SAW Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Hoyle, Val T. [D-OR-4]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 18, 2025
Bottom line
This bill establishes a federal prohibition on using motor vehicles to take mammalian predator species on most federal lands, aiming to prevent certain hunting practices and protect wildlife, with penalties for violations.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits the intentional use of a motor vehicle to harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect a mammalian predator species on most federal lands. It includes an exception for self-defense to avoid injury or death and grants the Secretary of the Interior investigative authority, allowing for cooperation with other federal and state agencies. The bill also delegates the definition of 'mammalian predator' to the Secretary of the Interior.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill closes a loophole that allows for unsporting and inhumane hunting practices, particularly the use of snowmobiles or other vehicles to chase down and kill predators, which they view as unethical and detrimental to wildlife populations. They emphasize the need to protect mammalian predators on federal lands from such methods, promoting fair chase principles in hunting.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that this bill overreaches federal authority into wildlife management, which traditionally involves state agencies, and could restrict legitimate hunting activities or predator control efforts deemed necessary by local communities or ranchers. They may also contend that existing state laws or regulations are sufficient to address concerns about unethical practices.
The bill is very short and clearly written, making it highly accessible for readers to understand its core provisions quickly.
Section 2(a)
Prohibition on Using Motor Vehicles to Take Mammalian Predators
This section makes it illegal for any person to intentionally use a motor vehicle to harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect a mammalian predator species on Federal land. Violators face significant penalties, including fines of up to $10,000, imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue this provision ensures more ethical and fair chase hunting practices, preventing the use of technology to gain an unfair advantage over wildlife, particularly vulnerable predator species, and promoting responsible stewardship of public lands.
Critics contend
Opponents may argue this provision is an unnecessary federal intrusion into state wildlife management, potentially hindering predator control efforts that some consider vital for livestock protection or game species management, and limiting the tools available to hunters.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire for ethical hunting practices and wildlife protection against concerns about federal overreach into traditional state wildlife management and potential impacts on predator control.
Section 2(b)
Exception for Self-Defense
This provision clarifies that the prohibition on using motor vehicles to take mammalian predators does not apply if a person engaged in such conduct to avoid injury or death to themselves or another person. This provides a critical carve-out for situations where personal safety is at risk.
Section 2(c)
Investigation Authority for Violations
This section grants the Secretary of the Interior, or a person authorized by the Secretary, the authority to investigate potential violations of the Act. It also explicitly allows the Secretary to obtain assistance from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of the Treasury, other appropriate federal agencies, and state and local law enforcement and governmental agencies for these investigations.
Section 2(d)
Key Definitions
This section defines critical terms for the Act. 'Federal land' is defined as land owned by the United States, specifically excluding land held in trust for American Indian Tribes or individuals. 'Motor vehicle' is broadly defined to include any self-propelled vehicle or one drawn by it, operating on highways, railroads, ground, water, or air. Crucially, the term 'mammalian predator' is left to be defined by the Secretary of the Interior.
The bill defines 'mammalian predator' as having the meaning given such term by the Secretary of the Interior.
Section 2(d)(3)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative practice to allow for administrative flexibility and expertise in defining technical terms that may evolve or require specific scientific input. However, it also means the precise scope of the bill's application is not fully transparent in the statutory text.
Case for: Supporters argue this allows the definition to be updated based on scientific consensus or changing ecological needs without requiring new legislation, ensuring the law remains relevant and effective in protecting appropriate species.
Case against: Critics might contend that this delegation grants too much power to an unelected official, potentially leading to definitions that are politically influenced or that lack sufficient public input and congressional oversight, creating uncertainty for affected parties.
Estimated impact: The scope of species covered by the prohibition, and thus the impact on hunters and wildlife, will be entirely determined by the Secretary's future definition, making it a highly impactful delegated authority.