The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining was called to order at 12:34 p.m., on Monday, March 29, 1999. Chairman Marcia de Braga presided in Room 1214 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mrs. Marcia de Braga, Chairman

Mrs. Gene Segerblom, Vice Chairman

Mr. Douglas Bache

Mr. John Carpenter

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Mr. David Humke

Mr. John Jay Lee

Mr. John Marvel

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Roy Neighbors

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman John Carpenter, Assembly District 33

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Rita Bernier, Volunteer, Henderson Animal Shelter

Judith Ruiz, President, Las Vegas Valley Humane Society

Joe Boteilho, Manager, Clark County Animal Control

Pete Bachstadt, Representative, Carson Eagle Valley Humane Society

John O’Brien, Agriculture Programs Coordinator, Nevada Division of Agriculture

Anthony Lesperance, Chairman, Elko, County Board of Commissioners

Ray Flake, Chairman, Lincoln County Commission

Lydia Hammack, President, Virginia Range Wildlife Protection Association Geraldine Olson, private citizen

Julie Lee, Representative, Redwings Horse Sanctuary

Wayne Howle, Deputy Attorney General, Nevada Attorney General’s

Office

James Davis, private citizen

Catherine Barcomb, Administrator, State of Nevada Wild Horse Commission

Dawn Lappin, Director, Wild Horse Organized Assistance, Inc

Elsie Dupree, Vice-president, Nevada Wildlife Federation, Inc.

Nancee Goldwater, private citizen

Gary Griffith, private citizen

Vern Schulze, private citizen

Doug Bussleman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau

Robert Stewart, Public Information Officer, Bureau of Land Management

Pete Giocoechia, County Commissioner, Eureka County

John Balliette, Contractual Natural Resource Manager, Eureka County

Larry Seltutte, representative, Big Springs Ranch

Demar Dahl, private citizen

Don Henderson, Deputy Administrator, Nevada Division of Agriculture

The meeting of the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was teleconferenced to room 4100 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Following roll call, Chairman de Braga opened the hearing on A.B. 448.

Assemblywoman Segerblom, Assembly District 22, introduced A.B. 448. She said the bill prohibited animal shelters from releasing animals. Section 1, subsection 1 stated "An animal shelter shall not sell, buy, barter, or give or offer to sell by barter or give an animal to a person or Governmental entity for research or experimentation."

Rita Bernier, Henderson Shelter Volunteer, testified in support of A.B. 448. She said government controlled animal shelters and humane societies were places of refuge for strayed, unwanted, or abandoned pets, not a facility for animal researchers as a cheap source for experiments. Ms. Bernier had been a volunteer for 10 years for six county shelters in a large county. That county allowed the practice of pound seizure which made it very difficult to keep volunteers and resulted in a high turnover of personnel. When a medical research truck came to the shelters to collect the animals it created a very depressed atmosphere. Shelter personnel had an already thankless job. Ms. Bernier said she found shelter personnel to be sensitive, caring, and dedicated and did not feel they needed to be subjected to the added stress of pound seizure. While the practice of pound seizure did not take place in Nevada, A.B. 448 was important to stop that process before it ever began.

Ms. Bernier stated when the public found out shelters allowed pound seizure they dumped their unwanted animals anyplace else rather than take them to the pound. Thus, the city, county, state, or humane society ended up with the possibility of outbreaks of disease such as rabies.

An article written by the Concerned Physicians for Reliable Research in Washington, D.C. said shelter animals did not make good experiment subjects. Shelter animals did not make good subjects for medical research because most of their backgrounds could not be traced and research could be unreliable. Purpose-bred animals made far more reliable subjects which in turn saved the taxpayers money due to government grants.

Assemblyman Mortenson asked if the shelters received money for the animals given to the research groups. Ms. Bernier replied there was a very minimum charge for the animals.

Chairman de Braga asked if the charges were less than an adopter of the animal would pay. Ms. Bernier said it was far less. The charge to the research facilities would not even pay for the holding period for strays or owner-relinquished animals. The animals who were adoptable were kept as long as possible which cost the city or county more to house and provide for them.

Judith Ruiz, president, Las Vegas Valley Humane Society, voiced support of A.B. 448. She reiterated the problem of animals being released on the streets instead of taken to the pound was a major health concern. She felt most medical schools were giving up the testing of animals. She added Clark County had an ordinance which prohibited the sale of shelter animals to research facilities, as did the cities of Henderson and Las Vegas.

Joe Boteilho, manager, Clark County Animal Control, said the Clark County Board of Commissioners voted in April 1998 to formalize and restrict pound seizure in Clark County. They felt it was an important issue to the community.

Pete Bachstadt, representative, Carson Eagle Valley Humane Society, spoke in support of A.B. 448. He said the current Carson City charter allowed the sale as well as disposal of shelter animals. He hoped A.B. 448 would help to repeal that ordinance.

Assemblywoman Segerblom pointed out any person other than a shelter could sell animals for medical research. A.B. 448 concerned only animal shelters.

Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on A.B. 448 and opened the hearing on A.B.481.

John O’Brien, Agriculture Programs Coordinator, Nevada Division of Agriculture,

testified in support of A.B. 481. The purpose of the bill was to eliminate the registration requirement for Nevada resident beekeepers and an entry permit fee and requirements for beekeepers who brought their colonies into the state. There were no longer any commercial beekeepers in Nevada. There were approximately 50 beekeepers registered, primarily hobbyists. The entry permit beekeepers came mostly from California. There were 17 beekeepers who entered Nevada agricultural areas in 1998. The Division of Agriculture felt the resident registration fee was not necessary. There was a current provision in the law to allow inspection of colonies. Division inspection of out-of-state beekeeper colonies had determined fees and regulations were not the impetus for healthy colonies.

Approximately 7,000 colonies came from California in 1998. The division charged a fee of 75 cents per colony charged to out-of-state beekeepers which could be a financial hardship to them. The division felt dropping the fee would encourage other beekeepers to come to Nevada.

The Northern Nevada Apiary Society expressed disease as their primary concern. Such changes would not impact the division’s ability to regulate diseases. For example, said Mr. O’Brien, there were Africanized honeybees in Las Vegas and the division proposed to use two methods to maintain authority over those bees. An intrastate quarantine was planned so if the bees were moved from the area in which they currently were kept they would have to be certified as being European rather then Africanized. The primary focus of a quarantine was to restrict movement of the bees. A second mechanism would be to utilize existing law where there was authority to destroy diseased colonies or to require re-queening with a European queen.

Assemblyman Marvel asked how much money was collected annually. Mr. O’Brien replied approximately $5,500 per year of which $5,000 was from out-of-state beekeepers. There was no real impact on the division budget. The money went toward inspections and there was no real need for that. Most of the bees were honeybees and leafcutter bees were the primary source of pollination for alfalfa growers.

Chairman de Braga asked if regulations on the sale of honey would be affected by the passage of A.B. 481. Mr. O’Brien responded there was no impact on the sale of honey.

ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED DO PASS A.B. 481.

MOTION SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN SEGERBLOM.

MOTION CARRIED.

Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on A.B. 481 and opened the hearing on A.B. 509.

Assemblyman John Carpenter, Assembly District 33, presented the committee with a copy of his testimony (Exhibit C) wherein he explained the purpose of A.B. 509. The bill was narrowly crafted to bring attention to the problem of feral horses running on private land within a county, or outside of a wild horse or burro area designated by the Federal Government.

The designation of a feral horse was provided in the Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971 which stated wild horses would be protected in the area where presently found at the time of the passage of the act. The Bureau of Land Management designated 110 herd management areas within the State of Nevada.

A.B. 509, continued Assemblyman Carpenter, addressed the feral horses outside of the herd management areas which were deemed for the purposes of A.B. 509 to be the property of the county. The same set of circumstances applied to feral horses on private lands. The act and court cases were very specific that wild horses on private lands must be removed. The bill provided for the Bureau of Land Management and the county to consult about any horse or burro running on public lands which gave the Bureau of Land Management the opportunity to remove the feral horses from the private lands and areas outside of the herd management areas. Assemblyman Carpenter explained nothing in the Wild Horse and Burro Act could be construed to authorize the relocation of wild free roaming horses or burros to areas of the public lands where they did not currently exist at the time of passage of the act.

The Wild Horse and Burro Act was explicit that horses must be managed within the concept of multiple use. Horses, wildlife and livestock must use the range in a manner designed to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance of the public lands.

Assemblyman Carpenter expressed the belief that counties could manage feral horses better than could the Bureau of Land Management because counties were closer to the problem. They had the ability to adopt procedures more easily and with more input from the public. He then delineated a series of points on which he based his belief (Exhibit C.)

Assemblyman Carpenter said a paper developed by The Nevada People for the West maintained appropriations directly allocated to the Bureau of Land Management from 1973 through 1997 totaled more than $245 million. During those years 175,724 horses and burros were removed from the range at an average cost of $1,394 per head. Of the animals removed, 156,915 were adopted out while the remainder were turned back, sent to sanctuaries, or otherwise disappeared from the system. Litigation costs to Nevada to appeal multiple use decisions were estimated to be over $44,000 per appeal. It cost about $300 to capture a horse and more money was spent on transportation and feed.

Assemblyman Carpenter also said because the Bureau of Land Management failed to carry out an adequate management program excessive numbers of horses damaged soil, vegetation, and water resources. There were about 42,000 wild horses and burros in 10 western states compared to a desired population of 27,000. Nevada had about 23,500 head instead of the desired 14,000. Since horse herds increased by 20 percent per year 8,400 head would have to be removed yearly just to stay even with the increase. The Bureau of Land Management had failed to bring numbers down to the appropriate management levels in any of the 12 years since those levels had been established. Euthanasia was the only method presently allowed to dispose of unadoptable horses but restrictions placed on the interior department appropriations prevented funds from being used for that purpose.

Assemblyman Carpenter said the time had come for new ideas and concepts. He urged the passage of A.B. 509.

Chairman de Braga asked if the counties were willing to accept an unfunded mandate such as suggested by A.B. 509. Assemblyman Carpenter replied a number of counties were willing to do so. He thought monies received from adoption of animals would offset the cost to gather the horses. Chairman de Braga asked if money from sales of animals would go to the counties. Assemblyman Carpenter responded A.B. 509 allowed money after expenses to be divided between the counties and the Nevada Department of Agriculture, since the department had costs for brand inspection.

Anthony Lesperance, chairman, Elko County Board of Commissioners, submitted a document (Exhibit D) which reflected his testimony both before the committee and before the House Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands in Reno on July 13, 1998.

Mr. Lesperance explained that statement was based on considerable data obtained from the Bureau of Land Management National Wild Horse and Burro website. A statistical analysis of all wild horse removal data from 1973 through 1998 suggested under the present set of parameters which governed removal of wild horses and burros the appropriate management levels could never be reached. Data also suggested since 1985 the Bureau of Land Management annual adoption numbers either remained constant or appeared to decline. It was evident as well the Bureau of Land Management overhead to manage the Wild Horse and Burro Program had escalated faster than had congressional appropriations.

Mr. Lesperance pointed out the influx of excess horse population occurred within the zone of "checkerboard" lands lying 20 miles on either side of the rail line in which every other section was privately owned. The Bureau of Land Management seemed clearly reluctant to claim the animals as part of the population supposed to be managed by the agency. Brands were nonexistent and one could only assume the animals were truly feral horses of unknown origin.

Mr. Lesperance acknowledged the removal of horses of unknown origin, even from private lands, was an emotional issue. It was not the intent of A.B. 509 to bring about the destruction of horses. There was an ongoing investigation of other options such as a program to make the animals more adoptable. A.B. 509 included absolutely no concept of damage to existing wild horse populations managed under the Wild Horse and Burro program. It was his belief those horses could become a valuable resource and if properly managed could bring further understanding and enjoyment to those who truly loved and respected the American horse.

Assemblyman Marvel asked what caused the wild horse and burro population explosion. Mr. Lesperance commented a problem with claiming horses was a trespass fee charged to ranchers. The population explosion occurred in the 1980’s because 60 percent of the horses were removed in a 3-year period of time. Within 2 years after that, the population had exceeded the population at the start. Historically there was a rapid buildup of young animals whenever environmental stress was removed. Further, the animals could only be released by adoption and that market had become saturated. Also, the overhead fees escalated at an alarming rate so less and less funds were available to control the animals.

Rey Flake, chairman, Lincoln County Commission, said he was a fifth generation rancher in Lincoln County. Lincoln County was 98.2 percent public land. Decisions made on A.B. 509 could help make or break individual ranchers and affect the entire ranching industry in Nevada. He had a great desire to see his sons and grandsons stay in ranching and was doing his best to teach them proper ways to take care of the land.

It was bad enough, said Mr. Flake, to see an overload of horses on herd management areas, but it was ridiculous to see an overload of horses on private land or areas not designated as herd management areas. Nevada had about 60 percent of all the wild horses in the nation and was way over the appropriate management level. The Bureau of Land Management had not been able to handle those horses on the herd management areas and had not even established proper herd management levels on those areas. Prior to the 1971 passage of the Wild Horse and Burro Act ranchers in the area, in cooperation with county commissioners, managed the horses at little or no cost. Upon passage of the act all those who had worked on and understood the problem were set aside and were not a part of the solution.

The new people involved had not even to date understood or managed the job as it should be done. Some of the team that used to manage the horses were still able to handle the problem. Nevada could handle the problem on state and private lands and on non-herd-management areas. Nevada could be a leader in showing the Bureau of Land Management how to handle the excess horses and stop the deterioration of specific ranges. Mr. Flake believed A.B. 509 was a viable vehicle to do those things and would be a benefit to the management of the horses.

Sally Summers, resident, Reno, Nevada, spoke in opposition to A.B. 509. She told the committee she had recently viewed a videotape of the destruction of wild horses. She had serious concerns that the horses were sent to Europe and slaughtered for food.

Ms. Summers testified (Exhibit E) some of those horses sent to Europe had true ancestral bloodlines. Those horses could be spotted by the strips on the backs of their legs. The animals in Nevada, she said, were the last of the prehistoric horses in the country.

Ms. Summers contended the reason horses were collected was greed. She cited the video previously mentioned as the basis for her feelings, telling the committee the animals were used for their food value, hides, and for medical purposes in other countries. She indicated the animals were collected by ranchers and brought to processing plants where they were sold for as much as $1 per pound.

Ms. Summers cited an article on a study done in New Mexico which stated the cause of deterioration in certain areas of dams, irrigation, and plants was not caused by animals other than grazing cattle which trampled vegetation and mowed down ground cover, causing risk of erosion. She continued many animals died of hunger and thirst, probably because of fences which kept them from water. Ms. Summers pleaded with the committee to vote no on A.B. 509.

Assemblyman Marvel asked about Ms. Summers’ comment of prehistoric horses being in Nevada. Ms. Summers responded the horses had ancestral bloodlines from the Spaniards. Assemblyman Marvel said that was not a prehistoric horse. Ms. Summers responded her information came from a video made by a woman who had been hired to buy the horses for slaughter.

Tibeau Piquet, representing the People for the USA, read a statement into the record (Exhibit F) prepared by Les McKensie, chairman of that organization. The statement reflected the belief that ideological, political, budgetary, and policy roadblocks had prevented an effective wild horse management program. Wild horse overpopulation had caused extensive damage to rangeland resources. The organization contended the plan recently developed by the Commission for the Preservation of Wild Horses would do little to help solve the problem since it did not realistically address the dilemma of what to do with the horses once they were removed.

Mr. Piquet continued the organization did not expect A.B. 509 to cure the situation either, but it might be used to supplement existing programs and provide a measure of relief, at least in the checkerboard land ownership pattern areas of Nevada. That was the end of the statement by Mr. McKensie.

Mr. Piquet said as a past Humboldt County Commissioner and president of Nevada Association of Counties and as chairman of the County Legislative Committee for 8 years, he dealt extensively with public lands. Mr. Piquet said there was a responsibility to what little private land there was in Nevada. There was an obligation to address the issue in a responsible and efficient manner. He felt A.B. 509 had the ability to bring the parties involved forward. A.B. 509 was the most responsible action he had seen because it kept the emotional issue aside. Sometimes statesmanship had to come in place of politics when public lands were involved. That responsibility had to come with manageable numbers and effective programs.

Mr. Piquet said mining companies with management of land services on riparian areas tried to reclaim disturbed areas, but wild horses had destroyed those rehabilitated and revegetated areas to the point where the companies had been asked to wait for further reclamation efforts until the numbers of horses could be reduced. A.B. 509 had the ability to address that issue.

Chairman de Braga asked if the bill could be implemented, in light of problems in the federal system. Mr. Piquet replied supporters of A.B. 509 would have to be ready to work with all affected parties to ensure the success of the program. It would not work without close conjuncture with the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Agriculture.

Assemblywoman Parnell asked if the counties had input on the Commission for the Preservation of Wild Horses plan. Mr. Piquet responded he did not know the extent of input the counties had but he knew many representatives had attended meetings of the commission.

Benjamin Blinn, private citizen, spoke in support of A.B. 509. He commented other animals such as deer, bears, sheep and antelope suffered from the overabundance of horses. They were in the area first but could not get to water or grazing because the horses were so aggressive. Mr. Blinn reminded the committee Nevada had suffered 5 dry years and natural springs had dried up in many areas. He recalled when he could see herds of 1,000 deer and now he saw herds of only 250 deer. He said local people were responsible people and should be allowed to manage their own fate. They loved horses too, but they also loved the other animals. Those who understood the problems should manage those problems.

Harvey Barnes, private citizen, testified next in favor of A.B. 509. He was a rancher from Elko County. After almost 3 decades of studies and rejections and noncompliance with the Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act the situation was out of control and getting worse. Mr. Barnes said the adoption program was saturated and could not absorb the excess animals. He did not think A.B. 509 would solve the entire problem, but it would certainly help. There was no better place to begin than at the local level where the problem would be identified in an accurate manner and monitoring of the gatherings would be factual.

Betty Kelly, private citizen, testified in opposition to A.B. 509. She submitted written testimony (Exhibit G) which posited the bill was a cell of a special interest group led and sponsored by such entities as U.S. Congressmen Gibbons and Ensign during a Congressional Subcommittee hearing on July 13, 1998. She said Assemblyman John Carpenter and Senator Dean Rhoads were key testifiers who advocated kill authority of wild horses and burros. Ms. Kelly said A.B. 509 was equivalent to the recent slaughter of 34 estray wild horses in the Virginia Range. She said the public had spoken as to how they felt about the wild horses when that incident happened.

Bobbi Royal, president, Wild Horse Spirit, Ltd. spoke in opposition to A.B. 509. She presented a letter (Exhibit H) she had written to a local newspaper which espoused the opinion A.B. 509 was an excuse to wipe out wild horses. Ms. Royle said sale authority had been rejected by the Commission for the Preservation of Wild Horses and the Bureau of Land Management. She commented the bill could easily "fire public empathy into civil disobedience" because of concern over the wild horses. Ms. Royle urged the committee to vote "no" on A.B. 509.

Doug Trenner, owner, Sunshine Ranch, Las Vegas, spoke in opposition to A.B. 509. He said he had raised and bred quarterhorses for almost 30 years. He and his wife had tried to work with the Bureau of Land Management for a number of years to find a better way to manage the horse population. Horses could be gelded or castrated as they were rounded up for adoption purposes. Using that method, the numbers of wild horses could be brought under control within 5 years. He believed a plan to develop a castration program would be of benefit to all concerned.

Mr. Trenner was bothered by the lack of reference in A.B. 509 to humane treatment of horses. He said that indicated the bill was written strictly for the purpose of making sure the ranchers got more of the grass which was eaten by the wild horses. Mr. Trenner stated for the record he was opposed to A.B. 509.

Chairman de Braga said there was a provision in A.B. 509 which allowed for the humane treatment of the animals on page 3, section 3. She said part of the problem not resolved was that horses turned back were often sick, injured, or otherwise unable to care for themselves. She would argue A.B. 509 was more humane than programs currently in place.

Pete Bachstadt, representative, Carson Eagle Valley Humane Society, said he could be neither for nor against A.B. 509 because he did not think all the facts were presented. Assemblyman Carpenter had brought up euthanasia, but there was nothing in the bill to deal with that concept. Mr. Bachstadt believed it was all a matter of money, which created problems such as slaughtering, horse tripping rodeos, and horse theft. The question was whether the horses competed with the other animals or whether the other animals competed with the horses.

Lydia Hammack, president, Virginia Range Wildlife Protection Association, spoke in opposition to A.B. 509. She submitted a written copy of her testimony (Exhibit I). Ms. Hammack said the association was a volunteer nonprofit corporation which represented over 500 voters and property owners on 37,000 acres in Storey County.

Ms. Hammack said the fight to save the wild horses was started in the Storey County area by "Wild Horse Annie" in 1971. Prior to that time, mustangers took horses off the land and sent them to slaughter for profit. The Federal Wild Horse and Burro Act was supposed to protect and preserve the wild horses on and off of federal lands. A.B. 509 violated that intent, continued Ms. Hammack, and if it passed would return Nevada back to the days of removal and slaughter for profit. She strongly opposed A.B. 509.

Next to testify was Geraldine Olson, private citizen, who presented written testimony (Exhibit J) in opposition to A.B. 509. Ms. Olson said she was a member of the Virginia Range Wildlife Protection Association since its inception 20 years ago. She contended A.B. 509 gave county governments the right to ‘mustang’ to remove horses without providing any safeguards against inhumane practices. The bill also did not place limitations on wiping out whole populations of wild horses.

Julie Lee, representing Redwings Horse Sanctuary, opposed A.B. 509. Ms. Lee read a letter (Exhibit K) written by Deborah Ellsworth from Redwings Horse Sanctuary in California. The letter expressed concern that A.B. 509 was an attempt to gain control over wild horses.

Wayne Howle, deputy attorney general, Nevada Attorney General’s Office, testified at the request of the Nevada Division of Agriculture. Mr. Howle was not in a position to advocate but desired to raise a few issues pertinent to A.B. 509. He pointed out the definition of ‘wild horse’ was made in federal law at 16 United States Code 1332. The definition read "any unbranded or unclaimed horse on the public lands of the United States." Further definition was in the regulations at 43 CFR section 4700.0-5 as "any of those horses identified in the statute whose habitat is in whole or in part on the public lands." Mr. Howle explained those regulations signified that wild horses which might wander onto private lands or other nonfederal lands were still protected. That was set out expressly at 16 United Sates Code 1334. There was nothing in the definitions which addressed herd areas or herd management areas. Herd areas and herd management areas were two different things. Neither pertained to the definition of "wild horse." Finally, said Mr. Howle, there were two categories of horses that ran on public lands; the wild horses as just defined, and estray horses as defined by state statutes and retained by A.B. 509.

Mr. Howle said when a roundup occurred on public lands state personnel were present with federal officials and together they identified which horses were estrays and which were wild horses. Ultimately the call of which was which was a federal call. Establishing that point was a circuit court case entitled "American Horse Protection Association v. The United States" at 551Fed. 2d.432.

Assemblyman Mortenson asked if there was no difference between wild and feral horses. Mr. Howle replied feral horses came from either estray horses under state jurisdiction or wild horses under federal definition. Since state law could not control federal definition, feral horses would necessarily come from estrays.

Assemblyman Carpenter commented when the Wild Horse and Burro Act was first passed it was necessary to include that language. However, the act also stated horses must remain in the area they were in when the act was passed. Horses outside those designated areas were feral horses.

James Davis, private citizen, testified in opposition to A.B. 509. He felt the bill was in conflict with S.B. 396. He disagreed horses competed with deer because deer ate different things. He was not sure there was a horse problem. Mankind had always leaned toward harvesting of animals to rid himself of supposed problems. Everyone who testified in support of A.B. 509 had a monetary interest in its passage, claimed Mr. Davis. He called upon the committee to find a more compassionate method to handle the situation.

Catherine Barcomb, administrator, State of Nevada Wild Horse Commission, presented written testimony (Exhibit L) which stated both the Wild Horse Commission and the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources was opposed to A.B. 509.

Ms. Barcomb said The Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971 did not provide for public sale of the horses as it was overwhelmingly shown the public would not accept such an option. The issue of sale authority was evaluated in the Statewide Wild Horse Management Plan. The commission developed the plan representative of all Nevadans and in the best interest of the Nevada wild horse program. Sale authority was rejected. Resolution of the wild horse issue should be through aggressive adoption and effective biological management of the herds. Ms. Barcomb said A.B. 509 had the potential to circumvent federal law and conflict with the Statewide Wild Horse Management Plan.

As an alternative the commission suggested that legislation be proposed to support the solutions presented from the wild horse plan as written by the State of Nevada Wild Horse Commission.

Chairman de Braga asked if the commission felt wild horses were being managed in a manner that was in their best interest at present. Ms. Barcomb responded currently the bureau that managed the horses did utilization studies and determined where and when the horses needed to be moved. That was in a multiple-use concept where wildlife, livestock, and horses were together.

Chairman de Braga said in the past the commission had taken young horses and adopted them out but turned back those who could not care for themselves, which was not particularly humane. Ms. Barcomb said in the gathers she had attended those blind, aged, or lame horses who could not take care of themselves, were put down in the field and not turned back or sold.

Chairman de Braga said a study was done by the University of Colorado on wild horses in the west that showed under the adoption program the person who adopted the horse had to keep it for 1 year. After 1 year, 90 percent of those horses were sold to slaughter. Ms. Barcomb said she was not aware of that study. She was appointed to the investigative team on the adoption program to produce the Culp Report as the only nonfederal employee on that investigation. The team visited all nine slaughteryards in the United States. In 1996, 200,000 horses were put to slaughter, and less than one quarter of one percent were documented to be wild horses.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked if there was a study of what happened to horses after the first year of adoption. Ms. Barcomb stated there was no way to track the horses once title was passed after the probationary adoption period. Assemblyman Carpenter said the fate of adopted horses should be followed up. He spoke about a survey done recently which asked people in the rural areas in Nevada how they felt about the wild horse issue, and the overwhelming response was that horses should be part of the landscape, but the horses needed to be managed along with other resources.

Dawn Lappin, director, Wild Horse Organized Assistance, Inc (WHOA), spoke in opposition to A.B. 509. She presented written testimony (Exhibit M) and stated it would be helpful if the committee read decisions of the Supreme Court by Robert H. Bork, a pre-eminent attorney and historian of constitutional law, who wrote the "Jurisdictional Statement" and arguments in Rogers C.B. Morton v. New Mexico.

Ms. Lappin continued she had worked on public land use planning with livestock, wildlife, mining, recreation, and other people. More often than not common ground was found among those people regarding the management of animals.

Ms. Lappin said passage of A.B. 509 would be contrary to federal law which provided for animal movement, and so wild horses seeking spring or winter grounds would be caught. She warned that Assemblyman Carpenter, Elko County, and proponents in the legislature, by authorizing counties, would lay themselves open to criminal and civil penalties. Further, the passage of A.B. 509 would discourage tourist dollars at a time when Nevada attempted to establish itself as "the one and only" resort destination.

Ms. Lappin concluded by stating for all the citizens everywhere who own the land for us, A.B. 509 was nothing less than a declaration of war.

Chairman de Braga asked if, when someone made their living partially through the use of public lands and that was taken away because of lack of control over horses, did Ms. Lappin feel they should be compensated. They had paid a fee to use those lands and were supposed to get something in return for that fee.

Ms. Lappin responded if the Bureau of Land Management hadn’t adjudicated all forage out to livestock initially under the Taylor Grazing Act that might have been possible. But, she continued, everything had already been given to the permitee as far as forage was concerned. She said she had never asked for "equal", she had only asked for "fair."

Elsie Dupree, vice-president, Nevada Wildlife Federation, Inc. read her testimony (Exhibit N) which asked the committee to vote no on A.B. 509. She explained the Bureau of Land Management had control of the wild horses but the Bureau of Land Management had funding problems which did not allow for good control. The committee, she continued, should make resolutions to Congress so Nevada would get a fair share of the wild horse money instead of making laws that would cost Nevada taxpayers money when the lawsuits started coming in as a result of passage of A.B. 509.

Nancee Goldwater, private citizen, spoke in opposition to A.B. 509. She presented written testimony (Exhibit O) to the committee. Ms. Goldwater expressed concern there would be a definite adverse effect on local government through the necessity for additional personnel to gather, house, feed, and dispose of feral horses. Costs would be incurred for advertising and medical care for the animals. Insurance costs would increase, not only for additional vehicles but for injury potential to employees.

Another objection raised by Ms. Goldwater was the negative image portrayed to tourists worldwide. Many times she had taken visitors into the backroad areas to watch the horses run. Those tourists purchased food, photo supplies, lodging, and souvenirs. Never had she been asked to stop so they could take pictures of cattle. One had only to look at the cover picture on the 1999 Carson Telephone Directory to realize wild horses were very much a part of Nevada. A.B. 509 would destroy that image.

Gary Griffith, private citizen, addressed the committee (Exhibit P). He was opposed to the wording in A.B. 509 at section 3 which introduced the word "feral" as defined to be a horse that "has reverted to a wild state from a domestic state." He asked how one physically distinguished between a wild horse, an estray horse, and a "feral" horse.

Further wording that disturbed Mr. Griffith was in section 7.3 which stated "The county may sell an injured, sick or otherwise debilitated feral horse without advertising . . ." and he wondered how sick, injured, or debilitated the horse had to be, and who made the determination and what that person’s qualifications had to be.

Mr. Griffith wondered if A.B. 509 would improve the way feral horses were currently being handled. He also wondered what prompted the drafting of the bill. He said he had seen no outcry about a plague of feral horses. Finally, he said no matter what the intent of A.B. 509, the legislation would provide cover for all manner of abuse against all horses.

Vern Schulze, private citizen, was next to testify in opposition to A.B. 509. Mr. Schulze said he had experience with the Bureau of Land Management Headquarters Office responsible for preparing the Bureau of Land Management’s Wild Horse and Burro budget, regulations, policies, and procedures. Further experience as a range conservationist with a degree in range management made him able to understand the legal, political, and procedural aspects of wild horse and burro management (Exhibit Q).

Mr. Schulze said A.B. 509 was either based on a misunderstanding of the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act or it was an attempt to circumvent the intent of Congress as expressed in the act. In either case the bill would accomplish nothing or would lead to confrontation with the Department of Justice and the agencies responsible for administering the act.

As currently drafted, said Mr. Schulze, A.B. 509 only applied to feral equines which never used public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management or the United States Forest Service. Existing law already provided for disposal of those animals. Based upon that fact, and the intent of the Wild Horse and Burro Act, there was no purpose to A.B. 509 as written.

Moreover, said Mr. Schulze, the Wild-Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act definition was "all unbranded and unclaimed horses and burros on public lands of the United States." The Wild Horse and Burro Regulations, CFR Title 43, Part 4700, expanded the definition to include all unbranded and unclaimed horses and burros that "use public land as all or part of their habitat." Thus, any attempt by private individuals or counties to remove wild horses outside of designated herd areas would be illegal and undoubtedly result in litigation. Mr. Schulze assured the committee there was absolutely no possibility that Congress would change the law to allow the sale of the animals.

In closing, Mr. Schulze stated the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources had recently completed a Wild Horse and Burro Management Plan. He suggested that document could be the basis of a cooperative effort between the state and federal agencies to resolve the conflict of how to properly manage wild horses and burros.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked what happened to the horses that moved out of the areas they were in when the act was passed. Mr. Schulze replied the definition of a wild horse stayed with the animal and had nothing to do with where the animal was located.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked what was meant by language in the law which said the animals must not be removed from any area they were in when the act was passed. Mr. Schulze explained it was meant to prohibit the establishment of herds where they did not exist or within herd management areas that existed in 1971.

Assemblyman Carpenter said that told him nothing would be done with the wild horses and they would just continue to multiply. Mr. Schulze replied the problem was Bureau of Land Management staffing and budgets. Assemblyman Carpenter asked if it was not possible for the Bureau of Land Management to enter into agreement with the counties for the removal of the horses. Mr. Schulze replied even if that were the case, it did not change the definition or regulations pertaining to wild horses.

Assemblyman Hettrick said the problem was if the Federal Government had a law which stated they must remove the animals, why were they any less in violation than would be the counties if they removed the horses. The Federal Government was supposed to fund the act; they protected the animals and they decided to establish the limits on numbers and locations, but they were not funding and did not fulfill their obligations. Nevada felt whether there were lawsuits for removing the horses or lawsuits against the Federal Government either way the money was spent and nothing would be accomplished. Assemblyman Hettrick said Mr. Schulze was suggesting the State of Nevada had to come up with the money for sterilization and programs to do what the Federal Government was supposed to do in the first place. The issue was not to destroy horses, it was that the Federal Government established a law they themselves did not enforce. Mr. Schulze agreed with the frustration but said there were limits to the amount of money the Federal Government was going to spend. Assemblyman Hettrick asked if the Federal Government would permit Nevada to provide the money for sterilization. Mr. Schulze replied he thought not, except through some kind of cooperative program, but he was sure the Bureau of Land Management would be grateful for any support for those type of programs. The adoption, sterilization, or fertility control programs were the only politically acceptable answers. The Bureau of Land Management had spent about $2.5 million so far in fertility control studies, but the chemicals proposed did not meet expectations raised by those studies.

Chairman de Braga said the point of A.B. 509 was to bring out that the management practices in place by the Bureau of Land Management were not true management practices. She did not expect a lot of additional monies should be required. The management practices needed to be realistic and based on sound scientific data.

Assemblyman Hettrick commented he found it extremely frustrating to note it was politically acceptable if Nevada paid the bills and yet Nevada had to beg for the right to do the job in the first place.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked if open auctions were an option. Mr. Schulze replied there was a proposal included in regulations recently to allow competitive bidding, but restrictions on how the animal was used after it was adopted were still there. Getting the cost of adoption reduced was not practical since the Bureau of Land Management was constrained by a number of federal court lawsuits which determined how the animal was treated as it went through the system. He felt there should be a western states adoption policy so the horses could be kept in an area where the adoption process was understood. Mr. Schulze said he did not see a good answer to the entire problem.

Doug Bussleman, executive vice president, Nevada Farm Bureau (NFB), testified next on A.B. 509. Mr. Busselman gave the committee written testimony (Exhibit R) which indicated that while the NFB was neither for nor against A.B. 509 it was necessary to raise several concerns the bureau had with the bill.

Mr. Busselman said his first comment was in the form of a proposed amendment in line 1, page 2 of A.B. 509. He felt section 4 should read "A county shall consult with the secretary of the interior . . . " It was the NFB’s contention the change was necessary to protect anyone seeking to use A.B. 509 should it become law.

Further, the definition of feral horse in section 3, page 1 of the bill indicated it did not apply to horses or burros subject to the jurisdiction of the Wild Horse and Burro Act. Mr. Busselman raised the question of whether yet another classification of horse was needed. Few people understood estray horses were not "wild horses" but in fact fell under the responsibility of the Division of Agriculture as estrays. Adding the classification of "feral" could confuse the issue of management responsibility ever more than it was.

Chairman de Braga said section 4 seemed vague as to the goal of a consultation. Mr. Busselman replied the NFB read that to question the status of horses involved. The federal lands managers must be brought into the process of determination of whether the horses were wild in order to protect certain people who thought they had jurisdiction when they did not.

Robert Stewart, public information officer, Bureau of Land Management, submitted written testimony on behalf of Bob Abbey, state director, Bureau of Land Management, who was in Las Vegas with the secretary of the interior. They were conveying 5,000 acres of the cooperative management area to the county and discussing new legislation to convey land in Nevada into private ownership.

Mr. Stewart read the remarks of Bob Abbey (Exhibit S) into the record. A.B. 509 proposed to authorize the counties to gather and sell feral horses, which caused concern the passage of the bill could lead to the sale of wild horses, whether intentional or not. Anyone convicted of such an act would be subject to fines and ranchers involved could be subject to the loss of their grazing privileges. The Bureau of Land Management preferred not to be put in the position of continually monitoring individual gathers for violations. That action could establish confrontational rather than cooperative relationships.

Mr. Abbey’s statement said the proposed legislation could cause an additional workload and financial hardships on Nevada Bureau of Land Management resources, and possibly those of the counties. In summary, A.B. 509 could divert the management of wild horses and burros and might be detrimental to achieving management goals. The Bureau of Land Management wished to work with all concerned to reduce financial impacts to private land owners caused by wild horses while pursuing the goals of the Wild-Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act.

Mr. Stewart added he had been on gathers and very seldom was there argument with the state brand inspector as to what might be a brand. He felt it was possible the Bureau of Land Management could enter into a program which would supply materials or offset costs.

Pete Giocoechia, county commissioner, Eureka County, testified in support of A.B. 509 (Exhibit T). Mr. Goicoechia said given the Federal Government’s budget restraints did not allow them to properly manage the horses in Nevada. Eureka County was concerned they would be asked to remove only horses which were politically too hot to touch such as the Virginia Foothill horses, those unauthorized horses in Eureka County, or possibly nuisance horses which would be very costly and difficult to remove.

It was necessary to focus on horses outside of herd management areas. Mr. Goicoechia offered an amendment to A.B. 509 to ensure counties would consult with the Department of Agriculture on the status of horses outside herd management areas or on private lands, rather than federal agencies.

John Balliette, contractual natural resource manager, Eureka County, expressed support of A.B. 509 in written testimony (Exhibit U). He said Nevada’s natural resources were being damaged beyond repair by mustangs outside of herd management areas. In 1994, the Bureau of Land Management issued a decision that reduced livestock use at Fish Creek Ranch by approximately 75 percent. However, the Bureau of Land Management had not been able to reduce horses by comparable numbers to reach an appropriate management level. As a result, no livestock had used the allotment since 1993 and the dominant use was by mustangs.

The impact of uncontrolled mustang numbers was significant in Eureka County, said Mr. Balliette. According to an input/output model developed by the University of Nevada at Reno, the losses experienced by Fish Creek Ranch represented an annual local economic impact of just under $1 million. The environmental impact of uncontrolled horse was also significant.

Mr. Balliette showed a series of pictures of an area of winterfat or white sage outside the Fish Creek herd management areas in Antelope Valley. The photographs were taken from August 1996, through February 1997, and were used to document overuse by horses. The level of utilization was in the 60-70 percent range. A Bureau of Land Management decision required no more than 30 percent use by livestock at the end of the grazing season. Mr. Balliette reminded the committee cattle had not used the lands in question since 1993.

Mr. Balliette provided other photographs of Antelope Valley in an area closer to water. There the levels of utilization were 80-90 percent. Again, livestock had not used the area. The damage was due to mustangs. A comparable level of utilization by livestock was not acceptable and would result in a Bureau of Land Management decision to reduce or eliminate livestock use.

Winterfat, said Mr. Balliette, was a plant unique to the Great Basin. It was very palatable and was sought out by wildlife, livestock and horses. Winterfat was also very nutritious and was comparable to alfalfa. However, it was somewhat fragile. Repeated overutilization would reduce winterfat stands to stands of unpalatable annuals such as halogeton and clasping pepper weed. The area had been so badly beaten down the winterfat would probably not come back. The latter was occurring at the present time due to horse use outside of herd management areas.

The livestock industry had incurred significant reductions and were held accountable to Bureau of Land Management decisions that did not allow the level of utilization discussed above, said Mr. Balliette. Those livestock reductions had undermined the local sustainable tax base. The Bureau of Land Management had demonstrated they were not capable of controlling horses within existing herd management areas, let alone outside those areas. They had also demonstrated they were not accountable to decisions they inflicted on others.

Mr. Balliette said he was in favor of A.B. 509 because waiting for the Bureau of Land Management to take action might well result in the loss of Nevada’s valuable natural resources.

Larry Seltutte, representative, Big Springs Ranch, said the committee had just witnessed what country could look like when horses overpopulated. The Big Springs Ranch area looked the same because the Bureau of Land Management could not only not get the numbers of wild horses down, they could not even count the horses properly. He had no problem with herd management area numbers. However, there were 15,000 horses above allotment management levels in Nevada.

Demar Dahl, private citizen, submitted written testimony (Exhibit V) in support of A.B. 509. He said the bill addressed some of the problems of degradation to the rangelands. Someone must defend the rights of citizens who lived on the lands in question. It was not just a matter of paying a grazing fee and not receiving value for that money, but there were private interests on public lands being taken advantage of by those who had no economic interest in the lands. The law stated "if wild free roaming horses and burros stray from public lands onto private land the owners of such lands may inform the nearest federal marshal or agent who shall arrange to have the animals removed." The law was specific that if there were horses on private land the Bureau of Land Management shall remove the horses. They did not do so. Mr. Dahl said he has publicly trespassed the Bureau of Land Management and tried to collect from them as had Mr. Seltutte. The Bureau of Land Management had absolutely refused to remove the horses. Mr. Dahl had letters back and forth to the Bureau of Land Management asking for removal. The answer from Bureau of Land Management was there were no funds, no time, and no facilities to hold the horses, and so forth. He asked what would happen if he got a notice from the Bureau of Land Management his cattle were in trespass. If he said he could not remove the cattle until he got more room to hold them. The answer from the Bureau of Land Management was he would lose his permit and suffer fines.

After 28 years of attempted management by the Bureau of Land Management it seemed a reasonable thing that the county should protect its citizens by taking control of the wild horses.

Assemblyman Hettrick asked what would happen if an amendment was added to A.B. 509 which stated if the Bureau of Land Management was called to remove animals from private land and they refused to do so, and then the counties would act. Might that not satisfy the issue of whether the counties violated the federal law? If the Bureau of Land Management refused to remove in light of the law, it seemed there would at that point be options. Mr. Dahl replied it would be very good to have the weight of the State of Nevada behind the effort to make the Federal Government comply with their own law.

Don Henderson, deputy administrator, Nevada Division of Agriculture, produced written testimony (Exhibit W) which stated it was his opinion the Wild Horse and Burro Act was not working in Nevada and had not worked for about 30 years. There were about 60 percent more animals than the Bureau of Land Management said there should be and the division did not see the situation being rectified anytime soon. Testimony had been given that in 1998 7,000 to 8,000 horses would have had to be removed just to keep up with population growth during 1999, the Bureau of Land Management would only gather about 3,200 animals. There were about 98 herd areas in Nevada which comprised 25 percent of the landmass of the state.

Mr. Henderson said it was the position of the Division of Agriculture and the State Board of Agriculture that all wild horses and burros in Nevada should be pro-actively managed by the Federal Government in a humane and ecologically sustainable manner that restricted their presence specifically to herd management areas and at population levels consistent with other multiple uses that existed within those herd management areas.

Mr. Henderson continued the Wild Horse and Burro Act required the prompt removal of those horses when the involved Federal agency was so notified by the private landowner. The Nevada Revised Statutes at NRS 569.060-4 provided that the division, in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management, would conduct inspections of all unmarked and free-roaming livestock, including horses and burros, gathered in Nevada. If it was determined the animals resided exclusively on private lands and/or were previously owned or domesticated, the division was to designate the animals as estray and process and place them in accordance with the state estray laws.

Several pertinent opinions had been issued by the Nevada Attorney General regarding gathered horses or burros that showed no evidence of residing exclusively on private lands which indicated the Wild Horse and Burro Act superceded applicable state law and further provided to the Federal Government the authority to identify, claim and manage those animals. Based on those legal opinions the division turned those animals over to the Federal Government.

In conclusion, Mr. Henderson said he was concerned about proposed language in A.B. 509 which might lead people to think they had authority to gather wild horses when they did not. It would be much better for the State of Nevada to test the current laws should that be necessary.

Lastly, introduced but not spoken was testimony submitted in written form (Exhibit X) by Marnie Miller, private citizen, in opposition to A.B. 509.

There being no further business before the committee, Chairman de Braga adjourned the meeting at 3:54 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

______________________________

Sharon Spencer,

Committee Secretary

Lois McDonald,

Transcription Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman

DATE: