2004 Legislative Voter Guide

House District 7 – Laramie County

Dist.

Candidate

HD7

Mike Shonsey

HD7

Doug Samuelson

(+) Supports the Conservation Voters position
(-)Opposes the Conservation Voters position
(~) Depends (?) Don’t Know (N) Not answered (*) Denotes Incumbent

1. In recent legislative sessions, various bills have been considered to increase public access and recreational use of public lands. In general, would you support each of the following types of legislation:
(a) Allowing overnight camping on state land, where not in conflict with the lessee’s operations?

Mike Shonsey (D): Yes.

Doug Samuelson (R): Yes. But we will need to have some limits and controls like the state parks in place before it will work. Maybe a type of incentive for the lessee to help with trash would work.

(b) Requiring those who lease state land for grazing (not for crop production) to provide walk-in access for hunting, fishing and other recreational activities, where not in conflict with the lessee’s operations?

Mike Shonsey (D): Yes.

Doug Samuelson (R): We need to have all borders of state land identified first. I think the requirement would be unconstitutional. A better option would be to make the State Land Board do some strategic trades and access agreements so everyone wins. We can’t forget that State Trust Lands are in the Constitution for only the benefit of the schools.

(c) Allowing boaters to disembark and recreate streamside up to the high-water mark on all navigable water of the state?

Mike Shonsey (D): Yes.

Doug Samuelson (R): You need first a good definition of navigable waters. The Army Corps of Engineers defines navigable as only needing water loving plants and doesn’t even need to have standing water. This would be a huge regulatory taking and reduce people’s property values significantly. A compromise might be to allow it only within a quarter-mile of buildings or something like that.

2. Do you support the U.S. Forest Service’s initiative to protect remaining unroaded areas in national forests from new road construction and commercial logging?

Mike Shonsey (D): Don’t know.

Doug Samuelson (R): No. I think the Forest Service doesn’t care if hunters have access to the forest any more. If the Forest Service gets their way only strong young adults will be able to get past the pavement.

3. In the 2002 and 2004 Legislative sessions, bills were considered to establish a permanent wildlife trust fund, which would set aside a fixed sum to generate interest which would pay to conserve and improve wildlife habitat; address human-wildlife conflicts; support non-consumptive use of wildlife; and generate income for endangered species management, which is currently paid for with hunter and angler license fees. In general, would you support a similar bill?

Mike Shonsey (D): Yes.

Doug Samuelson (R): I think the proper way to fund a trust fund for wildlife habitat would be from a larger general fund appropriation so that the fund could immediately begin returning money back to projects.

4. Wyoming lawmakers have so far decided not to set aside a permanent trust fund for wildlife-related costs, such as the one described in the previous question. This has led Gov. Dave Freudenthal to instead propose devoting a fraction of existing state general fund revenue (not a new tax) to pay for some of the costs of preserving habitat affected by natural resource development. In general, would you support this approach?

Mike Shonsey (D): Yes.

Doug Samuelson (R): It would take much longer and not be nearly as predictable to use earmarked funds from severance taxes.

5. With the current boom in coalbed methane and other types of natural gas development, conflicts are emerging between surface landowners, and the owners and developers of subsurface minerals. Current state law does not require developers to negotiate a surface-use agreement in such cases. In general, would you support requiring extractive mineral producers to negotiate such an agreement, or else provide appropriate financial guarantees to clean up potential damage?

Mike Shonsey (D): Yes [underlined “in general”].

Doug Samuelson (R): Yes. I did see some legislation that was awful but I think it could be written so it is fair.

6. Would you support legislation that would reduceWyoming’s environmental standards for air, land or water quality?

Mike Shonsey (D): No.

Doug Samuelson (R): No.

7. Unregulated use of outdoor lighting causes increased light pollution and light trespass, and is considered by some to be a nuisance that diminishes their quality of life. Poorly designed lighting can also cause glare that distracts drivers and wastes energy by illuminating the night sky rather than the ground-level landscape. Municipalities’ right to adopt ordinances regulating the use of outdoor lighting is unclear under state law, while counties have no such authority at all. In general, would you support legislation to clearly authorize municipalities and counties to adopt ordinances that regulate the use of outdoor lighting?

Mike Shonsey (D): Yes.

Doug Samuelson (R): No.

8. In 1986, the Wyoming Legislature passed the In-Stream Flow Law, which allowed the state to hold a water right to use for natural water flow in a stream channel for the benefit of fisheries, while simultaneously maintaining other users’ pre-existing water rights. Unfortunately, the law created an unnecessarily lengthy, contentious and time-consuming process for protecting such water flows, to the point that the law is little-used and provides very minimal legal protections that apply in only a few real-world situations. In general, would you support legislation to streamline this process, so that actual in-stream flows could be preserved or enhanced for uses such as recreation, water-quality enhancement or municipal purposes?

Mike Shonsey (D): Yes.

Doug Samuelson (R): Yes. If it were truly a streamline and not just a way to get around state water law.

9. Wyoming’s wolf management plan and the underlying legislation classifies wolves as predators to be shot on sight in most of the state without regulations. In January 2004, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service declared the plan inadequate to ensure sustainable wolf populations, and specifically unlikely to withstand the legal challenges expected both from staunch anti-wolf activists and from out-of-state environmental groups. Meanwhile, without federal approval for a Wyoming plan, the wolf will remain under strict federal protections. These federal regulations hamper the ability of ranchers or game wardens to manage this controversial species, either to protect property and people, or to prevent more territory being inhabited by wolves. Legislators this year considered a measure to modestly increase wolf protection while still limiting where new packs can establish themselves. However, the bill failed and the state instead sued the federal government to try to salvage its “predator status” plan. In general, do you feel the state is justified in pursuing this lawsuit rather than correcting deficiencies in the wolf management plan?

Mike Shonsey (D): No.

Doug Samuelson (R): Yes. I think Wyoming is right to put our sportsmen’s interests first. We live for hunting season and many of the people against us on the wolf issue are anti-hunters that don’t care if we have surplus elk, deer and moose to hunt.

10. Gov. Freudenthal has overturned a policy of his predecessor called the “One Voice Policy.” Under this past policy, the governor’s office commented on behalf of the entire state government on various planning processes, which often involved large new development plans for energy extraction which include significant impacts on our wildlife and natural resources. When final comments would go out, state wildlife managers and environmental authorities often saw their concerns marginalized by pro-development voices from elsewhere in state government. In general, do you agree with Gov. Freudenthal’s decision to let different state agencies comment freely on their own areas of expertise without political involvement from the governor’s office?

Mike Shonsey (D): Yes.

Doug Samuelson (R): Yes. However some issues have slipped through the cracks and no agency commented them and now we don’t have standing in court. That is something that needs corrected fast. No comment means no standing in court. I want the field personnel you mention to be heard loud and clear however.

11. Current state bonding for oil and gas wells requires $25,000 per well and $150,000 for a collection of wells. This leaves many multiple-well fields without adequate reclamation funds if the operator is unable to pay for cleanup work. In such cases, the state must use oil and gas tax revenue to pay for this work. In general, would you support increasing the bond totals for oil, gas and coalbed methane reclamation?

Mike Shonsey (D): Yes.

Doug Samuelson (R): Not until I am convinced the bond is inadequate. It may be but I want to know way more before I believe it is not enough bond.

*****

Wyoming Conservation Voters is an independent nonpartisan, nonprofit organization under chapter 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. Founded in 2001 by prominent hunters, anglers and conservationists, WCV serves to educate concerned voters about candidates’ positions on issues affecting our wildlife and other natural resources.

For more information, visit our Web site at www.wyovoters.org, call (307) 265–0870, fax us at (307) 265–0893, or stop by at 1915 Oxford Lane, Suite 201, in Casper.