Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel approves rewrite of big-game rules after dispute over wolf-related restrictions
Summary
The Senate Resources & Environment Committee adopted a substitute motion to approve Docket No. 13-0108-2401, a chapter rewrite of rules governing the taking of big game animals, after debate about whether restrictions in Section 410 conflicted with constitutional and statutory protections and whether technology limits should be imposed for wolf control.
The Senate Resources & Environment Committee adopted a substitute motion to approve Docket No. 13-0108-2401, a chapter rewrite of rules governing the taking of big-game animals, after a March 16 roll-call vote that carried 6–3.
Senator John Okuniewicz moved to approve the docket with the exception of Section 410, Subsections 04(g) and (h), arguing those subsections conflicted with state and federal protections. "Section 410, Subsections 04(g) and (h) were in potential conflict with Article 1, Section 23 of the Idaho Constitution, which preserved to the people broad protections to hunt, fish, and trap," Okuniewicz said, and he cited Idaho Code § 36-201(2): "any method utilized for the take of any wild canine in Idaho shall be available for the taking of wolves." He also raised an Equal Protection concern under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Senator Curt Guthrie opposed the initial motion and said he would not support removing the challenged language wholesale. Guthrie said he supported the ability to control the wolf population "while also putting some constraints on the technology addressed in this docket," and therefore did not back Okuniewicz's exception. Senator Taylor then offered a substitute motion to approve the docket, which Senator Guthrie seconded. A roll-call recorded ayes from Vice Chairman Hart and Senators Guthrie, Harris, Cook, Kohl and Taylor; Chairman Burtenshaw and Senators Okuniewicz and VanOrden voted nay. The substitute motion carried.
The committee record lists the action as approval of the ZBR chapter rewrite under the substitute motion; committee members who spoke expressed differing views on balancing wolf-control authorities with technology restrictions. The committee did not take additional testimony at the meeting and moved on to other agenda items.
