The Black Vulture Relief Act of 2025 creates a targeted federal exemption that allows livestock producers and their on‑duty employees to ‘‘take’’ black vultures (Coragyps atratus) to prevent death, injury, or destruction of livestock. The bill defines ‘‘take’’ broadly to include capture, killing, dispersal, and transporting a carcass, and it bars the use of poison.
This is significant because it carves out a species‑specific exception from the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and pairs that authority with a federal reporting requirement to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. For producers, the bill converts a longstanding enforcement risk into an affirmative, reportable control option; for wildlife managers and advocates, it shifts decision‑making about lethal control away from permitting and toward on‑the‑ground judgments by producers.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill authorizes ‘‘covered persons’’ (livestock producers and employees actively engaged in production) to take black vultures notwithstanding the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, with ‘‘take’’ defined to include capture, killing, dispersal, and transporting carcasses. It explicitly prohibits use of poison as a method of take.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties are livestock producers and their employees, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (which must develop and host a reporting form), and USFWS regional offices designated under 50 C.F.R. 2.2. Indirectly affected groups include wildlife rehabilitators, state wildlife agencies, and livestock insurers.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a standing federal authorization for lethal and non‑lethal control of a single migratory species and requires annual reporting to USFWS, shifting the balance between agricultural protection and migratory bird protections. Practically, it reduces the permitting hurdle for producers but increases data‑collection responsibilities for federal managers.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act starts by naming the black vulture (Coragyps atratus) and establishing who may act: ‘‘covered persons’’ are livestock producers and employees who are actively engaged in livestock production. Rather than requiring a permit or an on‑the‑spot federal authorization, the statute gives covered persons a pre‑authorized ability to take black vultures in situations where the bird is causing, or reasonably believed to be about to cause, death, injury, or destruction to livestock.
The bill defines ‘‘take’’ expansively: it includes capturing, killing, dispersing a black vulture, and transporting a carcass. The statute bars one specific method — poisoning — but otherwise leaves method choice and decision‑making to the covered person.
Because the authorization is written ‘‘notwithstanding’’ the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, covered persons receive an affirmative defense under that federal statute for authorized actions taken consistent with the bill.To create a minimal layer of oversight and data collection, the Act requires covered persons who exercised the authority during a 12‑month period to submit an annual report to the appropriate USFWS regional office. The Director of Fish and Wildlife must develop a reporting form and publish it on the Service’s website; the form must be no more burdensome than similar permitted‑take forms already in use under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Reports are due on an annual schedule specified in the statute and do not become mandatory until the Director makes the form available.What the bill does not do is set numerical caps, require prior approval, prescribe enforcement penalties for misuse, or change state wildlife laws. It also does not create an affirmative federal oversight regime beyond receiving the reports and hosting the form; it leaves interpretation of ‘‘reasonable belief’’ and selection of non‑poison control techniques to producers and their employees.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute creates a categorical MBTA exception for black vultures for ‘‘covered persons’’—no individual federal take permit is required for authorized actions under this Act.
The bill’s statutory definition of "take" expressly covers capture, killing, dispersal, and transporting a black vulture carcass.
Poison is the only explicit method the Act prohibits when taking black vultures.
The Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must develop and post a reporting form within 180 days of enactment, and covered persons must submit annual reports for takes carried out in the prior 12 months.
The terms "livestock" and "livestock producer" are incorporated by reference to definitions in the Emergency Livestock Feed Assistance Act of 1988; employees are covered only when actively engaged in production.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s name: the "Black Vulture Relief Act of 2025." This is a captionary provision only; it signals the focal species and policy intent but carries no operational requirements.
Who and what the Act covers
Lists key definitions used to limit and interpret the authorization: the species (Coragyps atratus), ‘‘covered person’’ (producer or actively engaged employee), the Director (USFWS), and references for ‘‘livestock’’ and ‘‘livestock producer’’ to the Emergency Livestock Feed Assistance Act. By importing those external statutory definitions, the bill ties eligibility to established federal terminology rather than creating new thresholds (for example, it does not specify herd size or operation type).
Notwithstanding MBTA, covered persons may take black vultures; poison banned
Grants covered persons the right to take black vultures that are causing or are reasonably believed to be about to cause livestock harm. The ‘‘notwithstanding’’ language creates an explicit carve‑out from the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, effectively immunizing such takes from MBTA prosecution when performed within the Act’s terms. The section allows incidental injury in the course of taking but explicitly forbids the use of poison, leaving other methods unregulated by the text.
Annual reporting to appropriate USFWS regional office
Requires covered persons who exercised the authority during a 12‑month period to submit a report to the relevant USFWS regional office using a Director‑prescribed form. Reports are due by a statutory annual deadline; however, the obligation is suspended until the Director makes the form available. The regional routing is pegged to the geographic jurisdictions already codified in 50 C.F.R. §2.2, which affects which office receives the data.
Director must develop a reporting form within 180 days
Directs the USFWS Director to create and post an appropriate reporting form on the Service website within 180 days of enactment, and requires that the form not be more burdensome than the comparable permitted‑take forms the Service used under the MBTA as of enactment. This constrains administrative friction but leaves form content, data fields, and the Service’s downstream use of data to agency discretion.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Agriculture across all five countries.
Explore Agriculture in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Livestock producers — Gain a clear, species‑specific federal authorization to respond to black vulture predation without seeking a separate MBTA take permit, reducing enforcement risk and operational delays when protecting animals.
- Employees actively engaged in livestock production — Obtain the same legal protection as the producer while working on the operation, enabling frontline workers to act immediately to protect stock.
- Rural livestock supply chains (feedlots, cattle operations, sheep/goat producers) — Potentially lower losses and reduced carcass damage costs, which can improve herd health management and reduce economic disruption.
- State agricultural agencies and rural extension services — May see fewer emergency requests for federal intervention and can advise clients with a simple federal rule to reference.
Who Bears the Cost
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service — Must design, host, and process a new reporting form and handle incoming annual reports regionally, which will consume staff time and data‑management resources without an explicit funding appropriation.
- Wildlife rehabilitators and conservation organizations — May face increased mortality of black vultures and potential strain on rescue resources, and they lose a layer of federal protection that previously limited lethal control.
- State wildlife agencies — Could receive more disputes and complaints from the public and may need to reconcile state protections or permitting regimes with this new federal carve‑out.
- Covered persons (producers and employees) — In exchange for the new authorization, they assume an annual reporting obligation and the evidentiary risk of justifying ‘‘reasonable belief’’ if challenged; they also face potential reputational or market risks if lethal control is perceived as excessive.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing immediate, decentralized protection of private livestock against the federal interest in protecting migratory bird species: the bill gives producers practical, on‑the‑ground control while relying on self‑reporting for federal oversight, trading centralized conservation safeguards and permitting for speed and operational discretion at the farm level.
The bill replaces MBTA enforcement risk with a self‑executing authorization tied to an annual reporting duty, but it leaves several implementation choices and oversight gaps unresolved. ‘‘Reasonable belief’’ is fact‑intensive and undefined; that creates uncertainty about when a covered person may act lawfully and invites later dispute if a take is contested. The absence of numerical limits, permit conditions, kill‑reporting detail (for example, exact fields required), or post‑take review means USFWS will initially rely on the quality of producer self‑reports to understand scale and patterns of takings.
Operationally, the Act constrains only one method (poison) while leaving other techniques unregulated, which could push producers toward methods with different animal welfare or non‑target risks. The requirement that the USFWS form be no more burdensome than existing MBTA permitted‑take forms limits paperwork but does not resolve who pays for the administrative load.
Finally, because the statute imports external definitions for ‘‘livestock’’ and ‘‘livestock producer,’’ eligibility will hinge on those cross‑references and could create edge cases for mixed or small operations; the bill does not address interactions with state statutes, local disease‑control rules, or carcass disposal regulations.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.