THE NEVADA BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS (NBOWC) WILL RECEIVE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THIS MEETING ALONG WITH THE ELKO COUNTY COMMISSION.

Transcription

1 ELKO COUNTY WILDLIFE ADVISORY BOARD COUNTY OF ELKO, STATE OF NEVADA Will meet in the Mike Nannini Building, Suite102 (Hearing Room) of the Elko County Courthouse, 540 Court Street, Elko, Nevada. Monday March 17 th, 2014 Meeting Minutes THE CHAIR RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CHANGE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA AND IF THE AGENDA IS NOT COMPLETED TO RECESS THE MEETING AND CONTINUE ON ANOTHER SPECIFIED DATE AND TIME. THE PUBLIC CAN COMMENT ON ANY AGENDA ITEM BY BEING ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE CHAIRPERSON WHILE THE ADVISORY BOARD CONSIDERS THAT AGENDA ITEM. THE NEVADA BOARD OF WILDLIFE COMMISSIONERS (NBOWC) WILL RECEIVE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THIS MEETING ALONG WITH THE ELKO COUNTY COMMISSION. 6:00 P.M. -- CALL TO ORDER -- PLEDGE -- ROLL CALL Ben, Furn, Mitch, Everett, Tom 1.-- APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR POSSIBLE ACTION Furn motioned to approve, Ben 2 nd, all in favor 2.-- BOARD MEMBER ITEMS: NON-ACTION ITEM Pursuant to advice from the Nevada Attorney General s Office, this time is devoted to comments by Board Members for general information or update purposes. No action may be taken upon a matter raised under this item of the agenda until the matter itself has been specifically included on a successive agenda and identified to be an action item. Any correspondence received by a Board member may be read and attached for the record. NONE COMMENTS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC: NON-ACTION ITEM Pursuant to N.R.S , 2(c) (3), this time is devoted to comments by the general public, if any, and discussion of those comments. No action may be taken upon a matter raised under this item on the agenda until the matter itself has been specifically included on a successive agenda and identified to be an action item. NONE

2 4. -- NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST: NON-ACTION ITEM Informational update and all other matters related, thereto. Update from Department staff. Caleb McAdoo gave update, NDOW is compiling info, Quotas will be set in May Chris Drake w/dept of Wildlife Fisheries gave update on drought conditions. Northern/Northwestern Reservoirs (Wild Horse, Wilson, Willow Creek & Dry Creek) all in 3 rd year drought. South Fork is good, biggest fishery, lots of boating & fishing BLM s E.I.S. (Environmental Impact Study) supported by NDOW FOR POSSIBLE ACTION The committee will discuss the E.I.S. supported by NDOW. Public Comment: Ron Torell (N.C.A.): Spoke about NDOW s decision. N.C.A has asked/encouraged all their members to restrict access of their private property to NDOW employees. He said it was not an easy decision to make & they deliberated on this for a long time, they felt very strongly & very threatened by NDOW s comments in regards to the EIS and where the sage grouse issue is all going. They feel both NDOW & NCA have in common the preservation & enhancement of habitat for wildlife and grazing livestock but differ how they can approach it. Private land is important and they wanted to get the attention of NDOW. They are going to meet with them to find common ground. Charlie Myers: Submitted a letter that the commission has given to Gov. Sandoval in regards to the difference of opinions in Option E as selected by the Sage Grouse Ecosystem and option D as selected by NDOW. They feel Option D is detrimental to the state of Nevada and to ranching, mining & recreation. Submitted to the board a printed out slide presentation (Greater Sage-Grouse Population & Habitat Management) that they have been giving out all over the county and will give it out all over the state. (See attached). It is their belief if option D is selected it will have a negative impact & limit economic development. He will submit Elko County s response to the EIS (over 128 pages long). Many entities and individuals have written letters of their concerns over this as well. John Carpenter: Ron & Charlie s comments are very timely and hopes the board will take a strong stand. Caleb McAdoo (NDOW): Agrees with points made by Ron, Charlie & John. There are commonalities and common ground with NDOW, the county, NCA that they can all agree on. NDOW recognizes the importance and committed to the success of Nevada s strategy and made that public. There will be a formal clarification of NDOW s position. They supported Option D but also supported many components of Option E but primary reason they didn t chose Option E, hands down, is because it wasn t completed when comments were needed to be made. They stated in their letter large components of Option E would likely be selected by their agency. They are committed to the process and we should all be coming together not separating. Rich Santos: Has a problem with what Caleb said. Why would they recommend any of it if it wasn t completed? Board Comments: Ben is disappointed and frustrated, seems the only way we can communicate is to threaten each other. How do we work together as a team? Mitch asked when the meeting is with NCA and NDOW-Ron said it will be the end of March. Ben asked if someone could get back to the board after

3 the meeting to let them know what took place and how things were or were not resolved. Tom agrees with Ben, a lot of the issues is a miscommunication, needs to sit and talk and move forward. Ron Torell mentioned that NDOW has a history of conflict and it stems from lack of communication, good management is through good communication. Mitch agrees with Ron, issue needs to be resolved with the industries and people involved. Also have to remember NDOW was on a deadline. Not sure what we can do with this issue. Tom agrees, there s enough letters out there but sure another letter will help and is disappointed on the comments made by NDOW. Ben wants to see how things go between NCA & NDOW before making any decisions. Charlie spoke again stating at some point you have to make a stand. Option D is not an alternative for Elko County or NCA. Letters go back and forth for a reason, it s because someone is not in charge. The board will have one more chance to respond. He ll get the board a copy of the report. Mitch said NOGA went with Option E and would support it if the board wanted to go with that one. Ben & Tom want to read the whole thing before supporting anything. Caleb wanted to clarify to Charlie what he was referring to a large portion of the dissatisfaction with NDOW s comments was the perception was aimed at grazing. Option E did not have a grazing component that was fully developed. Furn wants to send a letter to NDOW that we didn t appreciate the comments they made. Ben wants to read it before making any motion or commitment. Mitch agrees with Ben, wants more time to look at the report. John Carpenter spoke again said if you read the comments, Espinosa added more and it was much more restrictive than the BLM was asking for (in grazing & mining)..that s what he objected to very negative to what makes Elko County run. Charlie commented again and wants to make sure the board is well informed. No Action Taken Trappers Regulation Committee meeting RE: Visitation frequency/close Proximity/Populated and heavily used areas FOR POSSIBLE ACTION Discuss definition and/or interpretation of the terms close proximity and populated and heavily used areas as used in Senate Bill 213 and visitation frequency for certain traps, snares or similar devices placed in close proximity to a populated or heavily used area. (Trappers Regulation Committee Meeting Agenda items #6 & #7) Tom & Ben attended the Trappers Assoc. meeting (about 6 hrs long), it was very well attended. A motion was made that Elko County will be left at the 96 hr visitation, but it doesn t mean it has been adopted. Public comments: Jason James: Attended the 6 hour meeting and it got intense. There were maps there and didn t agree with them. He s worried about the regulations and there seems to be no compromise. Randall Stoeberl: He did some research on coyotes and then read an article aloud to the board. He would like to see some wildlife biologist agree with him. Henry Krenka (NOGA): Recommends the regulations be left as they are Dave Gowan (NV Houndsman Assoc): Does not want any changes to regulations. Changing the trap regulations to 24 hrs may seem harmless in some areas but really it s just the beginning of the end. These organizations get their foot in the door and keep chipping away at our freedom. Discussed parallels with the Sage-Grouse issue. He believes NDOW won t comment on

4 trapping because they were all told to stand down on this issue. Would like to hear from the biologists because their the experts. Ron Torell (NCA): Appreciated Dave s comments. Need to have unrestricted/unchanged trapping regulations...it s paramount to the survival of Sage-Grouse. Scott Roberts (NDOW): NDOW has never told them they were to stand down on this issue. It s not a biological issue, it s a social one. From a biological stand point they deal with it through quotas, seasons and classification of what s fur-barer and what s not. They are not siding with the people who want to change the regulations but they aren t having biological discussions either. Rich Santos: Wants to challenge the board to look at the predator management and the $3 fee on the tag apps. Wants to know how much do they spend this project, how many animals were harvested, etc. Jason Jackson (Game Warden/NDOW): Reiterated they were not told to stand down on this issue. Trapping cannot go unregulated. Trapping is a passionate issue and needs to be dealt with. They don t want to shut trapping down. Trapping is an effect tool, done right. We need the regulations for the people who trap wrong. If anyone has questions, he d be more than happy to answer them. Randall Stoeberl: Thanked NDOW for their comments and glad to hear they weren t asked to stand down. He still thinks it would be a good idea for the biologists to stand up and speak on behalf of the trappers because beneficial to the environment and to them for their data. He also has a problem with the map and proposed areas/no trap areas. He urged the board to make decisions based on sound facts, not emotions. Board comments: Ben said he s very supportive of trapping but thinks the reporting of target and non-target animals needs addressed by the Trappers Association, needs to be clarification of what are a target and a non-target animal and how to report it. Randall agreed but asked to take into consideration that irresponsible pet owners let their dogs run wild and run livestock and wildlife which is illegal. He thinks they should be fined. He encourages the board to take the information he gave them to the State meetings. Dave Gowan (NV Houndsman Assoc.): Responded to Scott & Jason s comments about NDOW not telling them they needed to stand down on this issue. He understands it s mostly a social issue but that s why they need the biology and the science because that s the voice of reason and intelligence, it s a management tool and it should be supported by them. Changing the trap check time is not going to solve the issue, maybe education/classes or increase law enforcement. The 24 hr visitation is compounding the issue, not a solution; it s the beginning of the end of trapping. Caleb McAdoo (NDOW): Speaking on behalf of NDOW; agrees with Dave, trapping is a valuable tool that they use. Speaking for himself as an avid trapper prior to this job, it was evident to him other trappers were not making the 96 hr check. Trappers, including him, need to do a better job adhering to the laws and regulations to protect the sport; would like to see an effort on self-policing. Ben wants to add public education to the NDOW website; will be added to the next agenda. John Carpenter: Doesn t think the 24 hr visitation regulation makes sense in this area; need trapping in wide open country.

5 Jason James: Trappers Association has an article on their website that tells you how to fill out the questionnaire. Aug 2 nd, 2014 at Ward Mountain Camp there will be demonstrations and education on trapping. Board comment: This was not on the State Agenda but can be given to them at the State meeting by vote of a motion. Ben made a motion to support trapping laws as currently written with no changes and would like to see a public education webpage developed by NDOW and would like them to work with the Trappers Association to ensure all sides are represented. Mitch: Added there will be one more meeting for Trappers to attend, in Tonopah; latter part of June. Mitch 2 nd, all in favor County Advisory Board to Manage Wildlife Budgets (CABMW) FOR POSSIBLE ACTION The Department will provide an overview of the process for submission of CAB budgets and discuss any other administrative issues related to the CABMWs. (See State Agenda item #17.) Agenda moved to end of meeting-furn made a motion to allow Tom & Ben work through the budgets, Everett 2 nd, Mitch approved Fiscal Year 2016 and 2017 Budget Overview FOR POSSIBLE ACTION The Department will provide an overview on the processes required of state agencies to submit its budget request to the Department of Administration, the Governor, and the Legislature, in preparation for the 2015 Nevada Legislative Session. (See State Agenda item #18.) Agenda moved to end of meeting-furn made a motion to allow Tom & Ben work through the budgets, Everett 2 nd, Mitch approved Fiscal Year 2015 Draft Predation Management Plan (Second Draft) FOR POSSIBLE ACTION The second draft of the proposed Fiscal Year 2015 Predator Management Plan will be presented and the Commission may take action to provide recommendations for modification of the second draft for the May Commission meeting. (See State Agenda item #19.) Public comment: John Carpenter: Would like to see more of the money go to Raven control; thinks it ll help with the Sage-Grouse population. Randall Stoelberl: Thinks they should find out where the hens are nesting, maybe we re putting the eggs in the wrong place. Cari Huebner (NDOW): Project added 074 to the depredation management gave update Big Horn Sheep/ewes/lambs. Mountain lions are coming in so the plan is to target lions that are targeting the sheep. NDOW have noticed hens are nesting close to the leks They have shifted a lot of that removal to later. They are aware there are birds taking their broads higher up. Board comments: Increase funds to Project 21 were mentioned. Mitch asked about the Red Fox study and asked Caleb why they are doing a study on Red Fox. Caleb was not prepared to talk about it at this time but will get more information and bring it to the board later. Randall Stoeberl: Explained his involvement-sent in sample of foxes he trapped but not sure why they are doing the study; maybe a genetically isolated population. Rich Santos: Never heard of this study, save the $10000 for other tools

6 Dave Gowan: Is this study to say the Red Fox is an endangered species and shut down trapping? Randall said that was his concerned and was given the answer, no, just looking for a certain gene. Ben asked how this funding helps with depredation management. Randall hasn t seen a draft so he doesn t know. Caleb McAdoo (NDOW): NDOW is totally fine if they want to remove this. Board comment: Not enough information about this Mitch made a motion to take the $10000 from the Fox study and put it into Project 21-Sage-Grouse predation control, Furn 2 nd, all in favor Black Bear Committee Report FOR POSSIBLE ACTION The Commission will hear a report from the Black Bear Committee meeting on February 21, 2014, and may take action relative to recommendations from the Committee. (See State Agenda item #21.) Caleb McAdoo (NDOW): Nothing to add to be of any value to the board; can get info for later. Tom read motions made at the Black Bear Committee Meeting Dave Gowan (NV Houndsman Assoc.): Issued a complaint; there is a lot of meeting regarding Trapping but not seeing a lot of meetings regarding Black Bear hunting. He would like to present their (Houndsman Assoc.) side of this issue and they deserve to have a chance to speak. Need tools in NV to help control bear population. They are trying to remove hounds from bear hunting and eventually they will remove hounds from all hunting. He s ok with regulation but not to completely take it off the table. Jason James: talked of his experience with bears and his opinion of bear hunts/regulations Randall Stoelberl: Commented about needing to keep hunting pressure on black bear so they will fear humans. He will bring an article at the next meeting. Rich Santos: Commented that with dogs you can figure out sex of a bear; maybe NDOW can put some education on their website about how to do this properly. Henry Krenka (NOGA): They did a poll and the majority wants to leave the hunt as it is. California is trying to get rid of dogs in any type of hunting. Dave Gowan: The anti s are going to keep pushing so eventually they will ban dogs. Board comments: Ben made a motion to support the Black Bear hunt as is and would like to see some meetings about this in Rural NV. Mitch 2 nd, all in favor Commission General Regulation 416, Shed Antlers, LCB File No. R FOR POSSIBLE ACTION The Commission will consider the adoption of a regulation relating to shed antlers; requiring a hunting license for the taking of shed antlers from the field; providing for a shed antler collection season; and providing other matters properly relating thereto. Note: See agenda item #10 A for support material. The need for the shed antler regulation is to reduce disturbance of big game animals, by shed antler hunters, during the critical time of year when these animals energy reserves are at a low. The need for such a regulation was initially expressed by the White Pine County Advisory Board with support from the Lincoln County Advisory Board. (See State Agenda item #22 A.)

7 Public Comment: Randall Stoelberl: Not in support of a license, maybe put a limit on number of sheds. (Tom listed seasons: April 15-Dec 31-ok to collect sheds; Jan 1-April 14-no shed hunting allowed) Randall likes the seasons, doesn t like people harassing the wildlife just to collect dropped antlers. Rich Santos: Thinks it s a joke to have a license to shed hunt but he s open to having seasons. Other states have online classes and certifications during the off seasons. Jason James: We have enough laws guys are stretched to the limit without having to worry about one more law. Fred Esparza (Game Warden): Explained some of the reasoning behind this: Non-residents come in and harass the animals to collect sheds. Large number of deer are being pushed and exerting a lot of energy. Some people are unintentionally pushing deer and some people have had their hunting license revoked so they come in to shed hunt instead. Mitch asked if they are under 12 would they have to have a license. Fred answered if under 12 then they don t have to have one. Ben has issues with getting a license but is ok with seasons. Mitch asked if they see a lot of non-residents and do they now the seasons of the other states. Fred answered there is a high concentration of non-residents during their states closed times. Don Klebenow (NDOW) said it s about the same seasons as proposed. It s a continued problem and it s a critical time for the animals. Caleb McAdoo: Discussed the biology side and a study done on mule deer fat reserves. Brady Shippy: Maybe a license for non-residents only? Are the areas going to be closed as well? Fred answered; It s just going to address the people actually shed hunting. Dave Gowan: What s the definition of Shed hunting? Fred answered; picking up shed antlers from field we do not want people to harass the animals. Jason Jackson: Seasons will help reduce the impact on game Drew Edwards: The bigger issue is we don t have enough law enforcement to enforce the regulations. Dave Gowan: Houndsman Association supports the season and buying a license. How are they going to keep track of who is here to shed hunt? Maybe add an endorsement to the license (no fee). Also discussed coyotes and license for non-residents Randall Stoelberl: Likes the license for non-residents or ban them all together Board comments: Tom supports season, not in favor of license but would support license for non-residents only. Everett agrees with Tom. Everett made a motion to support season with the dates proposed, non-resident must purchase a license but residents do not. Furn 2 nd, all in favor Commission General Regulation 430, Guide License Changes, LCB File No. R FOR POSSIBLE ACTION The Commission will consider guides; revising provisions relating to the issuance and renewal of a license as a master guide or sub-guide; permitting a master guide to use the services of another master guide or a sub-guide licensed under another master guide in certain circumstances; removing territorial limitations imposed by the state on the operation of master guides; revising the grounds for denying an application for a license or for revoking or suspending a license; extending the period within which a master guide must notify the Department of Wildlife after terminating the employment

8 of a sub-guide; revising provisions governing the licensure of habitual violators and the submission of records relating to the clients of a master guide; expanding the circumstances under which a client must physically accompany the master guide or sub-guide during the entire pursuit and taking of an animal; and providing other matters properly relating thereto. Note: See agenda item #10 B for support material. The need for the guide regulation is to update the existing guide regulations that were requested by the Nevada Outfitters and Guides Association. The changes are designed to streamline the guide license application process and address other changes requested by the Nevada Outfitters and Guides Board. (See State Agenda item #22 B.) Henry Krenka (NOGA): State went with NDOW s suggestions and everything else went smooth. Board comments: Ben made a motion to approve, Furn 2 nd ; all in favor with the exception of Mitch-he abstained from voting Discuss any other State agenda items NONE Future Commission Meeting: FOR POSSIBLE ACTION The next Commission meetings are scheduled for May 9 th and 10th, 2014, in Reno; and the Commission will review and discuss potential agenda items for that meeting. The Commission may change the time and meeting location at this time. The chairman may designate and adjust committee assignments as necessary at this meeting. Elko County Wildlife Board s future meeting date will be the prior Monday to the next state meeting (Monday, May 5 th, 2014). Toni Jewell asked if meeting could be changed as she will be out of town Monday. Board agreed. Elko County Wildlife Board meeting will be Tuesday, May 6 th, COMMENTS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC: NON-ACTION ITEM Pursuant to N.R.S , 2(c) (3), this time is devoted to comments by the general public, if any, and discussion of those comments. No action may be taken upon a matter raised under this item on the agenda until the matter itself has been specifically included on a successive agenda and identified to be an action item. NONE ADJOURNMENT at 9pm * SUPPORT MATERIAL PROVIDED AT