Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Damage Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Scotts Bluff County discusses future of USDA wildlife damage management program amid funding shortfall
Summary
USDA Wildlife Services district supervisor briefed the Scotts Bluff County commissioners on the cooperative wildlife damage-management program, saying state funding has dropped and counties must decide whether to jointly fund positions or press the state for support.
Ryan Powers, district supervisor for USDA Wildlife Services, told the Scotts Bluff County Board of Commissioners the federal program that helps manage wildlife damage is operating under strained funding in Nebraska and that counties are being asked to decide whether to continue participating in a county-funded cooperative service agreement.
"It's a mechanism that isn't gonna sustain itself," Powers said, describing how Nebraska differs from other states by placing more of the funding burden on counties rather than on the state. He said Nebraska has no ongoing state match and that, in the past, multi-county cooperation provided enough funding to support a shared position; with fewer counties participating the position becomes harder to staff and sustain.
The program provides assistance across four categories—agriculture, property, natural resources, and human health and safety—and historically operated with a mix of federal, (previously) state, and cooperator funding. Powers said Scotts Bluff County previously covered roughly 200 hours of the position (about 10 percent of a full-time equivalent, given a 2,087-hour work-year) when five counties participated. With only three counties currently signed on—Scotts Bluff, Kimball and Morrill—counties would fund roughly 30 percent of a position unless more counties join or the funding model changes.
Powers and commissioners discussed operational details, including prairie-dog management: when toxicant baiting is used for prairie dogs, landowners must pay for the treated bait while county funds can be applied according to a locally negotiated priority list in the cooperative agreement. Powers said counties can direct how their contributions are prioritized in the agreement.
Commissioners raised concerns about liability, billing and continuity of service if a county declines to participate. Powers noted that the state has statutory language on animal damage control covering county and state roles and that counties sometimes reimburse landowners under those statutes; he encouraged counties to consider seeking state support or broader regional cooperation.
Board members suggested pursuing a multi-county approach and raising the issue at the Panhandle NACO/regional meeting this fall. Powers offered to return for follow-up and to present at regional meetings; commissioners asked staff to have the county attorney review statutory liability and the existing cooperative agreement language before a final decision.
No formal motion was taken at the meeting. Instead commissioners expressed preliminary support in principle for continuing participation if adequate funding can be secured or if more counties join the cooperative. Commissioners asked staff to explore options—regional county pooling, state funding requests, or prioritizing county contributions—and to bring recommended contract language and cost estimates back to a future meeting.
