kabic
5 year old buck +
I will start with a :) as you clearly are speaking emotionally.
You should know that as a Wisconsin resident that farmers are incredibly compensated for deer crop damage. have been for many years before CWD.
Please identify where farmers were forced to kill deer and not compensated? They are paid real $$ for killing deer through many programs.
If the govt came in and destroyed/took property in my warehouse, I would most likely be in handcuffs and my family was taken away to concentration camps. That's what Hilter, Stalin, and all the other despots did over the centuries ...
What property are you trying to protect ... the corn or the cow?
Farmers want to get paid to kill deer who eat their crops, then complain when predators are present that kill the animals that eat their corn ... they can't have it both ways.
If you own a business, please advise, as you might understand what the term "Property" or owned insurable asset means ...
I'm not trying to be emotional, sorry if I came across that way. The only point I was trying to make is farmers should be compensated when their livestock is taken\killed by the government. I'm not even talking strictly about CWD, that just happens to be one cause of the situation. Some Michigan Hog farmers faced a similar situation because of the breed of hog they choose to raise for meat.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...-over-michigans-new-swine-rules-goes-hog-wild
But with Michigan's new order, Baker's herd was suddenly classified as an illegal invasive species — putting him at risk of up to two years in jail and $20,000 in fines. If Baker complies, he will receive no compensation for the loss of his investment.
To answer your question I am not a business owner, but understand the legal definition of property is real estate. I was using the layman's definition(i.e my TV is my property). Are you suggesting that livestock are assets that should be insured, and when the government comes in a says they need to be put down for whatever the reason the government(tax payers) should not provide compensation and the owner should file an insurance claim?
I really don't have a horse in this race, just sharing my opinion.