![[Top]](/images/nav-top.gif){kind=small}
![[Back]](/images/nav-back.gif){kind=small}
![[Home]](/images/nav-home.gif){kind=small}
SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS
Wildlife Consumptive Costs Subcommittee of the Joint Agriculture, Public Lands and Water Resources Interim Committees and the Joint Travel, Recreation, Wildlife & Cultural Resources Interim Committee
Oil and Gas Conservation Commission October 6, 2003
Casper, Wyoming
PRESENT: Representative Mike Baker, Chairman
Senator Bruce Burns
Senator Keith Goodenough
Senator Bill Vasey
Representative Mick Powers
Representative Bob Brechtel
Legislative Service Office: Dave Gruver
Others Present: See Appendix 1.
Representative Baker called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. The agenda for the meeting is attached as appendix 2. The Committee proceeded to hear proposals from the Wapiti Ridge Coordinated Resource Management group (WRCRM). The written proposals were previously provided to the Subcommittee. (Appendix 3).
The proposals were intended to work within the confines of current Game and Fish Department programs. The current programs do not go far enough in the view of the WRCRM to adequately compensate landowners for damages by wildlife. Representatives of the WRCRM proceeded to address and explain the specifics of the proposals on appendix 3.
The WRCRM believes that the extraordinary damage to grass requirement should be modified. The current Game and Fish regulation is too restrictive for landowners to collect damages to grass since it requires that damages be above and beyond historic use by wildlife. The proposal was to reduce the restriction to damage to 10% of the grass before compensation begins.
Other proposals include changing the compensation basis to an animal unit month calculation. Another was to modify the landowner coupon amount to reflect the inflation rate since the coupon was instituted. A fifth proposal would allow the G&F and landowners to enter into wildlife stewardship agreements.
Representative Baker asked if the WRCRM had a preference for the five programs proposed. The WRCRM believed that each of the programs should be implemented to allow flexibility for the landowners to have a choice to participate. An explanation of the differences between proposals 2 and 3 was given, both pay for damages to grass, but one based on measuring wildlife the other on measuring grass consumed.
The Subcommittee discussed the proposal to allow the landowners to keep the agricultural basis for land leased to the game and fish for wildlife use, as done for Game and Fish owned property under W.S. 39-13-103. The Subcommittee discussed implementation of the proposals and the need to be flexible on acreage requirements.
The Committee discussed the access requirements for the leased properties and the private land-public wildlife program. The intent under the proposals, according to Mr. Curt Bales speaking for the WRCRM, would be to continue the Game and Fish requirements, i.e., allow enough hunters to harvest the animals to meet the population objectives of the Game and Fish.
Mr. Merlyn Ballinger, also part of the WRCRM, testified that one of the problems is the migratory nature of the wildlife and that many ranchers are seeking compensation for damage done during times other than hunting seasons.
Dennis Sun read a letter from Joe Tilden, supporting the proposals for a pilot programs. (Appendix 8)He also echoed the remarks that much of the damage caused by wildlife does not occur during the hunting seasons. Thus the access issue does not always enter into the equation for compensation to those ranchers.
Mike Smith, UW range department, testified that counting elk is difficult and fairly inaccurate. Measurements of vegetation, using cages to protect areas from grazing, is laborious and also inaccurate. Other methods of utilization measurements could be used for more accurate measurements. Overall, forage utilization is the most accurate method, but using other types of measurements than the "cage" approach. He noted that counting wildlife is very expensive in comparison to forage measurements.
Mr. Ballinger addressed the proposal on the north fork highway mitigation funds. The proposal was previously presented to the Subcommittee in writing. (Appendix 4). He proposed to create a wildlife trust fund with the mitigation funds to create a grass bank in the area. The history of the mitigation funds resulting from the north fork highway was discussed.
Bobbi Frank, Wyoming association of conservation districts, spoke in favor of the proposals. While the details of the program need to be ironed out, overall there is a need for additional compensation for the impact of wildlife on private lands. The conservation districts administratively support the WRCRM.
Terry Cleveland, Game and Fish Department was asked to address the Subcommittee. Gary Brown, Game and Fish Department, also addressed the Subcommittee. The Game and Fish Commission has not taken a position on the issue. The comments are strictly Department positions at this time.
Mr. Cleveland, stated the desire for open space and wildlife is shared by most in Wyoming. Since most who live in Wyoming enjoy wildlife and open spaces, consideration should be given to making all support the proposals financially. Mr. Cleveland, noted that the department's positions are specified in a letter provided by Deputy Director Bill Wichers. (Appendix 5).
Mr. Cleveland does not believe the Department has sufficient personnel to accomplish the proposals. Currently the Department receives about 150 damage claims per year. The Department responds by attempting to mitigate the damage. The Department will then help the landowner determine the damages. Most compensation claims are resolved by agreement. But when they are not, there are considerable resources expended. If only one-half of the landowners eligible for damage claims under the proposals were to file claims, the Department does not have adequate personnel to make its own measurements. They would need to rely on landowners evaluations. Mr. Cleveland stated that the current measurement methods are labor intensive and the Department would need to develop less intensive methods if the proposals were implemented.
Senator Goodenough suggested that there were two issues to addressed. First the philosophical issue of whether the damages should be compensated. Second, how the measurements would work.
Mr. Cleveland stated that historically, less than one grass claim per year has been filed. Either because the existing rule was so complex or difficult or because the issue was not a large issue to the landowners. The Commission last year changed the rule to make it easier to meet the damage threshold. There is still some discontent with the rule, but Mr. Cleveland noted that the legislation requires extraordinary damage to grass, not just damage to grass. Mr. Cleveland noted that the Department's concerns were financing the system and use of personnel.
The Subcommittee discussed how a baseline could be developed for each parcel of land. Mr. Smith explained how he would attempt to do so, measuring the amount of forage available after cattle grazing and after wildlife use. Dual use at the same time complicates the matter. Most agencies have gone to measuring residue and stubble height. Mr. Smith testified that an individual section would take a matter of a few hours to measure. Representative Brechtel questioned the ability of using individual ranchers each measuring their own fields.
Senator Vasey suggested that perhaps the funding could come not from hunters but from general state sources.
The Subcommittee discussed the number of claims based on regions of the state, noting the northern part of the state accounted for over 70% of the claims over the last ten years. Mr. Cleveland stated part of that is due to grizzly bear claims and part due to type of forage available.
The Subcommittee questioned whether it would be possible to delineate the areas between critical habitat and other habitat for damage claims. Mr. Cleveland stated that the department does have that delineation, though there might be differences of opinion regarding those distinctions. Representative Baker noted that the current designation is seen by some landowners as a detriment and that it could become a benefit if the damage program were developed around that designation. Regardless of the outcome of the issue, Mr. Cleveland stated the Department would continue to attempt to acquire easements to critical habitat areas.
Overall, Mr. Cleveland stated that the Department is willing to discuss the issues and seek common ground, but the Legislature must address how it wishes to compensate private landowners for damages and how to fund that compensation. Senator Vasey asked for time parameters for any pilot projects. Mr. Cleveland suggested a minimum of 3 years and up to 5 years.
Cathy Purvis, Wyoming Wildlife Federation, is supportive of the current study, but expressed concerns with some of the proposals. The size of the acreage involved should be addressed. The proposal changes from native forage to grass damage; two different terms. The access issue needs to be addressed. Funding should not come from hunting licenses if access is not provided and alternative funding sources should be considered. Most important in her view is not to open a Pandora's box on this issue.
Former Representative Dick Sadler addressed the Subcommittee. He opposed certain provisions in the proposal. The use of additional license fees for compensation has reached its saturation point. Mr. Sadler gave a history of the damage claim provision for grass damage. He explained the insertion of the use of the word extraordinary. He noted that game damage has historically been expanded since the 1970's; adding grizzly bear damages; bee hives and other damage claims over the years. He noted that the joint program for damages is not being funded by ranchers to the extent that the State and Game and Fish have provided funding. He provided examples of other means of support for ranchers such as REA and telephone reduced rates and exemptions of ranch equipment from sales tax. (Appendices 6 and 7) Overall, he believed that the State already does enough to support ranchers in other ways for the game damages done on private ranchlands. The State should not pay for regular grass damage by wildlife in his view. Senator Burns asked for copies of the documents referenced by Representative Sadler.
Ken Hamilton, Wyoming Farm Bureau, stated the Subcommittee should consider a number of the proposals, focusing on forage compensation and noting that the open range considerations are beyond the scope of the discussion in his view.
The subcommittee asked how the parameters of the project could be developed and LSO staff discussed equal protection concerns. Staff stated that the program must be written in terms that avoid unequal treatment for people similarly situated.
The Department would implement by rule the pilot projects that would be developed. Using the UW recommendation, going with forage calculations, 3 or 4 forage recommendations, with a minimum amount of loss and determining how the pilot projects would be implemented. Senator Goodenough asked how the projects would be defined by legislation – would access be tied to the program and would the amount of forage loss be set by statute, were examples of the issues that must be addressed.
Senator Vasey suggested that the CRM model be used for demonstration projects being discussed. LSO staff stated that the current law allows for the game and fish commission "To enter into cooperative agreements with federal agencies, corporations, associations, individuals, and landowners for the development of state control of wildlife management and demonstration projects."
Senator Vasey moved to instruct the LSO to review rules and laws needed to develop legislation for 4 pilot projects for compensation for habitat damage along with a $2 million appropriation; including a recommendation to use the CRM model to use in developing the pilot projects. The pilot projects to follow any of the four suggestions in exhibit B, other than the landowner coupon increase. The motion was seconded by Senator Goodenough. Senator Burns questioned why the Game and Fish would not be used to develop the proposals. He also questioned why a $2 million appropriation was needed. Senator Burns moved to strip the dollar amount from the proposal. Senator Goodenough seconded the motion to strip the dollar amount. The Subcommittee discussed how the Department would develop an estimate of the amount needed. Representative Baker stated that under the motion the proposal could use either wildlife numbers or utilization; the PLPW program could be modified; the wildlife coupon increase would be out; the stewardship agreement would be included. Mr. Cleveland asked whether there would be a requirement for one project on each proposal. Representative Baker stated that it would not be so limited. The department could use any of the 4 suggestions and develop any number of pilot projects up to a maximum total of 4. The subcommittee and Mr. Cleveland agreed that without knowing the parameters of the pilot project in more detail, the amount of funding required is completely unknown. Senator Burns' motion to exclude a dollar amount was discussed. He amended the motion to reduce the amount to $100,000. The amended motion passed. The main motion was repeated by LSO staff. Senator Goodenough asked whether the motion included review of whether the current laws allowed for the pilot projects. Staff responded that it was so interpreted. The motion as amended passed.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 12:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
______________________________
Mike Baker, Chairman