Churchill County commissioners back petition to change falconry fee rules and reconsider lifetime disqualifications

Churchill County commissioners voted to support a petition from Joe Krasswold asking state regulators to change two falconry-related requirements: allow licensees to charge market-based fees for conservation education programs and revise a lifetime ban that disqualifies anyone with a past wildlife- or animal-related conviction from receiving a license.

The petition was introduced during the meeting when the presiding officer read that petitions had been filed by Joe Krasswold. Commissioners discussed current Nevada Administrative Code language that, as read aloud during the meeting, allows licensees to “accept a fee for the program which does not exceed the actual cost,” meaning reimbursement but not profit. One commissioner summarized the existing language as: “The NAC says, he may purchase, sell, trade, or barter any captive [bird], and then right below it says, may accept a fee for the program which does not exceed the actual cost.”

Supporters of the petition argued the existing phrasing prevents falconers from charging market rates for organized, fee-based educational programs even though keeping birds requires significant ongoing investment. A commissioner described the petition’s second request as seeking removal or revision of the long-standing “period of scrutiny” provision that creates a lifetime bar for anyone with a prior wildlife or animal conviction, saying the current rule “lasts forever” and prevents applicants from being “considered time served.” The petitioner asked that the lifetime ban be converted to a five-year period of ineligibility in many cases.

Opposition was limited in the record; one speaker identified in the transcript as Mitch Bailey expressed concern, saying he opposed because of worries about predators (comment recorded as Mr. Mitch Bailey opposed it). Commissioners debated whether the regulation already clearly authorized reimbursement only, whether allowing market fees would make educational programs “commercial,” and how to define the scope of offenses covered by the disqualification.

After discussion, a motion to support the petition was moved and seconded and the commission voted in favor. The motion passed.

The commission did not adopt regulatory text itself; it voted to support the petitioner’s request to the relevant regulatory authority. The transcript record does not show language of a final regulation revision or an exact path for submitting the petitioner’s proposed language to the Nevada Administrative Code process. The filing specifically referenced current NAC language and a federal reference to 50 CFR 21.43 regarding depredation-control activities, which the transcript notes remain excluded from payment; the petition did not seek to change that federal provision.

Commissioners instructed that the petition would be forwarded as a supported request rather than immediately rewriting state regulations at the county level. No specific timeline for further action or for submission to the state regulatory process was recorded in the meeting minutes.