CHEYENNE, Wyo.—Wyoming lawmakers are considering a proposal to slow down a controversial year-old law that directed state officials to develop rules for raising native sage grouse on private farms and releasing them into the wild.
Rep. Kermit Brown, R-Laramie, said his bill is designed to get lawmakers more involved in setting rules for captive rearing of the chicken-like birds, which live on the sagebrush plains and high desert in Wyoming and other Western states.
The Legislature already directed the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to implement sage grouse farming rules last year. But public comments were overwhelmingly against the idea during last summer’s rule-making process, and the Game and Fish Commission balked at adopting rules over concerns about the viability of farming the finicky birds.
Brown’s bill would direct Game and Fish to develop sage grouse farming rules and present them in August to the interim joint committee on travel, recreation and wildlife. Lawmakers could either accept those rules or develop legislation to address the issue during the 2010 session. The bill also would put a moratorium on private sage grouse farming until April 2010.
“I look forward to getting their rules next fall and having a committee hearing,” Brown said. “I hope it’s a free-for-all, and I hope that everybody who has an interest on all sides comes in. The concept’s never been aired out.”
The Wyoming House passed the bill on first reading Tuesday, a day after it was approved by the House committee that handles wildlife issues. It still requires final approval in the House and consideration in the Senate.
Grazing, oil and gas drilling, wildfires and residential development have taken a heavy toll on the grouse population in the West in recent decades, though many biologists believe the population levels remain healthy. Federal wildlife offices are expected to make a decision by this summer on whether to recommend placing the birds on the endangered species list.
Sen. Kit Jennings, R-Casper, added the footnote to last year’s budget bill that first called for the development of sage grouse farming rules. He said he will support Brown’s bill if it makes it to the Senate.
“What I would like to see is the data that says we can or cannot raise them,” Jennings said. “If we have a species that a lot of people say is crowding endangerment, then I think we should develop all the data we can to protect it.”
Opponents of grouse farming point to a number of concerns about the practice. Those include the disruption of collecting eggs from the wild, the prospect of farm-raised birds carrying new diseases to wild birds, and the potential that farm-raised birds could alter the genetic purity of wild birds.
Brian Rutledge, executive director of Audubon Wyoming, said nobody has ever successfully raised any prairie grouse species in captivity.
“When we investigated this during the original rule-making on it (last summer), we suggested that it would take at least a three- to five-year development period to create a protocol that might have some potential for success,” Rutledge said. “So anything that delays the quick formulation and application of this idea of grouse farming is a good idea.”
If Brown’s bill passes, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department will conduct a more thorough analysis and development of sage grouse farming rules than it did last summer, said John Emmerich, the department’s deputy director.
Game and Fish allows hunters to take about 12,000 sage grouse annually during a short season in the fall, or less than 5 percent of the bird’s population, Emmerich said.
During a House floor debate on Tuesday, Rep. Jack Landon, R-Sheridan, said the Legislature erred when it ordered the department to adopt sage-grouse farming rules in the first place. He questioned why the House didn’t try to rescind that “flawed” law instead of adding more debate over the rules.
“If we have to resort to raising native animals in order for there to be a population, we might as well be living in a parking lot,” Landon said. “It implies that we’ve left no habitat.”
Brown acknowledged that the “cart’s before the horse” when it comes to revisiting a policy that’s already been made into law, but he felt it would be better to try to revisit the law than repeal it.
