Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cultural Heritage Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate advances bill to criminalize defacing petroglyphs on state land, funds surveys and 3-D modeling
Summary
The Wyoming Senate advanced Senate File 91 to create a misdemeanor for damaging petroglyphs, pictographs and historic inscriptions on state land, authorize a roughly $441,340 appropriation for surveys and 3-D modeling and add restrictions and procedures for site documentation after debate over private‑land access and penalties.
The Wyoming Senate on Jan. 29 advanced Senate File 91, a bill that would make injury to petroglyphs, pictographs and historic inscriptions on state land a misdemeanor and provide money for surveying and three‑dimensional documentation.
Senator Landon, chairman of the committee that returned the bill, told senators the measure "is creating a misdemeanor offense for injury to petroglyphs, pictographs and historic inscriptions, providing some penalties and, allowing for a survey of these pictographs on state lands." He said the standing committee recommended the bill with an amendment that adjusted penalties and other details.
The bill as discussed creates a misdemeanor with potential jail time and forfeiture of artifacts and funds $441,340 to the Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources for surveying, documentation, payment for archaeologists and three‑dimensional modeling. "With this money, they'll be surveying, documenting, and creating three‑dimensional modeling," Landon said.
Senator Casey, who served on the tribal relations committee that drafted the original bill, urged colleagues to reject a committee amendment and stressed the cultural and communicative value of rock images: "It's communications by people that have way predated the state of Wyoming," Casey said, adding that many of the images are storytelling and ancestral records.
Other senators questioned specific provisions of the committee amendment. Senator Bonner and others said the amendment was intended to protect private property and the leases that grant the state access to isolated state parcels. The amendment added language requiring landowner permission for access across private property to reach certain state parcels and limited third‑party contractors' access in those circumstances.
Senator Bonner explained the concerns heard in committee: "When an archeologist goes out and documents these artifacts, there's nothing guaranteeing ... they're going to document more than just the pictographs ... They'll document everything they see. Anything that's more than 50 years old, that's their job." That prospect raised objections from some ranchers and energy‑industry representatives who voiced concern about regulatory impacts when surveys identify sites near private operations.
Senator Jones, who spoke in support of the appropriation, described the planned fieldwork: "There are 120 sites identified that they want to start with at this time. On average, 3 days of work at each site with travel for a senior archeologist and a technician ... and then an additional employee will be doing the creation of the three‑dimensional model." Jones said the 3‑D models would allow people who cannot visit remote areas to view the sites.
Senators divided on a Committee of the Whole amendment that tightened access rules and on a subsequent division regarding whether third parties should require landowner permission to cross private property to reach state parcels. Division votes were recorded on the floor. One roll call on a portion of the amendment was announced as "16 aye, 14 no." Later votes led to adoption of Committee of the Whole amendment 1 and passage of the bill from the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.
Supporters said the bill balances preservation of tribal and historical artifacts on state land with private‑property concerns by requiring coordination and limiting surveys to documented state parcels and authorized purposes. Critics warned the bill could shift regulatory burdens onto landowners and potentially slow legitimate economic activities if not carefully implemented.
Senate File 91 will return to the Senate for additional consideration and potential further amendments as it moves through the legislative process.
Ending: The measure does not change protections for sites on private land; proponents repeatedly said the statute applies only to state land. Lawmakers also left open the possibility of further adjustments on second reading to clarify coordination procedures with owners and lessees.
