Post by: bigtex on January 12, 2017, 08:40:23 AM
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
Post by: Stein on January 12, 2017, 08:44:19 AM
Legislature should stop taking money out of the WDFW budget.
Post by: bigtex on January 12, 2017, 08:46:40 AM
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.
Post by: mfswallace on January 12, 2017, 10:57:03 AM
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 :dunno:
This is a slippery slope and would set a precedent that I fear would be taken advantage of down the road ;)
Post by: bigtex on January 12, 2017, 10:59:58 AM
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 ?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.
Where does it end :dunno:
This very much may be a point making piece of legislation and not one that even the Senator thinks should/will pass. :twocents:
Post by: mfswallace on January 12, 2017, 11:01:49 AM
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 ?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.
Where does it end :dunno:
This very much may be a point making piece of legislation and not one that even the Senator thinks should/will pass. :twocents:
I revised a touch
Post by: JBar on January 12, 2017, 11:03:51 AM
Oh sorry, I'm against it!
Post by: olyguy79 on January 12, 2017, 11:08:36 AM
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
Post by: Special T on January 12, 2017, 04:17:30 PM
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.
Post by: bigtex on January 12, 2017, 04:26:33 PM
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.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.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.
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
Post by: RB on January 12, 2017, 04:54:28 PM
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.
:yeah:
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
Post by: Special T on January 12, 2017, 05:02:31 PM
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.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.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.
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
That doesnt sound like my area, but if it is its pathetic.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on January 14, 2017, 05:59:56 AM
Part 2 will not be good. Conservation Northwest will get there corruption into that and will not be good.
Post by: bigtex on January 14, 2017, 10:10:51 AM
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 violenceIt's all roads
Part 2 will not be good. Conservation Northwest will get there corruption into that and will not be good.
Post by: Westside88 on January 14, 2017, 10:54:41 AM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on January 14, 2017, 05:24:22 PM
How many DV instances are reported per year state wide ?
Post by: huntnphool on January 14, 2017, 05:34:10 PM
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.
The state is looking to cover its shortfalls with the coffers filled by sportsman because they have overspent all their surplus monies in other areas.......pathetic.
Post by: wolfbait on January 19, 2017, 12:13:55 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 19, 2017, 05:00:59 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 31, 2017, 09:46:22 PM
Short, and Pettigrew.
Additionally, the bi-partisan legislative office has completed it's 'fiscal note' (how much will this bill cost) for these bills. They believe these bills will cost WDFW about $500,000 in reimbursing law enforcement, ems, and DOT services. Yes that money would come from the wildlife fund, aka your license fees.
Post by: PLUVIUSWAPITI on January 31, 2017, 10:11:47 PM
Post by: JLS on February 02, 2017, 03:03:21 PM
WDFW will probably release more wolves in those areas with elk problems. No more problem.
Fire up the Schwann's truck eh?