Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Local rancher’s testimony read to Elko County Commission criticizes past bighorn sheep releases
Summary
A public speaker read testimony from Josephine Martarelli describing economic losses and concerns after bighorn sheep were released near domestic sheep allotments; the commission received the remarks during public comment with no board action required.
During the public comment period, Cliff Gardner read testimony into the record from Josephine Martarelli accusing state wildlife managers of harming domestic sheep operations after bighorn sheep releases in Miller Basin and expressing opposition to further releases in Buffalo Valley.
Gardner identified the text as testimony from Martarelli and read it verbatim. "I am Josephine Martarelli, a partner in the Jose Veil company, rancher in Pershing and Lander Counties. And we have been personally affected by your bighorn release in Miller Basin," the testimony read. It says 34 bighorn sheep were introduced in 1984 and that the family’s summer range was effectively closed, producing roughly $17,000 in lost lease revenue and about $15,000 in legal and consultant costs, according to the text Gardner read.
Why it matters: the remarks were part of the public‑comment period and did not trigger board action, but they reflect longstanding conflict between some domestic sheep producers and wildlife agencies over bighorn translocations and disease risk.
Key points from the testimony
The testimony read by Gardner said the family proposed measures intended to allow "coexistence," including a five‑year experimental period allowing bighorns and domestic (messy/domestic) sheep on the same range and a one‑mile buffer zone; the testimony said those offers were refused. It also stated the family had proposed to reimburse the wildlife department for any bighorn loss attributed to contact with domestic sheep, which the testimony said was refused.
The testimony questioned notification and due process, alleging poor prior notice of the 1984 release and describing legal and lease losses. It also characterized the dispute as a long‑running conflict and asked why elected officials sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution would not address the claim, invoking the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments in the read remarks.
Commission response and context
The commission took the testimony under public comment. The chair reminded the public that comments are received pursuant to Nevada law and that the commission cannot take action on matters raised during public comment.
Ending
No action was taken; the testimony was entered into the public record. The speaker concluded by thanking the chair.
