Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond to the inaccurate articles and cartoons contained in recent editions of the Hunter s Alert Magazine. You indicated that if I sent you this letter, you would publish it. 1 hope to see this letter reprinted in your newsletter

Your cartoon and earlier articles erroneously indicates to your readers that Mr. Crawforth, Mr. Tiberti, myself and Mr. Tanner are asleep with respect to the predator issue in Nevada. These inaccuracies are very misleading to your readers. I would like to set the record straight as to what the Nevada Division of Wildlife and the Commission have done since Mr. Crawforth took over the duty of Administrator of the Nevada Division of Wildlife.

As you are well aware, prior to Mr. Crawforth s tenure, predator management was not actively pursued within the Division of Wildlife. Despite this, the Commission at the time, passed a mountain lion policy that provided succinct direction to the division to determine whether deer populations were being adversely affected by mountain lion populations. As a result of this policy, mountain lions sales increased 61% in the State of Nevada at the same time the tag cost was reduced to $26.00. The Commission s thinking was that by providing increased opportunity and reduced cost, hunters would harvest a higher number of lions and therefore improve our deer herds. That action indeed resulted in increased sales of tags and harvest of mountain lions. Additionally, this policy probably resulted in more professional mountain lion hunters coming into the State of Nevada to harvest mountain lions. Despite a significant increase in harvest quotas, the quotas established by the Nevada Wildlife Commission are often never reached by the sport hunters and professional hunters.

At our last two annual quota and harvest objective setting meetings, we have had guides present in the audience who have asked us to reduce mountain lion quotas and /or certainly not increase them as it is some guides opinion that our liberal harvest objectives and regulations are over-accomplishing the needed balance in the predator/prey relationships. We have maintained a high quota, despite those requests. While we are on mountain lions, recently, at the request of the Clark County Advisory Board, the Commission approved a year round season for Units 251-253, 261-268, and 271-272. Although we continue to hear the criticism about our mountain lion management plan, steps have been taken to effect a reduction in our mountain lion populations.

As a result of input from the public and a change in direction regarding predator management, the annual budget that was paid by the Division of Wildlife to Wildlife Services for predator management was increased from $20,000 to $40,000. Further, an addition of up to $200,000 of wildlife funds was approved at our December, 1999 Commission meeting for predator management. Mr. Crawforth and staff developed a funding proposal and presented it to the Legislative Interim Finance Committee. IFC approval allowed Wildlife Services to begin an aggressive goal-based coyote treatment designed to improve antelope fawning where it was scientifically established that packs of coyotes had acclimated to the birthing season of antelope, resulting in a very low fawn to doe ratio. I am enclosing a copy of the report presented to the commission at their October 21st meeting in Reno, entitled 2000 Report: Work Provided for the Nevada Division of Wildlife. The report covers the scope of activities provided to NDOW by Wildlife Services during fiscal year 2000 that were reviewed and approved by the .Commission at their meeting in January, 2000. At our December, 2000 meeting, we again confirmed the additional $100,000 funding for continued predator management.

Recently, the Commission mandated that prior to any big game transplant, a predator analysis must be completed. As you are probably aware, our predator analysis on the transplant of big horn sheep into the Sheep Range revealed a predator problem. Despite NDOW s desire to address this problem with effective predator management, the federal land managers have refused to allow us to manage the problem. This has resulted in a decision to postpone any transplants into the Sheep Range until effective predator management can be accomplished.

Within the last 12 months, the Commission, has invited the State of Utah to speak at our Wildlife meetings regarding their predator management plan. As you are aware, Utah has an excellent predator management program based on Jerd population objectives and triggers when buck to doe ratios and other

normally accepted standards fall below certain guidelines. This was an impressive approach and it was the Commission s desire to see this approach implemented in Nevada. Consequently, Mr. Crawforth has initiated a plan to identify population objectives for our various big game animals in the state. The Commission has started the process by initiating the formation of a bighorn sheep management plan, using Commissioner and sportsmen representation. This plan will identify population objectives and will have similar triggers to that of the State of Utah. Once the bighorn plan is finished, a much larger endeavor to cover the deer herds will be undertaken, again with similar triggers.

While we are on the subject of deer, I am enclosing as promised, a recently completed predator/deer analysis done by WAFWA. As you can see from this research, predator control is still controversial. Although our Commission is in favor of predator management, it must be scientifically-based and goal-oriented. You are keenly aware of the difficulties - money, manpower and politics, of predator management.

I and the rest of the Commission realize that there is more to do in Nevada with respect to predator management. However, contrary to the cartoon, no one is asleep and to the contrary, the Division and the Commission are aggressively working on this difficult issue.

By Bill Bradley

Vice-Chairman

Board of Wildlife Commissioners