Tag Archives: NDOW

NDOW Projects 14 & 15: Coyote removal for deer enhancement

Posted on by

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

Abstract
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 Pittman-Robertson & Dingell-Johnston Acts: from where does the money come?

Posted on by

Many state wildlife agencies including the Nevada Dept. of Wildlife get a majority of their funding from federal tax transfers and grants. Most of that money comes from two federal excise tax programs commonly known as the Pittman-Robertson Act (PRA) and the Dingell-Johnston Act (DJA). Sportsmen and wildlife agencies, including our very own NDoW, often claim that this money is principally hunter-generated. As it turns out, that’s demonstrably untrue.

In 2013 the PRA generated 59% of the combined excise tax revenue and the DJA 41%. Here’s the breakdown of revenue (as percentages) by category of activity, according to ATF and USDFW figures:

  • 28% from motorboat & small engine fuel
  • 22% from rifles & shotguns
  • 18% from pistols and revolvers
  • 18% from ammunition
  • 7% from import duties on boats & interest on trust fund deposits
  • 7% from fishing equipment, tackle, trolling motors & archery equipment

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

Posted on by

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.