S.B. 13 - Administering Substances to Wildlife

What this bill doesEdit

This bill adds a section to the Utah State legal code making it illegal to administer substances to protected wildlife that would affect them in many ways, including pacifying them, killing them, or altering their fertility. Only licensed veterinarians and their assistants, as well as authorized persons of the Wildlife Board can administer these substances for the purpose of conserving and protecting the wildlife. "Agricultural producers" won't be punished for administering substances for their own purposes that inadvertently have this effect.

Thoughts about the billEdit

I'm not a big fan of environmental protection measures, so I was wary of this bill from the start. However, I don't see this bill as being terribly dangerous to individual's liberties since I really don't think a lot of people go around administering substances to wild animals. I do wonder which animals are considered protected and noticed that the bill itself didn't state which animals they are or refer to an ordinance that would provide that information. I'm also wondering what the purpose of this bill is. I haven't noticed any news articles lately citing danger to Utah's endangered wildlife because of poisoning. Overall, I don't see much purpose in the bill and think it could possibly infringe upon innocent people's liberties.

If you set out rat poison, and some other animal happens to come by and eat it, suddenly you have unknowing committed a crime. Does the bill provide any definition of what it means by 'administer'?

Letter to Sen. DaytonEdit

I'm writing in reference to HB0013 which you are sponsoring in the State Legislature. I am a member of the Campaign for Liberty and am helping my fellow members by reviewing some of the bills that will be introduced in this year's session. I would appreciate some additional information about the bill.

I am wondering, first of all, why the recommending committee felt the need for this bill. I am not aware of any problems of protected wildlife being affected by citizens administering substances to them. I feel this could be a danger to individuals who are unaware of the law or of which species are considered protected. Why did the committee feel the need for this bill?

Along those same lines, I also noticed that the bill does not contain any information specifying which animals are considered protected. How could a person find out which animals are protected under this law?

Thank you for reading and considering my questions. I would appreciate a prompt reply so I can pass the information along to the members of my organization.

Meili will post a reply to the letter when she receives one.

Return to 2009 Legislation