SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Sixty-seventh Session
February 24, 1993
The Senate Committee on Natural Resources was called to order by Chairman R. Hal Smith, at 8:52 a.m., on Wednesday, February 24, 1993, in Room 224 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator R. Hal Smith, Chairman
Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Vice Chairman
Senator Ernest E. Adler
Senator Thomas J. Hickey
Senator Mark A. James
Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.
Senator Dina Titus
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Caren Jenkins, Senior Research Analyst
Rayanne Francis, Senate Committee Secretary
Caroline Allen, Senate Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
William A. Molini, Director, Department of Wildlife
Thomas A. Atkinson, Chief, Law Enforcement Division, Department
of Wildlife
Gaylyn J. Spriggs, Lobbyist, Rayrock Mines Incorporated
Larry J. Johnson, Vice President, SEA Incorporated
Don Quilici, President, Nevada Operation Game Thief
George K. Tsukamoto, Chief, Division of Game, Department of
Wildlife
Helen Leveille, President, Nevada Public Land Access Coalition
Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau
C. Joseph Guild III, Nevada Cattleman's Association
Chairman Smith opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 119.
SENATE BILL 119: Allows board of wildlife commissioners to revoke licenses and permits upon single violation of statutes or regulations.
William A. Molini, Director, Department of Wildlife, introduced himself to members of the committee. He introduced Thomas A. Atkinson, Chief, Law Enforcement Division, Department of Wildlife, and stated Mr. Atkinson would be providing a majority of the testimony at the day's hearing.
Mr. Atkinson explained S.B. 119 makes specific changes to the regulations governing the activities of the State Board of Wildlife Commissioners. He stated the Department of Wildlife (DOW) had amended section 1, subsection 3(h) with language reflecting the current practices of the board regarding the revocation of licenses and permits.
SENATE BILL 118: Makes various changes to provisions governing revocation or suspension of licenses and permits issued for hunting, fishing or trapping wildlife.
Mr. Atkinson explained the proposed amendments to S.B. 119 and S.B. 118 were administrative changes which would clarify the board's responsibility. He continued by saying these amendments also attempted to define the development of policy in accordance with provisions in Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 501.181 and 501.387.
Senator Neal asked if the State Board of Wildlife Commissioners was currently practicing the procedures amended in S.B. 119. Mr. Atkinson explained current practice authorizes the board to revoke the license of an individual who is convicted twice in a 5-year period. He continued by saying the board could also revoke the license (for a 3-year period) of an individual convicted of a gross misdemeanor, or revoke the license (for a 5-year period) of an individual convicted of wanton waste.
Senator Neal said the DOW's amendment to section 1, subsection 3(h), eliminated the 5-year period during which the board could elect to revoke an individual's permit or license. He asked if this amended language would allow the board to revoke a person's license or permit if he/she had a 10 year old conviction, as well as a more recent conviction. Mr. Atkinson reiterated current law authorizes the board to revoke the license or permit (for a 3-year period) of an individual convicted of a gross misdemeanor. He explained the board could revoke the license or permit of an individual who is convicted of wanton waste for a 5-year period.
Mr. Atkinson explained the "5-year period" language deleted in section 1, subsection 3(h) of S.B. 119 would not present a problem, due to the fact other statutes had changed the revocation provisions. Mr. Molini apologized to Senator Neal for failing to request that S.B. 118 be heard first, because it prefaced the amendments contained in S.B. 119.
Senator Hickey asked if violators of these provisions were required to appear before a court of law. Mr. Atkinson explained the State Board of Wildlife Commissioners conducted an administrative hearing after the violator appeared in court. He continued by saying the court of law (justice or district) which heard the case would depend entirely upon the crime. If the violator is convicted in court, he/she would be required to attend an administrative hearing to determine whether or not the individual should lose their hunting and/or fishing privileges.
Gaylyn J. Spriggs, Lobbyist, Rayrock Mines Incorporated, introduced herself to members of the committee. She voiced her concerns that S.B. 119 would affect the licensing/permitting privileges of the mining industry. She said current language contained in section 1, subsection 3(h), clearly described which licensing and permitting revocations could be made (hunting, fishing or trapping). Ms. Spriggs emphasized existing language was deleted in the proposed bill. She concluded her testimony by saying the mining industry would like to receive more clarification on the types of licenses and permits affected by this revocation process.
Due to concerns on the amended language of S.B. 119, Chairman Smith assigned this bill to a subcommittee composed of Senators Rhoads, Neal and James.
Chairman Smith opened the hearing on S.B. 118. Mr. Atkinson commented this bill was supported by the DOW, the State Board of Wildlife Commissioners, the courts and the general public.
Mr. Atkinson explained amended language in the bill would encompass a broader area of the law and strengthen the state's ability to revoke the licenses and permits of violators. He testified the DOW issued a wide variety of permits and supported the amended language contained in S.B. 118, due to the fact many of these permits and licenses affected wildlife in one way or another.
Mr. Atkinson said proposed changes to the NRS would allow the courts to suspend the hunting and fishing privileges of con-victed violators. He explained current procedure required that the court ask the violator to surrender his/her hunting and/or fishing license. Subsequently, he said the court would recom-mend that the board revoke said license. Mr. Atkinson pointed out this procedure did not preclude some violators from buying new licenses and continuing to hunt and/or fish.
Senator Neal admitted he was a little concerned about the para-meters of the amended language in S.B. 118. It appeared to him that the State Board of Wildlife Commissioners would be elevated to the same level as the judicial system. Senator Neal asked what position would the commissioners take if the court revoked a violator's license for a 2-year period. Mr. Atkinson replied by saying the courts sometimes impose judgements which prevent the violator from hunting or fishing. He commented it is the board's responsibility to take administrative action to revoke the license privilege. Mr. Atkinson clarified the court is dealing with the activity and the board is looking at the issuance of a license.
Based upon language contained in section 1 of S.B. 118, Senator Neal recommended that a decision be made to make the court or the board solely responsible for making the final determination on whether a license or permit be issued for a specific period of time. He was concerned that the amended language would be open to interpretation. Mr. Atkinson said this matter had been discussed several times, but stressed the courts are not situated to handle administrative hearings on license revoca-tions.
Senator Neal asked if an administrative hearing would be held in the instance of an individual's conviction in court. Mr. Atkinson explained an administrative hearing, before the State Board of Wildlife Commissioners, would take place in this instance. Senator Neal asked why the court was even involved, initially. He stated the court should be made available on an appeal basis to individuals whose licenses have been revoked by the State Board of Wildlife Commissioners. Mr. Atkinson explained the process for the courts and the board are different. He continued by saying the legal requirements to convict a violator in justice court involved the presentation of evidence, etc. He said the board's administrative hearing only deals with the matter of revoking a hunting and/or fishing license based upon the court's determination that a violation actually took place.
In response to Senator Neal's concerns, Senator James explained the courts can adjudicate the rights of parties appearing before them by taking away the violator's privilege of hunting or fishing as part of the sentence. He continued by pointing out that the courts cannot adjudicate the rights of persons not appearing before them, and cannot prevent the executive branch from issuing permits.
Mr. Molini agreed with Senator James' observation, but admitted he understood Senator Neal's concerns. He continued by saying some commissioners have been rather hesitant about the role they should play in relation to the courts. He drew committee members' attention to amended language contained in section 1, subsection 2, enabling the board to initiate a revocation procedure.
Senator Hickey said it made more sense to have the administra-tive hearing take place first and then provide an appeal process through the courts. Mr. Molini replied by saying, normally, the administrative appeal process would be exhausted before judicial review or litigation takes place. However, he explained the revocation process demands that the violator be proven guilty and convicted in a court of law.
Larry J. Johnson, Vice President, SEA Incorporated, introduced himself to members of the committee. He said he was testifying on behalf of Nevada Bighorns Unlimited (NBU) of Reno, Nevada.
Mr. Johnson said a statewide coalition of 24 sportsmen and conservation groups had recently been formed. He said, due to the time frame, the coalition had not really formed a cohesive opinion of S.B. 118. He said a majority of the state's sports-men were appalled at the minimal fines and punishments handed down to violators. He asserted the value of the state's wild-life was not properly recognized in the courts. Accordingly, Mr. Johnson said the coalition endorsed harsher penalties and hoped such a move would attract the attention of potential violators.
Mr. Johnson concluded his testimony by saying the intent of S.B. 118 and S.B. 119 was, generally, supported by members of the statewide coalition of sportsmen and conservation groups.
Don Quilici, State President, Nevada Operation Game Thief, introduced himself to members of the committee. He said this organization was comprised of private citizens who provided funding for rewards paid for information leading to the convic-tion of hunting and fishing violators. Mr. Quilici said this organization also provided financial support to game wardens in the field.
Mr. Quilici testified that members of Nevada Operation Game Thief supported passage of S.B. 118 and S.B. 119. He hoped these bills would send a message to potential violators warning them of harsh penalties if convicted.
Chairman Smith assigned S.B. 118 to the subcommittee composed of Senators Rhoads, Neal and James.
Chairman Smith opened the hearing on S.B. 92.
SENATE BILL 92: Revises provisions governing issuance of certain game tags for resale by owners of land as compensation for damage caused by wildlife.
SENATE BILL 500 OF THE
SIXTY-SIXTH SESSION: Authorizes issuance of deer and antelope tags for resale by certain owners of land.
Senator Rhoads explained S.B. 500 of the Sixty-sixth Session had been a successful piece of legislation and pointed out amended language contained in the bill was a "house cleaning" effort, of sorts.
Mr. Molini introduced George K. Tsukamoto, Chief, Division of Game, Department of Wildlife, to members of the committee. Mr. Molini explained the intent of the bill was to provide compensa-tion to private landowners who were incurring damage from game animals.
Mr. Molini drew committee members' attention to a handout he had provided, entitled "Status Report of Nevada State Deer and Antelope Damage Compensation Tag Program" (Exhibit C). He then discussed the DOW's recommended revisions to S.B. 92 (Exhibit D).
As a result of drought conditions or heavy winters, Mr. Molini explained big game wildlife were damaging private properties by grazing on crops, such as alfalfa. He said the intent of S.B. 500 of the Sixty-sixth Session was to reimburse the owner of the private property for damage incurred by big game wildlife. If an individual submitted a claim for damage, this bill enabled the DOW to issue hunting tag(s) to the landowner. Mr. Molini explained the landowner could sell hunting tag(s) as compensa-tion for the crop loss incurred.
Senator Titus admitted she had opposed passage of S.B. 500 of the Sixty-sixth Session, and said she was opposed to S.B. 92 for the same reasons. She continued by explaining her concerns stemmed from the fact the bill was allowing private landowners to take advantage of the system. She concluded by saying the amended language not only lifted the sunset on S.B. 92, but greatly expanded the entire program.
Senator Neal wondered about the liability risks to private land-owners who were issued compensation hunting tag(s) for resale to hunters. He asked if the private landowner gave rights of access onto his land to the hunter who purchased the tag. Mr. Molini said this was correct and explained the hunting tag was only effective on the private lands of the owner.
In reference to language contained in section 2, subsection 1, Senator Neal asked why "an owner, lessee or occupant of premises owes no duty to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for crossing over to public land, hunting, fishing,..." Mr. Molini explained this language did not originate from the DOW, but stated inclusion of this language attempted to limit the liability of the landowner. He stressed that section 1, subsection 3(a) specifically does not limit the liability of the willful or malicious failure to guard, or to warn against, a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity.
Senator Adler pointed out Nevada has a general limitation on liability for recreational use, and stated this was probably the origin of the language contained in S.B. 92.
Senator Neal asked what was the underlying intent of S.B. 500 of the Sixty-sixth Session. Mr. Molini explained this bill was, basically, enacted in response to the damage incurred on private lands by big game wildlife during the recent drought. He continued by saying deer and antelope were grazing on privately-owned alfalfa fields during the 6-year drought. When the farmers and ranchers complained they were losing crops to wild game animals, legislation was drafted to compensate private landowners for their crop loses.
Senator Neal asked what would prevent a landowner from establishing a private land reserve by purposely planting a field of alfalfa to attract big game animals. Mr. Molini replied, initially, the DOW was concerned about this very issue. However, any private landowner submitting a claim to the DOW is required to enter into a cooperative agreement with the state. He commented the agreement process is fairly complicated and would allow very little abuse in this area.
Mr. Tsukamoto explained the private land which would be open to hunting was, specifically, listed in the cooperative agreement. He continued by saying each area would be given a specific period of time during which actual hunting could take place. Mr. Tsukamoto testified this was a very successful program, but admitted the DOW does not have any accounting of the actual compensation amounts received by private landowners for the sale of hunting tag(s).
Senator Neal reiterated he did not feel S.B. 92 would prevent a landowner from establishing a private land reserve for hunting purposes. Mr. Molini stressed the cooperative agreement had various steps, one of which precluded damage incurred by game animals by the installation of fencing or by hazing. He continued by saying this compensation tag program relieved the state from having to pay damage costs out of the DOW's wildlife account or by general fund appropriation.
Mr. Tsukamoto stressed language contained in section 1, sub-section 3 limited the DOW's compensation tag program to only 200 hunting tags.
Senator Rhoads asked if the DOW had conducted any special depredation hunts since passage of S.B. 500 of the Sixty-sixth Session. Mr. Molini replied the DOW advertises depredation hunts wherever a potential problem comes to light. Additionally, he said the DOW has advertised emergency depredation hunts in real problem areas.
Senator Rhoads mentioned the State of California had enacted similar legislation. He continued by saying California actually encouraged some landowners to plant crops attractive to big game animals in an effort to balance the wildlife populations.
Senator Titus asked if the DOW was intending to issue wild horse compensation tags. Mr. Molini replied by saying this was not the DOW's intention. He remarked the DOW had been badgered about the introduction and passage of S.B. 500 of the Sixty-sixth Session. He emphasized the fact that neither S.B. 500 of the Sixty-sixth Session or S.B. 92 had emanated from the DOW. He testified the department had vigorously opposed passage of S.B. 500 of the Sixty-sixth Session when it was initially introduced. However, after the bill's passage, Mr. Molini pointed out the DOW had worked very hard to ensure that a successful compensation tag program was established.
Chairman Smith inquired if any other individuals were interested in providing testimony to the Senate Committee on Natural Resources.
Mr. Johnson reiterated he was speaking on behalf of Nevada Bighorns Unlimited (NBU). He expressed the NBU's appreciation for all of the support the state's agricultural interests had shown regarding wildlife on private property. He said it is only fair that an individual be compensated for damage incurred on their property by wildlife.
Mr. Johnson said the NBU fully supported the development of a partnership between sportsmen, public interests and the agri-cultural community. He testified S.B. 92 had a very positive effect on managing the state's wildlife resource.
Due to the short time frame involved, Mr. Johnson reiterated the statewide coalition of 24 sportsmen and conservation groups had not formed a cohesive opinion of S.B. 92. He asked the chairman for additional time to conduct polls so an accurate assessment of the coalition's position could be made.
Senator Neal asked for Mr. Johnson's opinion on whether it would be feasible for a rancher or farmer to plant certain crops in order to entice wild animals onto private property. Mr. Johnson pointed out that at certain times of the year, alfalfa is a very attractive plant to deer and antelope herds. However, he testified these very same herds would not be grazing on the alfalfa during the hunting season, because they would have moved into the higher elevations. Mr. Johnson said different plants are attractive to wild game at different times of the year.
Senator Neal asked Mr. Johnson if he would object to amending S.B. 92 to include language specifying that, before a compen-sation hunting tag could be issued, the landowner must prove the damaged crop was a substantial part of his/her subsistence. Mr. Johnson admitted this was a very interesting concept, but requested the opportunity to address this issue with agricul-tural interests before voicing his support of such an amendment.
Helen Leveille, President, Nevada Public Land Access Coalition, introduced herself to members of the committee. She testified that the Nevada Public Land Access Coalition supported S.B. 92.
In reference to section 1, subsection 5, Ms. Leveille remarked current language restricted anyone, but the individual in possession of a hunting tag, from crossing private property in order to access public lands. She said this were very restric-tive because, quite often, other individuals will accompany the hunter. She concluded her testimony by assuring members of the committee that she would return at a later date with documen-tation substantiating her claim.
Chairman Smith assured those in attendance that S.B. 92 would be assigned to a subcommittee for further hearings.
Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau (NFB), introduced himself to members of the committee. He said the NFB fully supported the concept of compensating farmers and ranchers for damages caused by big game wildlife.
Mr. Busselman complimented the DOW for conducting themselves in a responsible manner while supervising the program. He stressed the NFB was interested in the program's continuance and offered
to return to provide additional testimony to the subcommittee.
C. Joseph Guild III, Nevada Cattlemen's Association, introduced himself to members of the committee. He wholeheartedly agreed with Mr. Busselman's earlier comments and offered to provide further testimony at the subcommittee meeting.
Senator Titus stated earlier testimony indicated the DOW did not have any method of accounting for the actual compensation amounts received by private landowners for the sale of hunting tag(s). She inquired if Mr. Guild had any detailed information on this matter. Mr. Guild admitted hunting tag prices varied greatly. He concluded his testimony by saying he knew of some instances where a rancher received as much as $1,000, when another rancher made no money at all.
Chairman Smith assigned S.B. 92 to a subcommittee composed of Senators Rhoads, Neal and James.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST
(BDR) 58-1103: Authorizes Public Service Commission of Nevada to approve interruptible or flexible rates for utilities that supply electricity to steel mills.
Chairman Smith invited Senator Adler to comment on this bill draft request. Senator Adler testified the bill had been drafted due to the fact an electronic steel mill was interested in locating in Wabuska, Nevada. He continued by saying the Sierra Pacific Power Company's current electrical rate structure does not have provisions covering a user who may require large surges of power at various times.
Chairman Smith called for action on BDR 58-1103.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BILL DRAFT REQUEST 58-1103.
SENATOR ADLER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Senator Rhoads said the Western States Public Lands Coalition had approached him requesting that a bill be drafted to encourage the State of Nevada to support a joint resolution to designate the week of May 10, 1993 as National Public Lands Week. He specified the following states have already adopted this resolution:
Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Missouri, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
Chairman Smith obtained committee approval to draft a joint resolution.
Chairman Smith apologized to members of the committee regarding the impossible situation created by the existing Standing Rules of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources. He explained current language contained in item 1 specified:
Four Committee members, consisting of no fewer than two members of each political party, constitute a quorum.
Chairman Smith said it was not fair to ask the public to wait until a political balance of four committee members arrived to convene the meeting. Subsequently, he called for committee action to rescind the language contained in item 1 of the Standing Rules.
SENATOR ADLER MOVED ITEM 1 OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES BE RESCINDED.
SENATOR JAMES SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Chairman Smith called for approval of the amended Standing Rules of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources (Exhibit E).
SENATOR HICKEY MOVED THE AMENDED STANDING RULES BE ADOPTED.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
There being no further business before the Senate Committee on Natural Resources, Chairman Smith adjourned the hearing at 10:18 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Rayanne J. Francis,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator R. Hal Smith, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Natural Resources
February 24, 1993
Page 1