Weblog

AB 259 has generated emails and letters like no other so far this session. The bill’s preamble has understandably caused concern:

AN ACT relating to wildlife; classifying a wild mountain lion as an unprotected mammal; designating the Department of Wildlife as the Department of Fish and Game; placing the Department under the control of the Board of Wildlife Commissioners; authorizing the Commission to adopt regulations for the hunting, killing or nonlethal control of mountain lions from an aircraft; revising certain provisions relating to the use of a spring gun, set gun or other device for the destruction of a mountain lion; making an appropriation; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.

Immediately upon the introduction of this bill, emails from concerned individuals across the country came in. The vision of shooting cougars from helicopters was just too much for many.

But as passionate as those opinions were, they missed the point of the bill.

The bill was meant to draw attention to the problem of predation mountain lions pose to our deer herds. While other big game species have been on the rebound, the deer population has been declining in recent years. Cited as reasons are wild land fires, urban development, water scarcity, and… yes, mountain lions.

I don’t dispute the impact mountain lions have on our deer herds. But I do not support AB 259, and not necessarily because of the reasons cited by people concerned about the methods listed in the preamble.

At the hearing it was very apparent the sportsmen’s community was also opposed to 259, for some very specific reasons, with which I concur:

1. Removing the mountain lion from the big game list would have a negative impact on existing sporting opportunities and be a step backward for wildlife management.

Wildlife, big game or otherwise, need biologically-based, scientifically-sound management. Under the existing status, tags can be issued for mountain lions to be hunted, but the species can also be studied, and such programs can be funded through the sales of tags. Making a declaration that the animal is unprotected could have the negative impact of actually decreasing hunting opportunities related to mountain lions. Does the Department of Wildlife need to do more to manage mountain lions and their impact on deer? Yes, but removing them from scientific management will not accomplish this.

2. Removing the mountain lion from the big game list sets a bad precedent for the management of wildlife.

While other western states have experienced ballot initiatives from those who are against hunting, Nevada has been relatively free from these fights, primarily because the ethics and biological aspects of our sport have been deliberated and managed by county game boards and the Nevada Wildlife Commission. Under this system, sportsmen, conservationists and wildlife biologists can come together and address hunting seasons, methods, and other issues in a constructive manner, responsive to changing population conditions, and in the context of preserving and promoting our wildlife heritage as Nevadans.

Setting a species-specific management decision in the Nevada Revised Statutes results in decreased management flexibility and opens the door to anti-hunting organizations managing our wildlife for us. Do we really want to see ballot initiatives restricting our ability to manage other species?

3. Renaming the Nevada Department of Wildlife to the Nevada Department of Fish and Game is an inappropriate use of scarce sportsmen dollars and divides sporting and non-sporting conservationists by denigrating their partnership contributing to the management our wildlife.

The Nevada Division of Wildlife is almost exclusively funded by sportsmen. Whether it’s money we spend on licenses and tags that go to the Department or through the federal excise taxes we pay on guns, ammo or fishing tackle, sportsmen fund the agency charged with taking care of our wildlife. The backers of this proposal to change the name express concern that this money is being spent on non-game wildlife management. They have a point, and this is another issue: it’s time for the general fund to provide money the Department can match against federal dollars to perform non-game wildlife management.

But just as it makes sense for the Department to manage game and non-game species (we’re talking interconnected systems here) it’s also appropriate for sporting and non-sporting conservationists to join together in managing and promoting our wildlife heritage. People who care about our wildlife put in countless hours rehabilitating riparian habitat along the Truckee river or forage areas for deer in our high desert steppes as they recover from wild fires. Combining these efforts is key to protecting what we love about Nevada, and it makes sense to have one agency managing our wildlife, the Department of Wildlife, as a partner in these efforts. Renaming the agency is a rhetorical flourish that will, at best, result only in the expense of our scarce money being used to make new signs, print new letterhead, and repaint trucks. At worst, it communicates a disinterest in supporting the successful partnerships our state enjoys from volunteers who care about our wildlife.

The backers of this bill have been successful in making their point: more should be done to manage mountain lions. But removing the animal from management as a big game species and changing the name of the department is not the way to go about it.

For these reasons, I will be voting no on AB 259.

UPDATE: The committee amended the bill this afternoon to remove the department name change, take out the removal of the mountain lion from the big game list, and send the bill to Ways and Means. The vote on the motion was 10 to 1, with the bill’s sponsor the lone “no” vote.

If you haven’t already, please join Sportsmen for Bobzien to stay up on news about issues of concern to sportsmen.

Posted in Issues, We Love Nevada, Legislature. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.