Latest news with #SenateAgricultureandNaturalResourcesCommittee
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Colorado lawmakers proposing bill to pause wolf reintroduction at special session
Multiple attempts to pause Colorado's controversial wolf reintroduction program have failed. But that hasn't persuaded a bipartisan coalition of state lawmakers from attempting another bill to pause more paws on the ground during the special session called by Gov. Jared Polis to address the state's budget woes. The bill to be introduced at the Aug. 21 special session of the Colorado legislature calls for pausing the planned release of more wolves late this year or early next year to help the state grapple with a budget shortfall of nearly $1 billion, according to a news release. The special session was called in part to address the passage by Congress of President Donald Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" and its health insurance impacts to the state, according to the news release. Here are highlights of the proposed bill: Reduce by $264,268 appropriations for state fiscal year 2025-26 from the general fund to Colorado Parks and Wildlife for the reintroduction of gray wolves and allocate money in the same amount to the general fund to be used for the health insurance affordability cash fund. Eliminate fiscal year 2025-26 general fund revenue for Colorado Parks and Wildlife to acquire or reintroduce wolves. That money may be used to assist livestock owners in preventing and resolving conflicts between wolves and livestock and to pay fair compensation to owners of livestock for any losses of livestock caused by wolves. The state general fund allocated $2.1 million for the wolf recovery program that will be used for the purposes mentioned. Bill sponsors stated in a news release Aug. 19 the bill would allow for a "reasonable pause in wolf reintroduction while the state continues to put in place supports for landowners and handles budget challenges." The bill's main sponsors include Sen. Dylan Roberts (D-Frisco), Sen. Marc Catlin (R-Montrose), Rep. Meghan Lukens (D-Steamboat Springs) and Rep. Matthew Martinez (D-Monte Vista). "Now is not the time to be spending precious taxpayer dollars on new wolves; let's focus on lowering costs for Coloradans and balancing our budget.' Roberts said in the news release. Roberts and Catlin, whose districts are in the heart of where two prior wolf releases and the majority of wolf depredations of livestock have taken place, have been consistent critics of Colorado Parks and Wildlife's implementation of the wolf recovery plan. That plan was established after voters narrowly approved reintroducing wolves to Colorado in 2020. Roberts, chairman of the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, confronted Colorado Parks and Wildlife Director Jeff Davis about budget overruns of its wolf recovery plan at a Water Resources and Agriculture Review Committee hearing held June 30. The Aug. 19 news release cited the plan's nearly $3.5 million cost the past fiscal year when voters were told the wolf recovery program would cost about $800,000 per year in future years depending on the final plan. The news release cited part of that budget overrun was due to significant costs for wolf-livestock conflict management and depredation reimbursement costs to livestock owners required by the plan. Part of the state's wolf-livestock conflict management costs have been offset by the Rocky Mountain Wolf Project's Born to be Wild specialty license plate that has generated nearly $1 million since its inception in January of 2024. The sale of those license plates has paid for the state's $500,000 range rider program to deter wolves from conflicts with livestock. Colorado Parks and Wildlife in 2024 awarded wolf depredation claims of $603,327.60, which is more than $253,000 over what the state budgeted through its general fund as well as revenue from several Colorado Parks and Wildlife funds, excluding sales revenue of hunting and fishing licenses. The state wildlife agency previously told the Coloradoan the difference will be covered by its funding sources. Claims of similar amounts could be incurred by the state, as there have been 19 confirmed wolf depredations of livestock as of Aug. 19, 2025, compared to 29 depredations in 2024. Here are previous attempts to pause wolf reintroductions that have failed The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission voted 10-1 to deny a petition by ranching and county groups to pause wolf releases in January. Gov. Polis vetoed Senate Bill 23-256 in May of 2023 that would have postponed the state's initial wolf releases, which occurred in December of 2023. A group called Smart Wolf Policy is collecting signatures to get Ballot Initiative 13, which calls for repealing what voters approved in 2020 by putting an end to the reintroduction effort by Dec. 31, 2026, on the November 2026 ballot. This article originally appeared on Fort Collins Coloradoan: Here is the latest effort to pause Colorado's wolf reintroduction Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
04-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Telehealth visits for pets? Ohio Senate votes 33-0 to let veterinarians add service
Jun. 4—Ohio veterinarians are one step closer to being cleared to hold telehealth consultations under state law following the Senate's 33-0 vote this week. Senate Bill 60, joint sponsored by local Sen. Steve Huffman, R-Tipp City, will now head to the Ohio House for further consideration. Huffman, a physician, told this outlet in January that he wanted to modernize the state's guidelines on veterinary medicine after seeing the benefits of telehealth in the medical field. "You know, it became very rapid and very successful in medicine because of COVID," Huffman said. "And to me, it sped up (progress); what was going to happen within 10 years we did within one year." He noted that veterinary telehealth visits, which currently are not permitted under Ohio law, could benefit Ohioans, particularly the elderly, who might "find it hard to get your cat to the veterinarian." In committee testimony, the bill received both support and opposition from individual vets and clinics, with detractors like veterinarian Andrea Miller concerned that "virtual care cannot replicate in-person evaluations." "As a practicing veterinarian, I've encountered countless cases where verbal symptom descriptions pointed to one diagnosis, but physical examination revealed a different condition — or multiple concurrent problems," Miller told the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee in May. ------ For more stories like this, sign up for our Ohio Politics newsletter. It's free, curated, and delivered straight to your inbox every Thursday evening. Avery Kreemer can be reached at 614-981-1422, on X, via email, or you can drop him a comment/tip with the survey below.
Yahoo
21-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Push to ban lab-grown meat fails in South Dakota Senate
The South Dakota Senate convenes during the 2024 legislative session. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight) A legislative effort to ban lab-grown meat in South Dakota failed Thursday at the Capitol in Pierre, after the success of earlier bills to require labeling and prohibit state spending in support of the product. The ban's initial failure was Wednesday on a 17-17 vote in the Senate, with one member absent. That was Sen. Kevin Jensen, R-Canton, who had voted for the bill when it advanced out of the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. A supporter of the legislation, Sen. Mykala Voita, R-Bonesteel, made a motion Thursday to reconsider it. 'As we had one member of the body absent yesterday, I believe that we should reconsider this vote, and I'd appreciate your support,' Voita said. Lab-grown meat labeling, fees for serving legal papers, stenography rule change signed into law Two senators who voted for the bill on Wednesday — Ernie Otten, R-Tea, and Amber Hulse, R-Hot Springs — voted against the reconsideration motion, which rendered Jensen's support moot. The 19-16 vote against reconsideration dealt the bill its final defeat. Hulse told South Dakota Searchlight afterward that she'd heard enough senators planned to change their vote that the bill was doomed, so she didn't think it was worth debating again. In other words, she said, even if the reconsideration motion had been approved, a later vote on the bill itself might have failed. Coming from a district with many ranchers, Hulse said her initial vote for the legislation was a vote for some of those constituents. But she doubted whether the bill would stand up to constitutional challenges regarding the freedom of interstate commerce. 'I think the constitutionality of the bill, if I'm being quite honest, is questionable,' Hulse said. Otten did not immediately return a message from South Dakota Searchlight. Barring further procedural maneuvering — such as amending the ban into another piece of legislation — the push to prevent the manufacture, sale and distribution of lab-grown meat in South Dakota is likely over for this legislative session, which ends next month. Meanwhile, Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden has already signed a bill that will require lab-grown meat products to be labeled. Another bill that would prohibit state government spending in support of research, production, promotion, sale or distribution of lab-grown meat has passed both chambers and is awaiting Rhoden's consideration. That bill includes an exception for public universities, but would prevent scenarios such as the state awarding economic development grants to lab-grown meat companies. Republican Rep. John Sjaarda, a Valley Springs farmer, proposed the ban and said Thursday that he was disappointed. He said the labeling bill, which applies to carcasses, parts of carcasses and meat food products, may work in stores but will not effectively alert restaurant diners who might not know when their dish is prepared with lab-grown meat. 'It does help,' Sjaarda said. 'I don't knock it. It's better than nothing.' The proposed ban divided agricultural groups, with some alleging that lab-grown meat has not been proven safe and that a ban would protect consumers and the state's livestock industry. Others said the product has been cleared by federal safety regulators and should be available in the marketplace. They also said supporting a ban is a hypocritical stance for farmers and ranchers who've opposed restrictions imposed by other states and countries on livestock production practices and genetically modified crops. Lab-grown meat, also called cell-cultured or cultivated meat, starts from a sample of animal cells that are fed the sugars, water, proteins and vitamins needed to grow into muscle and fat. Although the product is approved for sale, it's not yet widely available. Some other states, including Florida and Alabama, have banned lab-grown meat, and the Florida ban has sparked litigation from the industry. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
