MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING Sixty-eighth Session May 3, 1995 The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was called to order at 1:15 p.m., on Wednesday, May 3, 1995, Chairman John C. 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 GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: David S. Ziegler, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Cecil Fredi, Hunter's Alert; Allen Silberstein, Hunter's Alert; Pat Lowery, Mule Deer Foundation; Tom Mortensen, Mule Deer Foundation; Charles Brown, Nevada Bow Hunter Association; Roy E. Lee, Desert Sportsmans Gun Club; Dick Hubbard; Joe Johnson, Coalition for Nevada Wildlife; Elsie Dupree, Nevada Wildlife Federation; Nancy Sweetland, Carson City Advisory Board to Manage Wildlife; Terry Crawforth, Division of Wildlife; Willie Molini, Nevada Division of Wildlife; Charlie Joerg, Eureka County; Merv Matorian, Wildlife Commission; Warren Hardy, Hunter's Alert; Ira Hansen; Gerald Lent, Nevada Hunter's Alert; John Ludwig, Ducks Unlimited; Fred Wright; Donald Mosley; Don Bowman; Larry Johnson, Coalition for Nevada Wildlife. Chairman Carpenter called the meeting to order and roll call was taken. Mr. Ziegler informed the committee a bill draft request was sought for two resolutions concerning grazing permits on the Humboldt National Forest in northeastern Nevada. The first one urged the parties to the litigation to peaceably resolve the litigation out of court. The second resolution urged the Federal government to streamline paperwork requirements so people can get on with managing the range in the Humboldt National Forest. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO INTRODUCE TWO BILL DRAFT REQUESTS FOR RESOLUTIONS AS NOTED BY MR. ZIEGLER. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. ASSEMBLY BILL 307 - Limits use of money received by division of wildlife of state department of conservation and natural resources from stamps, tags, permits and licenses sold or issued by division. Mr. Humke spoke on the amendments being presented on A.B. 307. He met with some of the proponents of the bill and they have reworked the entire bill. The resulting amendment was Number 265 to A.B. 307 (Exhibit C). He requested Mr. Hardy to go through the amendment line by line and section by section for the committee. Mr. Warren Hardy representing Hunter's Alert and Judge Don Mosley a member of the association would explain the amendments. Mr. Hardy thanked members of the committee who had given input and worked with the members, and Chairman Carpenter who suggested they revisit the bill and find a way to meet the concerns with the least amount of disruptions to the Wildlife Commission and Division. He informed the committee amendments to A.B. 307 would amend the bill as a whole and renumber sections 1 and 2 and sections 9 and 10 and add sections 1 through 8. Section 1 essentially dealt with the Pittman- Robertson Federal matching fund Act and Section 2 dealt with the Dingell-Johnson Act. This statutorily required the commission to pursue these funding sources for the state. The first two sections require the commission and department to pursue the sources of funds. Section 3 was the body of the bill and dealt with the restructuring of the Wildlife Commission. Under the terms of this amendment the Wildlife Commission would be constituted as follows: one member who is actively engaged in farming; one member actively engaged in ranching; one member who represented the interest of the general public; and six members who during at least three of the four years immediately preceding their appointment held a resident license to fish or hunt or both in Nevada. Section three also provided for the method they would be chosen. The Board of County Commissioners would submit nominations to the Governor and the Governor would make the appointments from a list of recommendations. Not more than two members may be from the same county. Section 3 states the commission shall annually select a chairman and a vice chairman and shall not serve more than two consecutive terms as chairman. Section 4, subsection 1, states the commission may hold at least twelve meetings regularly each year. Section 5, subsection 2, prohibits the division from releasing any statement of the general public regarding a position of public policy which has not been specifically approved by the commission. Section 6 indicated, upon a request from a majority of the members of the commission, the director shall review the conduct and performance of the administrator to determine whether it would be in the public interest for a person to be retained in the position of administrator. Section 7, subsection 3, allows the administrator to reorganize the division from time to time with the consent of the commission, alter the organization and reassign responsibilities and duties as he may deem appropriate. Subsection 5 of Section 7 states, The administrator shall limit the number of employees of the division who attend meetings of the commission while on duty, to those who are presenting those technical or other reports to the commission or who are otherwise specifically requested by the commission to attend. In subsection 6, the administrator will prepare for the commission's review and approval the biennial budget of the division consistent with the provision of this Title and chapter 488 of NRS. Mr. Hardy noted one section not added to the bill which was important, would be that the transition and structure of the wildlife commission took place as soon as logistically possible. It would not mean the current members of the wildlife commission could not apply for reappointment if they meet the standards as outlined in the amendments. Mr. Sandoval asked for a clarification on page 3 of the amendment, regarding the number of meetings to be held. It says the commission may hold at least twelve meetings, which was contradictory. He asked if they were requiring twelve meetings. Mr. Hardy said he was trying to reconstruct why they had included the statement. The intent was "as many as twelve meetings." Mr. Hardy said the intent was for the commission to meet as often as necessary to carry out their obligations. Mr. Sandoval asked if it was a mandate to hold meetings or were you saying "may hold up to twelve meetings." Mr. Hardy said it was not the intent to mandate meetings, they did not want meetings held which were not necessary, but as deemed necessary to meet their obligations. Judge Mosley said he sincerely believed this was legislation whose time has come. Hunting and fishing in the state of Nevada was in deplorable condition. He did not go into the reasons as he felt everyone had heard from one source or another why it was true. He felt the focus of the wildlife department would change with the restructuring of the wildlife commission. Through the change the emphasis would again be placed on fish and game. The current makeup of the wildlife commission, although well intended and good people, do not have knowledge sufficient to make decisions which have to do with these areas. In his view the commission should be made up of hunters, ranchers, farmers, and people who live on the land. We need sportsmen who participate in hunting and fishing and understand the needs and how habitat relates to the availability of game and fish. People who have hands on knowledge of the whole spectrum of wildlife. Judge Mosley said commissioners were a political appointment and A.B. 307 would be a cure for the most part. He suggested July 1 or close to it would be the date a new commission should take office. The new commission would have the hunting season in front of them. They would be prepared in the Spring of next year to help set the seasons and do what they had been charged to do by statute. They would work through a budget year and understand what needed to be done in the next legislative year. The Judge talked of the decrease in tags for hunting, and noted many of his friends had given up hunting for deer. Deer tags have been the money maker, which has been the primary fundraising part of the entire endeavor. Mr. Fettic stated the Judge had in his opinion believed hunting and fishing in the state of Nevada was in deplorable condition. Mr. Fettic had also heard the same from other people. He asked if the Judge had taken the seven year drought into consideration. Judge Mosley said it was curious the drought does not bother some species but bothers others, certainly the drought has some effect. There were many other reasons, lack of predator control was one very definite one. If the funds were utilized from fishing and hunting licenses and other sports related revenues, water projects and others projects could take place to combat the changes in climate and other things which effect fishing and gaming control. The funds were not available because of nature viewing facilities and other things which were not game or fish related. Mr. Fettic concluded and asked Judge Mosley if he did not believe that the focus was no longer on fishing and hunting. The department had broadened into areas it did not belong in or the money coming from hunting or fishing licenses should not be used in that area. Judge Mosely stated it was his view hunters and fishermen and all of the citizens in the state have a concern over endangered species. It was unfair to have the hunters and fishermen finance the cure for these problems, they were all the citizens' problems. He agreed the focus of the Department of Wildlife was so broad at this time, fishing and hunting were suffering. Mr. Sandoval questioned Mr. Hardy regarding background on some of the amendments, the first being on the bottom of page 3, and why the amendment was suggested. Mr. Hardy said it was added based on some discussion where the committee felt there should be more commission control over the policies put out to the public, as policies of the department. It was an attempt to gain control over policy the state of Nevada has concerning wildlife. Mr. Sandoval asked if it meant there had been some conflicting polices in the past. Mr. Hardy called on Mr. Fredi, President of Hunter's Alert to answer Mr. Sandoval's question. The Division of Wildlife had a plan about four years ago to lock up about 49,000 acres per each nesting pair of goshawk, sharps hawks and coopers hawks. He noted this was done without anyone knowing about it, and some attorneys in Elko County had to use the Freedom of Information Act to gain the information, which should have been public knowledge. Mr. Sandoval said he understood the point but the amendment reads, "prohibit the division from releasing any statement to the general public.....," and he did not see how it would effect the situation Mr. Fredi discussed. Mr. Fredi said information needed to be released to the Wildlife Commissioners to receive their blessing first. Mr. Hardy said the intent was to limit the requirement to issues of public policy. He said he could see Mr. Sandoval's concern for the administrator to be able to act at all without the direction of the commission and that was not the intent. The intent was on issues specifically related to public policy. Mr. Sandoval asked about page 6, section 6 and asked for some specifics as to why the amendment was suggested. Mr. Hardy noted it was an attempt to allow the Wildlife Commission to have more control and authority over what takes place in the department. The next question asked concerned page 7, subsection 5, by Mr. Sandoval, regarding employees of the division who attend the meetings of the commission while on duty. Mr. Fredi said what they did not want was a bunch of people from the Division of Wildlife being paid just to listen. He said they did not think if was good policy unless they were there to testify. Mr. Sandoval said the amendment stated attending meetings of the commission. Mr. Fredi said meetings where they get paid where they do not participate. Mr. Fettic agreed with Assemblyman Sandoval regarding page 3, section 5, subsection 2 and could not support the statement as it now reads. Mr. Hardy asked if Mr. Fettic was questioning what was trying to be accomplished or the language which needed to be worked on. Mr. Fettic did not know what Mr. Hardy was trying to accomplish. Mr. Hardy agreed it needed clarification and the intent was just issues of public policy. Mr. Cecil Fredi, President Hunter's Alert, addressed Mr. Fettic's question to Judge Mosley. He said we have had a seven year drought, but Elk numbers were up, it does not rain just where there was Elk and not deer, there were other problems not being addressed. Mr. Fredi spoke from written testimony (Exhibit D). Mr. Fredi was at the meeting to encourage the committee to pass A.B. 307. This bill did not go after anyone's job, this bill was about user fees being returned to user programs. The bill installs a measure of checks and balances by some experienced appointees. Mr. Fredi outlined the bill in his terms and noted the bill meant more efficient government at no additional expense. Mr. Bennett asked how many dollars would be brought in from the Pittman-Robertson Act and the Dingell-Johnson Act. Mr. Fredi did not know the exact amount but did know they were matching funds and sometimes three, based upon license sales. Mr. Fredi was asked by Mr. Humke regarding appointment to the commission and noted he deviated away from his written remarks. Mr. Humke said Mr. Fredi had made an illusion to a governor appointing his or her best friend to the commission. Mr. Humke specifically asked Mr. Fredi to respectfully withdraw the remark and please stand on his written remarks. Mr. Fredi agreed to Mr. Humke's request. Mr. Fredi said he certainly was not referring to the present governor, it has happened in the past, and he certainly would withdraw the remark. Mr. Sandoval asked about the statement in Mr. Fredi's letter regarding user fees being returned to user programs. He asked what part of the bill Mr. Fredi was referring to. Mr. Warren Hardy asked to answer the question and said section 1 and 2 of the original bill A.B. 307 would address Mr. Sandoval's question. In the amendment sections 1 and 2 of the original bill has been changed to sections 9 and 10, which addresses the user fees. Mrs. de Braga said assuming a list was given to the governor from each county, what was the problem with the makeup as it stands. Mr. Hardy said in the past the Wildlife Commission had been made up disproportionately with members who have one predetermined notion of what should be done with wildlife in the state. As an example the commission might be made up at one point of people who have an environmentalist attitude, or do not understand farming or ranching. This would be an attempt to have all interest represented equitably all the time. Mrs. de Braga said they were already represented and were asking for more sportsmen. Mr. Hardy said in the current language it was not specific enough in terms of what was meant by interest of sportsmen. This would be clarified by having a criteria to follow. She asked what criteria was used in the past. Mr. Hardy said he did not think there was a criteria. Mr. Fettic stated they had taken out the member who was actively engaged in conservation and wildlife. Mr. Hardy agreed. Mr. Allen Silberstein, Taxidermist in Henderson, Nevada, and a member of Hunter's Alert and other wildlife organizations, testified regarding his personal view and others he has talked to in his business. He gave statistics on the difference in game numbers from the 1800's to the late 1990's. All species of game and waterfowl have prospered through management. The explosion of predators has further put stress on game after many hard years of drought and heavy snows. The people Mr. Silberstein had talked to said the Wildlife Department should have stepped in and controlled the predators and relieved the stress the game had already gone through so they could propagate. It was felt there had been pressure from anti- hunting groups on the Department of Wildlife and they could not manage the game the way it should be managed. The gaming funds should be kept in a gaming account to remanage game. Nevada was losing revenue because of the lack of interest and poor management of game. A generation of sportsmen would be lost because of the shortage of game and waterfowl, creating a less interest in families hunting and fishing together. Mr. Charles Brown, a fifty year resident of Nevada, who had purchased a fishing and hunting license for 46 years, testified. He owns a construction business and remarked he would be broke if he ran it like the Wildlife Division. He believed the changes in A.B. 307 were a step in the right direction towards improving hunting and fishing in Nevada. Mr. Roy Lee, spoke as a representative of the Desert Sportsman Gun Club in Las Vegas, Nevada. He spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit E). Mrs. de Braga stated there was a possibility there would not be a representative from Clark County. Mr. Lee said that would be fine with him, he did not want more than one representative from Clark County even though they were the largest population area in the state. Mr. Charlie Joerg, representing Eureka County, addressed Section 3 of A.B. 307, appointment of commissioners. It was the position of the Eureka County Commissioners for more local control of the appointments. The commissioners believed those who live and know the hunting areas should be serving on the commission. Mr. Joerg said A.B. 307 would probably provide a careful balance between the responsibilities of the administration for a statewide program and still have input from the people nominated by local governments. He was not casting aspirations on any current or former members of the commission or the department. Mr. Bennett said A.B. 307 was talking about balanced control. He asked if it was wise to remove the one conservationist from the commission. Eureka County Commissioners did not have a position on the specific issue and were more interested in the appointment process itself and how they get on the list to be appointed. Mr. Ira Hansen a lifetime member of Nevada Bighorns Unlimited, founding member of the Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife, Nevada Trapper's Association, National Rifle Association, The Nevada Wildlife Federation and Chairman of the Nevada Conservation Committee testified. He answered the question of removing the conservation position from the commission. Mr. Hansen said it was an insult to think hunters and fishermen were not conservationist. There would not be an elimination of a position as long as a person has held a fishing or hunting license. He was not a member of Hunter's Alert but familiar with their position and supportive of what they do. Mr. Hansen went over some of the controversial issues in the amendments as he had helped draft some of them. Sportsmen fund 97 percent of the budget and it would be perfectly legitimate to have six people who have held fishing or hunting licenses and they could certainly be considered conservationist. The budgetary matters will go through a citizens' board who will answer somewhat to the public who pays the bills. It would not be a major change to add an account to keep non-game money in. Mr. Bennett apologized as he did not wish people to think hunters and fishermen were not conservationist. He was simply referring to people who hunt with a camera. Mr. Sandoval asked for comment on the intent from Mr. Hansen on page 3, section 5. He said the main reason for drafting the section was the problem of the goshawk situation in Elko County. The damaging problem in Elko County could have been avoided had the policy gone through the commission and had an adjustment period. Mr. Gerald Lent, President, Nevada Hunters Association, explained, the bill and amendment was written to establish responsible government for future hunting and wildlife in the state of Nevada. Mr. Lent has been a resident of Nevada for fifty years and active in many wildlife organizations to help wildlife in Nevada. He explained the number of tags for hunting sold in 1990 was 31,000 and in 1994- 95 the number was down to 25,000. More outdoor recreation would help many of the problems with young people today. Due to the sloppiness in the budget process of the Wildlife Division, Mr. Lent explained, was the reason for having the Wildlife Commissioners be responsible for the budget. Mr. Lent discussed extensively the budget process of the division and the administration of the department. Hunters were willing to fund programs to bring young people back to hunting and fishing. Put the user funds back where they belong, if more game was generated the public would take advantage of it. Mr. Lent was encouraging the committee to pass A.B. 307 with amendments because he believed it was responsible legislation and would improve the system. Mr. Don Bowman, a retired big game guide in Colorado, has lived in Nevada since 1958, and did not hunt anymore. He believed when local advisory boards had more to say over licensing, more game would be available. He felt there was an imbalance of wildlife. The Toiyabe range was one Mr. Bowman was familiar with. He noted during prior summers one would see sixty head of deer in a bunch, now one would be lucky to see 60 the length of the range. The lions were so thick the fawns did not make it to Fall. The advisory boards could help as they address all the issues. He would like to see more game in the mountains even though he did not hunt anymore. Mr. Bowman said he has raised more money for wildlife in the state than probably anyone in the room. He has been auctioneer for many wildlife organizations. Mr. Larry Johnson, President, Nevada Big Horns Unlimited and Chairman for Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife, stated this was the first time he had seen the wording of the bill. He noted hunters in Nevada were the ultimate conservationist. They will work within the system for the enhancement of the state's wildlife. Mr. Johnson said they have felt for a long time commission appointments could be made in a less political manner, which would result in a more experienced and qualified commission. There was considerable misconception about NDOW'S administration, their financial and fiscal responsibilities and game management in general. The low deer numbers in the state were caused by the drought and the heavy snowfall. Elk winter extremely well, deer were not able to get the feed and the snows were too deep. Big horn sheep fair well in any weather. Some animals simply fair better in drought or bad weather. If the bill would help the faith of the average sportsman in the Wildlife Commission and Division then Mr. Johnson said they were willing to work with the sponsors of the bill. The selection of names should be made by the County Advisory to Wildlife Boards rather than the County Commissioners, it would be less political. He noted they had not had a problem with the commission the way it has been. The main point would be to have people on the commission who had an interest in wildlife preservation and hunting and fishing. The administrator of the Division of Wildlife should be the liaison to the Wildlife Commission. Mr. Johnson said they questioned the effective date for change of commissioners. They would like to see any commission reorganization done in a smooth manner. He said they had agreed to work with the bill sponsors to come to agreement of any issues. Mr. Fettic referred to a well written letter from Mr. Hansen. He said the word he gets from friends and others they were absolutely convinced their money from tags, licenses, etc., was not going back into the game and fishing areas, but was being spent on habitat and other kinds of conservation areas and they were very upset about it. Mr. Molini showed Mr. Fettic a pie chart disputing the sportsmens' theory. He did not know if the change in statute would help or not. Mr. Morros was in adamant opposition to A.B. 307. Mr. Johnson said there were a number of reasons they used misconception. The one example was it was not poor game management that has led to the devastation of our deer herds, it was natural disasters. Mr. Fettic asked why he was supporting the bill. Mr. Johnson replied his group works within the system and can support many of the issues. He would like to think the overall goal of sportsmen in this state was enhancement of the wildlife resources and would like to see everyone work together for those goals. Mr. Carpenter called on those opposed to A.B. 307. Mr. Willie Molini, deferred his opening comments to Mr. Pete Morros, Director, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Mr. Morros handed out information to the committee (Exhibit F). The amendments which were represented to him were attached to the material given to the committee. The amendments numbered 265 were considerably different than represented earlier. Please take that into consideration when reading the material said Mr. Morros. Mr. Sandoval questioned the amendment on page 3, section 5, commission shall prohibit the division from releasing any statement to the general public regarding a position of public policy which has not been specifically approved by the commission. Mr. Morros did not know how this would be enforced without violating the open meeting law since the commission functions in an arena that is controlled by the open meeting law. Mr. Morros gave an example on a release of information from his department and the furor it generated in the press. He would caution the committee on approving that particular amendment. The amendment concerning the number of meetings and increased activity on the part of the commission would require a fiscal note to cover the cost of the activity. There would be substantial activity if the commission were to become involved with the budget. Mr. Carpenter asked why it would not be proper for the commission to approve the budget. If they are responsible for the regulations and policies why should they not approve the budget. Mr. Morros said the commission was consulted throughout the budget preparation process. The commission would be a lay commission and he did not know of any other lay committee who were actively involved in the budget process. The Conservation and Natural Resources Department has 11 commissions. None of the commissions pass final judgement on any of the budgets which are prepared. Mr. Carpenter felt they were in a different position than the Wildlife Commission. Mr. Willie Molini, Administrator, Division of Wildlife, a 49 year resident of Nevada and a third generation Nevadan, responded to those who also had been around a long time, and proud of it. It was his strong and substantial feeling, "If it isn't broken don't fix it." He felt the current structure of the Board of Wildlife Commission was not broken. The current structure of the board has members representing ranching, farming, conservation interests, members representing sportsmen and the general public. Mahlon Brown, Chairman, has been an avid fisherman, Don Cavin, the Vice Chairman, an avid hunter, Ed Bruce, Member , an avid hunter, Bill Frade, Member, an avid hunter, Boyd Spratling, Member, an avid hunter, Merv Matorian, an avid hunter, Jelindo Tiberti, Member, an avid hunter, Marlene Kirch, Member, an avid hunter and fisherman, and David Jickling, who represents conservation interests was a fisherman. The distribution included three members from Clark County, two from Washoe County, one from Carson City, one from Elko, one from Yerington and one from Wells/Star Valley. The commission will meet this Friday and on the agenda would be the discussion of legislation. He informed the committee he was speaking without a formal position from the commission. The Governor was free to appoint commission members. Only three commissioners could be appointed from any one county. Mr. Molini discussed the structure change in 1979 when there was concern in the agency regarding having a farmer and a rancher on the commission. The agency found it has worked very well and were pleased to have them. Every legislative session since 1979 there has been an effort to change the structure of the commission. Mr. Molini said the only thing the division has as a public agency was creditability. When Mr. Molini testifies he has to be able to justify and document what he tells the committee. Mr. Molini reiterated what had been said in previous meetings regarding introduction of big game and water and upland game birds. He also spoke of the downtrend in big game due to the drought throughout the western states. Mr. Molini did not know if it would restrict the Governor's flexibility in making appointments, which have been good appointments. The number of meetings left as is would be the same in cost. The general public policy statement would be generally what the department by statute was required to do now. There have been approximately 400 requests a year where the division comments on various public land use activities which effect the activity on wildlife and wildlife habitat. On broad policy positions he would not question as it generally was what the division did now. Reviewing the performance of the administrator by the commission was discussed. Mr. Molini felt the commission would ask the director to review the performance of the administrator. Organizing the division from time to time by the administrator was in the statute under the responsibilities of the administrator. The division prepares budgets and normally takes them before the commission for their review. Mr. Morros, Director of the Division, reviews the budgets and the legislative body looks at them and either accepts or rejects the budget. He did not know how much more oversight was needed. Limiting the number of employees who attend a meeting would be questionable. Mr. Molini could provide a copy of the commission minutes which list all those attending the meeting. He noted they generally limit the number of employees who attend the meetings for cost effectiveness. There were some meetings where yearly awards were given. He did not see the need to appoint a staff secretary to the commission. Traditionally and historically the administrator has acted as a non-voting secretary to the commission. Mrs. de Braga said she could only see two substantial changes, one would be the composition of the commission and there were compromises which could be worked out. The other would be the problem with creating a separate account on the wildlife budget. Mr. Molini understood on the initial proposal there was a separation of accounts, he did not see it in the new form. She clarified her statement by stating if the account was for gaming only and could not be used for any non-gaming expenses would it have a serious impact on the budget. Mr. Molini said the major problem would be the areas where two activities take place regarding ancillary work or game work. Mr. Morros asked to be heard relating to additional authority be given to the commission concerning the organization and responsibilities and duties within the division and the review and approval of the budget. The authority lies with the director of the department under Chapter 232. In order to avoid a conflict if it was the intent to adopt the amendments a change would have to be made in Chapter 232. Mrs. Segerblom asked how many commissions Mr. Morros had under his department. He noted he had eleven commissions under his department. None of them were responsible for budgets and over half of them were advisory. Mr. Fettic asked Mr. Molini to meet with him on some issues. Vice Chairman Bennett said with other members of the committee leaving for other meetings the Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining would become a sub-committee to complete testimony. Mr. Dick Hubbard, Gardnerville, had worked in another state for 35 years as a wildlife research scientist and later as a research administrator. When he retired he took the position of Executive Director of The California Affiliate of National Wildlife Federation. The position required him to spend considerable time in the legislative halls of California. He sympathized with those who desired to increase game and fish in Nevada as he does his share of hunting and fishing. He did not think the proposed changes suggested in the bill would do much to accomplish the increase in game and fish. He noted the original proposals for change impressed Mr. Hubbard as extreme micro management of the commission on the division. The commission was a lay body which could guide the division and should guide them but should not have budgetary approval and was certainly not the function of the commission. He would agree with Mr. Molini on the new way of establishing the commission. One would have to ask if it were broke, from the outside it seemed the current commission was doing a reasonably good job, and was reasonably balanced. If efficiency were needed you cut the commission from nine members to five members. To nominate members for the commission it would be better to go to sportsmens' organizations. Mr. Hubbard said in summary he would urge the committee to stay away from any language which would force the commission into micro managing the division. He also indicated the need to look closely at the body to nominate commissioners. Ms. Nancy Sweetland, Carson City Advisory Board to Manage Wildlife, testified on A.B. 307. She talked of her husband being on the commission for many years and the amount of material they were required to keep up on, and the dedication of the commissioners. Confining the number of employees attending meetings may be against the open meeting law. Mr. Joe Johnson, Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife, distributed a list of the coalition members (Exhibit G). He noted they had just received the significant portion of the bill in the amendments. It was noted Larry Johnson had given the specific areas of concern for the coalition. Mr. Joe Johnson said he wished there would be a work session with the principal sponsors of the bill for reasonable areas the coalition could agree on. Mr. Merv Matorian, Wildlife Commissioner and resident of Carson City, admonished the committee for not allowing time for the proponents and opponents of the amendments of the bill to have equal time with the full committee. He stated the solution to the entire problem was very simple, issue everyone a deer tag and cite no one in the field, that would end all complaints. There were people who do have infractions and were cited and they are angry at everyone except who was responsible. The low deer population was environmental and will come back. The makeup of the commission was very broad and concerned about their duties and jobs. Mr. Matorian said he personally did not want to micro manage the Department of Wildlife. He did not want to get into the day to day management of the department, but wanted to set broad policy and represent the people he was there for, which happened to be sportsmen. He also has been a resident of Nevada for 50 years and has held a fishing and hunting license every year he has been eligible to hold one. He has spent a good deal of time in the field all over the country. Mr. Matorian reiterated as others had, the budget goes through many hands including Ways and Means of this body. He did not think the commissioners needed to approve the budget. The commissioners do have a responsibility to watch where money was being spent and have a responsibility to do so, especially if it was being spent in the wrong areas. We need to look at where these things come from, what were the underlying issues, if it was not broke we do not need to fix it. Mr. Bennett asked as a commissioner do you have any authority to talk to Mr. Molini and inquire regarding a budget item you might have felt was unnecessary and could lead to problems. Mr. Matorian said they absolutely had input and broad powers in the overall operation of the Division of Wildlife. He noted if anything was going on in the division and brought to the attention of the commissioners they could absolutely question Mr. Molini. Mr. Molini, technically, works at the pleasure of the commission, Mr. Morros and the Governor. Mr. Bennett asked if he had been approached by any group expressing a problem. He said he had only received about six phone calls from anybody at all and they have been around season settings, regarding mountain lions, antelope season settings for school teachers and students and issues such as those. He has not had one phone call from any sportsmens' group regarding this issue. Mr. Bennett asked how sportsmens' groups were notified of the commission meetings. He understood if a group was on an active mailing list for information. Mr. Molini said they had over 200 individuals they sent their agenda to with the announcement of the meeting. They do follow the open meeting law and the administrative procedures act, and have a deputy A.G. at all meetings. Mrs. Elsie Dupree, The Nevada Wildlife Federation, was concerned regarding some of the misconceptions which had come up today. She did agree it would be important for the Wildlife Advisory Boards to submit nominations for the members of the commission. The Nevada Wildlife Federation goes along with the phrase heard many times, "if it is not broke, don't fix it." Mr. Bennett asked Mr. Hardy and Mr. Molini if they could work together with proposed changes from both sides for compromise to be brought back to the committee. Mr. Hardy said with very minor adjustments from those heard from today, they could live with everything other sportsmens' groups had asked. In terms of Mr. Molini's and Mr. Morros' testimony he believed they could reach 95 percent compromise on those issues. Mr. Molini said yes, he would be happy to work with Mr. Hardy. He had pointed out earlier the board of wildlife commissioners had not had a chance to look at the amendments. They certainly would like to look at it and make some compromises. He felt Mr. Morros also would be receptive to working together. Mr. Hardy would certainly agree and approve of Mr. Molini discussing this issue with his commission. The hearing was closed on A.B. 307. Mr. Bennett said if a compromise could not be reached he would ask for a subcommittee to handle the problem. The meeting was adjourned at 4.00 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 May 3, 1995 Page