Senate committee advances three wildlife-related requests to print, including winter-feeding committee change and depredation appeals board

The Senate Resources Committee on Oct. 24 advanced three related legislative requests from the Idaho Farm Bureau to print, moving them one step closer to formal drafting and potential introduction.

The three requests address: RS31883, which would require at least one agricultural producer on Fish and Game winter-feeding advisory committees and require members to reside in the district the committee serves; RS31921, which would create a state Depredating Wildlife Appeals Board to review Wildlife Services’ determinations of cause of livestock deaths; and RS31922, which would place required hunter and trapper education content into code, add trespass instruction, and allow novice trappers to operate under the supervision of a licensed outfitter or guide without first completing the trapper education course.

Why it matters: committee members and the Farm Bureau framed the measures as intended to bring more agricultural experience and a state-level review option into wildlife-feeding and depredation processes, and to clarify training requirements as online education and in-field training become more common for hunters and trappers.

Discussion and key points

RS31883 (winter-feeding advisory committees) Dexton Lake, representing the Idaho Farm Bureau Federation, told the committee the proposal responds to producer concerns in the Bear Lake area where elk depredation led to questions about the membership and local representation of district feeding committees. “What is before you today are 3 RS's that have not only been important to our members but to what we feel like is the general ag community of Idaho,” Lake said when introducing the three requests.

Under the request, at least one committee member would need to be an agricultural producer and committee members would be required to live in the district the committee serves. Lake said Fish and Game’s existing rule language describes a “cross section of landowners and sportsmen” but does not require an agricultural producer. He told the committee Fish and Game “were excited at the prospect of having organizations like Farm Bureau and the Cattle Association and other ag organizations contribute.”

Senators pressed for detail. “How many winter feeding advisory committees are there?” Senator O’Connor asked; Lake answered that Fish and Game has about five districts and “I believe at least 4 of them have these feeding committees.” Senator Guthrie asked what the bill means by an “ag producer” and why only that role would be specified; Lake said Farm Bureau and other ag organizations would propose candidates and that the request does not narrowly define the term.

RS31921 (Depredating Wildlife Appeals Board) Lake described the second request as a way to give Idaho a state-level review for determinations now made by USDA Wildlife Services. Under current practice, Wildlife Services is the authorized investigator and makes determinations that Fish and Game and the Office of Species Conservation (OSC) use for control decisions and reimbursement eligibility. Lake said the appeals board would review the evidence submitted by a producer and could alter a Wildlife Services ruling; producers would then take the board’s ruling to OSC for any state or federal payout.

Lake explained Wildlife Services uses a four-tier grading system—“confirmed,” “probable,” “possible,” and “unknown”—and that some reimbursements are available only for confirmed or probable findings. He said the appeals board would not replace Wildlife Services’ rapid initial response but would provide “a second set of eyes” where a producer believes relevant evidence (trail-camera footage, paw prints, eyewitness accounts, telemetry) was not considered. “This is part of the reason is to create kind of a shared responsibility between the two,” Lake said.

Committee members asked how the board would investigate when the initial investigator already viewed the carcass. Senator Taylor pressed on equity if an appeal relies mainly on producer-submitted photos rather than a second field visit; Lake replied the board could rely on the initial investigator’s report and request follow-up from that investigator, but the process primarily depends on documentation the producer supplies. On cost, Lake said the sponsors do not anticipate new full-time positions and that OSC typically waits until the end of the calendar year to pay claims; he said appeals could be reviewed “once or twice a year” depending on caseload and evidence quality.

RS31922 (hunter and trapper education and supervised trapping) The final Farm Bureau request would bring hunter and trapper education requirements into statute/code, explicitly add instruction on trespass and protection of property (the transcript notes the language: “good conduct and respect for the rights and properties of others including laws prohibiting trespass and tampering with real and personal property”), and allow individuals to trap under the supervision of a certified, licensed outfitter or guide without first having completed the trapper education course (they must still hold a hunting license). Lake said this change responds to trapping organizations and Fish and Game seeking more in-field, supervised experience in addition to classroom instruction.

Votes at a glance RS31883 — Motion: send RS31883 to print; mover not specified in the record; second: Senator Harris. Outcome: approved by voice vote; no opposition recorded. RS31921 — Motion: send RS31921 to print; mover and second not specified in the record. Outcome: approved by voice vote; no opposition recorded. RS31922 — Motion: move RS31922 be sent to print; mover: Senator Guthrie; second: Senator O’Connor. Outcome: approved by voice vote; no opposition recorded.

What the committee did not decide All three items were advanced to print (a drafting step) but the committee did not take final votes on any underlying statutes or appropriations today. The appeals-board proposal leaves the investigatory burden primarily on producers and does not include a specified fiscal appropriation for board staff; sponsors said they do not expect a major new cost but provided no fiscal estimate for appeal caseloads beyond that current processes of evidence submission and OSC payment timing reduce immediate pressure on agency resources.

Where it goes next Each RS was sent to print for bill drafting. If printed as bills, the measures would return to the committee for formal hearings and potential votes on specific statutory language and any fiscal notes tied to state responsibilities.

Ending Dexton Lake noted Senator Harris agreed to sponsor the Farm Bureau requests on the floor; committee members asked clarifying questions but recorded no opposition. The committee moved promptly through the three requests and then proceeded to gubernatorial appointment introductions later in the hearing.