The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was called to order at 2:30 p.m., on Monday, February 24, 1997, Chairman Marcia de Braga presiding in Room 1214 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and was video conferenced to Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer Office Building, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Bobbi Royle, President, Wild Horse Spirit

Paul Iverson, Administrator, Nevada Division of Agriculture

Lydia Hammack, President, Board of Directors, Virginia Range Wildlife

Protection Association

Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau

Federation

Catherine Barcomb, Executive Director, Wild Horse Commission

Mary M. Savage, Chairperson, Hidden Valley Wild Horse Task Force

Betty L. Kelly, Wild Horse Advocate and Wild Horse Spirit Volunteer

Dayle Pearson, Hidden Valley Homeowners Association Ad Hoc

Committee

Olivia V. Fiamengo, Secretary, Board of Directors, Virginia Range Wildlife

Protection Association

Jennifer L. Fiamengo, Virginia City High School Student

Willie Molini, Administrator, Nevada Division of Wildlife

Mona Armenta, Virginia Foothills Resident

Charlie Fisher, Representing Himself

Joseph Vosnik, Representing Himself

Carroll Vosnik, Representing Herself

Analiese Odencrantz, Hidden Valley Resident

John Balliette, Contract Consultant, Eureka County Department of Natural

Resources

Pete Goicochea, Chairman, Eureka County Board of County

Commissioners,

Mike Baughman, Representing Eureka County

Mary Henderson, Washoe County Board of Commissioners

Elsie Dupree, Nevada Wildlife Federation, Inc.

David Taddum, Nevada Wild Horse Association, Las Vegas

Following roll call, Chairman de Braga noted a quorum was present, and announced that Mr. Charlie Fisher had a special scrapbook in the back of the room about wild horses and estrays for public viewing.

Mrs. de Braga opened the hearing on A.B. 48, and called Analiese Odencrantz, the only person in support of the bill, to testify. Mrs. Odencrantz, a resident of Hidden Valley, addressed the committee on behalf of herself and said she felt the basic premise of A.B. 48 would aid in helping the horses and allow them to survive. The proposed management program, which would allow for the adoption of young horses, would help alleviate the horse over-population problem in Hidden Valley. She stated the groups of stallions that ran in packs there would also benefit from the proposed plan. In conclusion Mrs. Odencrantz noted the wild horses created the same types of problems as other wildlife, and since there were limited resources and money, the state and the horses both would benefit from A.B. 48. There were no questions from the committee.

Bobbi Royle, President of Wild Horse Spirit (WHS), addressed the committee in opposition to A.B. 48, and commenced her testimony by identifying Wild Horse Spirit as a non-profit wild horse advocacy organization for the protection and preservation of wild horses on public and private lands. Exhibit C contained a copy of Mrs. Royle’s testimony, and Exhibit D, "Statement of Goals and Action Plan," a proposal by the Hidden Valley Wild Horse Task Force (HVWHTF) and Wild Horse Spirit, Ltd., dated February 12, 1996, addressed the problem of Hidden Valley estray horses. Exhibit D supported the gathering of nuisance horses when their adoptive homes were preapproved through formal application and compliance checks. WHS objected to the forced gathering caused by random complaints and pressure from those who threatened the long term survival of the horses.

Continuing, Mrs. Royle briefly discussed the past accomplishments of WHS and HVWHTF:

• Nuisance horses had been kept out of Hidden Valley proper;

• At least three endangered horses were captured, treated for injuries, and adopted; and

• An ad hoc committee had been formed to work on a permanent fence for estray horse control.

Concluding her testimony, Mrs. Royle informed the committee that since 1989, Wild Horse Spirit and other groups had removed over 70 horses from Hidden Valley, and would continue to work toward the management of horses, the safety of people, and property. She reiterated Wild Horse Spirit found A.B. 48 unacceptable and opposed the bill because of the potential harm it could cause to the estray horses. There were no questions from the committee.

Lydia Hammack, President of the Virginia Range Wildlife Protection Association (VRWPA), testified in opposition to A.B. 48. Exhibit E was her written testimony, which provided a history of the VRWPA, along with a map of the protection area. She informed the committee that the VRWPA realized the need to stabilize the horse population, and Storey County had demonstrated its ability to work with VRWPA to manage the estray horse population.

The VRWPA opposed A.B. 48 in its current form because it felt sufficient legislation was already in place to properly and humanely manage the estray horses. NRS chapters 561.344 and 569 allowed for local management of horses, wherein a county, city, town, township, and so forth, could legally enter into a cooperative agreement with the Division of Agriculture to provide for the control, placement or disposition of its estray horses. Storey County signed such an agreement in 1994, and could appoint representatives such as the VRWPA to handle the adoption and management of estray horses. The VRWPA, with the help of Wild Horse Spirit, successfully put together a working management program and found good homes for all reported nuisance horses.

Mrs. Hammack concluded by stating the VRWPA encouraged Lyon and Washoe Counties to enter into similar agreements and work together with Storey County toward the management of horses.

Mrs. de Braga asked Mrs. Hammack to specifically identify which part or parts of A.B. 48 the VRWPA opposed. Mrs. Hammack responded her association opposed the tricounty board and the tricounty fund.

Regarding Mrs. de Braga’s question, Assemblyman Bache asked if VRWPA was only opposed to subsection 2, section 4, and the remaining parts dealing with the multicounty fund. Mrs. Hammack responded affirmatively.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked how the VRWPA would initiate an effective program to deal with the horses in the three counties. Mrs. Hammack responded that Storey County would not impose ITS wishes onto another county. VRWPA managed the horses in Storey County and hoped Lyon and Washoe Counties could devise their own management programs. She offered Storey County’s assistance in the preparation of those counties’ management programs.

In regard to the Storey County management program, Mr. Carpenter asked Ms. Hammack to explain how the program operated. She explained when the county received a nuisance call, it would:

• Bait-trap the horses;
• Brand inspect them;
• The Brand Department would properly notice the find in the newspapers for 10 days to alert the owner of the find;
• After the tenth day, they would be brand inspected by the VRWPA, who would find homes through adoption for the animals;
• VRWPA would keep the title to the horse for 1 calendar year; and
• After 1 year, if the new owner complied with VRWPA guidelines for proper care of the horse, the title would be transferred.

Mr. Carpenter asked how many wild or estray horses were in Storey County. Mrs. Hammack informed Mrs. de Braga that Olivia Fiamengo planned to address that information in her testimony, and asked if she could answer Mr. Carpenter’s question. Mrs. de Braga agreed, and asked if the VRWPA had been able to adopt out all the nuisance horses. Mrs. Hammack responded that homes had been found for every nuisance horse.

Olivia Fiamengo, Secretary of the Virginia Range Wildlife Protection Association, presented Exhibit F, which contained a color coded map of the wild and estray horse management areas. The VRWPA had researched the migratory patterns of the horses, she explained, and found the horses appeared to migrate in a clockwise direction foraging for food and water. In the winter, the horses circled north of Castle Peak, eastward through Aerojet, north to Powerline, west behind the Hidden Valley area, down towards Miraloma Avenue, and finally back up the hill to the Castle Peak area. In the summer, they repeated a similar pattern, but they migrated further south passing just north of Virginia City.

Exhibit G addressed two points which had been published in the February 15, 1997, edition of MetroWatch, a local newspaper. The first point Mrs. Fiamengo spoke to was a quote made by the director of the Commission for the Preservation of Wild Horses. The quote stated that according to a study from the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), the range could support between 125 to 150 horses, but there were nearly 500 horses on the range, and not enough forage. Mrs. Fiamengo felt the UNR findings were made in 1987 at the request of the VRWPA, and the estimated number of 150 horses was based upon the 37,000 acres of association land only. If vegetation had been consistent throughout the Virginia Range, a foraging area four to five times larger could have supported up to 750 horses.

Focusing on the VRWPA’s horse count method, Mrs. Fiamengo explained that in one day, using aerial and ground surveillance, the VRWPA had compiled the counts. Adding a percentage for unseen horses to that figure, a best effort calculation of the estimated number of horses on the Virginia Range was attained. This was all done at least once every year. The VRPWA also kept track of how many horses had left the range either through adoption, injuries, or auction.

In answer to Mr. Carpenter’s question regarding the number of horses on the range, Mrs. Fiamengo informed him that on the VRWPA’s last estimate, approximately 500 head of horses had been counted.

In addition to the Storey County Wild Horse Adoption Program, the VRWPA was a proponent of birth control as a means of herd management. Fertility control shots could be administered by an air gun, and the technique had been tested at the University of California in Davis, and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

The second point addressed in Exhibit G from the same article was a quote from Catherine Barcomb, Executive Director of the Wild Horse Commission, who stated that the herd’s large size was part of the reason the horses drifted into the residential areas. Mrs. Fiamengo pointed out that the horses were following their normal migratory path, and were looking for water in the residential areas. She also pointed out that people in residential areas had provided food and water for the horses, which encouraged them to stay.

In summary, Mrs. Fiamengo stated Storey County did not need additional legislation because it already had a management plan that worked. She encouraged other counties to sign cooperative agreements with the state and adopt similar management plans.

Referring to the map, Mrs. de Braga asked how much of the land was privately owned. Mrs. Fiamengo informed her there were two areas, a 40-acre parcel of BLM land, called the "Ponds" at the crest of Gieger Grade, which the BLM had turned over to Storey County to be managed for wildlife and overseen by the VRWPA. In the south, northwest of Alexander Springs was another BLM 40-acre parcel.

Mrs. de Braga asked if there was a time limit on the agreement between Nevada and Storey County. Mrs. Fiamengo responded the agreement had been in effect for 2 years, and she was not aware of any time limit.

Referring to the map presented in Exhibit F, Mr. Carpenter asked if the green area was the subdivided area, to which Mrs. Fiamengo responded affirmatively. Regarding the same area on the map, he asked if that was where the VRWPA had counted 150 horses. Mrs. Fiamengo told him the area represented the 37,000 acres of the VRWPA management area, but the horses migrated constantly, so at times there could be more or less. The horses migrated out of the area and new horses migrated into it, she said.

Mr. Carpenter then asked if the horses migrated outside the VRWPA area. Mrs. Fiamengo informed him they roamed as far away as Lake Lahontan.

Mr. Carpenter and Mrs. Fiamengo discussed the amount of horses managed by the VRWPA in Storey County. Mrs. Fiamengo told him Nevada was a range-free state, therefore, the horses roamed freely throughout the Virginia Range and the Storey, Lyon, and Washoe Counties. The VRWPA managed all the horses that passed through Storey County at any given time, so she could not give him an exact count. Working in groups of twos to count the horses, volunteers tried to eliminate the possibility of duplication by describing the horses they had seen. As far as horse management, Storey County had a program in operation. The VRWPA felt the gathering and removal of large numbers of the horses at one time was unnecessary and detrimental to the range and the natural balance of the herd. There were no further questions from the committee.

Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President of the Nevada Farm Bureau Federation testified against A.B. 48, because he contended the proposed legislation improperly mixed the duties and responsibilities of the Division of Agriculture for estray livestock and the Nevada Wild Horse Commission for wild horses (see Exhibit H). The Nevada Farm Bureau Federation believed the addition of wild burros to the Wild Horse Commission was a responsible action, and the addition of an estray horse adoption program in a multicounty mix was a workable solution. Mr. Busselman’s bureau recommended the amendment of the bill, removal of the estray horses and multicounty fund, and addition of wild burros to the authority and responsibilities of the Wild Horse Commission. A multicounty program for the estray horses should be processed in a separate piece of legislation, wherein the funding and authority would be given to the Division of Agriculture.

Mr. Busselman offered his assistance to the committee in developing the estray program. There were no questions from the committee.

Concurring with Mr. Busselman’s testimony, Catherine Barcomb, Director of the Wild Horse Commission for the State of Nevada, testified against A.B. 48. She noted originally there were two bills: one was the addition of burros to the Wild Horse Commission, and the other was the estray laws. They were combined into one bill, confusing the wild horse and estray issues. She urged the committee to amend the bill by removing the estrays from the Wild Horse Commission and putting them under the agricultural laws.

Ms. Barcomb asked to testify about the estray issues. She agreed the horses were living in the range first, but those areas had become residential, and the horses moved in and out of those residential dwellings, wandered onto the highways and created hazards and nuisances for residences, motorists and horses. She had worked with Paul Iverson of the Division of Agriculture, the VRWPA, and the Hidden Valley area, and acknowledged the Virginia Range homeowner’s group was interested in the management of the horses. But, she stated, Washoe and Lyon Counties did not share those interests, and there were interests in Storey County not under the control of the homeowner’s group, such as the mining companies.

The estray bill, which Ms. Barcomb said she helped Paul Iverson rewrite, would provide the establishment of a tricounty fund, in which funds from counties, states, or other sources could be placed to help manage, control, adopt and place the horses. Also, the bill recommended establishing a tricounty board for the management of the habitat and horses. If there were nuisance animals in the proximity, then that board would decide if they were truly a nuisance and mandate their removal.

According to earlier testimony, Ms. Barcomb continued, it was stated that Storey County already had a management plan in place; she urged Washoe and Lyon Counties to follow suit. She informed the panel that the three areas did not all have the same resources for the horses as those in that homeowner’s group. Under the estray bill, a task force would be set up to manage the horses as they moved through and/or got into trouble in urban areas.

In support of a rewrite of A.B. 48, she stated the need for a task force to address the problem of horses not under the control of the Virginia Range Homeowner’s Group. Under current estray laws, if a horse was captured, the Division of Agriculture would advertise in the papers for 10 days after its capture, describing the animal to allow the owner to recognize and claim it. If it was not claimed after 10 days, the division was mandated by law to take it to Fallon, Nevada, to be sold at public auction. Therefore, under current law, the horses could be sold for slaughter. The Wild Horse Commission and the Division of Agriculture were trying to change that law to allow for a 90-day adoption period. In other words, if an animal was not claimed after the 10-day period, it would be returned to the task force for a 90-day adoption period.

Mrs. de Braga asked if statistics were available on the number of horses that had been sold for slaughter. Ms. Barcomb did not have that information.

Regarding the tricounty task force, Mr. Carpenter stated the previous speakers had said there was enough legislation pertaining to it and were not in favor of forming another committee or task force because it would not solve the nuisance problem. He asked Ms. Barcomb for her response. She reiterated that under the current estray laws, after the 10-day announcement period, unclaimed horses would be sold at auction in Fallon. The only nuisance horses protected would be those protected by the Storey County management plan. The current legislation did not protect the estrays, it mandated they be sold at auction.

Mr. Carpenter stated he understood the current legislation, but felt the public did not want to be involved in a tricounty program—the public wanted its own management plan. He asked Ms. Barcomb if she thought the current legislation provided a workable solution. She responded the problem was in the current law itself, which stated only the Storey County could manage the horses in its agreement area; she said the proposed legislation would not circumvent what the VRPWA was doing. It would allow horses not being managed by the Storey County agreement to be picked up in Washoe or Lyon Counties, or portions of Storey County not covered by the agreement, and it allowed for an adoption period.

Assemblyman Lee asked Ms. Barcomb to clarify the genetics testing program on captured horses. Ms. Barcomb told him the BLM was responsible for wild horses, and would genetically test them. The BLM performed continuous roundups throughout the state, released older horses back to the range, and placed younger horses in the adoption program. The estray program was administered by the Division of Agriculture.

There were no additional questions from the committee concerning the estrays, and the Chairman asked Ms. Barcomb to testify on the remainder of A.B. 48.

Continuing, Ms. Barcomb addressed the wild burros issue. The Leo Heil will mandated the preservation and protection of wild horses, not burros. Nevada had one specific burro management area, but no legal say in the management of the animals. The bill asked that the burros be added under the Wild Horse Commission so the state could have a say in the burro management areas.

Mrs. de Braga asked how funds between horses and burros would be separated. Ms. Barcomb informed her there were two separate funds, the commission fund and the Heil Trust fund—A.B. 48 stated no Heil fund money would be spent on burro management. Any time or travel spent on burros would be taken from the commission fund. There were no further questions.

The next person to testify in opposition of A.B. 48 was Mary Savage, Chairperson of the Hidden Valley Wild Horse Task Force (HVWHTF), a non-profit organization for the preservation and protection of wild horses. The HVWHTF was opposed to the bill because it felt additional government intervention was not necessary. Ms. Savage’s complete testimony was contained in Exhibit I.

Assemblywoman Segerblom asked Mrs. Savage if her task force was interviewed on television the previous week. Mrs. Savage answered affirmatively. There were no further questions from the committee.

Betty Kelly, Wild Horse Advocate and Wild Horse Spirit Volunteer, testified in opposition to A.B. 48 and A.B. 53. She was specifically opposed to the creation of the tricounty task force and the commission fund, stating the current commission and proposed tricounty board were skewed against the horses, and were only interested in the removal, slaughter and annihilation of wild horses from Nevada lands. Her complete testimony was contained in Exhibit J. There were no questions from the committee.

Chairman de Braga asked that a letter from Margie Carrigan-Arredondo in support of A. B. 48, and in opposition to A.B. 53, be entered into the record as Exhibit K.

Dayle Pearson, a member of the Hidden Valley Wild Horse Task Force, Wild Horse Spirit, and chair of the Hidden Valley Homeowners Association Ad Hoc Committee on Wild Horses, spoke on behalf of the students of Echo Loder Elementary School. She read the winning essay of a contest sponsored by Wild Horse Spirit, entitled "Wild Horses on the Run," written by Marivel Castro, a fifth grade student (Exhibit L).

Ms. Pearson stated when A.B. 48 was discussed with the students of Echo Loder Elementary School, the children opposed it because they understood the difference between the words "protection" and "management." In their minds, protection meant the horses would be free forever; management indicated someone took control over their lives and freedom.

Mr. Carpenter asked Ms. Pearson, who was a member of a ranching family, if she thought there should be management or control, or if the horses should be allowed to propagate. She responded there was a distinction between horses and cattle, where cattle needed to be managed and controlled, and were a commodity. In her opinion horses were intelligent animals, and the size of the herd was controlled by natural selection. If left in the Virginia Range, which was an isolated area, with little management, the horses would survive, thrive and control their own numbers.

If threatened by overpopulation or lack of food and water, Mr. Carpenter asked what would become of the herds. She responded if the horses wandered into the congested areas, then the programs Storey County had in effect were adequate.

A discussion ensued between Mr. Carpenter and Ms. Pearson concerning natural selection, overpopulation, and letting horses starve to death. Mr. Carpenter’s position was allowing the horses to starve to death was the worst thing anyone could do. Ms. Pearson elaborated on her own views, which were that she did not believe the horses would starve and would survive if the state and the public left them alone.

Concluding the discussion, Mr. Carpenter said he resented being accused of wanting to rid the state of all the horses. Calling it an untrue statement, he guaranteed that if the estray horses were left alone, without management programs, they would starve to death. Ms. Pearson said she did not specifically accuse him of wanting to remove all the horses, and reiterated her statement that she was opposed to a management system’s eventual goal of removing all the horses from the range. There were no further questions.

Chairman de Braga welcomed the audience members from Las Vegas and asked David Taddum, Nevada Wild Horse Association, to address the committee. He stated the Nevada Wild Horse Association did not object to the addition of burros in A.B. 48, but did not think there was a need for the tricounty commission or fund either, because the horses could be managed through volunteerism. The association also felt estrays should be addressed in legislation separate from that which dealt with burros.

On A.B. 53, the association believed there should be more public input, and should not be managed solely by commission members.

Mrs. de Braga asked if Mr. Taddum’s association was concerned with horses on BLM or private land, and if estrays were identified. Mr. Tattum answered they were on BLM lands, and estrays had been identified. There were no further questions from the committee, and no other persons from Las Vegas wished to testify.

Paul Iverson, Administrator of the Nevada Division of Agriculture, Department of Business and Industry began his testimony by stating Doug Busselman had already adequately addressed his division’s concerns regarding the bill. The horses in the Virginia Range were not wild but estray horses, and were deemed the property of the Division of Agriculture by the Nevada Revised Statutes--which gave to his division the power of control, placement, and disposition of estrays. The NRS also instructed the division on the proper handling of revenue collected in the sale of estrays.

Mr. Iverson said the State Board of Agriculture had absolutely no long-range goals, and never stated it wanted to do away with wild horses and estrays. The division had not established a goal because it had not developed a comprehensive management plan to deal with the estrays in the Virginia Range. He recommended all references to the multicounty fund, multicounty committee and estray animals be removed from A.B. 48, and for those issues to be addressed in a separate bill specifically addressing estray animals.

Stating he had no further concerns regarding the bill, Mr. Iverson informed the committee he had been working on a solution to the estray problem, recognizing there was a problem in the Virginia Range, especially in the Hidden Valley section of Washoe County, Reno, and other areas. Free roaming horses did not belong in urban areas, and should be kept away from all populated areas where they would come into contact with humans. Horses on highways, in parks, and backyards created safety problems not only because they could be injured, but because the public was inclined to feed them. The feeding of wild animals encouraged the beasts to stay or return later. An estray program should be created in order to manage the estray problem.

Addressing the issue of the tri- or multicounty fund or board, Mr. Iverson said when A.B. 48 was first addressed he had met with several groups of people and worked on solutions to the estray problem. A working management plan was also prepared which enabled him to discuss the concerns of the estrays. The idea for the multicounty fund and commission was a result of those meetings. Upon removal of the estray portion of the bill, Mr. Iverson recommended setting up an advisory panel where the Division of Agriculture could be given advise on the management of the animals. A representative from each of the three counties, public representatives at large, Nevada Division of Wildlife, UNR, and staff members with technical expertise should be represented . He would call it the Virginia Range Estray Horse Management Program. The Division of Agriculture did not have the resources to deal with the estrays. A fund needed to be setup and the division needed the opportunity to raise funds; plus he wanted to see a program with the counties set up where the animals would be adopted at reasonable prices, money incurred on them recovered and returned to the fund.

A management program would ensure the division’s information was based on scientific fact, and provide an adoption program. If an adoption program was to developed with the limited amount of money available, there needed to be a time frame set because it would be too expensive to care for the horses forever. The division had offered to hold the horses for 30 to 90 days, but a public advisory council would have to discuss and make those decisions. After a horse had been held for 90 days, it would be publicly sold.

Mrs. de Braga interrupted Mr. Iverson to announce several committee members had to leave to attend other hearings leaving less than the eight members needed for a quorum, therefore, she declared the hearing a subcommittee for the purpose of hearing the rest of the testimony.

In conclusion, Mr. Iverson summarized his belief that a management program was needed to deal with the estrays in the Hidden Valley and Virginia Range, and recommended an advisory be established to assist the Division of Agriculture in the development of a comprehensive plan or program with the necessary funds to enable the establishment of an adoption program. He also said he intended to work with the counties and public groups to develop that plan.

Mr. Carpenter asked if the statute had to provide for the adoption of the estray animals. Mr. Iverson responded statutes already were in existence enabling his division to enter into a cooperative agreement with the county or city to setup an adoption program, but no adoption program was presently in existence.

Mr. Carpenter stated the division had, in fact, adopted out the horses. Mr. Iverson clarified that only horses captured in the area covered by the VRWPA could be adopted out, because Storey County was the only county with a cooperative agreement.

If other groups entered into an agreement, could the division then also put horses captured in those areas up for adoption? Mr. Carpenter questioned. Mr. Iverson responded yes, the division would give each city or county group a certificate of inspection and that entity would be responsible for the adoption program. Mr. Iverson stated one of his concerns was if an adoption program were to be run by the division, he wanted to implement a tracking program to ensure the animals were being cared for, properly housed and fed; after 1 year the division would inspect the horses to ensure proper care had been given. At that time, if the owner passed the inspection, a final certificate of ownership of the horses would be issued.

Assemblyman Mortenson noted the nuisance horses reported in the Virginia Range had all been adopted and felt there was no problem. According to the BLM, he said, only a fraction of 1 percent of the wild horses were slaughtered. If there was a workable system run by private citizens, was there any reason to spend tax-payer money to establish an adoption program. Mr. Iverson replied the current system was run by the VRWPA, but even with certified groups throughout the three counties participating, he was not sure that all captured horses would be adopted. It was also important to decide if horses caught in Washoe County could be given to the VRWPA. The division had three horses that were recently captured, and if the VRWPA would take responsibility for the adoption of those horses, he would transfer the animals to the VRWPA.

Assemblyman Neighbors asked when during the initial year of adoption would the division issue the certificate of ownership. Mr. Iverson stated the Division of Agriculture issued a certificate of inspection at the end of the year. Sometime during that one year period, the VRWPA would probably transfer the title of ownership.

Mr. Neighbors asked if someone was injured by the horse during the 1-year period was the state liable, and were there any pending lawsuits. Mr. Iverson stated he was unaware of any pending suits and added the division was not liable for any damage caused by any estray. Once the animal had been adopted and had been in someone’s possession for 1 calendar year, he did not know if the state was liable. A management plan would address such an issue, and would also help the division ensure the resources were available to sustain the herds of horses, and discourage them from wandering into residential areas.

Mr. Lee asked if the Virginia Range herd were to be isolated, could it sustain 500 horses; also, if the division was in dereliction of its duty and responsible for a citizen injured by a horse. Mr. Iverson responded the law specifically stated the division was not liable for any trespassing or damage caused by any estray.

Mr. Lee inquired if there was a law which prohibited the feeding of wild and estray horses and if there was anything that would put a person at risk for a lawsuit by doing so. Mr. Iverson stated he did not know, but it would be a good idea to enact one.

Mr. Lee then asked how many horses were in the Virginia Range. Mr. Iverson stated he did not know, but determining that could be one of the duties assigned to an advisory committee.

Mr. Mortenson stated it seemed to him that Darwin’s Theory did not work, because the horses had survived for hundreds of years without government intervention. The problem seemed to be people feeding the animals, therefore, legislation prohibiting that would be helpful. Mr. Iverson agreed, adding that it was man who had encroached on the horses’ territory, and that issue still was yet to be addressed.

Mr. Neighbors voiced his concern about the state’s liability during the one year following an adoption, when the division still had some control over the animal. There were no further questions from the committee.

Mary Henderson, Public Affairs Director, Washoe County Board of County Commissioners addressed the committee, stated for the record that the board had dealt with the estray issue for at least 20 years. The Board of County Commissioners wanted what was best both for the horses and the public’s safety in the populated areas. She acknowledged horses had roamed in public areas, about which the board had received complaints. The horses posed a serious concern for the county which the board hoped to resolve. The board had worked with the Division of Agriculture and the Governor’s Office to arrive at a workable solution, and all involved understood estray horses were the responsibility of the state and that public input on the matter was necessary.

The Board of County Commissioners concurred with Mr. Iverson’s proposed amendment, Ms. Henderson said, stating the board would work with the committee, the state, the Governor, and all involved groups to ensure proper implementation of the amendment. The board strongly felt an advisory group would be beneficial as a pilot program in the Virginia Range for a 2-year period, and wanted all concerned parties to concur with the issues, and work together on settling the issue.

In closing, Ms. Henderson stated the Board of County Commissions was committed to working with all groups involved to resolve the issues. There were no questions from the committee.

Pete Goicochea, Chairman of the Eureka County Board of County Commissioners, along with John Balliette, a contract consultant for the Department of Natural Resources in Eureka County, and Mike Baughman, a lobbyist for the county, addressed the committee in opposition of A.B. 48. Mr. Goicochea stated Eureka County opposed any bill which placed the estray animals currently under the jurisdiction of the Division of Agriculture, under the Wild Horse Commission. The commissioners felt management of the horses was necessary, and requested the committee amend the bill by moving the estray program out of the tricounty sector and incorporating it statewide, because rural counties also had problems with estray animals. If the bill were amended, he asked that every county in the state be allowed to participate with the Department of Agriculture’s program; also other counties should be allowed to become involved in the advisory group, because there was significant resource damage caused in those counties by the horses as well.

Testifying against A.B. 53, Mr. Goicochea informed the committee Eureka County was opposed to a commission taking lead status away from the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). In the rural communities, NDOW had done a commendable job monitoring range resources. The Eureka Commissioners also questioned why the Wild Horse Commission wanted to be the consulting lead agency when the Wild Horse Commission already had an NDOW biologist on staff.

Mr. Balliette introduced Exhibits M, "Last Will and Testament of Leo Heil," and Exhibit N, "Wild Horses and Burros: Protection, Management, and Control Act, Chapter 30," attached. There were no questions from the committee.

Jennifer Fiamengo, representing the students of Virginia City High School, testified in opposition to A.B. 48. The VRWPA had collected 262 signatures of people from the Storey County area (Exhibit O) who opposed A.B. 48. Miss Fiamengo had petitioned high school students and received 62 signatures in opposition to the bill as well (Exhibit P). The students were opposed to the tricounty board, she said, adding that Hidden Valley’s winter horses were Virginia City’s summer horses. She had personally assisted in the adoption of 20 estray horses in 1996, the horses were currently in good homes, and no longer posed any nuisance problems. Addressing Mr. Carpenter’s assertion that horses were starving to death, Miss Fiamengo informed him the estray horses in the Virginia Range were not starving and were not in eminent danger of starving.

Mrs. de Braga asked Miss Fiamengo if she were a high school student, and Miss Fiamengo responded yes. Mrs. de Braga commended her for becoming involved in the legislative process, and for the excellent presentation. She further noted the committee thought it was wonderful that she dedicated her time and energy to a cause she believed in. There were no questions from the committee.

Mona Armenta, a resident of the Virginia Foothills, speaking on behalf of herself, stated neither she nor her neighbors thought the horses were a problem. If residents felt the animals were a nuisance, they could barricade their property to keep the horses out. She stated the development of the land had encroached on the horses, and the developers were the problem. There were no questions from the committee.

Joseph Vosnik, on behalf of himself, read a letter from Charles A. Haynes, Chairman of the Storey County Commissioners (Exhibit Q), which stated the commissioners supported the VRWPA in their opposition to A.B. 48.

Mr. Neighbors noted the letter stated ". . . I cannot support . . .," and asked who opposed the bill, Commissioner Haynes or the Storey County Commissioners. Mr. Vosnik assumed Mr. Haynes had written on behalf of the Storey County commissioners, but could not be sure. Mr. Neighbors asked Mr. Vosnik to clarify the statement for the committee.

Carroll Vosnik read a letter from Geraldine H. Olson, Executive Secretary Emeritus, Virginia Range Wildlife Protection Association, in opposition to A.B. 48 (Exhibit R). Ms. Olson’s letter stated the tricounty management for estray horses failed to include the working programs, and did not get the approval of Storey County nor the public groups involved. There were no questions.

Elsie Dupree, representing the Nevada Wildlife Federation, Inc., submitted Exhibit S, which noted the federation’s opposition to A.B. 48.

Charlie Fisher, addressed the committee on behalf of himself, stating he concurred with Catherine Barcomb’s suggestion to remove the estrays from the bill, and include the wild burros under the Wild Horse Commission. There were no questions.

The Chairman closed the hearing on A.B. 48. She asked David Ziegler, Senior Research Analyst, to remove the estray portion from the bill to enable the committee to vote separately on the issue of adding the wild burros to the Wild Horse Commission’s Authority. She declared a subcommittee, chaired by herself, Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Mortenson would address the liability issue and the need for an appropriation for the Division of Agriculture.

Mr. Humke explained to the audience his absence from a portion of this committee was because he was chief sponsor on another bill which was being heard in another committee. He stated that he and other members who had left the hearing early were not disinterested in A.B. 48 and A.B. 53, but had other commitments on other committees.

Chairman de Braga thanked Mr. Humke for explaining that issue to the audience, and opened the hearing on A.B. 53.

Willie Molini, Administrator of the Nevada Division of Wildlife (NDOW), addressed the committee, stating he was concerned about the language in A.B. 53. It transposed the positions of NDOW and the Wild Horse Commission over the current statutory language, in which NDOW had been established as the state’s wildlife agency for purposes of consulting with the Secretary of the Interior on wild horse issues. It would also put the Wild Horse Commission in a superior position as far as consultations.

Mr. Molini felt NDOW worked well with the current Wild Horse Commission, but feared in the future an executive director of the Wild Horse commission would not understand the full ramifications of wild horses and their potential impact on the wildlife habitat as well as the current commission and director did. Of even greater concern was the lack of resources the Wild Horse Commission had. It had an appointed commission with one staff member, but there was a need for at least two, one with biological expertise. NDOW had about 35 wildlife biologists located thoughout the state, maintained two jet ranger aircraft, performed consistent surveys designed primarily for big game, and gave the department the opportunity, twice per year, to examine range conditions, horse herds, and the competitive conditions between horses and wildlife.

Mr. Molini said he had spoken with Ms. Barcomb, and was willing to consider joint or equal jurisdiction between NDOW and the Wild Horse Commission so that neither entity would be subservient to the other in terms of dealing with the Secretary of the Interior on issues concerning wild horses. There were no questions.

Catherine Barcomb, Executive Director of the Wild Horse Commission, agreed with Mr. Molini, stating the intent of the bill was not to take over authority or circumvent NDOW—it had the resources which the commission relied upon. The commission’s intent was to have joint or equal representation on wild horse issues, and according to the Wild Horse and Burros Act, the federal government should consult with the appropriate wildlife agency on the issue of wild horses. The commission’s intent was to get the consultation straight in line and then ask the federal government to help fund the position. There were no questions from the committee.

With no further testimony from the audience, Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on A.B. 53.

The next item was to announce the success of the committee mine tour, and Mrs. de Braga thanked the committee policy analyst and committee secretary for their hard work and organization.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Carmela A. Porcella,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman

DATE: