Skip to main content Skip to office menu Skip to footer
Capital IconMinnesota Legislature

SF 2989

2nd Engrossment - 86th Legislature (2009 - 2010) Posted on 03/18/2010 12:09pm

KEY: stricken = removed, old language.
underscored = added, new language.

Current Version - 2nd Engrossment

Line numbers 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.21 1.22 1.23 1.24 1.25 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7
2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.19 2.20 2.21 2.22 2.23 2.24 2.25 2.26 2.27 2.28 2.29 2.30

A bill for an act
relating to agriculture; modifying the compensation program for livestock
crippled or destroyed by a gray wolf; amending Minnesota Statutes 2008,
section 3.737, subdivision 4; Minnesota Statutes 2009 Supplement, section
3.737, subdivision 1.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

Section 1.

Minnesota Statutes 2009 Supplement, section 3.737, subdivision 1, is
amended to read:


Subdivision 1.

Compensation required.

(a) Notwithstanding section 3.736,
subdivision 3
, paragraph (e), or any other law, a livestock owner shall be compensated
by the commissioner of agriculture for livestock that is destroyed by a gray wolf or is so
crippled by a gray wolf that it must be destroyed. Except as provided in this section,
the owner is entitled to the fair market value of the destroyed livestock as determined
by the commissioner, upon recommendation of new text begin the fair market value by new text end a university
extension agent deleted text begin or a conservation officerdeleted text end . In any fiscal year, a livestock owner may not
be compensated for a destroyed animal claim that is less than $100 in value and may be
compensated up to $20,000, as determined under this section. In any fiscal year, the
commissioner may provide compensation for claims filed under this section up to the
amount expressly appropriated for this purpose.

(b) deleted text begin Either the agent or thedeleted text end new text begin A university extension agent, anew text end conservation officernew text begin ,
an official from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the United States
Department of Agriculture, or a peace officer from the county sheriff's office
new text end must make
a personal inspection of the sitenew text begin and submit a report to the commissioner, including
photographs, detailing the results of the investigation
new text end . deleted text begin The agent or the conservation
officer
deleted text end new text begin The investigatornew text end must take into account factors in addition to a visual identification
of a carcass when making a recommendation to the commissioner. The commissioner,
upon recommendation of the deleted text begin agent or conservation officerdeleted text end new text begin investigatornew text end , shall determine
whether the livestock was destroyed by a gray wolf deleted text begin and any deficiencies in the
owner's adoption of the best management practices developed in subdivision 5. The
commissioner may authorize payment of claims only if the agent or the conservation
officer has recommended payment
deleted text end . The owner shall file a claim on forms provided by the
commissioner and available at the university extension agent's office.

Sec. 2.

Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 3.737, subdivision 4, is amended to read:


Subd. 4.

Payment; denial of compensation.

(a) If the commissioner finds that the
livestock owner has shown that the loss of the livestock was likely caused by a gray
wolf, the commissioner shall pay compensation as provided in this section and in the
rules of the department.

(b) deleted text begin For a gray wolf depredation claim submitted by a livestock owner after
September 1, 1999, the commissioner shall, based on the report from the university
extension agent and conservation officer, evaluate the claim for conformance with
the best management practices developed by the commissioner in subdivision 5. The
commissioner must provide to the livestock owner an itemized list of any deficiencies
in the livestock owner's adoption of best management practices that were noted in the
university extension agent's or conservation officer's report.
deleted text end

deleted text begin (c)deleted text end If the commissioner denies compensation claimed by an owner under this section,
the commissioner shall issue a written decision based upon the available evidence. It shall
include specification of the facts upon which the decision is based and the conclusions on
the material issues of the claim. A copy of the decision shall be mailed to the owner.

deleted text begin (d)deleted text end new text begin (c)new text end A decision to deny compensation claimed under this section is not subject to
the contested case review procedures of chapter 14, but may be reviewed upon a trial de
novo in a court in the county where the loss occurred. The decision of the court may be
appealed as in other civil cases. Review in court may be obtained by filing a petition for
review with the administrator of the court within 60 days following receipt of a decision
under this section. Upon the filing of a petition, the administrator shall mail a copy to the
commissioner and set a time for hearing within 90 days of the filing.