MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining
Seventy-First Session
April 4, 2001
The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Miningwas called to order at 1:00 p.m., on Wednesday, April 4, 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. Tom Collins, Vice 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
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Don Gustavson, District 32
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst
June Rigsby, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Nile Carson, Retired, Reno Police Department
Lt. Stan Olsen, Police Officer, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
Juanita Cox, Lobbyist, People To Protect People and Citizens for Action
Ernest Colton, Citizen, Carson City
Marvin Wakefield, Citizen, Carson City
Rob Sibley, Liberty Corporate
Paul Larson, Citizen
David Holmgren, Rawhide Ranch, Mineral County
Janet Arobio, Investigative Officer, Nevada Humane Society
Ron Dreher, President, Peace Officers’ Research Association
Gemma Waldron, Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County
Al Walker, Nevada Republican Assembly
Susan Asher, Executive Director, Nevada Humane Society
Captain Jim Nadeau, Sheriff, Washoe County Sheriffs’ Department
Tom Lindley, Reserve Police Officer, Carson City
Roger Linscott, Member, Reno Police Mounted Unit
Gene Weller, Deputy Administrator, Nevada Division of Wildlife
David Sanger, Biologist, Nevada Division of Wildlife
Chairman de Braga announced the hearing would begin as a subcommittee pending the arrival of committee members. The hearing on A.B. 419 was opened.
Assembly Bill 419: Confers powers of peace officer upon certain members, agents or local or district officers of society for prevention of cruelty to animals under certain circumstances. (BDR 50-1279)
Assemblyman Don Gustavson, District 32, commenced testimony in support of A.B. 419. The intent was to make animal control officers accountable to the people. It would ensure the training of those officers who had arrest powers and possibly carried weapons. In 1991, animal control was omitted from legislation that modified laws governing peace officers, and the bill would correct that oversight.
Assemblyman Gustavson referred to many reported problems with animal control officers violating constitutional rights of citizens. In his judgment, training of the officers would help minimize the risk of harm to both the public and the officers. He stated emphatically training would go hand-in-hand with granting police authority to the officers. Resisting arrest by animal control officers would carry the same penalty as it would with municipal police officers.
Assemblyman Marvel requested specific examples that illustrated the need for A.B. 419. Assemblyman Gustavson replied he did not personally have examples. The issue had been brought to his attention by others.
Chairman de Braga asked if an arrest would only be possible by a certified officer. Assemblyman Gustavson replied in the affirmative and added each of us possessed the power to institute a citizen’s arrest. Members of the Humane Society, according to Assemblyman Gustavson, would be granted arrest powers. His greatest concern, however, was any group of three individuals could incorporate and designate themselves as a humane society. As such, there was potential for abuse.
Nile Carson, a retired deputy chief of police from the Reno Police Department, resumed testimony in opposition to A.B. 419. He explained animal control officers from the Humane Society worked for his department and were unarmed. They already had powers of arrest for enforcement purposes, and he did not believe full police officer power was essential or appropriate. If a situation escalated, uniformed police responded.
Mr. Carson concluded by saying that Police Officers Standard and Training (POST) would be required and at great expense to the sponsoring agency. Additionally, the oversight of a district judge was essential during the execution of their official duties.
Assemblyman Marvel requested clarification on the cost to conduct Police Officers Standard and Training (POST) for an individual. Mr. Carson was of the opinion the costs would range from $15,000 to $50,000.
Assemblyman Collins voiced concerns regarding situations where groups in uniforms had assumed authority at events. He understood the intent of the bill was to make those individuals qualified.
Lieutenant Stan Olsen, representing the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, offered to clarify the issues. He voiced concerns that anybody who was granted police powers under the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) would have the authority to carry a gun and make arrests. Lt. Olsen stated emphatically those individuals should complete police training, and A.B. 419 would require a ten-week training at a Category II Academy; however, there were no training facilities in southern Nevada.
Lt. Olsen, in response to the earlier question of costs for ten weeks of POST training, stated the minimum was $30,000 per officer in Las Vegas.
Chairman de Braga remarked if the bill was passed, any person who worked in enforcement for the Nevada Humane Society would first submit to training. In Lt. Olsen’s judgment, it would place the individual into a Category II position, and he believed a 10-week training would be essential.
Assemblyman Marvel stated the proposed legislation had an obvious fiscal impact and asked if the bill should go to the Ways and Means Committee. Lt. Olson concurred with the comment on fiscal impact and added the costs were typically absorbed by the agency employing the individual.
Chairman de Braga announced all committee members were present, and the committee would convene as the Committee on Natural Resources. Roll was called. The hearing resumed on A.B. 419.
Juanita Cox, a citizen lobbyist representing People To Protect America and Citizens in Action, distributed a handout (Exhibit C) and read a prepared statement in support of A.B. 419. Ms. Cox emphasized the need for accountability among armed individuals possessing arrest powers. As a minimum, those individuals should be POST certified similar to any peace officer in the state. Ms. Cox shared a traumatic incident involving an SPCA agent who broke into the home of a friend. She urged passage of the bill.
Ernest Colton, a resident of Carson City, spoke in support of A.B. 419 and declared it would help correct the consequences of a bad law. Mr. Colton voiced concerns with the potential for over-interpretation of the language of the law. He speculated the spraying of ants might constitute a criminal act in the eyes of some overzealous individuals with enforcement powers. Mr. Colton believed training and common sense would be essential. He viewed A.B. 419 as a means to mitigate some of the errors.
Marvin Wakefield, a resident of Carson City, resumed testimony in support of A.B. 419. His research of NRS 574 convinced him of the possibility of grave misinterpretation of the law and serious consequences. The law was created in 1929 at a time when there was no animal control. Today, many municipalities employed animal control officers. Mr. Wakefield was motivated to support the bill when he learned there were no formal background checks on many of the animal control employees.
Mr. Wakefield reported he contacted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) and was told law enforcement agencies were authorized to get Class 3 weapons within 48 hours. The average citizen would be subjected to a background check and a three- to six-month waiting period. He stated his agreement with the Nevada Humane Society whose policy was to call in uniformed police officers to handle difficult situations. Mr. Wakefield concluded by saying there was no liability connected with the actions of those unchecked, untrained individuals who were protected by NRS 574.
Rob Sibley, representing Liberty Corporate, spoke in support of A.B. 419. As with previous witnesses, he voiced great concern over untrained citizens taking the law into their own hands. He believed the county provided professional services, and combative persons who viewed themselves as enforcement agents could do great harm. Mr. Sibley stated the legislation would help ensure much-needed oversight and POST training for animal control agents.
Paul Larson resumed testimony in support of A.B. 419 and echoed the opinions of previous witnesses. Mr. Larson expressed grave concern over the authority of individuals to invade his private property for purposes of enforcing animal regulations. The need to be armed was beyond his comprehension, and he likened them to bounty hunters. Mr. Larson viewed them as having a dangerous combination of authority with no accountability.
David Holmgren, owner of the Rawhide Ranch in Mineral County, supported the basic concept of the bill; however, as the owner of animals, he could see no point in adding animal societies to the ranks of police officers.
Janet Arobio, an Investigative Officer with the Nevada Humane Society, distributed a handout (Exhibit D) and read a prepared statement in opposition to A.B. 419. In her words, “If training is the prime reason for the changes to NRS 574, then it needs to be addressed, but allowing just any member, agent, or local/district officer of society for the prevention of cruelty to animals to legally have the powers of a Category II POST certified peace officer does not seem prudent.” Ms. Arobio emphasized the primary need was education, not enforcement and prosecution.
Chairman de Braga asked a series of questions about the use of firearms. Ms. Arobio replied the Nevada Humane Society had a policy that did not permit the carrying or use of firearms; however, under the law, any citizen was permitted to carry a weapon. Additionally, any group that wanted to be organized under the charter of keeping peace or protecting animals could be armed. When an arrest warrant was issued by the Nevada Humane Society, the animal investigator was accompanied by a police officer who executed the warrant and took custody of the individual. In response to Chairman de Braga, Ms. Arobio explained most cases were received through citizen complaint.
Assemblyman Lee inquired about the number of incorporated animal protection societies. Ms. Arobio did not have that information, but speculated there were a multitude of animal rescue groups with 501(c)(3) status. Assemblyman Lee stated he had concerns with three or more citizens being granted the ability to incorporate as a body and have the ability to be armed officers. Ms. Arobio reiterated the removal of a portion of the statute would prevent that situation.
Assemblyman Lee suggested the possibility of amending the legislation to increase the size of an incorporated group of individuals to 25 or 30. Ms. Arobio reminded the Assemblyman there was a system of checks and balances in place. Having the status of peace officer did not permit the individual to go out and run amuck. Enforcement was often followed by prosecution by the district attorney’s office. That involvement supplied the essential check on the system.
Assemblyman Lee asked if it was true that any group, with as few as three members, could have similar authority to the Nevada Humane Society. Since Chapter 574.010 was open, Assemblyman Lee was considering an increase to 25 or 30 citizens of a group. Ms. Arobio corrected the statement and clarified she was not referring to citizens, but to trustees of a society or corporation.
Assemblyman Lee directed his attention to the committee and solicited any interest in addressing that issue. Chairman de Braga remarked there appeared to be nothing in the law that prohibited a group of three citizens from having police powers. The witness concurred and emphasized that aspect would not change under the proposed changes to NRS 574. Ms. Arobio concluded reading her prepared statement.
Ron Dreher, President of the Peace Officers Research Association, stated opposition to A.B. 419 as written. He supported the training requirements of A.B. 419; however, he questioned the need for private corporations of individuals designating themselves as peace officers. As such, Mr. Dreher opposed the self-appointed authority of those groups, but stated if they existed, they would need to be adequately trained. He recommended it be an amendment to legislation covering NRS 648 that regulated private security officers and guards. That statute was established with training requirements and protocol for enforcement behaviors.
Gemma Waldron, Deputy District Attorney for Washoe County, resumed testimony in opposition to A.B. 419. She summarized the viewpoint of her agency as “if it’s not broken, don’t fix it.” Washoe County had an officer assigned to work with the Nevada Humane Society in Reno-Sparks. Ms. Waldron stated there had never been a case of inappropriate or illegal behavior on the part of the animal welfare investigators of the Humane Society. The District Attorney’s Office described the Humane Society as being an integral part of the team working on behalf of animal protection in the area. She concluded by saying that POST training was oriented toward working with human clients and not animals.
Assemblyman Mortenson voiced concern that a door was being opened for any nongovernmental organization to assume police powers. It was Assemblyman Mortenson’s contention they should be privately trained rather than admitted to the formal POST training for police officers.
Ms. Waldron concurred and stated the way the proposed law was written, any group could incorporate and “run amuck.” One safeguard in the current law was the requirement they go before a district court judge before they were authorized to carry a badge. That law had worked for more than 50 years. Ms. Waldron recommended if the committee had concerns about the current law, they should amend it to require training in animal control issues. Alternatively, codify the law to state the Humane Society call in the police department for their difficult investigations and volatile situations.
Al Walker, representing the Nevada Republican Assembly, came forward to speak in opposition to A.B. 419. After reading Chapter 289, he discovered 23 categories of individuals under the label “peace officer.” What they appeared to have in common was they were employees of a government and, as such, were accountable to the people of Nevada. Mr. Walker encouraged the title of peace officer be reserved for the ranks of professional law enforcement personnel. The incorporation of miscellaneous individuals did not meet the criteria normally associated with professional officers.
Susan Asher, Executive Director of the Nevada Humane Society, distributed a handout (Exhibit E) and read a prepared statement in opposition to A.B. 419. She highlighted the stellar record of her agency and their continued emphasis on training for personnel. Ms. Asher declared her greatest concern to be the affordability of POST training. That concern was amplified by the threat of her newly trained investigators transferring to municipal police departments.
Ms. Asher stated their record reflected a long history of effectively protecting the animals in the area. Last year, there were 700 initial cruelty/neglect investigations and 1500 check-backs on prior cases. In her judgment, local law enforcement did not have the manpower to respond to that extent. She made the distinction that the animal control personnel protected people from animals, and the Humane Society protected animals from people.
In conclusion, Ms. Asher reiterated the philosophy “if it’s not broken, don’t fix it.” She concurred with Assemblyman Lee that a corporation of three individuals was too few for a society and allowed fringe elements too much authority. An amendment might be in order.
Assemblyman Lee inquired about the funding source for the Nevada Humane Society. Ms. Asher explained it consisted of private donations, grants, and service fees. Their annual budget was $1.5 million. In response to Assemblyman Mortenson, Ms. Asher clarified service fees were charged for adoption, spaying, and boarding services provided by the Humane Society.
Chairman de Braga asked the witness if the bill passed, would her agency have the resources to provide the required training of personnel. Ms. Asher replied they did not have the funds to train their three officers.
Assemblyman Mortenson addressed the committee and audience and asked if anyone knew the cost to train a private security guard. Ms. Asher voiced concern on the subject of private guards whom she viewed as being marginally qualified in many instances. Guns had no place in her organization, and Ms. Asher had no interest in being known as the “puppy police.”
Assemblyman Gustavson explained the Nevada Humane Society was not the reason for drafting A.B. 419. There were many other small groups who exercised police powers, and some of those extreme animal rights groups were causing increasing concern. In order to protect the public, it would be necessary to pass the bill with the required POST training or decide those groups would no longer have those enforcement powers. Assemblyman Gustavson declared he was willing to amend the bill and possibly eliminate section 574.040 which had granted police powers.
Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on A.B. 419 and requested, if amendments were proposed, submit them as soon as possible.
Before calling for testimony on the next agenda item, Chairman de Braga paused the hearing and asked for committee approval of minutes of past meetings of the Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining (Exhibit F).
ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES.
ASSEMBLYMAN LEE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL PRESENT.
Chairman de Braga opened the hearing on A.B. 463.
Assembly Bill 463: Revises provisions governing treatment and use of certain animals. (BDR 15-809)
Assemblyman Collins, sponsor of the bill, made introductory comments. The issue had been brought to his attention by the mounted horse patrols in police departments throughout the state.
Captain Jim Nadeau of the Washoe County Sheriff’s Department commenced testimony in support of A.B. 463. Captain Nadeau reminded the committee of extensive testimony during the 1999 session regarding the treatment of police animals. Because animals used by reserve police officers and volunteers were not covered at that time, Captain Nadeau explained it was necessary to close that gap and extend protection to those animals.
Reserve Deputy Tom Lindley of the Carson City Sheriff’s Office and a member of the American Mounted Police Organization spoke in support of A.B. 463. Deputy Lindley informed the committee of several street accidents involving horse-mounted officers. In the case of a Las Vegas incident, even though the officer was on duty, he was, by law, supposed to be on the sidewalk. Following the investigation, the police department was unable to support the reserve officer.
Deputy Lindley cautioned the committee it would not be desirable to raise the police horse to the same status as a human peace officer. It was recommended the police horse be exempt from traffic laws and be allowed on the street in the line of duty. Additionally, an amendment to NRS 574 providing the protection of all police horses used by state agencies would be helpful.
Chairman de Braga asked for clarification of Section 4 on page 2, specifically what it would cover and how it would be enforced. Deputy Lindley explained the unsafe conditions of street work for horse-mounted officers. It was his recommendation that moving vehicles be required to approach any animal (e.g., cattle, horses) with greater caution.
Assemblyman Humke requested the number of horses used by law enforcement in Nevada, which agencies used horses, and the parameters of rules governing horse patrols. Deputy Lindley stated Reno and Sparks each had four horses, Carson City had 18, Nye had 2 with 7 planned, and Las Vegas had 7.
Assemblyman Humke requested clarification of the jurisdiction covered by mounted officers. He cited the example of Hot August Nights in Reno and the need of vehicles to be cautious during that time. Captain Nadeau offered to respond and explained the mounted horse had both urban and rural uses. At various times there had been occasions to use horses for crowd control.
Assemblyman Collins commented about the use of horses during large events at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and on the Las Vegas Strip.
Assemblyman Lee asked what the conditions would be to ensure a driver was not cited and if it was the officer’s judgment call. Captain Nadeau declared most circumstances called for individual judgment. While driving in close proximity to an animal, there was no specific speed set by law. The issue was safety.
Assemblyman Lee commented about bicycle riders approaching a horse and if that was a potential problem. Captain Nadeau stated bikes on highways must obey the rules of the road, and they must slow so as not to scare the animal.
Chairman de Braga voiced concern the law was too broad and subject to wide interpretation. There were many drivers who just did not understand the threat to animals and their instinctive reactions. Captain Nadeau concurred with the description of the fear reaction in animals. He introduced Officer Roger Linscott to address that issue.
Officer Roger Linscott of the Reno Police Horse-Mounted Unit clarified an earlier point and stated the only violation under the law was careless driving. The Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) covered the mounted police on the street as a vehicle, however the pedestrian code specified sidewalk use. There was a conflict in the law. He believed A.B. 463 would clarify the legal turf for riding police horses. He added the onus for safety in the vicinity of a herd of animals should be on the driver of the vehicle.
Captain Nadeau interjected for clarification the deletion of Section 6, subsection 3 on page 3, lines 37 through 45. Because the busy season was just ahead, he asked the committee to consider an implementation date before October 1 (e.g., July 1).
Ron Dreher, President of the Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada, made a brief statement in support of A.B. 463 as amended. It was long overdue for the protection of the riders and the animals.
Gemma Waldron, Deputy District Attorney for Washoe County, declared support for the basic concept of the bill; however, she voiced concern over the inability to enforce the law due to the broadness of the language. Ms. Waldron recommended Section 4 be rewritten and suggested it specifically reference interference with a police horse. She further recommended researching the laws governing the Amish community in Pennsylvania for examples of appropriate language.
Chairman de Braga, seeing no additional witnesses, closed the hearing on A.B. 463 and commenced the work session on A.B. 199.
Assembly Bill 199: Revises provisions governing certain accounts, licenses and stamps administered by division of wildlife of state department of conservation and natural resources. (BDR 45-529)
Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst, called the committee’s attention to a work session document (Exhibit G). Ms. Eissmann read a prepared statement outlining the five amendments of the bill. She indicated the Division of Wildlife was represented in the room and prepared to give a slide presentation of the Hatchery Refurbishment Program (Exhibit H).
Chairman de Braga asked for clarification of a point made by Ms. Eissmann. She asked, since the issuance of duck stamps had been automated, if the federal duck stamp would still require a visit to the post office. Gene Weller, Deputy Administrator for the Division of Wildlife, offered to reply and stated the automated system would have no effect on the federal stamp, and a trip to the post office would still be required. Chairman de Braga interjected she still received a lot of complaints about all of the stamp requirements. Mr. Weller concurred; however, he defended the value of the stamps. Accounting of funds and distribution of dollars were facilitated using the stamp system.
Chairman de Braga asked, “What do you envision that you will set the trout stamp at if the commission has the ability to establish it wherever they want it?”
Mr. Weller replied, “Based upon our projections of cost for hatchery refurbishment and income, as well as our available matching funds that we would be including in the project, and considering the possibility of other grants and other sources of money at different times, we are anticipating approaching, if we receive this authorization, the Board of Wildlife Commissioners this fall to raise the stamp to $10.”
Chairman de Braga replied, “I for one would prefer we put a cap on that, but we will see what the rest of the committee thinks on that one.”
Mr. Weller stated, “ I would say that we have cash-flowed that out and at this time our actual cash flow figures show that at some point in the future, we might have to raise that again. But at this time…beyond the $10…but at this time, we are comfortable with starting the program out, understanding this is going to be a long term, involved, very intricate program. Dave will explain that. As such, we are wanting to get started, and the $10 will get us well down the road. Then we will be evaluating and coming back to you, back to Interim Finance, in the process to get capital improvement projects approved and to continue with the project.”
Chairman de Braga replied, “We’ll see what the committee thinks. I hate to leave it open-ended. I would be willing to set it to $10, but I am a little concerned about that.”
Assemblyman Claborn requested clarification on the distinction between the state and federal duck stamps. Mr. Weller reiterated the federal stamp was a separate process, and the current cost was $15 for the stamp.
Dave Sanger, Biologist with the Nevada Division of Wildlife (NDOW), commenced a slide presentation of the Hatchery Refurbishment Program. An inventory of four state hatcheries (i.e., Carson City, Lake Mead, Ruby Valley, and Mason Valley) and a needs assessment were conducted last year. Prioritization of construction projects and the estimated budget required for each were developed. Safety of employees and visitors was identified as a significant issue exacerbating the obvious physical degradation of the facilities.
Mr. Sanger described the physical layout of a hatchery site as having homes for employees, asphalt parking areas, stocking trucks, concrete raceways, water treatment systems, and office buildings. The hatchery grounds were visited each year by thousands of visitors, and that magnified the wear and tear of the facilities. Mr. Sanger described the homes as inadequate to house the employees. The technology employed for water treatment was seriously outdated. The raceways for the fish required protective covering to guard against predators. Wind barriers were needed to shield the employees.
Mr. Sanger mentioned the funding mechanism needed to go forward with refurbishment. The cost of the trout stamp was proposed for an increase as determined by the Board of Wildlife Commission. Initial construction would be at the Lake Mead facility and was slated for the fiscal year 2002.
Chairman de Braga commented on the photographic slide of NDOW’s fishing instructor with kids fishing on a stream and asked if we paid for people to fish. Mr. Sanger replied in the affirmative. He continued with his presentation and stated their plan was to develop a sound funding source, a good construction plan, and a solid cash flow. The bond would be procured using the proceeds from the sale of the trout stamp. Mr. Sanger estimated costs for the four facilities at $16.1 million. Over seven years, it would a $28.9 million project. In summary, the goals were modernization of facilities and improvement of safety.
Chairman de Braga requested clarification on the priority list for repairs. She also asked, “Is there any objection, if for the next few years, we cap this at $10? Does anybody want to answer that?”
Mr. Sanger offered to reply to the first question and stated the Lake Mead facility had the highest need for refurbishment, and work had begun on architectural plans. Until October of last year, most of the trout stamp revenue had been dedicated to retirement of the bond for construction of the hatchery at Mason Valley. Since October, the funds were being held in account for refurbishment projects.
Gene Weller offered to respond to the second question and stated, “We could live with that knowing that we will be back to you for the next seven years. We would be comfortable with that.”
Chairman de Braga clarified, “My reason for that is because all of the other fees in that Division are capped except this. This would be the only exception.”
Assemblyman Claborn asked why the hatcheries were allowed to deteriorate to such an extent. Mr. Weller concurred and stated the extensive utilization of the facilities through the years took its toll on the hatcheries, and they were “worn out.” Routine maintenance had been performed through the years just to keep the facility functioning.
Mr. Sanger added each year an assessment and inventory were conducted to identify the projects with the most critical needs. As budgets allowed, upgrades were performed selectively on those projects judged to be essential.
Assemblyman Carpenter asked if a motion would be accepted on A.B. 199 with the amendments proposed by the Nevada Division of Wildlife. In his words he stated, “I will make a motion that we do pass and amend A.B. 199 with the amendments that have been proposed by the Division, with the exception that the legislature set the trout stamp fee at $10.”
Chairman de Braga summarized and stated, “It has been moved by Mr. Carpenter, seconded by Mr. Marvel, to amend and do pass with the amendment on page 3, line 16, for a fee of $10, striking the phrase ‘for a fee to be established by the Commission.’”
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS
A.B. 199.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL PRESENT.
Chairman de Braga asked Assemblyman Lee to present the subcommittee report on A.B. 208.
Assembly Bill 208: Revises provisions governing treatment of animals. (BDR 50-206)
Assemblyman Lee reported there had been a lot of testimony, and the subcommittee gutted Sections 2 through 13 of the bill (e.g., spay and neuter references). Assemblyman Lee announced the establishment of standards for NRS 574. He read from bill and emphasized protection had been afforded to the livestock shows and rodeos. He acknowledged the emotional reactions to A.B. 208 and added the subcommittee was unanimous in their support of the change in language.
Assemblyman Collins commented on the drastic changes to his bill. As it read, every city and county had the ability to outlaw any animal within their limits while allowing them to permit special events in their territory. Although it was a greatly reduced piece of legislation, Assemblyman Collins urged the passage of the amended version of A.B. 208.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 208.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 8 TO 3. CHAIRMAN DE BRAGA, ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL, AND ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE VOTED “NO.”
Discussion followed, and concern was voiced by Chairman de Braga the bill still had the possibility of limiting the ability of local governments to institute and enforce animal control. She declared her wholehearted support of rodeos and livestock events. If the bill did not pass, Chairman de Braga stated her preference for a letter to be drafted by the committee to the counties and cities encouraging the permitting and promotion of livestock events. Any activity that prohibited rodeos and circuses should be avoided at all cost. She summarized by saying local governments needed to regulate, and Chairman de Braga stated, with reluctance, she was unwilling to vote for the bill.
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall concurred with Chairman de Braga and stated she was not prepared to vote for the amendment. She requested more time to fully digest the language of the bill. If a vote were taken today, she would vote against it while reserving her right to change her vote on the floor.
Assemblyman Bache commented on the amount of commotion the bill had raised in his district. On the surface, he felt the amendment looked acceptable; however, the bill number (i.e., 208) was “contaminated” and elicited a very negative reaction. Assemblyman Bache speculated if the contents of the bill could be piggybacked onto another piece of legislation. He stated he was unable to support it with the label of A.B. 208.
Assemblyman Carpenter affirmed the concerns of his fellow assemblymen and agreed with the need for local agencies and boards to be capable of regulating certain animal events and activities; however, he viewed the amendment as being so narrowly drawn that it would not restrict the authority of local officials. Assemblyman Carpenter concluded by saying that some restrictions to protect rodeos were essential, and he would vote in support of the bill.
Chairman de Braga called attention to the line “local governments shall not prohibit nor regulate beyond the standards set forth at this time in 574.” Despite the implementation date of next year, most communities needed flexibility to deal with animal events and rodeos.
Assemblyman Carpenter interjected his preference to have an opportunity to study NRS 574 before considering the amendment. Chairman de Braga corrected Assemblyman Carpenter and declared A.B. 208 had been passed.
A document (Exhibit I) was submitted by Tim and Valerie Buchanan of Las Vegas. The 40-page exhibit outlined opposition to A.B. 208.
Chairman de Braga announced that time had expired, and A.B. 412 would be withdrawn. She called for a motion to indefinitely postpone the bill.
Assembly Bill 412: Revises provisions regarding treatment of certain animals in care of animal shelters. (BDR 50-75)
ASSEMBLYMAN LEE MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 412.
ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL PRESENT.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:56 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
June Rigsby
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman
DATE: