Menu

by Larry Gearhardt, OFBF senior director of local affairs

Few people expect to enjoy a great meal at their favorite restaurant and walk out without paying the bill. Besides facing criminal charges, most feel an obligation to pay for their food. That is, unless you are the state of Ohio.

Ohio's wildlife – most notably deer – eats for free every day at the expense of the farmer, and there seems to be no incentive for the owner to pay the bill. Quite the contrary, as long as the food is free, the more deer the better.

It is well established that the state owns the wildlife. Most farmers are willing to sustain some damage to feed wildlife. Farmers enjoy seeing wildlife, and many appreciate hunting opportunities. But recently, farmers have complained that wildlife populations are too high, and the resulting damage is affecting their bottom lines.

If a restaurant allows enough people to eat for free, it goes out of business. Farmers are at that point. Some plant unusual crop rotations to minimize damage; others wonder whether to plant the crop at all.

The Ohio Division of Wildlife's policy to control the deer population is to allow more hunting. While the Division has followed this policy, the population has increased from 17,000 in 1965 to 120,000 in 1982 to over 600,000 today. At this level, individual farmers suffer thousands of dollars of damage each year.

The Division claims the problem is not the total number of deer, but rather, the concentration of deer in certain areas. It tweaks the hunting regulations each year to encourage more hunting in those areas. But, just like the way that I am drawn to a buffet of doughnuts, the deer migrate to the most abundant food supply with a safe environment. If only we could train those deer to stay within their assigned square mile.

There is no incentive for Ohio to change. Big, fat deer attract hunters, many from out of state. More hunters mean more permits sold, which means more revenue collected and a bigger Divsion of Wildlife budget.

An April 1 Columbus Dispatch article states that in 2006, the sale of deer permits and hunting licenses accounted for about $19.5 million, or about one third of the Division's budget. Local economies also won as hunters spent an estimated $266 million on supplies and lodging. The farmers received $0 for feeding the deer.

Farmers should receive compensation for the damage to their property. But how? The Ohio Supreme Court has decided that the state could not be held liable by a landowner for wildlife damage. So, what's left?

An emerging area of the law is based upon the constitutional protection against "taking" of your property without just compensation. Most of us are familiar with eminent domain actions where the government takes possession of land for a public purpose, such as a road, school or library. The law also recognizes regulatory takings of property where the government is so intrusive that it "takes" your property.

Shifting the focus from "kill more deer" to "pay for my damage" is not without considerable effort by the landowner. Documentation of the damage could be the biggest obstacle and a process to document damage would have to be adopted. It also seems farmers would have to utilize all of the nuisance permits provided to them. Currently, only about 40 percent of the nuisance permits are filled. Farmers claim that they do not have the time to fill all of the permits. Ironically, I have heard from hunters who say they cannot find land to hunt.

Solving wildlife damage issues requires a radical shift in focus. Currently, the "owner"

of the wildlife has no incentive to limit the population. If I could be compensated for the damage, I wouldn't care how much wildlife there is either. In fact, I may turn the farm into a hunting preserve.