WA court: Farmer had right to shoot cherry-picking elk

[billythekidrock]

From here http://www.theolympian.com/northwest/story/359605.html

Published February 14, 2008
WA court: Farmer had right to shoot cherry-picking elk
CURT WOODWARD

A Yakima-area fruit farmer had a constitutional right to kill the pesky elk that were munching through his valuable cherry crop, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The decision tosses out Jerrie Vander Houwen's conviction on two counts of poaching, and reinforces the state constitution's strong protection of property rights against marauding animals - even when they're managed as public property.

Vander Houwen's run-ins with elk on his Tieton farm started in 1998, when the animals started feasting on his orchard, undeterred by a shoddy Department of Fish and Wildlife fence.

Vander Houwen started fixing the state's fence himself, and tried to lure the elk away from his valuable crops by leaving out hay for them to eat instead. It didn't work, and during 1999 and 2000 the elk kept mowing through the orchard, destroying 425 cherry trees, 56 bins of apples and 228 crop sprinklers.

The farmer repeatedly contacted Fish and Wildlife to seek its help in chasing off the elk, but "the Department did nothing to address the problem," the court said. In early 2000, Vander Houwen told a wildlife agent that the elk were still eating the trees, and weren't even scared off by gunshots fired over their heads.

The agent's response, as relayed by the court, reads like the punchline to a joke about sluggish bureaucracies: We'll try to help you out, but it has to wait a week or so because of the upcoming holiday weekend.

That wasn't good enough for a frustrated Vander Houwen, who told the agent that he couldn't wait, and would have to start actually shooting at the elk this time.

For two weeks, wildlife agents did nothing about the case. Then, after investigating a report of dead elk near the farm, the state charged Vander Houwen with 20 counts of wasting wildlife and poaching.

Vander Houwen had acknowledged shooting at the elk during the investigation, but said he didn't know whether he'd killed any of them.

Jurors convicted Vander Houwen on two of the poaching counts, throwing out everything else. But the verdict was irreparably tainted, the Supreme Court said, because Vander Houwen wasn't allowed to argue that he had a strong constitutional property right to shoot the elk.

Improper jury instructions also laid the burden of proof on Vander Houwen, instead of the state, and neglected to inform jurors that they must unanimously agree which of the alleged actions were the basis of the two convictions, Justice James Johnson wrote for the majority.

Under a 1921 court decision, property owners have the right to kill elk in defense of their property if the killing is deemed "reasonably necessary." That was certainly the case for Vander Houwen, the court said Thursday, because of the state's numerous failures to act on his problem.

Furthermore, the court said, a state program that pays landowners for losses from wildlife wouldn't have been close to making Vander Houwen whole: The cap on damage claims is $10,000, and his losses from the elk were estimated at nearly $250,000.

"A property owner's dilemma is apparent in this case: he can either exercise the constitutional right to protect his property and possibly face criminal charges, or he can file a claim and hope that elk do not inflict massive financial damage," Johnson wrote for the court.

Joining Johnson in the majority were Justices Charles Johnson, Richard Sanders, Susan Owens and Bobbe Bridge, and Chief Justice Gerry Alexander.

Justices Tom Chambers, Barbara Madsen and Mary Fairhurst agreed with the majority's result, but differed on the legal reasoning, saying a landowner's right to protect property should not be absolute. Instead, the concurrence said that right should be weighed in context with other laws and legal remedies.

---

The case is No. 77891-4, State v. Vander Houwen

[robb92]

Yet again a waste of wildlife, the state could have issued the guy some crop damage permits and that would have eliminated the waste of 20 animals whose meat could have gone to a shelter or into someones freezer. I wish the great game department would use some common sense and made good judgement calls on things.


This story is reminds me how I got permission to hunt on some land in Maryland. A group of 140 deer were destroying this guys yard and crops so he called the state and they told him that the deer were on his property so they are legally his to do with what he wants. So he told them he was going to bring in a hunter and thin them out.

[Slider]

Well that just opened up a can of worms!!!

[dbllunger]

The state used to allow farmers to shoot animals, but that stopped about 15yrs ago.  They used to also supply fencing but that stopped.  In tough times farmers will do what they have to do to make a living and pay the bills.  Unfortunatley game animals mainly deer and elk will be killed in that dilema.  I'm on both sides of that fence, and it is dang hard to live with. 

[Slenk]

Well if you guys want to really get pissed what about the charges being dropped for the guys that Poached the trophy elk at Tampico? Was on the news last night . The property owner was on the news and POd , said they were trespassing on their private property.

Slenk

[Cougeyes]

Wow, that is just B.S.!!!  What were the reasons why they dropped it? 

[KillBilly]

YAKIMA, Wash. -- Charges against three men accused of poaching a bull elk in Tampico were dropped Friday morning, but they may not be out of the woods just yet.

Charges against William Gunter, his son Christopher Gunter, and Jon Boiselle were "dismissed without prejudice". That means the Department of Fish and Wildlife has one year to press the same charges again.

The charges include second-degree criminal trespassing, illegal big game hunting, and second-degree big game spotlighting.

Joanne Umipig, whose property the elk was alleged to be poached on, says she has spoken with officials from the Department of Fish and Wildlife. They say it's likely the charges will be pressed again.

"We would like to see these people punished to the fullest extent of the law," says Umipig. "We would like to see them be an example, out in the county, that the law does prevail".

Two additional members of the hunting party were in Yakima Superior Court today, however their names have not been released. Their case was also turned back over to the Department of Fish and Wildlife for further review.

[boneaddict]

 

[Coasthunterjay]

SERVES THOSE ELK RIGHT! AND IM GLAD THE FARMER GOT AWAY. IT ONLY PROVES THAT WDFW REALLY DOESNT CARE ABOUT US AS PEOPLE.  if they would have helped that farmer out and addressed the situaation like they could ans should have, then this wouldnt have been a problem.............

IM SORRY THAT 20 ELK GOT WASTED BUT IN MY OPINION THAT WAS NOT CALLED POACHING! maybe waste but im glad that he got away.............THERE IS REAL POACHING AND WE NOW WHAT THAT IS......this is not!

i have alot of friends that are farmers and i have helped and worked for a couple of them and you wont trully understand there point of view on wild animals untill you sit down and talk to them....... animals be running crazy....... they want those deer and elk shot just as much as we want to shoot them come hunting season!

well take this into perspective  if you dont agrree...

we sometimes refer to hunting season and harvesting our one animal a year as food on our tables......

WELL THAT FARMERS CROPS THAT THOSE WILD ANIMALS DESTROY AND EAT ARE THE ONLY WAY THAT FARMER AND HIS FAMILY EATS AND IS ABLE TO LIVE AND THEN BEABLE TO CONTINUE ON FOR THE NEXT COMMING YEARS!

THINK ABOUT THAT.....

[Slenk]

Coasthunterjay
I have been on the Farming and Ranching end . And agree with you 1000%. Good post .
Slenk

[Coasthunterjay]

thanks Slenk...i was actually really worried about the reaction i might get for my post.....you know i am not against prosecuting poachers... and yes i feel bad that 20 elk had to die. but he wasnt targeting certain bulls of huge size and he wasnt selling or making lies up at the local bar about what he had done. he was simply keeping food on his table for his family!...but think of it this way....it took 20 elk to get the WDFW off there asses and do there Jobs! holy *censored*....you would think that 1 or 2 dead would stir something up, but obviously the coffee and donuts were just to good.....and with poaching, there is a line at which we can call poaching and a line at which it isnt poaching...the funny thing about it is we as hunters should all now what the difference between those two are. and by telling you all his standpoint....now you know! this farmer tried to his best abbility to do the right thing and if you read this article it shows and says that.......

[DOUBLELUNG]

CHJ - my only negative reaction to your post is the assumption in your follow-up, that the orchardist's complaints didn't get addressed due to "but obviously the coffee and donuts were just to good.....".  That's a low shot at the wildlife officers, and would be like me, as a non-military person, criticizing you as a military guy for screwing off stateside when all the terrorists haven't been caught yet.  That would be ignorant and uncalled-for; just like your slam on the wildlife officers.

WDFW enforcement officers in Eastern WA are a skeleton crew.  So are the bios, fish wildlife and habitat all.  They work hard, and it's not their call that higher-ups have pulled most of their workforce over to the west side to primarily work ESA fish issues; nor that they have been directed to prioritize law enforcement over wildlife damage.  As a military man (I think, forgive me if I'm wrong), I think you are aware of allocation of limited resources?  Don't rain sh*t on the grunts in the field, odds are they'd do their jobs differently if they set their own work priorities. 

WDFW does a really piss-poor job of managing game damage, and a lot of other things too.  I think the agency's priorities are really screwed up; especially when over half of the work force is in Olympia, with less than 1/2 actually working in the field.  But, don't assume the MINORITY of the outfit working in the field want it that way.  I'd love to see the outfit get back to its core mission of managing fish and wildlife - so would the WDFW employees in the field, so would a lot of the grunts in Oly too.  Direct the blame squarely where it belongs - at the political appointees.

I don't know Yakima Region enforcement well enough to speak of them, other than knowing there are some very good officers - probably the vast majority.  Here in Wenatchee, which is a 5-officer detachment on paper, there are two officers - and sometimes they get pulled over to the west side to work fish too.  Leavenworth hasn't had an officer since the last one retired in April 2002!  Wenatchee has had one position vacant for most of a year, and one position vacant for most of THREE years.  So, while on paper there are 5 officers for all of Chelan County and western Douglas County (Leavenworth, 3 in Wenatchee, and Chelan); the reality is there is one officer in Chelan, and one officer in Wenatchee.  Oh, wait - the guy in Chelan has to help cover for the Okanogan Detachment, because Brewster is vacant! 

Pend Oreille county just got one officer, finally, after having NONE since (?) ... it's the same all across Eastern Washington. 

I understand your frustration, and share it too - but don't assume the problem is the guys in the field!  I'd say 95% of the officers and bios are doing as best they can, and better than should be expected, with the limited resources they get.  And, as an added bonus, they have the constant joy of an unhappy public, each of who has their own idea of what that job's priority should be; and the knowledge they ARE part of a lousy outfit that will kick them loose in a heartbeat if doing their job gets politically unpopular. 

I'm glad the orchardist got off - he should.  But, don't blame the officers and bios in the field unless you know it's justified, they already have an unwinnable position.  Lay the blame squarely where it belongs, on Washington state government, and the elected and appointed officials who mis-allocate resources AWAY from core mission to make their own lives comfortable.  In this example, lay the blame on the Director, the Commission and the Governor.     

[Ray]

I agree with this ruling. If the farmer's concerns were not addressed it was because someone in the department or the agency in general neglected their duties to the public.

[sisu]

Coasthunterjay and doublelung both have good points. I know one warden and she has way too much territory for one person, but that is the way the sate does it.

Having more access for hunting farm land would be nice.

[Coasthunterjay]

CHJ - my only negative reaction to your post is the assumption in your follow-up, that the orchardist's complaints didn't get addressed due to "but obviously the coffee and donuts were just to good.....".  That's a low shot at the wildlife officers, and would be like me, as a non-military person, criticizing you as a military guy for screwing off stateside when all the terrorists haven't been caught yet.  That would be ignorant and uncalled-for; just like your slam on the wildlife officers.


I'm glad the orchardist got off - he should.  But, don't blame the officers and bios in the field unless you know it's justified, they already have an unwinnable position.  Lay the blame squarely where it belongs, on Washington state government, and the elected and appointed officials who mis-allocate resources AWAY from core mission to make their own lives comfortable.  In this example, lay the blame on the Director, the Commission and the Governor.     

first of all im not going to argue the difference between F&W officers between yakima, olympia, west, eastern, or anywhere......i Dont care....all i was stating was that i think its pathetic that we read that it took over 20 ELK to finnaly get noticed for this to finally go to court....I DONT CARE WHOS FAULT IT IS but some one was sitting on there asses doing nothing or hiding the paperwork under the rest on there desk when something could have been done to prevent 20 elk from being shot! put the blame on whoever makes you feel good but it wasnt the farmer......you can calm down and be rest assured that i wasnt accusing any individual officer......not one man can do everything......

And you couldnt possably understand the difference you put me and everyother serviceman in when you attack me saying that it would be my fault that as a military guy(because thats all i am) screw off all the time stateside when all the terrorists haven't been caught yet, even as an example....were the hell do you get off even saying stuff like that.....I personnally myself have saved half a dozen lives and have stopped over half a billion dollars(yes billion) in Drugs and probably close to 1000 migrants from comming into this state(so i actually probably saved a hundred lives with that said). and you want to even compare the work that the state is doing compared to what i do.......you are sadly confussed......thats like comparing apples and oranges with a watermelon and a nut............

This problem with not having the right amount of officers in the right places is bull......and most the people on this website now that. i wasnt saying that every WDFW officer is a bad guy....i wasnt stating that any are. i was stating that WDFW as a whole....the State itself!...yes there are a shortage of WDFW officers but there obviously not doing enough to fix that....three years and they still cant find a replacement.......

aaAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.......its exactly as Huntwa states......."somebody neglected their duties " i dont care who but they did........

[Slider]

It's Broke!!!I don't get it? Where was the Damage Draw from the remaining Statewide unfilled Elk Tags!!!

[billythekidrock]

thats like comparing apples and oranges with a watermelon and a nut............

 

[DOUBLELUNG]

Well, you read it and quoted it - too bad you didn't get it.  Read it again.  Good for you, for doing a good job and being proud of the job you do.  Thanks for doing your job. 

However, your service doesn't entitle you to put yourself on a pedestal and squeal about the unfairness of a hypothetical example, especially after taking low shots at good people doing hard jobs.  Buck up.     

I'm not offering an apology that's neither needed or deserved.  My example is right and proper, and your reaction proves it.  I understand perfectly what an insult it WOULD be to state the hypothetical example you quoted.  To whine that even using it as an example is an attack on every serviceman, and that I couldn't possibly get it - get real.  The Desert Storm vet I sleep next to doesn't think I attacked you - much less every other serviceman.         

[Coasthunterjay]

This is not an attack at you doublelung, nor a debate....

Just my .02 Cents

 

[mossback91]

put the blame on whoever makes you feel good but it wasnt the farmer......you can calm down and be rest assured that i was accusing any individual officer......not one man can do everything......

Farmer's fault he should have  built stronger fences. He probably knew that animals came down and wintered aroudn his property every year.....so why not prevent it by buildign some nice fences huh?? He probably could have waited a little longer for the game department to work on getting some sort of damage control plan worked out where the animals wouldnt have beeen wasting. You cant expect it to happen over night. The farmer had many things he could have been doing other than going on killing sprees.

[Coasthunterjay]

put the blame on whoever makes you feel good but it wasnt the farmer......you can calm down and be rest assured that i WASN'T accusing any individual officer......not one man can do everything......

Farmer's fault he should have  built stronger fences. He probably knew that animals came down and wintered aroudn his property every year.....so why not prevent it by buildign some nice fences huh?? He probably could have waited a little longer for the game department to work on getting some sort of damage control plan worked out where the animals wouldnt have beeen wasting. You cant expect it to happen over night. The farmer had many things he could have been doing other than going on killing sprees.

FREEKING TYPOS......  WOOPS SORRY ABOUT THAT, JUST CAUGHT IT............that would explain wy me a doublung were bikering back and forth.....sorry dude

and mossback this was something that had been adressed several times and i believe that the story states that WDFW had built a damage control fence in aiding the farmers problem...but it was so inexpensively or poorly built by contractors that ehe farmer also had to fund more money into fixing and repairing the fences but this also did not stop the Elk......i think that was in the story if you read it at the beginning . your right there probably was more he could have done but the state like what doublelung stated could have done more as well..............this was just one of many poorly represented situations that just happened to happen here.......

[DOUBLELUNG]

I agree with 99% of what CoasthunterJay wrote, and took exception to what is really a side-note to the issue.  And, though we've never met, I like what I see of what he writes.  I think we'd get along, he'd be welcome at my campfire anytime (especially being young and strong, with his packframe, and my big dead elk down in the canyon ...).  We're on the same team.

I think this is an unfortunate situation, but as I wrote before, I am glad the orchardist was exonerated.  He might have made a poor business decision (ie, depending on the state to keep big game, near the core of big game habitat, out of his orchards, while experiencing hundreds of thousands in damage...); but not criminal.  At least, that's my take based on what one reporter wrote. 

These kinds of cruddy situations will continue to occur, as long as the people in charge think it's fine that limited resources are squandered to make the leadership as comfortable as possible at the expense of the fish and wildlife resources. 

In 2007, WDFW had 1,601 employees; roughly 850 in Olympia, and roughly 750 in the rest of the state.  Of the 750 in the field, the majority are hatchery workers raising and rearing fish.  Maybe 350 peopel in the field, monitoring, managing and protecting the resources.  I think that's piss-poor management of limited resources, and piss-poor allocation of OUR money to manage OUR resources. 

If Olympia staff were reduced to 500 or so, and those assets allocated to the FIELD, I think it would be a lot better.  Or, reduce the excess STAFF, give the field staff the aerial survey time, study resources, and other tools to do their jobs better with existing personnel, and devote more resources to managing existing wildlife lands and acquiring more, and it would be a heck of a lot better. 

Just my 2 cents, trying to point the finger in the right direction. 

[bobcat]

In my opinion it should be up to the farmer/orchardist/landowner to put up his own fences to protect his property. It should not be the responsibility of the state.

[boneaddict]

A_MEN

[billythekidrock]

If Olympia staff were reduced to 500 or so, and those assets allocated to the FIELD, I think it would be a lot better.  Or, reduce the excess STAFF, give the field staff the aerial survey time, study resources, and other tools to do their jobs better with existing personnel, and devote more resources to managing existing wildlife lands and acquiring more, and it would be a heck of a lot better.

You think reducing staff would allow them to do a better job? What excess staff?

[sisu]

If Olympia staff were reduced to 500 or so, and those assets allocated to the FIELD, I think it would be a lot better.  Or, reduce the excess STAFF, give the field staff the aerial survey time, study resources, and other tools to do their jobs better with existing personnel, and devote more resources to managing existing wildlife lands and acquiring more, and it would be a heck of a lot better.

You think reducing staff would allow them to do a better job? What excess staff?

I think Billy they are talking admin staff cut backs and put those 500 back in the field. (I could be wrong though, but that is how I read it)

[DOUBLELUNG]

Sisu's mainly right.  Either put them back in the field as staff, or put the cost savings toward allowing existing field staff the resources to do the job better, or a combination of the two.  Not saying there is an excess of resources, saying they are poorly allocated; kind of like buying new furniture instead of glasses and braces for your kids (disclaimer: that's an analogy, in no way suggesting anyone reading this neglects their kids!).

[DOUBLELUNG]

One last comment: Bobcat and Boneaddict, I totally agree, those should be part of the cost of doing business.  I know a lot of orchardists in Chelan Co. that understand that, and put in a fence when they put in an orchard; and some of them tell that orchardists who put in an orchard in core deer and elk habitat w/o fencing are fools and poor businessmen.  Unfortunately, that's not the law of the land.

[billythekidrock]

I think Billy they are talking admin staff cut backs and put those 500 back in the field. (I could be wrong though, but that is how I read it)

If they are top heavy then I agree, but even the low level staffing is too light.

[Ghost Hunter]

If Olympia staff were reduced to 500 or so, and those assets allocated to the FIELD, I think it would be a lot better.  Or, reduce the excess STAFF, give the field staff the aerial survey time, study resources, and other tools to do their jobs better with existing personnel, and devote more resources to managing existing wildlife lands and acquiring more, and it would be a heck of a lot better.

You think reducing staff would allow them to do a better job? What excess staff?

Excess staff?  Apparently they don't have anyone available to send out my master hunter package.   Was told the one person that does that is out on extended family emergency.  A freind sent his in at same time and got his, guess I just missed the boat.   Patience is a virtue.

[Ray]

In my opinion it should be up to the farmer/orchardist/landowner to put up his own fences to protect his property. It should not be the responsibility of the state.

I agree that he or she should be able to put up fences but when he is calling in for help year after year that they should send a gang of muzzleloaders in there to kick those *censored*s out of there. It sounds like the guy had his angles covered and that he was documenting this and if so that is why he was able to carry out justice on his own terms. I say Amen to that. The line of thought you are taking makes it sound like if you don't agree with your statement that we might see the government as nanny that will fix it with one of the agencies (in this case the WDFW). I would not agree with that.

[bobcat]

It seems the WDFW should have got some hunters in there to kill some elk (if the landowner would have allowed that.) But really, I feel that he should have put up a decent fence and if he had done that, he would never have needed to call the WDFW, ever. If landowners would put up fences or do whatever is necessary to protect their property from the wildlife that was here long before we were, then they wouldn't have to depend on the state and OUR money to solve their problems.

[Slider]

The sad part is most landowners that have the Wildlife problems don't allow hunting on their property!!!

[dbllunger]

This is not only in Wa..  Hunted a ranch in Mt., and they shot elk every year to keep them out of the hay barns.  The ranchers (notice not "farmers" they get pissed if you call them a farmer) had full dimension lumber 2x8's spiked into timbers to keep the elk out.  The bulls would just rip the boards loose.  The ranchers would intentionally drop the bulls right next to the hay sheds to keep the others away.  They told me one dead elk the coyotes would keep the others away for a week or so from one side of the shed.  These guys have no choice and they don't call the game department either.  Pretty much an understood agreement.  I also come from the farmer side of it and there is way more to it then what you read in the paper or this websight.

[dbllunger]

If the land owner will not allow hunting then they can suck some un-wiped ass.  Sound like the Methow aye bone.  Changed since you grew up there...(majority of people and their thought process)...!!!!???  It would be interesting to see what he wanted....I would guess based on what happened the elk were late, no season, and the state would not adjust for that area.

[mossback91]

I think he should have a tall tight all welded steel fence, but in away he had to shoot them if the game department wasnt going to do anything to help out a bit. I cant really say I dont have the fulls tory and dont know the complete truth to make my decision complete.

[Ray]

It's true we don't have the whole story. To me if he was telling the WDFW to get people over there and help him take care of it (a damage hunt) then it sounds like the state dropped the ball and that they also knew that this was not something which erupted overnight. Given that he went out there shooting himself I would suggest that he was willing to allow hunters on his property to take care of it but you never know..

The biggest factor why I would agree with the ruling is that I would find it hard to believe he killed 20 elk - but might have 2 which he was originally convicted of. Is that what 20 counts of waste and poaching means? It sounds like someone was trying to trump up false charges to me or that there was a vendetta against the guy.

[Bofire]

In 1972 I worked at Lake Terrel Game Area. I got sent out on a complaint response to Elk eating and trashing a large corn field, down near Concrete.
I went down there on different occassions; with 2 inch fire crackers on a timer string, a giant air cannon, an automatic siren, a shotgun with these "cracker" shells that flew out then popped, shot gun with bird shot, dogs, and other than pissing off the farmer and destroying the corn accomplished nothing. There was a strict protocall on what I could do.
Finally they told me to shoot some of the offenders. I headed out with with my 7mm. but got called back and "issued" a Remington 721 in .222. and ammo.
Went on out, killed 7 elk, and they went away for a while.
the end.
I quit the dept. about 6 months later, couldn't take it.
Dont sound like they improved much!
Carl
 

[ICEMAN]

Been gone all weekend. Many have touched on the angle I need help understanding:

Don't farmers plan on drought, fire, locust, poor crop output, poor soil conditions, poor this, poor that? Ever have bugs and mice eating someones crop? Do cherry farmers put netting up to keep bird damage down? Ever install anything to light up or turn on in the case of frost? Spray for insects? Ever use satelite GPS tracking to determine how much weed killer to apply in your fields? Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes.

You know what....*censored* happens! Plan on it! If your damn cherry trees are so valuable, put a fence around them. The taxpayers have already paid for the roads to your farm, the dam for your water, tax breaks on your land, subsidized this and subsidized that. We have turned a blind eye on illegal labor working your fields, all so you can make a profit.

Very easy to take your vengence out on a group of elk that need to eat.

Farmers already plan on dealing with every conceivable problem encountered in nature, but deer and elk are "waaaaaayyyyy" different. Nope, they never saw this coming! They never thought that elk could actually eat their profits up!!!???  Nope! "It is the states fault that the states deer and elk are eating my trees!!!" 

Go get a loan and fence your own property on your dime and quit crying about it!  You do not see the state fencing off private land in the suburbs to keep the deer out of anyones yard cause they are eating the tomatoes and flowers! What in the hell are we doing in this state anyway? Why is it my problem that some farmers never planned to deal with elk with their own fence?

 Are you pumping water this year? Spreading fertilizer this year? Spraying for bugs this year? Spending money on labor this year?

For gods sake, sell a sliver of your land and finance your own damn fence! Leave my Fing elk alone!

If we are going to pay for the damn fence, we may as well pay for the fertilizer, herbicide, water and labor as well! Wheat farmers are going to start wanting fences to keep the mice out!

[Curly]

Well said, Iceman.

[KillBilly]

Pretty narrow point of view Iceman. You must have never been a farmer. In addition, we (taxpayers) pay to feed Elk too. Make the elk go where the food is, that should be more equittable

[ICEMAN]

Killbilly, I may very well have a narrow point of view on the topic, and you are correct that I have never been a farmer,but, my point is this: Where will it end?

OK, we build fences for every single farmer in the state to make sure that we are fair, and treat all farmers equally. They ask, we build. Fences to keep out any deer from any farm anywhere. All farms. Fences to keep elk out. Fences to keep coyotes out so they dont get my chicken or calves, or sheep. Birds take a huge toll on fruit growers, so netting for all of them. Mice eat millions of tons of grain each year. Mouse proof all the farms. All of them.

How in the hell are we going to decide who gets what? My pockets are only so deep! When will farmers take responsibility for themselves and make their own fences? This is a legitimate question? How do you decied who gets the fence? And what happens when someone else wants the fence, but didn't get one? Can any farmer kill and waste anything that eats off his land? Is this ok with you? So if I buy land in Lewis county, and the damned elk keep eating the salal and huckelberry bushes on my property can I shoot and keep them? How about bear eating my blackberries? This OK too? *censored*..., why hunt, just buy land, or a farm, and screw the season.

[bobcat]

Two great posts in a row Iceman! 

[billythekidrock]

Excess staff?  Apparently they don't have anyone available to send out my master hunter package.   Was told the one person that does that is out on extended family emergency.  A freind sent his in at same time and got his, guess I just missed the boat.   Patience is a virtue.

I fully understand. The last 4 days I have been in automated/answering machine hell. Half the listed numbers for AHE and Hunter Ed no longer work and the other half go to automated messages with no "zero out", just an automated thank you or good bye. What a pain in the butt. I ended up calling the Directors office and talked with a lady to really tried to help, but she kept coming up with numbers that have recently changed. I find it interesting that they changed the numbers to AHE right when they over haul the program.

Here are a couple of the numbers that I tried.
902-8111 auto message
902-8424 auto message
902-8410 "message box not set up" message
902-8113 No longer working, Miks old number?
902-8413 just rang, no answer
902-8408 Mik's new number, but out of the office and they did not connect me
902-8413 Mike Kuttle (sp?) message machine, did not leave a message as I was too angry to talk by this time.