Wildlife Movement Through Partnerships Act of 2025
HB717, the Wildlife Movement Through Partnerships Act of 2025, would create two new federal programs focused on wildlife connectivity and migration: a Wildlife Movement and Movement Area Grant Program and a State and Tribal Migration Research Program. The bill is designed to support projects that improve habitat quality in migration corridors and seasonal movement areas for big game and other native wildlife, including habitat leases, conservation easements, fence modifications, road and infrastructure changes, hydrology improvements, and measures to reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions. It also directs the U.S. Geological Survey to continue mapping and technical assistance efforts related to wildlife corridors and requires interagency coordination among Interior, Agriculture, and Transportation.
The bill would also amend the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program to allow technical assistance for voluntary migration-corridor and seasonal-habitat conservation on private and Tribal lands and reauthorize that program through fiscal year 2031. It authorizes appropriations for multiple components of the bill through fiscal year 2031 and sets aside at least 50 percent of certain funds for big game movement-area projects. The bill includes reporting requirements, a coordination role within the Department of the Interior, and protections intended to keep the program nonregulatory and voluntary.
In terms of legal impact, the bill would add new federal grant and research authorities and expand the role of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation in administering competitive matching grants. It would also amend existing federal law governing the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and the USGS mapping and appropriations framework. The bill expressly states that it does not change state wildlife authority, tribal treaty rights, private property rights, public access, military readiness, or existing federal land designations, and it prohibits use of funds to force nonvoluntary changes in agriculture, livestock production, forestry, energy development, mining, or water rights.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill text is strongly supportive of conservation partnerships, voluntary landowner collaboration, and science-based wildlife management. Because there are no committee transcripts or votes provided, there is no recorded debate or roll-call evidence of opposition or support beyond the bill’s bipartisan introduction by Representatives Zinke and Beyer. The structure of the bill suggests an effort to balance wildlife conservation goals with protections for landowners, states, tribes, and existing land uses.
The main points of potential contention are likely to center on federal spending, the role of federal agencies and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation in administering grants, and whether corridor mapping or habitat projects could indirectly affect land use. The bill attempts to address those concerns by emphasizing voluntary participation, matching grants, and explicit savings provisions preserving state authority, tribal authority, private property rights, and access to existing rights and uses. Another likely issue is the bill’s prioritization of big game migration, which may raise questions about how broadly other wildlife species and regions would benefit.
HB717 would create new federal grant, research, and coordination programs affecting the Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Agriculture, Department of Transportation, states, tribes, nonprofits, counties, and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. It would amend the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Act and USGS-related appropriations authority, authorize funding through FY2031, and require at least 50 percent of certain funds to support big game movement-area conservation. The bill is structured to be nonregulatory and to preserve existing state, tribal, and private rights while expanding federal support for wildlife corridor and migration research and habitat projects.
The bill appears generally favorable and collaborative in tone, emphasizing voluntary partnerships, science-based conservation, and coordination across federal, state, tribal, and private actors. The bipartisan sponsorship by Representatives Zinke and Beyer suggests cross-party interest in wildlife connectivity and migration corridor conservation. No committee testimony or votes are provided, so there is no direct evidence of formal opposition or support beyond the bill’s text and sponsorship.
Likely areas of contention include the scope of federal involvement in wildlife corridor mapping and grant administration, the use of federal funds for land and infrastructure changes, and whether the program could indirectly influence land use or access. The bill anticipates these concerns by limiting the program to voluntary actions, capping federal cost share at 90 percent with waivers for tribes and disadvantaged communities, and including explicit savings provisions protecting state wildlife authority, tribal treaty rights, private property, public access, and existing rights such as water, energy, mining, and forestry uses. Another possible point of debate is the bill’s emphasis on big game, which may be seen as either appropriately targeted or too narrow depending on stakeholder priorities.