HB1192 Would Prohibit WDFW From Requiring Requiring Hunting on Damage Claims

[DOUBLELUNG]

No.  H to the E to the LL NO!  No private property owner is required to claim wildlife damage payments from the state.  If they do, and it is feasible to use hunters to safely do so, they absolutely should be required to allow hunting to alleviate the damage issue.  Otherwise, there is no incentive to do anything to self help, just claim damage for eternity.  I saw way to much of this abuse in Wyoming (where landowners are neither required to allow hunting or take measures to limit future damage) to not put some onus on private property owners claiming damage payments to help address the issue.

[Humptulips]

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.

Nothing says you have to open your land to the public. Just do not expect to get paid for crop damage if you refuse to allow WDFW to take action to reduce the problem wildlife on your land.

[lokidog]

Seems like this could be a first step toward landowner permits that they can then give or sell to whomever they want.  I don't like it.

[mfswallace]

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.

Nothing says you have to open your land to the public. Just do not expect to get paid for crop damage if you refuse to allow WDFW to take action to reduce the problem wildlife on your land.

 

[Skillet]

 

A farmer landowner that feels "forced" to open his lands to the public for hunter by extension feels "entitled" to be on this government welfare program by receiving payments for damage done, but without putting some common-sense effort into eliminating the source of the damage before getting a check from the gummint.

It's the same as requiring people on unemployment to make an effort by applying for a job prior to getting their public assistance check.  A farmer landowner shouldn't feel entitled to get a government handout without making a good faith effort to mitigate his situation first.
 

[yum tag soup]

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.

   

[dreamunelk]

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.

They have to qualify as a farmer. Property size does not matter if you meet the definition under RCW  If WDFW agrees that hunting is not conducive to your property then you can still file a claim if you have a damage agreement and have  worked with the department on preventative measures.

[SuperX]

so the wolf pack takes out half my herd.  I get reimbursed, and have to let public hunt on my ranch... the public then leaves my gates open, costing me the other half of my herd, shoots my favorite horse, and starts a fire on my winter grazing area.  Still think it's fair?

[Skillet]

It is until that damn public holds a burning man festival on your property, opens an Acorn branch and knocks up your daughter.
Seriously man, exaggerate much?

[dreamunelk]

so the wolf pack takes out half my herd.  I get reimbursed, and have to let public hunt on my ranch... the public then leaves my gates open, costing me the other half of my herd, shoots my favorite horse, and starts a fire on my winter grazing area.  Still think it's fair?

This is related to crops.  Totally different.  And no it does not mean a free for all.  Landowners always has control. 

[pianoman9701]

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.

They're not forcing you to open your private lands to the public. The WDFW is saying that if you wish to receive compensation from the state for financial losses due to wildlife damage, the state wants more options as how to prevent that damage and allowing the public to hunt that wildlife is one of the options they use. However, you can choose not to participate and ask for compensation. A lot of people don't. That's up to you. In addition, allowing the public on your land is not always the requirement.

[pianoman9701]

No one has taken away your choice about who is allowed access to your property.

[bowbuild]

So what do we do when you have hunters already, you aren't open to the state's vision of public access, but you allow folks private rights?  How many hunters do I need to entertain to allow me to make a legal claim to the state for their poor game management practices?  If you feel that I should post "feel free to hunt" signs just to be entitled to a legitimate claim of damage then we are as far apart on this issue as we could get.  No way in this world I will ever allow public access to my property, never going to happen.  If it comes down to that we'll do our own thinning and suffer the consequences if convicted.

The animals were there long before you, and they are state property. (owned by us all) I strongly feel your land IS your land, and you can refuse access all you want, BUT by doing so you live with the consequences.

[Landowner]

Most farmers in my area take the depredation tags in lieu of cash claims. 

[fireweed]

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.

It really doesn't matter what the law is "aimed" at.  When the "hunting while trespassing" bill idea was before the WDFW commissioners it was about trophy mule deer being taken while trespassing on fenced ranch land in Eastern Washington.  I tried to make that point that this would fall to timberland, where it was open and closed with the weather (before fee permits) and how it would trap innocent hunters with all the open/closed inconsistencies.  Didn't matter, law passed, and PRESTO along came timberland access fees and stronger enforcement options.  Coincidence??