“Before” the capture, and “after.” That’s how a state-appointed group examined the events that led up to and followed the now infamous incident in Sublette County of alleged wolf abuse.
The nine-member Treatment of Predators Working Group held their first meeting in Lander this week. The lawmakers, agriculture representatives and wildlife advocates took their first stab at reforming Wyoming’s predator laws.
The working group spent three hours reviewing the incident, state management laws and common hunting and agricultural practices. They’re expected to share a proposed bill to the Legislature’s Travel, Recreation, Wildlife and Cultural Resource Committee this fall.
The backstory
The “before” represents how the wolf was captured.
In late February, Sublette County resident Cody Roberts allegedly ran over a wolf with a snowmobile. That was within his legal rights.
Speaking to a sparsely filled room and a live-streamed video with hundreds watching, Rep. Liz Storer (D-Jackson), who chairs the working group, called it a “lack of fair chase, demonstrated by the behavior of running down an animal with a 500-pound vehicle that can travel at speeds much faster than an animal can sustain.”
The “after” represents what happened to the wolf once it was captured.
“It was allowed to be alive and its suffering was prolonged,” said Wyoming Game and Fish Director (WGFD) Brian Nesvik.
Roberts muzzled and leashed the allegedly injured wolf. He brought it into a local bar, where leaked videos and photos show him posing with it.
“I don’t think there’s anybody in the state – legislators and non-legislators included – that didn’t look on this and say, ‘Oh my gosh. What was he thinking?’” said Sen. Fred Baldwin (R-Kemmerer). “It was unethical, immoral and a bad deal. It shouldn’t have happened.”
There’s little in Wyoming’s laws that make these actions punishable. WGFD fined Roberts $250 for illegal possession of warmblooded wildlife. It’s still unclear if the Sublette County Sheriff’s Office will press charges.
“It's our job not to put predator management on trial, but acknowledge that our laws do allow for this behavior,” said Storer. She echoed the sentiment of the group that this was not a hunting or predator management issue, but a case of “reprehensible” human behavior.
Over the past few months, global outrage ensued,, with calls for legal reform and pledges to boycott Wyoming. The state even paused much of its tourism marketing for a few weeks. Shortly after, this working group was appointed by the legislature’s Travel, Recreation, Wildlife and Cultural Resources Committee.
“The finger pointed at the legislature to at least take a look at our statues and see if there were things we could do to discourage the kind of activities that were of concern to the public,” said Storer.
But how to prevent that kind of incident isn’t straightforward, largely because the state’s current predator management is highly valued and protected amongst the livestock and wildlife industries. Group members agreed any future laws couldn’t disturb those privileges.
“That’s really our challenge today,” said Storer.
Possible changes to come
The group focused mostly on the “after,” the prolonged suffering of a predator and possible resulting penalties.
The consensus was to start small, with potential for larger changes in the future.
“Looking at this incident, what was the real problem here? It was that the animal didn’t die quickly,” said Jess Johnson, Wyoming Wildlife Federation’s government affairs director.
Adding a time frame would be new for Wyoming. Currently, the state doesn’t specify how quickly an injured predator must be killed after it’s in someone’s possession. Some of the public outcry has suggested that amending state animal cruelty laws could fix that. But Johnson pointed out those laws are geared more toward livestock and domestic animals.
“Blending wildlife and pets concerns me, because hunting and trapping is a short jump in that animal cruelty discussion,” Johnson said. “And we don't want to set Wyoming up for that kind of argument.”
Johnson suggested that WGFD’s laws dealing with the “taking” of predator animals is a better fit for changes.
However, the group ultimately decided to draft identical language for both. It’ll be up to lawmakers in the coming months to decide which – or both – to move forward with. The proposed addition to the state’s animal cruelty laws and WGFD’s predator laws would read, “Any person who intentionally, directly injures or disables a predatory animal by use of a vehicle, snowmobile or other ground based mobile device shall immediately make a good faith effort to kill the injured or disabled predatory animal.”
“Immediately” would be the new time frame.
Violation of these proposed rules would be separate from the statute used to charge Roberts, which addresses possession of live wildlife. It would amount to a low misdemeanor with up to $1,000 fine and up to six months in jail.
Technically, Roberts could’ve been charged those higher penalties, too. But it was up to the game warden’s discretion. In this case, the warden chose to issue the $250 fine. The warden would’ve had to require Roberts to go before a judge for the $1,000 fine.
The group loosely discussed adding language that could encourage a warden to go with the latter option in a situation like this. Ultimately, they opted not to.
“This event alone probably did change the viewpoint of game wardens and how they might handle a citation from this point going forward,” said Doug Miyamoto, Wyoming Department of Agriculture director. “Generally speaking, I think, job done on that front.”
But the group’s last topic was trickier.
Ethics and morals
The working group deliberated laws around the method of taking or killing a predator. For example, is it possible to outlaw running over a wolf with a snowmobile?
“It’s more thorny. I think it’s more complicated,” said Nesvik.
That’s because running predators over is a practice used by some in the agriculture industry to protect livestock. Agriculture working group members were clear that it needs to remain legal, so to make it illegal in cases like Roberts’ wolf incident would be tricky. One would have to delineate the motive behind the action.
“We’re on thin ice when we start legislating about ethics and about morals,” said Sen. Baldwin.
Johnson agreed. But she said as a hunter, the snowmobile approach isn’t her favorite.
“While I am uncomfortable with running an animal over intentionally, if they die quickly, I'm still okay in that sense,” she said.
The working group chose not to make changes with method of take – for now. Several members said they’d like to revisit it down the road.
The meeting ended about 30 minutes quicker than scheduled, partly because no oral public comment was allowed, only written.
Members seemed relatively on the same page by the end. Although, Baldwin did question the whole point of the group.
“What could we have had on the books, on the statutes, that would’ve changed the behavior of this individual? I’m honestly not sure that there’s anything,” he said.
He added that the incident itself might be all it takes.
“Because they're gonna say, ‘Don't put this on Facebook. Don't take this wolf or this coyote or this whatever into wherever. Look what happened last time,’” Baldwin said.
The group will meet again over Zoom later this summer to review their proposed changes. The Travel, Recreation, Wildlife and Cultural Resources Committee will take it from there. If approved, a bill will be brought to the 2025 legislative session, where it could stand a chance of becoming law.
Editor’s Note: Liz Storer is the president and CEO of the George B. Storer Foundation, which provides a grant to WPM.
