View WDFW rulemaking website for Crop Damage. 

Purpose of the proposal and its anticipated effects: 

The proposed rulemaking, if adopted, seeks to do the following:

  1. Allow the department to continue to use contracted crop damage claim adjusters. To do so, the department must establish updated certification and experience standards for department-contracted crop adjusters. Because of a change in the availability of federal crop insurance continuing education training for crop adjusters, there has been a decline in available crop adjusters resulting in the department being unable to comply with existing rule. Consequently, the department has been unable to carry out this statutory obligation to assess crop damage claims by current department contracted adjusters. This change will allow for the substitution of experience for the federal license and allow claims to continue to be processed by contracted crop adjusters with only a state license. 
  2. Clarify the handling of shared adjustor fees and clarify shared costs apply for multiple site visits or for share repayment where no claim is paid. 
  3. Removes redundant or irrelevant language unrelated to claims that occurs in multiple rules. 
  4. Clarify that the department may pause timelines to allow for further investigation of a claim and require submission of additional information to complete the processing of a claim. 
  5. Clarify how causes of damage other than crop damage by deer or elk are considered in the claim process. 

Reasons supporting: 

The department is required to make rules and processes for the implementation of commercial crop damage payments for wild deer or elk. These rule changes are necessary to provide clarity to the claim  process and ensure that the necessary adjustor resources are available to comply with the requirements of RCW chapter  77.36.

 

 

Question title

Submit your comments on WAC 220-440-140 Payment for deer and elk commercial crop damage - eligibility and limitations:

Closed for Comments
Dennis BeichCrop damage compensation should only be provided by the state if the landowner aloows public access to the property for hunting. This can either be open to the public or through special permits that are open to the general public not just to the landowners freinds/family. The a...See More
ReplyAgree3 months ago
DanAnyone seeking compensation for crop damage should have to be enrolled in access programs for hunters or allow for special hunts draw tags to be distributed for their properties to offset costs.
ReplyAgree4 months ago
CEI don't understand why Fish & Wildlife would be paying for damage by wildlife in the first place. Commercial farmers have insurance like the rest of us for 'accidents,' they should be using that instead.
ReplyAgree4 months ago
NativeJoeWe shouldn't being paying for damage crops. WDFW should offer to install high fencing around there crops. If the landowner doesn't want high fences then they don't get any money. It's that simple.
ReplyAgree4 months ago

Question title

Submit your comment on WAC 220-440-150 Application for cash compensation for deer or elk commercial crop damage-procedure:

Closed for Comments
Tired of farmers, who are largely wealthy landowners, whining about the cost of their doing business. They get federal grants and loans, and vote largely for idiots who cut taxes to corporations benefitting from cheap commodities to manufacture unhealthy food and sell it back to ...See More
ReplyAgree4 months ago
CEEI didn't know there was such a thing. Why would Fish & Wildlife have to pay for damage by wildlife. That seems odd. Don't farmers have insurance? They should be using that instead of taxpayer money.
ReplyAgree4 months ago
NativeJoeWe shouldn't being paying for damage crops. WDFW should offer to install high fencing around there crops. If the landowner doesn't want high fences then they don't get any money. It's that simple.
ReplyAgree4 months ago

Question title

Submit your comment on WAC 220-440-160 Valuation methods for commercial crop damage assessment:

Closed for Comments
CEThe valuation method should be super conservative damage amounts and it should be on the landowner to prove cause. If private assessors are to be used, then they need to be vetted and all initial costs should be on the landowner, not the State. They should have the burden, and ...See More
ReplyAgree4 months ago
NativeJoeWe shouldn't being paying for damage crops. WDFW should offer to install high fencing around there crops. If the landowner doesn't want high fences then they don't get any money. It's that simple.
ReplyAgree4 months ago
complete
complete
CR-101 Preproposal Comments

live
live
CR-102 Rule Proposal Comment Period

planned
planned
CR 103 Permanent Rule

Please note:  All comments received by WDFW are part of the public record and will be available for public viewing - so please do not include private information in the text of your comments. Comments are subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act, RCW 42.56.