SB 5078 Would Require WDFW to Reimburse Agencies Responding to Elk Collisions

[bigtex]

SB 5078 was introduced today sponsored by Senator Pearson. The bill has two parts:

1- It would require WDFW to reimburse agencies who respond to motor vehicle collisions with an elk. So if someone hits an elk on I-90 and WSP responds, WDFW would reimburse WSP for their response and time on the incident.

2- WDFW shall establish a working group with landowners to review the wildlife damage claim process and report it's finding's to the legislature.

http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5078.pdf

[Stein]

Against it.

Legislature should stop taking money out of the WDFW budget.

[bigtex]

Personally, I have no problem with part two.

However, I have major concerns with part 1. The bill does not provide WDFW with any additional funding for these reimbursements, the agency would essentially have to pay the bills out of their existing funds. Additionally, responding to accidents is part of an agency's duty in my view.

[mfswallace]

If they are willing to reimburse agencies responding to accident caused by  elk what is to stop the citizen who's vehicle is damaged in the accident from seeking reimbursement?
I watch these elk all winter as I dive from eburg to George daily, why limit this legislation to only elk and it seems only the elk in this small stretch of i90, why not all road kill ?
Where does it end

This is a slippery slope and would set a precedent that I fear would be taken advantage of down the road 

[bigtex]

If they are willing to reimburse agencies responding to accident caused by  elk what is to stop the citizen who's vehicle is damaged in the accident from seeking reimbursement? I watch these elk all winter as I dive from eburg to George daily but again why limit this legislation to only elk and it seems only the elk in this area of i90, why not all road kill ?
Where does it end

I agree. I assume this is Pearson's way of saying WDFW isn't managing elk herds correctly and some have too many animals and as a result they are creating accidents. So shame on you WDFW you are now going to pay.

This very much may be a point making piece of legislation and not one that even the Senator thinks should/will pass. 

[mfswallace]

If they are willing to reimburse agencies responding to accident caused by  elk what is to stop the citizen who's vehicle is damaged in the accident from seeking reimbursement? I watch these elk all winter as I dive from eburg to George daily but again why limit this legislation to only elk and it seems only the elk in this area of i90, why not all road kill ?
Where does it end

I agree. I assume this is Pearson's way of saying WDFW isn't managing elk herds correctly and some have too many animals and as a result they are creating accidents. So shame on you WDFW you are now going to pay.

This very much may be a point making piece of legislation and not one that even the Senator thinks should/will pass. 

I revised a touch

[JBar]

So if someone drives off the road on I90 and hits a tree is WSP going to bill the US FS too. Wtf is wrong with people what a waste of time!!! 

Oh sorry, I'm against it!

[olyguy79]

I haven't looked into the background of the bill but it does kind of seem like they're are some ulterior motives to this bill.

But i will say this just shows how a legislator can sponsor differing bills. Most of you prior to reading this thread probably thought Senator Pearson was the best in Olympia for fish and wildlife, now you are reading this and thinking "what the ...."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Special T]

I haven't looked into the background of the bill but it does kind of seem like they're are some ulterior motives to this bill.
But i will say this just shows how a legislator can sponsor differing bills. Most of you prior to reading this thread probably thought Senator Pearson was the best in Olympia for fish and wildlife, now you are reading this and thinking "what the ...."
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is the only explanation I can think of... Could it also be a a way to not make the WSP  have to wait for a Warden to finish off an animal? I have heard this can be a contention between Sherriffs, WSP and Gamies.

[bigtex]

I haven't looked into the background of the bill but it does kind of seem like they're are some ulterior motives to this bill.
But i will say this just shows how a legislator can sponsor differing bills. Most of you prior to reading this thread probably thought Senator Pearson was the best in Olympia for fish and wildlife, now you are reading this and thinking "what the ...."
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is the only explanation I can think of... Could it also be a a way to not make the WSP  have to wait for a Warden to finish off an animal? I have heard this can be a contention between Sherriffs, WSP and Gamies.

It has nothing injured animals, all LEOs in WA are 'ex officio fish and wildlife officers' and can kill wounded game. In fact the most common occurrence is that WSP/deputies/city cops are afraid to shoot the animal.

[RB]

Personally, I have no problem with part two.

However, I have major concerns with part 1. The bill does not provide WDFW with any additional funding for these reimbursements, the agency would essentially have to pay the bills out of their existing funds. Additionally, responding to accidents is part of an agency's duty in my view.

 

As a public servant myself, number one is ridiculous why not give the funds to fire and EMS? We could use it as much or more than WSP, BUT WDFW could use those funds more than all of us combined for these types of situations.  :two cents:

So no

[Special T]

I haven't looked into the background of the bill but it does kind of seem like they're are some ulterior motives to this bill.
But i will say this just shows how a legislator can sponsor differing bills. Most of you prior to reading this thread probably thought Senator Pearson was the best in Olympia for fish and wildlife, now you are reading this and thinking "what the ...."
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is the only explanation I can think of... Could it also be a a way to not make the WSP  have to wait for a Warden to finish off an animal? I have heard this can be a contention between Sherriffs, WSP and Gamies.

It has nothing injured animals, all LEOs in WA are 'ex officio fish and wildlife officers' and can kill wounded game. In fact the most common occurrence is that WSP/deputies/city cops are afraid to shoot the animal.

That doesnt sound like my area, but if it is its pathetic.

[CAMPMEAT]

Ah, why is it only I-90 ? What about other areas with less LEO and more elk to handle the elk crash, when they could be doing something better, like domestic violence

Part 2 will not be good. Conservation Northwest will get there corruption into that and will not be good.

[bigtex]

Ah, why is it only I-90 ? What about other areas with less LEO and more elk to handle the elk crash, when they could be doing something better, like domestic violence

Part 2 will not be good. Conservation Northwest will get there corruption into that and will not be good.

It's all roads

[Westside88]

It's my understanding that WDF officers respond to all manner of calls when needed. The same should be true of the other agencies, especially WSP since it's all state funding