Weed and pest control.
In one sentence
Not clearly identified in the stored source.
No additional limitations are listed.
Official record
Bill No.: <billno> Drafter: <drafterinit> Bill No.: HB0015 Drafter: MRW LSO No.: 11LSO-0040 Effective Date: 7/1/2011 Enrolled Act No.: HEA0016 Chapter No.: 37 Prime Sponsor: Joint Agriculture, State and Public Lands and Water Resources Interim Committee Catch Title: Weed and pest control. Subject: Modifies the Weed and Pest Control Act. Summary/Major Elements: Amends definitions for the Weed and Pest Control Act. Expands the definition of control" under the Act from "limiting" weed and pest infestation to now include prevention, mitigation, identification, multiple integrated management practices, regulation and other actions. Expands the definitions for designated noxious weed and pest" to include any weed or pest that is detrimental to the general health or welfare of the state based on listed criteria. Creates a process for emergency declaration of a weed or pest to allow for immediate control either statewide or in a county until formal action by the council and board. Increases the amount of the surety bond required by the treasurers of the boards. Expands the duties and powers of the district board to include the ability to buy and sell property necessary to carry out district programs and allows cost sharing by the board with landowners for pesticides and other integrated management practices for the control of noxious weeds and pests. Eliminates the provision allowing inspectors certified as of February 10, 1973 to automatically be deemed certified district supervisors without further action by the board. Increases the amount associated with violation of the act from one-hundred dollars ($100.00) to seven hundred and fifty dollars ($750.00). Requires city or town to annually report to the district board on designated and declared weed and pest work within the city or town.
Public statements
Last checked Aug 7, 9:18 PM
H44
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because retaining the current definition supports valuable regulations like certified weed-free hay and helps demonstrate compliance with EPA integrated pest management requirements.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because current statutes are too limited and new definitions including integrated management practices are necessary for modern weed control.
H01
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because landowners are already effectively using these control methods and codifying them in statute supports existing successful practices.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because the current definition is already broad enough and adding specific examples might inadvertently exclude other necessary actions.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because removing 'indirect' clarifies the law by limiting it to definable direct effects rather than vague indirect consequences.
H05
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because the term 'indirect effect' is too vague and could be interpreted to include subjective dislikes rather than actual impacts.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because removing 'indirect' prevents an overly broad definition that lacks a clear meaning on the floor.
If a lawmaker is not listed, we couldn't find a published reason.
Wyoming roll calls
5 roll calls
Official activity
Changes
8 stored
Failed 3rd reading by SHEPPERSON
Adopted Committee of the Whole by ZWONITZ,DN
Adopted Standing Committee by H05
Adopted 2nd reading by HICKS
Adopted 3rd reading by ROTHFUSS
Withdrawn 3rd reading by SCOTT
Adopted 3rd reading by SCOTT
Adopted Standing Committee by BEBOUT