Why it Matters

The barred owl is at the center of a new lobbying push: Animal Wellness Action has hired former Rep. Peter DeFazio to block a federal proposal to kill as many as 450,000 barred owls.

DeFazio’s 36-year House tenure included chairing Transportation and serving on Natural Resources. His direct oversight experience with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service adds heavyweight credentials to the campaign.

By the Numbers

  • Animal Wellness Action’s lobbying portfolio:
    • Total spent: $4.4 million since 2018
    • In-house spending: $2.9 million
    • External firms: $1.5 million
    • Current external partners: 9 firms
  • DeFazio’s lobbying practice:
    • Total reported: $880,000 across 6 clients since February 2024
    • Animal Wellness contract: $10,000
    • Team: Single lobbyist (Peter Anthony DeFazio)

Broader Context

The Fish and Wildlife Service proposed killing 450,000 Barred Owls to protect endangered Spotted Owls after barred owls displaced native spotted owls in Pacific Northwest forests. Conservation groups traditionally support lethal management for invasive species; animal welfare advocates oppose killing one species to save another. The debate reflects broader tensions between conservation and animal welfare philosophies.

The Agenda

The new registration filing targets repealing the FWS proposal through Congressional Review Act resolutions. Both S.J.Res.69 and H.J.Res.111 seek to nullify the federal decision. Animal Wellness Action calls the plan “impractical and grossly expensive.” The CRA allows Congress to overturn final federal agency rules with simple majorities.

Competitive Landscape

Multiple wildlife groups lobby on Endangered Species Act issues. The American Bird Conservancy seeks ESA recovery funding for bird species. The National Wildlife Federation lobbies for broad conservation policies. Reform advocates like the National Endangered Species Act Reform Coalition push for less stringent federal regulations. Animal Wellness Action’s animal-welfare approach contrasts with traditional conservation tactics.

Between The Lines

Bipartisan congressional opposition is building against the owl plan. Rep. Troy Nehls and Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove led a letter calling the proposal impractical and expensive. Rep. Nehls later announced the CRA resolution, calling it a “waste of taxpayer dollars.” The House Natural Resources Committee held ESA oversight hearings in January. A House Oversight hearing on “Taxpayer Funded Animal Cruelty” (hearing details) shows appetite for scrutinizing federal animal programs.

The Bottom Line

Animal Wellness Action secured experienced congressional advocacy at a strategic moment. DeFazio’s Natural Resources Committee background provides direct agency oversight experience. The bipartisan opposition and existing CRA resolutions create favorable conditions for the campaign.

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article