Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves upland game habitat stamp after debate on land purchases and predator control
Summary
The Utah House on a floor vote passed Senate Bill 63 to create an upland game habitat stamp to fund habitat restoration and education. Lawmakers debated whether funds should fund predator control, buy winter habitat or be limited to education; amendments were adopted before passage 43–23.
The Utah House of Representatives voted to pass Senate Bill 63, creating an upland game habitat stamp intended to raise dedicated funds for habitat restoration and public outreach after presenters said pheasant populations had fallen substantially.
Representative Wattles, sponsor in the House floor presentation, said the bill would “raise funds, which will be dedicated to reestablishing some of the habitat lost over the past 2 decades and to educate both the public and agricultural communities about the habitat practices which can bring back Utah’s most popular game bird.” He cited testimony that “pheasant populations in Utah have been declining by 65% in the last 10 years.”
The bill drew substantial floor questions about how the money would be used. Representative Olsen asked whether landowners would be asked to change farming practices along fence lines and whether the program would purchase farmland; the sponsor replied the program would primarily support education, landowner incentive programs and, in some cases, acquisition of winter habitat in river bottoms rather than productive farmland. Representative Watts said the bill limits administrative costs to 5% to avoid “building another bureaucracy.”
Members also debated and adopted two amendments. Representative Anderson moved a pink‑sheet amendment to exempt lifetime license holders from an annual stamp fee, arguing lifetime-license holders had paid up front and should not be required to buy a $2 annual stamp. Representative Johnson offered an amendment to add an explicit authorization for “control of predators” as an allowed use; proponents said predator control is a key factor in local pheasant declines, while opponents argued predator control should be funded from the state general fund, not the user fee targeted to habitat programs.
On final passage the House recorded 43 affirmative votes and 23 negative votes; the bill will return to the Senate for further consideration where needed because it was amended in the House. The bill’s sponsors said next steps include coordination with the Division of Wildlife Resources and county landowners to refine implementation details.
