Current Edition

current edition

Wyoming Legislation

Legislation would segregate ‘trophy brands’
Cheyenne – Representative Sue Wallis (R-Recluse) is sponsoring legislation she hopes will “clean up” the state’s brand books and make brands a permanent piece of property.
    “There are two main things that happen in this bill,” says Wallis. “The one that I am personally most invested in is the idea that when you register or buy a brand it ought to be your property, period. It ought to be a permanent asset like a trademark or any kind of intellectual property.”
    “Yes,” says Wallis, “you already have the ability to pass it on to your heirs, and sell it and do all those things. It’s just that if grandpa dies and cousin Bob in California isn’t paying attention and it doesn’t get it re-registered, you can lose the brand forever.”
    HB208 would create a system through which existing Wyoming brands would be registered, as Wallis says, “one last time.” As of Jan. 21, the legislation had been received for introduction and referred to the House Agriculture, State and Public Lands and Water Resources Committee for its consideration.
    Of the legislation’s second aspect Wallis says she hopes to “clean up” the state’s brand books. With around 30,000 brands registered with the Wyoming Livestock Board (WLSB) Wallis says, “According to WLSB Director Jim Schwartz only about 8,000 of those will ever see the hide of an animal. I’ve proposed something many other states have done and that’s to create another class of brands.”
    Called “heritage brands,” Wallis says it would be illegal to place a heritage brand on livestock. “Wyoming heritage brand,” reads the legislation, “means a brand used for decorative purposes only and shall not be used on livestock.” Brands registered as heritage brands, she says, would not be available to livestock owners for separate registration and use as livestock brands.
    Wyoming Brand Inspector Gary Zakotnik of Farson spoke up in opposition to the legislation during the recent WLSB meeting in Cheyenne. Zakotnik said he’s concerned that heritage brands, despite regulations to the contrary, would end up being placed on livestock. In the event that happened Zakotnik said it could become very difficult to determine an animal’s rightful owner.
    WLSB Chairman Phil Marton responded, saying that he didn’t know of a single WLSB member who supported the legislation.
    “I don’t understand the intent,” says WLSB Director Jim Schwartz. “If people want a trademark they can file for that today at the Secretary of State’s office. This legislation has huge implications to our industry for a lot of reasons.”
    The Wyoming Wool Growers Association and the Wyoming Stock Growers Association have joint policy, passed by their members early December, opposing the legislation. WSGA Executive Vice President Jim Magagna says his members’ primary concern was brands that would be removed from availability for use on livestock.
    Wyoming Farm Bureau Executive Vice President Ken Hamilton, noting his organization hasn’t taken a position for or against the legislation, says he does question one aspect of the legislation. “I don’t like that it’s taking brands out of commission that could be used on livestock. It hasn’t been that many years ago that we were trying to figure out how to free up more brands so we had some to use on livestock.”
    When brand owners registered their brands for the “one last time,” Wallis says they’d choose between registering it as a heritage brand or for use on livestock. “We set that price at about half of what it would cost to register a brand for livestock with the idea that there would be a financial incentive to move it to the heritage brand side and clean up the brand books,” says Wallis of she and co-sponsor Senator John Schiffer (R-Kaycee).
    According to Wallis, renewal of a livestock brand if the system is set in place would cost $300. Registering it as a heritage brand would cost $150. New livestock brand registration would come at a cost of $300 plus $100 for each species for which the brand is registered. As an example she says if a brand were registered for use on horses, cattle and sheep, the cost would be $500.
    Magagna says he has concerns regarding the financial implications the change could pose for the brand program. It would also take away the agency’s opportunity to capitalize on the re-issuing of brands not renewed during the designated timeframes.
    “I think we’d lose two-thirds of our brands,” says Schwartz of registered livestock brands. “Furthermore, once you buy this heritage brand there’s no way to track it for the long-term, which could tie things up forever.” He estimates the legislation would cost his agency a quarter of a million dollars during each renewal period for the next 10 years. “The Governor’s Brand Task Force said $300 every 10 years was not out of line and that everybody could work with that,” says Schwartz of current brand renewal fees. “There aren’t many things you can do for $30 a year.”
    “It’s going to be a delayed reaction as you get to the tenth year where you’re registering people one last time,” says Wallis of the impact on funding. “If you have only 8,000 to 10,000 brands in what should be a well-put-together electronic system, yes there would be less money coming in, but on the other hand it’s going to take way less personnel to manage.” After the 10 years where you’re registering people for “one last time,” she says an occasional brand registration and transfers will replace the existing re-registration. “That revenue is going to drop off, but it’s going to take way less personnel to manage it,” she says.
    “Schwartz says four people plus Brand Commissioner Lee Romsa are employed in the WLSB’s brand division at the Cheyenne headquarters full time.”    
    Wallis says she envisions an Internet-based account system where livestock brand owners are responsible for keeping their contact information up to date. Brand inspectors, she says, could verify that information when making inspection calls.
    The legislation includes a $50,000 appropriation to hire a contract person to implement the heritage brand program.
    “What to do about people who want a brand over their fireplace and want to say it’s a registered Wyoming brand is a problem that’s been around for a long time,” says Magagna. “We need to continue to seek resolution. We’re just not prepared to say this is the answer.”
    “Today, anybody can put a brand on their mantle,” says Schwartz. “They can put any brand they want on their mantle. They just can’t put it on livestock unless it’s registered with our agency. The brand program was initiated to show ownership of livestock. It was not intended to be a trademark. If people want a trademark they can go down to the Secretary of State’s Office and purchase one for almost nothing.”
    Jennifer Womack is managing editor of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup and can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Cheyenne – On Jan. 25 the House Ag Committee of the Wyoming Legislature met in Cheyenne to review a portion of the bills pertaining to the agriculture industry in the state, including HB16, Wyoming Beef Council Fee Collection.
Following much discussion, the bill, which had been studied in the interim by the Joint Ag Committee, passed out of the committee on a five-to-four vote, without amendments proposed by both the Wyoming Stock Growers Association (WSGA) and the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation (WyFB).
Later in the week, HB16 was defeated in its first reading in the House. The amendment that required a referendum of producers passed, but the bill itself, which would have authorized Wyoming’s beef producers to initiate a self-funded promotion program, failed by a vote of eight to 49 with three excused.
The legislation addresses a 1971 law that allowed an in-state beef checkoff to be collected by the Wyoming Livestock Board (WLSB) for the Wyoming Beef Council (WBC). That state collection was halted upon the passage of the Federal Beef Promotion Act and Order in 1986, which authorized the national checkoff collection of one dollar per head on cattle sold across the country. At that point in time, the state checkoff transitioned to the national checkoff program, which is how the program has operated ever since.
The summer 2010 meeting of the WSGA brought the issue to light, when the membership voted to request the WBC to investigate whether it could collect a state checkoff of up to one dollar in addition to the national checkoff dollar.
“What we ran into is that the wording in the law allows the WLSB to collect up to a dollar on our behalf, and not anything beyond,” explained WBC Executive Director Ann Wittmann at the committee meeting. “It’s a case where the intent of the law changed as things progressed, and we’re trying to get the wording available, so that if there is a desire for a checkoff in the state, the WBC could recommend to the WLSB to begin collecting.”
In answer to concerns from the representatives over whether the WBC would make absolutely sure that Wyoming producers were in favor of a state checkoff before implementation, Wittmann said, “What’s in front of you only allows the opportunity for a collection to be implemented, should producers want it. It does not guarantee a collection. It allows for collection up to one dollar, and we haven’t seen producer support for an amount more than 50 cents.”
Dairy producer Scott George of Cody said he views the checkoff programs he pays for both dairy and beef as an investment in his business.
“There are checkoffs on corn, wheat soybeans and fruit, and they are all self-help programs and an investment in the business,” he said. “You’ve seen the uses for the dairy checkoff, with the ‘Got Milk?’ and milk mustache campaigns, and in beef we’ve seen ‘Beef, it’s what’s for dinner.’”
George added that the benefits to a state checkoff would be a freedom from restrictions in the national program.
“Right now we have animal activists hitting our industries, and the Humane Society of the United States has an active role in eliminating animal agriculture. We can’t refer to them with federal dollars as an ‘animal activist group.’ A state program would allow greater flexibility on what we as producers could do,” said George.
“The question with this legislation is should the producers, if they so desire, be allowed to collect and promote their own industry?” explained George.
However, producer Judy McCullough of Moorcroft, and ICOW member, said her membership is against the bill.
“We have a lot of concerns,” she said. “Combined with the potential for the national checkoff to increase to $1.50, the total checkoff could go up to $2.50. If I sell 200 calves, that’s $500, or a calf for every 200 head I sell, and I’m already paying enough taxes through property tax, sales tax and others.”
She added that ICOW fails to see where the national checkoff has helped producers, and says there’s not enough accountability in the bill as considered by the committee.
“If the checkoff will be so beneficial, I think we’d volunteer the extra money, rather than ramming the state program down our throats,” she said, adding that ICOW wants to be sure there will be a guaranteed vote of producers, not based on cattle numbers, before a state checkoff is put in place.
“If we must go forward, we need to at least have an opt-out option, so when a brand inspector comes to your door, you can check the box to opt out, and you don’t pay the state checkoff,” said McCullough. “ICOW would like to see this bill killed in committee, and if it was possible, I’d have you take us out of the federal checkoff.”
Mark Bebout of Lingle, Terry Henderson of Converse County and Randy Stevenson of Wheatland also spoke in opposition to the legislation.
“I would recommend the committee table the idea of any further taxes on Wyoming cattle until USDA rectifies and reforms the national checkoff,” said Stevenson.
Erv Petsch of Meridan, who works with the U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF), argued that the U.S. export market is bringing an additional $150 per animal slaughtered into the U.S. because of the efforts of USMEF, which is funded by checkoff dollars from the beef, pork, sheep, soybean and corn programs.
Petsch added that the $150 figure does not come from choice quality meat, but rather from meat that can’t be easily marketed in the U.S.
“If you think your margin is bad now, take $150 out of each head you sell, and it’d be worse,” he said.
Producer Ed Prosser of Laramie County said he doesn’t think an extra 50 cents is too much of a burden to pay out of the final sale price of a yearling. Mark Eisele, who ranches in Laramie and Albany counties, agreed, saying, “We’re talking about one-four-hundredth of our income for a self-help program. I wish the taxes were that low on a pickup truck or ranch land. We have the opportunity to pay more, and that’s great. A lot of folks in the industry ride the coattails of the proactive producers, and they will opt out, should that option be given.”
Les Barkhurst of Saratoga spoke against the bill, saying that the root of the problem is the packing segment of the beef industry. “Every time the beef checkoff has tried to build a market, the captive supply takes it down. They know how much we can handle before we go out of business. Let’s stop the exports and imports, and see what would happen if America both produced and consumed all its beef,” he said.
Tammy Barkhurst, also of Saratoga, asked for a referendum from all producers equally, as opposed to weighted by cattle numbers, saying that in Carbon County a handful of absentee landowners own the majority of cattle.
In regard to producer input, and how that would be determined, Scott Zimmerman of Rocky Mountain Farmers Union said his organization favored the WyFB amendment, which called for a referendum, over the WSGA amendment, which left the strategy for collecting producer opinion more open-ended.
Producer John Francis of Laramie County said he believes a referendum not only needs to happen, but needs to be repeated every so many years to review the policy.
In the end, both amendments failed to pass the committee, while the bill itself narrowly passed, and Rep. Dan Zwonitzer of Laramie County has been tasked with drafting the appropriate amendments related to a referendum to take to the floor of the House of Representatives when the bill is read.
Christy Martinez is managing editor of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup and can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Cheyenne – Last week marked the conclusion of the 2014 Budget Session of the Wyoming Legislature. 

“At the start of the session on Feb. 10, a total of 306 bills were numbered for introduction,” says Associate Legislative Information Officer Anthony Sara. “The Wyoming Legislature passed a total of 132 bills.”

The session was quiet for most agriculture groups, who noted some disappointment with the passage, or lack thereof, of a handful of bills.

The senate introduced 101 pieces of legislation. Of those, 71 passed both houses. In the house, 128 bills were introduced of the 184 numbered, and both houses approved only 61.

“Both the House and Senate have addressed a broad range of issues affecting Wyoming residents, and while some of these laws will take effect immediately, many will not go into effect until July 1 of this year,” Sara adds.


Among the bills addressed this year, Wyoming’s biennial budget was signed by Governor Matt Mead, with an agreement of $3.3 billion in General Fund spending and $160 million in transfers to other accounts over the next two years. 

In an opinion by Senate President Tony Ross and Majority Floor Leader Kermit Brown, the two comment, “The budget makes targeted investments in infrastructure, a critical component for growing the Wyoming economy in the long-term.”

The legislature noted that they took careful consideration in allocating funds to best poise Wyoming for the future.

“While no one can predict the future, Wyoming understands the importance of taking the initiative to plan ahead,” Brown and Ross write. “The fiscal year 2015-16 budget puts Wyoming in the driver’s seat, giving future citizens and lawmakers the resources and foundation they need to guide Wyoming’s successful future.”

Interim topics

On wrapping up the 2014 Budget Session of the Wyoming Legislature, Management Council released the list of interim topics selected for this year’s committees to explore. 

“It is going to be a busy interim,” says Brett Moline of Wyoming Farm Bureau. “While some committees don’t have much, there are going to be a number of topics we look at.”

Criminal trespass

For most agriculture organizations across the state, the subject of criminal trespass and trespassing to collect data will be important this year. 

“Over in the Judiciary Committee, a very important issue that will be looked at is trespass to collect data,” Wyoming Stock Growers Association Executive Vice President Jim Magagna says.

Moline adds, “There have been problems in Wyoming. The laws aren’t easily understood, and people have come onto or across private property to collect data.”

While laws regarding trespass onto private lands in hunting are explicit, Moline notes that other trespass laws are more vague. 

Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts (WACD) Executive Director Bobbie Frank adds that the topic will also be important for WACD.

“This topic will be our top interim priority,” Frank says. 

The interim topic follows after Senator Larry Hicks’ bill on the subject failed to go through during the latest session of the legislature. Magagna comments that Hicks’ bill warranted additional work and discussion prior to its passage.

Ag committee topics

“The big issue on the Ag Committee is animal welfare,” Moline continues. 

Several years ago, rules changed such that the Wyoming Livestock Board was only responsible for livestock welfare cases.

“That change left pets in limbo,” Moline notes. “There was also a fund set up for care of confiscated livestock, but there is question as to whether that can be used for pets, as well.”

Magagna continues that designation of pet animals is also a question that will be contemplated in the interim.

“It may seem pretty clear to distinguish which animals are pets, but when we look at our working cow dogs that lie on the porch for half the day, are they livestock or pets?” Magagna asks. “We run into the same issue with horses. It will take some work to sort that out.”

The Ag Committee will also look at landowner and state land issues related to energy development, including pipeline liability.

“The question in energy development is what happens when a pipeline company goes defunct and doesn’t clean out their pipelines?” Moline asks. “Who is responsible for those?”

The committee will explore solutions for pipeline liability and assistance for remediation of leaks when companies are no longer present.

Private property

Private property issues will also be discussed, including notification requirements for designations of private property.

“When someone makes a designation on private property – such as where a city thinks a park should be, for example – they should be required to notify the landowners,” Moline says, noting that the Joint Ag Committee will explore whether any action is necessary on that subject. 

The Minerals Committee will look at other landowner issues related to energy development to ensure that landowners and their property are protected.

General ag issues

The Ag committee will also look at a variety of issues that have been persistent in the ag community, including fire suppression, mountain pine beetles, beef processing and water uses.

“They’ll look at traceability,” Moline continues. “They will also look at a dry bean research checkoff and limits on the beef checkoff.”

Magagna comments that national increases in the beef checkoff are being contemplated and current limits only allow brand inspectors to collect one dollar for the checkoff.

“If the national checkoff were to increase, we don’t want to put ourselves in a situation that the Wyoming Beef Council has to create a new mechanism to collect additional amounts,” he explains.

Other committees

The agriculture community will also closely follow the actions of the Select Water Committee, Select Natural Resource Funding Committee and Selected Federal Natural Resource Management Committee.

“The Select Committee of Federal Natural Resource Management is one we will keep an eye on,” Moline says. “They will continue to look at whether there are ways to get federal lands into state management.”
The issue has a number of considerations that must be taken into account, including how to transfer lands legally and whether Wyoming has the financial ability to manage those lands. 

The Transportation Committee will also look at classifications for non-commercial driver’s licenses to address concerns of weight limits in vehicles.

“Of course, there will be other topics we monitor, as well,” Magagna says, also noting that the interim session promises to be both busy and exciting.

With the interim session filled with topics that affect agriculture, Wyoming ag groups will be busy over the next year in preparation for the 2015 General Session of the Wyoming Legislature, slated to convene on Jan. 13, 2015 for a 40-day session.

Saige Albert is managing editor of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup and can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Gov. Mark Gordon signed House Bill 171/House Enrolled Act 110 following the General Session of the Wyoming Legislature this year, and since then, activity related to hemp has geared up in Wyoming. 

In the wake of the bill, the Wyoming Department of Agriculture (WDA) continues to develop a plan, rules, a fee schedule, applications and other necessary documents to implement a regulatory program for industrial hemp. WDA began working on these documents during the session. 

“With the signing of HB 171/HEA 110, WDA had 30 days to submit a plan to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to request delegated authority for the regulation of industrial hemp,” says WDA.

“With the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill and the work of the legislature throughout the session, we have been working hard on the industrial hemp program to make sure we are ready when the time comes to implement a program here in Wyoming,” said Doug Miyamoto, director of the Wyoming Department of Agriculture. “If we are legally able to do it, we are anxious to start a hemp program in Wyoming to provide more opportunities for our producers and processors with this productive, diversifying permitted crop across the state.”

Understanding hemp

“Hemp is a very interesting topic, and it’s very timely right now in light of changes in the farm bill,” says University of Wyoming Extension Educator Caitlyn Youngquist. “Hemp has not been legally grown in the U.S. since 1970.”

Hemp, or Cannabis sativa, is an herbaceous flowering plant that comes from eastern Asia, and Youngquist says there are many different cultivars with a variety of different compounds.

“We have a variety of things in this plant that can be used in a variety of ways,” she continues. “We have cultivars that produce fiber, ones that produce seed for either food or oil and other cultivars that produce cannabidiol, which is a health and therapy product.” 

In addition, recreational Cannabis species are high in tetrahydrocannabinol, which provides the “high.” 

“Generally, when we talk about industrial hemp, we’re talking about plants that produce fiber, seed or cannabidiol oil,” she says. 

Hemp products are used in livestock feed and seed, fibers, ropes, health products, animal beddings, fabric, insulation, building products, as bioplastic and more. 

Youngquist explains, “There are a lot of different uses of this plant, depending on what cultivar is grown and how it is processed.” 

Hemp plants are dioecious, meaning they have both male and female plants. The male and female plants have different uses because of different characteristics of the plant.


“We don’t have an open market in this country,” Youngquist says. “The 2014 Farm Bill opened up the ability to grow hemp at research institutions through states.” 

At that point, several states began growing hemp under research authority from USDA. The handful of states with authority have some data on the value of each variety.

“The average wholesale price, in dollars per pound, of the fiber, seed and flower is very different,” she says. “The flower, which we get cannabidiol (CBD) oil from, has an average price of $28 a pound. Seed is only worth about nine dollars a pound, but fiber is only worth 10 cents a pound.” 

Younquist continues, “We see through all states that the flower is the most valuable to sell, but the plant, of course, would produce more pounds of fiber than flowers.”

Data on hemp product sales imported from China and Canada show that personal care products take up approximately 25 percent of sales. CBD accounts for about 20 percent, and industrial applications have approximately the same sales. Textiles account for 14 percent of imported hemp, and 20 percent goes to food. 

“It’s interesting to look at where hemp goes in this country,” she says

Growing hemp

Trials done at Colorado State University showed that hemp grows rapidly, with plants beginning to emerge in late May. The plants grow rapidly, with flowers beginning to emerge by July. Harvest is traditionally in late August. 

“The male flower is highly attractive to pollinators,” Youngquist says. 

She continues, “The agronomics of hemp includes a little bit from Canada and a little bit from those states that are producing hemp, but it is pretty limited.”

Hemp can be grown on marginal ground with low inputs, but low yield results. 

“If we want to get a maximum yield for the crop with inputs, we need to treat it like corn, according to what we have gathered,” Youngquist says. “It could be used mixed in with cover crops or forage crops, and it has some soil building potential.” 

Next steps

With WDA working on a plan, USDA recently stated they will hold state plan submissions until their rules are promulgated in the fall of 2019 and that states may continue to operate under the provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill. The state is currently assessing our legal authority to issue permits prior to USDA review of our industrial hemp plan. 

“Since USDA is not approving state plans until the fall, the most important thing right now is to make sure we have the legal authority to permit and regulate hemp under the provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill and existing statutes in Wyoming,” said Miyamoto. “We are working with the Attorney General’s Office and Gov. Gordon’s office to answer this question but will continue developing the program, so we are ready to go when we are legally able to start permitting.”

In the meantime, WDA will continue the rulemaking process for the program, working toward obtaining and installing testing equipment at the WDA Analytical Services Lab and training employees for regulating this new permitted crop.

Saige Albert is managing editor of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup. Send comments on this article to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Each year, members of the Wyoming Legislature assigned to various committees travel throughout the state to gather input, learn more and understand the complexity around issues facing Wyoming.

This year, members of the Agriculture, State and Public Lands and Water Resources Committee will focus on six priorities that impact the agriculture in the state. 

Rep. Hans Hunt of Newcastle, who serves as co-chairman of the joint interim committee, noted the Wyoming Legislature worked to target issues that impact Wyomingites where the Legislature can also attempt to address challenges. 

College of Agriculture

As their top priority, the committee will review the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources at the University of Wyoming and the current degree programs offered by the college. The committee will also review the Extension and Research Stations associated with the college. 

“This issue has been brought to our attention over the last several months and since the beginning of the year,” explains Hunt. “We wanted to take a look at the programs offered by the College of Agriculture and see how effective they are.” 

Programs like rangeland management have been very successful in the past, according to several legislators, but their perspective was that the programs seem to not attract Wyoming students.

“The recent challenges at the College of Ag also tieright in,” Hunt adds.

Land issues

The second priority relates to invasive species, with the goal of giving the state more control and more “muscle” to prevent invasive species from being brought into the state.

The committee will review efforts to inspect and control foreign goods moving through Wyoming that may harbor invasive species. 

This topic will include a review of the current Wyoming procedures related to invasive species and a review of methods used in other states. 

“Last summer, I had the chance to fly over the Sheridan area and see the damages as a result of medusahead and ventenata,” Hunt says. “It’s becoming a problem in that area, to the point that we have an economic impact on grazing and production.”

Three topics related to state lands will be explored this year, including a review of the appraisal process for state lands and issues related to the potential of exchanging isolated school parcels. Finally, the topic of developing a program to exchange landlocked trust lands will be included.  

The work related to state lands continues 2018’s state lands conversations, as well as addresses appraisal of state lands to alleviate challenges.

Commodity groups 

In addition, the committee will review the operation of the existing commodity boards in Wyoming including the Wyoming Beef Council, the Wheat Marketing Commission and the Bean Commission. The review will include the history and current duties of the entities and opportunities for efficiencies within the entities and the Wyoming Business Council. 

As their fifth priority, the committee will review the operations and funding of the Animal Damage Management Board(ADMB). The review will include the interactions of the Board with the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, counties and federal-state cooperative programs. 

“Gov. Gordon brought forward an increase for ADMB in his budget request, so we thought it would be worth our time to look into,” Hunt says. “The program took a significant cut several years ago, and we thought it might be a good time to see if we needed to add funding to the program.”


Finally, the committee will receive updates and reports from executive branch agencies under its jurisdiction, including the Department of Agriculture and the Office of State Lands and Investments. 

Also related to the agriculture industry, the Travel, Recreation, Wildlife and Cultural Resources Committee will look at the impacts of Chronic Wasting Disease and Aquatic Invasive Species.

Public input

“Public input in the legislative process is always encouraged,” Hunt says. “We conduct these meetings around the state to interface with the public more.”

Public comment periods are held during each of the meetings, and Hunt encourages members of the public to provide input, learn about the issues and meet their legislators.

Interim committee meetings will be held in Sheridan in June and Laramie in September this year, and updates on meeting time and location will be provided in the future. A third meeting will be held in October or November, with the location to be determined.

For a complete list of the 2019 Wyoming Legislature Interim Committee Topics, visit