One nation under God with liberty and justice or all.

All right, thank you for that.

And if I could have the department take a roll call, please.

Chairman Rogers.

Here.

Vice Chair Young.

Here.

Commissioner Booth.

Commissioner Bourne.

Commissioner Cavillio.

Commissioner Keel.

Commissioner Mesna.

Commissioner Munn.

Commissioner Wolfe.

All right, thank you.

And how about any county advisory board members to manage wildlife?

If there's any in attendance here today, if I could have you stand, maybe come down to the mic for those that are attending as well on virtual, but if I could have you come down to the mic and identify yourself.

Jim Cooney, Yelko.

Darrell Scoobina Lion County.

Joe Cream, Pershing.

Neil Cheney, Lincoln County.

Doris Dimmick, Carson City.

How about any county advisory board members on Zoom?

Steve Robinson Washoe.

Public comment will be limited to three minutes.

No action can be taken by the commission at this time.

Any item requiring commission action may be scheduled on a future commission agenda.

Persons making comments are asked to begin by stating their name for the record.

So how about any public comment here in Reno today?

Pioneer, colleague, mentor, friend for nearly forty years.

Some of his best work was in the conservation of wildlife.

Don had faith in science and faith in the systems connected to common sense and to science.

Because Don was brilliant and relentless, there were those weaker souls who tried various means to silence him to stop him.

They were not successful by any of those means.

And I think about Don every time I hear the following quote.

Now, a few examples of Don's tree shade or legacy.

Since last July, Nevada Animal Advocates recruited by and associated with Don Moldy, have participated in habitat restoration in three different areas in Nevada, have contributed at least 10,000 to various NGO projects, have cleaned up urban and suburban wildlife areas in three different counties, have conducted wildlife classes in two different youth outdoor schools, have participated in two community science projects, and have attended at least seven community meetings and events regarding the need for protection and resources for our state's wildlife.

And this is just in the last four months.

Don't selfless efforts and the wonderful base he created for Nevada's wildlife will live on the morning.

My name is Rebecca Goff.

I'm the Nevada State Director for Humane World for Animals.

On behalf of my organization, our members here in Nevada and myself, I'm speaking today in honor of Don Moldy.

I didn't have the privilege of knowing him very long, only about two years.

But even in that time, he made a big impact in my life.

He showed me that you can speak up for things that you believe in.

You can cross the aisle and talk to people who maybe are maybe believe things differently than you.

You could disagree, but you can have civil discourse.

I appreciate all that he did for the wildlife of Nevada and all that he did for our state.

He loved this state, and he loved the work that he did.

And I hope that he'll be a lasting inspiration to all of us.

Thank you.

Kathy Smith of Washoe County for the record.

Don Molday was a fierce defender of wild carnivores, a thoughtful policy analyst, and someone who believed science and ethics should always guide wildlife management.

His life embodied the profound truth Jane Goodall articulated.

Every single day you live, you make a difference in the world.

And you get to choose the difference that you make.

Don chose wildlife every single day.

Don't persistence was legendary, marked by decades of sitting through commission meetings and intermittently participating in petition submissions, despite repeated setbacks.

This tireless effort was fueled by his conviction that ethical and scientific action, no matter how politically frustrating, was always necessary.

Don wasn't merely a longtime advocate.

His commitment was rooted in professionalism and deep ethically driven philosophy.

He served as a crucial, self-appointed institutional watchdog whose informed expertise was often marginalized by the very state agencies he sought to improve.

His passing is a loss of an irreplaceable voice.

When Don spoke, it wasn't just about data or statistics, it was about common sense, good governance, and doing what's right.

He saw the core problem clearly, not simply disagreement, but a system politically stacked against modern conservation ethics.

What frustrated him was the displacement of science and ethics by the entrenched politics of hunting, trapping, mining, and ranching interest.

Don had that perfect mix of compassion and intellect.

He cared deeply about every individual animal while also understanding the bigger picture of how ecosystems work.

He understood that managing for individual animal welfare and ecosystem health wasn't contradictory.

It was essential.

An animal widely reviled and hunted.

And at home, his kids were the dogs he rescued and adored.

Don may no longer be here to continue the fight, but we honor him by taking up his work, the tireless effort to break down the institutional bias that silences informed ethical voices like his.

Today is another day and another chance to choose the difference we get to make in the world.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Any other public comment here in Reno today?

All right, seeing none.

How about any public comment via Zoom?

Good morning.

This is Stephanie Myers from Las Vegas.

Except for a few public comments.

I don't believe there has been a single remark from the commission or any commissioner about the longest serving advocate for wildlife in Nevada's history.

I am wondering why you have made no mention of Dr.

Don Moldy.

Dr.

Moldy was not only a steadfast friend to wildlife, he was a personal mentor, friend, and hero.

His knowledge and his courage were boundless.

An amazing example to all of us who love and revere nature and wildlife.

Dr.

Moldy provided science-based information about the harm that hunters and trappers cause our wild carnivores.

This information was most often gleaned from Endow's own data.

Do you not recall that he used your own statistics to attack the woeful protections, meaning none at all, for mountain lions in this state?

He showed you pictures taken by your own photographers of the feet and teeth of mountain lions who had been caught in leg hold traps, feet missing toes, sliced in half, or totally absent after encounters with the traps, put out legally by Nevada trappers.

One out of six mountain lions killed by hunters, was injured by traps, set out for bobcats, since both animals run in the same territory here in Nevada.

You ignored him.

Was he just a thorn in your side?

I hear heaps of attaboys, praise and acclaim made by Endell and the Commission for various staff commissioners, friends, and hunters.

Where is your tribute to the most ardent supporter of all for wildlife, Dr.

Don Moldy?

Don was an inspiration.

He fought for compassion for the most vulnerable on this earth.

His passing is a profound loss for all of us.

I miss him.

You should too.

Thank you.

Hello, this is Patrick Donnelly.

I'm Great Basin Director with the Center for Biological Diversity.

I get to work with citizen advocates all over the Western United States.

And uh I can say that he was rare, maybe one of a kind uh in his fervor and devotion to the things he believed in.

Um, after the Endangered Species Act passed, someone asked how you did it, and Brock Evans, the environmentalist said, endless pressure endlessly applied.

And that really is what Don did and what Dodd embodied.

And I think you know, I knew him for the final decade of his career as an advocate, and he was doing something quite rare.

He both was pursuing his projects doggedly, but also mentoring the next generation.

And he took me under his wing when I showed up here.

Uh about as green as a blade of grass, and he uh he he showed me the ropes with uh, you know, working on commission issues and at the legislature, and um, so I'll always be grateful for that and be inspired by the legacy of his dedication.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chairman, commissioners, this is Janna Rye, Clark County.

For the 15 years that I was privileged to interact with Don Moldy on wildlife issues in Nevada, I found him generous in sharing his vast knowledge with me and others.

I tell people he was our yoga.

All I can say in closing is thanks, Don.

You are truly missed.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Good morning, Chair Rogers and Commissioners.

My name is Michelle Lute.

I'm the executive director of wildlife for all, and here today to also honor Dr.

Don Moldy, who was a mentor, colleague, and a friend of so many of us in the room and across Nevada, as you've already heard.

Don spent decades showing up, testifying, questioning, and advocating because he believed in the promise of democratic wildlife governance, that wildlife were not just resources, trophies, or commodities, but living beings with inherent worth.

He believed that the health of our ecosystems and the integrity of our democracy depend on how we treat those who cannot speak for themselves, and that decisions made here should reflect the best science, the broadest public interest, and an ethic of care.

And you'll hear from others today for the same reason.

Don't impact was not isolated.

He shaped a community of Nevadans who take the public trust seriously and have appealed to this commission over the years to steward that public trust by reducing trap check intervals, banning killing contests, and protecting mountain lions.

Don believe that the public participation is not just a bureaucratic requirement.

It is the beating heart of the public trust and foundational to democratic legitimacy.

When the same small set of voices are prioritized, when science is selectively interpreted, or when decisions appear predetermined before the public input is heard, competence in this institution erodes.

Don pushed against that with patience and unwavering clarity that this commission is accountable to the public to all of us.

And he didn't do that work alone.

He brought people in and he mentored them.

He encouraged new advocates to speak, even when the process felt inhospitable.

He believed that strong community is the foundation of strong conservation.

Many of us are here today because Don refused to let the space become exclusive, technical, or close to everyday Nevadans.

To honor that legacy in collaboration with members of this community, the Wildlife for All Coalition has established the Don Moldy Award for Courageous Leadership and Wildlife Advocacy.

We will soon release a call for nominations.

This award is not just about remembering Don.

It's about setting a standard for what principled public leadership looks like in wildlife policy.

That standard includes transparent decision making, respect for diverse public input, consideration of ethical implications, and a commitment to science that is robust, not selective.

Don believe Nevada could lead in these areas, and we still can if we choose to.

So as we remember Don today, I want to be clear.

This is also a callback to the purpose of this commission to steward wildlife for the public, not just for a narrow interest, to welcome scrutiny, participation, and diverse values, not resist them, to listen, reflect, and evolve.

Don showed us how to do that.

Now the responsibility is ours.

So thank you today for honoring his commitment to Nevada's wildlife and ecosystems and for considering how those values might shape our decisions going forward.

Thank you.

All right, thank you for that.

I think that ends our public, excuse me, public comment period.

We will move on to agenda item number three.

This is approval of agenda for possible action.

The commission will review the agenda and may take action to approve the agenda for November 7, 2025.

The commission may remove items from the agenda, continue items for consideration, or take items out of order.

So with that, yes, Director Janae.

Thank you for the record, Alan Janay.

Um one item we would like to adjust within the agenda is taking item 12.

Um the Wayne E.

Kirch Award, um, and moving that forward um to just behind item six or uh item five, right behind member items.

Um, because the award recipients are actually present, and so um we could probably save them some time on their day.

All right, perfect.

Uh any items regarding today's agenda from the commission at all.

All right.

Seeing none, let me go ahead and take this out for any public comment here in Reno on today's agenda.

All right, seeing no public comment here in Reno.

How about public comment via Zoom regarding today's agenda?

All right, I'll bring it back then to the commission for any other items or motion or no further comment on the uh agenda number three.

I'll make a motion to approve uh agenda item number three approval agenda with the one change moving item 12 to right behind item five.

All right.

Second.

All right, perfect.

So we do have a motion from Vice Chair Young, a second from Commissioner Walther.

All those in favor with aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

Perfect.

So we will move on now then to agenda item number four.

This is approval of minutes for possible action.

Commission minutes may be approved from the June 13 and 14, 2025, and the September 26 and 27 2025 meeting.

And again, 4A here is June 13 and 14, 2025, commission meeting minutes.

The commission will review and may approve commission meeting minutes.

All right, and I guess we can do those both at the same time.

Any not to complicate it, but I'm after abstain from September.

Uh, having provided you guys sufficient time on the June minutes, I'd love to make that motion.

Yes, we have had we have reviewed them extensively.

Thank you for that, Commissioner Walter.

Any other items from the uh from the commission at all?

All right, seeing none, let me go ahead and take this out real quick for any public comment.

So any public comment here in Reno regarding uh approval of the minutes.

Again, this is from June 13, 14 and September 26 and 27.

All right, seeing none, how about any public comment via Zoom?

All right, I'll bring it back to the commission for any further discussion.

Uh Commissioner Walter, if you want to thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I would move to approve the minutes from June 13th and 14th of 2025 as presented.

All right.

Um, so we have a motion uh for approval of again the June 13-14 minutes uh uh as presented.

Commissioner I'm gonna abstain from that one.

All right, because I was not present.

That's right.

Uh yeah.

All right.

Myself as well.

Yeah.

All right.

Anybody else?

I think I was there.

I don't remember what I was doing in June.

All right.

So we've got a motion for the June 13-14 amendments from Commissioner Walther, and a second from Commissioner Cavilia.

All those in favor with aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right, with the noted commissioners abstaining.

All right.

So with that, we will move to agenda 4B.

This is September 27, or excuse me, 26 and 27, 2025 commission meeting minutes.

The commission will review and may approve commission meeting minutes.

So any items of discussion for the September 26 and 7 meeting minutes.

All right.

Seeing none, I'll take this out to public comment real quick.

Any public comment regarding meeting minutes from the September meeting.

All right, seeing none.

How about any public comment via Zoom?

All right, seeing none, we'll bring it back to the commission for any further discussion or motion or yep, Commissioner Cavillia.

I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve the September 26th and 27, 20, 25 minutes as presented.

All right.

So we have a uh motion for approval from Commissioner Caviglia and uh uh uh wow.

It is it is Friday and a second from Commissioner Mesner.

Uh all those in favor with aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right, perfect.

So moving now on to agenda item number five.

And this is member item announcements and correspondence.

This is informational.

Commissioners may present emergent items.

No action may be taken by the commission.

Any item requiring commission action may be scheduled on a future commission agenda.

The commission will review and may discuss correspondence center receive by the commission since the last regular meeting and may provide copies for the exhibit file.

Correspondence sent to received by Secretary Janae may also be discussed.

So with that, any member items announcements.

I think we've I know we've been sent uh a number of different things, which I think everybody's had a chance to review.

Director Janae, any thank you for the record Alan Janay.

So um we did receive uh four more uh form letter comments to uh coyote contests, uh which is up tomorrow.

Um while I have the mic, I would like to uh take a second to introduce our new um DAG representatives.

Um and Richard was well timed, Richard Yen and Nicole Ting are the two DAGs.

Um they will be splitting assignments um and splitting coverage for the commission and coverage for the department.

So um anything you uh Nicole for the record, just excited to be here and um I'm available to you anytime if you have questions.

All right, likewise, Richard Yan, Deputy Attorney General for the record.

Uh we're both based out of Carson City, uh and we both have quite a few years' experience.

So anything you guys need, feel free to reach out.

And I look forward to working with you all as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um also one other item.

Um if you will look uh later today, the last agenda item before public comment is a service recognition.

Um we will be acknowledging um David McNanch's uh time on the commission.

We have a nice picture collage to present to him, and then also Chris Vasey for his service as the wildlife uh or the conservation education division administrator.

Um after that, um, there will be once we break from this meeting.

Um, we do have the back room at the Little Waldorf right up here by the university.

Um if folks wanted to attend for a little bit of a social gathering, just uh say nice things to those service uh recognition recipients and unfortunately Craig Burkett um our freshly retired.

Dag is off enjoying his retirement.

Um he's on a chucker hunt that he could not turn down.

He's been trying to get on this invite hunt for quite some time, and so uh he passes along his appreciation, but he could not make it here today.

So that's all the items I have, sir.

All righty, thank you, Director Janay.

Anything else from the commission?

All right.

Seeing none, we will go ahead and then close out agenda item five, and we will move on to this is agenda item twelve that we've added here today.

This is the Wayne E.

Kirch 2024 award presentation.

Secretary Janae.

Secretary Janay will present the 2024 Wayne E.

Kirch Award that acknowledges a deserving individual, nonprofit organization, outdoor sports club, or business who have achieved significant results toward the conservation, management, or enhancement of wildlife in the state of Nevada.

I gave you the present for you.

It sends me in it.

Yeah, I sure can.

Okay, if you want to read, yeah, we can both go down.

Perfect.

All right.

So yes, this is a very exciting uh award and very well deserved.

Again, this is the 2024 uh Kerch Award, and it is my pleasure to recognize the recipients of the 2024 Wayne E.

Kirch, Nevada Wildlife Conservation Award to Ken and Jill Wilkinson of Elco.

Ken is a longtime Elko resident who has spent more than four decades dedicated to conserving and enhancing Nevada's wildlife.

Even after retiring from the Bureau of Land Management, he and his wife Jill have continued to devote their time and energy to supporting the Nevada Department of Wildlife's mission.

In 2024, the Wilkinsons focused on two major efforts, maintaining Franklin Lake and Humboldt Wildlife Management Are and assisting with the Nevada Department of Wildlife's urban quail trapping and relocation project.

They treated they treated invasive weeds, collected trash, monitored nesting conditions for waterfowl and shorebirds, and helped relocate quail from their property in Spring Creek to rural areas to strengthen wild populations.

Ken and Jill's work reflects a lifelong passion for conservation and a deep commitment to Nevada's wildlife and communities.

We are truly grateful for their service and proud to honor them today.

So again, congratulations, Ken and Jill, right?

Yeah, we'll continue doing what we're doing.

Ken Wilkinson, we enjoy getting out just a pastime for us.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I don't know what else I'd be doing.

You know, just uh just gotta be doing something with wildlife and wildlife conservation.

And so I've got other projects.

Yeah.

I'm doing and I'll we'll continue doing the same exact stuff we're doing now.

So we've got quite a uh population of quail there.

And uh as a release in the Spring Creek and Elko area, and we have around 200 roosting in uh Rocky Mountain Junipers and Pine Trees we have surrounding our property.

So it's a pool.

Of course, they're not hunted and uh there, and it's not just for hunting purposes.

Um, this is for enjoyment for people out and about to see quail.

Yep, and they're as far as I know, they're doing well in the release areas.

So we'll have to check with Matt Jeffrey.

But um, and also uh one thing I'd like to add, we encourage all sportsmen to please pick up their shotgun shells.

We have filled bags and bags full of shotgun shells that sites that we monitor.

So some of it a lot of it's not on purpose.

These shotguns nowadays I shoot out shells five yards.

I've measured it.

You know, so it goes off in the Tulies and whatnot.

So yeah, it's everybody do your cleaning up.

Yeah, thank you.

And thank you so much.

Oh my gosh, I feel this has come full circle.

It's really cool.

So, yeah, absolutely.

So I just wanted to acknowledge um while they're receiving this award today, as both of these individuals, both Ken and Jill have been around conservation for a very long time.

Um at one time worked for us back ages ago.

Um, went to school with many uh the Mike Scott and Dave McNanch and that cohort and Jill.

I met my very first summer as a seasonal in 1989 when she was working for the department um in a seasonal position for for a bit, and uh through their life um living in Spring Creek and working um as they've always cared.

They've always stepped forward and always done what you see here today.

So I think it's absolutely due that you get this recognition and congratulations and thanks for coming in.

Well, thank you.

We are really honored.

Thank you so much.

Thanks.

All right, wonderful.

Well, again, thank you for that, and congratulations.

We really appreciate it.

We know that you recognize this uh prestigious award, and again, thank you very much.

We appreciate you.

All right, with that, we will uh now move on to agenda item number six.

This is county advisory boards to manage wildlife.

It is informational.

County advisory board members may present emergent items.

No action may be taken by the commission.

Any item requiring commission action will be scheduled on a future commission agenda.

So about how how about any county advisory boards here uh in Reno today?

All right, nothing in Reno today here.

Then how about via Zoom?

All right.

Morning, Commissioners.

Paul Dixon, chair of the Carr County Cab.

Um we have had a request come through one of our board members for the commission to re look at um the non-commercial collection of reptiles in the state of Nevada.

And um I will say that um I had one of the larger attended meetings, even though I wasn't there, I was on an anniversary thing with my wife.

Um, we had over 14 members of the public attend to give comments on commercial collecting of reptiles.

I will put that on my agenda for my January meeting.

Um, and we will make recommendations.

Uh, we did have two members uh from uh endow there, Matt Flores and Jason Jones, as well as the new uh Southern Region uh director Froilin Hernandez.

Um and I thought we had a very healthy set of discussions.

I think the goal is to determine whether it's we need to have licensing of non-commercial collection of reptiles to track and regulate collection, maintain records and reporting of take, or whether we need to do something like with Shed Antlers.

We have a uh a course that people are required to take in a certificate if they're gonna do non-commercial collecting of reptiles in the state of Nevada.

But we will come back with recommendations and probably a uh after the January meeting and a petition to the commission through the Department of Wildlife.

But we are working with the department directly on this uh concept.

Uh, I was pretty heavily engaged when we stopped commercial collecting of reptiles uh several years ago that I thought we needed to have some sort of a program like this.

Uh it has now come back, and we seem to have both end off support as well as a lot of public support to do something in this area.

So just wanted to give you guys a heads up that that was coming down the pike.

Thank you.

All right.

Seeing no the other county advisory boards, we will move on from agenda item number six to agenda item number seven.

This is our reports.

This is informational.

7A is division activity report, Secretary Janay and administrative or excuse me, and division administrators.

A report will be provided on highlights from the Nevada Department of Wildlife recent activities.

So, Director Janae.

All right, thank you for the record, Alan Janae.

Um, we'll go through our department activity report.

Um, same as always.

Um there is a more uh thorough report that we have provided to the commission and is available.

Um highlight items in the director's office as we are happy to acknowledge the hiring of Aaron Meyer as the conservation education division administrator.

Um I think you're all familiar with him.

Of course, I go to mention him.

Oh, there he is.

I can't see him behind the door.

I just wanted to make sure that everybody had a face to a name.

Um Aaron has worked for the department for more than 20 years in a variety of roles, um, including uh public information officer, website coordinator, publications coordinator, social media director, voting education coordinator.

Um, in addition to his role um at Nevada Department of Wildlife, he has I also been involved in uh several national and organizations, including the Association for Conservation Information, American Advertising Federation, the Public Relations Society of America, the National Safe Voting Council, and National Association of State Voting and Law Administrators.

And we're proud um to see him step forward and at that uh into that role and also looking forward to uh the opportunity that that creates for other staff within conservation education to then step into his role.

And so that position that he held is open, and uh we are recruiting for that.

It is definitely Friday.

Um additionally, out of the director's office, uh we participated in two coordination meetings regarding uh the new world screw room screw worm response playbook, addressing preparedness for this destructive pest that poses significant risk to U.S.

agriculture, wildlife, public health, the economy, and the food supply.

While the new world screw worm has not yet been detected in the United States, surveillance efforts may be put in place to support early detection should it reach Nevada.

These detect or these discussions involve coordination with state and federal partners to ensure rapid response capability with emphasis on protecting Nevada's livestock and wildlife through proactive communication monitoring and contingency planning measures.

And that is all I have from the director's office.

If there's any questions, I can take those.

Or if it's got to do with screw worm, I can pass them to Mike Scott.

All right, any anything from the commission?

Any questions on that?

All right, so with that, I'll pass this to Matt Maples, uh, Data and Technology Service Division Administrator.

All righty, thank you.

Matt Maples, Data and Technology Services Division Administrator.

As of late October, staff processed nearly 200 2,000 200 tag returns, of which 1,200 were reissued through the first come first serve program.

And this included about 150 junior mule deer tags that were left over after the second draw.

The wildlife management area waterfowl hunts and swan permit draws were completed on September 17th, and results were posted uh for both of those opportunities by September 19th.

In total, 130 hunters applied for 55 reservations at Key Pittman and 413 hunters applied for 129 reservations at Overton for the Swan permits.

Um,076 hunters applied for 750 permits.

And uh the department released a new online reservation system for the Overton Wildlife Management Area, uh, waterfowl hunts, and through this program, hunters can make blind reservations for hunt dates after the opening weekend of the season.

Uh, we used to do this process over the phone and with manual tracking, and we're excited to release an online system very similar to how you would make camping reservations at a Nevada State Park.

We used to do this process over the phone and with manual tracking, and we're excited to release an online system very similar to how you would make camping reservations at a Nevada State Park.

With that, I'd be happy to take any questions.

All right.

Any questions?

I one question that I had uh, Mr.

Maples, and then on the on the tag return numbers.

Did you find this year that they're about normal or were they above average, below average?

Just curious.

Yes, thank you for the question.

Uh, we're just under 10% of the total quota has been uh returned and then reissued, and it's a little bit higher than average, but not significantly.

Okay.

All right, anything else from the commission?

All righty, thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chairman, members of the commission.

Jasmine Kleiber, Biodiversity Division Administrator for the record.

Highlights from the biodiversity division include that we held our annual coordination meeting last week, October 27th through October 29th, at the Nature Conservancy's Atwood Preserve outside of Beatty, Nevada.

The meeting included team building activities, installation of a MODIS station, and discussions on landowner agreements and research collaborations.

The installation of the MODIS station is a collaborative effort with TNC, providing in-kind match uh for real estate on the preserve to locate that MODIS station, as well as Wi-Fi connection for data logger uploads and power to the station that was dedicated, and they provided all of that free of charge for us.

Staff have also been developing several frameworks and programs, including a species prioritization framework aimed at focusing annual upcoming work programs, developing objectives and goals for our reptile program, and development of a statewide mitigation framework.

Throughout October, our division staff also engaged in numerous coordination meetings with federal and state partners to align research and management efforts despite delays caused by the federal shutdown.

So, with that, I'm happy to stand for any other questions the commission may have.

All righty, thank you for that.

Any yes, Commissioner Bourne.

There it is.

Um, yes, thank you for that report.

Could you speak a little bit to the Penion J Conservation Agreement and what's behind that, please?

Thank you.

Yeah, absolutely.

So Jasmine Kleiber for the record.

The Pinion J Conservation Agreement is a larger scale, primarily West wide initiative that's been in the works for the last couple of years with partners that include the Nevada Department of Wildlife as well as other state wildlife agencies and our federal partners, primarily Fish and Wildlife Service, and then uh NGOs such as the Great Basin Bird Observatory and other NGOs like that as well.

Um, the primary focus on that has been that Pinion Js have been declining over the decades, and we're petitioned for listing about a year and a half ago.

And with that petition, uh it was determined that most states and organizations don't have very much information on Pinion J.

We have records over populations declining based on survey work that's been done, primarily through efforts like breeding bird surveys as well as winter surveys that we conduct.

All the states conduct these surveys, and we're seeing the numbers dropping.

But beyond that, we don't have very good data that supports actual distribution patterns where nesting colonies occur, things like that.

And so, with a petition, the service is needing as much information, as much data as possible so that they can make an informed decision on whether that species is warranted for listing or is not.

But also there uh the service is looking at what kind of collaborative efforts are occurring nationwide to determine whether conservation is occurring on the ground that might help preclude a listing from occurring.

Now, the conservation agreement is just a formalization of these efforts so that we can try to collectively gather more information and set up a strategic plan for how we might address uh conservation for that species.

Okay, thank you very much.

All right, anything else from the commission?

All right, seeing none, thank you very much.

Morning, Chairman Rogers, Commissioners.

Uh, for the record, Chris Crookshanks, Fisheries Division Administrator.

Tiger Salamander was dug up at Key Pittman by wildlife management area staff during routine work activities in September.

This represents the first encounter of a live tiger salamander at the wildlife management area in decades.

Samples were collected by fisheries personnel for genetic analysis.

We're proud to welcome Marshall Houck, who recently accepted the Technician One position at Gallagher Hatchery after spending multiple years as a summertime seasonal in the fisheries division.

This facility is now fully staffed for the first time in over two years.

Annual surveys of the Truckee and East Walker Rivers were recently completed with help from multiple divisions, volunteers, and the director's office.

The past couple years.

Both numbers and size of fish at the East Walker are uh greater than anything that any of us have seen in our careers.

It's really something special out there.

I'd also like to add one more item, and uh that is the fact that uh the dam project of Marlite Lake is complete.

Um they've pulled the bladders and we are now impounding water at Marlett Lake.

Um we'll be moving on for a dam replacement project at Hobart uh in the upcoming year.

That's all I have, and with that I'll stand for any questions.

All righty, thank you for that.

Any questions at all from the commission?

The only uh question I had uh, Mr.

Shanks is I saw that the um that the event at Commons Lake for the pike out or whatever it was was canceled.

And is there plans to reschedule that in the spring or anything?

Yeah, that absolutely um similar to what happened in the spring.

Um we had a giant storm forecasted for that weekend.

Uh the goal of the project is to get anglers to remove as many pike as possible when those storms roll through Waipine County.

We've seen that that pike fishing just goes in the toilet.

So we made the decision to reschedule that, and yeah, it'll be it'll be rescheduled for this upcoming spring once again.

All right, perfect.

Anything else from the commission?

All righty, thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Morning, Chairman Rogers, members of the Commission, Sean Espinoza, Game Division Administrator for the record.

Uh just to give you guys a little report on what's going on with bears here recently.

Um over the course of the year so far, Endow has received 383 phone calls, voicemails, and emails regarding black bears within the urban interface, and I'm sure that uh is up over 400 uh currently.

Uh the peak months of activity this year were May and July.

Um I'm sure uh the October period uh into November is probably going to up that as well.

Uh most calls came from Washoe County.

Um approximately 275 calls, followed by Douglas and Carson City counties.

Most calls simply report the sighting of a bear, but approximately 150 calls were to report some sort of conflict.

Uh regional staff set up over 25 electric fences and mats for residents and spent over 90 hours of community education events and providing presentations.

Ninete next door app posts were completed to alert homeowners of bear activity in certain areas and relay methods to alleviate conflicts.

Also, 15 high bear activity signs were placed for community awareness purposes.

Um course, this is an ongoing issue and will require further coordination and uh cooperation with other entities in the future, uh, and becoming uh a greater and greater concern within these communities around the Sierra Carson Range Urban Interface.

Switching gears a bit, uh we received 18 evaluations of the Nevada Wildlife Connectivity Plan.

Those comments were due on September 19th.

Uh since then, we have been working on revising and editing the plan accordingly.

Uh we have since completed that plan and submitted it to the director's office for final review.

Uh and for all intents and purposes, that plan is completed.

Uh in response to landowner concerns that were delivered at the August Commission meeting in Ely, um Game Division developed and submitted a proposal to the Nevada Off-Highway Vehicle Program to purchase up to 100 signs, five cattle guards, and 20 track dags for gates as a pilot program.

And that is intended to reduce conflicts and perhaps lay a path forward for improving relationships between hunters, off highway vehicle, uh recreationists, and private landowners.

The total amount of the proposal was 63,760 with a request of 47,525 from the OHV program.

And lastly, just uh an addition here, um, an update from yesterday's pronghorn capture.

Uh, we were able to capture 32 pronghorn from Buena Vista Valley south of MLA Mill City, and those antelope were released yesterday in Hunt Unit 012 at the south end of the unit.

Uh one of those animals did have a broken leg uh and had to be euthanized, but 31 were released into unit 012.

And that concludes my presentation.

If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer.

All right, thank you for that.

Any questions from the commission at all?

I one question I had, I know um when I believe it was at last meeting, we had a presentation from the tribe in in Washington on some antelope trap and relocation.

Not none of this most recent one uh trapping that you did is going to uh the tribe there in Washington.

So those antelope captures continue today.

Um another 25 to 30 animals will be moved from Pleasant Valley, Grass Valley south of Winnemucca 2012.

We'll transition to uh areas south of Battle Mountain on Saturday and Sunday, and those animals will be going to the Colville Confederated Tribe.

All right.

Good.

All right.

Anything else from the Commission?

All right, thank you, sir.

Morning, Chair Rogers, members of the Commission, Mark Freeze Habitat Division Administrator.

Our first highlights on wildlife management areas.

More than 200 hunters utilized Debbie Mays during the opener waterfowl season in the Eastern Complex.

The first waterfowl youth hunt occurred on September 20th with 20 youth hunters participating.

We appreciate wildlife habitat improvement of Nevada sponsoring this event.

At STEPTO WMA, the Commons Lake Boat Ramp extension project was completed and will make launching watercraft easier and safer.

At Mason Valley, we received and moved all the allocated storage water this fall in preparation for the waterfowl opener.

In southern Nevada over 10 WMA, staff have been busy repairing dikes, roads, and ponds from a September flash flood event.

The youth waterfowl hunt, ducks, and donuts occurred on October 18th with 56 youth hunters participating, plus mentors and sponsors from Wynn, Woods and Waters, Sportsman's Warehouse, and Arms Corps.

And we appreciate those sponsor.

On to the private lands program.

Staff have been busy performing restoration projects on private lands, including weed abatement, spring restoration, installation of Beaver Dam analogs, and monitoring and maintenance of past years projects.

Staff are updating fencing on the Geneti Creek Conservation Easement to wildlife friendly fence specifications, including adding wildlife jumps.

And staff are also working on closing a conservation and access easement in eastern Nevada, and we'll have more details on that in the future.

And just a quick update on our restoration rehabilitation program.

Um in here, I noted that uh AB 578, um, which was six million dollars, the Nevada legislature authorized for shared stewardship projects.

Uh there was an application period this fall.

Department of Staff submitted 10 proposals requesting 4.9 million dollars.

Umce writing this report, we anticipate eight of those 10 projects will be funded at nearly eight 3.8 million dollars.

And that's for proactive restoration efforts, pinion juniper removal, spring enhancement projects, as well as some of this year's wildfire rehabilitation efforts.

With that, I'll stand for any questions.

All righty, thank you for that.

Any questions, comments, anything from the Commission.

All right.

Seeing none, thank you, sir.

Appreciate that.

Good morning, Commissioners.

Chief Game Warren Christy Knight for the record.

Gay Warns were busy with this season handling two for one animal harvests across all species, with many of the with many of them being juveniles and also with wrong characteristics.

Loaded weapon in vehicle has been a common violation as well this year, with five being sighted in one week.

Gay Morrins ran an operation out of 071 that yielded a juvenile hunter shooting and killing a mule deer buck in the wrong unit with a raw fraudulent tag, which has to do with residency.

This then led to a loaded weapon in a vehicle on an adult subject in the camp.

The adult had in an accidental discharge of said rifle in the vehicle and shot the engine of their vehicle, putting the vehicle out of commission.

The warrants then drove the subjects to town to arrange for a tell.

With that, I stand for any questions.

A lot of action.

Any uh questions, anything from the commission.

Um one question that I had, Chief Knight, and that is um I'm just curious where uh where we stand from uh uh from an FTE standpoint, from a warden standpoint.

If we're I know there was a number of openings, and I think we had added and brought in some new wardens on.

Just curious where where we're at right now, if there still remains uh some openings or uh or if we are uh where we need to be from a warden standpoint.

We currently have three openings.

We lost a couple in field training and in um the academy.

So we just tested for new hires, and we have interviews next week.

So uh we have three spots open, and those are in Las Vegas only.

All right, perfect.

Anything else from the commission.

All right, seeing none.

Thank you for that.

Good morning.

For the record, Aaron Meyer, Conservation Education Division Administrator.

I don't have uh I don't have anyone shooting their own engine on my notes, but I'll see what I can do.

Uh as I'm hoping everybody knows the Nevada Department of Wildlife is being highlighted in a new show on Animal Planet, Nevada Wild, premiered on Tuesday, November 4th at 9 p.m.

Produced by Angle Entertainment, who is the company that also did uh Lone Star Law and Northwoods Law.

Uh they're there, they're they're the ones handling the show.

Um Nevada Wild offers a broader look at the exciting and important work happening across Endow.

It's gonna be uh 10 episodes.

We're hoping that they do very well and we get more seasons.

Uh conservation education staff conducted or participated in a multiple multiple community events, including National Night Out in Henderson, Pioneer Day at Spring Mountain Ranch State Park, World Migratory Bird Day, and other tabling events at Red Rock National Conservation Area, after school fishing, camp Alamo Day Camps, Nocturnal Animals Walks, Haunt the Wetlands, Scout Expo, and Girls Day Out in Laughlin.

Living with wildlife classes were held at public libraries in the Summerlin area and uh for the Del Web HOA.

Uh and I was mentioned by regional and statewide news outlets more than 90 times in the month of October.

Stories mentioning the department in TV, radio, and online news reached an audience of more than 46 million, resulting in a publicity value of over 500,000 dollars.

Uh topics included numerous stories on increased increased bear activity due to hyperphasia, including a bear cut after roaming through an apartment complex in Demani Ranch and released back into the wild.

Other stories included harmful algae blooms, avian influenza, bat week, and a moose spotted in Elk Elko County.

Uh that's all I have.

I can answer any questions.

All right, thank you for that.

Anything from the commission?

Yeah, Commissioner Booth.

I think they're just a lot.

Hello.

Yes, I just want to congratulate you on your new position.

You have a lot of work ahead of you to fill the shoes of Chris Basey, but congratulations.

I was I was literally gonna say I have big shoes to fill, and not just because I think he wears size 13.

But thank you.

Anything else from the commission?

Um I was I was interested to hear you mention the uh the television program.

I have not had a chance uh to view that yet, although I did see a trailer uh advertisement from it, so I'm anxious to uh see that first episode and and keep tabs.

I mean we get great reports from the uh Chief Knight and others of what's going on within law enforcement, but it'll be interesting to see uh uh see that that programming.

So looking forward to that.

I'm I'm very fortunate to be included on the group that is uh reviewing the future episodes, and so I think we're on episode eight now of of reviewing, and I can tell you as amazing and and awesome as that first episode was, it gets better from here, and the Animal Planet wants to get their money's worth, and so when the after these run on their schedule time, then they will start going into this loop of uh reruns, and so by the end of the season, you won't be able to go near Animal Planet without seeing multiple episodes of Nevada Wild.

Good.

Good.

Yes, Commissioner Walther.

Yeah, uh congratulations on your position.

I just wanted to say, in regards to the show, my kids were absolutely locked in.

Um, you know, they they spend at least three, four days after every meeting taking my brain on things going on on the ground, and so it was pretty cool for them to be able to actually watch it, you know, and it and pretty fascinating.

I had a big laugh with Caleb.

I was saying um, I don't know if it was the streaming service it was on or whatever, but I had never seen this before, so about 20 times I see this commercial for Kevin O'Leary and Boost Oxygen that they're selling in retail stores during this show, you know.

And my nine-year-old sitting there, and I think I hadn't said anything, but for those of you that know me, you can imagine my mental reaction at seeing this commercial.

And my nine-year-old all of a sudden chimes up and she's like, Man, I feel like I'm in the Lorax right now because she's watching this conservation show on one side and they're trying to sling her oxygen in the commercials in the in the middle.

So I got good chuckle out of that.

Oh, that's great.

Appreciate that.

Anything else from the commission, Director Janae?

Yep.

Uh just like to say that that's the end of the report, but as far as Nevada Wild, um, we are very, very excited about it.

Um, I think just from uh Nevada Pride kind of thing.

Um if you've watched any of the they're they're putting these episodes eventually, they'll go to the game warden channel on YouTube, which they're standing up, which has other shows of this type of variety like Lone Star Law that are also going on there.

And as they were hyping that uh game warden channel, you could actually see Nevada's footage coming up in that, and uh it is way different than everything else they're shooting with everybody else.

Um it it just makes you really appreciate and acknowledge what we have here in Nevada, just the diversity of landscapes, the diversity of species, and it really shows well.

And uh I look forward to seeing what it can do and telling the story about all of the things we do.

Um oftentimes we sit in these commission meetings, the scope of the conversation.

I don't even know if it covers 25% of what the department does.

And I think these shows will really help illustrate the other 75% of the actions and the conservation measures that the department does day in and day out.

So look forward to it.

If you haven't seen it, talk to us, we will absolutely get you tied in with it.

But it's Animal Planet Tuesdays, 9 p.m.

It's also I think on Animal Planet's YouTube channel eventually.

Um but yeah, it's great stuff.

Thank you.

That's the end of our report.

Wonderful.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate that.

All right, so we will move on to uh 7B.

This is litigation report.

Deputy Attorney General Richard.

And I apologize, Richard.

Is it Yin?

It's Yen.

Yen, yep.

A report will be provided on the Nevada Department of Wildlife litigation.

So I don't know if my mic is working or maybe perhaps I don't know how to use it.

You're good.

Okay, great.

Chairman Rogers, members of the commission, uh, deputy and for the record.

Uh I'd like to say we also acknowledge that we have big shoes to fill uh with Craig Burkett retiring, and we're certainly going to try our best to step into those shoes.

Uh Director Janae, thank you for the opportunity to introduce ourselves.

Um as far as litigation with Endow uh in Pershing Pershing County Water District versus Adam Sullivan.

Uh if you will recall, this had to do with a permit or an application by Endow uh to move 10,000 acre feet of water from the Humboldt sink to the South Fort Reservoir.

Uh the district court had dismissed the petition for judicial review on grounds of mootness, uh, because in 22 2024, uh it was a rainier season, and uh the release of that water did not impact Pershing Pershing County.

Uh Pershing County uh appealed that to the Supreme Court, and as I am aware, they filed their opening brief.

And at the last commission meeting, uh Deputy Burkett reported he filed the answering brief, and then late October Pershing County uh filed their answering brief or their reply to the answer.

I reviewed that last night.

It just reiterates their uh their argument that they qualify for an exception to the mootness doctrine.

Uh I am available to answer any questions about that case.

All right, any questions from the commission all regarding that?

All right.

I do have one more case that um Craig Burquett had included on uh the board meeting litigation update, United States and Walker River uh versus Walker River irrigation district.

This is a very complex case.

Uh it involves federal tribal tribal uh mineral county claims for water from the Walker River, as well as um it involves.

I mean, I I just did a little digging into it, and the dispute goes back about a century.

Uh and so I'm sure you all are more well more aware of it than I am.

But uh I want to say that I'm available for questions for this, but I I ask that if you do have questions about this to uh give myself and Nicole the time to research it and then uh and we can give you an update if you do.

Uh for all practical purposes, I think um as it relates to endow uh uh the courts the district court has the uh responsibility to manage the Walker River decree.

And so when Dow wants to request water from that or or from that decree, then I think that's the most practical time that it's relevant in in this meeting.

But if you think differently, please do let me know.

And I am available for questions.

All righty, thank you for that.

Yeah, Director Janae.

And I here we go, here we go, here we go.

Here we go.

Okay, here we go.

All right.

Um I I would again like to just acknowledge and appreciate the new DAGs.

Um both Nick Nickole and Richard.

Um we look forward to their representation.

Um, and I think uh as you guys the commission has any questions, feel free to reach out.

Um, and we'll be working with them as much as possible to get them caught up.

Um and I will say, as far as the Walker River, um I know when I took over as Habitat Division Administrator in 2013, I walked into that uh case um that litigation, and I contemplated that and I went, what's the big deal?

Why can't we settle this?

Um and here we are 12 years later, and I know a lot more.

And I'm like, holy moly, this thing's been going forever.

I hope it looks very promising right now with uh discussions amongst parties.

Maybe there'll be some resolution in that case, but um it'll probably still take a fair amount of time, but there is promise in that case.

Thank you.

So you're saying there's a chance.

All right, anything else for Dagyan?

All right.

Seeing none, we will now then move on to 7C.

This is uh tag allocation and application hunt committee report.

Committee chairman Tommy Cavilia.

A report will be will be provided on the recent TAC meeting.

So Commissioner Cavilia.

Thank you, Chair.

So the TAC committee, we met on uh Tuesday night.

Basically had three items of discussion at the TAC committee.

The first item was the junior tag transfer, and um in relation to the Senate bill that gave the commission may have basically the language in that Senate bill was the commission may, and I don't remember the bill number, I should have it, but but the com 235.

Yeah, the commission may gave the commission the authority to create a uh transfer program.

We had multiple, we've had multiple discussions on that, and just the complexity of creating with the complexities of creating that transfer program at this time.

The committee um kind of made the decision not to pursue that.

Um with that we are, but we what the disc discussion we had on Tuesday, we are gonna proceed with looking at the junior hunt program and um developing uh uh with with our with the mule deer hunt we have now with the new antelope horn shorter than ears hunt, and then we're also gonna even potentially look at adding potentially cow elk to that, but then only limiting a junior to one tag a year and figure out a process to that draw as well, like the hierarchy of the mule deer tag takes hierarchy in that.

We're gonna we're looking at language for that to try to spread the wealth among the junior tags.

But um, yeah, at this time, just with the complexities of the junior tag transfer, we just we're we're not gonna pursue the committee decided not to pursue it any further.

So that's where we're at on the junior tag transfer of the shed outlet regulation.

The department provided some language at the request of the committee.

That language is basically going to uh develop uh uh a resident shed outler season then a non-resident shed outler season that follows a month behind that.

Um there's uh increased demerits in that, and then there's also some increased language for the law enforcement division as far as the enforcement side of that.

The committee made the recommendation to forward that to the commission, so the commission is gonna see that here soon.

And then the last item we the last item we touched or we touched on was the Mount Lionharvest uh questionnaire, and we had a fair discussion on that, and then this the kind of the same thing there with that we the issue we had with the junior tag transfers getting into the weeds of trying to create a non-harvest questionnaire with a 365 day year season and just even how to the department provided a presentation on how to even attempt to um create that language and and make a mandatory non-harvest questionnaire.

It would it would be a heavy heavy lift from the committee and the commission, and then at the end of the day we had the conversation with the department was to what benefit.

And I just and and the committee, I kind of all the committee members agreed the the the lift required for the amount of benefit on the tail end of that.

We didn't see the we didn't see the benefit for the amount of effort and the potential repercussions for the non-harvest questionnaire, so the the committee actually dropped that.

So we're not gonna pursue a non-harvest questionnaire on the mount land hunt.

And with that, I will so let the the only item we'll have at the next uh TAC meeting will be the junior hunts.

So with that, I'll take any questions.

All right, perfect.

A lot going on in the TAC committee.

So any questions at all from the commission on that uh TAC committee report.

Um serving on that that committee, I will say again a lot of items that is being discussed there, as Commissioner Gavilia pointed out, the junior tag transfer.

Um, just to add to that, I mean it it again great idea, but many of these things are the devil's in the details, and you and it becomes extremely costly and complex.

So anyway, so again, that's the uh catalyst for maybe looking at some other alternatives for our uh junior hunters.

So anyway, so good report there.

Anything else from the commission at this time?

All righty, thank you for that.

So we will move on to agenda 7e.

This is administrative procedures, regulation, and policy, APRP committee report.

Committee chairman Eddie Booth.

A report will be provided on the recent APRP meeting.

So, Commissioner Booth.

Yes, thank you.

Uh congratulations, Canon Jill on your award.

Well well deserved.

We appreciate you being here today.

Uh also uh on our committee, uh we met Thursday, October 23rd via Zoom.

Uh without Alejandra Medina, it would have been in very difficult to perform.

So thank you so much for everything you've done for us for the committee.

Uh all division administrators were contacted by uh Alejandra.

Um these updates included policy one regarding commissioner terms, meeting schedules, compensation of commissioners, commission policies, resolutions and the acceptance of donation to wildlife trust fund policy four regarding the addition of language that exempted commission regulations from the state administrative rulemaking process.

Policy 24 in respect to junior antelope horns shorter than ear, ears hunt, policy 51 relating to certificates for unsuccessful nominees, and policy 66 regarding conservation lands, which may lead to the updating of policy 65.

And lastly, uh Alejandra requested authority to edit policies for grammar and formatting standardization, and that was uh uh approved.

Uh everyone received a commission policy list in front of you relative to our meeting.

Uh and that's about it.

All righty, thank you for that.

Commissioner Booth.

How about Alejandra?

Did you have no okay?

Um how about from any of the commissioners?

Any questions, comments on that report.

There again, that committee's got a lot, a lot going on in APRP, so appreciate your work on that.

Uh Commissioner Booth and Alihandra.

A lot of heavy lifting there, so appreciate that.

All right, seeing nothing else, we will move on to 7F.

This is Emerging Technology Committee.

Committee Chairman Tommy Cavillo will report.

A report will be provided on the recent emerging technology committee meeting.

So, Commissioner Cavillo.

Thank you, Chair.

The emergent technology committee meeting met our committee met on uh Wednesday night.

Basically had two items of discussion there.

The first item there was uh regarding uh thermal imaging.

Um I want to thank the department.

The department provided a video that really um I mean it really laid out the case on the thermal engineering in the daytime showing the use of the thermal during the day, then it showed a fli, you know not it's not a nighttime item.

I really appreciate the video.

Granted it was taken from a drone, which is already illegal, but the video itself really showed what the capabilities of the thermal is.

And then um they also provided a they proprietary report out of the state of Oregon where they were there was a targeted enforcement um on the use of thermals on a hunt on a tree farm.

I think I think what they reported it was like I believe it was 14 percent of the hunters there.

The the citation rate was 14 percent, which is eye-opening.

Right, so it's a concern.

So I appreciate the department providing that information during the during the meeting.

Um basically at the end of the meeting, the department had provided some proposed language that the committee approved.

And what that is is in there's basically there's four unit groups in the state of Nevada that the committee uh made the recommendation uh just a complete outright ban.

I believe it's from August 1st to is the December 1st or December 4th, I don't remember.

But uh just a complete outright ban of thermals in those unit groups um during that period, and that'd be for all thermals, so there's no thermal use at all for game or non-game species.

The committee, and it was a three-to-one vote, but the committee did vote to send that forward to the commission, so we're gonna see that at a later date, and I anticipate a mountain discussion on that.

And then the next item was range finding devices.

The department provided some language on, and it's specific to the scopes or archery sites that adjust themselves in real time.

Um the department provided some language on that.

We're gonna bring it back to the committee level for another review, but I would anticipate um at some point the commission's gonna see that as well.

And with that, I will take any questions.

All righty, thank you for that.

Any questions, comments, anything from the commission at this time?

All right, I'll kind of echo the same thing as previously.

There's a lot going on in that emerging technology uh committee.

Uh Commissioner Cavillo is doing a great job of of leading that.

And uh again, a lot of eye-opening uh items that you know as technology changes and continues to advance.

Um again, I'm glad we've got that committee in place to look at some of these things.

So anyway, thank you for that.

All right, seeing nothing else, we will then move on to 7G.

This is 2025 wildfire, excuse me, wildfire report, habitat division administrator Mark Fries.

The department will provide the commission with an update of the 2025 wildfire season and department activities.

Good morning, Mr.

Fries.

Morning, Chair Rogers, members of the commission.

Um, I'm actually gonna pass this off to staff specialist Matt Glenn to give the presentation.

He should be on Zoom.

Um Matt, he's been around quite a while.

Uh Matt cut his teeth and has over a decade of experience doing restoration projects in eastern Nevada.

Um he is very passionate about this work.

Um, he likes to nerd out on the details, so be careful if you ask him a question, he may take us down a rabbit trail.

And while Matt gets ready for that, I just want to introduce uh Alexa Lyons.

Alexa's back here.

She's the co-lead of the restoration program with Matt.

She's been on about two months.

Um, so they've been tagging up.

They had a big role in getting those applications for that AB 578 funding submitted.

Um, and with that, I'll turn it over to Matt Glenn to start the presentation.

Uh good morning, Matt Line Paul Set Specialists for the record.

Um, thank you, Chair Rogers and members of the commission for having me this morning and accommodating we virtually.

Um, I can jump right into the presentation, or if the commission has any questions on the front end, um, I could take those or just promptly, and I can get the presentation going.

All right, thank you for that.

But yeah, let's go ahead and just have you dive right in, Matt.

All right.

All right.

Well, Matt, hang on one second, we don't see your presentation yet.

Okay.

Um for some reason we're just seeing you.

Well, that's disappointing for all of you.

I didn't say anything.

Here we go.

Looks like it's coming.

We got it.

All right, good deal.

Um, well, thanks again, everyone, for having me.

Uh, like Mark said, I am really passionate about this topic.

And so yeah, do be careful if you ask me about the BK and being nerd out for the moment.

Um with that, um, I'm going to provide the commission and those in attendance today, the 2025 wildfire update.

Um, and kind of how the Nevada Department of Wildlife Agency have engaged in restoration apps induced.

Um 2025 wildfire season summary.

Um, in terms of acreage, it was not uh one of our larger fire years, but in terms of geography, it was especially impactful.

Uh we did burn almost 400,000 acres with 614 fires, and um on the right-hand side of that first figure, you can see these kind of numbers broke out by the um four highest burning counties uh for being up the top, but uh natural and human-cause fires were about neck and neck, and then 68 under investigation.

Um, I'll point your attention to the right side though.

There were the yellow little yellow dots are just so based for starts, and this I mean, these occurred throughout the state, lots of starts this year, and then with larger polygons um that you see in red, those are the actual fires that occurred um kind of at the top of the screen.

You can definitely see that um Jake's fire uh cottonwood peak fire, which were especially impactful, and we'll talk about in a multiple.

Um, how does this season stack up to the rest?

Um, we kind of talked about this a moment ago, but you know, about 400,000 acres puts us in the average in terms of acreage.

Um, but in terms of geography, like I said, there definitely uh were some very impactful fires.

Some of the things that led up to this fire year were you know a pretty good precipitation uh events and kind of seasoned to our last winter, um, but with really temperate uh temperatures, and so um we had multiple flushes of cheap grass throughout the um winter, and without a lot of snow loads to kind of compress all of that fine field loading, it really set us up to have a fire year.

Um then we had a really dry summer, and uh it was no surprise to us that we had the fires that we did have.

Um's restoration program, how we're getting this work done out on the landscape.

Um this year we had about 15 different funding partners, which is fantastic.

Really diverse group.

Uh NGO dollars truly are the best dollars that provide us a lot of uh flexibility and what we can get down out on the landscape of those dollars.

At a record number uh uh in terms of funding with approximately five and a half million dollars allocated to fire rehabilitation.

This comes from several different sources from uh BLM and Forest Service Assistance Agreement funding.

This comes from NGO dollars, this comes from uh heritage uh account and also dream tag, so diverse field in terms of funding sources, which is awesome.

Um, and then this funding was spent over approximately 16 fires.

Now, this is old fires about five years and uh younger, I should say, and then also over the black, so fires that occurred this year in 2025.

Um so down to the stats.

Um, this year we applied about almost 70,000 acres of pre-emergent herbicide, which is um completed at this point.

I think there's just there were dribbling out of the last couple uh treatments, uh, which is a little late, but um, we're getting it done.

And then this 80,809 acre figure, that's what we're planning to do.

And we're gonna talk about why this number is so high this year and why these numbers really are pretty um um record breaking for us.

It's because I mean, you look at that number, 150,000 acres are nearly treated in between the 2025 implementation season in the winter 2026.

Uh, you'll see in the next slide.

Um, we really have been working pretty hard and very active in this field.

Um, how does it stack up to other years?

Um, like I just mentioned, man, we really have shattered some records, um, almost 70,000 acres of pre-emergent application and 80,000 acres of planned seeding.

Um, I say planned because we have gotten some seeding out in terms of like riparian stabilization.

Um, but a lot of our seeding and the lion's share of our seeding doesn't happen until after uh we can get sagebrush seed, and that really doesn't happen until you know January or so.

And so we're just trying to smart with our funding, we'll get all the seed out in one go after we get sagebrush seed.

Um, but total acres treated and planned for approximately 150,000 acres.

It's a big deal for us.

And I plant uh can't say enough about our field staff and how much work they've gotten done.

It really is impressive.

They're breaking it all the recto I ever had.

So that's fantastic.

Um this time in this update, I thought what we'd do instead of just going through all the fires throughout the state, we'd kind of go through region and priorities within regions and talk about those specifically, and then how we cite projects and restoration activities.

Um on your left side, you'll notice in the western region, moonshine, barber fires were kind of called out as priorities within that region, um, primarily for their uh wildlife values.

Um Eastern region caught with peak jakes and Adobe Mount Fire kind of rate out really high, and then in the south, uh the Mount Irish fired.

Thinking about how we site these projects and um we really try to be really effective with our both our resources and our time.

You know, we there's a lot of things that kind of go into this decision making matrix, but wildlife habitat values, land status, ecological site descriptions and site potential.

What did the site look like before?

Was there a lot of cheap grass in there, or was it degraded, or was it pristine in a really great um condition?

A lot of these kind of variables will dictate how we move forward and how we spend resources, uh, whether we need pre-emergent herbicide adaptation or we don't.

Can we just do seeding or quite frankly?

Can we just not be anything at all and see if you could response?

On the right-hand side, you'll just see that's just a um a stolen figure from a previous uh presentation that kind of identifies some or to illustrates some of the um desktop exercises that we might use to um cite restoration projects, the teal being winter mule deer uh range and then all the multicolored kind of polygons within that are eco-state data, so kind of identifying pre-existing condition.

Again, just the testing into all the variables and things that we looked at before we design these treatments.

So, with that, um, we'll talk a little bit about the eastern region.

Um, we'll start with the Jake's fire.

The Jakes fire was a complex of multiple fires that we keep 22 fires, the snowstorm and Oregon flat.

They kind of all started right around the same time from a lightning event and a system moving through, uh, burned approximately 82,000 acres, multiple uh lands, stakeholders, and then impacting everything from mule deer, uh big horn sheep, foreigh bat, the haunt cutthroat trout, really impactful.

Um, I will mention that this really was uh a really pristine basin, surrounded by a bunch of really heavily impacted and uh compromised uh range land conditions.

So it really was an island out there of really great habitat, very difficult to watch and uh especially impactful uh for Nevada's wildlife.

The second fire here we're gonna talk about is the Cottonwood Peak Fire.

Um and this fire was just a single uh single event, so not a complex like the Jakes fire, um, but uh really impactful.

A lot of the individuals sitting in that room have um spent a lot of time in this area, it spans over from the North Tusk Auroras over to independence range, all the way into kind of dribbles into the Bullbrone Basin.

Um, and then lastly, uh the Adobe Fire, which is on double mountain right next to Mount City Highway.

And I went ahead and included some of these figures in here or these numbers that kind of give the commission um some sense of what we've been doing this year.

Um, you know, we've 12,000 acres of pre-emergent on Jake's fire, we have 30,000 acres of seeding planned, uh 9,000, almost 10,000 acres of pre-emergent plant were completed on cottonwood at 24,000 acres of seeding, and then Adobe Mountain, 12,000 acres of pre-emergent and 30,000 acres of seeding.

Um these are these are really great in terms of just getting um a lot of work done out on the ground.

And uh like I said at Campbell tune in that field staff enough.

Um, like I said, also lots of uh species impacted everything from sage grouse, red band trout, prettle shrews, pick me rabbits, et cetera.

Um in the western region, uh Bartlett fire, uh burning approximately 6,000 acres, moonshine fire, almost 3,000 acres, and then a barber fire, uh approximately 17,000 acres, resource concerns here from Sage Ross, Lewis Woodpecker to you know, Western Brewing Owl, big horn sheep, um, and all of these fires, largely in the western region is for pre-emergent um application projects.

Um this doesn't mean seeding isn't uh seeding isn't actually occurring.

What this means is that um the seeding of these projects, these same acres is were kind of built into our next year's work program for fire rehabilitation and seeding.

And so you don't necessarily see seeding as an action this year.

Um the pre-emergent is really just there to prep the seed bed for seeding activities next year and soap um in a lot of there's a lot of pre-emergent that went out on these fires, a lot of them very important to wildlife, and um look forward to getting some seeding out there next year.

In the southern region, um we're just gonna highlight Mount Irish, approximately six thousand acres.

Uh definitely impactful for mule deer, uh, you know, pigney jays, prong horn anthelope.

Um we are designing and getting ready to uh put out approximately 6,000 acres of seeding on this fire, so nearly the entirety of the Mount Irish Friory.

So in summary, um there was a moderate fire year in terms of acreage, uh, very impactful in terms of geography.

Um, and I think that was kind of illustrated in those other um slides where we talked about how really important a lot of those fires, especially in the eastern region, are for wildlife and uh really needing a lot of attention and uh effort for the agency and um working are really hard to accomplish all that.

Um several large fires, like uh I said in northeastern Nevada kind of stress local resources.

Um we're without an eastern region habitat supervisor, which is really central to a lot of that uh restoration um in the eastern region.

We're in between supervisors in the western region.

Um, and so again, kudos to field staff for getting all this work done.

Um really up against a lot of other variables, like the federal government shutdown, as we all know about from kind of uncertainty in terms of time and capacity of those workers and also funding.

So um lots of other variables that are kind of impacting this uh restoration season, um, but we are doing our best to overcome them.

Again, you'll notice, like I mentioned before, we are seeding or planning to seed a lot of acreage, and a lot of that is because of this potential government shutdown, and we're trying to pick up the slack um for our federal partners and get those acres treated if uh if the government likes to get it back up and running.

And then lastly, um, in order to accomplish all this, we have had to kind of go out and look for other funding opportunities, one of which is the 8578 that um Mark identified earlier and talked about really exciting stuff um in between the Cottonwood Peak Fire and then also the um cotton or the sugar low fire.

Uh we were able to, or we're in the process of being awarded, isn't for certain yet, but I think we're nearly there.

Approximately 1.6 million dollars between those two efforts, and so um that's quite a big um funding lift, and so that's exciting, and hopefully we get a lot more work done.

With that, I'll take any questions from the commissioner.

All righty, thank you for that presentation, Matt.

Any uh yes, Commissioner Munn.

Let's see if this is working.

It's just a very faint light.

Thanks, Matt.

Um, great presentation.

I just have a couple clarifying questions to see if I can uh understand.

Um first, I'm I'm curious.

Um you mentioned that uh your 140,000 acres of treatment, give or take, um, is or 150 really um going on both uh sort of over black, as you said, kind of today's fire or this year's fires, as well as some of the older fires.

Um can you give us an understanding of how that breakdown, if it you know, without going too dark too far into the weeds, um, what that breakdown is this year?

Sure.

So um thank you for your question, Commissioner Munn.

That's a great question, and I I knew uh that might be uh a little bit misleading in the presentation, so I wish we had the point of clarification there.

Um so over the black this year, we'll put out approximately 40,000 acres of pre-emergent and uh a similar number in terms of seed um over for stabilization with the riparian and watershed uh mix, et cetera, and then um a lot of the other acreages um based on almost uh commensurate amount of uh acreage is kind of built into this program or poorly responding fires from previous years that are still uh crucial for wild life and still very much worthwhile for our activities and resources.

Thank you.

Uh I have a couple, so I'm just gonna keep going here.

Um I'm just curious also the numbers you presented, just trying to understand all the partners at play here.

Are those numbers specifically that EndAo is funding and doing versus uh work that uh the BLM is doing as part of their emergency stabilization and risk response again?

Thank you for the question, Commissioner Munn.

I appreciate that.

Um at that five and a half million dollars um going out over 16 fires, both new and old, it was all in-out effort.

Um, like I said, some I should say a portion or a good portion of the five and a half million dollars is DLM and uh forest service uh assistance agreement funding that they uh give to us to do work out on VLN because we do it in many ways have a more efficient um contracting kind of process.

And so we work in concert with one another on a lot of this, but uh a lot of those other dollars are coming from NGO sources and uh community tag and heritage accounts, um also from uh federal um grants for the uh restoration grant for agency.

Well, that's great to hear.

Um does that answer your question, I'm sorry.

It does, thank you.

Um the last question, and this is the hardest, um, of course, is just your opinion about whether or not I mean it's it's really commendable that the department has been able to step into this role.

Um it's such a critical uh uh step in managing our habitat as well as um and therefore our wildlife.

Um I'm curious, you know, going from 60, 70,000 acres a year of treatment to 150, you know.

I'm gonna guess we're not meeting the need um still, and I'm curious if you have some thought, you know, you know, what and we're always capacity limited in terms of what we can actually get down on the ground.

Um, you know, there's there's there's a lot of logistics that go into this.

There's a lot of people, hours.

Um, you know, um what would it take to take this to the next level um above 150,000 acres a year, knowing that we can't go to probably meet the need, the real need, um, without uh quite a bit uh more investment.

Um you were right, Commissioner Munn.

Thank you also for that question.

Uh that is definitely the most difficult one, and I will try and answer that.

Um I'll just remind folks that the 150,000 acres, you know, typically 7,000 acres all together for our agency is and I'll effort points.

Um so our federal partners are also doing treatments out of the landscape and hopefully getting a lot of work done.

They definitely do so uh a lot of um they should definitely because they're they definitely deserve it for that.

In terms of how do we turn the tide on this?

Since 1986, um, our modeling exercises basically illustrate that we've lost approximately 70 percent of our force rush habitats in the state of Nevada.

Um we lose almost 1.2 million acres and sage for biome in the way there's an annuity or Nevada accounts for sometimes much out.

So your question is valid.

Um a little bit of a scary one.

We're the question the easy answers we're doing our very, very best.

Um and then the potentially the easier answer is uh funding and capacity um just to get more work done out on the ground.

I think a lot of this is um built around potentially fuel breaks and um changing uh fire behavior and size uh will help limit that loss and help uh agencies like Indo and our federal partners to um do more proactive restoration rather than being reactive on fire use like we've had this year in the familiar acre fire years and allow us to get acres back rather just being reactive and trying to stop bleeding, if you will, like we are right now.

So a lot of that's based on restoration that um gets us um really robust cranial grasslands that help uh resistance and resilience and limit fuel loading, uh which is what we're kind of battling in the Great Basin that drives a lot of these fires.

That's probably a terrible answer to the complex question.

It was it was a great answer and and a really difficult question.

So uh thank you for your uh presentation for all the work that you're doing and for your thoughtful answers.

Thank you.

All right, anything else from the commission at all?

Yes, Commissioner Keel.

Yeah, thank you, Chair Rogers, and thanks for the presentation, Matt.

Thinking back to the tour that we had on Harrison Pass.

Do we have any concerns with Medusa head in these recent fires?

And I guess if so, I can't recall the exact herbicide that was so effective up at Harrison, but what's the status on availability of that?

Uh Commissioner Keel, thank you so much for the question.

Again, uh be careful what you ask about.

I would love to talk to you about endazoplan and a cellulose biosynthesis inhibitor.

But aside from that, um nerding out, um, yes, um, there were some Medusahead and Vencenata sites within the uh the cottonwood peak fire.

Um, and I'm sure I think on some of those Western Regnifies are also some of that going on.

Can't speak to the specifics of those.

Um but um to answer your question, I think one of the adaptive management pieces um that you're referencing and kind of talking about or alluding to is the use of Naza plan um in maybe successive years to go back and treat poorly responding sites that maybe have a uh Medusa fit andor ventonata kind of creeping up and kind of watching these sites that um go back and treat later on.

Um I totally appreciate we are concerned for these specific species because I do think that you know cheat grass is bad, but these are worse.

Um, and so we are it's on our radar and we are watching it and working with our federal partners on that, like I said adapt landscape.

Use the DAZA plan is expensive and a little bit cost-prohibitive, and so you know, wide-scale hundred thousand acre treatments probably aren't on the um agenda right now, but we are trying to survive those resources and really pinpoint um where we can do our best work and we'll say um with our funding seven.

Yeah, I appreciate that, and thank you for the insight.

All right, thank you for that.

Anything else from the commission?

All right, yes, Director Janae.

So, for the record, Alan Janae, I just wanted to thank Mark and Matt and uh it it I'm an old habitat guy.

Um, and it makes my heart swell with pride as far as what we're doing now.

But to just give a little context to this conversation is this back um when I was uh habitat supervisor back in like two 2010.

Um we had on on fire years, typical fire years, we had less than a million dollars that we were splitting amongst the three regions to try to address um this issue, and a lot of the tools and a lot of the knowledge um that we have now have at our access, like in DAZA FLAM and having that permitted on public lands and being able to deal with some of these things.

All of those lessons learned and all of the people and all of the hours.

Um Ken is just one of uh individuals we used to work with on things like that, people like Tom Warren, Ken Gray, um, people that were learning those hard lessons, and we looked uh probably at that time we didn't look like we really knew what we were doing um because we were figuring it out, you know, and and you attempt and you monitor and and then you re-imp, you know, implement off of what you learned.

And so um the the successes we're seeing nowadays um really makes me happy.

And so um the the successes we're seeing nowadays um really makes me happy, but again, to Matt's point is is um the color of Nevada is not what it once was, and we have lost such a significant portion of our sagebrush habitats, um, and it's affecting 350 species um within that biome.

And it's it's probably as big a call to action as as I have ever seen in Nevada and in uh you know our time as far as ecosystem impacts, and it really is nice to see our agency leaning in like this.

It's nice to see the staffing, but we are as to Commissioner Munn's comment um and point of question is we're still a long ways from there.

Um we need more people, we need more money.

Um what's going on with federal administration and federal agencies is very troubling.

Um we've gone through these bumps in the past where we see uh shutdown and we've as we've done in the past, we step forward and try to make those things happen.

Um, but probably more troubling is is the contemplation of changes within the uh agencies that oversee that restoration and what that's gonna look like.

Um there's always opportunity and chaos.

Um, but I contemplate as it was like the confusion around that.

Um there was a lot of success in moving funding towards sagebrush habitats and towards wildfire restoration.

Um I think that wildfire prevention has really moved up in this administration.

I think there's a big question mark on the back end of that as far as the restoration component, and I think uh it's something that we'll continue to monitor and continue to have conversations with and push for with our federal partners, but it it may be something that we'll come back to this commission and update you on because it if we do see declines in the amount of investment on those landscapes, it is consequential to all of Nevada's wildlife.

Um that particular uh project area in Elko County, those two fires, um, just to remind you that's Area Six Mule Deer Migration Corridor.

Um that used to be some better condition summer range that is now impacted, which leads to uh as some of you saw on the Mule Deer Summit, um some restored habitat within the rent range, but um it's a very impacted population up there, and so uh again, I just want to commend, like Matt said, our staff.

Um we are short-handed in our uh supervisors right now, but to the staff that have stepped forward and really kind of carried the load during this time with federal partners.

Want to acknowledge those guys and and really appreciate that.

And uh again, good job on the presentation, Matt, and thanks.

Thank you, sir.

All right, thank you for that.

Director Janae, anything else from the commission?

All right, seeing none, thank you again, Matt.

We do appreciate that.

Thank you for having me.

All right.

Mr.

Fries, anything else, or we all right.

Thank you very much.

We will move on to this is 7H.

This is Department Project Donation Guidance Update.

Secretary Janay, the department will give an update on the status of the agency's project donation guidance.

So, Director Janae.

All right, thank you for the record.

Uh Alan Janay, I uh just wanted to give you a update as to the modifications that we've made around our donation coordination with our NGO partners and other uh private entities.

Um as you recall, um, this was based on uh kind of a very large project that we were all working on in southern Nevada with the bighorn sheep as far as water holes and transplants.

Um we had uh heck of an effort to pull together uh I think there was in excess of 12 parties that scurried to bring together 1.3 million dollars in uh less than six months and make this capture happen transplanting uh just shy of 150 sheep to new landscapes and hauling, I think it was around 170,000 gallons of water.

Uh nearly 125,000 of that was via helicopter.

Um very costly endeavor, definitely acknowledge all of the parties that you know came to um making that happen.

Um very costly endeavor, definitely acknowledge all of the parties that you know came to making that happen as that was all occurring, is there were some uh missteps as far as communication within that process that were identified with those donating parties, and so that was identified, and so we went back into our uh department policy and went in and and kind of cleaned up and set some new expectations within our guidance within our department as far as how we handle those funds, and so the things that we've made changes to were kind of clarifying in these situations is who will be that we will designate a point of contact for large projects, multi-vendor project or multi-donor projects to make sure that all parties are coordinated before the project happens, and that any requests for uh a piece of exclusivity within a larger project is not only acknowledged but brought to the larger group of donors, all donors within that meeting, and that they all come to consensus as to any exclusivity as far as if there's a portion that you know one group wants to fund and another one wants to fund another, is that that's all worked out long before the project is uh implemented.

Um additionally, um so we spelled that out in the in the department as far as setting out the point of contacts.

Um we move forward the division administrators and their roles within handling of uh donations, and especially in those uh multi-donor types of projects for those that involve captures um that we also spelled out in the in the plan that or in the policy that those capture plans would be also discussed with those partners prior to the inception of the project.

Um then probably as it's one of those things that as you started picking at this, we started really diving deeper into how could we make this better not only for our partners but also for the department, and so what we got to was uh we actually created a one-page um wildlife trust fund donor's intent form.

Um one part of the page kind of gives an overview of the program, um, basically explaining that yeah, the wildlife trust fund is an interest bearing account that it's administered by NDAO to accept those donations, gifts, and bequests in conformance with the donor's intent.

Um, and so the form on the back side actually gives the opportunity for that individual to make sure that they explicitly state their intent, and that's how we spend their money.

Um, additionally, we acknowledged within that program, just as far as background information, that in many circumstances we're matching these funds three to one with our federal funds.

Um, and then again, stating as multiple times we do is that all donations are reassured or uh are reviewed to ensure compliance with state law, fiscal policy, and ethical standards, and that uh again within this document it says that uh any donor request for exclusive credit or naming rights to any portion of a department project will require full consent of all contributing parties and uh partners in multi-donor projects will be recognized in associated media communications and uh basically uh one of the other things that we worked on within this is we have um projects that have been historic and had narrow scopes of uh donors intent guidance, and uh they end up with very small balances.

Um I think we have a number of uh projects that are on our books that are less than ten dollars, and we've been tracking them for years, um trying to find something to spend them on that is within the scope of that intent.

And so what we've done is put a paragraph within this document that encourages folks to discuss the broader um scope of of their intent, and then asked for a de minimis checkoff that should any of their funds remain one year after completion of their project that are less than 10% of the balance that they would acknowledge and give the department consent to spend it on a similar like type project, but may not be uh like what you see here in the past example.

Um they may have donated towards the cottonwood fire.

Um at the end of the year there may be or a year after the project's completed.

And it would basically give the department the discretion to say, okay, for wildfire actions, we're gonna go buy more seed.

Um and we're gonna put it on another fire.

Um so those are the kind of things, the updates that we've uh made to this.

Um we will be sending this out to a suite of NGOs that we work with to make sure that uh they have review of this document, and uh, if there's any edits, we may incorporate those, but before we did that, we wanted to make sure that this was brought to the commission.

You were aware of where we were going and if you had any other edits that you would like to provide to us that we could incorporate those.

So that's what I have, Chairman.

All right, thank you, Director Janae.

Anything from the commission on that item?

Questions, concerns, comments, anything.

Yeah, Commissioner Cavilla.

Thank you, Chair.

And um Director J.

I'm just so I I've been streaming after the NGO's review, and you guys kind of finalize it, then we'll be able to the commission will get a look at it as well in the final format.

Yes, thank you for the question.

Um so what I'll do is is like I say, after we uh receive comments, um, this is a pretty uh bare bones document, not very pretty.

Um we'll bring that back to you with our final draft.

Um also I want to just state uh one of the things I mentioned what are m missed to mention was the fact that um while this is a hard copy form, we're also looking to create this electronically so that individuals would easily have access to you know, do it on a computer, and then once they've done one, they would have the shell of that um for future applications.

So um, but that is the intent to um receive feedback and then bring final draft to the commission.

All right, perfect.

No, thank you for that.

I agree.

I think uh the opportunity for the commission to see the the final draft would be great.

So all right, anything else from the commission at this time?

All right, seeing oh yeah, yeah, yeah.

You're way ahead of me.

Um but yeah, no, seeing seeing none, uh, we have been going now for a couple of hours, so yes, we are in need of a break.

So let's go ahead and uh take a bit of a break and let's reconvene back here at ten forty-five.

Thank you.

Oh yeah, I think that's a good thing.

Okay, everyone, if I could have everybody just go ahead and take our seats and get back going again here, please.

All right.

Okay, I think we've got everybody everybody back here.

So let's go ahead and keep uh keep pushing forward here.

We are now on to agenda item number eight, and this is uh an appeal.

This is a five-year loss of hunting and fishing license for possible action.

Uh uh Miss Kristen Cardin and Game Warden Jake Kramer.

Ms.

Cardin is appealing a five-year license revocation of her hunting, fishing, and trapping licenses, which was applied upon a conviction of a gross misdemeanor for violation for a violation of NRS 501.376.

So with that is the appellant, Miss uh Kirsten Carden, is she here in Reno.

All right, seeing no Kirsten here in Reno is uh Kirsten, is she online?

Uh Ms.

Cardin, if you're online or on Zoom, if you might raise your hand.

All right.

No, Miss Cardin.

All right.

So Mr.

Kramer, did you yeah, all right, easy enough.

So with that, uh knowing that we uh do not have an appellant here and a failure to appear on this, I may turn it over to the uh DAGs for any uh direction from the commission on this particular item.

Uh thank you, Chair.

That doesn't light up.

Thank you, Chair and members of the commission.

My Nicole Ting uh for the record today, and today I am your commission DAG sitting next to me is the department or endow's DAG, just to clarify that.

So you have a couple options here, and I'll try to make them as as clear as possible.

Uh NAC 50179 provides that if an appellant does fail to appear for a properly noticed hearing, you can on this procedural ground uh dismiss her appeal with prejudice.

So what does that mean?

It means that not appealable.

So um without prejudice means that it can come back before the commission.

With prejudice means it's not gonna come back before the commission, it's it's just kind of a uh final decision.

So that's one of your options uh regarding this uh appeal.

So you can use that regulation for failure failure to appear, uh to dismiss it with prejudice.

Or the commission has another option, you can open the hearing, even though the appellants not here and go through the hearing process where the department would present their case, and then um the commission can um ask questions uh if they if or if I would like rather.

Um so i if you did proceed with option number one, dismiss it.

Uh for failure to appear.

I would still recommend that we put on the get on the record um the properly noticed hearing notice and then the the the appeal notice also just to make sure just put those on the record.

All right.

Just for clarification again, uh uh DAG Ting with prejudice would allow the appellant to come back or w without.

So uh with with prejudice means sh she cannot come back before the commission.

With prejudice.

Correct, yeah.

Okay.

All right.

All right.

Any questions from the yeah, Commissioner Cavilia?

I have a I just have a quick question, and the the appeals are like the worst part of being on the commission.

I hate it.

And this is um, and I I'm gonna make the recommendation of for the I won't make it, I'll let Mario do it, or or Paul.

But um, I I do have a question, just a general question, looking at the documents for provided, and this might be for if this something like this were to come in front of the commission in the future.

I looked at the court order on this, and it the judge himself had defined the amount of demerits and the revocation of the permit.

So, like in the future at that point, I mean there I just laid out by the the department didn't even have any leeway because the judge himself in the court order had defined the demerits and the and the revocation, right?

Um I following along correctly on that, yeah.

Uh Deputy Yen for the record, absolutely right.

I represent the uh Nevada Department of Wildlife in this uh on appeal, and uh that was one of the points that I was going to make in that um uh the commission has no discretion to overturn a distress the decision of the district court judge on that matter.

Uh he took it upon himself to go ahead and I I think the reading the statutes, the normal procedure would have been for the judge to uh just provide an order on the merits of the criminal case, and then it would have gone to the game warden to revoke the licensure.

But in this case, the judge went ahead and also did the demerits and revoked the license, giving the warden no no other option but to comply with that order, and also on the same note, uh it it divested this commission uh of any oversight over the warden's decision.

Okay, I I appreciate that.

I just I saw that and just wanted for future if the something were to come up again, and I that's the first time I've seen that the judge put it in there.

Yeah, anyway.

And Nicole Ting again, I did want to note that the department does have a recommendation of which option uh you guys would like to move forward with um if the department wants to give that uh deputy yenning for the record, all that said, uh we usually like uh in state government to put the case on, even if uh the appellant doesn't show up for the simple reason of having the facts put down on on the record, but I will defer to the commission to make that decision whether or not they want to dismiss or proceed with the proceedings with the hearing.

All right, thank you with that.

Um and yeah, I just echo what uh Commissioner Cavilia said, and and the time that I've been on the commission and looking at uh appeals and stuff, that's I think one of the first times I've ever seen the judge put that in there.

So anyway, that was that that was pretty clear.

Um myself personally, just uh where I'd like to see this move forward, and I appreciate the recommendation.

However, um I I would be supportive of a dismissal uh of this with prejudice, but uh, but that's just where my thoughts are at.

Yes, Commissioner Young, or Vice Chair Young.

Thank you, Chair Rogers, and and yeah, and just uh appreciate all the input here.

Just for the record, you know, obviously there's a failure to appear NAC501-179.

However, um the appellants, Ms.

Cardin, uh the order of judgment conviction was on 5.6 of 25.

The appeal is filed 95 of 25, uh, pursuant to NAC 501-150.

Uh there's a 30-day window to appeal, so she missed that uh window anyways.

Um, so that is just for the record that it was missed, and as Chair Rogers alluded to, there's a failure to appear as well.

Um, and therefore there could be a dismissal with prejudice.

So thank you.

Yes, Commissioner Munn.

Yeah, I have a question for um uh our our our DAG.

If we is there a difference in um how I my understanding is um an appellant may additionally appeal this back to a district court uh based on our our ruling based to a district court, does that is that changed if this is dismissed with or without prejudice?

Oh go ahead.

Deputy Yen for the record, yeah.

So uh it's NRS 233B that governs that and uh uh once a final decision is made by the commission, it is appealable to district court.

So regardless of the regardless of prejudice, yes, thank you.

All right.

Anyone else for the record?

Uh so um uh off of the the the other comment that was made by the commission.

Um yes, it is the case that there was also a procedural error error on the part of the appellant and that they missed the deadline.

So that is additional grounds on top of the failure to appear to uh submit your decision, if you will.

Okay.

And one other quick question I had for uh the DAGs, and that is uh given the fact that the appellant isn't here and we're having this discussion and and I suspect a motion is forthcoming.

Is this given it's an action item?

Is this something even though we haven't had discussion on is something that we would need to send out for public comment?

No deputy and for the record, no public comment is not uh required on on this issue.

It's uh it's a licensure issue.

It's uh basically it's a due process issue for the appellant.

Yeah, right.

Yep, perfect.

Thank you.

Um go whatever route you guys want to go.

I would note that we have dismissed um appeals without prejudice before or with prejudice before without hearing the case for failure to appear.

Um I don't remember the exact date, but I know we did that in a Reno meeting at the department headquarters.

Yep.

So if we want to hear it, that's I'll leave that up to you guys, but we have done it before.

Thank you for that.

Yeah, just speaking for myself.

Um having read all of the documents and having heard from Vice Chair Young on some of this and the DAGs.

Um, again, just to reiterate where my head is at with this, is I would not care to hear this again, and then and dismissal with prejudice would be my preference.

Yeah, Vice Chair Young.

Uh thank you, Chair Rogers.

A quick, hopefully last question for the DAGs.

Um we have two options.

We can either dismiss if that's the the flavor of the commission on the uh 179, the failure to appear, or would that be considered hearing it if we were to go forward with the failure to for the appellant to file an appropriate time?

Is that kind of the two routes that are there are two different routes is what I'm asking.

You can't do both, correct?

Uh deputy and for the record, that's correct.

You can just dismiss it, choose to vote.

Uh some would have to move to dismiss it, second it, and you'd vote.

Uh, or you can proceed with the hearing and after hearing uh the merits of the case, then vote whether or not to uphold the decision.

In my opinion, whether the uh appellant, if she so chooses to uh appeal this to district court, either decision is very defendable.

Uh we don't have a problem defending uh either way you go on this.

Thank you.

All right, anything else from the commission?

Any other thoughts?

Our motion.

Yeah, Vice Chair Young.

Thank you, Chair Rogers.

All right, with that, on agenda item number eight, the appeal of the five-year laws of hunting and fishing license for Miss Kirsten Cardin.

I'd make a motion to deny based upon the appellant's failure to appear, a Nevada Administrative Code 501-179.

Thank you, Commissioner.

If I could just uh kind of modify that the the um the the motion that we'd be looking for would be to to uphold the revocation.

To uphold the revocation.

That's correct, yes.

Yes, and it's with prejudice.

Correct, yes.

Yes.

All right, so everybody okay with the motion?

All right.

So we've got a motion from Vice Chair Young and a second from Commissioner Walther.

All those in favor with aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right, that motion carries.

All right, so we will move on then to agenda item number nine, and this is adaptive population objectives, amendment number two for possible action.

To this is a again, adaptive population objectives to the elk species management plan, wildlife specialist Cody McKee.

The commission will be presented with and may act on a process for revising elk population objectives associated with various elk management sub plans, renaming and expanding the committee.

So with that, hello, Mr.

McKee.

Chairman.

Is this working?

So Chairman Rogers, members of the commission, Cody McKee for the record, our elk and moose staff specialist for the Department of Wildlife.

Um we've talked about this a lot.

Elk planning has been a big part of commission agendas this year, so this is a stack of paperwork.

Um I'm gonna save everybody a little bit of time, at least at the beginning.

I don't have a presentation prepared.

I just want to talk about two things.

So the first thing is why are we here today?

Why are we talking about this?

Um if we go back the year go back the past year even longer, there's been um growing interest among sportsmen and even some of our cooperators in our elk incentive program to re-evaluate population numbers for our various illkirds in the state.

Traditionally, in doing so, we would have to initiate an elk subplan revision.

That's what we call addendum number one.

That was adopted in 2007.

I think it's an 11-step process.

Anyone that's been a part of that 11-step process probably understands that it's pretty darn lengthy.

We're not very nimble.

Getting to the desired outcome takes a long time, and I think by the time we get there, people may have already changed their minds about what that desired outcome looked like.

So when Elco County came to the commission this last spring and asked for the department to open up subplans, we started thinking to ourselves how can we do this better?

Is our former director used to say, Tony Wazley, how can we make the car go faster?

We brought forth to the commit to the commission three different options in responding to Elko County's request, which again was for a subplan revision, but the real intent was to adjust population objectives.

So the three options that we presented to you were we keep doing things as we've always done using that subplan revision process, no action.

So that is we're very comfortable and happy with the status of our L curds, why rock the boat, and then finally this third process, which is the adaptive population objectives that we're talking about today.

This is a very nimble process.

It allows the department to be more nimble or more responsive to changing conditions on the landscape, uh user issues, or changing environmental conditions.

We're talking about established elk herds.

This these are not we're not proposing making changes to those that have been identified as elk-free areas or those areas where subplans haven't been developed to identify existing elk herds.

Um so that's kind of how we got to got to today.

Now I want to tell you a little bit about what you're voting yes for.

Um and I'm gonna provide this at a very high level, hopefully leaving room for plenty of questions.

Uh so number one.

We had an existing elk damage and incentive subcommittee of the commission.

The last time that subcommittee met, I believe was in 2017, it might have been before that.

I think it's been about 10 years.

We have not leveraged the power of that subcommittee to help make elk management decisions since I've been in this position.

So, number one, we're proposing rebranding and reinvigorating that elk committee so that one we can use the power of the stakeholders, the both their perspectives as well as the departmental information to make recommendations to the wildlife commission on how we want to manage elk numbers within a given area annually.

This is also creating a venue for our stakeholders to come to the department with issues or conflicts.

One thing that I'm hearing is that one thing that has come up in this process is there's often things that are happening on the landscape that we don't know about, and it kind of comes back to that idea that like we don't know what we don't know.

Um oftentimes uh issues may continue to arise uh but they're not brought forward to us, and we're hopeful that this venue provides that option for people regularly at a regularly scheduled meeting twice a year to come to the department, to come to the subcommittee with issues with recommendations that those recommendations can then be moved forward to the Wildlife Commission.

The second thing that you guys are gonna be voting yes for is the ability to make adjustments to L curds annually, um, and those adjustments are no more than 10%, and that can be an increase, can be a decrease, and it can stay the same.

And there's nothing that says it can't be 5% or 2%, but we're saying no more than 10%.

Um the starting point for those recommendations are our current population estimates.

So those that we published in this year's status book.

And you'll note that we have some populations that are above the existing population objectives set forth in those subplans, but we also have many that are under that number.

And so I just want to emphasize that this isn't us taking advantage of uh a uh you know all-time highs, and we're just trying to build off of that.

That's us just trying to be more nimble and responsive to what we're hearing from our hunting public, what we're hearing from our stakeholders, um, and what our biologists are seeing on the field.

And then finally, uh, just so that everybody's aware, and and we kind of revisit the statewide elk plan again.

That is continues to be under revision.

I hope to be able to present that statewide elk plan to you guys next year, early next year.

Uh but we're doing this process in parallel to the state state plan.

Um, and the reason is I don't want the state plan to derail this addendum number two for population objectives so that we can adopt and start using it starting in January.

And the reason is I don't want the state plan to derail this addendum number two for population objectives so that we can adopt and start using it starting in January.

Or vice versa.

Perhaps this process derailes the state plan.

So we're trying to be most efficient by working on them independently rather than trying to combine those items.

And I think hopefully coming this June, we'll have both this process adopted.

It'll be rolled forward into the statewide plan, and we can put the elk species management plan behind us and be able to lean on a on a modernized and updated product.

So with that, I think that really hits the high-level items of the adaptive population objective process.

And I stand for questions from the commission or the public.

All righty.

Thank you, Mr.

McKee.

How about any questions from the commission?

Yes, Commissioner Keel.

Yeah, sure, thank you, Chair Rogers.

And uh Mr.

McKee, just going back to the one revision that we have in this document with regard to the exceptional circumstances.

I like the language as it is and totally supportive of it.

But it came out in a couple, I think of the CAB comments.

I don't know if we can provide like an example of that or what.

I mean, I can envision a fire in one of the smaller areas driving an entire herd, you know, to the other side of the county or whatever the issue is.

But you know, I think with the subcommittee that provides the venue to have that discussion and further define that, which is why I'm comfortable, but just if you could address that.

Yeah, Commissioner Keel, that's a really good question.

Obviously, words matter, right?

And exceptional is kind of ambiguous.

Um it's our intent that we stick to this 10% threshold.

Uh, but we also acknowledge that there might be times where there are issues that have to be addressed in the current uh current abundance of elk on the landscape.

Maybe it's too many.

Maybe there's been a wildfire that occurred somewhere, and we're seeing a fantastic response in an area where there's a potential that elk populations are gonna grow.

Um we only wanted to provide that um in the event that there is a circumstance that may warrant it, but it's not it's certainly not something that we plan on leaning on regularly.

Perfect, totally agree.

Thank you.

All right, yes, Commissioner Munn.

Uh thank you, Cody.

Um I have uh two questions or one comment and one question, I guess.

Um the comment is is that I know in in a previous meeting I had raised the the um the importance of potentially reaching out to tribal elders to understand how elks elk were traditionally used and their traditional kind of home ranges.

And I just wanted to state that I you know I I'm aware of some research and you've shared with me that research as well uh on kind of looking at historical um ranges of the species.

Um and I think that uh you know I would just encourage the department to think about that perspective, both in the um the subcommittee uh that is being stood up or changed, or or if you know, in a future uh statewide elk plan, I recognize that if you're uh getting close to the finish line on that, this might not be the time to try and include that.

That's really complicated information to try and gather.

Um, but just to as sort of a more general uh note of encouragement to include that as part of the perspective going forward.

Um that's my comment.

My question um is um just about carrying capacity a little bit and making sure that these 2025 numbers uh population estimates are especially in the places that are exceeding our current objectives, that they're not exceeding um uh uh any carrying capacity threshold that we're concerned about, uh, which would you know I would hate to have us tip into a situation where we're we're needing to sort of exercise that greater than 10 percent um uh uh adjustment early on.

Um so I just your thoughts on that.

Yeah, thank you for the question.

I actually appreciate it.

It allows me to lean on my biological expertise a little bit in this process.

And I just want to ask a clearing clarifying question.

So are you talking about ecological carrying capacity?

Well, in your memo, um, you were talking about sort of the ecological carrying capacity K, right?

Um, and that the population objectives that are currently set are some fraction of that based on a variety of factors.

Um and I, you know, and you know, in some of these units, we are almost two percent 200% of what that um current objective is.

Now, recognizing that the current objective isn't the carrying capacity.

I'm just trying to ask, especially in those cases, are we at risk of being above that kind of ecological carrying capacity, especially in those places that are overpopulated, over-objective right now, I should say.

I guess the short answer to your question is no.

Um, and and the reason that I say that is one, if we kind of reflect back to the late 90s, early 2000s when these elk subplans were developed.

Um we tried to come up with an estimate of carrying capacity for these given management areas.

Um and keeping in mind that that those estimates were based off of ecological conditions from 20, 30 years ago.

Once we had this estimate, which again, all models are wrong and some are better than others.

I tend to think that they were probably on the lower end of truth.

Uh, but once we had that estimate, we began to consider conflicts with other user groups, proximity to water sources, other factors that might influence um negatively influence interactions with elk uh and and the other users on the landscape, and that's how we ended up arriving at these uh population objectives.

And so the reality is they were they're a real fraction of what the ecological carrying capacity was at that time.

Now, reflecting back on Matt Glenn's presentation that he had earlier on wildfire um successional changes, loss of shrubland habitat and conversion to grasslands.

I think that it's fairly safe to assume that since these subplans were developed, the conditions for elk on the landscape have grown much more favorable, and it's likely that whatever those estimates of carrying capacity were at the time are much higher.

Now, carrying capacity is extremely difficult to measure, and a lot of times we have to lean on the biological status of the animals, their body condition and their pregnancy rates, whether or not we're experiencing any kind of unexpected mortality.

Um and right now we're not seeing that in our elk curds, or at least we're not seeing things that indicate to us that carrying capacity is an issue.

Thanks very much.

All right, thank you for that.

Commissioner can Yeah, just a couple quick comments.

Um I like the I like this, it's a more nimble process, which I like.

Like you said, make the car go faster.

Um I don't have a problem with the exceptional circumstances language either.

Just with the way the process is gonna work out, there's gonna be plenty of public input and shareholder input, and then ultimately the commission's gonna get the final say.

So there's gonna be a lot of input in that.

So I myself I have no issues with that language.

Yeah, perfect, agreed.

Anything else from the commission?

Yeah, Commissioner Meshna.

Thank you for your is it on now?

Maybe so.

Okay.

Thank you for your presentation.

And I just had a couple of uh questions kind of to define this process just a little bit farther.

Uh as we've come up with this idea in many different discussions that's been brought up about the other stakeholders' input, you know, from the from the other land agencies that are that are observing everything, whether it be the the BLM, the Forest Service or tribal lands or anybody else, these other participants that we're going to be requesting information from.

Is that going to be requested by the committee or by biologists specifically, and then be brought to the committee that we then would forward to the commission?

I'm just trying to trying to figure out where all the puzzle pieces fit in because this has been a pretty intricate process and a very neat one to try and get everybody's input.

But um I guess I just want to know where the the input from the other partners will come into play.

Is it gonna be requested by the folks that are dedicated to the the committee, or is it gonna it be a combination of you guys from the department, committee members, you know, how do you picture that shaking out, I guess.

Yeah, like I said, um in the beginning, this is a probably a new to us committee, right?

And and I haven't served as a liaison, a department liaison in on any of our committees, so it'll be a little bit of a learning process.

But my understanding is that you know, I can use that uh that status to help reach out and coordinate, you know, input from different user groups, whether it's the BLM or the Forest Service.

Um, you know, one thing we don't have control of is whether or not the BLM or Forest Service are actually working at the time.

Obviously, right now they've they're in a prolonged shutdown.

So I expect that they'll be hopefully back to work by that time and we'll be able to solicit their input on rangeland condition status for this for this initial meeting.

And it looks like I might have maybe Director Janay.

I did uh for the record, Alan Janae.

And so I just wanted to add to that.

And so I I contemplate this, and it's a good question.

Um that is brought forward as far as representation from those agencies, and so we'll reach out to them.

I would imagine, given the geographical bounds of these discussions, is it's gonna be tough to find one particular person from each of those agencies that could speak to all of those geographical areas.

So it would probably be something that as those uh units come up for consideration that we would reach out through the committee to try to get that local representation best candidate from that agency.

So that's probably what we'll attempt as as those conversations proceed.

Thank you.

All right, thank you for that.

Anything else from the commission this time.

All right, seeing none, let's go ahead and see if there's any public comment.

How about any public comment here in Reno?

Good morning, Neil Cheney.

Um speaking on behalf of the Lincoln County CAB.

Uh the notes we have here.

Lean County CAB is in support of this.

Um proposed process for Lean County's plan.

The CAB wants to examine current trends and update potential management practice for the herds of 231, 242, and 223.

Currently, the CAB does not support an increase in herd numbers in those areas.

Thank you.

Yes, is this?

Yeah, this is on Chairman Rogers, committee members.

Thank you, Larry Johnson.

I'm president of the coalition for Nevada's Wildlife.

Um I'm an old guy, and I sat on these original committees, um, including the most contentious of them all, the Central Nevada Elk Plan, which took years to hammer out those population objectives that we have at present, quite frankly, are negotiated social compromises.

Okay.

Um in the Central Nevada Elk Plan, of course, our committee we had a BLM committee member, we had a Forest Service along with ranching sportsmen, Department of Wildlife, etc.

Um, because it was um so contentious.

We formed uh a committee that would address emergencies of conflicts, and I sat on that uh conflict committee for several years following the adoption of that plan.

It um so happened we never ever had a single conflict, and after about six or seven years, we disbanded the committee and and and so forth department and the commission has exhibited the ability to be responsive to both population growth uh and has demonstrated the ability to control populations simply by the issue cow tags since a sportsmen readily take advantage of that.

We can control populations, we can control uh um depredation we can manage this issue.

We are totally in support of the adaptive management.

We need to manage our wildlife populations, obviously more by science and less uh by emotion.

Uh that being said, we obviously need to remain responsive to the ranching farming communities, and I think we've enacted policies, we've pushed bills through the legislature for damage compensation, etc.

etc.

And and yes, we have that ability.

I urge you to uh approve the adaptive management.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, members of the commission, for the record, Jim Cooney Elko.

Um the plan that's proposed right here.

There were some questions, and uh like we haven't got this in place right now, but maybe what it's gonna look like setting this committee up with four members of the commission and a couple other members at large uh to look at this.

Uh a question that came up before the CAB was this committee with two additional people besides the four commissioners.

Uh is that enough individuals to uh really get a good look at this?

Um point that was just brought up.

Uh another uh concern was with regards to uh some of the ranching community.

That if there's a conflict, and the conflict specifically was uh previously suspended AUMs on the part of a ranch, that they no longer can use that, but that needed to be considered in uh to the recommendations from the committee.

Um I didn't have any answers for that.

Uh I'm not sure we'll see any answers until the process really gets working.

But uh overall, the Alcohol CAB uh was unanimous in support of this addendum.

Thank you.

All right, thank you for that.

Any other public comment here in Reno today?

All right, seeing none, how about public comment via Zoom?

All right, no public comment via Zoom, so I'll bring it back to the commission.

Any uh additional questions or comments or concerns or guys are awful quiet today.

I thought we were quite on Saturdays, if we were loud on Fridays, quiet on Sun on Saturdays.

I'll break this up.

Yeah, Commissioner Bourne.

Is it on now?

Okay, I don't see it.

Um I did as somebody like Mr.

Johnson.

I would uh I was on two subcommittees for White Pine County, and it it was a two-year, extremely cumbersome, and sometimes fist on this table standing up, staring at each other process that lasted over two years.

I am very much in favor of addendum two.

With that, I did have one question on adaptive population objectives section A, it says that you'll meet twice annually during January and March.

So I'm assuming that if you were to meet in January, it's too late for season sittings, say in 26, so you'd be talking about 27 seasons.

As far as your quotas, would you be talking about 2026 quotas or 2027 quotas?

Commissioner Bourne.

Uh love to answer that question, or at least provide some clarity.

So it's our intent.

Um, the department will convey season recommendations for that January commission meeting.

Uh but if there is something that comes up in the elk subcommittee uh meeting that needs to be addressed that year, we will be able to make those floor changes to proposed elk seasons.

And then when it comes to the March meeting, so at that point, we will have our aerial surveys completed, our population estimates uh finished up, all the modeling will be done.

At that point, we're just gonna be looking for direction on where are those quotas headed.

If the population is gonna be allowed to increase slightly, um, you know, sportsmen are probably gonna be sacrificing a little bit.

You'll probably see numbers go down, tag numbers if it's stays the same, we'll probably see similarities year to year.

And if uh we choose to decrease populations, then you would see tags go up slightly.

So I do think we have the ability within the year to make these changes.

If we're talking super substantial changes, like across the board, we got to wipe everything out and start from scratch.

We probably are gonna want to start talking about that a year in advance.

All right, thank you for that.

Anything else from the commission?

Um the only thing, yes, Commissioner Keel.

I I was actually going to make a motion.

So if you have a comment, I'll defer to you.

Well, I was just gonna I was just gonna say, you know, I've had a uh real quickly, just an opportunity, obviously, to read through all the stuff.

We've had a number of meetings.

I I am supportive of it.

Um I think that um you know, with the numbers of of uh participants on the the committee that uh that we're forming, I think we can seat that properly.

So I am comfortable with with uh with where we're at.

So Commissioner Keel, if you want to.

Thank you, Chair Rogers.

Yeah, Commissioner Cavit.

He's pointing his finger up.

Everybody's struggling with the mics today, I guess I'm no different.

Uh, for the record, Caleb McAnew.

Uh before the motion, I just wanted to commend Mr.

McKee on his efforts on this and the elk species management plan.

You know, I've been in this position for almost two years now, or a little over two years, and I think uh Mr.

McKee has pretty much been at every meeting that I've been at um presenting on on this topic and has put a tremendous amount of effort in and trying to get good stakeholder engagement.

So just wanted to recognize that uh ahead of the motion.

All right, thank you.

Deputy Director McAdoo, anything else?

Yeah, Chair Rogers.

Uh if I don't, if I don't you don't mind, I'd like to interject.

I one thank Deputy Director McAdoo for the recognition.

It's always hard to accept recognition, but I appreciate it.

Uh and then two, there has been a theme, which I've heard I think Mr.

Cooney uh made the recommend or made the suggestion.

Uh Commissioner What Mesna, uh Commissioner Bourne.

Um the way that we've proposed this process, there is a one, two, five-year review um that's set in stone.

And so after year one or after the first meeting, and we start to see that there's some problems with the way the process is working, and we need to go back to the drawing board a little bit.

We've built that in.

So I think that's us just saying that hey, we understand this is this is new terrain for us, and we want to make sure that we get it right in the long term, understanding that there might be a few hiccups early on.

Yeah, no, thank you, Mr.

McKee.

Yeah, it's a good point.

And I think that yeah, you know, we're kind of building this as we go, learning from what experiences we've had in the past, but it gets at least lending itself to those opportunities and abilities going forward to continue to make changes and tweak this thing as need be.

So appreciate that.

Anything else?

All right, Commissioner Keel.

Thank you, Chair Rogers.

With that, I'll move to adopt the adaptive population objectives addendum number two to the elk species management plan as presented.

All right.

So we've got a motion from Commissioner Keel.

Chair.

Sorry if I could interrupt.

Do you also need to address the uh subcommittee change as part of that motion?

Sorry to sorry to interrupt.

That's all right.

So it is built into the process, the actual structure of the subcommittee.

I'm not sure if the question would be who who is part of that subcommittee.

I think I I don't I kind of a clarifying question to the DAG, I guess, is if that needs to be directly built in.

I think it is, but I think it okay.

Yeah, in that it's built in there part of the recommendation is is that subcommittee correct?

Correct.

Yes, then I think it's built in.

Thank you, Nicole Ting for the record.

Yep, Director Janae.

Let's all pile on.

Um for the record, Alan Janae.

And so uh what I see is is with that being built into this motion, is is this will give you the flexibility in item number 25, either in this meeting or future meetings is um it says the commission may change or the chairman may designate and adjust committee assignments and add or dissolve committees as necessary at this time, and so that'll give you that opportunity.

Um, if the commission votes to change the name, it'll give you the opportunity to change the makeup.

Yep.

Thank you.

Perfect.

So I think uh I think we are good that that as part of the motion in terms of the subcommittee uh name and all that's kind of baked in one.

So anyway, so that is a motion from uh Commissioner Keel and a second from Commissioner Bourne.

All those in favor with aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right, that motion carries.

Thank you, Mr.

McGee.

All right, we will move on now then to agenda item number 10, and this is state fiscal year 2026, 2027 biennial big game release plan.

This is amendment number one.

Uh this is for possible action, wildlife staff specialist Mr.

Mike Cox.

The commission will be presented with an amendment to the biennial big game release plan for state fiscal year 2026 through 2027.

So hello, Mr.

Cox.

Good morning, everyone.

Mike Cox, the program lead for Bighorn Sheep and Mountain Goats for the Nevada Department of Wildlife.

Thank you, Chair and fellow commissioners.

I have a short PowerPoint I wanted to show.

See if I can get that um coming up here shortly, but so today's amendment uh to the binanimal release plan, which you had approved back in September.

I uh we have a few bighorn sheep uh amendments to add that was not review it.

Thanks.

So um continuing with the the big game release plan amendment, we just have a few uh bighorn sheep uh amendments to add uh that were didn't have quite molded or um figured out before September before I get to that um I did want to share some slides of uh the success of this past summers very large and come on come on uh bighorn sheep restoration program and and uh movement of sheep out of the muddies and blacks to support the limited habitat that we had for those large numbers of animals we had down there.

We uh we moved uh sizable number of sheep to the Cortez Mountains in the Tobin range.

Um and I know people some people not all were concerned how will they adapt and adapt to their new environment, their new elevation, uh their new climate, um dealing with pred predators that they hadn't seen.

So I was out last weekend with a volunteer, um, and I wanted to see myself uh what was the body condition of these animals?

Uh where were they living?

We've been tracking them.

Um there most of them had GPS collars.

So um I just focused on the Tobin range, but we've got similar observations in the Cortez.

Uh we've got three main herd subherds that the muddy and black bighorn sheep kind of gravitate gravitated into and developed.

Um, and we wanted to know also were there mixing of those two transplant stock, and how were they interacting with the resident sheep?

So this this photo, um I've got a couple others, but there was in this photo, you can see there's two resonant bighorn sheep.

There's a there's a U on the right, and on the left, there's mature Ram with his head down feeding.

The coloration of the photo is not is not the greatest when it's depicted on the wall, but all of their body conditions were extraordinary.

Same herd, uh same two resonant bighorn.

But you can see that they're dark colored.

Uh, the animals that were living in the Mojave Desert just four months ago, and um body condition was great.

Um in this herd, it included both muddy sheep and black sheep that had connected with uh each other and and then these two resident animals.

They're uh this particular subherd is living anywhere from eight thousand to nine thousand feet.

Um we've got a herd that's been living near Mount Tobin at over 9,000.

Um, and they've been running the ridgeline uh for the most of the summer, and then there's a herd to the south that is a little bit lower, but a lot of groceries, um, tremendous perennial grass and forb components.

So the experiment that we knew would work.

Um I just wanted to show uh a few slides of that.

So and this particular resident you, we we typically see this in our high elevation desert bighorn.

She's a very old you with that white face.

Um probably 10 plus, but um she's probably helping lead that herd to places where they know where to escape uh predation and their water sources, they've got a ton of water up there.

So anyway, I thought you might be interested in in those photos.

And this is pretty much uh the center of that picture in the foreground or in the background is where that herd was last Saturday.

All right, so enough of that back to the uh amendments to the big aim release plan.

Um you know what?

I've got some explanations for the first three that might help explain what we're trying to do.

So I've got three desert bighorn sheep.

Um releases that we're wanting to mend and add, and they're associated with depopulating the North Pancake Range.

So I'm gonna um kind of help guide that effort, and um we'll take questions on that first before we dive into the release efforts.

So the North Pancake range um that that herd, it's a pioneering herd, and it established itself in uh 1999 after we released bighorn sheep into the white pine range, which had been um pretty pretty much blinked out in the mid-80s, 1980s.

We had that herd, um, whether it was pinyon juniper or whatever, um, they decided not to stay where they were released on the white on the white pine range, and they went south.

Um, and they continue to go south.

I'm gonna show this this uh map.

I think it'll help provide a little bit of uh background.

The yeah, the the so the pointer, so that's the North Pancakes.

They were released on the southwest side of the White Pine Range or Current Mountain in 1999.

They leapfrogged over to the Duckwater Hills, and they uh spent some time there, a few years, but they continued to move through the north end of the pancakes here and set up shop in what we call the North Pancake Range, and really never went much further south into the main South Pancakes, which was a remnant herd with some augmentations to it.

But the yellow polygons are active domestic sheep grazing allotments.

And they've existed for decades.

This is nothing new.

We know the operators there.

Previously it was Gary Sprouse, currently David Little and Pete Paris.

And they they've been wintering sheep in the North Pancakes for probably a century, maybe close to it.

And we were crossing our fingers of not having interaction.

But we eventually had a disease event in 2011 in the pancake range.

And that population took a big hit, and it is now recovering the South Pancakes.

And we want to make sure that we don't expose that herd again for potential interaction with either big horn that could be still a chronic carrier or the domestic sheep.

So we've been heeing and hawing about this for literally 15 years.

Mike Podborney, who retired several years ago, former biologist out of Eureka, he kept on asking us, are we going to do something about this?

And we never did.

And so we finally decided that it's it's time, especially with the recovery of the South Pancake Range, that it's the responsible thing to do.

I talk to him monthly, and um, you know, we've we've asked for maybe some adjustments to his uh wintering areas, but he's pretty locked in and needing to use that north pancake area uh because it's typically snow free in the valleys.

Um without him being able to maybe pull pull northward and not drop so far south.

He is literally within you know half a mile.

I mean, he sees the bighorn up top on ridgelines and and buttes while his domestic sheep are grazing through the valleys.

So it's it's just a ticking time bomb.

And um so we we are uh trying to plan for a depopulation where we want to move as many live animals as possible.

Um we will like many of our captures, we'll get disease results from those animals before they're released, and um the plan would be let me go back to the bullets.

So again, we we are wanting to move clean sheep out of the North Pancakes.

Right now we estimate forty to fifty animals in there.

Uh they've actually had a pretty good lamb recruitment um success over the last few years, which is indicating that uh we no longer have a chronic shedder in that herd, but um again every December, January David brings his domestic sheep in to graze, and then there for a couple months.

So we would try to capture anywhere from 10 to 15, maybe two or three of uh efforts, and conduct the sampling and then move the clean animals.

One of one of the criteria that we have for these release sites that we're proposing is they've been exposed to the same strain of mycoplasma and are in recovery mode.

And that does include the Revelity Range, which is directly south of the South Powell Cakes, uh the Hot Creek Canyon, Hot Creek Range to the West, and the Quinn Canyon Range to the Southeast.

That we're needing to have these release sites for the Yes, Commissioner Bourne.

Thank you for that presentation, Mr.

Cox.

Um Black Rock Summit.

There's a little spring right on the side of the highway at Black Rock Summit.

It allows them sheep to come north from the wall, cross and go into the north pancakes.

Um consideration has been given, if any, to fencing that spring and possibly putting the guzzler south of that to keep them sheep from the wall south.

Great question, Commissioner Bowen.

Uh Borin.

Um local biologists uh have been in working with the BLM, and it's a huge attraction and gets a lot of use.

So we are going to put an exclusionary fence to prevent the sheep wanting to from the south from the south pancakes, possibly going north uh at the summit, it's right next to the highway.

Um, and any sheep that could be left or the current population uh in the north pancakes.

So it is it's an issue.

Um, typically we're wanting to enhance and expand more waters for bighorn sheep, but this one is is uh is a real it's it's it's uh a negative on the landscape for us because it could then bring animals together uh that um some are clean, some aren't, and and create another spillover and then a disease event.

So that the plans for uh fencing that are uh I think this spring.

Um but they've got uh clearance from the BLM to build that uh around that around that spring.

But we don't, you know, we've got good water in the South Pancakes, um, and we we don't we don't think we need any more water there.

We certainly don't want an you know to uh build another water close to that summit, the highway.

All right, yes, Vice Chair Young.

Thank you, Chair Rogers, and thank you, Mr.

Cox for the presentation.

Um and you mentioned in the North Pancakes there's about 40 sheep thereabouts, uh, and then you mentioned later on uh removing 10 to 15, and I just want to make sure that the ultimate goal is to remove the full 40, correct?

Or obviously maybe not 100%, it's tough to find all of them, but is that the goal, or is it you're just gonna take 10 to 15 off?

We're gonna in fact we're we've definitely gonna try twice.

Uh we know that after several hours of helicopter, um it's gonna be difficult.

So uh we're gonna try for the first effort to get 10 to 15 out.

Uh they'll be held overnight, and then if they're clean, uh they'll be separated into our transport crates.

So if we we can get you know two to three in each crate, but um if we happen to get a positive, that entire crate, those animals will be euthanized.

Uh anything that's clean will be released at these one of these release sites.

Um we would like to go back, give those animals time to kind of go back to their normal behavior and patterns and try it again and continue to try to get more live animals that are clean out of that herd.

can get you know two to three in each crate but um if we happen to get a positive that entire crate those animals will be euthanized uh anything that's clean will be released at these one of these release sites um and we would like to go back give those animals time to kind of go back to their normal behavior and patterns and try it again and continue to try to get more live animals that are clean out of that herd I think realistically if we could get 20 uh half of them out um we'd probably be doing pretty well um but we might try three times depending on the success of that second net gun capture uh we might be able to get 30 the remaining ones we would propose uh through our emergency depredation hunt uh process to issue ram tags u tags either sex tags um to try to remove the remaining ones we'll also have we've we've got collared animals out there right now and we'll continue to have those quote canary in the mines um and and still have a few animals that we know exist out there just so we can see was there more than what we estimated Commissioner Bourne thank you chair um and commissioner bourne took my thunder from my initial question because being familiar with that country I was concerned right there on the summit with that spring and those sheep if you've spent any time there the sheep are right off the highway on both sides.

The one question I have Mike is like moving them to 163 I mean that's literally the unit immediately adjacent to 164 is there any concern you know we when we move the sheep they're gonna move they were so close the potential they're gonna move right back across that valley you know the Quin Canyon range and the the Revelys are a little farther away we I know it doesn't seem like we typically move sheep that close to their home range when we uh translocate them this is right next door right is there a concern being that close them sheep might head back home if that makes sense yes Commissioner Cavillia it it is not our normal practice and this is definitely an abbe normal situation and one of the reasons again was if somehow we the test results um you know they're not a hundred percent they're they're 95% um we we want to uh put those in a place where that the resonant sheep have been exposed and have fought off and um no longer could be impacted um by that same strain that uh the North Pancakes has which is the pancake strain and so unfortunately that's it's the neighborhood herds that have some connectivity um it is not foolproof by any means so uh it's it's really an experiment um we could letally remove them all but you know every one of these animals that will be moved will have a GPS collar um and like the ones that we moved this summer to the Cortez and Tobins they'll have uh a virtual fence program into their collar and and they've actually been working really well we get an immediate um text email once any of those animals break that virtual fence plane so yes um it is not um a perfect scenario that we're trying to deal with and I guess just a follow up just my thoughts too and I and I I just wonder if we shouldn't focus on the Quinn Canyon and Revely areas first because it provides a little more separation maybe than than 163 um I I'm just asking the question you know just my thought we're gonna be um doing some pre-sampling um actually next week just to see um if there's any exposure still uh we've done some lamb surveys in all three herds and they varied um nothing that would indicate that there's an active infection uh where those lambs would have died um within you know a few months after birth but um we'll learn a lot and if we obviously if we get a active infection from any of the animals we'll we'll probably have to cross that option off the list uh but I would agree Commissioner Cavilla that we definitely have more distance uh with Quin Canyon range especially at the south end and and the revels all right anything commissioner born I guess um there's been talk of in the past about having to start thinking outside the box and I think this is a great example thinking outside the box on moving sheep um I would say that I agree with

All right.

Anything, Commissioner Bourne.

I guess there's been talk in the past about having to start thinking outside the box.

And I think this is a great example of thinking outside the box on moving sheep.

I would say that I agree with Commissioner Cavilia about the Quinn Canyons, and I'm very familiar with it.

And I think it's it would be a better option because of the distance.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

Anything else from the commission at this time?

Questions, comments.

All right.

Let's go ahead and send this out maybe before some.

But unless we're going to be able to do that.

I just I just um Chairman Rogers just wanted to highlight all three.

Um we have the hot creek range, um, and we'd be specifically looking at Hot Creek Canyon.

Um I'm not going to get into the history of that that's in the habitat population assessment section.

Um kind of highlighted it already.

Um we do have um our BLM partners that we're we need to do a little bit more coordination with on this on these releases, but we feel that um we can we can uh attain that um we'll definitely be monitoring GPS collars for any predation events and um which could occur so uh kind of standard for us with any new newly transplanted population.

We'll work with uh our colleagues on staff to um try to address any of those um predation events.

The um revely range is uh south so you've got um pancake range, south pancakes, and then the revelie range.

It would be this uh one of these two kind of uh current habitat areas that we do have a few animals in and waters.

We just actually built uh a guzzler in uh the revelies last year or the year before.

Uh also and then here's the Quin Canyon range.

One of the one of the issues with the North Pancakes is we've had a ram, and uh he ended up being killed by a mountain lion eventually, but he had a propensity to jump over to what's called the Halligan Mesa across the valley to the hot creeks, and then he would go down not quite to warm springs, but um that so that is something that we're definitely aware of.

Um could there be a ram he was not he was alone, so that maybe that idea of doing that is not exists with the current rams in the North Pancakes, but um that that definitely is something that uh we're we're concerned about that I would I would voice that concern about the Hot Creek Canyon um site all right.

So that's all I have to if not we can go back to the public and briefly Mike.

I I was just curious, it sounds like you guys are working on it, you're close.

Um I don't know the details of what's still ongoing in each field office and not, but is it even possible to get a category goal exclusion right now?

We may it may be postponed.

Yeah.

Yep.

There is um definite differences between the districts.

Um and so we haven't I haven't had this discussion with our leadership yet to to reach out to our BLM counterparts and leadership.

So yes, I would agree, Commissioner Walter, that if we haven't had that in the works, that is not going to happen in 30 days.

So might just take it all at once.

Yep.

That'd be fine.

All right.

So we um Mike Cox again for the record.

And thank you Director Janae for making that a more fluid process to have the public speak on all of them at the same time.

We also have a California Bighorn augmentation for the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge that we are proposing.

A little bit of the background.

Just kind of highlight in the habitat and population assessment section.

The population on the Sheldon was doing pretty well up until the uh early 2000s and uh or 2010-ish from a couple different releases that we've had.

And then the horses certainly on the Sheldon 15 years ago were having a huge impact.

Um kudos to the Fish and Wildlife Service staff for removing those horses.

And then um, but then decade later we had a huge drought that really um took a big hit on the local subherds on on the Sheldon and adjacent areas, and we we either had mortality or a ton of dispersal off the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge.

So we tried um some a release on the McGee Mountain area in 2021, and wasn't all that successful, but we currently have the core herd on the Sheldon in the Hells and Virgin Creek drainages, about 40, maybe 50 total.

Um good survival, good land recruitment.

Um actually there was a dandy ram harvested out of there this fall, but um definitely under carrying capacity, probably could have a hundred and fifty sheep um in that core area.

So that would be our our goal is to augment that herd and get them to a population level that they can uh grow and um build that population up.

And I know there's concerns as we've had on mountain lion predation on that area during the in just just a little bit of a uh mortality survival rate um background.

Uh I mentioned that the North McGee Mountain translocation augmentation in 2021 wasn't all that successful, and it really was mountain lions.

Um we had about 20 percent, 25 percent survival of the collared animals, which was about 70 percent of the animals at the same time we had uh animals collared in that interior hells, Virgin Creek area.

Uh they had 80 percent survival um in the hells um Virgin Creek area at the same time that the McGee.

So we're we're definitely aware that it's a sticking point with some folks, and we're gonna continue to work um on that effort, and you'll hear more about that probably as we get some discussion going on that.

So any questions on the Sheldon augmentation proposal?

All right, thank you.

Yes, Vice Chair Young.

Thank you, Chair Rogers.

Uh Mr.

Cox, where are the uh the Californians and going into O through three coming from?

Likely from the Sheep Creek Range, uh just north of Battle Mountain.

Yep, Commissioner Cavillo.

Thank you, Chair.

And Mr.

Cox, you already hit on the mountain line predation.

What being as this is a wildlife refuge, what is our leeway for lethal removal of mount lines on the wildlife refuge?

We've had discussions.

Um in fact, our game division administrator and myself have talked to the refuge complex manager, Shannon Ludwig.

Um we don't have anything in writing or finalized, but um I I can speak to it and if you want to uh follow up and make sure that I cover all the bases, I'll have uh administrator Espinoza follow up.

But um pre-treatment, pre-release efforts, you know, are probably not in the cards on this one.

Um administrator Espinoza had brought up with Shannon that you know we have these concurrent seasons that occur on public land off the refuge and on the refuge.

Um we have bird hunting, we have pronghorn hunting, we have bighorn hunting, we have mule deer hunting.

Um they all follow our seasons, our regulations, our quotas uh that we that we collaborate with with the refuge staff, and why not a mountain lion season?

And he was open to that.

So I'm gonna that's the that's my lead in to having administrator Espinoza uh and uh finish that discussion.

Uh Chairman Rogers, members of the commission, um Sean Espinoza, game division administrator for the record.

Thanks for that, Mike.

Um currently there there is no ability on the refuge to conduct predator control on behalf of another species.

Um at least on the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge.

Um there is an opportunity that's been presented to the department, which would allow us to align seasons as Mike mentioned with the rest of the state.

Uh where that ends up, we don't know.

We have a request letter that's been drafted, and we are preparing to send that to uh Mr.

Lud Ludwig.

Uh where that goes is a bit beyond the department, but there are hopes there that we would be able to have a mountain line season uh at least on the greater portion of Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge, as well as the ability to hunt coyotes on the Sheldon, which would align with the rest of the state.

Um so that's good, but that's still not that doesn't give us the leeway to conduct predator control as we normally would in other areas of the state.

Um we've discussed the possibility of doing some other things nearby call boxes using wildlife services just off of the Sheldon near Idaho Canyon, uh, may afford some flexibility for us to remove a lion that may be using that same country.

So that's still something that we need to discuss with the refuge, um other folks.

So we're we're we're trying to be creative in how we approach predator management with the with respect to this.

Um this will probably come up later, but you know, our goal right now is to fortify that kind of core herd that's within the Hell Virgin Creek area.

Um if we release 20 animals into that Hell Virgin Creek area, um and say we lose five, and but we gain those 15 remaining animals long term, we feel we're still at a win in that particular situation because that core herd has dwindled um as Mike said to around 30 to 40 animals.

So we feel that that bolstering augmenting that herd, even if we get some predated would still benefit that herd.

So we just want to clarify on that that that is part of the thought process here.

So just wanted to make that clear.

Thank you.

Yeah, Commissioner Cavilly.

Thank you, Chair.

And I just just to just for pure clarity.

So even in this discussion with the Sheldon for a mount line hunt, we will even if they allow the mountline hunt, we will not be able to wildlife services will not be able to do targeted predator removal if we get mortalities on callers.

That tool is not even discussed in the toolbox with the sheldon.

That is correct.

Yes.

If we would get that ability, um, we would have the ability to potentially um you know encourage a sportsman.

Hey, this opportunity is afforded to you.

Um we've had some mortalities that have taken place.

See what you can do.

Yeah, and I I mean for me the the pred the lion thing is a concern.

We've had these conversations before.

I think it's even in the predator program for the pre and post-transplant lethal lethal removal.

It's in our predator program too.

I mean, so it's a concern, and like you said, I'm a Ghee Mountain, you lost 75% of those transplants.

So like we might we might gain the 20 sheep, you might gain five sheep, right?

But the predator part of it is that's the only concern I have.

I love moving sheep around the state, how the state of Nevada got to where we're at.

I think we're the best at it, you know, but um it just is a concern.

I just wanted to air my concerns on it.

Yes, thank you for that.

Commissioner Cavillia, any other questions from the commission at this time?

All right.

Anything to add to that, Mr.

Cox?

Well, I I would thank uh administrator Espinoza.

You know, it's been for some people, some in the room, some elsewhere in northern Nevada that we haven't been able to harvest other animals on the Sheldon.

And um I have to admit um the refuge manager Shannon Ludwig hasn't always been um kind of in our court, but he is he is listening, and he wants he wants to see bighorn in there uh be bolstered.

And so this could be an opportunity um to have him support that mountain line season that a lot of people have been wanting for decades, and and and kind of asking and pressing, if you will, that we've we've got a bighorn herd that could really um be so much better in the long run.

Um so we're we're we are trying to be think out of the box and get creative, and so I appreciate that this opportunity could could turn into something good.

Um if you know powers it be decide that there's just not enough um commitment or or decisions that would support the bighorn herd.

Um maybe we've got the US Fish and Wildlife Service at least think um a little bit broader than they have in the past all right.

Anything else from the yes, Commissioner Bourne um to Commissioner Cavilia's point, uh the 132 Bighorn release proposal it states post mortality predation work, and if we are able to do pre- and post-mortality predation work, uh a dead bighorn sheep does not create any lambs, so I'd really like to see pre work done in 132.

Thank you.

All right, perfect.

Anything else from the commission at this time?

Yes, Commissioner Booth.

Yes.

Mike.

Hello?

Uh how many of those sheep uh relocate to the north into Oregon and if you and to where there's a possibility of not having them in Nevada.

Do you have do you have any any records or uh data that indicates that they relocate a certain time of the year to or even stay in Oregon?

Or vice versa.

We have some information on that, Commissioner Booth.

Um we do have other subherds that are on the Sheldon or near the Sheldon.

Um we have guano rim, we have Coleman Rim to the northwest of the core, and we those are definitely uh interstate herds.

Um actually Oregon takes more advantage of those rams than we do.

Um but so there is some seasonal movement.

Uh we have movement in the Pueblos.

Um that we have some sheep living on the very, very southern tip of the Pueblos, but there's a uh a big core herd in the main Pueblo Mountains in Oregon.

But all the collar data that we've had in Hells and Virgin Creek, uh, we've we've never had an animal move north into Oregon seasonally or go and stay and never come back.

Okay, thank you.

All right, anything else from the commission at this time?

All right, and again, this is an action item, so let's maybe have some public comment and go from there.

How about any public comment here in Reno?

Uh Mr.

Chairman and Commissioner Larry Johnson for the record, just representing myself.

I haven't discussed this with my coalition board or anything, so these are just my comments.

Um the statement was made that these populations were had dwindled due to drought, etc.

etc.

These populations dwindled because of predation primarily, in my opinion.

I think any transplant into this area is almost counterproductive without a predator full-fledged predator management plan to go along with it.

Um I know the politics are difficult, but I think it needs to be pushed.

Um definitely opening a lion season would be a step in the right direction, but it but just a step there needs, and I'll point out our history on the granites, for example.

Okay, we had a couple thousand mule deer there 15 years ago, dwindled to a population of 25.

We fought with our mule deer enhancement subcommittee to implement a predator management program, a lion removal.

We've removed a couple dozen lions there.

Okay, the deer are responding, and they're responding at a rate that is greatly accelerated over adjacent units.

So predator removal, particularly lion removal, is a major factor, not the only factor, is as always.

There's always a whole series of things to be considered.

But if we're going to save some of these bighorn herds, we had better get serious about predator management.

Now the lion hunting season is a step in the right direction, but that's all it is is a step.

Sheldon is a long ways away for most people to go.

And most people don't have the 7500 to put out for a lion hunt.

We can't count on sport hunting to remove probably the dozen lions, the 15 lions that need to be taken from that area.

Okay.

Just my opinion.

Thank you.

Mel Belling, Washoe County member of the public.

Um I share the same concerns of Commissioner Cavilia.

Um I I want to thank the department.

Um Mr.

Espinoza for taking this on to be able to hunt lions in the Sheldon.

Um because of what happened in the McGee Mountains, the number 75%'s been thrown around, 78%.

We had no pre-lion work done there, no predator work done before we released those sheep.

I I think we lost five within two weeks.

We put wildlife services in there.

Um it was too late.

Um for years now, we've been coming here, and um, and it was really driven by an ex uh a former um chief of game.

Uh what I'm gonna bring up here, and I'm gonna read this.

Um we had the sheldon when I was on the serving on the coalition board with Mr.

Johnson, and we we brought these concerns to them also.

This has been 15 20 years ago.

Um they were certainly looking at taking a look at coyote hunting.

Um they weren't looking at trapping.

Um they kind of put their foot down on that.

But I researching the refuge act, okay.

Hunting and fishing on lands and waters not within the system.

Nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize the secretary to control or regulate hunting or fishing of fish and resident wildlife on land or waters that are not within the system.

M.

State Authority, nothing in this act shall be construed as affecting the authority jurisdiction or responsibility of the several states to manage control or regulate fish and resident wildlife under state law or regulations in any area within the system, within the system.

Regulations permitting hunting or fishing of fish and resident wildlife within the system shall be to the extent practical, consistent with state fish and wildlife laws, regulation, and management plans.

That's right from the act.

Someone smarter than me, there's a lot of you in this room.

But that's pretty clear to me that the state has the right to regulate the sheldon.

It says it right here.

I somebody give me an explanation, please.

It says it right here.

I mean, it's pretty plain.

And when we have this discussion with the former chief of game, he was adamant about it.

So maybe if this doesn't work, again, thank you.

But maybe it's time.

We'll bring up all right, thank you.

Any other public comment here in Reno?

All right, seeing none here in Reno.

How about any public comment via Zoom?

All right, so we'll bring it back to the commission.

Any further discussion, comment.

Yep, Commissioner Cavilia.

I just some additional comments.

I just kind of thinking out loud, but I mean, I'm all for putting the putting sheep on the Sheldon.

I would imagine most of us are, but um, the line the lion issue concerns me.

But I mean, maybe maybe we are at the point where we could have that conversation with the Sheldon and say, hey, you know, the the department and the commission, they're really we want to move sheep there, the lines are a concern concern, and maybe I don't know.

I don't know if leverage point is the right term to utilize, but if they if they do want to see their population of sheep increase, say, hey, we we are absolutely willing to to move sheep there, but we need we need to have the serious discussion about a lion hunt because that is a concern about moving the sheep there.

Maybe that's maybe this is our maybe that's a leverage point that we could try to utilize, you know.

I'm not those conversations you have with them are way beyond me, but um it is a concern.

concern and maybe I don't know I don't know if leverage point is the right term to utilize but if they if they do want to see their population of sheep increase say hey we we are absolutely willing to to move sheep there but we need we need to have the serious discussion about a line hunt because that is a concern about moving the sheep there maybe that's maybe this is our maybe that's a leverage point that we could try to utilize you know I'm not those conversations you have with them are way beyond me but um it is a concern I mean with we've been presented with data that um you know in the predator program where absolutely line predation is documented on translocating sheep and the detriment it has to that um it's there's that we've been presented with the the data on that and the studies on that so that it's this isn't this isn't just a made up issue you know so that's my concern I and I'm curious if if we couldn't use that as a maybe as a leverage point so hey we're we're willing to we're we're willing to do it but we have this is our this is the concern to do that and maybe the sheldon at that point if they want to sheep see those that sheep population increase the they'll a little put a little more consideration into that if we're if we were willing to put sheep on there just a thought I had you know yes Commissioner Mesna um this is kind of an interesting topic you know looking at this uh the sheep relocation ideas over the next two years and kind of two totally different scenarios one where we're trying to depopulate an area and another one where we're trying to augment it but I I have a hard time with some of these ideas of moving sheep over the years you know there just never seems to be a lack of money to move sheep and I have always felt it was my obligation to bring up the fact that these animals do belong to the public and when it we have to bear in mind that at some point you know when do we make the decision to just allow the public to do some work for us and harvest some animals that is more cost effective or if there's the the appetite for the sheld then at what point are we are we squandering a resource you know to the lions I have a hard time with this at certain times that if if there's a potential to lose 50% of the animals due to lions or whatnot you know that that's that's kind of a a slap in the face for the the folks who own the animals um and so I I guess I just have a hard time with some of these ideas that you know on the North pancakes if let's say you do one flight and you find a couple of positives should we be anticipating you come into the board and saying we need to do an emergency hunt for the remaining 30 animals to to get them off of that and allow the public to harvest some of their own animals so I I'm total in agreement on this idea of the Sheldon that um I mean if there are excess animals somewhere that could go there and augment that herd let's make sure that we're not just squandering the efforts because of mountain lines and if we can hold that for leverage on um on the shell then that would be wonderful but I just I've always felt that my obligation to bring up the fact that um we move a lot of sheep around but uh you know sometimes the the general public should have the opportunity to harvest some animals if if that's a more reasonable and economic avenue to do to accomplish a task so just a just a comment.

All right yes vice chair young thank you chair rogers and uh my question be for the uh department as to Commissioner Cavillia's uh comment uh what would the steps look like if the flavor of the commission was to as to the Sheldon hold and to reopen or continue the conversations before approving because of the concern of the predation have you come across this before um working on my mic here um as uh for the record Alan Janae um as you heard this is a longstanding item um and so uh I know that through the years while I may not have been involved in this uh discussion I know there's been multiple discussions with the Sheldon about this situation um as far as how to vote or you know the timing of it um I think you know is this I I can look at it a couple different ways and I think that you know by extending a vote and saying yes the the commission is good with the thought of uh the augmentation contingent upon you know predation management um kind of displays your willingness to go there um and kind of demonstrates to the refuge that there is a wish by the state to see that herd expand um whereas if it is a held vote um maybe that isn't as um clear in the demonstration of the the commission's want to see that population expand um so I I don't know that I have any particular way or advice to the commission I just have those thoughts all right thank you for that anything else from the commission um just speaking for myself

Um whereas if it is a held vote um maybe that isn't as um clear in the demonstration of the the commission's want to see that population expand.

Um I I don't know that I have any particular way or advice to the commission.

I just have those thoughts.

All right.

Thank you for that.

Anything else from the commission?

Um just speaking for myself, I I do um kind of stand in in agreement uh with Commissioner uh Cavilia and and Commissioner Mesna that you know I'd be more certainly more apt to support the notion of of um augmentation in the Sheldons if we did have a predator management um uh the ability to manage those predators in place without that.

Uh I don't know.

I just think that there's probably you know other places where we might have a greater degree of success uh than the Sheldon.

So I'm I mean again, I'd be more in favor of supporting if in fact there was a um uh some type of agreement or what have you with predator management in the Sheldon Mr.

Espinoza.

Uh yes problems here.

Is that better?

Okay.

Uh uh thanks, Chairman Rogers, uh Sean Espinoza for the record, just to add to Director Janae's comments there.

Uh have had those conversations with Mr.

Ludwig from the Sheldon uh Heart Complex.

Uh their concern, and just so it's all on the table here.

Their concern um if they even moved forward with some sort of predator control, was that somebody would file suit against them for that.

If that were to happen and that got wrapped up in court for a period of time, that may negate our ability to put sheep on the Sheldon for the foreseeable future until that litigation gets cleared up.

So just to bring that to your attention that that's something going on in the back of my mind as we're having this discussion.

Thank you.

Yes, Commissioner Gavilla.

And and thank you, Chair.

And I guess it's not lost on me that we right now we have the surplus sheep to move, right, which is an absolute benefit, and that could change overnight.

We're all aware of that.

But it's still just um I I just have a problem with not having the predator component there.

Um yeah, and I mean next year our situation could change, and we might not have any California sheep to move, right?

And I I'm well aware of that fact.

But I s my concern for me is still valid.

All right.

Anything else from the commission.

I'm right there with you.

I mean, I haven't said much on this, but um, I think that particularly in regards to Sheldon, it's something that we need to keep working on and um looking at what resources are out there, it concerns me to move forward without knowing what direction we're able to go, even if it's you know, as Mr.

Johnson stated, um, even if we're just looking at a mountain line hunt, um, at this point we it's it's all unknown, so I'm a little uncomfortable with that as well.

All right.

Yeah, uh yes, Commissioner Munn.

Yeah, I I just want to voice my own thoughts on this, which is uh a little bit of concern um that we know it if we um take a position that is um uh uh a little bit more zero sum that we that we um maybe take a little power out of the hands of of the fine staff at Endow to negotiate in good faith with the Sheldon on what a uh a plan might look like going forward.

So I just I just want to be thoughtful that we don't um uh uh uh take take some room to negotiate uh away from endow um in in being really kind of um uh uh kind of overly um or or two kind of sorry um uh a little heavy-handed um in our uh in our concern about and I and I understand the predator component and I certainly understand the and uh and appreciate and agree with um the the concern of sort of throwing good money after bad um but I just want to I just want to be thoughtful about where we position and al so that they're able to to do their work in in working with uh the Sheldon.

Those are my thoughts yep Commissioner Cavillion Thank you Chair and I I agree with Commissioner Munn completely and that's why I don't and that I didn't really so I said I don't know if I want to use the word leverage or not but um I agree I don't I don't think we want to hamstring the department I however we need to I think we're open to moving them there however we need to position that where it gives the department leeway to maybe further that discussion is kind of what I'm looking at yeah and I agree completely I don't I don't we don't want to restrict the the department too tight during those conversations I I have the same concern I don't know what the best way to proceed with that though but um and those are discussions obviously you guys are gonna have but and I don't know if it's just a matter of saying you know we have this conversation at the commission level um based on that discussion the commission's open to it but here is the concern right and it it's just as simple as that and see where that goes I don't know I'm thinking aloud here but yeah yeah thanks uh yes Commissioner Keel yeah thank you Chair Rogers I guess to further that point is there a way or does the department have an idea on how to further incentivize the refuge to promote or enact predator control um is there something the commission can do in that regard uh thanks for the question uh commissioner keel uh Sean Espinoza staff special or uh game division administrator for the record um I want to go back um there's nothing that says you you couldn't uh move to send a letter to the Sheldon encouraging them to consider predator management when you're trying to establish uh a population that has you know it's been below desired levels for a period of time now um now whether or not they'll be able to respond to that is another matter altogether um but is it is it worth the time potentially and it it could help to use um commissioner cavillias word leverage them to move forward with the establishment of a hunting season on the Sheldon now as we've heard yeah it's just a step but um as we mentioned I I do think there's a real possibility that the Sheldon would get sued if they proceeded with predator control specifically on behalf of another species yes director Janae thank you uh for the record Alan Janay so I uh I do think there is an opportunity um if it was open to the commission of supporting the idea of the transplant or the augmentation and with with the caveat with the contingency of predator you know some resolution around this this predator treatment um and basically directing the department to come back and present before action is taken um but I think that shows a commitment to trying to work to try to get across the line with this um and puts it in our hands of being able to display to you before conducting the augmentation that that has occurred so I I that's a possibility yeah thank you director janae yeah I would I myself personally I I would be more comfortable or I think it would be more palatable for me that yeah if if we did go down that road to have some reassurance back to the commission before anything was done that in fact those those needs or desires have been met from a predator standpoint.

All right.

Any other we could still do that.

Yeah, no, Commissioner Gavilia.

You know, when it comes to sheep, I cannot help myself.

I have to talk.

But um one other I'll propose a motion, but though the one I would the one thing I would like to do on the desert side of it, I would like to it's just me, but I would like to leave the hot creek.

I'd like to leave the hot creek in there as an option if necessary, but I would like to see the focus on the Quinn Canyon and rebels.

That's kind of what I would like to see.

Leave it there though, if we need it, right?

Depending on your sampling and testing.

But I would I'd I wouldn't myself prefer to sheep the sheep to go to the other two units.

It's kind of where I'm at.

If all right.

Yeah.

Would one thing to that point though, uh, Commissioner Cavillo, would as far as that um hot creek range, would we be looking then uh based on what you just described for the department to come back to the commission before they before they did anything in that hot creek range then?

No, I I'm not I would be fine.

I would myself, I would be fine with approving it as presented, but just in the motion we can make the emphasis that the department focus on the Quinn Canyon range and that, but the options there, it's already on the table, they don't have to come back to the commission.

That that was kind of my thoughts, if that makes sense.

Yeah, certainly appreciate that, and that is our intent, although not expressly stated in the release plan.

If you wanted to put a priority to it, order to it, it would be Quin Canyon Revely Hot Creek Range.

Okay.

And then just for consideration for the Sheldon piece of this too, one of the things that we could consider is a release on Idaho Canyon.

As I mentioned earlier, we would be able to do predator control on the public side with equipment call boxes being right adjacent to the release site with the hopes that those sheep would move on their own into the Hell Virgin Creek, which isn't out of the realm of possibilities by any means.

Yes, Commissioner Mesna.

Just a real quick uh clarification.

Um when it comes to the this idea of the Sheldon.

Um are we the Sheldon augmentation?

Are we overpopulation somewhere else that we are needing to go with animals, or is this specifically trying to augment the Sheldon herds?

Like I I kind of see this as being two different things.

Is there a herd that's needing to go somewhere Mike Cox for the record, Commissioner Mesna, um I would say that the Sheep Creek range, based on our internal population objective that we developed a few years ago is overpopulation.

Um we probably could manage it with U-Hunts in 2026.

But um, yeah, there's it's it's always a concern of those animals on top of that.

Um and I don't want to go down this rabbit hole until tomorrow, is we've got excessive RAM ratio because we have been using it as source stock over the last five years.

And so when you have excessive RAM uh numbers to the use, your probability of encouraging ram forays and getting into trouble and coming back home is greater.

So not a definitive answer, but now you kind of know where we're at with that source population.

Thank you.

That makes more sense as to why we're trying this timeline issue on the Sheldon.

Thank you.

One last thing is if we are to do a release in that neck of the woods, um, in or on near the Sheldon, it would be mid-February.

All right.

Anything else from the commission.

Yep, Commissioner Cavilla.

Sorry to drag drag this out, but I just um on administrator um on Sean's comments there.

Um on Sean's comments are the one concern we talked about putting though initially our discussions putting those sheep kind of in the heart of the sheldon in those two drainages.

Now we're now we're maybe floating putting them on the edge of it where we might be able to do predator control.

That seems to me like that wasn't really our initial discussion, right?

Like we're we're just trying to say let's get them over there anyways.

I kind of have a problem with that.

Um maybe no any nobody else does, but um I I'm still kind of on the fence uh we hold off on that one for now or and our are we approve it with with the caveat that there's gonna have to be some sort of proto-predator component.

I would be supportive of that.

That's where my head's at anyway.

I can do it.

Well, with no further discussion, I'll make a motion.

I'll try to put my glasses on.

Um I'm gonna make a motion to approve the uh state field school year twenty twenty-six, twenty six twenty-seven biannual big aim release plan amendment number one as presented with the following notes in relation to the additional de desert big orn sheep augmentations and the units.

The focus will be on the Quinn Canyon range.

Um thirty-two, the rebel range, uh two fifty-one, and then the Hawk Creek range last unit one sixty-three.

And then in relation to the additional uh augmentation in the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Unit O thirty-three, the the commission is supportive of the augmentation with the caveat that there will be um allowed lethal removal of mount lines on the Sheldon and that the department will actually bring that back prior to the to the augmentation itself.

All right.

So with that, we do have a motion from Commissioner Cavilia.

We do have a second from Commissioner Mesna.

All those in favor with aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

All right.

That motion carries.

Thank you, Mr.

Cox.

Appreciate it.

I'm not sure if uh I I think uh Cody McKee and I can co-commiserate with the challenges that our critters uh pr present to the state.

Um but there it's awful cool critters to photograph, hunt, and um be a part of our landscape.

We got full faith and confidence in you, Mr.

Cox.

All right, so with that, we have been going for a while here and uh we are looking to take a break and it is twelve fifty, so maybe come back here at two o'clock, two fifteen.

Two fifteen it is.

We will see everybody back here at two fifteen.

Thank you.

Do you have something?

Jake one fifteen.

Okay, one fifteen, right?

No.

We're taking a fifteen minute break, right?

Oh, there's something fun to turn out.

There's only one item next.

I know.

We uh we got two items.

Yeah.

See there?

It's like a new, new, new, new.

We will get to uh okay everybody, let's go ahead and take our seats and get going again here.

All right, I think we've got everybody here.

So all right, we will proceed on.

We are now currently on agenda item number eleven.

This is a presentation on regulatory modifications to link master guide and subguide accountability.

This is for possible action.

Game warden Captain Jake Kramer.

The department will present potential modifications to existing regulatory language aimed at establishing a clear connection between the actions of subguides and their master guides.

The presentation will explore mechanisms to hold master guides accountable for misconduct or non-compliance by their subguides.

So with that, Captain Kramer.

So this uh this presentation is let me see what's going on here.

That's right.

Do it by hand.

All right, so this is uh about guide laws uh really concerning NAC five hundred four point six seven one.

Um so at the direction of the wildlife commission.

This uh following presentation contained contains draft language.

This is first draft uh for requested changes to again five oh four six seventy-one.

Additional changes include limitations of the department.

Let me back up a little bit.

So in addition, uh what you what you had asked for was to draft the language that would support what you saw last time.

Um with option, uh believe it was uh the third option.

So this does support that within that uh uh task.

I had to do many more types of changes because it became redundant.

Um there was also some additional uh changes that uh um we needed to possibly make so um those will be in here for consideration.

So that includes limitations of the department in considering application denials.

Uh currently there's no time limits for past violations of an applicant when the department is considering an applicant denial.

This language proposes specific time frames.

Uh numerous sections were removed due to draft language now incorporating the specific statutes or regulations previously listed.

Uh text was also added to uh existing language to include the ability to suspend a license during uh current licensing period or for the year that they're currently licensed.

Didn't include that before.

Additions of penalty sections uh for violation, which creates a consistent and set standard to direct the department on procedural license denials and suspensions, and addition of sections also include denials or suspension for a revoked or suspended driver's license.

And at the end of that, we'll get into the reasons why so for the the benefit of those that aren't familiar that are maybe watching later, um, the different colors of text here, um white, which is normally in black text, but it's a dark background, so it's white is existing language that that already exists within this uh this knack.

The blue is additions uh to this language, and then the red that has the strikeouts is deleted language.

So for the benefit because there is such an overhaul within this um as needed as required.

Um I'm just gonna go ahead and kind of go through one by one by one, even though we've we've kind of seen this.

So for uh grounds for denial, revocation, and suspension of a license in 50461, the department uh struck may and put shall deny an application for or revoke or suspend a guide's license for any of the following things.

The existing language incorporates fraud and deception in procuring a license, also incorporates uh fraudulent, untruthful, or misleading advertising.

Current language also says a conviction of any felony or crime involving physical violence, theft or fraud.

Um language uh adds to that by saying during a current license period or within 10 years immediately preceding the date of the application to be a guide.

Again, this is one of those uh stops that we put on the state, if you will, that limits the state's ability to go back beyond um what was somebody would consider a reasonable amount of time instead of uh possibly you know holding them accountable for something they did back in 1980 or something like that.

Um the 10 years is just a placeholder uh for consideration for whatever you'd like.

Number four is existing language, a conviction of having violated a regulation, a federal land management agency, and again adding language in there uh to put a stop uh to an existing time frame or to a time frame on when we can hold somebody accountable or when when they're released from that liability.

Five uh didn't change, it's immoral, unethical, or dishonorable conduct in the licensees relation to his or her guest, client, patron, or member of the public while providing guide service.

Any questions on page one?

Yes, just out of curiosity, why uh you have three uh ten years on three B, and then you have five years on number four.

Why wouldn't there be consistency in the number of years?

Is there any particular reason why you have those numbers?

That's that's a really good question.

Um I was writing this, it it's simply the the type of crime, a violent crime, if you will.

Um, I thought maybe it would be uh maybe a bit more higher standard.

But uh if you go back into uh we might have to go put it back into uh five years.

If you look at NRS 504390, um it says the the department can suspend to deny or vote up to a five-year period.

So we might actually have to go put that in as a is a five-year vote.

I think we can find out more about that later on.

Okay, thank you.

Moving on to the next page, uh point number six, a conviction of having violated a provision of chapter 488, Title 45 of NRS, and any regulation adopted pursuant thereto for a conviction of having violated an equivalent provision in law or regulation of any other state or the federal government.

That's existing language.

Uh if you can you'll see that I struck out uh 444630, and 445A 465.

Um those statutes related to public health and safety, those were dumping laws and water pollution.

Um the reason these possibly can apply for fishing guides, anybody that's using a vessel, however, we already have uh regulations and and statutes in chapter 488 that already cover that.

So it was a it was redundant at this point.

Moving on, um, the second point B under this is new language.

So convictions again of having violated our provision.

So for convictions of NRS 207.200, it said conviction relates to a wild to wildlife or is the the violation was perpetrated while conducting business for the purpose of a commercial hunt or a fishing trip, regardless of if the client was in physical accompanying of the guide or not, or the client or not.

207200 is standard trespass.

In chapter uh 503 in Title 45, we have hunter trespass, which has demerits related to it.

So if somebody, if a game warden was to contact somebody and write for a tra Hunter trespass or fishing trespass, there would be an associated demerit value for that.

However, if a deputy who they do contact hunters quite a bit, if a game warden isn't around to take care of it, um, they will write trespass, but they don't write it under 503.

They write it under 207200, which is standard trespass.

So the purpose of putting this in is if uh a deputy takes care of a trespass case in this case where it's a guide that's trespassing.

Now we can't uh tie it into a licensed denial or suspension.

Uh point C having found to be a principal of a crime pursuant to NRS 195.020.

If the said crime relates to wildlife or was perpetrated while conducting business for the purpose of a commercial hunter fishing trip, regardless of if the guide was in the physical accompaniment of the client or not.

So this is something that we had discussed previously as well.

195.020 is uh statute for principal to a crime.

So if you're a principal uh to a crime, you might have not actually committed the crime, but you're there in association and help perpetrate it in some form or fashion and will be guilty if found convicted of the same crime.

Okay.

And again, this only relates to wildlife crimes.

Um and for the purpose of the commercial hunts and such.

Moving on to penalties.

So the penalties for the violations of Title 45 and Chapter 488 are for convictions of uh NAC 504685, 50468, and 504 693.

And just for context, that relates to client records, client contracts, and possession of a guides license and a special use permit in the field.

So these are field violations here.

So during the current year, those violations specifically during the current license year or within a five-year period immediately preceding the date of the application to be a guide, the following penalties shall apply.

A first offense for those, and I I generally call these paperwork violations.

So they would start out possibly as a written warning.

Uh second violation within a five-year period would be a three-year denial or suspension of a guide's license.

Uh a third offense within that five-year period uh would result in a five-year denial or suspension of a guide license.

Moving on to uh section B.

For convictions during the current license year or within a five-year period immediately preceding the date of the application to be a guide, except for those listed in section 7A, just above that, the following denial of suspension or revocation terms shall be determined by the associated demerit value of the criminal act that was found in NAC 501.200.

And again, that is the list of all the demerits for uh Title 45 violations.

For convictions occurring in other states or the federal government, the suspension term or the suspension period will be based upon the demerit value of an equivalent violation in Nevada.

So if the state of Idaho was to uh write a guide for uh not being in a and and let me think of a good one here.

Um let's say it's a trespass, we'll make it simple.

Um, then we would take that crime because there's gonna be a judgment of conviction on that, if it's a if it's convicted, obviously, and we would assign our same equivalent demerit point value to that.

So in this case, it would be uh let's say a nine-point uh demerit.

Okay, but again, it's not a demerit, it's just based on the value of the demerit system.

So for those, if it's again, we're talking about convicted uh penalties now, right?

Any conviction with a three demerit value will result in a one-year denial or suspension for a guide.

If it's a six demerit value, it result in a three-year denial or suspension of a guide's license.

Any nine or more demerit value shall result in a five-year denial or suspension of a guide license.

For convictions of chapter 488, and this is voting law, uh, it currently already is in our chapter.

Uh, we can already deny or suspend for that, but uh I'm just separating those out because those do not have demerit assessments.

Uh for the first offense, a written warning.

For a second offense, a one-year denial or suspension of a guide license, and for a third offense within uh within a uh five-year period, uh three-year denial or suspension of a guide license.

Questions on those?

Well, uh not so much questions, I think.

I just point out hopefully it doesn't happen, but we have first offense, second offense, third offense in these penalty phases, and I'm wondering if there's been a discussion or if we should consider fourth and subsequent, and if that's just outright denial or what people's flavors on that.

I mean, we're hoping people aren't having a fourth or subsequent, but our penalties are silent on that circumstance.

Okay, all right, moving on.

Any conviction uh actually we need to go past that, don't we?

All right, so the last point in this subsection, uh, if it is determined that through the course of an investigation, a sub guide's violation was committed at the direction or with the knowledge of the master guide or under circumstances, the master guide knew or should have known of the guide's conduct prior to the unlawful or unethical act, master guide's license shall be denied, suspended, or revoked for a period of five years, and may not apply as a subguide during that period.

So this is again um like a principal to a crime area of this.

This is where if they are found guilty of uh or are convicted of a crime and it's wildlife based, uh, and they were a principal to that crime.

This now ties in uh a specific five-year revocation or suspension or denial of a of a master guide's license to that.

Any questions on that one?

Okay, and then uh the next section is uh existing language.

So for the purpose of the subsection, the term conviction means final conviction, forfeiture bail, collateral deposit to secure defendant's appearance or a plea of no locendry is equivalent to a conviction.

The next uh section, uh the new number eight, is is again existing language.

Um a guide substantial substantial breach of any contract with a person utilizing guide service.

So we're now out of the penalty phase, we're out of the um the criminal actions here, and then we're back into uh kind of more of a civil civil world here.

Um I did strike out as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction because it's it's tough to take action on uh breach of contracts because they generally don't go to court.

Uh there's a lot of breach of contracts that I think we can investigate in-house.

Um again, there's no criminal penalty for this, it's a it's a administrative action.

So you would if that was to occur, they would they would have uh due process in front of you as well.

Number eight, operation of a guide uh in an area other than for which a guide is specifically authorized by a federal land management agency having jurisdiction.

I this is already covered by the new exist the the new language, so I struck it out.

The next one, uh, employment of an unlicensed sub guide by a master guide.

That's already unlawful behavior under Title 45 again.

So it struck it out.

And then the majority of this again is existing language, two or more convictions of any provision of chapter 484 A through 484E.

And those are um basically DUI laws, that's traffic law.

Um this specifically talks about uh in intoxication, so this is DUIs.

So they can't have uh if they have two DUIs with a seven-year period, um, there we are to revoke deny or suspend that's already existing.

Number 10, a conviction of any provision of uh chapter 453, and that's uh controlled substance, controlled substances or drugs, and if they have uh violation within five years immediately preceding the date of application to be a guide, they are already existing that we shall deny, suspend, or revoke licensing failing to report to the division of law enforcement.

Oh, by the way, let's go back those those blue link the blue added language in there again during the current licensing period that just gives us actual firm footing to take action uh on a guide's license for uh the current license year.

So we're going on to number 11.

Failing to report to the division of law enforcement without undue delay any violation of Title 45 of NRS.

That's that portion right there, Title 45 is new.

It used uh of which the guide has personal knowledge, so they have had to have known there was a wildlife violation and then not have reported it.

Previously, that section said uh very specific things.

It was on unlawful killing, possession, or waste of any wildlife.

But again, I I struck that out and put any violation of Title 45, which is general wildlife law, um, just because there's so many more um up and coming problems that we see, like thermals and drones and things like that.

So I just would like to incorporate more of an overall uh responsibility for guides to report.

And then last one, uh failing to report comply with any provision of uh NAC 504 663, 504685, and sick and uh 688.

And again, that's master guide insurance contracts and client records.

I know we'd seen that previously within the slides, um, but I left this one here because the first one was for field violations, uh violations in the field where a warden was to contact somebody, it's considered a misdemeanor, and that went I think they there would be held accountable with that case with the uh suspension terms, but this right here uh covers on our end in our offices on the administrative side for guides laps of insurance or not uh getting their client records to us on the required time frames within NRS and NACs, just more the administrative side of it.

Providing these were also stricken, providing guide services related to hunting or fishing on public land or public waters without having necessary special use permits from the uh federal agencies.

Again, that's already covered in Title 45 and could be stricken.

Uh providing guide service related to hunting and fishing on private land.

Um again, this is a Title 45 violation, and and now is is covered by the new language.

Intimidating, threatening, or interfering with a person who is lawfully hunting, fishing, trapping, or attempting to do so.

Again, a Title 45 uh violation, it's a demerit point, and therefore would already be addressed with the new language.

Existing language on number 13, uh revocation of hunting, fishing, trapping license of a guide or applicant to be a guide in any state for the current hunting, fishing, or trapping season, and then an outstanding warrant for arrest of the applicant or guide issued in any state, existing language.

Um, what was added is 15 and 16 is a current suspension or revocation of an oper a vehicle operator's license in any state, and then the next one is a court order pursuant to NRS 504 398.

Again, that's in our Title 45.

That specifically uh relates to uh child support violations.

So we are required by law by statute to deny, suspend, or revoke a guide's uh professional licensing if they're in violation of any kind of child support um court orders.

The problem with that is uh we can do that for Nevada residents, but we have a lot of non-resident guides, and I can't do anything about that.

So when a state or when somebody in an in any state violates uh their child support uh laws, they generally will suspend their driver's license, which is why I put number 15 in there as well.

So we're we're able to take action on that as well.

In addition, um we do have guides that have multiple traffic violations and continue to they they don't have current driver's licenses, valid driver's licenses when I see their applications, um, and I don't have a way to uh to stop them from going in the field and transporting clients at this time, and that concludes the propositions for you.

All right, appreciate that presentation.

How about uh questions from the yes, Commissioner Booth?

Yes, uh, thank you for your presentation, Jay.

Uh if you'd go back to your last slide, uh revocation of a hunting, fishing, or trapping license of the guide.

Is that for a guide license or is that their personal uh hunting license?

They oh good question.

Yeah, thank you for the question.

That that is a uh personal license.

Yeah, so if they've got if they're revoked or suspended in any state on their personal um licensing, then obviously we're not going.

So for example, if they're uh we enter, we we also look into the international wildlife violators compact when we're doing our background investigations on people or background checks, and uh that's one of the systems we look in.

So if they're found to be already revoked or suspended somewhere else for wildlife licensing, then uh they're not eligible for guides licenses.

Thank you.

All right, anything else, Commissioner Messner?

Quick Quick question.

Um along the same lines there, uh this idea of not having a driver's license or having um uh outstanding child support.

I guess I just need a little more clarification.

If somebody applied for, say, a sub guide license.

And part because also in this, we're talking about adding language during the current licensing period.

If a sub guide got in trouble on his own with a DUI with child support, whatever else in the middle of a hunting season, how would that fall back on a master guide in this sort of a scenario?

That uh that would not fall back on a master guide.

There's a lot of individual accountability all within this uh this regular this regulation.

Uh most of it is uh individual accountability from one for the guide.

Uh the exception, uh, and we talked about this during the initial presentation uh last time, is section D here is uh of penalties.

Uh if it's determined that through a course of investigation, the sub guides violation was uh at the direction or the knowledge of the master guide, then the master guide would be accountable for those.

But if it's an individual, if they had no clue that it was happening or happened, um, or if it's not even related to wildlife, it's a DUI, uh child support problems, uh, master guide is not accountable for those.

Thank you.

Yep, Commissioner uh Cavillia.

Thank you, Chair.

And this thing kind of precipitated with me, so and I appreciate it.

I like the this is obviously our first first look at it.

I like it.

I like I do like adding the defined criteria for revocation because we've had that, right?

With we've had we've had people petition the commission that you know so-and-so only got this, and I'm gonna get that, and this gets rid of that in the future, so I like it.

I like having the ties to the master guide as well.

I mean it's a lit it's a limited tie, but there is a tie now in there.

So I mean for myself, just at this initial look, I I like the language, and I think we I think we do need to clean this up.

This language is old.

So Commissioner Keel, did you?

Yeah, thank you, Chair Rogers, and thanks, Captain Kramer.

Back to that 7D section, the language around known or should have known.

Is that pretty standard or I guess my question is like are you competent?

I shouldn't say competent, but how tough is it to establish like burden of proof on that?

Can kind of talk about that if you want.

Sure.

Oh, so know or should have known is kind of like a standard legal precept that's kind of been uh vetted out through the courts.

So it's kind of it's kind of like a standard phrase that's that's used.

So any any burden of proof would be what's called preponderance of the evidence.

So it's basically like 51% sure.

So it's a it's the civil standard of evidence called it the burden of proof.

Perfect.

Thank you for that confirmation.

Thank you.

If uh commissioners, if I may, I do have uh a copy of the NRS 50 or correction 195020, the actual language of principal to a crime.

Uh if you'd like me to read that into the record.

Okay.

Uh so a principal to a crime.

Uh every person concerned in the commission of a felony, a gross misdemeanor or a misdemeanor, whether the person directly commits the act constituting the offense or aids and abets in its commission, and whether present or absent, and every person who directly or indirectly counsels encourages, hires commands, induces or otherwise procures another to commit a felony, a gross misdemeanor or a misdemeanor is a principle and shall be proceeded against and punished as such.

The fact that the person aided, abetted, counseled, encouraged, hired, commanded, induced, or procured, uh, could not or did not entertain a criminal intent, shall not be a defense to any person aiding a betting counselor counseling, encouraging hiring, commanding, inducing, or procuring him or her.

So that that's the definition of what a principle is.

And so again, this uh thank you for that.

Uh and and so what this does is whether they would have known or not uh goes right along with the intent of the principal uh language.

Yes, Commissioner Walther.

Um thank you for the presentation.

I think um this is certainly headed in the right direction, just as a suggestion, and I could be off on this.

I can't off the top of my head recall that I think and it may have been existing language, but the term uh crime involving physical violence is used somewhere in the beginning.

Um I don't think that's defined in statute.

I think um I know it doesn't sound much different, but a crime of violence is um so I think we need to consider definition, maybe or a term more readily utilized in NRS, which I believe would be crime and violence.

I'll dig through it too and get back to you on that.

But okay, I don't think the specific involving physical violence is utilized or defined.

Okay, I'll I'll take a look at that as well.

All right.

Anything else from yeah, Commissioner Cavillan?

No, and I do I like I like where we started, and I think most of your sub guides and master guides are hunting right now, so I I mean I do look forward to a future meeting with their input as well in the Nevada Guides Association.

But I think this is a great start.

Yeah.

Oh, I agree.

Um, my only uh just to just to clarify back on what Commissioner Keel was getting at, and I think I understood through your reading of that definition, but back on that what precipitated all this at master sub guide language.

So the notion of you know, a master falling back on, hey, I didn't know that's not an excuse.

You should have known, right?

I mean, if that's in in lay terms, correct, correct.

Gotcha.

Good.

All right.

Anything else from the commission.

All right.

Well, let's send this out for some public comment and see what the public has to say.

Any public comment here in Reno.

All right.

Seeing none, how about any public comment via Zoom?

All right, seeing none, we'll bring it back to the commission for any further discussion.

Um comments, questions.

I I will just say that I I I do agree.

I think we've had a bit of discussion on this.

This is uh I think we're getting close uh to some language here, and I think also to uh Commissioner Cavilia, there's probably a lot of interested folks in this that maybe have their uh eye on something else right now.

Although I did receive a phone call yesterday from a sub guide that was very interested in this topic, and after talking through it, he said, yeah, I can get behind that that makes sense.

So anyway, so I'm anxious to hear some of that uh dialogue as we move forward in the in the process.

So anyway, uh my two cents.

Any anything else from the commission?

Any other thoughts, questions, concerns, comments motion on where we want to?

Yes, Commissioner Cavilly?

Yeah, just so do we do we need to make a motion on this today to have them present the formal revision to the NAC for a future commission meeting?

Is that what we need to say we need to proceed today?

Oh, go ahead, Director.

Yeah, director Janay or Dag Ting, either one.

Hi pardon me.

Uh you you don't have to give a motion, you can just give direction.

Okay.

I absolutely would like to see that.

So yeah.

Outstanding.

So, yeah, so with that, doesn't sound like we need a motion, but it it sounds like I'm not hearing any dissension.

I think it's uh flavor to move forward to the next step with this.

Very good.

Thank you.

Is there an opportunity for guides to get their input on this on these changes?

How are you providing information to uh our licensed guides in the state?

Uh thank you for the question, Commissioner Booth.

So the uh the time frame on this was uh was obviously pretty quick.

Um I have been in contact with the initial draft of the ideas previously with uh guides, and I've also uh been in contact with uh the president of NOGA, Nevada Outfitters and Guides Association, uh, to include um kind of a a peek at what we're presenting uh to get some feedback as to uh anything that they would like to see or if they had any concerns.

Um he expressed really no concerns over uh the plan as he understood it.

Okay, thank you.

The uh oh go ahead, Captain.

I was no, I was just gonna say the only other thing that I would add to that uh to the comment I made earlier about a direction from the commission.

The only thing that I would add to that is that we would like to maybe have you come back to us at the next meeting in January with some of these uh some of these updates.

Okay.

Yep, Dag.

Uh thanks, Chair.

Uh, for commissioner's question, I think it's a good one.

Um I just wanted to, I just had a further comment regarding the process of how the public gives their input.

So this is just the commission's kind of first look at it, then they're then we're giving direction.

So there's still gonna be an agendized and established workshop along with the note along with an adoption hearing.

So the public's gonna have multiple chances to get their input.

Yeah.

All right, perfect.

If nothing else, thank you, Captain Kramer.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

All right, closing out uh agenda item number 11.

We will now move on to agenda item number 13, and this is service recognition.

Secretary Janay, this is informational.

The Nevada Department of Wild, the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commission and the Nevada Department of Wildlife would like to recognize David McNinch, Craig Burquette, and Chris Vasey for their commitment to wildlife conservation and their public service to the state of Nevada.

Director Janae.

All right, thank you for the record, Alan Janay.

I am going to shuffle chairs here, but I just wanna thank the public um for a little bit of leniency and adjusting the agenda because um this was a very set time agenda with these gentlemen to get them here.

Um and so we kind of had that take a little bit longer lunch, and I was making a prediction as far as how long this would go.

Um so I greatly appreciate that accommodation, but if you'll give me just one second, I will swap down to the other microphone.

And I would like to invite down uh past Commissioner David McNinch first.

I think hello, am I on?

Okay.

So um we put together uh at the department, took some pictures as we like to do of each commissioner, um pull them together.

I think these are some pretty important things in Dave's life.

Um, one being his granddaughter, the other kind of the sunset he's headed into.

Um but uh it was as you all recall, um this was something that got started in ELCO.

We didn't get to finish it.

Um, and we wanted to absolutely get the opportunity to present this to him in recognition of all his years.

Um the little brass here it says the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissions recognizes David McNinch with appreciation of your efforts to create enhance and conserve special spices.

Many thanks for all you do for Nevada and its wildlife, and then it's got a service years, which again um pretty doggone noteworthy.

Um July 27, 2000 to June 30th, 2009, took a slight hiatus, um, came back in July 1 of 2011 and served till June 30 of 2025.

You contemplate that um that's a heck of a long time.

Um as I mentioned in ELCO is Dave is and has been part of the peer group of many of the folks that are wildlife professionals that work for the department and uh went to school, received the same education.

I truly believe he shares the same passion, and uh it was always nice to have him as a commissioner.

I truly believe he shares the same passion, and uh it was always nice to have him as a commissioner, know that he was always there speaking on behalf of wildlife, and uh just absolutely wanted to acknowledge that and again say thanks.

Thank you, Alan.

Yeah, appreciate you.

So look, there's uh Dave McNinch for the record.

It's I don't recall ever being on this side before, so um, and hey, I'm I'm I said plenty in Elko.

Uh you guys know how much I appreciate what you're doing, and and uh congratulations to Commissioner Mesna and Commissioner Mun.

Um it's a big learning curve.

You guys get you up to speed uh sometimes uh to the hard way, but uh anyway, you know how much I appreciate what you guys do, and I wish you the best.

Um, I do want to reiterate my appreciation for the department.

Um that's where it's at.

Um, these guys uh, you know, that the science and the in the um their skill set is mind-boggling if you really think about it.

I mean, they get up here, you interact with them, you hear about it, uh, you hear about things.

Um, but um if you were to sit down and really jot down their skill set and uh what they cumulatively bring to the table, um it's it really is mind-boggling what they're capable of doing, what they do.

Um, so I very much appreciate everything that you guys do, and uh I wish you the best, keep up the good work, and uh Chris.

Um it's it's an honor to be here with you today.

So, congratulations.

Um, I hope you enjoy your retirement, and uh um if ever there's gonna be a really good retired person, I think it's gonna be Chris.

So uh thank you and uh very very nice.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Or we may as well get it, yeah.

All right, again, stand the next go big tiptoe.

All right, thank you, Director Janae.

And I know we said a lot at the uh ElCO commission meeting about uh uh Mr.

McNinch, and anyway, so I just also just want to echo my thanks to Commissioner McNinch for his many many years of service uh to this commission and and friendship to myself as a when I was a new commissioner coming on, and his knowledge and and wisdom about the issues around the commission around the state are just have been invaluable.

So thank you so much, Mr.

McNinch.

All right, director Janae.

Next, if I could, if I could call down uh new citizen Chris Vasey.

So um Chris being Chris, um his retirement was coming around.

Um, and it was like he knew what we were up to.

Um and he was trying to sneak out, and uh we didn't get the opportunity to present him with a plaque in recognition of his service uh before he slipped out, and so um we have since held a retirement party for him, but we absolutely want to take the time in front of the commission in front of the public to thank him for his years of service.

Um as I've said in the past, uh these are no small thing.

Um, people that commit the number of years that they do to service.

Um Chris has done 28.

Um that's huge.

Um especially to wear it in such a very public position, such as conservation education.

Um they're always the ones that are the point of the spear and communicating when it's the most troubling times.

Um and as far as the director's office, um we we deal with a lot of it, and they are thankfully our mouthpiece, because I can tell you I am not nearly as well spoken and probably not nearly as level-headed, thankfully, as uh our PIOs that do this every day.

Um, as far as Chris, he's always very calm in these very tense moments.

Um, and and it helps get us through it.

And so, but I absolutely just really want to call out his 28 years of service.

Um, and uh just appreciate him and his commitment um and his family's commitment at the retirement dinner.

Um, absolutely, we we called that out.

Um, as we know what it takes, what what this job requires of a family, the commission, all of you are in the same place is that you know it's it's constant phone calls, it's every day in the grocery store.

It's even when you're hunting and you you're supposedly out there for pleasure.

As soon as somebody knows that you work for the department, uh your recreation turns into work quickly.

Um, but absolutely just wanted to take the time and acknowledge it.

Um we did um somebody else called it out.

They said, Man, that's a really big plaque.

And I said, Well, Chris is very old.

Um I'm kidding.

It says uh presented to Chris Basey in recognition and appreciation for 28 years of the dedicated service to the Nevada Department of Wildlife and for significant contributions of the conservation of Nevada's wildlife.

Presented August 18th.

As you can tell, that was uh when we were supposed to do this, but uh somebody slippery and it says uh by your friends and co-workers at the Nevada Department of Wildlife.

Just wanted to say congratulations and thanks.

Thank you.

Oh, I wasn't gonna say anything because I know it's towards the end of the day, and you all want to get out of here.

So um, but I am gonna thank the department for the years of service I've had.

It's been awesome to do what I love to do for a living, um, and then do it outside.

Um, you know, when I want to go hunting and fishing, it's really easy for me to go promote this.

It's um it's a dream job, and it was easy every day to come to work when I had all these people that were so passionate about what they did.

We are different than any other department in the state.

There's no more commitment than any all these individuals behind me, you you and in front of me.

It's uh it's a unique job, and when you leave it, you realize it how cool it was, and the people that I got to work with and how cool they were.

And um, I just want to thank everybody that I've worked with, the leadership that I've worked with.

It's been a great ride, and um I'm still here to help out and volunteer, so it's not the end either.

So thank you.

All righty, and to that I would say also uh to Mr.

Vasey, thank you very much for 28 long years of service.

We really really appreciate it.

Um when I came in this afternoon from lunch before we got started again.

I ran into Chris and asked him uh if he missed it, and he said he gave the spot on answer.

He said, I miss the people.

Right.

You spend 28 years in any organization, excuse me, or any relationship.

Uh you build that bond with people.

And uh I certainly understand where he's coming from.

And and as he's I've worked with him over the years and his interaction with us at the commission and with the department, uh, no doubt uh valued and trusted and and uh great relationship.

So thanks again, Chris.

And uh as director, yes, go ahead, Director Janae.

You're probably going there, but I just wanted to absolutely make sure that everybody in this room knows upon close of agenda shortly thereafter.

Um, we do have the back room of the Little Waldorf saloon um as a uh opportunity for a social to get together with Dave and Chris and celebrate their years.

So hopefully you can find the time um to head on over there.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Anything else from the commission on uh Mr.

McNinch or Mr.

Basey?

All right.

So we will move on, and uh we are now on agenda item number 14.

This is public comment period, it is informational.

Public comment will be limited to three minutes.

No action can be taken by the commission at this time.

Any item requiring commission action may be scheduled on a future commission agenda.

Persons making comments are asked to begin by stating their name for the record.

So, with that, any public comment here in Reno Kathy Smith, Washoe County for the record.

Um, I just wanted to take a moment to personally thank Dave McNinch.

He truly understand that understood the human dimensions of wildlife.

Dave consistently worked to bring every viewpoint to the table, moving past the official line.

He understood that all commission decisions are fundamentally based on emotion.

The preference for more sheep or more lions, for example.

In a process that too often defaults to a single constituency, Dave insisted on making room for everyone.

The commitment made many condition many commissioners uncomfortable, but discomfort is often the price of fairness.

He engaged with anyone who reached out, no matter what their perspective was.

A truly rare quality in any form of public service.

Dave could stand his ground with confidence, guided by an integrity and self-assurance that spoke for itself.

More increasingly rare qualities.

He helped move this commission incrementally towards what some re somewhat representative of all the bad ends, not just a few interest groups that dominate the commission.

I hope this vital work continues in his absence.

Thank you, Dave.

You'll be deeply missed.

Neil Cheney speaking on behalf of the Trappers Association.

But I just wanted to take a little time and point out during the department's informational breakouts this morning when they talked about how many uh citations and stuff have gone on.

I would like to point out that uh through this last one.

I'm assuming it was since the last commission meeting in September, there's been quite a bit of hunting season, and I didn't hear anything come up about thermals.

So thank you.

All right, any other public comment here in Reno.

All right, seeing none.

How about any public comment via Zoom?

Sorry, if I could just remind people to state their full name before they give their comment.

Thank you.

Hello.

Yes, go ahead.

Oh, good afternoon.

I am Trish Swain, resident of Washaw County.

I appreciate this opportunity to honor the memory of Dr.

Don Maldy.

Don worked for decades as a volunteer, strictly self-motivated, with the hope of achieving fair, scientifically defensible, compassionate wildlife management.

He was not an adversary.

He wanted us all to get along and be reasonable with one another.

In his enthusiasm and dedication, Don reached out to so many people, this board, this department of department of wildlife, and so many concerned people across the state and the region.

His gift was resilient, good humor, and he was open to everyone.

To meet Don was to be treated to lunch, introduced to people, listened to, and supported.

Whereas one cause is plenty for most of us.

Don stood up for coyotes, bears, mountain lions, birds, and companion animals.

A ride to the airport, a place to stay, scientific data, a ride to a meeting.

Don was there no matter what, and he made it look effortless.

In fact, there are few in the wildlife management or advocacy community, statewide or region wide, who do not know Don.

He was wherever the action was, generous with support.

His generosity was unfailing.

So was his optimism.

He pursued this vision for the wildlife of our state and our country until the very end of his days.

Don's wit and persistence and optimism are sorely missed.

I owe him more than can ever be repaid with my mere words.

His support was so constant throughout hearing after hearing, trip after trip, campaign after campaign.

We won't see his like again, and we who knew him are very lucky.

Thank you.

Hi, this is uh Stephanie Myers from Las Vegas.

Um I'd like to thank Dave McNinch.

And I know that if our friend Dr.

Don Moldy were here, he would also like to thank Dave McNinch, who was always compassionate, knowledgeable, and wise.

We would like to thank him for his service.

Thank you.

Go ahead, Will.

Yeah, hi, I'd like to say a few words on behalf of Don Moldy.

Also, um, I met Don ten years ago shortly after moving to Reno.

I was a wildlife journalist, he was a retired psychiatrist.

Both of us focused on the conservation of wildlife, and in particular, the conservation and defense of apex predators.

We came together on the understanding that neither science nor common sense nor basic human decency supported the ongoing bilification of predators in the name of quote unquote wildlife management.

I admire Don for his gumption.

Don delivered his message right here in the Lion's Den, as any of you who have been sitting on this panel for any time can attest.

He lost many a battle and lots of blood in this den, but he never stopped coming back to fight again.

Don't strategy wasn't always the most politically savvy, it definitely wasn't delicate.

As and as one of your your former commissioners himself put it, Don's style was to go big or go home.

At its simplest, it meant to expose the folly and correct the systemic mistreatment of carnivorous animals by a certain few who don't like or understand them.

In a larger sense, it was a plea for the return of basic human values of empathy and tolerance for others.

It was about fair representation of not only this country's wildlife, but its human citizenry, who overwhelmingly reject the notion that America's wildlife belongs only to those who would kill it.

It was no less than a plea for the unbattled concept we call democracy.

For some or most of you sitting on this panel, Don was at the least a persistent thorn in your sides, and at the worst, a seeming threat to your livelihoods.

But rest assured that Don fought on all of our behalfs, yours and mine.

Thank you for listening.

All right, that concludes public comment and concludes our meeting for today.

So we will stand adjourned until tomorrow morning at 8:30.

Thank you, everyone.