By Bill Schneider, 1-12-06
Wyoming has the wrong idea when it comes to elk feedlots, but a couple of Cowboy State legislators certainly have it right on free access to hunting. They have a thoroughly reasonable plan that’s long overdue, but nonetheless, it stands a slim chance of becoming reality.
Most western states have been able to resist pressure from ranching organizations to require the wildlife department to compensate landowners for damage done by wildlife—tearing down fences, eating haystacks, trampling crops, etc. Wyoming, on the other hand, made an unusual and controversial move to compensate ranchers for wildlife damage to their crops or facilities. There’s no established fee schedule. Instead, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department assesses each claim on a case-by-case basis. In 2005, the WGFD paid out $182,000 to satisfy these wildlife damage claims.
The statute that allows these payments includes a clause preventing ranchers who receive wildlife damage money from closing their land to hunting. In reality, on the financial scale of things, some hunters wouldn’t consider this too bad of a deal because the statute was intended to keep all this land open to public hunting.
But there’s a catch. There always is, it seems.
Some ranchers who receive wildlife damage payments have started satisfying the public hunting requirement by leasing their land to outfitters who only allow paying clients to hunt. Other ranchers allow public hunting, but charge a fee for it. Clearly, both options thwart the spirit of the law and exclude the average hunter from hunting on this private land, but technically, comply with the letter of the law.
Now, two Wyoming lawmakers have decided to take on the all-powerful livestock lobby and get back to the original idea, which is if you take the money, Mr. Cattleman, you open your land to Average Joe Hunter. State Senator John Hanes and State Representative Pete Illoway, both R-Cheyenne, are sponsoring legislation to prevent ranchers from receiving wildlife damage payments unless they agree to provide free access to public hunting.
“It’s a pro-hunter bill,” Hanes said in an Associated Press article out of Cheyenne, Wyoming. “It would make more land available for hunters to hunt big game animals. I think that’s the bottom line of it all.”
Here in the West, it’s hard to be against free public hunting, but some people in Wyoming definitely are, namely, ranchers and outfitters, a powerful political force in Wyoming to say the least, and, regrettably, hunters and hunting clubs are hesitant to get crosswise with agricultural organizations. Hence the dim prospect of this bill getting out of the Wyoming legislature.
Lou Gehrig, a retiree and avid hunter, who helped prompt Hanes and Illoway to introduce the bill was quoted in the article saying he has talked to many people who support the bill but said few were willing to speak publicly because they fear the consequences. “The agriculture lobby is very strong in the state of Wyoming,” Gehrig said. “So I don’t know if we’re going to be successful or not, but we’re going to give her a go.”
Wyoming and other western states have large tracts of public land always open to hunting, but private land is often more fertile, supports more game animals, and has much lower hunting pressure. Right or wrong, the Cowboy State has—probably inadvertently—found itself in an unique position of having a new way of keeping private land open to hunting. The proposed legislation would force ranchers to choose between the economic benefits of getting damage payments or outfitter leases and per-gun/per-animal fees from hunters. Now, they have it both ways, which I’m sure is a great deal for ranchers, but certainly leaves hunters fewer places to hunt.
Footnote: In the it-can-get-worse department, Brian Beisher, a Wyoming outfitter who opposes the Hanes/Illoway bill thinks that instead of requiring landowners to provide free hunting access in exchange for wildlife damage payments, the state should give landowners hunting licenses so they can sell them. “Then,” Beisher claims, “the landowner could have a hand in regulating not only the harvest, up or down, but this would also allow the landowner access controls to make sure property, livestock and life and limb are safeguarded.” Under Beisher’s plan, ranchers would have three non-agricultural revenue streams instead of two because they could sell the licenses on top of access fees and outfitter leases and still get damage reimbursements. What a deal! Unless you’re a not-so-rich hunter, that is.
By Bill Schneider, 1-12-06
Wyoming has the wrong idea when it comes to elk feedlots, but a couple of Cowboy State legislators certainly have it right on free access to hunting. They have a thoroughly reasonable plan that’s long overdue, but nonetheless, it stands a slim chance of becoming reality.
Most western states have been able to resist pressure from ranching organizations to require the wildlife department to compensate landowners for damage done by wildlife—tearing down fences, eating haystacks, trampling crops, etc. Wyoming, on the other hand, made an unusual and controversial move to compensate ranchers for wildlife damage to their crops or facilities. There’s no established fee schedule. Instead, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department assesses each claim on a case-by-case basis. In 2005, the WGFD paid out $182,000 to satisfy these wildlife damage claims.
The statute that allows these payments includes a clause preventing ranchers who receive wildlife damage money from closing their land to hunting. In reality, on the financial scale of things, some hunters wouldn’t consider this too bad of a deal because the statute was intended to keep all this land open to public hunting.
But there’s a catch. There always is, it seems.
Some ranchers who receive wildlife damage payments have started satisfying the public hunting requirement by leasing their land to outfitters who only allow paying clients to hunt. Other ranchers allow public hunting, but charge a fee for it. Clearly, both options thwart the spirit of the law and exclude the average hunter from hunting on this private land, but technically, comply with the letter of the law.
Now, two Wyoming lawmakers have decided to take on the all-powerful livestock lobby and get back to the original idea, which is if you take the money, Mr. Cattleman, you open your land to Average Joe Hunter. State Senator John Hanes and State Representative Pete Illoway, both R-Cheyenne, are sponsoring legislation to prevent ranchers from receiving wildlife damage payments unless they agree to provide free access to public hunting.
“It’s a pro-hunter bill,” Hanes said in an Associated Press article out of Cheyenne, Wyoming. “It would make more land available for hunters to hunt big game animals. I think that’s the bottom line of it all.”
Here in the West, it’s hard to be against free public hunting, but some people in Wyoming definitely are, namely, ranchers and outfitters, a powerful political force in Wyoming to say the least, and, regrettably, hunters and hunting clubs are hesitant to get crosswise with agricultural organizations. Hence the dim prospect of this bill getting out of the Wyoming legislature.
Lou Gehrig, a retiree and avid hunter, who helped prompt Hanes and Illoway to introduce the bill was quoted in the article saying he has talked to many people who support the bill but said few were willing to speak publicly because they fear the consequences. “The agriculture lobby is very strong in the state of Wyoming,” Gehrig said. “So I don’t know if we’re going to be successful or not, but we’re going to give her a go.”
Wyoming and other western states have large tracts of public land always open to hunting, but private land is often more fertile, supports more game animals, and has much lower hunting pressure. Right or wrong, the Cowboy State has—probably inadvertently—found itself in an unique position of having a new way of keeping private land open to hunting. The proposed legislation would force ranchers to choose between the economic benefits of getting damage payments or outfitter leases and per-gun/per-animal fees from hunters. Now, they have it both ways, which I’m sure is a great deal for ranchers, but certainly leaves hunters fewer places to hunt.
Footnote: In the it-can-get-worse department, Brian Beisher, a Wyoming outfitter who opposes the Hanes/Illoway bill thinks that instead of requiring landowners to provide free hunting access in exchange for wildlife damage payments, the state should give landowners hunting licenses so they can sell them. “Then,” Beisher claims, “the landowner could have a hand in regulating not only the harvest, up or down, but this would also allow the landowner access controls to make sure property, livestock and life and limb are safeguarded.” Under Beisher’s plan, ranchers would have three non-agricultural revenue streams instead of two because they could sell the licenses on top of access fees and outfitter leases and still get damage reimbursements. What a deal! Unless you’re a not-so-rich hunter, that is.
By Bill Schneider, 1-12-06