Carla Bowers has made a nice contribution as an advocate for our wild horses and burros by pulling together very interesting numbers and questions regarding this issue.  These numbers were current as of 3 years ago and probably haven’t changed much. Carla’s contact information is at the bottom.  For more information, read here…

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.

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

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.

(EXPEDITED HEARING REQUESTED)

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

Laura Bies, Director of Government Affairs

The Wildlife Society

5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 200

Bethesda, Maryland  20814-2144 

Regarding:  TWS publication:  FERAL HORSES:  GET THE FACTS 

Dear Ms Bies 

Recently, a friend sent me your above-referenced 4-page article which I’d not seen before.  Though there is no date or authorship designated, it appears that the piece was probably issued within the past 3-4 years. 

Though the Wildlife Society touts its members professional credentials early on as the authority on this matter, claiming as an organization to purse the “highest standards” and be “committed to science-based policy”, it struck me as odd that TWS used the term, “Feral” in the title instead of “Wild Horse” which is, of course,  the legal designation for many of the horses living full-time on public lands in the West.  continue reading