Rancher Kills 39 Antelope

[KGAINES]

What about this part of the rule

6) require a landowner or lessee to demonstrate that the property depredation is greater in value than the value of any wildlife-related income or fee collected by the landowner or lessee for permission to take or kill an animal of the same species, on the private property or portion of the private property identified in the complaint as the location where the depredation occurred; and

[Outdoor Writer]

What about this part of the rule

6) require a landowner or lessee to demonstrate that the property depredation is greater in value than the value of any wildlife-related income or fee collected by the landowner or lessee for permission to take or kill an animal of the same species, on the private property or portion of the private property identified in the complaint as the location where the depredation occurred; and

 

Only guessing here, but perhaps he wasn't collecting ANY income or fees, i.e. not getting or selling landowner tags. Of course, that's also his right -- not allowing hunting on his property. -TONY

[jamaro]

Someone mentioned the case of Bruce Thompson -- director of the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. Here's the item I wrote for my IN THE FIELD column in the June issue of Rocky Mt. Game & Fish. -TONY

 

NMDGF DIRECTOR CONVICTED

Lincoln County Magistrate Martha Proctor recently found Bruce Thompson, director of the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, guilty for shooting a deer without permission on private land in southeastern New Mexico. He had pleaded no contest to the misdemeanor charge.

 

Proctor ordered Thompson to pay a $500 fine and sentenced him to 182 days in jail, before suspending the jail time and placing him on probation. The conditions of Thompson's unsupervised probation require that he not violate any local, state or federal laws for 182 days.

 

A second misdemeanor charge of unlawfully hunting or possessing a protected species was still pending at press time. Thompson had pleaded not guilty and was awaiting a jury trial.

 

The charges stemmed from a Nov. 17, 2007 incident on the Diamond T Ranch, west of Roswell. Thompson allegedly killed a deer but didn't get the landowner's permission. Hunting on private property in New Mexico without permission is illegal.

 

Thompson, who did possess a valid deer hunting license, had said he believed he was on U.S. Bureau of Land Management land, based on coordinates entered in his GPS unit.

 

Based on evidence and witness accounts at the time, investigators determined both misdemeanors were committed unintentionally. New Mexico law does not make allowances for lack of intent, however.

 

The investigating conservation officers said a hunting guide employed by the ranch owner saw Thompson with the dead deer, and later reported the incident to the owner, who then called a NMDGF officer. Thompson's hunting license was valid on public land or on private land with permission.

 

Thompson answered questions and provided a written statement.

 

"I have cooperated with the investigation and I will accept the consequences of my honest mistake," he said. "I apparently used an incorrect entry in my GPS unit while conducting my hunt, but that is no excuse, and I expect to be treated like any other hunter who unintentionally violates wildlife regulations."

 

The hunting guide who reported the incident verified that when he confronted Thompson, the director told the guide he believed he was on Bureau of Land Management land based on coordinates entered in his GPS unit.

 

Thompson later said, "I made an honest mistake, and this situation concerns me because I pride myself on being a hunter who pays meticulous attention to the rules. I used one wrong GPS coordinate when I planned my hunt, which unknowingly led me onto private land. When I realized I might have made an error, I immediately reported the incident to my staff and asked that I be treated no differently than any other hunter, which means I will accept any pertinent consequences."

 

As required by state law, the department seized the mature buck deer and sold the meat.

 

HUH??? This has nothing to do with this issue..

 

and like I said... I understand that it is the law but I have issue with him using a shotgun...

[IHunt2live]

Legal or not its not right. I think people like that who have no respect for life are scum!

[Outdoor Writer]

Legal or not its not right. I think people like that who have no respect for life are scum!

 

Oh, the slippery slopes we sometimes build. -TONY

[audsley]

Actually, I did read the entire article. But if a state constitution were to specify that wildlife belongs to the people of the state, legislatures probably wouldn't feel so free pass such laws. And if they did, I'd think a constitutionality challenge might prove successful.

 

Here in Arizona, the state constitution does not address ownership of wildlife. Ownership by the people is instead conferred by statute, and it's not unusual to have statutes that are seemingly incompatible or contradictory. In other words, this could happen here, too.

 

Ironically, if an Arizona rancher's steer gets out on the highway and you hit it with your truck, the rancher is not liable for damage to your truck, but you are liable for the loss of his steer. Sound fair?

 

Protection of one's crops from the elements, whether it's weather, pests or disease, should be a cost of doing business, and ranchers should have to compensate the people of their state any time they take wildlife deemed to have value. That's my position if anyone ever attempts to bring such a law here.

[jamaro]

Reports are coming out that he used an ATV to chase them down and shoot them...

 

If you want you can send a fax to the gov by going to this website..

 

Fax Website

 

 

Jason

[Outdoor Writer]

Actually, I did read the entire article. But if a state constitution were to specify that wildlife belongs to the people of the state, legislatures probably wouldn't feel so free pass such laws. And if they did, I'd think a constitutionality challenge might prove successful.

 

Here in Arizona, the state constitution does not address ownership of wildlife. Ownership by the people is instead conferred by statute, and it's not unusual to have statutes that are seemingly incompatible or contradictory. In other words, this could happen here, too.

 

Doesn't make any difference. If the state owns the game but then the state passes legislation or rules that allows someone to take or kill such, it is not only legal but constitutional as well. That's exactly why we get the privilege to hunt the state's game.

 

And yes, you are correct that it could happen here under the same circumstances IF the legislature or G&F put such a law/rule into effect.

 

TX has a similar law except the landowner must obtain depredation permits before taking action. -TONY

[Outdoor Writer]

Reports are coming out that he used an ATV to chase them down and shoot them...

 

Jason

 

Well, yeah; it says that in the first sentence of the article you posted (see below), and no where in the law does it say he couldn't use it, a shotgun or 105mm howitzer on his private land.

 

"A northern New Mexico rancher using a shotgun and an all-terrain vehicle has chased down and shot dozens of antelope feeding in his wheat field, according to the state Game and Fish Department. "

[Outdoor Writer]

Ironically, if an Arizona rancher's steer gets out on the highway and you hit it with your truck, the rancher is not liable for damage to your truck, but you are liable for the loss of his steer. Sound fair?

 

Forgot this part:

 

The reason is simple: it too is LAW. In this case, it is part of this state's "open range" statutes that have been in existence for decades. But I think there are also some restrictions included where the owner is possibly liable.

 

Also under the open range laws, if you want to keep someone else's cattle off your property, YOU must fence in your property. AND, if YOUR dog is harassing someone's cattle, he has the right to kill the dog on the spot.

 

Of course, any of the laws can be changed by either the legislature or the public initiative route. -TONY

[Outdoor Writer]

Here are the minutes from a 2001 AZ G&F commission meeting where the issue of crop damage by elk was the topic. -TONY

[Outdoor Writer]

And..here is the relevent statute from the Title 17 codes that address depredation issues in AZ. -TONY

 

17-239. Wildlife depredations; investigations; corrective measures; disposal; reports; judicial review

 

A. Any person suffering property damage from wildlife may exercise all reasonable measures to alleviate the damage, except that reasonable measures shall not include injuring or killing game mammals, game birds or wildlife protected by federal law or regulation unless authorized under subsection D of this section. A person may not retain or sell any portion of an animal taken pursuant to this subsection except as provided in section 3-2403.

 

B. Any person suffering such property damage, after resorting to the relief as is provided in subsection A of this section, may file a written report with the director, advising the director of the damage suffered, and the species of animals causing the damage, and the director shall immediately order an investigation and report by an employee trained in the handling of wild animal depredation.

 

C. The department shall provide technical advice and assist in the necessary anti-depredation measures recommended in the report, including trapping, capturing and relocating animals.

 

D. If harvest of animals is found to be necessary to relieve damage, the commission may establish special seasons or special bag limits, and either set reduced fees or waive any or all license fees required by this title, to crop that wildlife. If the commission determines that this cropping by hunters is impractical, it may issue a special permit for taking that wildlife to the landowner, lessee, livestock operator or municipality suffering damage, provided that the edible portions, or other portions as prescribed by the commission, of all the wildlife taken by the person suffering damage are turned over to an agent of the department for delivery to a public institution or charitable organization.

 

E. Except as provided in section 41-1092.08, subsection H, in the event any person suffering property damage from wildlife is dissatisfied with the final decision of the commission, the person may seek judicial review pursuant to title 12, chapter 7, article 6.

[Outdoor Writer]

Here in Arizona, the state constitution does not address ownership of wildlife. Ownership by the people is instead conferred by statute, and it's not unusual to have statutes that are seemingly incompatible or contradictory. In other words, this could happen here, too.

 

Also, in the way of clarification as stated in the Title 17 statutes:

 

17-102. Wildlife as state property; exceptions

 

Wildlife, both resident and migratory, native or introduced, found in this state, except fish and bullfrogs impounded in private ponds or tanks or wildlife and birds reared or held in captivity under permit or license from the commission, are property of the state and may be taken at such times, in such places, in such manner and with such devices as provided by law or rule of the commission.

[audsley]

Arizona's hunters and AG&F have been down this road with ranchers many times, and I don't feel like going there again until I have to. In other words, when they make their next charge seeking landowner tags.

 

I should refrain from picking on some of the weakest and most ridiculous statements quoted in the minutes. After all, you'll hear ridiculous things said in a roomful of complaining hunters too. But elk dangerous to people in the rut? Guess I should stop hunting them with a compound bow, which makes a poor self-defense weapon. Elk and deer can't be fenced out? Then how does the forest service manage to successfully fence them out of aspen enclosures? A rancher encourages archery hunters to hunt on his ranch, but hunters only want to go after bull elk? Would that include the many who purchase cow tags, often as their first choice? But I said I shouldn't pick them, so I'll stop.

 

AG&F has bent over backwards trying to accommodate ranchers and farmers through its landowner and lessee program. That's why we have depredation tags being sold over the counter nowadays, and why we're hunting elk in July. G&F and sportsmen's conservation groups offer programs that benefit ranchers as well as wildlife. But for some of them, it's never enough.

 

Most of the ranchers' rhetoric involves economic impacts, but talk to them long enough and you'll find there's really something deeper and more abstract behind all this rage and fury. I believe it's more a matter of principle and their freedom to control their own destiny. They want the right to fix a problem any time they perceive one.

 

People I know in elk advocacy organizations have actually offered to pay ranchers the same money they make growing cattle to grow elk instead, but still they refuse. Economics isn't the whole issue. It's more about power and control.

 

And yet Arizona ranchers don't recognize any inherent obligation to take reasonable measures to protect their own property. Adequate fences could be built around fields, but they don't want to spend the money. What about dogs kept inside a crop enclosure? I guess they feel they shouldn't have to do that. After all, it's Game & Fish's elk that's causing the problem, and G&F should either fix it or allow them to resolves matters as cheaply as possible.

 

In my home state of Missouri, a farmer is liable for property damage if his hog or steer gets off his own property and damages someone else's crops or vehicle. Now there's a controversial bill to require the Missouri Conservation Dept. to compensate any driver whose car hits a deer on the highway. The underlying theory is that the owner of the deer - in this case, the people or the state - is responsible for the damage. While controversial, at least Missouri's thinking is being consistent. Around here, the state is held responsible for the damage its wildlife does, but our open range law holds the people responsible for damages to privately owned livestock.

 

And if you think our state isn't held legally responsible for the behavior of our wildlife, check into some of the damage judgments AG&F has paid with our sportsmen's dollars.

 

Some Western traditions need to be re-evaluated.

[Outdoor Writer]

You're preaching to the choir about the ranching/elk issue here. I just provided those meeting minutes as somewhat interesting reading material to show why this issue is ongoing in EVERY western state that have elk and likely will be for years to come.

 

But again, any of the current laws can be changed. ANY group or individual is free to start an initiative proposal. Given enough signatures, it makes it to the ballot and people get to vote on it. That done, it's pretty much irreversible, unlike statutes enacted by the legislature that can be changed with a whim.

 

As for bull elk being dangerous, if we ever get to meet, remind me to tell you about the 6x6 that had me pinned behind a tree for 5 minutes while we both went in circles -- he with his antlers wrapped on both sides of the trunk and me trying to keep my body far enough away but not relinguishing the cover the tree afforded me. Fortunately, a satellite bull came to my rescue by distracting my foe long enough for me to escape unharmed except for soiled pants.

 

RE: MO laws

 

You probably are aware of this, but until 1969, the laws there were similar to here under the "open range" statutes. Now it's a "closed range" state where livestock owners must control their critters. -TONY