The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining was called to order at 12:50 p.m., on Monday, April 5, 1999. Chairman Marcia de Braga presided in Room 3161 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:

Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons, District 25

Assemblyman Bob Beers, District 4

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Fred Messmann, Deputy Chief Game Warden, Nevada Division of Wildlife

Patty Wagner, Program Officer, Nevada Division of Wildlife

After roll was called, the Chairman opened the hearing on A.B. 437.

Fred Messmann, Deputy Chief Game Warden for Nevada Division of Wildlife (NDOW), was the first to testify in support of the measure. He explained his agency supported the measure because in the past the State of Nevada had to pay large amounts of money to pay for significant impacts resulting from specific boating events. The proposed legislation would allow the administrator of the Division of Wildlife to require an applicant or a sponsor of an event to enter into an agreement as a condition of approval of a regatta that guaranteed the state would recover expenses incurred as a result of the event. Mr. Messmann said most of the expenses incurred by the state were manpower, fuel, and equipment provided for events. He provided the committee with a list of expenses the agency had incurred in the past (Exhibit C).

Chairman de Braga asked if the $50 permit fee was a standard amount. Mr. Messmann said that amount was standard even if the event cost the agency more than that per person. The fee was paid by people who, for instance, sailed their boats on Nevada lakes in events such as the Fourth of July event on Lake Tahoe. A permit fee waiver was available for charitable events such as the Truckee River Raft Race, which was held to raise money for multiple sclerosis.

The Chairman asked if there were special conditions associated with permits. Mr. Messmann responded in the affirmative. The marina event permit had special conditions attached such as mandating event sponsors maintain safety patrol vessels, medical personnel, and adequate sewage facilities. For large events, law enforcement patrols were required, which were especially important if an event closed river access. He said law enforcement patrols presented the greatest expense to the state.

Chairman de Braga asked if there was a time specific in which a permit fee had to be paid. Mr. Messmann said the proposed legislation required payment of fees as a condition of permit approval.

Mr. Carpenter asked for clarification of the proposed legislation regarding costs incurred for personnel. Mr. Messmann said most of the financial impact was a result of expenses for law enforcement personnel.

The Chairman asked if there were additional questions or comments. As there were none, she called for a motion on the measure.

The hearing was closed on A.B. 437 and opened on A.B. 438.

The first speaker to testify in support of the proposed legislation was Fred Messmann. He pointed out the measure was intended to refine legislation passed during the 1993 Legislative Session pertaining to abandoned vessels. Abandonment of a vessel occurred when NDOW seized a vessel for a particular reason and there was a lien attached to the vessel. The lien might be many years old and the bank attaching the lien might be from another state. The vessels were essentially worthless and oftentimes impounded. Location of the rightful owner, usually banks, was hard to track, particularly in the case of banks, which might have changed names as a result of mergers or acquisitions. Many times the banks want nothing to do with the worthless vessels and Nevada would be left holding the vessel, sometimes at considerable expense.

The proposed legislation, A.B. 438, continued Mr. Messmann, would allow NDOW to give lien holders and other involved parties 6 months to respond to the agency’s notification the abandoned vessel had been seized. Notification was done by certified mail with ample time provided to allow all involved entities to make arrangements to resolve the matter.

Chairman de Braga asked if NDOW had the ability to sell the vessel or dispose of it in an acceptable manner. Mr. Messmann responded in the affirmative, adding the agency had 180 days to gain title. If the vessel was worthless it would be taken to the dump, but a title was needed to dump it. If the vessel had some value, NDOW could sell it, auction it, or use it to perform agency work.

Mrs. Segerblom asked for clarification concerning the seizure of vessels abandoned and left on public streets or private property. Mr. Messmann explained people abandoned vessels on public streets and on private property. They would be dropped off on private property as easily as they were left on the street.

The Chairman asked if there were further questions or comments on the proposed legislation, and there were none. She called for a motion on the measure.

Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on A.B. 438 and opened the hearing on A.B. 488.

Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons was the first speaker to address A.B. 488. She explained she introduced the measure on behalf of constituents who requested legislation be drafted regarding the issue of hunting license bonus points. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 502.4225 prohibited applicants who failed to draw a tag from receiving both a refund and bonus points. The proposed legislation stated a person could not be denied an opportunity to receive bonus points because he or she requested and received a refund for a hunting license.

Patty Wagner, Program Officer for Nevada Division of Wildlife, spoke in opposition to the proposed legislation. She said a hunting license was required in order to participate in the bonus point program. Hunters throughout the state petitioned the Board of Wildlife Commissioners (BWC) to implement the program. It was developed in 1991 and 1992 when the agency was implementing a new computerized drawing process for big game tags. The bonus point program was a preference system for awarding hunting tags. In order to participate in the program, hunters helping to formulate the program made it a requirement that hunting licenses had to be kept even if the hunter did not draw a tag to show support for the program. According to results of reviews of the program compiled by county advisory boards, hunters did not want the program changed.

Ms. Wagner explained Nevada was one of only a few states throughout the country that allowed an individual to purchase a hunting license to apply for a tag and apply for and receive a refund for the license if that individual was unsuccessful. Processing refund applications and providing monetary refunds to consumers was a lengthy and costly process. The reimbursement process was provided as a courtesy to hunters. The bonus point system provided an additional opportunity to draw a tag but hunters could draw tags without having bonus points. It was the hunters‘ choice, Ms. Wagner said. She pointed out the proposed legislation applied only to resident hunters and not to out-of-state hunters. She said close to 3,000 nonresident hunters bought hunting licenses, many of whom bought Nevada hunting licenses in order to participate in the bonus point program. The state could possibly lose $300,000 in revenues annually if A.B. 488 passed.

Chairman de Braga asked if the majority of people holding hunting licenses who did not draw tags requested a refund. Ms. Wagner said very few hunters asked for refunds and that number was dropping gradually through the years.

Ms. Parnell asked for clarification of the bonus point system. Ms. Wagner explained when an individual applied for a big game tag a computer generated draw number was issued to that person. The lower the draw number the greater the chance of receiving a tag. The way the program currently operated was those who participated in the drawing for a big game tag and were unsuccessful would receive one bonus point each if they kept their hunting licenses. The bonus point gave a hunter an additional opportunity at a low drawing number, but there were no guarantees.

Mr. Claborn asked how much big game tags cost. Ms. Wagner said a deer tag cost $20 plus a $5 application fee. Resident hunters had to purchase a hunting license prior to applying for the tags. All fees were refundable except for the $5 application fee. To participate in the bonus point program hunters had to hold on to their hunting licenses. Hunting license for big game was approximately $24 to $39.

Mr. Neighbors asked when hunting season for mountain lions opened. Ms. Wagner said that season was from October through April of the next year, with some special seasons that extended through the month of May. No drawing was required for hunting mountain lions.

Elsie Dupree, private citizen, was the next speaker to testify against the proposed legislation. She provided the committee with letters of opposition from the Nevada Wildlife Federation (Exhibit D) and from Nevada Bighorns Unlimited (Exhibit E). Both organizations said sportsmen throughout the state requested the present bonus point program remain unaltered.

Ms. Gibbons stated the constituent scheduled to testify in support of the proposed legislation failed to arrive. She wanted to go on record to state she was pleased to have had the opportunity to present the measure to the committee on behalf of her constituent and she thanked the members for their time and attention to the matter.

Chairman de Braga asked if there were any additional questions or comments on the proposed legislation and there were none. She closed the hearing on A.B. 488 and opened the hearing on A.B. 534.

Chairman de Braga explained the person who proposed the legislation worked out an arrangement with NDOW, which resolved the issues about which he was concerned. Therefore, there might not be a need for the proposed legislation. The Chairman suggested holding until it was clear the legislation was not needed.

The Chairman closed the hearing on A.B. 534 and opened the hearing on A.B. 206.

Mr. Neighbors stated the proposed legislation should be indefinitely postponed because an identical measure had been introduced in the senate.

The Chairman closed the hearing on A.B. 206 and opened the hearing to a work session beginning with A.B. 490.

Linda Eissmann, Legislative Counsel Bureau Policy Analyst, prepared and presented a work session document on the proposed legislation (Exhibit F). She said the proposed legislation provided that a city, county, or political subdivision could proceed with channel work after the state engineer requested but failed to receive an allocation from the contingency fund for the project. The proposed amendment clarified the provision requiring applications be made for all necessary permits prior to commencing channel clearance work. An applicant could begin the work for which the grant and permits were requested without paying the state permit fee and with or without permits from the Division of State Lands (DSL) and the Division of Environmental Protection (DEP).

Mr. Hettrick explained those state agencies tasked with monitoring working performed on clearing river channels were concerned they would be left out of the permit issuing process. If the state engineer, DSL and DEP were not included in the review and permit processes, administrators of those agencies contended, damage could be done to the rivers throughout the state. Mr. Hettrick said their concerns warranted a review of the situation. The result of that review process was the proposed amendment as Ms. Eissmann described above and contained in Exhibit F. Mr. Hettrick pointed out all federal permits were required.

The Chairman asked if there were any additional questions or comments, and there were none. She called for a motion.

The Chairman closed the hearing on A.B. 490 and opened the hearing on A.B. 199. She explained it was the committee’s intent to clarify the language of the measure. If further amendments were required, the proposed legislation could be amended on the floor of the assembly.

Assemblyman Beers was the first to testify in support of the proposed legislation. He explained the intent of the legislation was to target personal watercraft, which specifically referenced jet skis. Safe boating education and testing of individuals operating personal watercraft was a provision within the measure. Mr. Beers provided the committee with a letter of recommendation for the proposed legislation from the Personal Watercraft Industry Association (Exhibit G).

Mr. Carpenter said if jet skis were included in the educational portion of the proposed legislation, would the minimum lawful age of operators of personal watercraft be raised. Mr. Beers said the age requirement in A.B. 199 pertained only to those who rented personal watercraft. Currently people under the age of 16 could not operate a personal watercraft alone according to present regulations. The measure placed that regulation into law.

Mr. Messmann said the proposed amendment to the legislation stated persons over the age of 18 could rent jet skis or motorboats and allowed someone 12 years of age and over to operate the watercraft. The proposed legislation required safe boating education for those who rented and/or operated personal watercraft.

Ms. Parnell stated individuals registering boats should have to provide proof of having completed a safe boating course. She said she had trouble with the proposed legislation from the beginning because it was cumbersome, and because it involved many businesses and agencies in the process of safe boating education and testing. Mr. Messmann said individuals registering boats had no obligation to prove competency in operating boats. Many boats had more than one operator.

Mr. Hettrick said the biggest problem for personal watercraft manufacturers was that young people got on them without education and were injured. That was a good argument for including the education provision in the measure.

The Chairman called for a poll of committee members to determine how many would prefer the proposed amendment to go forward as presented and how many preferred to further amend the measure on the floor of the assembly. By show of hands, all committee members voted to further amend the legislation on the floor of the assembly with the exception of Mr. Carpenter who voted no and Ms. Parnell who was undecided.

Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on A.B. 199 and opened the hearing on A.B. 448.

Ms. Eissmann discussed the proposed legislation, stating the intent of the measure was to prohibit the release of animals from animal shelters for use in experiments.

The Chairman asked if there were any questions or comments on the proposed legislation and there were none. She called for a motion.

Chairman de Braga said she was concerned the measure might have an effect on necessary research, which used animals for experimentation. She said currently animal shelters did not release animals for scientific experimentation and Clark County had an ordinance in place against the practice. The Chairman said she considered the issue to be a county decision and would prefer to leave the matter to local governments.

Mrs. Segerblom said her constituent was concerned about the issue and was an animal lover. However, Mrs. Segerblom’s research revealed doctors performing scientific experiments would not use animals from animal shelters for scientific experimentation because they did not know the condition of the animals’ health, thereby effectively rendering the animal unusable for experimentation. Animals for scientific research could be acquired elsewhere.

Mr. Hettrick agreed with both Mrs. Segerblom and Chairman de Braga. He said it should be a county issue. He also understood the concern of Mrs. Segerblom’s constituent. He said it would not be advantageous to make it a statewide law. Enforcement would also be difficult, he added.

Mr. Neighbors said the use of animals for scientific experimentation was decreasing as time went by. Some states had even outlawed the practice.

The Chairman reminded the committee a motion had been made and seconded. She asked if there were any additional questions or comments. She called for a vote. Upon taking a poll of committee members, it was revealed there were not enough votes in favor of the measure to pass A.B. 448. The legislation lost in committee.

The Chairman asked if there was any additional business before the committee. As there was none, the meeting was adjourned at 2:10 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Sharon Spencer,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman

DATE: