Game damage

[Oak]

So how do you feel about states paying farmers and ranchers for damage done to crops or livestock by big game animals? In Colorado, Parks and Wildife pays has a fairly generous policy for landowners, if they can prove the damage. Here are the requirements:

Who qualifies for game damage reimbursement?
Ranchers, farmers and landowners may file a claim for compensation for the loss of certain crops or agricultural products. However, the claimants must meet certain legal qualifications. For example: a claimant cannot unreasonably restrict hunting, cannot charge more than $500/person in access fees, the claimant has a duty to mitigate damage, and the claiment has filed paperwork in a timely manner.



What types of game damage are covered?

• livestock
  Note: claims for livestock losses are capped at $5000/animal.
• commercial orchards
• nurseries
• growing and harvested crops
• forage
• fences
• apiaries

The state is liable for claims to personal property used in the production of raw agricultural products (ie: apiaries). As of 2003, the state is no longer liable for hot tubs, tents, coolers or personal property not used in the production of raw agricultural products.

Claims made to CPW of over $20,000 must be reviewed and approved by the Wildlife Commission, so occasionally you will see these claims on their meeting agenda. For example, at tomorrow's meeting, they will be reviewing a claim that has been approved and submitted for review and approval by the local office for damage to pine trees in a nursery: $72,144.40.

Game damage claim 05-Y12-09

In March, the Commission approved three claims for bears and mountain lions killing domestic sheep (grazing on public land!) totaling $163,948.17.

So do you feel like hunters should pay for the damage wildlife does to private crops and livestock?

 

[Big Fin]

Wow. I think you will have to raise NR fees, if the agency continues to pay these kind of claims. Not sure I know of any other states with such generous reimbursement rules.

 

[whiskeydog]

maybe i should be paid whenever grasshoppers eat my garden?

 

[BuzzH]

I voted other.

IMO, if a landowner allows reasonable public access for hunting and still suffers loses, then they should get compensated for wildlife damages.

Another possible scenerio is if say, they suffer losses only a portion of the year (thinking winter range as a classic example). If the wildlife isnt there during a hunting season, but are utilizing private land and causing damage other times of the year, then yes.

I also feel that if a landowner doesnt allow public access and harbors wildlife during a hunting season, they shouldnt get anything.

I'm willing to work with landowners who are willing to work with public access...otherwise they can get bent.

 

[THWAK1]

Well said BuzzH! My thoughts exactly!

 

[spook12]

Crazy. And they delivered fencing to him? Why would he not be responsible for building his own fence? Oak is there any way to see what is paid statewide for wildlife getting into haystacks. I have always found it strange the number of ranches i see in the west that make no,or very poor attempts to keep wildlife out of harvested forage.

 

[Randy49er]

Seems like $72,144.40 would buy a lot more than pine trees.

 

[shoots-straight]

I said "Other" too.

I think it should be on a case by case situation.

Lets say, there's private lands that have historically been right in the middle of a migration path or just plain great habitat. It has always been grazed, but now has new owners that change the land usage to farming. Even if they allow hunting, I'd say no compensation is required as they should have known better.
They should have to apply for some sort of crop insurance. Then pay the premium accordingly.

If they have historically had a farm that had small or no amounts of depredation from ungulates, and then the herds grow to the point where the damage increased, assuming they allow public hunting, I'd say they deserve some form of compensation.

Predators would be another story. On public lands, NO! Our wildlife have as much right to use those lands as the lessor. Therefor it's cost of doing business.

If it's on private lands, and the livestock gets killed by animals that are listed by the ESA, I'd say compensate by the appropriate agency. (Not state) If they just have a predation situation where predators that aren't listed take part , then they have the right to defend their livestock by any means. On their own lands, no compensation, just kill em.

 

[Zach]

I also feel that if a landowner doesnt allow public access and harbors wildlife during a hunting season, they shouldnt get anything.

I'm willing to work with landowners who are willing to work with public access...otherwise they can get bent.

These 2 statements are spot on!

You can't expect reimbursement for something you could ultimately control in a partial manner.

 

[Oak]

Crazy. And they delivered fencing to him? Why would he not be responsible for building his own fence? Oak is there any way to see what is paid statewide for wildlife getting into haystacks. I have always found it strange the number of ranches i see in the west that make no,or very poor attempts to keep wildlife out of harvested forage.

They say that paying for prevention reduces claims in the future. Here is an interesting quote that I found in the FY 09-10 Game Damage program report, accompanied by the graph:

Since the inception of the Game Damage Program in 1931, the original broad legal language has evolved to specify what is covered by game damage laws. Twenty years ago the Program expanded to include damage prevention. The Game Damage Prevention Program has significantly lessened the amount of damage and the amount paid out in game damage claims.

Now I'm no rocket scientist, but.......

 

[dan.kirkpatrick]

hard to believe but oregon would rather pay for wolf livstock predatation and are trying to establish wolfs so we can be like idaho and montana,,,,crazy.

 

[Devil Diver Down]

Some hungry birds ate my grapes right off the vine. Just let me know who to send the bill to...


Sorry if I seem short on sympathy, but that's the cost of doing business in my book. Seeing as how livestock and farmers already get a pretty healthy deal from the Feds in the way of lowered prices and subsidies, I think anything more than that is over the top. My only exception would be in the case of feral, non-native species being the proven culprit. And only if those animals established themselves in the respective area AFTER the farmer/rancher did.

And in any case involving predators, i.e. wolves, well any rancher who claims a loss automatically qualifies as a yes vote to any measure to get rid of that particular predator.

If I hire a film crew for a shoot and we get rained out, I still have to pay. Maybe I should hit up FEMA in that case. Sorry, BS.

 

[Big Slick]

Game damage claim 05-Y12-09

In March, the Commission approved three claims for bears and mountain lions killing domestic sheep (grazing on public land!) totaling $163,948.17.

So do you feel like hunters should pay for the damage wildlife does to private crops and livestock?

No wonder lamb cost so much at the store.

 

[Dinkshooter]

In March, the Commission approved three claims for bears and mountain lions killing domestic sheep (grazing on public land!) totaling $163,948.17.

That is when it goes way to far, I might be able to see claims for damage to private land, but if your range maggots are on public land grazing nearly free, you should assume the risk.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

I'll also go along with exactly what BuzzH mentioned!!!

 

[spook12]

Oak, i get your point on the chart,kinda shoots down their point. It seems that when an easy remedy ''such as proper fencing'' is part of the final resolution that in itself should disqualify the claim. Paying for livestock killed on federal land is just more proof of the welfare mentality that has become the norm of the western beef and wool growers.

 

[jlmatthew]

No way!

The Deer & Elk were here long before someone just showed up, claimed the land as his, put a fence up and now wants to be compensated for them being there.

Now maybe if he is being over run with pheasants and chuckers since their exotics we can look into it

Maybe the Indians will try to get dame gamage from the whites LOL!

 

[Devil Diver Down]

If a predator takes down a person, what is the compensation from the state for that? For a cow, divide that number by 1000; for a sheep divide by infinity.

 

[ihuntelk]

I'm also on the 'other' fence for most situations. If reasonable public access is allowed during hunting season, then I'm alright with paying some claims. If they outfit or won't allow access - sorry but your family and a few friends doesn't count as access - then they can pay their own bill.

Several years ago in Idaho we had a fight with a so-called conservation organization (starts with S and ends with FW!) that had their Idaho lobbyist write legislation (that passed) that forced IDFG to pay for damages even if the landowner didn't allow ANY access. Not many Idaho sportsmen even knew it had been introduced as a bill until it was too late. They still deny it, but when their Exec Dir signed as the author it's kinda hard to dispute. :hump: Yep, they backdoored it again!

There's a situation in my neck of the woods where Wyoming GFD denied a claim from a big rancher for depredation 4 years ago. The next year it was signed up as a HMA and they now kill a pile of antelope on the HMA every year. The landowner receives money for enrolling as a HMA and money for depredation. They're making more off the depredation reimbursement than they were off the hay................ It would be fine if it were a lifelong local rancher, but it's a huge corporation that keeps buying up the local guys. They look strictly at the bottom line and this is a way to increase that bottom line. Access is great but it's still kinda hard to swallow.

Glad I'm not the one trying to sort out all the claims..............

- Cade
www.HuntForeverWest.com

 

[muleguy]

crop damage

Idaho also pays for damage