Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Depredation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate advances depredation bills, removes $2,000 ceiling and ties payments to hunting access
Summary
Senators passed substitute language advancing two linked bills to compensate private rangeland owners for big-game damage, removing a $2,000 payment ceiling and adding fences and irrigation equipment as compensable losses. Debate focused on how payment prorating, a 72‑hour damage-notice rule and requirements to permit 'reasonable hunting' would be applied.
Senators advanced substitute legislation intended to speed payments to private landowners whose forage, fences or irrigation equipment are damaged by elk and deer, while creating tools intended to encourage cooperative wildlife management.
Sponsor floor remarks said the package removes the existing $2,000 ceiling on damage payments, allows claims that exceed appropriations to be prorated at fiscal‑year end, and explicitly includes fences and irrigation equipment as compensable losses. The sponsor said the change responds to increasing big‑game populations and localized depredation incidents that, in some places, have left producers without usable forage.
Opponents warned the removal of a ceiling could expose the state to significantly higher fiscal obligations. "I get a little alarmed when we keep upping the ante of how much we're going to pay in restitution for damage," Senator Black said on the floor, arguing that development and changes in land use are contributing factors. A supporter responded that current problems stem from elk transplants and population growth and that the bills are meant to foster cooperative, pre‑emptive measures with the Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR).
A recurring point of contention was language that conditions participation or conservation leases on a claimant allowing "reasonable hunting" or access to reach public lands. Critics, including Senator Richards, said the language risked denying property owners their rights and could be ambiguous in application; backers said the provision was carefully negotiated on a task force and intended to prevent a landowner from receiving state support while wholly excluding hunting that would otherwise be used to manage herd size.
The bills also include procedural elements intended to curb fraudulent or late claims: claimants must notify the DWR within 72 hours of damage to irrigation equipment or fences so evidence is preserved; sponsors said that requirement will reduce frivolous claims and help the division verify losses. Supporters noted prior experience with crop‑damage rules and said field staffing (not administrative staff) would handle the quicker response standard.
Several technical amendments were adopted on the floor to clarify the statute (for example, inserting the phrase "for each parcel" in a line of the tax‑sale provision contained in the broader substitute language). After extended debate and a failed amendment to strike the hunting‑access qualification, the Senate moved the bills forward to third reading.
What's next: The substitute bills were placed on the third‑reading calendar for further action; sponsors said they would continue refining fiscal and implementation details with DWR and stakeholders.
