Wolf bill clears House committee
By MIKE STARK
Gazette Wyoming Bureau
CHEYENNE, Wyo. – Rep. Mike Baker came to the Legislature this year to get
one thing done – find a way to deal with wolves in the state.
On Thursday, after weeks of wrangling in the House Travel,
Recreation, Wildlife and Cultural Resources Committee, Baker got a taste
of success as his bill finally cleared the committee.
Just before the vote Thursday, the Thermopolis Republican leaned back
in his chair and beamed.
“Hallelujah!” he said, grinning wide.
“Hallelujah!”
Every corner of the Capitol building has been buzzing this week
about wolves – especially about what Wyoming will do when the federal
government gives the state the authority to manage them, which could
happen in the next year or so.
On Thursday, three bills about wolves were discussed, one on the
Senate floor and two in House committees.
“As a policy maker, I think this is the most significant issue
facing us,” Baker said, adding that the issue has become irritating and
frustrating for Wyoming residents. “It’s significant and growing.”
Baker’s bill, House Bill 229, has generated the most chatter
because it specifies the terms of Wyoming’s future involvement with
wolves.
The bill underwent several amendments and scrutiny from the Wyoming
Game and Fish Department, outfitters, environmentalists and the
agricultural industry.
The version approved by the travel committee on Thursday would
commit Wyoming to allow seven wolf packs to live in the state outside
Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks.
If the number of packs drops below seven, wolves in the state would
be classified as trophy game with restricted, or possibly prohibited,
hunting, according to the bill.
If there are seven packs or more outside the national park areas,
most wolves would be considered predators and subject to killing any time.
Wolves in certain wilderness areas of the Shoshone and Bridger-Teton
national forests would be considered trophy game and subject to hunting
rules.
Wyoming’s wolf plan will have to be acceptable to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service before the federal government removes the wolf from the
Endangered Species List and passes management to Wyoming, Montana and
Idaho.
Tom Thorne, director of the Game and Fish Department, said he
thinks Baker’s bill will pass muster with FWS.
“My sense of it is that this will be acceptable,” Thorne said. “I
think we can make this work.”
If the wolves are delisted, each of the three states will be
responsible for maintaining 10 breeding pairs of wolves. Because
wildlife managers estimate one breeding pair for every pack and a half,
it’s estimated that each state needs about 15 packs.
“I think we’re stuck with 15 no matter what,” Baker said.
Under Baker’s bill, Wyoming will meet that 15-pack minimum by
relying on at least 8 packs in Yellowstone and seven in the rest of the
state.
“It’s a little in-your-face to the Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Park Service but my understanding is they can accept that,” Thorne said.
The bill gives the Game and Fish Department the flexibility to
change the classification of wolves as the population fluctuates.
Baker’s bill will now be considered by the entire House.
Meanwhile, the Senate on Thursday discussed its wolf bill, which is
less detailed than Baker’s but sends a strong message to federal wildlife
managers.
Senate Bill 97, introduced by Sen. Delaine Roberts, R-Etna, would
require the Game and Fish Commission to prohibit the reintroduction or
propagation of any animal in Wyoming by the federal government and demand
that the federal government pay for any damage caused by endangered
species and other federally introduced animals.
Several senators railed against the federal government and wolves on
Wednesday. The bill returned to the Senate floor on Thursday to be
amended.
“The situation is that the Fish and Wildlife Service introduced
wolves … and now they’re Wyoming’s problem,” said Sen. Hank Coe,
R-Cody.
An attempt failed to change the bill to do away with language
demanding that the federal government remove federally controlled
animals, including endangered species, from Wyoming.
The Senate did agree, though, to take out provisions essentially
banning federal workers from managing wildlife in Wyoming and requiring
county sheriffs to confront federal wildlife workers.
Sen. Ken Decaria, D-Evanston, said he worried that sheriffs would be
forced to harass other Wyoming residents who happened to work for the
federal government.
“We’re going to pit one law enforcement agency against another law
enforcement agency,” he said. “That’s a dangerous precedent.”
“This is the impossible portion of this bill,” said Sen. Bruce
Burns, R-Sheridan.
The Senate also agreed to strike part of the bill that attempted to
give Wyoming authority over animals in Yellowstone National Park.
The bill was also amended to ask the attorney general to explore
Wyoming’s legal options, including litigation, in getting compensation for
the state or landowners who lose wildlife or livestock due to wolves.
“But it doesn’t commit us to a lawsuit,” Burns said.
Coe agreed that Wyoming needs to be more aggressive in pursuing
legal action if the federal government won’t pay for damage caused by
wolves. onthenet
HB 229
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2003/introduced/hb0229.pdf
HB 300
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2003/introduced/hb0300.pdf
SB 97
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2003/introduced/sf0097.pdf
“If we’ve got to go to court to get this, let’s do it,” Coe said.
Rep. Pat Childers, R-Cody, also wants the state to have more legal
options in dealing with environmental issues, including wolves.
In House Bill 300, Childers is asking the state to put aside $3
million in a “federal natural resource policy account” to be spent on
lawsuits, studies or other items to make sure local voices are heard in
federal decisions.
In many issues including wolves or federal roadless policy for
national forests, Childers said, the federal government doesn’t take
into account how decisions affect local communities. Particularly
lacking are economic studies, he said.
“I don’t think they’ve been making informed decisions,” Childers told
the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday. “And if they continue to
ignore us, we should litigate.”
Patricia Dowd, of the Wyoming Chapter of the Sierra Club,
questioned whether the state should be setting aside millions of dollars
for lawsuits when there are other pressing issues this legislative
session.
“I’m not really sure this is a priority,” she said.
But committee Chairman Colin Simpson, R-Cody, said Wyoming needs to
play a more active role in federal decisions. He lamented the spread of
wolves in Wyoming as an example.
“They’re out there,” he said before his committee approved
Childers’ bill. “And if they’re around, it’s not very much fun.”