[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6619651,"mediaKeyId","2829611-f28cc31b0815071c063e29d9923a3437","parentId",2829611,"title","Committee advances five natural-resources bills unanimously","audioSeconds",342,"startMs",153000,"endMs",495000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2829611-f28cc31b0815071c063e29d9923a3437&start=153&end=495","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2829611-f28cc31b0815071c063e29d9923a3437/thumbnail_153000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6619651/Nevada/Committee-advances-five-natural-resources-bills-unanimously","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6619651-127632e7f62a042398a11b8c4e533ba5/orig.mp4?Expires=1770981433&Signature=e1CReHx3B8Q0s4FJa0118QmeKWl8k4ikxogzl3wwwFJarFhYORc7fZY3lFv4kBIgeNZwN2nUhRmKRKGOhvWrTSe9oitgOHB4swZubeba8KQ8ZGGWcj5xuphYyFu1TmR3uOsc8pnQCSA5-IqYVVIcXhkNtL9OZNh9Z7OyJRkIXIoF1CDcnbrKIhC1hVftwkRHM-rwOMQUbCjQmXhzpb5ysutghSbSOREJLATsjLnuCGAWugATW-jX2U86JvVrPQLT6PmuDTYZ6cjTQD22VOwcijtxevfLvS7q6x4w5CqgQxnHawJYOVfxz029ET4S9Dmvc8MMf6k3iJ3L50gS3ZTU4w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Nevada Legislature","date","2025-04-01T00:52:50.77Z","article","The Assembly Committee on Natural Resources voted unanimously to amend and do pass five measures during a March 26 work session: Assembly Bill 59, AB 104, AB 136, AB 165 and AB 251.

Those votes occurred during the committee’s work session portion of the meeting and were taken by voice vote; committee members present signified approval and the chair declared each motion passed unanimously “with the members present.”

AB 59: Expanded enforcement authority and incidental feeding language
Assembly Bill 59, sponsored by the committee on behalf of the Department of Wildlife, would expand certain game warden enforcement authorities, revise provisions related to the intentional feeding of certain wildlife, expand the definition of “trophy big game mammal,” and eliminate State Board of Agriculture permits related to alternative livestock. An amendment adopted during the work session added language treating any bird feeder within 100 feet of a private residence as incidental or unintentional feeding for purposes of the bill. The committee moved to amend and do pass the bill; the motion passed unanimously.

AB 104: Water programs, retirement account and regulatory tweaks
Assembly Bill 104 would statutorily establish the Nevada Conservation and Recreation Program and the Nevada Voluntary Water Rights Retirement Program and create an account for retiring water rights administered by the Director of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR). Three amendments were adopted: one removed an advisory committee and a regulation-adoption mandate for the water-rights retirement program, a second clarified that water rights eligible for retirement must be vested or certificated rights (to ensure the program addresses “wet” water rather than unproven paper rights), and a third related to excessive-use charges by Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) member agencies. The committee moved to amend and do pass AB 104; the motion passed unanimously.

AB 136: Notice-posting rules narrowed
Assembly Bill 136 (sponsored by Assemblymember Considine) would require posting notices in certain animal-related commercial establishments. The three adopted amendments removed animal shelters from the posting requirement, revised the required notice text and size, clarified which commercial establishments are subject to the requirement, and adjusted the required posting location. A committee question clarified the sponsor did not intend for agritourism activities (catalog auctions, horse shows, 4-H events, rodeos) to be captured by the posting mandate. The committee moved to amend and do pass AB 136; the motion passed unanimously.

AB 165: Outdoor Education Council
AB 165 (sponsored by the committee on behalf of the Outdoor Education Advisory Working Group) would establish an Outdoor Education Council, set the council’s duties and require the Division of Outdoor Recreation to provide certain administrative support. An adopted amendment added legislative representation to the council and removed a strict requirement that the Division must provide administrative support; instead the Division would provide that support “to the extent possible.” A committee member noted concerns about creating another board or commission given session efforts to limit new advisory bodies; the sponsor indicated similar questions were raised during prior presentation. The committee moved to amend and do pass AB 165; the motion passed unanimously.

AB 251: Mobile processing, official establishments and fiscal linkage
Assembly Bill 251 (sponsored by Assemblymember Koenig) revises definitions related to mobile processing units and official establishments for animal processing. An amendment provided a new definition for “official establishment,” revised the definition for “custom processing establishment,” required specific items in quarantine regulations and revised the effective date. Committee staff explained the bill’s fiscal note is tied to a budget transfer: Decision Unit E905 would transfer 12 positions and associated operating costs from Environmental Health Services budget account 3194 to the Department of Agriculture’s Dairy Fund account 4470; if that transfer is funded in the Health and Human Services budget, the Department of Agriculture indicated it would remove the fiscal note. The committee moved to amend and do pass AB 251; the motion passed unanimously with the members present.

Votes at a glance
- AB 59 — Motion to amend and do pass; mover: Assemblymember Kerr; second: recorded as in the hearing record; outcome: approved unanimously by members present.
- AB 104 — Motion to amend and do pass; mover: Vice Chair Lourie Hatch; second: Assemblymember Watts; outcome: approved unanimously by members present.
- AB 136 — Motion to amend and do pass; mover: Assemblymember Watts; second: Assemblymember Karas; outcome: approved unanimously by members present.
- AB 165 — Motion to amend and do pass; mover: Vice Chair LaRue Hatch; second: Assemblymember Watts; outcome: approved unanimously by members present.
- AB 251 — Motion to amend and do pass; mover: Assemblymember Considine; second: Assemblymember Watts; outcome: approved unanimously by members present.

Meeting context and next steps
Committee staff noted prior hearing dates for many measures (for example, AB 59 heard Feb. 26; AB 104 heard Feb. 24; AB 136 heard March 5; AB 165 heard March 3; AB 251 heard March 12). Several committee members asked clarifying questions about scope and fiscal impacts; where fiscal changes are conditioned on budget transfers, departments said the fiscal note would be removed if the related decision unit is funded. Bills that passed will proceed to the Assembly floor for further consideration per regular legislative process. The committee recessed after the work session and moved to bill hearings later in the afternoon.

Ending: The committee recorded unanimous “aye” voice votes for each motion and closed the work-session votes as passed with members present.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","3/31/2025 - Assembly Committee on Natural Resources","oneSentenceSummary","The Assembly Committee on Natural Resources voted to amend and do pass five bills in a March 26 work session: AB 59, AB 104, AB 136, AB 165 and AB 251.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature NV, Nevada","taxId",78440,"location","Nevada","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6619644,"Heated hearing on AB 487: sponsors push pet‑store puppy ban; industry warns of unintended consequences",178,1875000,2053000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2829611-f28cc31b0815071c063e29d9923a3437&start=1875&end=2053","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2829611-f28cc31b0815071c063e29d9923a3437/thumbnail_1875000.jpg","/articles/6619644/Nevada/Heated-hearing-on-AB-487-sponsors-push-petstore-puppy-ban-industry-warns-of-unintended-consequences","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6619644-217459308efd30b4c1c0ad621971dd79/orig.mp4?Expires=1770981433&Signature=I-YIwT1coQNlG3T5Jh--wM~G8EbzAJNzOWr7tJ848YGPprR3Y00M-KmY68tjbiVqmJcXJTqKldPiCpPXsG65l2zxshti3uU-pbZ8kzA-5oPG24k0Jh9hd7bnFQNd-hqpmIwbL~wUZhWyRFBqAHJ5ABk7CovDjG2qjbS2tJS3W84hYIeqAcbW2voIL4ZxJn~lZRrKAdrg2-3VLTUqufBSDX6pntpniec9EGmLG84VvApqWw4imSMMG5xd7FxMoXGT3544o4RAjNL4O~e47Rx9X4jnvc9GU36PtasnIKoffUqO8OUKk656jKeA-FpSLekBPjMUcvTmrkDnc6FUxRFarw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Assembly Bill 487, introduced by Assemblymember Natha Anderson and presented March 26 in the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, would phase out retail pet‑store sales of dogs and cats, prohibit sales in public places (explicitly including parking lots in sponsor amendments), authorize penalties and preserve adoption events organized by shelters and rescues. Supporters described a pattern they say connects pet shops to out‑of‑state puppy‑mill supply chains, consumer harm from high‑cost loans and disease outbreaks; opponents warned the ban could push buyers to unregulated markets.

Sponsor and proponents’ case
Assemblymember Anderson and Rebecca Gough, Nevada state director for Humane World for Animals, framed AB 487 as a statewide solution to a problem that local ordinances had only partially addressed. Gough summarized the bill’s structure: it would amend chapter 574 to prohibit retail sales of dogs and cats in pet shops, allow adoption events with shelters and rescues, create misdemeanor penalties for violations and permit additional penalties such as suspension of a breeder’s or dealer’s ability to sell for up to one year. She and other proponents urged removing language requiring that violations be committed “knowingly,” saying the standard could create enforcement barriers.

Proponents recounted undercover investigations and enforcement records they said show repeated animal‑welfare problems and consumer harms in Nevada pet stores. Testimony named specific store investigations and described sick puppies, denied veterinary care, reused medication equipment, misleading sales representations and aggressive third‑party financing: “puppy loans” with interest rates the witness said can exceed 80 percent. Amy Jesse, identified as a subject expert with Humane World for Animals, told the committee there is no evidence that state bans have created a sustained black market in the other eight states that have adopted similar laws; she also cited a CDC‑documented campylobacter outbreak linked to pet‑store puppies, and said 95 percent of pet‑store puppies in one CDC analysis received antibiotics.

Public‑health concerns cited by supporters focused on antibiotic‑resistant infections and zoonotic parasites. Rebecca Gough and Amy Jesse cited the CDC and the American Medical Association warning about antibiotic‑resistant Campylobacter infections traced to pet‑store puppies that caused hospitalizations in other jurisdictions.

Opposition and industry concerns
Industry representatives, Pet Advocacy Network and several retail owners/operators testified in opposition. They argued that licensed pet stores work only with USDA‑licensed breeders and are subject to inspections and consumer‑protection requirements, including warranties and health guarantees. Speakers cited academic and news reporting summarizing unintended consequences in California following a statewide retail‑sale ban and said that demand would shift to online sellers or backyard breeders, which can be harder to regulate. Petland franchise owners and store managers told the committee they conduct breeder-site visits, post facility videos for customers and offer warranties, insurance and training supports; they said banned retail sales would remove a regulated option for consumers seeking to meet a puppy before purchase.

Local shelters and animal-control officials testified in support. Washoe County Regional Animal Services’ assistant director Tammy Wines Jennings told the committee enforcement options are limited for roadside or public-place sales and that pet‑store purchases often lead to costly medical bills for purchasers and increased shelter intake. Clark County representative Jeff Rogan and leaders of local rescue groups and shelters (Heart’s Alive Village, Animal Foundation) urged passage as a way to stop the puppy‑mill to pet‑store pipeline and to relieve pressure on overcrowded shelters.

Committee exchange and unresolved questions
Members asked about safeguards for legitimate breeders, how the bill would treat prearranged sales, and whether the bill could spur a black market. The sponsor and witnesses repeatedly said reputable breeders typically meet buyers in person at breeder facilities and that the bill’s intent is not to prohibit transfers arranged directly between breeders and buyers; opponents and the American Kennel Club raised concerns that the bill as drafted could impede prearranged transfers and limit consumer options. Several members also asked for more detail on enforcement penalties; sponsor indicated some penalties are in the bill (misdemeanor language and possible suspension), while local officials said enforcement options at the jurisdictional level are currently limited and the Legislature could consider additional consumer‑protection or lending laws.

No committee vote was recorded on AB 487 during the March 26 hearing. The hearing record contains robust, sharply divided testimony: animal‑welfare and public‑health experts urged a statewide ban to stop the pipeline they described; industry witnesses cautioned that bans can have unintended consequences and urged stronger sourcing and enforcement of breeders instead of a retail prohibition.

Ending: The committee closed testimony after lengthy in‑person and phone comment, with multiple stakeholders asking for follow‑up clarifications about enforcement, prearranged breeder transfers and potential consumer‑protection and lending safeguards.","Assembly Bill 487 would phase out the sale of dogs and cats in retail pet stores and ban sales in public places; sponsors cited puppy‑mill supply chains, consumer harm and antibiotic‑resistant infections, while the retail industry warned of black‑market growth and reduced consumer choice.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6619648,"Bill to clarify state and local roles in conservation easements draws support at hearing",240,1003000,1243000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2829611-f28cc31b0815071c063e29d9923a3437&start=1003&end=1243","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2829611-f28cc31b0815071c063e29d9923a3437/thumbnail_1003000.jpg","/articles/6619648/Nevada/Bill-to-clarify-state-and-local-roles-in-conservation-easements-draws-support-at-hearing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6619648-22436c3c3a4753d37b7ba492815e448e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770981433&Signature=V3QNaEkJt1gAeneyjzIGwqAkKvLjbE~WKnFIx6bysUdqV2QY6VXT0Wj7FcBb--0GSoq8elaXa4r1wBFGJm1Iu~l6bRdpDti9w8iuDtHMJh1Q-KglQP7c9oKz2DUXOm9pBk1F62EAVnFVIN7eMjcDy-3pEbxa-wiQQgOItH~~Wgizy6FN79pzpAjL-PWfshGcXGCLyC4e-sm0RwO86L0KY4KVwmdVvW-rVsaZWbvHyTQN0YQL35ycO29x~ALy9D44EdCBzHzJ~shGpBXHvhenZ5oGNfuvCtSFQMAoz5GiVdIvUZqhJbIpIX22Zsd~TBtYD62ehZdaU9oMxeVe03tZqg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Assembly Bill 429, presented at a March 26 hearing in the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, would reorganize Nevada’s conservation-easement statute to make explicit that any entity — including state and local government bodies — may participate in conservation easements for land they own. The bill’s sponsor and conservation practitioners said the change is primarily a clarity measure to reduce uncertainty that has slowed easement transactions.

Howard Wasp, representing Assembly District 15, said the bill “identifies the need to just clarify the existing statute” and noted the current law dates to the 1983 Uniform Conservation Easement Act. Jake Tibbetts, Natural Resources Manager for Eureka County, described instances where unclear statutory language created “cold feet” among potential easement partners and said the proposal would provide “certainty and durability for current and future conservation easements.”

Alicia Reban, identified in committee testimony as executive director of Nevada Land Trust, described conservation easements as \"a permanent protection tool for conservation of land\" used to protect recreation, working lands and wildlife habitat. She told the committee easements can serve as a backstop for public spaces, parks and trails by preserving development rights while keeping property in non‑federal ownership. Reban said local governments sometimes receive or reserve easements when they receive land and that clarifying the statute would encourage agencies to use this tool where appropriate.

Committee counsel and members confirmed the bill does not change the voluntary nature of easements. Committee Counsel Jeff Chronister said the statute allows parties flexibility to agree to different terms and that easements are documented in writing; Assemblymember DeLong asked to confirm that a landowner’s voluntary agreement remains required. Howard Wasp and Chronister both said that is correct: conservation easements are voluntary and require the landowner’s agreement.

The committee opened the record for public testimony in Carson City and by phone. Christy Cabrera Georgeson, deputy director of the Nevada Conservation League, testified in support, calling conservation easements “an important tool to protect our lands” and endorsing the bill as clarifying existing practice. No callers testified in opposition; no neutral callers registered.

The hearing concluded with the sponsor offering to answer follow-up questions and the committee closing testimony. No committee vote was recorded on AB 429 during the March 26 hearing.

Ending: The bill’s primary change is statutory clarification — not creation of a new regulatory regime — and sponsors said it is intended to reduce transaction risk by explicitly allowing state and local entities to enter or participate in easements for lands they own.","Assembly Bill 429 would clarify that state and local government entities may participate in conservation easements for lands they hold and reorganize statutory language; presenters and land-conservation groups urged the change as a clarification to provide certainty for transactions.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee advances five natural-resources bills unanimously

Heated hearing on AB 487: sponsors push pet‑store puppy ban; industry warns of unintended consequences

Bill to clarify state and local roles in conservation easements draws support at hearing