Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Livestock Depredation Payments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee introduces measure to expand livestock depredation payment categories
Summary
The Resources and Conservation Committee voted to introduce RS32058, a proposal from Representative Gerald Raymond to change wording in existing livestock depredation payment law and add a third payment category, “possible,” to the current confirmed and probable categories.
The Resources and Conservation Committee on Wednesday voted to introduce RS32058, a resolution from Representative Gerald Raymond that would change a key term in current law and add a third payment category for livestock losses attributed to wolves or grizzly bears.
Representative Gerald Raymond, whose District 31 includes Clark, Fremont, Jefferson and Lehi counties, told the committee the change would replace the word “validate” with “confirm” in existing language and create a new “possible” category for depredation payments. "Validate simply means that the investigation of a livestock loss has been investigated, investigation is complete, and if we change that word to confirm, it's the outcome of that investigation," Raymond said.
Raymond said the change is intended to align the statute’s wording with other code language and investigative practice. Under current law, he said, two payment avenues exist: confirmed losses, where investigators determine an animal was killed by a wolf or grizzly, and probable losses, which are paid when a preponderance of evidence indicates such a predator was responsible. RS32058 would add a third tier, “possible,” for situations where an animal is found dead with some signs of predator activity but insufficient evidence to reach a probable determination.
Raymond described depredations in his district last summer, saying ranchers suffered "a tremendous loss," mostly from grizzly activity. He provided rough claims figures: about $40,000 in claims classified as confirmed, about $7,000 for probables, and a hypothetical $30,000 for possibles if that category had existed. He said payments under all categories would be prorated to available revenue.
Representative Dan Pickett moved to introduce RS32058. Representative Collin Miller asked whether the bill text defines “possible”; Raymond said he did not see that definition in the draft language and offered to review and report back if the committee schedules a full hearing.
The committee adopted the motion by voice vote; the chair responded “aye” and the item was introduced for further consideration in a formal hearing.
A full hearing was not scheduled during the meeting; representatives said staff would provide the bill language and any required definitions at a later date.
