Bath adds $5,000 to coyote bounty By Amanda Isley • Staff writer
WARM SPRINGS - Nearly all $10,000 set aside for coyote bounties is gone halfway through the fiscal year. Bath supervisors, therefore, added $5,000 to the line item and amended the ordinance removing the designated amount for the bounty fund.
But it was a split vote, 3-2, on the measure.
Board chair Cliff Gilchrest and supervisor Stuart Hall were opposed to the motion put forth by supervisor Richard Byrd. They cited concerns the money should be reserved for more pressing needs in the county, and their doubts it would really address coyote overpopulation.
Last year, the board raised the bounty from $50 to $100 and restricted it to Bath citizens and property owners. Coyotes have to be killed in the county by a Bath citizen or property owner in order to claim a bounty, county attorney Mike Collins explains.
Hunters Carl Chestnut and Jerry Phillips advocated adding money to the current year's budget for coyote bounties.
Chestnut pointed out Bath farmers were spending their own money to bait and trap coyotes, and their efforts had helped to reduce the number of attacks on livestock."These farmers haven't lost anything since you've had the bounty. If you don't want to put $5,000 toward (it), then add $2,000," he said.
Bath resident Jackie Plecker said a cow going to calve was recently killed on her farm by a pack of coyotes, but it was the first loss they had experienced since the bounty had been in place.
Kenny Lindsay said the state ought to offer some sort of contribution toward the problem. "They're the ones who brought them in in the first place," he said.
Phillips was concerned people were turning in coyotes that were not killed in Bath County and draining the bounty fund. "You need to regulate that," he said.
Collins said the county classifies receiving bounty under a false claim as a class I misdemeanor, carrying a fine of up to $2,500 and/or up to one year in jail.
Jack Lindsay suggested the county advertise these penalties in The Recorder to help reduce the number of false claims.
Bacova resident Jay Trinca, on the other hand, felt the county was not obligated to provide bounty money."This is obviously a problem, but when I look at the services local government is supposed to provide, wildlife management doesn't seem to be the county's responsibility. You need to put pressure on the state to solve it," he said.
Supervisor Percy Nowlin agreed the penalties needed to be advertised and included in affidavits hunters sign when turning in coyotes.
Supervisor Richard Byrd said he thought the ordinance should be amended to exclude a specific amount, placing a cap on the line item. When the ordinance was passed, the amount appropriated to the fund was not to exceed $10,000.
Hall said he had no problem with the ordinance change, but was not in support of adding money to the bounty fund. "Where are we getting $5,000? If we appropriate it, we're taking it away from another project." He said it was currently estimated the county would lose about $1 million in tax revenue from the Bath County Pumped Storage Station.
In addition, Hall felt the problem was bigger than the bounty fund could ever be. He referenced problems all over the country and a number of temporary solutions that were barely making a dent in the coyote population.
"There's no end to the problem, no matter what you do, but I appreciate everybody's efforts," he said.
Gilchrest agreed with Hall, noting news stations had recently broadcast footage of coyotes roaming the streets of Los Angeles. His concern was if the county continued to make small appropriations for bounties, it would drain dollars that could be put toward other projects.
"I'd like to see us drop the bounty back to $50 a coyote. I could not, in good conscience, vote to add $5,000 to the line item," he said.
Trees was the swing vote. He agreed the board could not afford to make continued supplemental appropriations, and he acknowledged many residents have spent money on traps and other resources for trapping coyotes.
He cited an article published in Virginia Wildlife on the coyote problem, which gave information on breeding patterns, eating habits, effects on deer, and why bounties don't work."We are not going to get rid of these coyotes, although what Mr. Phillips is doing is helping in the Mountain Grove area. The only way bounties are going to work is if we have a statewide program, and that's not going to happen," he said.
Byrd said he generally agreed with Hall on the financial state of the county, but he supported adding to the fund."We started this program and I think we need to continue it through the fiscal year. I don't think $5,000 is going to break us," he said.
He motioned to approve the appropriation and amend the ordinance, which passed with a 3-2 vote.
Trees said he voted in favor of it solely because of hunters who dedicate their time and money to reducing the coyote population. "We need to do what we can to help the farmers."
Later, Nowlin suggested the board contact state legislators."I do think we need to let the state know it's a major problem," he said.
Trees was skeptical the state would address the issue."I don't think we're going to get any support until (coyotes) start chewing on people," he said.
Animal control officer Robbie Chestnut told The Recorder Wednesday only $200 was left in the fund by the time of the supervisors' Monday meeting, and the newly appropriated funds were already being used. "We're at $4,800 now," he said.
| 
