No local wolf bounty
by Cat Urbigkit
The Sublette County Predator Board met for its annual business meeting
Tuesday and declined at this time to institute a bounty on wolves as
requested by Nebraska cattleman Rudy “Butch” Stanko.
Stanko’s son is the holder of the Bridger-Teton National Forest cattle
grazing permits formerly held by Riverton Angus producer Dan Ingalls and
his family.
Stanko spoke to the local predator board and asserted that allegations
that federal law supercedes state law are wrong, meaning the state’s
classification of wolves as predators should take precedence over the
Endangered Species Act protections afforded the species.
Stanko suggested that the predator board, organized under state law,
institute a bounty on wolves.
“We do have the authority to set a bounty on them,” Stanko said, through
the predator board. “This is the method. We’ve got the power – the
predator boards. We can’t be subservient to the federal government.”
Stanko said he believes his discussions with the Fremont County Predator
Board will result in a bounty in that county.
“They’re going to take the bull by the horns in Fremont County,” Stanko
predicted.
But contacted after the meeting by telephone, Fremont County Predator
Board member Eileen Urbigkeit of Crowheart said that board met Dec. 19 and
voted the wolf bounty down. Urbigkeit said although the board now has two
new members, she doubts if the board will change its position on the
bounty issue.
Stanko is the former meat packer who owned Nebraska Beef and Cattle King
Beef Company. Cattle King was the subject of a 1983 NBC expose alleging
unsanitary and illegal practices, which Stanko termed as a “witch hunt.”
Stanko is the author of a book called “The Score,” in which he details the
demise of his companies, alleging the events “didn’t just happen – they
were planned” by a Jewish conspiracy. The book is vehemently anti-Jewish.
Sublette County Predator Board President Lary Lozier pointed out to Stanko
at the Pinedale meeting that the predator boards were set up to operate on
private land only, while the current wolf problems occur on federal lands.
Stanko said that shouldn’t make any difference in terms of the bounty, but
Lozier responded, “That gets us out of our private property though.”
Stanko said, “I’m not here to disrupt” the operations of the predator
board, “just to give you some ideas.”
Stanko said he wouldn’t kill a wolf and said he didn’t believe board
members would take such an action either.
Board member Pete Arambel questioned, “What if someone does and asks for
the bounty?”
The board discussed whether the board would have any liability in such a
case, with the general consensus being that a legal liability probably
wouldn’t exist.
Lozier said he wouldn’t want the board to sanction such an action though.
Board member Bill Mayo suggested the board study the legal issues involved
in the wolf bounty, to which the board agreed, but eventually decided to
hold off on examining the issue until after the 2003 legislative session
concludes. The legislature is expected to take up the wolf classification
issue in that session, which begins Jan. 14.
(Editor’s note: Cat Urbigkit is a member of the predator board.)