ieee tee Food and RuralAffite de Aimentation be eet Geereattioes Ontario Po fa 26319 Tee: 59 e2e3t9 Rural Programs Branch DATE: Augost 22, 2016 TO LIVESTOCK OWNER: Francis Moran Cone 2 RRI Williamsford, Ontario NOH 2V0 AND TO MUNICIPALITY: Will Moore, CAO/Clerk & ‘Teresa Buys, Administrative Assistant Treasury ‘Township of Chatsworth, RR 1 Civie # 316837 Highway 6 Chatsworth, Ontario NOH 1G0 Subject: Request from Program Administrator for Review by Second Valuer of valuation ‘on a claim made under the Ontario Wildlife Damage Compensation Please find attached a copy of the report by Ms. Lynn Pardo, the Second Valuer appointed by the ‘Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) to re-evaluate a claim recently made under the Ontario Wildlife Damage Compensation Program (“the Program”) by Francis Moran, Cone 2, RR 1, Williamsford, Ontario, NOH 2VO (“Livestock Owner") “The claim was originally reported on by the First Valuer ("Municipal Valuer") of the Township of Chatsworth (“Municipality”). Upon receiving the report (programm application) of the Municipal ‘Value, the ministry Administrator of “the Program” was dissatisfied with the valuation made by the Municipal Valuet” and had requested for a Second Valuer to re-evaluate the claim in conformity with ‘the Guidelines for “the Program” as stipulated in section “Review and Appeals” under “Request for Review by Administrator”, and also Section 14, (3) of Order in Council 1313/2011 that established “the Program”. In discharging her responsibilities accorded under the Guidelines and Order in Council for “the Program’ the Second Valuer was to conduct full review of the claim and consider al the facts during the course of Investigating wn! 1e-cvaluatin the claim before making a decision.‘The report of the Second Valuer shows that she did not support the findings of the “Municipal Valuer” and has denied the claim. Reasons for denying the claim and not granting compensation are outlined in ‘the attached report ofthe Second Valuer. Following is a table that summarizes the valuation of both the “Muniipal-Valuer” and Second Valuer regard:ng the claim: ‘Compensation [Compensation Awarded] ‘Awarded by | by Second Valuer afler Monicipal Valier Revahation Kill/Injury Date of Livestock | Date of Vahuation (Cals) ‘by Municipal Vahuer July 20, 2016 shi 20, 2016 8875.00 $0.00 ‘Since the decision in the report of the Second Valuer takes precedence over the report of the “Municipal Valuer”, the “Municipality” does nat have to pay any compensation tothe “Livestock “Owner” for this claim. ‘Sections 15 (1) of the Order in Council provide the option forthe “Livestock Owner” to submit an appeal to the Director for the Wildlife Damage Compensation Program, OMAFRA within 20 Dbasiness days of the date this letter, ifthe “Livestock Owner” is dissatisfied withthe decision inthe ‘Second Valuer's report in a case where the Program Administrator exercised authority under Section 14. Gof the Order in Council to have a Second Valuer review the report of the First Valuer (Muticipal Valuer”). Requirements for an appeal tothe Director are as follows: 1. A letter outlining reasons for the appeal, including what aspects ofthe Second Valuer's report the producer is dissatisfied with, a well as any other additional details and documentation ‘which are relevant to the appeal and in suppor of the claim. 2. A fee of $25 for appealing the report ofthe Second Valuer. The fee is retemable if the Director makes a decision that favours the appellant. The cheque or money order must be rade payable tothe Minister of Finance. 3. Copy of the Second Valuer's report for which an appeal is being submitted. Appeals tothe Director can be submitted tothe following address: The Director, Ontario Wildlife ‘Damage Compensation Program, Rural Programs Branch; Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural ‘Affais; 1 Stone Road West, 4" Floor NW, Guelph, Ontario, NIG 4Y2; Atention~ Robin Chandra, Financial Officer. If youhave any questions, please call me at phone number 519-826-3791 or contact Robin Chandra, Financial Officer at phone number 519-826-3833 or by email: Robio,Chandra(@ontario.caReport of Second Valuer Appointed Pursuant to the Ontario Wildlife Damage Compensation Program Pe Ontario Pursuant to Section 14 of the Order in Council for the Ontario Wildlife Damage Compensation Program, ‘Second Valuation of the Program Application was requested by owner: [ Mucpaliy: rogram Adminstrator: [Adam Mayer Appointed Second Valuer L Pardoe se tome toon ranch = Gorenon2 : L ears ia Teri Winton Onno wen ve (p36 $a wa fr pl er sa rae raver Woy ot is Carel ] Fawn two Sareea Say Review of Municipal Valuer Investigation ~ key findings and assessment by Second Valuer fon the same date. ‘One (1) Angus cross bull calf — new born. Kill date listed as July 20, 2016. Valuer report is dated ] ‘Municipal valuer has listed the calf as killed due to predation by ravens. The injuries noted (and photographed) are one eye missing. Calf is obviously new born ~ it may never have got up — photos ‘are mainly taken from a distance and do not show any close ups of the calf, e.g. feet, etc. Canada Be Ontario « ‘Growing Formers Ne‘Cailfis ina pen with a cow, asgumed to be the mother. The cow is calm and seems to have no interest inthe caf. Photos demonstrate only one side of the calf (topside). Second Valuer’s Decision rationale Pease inte yur rasan) | do notfind that there is suficient evidence to indicat that the cause of death was due to predation | and do not find any quantum of compensation is warranted for this incident. Itis exceedingly unlikely that there was active predation by ravens as ravens do not actively predate on cattle. At worst a raven may peck out an eye only on a calf that is dead or near death which leads | to the cause of death being a result of natural causes. Live and healthy calves will move thereby deterring birds from damaging them andlor wll make noise to alert cows to any distress which would bring the cow to the calf and scare off any birds. Given this was in a pen and the cow was present i, inmy opinion there is no chance that this death was due to ravens or predation but is due (o natural causes, A bird likely came after the fact and consumed the eye. The cow would not have deterred the bird it this case given the calf was dead. ‘Additionally the loss of an eye is highly unlikely to be a kiling wound and if it had occurred at best the | animal would be injured. It should be noted that given that ravens do not predate on cattle there are no methods to ‘teduce’ predation, As such is it appropriate that no reasonable care was listed on the report Itis recommended that in future the municipal valuer take more photos close to the actual animal in. question. This could include, as appropriate, photos of the feet, navels, etc. of calves and any | wounds. Multiple shots of a carcass from a distance are not required. ‘Award caleulation ( applicable) ‘Anal (age/sex) ‘Weight or formula if] Market vale (718) ~based | Total applicable) con ive weight Setond Valuer Dediaration Thereby certify hot the information I have provided ov this Form is tue and accurate tothe best of my Knowledge. {abso tnderstond tht submitting foe or misleading Information on this Form coud esut in denial of the claim by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food ond Rural firs (OMAFRA| a ae imaea $0.00 ~~. t Grebo 2oreioerz2 | 2 roving ant Canad: Bm ‘Ontario “Tartqnned weet