Ranchers' entitlement

[Oak]

These guys sure are good at sticking their hands out. This is a proposed state senate bill for the upcoming legislative session here in CO. Keep in mind that Colorado already pays more in game damage per incident than any other state. Currently, the state limits the amount a landowner can charge for hunting access to $100 to remain eligible for game damage. They want to raise that amount to $2,500 to "better reflect today's market for hunting access."

"Widlife Division Response Game Damage"

A farmer's or rancher's entire yearly income can be quickly destroyed by big game owned by the State of Colorado. This legislation is necessary to protect the private property and financial interests of landowners experiencing game damage.

Landowners and agriculture producers exeperiencing game damage suffer continued financial loss and great frustration due to a lack of response by DOW officials.

Today: There is no timeframe requirement for the DOW to be in contact with a landowner after receiving a game damage complaint. Current statute only requires the DOW to supply game damage prevention materials by September 1 of each year pursuant to a landowner's written request. This September 1 deadline is inadequate for addressing game damage claims occurring throughout the year.

Proposed legeslation: This bill will require the Division to make initial contact with the landowner within 48 hours after receiving a game damage complaint. The bill directs the DOW to meet and consult with the landowner within five business days to develop a plan to mitigate further game damage. Additionally, the DOW will be required to supply such needed game damage prevention materials within 15 days after receiving a written request, better addressing requests made throughout the year.


Landowners often supplement agricultural income by charging an access fee to hunters. Historically, this has provided one option for protecting an individual's private property from game damage.

Today: Landowners are allowed to charge up to $100 per person, per season for the purpose of big game hunting before being ineligible for monetary game damage compensation.

Proposed Legislation: The bill updates this provision to better reflect today's market for hunting access. Landowners would be allowed to charge up to $2,500 per person, per season for the purpose of big game hunting before being ineligible for monetary game damage compensation. If revenue from hunting and outfitting comprises more than 50% of a landowner's income from his or her operation, they are ineligible to apply for monetary game damage compensation.


Where wildlife is causing excessive damage, landowners should be afforded reasonable means to protect their private property and financial investments.

Today: The Division has sole discretion on whether or not to issue a permit for a landowner to be able to take wildlife causing excessive damage, nor is there a definition of excessive damage in statute.

Proposed Legislation: The bill would require the Division to consult with the property owner in order to determine excessive damage. When it is determined that excessive damage has occurred, the Division shall issue a permit to the landowner or such person selected by the Division to take a specified number of wildlife. Excessive Damage is defined in this section as a loss, based on historic data, of at least twenty-five percent of the income that would have been derived from the damaged property.


Landowners are sustaining substantial damage to their property, yet it is these same landowners that have continued to provid feed and habitat for the state's wildlife.

We ask for a YES vote on SB____.

 

[noharleyyet]

Wow, wonder how much the limit might be raised for NR's.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

I think the existing plan should work. Certainly, a 25-fold increase seems excessive. If the game is damaging their crops, they should welcome hunters. Just my 2 cents.

 

[JoseCuervo]

sounds like bullshit to me.

A backdoor way to get to charge trespass fees and still get paid from the State.

 

[Oak]

It has made its official appearance:

http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/CL...9441ED0987257537001A33B4?Open&file=024_01.pdf

Colorado residents write your representatives early and often....

 

[Wyodeerhunter]

Some friends just got back from the Craig area hunting on one of my friends little ranches. Smith ranch is filthy with elk.

 

[Oak]

Impossible. They all died last winter.

 

[Wyodeerhunter]

Impossible. They all died last winter.

Crazy. Same thing happened in WY. Units ##, ###, ##, ### all had major winter kill.

 

[Oak]

The Colorado sportsmen community needs to help defeat this bill. It has first reading in the Senate Ag Committee this Thursday, January 22, 2009 in room 353, 3rd floor of the state capitol at 1:30 P.M.

• 40 U.S. states pay not one penny for game damage. Of the 10 states that do pay for game damage, Colorado already pays the most. Apparently it is not enough for some that Colorado already leads the nation in game damage claims paid out. Here there are two forms of payments for game damage, direct monies paid out in game damage claims ($1,000,000 in FY 2008) and the other being materials provided to landowners for the prevention of game damage, the Habitat Partnership Program (HPP), which was funded at $2,580,000 in FY 2008. Decisions in HPP are made by local landowners, and funding for HPP comes directly out of sportsmen pockets as a ‘set aside’ in DOW which dollar wise as a formula amounts to 5% of big game license fees.

• The $100 access fee limit IF a landowner also claims game damage is purposeful. This fee was put there to encourage landowners to provide public hunter access, and especially for antlerless game, primarily cow elk, to serve as policy for not hoarding big game on private lands. Landowners can already charge what they want for hunting access when they do not also claim game damage, and these fees are commonly $2,000 and up for elk. As Harvey Nyberg, a retired Montana game manager, said “a landowner whom charges a fee to hunt encourages wildlife to accumulate on his property, thereby increasing the likelihood of game damage. He/she should not be rewarded with compensation for that self inflicted damage.”

• The last DOW Big Game Working Group set in place in 2005 looked deeply at Game Damage and the access fee. Ironically while there was some sympathy to a nominal rise in access fees, the prevailing wisdom in the room (landowners, outfitters, economic interest folks, and sportsmen) was that the risk of opening up the statute was too great and too risky for landowners, since the cousin to game damage (landowner preference), might just end being changed too, that being vouchers might now be restricted from use GMU wide to being good only on private lands. What a novel idea? Anyone want to read the actual testimony for the bill that created vouchers in 2000? I have it, not one word was said about vouchers being used on public lands.

• This legislation, in a period of great economic uncertainty, would have a fiscal impact of $3,200,000. This monetary impact alone is reason enough to kill the bill.

• This bill represents the absolute worst in collaboration between sportsmen, DOW, and landowners. When so many of us have extended ourselves to work cooperatively with all stakeholders, this bill is a slap in the face of collaborative decision making. Essentially there was zero collaboration from the proponents of this bill.

• Currently there is no ceiling on the cost of game damage claims for which Colorado sportsmen are liable, which most states have. This legislation would remove the floor, and take away 7F amounts of money for needed wildlife management programs. What programs would suffer, when DOW budgets are already shrinking? Also, the past legislative intent was that landowners deriving economic benefit from wildlife should support the wildlife…by absorbing some damage.

• The response times required for Wildlife Officers in this legislation would require staffing increases to meet those deadlines. At a time when we need more feet on the ground in winter to prevent poaching and accommodate situations like last winter’s west slope feeding operations for big game, Wildlife Officers would now have their priorities rearranged.

• This bill also creatively increases Landowner Preference by building in additional kill permits for game doing game damage. Here the vouchers/licenses for killing game damage animals would either go the landowner or be distributed by the DOW. In a morbid sense, why not take out an entire antelope herd that simply is concentrated on winter grounds, simply trying to survive, in belly deep snow? What about GMU already under objective for game #s?

Please call/e-mail the Senate Ag Committee Members Isgar, Brophy, Gibbs, Harvey, Kester, and Schwartz. Sportsmen and the at large public need to oppose this bill for all reasons. Then, come see your legislature at work this Thursday to the 3rd floor of the Capital to show visible support this bill not go any further.

Senate Ag Committee

Chair – Jim Isgar / [email protected] / 303- 866-4884

Vice Chair- Gail Schwartz / [email protected] / 303-866-4871

Dan Gibbs / [email protected] / 303-866-4873

Mary Hodge / [email protected] / 303-866-4855

Ken Kester / [email protected] / 303-866-4877

Greg Brophy / [email protected] / 303-866-6360

Ted Harvey / [email protected] / 303-866-4881

 

[TheTone]

Good luck on getting this one defeated in CO, sounds like a stinky piece of legislation all the way around.

Any idea what 10 states pay for wildlife damage? I know we do here in Idaho and the account is bled dry every year.

 

[elk_hunter]

SOB that is ridiculous.

 

[Oak]

TheTone, I'm not sure of the other nine states. I can find out for you if you like. Be happy you at least have a ceiling on the amount of game damage paid out.

 

[TheTone]

Oak, if you can figure out the other states I'd appreciate it. I'd really like to share that info with a couple guys I work with, as well as figure out how the states plans compare.

 

[Oak]

TheTone, does Idaho compensation come from the General Fund or wildlife department budget?

The bulleted list I copied above is not exactly correct. It should say that 19 states have compensation programs, but only 10 states pay for game damage out of the wildlife budgets.

I've got a fact sheet I can email you if you PM your address to me.