Amends existing law to provide for notification of a proposed transplant or relocation of wildlife and approval from a board of county commissioners if a hearing on the same is requested and to require testing of certain animals.
House Bill 302 amends Idaho’s fish and game law to add new procedural and disease-monitoring requirements for wildlife transplants, relocations, and certain animal imports or tracking activities. The bill focuses heavily on bighorn sheep and other wildlife moved by the Department of Fish and Game, requiring advance notice to county commissioners, affected grazing permittees, and nearby landowners before most transplants or relocations occur. For bighorn sheep specifically, the bill adds a hearing process when written concerns are raised, requires written acknowledgment of livestock operations and disease risk, and directs the department to develop a state management plan and best management practices for maintaining viable bighorn populations.
The bill also expands disease-testing and reporting obligations. Deer, elk, antelope, moose, bighorn sheep, bison, and wolves that are imported, transported, or used for tracking purposes must be tested for communicable diseases that may affect domestic livestock, with the specific diseases to be determined jointly by the Department of Fish and Game and the Department of Agriculture. It further requires fish and game personnel to report suspected wildlife disease within 24 hours and to submit samples to the Department of Agriculture. The bill also authorizes a comprehensive animal health program for certain wildlife species once jointly agreed upon by the two agencies.
HB 302 would amend Section 36-106 of the Idaho Code, adding new restrictions and procedures on the Department of Fish and Game’s authority to transplant or relocate wildlife, especially bighorn sheep. It would create notice and hearing requirements, give county commissioners a binding role for many wildlife transplant or relocation decisions after a hearing, and require written agreements acknowledging livestock operations and disease transmission risks. It also imposes new testing, reporting, and interagency coordination requirements affecting wildlife imported into Idaho, moved within the state, or used for tracking, with direct implications for the Department of Fish and Game, the Department of Agriculture, county governments, grazing permittees, landowners, and hunters.
The bill appears to reflect a generally protective sentiment toward livestock interests, local landowners, and county involvement in wildlife management, while also preserving the state’s ability to manage wildlife populations. The text emphasizes notice, consent, and disease-risk acknowledgment, suggesting support from constituents concerned about bighorn sheep transplants and wildlife-livestock conflict. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no recorded debate or roll-call evidence here to indicate broader legislative support or opposition.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s limits on Fish and Game discretion and the added role of county commissioners and affected landowners in wildlife relocation decisions. The most significant substantive dispute concerns bighorn sheep transplants, where the bill prioritizes existing sheep and livestock operations and requires the department to accept potential disease risk, which may be viewed by wildlife advocates as constraining conservation management. Another likely point of contention is the binding nature of county hearings for wildlife transplants or relocations generally, as well as the requirement for disease testing and interagency approval, which could be seen as increasing administrative burdens but is likely supported by agricultural and livestock stakeholders.