Senate rejects motion to advance bill altering bighorn-sheep reintroduction timing; indefinitely postponed after roll call
February 22, 2025 | Senate, Committees, Legislative, Wyoming
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
House Bill 221, a bill that would change the effective date for statutory protections tied to potential bighorn-sheep reintroduction in a cooperative review area of central Wyoming, was debated at length and ultimately failed to pass the Committee of the Whole on Feb. 21.
Senator French moved the committee recommendation and called on Senator Hicks to explain the bill and the amendments. Supporters argued the original Senate position (adopted previously) already contained significant protections for livestock producers — including authority for the Game and Fish Department to remove bighorn sheep if adverse actions occurred and an attorney-general defense for producers — and that the present bill simply changed the effective date from immediate to a later date in 2026. They described the bill as memorializing a long-standing, state-level cooperative plan developed in the early 2000s and codified in 2015.
Several senators representing ranching and grazing areas said local producers and agricultural groups asked for a 2-year extension to allow more time to assess federal rulemaking and to ensure protections are in place; Farm Bureau and Wyoming Wool Growers testified in support of an extension in committee.
Opponents and some who urged adherence to the previous Senate position said repeatedly that moving the effective date again would be "moving the goalposts" and undermined a prior bipartisan compromise. Speakers urged senators to "hold the Senate position" and not repeatedly reopen settled cross-chamber agreements.
A standing/voice count failed and the chair ordered a roll-call pursuant to Senate rules; the roll call returned insufficient support and, pursuant to SR 6-5, House Bill 221 was deemed indefinitely postponed. The transcript records multiple senators speaking both for and against the extension; members referenced the history of a multi-stakeholder plan developed after federal litigation in the early 2000s as context for insisting the state position be honored.
The debate included disagreements over stakeholder inclusion (some ranchers wanted more time) and whether the House amendment deferring enactment until federal rule changes was acceptable. The result leaves the legislation indefinitely postponed pending any future action.
Senator French moved the committee recommendation and called on Senator Hicks to explain the bill and the amendments. Supporters argued the original Senate position (adopted previously) already contained significant protections for livestock producers — including authority for the Game and Fish Department to remove bighorn sheep if adverse actions occurred and an attorney-general defense for producers — and that the present bill simply changed the effective date from immediate to a later date in 2026. They described the bill as memorializing a long-standing, state-level cooperative plan developed in the early 2000s and codified in 2015.
Several senators representing ranching and grazing areas said local producers and agricultural groups asked for a 2-year extension to allow more time to assess federal rulemaking and to ensure protections are in place; Farm Bureau and Wyoming Wool Growers testified in support of an extension in committee.
Opponents and some who urged adherence to the previous Senate position said repeatedly that moving the effective date again would be "moving the goalposts" and undermined a prior bipartisan compromise. Speakers urged senators to "hold the Senate position" and not repeatedly reopen settled cross-chamber agreements.
A standing/voice count failed and the chair ordered a roll-call pursuant to Senate rules; the roll call returned insufficient support and, pursuant to SR 6-5, House Bill 221 was deemed indefinitely postponed. The transcript records multiple senators speaking both for and against the extension; members referenced the history of a multi-stakeholder plan developed after federal litigation in the early 2000s as context for insisting the state position be honored.
The debate included disagreements over stakeholder inclusion (some ranchers wanted more time) and whether the House amendment deferring enactment until federal rule changes was acceptable. The result leaves the legislation indefinitely postponed pending any future action.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting