MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING Sixty-eighth Session March 13, 1995 The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was called to order at 1:15 p.m., on Monday, March 13, 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 GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Willie Molini, Nevada Division of Wildlife; Elsie Dupree, Nevada Wildlife Federation; Nancy Sweetland, Carson City Advisory Board; Terry Crawforth, Nevada Division of Wildlife; Larry Johnson, Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife; Gerald Lent, Nevada Hunters Association; Bill Frade, Board of Wildlife Commissioners; Joe Johnson, Coalition for Nevada' Wildlife. The meeting was opened by Chairman de Braga and roll call was taken. ASSEMBLY BILL 212 - Makes various changes to provisions governing hunting and fishing licenses. Mr. Willie Molini, Administrator, Department of Wildlife, and Mr. Terry Crawforth, Deputy Administrator, Department of Wildlife, presented A.B. 212 to the committee. Mr. Molini gave a brief background of the rationale for drafting A.B. 212. He stated a year ago the department had monitored their revenue and expenditures and recognized the tight budget situation they had been concerned with for three or four years. Projections were made when looking at the upcoming biennial period. If the revenue did not change and current programs were kept the same, the department could end with a fairly significant revenue shortfall. Mr. Molini said three meetings had occurred with the commission and the public, going through the budget with revenues and expenditures. The commission was concerned with the ability to fund the agency and yet concerned with raising license fees. Mr. Molini appointed a group of employees within the agency who represented all of the program areas and were field level employees, regional, state office staff and from all areas of the state to form a team to come up with ideas to raise revenue. The two charges given to the committee were to totally evaluate the fee system for additional revenue, and to find innovative ways to raise revenue without going to straight fee increases on hunting and fishing licenses. Mr. Crawforth over sighted the committee which met several times and came up with substantial recommendations. The group which was known as the "Idea Team" sent their recommendations to every county wildlife advisory board, to all the sportsmen and conservation organizations on record and met with the advisory boards and others who asked to hear their proposals. They went to the commission and public four times regarding their recommendations. The Board of Commissioners accepted some of the recommendations unchanged and amended others. Mr. Molini said those recommendations were ultimately reflected in the increases shown in A.B. 212. Chairman de Braga asked what had caused the shortfall. Mr. Molini said it was a multitude of factors. The license fees for fishing had not been raised for 10 years, and the hunting license had not been raised for 6 years. The fall of 1992 was the depth of the seven year drought and the winter of 1992-1993 was a hard winter and a substantial part of the deer herd was lost and the antelope herd was impacted along with chukker and partridge. He emphasized the above mentioned issues along with the ever increasing price of doing business were factors contributing to the shortfall. The increase in pay for a journey level employee or the increase in buying a four-wheel- drive pickup were also contributing factors. Four positions had been eliminated in this biennial and the operating and equipment budgets tightened, stressed Mr. Molini. The proposed cost of living salary increases at 4 percent and 3 percent for the two years would cost the agency $900 thousand. A general fund agency would have their budget predicated on the amount of money available after other priorities of the administration were addressed. In the case of the Wildlife Division, the general fund did not pick up the increases for salary and the division would have to find the funds. He noted if the increases as stated for salaries were approved, the division would be approximately $450 to $500 thousand in deficit of being able to pay the increases. With the fee increases the cost of living salary raise would be covered and a small surplus of around $50 thousand would be available at the end of the biennial period. Mrs. de Braga asked if the $900 thousand was for the two years. Mr. Molini said yes. Mr. Neighbors asked if any of the fees collected go to the general fund. Mr. Molini explained the fees all stay in the wildlife account which was a part of the general fund, because the agency was a general fund agency. He noted by statute the fund could be used only for the management of wildlife. Mr. Molini agreed at the end of the year any balance left in the account was rolled over into the next year. Mr. Bennett asked if the four positions were filled or open when eliminated. The positions were vacant and eliminated during the biennial budget. Chairman de Braga asked Mr. Molini to continue with his presentation of A.B. 212. Mr. Molini began his presentation of the bill and explained Lines 14 and 15 authorized a fishing license for blind people in which they buy a regular license and have the agent write "blind" across the license. There was no advantage for a blind person and this would be a clean up of the language. The second page, line 9 concerned a lost or stolen license. A new license could be obtained through a license agent at full price or with the change an application could be made through the division with a $5 fee for a duplicate license. This change would simplify language and cover the cost of issuing a new license. In section 3, subsection 1, some language was eliminated but picked up later in section 4. Mr. Molini said line 26 of page 2, section 3 was where the major changes were in A.B. 212. The resident fishing license would increase from $15 to $20. The 10 day and 3 day permit would be eliminated and a 1 day permit would be added for $6, each consecutive day added would be $2, this same concept included upland game and waterfowl. The hunting license fee would be increased from $20 to $25 and the combination license would go from $33.50 to $40. Mr. Molini said the next change would be on page 3 and the fee changes for nonresidents. The nonresident fishing license fee would increase from $45 to $50. The 10 day and 3 day permits would be deleted and a 1 day permit would be available for $11, each consecutive day added would be $4, this fee would also include upland game and waterfowl. A cleanup of language would take place on lines 25 and 28 and lines 33 and 34 would give a choice of a 1 year falconry license or a 3 year license. He spoke of language on lines 47 and 48 and was not sure if the language was confusing or not. On Page 4, lines 1- 5 would be a significant change to those 65 years or older. Today any person 65 years or older who has six months residency in Nevada qualifies for a senior fishing, hunting or combination license for $3 for fishing and $3 for hunting and $5 for a combination license. The Department of Wildlife was proposing a person 65 years or older could qualify for the reduced fee license, but only if they have continually resided in the state of Nevada for 25 years immediately preceding the date they applied for the license. The idea would be that any senior 65 years or older who has not lived in Nevada continuously for 25 years would not qualify and would have to buy a full price license. Mr. Molini was sure there would be discussion on this issue. The section also provides for the junior license and a physically disabled license. Section 5 of page 4, lines 22 through 26 would allow for the short term license proposed and would not be required to buy a Nevada duck stamp. The same applied for the short term fishing license and trout stamp on lines 41 and 42, section 6, page 4. On page 5, section 7 was not italicized as it was transitory language and would not become a permanent part of statute. Mr. Molini stated the department would have liked to see language making a permanent appropriation from the general fund to reimburse funds the department loses by selling low cost licenses. The last two biennial sessions the money committees had agreed to reimburse the selling of low cost licenses but the department would like to have the language put in statute. The bill drafters had a reluctance to make it open ended and only show it for the two fiscal years, he said. Section 8 speaks to the effective dates of various parts of the statute. Mrs. Segerblom asked why there was not an agreement with California regarding fishing in Lake Tahoe, why only in Lake Mead, Lake Mohave and the Colorado River. Mr. Molini explained there was an agreement with California but a simpler agreement. The agreement with California recognizes a California license on the waters of Lake Tahoe and Topaz and California agrees to recognize a Nevada license. He talked about the stamp which was required to fish in the Colorado River and the need of Arizona having a Nevada stamp and Nevada having a Arizona stamp and the revenues exchanged between the states. Mrs. Segerblom asked about the fees on page 3, line 9 and Mr. Molini clarified the costs. Mr. Fettic asked about page 2, line 7 regarding a lost or stolen license. Mr. Molini remarked the $5 fee for replacement could only take place at the division office in Reno, in person or by mail, or any other regional office. Mr. Crawforth stated many people were buying a duplicate license at license agents without buying the original. It was noted approximately 60 percent of those buying duplicate fishing licenses were not buying the originals to start with. Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Molini if he would provide the committee with a breakdown of employees in NDOW and in which area they were working and where expenditures were spent. Mr. Molini said he would supply the committee with the information requested. Mr. Carpenter asked if Mr. Molini would explain what the department was trying to do in section 7, page 5. The department was trying to get in statute an automatic appropriation of a reimbursement to the wildlife account from the general fund to make up the money they lose in selling low cost licenses. If the licenses were sold at full face value the cost would have been $400 thousand. The argument made to the money committees for reimbursement was, the department had not requested the lower licenses, it was the will of the Legislature on behalf of the people of Nevada to give those persons like senior citizens, or juniors, or handicapped a reduction in their license. Mr. Carpenter asked about seniors living in Nevada for 25 years and questioned if it would be hard to establish. Mr. Molini said yes, he did not know how a person could show proof to the license agent. A hunting license declaration would be signed which states, "I have lived continuously in the state of Nevada since ________." If it was 25 years or more they would qualify. Mr. Humke questioned page 2, line 29, regarding a $2 fee for an additional 1 day permit to fish, and asked if the agent selling the license would get an additional $1 fee. Mr. Molini said no, just the base license would require the $1 fee. Mr. Humke said he had constituents who suggested the Department of Wildlife seemed to be interested in causing more people not to hunt and fish which played into the attitude regarding seniors. He gave an example of a 65 year old moving into the state and having to wait 25 years before he could obtain a senior license. He would be eligible when he reached 90 years old. Mr. Molini was concerned with the senior population growing faster than any other state in the United States. He said seniors hunting and fishing for $3.00 was an impact financially on the department. Longtime residents had paid their dues through taxes and would be given the lower fee. Mr. Bennett asked about the restricted nonresident hunting license and why it was not listed. Mr. Crawforth stated the nonresident hunting license would be $100, the tag was the restricted part of the other bill. He asked if the proposed fee schedules were included in the current biennial budget submitted to the Legislature. Mr. Molini said yes, with the exception of the increased fee for the regular fishing, hunting and combined hunting and fishing license which had not been built into the budget. The cost of the salary increases which would put the department in deficit by $400 thousand also had not been included, all other parts of the bill had been projected. Mr. Bennett asked Mr. Ziegler to check the legality of the residential requirement on page 4, lines 4 and 5. He also asked about having a duck stamp on a temporary license and if it was a violation of Federal Migratory Fowl Laws on page 4, lines 22 and 25. Mr. Molini explained the law only involved the state duck stamp and one would still have to have the Federal Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp. Mr. Bache agreed we should give our Nevada residents a break and stated a more manageable time might be 5 years and 65 years old and at 70 it would not matter if one was a resident or not. Mr. Sandoval said Mr. Molini had explained part of the justification for license increases was the diminishing numbers in the herds because of the drought. How would the increase in the fiscal impact, if passed, be used to increase the census of the herds. Mr. Molini said right now they would only be maintaining their basic program. He said the spring deer surveys were being done now for winter fawn survival and fall surveys determine buck ratios and fawn production to determine an allowable buck harvest. The deer resource was carefully monitored, stated Mr. Molini. He said Nevada has the best big game management program in the West. The problem of weather cannot be helped and the decline of the herds was predicted. In 1988 a recent high in the deer herd produced 49 thousand deer tags issued compared to last year of 13 thousand deer tags issued even though the revenue was impacted. Mr. Sandoval said he was responding to the 25 year residency and 65 year old requirement and felt we were talking about all Nevada residents whether they were new to the state or not. He would like to have more input to justify what preceded the decision to change the statute. Mr. Sandoval had not seen a distinction for seniors based on the length of time they resided in a state. He felt it was a reward for people reaching their senior years to have the benefit of a lower rate to hunt and fish. Mr. Molini reiterated the rationale behind the senior statute change. Mrs. de Braga asked how one would prove six month's residency. Mr. Molini explained the bottom line of the license was an affidavit a licensee signs to attest to the amount of time in Nevada. If caught in a lie they would have violated the law. Mr. Carpenter asked about the issuance of a larger number of elk tags. Mr. Molini talked of the recent elk tags for the Ruby Mountain area for the pioneering elk herd the department wanted eliminated. He said there were probably areas where more elk tags could be issued. The hunter success in Nevada was 85 percent for elk. Mr. Carpenter said there had been a substantial increase in the elk herds around Ely and Pilot. He asked about statistics regarding managing of herds by other states and their success ratio versus the management of elk in Nevada. Mr. Molini spoke of the success rate in other Western states and the increase of elk throughout the West. He talked of the cap on elk in many parts of Nevada. Mr. Carpenter did not believe Nevada should have an open season on elk like Colorado but he felt additional tags could be issued to have a quality hunt. The elk were a controversial issue with ranchers. He also wanted to know how much money would be raised if all of the changes in the statute were enacted. Mr. Molini replied, "about a million dollars." Mr. Neighbors asked what percentage would the additional funds be of the total budget. Mr. Molini said the license fees including tag fees would be 37 percent of the budget. He stated an equal amount comes from Federal aide and fish restoration and Federal aide and wildlife restoration, which was an excise tax on firearms, ammunition and fishing equipment collected by the Federal Government and redistributed to the states. Between license fees and Federal aide, revenue constitutes 80 percent of the Wildlife budget. The total license revenue has been $4 million and with the increase from statute would be $5 million. The next closest state in terms of license revenue would be New Mexico at $10 million. Nevada did not have the resource base with deer and elk like other states in the West have. Mr. Neighbors also had a problem with the 25 year, 65 age statute, but would consider it in subcommittee. He asked about the pay raise for employees and if they would not get one if funds were not available. Mr. Molini asserted a pay raise would be given even though they would have to close down programs, eliminate positions, close fish hatcheries and pay what was left for salaries. Mrs. de Braga asked how much of the $1 million was figured into the budget. Mr. Molini said about $750 thousand was worked into the budget. There was about $450 thousand which would be plugged into the budget to help cover the shortfall and would be worked out with the budget office. Mr. Humke questioned the break in license fees for those from 12 to 16 years of age and asked if the language was contained on page 4 and the fee schedule on lines 8 - 10. Mr. Molini replied in the affirmative. Mr. Humke asked if there was a resident requirement of 25 years for seniors, why was there not a requirement for a 12 year old to be born in Nevada. Mr. Molini replied, it was an interesting question, but the Wildlife Division felt it was good to encourage youth to become involved in hunting. The low license fee would foster youth involvement. The effective date of the bill in section 8 was July 1 for the earliest date and the license fees generally become effective March 1, which have been NDOW's position in their other bills. Mr. Humke said Mr. Molini had testified to the provisions in section 7, the general fund appropriation. The state employee pay increase level would not be determined until the fiscal projection report becomes available on or about May 1. Mr. Humke asked if Mr. Molini would agree A.B. 212 should be held for awhile. Mr. Molini said section 7 did not impact the salary cap necessarily. What the Department of Wildlife had indicated was the fee increases were needed in order to cover the recommended pay raises. Mr. Bache asked if it would not be more appropriate to rerefer the bill to Ways and Means while they are dealing with the budget and examine the fee situation. Mr. Molini referred to Mr. Neighbor's statement on the increasing population. He said fishing licenses had a small increase but hunting licenses had been down. Four percent of the population buys a hunting license which was a very small percentage. The fishing license over 14 years had escalated 10 cents a year and the hunting license had increased more. In 1982 when a fishing license was $14, a 3/4 ton truck cost $10,000, today the cost was $15,000. The cost for a vehicle had increased by 49 percent. The cost of labor for a field person in 1982 was $21,000, $26,000 in 1986 and today $33,000, an increase of 57 percent. He said the increased costs were basically the bottom line problem. If the cost of business increases and revenue would stay stagnant, to keep afloat something would have to be done. Mr. Molini said California has a unique system of an automatic increase in their license fees based on the consumer price index. He felt fees would need to be increased every four years to keep up with costs. A letter from Mr. Mervyn Matorian, Wildlife Commissioner, supported A.B. 212 and the increases the Wildlife Department proposed (Exhibit C). Ms. Elsie Dupree, representing the Nevada Wildlife Federation, Inc., read from prepared testimony (Exhibit D). Mr. John Ludwig, Regional Director of Ducks Unlimited, reported his group basically supported the provisions of A.B. 212 including the license fee increases and the concept of the one day license. Ducks Unlimited disagreed with the provision in section 5, part 2, page 4, lines 25-26, which would not require a one day license holder to buy a Nevada Duck Stamp (Exhibit E). Mr. Larry Johnson, Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife, supported the proposals in A.B. 212. NDOW's latest presentation to the Coalition did not have increases for the fishing and hunting license fees. Mr. Johnson said the committee insisted those fees be raised and recognized A.B. 212 was a revenue generating bill in support of wildlife. The steering committee had voted to support Ducks Unlimited's position regarding the one day license and requirement for a Nevada Duck Stamp. He commented on the senior and junior license provision and said a poll had been taken and the consensus was seniors should pay the same price as everyone else. The coalition was also of the opinion if NDOW was reimbursed by the general fund for the loss of revenue from senior and junior license fees, they really did not have an opinion. He reiterated the budget problem of NDOW due to the hard winter of 92-93 where herds died off. Nevada Big Horn Unlimited helped to fund habitat programs and contributed $80 to $100,000 annually in programs to stimulate big game numbers including reseeding range fires and water development which help all wildlife in general. Mr. Johnson said the coalition would like to see more elk before additional elk tags were issued. He said Nevada has the most progressive game management program in the Western United States. Mr. Carpenter commented on the elk tags issued. He felt the tags could be increased and still have a quality hunt and not have the problem with landowners. Letting the herds expand in a number of areas had made landowners distrustful of NDOW's ability to manage the herds, explained Mr. Carpenter. He stated, this factor fostered the controversy taking place in Elko and the Wells Management Area. Ranchers were concerned the elk herds were not being managed. Mr. Johnson commented on the reference to the Bureau of Land Management, Wells Area Resource Management Elk Environmental Assessment, which was recently approved by the BLM. The Elk Management Plan was the model of good elk management throughout the Western United States. The plan sought input from agriculture interests who sat on the subcommittees which put together the environmental assessment. There was a campaign by a minor number of dissident ranchers in the area who opposed elk populations in the Wells Resource Management Area, BLM land. The environmental assessment felt up to 35,000 elk could be raised on BLM lands with no adverse impact to ranching interests. The conservative number of 22,000 elk was proposed so there would be no adverse impact to ranching interests. In perspective there were 375,000 permits for animal unit months of domestic livestock in the same area. The coalition asked sportsmen groups around the state to respond to BLM on the issue and the response was overwhelming. Sportsmen in the state did not want to impact agriculture interests and pay a five dollar surcharge with every elk tag application to pay ranchers for any elk damage. Last year there was approximately $11,000 in damage payments to ranchers, and the fund now stands at $175,000. Mrs. de Braga asked how the money was paid to the ranchers for elk damage. Mr. Johnson stated there was a NDOW administered account in which a rancher makes application for sustained elk damage. The local biologist inspects the ranch and documents the involvement of elk in the damage and a check would be written for the damage. The local county agriculture agents would be called in if a dispute came about. Mr. Johnson met with cattlemen at the convention in Winnemucca to ask how the program was working and if they were pleased with it. The cattlemen had nothing but good things to say about the administration and fairness of the program and how funds were received. Mrs. de Braga asked if Mr. Johnson's group paid into the fund. He stated every hunter who applied for an elk tag paid a $5 surcharge for his application fee which went into the fund. Mr. Carpenter disputed Mr. Johnson and said it was not a few ranchers. The main concern was the loss of faith in the Department of Wildlife. The ranchers felt NDOW would not control the elk. Mr. Carpenter said if an agreement was not reached the problem would end up in court. He applauded the department for their hunt in the Ruby's. There was controversy over the Wells Resource Plan. Mrs. de Braga, Senator Rhoads and Mr. Carpenter had been discussing a meeting to try and defuse the issues and work together. Mr. Johnson agreed the need to work together was important. A letter had been written to the Nevada State Wildlife Commission urging an elk management plan for the Northern half of Nevada be initiated. The ranchers in Jarbridge were opposed and threatened court action, but with the damage program they found they were unaffected. Mr. Neighbors said he would have to oppose any effort to raise fees for seniors. He talked about seniors being limited in the areas they fish in. He questioned what percent of replies of a survey would be received. Mr. Johnson said they poll their groups in writing and follow up on phone to each of the 27 member groups. He explained they send to the board of directors of the groups and not to the total membership. Polls sent to members of Ducks Unlimited would have a 10 to 15 percent response. Mr. Bill Frade, Nevada Wildlife Commissioner, spoke for the commission in support of A.B. 212. The senior license or "Pioneer License" was brought forth when Arizona passed a law around three years ago. He said the commission endorsed the "Pioneer License" due to the impact of seniors in Nevada. Longtime residents of Nevada should have a benefit. Mr. Joe Johnson, a private citizen, testified on his own behalf on the issue of the senior license. He stated there were two philosophies involved in giving benefits to elderly people. One would be simply they have been here a long time, the pioneer basis, and secondly because of living on fixed low incomes they could not afford the cost of a license for hunting or fishing. Documentation for property tax relief would be proof of low income. Mr. Johnson wanted to go on record supporting a needs based approach to the senior discount. Ms. Nancy Sweetland, Carson City Advisory Board to Manage Wildlife, testified against A.B. 212. She related, when the "Idea Team" was formed from the Department of Wildlife, recommendations for cost saving ideas were made to each advisory board and wildlife organizations throughout Nevada. The "Idea Team" explained their ideas and asked for input from those groups. The team stressed no increase in fees except for special areas like one day fishing permits and special tags. When the Wildlife Commission met, personnel of the "Idea Team" were surprised when increases were brought forward in the Legislative package. When the Carson City Advisory Board had their last meeting the recommendation was as stated: "The Carson City Advisory Board to Manage Wildlife is concerned with unilateral decisions by the Wildlife Commissioners to approve at their January meeting legislation to increase license fees without any discussion or review by the county game boards. Therefore we are recommending that no increases be made until a review can be made by the game boards and the "Idea Team." When Mr. Johnson stated he was speaking for the Ormsby Sportsmen Association,"at our last meeting they said no license increase. They could not see it, why it was needed, so we disagree with what Mr. Johnson just said." Mr. Gerald Lent, President, Nevada Hunters Association, testified against A.B. 212 and spoke from (Exhibit F). He raised the issue of accountability and proposed 95 percent of the Wildlife Department's budget came from hunters and fishermen. Basically the department was spending more than they have and would be increasing license fees. The testimony this morning stated no new game programs, which was precisely why the Nevada Hunters Association was opposed to the increases. Sportsmen always tax themselves and would do so if they know where there money was going. The salaries for the Department of Wildlife have been approximately 6 percent of their total budget for many years. He felt it was not the salaries which had perpetuated the problem. In 1987-88 a tremendous amount of deer tags were issued, approximately 50,000. Mr. Lent questioned where the money was spent, were any programs increased, and where was the money spent. Nevada, by studies, was one of the highest of all the Western states in fees charged their sportsmen. He referenced a comment regarding closing fish hatcheries to save money for salary increases. Mr. Lent emphasized the fat should be cut and not the programs. The Chief of Big Game with the department left for another state and the position has not been filled. He felt since game of all kinds generate so much revenue it should be filled. Mr. Lent continued to discuss reasons for voting against the increased fees. He felt a good task force should have the public involved. Many good ideas came out of the "Idea Team" but no one would be willing to cut their own job. Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on A.B. 212. A subcommittee was appointed to clean up language and to make a determination if the bill should be sent to Ways and Means. Members of the subcommittee were Mr. Neighbors, Mr. Humke, Mr. Bennett and Mrs. de Braga. Mrs. de Braga asked Mr. Molini if the budget had already been presented to both Senate and Assembly Finance Committees. He said they had one overview budget hearing on the 9th of February and would appear before the joint finance subcommittee in two days with a more detailed budget hearing. The issues presented in A.B. 212 would come before the subcommittee, stated Mr. Molini. The meeting was adjourned at 3:15 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 March 13, 1995 Page