MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE, AND MINING

Seventy-Ninth Session March 30, 2017

The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining was called to order by Chair Heidi Swank at 1:47 p.m. on Thursday, March 30, 2017, in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, 401 South Carson Street, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to Room 4406 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada, and to Room 118, Greenhaw Technical Arts Building, Great Basin College, 1500 College Parkway, Elko, Nevada. Copies of the minutes, including the Agenda (Exhibit A), the Attendance Roster (Exhibit B), and other substantive exhibits, are available and on file in the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau and on the Nevada Legislature's website at www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/79th2017.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Assemblywoman Heidi Swank, Chair Assemblywoman Lesley E. Cohen, Vice Chair Assemblyman Chris Brooks Assemblywoman Maggie Carlton Assemblywoman Sandra Jauregui Assemblywoman Lisa Krasner Assemblywoman Robin L. Titus Assemblyman Justin Watkins Assemblyman Jim Wheeler Assemblyman Steve Yeager

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Assemblyman John Ellison (excused)

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

None

Minutes ID: 673

*CM673* Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining March 30, 2017 Page 2

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Susan E. Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst Randy Stephenson, Committee Counsel Nancy Davis, Committee Secretary Cheryl Williams, Committee Assistant

OTHERS PRESENT:

Kyle Davis, representing Nevada Conservation League Karen Boeger, representing Backcountry Hunters and Anglers Andy MacKay, Director, Nevada Bighorns Unlimited Larry Johnson, President, Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife, Inc. Howard Watts, III, Private Citizen, Las Vegas, Nevada Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau Federation Kit Carson, representing Union Pacific Railroad Steve K. Walker, representing Eureka County Dylan Shaver, representing Nevada Mining Association Jesse Wadhams, representing Newmont Mining Corporation Jeremy Drew, Commissioner, Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners, Department of Wildlife Chaunsey Chau-Duong, representing Southern Nevada Water Authority; and Las Vegas Valley Water District Walt Gardner, Private Citizen, Elko, Nevada Tom Clark, representing Nevada Wildlife Alliance Donald A. Molde, Private Citizen, Reno, Nevada Dan Carrick, Private Citizen, Reno, Nevada Patrick Donnelly, Nevada Wildlife Advocate, Center for Biological Diversity Stephanie Myers, Private Citizen, Las Vegas, Nevada Karen Layne, Private Citizen, Las Vegas, Nevada Mike Reese, President, Southern Nevada Coalition for Wildlife Riley Manzonie, Private Citizen, Elko, Nevada Sam Sanders, Private Citizen, Elko, Nevada Kelly Strain, President, Nevada Houndsmen Association Dave Gowan, Private Citizen, Elko, Nevada Rich Bandos, Private Citizen, Elko, Nevada Milena Parker, Private Citizen, Elko, Nevada Carolyn Stark, Private Citizen, Incline Village, Nevada Elaine Carrick, Private Citizen, Reno, Nevada Lloyd Peake, Private Citizen, Reno, Nevada Margaret Martini, Private Citizen, Incline Village, Nevada Michael Robbins, Private Citizen, Carson City, Nevada Sean Shea, Private Citizen, Reno, Nevada Jonathan Lesperance, Private Citizen, Reno, Nevada Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining March 30, 2017 Page 3

Joel Blakeslee, representing Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife; Nevada Trappers Association; and Southern Nevada Coalition for Wildlife Darrell Pursel, Private Citizen, Yerington, Nevada

Chair Swank: [Roll was called and standard rules of the Committee were reviewed.] I will open the hearing on Assembly Bill 386.

Assembly Bill 386: Revises provisions governing access to public lands. (BDR 26-1159)

Assemblyman Justin Watkins, Assembly District No. 35: I am pleased to present Assembly Bill 386 for your consideration. The way I would prefer to handle this hearing is, I am going to give a little introduction of exactly what we are dealing with, what the issue is with public corner crossing on public lands. Then I will give a little bit of a theoretical example of why I think there is a vacuum in the property laws that address this and similar situations. I will then turn the presentation over to Kyle Davis to give some real-world examples of where this vacuum in property rights has occurred and why we seek clarity for the future, rather than giving some of my anecdotal experience.

For those who are not familiar with the term "checkerboard lands," I would like to begin by explaining what those are and how they occurred. In the 1880s, the federal government offered checkerboard land grants to railroad companies, consisting of alternate sections for 20 miles on each side of the railroad right-of-way [page 2, (Exhibit C)]. Basically, 20 miles above and below Interstate 80 are all checkerboard lands of both public and private land. In the 1800s, Congress thought the railroads could sell these properties to raise capital, and later the federal government would sell its land when the value went up. The plan worked well in the eastern United States, but as we moved further west, where there is more expansive land, the federal government did not have the ability to sell off their portion, so we continue to have public lands checkerboarded with private lands.

The problem, as it exists today, is that campers, hunters, hikers, and outdoorsmen in the western United States may not have access to tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of acres. When you look at other states that are in a similar situation, from Montana west, there are millions of acres of public land that are inaccessible because of this checkerboard fashion. I will describe to you why they are inaccessible. Page 3 (Exhibit C) shows a closer view of the checkerboard to the north and south of Interstate 80.

Assembly Bill 386 is designed to facilitate access to public lands in this unique checkerboard situation. I would like to go through what I acknowledge is somewhat of a theoretical discussion, to understand how difficult this issue is to describe. Let us assume that we have a checkerboard of land ownership with only private owners as shown on page 4 (Exhibit C), landowner blue and landowner red. Now let us assume that landowner blue puts a fence across the diagonal of the checkerboard, as shown on page 5. I would ask, did landowner blue violate the rights of landowner red? Most of us would feel the answer is yes. I would say, real property law is unclear and murky at best. There is something that is called an Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining March 30, 2017 Page 4

easement of necessity. That is to say that there is an easement between adjoining land spaces of private ownership so long as it is necessary for access. In my example on page 5, if the top left corner were inaccessible by other reasonable means, then landowner red would have an easement by necessity across the diagonal.

Let us move to another example on page 6. Now landowner blue did not build a fence diagonally across that geographic point, but built two fences, encompassing his two respective areas of land. This is a very real world example of what happens out there along these checkerboard patterns, typically because the bottom left box and the top right box are two different owners. For ease of discussion, let us assume it is one owner. The obstruction that is created for landowner red in this example is no different from my prior example. There is no way to traverse across that diagonal point when the two fences abut at the corner.

What I would ask you is, do we, as a public body, in creating public policy for our people, want that analysis to be any different for public land? If red is public land and we are those public landowners, do we want to allow the restriction of access across the corner? I would submit to you that we do not. If we allow this situation or the situation in which there is a diagonal fence, we allow a private landowner to coopt public lands, doubling their acreage with no compensation going to the public. Just for purposes of scale, these checkerboards, typically, were done in 640-acre lots. Each of these blocks on page 6 would be 640 acres.

Now I would like to take a minute to walk you through the bill. Page 7 (Exhibit C) is an example of what the bill does not do. This bill does not allow landowner blue to cross over the corner of landowner red's lot. In fact, once I walk through the bill, you will find that nothing in the bill allows anyone to step foot on the private land that is adjacent to the corner. It only allows you to cross a geographical point.

Let us now go to the bill language and discuss how that reads. Section 1 of the bill grants permission for a person to cross from one publicly owned parcel to another. Using page 4 again, let us assume that red is now a public owner. He can go from the lower right to the top left, across the geographical point at the intersection. The geographical point, by definition, takes up no space. There is not a foot, not an inch, it is zero space. It would seem commonsensical to say that if I step one foot in the bottom right corner and one foot in the top left corner, that I have not committed trespass. That makes sense to me.

There is a Supreme Court case, Leo Sheep Company, et al., v. United States, et al., [440 U.S. 668 (1979) (99 S.Ct. 1403, 59 L.Ed.2d 677)] that casts doubt. It does not say that is trespass, but it casts doubt as to whether or not you can traverse corner property at the geographical point without actually crossing private property. In that case, they were determining whether the public could have an easement by necessity. What the Supreme Court determined is there is never a necessity for access to public lands, it is recreation. In this example, [page 5, (Exhibit C)] they have not violated any public land rights. In the example on page 6, they have not violated any public land rights either, because we do not have an easement by necessity. Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining March 30, 2017 Page 5

I have had a lot of people meet with me in opposition to this bill, and I applaud everyone for doing that. I have had very civil conversations. I think we all have similar intents. This is a very difficult bill to write in a fashion that accomplishes public land access without infringing upon private landowners' rights.

As I said, section 1 of the bill grants permission to cross from one publicly owned parcel to another publicly owned parcel at a geographical point of a corner where the parcels touch.

Section 1, subsection 1, paragraphs (a) and (b) add two conditions to the corner crossing. You cannot cause harm to the real property or personal property, and you cannot unreasonably interfere with the private property owner's use of his or her land. In practical terms, this condition would mean you would not be able to cut a fence or do damage to a fencepost, those sorts of things. I have had questions about if we could resolve this language where everyone was happy and it was not permitting trespass on private land, if there could be some sort of immunity context about the corner crossing. If the person is trying to cross the corner and is injured and the conditions exist, would the private landowner be immune? I think, under current statute, they already are under recreational use of land. Also, to the extent that that needs to be included in the bill, I would see that as a friendly amendment.

Section 1, subsection 2 protects the private landowners by clarifying that allowing corner crossing does not create any interest in land. It does not create an easement—not an easement by necessity, prescription, or any other. I think that is important for the private landowners so that the title is clear. There is nothing they need to disclose or change in their real property records to effectuate this access.

Section 1, subsection 3 provides the definition of public lands, by referencing subsection 2 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 321.5963.

The other sections of the bill are merely conforming changes in other parts of the law. I will note there have been other attempts by other states and by the federal government to try to resolve this issue. There were bills presented in Montana, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, and in the United States Senate, most recently in 2015. To date, the issue is unresolved. My point is, I am not trying to take away anyone's property rights, but am seeking clarity and direction for everyone into the future, so that when any future fences go up, people know what they are doing, and that the public has access to the thousands upon thousands of acres of land that are public. I would now like to turn my presentation over to Mr. Davis and then collectively answer questions.

Kyle Davis, representing Nevada Conservation League: It is a pleasure to be in front of you today on A.B. 386, which we see as a simple matter of providing access to our public lands. Many Nevadans live here because of the availability of public lands and the ability to access these public lands for recreational purposes. People are able to recreate without charge and without restriction because these are public lands that

Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining March 30, 2017 Page 6

are owned by all of us. But we do have a situation, especially as it relates to the historical railroad corridor and these checkerboard lands where we have public parcels. Currently, the legality of being able to access these public parcels is unclear.

There are a couple of articles on the Nevada Electronic Legislative Information System (NELIS) that illustrate this issue with a little more clarity (Exhibit D). Granted, these are examples that came from other states, but checkerboard land is something that occurs in most western states. These articles describe the situation where you end up with islands that essentially allow the private property owners to treat those as if they are private lands by blocking the public access. We feel these are lands that should be available to the public and we should clarify that the public has the ability to go there.

The very real example that Assemblyman Watkins talked about when discussing the checkerboard corridor is related to land next to Interstate 80 or in the railroad area. There is a lot of land there that you would not think of as having high recreational value, but it is important to remember that within those areas, there are a lot of places that are valuable for wildlife and hunting. I have certainly been hunting in a number of those areas, and quite frankly, there have probably been times when I have accidentally trespassed on private land while in the checkerboard area.

There are map programs for your phone and your GPS that can tell you exactly where you are and tell you the land ownership pattern. You can do this in a way so that you do not end up being on private land, but you still have the ability to access those public lands. We are not talking about a case where we are allowing people to set foot on private land or to trespass. We are talking about that air space of that corner and being able to cross it and go from public land to public land. Quite simply, we see it as a public land access issue. We, as the State of Nevada, should take steps to ensure that our citizens have the ability to access all of the public areas to which we all have rights. That concludes my comments.

Assemblyman Brooks: There are existing fences; I have seen them in a lot of places in Nevada. What would you do then, where it is fenced on the corners? I understand if there are no fences, but if you cannot do any harm to property, how would you address that if you are trying to cross parcels and there are fences?

Assemblyman Watkins: I do not want to give the impression that I am negotiating on the record, because it is not my intent to restrict the use of private land, but it is also not my intent to restrict the use of public land. The best thing I can do is point to an example that was promoted in the state of Wyoming in their hunter guide, which is that they had private landowners stop their fencing within a certain number of feet of that corner—not so people could step on their land, but so that they could cross at that point. The private owner is not restricting access to public land and the public land user is not trespassing or damaging the private land. The reality is, if someone is going to climb over or cut that fence, he is certainly not going to look at statute first to see if it is lawful. We are trying to provide guidance to people who want to follow the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining March 30, 2017 Page 7

law and are going to read their guides before going out and recreating. I think Wyoming is an excellent example of a state that has provided some guidance for both private landowners and public users, although their courts and legislature have not caught up.

Assemblywoman Titus: I would like to read a statement from Assemblyman Ellison, who could not be here today:

I would like to express my concerns with A.B. 386. I believe A.B. 386 creates a dangerous precedent that will have negative, unintended consequences for all parties involved. We need to protect private property rights, not water them down with language that creates an unnecessary liability. This country was based on strong private property rights and is protected under the U.S. Constitution. I will be reaching out to the bill sponsor on A.B. 386 to try to work through some of my concerns.

Now I have some questions. I share your pain. I am an avid hunter and have hunted in many states. Wyoming is a great example. When I am antelope hunting in Wyoming and Nevada, I use a GPS. It is hard to tell whether you are on private property or public property because a lot of the property is not even fenced. I want to be lawful and respectful to private property owners. I carry a GPS all the time, it shows me property owners, corners, and boundaries, so I am legal. I do understand the problem and concern.

On the other hand, I also have property that is bordered by BLM land. I would have great concern about where my existing fence is. I give most people, who ask, permission to come on my property, because it is riverfront and has great fishing areas. I do not want to shut people out, but at the same time, I want to protect myself and my land. My concern is that people would look at this as though they are now getting permission to cut through that property, on the corner, perhaps with a vehicle. If I am hiking somewhere and I need to get from one corner to the next, I will climb over the fence and go on and stay legal. I am concerned if someone were in a vehicle. I see a lot of unanswered questions about how to access the corner property. I understand the problem, and I appreciate what you are trying to do, but existing fences would be my question. Have you had any thought about being able to cross the corner if you are walking? Can you cross in a vehicle? Have you worked through some of those problems?

Assemblyman Watkins: Those are things that were brought to my attention about clarity. I will tell you, currently, you do not have clarity in law on whether or not you can build a diagonal fence, or a fence with adjoining corners. There is nothing that says either of my examples are lawful now. Very realistically, this could go in front of a court, and the court could say the fence is unlawful and ask you to move it. I know there is going to be a lot of opposition from private landowners, but I think it is better that we, as a legislative body, define that clarity so that when people are constructing their fences and deciding what to buy as far as private land, they have some guidance.

Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining March 30, 2017 Page 8

I do think that the second part of your comment is probably appropriate, and I have been asked as part of a friendly amendment that existing fences be grandfathered in. I have no problem with that, because the reality is there are very few in comparison to the thousands of acres of public land that is inaccessible. This fence situation rarely occurs, but it does occur. Also, if a friendly amendment were asked of me for reasonable access of a person on foot, I have no problem with that either.

Assemblywoman Titus: Thank you, that does clarify things. I would love to work with you on this.

Assemblywoman Krasner: I understand what you are trying to do with this, but I am wondering if this might create an easement by prescription, which is something we talked about in law school. In this situation, the passing over the land by many people would be continuous, open and notorious, and hostile because it is not by the owner's permission, and it would be for a number of years. In typical cases, lots of people do whatever they do on this property, over a period of years, always cutting across that same corner. Now you can see that the grass is beaten down, lots of people have walked on it. What happens is a private landowner then has an easement on their property that they do not want.

Assemblyman Watkins: This is a very difficult position to describe. To the extent of your concern, I think it is accurately captured in section 1, subsection 2, which specifically says, no rights of easement are granted by this access. Easements of prescription are created judicially. We as a legislative body can specifically say that an easement cannot be created by providing this access.

Assemblywoman Krasner: While most easements are created by statute, if you remember the easement by prescription, one of the elements is that it is hostile. It is open and notorious, and it is hostile to the owner. It is not by prescription. Even if the statute says we do not create it, it can be created on its own by people passing across the land over a period of years.

Assemblyman Watkins: We can ask for a legal opinion, but my understanding is that this drafting precludes any form of easement. There can be no easement by prescription where it is specifically provided for in statute because, by definition, that is not hostile.

Randy Stephenson, Committee Counsel: These provisions are included in section 1, subsection 2, attempting to address this exact issue. There can be some clarification to say, "or a prescription by use or user." Certainly, I think we would take the position that in statute, this can be addressed and resolved. That is the idea, at any rate. If a court is going to ignore the statute, then the courts are going to do that anyway. I hate to make it sound like this is futile, but this is an attempt to address that issue. Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining March 30, 2017 Page 9

Assemblyman Watkins: We would certainly be willing to include that, to the fullest extent that this bill can provide, for the safekeeping of the private owners' land rights. We want that to occur. I am a private landowner also, and I do not want anyone taking my land without just compensation. We would certainly be willing to write that in. To counsel's point, if the courts are going to do this, we have zero direction for the courts right now. I would say it is scarier now to have one of these issues in front of the court than it would be if this bill were to be enacted. At least it provides direction as to what we want as the public.

Assemblywoman Jauregui: Do we know how much public land has been restricted from access by citizens due to the fences?

Assemblyman Watkins: I cannot put a number on that. We know it is small in comparison to the amount of public lands that are in the checkerboard fashion. We know two things: one, that we very rarely have a diagonal fencing situation; and two, more frequently, the abutting, adjacent fences are those that effectively block access.

Kyle Davis: We do not know for sure how many cases there are where the fencing issue might occur. The historic checkerboard corridor in Nevada has roughly four million acres of private land in that area. Most of it is unfenced, but it is certainly subject to interpretation as to whether it is okay to cross over the corners.

Chair Swank: I am now going to hear from those who are in support of A.B. 386. We need to ensure that the folks in Elko and Clark County are able to express their comments, so we need to keep all comments brief.

Karen Boeger, representing Backcountry Hunters and Anglers: Assemblyman Watkins did such a great job explaining this so I can keep this very brief. I very much want to congratulate Assemblyman Watkins for his visionary and brave step of trying to bring some clarity to this issue. As he says, it is far more dangerous as it is, with no overarching legislation related to it. I am glad to hear how much homework he has done related to the potential issues with private property. Our nation was founded both on private property, but also on our public trust and public lands that belong to all of us. When those two come into conflict, it is nice to know that, hopefully, we can resolve that conflict.

I see this as a very proactive, uncomplicated bill. I think the point of that singular geographic point is very helpful to start with. Our Backcountry Hunters and Anglers do a lot of hiking, and this is a step that we would use. Also, as Mr. Davis pointed out, the checkerboard is not very attractive-looking from the highway, but there are wonderful hunting and fishing areas within the checkerboard that our members are very concerned about. I am hoping we resolve

Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining March 30, 2017 Page 10

the conflicts in this bill and that you will ultimately pass it because, as the old adage goes, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." That pound could be worth a lot of money. [Written testimony was also provided (Exhibit E).]

Andy MacKay, Director, Nevada Bighorns Unlimited: I want to first express our appreciation to Assemblyman Watkins for meeting with us yesterday afternoon to explain the intent of the bill. We find it imperative, as one of the biggest sportsmen organizations in this state, to maintain access to the wonderful public lands that we have in Nevada. We are in support of the bill.

Larry Johnson, President, Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife, Inc.: We want to support, particularly, the concept and intent of the bill. As a private property owner, I certainly do not endorse, and I do not think this bill's intent or wording says that you can cross private property to access public land. I think this bill should be modified to say this is for foot-traffic only and not for vehicular traffic. That would be extremely problematic. We support being able to step from public land to public land at a corner, and I think the qualifications of not damaging existing fences or private property in doing so is the proper way to go.

Howard Watts, III, Private Citizen, Las Vegas, Nevada: I am speaking on behalf of myself today, but I would like to note that I am on the board of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers as well as a member of the Clark County Advisory Board to Manage Wildlife. I want to thank Assemblyman Watkins for bringing this bill. As a native Nevadan, as a sportsman, and as someone who enjoys outdoor recreation, I think it is common sense and provides clarity to ensure that all outdoor recreationists have access to our public lands. I am relatively new as a sportsman, but have been a lover of the outdoors for a long time. This bill ensures that all of us can get out and enjoy our public lands. It not only adds clarity, but ensures that moving forward, we cannot have the situations that have occurred in other places where private lands have been turned into pinch points, keeping us away from our public lands and turning them into inaccessible islands. I support all of the other comments made previously, and I thank you for bringing this bill.

Chair Swank: Is there anyone else in support of A.B. 386? [There was no one.] I will move to those in opposition.

Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau Federation: I am here today to speak in opposition to this bill on behalf of Nevada Farm Bureau Federation. We do so on the premise that while we believe very strongly in access to public lands, we also believe very strongly in private property rights. Our concern is making certain that there is, on the record, a firm definition of geographic point that represents the corner, so that we do not have that line move as time goes on and we lose track of where that point might be. I have also been asked to express the same point of view on behalf of Nevada Cattlemen's Association. Neena Laxalt was not able to stay, so I am here to give her "me too.'' Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining March 30, 2017 Page 11

Kit Carson, representing Union Pacific Railroad: I have a brief statement from Union Pacific Railroad I would like to read into the record.

The Union Pacific Railroad opposes any change to current law that would undermine safety and put the public at risk. Union Pacific owns and operates roughly 1,200 miles of track in Nevada and about 15,000 miles nationwide. The land that encompasses the tracks sits on privately held land owned by Union Pacific.

Safety is our highest priority. In fact, Union Pacific and all railroads have dramatically improved safety over the last three decades. However, trespass-related fatalities have increased. According to the Federal Railroad Administration's Office of Safety, death from pedestrian trespassing on railroad tracks rose 21.8 percent across the U.S. in 2014.

To put that in perspective, a person or vehicle is hit by a train every three hours in the United States. By amending statute to allow a form of trespassing could have unintended consequences and potentially lead to a greater number of incidents.

Union Pacific urges the Legislature to oppose any changes that could undermine the safety of the public and our employees.

Steve K. Walker, representing Eureka County: Eureka County provided a written document expressing their concerns (Exhibit F). I will summarize it. Basically, Eureka County has, in both their county code and master plan, positive language on access to public lands. They want to provide access to public lands, but they want to have access through easements and through existing law. This bill—I would call it the "jump the brass caps" bill—does not describe any type of easement process. The brass cap reference is the land marker of the section corner. That is where the diagonal exists that you would go through. When you find that, can you drive through it? That is not addressed. The federal government has dealt with this issue for a long time. In the document that is provided by Eureka County (Exhibit F), there are several bullet points that describe how to gain easements: the first way is prescriptive; second is through acquiring access easements; and third is developing an area along the public lands for access and advertising it. Again, Eureka County opposes the bill. I think there is a need to address the issue, and I think we would like to work with the sponsor to do it. This does not seem to be the right vehicle.

Dylan Shaver, representing Nevada Mining Association: I am here today in reluctant opposition to this measure. I say reluctant opposition because I am certain that our employees make up more public land users per share than anyone else who has been at the table so far today. Nevertheless, there are terms in this bill such as "geographic point" that are overly broad and will allow people undue access onto our land. Even if you have a GPS, that is only accurate to within about 16 to 50 feet. If you cross Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining March 30, 2017 Page 12

at 45 degrees from 50 feet away from that intersection, you are treading on private land for 70 linear feet. Over those 70 feet, we are liable for what happens to you out there. That is not a liability that we have an interest or willingness to assume. We have fenced off the property in a way so as to specifically restrict people from walking onto our private property. We believe that should be preserved.

This bill empowers bad actors. I have been out recreating on these lands with some of the proponents of this measure. I do not think it is them that we are worried about. Given the looseness and broad applicability of this bill, we simply cannot support it.

Jesse Wadhams, representing Newmont Mining Corporation: We have concerns with some of the definitions with regard to the fact that the geographic point that represents the corner of the property is undefined. It does create new liability issues. We do want to put our concerns on record. I understand where the sponsor is coming from. Likewise, I have been out there on these lands and appreciate them and enjoy using them, but we definitely have concerns with this bill as written.

Chair Swank: Is there anyone else in opposition? [There was no one.] Is there anyone neutral?

Jeremy Drew, Commissioner, Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners, Department of Wildlife: The Wildlife Commission is neutral on this bill, but I would certainly point out that, given the amount of checkerboard landownership in this state and the associated wildlife resources with that landownership pattern, this is a concept that may be beneficial to wildlife enthusiasts of all varieties. We are interested in this being done in a manner that provides assurances to private landowners and private property.

Chaunsey Chau-Duong, representing Southern Nevada Water Authority; and Las Vegas Valley Water District: We are in neutral testimony on this bill. As you have heard from other stakeholders, there are a variety of concerns with this bill. We share some of those same concerns, specifically in regards to the type of land and geographic boundaries this bill seeks to encompass. We had the opportunity to meet with the sponsor and share our concerns. We hope to get more clarification on the checkerboard-type setting that the sponsor mentioned and also the geographic point that was mentioned. We will continue to work with the sponsor and hopefully come to a meaningful, thoughtful resolution.

Walt Gardner, Private Citizen, Elko, Nevada: I would encourage the sponsor of the bill to draft language due to liability. As a private landowner, that is a huge concern. Last year, on our checkerboard ground, we were threatened with a lawsuit. As of yet it has not happened, but we are trying to allow access across our private ground, yet we were threatened with a lawsuit. This causes costs to us through investigation and attorneys. We would like that to be addressed.

Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining March 30, 2017 Page 13

Chair Swank: Is there anyone else in neutral? [There was no one.] Assemblyman Watkins, do you have closing remarks?

Assemblyman Watkins: I will say, in closing, that I am more than happy to work with all the stakeholders to try to get this right. Two of the challenges to this bill that I look forward to solving regard comments made that some people do not want changes to existing law. The problem is nobody knows what that existing law is. Change is in the eye of the beholder. Am I changing it for the better or for the worse? Nobody really knows. That requires a little speculation to say whether the law is in their favor or not.

More importantly, I am more than happy to address the liability issue with full levels of immunity, which I already believe exist in law now. If you cross someone's private land with permission for the purposes of recreation, you have immunity in statute. I think that is addressed as well, but to the extent that makes people more comfortable in trying to resolve this issue, I am more than happy to do it. If anybody thinks they can describe this situation better, let us do it. Assemblywoman Titus, I will definitely take you up on your offer and work with you on this, because I know that you live this every day.

Chair Swank: With that, I will close the hearing on A.B. 386. [Assemblywoman Cohen assumed the Chair.]

Vice Chair Cohen: I will open the hearing on Assembly Bill 443.

Assembly Bill 443: Prohibits the Board of Wildlife Commissioners from adopting regulations which authorize a person to hunt black bears with a dog. (BDR 45- 1052)

Assemblywoman Heidi Swank, Assembly District No. 16: I am bringing Assembly Bill 443 to you this afternoon, but that is all I have to say. I will pass off to the folks who know much more about this and let them give their presentation.

Tom Clark, representing Nevada Wildlife Alliance: I will quickly go through the bill. It is confusing between what is in statute and what is in regulation. If you read the Legislative Counsel's Digest, specifically starting on page 1, line 5, that gives the definition of big game mammal as provided by the Wildlife Commission. That is important because it goes on to say "to include a black bear and make it unlawful to hunt, chase or pursue any black bear with a dog except . . . ." That except is very important because it allows the Commission to specifically take elements of the statute and promulgate regulations based on those line items that are in the statute. The bill lists different things that, unless specified by the Commission, cannot be done and lists specific types of hunts. The new language is in section 1, subsection 1, paragraph (g): "Any big Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining March 30, 2017 Page 14 game mammal, except mountain lions, with a dog of any breed." That vague portion allowed the Commission to allow for the hounding of bears during prescribed areas, which is with a permit, et cetera. It allowed through regulation the hounding of bears. This bill specifically states and prohibits the Commission from promulgating regulations to allow for the hounding of bears in Nevada. It looks like a straightforward bill, and I believe it is. I will now turn the testimony over to Don Molde.

Donald A. Molde, Private Citizen, Reno, Nevada: I am a resident of Reno since 1970, a long-time Nevada wildlife advocate, and also co-founder of Nevada Wildlife Alliance.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today about A.B. 443, which, if adopted, would limit one aspect of the bear hunt. It would certainly not put an end to the bear hunt by any means. Our concerns are two-fold. One is we are concerned that the use of hounds to pursue this animal violates the fair chase doctrine, which is a concept that sportsmen have lived by for a long time. Basically it says that the hunter should not have an unfair advantage over the animal being pursued. There needs to be an element of fairness involved, and we believe that dogs advantage the hunter more than the bear.

Secondly, with GPS technology changing all of our lives, it is now possible to attach GPS units to dog collars so that the hunter can track the dogs using GPS information. While the proponents of hounding state that the primary use of the GPS information is to allow them to more easily retrieve their dogs at the end of the chase, it is also true, assuming that the chase is successful, that the dogs have found a bear, have run it up a tree, and are keeping it there. When the hunter arrives at the tree to get the dogs, the bear will also be in the tree. We think those two elements are not separable. Clearly, the GPS information gives an advantage to the hunter.

The second major concern we have with respect to hounding, is that we see a risk to mother bears with cubs. It is clear that the way bears operate, if a mother bear and cubs are being pursued by a pack of dogs, probably out of sight of the hunter at that point, there is a considerable risk that there will be a separation between the cubs and the mother. The cubs may go up a tree and hide, and the mother may continue. Later, if the mother is successfully treed, and there are no cubs in the vicinity, the hunter may well kill the mother and have no knowledge of what else just happened.

There is also a third point that I will mention. Hounding proponents state and believe that using dogs to tree a bear before it is killed gives the hunter a more leisurely opportunity to evaluate the animal. The hunter can estimate its age, its sex, its weight, perhaps its lactating status, and other parameters that may lead the hunter to either take the animal or not. There has been some thought that this more leisurely approach to the evaluation of the bear would lead to perhaps some sparing of older female bears, which are the ones with bear cubs in the black bear population. Unfortunately, the data that we have does not confirm that, at least not the data that the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) has collected.

Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining March 30, 2017 Page 15

There have been other issues that come up with dogs. For example, they do not recognize private property versus public land, they may get sidetracked by other wildlife species and pursue them, et cetera. The two issues really that are major concerns have to do with the fair chase doctrine, which we believe is violated by the use of dogs in this manner, and the welfare of mothers and cubs, which concerns us greatly. That concludes my remarks.

Tom Clark: I would like to now introduce Dan Carrick. He will walk you through his presentation.

Dan Carrick, Private Citizen, Reno, Nevada: I have a small PowerPoint presentation to give visualization to some of the things that have already been said (Exhibit G). Realistically, we are talking about dogs and bears. In Nevada, there is no limit to the number of dogs that can be used. Hounding is opposed by the majority of the people surveyed in Nevada. As in every other state, it is a negative. Only 29 percent of Nevadans surveyed think that it should be allowed. Assembly Bill 443 requests provisions that hounding be removed from the black bear hunt. We recognize that hunting is a tradition in Nevada, but the cruelty and harassment of the bears is not. I would like to show you a small video [video was shown of a bear hunt using hounds (Exhibit G)]. What we are seeing here is the dogs doing what dogs will do. It is bad for both the dogs and the bear. Slide 6 (Exhibit G), shows quotations from Nevada houndsmen. One of them is "Went out today and ran a mean one. Five miles, six trees and a lot of time on the ground with a mean bear who has quite an attitude. At the vet will be one dog down tomorrow." Do we need this?

The issue is that, according to NDOW, bear hunting is not a reason for management. Decades of data from states like Colorado, Washington, and Oregon, demonstrate no adverse management or economic impacts following the prohibition of hounding. It is well documented that the female kill ratio does not change with the use of hounds. We are quite sensitive to the issues of female bears. Basically, this amounts to unnecessary cruelty to both the bears and the hounds, and there are other non-target species that are involved in hounding. Realistically, the bears and the dogs do not have the same kind of respiration systems that we have. Female bears being chased while carrying their young includes a lot of the issues that we are talking about. A lot of injury takes place when a bear is set upon by a pack of hounds. It is very detrimental to female bears and their young. They have to motivate their cubs to climb trees and they become separated. If the sow bear is carrying a fetus, the damage to the fetus might be terminal.

To reiterate, hounding may make an individual hunter more selective, but the ratio of females killed or the age of the bear is not statistically different. There is nothing that will be lost by prohibiting hounding.

Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining March 30, 2017 Page 16

Hounding violates fair chase. To our ethical hunters, this is something they are all concerned about. We are in an era of technology. It is easy for the dogs to be found and also easy to dispatch the bear. Another thing we should be aware of is that in the state of Nevada, almost all dogs have to be on a leash when they are out in the public. However, that does not apply to hounds at all; they can go anywhere they want legally. Why should this be allowed for bear hunting?

We are asking that Nevada join with other western states to support fair chase in bear hunting. The final slide of my presentation lists my references (Exhibit G).

Vice Chair Cohen: We are now going to move to Elko to hear those in support of the bill. [There was no one.] I will now hear those in support in Las Vegas.

Patrick Donnelly, Nevada Wildlife Advocate, Center for Biological Diversity: We are grateful to Assemblywoman Swank for sponsoring this legislation, and we strongly support A.B. 443. The hunting of bears with hounds is forbidden in most other states that allow bear hunting. Hunting with hounds can cause target animals agony because it is possible for the hounds to bite and tear at the animal before any shots are fired. Rather than giving the animal a sportsman-like fair chase, this practice causes the end of an animal's life to be terrifying and painful. This is barbaric and we should forbid such practices in our state. Additionally, hunting with hounds creates adverse impacts to nontarget species. Animals such as deer, elk, game and non-game birds, and small mammals get flushed and have increased stress. This can ultimately lead to lowered reproductive success and productivity. Hounds may also actually kill nontargeted animals, such as juvenile bear and deer.

We would further stress that bear populations in Nevada are small and in some cases isolated. There are serious questions as to whether the hunting of bears in Nevada can be done in a sustainable manner. Consequently, in addition to banning the hounding of bears, the state should review the efficacy of allowing continued hunting of the species in various parts of its range. For the reasons I have described, the Center for Biological Diversity encourages you to vote yes on A.B. 443.

Stephanie Myers, Private Citizen, Las Vegas, Nevada: There a couple of phrases that are often repeated when talking about wild horses and the shrinking habitat and large numbers. It is called appropriate management levels and management strategies. At Nevada Department of Wildlife's Bear Committee meeting, the three-year review establishes that there is no management reason existing for the bear hunt; no population control or reducing human/bear conflict, but that the bear hunt is offered strictly for recreational purposes. The use of hounds makes this trophy hunt worse. Please end the bear hounding.

Karen Layne, Private Citizen, Las Vegas, Nevada: I am a former wildlife commissioner, and I will say I support everything that has been said before now. The Wildlife Commission did discuss this issue while I was a commissioner. Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining March 30, 2017 Page 17

We had a lot of people from Elko attend that meeting, and we heard a lot of testimony at the time. Unfortunately, the Commission did not take a stand, nor did it do anything about the issue then and has not done anything about the issue since. I certainly hope that the Legislature and the Assembly and this Committee will approve A.B. 443.

Vice Chair Cohen: I will now hear those in opposition to A.B. 443.

Mike Reese, President, Southern Nevada Coalition for Wildlife: I would like to go on the record saying that we have two government agencies. We have the Legislature and we have NDOW. There has been a long-standing relationship of objectives. The Legislature gives a broad scope for NDOW, the scientists and the boots-on-the-ground people who help manage our wildlife.

We have had a bear season for six years, it started in 2011. There have been a total of 82 bears harvested. I have been listening about how unfair and one-sided it is. We only have a 30 percent harvest rate from what our quota has been. In that same six-year period, we have had 71 bears killed by vehicles, 29 bears killed for public safety. That is 100 bears in the same six-year period that have been killed either by the general public with their automobiles or for other safety reasons, compared to 82 bears taken by the hunters. Of those 82 bears, 54 were males, 28 were females. That is a 2 to 1 ratio.

I heard testimony earlier about mothers with cubs. Here is a newsflash: cubs do not start coming out until January. The bear season in Nevada ends December 1. That is a whole month beforehand. Hounds are not the issue. I believe it is a "we do not want the bears to be hunted" issue, yet they are going to use the hounds as a vehicle to try to diminish it. It is already a 30 percent success rate. I would love to see hounding stay in there. Man has used dogs since the beginning of time. They do not run on a leash when they are out in the public land area. They do in the urban areas. I want to go on record that we strongly oppose this bill.

Vice Chair Cohen: I will now move to Elko to hear those in opposition.

Riley Manzonie, Private Citizen, Elko, Nevada: I have been hunting with hounds for the last 29 years. I am not just telling you rumors I have heard or stuff I have looked at on YouTube, or wherever some of these people are getting their information from. I have actually been there and done it. I have been on hundreds of bear hunts with hounds. I firmly believe the supporters of this bill are just using the hounds as a gateway to abolish bear hunting.

Vice Chair Cohen: Sir, I am sorry to interrupt, but we need to stick to this bill and not address possible motives of what could come down the pike.

Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining March 30, 2017 Page 18

Riley Manzonie: I appreciate that. Thirty-two states currently allow bear hunting; 56 percent of those states allow the use of hounds to pursue bears. Some of the states that do not allow hounds do allow baiting of bears, which Nevada does not allow. You heard earlier there is a 30 percent harvest success rate; 70 percent of those bears were taken with the use of hounds, approximately 10 or 11 bears a year. Removing hounds as a management tool to control bears would be a huge mistake for Nevada. California did this in 2012, and as a result, there was a 48 percent decrease in bear harvest the following year. That is nearly 1,000 fewer bears per year harvested in California due to removing hounds from the picture. Bear and human conflicts and complaints have skyrocketed in California. Money spent by the state to take care of these problems has nearly doubled over the last four years.

Thanks to California's removing hounds, the overflow of bears will undoubtedly continue to have an effect on Nevada's bear populations. According to NDOW, the population of bears is growing and is expected to continue to grow in the future. While supporters would have you believe that there are very low numbers of bears, the Tahoe Basin currently has the second-highest density of bears in the entire nation.

Hound hunting in the Tahoe Basin is currently illegal. We should all learn from the huge disaster Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana endured with the wolves when 70 to 80 percent of their wildlife, not to mention livestock, were killed while they had to sit back and watch. Bears are a large carnivore. If you remove the management tools, you take away our ability to manage wildlife. Do not weigh your vote based on emotion. I ask that you protect this verifiably invaluable predator management tool and vote against A.B. 443.

Sam Sanders, Private Citizen, Elko, Nevada: I am in opposition to A.B. 443. I hope you will be too. Hunting bear with hounds is a unique hunting opportunity that would benefit Nevada by increasing the variety of regulated recreational opportunities, with no adverse effects on Nevada's bear population. Clearly A.B. 443 is a degradation of recreational opportunities in Nevada. Allowing the hunting of bears with hounds in Nevada would be supported in the nature of land management by supporting the multiple use guidance in current and historic practice in Nevada. Please do not allow the emotions of a few one-sided activists to hinder the multiple use culture of our state.

Kelly Strain, President, Nevada Houndsmen Association: I would like to say that I am strongly against this, and I feel we are opening a can of worms. When you go bird hunting, the dogs are off the leash. When you are out with your border collies, the dogs are off the leash. There cannot be restrictions on working dogs, it is just common sense. We are strongly against this.

Dave Gowan, Private Citizen, Elko, Nevada: I am in opposition to this bill. I would like to address a couple of things that the presenters of this bill brought up. First is the GPS factor. We do live in a technology age, and why should it not make things quicker and easier for everyone involved. The use of GPS tracking is Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining March 30, 2017 Page 19 actually better for the bears. It shortens the duration of the hunt, it allows for the hounds to be recovered quicker, and yes, it does allow for the hunt to be over faster. That is to the benefit of the bears.

I would also like to counter former Commissioner Layne's comment that the Commission has not done anything in the past regarding the bear hunt. The last time this came up, the Commission actually elected to eliminate hound hunting in the Tahoe Basin to appease the same people that are presenting this bill; there was no real science behind any of it. It is just not enough for them, they keep coming and want to take it all. This is just the beginning of removing hound hunting in general in the state of Nevada, specifically with the bear hunt. Hounds are a great tool for the management and education of bears. Bears can be conditioned to stay away from humans with hounds. By pursuing bears with hounds, bears learn to avoid areas with dogs and humans. Case in point, the NDOW has its own Karelian Bear Dog Program. They use those dogs to pursue, harass, and educate bears to stay away from neighborhoods. Hound hunting accomplishes the same thing.

If you look at our neighboring states, California, Oregon, and Washington, that have eliminated bear hunting with hounds, you will see a lot of problems have developed. Human versus bear versus lion conflicts have become quite a problem. Also, other wildlife populations are suffering without predator management. Now in those states, problem bears and lions are removed by government agencies at taxpayer expense. Guess what, those agencies, like the Department of Agriculture, use hounds to take care of the problem. Is that not ironic? Hound hunting is a very emotional issue. Why are these same people not going after pheasant and duck hunters? The method is exactly the same. The dog tracks, locates, and attempts to hold the bird until the hunter arrives to shoot the bird.

Vice Chair Cohen: Sir, I need you to speak to the bill.

Dave Gowan: It is to the bill, and this is a slippery slope we are going down, which is my point. Once this begins, it is the end. I am in extreme opposition to this bill and thank you for letting me speak.

Rich Bandos, Private Citizen, Elko, Nevada: I emailed a comment to three of you regarding reading the comments and support material from the recent Wildlife Commission meetings and the field meetings regarding bear hunts. I think that if you disagree with the hound hunting, it is an ideological thing rather than based on facts. Mrs. Layne was in those meetings and she would know what I am talking about. I wrote a letter to all the commissioners, and I would like to have that in the record here, but I did not find out about this until two days ago. I will be sending a copy of that if this bill moves forward.

Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining March 30, 2017 Page 20

Assemblywoman Carlton: Before we lose the feed to Elko, there have been comments about ideology, and I just want to ensure that folks understand that we do our homework on this Committee. We understand what the fair chase doctrine is, and I did a little homework on that last night and I have a better feel for it. I have chaired this Committee in the past, and I want you to understand that when legislators make decisions, yes, we are people and we have feelings, but we try to make them based on public policy and the doctrine that is out there. The North American Wildlife Conservation Model recognizes the fair chase doctrine. I think there is a lot of debate around drones, GPS, and a lot of different things that are going on with hunting right now. I think it is responsible of this Committee to have this conversation so we can bring these things to light. Hunting is changing very quickly. I do not want folks in Elko thinking this is an ideological decision. This is based on research and fact and what we actually do in the Legislature.

Rich Bandos: Since she is commenting on my testimony, may I respond?

Vice Chair Cohen: No. That was not a question, it was a comment. We are going to move on so we can hear as many people as possible. In case we lose our feed, can I see a show of hands from those who have not had a chance to speak? If we do lose our feed, you can email your comments to us.

Rich Bandos: There are 31 people here waiting to speak.

Vice Chair Cohen: We have registered 31 dittos, but we will keep going as long as we can.

Milena Parker, Private Citizen, Elko, Nevada: I am speaking out in opposition. I would like to address specific points made by the presenters of the bill. We have discussed fairness of chase, but the statement is that GPS makes it unfair. There was a comment made that negated the fact that these sportsmen are concerned about the condition of their dogs, where their dogs are, and getting them back. Further, in the testimony, it was stated that dogs do not know the difference between private and public property. The GPS does two things, it allows the hunter to know when their hound is on private or public property. The assumption sounded like these dogs were ill-trained and that the sportsmen had not spent enough time with the dogs to know what species their dogs were supposed to chase.

I am speaking out for the people in this room. I know how much time and effort goes into training a dog to be specific to a species. They are not chasing deer or anything else; that is not their job, and they know their job. In addition, no one wants their animal on private property where they are in jeopardy of being shot by a landowner. Every effort is made to keep the animal from private property. Sometimes on a hunt you will see someone look all night, in whatever conditions, for his dog who is lost in the field. These hounds are a family Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining March 30, 2017 Page 21

member. There is no difference between a hound and your pet. When it is lost, you look for it until you find it. We chip dogs to find them. If someone else finds them, we go and get them. It is no different with hounds. To talk about the hounds as if they are not important to the houndsmen is such a disservice. They are a member of the family. Houndsmen spend more hours with these dogs than I would say you do with your own pets.

If the concerns are what NDOW is or is not doing, then the conversation should be with NDOW, not with the sportsmen. In addition, if you are worried about how many dogs, legislate that. If you want to legislate the number, do not just say, no, not any dogs. To say that when you see a bear in a tree, you cannot better decide if it is a female, or has a cub, that is crazy. When you have a flash and you take a shot, you do not necessarily know what it is in the case of a bear.

To maintain appropriate management levels, we have NDOW to decide that. So to decide that NDOW should be superseded by the thoughts of other people who gain their information wherever they gain it, YouTube, or wherever, you are negating an actual body mandated by the State to say that someone else knows better. I would encourage you to say that, if NDOW is the one tasked with knowing the appropriate levels, leave it to NDOW to decide what those appropriate levels are.

Vice Chair Cohen: We have lost the feed to Elko. We will come back to Carson City and let the presenters wrap up their presentation.

Tom Clark: We will make the rest of our formal presentation as quick as possible. I know there are a lot of people who still want to speak.

Don Molde: We are available for questions. I do not think we have anything further to offer at this time.

Assemblywoman Krasner: My dad was a fisherman and a hunter, so I am wondering, are you opposed to people hunting generally?

Vice Chair Cohen: We need to stick to the bill.

Assemblywoman Krasner: Are you opposed to people hunting bears if they are not using hounds?

Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining March 30, 2017 Page 22

Don Molde: Yes, we are opposed to the bear hunt. We have been ever since it came into being. In our view, 20 bears being killed a year is hardly a bear hunt, it is sort of a small opportunity for a small number of people. We do not think it is worth that, and we are opposed to the bear hunt. We are not opposed to other hunting, generally.

Assemblywoman Krasner: Are you okay with people owning guns?

Don Molde: I own guns.

Assemblywoman Titus: Has anyone at the table ever been on a bear hunt?

Carolyn Stark, Private Citizen, Incline Village, Nevada: I have not, but I have been around bears for 27 years. I am very familiar with them. I live at Lake Tahoe, I go on bear calls, and I educate people on bears.

Assemblywoman Titus: For the record, I have been on bear hunts with hounds, and I will tell you that 20 dogs is ridiculous. We can hardly control 5, let alone 20. These dogs are well trained; they know their job. They do not follow other animal trails. I would say that if the dog does follow another animal, that dog is not part of the hunt again; it has to be trained to stick to what it is following. I am curious, if you have not been on a hunt, all the information you are giving us is anecdotal and perhaps not factual. I am very concerned about the motives. I know we are supposed to stick to the bill, but bills do have motives behind them. There are reasons for presenting a bill and I would really caution you with using emotions versus facts. I recommend you do some more homework on this.

Assemblywoman Carlton: Bills are brought to this Legislature for numerous different reasons. I make decisions based on all types of things, every day, on every bill. That does not mean that I have to actually personally experience it. I have to do my homework, and I have to learn about it. I think I can make an objective decision on a bill whether I have actually experienced it or not. We do that every day in every committee that we serve on. I find it inappropriate that folks are being questioned on their motives. We do not question people's motives, we do not question other legislators' motives, and we do not question the constituency that we represent. This is the people's house, it belongs to them. If they have an opportunity to bring a bill, I feel it is inappropriate to question their motives.

Vice Chair Cohen: What states have outlawed hound hunting?

Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining March 30, 2017 Page 23

Elaine Carrick, Private Citizen, Reno, Nevada: I have been a citizen lobbyist for Nevada's wildlife since 2011. The states that do not allow hounding are Washington, Oregon, California, Montana, and Colorado. Washington, Oregon, and Colorado have not been using hounds to hunt bears since the 1990s. They have a lot of hunters who are still successful. The first year, the number of bears went down, but they have been very successful without hounds since that time.

Vice Chair Cohen: Do you know their basis for outlawing the hounds?

Don Molde: A citizen initiative occurred in two or three of those states.

Vice Chair Cohen: Assemblyman Watkins had to leave, but requested me to ask about permits. Do you know how many permits are given for the bear hunt each year?

Don Molde: If my numbers are correct, I believe NDOW, a year or two ago, received approximately 2,200 applications for bear tags. From that, 45 persons were selected to receive a tag. The bear quota was 20.

Vice Chair Cohen: Do you know how many of them used hounds?

Don Molde: About 70 percent of the bears killed in Nevada are killed using hounds.

Assemblywoman Titus: One of the commenters in Las Vegas stated that there were over 100 bears killed by cars in Nevada. Is that something that you folks have also seen?

Carolyn Stark: Yes, we have. Seventy-two bears have been killed by cars while 82 bears have been killed by hunters during the same time period.

Assemblywoman Titus: So 82 bears were killed by hunters in the same time that 100 were killed by cars?

Carolyn Stark: Yes, from 2011 through 2016, 82 bears have been killed by bear hunters, and 72 have been killed by cars.

Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining March 30, 2017 Page 24

Assemblywoman Titus: Are you aware that the NDOW uses dogs for the purpose of training the bears to stay away from homes, and basically protect citizens and keep their property safe?

Carolyn Stark: Yes, they use the Karelian Bear Dog Program primarily for urban bears within the Tahoe Basin. Out of the 82 bears that have been killed in the hunt, 64 were unknown bears that have never been tagged, and were not part of the Karelian Bear Dog Program. Another 14 bears were research bears. The vast majority of the bears killed in the hunt were nonissue bears; they were in wildland areas, and not where the Karelian Bear Dog Program is.

Assemblywoman Titus: Would you be against NDOW using their dogs as an aversion to bears?

Carolyn Stark: I am not opposed to the Karelian Bear Dog Program. I am in favor of anything to help the suburban bear issue.

Vice Chair Cohen: I will now move to support in Carson City.

Elaine Carrick: We all recognize that hunting of animals has happened throughout history and that hunting has been a tradition in Nevada. But, tradition has changed with the use of technology. This bill really comes to the heart of how we want to hunt in our state. Just because this technology is available, does it make it right to give the hunters an unfair advantage over the animal being hunted? Right now, traditional hunting is more acceptable to the public, as surveys have shown. In Nevada, hunters can be successful in hunting bears without hounds, as we have seen in five other western states. Regarding the management of bears, NDOW has stated that the bear hunt is not for management purposes. I want to make that clear. Bear hunting with hounds was taken out of the Tahoe Basin for safety issues. Please support A.B. 443.

Lloyd Peake, Private Citizen, Reno, Nevada: I am here to testify in support of A.B. 443. I might mention, I am not opposed to hunting. I grew up hunting and fishing with my father. I want to make a few comments about fair chase and what is happening with this issue, with particular reference to a source of rules which has been around for many years and is constantly modified and updated. I make reference to information from the Boone and Crockett Club, one of North America's oldest and most highly respected wildlife conservation groups, founded in 1887 and very active today.

Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining March 30, 2017 Page 25

This information is an essay titled "The Boone and Crockett Club on Fair Chase" in the section entitled "Ethics, Fair Chase, Laws and Hunting," published in September 2016.

The term "sport" as used in hunting means offering the animal a chance to escape. A sporting approach recognizes the advantage of human capabilities, including technologies, and a desire to constrain ourselves. More often than not, this means prey will avoid the hunter. Knowing what improper advantage means comes from experience, but if there is any doubt, the advantage should go to the animal. That is fair chase.

From the same paper that I just referred to,

. . . when technology becomes a substitute for basic skills in the field (i.e., buying skill), this is where technology not only undermines the hunting experience, but also has the potential to erode public support for hunting. It is very difficult to maintain any credible claim that hunting is rewarding because of the challenge if the entire experience can come down to pressing a button on a highly sophisticated device.

In the few moments I have left, let me also indicate that studies done after the prohibition of the use of hounds for bear hunts in the states of Oregon, Washington, and Colorado clearly indicate that interest in hunting bears remained high, hunter participation went up, and revenue to the states went up. So, did this prohibition of the use of hounds make hunting bears more challenging for hunters? Highly likely. Did it dampen enthusiasm for the hunt or result in a decline in revenue? Clearly not, just the opposite. The practice of using hounds in connection with killing bears is not necessary or appropriate. Continuation of such a practice will only do damage to the sport of hunting. This is particularly true in light of the concepts and rules that define the applicable doctrine of fair chase.

Vice Chair Cohen: We have a few minutes left for support, then we will move on to those in opposition.

Margaret Martini, Private Citizen, Incline Village, Nevada: I am in support and I am urging you to support A.B. 443. When the bear hunt started, I was in on the ground floor of that and went to almost all the meetings. At one particular county advisory board meeting—which has direct access and great influence with NDOW, which again has great influence with the Legislature and our lawmakers—I was appalled because it was about hounding. Two of the members of that committee had interests in hounding, one a financial interest and the other a practical interest. They did not recuse themselves from the vote. When this came to a vote, it supported hounding. That is how it started; it was not in the original bear hunt program.

Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining March 30, 2017 Page 26

Using hounds is adverse to both animal species. We do not allow dog fighting in Nevada, and this practice of hunting with hounds puts the dogs in much more peril. It presents certain casualty for the bear and a grave danger for the dogs. This raises the level of animal cruelty toward the dogs.

I would like to address the Assemblywoman who said that bears learn from hounding. Bears are not going to learn when they are dead. I do not understand her statement. Hounding is unilaterally an unsporting and unnecessary practice.

Michael Robbins, Private Citizen, Carson City, Nevada: I have owned Hanifin's Arts and Antiques for 18 years. I agree with a lot of the previous comments. I would say this, I talk to virtually everyone who comes into my shop, tourists from all over the world. They like to hear about bears. I actually display photographs I take of bears that I see in the wild. People love to see bears. I love to see bears. If you all have not seen a bear in the wild, it is an almost mystical experience. I encourage you to try to find that. I think bears are good for Nevada's economy. If I can talk to more people about bears, I am going to sell more products and generate more taxes. I think bears are wonderful animals, and I think they need protection.

Vice Chair Cohen: I am now going to move to opposition.

Sean Shea, Private Citizen, Reno, Nevada: This is a very passionate issue for me. I have been a houndsman for most of my life. I appreciate bears as much as anyone does. They are beautiful. Over the last six years that Nevada has had a bear season, there have been 82 bears harvested by sportswomen and sportsmen. I would like to take a look at another number that no one ever really hears about; that is how many bears were treed and released. This number is only from people who harvest a bear—that number is 99—so almost 20 percent more bears were treed and released than were harvested during that time. That is not including the people who were not successful. They do not ask those people how many bears were released, so you could probably triple that number.

When my dogs have a bear treed and I walk up, I can tell you the sex, the relative age, and the body condition of the bear. If the bear is something that the hunter does not want, we will take pictures and leash the dogs. Whereas in a spot-and-stalk situation, people have a split second to decide to harvest or not. They do not get a chance to look at these bears because they are moving through trees and brush. With hounds, you are getting a chance to look at the bear and pass on it.

Last season I had a bear hunter who did not harvest a bear. We caught and released six bears; he took pictures. We were able to look over the bears, decide they were not what we were looking for, we took pictures and leashed the dogs. Although he never harvested, he had a great time and gained an appreciation for the bears and the dogs. It was about the experience for this guy. People lose that thought of the whole experience. Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining March 30, 2017 Page 27

A few years back, my dogs had treed a bear. The hunter and I walked up to the tree. I could tell right away that there was something wrong with the bear. As I looked closer, I could tell that one of her back paws had been broken previously and had healed wrong. She had been walking on the back of her paw. The more I looked at her, I looked at her face and body and I could tell that she was very old. Her eyes were sunk in, she was emaciated, and the body skin looked like it was hanging on her bones. She had no muscle. I could tell that she was at the end of her life, and obviously at that point, she had stopped eating and was deteriorating just like humans do. I have a policy that we do not shoot female bears. All I could think about was how bad she would suffer in the last stages of her life if we left her. The hunter decided to harvest this bear, because it was the right thing to do. As we got closer, I really felt this was a mercy harvest and was very grateful for those dogs to tree that bear. We made a decision on that and it was because of those dogs. Nature is cruel at the end of life and most people forget that.

There is a lot of misguided and misdirected information out there about using dogs. Whenever I hear this I always nicely ask the person talking if they have ever been on a bear chase, for pictures or just to see them in the wild. I have never had one person say yes.

Jonathan Lesperance, Private Citizen, Reno, Nevada: Thank you for your patience, and thank you, Assemblywoman Carlton, for reiterating that you have done your research. I know this is a passionate subject with a lot of emotion on both sides. I would like to speak to the concept of fair chase that has been brought up a number of times. I would first say that Theodore Roosevelt, arguably the founder of what we have termed fair chase—the Boone and Crocket Club, and what has collectively come to be known as the North American Wildlife Conservation Model—was a houndsman. He pursued bears and lions.

The GPS collar is a double-edge sword because it affords us a lot of control over the situation and the dogs, but it also does not work as well as it is being portrayed. There certainly have been times where I wish it did, but it is not exact. Many times when the dogs go on a long run, you have to do a tremendous amount of hiking to get them back on your GPS. It is not a given. As to fair chase, if it is a given with the dogs, then why do we still have a 30 percent harvest? Certainly, 70 percent of those animals are harvested with dogs, but only 30 percent of the tags issued are being filled. I would also like to reiterate that when it comes to natural resources, those should be managed for beneficial, sustainable use. We should concern ourselves with uses that detriment the resource or degrade the resource. If the resource can be managed for beneficial use, we should not constrain it and restrict personal liberties.

Assemblywoman Carlton: You brought up Teddy Roosevelt. I went to Theodore Roosevelt High School. He is one of the people that I studied, and that is part of the reason why I know a little bit about this. You did state that he was a houndsman. For the record, let us make sure it is clear that on the hunt in Mississippi where the teddy bear came from, that bear was cornered by hounds and

Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining March 30, 2017 Page 28

Mr. Roosevelt refused to shoot it. There was a cartoon made about it, and that is where the teddy bear came from. I want to make sure the record is clear, that yes he was a houndsman, but when it was not a fair chase, he did not take the bear.

Larry Johnson, President, Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife, Inc.: I believe that President Roosevelt did not take the bear because it was not fair chase, he did not harvest the bear simply because it was a cub and not up to his standard. One of the things I want to point out is that we are blessed in Nevada by having a national expert in bear biology here. That is Mr. Carl Lackey. I urge this Committee to reach out to Mr. Lackey and ask him these specific questions because, to date, no one has taken the time to ask this national expert. Last night in a conference call with the Coalition, in front of a bunch of groups, Mr. Lackey stated that the use of hounds has no physiological impact on bears pursued by dogs. Much more stress is applied on a daily basis by the adult male who frequently kills and eats the less dominant bears. I have assisted in bear research here for several years. Two years ago, we tranquilized a mother in a den and put radio chips in her three cubs. Within a month, an adult male had killed the mother and ate the cubs. The adult male bear is probably the number one controller of the bear population. These are not teddy bears; these are big ferocious wild animals.

Mr. Lackey also stated that there was no biological impact on the bear population by the use of hounds. The bear population has been growing throughout much of this time period until the recent drought, and the population has leveled off. The bear density has leveled off. Mr. Lackey has documented and noted an increase in infanticide of young bears by the mature male during this time period, when habitat conditions are poor. It has been stated that the Wildlife Commission did not spend sufficient time and effort on the bear issue. In fact, the bear committee has practically monopolized the Wildlife Commission's time and agenda for nearly a decade. Quite frankly, we see this as just another attempt to end the bear hunt, one step at a time.

Vice Chair Cohen: Can I see a show of hands, how many more are in opposition? Do we have anyone in neutral? [There was no one.] I will ask anyone who was not able to make a statement to leave us your written statements.

Joel Blakeslee, representing Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife; Nevada Trappers Association; and Southern Nevada Coalition for Wildlife: Based on a lot of the points that have been made about being able to identify bears by the use of hounds and other matters, I would say that it would make more sense to require the use of hounds to hunt bears, rather than take it away.

Darrell Pursel, Private Citizen, Yerington, Nevada: I am a fifth-generation Nevada farmer and rancher. I have been involved with a lot of stuff in my community which enables me to talk to most other farmers and ranchers in Lyon County and other areas of the state. In Lyon County, beekeepers have suffered substantial loss from bears over the past six or eight years. One commercial beekeeper that Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining March 30, 2017 Page 29

I know from California has had over $20,000 worth of damage in a one- or two-year period. Another local beekeeper had $10,000 worth of damage to hives with one bear over several incidents. They tried to use an electric fence; he dug under it. They got the state to bring a trap; the bear got away. So, $10,000 to one small beekeeper who does not make $10,000 a year off the bees, and there is no one there to help, no activists put up money. I am opposed to this bill.

Vice Chair Cohen: I will ask the sponsors to come back up.

Tom Clark: Because of time, we will take a look at what is submitted to NELIS and respond to what questions were asked today and get the information to the sponsor of the bill.

Vice Chair Cohen: I will now close the hearing on A.B. 443. [Also provided but not mentioned are (Exhibit H) and (Exhibit I).]

[Assemblywoman Swank reassumed the Chair.]

Chair Swank: Thank you for coming. I am going to skip public comment today. With that, we are adjourned [at 3:48 p.m.].

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Nancy Davis Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Heidi Swank, Chair

DATE: Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining March 30, 2017 Page 30

EXHIBITS

Exhibit A is the Agenda.

Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

Exhibit C is a copy of a PowerPoint presentation titled "AB 386 Revises provisions governing access to public lands," presented by Assemblyman Justin Watkins, Assembly District No. 35.

Exhibit D provides links to two articles provided and referred to by Kyle Davis in support of Assembly Bill 386. The first article is titled "Cornered: Western Sportsmen Trapped by Arcane Regulation Prohibiting Public Access at Corner Crossing" by Matthew Copeland, Outdoorlife.com, dated August 10, 2015. The second article is titled "Finding a Way In" by Paul Queneau, Montana Outdoors, dated September-October 2014.

Exhibit E is a letter in support of Assembly Bill 386 from Karen Boeger, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, dated March 29, 1017.

Exhibit F is a letter from Eureka County in opposition to Assembly Bill 386, presented by Steven K. Walker.

Exhibit G is a PowerPoint presentation titled "Hounding," in support of Assembly Bill 443, presented by Dan Carrick, Private Citizen, Reno, Nevada.

Exhibit H is a letter in support of Assembly Bill 443 from Wylie Animal Rescue Foundation, Incline Village, Nevada, dated March 29, 2017.

Exhibit I is a letter in support of Assembly Bill 443 from Jana Wright, Private Citizen, Las Vegas, Nevada.