a reimbursement decision. The bill died in 

 committee. 



During the hearings on the above legislation, a number 



of landowners from around the state, including many 



legislators, expressed their frustrations with the 



various types of wildlife damage that can occur. The 



Department explained their difficulties with the 



proposed legislation and urged support for increased 



appropriations to the game damage program already in 



9 

 place. The dialogue led to the successful passage of 



HJR 36 to study ways of alleviating wildlife damage and 



the feasibility of a damage compensation program. 



Department Responses to Wildlife Damage 



According to 87-1-225, MCA, and the Sackman case 

 previously noted in this report, the Department must 

 "investigate and study" every complaint that is made by 

 a landowner concerning wildlife damage. For each 

 complaint, an investigator in the administrative region 

 completes a "game depredation report" that documents 

 the nature and history of the damage, an appraisal of 

 the damage, and a record of action taken by the 

 Department. 



This longstanding procedure for handling complaints was 

 formally approved as a Department guideline on 

 September 30, 1985, and is included in Appendix B. 

 Note that in item 5, the Department may discontinue 

 assistance 



... to a landowner who continues to aggravate 

 game damage problems by closing or leasing 



10 



