Post by: ICEMAN on June 06, 2010, 06:48:43 AM
If I were king; if you don't like deer eating your crops, put up your own fence.
I know of many folks who have tried every way possible to obtain access to hunt on private property to help owners with problem game, and most of them had no luck obtiaining permission.
Also, be sure to read below where public hunting will be dropped as a requirement for livestock depredation reimbursement. Is this because of the wolf reintroduction? :dunno:
Wildlife damage response rules adopted
by Fish and Wildlife Commission
OLYMPIA - The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted new rules to address property damage and other problems caused by wildlife, at a public video-conference meeting today in Olympia and Spokane.
The nine-member citizen commission, which sets policy for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), considered public comments taken in previous meetings on the proposed rules that provide assistance for landowners and clarify their options in handling wildlife damage to crops and livestock.
Over the past year, WDFW staff developed the wildlife-damage rules in conjunction with a broad-based citizens’ group, including commercial growers and livestock owners. The rules provide property owners with greater flexibility to prevent and mitigate damage while maintaining healthy wildlife populations.
Several changes were made in the final rules, in response to public input heard by the commission in April. The modified provisions allow for:
Sharing the cost of crop value adjustors between WDFW and landowners submitting damage claims
Dropping a $500 deductible on small claims
Dropping a requirement that public hunting be used to address livestock depredation problems
Reducing the minimum amount for livestock claims to $500
The adopted rules will be posted on WDFW’s website next week.
Post by: sako223 on June 06, 2010, 07:47:52 AM
One landowner selling tags was also driving animals to his land by horseback at night on federal land that is hunt by permit only. Of course he was only getting $5-10,000 per tag.
Post by: wolfbait on June 06, 2010, 08:02:44 AM
Reducing the minimum amount for livestock claims to $500)
Defenders of Wildlies AKA WDFW :bash: :bash: >:( >:( http://www.lobowatch.com/KillinTime2.html (http://www.lobowatch.com/KillinTime2.html)
Post by: sako223 on June 06, 2010, 08:25:23 AM
Post by: ICEMAN on June 06, 2010, 07:07:15 PM
Post by: carpsniperg2 on June 06, 2010, 07:31:27 PM
Post by: yelp on June 06, 2010, 07:57:36 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/seasonsetting/2009-2011_recommendations/final_2009_03_20/landowner_hunting_permits.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/seasonsetting/2009-2011_recommendations/final_2009_03_20/landowner_hunting_permits.pdf)
Post by: yelp on June 06, 2010, 08:00:30 PM
Post by: chrisb on June 06, 2010, 08:03:36 PM
Post by: haus on June 08, 2010, 04:08:58 PM
Post by: haus on June 09, 2010, 02:27:04 PM
I am no expert on the subject matter, so pardon my ignorance...but whenever I hear of a property owner whining about damage to a crop or whatever.... I keep thinking that maybe they should sell off enough land , so as to install their own darned game fence. Why is it the taxpayers who must cough up money to reimburse farmers or crop owners who have losses from wildlife? We end up picking the winners and losers. Pretty sure I have posted this question before here...; Why wouldn't we reimburse grain farmers from crop damage from mice? Do we reimburse cherry growers from bird damage? Seagulls continually drop oysters onto homes to crack them open, should wildlife reimburse the cleanup and repairs? Oppossums and racoons tear up crawlspaces...Taxpayers cough up money because some bleeder decided it was a means to prevent property owners from defending their land with force.
So your suggesting neither option? land owner bends over n squeels like a pig? Interesting. Somewhere the line has to be drawn between absolute property owner rights and strict government restriction of private property..
My opinion is that the line be drawn at predators, if a predator damages property or puts an individual property owner at risk then the individual should have absolute right in protecting his property.
As for ungulates, reptiles, birds, etc.....deal with it or ask for reimbursement.
This is why there is this debate over Predator versus Big Game Species, legally speaking if its a predator its open to more aggressive methods of killing because fair chase and ethics are not part of the equation.
Post by: Atroxus on June 09, 2010, 02:51:21 PM
I am no expert on the subject matter, so pardon my ignorance...but whenever I hear of a property owner whining about damage to a crop or whatever.... I keep thinking that maybe they should sell off enough land , so as to install their own darned game fence. Why is it the taxpayers who must cough up money to reimburse farmers or crop owners who have losses from wildlife? We end up picking the winners and losers. Pretty sure I have posted this question before here...; Why wouldn't we reimburse grain farmers from crop damage from mice? Do we reimburse cherry growers from bird damage? Seagulls continually drop oysters onto homes to crack them open, should wildlife reimburse the cleanup and repairs? Oppossums and racoons tear up crawlspaces...Taxpayers cough up money because some bleeder decided it was a means to prevent property owners from defending their land with force.
So your suggesting neither option? land owner bends over n squeels like a pig? Interesting. Somewhere the line has to be drawn between absolute property owner rights and strict government restriction of private property..
My opinion is that the line be drawn at predators, if a predator damages property or puts an individual property owner at risk then the individual should have absolute right in protecting his property.
As for ungulates, reptiles, birds, etc.....deal with it or ask for reimbursement.
This is why there is this debate over Predator versus Big Game Species, legally speaking if its a predator its open to more aggressive methods of killing because fair chase and ethics are not part of the equation.
Here is my opinion on the matter, though it may be unpopular. For animals that can easily be kept out with a fence, then the farmers should have to foot the bill to put up and maintain a fence as part of the cost of doing business. For critters that can't be easily kept out by a fence it should be legal for the farmers to trap and/or shoot them to protect their crops. It should not fall to tax-payers to off-set the cost of common natural hazards of farming. :twocents:
Post by: haus on June 09, 2010, 03:11:05 PM
Here is my opinion on the matter, though it may be unpopular. For animals that can easily be kept out with a fence, then the farmers should have to foot the bill to put up and maintain a fence as part of the cost of doing business. For critters that can't be easily kept out by a fence it should be legal for the farmers to trap and/or shoot them to protect their crops. It should not fall to tax-payers to off-set the cost of common natural hazards of farming. :twocents:PETA's sending a hypnotist to your home right now......
Post by: Caseyd on June 09, 2010, 03:14:49 PM
i have not heard of many landowner tags around anymore :dunno: atleast not in my neck of the woods, i know they use to give some anterless tags but have not heard of any for awhile
They are still given out in the Walla Walla area