Interim committee probes stronger remedies for repeat livestock trespass; bison, subdivision fencing complicate options

Senator Dawn Pearson told the committee she asked for the interim topic after persistent local complaints about repeat livestock trespass and costly fence damage. LSO staff attorney Savannah Collins presented a white paper explaining Wyoming’s statutory approach: the state defines several types of “lawful fences” and treats cattle as a "fence‑out" species under longstanding common‑law practice; owners of livestock that breach a lawful enclosure are liable for damages and the injured landowner may keep offending animals in custody to recover losses.

Jim McGagna, representing producers, told the committee the current statutory toolbox provides civil remedies but few criminal deterrents. "The only criminal penalty is if you build an illegal fence," he said, and noted the old misdemeanor penalty (historically $5–$25) is tiny relative to modern damage claims. McGagna and other livestock stakeholders warned that any update must preserve the practical benefits producers rely on today while providing more effective remedies for landowners repeatedly forced to repair fences.

The presence of bison and tribal herds added complexity. Steve True of the Wyoming Livestock Board explained a joint Game & Fish / Livestock Board rule (chapter 41) designates the two herds that are treated as truly wild in‑state; other bison are managed as domestic animals when they stray onto state or private land and the board follows a formal process to identify ownership and return animals to tribal managers.

Planners and local officials urged caution where subdivision regulations already require perimeter fences in some contexts; Joy Hill of the Wyoming Planners Association said a 2023 shift of a subdivision fencing requirement into title 18 left county planners responsible for implementing unclear language ("livestock" and "adjacent" were not consistently defined). Planners offered three remedies: repeal the subdivision fencing mandate, delegate discretion to county commissioners, or refine statutory definitions.

Senator Pearson proposed a targeted remedy: a "three‑strike" approach that would make a repeat failure to remove trespassing livestock a misdemeanor (financial penalty or jail, per committee discussion) after documented notice attempts. Committee members raised practical questions — how to define legal notice (written or verbal), what reasonable time window (24–48 hours) to require removal, and how to deal with federal grazing permits and municipal boundaries.

After discussion the committee asked LSO to research options limited to repeat‑trespass enforcement and notice/penalty frameworks. Members asked staff to clarify enforcement authority (sheriff, Livestock Board), whether current astray and impound statutes could be used, and how federal grazing lessees or municipal annexation changes responsibilities for perimeter fences. The committee did not draft a bill at this meeting.