NV BHA Comments on Predator Management Plan

August 1, 2013

To: Jack Robb, Chair, Wildlife Commissioners & Michael McBeath, Chair, Wildlife Damage Management Committee

Re: Predator Management Policy & Predator Management Plan


Dear, Chairmen Robb and McBeath,


The NV Chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers continues to support the concepts of AB 345, which sought to ensure sportsmen's tag fee monies be spent more spent effectively and wisely than in the past. Excellent provisions were included such as:

Ensuring science-based wildlife management

Reapportionment of some monies to fund mitigation and monitoring of habitat restoration projects.

Funding research to determine most effective (and thus cost-effective) ways to retain and/or restore healthy wildlife habitat and populations.

Establish research and project policy which is area specific, includes demonstrated purpose and need, requires reporting of results to show sportsman's dollars are spent efficiently and effectively.

Although Governor Sandoval did not sign this legislation, he rightly pointed out that those authorities are already authorized under NRS 502.253 1 © – NDOW and the Wildlife Commission only need choose to use them. We urge you to do so.

The revised Policy 23 expresses intent to move in the direction of research and predator management where need is demonstrated. We urge you to adopt the intent of this policy.

The Predation Management Plan for 2014 also includes steps in the right direction: much needed sage grouse research projects (29,30, 33 & 34). These results will further NDOW's role as the science-based agency to contribute critical data to the NV State Sage Grouse Plan.

The PM Plan also has 2 area-specific predation projects (21-02 & 22-14) for sage grouse & mule deer. We suspect those might be more effective than the 2 statewide projects (21 & 22). We urge you to examine all 4 carefully for cost-effectiveness.

Lastly, we are concerned to see the Granite Range carnivore control remains on the proposed PMP list. This project is the very most expensive, twice that of any others, and yet has already demonstrated over many years that it is not achieving the goal of mule deer population augmentation. This project should be dropped so as not to throw good sportsman's dollars after bad.

Thank you for your consideration of our comments and concerns and especially for all the hard work and hard decisions you make on behalf of all Nevada's wildlife and those of us who so value the health and habitat health of that precious resource.

Karen Boeger, Board member

NV Chapter, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers

About Nevada BHA Chapter

See other posts related to Nevada BHA Nevada issues