As hunters and trappers and fishermen see a White House and federal agencies stuffed with anti-hunting, anti-gun rights, environmental extremists and as an unfettered US House and Senate are churning out all manner of extremist and costly legislation; questions are being raised about minor things that we ignored for years but which are beginning to appear as razors that have been quietly slashing our hunting, trapping, and fishing heritage, traditions, and rights.  I speak here of the federal programs originally known as the Pittman Robertson (1936) and Dingell-Johnson  (1950) Acts.

These two Acts provided that the federal government collect excise taxes on certain items and that each year these funds be apportioned to all State fish and wildlife agencies for "Wildlife Restoration" and "Sport Fish Restoration" projects.  Funds for "Wildlife Restoration" are derived from an 11 percent excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition; a 10 percent tax on pistols and revolvers, one-half of which may be used by the States for hunter safety programs; and an11-percent excise tax on bows, arrows, and their parts and accessories.  Funds for "Sport Fish Restoration" are derived from a 10-percent excise tax on certain items of sport fishing tackle (Internal Revenue Code of 1954, sec. 4161), a 3-percent excise tax on fish finders and electric trolling motors, import duties on fishing tackle, yachts and pleasure craft, interest on the account, and a portion of motorboat fuel tax revenues and small engine fuel taxes.  The current annual collections vary from $500 Million to over a Billion considering the ongoing stampede for arms and ammunition in anticipation of federal government attempts to subvert the 2^nd Amendment to The Constitution of the United States of America.

These Acts have been manipulated and amended by politicians to name Amendments after themselves (Wallop-Breaux); to gain votes from certain blocs like boat owners and archers; and to give favors to ethnic voting groups like Puerto Ricans and Samoans.  Importation of arms and fishing tackle has made up increasing amounts of these taxed items while federal bureaucrats have increasingly ignored the collection of these import taxes and as importers have exploited the indifference of federal bureaucrats by smuggling (the correct term) such items to competitive retail outlet stores. While there are strict rules for use of the funds by state agencies, required 5-year audits and "oversight" by federal bureaucrats are intermittent, poorly administered, and ideologically driven by federal and now state bureaucrats enacting agendas aimed ultimately at destroying hunting, fishing, and trapping.  State fish and wildlife Directors want to be free to please the Governors that appoint them like offering (illegally) to allow a prison to be built on wildlife areas or to put wildlife vehicles in state motor pools for use by others.  So, just like federal thieves, state thieves exist and benefit personally from foregone or slipshod oversight and audits.

All that said, let us focus on the terms "Wildlife" and "Sport Fish" and "Restoration".

- "Wildlife" in the original Act and in the eyes of American citizens meant deer, turkeys, ducks, pheasants, etc. (i.e. "GAME" animals whether or not they were present during the Ice Age, were eaten by Sitting Bull, or were brought over from China or Europe on a sailing ship).  The "sporting" uses were what generated the funds and thus did everyone understand that game animals were to be the primary beneficiaries of the funding. The other animals that shared habitats with and benefited from the MANAGEMENT AND EXISTENCE of the habitats for those game animals were significant but secondary beneficiaries of much of the projects generated by the collected taxes.  Harmful animals were to be controlled thus benefiting rural America while other "users" like campers, hikers, school groups, canoeists, and birdwatchers, etc. were always free to use the purchased wildlife areas and facilities like boat ramps.

- "Sport Fish" in the original Act was necessary because "Commercial Fish" and "Marine Fish" were jealously guarded (meaning they generated employees and funding) functions of the Commerce Department as opposed the Interior Department where the US Fish and Wildlife Service was ensconced.   Consider for the moment how the Endangered Species Act divided the whales and seals and porpoises from other "endangered" animals between the Commerce and Interior Departments.  (National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service always "cooperated" for environmental benefit like the CIA and FBI always shared info with other agencies for the common good.)

- Finally, the term "Restoration" always (up until the radical 60's and 70's) meant the active "MANAGEMENT" of these desired (i.e. GAME and SPORT FISH) species to levels, distribution, abundance, and harvest levels known to previous generations CONSISTENT WITH THE EXPANDING AMERICAN SOCIETY, AMERICAN RIGHTS, AND AMERICAN TRADITIONS.

            The point of controversy surrounded NDOW's desire to dramatically increase doe tags with the stated goal of "releasing the pressure on the mule deer herd to allow it to grow at a healthy rate".  NDOW lead game biologist Mike Cox quoted Biologist Wasley as believing that the Ruby Mountains are reaching ‘carrying capacity', or the maximum number of mule deer that the range can support.  According to Mike Cox, the only reason that the removal of doe deer might not show a large increase in fawn production is because the number of fawn producing does removed might not be large enough.  Biologist Cox stated that double the 987 doe-removal quota might be necessary to ‘release the pressure' on the deer and allow the population to grow.  Current 2009 survey figures place fawn to adult deer ratio in this area at 20 fawns per 100 adults, one of the lowest in the state. 

            The dissenting wildlife Commissioner stated that the Ruby Mountains have supported many times more deer than they currently do, as well as supporting around 50,000 domestic sheep and cattle that are nearly gone from the range.  "With in excess of 50,000 less animals grazing on the slopes, no major fires in the range, and fairly average precipitation, it is not possible that conditions have degraded to such an extent that the Rubies can not even support the relatively small population of deer that currently live there.  Killing does in an area of reduced deer population is not science. It is grasping for excuses at the expense of the deer herd.  If you are raising cattle, children, or guppies, you do not kill the adult females so that suddenly the population has a bigger ratio of young to adults and then expect the population to grow."

            The NDOW estimate for areas "10" or units 101 - 108 for 2009 is 24,000 mule deer.   The 2009 estimate for mule deer in the entire state is 106,000, down from a 1988 high of 240,000 and down two percent from 2008.  2008 tag sales were 16,997, down from a high of 51,011 in1988.

            According to NDOW's records, in area "10", there are too many bucks in the area and the buck to doe ratio is not conducive to successful management practices. Instead of issuing the 987 doe tags, any sportsmen would prefer to see additional 987 buck tags to bring that ratio down rather than killing the does which produce future numbers.

            Nevada Department of Wildlife, Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners, and Elko County Advisory Board to Manage Wildlife member contact information can be found at http://ndow.org

Pat Laughlin

Nevada Alliance 4 Wildlife

Reprinted from Elko Daily Free Press
Guest Commentary
Wednesday, June 3, 2009  

Finding of Fact

Historical and Scientific Analysis

Finding # 1 History of fire in northeastern Nevada

When reviewing the logs, dairies and reports of the earliest expeditions by white man into the Great Basin, we see no evidence that wildfire was a common occurrence during that period. Nor is there any mention by those who settled the area that fires were a problem. There is evidence, however, that the Indians in the Ely area ofNevada started fires periodically for the purpose of removing or thinning stands ofjuniper, but still there was no mention of huge fires such as we have experienced in recent years. In fact, up until the 1970's, most fires (which typically were started by lightening) rarely burned more then an acre or two. Once in a while, when conditions were right, a fire would get out of control and burn as much as one or two hundred acres, but nothing like the fires experienced in recent years. (See Document 52-a. And 52-f.)

The catastrophic fires that have been occurring since the late 1970's, which have resulted in the

loss of millions of acres wildlife habitat, correlate with federal and state policy which has called

for reduced livestock grazing. (See Tony Lesperance Report, Document 52-h. See too

Documents, 52-i., 52-j., 52-1., 52-b. and 43-d.)

Finding # 2 History of vegetative cover in northern Nevada

While the original bill 246 is supported by the Nevada State Wildlife Commission, the proposed amendment 4747, originally introduced as AB437, is opposed by the same Commission. (See attachment)

This amendment uses as the funding mechanism a lottery/drawing to give unsuccessful hunting tag applicants another chance for additional tags. Before they can even enter the drawing they are forced to pay an additional fee and purchase another "stamp" which represents another fee/tax increase. I believe that is why this bill if amended is required to have a 2/3 majority vote to pass. This also brings it in conflict with the Governor's no new taxes pledge and may jeopardize the positive aspects of AB246.