Fergus County argus. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1886-1946, 1893-03-30
as To BOUNrIEs.
An Expression on the Subject From Repre-
sentetive Gcodell.

| Under date OF March 20, in the Helena
| Herald, the following communication
from Representative Gooden appears:
see in your issue of March II an
article written by Hon. James Fergus,
touching the bounty law, which is very
| good, but he does not put il as strong as
the subject will bare. Ii there had been
mass meetings. long petitions and a gene
| raj uprising all over the state protesting
against the bounty bill (as there was against
the anti-sealper bilD there would have been
little surprise at the governor vetoing it.
Let us compare the old and the proposed
law. The old law pays two dollars for
| each wolf or coyote add five olars for each
bear. Any justice of the peace can punch
the ears, for which he receives twenty five
cents for each hide so punched.
The bill which the governor saw fit to
kill provided for five dollars on wolves and
COYOTES and no bounty on bears. Ii made
it the duty OF the clerk OF the court to
punch the ears without any fees las he re-
ceives a salary for his services). This made
it certain that for every certificate issued
there would be one less OF these animals to
feed upon our herds.
L believe that the old law will be nearly
as expensive as the new one would have
been and not near as beneficial. The
bounty paid in 1892 was S2S, ,397. This
includes 554 bear at five dollars each,
| which would leave about $500 other
| animals killed. doubt il one-half ofthosc
were actually killed. We have at the pres
ent time four convicts in the penitentiary
| for defrauding the state under the present
bounty law, and think some more should
| be sent there. We can all remember when
there was an extra session OF the legislature
called to repeal the squirrel bounty law,
| and then l think it was not SO much the
| number of squirrels killed as the fraud per-
petrated that was about to bankrupt the
| treasury. The most extravagant estimate
| have heard under the proposed bounty
bill was $50, 900 for the first year. / will
| admit it for the sake of argument. This
would represent 1O, 900 wolves of all kinds.
Asmall estimate would be three sheep each
per year, at three dollars each, which
would represent $50, 900. This may look
overdrawn to some, but it happens fire.
quently that they get into flock and kill
from ten to fifty in one night and not eat
/ more than one or two carcasses- In addi-
tion to the sheep killed believe it low to
estimate it at three head ofeattle orhorses
| each year to each animal, which would be
100000. At S15 each this would be
$3.50, 900, and the $50, 600 for sheep would
make grand total of S54o. 900 destroyed
each year. would like to say right here
that these wolves all fat and not half
starved creatures, as some supposs. II
these figures are too high it is as to the
/ number of wolves and not to damage done
| by them. Some think the stockmen should
pay their own bounty. II they will draw a
line and have each industry take care OF
its own burden we will be willing to pay
the bounty. We have to pay boiler in
spector $4,000 year; mine inspector
81, 100 per year; mineral land commits
sioner $4,000 per year. II the stockman
receives any particular benefit from these
fail to see where it comes in.