IDFG appropriation provision that includes depredation control falls victim to Idaho governor’s veto rampage

Governor “Butch” Otter is upset that the Idaho legislature won’t increase revenue for state highways and has reacted by vetoing 10 bills.  One of those bills on the chop block, Senate Bill No. 1177, would have slipped $200,000 into the Depredation Control Fund :

In accordance with the provisions of Section 36111(c), Idaho Code, the Department of Fish and Game shall transfer $200,000 from the Big Game Winter Feeding Setaside Fund to the Winter Depredation Control Setaside Fund as soon as practicable. Such moneys may be used for the control of depredation of private property by antelope, elk and deer and control of predators affecting antelope, elk and deer.

(Emphasis Added).

This while they’re cutting funding for education.  The Governor’s veto is a political move, and it is likely the money will be appropriated in the future anyway, but it sheds some light on one of the places where money to kill wolves and other wildlife comes from in the state of Idaho.

8 Responses to “IDFG appropriation provision that includes depredation control falls victim to Idaho governor’s veto rampage”

  1. ProWolf in WY Says:

    Unbelievable, and I am not saying this due to a pro-wolf stance.

  2. Tilly Says:

    That is so funny and absurd that they are appropriating money to control both ungulates and ungulate predators!

    When in doubt… kill ’em all.

  3. jimbob Says:

    Since I live in elk country, let me get this straight: I can grow apples and pear trees and have a vegetable garden, and then when the elk and maybe the bears raid it, I can be reimbursed by the state? What the hell? Most people in our area take precautions, like large fences, electrical fences, motion sensors, etc. That’s why I don’t understand livestock or crop reimbursement. It’s a risk and the cost of doing business. If I understand the livestock or farmer’s logic, I would have the right to shoot the elk or bears that come around? Wouldn’t be many left, would there? But then, nobody would be worried about a single individual’s garden unless it suited their own interests. Special interest favoritism gets my goat!

  4. kim kaiser Says:

    Special interest favoritism gets my goat!

    yeah me too,,, bail outs of all sorts,, public welfare ,,, ranching, livestock!! no matter which

    You cant not like one and not the other because of who gets it,,,welfare is welfare,t all comes from the public contributions..\

    Of course, if your a treasury secretary or a former health dept appointee, or one of those lump asses that wont work and get one of those freebies, you dont pay your share of contributions, so i guess it wouldnt bother some as much as others

  5. JB Says:

    “You cant not like one and not the other because of who gets it,,,welfare is welfare,t all comes from the public contributions..\”

    Welfare for livestock promotes a practice that is generally bad for the land and provides subsidies to people who produce a food source that currently is adversely affecting public health.

    Medicare and Medicaid promote the health and well-being of our people; preventative programs help people live longer and contribute more to society. On the whole, these programs benefit us all.

    Only an ideologue would claim that all welfare programs are created equal. But then, we’ve known your colors for a long while, Kim.

  6. jimbob Says:

    Kim–why do you assume that because I favor the envoronment I am for bailouts and welfare states? THE PROBLEM IS the partisan crap you are spewing. It looks like neither party has an answer or system—they just keep pointing fingers at the other while we little people suffer their idiocy. And you didn’t address what makes depradation payments right.

  7. Virginia Says:

    Seems to me we had this “welfare” discussion a few months ago. Here we go again.

  8. Ralph Maughan Says:

    Governor Otter has vetoed 35 bills, including all the appropriations bills, because he wants a big increase in the state gas tax so he can build new roads and repair the old ones. He vows to keep the legislature in session until he gets what he wants.

    The legislature pointedly refused to give him the tax increase.

    Arguments about bailouts and so forth are hardly the political story here. The story is Otter risking his office to win big on this issue, and a big split among Republicans. In addition there is a split between the Idaho State Senate and the House on the matter.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: