Why do we have biologists?

[Big Fin]

In one of the more disturbing trends of ignoring biologists, the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners pulled a real stupid one last week.

Seems the department is pissed that the Commission ignored their recommendations and the recommendations of the County Advisory Boards, and have went on the offensive by issuing press releases such as this one.

Should be interesting to see how it plays out when you have a Commission at odds with a Department and a Director. Not sure what the motive is behind the Commission going so far away from Department/biologist recommendations.

Time will tell. Here is the article and the link from the newswires this morning. http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/story/1305707845bms1yenvxuz

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Commission Denies Sportsmen Access to Deer Hunting

Despite excellent game surveys, good precipitation and increasing populations of deer, the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commission voted to reduce the allocation of mule deer buck tags statewide at its May 14 meeting in Reno.

Against the recommendations of Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) big game biologists, the Commission reduced mule deer buck tags in all but five unit areas, cutting staff recommendations by 25 percent, and reducing mule deer buck tags in five specific hunting units by cutting staff recommendations by 10 percent. The Commission accepted staff recommendations for youth tags.

With these reductions, 11,536 mule deer buck tags were allocated statewide for 2011, compared to the 14,910 recommended by staff, a reduction of over 22 percent from staff recommendations. The Commission-approved 2011 tag quotas are almost 15 percent less than the 2010 levels.

Under the guidance of NDOW Acting Director Ken Mayer, increasing Nevada's mule deer herd with habitat restoration and improvement programs has been a priority for the agency.

"Based on increased population numbers, herd condition and exceptional moisture levels in much of the state, the NDOW big game biologists recommended an increase in 2011 quotas," said Mayer. "However, the Commission chose to ignore the scientific data presented by staff and reduced tag numbers, which creates a significant loss of opportunity for deer hunters."

In addition to being contrary to staff recommendations, the cuts are also divergent from the recommendations of the state's County Advisory Boards to Manage Wildlife. These boards are officially tasked to gather information and opinions from area sportsmen, then advise the Wildlife Commission about how to manage wildlife and recommend seasons and limits for their counties.

In 2011, Nevada witnessed a modest increase in the statewide mule deer population estimate for the second year in a row. Biologists are optimistic that good body condition, low winter mortality and mild winter conditions in most areas contributed to increased production in the spring of 2011.

"Biologists and staff experts put a great deal of effort into the scientific survey work that is the basis for their tag quota recommendations," explained Larry Gilbertson, Game Division Chief for NDOW. "Disregarding these recommendations negates all of the hard work and dedication of Game Division employees, with our sportsmen coming out as the biggest losers."

The Commission also made significant changes to the recommended big game season structure at its meeting in February.

For other big game tags, the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners approved NDOW recommendations with little changes. The Commission allocated 8,082 tags for all other big game statewide representing a 21 percent overall increase in non mule deer big game.

Rocky Mountain Elk are thriving. Due to record elk survey samples in some areas, population increased accordingly. The 2011 statewide adult elk population estimate increased to 13,500 elk compared to 12,300 last year. The Commission approved an 11 percent increase in bull elk rifle tags, with 1,027 tags, 101 more than last year, and a 58 percent increase in cow elk rifle tags.

Many other big game species saw increases in tag quotas as well. The only other species with a decline in tags was the mountain goat, due to a disease event in the Ruby Mountains and East Humboldt Range.

Antelope have fared exceptionally well in much of Nevada, and the Commission responded by approving 3,059 antelope tags, up 122 from last year.

The Resident Nelson (Desert) Bighorn Sheep - Any Ram - Any Legal Weapon Hunt 3151 saw an increase to 199 tags, up 7 from last year.

The Nevada Department of Wildlife is the state agency responsible for the restoration, protection and management of fish and wildlife resources, and the promotion of boating safety on Nevada's waters. Wildlife offices are located in Las Vegas, Henderson, Winnemucca, Fallon, Elko, and Reno. For more information, contact the agency web site at www.ndow.org.

Contact:
Teresa Moiola
Phone: (775) 688-1555

 

[highmountian]

Wow, that is crazy. Everytime I have drawn a tag there, the deer hunting has been awesome. It is my number one state for mule deer!

 

[elk_hunter]

Yeah, I know Fin. I'm in awe. I guess the Commission knows better than the Biologists since the biology data didn't jive with what the powers-that-be wanted to see.

 

[1_pointer]

I think many of the states commissions (or whatever they happen to be called) only keep biologists around to blame or look to when things go bad. A move like in the article is great for employee morale...

 

[elk_hunter]

1p, very well said.

 

[shoots-straight]

It would be nice "NOT" to have politics involved, just science. I know things aren't always as they seem. This link states the other side. The commission wants to bring the mule deer populations up. Sounds like (at least in this article) that the dept. wants to raise money.

http://www.huntersalert.org/

 

[WBouldin]

From what I've gathered so far since moving here is that the commission is a joke. Hard enough already to get a buck tag or any deer tag for that matter and this only makes it more of a challenge. Thank God for CA bear season on the other side of the line so at least I can fling an arrow at something.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Restrict opportunity and kill all the coyotes you want, but if folks want to get serious about mule deer declines, then they need to get serious about habitat conservation.

 

[Sixpointbull]

We all know what a fiasco the legislation was here in MT, but its possible it may have woke the commision up somewhat so they make the right decisions in the future. This story in NV is pretty blatant disregard for the very people that help them make the hard decisions.

 

[shoots-straight]

Restrict opportunity and kill all the coyotes you want, but if folks want to get serious about mule deer declines, then they need to get serious about habitat conservation.

Ben's right on, with his statement. The link I produced, said that a couple of years ago, the mule deer populations were where they are now, with the Bio's recommending a lot less tags. Why was the science good then, and not now?

Read the link guys.

 

[Big Fin]

Ben's right on, with his statement. The link I produced, said that a couple of years ago, the mule deer populations were where they are now, with the Bio's recommending a lot less tags. Why was the science good then, and not now?

Read the link guys.

SS - I read the link. It says the population and buck:doe ratios were similar in past years. Doesn't say anything about age structure, doe:fawn levels, range conditions, trends of increasing populations versus decreasing populations, or a myriad of other things that would cause a biologist to make a recommendation. Pure populations levels are not the only thing that normally goes into a recommendation.

It causes me to ask, "Who is hunter's alert and do they have any reason to doubt the biologist recommendations?"

If the commission trusted the biologists recommendations in past years, it seems strange that all of a sudden the commission feels that over the last twelve month the biologists have lost their ability to manage.

If the department wants to raise money, that is usually not something that comes from the biologist level. Or in states that have County or Regional Advisory boards, they hardly worry themselves about finances.

I have never seen a department issue a press release, blasting their commissioners. Whether right or wrong, it shows some leadership of the Director backing the recommendations of his staff. For something that strong to be stated tells me this is a pretty big struggle going on in NV.

This just seems weird to me, that a department, who by all accounts has done a remarkable job of managing wildlife in the face of marginal/arid/fragmented habitat and in the face of huge habitat impacts from PJ succession and cheatgrass invasion, now has no clue how to manage mule deer. And we have a Commission made up of non-biologist who are mostly political appointees, telling the biologists and the department how it should be done.

Gets back to my original point - if this is how Commissions will make decisions, "Why do we have biologists?"

 

[shoots-straight]

Fin, I understand, that there's a lot more to population management than numbers. Numbers are a strong indicator though. I'd say somethings amok in Nevada.

Our last Bios recommendations weren't exactly in the best interests of the wildlife. He wouldn't even do the flight surveys when we (RCF&Wa) paid for the flights. He didn't want the data for reasons that eventually became obvious. We need the Bios to point us in the direction needed to follow those all imporant management plans, but we also should question their intentions when things don't seem right. Trust but verify.

I don't know how many times, I was told, that we weren't even killing recruitment. We might not of been, but something sure was. The agenda of our last Bio, was to reduce elk numbers. One of his jobs was to pick objectives for the Valley. He picked low numbers, numbers that he knew weren't close to range capacity. We fought those, and got the numbers bumped a bit. Not close to what we wanted. We asked for the science in his numbers, and he couldn't or wouldn't produce anything that backed up his positions. He was more concerned with livestock interests, getting the elk reduced, than what sportsman wanted. I could go on, but anyway water under the bridge. He was also more sympathetic to predators.

Everyone has an agenda, and sometimes it's hard to wade through the information to see what 's up. I'm just saying both sides need to be looked at before one side is taken over the other.

I tend to go with the Bios, but that's usually after he or she has earned my trust. Along side of that, is there any sportsman's groups coming forward taking sides? Those locals might have some insight to what's going on.

It's hard to find out population trends and other data. I did find some other info here:
http://www.huntthewest.com/2010/NVdeer.php

This was a story was on last years proposals. The problem with bringing the deer numbers back, could be with range conditions, but the health of the deer seem to speak a different tune.

The 2010 statewide mule deer population estimate is approximately 6% below the 10-year statewide average of published mule deer population estimates from 2001 – 2010 of approximately 112,700 and 28% below the 35-year average of published mule deer population estimates from 1976 – 2010 of approximately 137,000 mule deer.

 

[shoots-straight]

I would ask:

What the Mule Deer management plan called for, such as population numbers, buck to doe ratios, doe/fawn. etc.

If there was a problem, (such as with our EMP) I would ask how they came up with certain criteria in that plan, and change it. That might be what the problem is.

We are going to have to deal with the same things in the coming year. Mainly for elk.

Gets back to my original point - if this is how Commissions will make decisions, "Why do we have biologists?"

I guess my answer is have more than one entity to go to, and get information needed to make the right decision. Not all Bio's have a good understanding of how to get from point A to point B. They usually have gathered the science to do it though. That's why they are needed.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Randy,

here's what I've seen in regards to commissions and state agencies:

It all depends on who your Governor is, and what agenda they ultimately push. Commissions are the best method that citizens have to direct the agency through grassroots involvement, but they are also easily corrupted depending on who gets appointed.

Agencies, for the most part, feel that they are above the politics of wildlife management and are there to provide for the scientific management of the wildlife resource, while being an advocate for wildlife. Commissioners are there to oversee the department and to make educated decisions related to the issues that come up before them. However, the political side of wildlife management is really on the Commission's level. They are political appointees, sent to do a job that represents the Governor's agenda.

If you have a Governor who understands conservation and has a deep respect for the agency and for wildlife in general, we do well. When we have Governors that wish to put their agenda, whatever it may be, ahead of the well being of wildlife, then we get in to situations such as this, or like Utah, where they just reduced opportunity by 13,000 tags.

I've been thinking a lot on this issue since we'll be putting a new Governor and Land Board in the power seats next year. If we get a Governor who thinks that unbridled natural resource development is a good thing, then we'll see a lot of reduction in hunter opportunity, and the increased calls to eliminate predators in favor of hunters, etc. As you said, Nevada does a good job with the fragmented habitats, etc. I think everywhere you look, this change in wildlife management is occurring at some level. We take what looks to be the easiest road when in fact, it does nothing for the conservation of the wildlife resource.

Only after we make the difficult decisions that have little immediate public support (310 restrictions, anyone?), do we see the wisdom in delayed gratification and sensible habitat management.

Politics is the art of the possible. These types of drastic changes are possible only because the hunter no longer involves himself in conservation at the level that we used to.

We have no new modern TRs, Pinchots, Muirs or Grinnells. Hell, even Leopold was vilified by the hunters of his day due to his concern over apex predators being wiped out.

TR created the Grand Canyon National Monument over the strident objections by congress. Clinton did the same thing with the Missouri River Breaks NM.

Our attention span as a special interest, and as a nation has dwindled to the 30 second sound byte. Our appreciation of natural systems and of true wildlife management is belied by our desire to drive F-350's and H2's while keeping the heat cranked to 75 at the house. We have, as a community, forgotten what it means to sacrifice our immediate desires for our long term well being.

Until that changes, I see us continuing down the path of politicized wildlife management, and poor decisions.


That's my incoherent ramble for the day.

 

[shoots-straight]

Sorry, I have to elaborate more, of why we need to question our BIOS.

Our last Bio, refused to Fly HD 250 for a Mule deer survey. Our club begged him for several years, then finally he told us that they did have the funds, then mysteriously the funding would dry up at the time he was to fly. He used this method for several seasons. So after playing the game a few years with him, we changed tactics, and came up with the money, on our own, ahead of time, we asked him at one of our meetings if he would fly if he had the money? He replied that he most certainly would. It was all set, and we were excited to finally have the data, this meeting was the week of his flight. He changed his tone almost in one sentence, he came out and admitted he wasn't going to fly those areas we requested. He told us that some of the areas we wanted flown, didn't even hold mule deer in the winter. This past year our Bio flew those areas and counted hundreds of deer. BTW, these are public land deer.

The area in question, had unlimited mule deer tags issued each year. around a 1000 were given out, even though you hardily found a deer.

After those years of giving out unlimited mule deer tags, the deer in that area were in bad shape. I flew with MTFW&Ps on part of the survey. We found 3 mule deer bucks there. Not 3 per 100 doe's, but just 3 bucks, and only 1 could have been a 2 year old.

I would have loved our Commission to have questioned the dept. on the mule deer management in that area. BTW, the famed LE areas of the Root, didn't originate with the Department, it came from our club.

I will say this about our last Bio. He never falsified any of his data. He might not of been open how he used it, but it was there if you asked. He just wouldn't look in places that didn't work for him, or conflicted with his agenda.

 

[shoots-straight]

That's my incoherent ramble for the day.

I wish, that I could communicate like both of you guys. You and Fin both have great, gifted, talents. I do what I can with what god gave me.

 

[onpoint]

The same few families have lived up the Bitteroot way too long.......

 

[Big Fin]

Ben and Shoots:

All good points. The system in NV is a little different than ours. In NV, they have County Wildlife boards who take most the public input, filter that input, and then give their recommendations to the Commission. At least that is how it was when I lived there 21 years ago, and how I think it still works. Some NV guys can chime in if I am wrong.

In this case, the County wildlife boards and the public comment they forwarded to the Commission were in line with the department and biologist recommendations.

This is not a case of hunters wanting more than the resource can withstand and whining because they lost opportunity. This is a case of hunters feeling their comments were disregarded, the biologists data was ignored, and the Commission did what they wanted in spite of all that.

Imagine if in MT, the public comment was in favor of a proposal, the Department and the biologist came out in favor of a proposal, and the Commission voted some other direction. There would be a lot of questions asked.

Nevada has done a remarkable job with their wildlife. I have had the pleasure of hunting there 5 times since leaving. The landscape has been heavily impacted by the cheat grass invasion and the fire cycle that accompanies that. The PJ encroachment is eating tons of habitat and winter range. And, they are dealing with more feral horse range maggots than the native vegetation and scarce water resources can withstand.

87% of the landscape is under control of Federal agencies, most BLM. Those agencies have employees wanting to do good habitat work, but the politics that impose national level pressures on the direction of those agencies have not been much help when it comes to non-native species, control of cheat grass, enforcement of grazing practices that are beneficial to wildlife, and re-seeding to native vegetation when the big fires hit.

NDOW has little control over much of the habitat equation in their state, though they do all they can. So, the habitat issue is a much harder one for them to solve, as compared to a state where there is more private land and the habitat is managed differently than the NV BLM manages.

I think most would say that NV is in the midst of a great moisture cycle starting in the winter of 2008 and the habitat and range of Nevada is currently as good as it has been for many years. A different dynamic than existed a few years back, when the quoted link you provided stated deer numbers were the same as they are now.

In spite of all the challenges facing NV wildlife managers, they are still providing great opportunity with a diverse age class, for a multitude of species. Funny that these same people who have guided NV wildlife and NV hunter opportunity through some amazing droughts and landscape changes have suddenly become clueless as to what is best for the long-term interest in Nevada.

NV hunters are PO'd, as they should be. The North American Model that we so highly speak of, seems to have been tossed to the junk heap in this instance.

Would be interesting to hear the NV guys weigh in on this. I have spoke to a few of them the last few days and they are disappointed.

 

[MN Public Hunter]

Biologists are like weather men...sometimes they get it right and sometimes they get it wrong. Maybe the commission believes they are wrong. We have the same issue in MN...most of the time us sportsman believe the DNR is wrong most of the time and feel we are not listened too. Maybe that is what's going on.

 

[elk_hunter]

Yep, it sucks. We are pissed. Have made comments and phone calls. Fin is accurate in his comments. In terms of the mustangs and burros...them dirty bastards need to be scaled way the hell back.