Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>> Let's go ahead and we'll
start getting along with the
public comment period.
Before we get started with
reading the comments that came
in via email, are there any
members of the public that have
joined us for the meeting that
wish to comment in person at
this time?
Okay.
We've received three comments by
email we're going to read into
the record.
I'll switch mics here.
My name is Chris Rose.
I am the BLM Nevada state RAC
coordinator, and so I'll read
the comments into the record.
The first one: The below
comments are a submitted by
Laura Lee representing Wild
Horse Education, a Nevada-based
wild horse and burro protection
organization.
One, we urge the RAC to support
cooperative efforts between the
advocate organizations and BLM
to facilitate water hauls in
drought situations.
Our organization stands ready to
assist with manpower, supplies
and funding if needed.
Two, we encourage the RAC to
recommend that this year a focus
be made to utilize available
PZP-22 in a concerted effort to
slow population growth.
Three, we recommended using 2014
as a baseline year to determine
population size, migratory
patterns and create a template
of wild horse use during extreme
drought.
Data maps must begin to exist
that demonstrate wild horse use
and needs and fluctuations due
to environmental factors.
Four, we urge that diversionary
feeding be used and permitted to
move horses to suitable grazing
areas during times of drought.
Five, we urge that areas
designated as HA be evaluated
for possible relocation and
repatriation of wild horses.
Six, we urge that areas where
HMAs exist that fracking
permits not be allowed.
Seven, we urge that removals be
limited to selected individuals
where an adoption demand is
demonstrated.
We urge cooperative efforts with
advocate groups be encouraged to
facilitate this process.
Eight, during times of drought,
restricted use and the
overburdened holding system that
any removals of wild horses
occur only where other uses face
restrictions and where all other
options to ensure herd health,
water hauling, diversionary
feeding has been exhausted.
Thank you.
Comment number two.
I am reading this on behalf of
Denise Bulbo of the American
Wild Horse Preservation
Campaign, which is a coalition
of more than 60 organizations
working to protect America's
wild horse and burros.
The RAC member who earlier asked
the BLM how many horses in
Nevada were treated with
fertility control last year
brought up an important point,
one the BLM would like to sweep
under the rug.
In reference to fertility
control, the National Academy of
Sciences in its 2013 report was
clear that tools already exist
for BLM to address many
challenges and that BLM was not
using PZP fertility control in a
manner that will impact
population growth.
NAS report page 13.
Raul claimed this morning that
the one-year PZP is sporadic.
What he should have said is that
the BLM application of PZP was
sporadic and this is the reason
why it has had little to no
impact.
As the NAS stated on page 303,
contracepting 500 to a thousand
mares a year with a two-year
vaccine will not substantially
lower the rate of growth with a
population of over 30,000
horses.
The question all RAC members
should be asking is: Why does
the BLM prefer to do nothing at
all rather than implement an
aggressive, humane, widely
supported fertility control
program to suppress horse
population growth?
The notion that a pharmaceutical
company is going to develop some
sort of magic bullet to solve
the BLM's problem is frankly
ludicrous.
RACs spend considerable time
discussing wild horse issues and
most ranchers call for slaughter
of horses as a, quote, solution.
This is not supported by the
American public.
Poll after poll has shown the
American public supports
protecting wild horse and burros
on public lands and Americans do
not support the slaughtering of
horses.
Let's all work together on a
humane fertility control
program.
Now that removals are not an
option, perhaps the RACs will
hold the BLM accountable for
failing to implement this humane
fertility control program, which
according to the National
Academy of Sciences, is
available today.
In addition, NAS recommended
against extreme population
control methods that alter
natural wild horse behaviors or
such as spaying mares.
Thus, to the extent that GonoCon
preserves natural behavior
patterns while effectively
preventing reproduction, it is a
promising candidate as a
female-directed fertility
control method.
However, further studies of its
behavioral effects are needed,
page 149.
On the basis of the
peer-reviewed literature and
direct communication with
scientists who are studying
fertility control in horses and
burros, the committee considers
the three most promising methods
of fertility control to be
PZP22, GonaCon and a chemical
vasectomy, page 152.
A potential disadvantage of both
surgical and chemical castration
is the loss of testosterone and
consequent reduction in or
complete loss of male-type
behaviors necessary for
maintenance of social
organization, band integrity and
expression of a natural behavior
repertoire, page 142.
The possibility that
oophorectomy, also referred to
as spaying, may be followed by
prolonged bleeding or peritoneal
infection makes it inadvisable
for field application, page 130.
Denise Bulbo, American Wild
Horse Preservation Campaign.
Comment number three, I
respectfully submit that the
best thing to do is have BLM
leave our wild horses alone,
period.
Wild.
They are not bothering anyone.
There is plenty of land.
We are supposed to be protecting
them and not herding them up and
slaughtering them and putting
them in holding pens.
Please do the right thing.
Cheryl Newcombe, Manchester,
NewHampshire.
I'll ask if any other public has
joined us during the comment
period that wishes to present a
comment.
I put to the RACs then that
there are no further public
comments to be submitted for the
record.
I guess on to other
administrative issues.
We talked a little about the
schedule earlier, and the
question I have now is whether
or not people would be willing
to come in earlier tomorrow in
order to facilitate getting out
earlier.
Instead of starting at 8:00,
would people want to start at 7
or 7:30?
Yes, the question was, are we
doing two-hour break-out
sessions for the RAC tomorrow.
The answer is yes.
So the time would be adjusted
accordingly.
So I guess show of hands, how
many people would be willing to
show up at 7:00?
That appears to be the majority.
So we'll start the meeting
tomorrow morning at 7:00, have
the break-out sessions from 7:00
to 9:00, and then conduct the
wrap-up and round Robin after
that.
And I believe the Sierra Front
RAC had an issue to bring forth
to the other RACs.
>> Debbie Lassiter, chair,
Sierra Front-Great Basin
Northeast RAC.
In our break-out we came to a
conclusion we would like to
present an emergency resolution
to all of the RACs, and put it
for a vote right here and now to
the membership.
I'll read it to you all now.
Due to the drought and the
increasing number of wild
horses, lack of long-term
holding, and for the
preservation of the range and
humanitarian treatment of the
horses, the BLM explore all
options, including supporting
gathers and the unconditional
sale of wild horses to promote
the goal of the sustainable wild
horse population.
Do you want to hear it again?
It's the thought of the RAC it's
time to think out of the box.
That we have drought emergency
situations and while we're all
going to go back and, you know,
review the wild horse drought,
fire situations and make our
recommendations on our
individual RAC basis that a
resolution from all three RACs
as a group right here, right now
would be very strong, and the
thought also is that gathers do
need to happen and that this is
not the end-all solution but an
immediate solution, and
immediate action.
>> What did you say, Debbie,
something about un--
unregulated-- I forget-- is
that the key element?
>> Yeah, the up unconditional
sale.
Also that the gathers need to
happen again and it's something
to get this moving.
Right.
So maybe you want to talk
amongst yourselves and we could
consider it a little bit and--
well, no, we can do it now.
>> I second that motion.
>> Northeastern Great Basin RAC
has conferred and offers a
second to that motion.
>> All right.
We have a motion and a second.
Can we take a vote.
All in favor?
Show of hands.
Show of hands.
Well, we have a motion and a
second.
We're doing this as all one big
group.
Can we just have a show of hands
then, all in favor.
Lisa, can we get a count, maybe?
>> You have to subtract me.
Sorry.
Then all those opposed?
All right.
We have a motion that has
passed.
Thank you, everyone.
So, Raul, we have something for
you.
Raul and Amy.
>> So while we're still in
public comment period open, can
we continue some additional
business related items?
So the Northeastern Great Basin
RAC would like to invite the
other RAC members and staff to
an icebreaker or informal event
over at the Western Folklife
Center at the corner of railroad
and 5th Street convening at
1700-- or 5:00 p.m.
So please wander over if you're
so inclined and join us, and
welcome to Elko.
Please spend money.
And if you can't spend money
Elko, at least spend it in Elko
County.
So...
[chuckles]
>> Are there any other issues
that need to be brought up while
we're waiting for our next
presentation?
Okay.
We'll begin momentarily with the
presentation from the Nevada
Land Management Task Force.
>> My name is Demar Dahl.
I have been trying to lose my
voice.
I hope you can all hear me.
I'm a county commissioner here
in Elko County.
I'm the chairman of the Nevada
Land Management Task Force, and
I appreciate the opportunity
to-- and the invitation to come
and visit with you today.
I think I should first give you
a little history of how the task
force came about.
In 2009 we had-- here in Elko
County travel management plan
presented by the Forest Service.
Elko County signed up as a
cooperating/coordinating agency
on the travel management plan,
worked hard, we thought, to try
to get as much input as we could
into what the result was going
to be.
We were not successful.
We ended up having a
Congressional hearing here in
Elko.
Many of you will remember that.
We had 64 counties from around
the West participate in that one
way or another.
When it was all said and done,
and there was a Record of
Decision, we were left out.
We only managed to get one small
concession.
So meeting with some of the
other counties after that
experience, we were talking
about what is it that we might
be able to do to bring more
local control over our natural
resources, and the state of Utah
had just passed their HB148 bill
which called for the transfer of
the public lands from the
Federal government to the state.
We thought that might be a good
place to start.
We formed the American lands
council.
That was a year ago last May.
Now there are five states that
have passed legislation to work
on this issue.
Here in Nevada, our AB227 bill
was passed, which calls for the
transfer of the land, and it
also establishes a task force to
study the implications of a
transfer, and the task force is
made up of one member from each
county, and the way it turned
out, all but one of those
members is a county
commissioner.
I see at least one of you here
today who is a representative on
the task force.
Our responsibility given to us
by the task force was to do a
number of things.
One of them was to consider the
cost and the economics of a
transfer, both the transfer and
the management of the land after
the transfer.
So that's where we started.
We had available to us two
studies that were done in the
'90s, and we started on those
studies, and then went to the--
to the organization that
prepared those studies in the
'90s and contracted with them
to update those studies.
We also need to determine which
lands we are going to be asking
that be transferred and how
they're going to be managed, and
we have, as fast as we can,
because we're up against a
pretty short time line, we've
been working on this as hard as
we can.
We started in September, and we
have met Eureka, Winnemucca,
Reno, LasVegas and Carson City
twice.
We will meet every month between
now and September when we make
our final report, and our report
goes to the legislative public
lands committee, and yesterday
they met in LasVegas, and I
made the report on behalf of the
task force to the legislative
public land committee.
We also had Dr.Mike Boffman
there who was the one who heads
up the Intertech which did the
economic analysis for the State
of Nevada, and he also reported
to the legislative public land
committee on that.
In the process we have tried to
be as inclusive as we can and to
get as much comment and as much
interest in this process as
possible, and we have
determined-- 17, that's quite a
few to have on a committee or a
task force, and so it's a bit of
a challenge, but we have really
been lucky, I think, because we
have got really good, dedicated
people on that task force, and
it's really well balanced.
I just left a county commission
meeting over here and we were
talking about the balance on
that task force, and one of our
commissioners said, I thought it
was going to be balanced toward
the idea that, yeah, we need to
make the transfer, and instead
it turned out to be balanced the
other way, but we agreed that we
would not vote early on on
anything but first we would just
gather a lot of information and
then we would start trying to
work toward a consensus.
The way this turned out we
haven't voted on anything but
it's been just kind of automatic
that we've been coming to a
consensus on a number of issues.
In my report yesterday, I went
through what we have done and
who we have heard from.
We have had presentations from a
number of people, state
agencies, state lands,
conservation and natural
resource.
We have had stake user--
presentations from a number of
the stakeholders out there on
the public lands.
We've had the Sierra Club,
Nevada conservation league,
coalition of wildlife, Nevada
farm Bureau.
We have squozen in as many as we
could to try to get as much
information as we can.
And in the process we have
started to come together on a
lot of-- not a lot-- but some
of the very important, I think,
ideas.
One of those, besides being
required by the legislation, to
address some of these issues,
it's also-- those issues are
also some of the issues that
come up first in a conversation
when we talk about the transfer
of the public lands, and one of
the first things you hear is,
well, we can't afford it.
And from what information we
have gotten so far, we have
determined as a task force that,
yes, indeed, we can afford the
transfer and we can afford-- in
fact, we can afford to manage
the public lands at a
considerable profit to the
state, considerable, and those
figures will be coming out-- in
fact, those are available on the
NACO, Nevada association of
county website, if you want to
visit that and look at those.
NACO is the supporting entity
for the task force.
One of the questions that comes
up is is it constitutional.
Does the constitution require a
transfer.
And is it constitutional to make
that?
We invited the Assistant
Attorney General from Utah,
Mr.Rampton, who took the
position that, yes, it is, and a
law professor from the
University of Colorado,
Dr.Scolosky, who took the
opposite position.
We had an interesting discussion
on that, and I think the task
force came to the conclusion
that, yes, it is.
One of the other questions that
always comes up is what about
being able to do the things that
we do on the public lands?
Are we going to lose those
activities that we now have?
And so one of the other things
that we have agreed to is that
the valid existing rights on the
public lands now and the
multiple uses and the access
would have to be transferred
with the land.
In other words, whatever you can
do out there now is going to be
our recommendation that you're
going to be able to do then,
that that part is not going to
change.
One of the other issues that
always comes up is, will it be
sold?
And who is going to buy it?
Our recommendation is that there
would not be a wholesale sale of
the public lands, but there
are-- there's quite a lot of
land out there right now that
has been designated for disposal
by the agencies, and we think we
could start there.
We could go to the railroad
corridor which has checkerboard
land 20 miles each side of the
railroad that goes the width of
the state, which is an area that
the Federal agencies and the
state and private interests have
for years been trying to--
trying to get blocked up or
sold.
So we think we can go there.
We think that the state would be
able to make those sales happen
where now there's just so many
obstacles to those sales taking
place with the Federal agencies
that it's just not happening
now.
So he, those are some of the
things that we just have kind of
coalesced on that we have come
to a consensus on.
What I want to do is leave
enough time here to let you ask
questions of me because there
might be some questions on how
this is happening and why, and
it is happening in five states
now where the process is being
worked on, and it looks like
probably after this legislative
session there will be at least
two more states that will join.
Do you have any questions?
>> With that bill, what percent
of the land that's underneath
the Federal government would now
be transferred to the state if
it passed.
>> That's a good question.
That's one of the other things
that we have discussed, and I
think come to sort of-- at
least to an agreement on.
That is that it would be to the
benefit of the states in the
West who think they would want
to get the lands transferred to
all be working generally from
the same position and wanting
the same lands, because this is
something that's going to have
to happen in Congress, and Utah
has set the template for this.
They have taken off the table
the National Monuments, National
Parks and Congressionally
designated Wilderness Areas.
Of course there are Indian
lands, military lands that would
not be considered.
And I think that's probably
where the task force is going to
come down.
And those lands, I think, we
would not include.
>> But the balance of it would
be, then?
>> Yeah, and this is something
that if the transfer takes place
it's not something that's going
to happen overnight.
You know, there's going to be a
long transition period.
There are a lot of things to
figure out in the process, and
so it's something that's going
to take time.
It's going to take a lot of
people.
A lot of people like this group
here that is going to want to
have a lot of input on-- into
how it's done.
And then what it's going to be
like after it's done.
>> Would the wild horse and
burro act be part of the baggage
that comes with it?
>> Well, the.
[chuckles]
Let's go-- let's go to the
Sage-grouse-- the Sage-grouse
for a minute.
The plan that we got on the
Sage-grouse without any hearing
or opportunity to comment for
the interim management plan,
which some think, and in a lot
of ways I think is probably
correct, that's really more
detrimental to us in Nevada than
if the bird were listed, and
that's what we're operating
under now.
So that definitely would be
different.
About the wild horses, I don't
know.
You know, you just passed that
motion here.
I don't know if that was in the
form of a resolution or what,
but at NACO, Nevada association
of counties, we have filed a
lawsuit on the horses to
require-- asking the court to
require BLM to abide by the law,
because the law says that they
will do what your motion just
said that they should do.
So, anyway, you know, I
personally think this would be a
wonderful thing for the State of
Nevada.
I have committed to the task
force I would not push my agenda
and that we would all just work
to try to come to some kind of a
consensus based on all of the
information that we're able to
get, and-- yes?
>> Okay, I have a question.
We have a bill proposed in
legislature also.
It's HR2455.
It's the Nevada native nations
land act.
And in this we're asking for the
withdrawal and the lands being
given to-- and they are tribes
from all over the state, but our
tribes up here specifically are
south fork bound.
We're asking for 26,000 acres.
They are the checkerboards that
already border our reservation
and our traditional grazing
allotments.
So what will your bill do to
affect hours?
>> Well, your-- the Native
American interests need to be
protected in this process, and
that's something we have not
done, and we need to bring that
issue into the-- make it a part
of the process.
You know, the Ruby Valley
treaty, for instance, which has
been hanging out there for a
long time, which includes land
into California all the way up
through Nevada, Idaho and Utah,
if that land were transferred
to-- or, you know, a big chunk
of it were transferred to the
state, then does that-- do any
claims on the treaty, do they
automatically go away?
And are there claims that are
valid claims there now?
I mean, when you get into this,
there are a lot of issues that
are going to have to be-- but
it's going to be a good thing.
It's going to be a good thing
that's going to bring us all to
the table and give us an
opportunity to, I think, fix a
lot of the problems that we've
had, that we have on the public
lands.
Yeah?
>> I was just curious what some
of the milestones in the future
will be.
So you've got AB227--
>> 227.
>> You have AB227.
You formed the task force.
And then task force passes some
sort are of resolution, and then
does it go back to the
legislature or does it go--
>> No, we make our report in the
first of September to the
legislative public lands
committee.
Okay.
Then our job is done.
And then they-- what we will
make to them probably is a
proposed BDR legislation, and
then I assume that they will
take that to the legislature and
we'll see if it-- where it goes
from there.
>> Out of curiosity, do you know
where it goes-- I'm just--
hypothetically here, like if
they pass it, and then it goes
to Sandoval--
>> For signature, sure.
And then-- we would have a
bill-- Utah has a bill.
I assume that by then because
that will be-- well, the
deadline is June of 2015.
That there will be a number of
bills in other states, and then
we will, of course, while this
is happening, in fact it's being
worked on a little bit now,
there will be Federal
legislation being put together
and trying to get different
legislators to sign on to a bill
that would make the transfer.
You know, this-- as the country
has been settled, there were--
like in 1829 there were five
western states that went to the
Congress and said, hey, our
Enabling Act said that we're
going to get the land, and we
haven't, and Illinois had 4% of
its land, there was Illinois,
Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas-- I
forget which states went
together and got their land.
But once we got to Colorado, it
just hasn't happened.
The Federal government still
owns and controls more than 50%
of everything in the West.
>> Thank you.
>> You made a statement earlier
that if the transfer goes
through that all rights and uses
would then transfer over as well
to the state, is that correct?
>> Well, you have to recognize
that we have no say so.
We only recommend.
But that, I think, will be the
recommendation of the task
force, yes.
>> Okay.
My question to you, have you
addressed the situation where--
with right of ways and mining
claims and would the state then
honor the stipulations and
agreements that are currently in
place with the BLM?
>> Yes, that would be the idea.
>> Including easements in
perpetuity?
>> Sure, if-- in other words,
if you can do it now, if you can
go there now, then what we would
like to see is you're going to
be able to do it then.
We think if anything access is
going to be better then than it
is now, but a mining claim,
rights of way, everything--
everything should transfer, yes.
Okay.
Any other questions?
Thanks.
>> I got one.
>> Okay.
>> Instead of the wholesale
transfer, I guess, from Federal
to state, has the task force
explored or asked the question
how can we enhance or support or
provide some support to better
manage the current system?
>> You mean, change the system
as it is rather than make the
transfer?
>> Basically.
>> Well, that's the reason
this-- that this issue is out
there now, is because we have
failed so many times in trying
to change the way we're doing it
now, and so we just think
that-- we haven't been able to
make the changes, and it's time
to-- you know, our Enabling Act
is identical to Nebraska's.
Nebraska has less than 3% public
land.
We just think it's time that we
mature as a nation, and even
some of the states in the east,
the state of South Carolina,
passed a resolution to support
this effort, because the states
in the west send money out here
for us for pelt and so on, and
we just think it's time.
>> You're using the case of
Nebraska.
I know that Nebraska didn't have
a whole lot of trouble giving
away its land under the
Homestead Act when they tried
because some of it is arable and
it rains there, and they tried
to give this stuff away for a
hundred years and nobody wanted
it because it's not productive
and guys were able to use it for
nothing.
I don't think the comparisons
are even--
>> Well, we haven't-- we
haven't tried to give this away,
and-- this is--
>> For a hundred years the
government tried to give it
away.
Nobody wanted it because--
>> This is not the effort now to
give it away.
This is-- you have to
understand that all we're
talking about in this
legislation is the transfer of
the public land from the Federal
government to the state, and
from time to time I will hear
comments from people saying
Virginia or Vermont, they say
this is public land that belongs
to everybody, and now we're able
to use it, and we don't want to
see-- we don't want to lose it.
Well, it's not going to be lost.
The only thing that changes is
that the ownership and the
management will be the State of
Nevada, not the Federal
government.
And what we've been saying,
anything that you can do on it
now, you can do on it then.
If you live in Richmond,
Virginia, and you want to come
out here and you want to go
fishing someplace where you can
go fish now, you're still going
to be able to go fish, and you
can do everything you do then,
it's just that the management
will be closer to home than it
is now.
>> A lot of us have patented
land, which the government held
the precious metals and oil and
gas rights on.
Now, if that land is transferred
to state, will those-- will the
gas and minerals and stuff be
transferred to the state, or
will it stay with the Federal
government?
>> Like I've said before, all we
do is make recommendations.
>> What would your
recommendation be?
>> We're saying that the
recommendation-- I'm sure we're
going to be recommending that
everything stays the same.
Nobody's going to lose their
rights.
And the Federal government, if
the Federal government has--
>> Maybe you didn't--
>> When you are talking about
the split estates and you're
talking about above ground and
below ground, those are some
issues that we're going to have
to work out.
There's a lot of things, like I
say, that-- to figure out how
we're going to do this.
>> Okay.
>> Just a couple of quick
questions...
Who is going to take over
firefighting duties on public
land?
Would the state go ahead and
take that?
And what are you guys
considering for the wilderness
issue?
Would you be calling for release
or would those remain Federal
land?
>> Well, you know, like I say,
we haven't voted on anything
yet, and I-- and I'm just
talking about issues that I
think we all agree on at this
point.
When it comes to fire, this is
an important aspect.
As of the economic analysis done
by Intertech and you can get a
hold of that on the NACO
website.
This is an issue for one of the
states that's working hard to
push this legislation is
Montana.
Montana, Idaho and Washington
especially are interested in
this issue because of the fires,
and where they have so much
forest, and their forests have
just been decimated by fire
through a lack of management.
Like Governor otter says, when
he flies across Idaho from his
plane, he can look down and see
the forests that are managed by
the state and the ones that are
managed by the Forest Service,
and-- because one of them is
managed and the other one isn't.
And the one that isn't burns.
And so-- but, anyway, this--
the cost of fighting fire is
included in the analysis that
Intertech made.
Just a minute, let me say this.
I'm on the national board, the
NACO board, for national, and
western interstate region.
When I used to go to meetings
with other members from around
the west, the things that you
would hear them talk about a lot
was, we need more money in SRS,
and we need more surety we're
going to get-- and SRS was a
bill passed called secure rural
schools, passed in the year
2000, because after the spotted
owl was listed, many of those
communities in the northwest
that were dependent upon the
timber industry have died, and
so Congress said, well, we
killed them.
Now we need to give them some
money to keep a police force and
keep their schools going and so
on and so forth.
So what I used to hear a lot
was, we need more money in SRS.
And now what I hear is, we need
to be able to manage our own
resource.
We need the resource.
We need the income that comes
out of the timber, and we need
to manage it so that it doesn't
all burn.
When you consider the
Sage-grouse and what that's
going to do to the State of
Nevada if that bird gets listed,
we're going to be quite a lot in
the same position as a lot of
the communities because of the
spotted owl.
I'm sorry, go ahead.
>> That's fine.
So should this transfer happen,
what the economic impact on the
residents of Nevada?
Taxes--
>> Yeah, it would be very
beneficial.
I don't know how much time have
I got here?
You all willing to listen for
another hour and a half?
The study done by Intertech
takes Arizona, NewMexico, Utah
and Idaho and studied their
state lands, how they're
managed, what it costs to manage
them, what the income is, and
that's combined and extrapolated
to Nevada because we only have
3,000 acres of state-owned land.
So you can't figure anything out
based on that.
But the result of that study is
that there would be considerable
income to the State of Nevada
based on-- if we manage the
land, and in those other states,
the profit that they make on
management of their public lands
generally goes to the schools.
So it would be a great benefit
to the schools.
We passed a bill in 2009 for a
$620 million tax increase that
was supposed to sunset in 2011
and then 2013.
Do you remember that?
It hasn't.
So that was for the biennium.
So it turned out to be a $310
million tax per year.
And based on the figures from
the studies in the '90s, the
net income after management was
paid for the State of Nevada
would be $301 million a year.
And now that has increased
because of what's been happening
in the other states with their
oil and-- with their income
from their resources, and that
has gone up to about 800.
That would be about $800 million
for the State of Nevada.
>> Now-- sorry, go ahead.
>> No, I'm sorry.
>> Are there contingencies to
fight the lawsuits that come to
the state that the Federal
government that ultimately ties
their hands on following through
on acts such as a wild horse and
burro act?
>> This is not going to change
human nature, this bill, that's
for sure.
Yeah, they'll still be there,
undoubtedly.
Yep.
Okay.
Yeah.
>> Chairman Dahl mentioned the
3,000 acres of state land that's
still left from the school
trust, and I want to remind
everybody that that was
originally 400,000 acres, and
some of the things that we
people who are supporting public
lands, what we fear is that the
pressure to sell these lands,
the pressure on the state, which
is always in a budget crisis it
seems, the pressure would be
just too great and many of these
acres would be disposed just to
make a little bit of money no
matter what the sale cost.
Anyway, I wonder, Chairman Dahl,
has any consideration been given
to if the state were to acquire
these lands some conservation
easement for broad stretches of
land.
>> Yeah, it's included-- in
fact, Wilderness Area is
included in the legislation.
But to your point about the
number of acres that we have now
compared to the number of acres
that we were given, you know,
when we were given our school
lands, it was a sort portion of
every township, and some of
those lands were in places where
are it was of no value to us,
and so we ended up trading those
into the Truckee Meadows and
into places, for instance, where
it's a lot more valuable to us
and it decreased, of course, the
number of acres lot.
But as far as when you examine
what's been happening in
Arizona, NewMexico, Utah and
Idaho, Arizona, for instance,
sells land, and the land that
they sell is like the land that
we sell here in Nevada in the
Southern Nevada public land
management act, which made land
available to be sold for
development in the LasVegas
Valley.
There is land in the Phoenix
area that's being sold.
But at the same time, the acres
that the state owns has
increased.
So that argument, although it
seems like, yeah, that is
something that may very well
happen, that the state would
have more pressure to sell the
land, it's not being played out.
That isn't the way it's working
in these other states, and so I
think we can assume that we
could figure it out just like
they have, how we could
maintain, preserve our public
lands.
Okay.
Thank you.
[applause]
>> All right.
As we mentioned before, the last
presentation, the schedule has
been changed and we are now
going to start at 7:00 a.m.
tomorrow morning, which means we
will be starting to stream
during the round Robin and the
wrap-up session that will start
at 9:00, and we should be
getting out of here sometime
between 10:30 and 11:00.
So are there any other questions
or issues for the group?
All right.
Don't forget about the mixer