Will the County put a price on the head of predator coyotes or wolves? A committee of council moved a step forward last week to doing just that, approving a plan in which County officials will begin working with the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) to offer a $100 bounty on coyotes or wolves that cause significant damage to a farmer’s livestock.

The plan calls for $30,000 to be set aside during next month’s budget talks to fund the kill this year.

Coyotes and wolves are a growing problem according to Garry Davis, the County’s chief bylaw enforcement officer. Davis reports that the coyote population has grown significantly in recent years and the animals are becoming bolder, cutting a wide swath through livestock and domestic pets.

The province compensates farmers for livestock lost to predators. Since 2003 these payouts to County farmers have tripled to more than $108,000 in 2008. (However compensation is expected to drop significantly in 2009 when the final cost is tallied, although no explanation was offered.)

Some, like Marlene Blatherwick, say the provincial scheme compensates farmers for their losses and that the County need not go further—that the issues of balance in the local ecosystem are simply not well enough understood for the County to embark on its own coyote bounty program.

“The coyotes are here because there is a food source here,” said Blatherwick. “Even if you wipe out a huge population of these animals, a new group will simply move in to take their place.”

MNR coyote expert Brent Patterson agrees. His research shows that bounties have had little impact on reducing coyote populations or any nuisance animal problem.

But Davis says the provincial compensation program understates the problem. He says that many livestock kills go unreported because there is nothing left of the animal to prove a claim.

“I know of one farmer who lost 30 sheep in one night,” said Davis. “They were gone, gone.”

Eugene Deshane spent his second last day on the job (he retired last Friday) pinch-hitting for Patterson before the County committee.

Deshane acknowledged that he had never issued a bounty permit and only learned of the process by which a municipality could apply three weeks ago. He explained that if the MNR granted the County the ability to offer compensation, it would first have to assure the ministry that a significant kill had taken place. Then only licensed hunters with authorization of the municipality and the permission of landowners would be permitted to hunt the predators— though only within a 15-kilometre radius of the affected farm.

Only three other counties currently have such a bounty in place. All are located in western Ontario.

This raises the other problem with a County bounty program— how does the municipality ensure that it is paying hunters for animals killed in Prince Edward County? And not paying for coyotes killed elsewhere—where there is no bounty?

Davis acknowledged that there can be no absolute certainty that the municipality isn’t paying for animals killed elsewhere but he hoped that provisions, such as compelling hunters seeking compensation to sign an affidavit, would eliminate most of the fraudulent claims.

Councillor Bailey said he thought a $100 bounty was too rich. He argued that paying $50 per head might yield double the amount of kills for the County’s $30,000.

But Davis found, through discussions with the three other counties that have a bounty, that $50 wasn’t enough to attract hunters to do the job.

Athol Councillor Brian Marisett returned to the issue of a balanced ecosystem.

“How do we establish a benchmark?” asked Marisett. “How do we prevent overkill?”

Paul Johnson, a candidate for Marisett’s chair in the next municipal election, urged council not to do the province’s work. He suggested that a municipal bounty was simply another way in which the province was downloading its responsibility.

“Council needs to go to the province and encourage them to deal with this problem,” said Johnson. “It is a provincial issue—an issue they should handle.”

But others such as Kevin Gale, councillor for Sophiasburgh, want the municipality to act, and act now.

“The MNR is a lame ministry,” said Gale. “These animals are getting too close to humans. This is about a lady on Century Drive who had her dog snatched. Akid on Fish Lake Road who watched his cat dragged away. This bounty might save a life.”

However, Margaret Kerr, a livestock farmer who has suffered losses near Cherry Valley, isn’t so sure a bounty is the answer.

“I urge you to put off a decision on this,” said Kerr. “Get more input from the community. Perhaps ask the municipality’s agriculture advisory committee to hold a public meeting.”

Hillier Councillor Peggy Burris wasn’t interested in waiting. She told the committee of an experience recently in which she was confronted by coyotes upon her return home one recent evening.

“Count me among those frightened in my own yard,” said Burris.

At times, however, it was unclear whether the proposed bounty was to protect livestock, protect humans or to ensure a strong deer population for hunters. For it was mostly hunters who sat in the gallery listening to the discussion. One of these was L.G. Currie.

“We just want to get rid of the coyotes so we can hunt deer,” said Currie.

Councillor Gale offered that he, too, had heard the local deer hunt could be cancelled this year.

“There comes a time when you have to kill some animals,” said Gale.