Tenure: 117th–119th Congresses
Years of Service: 2021–Present
Rep. Lauren Boebert has emerged as one of Congress’s most active opponents of several major animal protection and wildlife conservation priorities. Unlike lawmakers whose records reflect limited engagement on animal issues, Boebert has repeatedly taken a leadership role in efforts to weaken protections for wildlife, particularly gray wolves. Her legislative record demonstrates not merely unfavorable voting patterns, but active sponsorship and promotion of legislation opposed by many conservation and animal protection organizations.
The clearest example is Boebert’s sponsorship of H.R. 845, the Pet and Livestock Protection Act. The bill would legislatively remove Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves across much of the United States and effectively reinstate a previous nationwide delisting rule that federal courts had overturned. The legislation would also limit judicial review of the delisting decision. Boebert has been the principal House advocate for the measure and has repeatedly argued that wolf recovery is complete and that states should have primary authority over wolf management.
Wolf conservation has become one of the defining issues of Boebert’s political career. She has been a vocal opponent of Colorado’s wolf reintroduction efforts and has consistently aligned herself with ranching and livestock interests that view wolf populations as a threat to agricultural operations. In public statements supporting H.R. 845, she celebrated the House passage of wolf-delisting legislation and argued that gray wolves should no longer receive federal protections.
For animal protection advocates, the concern extends beyond the fate of wolves themselves. Critics of H.R. 845 argue that the legislation substitutes politics for the Endangered Species Act’s science-based review process and would allow Congress to remove protections for a recovering species through legislation rather than through established scientific procedures. Conservation groups have argued that wolf populations remain vulnerable in significant portions of their historic range and that legislative delisting undermines the integrity of federal wildlife protections.
Boebert’s voting record is consistent with her legislative leadership on wolf issues. She voted for H.R. 556, the Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act, which restricted federal agencies’ ability to regulate lead ammunition and lead fishing tackle on federal lands and waters. She also supported the Moore Amendment, which sought to create an exemption from the federal prohibition on commercial greyhound racing.
On food and agriculture issues, Boebert voted for the Greene Amendment, which sought to prohibit federal support for cultivated meat and related technologies. She also supported the Farm, Food, and National Security Act, including provisions that would have preempted state farm-animal welfare laws such as California’s Proposition 12 and Massachusetts’ Question 3.
Unlike some members with mixed records, there is little evidence of offsetting support for major animal protection priorities. Based on currently available information, Boebert is not a current cosponsor of significant animal welfare measures such as the SAFE Act, FIGHT Act, ACE Act, LEAD Act, or FDA Modernization Act 3.0. Nor has she played a meaningful role in advancing legislation aimed at combating animal cruelty, protecting horses from slaughter, reducing animal fighting, or strengthening farm-animal welfare standards.
What distinguishes Boebert from many lawmakers with unfavorable voting records is her willingness to actively lead efforts opposed by the animal protection community. Her sponsorship of H.R. 845 placed her at the forefront of one of the most significant wildlife protection battles before Congress. Rather than simply voting against animal protection priorities, she has invested political capital in advancing legislation designed to reduce federal wildlife protections.
Taken as a whole, Boebert’s record places her firmly in the Animal Opponent category. Her leadership on wolf delisting, combined with consistently unfavorable votes on wildlife, farm-animal welfare, cultivated meat, and greyhound racing issues, reflects a sustained pattern of opposition to many of the animal protection movement’s highest priorities.
Notable Actions
119th Congress
✅ Supported House passage of the FDA Modernization Act 3.0, H.R. 2821, which passed by voice vote under suspension of the rules on July 20, 2026. The bipartisan legislation directs the FDA to update its regulations to fully implement the 2022 law allowing scientifically valid non-animal methods to be used instead of animal testing in drug development.
❌ Voted “Aye” on H.R. 556, the Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act (House Roll Call Vote 93), to prohibit federal land management agencies from restricting the use of toxic lead ammunition and fishing tackle on public lands and waters to protect wildlife from poisoning. The bill passed the House 215–202. An “Aye” vote is the anti-animal position because it limited the federal government’s ability to restrict toxic lead ammunition and fishing tackle that poison wildlife and contaminate the environment.
❌ Voted “Aye” on H.R. 845, the Pet and Livestock Protection Act (House Roll Call Vote 360), to remove federal Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves across much of the United States and restricted judicial review of future wolf management decisions. The bill passed the House 211–204. An “Aye” vote is the anti-animal position because it removed Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves and limited judicial review of future wolf management decisions.
❌ Voted “Aye” on the Riley Moore Amendment (House Roll Call Vote 149), to weaken the Farm Bill’s Greyhound Protection Act provisions by creating a special exemption allowing commercial greyhound racing to continue in West Virginia indefinitely. The House rejected the amendment 187–237. An “Aye” vote is the anti-animal position because it sought to weaken greyhound protections by allowing commercial greyhound racing to continue indefinitely in West Virginia.
❌ Voted “Aye” on H.R. 7567, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act (House Roll Call Vote 154), to pass the Farm Bill, which included a provision to overturn state laws in California and Massachusetts restricting in-state sales of fresh pork sourced from farms that do not provide minimum space requirements for the housing of pregnant pigs. The bill passed the House 224–200. An “Aye” vote is the anti-animal position because it supported overturning state farm animal welfare laws that require more humane housing standards for pregnant pigs.
❌ Voted “Aye” on the Biggs Amendment to H.R. 3838 (House Roll Call Vote 259), to exempt defense-related activities from the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, eliminating protections for endangered and threatened species and their critical habitat on military lands and during defense operations. The House rejected the amendment 200–228. An “Aye” vote is the anti-animal position because it sought to weaken Endangered Species Act protections for threatened and endangered wildlife on military lands.
❌ Voted “Aye” on the Greene Amendment to H.R. 3838 (House Roll Call Vote 254), to prohibit the Department of Defense from using FY2026 funds for the research, development, procurement, or promotion of cell-cultured meat, an emerging alternative to conventional slaughter-based meat production. The House rejected the amendment 194–236, with 1 voting present. An “Aye” vote is the anti-animal position because it sought to block federal support for the development of slaughter-free, cell-cultured meat alternatives that could reduce the number of animals raised and killed for food.
118th Congress
❌ Voted “Aye” on H.R. 764 (House Roll Call Vote 169), legislation to remove federal protections for gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act across most of the United States and return management authority to the states. Wildlife advocates warned that the bill would undermine science-based wildlife management and threaten the long-term recovery of gray wolf populations. The House passed the bill 209–205. An “Aye” vote is the anti-animal position because it removed Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves across much of the United States, despite concerns that doing so would undermine their long-term recovery and science-based wildlife management.
❌ Voted “Aye” on H.R. 615 (House Roll Call Vote 167), legislation to bar the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture from prohibiting or regulating the use of toxic lead ammunition and fishing tackle on federal lands and waters made available for hunting or fishing. Lead ammunition and tackle poison wildlife, including eagles, loons, condors, and other animals that ingest spent lead fragments or lost fishing gear. The House passed the bill 214–201. An “Aye” vote is the anti-animal position because it blocked federal agencies from restricting toxic lead ammunition and fishing tackle that poison eagles, loons, condors, and other wildlife.
117th Congress
❌ Voted “Nay” on the motion to suspend the rules and pass Prevent All Soring Tactics (PAST) Act, H.R. 5441 (House Roll Call Vote 478). The bill would strengthen enforcement of the Horse Protection Act and help end the cruel practice of “soring” Tennessee Walking Horses, Racking Horses, and Spotted Saddle Horses. Soring involves intentionally inflicting severe pain on horses’ legs and hooves through caustic chemicals, chains, pressure devices, or other abusive methods to force an exaggerated, high-stepping gait known as the “Big Lick.” The motion was agreed to by a vote of 304–111, exceeding the two-thirds majority required under the suspension of the rules procedure. A “Nay” vote is the anti-animal position because it opposed stronger enforcement against the deliberate infliction of pain on horses to produce an exaggerated gait for competition.
❌ Voted “Nay” on Big Cat Public Safety Act, H.R. 263 (House Roll Call Vote 415), legislation to end the private possession and commercial breeding of lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, jaguars, cougars, and other big cats while prohibiting public contact with these animals. The bill targeted the exploitative cub-petting industry and roadside zoos, where big cats are repeatedly bred, handled, and discarded, while strengthening protections for both animals and public safety. A “Nay” vote is the anti-animal position because it opposed ending the commercial exploitation and private ownership of big cats.