Bills in legislature you need to be aware of

[NVBighorn]

AB-241 - Mandates 40 percent of annual Wildlife Heritage Trust Account expenditures be used soley for control of predators of Mule Deer.

AB-362 - Mandates all of the $3.00 predator application fee be used only for predator control for Mule Deer.

AB-516 - Any grants, donations, matching monies to NDOW used only upon approval by Wildlife Commission which will direct how and where funds are spent.

 

[COSA]

Wasn't there some sort of predator reduction study in unit 014? I've never seen any results released.

 

[nvmuley]

The on going predator management program in 014 has removed a bunch of coyotes and 22 lions last report I read. Time will tell if this helps jump start the recovery of the deer and Ca bighorns in that unit. Lions continue to move across unit 015 (no control) into 014. Unit 015 connects directly into the lion factory called California.
Concentrated predator projects have helped other areas. Unit 011 had some predator removal to help the antelope population recover when the fawn survival dropped real low several years ago.

----------------------------------------
Measure wealth by the things you have,, for which you would not take money.

 

[NVBighorn]

These three bills are from the hunters alert crew. The legislature should not be dictating to the biologists where or how to control predators. And the sprotsmen's organizations should be able to donate their money to NDOW in the spirit in whcih they raised it. This is just a guise to allow the Hunters Alert supporters to divert your money from it's intended purpose to promote their own.

Go to the following link and express your non-support.

https://www.leg.state.nv.us/75th2009/opinions/Poll/

 

[dwalton]

Thanks for posting the link NVBighorn. You hit the nail on the head about the Hunter's Alert crew. Their agenda is not what is needed. Unfortunately, Nevada is stuck with them until Gibbons is voted out.

 

[nvmuley]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-27-09 AT 08:29AM (MST)[p]AB-241 - Mandates 40 percent of annual Wildlife Heritage Trust Account expenditures be used soley for control of predators of Mule Deer.

I think this bill has some merit. That is if you believe that coyotes and lions are having a large impact on mule deer in the state. There are a lot of studies that show predators can have dramatic effect on mule deer populations when the deer populations are below habitat carrying capacity. Which I feel ours are. We have half the deer herd we had in 1988 and something new needs to be tried to benefit our deer. Doing the same things year after year and hoping for different results does make sense. The current predator management projects have also shown concentrated and timely predator control has helped big game populations. Currently, predator studies are done before sheep transplants to see if control is needed prior to the sheep transplants. It works and predator control has helped get new herds established. Why spend big $$$ to transplant sheep and just feed the predators? And our deer herds do need some help. Just bringing the deer herds back to 1988 levels would give NDOW over $600,000 each and every year in revenue from increase in deer tag sales. Sounds like a win win to me.

AB-362 - Mandates all of the $3.00 predator application fee be used only for predator control for Mule Deer.

Again, all game animals would benefit from predator control. I think since hunters are already paying this $3 fee with every big game application, the money should go to game animals and not to "sensitive wildlife species and related wildlife habitat".
Hunters pay, and we should get most of the benefit, not tweety birds and garden snakes.

AB-516 - Any grants, donations, matching monies to NDOW used only upon approval by Wildlife Commission which will direct how and where funds are spent.

This one is not so good. Let the conservation groups that raise the money, give it to a cause they support toward wildlife management and habitat enhancement. I would hate to see money raised by NBU go to a tweety bird study. The tweety birds are doing just fine on their own

----------------------------------------
Measure wealth by the things you have,, for which you would not take money.

 

[dwalton]

nvmuley,

We had the dicussion before about the deer herd of 1988. The majority of deer reside in northeastern Nevada. Fires, the expanding elk herd, as well as mining have forever altered this deer habitat. If you transplanted 200,000 deer into NE Nevada, what would they eat in the winter?

These bills are just another expample of wildlife management through the ballot box.

 

[nvmuley]

This is a discussion forum. Discussion is good. It educates people.

Our NE deer herds are the largest ones in the whole state. They are faring better than a lot of the other ones. Transplanting 200,000 to this habitat would create an overpopulation in that area. No one is talking about doing that?
Other areas of the state have more marginal deer habitat and less of it in square miles. It is these herds that would benefit more from some predator management. Long term predator studies bear this out.
Sure, some areas have been impacted by fires and mining. In many cases fire actually benefits the habitat over the long run with fresh browse and new growth plants. The area 6 deer herds are the ones most impacted by the large fires of the past and yet they are doing quite well.
Actually this is wildlife management by legislation. The more you pay attention to long term wildlife management policies, the more you see it is VERY political. Always has been. Hunters should pursue policies that benefit them and the game they hunt. PETA sure won't do that




----------------------------------------
Measure wealth by the things you have,, for which you would not take money.

 

[NVBighorn]

nvmuley, you and I have gonet he rounds before on this subject.
>
>AB-241 - Mandates 40 percent of
>annual Wildlife Heritage Trust Account
>expenditures be used soley for
>control of predators of Mule
>Deer.
>
>I think this bill has some
>merit. That is if you
>believe that coyotes and lions
>are having a large impact
>on mule deer in the
>state.

Doesn't matter what one thinks of coyotes or lions. The Heritage account was not setup to automatically have 40% of it diverted ANY specific cause. To go back now and make this a mandatory requirement is acting in bad faith. People give money to this fund for many different reasons. If money is put in the Heritage Account by a non big game interest group why should it be mandated that 40% be spent on mule deer.



>
>AB-362 - Mandates all of the
>$3.00 predator application fee be
>used only for predator control
>for Mule Deer.
>
>Again, all game animals would benefit
>from predator control. I think
>since hunters are already paying
>this $3 fee with every
>big game application, the money
>should go to game animals
>and not to "sensitive wildlife
>species and related wildlife habitat".
>
>Hunters pay, and we should get
>most of the benefit, not
>tweety birds and garden snakes.
>


But why mandate that it be spent specifically for mule deer? It already is to be used for predator control where deemed necessary . The money is NOT spent on tweety birds and garden snakes. It already goes to predaotr control. Let the biologists be biologists and the rest of us just do our job and not try to do theirs.

>
>AB-516 - Any grants, donations, matching
>monies to NDOW used only
>upon approval by Wildlife Commission
>which will direct how and
>where funds are spent.
>
>This one is not so good.
>Let the conservation groups that
>raise the money, give it
>to a cause they support
>toward wildlife management and habitat
>enhancement. I would hate
>to see money raised by
>NBU go to a tweety
>bird study. The tweety birds
>are doing just fine on
>their own
>

But wait, above you think it's OK to see money in the Heritage Account raised through and for sheep, elk, antelope, trout, ducks (PIW, Heritage Tag sales, etc) go to mule deer. Why not tweety birds? You are talking through both sides of your mouth! Can't have it both ways. You're starting to talk Hunters Alert-like again.

Figure it out. Claborn, Lent, Fredi, Raine and company are not freinds of Nevada's sportsmen. Or wildlife for that matter.


dwalton, you are dead on. Managing through the ballot box never works.

 

[nvmuley]

I do not see any reason to get confrontational.
And please do not make the call as to which side of my mouth is talking. It is a discussion and a discussion should cover both sides of an issue and let each issue stand on it's own merit.
I have no pre-determined hatred of hunter's alert or any other group. But I must say, you seem to, as you keep throwing that back in my face. Yes, I have visited their website and read some of their articles. I see that they have been really confrontational and named names and called names. Not very nice of them. But I do not do not dismiss issues just because they may be raised by a certain group. I try to remain neutral and keep egos and past issues out of my logical thought process.
I think all NDOW funds should be spent to get the most "bang for the buck" for hunters, period. I do think that the predator management issue has been neglected by NDOW in the past. I do not have faith in any government agency to do what is right unless it is led in that direction.


----------------------------------------
Measure wealth by the things you have,, for which you would not take money.

 

[dwalton]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-27-09 AT 10:01AM (MST)[p]nvmuley,

In order to get back to your magical 1988 levels, the NE Nevada deer herds will have to be expanded somewhere around 200,000 deer. All the predator management in the world will not accomplish this.

The area 6 deer herd is not doing well. The numbers are less than 50% of what it was prior to the winter of 199-93.

 

[NVBighorn]

>I do not see any reason
>to get confrontational.

Steve,
You are telling me you support a bill that diverts MY donations of time and money to a direction that I did not intend for them to be used. If I appear confrontational it's because I think this is wrong, whether it is my donations or someone else's.

>And please do not make the
>call as to which side
>of my mouth is talking.

You contradict yourself by saying that NBU money should not be used for tweety birds when it was raised for sheep but in your first arguement you say, in effect, that 40% of NBU and sheep money, should be used specifically for mule deer. You justify this with a generalization that predator control is good for all wildlife. Saying you are talking out of both sides of your mouth was a cliche reference to saying one thing in one paragraph and contradicting it in another. Guess you didn't get it.


> I have no pre-determined hatred
>of hunter's alert or any
>other group. But I must
>say, you seem to, as
>you keep throwing that back
>in my face.

Hatred is a strong word but I dislike their agenda very strongly. They attack groups I represent and support. They attack individuals they know nothing about. They have a one track mind and promote only hatred for NDOW and the assumption that killing predators will bring back the mule deer. They do absolutely nothing real in terms of volunteering time or raising money for wildlife.


>I do not do not
>dismiss issues just because they
>may be raised by a
>certain group.

IMO, in some cases, perhaps you should.


>I try to
>remain neutral and keep egos
>and past issues out of
>my logical thought process.

These bills are not about egos. They are about the stated agenda of Hunters Alert. Use that logic to get past the gloss and chrome and feel-good on these bills and understand who is promoting them and why.


> I think all NDOW funds
>should be spent to get
>the most "bang for the
>buck" for hunters, period.

Hunters of what? Mule deer? What about chukars, sage grouse, sheep, antelope, etc, etc? You can't waive one magic wand of predator control for mule deer and help all species. For example, ravens do not prey on mule deer however they do destroy the nests of sage grouse and chukar. Heritage money is not only raised by mule deer hunters. In fact I would like to know what percentage is. The three dollars is not only contributed by mule deer hunters either.

>I
>do think that the predator
>management issue has been neglected
>by NDOW in the past.

Give me a specific example of when, where and how NDOW has neglected predator control.

>I do not have faith
>in any government agency to
>do what is right unless
>it is led in that
>direction.

By supporting legislation introduced by these groups you are making a perceived choice (by others) to allow them to lead. No thanks. There are other ways to lead. Attending county game boards and wildlife commission meetings is the best way rather than by binding NDOWs hands through legislation.

 

[Alex]

The next bill Claborn puts out there should be to change NDOW to the Nevada Department of Mule Deer. He forgets that there is more to this state than just deer.

What gets me that some feel that if these bills pass we will miraculously have deer herds equal to the 80's. That is not going to happen, due to habitat reduction and elk.

Every Legislative Session this man tries to circumvent the Commission and the CABs by putting these bills into his committee. Holding hostage in his drawer Bills that truly need to be heard; ie: AB183 and AB437.

But back to the 3 bills listed above; AB241, AB362 and AB516. All three are a detriment to wildlife management. I could list the reasons these bills are not good, but most of points have already been said. Putting wildlife management in the hands of our legislators, specifically Claborn is not a good thing.

Alex

 

[nvmuley]

You make some good points.
I guess I see a management plan that benefits mule deer (through predator control) will benefit all Nevada game animlas to some degree. Is that a wrong assumption?

I do not mean to imply that 40% of NBU sheep money should be used for mule deer. The heritage account funds come from a variety of sources. Including the PIW funds gifts and heritage tag sales. Quite a bit of predator control projects funds have gone toward sheep protection, ie predator control. This a is a good thing. Sheep transplants are huge dollar investment.
I am trying to put aside the severe politicized climate I see around this whole issue. I have "no dog in this fight" except a desire to have more opportunity to hunt mule deer and this requires our herd have some growth. It has been stagnant for along time. Long enough that maybe it is time to try at least TRY new management approach. This seems logical.
I see antelope herds doing quite well today. I see elk herds doing very well and expanding all the time. Why? maybe it's because they are somewhat better at holding their own with predators. Antelope are fast and harder to stalk in open country and elk are bigger and tougher to bring down. Just a thought. Yes, coyotes kill a lot of antelope fawns but not so many adults. Lions prey on deer fawns and adults very successfully due to the brushy habitat that deer prefer.
As for predator control being neglected in the past: it was a standard policy and accepted fact that predator numbers went up and down with the prey species and that predators could not control their prey. That may be true with the canadian lynx, but not with most other predator/prey relationships. New studies have shown this. Predators can get the upper hand and really suppress their main prey. One need look no farther than the current california deer situation and the 15 year study done on the Kings River deer herd. It took a lot of effort and pushing by hunters to get the current Predator Management program started.
I may be in the minority, but I do think it's time to try some new tactics. I see no real change in our deer herds. Political fights aside, For me, that is the bottom line.



----------------------------------------
Measure wealth by the things you have,, for which you would not take money.

 

[dwalton]

The board that is in place now is just another thing on the list of what a disappointment Gov. Gibbons has been. Sad to see a guy go from a respected Congressman to just another morally bankrupt politician.

The wildlife board in place looks to take Nevada back to the days of Slick Willie Molini. These people have an agenda that is not in the best interest of all Nevada sportsmen. The funny thing is it's just not a few MM posters saying this. Everyone I know involved with Nevada's wildlife (game wardens, biologists, guides) are saying the same thing.

 

[Alex]

Claborn has scheduled a hearing on two of his bills; AB362 and AB516 for April 1st, it is important to voice your opinion.

Between the appointments of Gibbons and the upcoming appointments he will be making, it will take at least 10-12 years to correct the mess this Commission is creating. It is a wonder, from the Director on down the chain of command, hasn't thrown in the towel, I couldn't imagine working with the current Commission. The appointments by Guinn; McNish, Swanson, Lurie are what is keeping the Commission half way sane.

If what I hear is true on the next appointments we are in real trouble.

Alex

 

[NVBighorn]

nvmuley, just a couple of points.

> I do not mean to
>imply that 40% of NBU
>sheep money should be used
>for mule deer.

If this bill that requires 40% of the Heritage account funding be spent on mule deer then that is exactly what is going to happen. 40% of all the funds expended from the Heritage account will be used to benefit mule deer. Period. Regardless of source.

> Quite a bit
>of predator control projects funds
>have gone toward sheep protection,
>ie predator control.

I can think of a couple.


> I may be in the
>minority, but I do think
>it's time to try some
>new tactics.

As I said in previous discussions, there may be areas that could benefit from some aggressive predator management. I'd be the first to agree that everything NDOW has done in the past may not have been correct.

However, in my opinion, these three bills, due partly to their sponsorship, are not a good answer.

 

[NVBighorn]

Alex,

The appointments that will take place in the next round are truly scary. I would like to hear what you are hearing.

 

[NVBighorn]

Here is an example of what this current Wildlife Commission is doing. Keep in mind that Mr. Raine is supposed to represent sportsmen of Nevada on the commission. His seat is not a farmer/rancher seat. I myself am a rancher, but this to me is an obvious play to funnel money away from NDOW and the sportsmen of Nevada.

January 2009 Nevada Rancher

 

[Alex]

NVBighorn check your pm's
Alex

 

[nvthrt]

Nv Bighorn

I could'nt agree with you more i know Raine all he is doing is pushing what the hunters alert crew wants. You would think as much as the Raine's hunt that he would be a better member of the commision.