2009 Online News

What is in this section?

For twenty years, HUNTER'S ALERT has kept the sportsmen informed with our newsletters. The newsletter has always been truthful and the information generated wasn't found in other publications. Sportsmen continually wanted to know when the next newsletter would be published. By the time we could publish, some of the news was old news.

HUNTER'S ALERT will continue to publish a newsletter. However, today there is a much quicker way to disseminate information. Of course, that is the HUNTER'S ALERT website. HUNTER'S ALERT is going to get more active in posting information on the website. Again, it will be information you probably won't read anywhere else.

Be sure to bookmark this web address for the latest information: www.huntersalert.org.

Note: If you are looking for the last online issue R33 2008 please click here. (you may also get there by clicking 'Home Issue' in the top or side navigation bars.)


Rate this item
(6 votes)

There are many words that have double meanings, like “gay”, “coke” and “conservation”. Most people would argue that conservation only has one meaning. Through language deception perfected by government agencies and environmentalists (which has been so skillfully brought to our attention by Julie Smithson of Property Rights) words are of monumental importance in our perception of the way we view things and make decisions. Government agents (bureaucrats) and news media (journalists) like to refer to anti-hunting groups like Nature Conservancy, Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club and many others as “conservationists”. These anti organizations (environmentalists) spend much of their time and their money on lawsuits, suing the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (the government) thus establishing their agendas and imposing their will on the American people. Hunters were the first conservationists practicing sound conservation in America and they are still the best, spending their money for all forms of wildlife. These two words today, conservation and conservationists, have been usurped by these organizations, agencies and journalists from the true conservationists……..none other than the HUNTER and by so doing make the hunter appear as the problem and they are the saviors. Now, think it through, who gave us all the abundant wildlife we have known up to this day that we rapidly see disappearing all around us? These hunters did it with their dedication to wildlife and their money without having to sue the very government agencies that these hunters pay to represent them in ALL wildlife management. Enter these environmentalist organizations, paying virtually nothing, infiltrating our government agencies and you can see who and where the problem is. NOW……who are the real conservationists?


Rate this item
(4 votes)
coyote takes deer
Rate this item
(2 votes)

Were alarm bells going off throughout the Twin Towers after the planes struck them and up until they collapsed?  Whether or not the alarms sounded until the buildings collapsed or whether they immediately or eventually malfunctioned, the situation is analogous to America today.  Regardless of whether the alarms saved some individuals, or malfunctioned eventually, or perhaps were ignored by persons that could not conceive of what was about to take place; the results were the same, an enormous loss of life and the disappearance of those two buildings (forever?).

Today, 16 October 2009, there are alarm bells going off all

Rate this item
(3 votes)
The North American Wildlife and Natural Resource s Conference held its 72nd meeting in March, 2007 in Portland, Oregon. This conference brings together wildlife biologists and state wildlife agencies for discussion of wildlife related problems. Session five of the Conference had nine symposiums just on predator control. Below are a few excerpts from that Conference.


Culling Mountain Lions to Protect Ungulate Populations-Some Lives Are More Sacred Than Others


Eric M. Rominger

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish


Bounties and Bounty Hunters


          Historically, top carnivore removal was carried out to protect game species and livestock throughout the western states. In fact, most predator species were bountied, with higher bounties paid for culling females in a concerted effort to reduce or eliminate populations. For example, in New Mexico in the 1950's, the New Mexico Department of  Game and Fish employed full-time trappers in New Mexico as well (A. Ford, personal communications 2003). This intensive governmental effort occurred during an era when most private ranchers kept their  "steel in the ground", i.e., leghold traps, year-round in an effort to eliminate top carnivores. It is important to note that these government trappers were highly respected members of their communities and were considered members of an honored profession. However by the early 1970s, all but two western states had converted mountain lions to game-animal status and state-agency trapper positions were essentially eliminated. Despite the best effort of the government trappers and of their private-sector allies, mountain lions were never extirpated in the western United States.


California versus Texas


California and Texas, bounding the western and eastern distribution of mountain lions, have equally dichotomous management strategies for mountain lions. Presumably, these divergent management strategies are based on differing societal values in these two states. Texas never elevated mountain lions to game-animal status, and year-round hunting and trapping of mountain lions continues throughout their range there. The management strategy in Texas contrasts sharply with that in California where a legislative moratorium passed in 1972 ceased sport harvest and public trapping of all mountain lions.


Intensive mountain lion harvest in Texas has not resulted in the extirpation of mountain lions, and mountain lion distribution is considered to be similar today to what it was 35 years ago (C. Brewer, personal communication, 2007). Because of this fact, Texas Parks and Wildlife (TPW) was a principal complainant resulting in the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) not endorsing, or otherwise sanctioning, the recently drafted  Cougar Management Guidelines-First Edition (Schroufe 2006). Perceived differences on the needs for harvest quotas and sanctuaries, to maintain mountain lion populations, were central to this complaint.


The consequences of no-sport harvest of mountain lions are less understood in California. High levels of mountain lion predation on small isolated populations of bighorn sheep (Ovis Canadensis cremnobates) and Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep (O. v. sierra) populations being listed as federally endangered populations.


Ballot Initiatives


It is interesting that prior to the elimination of sport hunting in California, annual harvest was approximately 150 mountain lions per year. Today, California and U. S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services cull approximately 150 mountain lions per year because of depredation complaints on livestock and on pets and because of concerns for human safety. The historical number of 150 mountain lions per year more accurately reflects the actual number of mountain lions killed than does the current estimates because a bounty was paid during much of the historical period. It has been suggested that frustration with restrictions imposed by Proposition 117 may result in mountain lions being killed illegally, resulting in an underestimate of mountain lion harvest. Total mountain lion harvest in California today, following the complete ban of sport harvest, probably exceeds mountain lion harvest prior to the ban.


Endangered Ungulates versus Hunted Ungulates


Rate this item
(1 vote)

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 2nd 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.


Rate this item
(3 votes)
At the May 2009 tag quota setting meeting the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners voted in a split decision 1 to 7 to support the recommendation of Elko based Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) wildlife biologist Tony Wasley to issue 987 doe mule deer tags in areas 101, 102, 104A, which encompass all of the Ruby Mountains north of Harrison Pass.

            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  

Rate this item
(1 vote)

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

Rate this item
(0 votes)

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.

Rate this item
(0 votes)

Santa Fe - New Mexican - May 2, 2009

Game and Fish can't release an animal only to have it attack someone

Staci Matlock

The debate over what should happen when cougars encounter humans is heating up again.  
After a New Mexico Department of Game and Fish warden darted a female cougar in the backyard of an Eldorado home April 20 and later euthanized it, angry callers and letter writers lambasted the agency for "trigger happy" tactics.

'09 Apr 30

Wake Up Sportsmen!

Written by Hunters Alert
Rate this item
(0 votes)
I find the silence deafening with the Larry Johnson clones and other selfish people who have refused to comment on the worst wildlife bill ever proposed. That bill is A.B.  437 and here are the contents of the bill.

The bill will allow a private organization (501C.3) to receive big game tags with no limit on the number of tags and the tags can be auctioned or raffled off at any price. This bill is intended to bypass the current system of auctioning off governor's tags and the Partnership in Wildlife (PIW) tags.

Search Articles

Login Form

Donate to the Website

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.