MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining
Subcommittee
Seventy-Second Session
April 1, 2003
The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining Subcommittee was called to order at 1:09 p.m., on Tuesday, April 1, 2003. Chairman Marcus Conklin 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.
Note: These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style. Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony. Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Marcus Conklin, Chairman
Mr. Jason Geddes
Mr. Bob McCleary
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Mr. John Carpenter, Assemblyman, District No. 33
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst
Erin Channell, Recording Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Todd Schwandt, Vice President, Nevada Outfitters and Guides Association, Lamoille
Michael Hornbarger, President, Nevada Outfitters and Guides Association
Chris MacKenzie, Member, Board of Nevada Wildlife Commission
Bill Bradley, Member, Board of Nevada Wildlife Commission
Terry Crawforth, Administrator, Nevada Division of Wildlife
Chairman Conklin:
We’ll call the Subcommittee on A.B. 272 to order. [The secretary called roll. All members were present.] A quorum is present. We’ll have two sets of testimony. There are three people who have signed in for the bill and two people who have signed in against the bill. We’ll start with the “fors.” [The chairman invited Michael Hornbarger, Todd Schwandt, and Agee Smith to come forward and provided instructions to those testifying.]
Assembly Bill 272: Provides for regulation of outfitters and guides. (BDR 54‑142)
Todd Schwandt, Vice President, Nevada Outfitters and Guides Association, Lamoille:
[Introduced himself and provided Exhibit C, The Dirt.] The development of A.B. 272 was a process that began many years ago with the old Wildlife Commission. We made recommendations for regulatory change. Our petition was sent to the subcommittee of the Wildlife Commission and basically died in committee. Some items were acted on to a small degree, but the overall concern was that the current regulations would do the job that was necessary. We didn’t feel that we got the relief needed.
We then drafted a bill that was introduced by Senator Carpenter in the last session. It died in committee because of some funding problems. We didn’t have a real clear-cut deal. The biggest hang-up with it was the nonresident deer hunt tag, which, at that time, generated $100 more per tag than a regular deer tag. We felt that we could take that $100 extra in revenue, $40,000 per year, and put it into this board to help fund it. We felt that, because the guides were going on a guided hunt and had a guided deer hunt tag, they should fund the guides’ board. We did understand the Robert Pittman Act and how it would affect some of the funding that the state would receive. The bill basically died in committee. We did some changes on it, some work on it. We revamped the bill, shortened it up, made it easier to read, and more user-friendly, and that brings us to where we are today.
[Todd Schwandt continued.] The reason for the bill is that the professional outfitters and guides in the state of Nevada are not happy with the way the guide program is currently being administered. There are a lot of NACs [Nevada Administrative Codes] that regulate and govern the way the guide operations are handled in Nevada. We don’t feel they’re being followed the way they should be followed. There are too many loopholes.
What we are looking for is an even playing field among all the outfitters and guides in the state of Nevada. When we say that, we mean, “If one of us has to have a state sales tax number or use tax number, all of us should have it.” It should be required before you get your license. We are required under Nevada law to have a Nevada business license, to have Worker’s Compensation Insurance for our employees, and to pay our sales tax to operate on federal land. We have to give the U.S. Forest Service or BLM (Bureau of Land Management) 3 percent of our gross income, right off the top. Many of the outfitters in Nevada do not have those permits; they do not have their state sales tax licenses; they do not have any of the requirements that legitimate business people have. Therefore, they are better able to offer their hunts at drastically reduced prices compared to ours because of our overhead.
A lot of them are buddy type outfitters; we refer to them as “hobby outfitters.” They will attain a guide license just to get some of the nonresident guided deer hunt tags to take to family members or their friends for a hunt in Nevada, because Nevada mule deer tags are at a premium. It’s extremely hard to draw one, and the application process is overprescribed by the thousands.
We have created legislative action in the nonresident guided deer hunt program, which allocates a percentage of the nonresident tags to go to those individuals who want to go on a guided hunt with an outfitter. That was created to give us stability in our industry so that we would know every spring when it was time to renew our insurance, our forest permits, our BLM permits, and our state guide license, that we would have some clients in the fall to take on a hunt. With that bill passing and the popularity of it, there has been an influx in the number of new master guides in the state from what there had been at that time. We created an industry where there wasn’t one before. There was one before that really wasn’t that stable. We made it a little more stable. Now we have a lot of outfitters. I’m not saying all of them are bad; I’m not saying any of them are bad. It’s just that we want a level playing field. They need to meet the same requirements as the legitimate outfitters are meeting to obtain their outfitter or guide license in the state of Nevada.
Michael Hornbarger, President, Nevada Outfitters and Guides Association:
[Introduced himself.] I want to reiterate what Mr. Schwandt has said. We’re looking for some stability in this so everyone has to jump through the same hoops. There are a bunch of guys who aren’t, and we have tried to get some change, with little success. We’re here looking for some statutory teeth in the guide business, something that will hold people’s feet to the fire and make them perform.
[No further proponents came forward to testify. The Chairman invited opponents of the bill to come forward.]
Chairman Conklin:
Mr. MacKenzie, you are with the Wildlife Commission. Is that correct? [Received confirmation.] Were you here for the original testimony on A.B. 272? [Received confirmation.] So you have heard this testimony twice now on behalf of the outfitters. What are your initial thoughts on why they are bringing this bill forward?
Chris MacKenzie, Member of Board, Nevada Wildlife Commission:
[Introduced himself.] That’s a fair question. I think they have some legitimate concerns. I think there has been some need to keep up with the NACs on their behalf. There have been some differences in interpretation between how they thought they should be enforced, and how they are enforced, and, maybe, a little more attention needs to be paid to them by both the Commission and the Division. I don’t look at it that the Division is not doing its job; it’s maybe the Commission stepping up and taking care of them better on the regulatory end.
We’ve discussed some possibilities of creating a subcommittee comprised primarily of guides and a number of the Commission and setting forth much of what they want, under the umbrella of the Commission. I think we are just wary of having them have two separate entities that overlap many areas of concern that are completely independent of one another. I think they bring forth several legitimate issues that need to be addressed. I think, at least speaking for Mr. Bill Bradley [member, Nevada Wildlife Commission] and myself, as members of the nine-person Commission, we’re prepared to address many of these, and we have some good ideas, I believe, to get that done.
Assemblyman Geddes:
I am reading through the testimony on A.B. 410 of the Seventy-first Legislative Session. It appears to me that the three big concerns brought forward by NDOW (Nevada Division of Wildlife) at that time have been addressed in the current bill. Yet, there is still opposition to it. I’m wondering if the concern is just the intertie of the Wildlife Division. It looks like the funding and the other issues have been addressed, except for one case, which I would like to speak to as well. There was concern that, if this Board was created with NDOW, it would require staff time from NDOW to service the board, sit on the board, and provide everything that boards and committees needed. As far as NDOW and the services and staffing levels, what sort of time commitment do you think it would take on behalf of NDOW to support this if it were a subcommittee?
Chris MacKenzie:
I think we should clarify that the Division and the Commission are two separate entities in terms of their concerns on this. I think the Division is at least neutral. The funding question is a big one, and I don’t know if even the guides are fully apprised as to how much it’s going to cost to operate something like this. It is something that will be a cost for us. That’s why, within our other fee increase bill that we’ve requested, the fee increases they’re requesting should be included in our fee increase bill so we can administer this program through staffing, have someone dedicated to what they want, and to provide the service they want without having dual representation of the Attorney General. Those costs would be duplicated if they weren’t brought under one common umbrella.
Assemblyman Geddes:
Although some of that still would have to be duplicated.
Chris MacKenzie:
There will be time, yes. There will be new time that will have to be accounted and paid for. In our tough economic times, this is for the rest of the state, there’s going to have to be a funding source for that.
Assemblyman Geddes:
In looking at this bill and reviewing all of the boards and commissions that deal with licensing, I did not find one that was subservient to any other board or commission. This would be the only one that I can think of where it would be reporting to another board or commission. I talked to the Governor’s staff, and they don’t have a problem with that. They think, legally, that would be all right. But I am curious about the regulatory scheme, and how this would work. If you put these procedures and policies for certification forward in the NAC, through the Wildlife Commission, there is the concern that, although we have you up here today and you’re on record, once you are all voted out of office, everything could change. The Commission could change. Those NACs could change if the will was there on the part of the Commission. I’m wondering whether you have any track record or any reason behind alleviating those fears.
Chris MacKenzie:
I think we are plowing new ground with creating a subcommittee and investing this kind of authority in that subcommittee. I think, at least administratively, safeguards should be put in for what their concerns are now, addressing those concerns, recognizing that they are legitimate concerns, and the same could be said for anything in our NACs to date. We could change it at any time under that theory, if you follow my line of reasoning. So I understand their concerns, but the same concerns could happen with an outfitting board of their own.
You look at Idaho. They’re having their own problems, and they’re independent. I think there’s always going to be dissatisfaction on both sides to some extent. That’s why you muddle through things and give them a voice that they haven’t had to date. They’re given a much larger voice. I can’t speak for the Commission, but I am looking to explore and to provide for them. I don’t know if the Commission is going along with it. I think they’d be interested in it. I think they would recognize there are some things that need to be addressed. I’ll let Mr. Bradley speak as to whether he thinks it’s something we can explore.
Bill Bradley, Member of Board, Nevada Wildlife Commission:
[Introduced himself.] I really believe that the guides’ concerns could have been addressed short of this legislative process. Unfortunately, there was miscommunication between the guides and the Commission with the last substantive set of communications occurring in 1995. I think, had Chris MacKenzie, myself, and other Commissioners heard some of the things that we actually heard in this room last week two or three years ago, we would be well advanced in redrafting the Administrative Code in such a fashion to address the guides’ concerns. Any time we start changing the Code – you don’t realize this until you get on one of these commissions – you start off with temporary regulations, because we can’t do permanent regulations during session. So we do a series of temporary regulations.
One of the things that is incumbent upon us as the Board of Wildlife Commissioners is that every time we spend a dollar on lawyers and administration, we are taking a dollar away from habitat. Our goal, our statutory directive, is to protect, promulgate, and enhance wildlife. When we are spending dollars outside the area of habitat and wildlife improvement, that gets in the way of our ultimate goal.
I believe, had we had the kind of discussions that this bill has prompted us to have, we would not be here today. We would have what I think is the best vehicle, and that is a standing subcommittee of the Board of Wildlife Commissioners. For your information, we have approximately eight or nine standing committees right now. We have a private lands committee. That’s the committee actually that designed the elk incentive tag that Mr. Carpenter brought in his bill. It is a very good, hardworking, functioning subcommittee. We drafted the formula that Assemblyman Carpenter brought up to this committee when we were talking about elk incentive tags. It represents a cross section of ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, and conservationists.
[Bill Bradley continued.] I think we have this framework right now within the Board of Wildlife Commissioners to address the guides’ needs, and it’s my strong recommendation that this bill not go forward, but that we be allowed to form a standing committee, a subcommittee, of the Board of Wildlife Commissioners. I think we’re very lucky in the state of Nevada. Because of the legislative changes we’ve had, there is a tremendous framework for citizens to participate in wildlife decisions at their county level and at our state level.
Mike Hornbarger has been one of the most active people in our Wildlife Commission. Unfortunately, Mike was worried about other aspects of his business, and we never had the discussion. Pursuant to Chairman Conklin’s direction, we met for three hours last night. We had very good fundamental discussions of the concerns the guides have and what we, as commissioners, can do to address their concerns.
We can’t tell you that we can do what the guides want, because there is going to be an Attorney General who is paid an awful lot of money every time we ask, “Tell us about this change in the Administrative Code.” I think, frankly, the guides fail to recognize how much money we spend on a yearly basis with the Attorney General assisting us in drafting NAC, but it is significant. When we embark on redrafting this section of the Administrative Code, which I think needs to be done in light of their concerns, we have to turn to the Attorney General and say, “Can we do this?” The Attorney General comes back and says, “Of course you can do that.” We’re done.
I think the standing committee would be comprised of three or four guides selected by the guide board. We have to work cooperatively in this area. There’s no doubt about that. We put one commissioner on there. If we need other people – I don’t think we do – we first look at licensing and certification, the primary concerns I’m hearing. An interesting discussion needs to happen. Do we pick up the river guides? I don’t think, at this stage, any of us are prepared to do that. This guide board is primarily a big game guide interest group. You have other guides who are doing other things such as taking people on horseback rides, or running river trips down the Colorado River.
I really think that, for the time being, as this infant learns to crawl and then walk and then run, we need to start small, keep an eye on the dollars. We don’t have an open checkbook, because everybody realizes we’re spending habitat dollars every time we do this. We will get a good fundamental set of regulations that are modernized to 2003 and then see how it works. If we’re able to keep our hands around it and things are working well, then see if we can expand. This is something that needed to happen. I commend the guys who are bringing it to the attention of the Legislature. I just think, had we had our druthers, we could have had some discussions, and there would have already been a standing subcommittee, and we would be working on the Administrative Code for changes.
Assemblyman Geddes:
I am concerned about the diversion of costs from wildlife issues to the guide and outfitter board. I can see an intertie, but when we are talking about a fee structure, and the numbers that the guides presented earlier showed a fee structure that they thought could make the board entirely self-supporting, I’m wondering if that fee structure is there. If it goes to a subcommittee format, would there be enough in there so we wouldn’t be diverting wildlife fees?
Bill Bradley:
One of the concerns that we are hearing, and we addressed it a little last night, was that, in order to be a master guide in the state of Nevada, you should probably be required to have a permit from one of the land management agencies. We don’t have the numbers, but if we talk about 350 current master guides, and you trim that back by how many actually hold one of the permits from the federal land management agencies, I think it’s going to reduce it by two-thirds. When we start reducing that – and those are the guides who are paying the fees – we have a $100,000 to a $120,000 program. It’s easy to do the math. But when that math computes that these folks might be looking at a $1,500 or a $2,000 licensing fee, what’s going to happen?
Again, I think we can work that out in our standing subcommittee to where everyone realizes that this is a lot more than we collectively bit into. Last night, as we proposed this alternative as a possible solution to this legislation, I think there was some good understanding and willingness from both sides, and we realized we wanted to work together. The difficulty is going to be in trying not to overspend as we go through the process of making and enforcing regulatory changes. It’s going to have to be done very deliberately.
Assemblyman Geddes:
I am very familiar with the process regarding temporary regulations. As far as the separation of the guides and the Wildlife Commission, I’m looking at the goal of the Commission to set the number of tags that are available in the pool, and they are also setting up the guidelines, the rules, and the regulations for being a guide, as far as resolving the conflict of how many tags are allocated to a guide pool. Do you see that as a problem that you would have to address?
Bill Bradley:
No. You’re talking specifically about the nonresident guided hunt. That number is established by this Legislature. It is 400. There are a lot of things going on; there are lawsuits right now across the country involving the distribution of big game tags among residents and nonresidents with some potentially devastating consequences to every big game program in each of the 50 states. A judge in Arizona ruled that the distribution of tags in Arizona was not meeting constitutional challenge; it was held unconstitutional. Now the judge is being asked to redraft regulations on how to redistribute these tags. It’s got a long ways to go, but as far as Nevada, one of the things that we feel comfortable about is that we’ve been designating 400 tags to the nonresident hunters through this nonresident guided hunt. If the guide board comes back and says, “We want the Legislature to expand that to 800 tags,” we may need to be in front of you as a commission saying, “We don’t support that.” But that is already legislative, not NAC. It’s under your direction and control.
Chairman Conklin:
Mr. Bradley, I need some clarification. One of the concerns of the outfitters is that they have been down this path before. They had this bill in 2001. Were you on the Commission at that time? [Received confirmation.] They had mentioned that they had been to the Commission and the last time was in 1997. Were you on the Commission then?
Bill Bradley:
I believe that it was 1995. I was on the Commission in 1997, but I believe they brought their petition to the Board in 1995, at which time I was a freshman . . .
Chairman Conklin:
While I do believe your intentions are very good, they have some founded concerns. We’ve heard this testimony before, and no action was taken two years ago. What’s going to lead them to believe that something’s going to happen this time if this body takes no action?
Bill Bradley:
I believe the gentlemen sitting behind me have a certain degree of trust in the two commissioners here. I want to introduce for the record, a letter (Exhibit D) from another board member, Brad Quilici, to our chairman requesting that an agenda item be placed on our May agenda where we will address and establish the standing committee. As Commissioner Quilici has asked, we need to send some direction to the agency to update the policies and regulations in this area. I would also feel a subcommittee with guides and commissioners would be a useful tool in hearing the guides’ concerns, setting policies, and setting regulations that could be beneficial to the guide industry. It is currently on our agenda for May. I am very confident, from our Commission’s standpoint, that we are very proactive. We want to do what we feel is best for wildlife.
[Bill Bradley continued.] Having heard these concerns for the first time sitting at the table last Friday, I believe, as Commissioner MacKenzie does, that there are some very valid concerns. I think this is going to be accomplished very quickly by our Commission using good, deliberate common sense and not spending too much of the sportsmen’s dollars to accomplish it. I want to commend the guides by saying we’re willing to up our fees, but we expect service for our increase in fees. I think they are entitled to it, and so I am very confident that the direction that they want to go will be taken by our commission.
Finally I want to say that this guide subcommittee is going to be the one drafting the regulations. It’s not going to be the Board of Wildlife Commissioners. This is going to be their “baby.” As long as the Attorney General looks at this subcommittee and says, “This will work,” there’s not going to be a problem.
Assemblyman McCleary:
I feel like the parent of bickering children who come to me over and over again with the same argument. I’m not comfortable with promises. I’m not going to be comfortable with someone saying we’re going to address this one way or another. I think there is some room for compromise, and I think you people have said some things that we can work with, but I just want the Chair to know how I feel on that.
Bill Bradley:
I have a letter (Exhibit E) from the Chairman of the Board of Wildlife Commissioners outlining our position with respect to this bill. It is an opposition letter, but I would like to introduce that in the record as well.
Assemblyman Geddes:
Did the Wildlife Commission support this bill anytime previously when it was before the Legislature?
Bill Bradley:
Two years ago, I was in the same role I am today as a Board of Wildlife Commissioner observing this process. Because the guides’ bill had a fatal flaw in it of sharing license dollars, we never went into the merits of the bill. That’s why you don’t see my testimony two years ago.
I want to say one other thing. This issue came up in 1995. In 1995 we had a chairman who was not particularly wild about dealing with difficult issues. Consequently, things were directed to a subcommittee that was very provincial in its thought process. When I got on the Commission, I despised that committee, because I felt, as commissioners, we were getting $80 a day to tackle difficult issues.
[Bill Bradley continued.] Although I didn’t address the guides’ concerns in 1995, I addressed the concerns of many sportsmen with respect to doing away with a committee that operated like a filing system where things would go away. That committee no longer exists under the Board of Wildlife Commissioners, and now I’m very proud of our Commission. We do address difficult issues in a very efficient and appropriate process keeping in mind our goals of protecting the lands and wildlife.
Chris MacKenzie:
Commissioner Bradley is the "dinosaur" currently on our commission. He is the longest lingering member of it.
Chairman Conklin:
Mr. Carpenter, I haven’t forgotten about you. I actually had a plan, and with your indulgence – I thought I would have opposition and proponents of the bill. Mr. Terry Crawforth is here. And, then I would like to have you wrap up for the subcommittee with what you heard and where you stand. It is your bill, and we want to give you every opportunity. [Mr. Carpenter agreed.]
Terry Crawforth, Administrator, Nevada Division of Wildlife:
[Introduced himself.] I’m sorry I missed your hearing the other day. I have provided some support material. It is a list of the master guides (Exhibit F), sub guides (Exhibit G), whom we currently license in Nevada, a copy of the applications (Exhibit H and Exhibit I) that both might use, and English versions of the regulations they must comply with to be master guides or sub guides (Exhibit J and Exhibit K).
At the outset I would say the Division is opposed to the bill, as written, but we are not opposed to the concept of creating a separate guide and outfitters’ board. Our business is wildlife management. We have several ancillary functions; managing the guiding industry has been one of them for over 50 years for the Division of Wildlife and its previous organization. I personally have been involved in managing/regulating the guiding industry for 30 years.
[Terry Crawforth continued.] There are some facts I believe need to be brought out. Over the years, we have regularly not only managed the guide industry day to day, but we have made regular contacts with the guides. We have encouraged them to organize and provide a unified voice for their needs and concerns and to advise us on management of the industry. We have regularly provided new regulations, often at their request.
If you go back to 1995, the guides’ association came to us with some concerns about a number of management processes. We now have 16 different Nevada Administrative Codes to help us manage the industry, across-the-board codes as far as qualifications, background, how they perform, record keeping, et cetera. Those were drafted by us at the request of the guides and were implemented by the Wildlife Commission.
We regularly, since then, have had changes to those codes approved. Contact between the Division and the guides is a regular thing. We take in about $65,000 a year in guide licensing fees, and we spend about $75,000. Could we manage this industry better? If provided the resources, yes, we could. The Board of Wildlife Commissioners, in recent years, has made great success of the committee process, and those committees have tackled a lot of tough issues. They have brought a lot of people to the table and resolved those issues. If they tell you that’s what they will do, I can assure you that’s what they will do.
Regarding the process, we are interested in the Division of Wildlife no longer managing the guide industry; we’re supportive of that. I think the bill needs a couple of technical corrections. It needs to make a provision to take out the current sections of the statutes managing the guiding industry. Otherwise we will have two systems. People would get a permit from me, and they would get a permit from the guide board.
I think we also need to pay some attention to interfaces that will need to occur between a guides’ board and the Division of Wildlife and the Board of Wildlife Commissioners for things like the nonresident guided deer tags. There are some interfaces there that need to be in statute and regulation. If we were going to proceed with this, I would ask for consideration in those two areas. Can it work either way? Yes, I think we do a very good job at this point with the resources provided. We spend the equivalent of several “game warden man-years” in this industry checking out new guides, arresting and “delicensing” bad guides, and working with other federal land managing agencies in order to do this. It has been a constant process.
We were a little surprised, and, I think, we need to think about the legislation that has been provided in the last two sessions. This is not something new that the guides have not brought up before. The session before that, the Division of Wildlife brought legislation forward that we would be out of the business and there wouldn’t be anybody to replace us. Then the guides decided they liked us better than the alternatives.
[Terry Crawforth continued.] There has been a long and consistent process with guides. I think the desire for a guides’ board is fine with us. I don’t think we need to make the decision based upon the thought that the agency or the Commission hasn’t been doing anything or has been unresponsive, because that simply is not the case. We have been very involved with these people year in and year out for over 50 years, and I think things are actually going very well right now. It could be done better if the resources are available.
I would mention to you that in the Division’s proposed fee bill, which is S.B. 420, we have requested an increase in the price of a guide license, but that’s an inflationary factor, not something to do with more work for the guides. If we expand the amount of energy that we put into this program, I will need some more money and resources to do it. I can’t continue to take $10,000 out of wildlife programs every year to put into managing an ancillary function.
Chairman Conklin:
The money that you talked about, approximately $65,000, that’s the revenue you take in on this? The cost is $75,000? [Received confirmation.] You have no problem, then, if that revenue goes up to $125,000, spending all $125,000 on this particular program?
Terry Crawforth:
No. It would take a couple extra bodies, staff, to do it the way it needs to be done, but we can do that.
Chairman Conklin:
So, if I set up a fee structure that said, “Here’s revenue, and our projections are $125,000,” that money doesn’t go $100,000 to this program and $25,000 to some other program. It will come to this program? Particularly, I am looking for enforcement. While, in your opinion, you’re enforcing it, and we all know how things work, you can’t be there and enforce everybody. There are going to be people who run red lights, no matter what. We understand that. But I have heard from many of the guides about particular stories of people who are in clear violation of the regulations that you have denied a license to, and they go to the Commission and the Commission gives them a license or a variety of other things. We really want to clean this up for them. We want to provide an environment that is fair to all people. I understand their complaints. I also understand yours. I understand the Division, the Department, and the Commission wanting to keep this within their realm, and I would suggest that that’s probably where it belongs. It’s going to require some things on your behalf, along with the money, to make sure that these things that are set forth are done. I only say that because my understanding is, within the actual regulations now, there are some specific things that are already outlined that aren’t necessarily followed. That might be part of the gripe. I don’t know.
Terry Crawforth:
I would dispute the assertion that things aren't followed. Whether or not we’re able to put the effort in, certainly, it could be enforced better. That’s why I say, could this be done better? More extensively? Absolutely. Working on enforcing regulations for guides is very difficult. You don’t sit at the bottom of the creek and wait for guides to come out. A couple more bodies and a few more thousand dollars right now, and that’s the way we do business at the Division. Our people will record their time spent, so we know what’s going into each program. You get what you pay for. In this particular case, you’re getting about $10,000 more than what’s being paid for, but I can assure you, if that’s the case, if we go that way, whatever resources we’re provided, we’ll provide a quality product.
I would express a concern about expanding this to outfitters. The subtle difference is that, right now, the statute requires us to license guides and subguides, people who are hunting- or fishing-related. If we look at the definition of “Guide” on page 2, Section 5, this bill extends to outfitters. Now we are talking about river runners, sightseeing trips, et cetera. This is a huge piece of an industry that we are not regulating at all now. I would prefer not to step into that at this point.
Chairman Conklin:
Does someone else regulate that industry currently?
Terry Crawforth:
It’s variable; it depends on what land that you were on. If anybody does in this state, it’s primarily Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, and the National Park Service. That’s one that would take more than the resources that I think you were talking about. I don’t know if we are ready for that. Those people are not represented in this conversation at all. I don’t think they know what’s coming down the road.
Assemblyman Geddes:
I just wanted to clarify these dollar amounts. It sounds like you are going negative $10,000 right now. You said a couple of bodies. From $75,000 to $125,000 doesn’t make up a couple of bodies, if I understand state budgeting appropriately.
Terry Crawforth:
No, it doesn’t.
Assemblyman Geddes:
What would you anticipate the cost being to run this program properly? How would we need to amend the budget request in the Senate bill, or to what amount, to get there?
Terry Crawforth:
We have taken the approach in our bill for some inflationary across-the-board raises of about 21 percent. We haven’t had major fee increases since 1996. We’re looking at $625 for a guide license versus the $500 that it is today. In order to manage this program in the future, two years out, I think we’re talking about a $125,000- to $130,000-a-year program. When I say a couple of bodies, we have a permit office. We’re not talking a game warden roaming around in a truck. It’s somebody helping to manage the permit part of it also. I think we could make a good start on a program for that, but it’s going to take about another $60,000 to $70,000 a year.
Assemblyman Geddes:
So, we are going from $500 to $625, and you would recommend going up to $700 or $800?
Terry Crawforth:
Yes, I would have to work on the numbers. There is an unrefundable fee. There are about 140 master guides and about 200 subguides that we currently license. The industry has been growing by about 20 master guides a year.
Chairman Conklin:
Mr. Carpenter, can you try to make sense of this for us? I do apologize for making you wait, but I thought it might be better if you had the chance to wrap it up for us.
Assemblyman John Carpenter, Elko County, District No. 33:
[Introduced himself.] I believe, if we can amend the bill to set up a statutory standing subcommittee of the guides, that would do it. I believe they are worried that maybe no one will pay attention to them. If we can amend the bill where we actually set up a subcommittee in the statutes that says they’re regulated now, I think it will work. We have had good testimony here today from the two members of the Commission, and we can look to them to provide guidance. The committee can work it out in the regulations, but I think we are looking at three or four guides on the committee and one or two commissioners. Everybody knows what he needs. The bill itself gives good guidance. It would be my suggestion that Linda Eissmann would get a good amendment, so that we would have it in statutes.
Chairman Conklin:
I am in agreement with you. I would like to make sure that that subcommittee gets to write those regulations, has the authority to do that, and that we increase the fees to help support the Commission to make sure that the cost of the regulations is covered, because that does cost money to write the regulations. We all understand that. We get them written, and we also have the enforcement dollars. Are you okay with that?
Assemblyman Carpenter:
That would be fine. I think a lot of those regulations are already written but would need modification. We can amend the Senate fee bill when it comes over. In the meantime, I think Mr. Crawforth could get us more concrete figures of what it would require. I don’t know if it has been passed out over there in the Senate or where it is. We can amend it when it comes to our committee. I think it would be fine. We’re making progress, and that’s what we need.
Chairman Conklin:
One of the last things that I want to throw out, because I have talked to both parties extensively, and it is your bill so I don’t want to interfere with it, I might suggest that we throw in some sort of sunset or reporting requirement back to this committee in two years to make sure that both parties have upheld their part of this bill. If they come back in two years, and we’re still a ways away, I guess we have to look at the outfitters and say, “Well, we gave it to the Commission, and they didn’t get the job done. Let’s give it to the outfitters and see what they can do.”
Assemblyman Carpenter:
I think that’s a very good idea. We’ll probably be able to think of a couple more things in the next two or three days. If we do, we’ll bring them to you and the Committee and take them to Linda Eissmann, but I think we have a good base here, a good foundation, and that’s what I’m looking for.
Chairman Conklin:
I’m going to go ahead and bring the bill back to Committee.
Bill Bradley:
May I make one suggestion before you take it back for discussion? Every standing committee of the Board of Wildlife Commissioners serves on a voluntary basis. I think this also should. I have actually been singled out as the commissioner who will be staffing this with guides. I would rather spend our dollars on habitat than paying people for their time to do what we all benefit from. I would suggest that you make that standing committee voluntary in nature and include costs for travel.
Chairman Conklin:
Understood.
Assemblyman McCleary:
I like your suggestions, Mr. Chairman. I didn’t appreciate some of your comments, and we’ll discuss that later, but nevertheless, I was leaning the same way you were as far as letting that already-existing board take over the regulation of this. I agree with that.
Assemblyman Geddes:
I reluctantly go along with the wishes of the Committee and Mr. Carpenter, and I will support them.
Chairman Conklin:
So, if I could restate the thoughts of the Committee at this point, we are going to amend this bill to create this subcommittee under the Commission with authority to write regulations. One of the questions that we will need to clarify is whether it’s guides only or is it guides and outfitters or is it guides and outfitters where outfitters are defined as people who both guide and serve as outfitters, such as trout expeditions and what not, as opposed to nonconsumptive, nonenvironmentally consumptive, or wildlife-consumptive sports such as horseback riding, and rafting.
Assemblyman McCleary:
I think it should be inclusive, personally.
Chairman Conklin:
If it’s inclusive, then we’re going into uncharted territory. That’s not currently under the Commission’s authority.
Assemblyman McCleary:
If they don’t have the authority to do that, then it isn’t going to work.
Chairman Conklin:
All of the money that they currently raise is simply from the body that is currently being regulated by the Commissioner. I’m not saying one way or another; I’m just trying to make heads or tails of it.
Assemblyman McCleary:
I would prefer to see it inclusive, but if we can’t do it under the present structure, then . . .
Chairman Conklin:
Another thing, which I think somebody pointed out, the outfitters, who are nonwildlife consumptive, have zero representation here. They aren’t even aware of this bill.
Assemblyman McCleary:
What choice do we have?
Linda Eissmann, Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
I would have to look at the regulations.
Chairman Conklin:
My thought would be that we’d probably be better off to go without it for now. Then we could take a longer look at it or maybe we’ll have a chance in the actual Committee to amend it, if we find something out between now and then outside of our recommendations. So we are going to include the folks who are currently governed by statute under the Commission.
Is everyone satisfied with the fees that are set out? [Received approval.] So we agree to a subcommittee with regulation authority. We agree with the fees. Do you like the sunset provision?
Assemblyman McCleary:
I do because we can revisit it two years from now and decide whether or not this is working and if we need to change it. If we want and it is working, then all we have to do is just be able to continue.
Assemblyman Geddes:
I don’t like the idea of sunsetting. I think, with the statutes that we put forward, we always have the right to review and see if it’s working. If it’s not working, I guarantee you that, if it’s not working, the guides will be here next session. We can address it at that point.
Terry Crawforth:
We, as an agency, make about a half dozen reports to you at the start of every legislative session on the various programs that we have, and we would be glad to do that, if that helps.
Chairman Conklin:
Okay. Let me give Mr. Geddes my thought on the sunset. If we sunset this, the people who have what is ultimately a complaint or a grievance have a right to come in next time and say, “It’s not being resolved. Let this committee die, and let’s move forward with our own commission.” Does that make sense? If this body takes no action, we must take affirmative action to uphold this in the next legislature, and it’s merely there to make sure that everything that we’re asking of people is pursued to the best of everyone’s ability.
Assemblyman Geddes:
I just don’t think we need to go there. I think we had all the players at the table today. We’ve got people on the record; we got a big commitment from the Division to deal with this issue and to bring it back as a report next time. If we put this into place, we can always amend this bill, and I’m sure Mr. Carpenter will bring it forward, if no one else does.
Chairman Conklin:
How about a reporting requirement? We’ll write it right into the legislation to require them to come back in two years.
Terry Crawforth:
We already wrote it in statute that we will provide a report.
Bill Bradley:
You’re not addressing the funding issue. That’s fine, but somebody ought to be putting a pencil to paper and then do it in later committees.
Chairman Conklin:
The questions are: a) Do you already have funds? b) Will part of the current bill request an increase in fees? Correct?
Bill Bradley:
You’re not mistaken, but we’re decreasing the number of guides by one-third to one-half. You’re multiplying the same number towards their increased funding, and that’s inconsistent with what the guides are asking.
Chairman Conklin:
So, are you suggesting an increased fee beyond the current recommendation?
Bill Bradley:
I am suggesting, if you’re going to be consistent in this bill, that you ensure that the guides’ fees pay for this program, and we don’t use sportsmen’s dollars.
Chairman Conklin:
That’s perfectly legitimate. [The Chairman called Mr. Schwandt and Mr. Hornbarger to return to the table.] In an effort to get this clarified, there are a couple of things that you need to remember. I think this Subcommittee recognizes that it’s going to be impossible for us, at this juncture, to pull in folks who are not tied to wildlife. Those are going to be river rafters and people such as that, the sort of nonconsumptive folks. Given the fact that there will be a decrease if we truly regulate, some of the things that you are going to ask for will limit some of the folks who are coming from out-of-state, and rightfully so. What type of concession can you make in terms of fees to help alleviate this problem so that we can fund this program appropriately?
Todd Schwandt:
We polled ourselves here just moments ago. We will accept a $1,000 fee increase for a master guide license. That should take care of us for many years to fund this program and to get it going. The only concession that we have is we do not want to be a voluntary board because of the amount of time that is going to be required of us. We all live in rural Nevada. If we come down here to Reno, and we go to many workshops, I would like to see us have a per diem for traveling and making laws or making regulations to enhance the guide industry in Nevada. The $1,000 fee should cover that and help out with the Department that’s asking for $625. We’re saying, "Let’s put it at $1,000 and be done with it," to generate the funds needed so that we don’t come back here in a few years and say, “We still don’t have enough money.”
Chairman Conklin:
How many master guides are there?
Todd Schwandt:
There currently are 135 licensed master guides in the state. [Terry Crawforth nodded confirmation of the number.]
Bill Bradley:
How many have the permits that the guides feel they need to have to be authorized guides?
Mike Hornbarger:
I think saying it will decrease by 60 percent is very excessive. About 60 or 80 of these guides are fishing guides. This is not going to drop them out. I would expect to lose somewhere in the neighborhood of maybe 30 or so outfitters who are mostly big game outfitters in the north. I don’t have a problem with a $1,000 a license, and I don’t have a problem with a $1,000 background check when you apply for your license the first time. Our subguide licenses go to $100 for your assistant guides. There are somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 of those. That’s another $20,000. If that’s not enough, then in two years, let’s talk about it. We’re not trying to mooch off the sportsmen in any way.
Chairman Conklin:
I understand that. I know you people are willing to give on that side. We just want to make sure we have it covered. We also want to make sure that we don’t set the Commission up to fail because we didn’t give them what they needed. You have to understand, in return, that you’re always going to benefit from the Commission because the Commission can take advantage of the economies to scale as it relates to wardens and drafting of regulations because they don’t have just the outfitters. They have a variety of other things. It’s just creating a balance. Mr. Bradley raises an important point. We want to make sure that we cover it.
Todd Schwandt:
I have to ask Mr. Bradley that, if he feels a $1,000 license fee for a master guide and a $1,000 background check fee for first time applicants to cover investigations doesn’t cover it, the $625 currently proposed by the Department is not even going to come close.
Chairman Conklin:
Mr. Crawforth, can you make some dollars and cents of this for us, please?
Terry Crawforth:
A resident master guide license is currently $250 and a nonresident’s is $500. For the resident subguide license, it’s currently $75 and a nonresident’s is $150. The guides pay a $500 fee, nonrefundable, when they apply.
Chairman Conklin:
What percentage of these folks would not reapply–and given the guides are looking at this and they’re saying there are some folks who apply for a guide license who really do no guiding. They only do it in an attempt to get more chances at elk tags, deer tags, mountain lion, or whatever. What percentage of those folks would no longer be applying if we clamp down on them from a regulatory standpoint? Do you have any idea?
Terry Crawforth:
Our buyer resistance on new license fees usually runs about 7 percent. We start getting it back later on. In this particular case, I think the guides are right. It’s probably going to be in the neighborhood of 20 to 25 percent, at least initially.
Chairman Conklin:
So, maybe 30 out of that 135 don’t come back. We’re looking at a population of 100 to 105 folks. Is that correct?
Terry Crawforth:
That may be a little high at this point, because I think we have a fairly stable industry. Most of these people have been in business for a second and third generation. There are some new ones and some of them might drop out.
Bill Bradley:
Mr. Crawforth mentioned that there are people who are not in this room, and I believe the testimony was that a certain percentage of these guides are fishing guides on Lake Mead. I don’t know how they’ll respond to a $1,000 license. I hope they are willing to accept it. If not, we’ll hear from them once it’s over on the Senate side.
Mike Hornbarger:
We’re just trying to figure it out. We’re asked one minute if we’re willing to step up to the plate and fund it. If we say we are, now we’re being told thatwe will alienate people by trying to fund it. They are asking $625. Go to $750. I’m willing to pay whatever it takes.
Chairman Conklin:
We understand that. It’s just a matter of coming up with some consensus here on how we’ll fund this thing.
Terry Crawforth:
I would be glad to work with staff and the guides. There are several different types of licenses. When we have time we could sit down together and put some rhyme or reason to it based on the type of program that we want to have.
Chairman Conklin:
Could you put some numbers together for me and have it as soon as possible? The longer we wait on this, the tougher it becomes. We just don’t want to make an irrational decision. I assure you that this bill is going to move forward in some capacity. I would rather it move forward in the right capacity than something that was wrong for either party. [Mr. Crawforth agreed to provide statistical information.]
[Chairman Conklin continued.] It is incredibly important that everybody understands that this will not be perfect two years from now. But, in two years, Mr. Bradley, in the Commission, and Mr. Crawforth, in the Division, will have learned what’s ailing the guiding industry and maybe make it something better for all of us. Mr. Schwandt and Mr. Hornbarger and their group, will understand what it’s like to sit in your shoes and say, “Here’s why we can’t do what we always want to do or what’s right to do.” So this is going to be a learning process for everybody. I think it’s very important that you all recognize that.
Mr. Bradley, have we covered the funding point, at least to get it started? [Received confirmation.]
On our proposed bill here, we want to form a subcommittee under the Commission, with regulatory authority. Let’s go ahead and have – because I talked to Mr. Carpenter about this, Mr. Geddes, and I’m sorry, but I think the sunset is appropriate. He was here and he’s gone now, and he agreed to it, and if he changes his mind, we’ll let him do that in Committee, if that’s okay with you. We will approve recommendation of an increase in fees based on the information that Mr. Crawforth sets forth to us by tomorrow morning.
Linda Eissmann:
Are they serving voluntarily? Do they get per diem? Do they get a salary? They could get per diem and not a salary. Or, is it only traveling expenses?
Assemblyman McCleary:
I think there should be something.
Chairman Conklin:
Per diem?
Mr. Crawforth, just some instructions when you work up those numbers. We want to make a recommendation that there is a per diem for travel, not a salary, but a per diem for travel, and I think it’s important for everybody, including the outfitters, to recognize that this body serves voluntarily, that Mr. Geddes, Mr. McCleary and I get zero for serving in the second half of the entire legislative session. I think Mr. Bradley or Mr. MacKenzie could clarify that all the subcommittees serve on a voluntary basis as well, so we have to be very careful how we allocate funds. I understand that your days are limited, and that’s how you make your money. But it’s how all of us make our money and we’re giving to a public service, and I think it’s for the broader good of your industry to be there. Take that into consideration when you evaluate this particular amendment.
Do I hear a motion from the Subcommittee to make the recommendation to our Committee to amend and do pass as stated?
ASSEMBLYMAN GEDDES MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE, AND MINING TO AMEND AND DO PASS ASSEMBLY BILL 272.
ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Assemblyman Geddes:
Could I recommend that as soon as we get those financial numbers from Mr. Crawforth that we get them over to the Senate to go with the financing bill that they are looking at?
Chairman Conklin:
I think that’s a good idea. Do you know who is in charge of that bill? [Audience member indicated it was with the Senate Natural Resources, that it was S.B. 420, and that it was not set for a hearing yet.]
We will close the Subcommittee hearing of A.B. 272 [at 2:24 p.m.].
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Sharee Gebhardt
Transcribing Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Marcus Conklin, Chairman
DATE: