
Riders Threaten Conservation this year, like every year, within the Department of Interior Appropriations Bill
Conservation groups are standing united in opposition to a looming threat hidden within the 2024 Department of Interior (DOI) Appropriations bill. The insidious culprits are riders, seemingly innocuous amendments added to bills that can have far-reaching consequences.
In the case of the current DOI Appropriations bill, these riders take aim at the Endangered Species Act (ESA), endangering the very species it was designed to protect.
In a letter addressed to Leader Schumer and Leader Jeffries, the Defenders of Wildlife-led groups write:
“On behalf of our organizations and our millions of members and supporters, we urge you to ensure that any final FY 2024 appropriations bill is free of riders that undermine the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and protections for imperiled species. The House FY 2024 Interior appropriations bill, H.R. 4821 includes 15 harmful ESA riders, many of which block or deny critically needed protections for species on the verge of extinction – some of these species already have been awaiting protection for decades.”
The full letter, including the list of 15 anti-ESA riders can be read here.
Brushing up: What is a Rider in a Bill?
Defined by the Senate as “a nongermane amendment to a bill or an amendment to an appropriation bill that changes the permanent law governing a program funded by the bill,” riders are stealthy additions to bills and can significantly alter the course of policy and law.
These amendments often target unrelated issues, tucked away in the larger framework of a bill, making them easy to miss unless one scrutinizes the legislation. The use of riders can be compared to Trojan horses, concealing their true intentions until they have infiltrated the legislative process.
“It’s important to note that each of the 12 Appropriations bills is meant to determine the annual funding for a government agency, not direct policy or amend separate legislation. However, in practice, the reality is far from the intent,” Brieanah Schwartz says. Schwartz is an attorney with extensive experience with riders after working for years as an attorney and lobbyist for animal welfare.
She’s referring to 12 standard bills produced annually by legislative subcommittees each year to cover government funding for each fiscal year. The funding is considered discretionary, which in this case, means the funds are made available as an option. It’s money that’s pre-approved by Congress and the president to be made available if an agency or program needs it, controlled by the pre-approved language in each appropriation bill. And that language includes riders.
Hidden agendas and hope for change
Schwartz says that for years, in the form of restrictions or conditions on funding, special interest groups and politicians with hidden agendas have introduced language into Appropriations bills to advance their interests and ensure they have the funding to make it happen.
These groups employ riders to advance their agendas without facing the full scrutiny that standalone bills would receive. They can bypass the regular legislative process and push their priorities through as part of a larger, must-pass bill. It's a tactic that thrives on the urgency of funding bills, making it difficult for lawmakers to oppose the entire package just because of a single rider.
“At the end of the day, the government has to be funded so the bills will eventually pass in one form or another,” says Schwartz. “This means that, unlike a standalone bill on a singular and potentially controversial or low-priority item, the Appropriations process — riders included — provides a nearly singular avenue for anyone to seek meaningful, or harmful, policy change.”
Endangered Species Affected by Appropriations Riders
One example of an endangered species affected by an anti-ESA (Endangered Species Act) rider is the Gray Wolf.
The Fiscal Year 2011 Continuing Resolution included a rider that directed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to remove federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections for gray wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains region, which includes Idaho, Montana, and parts of Wyoming, Oregon, and Washington.
This allowed state wildlife agencies to assume management authority over wolf populations, and following delisting, wolf populations in the Northern Rockies faced increased hunting and trapping pressure.
While proponents argued that this would help control wolf numbers, critics contended that it could lead to a significant reduction in the wolf population and threaten the species' long-term recovery.
The rider proved deadly consequences, as the state of Wisconsin proceeded with a wolf hunt that annihilated 216 wolves — 80% more kills than permitted.
A Wisconsin state law mandates a yearly hunting season of wolves, and it’s worth noting that the hunt proceeded just after the late 2020 ESA delisting due to a lawsuit by a hunting group, insisting that the state law be enacted. According to our research, there has yet to be recourse on the excess killing.
The rider also prevented legal challenges to this delisting decision, sparking controversy from conservation organizations and wildlife advocates who believed that the delisting decision was not based on sound science and undermined the ESA's protections for threatened and endangered species.
Except for Northern Rockies wolf populations, gray wolves have been relisted in most states.
Riders are often used as a tactic by wildlife and environmental advocates too.
In her time as an attorney and lobbyist working on wild horse and burro issues, Schwartz worked for years to secure language in the Department of Interior’s appropriations bill that required funds allocated to the Bureau of Land Management be used to administer a humane fertility control program in wild and free-roaming herds.
This move was an intentional strategy, one meant to avoid opening the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act itself. Wild horses and burros are not protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) but have federal protection — like the bald eagle — in designated areas on public land. Opening the act itself could have existential consequences, as wild horses — not unlike wolves — have historically been under attack by powerful private interests, namely commercial agriculture.
Anti-ESA Riders across Administrations
Anti-environment and anti-ESA riders are a disturbingly nonpartisan trend in American politics. They have surfaced repeatedly across multiple administrations, irrespective of political parties. It isn’t the President specifically that’s controlling these bills or how discretionary funds are spent. Consider Congress and the respective administration’s appointed Secretary of the Interior.
It was Obama’s congress in 2013 that proposed to delist gray wolves in the lower 48 states, followed by anti-ESA riders stacking up each year in appropriations bills for the remainder of his presidency. Riders that aimed to block protections for sage grouse, gray wolves, and salmon.
Under the Trump administration, anti-ESA riders proliferated under then Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Ryan Zinke, threatening the very core of conservation efforts. Zinke, a former Senator from Montana and endorsed by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, stood against federal protections for several endangered species, including gray wolves and sage Grouse.
Current DOI Secretary, Deb Haaland, made a name for herself amongst environmentalists and wildlife advocates for her fierce commitment and record for preserving public lands, wild horses, bison, and other native species before her appointment in 2021.
Three years into her tenure, Haaland’s work to preserve bison is arguably a mixed bag. In a 2023 significant decision, she dedicated $25 million in federal spending to conserve bison populations by moving them from federal lands to tribal lands. Yet bison wandering just outside of Yellowstone National Park continue to be culled in masses for their proximity to Montana livestock operators.
On wild horse preservation, Haaland’s commitment has notably vanished, and though she has publicly stated concern for wolves in the Northern Rockies and packs venturing outside of their protective bubble of Yellowstone National Park, she has taken no apparent game-changing actions to protect them.
What’s next
This appropriations bill will be tossed back and forth before reaching the President's desk. It’s the goal of the 100 conservation groups who’ve united in signing a letter to Congress that their voices and the wishes of their communities will be heard. In the end, it’ll be up to the people in power and their interests. Not, if history indicates much, the interest of species perpetually endangered by the people.
“As our political system grows more and more contentious, the annual Appropriations process has become the only viable avenue to bring marginal change or progress up for a vote,” Schwartz says. Her tone is laced with unnamed emotion. We don’t pry.
As of the publication of this article, Congress has voted to extend the deadline for FY2024 to March, therefore — at least temporarily — preventing a government shutdown.