All right, Doctor, are we ready?

Ready?

We're coming in.

Okay, good morning, everybody.

We can go ahead and have everybody take their seat.

We'll get started here this morning.

All right.

I think we've got everybody.

Miss Linda, all good.

All right, perfect.

So with that, we're at 8:30 this morning.

So I'm going to go ahead and call to order today's meeting for the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissions for Friday, May 8, 2026.

And I will go ahead and lead us in the pledge this morning.

Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republicans.

Here.

Here.

Commissioner.

Commissioner Warner.

Commissioner Camille.

Here.

Commissioner Keeto.

Commissioner Nebna.

Commissioner Mum.

Here.

Commissioner Bolt.

Here.

All right.

Thank you for that.

And how about any county advisory board members in attendance today?

If there is any in attendance today, if I could have you come down to the mic, state your name clearly for the record, please.

Jim Cooney, Elko.

Tim Glenner, Douglas County.

Danny Thompson, Carson City.

Mike Reese, Lincoln County.

Ryan Brown, Washo.

Joe Krim, Pershing.

All right.

And with that, how about any county advisory board members via a Zoom?

And again, for those participating via Zoom, if we could have you uh speak clearly for the record.

Paul Dixon Clark.

Steve Robinson, Washo.

All right, that appears to be it for our county advisory board.

Appreciate that.

And uh with that, we will close out agenda item one there.

We will now move on to agenda item number two, and this is public comment period.

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, is there any public comment here in Reno today?

All right.

Seeing no public comment here in Reno.

How about any public comment via Zoom?

Wow, quiet today.

Well good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Rebecca Goff and I'm the Nevada State Director for Humane World for Animals.

On behalf of our Nevada members and supporters, we submit these comments on agenda item 10, the proposed predator management draft plan for fiscal year 2027.

Multiple research studies find that predator control has generally no effect in the long term on undulate populations.

This is because the key to undulate survival is protecting breeding females and ensuring herds have access to adequate nutrition.

Our state's ecological systems are complex and facing changing climate forces, habitat degradation, and human encroachment.

Simply killing more of our native species who are not to blame for any of those things does not address those problems.

Those native species are important to maintaining healthy ecosystems.

Mountain lions regulate prey populations and kills provide food for scavengers, nourish soils, and enhance biological diversity.

And coyotes help to control disease transmission by keeping rodent populations in check.

And indirectly protecting ground nesting birds for smaller carnivores.

Nevada Predator Control includes the use of cruel methods like leg hole traps, snares, aerial gunning, and calling devices that mimic the sounds of prey and even young and distress to lure animals into gun range.

Aerial gunners may not make a clean kill.

Wounding and leaving the animal to die slowly from blood loss, thirst, predation, or exposure.

Animals caught in leg hole traps will struggle to escape, breaking or injuring their paws, legs, or teeth.

And in next snares, they may suffer what trappers refer to as jellyhead, where the blood rushes to the animal's head and cannot get back out, thus causing excruciating swelling.

I refer you to our substantive written statement, which we which I sent to you yesterday, which has citations of peer-reviewed scientific studies that support all of my comments today.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

All right.

Appears there's no additional public comment.

So with that, we will close public comment period and move on now then to agenda item number three.

And this is approval of the agenda for possible action.

The commission will review the agenda and may take action to approve the agenda for May 8th, 2026.

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

Yes, Director Janae.

Thank you for the record.

Alan Janae.

So I wanted to give an update relative to the agenda.

Um this will be one of the first opportunities that we're gonna take advantage of the rolling agenda, which is items from Saturday that are not regulations that do not have a set um hearing time can be pulled forward into today's agenda.

The likelihood is that um given some um cancellations by uh the folks seeking to appeal in um agenda items 13 and 14.

Uh both of those individuals, Mr.

Bilboa and Mr.

Padilla have uh withdrawn their appeals.

And so um trying to manage this this uh commission schedule, those kind of changes make it tough.

But with this rolling agenda, this does create an opportunity to pull forward at least agenda item 21.

Um, and bring that if there is time, and if the chair would so like, um, there is that opportunity of pulling an item um that would normally be heard on Saturday or is on the agenda as such to be heard um by doing this rolling agenda that can be brought forward.

The uh commission general regulations um 517, um commission regulation 2611 and commission regulation 2612 must remain on Saturday because they had a fixed hearing time, but um there is some flexibility within that um of possibly moving 21 forward.

So just wanted to let you know of those cancellations and possible uh rolling agenda.

All right, perfect.

Thank you for that.

Any questions from the commission with regarding that?

I know we've talked about it a little bit uh as we have juggled schedules in the past and toyed with the idea of a rolling agenda in these situations.

So uh given the fact that we have had not one but two items taken off today's agenda.

I think it lends itself to um uh to potentially, if time permits, allowing the opportunity to move that agenda item 21 from tomorrow up to today.

So yes, Director Janae.

No, oh okay.

Easy enough.

Anything else from the commission on that?

Seeing none, let me go ahead and take this out then for public comment.

So is there any public comment here in Reno today regarding today's agenda?

All right, seeing none.

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

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

Yes, Vice Chair Young.

Thank you, Chair Rogers.

Good morning.

I'd like to make a motion to approve agenda item number three, approval of the agenda with the uh addition of item agenda item 21 being moved to today, Friday, May 8th, if time permits.

All right, perfect.

All right, so we have a uh motion from Vice Chair Young, a second from Commissioner Messna.

All those in favor with aye.

Aye, any opposed?

All right, seeing none, that motion carries.

All right, thank you for that.

We will now move on to agenda item number four, and this is approval of minutes for possible action.

And this is approval of minutes for possible action.

Commission minutes may be approved from the March 13 and 14 2026 meeting.

So with that, anything from the commission regarding our prior meeting minutes from March 13 and 14.

All right.

Yeah, I had a really went through them.

And again, as we we say it a lot, but hats off to whoever within the department uh encapsulates all that.

That's quite the undertaking, but uh I thought they did a fantastic job.

Nothing jumped out at me of any significant change or anything.

So all right.

Seeing no additional comment from the commission, I will go ahead.

This is for uh possible action, so I'll send this out for any public comment on approval of minutes.

So any public comment here in Reno today.

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

All right, seeing none, I'll bring it back to the commission for any further discussion or motion regarding the approval of minutes.

Yes, Vice Chair Young.

Chair, uh, I'd like to make a motion to approve uh agenda number four, approval of the amendments as presented.

All right.

Okay, so we have a uh motion from Vice Chair Young.

We have a second from Commissioner Cavillia.

All those in favor with aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

That motion carries.

We are now moving on to agenda item number five, and this is member 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 sent to 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 uh I believe um I know we had received a number of of correspondence and items that I think is has been duly noted and sent out to uh to everybody.

So uh director Janae, anything to add to that?

All no, I believe uh Linda Bauer has sent out all uh correspondence she has received.

Perfect.

Good, good, good.

All right, anything else from the commission on correspondence or anything?

All right, seeing none, we will move on then to agenda item number six, and this is county advisory boards to manage wildlife.

This is informational.

County advisor 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 with that, how about any community community advisory board members here in attendance in Reno today?

Any member items.

All right, seeing none.

How about any community advisory board members via Zoom?

Morning, Commissioners and Chair Rogers.

Uh Paul Dixon, Clark County Chair.

Uh, at my meeting on Tuesday, um, both a member of my cab and a member of several members of the public asked that in the future if endow could prepare a presentation on hounding in its use in bear and mount line hunting in Nevada, so they can become better educated with facts rather than rumors about how that is done.

Uh there's a lot of misconception we were having at our meeting about what was actually done.

So that was a recommendation that came through.

Uh the next thing that was discussed at our meeting, and I wanted to bring this up to the commission and endow is that um we when we were going over the predation management plan uh item 10.

Agenda item 10, I think it is.

Um, one of the things we discussed was raven control.

And I was asked, and I didn't know the answer, so I'm bringing it up to this group, whether or not we have worked as a commission or department of wildlife with Nevada Energy to basically raven proof our transmission lines in areas where we have laking.

And whether or not we I know other states do that with their power companies where they put things to uh keep ravens or or hawks off of power lines uh around, you know, on their polls and stuff for nesting and stuff.

And I didn't know if we were doing anything in Nevada or or had talked to NV Energy, so I wanted to bring that up as a second topic this morning.

Thank you for your time.

Appears there's no additional cab member items.

So with that, we will close out agenda item number six and move on to now agenda item number seven.

And this is uh the the department reports is his informational.

This is uh 7A.

This is division activity reports and Director Janae.

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

So, Director Janae.

Thank you.

Uh for the record, Alan Janay, director.

Um, I'd just like to start off by kind of giving an update of uh we're we're going through a process at headquarters um where our landlord is uh very nicely replacing our carpet and painting our walls.

Um, but that means that uh our staff in headquarters have been um literally been playing musical chairs, and so um I just wanted to take this opportunity to appreciate and acknowledge everyone, um all of the headquarters staff and all of the regional staff that have accommodated these crazy changes um and trying to work from various locations and constantly moving um to get us to this place where we're now at the commission meeting and everything's hopefully gonna run seamlessly.

Um, but it has absolutely been um testing of all patients and all wills.

So um, but I just wanted to call out and acknowledge that.

Um, additionally, from the director's office, um myself, deputy director uh Jordan Goshard and management analyst Alejandra Medina attended the annual North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference.

This event serves an annual forum for professionals to learn and exchange ideas.

The department participated in committee discussions that have heavily focused on funding and policy.

And additionally, um many times at the North American is an opportunity where all of the state directors typically try to make it.

I think at this last one, I think we had 43 um state directors at that meeting.

Um, additionally, um director of fish and wildlife service, Brian Nezvik was there.

Uh Forest Service was there.

There was pretty good federal attendance, and there were some really good discussions with them as far as where they were going with their agencies under this administration and the correlations to state wildlife agencies, and so it was productive conversation.

Um additionally, deputy director Jordan Goshards and Deputy Director Caleb McAdoo recently provided the legislative council bureau and the governor's finance office with a tour in the southern region.

The tour focused on law enforcement activities on Lake Mead, the Lake Mead Visitor Center at the hatchery and its operation as well as drought in the southern region and its effect on bighorn sheep.

The intent of the tour was to better educate LCB and GFO of the department's mission.

And I know it also incorporated a lot of staff from the southern region, biologists and game wardens, and that that effort was greatly appreciated.

With that, that is the report from the director's office, and I will pass along to Data and Technology Division Matt Maples, unless there's questions.

Any questions for Director Janae from the Commission?

All right, seeing none.

Good morning, Mr.

Maples.

Uh good morning, Chair Rogers, members of the commission.

Matt Maples, data and technology division administrator for the record.

The big game application period opened on Monday, March 23rd and will close next Wednesday, May 13th at 11 p.m.

The draw results will be released on or before May 29th.

Uh call center and counter staff are busy helping customers with questions and tag holders for 2026.

We'll notice some revisions to the format of their printed tags.

We've updated not only the tag, but also the transportation and taxidermy uh sections.

Hopefully, these changes make it easier to understand uh the process and then also um sets us up for transition to e-tags as some of the language required on those tags um changed in that regulation to assist hunters with their tag application research.

Uh the Hunt NV website was updated with uh data from 2025.

And again, the department released proposed quotas to the county advisory boards using our new seasons and quotas program uh that will be used again tomorrow during quota setting.

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

All right, thank you, Mr.

Excuse me, Mr.

Maples.

Any questions from the commission at this time?

Mr.

Maples before he gets extremely busy here in the next week or so, or busier than you already are.

Yes, Commissioner Cavilia.

Hey man, we ask you this question every year.

So how are we tracking as far as applications this year at this time versus last year at this time?

Yes.

Uh thank you, Commissioner.

It's uh this year it's a little bit difficult to track compared to previous years because we have extra time allotted during the application period.

So I believe there's an extra six days this year uh that didn't exist last year.

And what we see in uh hunter behavior is the last three to four days is really when most of the applications come in.

Uh people naturally procrastinate.

Uh, I think many of them wait to see what the final quotas are coming out of this meeting.

And so, in general, like our daily sales for the most part are slightly down versus last year, but it's hard to correlate that uh with previous years entirely because we've got extra time, and so we're optimistic that our applications will be very similar to last year.

All right, thank you.

Anything else?

Questions, comments, anything from the commission?

All right, seeing none.

Thank you, Mr.

Maples.

Appreciate that.

Thank you.

Good morning, commissioners and chairman.

Jasmine Kleiber, Biodiversity Division Administrator for the record.

Over the last two months, biodiversity divisions made substantial progress in statewide wildlife monitoring, data management, and interagency coordination across our avian, reptile, bat, and small mammal programs.

Strong emphasis remained on surveillance and response to white nose syndrome, uh coordination with renewable energy projects and conservation partnerships for petitioned species.

Seasonal field work ramped up significantly, while staff also contributed to national policy discussions and collaborative work groups.

Division leadership participated in a Washington, DC fly-in hosted by the association of fish and wildlife agencies to advocate for state and tribal wildlife grants.

Meetings with Nevada's congressional delegation highlighted the need for sustained federal funding to support biodiversity, species monitoring, and habitat conservation.

These engagements also strengthened partnerships with organizations like Nevada Wildlife Federation and reinforced our collaborations with Nevada Department of Transportation on integrating wildlife considerations into infrastructure planning, uh, most notably on wildlife crossings.

Participating in multiple briefings across um that week in Washington, DC, uh further advanced funding and partnership opportunities that are critical for the work that we're doing here and conversations are ongoing.

And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions you guys might have.

All right, thank you for that, Jasmine.

Anything from the commission questions, comments.

Um I'm just curious, Jasmine.

I just had one thing, and that is it kind of an opinion question from you.

You mentioned this fly-in, and you know, we've talked a lot about wildlife crossings and and what that means and looked like and the funding and everything else.

Just curious, in your opinion, what the sentiment was in Washington in general about that issue, which is extremely important to us, but just curious from a delegation standpoint if if um what the sentiment was.

Yeah, Jasmine Cleiber for the record.

So during that week, which was two weeks ago, um, there were multiple briefings going on on the Hill regarding wildlife and conservation activities in general.

And so the two primary topics that week were around state and tribal wildlife grants.

Those are separate from um conversations about wildlife crossings, but wildlife crossings was also one of the briefings.

In general, the sentiment is pretty positive for both of those topics for state tribal wildlife grants and wildlife crossings.

Uh, very different demographic of uh congressional delegation interested in either of those two topics, um, but very positive for wildlife crossings.

NDOT was part of a panel uh during that congressional hill briefing that answered a lot of questions, showcased a lot of the work that's going on across Nevada, as well as their prioritization effort that they've been embarking on in the last couple of years that we've been very heavily involved in.

Uh they highlighted the way that they have determined where the highest priority areas are for crossings across the entire state, and then from where those areas are high high impact areas, if you will, where we're having lots of mortality for different species, how they then narrow that down to what they'll pursue funding for.

So we remain hopeful that we can get those projects moving forward.

All right, perfect.

Appreciate that.

Anything else from the commission.

All right, seeing none.

Thanks, Jasmine.

Appreciate that.

She's a little shorter than I am.

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

Uh the Southern Conservation Southern Region Conservation Education Team organized and hosted the Endow exhibit at the Clark County Fair April 8th through the 12th in Logendale.

Staff from across the state from each division help and from each division helped with the effort.

This year's event attracted more than 90,000 visitors.

Endow's exhibit included a catch and release fish tank, an indoor archery range, license sales, and booths for wildlife education, urban wildlife, boater education, hunter education, volunteering with Endow, the fisheries division, and aquatic invasive species.

And Trout in the Classroom field trips have concluded with more than 700 students participating in release trips across all regions.

Thanks to the uh coordination of conservation education coordinators and the support of many volunteers.

These events successfully brought groups of students, sometimes as large as a hundred students, to local waterways.

In addition to in addition to releasing their trout, students learned about macro invertebrates, the in the importance of keeping waterways clean and the basics of fishing.

And with that, I can answer any questions.

All right, thank you for that.

Any questions from the commission?

Comments, concerns.

All right.

See none.

Thank you for that.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Morning, Chair Rogers, Commissioners.

Chris Crookshanks, Chief of Fisheries for the record.

Springtime Northern Pike suppression work is well underway at Cummins Lake.

Thus far, more than 500 pike have been removed using hoop nets and an electro shocking barge.

Largest fish thus far was 32 inches and 12 pounds.

In addition to this, the Cummins Lake Pike Out event is occurring this weekend at Cummins Lake tomorrow.

This event provides a unique opportunity to remove a significant number of pike in a short period by utilizing our fishing public.

So it should be a good event.

Approximately 300 bluegill sunfish that were utilized at the Clark County Fair Kids Fishing Pond were transported and stocked into Floyd Lamb Park Community Pond.

Huge thanks goes out to Wynne for the donation of the fish for this event.

And lastly, our annual work at Third Creek, a tributary Lake Tahoe is currently underway.

The weir and trap are currently installed, and submersible tag readers have been consistently detecting fish entering and exiting the system.

Eggs are actively being taken from rainbow trout ascending from the lake, fertilized and transported to our Mason Valley hatchery for hatching and rearing.

Huge thank you goes out to a number of our volunteers that we rely heavily upon to perform daily wear checks and trap maintenance.

And with that, I stand for any questions.

All right, thank you for that.

Any questions from the commission this morning?

All right.

I'm just curious.

Um it sounds like you guys are doing a ton of work and good work out at uh Cummins Lake, curious about Cave Lake.

Um I know things are up and running there.

We've we did some um stocking of that, and I'm assuming that that there's stocking that's going to take place yet this spring in in Cave Lake, and just if you could Yeah, Cave Lake will if I may uh Chris Crookshanks for the record, Cape Lake will receive uh its full allotment of of trout um this year, similar to what it did in the uh in the olden days before the the dam replacement.

In addition to that, our biologist at Cave Lake, Keith Coral, um is still conducting a crayfish study, um, which would be the prey base for smallmouth bass, which we plan to introduce into Cave Lake once that study's done.

All right, wonderful.

Anything else from the commission?

All right, seeing none.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

And if I may, Chairman Rogers, uh, one last thing I wanted to do was uh as I've talked about in the past, our uh new battalions for the the native fish slam.

Um we took delivery of those just a few weeks ago, so I wanted to uh uh pass one so you guys could take a look.

They turned out really nice.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

Uh all right, thank you for that.

Good morning.

Good morning, Chief Gamer and Christy Knight for the record.

The law enforcement division conducted its annual in-service training in PH, Nevada in late April.

This year's program focused heavily on interactive scenario-based learning and included moot MOOC court exercises, dashboard scenarios, and field-based team building scenarios.

Staff also participated in open discussion with representatives from the attorney general's office and the director's office, and intended a standardized seated field sobriety refresher.

A portion of the in-service was dedicated to recognizing outstanding staff achievements through our established commendation awards.

This year's awards included one in-al firearms expert course of fire, life saving award, wildlife officer of the year, and voting officer of the year.

In addition to these awards outlined in this existing policy, we introduced new commendations designed to acknowledge excellence across a broader range of responsibilities within the division.

These new awards include law enforcement employee of the year, field training officer of the year, and training officer of the year.

So these awards are one in Dow award, dispatcher Adrian Aranda, mechanic Eric Brandt, game warden Travis Chapman, dispatcher Shantae Croto Baker, dispatch supervisor Elise Hansen, and administrative assistant Jennifer Miller.

Firearms expert course of fire award, game warden Zachary Blackwood and Game Warden Lieutenant Ryan Drew.

Life Saving Award, Game Warren Aliyah Lear, and Game Warden Britney Ryder.

Wildlife Officer of the Year, Game Warren Investigator Roma Leiden.

Voting Officer of the Year, Game Warren Roy Sparks, Law Enforcement Division Employee of the Year, Dispatch Supervisor Elise Hanson, Field Training Officer of the Year, Game Warren Investigator Thomas Hamblin.

Training Officer of the Year Award went to two.

It's usually only one, but we did two because they were in conjunction with a transition training that we did.

Game Warren Lieutenant Ryan Drew and Game Warden Brad Crane.

All right, divisional integrity, teamwork, and commitment keep the law enforcement division moving forward and help strengthen the department's trust, trusted reputation.

With that, I stand for any questions.

All right.

Thank you for that report.

Anything from the commission?

Questions, comments?

Just a couple of things, Chief Knight, that I had.

First off, I wanted to uh congratulate all of those individuals that you just listed for their awards.

That is uh fantastic and wonderful accomplishments.

So I appreciate you making us aware of that.

And then also uh curious, we've talked a lot about uh uh obviously shed hunting and whatnot, and that's that season opened up here a couple of weeks ago, and and I understand that it's uh you know had heavy use is expected.

Just curious from a law enforcement standpoint if you saw or have seen or your officers have seen any uptick and violations or anything along those lines now that that season is open.

Christy Knight for the record.

Do you mean uh any violations since it has opened or prior to opening?

Well, how about both?

Uh to my knowledge, there hasn't been any um for the opening yet since it's open, but they were focused on an investigation that was going on throughout the state.

So their focus was on that more than sheds since it opened.

All right, perfect.

Anything else from the commission?

Questions, comments.

All right, seeing none.

Thank you for that.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chairman Rogers, members of the commission, game division administrator Sean Espinoza for the record.

I don't think it's been any secret.

What we've been up to for the past month.

Uh game division has been ensconced in developing big game quota tables, the big game recommendation forms, revising the biennual big game release plan and developing and reviewing uh the management area and regional reports for the annual big game status book.

Uh you should have a copy before you that this is a draft copy.

And also would like to inform that members of the public that we do have some copies on the back table that are available for uh taking home with you.

Uh besides that, uh deer samples collected for chronic waste and disease monitoring during the 2025-2026 season, all tested negative.

Uh, however, the number of samples collected declined modestly during this last year.

Uh in the upland game world, uh, after a poor initial survey of just four male Colombian sharp tailed grouse on the known lecks in the Bull Run Basin.

More recent counts thankfully have revealed 26 males attending those same leks.

Uh lightning, as you know, literally struck twice in this area uh between the 2018 South Sugarloaf fire and the 2025 Cottonwood Peak Fire.

Uh of course, you know this species is a grassland adapted species.

Uh however, the winter forage relies on buds and catkins of deciduous trees and shrubs, which requires time to recover after these these wildfire events.

And uh, as many of you know, this has been a long standing effort of the department to try and restore this species into Nevada.

Um, over 10 years, I know has been expended on on this effort.

Uh so it's good to see those results uh coming back somewhat positively.

Um also because you mentioned uh earlier um the uh discussion about the connectivity issues uh nationwide.

Um Cody Schroeder, staff specialist Cody Schroeder informed me that in June there will be uh pre-scoping field tour of two priority sites uh for uh a type of crossing discussion structure, what have you.

Uh one will be north of Pioach on Highway 93, which we all know is kind of a high traffic area for wildlife and uh deer and elk often get hit there, and then also south of Wells on 93 near Spruce Mountain.

So just wanted to update you on that.

And with that, I'll stand for any questions.

All righty, thank you for that.

Any questions from the commission at this time for Mr.

Espinoza?

Concerns, comments.

All right, seeing none.

But yeah, no, I appreciate the update and and uh anxious to see how that wildlife crossing proceeds and look forward to continued updates.

So thank you.

Thanks.

Chair Rogers members, members of the commission, good morning.

Matt Glenn Wildlife Status Specialist for the record, division administrator freeze is away on business, so I've been asked to give the habitat divisional update.

Um in our private lands um program.

The department worked closely with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and recently closed on the Windermere Hills Conservation and Access Easement northwest of Wells, Nevada, uh, in March of 206.

Uh the conservation easement and access season will conserve and allow public to access approximately 23,000 acres of checkerboard land and perpetuity, uh, which is an important area for the area six or area seven mule deer migration corridor.

Currently, we are working with a landowner on signage and to create parking area for the public.

We are revising commission policies and regulations to satisfy the access easement um terms and conditions, and we'll bring those forward in a future commission meeting for review.

Uh, this is yet another great uh cooperative project with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation that allows working lands to remain working and uh all while protecting valuable valuable wildlife habitat and ensuring public access and perpetuity.

Um also at our wildlife management area WMA system.

Benny Van has uh the Overton WMA supervisor has been reclassified to wildlife area supervisor position two.

Uh in this expanded role, we will provide oversight of all Southern Region wildlife management areas, including Kirch, Pittman, and Overton.

Just a quick one for you guys.

I knew that they were uh not working with the best this morning, so I'll take any questions.

All right, thank you for that.

Any questions this morning?

Concerns, comments, anything from habitat side of things.

No sale.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate the update.

And with that, Chair, that is the end of our report.

All right, great.

Thank you for that.

Appreciate it.

So we will then now uh close out 7A and move on to 7B.

And this is litigation report.

Deputy Attorney General Richard Yen.

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

So again.

Thank you, Chairman.

Good morning.

Can you hear me okay?

Yes.

Chairman Members of the Commission, Deputy Un for the record.

Uh we do have updates on all of our existing cases as well as two new cases uh on the Walker River litigation.

Deputy Ting uh is working closely with all other parties in discovery right now.

Plaintiff is considering a motion to bifurcate that case.

And separate the public trust doctrine issue with the issue of damages, and that's more of a judicial economy way of if there's no public trust violation, then you don't need to go to damages.

So we're leaning on uh agreeing to that, but um deputy teaging is still discussing that with other defendant parties.

Uh on the Pershing County Water District versus uh division of water resources.

Uh late last week, the Nevada Supreme Court did issue its decision uh upholding the lower court decision.

And so that is a victory for Endow.

Uh we intervened in that case, and kudos to former Deputy Burkett for arguing that case before the Supreme Court.

And we have two new cases that uh we filed this week, one on Monday and one just yesterday.

Uh Endow uh had lost priority dates for uh water permits that provide water to the Oxpo nature study area and the Mason Valley Fish Hatchery, and the district court uh has power to reinstate those cases or reinstate those priority dates to those original dates so that we can ensure that sufficient water gets to those areas.

Um I have spoken with uh the division of water resources, and they did not indicate to me that they would oppose those.

So uh that is not never want to guarantee a result, but it looks like those should go smoothly.

And I also wanted to take this opportunity just to invite uh and remind the members of the commission that um as a result of the last legislative session.

Uh you can receive legal advice uh outside the scope of open meeting laws, and it's been expanded.

It used to be uh only um related to ongoing cases, but you can receive legal advice on anything.

So I encourage you if you have legal questions to reach out to myself or deputy ting, and I can take any questions.

All right, thank you for that update.

Any questions or concerns, comments, anything for the DAG this morning.

All right, seeing none, thank you for that update and report.

We appreciate that.

All right, we will move on to from 7B now on to 7C, and this is Wildlife Heritage Committee report.

Committee Chairman Mario Walther.

A report will be provided on the recent wildlife heritage committee meeting.

So Commissioner Walther.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, the committee did meet last night.

Um we have you know, as always, some really fascinating, wonderful projects in front of us.

There's 27 this year.

Um, I think there were some really good discussions surrounding those projects.

One of the I think points on the committee's mine, and I'm sure the department's mine as well is um this is the would be the biggest ask if we were to fund this in full, um, dipping into the principal ever.

So it's a little shy of 600,000.

Um, like I said, there are a lot of good uh questions and discussion around those issues.

We did uh send it out for direction to see um what additional funding may be available on projects, um, where some trimming could be done.

We're gonna meet again in June, which is a discussion we need to have.

I don't know if now or tomorrow.

Um we did tentatively set that for June 25th at five o'clock, and I now see that that conflicts with um this wonderful event that Eddie and Peggy are putting on um for us in Winnemucca.

So we might want to have a discussion about moving that to a Friday morning meeting.

Um we have a new cab representative on the committee, Justin Franch out of Elko.

We're excited to have him and be working with him.

So, unless there are further questions, um, we're gonna meet again in June and hopefully figure out where all the the money falls and come to the commission with recommendations concerning that all right, perfect.

Thank you for that update.

Anything from any of the commissioners regarding heritage.

All right.

Seeing none, and and yeah, just again, we'll work towards some changes on the uh uh on the meeting dates, so in uh in June.

So no worries there.

All right.

Moving along this morning, we are gonna close that item.

We are now on to 7D.

This is habitat research and management report.

Committee chairman Mario Walther again.

The report will be provided on the recent habitat research and management project proposals that were discussed at the Wildlife Heritage Committee meeting.

So, Commissioner Walter.

Thank you.

Again, we met last night on this as well.

Um, this one was a little easier because the balance comes out equal with what was um available to spend.

Um but again, a lot of good projects there that we are uh happy to bring forward in June and discuss with the commission.

All right.

Any questions at all, concerns, comments from the commission regarding the habitat research and management items.

All right, seeing none, we will press on and we will move on to uh 7E.

This is Habitat Status and Trend, Habitat Staff Specialist Matt Glenn and Alexa Lyons.

A presentation will be provided on the status and trend of Nevada's wildlife habitat.

Good morning.

Chair Rogers, members of the commission, uh Matt Glenn Habitat Staff Specials for the record uh again this morning.

Um so I'm going to give the habitat status and trend presentation.

Um, and how this is structured is gonna be um kind of some long-term and short-term habitat status and trend in Nevada, a little bit about um this last year in terms of snowpack, um, wildfire prediction and forecast, which was been has been provided by um Gina Palma who um provides that information and forecast of the BLM and then land on some habitat restoration positive notes.

Um just mentioned we're gonna talk long-term, short term, great basin wildfire season outlook, and then restoration accomplishments, and like I said, end up on that positive note.

So most of you have seen this mapping before.

I apologize for some of the colors.

They never turn out exactly how you hope they will, but this is that eco-state dating uh eco-state data uh mapping product.

Essentially, um, these are like ecosystem health scores.

Uh, that's the easiest way to put this.

Um, your dark greens and your um are your good shrub contoner uh component and your dark blues are your good grassland components, and then really everything else is somewhere in between.

Um I think the important thing here though is that uh red is bad and dark green is good.

You'll also notice a lot of that um dark brown or light brown.

You'll see kind of transitions to those darker colors um from 1986 and 88 snapshot to the 22 to 25 snapshot, um, kind of representing those opinion juniper woodlands transitioning to more phase three woodland.

Um, why is this all important?

Um, because in the state of Nevada, we have lost approximately 71% of our core sagebrush habitat.

And what that really means is a departure from really good shrub component.

That can really mean also that there's just cheat grass in the system, um, where once it was just a reference state um sagebrush community and in the best possible um condition for wildlife.

Um super important and impactful.

Again, this is the same snapshot, um, 86 to 20 uh 86 and 88 to 22 and 25.

Um we spent a lot of time talking about the 1980s, and so I'm gonna get away from that a little bit, and I'm gonna talk about the last 10 years.

Um 2015 to 22 uh 20 is represented in the dark blue color, and then the uh 23 to 25 snapshot is represented in that lime green color.

And um what you can see here is good condition shrubland is definitely picking up a little bit.

Your intermediate is falling back, and then your poor conditions picking up.

Um, you know, you're in terms of your grassland condition, a lot of that's probably due to wildfire and some of those conversions there.

Um but what you also see is that poor condition grassland kind of shrinking back.

Um, to me, and what I am from my um what I do here at the agency, that's a that's a good thing.

That's a really positive thing.

You also notice over there on tree low and mid-cover and tree high cover.

Um, you'll see some kind of trading spaces.

And I think some of that has to do with um the conversion of low mid-cover to you know, denser tree stands, but then also um you might be able to explain some of that away with Pinion Junior per treatment.

Um, what does this all mean on the landscape?

This is that 40-year time uh shot that I mentioned earlier.

That lime green color is your good shrub component.

Um, and the red hash line is your winter annual component in the state of Nevada since 1986.

Again, this is your eco-state mapping products, and we just basically put it in a line um graph or a figure so that you it can be illustrated and seen just slightly different.

It definitely tells us inverse story of these two different um conditions on landscape or functional groups on landscape.

Um, obviously in the 1980s, far more shrub component than we have now, and how you see these peaks and valleys of each of these conditions kind of inversely related on the graph, they almost mirror one another.

Um this map here covers our, I'm sorry, this figure uh covers the second threat that we talk about in terms of pinion juniper uh encroachment on good shrub condition, and that dark green is your shrub component, and then that darker brown is going to be your pinion juniper um component on the landscape, and you also see the kind of this inverse relationship where these two are kind of separating, and you're seeing less good shrub component as depicted on those ecostate maps.

Um, what does this all mean for wildlife?

Well, we don't have we don't track a lot of species super well through time, but we have tracked mule deer pretty well, and so we're gonna use mule deer today.

This is the published estimate in the big game um status book.

Uh, that blue line is mule deer estimated populations, and that lime green line is going to be your good shrub component.

Again, you see these lines mirror one another.

I mean, they track one another almost maybe even better than precipitation in terms of muleers relationship to good shrub component.

And I think that's an important thing to note.

We talk about that all the time and how important that shrub component is for mule deer, and I think this figure really illustrates that well.

We mentioned earlier one of those threats, one of the primary threats to habitat condition is winter annuals.

And that red hash line is your cheek grass component on the landscape.

And you see how it's inching up, and um your good condition shrub is inching down.

Um why is that important?

It's important for shrub condition, but when you review the literature, more recent science will tell you that mule deer will avoid habitats with 20% or greater annual grass cover, which I think is an important thing to note.

We have a little bit of cheat grass in the state of Nevada, and um I think that's an important thing, and certainly impacting um milder herds.

Short-term weather patterns.

Um, it wasn't great this year.

This is our snow pack snapshot.

Uh, November 28th, working through March.

Um started off slow in the middle of the season, we were still slow.

And by March 28th, which is typically the peak for like Nevada Great Basin snowpack, um, we were at zero or real approaching zero most of our watersheds.

Um pretty impactful a lot.

I think what's important to note here is Great Basin plant uh communities have evolved for cold periods for seed germination, and also the timing of germination, and then also just how um the ecology of perennial plants do far better as they've evolved with you know typical Great Basin temperatures and precipitation and snowpack.

And so this definitely depicts a not a great year for um the state of Nevada.

How does that relate to our kind of 30-year snowpack, snow water equivalent?

Um, well, it's more not so good information or news.

That dashed line is your 30-year median from 91 to 2020, and then your blue line is this year.

You can see we're well below that.

Um, there's a couple of arrows in there pointing towards kind of key events this year.

February storms were starting to kind of kick back up.

We we thought maybe it gave us a little bit of hope.

Um, but then by March, we had record setting heat, and that whatever we did have, a lot of that snowpack just went away.

Um we approached or got to zero snowpack of most of our basins weeks before our peak usually hits.

Um, but that's not the whole story.

Um precipitation.

A lot of this precipitation it it it didn't uh it didn't snow, but in a lot of places it rained.

I live in Elco and January and February this year.

Again, we were getting rain.

And when you look at this, you see a lot of these basins getting 80 to well over 100% in terms of precipitation for the year.

Which is great.

It does some good things, but certainly not the same as snowpack.

And we'll see, I think in this next slide.

And things were looking up a little bit, but then April, we kind of slid right back to nearly where we were before.

What does it look for like in terms of outlook?

Not that good.

At least not through July 31st.

And this will play into our next series of slides when we talk about wildfire update for Nevada and the Great Basin.

So this presentation or this portion of the presentation was provided to us by Gina Palma.

She's a meteorologist with the Great Basin Coordination Center.

She gives this presentation to the Bureau of Land Management every year to kind of give their fire guys a sense of what's to come or what they can predict.

Her first slide kind of tells it all.

In the Great Basin, typically, though, our fire years are driven by fine fuel loading, right?

And so this is a little bit messy figure, but I'll just try to walk us all through it.

In those red boxes, you'll see there's really no color at all.

And then you'll see in between those boxes are those really dark red, orange, tan colors.

That's like an indicator of how much of the state is in a drought period or drought drought designation.

And so typically we don't see our great fire years or big fire years when we have drought condition.

We see our really bigger, much larger fire years in those red boxes when we're not in drought because we have better fine fuel loading, right?

And so how that works with this year, well, it's really messy.

Um temperature outlook and pre-sip in May, um, at least on the front end of the season, still remaining warm and dry towards the end of the year uh or end of the summer, things like things may pick up a little bit as per this forecast.

I think a lot of that prediction maybe has something to do with the El Nino cycle that we're heading into.

But in the northern portion of the state, um I believe that you know we're right on that line of where El Nino is impactful or isn't impactful.

And so who knows?

All bets are off.

We're kind of in a little bit of a who knows zone.

Um, in terms of actual fire prediction for this year, um, the front end of the season, fairly typical.

Uh, May and June, probably not looking like a lot of fire prediction or conditions that are suitable for a large-scale fires, but by July and August, we're sliding into what we're we kind of typically predict and probably have or on the lookout for more fires.

I talked to Gina on the phone and I asked her um and her expertise what this year, what she thought professionally this year could uh hold for us.

And um, we had a discussion about how precipitation and temperature um is probably more analogous to like 2015 snowpack.

Um, but what we didn't have on the front end of 2015 is like some really good average or above average years where we had dry residual standing, right?

We haven't had the snowpack to lay down cheat grass and even perennial grasses, even at like high elevations, and typically that dry residual standing is a lot is really that key feature that drives fires in the state of Nevada.

And so um being out in the field just a little bit, I can tell you it's super localized.

Some areas look like dead zones, and other areas um look like Ireland.

So the expert in the field said she didn't actually know what was gonna happen this year, so I certainly am not going to say I know as well.

Um I'm gonna land here on restoration accomplishments for the agency.

Uh, in the face of all this adverse adverse adversity, um, the agency stays pretty engaged in trying to improve things out of the landscape for wildlife and improve uh range condition in the state of Nevada overall.

So this last year um wasn't a huge fire year, but we were certainly engaged.

Um we treated over 150,000 acres, approximately 60,000 of those were for uh winter annual control, so pre-emergent herbicide, 90,000 acres of aerial seeding and a thousand acres of drill seeding.

Um as someone that now sits behind a desk uh quite a bit more than I used to.

I can tell you guys the field staff are really doing a great job.

This kind of um blew other records right out of the water.

Um wish I could say I'm more responsible for this than I am, but I am not.

The field staff are really rocking, and um, they're really showing it.

This uh figure kind of depicts how our agency um is engaged in wildfire rehabilitation um and the acres burned every year.

And you can see orange are the actual acres burn and purple or the acres treated.

When we don't have really big fire years, um we're breaking even or sometimes even treating more acres than burn, which is great because that gives us an opportunity to try to win some makers back.

Um but in those really big fire years, we have to triage out.

You can't treat everything, this finite amount of resources and time and capacity.

Um, not everything gets treated.

But to me, this is um encouraging that we are able to at least break even on those years where I would call fire years reasonable.

Um top of all that wildfire rehabilitation, we also treated an additional 50,000 acres of what we call proactive.

So these are old fires.

Um, these are pinion juniper treatments, these are um places where we don't have to be as reactive, but you can be a little bit more proactive and again kind of maybe gain some of that acreage back and those crucial wildlife habitats um that are really important to the state of Nevada.

And lastly, um we've also been pretty engaged in uh riparian restoration here.

This is in Ruby Valley, um, right next to the uh Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

And um we treated or have um fenced and restored approximately 34,000 acres or 30,000, 35,000 linear feet that acres is a typo um and protected about 123 acres overall in that program.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

All right, great.

Thank you for that report.

Any questions from the commission, comments?

Yeah, Commissioner Monk.

Check.

Can you hear nope?

Can you hear me?

Nope.

Yep.

Can't oh boy, there we go.

There you go.

All right.

Uh uh, thank you so much, Matt Glenn, for your uh presentation.

I think this is a uh great and a and a great end and my commendation to you and your team and the rest of Endow for the work that they're doing.

Um, if you wouldn't mind going back to that mule deer trend plus cheat grass slide, um that was a uh really astonishing and really helpful slide to look at how our mule deer populations have changed over time so uh closely with the the uh loss of shrublands, I should say.

Um uh and the sort of statewide estimates that you guys have done on those maps are really helpful.

Um I'm interested in having the department help us as commissioners understand and and uh caps understand better how these kinds of trends um are affecting populations at um the hunt unit scale and the management unit scale.

Now I know you guys have just done a lot of writing um and it's here in many ways.

Um, but I think that there's a real opportunity to help focus our conversation on what is very clearly a really important driver of wildlife um uh uh populations in this state.

Um, and you know, as we go into this next couple days and we're thinking about tag quotas and whatnot, which is another driver for population management.

I just want us to not miss the point here that this these wildlife concerns or these habitat concerns are overarching.

Um, and um I would I would ask you, and maybe not in this moment, but I'm asking you and the department to think about how we bring this information forward into some of these discussions so that we can have a meaningful conversation about how we address these at the scales that a lot of our uh public and a lot of our uh calves are thinking.

So that's my comment and sort of question for the long run.

Wonderful, good.

Thank you for that.

Anything else from the committee?

Yes, Commissioner Walter.

Thank you.

I just wanted to say, you know, in the in the face of so much adversity, it's awesome to see um you guys year after year um move that needle.

Um so I appreciate it.

Keep up the good fight.

I mean, it's maybe my opinion, but I think if we look at the data and on the ground, you guys are the best in the business.

So keep up the work.

All right.

Yes, Vice Chair Young.

Thank you, Chair Rogers.

Thank you, Mr.

Glenn, for the presentation.

Uh on this same slide or graph.

The looks like around 2018-ish was kind of the low on the good shrub, and then we had an uptick.

I'm assuming uh main factors are precipitation, lack of wildfire, habitat projects, any other factors that went into that.

I mean, obviously, a lot of bad news on these slides, unfortunately, but I will take a little good news that we hit a bottom and we came up from that.

What are the factors?

Yeah, so I think uh first off, thank you for the question, Commissioner Young, and also for the comment.

Uh Commissioner Munn.

I think both of your comments and questions probably are at play at here and um my response.

I think that um it's incredibly nuanced across the state.

Um, how different areas respond to fire and what we and what areas potentially also transition to winter annuals um and how you see peaks and valleys in both of these kind of uh vegetation classes.

And so um what's at play?

Um, you know, potentially wildfire, but other than also drought.

Um there is potential, some potential that the Nevada Department Wildlife and our federal counterparts are doing a good job, and we're restoring lands and kind of capturing some things back.

Um, you know, I I look at this and um this particular figure when I first input all this uh data and then you know, out came this figure.

I was actually quite surprised as well how tightly uh mule deer were tracking with this shrub component.

Um, but then also just that real inverse relationship with uh winter annuals.

And to tell you that I knew exactly what all the drivers were on every peak and valley of this graph, I I couldn't tell you that for certain.

Um, within certain resource areas, like uh Commissioner Munn referenced earlier.

I think we could talk about some of that nuance.

Um, but I think that uh it I don't know that I can really answer the drivers.

I'm gonna say um fire primarily when you see these big ups and downs.

Mark and fire.

Thank you, Commissioner Murray.

Thank you.

And then uh just one quick follow-up, and I apologize.

It's not in the PowerPoint presentation, but while we have you up there, how is the Cottonwood Peak restoration?

I know it's very early and just obviously very critical area that was burned last year.

And I know it's difficult with all the different weather patterns and and you can't predict the future, but do you believe some of that will come back into the Sage Bros deep habitat, or is it pretty just difficult to tell at this point too early?

Macwin for the record.

Um, you know, it is really difficult to tell right now.

We're sitting in the month of May.

It's hard to keep track of time sometimes.

Um this is early early to say right now.

I would I can say that.

Uh I can tell you that some of our treatments, specifically pre-emergent treatments have been successful, and you can see these in um almost immediate like improvements just for perennial grass species on the site.

Um, but I would also mention the realist in me is that we had a really poor winter.

Um and I don't want to be negative, but I don't know that I have real high hopes um in terms of just natural response.

Um we were think we seeded probably uh end our alone seeded over 20,000 acres on that fire.

Um and I don't know that we don't have to adaptively manage and go back and look at it again.

They're being realistic.

Um I think we have some tools in the toolbox.

I know that um our restoration staff and the federal, uh our federal counterparts are engaged, they're still talking about this.

We all recognize the importance of the area, and we're gonna keep working on it.

Um but I think for right now it's we're on pause and we're waiting to see exactly what happens out there, and then probably sometime midsummer we'll have a better sense of how we have to move forward.

All right.

Yes, Commissioner Keel.

You got me now.

Uh thanks, Chair Rogers, and thank you for the presentation.

Uh, Mr.

Glenn.

I know before you mentioned like Medusahead as you know one of your major threats across the state.

Can you give an update on that?

Or are we holding the line?

Um what's the status on that beast?

Commissioner Keel, thank you for um yet another really good question.

Um are we holding the line?

I think it's really difficult to say.

I would um because there are so many small infection infestations that kind of pop up that we only find out about um you know through the grapevine or just every once in a while, you know, we don't it's really hard to keep track exactly if we're all these small infestations of Medusa had potentially pop up across the landscape.

I would say on those um areas that we are known to us.

Um I think we are definitely turning the tide on those.

And then I would also say there are plans to implement the same sort of treatments on on a really large scale this upcoming year, um, both like on the sugar low fire and going back to like the quartifier um and these sites that are really important for wildlife and treating those within Dazoplan.

Um, I think it's important to note that we've we've had treatments from 2019, um, which is actually some time ago, that are still holding strong that we still don't see winter annuals coming back into, even surrounded by winter annuals.

And so it gives us some real hope um in terms of Medusa head control specifically.

Um yeah.

Hope that answers your question.

All right, perfect.

Good, good, good.

Anything else from the commission at this time.

All right, Chair.

Whoop, we're just hiding over there.

Yes, you hear me?

Yes, Deputy Director.

For the record, Deputy Director Caleb Mackie.

Um I I'm just sitting here thinking about the presentation that Matt just gave and the amount of info in here to really contemplate ahead of the discussions that you all are going to be having tomorrow.

Um there's a lot going on here, and I think we would be remiss if we didn't look into this graph a little bit further and think about obligate species, species that need sagebrush to survive, like sage grouse, like mule deer, right?

And that's what you're seeing here.

So this graph is showing Nevada's changing landscape and our species response to that change, right?

And so in contemplations of elk in this state, and that and the habitat that's available.

So mule deer are following that reduction in shrubland.

Meanwhile, species that can respond to grassland like elk have the opportunity to do just the opposite.

And so forget which commissioner mentioned cottonwood peak.

There's been a tremendous discussion around elk numbers in that area.

The irony is is that these forces here that are pushing against deer, those same forces are pushing towards elk.

And so that area that's been impacted is going to become elk habitat, at least in that early succession period.

So the next even if we get shrubs that germinate and start to grow for the next 10 to 15 years, that's going to be prime early succession habitat that benefits antelope and elk.

And I think we often start these conversations with the assumption that everybody realizes that.

And I don't think that that's necessarily the case.

And so again, this is this is statewide.

This is a statewide phenomenon.

And um, I think there's also a perception that maybe the department doesn't do enough for mule dare, but that 150,000 plus acre treatment that Matt mentioned, the vast majority of that is for mule deer.

Um, that's a big effort towards improving mule deer habitat.

So there's a lot going on here, and um, you know, much more to say, but we go back to Cottonwood Peak itself, the political pressures, the realities on the landscape against rehabilitate rehabilitating rangelands towards sagebrush that benefit mule deer.

That's happening, right?

So there's other forces that are working um kind of against some of that effort towards mule deer.

So just wanted to point that out.

Yeah, perfect.

Thank you for that.

Anything else from the commission given the presentation and comments?

Yes, Commissioner Munn.

Yeah, one more, and um I just want to go if we could go to the slide.

I'm not sure if it was before or after this, but uh that had the 10-year, the two, the two uh that one.

Yep.

Um Matt, I appreciate you giving a 10-year snapshot.

However, one of the things that that brought to mind was how much change do we expect to see in 10 years?

Um, you know, certainly conversion into grasslands or into annual species happens overnight.

Um or in a matter of days.

Um, but uh that successional change uh that we were talking about um, you know, from grasslands to shrublands, in your opinion, you know, how long does it take other than to going uh into that grassland state?

How long are you expecting it to take to go from one of these kind of classes to the next one?

Thank you for that question, Commissioner Munn, Mattword for the record.

Um I think having poured over this eco-state data, what I have noticed, Steve, when you go and you look at like single years or three-year snapshots, there's a tremendous amount of variability.

And so, you know, the lifespan of a mule deer or an elk is not that long.

Um, and so my think my intent um was to show how potentially that variability is looking in the last 10 years and how that's impacting wildlife populations right now.

Um and so, like I said, there's a lot of variability.

We use these time slices to normalize, and uh and I um this is a world you know a lot about um and so um really what that means is we're just using averages, so that it takes a lot of those peaks and valleys out of the eco-state data and kind of gives you a greater sense over like a three or five-year time uh timestamp.

Um, in terms of just using a 10-year, like I said, I'm trying to get away from just always looking at the 1980s.

Um, because we do that a lot, especially in the habitat division.

Um, and I think here just looking at the last 10 years kind of gives us what we're up against and potentially how our um you could also view how the agency and our federal partners working on a landscape are potentially also impacting these categories.

Sure.

And I completely understand it.

I don't I don't I don't think we're going back to the 80s, and from a fashion sense, I'm okay with that.

But um I do think it's important to note that you know, some of these transitions into desirable classes for mule deer take 15, 25 years.

Um, and so you know, it's just it's just important to note that that you know, these are slow, it it's very again very fast to go to annual grasses, it's very slow to come back.

And I think as we think about uh to deputy director MacAdoo's point, as we think about the management of these species, we need to keep both the fast moving forces and the slow moving forces kind of in mind.

Yeah, no, Mac going for the record.

Thank you again for that comment, Commissioner Munn.

I think that that's absolutely correct.

And I think that um all these categories are impacted by winter annual densities.

And when you look at um remote sense data like the rangeland analysis platform, even from one year to the next, you can see huge variability in winter annual densities, and that can impact these scores.

And I think um this was kind of a reality check for how that eco-state model works.

Um the variability that you can see from one year to the next, and there that was the intent.

But no, I appreciate the comments.

I think they're completely valid.

Yes, Director Jinet.

So there were there was a question brought up by Commissioner Munn relative to trying to get this information, this eco-state information out.

So this has been provided um to the Mule Deer enhancement teams um using that eco-state information, kind of that first map, um, the coloration to help those, you know, groups or sportsmen um folks on the ground think about how those changes are occurring and what what states, what condition of habitat is out there.

Um but yeah, it's probably something that could be refreshed.

Um again, it's been a bit um we could probably send out the latest and greatest um to to help with that.

Um because it is it's it's kind of bringing it down to the to sit here and look at it statewide.

Um it's it's you can't even contemplate how to fix it.

But when you can break it down to those smaller pieces, those smaller units, um, that's where this information really becomes helpful um in the strategies around it.

And that's literally what Matt Glenn and the Habitat team have been doing is trying to take it down to the, you know, from this down to a unit to down to a mountain range down to a basin.

Um and so it's I think the success that we've seen through the years.

Um, this has been a long and uh often fraught with failure um you know process.

And uh I think that we're actually seeing the tools and the technology and the knowledge base to where we're starting to see increased results um in our efforts, and uh it is a little bit nice to see maybe the bottom and maybe a rebound um to to start turning it around.

So appreciate the discussion.

Yes, Commissioner Mann.

Yeah, uh thank you, Director Janae.

And I just want to point out too that um there are groups in Nevada and around the West that are using these kinds of maps as really valuable um communication tools to do collaborative resource management planning in in partnership with communities, because they they do help us break down the information into sort of manageable buckets um that you can then plan management actions around.

And I just encourage the department to think about how we use these kinds of tools uh to director Janae's point at that more local scale in partnership with community and the cabs and whatnot to think about what the opportunities are in in a given place.

Because I do I do think that these synthesize a lot of complex data into something that you can kind at least mostly get your arms around pretty quickly.

I think they're pretty effective.

And so I just encourage the department to keep chipping away at it because I know it's hard.

All right, great.

Great discussion.

I appreciate that, Commissioner Munn.

Anything else from the commission at this time.

All right, seeing none.

Thank you very much for the presentation.

Yeah, great job.

All right.

So we are where are we at here?

It closes out 7E, and it looks now as if we were on or we are going now to agenda item number eight.

This is first reading commission policies for possible action.

This is 8A, Commission policy 24, hunting opportunities among weapons and hunting groups, game division administrator Sean Espinoza.

The commission will have a first reading of commission policy 24 and may take action to revise the policy and move to a second reading.

So, Mr.

Espinoza, good morning.

Uh good morning again, uh Chairman Rogers, members of the commission, game division administrator Sean Espinoza for the record.

Um, even though I'd rather discuss the last topic for the next hour, alas, we have some policy business to take care of here.

Um so that this was actually heard before the uh administrative policies and regulations and procedures committee um back in March, even though it's hard for me sometimes not to call it the AARP committee rather than the APRP committee.

Um, but uh let's see here.

There's really just five major changes that we have to talk about within this policy.

Um there's very minor editorial on page one, changing a one word from opportunity to opportunities on page one.

Uh if you go to uh pages five and six, page five at the bottom, it discusses some additional language for general rules.

Uh and the included language would be junior hunters will be limited to one junior tag.

And this is a junior antlered mule deer or junior horn shorter than ears antelope tag from the main draw.

A second draw junior tag may be obtained as an alternate uh through the second big game draw or through the first come first serve program.

And juniors can apply for five years before the age of 18.

So the order would be if they draw a mule deer, antler um junior tag, then they would be out of the main draw.

If they didn't draw that, then they would move into the junior horn shorter than ear category.

Um and then if neither one of those were drawn, then they could still be eligible for the second draw uh or first come first serve.

Uh next in the uh general rules category.

Uh for the there was a statement in there uh regarding the party hunt quota minimum.

Um we removed that language, and the language was for deer, antlerless elk, and horn shorter than ears, antelope hunts.

The minimum tag quota will be two to allow applicants who wish to apply as a party to apply and have a chance drawing those tags.

Uh over the years, we've noted that uh particularly in several of the uh harder to draw units.

Some of these quotas have been one in some cases, particularly for non-residents.

Um this really hasn't been adhered to for several years, and we oftentimes get the case where it doesn't really matter what we put as a quota, a party hunt will always come in that exceeds the number of tags that are available.

So uh we see that whether it's one, two, or three tags uh available for some of these units.

We'll get we'll get parties of four that apply for that.

Uh for specific rules uh by species on page six.

Um this addresses kind of a current situation that we find our ourselves in, and certainly we struggle with as a game division uh when coming up with quota recommendations for mule deer buck tags.

Um, and we request that we change this requirement um 30 bucks per 100 dough uh type objective to a 30 to 40 buck range per 100 dose.

So the language would now read uh determine the desired animal harvest for each unit group based on the pre-hunt population estimate and desired male to female ratio, uh typically 30 to 40 bucks per 100 dose.

And then we added this substatement that says when postseason surveys and or modeled estimates exceed or approaching the desired buck ratio range, the department will recommend elevated quotas to reduce the buck ratio to be within this range.

So it allows us quite a bit of flexibility to be within uh a range of buck ratios.

And then lastly, uh for specific rules by species uh for mule deer allocation of desired harvest by weapon group.

Um apportioning a desired harvest of 25% uh to junior hunters.

We have removed the following language.

Juniors can apply for five years before the age of 18.

We just covered that statement under the general rules uh prior to this statement.

So there's no longer a need for that statement there.

And then also on page eight for antelope, and this applies to the uh horn shorter than ears allocation as follow for junior hunters.

Uh we want to apportion the desired harvest of 50% to junior hunters for horn shorter than ears.

Uh, and then the junior horn shorter than ears hunt will be considered for the any legal weapon hunt category.

And that covers the main changes within the within policy 24.

So with that, I'll stand for any questions.

All right, thank you.

Yes, Vice Chair Young.

Thank you, Chair Rogers, and thank you, Mr.

Espinoza for the presentation.

Uh, a quick question on the junior tag limitations.

Uh on the second line it says it will be uh it says junior hunters will be limited to one junior tag from the main draw, and they draw the antler mule deer than the horn shorter.

Is it a concern that that's the main draw?

Obviously, we're not removing them from the main draw.

That's sheep, elk, and everything else.

We're removing from them from the junior draw.

Correct.

Yes.

Is you think it's necessary to clarify that or everyone comfortable with the main draw?

Um may ask Matt.

Mr.

Nobles.

Come on down.

Thank you for the question, Vice Chair Young.

Um, we're comfortable with the terminology of main draw, main draw encapsulates um all of the species, the regular or general ant or deer, as well as the junior as well.

It's all within the main draw.

So I think this would cover it.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you for that.

And yes, Commissioner Messna.

Thank you.

Uh quick question on the the uh the buck ratios.

It seems like in the past, since being a part of this board, it doesn't really matter how many bucks are being proposed to be left on the landscape.

The sportsmen tend to want more.

Is this kind of why we're extending that is to enable you guys to have a little more flexibility to incorporate what the sportsmen are requesting?

Uh thanks for the question, Commissioner Mesna, Sean Espinoza, Game Division Administrator for the record.

Yeah, it does give us that flexibility.

Um it it's presented and we'll talk about this quite a bit tomorrow, but we find ourselves oftentimes each year in this negative feedback loop uh with respect to buck ratios, because we'll come in with a quota oftentimes that is sort of built somewhat conservatively, and that number will oftentimes get cut for specific units.

Um we have we have the standard, we have non-standard, and we have alternative units.

And lo and behold, there will be some standard units uh across the state that get treated more like the alternative category, and that's where we try and manage for 35 bucks per 100 dose and try and manage for a little bit more quality animals in in the herd.

Uh, but it just seems like when those tag quotas are cut, then that number oftentimes becomes the new norm from which to develop next year's quota from.

And so people always want to go back to last year's quota.

But what they don't realize is that that is generating in and of itself a higher buck ratio over time.

So we stay uh oftentimes within last year's recommendation, and it drives it drives that buck ratio up.

And that's that negative feedback loop that we find ourselves in.

So we f figured why not be somewhere in the 30 to 40 range category.

But honestly, we already have some herds within the state that are already north of 40.

And so trying to get that back, I think, and strive for this, really strive for this, I think would not only be good for sportsmen, but I think it would be good for some of these mule deer herds as well.

Eventually we will find our play ourselves in a place if we continue down that some of these strategies, we'll be north of 50.

We might even be north of 60 bucks per hundred dose, and we'll be at the singles bar looking at each other, and there will only be guys standing in the singles bar.

Yes, commissioner.

Just to follow up on that question, by putting this on paper that we're bumping it up, you know, to 40.

Are you I guess my concern is that by putting it on paper, is it just gonna kick the can down the road to where we're like, well, it says 40 on paper now, so 45 isn't all that bad.

Like, are we just not having the right conversation to get it through folks' head about the singles bar?

Great question again, uh Sean Espinoza for the record.

I think we really need to begin to adhere to this.

Um otherwise we are going to find ourselves in that situation.

And we can certainly talk more about that tomorrow.

All right, anything else?

I had a uh couple of quick questions as well, Mr.

Espinoza, in uh in particular um on this under the mule deer under one A, that subsection A in reading some of that uh the language that's there in particular um you know, where we talk about modeled estimates exceed or are approaching and when it when it mentions uh approaching the desired range, I think it's it's a bit vague, and in my opinion, can be open to interpretation.

So I'm just curious what the uh what threshold within the department kind of defines approach in a daily practice.

Yeah, great question.

Thank you, Chairman Rogers, uh Sean Espinoza for the record.

So I think when we're in that 35 to 40 range, that's when we should begin making adjustments uh so that we don't get to where we're 38, 39, 40 and keeping it within, you know, sort of that mid-range of 35 would be ideal.

Um I think within some of the the standard units continuing to be somewhere in that 29 to 32 range, I think is appropriate.

Uh for the alternatives, I would say, you know, and we can you know talk about this in the future.

If there's uh another mouse trap that we want to employ to handle uh mule deer hunting in the future, then you know, we can certainly have those discussions.

But I think from an alternative standpoint, we want to stay within that 35-ish standpoint.

And then for the standard units, we want to be somewhere in that 29 to 32 range.

But um, you know, these these quotas oftentimes get pushed down, and so we're having to live with that.

And then I think we need to it would behoove ourselves to be when we get to that 37, 38, 39, we need to really recommend those increased quotas to be able to handle that.

Okay, thank you.

Um one other question, I guess that I had also getting a little more granular along those lines, and that is as an example in particular uh like an area 22 as it relates to this language.

So in an area 22 that that hasn't had uh I noticed hadn't had a survey in the last two years.

And with the lack of a statewide mule management plan, I'm just curious what safeguards are in place to prevent any over reliance by model estimates.

Yeah, good question, Chairman Rogers again, Sean Espinoza for the record.

I I think you know, our safeguards really are where we look at harvest data.

And if we see metrics within the harvest data that are falling well below that average success rate, and where we're seeing four-pointer better class falling well below the statewide average, I think that kicks us into a mode where we're we're thinking to ourselves, uh, you know, something extra needs to be done here.

And certainly we look at all those data very closely.

The other issue with 22 and that we found here not long ago with the the coloring effort is a lot of those animals are not spending their entire life cycle in area 22.

They're moving into 23, they're moving all the way into Area 11.

Some of them are moving into Area 13.

So I think we need to get a better handle on that as well.

So that's I think some of the things that we have to figure out uh over the next couple of years here.

But the harvest metrics really are something that provide that safeguard for us to know that something could be wrong.

If we see uh success rates that fall below, you know, 35% and four-pointer better that fall below 30 percent for area 22, we know there's a there's an issue there.

All right.

The the last question that I had real quick, and that is, you know, when I read through um the policy and the information here and kind of peruse through the other species as well, elk and antelope and different things.

I noticed that there was not any similar language in it uh for any of those other species.

Just curious um why there wasn't any or why there isn't consideration for those type of ratio numbers for other species.

I think we felt comfortable with where we were at with the other species, but just knowing uh where we were at with mule deer um and and knowing that some of these changes are are necessary.

Uh the other thing is that we knew we had to do something to address the situation with June junior horn shorter than your analog, because that was not addressed previously.

So we've got these other things sort of built in and we feel pretty comfortable with them.

All right, perfect.

Thank you.

Yes, Deputy Director Scott.

Uh yeah, Mike Scott for the record.

So I think it's important to recognize that the 30 to 40 is post season.

We're starting a lot of these at the beginning of the season, a lot of these herds, these units are probably approaching 60 bucks per hundred dose.

Um, and so as they're removed through through hunting, that's where we end up at the end of the season.

And I I think a lot of people uh don't recognize that if we're managing for 30, that's at the end of the season, it's not at the beginning.

So while they're hunting, the the buck ratios are a lot higher than where we end up at the end.

Right.

Any other qu yes, Commissioner Cavilia?

Yes, Commissioner Cavilia.

Thank you, Chair.

I got a couple.

One's just a comment for the commission, you know, on the on the 50% of the appropriation of the horn shorter than year tags at 50%.

I mean, I think last year we put it at 75%.

I know the department provided some data on, you know, applicants and uh the total junior applicants we had last year.

But um me personally, I wouldn't, I could see even bumping that to like 60%.

I I wouldn't have a problem given juniors even if even if it gave the opportunity for a junior to draw, you know, in the in the second round, uh second tag, you know, on the first come first serve, I wouldn't have a problem at all giving more tags to juniors.

Just a thought for the commission.

I don't know where everybody else is at.

And then um back to the mule deer.

I do have you know, Sean, we're talking about like the standard alternative and non-standard, and when you, you know, you were you were just kind of given some of the ratios, like on standard, you were, you know, 29 to 32, and then alternative, the higher numbers.

I'm curious, I'm curious if within this language we need to define that, you know, standard.

This is our these are our this is our target threshold, you know, alternative, this is our target threshold, um, non-standard.

If we need to get that granular on that, you know, define it.

What are what are what are we gonna look?

What are we what is the target on the different classifications?

Um just thought.

And then the the last item I've got, and I've kind of chewed on it since the since the uh APR keep committee when we had this first discussion.

The question came up about a Mule Deer management plan.

And I've been up here eight years, and shame on me for not knowing it either.

We don't have a Mule Deer Management Plan.

And I don't understand, I guess for me, I don't understand how we don't.

You know, we we put so much effort into Mule Deer, all the habitat projects for Mule Deer.

I mean, it's probably out of all our all our ongulates that we hunt, it's probably the one of most concern in all reality.

And I just I don't know why we don't have a mule deer management plan.

I and I didn't know we did it.

I'm to be honest with you.

And I've talked to a handful of other people that are in the same boat.

And I don't know why we don't have one, you know.

In my mind, it's it's such a critical species.

And I know that's like a gigantic lift for the department.

I completely understand that, but we don't have one.

So yeah.

Go ahead, Mike.

Yes, Deputy Director Scott.

Thanks for the question.

Mike Scott for the record.

So with respect to um the standard, non-standard and alternative, that's in our our guidelines.

Um, we have a guidelines document that we presented to you a number of years ago, five years ago.

Um, it probably needs to be updated.

And I think we've already started conversations about updating those guidelines.

And when they are updated, we can present those to you as well.

Um there's a number of things that have changed.

Um basically when the document is complete, it's it's almost obsolete.

Um and and so just because things change constantly.

Um so uh the the game division will probably start updating that document at some point and then present that to you, and we can provide the the specific information on those those um hunt strategies, if you will.

Um with respect to a mule deer plan, um when I was in Sean's position, we started the Mule Deer Enhancement program.

And the one thing that um I let me let me back up a little bit.

We did start creating the mule deer plan back in I think it was I don't know, 2007, 2008, somewhere in there.

And um there was changes in personnel, and it it just it it kind of fell off our our our radar.

Um so when I was in in uh Mr.

Espinoza's position, we started the Mule Deer enhancement program.

And the reason that we didn't create a plan was that we didn't want to have an obsolete plan that sat on the shelf, and then you know, we would have to update every every X number of years.

So we do have the guidelines, we do have the Mule Dur enhancement program, and the idea was that we would use the the counties and and local sportsmen, our biologists and you know, commissioners to create that that that program instead of having a specific mule deer plan.

Um if the if the the desire is uh from the commission is to have a mule dare management plan, we can certainly do that.

But uh please understand that it's the same people that are trying to write the the Bitcoin sheep management plan and the elk plan and um the capacity to do that is gonna be a challenge.

So um it it's it's it's a priority, but if it's your priority, you can certainly direct us to to write that, but it's gonna be it's gonna take up a lot of capacity of staff time in order to actually write that plan and have a uh a comprehensive document that we can that we can point to.

All right, thank you for that.

Anything else from the commission?

Yeah, Commissioner Gavillian.

Yeah, I mean I don't know where everybody else is.

It just it it was just surprising to me.

I know other states have them.

Um we we put so much effort into Mule Deer.

Um I was just I I didn't know we didn't have one.

Yeah.

And a lot of people, I think I've talked to a lot of people, they don't understand that either.

And um, I mean, in my mind, and I like I said, I understand it's a giant lift, but um it might be something at some point that needs some deep consideration, in my opinion.

Yes, bear with me one second, Mr.

Espinoza.

Did you have yeah, I do.

Um thank you, Chairman Rogers for the recognition.

Uh once again, um Sean Espinoza game division administrator for the record.

So that's not to say that there isn't copious amounts of information that has been developed on behalf of Mule Deer.

We have the Mule Deer bulletin, we have several outputs from that that are available.

Um there are several, I guess you could say action items that despite the fact that there isn't a mule deer management plan in place, there are several action items from a habitat standpoint and from a crossing standpoint that have been conducted mainly on behalf of mule deer that probably exceed anything that would have been concocted with a management plan.

And I'm referring to some of the crossings on I 80 and 93.

Those were huge accomplishments for the Area 7 deer herd.

Um, and and those discussions continue in in other realms, um, not to mention the the habitat work that's going on on behalf of trying to uh uh arrest the loss of uh the sagebrush ecosystem that we we see on the landscape.

A lot of these things are even handled through Greater Sage Grouse conservation planning efforts.

I I would recommend um and my time in front of this commission is getting shorter, and I would recommend that if we were serious about this, that we would hire a coordinator to develop this plan and walk it through.

I think that that would help facilitate the process.

Um not quite sure where that funding would come from, but perhaps it could be something that would be a nice heritage project in the future.

But I really think that some something like that would be necessary so that it could be achieved in a more efficient manner.

All right.

Thank you for that.

Bear with me.

Uh Commissioner Walther, did you have something?

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Yes, sir.

Um Commissioner Cavigli, I'm uh happy you bring up those points.

I think um it's a great discussion for this commission to have um and whatever approach we decide upon, whether it's the full development of a mule deer management plan or kind of revamping or uh moving forward with the mule deer enhancement committee.

Um I like to have a larger discussion surrounding that.

I do think it's an important discussion to have.

I've heard various things from members that participated in the enhancement committee.

Um, so perhaps you know, at a future meeting, we can dive deeper into the potential approaches status on the enhancement committee um so that we can really wrap our brains around um what the most appropriate direction is to take this in.

But I think it's it's an important conversation that that we should have.

And that's not to your point, um, minimize any of the efforts that are ongoing and and have occurred throughout the process.

But um I I'd like to see that come up to this body and and have a more detailed bigger discussion surrounding where are we gonna take this um to Commissioner Caviglia's point, um, not to get too off topic, but obviously if there's a flavor to add more junior tags, everybody knows where I stand on that, so I'd be in support if there's a flavor on the body.

All right, thank you for those comments.

Commissioner Bourne, did you still yes?

Uh Commissioner Walters just spoke exactly what I was thinking about the Mule Deer enhancement plan and the need for at the very least a resurrection of that of that program, sorry, not plan, um, in lieu of possibilities of a mule deer uh plan.

So if we could at least get the mule dear enhancement program back on its feet and at least see where people around the state feel what their feeling is of a mule deer plan, I would be in favor of that for sure.

Yes, Deputy Director Scott.

Uh Mike Scott for the record.

One other thing um with respect to the wording in um under the mule deer in A and your comment about um, I guess the the vagueness of or are approaching.

Um we could simply remove or are approaching uh the desired buck ratio.

We could just remove that portion of it and um maybe that would provide some clarity.

Yeah, thank you for that.

Um so yeah, given that uh you know, I yes, Commissioner Cavillian.

Did you yeah, please?

Sorry, Chair.

No, I did have one last question, um, or maybe uh uh request, Mike.

It you know, and the mule deer plan, you just you referenced like the I might not have the document name right, but like the management objectives and that you reference we haven't looked at it in a while.

Maybe that's something in the in the short term here, relatively soon, you know, maybe even before next May.

Maybe that's a document.

Maybe we could request that the commission gets to take a look at before next year.

Because I think you said it's been a while since since we've looked at it.

Just a request.

Uh Mike Scott, for the record, we can we can send that to you uh this afternoon.

I think did you mention those it was it might have been outdated that we haven't had a like a formal review of it in a while or yeah, Mike Scott for the record.

It's it's I think it's it's been four years.

I think it was January of 2022 when we finalized it and presented it to you.

There were some things in there that that are different than than how we're actually managing now.

Um, but we just haven't updated that document.

So we can we can provide that to you so you can have uh get a look at it and and uh we'll we'll go from there because it does need to be updated.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, Commissioner Munk.

Uh I wouldn't let want to go to the discussion of the language on page six.

Um that was just offered a clarification.

I would I would suggest maybe when postseason surveys andor model estimates exceed or are approaching the limits of the desired buck ratio range, because I think what I heard Sean say is that actually when we're at the north end of that 35 to 40 is when we really ought to be um managing back towards 30 to 35.

Um, we're giving ourselves a little room.

Um, but I I just I wouldn't I wouldn't necessarily want to limit us to managing buck quotas to 30 to 40, and we're not decreasing, we're not increasing those uh buck ratios, excuse me.

Um give ourselves this the the opportunity to manage within that 35 to 40 range at the north end.

So again, uh my suggestion is approaching the limits of the desired buck ratio range is what what sort of triggers action.

Does that make sense?

Open to discussion, obviously.

All right.

Any items from the commission discussion on that.

All right.

A lot of good dialogue.

Maybe uh Commissioner Bourne, did you have yes?

Um I guess my comment would be are me are we premature going ahead with anything in section one until we have review of the big game management objectives.

Could we just hold off on anything to do with buck to dough ratios?

Good point.

All right, yes, Commissioner Messna.

Thank you, Chair.

I I think that's what my comments started out at the beginning as to whether or not we really wanted to even pursue this right now, as Mr.

Born just elaborated.

It's it's kind of a step in a direction, and I'm not sure we're ready to go, or that it will be interpreted that by the general public that we can have more bucks on the landscape in a any sort of a meaningful fashion.

So thank you for that.

Yes, Vice Chair Young.

Thank you, Chair Rogers.

Figured I'd jump in here and give my comments.

So I'm good with everything that was presented from Chief Espinoza.

Uh I am of the mindset of as to one A on the middle there, we've got a lot of things going on.

We've got the guidelines, we've got policy 24, we've got conversation around meal deer management plan.

I'm probably comfortable with putting a pause on that right now, and kind of gathering everything together at once.

Um, and then I do support Commissioner Cavillas and Commissioner Walter's 60% on the junior hunters on horn shorter than years on airlope.

All right.

Commissioner Munn, did you uh just a process question?

This this is obviously the first reading of this policy change, so it is not you know going into effect at this time.

It doesn't affect how you guys have necessarily set your quotas for this particular year, and therefore it was it's really a change that affects next year's kind of uh activities if and helps guide us for next year.

Am I correct in that?

Uh thank you for the question and great point because it has.

And so we've built this basically for the horn shorter than ears, it is a 50-50 split currently, so it will affect tomorrow's quotas that you see, and we'll have to account for that.

All right, anything else?

Yes, Commissioner Cavillia.

One last comment.

And I guess we the other killer is we this is just a workshop.

We don't have to do the 60 tomorrow if the commission doesn't elect to, but this could be for future direction, right?

So we we could stick with the 50 for this year, but just going forward.

Um I mean, for me, right now, this is just a workshop.

I don't necessarily have a problem leaving the the big uh page six portion in for now because it's a workshop, it's still up for um conversation at future commission meetings.

You know, we could leave it standing, we could review the big game management objectives, it could be workshopped at the next commission meeting.

You know, who's to say when we actually have to adopt it?

So um those are just kind of my thoughts.

All right, thank you for that.

Anything else from the commission?

Any other thoughts?

All right, this has been good discussion, good dialogue.

I am uh curious to hear from the public.

So uh we'll hear from the public and then bring it back to the commission.

So given that, any public comment here in Reno today.

Again, this is agenda item eight a bell building, Washoe County, member of the public.

Um we got this last year, mentioned you guys two years ago on the horn shorter deers for Attelope for juniors.

Um I appreciate Matt Maples, Mr.

Maple spending the time with me that we've spent talking on this.

Um we all do things with our neighbors.

Um, we learn from our neighbors.

We go play football with the neighbors when we're young.

Um, baseball, I don't care whether it's riding bulls and bareback horses.

Um, my dad was a turtle, and I never got into it until I was in high school.

Turtle was the guy before the RCA, just so you know, okay.

Um but my point here is we're assured, or I you know he's pretty sure that we have enough tags.

Um, I haven't talked to anyone that that was on this front that didn't have a great time with their kids.

I wouldn't like to see if we don't have to put a percentage in there, I'd rather not see it in there.

If we have anything, then maybe up to 75 percent.

Leave it to your discretion again, like you did last year.

I don't know if 60 percent is gonna be enough.

I don't know if 50 is gonna be enough.

We have a few tags left over.

You're right, they're gonna take them.

So um, I'm hoping that this turns the some of the trend around of these young kids, 12-year-olds not applying.

But if they're hearing the buddy that's throwing the football to them, hey, you know, one antelope on last year, you should try it.

You know, I I think we should have that opportunity there.

That's why I like to see it say up 75%.

On the deer, um myself personally, I don't think 30 to 40 is high enough.

Um you're gonna hear about it tomorrow for sure.

But um something in this plan, I've never heard about utilization.

Never I've heard some guys saying, hey, the elk are doing this, the elk are doing that.

But the only guy that I I respect him, he's a professor at the University of Nevada, scientist.

And he tells me about utilization in in northern Washoe.

He's there four days, three, four days a week.

That's the only guy I've ever heard.

I I think it's important to know what that utilization is.

What are the what what are these antelope eating?

What are these mule deer eating?

How much are they how much of the how much of the available grub are they getting?

Um another thing that really concerns a lot of us, and we talk about it all the time are these low samples that we have.

I'm done.

So the low samples.

Well, we say we have a population of 400, but we only see 60.

I don't know what the margin of you know it is.

Thank you.

For the record, Mike Reese from Lincoln County.

So as a human behavior, we think differently when we have a thousand dollars in our pocket versus a hundred dollars in our pocket.

Our spending habits are different.

As I'm hearing the discussion going on about how are we managing our deer, let's not forget we've had 240,000 deer in our state before.

We've had down to 60, 70,000.

I think it should be implemented in a phase of if you if we have more than 80,000 deer, we should manage it like this.

If we have 130,000 deer, we should manage it like this.

I think that needs to be taken into consideration.

And because when we had 240,000 deer, we didn't have the elk that we had.

That's a contributing factor.

So I think all of this, I I applaud you guys wanting to have a further discussion on this, but I'm I guess what I'm really asking for you is let's look at the big picture and and and look at all of this stuff and take some of these considerations in.

I would love to have seen a map up there of our habitat, but I'd also like to see our migration corridor overlaid on top of that.

So that we know, you know, we got 50,000 acres, we rehabitated.

That's great.

That is awesome.

But when we have as low a numbers as mule deer we have right now, it's sad to say that we damn near have more horses than we have mule deer in the state of Nevada.

We're in a sad state of affairs right now.

So I'm saying let's have an in-depth, in-depth conversation on how we're gonna manage our mule deer, because now we have horses to contend with and we have elk to contend with.

Okay, it didn't used to always be that way.

So we need to take some of that stuff into consideration.

So I thank you for your time and your efforts.

Thank you.

Any other public comment here in Reno.

All right, see none.

How about any public comment via Zoom?

All right, seeing no.

Whoop.

Yes.

Yes, for those of you that are participating via Zoom today.

If you do wish to make public comment, if you could please make sure you raise your hand in the chat.

And uh again, when called upon, if you could please state your name for the record.

Uh Brent Pollock for the record.

So I agree fully with the two gentlemen that spoke previously.

You know, Mel's a very sharp guy, and I align with pretty much everything he has to say at any given time.

One comment I wanted to make was on the limiting the juniors to one junior tag only.

To the general public, that has been pretty vague the way it's been worded.

When I initially heard it, I was upset about it because the way it read to me was that they only get one junior tag, and then that was it.

That's just kind of the way that it was sounded and received.

After learning that it's only one of the junior tag categories being orange shorter antelope and deer, but they're still eligible for cow elk, bull elk, then I could 100% fully support it.

But I think there could be a little bit of verbiage in there to just make that super crystal clear.

Thanks for your time.

Thank you.

All right.

Looks like there's no additional public comment.

So I'll bring it back to the commission.

Um as far as myself uh as it relates to policy 24 in this and this discussion, um, kind of where I'm at with uh with these various items as far as the junior tag limitations.

I'm I'm good with that, and the opportunity to potentially increase uh the number of of junior tags.

I know it's currently at 50, but it's thrown out 60 or maybe even higher.

It certainly would be excuse me, supportive of that uh as well.

What whatever the commission would like to do there.

As far as the uh uh the mule deer uh piece, I am not supportive of that language at all whatsoever.

I think uh it's been talked about a pause or you know, potentially striking that language.

I I would be supportive of of either one of those, maybe tapping the brakes a little bit and having some further discussion, but not supportive of that uh as it's written.

And as it relates to that, in terms of the I'll just add my two cents on the uh not having a statewide mule deer management plan.

I know there's a bunch of different guidelines and a bunch of work that's gone in, but to really Commissioner Cavilia's point, there is uh, you know, so many eyes on the mule deer and so many factors that are going into the management of our meal deer, and to think that that we don't have in today's environment uh a specific plan in place that you know we've gotten groups together and everybody's agree on top on what the goal is, what the objective is and how we want to manage our mule deer, uh I think it's absolutely imperative.

So we will, I think, as a commission look to discuss that in future meetings and and figure out how uh we make that happen.

So that's where I'm at.

Anything else from yeah, Vice Chair Young.

If you sure all right, if there's no further discussion, I'm gonna go ahead and stab it a motion.

All right, I'm gonna move to the agenda item.

It's this I did have one jump thing real quick.

I apologize.

Uh one quick question, Mr.

Espinoza, and that is on the comment or question from Commissioner Munn about the the um uh the antelope and those numbers factored into tomorrow's discussion uh on the assumption or excuse me with that 50 50 percent.

Was there also some baked-in stuff for tomorrow around policy 24 with this language as well in terms of quotas.

So thanks for the question.

So it would only be with respect to the junior horn shorter than ear tag allocation and then the allocation for the adult side for horn shorter than ears.

So that's split 50-50.

I you know, tomorrow, if you want to make that recommendation to change it to a 60 to 40, that would be up to you tomorrow, but we would have to make those changes kind of on the fly.

Yep.

Thank you.

Yeah, Vice Chair Young, sorry about that.

All right.

There's no further comments or discussion.

I'm gonna move to second reading, uh, agenda item 8A, Commission Policy 24, hunting opportunities among weapons and hunter groups.

I'm gonna move forward the junior tag limitation limitations as presented, uh, the party hunt quota minimum as presented.

We're going to pause uh Mule Deer 1A, and I believe there's uh an appetite for discussion among that at a future meeting, along with the guidelines along with the Mule Deer Management Plan.

Kind of three things, potential discussion maybe for the June agenda.

Uh we're gonna strike 3A C or sorry, 3C.

And then on page eight under Horn Shorter, we're gonna move that up to 60 percent for the junior hunters for horn shorter.

However, with uh Chief Estimos and staff specialist Cody Shorter already busy enough, not for tomorrow.

This will be for future meeting.

All right, perfect.

So we have a motion on the floor from Vice Chair Young.

We have a second from Commissioner Walther.

All those in favor with aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right, that carries.

Thank you very much for that.

All right.

We have been going now for a couple of hours and a lot of good discussion.

So let's go ahead and take a break, give ourselves an opportunity to stretch our legs a little bit.

So let's go ahead and it is it is uh what 1040 right now.

So let's go ahead and it is uh what ten forty right now, maybe come back here at ten fifty five.

So we will stand in research.

All right.

Commissioner Walther.

Oh, there it is.

All right.

Miss Linda, we're all good.

All right.

So we will press on.

We were now on to agenda item nine A.

This is second reading commission policies for possible action.

This is nine A again, Commission policy one, general guidelines for the Commission.

Management analyst Alejandra Medina.

Good morning.

Starting with commission policy one.

So I'm going to turn it back to you, and I am looking for a motion to adopt the policy.

All right, right to the point.

All righty.

Thank you.

How about any discussion from the commission?

Any questions, concern again this second reading.

Of course, we heard what Alejandro wants, so none at this time.

Let's go ahead and maybe have some public comment on this.

So is there any public comment here in Reno today on 9A, Commission policy one?

All right, seeing none.

How about any public comment via Zoom?

All right, seeing none, we will bring it back to the commission for any further discussion, comments, motion, anything.

Yes, Commissioner Cavillia.

Thank you, Chair.

Yeah, if there's no further discussion, I'll make a motion to adopt commission policy number one as presented.

All right.

So we have a motion from uh Commissioner Cavilia, second from Commissioner Walther.

All those in favor with aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

Motion carries.

All right.

We are now on agenda item 9B.

This is Commission policy four, petition process and adoption of regulation.

Management analyst Alejandra Medina, the commission will have a second reading of commission policy four and may take action to adopt the policy.

Thank you again.

At the previous meeting, we discussed expanding the petition presentation language to include virtual attendance.

So if you guys go to page three, I've updated the language at your request, and that now reads the petitioner must attend the commission meeting to present their agendized petition and any support material either virtually or physically.

Petitioner should note that the commission strongly encourages physical attendance.

Requests to reconsider regulations amended within the past five years or petitions denied within the past five years are generally disfavored, absent compelling new information.

Withdrawal of an agendized petition does not affect the commission's discretion.

The commission may still hear a properly agendized issue and may deny future similar petitions, regardless of whether an agendized petition is withdrawn.

And then the last thing I'd like to point out on page two while reading the Lincoln CAB action notes.

And the rest remains the same.

And with that, I will give it back to the commission.

Okay, thank you for that.

Any questions at all from the yes, Commissioner Gavilia?

Thank you, Chair.

And then just reading through this, I did I caught one typo that I think we should just clarify on page three.

The sections it's CABs and CAVs and public input on the third sense.

It says C A B W M S versus MW.

It's a minor deal.

I just caught my eye when I was reading through it again.

Thank you.

Anything else from the commission.

All right, seeing none.

Let's go ahead and send this out then for any public comment.

How about any public comment here in Reno on agenda item 9B?

Mike Reeks from Lincoln County.

Uh yes, we did catch that NRS.

We we did look at this pretty close.

I know there's some legal minds on the commission.

Uh one of the questions that I had there was I believe it's the intent that when a petitioner comes up to petition, whether and we spent time to deliberate it, whether we take a vote on it or not, that should be counted as introduced.

And that should start to shock clock for the five years.

In our interpretation, I don't know if the wording in here will cover that or not.

But the other thing that concerned us is it should be the topic.

It runs a five-year, not the person or the organization.

In other words, spending you guys' time discussing some of the stuff we've done in the past.

If somebody comes and introduces a petition on a certain subject, that subject should not be entertained by the commission again in the next five years.

Just our just our opinion of it.

And I don't know if the wording inside that would cover that or not.

I would ask some of our legal minds on the commission to look at that.

I hope that that's the intent of doing that, because we are trying to put a stop gap of having everybody, you know.

I I could present one petition and I get denied six months later.

Somebody says, Well, I'm gonna go do it on the same thing, but I have new evidence of a magazine article, a newspaper article, whatever.

I just think that it should be, or we think it should be the topic that starts the shot clock, not the person or organization.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Any other public comment here in Reno.

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.

I may um based on uh that comment, uh Dag Yen, I'd be curious if you had any uh thoughts or opinions around.

Deputy N for the record.

I don't think so.

Maybe tap it and Deputy N for the record is a senior.

Yes, I worked with Alejandra on this uh language and we uh took into consideration that concern, and we did phrase the language to uh give we wanted the commission to have discretion to be able to consider something within five years uh if new information had come up.

And so we we very carefully crafted that to be able to accommodate that while at the same time.

I think the last sentence was introduced in there uh to give the commission discretion to deny something within five years.

Is that what I recall?

Is that correct?

Right.

Yeah, it was quite a few weeks ago, but I think that we specifically took the public comment uh into consideration at that time we were drafting that language.

All right, perfect.

All right.

Yeah, I I see that in there, that last sentence there there that may deny future similar petitions, regardless of whether an agendized petition was withdrawn.

So okay, good.

Thank you for that.

Anything else from the commission?

Any other questions, comments?

Motion, anything on uh that item?

Yep, Commissioner Cavilla.

Thank you, Chair.

And with that, I will go, I'll make the motion to adopt um commission policy number four as presented with the one just noted typo correction on page three.

And as well as oh, and I'm sorry, and on page two, the correction on that reference interest.

All right, perfect.

All right, so we have a motion from Commissioner Cavillia.

Uh a second from Commissioner Keel.

All those in favor with aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

That motion carries.

We are now on to 9C, and that is Commission Policy 51.

This is Wayne E.

Kirch, Nevada Wildlife Conservation Award Management Analyst Alejandra Medina.

The commission will have a second reading of commission policy 51 and may take action to adopt the policy.

Thank you again.

Alejandra Medina Management Analyst for the record.

Um, this one's easy as well.

At the previous meeting, there was no concerns.

I don't have any further updates on this policy.

So I am looking for a motion to adopt, and I will pass it back to you for consideration.

All right.

Thank you for that.

Any comments, questions, concerns?

Anything from the commission on policy 51.

All right.

Seeing none, we will send this out, maybe for public comment here in Reno.

So any public comment here in Reno regarding Commission policy 51.

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

All right.

We'll bring it back to the commission for any further comments, discussion, motion.

Yes, Commissioner Keel.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

With that, um, I'll go ahead and move to adopt commission policy 51 as presented.

All right.

We have a motion from Commissioner Keel.

We have a second from Commissioner Bourne.

All those in favor with aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

That motion carries.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Okay.

We will close out agenda uh item number nine, ABNC, and we're now we will move on to agenda item number 10, and this is draft fiscal year 2027 predator management plan.

Wildlife staff specialist Joe Bennett, this is for possible action.

The commission will review the final draft of the fiscal year 2027 draft predator or excuse me, predation management plan with the department.

The commission may take action to modify or approve the plan.

Mr.

Bennett.

Yeah, good morning, Chair.

I have a short presentation for you today since this is the third iteration of the plan, um, the FY2027 plan.

So um I I want to mention again that uh in the legislative session 2023, Assembly Bill 70 did alter what pot of money you can choose for your three dollar fee.

So these six projects are discussing the lethal portion of the fee.

But I'd be remiss to mention that there are other pots of money that I'm pursuing, such as heritage, which we discussed yesterday evening, where I put where I put in a submittal or proposal to do a mountain line genetic tissue analysis to analyze the genetic health of our mountain line statewide.

There's also been multiple research projects and our upland game bird staff programs a ton of research on sage grouse and raven interactions.

So a lot of these areas where we're conducting this work, there's a lot of data that's um inputted into those decisions.

And in addition, I work closely with our other big game staff specialists where we utilize collar data, um, fond recruitment from survival data, and also um work with the biologists.

Um the six projects, project 21, um, that's greater sagegrouse protection through common raven removal.

Um, that project is going down from 145 to 40,000, but is being supplemented by Upland Game Bird stamp funds, as I mentioned in the first um iteration of this plan.

So that total budget will be about 100,000.

And what we found from this year, and I'll get into the realized savings on the next slide, is that 100,000 should be adequate to cover the raven removal needs.

And I would also be remiss to mention a lot of our biologists this year have been putting out corbisite eggs.

This is the first year we've implemented that strategy, and I want to thank them for their efforts because a lot of that funding we can charge through our upland game bird stamp, or not stamp, but our upland game bird program or our sage grouse program.

Project 37, big game protection mountain lions, you remember that's an increase of about 100,000.

I would also would like to mention that this year I did receive about a hundred thousand in NGO funds to supplement some of the augmentation and release work that we did.

And um there are still some of those funds available that I'm gonna be able to use into FY27 for some of the pre and post treatment that we'll discuss in the release plan coming up at a later agenda item.

So between project 37 and those realized NGO funds, we uh should have that covered and that'll be discussed at a later time.

Project 38, um game protection coyote removal, um, that's statewide.

And what we found this year, and we've been doing it completely via fixed wing, which is about a third of the cost of helicopter work.

So you'll see that in the um when I report in November that I won't be um utilizing all those funds.

I'll be utilizing about 50 percent.

Keep in mind as we change here and as we realize some of these efficiencies that will uh determine that we can make that dollar go farther, and also it does allow me to get to my reserve a little quicker, which I'll mention on the next slide.

And then project 40 area 13.

Um, Commissioner Bourne would appreciate that.

We did expend those full funds on mountain lion and coyote removal um or will by the end of the fiscal year.

Project 43's mesopred work for the protection of turkeys, waterfowl, and other species, and that 30,000 is a 10,000 reduction, but that's in line with what we've spent about the last 10 years on average.

And then project 47.

I try to use project 47, 37, 40, kind of in conjunction with one another, not as like very distinct projects because there's a lot of different boxes that could check be checked under each of these projects.

So I I utilize them all together, but obviously this is for the protection of meal deer, but that's not to say project 37 won't cover some of our mule deer work as well.

And then so the total proposed budget is 614,000 of the 722,000 and some change that was um obtained from the 2025 draw cycle.

So this next slide, I pared it down from what I presented in the previous meetings because I understand it could be a little confusing with the columns, but really where I want you to focus is last year's plan on that second column in the FY 2026 projected.

The plan budget was 634,000 with those NGO funds, with those Upland Game Bird stamp funds.

Um I'm really gonna only spend about 534,000 this year with some of those realized savings, which the benefit to that is the ending balance instead of being 486 is now it's gonna be at a minimum 100 grand higher.

I may be a little conservative, but at the end of FY27, where I'm going with this is we should realize that reserve budget and be able to then spend previous years money on the following work.

So that should stabilize at about 722,000.

So I'm gonna have to actually figure out ways to spend more money on some of these projects moving forward.

And with that, I will take any questions.

All right, thank you for that, Mr.

Bennett.

What questions, comments, anything?

Yes, Commissioner Munn.

All right, I'm gonna pick up where I left off at the last commission meeting.

And um, I just wanna so first I wanna acknowledge um you know appreciate your attention to detail and managing your budget and your you and managing the the directives given to you in terms of how NRS 50253 is written.

Um I I would like to just point out that I I what I just heard you say is that there's more money potentially coming in, and we're gonna have to find more ways to spend money in these categories.

From my part, after the conversation about habitat earlier this morning, I question whether this should be, and I know this isn't a decision for this body, but I question whether or not that $3 fee should be at the discretion of the tag holder or at the discretion of the department of how we spend those funds so that we can best manage habitat for the species.

So that's a that's out of scope here, but I just want to raise it.

Um secondly, you know, I think looking at this, when I read the second paragraph of your predator management plan, it sets out some really clear goals for how we're gonna develop our predator management approach.

Uh clear goals and management actions based on objective science scientific principle and analysis of the resulting data uh with with uh management apply it at proper intensity and focus scale.

And I I have to say, having read this now a couple times, I struggle to see that these objectives and goals are written in a way that kind of meets that standard.

So I just uh you know, I want to point out that, for example, I'll give you an example of something that I think works pretty well.

Is project 40?

We have a specific management area, we have a specific goal in mind, and some some more specificity of sort of how this is gonna work in conjunction with other projects in order to accomplish our goals in a place in a particular place.

But our sort of these sort of statewide, we're just gonna find problem lions and manage them.

I don't think personally meets that standard.

And so I'm I'm I'm I know I'm probably gonna be in the majority minority here, but I just and I'm not against predator management.

I want to make that very clear, but I don't think this is yet written in a way that actually meets our own standards, which we've set earlier in this document in order to truly um uh manage predators in a way that that is more holistic and meet those objectives.

So that's I'm just gonna put that out there for right now and let us all wrestle with it a little bit.

So noted.

Thank you for that.

Um any other questions, comments, concerns from the commission.

All right.

See none at this time.

Maybe we'll get some public comment, see what the public has to say.

How about any public comment here in Reno today?

Again, regarding the uh draft fiscal year 2027 predator management plan.

Melbuilding Washington County member of the public.

Um, I would like to comment um on the job that's being done now with the predator plan, predator management.

I I think it's going in the right direction.

Um we're certainly seeing the the results um in places that we have it throughout Washoe County.

And I appreciate the job that Mr.

Bennett's doing.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Any other public comment here in Reno?

All right, see no additional public comment.

How about any public comment via Zoom?

And again, if you do have question via Zoom, if you could please just indicate by raising your hand and take yourself off mute and state your name for the record.

Uh Paul Dixon, uh Clark Cab.

Uh when we were talking, when I heard Joe talk just now, it brought up something.

The last time we had asked a question similar to Liz, which was can we get more quantitative in our assessment of how these plans are working uh when we're doing removal so that when you do just kind of a statewide, you know, mount mine controller thing, it's very hard to get quantitative results of how impactful that removal is in the system.

I think the other thing to look at here is that was we're looking to how we spend more money.

Maybe we look at how we basically do a study in the area before we do predator removal so that we can get more quantitative rather than qualitative results of the impacts.

And I think that would go a long way to addressing the concerns that Commissioner uh Munes had and others have raised it by CAB about how we're spending our lethal funds rather than giving qualitative results.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Commissioners, Jana Wright, Clark County.

I just wanted to say thank you, Commissioner Munn for your comments.

Forever or the 15, 16 years I've been following the CAB and Commission.

It's just that kill predators, kill predators, kill predators.

And it used to be a mandate of 80 percent had to be used for lethal.

Now sportsmen have a choice, and it's we're running about 34, 35 percent want this money going to habitat.

I think that the three dollar fee should be under the direction of the department and the commission and take the sportsman out of it.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, this is Stephanie Myers.

I just want to thank Commissioner Munn.

And second, what Janna Wright has just said.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right, that appears to be all the public comments, so we'll bring it back to the commission.

Um, couple of things um uh that I had Mr.

Bennett.

One is um I believe it was the Clark County Cab.

Well, I don't recall now, but at any rate, it the notion was brought up early in today's meeting about a raven power pole, something utilized to keep ravens off power poles and around lecking areas.

I had not heard of that before.

Is that something we've you've utilized or something you're looking into or just curious the viability of something like that?

Yeah, thank you for the question, Chairman Rogers.

So there have been multiple studies on the effects of transmission lines, especially in central Nevada, and what they found is like the inverted Y tends to have a positive effect on ravens lacking or not but nesting on power lines.

A lot of other attempts haven't proven to be near as successful, but they're like the MV Energy others have their own removal permit, like they do help us um in those removal efforts.

Um, but also that that's one method that that is being implemented in some areas.

Cool.

All right, yes, Director Janae.

Thank you.

Um, and so one of the things is many of these, you know, pro projects are going on across the landscape is our technical review program um provides comment um in construction, new construction when they're going adjacent to Sage Grasslecks.

Tick typically there's guidance as far as you know, avian protection uh measures that are put into place, um, but other places where they're more strategic or where there's retrofits going on.

Our technical review program typically has comment towards those um and advocating that and then past situations.

Um, I know when I was doing the job, we were actually um at times um using those measures as mitigation.

But if you'd like more information on recent activities, we do have biodiversity administrator Jasmine who could even fill in on more recent activities.

All right, thank you.

Yes, Commissioner Walther.

Mr.

Bennett, just so to the to the point on the discussion of uh, you know, having some better data, I recognize we're not necessarily or your proposal in the heritage project isn't necessarily addressing all predator species, but I would assume that part of your goals with the mountain land project proposed is to do just that.

Is that correct?

Yeah, thank you for the question, Commissioner Walter.

So it is to assess the genetic health, maybe even get a population reconstruction by analyzing up to 750 samples.

And I would like to take this opportunity to mention that, like for project 37, you'll find when I report November, it may be six or eight areas where we're conducting this work.

And a lot of it's based off of collar data, you know, survival metrics, fawn data.

You know, some of these collar metrics are showing 40% mortality of some of these deer herds since December, which obviously is going to meet a threshold where we have cost specific mortality data that's deciding where we're conducting some of these removal efforts, same with augmentations, translocation, smaller sheep herds, you know, where you may want to keep adult survival high because you're looking at adjacent areas because not every strain type of bacterial pneumonia has the same effect.

Some might have three or four years of depressed lime recruitment and then rebound.

So you keep that adult survival high as one metric, lions are ambushed predators.

We found in collar data that they're you know, taking about every age class of animal.

It's not just the young, it's not just the sick.

So collar data survey data, there's a lot of metrics that are for informing where we're conducting these efforts, not just simply haphazardly statewide removing a couple lions.

Yes, Commissioner Munn.

I appreciate that.

And I and I I want to make clear I I know that there's more thought going into this than is evident from the page.

And I think that's what I'm sort of asking for is how do we capture all of that more carefully in this plan so that we as commissioners and the public can see it better and understand better how you're using this particular tool to manage these other things.

And I think I completely appreciate the challenge of that.

And I, you know, um uh and yet I want to I'm I'm challenging us and you, frankly, um, to find a way there.

All right, perfect.

Yeah, thank you for those comments, Commissioner Mun.

And and I I agree, I I hear what you're saying, and I and it's and it sounds and appears as if the data is there.

It's just how do we how does the department then articulate and disseminate that uh information out to really create a much clearer, broader, deeper picture of what's happening.

So good.

Anything else from the commission at this time?

Yes, Commissioner Keel.

Yeah, thank you, Chair Rogers.

And yeah, I just want to commend you as well, Mr.

Bennett, for the job you've done and certainly recognize that you're able to get to the reserve sooner by you know being really nimble, um, stretching that dollar uh longer.

So like I said, job well done.

I think uh people around the state are certainly recognizing some of the impacts that this program's had.

Um so with that, I'd move to adopt the fiscal year 2027 predator management plan as presented.

All right.

So we do have a motion on the floor from Commissioner Keel.

We have a second from Commissioner Bourne.

All those in favor with aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Yep.

We have one nay.

That motion carries eight to one.

All right, thank you for that.

All right, we will now move on to this is agenda item number 11.

This is a petition by Mr.

Uh Mr.

Henry Evans, game warden captain Jake Kramer for possible action.

This petition requests the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners consider the removal of the compound bow let off limit from NAC 503.144.

Hey, morning chair, commissioners, and Dow staff, Henry Evans, member of the public for the record.

I'm going to talk or speak on removing the compound bow let off limit from NAC503.144.

So as the current regulation reads, a bow used in hunting of a big game mammal must have a peak draw weight of at least 40 pounds.

And if the bow is a compound bow, a let off of not more than 80%.

Arrows used in hunting big game mammals must be at least 24 inches long, weigh at least 300 grains, and have fixed broadheads that are at least 78s of an inch wide at the widest point, or expandable mechanical broadheads that are at least 78s of an inch wide at the widest point when the broadhead is in the open position.

So this proposal focuses only on the removal of the verbiage, a let off of not more than 80%.

We're not looking to reduce the draw weight minimum, arrow requirements or broadhead requirements.

So what is let-off?

Letoff is the percentage of a draw weight reduction from a compound bow's peak draw weight to its holding weight at full draw and anchor.

So for example, if a peak draw weight of 70 pounds and 80% let off at the back wall at full draw, you'll be holding 14 pounds.

The arrow still leaves the bow at the same energy with the same energy, speed, and most importantly, bow hunter's level of accuracy.

So why remove the 80% let off?

Quite frankly, the regulation is completely outdated.

Most major manufacturers now ship bows with an 85 to 90% off let off module.

So most hunters, quite frankly, go into a local bow shop, purchase a bow.

Unknowingly, they're leaving that bow shop with a bow that is out of regulation or in violation of this verbiage.

Most western states have removed this to include kind of the uh founding uh archery scorekeeping records, Pope and Young organization, uh, who are instrumental in collecting the data to get bow hunting approved in most states back in its early days.

Pope and Young has completely gotten rid of the let-off verbiage due to modern technology with compound bows.

So only four states remain that actually have let-off requirements.

That's going to be Idaho at 85%, South Dakota at 80%, Montana at 80%, and there's an asterisk there, I'll get into in a second, and Nevada at 80%.

So Montana's been proposing removal or removal for a while now.

Um there is a strong traditional archery contingent in Montana, so stick bow hunters, recurves, long bows, etc.

They keep pushing back against it.

Um, and I'll get to why that doesn't necessarily make sense for us in Nevada in a moment.

So here's kind of the crux of the equation in this is the enforcement reality on the ground for game wardens.

So it requires a calibrated draw scale.

It's a handheld device you would place on the bow.

If a game warden were to stop you while you're hunting and ask about it, you have to attach it to the bow, come to full draw.

Now, there's ways to basically cook it, I'll call it.

So if you pull really, really hard into that back wall, you can make that holding poundage look higher on a handheld scale.

So, you know, your bow realistically might have a 90% off let off module in there, but based on that pull, it now reads as a lower let off, and the game warrant goes, okay, you're fine.

The only way to actually accurately test let off is to go into an archery shop that has a drawboard, take the human element out of the equation, put your bow on this drawboard, have them crank it back, and then get the readout.

Completely unenforceable, realistically out in the field.

Uh so now getting into regulatory integrity, a good regulation should be enforceable, technically sound, scientifically defensible, and consistent with modern equipment.

So the 80% cap verbiage fails those tests.

So removal of this language does not affect ethical harvest in any way, shape, or form.

Uh again, we're not looking to change the 40-pound minimum draw weight, 300 uh grain minimum arrow weight, or the seven-eighths of an inch broadhead cutting width.

Those all the deterrent uh determine the lethality of bow hunting or or archery, not the let off of the bow.

So what this does with let off increases accessibility for new bow hunters, uh older hunters, hunters with shoulder injuries, or a disabled shooter that still wants to shoot, as Pope and Young calls it, a vertical bow and hunt during the archery season.

So getting into the uh traditional archery contingent and and their arguments.

Um they would argue that too high of a let off makes it too easy, or higher let off makes bows too powerful.

So on the second point, the too powerful, it does not affect the power, quote unquote, of the bow in any way, shape, or form.

Now, the higher let off makes archery too easy.

A successful archery hunt is based on the uh finding the game, the stock, which is the most difficult part to get within ethical killing distance of an animal with a bow, not necessarily how many pounds you were holding at full draw.

What it does affect is comfort and stability, which I would argue leads to a more ethical kill at the end of the day.

So kind of in summary here, the 80% let off cap is outdated, completely unenforceable, technically unnecessary, not tied to ethical harvest.

It's already been removed from 46 other states.

Um Pope and Young has removed it from their record keeping, and it will allow more accessibility for youth hunters, older hunters, uh, and injured archers.

With that, I'll stand for questions.

Uh any yes, Director Janae.

One of the things I wanted to make sure um that we made clear as is the reason we put this petition in front of the next agenda item is because we we do see that there's a possibility of connection between this petition on this draw-off weight, but also um the consideration that you guys have heard in previous conversations around the CGR 529, the disability permit, um, and this may have bearing, and so that's why we've stacked this this way.

All right, thank you for that.

Can I have you uh in the back take the lights up, please?

Um, any other questions for the commission, concerns, a lot to chew on there, and we can certainly come back with any questions, but um given that, Mr.

Kramer, did you have some comments as well?

Jake Kramer, game warden captain for the record.

Uh no specific comments, so but uh if you have any questions related to law enforcement side of this, I'd be happy to answer.

Um, just curious, uh, Captain Kramer.

You know, obviously this has been in place for quite some time.

You know, there's four remaining.

Just curious the thought process from a law enforcement standpoint on why we have the uh the 80 percent today.

You know, uh it was a standard years ago.

Um, and like you said, a moment ago was part of the Pope and Young uh requirements as well.

So it's just a holdover from a long time ago.

Um compound bows by the nature are mechanical advantages in the first place, and this is uh just another part of a compound bow, providing um mechanical advantage within that system.

It really makes no bearing on the uh effectiveness of the of the bow or the kill or anything like that.

All right, yes, vice excuse me, vice chair young.

Thank you, Chair Rogers.

Uh Captain Kramer, what will potential downsides from a law enforcement perspective do you see on this?

If any none on this uh from law enforcement perspective, yes, Commissioner Walter.

Um Mr.

Kramer, just from your perspective, um the representation in regards to enforceability with the regulation as it exists now, accurate.

Uh in my opinion, yeah, it is accurate.

Um, this has been, I wouldn't say completely unenforceable, but we don't have the equipment tools necessary or a lot of times the knowledge in the field to be able to uh um measure the let off or the uh the scales for the the 300 arrow grain weights, etc.

So this is something that has not necessarily been enforced in the past all right, yes, Commissioner Messner.

All right, yes, Commissioner Messner.

Thank you, Chair Rogers.

Uh Mr.

Kramer, just a quick question.

If this really hasn't been an issue in the past, um how much of a workload would this be to try and amend just that little portion of this uh NAC and uh yeah, I guess just that um whether we move forward or not, it it doesn't sound like it's much of an issue.

Um anyway.

Yeah, thank you for the question.

Uh again, Kate Kramer for the record.

Uh as far as uh the workload, this is a very simple modification to that regulation, uh, wouldn't take much at all.

All right.

Um another quick question that just popped into my head, Captain Kramer.

Again, I'm not an archery person, so excuse my naivety on this, but but it that hold, it doesn't affect anything different on the actual draw.

Is that correct?

So if somebody's you know capability of pulling a 60 pound bow with given this, now it they're not jumping up to a 80 or 90 pound bow or anything like that, any changes in that or any differentiation, is there?

Yeah, correct.

The um, so for example, if it's a 60 pound bow, um when you pull the bow back, uh there's a peak weight uh that's still going to be 60 pounds.

Um it's just that the let off would be a breakover um at or near the end of that draw cycle.

So at the end of it, you're still holding 60 pounds, but at the very end, um you're holding a percentage of the 60 pounds based on what the let off percentage would be.

Gotcha.

All right, perfect.

Anything else from the commission at this time?

Yeah, Commissioner Booth.

Yeah.

If the commission were to accept this change, would it have any uh would it have an adverse effect on the definition of our primitive hunts?

I do not know that for certain right now.

I'd have to go back and look at our definition, uh, unless our directors or anybody else would know that offhand.

I don't know.

I could get back with you on that.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Booth with a brain teaser question today.

Yes, Commissioner Messner.

Thank you, Chair.

Um this is just my feeling, but with an awful lot of petitions that come across the table, and I appreciate your work done here, but sometimes it opens up a different kind of can of worms, such as whether or not we want to just reevaluate our definitions of primitive weapons, because it probably has been quite such a long time since that has happened.

Um I guess I just personally it just sparks the next question as to well, if we're looking at this, what else should we be looking at?

So just or should we entertain just this part of it, or is it gonna open up a more broad discussion and what that might look like?

All right, yes, Commissioner Cavilla.

Thank you, Chair.

Um I guess I completely understand every component of the petition, and I I understand it though, but the one the one item that kind of tears in the back of my head is we've we talk about the emergent emergent technology committee, and you know where we want to draw a line.

And I know I mean it sounds relatively small, but you know, an 80-pound bow, you're in you're holding 16 pounds or eight pounds.

There is an advantage there.

We have to acknowledge there is an advantage there.

You're holding less weight, taking the shot.

Um it's not fair to say there's not an advantage.

Um I'm not saying I'm opposed to the position to the petition, but um, I'm a little torn.

You know, we've had so many of the emergent technology discussions.

Um compound bows have been around forever.

They're in a they're not necessarily an emergent technology, but they keep getting better and better, you know.

Um that's the only kind of, and I understand enforcement is enforcement on this is that's the other part that I have an issue with is enforcement in the field is it's not happening, it's almost impossible, you know, to have certified scales in the field.

I completely recognize that as well.

But that's just kind of where I'm personally, I'm kind of torn on the two.

Good point.

Yes, Commissioner Munn.

Uh this this may be a question for uh someone else, maybe maybe Matt Maples or someone, but would we expect our um harvest success or archery success to go up with this change and therefore have an ultimate effect on our quota numbers in the archery hunt?

Like I'm just thinking of the down the line kind of trickle effects of this.

Yeah.

And while you walk up, is there any data from any of those states that have changed this that would help us understand that?

Uh thank you for the question, Commissioner Munn.

Sean Espinoza, game division administrator for the record.

And I'm gonna go out totally on a limb here.

I don't have any data, but it doesn't um change the fact that you still have to get within a range of an animal to make this device effective.

So somewhere within that 50 to 60 yard realm, I know there are folks out there that shoot bows 70, 80, 90 yards, but most archery hunters are within you want to be within 40 yards.

That's that's the main issue here is is that that distance.

So I'm gonna say that that's probably not going to change archery success all that much at all.

All right.

Um one other Captain Kramer that question that I had real quick was it made me think of it with Commissioner Munn's statement, and that is with the other states that have similar uh a similar law in place that that we do, just curious if you're aware of or have any knowledge of what their justification is for keeping that on their books and why they maybe haven't made a change.

And I think the gentleman mentioned Montana has a large contingent of uh archery hunters and whatnot, and they still have this in place.

So just curious if if you have any knowledge of the other states that still have it.

I I don't have any knowledge of their specific intent of keeping that to this date.

Yeah, well, Vice Chair Young.

Thank you, Chair Rogers and Captain Kramer.

Another probably difficult question you might have the answer for.

In the 46 states that this is allowed, have they distinguished between a disability or regular, or is it just for the most part, from your understanding, 100% allowed across the board?

Uh not I don't know the the details of the specific states, uh, but uh from my understanding, um, just the in general of the of the the laws and the equipment, um, it's just a generality, it's not it's just allowed across the bar board for the most part.

Yes.

Yeah.

Commissioner Walther.

Mr.

Espinoza, sorry to bring you back up.

Um just in the context of the line of questioning that you're presented with you know, Mr.

Jasmine did send us a letter um in regards to this petition.

Um, so with the knowledge of the answer view given, um and his characterization that pre-compound bows and even during the era of let off, low let off compound pound bows, 60% or less success rates on the Nevada mule deer hunts have gone from the 10 to 15 percent range to current 30 to 50 in some units.

Can you provide us some uh commentary on that?

Do you think that is the reason we're seeing the success rates go up?

Um to Commissioner Cabiglia's point with the advancement in those technologies.

Great question, uh Commissioner Walter.

I I honestly don't know.

Sean Espinoza again for the record, I don't know if I can truly answer that.

Um, you know, we'd have to go back if you look back to the days of recurve.

Um, I'm sure their success was probably in the low teens.

And then with the emergence of compound bows, that's probably ticked up to the high teens, you know, maybe 20%.

How much that that this change could tick that success rate up, you know, might be a percentage point or two, perhaps, um, as somebody lies in wait for uh a mule deer or or whatever the species might be to pass by a specific area and be able to hold that long lying in wait, you know.

That doesn't change the fact that you still have to be in that position to take that shot.

Um, but you know, over time we could account for that success by adjusting tag numbers too.

So if I may, I'll just add to that.

Yeah, for the record, Cody Schroeder staff specialist.

So typically I can't go back to the 80s.

I mean, I probably could, I don't have it at hand, but just in the last five years, the archery success has gone down and gone back up.

It really tracks all the other weapon classes, any legal weapon and muzzle loader.

And as Sean pointed out, I would say that if it has increased, we're actually accounting for it because we calculate every we calculated on a three-year average success rates on a unit by unit basis.

So even if it has gone up because of people are shooting 85 or 95% let offs, we're we are still accounting for it in our quota process because we we actually measure the success rate every year.

So for whatever that's worth.

Yes, Commissioner Bourne.

Mr.

Evans, in your presentation, you said I believe that all or part of the bows now are already shipped at 85% let off, correct?

Uh thank you for the question.

Uh Henry Evans for the record.

Correct.

Uh most major manufacturers now, the standard is about 85% let off.

Um, and so I actually host a radio hunting show, and I ask every person that comes on that's a bow hunter, what's your let off?

99% of them have no idea.

It's a very small percentage that actually tinker with that kind of stuff.

So uh again, in keeping up with technology nowadays, uh, you have hunters walking into bow shops and walking out with a bow that they have no earthly idea is actually illegal, technically.

The bow are they even required to?

Um I'll say there's one in town in Reno here that absolutely does.

Uh I cannot speak to the um maybe I'll say larger operations.

Uh however, again, that uh with some of the bows now and the cams, that requires an additional order, additional parts to basically uh call it dumb the bow down to get it back to this uh legal let off percentage.

So what I'm getting at is right now in the state of Nevada, an extremely high percentage of the bows don't meet the required the law requirements anyway.

So correct.

And uh as to some of the earlier things too.

I think when you look at uh increasing success rates and archery hunting and everything, I do not know that uh an increase in let off is going to statistically affect that when you look at all the other technology we have now with on X and glass and camouflage and this, that, and the other thing.

I think there's a multitude of factors that go into that.

Uh and that could also be part of that increased success rate.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, Vice Chair Young.

Thank you, Chair Rogers.

Captain Kramer, uh, real quick.

In the last five years, have we had any citations or anything on the 80% maximum?

We have not.

Commissioner Munn.

The notion that many bow shops are knowingly selling illegal uh instruments is really troubling, is really troubling.

Um, and I I question whether or not we need to fix that at this level, or if that is really at more of an ethical and uh problem at at these stores that are selling these shops.

So I just a question where that solution needs to be.

Um I'm not a I'm not an expert in in the field, but that I just have to comment that that is extremely troubling.

Captain Kramer, did you?

Well, if I may on that um there's a very large percentage of uh of archers that don't necessarily hunt with these bows, um, but uh are into 3D target shooting and um other events like that that they might use those those items for.

Fair.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Yes, Commissioner Meshna.

Just a quick comment.

I really don't have a problem one way or the other on this.

It doesn't seem like it was an issue in the past, nor will it be an issue in the future.

But I also recognize after reaching out just to a couple of folks at bow hunt because I don't do it, that there probably are an awful lot of bows bows out there being hunted with that are in non-compliance.

So whether we move forward with this or not really doesn't matter to me.

However, I do want to say that just because a manufacturer makes something doesn't mean that we should automatically adopt that it's sufficient for Nevada.

That is not the right mentality to go here that just because it's made that we should accept it.

I do want that pointed out.

Good call.

Uh Commissioner Walther.

Um I and I I agree with your your commentary there, particularly surrounding the manufacturers.

I um as well as uh Commissioner Munn yours on the sellers.

Um I guess my rub with this is I and you know I have some friends that are probably gonna sling some trad arrows at me for this comment, but um I have a really hard time having a regulation on the books that we can't enforce, don't enforce.

Um, I I I struggle with that.

So the the I'm kind of weighing towards this petition, or we need to have bigger discussions about equipping in the ways we can have regulations enforceable.

Um in my mind, we don't need to have things sitting out there.

I mean, we have a lot of regulations that are difficult to enforce, but what we're hearing is this is impossible to enforce and it's not enforced.

So I I have a struggle with having that on the books at all.

Right.

I mean, yeah, just to pick that up, I uh and challenge it is that I you know that's it, I I agree.

And you know, changing the let off from 80 to 90 doesn't change whether or not it's an enforceable law or not.

And so that's a like I think we need to make sure we're partitioning these questions.

Like that again, to the point of like maybe we shouldn't be we shouldn't be thinking about this in terms of what manufacturers make.

I'm not sure we should be thinking about it in terms of what's enforceable or not enforceable because what's if it's not enforceable now, it's not gonna be enforceable later.

Yeah.

Um one item that I had um for the DAG, and that is a question that was brought up earlier by Commissioner Booth on whether it possibly would redefine primitive, just curious if you had any opportunity or time to kind of chew on that question.

Deputy Ed for the record, uh yeah, so I uh searched um primitive throughout our NAC and NRS as it relates to wildlife, uh, and I could not find where it was defined.

Uh and I Alan kind of reaffirmed the same in a little sidebar here.

So um uh if the commissioner could could clarify what that definition or where it's from, perhaps we can try to answer the question, but I don't see it as a statutory defin definition anywhere.

Yep, all right, director Janae.

Yeah, thank you.

If I may add on, I think it's just a generalized categorization of bow is defined, muzzle odor is defined, but when we talk about primitive, we typically pull those two together.

Um and it is not we can't find it currently in NAC or NRS.

Okay.

So I just did a Google search and it just talks about you know traditional ways of hunting outside of using guns.

All right.

Yep.

All right.

All right, good stuff.

Anything else, yes, Commissioner Cavillian?

Yeah, and I mean I'm I myself just kind of like Commissioner Walter said, I being said it's not enforceable.

I I really don't I really don't have a problem with it.

Um with the petition.

Um I don't myself, it's my opinion.

I in the field, I don't think it's gonna make a major difference.

I think when we look back at you know the really old um harvest success rates versus now, I think the biggest contributor to that is the rangefinder when it comes to archery hunting.

It I don't believe it's the weapon itself.

The rangefinder changed the game and they got better and they got a lot smaller.

So for me, like looking at the old old data versus new the archery equipment itself's not the driver there, it's the range finder that drove that again.

My opinion, but that's that's what I believe.

So I don't have a problem with the petition again.

Kind of torn on it, but I I don't have a problem proceeding with it today.

Commissioner Walton, yeah.

And then, you know, kind of arguing against myself, I think.

No, I'm I'm okay with accepting it.

I'm just saying I think we need to be careful as we approach the regulation on definitions and where the line is drawn.

Uh we you know, we've heard about vertical crossbows, um, different things of that nature, right?

So at what point are we still hunting with a bow?

Um so on and so forth.

So I know that sounds silly, but um gets kind of back to the technological point and um, you know, the different weapon classes being developed.

So I think we need to just make sure we're mindful of that.

Yeah, a good point.

And that's kind of as I've listened to the discussion today.

That's uh kind of where I've landed a little bit as well, uh, Commissioner Walther.

Um and also to Commissioner Cavillo's point, uh, you know, I serve on the the technology committee and and technology, as we all have seen and know, just continues to get better and better.

And just because that technology gets better and better and the many manufacturers produce these types of equipment that does continue to get better and better, doesn't in my opinion, you know.

Mean that it's right for for everybody and for our state.

So I think we just gotta continue to keep it real super tight-leash and close line of sight on technologies.

My opinion, Commissioner Messna.

Thank you.

Um just for clarification.

If we were to accept this petition and start workshopping it, it could come out in some other form or fashion out the other end of the hopper, correct?

We would just start workshopping this and see where it winds up.

Correct.

We would not be just approving this this exact verbiage, correct?

Yes.

All right, good discussion.

Yeah, yes, Commissioner Cavilia.

One last just one last thought to you.

You know, that we've we get we do get the letter from Mr.

Jasmine, like regarding, you know, like a hundred percent let off bow.

I don't even know if they make one yet, but I mean that's something where if we accept the petition, you could set the limit at 95.

It sounds like that's common available, but you would set kind of the threshold at 95% let off is max.

We don't have to completely get rid of the let off requirement, but you could set 95% as the top end.

Just a thought, if we were to proceed with that versus just completely eliminating it.

All right.

Okay, yes, sir.

Henry Evans for the record.

Uh so like a hundred percent off a let off bow.

You're talking about like crossbow territory at that point.

Um just from a physics standpoint, uh, mechanical advantage of the cams and everything, as long as there's a human drawing it and actually holding the bow back, you can't get to a point of a hundred percent let off until you introduce a locking mechanism or something, a la a crossbow.

I think there was a question rattling around on me, and maybe it'll come back to me.

Um else from the commission at this time before we look for some public comment on this.

All right, good discussion.

So, yeah, given that, maybe let's uh hear from the public.

So if there's any public comment here in Reno today, and again, this is regarding agenda item number 11.

Mr.

Chairman, members of the commission, for the record, Jim Cooney Elko.

Uh it has been mentioned by Commissioner Walter and uh others.

Uh the letter from Mr.

Jasmine.

He came to our cab meeting last Monday night, and one of the things that he was requesting was support to go through and get a better definition for long bows and recurves.

And tying those in with a primitive weapon type.

So I want to bring that forward.

You all have a letter from him.

So thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Any other public comment here in Reno today?

All right.

Seeing no additional public comment.

How about any public comment via Zoom?

Good afternoon, Commissioner.

This is Chris Jasmine, Elko County resident.

How are you?

Um wanted to make a few comments here today.

As was uh mentioned, uh all of you received my letter.

And so I won't go back through all of that again, but did want to uh discuss and touch on a few of the topics uh that came up during this discussion.

Um, one of the biggest uh points has been made throughout this is just that well, manufacturers are making these bows with these amounts of let offs, so so we should allow them.

Um it was even touched on a bit about Pope and Young.

Uh Pope and Young originally uh did not allow any record books even entered in their books that were under uh 65% let off.

Um they've changed that over time, uh went to a period of time where uh you could enter animals with higher let off, but there were still asterisks by everything that was harvested with less than that.

Um and then eventually they did away with it completely.

And it's the same discussion that you guys are having.

I would ask, you know, for Pope and Young, who are their main sponsors that fund their nonprofit?

Well, they're the bow manufacturers that every year make better and better technology so that they can sell more and more product, and so for this state to be considering changing our regulations based on what manufacturers want to sell, because they will always come out with more technology to make it easier to sell more bows.

I I just don't think that's an appropriate direction for this this board to go.

Um, you know, I I will go back to saying, you know, what was the original intent of archery seasons?

They were to uh give hunters opportunity to go to the field and have lower success rates, but get out and enjoy our great state and our resources.

Um every time we introduce more and more technology, we just increase success rates and limit those opportunities.

Um, the the truth of it is as an archer of 30 years, I can tell you it is easier to shoot a bow with higher let off, period hard stop.

I can hold a recurve back for a total of 15 seconds.

I can hold my 65% let off bow back for a minute or two.

And if you start getting to 99% let off, so I'm holding a pound of weight, you can hold wait for animals to move for conditions to change for a long, long time.

Uh to to say that this will not increase success rates in the state in archery is is incorrect.

Mr.

Cavilia is correct, however, that I do believe uh range finders have helped out a lot.

However, even in some states that have traditional only hunts um that allow range finders, but traditional bows, those success rates are still only around 10%.

Uh, you you can look at that data from the state of Oregon.

So uh with that, I I encourage this commission to not support this petition.

It's this is not a change that's needed, and all we're doing is playing to the hands of the manufacturers.

And then I ask what's next if we pass this.

Um, if you do pass this, which I recommend you don't, please define definitions around legal bows.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Paul Dixon speaking on behalf of myself since we did not discuss this at my cam, but listening to the uh presentations and going back to uh Director Janae's initial comment that this does try into commission general regulation 529 in my viewpoint a little bit, which is we're looking for people with disabilities and having uh the not only the ability to have trouble pulling back, but maintaining a hold.

There's going to be a lot of people that claim that they can't hold a certain percentage bow.

And so having a higher um number there that allows you a lighter hold may in fact change how you look at disability permits coming up.

So um, and and finally, I would agree with uh Commissioner Cavillia and and Walther that at the end of the day, having a regulation that we do not enforce.

If we did it in any other thing, if we we said we're we're not for shed collecting or any of the other regulations we had, if we didn't enforce those regulations, then why have them?

We either take this totally off the books or we change it.

In my viewpoint, it's ridiculous to have a regulation that we don't enforce.

Thank you.

This is Joe Crawford with the uh line cap.

Um I think one of the things that we're I agree with the previous speakers.

I think that a regulation that's unenforceable is not acceptable.

However, I do think that the spirit of archery is we as the archers are intentionally handicapping our choice of weapons to do exactly what we like to do.

We have a better chance to draw uh or have the opportunity to go out into the field, not necessarily harvest an animal.

Um, I do think that one point that is being missed is the same hold at the back of your draw with the let off, can be achieved by dropping the poundage of your bow.

So if you are only able to hold 20 pounds at the back of your bow and shoot accurately, you can compensate with that let off by just dropping the poundage of your bow.

Now, the only place that would be affected is at the bottom end of it if 40 pounds because of what our regulation says is it has to have 40 pound minimum draw.

So I think that's the only thing that would happen, but uh other than very, very small people, I don't think it would really affect anything.

Um those are my comments.

Thank you.

All right, that appears to be all of the uh public comment on that.

I'll bring it back to the commission for any further uh further discussion.

Um just a couple of thoughts, I guess, from myself that was interesting.

The last gentleman that just spoke on that lower draw weight.

I again not being an archer um that knowledgeable in this, I guess that would make sense for people to be able to do that to some degree.

Um, and then the other gentleman that spoke that sent us the the letter, I you know, I I do agree with what he's what he's saying, and again, this ties back into the whole technology thing that I was talking about.

But but the thing that I you know again grapple with with this as much as I agree with that it just the enforceability of it.

I mean, how the heck you know, do we enforce what's on there currently?

So anyway, I grapple with that a little bit.

Uh Commissioner Munn.

I'm grappling with the enforceability thing as well.

And I guess I uh maybe this is a question to um Captain Kramer, which is you know, how I understand that that um the the best in class system is uh is a is a uh uh draw sorry, measurer um that you use in a bow shop and and is cranked and has a lot of the variability taken out of it.

But how difficult would it be to get?

I mean, how often would you be inaccurate in the field with a basic pull uh tool if if you were checking this?

Yeah, thank you for the question, Jake Kramer, Game Warden Captain.

Um, with a basic you know, tool, uh measure weight scale.

Um I think you could come pretty close.

It's not gonna be um it's not gonna to meet the needs of some like a court-based uh requirement.

So it's it it wouldn't stand up necessarily in court to say this bow is uh 78 pounds uh or 78 uh percent let off versus an 80 you know one percent let off.

So we would have to it would have to be measured um on an actual scale if that was as a and uh if that was to be contested in court, of course.

Um yeah, uh yeah, I don't know how else to answer that one exactly.

There's tools, there's just when we enforce something, it has to be measurable and pretty definite, has to be a line there.

Current tools on the market don't really do that for us.

Yes, Commissioner Messna.

Sorry, just a procedural question as to how this ties to the disabilities.

Um I see it in here, this 503144, you know, as we're gonna talk about down the road.

But if we amend 503144, does it become a different numerical number associated with the NAC or how would it actually affect what we're gonna talk about next?

Because I mean, I understand that you know there is a little bit of overlap here, but I'm guess I'm I'm asking for a little clarification as to I don't see this as being a hang up for moving forward with the disability.

I guess I'm just asking for a little clarification there, how they're tied together in such a fashion that we can't.

I guess I'm maybe I'm just missing the point here.

Sorry.

Thank you for that.

Dag Yann, any comments on that to Deputy Ed for the record.

Uh so I I believe the proposal is just to remove the let off portion of NAC 503-144 sub-2.

Uh so it wouldn't to directly answer the question, wouldn't change the um the category or the the the numerical system that the legislature uses to um it wouldn't create a new section, is what I'm saying to answer your question.

And going back, um, I I know part of this just discussion had to do with the sales of possibly um noncompliant bows, and it does not occur to me that it's within the jurisdiction of Hendau to regulate the sale of it.

Uh I think it's limited to how people hunt with them.

Yes, Director Janay.

Yeah, thank you.

I'd like to go up, Administrator Maples.

Um, we've had some discussions and we can kind of elaborate on what we were thinking and trying to make sure that these two are closely related to facilitate discussion.

All right, thank you.

Yes, thanks for the question.

Matt Maples, uh data and technology division administrator for the record.

Uh, we felt it was important for the commission to hear this petition uh so that any potential changes to the definition of a legal bow um could be considered, um, not necessarily adopted by the commission in a manner of like holding up progress on the disability regs, but at least understand uh the discussion that was out there surrounding definition of legal bow and how that may play into your consideration on use of technology for disability permits, specifically crossbows or draw locks.

All right.

Thank you for that.

Any other questions, comments, flavor?

What's everybody want to do here?

Yeah, Commissioner Cavilia.

I mean, I'll make a motion and we'll see what everybody thinks, but I'm gonna I'm gonna make a motion to accept the petition in relation to the removal of the not necessarily the move, but the discussion of the compound bow let off limit from NAC 503-144.

All right.

So we have a motion from Commissioner Cavilia.

We do have a second from Commissioner Walther.

All those in favor with aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Nay.

All right.

So we have one nay.

That motion does carry eight to one.

All right.

Thank you for that.

Uh given that we will move.

Press on and we will move on now to uh agenda item number 12.

This is 12A for possible action.

This is Commission General Regulation War uh public workshop.

This is 12A, Commission General Like General Regulation 529, disability permit program revisions.

Data Technology Services Division Administrator Matt Maples.

The commission will hold a workshop to consider regulation language amending uh Nevada Administrative Code or NAC that would update business rules and requirements related to the archery visual and special assistance disability permits.

Mr.

Maples.

Yes, thank you, Chairman, members of the commission.

Matt Maples Data and Technology Division Administrator for the record.

I believe this is the third workshop uh conducted for CGR 529.

And so we'll get into uh kind of the next iteration of the regulate regulation language uh that we're bringing to you for consideration.

NAC502 42903, the special assistance permit.

We have no proposed changes since the March 2026 commission meeting.

For NAC 503146, which is the scope permit for those with a visual disability.

I understand that the March meeting the commission chose to move forward with this.

We would like to bring in one more kind of small consideration to this based on CGR 517, which is on tomorrow's agenda that could impact the definition of a site.

And so we have some minor adjustments to that regulation, more as a conforming language more than any actual change in the intent of the regulation.

We've had a number of discussions with interested public as well as NGOs, specifically outdoorsmen and wheelchair on how this regulation fit into their programs.

And some of the things that we've brought forward for consideration are some small adjustments to the medical criteria an individual would have in order to qualify for the permit.

And so we thought it also reasonable to include that as a qualifying medical condition.

That's kind of a summary.

As you'll see here, I apologize for the rainbow of colors.

We were trying to track the changes since the original regulation as well as the changes made since the March 2026 commission meeting.

So the green text is a new addition.

The blue text is what you've seen previously, and the red text is what we would or would be stricken from the existing regulation.

For the visual disability permits, as I stated before, this is more conforming language to match the proposed definition in CGR 517, which is on tomorrow's agenda, which would add a definition of site to the NAC.

No other no other changes to visual disability.

However, we uh have put forward language for consideration that would restrict the sites or the scope that could be placed on that crossbow.

Much of the technology that we presented earlier in the process, uh, you know, we provide an example of a crossbow that had a variable power scope on it with external turrets, which provides the user the opportunity to correct for drop at extended ranges.

We feel that by removing the opportunity to use that type of technology and limiting uh the legal sites that could be placed on a crossbow, we would achieve kind of a reasonable happy medium, still allowing crossbows for those individuals with severe disabilities that cannot practically use a vertical bow, even with some of the draw lock technology, but then still providing a little bit of a technological limit by removing the ability to use variable power scopes and limiting sites to opener PEEP sites, which you know admittedly are probably not common on crossbows.

However, the use of the electronic site or a red dot site is far more common, and their availability uh seems to be really really good.

And so that technology would kind of strike a balance between limiting the effectiveness of a crossbow uh while still permitting its use for certain individuals.

This is all existing language that we've reviewed at past workshops.

Uh it would change from just a licensed position to permitting the permit to be or uh the verification by the medical professional specifically defining what types of medical professionals could sign off on that verification uh that the permittee would submit with their application, and then uh finally the changes to the qualifying medical conditions, the inclusion of disability to the neck or back, as well as previously discussed shoulder arm, wrist or hand as kind of the general qualifying criteria again, relying upon 80% disability of you know one of those uh areas, and then in green text again, uh letter D edition of spinal stenosis graded as severe or extreme and confirmed through medical imaging.

Uh, we did hear about that in the public survey as a condition that should be considered for inclusion upon further research.

You know, we found various members of the public reaching out uh that wish to see that included.

It it does appear by all accounts to be uh an objective uh decision that's confirmed through imaging, and so I feel it also strikes a balance between uh something that can be you know really well documented and signed off on by a medical professional while still you know following with the commission's directions to avoid conditions that are more age uh related conditions with that.

I'd be happy to stand for any questions.

All righty, thank you for that.

I appreciate it.

Uh how about questions from the commission on general regulation 529?

Yes, vice chairs.

Thank you, Chair.

And I just got a quick one, Mr.

Aples.

Uh, and you briefly touch on it.

But the NGO Nevada Um Outdoorsman and Wheelchairs has signed off on this language.

They've you worked with them and they've kind of signed off on approving it.

Yes, that's correct.

Perfect.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Anything else from it?

Yes, Commissioner Cavillia.

Thank you, Chair.

Hey Matt, I have one question.

I think we asked this before, but it got asked of me in the last couple of days.

But on the when we talk about the individuals that can sign off on the disability permit, but uh nurse practitioner, physicians, assistant, physicians, assistant or physicians associate.

I guess the question was is why we weren't just leading leading it, you know, having a doctor versus those three classifications be able to provide that certificate.

Yeah, thank you.

Thanks for the question, Matt Maple for the record.

Uh, I think it's a it's a very good question and and worth discussing uh some of the responses that we heard uh to kind of try to provide both sides of what you know we we've heard from the public.

Uh the one side was uh for veterans that are using the VA system, oftentimes when they make their appointments, uh, it is difficult for them to always request an MD.

And so they may get one of the other medical professionals for their appointment.

I think we can all recognize some of the challenges that those individuals face when using the VA.

And so we expanded the definition from the current language, which was just a licensed physician, which is more broad than what we have listed.

Uh, to hear the other side um from what you know, we've been told is that an individual with these conditions, um, you know, given the the severity of them is almost always certainly going to be seeing an MD at some point in time during their medical care.

And so I I think there's two positions there.

Um, I think the department would be, you know, obviously open to the direction of the commission on any proposed changes to that.

All right, thank you.

Commissioner Messner.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, Mr.

Maples.

Yeah, I I some folks reached out to me as well, trying to make sure that you know we weren't rewriting this, and it was still going to be too easy to abuse.

And I guess myself personally, we've we've extended it to a five-year approval period of this disability permit's gonna be good for five years.

I really don't think personally it's too much to ask of somebody to make sure that they're getting an appointment with a sufficient person to put the stamp of approval on there to make sure that this isn't getting abused.

It's it I don't think that that's too much to ask when we've when we're giving them five years.

So thank you.

All right, thank you for that.

Any other questions at this time from the commission?

All right.

Good seeing none at this time.

Maybe let's have some public comment.

So if we could maybe engage some public comment, uh again regarding 12th A.

And this is Commission General Regulation 529.

This on it should, I think it was probably on.

Okay, Mr.

Sure and Commission members, thank you for the opportunity here before you.

I'm Larry Johnson.

I was one of the founding directors of about outdoorsmen and wheelchairs approximately 19 years ago.

Uh we had well over a hundred clients uh during that time period on various antelope hunts primarily, but also deer hunts, antelope hunts, pheasant hunts, well turkey hunts, fishing trips, you name it.

Uh although we have to be selective in what people we choose for what hunts with their abilities, although our antelope hunts uh, for example, we've taken uh quadruplegies and manufactured special shooting mechanisms for them to where they can use a joystick with their chin to position the rifle scope with it has a camera on it that goes to an L C D screen so where they can see the crosshairs, get the rifle on target, ease a bite switch to pull the trigger.

Incredible.

These people are fighters.

Uh but at the same time, they need all the help they can get.

And uh each one of them has a life story that just tugs at your at your heart.

We had a 12-year-old boy that when he touched his antelope, he broke into tears, but so did we and then but they were tears of laughter, and he became overjoyed.

That's the kind of experience we we have with these people.

And again, they need a break, they need help as much as we can give them.

Um we have reviewed the various stages of wording in this.

Uh, I've I've had them reviewed by uh my orthopedic surgeon who feels they're uh they're very well written.

Uh and we urge you to uh to pass this.

And I particularly want to single out and thank Matt Maples for his uh cooperation and work with us in this area.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Any other public comment here in Reno?

All right, seeing none.

How about any public comment via Zoom?

And again, if you do have public comment via Zoom, if you would please click on and make sure your hand is raised off mute and state your name for the record, please.

Hi, good morning.

This is Robin Titus, if you can hear me.

Yes, go ahead.

Hey, thank you for taking uh this comment.

I'm really on for the next one, which was my bill, but I just had to I I zoomed.

I mean, I I listened to the comment about providers, and I would say that I put in legislation for who could sign a handicap placard.

And one of the thoughts would be if you don't already follow what the NRS says about who handles can sign off on a handicap placard.

Um, it would make a lot of sense.

And it and it's not just a physician, I'll although I'm an MD.

Um, I recognize when I was there and I couldn't come back and sign off a handicap plackers.

I PA knew the patient, and the nurse practitioner knew the patient.

So that's how we changed the NRS on what providers actually seen the patient.

All right, thank you.

For the record, uh Misters and Chair Rogers, Paul Dixon, Clark Cap.

Uh I worked over the last several months closely with Chad Bliss, who does Nevada hunters, handicap hunters and outdoors.

And we had comments uh for the last commission meeting on this regulation and those to large part as far as I could tell, and Chad could tell have been addressed.

I just want to tell you thank you for uh making those changes and putting this forward.

I think it's important that we allow uh disability hunters the ability to get in the field and that we support that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

That appears that is all the public comments, so I'll bring it back to the uh commission for any additional comments or questions.

Um statement that I uh just add I do uh uh approve of this.

I think it I think it's there's been a lot of work uh put into this.

I think it makes all kinds of sense.

I I do uh appreciate and kind of tend to lean with uh Commissioner Mess on the on who can sign off on it given the extended period of uh of time.

But anyway, I'm I'm supportive of it, I guess either way, but uh but I do kind of lean more towards um having a uh uh medical MD, but that's just me.

Any commissioner?

It's a question to my fellow commissioners, especially folks who are in more rural uh areas of our state.

If that um if there's any uh need to keep some of these uh additional practitioners uh in to serve folks in rural parts of the state, which I know are um uh getting medical care is uh always increasingly challenging.

Yeah, Vice Chair Young.

Did you thank you, Chair Rogers?

Um yeah, I'm I'm of the mindset, I believe it was uh uh Senator Titus that made the comment of trying to see what the N the NRS has as the disability placards.

Um I don't know if I'll go there, but I I think at least seeing what they've done in the NRS would be good for me to kind of make a decision in the future.

All right.

Commissioner Walther, I'm sorry, did you okay?

Yeah, Commissioner Cavill.

Yeah, and I I'm gonna I'm gonna echo um Commissioner Young.

What I I like the maybe we could keep the languages today.

This is gonna go to another reading, but maybe at that one we could have the department do a little homework on that, and then we can make our decision at that point.

That's kind of where I'm at.

Yeah, good.

I like that.

I like that.

Anything else?

I mean, if with that up, there's nothing else, I'll make a motion.

You got it.

Thank you.

All right, I'm gonna make a motion to forward to another another commission for further review to the next commission meeting, commission commission general general regulation 529 as presented.

All right, so we have a motion on the table from Commissioner Cavilia.

We have a second from Commissioner Messna.

All those in favor with aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right, seeing none, that motion does carry.

Um, we are looking to press on.

However, we've been going for a couple hours again here, so maybe uh if we could maybe take another quick uh maybe a 15-minute break, maybe it's close to 1240, maybe come back here in 15 minutes at uh 12 uh 55, if that would be okay.

All right.

So we will stand adjourned.

Thank you.

Okay, everybody, let's go ahead and start taking our seats again and get rolling.

Yes.

All righty.

I think we have everybody back in place, so we're gonna go ahead and get fired back up here again and be uh before we dive into the next agenda item.

Uh Director Janae, did you have something?

Thank you.

Um I wanted to put this up, but we were gonna put it up at lunch.

We'll put it up at lunch again tomorrow.

Um just wanted to call this out is coming July twenty-third and twenty-fifth, or through the twenty-fifth of uh twenty twenty-six.

We'll be having the Mule Deer Enhancement Summit um out in Ely, Nevada.

Um, if you remember uh back in twenty twenty-three we did this in Winnamucca.

Um it was a really good event.

Um we're looking to duplicate that.

Um bringing in a lot of expert speakers, um, presenting a lot of mule deer science.

Um so absolutely just wanted to call this out, make sure folks were aware.

I know there's been a lot of conversation about Mule Deer um at this meeting, so and there will be again tomorrow, but um just wanted to highlight this as an opportunity for folks.

Um there is a registration fee, but you can go to um we'll be sending that out in the future.

But if anybody's interested in sponsorships, Aaron Meyer, um, we've got his email address on there.

Folks can follow up with that, and we'll have additional details coming out on uh registration.

All right, perfect.

Thank you.

All right, save the date.

July twenty-three through twenty-five.

Perfect.

All right, with that, we will press on again, as I mentioned.

We are on twelve B.

This is Commission General Regulation five two seven.

And this is a wildlife savvy salvage permit.

Um I don't know.

I know uh Senator Titus was on earlier, she may join us later in public comment.

Um, but the history of this um commission general regulation and why this came about was um if you remember back to the 2025 session, um there was this Senate bill uh 215 that was uh eventually passed.

Um, and it is the the language within it says the commission shall adopt regulations requiring the department to issue salvage permits that authorize a person to salvage and collect any wildlife killed as a result of a vehicle collision or any other incidental incidental event.

The regulations adopted by the committee or the regulations adopted by the commission pursuant to this section may prohibit the department from issuing salvage permits if any wildlife in this state is confirmed to have tested positive for chronic wasting disease.

And so there's some other particulars within there that are relevant to this uh regulation, but I just wanted to um give a little bit of history, and um Senator Titus is on.

If we can uh pull her up, um she wanted to just have an introductory uh comment.

Yeah, thank you.

Uh am I uh can you hear me, Alan?

You can give me a question.

Yes, you're on, Senator.

Thank you.

So I apologize.

I'm not there today.

You folks have really worked around my schedule, and uh unfortunately I'm in Las Vegas at some meetings.

Um, thank you for hearing this regulation.

It's a passion of mine.

I've been working on for multiple years, living in rural Nevada, seeing dead animals that are going to waste on the side of the road.

Uh, I've worked hard uh in conjunction to to get this bill passed.

Uh, wanted to make sure we work closely with all of you, obviously, and with the director, and thank you for having it on your agenda.

Um, the the wording we have we have gone over trying to make it uh effective at the same time not onerous on the commission and on the department.

So thank you for hearing that.

All right, thank you.

All right, all right, Captain Kramer.

Uh game warden Captain Jake Kramer for the record.

So um I was gonna give a little introduction to that, but uh we have the author of it in the first place.

So uh thank you, Senator Titus.

So this is a long uh regulation.

Um, after drafting this and others, I realize that I kind of write novels sometimes uh when I'm writing these, but um the purpose of this is to be as uh non-ambiguous as possible and just be uh very clear on what the intent and what can and can't do through a regulation.

So uh we're gonna go through it one by one, uh line by line.

And uh during or after, just feel free to uh stop and ask questions.

But so uh the the following definitions are for the purpose of administering wildlife salvage permits.

Um let me stop right there, real quick.

So in Senate Bill 215, um we need to do it right there.

It needed to establish a definition system uh because it referenced vehicle collisions and it also referenced um incidental.

So this is where we do this.

So a vehicle collision in 1A is uh involving wildlife, refers to as an incident in which motorized vehicles make physical contact with any wildlife resulting in mortal injury or death to the animal.

Vehicle collision which results in mortal injury to wildlife must be euthanized by sworn peace officer by the state of Nevada.

Uh the purpose of that was to uh obviously for public safety, so there's no discharge of firearms on roadways, which would be in violation of um other uh Title 45 uh statutes and regulations.

Section B, incidental events involving wildlife refer to unintentional occurrences that result in death to the animal, to include natural death from non-human related causes, including disease, wildlife predation, old age, starvation, exposure to severe weather, and environmental disasters, including wildfires, floods, and habitat shift.

Mortal injury or death sustained due to uh structures such as property fencing or injuries.

Uh incidental events involving suspected mortal injury of wildlife must be determined by a representative of the department before euthanizing the wildlife.

And each incidental event will be evaluated by evaluated by the department to determine if a wildlife salvage permit may be issued.

So again, this whole section of incidental, uh, it's because there's more to wildlife mortality or salvage than a vehicle incident.

So uh urban wildlife issues, deer getting caught in fences, uh broken legs dying like that, um, will now be included in this.

Non-incidental events needed to be defined.

And those are events involving wildlife referred to in intentional, reckless or negligent human behavior that directly or indirectly causes injury or death to an animal.

For the purpose of Senate Bill 215, any individual may apply for a salvage wildlife salvage permit for any game mammal is defined in NAC 503.020, except for a black bear, or any game bird as defined in NAC 503.045, except for a crow.

That was killed as a result of a vehicle collision or an incidental event dot involving negligence of any or any unlawful act or of any individual.

So non-incidental events, which are the intentional unlawful, um, are exempt from the salvage, basically.

Section three, salvaged wildlife may be transported from the location the salvage wildlife was found, provided the salvaging individual physically documents the possession of the following information prior to leaving the salvaging location.

The photograph or a photograph of the entire salvaged animal, including the head.

The photograph must contain location metadata information, which means the location information turned on during the photos on the phone.

The name and address of the individual salvaging the wildlife, a description of the salvage wildlife, including the species, gender, and the number of antler points on either side if applicable, the date and time on which the salvage wildlife was taken and possessed, a description of the motorized vehicle involved in the collision if applicable.

Section four.

And this is uh changed.

It used to say section two, that was an error.

It is section three of this regulation.

After which the department will issue a wildlife salvage permit.

Section five.

The department may deny possession of any salvage wildlife based on suspicion of disease or suspicion, the wildlife being killed was uh due to negligence or an unlawful act.

Section six.

An individual who is issued a wildlife salvage permit is prohibited from using any portion of the carcass to sell, trade, or barter.

Section seven, any wildlife taken for salvage must be removed in its entirety from the site of collection.

Cleaning, field dressing, and quartering is permitted at the site of collection, provided that all unsalvaged parts, including internal organs and trails be removed and placed out of view from the roadway at a minimum of 200 feet from a roadway or easement.

Processing of meat or parts is not permitted at the site of the collection.

It must not impede the movement of any vehicular traffic on the roadway at any time.

It is not permitted with any active travel lane.

It is not permitted along any portion of any roadway with a speed limit of 75 miles an hour or greater.

And wildlife salvage is not permitted with within any construction zone or an active emergency responder scene.

Some of that was uh common sense, some of that was uh at the direction of Department of Transportation as well, in in collaboration.

Section eight, salvage permits are not transferable and do not authorize the pickup and possession of a threatened or endangered species carcass or its parts.

Section nine, hunting license or game tags are not required for the purpose of issuing a wildlife salvage permit.

Section 10.

The issuance of salvage permit may be prohibited if chronic wasting disease or CWD is detected in the state pursuant to Senate Bill 215.

Section 11.

Any individual who possesses a salvage wildlife ungulate within the area under this a state quarantine order must comply with the restrictions of the carcass as provided by the provisions of that quarantine order.

And section 12.

No person shall salvage wildlife except in accordance with this regulation.

So with that, um, let me see here.

I think I had some.

All right, I'll take some questions.

All right.

Thank you, Captain Kramer.

Yes, Commissioner Walther.

Thank you, Captain Kramer.

I appreciate all your work on this.

Um, and I realize we are at the first workshop, so um, I'm not gonna make any like detailed suggestions today, but I think if we can take a look at section one, and I'm happy to help you with this, but um break out those definitions a little bit better, um, so that they just conform with other regulations, you know, adding in um the quotation, so we're clear on what term we're defining.

Okay.

Um I think just kind of taking it a look at at the format so that um it's clear on what terms we're defining there.

I mean, I'm when I read it, I'm I'm clear, but it's just not broken up in the format that we would typically use.

All right, perfect.

Anything, yes, Commissioner Cavillo.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Kramer.

I actually have a few, just a few thoughts reading through this the first go round on the on section three.

Um, I'm just curious, just a question for the department.

Would it would it be beneficial to make them provide multiple photographs in Louis One, you know, kind of from different directions or different sides of the animal, or I don't know if there's a benefit to that or not.

And then the second, the second component of that question is the the photo must contain location metadata.

Like a prime example of this is my father.

He he would be all over this regulation, but he literally uses a phone that's I mean, beyond antiquated.

I don't know if his phone has the capabilities for metadata, so I don't know if that's something we can potentially look at.

I think he's on like the iPhone too.

I give him crap about it all the time.

He's not gonna change.

So um just another thought I had there to maybe look at that, and then I had another on section four.

We talk about um surrendering to the department, the skull and horns and antlers within 48 hours.

The only question I had on that is like say you say somebody hit something on Friday afternoon, right?

And you can't get in there till Monday, you're beyond the 48 hour window.

I know on the like on the dead on the sheep check-in, we changed that to working days.

It just it just stuck out at me.

I don't know, you know, the odds of it happening maybe are very small, but that is the hours we specify in the language.

Just another consideration I had.

And then on the last one on on number seven, I was curious on that part of it.

If we talk about, you know, my only concern here is like if we needed to find that if you're gonna salvage it, you take all salvageable parts.

Because I could see people just going and cutting the basket back straps out.

People are gonna find a carcass of an elk lane on the side of the road and the backstraps are gone and everything else is still there, you know.

And I don't I don't know if we could direct individuals to take it all, but just just I just a thought I had for consideration that if you're gonna salvage it, you're gonna take all salvageable parts.

Because I could see that rubbing some people wrong, and you should you know peel the backstraps out and leave the rest of it laying there.

Just some those are my thoughts just reading through it.

I mean, I I like it.

I like that I think this is a great starting point.

All right, thank you for that.

Commissioner Messna, did you have a chair?

Thank you, Chair.

Uh, just I'm sure there's a very simple explanation to this, but I think one of the cabs even questioned it as well as to why we were excluding bear and crow.

Good question, uh Jake Kramer, game warden captain for the record.

Um, let me start with Crow.

Um, because that's part of um the migratory bird treaty act.

Um, and it's also listed in our regs as a game bird.

Um, but it's the only one listed in the treaty act.

So um they they can't have that one.

Um there's special regs federally on that.

As far as bear, um, because the commission has held a bear um and in parts to be a little bit different than the rest of the big game animals, uh, previous commissions.

So we have gallbladder considerations, pop uh considerations, and then the um just the idea of having a um a bear in the first place.

So we didn't put that in there.

All right.

All right, anything else from any other yes, uh, Vice Chair Young.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Captain Kramer, for the presentation.

What so that language is essentially if CWD, which let's hope it never comes to Nevada, but if it does, does that shut down this entire regulation and SB 215?

Yeah, thank you for the question.

So the state would have the or the commission at that point would have the uh the option of shutting it down completely throughout the state if that were to be found in the state of Nevada.

All right, and uh if you don't mind me asking uh Captain Kramer, what which I know you don't mind, but uh I can talk.

I'm gonna ask anyway.

Who am I kidding?

Um terrible.

Um anyway, just curious.

Do you do other states again?

Hopefully, uh CWD doesn't find its way to Nevada, but nonetheless, do it.

Do you find as you've reviewed this and maybe collaborated with other states that they have something similar in there that if they've uh salvage uh permits and if they've detected CWD, how they've handled that?

Uh well, thank you for the question.

Other surrounding states have already had CWD within their state.

Um, so Utah, Idaho, California now.

Um I didn't collaborate with the states that already have existing CWD um in anywhere in the Midwest and throughout there is already gonna have it anyway.

We're one of the few states remaining that does not have uh CWD detected so far.

But I think Nate can answer that.

Yeah.

I don't know the exact um so Nate Lahue, wildlife veterinarian for the record.

Um I don't know the specifics about every state, but there are certainly states that are CWD positive that still allow roadkill salvage.

Um so I think my understanding is the way this is written is you may um get rid of that.

You may do it in part.

Um you the you know, there's that's why we had the quarantine order also is so that people aren't restricting that.

So if that expands, if that then that would be I think my understanding is that would be up to you.

But there are states that do that.

It can be a very useful tool for CWD surveillance because of that requirement in other states to to turn in the head.

Uh my conversations with Oregon, which again, they haven't detected it either, but they found it to be useful for acquiring additional CWD samples.

And with this with the um weighted sampling scheme we use than roadkill animals that give you more kind of points.

Um, but there are it it it varies, but there are certainly, especially as we go back east that states that have detected it that do still allow salvage.

And and I but I can't comment on like what their testing requirements, if it's still option, but that's definitely up to the person.

Yeah, perfect.

Thank you for that.

Yeah, Commissioner Cavillian.

Thank you, Chair.

And Mr.

Kramer, I had I had one other comment I forgot to mention when I was running through mine.

I'm curious if you had any consideration or thoughts on also we're gonna request that they return the skull.

What about like the cape or the hide?

You know, if that's a consideration to you, like the lion or a bobcat or even a deer, you know, a deer cape or elk cape, if we're gonna want to let those individuals retain that, or if we're gonna want that returned turned into the department as well.

Yeah, good good question, thank you.

Um so fur bears are not part of this.

This is game mammals and uh and game birds.

So bobcats, uh things of value that that could be sold.

Um, of course, you can't sell this anyway, it's already written in there.

So that hide would be of zero value at that point in time if that were the case.

Um for the purposes of uh turning in the entire cape, uh normally the cape if it's a roadkill, for example, um, is of little value anyway.

They can't barter sell or trade that cape away regardless.

So you can't sell it on uh to a taxidermist or anything, and generally it's gonna be during the process of uh quickly on the side of the road, cutting it up to get into uh ice cast or the cooler or something like that is gonna be destroyed anyway.

Um the thing that we are interested in mostly is just heads, because that's where the quote value is to uh a lot of people, not everybody, but it's uh deterrent to um require the head back.

All right, yeah, Vice Chair Young.

Just thank one comment.

Um I I think the value there's some good amount of value on a California bigorn cape and like a Rocky Mount Bighorn Cape.

Um just comment.

Correct, right?

Uh the way this uh that reads currently though is you cannot barter sell or trade any part of the of any salvaged animal.

Yeah, Commissioner Walter.

Thank you.

Sorry, Captain Kramer.

Um just looking at this a little further and you know, thinking of past incidents of the requirement uh a mortal injury um must be euthanized by a sworn peace officer and by the state of Nevada.

Do I mean I'm just thinking about scenarios where it could take a while, right?

For someone to get there.

Um do we want to consider a scenario in which you're calling in now and receiving direction rather than the requirement that it must be a sworn officer.

Thank you for the question.

Uh we did consider that.

Um where we kind of landed on this is transfer liability.

Uh liability as it's written right now rests on the officer officer, and it could be any officer, county deputy um could even be a corrections officer.

It's a sworn peace officer of the state.

Um where we don't would we didn't want to get into is just giving direction over the phone and transferring our liability to somebody else who is untrained, unknowing, um we don't know what their skill level is, and uh to discharge a weapon on site on a roadway or in a neighborhood.

Um, because some of these aren't vehicle collisions, some of these are neighborhoods within town, uh, deer cotton fences, et cetera.

Uh, and us given permission to uh uh discharge a weapon, specifically, let's say a gun uh to put that animal down would be also in violation of a lot of county ordinances as well.

All right, thank you for yes, Commissioner Munn.

Yeah, I'm tripped up by the um language about incidental events and the broad use of this um uh salvage permit for all incidental events, which seems like is any death of an animal anywhere.

Um and I'm I'm concerned that that's kind of allows for people to salvage animals that that probably do need to stay on this landscape in as part of kind of a natural cycle.

Um so I'm just I'm curious if there's been thought about that, uh narrowing that definition of when it's appropriate to remove uh a wildlife carcass after an incidental event or not.

All right, thank you for the question.

So on uh one B number three.

Uh first of all, if if it's a mortal injury, for example, and not fatal yet, um this would need to be determined by a representative of the department before being euthanized.

So this would be an evaluation from uh a wildlife professional previous to uh euthanizing an animal.

So Commissioner Munn, hopefully that that would satisfy your your concern that it's being evaluated uh by a trained wildlife professional previous, and maybe not having to put an animal down, or maybe evaluating because I know that versus for example, there's a lot of uh three-legged deer running around in towns that have got hit by a car and they're fully functional.

Um that's a determination that a department employee could make that that is a functioning animal in the landscape versus somebody that is uh concerned that they they need to put that animal down.

Yeah.

Yep.

I guess uh and maybe I'm reading this wrong.

Um but incidental events also incur include natural death, right?

Correct.

That's number one.

Um we're saying that you could anywhere where you found an animal that has died, you could then go and get a salvage permit for.

Is that am I am I misreading this?

No, that's correct.

That seems like a pretty broad brush stroke, I think is what I'm saying.

And I'm I would like to explore whether or not that needs to be narrowed so that that is so that we're not removing animals off the landscape that would naturally be used by you know um uh species that use carry-on and whatnot.

Okay, yes, Director Janay.

So I I would like to add a little bit of context to this conversation.

As we were discussing incidental events, is we were trying to work around definitions in circumstances that are not as typical.

Um, I think the vehicle covers like we've had train hits by uh of antelope herds in the winter.

Um, but there are also other circumstances where the department deals with um fish salvage operations, um, where basically we're dealing with you know uh something that we're trying to remove, or it's in a condition where it's passing or recently passing, and we're there and dealing with it in this incidental manner, and we're trying to create that opportunity.

And so I understand your uh trying to get into the specificity on incidental there.

We're also trying to create that opportunity to the department um to cover more than just vehicle strikes.

That was part of the conversation with the senator is as she was contemplating the bill as well.

Um, and that we tried to work with her to get that incidental language in there for um consideration of other circumstances where the department may end up with um passing or recently passed uh you know, wildlife that could be uh taken for more useful purpose.

All right.

Any other questions at this time from the committee?

Yes, Commissioner Cavillo.

Thank you, Chair.

And Mr.

Kramer, one other just looking at incidental events, you know, say you have you know, an elk that was that was mortally wounded on a hunt, the elk's not dead, somebody finds it, right?

And you know, we have the item three there.

We talk about an incident incidental event it I can't speak.

Incidental events involving suspected mortal injury.

What if that mortal injury was human caused?

Is are we gonna at that point are we gonna allow salvage?

Or if it's if it's a human caused mortal injury, I mean, I guess the vehicle collision falls under that too, but if it's like a hunting-related human caused mortal injury, are we gonna allow the salvage at that point?

I'm just thinking thinking about it, it's gonna happen.

Yeah, great question.

Um, let's see.

I know we went there.

Um, I might have to tap uh Director Janae on refreshing my memory.

I from my my recollection, I believe that if it was a mortal injury, of course needs to be uh evaluated by a representative of the department first uh to make that determination.

And I believe it was acceptable, if I remember right, that that we that the finder of that um salvaged animal, that elk at that point, uh, would be allowed to uh to take that.

Am I correct in that?

For the record, Alan Danay, uh director, and so yeah, there you can imagine like there's so many instances of you know, there's that circumstance of somebody coming up on a a wounding loss.

Um and what does that happen?

Um, there's a process by which right now um basically we don't allow somebody to take that animal.

Um we basically can take it and then allow it to be processed, and then we can give that to institutions that can use it.

Um so there's that in place right now, and we're walking that line of like, yeah, and and I think that's the the conversation within this regulation is is vehicles one thing, um wounding loss in a hunting attributed mortality.

Where do we draw that line?

And and I think that's uh some guidance from the commission and some thought around that would be would be helpful.

Um, because we do have methods by which we deal with that currently, and that may be more explicitly called out in this, uh, like how we deal with that, or it could be that scenario of offering that opportunity, but I think it does lead to a certain degree, a higher degree of uh investigation and evaluation by the department.

And and to that and to that extent, if I'm reading that right, but you you know, given this scenario that we're talking about that an individual would still not have the ability to euphanize that animal, it would still require a department.

Yeah, yeah.

Uh thank you for the question.

Yeah, because uh we want to be able to again evaluate so it it'd be uh essentially an investigation by a department employee, uh, whether that be a game warden or biologist that gets called out to that.

Um the frequency of that happening is is not likely to be very high in the first place, but it would require an investigation and then a determination to uh to verify, you know, is it mortally wounded um or can it survive on its own before we grant this permit?

Um, or can it survive on its own before we grant this permit?

Yeah, Commissioner Gavilla.

And just a follow up, I'm not opposed to it.

I'd rather see it salvaged one way or the other.

Just I just reading through it.

I just it that question came to my head if it's if it's a hunting related, you know, mortal injury.

Because I know now how we deal with it, how are we gonna deal with it within this?

I think it's just warrants conversation.

Yeah, good, good call.

Yes, Commissioner Meshna.

Thank you, Chair Rogers.

Just a quick comment.

Um I applaud this process, and I know a lot of other states have, and I think it will be a benefit.

Um, however, even through this process as written right now, I think this is going to prevent many animals from being viable by the time this process goes through its steps to the point where Commissioner Moon was worried that you know there are some animals that should remain on the landscape for various reasons.

I'd hate to throw a number at it, but this process still, I don't believe it's going to allow that many animals to be salvaged before the meat goes bad with the current steps that are involved right now.

So I applaud the effort, and I think it's very, very good.

And but this almost becomes so cumbersome at some point that people aren't going to use it, or that by the time you do are able to contact an officer of any sort and have them come out, it could be too late, or that only a portion of the animal would be salvageable by the time this comes around.

So I applaud this effort, but I I have a feeling this isn't gonna take all that many animals off the landscape and uh and put them in people's freezers.

It's just just more of a comment.

That's all.

Yep.

All right, thank you for that.

Anything anything else?

All right, good discussion, good comments.

Uh seeing no additional from the commission at this time.

Maybe let's get some public uh input on this.

So if I could send it out for public comment.

Any public comment now on commission or excuse me on agenda item 12b.

Any public comment here in Reno.

All right, seeing no public comment here in Reno.

How about any public comment via Zoom?

Hey folks, um, this is Senator Titus again.

I hopefully you can still you can still hear me.

I appreciate all the wonderful conversations.

And at the end of the day, uh, I think this will be a better bill because of your thoughtful involvement.

Um even if we can save one animal from being wasted, I think it will be a success.

And I appreciate that expedition having as a hunter and having um quartered out many an animal, although not lately, because I can't seem to draw any tags, but I will say um uh I think this is a step forward, moving in the right direction.

All c all comments are welcomed, and we will make it a better bill because of it.

All right, thank you for that.

All Dixon for the record, uh, Chairman Rogers.

Uh we had a fairly lengthy discussion at our cab meeting on this uh new commissioner general regulation 527.

Uh Commissioner Messa Messna actually asked one of the questions we had, which is why you weren't allowed to do bears or crows.

I understand crows.

I'm still not buying why you couldn't harvest a bear.

I mean, people go out and shoot bears, and if you're worried about gallbladders, then you'd have to have a regulation that you'd have to turn into gallbladder if you harvested a bear legally with a permit, which I don't think we do.

Uh the second thing is is the wording in in seven is unclear.

And when I say unclear, um, if you get an animal that's been hit alongside of the road, let's take an elk.

I mean, because I saw one up there uh on 93 north of uh Pioch.

That's a big animal.

If you're talking about salvageable parts, um, this animal was hit in the front.

It's its head and horns were front shoulders were all busted up.

When it with the way that the wording says was you could basically harvest what was on the you know, the back hindquarters of the back straps you could harvest off, but the front part of the carcass, the head and all that stuff, you'd have to drag 200 feet off the road if I'm reading it correctly.

That's a lot of work for somebody to drag um the remaining parts of that animal if you're gonna harvest it off of the road.

I mean, a deer or antelope are are very, very different animals for harvesting, but an elk is a big animal.

I mean, I've harvest them in the field and I use come-alongs to move them.

So I'm trying to understand when you harvest something the size of an elk, the parts that can't be salvaged because they're too damaged or whatever, having to move them 200 feet off the road seems like a overburdened task that would stop people from doing this.

Thank you.

All right, thank you for that.

It appears that is all of the uh public comment.

So I'll bring it back to the commission.

Any further discussion comments or where we want to take this.

Um, as far as my myself and listening to the discussion here, uh, you know, I think this is a very good, you know, foundationally it's starting out right.

I think that uh to Commissioner Walther's point, there's probably some language to be rewritten or uh verbiage there in section one.

Uh there's some talk in section three, maybe about multiple photos.

So I you know, again, I just personally think this is a good discussion, and we're getting close and a lot of good ideas thrown out.

So director Janae, did you thank you?

Um for the record, Alan Janae.

Uh I just wanted uh, you know, absolutely the the more feedback we can get and specifics, um, then the better off then we can come back with a better uh version for cleanup and consideration next round.

Um, if that's where you want to go with this regulation, but um specifics help, so greatly appreciate.

Yes, all right.

Anything else from the commission questions, concerns, comments, motion where we want to go with this.

Yes, Commissioner Cavillian.

Well, I I mean, I don't know if we need to take a motion, but um I don't know if I can memorialize it.

I know Commissioner Walter had some quotes some pretty specific questions related to section one.

I mean, I would like those items I brought up.

If you guys could look into those, just and maybe we need metadata, you know, stuff like that.

I I think just those.

I think if we could just just direct the department just to look at just look into those questions.

Um, we brought up today, all of us.

I think that's I think that's a good starting point, you know.

Um, in regards to um cow member disc Dixon's comment about the 200 feet.

I'm fine with 200 feet because I know I and I'm sure probably end out and I might even um comment it on that, but I think there's a benefit to drag that off the road, get it off the road.

And I think if you're if you want to if you're willing to salvage the wildlife, you should, you know, that's I I like that requirement.

You're gonna get it off the road.

You're you know, collisions with predators and birds, prey and all that, you're gonna move it away from the roadway.

So I absolutely see the benefit of leaving that in myself.

Yeah, agreed.

All right, uh, Commissioner Walther, any specificity around.

I know we talked about in section one there some of the language, any specificity around that for direction for the department.

Um, I mean, again, I think I'm happy to work with Captain Kramer on that.

I think it'd be sorry.

Again, I think it I'm willing to work with Captain Kramer on that.

I think it'd be a lot easier than uh and efficient than going through it all the day, but just cleaning up the format and we'll rework some language a little bit.

Okay.

Anything else?

Yes, Commissioner Messner.

One quick sorry.

I I agree with that this 200 feet from the roadway.

I I do there's a lot of times where uh you know the dead animals on the side of the road cause more havoc than the animal itself.

So I don't have any problem with that.

But my my question is how is this language gonna work?

Let's say and kind of in our neck of the woods.

There's I would imagine through this process, the majority of the folks that are gonna be calling this in where we live, it would be in the Spring Creek area.

And how are you gonna be required to bag up the entrails and everything else and take them to the landfill when these when these occasions occur like within city limits?

How is this gonna be interpreted within city limits?

I guess is ultimately what my question is moving forward with this.

If I may on that one, Jake Kramer for the uh game warden captain.

Um it's not it's not required to leave anything behind.

Um, they can, if it's a simple deer or something like that, they can or an antelope.

You can take the entire carcass and process it wherever you'd like.

You can take it home.