The below quasi-factual e-mail has been circulating on the NBU website:

Yesterday the Nevada Wildlife Commission, under the leadership of Chairman Raine and Vice Chairman Lent, decided to reduce Mule Deer quotas in Hunts 1331, 1341 and 1371 by 25%, except in areas 04,05, 15,18 and 23 where the quotas will be reduced by10% below NDOW 2011 recommendations. This extreme action was done despite protests from NDOW staff, the County Advisory Boards, and the public. Commissioners McBeath, Cavin and Wallace fought for 4 hours with arguments including the fact that the Commission was violating it’s [sic] own policies, and with seven amendments, but in the end did not have sufficient support from the balance of the Commission to prevent the action. Just prior to the vote, Deputy Director Cates, at the request of Commissioner McBeath, estimated the loss in revenue to be about $600,000.

Here is the truth that NBU failed to print:

NBU should really check their facts before sending these posts out. Raine voted with McBeath on the final vote. The motion that passed was as amended by a motion vote made by Wallace. Wallace and Cavin voted on opposite sides of the final vote. Raine and Lent voted on opposite sides of the final vote. The Commission did not violate any policy, and cited a wide variety of scientific evidence including hundreds of graphs, charts, scientific documents with conflicting conclusions, and WAFWA publications that forced it to take the action it did to help preserve healthy deer herds in Nevada. True, the issue of funding was brought up by McBeath, and that did bring up speculation by a few Commissioners that some opposition against the cuts could be based on selling out long term deer herd health for short term cash gains. The action to reduce quota to levels similar to the quota levels of a few years ago has also been widely supported by members of the public who understand the mule deer issue.

In their rush to bash the Commission, did anyone bother to mention that the Commission was genuinely worried about the health of the mule deer population? Did anyone bother to mention that the junior hunt quota actually increased? What about the fact that the proposed 2011 quota recommendation was about 12% higher than 2010 quotas while the deer population was about flat (1.8% increase by NDOW statistics with a published +/-  factor of 20%).

The quota as set puts the quota about where it was a few years ago when the deer population was at a level estimated by NDOW to be similar to the current population, with similar buck to doe ratios.

The essence of the Wildlife Commission meeting is that finally some Wildlife Commissions had the audacity to stand up to NDOW. These Commissioners proved that NDOW’s science is flawed and that they have been managing deer for the money, something that HUNTER’S ALERT stated decades ago. Of course, Commissioners McBeath, Cavin and Wallace did not show any leadership in this matter.

Findings of the Mule Deer Restoration Committee of the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners

Passed unanimously on 18 November 2010

Nevada’s Failing Mule Deer Population

Preface:

Nevada statutes mandate that the Board of Wildlife Commissioners establish policies and adopt regulations necessary to the preservation, protection, management, and restoration of deer in Nevada. 

The Mule Deer Restoration Committee has reviewed at length the relevant scientific documentation on mule deer populations in Nevada and the west, including all publications it could find produced by the Nevada Department of Wildlife.  The committee has reviewed at length all input on mule deer management provided by CABMWs to the Wildlife Commission and this committee, and has included the input in these findings where appropriate.  After much consideration this Committee is presenting the following recommendations based on the best science available.  If followed, these recommendations will go far in restoring the deer population and the range to prime conditions throughout the State of Nevada.

On one side are those who believe the number of deer predators should be reduced through targeted hunting programs. Others say factors such as the loss of natural habitat and wildfires are the issue.

There are many words that have double meanings, like “gay”, “coke” and “conservation”. Most people would argue that conservation only has one meaning. Through language deception perfected by government agencies and environmentalists (which has been so skillfully brought to our attention by Julie Smithson of Property Rights) words are of monumental importance in our perception of the way we view things and make decisions. Government agents (bureaucrats) and news media (journalists) like to refer to anti-hunting groups like Nature Conservancy, Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club and many others as “conservationists”. These anti organizations (environmentalists) spend much of their time and their money on lawsuits, suing the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (the government) thus establishing their agendas and imposing their will on the American people. Hunters were the first conservationists practicing sound conservation in America and they are still the best, spending their money for all forms of wildlife. These two words today, conservation and conservationists, have been usurped by these organizations, agencies and journalists from the true conservationists……..none other than the HUNTER and by so doing make the hunter appear as the problem and they are the saviors. Now, think it through, who gave us all the abundant wildlife we have known up to this day that we rapidly see disappearing all around us? These hunters did it with their dedication to wildlife and their money without having to sue the very government agencies that these hunters pay to represent them in ALL wildlife management. Enter these environmentalist organizations, paying virtually nothing, infiltrating our government agencies and you can see who and where the problem is. NOW……who are the real conservationists?

                 HA

Were alarm bells going off throughout the Twin Towers after the planes struck them and up until they collapsed?  Whether or not the alarms sounded until the buildings collapsed or whether they immediately or eventually malfunctioned, the situation is analogous to America today.  Regardless of whether the alarms saved some individuals, or malfunctioned eventually, or perhaps were ignored by persons that could not conceive of what was about to take place; the results were the same, an enormous loss of life and the disappearance of those two buildings (forever?).

Today, 16 October 2009, there are alarm bells going off all

Culling Mountain Lions to Protect Ungulate Populations-Some Lives Are More Sacred Than Others

Eric M. Rominger

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish

Bounties and Bounty Hunters

          Historically, top carnivore removal was carried out to protect game species and livestock throughout the western states. In fact, most predator species were bountied, with higher bounties paid for culling females in a concerted effort to reduce or eliminate populations. For example, in New Mexico in the 1950's, the New Mexico Department of  Game and Fish employed full-time trappers in New Mexico as well (A. Ford, personal communications 2003). This intensive governmental effort occurred during an era when most private ranchers kept their  "steel in the ground", i.e., leghold traps, year-round in an effort to eliminate top carnivores. It is important to note that these government trappers were highly respected members of their communities and were considered members of an honored profession. However by the early 1970s, all but two western states had converted mountain lions to game-animal status and state-agency trapper positions were essentially eliminated. Despite the best effort of the government trappers and of their private-sector allies, mountain lions were never extirpated in the western United States.

California versus Texas

California and Texas, bounding the western and eastern distribution of mountain lions, have equally dichotomous management strategies for mountain lions. Presumably, these divergent management strategies are based on differing societal values in these two states. Texas never elevated mountain lions to game-animal status, and year-round hunting and trapping of mountain lions continues throughout their range there. The management strategy in Texas contrasts sharply with that in California where a legislative moratorium passed in 1972 ceased sport harvest and public trapping of all mountain lions.

Intensive mountain lion harvest in Texas has not resulted in the extirpation of mountain lions, and mountain lion distribution is considered to be similar today to what it was 35 years ago (C. Brewer, personal communication, 2007). Because of this fact, Texas Parks and Wildlife (TPW) was a principal complainant resulting in the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) not endorsing, or otherwise sanctioning, the recently drafted  Cougar Management Guidelines-First Edition (Schroufe 2006). Perceived differences on the needs for harvest quotas and sanctuaries, to maintain mountain lion populations, were central to this complaint.

The consequences of no-sport harvest of mountain lions are less understood in California. High levels of mountain lion predation on small isolated populations of bighorn sheep (Ovis Canadensis cremnobates) and Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep (O. v. sierra) populations being listed as federally endangered populations.

Ballot Initiatives

It is interesting that prior to the elimination of sport hunting in California, annual harvest was approximately 150 mountain lions per year. Today, California and U. S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services cull approximately 150 mountain lions per year because of depredation complaints on livestock and on pets and because of concerns for human safety. The historical number of 150 mountain lions per year more accurately reflects the actual number of mountain lions killed than does the current estimates because a bounty was paid during much of the historical period. It has been suggested that frustration with restrictions imposed by Proposition 117 may result in mountain lions being killed illegally, resulting in an underestimate of mountain lion harvest. Total mountain lion harvest in California today, following the complete ban of sport harvest, probably exceeds mountain lion harvest prior to the ban.

Endangered Ungulates versus Hunted Ungulates

As hunters and trappers and fishermen see a White House and federal agencies stuffed with anti-hunting, anti-gun rights, environmental extremists and as an unfettered US House and Senate are churning out all manner of extremist and costly legislation; questions are being raised about minor things that we ignored for years but which are beginning to appear as razors that have been quietly slashing our hunting, trapping, and fishing heritage, traditions, and rights.  I speak here of the federal programs originally known as the Pittman Robertson (1936) and Dingell-Johnson  (1950) Acts.

These two Acts provided that the federal government collect excise taxes on certain items and that each year these funds be apportioned to all State fish and wildlife agencies for "Wildlife Restoration" and "Sport Fish Restoration" projects.  Funds for "Wildlife Restoration" are derived from an 11 percent excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition; a 10 percent tax on pistols and revolvers, one-half of which may be used by the States for hunter safety programs; and an11-percent excise tax on bows, arrows, and their parts and accessories.  Funds for "Sport Fish Restoration" are derived from a 10-percent excise tax on certain items of sport fishing tackle (Internal Revenue Code of 1954, sec. 4161), a 3-percent excise tax on fish finders and electric trolling motors, import duties on fishing tackle, yachts and pleasure craft, interest on the account, and a portion of motorboat fuel tax revenues and small engine fuel taxes.  The current annual collections vary from $500 Million to over a Billion considering the ongoing stampede for arms and ammunition in anticipation of federal government attempts to subvert the 2^nd Amendment to The Constitution of the United States of America.

These Acts have been manipulated and amended by politicians to name Amendments after themselves (Wallop-Breaux); to gain votes from certain blocs like boat owners and archers; and to give favors to ethnic voting groups like Puerto Ricans and Samoans.  Importation of arms and fishing tackle has made up increasing amounts of these taxed items while federal bureaucrats have increasingly ignored the collection of these import taxes and as importers have exploited the indifference of federal bureaucrats by smuggling (the correct term) such items to competitive retail outlet stores. While there are strict rules for use of the funds by state agencies, required 5-year audits and "oversight" by federal bureaucrats are intermittent, poorly administered, and ideologically driven by federal and now state bureaucrats enacting agendas aimed ultimately at destroying hunting, fishing, and trapping.  State fish and wildlife Directors want to be free to please the Governors that appoint them like offering (illegally) to allow a prison to be built on wildlife areas or to put wildlife vehicles in state motor pools for use by others.  So, just like federal thieves, state thieves exist and benefit personally from foregone or slipshod oversight and audits.

All that said, let us focus on the terms "Wildlife" and "Sport Fish" and "Restoration".

- "Wildlife" in the original Act and in the eyes of American citizens meant deer, turkeys, ducks, pheasants, etc. (i.e. "GAME" animals whether or not they were present during the Ice Age, were eaten by Sitting Bull, or were brought over from China or Europe on a sailing ship).  The "sporting" uses were what generated the funds and thus did everyone understand that game animals were to be the primary beneficiaries of the funding. The other animals that shared habitats with and benefited from the MANAGEMENT AND EXISTENCE of the habitats for those game animals were significant but secondary beneficiaries of much of the projects generated by the collected taxes.  Harmful animals were to be controlled thus benefiting rural America while other "users" like campers, hikers, school groups, canoeists, and birdwatchers, etc. were always free to use the purchased wildlife areas and facilities like boat ramps.

- "Sport Fish" in the original Act was necessary because "Commercial Fish" and "Marine Fish" were jealously guarded (meaning they generated employees and funding) functions of the Commerce Department as opposed the Interior Department where the US Fish and Wildlife Service was ensconced.   Consider for the moment how the Endangered Species Act divided the whales and seals and porpoises from other "endangered" animals between the Commerce and Interior Departments.  (National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service always "cooperated" for environmental benefit like the CIA and FBI always shared info with other agencies for the common good.)

- Finally, the term "Restoration" always (up until the radical 60's and 70's) meant the active "MANAGEMENT" of these desired (i.e. GAME and SPORT FISH) species to levels, distribution, abundance, and harvest levels known to previous generations CONSISTENT WITH THE EXPANDING AMERICAN SOCIETY, AMERICAN RIGHTS, AND AMERICAN TRADITIONS.

            The point of controversy surrounded NDOW's desire to dramatically increase doe tags with the stated goal of "releasing the pressure on the mule deer herd to allow it to grow at a healthy rate".  NDOW lead game biologist Mike Cox quoted Biologist Wasley as believing that the Ruby Mountains are reaching ‘carrying capacity', or the maximum number of mule deer that the range can support.  According to Mike Cox, the only reason that the removal of doe deer might not show a large increase in fawn production is because the number of fawn producing does removed might not be large enough.  Biologist Cox stated that double the 987 doe-removal quota might be necessary to ‘release the pressure' on the deer and allow the population to grow.  Current 2009 survey figures place fawn to adult deer ratio in this area at 20 fawns per 100 adults, one of the lowest in the state. 

            The dissenting wildlife Commissioner stated that the Ruby Mountains have supported many times more deer than they currently do, as well as supporting around 50,000 domestic sheep and cattle that are nearly gone from the range.  "With in excess of 50,000 less animals grazing on the slopes, no major fires in the range, and fairly average precipitation, it is not possible that conditions have degraded to such an extent that the Rubies can not even support the relatively small population of deer that currently live there.  Killing does in an area of reduced deer population is not science. It is grasping for excuses at the expense of the deer herd.  If you are raising cattle, children, or guppies, you do not kill the adult females so that suddenly the population has a bigger ratio of young to adults and then expect the population to grow."

            The NDOW estimate for areas "10" or units 101 - 108 for 2009 is 24,000 mule deer.   The 2009 estimate for mule deer in the entire state is 106,000, down from a 1988 high of 240,000 and down two percent from 2008.  2008 tag sales were 16,997, down from a high of 51,011 in1988.

            According to NDOW's records, in area "10", there are too many bucks in the area and the buck to doe ratio is not conducive to successful management practices. Instead of issuing the 987 doe tags, any sportsmen would prefer to see additional 987 buck tags to bring that ratio down rather than killing the does which produce future numbers.

            Nevada Department of Wildlife, Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners, and Elko County Advisory Board to Manage Wildlife member contact information can be found at http://ndow.org

Pat Laughlin

Nevada Alliance 4 Wildlife

Reprinted from Elko Daily Free Press
Guest Commentary
Wednesday, June 3, 2009  

Someone has to start telling the truth about predator control in Nevada. I guess that someone will have to be HUNTER’S ALERT. NDOW does not want to do any predator control. Let me repeat, unequivocally, without a doubt, NDOW refuses to do predator control without being forced into it.

In the 2001 legislative session, HUNTER’S ALERT and Nevada Hunters Association with the help of Assemblyman Jerry Claborn were responsible for the passage of A.B. 291 which gives NDOW $341,000 to $400,000 per year for predator control. By the way, no one from NDOW was there to support the predator bill. This alone should let you know how NDOW felt from the very beginning about predator control.

Reprinted from February-March, 200 issue of The Outdoorsman

(Jim Slinsky is a sportsman, conservationist and defender of our right to hunt, fish, trap, and shoot.  He is also a staunch advocate of the individual interpretation of the Second Amendment.  Jim is the Founder, Producer and Host of the "Outdoor Talk Network", a nationally, syndicated, outdoor-talk radio show program.

The Outdoor Talk Network is an educational and entertaining program with the focus on fishing, hunting, trapping, shooting and related environmental and legislative issues.  He has interviewed the most important and influential people in the outdoor industry. His radio show is syndicated nationwide by Salem Radio Network.

For a station near you or to contact Jim, visit his website at www.outdoortalknetwork.com ED)

This Wildlife Commission has proven itself sportsman friendly and has accomplished many new things for sportsmen in Nevada that no other Wildlife Commission has done. Here are some examples:

1. Despite opposition from the agency and director Ken Mayer, and some county Wildlife Advisory Boards, the tag drawing results will be available online for all sportsmen within 48 hours after the drawing has occurred. This enables all sportsmen the ability to see if they were successful in drawing a tag and for planning their hunts much sooner. The Commission felt this was a much needed and long over-due regulation.
2. Now sportsmen are getting a definition of edible portions of big game mammals, game birds, and game fish. This regulation was badly needed to avoid wanton waste citations and to clarify what portions of game must be kept.  The definition of ‘edible’ had previously been left up to the interpretation of law enforcement.
3. The Commission passed hunter friendly regulation for 2009 that allows for the return of big game tags without having to give a reason.  Hunters can now return deer, antelope, and elk tags as long as they are received by NDOW at least one day before the start of the applicable season.  Hunters will have bonus points reinstated and receive an additional bonus point as if a tag had not been issued and as if the applicant had been unsuccessful in the draw.   Bighorn sheep and Mountain Goat tags have an earlier deadline for return so that they can be re-issued to other hunters.
4. A regulation is in the process to allow Online Hunt Application changes/amendments after an application has been submitted. Currently, once you submit your application, you cannot change or withdraw it. Last year, there were dozens of emails in Nevada by hunters who had made a mistake in the application process and wanted to make a change. This new regulation will be a win-win solution and will be very popular.

These accomplishments demonstrate this Commission’s attempts to make NDOW a more user- friendly agency and are well received by most sportsmen.

An article written in the Deer Times, Fall 2007  by Floyd Green proves predator control works. The article entitled, “Managing Mountain Lions in a Desert Sheep Unit” shows when people open their minds and listen, they will realize the damage that lions are doing to our game . Following is a brief synopsis of the article along with HUNTER’S ALERT comments that will be emphasized in bold print.

In 1981, the Arizona Game & Fish Department (AGFD) supplemented Desert Sheep in Unit 22. Within a few years, the sheep population had grown and sport hunting was authorized in the area. The area turned out to be a premier area producing big rams. The area was so productive they were transplanting sheep from this unit to other units within the state.

Steve Smith, a rancher and lion hunter in Arizona, wrote an article that originally appeared in Western Hunting Magazine and was reprinted in Deer Times-Fall, 2007 magazine. The title was Out of Balance: One Expert’s Commentary on Mountain Lions, Mule Deer and Wildlife Mismanagement.

The author made many valid points and HUNTER’ S ALERT would like to compare his views with those of HUNTER’S ALERT.

Biologists love to use the term “science” to declare absolutes for game management. In this issue, you will read that there is no absolute. In this newsletter, you will read articles by three different authors that have proven that biologists are not always right when using “ science”  to formulate game management policy.

Recently, a television documentary called “When Forensics Fail” told the stories of people who had been convicted of murder based on science. They were convicted using fire, poisons, fingerprints and even bite marks as the primary evidence. The science used to convict them was faulty and all were eventually exonerated.

I guess NDOW’s science, unlike other government agencies has never been wrong. For those of you who defend NDOW’s science as being so infallible, why hasn’t their science been applied to saving our deer population? After all, they have had twenty years to use their science on this project. For sure, no one could dispute whatever science NDOW is using on our mule deer is not working. This is especially true when science is used to kill 987 does in Elko County.

The truth is NDOW is not going to, doesn’t want to and doesn’t know how to bring back our deer. So much for NDOW’s science. They are a disgrace to the sportsmen who pay their wages.

NDOW’s accounting system is so bad and misleading that the Legislature saw fit to pass Assembly Bill 562 in the 2009 session. This bill states that NDOW will create new budget accounts for 2010 to 2011 for the purpose of separating revenues and expenditures of the Wildlife Account into multiple accounts to facilitate tracking, reporting and accountability. To put it in layman’s terms, NDOW’s financial statements were so bad that no one could understand them. All of NDOW’s accounts are so mixed up, even the Legislature is unable to understand them. What you can’t understand, you can’t question. Is this by coincidence or by design?

In Idaho and other states, the Wildlife Commission can hire and fire the director of the fish and game agency. Maybe that is why the director has a 2-1/2 year average employment. Currently, two western states are looking for a new director.

1. Do not kill any does.
2. Reduce predators which kill deer.

The Outdoorsman is a newsletter published by a group of Idaho sportsmen. Like HUNTER’S ALERT, the newsletter prints the truth about how their fish and game department is and has been mismanaged for years. The Outdoorsman makes sportsmen aware of who is responsible for the mismanagement and why sportsmen are losing the battle in Idaho and other states. You will not read the information they produce in any other publication. The similarities between Idaho and Nevada are striking. Idaho has predator problems, sportsmen’s money being spent on non-game projects, and no faith in their director or Wildlife Commission. The only difference in Nevada is that some, not all, of the new Wildlife Commissioners appointed by Governor Jim Gibbons want to correct the serious problems which have been placed on Nevada hunters by inept former directors and commissioners.

Reprinted from Reno Gazette Journal,

June 24, 2009

At the May meeting to set tag quotas, the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners voted 7-1 to support the recommendations of Elko-based Nevada Department of Wildlife biologist, Tony Wasley to issue 987 doe mule deer tags in areas 101, 102 and 104A, which encompass all of the Ruby Mountains north of Harrison Pass.