Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rock Art Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves rock-art protection bill with clarifying amendments, members raise property-access and funding questions
Summary
The committee considered Senate File 91 to criminalize damage to petroglyphs and pictographs on state land and to fund surveys and documentation. Members asked for clearer language protecting private-property rights and for appropriation details. The committee adopted clarifying language and recorded a roll-call (3 ayes, 2 nos).
The Travel, Recreation, Wildlife & Cultural Resources Committee reviewed Senate File 91, which would create penalties for injury to rock art on state lands and fund surveys and recordation of petroglyphs and pictographs.
Sarah Sheen, deputy director for State Parks Cultural Resources, summarized the bill's intent: "there are currently no laws in Wyoming that really protect rock art on state land," and the proposal would add penalties for offenses and provide state funding to survey and document rock art on school and institutional lands. She introduced Spencer Pelton, state archaeologist, and Brian Beadles, deputy state historic preservation officer, to answer technical questions.
Pelton said rock art "is one of Wyoming's more phenomenal examples of cultural history" and described documented vandalism, including gun damage and inscriptions. "Once these things are damaged like that, there's really no going back," he said, urging some deterrent against willful destruction.
Committee members pressed staff on implementation, private-property access and tribal coordination. Jason Crowder, interim director for the Office of State Lands and Investments, said many parcels have grazing leases that include administrative-access provisions for the state and that his office expects to use notification processes (chapter 16 of agency rules) when surveyors access leased parcels. He noted existing lease stipulations can require lessees to protect artifacts and work with State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) when development occurs in areas of concern.
Senators raised several concerns: whether the appropriation in the bill creates an unfunded mandate, how surveys will be conducted (in-house vs. contracted help), whether recording could trigger additional regulatory processes for private development, and whether arbor glyphs (tree carvings) should also be documented. Pelton and Sheen said the intent is to document known, previously recorded sites on state lands and to subcontract fieldwork when necessary; they agreed arbor glyphs could be considered but would change cost estimates.
The committee worked on clarifying amendments. Members agreed to add language explicitly stating the act does not convey a right of trespass across private lands and to clarify budgeting mechanics so agencies can show whether work would be done internally or via contract. Committee legal staff provided drafting language for those clarifications.
A motion to move Senate File 91 proceeded to a roll-call vote. The transcript records the committee vote as three ayes and two nos; the clerk announced "3 ayes, 2 nos." Several members signaled they intended to work on further amendments addressing private-property access and criminal-intent language before floor consideration.
The committee's testimony included support from the Greater Yellowstone Coalition and a Fremont County resident who said documenting and preserving rock art has educational and cultural value. SHPO staff emphasized the survey would establish a baseline of condition for known sites; they estimated about 120 documented sites on state lands but said the level of prior documentation varies.
The committee discussed costs and internal capacity. Sheen said the agency aims to use its survey section for most work and would contract some field work; that choice affects whether funding is a 100-series (internal staff) or 900-series (contracted services) budget item for appropriations review.
No changes to criminal penalties were adopted on the record; members signaled they may propose edits (for example, adding a knowingly standard) in later drafting rounds.
Votes at a glance
- Motion to move Senate File 91 (petroglyph/pictograph protection) — roll-call: 3 ayes, 2 nos (as recorded in transcript).
Next steps noted by committee members included drafting statutory language to protect private-property access and clearer appropriation placement in budgeting documents before the bill proceeds to appropriations.
