MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING Sixty-eighth Session March 1, 1995 The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was called to order at 1:15 p.m., on Wednesday, March 1, 1995, Chairman Assemblyman Carpenter 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: Bill Gibson, Nevada Outfitter and Guide Association Paul Bottari, Nevada Outfitter and Guide Association Terry Crawforth, Division of Wildlife Elsie Dupree, Nevada Wildlife Federation Steve Wright, Nevada Outfitters Steve Wines, Nevada Outfitters Henry Krenka, Nevada Outfitters Virginia Wright Jim Curran, Division of Wildlife Larry Johnson, Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife Chairman Carpenter called the meeting of the Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining to order and the Secretary called the roll. The Chair asked for committee introduction of a Bill Draft Request relating to unfunded mandated landfills. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT TO INTRODUCE A B.D.R. RELATING TO UNFUNDED MANDATED LANDFILLS. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. The hearing was opened on A.B. 147. ASSEMBLY BILL 147 - Makes various changes to provisions governing license agents of division of wildlife of state department of conservation and natural resources. Terry Crawforth, Deputy Administrator, Nevada Division of Wildlife, stated A.B. 147 was a proposal from the Division of Wildlife attempting to improve the current license agent system. He gave a history and explanation of the bill (Exhibit C). Chairman Carpenter asked for questions on the Bill. Assemblyman Bennett, referring to the last line of the bill, asked why the effective date was March 1, 1996. Mr. Crawforth replied the license year was March 1 and they did not want to change fees in the middle of the license year. Assemblyman Segerblom asked if many agents had been lost due to the 50 cents, rather than a 1 dollar service fee. Mr. Crawforth responded there were some agents who had not found it worth their while to perform the task for the 50 cent service fee. He indicated the number of agents averaged 155 to 160 a year with a flux of about 20. There were some communities within the state with no license agents and the Division was working to address that situation. Assemblyman Sandoval asked for clarification regarding the agent posting bond. Mr. Crawforth replied the agents are bonded at this time. Mr. Sandoval queried how much bond was being sought. Mr. Crawforth said the bond was for 7000 dollars and the cost was 100 dollars to post it. Assemblyman Fettic asked what percentage of licenses were vended through the agents. Mr. Crawforth responded 90 percent. He indicated licenses were sold at the Division offices, particularly nonresident licenses through the big game tag drawing process which did not go to agents. Mr. Fettic asked why license sales were falling off. Mr. Crawforth explained whenever fees were raised there was about five percent buyer resistance, depending upon the license. He went on to say Nevada was not one of the states experiencing decline in license sales per se, although there had been some short term declines because of drought. Mr. Fettic did not see the point in going from 50 cents to 1 dollar for a license unless more agents would be procured. Mr. Crawforth explained the amount would not make a difference to a large license agent such as Raley's, however, it would be important to a smaller "Mom and Pop" establishment. He stated the smaller agents were being lost due to the fee. Mr. Fettic asked if the 50 cent raise would bring them back. Mr. Crawforth responded it would probably retain the existing agents. Mr. Carpenter asked for more questions on A.B. 147. There being none he asked for testimony in opposition to the bill. There was no opposition, therefore, he closed the hearing on A.B. 147. The Chair opened the hearing on A.B. 160. ASSEMBLY BILL 160 - Makes various changes to provisions governing issuance of restricted nonresident deer tags. The Chair called upon Terry Crawforth, Deputy Administrator, Nevada Division of Wildlife, who introduced Al Boardman, Chief of Administrative Services, Nevada Division of Wildlife. The bureau supervised by Mr. Boardman was in charge of administrative affairs, including license and tag sales. Mr. Crawforth explained A.B. 160 addressed the nonresident deer tag, specifically the one where a guide was required of the hunter. He explained during the last year a group, entitled "The Idea Team", had been developed within the agency. The function of this team was to look at new and innovative funding sources to streamline the agency processes relating to licenses, etc., and many legislative proposals from the Division this year were the brainchild of the team. "The Idea Team" had been out before the county wildlife advisory boards talking to hunting and fishing related groups. A.B. 160 came out of that activity and was endorsed by the Wildlife Commission. He provided the Committee with an outline of A.B. 160 (Exhibit D). He explained a controversy regarding the nonresident guided deer hunt. Although it was generally thought guides received tags, this was not the case. Tags were obtained by clients whose applications had to be signed by a Nevada-licensed guide. A guide was restricted to a certain number of licensed tagged clients. A client, who was part of a hunt unit and successful in the drawing, would pay a higher fee for the tag. If, on the other hand, the client was unsuccessful in that drawing he/she would have an opportunity to apply in the regular nonresident non-guided drawing at a lower fee. He called the Committee's attention to (Exhibit D) citing and discussing statistics, hypothetical quota calculations/comparisons and formulas. He stated 300 tags would make the process simpler for the Division and the guides. He noted Lines 14 and 15 in A.B. 160: "Any restricted nonresident deer tags which are not issued must be returned to the quota of rifle deer tags for nonresidents." Removal of those lines was being requested because the meaning was not clear. On Page 2 of the bill he explained the fee was being raised from 250 dollars to 500 dollars noting it was a money raising scheme by the Division. The last section, Page 2, Line 7, was a housekeeping procedural change and referred to what was returned to unsuccessful applicants. Mr. Crawforth stated he would answer any questions for the Committee. Assemblyman Neighbors asked if the Division received any allocated money from the general funds. Mr. Crawforth answered affirmatively stating they receive general fund money for their non-game programs and reimbursements for low cost licenses of approximately 400 thousand dollars. They also receive 200 thousand dollars per year for tourism. The Chair asked if restricted nonresident hunting licenses were purchased before entering the drawing. Mr. Crawforth indicated for that particular hunt a nonresident license and tag must be applied for at the same time. The nonresident license cost 100 dollars and 50 cents. There were no bonus points attached to this. Mr. Carpenter indicated a work session was scheduled for the following week on those bills to clear up misunderstanding on the hunting license fees. The Chair questioned if the funds raised, should this bill be passed, would be part of the Governor's budget. Mr. Crawforth answered affirmatively. The Chair asked if there were any more questions. There being none he asked if there was any more testimony in favor of A.B. 160. Elsie Dupree, representing the Nevada Wildlife Federation, stated the Federation fully supported the concept of A.B. 160. They felt it brought more nonresident hunters to Nevada to benefit the state (Exhibit E). Mr. Fettic asked Mr. Crawforth if the 250 dollar increase would go to the general fund. Mr. Crawforth stated all the hunting and fishing license fees went into the wildlife account. Assemblyman Humke asked if the Governor's budget was predicated upon the passage of this bill. Mr. Crawforth said the revenue from this bill would be in the executive budget in the wildlife account. Mr. Humke surmised should this bill not be passed, the Ways and Means Committee would be responsible for generating another 87 thousand 500 dollars. Mr. Crawforth answered affirmatively. Mr. Humke asked how nonresident tags were allocated. Mr. Crawforth responded the tags were allocated by drawing. Mr. Humke asked if all the tags were bought. Mr. Crawforth answered all nonresident tags were sold every year and the number of applicants outweighed the number of tags available. He referred to (Exhibit D) to further his point. Mr. Humke queried if all the guided hunt tags were sold every year. Mr. Crawforth explained no more than 25 percent of tags for the guided hunt may be for any one particular hunt unit because each tag is for a specific unit. No guide was allowed more than 30, therefore, that percentage plus the 25 percent maximum in any one unit restricted them and explained why 250 were not sold, only 212. One guide may have many clients applying but when the number reaches 30 the remainder of the applications would be unable to get tags. Mr. Neighbors inquired since the Division of Wildlife is an account within the fund, were any revenues rolled over at the end of each budget year. Mr. Crawforth stated there is a wildlife account that is rolled over. The general fund money received, if not spent, is returned to the general fund. The Chair asked if there might be any easing of restrictions to allow 300 tags to be sold. Mr. Crawforth explained this depended upon a myriad of conditions, such as individual guides, their locations, when they reach their quota of 30, and the 25 percent restricted in each unit. Mr. Carpenter stated in order to get more tags sold the policy would have to be changed. He asked if the 30 tags per guide was in legislation or regulation. Mr. Crawforth replied it was in commission regulation and could be changed. The Chair asked if there was any more testimony in favor of A.B. 160. There being none he recognized a number of individuals from the Nevada Outfitters and Guides Association who were opposed to A.B. 160 as written. They submitted a proposed amendment to A.B. 160 (Exhibit F). Mr. Carpenter summarized the proposed amendment and introduced the spokesmen, Mr. Paul Bottari from Wells, Nevada, Secretary/Treasurer of the Nevada Outfitter and Guide Association; and Mr. Bill Gibson from Elko Guide Service, a member of the Nevada Outfitter and Guide Association. Mr. Bottari explained why legislation for a nonresident guided tag was originally created. He stated A.B. 460, in 1989 or 1990, was adopted to stabilize the Nevada guide industry. It was not a revenue generating bill although increased fees were agreed upon. The guide industry in Nevada is in competition with other states, such as Montana, Colorado, Idaho and Wyoming, who were all vying for nonresident hunters. Montana and Idaho actually set aside tags for guides. Fifty percent of the mule deer tags in Montana were available through guides; in Idaho it was 16 percent. He asserted his association supports a viable deer herd and a quality hunt but, on the other hand, they needed something to help stabilize their industry and compete with other states. Obviously this was a revenue generating bill and their amendment proposed additional revenue for the Department and would make it more workable for the Outfitter and Guide Association. Mr. Bottari called attention to Line 9 of A.B. 160, which states: "9 percent of the deer tags issued to nonresidents during the previous year or 250 tags, whichever is greater." He said his association prefers to leave a percentage because when the deer herd builds up again they would like to have the opportunity to take more nonresident guided hunters out. They began at 16 percent because it matched that of Idaho, but when the 16 percent was applied to the figures Mr. Crawforth gave earlier; for example, in 1995, 16 percent would have been 206 tags which is less than the 250 with which they were starting. On a higher year, backing up to 1986, rounding off to 3,000 at 16 percent would give 480 tags. While the deer herds were increasing they wanted to get more guided hunters, that was why they encouraged the percentage, and why they were encouraging the percentage be changed to 16 percent. Regarding the 300 tags, in 1974 there were 526 applicants. The reason only 212 were issued was primarily, if not entirely, because of the 25 percent per unit cap. They were also proposing to change that per unit cap to 50 percent. Many of the units may only have ten nonresident tags, 25 percent is two and one-half nonresident guided tags. Two and one-half is not feasible, therefore, there were only two. There may be three clients in a group. Many clients enjoy hunting together and put in as a group, therefore, there may be three or four. If there are only ten tags in that unit for nonresidents and there was a group of three, the guide's application is rejected because there were only two tags available. Therefore, there were many rejections and he was uncertain as to how many, but it was probably the majority of the difference between 212 and 526. The quota needed to be increased if the increase in tags would be able to work. They used 375 for an increase in tags because that is the number they feel could reasonably be handled with the existing system. This would allow them another 125 tags and give the Department of Wildlife initially 7500 dollars additional in revenues and they could get added matching funds. In addition, the average hunter spends about 2500 dollars over and above the tag fees paid to the Department. This would cause another 300 thousand dollars to be added to the economy of Nevada. He indicated many Association members wished to go to 500 tags, the number applied for each year. However, realistically they can support 375 tags and fill that number on an annual basis if some of the changes are made, such as the cap per unit. Assemblyman Humke called attention to Line 9 of the amendment and asked clarification of percentage or a maximum number. Mr. Bottari answered whatever was greater just as the law initially stated. Mr. Humke then further stated the brackets would be removed and changed the 9 to 16 and the 250 to 375. Mr. Bill Gibson, Outfitters and Guides Association, stated the two user groups not contacted by the Wildlife Department "Idea Team" were the very groups that needed to be contacted the most. They were the Guide Association and the nonresident guided hunters who would be affected by the proposals. Last session they wanted to get a workable bill and program which was their motivation on this day. He expressed discomfort having the "Idea Team" double the price of fees paid by clients. Clients with which he had discussed it were "flabbergasted" anyone would propose doubling their fees when everyone howled in protest when fees were raised 1 dollar or 5 dollars! He did not see how, in good conscience, they could recommend a doubling of the fee from 250 dollars to 500 dollars without consulting the people most affected. He gave some background, as part of the initial bill it was agreed to increase the personal guide licenses they were charged by the state. That fee was doubled from 125 dollars to 250 dollars as part of their licensing fee on an annual basis. They agreed to an insurance requirement, first aid training for all guides and a guide board was established to provide input to the Commission, the legislators and the Department. In the meantime, the guide board had been disbanded at the direction of the department and commissions and during consolidation the board was taken away, as well as their ability to provide input to those agencies. They still had all the requirements and restrictions but no means of input. That was part of the reason the "Idea Team" was able to get unanimous declarations of support. They had no means to tell them, "This isn't going to work very well, folks". He was not sure if the guide board needed to be reestablished. He did feel, however, that they did need to have representation before someone arbitrarily came in and doubled the price of the entry fee. Assemblyman Segerblom asked if they had a representative on the "Idea Team". Mr. Gibson answered no, adding if there were a member on the "Idea Team" the amendment would not have been brought to the Committee in the form in which it was introduced. He asserted it needed to be amended and reworked. Mr. Sandoval inquired if Mr. Gibson had any idea what this amendment would do to his client base. Mr. Gibson affirmed it would put his client base out of business. He said his clients would not pay 500 dollars and would go to Colorado or Montana. He stated in 1994 he had 18 clients in the drawing, 212 tags were issued although 250 were supposed to be issued, therefore, about 30 or 40 individuals were unable to hunt. He had 18 clients in the drawing and drew eight so ten of his clients were unable to hunt. Why not? It was because formulas needed to be reworked. Assemblyman Bennett asked Mr. Crawforth how this amendment would affect resident hunters and their chances for the draw. Mr. Crawforth responded the tags were only taken from the nonresident core and did not effect the resident core. Mr. Gibson summarized by stating it was suggested in the last legislative session 250 tags was not a large enough number to start with and 500 or 750 were suggested by some of the Assemblymen and Senators. At that time a moderate approach was taken and it was decided to try 250 tags. There was appetite at the time to increase the number of tags in the program. If there was still an appetite at this time a reasonable alternative was being offered. Mr. Bottari added that the Nevada Outfitter and Guide Association did not support the fee increase of 250 dollars to 500 dollars. He stated in Montana the fee was 500 dollars, which included license and tag. In addition, hunting of multiple species, such as elk, white tail deer, mule deer, bear and upland game were all allowed. The 250 dollar increase, in addition to the guide fees, the existing license and the 2500 dollars extra spent in Nevada, eliminates the working customer. The hunters who come to Nevada on a regular basis will go elsewhere for the same amount of money. Assemblyman de Braga asked Mr. Bottari if in previous years the formula used was the percentage or 250 tags, whichever was greater, and they only issued 218 tags. What would be the result should the number be changed to 375. If they were not held to that number, how would they be held to a greater number? Mr. Bottari responded the amendment recommended on the cap per unit, presently at 25 percent, to be increased to 50 percent would make the difference. If that did not make the difference they could go to the Commission and attempt to raise it to 30 clients per guide without having to go to the Legislature. The cap from 25 to 50 percent would help immensely. Mr. Humke sought to clarify if Mr. Gibson had agreed to double the price of the guide license. Mr. Gibson stated it was the license fee they paid in order to be licensed guides which was the original agreement they made with the Fish and Game Department. Mr. Humke asked if there was another form of guide license. Mr. Gibson answered there were a host of permits involved, both federal and state, depending upon where one operated: Forest Service permits, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) permits, National Wildlife Refuge permits, etc. Mr. Humke asked what would be the average size of a group of hunters in a guided hunt. Mr. Gibson replied it varied by operator, but most of the group sizes ran about two to eight, depending upon the guide's operating procedure. Some of the guides ran a camp type set up and there might be as many as 20 individuals in a camp. Hunting groups generally tended to stay together, however, there might be multiple groups in a camp at the same time. Mr. Humke queried if there was an outfitter fee as well as a guide fee. Mr. Bottari answered, in addition to the tag and license purchased from the state of Nevada, there was a guided hunt fee which included room and board, food, horses, equipment, etc. The average fee for a four or five day mule deer hunt was about 1500 dollars per person. Mr. Humke asked what was the average length of time spent. Mr. Bottari acknowledged, in his operation, it would be ten days. Mr. Humke asked if there was differential pricing, one price if successful, another if not. Mr. Bottari answered it was up to each individual but generally in mule deer hunting it wasn't the case. A ten day sheep hunt, which cost 3500 dollars or so, might have a trophy fee, however, that was not common in the mule deer business. Mr. Humke remarked for mule deer you would pay the price and roll the dice. Mr. Bottari answered the same efforts were expended if a two-point or a four-point were being hunted and some individuals would drag it out over five days enjoying the camp life. Realistically there were no guarantees they would get a 30- inch buck. Those fees were more common for elk or big horn sheep. Mr. Humke asked what was the success rate in guided hunts. Mr. Bottari replied it varied considerably. In the last few years he had 100 percent success and others at 50 percent success, depending upon the clients. In most cases the average was about 70 percent. Mr. Humke asked if it was standard to have repeat clients. Mr. Bottari answered it was and, for this reason, it was important to achieve stabilization within the industry. Mr. Gibson pointed out on Mr. Crawforth's (Exhibit D) where it was stated the 300 quota would benefit both master guides and nonresident applicants. He asserted the 300 quota would benefit no one unless numbers were juggled. Three hundred would not be hit in the quota unless the percentages were changed. He stressed they needed to be changed. Based upon the number of applicants, by year, from 1990 through 1994, it appeared that 500 might be a number to shoot for. He said he could live with the number of 375, as represented by Mr. Bottari, but there was no sense sending people away unhappy. If we were going to have 500, plus or minus, applicants, let's take care of them! Mrs. Segerblom clarified Mr. Bottari's earlier statement that other hunts existed other than deer hunting. He reiterated the guides hunt multiple species. Mrs. Segerblom asked if this included fish. He answered there were no fishing guides in his association. Mr. Fettic asked Mr. Crawforth if any type of analysis had been done to ascertain the impact of doubling the fee, specifically upon those individuals applying for licenses. He maintained if it were to be doubled from 250 to 500 and only half the hunters applied, they would break even. If only 100 hunters returned, money would be lost. Mr. Crawforth indicated it was not an analysis per se, but a cursory study. He explained their thoughts were if they increased the number of tags available, cleaned up the formula and made changes in some of the rules, they would be able to sell all the tags. He stated the price of a guided hunt had gone up and they were looking for a cut of the action. Mr. Fettic suggested they may be pricing themselves out of business. He asked, in order to get a nonresident license and tag must there be a guide. Mr. Crawforth answered no, only for that hunt. Mr. Fettic queried, what hunt. Mr. Crawforth explained the nonresident restricted deer hunt was the guided hunt and required a guide. There was also a regular nonresident deer hunt. When the drawing was completed, if there were 250 tags drawn and 2000 were issued, the remainder would go into the regular drawing. The individuals who hunt with a guide are in the same units and hunt in the same seasons as everyone else. Mr. Fettic asked what was the fee on the other hunt. Mr. Crawforth replied the license price was the same and the tag was 150 dollars. A raise in price was not being recommended. Assemblyman Bache indicated he had a series of questions based upon the proposed amendments. He asked what was of more importance, the number of tags issued or the amount of money the Department would receive. Mr. Crawforth answered he was a bureaucrat and, of course, the money was more important. Mr. Bache indicated if the answer had been different he would be very suspicious! Mr. Crawforth explained the "Idea Team" were in-house department employees, not private citizens. He explained the drawing needed to be held early so clients would know if they wanted to come to Nevada or another state. Mr. Bache asked if he had a problem going from 25 to 50 percent. Mr. Crawforth replied no. Mr. Bennett expressed admiration at Mr. Crawforth's candor in stating he was a bureaucrat. He asked if the total number of tags, resident, nonresident and nonresident restricted, were based upon one presiding factor, that being the deer population for any given year. Mr. Crawforth said that was correct. Mr. Bennett queried if by increasing the nonresident restricted tags there was no other way they could get this unless they lower the resident or nonresident tags from the others for any given year. Mr. Crawforth stated if there were 2,000 nonresident tags it would not affect the resident tags. For example, if they had 2,000 nonresident tags in a year and they issued 250 to the guided, there would be 1750 remaining for the regular nonresident tags. Mr. Bennett asked if first priority of the number of tags issued for any given hunting year went to the residents of Nevada. Mr. Crawforth answered no. He explained they figured the available deer to the harvest each year after the fall and spring surveys and, based upon a demand success formula and percentages, they issued a percentage of nonresident tags in each unit. Therefore, there was a finite amount of the available buck harvest. There could be 200 bucks available in a unit, they figured about 50 percent success which would mean 400 tags. These would be spread out among the various hunts, whether they be resident rifle, resident archery, resident muzzle loader, nonresident, or nonresident guided. Everyone would get a piece of the action. Ninety percent of the tags go to residents. Mr. Bennett declared more money was generated from the nonresidents. Mr. Crawforth said yes, per tag. Mr. Fettic clarified there were nonresidents who were not required to have a guide; and nonresidents who would like to have a guide. There was one fee for the nonresidents who were not required to have a guide and a different fee for those who wanted a guide. He questioned why the "Idea Team" had not included the guides in their discussions and deliberations regarding increasing fees. He asserted their livelihood was being affected because nonresidents would elect to hunt without a guide rather than pay the higher fee. He pointed out it was unfair they had not had input into this matter. Mr. Crawforth agreed wholeheartedly with Mr. Fettic's observation. He responded the statement made that the Department of Wildlife and the Wildlife Commission had abolished the guides advisory board was incorrect. He said they had absolutely nothing to do with it, it was done as part of the Governor's reorganization plan and they were not consulted about it one way or the other. The guide's association was contacted and a number of guides heard the proposals when they attended the Wildlife Advisory Board meetings. Some of those individuals were in the room presently who heard the information from the beginning. He indicated the President and some board members of the association had been contacted. The "Idea Team" had talked to over 2,000 individuals and almost 100 different organizations over a six month period. He indicated he had discussion with Mr. Gibson some time ago. He said they attempted to reach every segment involved, fisherman, hunters, guides, whoever it might be. Chairman Carpenter inquired if there were any other members of the guide association wishing to testify. Mr. Steve Wright from Secret Pass Outfitters in Ruby Valley and Steve Wines, Nevada Outfitters, introduced themselves to the Committee. Mr. Wright addressed the statement made by Mr. Crawforth regarding notification of the amendment. He had spoken with Mr. Bottari, the Secretary of the Nevada Outfitters and Guides Association, whose responsibility it was to send letters to the guides, numbering about 80 in the state. Mr. Bottari stated he had not received notification in order to alert the guides. Mr. Wright, personally, had not heard anything about it until after the bill was drafted. He stated he had been in the guide business for 37 years in the same area. He said 37 years ago there was not a draw system and he has watched the mechanics of this matter up to the present time. The guide business was at its lowest just before the guide tag allocation. He watched guides disappear in the state of Nevada one-by-one. With this bill in place to protect them and stabilize their business, new guides were coming in and older ones were returning. He didn't wish to elaborate on percentages but to concentrate on the 500 dollar fee and, he asserted, it was outrageous! He contacted the clients who signed up this year and asked them what they would do if they had to pay 500 dollars. The answer was, "I'd go to Idaho! I'd go to Montana! I'd go to other states!" He said if the 500 dollar fee passed he would be right back where he started 37 years ago. Mr. Steve Wines expressed his concern regarding the return of repeat customers. He said if tags were taken out of the quota for the out-of-state hunters they would have a better chance of drawing a tag through the outfitter. If they liked hunting with a specific guide they would put in through his/her master guide license in order to return and hunt with him/her. This helped stabilize the business and ensured the same customers year-after-year. The hunter's chances were better through the guided hunt than alone. They paid a 10 dollar application fee and if they did not draw a tag the fee was not returned. They could then put back in for the general nonresident tags and should they not be successful the application fee would not be returned. Therefore, reapplication would bring in more money. The Chair recognized Mr. Ron Biggs from Fallon, Nevada, who indicated he guided hunters in the western part of the state where quotas were limited. He stated if quotas were raised from 25 to 50 percent they would incur more revenue. He also said he was on the County Advisory Board for 15 years and never missed a meeting. The "Idea Team" did come to the advisory meeting and presented the proposals, however, they did not send notification to the outfitters that those proposals would be addressed. He told his advisory board it would stir up a can of worms if it were to be presented. Normally county residents, who are not concerned about outfitters, are present at the meetings. Therefore, when the proposal was presented to them it was pushed through quickly in order to get it into the legislature by a certain time without outfitter's input. The Chair asked for questions. Mr. Gibson, in response to Mr. Bennett's remarks, stated whether or not the Committee "canned" A.B. 160 in its entirety, amended it, or listened to their recommendations for amendment, by and large resident hunters would not be affected one way or the other. In 1990 his fees for a week long guided hunt were 1500 dollars. Currently his fees have been 1750 dollars, an increase of 250 dollars in five years. An increase from 250 dollars to 500 dollars on the part of the Wildlife Department was absolutely unconscionable, however, he stated he could be in the minority. Mr. Mollini, in a presentation to the wildlife Commissioners recommended disillusion of the guides board to the Governor's office. The board was the guides' one means of getting to the Commission and being heard. He did not realize this would become an issue at this hearing or he would have brought a copy of his notes. Terry Crawforth's assertion the Department of Wildlife had nothing to do with the disillusion of the guide board was not accurate. The Chair asked if anyone else wished to speak for or against A.B. 160. Larry Johnson, President of Nevada Big Horns Unlimited and Chairman for Coalition of Nevada's Wildlife, indicated he was there to give a view of the resident hunter. He agreed with Mr. Gibson the resident hunter was largely unaffected by the proposal. He said it had been watched since its inception. He recognized the bill was a subsidy of the guide industry and had no problem with it. He indicated the Nevada guides were great supporters of Nevada wildlife, large contributors to various wildlife organizations around the state and his organization enlisted their help continually. A few statements made during the hearing needed clarification. The Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife was comprised of 24 conservation groups around the state, such as Nevada Big Horns, Nevada Wildlife Federation, Ducks Unlimited. They represented big game, small game, upland game, water fowl, fisheries; a little bit of everything. He felt interested parties had ample opportunity to review the proposals. There were many public hearings held around the state. His organization kept their groups apprised by private correspondence. They did not act one way or the other in so far as the proposal for increase of guide fees and reserve guide tags because it didn't affect them. They suggested their own license fees be increased. They were essentially in the business of supporting wildlife and willing to tax themselves in order to do so. They were very proud of their accomplishments. In fairness to the guides they suggested increases of their own fees of something like 20 percent, not 100 percent. He was apologetic to the group they didn't call it to their attention. He asserted a 100 percent increase was a pretty healthy increase! Was an increase due? He stated an increase was due for everybody. Was 100 percent increase due? Probably not! Should the number of tags allotted be raised? To support the group he would probably say yes. Should the percentage of tags for nonresidents be raised to 50 percent? That, again, was questionable. He gave a couple of pros and cons. Mr. Biggs, a staunch supporter, stated the percentage should be raised to 50 percent. In the western areas, where allocations were very small, the allowable percentage of restricted guide tags makes it much more difficult for the normal nonresident to ever draw a tag. Many of them had nonresident friends who liked to hunt in Nevada whose odds were already diminished from what the guide tags were already. What made the guide tags so valuable was the odds of drawing a nonresident tag were much greater if they were a guide tag than in the general nonresident drawing. Again, that was what made them so attractive and his organization supported it. It supported their local industry and they, in turn, supported wildlife. The 50 percent allocation in some of the smaller areas probably made it unfair to the general nonresident public. In general he didn't have a specific proposal for what fees should be raised to. He acknowledged this was a revenue generating bill. They recognized that all the "Idea Team" proposals were set about to raise more money for wildlife and, in concept, they supported it wholeheartedly. Mr. Bottari clarified the fact the guide group was aware the "Idea Team" had proposed to increase their tag fee to 500 dollars. It was also a fact they had no opportunity to contribute their thoughts to the "Idea Team's" recommendations before they reached the Commission and hearings in the separate boards. They had given their input to the Commission and to the Wildlife County boards explaining the effect the proposal would have upon them, but apparently it had reached deaf ears. He asserted input had more effect when it was given at the site of the initial proposal. The state guides advisory board once had input, which they no longer had. The Chair closed testimony on A.B. 160. The Committee took a short break in preparation for A.B. 161 at which time Assemblyman Bennett would chair the hearing. Chairman Bennett called the meeting to order and the hearing was opened on A.B. 161. ASSEMBLY BILL 161- Authorizes person to fish using second combination of hook, line and rod under certain circumstances. Chairman Bennett opened the session of Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining to consider A.B. 161. He called upon those individuals who were for the bill to come forward and testify. Ms. Elsie Dupree, representing the Nevada Wildlife Federation, indicated they fully supported A.B. 161 (Exhibit G). She expressed It would bring more money into the Division of Wildlife and would not affect the bag limits for fish. They believed Nevada needed to follow the lead of other neighboring states which allowed second fishing poles. Jim Curran, Chief of Fisheries Bureau for the Division of Nevada Wildlife, spoke in support of A.B. 161 and proceeded to explain the Division's rationale for development of the proposal. The purpose of the bill was to authorize anglers, if they wish, to purchase a stamp or permit which would allow them to fish the waters of Nevada with a second combination of rod and reel. It would be a voluntary option allowing fishermen to expand their fishing opportunity and, hopefully, their catch. The harvest rate of all fishable waters in the state were managed by establishing daily and possession limits which maintain the fish populations in a healthy condition. The trout stocking allocation program in each water is based upon fishing pressure and the limits established every two years by the board of wildlife commissioners. In many waters throughout the state the allowable harvest of fish is much above what is being taken by the angler, primarily because of tackle restrictions. Waters such as Lake Mead, Lake Mojave, Lake Tahoe, Wildhorse Reservoir, Lahonton Reservoir and Walker Lake are just a few examples where the anglers would be able to benefit from the statute change. The proposal had been reviewed several times at each of the 17 wildlife county advisory board meetings over the last several years, as well as several wildlife commission meetings, and had received favorable acceptance from sportsmen. During 1993 the Arizona Department of Game and Fish enacted a similar regulation. At the present time nearly 50 percent of the Arizona fishermen were using this option. Effective January 1, 1995 California fishermen also now have an opportunity to purchase a stamp which would allow them to use two rods on their lakes and reservoirs. Reports from California so far indicated this new law was very popular. Lake Mead and Lake Mojave are both in Arizona and Nevada and Lake Tahoe and Topaz Reservoir are both in Nevada and California. Nevada licensed anglers were at a disadvantage while fishing the Nevada portion of those waters. This had also been a problem from a law enforcement standpoint in attempting to determine an imaginary state line running through those lakes. Last year in Nevada approximately 130,000 fishing licenses were sold and it was assumed the first several years, if this bill was enacted, approximately 25 percent of the licensed anglers would opt for the option of purchasing a second rod stamp. This would generate approximately 325 thousand dollars which was the figure utilized in developing the 1996-97 biannual budget. In summary, the Division of Wildlife felt this was a biologically sound change in regulation which would allow Nevada anglers the opportunity to expand their fishing opportunity and enjoyment of the sport of fishing. Assemblyman Fettic asserted it was a good bill. Assemblyman Neighbors queried Line 5, on the wording "closely attended", wondering if it would be acceptable should an angler have a line out bait fishing and a second line trolling ten or 15 feet away. Mr. Curran stated the term "closely attended" had been in the regulations going back into the 1940's and before. It was an arbitrary determination by the wardens, however, in his 29 years of wildlife enforcement and working with wardens he asserted as long as an individual was in proximity of access to the rods, whether it be 100 yards or ten yards, that would mean "closely attended." It was intended originally to prevent set lining overnight. There being no other questions the Chair asked if there were any more testimony for A.B. 161. Larry Johnson, Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife, stated the "Idea Team" presented the proposal to them on two occasions last summer. They polled their member groups and received overwhelming support. This would legalize what many individuals already do and, as he stated previously, they recognize it as a revenue generating measure and they supported it. Assemblyman Segerblom stated she was in District 22, which included Lakes Mead and Mojave, and declared she had many calls from individuals asking where was the center of the lake. They would have two fishing poles and discovered they were in Nevada's side rather than Arizona. They had an Arizona fishing license and a stamp from Nevada. Many individuals would get an Arizona license so they could use two poles. She insisted she had never been caught doing this, of course! She was so enthusiastic about the bill she offered to introduce it. Therefore, she was letting them carry it, but she was seconding it! The Chair requested testimony in favor of A.B. 161. There being none he asked for testimony in opposition. There being none the hearing on A.B. 161 was closed. The gavel was returned to Assemblyman Carpenter who resumed chairing the hearing. He called for a motion on A.B. 161. ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 161. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. Assemblyman Fettic expressed he would like to see this bill go into effect earlier than March 1, 1996. The Chair suggested he mention it in the Senate and it could be amended when heard in that Chamber. The Chair called for a motion on A.B. 160. ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS. The amendment would be along the lines of the guides association changes: eliminating the brackets around the percentage or the greater of the number of tags and changing the percentage to 16 and the number of possible tags from the existing 250 to 400; changing the 25 percent in line 12 to 50 percent; and changing the application tag fee from 250 dollars to 300 dollars on lines 1 and 2 of page 2. The Chair outlined the amendments made by Mr. Humke and asked for discussion on same. Mr. Bache expressed concern the 300 dollars with 400 tags would reduce the amount of money for the Wildlife Division which would have a fiscal impact on the budget, therefore the bill would be required to go to Ways and Means Committee. He had been juggling numbers to keep it revenue neutral as far as the Division was concerned in order for it not to go to Ways and Means. Mr. Humke stated the bill as drafted violated the law of supply and demand and he expressed it was poor policy that the executive budget was predicated upon the contents of this bill. He didn't think it made much difference and didn't mind it going to Ways and Means. Assemblyman de Braga questioned on Line 9, if it went to 400 or 500 tags making it revenue neutral, would the percentage still be needed. Mr. Carpenter commented the percentage would be needed in order to make it possible for that number of tags to be sold. Mr. Bennett agreed with most of Mr. Humke's suggestions, however, he felt the tag fee should remain at 250 dollars. Comparing that with the regular 100 dollar fee for a nonresident, he felt any help they could give the guides would continue their free enterprise and business. ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED. (ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT VOTED NO). The Chair asked for a motion on A.B. 147. ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 147. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. The Chair assigned A.B. 161 to Assemblyman Segerblom with backup to anyone wishing to speak; A.B. 160 to Assemblyman Humke; and A.B. 147 to Assemblyman Bache. There being no further business to be addressed, Chairman Carpenter adjourned the meeting at 3:30 p.m. ___________________________ Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Chairman Assemblyman Marcia de Braga, Chairman Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining March 1, 1995 Page