Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House approves tougher fines, restitution for trophy poaching; cougar penalty reduced from felony to misdemeanor
Summary
The Utah House passed a first-substitute to HB70 updating definitions and penalties for trophy poaching, setting restitution figures (including $8,000 for trophy deer and elk) and reclassifying some penalties; the substitute passed the House by a recorded vote (reported 55–10).
The Utah House on Feb. 15 approved a first substitute to House Bill 70 that revises fines and restitution for illegal taking of so-called trophy wildlife and establishes clearer definitions for ‘‘trophy’’ animals.
Sponsor Representative Michael Steiler, presenting the substitute, said the legislation sets market-based restitution values for animals taken illegally. "That's why we came up with an $8,000 figure for for a trophy elk," Steiler said, noting similar restitution levels set for trophy deer and other species.
The measure defines several species and trophy thresholds and raises penalties in some categories. Steiler and other sponsors said the changes target professional poachers who take animals for out‑of‑state sale. "This will make them have some reason not to do that," the sponsor said in urging passage.
Debate focused on cougars, whose classification and penalty level were contentious. Members noted that earlier drafts treated some cougar takings as felonies; the first substitute defines trophy animals and places cougars outside the trophy classification, which reduces the maximum penalty for many cougar takings to a class A misdemeanor with a $500 fine under the substituted language. Members questioned whether that change would conflict with other legislation or create unintended gaps in protection. Sponsors said the bill does not change a cougar’s status as a trophy animal but adjusts penalty categories and restores some committee changes that had reduced certain fines before the substitute was offered.
Representative supporters described the bill as an effort to deter commercial poaching and to align restitution amounts with market values and permit pricing. Opponents pressed for stronger penalties for specific species and argued for judicial latitude to consider mitigating circumstances.
After extended debate and consideration of amendments, the House adopted the substitute and passed the measure by voice and recorded vote, reported in the chamber as 55 yes and 10 no. The bill now goes to the Senate for further consideration.
