'Apex' and 'keystone' species are animals that have a disproportionate effect on the orderliness, diversity, and sustainability of the biological communities in which they live. Wildlife management agencies should act accordingly. (Nevada Department of Wildlife photo)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

Sixty years ago, an ecology professor from the University of Washington traveled to the Washington coastline to conduct a simple yet revealing experiment.

He selected two separate distinct rocky patches of coastline with common characteristics. Each patch contained a similar mixture of marine organisms, ranging from limpets, snails, and mussel up to and including an orange starfish, the primary (or apex) species of that small ecosystem.

Using one of the two rocky patches as the experimental platform and the other as the control, the professor made monthly visits to the coast, tossing out every starfish he found from the experimental location while leaving the control site untouched.

After a year, he documented dramatic changes which occurred in the altered site where starfish had been discarded.

Mussels, the main prey item for the starfish, had ‘flourished spectacularly’ in the absence of starfish, destroying the impressive diversity of organisms previously found and creating a near-monoculture of mussels.

The second rocky patch left intact (no starfish removed) showed continued diversity and ecological health.

The inescapable conclusion was that “one particular kind of animal wielded a disproportionately large hand in determining how many species shared the rock.”

Biodiversity in that tiny marine ecosystem took a major “hit” when starfish were removed.

That simple but elegant and revealing experiment is recorded in Will Stolzenburg’s seminal 2008 book, Where the Wild Things Were.

Stolzenburg takes his readers on a trip around the globe, providing multiple additional examples of how the integrity and diversity of complex fauna ecosystems depends upon all the players being present.

All animals are not equal. Some species are more important to an intact diverse ecosystem than others. This fact requires an adjustment to the terminology used to reference these differences.

What’s in a word?

Humans are recognized as the planet’s most prolific ‘predator’. Yet, ‘sportsman’ or ‘hunter’ are terms used by wildlife management agencies to describe their licensees.

Similarly, describing a mountain lion, wolf, or even a starfish as a ‘predator’ without further specification and with the implicit assumption that all necessary and sufficient knowledge about the creature is contained within the term itself, is no longer scientifically tenable.

‘Apex species’ or ‘apex predator’ is now replacing ‘predator’ as a more modern expression of the specific kind of importance that species brings to its environment.

‘Keystone species’ is another related modern term used to reference valuable contributions by other species, somewhat different in nature and scope.

For example, the lightly regarded jackrabbit, commonly seen across the West, can be considered a ‘keystone’ species because of the wide spectrum of other wildlife species which depend on it as a food source.

Bobcats, coyotes, mountain lions, hawks, owls, eagles, ravens, bugs and beetles and others are highly dependent on various rabbit species for survival.

The profound importance of apex and keystone species – those animals which have a disproportionate effect on the orderliness, diversity, and sustainability of the biological communities in which they live – is increasingly well- known and described in scientific literature.

What, then, does a starfish and a mountain lion have in common, you ask?

Both are apex species.

The mountain lion is an apex species in Nevada.

Given its status as such, a reasonable question to ask is whether the mountain lion is being managed in Nevada with recognition of its importance and in accordance with best available science?

Unfortunately, answering in the affirmative is not an option.

The reasons are complex and have a lot to do with mythology and emotion rather than science.

Let’s consider an egregious example which involves another prominent Nevada wildlife species, bighorn sheep. But with a big difference.

Bighorns are neither an apex nor keystone species.

A few weeks ago, the Joint Interim Standing Committee on Natural Resources (ISC) at the Nevada Legislature conducted a review of two state commissions dealing with natural resources, one of which was the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners (NBWC).

The general question under consideration by the ISC was whether and to what degree the composition of the two politically appointed commissions reflects the current demographics and other characteristics of Nevada’s three million citizens.

Are these commissions sufficiently democratic in nature to dispense fair and equitable management to benefit all Nevadans rather than special interest groups?

When the ISC reviewed the NBWC, it heard presentations by the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW), NBWC, hunter advocacy groups, wildlife advocates and social justice groups.

The hunter advocacy presentation focused on Nevada’s bighorn sheep program which, over many years, has succeeded in producing a bighorn population in Nevada that exceeds all other states except Alaska.

The highlight of the presentation – perhaps somewhat self-congratulatory in the process – was a glossy, exciting video clip of the simultaneous release of several bighorn sheep into a new mountain environment after having been captured and transported from elsewhere.

A viewer might understandably have been left with the impression that something akin to magic had occurred, a win-win, that all involved with the project left with ‘clean hands.’

Yet, there was a dark side, not mentioned by the presenters, nor by NDOW/NBWC.

Nature’s regulators

Over the past twenty years, mountain lions have paid a significant price.

Approximately 250 mountain lions have been deliberately hunted down and killed by Nevada Wildlife Services, the federal government predator killing program, hired by NDOW/NBWC to do so.

These lions were not killed because of livestock depredation, taking personal pets, or endangering public safety.

Nor were they killed because it was shown beyond a reasonable doubt that they were interfering with the success of the bighorn program.

They were killed simply because they lived on public lands near bighorn sheep or where NDOW/NBWC were contemplating a new release.

Mountain lions and bighorn sheep have lived together for eons of time.

Some mountain lions occasionally kill and eat bighorns as part of their natural diet. Other lions, perhaps most, prefer deer. An occasional lion may specialize in bighorns as a dietary item.

None of that constitutes a legitimate reason to destroy an apex species – a charismatic public asset as well – on a hope and a prayer that somehow it will benefit the proliferation of bighorn sheep in a state where the species is already doing well.

In critical ways, wildlife management of apex species in Nevada and around the West is not about science, despite agency claims to the contrary.

This ‘war on predators’ is wildlife management agencies picking winners and losers based on personal value judgements of licensees, agencies, and wildlife commissions.

It is about wildlife management agencies and licensees assigning certain wildlife species a ‘most favored’ status while diminishing other species-inconvenient to them-to a lesser, even disposable status.

It is also contrary to the public’s increasing interest in biodiversity as measured by public surveys.

When the public in Nevada hears pronouncements from wildlife officials or licensees about their love and concern for ‘wildlife’, in truth they are speaking almost exclusively about mule deer, elk, pronghorn (antelope) and bighorn sheep.

Mountain lions, coyotes, ravens, jackrabbits, and other species do not share that designation, even though many such species have important roles in our ecosystem as Nature’s regulators, janitors, food sources and other duties.

As science moves ahead in its relentless process of discovering new and important things about critical apex/keystone species and how to create and protect biodiversity, wildlife management agencies seem stuck in the past, operating with ancient mythology and outdated ideas regarding predator/prey relationships that were popular 100 years ago.

Could this mean, then, that wildlife management agencies, hanging on to wildlife management practices easily challenged by current science, will become even less observant of science in the face of advancing knowledge?

If wildlife management agencies in Nevada and across the West continue their ‘war’ on apex species such as coyotes, ravens, wolves, mountain lions, grizzly bears, seals, cormorants, and other species under the mistaken impression that the public agrees with this decades-old, discredited philosophy, perhaps a changing of the guard will come sooner than later.

You’ve had your chance.

Now it’s time for democracy, fairness, and biodiversity to come to the table.

The post A starfish and a mountain lion walk into a bar: A look at the dark side appeared first on Nevada Current.

In March 2024, Nevada got its first-ever moose hunt. Who knew? (Photo from Nevada Department of Wildlife "Shiras Moose" webpage)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

When politicians threaten to eliminate Social Security, it is compared to touching the ‘third rail’, the one that carries electricity to power the locomotive.  This admonition suggests great political harm may come to the perpetrator; caution is advised.

Taking a close look at hunting and some of its facts and flaws is seen by some as carrying a similar risk.  Idealogues who loudly advocate for hunting and defend it noisily are quick to offer critical comments about those who critique hunting.

Wildlife advocacy groups are often reluctant to state a position on hunting if asked.  They may simply say they are not against hunting, leave it at that and hope for the best.

The question

Is ‘hunting’ a ‘thing’, a solitary, stand-alone entity not divisible or is ‘hunting’ a multi-faceted concept worthy of a look and debate?

Hunter advocacy groups have existed for decades.  They are well organized and successful in their efforts to convince the non-hunting (often naïve) public that hunting is necessary, an important tradition-even a constitutional right- responsible for saving wildlife species from extinction.  

When hunter advocacy groups face a challenge to hunting, their first response is a vigorous claim that the challenger is simply ‘anti-hunting’.  Making this unsupported assertion, in their view, eliminates any ‘standing’ for the challenger and negates the need for further discussion.  

By and large, this strategy has been moderately successful.

State wildlife management agencies have supported this notion by asserting that hunting enjoys 70-80% support from the public.  

The agencies ask the public the following question (or some close version of it):

‘Do you support legal and/or regulated hunting?’

The public response does, indeed, approach 70 percent approval.

Since most of the public is law abiding, it may not be surprising that an activity represented as being legal and regulated receives such approval.   The state agency itself may also benefit from a presumption of good will. 

If given an opportunity to expand its answer, however, the public has a much more nuanced view of hunting.

A look behind the curtain

Most wildlife management in this country is done by the states, all of which have a state agency in charge of the process.  

The federal government has a limited role in wildlife management, such as managing the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and a few others.

State wildlife management agencies collectively form the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AWFA), the national umbrella organization which promotes and protects the interests of its members.

In pursuit of its mission, AWFA closely associates itself with Responsive Management (RM), a survey/research firm that specializes in public relations and attitude survey work related to wildlife management, public attitudes, and other associated concerns.  

Some would argue that RM serves as a ‘mouthpiece’ for AWFA, defending hunting, fishing, and trapping practices against all comers.  

To its credit, RM does conduct public attitude surveys and asks some hard questions. The most recent survey was conducted in 2023.  Let’s take a closer look at the public’s view of hunting.

Public approval regarding the species of wildlife being hunted:

• • Deer:  70%
  • Ducks: 63%
  • Elk: 59%
  • Black bear: 42%
  • Grizzly bear: 39%
  • Mountain lion: 37%
  • African lion:  17%
  • African elephant: 10%

Public approval regarding the reasons for hunting:

• • To protect humans:  78%
  • For conservation of healthy populations:  79%
  • For the meat:  74%
  • For the sport:  37%
  • For the challenge:  32%
  • For a trophy:  22%

Public approval regarding the methods of hunting:

• Bow and arrow:  69%
• Firearms:  66%
• Using dogs:  52%
• Using bait:  37%
• Using high-tech assistance: 29%

(The percentages shown above are overall approval ratings, a combination of ‘strongly approve’ and ‘moderately approve.)

Clearly, attempts by state wildlife management agencies to paint ‘hunting’ as a unitary, indivisible, not-to-be-questioned, stand-alone entity, basking in the glow of a 70% approval rating is a fiction. 

Is hunting necessary and based on science?

There has never been a scientific study that says hunting is a necessary condition for wildlife to live and prosper on this planet.

Try googling to find clear and convincing scientific evidence that hunting, in the distant past or at present, is a requirement for animal populations to exist in stable equilibrium on the planet. 

Generally, what you find are opinion statements from hunter advocacy groups espousing hunting for various self-serving reasons:  it creates jobs, hunters are God’s stewards managing animals, it’s a tradition, humans are meat-eaters, and the like.

In today’s world of wildlife management, science resembles more of a numbers game. To do ‘sustainable’ wildlife management; that is to maintain a stable base population while providing sufficient ‘surplus’ animals each year for hunters to ‘harvest’, data collection does occur. 

Agencies survey some game species by aerial or other means, collect data from dead animals killed by hunters, sort by age, sex and other measurements, keep track of the newborn of the year, e.g. number of deer fawns per doe. 

Wildlife professionals also know biological facts about wildlife species such as breeding season, average litter size, how long cubs stay with their mother, anticipated first-year natural mortality, whether a species is resilient and tolerant of hunting and more.  

Many such things are known to the professionals.

The next question is whether and to what degree science, data collection and biology play into the following limited list of questions routinely considered by decision-makers in deciding to hunt an animal?

Can we have a hunt?  Should we have a hunt?   

Are quotas necessary? What time of the year should hunting be allowed and for how long?  Should only males be killed, or can females also be ‘harvested’?  Should age limits be observed?

Should hunting be restricted to daylight hours only or allowed around the clock? Can spotlights be used or night vision goggles?  

Should dogs be allowed to chase and contain the animal to await the hunter?  How about baited traps?  

Can trail cameras at water holes be used to identify the biggest deer or elk in the area to offer to a client from out of state who will hire the guide to bring him to the big kill?  

How about using drones to quickly scan an area looking for the biggest bucks?  Should ATVs be allowed everywhere to facilitate hunter access otherwise difficult to do on foot?

Should laser gun sights and thermal (night) imaging scopes be legal without limitations?

These and many, many similar, highly subjective questions and their answers are what makes up wildlife management today.  

Can you see a way for data collection and biological facts to answer these kinds of questions fully?  

Or is it painfully clear that personal value judgements – opinions if you will – are the final common pathway to many of these decisions.  

While scientific data may play a part in the process, science simply has no answers for many of the questions that wildlife commissions consider in whether to hunt a species and under what conditions it will occur.

Nevada has a moose hunt.  Who knew?

In March 2024, Nevada got its first-ever moose hunt. 

Over the past half-dozen years, a few moose have drifted into the state from the north, mostly ending up in N.E. Nevada.  According to the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) there are just over 100 animals in total.

Even though male/female numbers may be similar, NDOW suggests there should be a male/female imbalance.  

Since moose are not monogamous, fewer bull moose are needed to assure sufficient insemination of available cows.  More bull moose than necessary may exert excessive pressure on the cows in pursuit of a breeding opportunity. 

 So goes NDOW’s theory.

What better opportunity, then, to have Nevada’s first bull moose hunt – ‘harvesting’ a few bull moose for the benefit of the cows in our tiny moose population!

There are 11 states in the lower 48 that allow moose hunting.  Of those states, Maine has the largest moose population with about 60,000 animals.  Utah and Montana have moose populations above 2000 animals.  

Until Nevada stepped into the picture, North Dakota had the distinction of having the smallest moose population with 500 animals.  Now Nevada occupies that spot with our estimated 100 animals.  

Actually, though, our moose hunt may involve no more than 50 animals since only males will be pursued for the kill.  

Even if you’re not familiar with the trappings of science: things like the Null Hypothesis, double blind studies, statistical significance, importance of sample size, random versus non-random data, modeling assumptions and the like, does our tiny boutique moose hunt sound like a well-reasoned, scientifically based decision?

Could it be that science has little if anything to do with it, maybe nothing more than ‘hunter opportunity’?

What is ‘hunter opportunity’ you ask?  The ‘thrill of the kill’ trumps the intrinsic value of the victim’s life. 

Could there be a non-scientific motive for the hunt, perhaps something more disquieting?

KRNV Channel 4, the Reno NBC outlet, carried a story shortly before the moose hunt was established.  The story ended with an NDOW wildlife biologist having the final word.

The applications will cost $10. The tags will cost $120 for Nevada residents and $1,200 for non-residents.

“Whether we get 7,000 to 8,000 applications, that’s going to equate to about $70,000 or $80,000 for the department, maybe enough to buy a pickup truck.” 

You decide.

The post What does the public really think about hunting? appeared first on Nevada Current.

Habitat, not predators, is the major factor determining mule deer numbers in Nevada. (Photo: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

Are coyotes and mountain lions the reason Nevada’s mule deer population rests well below historic high levels?  Or is it the changing landscape and habitat in this most arid of states?

You’ve probably guessed the answer.  Here’s some of the story.

In the 1800s when wagon trains, explorers, miners, and prospectors were traveling and living in Nevada, the only ungulates (hoofed animals) present in significant numbers were pronghorn (antelope) and bighorn sheep. Deer were scarce to absent.

In the early 1900s, mule deer were imported to Nevada by railroad and turned loose in eastern Nevada to serve as meat for mining camps. Deer hunting was probably a motive, too.

While bighorn sheep are the “Apple of their Eye”, mule deer are the “meat and potatoes” of Nevada’s ungulate species. Deer hunting has a long tradition, from “feeding the family” to trophy mounts or severed heads to hang from a wall. The Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) depends on deer hunting for predictable income. Deer tag sales easily outnumber those of other game species.

Purchasing a hunting license (NDOW has no limit on license sales) allows the licensee to apply for a deer tag. The chance of obtaining a tag depends on how many hunters apply and how many deer tags are available. (The process of deciding who gets a deer tag is called a tag draw…a kind of lottery.)

Recently, the number of hunters applying for a deer tag (residents and out-of-state applicants combined) is in the range of 60,000 to 80,000. Tag numbers are approximately 20% of the estimated mule deer population for the year (low 90,000s in recent years) or about 18,000 tags. The odds of getting a deer tag are 25-30%. 

Deer numbers have fluctuated dramatically, twice exceeding 200,000 animals, in the mid-1960s, and the mid-1980s. Since then, mule deer numbers have steadily declined to present levels of just over 90,000.  

(Note: Mule deer numbers have also declined elsewhere around the West.)

Nevada’s deer hunters became concerned as they witnessed the persistent decline of herd numbers during the 1990s. Erroneously believing that coyotes and mountain lions were responsible, a few sportsmen and a Las Vegas legislator convinced the 2001 Nevada Legislature to enact a $3 “predator fee” to “save Nevada’s deer herds.”  

The law added a $3 surcharge to all game tag applications (NRS 502.253) received by NDOW with the money dedicated to a predator management program which originally included  lethal options (killing coyotes and mountain lions), research, habitat work, and public education. None of the four choices originally weighed more heavily than another.

In 2003, NDOW and the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners (NBWC) began regular contracting with the U.S. Department of Agriculture/APHIS/Wildlife Services (WS) for the killing of coyotes and mountain lions, so-called projects targeting specific areas of the state. The naïve expectation was that mule deer numbers would increase with the killing of lions and coyotes. That did not happen.

(Note:  WS is a federal program dedicated to protecting agriculture and domestic livestock producers. WS kills well over a million animals and birds every year. Its name suggests a misnomer.) 

By 2015, mule deer numbers had declined by 30,000 animals from FY 2000 levels. NDOW and NBWC were criticized as being “predator friendly” (not killing enough coyotes and mountain lions). The Republican controlled Legislature enacted a requirement (NRS 502.253 4. (b)) that NDOW/NBWC spend 80% of all predator fee monies on lethal projects regardless of demonstrated need. 

(Note: Predator fee revenue is approaching $1 million/year.)

In 2017, the Nevada Legislature repealed the 80% lethal mandate, but the bill was vetoed by Gov.  Brian Sandoval, supposedly because of a party-line vote.

How well has this “war” on coyotes and mountain lions worked out for mule deer?  NDOW project data from FY 2000 – FY 2020 provides a clue:

• Spent:  $4, 454, 726
• Coyotes killed:  10,381
• Mountain lions killed:  207
• Mule deer numbers (NDOW annual estimates):  
  • FY 2000 – 133,000
  • FY 2010 – 107,000
  • FY 2015 – 99,000
  • FY 2020 – 92,000

(Note:  Every year in Nevada, approximately  8,000 to 10,000 coyotes and  200 mountain lions are killed from all causes of mortality.)

Hiring WS to kill coyotes and mountain lions is costly. Based on rough estimates from specific projects targeting coyotes and lions (comparing money spent versus number killed), NBWC is willing to pay these costs:

• Approximate cost to kill one coyote: $500 – $600
• Approximate cost to kill one mountain lion: $2500 – over $10,000+

In 2004, Tony Wasley, then NDOW mule deer biologist, published a comprehensive 70-page monograph regarding the history and status of mule deer in Nevada.  His concluding sentence in the summary reads as follows:

We must actively protect existing mule deer habitat while we create and restore new mule deer habitat because the reality remains that as mule deer habitat goes, so goes the mule deer. 

Six years later, Kelley Stewart, Ph.D., UNR Natural Resources and Environmental Science Department, and Wasley, (then an NDOW biologist; now NDOW Director) co-authored a paper entitled, “Effects of Predator Removal on Mule Deer Populations in Elko County, Nevada.” They looked at data from two areas:  Granite Range (north of Gerlach) and Ruby Mountains (south of Elko) where multi-year predator killing projects to benefit mule deer occurred.  

While their paper was never published, it was presented at two scientific meetings. They were unable to show a benefit for mule deer in either area.

Both authors made similar comments regarding lack of effectiveness of predator control for mule deer enhancement in an interview with Tom Knudson, Pulitzer Prize winning reporter, published in the Sacramento Bee in 2012.

What did sportsmen get wrong with the $3 predator fee and the 80% lethal mandate?  The answer is habitat, not predators, is the major factor determining mule deer numbers in Nevada.

Why does it matter that this pointless killing of coyotes and mountain lions is taking place as you read this piece? The answer is it amounts to unwarranted and unnecessary destruction of public property which, under most circumstances, is a crime. 

What could be done to benefit mule deer?  

Suppose NDOW/NBWC took $500,000, annually, from predator fee revenue, matched it 3:1 (one state dollar gets three federal dollars) with Pittman-Robertson federal excise tax funds and provided NDOW’s Habitat Division with $2 million every year to use for critical habitat restoration or important research.  How could that not be more useful for mule deer than the existing failed predator management strategy?

What if the $4 million+ spent so far killing coyotes and mountain lions had been converted (via 3:1 match) to $16 million and spent on habitat improvements over the past 20 years?  Would mule deer numbers look the same today?

(Note:  Pittman-Robertson federal excise tax dollars cannot be used for predator killing.)

Coyotes and mountain lions do not belong to sportsmen, NDOW or NBWC.  According to NRS 501.100, wildlife belongs to all Nevadans as part of the Public Trust Doctrine (which NBWC recognizes by policy statement). 

The Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners, as trustees of Nevada’s wildlife heritage on behalf of all Nevadans, should ask the Nevada Legislature to remove the 80% lethal mandate. With added flexibility, programs for mule deer enhancement based on science and sound data instead of erroneous ancient stereotypes could be implemented with a higher likelihood of success.

The post Nevada’s mule deer ‘problem’: It’s not what they say appeared first on Nevada Current.

(Nevada Department of Wildlife photo)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

In 2018, the nation’s fish and wildlife agencies in conjunction with their own polling agency and a couple of universities conducted a national survey of public attitudes regarding a variety of wildlife management issues and values. Nearly 44,000 citizens were queried as to their preferences. 

The respondents were grouped into four categories: Traditionalist, Mutualist, Pluralist and Indifferent. Traditionalists regard wildlife as a commodity or product to be “harvested”; Mutualists advocate treating wildlife with respect and tolerance; Pluralists are a combination of those two categories; Indifferents had little interest in the topic.

Among the topics explored in the survey, anthropomorphism (the attribution of human characteristics to non-human species) drew interesting responses. Mutualists and Pluralists were nearly identical in their views (shown below as a combined average of the two categories). 

• Do animals have Free Will? 66% agreed.
• Do animals have Intentions? 70% agreed. 
• Do animals have Consciousness? 75% agreed.
• Do animals have Minds of Their Own? 85% agreed
• Do animals have Emotions? 85% agreed

(Traditionalists scored much lower on all items.)

Wildlife management agencies, including the Nevada Department of Wildlife, do NOT as a rule, manage wildlife species by individual. Jack Robb, Deputy Director, Nevada Department of Wildlife said recently, “We don’t manage animals. We manage populations.”   

Game species in Nevada can range in population numbers from mountain goats and bears (300-400) to mountain lions (1,400), bighorn sheep (12,000), elk (17,000), pronghorn (29,000) and mule deer (93,000).  

Based upon the emerging and emphatic public attitudes regarding anthropomorphism, wildlife management agencies such as the Nevada Department of Wildlife are facing new management challenges. How can the agency continue to manage for “populations” when most of the public sees important human-like characteristics to be present in wildlife species that the public “owns” and enjoys as a Public Trust asset? Does the notion of managing only “populations’ need to be flexible in certain situations?

Turning to our case in point, there is no question the public sees the bear as one of several iconic wildlife species, alongside the bald eagle, wolf, bighorn sheep and others. Bears have their homes, their friends, their habits. Tahoe residents know them by name, by lineage, by where they live, by their relatives, by their personalities, their quirks, their preferences.

The unpopular black bear hunt in Nevada was created in 2010 (after an 80-year absence) by the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners. The first bear hunt occurred in 2011.

Nevada has a sparse black bear population numbering a few hundred (400 +/-) animals living mostly along the Sierra Front and close-by mountain ranges. A quota of 20 bears represents the number of adult bears (male/female) that can be killed each year. The hunting season runs from September – November.

Here’s a question:  Why have a black bear hunt given such a small population? Is there some biological or “management” reason to kill up to 20 bears/year, particularly when 30-40 bears/year are killed by vehicle collisions, other accidents, or by the Nevada Department of Wildlife for urban/bear conflicts?  

Here’s what we know are NOT reasons for the bear hunt:

• The Nevada black bear hunt is NOT for management purposes, that is to control the bear population or to manage urban/bear conflicts in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The Nevada Department of Wildlife confirms this.
• Hunting black bears in Nevada is NOT a way to improve their status or quality. Bears are not killed in a random manner but according to characteristics attractive to the hunter. Targeted animals are often the largest, most attractive (color, size, other features) and successful in their environment. Removing these bears deprives the remaining (limited) population of valuable future genetic contributions.
• The black bear hunt has nothing to do with assuring public safety. There is no record of a fatal human/black bear encounter in Nevada’s modern history.

What, then is the rationale for Nevada’s black bear hunt?  The answer is simply stated: “Hunter Opportunity.”

Although absent in Nevada Revised Statutes, Nevada Administrative Code, or agency regulations, the term “hunter opportunity” is a behind-the-scenes, often unspoken, but powerful motivational factor that highly influences decisions by the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners (most of whom are Traditionalists).  “Hunter opportunity” often trumps other management options more favorable to wildlife.

We now have the ingredients to respond to the title of our piece.  Given Nevada’s unique circumstances regarding its limited black bear population, here is the key question:

Does “hunter opportunity” …. the ability for a hunter to get an adrenaline rush by killing a bear … outweigh the worth of the life of that individual bear being killed?

We think not. What’s your answer?

The post What is the worth of a bear’s life? appeared first on Nevada Current.