Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Thermal Imaging Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lyon County advisory board opposes proposed thermal-imaging possession restrictions, citing duplication and enforcement concerns
Summary
The Lyon County Wildlife Advisory Board unanimously recommended denial of NBWC24B, a proposed regulation restricting possession or location of thermal-imaging equipment, saying the change appears duplicative of existing law and could be difficult to enforce; the denial will be forwarded to the Nevada Board of Wildlife.
The Lyon County Wildlife Advisory Board voted June 24, 2026, to recommend denial of NBWC24B, a proposed Commission regulation that would add possession/location restrictions on thermal-imaging equipment. The motion to deny was made by Darrel Skubinna and seconded by Joe Crawford; the board voted unanimously, 4-0.
Why it matters: NBWC24B would impose additional limits on thermal-imaging equipment related to wildlife take and management. Board members raised concerns that the proposal may overlap with existing prohibitions and that adding possession or location restrictions could be an overreach and difficult for staff to enforce.
What the board said: The transcript records discussion questioning whether the restriction is necessary because similar prohibitions exist for big-game hunting and whether adding possession restrictions would create enforcement challenges for staff. The meeting minutes do not attribute the specific enforcement/duplication comments to a single named speaker. Following discussion, the board formally moved to deny NBWC24B.
Outcome and next steps: Darrel Skubinna moved to deny NBWC24B; Joe Crawford seconded. The motion passed unanimously, 4-0. The denial and the board’s discussion will be forwarded to the Nevada Board of Wildlife for consideration at the NBWC meeting on June 26–27, 2026.
Context: The meeting record shows the board approved several other NBWC items the same night (including funding recommendations and other regulation referrals). The denial of NBWC24B reflects the advisory board’s view that the draft rule as written was unnecessary or not ready for adoption.
