One Grey County councillor pronounced himself shocked by a staff report to eliminate bounties, one-and-a-half years after a review that began with a request to raise them.
A second commented on staff’s suggestion that once bounties were eliminated, that budget item should go for the county to provide education on non-lethal methods.
“If you could educate a coyote not to eat a sheep or a cattle beast, I think that would be great,” said County Councillor Paul McQueen (Grey Highlands). “But I’m not sure how that works on the education part.”
He noted that agriculture is the number one industry in the county, and shared figures on verified livestock kills, saying Grey County was leading the province for value of livestock lost to coyotes.
The county bounties go to compensate hunters and trappers for verified kills.
County council decided last week that Grey County will raise its bounties for coyotes and beavers to match those offered by neighbouring Bruce County. That is $50 for beavers and $100 for coyotes, to rise with inflation.
The staff report did present council with options, one of which was to keep bounties and raise them to $40 and $100, but council preferred to match Bruce’s rates.
Its reasoning in the report did not refer to comments but to unspecified research that “lethal methods have actually been proven to have the opposite effect”, with populations rebounding to previous levels through larger litter sizes.
LONG REVIEW
The review of the bylaw which has been in place since the early 2000s included a public open house, an official Public Meeting, and two reports to the Agricultural Advisory Committee of the county.
County Councillor Scott Mackey (Chatsworth) was the first councillor recognized when discussion opened.
He said after following the process and listening to comments from farmers, hunters and trappers, he was shocked by the report’s recommendation to drop the program.
Trails and Forestry co-ordinator Sarah Johnson said that the comments asking for bounties to be revoked came later in written form.
She described the public comments as “equally split” between those for and against bounties. Councillor Scott Greig (Owen Sound) later in the meeting cited the actual numbers of 42 percent opposed to bounties and 58 percent supporting.
With the initial motion suggested by staff there was a clause suggesting the county educate on non-lethal methods of control.
Councillor Greig said that the farmers who make their living from livestock have a plethora of expert sources and their own publications.
Though not referred to at county council, an example in the March Better Farming titled, Predator Pressure – Coyote Damage, quotes a sheep farmer near Burford, who has installed six-foot fencing, electric lights, kept human presence nearby and used guard dogs – all recommended “non-lethal” methods.
Despite that, he estimates coyotes have killed more than 60 of his flocks in the last two years, and shared a camera shot of a coyote crossing the fence.
The staff report focused its reasoning on what it said research showed as the rebounding of populations often seen after animals are removed.
ECONOMIC EFFECT
Councillor Paul McQueen quoted specific figures supplied by the Beef Farmers of Ontario showing that last year Grey County led the province in verified livestock kills by predators.
Finding the carcass itself is already a barrier for farmers to qualify to recover a set sum for the loss through a joint provincial-federal program. Municipalities have livestock evaluators that investigate.
The rise in bounty amounts was requested because the costs for the tools of the trade and for gas have risen in the last couple decades for hunters and trappers. And the market for skins which once compensated trappers for their efforts no longer does.
The county right now pays $25 for beavers and $50 for coyote or wolf (most claims are for coyotes, not wolves).
Staff said that was a key argument put forward for raising bounties, along with doubt about how effective “non-lethal” methods would be.
Those against bounties found them to promote inhumane practices and questioned the impact on the environment.
The written presentation by Ms Johnson stated that “lethal methods” had the opposite effect, because coyotes would have bigger litters or otherwise rebound in populations. The source of those studies was not given in that presentation.
Many studies of the effectiveness at reducing livestock depredation have been done.
A 700-page Environmental Assessment compiled by the US Dept. of Agriculture did observe that studies “often inappropriately mix broad-scale studies at state-wide levels with local, ranch-scale studies.”
That report itself focused on Nevada, bringing in another aspect as its ranch style of raising livestock is drastically different than Southern Ontario farms.
By M.T. Fernandes, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter
Original Published on Jun 18, 2026 at 09:12
Recent Comments