Nevada issues
Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:28 pm
Well, I found this today while talking with a fellow houndsman and figured I would post this on here, so that everyone knows they are not the only ones facing issues with things to chase with their dogs. In our case here in NV, we are facing two groups, Hunters Alert, and Nevada Alliance 4 Wildlife that want to eliminate mountain lions, rather than protect them. There have been serveral proposals over the last couple years to make lion hunting more liberal than it already is, and they keep on pushing. NV has a pretty extensive predator control program as it is, and has the most liberal lion season of anywhere, with a year round season, 2 lions per person, day or night. I am not sure on total numbers, but somewhere around 200-250 lions are killed total in the state. These are not posted numbers, just numbers that I am trying to remember off the top of my head.
Here area couple articles posted in the Elko Daily Free Press, which can be read online at http://www.elkodaily.com
It is long, but very interesting how things are going here.
Later,
Marcial
NDOW responds to Hunter’s Alert, Nevada Alliance 4 Wildlife
By KENNETH E. MAYER - Nevada Department of Wildlife
Saturday, April 10, 2010 10:08 AM PDT
In the course of my 30 year career as a professional wildlife biologist and manager, I have found that when people write and say negative things about you that are not true, even in a hurtful way, it is usually not worth the time and effort to respond, as the public is pretty good about sorting out the truth. However, when the attacks are directed towards the organization that I have the responsibility for and the hard-working employees of that organization, I believe as the Director of the Nevada Department of Wildlife, I have the duty and responsibility to respond.
In this case I believe that it is important to set the record straight so that the misinformation is not perpetuated! In the bigger picture, I also believe it is my duty as Director to make sure that the public has accurate information about wildlife management in Nevada and how the department is exercising its public trust responsibility. The nonstop onslaught of unfounded criticism of NDOW and me personally, from both Hunter’s Alert and Nevada Alliance 4 Wildlife regarding our position on predator management and how we address mule deer management, is just that situation.
To begin with, Hunter’s Alert and Nevada Alliance 4 Wildlife would lead you to believe that the department and I are “anti-predator management”! Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, since 2000, NDOW has spent several million dollars on predator management in Nevada for wildlife. During the period of 2003-2005 NDOW funded an average of $237,054/yr on predation management; during 2006-2009 (I became Director in 2007) we funded an average of $323,264/yr on projects and in 2010 we plan to spend approximately $403,164 for predation management. I think the record speaks for itself!
The department’s position on predator management is simple — we support scientifically based, focused predator management that has a monitoring component. The department has the responsibility to not only be scientifically based, but also cost effective when spending sportsmen dollars to carry out these projects. A case in point is the allegation by Nevada Alliance 4 Wildlife and Hunter’s Alert representatives that the department halted the three Heritage Program predator projects. The facts are, USDA/
APHIS Wildlife Services halted the projects.
The department did find that the three projects could not be supported from a biological perspective (our sole statutory responsibility) and stated such to the Board of Wildlife Commissioners. However, the department was in the process of preparing Heritage contracts for Hunter’s Alert and Wildlife Alliance 4 Wildlife for the three projects when Wildlife Services stopped work on the projects.
One of the predator projects proposed by Nevada Alliance 4 Wildlife called for spending $113,000 in Heritage funds to kill coyotes in Area 6. Our concern for this project was that Area 6 has consistently produced the highest fawn ratios in the state, ample enough to grow the herd, yet the herd has not grown. It would also be very difficult to measure the results. Anyone who is familiar with Area 6 knows that a significant amount of its winter range was destroyed by wildfire (since 1999 over 1,245,730 acres burned in Area 6). Thus, in our professional opinion the herd is habitat limited, not predator limited.
Our assessment was once again confirmed this year, as the spring fawn ratios are outstanding, without intensified predator management. Once the winter range recovers and we believe (based on science) predators are limiting the population growth, rest assured we will support predator control for that area. It must also be noted that even though the three proposed projects lacked a scientific basis, the department did offer alternative predator projects we believed would accomplish the goals of both Hunters Alert and Nevada Alliance 4 Wildlife, had a reasonable chance to succeed, and could actually be monitored. Per their authority, the Commission chose to fund the original projects. Our alternatives were never considered by Hunter’s Alert or Nevada Alliance 4 Wildlife. A reasonable person might ask, was the goal to help mule deer or was it to fund “their” project?
The two alternative projects proposed by the department were designed to enhance mule deer fawn survival and recruitment in Unit 155, in Lander and Eureka Counties. Both mountain lion and coyote were targeted for removal. We selected this area because we believed that it was most likely to provide positive results, because NDOW biologists believed that predation was a possible limiting factor for mule deer in the Unit. Furthermore, the project site was suitable to facilitate predator removal and monitoring of the deer.
The department proposed to do pre-and post monitoring of deer from replicated fall and spring surveys and radio collard animals. Unlike Area 6, Unit 155 terrain, habitats and ownership pattern provide a good opportunity to be successful in both predator removal and deer monitoring. With respect to the alternative department predator proposal for Greater sage-grouse, we proposed a location (Unit 155, Simpson Park Mountains and Unit 143, Roberts Mountains) that we believed needed raven removal and that the effects of raven removal could be effectively assessed.
Our proposal was to amend an ongoing raven removal research project being conducted by a scientist at UNR to accomplish the work. By doing so, we would be taking advantage of an existing, scientifically proven effort that would meet the objectives of the Governor’s Sage-grouse Plan. If we do not take this reasoned scientific approach to these types of projects we leave ourselves open to litigation, thus putting our existing predator programs in jeopardy and potentially costing the sportsmen tens of thousands of dollars.
In recent years, mule deer have declined in many areas of the western U.S and Canada. Proposed causes of the decline have been numerous and in at least some cases predators have been proposed as one of the many factors. A deer population’s relationship to habitat carrying capacity is undeniably a crucial factor influencing the impacts of predation. Deer populations at or near carrying capacity do not respond to predator removal. Deer populations limited by predators are typically well below forage carrying capacity and deer mortality can be reduced significantly when predator populations are reduced.
The Department has been accused to have “given up on mule deer”. Furthermore, Hunters Alert has stated that the 1988 Nevada mule deer population estimate of 240,000 is an all-time high. Despite the questioned accuracy of that number by some, there are no doubt, fewer deer today (2009 population estimate of 106,000 deer) than in 1988. However, the selective comparison of an all-time, only once before achieved high number, with current population estimates, makes an unrealistic comparison and sets an unrealistic standard or goal.
In order to fully understand just how anomalous 1988 was, the number of bucks harvested in 1988 is thousands more bucks than were harvested in any year of the 1950s, 1960s, or 1970s. In 1988, over 7,000 of the 26,584 deer harvested were does. The average harvest from 1966-1970 was 8,920. The average harvest from 1974-1978 was 6,741 and the average harvest from 2005-2009 was 7,612. If you take the time to go back to the records you will find that the average population estimate from 1976-2009 (excluding 1986-1990) is 125,000. Thus, while the total population is currently lower than the long term average it is not significantly lower.
Is NDOW satisfied with this? Certainly not! There are many factors that have caused this decline and one of those factors in specific areas is predation. However, equally important is habitat condition, habitat loss due to wildfire, extended drought (for example, while parts of the state is realizing average precipitation this year, the Sheldon Wildlife Refuge is once again at approximately 75 percent of normal) to name a few. In the wildlife field, seldom is there just one factor that affects populations. Therefore, there is no quick fix!
Like the other western states that are experiencing these mule deer declines, we have continued our aggressive habitat restoration and improvement programs, we rank second in the nation for the expenditure of dollars on predator management, I have assigned staff to participate in the west-wide Mule Deer Working Group for the betterment of mule deer, we have continued to improve our knowledge and understanding of mule deer nutrition through professional workshops and apply that knowledge to our habitat improvement efforts.
I created the Mule Deer Staff Specialist Position to lead our deer management efforts statewide, we are cooperating on mule deer related research with the University of Nevada, I have provided opportunities for NDOW specialists to visit other states to examine mule deer programs to identify new and innovative approaches to mule deer management that could be employed here in Nevada, and I helped create a new state program called the Nevada Partners for Conservation and Development that will focus all the various resource agencies in the state on the management and restoration of sagebrush ecosystems in Nevada.
For the first time in Nevada we will have everyone responsible for Nevada sagebrush ecosystems working together and focused on key habitats, by sharing resources in a way never done before. To say that NDOW “has given up on restoring deer” is far from the truth!
NDOW has placed equal focus on all big game species in the Silver State. Nevada is home to seven different big game ungulates; desert bighorn sheep, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, California bighorn sheep, pronghorn antelope, Rocky Mountain elk, Rocky Mountain goats, and mule deer. Of those seven, six are experiencing extremely positive growth trends. The only highly, selective browser in the group, mule deer, has experienced a moderate decline.
The time has come to stop the rhetoric and dissemination of misinformation and focus on what we can do together to improve conditions for mule deer. What is important is doing good things for mule deer and all the other wildlife in this state. This is what I have been charged to do by the Governor and I take that charge very seriously — I have dedicated my entire life to wildlife management.
The Department of Wildlife is by law and training the wildlife experts for the state of Nevada. We exercise this responsibility by working with the public, individually and through the Commission process to meet expectations, where we can. The majority of the time we can easily meet these expectations. However, we must base our action on science and when the science is unclear, we rely on our extensive experience.
The department consists of a staff of dedicated, passionate, and knowledgeable biologists. They bring hundreds of years of education and experience to the job. Moreover, many are hunters and fisherman themselves. It is with that knowledge and passion (professional and personal) we approach the management of mule deer and all the other wildlife in this great state. To think for a minute we do not care or take our responsibilities lightly, you would be wrong!
Managing wildlife inevitably has an emotional side, as people who are engaged bring their passion and beliefs to the discussion. Through this process we will have honest differences of opinion that we need to work through, honestly and productively. I respect and appreciate the passion of Hunter’s Alert and Nevada Alliance 4 Wildlife for the mule deer resource. However, I believe we must start working on actually improving conditions for deer instead of arguing about technical issues or who gets the credit for getting the job done.
Here area couple articles posted in the Elko Daily Free Press, which can be read online at http://www.elkodaily.com
It is long, but very interesting how things are going here.
Later,
Marcial
NDOW responds to Hunter’s Alert, Nevada Alliance 4 Wildlife
By KENNETH E. MAYER - Nevada Department of Wildlife
Saturday, April 10, 2010 10:08 AM PDT
In the course of my 30 year career as a professional wildlife biologist and manager, I have found that when people write and say negative things about you that are not true, even in a hurtful way, it is usually not worth the time and effort to respond, as the public is pretty good about sorting out the truth. However, when the attacks are directed towards the organization that I have the responsibility for and the hard-working employees of that organization, I believe as the Director of the Nevada Department of Wildlife, I have the duty and responsibility to respond.
In this case I believe that it is important to set the record straight so that the misinformation is not perpetuated! In the bigger picture, I also believe it is my duty as Director to make sure that the public has accurate information about wildlife management in Nevada and how the department is exercising its public trust responsibility. The nonstop onslaught of unfounded criticism of NDOW and me personally, from both Hunter’s Alert and Nevada Alliance 4 Wildlife regarding our position on predator management and how we address mule deer management, is just that situation.
To begin with, Hunter’s Alert and Nevada Alliance 4 Wildlife would lead you to believe that the department and I are “anti-predator management”! Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, since 2000, NDOW has spent several million dollars on predator management in Nevada for wildlife. During the period of 2003-2005 NDOW funded an average of $237,054/yr on predation management; during 2006-2009 (I became Director in 2007) we funded an average of $323,264/yr on projects and in 2010 we plan to spend approximately $403,164 for predation management. I think the record speaks for itself!
The department’s position on predator management is simple — we support scientifically based, focused predator management that has a monitoring component. The department has the responsibility to not only be scientifically based, but also cost effective when spending sportsmen dollars to carry out these projects. A case in point is the allegation by Nevada Alliance 4 Wildlife and Hunter’s Alert representatives that the department halted the three Heritage Program predator projects. The facts are, USDA/
APHIS Wildlife Services halted the projects.
The department did find that the three projects could not be supported from a biological perspective (our sole statutory responsibility) and stated such to the Board of Wildlife Commissioners. However, the department was in the process of preparing Heritage contracts for Hunter’s Alert and Wildlife Alliance 4 Wildlife for the three projects when Wildlife Services stopped work on the projects.
One of the predator projects proposed by Nevada Alliance 4 Wildlife called for spending $113,000 in Heritage funds to kill coyotes in Area 6. Our concern for this project was that Area 6 has consistently produced the highest fawn ratios in the state, ample enough to grow the herd, yet the herd has not grown. It would also be very difficult to measure the results. Anyone who is familiar with Area 6 knows that a significant amount of its winter range was destroyed by wildfire (since 1999 over 1,245,730 acres burned in Area 6). Thus, in our professional opinion the herd is habitat limited, not predator limited.
Our assessment was once again confirmed this year, as the spring fawn ratios are outstanding, without intensified predator management. Once the winter range recovers and we believe (based on science) predators are limiting the population growth, rest assured we will support predator control for that area. It must also be noted that even though the three proposed projects lacked a scientific basis, the department did offer alternative predator projects we believed would accomplish the goals of both Hunters Alert and Nevada Alliance 4 Wildlife, had a reasonable chance to succeed, and could actually be monitored. Per their authority, the Commission chose to fund the original projects. Our alternatives were never considered by Hunter’s Alert or Nevada Alliance 4 Wildlife. A reasonable person might ask, was the goal to help mule deer or was it to fund “their” project?
The two alternative projects proposed by the department were designed to enhance mule deer fawn survival and recruitment in Unit 155, in Lander and Eureka Counties. Both mountain lion and coyote were targeted for removal. We selected this area because we believed that it was most likely to provide positive results, because NDOW biologists believed that predation was a possible limiting factor for mule deer in the Unit. Furthermore, the project site was suitable to facilitate predator removal and monitoring of the deer.
The department proposed to do pre-and post monitoring of deer from replicated fall and spring surveys and radio collard animals. Unlike Area 6, Unit 155 terrain, habitats and ownership pattern provide a good opportunity to be successful in both predator removal and deer monitoring. With respect to the alternative department predator proposal for Greater sage-grouse, we proposed a location (Unit 155, Simpson Park Mountains and Unit 143, Roberts Mountains) that we believed needed raven removal and that the effects of raven removal could be effectively assessed.
Our proposal was to amend an ongoing raven removal research project being conducted by a scientist at UNR to accomplish the work. By doing so, we would be taking advantage of an existing, scientifically proven effort that would meet the objectives of the Governor’s Sage-grouse Plan. If we do not take this reasoned scientific approach to these types of projects we leave ourselves open to litigation, thus putting our existing predator programs in jeopardy and potentially costing the sportsmen tens of thousands of dollars.
In recent years, mule deer have declined in many areas of the western U.S and Canada. Proposed causes of the decline have been numerous and in at least some cases predators have been proposed as one of the many factors. A deer population’s relationship to habitat carrying capacity is undeniably a crucial factor influencing the impacts of predation. Deer populations at or near carrying capacity do not respond to predator removal. Deer populations limited by predators are typically well below forage carrying capacity and deer mortality can be reduced significantly when predator populations are reduced.
The Department has been accused to have “given up on mule deer”. Furthermore, Hunters Alert has stated that the 1988 Nevada mule deer population estimate of 240,000 is an all-time high. Despite the questioned accuracy of that number by some, there are no doubt, fewer deer today (2009 population estimate of 106,000 deer) than in 1988. However, the selective comparison of an all-time, only once before achieved high number, with current population estimates, makes an unrealistic comparison and sets an unrealistic standard or goal.
In order to fully understand just how anomalous 1988 was, the number of bucks harvested in 1988 is thousands more bucks than were harvested in any year of the 1950s, 1960s, or 1970s. In 1988, over 7,000 of the 26,584 deer harvested were does. The average harvest from 1966-1970 was 8,920. The average harvest from 1974-1978 was 6,741 and the average harvest from 2005-2009 was 7,612. If you take the time to go back to the records you will find that the average population estimate from 1976-2009 (excluding 1986-1990) is 125,000. Thus, while the total population is currently lower than the long term average it is not significantly lower.
Is NDOW satisfied with this? Certainly not! There are many factors that have caused this decline and one of those factors in specific areas is predation. However, equally important is habitat condition, habitat loss due to wildfire, extended drought (for example, while parts of the state is realizing average precipitation this year, the Sheldon Wildlife Refuge is once again at approximately 75 percent of normal) to name a few. In the wildlife field, seldom is there just one factor that affects populations. Therefore, there is no quick fix!
Like the other western states that are experiencing these mule deer declines, we have continued our aggressive habitat restoration and improvement programs, we rank second in the nation for the expenditure of dollars on predator management, I have assigned staff to participate in the west-wide Mule Deer Working Group for the betterment of mule deer, we have continued to improve our knowledge and understanding of mule deer nutrition through professional workshops and apply that knowledge to our habitat improvement efforts.
I created the Mule Deer Staff Specialist Position to lead our deer management efforts statewide, we are cooperating on mule deer related research with the University of Nevada, I have provided opportunities for NDOW specialists to visit other states to examine mule deer programs to identify new and innovative approaches to mule deer management that could be employed here in Nevada, and I helped create a new state program called the Nevada Partners for Conservation and Development that will focus all the various resource agencies in the state on the management and restoration of sagebrush ecosystems in Nevada.
For the first time in Nevada we will have everyone responsible for Nevada sagebrush ecosystems working together and focused on key habitats, by sharing resources in a way never done before. To say that NDOW “has given up on restoring deer” is far from the truth!
NDOW has placed equal focus on all big game species in the Silver State. Nevada is home to seven different big game ungulates; desert bighorn sheep, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, California bighorn sheep, pronghorn antelope, Rocky Mountain elk, Rocky Mountain goats, and mule deer. Of those seven, six are experiencing extremely positive growth trends. The only highly, selective browser in the group, mule deer, has experienced a moderate decline.
The time has come to stop the rhetoric and dissemination of misinformation and focus on what we can do together to improve conditions for mule deer. What is important is doing good things for mule deer and all the other wildlife in this state. This is what I have been charged to do by the Governor and I take that charge very seriously — I have dedicated my entire life to wildlife management.
The Department of Wildlife is by law and training the wildlife experts for the state of Nevada. We exercise this responsibility by working with the public, individually and through the Commission process to meet expectations, where we can. The majority of the time we can easily meet these expectations. However, we must base our action on science and when the science is unclear, we rely on our extensive experience.
The department consists of a staff of dedicated, passionate, and knowledgeable biologists. They bring hundreds of years of education and experience to the job. Moreover, many are hunters and fisherman themselves. It is with that knowledge and passion (professional and personal) we approach the management of mule deer and all the other wildlife in this great state. To think for a minute we do not care or take our responsibilities lightly, you would be wrong!
Managing wildlife inevitably has an emotional side, as people who are engaged bring their passion and beliefs to the discussion. Through this process we will have honest differences of opinion that we need to work through, honestly and productively. I respect and appreciate the passion of Hunter’s Alert and Nevada Alliance 4 Wildlife for the mule deer resource. However, I believe we must start working on actually improving conditions for deer instead of arguing about technical issues or who gets the credit for getting the job done.