HB1192 Would Prohibit WDFW From Requiring Requiring Hunting on Damage Claims

[bigtex]

HB 1192 sponsored by Republican Representatives Taylor, Dent, Manweller, and Shea would PROHIBIT WDFW from requiring hunters being able to access private lands in order for that landowner to get a wildlife damage claim from the department. Current law states that a landowner cannot receive a damage claim unless they have gone thru "self-help preventive measures" one of those provisions is below:

"Under certain circumstances, as determined by the department, permitting public hunting may not be a practicable self- help method due to the size and nature of the property, the property's setting, or the ability of the landowner to accommodate public access."

In the above case then WDFW can move forward with a damage claim.

Proposed language under the bill:
"Permitting public hunting on the land subject to a claim under this chapter is not considered to be a practicable self-help preventive measure and the department may not condition the receipt of compensation under this chapter on the claimant allowing or facilitating public hunting access to the land in question."

http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1192.pdf

[northwesthunter84]

Makes me wonder who had a long talk with some timber company lobbyists.

[Woodchuck]

Makes me wonder who had a long talk with some timber company lobbyists.

Winner!

[mfswallace]

I'm not quite understanding this bill, can you post bill link and break it down for me?

[bigtex]

Makes me wonder who had a long talk with some timber company lobbyists.

Well just by the sponsor's names...The WA Tea Party....

[bigtex]

I'm not quite understanding this bill, can you post bill link and break it down for me?

That's basically the bill.

Here's an example: If I owned 5 acres and a herd of elk is going nuts and tearing up my property WDFW would come out and take a look at it. In order to get a damage claim payment (basically restitution for the state's animal destroying my property) I would have to show I did something in order to prevent it, such as fencing, or allowing hunting on my property. Under current law it basically says that some property may be too small to allow hunting and so if I fall in that class I can't not get a settlement check because I didn't allow hunting. What the bill does is completely takes out the hunting aspect for ALL damage claims. So it doesn't matter if you own 5 acres where hunting may not be feasible or 10,000 acres where hunting is feasible.

[olyguy79]

Makes me wonder who had a long talk with some timber company lobbyists.

Well just by the sponsor's names...The WA Tea Party....

This this is Washington tea party members trying "to protect your property rights" in their minds....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mfswallace]

I'm not quite understanding this bill, can you post bill link and break it down for me?

That's basically the bill.

Here's an example: If I owned 5 acres and a herd of elk is going nuts and tearing up my property WDFW would come out and take a look at it. In order to get a damage claim payment (basically restitution for the state's animal destroying my property) I would have to show I did something in order to prevent it, such as fencing, or allowing hunting on my property. Under current law it basically says that some property may be too small to allow hunting and so if I fall in that class I can't not get a settlement check because I didn't allow hunting. What the bill does is completely takes out the hunting aspect for ALL damage claims. So it doesn't matter if you own 5 acres where hunting may not be feasible or 10,000 acres where hunting is feasible.

Thanks, not a good bill it seems

[pianoman9701]

My Letter to Representative Paul Harris:

"Hi Paul,

In addition to rejecting any gun control legislation this session, I would ask that you vote against HB 1192. This bill, apparently a combined effort between the big timber lobbyists and the WA Tea Party, would take away any requirement for the WDFW to require private landowners to open land to public hunting for removal of problem animals before landowners are compensated. We should not take away this tool from the WDFW.

You may not be aware, Paul, that big timber has recently started selling permits to access their land for hunting and other recreational purposes. In the 1970s, tax code was changed for these timberlands to allow them to be taxed at a far lower rate than you or I pay on our property, sometimes valuations as low as $2-5/acre. This was done with the assumption that the timber companies would continue to allow unfettered public access. Within the last 5 years, many timber companies have started charging between $300-500 for access permits which include immediate family members only. Three generation of hunters who wish to continue hunting together as a tradition must now pay an additional $600-1000 for that tradition, above and beyond their hunting licenses and tags. For many, this is an insurmountable burden. Sorry Grandpa, you're out!

This bill rewards big timber further for shutting out the public, instead of encouraging them to work with the people of WA in return for their special real estate tax status. I encourage you to say "NO" on 1192. I would further encourage you to propose legislation that would increase the tax rate for timber companies who are now taking advantage of our citizens by not allowing public access without large fees but are still paying the lower rate.

I request the courtesy of your response and would welcome any questions you may have. Thanks so much for your continued service to our district.

Most Sincerely,..."
PMan

[Practical Approach]

I didn't think timber companies qualified for damage compensation by WDFW, only agricultural crops.  I don't think this bill is aimed at timber companies at all. 

[sumpnz]

I didn't think timber companies qualified for damage compensation by WDFW, only agricultural crops.  I don't think this bill is aimed at timber companies at all. 

Even so, I've got no issue wrapping that debacle into opposition to this bill.  Besides, I'm not sure that is even an accurate assessment.  It might be, but I'd be surprised of WeyCo, et al don't get compensation for bear and elk damage to their trees.

[Practical Approach]

RCW 82.04.213



"Agricultural product," "farmer," "marijuana."


(1) "Agricultural product" means any product of plant cultivation or animal husbandry including, but not limited to: A product of horticulture, grain cultivation, vermiculture, viticulture, or aquaculture as defined in RCW 15.85.020; plantation Christmas trees; short-rotation hardwoods as defined in RCW 84.33.035; turf; or any animal including but not limited to an animal that is a private sector cultured aquatic product as defined in RCW 15.85.020, or a bird, or insect, or the substances obtained from such an animal including honey bee products. "Agricultural product" does not include marijuana, useable marijuana, or marijuana-infused products, or animals defined as pet animals under RCW 16.70.020.

(2)(a) "Farmer" means any person engaged in the business of growing, raising, or producing, upon the person's own lands or upon the lands in which the person has a present right of possession, any agricultural product to be sold, and the growing, raising, or producing honey bee products for sale, or providing bee pollination services, by an eligible apiarist. "Farmer" does not include a person growing, raising, or producing such products for the person's own consumption; a person selling any animal or substance obtained therefrom in connection with the person's business of operating a stockyard or a slaughter or packing house; or a person in respect to the business of taking, cultivating, or raising timber.

(b) "Eligible apiarist" means a person who owns or keeps one or more bee colonies and who grows, raises, or produces honey bee products for sale at wholesale and is registered under RCW 15.60.021.

(c) "Honey bee products" means queen honey bees, packaged honey bees, honey, pollen, bees wax, propolis, or other substances obtained from honey bees. "Honey bee products" does not include manufactured substances or articles.

(3) The terms "agriculture," "farming," "horticulture," "horticultural," and "horticultural product" may not be construed to include or relate to marijuana, useable marijuana, or marijuana-infused products unless the applicable term is explicitly defined to include marijuana, useable marijuana, or marijuana-infused products.

(4) "Marijuana," "useable marijuana," and "marijuana-infused products" have the same meaning as in RCW 69.50.101.

[sumpnz]

Except nowhere in the actual text of the proposed RCW is the work "farmer" to be found.  Maybe that's defined somewhere else, but in the full text in the OP's link.

[SuperX]

Forcing one farmer land owner to pay for receiving damages by opening his land while another does not have to because of some perceived problem with public access is unfair.  The whole idea of the government being able to force you to open your private land to public hunting is ridiculous.  Public access will do way more damage than wildlife would ever do.  This is a definite yes vote from me.

[Practical Approach]

This is all on WDFW' s damage claim page.  I have just cut and pasted a few relevant sections. 

WAC 232-36-030–Definitions
Definitions used in rules of the fish and wildlife commission are defined in RCW 77.08.010, and the definitions for wildlife interactions are defined in RCW 77.36.010. In addition, unless otherwise provided, the following definitions are applicable to this chapter:
"Act of damaging" means that private property is in the process of being damaged by wildlife.
"Big game" means those animals listed in RCW 77.08.030.
"Claim" means an application to the department for compensation under this chapter.
"Claimant" means owner of commercial crop, livestock, or other property who has filed a wildlife damage claim for cash compensation.
"Commercial crop" means a commercially raised horticultural and/or agricultural product and includes the growing or harvested product, but does not include livestock, forest land, or rangeland. For the purposes of this chapter, Christmas trees and managed pasture grown using agricultural methods including one or more of the following: Seeding, planting, fertilizing, irrigating, and all parts of horticultural trees, are considered a commercial crop and are eligible for cash compensation.