Post by: Practical Approach on February 25, 2013, 10:59:08 AM
There is a growing concern for elk damage in the Skagit Valley. As the population rebuilds in the core areas of the historical habitat, elk naturally spill over into the Skagit Valley. Historically, elk have ranged in this area and the Valley was once a wintering area for elk and to some extent still is during harsh winters. However, there are now resident elk that probably don't migrate in and out of the Valley. How, do you increase what was a depressed population while managing for elk damage. Any ideas.
Post by: Dhoey07 on February 25, 2013, 11:09:44 AM
Post by: BIGINNER on February 25, 2013, 11:12:52 AM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on February 25, 2013, 11:34:47 AM
It is a daily gauntlet driving HWY 20, I cant count the near misses I have had.
They need to start culling the valley dewelling herd down a bit, seeing up to 150+ elk year around down low is crazy. :twocents:
Master hunter program along with draw tags just isn't cutting it! :twocents:
Post by: Tbar on February 25, 2013, 11:40:52 AM
The #of mini farms and cultivated land in the river bottom has also experienced a boom. Combine this with the fact that sierra Pacific has a largely monoculture tree farm (not criticizing ). The grass is greener on the other side so to speak.
Now to the more controversial side of things, the archers and master Hunters. When it switched from muzzy to archery you lose most if the effectiveness. Although I don't question the effectiveness of an archer or his equipment,i think a seal bomb has a greater hazing effect and the overall kill #s were not substantial.
The master hunter program is ineffective to say the least. I think it's the worst approach that the wdfw has taken. It's a joke when you consider all the paperwork and man hours put into such a limited pool of Hunters. The elk will be in the "killing fields" sometimes days before there is the coordination to get one on the ground. I also question the timing of when the majority of their harvest occurs. I know the muzzy season ran late but harvest was more spread out during a long season. I could go on and on.
Post by: 50CalJim on February 25, 2013, 12:02:18 PM
Post by: jackmaster on February 25, 2013, 12:06:34 PM
Post by: h2ofowlr on February 25, 2013, 12:18:05 PM
Post by: CP on February 25, 2013, 12:24:55 PM
Yummy thick green grass in the valley vs brown, dry mountains filled with bears and cougars:
Post by: Special T on February 25, 2013, 12:37:34 PM
Post by: 50CalJim on February 25, 2013, 12:58:11 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on February 25, 2013, 01:49:49 PM
I would like to know what this means...
Quote
Farmers should take ownership of their lands period, exclamation point, exclamation point
Post by: Tbar on February 25, 2013, 01:58:44 PM
Looks like their gonna give out 20 Cow Tags in the 4941 area which probably means the Indians will also get 20 tags also. If everybody behaves themselves :rolleyes: maybe they will give out more in the future who knows. But personally I think with it being pretty much all private its gonna turn into another Cluster@$&#. :bash:Would this not conflict the wdfw's stance. Would it not fall under their jurisdiction and be a violation of Chambers.
Post by: Dhoey07 on February 25, 2013, 02:05:57 PM
If it is a tribe issue, then there is little you or I will do to change it.
I would like to know what this means...QuoteFarmers should take ownership of their lands period, exclamation point, exclamation point
I guess that there is 2 ways to look at it. Does the state want to use private property for elk wintering grounds and compensate the farmer for their land use, or is the state just paying for crop damage due to the land being over it's carrying capacity? I agree with the first but not the 2nd.
Post by: Tbar on February 25, 2013, 02:09:20 PM
Corall those that go onto the farm land and load them into a trailer and locate them north east of Mt. Baker or down towards Duvall, etc. They could start a heard north of Winthrop as well instead of shooting them all. :dunno:This sounds good in theory but if you have ever been involved in a relocation or even an augmentation you would realize that this is probably not a viable option. (especially at this time).
I can see where the farmer is coming from when he says it's a private hunting club, but there aren't too many options when you are dealing with 100%private land. A large scale kill would be a temporary fix at best, same with a move.
Post by: CP on February 25, 2013, 02:11:44 PM
If the state and the tribes want more elk then they need to pick up the tab for the damage that those animals cause.
Post by: Tbar on February 25, 2013, 02:27:30 PM
This is somewhat of a loaded question. Are the land owners doing everything possible and allowingthe powers that be free reign to remedy the problem? I know I wouldn't, therefore I would have to take a good portion of the ownership of the situation.If it is a tribe issue, then there is little you or I will do to change it.
I would like to know what this means...QuoteFarmers should take ownership of their lands period, exclamation point, exclamation point
I guess that there is 2 ways to look at it. Does the state want to use private property for elk wintering grounds and compensate the farmer for their land use, or is the state just paying for crop damage due to the land being over it's carrying capacity? I agree with the first but not the 2nd.
I don't think we are beyond carrying capacity by any means, the grass is just greener.
Post by: baker5150 on February 25, 2013, 04:03:16 PM
Post by: baker5150 on February 25, 2013, 04:32:21 PM
Why is this the farmer’s responsibility? They are just trying to eek out a living on the land. They didn’t ask for the elk to be there and they are not allowed to protect their property from them. Fences cost money and make it harder to work the land.
If the state and the tribes want more elk then they need to pick up the tab for the damage that those animals cause.
Im not agreeing that it's the just farmers problem, but its along the same lines as berry farmers. Birds are a major pain to raspberry, grape, even corn farmers, and they have come up with solutions, like LP cannons. Maybe theres a good solution out there no one has thought of yet because there too busy trying to get someone else to deal with the issue.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on February 25, 2013, 04:35:25 PM
Post by: Hunterman on February 25, 2013, 05:03:41 PM
Hunterman(Tony)
Post by: Tbar on February 25, 2013, 05:15:59 PM
Not to thread jack but are berry farmers compensated?Why is this the farmer’s responsibility? They are just trying to eek out a living on the land. They didn’t ask for the elk to be there and they are not allowed to protect their property from them. Fences cost money and make it harder to work the land.
If the state and the tribes want more elk then they need to pick up the tab for the damage that those animals cause.
Im not agreeing that it's the just farmers problem, but its along the same lines as berry farmers. Birds are a major pain to raspberry, grape, even corn farmers, and they have come up with solutions, like LP cannons. Maybe theres a good solution out there no one has thought of yet because there too busy trying to get someone else to deal with the issue.
Post by: Ccortez on February 26, 2013, 09:43:50 AM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on February 26, 2013, 09:46:39 AM
i work with one of the tribes wildlife department and we are working up there now to get a better population estimate and get some collars on some elk up there to figure out theyre ranges..
Well if you tag the ones on HWY 20 they wont be hard to find, in the fileds or timber next to fields. :chuckle:
Post by: Goldeneye on February 26, 2013, 09:51:42 AM
Post by: Wazukie on February 26, 2013, 09:54:13 AM
Post by: Ccortez on February 26, 2013, 10:07:43 AM
Post by: Special T on February 26, 2013, 10:16:50 AM
Post by: WSU on February 26, 2013, 10:39:51 AM
Post by: kentrek on February 26, 2013, 10:42:25 AM
If the Farmer feeds them, then the Farmer should be able to EAT them..
Hunterman(Tony)
:yeah: more farm tags
i love the idea of moving some of those big bulls down to the st helens area...we need more big bulls down there.. :hello:
Post by: luvtohnt on February 26, 2013, 11:20:26 AM
The interesting thing is that humans always build in problem areas and then expect others to pay them for the "problems." Whether it is flood plains, elk wintering area, next to a gun range, in an industrial area, close to the airport, or whatever, the property owner always seems to want the government to take care of the problem. Why should I have to pay for everyone elses problems when the person chose to live next to the problem?
Agreed 100%
Brandon
Post by: Special T on February 26, 2013, 11:25:00 AM
Post by: colockumelk on February 26, 2013, 01:35:59 PM
It's just another example of looking for a government hand out. Plain and simple. Either build a fence or let people hunt your land.
Post by: CP on February 26, 2013, 01:44:36 PM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on February 26, 2013, 01:54:07 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on February 26, 2013, 02:22:55 PM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on February 26, 2013, 06:26:43 PM
Funny thing today I was out on Fir Island and seen all these Eagle Decoys out in the farmers fields :dunno: and I wonder what they get for crop damage do to the ducks and geese eating up all their wheat ? I had to laugh out load :chuckle: when I seen hundreds of ducks pecking all around the eagles feet :yike: :rolleyes: There lies another problem with the Dept... the herd on the southside is growing so fast and has for years but the continue to have the Master hunters harvesting them in the farmers field ...With the amount of elk on the southside ( Not the Nooksack side ) and the amount of timber that holds this population of elk on the southside you would think they could give out a few permits so a guy could actually hunt them in the timber where they should be hunted ...but No they can not bring themselves to doing that because they could not watch everyone and see who is doing what !!! I could hunt all day on the south side and they would never see me or the other hunters which means neither would the people complaining :dunno: :o :stup:
Too much common sence there BH45, that won't happen.
Post by: Practical Approach on February 26, 2013, 09:37:53 PM
Looks like their gonna give out 20 Cow Tags in the 4941 area which probably means the Indians will also get 20 tags also. If everybody behaves themselves :rolleyes: maybe they will give out more in the future who knows. But personally I think with it being pretty much all private its gonna turn into another Cluster@$&#. :bash:Where did you hear this. Twenty tribal tags doesn't do the tribes much good on private ag lands.
Post by: Practical Approach on February 26, 2013, 09:41:02 PM
Why is this the farmer’s responsibility? They are just trying to eek out a living on the land. They didn’t ask for the elk to be there and they are not allowed to protect their property from them. Fences cost money and make it harder to work the land.Because they farm the land that is in an elk herds winter range. That is why. Sure I can appreciate the farmers eeking out a living, however many farmers complaining are not eeking out a living. Many are well to do and willing to do everything they can to get a subsidy whererever it may come from. Yes fences cost money, that is the cost of doing business in a elk wintering range. Describe how it makes it harder to work the land.
If the state and the tribes want more elk then they need to pick up the tab for the damage that those animals cause.
Post by: Practical Approach on February 26, 2013, 09:43:44 PM
What is an "elk proof" fence? Just wondering what that would cost. Is it like a concrete fence or something? :dunno:There is a lot of literature and studies out there that describe the most effective elk fencing. From 8 ft cattle fence to hotwire fencing.
Post by: Practical Approach on February 26, 2013, 09:45:49 PM
the ones that collared and ear tagged are from when they was transported from st helens this is for something differnt
There have been many occasions where these elk have been collared. 97 elk from St. Helens were collared and moved up there as well as original Nooksack elk that were collared before the transplant. Since the transplant elk have been collared on different occasions for research purposes.
Post by: Special T on February 26, 2013, 09:46:16 PM
Post by: Practical Approach on February 26, 2013, 09:50:15 PM
Well part of the problem is WDFW making the season a MH only hunt. Instead of viewing that particular unit as a "damage hunt" and not you typical hike in the mts hunt is part of the problem. This issue stems from a couple of instances where PEOPLE didn't like seeing animals shot or injured. This "problem" stems more from those who are detached from reality and think steak come from the store wrapped in cylophane. :twocents:BS.... the hunts that took place up the were a disgrace to hunters. You kidding me. Surrounding a herd of elk on a farmers field and flinging arrows into them randomly is your idea of hunting? That hunt was disgusting as a hunter to witness/ read about etc. Granted there are people who don't know where meat comes from, but historical hunts in the valley have not always been ethical.
Post by: Practical Approach on February 26, 2013, 09:54:52 PM
well farmer Johnson let lots of people hunt his land, and all he got was a kick in the Nutz by anti hunters and the media.... Because he let people hunt his field is why this issue is such a crap storm in this area.... can't blame that land owner, can only blame those who thin steak comes from a store!I blame farmer Johnson for letting too many hunters hunt the herd in his field at one time.
Post by: Special T on February 26, 2013, 09:58:13 PM
"It's just another example of looking for a government hand out. Plain and simple. Either build a fence or let people hunt your land." colockumelk
If you are looking for a back county experience this is NOT it.. IF you were looking to put some meat in the freezer it was. THIS farmer did not take money to give permission to hunt. This farmer actually likes seeing the elk. IMO the main fault of this farmer is NOT having a screen of trees separating his field from the HWY. HE actually drove his PU through the heard of elk to disperse them. the WDFW gamies parked THEIR trucks in the way of the escape route that the WDFW wanted them to disperse. NORTH! farmer Johnson ended this cluster F and this whole charade is an attempt to save face in the eyes of bunny huggers.
Post by: Special T on February 26, 2013, 09:59:56 PM
Post by: Landowner on February 26, 2013, 10:01:20 PM
One of my favorites sights in June when we put the crop eating ba#**tds on the constant run....at times the gun barrels get to glowing.....
Post by: Practical Approach on February 26, 2013, 10:07:06 PM
so we have people blaming farmers for NOT allowing hunters AND allowing too many! Guess he can't win! I guess i also know why more farmers don't allow the general public to hunt thier land! :bash: the logic is stupid! :bash: :bash: :bash:You can let the general public to hunt you land. No problem there. Just don't expect to not make the news if you allow a bunchload of hunters on your land to surround a herd and unethically fling arrows into a herd. That wasn't a hunt of any sort. That was an embarrassment. I think farmers should have more options than just a damage hunt situation.
Post by: Tbar on February 26, 2013, 10:07:50 PM
Well part of the problem is WDFW making the season a MH only hunt. Instead of viewing that particular unit as a "damage hunt" and not you typical hike in the mts hunt is part of the problem. This issue stems from a couple of instances where PEOPLE didn't like seeing animals shot or injured. This "problem" stems more from those who are detached from reality and think steak come from the store wrapped in cylophane. :twocents:This is an attempt to sugar coat an incident that gave all Hunters in this state a black eye. I am not detached from reality nor do I get much meat from the store. I have been a part of a lot of hunts and never seen anything like this. That incident by itself ended the"damage"hunt.
As for Mr Johnson I have nothing bad to say, he is a landowner that wants to find solutions. Mr Johnson is very widely respected.
Post by: Special T on February 26, 2013, 10:24:01 PM
I'm glad we agree on some thing!Well part of the problem is WDFW making the season a MH only hunt. Instead of viewing that particular unit as a "damage hunt" and not you typical hike in the mts hunt is part of the problem. This issue stems from a couple of instances where PEOPLE didn't like seeing animals shot or injured. This "problem" stems more from those who are detached from reality and think steak come from the store wrapped in cylophane. :twocents:This is an attempt to sugar coat an incident that gave all Hunters in this state a black eye. I am not detached from reality nor do I get much meat from the store. I have been a part of a lot of hunts and never seen anything like this. That incident by itself ended the"damage"hunt.
As for Mr Johnson I have nothing bad to say, he is a landowner that wants to find solutions. Mr Johnson is very widely respected.
Post by: Practical Approach on February 26, 2013, 10:31:25 PM
These are what we're talking about, right?Really, you are proud of this? Put up a fence on your property rather than harrassing the publics resource. Oh yeah and quit asking me to pay taxes to the state for your crop damage because you won't take responsiblilty for protecting your crops.
One of my favorites sights in June when we put the crop eating ba#**tds on the constant run....at times the gun barrels get to glowing.....
Post by: Tbar on February 26, 2013, 10:58:19 PM
And you don't agree that you and your group of archers ended the damage hunt that day? There was always complaints but I don't think the hunt itself was ever in jeopardy before that day.I'm glad we agree on some thing!Well part of the problem is WDFW making the season a MH only hunt. Instead of viewing that particular unit as a "damage hunt" and not you typical hike in the mts hunt is part of the problem. This issue stems from a couple of instances where PEOPLE didn't like seeing animals shot or injured. This "problem" stems more from those who are detached from reality and think steak come from the store wrapped in cylophane. :twocents:This is an attempt to sugar coat an incident that gave all Hunters in this state a black eye. I am not detached from reality nor do I get much meat from the store. I have been a part of a lot of hunts and never seen anything like this. That incident by itself ended the"damage"hunt.
As for Mr Johnson I have nothing bad to say, he is a landowner that wants to find solutions. Mr Johnson is very widely respected.
Post by: Special T on February 26, 2013, 11:05:16 PM
NOTHING was done illegal that day. The REASON why it ended the general hunt that day was because it was in public view.
Was it not changed from a Muzzy hunt to an archery hunt because of a similar situation?(I do not have info on the Muzzy hunt that ended it for muzzy hunters.)
Since this is not the first time that fuzzy sensibilities have been offended i would say it is the general public that has caused the problem not the hunters. :twocents:
I think the problem is one of perception. (WDFW strangely agrees with me) I blame the public, some hunters and the WDFW blame the hunters.
Post by: Tbar on February 26, 2013, 11:38:07 PM
Post by: h2ofowlr on February 26, 2013, 11:47:41 PM
Muzzy group had their own issues, from firing from the road, shooting them next to peoples property, homes and guys driving up and down HWY 20 keeping them from crossing to the N of 20. Several instances where people received calls that the elk were in so and so's pasture and everyone would come racing up and the firing line lit them up.
Posible solution would be to make a north side draw and a south side only draw. Allow 10-15 tags and give them land owner access to these spots and have a site down meeting with the guys and tell them what they can and can't do with the tags. If they violate those rules, they loose the tag or restrictions on next years hunting tags.
-OR-
Give additional land owner tags. Give the problem location multiple tags, let them hand them out, or sell them to the highest bidder and those funds would help pay for repair costs.
Post by: Tbar on February 27, 2013, 12:04:38 AM
Doesn't help when you have DFW officer parked on the road, watching cars come to a stop and get out and take pictures. I would have flagged those guys to keep going or issued them tickets. The elk could have gone out had the entire rd lined up with spectators and kept bouncing the animals back into the hunters. Definately not the smartest move on their part. Kudos to the hunters that stayed back in the trees out of the specticle.10 to 15 tags would not touch what the problem had grown to. There are too many elk on the valley floor already living there 365 days a year. A 6 month general season might alleviate some of the issues (archery or muzzy).
Muzzy group had their own issues, from firing from the road, shooting them next to peoples property, homes and guys driving up and down HWY 20 keeping them from crossing to the N of 20. Several instances where people received calls that the elk were in so and so's pasture and everyone would come racing up and the firing line lit them up.
Posible solution would be to make a north side draw and a south side only draw. Allow 10-15 tags and give them land owner access to these spots and have a site down meeting with the guys and tell them what they can and can't do with the tags. If they violate those rules, they loose the tag or restrictions on next years hunting tags.
-OR-
Give additional land owner tags. Give the problem location multiple tags, let them hand them out, or sell them to the highest bidder and those funds would help pay for repair costs.
Yes you hit the nail on the had with the issues/complaints. Several days there were 2 sheriffs and 2 wdfw officers during muzzy season. They also had many of the same issues when it switched to archery.
I know there is no easy solution, there are a lot of elk on the valley floor.
Post by: h2ofowlr on February 27, 2013, 12:23:20 AM
We see master hunt, trophy hunt, etc. Open something for the youngsters that will build better hunters hopefully that also provided a unique opportunity.
The farmers could also be involved and see the excitement in the kids and possibly help load their prize with their tractor in the back of their parent rigs. It could be turned into memorable experience if set up correctly.
Post by: Gringo31 on February 27, 2013, 06:56:36 AM
Quote
Really, you are proud of this? Put up a fence on your property rather than harrassing the publics resource. Oh yeah and quit asking me to pay taxes to the state for your crop damage because you won't take responsiblilty for protecting your crops.
So farmers need to feed the states wildlife and be happy about the damage they do
OR
You think private property should all have high fences to keep all the wildlife out.
Seems the second one would only remove more habitat which is something most people are trying to avoid doing.
Post by: Practical Approach on February 27, 2013, 07:18:46 AM
The farmers have the choice to feed the wildlife or not. They have the choice to farm in elk country, and they have the option to fence elk out if they don't want them impacting their crops.QuoteReally, you are proud of this? Put up a fence on your property rather than harrassing the publics resource. Oh yeah and quit asking me to pay taxes to the state for your crop damage because you won't take responsiblilty for protecting your crops.
So farmers need to feed the states wildlife and be happy about the damage they do
OR
You think private property should all have high fences to keep all the wildlife out.
Seems the second one would only remove more habitat which is something most people are trying to avoid doing.
Can we really consider it habitat if farmers don't want them there and very few if any hunters have the option to hunt them on their fields.
I have nothing against the farmers and appreciete most of their patience in dealing with wildlife conflicts, however as with any job or business, you usually need some type of insurance. In my opininion, a fence is just one more level of insurance for your business. Yes it is expensive, but it is the cost of doing business.
Post by: TheHunt on February 27, 2013, 07:58:27 AM
Adding 20 tags will not even keep the herd at the current levels.
I have talked to a few people who were thinking about bringing in the "Master Hunter" to reduce the crop damage. I suggested that they meet with the master hunter to see their skill level and weapon. If someone could not hit a paper plate at 40 yards with their archery equipment. Could not hit a paper plate at 125 yards with their muzzle stuffer. Then they show up with a 20 year old bow with aluminum arrows with only one vein fletch to the arrow. You should tell them to go home and get off your property.
Post by: Landowner on February 27, 2013, 08:00:35 AM
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. :hello:
Post by: TheHunt on February 27, 2013, 08:15:17 AM
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.
Post by: Landowner on February 27, 2013, 08:34:35 AM
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.
Post by: TheHunt on February 27, 2013, 09:31:31 AM
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.
Post by: Landowner on February 27, 2013, 09:43:29 AM
Post by: NoBark on February 27, 2013, 10:28:53 AM
Post by: Landowner on February 27, 2013, 11:16:32 AM
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.
Post by: Landowner on February 27, 2013, 11:26:15 AM
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...
Post by: Practical Approach on February 27, 2013, 11:59:15 AM
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??????
Post by: Landowner on February 27, 2013, 12:02:02 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on February 27, 2013, 12:43:01 PM
Post by: logger on February 27, 2013, 06:46:52 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on February 27, 2013, 07:05:14 PM
Post by: Special T on February 27, 2013, 07:15:32 PM
Post by: Practical Approach on February 27, 2013, 07:18:17 PM
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.
Post by: ellensburgpo on February 27, 2013, 07:20:57 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on February 27, 2013, 07:22:35 PM
Post by: ellensburgpo on February 27, 2013, 07:28:19 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on February 27, 2013, 07:59:13 PM