Utah Wants to Prevent Anti-Hunter Takeover by Requiring All Wildlife Board Members to Have a Hunting License
Utah state Rep. Casey Snider says he doesn't want Utah's wildlife policies to go the way of Colorado and Washington, where philosophical divides over wildlife management have led to shakeups of state game commissions and a re-shuffling of priorities. To this end, Snider has introduced new legislation that would require all state game commissioners to be licensed hunters.
Snider's bill, H.B. 309, would make several changes to the state's wildlife laws. Among other revisions, it modifies the definitions and regulations around night hunting for nonprotected wildlife, and it addresses livestock depredations and some big-game protections. The most significant change, however, is related to the Utah Wildlife Board, which functions the same way that state game commissions do in other states.
Read Next: Colorado Adds 3 Animal Rights Professionals to Its Wildlife Commission
The seven-member board 'makes the final decisions about hunting, fishing and how wildlife is managed,' according to the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Just like in many other states, those board members are appointed by the governor, and they serve six-year terms. Snider's legislation wouldn't change this political process, but it would ensure that going forward, the only people eligible to serve on the Wildlife Board would be card-carrying hunters.
The proposed legislation would require any board member to have held a hunting or combination license for at least three out of the last five years leading up to their appointment. It would also require board members to possess and maintain their hunting or combination license while serving on the board. It would empower the supervisor of the Wildlife Board to remove any board member who fails to meet this requirement; who has their hunting license suspended; or who fails to obtain a new hunting license.
The law makes an exception for board members appointed before May 2025, but would require any reappointed board members to meet the same requirements. The rule also wouldn't apply to a board member who is appointed for the sole purpose of representing agriculture.
Snider did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Outdoor Life regarding the proposed bill. But in an interview with St. George News Friday, he described it as a 'cleanup' bill and argued that possessing a hunting license makes someone a more knowledgeable, safe, and effective Wildlife Board member. (It is possible, of course, for an anti-hunter to go through hunter education and get a hunting license, but that person would at least be educated in the process.)
'The thought process here being to obtain a hunting license, you have to take hunter safety, which means you have to fully understand all the rules related and laws related to hunting,' he said.
Snider also made it explicitly clear that the proposed legislation was inspired by happenings in other states. He said the new requirements are 'an attempt to not turn into' Colorado and Washington, where the makeups of state commissions have shifted in recent years to include more anti-hunting and animal welfare voices — as opposed to the pro-hunting and agricultural voices that have traditionally dominated these commissions. This has led to escalating conflicts among commissioners, to the point where Washington's Wildlife Commission is now considered 'dysfunctional.'
The shift speaks to a larger philosophical divide regarding American wildlife management at a time when fewer Americans are buying hunting licenses and instead choosing other forms of outdoor recreation. Supporters of this shift would argue that it doesn't make sense for Washington's wildlife board to prioritize hunting interests when only 4 percent of Washingtonians bought a hunting license in 2022. (That number was closer to 12.5 percent in Utah in 2024, according to a DWR representative who spoke with St. George News.)
Read Next: In Washington State, Hunters May No Longer Be 'Necessary to Manage Wildlife'
Opponents, meanwhile, point to the highly successful North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, of which regulated hunting is a key tenet. They also worry that wildlife management is becoming increasingly politicized and less reliant on science as state game commissioners push their own agendas and ballot initiatives undermine the expertise of wildlife experts.
The cancellation of Washington's spring bear hunt and the voter-led reintroduction of wolves to Colorado are prime examples. Both decisions disregarded the recommendations and advice given by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife.
'In other states — Colorado and Washington — we are seeing an effort to undermine wildlife policy through the appointment of these boards,' Snider told St. George News. 'And so, in Washington, you're seeing predator hunts basically demolished because individuals who do not participate in the sport of hunting are gaining access to those and fundamentally rewriting the laws.'
Snider's bill was introduced in the State House of Representatives on March 7. If it passes, it would go into effect May 7. There are currently four positions open on the Utah Wildlife Board, according to the DWR, and the deadline to apply is March 31.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Controversial housing bill heads to governor's desk
HARTFORD, Conn. (WTNH) —The 2025 session of Connecticut's state legislature has been over for more than a week, but a major piece of housing legislation passed by majority Democrats continues to cause controversy — and a chorus of calls for Gov. Ned Lamont to veto it. Connecticut House passes housing bill after 11-hour debate The legislation, formally known as House Bill 5002, is the latest in a series of Democratic-led efforts to implement statewide policies that spur the development of more housing. Proponents of statewide housing reform have cited research showing Connecticut's housing stock is short by as many as 100,000 units. Lawmakers clash over proposed affordable housing bill 'We know how imperative it is that we get more housing in the state,' Gov. Lamont said on Tuesday. But as the governor and others look for ways to use public policy to encourage more development, they've encountered resistance from leaders on both sides of the aisle who say provisions of H.B. 5002 encroach on the authorities of local zoning boards. Governor's Hartford residence to open for annual open house day Three provisions in particular have drawn the ire of defenders of local control of zoning. First, the bill establishes a baseline for the amount of units, including affordable units, each municipality in Connecticut must plan for. Municipalities that hit the goals outlined in the bill will be prioritized for certain state grants. Local leaders and legislators who oppose the bill have characterized that provision as a mandate. 'It absolutely is a mandate,' State Rep. Joe Zullo, a leading Republican opponent to 5002, said. 'It allocates to every town a certain amount of housing they have to build no matter what.' Supporters of 5002 push back on this characterization of the legislation. On the affordable housing metrics, they say the bill seeks to set objective standards while providing measured incentives to communities that comply. 'Gasoline on the flames:' Lamont, Tong, Bysiewicz respond to Trump administration's use of National Guard in California 'Any time you want to have a policy outcome, there needs to be an accountability measure and that's what we're talking about here,' State Rep. Jason Rojas, the Democratic house majority leader, said of the concept in an interview conducted before the final passage of the bill. 'We can call it a stick, I call it accountability. We expect every other area of government to be accountable for something. Towns should be accountable, too.' Another provision of 5002 takes aim at minimum parking requirements often imposed by municipalities on small towns. The third provision seeks to bypass planning and zoning hearings for the approval of conversions of certain commercial properties into residential units. These measures have also drawn considerable criticism. In both instances, advocates say the bill seeks to remove onerous barriers, while opponents charge that local control of development is being deeply eroded. H. B. 5002 passed through the legislature over the objections of every Republican and a relatively small but significant vocal faction of Democrats, mostly from the state's suburbs. Now the bill is passed and on the governor's desk awaiting action, Lamont is faced with the decision to either veto or sign it. He has signaled that if he signs it, he would only do so after an agreement had been made with legislative leaders to make revisions before the bill goes into effect in October. 'I think they went too far in some areas of the bill and that's what we look to change,' Lamont said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Ohio House passes school bus safety bill spurred by deadly Clark County crash
Jun. 11—Anyone caught passing a school bus illegally would face significant fines and penalties to their driver's license under an Ohio House bill that passed 88-to-0. House Bill 3, the School Bus Safety Act, sponsored by Reps. Bernie Willis, R-Springfield, and Cecil Thomas, D-Cincinnati, would appropriate $10 million from Ohio Lottery funds to add cameras to school buses and educate drivers about school bus safety. Part of the $10 million would go toward school bus safety grants for local school districts. Cameras could be installed on school buses to record people improperly passing a school bus and those recordings could then be used in a criminal case, according to the bill. The bill now heads to the Ohio Senate for further consideration. Willis introduced the bill last General Assembly following a fatal crash in Clark County on State Route 41. Hermanio Joesph, a Haitian immigrant who did not have a valid driver's license, crossed over the center line into the oncoming lane, hitting a Northwestern Local Schools bus and flipping it over in August 2023. Aiden Clark, 11, died and about two dozen other students were injured. The state put together a school bus safety task force afterwards, which made several recommendations to improve school bus safety, all of which Willis included in the bill. "This bill has been a major collaborative effort between numerous interested parties across the state and nation," Willis said. Ohio House Speaker Matt Huffman, R-Lima, said the opportunity for safety grants will help schools add seat belts, should they want to, along with many different safety upgrades outlined in the bill. "This issue comes down to sculpting (law) so that locals have their own option," Huffman said. "There are many local school districts that want to add seat belts and have the money to do it. Some have the money to do it and they don't want to add seat belts, for whatever reason." Ohio House Minority Leader Allison Russo, D-Upper Arlington, said the bill will help "make sure that children are safe to and from school." Paul Imhoff of the Buckeye Association of School Administrators, which represents Ohio's public school superintendents, testified in favor of the bill. He said it's clear thousands of drivers are disobeying Ohio's laws around school buses, and cracking down on people who don't follow the rules will be a good idea. "We urge you to support H.B. 3, which will improve the safety of Ohio students during their journeys to and from school," Imhoff said. Rudoph J. Breglia, of the School Bus Safety Alliance, testified in favor of the bill but additionally advocated for seat belts to be put in school buses. The state task force did not recommend using seat belts, saying there could be unintended consequences for kids who can't get out.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Senate panel takes testimony on renewed policies seeking accountability from Michigan polluters
Sen Jeff Irwin (D-Ann Arbor) testifies on a slate of bills aimed at improving polluter accountability during a June 11, 2025 meeting of the Senate Energy and Environment Committee. | Kyle Davidson Lawmakers from the state House and Senate called for an update to Michigan's laws on environmental contamination on Wednesday, arguing the current system does not offer enough protections for individuals impacted by pollution. Testifying before the Senate Energy and Environment Committee, Sens. Jeff Irwin (D-Ann Arbor), Sue Shink (D-Northfield Township), and Stephanie Chang (D-Detroit), as well as Rep. Jason Morgan (D-Ann Arbor), underscored how the state's current regulations have impacted Michigan residents, arguing that they focus too heavily on limiting exposure rather than cleaning up pollution, leaving Michiganders to bear the costs. Last week, members of the House and Senate announced they would be reintroducing 'polluter pay' legislation in each chamber, with House Democrats introducing H.B. 4636–4640 and Senate Democrats introducing S.B. 385–387 and S.B. 391–393. 'Some people are calling for a restoration of a model that requires strict liability and full residential cleanups on every site. In fact, I proposed legislation like that in the past. But that's not what is being proposed today,' Irwin said. 'What is being proposed today is a modest change that preserves the current risk-based system, but that makes modest changes to improve protections for our water, improve protections for our land and improve protections for our health.' As a whole, the package aims to implement stricter pollution reporting and cleanup requirements, extend the statute of limitations for citizens bringing claims against polluters and allow residents impacted by pollution to sue companies for the cost of medical monitoring, Irwin explained. With more than 25,000 polluted sites across the state and 4,603 sites with land or resource controls, Irwin questioned how many aquifers the state is willing to give up to pollution. He also warned the panel that industry lobbyists would testify against these additional measures, arguing they would harm investment in Michigan business. 'Not only do I think that's not true, but we developed these bills in consultation with industry stakeholders,' Irwin said, noting that the sponsors had held workgroup meetings on the policies introduced during the previous Legislative session. The end result was more modest, but would still provide real benefits to the public, Irwin said. Andrea Pierce, policy director for the Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition and founder of the Anishinaabek Caucus said these laws are the beginning step in addressing environmental contamination in Michigan, not the end. Should these bills become law, Michigan would return to the pollution accountability standard it had before the state's polluter pay law was restructured in 1995, Pierce said. 'We need to go back to stronger laws that protect the people and communities of Michigan. Michigan needs a comprehensive legal framework for strengthening accountability and real recourse from those who pollute in our communities,' Pierce said, emphasizing that Michigan's most marginalized communities were also the ones most affected by pollution. Mike Witkowksi, director of environmental and regulatory policy for the Michigan Manufacturers Association argued shifting the system to require more from businesses would hinder the state's brownfield redevelopment efforts. 'These are not technical fixes or minor clarifications. These are fundamental changes that would undermine one of Michigan's most effective tools for addressing environmental contamination and supporting economic growth,' Witkowksi said, criticizing the additional requirements and arguing the package would increase clean up costs and liabilities for businesses. During his testimony earlier in the hearing, Irwin predicted industry stakeholders would argue that the legislation would hamper redevelopment by requiring polluted sites to be restored to pristine condition. 'That's not what this bill does,' Irwin said, arguing that pollution already hampers redevelopment efforts. With the Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy lacking both the funding and the personnel to address the thousands of contaminated sites throughout the state, Witkowski said private-sector investors and developers are essential to cleaning up contamination throughout the state. Should these bills take effect, those sites would sit idle and remain polluted, he argued. Shink countered, noting that she'd served on Washtenaw County's brownfield redevelopment board during her time as a county commissioner. 'I can assure you that it isn't just private funds that's cleaning up these brownfield sites. There's a lot of public funds. That means the taxpayers, after the company has made its profit and maybe taken that profit out of state, the community is paying to clean that up,' Shink said, noting that the state is paying to clean up the former Federal Screw Works site in Washtenaw County. Alongside testimony from several environmental advocacy groups, the Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy also offered its support for the package with Aaron Keatley, the department's chief deputy director, noting that the bills aligned with their priorities for environmental legislation. Those priorities include transparency, ensuring predictable processes, securing assurances that companies will manage any releases of contaminants until the contamination is cleaned up, ensuring sites are redeveloped and streamlining the department's cleanup criteria so that the standards match the science, Keatley said. 'It is unfortunate that I look at you and I say I cannot tell you how many sites right now are managed by responsible parties, because they're not obligated to inform me of their day to day activities to keep that property safe,' Keatley said. The committee did not take votes on the legislation. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX