Why we allow trappers on our Facebook page

I’ve been asked why we allow trapping advocates on our Facebook page.   I’d like to say that we believe open dialog will help find common ground, but there’s little evidence to support that. While I still hope for meaningful dialog, here’s another reason we not only allow but encourage them.

Our lawsuit against the Commission and NDoW is based, in part, on the idea that the processes have been unfairly biased in favor of the voice of a few tappers at the expense of the general public; that this bias is by design; that the Commission has been co-opted by the trappers who control the process through a combination of bullying and coercion, while the Commission has substituted trappers’ wishes in place of science; that democracy is for sale in Nevada and wildlife is being managing as the personal property of the trappers. In short, our Wildlife Commission has sold out and can no longer be trusted to act in good faith on our behalf.

The more we draw trapping advocates into the light, the more we get them to speak openly, the better for our case. Everything posted here can be used as evidence in court – they’re making our case.

2012 US Census: Wildlife Viewing

According to the latest census data, 72 million Americans participated in wildlife viewing, adding $55 billion to the US economy.  About 14 million Americans hunted, adding $34 billion.  Anglers totaled 33 million people and added $48 billion.   Click here for the report.

Do Sportsmen Really Pay for Wildlife????

If one looks to see who stands up and asserts that sportsmen “pay for wildlife”, it turns out to be persons who buy a hunting or trapping license and tags, and who hunt or trap wildlife as a primary focus of his/her outdoor activities. These folks are not 16 year-old kids with a fishing license, or some guy who has a boat registered through the agency. These sportsmen are hunters or trappers and that is why, for purposes of this discussion, I have defined a sportsman who claims to “pay” for wildlife as someone who purchases a hunting or trapping … continue reading here

How is NDoW funded?

In 2002, NDoW received $27.5 million from the Question 1 Bond, and this bond is paid back from Nevada’s general fund.  The Q.1 fund has subsidized NDoW operations every year since 2003. (source: NDOW web page & report to Senate subcommittee, 2012).

Between 2006 & 2013 NDoW received $12.7 million from Nevada’s General and Tourism funds, or about 7.7% of the total operating budget. NDoW receives funding from 43 revenue sources, most of them not separately reported. (source: NDoW report to the Senate Finance, Assembly Ways & Means Natural Resource Joint Subcommittee, Feb. 2011).

FY2012-13 budget: 13% of NDoW’s revenue came from boating licenses and fees, 29.1% from hunting & fishing licenses and fees, 5.9% from the Nevada general fund and unclassified “other” sources, 42% came from federal tax transfers (about 14% of which comes from hunting and fishing, according to some estimates). (source: NDoW FY2012-2013 biennial budget).

FY2014-15 budget: NDoW’s operation budget will increase by a whooping 21.8% over fiscal 2012.   The total revenue includes 28.2% from Ruby Pipeline LLC (direct payment for offsets & mitigations), 4.2% comes from the 2002 Question 1 bond fund, 29% from hunting & fishing (licenses, tags and stamps), 13% from boating (licenses, inspection fees), and the balance from a combination of federal & state tax revenue. (source: NDOW FY2014-2015 budget).

Closing note: NDoW changes their reporting methods nearly every year, in part because their internal tracking system is very limited (that according to their director) and in part to “sell” their ever-increasing budget to the legislature.  One example: in prior years they reported license, tag and stamp sales in one category (with hunting and fishing separated) and federal tax transfers in another. In their latest budget NDoW is now grouping hunting & fishing revenue with federal taxpayer transfers, making it very difficult for the casual observer to see from whence the money is actually coming   In our figures above we have tried to estimate the more detailed allocations to be consistent year-on-year, but with any such endeavor there is room for error.



Plaintiffs move the Court pursuant to NRCP 7(b)(1), NRCP 65(a), and NRS 30.100, for preliminary and interlocutory injunctive relief enjoining Defendants/Respondents from enforcing the regulation regarding trap visitation intervals, and in turn enjoining the 2014-2015 fur trapping season, until further order of the Court, in order to prevent irreparable injury and to preserve the status quo pending final judgment.   Absent the requested relief, the harm and fatality to non-target animals will be irreparable.  There is a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits.  The public interest is proper and constitutional rule making will be fostered by the relief.

Download pdf to read the remainder of the Injunction

Trapping Myth No. 7: Death by trapping is more humane than death by natural causes

The natural cycle of life and death helps maintain genetic diversity and a strong gene pool. Trapping is indiscriminate. Trapped mothers are killed, leaving litters to die.  Many traps are set on or in creeks to kill by drowning, and some animals suffer for up to 20 minutes under water.   Young animals are killed. Old or sick animals may survive instead of young and healthy, since the healthier animals spend more time foraging and thus cover more ground and are more like to encounter a trap. Trapping does not balance nature; it upsets the balance. There is nothing humane about trapping.

Contact your Government


Some contact information in case you want to write our government and let them know we don’t think this is ok:

  • Governor Sandoval: http://gov.nv.gov/Contact/Email-the-Governor
  • Cory Hunt, Governor’s liaison to Wildlife Commission & NDoW, CTHunt@gov.nv.gov
  • Tony Wasley, Director of NDoW: TWasley@NDoW.org
  • Senator Aaron Ford (author of the 2013 bill intended to increase regulation): Aaron.Ford@Sen.State.nv.us
  • Jeremy Drew, Chairman, Wildlife Commission, and trapping advocate, fshngme@aol.com
  • David McNinch, Wildlife Commissioner & trapping committee chair, DavidMcninch@att.net

Trapping Myth No. 6: Trapping provides important income for many American families

Trapping and fur industry proponents claim trapping provides a viable income for many Americans. However, surveys show that most trappers trap for a little extra income, basically as a hobby with a small commercial incentive. In response to a 1997 API survey, state wildlife agencies indicated that income from trapping was either extremely low or non-existent. A 1992 Missouri Department of Conservation study reported that “approximately 30% of all trappers in 1991 reported no household income from trapping … Most trappers reported earning small incomes from trapping. This suggests that motives other than monetary gain are also important to trappers.

The trapping of wildlife for profit is an anachronism in today’s society, and runs directly counter to The North American Wildlife Conservation Model which bans taking wildlife for commercial gain. Its blatant cruelty can no longer be masked under the guise of economics or wildlife management. However, the trapping/fur lobby is powerful and well-funded, and countering its entrenched political power requires dedicated, passionate citizens who recognize that wildlife has intrinsic worth above and beyond its economic value. We encourage you to get involved.

Pets, Non-Target Species & Trapping

The question of non-target species, and in particular, domestic pets caught by trappers is of concern to many. We know from information obtained from the Nevada Department of Wildlife that a relatively small number of trappers (perhaps between 10-20% of those in the field any given year) reported catching 195 domestic dogs over an 8-year period with 16 of them found dead in traps. Domestic cats numbered 116 caught with 28 found dead in traps during the same time frame. We believe that many more are caught..probably in rural areas…and that missing pets in winter which are blamed on coyotes may have been victims of fur trappers.   These are not just pets let off leash, trapped dogs include working animals, including birding and cattle herding dogs.

And we’ve not mentioned that other species….from pack rats and rabbits to magpies, an occasional golden eagle or owl, on to mountain lions are impacted by fur trappers. Mountain lions in particular are frequently accidentally caught (It is not legal for fur trappers to trap mountain lions in Nevada.). We know of a few cases where a lion has starved to death, or nearly so, due to trap injuries. We know that many others suffer injuries such as missing claws and toes, foot pad injuries, broken bones, dislocate joints, broken or missing teeth, and probable frost bite injury to the portion of the foot below the capture point of the trap in sub-freezing weather. We will be posting some of this information before long for those interested to review.