A pronghorn doe and two of her fawns sprint across Antelope Flats in August. The likelihood is that these animals are about to embark on their migration to the Green River Basin, or already have departed. Lawmakers who advanced a bill in Casper this week are looking to change state regulation so that Wyoming wildlife managers have less ability to protect migration routes. 

Debate over the fate of Wyoming’s migration corridors dominated a packed natural resource committee meeting Wednesday in Casper.

State lawmakers and key stakeholders wrestled over how to maintain both a robust energy industry and a healthy environment for the state’s iconic migratory herds.

Ultimately, Wyoming Legislature committee members voted to sponsor a new bill that could overhaul how the state regulates migration corridors and expand the corridor designation process beyond the purview of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department.

But heated testimony from critics of the bill revealed there may be too many cooks in the kitchen working to resolve the tensions swirling around migration corridors.

Gov. Mark Gordon has also been in the process of amending migration corridor policy. He intends to release a draft executive order for public comment in December, according to senior policy adviser Renny MacKay.

On Wednesday, MacKay pressed lawmakers to set aside their draft legislation until after Gordon completes his order, or risk inconsistent policies across the state.

The Governor’s Migration Corridor Advisory Group submitted a set of recommendations in September. The group suggested implementing local working groups before the state formally designates new corridors. This step would be in addition to directives offered by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, the agency that currently identifies migration corridors.

“You have all these people who have invested all this time in this process that is just now running its course,” MacKay said during committee testimony. “We don’t want to set up a conflict in the Legislature. We’re proposing that the decision-making is all made at the executive branch. I think we have a couple of great remedies ahead of us, if you let this process play out.”

But the majority of lawmakers decided to forge ahead with the bill. Sen. Brian Boner, R-Douglas, said it would not conflict with the timeline of the executive order.

“We don’t see this [bill] as preemptive to the executive order,” Boner said to MacKay. “It’s not possible for us to do anything until February, and it’s not possible for us to preempt our governor’s order. This is important enough that it deserves a backup plan.”

Several lawmakers referred to the bill as “a placeholder.”

A time of decline

The responsibility of state agencies to protect migration pathways and their travelers has been a recurrent sore spot for Wyoming industry groups, landowners and conservationists.

Research conducted by the University of Wyoming has shown adverse links between the health of ungulate populations and human activity like mineral and wind development, urban sprawl and highways. Meanwhile, population counts for migratory animals, including mule deer, continue to fall. A dark outlook for certain ungulates has led conservationists to call for stricter measures within designated corridors to save the herds.

Wyoming has three designated migration corridors mostly sweeping through southwest Wyoming. The state officially recognizes the Baggs, Platte Valley and Sublette (Red Desert-to-Hoback) corridors.

The migration corridors have for centuries served as critical pathways for ungulates on the move, like mule deer, pronghorn and elk. Other ungulate migration corridors exist in Wyoming, but they have not been formally identified by the state. The Game and Fish Department is drafting two such corridors.

But the draft bill sponsored by the natural resource management committee Wednesday would chisel away at Game and Fish’s authority to designate migration corridors. It calls instead for additional risk assessments from other state agencies and industry stakeholders. The Department of Revenue, Department of Environmental Quality, Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and others would work together to compile an assessment of potential consequences before a corridor is officially named, according to the draft bill.

The legislation would require the relevant state agency to provide the assessment to any counties affected by a potential corridor, too.

Game and Fish has pushed back on the bill. Testifying to committee members, the agency urged lawmakers to value the rigorous, science-based process undertaken to identify migration corridors on a case-by-case basis.

“No other agency in the state of Wyoming has the authority or expertise to make those decisions that need to be drawn to protect [ungulates],” said Patrick Crank, a commissioner for the department. “I hope that will leave the designation of corridors with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department.”

Though the Petroleum Association of Wyoming said it worried about potential overreach of any regulation related to migration corridors, the group encouraged the committee to await the release of Gordon’s executive order before advancing additional legislation.

‘Cart before the horse’

Public comment on the bill spilled well into lunch hour Wednesday.

“I respect the legislative process and the time it takes to prepare a bill,” said Marissa Taylor, a rancher who served on the Governor’s Migration Corridor Advisory Group, “but I feel it is premature to put forward a piece of legislation before we give the system of adaptive management a dry run. These systems are complicated, and they are very hard to change. We run the risk of overburdening industry or unintentionally severing corridors.”

Longtime energy worker Chris Peterson expressed support for the executive order, too.

“It’s real nice to know that there are mule deer, elk and antelope able to use those [migration] paths,” Peterson said. “It’s nice to know that people in the state of Wyoming like [migration corridors] existing and are proud.”

He urged lawmakers to protect the corridors and hold off on advancing any additional legislation that could complicate or undermine the pending executive order.

“We might be getting the cart before the horse,” he said.

Rep. Stan Blake, D-Rock Springs, agreed and voted against the bill.

“It’s a great start,” he said. But “it’s not ready for prime time.”

Rep. Donald Burkhart, R-Rawlins, voted in favor of sponsoring the new rules but admitted they need additional attention.

“I think this bill still needs a whole lot of work,” he said. “Frankly, if this goes forward, I would probably have a substitute bill with all my changes to it.”


(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Please note: Online comments may also run in our print publications.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Please turn off your CAPS LOCK.
No personal attacks. Discuss issues & opinions rather than denigrating someone with an opposing view.
No political attacks. Refrain from using negative slang when identifying political parties.
Be truthful. Don’t knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the “Report” link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with us. We’d love to hear eyewitness accounts or history behind an article.
Use your real name: Anonymous commenting is not allowed.