ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING

MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining

Seventy-First Session

April 30, 2001

The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Miningwas called to order at 1:30 p.m., on Monday, April 30, 2001. 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

Mr. Douglas Bache

Mr. David Brown

Mr. John Carpenter

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. David Humke

Mr. John J. Lee

Mr. John Marvel

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Roy Neighbors

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Tom Collins, Vice Chairman

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Ann O’Connell, District 5

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst

June Rigsby, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Allison Combs, Policy Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau

Susan Asher, Director, Nevada Humane Society

Gemma Waldron, Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County

Anne Herrington, Media Partners For Pets, Las Vegas

Mike Pasek, Citizen, Las Vegas

Donald Fondriasopolous, Boulder Dam Homesite Addition Association

Aaron Wyrick, Media Partners For Pets, Las Vegas

Theresa Norton, Media Partners For Pets, Las Vegas

Peter Bachstadt, Citizen, Carson City

Paul Iverson, Director, Nevada Department of Agriculture

George Dorsa, District Brand Inspector, Nevada Department of Agriculture

Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau

Joe Guild, President, Nevada Cattlemen’s Association

Greg Tanner, Nevada Division of Wildlife

Roll was called. Chairman de Braga opened the hearing on S.B. 62. Bill summaries and background information (Exhibit H) for S.B 62 and S.B. 467 were provided by Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst.

Senate Bill 62: Increases penalties for certain mistreatment of animals. (BDR 50-713)

Senator Ann O’Connell, representing District 5, commenced testimony as a sponsor of S.B. 62. Various stories of animal cruelty were presented to illustrate the need for animal protection. She distributed a handout (Exhibit C) as supporting documentation. Senator O’Connell explained the first reprint of S.B. 62 (Exhibit D) had been overhauled by a subcommittee. The bill was not modeled after any other states; however, 20 states now considered animal cruelty as a Class D felony.

Senator O’Connell elaborated on the apparent link between animal abuse and other criminal behaviors, including domestic violence and cases of serial murder. She emphasized the need to identify at-risk youth involved in animal abuse and to understand that behavior as a precursor to serious criminal activity in adult life.

Senator O’Connell described the intent of S.B. 62 was to give justice to the victim families of animal abuse crimes. The current statutes were inadequate in the areas of restitution and punishment. Veterinarian costs to treat injured animals, as well as the grief over the loss of a beloved pet, deserved more equitable treatment.

Chairman de Braga summarized for clarity and stated S.B. 62 raised the monetary fine and provided, through statute, that animal abuse would be considered as a Class D felony. She asked if there were any requirements for reports of animal cruelty to be shared with other agencies.

Senator O’Connell explained that members of the working subcommittee on S.B. 62 were present in the audience and would be better able to address that question.

Allison Combs, Principal Research Analyst, explained the issue had been raised under Section 14 of the bill. A provision was added to authorize the court to order psychiatric evaluations of persons convicted of animal cruelty.

Assemblyman Brown asked if consideration had been given to providing restitution to victim families. Senator O’Connell replied it had not been part of the original bill. Allison Combs recalled there had been some provisions for restitution; however, it was not uniformly addressed throughout the bill. Under Section 9 there was language that dealt with restitution for cases of poisoning animals. A list of specific animal abuse activities could be drafted.

Assemblyman Brown cited an example of the economic and emotional losses connected to the injury or death of a seeing-eye dog. He recommended that Section 9 of the bill be scrutinized to ensure that losses, other than cases of poisoning, would be covered. Senator O’Connell voiced her support of the suggestion and acknowledged it had possibly been overlooked in the language of the bill.

Assemblyman Bache concurred with the example of the seeing-eye dog and asked the committee to consider an amendment to the bill.

Assemblyman Mortenson reported a complaint from one of his constituents regarding the setting of animal traps in the Mt. Charleston area of southern Nevada. As reported to him, domestic pets were becoming ensnared in the traps. If the bill was to be amended, Assemblyman Mortenson suggested the issue be addressed.

Senator O’Connell thanked the committee for consideration of S.B. 62.

Susan Asher, Executive Director of the Nevada Humane Society, commenced testimony in support of S.B. 62. She explained the bill had been based upon groundwork from the 1999 Legislative Session, and she added she was pleased with the present form of the bill. Ms. Asher viewed most of the provisions as enforceable; however, she voiced concerns over mandatory minimums in sentencing that had been authorized during the last session. The minimums were deemed as necessary to handle those situations where court judges might not view crimes against animals as being as serious as those against humans. The issue of restitution, in her judgment, was an excellent one and deserved attention. Although a provision in the bill allowed the Humane Society to collect restitution from owners, as determined by the judge, Ms. Asher knew of no provision for restitution to the victim family (i.e., owner of the injured pet).

Regarding trapping, Ms. Asher explained there were trapping laws in Nevada, and the Nevada Division of Wildlife had authority in that area. A license was required for the use of leg-hold traps; however, traps were indiscriminate in their choice of victims. That had long been a contentious point with the Nevada Humane Society. There was no mention in the Nevada Revised Statutes, specifically NRS 574, on the subject of legal leg-hold trapping.

Gemma Waldron, Deputy District Attorney with Washoe County, testified in support of S.B. 62. She echoed the concerns of Senator O’Connell and stated animal mistreatment was often a precursor to more serious crimes against humans. Psychiatric evaluations of animal abusers were essential, in her judgment. Ms. Waldron concurred with amending the bill to include language for restitution, especially in the cases of seeing-eye dogs or other companion pets that assisted the disabled. She concluded by saying the bill provided for a good mix of misdemeanor as well as felony conduct.

Assemblyman Neighbors asked if the witness had proposed the requirement for psychiatric evaluations at the hearing of S.B. 62 in the Senate. Ms. Waldron replied in the affirmative, but explained it had not been in the original version and had been raised as an issue on the first hearing. It was now amended to include that language.

Chairman de Braga, seeing no copy of an amended version, asked Ms. Combs if S.B. 62 had been amended in the Senate. Ms. Combs declared it had been amended, and there was a first reprint. She apologized for the oversight in providing the committee with that reprint. Ms. Combs explained the first reprint contained language regarding psychiatric evaluations.

Chairman de Braga opened the hearing to testimony from the Las Vegas videoconference site.

Anne Herrington, President of Media Partners For Pets in Las Vegas, testified in support of S.B. 62. Her nonprofit organization had sponsored the bill from its inception. Their mission was to educate the public and raise awareness of the ever-increasing problem of animal abuse. High profile cases in southern Nevada were becoming more frequent, and many involved youthful offenders.

Ms. Herrington cited several cases of blatant incidences of animal torture to illustrate her point. She viewed the subject of restitution as important; however, it was secondary to the issue that animal cruelty was often a precursor to serious violent acts against humans. As such, Ms. Herrington emphasized the legislation was as much about human protection as it was animal protection.

Ms Herrington summarized by saying education of the public was essential. With the imposition of stricter punishment against perpetrators of animal cruelty, society as a whole would benefit. No person should ever get away with torturing an animal. It often served as a red flag for future criminal behaviors. Ms. Herrington displayed a petition with over 4,000 signatures of residents endorsing harsher penalties. In conclusion, Ms. Herrington viewed S.B. 62 as a start, but predicted the bill would need further amending.

Chairman de Braga asked what the current sentence for juvenile offenders would be in cases of animal cruelty. Ms. Herrington explained the punishment ranged from community service to jail sentences, followed by counseling during the probationary period. In her judgment, older teen offenders should receive longer jail time and be forced to make restitution to the victim families. Serious counseling would be essential follow-up to any punishment.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall asked for clarification of the language throughout the bill that referred to “a person.” She asked if that referred to any age person or just someone over 18 years of age. Ms. Herrington made a distinction and stated if the offender was over 18 years, the crime should be dealt with very severely (e.g., jail time). If under the age of 18, it would be better handled on a case-by-case basis. That group should be evaluated to determine likelihood of repeat offenses.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall posed the question of whether the legislation should be crafted to make distinctions based on age. Chairman de Braga asked for clarification from Gemma Waldron.

Ms. Waldron explained the bill was principally directed at Chapter 574 of the Nevada Revised Statutes; however, at the end of the bill, it was directed at Chapter 206, Section 15 and Chapter 426, which suggested the bill was focused on adult offenders. She called the committee’s attention to page 2, lines 43 and 44, where the bill appeared to address “a person who was not a natural person,” suggesting a corporation or some organization other than a person. To be directed specifically at juveniles, the bill would have to address Chapter 62, the main chapter for juvenile law. Currently, psychiatric evaluation for juveniles who tortured animals was already covered in law.

Chairman de Braga summarized for clarity and stated the bill would not do anything to increase the penalties for juvenile offenders.

Assemblyman Humke admitted to having limited practice as an attorney in juvenile court matters; however, he recalled a catch-all reference in Chapter 62 that described a delinquent act as a felony if it were to be committed by an adult. As such, it referenced the entire body of adult criminal code. That would be the means through which the juvenile court could access the changes in statute and apply them to juveniles. In his judgment, the sentences for adult offenders would have little relationship to those provided in S.B. 62. There was indeterminate sentencing in the juvenile code.

Allison Combs offered to comment and concurred with Assemblyman Humke. It would be the means by which a juvenile could be adjudicated delinquent, and the juvenile court would have authority over that child to impose a wide range of sanctions as defined in Chapter 62.

Chairman de Braga summarized and stated if the bill passed, courts would have the ability to increase the penalties for juvenile offenders. Ms. Combs replied that courts would be authorized to address the juveniles. The penalty for a juvenile adjudicated delinquent would not be specified in statute; however, the court had options for penalties.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall asked if, when dealing with a juvenile offender, legal action would be discretionary with the court since S.B. 62 was targeting adults. Ms. Waldron replied that the statement was a correct assessment. Assemblyman Ohrenschall surmised if the bill had been in effect for the example of the dog Blue, the bill would not have applied because juveniles were involved.

Assemblyman Carpenter stated it was in existing juvenile code to require psychological counseling in cases of animal torture. He viewed S.B. 62 as implementing a corresponding system of punishment for adults.

Assemblyman Mortenson asked if a judge could levy a monetary fine against a juvenile offender. Ms. Waldron was of the opinion the judge could do so when deemed as necessary.

Assemblyman Claborn stated he believed the heart of the problem was with teenagers, and he failed to see how S.B. 62 would address that situation. He had personal knowledge of local youth who were breeding dogs for fighting, and the bill was too broad to be effective. It needed more specific direction at youth, in his judgment.

Allison Combs offered to work with the committee staff to assemble a list of sanctions that were available for juvenile offenders. Assemblyman Claborn reiterated he had no knowledge of adults engaged in dog fighting.

Assemblyman Humke concurred with the list of sanctions and said it would be helpful. He acknowledged the committee was focusing on juveniles and agreed with that focus. Assemblyman Humke clarified current statute regarding tort crime law for juveniles. If a person was the victim of an intentional act of a child, the parents could be sued for up to $10,000. Under Chapter 62, the jurisdiction of the juvenile court extended to parents and guardians. All parties could be brought before the court and forced to comply with the court’s orders.

Assemblyman Carpenter stated in juvenile code there were already provisions to punish youth for crimes.

Assemblyman Ohrenschall suggested that, in addition to the current abilities of the juvenile court, perhaps fines could be levied that would not be paid by the parents. The youth could pay the fine through a community service assignment, for example. She suggested the committee give it consideration.

Assemblyman Brown requested clarification on the issue of organized dog fighting. Susan Asher replied that Nevada had been a stronghold for organized dog fighting until very recently. After dog fighting was elevated to a felony, the activity declined in Nevada. Ms. Asher stated there was currently an increase in cock fighting, attributed to the cultural changes in Nevada’s population. She clarified for Assemblyman Claborn and stated adults were still known to engage in dog and cock fighting.

Assemblyman Lee called attention to Section 9, subsection 2 that read, in part, ”a person who unjustifiably administers a poison, drug or noxious substance to any animal.” It carried the threat of a category D felony. He asked if officials in the business of pest control, including pigeon removal, would be vulnerable under the new law. Ms. Waldron replied the word “unjustifiably” was key and how the judgment would be made to prosecute. Pest control workers and exterminators operated under the protection of existing law.

Assemblyman Lee offered an example, adding the distinction “a person who was not skilled in that area who poisoned an animal trespassing on his private property.” He asked if that person would be subject to arrest. Ms Waldron directed him to page 6, line 31 which stated the destruction of noxious animals was not prohibited by the bill. She was uncertain if a legal definition existed for a noxious animal. In the case of a domestic cat, Ms. Waldron judged it not to be a noxious animal, and the perpetrator could be subject to prosecution under the bill. Assemblyman Lee emphasized it would be important for homeowners to understand the distinction because the penalty was severe and could be as high as $10,000.

Susan Asher offered to clarify the conditions of enforcement of NRS 574 and NRS 206.150. Prosecution was based upon intentional and deliberate killing or injury of an animal. In cases of accidental harm (e.g., trespassing on neighboring property), that circumstance was taken into consideration.

Assemblyman Lee reiterated his concern over the severe fine of $10,000, especially in cases of animal death that appeared to be intentional but, in actuality, were not. In her judgment, Ms. Asher doubted there would be third party liability in those cases. Assemblyman Lee suggested substituting the $10,000 fine with the word restitution. Gemma Waldron offered to clarify and stated the penalty was not mandatory and could not exceed $10,000.

Anne Herrington in the Las Vegas audience offered closing comments. She was encouraged by the dialogue between the committee and the witnesses. Ms. Herrington urged the committee to consider jail time, youth camp, or community service for the young offenders. That would hold them directly accountable for their acts of animal cruelty.

Chairman de Braga distributed copies of the first reprint of S.B. 62 to the committee. She noted there was a reduction of punishment with the language “if death does not result, then it goes back to a misdemeanor.” She asked if that language was to make it consistent with law in other areas. Ms. Combs recalled the discussions of the policy committee and stated it was their goal not to automatically escalate to a Class D felony charge in every situation.

Assemblyman Ohrenschall posed a question about a situation in which death of an animal occurred following the recommendation of a veterinarian. Ms. Combs could recall no testimony on that issue; however, she would research the statutes. Assemblyman Ohrenschall asked if line 43 and the reference to “not a natural person” was aimed at animal testing groups. Ms. Combs replied there had been no testimony on that subject. It was part of existing law. Ms. Combs called the committee’s attention to line 15 where it was already part of the statute.

Mike Pasek, a citizen of Las Vegas, commenced testimony in support of S.B. 62. He illustrated the need for animal protection with several examples of incidents in his residential neighborhood. The perpetrators, ages 14 and 19, were target shooting into his back yard and killed one of his dogs and severely injured the other. Both individuals were students and back in school, apparently suffering no serious consequences for their criminal actions.

Chairman de Braga asked what happened to the two youths involved in the shooting. Mr. Pasek stated the 14-year-old had no charges filed against him. The 19-year-old was out on bail and under house arrest. Mr. Pasek was pessimistic that an equitable penalty would be charged for the shooting of his beloved dogs. He considered his pets as members of the family, and the incident was very traumatic. No restitution for veterinarian bills or damage to his dwelling had been ordered. Mr. Pasek put his home up for sale.

Assemblyman Carpenter stated there were laws on the books for authorities to deliver justice. He viewed the situation as a lack of enforcement, not a lack of laws.

Donald Fondriasopolous, representing the Boulder Dam Home Site Addition, provided a prepared statement (Exhibit E) to the committee. In the interest of time, he asked the Chairman to waive the reading of the five point animal bill of rights (Exhibit E). Chairman de Braga stated it would be entered into the record.

Mr. Fondriasopolous continued with his testimony and explained the draft of the bill of rights had not been modeled after any other state. He asked that it be included as an amendment to S.B. 62. He admitted he had failed to consider the juvenile aspect of the bill. He hoped that issue would be addressed and urged the committee to amend and pass the bill.

Chairman de Braga asked the witness if he testified before the Senate committee. He replied he did not.

Aaron Wyrick, a member of the Media Partners For Pets, resumed testimony in support of S.B. 62. He posed a question about other states that already had good statutes in place to handle animal cruelty. It appeared Nevada was attempting to reinvent the wheel, and he feared time was running out on the current legislative session. Mr. Wyrick expressed concern about the gross misdemeanor status for first-offense animal cruelty. In his judgment, a felony charge would be taken more seriously by the police, and it would serve to call attention to individuals who were likely to commit crimes against humans later.

Theresa Norton, a member of Media Partners For Pets, declared she was speaking for all animals that had no voice. She made a recommendation that a person found guilty of animal cruelty should be prohibited from ownership of animals in the future. She suggested it be added as an amendment to the bill. Ms. Norton concluded her testimony by citing FBI statistics on dangerous criminals, many of which had early histories of animal cruelty on their records.

Peter Bachstadt, a resident of Carson City and a supporter of S.B. 62, explained he had provided a lot of documentation to the interim committee regarding the strong correlation between animal cruelty by juveniles and violent crimes against people in later years. He made reference to the testimony regarding trapping. Mr. Bachstadt recalled there had been a humane trapping bill several sessions ago that failed to be passed. There was no longer a requirement for trappers to label their traps. In conclusion, Mr. Bachstadt stated the law and psychological counseling should apply to offenders of all ages. On the issue of misdemeanor status for animal cruelty, he believed a prosecutor would be very unlikely to pursue a misdemeanor case. A felony status would get more attention from the legal system.

Chairman de Braga asked Assemblyman Lee to temporarily chair the committee during her brief absence.

Assemblyman Mortenson requested clarification of humane traps. Mr. Bachstadt stated the state of Nevada did not employ those devices; however, the U.S. Forest Service was using them. The devices were not box traps, but were described as snares and temporary detainers. The animal was not harmed in any way, which was not the case with steel jaw traps. Mr. Bachstadt explained the visitation period for a trapper to inspect his traps was every 72 hours in Nevada.

Vice Chairman Lee closed the hearing on S.B. 62 and called for the presentation on the Comstock Wild Horse Training Program.

George Dorsa, District Brand Inspector for the Nevada Department of Agriculture, presented an update to the committee. A recent count of the Virginia Range revealed more than 1,000 wild horses. A management plan had been written that recommended a herd of 500 to 650 horses for that area. Mr. Dorsa described efforts during the last three years in which the horses were bait-trapped with hay and water, followed by transport to the Northern Nevada Correctional Facility at Stewart. The older horses were moved to the Warm Springs facility for a period of 45 days of training before adoption.

Mr. Dorsa explained the younger, gentler horses were kept at the Stewart facility for training by the prison inmates. More than 200 horses were adopted during the past few years. To illustrate the horse training work at the prisons, Mr. Dorsa presented a videotape of the Comstock Horse Training program.

Paul Iverson, Director of the Nevada Department of Agriculture, echoed the testimony of Mr. Dorsa. The horse-training program was a win-win for both the prison inmates and the wild horses. Each of the inmates supplemented the hands-on experience with evening class work in animal husbandry and management. With several hundred horses to be trained and adopted, Mr. Iverson emphasized the workload was formidable, but manageable. Mr. Iverson reported that Washoe County had just given his agency $15,000, which would allow a doubling in capacity. Sixteen horses would be trained by 24 inmates.

Assemblyman Marvel asked if the inmates received any good-time credit for the horse training work. Mr. Iverson replied the inmates received normal credits; however, there was a proposal for the inmates to earn accelerated credits. Four levels of training were being planned, with extra credits earned for handling the upper two levels of the training. In order to reduce turnover rate in trained workers, only inmates serving longer sentences were selected for the program.

Assemblyman Mortenson requested clarification of the animal traps set on Mt. Charleston. Mr. Iverson acknowledged that area had a lot of trapping for predator management. Coyotes in residential areas as well as animals carrying rabies or plague were of primary concern to the Department of Agriculture. Mr. Mortenson stated there were reports of domestic pets becoming trapped. Mr. Iverson denied that situation; however, if ensnared, the pet would be released. Mr. Iverson stated emphatically his agency did not use traps that amputated legs. The traps were humane and were designed only to capture. Assemblyman Mortenson suggested perhaps other persons were responsible for setting harmful traps. He asked if hunters operated in the Mt. Charleston area. Mr. Iverson stated he had no knowledge of that; however, he admitted his agency did set some traps designed to humanely kill animals. He illustrated that point with the example of protecting a herd of sheep in a remote area. It was not feasible to check the traps on a frequent basis. As such, those devices were meant to kill.

Chairman de Braga interrupted the dialogue and suggested it continue after the meeting. Assemblyman Mortenson agreed and commented that a constituent had reported pet dogs being trapped on Mt. Charleston.

Chairman de Braga opened the hearing on S.B. 467.

Senate Bill 467: Requires board of wildlife commissioners to establish maximum number of deer and antelope tags which may be issued annually as compensation for damage to private property. (BDR 45-1224)

Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President of the Nevada Farm Bureau, commenced testimony in support of the bill and read from a prepared statement (Exhibit F). The landowner compensation tag program was designed to compensate private landowners for damage to land and crops. Prior to implementation, depredation hunts were the means by which unwanted herds were reduced. Mr. Busselman described the tag compensation program as a voluntary program and very successful; however, the current statutory cap of 200 annual tags was not sufficient to compensate all eligible landowners.

As drafted, S.B. 467 would delete the current statutory cap of 200 tags and allow the Nevada Wildlife Commission to establish annual limits. That determination would be based upon a percentage of the total number of deer and antelope tags authorized in Nevada. Increases or decreases of tags would fluctuate proportionately with the growth or decline of the animal herds.

Assemblyman Claborn asked for clarification about restitution for elk and money reserved for that purpose. Mr. Busselman replied there were several elk programs in place. The original program provided for a cash payment for damages caused to private property. The second program was designed to award a landowner an elk tag if he qualified for the program. The recipient could either use the tag himself or market it.

Assemblyman Claborn stated the 200 tags currently allowed were, in his judgment, excessive. He would not back S.B. 467 because so many hunters, including himself, were denied tags in the routine drawing. The idea of restitution had merit; however, 200 tags seemed to be ample. Further, the legislature should determine the cap, not the Wildlife Commission. Assemblyman Claborn added it would be helpful to see evidence of all of the damage the deer were supposedly doing to private land. He viewed the system as inequitable. There were cases of ranchers from southern areas of the state hunting in northern areas using the compensation tags. Assemblyman Claborn could see no logic in ranchers hunting with compensation tags outside the area that was supposedly damaged by the deer or elk.

Chairman de Braga asked what percentage of the total were the 200 compensation tags. Mr. Busselman was uncertain of the exact percentages; however, discussions with the Wildlife Commission suggested the compensation tags would represent approximately 1.5 percent. For the past year, that would have penciled out to approximately 321 tags. The current 200 tags were therefore less than 1.5 percent.

Chairman de Braga responded that, theoretically, it could go lower; however, it did not seem likely. Mr. Busselman explained in the last two to three years, the number of 200 tags had been used. After that point, tags were borrowed from future years. As such, the cap of 200 was being met earlier every year. He added that when the programs were established, no other management tools were eliminated. Landowners still had the opportunity to contact the Division of Wildlife and request removal of a deer population from their private land. If a landowner did not choose to participate in the voluntary tag compensation program, the landowner still had recourse to remove the herds.

Chairman de Braga repeated her question and asked if it was possible, in some years, there would be less than 200 tags due to fewer total game tags awarded. Mr. Busselman replied in the affirmative. If there was no property damage evident, the landowner would not qualify for a compensation tag.

Assemblyman Mortenson asked if a rancher received a compensation tag, was he able to sell it. Mr. Busselman replied “yes.” Assemblyman Mortenson asked if a sportsman received a tag in a regular drawing, could he sell the tag. Mr. Busselman replied, “I don’t believe so.”

Chairman de Braga requested clarification on the hearing of S.B. 467 by the Senate committee and whether the establishment of a percentage had been discussed. Mr. Busselman stated there had been no discussion. The intent of the bill was to move the compensation program into the tag drawing process and removing it from the reaches of the legislature. The 200 tag limit was an arbitrary figure and established when the bill passed in 1991. Under S.B. 467, the program would be moved, and the number of tags would reflect the size of the deer population.

Assemblyman Claborn reiterated his concerns about the average public sportsman and stated emphatically that continued legislative oversight of quotas was essential. He had no desire to authorize the Nevada Division of Wildlife to manage the number of compensation tags. Assemblyman Claborn considered himself as the voice of the public.

Doug Busselman offered a rebuttal and stated he played no role in the process of setting tag numbers. The bill, if passed, was designed to move the land compensation tag program into the same realm of biology as the total number of tags issued in the state. The goal was to move away from an arbitrary number of 200, which had clearly been exceeded in the past three years, and to establish a program with more flexibility based on actual populations.

Assemblyman Claborn concluded by stating he opposed the removal of line 17 of the current statute. The deer herds, since 1984, had declined from 200,000 to 90,000. As such, the need for more than 200 tags seemed even more unjustifiable. Some states had increased the herds through successful predator management efforts. Until that occurred in Nevada, an increase in compensation tags should not be considered.

Mr. Busselman added the land owner compensation tag program had actually been instrumental in maintaining the deer and antelope populations. Prior to the program, depredation hunts were the only recourse available to the private landowner. The potential for increasing the herds was significant in the absence of depredation hunts.

Assemblyman Claborn asked if applications for depredation tags were available to the public. Mr. Busselman stated, “In some cases, yes.” Often, the depredation hunts involved the employees of the Nevada Division of Wildlife going out to shoot the entire herd in an area.

Joe Guild, President of the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, resumed testimony in support of S.B. 467. His involvement in the program started in 1991. The evidence that Assemblyman Claborn stated as lacking was actually illustrated by the demand for compensation tags exceeding 200 tags each year. Mr. Guild stated that without the private landowner, the wildlife in the state would not have the resources it needed for survival. The Division of Wildlife recognized the contribution of private landowners as well as their losses due to the herds of deer and antelope.

Mr. Guild explained depredation hunts had ceased when the tag compensation program was implemented. Additionally, not every depredation hunt resulted in the ability of the public to participate. Often, the Division of Wildlife employees arrived at an alfalfa field with their hunting rifles to complete the job. That method was, according to Mr. Guild, much less desirable than the tag compensation program.

Mr. Guild concluded by saying the resource was enhanced, there was an incentive to provide the rancher with enhancements, and the public benefited because the person who failed to draw a tag still had another chance to hunt. He viewed the program as a very successful public-private partnership.

Assemblyman Claborn asked why the employees of the Division of Wildlife were selected to perform depredation hunts. The public could be issued special tags to perform that work.

Mr. Guild suggested that Greg Tanner would be better qualified to answer that question. He stated, as a rancher with a herd of 100 deer in his alfalfa field, he would be unable to wait for public hunters to arrive. The issue was costly property destruction that required an immediate solution.

Greg Tanner, representing the Nevada Division of Wildlife, stated his support of S.B. 467. With respect to depredation hunts, it was considered to be a very popular and effective tool. Other programs, such as state-sponsored mule deer killing, occurred when the crop being destroyed was of significant financial value. If another tool was employed, a minimum of ten days would be needed to complete the administrative work. The Division of Wildlife was not completely sold on the tag compensation program in 1991; however, today the agency judged it to be very successful.

Assemblyman Neighbors made reference to moving elk herds and asked why that method could not be used with deer. Mr. Tanner explained some efforts had been made to relocate herds; however, the costs were prohibitive. The cost-benefit analysis for deer relocation was determined to be unfavorable.

Assemblyman Carpenter requested clarification on the percentage of total tags represented by the allotment of 200. Mr. Tanner stated, in the year 2000, there were 24,317 resident and nonresident mule deer tags and 1565 antelope tags.

Chairman de Braga stated there appeared to be nothing in S.B. 467 that changed the ratio of one tag for each 50 animals. Mr. Tanner replied that was his understanding.

Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on S.B. 467. She called for a motion to approve the minutes of past committee meetings (Exhibit G).

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES OF NINE COMMITTEE MEETINGS.

ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL PRESENT. ASSEMBLYMAN TOM COLLINS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

June Rigsby

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman

DATE: