I am being told that Nevada Department of Wildlife‘s  (NDOW’s) legislative proposals have already been submitted. If this is true, then this board, along with others, have been treated worse than a mushroom. They have kept you in the dark, but failed to throw you their b.s in time for you to do anything about it.. If you choose to oppose any of NDOW’s bill proposals, you will have to do that at the Legislature because the proposals have already been submitted. It appears that the advisory boards were conveniently left out on some of their proposals and for this reason, it is apparent that they didn’t want your opinion because as usual, your opinion doesn’t count.  The Game Bureau was told all of their bill draft proposals would have to be submitted to the Legislative Committee for approval. However, only Law Enforcement proposals weren’t required to be submitted to the Legislative Committee for approval. Law enforcement proposals were sent directly for bill draft regardless of what the Committee decided. Perhaps after you review the Legislative Committee’s proposals, you may want to submit a petition to change the name from the Nevada Department of Wildlife to the Nevada Department of Law Enforcement!

Sportsmen, not taxpayers, fund 97 percent of this agency. However, it is more of a law enforcement agency than a fish and game agency. Currently there are one hundred forty ways a warden can cite a sportsman and apparently this is not enough. They have proposed thirty-six pages with almost all of it being for more law enforcement for the upcoming legislative session. Since 1988 we have lost seventy percent of our deer herds. Yet their legislative package does nothing to address this problem. They present a weak and I want to emphasize, very weak excuse  as to why all this mess is necessary. It is too bad they didn’t work that hard on bringing back our deer but they don‘t know how.

There were three attorneys on the four member Legislative Committee when this proposal was drawn up. With these new law enforcement proposals, it appears that they are trying to drum up a little business for themselves. You have been given their proposed legislation. Their proposals have a ring of law enforcement and laziness, not promoting or propagating wildlife.

Exhibit One:  NDOW wants its own land. Currently lands are held by the Division of State Lands and NDOW want their land to be exempt from this provision. They must want private hunting and fishing areas for their employees. They admit there have been no adverse effects in the past so why is a change necessary now? What are they up to?

Exhibit Two:  This is so bad I’m going to read this so those in attendance will hear how bad this agency has become.  Section 5. Employees of the department may take wildlife of any kind from any place and in any manner for purposes deemed by the Director to be in the interest of wildlife conservation, in compliance with any applicable requirements of the U.S. fish and Wildlife Service or the federal government.  This is one giant gray area of more law enforcement. The demerit system for fish and game violations was made into law by sportsmen. It had to be done because on numerous occasions, friends or NDOW relatives were treated differently on game violations. Now they want NDOW employees to be exempt from game violations. Here are a few scenarios as examples of why this should not become law. That 180 point sheep looked diseased so an NDOW employee shoots him. Oh, and by the way, he’d like the cape and horns.  When an NDOW employee does something illegal, the director doesn’t want to make himself look bad so it is all approved. By doing this, the director has now become a dictator by saying, ‘do as I say, not as my employees do‘.

A road block is set up back in the hills. No one in the stopped vehicle is a hunter. However, there are firearms inside. Occupants can’t produce a hunting license. Argument ensues. Individual is cited for obstructing, hindering or delaying a department employee according to the new proposed law. Currently, the law states in a misdemeanor offense that the offense must be committed in the presence of the peace officer. Driving on an unpaved road is not illegal and therefore not justification to stop someone. This proposed harassment law is not needed.

Exhibit Three: NDOW wants to be judge and jury by having the authority to suspend licenses, tags, etc. on “failure to appear” cases. Only a court of law with a judge should be able to do this.

Exhibit Four:  More exemptions for NDOW employees and another gray area. Anything could be construed as “scope of duties”. Unlike the police department, there is no Citizens Review Board so NDOW employees are only accountable to the director who will no doubt defend his wayward employee. Section 2, Number 8:  Here is a play on words: This subsection does not prohibit NDOW from providing general information to the public. What is “general information”? I will tell you, It’s only what they want to tell you. They are playing “I’ve Got a Secret.”

Exhibit Five:  This is a real beauty. Let’s just trash the Fourth Amendment so NDOW can search a home without a warrant. Can you believe the arrogance and gall of this agency and the Wildlife commissioners who think this way! In addition, a warden can stop someone on “reasonable belief”. That can be anything they deem. They see a truck with a gun rack. They can stop it.. An empty gun rack--they can stop it. Or an NRA sticker--they can stop it. They state it does not apply to and does not affect the general public at large. Who does it apply to? Oh, that’s right, it’s only hunters and they don’t count so it‘s okay to harass them.. They also want to donate certain seized items. “Certain” is the key word here. If it is an expensive rifle or shotgun, it will probably be donated to an NDOW employee. If it is trash, it will be donated to a charitable organization.

Exhibit Six:  This is merely a matter of laziness. Big game animals scheduled for release can be checked for chronic wasting disease prior to their release. It is plain and simple, NDOW doesn’t want to do the work of transplanting any of these three big game species. They would rather do law enforcement.

I think you would agree that there is nothing in their legislative proposal for enhancement of fish and game or protection of the rights of sportsmen whose fees pay NDOW’s salaries. This proposed mess was done with the help of  Commissioners Bentley, Bradley and MacKenzie who are supposed to represent sportsmen. They are a disgrace, an absolute disgrace to the title of sportsman.  At what point is someone with some authority going to wake up and realize that this agency is headed in the wrong direction. Currently, those in authority, the governor and the Wildlife Commission have blinders on for they could care less for the sportsmen or the natural resource in our state and this proposed legislation is just more proof of that.