Trouble Brewing in NV: Scurrilous Politics Or?
by Jim Beers, Jim Beers Common Sense [here]
The current argument in Nevada about whether the Governor should appoint an advocate of “managing” wildlife or an advocate of “saving” wildlife to a State Wildlife Commission is a scenario being replayed all over the nation. The gross stereotypes and character assassinations are part and parcel of the scenario, and the hidden agendas and distortions of facts present in one article [here] would take pages to decipher.
The following brief explanation is based on 30 plus years with the US Fish & Wildlife Service; nearly ten years of writing and speaking about such matters, and two appearances before the US House of Representatives’ Natural Resources Committee concerning the theft of $45 to $60 Million by the US Fish & Wildlife Service from the hunting and fishing excise taxes that, by law, could only be used for state fish and wildlife programs.
There are national and international campaigns to eliminate hunting, fishing, and trapping. All so-called animal “rights” organizations and most environmental organizations “partner” with select bureaucrats and politicians to attain this goal. Intimately interwoven with this movement are anti-gun, anti-animal ownership, and anti-private property organizations that are intermingled with US and UN government land and animal ownership schemes intended to force their views on the rest of us by using the coercive power of government.
State Wildlife Commissions (New Jersey and Maryland are current examples) are objectives to be controlled by the anti-“management” (i.e. anti-hunt/fish/trap) cabals. There are either the outright anti- animal ownership/use zealots as appointees or there is the supposedly benign Veterinarian or “hunter” who simply advocates “all animals” as objects of government benevolence. These are always opposed by hunters and fishermen and trappers that are characterized as unsophisticated “bumpkins” (clinging to guns and religion?). Politicians are either “progressive” (if supportive of the “new” visions) or are “conservative” with voting records distinguished as “Crimes Against Nature”.
State agencies, like their federal cousins are under the authority of elected politicians, namely the Governors and the President. The state agencies are funded by the state legislatures but the state agencies are increasingly dependent on and recipients of federal grants to perform specific tasks for federal managers. In fact, these state agencies are increasingly responsible to federal overseers and less answerable to state legislators or the voters that elected them.
For about 80 years state fish and wildlife agencies have been funded largely by hunting and fishing license money AND millions of dollars in federal excise taxes collected on arms, ammunition, and fishing tackle and made available to each state for “wildlife conservation” and “sport fish restoration”. While federal overseers can “steer” the funds somewhat, the valuable laws and politicians establishing these programs had the foresight to forbid the use of the funds for anything other than active wildlife management or the management of SPORT fisheries for fishing. The control of these all-important funds at the state level; combined with political and employee-control of federal conduits (agencies and Committees) for funding are two very important objectives of the anti-hunting/fishing/trapping and anti-animal ownership and use organizations.
In the mid 1990’s the US Congress had refused to give the US Fish and Wildlife Service federal funding to introduce wolves in the Rocky Mountains or to open a new Endangered Species-oriented office in the California hotbed of environmental and animal rights programs. The US Fish and Wildlife Service appointees under President Clinton then proceeded to steal at least $45 to $60 Million of the excise taxes collected for state hunting and fishing programs to introduce the wolves and open the office (and give top managers increased bonuses) anyway. This was confirmed by a Congressional audit.
I mention this because the funds were never replaced, no one was ever disciplined, AND the state fish an wildlife agencies never even requested that the funding be replaced. This last is important to note because even ten years ago, state fish and wildlife agencies were becoming enablers of federal agency and radical organizations’ agendas and quietly abandoning hunters, fishermen, and trappers and by precedent animal owners and users across this great nation. It is more important today to “please” federal fund-givers and assure “every federal penny possible as soon as possible” than it is to defend the rights and traditions of the state residents that employ them. Thus are hunting, fishing, trapping, predator control, etc. being replaced by “Native Ecosystems”, “Endangered Flocks and Schools”, “Invasive” Game Species Control, and Predator Overpopulations and Protection to name but a few. I say this as a veteran Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Wetlands Biologist, US Game Management Agent, US Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Chief of National Wildlife Refuge Management Operations, and Congressional Fellow.
Today, issues from abandoning predator control, declaring all manner of “Critical” this and “Native” that combined with state acquiescence to more and more federal land ownership and land use closures are symptoms of the disease affecting us all. The biological fact (as opposed to all the government-financed “best science”) that the predators from foxes on pheasants and the hawks on quail and the coyotes on rabbits, like the wolves on deer and elk, and the cougars and bears on people and stock and outdoor folks of all stripes are decimating huntable surpluses, is either ignored or denied by the federal folks catering to the national environmental and animal rights groups and this is quietly supported by state agencies that are becoming little more than federal subcontractors.
Predator control, like deer or elk control or simply hunting or fishing or trapping for fun are sensible and sustainable uses of fish and wildlife as well as economic engines for state fish and wildlife conservation programs. State fish and wildlife areas, paid for with the excise tax funds and license money, are available not only for hunters and fishermen and trappers but for school groups, camping, hikers, wildlife watchers, and many others as well. If and when the “hunters” and “veterinarians” and all their fellow travelers advocating “broadening” the agencies are successful in “controlling” the excise taxes through a federal legislative change and taking over the state agencies as has occurred with the federal agencies: hunting and fishing and trapping will be forbidden.
The choice here is really simple. It is NOT are you “for” or “against” anything. The question before us is will the sustainable, self-sufficient, profitable, and enjoyable use of fish and wildlife be sustained in this free Republic or will we adopt the Zimbabwe or Chinese example of government wherein whoever holds “the power” dictates what everyone else will have or what is forbidden.
Such appointments are worth fighting for: not only by hunters, fishermen, trappers, animal owners, and rural outdoors’ people but also by every freedom-loving American. When I say, “fight” I am reminded of GK Chesterton’s observation about why soldiers fight. They fight not because they hate what lies before them but because “they love what lies behind them”. I love my rights and America and I hope you do too. Please join me in this battle to save our rights for our children.
When two sitting commissioners from a single special interest group mount a smear mud-slinging campaign to besmirch others in order to retain their appointed seats, it seems to me that they automatically disqualify themselves from reappointment.
Gathering a hate diatribe petition and releasing it to newspapers is not proper behavior for would-be commissioners, let alone sitting commissioners. That is not the way volunteerism in public service is supposed to work. I think the two casting aspersions should be de-commissioned immediately. And reappointment is absolutely out of the question now.
It’s the old “stakeholder” argument.
Environmentalist groups were out of the loop until they lobbied Congress to be included in all federal decisions made by advisory & steering committees. States jumped on that bandwagon, many without legislation, to include “diversity” on commissions, boards and advisory committees. Now we have a mess where the anti’s arguments are built on fears, feelings and emotion. Conservation to them means a moratorium on everything that doesn’t preserve all things. They try to call it a “resource” while they lock it up with multiple prohibitions. By definition, it is NO LONGER a resource if it can’t be utilized as a contribution to wealth.
I think the NV sportsmen can make a strong argument that they represent the majority of stakeholders when it comes to wildlife management for hunting opportunity. These city dwellers who have never hunted a day in their lives have no standing when sportsmen are the ones buying tags to fund these programs. They might have an argument if NV charges for wildlife viewing sites and hiking trails. Otherwise, it’s time to start telling these folks to butt out of your business.
by Mike L.
There has been a gradual sell out by NDOW to the Federal Government over the years to help secure funding. NDOW does not sell enough deer tags to get their wardens out of town. They have lost the deer herd in Nevada and along with that the deer tag revenue. Our young folks will be lucky to have a deer to hunt with the way NDOW and the current Game Commission have managed our deer herds in the past.
It is time for a change in Wildlife personnel and Commissioners. We need to start over and review past mule deer programs. NDOW is in denial when it comes to the effect predators have upon our mule deer. All they talk about is habitat, habitat!!
Most wildlife biologists know, or should know, that predator-prey relationships govern population change. “Habitat” is a vague and undefinable concept and not scientific.
Population ecologists have studied predator-prey relationships for over a hundred years. That science is sound and very well documented. The “habitat” theories have been largely discredited. It is time to bring our wildlife management agencies into the light, and discard the bogus and unscientific junk science.
I just finished reading the article on appointment to the NV Wildlife Commission. My question is simple: “why would the Governor appoint two people that have done little to increase the abundance of wildlife in NV?”
The NV Wildlife Commission and the Department were not set up to save and protect every creature within the State. If that were so they would have no real goal or purpose. The Wildlife Department was established to preserve and protect harvestable wildlife for the use of the people.
I am sorry if that doesn’t fit into the package that the current preservationist organizations like. That was the purpose and need for creation of nearly ever State Wildlife management agency in the US when they were established.
I do not know who the Governor will appoint but if he doesn’t appoint people that are better and more capable than those that are currently on the Commission, he has done the State of NV and outdoor sportsmen, the original and true conservationists, and the wildlife of NV a great disservice. I just hope he has enough sense not to put another “fox in charge of the chicken house” or should I say “another predator lover in charge of of mule deer herds.”
A vicious circle is hurting hunting sportsmen in all of our states. Who comprises the vicious circle? It is private interest groups, also called “non-government organizations (NGOs), state wildlife agencies, and the biased media. On Sunday, April 20, all of Nevada’s major newspapers carried an article to discredit Hunter’s Alert, a straight-thinking sportsmans organization. This article was a perfect example of how the vicious circle works.
The NGO in this case was a so-called conservationist organization, Nevada Bighorns Unlimited (NBU). They were doing everything possible to to get two people reappointed to the Wildlife Commission. Of course, both of these people were former members of NBU. (They had to resign their memberships before being appointed to the Wildlife Commission).
Why is it so important for these two commissioners to be reappointed? Here’s why. NBU receives numerous tags, elk, sheep, etc to auction off at their banquets. This makes for a bigger event and more money. What group determines who receives the tags? Why, it is none other than the Nevada Dept. of Wildlife. Of course, that money is matched with federal funding. And finally, the biased news media who failed to print the truth by not reporting that NBU had a hidden agenda. Of course, this is journalism at its worst with all three entities clearly identifiable in the article if the reader looks closely.