MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining
Seventy-Second Session
March 26, 2003
The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Miningwas called to order at 1:34 p.m., on Wednesday, March 26, 2003. Chairman Tom Collins presided in Room 3161 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Note: These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style. Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony. Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Tom Collins, Chairman
Mr. Jerry D. Claborn, Vice Chairman
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Mr. Chad Christensen
Mr. Marcus Conklin
Mr. Jason Geddes
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. John Marvel
Mr. Bob McCleary
Mr. Harry Mortenson
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall (excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst
Erin Channell, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Russell Fields, President, Nevada Mining Association
Terri Robertson, President, Tule Springs Preservation Committee
Paula Berkley, Public Relations and Lobbying, Paula Berkley and Associates
Todd Schwandt, Vice President, Nevada Outfitters and Guides Association
Michael Hornbarger, President, Nevada Outfitters and Guides Association
Tony Diebold, Outfitter, Nevada
Gene Weller, Deputy Administrator, Division of Wildlife, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Bill Bradley, Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners
Chris MacKenzie, Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners
Larry Johnson, Coalition for Nevada’s Wildlife
Patrick Smith, Legislative Advocate, Office of Administrative Services, City of Las Vegas, Nevada
Steve Weaver, Chief, Planning and Development, Division of State Parks, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Allen Newberry, Chief, Operations and Maintenance, Division of State Parks, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Chairman Collins:
The Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining Committee to order. [Roll was called.] We have a quorum; I apologize to the folks out there that we’re a few minutes late. At this time in the Legislature, we get into some pretty heavy issues, discussion, and time frames. On the agenda, we can take care of matters that were previously discussed. I was going to try to get three little bills out of here; simple little bills that could cause somebody’s blood pressure to go up, others to sweat, and others to feel harmed. We’re going to try to do that. I want to open up the work session on A.B. 131 first, Assemblyman Mortenson’s cultural bill. Could I have Mr. Fields to the microphone?
Assembly Bill 131: Makes various changes relating to protection of cultural resources. (BDR 33-92)
Chairman Collins:
I would like to ask you what is in this bill, A.B. 131, that is not detailed in federal legislation or regulation, briefly.
Russell Fields, President, Nevada Mining Association:
[Introduced himself] I haven’t looked at it specifically with that question in mind. It is my reading, and our reading, of the bill that much of it, if perhaps not all of it, is duplicative of things that either can be done or are being done, under a variety of federal acts, including the National Historic Preservation Act and the Antiquities Act. Again, I have not read it specifically with that question in mind.
Chairman Collins:
Primarily, do you believe it’s already covered?
Russ Fields:
I think it is. I believe the issue that we addressed in previous testimony regarding private land, is indeed covered under NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act. Because of the checkerboard and mixture of private land-public land, which most ranching and mining activities must deal with, any federal action that is undertaken on those public lands also falls over onto private lands. NEPA, and thereby the Historic Preservation Act, would apply to private lands as well as to public lands. I think that’s covered as well.
Chairman Collins:
I want to call up Ms. Robertson next. Does anyone here have any questions they’d like to ask Mr. Fields regarding the bill? Does anyone have any concerns over what they’re doing?
Russ Fields:
I do have some comments that I would very much like to get on the record. As I think the Committee knows, we represent a broad section of the mining industry here in the state of Nevada. We are a diverse group, but even so, there has been and is a consistent support for rational permitting programs for development projects on either public or private land throughout the state of Nevada. While we really looked at A.B. 131 hard and tried to see how it could be adjusted to meet our concerns, no matter how we look at it, it does go directly to the area of permitting projects here in Nevada.
That’s how we have to look at it. Having said that, mining agrees, absolutely agrees, with all of the protections of cultural resources here in Nevada that we have now. They deserve the respect and protection that is envisioned by A.B. 131. However, as questions from the Chairman indicated, through the federal and state programs that already exist, we think that the protection, against vandalism and the use of volunteers can exist right now. We offered an amendment at this very table on March 17, 2003. That was testimony by Alexis Miller, if you’ll recall. Based on some questions that were asked during that hearing, and have been raised since that time, as well as further review by our own membership, and further inspection of some of the language that we offered as a possible amendment, we still have concerns. Now, we wish to withdraw our support of the bill A.B. 131 in its entirety. The Nevada Mining Association now finds itself in opposition to A.B. 131.
Chairman Collins:
Are there any more questions now that this statement has been made from the Mining Association? I’d like to call up Ms. Robertson. I’d like you to briefly state who you are and why you think this bill should pass.
Terri Robertson, President, Tule Springs Preservation Committee:
[Introduced herself] We do a lot of things in this committee. One of the things we’ve been working on for about four or five years is putting together a site steward program for the state of Nevada. At our request, Assemblyman Mortenson put this bill together and we appreciate the work and effort that’s gone into it. I’d really like to give you a brief overview, if I could, and then read a letter (Exhibit C). I wasn’t prepared to give testimony on this particular issue today so I don’t have copies for everyone, but I will make sure you get the information.
The program that we wound up looking closely at was the Arizona Site Steward Program. This is exactly how that program works. They have a state office and a particular person who is in charge of the Site Steward Program. That person is in charge of the training, the materials, and actually doing the volunteer training for that state program. At the trainings, the land managers, whether it be the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, whoever has asked to have the volunteers trained, those land managers are there. At the training, and if they decide there’s someone at that training they’d like to utilize as a volunteer for their agency, they work with that person and determine the site to be monitored.
The first time the site is visited, it’s visited by the land manager with the volunteer, who is given specific instructions on how they want the site to be monitored. This is a program that has about 700 volunteers in Arizona, and it’s working beautifully. I had quite a talk this morning with the mining representatives. I can understand some of the concerns they might have about the bill. The real key here is: we need to have this, for two reasons.
[Terri Robertson] One, it’s going to enable us to acquire some funding that our local government agencies don’t have, so we can help put the program together. Plus, it’s going to offer a volunteer workforce to work with the agencies. I just think it’s really important. I apologize for not really being on the ball with testimony, today, but I’d just like to read to you a letter from Dr. Mark Rosenzweig, Vice President of Tule Springs Preservation Committee (Exhibit C). [Ms. Robertson read from Exhibit C.]
. . . Expanding growth and development in many areas of the state is placing more individuals in proximity to sensitive heritage resources. This result is increased impact to these nonrenewable resources through intentional vandalism, unmanaged recreational activities and natural processes. As has been successfully demonstrated in Arizona and other states for many years, a formal Site Steward Program, such as the one presented in A.B. 131, supports land managing agencies in their mandated responsibility to preserve and manage significant resources . . .
Site Stewards, as presented in this bill, do not manage resources or land activities. Nor do they monitor permitted activities or conduct surveys for new sites. These activities are, and will remain, the responsibility of the land managing agencies. The Site Steward Program will simply assist land managing agencies by organizing and training volunteers to visit and monitor impacts to already known significant resources as assigned by the agency contact. Because they have already been identified and determined to be important, these sites fall within the scope of existing agency resource protection policy. As things stand now, legitimate, permitted activities are not to be allowed to be conducted if they impact significant resources . . . Site Stewards monitoring sites do not change this.
Site Stewards will not restrict legitimate activities. On the contrary, Stewards may enable expanded use of some areas. If land managers are confident that sites are not being impacted through negligent or incidental activities associates with permitted uses in nearby areas, they may be willing to allow activities closer to sensitive sites. Regular monitoring by stewards may give them that confidence.
[Ms. Robertson continued reading from Exhibit C.]
A growing segment of the Nevada community has recognized and is becoming increasingly concerned about the frequency of significant impacts to sensitive heritage resources. Currently, several groups, including Archaeo-Nevada Society, Nevada Archaeological Association and Nevada Rock Art Foundation, are working with land managing agencies to establish a Multiple Agency Site Monitoring Program to begin some of the activities presented in A.B. 131. This program is not intended [to], and cannot, take the place of the true statewide program of A.B. 131. It is a temporary measure which is an attempt to help land managing agencies manage significant resources until a statewide program can be developed and implemented.
In closing, I would like to reiterate that Site Stewards, as established under A.B. 131, would monitor impacts to significant and known sites as assigned by the land managing agencies. These are sites which have already been identified as being at risk. Stewards will supplement land managing agencies resources by assuming one specific task, the periodic inspection of their assigned site, thereby freeing agency staff to more adequately and timely address other responsibilities, such as permitting of new projects and developing more current and appropriate management plans. The end result is better management of agency lands and resources for all users.
Chairman Collins:
Are there any questions for Ms. Robertson? Ms. Robertson, you’re familiar with the state of Arizona and the program they have there that this is modeled after. Are there any other states that you can name that have a state-recognized cultural program? I’m putting you on the spot, I know; you’re here on another piece of legislation.
Terri Robertson:
I’m drawing a blank. I just know that Arizona is the one that we looked at and felt this was more appropriate for what we needed.
Chairman Collins:
I know you’re here for another piece of legislation, but because you’re here, that’s why I brought this up, to get your viewpoint on this legislation.
Assemblyman Mortenson:
I do know that New Mexico is also looking at the Arizona plan and are working to implement a similar plan.
Chairman Collins:
Another thing that brings up my concern is that I know in Arizona there’s copper mining down around Globe, Miami, and a little near Kingman. I think Duval Mining might still be operating a little bit, and a few other places. I don’t know of any gold mining in Arizona, or that it’s being explored, or is as large an industry in Arizona as it is in Nevada. I understand that’s why they voiced those concerns.
Terri Robertson:
We would like to dispel the fact that we’re training a group of “commandos” to go out and monitor mining. That’s not our purpose at all. What we’re going to do is monitor sites that are already designated as sites that are cultural resources. We’re not going to be looking at new areas; we’re not going to be specifically going into areas where mining is to see what damage they’re doing. That’s not what we’re about and it’s not what we’re going to do. We want to be able to provide a system – there’s already a $60,000 grant applied for, so that if this bill passes we’ll have the money to start in and hopefully get the training program off the ground. I know that it’s really hard to dispel somebody’s fears that someone is going to be “big brother” looking over them, but that is not our intent.
We have special resources in this state that need our assistance. We’ve got millions of acres to plant, owned by federal agencies. They don’t have the money or manpower to take care of them. We’re willing to help them, and we’re willing to drag up the money to do it.
Chairman Collins:
We have a couple questions, but before that I want to let you know, on the record, that Ms. Robertson has driven me across the desert to look at petroglyphs and protect them from development in southern Nevada.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
Ms. Robertson, if you could point out in the statute where it says you’re only going to be servicing existing cultural sites that are presently in place – I think that might go a long way – of course, I have the statute and you don’t. Or if somebody else could bring that up, I just don’t see it in the statute that precludes the group from going out and expanding those cultural areas. I think at that point it extends beyond mining and could very well get into some private property or even matching issues. That’s what I’m looking for; I would like to see in the statute where it clearly says it is only existing cultural sites.
Chairman Collins:
Those are sites identified by the federal government. [Assemblyman Goicoechea indicated that was his intended inquiry.] That was a possible amendment, so that has been discussed.
Assemblyman Geddes:
I wasn’t sure what I heard: you’ve applied for the grant or you’ve received the grant?
Terri Robertson:
We’ve applied for the grant through the Outside Las Vegas group (Outside Las Vegas Foundation).
Assemblyman Mortenson:
I was going to say that those words do not appear in the bill, but I would be very happy to, as the author, I would think that would be a good amendment.
Chairman Collins:
Anyone else have any questions at all? The Outside Las Vegas Foundation, do you all know what they do? Does anyone on the Committee question them, or need any explanation of what Outside Las Vegas does, how it’s set up, or how to find it? Assemblyman Mortenson, this is your bill; I’m going to put a deadline on it. Are you going home this weekend? You can talk with Ms. Robertson? I want to assign three people to this bill Subcommittee. I want a report back next Wednesday, and that’s when we’ll up or down this bill, one way or another.
I’ll assign three members of this Committee to assist Assemblyman Mortenson. [Chairman Collins assigned Assemblyman Atkinson and Assemblyman McCleary to the A.B. 131 Subcommittee, with Assemblyman Mortenson as Chairman.]
You can discuss this with people, utilize whatever amendments you find; mining, you’re invited to meet with the Subcommittee and discuss those things. Assemblyman Mortenson will get the meeting posted and go through the formal things we need to do in the Legislature, and report back at the beginning of Wednesday’s meeting, next week. Any questions, comments, discussion? Assemblyman Geddes, we’ll do a work session on your bill.
Assembly Bill 237: Revises provisions relating to use of alternative fuels by certain fleets of motor vehicles. (BDR 43-796)
Assemblyman Jason Geddes, Washoe County Assembly District No. 24:
I just want to make a couple of comments while Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst, passes around the A.B. 237 mock-up (Exhibit D). There were some concerns raised by the RTC (Regional Transportation Commission) based on the language pertaining to emissions. After we made the amendments Ms. Eissmann is passing around, the Clark County and Washoe County RTCs are in agreement as amended. I have an e-mail (Exhibit E) from them stating that. John Sagebiel, the diesel expert, thinks it was a good way to go. I also received an e-mail from the Nevada Propane Dealers Association (Exhibit E), and they are in support of A.B. 237.
I’ll just summarize the amendments we made, quickly (Exhibit D). In Section 2, we cleaned up the definition based on recommendations by the Western States Petroleum Association, referring it to ASTM standards, which is the American Society for Testing and Materials that regulates fuel quality, by reference in this state. In Section 3, the reference to ethanol diesel was removed and we added in B20 biodiesel. B20 biodiesel is currently approved in the NAC (Nevada Administrative Code); in talking with NDEP (Nevada Division of Environmental Protection) they just wanted to make sure the B5 designation didn’t exclude that. We basically extended it to the B20 as well.
I did remove ethanol diesel. It was removed because we didn’t have specific numbers as far as content or reference methods to confirm the quality of the ethanol diesel. As the study gets concluded in Clark County on the effectiveness of the fuel, they’ll be able to apply to the administrative process in the Division and request to be put on the list. Section 9, subsection 2, we took out the specific references to specific pollutants and we put in a certification class through EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) that vehicles would have to meet. Everyone liked that portion of the standard, because there were concerns about being able to actually test, or how they would have to specify that someone did demonstrate those levels.
Those are the major changes, and Ms. Eissmann sent them out to everybody who came to testify and expressed concern. Everybody is still in agreement with the bill going forward. With that, I would request an “amend and do pass.”
Chairman Collins:
Ms. Eissmann, did you have anything to add? [She indicated she did not.] We’re going to give you some time to absorb this; we’ll vote maybe at the end of the meeting. [Chairman Collins indicated to the Committee Secretary that Ms. Ohrenschall was testifying in another Committee, and would possibly be present later in the meeting.] I plan to take all of our votes, if any votes are taken today, at the end of the meeting. Out of seniority, we have two bills up by Assemblyman Carpenter. I’d like to go in that fashion. We’re going to reopen A.B. 131, Assemblyman Carpenter, for a minute. Ms. Berkley, would you like to come up?
Assembly Bill 131: Makes various changes relating to protection of cultural resources. (BDR 33-92)
Paula Berkley, Public Relations and Lobbying, Paula Berkley and Associates:
[Introduced herself] I was not aware this bill was going to be heard today. Obviously, the Inter-Tribal Council (Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada, Inc.) met on this bill last Friday, had prepared testimony, and were prepared to come down in force to testify. Since we weren’t given that opportunity to come down, and I had an appointment with the Chairman to discuss this, you’ve caught me a little unaware. Let me summarize some of our concerns. One, the bill that Assemblyman Mortenson presented at the beginning of Session was his third try. We had participated in previous attempts. We were supportive of the bill, so didn’t come in and testify.
In the meantime, the Mining Association (Nevada Mining Association) had the audacity to come in and tell you that it shouldn’t be applied to federal lands, which is approximately 89 percent of the state of Nevada. They also had the audacity to say that the word traditional should be taken out of it, which virtually takes out Indian people’s input into the process because we are not archeologists, anthropologists, paleontologists, or any of the other non-Indian sciences. The other thing we objected to was the objection that they should not have the word “damage” as applied to mining. They only wanted the word “vandalism.” I am absolutely certain that mining does not vandalize cultural resources. But “damage to cultural resources” – evidently they feel guilty about it because they want that word taken out. I object to that.
I object to the fact that they wanted to take out words that would have the program acknowledge federal, state, local, and tribal interests. Their explanation was that it was redundant. My explanation to you is that if it was redundant, why are they objecting. Quite often, federal law will be put into state law when it is not consistently acknowledged. Let me give you an example.
[Paula Berkley] The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) was passed because the majority, or a good portion of, the Native American children were taken away from their families and tribes and put up for adoption. The federal law, the Indian Child Welfare Act, prohibited that and basically said that if a child was going to be put up for adoption, the tribe should be consulted. Unfortunately, in the process of adoption, most judges look at state law, because that’s what governs adoptions. The federal law was basically ignored; not through meanness or anything like that, but because it wasn’t there to remind them. Indians are not the rule in court.
Two sessions ago, Brian Sandoval, Nevada Attorney General, sponsored a bill to put the ICWA federal law into the state law so that people would remember that those kinds of considerations need to happen. I think the Inter-Tribal Council, which met last Friday, felt that they were gutting the bill in an effort to have nothing ever be consulted regarding cultural resources and mining. We think that’s a grave mistake. We think it’s discourteous to Assemblyman Mortenson, who has tried for three sessions, to get a very innocuous bill with volunteers, without any money, through the sheer honoring of the cultural resources that Native Americans, and others, have offered to the state.
We want to be on the record that there are a great deal of problems with this bill, and we would be happy to work in the work session to see where there are some compromises and some acknowledgement of Native American issues can be found and acknowledged.
Assemblyman Mortenson:
Ms. Berkley, I want to correct you, I hate to do this. I’ve only introduced a bill last session [Seventy-first Legislative Session]. It did pass through the Assembly during the last session. Unfortunately, due to time constraints, it passed on the last day of the session and therefore it didn’t make it to the Senate, much less through the Senate.
Chairman Collins:
On our agenda, we post anything from “previous meetings.” Because we have a person with as much or more involvement in this issue and legislation as you do, we allowed some testimony earlier. We still have an appointment for later. Matters from previous hearings can be brought up at any time. This was not in any way to leave you out of anything. It was just a courtesy since someone had traveled the length of the state. If you heard the Subcommittee assignments, I’m sure you’ll look for when that meeting gets posted and bring your people.
Assemblyman Carpenter, I apologize for the delay. We’ll now open A.B. 272.
Assembly Bill 272: Provides for regulation of outfitters and guides. (BDR 54-142)
Assemblyman John Carpenter, Assembly District No. 33 (Elko County and portions of Humboldt County):
[Introduced himself] I’m here today to introduce A.B. 272, known as the regulation of outfitters and guides. This bill is brought to you by request; there are a number of people who feel there’s a need for more regulation of hunters and guides, that they need their own organization to police themselves. In the audience is Todd Schwandt, and perhaps others with him, who will be able to explain the reason and need for A.B. 272. With your permission, I’d like to call Mr. Schwandt and anyone with him to support A.B. 272.
I’d be glad to invite those people up. What I want to emphasize, since there’s a room full of people, I show four people signed in to speak on this bill. If you want to speak, make sure you mark that box. If there’s anyone else that wants to speak on bills – I’ve got three people signed in to speak on A.B. 301, four to speak on A.B. 272, and others for other bills.
Todd Schwandt, Vice President, Nevada Outfitters and Guides Association:
[Introduced himself] We appeared before this Committee in the last session [Seventy-first Legislative Session] with a similar bill. We had some problems with it and some opposition to it on how we were going to fund it without dipping into state coffers. We revised the bill with the help of Assemblyman Carpenter, and many hours talking with other state licensing agencies in Idaho, Wyoming, and Colorado. We came up with this product.
We chopped off about 12 pages and did away with a lot of the language. We still have some issues to work with. One of the things, as we pointed out, there’s NRS (Nevada Revised Statutes) language in effect now that regulates the outfitting and guide industry in Nevada. We did not remove any of that, the reason being that we wanted to make sure this bill would be in place before any of that was removed. We have two years to do so the way this bill is written. We’ve also made this bill less cumbersome; we were at 27 or 28 pages and we didn’t want to keep adding pages.
The reason this bill came about was – I’ve been in the guide and outfitting business here in Nevada for 18 years. I’ve watched it go from a handful of guides, about 50 or 60 licensed master guides in the state – for clarification, a master guide is the same as an outfitter. If I hired you to conduct business here in Nevada for a guided hunting or fishing trip, then you are considered a master guide. My employees are considered subguides. In the other western states, I would be considered an outfitter, as a person who owns a business and does the bookings; a guide is the person that goes on the trip or provides the service. We have clarified the language in here, converted it to what the rest of the western United States uses: outfitter and guide.
[Todd Schwandt] We’ve gone from approximately 50 to 60 master guides in the state of Nevada to today, we’re currently over 126 licensed master guides. A lot of this came about from when we came here on three different attempts; on our third attempt, we were able to pass what is called the Non-resident Guided Hunt Bill. That provided for a portion of the nonresident deer tags to go to the outfitters only, and to be utilized in a special drawing for nonresident hunters who wanted to hunt with guides. This was a very important bill for us; it took several tries to get it through.
I’ve provided you with a copy of our economic impact statement (Exhibit F) that was done two years ago that shows the economic impact from those 400 deer tags that were received. It is over $1 million in direct sales; it works out to a little over $3 million in indirect sales per year that we are generating for the state of Nevada off of 400 tags. Since those tags were introduced, the number of master guides has exploded in the state. Everyone wants to be a guide.
They think they’re making a lot of money in the business. After one or two years, they find out they’re not; they’re out of business and gone. There are five or six guys standing in line to take their place. We have an increase in the number of master guides. We have dentists, lawyers, handymen who are nonresidents, and cannot draw a deer tag in Nevada because of the ample hunting opportunities we have. They become a master guide and enter their friends, family, and next-door neighbors into this drawing and take tags away from legitimate outfitters who are trying to create a business in Nevada, and they use it for personal recreation.
Chairman Collins:
Did you say dentists couldn’t guide?
Todd Schwandt:
No, dentists can guide, but there are dentists who guide just to use recreational tags. Currently, there is a master guide who has been in the state for many years who recently lost his guide license for wildlife violations. He’s out of business as far as taking people hunting or fishing; he can still take that same person on horseback rides, wildlife viewings, and nature trips. He still enters into contracts and agreements, providing a recreational service.
[Todd Schwandt] Those are some of the things we’re trying to overcome. There’s no licensing for river guides for the state of Nevada, for float trips, for wildlife viewing, or things like that. Right now, we’re only currently licensing hunting and fishing. The Nevada Commission on Tourism has embarked on a multimillion dollar campaign that I know many of you are aware of, promoting the outdoor recreation in Nevada. Hunting is one of those. Outdoor recreation is the big push right now to bring more tourism into the state of Nevada. There is nothing in place to regulate who is providing these services to the client.
If I want to start an ATV (all terrain vehicle) rental service tomorrow, and provide ATV tours, there’s nothing providing regulation for that. If I want to do river-rafting trips on the Truckee River, there’s no law saying I can’t do it. I need a special use permit from the government, that’s it. If I want to do horseback rides – I’m a six-time convicted felon, a child molester – there’s no law saying I can’t provide that service to these people.
What we are attempting to create is modeled after Idaho and Wyoming to create a licensing board. Currently, you have 35 licensing boards for professions in the state of Nevada, everything from landscaping, to contractors, to court recorders. We would like to be the same. The current program is: we apply for a master guide license with the Nevada Department of Wildlife, it is a basic two page application; we are required to pay $250 for our license; first time applicants pay for a background check. There’s nothing identifying how long a season of experience is; nothing says you need a state business license, you have to have state sales tax, you have to pay a use tax. None of that is being met. All we’re required to do is fill out an application, provide proof of insurance, and show that we completed first aid.
It’s majorly flawed. We came before this group; we had a lot of problems last time. We’ve gone before the old Nevada Wildlife Commission with our concerns and issues. We were assigned to committees upon committees and we’re still in the same position today. We have invested a lot of money into our business; we’re trying to be good residents of the state, so to speak. We pay a lot of money out in taxes every year. We generate for the rural areas a tremendous amount of income. For the urban areas, a couple million dollars isn’t a whole lot, but for the rural areas in Nevada a couple of million dollars is a lot of money. We provide employment; we keep motels, restaurants, gas stations, and other businesses in business. That comes from the dedicated, full-time outfitters.
It has become an economic venture for many of us, and a way of life. We’re trying to get a bill that regulates us in much the same way you do a contractor or the eye doctor. We want something out there that has some teeth to it, regulates us, and we’ll go from there. I know a couple of you have questions. I’m sure one of them is how we’re going to fund ourselves. On page 7, Section 22, line 27, we have increased the cost of our outfitter license to $500, doubled from $250; we took a base of that at 126 licensed master guides. We then took an increase in cost of a subguide from $75 per year to $100 per year; there are currently about 150 licensed subguides in the state of Nevada. That was how we generated it.
[Todd Schwandt] We have one change we’d like to make; I’m not sure if I should tell you that now or later. Section 22, lines 30-32, we’d like to have stricken from the bill for the renewal fee of only $150. That was a mistake, because if we go from $500 down to $150, we’re going to be out of money the second year, with everyone licensed. We’d like to leave it at $500 per year.
Chairman Collins:
Section 32?
Todd Schwandt:
Section 22, lines 30 to 32, has the fees for the renewal of a license for outfitters and license for guides. We’d like to leave them as flat rates: license for an outfitter as $500, and license for a guide as $100.
On page 21, Section 46, that paragraph looks a little confusing to laymen like us, but the act doesn’t become effective until July 1, 2003. If you read Section 46, it says you will not become a licensed outfitter-guide until July 1, 2004. That falls back on us leaving the existing NRS (Nevada Revised Statutes) guide regulations the way they are. We have a year to get this board in place, up and running, before we actually begin licensing members of the outfitters and guides.
We would set the board up to have three licensed guides with five years of experience as a master guide in the state of Nevada. We foresee that as a representative from the southern region, possibly a fishing guide from Lake Mead; a hunting guide from the northeastern or eastern region of Nevada; and another outfitter from the western region, whether a fishing, hunting, or rafting guide – public-at-large, whatever it may be; and one member of the Nevada Wildlife Commission to assist us in following and keeping the Nevada Wildlife Commission hands-on in the guiding industry in Nevada.
Assemblyman Claborn:
Could you run through the master guide and guide situation that you laid out at the beginning of the conversation? What is a master guide and such?
Todd Schwandt:
Currently, to book a hunt in the state of Nevada, if you want to go on a guided elk hunt with me over in Ely, you can only enter into a contractual agreement with a master guide. The master guide generally owns the business, is the one who obtains the permits from the U.S. Forest Service and/or the BLM (Bureau of Land Management), and then he might assign you a subguide to go on the hunt. The guide is the one that actually goes on the bill and takes the person hunting. There are a lot of master guides that do that. This would change that to outfitter and guide, which will clarify it for the other western states. Currently, I believe it’s only Alaska that uses the terminology of master guide and subguide.
Chairman Collins:
You’re calling them outfitters for the master guide, and guide is the subguide?
Todd Schwandt:
Yes. Master guides will be changed to outfitters and subguides will be changed to guides. It causes confusion with the western hunting shows when people don’t realize whom they’re talking to.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I have several questions. Mr. Schwandt, I think you said you had 134 active guides today, in Nevada.
Todd Schwandt:
About 126, we estimate.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
That would generate about $65,000 right there, maybe a little less. What do you anticipate for the additional guides?
Todd Schwandt:
Currently, there’s about 150 licensed subguides in the state, and at $100 apiece, we’d be pulling about another $15,000 from that.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
You’re anticipating revenues of about $80,000 on an annual basis.
Todd Schwandt:
Yes, sir. We’re anticipating only hiring a director to oversee the operations. We don’t think we need a secretary for the director to tell to send out a letter. We’re going to run a real tight ship like we do our outfitter businesses.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
How many recreational tags did you say are issued on an annual basis in Nevada, or the ones you qualify for?
Todd Schwandt:
For the mule deer, only speaking on that because I don’t have the other information before me, we have 400 tags issued per year. The average price of a guided hunt, at the time the survey was done, was around $2,500 per hunter. That has increased, and now it averages around $3,000 for a guided hunt.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
There are about 125 guides and I’m assuming maybe 80 to 100 out of those 400 tags are doing mule deer hunts. How do you determine who gets tags and how many?
Todd Schwandt:
It’s through a drawing system. We have a drawing held in March – it was just held last week – and it’s for the nonresident guided hunters that want to go on a guided hunt. They put into a special drawing, they pay $300 for their deer tag, and they have to be cosponsored by a licensed master guide. They go into a special drawing; each outfitter, or master guide, can draw up to 30 hunters. There’s no guarantee we’re going to get any hunters, as many outfitters find out each year. They might have 10 to 15 to 20 to 30 clients in the draw, but they don’t draw any tags. One outfitter may end up with 30. For an example, I ended up with 6. Some do okay, some don’t.
That whole system was created so we would know by June 1 if we were going to have any deer hunters this year so we can pay our insurance and pay our special use permits. Those people want all their money upfront. With the old system, we didn’t know until June if we were even going to have any hunters.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
One more question, and I might have to direct this question to Assemblyman Carpenter, the fiscal note on this says the effect is on local government rather than the state. Can you tell me why that is?
Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst:
Assemblyman Goicoechea, do you have the fiscal note, or you don’t actually have the fiscal note?
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I’m looking at the front of the bill.
Linda Eissmann:
I do have the fiscal note; this is what it says:
The bill increases or newly provides for a term of imprisonment in a city or county jail or detention facility or makes release on probation there from less likely; therefore, local governments will incur all appurtenant costs of enforcement, prosecution and incarceration.
Does that answer your question? [Assemblyman Goicoechea indicated it did.]
Chairman Collins:
Are there any other questions from the Committee?
Todd Schwandt:
Thank you. I have a couple of other outfitters who would like to speak briefly.
Chairman Collins:
With the amount of time we have left, I’d like to ask Mr. Hornbarger, Mr. Diebold, and Mr. Weller to come forward, then Mr. MacKenzie and Mr. Bradley.
Michael Hornbarger, President, Nevada Outfitters and Guides Association:
[Introduced himself] I wanted to point out a couple of things as far as funding this board. There are going to be quite a number of businesses that are going to come under this that are currently unlicensed: horseback riding, rafting, sight-seeing trips; they’ll all have to pay the $500 now. I would expect to see an increase over just the 137 licenses that are currently given to just the guides.
Chairman Collins:
For example, trail rides at Red Rock? You mean where the horse riding groups rent the horses?
Michael Hornbarger:
Correct.
Chairman Collins:
Profit or revenue generating; nonprofit groups would be exempt.
Michael Hornbarger:
We could take this business, this industry, and turn it into a significant financial benefit for rural Nevada, if we get just a little bit of help for you.
Tony Diebold, Outfitter, Nevada:
[Introduced himself] I went to Idaho 20 years ago and bought a business because I couldn’t make a living here doing what I wanted to do. In Idaho, this business is the third or fourth largest money producer in Idaho. It could be that big in Nevada, if we were regulated. If we’re not regulated, it’s just a big loss for the state. Not only that, it’s a big loss for guys like me who want to make a living and have invested a lot of money. The $3 million that we already generated two years ago, prices have gone up, that could be doubled or tripled for the state of Nevada. Those are tourist dollars.
Gene Weller, Deputy Administrator, Division of Wildlife, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
[Introduced himself] The Division of Wildlife has been regulating the hunting and fishing guides under our current laws and regulations since about 1997. Those laws and regulations were made with considerable input from the guides themselves and the guys that are involved in Nevada. Our impression is that those programs seem to be working well. We’ve had no ongoing complaints related to our regulation of guides over the last few years. We currently license approximately 350 resident and nonresident master guides and subguides. The annual income from that guide licensing is approximately $66,000 to the Division of Wildlife.
However, our administrative and program monitoring costs exceed about $75,000 so it’s not a winning program for us. Our stand on this, as a Division of Wildlife, is if the Legislature is inclined to set up another means to regulate this industry, that’s your prerogative, and that’s fine. We do have some concerns, and some have been addressed already; if indeed you choose to do that, we’re concerned that the bill would have to be amended to exclude our regulatory responsibilities. That was addressed by Mr. Schwandt a moment ago. We would look for that amendment to get us out of the business. We don’t want to be in duplicative business.
The other thing is that it would take some time to explore the interfaces we have with guides into our other programs. We would have to be able to monitor and get those out of the program. With that, I’ll answer any questions.
Chairman Collins:
You don’t license the trail rides down in Las Vegas?
Gene Weller:
No, we do not, only hunting and fishing guides.
Chairman Collins:
Would you amend that in or out? If this bill passed, would you keep them in or amend them out?
Gene Weller:
To allow it? As soon as this bill passes, we’re out of the business. It really wouldn’t matter. We would not be inclined to license outfitters because that’s not within our purview.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
Mr. Weller, how do you address the discrepancy in numbers? You’re saying 350 and I heard 125 and 134 from testimony?
Gene Weller:
Those figures that I quoted were directly from our licensing, based on last year’s figures. We’re in the process of licensing now, so that difference will change. We’re estimating to have licensed, in 2003, 358 guides and subguides; that’s resident and nonresident. Last year, we licensed 337.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
If you are backing completely out of the enforcement – that’s what you’re saying – who’s going to regulate this? I missed that someplace – the guides and outfitters? Who’s going to have the enforcement to put them in the county jail?
Gene Weller:
As I understand the bill, they would hire their own enforcement. If the Division of Wildlife engaged in a poaching violation that involved a guide, we would handle that as a poaching violation. In terms of guides regulating themselves as to whether they have stock or tackle, that would be their enforcement responsibility.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
How about if they were out of their area, or weren’t permitted by the Forest Service? I don’t even know how you address that today. What if you don’t have a permit to be in the forest in a particular area? Who enforces that today?
Gene Weller:
That would be enforced by us, today, relating to guides being in their assigned areas. That responsibility would move over to the guide board.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
If you had a game warden do a camp check, at that point they wouldn’t even ask if the guide had a license. Even though we’re establishing this commission, there still have to be some teeth there in the statute for enforcement. I would hope the Division of Wildlife would continue to enforce it; I don’t think they could be selective.
Gene Weller:
I’d like to not put words in the mouths of the guides, because they’ve obviously considered this, but it’s our impression that that would become a function that they would control and police.
Michael Hornbarger:
Basically, this bill would give us the ability, the guides board, the ability to hire an enforcement officer. Outside of that, guides in violation of the law, any peace officer – the highway patrol doesn’t just enforce the speed limit; the game wardens don’t just enforce game laws. They’re all peace officers. A guide in violation of the law is in violation of the law, and all law enforcement personnel have some responsibility when they see a violation.
Chairman Collins:
In other words, you believe that the soon-to-be Department of Wildlife would still enforce your camping and hunting tags, through the enforcement division. You would only enforce the guide license provision? Is that your intention with your board? For example, they’re still going to be in charge of the hunting, and you’re going to take care of the barbershops and hairdressers?
Michael Hornbarger:
The Division of Wildlife is in charge of the game laws, and that’s their bailiwick, and we’re not trying to get into that. What we would be in charge of is license violations, area violations. If someone complains, then the guides and outfitters board investigates the complaint. The guides board would have their investigator investigate the complaint, and there are provisions for people to be brought up.
Chairman Collins:
Dealing with the guides, trips, and hunts.
Assemblyman Conklin:
For Mr. Diebold, I have a question and a concern. You had mentioned that you felt Nevada could be a place much like Idaho with lots of outfitters, a lot of money being driven into our economy as a result of our natural resources and the use of those – notice I didn’t say exploitation – the use of those resources. I’m concerned because as a businessperson in southern Nevada, generally speaking I equate more regulation and governing with less market forces in play and making it more difficult sometimes to make more money and have your business and industry grow. I would like to know from you what you see as our problems, particularly to limiting the number of outfitters and guides. In other words, for the flip side, what problems do we need to tackle to make our economy grow in that area, that this bill specifically addresses?
Tony Diebold:
I’m a Nevada resident; I’ve been here all my life. I bought an existing business and worked in Idaho four months a year, because I couldn’t make it here since there wasn’t an environment for doing that. Then I got involved with Mr. Schwandt and we started the Nevada Outfitters and Guides Association. I thought that everything was working pretty good. In Idaho, they regulate the number of outfitters, much the same as the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) does here. They don’t let everyone who wants to run sheep, run sheep. They have a limited resource. There’s a cap on outfitters in Idaho. They have to have a cap somewhere, or there’s no end to it. It’s not like in a business organization like construction where there are unlimited resources. No one is going to stop building buildings.
Here, we have a limited number. If you have 400 outfitters for 400 tags, nobody’s going to make any money. A guy like me can invest money all his life and I’m going to go broke. Now, we have an environment that if we have a regulation, then we have an environment where I can make a living, the state can make tax dollars, it’s just a better environment. There were 7 or 8 outfitters in the northwestern part of the state 10 or 15 years ago. Now, there are 40, and we’re still working on the same amount of tags. I went from 15 or 20 tags down to 4 or 5. I can’t make a living that way. Nobody makes a living that way.
What happens is all the recreational guides, they don’t care. They get to write it off. They take 100 a year, they’re happy. They don’t buy a business license and they don’t pay state taxes; they buy their trucks wherever they come from. The state loses, we lose; everyone loses. I’m not looking for protection; I am saying we have to have some kind of level playing ground.
Assemblyman Conklin:
You confirmed what my fear was. I’m not saying I don’t support the bill, but my fear is any time you set something like this up, you do create barriers for market entry to certain businesses. That can have a positive effect and that’s what you’re alluding to. That’s very important. The next question would be, who decides who the 400 are that will get licenses and who gets left behind? We’re going to make this up not through our bureaucracy, which I’m not necessarily a fan of, but we’re going to make it up of guides partially, three out of five people. What prevents those three from selecting their friends, relatives, business, et cetera? Do you get where I’m going with this? I like the idea; I want to make sure we’re protecting the playing field and that it’s truly level.
Tony Diebold:
What we have talked about in the past – what we envisioned – Let’s just pick a number – there are 150, 200, or 300 licensed outfitters right now, that’s where we start. When one of those outfitters leaves, either the number comes down or one more guide gets the license. That’s how they did it in Idaho; this is what we based it off of. It worked pretty well. There’s a list in Idaho of want-to-be outfitters, but they keep that list. I’m not saying we pick because “I’ve been here longer than you have.” I’m saying we’d start with whatever the number is now. Somewhere along the line, we’ve got to stop letting outfitters in here. It’s going to be ridiculous if we don’t have a cap somewhere. It would be like unlimited gaming. If you didn’t regulate gaming, there wouldn’t be any casinos left; there’d be big buildings, empty.
Assemblyman Claborn:
Mr. Weller, you stated, just to put this on the record, if this bill passes, the state would be out of business with regards to licensing guides. Is that correct? Also, you stated you would still be in enforcement of wildlife laws, correct?
Gene Weller:
Assemblyman Claborn, I believe what you say is true. Yes those were statements I made. As the bill is presented today, we would continue to license guides as they establish their board. As Mr. Schwandt has mentioned, he would come back in two years and ask to repeal all of our laws. Right now, we would continue, because we have laws on the books that require us to license guides, and we would continue to do that.
We would hope, however, and that was my statement, that if you choose to establish this board, that we would get out of the business. It’s not fair to the guides for both the Division of Wildlife and the outfitters and guides board to permit them twice. We would hope that we would be out of the business. As to your second question, yes, we would continue to enforce wildlife-related laws in the state of Nevada.
Assemblyman Geddes:
I was okay until I heard some of the answers; now I’m nervous. It does sound like the intent of this bill is to limit the number of people who are out there doing this. Not to set the standards that we, as legislators, want to say, “If you’re going to be an outfitter or master guide in this state, we think you need to have certain qualifications to call yourself such.” It sounds like we’re trying to control and regulate the business for the purpose of ensuring there’s a business for some, but not all. That concerns me greatly, and it was in the way you answered that raised that fear. Maybe you can restate that.
[Assemblyman Geddes] In going through here, I’m not seeing any specific provisions that would give guides and outfitters a certain number of tags out of the tag pool. I would hate to see anything that would do such a thing, so that if we had this limited number of outfitters and guides and we came back and looked at this issue and said, “We still need a certain number of tags guaranteed to us in order to maintain that business level.” I would want to make sure there was no such provision like that available, especially when you’re going through the NAC (Nevada Administrative Code) and setting up requirements to guide them.
I see you shaking your head no, that there’s nothing there. It’s a “no” then? And if you could answer the first question, as far as stating – it sounds like the intent is to limit the number of outfitters so that you all can run a business, but why should we be in the position of doing that? If we’re going to set a certain level of standards, I’m okay with that, but if we’re there to regulate the business to make sure you’re all thriving, I’m not sure why we’re involved in that process.
Michael Hornbarger:
We don’t envision that; our purpose is not to limit the number of guides. There are a lot of guides out there who have licenses and use a tag on them who aren’t in business. It’s a game that they play. Wouldn’t we be better off with a legitimate, qualified outfitter utilizing those tags and generating income in the state of Nevada, as opposed to someone who is using it as a loophole to get his friends and family tags, from out-of-state?
Assemblyman Geddes:
Does that mean there’s an allocation set aside if you’re a guide or an outfitter?
Michael Hornbarger:
No. We draw for those tags. We still have to draw for them, but we’ve got guys in there who are not in business and they’re drawing for those tags.
Assemblyman Geddes:
Drawn in the same pool?
Michael Hornbarger:
The same 400 tags, yes.
Assemblyman Geddes:
So there is already a pool of 400 tags set aside for outfitters and guides that you draw from?
Michael Hornbarger:
Correct. That legislation has been passed for a long time.
Assemblyman Geddes:
There’s no interest to change that?
Michael Hornbarger:
We’re happy with the way it is. If this board were in effect, and someone came to them and said, “I want to operate here, this is my plan of operation, I think there’s a niche here for me that’s not being filled,” I don’t see how that board could deny him a license.
Assemblyman Geddes:
If we’re looking at 358 guides, and there’s no intention to cap it below that level, and saying that’ll probably be the cap, if you’ve got 358 guides and 400 tags, there are not very many of you who are going to be in business at that point. If you’re not trying to scale back that number, then it sounds like you are trying to cap.
Chairman Collins:
Before 1891, anybody who would take 50 cents per day pay, and was climbing poles and getting killed on electrical wires, and then came the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers that made them be trained before they could go up there and they quit getting killed. It’s the same point; the guides want to make professional standards for a guide. That’s how I can understand it; I can’t understand a lot of this other stuff being said, but I can understand it in that sense. I know that you’re trying to set a standard for guides so that you’re brother-in-law can’t come down from Oregon and buy into the pool without a substantial investment in a business. In other words, so that the guy down the street selling something is not paying sales tax – we have a business license. That’s basically what you’re asking for, a licensing procedure for outfitters and guides, with no restriction, but they must meet a heavy enough standard that it’s not a weekend warrior type of guy.
Todd Schwandt:
Exactly. Right now, it would be one-stop shopping. A guy comes in and applies for a license as an outfitter in the state of Nevada we’re going to require that he has insurance to conduct business. He’s going to need a permit or letter of intent from a federal agency or the private landowner where he plans on operating. Out of the 350 guides that the Nevada Division of Wildlife just identified, there are only 35 special use permits in the state of Nevada to operate on BLM (Bureau of Land Management) or U.S. Forest Service lands. That gives you an idea of how many outfitters out there are operating that aren’t paying their 3 percent of their gross to Uncle Sam. We would make it a one-stop shop.
They’re going to show us proof that they have a Nevada business license; proof that they have a use permit to pay their use tax on the food they prepare and sell in camp; proof that they have Workers’ Compensation Insurance. We have several outfitters or employees injured each year in the state of Nevada. There’s no Workers’ Comp; those guys are on their own. They’re being paid $75 to $100 a day, under the table, “Here’s your check; here’s part of the tip; we’ll see you later.” We want to clean this up; we want to make the Nevada industry something that we’re all proud of, that you guys can look to us and we can look to each other and say, “Yes, they are professional outfitters.”
Right now, it is way too easy to become an outfitter. The favorite saying is, “If you can sign a check for $250 and look over the counter, you’re going to receive a master guide license.” I’m not saying that to take a jab at the Division. It’s a basic fact; that’s the way it is. We have people now who are moving to Nevada, they obtain their residency after six months, and they become licensed master guides and have never guided an individual, ridden a horse, or looked through a spotting scope a day in their life. We’re trying to clean that up.
The second part of your question – this bill contains no language in any shape or form asking for more deer tags or allocation of tags. We want to keep this nice and clean; get a professional licensing board in here.
Tony Diebold:
A lot of these outfitters do not hunt deer at all. A lot of them are specialized sheep hunters or fishermen. All those licenses are not covered under the 400 tags we were talking about.
Assemblyman Conklin:
A point of clarification, because Assemblyman Geddes and I are on the same page, I understand the electrical workers’ union and I think we both agree with that. [He indicated to Assemblyman Geddes that he didn’t mean to speak for him]. I agree with that. The concern here is we’re allocating a broad range of abilities, and we’re only trying to make certain that the legitimate businessperson – and I understand your point, very well-taken – that there may be some illegitimate people out there, and that’s fine. We want to get those people out of our state, and reserve it for the legitimate businessman, but in no way can the legitimate businessman, outfitter, or guide, be limited in his ability to get licensing.
[Assemblyman Conklin] That’s the concern in a nutshell. You all have answered our questions, but it’s something we have to hash out in the language and just make sure we’re comfortable with it and that it meets what you’re trying to achieve. At the same time we’ve done our job to protect the legitimate citizen of the state of Nevada who wants to make that their business and livelihood, who has looked through a scope before, et cetera.
Chairman Collins:
We have two more bills; if it changes his vote, don’t say it.
Assemblyman Claborn:
I have a hypothetical. Are we only talking about the 400 tags? If I didn’t draw a tag in a regular drawing, and my friend did, does this mean I couldn’t take him up to Wells in my special place; he’s got a tag, I have no tag, somebody catches me up there with him, does this involve what we’re talking about here, or nothing to do with it?
Todd Schwandt:
No. Don’t get confused by the 400 tags. That was just used as an example of once the bill was out there how many outfitters are competing for the 400 tags and how many new outfitters we get each year. The 400 tags are actually drawn before the regular draw. The way the 400 tags are set up, nonresidents get two chances to draw a Nevada deer tag. They can put in for the first drawing which is held in March; if they’re unsuccessful, they apply again, before the deadline, and find out in June if they drew a tag. No, it does not have any bearing on this bill whatsoever. Thank you for having us here today.
Bill Bradley, Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners:
[Introduced himself] We discussed this bill at length in our meeting two weeks ago. We have to come in opposition to this bill. I first want to commend the freshmen legislators for identifying some very important questions about this bill. Many of the points that you have answered are things that we have concerns about. The bottom line is this industry arises out of wildlife. We feel, as the Commission, that because it arises out of wildlife, it’s best left in the wildlife department. I will be the first to admit, I’ve been on the Commission seven years, I’ll be done in two years. Mr. MacKenzie will be on, hopefully, for a long time. We have not in the last seven years had the discussions with the guides that brought them here today.
[Bill Bradley] We currently do license the guides and oversee them, but we’re not doing a very good job, according to them. Many of the things Mr. MacKenzie and I heard from this table, we’ve never heard from a guide before. The gentlemen that appeared in front of you are some of the best guides in this state, and do a good job for wildlife and for the business of hunting and fishing. But we feel as a Commission, very strongly, that with proper funding – we like their fee structure in this bill, and we’re going to ask you that if you elect not to create a separate board, give us that funding, we’ll work closely with these guys. They’ve already written the regulations that govern them, and we’ll improve the way the Division of Wildlife oversees and works with these guides.
As you who have worked with us know, we’re very proud of the Division of Wildlife, and we’re very proud of the Board of Wildlife Commissioners. We think we’re a very proactive group. Once again, it all arises out of wildlife, and we think it belongs all under one roof.
Chris MacKenzie, Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners:
[Introduced himself] I feel a little awkward, unfortunately, feeling that I have to come out against these gentlemen, because they’re all people I very much respect and think that they’re all quality men in their line of business, and that they serve a purpose that we’re not trying to restrict. I think they brought up a point – I’ve been on the Commission for almost two years now – and I wasn’t aware that this was a problem. I think it’s something we as a Commission need to address. I feel that we can do that through our regulatory process. That’s the only reason I come out in opposition. I think they have some very good ideas. They’ve expressed some problems we do need to address under the purview of our Board.
It’s going to mean more work for us. I’m not thankful for more work on the Commission, but I think it’s something that falls under our purview, and that’s the only reason I come out against them having their own board.
Chairman Collins:
How many of these guys belong either to a county board or on the state Commission?
Bill Bradley:
None. That was actually brought up in our last meeting. You have to realize that the commercial enterprise of wildlife, people making money off wildlife, is resented by some sportsmen. Sportsmen, unfortunately, misunderstand the way the Division of Wildlife works, and misunderstand the way guides work. Mike Hornbarger was on the Humboldt County Advisory Board for a long time, but whenever Mr. Hornbarger fought for an increase in tags or a decrease in tags, we would be accused by other members of the Board for “feathering” his nest, as opposed to doing what’s right for wildlife.
The people in this room do wonderful things for wildlife. Each one of them has been on subcommittees of our Board of Wildlife Commissioners. Mr. Hornbarger works with our big game shoot program. Mr. Diebold works on our predator management program. We as a Commission are trying to involve them. I think a couple of guides might be from Mineral County, perhaps Lincoln County, on their advisory boards, and perhaps even White Pine County. As I sit here, I can’t think of any that are on Washoe County or Clark County. They can be put on there, but they bring a commercial interest that some sportsmen resent.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
I look at this bill, and that’s what we’re here considering. It’s a portion of NRS (Nevada Revised Statutes), and I was concerned when I heard Mr. Weller say that they would be pulling out and no longer enforcing the regulations in these statutes. I think it is in our best interests – and as I pointed out, I think it would be up to the game wardens – this will be a component of NRS.
Bill Bradley:
I can see a game warden coming in and encountering a guide that has some problems, and our game warden has to say, “I’ve got to get a hold of your enforcement officer, and he’s in the south and you’re here in Wells.” I understand their frustration, but I really think that because it’s all under the roof of wildlife, we can do the things they want to do within our Department, so the game warden can do that, and we can get adequate funding for our Department to adequately regulate this industry.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
Mr. Bradley, I do disagree somewhat; this is only a board. Another board is created under NRS, one of the 35 that already exists, this would be 36. I think you can still function under the same umbrella. They have to have a license; it would be the same as having a hunting license. I’m assuming they would have a guide license, documentation that would show that they are in fact licensed in that area.
Bill Bradley:
All the funding from that license is going now to that board. There is no funding going into the Department of Wildlife, other than for the 400 tags, for example. There isn’t other funding that’s going in to help us pay for what you want us to do.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
It looked like when Mr. Weller gave his presentation there was about $10,000 deficit on an annual basis. The existing $66,000 you’re generating versus what it’s costing you.
Bill Bradley:
There is now. As I multiply $500 by the 300 tags, I get about $150,000. We’re currently using $60,000. I’ll tell you, with $150,000, I think you would see a lot better oversight and a lot better working relationships between these groups than you do with $60,000. Plus an $800 one-year fee, that adds another $800 times 300 additionally to our budget (sic).
Assemblyman Conklin:
Mr. Chairman, you’re probably going to hate me for this. I’m curious – we can solve the funding problem with the fees, and I don’t think anyone has a problem with it; I certainly don’t. But then we have another problem; we have gentlemen who, I believe, have a right to organize and be part of a group that helps to govern and make sure that they have good integrity-bound people working in their business. I know for a fact that you’re a member of several organizations within your profession. I don’t think you’d allow an electrician to serve on the board of some of those places; you’d want somebody of your profession serving and helping to govern those. I think, maybe, we need to consider a little compromise, depending on how the Committee chooses to go. I’m curious if you would agree with that.
Bill Bradley:
I agree in principle, although the Board that governs me is comprised of varying interests, lay people, lawyers, and others. It’s not just lawyers. I don’t think there should be lawyers, and their bill doesn’t propose it. I think though, that when you look at the composition of the Board of Wildlife Commissioners, when you’ve got five sportsmen, a member of the general public, a rancher, a farmer, and a general conservation person, we’ve got a diverse board that represents a whole lot of interests. I think, again, we have to go back to the preliminary bottom of the triangle, which is wildlife.
Everybody is talking about the same thing here, and that is governing, working, for wildlife. Our function as Board of Wildlife Commissioners is to promote, promulgate, protect, and enhance habitat for wildlife. Guiding, master guiding, and outfitting is part of our outdoor experience related to wildlife. I just feel that we’ve done it for quite awhile; we can do it appropriately. We don’t need to create a separate entity to do it.
Chairman Collins:
Last question and then I’m going to close this because we’ve got two more bills and then we’re going to wrap this up; I’m going to put this in subcommittee. If this was a subcommittee under the Division of Wildlife, you’d have the same law enforcement and you’d just have a separate board that handled guides, versus a board that handles you guys. Isn’t that the point, or are you thinking that wouldn’t work?
Bill Bradley:
That would be something new to the Division of Wildlife, a separate board within the Division of Wildlife. That’s something new that we haven’t had. It’s certainly worth talking about.
Chairman Collins:
I bring this up because it’s definitely a group of people that should be better regulated, and of course they need the funding to do that. The Subcommittee will be: Chairman Conklin, Assemblyman McCleary, and Assemblyman Geddes, and you will report back here on April 7 with an “up or down” with the amended language. We’ll close the hearing on this bill (A.B. 272) and open Assemblyman Carpenter’s A.B. 301.
I have three people who wish to speak, and then we’ll close the hearing on the bill in about 10 minutes, so make it brief and to the point.
Assembly Bill 301: Revises provisions concerning compensation from Board of Wildlife Commissioners for damage to certain property or land caused by certain animals. (BDR 45-883)
Assemblyman John Carpenter, Assembly District No. 33 (Elko County and portions of Humboldt County):
I bring you today A.B. 301. To give a little background, two or three sessions ago, I introduced a resolution to direct the Division of Wildlife to set up elk management areas, to come up with numbers, and various other situations that needed to be in these specific areas. Right now, we’re in the process of setting up these elk management areas in portions of Elko County, Eureka County, White Pine County, and really all of central Nevada. During some of those meetings, there were some questions that came up in regard to what is known as the – we have a fund where anyone who applies for an elk tag, whether they draw one or not, are required to put up a certain amount of money. People from the Division of Wildlife will hopefully give you those figures. We have this fund set up that takes care of any damage that elk do to private property, like haystacks or breaking into alfalfa fields, the Division is allowed to fence them.
[Assemblyman Carpenter] There were concerns expressed during these meetings that maybe some of the regulations and laws were not exactly clear on what this money could be used for. There are a number of things that need to be taken out of this bill. I was under the misconception that when we’re figuring elk incentive tags that they were using the same number of 50 that they use in the deer depredation hunts. That has to come out because they do have a formula in the Nevada Administrative Code that looks like it’s working. That formula takes into consideration how many elk are on a certain piece of private land and how many elk this particular landowner might have on his property.
It’s been working. They’ve given me the figures on the elk tags that have been issued in the last number of years since this regulation has been in effect. Knowing most of these people and the problems they were having with elk, I think that it is working. I believe you have the A.B. 301 amendment (Exhibit G).
On page 2, lines 21-23, we would strike that language because it referenced the 50 elk, and I wanted to change it to 35. There was some concern that elk eat a lot more than a deer does. Because that formula is in effect, we don’t need to have that in. On page 3, the concerns that were expressed to me were that the regulations that have been adopted do not specifically speak to fences on public lands. It says, “Prevent or mitigate damage to private property and privately maintained improvements,” which some people say does speak to fences on public lands, because most of the time the ranchers are out there doing that. I want to have it specific so that it’s in the statutes that they can use these monies to fix the fences that are on public lands. On page 3, lines 7 and 8 do specifically address that problem.
Another problem that has come about is that some elk got into a spring, and I understand they tore the fence down. There was some discussion and some of the people from NDOW (Nevada Division of Wildlife) said that they didn’t believe they could use those monies to rebuild the fence that was around a spring which was on private land. The next language in there is so that they could construct fences around sources of water on private or public lands, because a lot of springs and such are on public lands, as well as private lands (Exhibit G). If you have been around elk when they’re in the rutting season, they get into these springs and really raise the devil with them. I think that it’s only right that we’re able to use those monies to fence those waters.
[Assemblyman Carpenter] I also wanted to make sure that the damage had to be by elk, because the money is coming out of the fund that the hunters are contributing to it. I wanted to also put in that if one of these areas is fenced, to make sure that water is made available to the livestock and wildlife outside of the fence. We do not want to fence in any waters where animals would not be provided water from that source. I think that takes care of that part; that was the main part, the concerns that were given to me in all these hearings.
There was a section in this bill, I don’t know where it came from, I did not ask for it, and that was in regard to what we call grazing boards, where they can get monies. I’m taking that out. Basically, the main part that I want is on page 3, Section 2, and talks about fences and being able to fence around private land. On page 4, that’s basically telling you what public lands are and all those things. I don’t want to get into the discussion we had two or three weeks ago.
That’s the bill; I feel it will go a long way to help the ranchers and other landowners to feel more comfortable when we are coming with an elk management plan to put elk into areas where there have never been elk. These landowners and ranchers are very concerned about what’s going to happen when the elk are introduced to these areas. You read and hear about horror stories in other areas where elk have been introduced, or been there for a long time. I want to be able to go to these people and say I was able to change the statutes so there’s no question that we can use those monies for these projects, so we can hopefully get an expansion of elk.
From my position, I’m kind of in the middle on a lot of these things. I’m there to protect the interests of the landowners and ranchers, but on the other hand I know there’s room out there for elk, and they’re a real economic stimulus to rural Nevada, as well as an animal that people like to see. That’s the reason I introduced this bill, and you can see by all the things taken out of it that when Mr. Weller and Mr. Bradley came in and talked to me about it, we pretty well gutted it.
Assemblyman Claborn:
Could you tell me how we can build a fence around the water and let the deer or wildlife in? What is a fence for, to fence them in?
Assemblyman Carpenter:
What we’re talking about here is fencing the water but piping the water out to a trough and make that trough water available to the larger animals. Also, when you construct one of these troughs, you need to make ladders, so that birds can water and not drown. It’s just a good management tool that we take the water out and keep the absolute source of the water as pure as it can be.
Assemblyman Claborn:
I think that’s a good idea and I appreciate that; I just couldn’t figure out how you were going to do that. Now I know and am happy to have you do that.
Assemblyman Goicoechea:
Assemblyman Carpenter, the only thing I’m concerned about is maybe a friendly amendment for when you address the fencing of water on private lands or public lands, if we could state that the holder of that water right or permit has to be in concurrence. I think that would be necessary, especially on public lands. The way I read the bill, there wouldn’t be anything that would stop NDOW (Nevada Division of Wildlife) from fencing that, even though they did provide water on the outside. I would hope the owner of that water would have the ability to say yea or nay.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
I wouldn’t have any problem with an amendment like that, although I think it would be, in practical terms, I think it would be taken care of, but I don’t have any problem with an amendment like that.
Chairman Collins:
Thank you, Assemblyman Carpenter. I would like to call Mr. Weller and Mr. Johnson. This is going to go to a subcommittee, so you have about a minute and a half. Assemblyman Carpenter will chair that Subcommittee.
Gene Weller, Deputy Administrator, Division of Wildlife, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
[Introduced himself] Thank you for the opportunity to testify on A.B. 301. As you well know, the Division of Wildlife maintains an intensive elk management program. As Assemblyman Carpenter mentioned, part of that program was based on A.C.R. 46 of the Sixty-eighth Legislative Session, passed in 1995, that required us to do elk management planning. One of the most significant issues in that elk management planning were the effects of elk on private landowners, private grazers on public lands and allotments. That is always very important to us as we do our elk management planning.
To address the issues, usually with private landowners and public land grazers, we have two tools. The first is our Elk Incentive Tag Program. This creates an incentive for private landowners, ranchers, and public land grazers to tolerate, or even encourage, elk on their lands.
[Gene Weller] There is a formula for that. Those tags that are issued as an incentive tag are very valuable to those landowners. They sell from $5,000 to $15,000. Since 1999, we’ve issued 56 different tags to 10 different private landowners. Our second tool is an Elk Damage Compensation Program. That’s where our applicants for elk tags pay an extra $5 that goes into a pot, and that pot is used exclusively to compensate private landowners for damage that happens. We’ve bought hay, built fences, we’ve hazed, and that’s our tool.
Chairman Collins:
I know in Wyoming they don’t do any of that. If you own the land and farm it, you fence your feed up.
Gene Weller:
So we’re ahead of that. Since 1991, the Division of Wildlife has paid about $73,000 for that type of protection, to protect people. The Division feels these programs are working. It was a pleasure to work with Assemblyman Carpenter on this bill and put it together, and we’re confident that it will help us do more.
Bill Bradley, Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners:
I haven’t had a chance to look at the amendment, but I know our goals are the same.
Larry Johnson, Coalition for Nevada’s Wildlife:
[Introduced himself] I haven’t seen the amendment wording, but I believe we’re going to support that. We sat on a number of elk plans statewide, and it’s always been our philosophy that we want to pay our way. At this point, if we can mitigate some damage at headwaters of springs, we would look forward to doing so as long as water is perpetuated downstream somehow to allow stock watering and watering of wildlife as well.
Chairman Collins:
We’re going to have a Subcommittee of Assemblymen Carpenter, Claborn, and Goicoechea. Idaho and Wyoming don’t give a dollar, because they fence out and protect their own feed. We’ll close that hearing and open A.B. 287. Assemblyman Mortenson, this is your bill, and I’d also like to call up Mr. Weaver and Mr. Newberry, if that’s who you’d like to have with you. I also have Ms. Robertson and Mr. Smith. Who do you want first? [Assemblyman Mortenson indicated he wanted Ms. Robertson first.]
Assembly Bill 287: Revises provisions relating to transfer, establishment and maintenance of certain parks. (BDR 26-657)
Assemblyman Harry Mortenson, Clark County District No. 42:
[Introduced himself] This is a very simple bill. There was a lot of talk in Clark County about the possibility of the State selling Tule Springs, otherwise known as Floyd Lamb State Park, to the City of Las Vegas. A lot of the people in Clark County were very concerned about this. I know that sometime earlier in the history of this wonderful park that there was pressure on the city council to sell parts of it to developers. It was only by a great show of the citizens of the City of Las Vegas that that did not happen.
To forestall any other situation that might be similar to that, if the State were to give or sell this back to Las Vegas, I introduced this bill, principally at the behest of Ms. Robertson, and she knows much more about this than I do, so I’m going to ask her to speak to you.
Terri Robertson, President, Tule Springs Preservation Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill this morning. A packet of my testimony (Exhibit H) and additional information relating to the testimony has been provided for all Committee members (Exhibit I, Exhibit J, Exhibit K, Exhibit L, Exhibit M, Exhibit N, Exhibit O, and Exhibit P).
[Introduced herself] I’m a fourth generation Nevadan, long active in the preservation and protection of historical, cultural, and natural sites in our state. The Tule Springs Preservation Committee is an advisory group to Floyd Lamb State Park and the Tule Springs dig site. The first two pieces of information that I’ve given you, items 1 (Exhibit J) and 2 (Exhibit K) in your packet are on the Committee. I will be speaking directly concerning two areas of land now owned by the State of Nevada.
In the Northwest area of the Las Vegas Valley is approximately 981 acres that are registered on the National Register of Historical Places. This site is known as an “Early Man Site.” Items 3 (Exhibit L) and 4 (Exhibit M) will give you information on that, and documents early human occupation of the Las Vegas Valley to about 13,000 years ago. The December 2000 issue of the National Geographic included a map (Exhibit I) showing all of the important routes and sites of the peopling of the Americas. Tule Springs appears on this map as one of the important “Early Man Sites” in the world. A copy of this map has been provided for Chairman Collins.
Extensive late Pleistocene deposits at the site also reveal the bones of extinct mammoth, camel, and horses. Of the 981 acres, item 5 map (Exhibit N), the state of Nevada owns approximately 314 acres at the southwest corner of the site, as it’s registered. Due to the tremendous urban growth of Las Vegas Valley, this site is being greatly impacted by development. The map provided also denotes the location of Shadow Ridge High School that will open in August of 2003. This school sits just across Decatur from the west boundary of that site.
[Terri Robertson] As our Committee developed recommendations for protecting and preserving this area, we worked hard to educate our community to the importance of this site. In November of 2002, we put together a reunion, item 6 (Exhibit O) is about that, of the science team involved in the 1962 dig at the site. Twelve members of the original science team attended. These team members presented public workshops and led a field trip to the site. Through the efforts of the Nevada State Museum, a “Big Dig Exhibit” (Tule Springs Dig) is now on display at the Nevada State Museum in Lorenzi Park.
While the site location being far removed from the city had long been a line of defense in its protection, it is now faced with fast-paced urban development. As we would visit the site and see all the construction of the new high school, we realized what a wonderful opportunity it would be to use the site as an educational tool. We’ve been able to bring together some community partnerships, and there’s a copy of a grant from the National Science Foundation (Exhibit P), that are well on the way to providing programs that will enrich the educational experience in our community and direct attention to the significance of the site.
If all goes well, this new high school will open with the Clark County School District’s first earth science honors class, utilizing the Tule Springs Dig Site as a curriculum base and authentic research laboratory. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), has in their third round of their long-range planning a satellite building at the site.
So why are we talking about this site? Several years ago an entity approached the State of Nevada to purchase the land to enable a golf course to be built there. With the State looking at diversifying and getting rid of these pieces of land, we just want to ensure that whether it goes to the Clark County School District, whether the entire piece goes to UNLV, that there are restrictions to when that happens so that these pieces of land will stay open to the public and will never be sold to a private entity in the future. We need to ensure that this valuable and important site is protected, preserved, and utilized for the educational resource opportunities existing there.
The second area that we are concerned with is Floyd R. Lamb State Park. This area also sits in the northwest area of the Las Vegas Valley. The park is approximately 320 acres, of which 60 acres are what could be called rural green space on which there are three ponds, rolling grass areas shaded by large trees, and historical buildings. Along with the state owned parkland there, there is a BLM (Bureau of Land Management) lease for park purposes of approximately 1200 acres. Due to tremendous urban growth, this park already has housing development at its boundary lines. Entities and developers see the undeveloped desert wash land here as an opportunity to adjust development boundary lines.
[Terri Robertson] As our Committee has dealt with issues regarding the two areas, we were informed that there was a movement to have the State divest itself of them. We became concerned that if the State chose to divest itself of these sites and others statewide, some conditions of the transfers needed to be in place. These conditions need to guarantee that historical and recreational value of the property to the people of the state of Nevada is not compromised. These conditions need to guarantee that the new owner could not sell or transfer the land to private ownership. These conditions need to guarantee public access and that parkland, including leases, must be maintained and operated in such a manner that the use and enjoyment of the park by the residents at this state are not diminished.
It is with that in mind that we support A.B. 287 and urge you to do that as well.
In Clark County, we have such a tremendous deficit of parks if you compare us to anywhere else in the nation. We have, I believe, 1.8 acres per thousand people. The target for Clark County was to try to have 4 acres per thousand, but the national average is 10 acres per thousand. We have a terrific deficit and we sure don’t want more of our parks to disappear.
Chairman Collins:
That testimony is verbatim of what he said two days ago on Clear Creek Youth Camp. I’d like to get this done in the next few minutes.
Patrick Smith, Legislative Advocate, Office of Administrative Services, City of Las Vegas, Nevada:
[Introduced himself] Parenthetically, I also represent the City of Las Vegas on the adjacent Clark County Sport Shooting Park Advisory Committee, which is adjacent to Floyd Lamb State Park. The City of Las Vegas recognizes that Floyd Lamb State Park, the historical, cultural, and recreational value of this park, is a tremendous asset to our Valley. The City also recognizes and appreciates the rural nature of the Park and the surrounding area. We would like to point out that the Park is in a considerable state of disrepair. We’ve estimated that should the City take either operational control or acquire the Park, there would be significant capital outlay, maintenance costs, and security costs to the City.
[Patrick Smith] That said, we do welcome continued discussions with the State, and we’d like to explore any kind of partnership that might come of this.
Steve Weaver, Chief, Planning and Development, Division of State Parks, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
[Introduced himself] Under NRS 407.068 (Nevada Revised Statutes) the Administrator of the Division of State Parks is currently allowed to enter into a cooperative agreement for the operation of locally owned parks as a state facility (Exhibit Q). However, there are no provisions for the reverse situation. This bill allows that reverse situation to occur. This same provision is also included in Sections 4 and 5 in S.B. 144, which the Division of Wildlife also supports. We support both of these bills.
Chairman Collins:
It’s a bill in the other House coming this way.
Steve Weaver:
Correct; we hope. This bill, A.B. 287, as Assemblyman Mortenson has stated, also and in addition to allowing interlocal agreements on state property with local political subdivisions, also allows the State to lease, sell, or otherwise transfer state park real property and other interests to local governments. As a result, there’s a great deal of flexibility in this particular law. I think it provides a number of what we consider adequate protections to make sure the property, such as if Floyd Lamb State Park or any other state park were to be transferred to a local political subdivision, that there would be built-in protections to guarantee the public that the property would maintain its public recreation uses permanently.
This real property transfer provision of Section 1 of A.B. 287, for your benefit, overlaps still another Senate bill, S.B. 444. But due to the added flexibility of this bill, A.B. 287, because it’s not limited to just Floyd Lamb State Park and it allows either the transfer of real property or a cooperative management agreement, we would actually prefer this bill over S.B. 444.
Chairman Collins:
So noted.
Steve Weaver:
Another possibility is to combine the desired elements of both of these bills into S.B. 444; that would be fine too. Just so there’s no confusion, regardless of what combinations are done here, ultimately we would still need Sections 1, 2, and 3 of S.B. 144 approved to allow for a completely unrelated issue to be resolved, which is the administration of the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant Program. I just wanted to bring that up to make sure that bill doesn’t get killed thinking that we’ve taken care of the other concerns.
Chairman Collins:
This bill won’t be amended. It stays in the name of Floyd Lamb, and the things you need protected will be in this bill.
Steve Weaver:
It doesn’t have to stay. We would prefer that it not be specific to Floyd Lamb; we’d prefer to have the extra flexibility.
Allen Newberry, Chief, Operations and Maintenance, Division of State Parks, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
[Introduced himself] I’ll just add to what Mr. Weaver has said. I think the key here is this allows flexibility for state parks not only to have an agreement with counties to operate a state park, it also allows the State to work with the cities in the counties for them to operate a state park. It’s a joint partnership and it works for the State, cities, and counties. It’s a good bill; it’s well-drafted, and especially the bullets that will protect the future historical values. I think it’s a key bill for us. I appreciate your time.
Chairman Collins:
Did you see Assemblyman Mortenson perk up when you said it was a good bill? The Subcommittee on this bill will be Assemblyman Christensen as Chairman, Assemblyman Mortenson, and since the Secretary and Policy Analyst have to be at all of these meetings, they cannot be concurrent. We’ll put Assemblyman McCleary on this one as well. Assemblyman Christensen is Chairman because it’s in his district. I hope that Ms. Robertson gets more acquainted quickly with Assemblyman Christensen because I want this bill brought back as soon as possible.
There are a few acres out there that the State has had control of for many years that could have been developed into campgrounds and other recreational opportunities. Although I oppose state transferring, I’m assured to think that there will be better improvements coming to that property because it’s a locally used park, not a visitor-type park, with the exception of some of our tourists and preservation committee programs. We want to make sure that those groups are adopted into this as well, Assemblyman Christensen. Probably the first thing you want to do, Assemblyman Christensen, is become a member of that organization that Ms. Robertson is going to inform you about, that you have the paperwork provided to the Committee; Assemblyman McCleary as well.
[Chairman Collins] Next thing I’d like to do is take a vote on a bill before Assemblyman Marvel leaves. I was hoping Assemblywoman Ohrenschall would be back. We’ll close the hearing on A.B. 287 open the hearing on A.B. 237. The Chair will accept a motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 237.
ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Ms. Ohrenschall was absent.)
Chairman Collins:
Floor statement by Assemblyman Geddes, it’s his bill, A.B. 237. Let me remind you before you leave, if you sign in on time and mark the box that you want to speak, you’re more apt to get the chance. Is there anything that needs to be brought forth before we adjourn? [Adjourned at 3:34 p.m.]
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Erin Channell
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Tom Collins, Chairman
DATE: