Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill allowing limited taking of wildlife that injures livestock after extended debate on safeguards
Summary
The committee approved JFS for SB 146, which would permit taking wildlife that injures or kills livestock or apiaries. Lawmakers debated requirements for non-lethal aversion, the ability to identify offending animals, and whether notarization should be required for lethal-permit applicants.
The Environment Committee voted March 4 to advance SB 146 (substitute LCO 25279), a bill that would allow landowners to take wildlife that injures or kills livestock or apiaries, following an extended and often heated debate over safeguards and scope.
Representative Anderson argued the bill is a 'balanced approach' to help farmers who face repeated losses from bears and other wildlife, emphasizing the costs farmers incur and describing the measure as a last-resort tool for protecting livestock. Several members who supported the bill said protections for animals and public safety drove the proposal; supporters noted pieces of removed trophy or display language and said the authority would be constrained.
Opponents including Representative Demo raised multiple concerns: substitute language removes 'crops' from a requirement to try non-lethal measures first; the bill’s provision allowing taking based on damage to crops during the 'preceding growing season' could allow lethal action months after alleged damage with no reliable method to identify the specific animal responsible; and the substitute does not require notarization for applicants seeking permits to take wildlife. Representative Demo warned these elements could amount to a de facto hunt rather than targeted protection.
Representative Mushinski and others urged non-lethal aversion techniques, citing dogs and cultural practices that can reduce conflict; Rep. Mushinski said that without aversion requirements the bill risks recurring lethal removal. Representative Readington Hughes and others countered that the bill is intended to allow farmers to defend livestock and that harvested animals would not be treated as trophies.
After debate, the committee conducted a roll-call vote and the clerk announced the substitute as 'JFS to the floor.' Members recorded their final positions on the record.
