Inside the Capitol : Insights and reflections from the 67th Idaho Legislature’s First Regular Session

Whether it be administrative rules, grizzly bears, property taxes, public lands or herd districts, this legislative session had a variety of issues come to fruition. In hindsight there was an early thought that this session may have a mild tone to it, especially for agriculture. That’s the type of mild-mannered thinking that will get you bucked right out of the saddle.

So how did the dust settle at the end of the day for agriculture, and particularly the ICA and its members? I hesitate to get too far over my skis here, but first impressions tell us that the legislative session was good to the ICA. In a recent report to the ICA Executive Board, I broke down all the legislation that the ICA was interested in, took a position on, and provided either written or verbal testimony on. None of the bills that ICA opposed became law, and only one out of half a dozen that we supported did not cross the finish line (mainly due to the sponsor pulling the legislation for personal reasons). That is a fairly impressive track record when you think that we entered the session with almost half of the legislature that were in the freshmen class. That means this was their first trail ride, first branding, first calving season – I’m thinking that you are picking up what I am putting down.

Some of the biggest news that came during the early hours of the session did not revolve around legislation, but the change in leadership at the Idaho State Department of Agriculture and Idaho Fish and Game Commission. Chanel Tewalt replaced retiring director, Celia Gould, and Jim Fredericks replaced retiring director, Ed Schriever. Director Tewalt received her official confirmation from the Idaho Senate in the latter part of February while Director Fredericks received the nod from the commissioners around the same time. With leadership changes in those departments, it will also change the leadership for the Wolf Depredation Control Board. The board is co-chaired by the Director of ISDA and Director of IDFG.

BY PATXI LARROCEA-PHILLIPS ICA Government Affairs

As the sun started to set on the 2023 Legislative Session, H349a was conceived. H349a assists in improving state statute pertaining to herd districts. If you are looking for a quick recap on the general purpose and structure of herd districts in general, I would encourage you to wander over to the Idaho Rangeland Resource Commission’s webpage and look through the ‘open range’ information. Herd districts came into existence over a century ago and require landowners within the district to ‘fence in’ their livestock. However, the question arose during the latter part of the legislative session on whether livestock from open range property roaming onto herd district property should be liable for coming onto the herd district owner’s property if the fence is not maintained. Due to several different interpretations of statute, a consensus of legislators and stakeholders found it necessary that the language in the statute be cleared up so that parties within and adjacent to herd districts understand who should be maintaining the fence, and who is liable if the fence is not maintained. Currently, there is a case that is being appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court that could leave operators on open range exposed to civil liability if their livestock wander or roam into a herd district. This is contrary to how herd districts should currently operate in keeping open range livestock out of the district. The ICA has policy that supports Idaho’s open range statute and we do not want to see it diluted. H349a passed both bodies and received Governor Little’s signature. In successfully making it through the process, the legislation will go into effect on April 15, 2023.

Let’s shift the topic from herd districts to grizzly bears. House Joint Memorial 5 dealt with the delisting of Grizzly Bears from the Endangered Species Act. Joint Memorials are used as mechanism to effectuate a message from the legisla- ture. Grizzly Bear recovery efforts over the last decade have prevailed, and the almost extinct bear has grown to a population that crests over 2,000 animals in Idaho, Wyoming, Washington, and Montana. Due to the increasing population, interactions with other animals have caused depredation conflicts to occur. The recent recovery efforts aimed towards grizzly bears have been successful and the State of Idaho has been instrumental, but like a fish swimming into a dam, we have also hit a roadblock as a state. As noted above, the population of bears is healthy and the bear should be removed from the Endangered Species Act listing at this time so that conservation and management efforts can continue at the state and local level. To add a little salt to the wound, a petition was submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) to delist grizzly bears in the lower 48 states and that petition was denied. HJM5 requests that Congress acts promptly to delist the grizzly bear from the ESA, and that USFWS take corrective action to reverse their petition decision by relying on federal law, policy, and science. The distribution of bears has broadened to the effect that they now are impacting rural agricultural lands and communities, putting the public at risk along with livestock, domestic animals, and property.

We’ve touched on herd districts and grizzly bears, now let’s talk about the shared usage of public lands by multiple interests. During the interim period following the 2022 Legislative Session stakeholders worked on legislation that would assist the State Land Board in dealing with closures and restrictions on State endowment land. S1049 gives the State Land Boards’ agents the ability to cite and fine those misusing endowment lands. S1049 expresses that the State Board of Land Commissioners must provide notice to the public of any restrictions, closures, prohibitions, and regulations on State endowment land. Proper posting is required, and fines and restitution requirements are outlined. If a person is found guilty of violating the statute and subsequent rules, the person will get a warning ticket. On the second violation the violator would receive an infraction and fine of $250.00, and the third offense would carry a misdemeanor. The State Board of Land Commissioners will be tasked with promulgating any rules surrounding a closure, restriction, regulation and prohibition, and with any rule that provides for the closure, restriction, regulation or prohibition there will be proper notice posted on the Idaho Department of Lands’ website and at the physical location. ICA has policy that supports working collaboratively with other land users and recreational groups to develop solutions to the challenges presented by the increased recreational pressures that are being experienced. An additional tool that is going in the toolbox of shared usage is the funding package in S1196. S1196 mainly deals with supplemental funding for the

Idaho Department of Parks and Rec for deferred maintenance and capital projects, but after you peel a few layers back there is a small gem in the rough for the grazing community. There is $5 million set aside for a working group that would include input from the grazing community. The group will look at and fund projects that are at the intersection of shared usages.

The major topics have been covered, but we probably need to touch on a couple other items to round out this report. Taxes were an expansive issue addressed during the legislative session. Legislators walked away from the session with property tax relief through H292. This tax relief has several different attributes but at the 3,000 foot level it provides needed homeowner relief while not shifting tax burdens to commercial or agricultural land. Additionally, we have seen in past sessions the desire to revamp the administrative rules process. This session, the attempt to revamp the process came through the vehicle of H206a. The bill will put all administrative rules on an eight-year rotating cycle to be reviewed and creates more transparency in the process for stakeholders while mandating that both bodies must approve administrative rules. Finally, I would probably be remiss if I did not mention the attempt to work on Idaho Code dealing with fences. Unfortunately, the attempt did not produce the results that legislators and stakeholders expected, but hey, that’s a goal for next year.

BY KAREN WILLIAMS ICA Natural Resources Policy Director