Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Predator Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Predator-control contractor reports wolves, bears and funding shortfall in Harney County
Summary
An APHIS predator-control contractor updated Harney County Court on recent wolf and bear activity, beaver relocations and growing concerns about program funding and administrative overhead tied to the federal contract.
Adam Kemper, a contractor with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) predator-control program, gave Harney County Court an update on wildlife activity and the difficulties of maintaining predator-control services under the current funding structure.
Kemper told the court crews have responded to wolf and bear depredations this spring, removed problem animals and flown monitoring and control missions when weather allowed. “There are wolves here. No doubt about it,” Kemper said during the update, describing attacks on calves and other livestock across the county.
Court members and Kemper discussed beaver relocation plans, raven and starling control at the landfill, bobcat and badger complaints from residents, and seasonal patterns that affect animals’ behavior. Kemper said beaver relocations are planned between July and October to avoid moving young animals and to give them time to establish in new areas.
The meeting also focused on how the county funds predator control. The transcript records the county’s portion of the program at $94,500 for the current year and a total program cost of roughly $121,000, leaving about $25,000–$30,000 picked up from other sources. Commissioners said those outside funds have included ARPA in previous years and program support tied to Taylor Grazing and other grants; the court noted general-fund contributions this year are very limited.
Kemper and commissioners discussed administrative constraints tied to APHIS oversight — including exclusive access to certain poisons and other control methods — and whether the county could hire its own trapper or enter a different funding/organizational model. Kemper said APHIS provides tools and authorities the county contractor would not automatically have (for example, poison authorizations and some aerial control access), and he warned that moving the program entirely in-house would require resolving those regulatory and credential issues.
Commissioners raised options the court has considered, including pursuing a local predator-control district (a statutory taxing district) that had been proposed in the past but was limited by state law changes. The court also discussed whether memoranda of understanding or interagency agreements could bridge the gap between county staff and federal authorities so the county could provide more services directly without losing access to APHIS resources.
Court members and the contractor agreed to continue the conversation and to explore funding options before the start of the new fiscal year on July 1. No formal county action or vote on changing the program structure occurred during the meeting.
Ending: Commissioners said they value the contractor’s work and will look for options that preserve the service while addressing county budget constraints; the county will continue to seek outside funding and to discuss possible structural changes with APHIS and partner agencies.
