Terminate bounty payments for the control of nest predation.
Summary
Senate Bill 148 would prohibit the use of state Game, Fish and Parks funds to pay bounties for taking certain animals when the purpose is controlling nest predation. The bill amends two existing statutes governing the Department of Game, Fish and Parks’ authority to conduct animal control programs and the use of its fund, adding language that expressly bars bounty payments for taking badgers, opossums, raccoons, striped skunks, red foxes, or other animals for nest-predation control.
In practical terms, the bill does not eliminate the department’s broader authority to manage foxes, coyotes, feral dogs, prairie dogs, and other wild animals, but it narrows how those programs may be financed. It preserves the department’s ability to conduct control efforts and spend funds on those efforts generally, while specifically excluding bounty-style payments tied to nest predation control.
Impact
SB148 would amend South Dakota Codified Laws §§ 40-36-9 and 41-2-35 to clarify that state wildlife management funds may not be used as bounties for the taking of certain species when the objective is nest predation control. The bill would affect the Department of Game, Fish and Parks, the Game, Fish and Parks Commission, and any programs or payments administered under the department’s animal damage control authority. It would leave existing animal control powers intact but restrict one funding mechanism.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests little opposition at the committee stage, with a 7-0 vote to defer the bill to the 41st legislative day. No committee transcript is available, so there is no recorded debate to indicate strong support or criticism. Overall, the bill appears to have been treated as a narrow policy change rather than a controversial overhaul of wildlife management law.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the bill’s restriction on bounty payments for predator control, which could concern those who favor local or targeted predator-removal incentives as a tool to protect nesting birds or other wildlife. On the other hand, supporters are likely to view the measure as a limit on the use of public funds for bounty programs and a clarification that nest predation control should not be financed through payments for killing specified animals. Because no transcript is available, the specific arguments of legislators or stakeholders are not documented in the provided materials.