We have a minor issue near us. No bears, just plenty of deer. One person right nearby feeds the birds, and either has a water trough or a trough filled with seed for the birds. ALways have to watch closely when coming and going on that road near that house. Mentioned it to a local and was told she's "feeding the birds" California Fish and Wildlife has rules against feeding "wildlife" but it's OK to feed birds. I do even, enough for them to clean up by noon every day in most cases. And they get Thursday and Sunday off so they have to be birds and forage elsewhere.
Apparently, folks have called the Wardens on this person with the trough, and been told she's "feeding the birds" and therefor there's nothing they can do.
Here's the issue, right here in the article:
The plight of DeBolt and Stoinski's case highlights the difficulty of prosecuting and stopping backyard wildlife feeding in Wyoming, where the state legislature has declined on multiple occasions to criminalize an activity that's often condemned by wildlife managers.
(My bold and red color for emphasis)
As long as "legislators" are in ultimate control of wildlife (and fish) decisions instead of the experts in the field we'll continue to have these conflicts. Whether it's bears in WY, or deer in neighborhoods with an increase in auto insurance claims, not everyone will be happy.
As far as I know, in Cali the County Boards of Supervisors have the say so over there being an antlerless deer season or not. The game biologist responsible for managing the local herd has no say so, the folks (farmers/ranchers/homeowners) etc have no say so if the herd gets too large locally. Increase the antlered tags, and the population of does and fawns still can increase.
And can anyone imagine the uproar from the bird seed companies if feeding birds was outlawed?
Interesting conundrum, eh?
