WILDLIFE(COYOTE)KILLINGCONTESTPETITION:TOBE
PRESENTEDTOTHENEVADABOARDOFWILDLIFE
COMMISSIONERS:
NOVEMBER13-14,2015
RENO,NEVADA
RESPONSESTOITEMS1-10OFTHEPETITIONFORM
1. Statetheneedforandpurposeoftheproposedregulation:
OURREQUEST
Werequestaregulation(s)whichprohibitswildlifekillingcontestsinvolvingmammals.Whilerecent
contestswhichhavecaughtthepublic’sattentioninvolvecoyotes,historically,manyotherspecies
havealsobeentargeted(e.g.prairiedogs,rabbits,buffalo,wolvesandothers).
Webelievesucharegulation(s)iswarrantedforthefollowingreasons:
•
•
•
•
Suchcontestsviolateethicsandstandardsthatthepublicandmanysportsmenexpectof
themselves:respectforthelivesofanimalskilled,aprohibitionagainstgratuitousslaughterof
anyspecies(wantonwaste),the“fairchase”principle,theexpectationofuseofbestavailable
scienceinmoderndaywildlifemanagementandtherecognitionthatallspecieshaveaplacein
ourenvironment.
SuchcontestsareaviolationoftheNorthAmericanModelofWildlifeConservation,specifically
(1)theprohibitionagainstfrivoloususe,(2)therequirementforuseofbestscienceinwildlife
management,and(3)therecognitionthatallwildlifeisincludedinthePublicTrustDoctrineand
shouldbemanagedaccordingtothepublicinterest.
Suchcontestsarenotsupportedbybestavailablescienceregardingcoyotepopulation
dynamics.Localconcentratedkillingoftheanimalmay,infact,haveunwantedadverse
consequencesincludingincreasedlittersizes,morejuvenilesandmalesappearinginthe
populationwithlessdisciplinethancoyotesraisedonahomerange.
Suchcontestsareobjectionabletothegeneralpublicwhichisbecomingconcernedabout
abusesofitswildliferesourcesthroughsocialmediaandotheroutlets.Recentnationalpublic
concernregardingthekillingofCeciltheLion,anactwhichthegeneralpublicappearstoviewas
1
unnecessaryandgratuitous,providesadditionalevidenceofthepublic’sgrowingawarenessand
interestinwildlifemanagementissuesandpractices.
BACKGROUND
Aroundthecountry,over200coyotekillingcontestshaveoccurredinthepastfewyears.(Personal
correspondencefromElisabethDicharry,whomonitorsnation-wideoccurrences.)InNevada,
coyotekillingcontestshaveoccurredinseverallocations.
Shouldcoyotesberemovedasatargetspeciesbyregulatorychange,eventorganizerscouldeasily
targetotherspecies(e.g.fox,badger,skunk,raccoon,bobcat,beaver,muskrat,rabbit)not
protectedbyquotas.Anyregulation(s)should,therefore,beconstructedinabroadmanner.
Wildlifekillingcontestsoccurwithoutapparentrecognitionorappreciationbytheorganizersor
participantsofethicalconsiderationswhichsportsmenhaveembracedfordecades.Publicdisplays
ofpiledupcarcasses,internetpostingsofphotographsandobjectionablecommentaryby
participantsabouttheanimalskilled,suggeststheoppositemotivationbyparticipantsandevent
organizers.Thiscontradictionbetweenwhatsportsmenclaimtostandforandwhatthegeneral
publicviewsonitscomputerscreensorinnewspapershasnotgoneunnoticed.
Sofar,eventorganizersorparticipantshaveexpressednointerestinterminatingsuchevents,
arguingthatsocialinteractionamongeventparticipants“trumps”anybiologicalorpublic
objections,thatthecoyotepopulationisnotplacedinjeopardy,andbyrandomlykillingcoyotesan
unspecifiedandunsubstantiatedbenefittolivestockproducersandwildlifeoccurs.
Wearerequestingthecommissioninitscapacityastheregulatorybody,responsibleforrulesand
regulationsregardingwildlifemanagementonbehalfofthepublic,totakeactiononbehalfofthe
citizensofNevadatoeliminatetheseeventsand,bydoingso,toexpressitssupportforproperand
traditionalvaluesandpracticeswhichmostsportsmenhaveobservedinthepastandwillcontinue
topracticeintothefuture.
DEFINITIONOFWILDLIFEKILLINGCONTEST
Weareunawareofanyformaldefinition.Ourviewisthatwildlifekillingcontestsareeventswhich
mayincludebutarenotlimitedtosuchthingsas:advertising/promotingofananimalkillingevent
(viainternet/posters/emails);specifyingadate/time/placefortheeventtobeginandend;may/may
notaskforregistrationfeesorofferprizesforanimalskilledwithspecificcharacteristics(e.g.
biggest,mostkilled);offergamblingopportunities;haveasocialeventplannedforparticipants
beforeorafterwards;haveasponsor/sponsoringorganizationorbusiness;providepost-contest
displaysofcarcassesofkilledanimalswithphotosofthecarcassespostedbyparticipants/sponsors
andwherehumanconsumptionoftheanimalisunlikely.
Wehavenotincludedphotographsshowingtheendresultsofsuchcontestssincewedidsowith
ourpreviouspetition.Thisisnota“slipperyslope”.Theseeventsareeasilyidentifiedbytheir
characteristicsandphotographs.
2
COMMISSIONAUTHORITYTOREGULATEWILDLIFEKILLINGCONTESTS
ItisouropinionthatNRS501.100,NRS501.105,NRS501.181,NRS503.050,NRS503.090,NRS
503.450,NAC503.005,NAC503.015,NAC503.090,alongwithAGOopinion85-13,separatelyorin
combination,constitutesufficientauthoritytocreatethenecessaryregulation(s)toimplementthis
petition.Petitionersalsobelievethecommissionknowsithastheauthoritysofurtherelaboration
ofthispointisunnecessary.
DOESTHECOYOTE’SSTATUSNEEDTOBECHANGEDFROM
“UNPROTECTED”TOENACTTHEREQUESTEDREGULATION?
SincethisquestionwasraisedattheMarch20,2015petitionhearing,ourresponseisNO.NAC
503.090definesanunprotectedwildmammalasoneforwhichthereisnoclosedseasonforits
pursuit.Weseenothinginthatdefinitionthatspeakstothecommission’sauthoritytoregulate
contests.Thetwoitemsareunrelatedinourjudgment.
SCIENCEISSUES
Whilewebelievethecompellingreasonstobanwildlifekillingcontestsareethicalinnature,
informationaboutthepopulationdynamicsofanimalsbeingtargetedshouldbeconsidered.Inthe
caseofcoyotes,muchisknownandagreedupon.
Thereisnodocumentationthatrandomkillingofcoyotesprovidesbenefitstoagricultureorwildlife.
Infact,suchkillingmayallowforgreateractivitybylessercarnivores/omnivoressuchasfoxes,
badgers,skunksandthelikewithunintendedadverseconsequencesforwildlifeandagriculture.
Coyotesrespondtokilling,particularlyunderintenseconditions,byincreasingtheirreproduction
withlargerlittersizes,morejuvenilesinthepopulation,morefemalesbreedingifthesocial
structureisdisrupted(i.e.nointactalphamale/alphafemalepackstructure)andotherchanges
thoughttobeundesirablebywildlifemanagersandagriculturalinterests.
Eventorganizersandparticipantshavenoclueastothedynamicsofthecoyotepopulationinareas
whereeventsareheld.Ifthatpopulationisalreadyintensivelybeingkilled(e.g.WildlifeServicesis
activeinthearea),orifWildlifeServicesorothers,byrandomkillingofcoyotesinthearea,have
disruptedanotherwisestable,self-limitingpackstructure,coyotekillingcontestscouldcontribute
toincreasedcoyotereproductionintheimpactedareawithadverseconsequences.
U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture/APHIS/WildlifeServices,inanNEPAupdateforNevadaafewyears
ago,estimatedthecoyotepopulationinNevadaat100,000animals.Weagreethatcoyotekilling
contestswillnotplaceNevada’scoyotepopulationinjeopardy.Itisthepopulationdynamicsthat
shouldreceivethefocusofattention.
3
THREEEXAMPLESOFCOMMENTARYREGARDINGCOYOTEPOPULATIONDYNAMICS
PatrickJackson,anemployeeoftheNevadaDepartmentofWildlife,hadthisstudypublished
recently:
Human–WildlifeInteractions8(2):180–194,Fall2014
EFFECTSOFREMOVALONALIGHTLYEXPLOITEDCOYOTE
POPULATIONINEASTERNNEVADA
PatrickJ.Jackson,UtahStateUniversity,5230OldMainHill,Logan,UT84322-5230,USA
[email protected]
Thesetwostatementscontainedinhisstudyspeaktotheabilityofthecoyotetorespondwith
increasedreproductionundercertainconditions:
“Removaleffortsnotonlycanchangethepopulationdynamics,butalsocanmodifycoyote
behavior
andmovement(KnowltonandGese1995).Coyotepopulationsrespondtoadecreasein
populationbyincreasingtheirproductivityandtheproportionoffemalesbreeding(Jeanand
Bergeron1984,Andelt1987,KnowltonandGese1995,Knowltonetal.1999).Forexample,
Knowlton(1972)foundthatascoyoteremoval
effortsintensified,theaveragelittersizeincreasedfrom4.3to6.9.
CrabtreeandSheldon(1999)haveoneofthemostdetaileddescriptionsofhuman-exploited
coyotepopulations.Theycitetheamountofhuman-relatedmortality,pupsurvival,averageadult
age,andproportionsofpupsinthepopulationsasfactorsthatvaryindirectresponseto
exploitation(Table1).”
NDOWPROJECTS14&15
Projects14&15,acoyotekilling/muledeerenhancementprojectinSoutheasternNevadafound
similarresults.Hereisasummaryregardingcoyotereproductioninresponsetoconcentratedkilling
oftheanimal:
Projects14&15
CoyoteRemovalForDeerEnhancement
C.SchroederandKevinLansford
2/9/2009
Abstract
Wequantifiedtheeffectsof5yearsofcoyoteremovalinGameManagement
Units222and231,LincolnCo.,NVduringfiscalyears(FY)2003-2008.We
summarizedtrendsincoyoteageandpopulationstructureusingdataobtained
fromtooth-ageanalysis(cementum)ofteethtakenfromharvestedcoyotesby
4
WildlifeServices.Meanageofcoyotesdeclinedthroughouttheexperimental
periodinGMU231asaresultofadditivelyremovingcoyotesbyaerialgunning
andgroundremovalseachyear.Also,juveniletoadultratiossignificantly
increasedbytheendoftheexperimentalperiodaswellasthenumberofadult
malestoadultfemalesinthepopulation.
CoyoteAgeStucture
Theresultsof5yearsofcoyoteremovalinGameManagementUnit(GMU)231
andthenorthernportionofGMU222inEasternNevadaappeartohavehad
significanteffectsonthepopulationdynamicsofcoyotesinthoserespective
areas.Meanageofcoyotesharvestedthroughgroundcontrolmeasures
(trapping,calling,andshooting)decreasedineachsubsequentyearinGMU231
startinginfiscalyear(FY)2004andendinginFY2008forwhichthemostrecent
dataisavailable(Table1,Figure1).
Furthermorethepup:adultratiowasalsoimpactedbytheremovalofcoyotes
intheexperimentalareawiththeaveragenumberofpupstoadultfemalesFY
2008(Table1,Figure2).FY2008(Table1,Figure2).FY2008(Table1,Figure2).
FY2008(Table1,Figure2).takenbygroundmeasuresincreasingfrom0.94inFY
2004to2.92bytheendofFY2008
5
PROJECTCOYOTECRABTREEMONOGRAPH(PAPERISATTACHED)
HereisthequestionDr.CrabtreeaddressedinhisProjectCoyotemonographanda
fewofhiscommentsregardingcoyotepopulationdynamics:
“Thisletteroutlinesaresponsetothegeneralquestion"Whateffectdoes
reduction of coyotes (older than 6 months) have on the remaining
population?"Thisquestioniscentraltotherepeatedclaimthatreduction
(mortality)ofadultcoyotesfromhumancontrolpracticeslessenspredation
ondomesticsheeporgameanimalssuchasmuledeerorantelope.
It cannot be over-emphasized how powerfully coyote populations
compensateforpopulationreductions.Suchdensitydependentresponses
to exploitation (human-caused mortality) are common in mammals and
presentinallterritorialpopulationsatornearhabitatsaturation.
Human control resulting in density reduction results in a smaller social
groupsizewhichincreasesthefoodpercoyoteratiowithintheterritory.The
foodorpreysurplusisbiologicallytransformedintosomewhatlargerlitter
sizesandalmostalwaysmuchhigherlittersurvivalrates(whicharelowin
unexploitedpopulations).
Reductions(non-selective,indiscriminatekillingofadults)causeanincrease
in the percentage of females breeding. Coyote populations are distinctly
structuredinnon-overlappingbutcontiguousterritorialpacks.About95%
ofthetime,onlyonefemale(thedominantoralpha)inapackbreeds.Other
females, physiologically capable of breeding, are "behaviorally sterile
recruitedtobecomeanalphaorbreedingfemale.”
6
WHATSCIENTISTSSAYABOUTWILDIFEKILLINGCONTESTS?(LETTERISATTACHED)
Mr.JacksoncreditedRobertCrabtree,Ph.D.(CrabtreeandSheldonabove)with“oneofthemost
detaileddescriptionsofhuman-exploitedcoyotepopulations.”Dr.Crabtree,arespectedwildlife
researcherandcoyoteexpert,helpedauthoraletteronbehalfofProjectCoyote,datedApril16,
2014,detailingthescientificreasonswhyheandmorethanthreedozenofhisacademiccolleagues
opposewildlifekillingcontests.
ETHICALREASONSTOBANWILDLIFEKILLINGCONTESTS
InperusingstatementsofHunterEthicsaroundtheinternet(e.g.NRA,BooneandCrockett,National
ShootingSportsFoundation,),onefindslittlethatisspecifictoourissue.TheBooneandCrockett
FairChaseStatement,forexample,listsonlysixitemswhichafairreaderwouldlikelyconclude
favorsourpetition:
FAIRCHASESTATEMENT
FAIRCHASE,asdefinedbytheBooneandCrockettClub,istheethical,sportsmanlike,and
lawfulpursuitandtakingofanyfree-rangingwild,nativeNorthAmericanbiggameanimal
inamannerthatdoesnotgivethehunteranimproperadvantageoversuchanimals.
HUNTERETHICS
Fundamentaltoallhuntingistheconceptofconservationofnaturalresources.Huntingin
today's world involves the regulated harvest of individual animals in a manner that
conserves,protects,andperpetuatesthehuntedpopulation.Thehunterengagesinaoneto-onerelationshipwiththequarryandhisorherhuntingshouldbeguidedbyahierarchy
ofethicsrelatedtohunting,whichincludesthefollowingtenets:
1.Obeyallapplicablelawsandregulations.
2.Respectthecustomsofthelocalewherethehuntingoccurs.
3. Exercise a personal code of behavior that reflects favorably on your abilities and
sensibilitiesasahunter.
4.Attainandmaintaintheskillsnecessarytomakethekillascertainandquickaspossible.
5. Behave in a way that will bring no dishonor to either the hunter, the hunted, or the
environment.
6. Recognize that these tenets are intended to enhance the hunter's experience of the
relationshipbetweenpredatorandprey,whichisoneofthemostfundamentalrelationships
ofhumansandtheirenvironment.
7
WHATABOUTTHENORTHAMERICANMODELOFWILDLIFECONSERVATION?
TheNorthAmericanModelofWildlifeConservation(NAMWC)isoftenmentionedincommission
meetingsandintheliteratureasamoderndaystatementofprinciplestoguideandshapewildlife
management.Atleastthreeoftheprinciplesapplytoourpetition.HereiswhatBooneand
CrockettClubsaysregardingthosethree“Sisters”:
“InthePublicTrust–Wildlifebelongstothepeopleandmanagedintrustforthepeopleby
governmentagencies.WhoownswildlifewasdeterminedbyaSupremeCourtdecisionatthetime
theNewWorldwasflexingitsnewindependencefromEuropeanrule.ThePublicTrustDoctrineisthe
pillarofNorthAmericanconservation,butittooktimeforcitizenstofullyunderstandthe
responsibilitiesthatcamewiththisownership.ManyoftheBooneandCrockettClub’searlyefforts
werefocusedonawakeningthepeopletotheplightoftheirwildliferesources,andthatthese
resourcesdidindeedbelongtothem,andwereintheircare.Theseeffortswereinconcertwiththe
conservationlawstheClubanditsmemberswereproposingtoaidintherecoveryandprotectionof
wildlife.Oncethepublicrealizeditwastheirwildlifebeingirresponsiblyeliminatedtheiroutcrywas
sogreatthatconservationlegislationpassedwithease.
Non-frivolousUse–InNorthAmericawecanlegallykillcertainwildlifeforlegitimatepurposes
understrictguidelinesforfoodandfur,inself-defense,orpropertyprotection.Lawsareinplaceto
restrictcasualkilling,killingforcommercialpurposes,wastingofgame,andmistreatingwildlife.The
rulesofproperuse,bothinwrittenlawandpersonalethics,didnotexistincommercialmarketand
sustenancehuntingcultures.Astheseactivitiesfaded,whatremainedwasrecreational,sport
hunting.Whatseparatedatruesportsmanfrommarketgunnerswasanethicalcodeofpersonal
conductthatwasdefinedandpromotedbytheBooneandCrockettClub.ThesesametenetsofFair
Chasewereusedasthecornerstoneofmodern-daygamelaws.Clubmember,AldoLeopoldis
creditedwithframingtheconceptofalandethicandmanagingentirebioticcommunities.
Combined,thefoundationsfortheproperuseoftheintricatenatureofecosystemsandbiotic
communities,ofwhichallwildlifeandmanbelong,willbemanagedundertheknowledgeofscience
ratherthanopinion,orconjecture.
ManagedbyScience–Thebestscienceavailablewillbeusedasabaseforinformeddecisionmaking
inwildlifemanagement.Theintricatenatureofecosystemsandbioticcommunities,ofwhichall
wildlifeandmanbelong,willbemanagedundertheknowledgeofscienceratherthanopinion,or
conjecture.BooneandCrockettClubfounder,TheodoreRooseveltwasastrongadvocateofscience,
andthatonlythebestscienceavailablewastobeusedtomakecriticaldecisionsonnaturalresource
management.TheClubbeganbyprovidingseedmoneyforsomeofthefirstwildliferesearch
projects.Undertheleadershipofmember,AldoLeopoldtheClubbeganformulatingflexiblescientific
managementpoliciesforwildlifeandnaturalresourcestoachieveanecologicalbalance.TheClub
alsocalledforthefirstPresident’sConferenceonOutdoorRecreation,whichleadtothe
establishmentoftheNationalRecreationPolicy,whichcoordinatedresourcemanagementat
federal,state,andlocallevels.”
Clearly,thesethreecorevaluesofNAMWCasexpressedbyBooneandCrockettClubsupportour
petition.
8
PUBLICSUPPORT
Thereisnoquestionabouttheconcernofthegeneralpublicandevenamongsomesportsmen
regardingtheseevents.ThepublicturnoutfortheMarch20,2015hearing,thepresscoverage
beforeandafter,andtheemailtrafficreceivedbycommissionmembersconfirmsthatwildlifekilling
contestsarecontroversialandinneedofreviewbytheproperregulatorybody.
DOCOYOTEKILLINGCONTESTS“HELPCONTROL”COYOTEPOPULATIONS
ANDBENEFITLIVESTOCKPRODUCERS?
Inourview,theanswerisNO.Theseemptyclaimsareprovidedbyproponentsofwildlifekilling
contestsaspartialjustificationfortheevents.(Socialinteractionamongparticipantsseemstobe
viewedasmostimportant.)
Inorderforwildlifekillingcontestparticipantstoexerta“control”function,therewouldneedtobe
amanagementplanwhichprovidedananalysisofcoyotepopulationlevels,areasinneedof
“control”(aeuphemismforkilling),when/where/howmany/whichanimalswereinneedof
“control”,astop/startschedule,projectedgoals,objectivesandthelike.
Thereisnosuchdocument.Thereneverhasbeensuchadocument.Therefore,thereisno
“control”functionexertedbyparticipants.Theparticipantsrandomlykillanimalsandclaiman
unsubstantiatedbenefit.
Similarly,claimsbyranchersthatlivestockinterestswillbejeopardizedifwildlifekillingcontestsare
prohibitedignoresthefactthattheU.S.DepartmentofAgriculture/APHIS/WildlifeServicesservesas
thedesignatedprotectorofagriculturalandlivestockinterestsinNevada.Adhocwildlifekilling
contests,randomlykillingcoyotesinunpredictablelocations,offernoprotectiontolivestock
interests.
PUBLICLANDVERSUSPRIVATEPROPERTY
Petitionersbelievethecommissionhastheauthoritytocreateregulationsprohibitingtheseevents
onpublicland.SinceNevadaiscomprisedof80%publicland,mostofthestatewouldbeaffected.
Petitionersalsobelievethat,shouldthecommissionexpressdisapprovaloftheseeventsviacreation
ofsuchregulations,privatelandownersmayshowrestraintaswell.
QUESTIONSANDCONFLICTS
AttheMarch20,2015petitionhearing,anumberof(hypothetical)“whatifs”wereraisedbysome
commissionmembersthatmayormaynotbeimportanttothecreationofourrequested
regulation(s).Thequestionersseemedtoimplythatallsuch“whatifs”neededtobeanticipatedby
thepetitionersandresolvedbeforethepetitioncouldbeconsideredforadoption.
OurviewisthatpetitionershavenosuchdutyunderNRS,NACorCommissionPolicyP-4.Nordo
petitionershavenecessaryauthoritytocreateregulationsorresolveconflictswithexistinglaw.The
latterresponsibilityrestswiththeLegislativeCounselBureauonceagency-draftedproposed
regulationsaresubmittedtoLCBforreview.
Furthermore,thispetitiondoesnotchallengeorseektochangeexistingregulation(s).Weare
askingforanewregulation(s).Untilourrequestisadoptedandsenttoagencystaffforpreparation
9
ofdraftregulatorylanguage,itisnotpossible,inourview,forallcontingenciesorconflictstobe
foreseenbypetitionersorbythecommissionitself.
Petitionersbelievethecorrectcourseofactionbythecommissionistoacceptthepetitionatface
value,initiatetheprocessforcreationofproposedregulatorylanguageandresolveanyconflictsor
uncertaintiesintheusualbureaucraticmannerasisdoneroutinelybytheagency.Petitioners
wouldbehappytoparticipateinthatprocessonceregulatorylanguagehasbeenproposed.
2. Provide(orattach)thewordingforthechangeyouareproposing:
Sincethereisnoexistingregulationforwhichtoproposeachange,newregulatorylanguagewould
berequired.Wedidoffersuggestionswithourlastpetition,baseduponwhattheCaliforniaFish
andGameCommissiondidinDecember,2014.OthersuggestionswereofferedbasedonNRS/NAC.
TheNewMexicolegislatureconsideredabillbanningsuchcontestslastsessionthatpassedthe
SenatebutnottheHouse.ThatproposedlanguagemightbeusefulinNevadashouldourpetition
beadopted.
Ourviewisthat,shouldourpetitionbeadopted,departmentstaffwoulddraftproposedregulatory
languagewhichwouldworkitswaythroughtheCABsandcommissioninusualfashion.LCBwould
haveitsturnaswell.Ifallgoeswell,workableregulationswillbetheresultofthatprocess.
3. Whatistheestimated“economic”effectoftheregulationonthebusinesswhichit
istoregulate?
(a)Includebothadverseandbeneficialeffects:
(b)Includebothimmediateandlong-termeffects:
Thispetitiondoesnotseektoregulate/financiallyimpactanybusinessorbusinesses,immediateor
long-term.
Wildlifekillingcontestsareorganizedinanadhocmannerinvariouslocationsandatvarioustimes
dependingonthepreferencesandchoicesoftheeventorganizers.Shouldwildlifekillingcontests
beprohibited,eventorganizerscouldstillhostsucheventsusingcamerasandawardprizesonthe
basisofbestphotographs.Nolossofrevenueneedoccur.
4. Whatistheestimated“economic”effectoftheregulationonthepublicwhichitis
toregulate?
(a)Includebothadverseandbeneficialeffects:
(b)Includebothimmediateandlong-termeffects:
Therewouldbenolargescaleregulatoryimpactonthegeneralpublicshouldourpetitionbe
adopted.OurpetitionwouldimposeregulatoryrestrictionsonavirtualhandfulofNevadans.
Sinceorganizersclaimthat,insomecases,participantsreceivenofinancialbenefitbecausepeltsale
proceedsaredonatedtocharitablecauses,theremaybesomelossofincometocertaincharitable
organizations.Thatincomelosswouldbesmall(100deadcoyotesat$25/peltwouldproduce
$2500;10deadcoyoteswouldbe$250).
10
ThePublicTrustwouldbenefitbyeveryanimalnotkilledbyeventparticipants.Thoughkilling
contestparticipantsclaimaneconomicbenefittocharitableorganizationsbyvirtueoftheiractivity,
thesameeconomicvalueislosttothePublicTrust.Thequestioniswhicheconomicvalueis
preferredbythegeneralpublic.
5. WhatistheestimatedcosttotheDepartmentofWildlifeforenforcementofthe
proposedregulation?
Thecostsshouldbeminimal.Theagencycreates/modifiesandpublicizesregulatorychangesasa
matterofroutinebusiness.AlertingtheBLMregardingtheenactmentofthenewregulationwould
providethatagencywithadditionalimpetustomonitorandenforceitscurrentprohibitionofsuch
eventsonpubliclandswithoutaSpecialRecreationalPermit,therebylesseningthelikelihoodof
illegalevents.
Enforcementofthenewregulation,aswithallregulations,dependsmostlyonvoluntarycompliance
bythosewhoseektopartakeoftheprivilegeofhavingahunting,trappingorfishinglicensein
Nevada.Failuretofollowtherulesshouldresultinlossoftheprivilegeoflicensurefortheoffender.
6. Doestheproposedchangeoverlaporduplicateanyregulationsofotherstateor
localgovernmentagencies?NO.
7. Doestherequestedchangeoverlaporduplicateafederalregulation?NO.
8. Istherequestedchangerequiredbyfederallaw?NO.
Doestherequestedchangeincludeprovisionswhicharemorestringentthata
federalregulationthatregulatesthesameactivity?NO.
9. Doestherequestedchangeestablishanewfeeorincreaseanexistingfee?NO.
10. Doestherequestedchangeestablishanewfeeorincreaseanexistingfee?NO.
Revised10/08/2015
Prepared:DonMolde,withhelpfromStewartWhite,FredVoltzandothers
11