![[Top]](/images/nav-top.gif)
![[Back]](/images/nav-back.gif)
![[Home]](/images/nav-home.gif)
October 6 & 7, 2005
Mammoth Hot Springs Resort
Mammoth Hot Springs, Wyoming
Senator Bruce Burns, Co-Chairman
Representative Pat Childers, Co-Chairman
Senator Stan Cooper
Senator Mike Massie
Senator Tony Ross
Senator Michael Von Flatern
Representative Kermit Brown
Representative Kathy Davison
Representative Jerry Iekel
Representative Wayne Reese
Representative Jim Slater
Representative Bill Thompson
Representative Dan Zwonitzer
Representative Keith Gingery
Lynda Cook, Staff Attorney
Please refer to
Appendix 1 to review the Committee Sign-in Sheet
for a list of other individuals who attended the meeting.
Co-Chairman Bruce Burns called the meeting to order at 8:00 am. The following sections summarize the Committee proceedings by topic. Please refer to Appendix 2 to review the Committee Meeting Agenda.
Minutes from the May 16 & 17, 2005 Committee meeting were approved with an amendment to reflect that the meeting ended at 1:20 on the 17th.
Terry Cleveland, Director, welcomed the committee and stated that it was fitting to be addressing wildlife issues in the first national park, with elk and bison lounging just outside the window of the meeting room. He introduced Game and Fish Commission members who were in attendance: President Linda Fleming, Ron Lovercheck, Jerry Galles, Bob Allen and Dr. Bill Williams.
Mr. Emmerich stated that it has been a long process but all sides have completed every step necessary to affect grizzly bear de-listing. Only the final step consisting of final review and approval by the Secretary of Interior herself remains. Everyone below the Secretary has already indicated that the documents are in order and should be approved. Six forests have finalized amended forest plans based on the de-listing documents.
The Game and Fish Commission has grown tired of waiting for the Secretary to take action. The commission has called for the signing of the notice of intent to de-list before the end of the year or they will withdraw the department's authority to manage grizzly bears entirely. However, it is understood that when the notice is published, there will be a 90-day comment period, then the Fish and Wildlife Service will review those comments, and only then will a final rule be published.
Director Cleveland added that he has had conversations with Senator Thomas following the Senator's discussions with the Secretary of the Interior. Secretary Norton told Sen. Thomas that she did not have the rule on her desk and didn't know if grizzly bears were ready for de-listing because she hadn't been briefed by her staff. This differs from the information Director Cleveland had heard from her staff.
Currently there are enough bears in enough places to ensure that the grizzly bear should be removed from the endangered species list. Failure by the Fish and Wildlife Service to publish a final rule only allows the bears more time to spread. The continual spread of grizzly bears is expensive due to the cost of conflict resolution. In Director Cleveland's opinion, if the state steps away from the management of grizzly bears, there will be little effective management and that will cause great problems for the livestock industry. He stated that it is exasperating that after thirty years, the state continues to do all the work while the federal government still holds all the cards.
According to the local bear biologists, there are no scientific questions as to whether the grizzly bear is fully recovered. Senator Massie pointed out that there are significant changes to the ESA being proposed in Congress and there is a concern that the decision to delay de-listing grizzly bears could be a political move supporting the argument that the ESA does not work.
If the commission directs the department to stop managing bears, the legislature will need to consider whether it is appropriate for the state to continue to pay damage payments for loss of livestock to grizzly bears that we don't manage. Wildlife Services would have to take over all conflict management if the state stepped away, and although they are good at handling lethal removal of problem animals, the do not have the staff or the expertise that the department has in handling, removing, relocating, and diverting problem grizzly bears. The department is currently responding to an average of two conflict calls per day.
The Department received a general appropriation of $2,018,570 for general operations in the veterinary services branch for the first time in thirty years. The appropriation has been used for the following expenses:
$644,000 for personnel (3 contract positions and 3 AWEC positions). Money from an APHIS grant which had been used to fund some positions in the past may be available again in the future and that will free up some of this money. Some of this money will be used to purchase and replace big ticket items like computers and vehicles that are needed for the additional positions.
$970,000 has been used for construction of fencing to separate cattle and elk, and construction of traps to implement the brucellosis test and removal program. They have contracted for the traps and expect to have them in place in February or March. Under the testing program, if the tests show a high seroprevalence in an animal, the animal will be taken to Idaho to a slaughterhouse for processing and then distributed to persons in Wyoming. The department had to use an Idaho slaughterhouse because there is no USDA certified slaughter facility in Wyoming. The people who will receive the meat are people who have contacted the department asking for donations because they are unable to hunt for various reasons. The meat would be distributed free of cost, and there are no human health issues to worry about. Cattle testing positive for brucellosis have long been placed in the food chain after slaughter.
The department has already built a 1.6 mile fence to separate cattle and elk where the initial outbreak of brucellosis occurred. The department does not anticipate asking for additional money during the budget session, but does intend to ask to have the unexpended monies encumbered for future use.
The state will probably get its brucellosis free status back in the next few months, but a critical part of that process will be doing something to address the problem in elk. Under the test and slaughter program the department will never reduce the population below 90% of the population objective. They will not totally depopulate a herd as is done with cattle. This project will not get rid of brucellosis in elk, but it will help the department determine if the active infection rate is anywhere near the seroprevalence rate and it will help lower the rate. This is merely a pilot test to find out if it will be a reasonable tool to use in the future.
When asked about whether the elk infected the cattle last year, Director Cleveland pointed out that there was no difference in the brucellosis DNA between the elk and the cattle. While that is not absolute, it is certainly scientifically convincing that the elk infected the cattle.
Chairman Burns asked what controversies might come from this program. Director Cleveland stated that some people are concerned that we do not treat elk like livestock. Some people find that distasteful. But, we have to stay focused on solving all of the state's needs, and there are no other alternatives right now. Doing nothing is not an alternative. Removing feedgrounds is not an alternative that is feasible now because doing so would result in an 80% reduction in the elk population in northwestern Wyoming.
The state sage grouse recovery plan calls for local working groups. Eight groups have been established. The task of the local working groups is to complete local conservation plans and recommend projects for funding. $500,000 was appropriated, $425,000 of which is to be used on projects directly. $850,000 in project requests were received and reviewed by the local working groups. They ranked the projects and submitted those lists to the statewide board. The board funded twenty projects. (Appendix 3). The criteria for funding projects was: 1) was the project ready to go, 2) what was the likelihood of success with the project design, 3) were partners involved and 4) was there adequate monitoring built into the project.
While there are more sage grouse this year due to improved habitat conditions, the need for research and habitat improvements has not lessened. The effects of increased mineral development need to be studied. One project funded is studying the effects of noise on reproduction. Another is looking specifically at the Pinedale anticline area. They need to determine what happens to populations in these areas in order to give good advice to the developers. When asked about research on predator effects on sage grouse, Mr. Emmerich stated that no projects were funded under this program, but other studies are ongoing. The key is that predator reduction may give short term results, but habitat improvement gives long term results.
Bill Wichers, Deputy Director updated the committee on spending on capital facilities. (Appendix 4) A year and ˝ ago the legislature appropriated slightly more than four million dollars for capital construction and major maintenance at Yellowtail Wildlife Habitat area and three fish hatcheries: Dubois, Wigwam and Speas. The appropriation permitted the department to transfer the funds among the projects as the needs required. Because of unforeseen increases in materials and construction costs and unanticipated problems at the Dubois and Wigwam hatcheries, they used most of the money designated for Speas at Dubois and Wigwam. The commission authorized an additional $600,000 in license fee revenue to complete most of the Speas work in the current fiscal year.
Total costs for the four projects were: Wigwam - $2.1 million ($1.3M general fund and $800K license money), Dubois - $2.25 million ($1.7M general fund and $550K license money), Phase 1 Speas - $900,000 ($300K general fund and $600K license money).
The work at both Dubois and Wigwam hatcheries was to eliminate whirling disease and to prevent the disease from re-infesting trout at those hatcheries. They will both also become more efficient operations as a result of the work. The work at Speas is the first step in greatly increasing production and efficiency at Wyoming's largest fish hatchery. The work at Yellowtail Habitat area includes rehabilitation of a wetland and reconstruction of an irrigation ditch to avoid a crumbling tunnel. At this time the work at Wigwam is finished, Speas should be done next spring and Dubois and Yellowtail should be completed this fall. Mr. Wichers handed out photos showing the work at each project (Appendix 5) and a memo describing the work in detail (Appendix 6).
With respect to future capital construction needs, the department has made a presentation to the joint interim appropriations committee requesting funding for eight projects (Appendix 7):
1. Pinedale regional office – the existing office is too small for the staff. A new BLM office is being built in Pinedale in the next few years, making their current office available. Acquisition of that office will cost approximately $2 million dollars, and it is the most cost effective means of obtaining adequate office space in Pinedale.
2. Cheyenne Headquarters renovation and expansion – the Cheyenne office is too small for the number of people working in it and it has fire, electrical and ADA problems, chronic roof leakage and inadequate storage.
3. Dan Speas Rearing Station – the department has spent $600,000 upgrading the facility to comply with EPA and DEQ effluent standards and to prevent whirling disease. The hatchery is the largest hatchery in the state producing about 100,000 pounds of trout per year. The department has a demand for an additional 160,000 to 200,000 pounds of trout per year for stocking in Flaming Gorge, Pathfinder and Seminoe reservoirs. They could triple production at the Speas hatchery. The cost would be approximately $10.5 million.
4. Yellowtail wildlife habitat management area – the department needs funding to continue the tunnel bypass currently being completed and to reconstruct 2900 feet of cement irrigation ditch that has been damaged by floods, earthquakes and slides. The reconstruction would cost approximately $400,000.
5. Story fish hatchery – this is the oldest fish hatchery in the state, built in 1908. Whirling disease was found in the hatchery last year. They have been doing some work there, but an additional $2.6 million is needed to reroute water supplies and do other work to whirling disease proof the facility.
6. Comfort station replacements – the department still maintains several wooden outhouses throughout Wyoming at habitat and public fishing areas. The old wooden outhouses do not meet DEQ requirements and are not handicapped accessible. Additionally, there are several public access areas with sufficient use to warrant putting in facilities where none currently exist. The stations cost $30,000 each so the total cost for the ten needed would be $300,000.
7. Handicapped accessible fishing and hunting developments – the department has increasing requests for wheelchair accessible hunting and fishing opportunities. This proposal would construct fishing piers at Renner reservoir near Ten Sleep and on the North Platte River above Casper. Wheelchair accessible duck blinds would be constructed at two ponds at the Ocean Lake habitat area near Riverton. The total cost would be $97,000. Senator Massie pointed out that the department does an excellent job providing access for persons with disabilities.
8. North Jackson Game Warden Station – the department provides housing with an office to all fifty game wardens. The north Jackson station has severe structural problems, is very small and is poorly insulated. The most cost effective option would be to demolish the existing house and build a new one on the same lot. The new station would consist of a 1300 square-foot, 3 bedroom home (at $180/square foot) and the total project cost would be approximately $465,000.
Scott Talbot, Assistant Division Chief, update the committee on the PL/PW program. In 2001 the program was made permanent with 5 full time employees, and the additional help of many others. The program consists of four prongs:
1. Walk-in access areas. The department pays a nominal lease so that hunters may use these private lands during specific times and for specific species. In 2005 the department had enrolled 505,000 acres for hunting walk-in areas (Appendix 8) and 273 acres of ponds and 89 miles of streams for fishing walk-in areas (Appendix 9).
2. Hunter management areas. These areas are larger private lands for which the landowner wants to give broad permission, but they want to control the numbers and impacts on the land too. The department issues permission slips to utilize these areas and thereby controls the number of hunters accessing the private lands at any given time. In 2005 the department enrolled 674,280 acres in hunter management areas. (Appendix 10).
3. Habitat improvement. About $10,000 in grants have been made to private landowners to improve streams and water access.
4. Hunter assistance. Each year wardens are contacted by landowners who want to see more harvest on their property. The department has created a web site with contacts to those landowners for hunters looking for opportunities. When the landowner's needs have been met, the department removes them from the site.
The current level of involvement and enrollment is as much as the department is capable of managing with their existing personnel. In response to questions, Mr. Talbot stated that any restrictions are placed on use of the land by the landowners and that the lease payments are set in a schedule based on acreage and species. Rep. Brown asked what induces landowners to enter into these agreements when they can lease their property to outfitters for much more money. Mr. Talbot stated that it is goodwill and dedication to the future that compels the landowners.
The department is including questions about the use of PL/PW lands in the hunter surveys this year because it is unclear how many people are actually using the program lands. Other than permission slips issued on hunter management areas, the hunters are not required to let the department know that they are using the areas.
Director Cleveland spoke about the Brucellosis Task Force's recommendation to regulate the feeding of wildlife because congregation of wildlife during feeding increases the risk of spreading disease. The department is in a difficult position because they run 22 state feedgrounds yet they are being asked to prohibit feeding by the general public. If they could turn back the clock they might not have feedgrounds, but today the issue is much more complicated. The department is looking for opportunities to phase out individual feedgrounds, but there are no opportunities right now. Nevertheless, the state needs to control the spread of de facto feedgrounds.
Recommendation #26 from the Brucellosis Task Force was to prohibit private feeding of big game animals. The issue has been controversial in the past and bills in 1993 and 1997 have failed to pass. In 2002 Teton County passed an ordinance prohibiting the feeding of deer and elk, but the ordinance is part of the land use regulations and has no criminal penalties.
People often think they are helping wildlife when they feed them but the results are detrimental to wildlife:
1. Feeding causes the conditioning of wild animals to human interaction;
2. Congregation of animals promotes spread of disease including brucellosis, tuberculosis and chronic wasting disease;
3. Some animals are being fed to keep them off public land and therefore away from hunting pressure;
4. Feeding deer has caused property destruction on neighboring properties;
5. Congregation attracts predators into urban settings;
6. Feeding increases the incidence of vehicle/animal collisions;
7. The type of feed used is not appropriate and is detrimental to the animals' health from a physiological standpoint – they have seen fungal toxicosis in deer fed on Garden Creek near Casper;
8. Trophy game feeding is extremely dangerous to humans and pets;
9. Bears habituated need to be removed from the population – 27 bears have been destroyed solely because of habituation in the past year.
The department has attempted to address the problem through education and outreach, population management, conflict management and through laws and regulations. However, it is time for Wyoming to pass a law prohibiting the feeding of big game animals just as Idaho, Montana and Colorado have done.
The committee took testimony from the audience. Bart Meyers, Teton County Planning Commission testified that the county ordinance is not strong enough because it does not have criminal penalties. Teton County would like to see the state take over this responsibility. Ben Lamb, Wyoming Wildlife Federation testified in support of the bill. He stated that 96 black bears have been removed from the population due to habituation since 2000 and that is 96 opportunities lost to hunters. The committee heard testimony in support of the bill from Dr. Bill Williams, Game & Fish Commission, Bob Wharf, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Jason Marsland, Wyoming Conservation Voters and Clark Allen, Teton County Commission.
The bill was moved and seconded. (Appendix 11).
The following amendments were considered:
Page 2-line 2 Before "warning" insert "written". PASSED
Page 2-line 3 After "department" insert "or any peace officer as defined in W.S. 7-2-101(a)(iv)". PASSED
Page 2-line 3 Delete "negligently".
Page 2-line 4 Delete "negligently". PASSED
Page 2-lines 10 through 11 Delete all language and insert "(i) Any practices that are necessarily integrated with agricultural goals or practices;". FAILED
Page 2-line 21 After "section" delete "," insert ": (i)".
Page 3-after line 2 Insert "(ii) "Properly store means to store in such a manner that a reasonable and prudent person would believe the attractant or food source had been secured in a manner to prohibit access by a big or trophy game animal." PASSED
Page 3-after line 5 Insert "(f) Nothing in this section shall restrict cities, towns and counties from enacting more restrictive measures than herein prescribed and if so enacted, the more restrictive shall apply.". FAILED
The bill passed unanimously as amended.
Levi Martin, Senior Assistant Attorney General, updated the committee on several legal issues facing natural resource agencies. He noted that the cases alleging that disparate treatment of non residents in hunting license allocation violates the commerce clause have all fallen away since Congress clearly stated that states have the authority to treat residents and non residents differently. Mr. Martin explained the Endangered Species Act reform bill that is currently in the United States House of Representatives. He reviewed the Kelo v. New London case permitting states to take property for public purposes including tax base development. He stated that it is unclear what "greater public purpose" will extend to. He noted that the Forest Service has changed its off highway vehicle regulations, changing the presumption that a road is open to a presumption that a road is closed unless it is marked as open. Finally, he described the state's three pronged approach to wolf delisting: 1) appeal the district court opinion to the 10th circuit, 2) petition for rule changes for when the Fish and Wildlife Service must take action against problem wolves, and 3) petition for delisting.
Bill Wichers, Deputy Director, explained to the committee why the department is requesting legislation to allow for electronic licensing. (Appendix 12). The bill was brought last session but it failed because it was very lengthy and complicated. The bill this year is streamlined and the department has removed extraneous language. Mr. Wichers thanked LSO staff for all their help in putting together the legislation the department has brought to the committee today.
Mr. Wichers responded to questions by the committee. He assured the committee that selling agents would not be required to provide for electronic licensing, rather the program would be completely voluntary. The effective date needed to be immediate because there are steps that cannot wait until July, 2006 if this program is going to be in place for the 2006 hunting season.
The bill was moved and seconded. (Appendix 13).
The following amendments were considered:
Page 1-line 11 Delete "(f)(intro)".
Page 3-line 4 Delete "shall" insert "may".
Page 3-line 7 After "department." delete the remainder of the line.
Page 3-lines 8 through 12 Delete entirely.
Page 3-line 19 Delete "Require" insert "Permit".
Page 4-line 18 After "act" insert "or otherwise provided by law".
Page 5-line 2 Delete ", and" insert "or otherwise provided by law,".
Page 5-lines 3 and 4 Delete entirely.
Page 5-line 5 Delete all new language.
Page 6-line18 through Page 7-line 19 Delete entirely. PASSED
The bill passed unanimously as amended.
The Committee recessed at 3:45 pm to go to tour the Yellowstone National Park Archive Museum.
Doug Smith, Wolf Management Coordinator for the Park Service, informed the committee on the status of monitoring wolves in Yellowstone Park. Mr. Smith stated that there are currently 150-160 wolves living in the Park. This year the population has declined and the growth rate within the park has declined over the last few years. Pup survival is down, partially due to an outbreak of parvo and mange in the northern part of the Park. There are fewer packs within the park and there is increased aggression between packs.
All but one pack in the park is being tracked with radio collars. Radio collars give the best information and the data is best from the winter. The collars locate the wolf every half hour, then beam the information to a satellite. The information is then downloaded from the satellite once a week. The cost of collaring is approximately $300 per collar, plus the costs of flying to capture and track the wolves.
The park is looking at locations of the packs, but also at how the packs interact with prey and with other carnivores. The Park Service has noted that the weight of the wolves has been decreasing on average over the last five years. The fact that growth in the park is tapering off is a function of density dependence – i.e. the more wolves there are the poorer the survival of the packs. When asked if a reduction in the prey base is effecting pack size, Mr. Smith suggested that this would make logical sense, but at least in the northern tier that is not happening. Rather, there appears to be an increase in competition amongst the packs. He also noted that the elk have become very savvy about dealing with wolves. Wolves are somewhat cowardly and if the elk stands its ground the wolves will most often give up the fight. That is not true with bison, deer or pronghorn that run fast enough to make running a viable option for them. Wolves do seem to be selecting for older elk while bears appear to prey largely on the calves.
Mr. Smith stated that he did not expect to see the high number of wolves in the Park again and that the population is in the process of decreasing and stabilizing based on the area available. When asked whether the reduced number of wolves will be sustainable Mr. Smith stated that he expects the population to reach equilibrium with the prey base at some point. The big question will be how the wolves will use the bison population. When that number reaches equilibrium he believes the population will be sustainable. When asked to clarify whether the Park can sustain eight packs long term, Mr. Smith stated that he believed it could sustain 6-8 packs but that it would take 10-12 years to get to that point of equilibrium. He also noted that the flow of wolves is out of the Park and not into it.
Mr. Smith was asked about surplus killing where wolves kill more than they can eat. He has only seen surplus killing in1997 and they attributed that to the bad winter. In many cases that year the wolves would return to the surplus kill to finish it off up to two weeks later.
Mike Jimenez, Fish and Wildlife Service, updated the committee on the status of wolves outside Yellowstone National Park. He stated that right after introduction the service encouraged expansion and considered the entire state as part of the recovery area. Wolves quickly expanded outside the Park and now there are thirteen packs outside the park in Wyoming. That number has grown from four packs in 1999. The average litter size outside the Park has increased and the number of pups has also increased. The largest cause of wolf mortality outside the Park is control of animals that interact with livestock.
With respect to elk, the wolves main prey base, cow/calf ratios have gone down since 1999 when wolves showed up near Jackson, but heard sizes seem to have stayed the same. However, livestock are also a prey source. Last year every pack in Wyoming killed some livestock. At first the Service tried to move the problem wolves to another area but now they just kill them. In the last three years the Service has killed 25% of the wolf population outside the park. Packs that moved far south, like the Daniel pack, which got into livestock, have been removed entirely.
The recovery goals outside the Park are for thirty pairs or approximately 300 wolves in the three states. Currently there are approximately 900 wolves and there have been at least that many since 1992. Mr. Jimenez stated that he believes the wolves should be delisted now and that the recovery portion of the re-introduction is long over. When asked why the Service does not manage for the ten packs in each state as required by the recovery goal, Mr. Jimenez likened the process to adjusting the thermostat constantly to maintain a particular temperature. It is more efficient to manage for slightly higher than the number you are aiming at so that the emergency re-listing would not kick in if the number falls slightly below 10 packs.
Mr. Jimenez agreed that the only time wolves are killed is when those wolves have encountered livestock. He stated that the service will not proactively kill wolves to avoid problems and that no other agency handles predator problems by killing animals before they kill livestock. Chairman Childers disagreed and noted that if a mountain lion wanders into town it will be killed before it has a chance to do harm to the town residents.
Mr. Jimenez also pointed out the difference in monitoring outside the park and inside. Inside the park almost every pack is monitored with radio collars and satellite locations. However, the Service considers this degree of monitoring too expensive outside the park so they just do some trapping and a lot of estimating based on sightings. While all but two of the packs outside the park have collars, the service does not use the satellite GPS tracking like they do in the park because that technology is considered for "research" rather than monitoring and management. However, he admitted that there are very probably many wolves that exist outside the park that they have no monitoring of and that quite likely affects the accuracy of their counts. He stated that the 119 wolves currently counted in Wyoming are only a minimum number.
Mr. Jimenez explained why the entire state is considered part of the recovery area. He guaranteed that there would not be wolves in Cheyenne. The concept is to dilute the area considered part of the recovery area in order to maximize the number of wolves that will be counted toward the recovery goal. If the recovery area were set at just 10 miles outside the Park, then packs that expanded outside that area would not be counted toward the recovery criteria. Also, packs that moved outside the recovery area would not be subject to the section 10j rule that allows killing of wolves that encounter livestock. Instead, animals outside the recovery area would receive the full protection of the Endangered Species Act and could not be controlled. Mr. Jimenez admitted that allowing killing of wolves in the eastern part of the state at will would not affect the wolf population, if wolves expanded that far. He also agreed that the ESA has worked in this case, that wolves are recovered.
When asked why wolves aren't delisted he stated that it comes down to different perspectives of how many wolves should be allowed. Rep. Iekel stated that scientists should be making the decisions based on science, not the politics of perspective.
Senator Burns and Representative Slater gave a report to the committee on the results of the Hunting Segment of the Tourism Industry Task Force. 2005 Session Laws, Chapter 191, Section 338 created a Task Force to study issues relating to the hunting segment of the tourism industry. The task force was to meet and report to the committee its findings and recommendations for statutory changes not later than October 1, 2005. The findings and recommendations were to address:
1. Methods of improving pricing and availability of nonresident hunting licenses without reducing resident hunter opportunities;
2. Regulation of and issues of concern to the outfitting industry in this state;
3. The need for and potential structure of a preference point system for allocation of resident hunting licenses; and
4. Issues raised by and potential solutions to problems created by litigation concerning the allocation and pricing of hunting licenses to nonresidents including recommendations for legislative solutions to outcomes from the litigation.
The Task force was made up of six legislators, four persons appointed by the Governor representing various stakeholders, and one member from the Game & Fish Department. The members were:
Legislators: Senators Bruce Burns (Co-Chair), Stan Cooper and Mike Massie, and Representatives Jim Slater (Co-Chair), Kathy Davison and Bill Thompson.
Governor Appointees: Roger Sebesta, representing the interests of resident sportsmen; Janet Hartford, representing the tourism industry; Terry Pollard, representing the outfitting industry; and Ken Raymond, representing agricultural landowner interests.
The Game and Fish representative was Jay Lawson, Wildlife Division Chief.
The Task force met July 13, 2005 and September 6, 2005. All eleven members of the task force attended both meetings. The Task Force took testimony on the four issues from members of the outfitting industry, representatives of the Game and Fish Department, the Attorney General's Office, and members of the public interested in wildlife resources. The final report is attached (Appendix 14).
The Task Force heard testimony about the new preference point system for nonresident elk, deer and antelope licenses, which was approved by the Commission on July 13, 2005. The Task Force discussed potential preference point systems for resident elk, deer and antelope licenses. The Task Force heard no testimony supporting such a system and therefore voted not to propose any changes in the current system of resident license allocation until the Game & Fish Department determines the impact of the nonresident preference point system.
The Task Force also heard testimony from the Attorney Generals' office regarding the outcome of the Shutz v. Wyoming case involving non resident license allocation. The case has been decided by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Task Force made no recommendations based on that decision.
The Task Force heard testimony regarding the need for improved availability of nonresident hunting licenses to stabilize the outfitting industry. The Task Force heard testimony that the industry is operating at 60% of capacity due to this instability. The Wyoming Outfitters and Guides Association presented a proposal to the Task Force to establish a closed pool of licenses that would be available only to nonresident hunters who are licensed outfitter clients. The hunter would have to provide the license number of the outfitter at the time of application. Currently, 40% of nonresident licenses are drawn through the special drawing where the hunter pays an increased price in order to be in that special drawing. The remaining 60% are drawn in a regular license drawing. Under the proposal 50% of all nonresident elk licenses would be allocated to the regular drawing, 10% to the special drawing and 40% to a new category of special drawing that is limited to nonresidents who have agreed to use a licensed outfitter. The proposal was not intended to affect resident licenses, would bring in an additional $330,000 per year to the Game & Fish Department, and would help control unlicensed outfitting because the hunter would have to supply the license number of the outfitter he would use in order to qualify.
The Task Force asked Jay Lawson to conduct a study of hunter attitudes regarding the proposal to create a closed pool of licenses available only to non resident hunters who hire an outfitter. A previous poll had been done in 1989 with the question "Should outfitters be guaranteed licenses?". At that time 59% of non-residents and 76% of residents opposed the concept.
The survey taken for this Task Force was more narrowly tailored to the proposal brought by the Wyoming Outfitters and Guides Association. The survey was developed by Responsive Management, a third party professional polling company. Responsive Management developed the questions and polled a random sample of resident and non resident elk license holders in August, 2005. Opposition exceeded support for the proposal in both residents and non residents, although residents were more strongly opposed. Respondents who supported the proposal most commonly indicated they supported it because it would help the outfitting industry. Respondents who opposed the proposal most commonly indicated that they opposed it because all non residents should have an equal opportunity to purchase a license, they perceived it as unfair to non resident hunters, and they perceived that it reduced the number of licenses available to non outfitted hunters.
The Task Force also heard testimony from sportsmen's associations and other interested parties opposing the proposal. They felt the proposal was discriminatory against equal access, it treated wildlife like a commodity allowing the market to regulate rather than biologists and it created a slippery slope where licenses would eventually be granted to various special interest groups. Additionally, although the proposal would not affect the availability of resident elk licenses, it would affect residents by making it more difficult for nonresident relatives of residents who do not need or want the services of outfitters to receive a license.
The Task Force did not make a recommendation to the committee regarding this proposal. The committee also heard public testimony in opposition to the proposal and agreed to take no action on the proposal.
The board of outfitters has authority to regulate and license outfitters and professional guides in Wyoming. The Task Force heard testimony regarding the board's difficulty in enforcing its authority over unlicensed outfitters and guides. The authority of the board should be clarified so it is clear that they may cite unlicensed outfitters, and penalties for outfitting without a license should be increased.
The Task force recommended legislation that would solve multiple problems with enforcement of the outfitter licensing statutes. The legislation would do the following:
1. Provide term limits on board of outfitters members;
2. Clarify the board's authority to cite unlicensed outfitters and guides;
3. Increase penalties for second and subsequent violations of outfitting without a license;
4. Provide for forfeiture of equipment used when outfitting outfitting without a license; and
5. Prohibit leasing of lands for hunting to unlicensed outfitters.
The draft bill O6 LSO 0100.W2 was presented to the committee. (Appendix 15).
The bill was moved and seconded.
The following amendments were proposed:
Page 1-after line 12 Insert:
"23-2-406. Definitions.
(a) As used in this act:
(i) "Advertises" means attempting by any means, including the internet, to induce persons to enter into an agreement with an outfitter to receive guide or packing services;
(iii) "Guide or packing services" means for hire or remuneration accompanying and providing assistance of any kind to a hunter in the field related to taking of big or trophy game animals, and may include providing services, equipment, livestock or facilities for the benefit of the hunter.
23-2-407. License required for outfitters and professional guides.
(a) No
person shall hold himself out as, engage in the business of or act in the
capacity of an outfitter or shall engage in the
occupation of a professional guide as an independent contractor or as an agent
or employee, provide guide or packing
services unless he is licensed as an outfitter or professional guide
pursuant to this act.". PASSED
Page 2-lines 1 through 14 Delete entirely. FAILED
Page 3-lines 4 through 12 Delete entirely. PASSED
Page 3-line 15 Delete "livestock"
Page 3-line 15 Delete "tack". FAILED
The bill passed unanimously as amended.
Representative Reese brought the bill (Appendix 16) which would require landowners to allow hunting access on their lands without charge as a condition to making claims for damage caused by big game animals. Deputy Director Wichers testified that the requirement is currently in rule and regulation and the department hasn't received much comment. They feel it is effective the way it is in rule. There was no motion to bring the bill as a committee bill.
Louise Lasley, Wildlife Conservation Society, gave the committee a presentation on the migration route through the Gros Ventre range commonly called the Path of the Pronghorn. (Appendix 17). The route goes through a corridor from Teton Park to Trappers Point that is 90 miles long and no more than a mile wide at points. The route continues all the way down to Interstate 80 in the southern part of Wyoming. Archeological evidence suggests that the route has been used by antelope for 7000 years. It is the second longest migration route of any mammal in the western hemisphere. It was noted that the migration of legislators to Mammoth Hot Springs felt like the longest.
The Wildlife Conservation Society funded a study that placed radio collars on ten pronghorn antelope using the route to determine the locations and variance of usage. Based on their study, the WCS received funding from three energy companies to do a larger data point study. The WCS has had public meetings in Pinedale and Jackson where they have received 100% support for protecting the route. The problem is that there has been no consensus on how to protect it. Landowners in a subdivision along the bottleneck of the route have agreed to voluntarily put restrictions on fencing and impediments in their homeowners association rules. Most other suggestions involve federal action because most of the route crosses federal property.
There being no further business, Co-Chairman Pat Childers adjourned the meeting at 12:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Bruce Burns, Co-Chairman Pat Childers, Co-Chairman