Ron Mendive — Ron Mendive is addressed as 'Mr. Chairman' across a brief, continuous exchange, with multiple consecutive mentions referring to him in the same discussion.
Charlie Shepherd — Charlie Shepherd is identified as the vice chairman taking over the rules portion, then speaks as vice chair and asks the presenter to slow down. He is subsequently addressed as Mr. Vice Chairman and Vice Chair Shepherd during the opening discussion, all within the same procedural segment.
Charlie Shepherd — Addressed as Chairman Shepherd.
Ms. Worthington — Ms. Worthington is introduced as the presenter for the rules docket, and the committee is asked to let her begin her presentation of the rules, with a request that she speak slowly for the committee.
Ms. Worthington — Said the dog-specific wording was likely an oversight and that the intent was to address leash use with dog owners specifically.
Ms. Worthington — Introduces the next docket concerning vendor rules.
Rachel Bickerton — Identified as leading the student group attending the meeting.
Mark Sauter — Called on regarding the minutes approval motion.
Ron Mendive — Addressed as Chairman Mendive during the motion to approve minutes.
Ron Mendive — Explains that the vice chairman will take over administrative rules and passes the gavel.
Ron Mendive — Addressed by name in the opening remarks.
Stephanie Mickelsen — Raises a question and says she does not want the rules read word-for-word unless there is a substantial change.
Stephanie Mickelsen — Referenced as having said that members should do their homework because upcoming issues could be contentious.
Director Worthington — Director Worthington responded to questions about proposed rule language concerning dogs, leashes, and domestic animals on WMAs. She explained that the dog-specific wording may have been an oversight or reflected staff’s response to a recent enforcement issue, where a citation failed in court because the rule lacked a clear definition of leash. She clarified that the department wants leash to mean a physical/material connection between the animal and a person, and agreed the language should be consistent. She also asked for clarification about whether the cited inconsistency was between the dog-specific language and broader domestic-animal language, noted that one provision was not new but a separation of existing language into distinct violation categories, and said she would consult staff when she did not immediately have an answer about the department’s authority or the specific language at issue.
Amber Worthington — Introduces herself and explains she will provide a higher-level review of three rules dockets from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.
Steve Miller — Representative Miller repeatedly raised concerns about consistency in the bill’s animal-control language, especially the mismatch between the leash provision referring to a dog and person and another section referring to other domestic animals. He argued the language should be aligned, noted that broader domestic-animal wording would cover more potential issues, suggested the committee might strike the words “or other domestic animal” to create consistency, and then questioned whether the committee would need to strike the entire sentence instead.
Director Worthy/Worthington — Responds that the removal is common practice under the ZBR process.
Lauren Schmeiser — Lauren Schmeiser is introduced to explain the legal authority and scope formatting. She states that the legal authority text was removed because it duplicated the scope and now links directly to the statute.
Lauren Smeiser — Lauren Smeiser explained that under the Administrative Procedure Act, the committee cannot strike only part of a numerical or alphabetical designation or just a few words; it must strike the entire designation. She clarified that while the committee could strike the full line I, it could not remove only the three words previously discussed.
Britt Raybould — Asked whether striking line I entirely would interfere with the earlier leashing language and enforcement.
Britt Raybould — Britt Raybould made and restated a motion to approve the docket, prompting a call for an aye/no vote.
Britt Raybould — Makes the motion to approve docket 13-116-2401.
Douglas Pickett — Representative Pickett questioned whether the rule language prohibiting domestic livestock from being turned into or allowed to graze or trail across department lands could conflict with Idaho open-range and fencing-out laws. He clarified that his concern was with the rule itself, not just the grammatical ZBR change, and asked whether the wording could be interpreted to exempt Fish and Game from its normal landowner obligation to fence out livestock when animals drift onto department lands.
Trisha Hebden — Trisha Hebden, Assistant Chief of Wildlife with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, explained that the department sometimes authorizes grazing on wildlife management areas and has agreements with producers on many WMAs. She said the department works closely with local producers to stay consistent with open-range laws and fences off areas where issues may arise.
Jerald Raymond — Representative Jerald Raymond was recognized and then followed up by asking to return to the definition of camping, questioning whether the language is consistent with earlier legislation involving the Department of Lands.
Eric — Identified as the first in-person testifier to come forward.
Eric Weissath — Executive Director of the Idaho Outfitter and Guides Association; testified that the association is neutral and appreciates Fish and Game's collaboration.
Jeff Abrams — Jeff Abrams is introduced as the next testifier and then begins his testimony, identifying himself as the Wildlife Program Associate for the Idaho Conservation League.
Jack Nelsen — Asked for a general question about the effects of online sales versus brick-and-mortar vendors.
James Petzke — Moved to approve Docket 130-119-2501.