►
From YouTube: 2/23/2021 - Senate Committee on Natural Resources
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
Great
thank
you
good
afternoon.
The
senate
committee
on
natural
resources
will
now
come
to
order
members
and
presenters.
Please
remember
to
meet
your
microphone
when
you
are
not
speaking.
Thank
you
at
this
time.
Will
our
secretary
please
proceed
to
call
the
role.
C
A
Welcome
everyone
to
the
senate
committee
on
natural
resources
before
we
begin
just
as
always,
I
would
like
to
explain
how
the
virtual
committee
meetings
will
work,
since
this
is
a
new
process
for
a
lot
of
us
during
this
session.
As
you
may
know,
the
legislative
building
is
currently
closed
to
the
public,
so
all
of
our
committee
meetings
will
be
held
virtually
this
means
that
committee
members
staff
and
everyone
else
will
have
to
participate
either
through
zoom
video
conference
or
by
telephone.
A
However,
there
are
various
ways
that
members
of
the
public
can
engage
with
us
and
participate
throughout
this
entire
process.
As
in
in
previous
sessions,
all
committee
related
material
can
be
found
and
available
through
the
nevada
electronic
legislative
information
system
commonly
referred
to
as
nellis,
which
is
accessible
through
the
legislature's
website.
There
are
four
ways
that
you
can
engage
with
our
committee
first,
one
being
registering
to
participate
in
a
committee
meeting
through
the
through
the
mellon
system,
which
places
you
in
line
to
testify
on
a
bill
or
provide
public
comment.
A
During
our
meeting,
you
can
also
submit
written
testimony
to
the
committee's
email
address
listed
on
the
agenda.
You
can
share
your
opinion
via
the
legislature's
opinion
application
on
nellis,
and
you
could
also
view
committee
meetings
online
through
nellis
or
on
the
legislature's
youtube
channel
to
testify
on
a
bill
or
provide
public
comment
during
the
2021
legislative
session.
Members
of
the
public
must
first
register
for
the
meeting
you
would
like
to
participate
in
committee
meetings
are
listed
in
several
places
on
nellis
and
to
simply
to
register.
A
All
you
have
to
do
is
simply
click
on
the
participate
button
near
the
meeting
date
and
time
and
then
just
fill
out
the
required
information.
Just
as
a
note
for
you
all
today,
while
the
meeting
registration
is
required
to
participate,
it
does
not
guarantee
you
a
time
to
speak
and
similar
to
previous
sessions.
Testimony
and
public
comment
may
be
limited
due
to
time
constraints.
A
When
you
are
on
the
phone
line
today,
please
pay
attention
to
which
bill
is
being
considered
and
when
the
bills
are
on
the
listed
on
the
meetings
agenda
and
follow
the
verbal
prompts
that
will
be
provided
by
broadcast
and
production
services.
Today,
we'll
be
hearing
senate
bills
fit
34
and
54,
which
are
on
the
agenda.
Bps
staff
will
call
on
you
to
speak
and
they
will
call
you
by
your
last
three
digits
of
your
phone
number.
D
A
With
that,
we
are
ready
to
go
ahead
and
proceed
with
senate
bill
34.
I
at
this
time
I
will
now
open
the
hearing
on
sb34.
This
measure
makes
various
changes
relating
to
agriculture.
Will
the
bill
presenter,
mr
douglas
ferris,
administrator
of
the
division
of
animal
industry
state
department
of
agriculture?
Please
proceed
when
you
are.
E
Ready
good
afternoon,
chairman
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
doug
ferris,
I'm
the
animal
industry
division
administrator
for
the
nevada
department
of
agriculture.
E
It
is
my
pleasure
to
appear
before
you
today
to
present
you
senate
bill
34,
which
updates
the
titles
and
nevada
police
officers
and
standards
and
training
qualifications
for
the
department's
law
enforcement
staff,
as
well
as
the
addition
of
the
adding
the
word
visual
when
pertaining
to
brand
inspections
to
provide
some
background,
nevada
department.
Agriculture
currently
has
five
sworn
law
enforcement
staff
positions
utilized
in
educating
the
public
in
the
industry
as
well
as
upholding,
as
well
as
upholding
and
enforcing
agricultural
laws
across
the
state.
The
current
titles
of
these
positions
are
agricultural
enforcement
officers.
E
Sb
34
would
update
these
requirements
to
a
category
one
nevada
post
certificate
and
thus
will
create
equity
amongst
nda
law
enforcement
staff
with
other
state
county
and
law
enforcement
law
enforcement
officers
such
as
game
wardens,
state,
troopers,
deputy
sheriffs
and
city
police
officers.
E
Additionally,
sb
34
seeks
to
clean
up
language
pertaining
to
title
changes
of
agricultural
police
officers
and
sections
of
nrs,
as
well
as
clean
up
language
pertaining
to
inspections
of
brands.
By
adding
the
word
visual
to
the
medium
brand
inspection.
This
bill
does
not
create
any
new
positions
to
the
department
or
require
any
additional
funding
requests.
E
Section
three
provides
that
the
definition
of
an
agriculture
provides
a
definition
of
an
agricultural
police
officer,
section
three,
four
five
and
six
clarifies
that
brand
inspections
must
be
completed
visually.
This
ensure
that
brand
inspections
are
only
performed
when
a
visual
inspection
is
performed
by
an
inspector
section.
Seven
8,
9,
10
and
15
make
changes
to
the
terminology
to
reject
to
reflect
the
title.
Change
to
an
agricultural
police
officer,
section
11
clarifies
that
the
director
may
appoint
agricultural
police
officers
and
defines
an
agricultural
police
officer.
A
F
E
For
the
record
doug
ferriss,
mr
chair,
through
you
to
senator
kichia,
they
would
have
the
ability
to
perform
brand
inspections,
but
that
would
not
be
a
normal
part
of
their
duties
or
a
normal
duty
on
a
daily
basis.
It
would
be
a
more
in
a
needed
basis
and
that
way
they
could
attend
to
their
their
law
enforcement
duties
more.
F
It's
not
that
easy,
it's
easy
to
say
brand
inspector,
but
you
we
all
know.
That's
you
get
into
a
crowd
full
of
ball
and
cows
at
10
roll
zero.
It's
not
easy
just
want
to
make
sure
they
also
would
have
the
expertise.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
senator
garcia,
senator
brooks.
Do
you
have
a
question.
H
Thank
you,
chairman
donate,
mr
first,
I'm
I'm
looking
at
section
16
and
that's
the
section
that
would
make
the
basically
the
heart
lung
provisions
that
are
in
that
for
a
lot
of
different
types
of
law
enforcement
eligible
to
these
positions.
H
And
you
know,
we've
heard
a
lot
about
what
constitutes
risks
that
create
the
need
for
the
heart
and
lung
coverage.
Could
you
go
into
a
little
bit
of
detail
about
the
activities
that
your
officers
would
be
performing
that
that
lead
you
to
believe
that
16
should
cover
their
activities
as
well.
E
For
the
record,
doug
ferriss,
mr
chair,
through
you
to
senator,
brooks
senator
so
our
our
officers
are
travel
the
roads,
primarily
throughout
the
day,
in
the
course
of
their
duties
from
one
location
to
another.
So
as
far
as
even
with
assisting
state
troopers
on
a
normal
basis,
they
assist
the
local
sheriff's
departments,
police
departments
when
requested,
and
so
they
are
during
the
normal
course
of
their
duties.
They
are
putting
themselves
in
those
same
positions
or
working
alongside
sage
state
troopers,.
H
A
chair
can
I
follow
up
a
little
bit,
go
for
it
and
mr
ferris,
I
just
don't
think
I
I
fully
understand
your
day-to-day
responsibilities
of
your
officers
and
and
and
besides,
you
know,
assisting
other
other
law
enforcement.
If
you
think
you
could
briefly
just
walk
me
through,
I,
I
apologize
kind
of
just
what
what
the
roles
and
responsibilities
your
officers
are.
E
For
the
record,
doug
ferriss
absolutely-
and
I
apologize
senator
for
not
being
clear
enough.
All
of
our
all
of
our
enforcement
officers
work
much
in
the
same
way
as
a
state.
Trooper
does,
as
far
as
being
assigned
a
patrol
vehicle
that
they
keep
at
their
residence.
They
respond
from
their
residence
for
calls
for
service
or
emergencies
or
in
the
normal
course
of
their
duties.
Unless
they
have
an
active
investigation
that
they're
working
on
or
something
of
that
sort,
they
will
be
out
patrolling
the
roadways.
E
They
stop
any
private
motor
vehicle
or
commercial
voter
vehicle
that
they
believe
may
be
hauling
agricultural
products.
That
could
be
whether
it's
hauling,
whether
they're
hauling
plants
to
to
a
walmart
or
a
cattle
to
a
livestock
auction,
they're
stopping
those
or
ranchers
moving
livestock
from
one
place
to
another.
So
they
are
performing
the
the
those
traffic
stops
throughout
the
day
and
working
with
them
and
then,
like
I
said
in
doing
so,
then
also
involved
themselves
with
working
with
the
other
other
law
enforcement
staff
across
the
state.
A
Thank
you
so
much
vice
chair
vice
chair
tribal,
go
for
it.
G
Thank
you,
chair
dante.
I
have
a
couple
of
questions.
Is
the
idea
here
to
expand
the
role
of
agricultural
police
officers
and
have
them
start
taking
on
additional
responsibilities.
E
For
the
record
doug
first,
so
I
would
say
it's
not
to
expand
on
it.
Our
officers
already
do
a
lot
more
than
just
the
agricultural
side.
E
I
believe
one
of
the
big
factors
behind
this
and
why
we
wouldn't
push
this
forward
is
the
issues
we
have
in
hiring
law
enforcement
staff
because
they
don't
fall
under
the
same
qualifications.
That
say
a
state
trooper
or
a
sheriff's
deputy.
Would
we
have
interest
from
other
agencies
of
people
who
have
an
agricultural
background
would
be
interested
in
working
for
the
department
of
agriculture
in
these
positions,
but
the
the
benefits
as
far
as
the
heart
and
lung
do
not
fall
on
their
and
also
qualifying
as
a
as
a
category
one
police
officer.
G
Okay,
do
they
currently
investigate
felony
crimes.
E
E
Doug
ferris
for
the
record.
They
currently
have
the
ability
to,
and
I
would
say
just
two
weeks
ago
we
were,
we
were
actually
drafting
a
search
warrant
for
a
facility
in
elko
county.
So
they
do
have
that
ability
and
they
do
perform
those
actions
when
needed.
G
Okay,
do
they
write
speeding
tickets.
E
Doug
ferris
for
the
record
on
a
normal
basis.
They
would
not
write
it
write
a
speeding
citation
to
somebody
they
do
have
because
they
have
the
same
training
as
other
the
other
law
enforcement
officers
across
the
state.
They
do
have
that
ability
to
when
there's
a
crime
committed
in
their
presence.
We
do
have
one
of
our
officers.
E
A
E
For
the
record,
I
I
guess
I
can't
answer
why
those
other
positions
aren't
considered
category
one.
I
just
feel
that
with
the
job
duties
that
that
our
officers
are
performing
up
and
down
the
highways
of
stopping
vehicles
and
working
out
there
right,
alongside
with
with
the
other
law
enforcement
officers,
that
that
would
put
them
into
that
same
classification
and-
and
I
would
also
say
that
part
of
part
of
the
interest
in
this
with
the
department
is
so
that
we
can
fill
our
positions
with
qualified
candidates.
G
And
I
I
understand
that
I
appreciate
it.
What
I'm
just
not
understanding
is
how
it
can
be
that
we
are
going
to
be
improving
their
benefits
package
by
passing
this
bill.
Yet
it
has
no
fiscal
note.
Obviously
our
policy
committee,
not
the
money
committee,
but
can
you
explain
how
it's
possible
to
increase
the
benefits
for
the
employee
without
increasing
the
cost
to
the
employer.
E
For
the
record,
doug
ferris,
I
believe
the
reason
I
know
from
from
our
standpoint
from
the
department.
There
wasn't
a
fiscal
note
because
it
didn't
meet
the
threshold
for
that
there
would
be
an
increased
cost
to
the
department
for
having
our
officers
do
the
to
have
the
physicals
once
a
year,
just
like
other
law
enforcement
officers.
So
there
would
be
that
cost,
but
I
don't
believe
it
met
the
threshold
and
that's
why
it
wasn't
included.
G
Yeah,
I
would
appreciate
that,
because,
even
if
it
doesn't
meet
the
threshold,
I'm
concerned
that
we
have
a
fiscal
note
in
front
of
us
with
a
zero
on
it,
which
would
indicate
that
there's
no
cost
not
just
a
cost
that
doesn't
meet
the
threshold
of
of
recording.
So
I
would
appreciate
some
detail.
Thank
you.
I
Yes
sure
donate.
Thank
you,
sir
alan
amburn,
for
the
record.
I
just
wanted
to
touch
on
a
couple
of
points
there.
It
seems
that
the
issue
is
dealing
with
section
16
of
the
bill,
which
is
essentially
categorizing.
These
individuals,
as
police
officers,
is
through,
which
section
16
that
these
additional
benefits
would
then
apply
to
these
agricultural
police
officers.
Specifically,
there
are
five
areas
and
four
topics
where
these
protections
would
be
expanded,
so,
for
example,
as
a
result
being
classified
under
section
16
of
this
bill.
I
These
agricultural
police
officers
are
exempt
from
the
services
of
a
grand
or
trial
juror.
They
get
compensation
if
they
are
disabled,
they're
eligible
for
certain
programs
of
group
insurance,
other
medical
hospital
services
and
they're
eligible
for
certain
types
of
industrial
insurance,
and
so
with
several
of
those.
I
Those
are
not
necessarily
like
immediate
costs
that
the
department
itself
might
and
might
have
imposed
upon
it,
but
these
are
costs
that
could
be
imposed
later
on,
particularly
with
the
disability
insurance
with
all
the
other
ones
or
more
of
benefits
that
that
would
now
apply
to
these
individuals
and
necessarily
cost,
but,
like
you
have
an
additional
insurance
option.
If
you
want
to
take
it
under
that
industrial
insurance
statute,.
A
Great,
thank
you,
sir.
Are
there
any
other
questions
at
this
time.
F
Yes,
thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
all
these
questions
have
piqued
my
interest
now,
mr
farris,
will
these
officers
still
be
responding
to
say
the
card
horse
collisions?
We
have
out
here
on
50
your
truck
wrecks.
You
know
we
all
know
in
the
past.
These
are
the
people
that
got
in
these
trucks
and
dug
those
cows
out,
but
I'm
a
little
nervous
that
we're
gonna
hand
this
off
now.
E
For
the
record
doug
ferris
senator
gregory
kacie,
that
is
correct.
These
these
officers
will
still
still
perform
those
duties.
They'll
respond
to
the
vehicle
crashes,
whether
they're
involving
livestock
or
not,
and
then
livestock
vehicle
crashes
in
which
you're
discussing
yes,
though
they
still
will
be
responding
to
those,
and
that
is,
is
one
of
their
duties.
F
Thank
you.
I
don't
know
how
many
of
you
were
here
a
couple
sessions
ago
when
we
were
trying
to
bring
them
forward,
and
the
pictures
I
had
of
some
of
them
truck
wrecks
are
pretty
catastrophic
when
you're
trying
to
get
the
live
ones
out
and
separate
from
the
dead
ones.
I.
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you
senator
great
to
see
you
senator
hansen.
Do
you
have
any
questions?
You're,
good?
Okay,
thank
you.
So
just
mr
ferris
one
quick
clarification.
Could
you
please
document
me
why
you
are
adding
chapter
585
in
section
11.?
A
E
A
Okay,
great,
thank
you
yeah.
I
will
definitely
follow
up
with
you
on
that.
Thank
you.
Are
there
any
other
questions
at
this
moment
in
time.
A
Seeing
none
thank
you,
sir.
We
are
now
ready
to
go
ahead
and
move
with
testimony.
So
next
we
will
hear
testimony
in
support
of
sb-34.
As
a
reminder,
we
will
be
limiting
all
testifiers
to
two
minutes.
Each
testifiers
are
encouraged
to
summarize
their
positions
and
submit
more
comprehensive
testimony
in
writing.
Bps
is
there
anyone
on
the
line
that
would
wish
to
provide
support
testimony.
B
B
B
J
Janate
members
of
the
committee,
this
is
alyssa
neyworth,
I'm
so
sorry,
but
I
accidentally
pressed
star
9
for
the
wrong
bill.
This
is
my
first
time
so
give
me
I'm
so
sorry
and
I'll
be
talking
to
you
about
the
next
bill.
B
A
Thank
you
so
much
next,
we
will
hear
testimony
in
opposition
before
recognizing
callers.
I
would
like
to
recognize
that
earlier
today
there
was
one
opinion
submitted
on
the
public
opinion
poll
for
sb
34
from
kimberly
henderson
in
opposition,
and
I
encourage
people
to
use
the
public
opinion
poll
to
share
their
views
as
well.
B
A
Great,
thank
you
so
much.
I
think
we
are
good
to
go
for
right
now.
I
know
there
are
other
questions
that
we
will
answer
offline,
but
mr
ferris,
thank
you
for
your
presentation
and
for
your
time
today,
sir.
So
at
this
time
I
will
now
go
ahead
and
close
the
hearing
on
sb34.
A
Thank
you,
okay.
So
now
that
we
have
gotten
that
out
of
the
way
we
can
go
ahead
and
discuss
senate
bill
54,
so
I
will
now
go
ahead
and
open
the
hearing
on
sb54.
This
measure
provides
provisions
relating
to
the
state
board
of
agriculture.
Well,
the
bill
presenter,
miss
jennifer
director
of
the
state
department
of
agriculture.
Please
proceed
when
you
are
ready.
K
Thank
you,
chairman,
donate
and
members
of
the
committee.
It
is
good
to
see
you
again.
My
name
is
jennifer
ott,
I'm
the
director
of
the
department
of
agriculture.
Thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
appear
in
front
of
you
today
to
present
senate
bill
54,
which
revises
nrs
561.055,
outlining
the
membership
of
the
board
of
agriculture.
K
To
provide
background.
Soon,
after
appointment
by
the
governor,
I
provided
an
overview
of
department
operations
and
the
board
of
agriculture
to
his
staff.
It
was
immediately
clear
that
the
composition
of
the
board
did
not
align
to
the
industries
in
nevada
that
is
charged
with
representing
nor
the
current
responsibilities
of
the
department
for
whom
it
sets
policy.
K
The
department
is
responsible
for
many
aspects
of
the
food
supply
chain
from
planting
and
livestock
production
to
food
distribution.
However,
the
composition
of
the
board
is
heavily
on
production.
The
department
is
requesting
to
replace
two
board
positions
with
a
member
experienced
in
supplemental
nutrition
distribution
and
a
member
experienced
in
food
manufacturing
or
processing.
K
K
Supplemental
nutrition
is
defined
as
the
food
provided
to
a
person
or
family
augmenting
any
food
they
might
have
to
create
a
full
and
nutritious
meal.
The
department
works
with
many
federal
programs
to
distribute
supplemental
nutrition
to
food,
insecure
populations,
92
percent
of
the
overall
budget
for
the
department
in
fiscal
year
21
was
the
responsibility
of
the
food
and
nutrition
division
within
the
department
who
has
no
board
representation.
K
Currently,
the
board
is
not
required
to
have
any
member
with
manufacturing
and
processing
experience,
despite
the
growth
and
importance
of
this
sector
on
nevada's
agricultural
economy,
which
is
why
this
position
is
important.
We
do
not
have
a
connection
between
the
production
of
plants
produce
and
livestock,
and
the
processing
and
manufacturing
of
the
same.
K
This
proposal
would
give
the
food
and
manufacturing
industry
one
of
the
11
current
seats
from
comments
made
by
the
public
in
previous
meetings
and
some
you
might
hear
today.
I
understand
that
those
on
the
production
side
of
the
industry
see
this
bill
as
a
reduction
of
importance
or
even
a
disrespect
to
the
history
of
the
industry,
and
I
disagree
by
recognizing
and
receiving
input
from
those
at
the
end
of
the
supply
chain.
We
strengthen
both
the
historically
important
and
emerging
industries
by
creating
connections
and
bringing
to
light
opportunities.
K
K
K
The
bulk
of
the
changes
are
in
section
one,
and
I
have
prepared
a
slide
here
to
make
it
a
little
bit
easier
to
walk
you
through
at
the
top
of
this
slide.
I've
just
made
some
quick
points.
These
are
not
all
of
the
points
for
the
board
of
agriculture,
just
some
relevant
ones
that
I've
mentioned
in
the
history.
K
K
The
the
black
font
here
at
the
bottom
are
members
that
do
not
have
any
changes.
It's
the
blue
areas
that
I'm
going
to
focus
on.
So
currently
there
are
six
positions
we
are
interested
in
changing.
There
are
three
members
engaged
in
range
or
semi-range
cattle
production,
one
member
engaged
in
range
or
semi-range
sheet
production,
one
member
engaged
in
growing
row
crop
space
to
permit
mechanical
cultivation
and
one
member
engaged
in
general
farming.
K
Our
proposal
is
to
adjust
that
to
two
members
engaged
in
livestock
production.
Two
members
engaged
in
growing
crops,
at
least
one
of
which
is
a
specialty
crop
harvested
by
mechanical
cultivation,
one
in
the
field
of
supplemental
nutrition
distribution
and
one
engaged
in
food
manufacturing
or
animal
processing.
K
A
A
And
just
for
clarification,
clarification
before
anyone
raises
any
questions
right
now
we
are
entertaining
questions
specifically
for
ms
pott.
We
will
have
other
presenters
throughout
this
testimony,
so
right
now,
if
you
have
any
questions,
feel
free
to.
Let
me
know
senator
good
to
see
you
thank.
F
You
guys,
yes,
just
a
couple
of
quick
questions.
Miss
up,
I
believe
you
were
appointed
by
the
board.
Were
you
not.
K
Jennifer
out
for
the
record
chairman,
if
it's
all
right
with
you,
I'm
going
to
go
direct
to
each
of
the
members
senator
kochia,
this
is
jennifer
out,
for
the
record.
I
am
selected
by
the
board
and
appointed
by
the
governor
is
how
the
statute
reads.
The
statute
reached.
F
Must
be
appointed
by
the
board
with
the
use
of
the
governor
okay,
I
just
want
to-
and
I
know
you
some
of
the
members
here
testifying
today
did
actually
were
involved
in
that
appointment
and-
and
I
guess
that
just
kind
of
concerns
me
miss
why
you
didn't
bring
this
change
to
the
board
and
that's
what's
caused
a
lot
of
the
problems
there
where
and
a
lot
of
the
testimony
here
today.
F
If
they
were
your
your
your
board,
and
I
don't
believe
you
told
them
that
you
were
bringing
this
bill
forward,
that
was
gonna
change.
The
makeup
of
the
board.
Did
you.
K
I,
mr
chairman,
I
believe
that
was
a
question
I'd
like
to
respond
to
senator
gurkuchia.
If
I
may
yes,
jennifer
for
the
record,
the
bdr
again
is
as
an
executive
branch
agency,
the
department
of
agriculture
works
under
the
governor's
bdrs,
and
this
is
a
bdr
that
was
brought
forth
under
that
purview.
K
K
Also,
this
board
change
was
on
the
agenda
at
the
december
9th
board
meeting
and
then
because
of
discussion
on
that
december
9th
board
meeting
the
board
chairman
chose
to
call
a
special
meeting
to
discuss
an
amendment
that
I
believe
you'll
hear
later
on
today,
and
so
I've
done
the
best
that
I
could
to
reach
out
to
them
and
and
let
them
know
of
that
process
and
what
was
happening.
F
It
probably
would
have
been
better
if,
if
we'd
all
been
upfront
with
it.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
senator
go
get.
You
senator
brooks.
H
Thank
you,
chair
donate.
I
just
just
questioned
about
the
the
existing
makeup
of
the
the
board.
You
know
how
how
far
that
goes
back.
K
Senator
brooks
jennifer
ought
for
the
record.
I
believe
you
know
what
I
can
check
very
quickly
for
you.
I
don't
want
to
guess
on
the
record,
but
I'm
going
to
guess
probably
40
or
50
years,
but
I
can
double
check.
H
F
Mr
chair,
if
I
may,
this
is
senator
gregory,
I
believe
it
was
updated
in
one
that
was
the
last
time
when
we
took
the
sheep
commission
off
and
gave
the
sheep
industry
a
seed
on
the
board.
K
I
apologize
chairman.
I
just
looked
at
online.
The
chapter
of
the
nrs
that
was
added
to
for
the
board
was
adopted
in
1961.
K
And
there
has
been
changes.
My
apologies
jennifer
out
for
the
record.
There
has
been
changes
sense,
but
not
to
the
basic
makeup.
A
G
Thank
you,
chair
donate.
I
was
just
trying
to
cross-reference
sb54
with
sb65
that
we
heard
last
week
and
noticing
specifically
that
on
page
two
or
where
you're,
adding
a
member
to
the
board,
who
works
in
the
field
of
supplemental
nutrition
distribution,
is
that
a
program
that
already
exists
within
the
department
of
agriculture
or
is
that
one
that
is
being
created
in
sb,
65
or
being
renamed
in
sb
65?.
K
K
K
What
we
were
doing
in
sb
65
is,
like
I
said
you
know,
tightening
up
that
statute,
so
that
is
more
easily
available
and
understandable
by
the
public
and
making
it
more
transparent.
So
what
we
are
asking
in
this
bill,
sb
54,
is
to
have
board
representation
for
that
division
that
exists
currently
in
the
depart.
Excuse
me
in
the
department,
like
I
said
in
my
introduction,
92
at
least
in
fiscal
year,
21
92
of
the
budget
for
the
department
was
in
the
food
nutrition
division,
and
so
that's
why?
A
A
Okay,
miss.
Could
you
please
terrify
for
me,
have?
Has
the
board
ever
had,
or
has
your
department
ever
had
a
consideration
of
adding
anyone
with
a
public
health
expert?
A
A
professional
background
in
as
part
of
this
revision
was
that
was
that
ever
something
that
came
up
or
was
it
kind
of
covered
on
under
the
supplemental
nutrition
number.
K
Thank
you
chairman.
We
felt
that
the
language
of
supplemental
nutrition
distribution
best
fits
the
activities
of
the
food
and
nutrition
division
at
the
department,
basically
assisting
food
banks
and
food
pantries
with
providing
food
administrative
dollars
working
with
tribal
communities
on
distributing
food
directly
to
them
those
activities.
K
We
do
have
nutrition
specialists
that
work
in
our
school
lunch
program
on
staff,
and
so
we
phrased
the
language
that
way
so
that
we
could
pull
from
potentially
a
variety
of
different
nutrition
industries
and
distribution
areas.
So
that's
why
we
framed
it
that
way,
rather
than
narrowing
it
to
a
health
focus,
but
for
us
when
we're
working
with
food
distribution,
we're
always
looking
at
nutrition
and
and
the
health
of
the
food
insecure
population
that
we
serve.
A
Great,
thank
you
so
much
for
that.
Okay,
I
don't
think
anyone
else
has
any
questions,
so
we
can
go
ahead
and
move
forward.
So
just
as
clarification,
a
couple
amendments
have
been
submitted
for
sb54
and
they
are
all
uploaded
on
nellis.
On
the
exhibits
side,
I
would
like
the
party
submitting
those
amendments
to
address
them
when
I
asked
again
for
testimony
in
opposition
to
sp54,
so
at
this
time
we
can
go
ahead
and
move
forward.
A
Now
I
would
like
to
go
ahead
and
take
testimony
in
support
of
sb54
as
a
reminder
for
everyone.
That's
listening
today
we
will
be
limiting
all
testifiers
to
two
minutes.
Each
specifiers
are
encouraged
to
summarize
their
positions
and
submit
more
comprehensive,
comprehensive
testimony
in
writing.
Dps
is
there
anyone
wishing?
Is
there
anyone
on
the
line
that
is
wishing
to
provide
support
testimony
at
this
time.
B
A
Thank
you
so
much
okay,
seeing
that
there
has
been
no
support
for
testimony
just
for
anyone,
that's
watching
if
we
are
going
a
little
bit
too
fast.
You
are
always
welcome
to
communicate
your
support
or
intentions
to
my
committee
members
and
we
will
be
able
to
reflect
that
accurately.
So
at
this
time
we
will
go
ahead
and
continue
to
hear
testimony
in
opposition,
and
with
that
I
would
like
to
start
with
mr
doug
busselman
executive,
vice
president
for
the
nevada
farm
bureau
federation.
So
whenever
you
are
ready,
sir.
M
M
M
Due
to
the
nature
of
the
board
of
agriculture.
We
are
unclear
of
the
connection
related
to
the
department
services
for
these
supplemental
nutrition
distribution.
M
The
second
board
of
position
that
the
department
is
pressing
for
does
have
that
type
of
connection
and
relationship,
and
we
can
understand
that
position
being
added
nevada.
Farm
bureau
would
be
able
to
support
sb
54
with
the
amendment
that
you'll
be
hearing
shortly
from
the
board
of
agriculture,
with
their
proposal
for
makeup
of
maintaining
the
current
qualifications
for
the
board
and
adding
two
additional
seats,
our
amendment
nevada
farm
bureau
is
seeking
would
change
nrs
561.105,
given
that
this
bill
opens
up
that
chapter.
M
It
relates
to
the
duties
and
regulations
for
the
nevada
board
of
agriculture,
in
line
with
the
language
that
we've
offered.
This
amendment
would
enhance
the
understanding
that
all-
and
I
want
to
emphasize-
that's
really
the
key.
All
regulations
that
are
necessary
for
the
operation
for
the
department
would
be
carried
out
through
by
bringing
forward
those
regulation
proposals
to
the
board
of
agriculture
for
consideration
and
potential
adoption.
A
Great,
thank
you,
sir.
I'm
gonna
go
ahead
and
continue
with
the
other
members
who
are
presenting
their
amendments
to
this
bill
and
then
at
the
end,
I
can
entertain
any
questions
for
any
all
through
any
of
all
three
of
you,
so
mr
marlene
higby
vice
chair
of
the
state
board
of
agriculture,
to
see
when
you
are
ready,
sir,.
C
Yes,
for
the
record
varlin
higmy,
mr
chair-
I
resent
represent
at
this
time
the
board
of
agriculture
as
vice
chair.
What
are
you
worthington
apologizes
for
not
being
able
to
be
here
today
so
you're
stuck
listening
to
me.
C
This
bill
was
proposed
and
jennifer
when
it
was
mailed
out
to
us.
There
were
some
major
concerns.
C
A
D
Yes,
mr
chairman,
thank
you
for
hearing
me.
My
name
is
for
the
record,
I'm
dear
dear
mr
chairman
and
members
of
the
state
natural
resource
committee,
I
am
p
paris
again,
a
third
generation
rancher
in
nevada.
I
currently
sit
on
the
board
of
agriculture,
representing
semi
rain
sheep
production,
while
I'm
here
supporting
my
fellow
board
of
agriculture
members.
All
the
opinions
I
provide
today
are
mine.
I
have
many
concerns
with
sv54
as
written.
D
First
and
foremost,
I
oppose
the
provision
to
lump
cattle
and
sheep
ranching
representation
under
general
livestock
production.
Second,
along
with
that,
I
oppose
removing
the
linkage
to
rangeland
livestock
production.
I'm
also
concerned
with
the
lack
of
engagement
with
the
board
of
agriculture
and
agricultural
groups
when
this
bill
was
being
considered
and
drafted.
D
Lastly,
I've
grown
increasingly
concerned
with
what
I
perceive
as
efforts
over
many
years
to
diminish
the
role
relevancy
and
especially
the
authority
of
the
board
of
agriculture.
To
my
first
point,
combining
and
renaming
the
cattle
and
sheep
production
seat
into
two
general
seats
representing
just
livestock
production
is
a
mistake.
D
First,
this
goes
against
the
attempt
of
the
previous
legislation,
sb
486
and
nrs
562.
In
the
2003
legislature,
there's
a
history
that
needs
to
be
explained
here.
Initially,
the
sheep
commission
was
its
own
identity
to
specifically
support
sheep
producers
in
the
state.
The
sheep
commission
was
formed
in
1907
eight
years
before
the
board
of
stock
commissioners,
which
later
became
the
department
of
agriculture.
D
D
Second,
I
have
first-hand
knowledge
and
experience
that
these
two
types
of
livestock
productions
have
interests,
needs
and
policies
that
are
often
distinct
and
separate.
This
diversity
of
interest
across
them
between
catalan
sheep
production
must
be
protected
on
the
board.
As
it
currently
says,
next
nevada
livestock
production
is
one
with
rangeland
ranching,
both
public
and
private
rangelands.
D
D
Both
of
these
new
areas
are
federally
mandated
programs
with
all
the
rules
and
regulations
to
manage
them.
Knowledge
and
expertise
already
exist
in
the
department
itself
and
broadly
on
the
board
regarding
the
food
manufacturing
and
distribution
system
to
be
involved
in
agriculture
today
requires
all
of
us
to
have
special
levels
of
knowledge
of
our
overall
food
system.
D
A
E
A
Time
are
there
any
questions
from
my
committee
members
just
for
your
notice,
if
you
can,
please
identify
the
speaker
that
you're
asking
do
you
refer
your
question
to
that,
would
make
it
a
little
bit
easier?
Are
there
any
questions
for
any
of
the
three
gentlemen
that
just
spoke.
A
I
don't
see
anyone
so,
mr
bustleman,
this
is
just
a
question
from
myself.
Can
you
confirm
for
me
the
scope
of
the
change
that
you
are
looking
to,
that
you
are
seeking?
Are
you
looking
for
a
small
change
or
something
that
is
more
robust?
That
applies
to
a
broader
range
of
statutes.
M
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
Again,
for
the
record,
my
name
is
doug
busselman
with
nevada
farm
bureau.
Yes,
we
are
intending
right
now
there
are
a
number
of
different
sections
of
nevada
statute
that
cover
various
programs
and
cover
various
areas
of
operation
and
each
of
those
sections
have
their
own
separate
nuance.
M
As
far
as
who
is
identified
as
being
responsible,
I
I
would
draw
attention
to
nrs
564.03,
which
covers
the
brand
laws,
and
there
it
identifies
that
the
director
has
the
authority
and
the
responsibility
to
adopt
such
regulations,
not
inconsistent,
they're
within
and
appoint
such
agents.
A
Adoption,
thank
you
so
much
for
that
clarification,
sir
community
members,
any
last-minute
questions
that
we
want
to
entertain
before
we
move
on
to
testimony.
A
Okay,
thank
you
so
much
so,
in
addition
to
the
proposed
amendments,
two
letters
have
been
received
in
opposition
to
the
bill
as
introduced
and
those
are
posted
on
nellis.
Those
letters
are
from
gary
mcquinn
executive.
Vice
president
for
the
society
for
range
management
and
william
payne
dean
and
professor
college
of
agriculture,
biotechnology
and
natural
resources
from
the
university
of
nevada,
reno
dps.
Is
there
anyone
on
the
line
at
this
time
wishing
to
provide
testimony
in
opposition
to
sb54.
B
B
N
Yes,
can
you
hear
me,
mr
chairman,
this
is
joe
gill,
g-u-I-l-d.
N
N
Again,
I'm
joe
gild,
I'm
the
past
president
of
the
nevada,
cattlemen's
association,
I'm
a
cattle
producer
in
douglas
county
and
and
elko
county
nevada.
I'm
the
current
treasurer
of
the
national
cattlemen's
beef
association,
a
25
000
member
association
representing
the
beef
cattle
industry
in
this
country
in
2003.
Mr
paris
is
right.
The
quote
range
or
semi-range
sheep
production.
End
quote:
member
was
added
to
the
membership
of
the
board
of
agriculture.
N
This
culminated
in
a
about
a
three-year
effort
when
it
was
found
in
about
1999
that
the
sheep
commission
was
insolvent
and
I
was
in
the
room,
I
think
it
was
in
the
room
that
your
committee
will
meet
later.
I
hope
in
person,
when
the
deal
was
announced
to
the
predecessor
of
this
committee,
to
exchange
a
sheep
industry
member
on
the
board
of
agriculture
for
the
sheep,
industry's
support
of
the
elimination
of
the
nevada
sheep
commission,
which
had
been
in
existence
since
the
early
1900s.
N
I
was
reminded
recently
that,
in
that,
in
that
deal,
if
this
position
ever
went
away
from
the
board
of
agriculture,
the
sheep
commission
would
be
attempted
to
be
brought
back,
and
I
don't
think
this
is
an
outcome
that
I
believe
the
sheep
industry
would
support.
Currently
I
was
at
I
attended
the
meeting
on
january
19th
2021
of
the
board
and
testified
the
board.
The
board
voted
seven
to
two
to
not
support
sd
54.
N
N
N
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
I
really
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
testify
in
front
of
this
committee.
As
some
of
the
older
committee
members
know,
I've
been
doing
this
for
a
long
time
representing
the
livestock
industry
in
the
state,
among
others.
So
I
do
have
a
history
here
that
maybe
can
give
you
some
perspective.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
appreciate
the.
B
O
Good
afternoon,
mr
chairman,
I'm
peter
krueger
kruger
k-r-u-e-g-e-r,
the
state
executive
of
the
nevada,
petroleum
marketers
association
and
for
those
committee
members
who
wonder
why
a
petroleum
member
would
want
to
weigh
in
on
senate
bill
54.
The
reason
is
that
the
department
of
agriculture
has
a
large
large
responsibility
for
the
quality
testing
sampling
of
petroleum
products
throughout
the
state.
O
It
currently
resides
in
the
division
of
consumer
equitability.
We
hope
soon
to
be
the
division
of
once
again
the
division
of
weights
and
measures.
I'm
I'm
on
the
I'm
here
in
opposition
to
sb
54.
As
written,
we
do
support
the
two
amendments.
The
one
board,
the
one
offered
by
the
members
of
the
current
board
of
agriculture,
to
create
two.
N
O
Seats,
rather
than
dismantle
and
disenfranchise
two
important
seats,
two
important
roles
and
and
seats
in
the
current
industry.
We.
D
O
Support
mr
busselman's
amendment
regarding
regulations
being
or
the
requirement
that
regula
before
regulations
are
and
and
bill
drafts,
and
things
of
that
nature
are
forwarded.
O
That
process
rightfully
belongs
in
the
policy
before
the
policy
making
role
of
the
board
of
agriculture
and
the
reason
we
feel
strongly
currently
in
regulation
in
the
department
of
agriculture,
petroleum
regulations
that
are
adopted
by
reference.
These
are
normally
federal
regulations,
but
they
can
be
state.
Any
any
regulation
adopted
by
by
reference
is,
has
a
call
it
a
60-day,
cooling
off
period
that
gives
the
board
of
agriculture
the
opportunity
to
review
that
regulation
or
that
policy
before
it
becomes
effective.
O
So
we
think
that
what
mr
bustleman
is
is
recommending
and
amended
seeking
to
amend,
makes
good
sense
on
behalf
of
everybody
involved
with
department
of
agriculture.
That
concludes
my
remarks.
Mr
chairman,.
A
Is
there
a
way
that
we
can
bring
back
mr
joe
guild,
I
believe
senator
hanson
had
a
question
for
him.
If
that's
possible.
C
B
B
A
C
I
guess
we've
been
involved
in
this
sort
of
stuff
a
long
time.
So
thanks.
Mr
chair,
my
a
couple
of
questions.
Actually,
I'm
sure
somebody
out
there
doug
bosselman
or
whoever
at
the
beginning
of
the
presentation
director
ott.
C
I
think
she
said
that
the
current
expenditures
of
the
department
of
ag
or
something
like
90
involved
with
the
the
new
board
position.
Then
I
heard
another
testimony
saying
that
the
cattle
industry
in
nevada
is
like
a
quarter
of
a
billion
dollars
in
total
sales
or
something
I'm
just
kind
of
wondering.
As
I
look
at
the
makeup
of
this
board,
I
if
in
fact
department
of
ag
is
spending
90
of
his
budget
on
these
sorts
of
issues.
C
Then
it
does
seem
reasonable
that
we
create
a
position
reflecting
that
on
the
pool,
so
I'm
kind
of
one
trying
to
figure
out
where
the
numbers
are
coming
from
and
what's
accurate
if
in
fact,
eggs
primary
purpose
is
ag
and
livestock
is
a
huge
portion
of
that,
then
it
would
make
sense
to,
at
the
very
least,
leave
the
current
board
positions
there
to
add
new
ones,
and
my
question
for
joe
gilda
actually
was
also
anytime
you're.
Looking
at
boards
like
this,
you
start
getting
increasing
numbers
on
it.
C
It
becomes
much
more
unwieldy
and
13
members
you're,
probably
just
starting
to
push
the
upper
reasonable
limit
of
that.
So
would
there
be
some
sort
of
a
push
to
have
like
an
executive
committee
made
up
of
five
or
something
like
that,
would
handle
a
lot
of
the
issues
and
then
the
big
board
meets
only
only
so
often.
C
It
was
just
a
kind
of
a
little
bit
of
a
background
that
I
needed
if,
in
fact,
the
board,
like
I
said,
is
doing
90
of
his
business,
involving
these
types
of
positions
that
it
seems
completely
reasonable
for
directorate
to
push
this.
If,
in
fact,
there's
a
much
bigger
picture
here
than
what
I
understand,
I
would
like
a
little
more
understanding
on
the
numbers
thanks,
mr
chair,
I'm
sure
mr
guild's,
probably
listening
and
he'll
get
back
in
touch
with
me.
Those
are
just
some
of
the
current
concerns.
C
A
B
B
C
Hello,
this
is
jake
tibbetts,
it's
j,
a
k,
e
t,
I
b
b,
I
t
t
s
and
I'm
the
natural
resources
manager
for
eureka
county.
So,
mr
chairman
and
members
of
the
community,
thanks
for
the
opportunity
to
weigh
in
on
sb
54.,
I
won't
belabor
the
points
I
just
want
to
get
on
record
that
eureka
county
is
opposed
to
the
current
language,
very
similar
to
the
points
you've
already
heard.
C
But
again
we
do
not
oppose
the
intent
to
add
a
voice
to
those
at
the
end
of
the
supply
chain,
as
director
roch
has
mentioned,
and
so
we
would
support
both
the
amendments
that
from
the
board
of
ag
themselves,
as
well
as
the
farm
bureau
amendment.
We
would
support
both
of
those
measures,
as
we
think
it
does
provide
clarity
and
it's
better
to
expand
the
board,
given
the
diversity
of
agriculture
in
the
state.
C
But
one
point
we
do
want
to
focus
on
is
the
importance
in
nevada,
where
we
are
made
up
primarily
of
rangelands
and
public
lands
to
retain
that
connection
to
range
livestock
production,
because
that
is
an
important
role
in
this
state.
And
many
of
the
issues
facing
nevada
happen
to
have
a
close
nexus
in
connection
with
public
lands
in
our
rangeland.
So
it's
important
to
have
that
connection
retained
and
with
that
again
we're
opposed
to
the
language,
but
we'd
be
happy
to
help
move
forward.
B
N
I
apologize
I
these.
These
new
technologic
devices
are
a
little
bit
unfamiliar
to
me,
but
I
was
able
to
get
back
in
if
there
was
a
question
of
me.
I'd
be
happy
to
try
and
answer.
A
C
You
hear
me
okay,
I
guess
my
my
speaker
was
almost
okay.
Now
hi
joe,
I
just
wanted
to
say:
hi
you've
been
watching
government
a
long
time.
One
concern
I've
got
is
if
we
expand
the
board
to
13
members,
the
board
becomes
quite
unwieldy.
That
was
one
concern.
The
second
concern
was
what
director
of
said
the
beginning
of
the
hearing
that
the
actual
budget
and
the
allocations
of
the
money,
apparently
about
90
percent
of
it
go,
go
to
the
two
positions.
C
The
types
of
services
new
positions
would
would
cover
I'm
kind
of.
Then
you
mentioned
livestock
cattle
grazing
in
particular,
there's
like
250
million
a
year
industry,
or
something
like
that.
I'm
just
kind
of
wondering
where
these
bundles
all
fit
in
for
representation
on
the
board.
C
If,
in
fact
ag
is
spending
90
percent
of
its
budget
on
these
types
of
issues,
this
is
reasonable
that
the
board
should
have
some
sort
of
position.
That
would
reflect
that.
On
the
other
hand,
if
that
actually
is
a
token
amount
of
the
actual
production
of
agriculture
in
nevada,
then
it
would
seem
to
probably
get
I'm
just
wondering
if
you
are
you're
familiar
with
some
of
the
numbers
that
she
had
mentioned
earlier
in
the
presentation.
N
Well,
generally
speaking,
I
am,
and
I
do.
I
am
aware
that
a
significant,
significant
amount
of
money
comes
for
the
nutrition
programs
in
implementation
comes
from
the
federal
government,
and
you
know
I
have
no
quarrel.
Actually
I
I
I
said
I
took
no
position
but
on
the
addition
of
a
couple
more
people
to
the
board.
N
N
N
N
But
but
livestock
production
is
still
the
biggest
part
part
of
the
of
the
state's
agricultural
income,
and
you
know
if
it
makes
if
it
makes
the
director's
job
easier
to
have
two
board
members
related
to
these
other
positions,
I'm
okay
with
it.
I
really
am.
I
just
don't
want
to
see
the
dilution
of
the
input
and
and
the
of
the
livestock
positions
and
the
way
that
bill
reads.
N
We
could
have
a
dog
breeder
and
a
poultry
producer
as
the
livestock
representatives
on
the
board,
and
that
doesn't
make
any
sense
to
me
so.
J
N
That
answers
the
question
thanks
again,
mr
chair,
for
the
opportunity
to
to
testify-
and
I
can't
wait
until
I
can
shake
your
hand
and
say
hello
in
person.
C
Well,
mr
chair,
thank
you
very
much
for
the
second
bite
of
the
apple
and
thank
you,
mr
guild,
for
your
your
always
very
skilled
and
wise
input.
Much
appreciated.
A
A
Thank
you,
bps.
Is
there.
N
A
At
this
time
that
would
like
we
can
please
continue
with
testimony.
B
L
L
L
Sb
54
appears
to
have
been
drafted
and
introduced
without
any
input
or
consideration
from
the
board
or
agricultural
stakeholders
that
it
will
ultimately
effect
by
the
passage
of
the
bill.
Regarding
the
proposed
amendment.
To
simply
add
the
two
new
positions,
we
believe
that,
while
the
sectors
being
considered
for
addition,
are
both
immensely
important,
both
both
are
also
currently
well
represented
by
the
existing
makeup
of
the
board.
L
Policy
and
regulations
in
both
of
these
areas
are
largely
mandated
by
the
federal
government,
whereas
the
administration
of
livestock
programs
under
the
department
of
agriculture
is
fee
based
and
directly
under
the
authority
of
the
department
of
ag.
For
these
reasons,
we're
opposed
to
the
amendment
brought
forward
by
the
board.
We
strongly
support
the
original
motion
approved
at
the
state
board
of
agriculture's
january
19
2021
meeting
in
a
7-2
vote,
which
withdraws
support
of
sb
54
for
legislative
consideration
entirely.
L
B
J
All
right,
chair,
donate
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
alyssa
mayworth
from
greenberg
prawrig
here
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
veteran
medical
association.
We
are
speaking
in
opposition
to
the
legislation
as
introduced.
We
appreciate
the
department's
efforts
on
this
bill.
We
have
been
in
communication
with
director
ott
and
we
appreciate
her
professionalism.
J
The
nevada,
veteran
medical
association
believes
that
the
board
of
agriculture
should
include
a
large
animal
veterinarian
by
statute.
The
invaluable
insight
of
a
veterinarian,
we
believe,
is
frequently
needed
in
many
decisions
made
at
the
board
level
and
we
feel
in
the
interest
of
consumer
protection.
Such
a
position
should
be
included
prospectively.
J
J
B
A
B
A
Great,
thank
you
so
much
for
that.
Are
there
any
last
questions
from
the
committee
members
or
before
we
move
on
I'd
also
like.
C
Your
speaker's
muffled
for
some
reason
hear
what
you
just
said.
A
K
Yes,
chairman
I'll,
be
brief.
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
opportunity
jennifer
ought
for
the
record.
I
just
wanted
to
briefly
respond
to
some
of
the
points
that
were
made
on
record.
I
I'll
be
honest.
I
was
a
little
surprised
by
the
farm
bureau
amendment
to
give
an
explanation
quickly.
K
Yes,
there
are
some
laws
that
are
under
director
authority
and
some
laws
that
are
under
board
authority,
and
that
is
just
a
function
of
the
legislative
work
that
has
happened
over
the
years
when
there
is
a
regulation
under
board
authority,
it
does
go
before
the
board,
but
I
do
want
to
emphasize
that
the
process
outside
of
that
is
exactly
the
same.
We
hold
our
small
business
impact
statements.
K
We
hold
workshops,
sometimes
several
workshops
depending
on
the
subject
matter
and
the
interest
to
the
industry,
and
we
have
a
hearing
and
then
the
regulation
goes
before
the
legislative
commission,
and
so
I
I
guess
I
realize
why
I'm
surprised
is
that
that
amendment
would
increase
the
timeline
on
those
activities
and
it
would
really
add
an
extra
step
when
the
authorities
that
the
legislature
has
given
over
the
years
is
is
not
doesn't
exist.
K
To
respond
to
the
semi-range
and
range
language
of
the
bill,
yes,
we
did
remove
the
the
language
of
semi-range
and
range
and
to
make
it
livestock
production,
and
that
was
specifically
to
to
be
inclusive
and
not
exclusive.
So
currently,
only
members
that
are
grazing
on
public
lands
are,
or
portions
of
public
lands
are
eligible
to
be
on
the
board.
K
If
you
are
a
chicken
producer,
if
you
are
a
cattle
producer
but
only
graze
on
your
own
private
pasture
land,
you're
not
eligible
to
be
on
the
board,
and
so
that
language
was
meant
to
be
inclusive
and
with
that
chairman.
Thank
you
very
much
for
allowing
me
to
make
closing
comments.
I
appreciate
the
time
with
the
board
with
the
committee
today.
A
Thank
you
so
much
miss
hot
for
your
presentation
and
we
appreciate
your
time.
Okay,
I
at
this
time
I
will
now
go
ahead
and
close
the
hearing
on
sb54.
Again,
we
will
not
be
taking
any
action
on
these
bills
today
we
may
bring
them
back
for
a
future
work
session
for
you.
So
that's
just
for
rocky
back.
A
We
are
almost
done
with
this
meeting,
so
next
we
will
go
ahead
and
proceed
with
the
introduction
of
committee
bdrs
committee
members.
As
you
know,
pursuant
to
joint
standing
rule
14,
a
majority
of
the
members
of
the
committee
must
vote
to
introduce
legislation
on
behalf
of
the
committee.
As
noted
in
our
committee
rule,
six
committee
introductions
may
be
for
accommodation
only
and
is
not
to
be
construed
as
approval
of
a
measure.
A
Joint
standing
rule
14
requires
that
certain
measures
be
introduced
by
a
standing
committee
and
among
those
measures
are
those
requested
by
statutory
committees
and
interim
interim
legislative
studies.
Today
we
have
three
bdrs
that
were
requested
by
the
legislative
committee
on
public
lands.
I
will
tell
you
briefly
what
each
of
those
bdr
relates
to
then,
and
I
would
like
to
take
them
all
together
in
one
motion.
A
A
A
With
that
with
that
at
this
time
I
will
take
a
motion
to
approve
the
drafting
of
all
three
vdrs:
well
moved,
senator
gregory.
Thank
you,
senator
gokuchi,
so
motion
to
approve
by
senator
kokochia
and.
A
A
Okay,
seeing
none
will
the
committee
secretary
please
go
ahead
and
take
the
roll
call.
A
Be
clear,
please
answer
yes
or
no
for
for
the
record.
Thank
you.
F
C
A
And
let
the
regroup
reflect
the
ima
s
and
with
that
the
motion
passes
great.
Thank
you
so
much
at
this
time.
We
can
go
ahead
and
proceed
with
public
comment,
so
I
will
now
call
for
public
comment.
Please
remember
to
limit
your
comment
to
two
minutes:
dps
staff.
Is
there
anyone
at
this
time
wishing
to
provide
public
honor.
B
B
A
Great,
thank
you
so
much
okay.
So
thank
you
all
for
all
our
presenters
that
joined
us
today
and
for
our
committee
members
for
your
thought-provoking
questions.
Members.
Are
there
any
last-minute
comments
or
questions
before
we
adjourn.