Committee Meeting Information

October 16, 2008

Cody Auditorium

Cody, Wyoming

 

October 17, 2008

Central Wyoming Community College

Riverton, Wyoming

 

Committee Members Present

Senator Bruce Burns, Co-Chairman

Representative Pat Childers, Co-Chairman

Senator Mike Massie

Representative Kermit Brown

Representative Kathy Davison

Representative Patrick Goggles (10/19)

Representative Jerry Iekel

Representative Allen Jaggi

Representative Jim Slater (10/19)

 

Committee Members Absent

 

Senator Pat Aullman

Senator Hank Coe

Senator Jayne Mockler

Representative Bernadine Craft

Representative Bill Thompson

 

Legislative Service Office Staff

Lynda Cook, Staff Attorney

 

 

Others Present at Meeting

Senator Eli Bebout (10/19)

Senator John Schiffer (10/18)

Representative Keith Gingery (10/19)

Representative Del McOmie (10/19)

Representative David Miller (10/19)

Representative Frank Philp (10/19)

Representative Jeb Steward (10/19)

Representative Colin Simpson (10/18)

 

Please refer to Appendix 1 to review the Committee Sign-in Sheet
for a list of other individuals who attended the meeting.

 

Joint Travel, Recreation, Wildlife and Cultural Resources Interim Committee Meeting Summary (October 18 & 19, 2008)

 

The Joint Travel, Recreation, Wildlife and Cultural Resources Interim Committee met in Cody and Riverton to considerer issues related to management of wolves in Wyoming.

 

Call To Order (October 18, 2008)

Co-Chairman Pat Childers called the meeting to order at 9:00 am.  The following sections summarize the Committee proceedings by topic.  Please refer to Appendix 2 to review the Committee Meeting Agenda.

 

Approval of Minutes

The minutes of the September meeting were approved.

 

Game and Fish Department – Wolf Management

 

Bruce Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General, updated the committee on the status of the litigation regarding the delisting of wolves.  He explained attorney client privilege and the constraints he is under in a public forum.

 

Mr. Salzburg explained the history of the reintroduction of wolves into the area.  In 1995, 66 wolves were reintroduced.  The wolves met the recovery estimate of 30 pairs and 300 animals every year since 2000.  Currently there are 1500 wolves with 100 breeding pairs.  Ever since the goal was first achieved the state has been trying to get the wolves delisted.  In 2004 Wyoming filed the first lawsuit which claimed the federal government acted arbitrarily in determining that the state’s plan was lacking.  That suit was dismissed for lack of final federal action.  In 2005 the state filed a request for delisting.  That request was withdrawn when the federal government published a delisting rule.  That action was challenged by environmental groups and a judge in Montana granted a preliminary injunction.

 

Mr. Salzburg stated that the reason Judge Malloy granted the preliminary injunction is because he found that there is no evidence of genetic diversity and therefore the population was at risk of in breeding over the next 60 years.  A second reason for the injunction is that the court found that Wyoming has inadequate regulatory mechanisms.  The opinion stated four specific flaws:  Wyoming statutes did not clearly commit to managing for at least 15 breeding pair in the state.  Mr. Salzburg noted that the real number should have been 10  pair but there was a presumption that we would need to manage 15 in order to ensure the ten.  The statutes were based on the presumption that there would always be 8 pair within the parks where Wyoming has no management authority.

 

The court also fount fault with the dual classification of wolves as predators and trophy game animals in specified parts of the state.  The judge noted that the dual classification was the primary reason the federal government originally objected to the state’s plan.  The court stated that it is okay for the federal government to change their minds but they must articulate a reasonable scientific basis for that change.

 

The third flaw stated by the court is the malleable nature of the trophy game area.  The fourth flaw is was in the lethal take statutes allowing for removing wolves damaging private property.  The court compared this to the federal standard and found Wyoming’s statute more liberal.

 

Mr. Salzburg testified that in light of the preliminary injunction, the Fish and Wildlife Service had several choices:  Appeal the preliminary injunction which would take at least 15 – 32 months, proceed to the merits of the case (but a preliminary injunction is a strong indicator of what the court would decide on the merits), or vacate the delisting decision and allow the FWS to reconsider the rule in light of the court’s decision.  The FWS took the last course of action and the court granted the remand on October 14. 

 

Mr. Salzburg testified that the FWS has indicated that a revised delisting rule is on a fast track.  After the comment period the FWS may delist again with a better reasoning articulated or they may delist only in Montana and Idaho.

 

Mr. Salzburg stated that the FWS can address the genetic exchange issue through a better explanation of what the recovery criteria meant or with better evidence of the exchange.  Mr. Salzburg asked the FWS if the state could address the problems through game and fish rule changes.  The response he received is that it would be a preordaining of the decision if they commented, but it would be very unlikely given the court decision's focus on Wyoming statutes.

 

Given this information and the fast tract to delist again in January, Mr. Salzburg expects that we will get a new rule that does not delist in Wyoming.

 

Mr. Salzburg offered several options for what the state can do at this point:   First, live with it and let the federal government manage the wolves.  He stated that would save the state 2 ½ million dollars in managing the wolves.  The down side is that the state would have little or no say in the management of wolves. He also stated that the state would continue to be required to pay damage claims.  It is also unclear which 10j rule (allowing for lethal take of wolves) would apply without an approved management plan in place.

 

The second option is for the game and fish department to pass emergency rules to address the court’s concerns.  Mr. Salzburg expressed concern that the FWS probably won’t find this adequate.

 

The third option is to amend the statutes to address the court’s concerns and then petition for delisting as soon as that is done.  He stated that the advantage is that this is probably the quickest way to get wolves delisted.  He noted that there is some risk in addressing the preliminary injunction because there may be more things another court or plaintiff could find wrong with our plan.

 

The fourth option is litigation.

 

Mr. Salzburg also discussed the Western Great Lakes decision.  A federal judge in the District of Columbia vacated a wolf delisting rule in Minnesota which designated that population as a "distinct population segment" and simultaneously delisted that distinct population.  The court stated that it is clear that the FWS could designate a DPS for listing purposes, but it is unclear whether they could use that tool for delisting a DPS from a listed species.  The court held that the FWS needed to provide an explanation of why they interpreted the statute to allow them to do it, then their decision would be afforded deference.  Mr. Salzburg could not say what the FWS will do at this point. 

 

This opinion affects Wyoming because the FWS used this same tool to delist the rocky mountain DPS. 

 

Mr. Salzburg noted that while the statute says we manage for 7 pairs, the management plan and the intent was to manage to maintain 8 in the parks and 7 outside.    The committee discussed how the original number was 10 pairs, and now the court is demanding the buffering amount of 15. 

 

There was discussion about the meaning of genetic diversity and whether it is exchange among the wolves that were transplanted or with other wolves that already existed in northwest Montana.  Mr. Salzburg stated that he believes genetic exchange between subpopulations would suffice. 

 

There was discussion on whether the western great lakes decision will affect the FWS decision to delist only Montana and Idaho. 

 

Rep. Colin Simpson recalled that the 7 pairs outside the park was intentional.  He also noted that the malleable nature of the area was a compromise that was necessary to get the bill passed.   Mr. Simpson also questioned whether a plan to let the federal government manage the wolves would be a plan that would preserve the protections under the 10j rule.  He noted that if the state does not have an approved management plan the protections for ungulates under the 2008 10j rule does not apply.

 

The committee discussed how if the FWS were left with the management of the wolves, if a wolf were to disperse into a new area in the state it is not clear what protection that dispersed wolf would receive.

 

There was discussion about whether translocation of animals could be used to establish the genetic exchange required by the court.  Mr. Salzburg quoted the study relied upon by the court stating that translocation can be used to establish the necessary diversity.

 

The committee expressed frustration with the focus on the worst case scenarios relied upon by the court as well as the continuous compromise the state has been required to make.

 

Rep. Brown questioned what assurance the state has that the federal government will not take action to decrease the number in the park.  Mr. Salzburg testified that there is no reason to believe the park service would ever take such action but expressed concern about a natural crash in the population.  In 2005 many pups died from parvovirus.  Breeding pair is defined as a male and female with a pup on December 31.  That year there were still the same number of pairs but because the definition included the pup it appeared that there were less “breeding pairs”. 

 

Mr. Salzburg stated that he is not aware of any biological basis for objection to the dual classification in Wyoming.  However, when the state uses the term predator it upsets a portion of the population of the country.  In 2003 a FWS employee stated on the record that they need to satisfy eastern judges and Connecticut housewives.  Mr. Salzburg noted that Wyoming didn’t make wolves predators – they just are.

 

The committee noted that the upcoming change in administration of the federal government leaves much of the direction up in the air. 

 

Rep. Brown asked if the state does nothing and the plan is disapproved, what rights do the citizens of the state have with respect to wolf depredation.  Mr. Salzburg noted that it is a political question but he presumes the rights of the citizens will be affected.  There was also further discussion about just how the dispersal and genetic exchange could be done by the state.

 

Steve Ferrell, Director of the Game and Fish Department, John Emmerich, Deputy Director and Scott Talbot, Assistant Division Chief, testified that they are confident that the department is ready, willing and able to manage a delisted wolf population.

 

Mr. Farrell testified regarding the advantages of state management of wolves.    He testified that the state is far more responsive to issues relating to conflicts.  He also indicated that it is unclear whether FWS can or will manage the population to protect wild ungulate populations.

 

Mr. Farrell suggested that a management plan under a broad authority to manage would be similar to the current plan taking into account changes mandated by the court decision.  He stated that there is a depredation study ongoing on the elk population.  There have been affects on the recoupment rates in areas of dense wolf population, however the populations are still above objective.  The concern is for the hunting opportunities in the future. 

 

The committee discussed the commission’s ability to both contract and expand the area where wolves are classified as trophy game areas.  The committee indicated it would ask for an attorney general’s opinion clearly stating this ability.

 

Scott Talbot testified that the department was authorized $270,000 per year for payment of damage claims.  To date the department has only received one damage claim.  Mr. Talbot testified regarding the number of verified livestock killed by wolves.  There are approximately 183 wolves in the trophy game area, 40 confirmed depredations and 38 animals removed.  They estimate they will be responsible for $164,000 in damage claims this year.

 

Mr. Talbot discussed the process of confirming wolf kills.  He also described the formulas used to account for missing animals.  For every confirmed kill studies show there are additional losses that cannot be found.  The department based their payment formulas on those research studies.  The committee discussed the burden of establishing that an animal was killed by a trophy game animal.

 

John Emmerich testified about the department’s efforts to collect tissue samples from wolves to study genetic diversity.  There is an ongoing effort between the three states to take a look at all the samples that have been collected and look at genetic diversity.  The committee also discussed the department’s efforts to use GPS collars to track the wolves.

 

Steve Guertin, Regional Director of USFWS and Mike Jimenez testified.  Mr. Guertin testified that the FWS is in the process of creating another delisting rule.  He described the number of wolves currently in the area.  He described the court opinion enjoining the 2008 delisting.  The FWS requested a voluntary remand of the rule and now they will reopen the proposal and get additional public comment. 

 

Mr. Guertin testified that since the court’s ruling the FWS has examined its options and consulted with interveners.    They will open the public comment period for an additional 30 days as soon as possible.  Pending new information and analysis they will decide what to do.

 

Mr. Guertin stated that the 2008 revised 10j rule remains in effect for now but it is currently being litigated.  He expressed concern that the 10j rule will be preliminarily enjoined if someone asks for a preliminary injunction.   He discussed how the service is currently reviewing the Great Lakes decision and how it will affect the Wyoming.  He believes retaining ESA protections in Wyoming while delisting in Idaho and Montana is not prohibited by the Great Lakes decision.  He noted that they did this surgical application of the ESA and DPS with the prebles meadow jumping mouse recently. 

 

Mr. Guertin noted that the FWS will have to look at Wyoming’s entire regulatory framework but the statutes need to be strong enough to ward off a court challenge.  He stated that Wyoming currently has an approved state management plan.  The FWS needs now to review the state plan.  The FWS has not approved a cooperative agreement with the state so Wyoming cannot control wolves for unacceptable ungulate impacts. 

 

Mr. Guertin argued that the quickest way to delist wolves is to address the issues raised by the court and then let the service analyze the plan for adequate regulatory mechanisms.

 

The committee discussed the history of the approval of the plan and the development of the plan based on assurances from the FWS.    Chairman Childers expressed concern that the FWS did not provide appropriate evidence in the court case to support their decisions.   Mr. Guertin testified that they believed they did have a legally defensible case. 

 

The committee asked if the FWS has determined that the statutes need to be changed and if so have they taken into account the time constraints in passing legislation.  He stated that they may have to work on two parallel tracks in order to accommodate the time problems with Wyoming and the urgent needs of the other states.  He stated that he personally believed the statutes would need to be changed but the ultimate decision is that of the director. 

 

Mr. Jimenez testified that if the plan is disapproved, the FWS cannot manage for ungulate protection. 

 

Mr. Guertin also described the process for transition of the FWS when a new administration is put in place in January.   The committee expressed concern that the legislature may work in good faith with the current administration only to have the decision rejected by the new administration. 

 

Mr. Guertin testified that they would continue to work with the state to remove problem wolves just as they did prior to the delisting rule.  Mr. Jimenez testified that under the recovery plan wolves are allowed to go anywhere in the state of Wyoming.  However, they will remove wolves that get into trouble.  They respond more aggressively in areas where expansion is greater.  He stated that their management is reactive, not proactive.

 

Mr. Jimenez suggested that the science used in the Von Holtz study relied on by the court is state of the art but it used data only through 2004.  The FWS are updating the study using data through 2007 using the Von Holtz methodology.  He stated that the challenge is movement between the GYA and other areas. 

 

There was discussion about the suitability of habitat for wolves.  The FWS have determined that the Bighorn, Wyoming and Wind River ranges have habitats that allow wolves to persist.

 

Rep. Brown expressed concern that there is a hidden agenda to drive elk out of the high areas and by driving the elk into new areas the wolves follow and since they are preying on elk instead of livestock they are not removed.  Mr. Jimenez testified that they have plenty of studies that show that small scale displacement does occur but not wide scale displacement.  His experience is that if wolves are exposed to livestock, they prey on them.  Therefore, if they get down into the low country, they will get into trouble with livestock and then be removed.

 

Rep. Simpson discussed the history in 2004 when the service declared the plan inadequate.  He asked the service to ensure that they clearly explain the reasons for their change in accepting Wyoming’s plan.   Rep. Simpson asked specifically how the service will handle the time constraints. 

 

Senator Massie suggested that if the service delists in Montana and Idaho that would set a standard by which Wyoming could rely in getting delisted in the future.

 

Public testimony

 

Allen Hogg, rancher, commended USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services for doing a better job of handling trouble wolves.  He noted that there are problems of harassment and losses where there is no confirmed kill.   He advocated doing nothing and letting the federal government manage the wolves for now. 

 

Brian Sybert, Greater Yellowstone Coalition, testified that his organization did not oppose delisting and they were looking forward to working with game and fish to establish protection for the wolves.  He stated that the committee should work on remedying the problems raised by the court in order to get wolves delisted.  He wants to see game and fish manage the wolves with good science.  He testified that the legislature should have the defense of property statute reflect the 10j rule. 

 

Dick Brya, Sportsmen for Fish and  Wildlife, testified that they are very frustrated about the effects of wolves on the moose and elk populations.  They do not want to see wolves in the Big Horns. 

 

Arlene Hanson, testified that she is concerned that the boundary should be moved back to the wilderness boundaries.  She is concerned about the loss of property and grazing rights.  She asked about a socio-economic impact study required under NEPA.  She wants to see the wolves delisted and controlled back to the wilderness area boundaries.  She believes the whole reintroduction was illegal to begin with.

 

Gary Lundvall, former game and fish commissioner, testified that the wilderness area boundary should the boundary. If the FWS won’t accept that then the state should let them manage wolves.  In addition, he argued that the state should withdraw any law enforcement assistance with respect to the parks. 

 

Karla Gitlet, 91 Ranch, testified that in April everything outside the trophy game area was unacceptable habitat for wolves.  She testified that she has had wolves in her fenced yard.  She also testified that the wolves are difficult to kill.  She asked for clarification of who will pay for damages if the wolves are relisted.  She noted that being compensated by Defenders of Wildlife is very difficult.  She testified that even with the compensation formula they are not being adequately compensated because of the added stress on both her livestock and her family.  She described having a wolf watch her small son while he was sledding and the fear she felt.

 

Ken Hamilton, Farm Bureau, explained the history of Wyoming trying to get the wolf delisted.  He stated that a FWS employee worked with the legislature and interest groups in developing the plan and he called it a defensible plan.  However, when it was reviewed at a higher level it was rejected.  He expressed frustration with the moving target.  He argued that it would not be wise to change our laws at this time.  He stated that too much is dependent on the judicial branch and the FWS's efforts to make a defensible administrative record.   He argued that the next time we come up with a management strategy a legal strategy to defend it will have to be part of the plan.  He argued that all predation by wolves should be paid for whether it is in the trophy or predator area.

 

Curt Bales, rancher, testified that he has had livestock losses to wolves for several years.  He argued that it is unrealistic to hope wolves will go away so we need to deal with it.  He stated that they want to be in the trophy game area because they want to be compensated for their losses.  He argued that the whole state should be trophy game with liberal hunt areas in areas where it is logical to manage for wolves.  He discussed the difficulty in confirming wolf kills.  He also discussed the harassment by wolves and the affects of that harassment.  Finally, he believes landowners should have access to the more aggressive management tools that the game and fish is authorized to use. 

 

Carrie Peters, Park County Farm Bureau, testified in opposition to expanding the trophy game area statewide. She expressed frustration and stated that if the FWS will not stand up and defend its decision then they can take care of the management. 

 

Kim Branch, asked the committee to leave things as they are.  He expressed frustration with the changing targets. 

 

Bob Wharf, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, testified that his board is all out in the field so he has not had the opportunity to poll them.  However, he feels confident that they would agree that the state has a biologically defensible plan.  He believes the state should hold firm and defend our plan.  He encouraged the committee to look at other ways of fighting this fight, including through litigation on other constitutional grounds.  He also noted that sport hunting alone will not control wolves.  He also expressed concern that even making the changes discussed in the judicial opinion would not be enough to pacify this judge or the environmentalists bringing the suit.

 

Dr. Bill Williams, Game and Fish Commissioner, testified in support of doing what is necessary to have game and fish manage the wolves.    Trophy game status throughout the state will be manageable.  Game and fish can proactively manage rather than relying on the reactive management of the FWS.  The committee discussed the problem of managing for 15 pairs.  The committee also discussed the lack of confidence in the court upholding even the changed statutes.

 

Lee Bird, visiting from New Jersey, testified that he does not see how an arbitrary line between trophy and predator status is useful. 

 

John Baird, rancher, expressed concern that the wolves have moved elk and caused the spread of brucellosis.  He supported standing our ground.

 

The committee adjourned at 3:15.

 

The committee reconvened at 8:00 am in Riverton

 

General Salzburg gave the same presentation as the previous day.

 

The committee discussed the problem of not knowing what the next judge is going to find problematic with our plan.  General Salzburg pointed out that the judge in this case has looked at Montana and Idaho and approved them.  It is therefore safe to assume that if our plan looks like theirs then the same judge would approve ours too. 

 

The committee expressed frustration over the endless litigation.    The committee discussed whether the state should have objected to the vacation of the Montana case. The committee discussed calling the wolves trophy game animals throughout the state and setting different hunt seasons and bag limits in different parts of the state where wolves would be controlled through very liberal hunting seasons.  General Salzburg expressed concern that as long as there is a plaintiff who objects to the killing of any wolf, there is always a problem of litigation no matter what we do.

 

Steve Ferrell provided the same presentation as the previous day.

 

Mr. Farrell explained the difference in management if the wolves are delisted or remain listed because we do nothing.  He stated that if a rouge population appears in the Big Horns and is killing many elk but not affecting livestock, under Wyoming management the wolves could be removed but under federal management, limited as it is by the 1994 10j rule, the wolves would be allowed to remain.  In addition, if they do kill livestock, there is no compensation for that loss under federal management.  There would be compensation if state management is in place and they are classified as trophy game in that area.

 

John Emmerich summarized Scott Talbot’s testimony of the previous day. 

 

The committee discussed the potential lost revenues from elk licenses due to the low recoupment rates.  Mr. Emmerich testified that the department has lost approximately 300 licenses in the Sunlight Basin.  Mr. Emmerich explained how the recoupment rates effect the ability to hunt.  If the recoupment rate is low they do not have the ability to use hunting to bring the populations to objectives.

 

Mike Jimenez, USFWS, testified about the FWS's current and past management of wolves.  He explained the 10j rules that have governed the management of the species.  The 1994 rule allows them to control wolves that harass livestock.  It also gave private individuals authority to kill wolves caught in the act of injuring livestock.  It allowed the FWS to issue shoot on site permits for landowners that experienced chronic problems.  In 2005 the rule was amended to allow states that had approved management plans to have more flexibility.  It allowed shooting of wolves on public and private land if they were in the act of chasing livestock.  It also allowed addressing unacceptable declines in ungulate populations if wolves were the cause of the decline.  In 2008 the rule was amended to allow addressing declines in ungulate populations if wolves were a cause of the decline.  It also included dogs in the protections provided to livestock.  The 2008 rule is under litigation right now and that could affect the ability to manage under that rule.  Additionally, if Wyoming’s state plan is deemed inadequate then the 1994 rule will apply.  It was noted that Wyoming currently is not managing under the 2008 10j rule because there is not an approved MOU in place. 

 

The committee discussed the technical differences between the Montana and Idaho plans and Wyoming’s plan.  One issue is the Wyoming plan does not address genetic connectivity and the GYA in Wyoming is the only area where there is concern about that.  He stated that it has to do with the density of wolves in the GYA preventing the ability of wolves to come in to the GYA.  It also has to do with the predator area south of the Teton Pass that prevents wolves from moving between Idaho and the GYA.

 

Mr. Jimenez explained the various methods the FWS uses to control problem wolves including aerial hunting, shooting and trapping.  He noted that the wolf population in the park has not grown.  He also mentioned that the FWS this year has removed both packs from the Sunlight Basin area due to livestock predation and they are expecting that removal will help the ungulate population in that area.

 

The committee discussed the problem with defining breeding pairs as male and female with two pups on December 31.  If a pup dies due to parvo or other disease, the male and female still have reproductive capability but they don’t count toward the minimum.  Mr. Jimenez mentioned that there is an averaging over two years that comes into play. 

 

The committee discussed the decreasing population of moose in the Yellowstone area and Mr. Jimenez stated that it is not due to wolf predation.  He further testified that the state should try to manage for more than 15 breeding pairs in order to avoid getting down to the 10 pair level that would trigger delisting.

 

Representative Gingery presented his idea for changing the status of the gray wolf to trophy game across the state.   He expressed frustration with the endless litigation and a desire for finality.  His bill classifies wolves as trophy game across the state and changes when lethal control can be used for damage caused to private property.  He stated that the third goal of the bill is move from legislative control of the specifics to control of management through rule and regulation.  He argued that rule making makes the management more flexible.  He discussed how the bill could be amended to put some mandates in statute, but leave the bulk of the regulatory authority to the commission.  Such mandates could provide for management in different ways when wolf populations are at different levels. 

 

Public comment

 

Jim Magagna, Wyoming Stockgrowers Association, testified that he is not optimistic that the plan would necessarily be upheld if it matches the Montana or Idaho plan.  He noted that the judge only focused on two items in order to issue the preliminary injunction and that other issues could rise in a full review.  He encourages the legislature to leave things as they are and wait to see what happens next.  He noted that whatever happens, his organization does not support granting broad authority to the game and fish commission to regulate this and the details should be in statute.   Sen. Massie suggested that the results of doing nothing would be no public compensation for losses, no regulation for ungulate depredation and possible expansion of wolves into new areas.  Mr. Magagna suggested that we don’t know what 10j rule will apply at this time.  He also noted that the state will continue to pay losses in the trophy game area if no statutory change is made.  He also noted a bill in Congress that could provide compensation from federal funds. 

 

Reg Phillips, Diamond D Cattle Company, testified that they have two packs on their forest service allotment.  He testified that the cattle would not stay on the allotment due to harassment.  He testified in support of amending the statutes to get Wyoming authority to manage as quickly as possible.

 

David Noble, rancher, testified in frustration about one judge's ability to stop the process.  He noted that he sees genetic diversity as a code word for expansion.  He does not support rushing into changing the statutes.  He expressed concern about the predation on elk.

 

Charles Price, Upper Green River Cattlemen Association, testified that his organization is heavily impacted by wolves.    The association has had 60 calves confirmed killed in the last 8 years.  He noted that for every calf confirmed there are six missing that can’t be confirmed.  This equates to $210,000 in losses.  He testified that litigation has made more progress than constant capitulation.  He expressed concern about the effects on wild game too. 

 

Dick Inberg testified that he does a lot of back country riding.  He testified that he has lived around wolves much of his life.  He testified in support of amending the statutes now.  He supports learning to live with the wolves.

 

Budd Betts, dude rancher and outfitter, testified that he hates the wolves and the reintroduction was one of the worst management decisions ever made.  That being said, he testified in support of a bill amending the statutes to show that Wyoming is acting in good faith to try to get the wolves delisted.  He testified that the purpose would be to establish the basis for litigation that we could win.  He supported leaving management authority to the commission to address changing conditions on a speedier basis.

 

Franz Camenzind, Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, testified in support of Wyoming managing the wolves.  He supports a science based adaptive plan.  He supports trophy game statewide.  He stated that his organization can accept liberal seasons in different areas of the state.  He testified that he understands that ranchers are important to the state and wants to see a compromise.  He suggested that $35 million dollars are brought into the area based on wolf based tourism.  He noted that the elk hunter success rate in the trophy game area is higher than the rest of the state.  He urged Wyoming to work with Idaho to handle the connectivity issue.

 

Melanie Stein, Sierra Club, testified in support of sitting down and crafting a new management plan based on sound science.  She supports elimination of dual classification and believes that statewide trophy game status would provide compensation for all losses. 

 

Sophie Osbourne, Wyoming Outdoor Council, testified in support of state management.  She wants a new “science based” management plan.  She argued that dual classification is unfair to ranchers, excludes the department from management and results in the excessive killing of wolves.  She testified in support of Rep. Gingery’s bill.  Her organization doesn't think the state should manage for a minimum number of wolves but rather manage them like any other game animal.

 

Representative Jeb Stewart testified that the solution should not be the fragmented approach we have used so far.  He supported a multi-state approach with a regional recovery plan.  He expressed concern that the genetic exchange argument will result in a corridor required all through the state to support wolves in Colorado next.  He suggested some committee action at this time might be necessary but a multi-state approach is the way to solve the problem in the long term.

 

Maury Jones testified that he wants the state to assert total rights across the state to manage wildlife.  He cited court cases he suggested supported his argument for state’s rights.

 

Representative Frank Philp, testified that although we want to get wolves under state control we don’t want to do it under any condition.  He testified in opposition to Rep. Gingery’s bill.  He noted that there is no way to be with the livestock all the time and that the limitation on lethal take in the bill is untenable.  He urged the committee to leave things as they are until the dust settles with respect to the Montana and Idaho plans.

 

Senator Eli Bebout, testified about the history of the wolf reintroduction.  He testified that back in those days Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt assured everyone that the wolves would be delisted when they were only in the parks and limited to 300 in all three states.  He expressed support for dual classification.

 

Chris Colligan, Greater Yellowstone Coalition, testified that the ultimate goal is to get delisting and state management.  He supported managing wolf populations in the same way as mountain lions and bears.  He supports Rep. Gingery’s bill as a first step.  He urged the state to work closely with the USFWS.  His group chose not to be involved in the litigation and chose to work with the state to influence the state plan.

 

Steve Jones testified about the quantification of livestock losses.  He also expressed concern that wolves have forced elk out and perpetuated the brucellosis problem.  He supported taking no action and letting the dust settle.  He argued that changing the statute won’t guarantee success and federal management through wildlife services works fine.    He expressed concern that the political process is taking precedence right now over rational science.

 

Pat Hickersen, Fremont County Commissioner, testified that his county is largely impacted by the wolves.  He reminded the committee that they must take into account the citizens' way of life, economic interests and property rights.  He expressed concern that the endangered species act has decimated ranching and the way of life in the northern part of the county. 

 

Doug Thompson, Fremont County Commissioner, expressed frustration with the history of the reintroduction.  He argued that if the statutes are changed he wants to see a provision that repeals it all if they don’t agree that this is an adequate plan.  He stated that the goal shouldn’t be delisting, the goal should be a way to protect Wyoming citizens.

 

Jon Robinett, rancher, testified about his experience with wolves.   He supports amending the statutes to meet the court case.

 

Ken Hamilton, Farm Bureau, testified that the UFWS failed Wyoming because they failed to provide a reasoned analysis.

 

Dave Vaughn, Fremont County NRPC, testified about the effect of wolves on the elk population.  He testified in angry response to whole history of the reintroduction process.  He urged the committee to do nothing.

 

Stand Hovendick, testified about the losses he has sustained from wolves.  He cannot afford to drive up to his ranch to deal with the harassment.  He asked the committee to do whatever it takes to help the livestock producers in the quickest way.

 

Bob Wharf, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, testified again.  He is concerned about connectivity issues and the definition of suitable habitat.  He stated that impacts on ungulate populations have never been addressed because there is no MOU in place.  He believes we should stand our ground and do nothing.

 

Dr. Bill Williams, Game and Fish Commissioner, argued that if we do nothing we can’t win.  He encouraged a bill that provides for trophy game status state wide.  He stated that the commission will manage the wolves by regulation and they will have the flexibility to react to situations more quickly.

 

Committee discussion

 

The committee moved to ask management council for another one day meeting to consider bills.  The bills would be Rep. Gingery's bill, a bill that addresses the court decision and a new bill that would repeal the laws passed in 2007. 

 

Meeting Adjournment

 

There being no further business, Co-Chairman Burns adjourned the meeting at 4:15 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

 

Bruce Burns, Co-Chairman                                                                  Pat Childers, Co-Chairman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix		Appendix Topic		Appendix Description		Appendix Provider
1		Committee Sign-In Sheet		Lists meeting attendees		Legislative Service Office
2		Committee Meeting Agenda		Provides an outline of the topics the Committee planned to address at meeting		Legislative Service Office