Click for: NDOW Sage Grouse Killed by Nevada Hunters 2000 – 2013 1Sage grouse


Since the year 2000, Nevada hunters have killed over 60,000 sage grouse in Nevada while, at the same time, the bird has been subject to much scrutiny as to whether it warrants listing under ESA.  Here’s the weird part:  the Nevada Department of Wildlife and the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners  claim that this killing actually benefits or does no harm to the bird….a notion called compensatory mortality…a notion used to justify all hunting and trapping.  The contrary notion….additive mortality….is what happens when one raven takes one egg from a sage grouse nest and chaos ensues for sage grouse.  Such is the state of “notions” these days in wildlife management regarding sage grouse hunting by human predators.

Nevada Bobcat Trapping Data Statewide Summary 1980-2014

Picture of Mountain Lion in Trap
Click NDOW Summary Bobcat tooth data, statewide, 1980-2014

Juvenile Survival is one of the measures of bobcat “health”.  As this data shows, juvenile survival has been problematic the past 15 years in Nevada. While the reader can see what assumptions were used to calculate percentages (based upon the California Fish and Game Department formula), the Nevada Department of Wildlife has no such assumptions that have ever been made public so accountability for its management/non-management has never been possible.

Wildlife Management Funding in the U.S.

Wildlife Conservation & Management Funding in the U.S.

By Mark E. Smith and Donald A. Molde

October 2014 (updated 21 June 2015)


The authors present a novel approach to help answer the question “Who really pays for wildlife in the U.S?” Using public information about budgets of various conservation, wildlife advocacy, and land management agencies and non-profit organizations, published studies and educated assumptions regarding sources of Pittman-Robertson Act and Dingle-Johnson Act federal excise monies from the sale of sporting equipment, the authors contend that approximately 95% of federal, 88% of non-profit, and 94% of total funding for wildlife conservation and management come from the non-hunting public. The authors further contend that a proper understanding and accurate public perception of this funding question is a necessary next step in furthering the current debate as to whether and how much influence the general public should have at the wildlife policy-making level, particularly within state wildlife agencies.

Read the full paper here:  Smith Molde Wildlife Funding spreadsheet Rev F2 19Jun15.

Project Coyote: Scientific analysis of killing contests

This is a superb letter authored by 36 leading scientists, most of whom hold PhD degrees, asking for a prohibition on wildlife killing contests. Their open remarks summarizes the issue very well: “The most general reason to prohibit WKC is that hunters and wildlife managers believe, as a community, that killing an animal without an adequate reason is unjustified and unsportsmanlike. Killing an animal for a price or trophy constitutes killing without an adequate reason. Insomuch as WKC are primarily motivated by killing for a price or trophy, they are wrong.”

Click Project Coyote Coyote Killing Scientist letter for the entire letter.

NDOW Projects 14 & 15: Coyote removal for deer enhancement

Projects 14 & 15, 2/9/2009
C. Schroeder and K. Lansford

We quantified the effects of 5 years of coyote removal in Game Management Units 222 and 231, Lincoln Co., NV during fiscal years (FY) 2003-2008. We summarized trends in coyote age and population structure using data obtained from tooth-age analysis (cementum) of teeth taken from harvested coyotes by Wildlife Services. Mean age of coyotes declined throughout the experimental period in GMU 231 as a result of additively removing coyotes by aerial gunning and ground removals each year. Also, juvenile to adult ratios significantly increased by the end of the experimental period as well as the number of adult males to adult females in the population. Fawn:doe and fawn:adult ratios were not significantly different in years prior to coyote removal compared to years following coyote removal in the experimental areas. Similarly, fawn:doe and fawn:adult ratios were not significantly different in the experimental area (GMU’s 222 and 231) compared to an adjacent population of mule deer in Utah (Unit 30a) during the same period. Other factors may have contributed to fawn survival in these areas.

ClickNDoW Coyote Removal for Deer Enhancementfor the entire study.

The Rewilding Institute

The Rewilding Institute’s Mission:

To develop and promote the ideas and strategies to advance continental-scale conservation in North America, particularly the need for large carnivores and a permeable landscape for their movement, and to offer a bold, scientifically-credible, practically achievable, and hopeful vision for the future of wild Nature and human civilization in North America.
– See more by clicking HERE>

Can we coexist with predators?

For those who feel they cannot coexist with coyotes, bears, wolves and other predators, here’s an excellent educational resource showing not only how easy coexistence is, but also how ESSENTIAL it is. Every authoritative study has concluded that killing predators creates ecological imbalances which exacerbates human/predator conflicts and causes vast effects throughout the food change, hurting farmers, ranchers, hunters and non-consumptive “users” of wildlife. When on choses to ignore science in favor of killing, we all pay the price.

For Project Coyote, click HERE.