DOUGLAS—Wyoming Game and Fish Commissioners have OK’d a new compensation program that may resolve a sometimes-fiery debate over whether the state should pay livestock producers more for forage eaten off their rangeland by over-populated elk herds. 

The solution establishes criteria for payment eligibility based on the degree to which a local elk herd is overpopulated and the percentage of grass eaten by that game. Additionally, a ranch must allow some hunters on the property to be eligible. 

It was resoundingly unpopular with hunters in draft form but didn’t change much following public comment. Some 46 of the 48 public comments on the draft regulation opposed the new payment program, which could worsen a forecasted agency cash crunch. Nevertheless, the governor-appointed board overseeing the Equality State’s wildlife voted that it was in managers’ best interest to placate stockgrowers who have struggled to ranch amid too many elk.

A looming alternative — that the livestock lobby would make another run at a legislative mandate, which was every bit as unpopular — was less attractive to commissioners, spurring their pragmatism. 

“We’re also in this situation because the Legislature has been asked to fix this,” Game and Fish Commissioner Rusty Bell told his counterparts at a meeting Wednesday. 

It’s better, the Gillette taxidermist said, for Game and Fish to self-impose the program in its own regulations through a process that includes biology, public comment and “isn’t legislative, to be honest.”

Approved in a 6-to-1 vote, the revisions to Wyoming Game and Fish’s “damage claims” regulations for non-cultivated livestock rangeland looks like this: 

Landowners are eligible for “extraordinary damage to grass” payments when a big game herd is overpopulated by 20 percent or more for three or more consecutive years and the species is consuming 15 percent or more of all the estimated forage on any piece of private property. 

Payments are still possible when herds are not overpopulated if more than 30 percent of the forage is consumed annually by a big game species. 

Eligibility also hinges on the landowner allowing a “sufficient number of hunters” on the property — a provision already in regulation. That’s defined as the necessary number of hunters to offset the “recruitment,” i.e. the number of animals born into the population that survived one year.  

Cattlemen and livestock industry representatives approved of the new system, which loosely resembled a bill that was unexpectedly killed at the 11th hour during the Wyoming Legislature’s 2024 budget session. 

“I don’t know how you guys came to this damage (program),” MR Angus Ranch owner Juan Reyes told commissioners. “I don’t know if it was brilliance, or (you) just stumbled into it. I think this is the greatest thing you guys have done for sportsmen.”

Judging by public comments, a strong contingent of hunters opposed Game and Fish’s draft regulation, which rose from the ashes of the dead bill. Just one non-ranching member of the public, however, took the time to testify at the Douglas meeting. 

“I have to say, I’m feeling a little lonely in this room,” Wyoming Wildlife Federation staffer Jess Johnson told commissioners. 

Sportsmen are “concerned” and “don’t love this.” But Johnson also recollected the run at legislation, which she described as “scary,” “unnerving” and handled “as badly as possible.” One iteration of the legislation called for compensating ranchers for 150 percent of the lost grasses’ value. Sportsmen and wildlife managers worried it would actually create an incentive for ranchers to house elk on the property, and that it’d siphon millions of dollars from the Game and Fish budget in the process. 

Johnson also preferred housing the compensation program in revisable regulations — not statutes. 

“We do have to fix this problem,” Johnson said. “We stand as a sporting org in support of this, a little bit begrudgingly.” 

Not everybody in Wyoming is on the same page. 

Outgoing Rep. Cyrus Western (R-Big Horn) wasn’t pleased to see a likeness to the controversial legislation reemerge in regulation voluntarily. 

“If Game and Fish has the responsibility of advocating for the best interest of sportsmen, they have completely failed on this matter,” he told WyoFile in a text message. 

Game and Fish Commissioner Kenneth Roberts also pushed back during deliberations, then later created a rare split vote on the regulation during roll call.

“To me, hunters can solve this problem,” he said. “It’s a matter of getting hunters on (on the property) to solve the problem.” 

Others argued it’s not so simple. Supersized herds of elk that form in places like the Laramie Mountains and Iron Mountain are skilled at finding refuge on a landscape that’s being bought up for hobby and hunting ranches — places where elk don’t compete with cattle and are desired. 

Game and Fish Director Brian Nesvik, who was partaking in his last commission meeting, pointed out one “extreme example” in southeast Wyoming of a rancher who’s “surrounded” by properties that don’t allow hunters access in numbers necessary to reduce elk herd sizes. 

“He’s literally at the point where he’s reduced his (cattle) stocking rate,” Nesvik said, “because he is unable, on his ranch, to be able to control this problem.” 

It appears likely the Game and Fish regulation change will keep lawmakers at bay. Wyoming Stock Growers Association lobbyist Jim Magagna, who architected the legislation, told Game and Fish commissioners he was satisfied. 

“If we need to go to the Legislature we certainly will do that in the future,” Magagna told commissioners, “but we believe that these types of issues can be addressed here.”

WyoFile is an independent nonprofit news organization focused on Wyoming people, places and policy.