Game damage

[mixedbag]

Paying for sheep killed while using public land is absolutely crazy.First, he uses the land and takes from the wildlife.Then if a predator kills his free range sheep he wants a pay check.God, America is going down the tubes quick
If a rancher opens his gates to hunters,and still has losses, then I think he should be helped.If we can't manage his wildlife thru hunting, then no paycheck for losses.Should be that simple and I'm pretty sure thats how we do it here in Pa.Makes me want to buy a load of sheep and let them go on BLM land an hope they get killed.No work to worry about but I still get paid;absolutely crazy.I would have thought if you use the BLM land for livestock,that you did so at your own risk.Everybody should be calling "foul" on this deal,and let the people who make these idiotic decisions know it
I don't want to take from a rancher,but he has to make a reasonable effort to mange the wildlife if he wants his losses covered
Public land grazing should be at your own risk,and private ranches should have to have a system like wy. HMA to be able to collect on losses.If your not enrolled, too bad;sorry for your loss.Bet this would open up a ton of ranches to hunters,but still allow the rancher to control the hunters numbers

 

[Zach]

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

They do everytime someone pulls the handle on the side of the machine.

 

[Wapiti Warrior]

I too put "other". there is not one size fits all. Like Buzz said IF the landowner allows public hunting and there are too many game animals causing damage then the reimbursement should be more tags to harvest the animals. For example!

John

 

[1_pointer]

Paying for sheep killed while using public land is absolutely crazy.First, he uses the land and takes from the wildlife.Then if a predator kills his free range sheep he wants a pay check.God, America is going down the tubes quick
If a rancher opens his gates to hunters,and still has losses, then I think he should be helped.If we can't manage his wildlife thru hunting, then no paycheck for losses.Should be that simple and I'm pretty sure thats how we do it here in Pa.Makes me want to buy a load of sheep and let them go on BLM land an hope they get killed.No work to worry about but I still get paid;absolutely crazy.I would have thought if you use the BLM land for livestock,that you did so at your own risk.Everybody should be calling "foul" on this deal,and let the people who make these idiotic decisions know it
I don't want to take from a rancher,but he has to make a reasonable effort to mange the wildlife if he wants his losses covered
Public land grazing should be at your own risk,and private ranches should have to have a system like wy. HMA to be able to collect on losses.If your not enrolled, too bad;sorry for your loss.Bet this would open up a ton of ranches to hunters,but still allow the rancher to control the hunters numbers

You do realize that the grazing on BLM and the payments being talked about here come from completely different entities don't you? One has little influence over the other...

 

[huntbux]

I voted no, but I do agree alot with what Buzz said.

 

[Papa-Zulu]

I agree with BuzzH entirely. My memory may be faulty, but I believe the Wyoming Game & Fish Dept. was spending about $1 million a year in damage claims, fencing and related expenses when I left the agency in 1983. That is nuts!

 

[sbhooper]

I voted "other" and agree with Buzz and some others.

My neighbor is a prime example. He has thousands of acres of corn and leases the ground to an outfitter. HOWEVER he has allowed lots of people in to harvest does outside the regular seasons. Game and Parks does not compensate here as they have no money to do so. They have finally started dishing out depredation permits to help mitigate the damage.

I am fortunate enough to be the one doing his depredation hunting and between what my partner and myself have killed over the last three years (112 and still going), plus the regular season, the damage has been mitigated and the herd is getting to a more manageable level.

I do know that he would have squeezed Game and Parks to the max if there was a provision for payment, because he is all about the money. I think the damage payments are fine as long as they have a strict set of guidelines to go by and there are limits. The major thing is that they allow hunting during regular seasons even if it is on a tightly controlled basis. Herds of people stomping around on your land is a nightmare and I cannot argue with anybody that does not allow it.

 

[schmalts]

This is a joke. Fist off, looking at he damage photos I would not give him the amount he asked for. The trees are not dead, they are damaged and could be sold at a discount and with time many would fill out again. It is not like an bull elk came in and snapped them off killing them.

 

[Hem]

Guess I agree with Buzz on this one.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I also agree with Buzz. How do we get the right policies / laws / funding enacted?

 

[Craig S.]

I also agree with Buzz. If access is being granted and the states are not managing the game on private property properly they should be compensated for OUR ability to enjoy their land. If the ranch is locked up they are probably finding a way to be compensated for the animals by charging access fees and such. I don't think either case is wrong, but I believe it should be one or the other.

I think you always have to look at things from the other side of the fence.

 

[arffdog875]

I agree with BuzzH...IMHO those ranchers with wildlife issues weather it be elk knocking down fences, bears or lions snacking on livestock should be compensated BUT... 1) That rancher allows hunters on the property to help manage game animals causing the problem. 2) Those "game damage tags" are NOT sold to the highest bidder or out of state hunters. 3) and those "game damage tags" Must be used on the property they were issued for, NOT become a state wide hunting tag for trophys! 4) Lastly...ALL ranchers receiving "game damage tags" or money from the state must have there names published with contact info and available at the Parks and Wildlife offices!

 

[Wheezy1958]

I voted 'other' and pretty much agree with Buzz. I believe there are circumstances where compensation is appropriate. I believe hunting reasonable hunting access should be required. If the rancher leases to an outfitter who only allows a couple trophy animals taken- then let him compensate the rancher for crop damage.
Seems to me leasing to an outfitter who wants to harbor big game and taking money for what they eat is kind of "double dipping".
I'm not a huge fan of the state having to get into every step to make things happen for public access. Most hunters I know would be happy to pay a modest trespass fee but that practice seems to be going out the window with more and more land leased by outfitters.