- Thread starter eddiehsf
- Start date
wmidbrook
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Messages
- 4,405
- Reaction score
- 3
Good article.
NDOW's mission statement:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
NDOW officials, are in a catch-22 situation, where the least vocal stake-holders are the very wildlife they're trying to manage.
The sad part here is that NDOW decision-makers may not be playing the game in favor of wildlife.
They're posturing for the pending law suite rather following their Mission which is to manage for wildlife. They're managing hunting opportunities for residents potentially at the expense of wildlife.
NDOW is looking at potentially having to do as AZ did in terms of over-allocating tags or calling off the season entirely for wildlife (we'll see if this is a bluff or not). If the court orders to allocate non-residents as many tags as residents, wildlife looses because NDOW (not the courts) will have facilitated a over-harvest.
If NDOW was playing this out such that harvest quotas were not exceeded, they'd under-allocate the number of tags pending the outcome of their lawsuite.
Why Nevada won't choose to stop 2005 hunts (why it's a bluff): ...I could be wrong
--We all know that residents and NV outfitters will be angrier than a stirred up hornet's nest if they were to stop all hunts rather than allocate half the tags to non-residents
--NV is in financial trouble and needs tag $$$
--The NDOW officials who have to report to elected officials will have politicians on their butts to proceed with the hunts (I would bet $1,000 they're calculating that this additional tag allocations will satisfy the courts and the elected officials they have to report to)
Ironic how they threw "for citizens of Nevada and the United States" into the mission statement....I guess it all boils down to interpretation.
There's bound to be a lot at work behind the scenes regardless of NV's strategy on this we just aren't privvy to. I just hope in the end game management objectives aren't sacrificed in an attempt to sway the outcome.
NDOW's mission statement:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
NDOW officials, are in a catch-22 situation, where the least vocal stake-holders are the very wildlife they're trying to manage.
The sad part here is that NDOW decision-makers may not be playing the game in favor of wildlife.
They're posturing for the pending law suite rather following their Mission which is to manage for wildlife. They're managing hunting opportunities for residents potentially at the expense of wildlife.
NDOW is looking at potentially having to do as AZ did in terms of over-allocating tags or calling off the season entirely for wildlife (we'll see if this is a bluff or not). If the court orders to allocate non-residents as many tags as residents, wildlife looses because NDOW (not the courts) will have facilitated a over-harvest.
If NDOW was playing this out such that harvest quotas were not exceeded, they'd under-allocate the number of tags pending the outcome of their lawsuite.
Why Nevada won't choose to stop 2005 hunts (why it's a bluff): ...I could be wrong
--We all know that residents and NV outfitters will be angrier than a stirred up hornet's nest if they were to stop all hunts rather than allocate half the tags to non-residents
--NV is in financial trouble and needs tag $$$
--The NDOW officials who have to report to elected officials will have politicians on their butts to proceed with the hunts (I would bet $1,000 they're calculating that this additional tag allocations will satisfy the courts and the elected officials they have to report to)
Ironic how they threw "for citizens of Nevada and the United States" into the mission statement....I guess it all boils down to interpretation.
There's bound to be a lot at work behind the scenes regardless of NV's strategy on this we just aren't privvy to. I just hope in the end game management objectives aren't sacrificed in an attempt to sway the outcome.
