The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining was called to order at 1:20 p.m., on Monday, May 10, 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. David Humke

Mr. John Jay Lee

Mr. John Marvel

Mr. Roy Neighbors

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Lynn Hettrick (Excused)

Mr. Harry Mortenson (Excused)

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Dina Titus, District 7

Senator Dean Rhoads, Northern Nevada District

Senator Randolph Townsend, District 4

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Lydia Hammack, President, Virginia Range Wildlife Protection Association

After roll was called, the Chairman opened the hearing to a work session on S.B. 105.

Linda Eissmann, Legislative Counsel Bureau policy analyst, began the work session on the proposed legislation. She explained the legislation was intended to remove from statute the mandate that state fishing licenses were required to fish in ponds located on private property. Wayne Hendrix of the Hendrix Ranch in Fallon, Nevada proposed an amendment to the legislation. The proposed amendment suggested changing the language on page 2, lines 10 through 12, to remove the requirement lakes and ponds had to be located entirely on private land and to add provisions to allow for stocking fish in streams (Exhibit C).

Mr. Carpenter said he did not like the proposed amendment because it would not contribute to the measure and could possibly cause its demise. He pointed out the original wording of the measure without the proposed amendment was acceptable.

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

The Chairman asked the committee members if they would consider writing a letter to Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on behalf of Mr. Hendrix urging the agency to act on his request to allow him to acquire the portion of his pond that was located on public land.

The Chairman asked if there were additional questions or comments and there were none. She closed the hearing on S.B. 105 and opened the hearing on S.B. 396.

Senator Titus was the first to address the proposed legislation. She explained she and Senator Townsend were co-sponsors of S.B. 396, which was a measure that brought many people from many walks of life together on animal related issues. She pointed out the proposed legislation did several things, one of which was to make the killing of a wild horse, or other livestock, a felony offense. Another aspect of the legislation was that it protected guide dogs and other service dogs that helped people who had disabilities. The third part of the measure protected police dogs.

The Chairman asked for clarification regarding the first aspect of the measure pertaining to the killing of wild horses. Senator Titus explained killing a wild horse or other type of livestock maliciously or willfully would become a class C felony under the new legislation.

Senator Townsend spoke next in support of the measure he co-sponsored. He explained the proposed legislation was needed because of recent malicious killing of wild horses and animal abuse inflicted willfully upon police dogs and service dogs. The work the animals did for the agencies and individuals they worked for was invaluable. They provided a tremendous amount of help to needy individuals. Police dogs provided countless services as well.

Senator Townsend introduced a police dog named Tysen, funded by the Senator to the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office. An officer and a police dog must live, work, and train together for an extend amount of time. It was a 24-hour a day job and an expensive one, but well worth it because the dogs provided countless benefits to the departments they serve. After passing training, police dogs were considered important members of the law enforcement team. They were licensed and held badges and were serious working law enforcement agents. They were expensive and highbred animals and deserved protection just as any other law enforcement officer.

Chairman de Braga said she was aware that Senator Titus had tried for many years to pass a measure that would protect wild horses. Unfortunately it took a terrible tragedy for everyone to ally themselves with her in that effort, the result of which was S.B. 396. She explained the Assembly had a piece of legislation that would protect show dogs. She asked if the senators were familiar with the measure and if so did they believe it could be incorporated into S.B. 396. Senator Titus said if the definition of a show dog was included in the measure it would work in the proposed legislation.

Amy Hill, representing the Nevada Humane Society, spoke in support of the proposed legislation. She said S.B. 396 was a good measure and she introduced Susan Asher, Executive Director of the Nevada Humane Society. She said the senators covered all aspects of the proposed legislation and she explained the most important aspect of the measure to her agency was the provision that increased the penalties for cruelty to animals for offenders with repeat convictions and provided mandatory minimum sentencing. The problem of repeat offenders was becoming an increasing problem. Ms. Asher explained individuals who repeatedly mistreated animals would be most severely penalized. She provided the committee with a comprehensive handout, which explained her agency’s position and provided information on policies (Exhibit D).

Chairman de Braga said she had not previously been very supportive of legislation of this type because enforcement officers of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals were authorized to arrest individuals who mistreated animals. She said she was concerned that those officers were not qualified to make adequate determinations.

Ms. Asher said her agency had been investigating cases of cruelty to animals since 1932. All officers were professionally trained and sworn to uphold their oaths through the Washoe County District Court. They investigated cruelty to uphold their responsibilities to enforce Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) pertaining to animal cruelty and neglect. The Washoe County District Attorney’s Office would assure all the agency was careful, accountable, and professionally competent.

Mr. Humke asked for clarification regarding the academies attended by agency officers. Ms. Asher said the Humane Society had a goal to send all their officers to academies; however it was not always possible. The majority of officers had training in animal cruelty investigation through the University of Missouri Law Enforcement Training Academy through the first and second levels of training. Additionally, the officers attended conferences for additional training.

Paul Iverson, Administrator of Division of Agriculture, spoke in support of the measure. He introduced Dr. David Thain, State Veterinarian. Mr. Iverson said the proposed legislation was necessary because of the many incidents of animal cruelty and malicious killing of wild horses.

Joe Guild, President Elect of the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, said his organization wanted to go on record as being in support of the proposed legislation.

Jim Naden, Patrol Division Caption of the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, said his agency supported the proposed legislation. He introduced Duane Meyer, Washoe County Deputy Sheriff and police dog Deputy Canine Tysen. Deputy Meyer explained the police dog had been thoroughly trained in law enforcement duties. His training had cost approximately $6,000. Each dog saved the department approximately $10,000 per year and performed many vital functions including area searches and apprehensions. The dogs were very agile, social, intelligent, and they accompanied law enforcement officers everywhere they went. Deputy Meyer said his greatest concern was the killing or maiming of police dogs. He urged the committee to support the proposed legislation.

Ms. Eissmann presented the committee with a handout, which was a summary of the proposed legislation (Exhibit E).

The Chairman invited Mary Yoshisato, private citizen, to address the committee. She introduced her guide dog, Decker, who she depended upon for 6 years. She explained the relationship between her and her seeing-eye dog, Decker, was one of trust and dependability, and provided Ms. Yoshisato with mobility and independence. Her entire testimony was included in (Exhibit F).

Chairman de Braga asked Ms. Yoshisato if she knew of any incidents in which seeing-eye dogs had been harassed, killed, or interfered with. Ms. Yoshisato responded in the affirmative, adding some individuals had yanked Decker’s harness out of her hand and chased her several blocks down the street while they shouted out that her dog should not be a working dog. She explained service dogs would not work unless they wanted to work. They do it willingly and in return want only love, praise, and food.

Ms. Yoshisato inquired of Deputy Meyer why police dogs needed to be classified as service dogs as well. Deputy Meyer explained the duel classification was necessary because police dogs were not allowed to enter certain establishments, such as casinos and hotel rooms, with their human cohorts. The dogs had to stay with veterinarians instead. He said if the reclassification was made, police dogs would be allowed to go everywhere human officers were allowed to go either on or off duty. He said his agency did not intend to change the definition of a service animal for those who had helping and seeing-eye dogs. It was a matter of accessibility.

Mr. Humke said the proposed legislation made it clear there were still two distinct classifications of dogs, which were police dogs and other service dogs. He asked if the liability designated for police dogs was different for service dogs. Ms. Yoshisato said anyone who had a service dog was responsible for any damage the dog may cause. There was no limit or distinction between types of dogs, the owners were liable.

The Chairman pointed out section 9, subsection1 (d) of the proposed legislation discussed refusing admittance or service to people because they were accompanied by police dogs. She said that provision made a clear distinction between police and service dogs.

Lydia Hammack, President of the Virginia Range Wildlife Protection Association, said her organization supported the amended version of S.B. 396. She said she dedicated her support in memory of the wild horses recently slaughtered in Storey County (Exhibit G).

Tom Skancke, Representing Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, testified in support of the proposed legislation and offered a proposed amendment. He explained it was necessary to define the term "unjustifiably injured" in an effort to protect rodeo events from the legislation in the event animals were accidentally injured during rodeo productions. The intent of the proposed amendment was to ensure tourism was not adversely affected. (Exhibit H).

Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President of the Nevada Farm Bureau, said his organization supported the proposed legislation. He said he was uncertain the legislation would protect livestock if the proposed amendment presented by Mr. Skancke was included. Mr. Skancke said he would be willing to work with Mr. Busselman to develop satisfactory language that would also protect rodeo events from the proposed legislation. The Chairman agreed it was an important issue that could be worked out to everyone’s satisfaction.

Ms. Parnell asked if the proposed amendment was necessary because section 1, subsection 2 stated it was prohibited to willfully and maliciously kill animals. She said it was highly improbable people involved in rodeo events would maliciously kill animals. The Chairman said it was necessary to make appropriate provisions for all possible occurrences regarding animals in all different capacities under the proposed legislation.

Betty Kelly, private citizen, presented written testimony in support of the proposed legislation (Exhibit I).

The Chairman asked if there were additional questions or comments and there were none. She closed the hearing on S.B. 396 and opened the hearing on S.B. 310.

Senator Rhoads was the first to testify in support of the proposed legislation. He said he had been involved in the livestock public lands issue for nearly 30 years. It was an extremely important issue, not only for Nevada but also for the entire country. In the last few years all use of public lands have become extremely regulated. It was time for the mining industry and other public land users to team up with the livestock industry to demonstrate that Nevada cared about the condition of its public lands and to show the Federal Government Nevadans were good stewards of public lands. The Senator advocated the use of the cowboy image to portray that message. The proposed legislation would be a vehicle for assistance to ranchers who might have disputes with public land agencies.

The measure, along with the proposed amendment (Exhibit J), would set up a ten-member rangeland commission, which would consist of members from each of the seven district grazing boards appointed by the Governor. The commission would be authorized to charge 10 cents for every Animal Unit Month (AUM) permitted by the BLM and the United States United States Forest Service (USFS) to graze on public lands. The money, collected by the Rangeland Commission with the assistance of the Division of Agriculture, would be placed into the State Treasury for commission use only.

William Wright, representing the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, said he hoped the commission would be established and fees would be collected and available for use by the commission.

Mr. Carpenter asked for clarification regarding how fees collected by the commission would be used. Mr. Wright explained the money would be used for educational programs and various rangeland projects.

Joe Guild, President Elect of the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, was the next to testify in support of S.B. 310. He explained he was also speaking for John Falen, current president of his organization, who also supported the proposed legislation (Exhibit K). Mr. Guild made it clear to the committee he supported a balanced ecosystem on the rangeland throughout the state; however, he was opposed to extreme measures being taken in the name of the environment that could cause the demise of ranching. Such a tactic was placing sage grouse on the endangered species list. He pointed out there were many sage grouse in the State of Nevada and they were not an endangered species.

Mrs. Segerblom asked if a sage grouse was the same as a sage hen. Mr. Guild said they were the same bird.

Chairman de Braga asked if the proposed legislation would ensure the Churchill County community pasture would be exempt from BLM terms. Mr. Guild said the measure would protect community pastures.

Dean Baker, private citizen, came forward as a proponent of the proposed legislation. He said, as a rancher from the eastern part of the state, he utilized public grazing lands as well as private lands. Mr. Baker testified the condition of the land on his ranch as well as the public rangeland his cattle used was in better condition presently than it was when his father ranched it.

Betty Kelly, private citizen, said she supported the proposed legislation and provided the committee with her written testimony (Exhibit L).

Richard Carver, Chairman of the Nye County Board of Commissioners, testified in opposition to the measure. He explained his organization protested the collection of increased AUM fees. He presented the committee with a formal letter from Nye County stating its position (Exhibit M). Mr. Carver said the proposed legislation was nothing more than an additional tax placed on ranchers, which amounted to a special tax applied to forage users on public lands. He pointed out citizens of his county were practically unanimously opposed to the proposed legislation.

Mr. Carpenter asked if the county collected the tax would Nye County consider the proposed legislation more favorably, to which Mr. Carver responded in the affirmative. He added the reason for that opinion was that citizens in a sparsely populated area such as Nye County could not effectively disagree with state appointed commissioners and administrators, but they could vote county officials out of office if they disagreed with their decisions.

The Chairman asked if Mr. Carver expected each individual to work on their own projects rather than collective projects. He said the counties could collect the fees and send the money to the Division of Agriculture to work on collective projects. He emphasized that he preferred the tax to be collected locally.

Ray Williams, private citizen, came forward to state his opinion the proposed legislation should be placed on hold until more facts were received that would justify the measure. Mr. Williams’ explained times were tough in the ranching community and it was not fair to impose an additional tax on ranchers. In the past, the tax was suggested by the Federal Government and had been opposed by Nevada ranchers. He added the measure was not in compliance with Governor Guinn’s position regarding "no new taxes" in the State of Nevada. He presented his testimony in written form, which was included as Exhibit N.

Mr. Carpenter said most westerners were actively engaged in promoting wise use of natural resources. He said westerners needed to be involved in current programs or be lost in the process. He said the fees collected could be used to fight court battles, for expert witnesses, for educational programs, and for public relations projects.

Jim Champie, representing Reese River Cattle Company, testified in opposition to the proposed legislation. He explained the reason why he disagreed with the measure was because the State of Nevada was possibly the most anti-grazing institution in the western United States.

Jon Bowman, representing Livestock Publishers, opposed the measure because he did not believe an additional tax or an additional commission was needed. He said existing commissions and grazing boards should be able to handle all important issues. Mr. Bowman said the objectives of the proposed legislation were vague and the use of the money it would collect was unclear. He said all the ranchers he spoke with were also against the legislation.

Tim Filbin, President of the Nevada Woolgrowers Association, was the next speaker on the proposed legislation. He said he, along with other woolgrowers he had spoken with, supported the measure because it promoted self-help and gave the livestock industry an opportunity to help itself. The fact it had a safety valve was also important, Mr. Filbin pointed out, because if you didn’t like the legislation after being involved in it you could get your tax money back. He said he knew of no other legislation that would do that. He explained members of the Rangeland Commission were members of the livestock industry and would be willing to listen, communicate, and cooperate with others involved in the livestock industry.

Ned Eyre, representing Nevada Cattlemen’s Association and a past president of the organization, said he had almost gone bankrupt as a former steward of the range when he was grazing cattle on over 150,000 acres of public range. He said a great deal of pressure was placed on users, or stewards, of public rangeland. He said there was over 60 million acres of public lands for grazing in Nevada. Mr. Eyre pointed out there was a stigma attached to livestock in relationship to the efficiency of converting energy to protein. Eating beef was part of a healthy human diet. Cattle were converting grass from rangeland, a renewable resource, into energy, which became protein. False advertising misled people about the harmfulness of eating beef, which was entirely erroneous. The proposed legislation could be used to promote the truth. For that reason he supported the proposed legislation.

Benny Romero, Manager of the Sweetwater Ranch and co-producer of the Carson City based quarterly magazine Range (Exhibit O), testified he supported the measure. He said the proposed legislation, sponsored by Senator Rhoads, was good legislation and he supported it because the fees collected would be use to develop range improvements and legal defense assistance as well as provide resources for educational projects and help to sustain the agriculture industry (Exhibit P).

Paul Iverson, Administrator Division of Agriculture, testified in support of the proposed legislation. He said it was a good measure because it would benefit the livestock industry and, in particular, ranchers who used public lands for grazing. Mr. Iverson said educational projects could be developed, which would contribute to public awareness of the livestock industry throughout the State of Nevada. The use of experts and specialists to address issues relative to the industry would be beneficial. An aggressive public awareness program would be very beneficial. Facts and figures on grazing needed to be gathered and shared with the public to promote and advance the industry as well as to continue to graze cattle on public lands.

Pete Goicoechea, Eureka County Commissioner, spoke in favor of the proposed legislation along with a proposed amendment (Exhibit Q). Mr. Goicoechea said his county’s formal position was a 10-cent cap needed to be placed on the AUM fee. A new section would be added that would establish a sunset date on the proposed legislation. He said at a certain point refunds might exceed revenues. At that time the commission shall be terminated. That provision would make the measure a true referendum by the livestock industry because if a time came when more people were asking for their money back than were paying into the program it meant the industry no longer supported the legislation.

Mr. Carpenter asked for clarification regarding the proposed amendment. Mr. Goicoechea explained the concept of active preference, or active consent, had been suggested by him to the Senate, which would terminate the legislation should support ever cease to exist. Mr. Marvel agreed with the provision, stating it would be more fair to pay the fee only if a rancher was actively grazing their livestock on public lands.

Carl Slagowski, representing Eureka County, said he was testifying in opposition to S.B. 310 because it duplicated existing programs. Also, an assessment of $1.00 for cattle sold already existed, half of which went to the state to pay for research, advertising, and other projects similar to those mentioned in the proposed legislation. The remaining half of those fees were returned to the districts they came from. The money was specifically earmarked by the Taylor Grazing Act, to return to the grazing districts from which it came to be used for range improvement. Currently, a surplus existed in that program, which was not being spent because the BLM would not allow many range improvements to be made. Mr. Slagowski said it was not necessary to tax the industry further in order to allocate more money to do the same things already being done in existing programs. He said he also questioned the entire measure because if it was such a great piece of legislation that could inspire self-help programs supported by the livestock industry it would be supported by ranchers. He pointed out many ranchers were protesting the measure.

Chairman de Braga told Mr. Slagowski that the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association contributed to the writing of the proposed legislation. Mr. Slagowski agreed that was the case, and added that 20 percent of livestock operators were members of the Cattlemen’s Association. He, along with 80 percent of the other people engaged in the livestock industry were not members because they did not agree with policies supported by the association.

Jack Vogt, private citizen representing Esmeralda County, said he and many fellow ranchers from his community did not support the proposed legislation because they, too, disagreed with policies promoted by the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association. He agreed with Mr. Slagowski the proposed legislation duplicated the current livestock tax program referred to as the "check-off" system. The existing program might be phased out, at which point the current proposed legislation could possibly replace it, but until that point, he opposed the measure. Mr. Vogt said he was concerned that ranchers would be paying for AUMs not being used. Also, every case cattlemen have fought in court using expensive attorneys had been lost because fighting issues in court was a lost cause; therefore, it was not necessary to set aside funds through the new user fees for legal defense. It was a waste of money. Determinations made by BLM and USFS specialists and consultants were ignored.

Ben Colvin, private citizen and rancher, asked to go on record as being in opposition to the proposed legislation. He said the measure would create an enormous bureaucracy that would not help ranchers or the livestock industry.

Mr. Carpenter asked if Mr. Colvin was a member of the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association or the Nevada Land Action Association, to which Mr. Colvin responded in the negative. Mr. Carpenter asked if he had been forced to make reductions, to which Mr. Colvin replied he was put out of business because of the wild horses and was only running approximately 50 head of cattle at the present time. Formerly he had over 10,000 head of cattle.

Norman Glaser, private citizen and former Nevada legislature, did not address the committee. However he supplied the committee with copies of his written testimony stating his opposition to the measure because he said it was unfair to foist a new tax upon a depressed industry without general consent (Exhibit R).

Ms. Eissmann provided the committee with a summary on the proposed legislation (Exhibit S).

The Chairman explained she was facing the deadline for getting legislation out of the assembly. She suggested all concerned parties work together on developing the proposed amendment, otherwise a vote would be taken at the next meeting on the amendments previously presented. She asked if there were any other questions or comments and there were none. She closed the work session on S.B. 310 and opened the work session on S.B. 106.

Ms. Eissmann began the discussion with presentation of a work session document describing the proposed legislation (Exhibit T). She explained the measure was sponsored by the Division of Wildlife and was intended to clarify the demerit system for that agency. The measure made provisions for the demerit system for violations of wildlife laws and regulations, which applied to licenses and permits for hunting, fishing, and trapping. There were no proposed amendments to the legislation and there was no opposition to it in the Senate.

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

The Chairman closed the work session on S.B. 106 and opened the work session on S.B. 343.

Ms. Eissmann began the discussion with presentation of a work session document describing the proposed legislation (Exhibit U). She explained the measure was sponsored by the Division of Wildlife and was intended to make provisions for storage fees of vessels seized as evidence of a crime. The measure provided those fees be paid by the agency seizing the vessel, rather than Division of Wildlife as current statute required. There were no proposed amendments to the legislation and there was no opposition to it in the Senate.

The Chairman closed the hearing on S.B. 343 and opened the hearing on S.B. 211.

Ms. Eissmann began the discussion with presentation of a work session document describing the proposed legislation (Exhibit V). She explained the measure codified the current practices of the Division of Wildlife relative to contracting private entities to conduct the drawing and award of tags for special hunting seasons. The measure also provided that individuals who interfered with, killed, or tampered with exhibit dogs other than their own would be guilty of a category E felony.

Ms. Eissmann explained the following changes were made to the proposed amendments to S.B. 211, which were approved by the committee as the official proposed amended language to the measure:

• Amend page 1, lines 3 and 4 to combine awarding and issuing tags by the private entity for a special season. The new language would be as follows:

• Add language to Section 2, which allowed the division to take ownership of the computer program used by the private entity at the end of the term of the contract. Suggested language was (c) Acquire ownership of the computer program at the end of the term of the contract. That change would require deleting the "and" at the end of subpart (a), and adding "and" to the end of subpart (b).

• On page 1, line 15, delete the requirement the contractor must submit the results of the drawing to the division within 10 days, and change it to "As soon as practicable." It was the intent of the committee for the tags to be issued immediately, but the results of the drawing did not have to be delivered by the contractor to the division within 10 days. The committee considered the reference only pertained to the results of the drawing, and not the actual issuance of tags. Lines 15 and 16 would read:

• Delete Sections 3 and 4 of the measure, which pertained to the penalty for injury to exhibition dogs. The committee intended to pass S.B. 396, which also pertained to a penalty for injury to service and police dogs. Both S.B. 396 and S.B. 211 came to the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining from two different committees in the Senate. Sections 3 and 4 from S.B. 211 will be combined with S.B. 396 in order for various penalties for injuring dogs to be considered as one issue.

• The committee added a section to S.B. 211, which would change the language in NRS 501.341, pertaining to the location Division of Wildlife. The language currently stated the division office "must" be maintained in Reno. The committee changed the word must to may be maintained in Reno, allowing the office to move at a future date if preferred. The language of NRS 501.341 would read the headquarters of the division [must] may be maintained at Reno. Other offices may be established throughout the state. The remainder of the statute would remain the same.

The Chairman asked if there were additional questions or comments and there were none. She called for a motion on the measure, which included the proposed amendment as described above.

There being no further business before the committee, the hearing was adjourned at 4:35 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Sharon Spencer,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman

DATE: