Here in Wyoming, some state legislators are introducing a bill that would change how wildlife damage payments are done.

In the past, landowners could apply to the Game and Fish for compensation for damage to crops or equipment (in the case of bears). In return, the landowner was required to let the public onto their land to thin herds. However, the landowner did not have to let the public have acess for free. In the case of a landowner down the road from my father, he was getting almost $10,000.00 a year in damage payments and would let the public on his land, for $1000.00, to hunt antelope or deer.

The new legislation would require landowners who get damage payments to let the public have acess to hunt without charging for it, X amount of hunters for every $1000.00 of damage payments.

I think this is fair, as if you are accepting tax dollars, the tax payers should get some return.

Outfitters are raising a stink, because it would let hunters on to land they have leased.

Are their are similar plans in other states? If so, what are requirements?

That sounds fair to me as well. The outfitters could pay the land owner what he would make in compensation to keep it to themselves but $10,000.00 is alot of money I doubt they would like it .
Joe

I do not wish to offend anyone in Wyoming or if they are guides... but IMO Outfitters up there have had a silver spoon in their mouths for an awfully long time. The whole rule on Region H still steams me up.

Anyway yes this is an excellent change to the rules regarding re-embursments for animal damages. "Double dipping" with regards to funds has to stop.


-DallanC

Don't know who thunk that up but it sure makes good sense. It sure could not have been a person with political ties!!

Sounds fair to me,...should stop the double dipp-ers. Gives the Landowners a choice wildlife damage money or lease/fee's to hunt your choice, just not both.

In most states there's also a provision for state insurance to cover any lost livestock that might be incurred in the process. I like that provision since it cuts down on the lawsuits that could be involved due to accidents or from stray dogs. Of course if it's a female anial that's killed it could really be expensive when you consider the offspring she could have in her lifetime plus incidental costs. God forbid the loss of a breeding male could set one back a bundle. Livestock don't come cheap anymore. Best wishes.

Cal - Montreal