|
Post by trappnman on Mar 10, 2009 13:35:58 GMT -6
then allow ranchers to control vermin via poisons as they once did-
|
|
|
Post by bobwendt on Mar 10, 2009 14:14:33 GMT -6
that is a dead ( no pun intended) issue tman, w.s. or not . and a b.s. excuse I might add.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 10, 2009 15:05:02 GMT -6
I think you missed my point-
ranchers and farmers ARE able to control vermin if allowed to via the most efficient means. M-44s included
|
|
|
Post by pat on Mar 10, 2009 15:42:42 GMT -6
t-man,
I don't have a problem with the rancher protecting his or her own livestock - via the same legal means as everybody else including the USDA. Now if they are poisoning indescriminately and illegally, then they should swing at the end of lady justices rope just like any other criminal.
There is a vast difference between fur trapping in the fall and winter, live market trapping, and doing commercial animal damage control work.
Even in disease prevention there is role that the private contractor could play in cooperation with the government agencies. Private contractors can trap skunks and coons for rabies prevention or surveillance. Private contractors can be contracted for the spreading of baits containing rabies vaccines. A private contractor can do the exact same jobs that a government technician can do.
Pat
|
|
|
Post by thebeav2 on Mar 10, 2009 16:23:49 GMT -6
And Pat you forgot A LOT CHEAPER
|
|
|
Post by Cal Taylor on Mar 11, 2009 6:20:06 GMT -6
Pat, Some couties here do just that, and it works fine. I worked privately for Natrona county for several years under just such a program. I was refering to the trappers that claim they could do it better and cheaper on basically a per head or bounty system. Bounty systems don't kill problem coyotes, never have. Here the money is funded to the counties from several sources. The ranchers pay a head tax, the counties come up with some money , and the state funds the most. The federal funding is the least. Counties here choose thier own program, and most of them figure they can contract WS cheaper than they can do it themselves. This includes all tools including airplanes and pilots.
Ohio yotee, Ranching is a business you are correct. So lets say it's like a Mini Mart. And at this Mini Mart a thief comes in every day or two and steals a bunch of stuff. The same guy shows up every few days to steal more stuff. Do you suppose that the Mini Mart owner is going to call the police? Who is picking up the tab for that? Do you know why we care? Because if we don't the guy running the store has to raise his prices to cover the loss. It's going to cost us somehow either way. We pay for the police or we pay in higher product cost or the guy goes out of business and then we have no Mini Mart.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 11, 2009 6:36:56 GMT -6
not a very apt analogy at all- more like when my garden gets frost bit- who am I going to call? or when my chicken dies cause a hawk got it- who you gonna call? so someone spends 2 weeks after a problem coyote- thats worth nothing to me- let the rancher pay his own costs- its HIS problem- but as Bob has said many, many times- its always a probelm- loosing $50,000 a year and more in losses- but yet- pay for it? not a problem then I guess...........
|
|
|
Post by ohiyotee on Mar 11, 2009 6:38:43 GMT -6
Not an accurate comparison , one is an act of theft , a braeking of the law. When a coyote takes a lamb there is no law broken, and therefore not the public's problem. now if a human stole a lamb then it is a police matter. If the mini mart guy had a raccoon or rats who's problem is it then. All business es have problems associated with them, wild life control is just part of agriculture . we in the east take care of it ourselves at our own expense.
|
|
|
Post by pat on Mar 11, 2009 7:14:06 GMT -6
Cal, sorry but the minimart analogy was off target just a tad. First off, in retail environments loss of product due to damage or theft is refered to shrinkage and that is already figured (roughly) into the cost of the products consumers purchase. Secondly, stores don't call the police until after the thief is caught in the act. Stores hire their own Loss Prevention team for store security, plus they generally employ electronic surveillance that they pay for. Of course, the consumer pays for that as well.
Now I do agree with you that a bounty being paid for a particular animal causing depredation during the fur trapping season might not work to well because fur trapping requires a trapper to keep getting on fresh new predators to maximize gross $ potential. But, lets say Carbon County was to pay a $100 per coyote bounty from March 1 through September 30 and the trapper had to turn in the complete coyote carcass on a daily basis in order to be paid, and the trappers could use the exact same tools as the WS employees are allowed to use. Barring any fraudulent activities on the trappers part - and a directly proportionate number of adult and nursing females are bountied - how hard do you think the coyotes would be hammered? What do you think would happen to the number of kill complaints? The only problem with the bounty systems of the past is that they weren't national in scope, and they were designed for fraud to take place. While I would prefer to work on a set fee for a set period of time, a properly designed state or national bounty system would work just as well as a WS predator or beaver management program.
Pat
|
|
|
Post by robertw on Mar 11, 2009 7:23:48 GMT -6
Comparing coyote control in the west to beaver control south and east is not even comparable.
The only reason a large amount of the beaver problems exist in the south is due to regulations restricting the private trappers! If trappers were allowed to use submerged traps on road right of ways a good part of these beaver problem would be taken care free of charge!
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 11, 2009 7:28:58 GMT -6
I bountied many coyotes, and continue to bounty gohpers- so as you can see, I use the bounty system-
no bounty trapper, is going to spend more than a day or two trying to get a particular coyote that he can get the same price for with any other coyote-
thats just economic fact- heck, put in 2-3 gates and my attitude is screw it-
if your goal is to have year round individual coyote control- then it can only be done on a contract basis.
and yes, those contracts should be open to public bid-
they do it on beaver- so why not predators as well
bounties on coyotes would have to be either so high to do good- thus opening themselves to fraud and for sure underfunding- or if low, like my bounties here at $15 which was just extra cash, not motivating cash then they do little.
|
|
|
Post by pat on Mar 11, 2009 7:31:06 GMT -6
Cal, while I have stated that a bounty system free of fraud could be developed, that doesn't mean that I am in favor of one. I see potential downsides there as well.
What I would like to see done, is have the WS division eliminate all field positions and stop providing direct assistance to complaintants. WS could still provide technical advice to complaintants. Privatize the direct assistance portion of WS current activities. Leave it to the individual states to set business requirements and regulations. The disease surveillance and monitoring could be carried out by private contractors for the USDA-WS division. All things being equal, private contractors can do the exact same job WS people do - and yes sometimes we can do it cheaper and quicker.
Pat
|
|
|
Post by robertw on Mar 11, 2009 7:35:04 GMT -6
"and yes sometimes we can do it cheaper and quicker."
I would say more often than not!
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 11, 2009 7:38:24 GMT -6
but pat- wasn't one of your complaints over the years, concerning trappers that charged small fees for ADC work?
What do you think would happen, if all control work was opened up into bids?
You'd be ok with someone bidding $5 a beaver?
|
|
|
Post by pat on Mar 11, 2009 7:38:48 GMT -6
RobertW, I wasn't comparing coyote control to beaver control. I was saying that regardless of what specie you are attempting to manage if private contractors are given the same tools and considerations as the federal guys we could do the job cheaper and quicker.
And yes, I agree, numerous states through their rediculous regulations create a great deal of their own problems. If regulations were in place that allowed for easy mass population reductions during the limited fur taking seasons, there would most likely be a severe reduction in the number of out of season wildlife complaints - depending on the specie in question and where the problem is ocurring.
Pat
|
|
|
Post by pat on Mar 11, 2009 7:57:57 GMT -6
steve, it would depend on how a system is put into place and at what level - county, state, etc.. I have been under bid numerous times in the control business. My complaints have been aimed at guys that are bidding rediculously low to the point where they are below the cost of anybody's cost of operation other than a kid on a bike doing control work for his neighbor. My problem is having to compete - due to state regulations - with individuals that have no idea how to bid a job where they can at least break even. In the long run they hurt the industry and their clients because they generally don't provide the client with a satisfactory resolution to their wildlife problem.
I don't know how the various state or county agencies in MN put out bids, but here in MI if you are going to do bid on a county or state job for - we'll say beaver control - you are going to be required to provide proof of at least $500,000 of general liability insurance. Generally, it is double of that amount. If you are incorporated many counties and the state will ask for proof of your having workman's compensation insurance. I have even had some of my wealthier clients and businesses ask for a certificate of insurance prior to my beginning work on their property.
Pat
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 11, 2009 8:26:24 GMT -6
no- not like that here-
and I would be against 100% a system like that here- concerning monetary restrictions, my feeling is they restrict competiton-
after all- if cheapest and best removal is the concern- overhead shouldn't be the determining factor-
|
|
|
Post by billmeyerhoff on Mar 11, 2009 8:35:18 GMT -6
In the colonial states the reason you can't set traps on right of ways is because often the state does not have ownership of the right of way but only an easement and the easement is restricted to the use it was acquired for. It can not be expanded without the express consent of the landowner and compensation by the state.
|
|
|
Post by motrapperjohn on Mar 11, 2009 10:13:41 GMT -6
The bad thing about a bounty system is that there is a lot oif fraud going on. I would bet that in some of the countys I worked in at least 40% of tails came from out of county or state. That is probly a low estament. This particuler person would collect and buy tails from who ever and when bountys would come avalable he would rush to turn them in, and then the legit ones would come in and there would be no money left, happened to me on several jobs.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 11, 2009 10:19:58 GMT -6
I don't find that a problem here, because of how the bounties are distributed- and thats at the township level. The boards are always (around here) made up of farmers and landowners in that township- I don't need to prove per se whare my animals are trapped- but they do ask where I trapped them- and they know if its "possible" for lack of a better term.
|
|