Home Page | Freeing an animal from a steel jaw leghold trap | Conibear Traps | Snare Traps | Leghold Traps | Camouflaged Snare Trap | Articles and Links | Nevada Trapping Laws | Protected Trails | Talking PointsUrban Interface | Mick's Story
  Trapping Myths and Facts
Trap Incidents -- Stories from people throughout Nevada - Pets and Unintended Wildlife getting Trapped


May 27, 2010

NEVADA BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS:
REPORT CARD

Click here to see Dr. Molde's updated Report Card dated June 23, 2010

Effectiveness in using sportsmen’s dollars to enhance the mule deer population in Nevada by killing predators as its only major strategy; an 11-year look.

Table 1.

FISCAL YEAR COYOTES
KILLED
LIONS
KILLED
MULE DEER NUMBERS SPORTSMEN’S
DOLLARS
SPENT
2010     107,000   FY 10 (est)
$557,330
2009     106,000 FY 04-09 (est)
$2 million
2008 9420 215 108,000  
2007 10,468 180 114,000  
2006 8427 154 110,000  
2005 7370 141 107,000  
2004 8454 238 105,000  
2003 6135 170 109,000  FY 00-03
$608,400
2002 5896 209 108,000  
2001 7163 227 129,000  
2000 8215 164 133,000  
TOTALS 71,548 1698 110,000
10-year avg.
$3,165,000
(est)

Explanations for Table 1.

• Coyote kill numbers represent all sources of mortality, and are a combination of numbers from APHIS/Wildlife Services annual activity reports, and from NDOW’s Statewide Fur Harvest summary. Obviously, coyote deaths are somewhat higher than the numbers shown because of unreported coyote killings.

• Lion kill numbers also represent all sources of mortality and are a combination of NDOW’s lion harvest data (sportsmen + depredation) and APHIS/Wildlife Services annual activity reports. Until I am told differently, I do not believe NDOW includes APHIS/Wildlife Services lion kills in its annual summary reports.

• Mule deer population estimates are taken from NDOW’s Big Game Population Estimate History, 1976-2010.

• Coyote and lion kill numbers are not fully available for FY 09-10 because APHIS/Wildlife Services annual activity reports are not posted beyond FY 08 at the present time. However, simple observation/extrapolation of the other table data will allow the reader to make a reasonable judgement as to what the missing numbers will look like when they become available in the future.

• Financial estimates of expenditures by NDOW for FY 04-09 represents my best judgment, based upon an expected annual income of about $350,000 from the predator fee for each of those years, and the amount of carry-over shown in NDOW’s FY 2010 Predator Management Plan budget. I am fairly confident of the FY 00-03 number. The FY 2010 number comes directly from the Predator Management Plan for FY 2010 document.

• NDOW’s financial contracts with APHIS/Wildlife Services do not fund the latter agency’s entire budget, but simply represent reimbursement for work done on behalf of NDOW/Commission. Recently, that financial commitment to APHIS/Wildlife Services represents approximately $250,000 - $400,000/year.

GRADES:

- Creativity/flexibility/ability to adjust strategy/evaluate results: F

- Benefit derived for sportsmen/mule deer/general public
  for resources expended: F

Send all comments, suggestions, opposing ideas to skyshrink@aol.com
Donald A. Molde, M.D

top