No cheap talk between wildlife, ag interests

DENVER — What’s become a perennial battle over wildlife management between sportsmen and landowners has spilled over into the Colorado Legislature again this year with a bill initially intended to increase payments for game damage to crops and hay fields.

Sen. Al White, R-Hayden, introduced Senate Bill 24 at the request of landowners who claim the $1 million the Division of Wildlife paid out to farmers and ranchers last year doesn’t begin to cover the actual damage.

“I can tell you that is a drop in the bucket from the actual damage that is taking place out there,” said Troy Bredenkamp, the Colorado Farm Bureau’s executive vice president.

After two hearings in the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, however, the bill was significantly weakened from the one that was introduced. And that’s a disappointment to the House sponsor, Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling.

“The way I understand it right now, it’s nothing more than a preventative materials bill, which allows anybody that calls who has game damage issues to request preventative materials,” Sonnenberg said. “It also sets up a process for dealing with the issue of what’s permanent and what’s temporary.”

Sonnenberg didn’t rule out trying to put in some of the stronger provisions when and if the bill passes the Senate. It is expected to be debated by the full Senate early next month.

“I’m waiting to see what happens in the Senate,” Sonnenberg said. “There are huge issues for me that I believe need to be taken care of within game damage. If the political environment is such where I can’t get those accomplished, I’ll take what I can now and continue to work on this through my tenure.”

Out of the original bill is any reference to lifting the $100 cap that a farmer or rancher can charge for access to private land and still quality for game damage payments. The original bill would have increased the cap to $2,500.

Also out is a provision that game damage payments be equal to 50 percent on the annual gross income from the property.

DOW Director Tom Remington was among those opposed to the higher damage payments. He said Colorado already has the most liberal policy of the 10 states that compensate landowners for game damage.

“If a landowner derives an economic return from publicly-held resources they ought to be responsible for in part supporting the wildlife resource that supports them,” Remington said. “There’s a lot of money floating around out there in commercial hunting.”

In the revised bill is a new timeline for the Division of Wildlife to respond to game damage complaints and provide preventative materials.

The DOW would have to respond to the initial damage complaint within 48 hours and to consult with the landowner within five business days. The DOW then would have 15 days to provide damage prevention materials if requested.

“We shot pretty high in terms of what we were asking for,” Bredenkamp admitted. “But the overarching outstanding issue remains. We have a lot of the state’s wildlife and a lot of damage to agriculture. We wanted to develop a process that helps us better handle and manage the situation.”

Bredenkamp said some estimate show up to 78 percent of the state’s wildlife living on private land.

The Colorado Wildlife Federation and representatives of other hunting and fishing groups said the higher limit would price many hunters out of their sport. And even though the controversial payment provisions were removed, the sportsmen’s groups still are opposed to SB 24.

“There is still no cap on the ultimate exposure sportsmen have through their license dollars to paying for what amounts to an insurance policy,” said Wildlife Federation Executive Director Suzanne O’Neill. “At the end of the day we need some sort of a cap on this whole game damage program.”

Federation board member Kent Ingram, who also is co-chair of the Sportsman’s Advisory Group to the DOW, said hunting license revenue actually paid for almost $2 million to farmers and ranchers last year.

“In addition to the $1 million in game damage, we’re paying $600,000 a year for prevention materials issued through the habitat protection program,” Ingram said. “And now we’re hearing that sportsmen are having to pay for losses when a lion or bear takes down livestock that is grazing on public lands. That’s another $318,000.”

While the issue of fairness is paramount to both groups, the lack of communication between them was apparent at both hearings.

Remington and the sportsmen complained that White and the landowners did not consult with them in writing the original bill.

“We are calling foul on the process,” Remington said at the first hearing last month, adding that “the issue never was brought forward” during quarterly roundtables last year.

Another Wildlife Federation representative, John Smeltzer, also bemoaned the lack of collaboration.

“Colorado has established a solid platform upon which collaboration is the expected norm to resolve these issues,” Smeltzer said. “Systems are in place to resolve this. For wildlife to continue to prosper, agriculture and conservation needs to meet collaboratively.”

Terry Fankhauser of the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association said it was not the intent of landowners to “blindside anyone” with the bill.

“For us it’s a process issue,” he said. “We are willing to go back to the drawing board to find some middle ground that ultimately will serve everyone’s best interest.”

Bredenkamp said the Farm Bureau has not had much success in negotiating some issues with the hunting groups, but he said there would be further discussions about how to prevent game damage in the future.

Sonnenberg has a similar response to the accusations of lack of cooperation between the two groups.

“The truth is, you don’t have those discussions when you know they are going to oppose everything you do,” the northeastern Colorado lawmaker said. “The sportsmen are still opposing this no matter what we do.”