Wyoming wildlife managers worry that a proposed change to landowner compensation regulations could hurt efforts to get a handle on inflated elk populations.
Legislation advancing in the statehouse, House Bill 60 – Excess wildlife population damage amendments, is intended to give the Wyoming Game and Fish Department more incentive to lower elk numbers in areas where wapiti are overpopulated. The statute change would do so by sweetening compensation entitlement for ranchers who lose grass on rangeland to wildlife, offering them 150% of the market value.
But in Game and Fish Chief Warden Rick King’s view, that amount of compensation could perhaps have the opposite effect: encouraging landowners to host elk, while exacerbating overpopulation problems.
“I do worry that paying such a high rate above fair market value can potentially be a disincentive for the landowner to want to help cooperate and get our elk herds to [the] objective,” King told members of the House Agriculture, State and Public Lands and Water Resources Committee last week.
The livestock lobby disagrees. Testifying at the same meeting, Jim Magagna, longtime representative for the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, pushed back on King’s contention.
“Landowners and ranchers have told me repeatedly, ‘Even if this makes us more money, we’re not in the business to make money by growing elk,’” Magagna said. “We’re in the business to make money by raising sheep or cattle.”
Magagna was instrumental in formulating the proposed reforms to Wyoming’s damage program. The legislation emerged from the Ag Committee, though it wasn’t an interim topic. The committee’s initial meeting yielded several radical proposals, like rounding up elk with helicopters, using drones to help hunters locate herds and suspending wanton waste rules so animals in overpopulated herds could be shot and left to rot. None of that came to fruition, but HB 60 emerged from the committee deliberations, which were precipitated by acute elk overpopulation problems in places like the Laramie Mountains and Iron Mountain north of Cheyenne.
The bill includes a presumption that landowners are eligible for 150% of market payments for “extraordinary damage to rangeland,” which is defined as loss of grass that exceeds 15% of the total estimated grass on a property or a state land grazing allotment. Alternatively, the presumption exists if a big game herd is overpopulated for two consecutive years.
Wyoming Game and Fish wardens and biologists would have a chance to rebut those presumptions and investigate claims of damage.
If the legislation leads to new statute, the rangeland compensation program could be a significant financial drain on the state agency. Already, Game and Fish spends an average of $1.25 million annually fulfilling claims for the damage that game species cause to cropland, livestock and rangeland that sustains “extraordinary damage.”
The changes proposed by HB 60 would lead to an additional $1.68 million in payments, according to the bill’s fiscal note. But that’s the low end of the estimates, King told lawmakers.
Hunting and angling advocacy groups lobbying in Cheyenne haven’t received the proposed revisions to the state’s damage program warmly.
“This policy would disincentivize cooperation between private landowners, sportsmen and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, worsening elk overpopulation issues not only in southeast Wyoming, but across the entire state,” said Josh Metten, who works as the Wyoming field manager for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.
Jessi Johnson, with the Wyoming Wildlife Federation, took issue with such a large chunk of Game and Fish’s self-sustaining budget — which is funded by hunter and angler license dollars — being funneled toward private landowners.
“A 150% of fair market value,” Johnson said, “that’s a really hard pill for sportsmen and sportswomen to swallow.”
Magagna, however, says the legislation change is needed. While Wyoming’s damage program overall — how it addresses fence damage, crop damage and loss of livestock — has “worked well,” there’s “one place” where the program has failed, he said.
“That’s where it talks about ‘extraordinary damage’ to grass,” Magagna told WyoFile. “I don’t even like that term. We’re not talking about damage to grass, we’re talking about consumption.”
House Bill 60, he said, addresses that shortcoming. The legislation survived introduction on the House floor in a 54-6 vote, then passed the House Ag Committee 9-0, but was rereferred to the Appropriations Committee, where it’s scheduled to come up at 1 p.m. Wednesday.
It’s nature! They live here, ranchers moved in. These ranchers trying to get paid and get free handouts from the government. These ranchers eat elk…dumbest shit ever
I have hunted CO for 29 years, I hunted WY last year. Only look for herds of 100 to 150 in this state, and they will all be on private land. Land owners do not want you on there land. Please allow hunters on your land. Everyone will be happier. You can’t believe how upset I was seeing this, and even more after talking to a long time resident about what goes on in your state. Let the land owner figure out his problem. We all know what it takes to keep these animals in check. But your will never get help from the land owner. I thought BLM was public. I was wrong. Allow cattle on blm land so elk go on private land? Allow 1000 acres tract to be sold, now only land owner gets to hunt the 7000 BLM acres inside LAND LOCKED wow
Subsidies in incentivize failure. It’s getting real hard to hear the argument that these are hard working rachers making money with their bare hands off the land. It looks a lot like government sponsored profiteering for the children of ranchers past. Make a list of all the things ranchers receive government compensation for. It’s welfare.
Hunting and fishing license money being used to pay damages to private ranchers who do not allow access to their lands is not acceptable. This is especially true when you have ranches such as the Elk Mountain Ranch blocking national forest and BLM land from access to sportsmen and women.
I find it quite remarkable how our conservative, agriculture biast legislature promotes less is more when it comes to government in their lives and yet it seems every time I turn around they are looking for ways to line their pockets with tax payer funds. A prime example is HB 60. As I read it, if elk take more than 15% of the available forage, the compensation would be 150% of lease value on private land and 100% on state (public) land grazing leases. As for public lands, if they can’t take the heat they better get out of the kitchen! I’m sure their neighbor or a young rancher looking for a leasing opportunity would be more than happy to assume the risk. As for the 150% on private lands, I would compare that to putting the fox on charge of guarding the hen house! Laws should be in place to make folks whole again not to guarantee them a profit. At the end of the day, life is about managing risk. They can manage their risk by allowing ample access to harvest elk and if they would have been doing this from the onset, I doubt this would even be an issue!
Is anyone wondering why the elk are forming superherds? It must be very stressful for the elk to be so bunched up.
There are hunters that are willing to help out on the Elk population and are willing to drive along way and spend there money doing so. But states Like Wyoming..Utah…Arizona charge a crazy fee for nonresident to go out on a hunt. On top of that. Think of the tax dollars saved if these States would allow extra cow tags to keep the herds under control and ramp up meat to feed the hungry….Hunters for the Hungry Program….. Just my App….
What is the reason these elk form these massive superherds? Seems like finding out why the elk are all bunched up could give insight into how to deal with this problem. Why don’t they disperse better?
Why doesn’t the State of Wyoming sell more elk hunting licenses at a more reasonable rate? You would gain more dollars for the State in many ways.
The fish and game dept. Should establish the optimum size of the elk herd in various areas of the state! They should issue enough antlerless permits to allow hunters to thin the herds!! They should support hunters for the Hungry programs that prossess donated elk meat for food kitchens and food banks!! If hunters don’t get the numbers low enough, increase the permits or give ranchers land owner nusence tags to take 3 or 4 more!! The state won’t have shell out money for damaged grass(eccept in rare cases) hunter will gladly pay for tags, numbers go down every one wins!!
More Ag Welfare. What about antelope, deer and prairie dogs. If they are leasing Federal land that is part of the deal.
I’d read most of the comments here. There maybe a lot of elk roaming on land. They were here 1st on these lands. They are already getting rid of wild horses and that’s wrong. Anyway, about the elk, here Wyoming area, it’s hard to find elk on hunting season. Plus on the elk refuge we don’t see many it. In the passed we alway elk every where or miles. But now we don’t alot. It is wrong. God put these special wildlife here roam this beautiful landscape and it’s their home. I am a hunter and as my family. We kill for meat for our table.
Oh , my. What happened to businesses managing to thrive on their own!!
It’s stupid. The government pays ranchers for pasture grass and then let the ranchers run cattle on government land for nearly nothing.
That elk herd is way too big. Why not let Native Tribes come in and harvest ?
Yes in places so hard hit with over population of elk could give out more tags at reduced price and land owners who do not let hunters on to help control numbers the land owner should receive no help from the sportsman or state
Wait let me get this straight. You have a overpopulation of elk and you indiscriminately kill off wolves. Answer is simple stop killing wolves. Even a elementary school student can figure that out.
Wyoming always willing to bailout the welfare pseudo cowboys. In Lander they are just shooting elk right now which is a very critical and stressful time for elk. I don’t blame the WGF as they are just pawns to these groups. The issue is that the people that have these lands aren’t the old time ranchers that would let people hunt and fish on their land. These are new rich out-of-staters that own small chunks of property in this critical habitat. They use it for their horse pastures and hobby Ranchettes. These aren’t Ag lands and they should not be getting property tax breaks for these lands in the first place let alone compensates for grass.
All the ranchers need to do is allow hunting on their land.
Why does the hunter have to pay for this ? Especially to landowners that won’t allow hunting. Also probably half the land they’re crying about is BLM.
Do they need more wolves in Wyoming to naturally cull excess elk or excess cattle? We certainly don’t need more freeloading ranchers on public land crying about how much grass elk eat. This is an absolutely stupid law designed to enrich few on the taxpayer dime. Utter fraud. Maybe ranchers should go buy their own land to feed their cattle.
It is not right to give ranchers money if they won’t let hunting on their land they should not get any thing from them government we have the same problem here they want the money not anything to do with elk
That’s right give those already rich ranchers more money for land that probably is owned by the BLM. Keep raising the price of a nonresident elk license that will surely help pay for this, why don’t they give us people that are on SS A 150 percent increase on our checks, the rich get richer, the poor, get poor
When is head Welfare Master Magagna and his bovine/ovine squad going to compensate the American public for all of the overgrazing and damage to our public lands? When is Magagna going to write a check to the US Govt and compensate the American public by back-paying a fair grazing value of public lands to the American public? When is Magagna going to issue an apology for all of the times his welfare cow and sheep boys harassed, hazed and tried to run the American public off our public lands? When is Magagna going to write a check to the State Game & Fish to compensate for all of the Wildlife that his rancher/outfitters leveraged and profited on? Before Magagna runs his usual “poor me – give us welfare ranchers another subsidy off the backs of the American public” charade, it’s about time that these cow and sheep boys pay up
Well said !
Want to decrease Elk numbers on private land? Don’t pay damages to ranchers that don’t allow hunters on their property . Elk will congregate anywhere there is food and no pressure. Right now, they let Elk herd up during hunting season and only allow “Managed hunters” (guided hunters) on which doesn’t give the Elk a whole lot of incentive to move to public land. Then they claim damages. Not all ranchers are this way, but many are. I wholly support ranchers that support hunters.
Well say
Pay them the same rate they lease public lands for, 1.35 per month, since thats the going rate.
Invite hunters in. Hunting pressure will move elk. Easily managed. Establish a block management system like Montana has. Ranchers get paid and can manage hunter access.
It seems to me that Jim Magagna and his fellow welfare cowboys and welfare sheepboys are already highly compensated in a number of ways for any grass that elk consume. Instead of paying the federal government fair market value for grazing their cows, sheep and horses on MY LAND, they pay a whopping $1.35 per animal unit month ( a cow/calf pair or five sheep or one horse). You pay that much to feed your dog for one day.
And let’s not forget how much money these “poorboys” make off of selling access to hunters to hunt OUR elk on OUR land-locked public land on their de-facto private game ranches. And to add insult to injury, they control the access to OUR public lands and OUR public wildlife and refuse to allow us to hunt on our public lands without paying an exorbitant hunting access fee or in many cases simply deny access entirely.
Magagna and his welfare cowboys and sheepboys are raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars annually selling OUR elk to their hunters and now they want the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to compensate them at an inflated rate of 150% for the grass an elk eats. And guess what folks, those damage payments that the WGFD pays are paid by you and me through our license purchases.
By not allowing elk hunters access to hunt OUR elk on OUR public lands that are landlocked, or requiring that hunters pay exorbitant access fees to hunt elk, or prohibiting elk hunting entirely, the “poorboy” welfare ranchers of Wyoming are directly responsible for the over-objective numbers of elk in many parts of Wyoming. They created the problem and now they demand financial compensation. Enough is enough. Contact your legislator and demand that House Bill 60 be terminated!
Bruce Lawson, very well put. The Wyoming Stockgrowers are a highly organized association of panhandlers (not the rugged individualists that they’d want you and I to think), no different then the big city car window washers who ascend on you when stopped at a red light, offering a false service and wanting you to pay them for nothing. I have more respect for the guy holding a sign up in a Walmart parking lot vs. these “cowboys”
Please answer some important questions:
1. Who actually OWNS the range land?
2. I live in an area where open range exists, and was forced to install fencing to keep cattle off of my property due to “fence-out” regulations. Shouldn’t ranchers be required to fence-out elk that they don’t want to enter the land they own?
Seems to me to be an equitable way to manage wildlife that encroaches on land owned by ranchers.
That is brilliant! I have often suggested the same, but people, especially ranchers, look at me like I’m entirely nuts and won’t discuss.
Drive on; that is a great idea.
Weird the elk are overpopulated…if only there was some predator that could thin the herd…
Why not increase the hunting licenses or add seasons to decrease overpopulation areas?
Lee A. Campbell said: :Bottom line is the going rate is about $60 per month per critter for feeding the public’s critters on your private land.” Good point, Lee. How about the Ranchers pay about $60 per month per Cow on public land? $1.35 aum/4.5 cents per day doesn’t quite cut it
Is the ranches doing no till to over seed the fields? I do that to my fields for my horse and cows
I don’t know if this is still true, but 30 years a go when I was taking some wildlife classes in college, Game and Fish said that Wyoming was one of the few sates that compensated ranchers/farmers for damage from wildlife. Other states might work with them to mitigate damage, but don’t just outright compensate them for it. I’m curious if they pay homeowners for damage to landscaping done by wildlife also???
My, my, you folks sure hate the food producers don’t you? Have you tried producing all of your own food? that might make you feel better. You surely do not expect them to spend a lot of money raising food, then give it to you do you? Have any of you tried producing even a small amount of the food you eat? Did you find that it raised and cared for itself, including meat? Don’t forget much of the profit from food production goes to the stores selling it? End their profit too?
You’re out of your element (once again), Marion
Marion- I’ve told you this before on many occasions, so this time it’s for the other readers to chew on .
Every single domestic beef cow and mutton wool sheep could disappear into the belly of a UFO on the same night, and 30 days later nobody would notice their absence or see any less burger and wool at the store. The market would adjust. Life would proceed. Take away the public subsidies and we wouldn’t need the UFO abduction… the raw business model for livestock in Wyoming does not pay for itself.
The Wyoming Stockgrowers and the Wyoming Woolgrowers do not feed or clothe me. Nearly all agriculture in Wyoming is done at high altitude in semiarid conditions with a very short growing season, far from markets . We can’t compete. Wyoming agriculture is done by 6-7 percent of the state population but produces less than 3 percent of personal income and pays reduced or even no net taxes. Expose the hidden cost of subsidies and Wyoming agriculture suddenly looks like a losing proposition . Especially cattle and sheep.
If every cow and on the planet disappeared there would be MORE food, not less. Beef is a luxury.
I don’t agree with giving ranchers more funds for elk in their property. In fact maybe have more of an incentive to allow hunters to help reduce those numbers. Too many places don’t allow hunting but they complain about the damage elk do. You can’t complain about something if you’re not willing to figure out a solution to the problem. I’m not talking about letting everyone and anyone, but start allowing others in moderation and if they have to sign in and out then so be it. Figure out a solution that will help everyone, there are problem hunters yes but not everyone’s a problem and they just want to feed their families and don’t care what size or sex elk they get.
They have to quit leading land to framers and ranchers if they don’t have enough of there own land for their damn cattle they shouldn’t have that many….. They are taking all the wildlife land to graze their livestock not concerned about wildlife . No the wildlife need their land to survive. about time someone takes a stand against these ranchers they are wiping out the horse herds elk, and the pronghorn. They need to cut down their herds. The wildlife have been here for thousands of years and maintained the land perfectly. It’s man and his domestic herds that are destroying the land . There are to many people not wildlife. Bottom line it’s all about money…….
Hit the nail on the head.
They’re in the business of making money and will take whichever route makes them the most. If they make more money hosting elk, that’s what they’ll do. Literally duh.
They’re in the business of making money off of the taxpayer. If they want that kind of money for their grass, then they should pay that for the public grass.
The people who are against paying 150 % of damage want there recreation free paid for by ranchers and farmers. Most rancher/farmers don’t have state or federal lands to graze. The large herds developed because of the mismanagement by Fish and Game do to greed and bloated budgets trying to satisfy hunters who want farmer and ranchers to provide cheap recreation for them. Other people such as Fish and Game get paid and have jobs while letting farmer and ranchers provide the feed to grow and raise these animals for their fun. Yet they will spend thousands of dollars for guns, ammunition, scopes, binoculars, gas, ATVs, clothing, license, hotels, campers, But don’t want to pay to raise and feed the animals that provide there jobs and or recreation. What other recreational activities are the providers or business treated like this? There many other damages other than just feed that landowners sustain like fences destroyed needing constant repairs labor and materials, loss of animals because of destroyed fences animals get into wrong fields and pastures at the wrong time and die from bloating or poison weeds, get killed on roads. Crops that have hi input costs are destroyed. The crops can be insured for losses but not game damage loss, that’s is on the farmer/rancher. Loss of the private landowners feed and lively hood. The Fish and Games answer in some areas is to try to wipe the herds out in these areas which will hurt the hunters and people who depend on various jobs from this recreation. Wiping the game out is not the answer. The Game and Fish need to do a lot better job of management. The management deficiency is not because of personel not working hard they are not educated properly and don’t truly understand how to manage herding animals. This a big problem coming out of our college’s bad studies. In addition there are people on the board overseeing and making decisions on management and procedures that have no idea what they are doing. The Game and Fish want complete controll over these herds and by controlling the hunting and taking the money yet don’t want t pay the cost. If hunters want free hunts let them gaze, feed, and care for these animals in their backyard. The answer is to let landowners participate at a fair compensation and proper management and hunting practices for each landowners private property. The lush crops on private property is a big reason these herds thrive and so well which by the way help the hunting on public lands.
“If hunters want free hunts let them gaze, feed, and care for these animals in their backyard.” <– quoted from above. Hey Fred, don't you mean "if ranchers want almost free grazing for their livestock, let them graze, feed and care for these animals in their own backyard". Inflation considered, $1.35 AUM is free, yet the welfare sheepsters and boviners want to graze the public lands down to the rocks leaving nothing for the elk but oh my, pay us damages when those starving wildlife herds come onto your private land. You're not preaching to the choir, here, Fred
Wasn’t the reason the BLM were rounding up wild horses was because they were responsible for over grazing the public grazing lands and jeoparadizing the natural wildlife. Now the wildlife are jeopardizing the grazing land from the real over grazers private cattle owners. The BLMs corruption has gone beyond all boundaries! If the public continues to allow this deliberate elimination all natural wildlife from the grazing ranges the only animals left will be millions of cattle feeding the pocketbooks of cattle and sheep ranchers, wealthy connected goverment individuals and lobbyists.
There’s no problem when the publicly owned elk are on public land – it follows suit very well. But when the publicly owned elk are on private land that is a BIG problem when overpopulated. Look at the numbers – publicly owned wild horses that are out placed onto private land in Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, the Dakotas are costing the public about $60 per month per horse = that’s about $700 per year. Elk are somewhat comparable so a rancher that is feeding the public’s elk is losing about $700 per year per elk if they remain on private land only – when that number is calculated over time – the rancher has thousands of dollars in feeding expenses for each of the publicly owned elk. How much does the rancher receive for his share of the tag when an elk is harvested?? Its something like $13 ( but I’m not sure ) – think about that, its a pittance!!!! In a fair system, Game and Fish would provide a rancher a number of tags – in the dozens – which he could sell to hunters for thousands of dollars and thereby recover his feeding expense for the total number of years the elk has grazed on his private land. The current system almost forces the private land owners to host the publicly owned elk with very little compensation for his feeding. How about paying the ranchers $60 per month per elk calculated only on his private acres and State leases – that’s what feeding wild horses generate in income. A rancher could do quite well if he could get all the elk off his private land and take wild horses in at $60 per month per elk – that’s what the horse feeding ranchers are getting.
Game and Fish needs to come up with a fair compensation for private landowners not giving them peanuts. And, if some of the elk feed grounds in the Green River basin are closed due to CWD concerns, many of those elk which were formerly fed bu public funds, will make their way over to irrigated bottom lands and those ranchers will have to feed the public’s elk for a pittance again. Ranchers don’t mind hosting a nominal number of the public’s deer. antelope and elk for free but there’s a limit to their generosity .
Bottom line is the going rate is about $60 per month per critter for feeding the public’s critters on your private land.
There is a cost of doing business. Why should I have to pay for that. Ranching is their choice
If this gets funded, I think we need to determine how best to apply it to livestock on public lands.
quote from above article: “Wyoming Game and Fish wardens and biologists would have a chance to rebut those presumptions and investigate claims of damage.” Seriously? Wyoming Game & Fish is controlled by the big landowners and welfare stock growers. Do any of you seriously think that a redshirt would “rebut” this powerful group? Once again, Wyoming Stock Growesr Director Magagna is leveraging the State for more and more money. You never see this guys lips move until he’s whining for more money. Meanwhile, the Wyoming publicly owned Wildlife once again takes it in the shorts from these welfare types
Then why are they opposing it?? Didn’t exactly think that one through huh??
Hmm, seems that every article about Magagna and his Wyoming Welfare Stockgrowers spotlights their repeated wanting to take-take-take. Whether the issue is almost free grazing, keeping people off public lands and the constant hand out wanting some government agency to put free money in their hands, it’s gotten to be a broken record. The welfare cowboy’s chronic whining has gotten old.
Every rancher that applies for compensation should be required to allow free access to any Wyoming hunter with a current tag to hunt on their property at any time their tag is valid. That compensation the legislature is talking about comes out of the G&F fees the hunters pay. It does not come out of the General Fund or the “Rainy Day” account. If the Legislature decides to use tax payer monies for that compensation then those ranchers should be required to allow any Wyoming tax payer to access any and all public land on their ranches too. Only seems fair.
let the Game and Fish and these people against this use the public lands keep the game from damaging private property. Or pay for the damage it is just that simple. You talk about handouts people hunting animals and not paying the privet landowners damage is like stealing it is a taking of personal assets and property. Pay for what you take.
If Magagna wants to talk about “extraordinary damage to grass/consumption” caused by Elk, maybe first he needs to discuss “extraordinary damage” created by cattle and sheep on public land. A high percentage of public lands in Wyoming that are being grazed for the paltry sum of $1.35 a cow & calf unit per month has been pretty much nubbed down to nothing but dirt and rocks, yet the adjacent private land has knee high grass. Magagna’s ilk have taken all the feed that the wildlife depended on public land, so now they want to create a profit center via the starving Elk when they move onto the private ground? Dirt, dirt cheap (almost free) grazing and then wow, making money off the peoples wildlife? On top of that, many of the ranchers will not allow hunting yet are in the outfitting business the leverages $$$, once again, off the backs of the people. Talk about a welfare shell game
More welfare for a bunch of cow farmers, who produce a whopping 1.5 percent of the national beef supply. Typical of the state rulers Wyoming voters elect.
Thanks Harvey and Ken. I was wondering if anyone would call this out for what it is – welfare. Our Superintendent of Public Education, Megan Degenfelder, wouldn’t apply for new Federal support for summer lunches for kids in need, saying Biden is weaponizing the summer lunches to introduce another welfare program. But welfare for ranchers isn’t being branded as such. Sorry, but the logic for paying 150% of market value eludes me.
Between this giveaway and the Little Snake River dam boondoggles, it’s a great time to be a welfare rancher in Wyoming. Where can I sign up?
Sure, wild ungulates do eat private pasture grass , of their own volition if allowed and not actively turned away by fences or cowboys. That precious commodity should be compensated .
I would hope we could balance the Compensation / Subsidy scales by assessing livestock producers the fair market value of their public lands grazing if they use that resource. The federal grazing fee is still a ridiculously low $ 1.35 per cow-calf pair per month on BLM and Forest Service allotments. Right next door on State leases it can be several times higher. Should your precious Cow and her Calf be fattening on private grass, that can be north of $ 20.00 / month. Quite a differential that always deserves more attention than it ever gets .
If ranchers like J. Magagna and his Stockgrower ilk believe the public should pay them 150 percent compensation for private grass ending up in the gullets of public ungulates, We the Public should reciprocate in like and kind by demanding the livestock producers pay the true cost of providing private beef and mutton forage from public grass and water . The fees should be well above and beyond the mere administrative costs of providing those sweetheart subsidies. In all fairness. The grazing fees assessed today don’t even cover the bookkeeping and cursory management. Remember, a Cow-Calf cattle pair will consume 3X-5X the grass and water of a Cow-Calf elk pair or deer pair, to which the Public is not really adequately compensated.
When it comes to Compensation , the trails should run in both directions.
They should also pay for the cost of weed suppression. Their livestock are responsible for it.
More welfare for an industry that is incapable of being profitable.
Those invasive species need a whole lot of socialism to be profitable. What a racket.