Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

South Dakota to Raise $300K in Hunting License Fees for Predator Control

Syndicate

Syndicate content
Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!

Newshound Recent Posts

Categories

Recent Comments

Archives

Newshound
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

February 06, 2013
South Dakota to Raise $300K in Hunting License Fees for Predator Control - 3

The South Dakota House of Representatives voted 55-13 Monday to add a $1 surcharge to hunting licenses in an effort to raise money to deal with the state’s growing predator problem. Rep. Betty Olson, R-Prairie City, said the move would generate about $300,000 annually to counter the coyote problem that "has exploded.” 

“We have way more predators than we have money to deal with them,” Olson told the Rapid City Journal.

She added that coyotes have dropped the deer and antelope populations significantly, continue to contribute to sheep losses and last year the canines were responsible for 50 calf deaths. Olson said the new $1 surcharge will allow the state Department of Game, Fish & Parks to hire at least two more trappers — now called wildlife damage specialists by GF&P — to help assuage the problem.

The Senate is also working to help in the fight against coyotes. It has a pending bill that earmarks $300,000 immediately for predator control, with the funds available through June 30, 2014.

Undoubtedly the Department of Game, Fish & Parks hopes this will help revive their image problem as local ranchers have criticized the agency in years past for their perceived lack of effort on the predator problem. One of the many complaints is that wildlife damage specialists have additional wildlife work duties that keep them from solely concentrating on the predator situation.

Comments (3)

Top Rated
All Comments
from wisc14 wrote 1 year 21 weeks ago

yep the problem is solely predators...nothing to do with habitat

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from huntfishtrap wrote 1 year 23 weeks ago

I agree a bounty makes sense, but the problem with that is you're going to have unscrupulous people bringing in truckloads of coyotes from out of state to collect it.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jcarlin wrote 1 year 23 weeks ago

If the trappers each cost $150K in gear, salary, and benefits, please pick me, pick me!
Would it make more sense to but a $25 or $50 bounty on coyotes? Three thousand coyotes would put a pretty dent in a population and with all due respect to professsional trappers, I doubt the gentlemen are going to bring in an average of 5 a piece per calendar day.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment (200 characters or less)

from jcarlin wrote 1 year 23 weeks ago

If the trappers each cost $150K in gear, salary, and benefits, please pick me, pick me!
Would it make more sense to but a $25 or $50 bounty on coyotes? Three thousand coyotes would put a pretty dent in a population and with all due respect to professsional trappers, I doubt the gentlemen are going to bring in an average of 5 a piece per calendar day.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from huntfishtrap wrote 1 year 23 weeks ago

I agree a bounty makes sense, but the problem with that is you're going to have unscrupulous people bringing in truckloads of coyotes from out of state to collect it.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from wisc14 wrote 1 year 21 weeks ago

yep the problem is solely predators...nothing to do with habitat

+1 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment (200 characters or less)