Online Articles (147)

Hunters Alert has released many articles in print, but a few have only been available online.  This section will help you find those articles that were only released to the web community.

Articles...

Rate this item
(4 votes)

Is it any wonder why ravens and other predators are a problem when we have politicians such as Senator Debbie Smith and Assemblyman David Bobzien who don't believe in predator control? This information was sent to every state senator and assemblyperson with the exception of the two mentioned above:

Dear Senator:

Please review the enclosed information from Wildlife Services monthly newsletter. Wildlife Services is a federal agency which does predator control for all states.

Doesn’t this picture make you sick? Well, it certainly didn’t have any effect on Senator Debbie Smith. In 2001, AB 241 was passed into law. The intent of the bill was to reduce predators in order to restore declining game animals and birds which will, in turn, produce revenue for the state.

In the latest issue of Muley Crazy Magazine, one area in Nevada (Unit 014) where predator control is being done, there was a 69% increase in mule deer and almost a 300% increase in allotted tags resulting in more state revenue. Nevada deer numbers have declined almost 70% since 1988. In addition, sage grouse numbers are declining. If the sage grouse is listed by the federal government in 2015, millions of acres will be lost to ranching, mining, hunting and all multiple land use activities.

There are many studies showing that ravens are the chief predator in the decline of sage grouse. Sportsmen’s money is available to reduce raven numbers because of AB 241. With that said, what did Senator Debbie Smith propose? She was one of the sponsors of AB 345 in the just completed legislative session. Her intent was to completely eliminate predator control and have that money spent on studies.

We don’t need more studies. Studies have proven that predators such as lions, coyotes and ravens are decimating game birds and animals, not only in Nevada, but throughout the west. What is needed is to utilize sportsmen’s money derived from AB 241 to reduce predators as the bill was intended. It is obvious that Debbie Smith was not enlightened about what would happen if this money is used for more studies and no action.

Thankfully, Governor Sandoval vetoed this bill. However, it would not be surprising if Senator Debbie Smith had one of her cohorts attempt this in the next session. She has proven that she is no friend to Nevada sportsmen who fund 97% of Nevada Department of Wildlife.

Sincerely,

Jacob “Bud” Sonnentag

 

Rate this item
(3 votes)

Read this:  Using NDOW's own data, it proves that predator control works.  However, the current Wildlife Commission and NDOW believe predator control does NOT work.  They have been dumbing down on steroids when it comes to predator control.

Click here to download the Muley Crazy article.

 

Rate this item
(4 votes)

By:  Pat Laughlin

I attended the Wildlife Damage Management Committee meeting and the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners meeting in Reno this past weekend and would like to share with the sportsmen and citizens of Elko County the insanity that continues to take place at the expense of wildlife and our way of life in Nevada.

The Wildlife Damage Management Committee was chaired by Mike McBeath, an attorney from Las Vegas.  This was the first Wildlife Damage Management Committee meeting Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) has had for almost two years under McBeath's chairmanship  This committee leads the way as to how sportsmen's 3-dollar predator fee on big game tags is spent.  Mr. McBeath began the meeting by going into a 15-minute dissertation about how he was against any predator control.  In his "expert" opinion, predator control for the protection of wildlife doesn't work, costs too much, is too controversial, and he also saw a TV program that was against predator control. Now, I am sure Mr. McBeath is an educated man and I'm sure he can spell predator, but I am also sure this would be the extent of his knowledge on the subject...TV show aside, of course.

Next, the committee at the suggestion of Mike McBeath spent almost an hour discussing the subject of changing the committee's name.  After considerable discussion, the name remained unchanged.  Finally the fourth revised predator management plan from NDOW was presented and lengthy discussion took place including opposition of parts of the plan by several parties including current legislators, Assemblymen John Ellison and Ira Hansen and past Assemblyman John Carpenter.

Chairman McBeath did not give a report to the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners on the Wildlife Damage Management Committee proceedings and their decisions to approve the three sage grouse projects and no decisions on the other projects. Instead he went into his same rhetoric as in the committee on how predator control will not help wildlife populations. All the projects then had to be explained to the Commission but the legislators and other interested parties were not in attendance thinking they had fulfilled their objective of stopping the study by Pat Jackson.  Why do we even have a committee meeting and take up the time of legislators and other interested parties and then ignore everything that took place?  This game was rigged from the start.

The full Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners, who, I might add, is stacked with Nevada Bighorns Unlimited (NBU) members and controlled by NBU, approved an ongoing study of coyote ecology in the Monitor, Toiyabe, and Toquima ranges in central Nevada by Pat Jackson, a graduate student from Utah State University (USU) to the tune of $100,000 a year for five more years.  In the previous three years of this ongoing study, this out-of-state student has successfully caught and radio-collared FIVE coyotes.  Two have been shot.  Three remain active.  This is at a cost of $193,463 for the past three years or $38,692.60 per coyote.  Now NDOW is planning on using a helicopter and net gun to collar coyotes for the researcher to help him reach his goal of 30-40 coyotes which would be a representative study group. Think of the costs.  I for one do not think this is what the sportsmen's 3$ predator fee money was meant for.

Another item on the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners agenda was to award the prestigious Wayne Kirch award.  This is a Wildlife Commission pick and once again it was presented to another NBU member.  If you look at past winners of this award, the list is like the who's who of NBU.  NBU official Larry Johnson even recommended it for himself two years in a row a few years ago.

But it gets better...Shawn Espinosa is a former game warden, who was promoted from law enforcement to sage grouse expert for NDOW and is the main biologist that stopped the China Mountain Wind Project and closed over a million acres of gas and oil exploration leases.  Working hand in hand with the BLM, he supported numerous cuts in AUMs on grazing allotments throughout Nevada on the assumption that grazing could hurt a bird that isn't even listed on the endangered species list yet.  One particular grazing allotment south of Eureka on the Snowball Ranch was cut in half without evidence of a single sage grouse being present.  NDOW's defense of this action is that the area is good sage grouse habitat and someday sage grouse might move into the area.  Well, Mr. Espinoza was awarded the NDOW agency's Employee of the Year Award.

In closing, it is important to point out the US Forest Service and BLM have long been thought of as major threats to our way of life in Elko County but, in our eyes, NDOW, our own state agency, working behind the scenes with USFS and BLM is a bigger threat to the sage grouse than fires or the raven, not to mention the war on mining and ranching. NDOW and the current commission are the enemies!! It was simply unbelievable what I witnessed during these two days of meeting!!

Thank you for your time.

Pat Laughlin

President N4W

'13 Mar 30

Mountain Lion Diet Study Featured

Written by Hunter's Alert
Rate this item
(2 votes)

By:  Cecil Fredi

A two year study has just been completed on mountain lions and muleys.  The results of this study show that 72% of lion diets are composed of deer.  Of course, no NDOW biologists would ever believe such a thing.  I would urge everyone to get the March/April 2013 issue of Muley Crazy magazine and read the story.

Rate this item
(3 votes)

Reprinted from the Elko Daily Free Press -

By:  Cecil Fredi

Your newspaper was the only one in our state that consistently printed the truth about the many failures of the Nevada Department of Wildlife and its director, Ken Mayer, soon to be former director. Your newspaper exhibited good journalism when you printed all sides of a previous wildlife story.

My article entitled “NDOW: Agency of Deception” appeared in your paper on November 12. The subject of this article was as the title stated. Misinformation was consistently spewed by NDOW and in particular, director Ken Mayer. Ken Mayer couldn’t stand seeing the truth printed in your newspaper so he rebutted my article with his claims on November 23 entitled “Response to commentary on NDOW, deer herds.”

As usual, Ken Mayer’s article was replete with lies and more misinformation. Ken Mayer’s diatribe prompted former wildlife commission chairman Gerald Lent to write the article on January 12 in your newspaper entitled “Commentary: More misinformation by NDOW chief.” Dr. Lent’s article proved without a doubt that Ken Mayer has a hard time telling the truth.

The final blow came for director Mayer when he decided to become dictator Mayer. In 2001, Assembly bill 291 provided funds for predator control. The intent of this legislation was to reduce lions, coyotes and other predators harmful to game birds and animals. In areas where predator control is being used, game numbers have increased. Ken Mayer did not believe in predator control so he decided to circumvent NRS 502.253 (predator bill) and spend $100,000 on a coyote ecology study.

In addition, Mayer wanted to spend predator money on studying cougar diets in bighorn habitat and cougar-black bear interaction. There have been many, many studies on coyotes and lions and the studies found they eat deer, sheep, and anything else they can kill. The studies that Ken Mayer proposed go completely against the intended use of the money designated for predator control.

When former Assemblyman John Carpenter heard about Ken Mayer’s studies and reckless spending of predator money, he had decided that he had had enough of Mayer’s smoke and mirrors. He wrote a detailed letter to the governor about Mayer’s intentions and how it would not only devastate Elko County but that what he was doing was a direct violation of Nevada statutes.

No governor can be thoroughly versed on every aspect of all state agencies. Governor Sandoval was convinced by some who had his ear that Ken Mayer was the best person to be the director of Nevada Department of Wildlife. Those people, namely Larry Johnson and his Coalition and Nevada Bighorns Unlimited, who convinced the governor to rehire Ken Mayer, should hang their heads in shame. They not only sold out the sportsmen in Nevada but also embarrassed Governor Sandoval.

Ken Mayer’s legacy will show that he would rather climb a 20-foot saguaro cactus and tell a lie than stand flat footed on the ground and tell the truth. Oh, and by the way, he was so bad that he was fired by two governors in two years. How about a little traveling music for Ken Mayer on his way back to California? A song by country singer Roy Clark, entitled “Thank God and Greyhound You’re Gone” would work well.

———————

Cecil Fredi, president of Hunter’s Alert, has lived in Las Vegas for 70 years.

'13 Mar 30

Nevada Wildlife Director Resigns Featured

Written by Hunter's Alert
Rate this item
(3 votes)

Reprinted from the Las Vegas Sun -

By:  Sandra Chereb

The director of the Nevada Department of Wildlife resigned abruptly Wednesday at the request of Gov. Brian Sandoval following months of pressure from representatives in rural Nevada over deer management and agency efforts to stave off federal protection for sage grouse.

In an email letter to staff obtained by the Associated Press, Ken Mayer said the decision to take the agency in another direction is the governor's prerogative.

His resignation is effective Feb. 12.

"We all reach times in our careers where change in inevitable," Mayer wrote. "That time came for me this week when Gov. Sandoval's office asked me to resign as the director of the Nevada Department of Wildlife."

Mary-Sarah Kinner, in a statement to the AP, said, "The governor thanks Ken Mayer for his service to Nevada and wishes him well."

She said Sandoval anticipates "naming a successor in the near future."

Former Nevada Assemblyman John Carpenter, an Elko Republican, said he and others lobbied the governor for Mayer's ouster.

"I've had problems with Ken Mayer for a long time," Carpenter told the AP in a telephone interview. "I've been talking and corresponding with the governor for a long time about this."

Mayer's departure comes two years after his reinstatement to job after he was fired by former Gov. Jim Gibbons in November 2010 as Gibbons was leaving office.

Mayer, a wildlife biologist with more than 20 years' experience in Nevada and California, then went to work briefly for the Legislative Counsel Bureau and was rehired by Sandoval after he moved into the governor's office in 2011.

Mayer's battles with Gibbons involved Mayer's disputes with the Nevada Wildlife Commission, a nine-member policy-making board of governor appointees. The commission under Gibbons was often at odds with Mayer, and emphasized predator control and the killing of coyotes and mountain lions as key to restoring Nevada's deer herds.

Carpenter said those same conflicts persist. He also accused Mayer of being "in cahoots" with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management over protecting sage grouse. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is under court mandate to determine by 2015 if the chicken-sized bird deserves protection under the Endangered Species Act. Western states fear a listing would devastate rural lifestyles and put the brakes on ranching and energy development.

In a letter sent to Sandoval on Wednesday, Carpenter complained the wildlife agency was spending too much money on "questionable studies" rather than for "ground predator management."

"It is the position of Ken Mayer to turn Nevada into another California," Carpenter wrote in the letter obtained by the AP.

"The only way to get into a positive mode in regard to increasing the deer herd and keeping sage grouse off the endangered list is for the governor to relieve Ken Mayer of his position and choose someone who can work with all parties on a cooperative and positive note."

Biologists have said loss of habitat, much of it due to wildfire, is the main reason deer herds have been declining in the state and around the West.

The wildlife director is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the governor. A law passed by the 2011 Legislature removed a requirement that such appointments must come from recommendations put forth by the commission.

Mayer was first hired as head of the Nevada wildlife agency in 2007.

In his exit letter to staff, Mayer wrote, "Before I came here, the reputation of this department and its workforce was widely known throughout the wildlife world as a top notch organization. Over the six years I have been director we have added to that great reputation.

"As I leave here, I have every faith and confidence that you will maintain that same level of commitment and integrity toward the management of wildlife in Nevada."

Mayer could not be reached for comment.



Read more: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/jan/30/sandovals-behest-nevada-wildlife-director-resigns/#ixzz2P4YXl3iq
Rate this item
(2 votes)

Reprinted from the Elko Daily Free Press -

By:  Dr. Gerald A. Lent

As a former chairman of the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners for two years and vice chairman for one year and living in Nevada for 70 years, I read with great dismay and consternation Wildlife Director Ken Mayer’s commentary regarding himself and Nevada’s deer herds. As chairman , I was privy to know how the Department of Wildlife conducts its business and am compelled to set the record straight.

Mayer stated that his move to Nevada was a great move for him, that he was proud to call himself a Nevadan, and that he has made Reno his permanent home in which he intends to dedicate the rest of his career to manage and protect wildlife resources in this great state.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Records show the real truth is Mayer is living in a house in Sparks that he does not own. This house is the primary residence of another person! The truth is he still owns his house in Sacramento, Calif., which was deeded to him by his ex-wife, Karen.

It is quite apparent if he has not committed to buying a home in Nevada since he arrived here over five years ago, then he is not a true Nevadan as he claims and he is not committed to Nevada! This is a very unprofessional approach and behavior for a person of his level in government and further substantiates the fact he is not committed to the resources of Nevada. This is an indication that he just wants to collect his pension from Nevada and then leave the state only to return back to California where he owns his home. This should be an embarrassment to Governor Sandoval and all true Nevadans. Make no mistake about it — Mayer is not a true Nevadan as he claims and his decisions on wildlife in Nevada have proven that!

I was the one who recommended him to Gov. Jim Gibbons and for that I am deeply regretful. I did not know of his deceitfulness and misrepresentations of himself when he applied for the job. I originally supported him based on his promises he made to Nevada sportsmen and the Governor who directed him to bring back our mule deer and his proclaimed belief in the positive results a good predator program could bring for Nevada’s wildlife.

Another area in which Mayer was not truthful was in his belief in Predation Management when he presented a seven-point plan on his views to the Chairman of the Assembly Agriculture, Mining and Natural Resources Committee. His plan stated he would “Establish a mechanism that allows for direct coordination between the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners’ Wildlife Damage Management Committee and Nevada’s landowners and livestock producers. This relationship will facilitate a dialog that would allow the Predator Committee to benefit from the experience and knowledge that Nevada’s ranchers have regarding localized predator issues. This mechanism also will allow ranchers to propose predation management projects that benefit wildlife through their Commission representative on the Predator Committee.”

Mayer also stated his plan would “Ensure that the Predator Committee acknowledges the Nevada Legislature’s desire to see that the recovery of Nevada’s deer herds is a principle focus of the Predator Management Program.”

As usual, these were just words spoken by Mayer with no intention of implementation.

Director Mayer claims in his commentary to have spent $3.9 million dollars on predator control. The truth is he has not spent his money because all sportsmen by law pay a $3 predator fee when they apply for hunting tags. Sportsmen are providing this money, not Mayer because the legislature directed this.

Director Mayer also claims predation control has not produced any significant increases in deer numbers. Once again, he is being disingenuous as NDOW’s own 2010-11 Big Game Status Book indicates that one area in Nevada showed a 65 percent increase in mule deer since a predator control program was implemented in 2004 and surrounding areas with no predator control programs showed remarkable decreases in mule deer populations.

You only have to ask any rancher in Nevada if predator control works to protect their resources!

Another scientific study in Arizona called the 3-Bar Study has been used by wildlife biologists for more than 30 years for mule deer studies. This study explicitly shows that deer in an enclosure that is predator proof will produce 10 times higher fawn ratios than deer outside an enclosure. The study’s findings so far indicate that predators may have a more significant impact on deer populations than biologists previously thought.

Director Mayer and his staff biologists just refuse to acknowledge professional scientific studies in lieu of their own twisted analysis of the data available to them. In fact, his own Wildlife Damage Management Committee to gather data and establish predation projects where needed has not met in two years! This is a reflection on his commitment and dedication to this program.

Gibbons, in December 2009, sent a letter to Director Mayer directing him to end the tension between him and his staff towards the Wildlife Commission as it was counterproductive to the Governor’s goal of increasing the mule deer population in Nevada. The Governor also instructed Director Mayer to follow the requirements in Nevada law which clearly reads the Director shall carry out the policies and regulations of the Commission.

The Governor explicitly stated he expects director Mayer and his staff to implement the policies established by the Commission. Director Mayer refused to implement many of the Commission policies, especially the ones to bring back the mule deer herds in Nevada, as directed by the Governor. As a result of his disobedience to follow the Governor’s directives, Gov. Jim Gibbons fired Director Mayer. Gov. Sandoval, when he took office, rehired Mayer.

Director Mayer was not truthful when he was interviewed for the job and this pattern has continued during his tenure as director of NDOW. He has failed the sportsmen and ranchers in Nevada miserably.

I hope this clarifies many unfounded statements that Director Mayer presented in his commentary in the Elko Daily Free Press on Nov. 23, 2012.

 

Reprinted from the Elko Daily Free Press

By Cliff and Bertha Gardner

Dear Mr. Ken Mayer: With sadness we read your letter printed in the Nov. 23 issue of the Elko Daily Free Press. Most of what you had to say was untrue.

The most blatant of all, however, was your claim that critics have yet to produce evidence indicating lack of effective predator control is the controlling factor limiting mule deer production throughout Nevada.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. The amount of historical and scientific data demonstrating the positive effects of predator control practices that is available to you and others is voluminous, even in face of the fact that you and others of your ilk have been doing all you can to suppress such information for years now.

What is lacking on your part is your unwillingness to acknowledge the truth. You want the world to believe that man’s influence upon the world is bad — that ranching is bad, that grazing is bad, that roads and power lines are bad, that free enterprise is bad, and private land ownership is bad.

Governmental officials have been suppressing and hiding information from the public for many years now. They don’t want the public to know the truth concerning the importance of livestock grazing and predator control.

On Oct. 6, 2010, the Board of County Commissioners for Elko County sent a copy of Rural Heritage Preservation Project, “Finding of Facts Document” to your agency asking that you address each issue raised within the document so as to determine if past actions taken by the various resource management agencies might be responsible for downtrends in wildlife numbers. Instead of answering the challenge, you sidestepped the issue.

On Dec. 3, the Elko Commission submitted a second letter to your department asking that you respond to their request. Again you avoided answering the County’s request.

In the August 2011 issue of Nevada Rancher, I issued you a challenge asking that you produce data supportive of the positions you have taken in the past regarding wildlife management. I received no response. And so on Sept. 23, while making a presentation before the State Wildlife Commission, I again asked that you or other officials respond to requests made. Again we received no response.

While passing yourself off as experts and by spreading untruths you have been able to snow the public into believing you are protecting the environment when in fact you have been pursuing an agenda detrimental to every value the people hold dear. Deer, sage grouse, songbirds and pygmy rabbits have not declined because of modern human activity. Deer, sage grouse, songbirds and pygmy rabbits have been declining in number because of agency actions that have been put in place over the years.

Four times you have been challenged — four times you have sidestepped the issue. Today we challenge you again. Before you or others working for government go forward with plans for the protection or preservation of sage grouse which might end in causing further harm to every value we hold dear, we demand that the following steps be taken.

First, we demand that a study be undertaken for the purpose of determining sage grouse status and production on private lands owned by the Sorensen family near Secret Valley, as compared to that on lands now owned and controlled by the Bureau of Land Management, midway up the Mary’s River drainage, which have not been grazed for more than 15 years. If this is done, perhaps it will reveal the truth regarding the issue at hand. Is it those working within the private sector whose management practices are hurting sage grouse — or is it those working within the various resources management agencies?

Second, we demand that a large study area (roughly the size of Area 7 and Area 10) be set aside here in Nevada where livestock grazing and predator control practices similar to those which were carried on in the 1940s, ’50s, and ’60s be conducted for a period of 20 or more years for the purpose of determining the true effects of grazing and predator control practices on sage grouse, mule deer and other wildlife.

Third, we demand that a study be completed so as to determine amounts of yearly production and nutritional value of black sage growth or regrowth, on plants that are grazed by domestic sheep on a regular basis, as compared to black sage plants that are left ungrazed from year to year. Should it be found that winter ranges which are grazed routinely produce a much higher percentage of highly nutritious feeds each year than ranges which are left ungrazed from year to year, it may offer an explanation, why it was that sage grouse did so well when great numbers of domestic sheep were being grazed in the past.

Fourth, we demand that officials working for the Nevada Department of Wildlife, the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, answer and address each question that is presented in the Rural Heritage Preservation Project, Findings of Facts document which has been presented to them, before any new plan, rule, policy or regulation is put in place or implemented for the protection and preservation of sage grouse in the State of Nevada. It now appears that actions of the past have been based on false assumptions. If such is the case, new policy needs to be formulated mirroring those practices that were in place during the first half of the 1900s.

Fifth, we demand that officials working for the Nevada Department of Wildlife make data available showing the total number of mule deer buck tags which were issued within the State of Nevada for each year, beginning in 1945 through 2010; the total number of mule deer doe tags that were issued within the State of Nevada for each year beginning in 1945 through 2010; the total number of mule deer bucks that were harvested each year beginning in 1945 through 2010; and the total number of mule deer does that were harvested each year beginning in 1945 through 2010. For too long now, such data has been hidden from the public. It’s time we know the truth.

Sixth, we demand that before any new plan for the preservation and protection of sage grouse be implemented, such practices as will be proposed by persons working for the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management be first implemented and carried out on the Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge, the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge, and Hart Mountain Wildlife Refuge, so that their effectiveness can be determined. Should such practices work on refuge lands, then and only then should they be implemented on other lands found throughout the West.

We look forward to your response.

Cliff and Bertha Gardner

Ruby Valley

Reprinted from the Elko Daily Free Press -

By Charlie Howell:

Editor: I was a Wildlife Commissioner for three years appointed by Gov. Gibbons with the express direction to explore our declining deer herds and try to rectify the situation. What I found was other states had similar declines and did major studies to try and reverse the problem.

The present NDOW management has been obsessed with the word “environment” so as to be held blameless. Well, guess what! Predators are part of the “environment” and the only part that we can control directly with immediate results.

The most compelling study as stated by one of NDOW’s own biologists is the 3-Bar study in Arizona where they built a predator-proof enclosure of over 600 acres and spent decades studying the results. After many years their biologists concluded the only significant difference outside the enclosure was predators and the fawn survival inside the enclosure was many times higher than outside. Why it took them so long to admit the obvious is probably because they went to the same schools as the biologists at NDOW.

While on the Commission we also benefited from testimony of many longtime residents and ranchers of the county’s most affected and their observations also fell on deaf ears at NDOW. I personally hunted deer for the first time in Elko county in 1960 and can attest to the large numbers in those years.

It’s to bad Ken Mayer didn’t move back to California when Gov. Gibbons fired him.

Charlie Howell

Las Vegas

All wildlife is threatened by the Federal Wolf/predator agenda. The Federal employees who have infiltrated the ranks of the once great agencies, are now dismantling 80 years of sound scientific management of wildlife. The original intent of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, was to create an abundance of wildlife for hunting and non hunters. Hunters self regulated their pursuits, in order to better regulate the herds. New age science allows for the total collapse of a herd, then they spend years studying the effects of a failed policy.

 

 

«StartPrev12345678NextEnd»
Page 1 of 8

Search Articles

Login Form



Donate to the Website

donate_without_paypal_account
Look for this section on the paypal donation page to donate even without a paypal account.  Just click on continue where it says "Don't have a PayPal account?"

Donations help to pay for web hosting and management of Hunters Alert! keeping this content online and up to date.

*All donations are annonymous unless you would like to be announced as a donor.

Copyright © 2017 Hunters Alert! - Keeping the sportsman informed.. All Rights Reserved.
Site developed and kept in honor by a digital media professional.