The last of the bills to come before the Idaho Senate this winter, died in the House Agricultural Affairs Committee. SB1074 passed the full senate in February in a 24-7 vote. That bill made it to the House Agricultural Affairs Committee on Friday where a vote was deadlocked at 5-5, killing the bill. SB1074 was an IEBA sponsored bill.
There has been disagreement among members of the Idaho Elk Breeders Association over their own bill. Some members saw the bill as a compromise to appease the politicians and send a message to the public that they were willing to compromise on some issues. Other members saw the bill, which requires licensing, as a dangerous precedent and an infringement of property rights.
In Friday’s hearing of the Agricultural Committee, several members of the IEBA testified against the bill.
“The industry, regardless of what you’ve been told, 80 percent is totally against licensing,” said Charles Warner, an elk rancher from Kellogg in northern Idaho and a board member of the Idaho Elk Breeders Association.
He said other members of the association came up with the licensing plan in secret.
Warner argued licensing was a violation of his property rights, especially when years of disease testing have shown no signs of chronic wasting disease, brucellosis or tuberculosis in domestic herds.
The bill just as easily could have passed through committee but 3 democrats voted against the bill in a roll of the dice.
Meanwhile, three Democrats on the panel said the bill was too weak and they believed its failure could add momentum to a possible citizen initiative, like Montana’s in 2000 that outlawed so-called “shooter bull” operations, to clamp down on elk ranches.
This is an unfortunate turn of events and one that I find questionable. I’m more of a black and white kind of person, therefore I would make a terrible politician. I don’t think I would be placing a bet using someone else’s money – that being the people’s. As a member of the committee, I believe it would be my responsibility to either vote for or against a measure for its value, for the good of my constituancy. These 3 members evidently felt that a vote against this bill would anger more Idaho voters against the elk industry in order to garner more support for a citizen’s initiative to ban elk ranching and game ranch hunting. Is this how politics is supposed to be?
One democrat member made this statement of which I completely disagree with.
“(The bill) is a whitewash from industry,” said Rep. Branden Durst, D-Boise. “It’s a way they can inoculate themselves from a citizen initiative, and I think that’s a travesty.”
I don’t believe for one minute, that any bill, other than the ones presented by those completely opposed to elk farming, would “inoculate themselves” from a citizen’s initiative. The threat of such was made long before any bills were even presented to the senate on elk ranching.
Regardless, the future for the elk industry will be an interesting one. Time will tell whether or not groups such as the Idaho Sportsmen’s Caucus Advisory Council and the Idaho Wildlife Federation will carry out their threats of a voter initiative. There is already talk of bringing in anti-hunting and animal rights groups to work with these two organizations to help them rid the state of Idaho from elk ranching and hunting on game ranches. When you have groups willing to hop in bed with these groups, rationality jumps out the window.
The IEBA has to collect themselves, put any differences they may have over this bill aside and reunite in their stance against those bent on their destruction. Anything short of that will result in an end of their livelihoods.
Tom Remington
