Back to the original topic, paid animal control programs are already becoming more common. Most will avoid the term bounty as Wildlife agencies have spent decades demonising bounty programs, as costly and ineffective.

Your correct, they'll get the government trapper to come in and do it.

A friend was asking about trapping one place and was asked what he would pay with a half ate calf laying on the ground between them.

USDA trappers around here have not been the best. Sheep producers, timber companies, and
some farmers in this area rely more on private nuisance control.
I know a fellow who with his partner do year round control work. They trap Coyote, beaver, squirrel, bear, cougar and other critters when called.

They are more then good at what they do. The older one used to cut timber. A good paying but dangerous job. He does as well or better now doing what he loves.

No tax dollars used for them. East side of state a different deal. Some very good hard working USDA trappers there.

I’m kind of laughing now when fur was up a bit all we heard about was how useless bounties were back then. SMH It seems like a good idea to them now to some of the same folks.

I've never understood the concept of paying a landowner for trapping rights.Most of the time you're taking out animals that are doing,or about to do damage.In the past when fur was higher there were some landowners that had the idea lots if money was being paid out and if some of that was coming off their land they wanted a cut of it.Yet,these landowners wanted beaver flooding stopped,coon out of the corn,coyotes away from their calves.All for nothing.If these present market conditions continue and animal damage continues to grow some farmers and ranchers,and some Fish and Game Dept.s are going to have no choice but to implement a system they've been condemning for years.Many of these types don't know how good they had it when prices were high and trappers were everywhere trapping for nothing but the price of the fur.

Some states are already on board with bounties, as mentioned. I’ve seen marsh improvement in areas overrun by nutrias. There is a $6 nutria bounty.


I am not against bounties, as long as they’re done right. I have collected on quite a few of them myself, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t risks in open bounty programs for those paying bounties as well as those who are doing it correctly. The looser the program, the greater the risk of problems. In my opinion, bounties on native species such as beaver are best handled on district levels when dealing with the public. Private companies can handle them however they wish. People that know their areas should be in charge of payment, not just some secretary that blindly hands over payment for more tails than an area could realistically produce to greatly reduce the risk of someone trying to buy $2 northern tails then turning them in as Louisiana/Arkansas/Anywhere tails.

Bounties replace good fur prices during low price years. It can work for the Trapper when the potential catch volume is high or the expectations are low (considering).


Programs can’t be successful without being properly run. Catch photos on site with location services turned on is a great start. Transfer photos when cashing in. These days, nearly everyone has a cell phone that can do this.

Utah has a bounty on coyotes,apparently Louisiana has a bounty on Nutria.And as far as I know,that's it.There are local bounties or programs in some states run by other agencies than the f and G Dept.,like the Dept of Transportation.Or a livestock group.Most Game Depts.won't have anything to do with a bounty,so far.

SD has a $10 bounty on striped skunks, coons, possums, fox and badgers but coyotes are not included they are targeted by our State Trappers mostly in the off season. Most furbearer animals here have no seasons on them they are open the year round. It just makes pest control easier without the red tape and butt kissing to trap them when they are a problem if they were protected with a season.

Last I knew the State trapping program was duel funded by the State and the Feds together here in SD, license fees pay the States part since the control efforts benefit everyone.

Some States west of SD are funded by the counties you get paid a contract amount and you supply everything yourself. Funding comes from several entities including the producers.

The trapping program was originally a extension program to teach the landowners to trap their own problems I’ve been told but that was not practical to make instant coyote trappers.

Nope not good enough to tell if it's feral or not but most farmers consider any dog inside thier fence that's not thiers feral and to be shot on sight. And no 2 am deer and geese are not legal but that makes no nevermind to some.

Ive had this happen a handful of times. One time a guy invited me over to do an estimate for beaver control. I told him I’d get him the estimate that week. He asked how much I thought he’d roughly get. I asked him to clarify. He asked how much I was going to pay him. I told him I came to give HIM an estimate on what it would cost to eradicate the beavers that we’re eating his timber - that he sells. He said, “Well, I know you get $300 per beaver pelt.” I asked him why he thought that and he said he had watched mountain men. I told him I’d sell him every beaver for $100. I never did trap there.

Bounties don't work.
They have never worked.
They never will work.
In order to solve a wildlife problem (pick any species), you need to focus your efforts on eliminating the specific individuals which are causing the damage.
The only way a random bounty program would work would be if you had enough bounty hunters scattered evenly across the State/States to completely eradicate the species.

Sounds like it would work for marxist commies ...now how do we implement?