MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      June 14, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was called to order by Chairman Vivian L. Freeman at 2:00 p.m., June 14, 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:

 

      Jeff Martin, Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife; Fred Messmann, Nevada Department of Wildlife; Helen Leveille, Nevada Public Land Access Coalition; Elsie Dupree, Nevada Wildlife Federation; John W. Riggs, Sr., Private Citizen; Bob Sack, Nevada Bowhunters Association; Tom Atkinson,  Nevada Department of Wildlife; Willie Molini, Nevada Department of Wildlife; Fred Wright, Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife; Joel Blakeslee, Nevada Trappers Association; Doug Busselman, Nevada Farm Bureau.

 

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Freeman. 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 740:

 

      Provides legislative declaration concerning hunting.

 

Mr. Jeff Martin, Chairman, Steering Committee, Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife, supported A.B. 740.  Mr. Martin gave the history behind the bill and said in 1979 the Nevada Wildlife Federation was successful in passing A.J.R 6 which proposed to amend Article I of Section 2 of the Nevada State Constitution, concerning the right to keep and bear arms.  The amendment was passed again in the 1981 legislature and by the people in the 1982 general election.  In 1983 sportsmen were successful in having a statute added through A.B. 48 making it unlawful for a group of people acting together to interfere with a person lawfully hunting or trapping.  S.B. 593 introduced in the 1991 session amended the law by making it unlawful to interfere with a person lawfully hunting or trapping.  These legislative actions were undertaken to counteract any attempt in Nevada by anti-hunting interests.  A.B. 740 would be another step in this objective to see hunting would continue to have a place in Nevada by having the legislature declare the value of hunting to the state.  Mr. Martin talked of economic benefits and biological management of mammals and game birds for the state of Nevada, and how they had increased in population because of proper management techniques.  The economic value to the state of Nevada was significant.  Sportsmen annually on a national basis spent $14 billion on hunting.  An excise tax on fishing and hunting equipment by the federal government would be returned through the Pittman/Robinson and Dingle/Johnson funds to the states and would be matched three to one. 

 

Ms. Smith gave an example of the color green and everyone liked the value of green, but would not have it addressed in legislation.  She questioned why A.B. 740 was needed in law.  If A.B. 740 did not exist how would life be different.  Mr. Martin stated if A.B. 740 did not exist the door would be open for the anti-hunting groups.  The amount of money spent to fight the groups would be better spent in habitat enhancement.  Ms. Smith asked how long had legislation like A.B. 740 not been on the books.  Mr. Martin stated Nevada Sportsmen would rather be proactive than reactive and spend the money on the benefit of wildlife rather than legal fees and courts. Mrs. Smith asked about the cost of legislation and Mr. Martin agreed but also suggested legislation was paid for by the people.

 

Ms. Elsie Dupree, Northern Nevada Vice President of the Nevada Wildlife Federation, Inc. spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit C) in support of A.B. 740.

 

Mr. Neighbors said he agreed with Ms. Smith in one respect and yet supported what was in A.B. 740.  He wanted to know why it was not in a resolution.  Ms. Dupree agreed with Mr. Martin and felt Nevada did need to make a statement to the anti-hunters groups.  Hunting had been a valuable asset to Nevada and part of the pioneer spirit.  Money could be better spent on the assets for the state.

 

Mrs. Freeman said she had asked Mouryne Landing, Chief Clerk of the Assembly about the status of A.B. 740, and she said it was a bill and not a resolution.

 

Mr. Sader explained over the years bill drafters were opposed to statements of legislative purpose in the statutes.  Many states did so as a matter of course in front of particularly major bills.  In recent years the Nevada Legislature has had about 10 bills of declaration each session.  A.B. 740 would most likely become a declaration at the beginning of the chapter of NRS covering wildlife.

 

Mr. John Riggs, Sr., a progun activist, life member of the NRA and the Rifle and Pistol Association, supported A.B. 740. 

 

Mr. Bob Sack represented the Nevada Bow Hunters Association in support of A.B. 740 and would echo Jeff Martin's comments.

 

Mr. Willie Molini, Director, Department of Wildlife, said the department felt A.B. 740 was an appropriate declaration for the legislature.  The economic value of hunting nationally was in the neighborhood of $14 billion. In 1986-87 the department made a survey showing direct expenditures of some $22 million annually in the state of Nevada from hunting.  Mr. Molini pointed out most hunted species of wildlife's population were in very good shape and today more antelope existed in this century with a population estimate of approximately 16,000 in Nevada.  Elk in Nevada had increased to a population estimate of 3,000 animals and Big Horn Sheep were recovering and had a population estimate of 6,000 animals, in the 1930's the sheep were in serious jeopardy and only remnant populations existed in Southern Nevada.  Deer populations were healthy but down right now because of the drought and heavy winter, but had a current estimate of 150,000 animals.  The attention provided to these animals and their habitats because of hunting and the fees to support enhancement were very important.  There had been about 55,000 people who participated in hunting in the state of Nevada including residents and nonresidents and generated about $2 million in fees from the sale of licenses and tags annually. Another $2 million would be generated from the Pittman/Robinson surcharge on firearms and ammunition.  The Department of Wildlife received nearly $4 million in revenue generated by hunters.  There had been considerable benefit to nongame wildlife from a number of habitat related projects the department was involved with because of the money generated from hunting.  The acquisition of water for wetlands, water development, reestablishment of native forage, etc.  Mr. Molini felt A.B. 740 was a good declaration.

 

Mr. Joel Blakeslee, Nevada Trappers Association, would like to be on record as supporting A.B. 740.

 

Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau, supported the good management of Nevada's wildlife resources and the declaration fit very well into the wildlife mission which needed to be carried out.  The Nevada Farm Bureau supported A.B. 740.

 

Ms. Stephanie Licht, Nevada Woolgrowers Association, would like to go on record as supporting A.B. 740. 

 

Mr. Ed Presley, also supported A.B. 740. 

 

The hearing was closed on A.B. 740.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN SCHNEIDER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 740.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT.  (MR. GIBBONS WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)

 

      ********

 

SENATE BILL 437:

 

      Revises provisions governing placement of buoys in waters of state.

 

Mr. Fred Messmann, Boating Law Administrator, Nevada Department of Wildlife, said the department has been the primary agency responsible for boating safety in Nevada and S.B. 437 was an attempt to obtain control over the placement of mooring buoys and lighting provisions required under the Federal Code of Regulations.  The department decided to inventory all buoys in Tahoe on the Nevada side of the lake.  The buoys were counted after February and 612 buoys were counted by an aerial survey.  The department did a hand search of records from those who were responsible for permitting buoys. The records indicated only 74 of the 612 buoys were completely legal.  There were 118 permits issued by two or more agencies.  When counting the Public Land permits 46 percent of the buoys at Lake Tahoe were illegal in the off season.  On June 10, 1992, Director Molini requested a meeting with State Lands, TRPA, Army Corp of Engineers and the Coast Guard Station at Tahoe, hosted by Pam Wilcox, to work out the language.  State Lands which controls the bottom of Lake Tahoe would be the primary agency responsible for permitting the buoys.  The participants discovered in meeting there were other areas within the state which did not have State Lands jurisdiction and the Department of Wildlife would be the primary agency for permitting buoys in those areas.  Mr. Messmann went through the various sections of the bill and gave a brief overview of each section. 

 

Mr. Carpenter asked why the Division of State Lands was issuing the buoy permits and why was it not under the Department of Wildlife. 

 

The Division of State Lands would be responsible for Lake Tahoe, Walker Lake and Washoe Lake, also the Colorado River, Truckee River, Carson River and the Virgin River, said Ms. Wilcox.  Mr. Carpenter asked if State Lands was given any funds to do the permitting.  Ms. Wilcox said no, the Division of State Lands was not receiving any funds for the permitting process. She said another bill A.B. 430 which had already gone through the Assembly provided fees for buoys in navigable bodies of water.   

Mr. Messmann said the bill was constructed with cooperation of State Lands and the two agencies would work closely together.

 

Mr. Neighbors asked about policy and fees for Lake Mead.  Mr. Messmann could not answer Mr. Neighbors question regarding Lake Mead's policy and fee structure.  Mr. Neighbors asked about the history of boating fatalities, and Mr. Messmann replied there was a history of one boating fatality on the California side of Lake Tahoe for boats navigating.  There was an unlighted boat tied to a mooring buoy and a navigating boat did not see the boat and an accident occurred. 

 

Mr. Regan asked if Mr. Messmann expected any problems from the California side of Lake Tahoe.  Mr. Messmann said many of the land agencies from California were impressed with what Nevada was doing. 

 

Mr. Gibbons asked if the fees would cover fines or would a fiscal note be needed.  Mr. Messmann said they were not anticipating many permits as the Department of Wildlife would not be issuing permits for Lake Tahoe.  When enforcing the Lake Tahoe buoys,  the Commission for Wildlife would establish administrative fees to recover the cost of removing illegal buoys.  Mr. Gibbons asked what kind of hazard would a buoy be to wildlife.  The habitat disturbance would be looked at as opposed to a bird flying or fish swimming into a buoy.

 

Ms. Pam Wilcox, Administrator, Division of State Lands, confirmed the bill was worked out between the two agencies which were in agreement and she welcomed the assistance of the Department of Wildlife.

 

Mr. Carpenter asked about two agencies looking at the applications for buoys.  Ms. Wilcox said they already send their application to the Department of Wildlife.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH MOVED TO DO PASS S. B. 437.

 

      THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT.

 

      ********

 

SENATE BILL 229:

 

      Requires insurers to notify insureds of requirement that notice be filed with department of wildlife concerning certain accidents involving vessels.

 

Mr. Fred Messmann, Boating Law Administrator for the Department of Wildlife, said at the last hearing he had offered to work out any difficulties the department had with the insurance industry.  He said all the other insurance agents and lobbyists Mr. Messmann had talked to signed off on the bill.  They felt it was good legislation and the bill would be a way to reduce claims in the future and urged passage of S.B. 229.  Mr. Brown had proposed an amendment which Mr. Messmann had reviewed and the department would not oppose. 

 

Mr. Mark Brown, representing State Farm Insurance stated the amendment proposed (Exhibit D) would add a section 3b and add "boat repair facility" to the new statute.  It would require the boat repair facility to also report any requests for repairs.  He said the insurance companies would gain a better understanding of the problem.  Many people involved in accidents and had their boat repaired were not insured.  One item not covered in the amendment would be in Section 4 after the word "insurer" add the words "and boat repair facilities shall transmit a copy."  Mr. Brown said with those changes State Farm would support the legislation. 

 

Mr. Regan asked if a cost analysis on the legislation had been done.  Mr. Brown said the legislation was not a problem on the Senate side but someone questioned the additional paperwork burden, and he had not put a specific dollar figure on the cost of the paperwork.  He said the company was split on whether to support the legislation.  Mr. Brown said the cost associated with the legislation would be fairly small in respect to the benefit.  Mr. Regan said the boat owners in Nevada would not have to expect an increase in their insurance premiums because of the additional work done by the issuance of the policy insurers.  Mr. Brown said there would not be an increase in insurance rates unless justified by an actuary.

 

Mr. Messmann also responded to Mr. Regan's question and said through registration fees, titling fees and other fees boaters were paying, the Department of Wildlife had agreed to print a standardized form for the insurance companies.  The insurance companies would fill in the name and date and give the NCR top copy to the insured notifying him to file a report with the department, and the cost would be a $.29 stamp and ten seconds to fill out the form. 

 

Mrs. Freeman asked if there was a fiscal note on the bill due to the copies, etc.  Mr. Messmann said the fees would take care of the cost.

 

Mr. Carpenter said throughout the bill "collision accidents" or "other casualty" was mentioned, and he questioned what the terms meant.  Mr. Messmann said the department was interested in  accidents and was not interested in someone breaking into the boat and stealing the radar unit, as an example. 

 

Mr. Sader said "casualty" was a term used in insurance law and in the statutes and was fairly inclusive, meaning damage to both personal property and personal injury, all of which could describe "casualty" and in this sense would be personal property in boat repair costs.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 229.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT.

 

      ********

 

Mrs. Freeman asked for any other considerations before the committee. 

 

Mr. Regan inquired if Ms. Smith, Mr. Ernaut and Mr. Schneider could meet on Wednesday after adjournment of Natural Resources for a subcommittee meeting.

 

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

June 14, 1993

Page: 1