UPDATES on wolf bills  email me for comments email

 

Update March 5, 2003:  Senate File 97, Wyoming's Wildlife  is now called Senate Enrolled Act No. 46 and has been signed by Governor Dave Freudenthal.  You can see it by going to http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2003/billsInfo.htm and scrolling down to Enrolled Acts and clicking on Senate Files.  Then scroll down to SF0097 Sub 1 and click on Enrolled Act.  This will challenge fed jurisdiction.
House Bill 229 has been signed by the Governor and is now called House Enrolled Act # 78.  Find it same as above, only click on House bills.  This will attempt to delist the wolf.
House Bill 300 passed final reading in the Senate and will be signed soon by Gov Dave. (That's what the title is on his door, so I don't think he will mind us calling him that.)  This will help with litigation to seek redress for Wyoming's citizens who have been negatively impacted by the feds.  If any of you fall into that category, contact Attorney General Pat Crank.
This completes our three-pronged approach to getting control of our wolves.  We now must research all court cases that support our contention that the states own the wildlife, not the feds.  This info needs to be fed to Attorney General Pat Crank of Wyoming.
Thanks for all your help and support.
Jonesy

 

 

Update March 1, 2003

Big thanks to all those who have supported us in our efforts in Cheyenne to get control over all wildlife inhabiting Wyoming so we can live our lives without federal interference.

I was writing a chronology for someone, then decided to put it here for all of you.   It was short, but then I decided to elaborate.

 

I have been involved in lobbying before, but this is the first time I have been with a bill from start to finish;

1.  I conceived of the idea on Oct 28 in a Game & Fish Commission meeting in Jackson.  They were trying to decide whether the wolf management plan should keep the dual status of trophy and predator.  I wrote an outline on a piece of paper and then said publicly "what we need is a legislature and governor who will have the courage to declare our jurisdiction over wildlife" then I made the points which, for the more part, are in the final bill, Senate File 97.

2.  I came home and spent several days writing the original

3.  I then took it to Senator Roberts who liked the concept and said he would be glad to introduce it, although we were tight on time to get it in.  He expressed doubt about being able to get it through the legislature, mainly because of public opinion regarding federal jurisdiction.

4. Senator Roberts took it to LSO (Legislative Services) who wrote it as a Joint Resolution and as a Bill.  It was pretty watered down, saying words to the effect of "suggest" and "encourage" the feds to do this or that.  Senator Roberts and I were not happy with it.

5.  Jim Allen and I went to LSO and convinced them to put some of the stronger language back in it.  Senator Roberts followed up and helped with this. 

6.  Senate Joint Resolution 7 was introduced in Travel-Recreation committee and died on a tie 2-2 vote.  One member of the committee didn't vote.  The resolution language (demand, require) was too strong against the federal government.

7.  The Bill was introduced as Senate File 97.  It was assigned to the Senate Travel-Recreation committee (Senator Roberts' committee).   One lobbyist looked at the bill and said, "It is not a matter of IF it will pass, it is a matter of WHEN it will fail."

8.   In consultation with some members of the committee it was about to die.  We had to amend it to a great extent, basically watering it down to the LSO milk-toast version in order to get it through committee.  It passed 4-1 after the watered down amendments. 

9.  At about this time it started getting some really bad press, one Representative from northwest Wyoming calling it "wacky, absolutely wacky".  Of course the Casper Star-Tribune had a field day, ridiculing the idea that we could challenge the feds "supremacy".  [NOTE:  The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution does NOT say the federal government is supreme to the states, as most people believe.  It DOES say that the Constitution is Supreme to all other law.]

10.  A public hearing was held on all wolf issues, and it was a joint committee meeting/hearing.  For 3 ½ hours the legislators heard testimony of 46 people who had been severely impacted by the wolf. One legislator remarked that if the whole legislative body could have heard that testimony they would all be incensed at the negative impact the wolf is making in Wyoming. Over 100 people attended and only a handful were in favor of wolves.  I was interviewed on TV (Channel 5, Cheyenne) and spoke strongly regarding our ownership of wildlife and I quoted some Supreme Court decisions which support State’s rights.  This public meeting gave great emphasis to what we were trying to do.

11.   SF97 went to the floor of the Senate where the committee's water-down amendments were taken out and the original strong language was restored, thanks to Senators Hank Coe, Jim Anderson, and others.  Those amendments were the only way we could get it through the committee, so we thought the whole bill would go down. (another death-threat to the bill)  Instead, it greatly helped it, passing 23-6.  It was then scheduled for the House Travel-Recreation Committee.

12.  Some of us went to the Governor to talk about the wolf problem and the bills.  He indicated (without saying directly) that he would veto SF97 as it was in conflict with HB229.  At that point SF97 told the feds to get their wolves out of Wyoming whereas HB229 said we will manage for 7 packs in Wyoming.

13.  The basic language of SF97 was then rewritten by others to direct the Attorney General to prepare litigation and it was planned on being added as a very large amendment to HB300.  After doing so, SF97 would die, be killed, suffer an ignominious death, etc.  We figured our effort was all over, and all we could do at that point was to support HB300 and our basic idea.

14.  The House committee met on HB229.  I spoke neutral, not trying to kill or pass the bill, but pointed out that the feds had a history of being duplicitous in dealing with the states regarding the Endangered Species Act. (I called them liars, to my regret.  They may be dishonest, deceptive, misrepresent the facts, and evasive, but I shouldn't resort to such strong words.)  It was my feeling that they will NEVER delist the wolf and that entering into a contract to preserve a "viable population" of wolves was a mistake and would put some outfitters out of business and cause a big drop in our hunting opportunities.  I was not in favor of HB229, but did not want to be opposed to them trying to delist the wolf.

15.  Immediately after that committee meeting Jody Levin, the Endangered Species Coordinator for the Governor, and Mike O'Donnell, the Governor's personal attorney, came up to us and said they had rewritten SF97, and wanted our approval.  They said that with this revision the three bills, HB229, HB300, and SF97 would work as one to try and alleviate the wolf problem.  We looked at it, asked if the Governor would sign it, and they said yes.  This was the light at the end of a dark tunnel.  The final version, which they proposed to us, directs the Attorney General to prepare a plan for litigation regarding the points of SF97 such as exclusive jurisdiction over wildlife, removing wolves from Wyoming, etc.  It took the amendment off from HB300.  We were glad to endorse this re-write, as the other was doomed anyway and we knew all along that SF97 would go to court.  This simply directed the AG to prepare and pursue the litigation.  There is an advantage to being the plaintiff instead of the defendant.

16.  Having this plan in place, SF97 passed the House Travel-Rec Committee 9-0, and eventually sailed through the House with virtually no opposition.  Final passage was 54-6.  It was actually pretty amazing that coming from being ridiculed and scorned, at the end SF97 was the favorite of the three bills by almost all factions.  One Senator told me “I might vote against this bill (HB229)  because it gives away the farm, but what we really need to do is to pass SF97 and enforce it.”

17.  Meanwhile, HB229 now had our support as one of the three prongs dealing with the wolf.  I decided to stay home for a few days to pay attention to my business and listen to the legislature live on the internet.  We had a proposed amendment to put a sunset or deadline clause on HB229 to tell the feds they had to delist by a certain date.  I was listening to the debate and our amendment was not introduced.  However, another amendment was introduced by Rep. Frank Philp and defeated which would have helped mitigate impacts of the wolf, when and if delisted.  I called our other lobbyists (Angie Denny and Bud Betts) in Cheyenne and they said they couldn’t get a legislator to introduce our deadline amendment.  I asked why the other amendment was defeated and they didn’t know.  So I immediately told my wife to pack up, we were headed for Cheyenne within the hour to twist arms.  456 miles later we finally dropped into bed at midnight in a Cheyenne motel. The next morning, after some serious arm-twisting, I had to agree that we could not get anyone in the House to introduce a deadline amendment.  “We can’t tell the feds what to do” and “it might jeopardize the bill” were the reasons.   So we went to work on the Philp amendment.  We brought some key legislators out from the Floor and explained exactly how the amendment would work (they had misunderstood it).  So they had the bill delayed until later to rework the amendment, and then they introduced it and passed it.  The amendment says that we only have to manage for 15 packs of wolves (5 wolves per pack) in Wyoming or 7 outside the Parks.  That meant that if there were 13 packs in Yellowstone we only had to have 2, and if there were only 2 in Yellowstone we still only had to have 7 outside the parks.  We intentionally worded it in such as way that it could be overlooked as to its impact (important, for later).  HB229 then passed the House.

18.  In the midst of all this wolf stuff, House Bills 73, 34, and 36 were almost forgotten by us.  We had a rude awakening when HB73 died 14-16 on first reading in the Senate.  This was the Preference Points bill for non-resident elk, deer, and antelope which would be a fairness thing.  Currently some hunters go for years without drawing a permit while others are lucky and draw every year.  HB73 would have corrected that.  This bill had passed two committees 13-1, had passed the House 52-6, so we didn’t worry about it in the Senate.  A couple of Senators opened the discussion with very negative comments, misunderstanding the bill, and it went down.  I tried mightily to get a Representative to resurrect it with a Motion To Reconsider, but I was informed you can’t do that on a General File (first reading) bill.  Then I tried getting it attached as an amendment on one of the other bills, but was unsuccessful.  “It might jeopardize that bill”.  So we gave up and will try next year.  I learned from that and worked hard on HB34 and HB36.  HB34 passed easily (it should have been more controversial than HB73) and HB36 is on track to pass.

19.  SF97 had absolutely no trouble at all in the House, was on a “greased track” in all three readings, passing the final vote 54-6.  Not bad for a bill that “didn’t have a snowball’s chance in Arizona”, was “wacky, absolutely wacky”, and “not if it will pass but when it will fail”.  You can read the final version of the bill at http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2003/SFIndex.htm  and scroll down to SF0097  Wyoming’s Wildlife Sub#1 and click on Enrolled.

20.  HB229 had more trouble.  Bryce Reece, Woolgrowers, wrote an amendment to insure the “health and viability of the big game herds” and I helped modify the amendment to guarantee our traditional and historical hunting opportunities, meaning we manage for hunting big game and not manage for preservation of wolves.  I was concerned that we would have a “healthy and viable” herd of elk, but without a surplus for hunters after the wolves finished getting theirs.  I was also concerned that if we did still have hunting, it may be 100 permits where that herd unit used to have 500 permits pre-wolf.  The amendment was introduced by Senator Geis and adopted minus my modifications.  They claim that provision is already in the bill (yes, but not spelled out distinctly) and that “historical” can be interpreted too many ways, which is true.

21.  HB229 passed the first two readings handily.  Then at 3 pm after the 2nd reading, with the final vote to be taken at 10 AM the following morning, the US Fish and Wildlife Service called Jody Levin, Endangered Species Coordinator, and told her that HB229 wasn’t acceptable.  They didn’t like the predator designation  and they didn’t like the wording that says 15 packs inside Wyoming OR 7 packs outside the Park.  (see item #16)  Jody found the ag boys (cattlemen, woolgrowers, farm bureau) and myself and explained the situation.  We discussed possible amendments, then Jody went to the Governor’s Office and talked with Mike O’Donnell, Governor’s personal attorney, who was very upset.  Twice he waved the letter our Washington Congressional Delegation had received dated Feb 14 (this was now Feb 27) from FWS saying HB229, as written, “should satisfy requirements” for delisting.  So Jody and Mike went and found the committee chairs, Senator Roberts (sponsor of SF97), Rep. Baker (sponsor of HB229),  and Rep. Childers (sponsor of HB300), and they went to the Governor to discuss it.  Governor Dave Freudenthal looked at the situation and then said we weren’t going to keep shooting at a moving target but would “pass the bill as written”.  Good for him!!

22.  The following morning, Feb 28, HB300 was in the Senate Appropriations Committee.  HB300 directs the Attorney General (AG) to prepare a plan for litigation to sue over the wolf issue and to help Wyoming residents who are being harmed financially by the wolves to seek legal redress.  Mike O’Donnell told of the FWS duplicity of the previous afternoon and used that as to why we needed the $250,000 for the AG to pursue the litigation.  The AG, Pat Crank, said that he would “aggressively pursue Wyoming’s interests as directed by the legislation currently being enacted”.  The bill passed out of committee on a close vote, 3-2.  As of this date, March 1, 2003 it has passed the Committee of the Whole (first reading, General File).  It will be read twice more, Monday and Tuesday, and should pass the Senate and be signed by the Governor.

 So that is our legislative effort.  We now must be vigilant to get this implemented.

 Maury Jones  “Jonesy”

Box 117

Grover, Wy 83122   (307)886-3356   email

 

 

Update:  Feb 26, 2002.  SF 97 has passed two readings, after extensive amendments, which do not harm the bill.  Current version, expected to be passed and signed by the Governor, directs the state of Wyoming Attorney General to prepare a plan for litigation to determine the state's jurisdiction, area of authority, and possibility for suing for damages over wildlife species introduced or managed by the federal government.  I will give a full report soon regarding this.  See the current version of the bill http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2003/SFIndex.htm and click on Substitute.  (extensive changes were made, so they call it a substitute bill.

Jonesy

 

Update Feb 8, this bill passed the Senate 23-6. The final Senate version, the Engrossed Bill, is available for viewing here http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2003/SFIndex.htm and scroll down to SF 97 and click on Engrossed.  It now goes to the House Travel-Rec Committee.

 

SF 97 Bill was passed out of committee Jan 30, 2003. 

 

Posted by Jonesy, Feb 1, 2003

I just returned from Cheyenne where we passed Senate File 97 out of Travel-Recreation Committee on a 4-1 vote.  Senator Keith Goodenough voted against, not because he wants more wolves, but because he says this will be tied up in court for 5 years and we will be out of animals by then.  I pointed out to him after the Committee hearing that if we don't do this, in 5 years we will be fighting the 'endangered' wolverine, or lynx, or abominable snowman or something.  The bill was amended greatly, but that is okay, as the original intent was kept, namely that Wyoming and Wyoming alone will manage its wildlife. 

     Wed evening we had a joint committee hearing on the wolf and over 100 people attended.  All but three spoke in favor of immediate and strict wolf control.  90% of them were in favor of SF97 instead of HB229.  You remember SF97 gives exclusive jurisdiction over wildlife to Wyoming, whereas HB229 jumps through hoops to get the wolf delisted, frankly a guaranteed loss for our wildlife.  Some stories were tragic such as ranchers being put out of business and afraid to let their kids roam on their property which they have owned for generations.  The wolf is making a major impact. 

Jonesy

 

Posted Feb 1, 2003.

Letter from Jim Allen, President of Wyoming Dude Ranchers Association and VP of Wyoming Outfitters Assoc., explaining the 3 bills in the Legislature

Howdy, 
  I have just returned from Cheyenne again and will give you an update on the latest happenings relating to wolf bills. A good number of outfitters and dude ranchers testified in a committee hearing on SJR 7, relating to wolf predation and impacts on wildlife and livelihoods.
 
  There are 2 bills relating to wolves so far.  House Bill 229 and Senate File 97.  Another bill is floating without a number yet. Also, County Commission resolutions.
They are different attempts to deal with the wolf problem in Wyoming.
 
HB 229 basically gives mgt. authority to G&F.  Wolves would be trophy game animals and therefore huntable in some areas and when wolf packs number above 15 statewide, and would be predators in other areas when wolf packs number above 15 statewide.  When wolf packs fall below 15, seasons would close and wolves would come out of predator classification into trophy game animal status with a closed season statewide.  The trophy game areas are YNP, GTNP, Nat Elk Refuge, and all wilderness areas in Shoshone and Bridger-Teton Nat forests.  This includes the Gros Vente and Wind River ranges. 
 
  This is the bill the Governor's (Geringer) working group drafted with ag and outfitter input BUT has morphed into something that I cannot support.  Neither will ag-Wool Growers, Stockgrowers and Farm Bureau. The original concept has been altered from what we had agreed upon through numerous meetings prior to the legislature convening.  Sponsor Mike Baker told us he believes it can be amended back to the way we had it.  (Mike Baker is a great guy and hard worker who realizes the huge impact the wolf is making on our livelihoods, but he is also being influenced by US Fish and Wildlife Service bigshots in Wash D.C.)
 
  Besides the areas being too large where wolves would be classified as trophy game animal (which allows some protection of the wolf) the other problem with this watered down version is that the Wyo. Dept of Ag no longer has a role in mgt. of the wolf.  The whole reason we gave dual mgt. to G&F and WDA was because we did not trust G&F.  They have never opposed wolf introduction and have "rolled over and played dead" in deference to the federal wildlife agents in regards to wolf mgt. and pack dispersal.  This in reflected in both the WGF wolf and grizzly mgt. plans. I have read them, I know.  At every turn, the WGF jumps through federal hoops at our expense.  We felt future G&F commissioners and department personnel could be too easily influenced by enviros and out-of-state interests.  In fact 90% of Wyoming wolf plan respondents were out of state!!!
 
  So, I feel HB 229 must be amended to diminish areas outside of YNP where wolves would be trophy game and enlarge areas where they would be predator and give WDAg a role.  However there is huge momentum in the legislature to de-list the wolf and therefore this bill has inertia. I'm afraid many legislators do not fully understand the issue well enough to make an informed vote and will likely vote for this bill. That scares me. Call your legislators and tell them this bill is bad for Wyoming because it is a band-aid approach.
 
  Senate File 97 is by far  the better bill.  It reaffirms jurisdiction over wildlife to the state, not the feds.  It says that the feds over reached their authority with their wolf introduction efforts.  It also deals with future "endangered" species listings and recovery plans ie. lynx and wolverine rather than fight these battles one species at a time.
  I would urge you to contact your local legislators and ask them to support SF 97.  It is more controversial because it pits Wyoming against the feds, but it is supported by case law and the US Constitution.
 
  A 3rd bill states that the Canadian gray wolf is an exotic, non-native species and should therefore be removed from Wyoming outside YNP. The issue is the canadian wolf is much larger than the smaller Wyoming wolf that our ungulates evolved with and therefore it has an unfair advantage when killing our wildlife.  Good point!  And Wyoming Game and Fish statutes declare importation of exotics illegal.  This bill has not been filed, but needs our support.
 
  The Fremont and Washakie County Commissions passed unanimous resolutions last week to leave the wolf as a predator like it currently is in Wyoming statutes.  They are saying Wyoming sovereignty, private property,  health and welfare of county citizens issues have not been adequately addressed by the feds.  5 NW Wyoming  counties passed resolutions last spring declaring wolves and grizzlies unacceptable species for the same reasons.
 
  Please read these bills at the Wyoming Legislature webpage which is  http://legisweb.state.wy.us
I urge you to remember that if we agree with the feds to de-list, that we give up more state sovereignty to the feds which means they encroach a little bit more into our lives.  For example, you cannot shoot a wolf that is killing your livestock.  You must call the US Fish and Wildlife Service.  Do you see how ludicrous that is?  Protection of Private Property is guaranteed in the constitution.  It does not say we must ask first!
 
Thanks,
Jim Allen
307-332-2995
diamond4@wyoming.com
 

 

 

Posted Jan 25, 2003

Hi all,
Had an eventful week at Cheyenne working on the wolf problem.  I worked with legislators and others in promoting my bills which are Senate File 97 (SF 0097) which is an ACT and has the force of law, and Senate Joint Resolution 7  (SJ0007) which is just a statement of resolve and intent by the legislature.  We had a committee hearing on the Resolution.  It was very well attended with a lot of testimony in support of passage.  Much of the testimony was truly heart-wrenching.  In talking to the Senators following the committee meeting they said they hadn't realized the scope of the problem and the passion of those who are being damaged by the wolf.  Former legislator Bud Betts lives in the Dunoir Valley northwest of Dubois, Wyoming.  He is a rancher and outfitter, taking trail rides and pack trips into the wilderness area.  There is a large pack of over 20 wolves near him.  He testified that the Dunoir Valley historically supports 80 moose in the winter.  There is only one cow moose this year, and she will be gone by the end of the winter.  He also reported that his family dog, who was a pup when one of his kids was born 12 years ago, was attacked by a wolf in broad daylight in their front yard while they were in the house.  They ran the wolf off, the dog lived for a month, then died.
     Other outfitters testified that the wolf is literally putting them out of business.  The moose herds are taking a real hit.  The moose counts north of Jackson are  year 2000 = 830, year 2001 = 589, year 2002 = 486.  Those are the official Game and Fish counts.  This year they will take the count the first week of February.  It is a major decline.  Also, the elk are getting hammered.  One outfitter reported that of over 300 documented elk sightings this fall they saw a total of 2 calf elk.
     Only two spoke against the resolution.  The pro-wolf people said it was bringing a lot of tourism to the state.  One outfitter countered by saying that they take trailrides into the back-country in prime wolf country and of thousands of inquiries over the past 3 years they haven't had one single person ask for a trip to see a wolf.  In contrast, many people have expressed concerns of going into an area where there are a lot of grizzlies and wolves.
     The bill died on a tie vote.  Senator Keith Goodenough voted against, Senator John Hanes voted against, Senator Tex Boggs voted for, Senator Delaine Roberts voted for, Senator Bruce Burns abstained from voting.  Those who voted against weren't necessarily against the intent of the Resolution but didn't like its demanding tone and said that "a Resolution is just a feel-good thing and has no legal clout.  It is just a waste of time."  After the meeting I pointed out to one of them that a Joint Resolution of the House and Senate is our 1st Amendment Right to Petition Government for Redress of Grievances as found in the Constitution.  They hadn't thought if it in that light.
     Senate File 97, the Act with teeth in it, will be heard in committee on Thursday, Jan 30, at noon in the Senate Travel-Rec room.
Please contact a member of the committee and express your support for this bill.  http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2003/billsInfo.htm

 

 

Posted Jan 25, 2003

There will be a joint Senate and House Travel Recreation Committee Meeting, regarding the three wolf bills which are working their way through the legislature, on Wednesday January 29, at 4:00 pm in Cheyenne, Wyoming, in the Herschler Building room 1299 in the basement.  The Herschler Building is due north of the Capitol, accessible from the north door or from the tunnel through the Capitol itself. 
THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT MEETING FOR YOU TO BE TO AND SHOW YOUR SUPPORT OF;
1.  Senate File 97 (SF0097) entitled "Wyoming's Wildlife", sponsored by Senator Delaine Roberts, which will declare and put in statute that Wyoming will manage all wildlife within its borders without interference from the US Fish & Wildlife Service.  Contact Maury Jones (307)886-3356 for more info, or reply to this email.
2.  The Baker Bill, originating in the House by Rep. Mike Baker, head of Travel Recreation Committee.  This bill seeks to jump through the hoops to delist the wolf, working with US Fish & Wildlife Service.
3.  Another bill has been written but is in the draft stages and it seeks to confine wolves to Yellowstone National Park.  Contact BJ or Vicki Hill (307)856-3628 or 730-8729;    or contact Scott or Anjie Denny (307)632-6352 or 630-1622 for more info.

It is vitally important that we have a LOT of people at the meeting supporting the wolf!!  The wolf lovers will certainly be there.  We must show the members of the legislature and the press that we have the facts and figures on our side.  Each person who wishes to speak will be given just a short time (3 to 5 minutes, depending on how many show up) to present their evidence or views.  A real-life story or graphic pictures will go far in helping our cause.  If anyone has a graphic video showing  wolves killing an animal, would help if we can also provide the TV and VCR (probably is not one in the room).  This will not be an argument session, but will allow each person an opportunity to express their opinion.

Words of advice to those attending.
First, Respectfully address the Committee
Then, State your name, where you are from, and who you represent (if you represent an organization).
1.  Don't say the same thing that has already been said. 
2.  Be factual.  Don't quote anything you cannot back up.  Sensationalism won't fly.
3.  Make it brief.
4.  Personal experiences are great regarding the impact of wolves.
5.  It is okay to be passionate and emotional in telling your story., but no tirades condemning those !@#$#$%^%^ wolves.

So please contact everyone you can.  This is our way of demonstrating our serious concerns!

Maury Jones