Mark Harris — Senator Mark Harris was referenced as the discussion moved toward his closing remarks, then delivered a closing statement emphasizing the importance of private property rights. He argued that law enforcement should ask permission or obtain a warrant before entering land, noted that most landowners would allow access if asked, and raised county concerns about where fines would go. He then responded to a clarification about the bill’s warrant provisions, confirming his understanding that agents entering with a warrant must stay within the warrant’s scope.
Mark Harris — Referenced as having said it well earlier in the discussion.
Mark Harris — Likely the speaker is addressing or responding to a senator identified by the transcript as 'Senator Barton,' but this does not match the expected member list; no confident correction made.
Mark Harris — Senator Harris asked Senator Adams whether he would be willing to send the measure to an amending order. Senator Adams responded that he would not do so without clear direction on what changes should be made.
Mark Harris — Recorded as voting aye.
Treg Bernt — Seconded the motion on the minutes.
Treg Bernt — Chair notes that Senator Bernt may have a question.
Treg Bernt — Chair says Senator Bernt may have a question.
Treg Bernt — Chair jokes about ribbing the vice chair for asking a question.
Treg Bernt — Chair references the vice chairman in a light remark.
Treg Bernt — Chair notes that Senator Bernt has a question.
Treg Bernt — Asks for an example of why a conservation officer would enter property without a warrant.
Treg Bernt — Referenced as the senator whose earlier question prompted the witness example.
Treg Bernt — The chair and other speakers direct the exchange to Senator Treg Bernt/Pro Tem, who is invited to ask or continue with questions. In the same discussion, the issue is framed as balancing property rights against enforcement of certain code provisions, likely related to fishing-license laws.
Treg Bernt — Senator Treg Bernt is referenced in connection with Senate Bill 1286, where he seconded the motion to send the bill to the floor with a do pass recommendation.
Treg Bernt — Senator Bernt is identified in the transcript and then speaks to Senator Adams, thanking the chair and asking Adams what led him to bring the proposal forward.
Treg Bernt — Senator Bernt asked whether the federal government or the state of Idaho would do a better job managing the lands, and Senator Adams responded that some lands are managed better by the state.
Treg Bernt — Treg Bernt is recorded as voting aye during the roll call.
Russ Hendricks — The sponsor yields the remaining time to Russ Hendricks, who then introduces himself as representing the Idaho Farm Bureau and begins testimony in support of Senate Bill 1326.
Mr. Hendricks — Mr. Hendricks concluded his opening remarks and then responded to committee questions about the bill. He explained that the draft had already included immediate-effect language, described exigent circumstances as emergency-type situations recognized in law enforcement, gave examples such as hot pursuit and emergency response to a lightning-caused fire, and pointed members to existing Idaho Code provisions governing drone use. He ultimately confirmed the committee’s understanding before the chair moved the committee to testimony.
James Ruchti — James Ruchti asked whether the bill’s emergency clause and immediate enactment would raise concerns for affected law enforcement agencies, specifically whether agencies had expressed worry about the measure taking effect before they had time to train personnel and issue new rules.
James Ruchti — Senator James Ruchti argued that private property rights should take precedence over state enforcement convenience or cost. He questioned why officers enforcing fishing laws should not first contact the property owner, said he would not let state cost outweigh property rights, referenced testimony about government agents taking elk antlers from Idaho property owners, and contrasted that with the idea of aggressively pursuing someone who takes fish from private property.
James Ruchti — James Ruchti asked a brief clarifying question to the sponsor about whether agents must remain within the parameters of a warrant, and Senator Harris responded that this was his understanding.
James Ruchti — Questioned whether the bill conflicts with federal rules governing who may represent veterans.
James Ruchti — James Ruchti is referenced as one of the committee veterans whose input helped prompt a different approach to the issue, with that earlier perspective being noted as especially helpful. The exchange then concludes with a brief acknowledgment in the same discussion.
James Ruchti — Asked whether grazing rights and other federal-government-related rights are equally secure and whether Idahoans can guarantee them forever.
James Ruchti — Senator Ruchti asked Senator Adams whether he supports transferring federal lands to the state. Senator Adams responded directly to Ruchti’s question, and Ruchti later stated he would vote in opposition to the motion, arguing that Idaho taxpayers would bear the management costs if the lands were transferred.
James Ruchti — Recorded as voting nay.
Brandon Shippy — Brandon Shippy asked Mr. Hendricks for examples of what would qualify as an exigent circumstance under the bill, and the exchange continued with Mr. Hendricks acknowledging the question in response.
Brandon Shippy — Brandon Shippy questions the witness about whether the bill would effectively presume guilt and allow conservation officers to search or seize law-abiding citizens without sufficient probable cause. He argues that fishing alone should not justify treating someone as a criminal and asks the witness to respond to his concerns. He then follows up by asking how the bill differs from current Fish and Game standards and what it would actually prevent.
Brandon Shippy — Senator Brandon Shippy moved to send Senate Bill 1326 to the 14th order for possible amendment and briefly spoke in support of the motion, saying it was a good fix in Idaho law and emphasizing that private property rights should already be protected by the Constitution. The later mention simply identifies him as the maker of the motion.
Brandon Shippy — Senator Shippy asks the witness for solutions to improve forest management and forest health, and the witness responds directly to that question.
Brandon Shippy — Brandon Shippy is addressed during the discussion, with the speaker deferring to him in the debate. Shippy then responds, though the transcript appears to contain a possible transcription error in his spoken name. Shortly afterward, his name is called during the roll vote.
Lori Hartog — Lori Hartog asked about concerns that the bill’s drone-surveillance language could affect both law enforcement and private individuals, specifically how the provision would apply to surveillance from a public vantage point. Mr. Hendricks then responded directly to her question by referring to the relevant bill language.
Lori Hartog — Lori Hartog asked about the recourse available to a private individual whose property was trespassed and stolen, using the moose antlers example, and specifically whether there is any remedy under current law when the taking is done by a government official.
Lori Hartog — The transcript appears to say 'Senator Dan Hartog,' likely referring to Senator Lori Hartog, who asks about PILT payments.
Lori Hartog — Recorded as voting nay; transcript says 'Den Hartog.'
Ben Toews — Senator Ben Toews asked Mr. Hendricks about the bill’s limited-access provisions, specifically whether government agents could still approach a house as a private citizen would, even if there were a no-trespassing gate. Mr. Hendricks confirmed that this understanding was correct and that the bill would still allow approaching the front of the house.
Ben Toews — Senator Toews is recognized on S.J.R. 103, moves to send the resolution to the floor with a due pass recommendation, briefly discusses the issue in committee, and is later referenced during the roll vote as the sponsor of the motion.
Mr. Clark — Was invited to testify virtually and asked to state his name and representation.
Trent Clark — Trent Clark introduced himself as a private individual from Legislative District 35 in Soda Springs and noted that he founded the Idaho Private Property Coalition, which helped enact the Idaho Regulatory Takings Act. His remarks then concluded, followed by a brief acknowledgment from the chair.
Scott Perrin / Scott Barron — The transcript appears to misidentify the next witness; the speaker says 'Scott Barron, Cottonwood, Idaho, represent myself.'
Mr. Perrin — Expressed support for the bill and said it is helpful.
Sean Blaser — Introduced himself and stated he is speaking in favor of the bill.
Ryan Norm / Ryan Orm — Introduced himself, said he represents himself, and stated support for the bill.
Jared Morrison — Jared Morrison describes concerns about a conservation officer’s explanation for entering the property, saying the route taken did not make sense for a moose count because the officer drove through a gate accessible only via a cultivated field and his tracks did not match the length of the canyon. He then introduces himself as being from Ashton, Idaho, and begins recounting his own experience starting in May 2008.
Mr. Warren / Mr. Orr (uncertain transcription) — Chair thanks the witness for traveling to testify and acknowledges his hunting background.
Mr. Lord (uncertain transcription) — Chair continues addressing the witness while asking what the officer was doing on the property.
Ellery Tucker Williams — Ellery Tucker Williams is introduced as the next witness, then identifies himself as the legislative and community engagement coordinator with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and begins his testimony. A senator then briefly acknowledges him and follows up within the same exchange.
Ms. Tucker Williams — Ms. Tucker Williams discusses a conservation officer enforcement example involving anglers or hunters on private property to explain why officers must check compliance in the field. She clarifies that the officer was not presuming guilt but was trying to determine whether the activity was lawful under current policy versus the proposed bill. She then explains that, because the property had recently changed hands, the officer had to spend additional time identifying the new owner and contacting them after the fact, rather than being able to resolve the issue immediately.