Q: Wildlife can damage a farmer’s production. I have suffered losses of approximately $25,000 after compensation from crop insurance. It concerns me that such limited compensation is funded at taxpayer’s expense. There are many wildlife and environmental groups that actively lobby for the protection of wildlife. I believe their efforts have led to an increase in wildlife populations and an increase in crop damage. Shouldn’t these groups bear some responsibility for wildlife damage?
A: All wildlife is deemed to be government property. Even though a herd of deer is in your field damaging your crop, you are not at liberty to trap or shoot them. Similarly the fact that a flock of geese has invaded your dugout and is defecating all over does not allow you to shoot them.
Read Also
Support needed at all levels for high-value solar projects
Farmers, rural municipalities and governments should welcome any opportunity to get involved in large-scale solar power installations, say agrivoltaics proponents.
While wildlife is government property, in my opinion there is no legal obligation on the part of governments to offer compensation for wildlife damage. Nevertheless, governments have implemented some programs to provide for such compensation. There are compensation schemes in the three prairie provinces based on federal-provincial agreements. As you point out, this is offered through the crop insurance program. The actual compensation varies somewhat. In Saskatchewan, the coverage for unavoidable crop damage is up to 85 percent; in Manitoba the total loss can be covered. Manitoba’s program also pays for predator damage to a farmer’s livestock of up to $2,000 an animal. Full details on coverage are available from crop insurance offices or websites.
While the programs are administered by the crop insurance program in each province, it is not necessary to carry such insurance in order to claim wildlife damage. Nor are these programs funded by assessments against hunters or wildlife groups.
A different program in Alberta, the Wildlife Predator Compensation Program, provides compensation for livestock killed or injured by wild animals. Compensation for loss or veterinary costs of up to 85 percent of the average commercial value of that kind of animal for confirmed predator damage, and 50 percent for probable damage is available. The program also provides some compensation for damage to livestock by hunters. For full details contact the fish and wildlife division of Alberta Sustainable Resource Development.
There is no program in Saskatchewan to compensate for livestock loss due to wild animals.
Should wildlife and environmental groups be held responsible for such compensation? The only way compensation could be collected would be by the government imposing a tax on them.
In my view any attempt to make such groups responsible for compensation would be contrary to the constitution. Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that “everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression … (d) freedom of association.” And section 15 provides that “every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination.”
In my view, a tax by the government on people who advocate conservation would clearly violate these freedoms. We would be taxing and penalizing people who hold certain beliefs or belong to certain organizations.
As a society we don’t tax people on the benefits we receive. Whether we use the roads for hauling grain or live in a city without a car, our taxes equally go to road repair and construction. Of course, it is a policy decision for government officials and elected officials to decide what compensation should be paid and how it should be paid when wildlife damage occurs.
There is to my knowledge no basis on which a landowner could sue a wildlife group for advocating wildlife protection.
Don Purich is a former practising lawyer who is now involved in publishing, teaching and writing about legal issues. His columns are intended as general advice only. Individuals are encouraged to seek other opinions and/or personal counsel when dealing with legal matters.
