MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING Sixty-eighth Session February 27, 1995 The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was called to order at 1:15 p.m., on Monday, February 27, 1995, Chairman Marcia de Braga presiding in Room 321 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. John C. Carpenter, Chairman Mrs. Marcia de Braga, Chairman Mr. Max Bennett, Vice Chairman Mrs. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairman Mr. Douglas A. Bache Mr. Thomas A. Fettic Mr. David E. Humke Mr. P.M. Roy Neighbors Mr. Brian Sandoval Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: None GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: David S. Ziegler, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Ira Hansen; Rich Capurro; Donald L. Cavin, Nevada Department of Wildlife; Tom Bentz, Nevada AWWA; Ed Bruce, Wildlife Commission; John W. Riggs, Sr., Nevada State Rifle and Pistol Association; Joe Johnson, Coalition for Nevada Wildlife; Daryl Capurro; Terry Crawforth, Division of Wildlife; Al Boardman, Division of Wildlife; Patty Wagner, Division of Wildlife; Gerald Lent, Nevada Hunters Association; Spring Creek High School Honor Society Students. Chairman de Braga called the meeting to order and opened the meeting with a quorum. Two bills A.B. 155 and A.B. 156 will be heard today, commented Mrs. de Braga. She welcomed the Honor Society of Spring Creek High School. ASSEMBLY BILL 155 - Prohibits person who has received refund for hunting license from being denied bonus points for additional chances to obtain hunting tag. Mr. Brian Sandoval, Assemblyman Washoe County District 25, opened the hearing as the primary sponsor of A.B. 155. He introduced Floyd Arterburn, Sr. and Ira Hansen. Mr. Hansen testified as to the background of the bonus point program and Mr. Arterburn, Sr., testified as a sportsman in the state of Nevada. Mr. Sandoval addressed concerns outlined in (Exhibit C), correspondence sent to the Co-Chairs from Randy Capurro who has been the Chairman of the Advisory Board on Natural Resources. The primary concern of Mr. Capurro's was "the Legislature in the past has generally delegated the responsibility for the big game tag drawing procedure to the Board of Wildlife Commissioner's, so the Commission can administer this program through regulation." "The Commission held a number of public hearings regarding the bonus point program." Mr. Sandoval said he was not a proponent of micro managing some of the commissions in Nevada, but felt intervention was necessary. The first meeting on the bonus point program occurred in 1992. A notice was sent to the sportsmen and women of Nevada informing them the system for tag drawing would change. Mr. Sandoval could not find a description for forfeiture of bonus points if a refund of hunting license was asked for, and could not find testimony which addressed the refund concern. Meetings with sportsmen in Mr. Sandoval's district revealed the bonus points were being held hostage and sportsmen were being forced to purchase a hunting license in order to preserve their bonus points. Mr. Ira Hansen explained Nevada had a preferential system previous to the bonus system. He said on the preferential system if a tag was not drawn you could ask for a refund of the hunting license and still receive preferential status. In order to improve the Department of Wildlife's cash flow the department made it mandatory to purchase a hunting license prior to the application for a big game tag. When the bonus point system was instituted the sportsmen were penalized who requested a refund of their license. If a sportsman only hunts big game in Nevada and did not receive a tag, the hunting license must be preserved or bonus points would be removed. Mr. Hansen hunts other game so it did not apply to his status. It was unfair to force the sportsmen in effect to help finance the financial problems of the Department of Wildlife. Mr. Bennett asked if Mr. Hansen would give a brief overview of the bonus points. What were they for and how would they be awarded. Mr. Hansen felt there were members of the Department of Wildlife in attendance who could address the bonus points. He did say when one was unsuccessful in certain hunts a bonus point would be given for the following year. Bonus points can be accumulated and for each bonus point on record a hunter would have a better chance of drawing a tag. Mr. Sandoval clarified the bonus system to Mr. Bennett. Mr. Floyd Arterburn, Sr., explained he has a large family of children and grandchildren who apply as a party. If they do not receive a tag and ask for their money back on their license they lose their bonus point and a chance for a better draw the following year. Mr. Arterburn said it was not always the hunting but the chance for families to get out together and enjoy the woods and camping. Mrs. Segerblom asked how much a license cost. Mr. Sandoval said the cost was 20 dollars which could be quite an expense for a large family. She asked if it would increase the number of tags. Mr. Sandoval said no there was a fixed number of tags. In addition to the hunting license fee was there a big game tag fee, Mr. Neighbors inquired. Mr. Sandoval explained there was a hunting license fee and a tag fee. The tag fee would be refunded except for the portion which would be kept for administration of the program. Mr. Fettic said, he did not believe a license holder would lose any of his past bonus points, only the one during the year he asked for a refund. Mr. John Riggs, Sr., Nevada State Rifle and Pistol Association, felt the bill should be modified and a refund not given if the license has been used in any other game taking activity. A great deal of discussion took place regarding the use of a hunting license and asking for a refund of the license. Mr. Joe Johnson, Coalition for Wildlife, has conflicting views and the membership had not been canvased. He stated concerns but did not take a position for or against the bill. A fiscal note should be attached to the bill since this would affect the Department of Wildlife budget. Mr. Gerald Lent, President of Nevada Hunter's Association commented on the bill. He informed the committee he had been on the application hunt committee when the loss of bonus points discussion took place. The purpose was a revenue generating item for the Wildlife Department like the revenue application fee which was non-refundable. Mr. Lent explained he was opposed to the bonus point system from the start and had not felt it accomplished anything. The sportsmen Mr. Lent had talked to felt the five dollar application fee which was non- refundable was sufficient. The cost of the computer drawing was approximately 2 dollars and fifty cents. He talked of the accountability of the department to the sportsmen. His solution would be if the bill passed, the department could put a box on the application for those who wanted to donate their license fee. The Chairman called for those opposed to the bill to testify. Mr. Richard Capurro, a sportsman, representing many hunters testified from written testimony (Exhibit C), in opposition to A.B. 155. Chairman de Braga asked how A.B. 155 would destroy the bonus point system. Mr. Capurro said some residents were naive about how tags were applied for. Many families and groups apply for tags enmasse and hunt together with one person harvesting the animals. If bonus points were not given everyone would ask for their license fee to be returned. Those fees would be lost to the division for big game management. Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Capurro if the nonrefunded license fees were a revenue maker. Mr. Capurro felt the sportsmen of Nevada had an obligation to help manage big game. Mr. Terry Crawforth, Deputy Administrator for the Division of Wildlife, and the Chief of Administrative Services, Al Boardman, whose division manages the drawing process came forward to testify. Mr. Crawforth gave a brief history of how the process evolved to apply for big game tags. Prior to 1976 one could simply buy a hunting license and tag and go deer hunting. In the early `70's the population was increasing in Nevada and the deer population was decreasing, therefore something needed to be done. An application process was developed whereby it would be limited entry and one would only be able to hunt in certain units, not statewide. He noted several processes had taken place in the last twenty years. Currently a hunting license must be purchased and then application made for big game tag or tags. For residents the cost of a hunting license would be 20 dollars plus fifty cents sales commission and a deer tag would cost 20 dollars plus a five dollar nonrefundable application fee. The application period would be approximately the month of April with five weeks to apply. The draw was contracted to a private computer firm in Fallon and the results would be out in late spring. If one only hunted big game and wanted a refund on the hunting license, application must be made to the agency by the first of September to have the license fee refunded. Mr. Crawforth discussed the preferential drawing previous to the computer drawing in Fallon and the way the number of tags per species per hunt area take place. An application hunt committee was established six years ago which makes recommendations to the Wildlife Commission on the various application hunts. A survey was taken from applicants regarding a change in the preference system and bonus points was arrived at. He reiterated the process of bonus points and stated the system had been in effect for three years. Many western states do not give a refund on tags or license fees. Non-residents were now part of the system and could acquire bonus points. The committee recommended to the Wildlife Commission not to give bonus points to those who asked for a refund of license fee. Tag money would be returned if an applicant was unsuccessful. He agreed the money derived from license fees was a revenue generating regulation. Mr. Crawforth referred the committee to (Exhibit D). He noted if A.B. 155 was adopted there would be lost revenue to the agency. Mr. Carpenter questioned if nonresident hunters would receive a refund of their license if they applied. Mr. Crawforth said yes, but they would not receive a bonus point. Mr. Carpenter asked where the figure for refunds for nonresidents was on (Exhibit D). Chairman de Braga called for a one minute recess. The committee was called back to order by Chairman de Braga. Mr. Crawforth said the closest figure on the number of nonresidents who applied for big game tags and asked for their money back would be approximately 2000 hunters. This would amount to 200 thousand dollars lost to the Wildlife Division. Mrs. de Braga asked for clarification as to when an application needed to be made for return of the license fee. Mr. Crawforth noted the application for refund must be made by September 1st as this would be when most of the hunting seasons begin. After lengthy discussion with members of the committee, Mr. Crawforth was asked to bring figures back to the committee regarding nonresident refunds. Mr. Don Cavin, Vice Chairman, Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners, explained even though bonus points would not be given for a refund, everyone has at least one chance in the draw. No dollars were taken out of tag fees and retained by the division. He pointed out when the bonus point system was instituted over 60 plus thousand plus questionnaires to licensed sportsmen in the state agreed. He stated the preferential system had excluded the junior hunters as they were unable to gain preferential status. The preferential system only applied to deer hunting, no other big game hunts. Hunters wanted other big game hunts included in the system under a point system. Mr. Sandoval asked Mr. Cavin if any information was included in the questionnaire to hunters which was reflected in A.B.155. He said one question was to keep the preferential system currently in effect, number two was the luck of the draw, the third would be to eliminate the preferential and everyone draw on one system and lastly the bonus point system. The refunds were not addressed in the questionnaire but were addressed at various tag committee meetings and Board of Wildlife Commission meetings. Mr. Daryl Capurro, current member of the hunt application committee testified. He was a strong supporter of a bill in 1991 to privatize the tag application system. Hunters seem to be satisfied with the privatized draw system since the inception. Mr. Capurro had not drawn a tag in three years but he had not entertained turning in his license for a refund. He felt if a yes or no was on the hunt application for refund of license many more would be asking for their money to be returned. The impact on the Wildlife Division's budget would not be helped. Mr. Capurro also gave information to the committee regarding the bonus point system. In 1988 there were 56 thousand deer tags issued in Nevada, last year somewhere around 16 thousand tags were issued. The number of applicants have risen for deer tags to approximately 75 thousand applications. Mr. Capurro talked about applying for a deer tag and license in California. He said the license was eighty-four dollars and fifty cents for a nonresident and he also paid for the tag fee when he applied. A letter was received thanking him for applying, but sorry he was unsuccessful, however if a refund of the tag fee was wanted to please send a request to the enclosed address. In Nevada you automatically receive your tag money back. Mr. Capurro said, "if you are going to be a hunter in the state of Nevada, you have an obligation to support habitat and game management." His recommendation to the committee would be an amendment to not refund the license fee, a bonus point would be given and it could be used or not. Ms. Elsie Dupree, Nevada Wildlife Federation, would like a letter read into the records (Exhibit E), which stated the Wildlife Commission should be allowed to handle the problem. The Legislature should not handle all regulations in regard to hunting. Mr. Joe Arterburn, resident deer hunter, said in California if you were not drawn for an area requested, there were areas open where one could buy a tag and hunt on the California license. In Nevada every area was a draw zone and the hunting license could not be used in a different area for deer. The hearing was closed on A.B. 155. ASSEMBLY BILL 156 - Clarifies period during which certain replacement tags to hunt big game mammals are valid. Mr. Sandoval, Assemblyman, Washoe County District 25, was the prime sponsor of A.B. 156 as an attempt to clarify the definition of current hunting seasons. Mr. Joe Arterburn, resident hunter, had shot an antelope in 1993 which was diseased. The animal was taken to the Fish and Game Department where the animal was inspected and it was confirmed diseased and unfit for human consumption. He said he was supposed to be issued a new tag. The game warden had told Mr. Joe Arterburn they could not issue a tag for this season because by the time the department decided it was reasonable to give you a tag the season would be over. He asked if it would be possible to have a tag for the next season following. The warden said no, it was not for the same similar season, if you want a tag you will have to receive it next year. He was told he would receive a tag in the mail when tags were sent out the next year (1994). He did not receive a tag when they were sent out and was told he would have to fill out an application and pay the fee, which he had paid the year previous, buy another hunting license, and then he would receive his tag. Mr. Joe Arterburn received the tag in the mail two days before the opening of the season with improper postage. He was unable to use the tag because of the lateness of issuance he was unable to take off work. Mrs. de Braga asked if the tag was only good for the one year and could not be held over to another year. Mr. Joe Arterburn said only the one year. Mr. Humke asked if any of the information was in writing from the Department of Wildlife. An affidavit was given to him affirming the animal was diseased. Mr. Joe Arterburn took the animal to the Department of Wildlife on Saturday and the remaining week was left to hunt. Mr. Humke asked if the Department of Wildlife had said anything about the existence of the law. At the preseason orientation for antelope hunting, Fish and Game noted what to do if a diseased animal was taken. Mr. Carpenter said the statute reads the holder shall choose whether the replacement tag was to be issued for the current hunting season or the next similar season. He felt Mr. Joe Arterburn should have been given a tag for the current season. Mr. Carpenter asked who inspected the animal at the Wildlife Division. Mr. Joe Arterburn replied a gentleman by the name of Rob first inspected the animal. He said when "Rob" went in to check on the regulations regarding issuing a tag, the head game warden by the name of Atkinson came out to talk to him. He said he could not issue Mr. Joe Arterburn a tag. The warden said by the time they voted on giving him a tag it would be too late and the late season was not the same similar season. He would have to wait for the following year. Both wardens inspected the animal. Mr. Carpenter asked if they could have continued hunting the rest of the season. Mr. Joe Arterburn said yes. He had lost three days hunting bringing the animal to Reno as they could not find a game warden in the hunting area. Mr. Carpenter thought the law was quite specific and someone did not know how to interpret the law. Mr. Atkinson had told Mr. Joe Arterburn "the law never used to be this way, you were never able to receive a replacement tag in the past and told me if it was me you wouldn't get another tag period, because the law never used to read that way and I said I read the law now I can get a tag and he said you just have to wait." Mr. Carpenter asked if the law was in the material received from Wildlife. Mr. Joe Arterburn said yes, it was on the form with the regulations and that is why he brought the animal in. Mr. Fettic said, the law reads the holder shall choose whether a replacement tag would be issued for the current hunting season or the next similar season. Mr. Sandoval wants to change the wording to the entire portion of the season remaining. Mr. Sandoval agreed and said the law would not leave room for a subjective interpretation. Mr. Fettic thought the law was clear as written. Mr. Floyd Arterburn, Sr., gave testimony for his son Mr. Joe Arterburn. He was with Joe Arterburn when the antelope was killed. They drove 63 miles to Gerlach where six sheriff's deputies examined the animal and personally called the Department of Fish and Wildlife. No game warden would come out and they were told to take the animal back into Reno, Monday morning, and another tag would be issued then. He said Tom Atkinson refused to issue Joe Arterburn another tag. Mr. Floyd Arterburn ,Sr. referred to a letter he wrote to Governor Miller (Exhibit F). He quoted paragraph 7, Quote: Tom Atkinson said: "As far......... Chairman de Braga stated the provision had been put into statute last session with extensive testimony at the time. She said if she could remember correctly there was a choice of seasons to receive a new tag in. Mr. John Riggs, Sr., Nevada State Rifle and Pistol Association, supported A.B. 156. Mr. Joe Johnson, Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife, was concerned regarding the incident which gave rise to A.B. 156 and felt there should not be this type of discretion. He felt the bill did nothing more than enforce what had been put into legislation. Mr. Johnson felt legislative direction should be given to the Wildlife Department to be sensitive to the public and not legislate on the issue. Mr. Gerald Lent, Nevada Hunters Association, supported Mr. Joe Arterburn and A.B. 156. He felt the executive branch did not follow the legislative intent of the law. The individual was concerned with the definition of the "hunting season." In the area Mr. Joe Arterburn was hunting there was an early and a late season and the individual considered it all one hunt. Mr. Bennett asked Mr. Lent if the committee was looking at Legislation which may have an effect on a lawsuit. Mr. Lent answered possibly. Mr. Terry Crawforth, Deputy Administrator, Nevada Division of Wildlife, said he could speak in support of A.B. 156 or middle of the road. Mr. Crawforth gave his explanation of the situation. "Mr. Arterburn is correct, he came to our office on Monday morning following the opening weekend of the 1993 antelope season, he talked to one of our staff game wardens Rob Buonamici, who was unfamiliar with the regulations because the statute was new. There are not regulations adopted by the Commission, Rob checked on that, developed a process, at that time Mr. Arterburn was offered the option as Mr. Humke's delineated from the last session, either to get a tag right there on the spot for the remainder of that season which extended through the next Sunday or to get a tag next year. He told staff that he could not hunt that week because he had to work and chose to take the tag for the following season. That following Spring he acquired a hunting license, applied for deer tags, elk tags, he already had a hunting license, later on in the year our staff contacted him, tried to contact him on several occasions were finally successful said they needed an application in order to get the tag into the application and things into the process. He was not charged a five dollar application fee for that antelope tag and he was given an antelope tag for free for the 1994 season. That's what occurred concerning this, we've been through appeals to the Commission and I will be more than glad to provide you with a copy of the response from the Governor to Mr. Arterburn on the letter he provided you already (Exhibit G)." Mr. Sandoval asked Mr. Crawforth what his interpretation of "current hunting season is," from what I heard your interpretation would not include the late portion of the season. Mr. Crawforth said yes, "if that is the intent of this, we have regularly had seasons in some antelope units that were split seasons if you will, ten days here and ten days there, in the same unit. In this particular unit that is not very common, in fact we have not had the split seasons there recently and that is correct it wasn't the same season, so if he wanted to have the later season, and that's the intent here, that's fine." Mr. Sandoval asked if he would not object if the objection was to include the late portion of the season. "In reading A.B. 156 we did not see what it accomplished, but if that's what it is to accomplish, then we're certainly supportive of it. That's fine." Mrs. de Braga closed the hearing on A.B. 156. The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Pat Menath, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Chairman Assemblyman Marcia de Braga, Chairman Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining February 27, 1995 Page