![[Top]](/images/nav-top.gif)
![[Back]](/images/nav-back.gif)
![[Home]](/images/nav-home.gif)
May 1 & 2, 2006
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 Keith Gingery
Representative Wayne Reese
Representative Jim Slater
Representative Bill Thompson
Representative Dan Zwonitzer
Representative Jerry Iekel
Lynda Cook, Staff Attorney
Representative Colin Simpson
Please refer to Appendix 1 to review the
Committee Sign-in Sheet
for a list of other individuals who attended the meeting.
Co-Chairman Pat Childers called the meeting to order at 8:35 am. The following sections summarize the
Committee proceedings by topic. Please
refer to Appendix 2 to review the Committee Meeting Agenda.
Minutes from the October, 2005 Committee meeting were approved.
LSO Staff addressed
the committee regarding the two bills from previous years. One creates a state lottery corporation
overseen by the pari-mutuel commission which will enter and run a multi-state
lottery. (Appendix 3). The other creates a separate gaming
commission which oversees current gaming in
Senator Burns asked
Frank Lamb, Pari-Mutuel Commission director, about the bill which gives the commission
authority to oversee the lottery. Mr.
Lamb stated that the pari-mutuel commission endorsed the bill creating a
lottery overseen by them two years. A
member of the audience asked if the materials provided to the committee would
be made available to the public.
Chairman Childers stated that they would make copies available.
Senator Cooper
stated that he does not see the benefit of even discussing the bills since they
never went anywhere before. Childers
said there are people on both side of the issues who want to air their
testimony. Management Council approved
the topic for interim discussion. He
said he believes the state needs a system to fairly administer the current
gambling allowed in state. With respect
to the multi-state lottery, there appears to be an interest by the people of
the state to join.
Chuck Strutt,
Director of the Multi-State Lottery Association (MUSL), Ed Van Petten, Kansas
State Lottery Director and Bret Toyne, CFO and Deputy of the Multi-State
Lottery Association testified. MUSL is a
non-profit corporation made up of member states. (Appendix 5). Directors of the member states are involved
in the administration of the corporation.
The MUSL runs four games and each state decides which of the games the
state wants to permit within their state.
There are currently 31 states offering Powerball. through MUSL. The corporation owns the brand. Mr. Strutt described how the games are
managed. Powerball is a two drum
game. The overall odds of winning a
prize is 1 in 36. Power play is an
additional chance to win a multiplier of whatever is won by player. He described how the game has various
elements designed to allow players to win lower amounts than the large jackpot. Fifty percent of every dollar bet is paid out
and the other 50% is kept by the state.
It costs $20,000 per year for a state to join the corporation.
Bret Toyne described
how the funds are raised to run the lottery.
Funds are sent to MUSL and invested until the payout is made to the
players and the states. They also make
revenues from bond swap profits and licensing of brand names. Those revenues run the MUSL corporation for
the states. Any excess over the
operating budget is split among the states.
Slightly more than
half the states only do Powerball.
Chairman Childers asked about problem gambling. Mr. Strutt stated that approximately 1% of
the population are problem gamblers.
MUSL encourages states to set aside a percentage of sales to be used to
find and treat problem gambling.
Typically that amount is 1% of sales.
Senator Van Flatern asked how the revenues are distributed. Mr. Toyne stated that the returns from the
extra revenues are probably not enough to cover the 20K per year so a small
state like
The board only
recently decided to charge the $20,000 fee because larger states were
essentially supporting smaller states.
Mr. Van Petten stated that
Rep. Reese asked for
estimates of what sales would be in a state like
Rep. Reese asked how
other states set up there administration.
Some create a non profit corporation like in 2005 HB 163, others run it
through a state agency like
Mr. Van Petten
described how states can tailor the games to promote their state. Prizes can be
The committee
discussed the need for counseling services and call in centers for referral to
other resources. Chairman Burns asked
about the resources that are available for people with problems already,
including internet gambling. Mr. Strutt
testified that statistics show that lottery is the least addictive form of
gaming because there are not the immediate results like with other forms of
gaming. Mr. Ven Petten noted that this
income allows the state to help people with addictive personality that are not
currently getting any help.
Senator Cooper asked
about investigation costs. He wanted tot
know how much of a problem is it for the state to investigate things like
people claiming to win but who didn’t.
Mr. Van Petten stated that the system is very tight so the tickets
clearly show when the tickets are sold, and where. The system is computerized and he doesn’t
think fraud is really a problem.
Rep. Zwonitzer asked
how the retailers are compensated. They
receive a portion of sales and a portion of the winnings.
Troy Broussard, Boys
and Girls Clubs of Wyoming, testified regarding where the profits should
go. (Appendix 7). He suggested that the profits be used for
methamphetamine eradication. It was
reported in the Casper Star that 63% of the people in the state favor a
lottery. Mr. Broussard thinks this could
be higher if people knew the money was going to eradicate the methamphetamine
problem. The money should be used for
law enforcement, rehabilitation, prevention and drug courts.
All of the public
testimony was in opposition to the lottery.
David Robertson
testified in opposition to the lottery. He is the past chairman of the National
Organization Against Legalized Gambling.
He testified that lottery tickets are inferior goods. The lottery shifts the burden of taxation
from higher income households to lower income ticket buyers. In Massachusettes the highest problem with
children having problems is playing the lottery. He discussed increased law enforcement
problems. He testified that the Texas
lottery did study in 2004 showing the regressive nature of the lottery in that
lower income tax groups spend a larger percentage of their income on
lottery. The national association called
for a moratorium on gambling. A
commissioned study showed that 5% of the purchasers bought 50% of the
tickets. Mr. Roberson argued that when
we have a budget surplus in the state there is no reason to bring in a
predatory monopoly run by the state just to bring in $6 million dollars when it
would damage
Mr. Robertson argued
that if you just use the 1% problem gambler figure mentioned earlier then 3000
people in
Sen. Massie pointed
out that this is not a tax. People do
not have a choice to pay a tax. This is
voluntary on the part of the individual.
With respect to the 1% who have problems, those people can already
gamble on the internet. He wanted to
know if there are going to be additional people who develop a problem if the
state has a lottery. Mr. Robertson
suggested that in
Curt Graham, Cody
resident, testified in opposition. He
asked where the 6 million dollars is going to come from. Not from the high income people. People who are buying these tickets are
dreaming about paying their bills. He
argued that putting money aside for treatment is not going to work. He compared it to the state taking over drug
production and using some of the proceeds to treat drug addiction. He asked which 1% of the population they are
willing to subject to the addiction. In
response to Senator Massie's suggestion that this is not a tax because it is a
choice, he argued that addiction is not a choice. There are real social consequences.
Senator Massie asked
for the foundation for the statistic that demonstrates that there are going to
be new addictions. Rep. Brown asked why
they should deny the 99% who don’t have problem the opportunity to play a game. Chairman Burns brought up the evidence that
when casinos go in the bingo parlors dry up.
This leads him to believe that adding lottery would just transfer the
gaming from one area to another.
Bill Neilson,
provided written testimony in opposition from the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter Day Saints. (Appendix 8). He did not poll the members of their
churches, but the letter is from the ecclesiastical leaders. He described the impacts of gambling. He compared the addiction to gambling to the
addiction to methamphetamine. Chairman
Childers asked for statistics supporting these claims.
Diana Gwen testified
in opposition. She quoted George
Washington who stated that gambling should be avoided.
James Fitzgerald,
law enforcement in southern
Steve Murphy, Cody
resident, testified in opposition. He
does not want gambling around his children.
He argued that the lottery is based on a lie in that it is telling
people that if they spend a dollar they can win big. The way to get ahead is to work and get a good
education. He asked how the state would
find the people who have a gambling problem.
He also compared joining the lottery to the state selling crack.
David Peterson,
dentist from Basin testified in opposition.
He brought up the case of a man who staged his own death after losing
money on a Superbowl bet. He described
the search and rescue attempts to find him.
John Shoffstall,
testified that the majority of people in a large number of states have voted in
favor of having lottery. Not everyone is
addicted to gaming if they play the lottery.
The committee
discussed the bill creating a Gaming Commission. Chairman Childers stated that it was brought back because the committee still sees
inequitable enforcement of the current gambling laws.
Viginia Shoffstall
testified regarding the gaming commission bill.
She used to be a member of the Pari-Mutuel Commission. In that position she saw a need for the state
to deal with the issue of problem gambling.
The council she represents now is neutral on the issue of gaming, but
they want to see the state do something to deal with problem gambling. The council is made up of three members. One is a nationally certified counselor, the
other is an educator. She argued that
citizens who travel to other states to gamble still bring their problems back
home.
The council sent a
survey to law enforcement and metal health agencies. Responses concern the availability of
treatment for problem gambling.
(Appendix 9) She provided written
testimony on problem gambling. (Appendix
10). Her group would like to offer a
workshop for legislators before next session.
Ms. Shoffstall asked
for two amendments to the gaming commission legislation. (Appendix 11). The amendments would address the problem of
gambling addiction without changing the current types of gambling allowed. This would address the problems that are
currently here.
Senator Massie asked
if adding lottery would increase the number of pathological gamblers. Ms. Shoffstall did not have concrete data but
she sees it like alcohol. If there is no
alcohol in front of the alcoholic, they can’t
drink. Lottery isn’t going to
cause the addiction but it could bring it out in people who aren’t subjected to
gambling right now.
The proposed
amendment requires licensees to submit a
plan to address compulsive gambling and to train employees. The proposed amendment also prohibits
extension of credit on a gaming premises.
The second proposed
amendment creates a state hotline and an account to be used by local governments
to apply for a grant to use to address problems.
The chairmen
explained what the bill does and does not do.
Currently there is no state mechanism for tracking and controlling the
gambling that is allowed. The bill does
not expand the gambling available in the state.
The committee took
public comment on the gaming commission bill.
John Shoffstall
testified in support of the bill. He
stated that the bill is needed so there is statewide jurisdiction over
gambling. It shouldn’t be left to each
separate county. There should be a statewide set of standards.
David Robertson
testified again. He doesn’t like to see
the expansion of government. He thinks
DCI should handle the licensing. He sees
commissions as entities that promote the topic that they regulate. There is not enough gambling in
Senator Massie
supported moving forward with the concept of multi-state lottery. He thinks it should go under the gaming
commission or the Pari-Mutuel Commission.
Senator Von Flatern seconded.
Rep. Davison suggested that treatment will need to be included.
Rep. Reese stated
that a bill has come up several times.
People see a difference between casino and lottery. There is no instant gratification. He stated that the majority of people in the
state support it. It is totally
voluntary. That is enough reason to pass
it.
Senator Cooper
opposed to moving ahead. He doesn’t see
any benefits, only problems. He doesn’t
see it creating any new jobs. It’s just
a way to raise revenues and the state doesn’t need it.
The committee voted
to have LSO draft a multi-state lottery bill for their consideration. Those opposed were Representatives Gingery,
Slater and Davison and Senator Cooper.
Chairman Burns directed LSO to leave the direction of the revenue
streams blank for now.
Slater moved to have
the bill be limited to Powerball but it died for lack of a second.
Senator Massie moved
that the gaming commission bill be brought back. He also wants the attorney general to review
the bill and provide his comments on the bill to the committee at the next
meeting. There was discussion as to
whether it expands any gambling. There
isn’t expansion but there is clarification for things like poker games in
public places. Senator Cooper asked if
the gaming commission would have authority to define what is gambling or and
what isn’t. Rep. Reese stated that it
does not have that authority, the statutes do that.
Rep. Gingery asked
why the local authorities couldn’t handle it all. Chairman Childers stated that it gives the
state gaming commission statewide authority so there isn’t unequal
interpretation throughout the state.
Rep. Brown wanted to know why we can’t just state it clearly in statute
and not have a commission. Sen. Massie
pointed out that is what they thought they had before but counties were not all
doing the same thing. This also gives
the statewide authority to enforce and oversee gaming. We cannot rely on local governments.
Rep. Gingery thinks
that the law should be clarified, not create a commission to interpret the
laws. He would rather see a bill that
just clarifies the law and leaves everything else to the local
authorities. Chairman Childers reminded
the committee that the courts have considered the current laws vague but the
Attorney General has stated that they are iron clad. There is a difference of opinion.
Rep. Brown moved
that the bill be split into two bills – one that just clarifies the law and one
that creates a gaming commission.
Senator Massie noted that the local governments were unanimous in asking
for a state commission. He doesn’t see
how little communities could afford to enforce and administer the
licensing. He doesn’t understand how
certain committee members think the legislature would not have any oversight
over this commission when it is just like any other commission. Rep. Brown agreed to bring a bill draft to
the next meeting that would simply clarify what is and is not gambling in
The committee bill
will not include the proposed amendments to deal with problem gambling. Chairman Childers asked to have those drafted
as amendments for consideration when they work the bill.
Rep. Gingery stated
that the bill died last year because it creates a new commission. Chairman Childers thought it was because
there wasn’t enough time.
The committee voted
to have LSO resurrect the bill for further consideration. Senator Cooper and Representatives Gingery,
Slater, Zwonitzer and Davison opposed.
The committee broke for lunch and returned at 1:15pm.
Scott Talbot,
Wildlife Division Assistant Division Chief, testified regarding increased
penalties for repeat offenders.
(Appendix 12). This proposal only
addresses persons who repeatedly violate wildlife laws. Currently there are only fines and restitution
which are not strong enough to deter people with means to do this. Incarceration and loss of hunting privileges
is a better way to deter these people.
Passage of stronger penalties has made a difference in the past. Since the time the penalties were last
increased there has been a decrease in out of state violators. The statutes currently carry a fine of up to
$2000 and one year in jail. However, the only felony provision in statutes right now is vandalizing a fish
hatchery. At the turn of the century
there used to be more. The suggested
language is based on discussions with county attorneys who prosecute these
cases. Mr. Talbot described two
instances of flagrant wildlife violators who received the maximum
penalties. The current penalties did not
stop them. The violators did not pay the
fines. .
The proposed bill
applies to serious repeat offenders. In
2004 a resident used an automatic rifle to kill eleven elk. The proposed legislation does not deal with
cases like that unless it was a repeat offense.
In the last 10 years there have been 475 cases that have not been
prosecuted for lack of evidence. Some
of those cases may be repeat offenders that, if they were caught, this would
apply to. The Lacey Act, a federal law
governing interstate traffic of wildlife violations, does have felony
provisions. This legislation is similar
to laws in neighboring states.
Why seek felony
status? Mr. Talbot testified that
extradition is more efficient in felony cases.
Supervised probation may help prevent future cases. Stronger penalties, including the recent
forfeiture provision, are strong deterrents.
Senator Ross noted
that the draft language purports to deal with habitual violators but it really
deals with second or more convictions.
Sen. Ross pointed out that most criminal convictions require at least
three violations to be considered habitual.
Rep. Gingery stated that he thought that there were no felony Game and
Fish statutes because there was concern with having game wardens deal with
felony investigations. He wanted to know
if game wardens need to involve sheriffs in these cases. Mr. Talbot had had no concerns raised by
county attorneys regarding the abilities of game wardens. They already work on felony Lacey Act
investigations.
Rep. Brown clarified
that both violations require an intent.
Chairman Childers asked Mr. Talbot to provide LSO with
There was discussion
about the revocation of license language.
Individuals have taken their chances hunting without a license rather
than trying to procure another license.
This proposal adds additional penalties for hunting while under
suspension.
Rep. Gingery asked
why there are eleven degrees of misdemeanor and why they haven’t had felonies
before. Terry Cleveland explained that
in 1973 when the legislature re-codified the game and fish statutes is when it
occurred but he does not know what the genesis was. Sen. Ross asked what was the rationale behind
the number of years they proposed for loss of hunting privileges. They didn’t have one.
Lyn Bashford,
Warden's Association, testified in support of the bills. The
Chairman Burns also
commented that the game and fish misdemeanors were overlooked when they raised
the mandatory minimum penalty to $1000.
With respect to the additional training, Sen. Ross pointed out that most
violations are done by issuing citations.
Taking violators into custody is different. Mr. Bashford said they do take people into
custody right now, just not very often.
Rep. Gingery asked if they are going to come back with more crimes they
want to make felonies. He also asked if the
wardens association had discussion of going to one level of misdemeanor. Mr. Bashford didn't think so on either
count. Felonies should be reserved for
the most flagrant crimes. Rep. Brown
asked if raising this to a felony will be a real deterrent. Mr. Bashford said yes.
Ben Lamb, Wyoming
Wildlife Federation, stated that his association has not taken a position on
this because this is the first they have heard about it. However, his recommendation is to support
this. Increased people in the oil and gas industry means increased people out
in wildlife habitat with increased chances of violations.
Jason Marsden,
Wyoming Conservation Voters, stated that he would recommend that his group
support this too.
Dave Bragonich
testified that it used to be a felony when there was concern of market
hunting. He also pointed out that game
wardens have all the same training as any other peace officer in the state.
Chairman Burns moved
that two bills be drafted. Sen. Ross
argued that the felony bill should be like Idaho with three violations in ten
years. Rep. Reese agreed that time period
is okay but he was curious whether it should be three violations or two. Rep. Gingery suggested not using the term
habitual. He also said the bill should
follow the language in the DUI statutes.
Sen. Ross expressed concern about including the wanton destruction in
the violations which receive increased penalties because it does not have an
intent element. LSO staff will work with
Sen. Ross and Representatives Gingery and Brown on the felony language.
Terry Cleveland,
Game and Fish Director, introduced game and fish commission members and staff
who were in the audience. He also
recognized former commissioner Gary Lundvall.
Cleveland read his
testimony which is reproduced herein:
“Today there are a great
variety of challenges facing our wildlife . . . energy development, lingering
drought, urban development, disease, and much more. You’ll be hearing about
many of these issues from other Game and Fish personnel during this meeting.
These are all important and challenging issues. But if we assume the public
desires the Department to address the needs of all wildlife in the state, the single most important issue facing the
future management of all wildlife today is a lack of adequate funding for
management and conservation. I’m confident that we can successfully address all
of the issues we’re facing today as long as we have adequate funding to do so.
To understand the
Game and Fish Commission’s current funding situation, and why it’s no longer
sufficient to address the needs of all of Wyoming’s wildlife, it’s important to
understand the culture in which it was founded, and how it has evolved over the
years. To begin, let’s look back more than a century.
1890 was a very
important year for Wyoming and its wildlife. That was the year that Wyoming was
granted statehood, after more than 20 years as a territory of the United
States.
The year preceding
that, 1889, was an important year for Wyoming’s wildlife as well, in a symbolic
sense. In 1889, the last wild buffalo, outside of Yellowstone National Park,
was killed in the Wyoming Territory. It’s difficult to think of an event more
representative of the dismal state of our wildlife during that era.
White settlement,
the arrival of the railroad, unregulated hunting, and other factors all were
taking their toll on our fish and wildlife resources. Most Westerners at that
time must have taken Wyoming’s vast natural resources for granted, and I’m sure
that to many it seemed Wyoming’s vast wilderness and wide-open spaces could
never be depleted.
But on the day that
Benjamin Harrison signed the statehood act, there were only about 800 wild
bison left on Earth, as well as around 5,000 antelope. Elk, mule deer, beaver,
sage grouse, waterfowl, and other wild creatures were all on a downhill slide.
Wyoming’s
territorial government had made a few attempts at establishing game regulations
to slow these declines. In 1875, Wyoming set a big game season running from
August 15 to January 15. Animals were to be killed for food only, and then
“only when necessary for human subsistence.” As with other game regulations
established before statehood, there were no provisions for enforcement, game
laws and regulations were largely ignored, and many of our wildlife species
continued their downward spiral.
Statehood was a
significant event for wildlife. Almost immediately, Wyoming embarked on a
series of important steps toward effective conservation and management of the
state’s wildlife. Far-sighted lawmakers at that time began to realize that
Wyoming’s wildlife and their habitats were fragile resources that needed to be
managed wisely. They also began to realize the value of those resources to
Wyoming, both aesthetically and economically.
One of the most
important steps toward wise use of our wildlife came in 1899, when the
legislature created the office of state game warden. The warden’s
responsibilities included enforcing game laws and implementing wildlife
management policies. This move marked the birth of the Wyoming Game and Fish
Department.
As it is today,
funding for management and conservation was a serious concern during those
early years. But a funding model was beginning to develop in Wyoming and across
the continent. The model that was emerging was based on a “user-pays” system
that relied on revenue collected from hunters and anglers to fund conservation
and management activities.
The legendary D.C.
Nowlin, one of Wyoming’s first State Game Wardens, reported to the legislature
in 1902 that nonresident hunters had spent more than $175,000 on licenses,
guide fees, and equipment to hunt and fish in Wyoming. He wrote: “. . .
conservation is not only morally right, but a good financial investment for
ourselves and our prosperity.” I could
make that exact statement to you today.
More than 100 years
later, the “user-pays” system is still the basic model used to fund the Wyoming
Game and Fish Department.
In the early years
of the 20th century, Wyoming’s lawmakers continued to develop
wildlife management policies and procedures that would become a model for the
rest of the country. And, as a direct result, wildlife populations began making
impressive comebacks.
One of the most
significant changes came in 1921, when the Wyoming Legislature created a Game
and Fish Commission. This early version of the commission consisted of the
governor, the secretary of state, and the state auditor. In 1925 this structure
was revised to provide for a six-person, bipartisan citizen-based commission to
be appointed by the governor.
The creation of this
citizen board to oversee fish and wildlife management was another significant
step in providing balanced oversight of the department’s operations. But, at
that time, the department’s operating budget was appropriated by the
legislature, which did not always provide a steady or adequate stream of
revenue.
A.A. Sanders, one of
the early commissioners, wrote the following to Governor Nellie Tayloe Ross: “
. . . in order that this department may be supplied with sufficient funds . . .
without asking for an additional appropriation that will tend to increase
taxation on the people of our state, we are going to ask Your Excellency to
assist us in procuring a legislative act, whereby the total receipts collected
from the sale of licenses, permits and confiscations, together with all other
sources of revenue, be placed in a separate fund, to be known as the State Game
and Fish Fund, the same to be placed at the disposal of this department.” This fund was eventually developed, but
controlled by the legislature.
In 1929, the
legislature took another big step toward separating wildlife management from
the political process. The commission was given the authority to open and close
hunting and fishing seasons, separating this important authority from the
legislative process. But the commission remained financially dependent on the
legislature, and history reports at times politics interfered with the
allocation of resources to the management of Wyoming’s wildlife.
Through landmark
legislation 1937, the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission gained financial
independence and wide executive authority. The commission was granted almost
full executive powers over wildlife management. In addition, the Game and Fish
Fund was transferred to the control of the commission.
By taking the bold
step of separating these responsibilities and funds from the political process,
the Wyoming legislature paved the way for a period of enormous progress. The
next few decades saw dramatic increases in wildlife numbers, especially big
game. This coincided with increases in harvest rates for many game animals.
This model served our state well through most of the 20th Century
and can be credited with providing much of the wealth of fish and wildlife we
enjoy today.
Also in 1937,
another important milestone in wildlife management occurred at the federal
level. Congress passed the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, more
commonly known as the Pittman-Robertson Act. This act provided additional
revenue for state wildlife management from a special tax on sporting arms and
ammunition. A similar act, known as Dingell-Johnson, was passed in 1950 to
provide federal funding for fisheries management and conservation from taxes on
fishing equipment. Of course, these acts were also based on the model of hunters
and anglers paying for management and conservation.
Today, these revenue
streams still make up the bulk of funding for the Wyoming Game and Fish
Department. In fact, about 90 percent of our funding comes directly from
licenses sales, fees, and taxes paid by sportsmen.
Throughout the last
century sportsmen’s dollars were instrumental in restoring many species that
were in serious trouble. But, at the beginning of the 21st Century,
it’s clear that this model of funding wildlife management is no longer adequate
to address many of the challenges that simply did not exist 100 years ago.
It’s easy to admire
the foresight of the lawmakers who wrote the 1937 statute that established an
independent commission. Specifically, Title 23 of the Wyoming Statutes states as its purpose: “. . . to provide an
adequate and flexible system for control, propagation, management, and
protection of all Wyoming wildlife.”
It’s apparent that
most, if not all, interest in wildlife management during much of the 20th
Century was focused on game species. So, for the framers of this legislation to
specifically direct responsibility of the commission to “all” wildlife in
Wyoming is truly remarkable.
At the same time,
this legislative direction to the commission seems to stand in conflict with
the funding source allocated to pay for management of all Wyoming
wildlife. After all, there are more than 800 species of wildlife in Wyoming.
Only about 100 or so do we actually pursue with guns, bows, traps, and fishing
rods.
Today this conflict
is even more apparent. Though hunters and anglers continue to shoulder nearly
all the financial burden of paying for wildlife conservation and management, a
variety of other stakeholders have interests in how Wyoming’s wildlife species
are managed. And many other individuals, businesses, and organizations . . . in
addition to hunters and anglers . . . benefit from the recreational
opportunities and financial benefits that Wyoming’s wildlife provides.
For example,
according to the most recent data from a US Fish and Wildlife survey, in 2001 a
total of 498,000 people participated in wildlife viewing activities in Wyoming.
Compare that to 133,000 people who hunted, and 293,000 people who fished during
that year. People who enjoy viewing wildlife are reaping the benefits of
conservation and management programs, but currently there’s neither a
requirement nor a funding mechanism for non-hunters and non-anglers to help pay
for the management and conservation of wildlife in Wyoming.
Also consider that
in 2001 hunters spent $123 million on equipment, travel, and other expenses
related to hunting in Wyoming. Compare that to an estimated $264 million spent
in Wyoming on wildlife viewing activities during that same year and it’s easy
to see the economic benefits of wildlife recreation beyond just consumptive
uses of wildlife.
Today the Wyoming
Game and Fish Department focuses its efforts on a wide variety of wildlife
species, including hundreds of non-game species. During this meeting you’ll
hear a presentation about more than 200 Wyoming species that need additional
attention from the department. Some of these are currently on the federal
threatened and endangered species list, some we need more data on, and some
have the potential to be added to the threatened and endangered list if we
don’t take action soon. Our current funding model doesn’t allow us to even come
close to addressing these needs.
We’re facing a host
of other challenges that could never have been anticipated 100 years ago. These
include significant impacts from energy development on some of our most
important wildlife habitats, continuing urban sprawl across the state, wildlife
diseases (most notably CWD and brucellosis), lingering drought, and more.
It doesn’t seem
fair, or appropriate, for hunters and anglers to continue to pay for all
management and conservation activities affecting such a wide range of species
and diverse range of issues. Additionally, current revenue from license sales
and fees is not nearly adequate to address these challenges.
We believe, and I
hope you will concur; it is time to find an additional source of funding for
wildlife management in Wyoming.
The news isn’t all
doom and gloom. There is a growing realization about the importance of wildlife
and the need to do more. Evidence of this is recent appropriations from the
legislature to fund some important capital construction projects, local sage
grouse working groups, and the department’s veterinary services program. These
are greatly appreciated; but to responsibly manage and conserve our wildlife
resources in the new millennium, the department needs a regular, reliable
funding source that does not come exclusively from hunters and anglers.
Tomorrow, Deputy Director Bill Wichers will give you some specifics about programs
we would like to see funded from an additional revenue source. But we would
also like to hear your ideas on how to address many of the wildlife challenges
we are facing in the 21st Century.
More than a century
ago, our lawmakers recognized that the state’s wildlife resources were in
crisis. They embarked on a series of steps that restored many of those species,
some from the brink of extinction. I think we can all look back at the time and
the culture of that period and marvel at the foresight of those lawmakers and
their bold actions.
Today, we are at
another critical juncture for wildlife in Wyoming; and we have the opportunity
to make some changes that will be just as important to the future of our
wildlife resources. A critical public policy decision must be made regarding
what the people of the State want wildlife management to be in the future. If that desire is simply to manage species
that they hunt and fish and not address such issues as habitat, declining
species, and the potential listing of species, the Department can probably
sustain itself on licenses fee increases that occur over time; and there is
little value in study of the funding issues.
However, if the vision is the management of all Wyoming wildlife,
addressing the issues that I have talked to today, additional funding is
necessary.
Wyoming is enjoying
tremendous economic prosperity from energy development. Obviously, there are a
number of ways we have and can use those funds to improve the lifestyle and
prosperity of our citizens. I hope, however, that you agree with me that, given
all the current threats to our wildlife, some of those funds might be used for
the benefit of wildlife.
Wyoming is
recognized around the world for its wide-open spaces, abundant and diverse
wildlife, and premiere wildlife-related recreational opportunities; but these
will not last forever without attention.
The challenges
facing wildlife are great. So are the
opportunities.”
Chairman Burns asked
whether the department has specific recommendations. Mr. Cleveland said if the legislature sees
the need, he sees money coming from energy sources and maybe the lottery if
that passed. He would like to see a
stream of revenue to the commission with the commission deciding how the money
is spent. He would like to see a block
grant type program similar to the funding to the university. This would also entail reporting back to the
legislature on how the money was spent.
Chairman Childers
pointed out that wildlife watchers should be a source since they need to see
that they are invested in wildlife.
Senator Massie stated that this is the most pressing problem in front of
this committee. He thinks that using
Powerball money would make a lot of sense.
He hears that using general fund monies would corrupt the game and fish
and subject them to political pressure.
Mr. Cleveland said that if they have to come under legislative oversight
to some degree in order to meet the needs, then that is just something that is
necessary. Either that or they need to
ignore the needs of non-hunted animals.
They can never raise license fees to the point of solving all the
wildlife needs of the state.
Bill Wichers, Deputy
Director, stated that he sees a gradual shift in attitudes toward accepting
general fund money. When they received
some recently they were given latitude within the parameters set by the
legislature. That is the block grant
model that they think worked well.
Senator Massie said he likes the idea of a block grant but stated that
to get there politically the legislature is going to need to hear from hunters
that they support this method. He wants
to know if sportsman are ready to say that.
Mr. Cleveland stated that they do hear that sportsmen don’t want general
fund money, but they also say they don’t want their money spent on grizzly
bears and wolves. The sportsmen’s
associations have come together and they are going to publicly come out in
support of this.
Rep. Gingery brought
up some other suggestions. One is to
create a whole new department that deals with natural resources outside hunting
and fishing. Another is to have two
divisions within the current department.
One division would be overseen by the legislature and the other would be
overseen by the commission. Mr.
Cleveland was concerned that that was not an efficient use of funds and
personnel. He brought up the example of
fisheries personnel who deal with both the aquatic habitat and the fish. He was also concerned that there may be
conflicts between the two personnel on the ground.
Chairman Childers
pointed out that management council wants the committee to look closely at
where the money comes from and where it is going.
Rep. Brown asked
whether the department would make all the decisions regarding whether to enter
into agreements with the US FWS if there was a block grant program. Mr. Cleveland pointed out that even now,
without the program, the decisions are already made in collaboration with the
governor’s office and the legislature.
In past decades swift fox, black tail prairie dogs and sage grouse have
been precluded from listing because the department has worked
collaboratively. They spend a million
dollars just trying to address the needs of sage grouse. And helping one species helps many
species. Rep. Brown noted that there
will come a time when the state is not going to be flush. If the money from the general fund decreases,
how would decisions be made on where to spend the money. Mr. Cleveland said it would be done
collaboratively and based on the biggest needs.
Kathy Frank,
Assistant Fiscal Division Chief, presented background financial information and
the budget process. Her presentation
compared revenues and expenditures in 2006 with 1992. (Appendix 13). Revenues come largely from license sales,
Pittman-Robinson/Dingle-Johnson money (federal excise tax dollars), interest
income and conservation stamp fees.
Interest is required to go back into the department. Interest was high in 1992. Using federal inflation factors, in order to
be in the same position as then the department would need $54 million dollars.
New sources of
income include state wildlife grants which are federal funds to be used for
specific species of special concern and can’t be used for general game
animals. They are also getting increased
funding from competitive grants and non resident preference points.
Nonresident license
sales cover 78% of the license revenue.
Antelope, elk, deer and fish make up 97% of license revenue. Licenses sold have dropped precipitously
since 1998.
Ms. Frank explained
the nature of federal money they receive.
Most is from PRDJ money which is dependant on sales of recreational
equipment but is relatively stable. The
others are competitive grants and that amount is unknown from year to
year.
Mr. Cleveland explained that license receipts are getting somewhat better as
the wildlife populations are increasing.
Generally, the number of animals is appropriate for the carrying
capacity, although there are a lot of elk.
In 2004 the
department received their first general fund appropriation in thirty
years. 2005 was the first year they
received general funds for ongoing programs – veterinary services and sage
grouse working groups. In 2006 they
received $15.7 million for capital construction plus $4 million for the same
ongoing programs.
Ms. Frank then
addressed expenditures. Personnel has
become a much larger portion of the budget since 1992. Much of this is due to health insurance. Habitat and terrestrial management are a
large part of the budget now also.
With the electronic
license system the financial management costs will likely not go down. It will create more and better
information. Only 50% of the selling
agents do not want to go electronic.
Those 50% that do go electronic will account for 90% of the sales. The low participation is surprising to them
since the department is paying for the equipment. They think that as time goes by more will
come on line.
Different types of
funds are the operating fund, the access fund (earmarked), wildlife interest
fund (earmarked) and general fund (earmarked).
Non-expendable funds are the lifetime license fund and the wildlife
trust permanent fund. They can use 6% of
the lifetime fund every year.
The operating fund
gets funded from license sales, income from sales or rental of property,
federal funds and boating licenses. In
addition to the restrictions from the commission, there are lots of laws
controlling what monies can be used for.
PRDJ funds cannot be used for law enforcement or licensing costs.
Only two species
consistently bring in enough money in license fees to cover expenses of
management – deer and antelope. Sen.
Cooper was curious if the imbalance is because few people hunt certain species
or whether they are expensive to manage.
Mr. Cleveland pointed out that the costs of managing many of those
species include damage claims and that is charged to those species. Also, they are difficult and expensive to
gather information on. Threatened and
endangered species have the highest imbalance.
Changes in Recent
Years.
Access program
didn’t exist in 1992. There is increased
emphasis on habitat and disease issues.
There is an increased focus on threatened and endangered species. There is decreased emphasis on property
acquisition. They are receiving a lot
more in federally funded grants but they require matching funds.
Cost allocation
costs are what the department has to pay other state agencies to use their
services. Those costs have increased.
Mr. Cleveland
suggested that the legislated COLA increases in personnel costs apply to the
department also. That could be debated
and they have not gotten an Attorney General opinion that says they have to.
While they have
received general funds for major capitol construction they still have very large
expenses for upkeep, maintenance, heating etc.
The department's
goal is to maintain at least three months in operating expenses in
reserve. Cash balances have declined for
several reasons. License sales numbers
have gone down. This affects the amount
of federal funds received too. Interest
income has declined.
Bill Wichers
presented the effects of complimentary licenses on the department's
budget. (Appendix 14). There are a number of free and reduced price
licenses in statute. The reduced priced
youth licenses are a strong encouragement for participation. Other exemptions and licenses have been for
good purposes but they have an annual $1.3 million affect on the
department.
Mr. Wichers
described the different types of free or reduced price licenses available. He stated that some costs may be
overestimated because the pioneer license holders may or may not have bought a
license or they may no longer be with us.
Others are impossible to estimate so their impact is underestimated.
They would like a
mechanism to reimburse the loss annually. Sen. Ross asked if there is any
reciprocity issue with respect to nonresident youth license. The only reciprocity is with respect to
fishing on Flaming Gorge. Other than
that Wyoming is not involved in any.
Most states do give reduced price nonresident youth licenses. Several states do reimburse the department,
specifically Nevada, and he will find out for the committee what other states
do. Rep. Gingery asked if there has been
any discussion of giving the department the authority to set the fees. It has come up in the past and there has
never been any willingness on the part of the legislature to give up that
authority.
Kathy Frank pointed
out that every free license does not count toward the PRDJ allocation. If the department were reimbursed even by the
legislature, the PRDJ funding would go up.
Ms. Frank agreed to give the
committee an estimate of what the difference would be.
The committee
recessed at 5:00 pm and reconvened at 8:35 am May 2, 2006.
Comprehensive Wildlife Conservations
Strategies.
Walt Gasson, Special Assistant to the
Director, gave a presentation on the history of Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategies, commonly referred to as wildlife action plans. (Appendix 15). State fish and wildlife agencies have been
recovering and preserving species for years.
They have done a better job with species that are hunted and fished
because of the concept that the user pays.
In 2000 there was a big push to pass legislation in Congress that would
send money to states. In 2001 Wyoming
received $485,000. Since 2002 the state
has received approximately $600,000 for species of the greatest need. To receive the money the state needed to
produce a comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy or they would have to
return all the monies received since 2002.
The department needed the resources, but they also saw it as an
important opportunity to ensure that species do not get listed under the
endangered species act. This also gave
the department an opportunity to collaborate with many stakeholders in
developing wildlife action plans.
Chairman Childers asked who the partners were on the creation of the
wildlife plans. Mr. Gasson stated that Partners
provided data. Major stakeholders provided perspective. Both were invaluable,
and they appreciated all of them. Mr.
Gasson provided the following information after the meeting:
Partners:
These are agencies, organizations, groups and
individuals with data on SGCN or access to data on SGCN. They include:
• Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD);
• The Nature Conservancy (TNC);
• Bureau of Land Management (BLM);
• U.S. Forest Service (USFS);
• National Park Service (NPS);
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS);
• Biodiversity Conservation Alliance (BCA);
• Audubon Wyoming;
• Dr. Paul Bartelt – Waldorf College;
• Dr. Chuck Peterson – Idaho State
University;
• Dr. Debra Patla - Idaho State University;
• Dr. Brian Smith – Black Hills State
University;
• Don Tipton – Rocky Mountain Vivarium; and
• Dr. Alan Cvancara.
Major Stakeholders:
These are agencies, organizations, groups and
individuals who may not have significant data or access to data on SGCN, but
who have a direct and significant stake in the outcome of the strategy and who
were offered an opportunity to play a role in its development. They include:
• Wyoming Department of Agriculture;
• Petroleum Association of Wyoming;
• Wyoming Outdoor Council;
• Greater Yellowstone Coalition;
• Northern Arapaho Business Council;
• Shoshone Business Council;
• University of Wyoming – Institute for
Environment and Natural Resources;
• Wyoming Mining Association;
• Wyoming Wool Growers Association;
• Wyoming Association of Conservation
Districts;
• Wyoming Stock Growers Association; and
• Wyoming Farm Bureau.
There are eight
elements to a wildlife action plan.
Those include a look at the distribution and abundance of the animals,
location and condition of key habitats, what problems are there with the
habitats, what actions are necessary to conserve the habitat, what monitoring
will they do, what procedures are necessary to review the plan, coordination
with governmental agencies and effective public participation.
First, the
department needed to define what species were in need. They used a native species status matrix that
looks at population status and habitat conditions. The matrix placed the species into seven
categories. The first four categories
were in the final list of 279 species of greatest concern. They consist of 54 mammals, 60 birds, 26
reptiles, 40 fish and others. With each
species they gathered information and put together a species summary that
states everything they know about each species.
Second, they defined
key habitats. The problem is that no
agency defines habitats in the same way.
For terrestrial species they used eco-regions and ecological
systems. Wyoming has 7 eco-regions and
52 ecological regions. For aquatic
habitats they used aquatic regions and watersheds. There are 3 major aquatic regions and 432
watersheds. Watersheds are defined by
hydrologic unit codes (HUCs).
Senator Cooper asked
about the critical habitat definition.
Mr. Gasson stated that critical winter habitat is habitat that is deemed
necessary to sustain a population during the hardest times.
The department uses
computer programs to overlay the distribution of several species to see
interactions and interdependence on habitats.
That lets them know where the greatest need is for the greatest number
of animals. The tool can be used to
decide where to do a proactive habitat improvement or can be used reactively to
help find where the least impact will occur with development. It can also be used to find good places for
mitigation.
Chairman Childers
asked if the watershed mapping includes water discharges from coal bed
methane. Chairman Burns asked if those
discharges are creating habitat. When
the wells are finished the state may get into trouble because the habitat may
be being used by threatened species even though the habitat was created by the
discharges.
The biggest problem
they have for most of the species of concern was lack of data. This means that they don’t know what the real
problems are. The plans will be reviewed
annually and updated every five years.
Through the
coordination effort they found that there was information out there that they
weren’t even aware of. They found that
this is not just a government effort – private individuals were invaluable.
The plan is worth
more than the $600,000 in wildlife grants they receive because of it. It will help avoid the listing of species.
In response to a
question from Chairman Childers, Kathy Frank agreed to provide the committee
with information on the amount of money used to survey for sage grouse and
black tailed prairie dogs.
Sen. Massie asked if
BLM was going to use this plan to decide on well placing on federal lands. Mr. Gasson stated that he expects to see
increased coordination with the state. The
state has provided comments in many environmental impact statements. Chairman Burns noted that this information
would be valuable to the Natural Resources Trust Fund Board in deciding on
projects to fund.
Chairman Burns asked
about the distribution of federal funds.
Mr. Gasson stated that it is based on size and population of each
state. Chairman Burns pointed out that
it makes no sense not to base the distributions on species diversity.
The department looks
forward to removing species from the list of species of concern as they are able
to collect more data.
Bill Wichers gave a
presentation on Energy Development Impacts to Wildlife. (Appendix 16). The state geological survey and the oil and
gas commission provided much of the data in this presentation.
In the past, energy
development went through boom and bust cycles.
They don’t see a continued boom-bust cycle now because of the demand
from China and India. Unstable world politics
and dwindling supplies in Canada and Mexico will support a continued boom. Wyoming is one of those states with a net
output higher than import. Sen. Massie
asked how wind production fit in. It is
currently a very small percentage of the output.
Coal mining will see
an increase in the near future but is expected to level out. Gas production is expected to increase
dramatically. Couple this with the
increased need for housing and services to workers and there will be impacts to
wildlife habitats.
The areas where
development will occur are large. Sage
grouse use much of the development areas.
The presentation overlayed sage grouse leks, big game critical winter
range, watershed and calving areas with the development areas.
The presentation
focused on each of the development areas individually, showing the development
of wells in the area along with the location of species of greatest
concern.
With respect to the
Jonah Field, there is a coordination office that handles the mitigation of
displacement of wildlife in that area.
Game and fish has a position located in that office which is entirely
funded by industry. This is an
outstanding way of handling coordination of efforts. There is also a coal bed natural gas
coordinator in Pinedale which is funded by federal agencies. The department is also creating a coal bed
natural gas coordinator in northeast Wyoming that the department is funding
itself.
The Powder River
basin has the largest number of sage grouse leks and the largest number of
wells. They expect wells on every 40 to
80 acres. Water release is a major
concern in this area because it cannot be re-injected.
There is an
increasingly positive relationship with industry. Many companies work closely with the
department to minimize impacts and provide mitigation. The biggest problem is the time and money
necessary to maintain those coordinations.
A great deal of time and effort is needed to handle the development.
The department needs
to be proactive in dealing with the issues.
The efforts so far include working collaboratively with industry and BLM
on development plans. The department
is shifting personnel within the department to handle these issues. They are considering what other workloads
will need to be abandoned to handle the shift.
Chairman Childers
asked why the Big Horn basin wasn’t included.
They didn’t see it as an area of big expansion at this time.
Alternative Funding.
Bill Wichers
provided a presentation of potential alternatives to the funding problems. (Appendix 17).
The presentation
showed that for 2007 license fees will make up 57% of the department budget,
17% from federal aid, 17% from the general fund and 9% from other sources.
In deciding what
areas they need alternative funding for, they looked at whether the program is
specifically mentioned in Title 23, whether the program benefits more than just
hunters and anglers, if the program is mandated from other sources, if the
program is something they need to be doing but are not currently doing and
whether the program involves conservation of sensitive species.
They anticipate
coming to the legislature every four years for a license fee increase. Chairman Burns suggested bringing a bill like
that in a regular session.
Sen. Massie
mentioned that these presentations show that the department always tries to balance
their expenditures and revenues. They
need to let the committee know what their needs really are so they can figure
what the true funding needs are. Mr.
Wichers stated that the department has been conservatively spending. Sen. Massie wanted a detailed understanding
of the budget and asked that we have that presentation at a future
meeting. Chairman Childers mentioned
that is exactly what management council wants.
Chairman Burns noted that the departments budget is ahead of inflation
but they don’t know what the money is being spent on. That is the type of detail they want to see.
The program areas
they recommend for alternative sources of income are sensitive and non-game
species, energy development, conservation education and wildlife diseases. These programs need stable long term
funding.
There was discussion
on why the department chooses to involve themselves in something like black
footed ferret captive breeding. Mr.
Cleveland stated that times were different back then. They had more money and they had the
expertise. When they no longer had the
money they handed over the responsibility to the USFWS. They see similar issues with grizzly bears
and wolves.
Rep. Brown asked if
they go to a block grant system would the legislature be involved in those
decisions. Mr. Cleveland thinks they
already have involvement in the decisions because the department is accountable
to them.
Chairman Burns asked
what it is going to cost to manage wolves.
Worst case scenario – if they end up with trophy game status statewide,
they anticipate huge costs for conflict resolution. They also will pay for livestock losses. Best case – if they are predators elsewhere
there will still be considerable monitoring but a much smaller conflict
cost. Therefore $500,000 to $750,000 for
best case and $1.5 million for worst
case. It is a proven fact that every
pack that leaves the park comes into conflict with livestock. Once they are routinely shot at they will
learn to stay away from people. Rep.
Brown asked if the department can withstand the public demands with respect to
wolves.
For sensitive
species they spend approximately $1.5 million per year and see the need to
expand the programs by $2 million more.
For energy development they spend approximately $2 million now. They would like to expand that by another $2
million. They also would like to create
$400,000 worth of new programs to deal with the energy development coordination
positions. In conservation education
they currently spend $1 million and would like to expand and create new
programs totaling $400,000 per year. That would include creating a game and
fish television show. Current education
expenditures include BOW, OREO, publications, the hunting and fishing expo and
teacher training. Rep. Davison
suggested that they are afraid that if they expand programs with general funds
at this time then they may be obligated to continue those programs when the
state is not flush. Wildlife diseases
are currently funded at $2 million from general funds and they don’t see a need
to expand them. Finally, they spend $1
million on existing programs that could be funded from other sources – programs
like the state law enforcement radio network and cost allocation from other
state agencies. They don’t expect any expansion
in those areas.
In the program areas
they recommend for alternative sources of income, the total amount needed to
support existing, expanded and new programs comes to $12.3 million per
year. This does not include capital
construction that they would handle through the current process.
With respect to
accountability, they need to balance the need to report to the legislature with
the political neutrality of the commission.
There first option would be an independent new source of money such as
Powerball. A second option would be a
block grant from the legislature to the game and fish commission. They envision this similar to the funding of
the University of Wyoming. The
appropriation would set parameters but the decision on specifics of how the
money would be spent would be by the commission. They see that as a politically acceptable
balance between the accountability to the legislature and to the
commission.
Chairman Childers
stated that accountability is important.
Mr. Cleveland said they have the most comprehensive cost accounting
system in the state. They can track
every minute spent by the employees and what species or program they are
working on. Chairman Childers stated
that they just need to present that information to the legislature to make them
more confident.
Chairman Burns
suggested a third option – he suggested bifurcating the funding of the
department and have the non-income producing budget funded under the standard
general fund process. Mr. Wichers said
they are already starting to see that develop with the veterinary services
program going through the general fund process.
The committee took
public comment.
Lou Cicco, Sportsmen
for Fish and Wildlife, testified that he agrees that the department has come to
a time where it needs to be bifurcated.
Funding could come from an additional tax. License fees are high enough now to take care
of hunting issues as long as other issues are taken care of by general
funds. Studies show that 65% of the
people who come through Cody are there to see wildlife. They should share the burden.
Bruce Hinchey,
Petroleum Assn. of Wyoming, testified that they don’t think off-site mitigation
is necessary in all energy development instances.
Jason Marsden,
Wyoming Conservation Voters, testified that they support alternative
funding. They are working with the other
conservation groups to build support. The two big issues they see are program
adequacy to ensure species are not listed.
He also sees funding fairness as the big issue. Sportsmen have pride that they have carried
the burden of saving species but they are at a point where they want to share
that pride.
Ben Lamb, Wyoming
Wildlife Federation, testified that the conservation groups need to vocally
support this concept. Sportsmen have
been shouldering the load of species preservation and they are proud of
it. But it has become too much to bear.
Ken Hamilton, Farm
Bureau, addressed federal funding. He is
concerned that the conservation strategies were driven by the federal government. We need to be careful that when we take money
from the federal government we don’t get tied with too many strings. He doesn’t think the habitat quality portion
of the conservation strategy was too driven by the feds.
Dallas Scholes, with
Kennecott Energy Company representing
the Mining Association, testified that the mining industry has worked very well
with game and fish in the last few years.
He stated that industry has had a major role in funding and coordinating
the studies and mitigations that were discussed. Some of these mitigations make the habitat
even better than it was before.
Drew Baramore, Drew
Consulting, testified that Jonah Field is not entirely how development is going
to occur throughout the state. It is
more highly developed than other areas of the state. The endangered species act is creating too
many unfunded federal mandates on the state.
She would like the legislature demand more funds from the federal
government and demand that there be less strings attached.
Chairman Burns moved
that the LSO write a bill that requires complimentary or reduced price licenses
in the future to include a requirement that they come with a general fund
appropriation.
Sen. Massie
suggested that if they decide on a bifurcated budget he wants to build in the
ability to move money between the budgets.
He also argued that he worked on the Wyoming Toad task force and he
doesn’t think it was a fiasco.
The committee will
take up whether to draft legislation for general funding of the game and fish
department after it hears more detail about the department's expenditures.
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