| OCR Text |
Show Study ShoivG Effect Of Big Came Poaching Results of a study on the effect of poaching on big game herds were recently released by the New Mexico Fish and Game Department. The research project indicates in-dicates that illegal game taking activities have a significant sig-nificant effect on big game populations. ACCORDING to the study, poaching during closed season is responsible for the killing of large numbers of deer and other big game animals. Data shows these losses in New Mexico often exceed legal harvest (for some species) taken by sport hunters during the regular season. The report also stated crippling loss associated with the poaching activities is very high and may equal as much as one animal left in the field to die, for every animal poached and transported from the scene. JOHN NAGEL, chief of Law Enforcement for the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, said that trying to adapt data derived from studies in other states to Utah is not totally reliable but that the similarity in terrain and wildlife populations and species between Utah and New Mexico tends to support the belief that Utah and other western states have a serious poaching problem. As a concerned sportsman, perhaps your first thought is to blame the Division's conservation con-servation officers for failing in their job of protecting the state's wildlife. Nagel stated plainly that Utah's wildlife law enforcement program and the Division's officers are progressive and competent. "WE HAVE full confidence in our officers' ability and dedication to their responsibilities," respon-sibilities," Nagel said. He continued, "Like other .states, the ratio of conservation officers of-ficers to hunters and fishermen fisher-men is rather unbalanced. In Utah, we currently have about one officer for every 9,000 licensed sportsmen. "Additionally, each other is responsible for more than 1,200 square miles of the state. It is, under these circumstances, cir-cumstances, physically impossible im-possible to check every person per-son who goes afield." IN AN editorial accompanying accom-panying the study results. Bill Huey, director of the New Mexico Fish and Game offered of-fered the following suggestions sugges-tions for coping with game law violations. Nagel indicat-" indicat-" ed that they were directly applicable to Utah. 1. Fines must be levied that constitute a real financial deterrent de-terrent to illegal taking of game animals, including the implementation of jail sentences sen-tences for those who insist on violating wildlife laws. 2. PUBLIC input and involvement in-volvement must be increased to assure a significant number of persons who violate wildlife laws are apprehended. This necessitates a mental commitment com-mitment from each outdoors-man outdoors-man or woman to recognize and exercise his or her personal per-sonal responsibility. 3. The general public must also be involved in correcting the situation by electing Justices Jus-tices of the Peace who have and will maintain a keen interest in wildlife matters. 4. MORE conservation officers of-ficers are needed to adequately ade-quately patrol Utah's out-of-doors. This will demand more funds but is necessary to conduct con-duct a thorough and aggressive aggres-sive wildlife enforcement program. 5. A communications tool is needed to educate the public about the losses to wildlife and the public's responsibility respon-sibility in helping to protect it. Such a tool would also help convince potential violators that increasing law enforcement en-forcement efficiency means a greater probability of being apprehended for violations. " ONE OF the interesting aspects as-pects of the study in New Mexico was the hiring of a "poacher" who simulated wildlife violations for a full year. Although this poacher estimated he was observed by the public in some obvious violation on at least 43 occasions, oc-casions, he was reported only once. By comparing the number of actual simulations and the apprehensions detected by officers, of-ficers, the Fish and Game was able to make a rough projection of illegal losses experienced in New Mexico. These surprising results indicated in-dicated that as many as 34,000 ' head of deer and 3,000 an-, telope may be lost to poachers during closed season months ' in one year. |
