MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING Sixty-eighth Session May 31, 1995 The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was called to order at 1:15 p.m., on Wednesday, May 31, 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 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: David S. Ziegler, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Jack Armstrong, Division of Agriculture; Willie Molini, Nevada Division of Wildlife; Larry Johnson, Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife/Nevada Bighorns Unlimited; Ed Wagner; Larry Hawke, Nevada Mining Association; Elsie Dupree, Nevada Wildlife Federation; Stephanie Tyler, Nevada Propane Dealers Association; Ron Templeman, Nevada Propane Dealers Association; Stephanie D. Licht, Elko County Commissioners; Doug Busselman, Nevada Farm Bureau; Joe Guild, Nevada Cattlemen's Association. Mr. Carpenter opened the meeting and roll call was taken. Chairman Carpenter said the committee would be hearing S.J.R. 6 as the first item of business. The rule of 92 was suspended for expedient transport of the bill to the Governor for his signature so Larry Hawke could take the Resolution to the Mining Expo in Elko on Monday. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 6: Expresses support of Nevada Legislature for activities and operations of all mining industries in Nevada and for reasonable and progressive reform of existing federal laws governing mining. Mr. Larry Hawke, Government Relations Counsel, Nevada Mining Association, testified on S.J.R. 6. He remarked the bill was on recommendations made during the interim by the Public Lands Committee of the Legislature. The Nevada Mining Association supports the resolution and appreciates suspending the rules for this measure. The bill was introduced early in the session and has been waiting for the Federal legislation to be introduced. Mr. Hawke provided all members of the committee with information on S.J.R. 6. He informed the committee he would answer questions and asked for their support of the resolution. Mr. Bennett asked if there was an opposition to S.J.R. 6 on the Senate side. Mr. Hawke said the vote on the Senate side was 20 ayes, 0 no's, and one absent. Mrs. Segerblom asked and received a reply from Mr. Hawke that the Federal legislation was supported by all of the Nevada Congressional Delegation. Mr. Carpenter asked if anyone else would like to speak for or against S.J.R. 6. The hearing was closed on S.J.R. 6. ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO DO PASS S.J.R. 6. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.) Tomorrow S.J.R. 6 would be taken to the floor and declared an emergency said Mr. Carpenter. ASSEMBLY BILL 652: Authorizes issuance of elk tags as compensation for damage to property caused by elk. Chairman Carpenter called Mr. Willie Molini to testify. He said before Mr. Molini gave his testimony he would like to explain that A.B. 652 was a bill he requested because the depredation tags for deer and antelope had been very successful and felt we should have elk tags in this program to cut down on some of the controversy we have in the area around Ely, Elko and down in Pioche. The depredation tags have worked very successfully with deer and antelope and it could work with elk also, but he felt we needed to hear all of the pros and cons. Mr. Willie Molini, Administrator, Division of Wildlife, stated he had signed up in opposition of the bill and he wanted to explain at least some of the reasons. The areas of concern he had was first as Chairman Carpenter had indicated the deer and antelope compensation tag law has worked very well. We were very hopeful of not having to end up paying direct dollar compensation for damage by deer and antelope, knowing many ranchers in Nevada have lived with deer and antelope for a long time. When the numbers get particularly high or in a bad winter, or during a drought, the deer and antelope concentrated on the ranchers' alfalfa and caused damage and some problems. Idaho and Utah are two states who give compensation and he believed Wyoming also did and there were some substantial amounts of money paid out. Nevada has made the deer and antelope depredation tag compensation work very well as the Chairman had indicated. Mr. Molini's concern with adding elk were twofold: In the 1990 or `91 session Senator Rhoads proposed a bill to set up a damage compensation fund for elk which had been accomplished. In the first two years of the biennial period the general fund appropriated $25,000 each year to go into the fund with a commitment on the Wildlife Division to at least match the amount. Wildlife established elk big game applicants to pay a $10.00 fee, $5.00 of that fee goes into an elk damage fund. The fund was pretty healthy now, and was approaching $200,000. The fund generated about $48,0000 from the $5.00 fee last year. Mr. Moline said, since having the fund, the division has the capability to directly compensate land owners for damage by elk and fortunately it had not been a significant problem. To date, Wildlife paid out a little over $8,000 in direct compensation and has also purchased fencing materials. In some situations the only way to keep elk permanently off alfalfa would be to fence it. If it is a huge field it is not possible to fence, and the cost would be prohibitive. On at least two or three situations we have fenced the elk off and used the compensation fund to do so. The compensation fund was in place and also the implementing regulations. He indicated elk were one of the most desirable in terms of the demand of the hunters of all big game species. Last year for every available bull elk tag there were 71 people who applied and that's the highest ratio of anything except California big horn sheep. Even for desert big horn sheep there were about 20 applicants for every available tag. He did have a concern there might be some strong anonymousity about land owners getting elk tags, which were fairly valuable. Mr. Molini could not predict what they might bring on the market place, although elk tags have been auctioned for as much as $20,000. He thought a land owner tag would be pretty valuable, and was concerned sportsmen who have such a strong desire to hunt elk would be quite concerned about land owners receiving a tag. Mr. Molini noted it was a brief background on both of the programs and on the concerns he had for adding to this program. He would be happy to try and answer any questions the committee might have. Mrs. Segerblom asked if Mr. Molini objected to reimbursing ranchers for elk damage. He said, no. She asked if they did not want to give depredation tags for damage. Mr. Molini said that was correct, it did not prohibit a rancher, from receiving tags and compensation as well. At least with deer and antelope the rancher works out a deal with the hunter, and then the division issues the tag. A.B. 652 would allow for both, so the simple answer to your question would be no, the Wildlife division has the means to pay damage compensation, to date it had been successful. Assemblyman Fettic asked if ranchers were not able to get the additional assistance or monetary reimbursement, but a tag only, would that make any difference? Would he still be concerned about just the tag? Mr. Molini said yes, he still thought there would be a high risk from the sportsmen. Our efforts to introduce and reintroduce elk generally has had strong opposition from land owners. Their concern was elk were big animals,would do damage,and would eat a lot. There might be some concern the same folks who were opposed to those efforts were now going to benefit from the elk being there. Mr. Molini thought the compensation program was a good one. If the Division of Wildlife went out and looked at a rancher's damage problem with him and the rancher said he lost X-tons of hay and the hay was worth X-dollars delivered and there was not an agreement, in regulation and even in the statutes, there was a formula for a panel locally to resolve those disputes. Today out of maybe 8 or 10 claims Wildlife has paid, there had not been a dispute. The division had been able to reach agreement with the land owner and write him a check or have the treasurer write him a check. Assemblyman Fettic asked what had been the experience with claims for animal damage, were there a lot of them or were they sporadic. Mr. Molini said there had not been many claims for elk. He thought he understood where Chairman Carpenter was coming from. There was a lot of latent concern elk populations were growing and then they would be a real problem. To date, with a few exceptions we have paid about 10 claims and last year we had 3 claims, and with 2 or 3 others fencing was provided. Mr. Fettic questioned the dollar amount and Mr. Molini said last year the division had paid out $8,507. Mr. Fettic said he would like to be able to support the chairman on the bill, but there was some credence to what was said regarding big dollars for an elk tag. Assemblyman Bennett asked Mr. Molini what was the current price of an elk tag for a resident hunter. What was the average size for a herd of elk. The current cost for a resident elk tag would be $100. The number of elk statewide would be approximately 3,400. Mr. Bennett again asked what the average size of an elk herd would be. Mr. Molini said there was a great deal of variability, the herds range from a fairly small herd in the White Pine range west of Ely of about 40 animals to a herd in the Schell Creek Egan range each of Ely with about 1,800 animals in it. He passed out a map showing where elk herds range, what units were currently hunted, and what areas in the future would be open for elk hunting. The Jarbridge Mountains in northeastern Nevada where elk were recently introduced have about 250 animals now. Mr. Bennett said, theoretically if the Jarbridge herd was doing some damage to one particular rancher, would he receive five tags, for every fifty head of elk on his property doing damage. Mr. Molini said for every 50 head of elk that did damage, the entire herd in the Jarbridge mountain range would have to have been on his ranch, which would be unlikely. Our best estimate right now would be probably two or three ranchers could qualify today who have as many as 50 elk on their private lands. Mrs. Segerblom questioned auctioning off elk tags and how much do they auction them for. Mr. Molini said they had received about $20,000 for a tag. She asked how they could sell a tag for that much when you buy a tag for $100. He said they have statutory authorization to auction one elk tag a year. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, a national organization, generally auctions a tag at their national banquet. This year the tag went for $15,000. Chairman Carpenter asked Mr. Molini, how many tags were being issued in the Ely area where the herd was 1,800. He said this year they had 105 bull tags and no cow tags. He noted generally they have been conservative in the number of tags for the area. The success rate for shooting a bull was 85 percent, far better than any other state. If more tags were issued the success rate would come down. Mr. Carpenter asked how many tags for elk would be issued statewide. Mr. Molini said this year a total of 282 elk tags would be drawn which would include 157 bull tags, 50 cow tags and 25 either sex tags in the Ruby Mountains to try and eliminate the herd in that area. Assemblyman Fettic questioned if a rancher could sell his tags either to a resident or a nonresident. Mr. Molini said, that was correct. Would it make any difference if the tags were restricted to residents. I would have to make a speculative guess it would temper the concern with Nevadans, said Mr. Molini. Chairman Carpenter said his concern in introducing A.B. 652 was to try to temper the situation which was developing in some areas of the state, especially in the Wells Resource Area. The BLM has a plan to come up with a certain number of animals in the Wells Resource Area. A number of ranchers were threatening to file a lawsuit over this situation because they fear elk would do a great deal of damage. He thought the way the bill was written, 1 tag for 50 animals would help. If you have to take care of 50 elk, they would consume a lot of feed as elk were big animals. He thought this bill and the other bill the committee would hear would ward off, "what I might call a `minny' war brewing," in the Wells Resource Area. It did not seem like we have been able to diffuse the situation. If tags were available for compensation, the division of Wildlife would be much better off. If a rancher had a lot of elk on their property, especially where there would be a large amount of private range land, there would be no way to use the compensation fund. If a rancher had an alfalfa patch, it could be fenced and the fencing would pretty much take care of the problem. But, in many areas where there was a lot of private land, the compensation tags would help ranchers accept elk on their private land. The ranchers felt the department had not controlled the elk herd. The ranchers like the elk, but there had to be some kind of a control if were all going to be able to get along on limited resources. These were the Chairmens' reasons for bringing forward the two bills. If they only opened the compensation tags to residents, the compensation tags would be worth less money to the ranchers. Mr. Molini agreed what Mr. Carpenter said did have merit. The division found this out with deer, ranchers who were feeding deer for some time during the year, not all year, now have compensation tags and we do not hear from them. We have given some thought to having compensation tags for elk, it might work and make people more receptive to elk on their private land. Mr. Molini had felt an obligation to 40,000 or 50,000 sportsmen in Nevada. His concern was the sportsmen might not feel too good about giving elk tags to private land owners, but there was some merit to what had been said. Ranchers have learned to live with the deer and antelope because they have a chance to make some revenue from them. Mr. Molini found it of interest, sportsmen who testified the division was not doing anything for them, now testified the state had too many elk. Mr. Fettic asked Mr. Molini if he was opposed to the bill primarily because a lot of hunters in the state did not like it. He said, they would be concerned, the sportsmen paid every time applying for an Elk tag with an extra five dollars for elk compensation. The fund accumulates about $40 thousand a year for elk damage. Mr. Molini understood what Mr. Carpenter had to say, but the sportsmen would say they had already put money into elk damage and now we have to pay for a tag again. Mr. Fettic asked if part of the deer tag went for damage mitigation. He said no, they did not have a fund to mitigate for deer or antelope damage. The deer and antelope damage mitigation was done from compensation tags. If a rancher did not want a compensation tag the department would take care of the problem by depredation hunts and other means. Mrs. Segerblom asked Mr. Molini if the elk population grows, and the allotment for elk tags needed to be increased, would Wildlife Division need a law to increase the allotment. He said no, we could sell more tags and reduce the population. The division had always stated, if elk caused problems with the habitat, the kill would be increased and the herd reduced. She asked if there were elk in the New York Mountains in Clark County. He said no, the only elk we have in Clark County were on Mount Charleston Assemblyman Sandoval apologized for missing some of the testimony. Mr. Sandoval said he had heard Mr. Molini testify that $5 of each tag goes into the elk compensation fund. The fund right now was approximately $200,000 and he asked how long the fund had been in existence. Mr. Molini said the fund came into existence during the 1991 session. It went into effect in July of l991. The program was in the fifth year and had taken in about $40 thousand a year. Mr. Sandoval asked how much had been paid out of the fund for compensation. Mr. Molini said they had paid out $8,500 last year. He said what was anticipated was an increase in the elk population. Nevada had a current state wide elk population estimated at 3300 animals and the state could probably support three, maybe four times that many elk. But, as the elk population increased, and the state having a high density of animals and difficult winters, we could pay a lot of compensation money at once. Right now it had given the division a feeling of security. The fund had been building, but not much had been paid out as the demand was not there. Mr. Sandoval asked if Mr. Molini would support the bill if tags were reduced by five dollars. He said it was a very good question, it might work. Mr. Sandoval said the division would have $200 thousand. Mr. Molini did not want to touch the fund, it had been a good selling point to the ranchers for introducing elk back into the state. Mr. Fettic asked would a person receive a tag or compensation. Mr. Molini said, that would be something else to think about. Chairman Carpenter said we have two problems with elk. There was no question we need this fund that was set up a number of years ago to take care of the actual concentrated damage around a hay field or if they get into the hay stack to fence them out. But, what we would be faced with as the elk herds continue to grow was the feed the elk consume on large areas or private land. This would be what I see the compensation tag taking care of. The sportsmen would be in a better situation if we give away 2 or 3 tags a year even though it might go to 10. If we could get the cooperation of the ranchers to not fight this elk introduction, this bill would go along ways to overcome the problem. It certainly benefits the sportsmen, if more elk were introduced in an area, the people would say, "well if those elk come on to my private land too much I can get compensated." If a rancher had 50 elk on their land and received $10,000, it probably would not equal the feed the animals have consumed. Assemblyman Bennett asked how big a fence would it take to fence out an elk. Mr. Molini replied it takes at least an eight foot fence and generally it was hog wire, at least the lower half, usually the whole eight feet, maybe with some barbed wire on top. Substantial poles with pretty narrow spacing would be needed because elk were hard on fences, it would take a pretty good fence. Mr. Sandoval asked Mr. Molini what formula procedure was used to offer the number of tags to some one who has damaged property. Mr. Molini replied the formula was simple and in fact, the full context of statute was before him, other than the italicized which is new language to add elk. We do have some fairly comprehensive regulations that put those in place. We require the land owner enter an agreement with us, and then when he files a complaint we simply go out and count the animals, the deer or antelope, and generally we would make one count. If he was satisfied and we were satisfied, they get one tag per 50 animals counted. It does not make any difference over what period of time, sometimes we will count more than once, but a one time count will do it if he was satisfied and we were satisfied. Ms. Stephanie Licht testified in favor of A.B. 652 and represented the Elko County Commissioners who were definitely in favor of elk being added to types of tags used for compensation damage to private property. The Elko County Commissioners sent a letter to Senator Dean Rhoads (Exhibit C) which dealt with the sunset clause on the deer tag law. The Commissioners asked that elk be added to the types of tags used for compensation for damage to private property. She said in speaking with Mr. Chapman this morning who was Chairman of the Elko County Commission, he recommended looking at the bill and perhaps changing the number of tags since it would also include deer, antelope and elk. Mrs. Segerblom and Ms. Licht had a discussion on the number of tags given for compensation. Not add to the tags, but give a certain percentage for compensation. Mr. Fettic asked Ms. Licht what were her thoughts about a rancher being able to get a tag and being reimbursed. She said it would be her personal opinion it should not happen both ways, The ranchers should get one or the other. Ms. Licht said she would assume the County Commissioners would feel the same, although she did not ask that specific question of them. Mr. Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau, spoke on the bill. He said he had not signed up to speak, but would like to go on record with some background information. The Farm Bureau was not here either to support or to oppose this particular measure. We worked with the sportsmen prior to the session and during the session on gaining passage of the deer and antelope bill which was included in this elk depredation program. At the time we began working with the sportsmen it was the position of the Farm Bureau we were not seeking to add elk to this program, and we still have that position. We were involved from the Nevada Farm Bureau perspective in the original depredation program which created the funding system for cash payments, and the Farm Bureau believed that approach was still the best in dealing with animal damage like elk. Mr. Busselman gave an example of elk damage. He said, if a rancher in Ely has a particularly hard winter, it would not take many elk to cause serious problems to a haystack, and in a bad winter the loss could be very disastrous for a rancher who needed to have hay to feed to his livestock. Right from the start the Farm Bureau was interested in cash compensation in order to replace damage in terms of hay or whatever. The elk depredation fund has grown and there have been programs which have been on going with impacted land owners of building fences and doing mitigation prior to having a problem. In the Farm Bureau's opinion it would be a good way to invest money to pay for damages before they happen. The Farm Bureau has supported the current approach of paying cash for elk and we were also very involved and interested in seeing the deer and antelope damage program continue. The deer and antelope damage program is pretty much built around paying compensation for losses to agricultural lands. Chairman Carpenter had indicated earlier some of the potential concerns having to do with losses, especially elk on private range land. The deer and antelope program has been built primarily around agricultural areas and alfalfa fields. "I don't think, through the regulation process, we left the door open for some type of compensation. The approach of monitoring and other kinds of things that you have to do to show that there has been damage was still pretty much an unanswered question. If one was going to be taking a situation and evaluating damage based on numbers, when 50 elk were on a piece of property, there would be a lot of damage. In all likelihood one would want the cash for damage." Mr. Busselman spoke not in favor of the bill or in opposition to the bill, only to give some background of what has been involved with the past several sessions in building the elk depredation program and also the deer and antelope depredation program. Mr. Larry Johnson who represents Nevada Big Horns Unlimited, and The Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife spoke in opposition to A.B. 652. He said ranchers were presently compensated by cash payments for any damage from elk. This involved primarily cultivated lands, fencing and so forth to improvements essentially. The program was funded by sportsmen voluntarily working with agricultural groups to work out mechanisms for accruing funds for damage payments. "The program we felt was working very well. A number of us addressed the Cattlemen's Association in which we asked questions how the program was working and if anybody had comments. People with ranches in areas with large elk populations were extremely supportive of the program. Actually the ranchers had very lavish praise for the Division of Wildlife and their administration and program. At the same time we have always had opposition from ranchers to new elk populations and it's largely been based upon fear of the unknown. We have always heard testimony elk would put them out of business, damage the rancher to the point where he could not survive. In actuality the opposite has been the case. This cash compensation bill passed in 1991 was the last stumbling block which cleared away threatened lawsuits for reintroduction of elk to the Jarbridge wilderness. Those ranchers who testified elk were putting them out of business have never had one single claim of elk damage in those years. This bill has been driven by a series of ranchers in the Wells Resource Management area who again, to my knowledge, have not ever submitted a single claim for elk damage, but it was the fear of the unknown which drove them. There were really too few elk numbers to support such a proposal. There were less than 300 tags available state wide, the odds of ever drawing a tag were presently 71 to 1 in 1994. It would be considerably higher this year against you ever drawing a tag. There were over 10,000 more applicants for big game tags this year than last year, the demand is growing astronomically every year. Most Nevadan's in their lifetime will never, ever draw an elk tag. I've been putting in for 28 years, and have not drawn anything. Ranchers have been incredibly unsupportive of our elk reintroduction programs but, now want to share in the success at the expense of a much greater segment of the population. The opposition to this concept may very well result in the polarization of sportsmen." Mr. Johnson had not spoken to any individuals or boards of sportsmen's groups the coalition represented who were in favor of this. If, in fact the questionnaire mailed to the 27 coalition member groups in every county of this state, there was a question. How do the sportsmen handle this if an amendment came up in the original bill and it was to kill the entire deer, antelope compensation, if elk were included. The elk, antelope program is one of the most successful, but at the same time they were being asked to make cash compensation for any damage and give them a tag too. Mr. Johnson said when most of us in our lifetime will never, ever have the ability to hunt elk in our own state, he though it was incredibly unfair. "We have been working to appease a handful of people and to alienate a very large segment. I would like to address the elk on private range land. Most agricultural interests support the present grazing fee rates at a $1.60 per AUM (Animal Unit Month). Fifty elk on private range and would project to $80 a month for a herd of 50. The $10,000 that a rancher could sell a trophy bull elk tag in the state of Nevada would support at that rate, a herd of 50 elk grazing for 10 years on his land and it would not happen," said Mr. Johnson. Again, he wanted to point out the incredible unfairness of the proposal. Finally, his testimony commingles with the next bill A.B. 660, which called for an overall elk plan for the state of Nevada. I have a letter to the Wildlife Commission in March of this year requesting an elk plan for the overall state of Nevada be done. In the letter and in fact in the Nevada Big Horn's Unlimited Newsletter being mailed to our membership of over 2,000 in the state, we discussed there might be a place for land owner elk tags, when we have an overall plan for the state. There may be certain mountain ranges which would be completely landlocked by private land, and in those certain instances land owners tags might be the most appropriate thing. We were very open minded on the subject, when it was right and fair sportsmen would say so and support the proposal. When a proposal was unfair sportsmen have no other alternative but to oppose it. Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga asked Mr. Johnson, what kind of claims have been made so far on this fund, and where did they come from. He said he believed the great majority, if not all of them, have been out of White Pine or Lincoln County. Mr. Molini, Administrator, Division of Wildlife, replied they had two claims in Elko County and in the very northeast, one around Pilot Mountain and one in the Goose Creek Country, the remainder one or two in Lincoln County, the balance five or six have been in White Pine County. Mrs. de Braga asked if there had been damage to hay stacks or have there just been use of pasture or what were the claims. Mr. Molini said predominately it has been use of standing alfalfa crops. Mr. Fettic asked if Mr. Johnson was opposed to ranchers getting both, a tag and mitigation monetarily. Mr. Johnson felt monetary compensation adequately addressed the problem and sportsmen were opposed to tags or both tags and mitigation. Mr. Fettic questioned, if the tags work so well with antelope and the deer why would it not work with elk. Mr. Johnson replied, our deer and antelope population were such almost half of the applicants could draw a deer tag in any one year, so the general public would be able to hunt deer every two or three years. They get to partake in a sport they support. It would be true to a lesser degree with antelope but, normally in a five or six year period one would be able to draw a tag. One, most probably, would not draw a tag in a lifetime, they were that rare. He said, he would glad to see sufficient elk tags around the state to where the program could work. Chairman Carpenter thanked Larry and said he only had one comment. He felt there were enough elk in certain areas for the program and should consider that before going into other areas with elk. "There was no one who had worked harder than I have," said Mr. Carpenter. "We need to be frank," he said," if it was not for me you would not have elk in the Jarbridge area." He did believe everyone should be looking ahead, if were going to reach out and get into other areas. Where elk go, water developments can put in and the ranchers would not be hurt but, it has been hard to tell them that. Mr. Carpenter thought, if were going to expand into other areas, a program like this was a real benefit for those areas we have now. He thought it was like Mr. Molini said, it was probably only two or three but, Mr. Carpenter thought the public relations aspect of expanding in other areas was well worth it. A lawsuit in the Wells area would be tied up for a long period and would not do anybody any good. If the ranchers knew, when elk were on their alfalfa, etc. they would be compensated by a mitigation tag, it would be easier to let the herds grow. Mr. Ed Wagner was representing himself and he thought his views might be representative of quite a few sportsmen and spoke in opposition of A.B. 652. Chairman Carpenter mentioned earlier such a bill might diffuse the situation in Elko County now between with the elk and the ranchers. Mr. Wagner thought sportsmen throughout the state would be upset by having an elk compensation tag program at this time. He remarked further down the line as the elk get introduced or as the need for the program developed, then would be a more appropriate time for such a measure. Currently he felt tag mitigation was not needed because of the compensation which was now available and the fact the fund was not being hammered every year. Mr. Wagner thought it would create an adversarial relationship or deepen one between the ranchers and the sportsmen. In the future as elk numbers increase, if there was a problem then would be the time for a bill like A.B. 652, but, right now all it would do would make a lot of sportsmen unhappy. He said some of the sportsmen worked on the land owner compensation tag and I am a great fan of the program, but, there were a lot of sportsmen who accept it without being too excited about it. Their attitude was, if you go out and clear some land and put water on it and raise alfalfa, a rancher should expect there would be deer or elk. The deer and elk were here prior to 1860 and one has to expect that would be the cost of doing business. I do not think it was particularly fair to the rancher but, this was the attitude of a lot of sportsmen, and he thought a bill like this would aggravate the situation. Mrs. Elsie Dupree, with The Nevada Wildlife Federation, testified the committee had heard from Ed and from Larry basically everything she had to say. She noted there was one sentence in the bill which bothered them. It said, "one tag for each 50 animals present", it did not say 50 deer, 50 antelope or 50 elk, and the Federation wondered if these 50 animals present meant if a rancher had 25 deer, 20 antelope and 5 elk they could apply for a mitigation tag. Who would determine if this would be a deer tag, an antelope tag or an elk tag. Mrs. Dupree said the Federation was definitely against A.B. 652, and they would like to see the elk compensation plan continue as it now exists. She said her family had put in for years and years for an elk tag and since 1991 they had willingly given the five dollars for compensation. She said, they had one elk hunter in the family, so far, since 1969 and they felt compensation was already being given for elk and it did not need to be furthered. Several of the people I've talked to even called it "double dipping", if they could obtain both money and a tag, and the statement really turned off the sportsmen in the group she represented. The chairman opened up the hearing on A.B. 660. Assembly Bill 660 - Requires division of wildlife of state department of conservation and natural resources to establish plans for management of herds of elk. Mr. Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President of Nevada Farm Bureau, spoke in favor of A.B. 660. He said they would look forward to working with the Division of Wildlife and the Wildlife Commission through the public process of developing an elk management plan (Exhibit D). Ms. Stephanie Licht, represented the Elko County Board of Commissioners. She said before you, along with the letter the committee was given, was a copy of two news articles taken out of the Elko County Daily Free Press, and were fairly recent (Exhibit E). One was the 28th of March and the other was about the 5th of April. The letters were in regard to the Lake Mead Rangers removing excess burros from the Lake Mead Park which were doing a lot of damage. Obviously the situation was not being managed well, and in the forest up around the Tahoe Basin, 80% of some trees were dead and again the area was not being managed well. Using the analogy as a background, Elko County sincerely supports any effort to manage the deer herds in a positive manner, so we do not have the kinds of things which go on in other resource areas with other kinds of animals and trees not being taken care of properly. Elko County Board of Commissioners would like to go on record and she had Commissioner Chapman's permission and his hearty blessing to support the bill. Assemblyman Bache said he wanted to point out about Tahoe. In Government Affairs we dealt with a bill which allowed for the cutting of those dead trees. There is a problem with Lake Tahoe because it was a Federal compact, by state compact with California, and again Lake Mead was a Federal facility. So, again that would not necessarily be under state control. Mr. Willie Molini, Administrator, Division of Wildlife said the division was certainly well aware of the challenges Mr. Carpenter finds in Elko with elk. There was a little bumper sticker once going around said "put the elk back in Elko." Mr. Molini spent ten years of his life working with ranchers in Elko and in Idaho trying to get the Jarbridge introduction of elk and also ten years trying to get elk on Table Mountain and Nevada now have elk in both places. I think you heard from a smattering of our constituents how important they believe elk were and he said he knew they could be a problem for ranchers. I do not think it would be a major hurdle today but, it would be a potential one. Mr. Molini said A.B. 660 was not a bad bill. Mr. Molini said his concern with the bill was the statutory mandate for the division to do planning and he was prepared to offer on the record, the division would undertake elk. There was no question Nevada needs an elk plan. The Division has been through this, we have had a proposal and still do on the books and went through the commission to put elk on Mount Grant up behind Hawthorne. It has been controversial and since the military manages the area, they have decided to back off the development of the environmental impact statement for elk there. The division has had proposals to put elk on the Sheldon Range in northwestern Nevada. Mr. Molini passed around a rough map which showed where elk were today, and several of those populations were the result of introductions by us and some were the result of movement from other states and some were introduced in the 1930's. He thought the division did need to address long term plans for elk and outline what areas in the state elk should be introduced, with full input by the Land Management Agencies who ultimately gave the division the authority. In most cases the authority for introduction has been the Forest Service but, BLM would be involved, and certainly input by sportsmen and land owners and ranchers and all the things which were specified including subsection 4. These were the kinds of things we should consider in a plan, the amount of forage and water available, habitat, and other uses of the land. He thought the bill laid out a fair blueprint for an elk plan. There were two things Mr. Molini was concerned with, the first was in section 4, sub 2; which said we must manage elk, the existing elk, until the plans could be completed to meet the following subsections. The second concern would be the elk did not increase significantly after October 1, of 1995, and that would be open to pretty broad interpretation of what "significant increases are." The other concern Mr. Molini had was the size of each elk herd. He had given some thought to the nine different areas Nevadan's hunt now, and the division had at least two other areas which have elk in them we have not yet hunted, but probably will in the future. Maybe, a couple more areas have pioneering populations of elk where they have been moving from one area to another. Mr. Molini said he would be willing to commit the agency to developing an overall elk plan. He had not thought it through as to exactly what would be the best approach. He suggested an overall plan, with specific goals and objectives targeted for elk herds. Specific herds predicated on such things as habitat quality and caring capacities and other land uses, especially domestic livestock grazing, whatever the land uses might be. He said it troubled him he to have a statute to develop an elk plan. Mr. Molini thought the time was certainly here to develop a plan, the sportsmen were calling for it, the conflict with the livestock industry has been there for a while, and as elk populations expand it had been heating up. He agreed it was time the division became involved in a long term management plan for elk. Mrs. de Braga asked Mr. Molini if the bill passed, was there something the committee could do to change section 4, which he would agree with. Mr. Molini said there were a couple of areas where there were target levels we have agreed on, Jarbridge being one and Table Mountain and central Nevada another. The Wildlife Division has a written agreement with the Forest Service for an initial period of years, both in Jarbridge and Table Mountain, where the level was 300 animals. Once the level was reached, the division would go through a consultation process with the Land Management Agencies, sportsmen, land owners, etc., to determine if the population level was causing problems. If the elk were not causing problems, the division would look at another intermediate target level over a given period of years, usually a 5 year period, and allow the population to increase and then again revisit it. The division had demonstrated a level of proficiency on Table Mountain when elk were introduced in 1979 and the target threshold of 300 animals had been maintained. Mr. Molini's preference would be a commitment for an elk plan on record and do the plan without the necessity of having a bill and a statute to force the issue. He felt if it was the resolve of the legislative body that was what they wanted to do, he would look at taking out subsection 2 and section 4. Mr. Molini said the division could certainly meet the date of July 1, 1997 to deliver an overall plan. He explained, if the plan went into specifics on herd units, he was not sure if the division could accomplish it by July 1 of 1997. The Division of Wildlife had been developing a mountain lion management plan, and a team of people had been working on it for about a year, along with their other duties. The division still had public involvement processes and commission hearings to go through. Mrs. de Braga asked if we do not pass the bill, would there be a possibility of coming back with something in the next session. Mr. Molini agreed, one of the items in the bill would be to report on the actions and expenditures relative to this activity. Mr. Molini would make a commitment to have a statewide elk plan with some target levels, if not in each every area in most of them, identify the areas where the division would or would not want elk, so questions could be answered. The Division of Wildlife could revise the plan through the public process, the hearing process of the commission. He stated any plan should be revisable as things change and people change. Mr. Bennett asked Mr. Molini if he did not need NRS to do a plan. He asked the administrator if he had the authority to authorize a depredation hunt if it were needed. Mr. Molini said yes. Mrs. Segerblom asked if there were elk in the Santa Rosa Range. Mr. Molini said there had been some sightings and reports and believed elk had wandered into the range from Idaho. There were three elk outside of Reno about four years ago, a young bull, a cow and a calf, and he had no idea where they had come from. The closest elk to Reno was 400 miles away, but there was not an established population in the Santa Rosa's. Mrs. Segerblom asked about establishing elk in northwestern Nevada. Mr. Molini said the division had talked about the Sheldon Antelope Range, way up in the northwest corner, but it would be a long way from reality and he was not sure it was something they wanted to do. That would be the kind of thing Wildlife ought to look at in an elk management plan. Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Molini what the plan would be for elk in Nevada. He questioned Mr. Molini on his need for direction from the legislature. Mr. Carpenter felt it would help if Mr. Molini knew the elk plan had to be a priority. Mr. Molini did not believe it was a make or break issue either way. He did say, if he did not get every herd plan forward to the target level by 1997 he would break the law under the bill. But, he believed the demand from both the sporting community and the land owner community, and legislative intent was there to come up with a plan. Mr. Molini would not make the commitment without full intent to do so. He said they had to work with the Land Management Agencies and in some respects the Wells Resource Management Plan Amendment which was somewhat of an elk plan in itself. It did not talk as much about some of the management options in terms of harvest or trapping and removal which the division would include in a plan. It did have a target level, which he understood was under appeal, and he knew this would not be easy, as there had been a pretty broad polarization. The division had a policy statement they did not believe elk should be in the Ruby Mountains, but there were some. The argument could be made elk were not an established population but there had been consistent sightings. There were as many as 25 and maybe 50 elk and the division was proposing a hunt to remove them from the Ruby's. The entire mountain range was surrounded by private land and Mr. Molini saw elk in the Ruby's as a long term problem. There have been sportsmen who said there should be elk on the Ruby Range. There would be some difficult issues to be addressed in an elk plan. He concluded the division could get a statewide plan with some target levels completed within the coming biennium. Mr. Bache asked Mr. Molini if it would be more appropriate if he had a resolution directing him to prepare a management plan for elk, with the requirement the administrator report back to the 1997 legislative session. Mr. Molini said yes, a resolution would be more amenable. Mr. Larry Johnson, Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife, spoke in opposition to A.B. 660, to the bill itself, not to the intent as previously testified. The Coalition recognized the need for a statewide elk plan and had called for one themselves. The preference would be to see a legislative resolution or a letter of legislative intent. The Coalition had asked the Wildlife Commission to embark upon the exact same program and would appreciate a legislative resolution. Mr. Johnson believed it would solve a lot of problems. The Coalition did have a problem and concern putting this in bill form, but he thought an overall umbrella or master plan for the state could be made in the time period allotted. Mr. Johnson asked the committee to realize every mountain range in Nevada was essentially a separate management area. He was not sure a management plan could be covered in the amount of detail necessary for the 1997 session. A more reasonable approach would be an overall master plan and work on a priority system within the ranges which would probably be impacted by pioneering elk herds. To put together the plan there would have to be a high level of input from the NOW staff. The biologists who presently provided a myriad of other duties would have to be pulled off their day- to-day work and put on the elk management plan. There was no provision for adding additional staff or for additional funding and Mr. Johnson thought the bill had fiscal impact on the division. He said he needed to remind the committee they had cut license fee increases which were sportsmen recommendations to the division. The committee cut money out of the budget and then mandated additional work be done. If the legislative process was mandating an elk plan then it should be done right. One thing Mr. Johnson could promise was sportsmen cooperation who want to be intimately involved in this type of planning, who want to work hand in hand with agricultural groups. Chairman Carpenter would like to make a motion and receive permission from the committee to change A.B. 660 into a resolution, and permission for Mr. Ziegler to work with Mr. Molini on language. We have a motion and a second this committee asks for a resolution along the lines of A.B. 660. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO ASK FOR A BILL DRAFT REQUEST FOR A RESOLUTION WITH SIMILAR LANGUAGE AS IN A.B. 660. ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED BY THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.) Chairman Carpenter asked for Mr. Ziegler and Mr. Molini to work out the language and get back to the committee. SENATE BILL 359: Makes various changes to provisions relating to weighing and measuring devices. Ms. Stephanie Tyler representing the Propane Dealers Association said the reason she was here today was to support S.B. 359. She said the Propane Dealers Association was asking to privatize a particular portion of what the division of Weights and Measures does and it would be to allow private testers to test propane devices (Exhibit F). This would allow them to come out and do a "one stop shopping." They would be able to check the device to see if it was within specs and also repair if needed. The Division of Weights and Measures would have the ultimate authority and responsibility for maintaining the records on these devices, they could red tag, if out of compliance, and pull an individuals' license in terms of their ability to dispense propane. The division would still be able to conduct spot checks to see if the private inspectors were doing their job. Ms. Tyler said they work closely with the Nevada Liquidfied Petroleum Gas Board, which was a safety regulatory board. On an annual basis there would be an agent of the state looking at these devices. The genesis of the bill came out of a number of discussions with the division. The bill has been approved by Ms. Rose McKinney James of the division and was originally submitted as a bill draft to the Governor. The Governor's office, because of their limited number of bill drafts, gave it back to the division and asked if they would find someone privately to submit the bill and Senator Rhoads was kind enough to ask for a committee introduction. There were two letters; one from Wells Propane, Wells, Nevada and a second letter from Pro-Flame who has operations in Las Vegas to demonstrate across the state support. Ms. Tyler had agreed on Section 5 through the remainder of the bill to carry the division's legislation dealing with the licensure of repairmen for all aspects of weights and measures. Mr. Ron Templeman, Vice President of the Nevada Propane Gas Dealers Association testified in support of S.B. 359. He answered a question for Chairman Carpenter regarding the charges. Mr. Templeman said they would still make the same payments to the state, which would not change. They would pay the private companies to come in an test the trucks. He said basically it was no different then they were now doing. Anytime a truck would be out of calibration for any reason, they have someone in from out of state to do a check. When a truck was out of calibration it begins to give away gallons. The bill proposes now it would be mandatory for every truck to be checked in the state, which had not been happening for several years. Mr. Carpenter asked if the committee needed more testimony on the bill. He asked if they had fairly extensive testimony in the Senate. Ms. Tyler said yes, and they had some minimal amendments to further clarify exactly what portion of the bill dealt with overall weights and measures versus propane. Mr. Sandoval requested Ms. Tyler to explain the fiscal note and asked if there was testimony on the Senate side. She noted there was an extensive financial workup by the division of Weights and Measures with regards of how this would be amortized. They anticipated the first year or two would be a minimal expense and would amortize down to a revenue type of situation. They would be losing $5,000 for the first biennium and then through regulation they would be able to codify what the propane dealers would be charged for the maintenance of the record versus the regular test. Mrs. de Braga asked if statewide the dealers know there would be an increase in cost. Ms. Tyler said they were concerned in terms of notifying everyone. They sent out two different mailings in the course of this debate, actually three notices in total. The first one dealt with the process in terms of what they were considering and looking at and sent them out not only to the association but to every Class I dealer in the state this bill would effect. One of the meetings with the dealers and the division had representatives of companies at the meeting who pump 75 percent of the gas in Nevada. They felt they had done an exhaustive job of letting everyone know. They would work with the Safety Board who goes to each location each year, and they would check if the unit had been tagged or not and had a current certificate. If not, they would have information for private testers throughout the state along with their rates, etc. They would also send out a mailer, if the bill passed, to every Class I dealer in the state on adjournment of the legislature. Mr. Bennett asked about regulations regarding testers and the regulations for equipment. Ms. Tyler explained the bill covered both, one in Section 2 of the bill and the other in Section 5 of the bill. The division would take responsibility for these two areas. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 359. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMEN FETTIC AND HUMKE WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.) SENATE BILL 410: Revises provisions governing payment of expenses relating to estrays. Dr. Jack Armstrong, Acting Administrator, Division of Agriculture spoke in support of S.B. 410. He said the bill language was in direct response to the recommendations of an audit which recently took place in the division. It provided for a clear fiscal pathway for revenue and expenditures in the estray account in the Division of Agriculture. Previously the statutory change was primarily one which changes from an interest bearing savings account to an interest bearing checking account so estray monies could be appropriately expended for expenses incurred in the gathering and sale of estrays. It clears up the language and was in compliance with the recommendations of the audit. ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 410. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMEN FETTIC AND HUMKE WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.) The meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Pat Menath, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining May 31, 1995 Page Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining May 31, 1995 Page