MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING
Sixty-seventh Session
March 24, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was called to order by Chairman Vivian L. Freeman at 1:30 p.m., March 24, 1993, in Room 321 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman, Chairman
Mr. John B. Regan, Vice Chairman
Mr. Douglas A. Bache
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Ms. Marcia de Braga
Mr. Peter G. Ernaut
Mr. James A. Gibbons
Mr. Roy Neighbors
Mr. Robert M. Sader
Mr. Michael A. Schneider
Ms. Stephanie Smith
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director
OTHERS PRESENT:
Willie Molini, Department of Wildlife; Terry Crawforth, Department of Wildlife; Fred Wright, Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife; Joe Johnson, Sierra Club; Ed Presley, Citizen; Doug Busselman, Nevada Farm Bureau.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Freeman and roll call was taken.
SENATE BILL 113:
Clarifies period of validity for certain hunting or fishing licenses.
Mr. Willie Molini, Director, Department of Wildlife, and Mr. Terry Crawforth, Deputy Director, Department of Wildlife would both introduce wildlife bills on the agenda.
Mr. Terry Crawforth explained S.B. 113 was a housekeeping bill requested because of a conflict in statute. The statute addressed "the hunting, fishing and trapping licenses of a person who buys a license and leaves the state, that license becomes void when they are no longer a resident," and the exception would be added.
ASSEMBLYMAN SADER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 113.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)
********
SENATE BILL 122:
Increases fee for duplicate license for hunting, fishing or trapping.
Director Molini explained S.B. 122 was basically a housekeeping bill. The bill makes provided if an unexpired hunting or fishing license was lost or stolen, the license holder, by making application and certifying under oath the license was lost or stolen, could obtain a duplicate license. The current fee for replacement was $1 and the proposal would be to raise the amount to $5, except for two classes of license. Where the face value would be less than $5, such as a senior or handicap hunting and fishing license, it would be the face value. He explained most of the license fees were in the range of $20 for fishing and hunting. Additional revenue would be approximately $3,000 which would cover the cost of issuance of duplicate licenses.
Mrs. Freeman asked if any opposition had been voiced against S.B. 122. Mr. Molini indicated he had not heard of any.
ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 122.
ASSEMBLYMAN SCHNEIDER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)
********
SENATE BILL 131:
Defines phrase "to take" for purposes of certain statutory provisions relating to wildlife.
Mr. Terry Crawforth stated the Department of Wildlife for forty plus years had been involved in hunting, fishing and trapping and the words hunt, fish, trap, take, etc. had been synonymous with the activity. He explained over the last ten years the department had been involved in nontraditional activities such as the collection of wildlife. The term "take" has been used in 19 different sections and legal counsel and prosecuting attorneys around the state advised the department to define "take" in the statutes. Other words which were now being used with the new activities of the Wildlife Department were seining and snaring, which were not traditional methods of taking game fish or game animals. Mr. Crawforth asked for consideration of S.B. 131.
Mr. Sader said hunting, pursuing, fishing and stalking were four verbs which did not denote actually having an animal captured or controlled, killed or otherwise, and asked Mr. Crawforth if it would fit the meaning. Mr. Crawforth said some of the references in statute were "attempt to take."
Discussion regarding "to take" when used in reference to wildlife took place, and Mr. Sader emphasized the need to define the terms accurately.
Mrs. Freeman asked Mr. Molini to check with the Attorney General and come back to the committee with recommendations.
Mr. Sader told Mr. Molini and Mr. Crawforth to flag the terms hunt, pursue, fish and stalk as verbs which describe activities which amount to something less than killing, capturing, possessing or having control of an animal.
The hearing was closed on S.B. 131.
SENATE BILL 134:
Expands definition of "to fish" to include catching of game amphibians.
Mr. Terry Crawforth explained the substance of the bill would be in line 4 of S.B. 134 concerning "game amphibian." He said a fishing license had always been required to take bullfrogs but through the years it had been lost from the statutes. The term "game amphibian" would be added to the statute.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 134.
ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT.
********
SENATE BILL 135:
Makes various changes to provisions governing unlawful sale of game fish.
Mr. Terry Crawforth stated the Department of Wildlife did not wish to be involved in the licensing or permitting of firms or persons who dealt in the sale of certain fish in Nevada. Mr. Crawforth gave examples of activities the Department of Wildlife did not want to become involved with such as the Idaho mountain trout, lobsters in fish tanks at grocery stores, salt water mollusks, crustaceans, fish which come from game farms outside of Nevada or even live fish which come from licensed hatcheries.
ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 135.
ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT.
********
SENATE BILL 136:
Authorizes director of department of wildlife to enter certain cooperative or reciprocal agreements with states not adjoining Nevada.
Mr. Crawforth stated S.B. 136 would allow the Department of Wildlife to be involved with joint activities concerning enforcement of wildlife laws and management of some species, trading of one species for another for restocking in states which were not always adjoining states. The language change would be from adjoining states to any other state.
Mr. Schneider asked if this change would be like the exchange in Texas between turkeys and big horn sheep. Mr. Crawforth said yes, and was asked by Mr. Schneider how they were able to arrange the exchange before. Mr. Molini stated they had made exchanges with states not adjoining but would like to clarify the authority.
ASSEMBLYMAN SCHNEIDER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 136.
ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT.
********
ASSEMBLY BILL 338:
Requires department of wildlife to obtain approval of board of wildlife commissioners before taking certain actions.
Assemblyman John Carpenter, District 33, informed the committee he had distributed an amendment to A.B. 338. He said it was not his intention, as the original bill would indicate, to have a new section, he wished to amend NRS 501.181 where it addressed the duties and regulations of the commission. Mr. Carpenter referred to NRS 501.181, section 5 (Exhibit C), which states:
5. Adopt regulations requiring the department to make public, before official delivery, its proposed responses to any requests by federal agencies for its comment on drafts of statements concerning the environmental effect of proposed actions or regulations affecting public lands.
He also presented to the committee, Exhibit C, what regulations were required at the present time by NRS 501.100. Mr. Carpenter stated the regulations were not working and felt the issue of the "Goshawk" in Elko County showed the deficiency in the regulations. Mr. Carpenter stated a regional forester in Ogden, Utah ruled the "Goshawk" would be on a sensitive species list. This ruling would have shut down the drilling and exploration in Elko County for Independence Mining Company two or three months in the Spring. Independence Mining Company would have lost the whole season if required to shut down. The County Commissioners of Elko County and others contacted the Wildlife Commission, and the Forest Service did reverse the decision of the sensitive species listing. Mr. Carpenter felt if A.B. 338 had been in the regulations and the Wildlife Commission would have had to hear testimony regarding the "Goshawk," there would not have been the conflict which resulted in Elko County. He did not want the Wildlife Commission to make policy decisions or issue regulations on every incident. Mr. Carpenter's amendment, Exhibit C, should prevent the Wildlife Commission from making policy or regulations on every incident. He concluded his testimony with (Exhibit D), and stated better communications must be achieved. Mr. Carpenter said those who were to testify could not be at the hearing today.
Mr. Bache asked if it was the intent of Mr. Carpenter to delete the bill as a whole and insert the new language. Mr. Carpenter replied yes.
Mr. Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau, spoke in favor of passage of A.B. 338. He spoke of issues which had come before the Wildlife Commission and hence prevented a controversy. Mr. Busselman gave an example of the Wildlife Department going before the Commission every two years with plans for proposed transplanting and augmenting of wildlife populations. This process allowed the Farming industry, mining and others to come before the Wildlife Commission, participate in discussions and voice concerns before a vote was taken. The public forum improved relations between the Department of Wildlife and other resource users.
Mr. Ed Presley, a citizen from Las Vegas who worked with many attorneys across the country involving property right issues, testified in support of A.B. 338. He said the bill was a tool to keep in place the checks and balances to make sure there were no property right violations occurring whenever various agencies, federal government and the state made decisions on land use. The bill would offer input at the county level. He spoke of the Spotted Owl endangered species issue in Oregon, and the case was won by Douglas County, Oregon over the Federal Fish and Wildlife concerning the economic conditions caused by putting the Spotted Owl on the endangered species list. Mr. Presley urged passage of A.B. 338.
Mrs. Freeman asked for anyone in opposition to A.B. 338 to testify.
Mr. Willie Molini, Director, Department of Wildlife, said the department had serious concerns regarding A.B. 338, and this impacts on the ability to accomplish its statutory mission. He stated the statutes were quite clear in outlining the responsibilities of the Department of Wildlife which were to preserve, protect, enhance, manage and restore the wildlife resources of the state of Nevada. The amendment Mr. Carpenter proposed to A.B. 338 would obligate the department to comment to federal agencies. The federal government owns 87 percent of the land in Nevada and a large part of the job of the Department of Wildlife in the protection and enhancement of wildlife habitat involved efforts to influence federal land management, and last year the department provided over 1,400 letters and statements to federal agencies to influence federal land management. When the national forest service put the "Goshawk" on the sensitive species list, petitioned by a wilderness alliance in Utah, they did so without input or comment from Nevada's Wildlife Department or others. When the forest service agreed at the request of the Elko County Commission to reevaluate the listing, they sent an inquiry and a solicitation for input to all entities which might have information on the status of the "Goshawk." Mr. Molini continued to outline the procedures used for input of endangered species on both Nevada and federal lands. He felt A.B. 338 and the amendment would restrict the ability of the Wildlife Department to do its job.
Mr. Sader said the suggested amendment, Exhibit C, would deal directly with policies the Department of Wildlife would execute before policies were implemented. Mr. Molini said the commission adopted broad policies. Mr. Sader said as he understood the amendment it would not be limited to how the department commented on federal agency recommendations but would require the Wildlife Department to go before the commission for an approval of any policy of the Wildlife Department. Mr. Molini said they were the largest manager of state owned lands in Nevada. If the department wished to close part of the lands for protection of nesting wildlife for a limited period of time, they did so through regulation by the Wildlife Commission.
Mr. Carpenter said the way he perceived the bill, when a wildlife management area belonging to the state was closed, a hearing would be held, and the commission would rule on the closure. If the Department of The Interior or the Forest Service was going to close a large area to livestock grazing and the Department of Wildlife was asked to comment and give input, the public should have an opportunity to comment. Mr. Carpenter felt the Wildlife Commission would be helped by open communications. He suggested more amendments might be needed for A.B. 338. Mr. Molini said he understood where Mr. Carpenter was trying to go with the bill. He said the key concern was how many issues and the time constraints for comments, such as land allotments by Bureau of Land Management with a thirty day turnaround. It would be impossible to get the commission together for each and every issue, said Mr. Molini.
Ms. Smith could not understand how policies could be approved before implementation. It would be one thing to make concerns known and address the issues but another thing to have it approved. Mr. Carpenter said when the Wildlife Department was going to make recommendations to other agencies that would have a major impact on users, the Wildlife Commission should know all views. Communication for all Nevadans would be in the best interest of everyone.
Mr. Fred Wright represented a Coalition of 24 organizations for Nevada Wildlife made up of sportsmen and conservation organizations. Mr. Wright said the proposed amendment under Exhibit C, read the commission shall recommend to federal agencies, when it would deem appropriate, policy and action. The commission must approve policies of the department before it would implement actions which would close public lands for all the other reasons. Mr. Wright indicated the commission did not have authority to close public land, and it was the responsibility under statute, in regard to wildlife resources, to respond to requests by federal agencies so those agencies through their public hearing processes, could make their decision in public forum. Out of the 1,400 responses to federal agencies, there would be no way of knowing when one of those responses would become a matter of crisis ahead of time. When the department responded on the "Goshawk" they did not know how it would be used or misused and was misused in some areas, stated Mr. Wright. The Senate side agreed there needed to be better communication between the department and the State Legislative Committee on Public Lands. It was suggested the committee include the Department of Wildlife on the agenda every meeting as they attend anyway and the department would give a report at the meeting.
Mrs. Freeman asked about the bill on the Senate side Mr. Wright alluded to. Mr. Wright said there had not been formal action but thought the bill had been withdrawn.
Mr. Joe Johnson representing the Sierra Club opposed A.B. 338 and the amendment as proposed. The issue and particularly the "Goshawk" incident which initiated the problem would not have been identified and would have happened even if A.B.338 and the amendment had been in effect. Mr. Johnson said they would support better communications with notice to the public when the department detected an issue or response which could be a negative concern to many.
Mr. Joe Dahl, representing the Elko County Board of Commissioners, Esmeralda, Humboldt and Lincoln Counties, stated the Elko County Board of Commissioners adopted a letter in support of A.B. 338. Mr. Molini's comments indicated his primary function was to protect wildlife and he seemed reluctant to communicate with other users of public land. Mr. Dahl mentioned the comments made concerning the inconvenience for the Department of Wildlife because of the time involved and he believed it would not be a concern if the department had to go through its own commission for approval. It was mentioned the Department of Wildlife did not have the authority to close public land, but the department carried weight with its recommendations. Mr. Dahl said the public had faith in the recommendations of the wildlife department and its employees. Mr. Dahl said the legislation would provide accountability and he urged support of A.B. 338.
The hearing was closed on A.B. 338.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
PAT MENATH
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining
March 24, 1993
Page: 1