Native Elk - Increased Crop Damage

[Landowner]

Hey fellas,

Farmer here.  Another perspective for you----good, bad or otherwise.   

Wildlife is the state's property.  My cattle  are my property.  Your dogs (or cows, goats, sheep or other animals) are your property. 

It's my responsibility to control my cows and keep them off the state's and your property.  Neither the state or you have any obligation to build a fence to keep my animals off your property. 

It's your responsibilty to keep your dogs and other animals off your neighbor's property.  Your neigbor has no obligation to build a fence to keep your animals off his property. 

If your neighbor's animals damage your property, your neighbor is responsible to make you whole for your damages.  There is no defense for your neighbor to say, gee, you knew I had dogs or cows or sheep next door when you moved here. 

So, what about the state's wildlife?  Our state legislature--in recogntion that its wildlife can and do cause significant damage to private citizen's properties----enacted legislation placing the burden on the state (WDFW) to address wildlife damages issues.  Makes sense---the price is small considering the benefit the state gets from private landowners feeding the state's wildlife and providing them with cover and a home.  And, it is the state's property that is causing the damages, with little recourse for the farmer to redress as he sees fit.  Unless, of course, we want to let the state to get a free pass to avoid accountability for the damages its property causes---something you and I can't do.     

So far as the Blues where I farm, the homesteaders didn't have the elk problems because there were very few around in the days that farm ground was settled and put into crops.  In the 1930's, a herd of 40 or so were brought to the Blues and cut loose.  Now it's several thousand elk.  So, at least over here in the Columbia and Garfield county areas, the notion that farmers should have to build fences or bear the consequences alone because the elk were there first doesn't resonate well.  Maybe it's different elsewhere. 

On the fence issue-----on my properties----it would take at least 8 miles of fence to keep the elk out.  It's a silly idea.  I'll just leave it at that. 

Just some fuel for the debate.   

[TheHunt]

That is why I broke down the weekend farmer/rancher down from the full time farmer/rancher. 

And to add to the fuel of this thread.   If the Tax holder of the property does not like the State Owned Wildlife they should check out the people they bring on their property and start toasting the wildlife.

How I see it is that most large property owners typically want to enjoy the hunting on their property. I know I would and they bring in the people they trust to treat their property with respect.  BUT owning property is not a simple cut and dry solution.  If the property owner wants to basically "From the outside" looks like their own hunting club well they should have little to say about the problem.  They are taking things under their own control.  If they allow the state to take control then open up the property but montor and test them on their skills and kick they butts out if they do not meet the property owner specifications.

 

[Landowner]

@TheHunt,

I understand your concern.  To receive assistance from WDFW on wildlife damage issues---whether by hazing, depredation hunts, compensation, shotgun shells-----WDFW requires landowners to provide reasonable access for hunting.  While "reasonable" can mean many things, it doesn't require a landowner to open the gates to any and all who want to hunt.  The reason is that in this state, property rights are strong.  Stated another way, landowners pay the property taxes and still have some say as to who and how many can access their ground.   It's a balance that the landowners and WDFW, in my experience, work together on to keep access "reasonable". 

I am confident in saying that if a landowner does not provide some access for hunting, the landowner will not receive any assistance from WDFW on game damage issues. 

[TheHunt]

I am 100% in agreement with you.  It is that balance that is hard to operate within you cannot make everyone happy but the bottome line is the individual who is paying the property tax makes the final decision. 

And to be honest I would have difficulty opening the gates to anyone.  I have been in places which I paid to get access with some "Human" who took a dump in the middle of the road.  REALLY?   I think if it was me I would take the first part of the season and kill my animal let my trusted friends in and then have them monitor the place with their own video cameras.  They video someone doing something stupid they are toast.   I would think of something to monitor the place.

[Landowner]

I prefer drones. 

[NoBark]

While not a perfect solution, the  current policy is alot better than in some other states.  I agree it is a trade off of food and shelter for damage $$.  And in the analogy of state ownership of animals I would like to point out that the animals are the states therefore any payments for damage should come from the general fund (all state citizens) and not from the dfw (just hunting citizens).

[Landowner]

My understanding is that it's the general fund.   At least until corrected otherwise. 

And it's only $50k for the entire state---if the $$$ run out, then you're out of luck until next year. 

I'm not sure the entire $50k has been used in recent years. 

[Landowner]

One more point----farmers in my area generally do not pursue cash for damages, if for no other reason than WDFW has made it a major paperwork hassle full of administrative prerequisites to get to the cash. 

And unfortunately, the cash is capped per claim, and it usually isn't enough to cover the damages, so the emphasis is on mitigating crop losses primarily by hazing the elk, and depredation hunts when the crops are most vulnerable.  Nothing like a herd of crop-eating elk after a loud BANG seeing and smelling a dead buddy to get the point across for a few days.  Elk have shorter memories than one would hope for, though.

That's why this view is good...

 

[Practical Approach]

One more point----farmers in my area generally do not pursue cash for damages, if for no other reason than WDFW has made it a major paperwork hassle full of administrative prerequisites to get to the cash. 

And unfortunately, the cash is capped per claim, and it usually isn't enough to cover the damages, so the emphasis is on mitigating crop losses primarily by hazing the elk, and depredation hunts when the crops are most vulnerable.  Nothing like a herd of crop-eating elk after a loud BANG seeing and smelling a dead buddy to get the point across for a few days.  Elk have shorter memories than one would hope for, though.

That's why this view is good...

Hopefull you aren't wasting game by letting a dead buddy lie around for smell???

[Landowner]

Elk taste too good to leave laying around for long....

[Gringo31]

Let's face it....if you own a large tract of land, dealing with the gov't or the public both suck.  I hunt and hate hunters.  I get tired of trespassers, poachers and guys who drive through fences, tear them down etc....   There is a reason that the bigger the farm, the attitude gets colder.  It all turns into a pain in the ars and the only thing you are left to do is tell everyone to piss off.   

[logger]

my family has dealt with this also but in a different way, the place is almost surounded by f.s land and up until they quit managing the timber it wasn't much of a problem, just a few here an there. BUT since then it has turned into a free for all, not so much crop damage but we feed 40-50 mother cows in the winter and the next thing you know there is 75 head of elk in line with the cows. My dad told one offical that kept telling him that it's a public resource and he couldn't do much about it, so my dad told him to get the public resource off his private property! As he has gotten older he just feeds the cows a little extra and the elk come and go as they please, he said he lost that battle years ago and picks only the battle he can win. Landowner is 100% correct in the fencing the issue our cows have gotten out a few times and ended up on f.s. land and all hell broke loose, they threatend to charge per cow per day till we could get them rounded up.

[ICEMAN]

Agree with Landowner and Logger if the herd came after the farm.

[Special T]

I think the double standard is funny that Logger points out. FS wants to CHARGE for the time of your cattle but if the STATES cattle(elk) Bust your fence then its tough luck...

[Practical Approach]

Agree with Landowner and Logger if the herd came after the farm.

g
Well, the herd has been here forever,  killed back by hunters and settlers over the years, but the herd was in the area pre european man.