76th (2011) Session
Opinions
View all submitted comments for each bill by the most recent, by votes for, or by votes against.
| AB403 | ||
| - | ||
| Against | May-28-2011 | |
| Against | totally against this ridiculous bear slaughter, so some good ole boys can kill them \selves some bears! The only bears they are going to murder are the ones in the forest doing what their supposed to be doing. I say let's hunt the hunters, and the commissioners who pushed this law through against the publics approval with dogs and tree them and watch them tremble and soil themselves while we the people of Nevada watch!! | May-27-2011 |
| Against | May-19-2011 | |
| For | Thank you for your game commission doing the right thing. | May-17-2011 |
| For | May-17-2011 | |
| Against | A permanant adoption of the bear hunt would lead to the demise of local our bear population, and eventually ecosystem. Just another example of man's ignorance. | May-17-2011 |
| Against | I strongly oppose the bear hunt in Nevada. Please vote no on this issue. | May-17-2011 |
| Against | Please vote against this one more invasion on our wildlife. We have so few bears in Nevada, I'm against this hunt. | May-17-2011 |
| For | Please vote for this thank you | May-17-2011 |
| For | This hunt is justified and needed.Thank you for allowing our biologists and NDOW to manage the wildlife of nevada. | May-17-2011 |
| For | May-17-2011 | |
| For | May-16-2011 | |
| For | I applaud your support for AB403. AB403 represents the use of sound science in the application of wildlife management practices, which includes hunting. | May-16-2011 |
| Against | No Bear Hunt..... | May-14-2011 |
| Against | I am against the bear hunt | May-14-2011 |
| Against | May-14-2011 | |
| Against | May-14-2011 | |
| Against | This senseless, inhumane violence is an insult to humanity and should never be "law." Here's a better law: legislate all the hunters be enclosed together into one square mile of open space, each with his own weapon and all the ammo he can carry. Then allow them to hunt each other until only one is left standing. Declare him "the winner" and give him a permit to do it again next year. Please include welfare recipients and homeless. | May-14-2011 |
| Against | I am appalled by your actions, what you will do for money? You have not considered the safety of hikers, bikers, and other people in the area. There are only 500 bears in Northern Nevada. Your actions show no respect for the wildlife most people love.. If you saw channel 5's document on bears in Alaska, you would realize what a sick thing you are doing. I hold anyone who voted for this bill responsible for any person or bear that is killed. | May-13-2011 |
| Against | I am writing to urge you to take the permanent bear hunt feature out of this bill. What possible reason is there to start killing black bears in Nevada? Leave the bears alone. Thank you. | May-13-2011 |
| Against | Don't kill bears, you haven't before so why now? A lot of people disagree with this bill. | May-13-2011 |
| For | Please vote for this bill. | May-13-2011 |
| Against | I am adamantly opposed to a Black Bear Hunt in the Tahoe area. | May-13-2011 |
| Against | This Bill is a disgrace for Nevada. I'm not against hunting when the meat is eaton, but hunting for the joy of killing is wrong. | May-13-2011 |
| Against | May-13-2011 | |
| Against | The Nevada Department of Wildlife and the Wildlife Commission failed to meet minimal public noticing and information requirements and failed to consider potential economic impacts to Lake Tahoe businesses. NDOW and the Wildlife Commission failed to provide an adequate wildlife management justification for the hunt and failed to properly employ science in estimating Nevada’s bear population. | May-13-2011 |
| For | A vote for more freedom for Nevadans is a good vote. Please allow bear hunting in Nevada. | May-13-2011 |
| Against | less then 200 bears are still in the wild and you want ot kill them? If this goes through ill be glad to see how heartless NV really is and how the world will then see its true you are nothing but heartless rednecks. | May-13-2011 |
| Against | May-13-2011 | |
| Against | This is appauling! These beautiful animals are an integral part of the forest that we love and the forest that tourists pay to come and see. We have no right to destroy these bears. They were here first. | May-12-2011 |
| Against | I am appalled by this bill. I will not patronize Nevada businesses in the future if this is the type of legislation Nevada passes. A bear hunt is just so inappropriate. I cannot support or vacation again in a state that would do such a thing. | May-12-2011 |
| Against | Bears are part of the natural beauty that makes Nevada what it is. Most people like Bears and feel a special privilege when they encounter a Bear in the wild. Yes, they can cause trouble at times; like getting in trash cans,etc. But this is human caused and our fault for not storing garbage correctly. Lastly, I suspect from an economic point of view (tourism) the pro Bear side of the fence has- and spends much more money in the local area than the small, but vocal group of Bear hunters. The will of the majority of the people is STOP THE BEAR HUNT. Please listen. | May-12-2011 |
| Against | stop ruining the lives of innocent animals in Nevada. Let them be free to live the way God intended them to live. People are the nuisance, not the animals!!!! | May-12-2011 |
| Against | I am vehemently opposed to bear hunting in Nevada. I frequestly hike the Tahoe rim trail and do not want to be accidentally shot. There is an overpopulation of humans, not bears | May-12-2011 |
| Against | The bear population of Nevada is under 3oo. They are supposed to be under a protected status. Tourists come to see them in their natural habitat and the state of Nevada will suffer decreases in tourism if this hunt is allowed. Many cubs will starve to death without their mothers and the reduction in the number of genetically superior males will affect the future of this population of bears. This population can not be sustained on a long term basis if hunting is allowed. It seems no one considered the reduction of the population will be larger than the amount of tickets sold. There will be poachers. Hunted bears, starving cubs, and the illegally hunted bears all taken from a from fragmented habitat will have a larger impact on next year's population than first realized. This will continue to decrease the bear population until there are no more bears in the area. Allowing the bear hunt is a very bad and thoughtless decision. | May-12-2011 |
| Against | Amend to strip Section 1.1 (C) FROM ab403 | May-12-2011 |
| Against | May-12-2011 | |
| Against | May-12-2011 | |
| Against | Cruelty kills Please say NO!!! | May-12-2011 |
| Against | May-12-2011 | |
| Against | I do not agree that hunting bears in Nevada is necessary. Nor do I agree that the Wildlife Commission is acting in the best interest of ALL Nevadans. | May-12-2011 |
| Against | This bill is just absolutely wrong!! | May-12-2011 |
| For | The NDOW has researched and has done a great job keeping track of our great state's animals. The bears will be no exception, they will be treated with respect. Let's respect the decision made by NDOW. | May-12-2011 |
| Against | This would spell disaster for healthy ecosystems! | May-12-2011 |
| Against | Do NOT let his UNCONSCIONABLE bill pass. REJECT it. The public is TOTALLY AGAINST IT. Listen to your citizens. REJECT THIS BILL!! | May-12-2011 |
| Against | To enact this temporary measure as permanent without the agreed upon trial period is an unsavory development. The likely reason the provision was slipped in at this time is to avoid the challenge of mounting opposition. NoBearHuntNV.org currently has over 2500 signatures against the hunt and growing. Additionally, the non-profit organization has completed its first round of fund-raising reaching its stated $15,000 goal 29 days ahead of schedule. | May-12-2011 |
| Against | There is no need. If we would quit building in their land we wouldnt have issues with bears. Help wildlife, stop fighting against it. | May-12-2011 |
| Against | If there is an overpopulation of bears in the Lake Tahoe Sierra Nevada's then why can't we move them to the Pine Nut mountains or the Sweet Water Range? There seems to be better methods of regulating bear population in the human inhabited Tahoe basin than killing them. I am disturbed by predator control because predators are a vital piece of the ecological process. The loss of habitat and the increase in pollution and vehicle traffic with more roads shortens the lifespan of bears and mountain lions. Humans have taken their livelihood away, do we really need to shoot and kill them too? | May-12-2011 |
| Against | May-12-2011 | |
| Against | May-12-2011 | |
| Against | I am totally against making bear hunting legal in Nevada. We thoroughly enjoy visiting the Lake Tahoe area twice a year and getting to see bears in their natural habitat as well as wild horses. Please do not start messing with nature! | May-11-2011 |
| Against | Why hunt the bears? If they are a problem, just trap them humanely and take them somewhere else. You do it all the time when they come into neighborhoods. Bears are part of nature. Do not disrupt nature. If there are hunters out there, they may end up killing something or someone else, because they are so eager to get a bear. Please, do not let this happen. | May-11-2011 |
| Against | Leave the bears alone and teach people how to control their garbage handling. They moved into the bears habit and a bears only job is to eat... | May-11-2011 |
| Against | May-11-2011 | |
| Against | Please vote against this bill. | May-11-2011 |
| Against | May-11-2011 | |
| Against | May-11-2011 | |
| Against | I watched one of the committee hearings on this bill and no one mentioned the substance of the regulations it would make permanent. "Transparency" seems to be a very popular word this session, yet hidden was the fact that this bill would make permanent a regulation to legalize bear hunts in Nevada--a temporary regulation passed despite overwhelming public opposition and scientific evidence that it will not achieve a reduction in the nuisance bear population. I encourage legislators inform themselves about the substance of this bill, and amend it to delete paragraph(1)(c): "The Board of Wildlife Commissioners shall adopt a permanent regulation to replace LCB File No. T004-10." | May-11-2011 |
| Against | May-11-2011 | |
| Against | Too many bills lump unrelated items together. I am opposed to any attempt by the legislature to make permanent regulations of hunting wildlife. In this case as related to hunting bear. | May-11-2011 |
| Against | This is a dangerous bill as it doesn't allow for changes, especially with regards to bear hunting. | May-11-2011 |
| Against | Don't we have enough animals in Nevada to kill? Why bears, we have so few!!! Keep our bears safe and VOTE NO, please!!! | May-11-2011 |
| Against | Bear hunting? Really? The bears come in because humans are in their habitat and not following bear procedures. Find another way. Killing something for being in its own habitat. | May-11-2011 |
| Against | May-10-2011 | |
| Against | Allowing a bear hunt is not acceptable. We (humans)share this land with other creatures and it is not okay to hunt bears just because we can. There are not many of them left. Allowing a bear hunt would be a shame and a crime. | May-10-2011 |
| Against | Please oppose this bill. We do not need a "Bear Hunt" in Nevada, especially one that becomes a permanent part of our law. It's hard to believe that this was even brought forward. There are much more important things which to attend our focus. Please oppose AB403. We're Nevadans, not stupid. | May-10-2011 |
| Against | May-10-2011 | |
| Against | The Nevada Department of Wildlife and the Wildlife Commission failed to meet minimal public noticing and information requirements and failed to consider potential economic impacts to Lake Tahoe businesses. | May-10-2011 |
| Against | This bear hunt will do nothing to cull the so called problem bears that interface with humans and their garbage. This is more about a group of eight individuals who are drunk with power and are hell bent to shove this hunt down the majority's throats no matter the consequences! For some reason I thought the NDOW was supposed to have our wildlife's best interest at heart but alas it is yet another case of a government entity run amuck where the 'good ole boys' and hunters are obviously in bed together. | May-10-2011 |
| Against | May-10-2011 | |
| Against | BEAR HUNTING IS WRONG; ANY HUNTING IS WRONG, WHAT IS WITH YOU PEOPLE, ARE YOU CRAZY? YOU SHOULD ALL BE PROSECUTED FOR FELONY ANIMAL ABUSE. LEGALIZING IT DOES NOT MAKE IT OKAY. IT IS SICKENING AND NO DECENT HUMAN BEING PURPOSELY HARMS AN ANIMAL FOR ANY REASON, WHATSOEVER!!!!!!!!! | May-10-2011 |
| Against | Do we have to kill everything??? If so, can we start shooting hunters, too? Most of them seem to be a pretty useless bunch of gun freaks. We could chlorinate the gene pool! | May-10-2011 |
| Against | May-10-2011 | |
| Against | May-10-2011 | |
| Against | Please stop this bear hunt in Nevada. The bears have not hurt one person and deserved to be protected. The general public is opposed to this hunt in every poll I have read so why is being allowed? | May-10-2011 |
| Against | May-10-2011 | |
| Against | May-10-2011 | |
| Against | To allow the use of hunting dogs, and to indisctiminatly allow fire arm use anywhere remotely near a dwelling is wrong. Relocation, birthcontrol, anything less is wrong. They were here before we were! | May-10-2011 |
| Against | May-10-2011 | |
| Against | Please stop the Bear Hunt in Nevada. It's pointless and ludicrous. | May-10-2011 |
| Against | I am greatly opposed to the bear hunt, and opposed to bill AB403 which seeks to make the bear hunt permanent. I find it unfair and biased, and a conflict of interest, that all the people on the commission are hunters. I believe the commission has made the decision to enact the bear hunt for their own purposes, and did not consider the public's desires and opinions. To then try to get the hunt made permanent by putting a provision within a bill of other provisions, BEFORE the first season of the hunt, no less, is deceptive and against the desires of the Nevada residents, particularly the residents of the area the hunt is to take place. Further, the hunt is dangerous to the people who will be recreating in the bear hunt area. Additionally, I believe people who enjoy the outdoors and wilderness recreation will go to other states and our State of Nevada will lose out on tourist dollars and opportunities. Thank you for your consideration. Sgt. George L. Feriend, Jr. Reno, NV feriendglf@live.com | May-10-2011 |
| Against | I live in Incline Village, Nevada. I am very, VERY against the bear hunt! Thus, I am against the permanent adoption of the hunt proposed in Bill AB403. Everyone I know or hear talking is against the bear hunt! Every local organization I know of is against the bear hunt! When I go backpacking in the wilderness areas of Nevada, I am not afraid of bears. They mean no harm to me. I would, however, be afraid of hunters and the environment that would be created by the hunt. I hear tourists talking in the grocery store and in my place of business, as well as hearing residents talk. The tourists, who have heard of the hunt in their own state, are as against the hunt as the residents are. Those who backpack and go into the wilderness aren't very excited about the possibility of meeting up with a hunter. Mostly, NOBODY WANTS THE BEARS KILLED except for the hunters! Nobody, other than the hunters, of course, can fathom a real purpose. (1) The bear hunt makes our beloved State of Nevada look like a backward thinking and unsafe place for people to love and experience the wildness of nature. (2) Bears don't want to eat people, and most people don't want to eat bears. The bears we have in the Tahoe Basin are way more afraid of people than the people are afraid of the bears. If nobody eats bear meat, what do the hunters want to do with it? It doesn't make sense to me. My family in Arizona have heard about this and are aghast at how ridiculous the thought of a bear hunt is, and they are pro-hunting. They don't understand why anyone would want to hunt something they aren't going to eat. You eat what you kill! Then there are Healy's remarks about the bear hunt costing the state money. I'm don't think he included the cost of tourists going somewhere else to experience the wilderness. It is my belief he was including just the administrative costs. The monetary costs cannot be compared to the disgust of the people who hear about the bear hunt, residents and touri | May-10-2011 |
| Against | May-10-2011 | |
| Against | May-09-2011 | |
| Against | May-09-2011 | |
| Against | May-09-2011 | |
| For | AB403 - does NOT make the bear hunt permanent. It simply removes a step at the end process IF the Wildlife Commission does in fact approve a simliar bear hunt permanent regulation. If the new Wildlife Commission in June approves a bear hunt as a permanent regulation, the temporary bear hunt would continue whether or not Mr. Oceguera's bill passes. Season setting must occur every year - so bear quotas cannot be permanent anyway. The point of AB403 is to get over the hump of the Governor's Executive Order on ALL regulations. If this had been a temporary furlough regulation passed in the queue, that would been in here too. | May-09-2011 |
| Against | May-09-2011 | |
| Against | May-09-2011 | |
| Against | May-09-2011 | |
| Against | May-09-2011 | |
| Against | This is the 21st Century. We have no business hunting bears especially in an area populated with tourists. Those who enjoy the scenic beauty of our great outdoors also hope to see wildlife, including our majestic bears. This bill simply shows the world how stupid Nevadans can be. | May-08-2011 |
| Against | No bear hunt! | May-08-2011 |
| Against | May-08-2011 | |
| Against | Please exclude the provision that allows for permanent bear hunt. | May-08-2011 |
| Against | This bill contains a provision in Section 1.1(c) to make the newly regulated bear hunt permanent. The purpose of the original temporary regulation, LCB File No. T004-10, enacted just a few months ago in December 2010, was to determine how the bear hunt performed administratively, judge its popularity and to discern how the majority of people react to the first regulated bear hunt in Nevada history. Would the hunt disrupt recreation seekers along the Eastern Sierra trails to Mt. Rose or mountain bikers along the Tahoe Rim Trail? How would it affect townships around Lake Tahoe during the tourist season? And finally, before deciding to carry on, how much would the hunt cost the taxpayers? NDoW spokesman, Chris Healy said to Channel 7 News, San Francisco, a few weeks ago, "The [bear] hunt will cost us money." As the hunt will not even begin until August the critical mandate of the original directive will be negated. To enact this temporary measure as permanent without the agreed upon trial period is an unsavory development. The likely reason the provision was slipped in at this time is to avoid the challenge of mounting opposition. NoBearHuntNV.org currently has over 2500 signatures against the hunt and growing. Additionally, the non-profit organization has completed its first round of fund-raising reaching its stated $15,000 goal 29 days ahead of schedule. Legal opposition to the hunt will continue. A hearing is set for 12 May. Pending the outcome, NoBearHuntNV.org is fully prepared to take the matter into the courts on procedural technicalities and violations of Open Meeting Law. Over 3000 emails were received by NDoW against the hunt, but the communications were dismissed as "spam" in order for the public panel to not take public opinion into consideration as required by NRS 233B.061, "The agency shall consider fully all written and oral submissions respecting the proposed regulation." To vote for this divisive provision at this time would unwisely curta | May-07-2011 |
| Against | May-07-2011 | |
| Against | I am absolutely AGAINST the proposed bear hunt. Bears are part of Tahoe's natural habitat and should be respected. It is the people's duty to protect the bears by keeping our food and trash properly contained. Killing these peaceful creatures is not the answer! Aside from the disgusting thought of killing our bears, I see it as a danger to the thousands of people who live here and come here to hike and bike in the wilderness. No way should this be allowed. | May-07-2011 |
| Against | May-07-2011 | |
| Against | No. Bear. Hunt. In. Nevada. 99%+ of the population doesn't want it. What don't you folks understand here? | May-07-2011 |
| Against | May-07-2011 | |
| Against | May-07-2011 | |
| Against | Please amend to strip Section 1.1(c) from AB403: "The Board of Wildlife Commissioners shall adopt a permanent regulation to replace LCB File No. T004-10," or vote no on AB403. | May-07-2011 |
| Against | May-07-2011 | |
| Against | May-06-2011 | |
| Against | Your approval of AB 403 provision to make the bear hunt permanent will prove to be one of the most costly mistakes to Nevada taxpayers of this legislative session. Please dismiss sec 1.1(c) "The Board of Wildlife Commissioners shall adopt a permanent regulation to replace LCB File No. T004-10." Or vote no on AB403. Nevadans not only overwhelmingly opposed this hunt, but have now donated the needed monies to pursue litigation against their own governmental institutions for failing to listen. The proposal disregards the regions Prosperity Plan for economic growth in the three primary sectors of eco and geo tourism, health and wellness and sustainable innovation. Organizations such as North Lake Tahoe Visitors and Convention Authority, Incline Village Board of Trustees and Sustainable Tahoe, an umbrella organization representing over forty small businesses and organizations, have all signed resolutions opposing the hunt due to its negative impact on the economy of the region. Over 3,000 Nevadans wrote NDOW opposing the hunt, and just over 50 supporting it. Small business owners have submitted affidavits clearly expressing how the decision will negatively impact both their businesses, as well as the property values in the area. Please listen to the public who is under financial distress, and do not pass into law what will clearly harm them. This is a democracy and Nevadans of all political affiliations have spoken decisively on this subject. Please also note that Nevada's largest organized groups of sportsmen have remained neutral or spoken against the hunt. Nevada bears have been protected since 1929. Nevadans want this tradition in our great state to remain unchanged. Thank you, Kathryn Bricker nobearhuntnv.org Your approval of AB 403 provision to make the bear hunt permanent will prove to be one of the most costly mistakes to Nevada taxpayers of this legislative session. Please dismiss sec 1.1(c) "The Board of Wildlife Commissioners shall adopt a pe | May-06-2011 |
| Against | May-06-2011 | |
| Against | May-06-2011 | |
| Against | Show the nation that NV has compassion for animals and that we are NOT an Anything Goes state. The people of NV should value the life of all creatures. Please Vote NO on AB403. | May-06-2011 |
| Against | seriously? there are only a limited amount of bears left in NV - NO HUNT | May-06-2011 |
| Against | I am against the provision added to the bill to make the Nevada Bear Hunt permanet. Other aspects of the bill do not matter to me. | May-06-2011 |
| Against | May-06-2011 | |
| Against | This bill is being railroaded through by a select group of individuals. It does nothing for the State of Nevada, other than contribute to an already poor view of our state. To add insult to injury, let's make it a permanent reg. What a joke! | May-06-2011 |
| Against | It makes Bear Hunt permanent INSTEAD of a ONE YEAR EXPERIMENT! Sneaky politicians! | May-06-2011 |
| Against | May-06-2011 | |
| Against | May-06-2011 | |
| Against | This bill contains a provision in Section 1.1(c) to make the newly regulated bear hunt permanent. The purpose of the original temporary regulation, LCB File No. T004-10, enacted just a few months ago in December 2010, was to determine how the bear hunt performed administratively, judge its popularity and to discern how the majority of people react to the first regulated bear hunt in Nevada history. Would the hunt disrupt recreation seekers along the Eastern Sierra trails to Mt. Rose or mountain bikers along the Tahoe Rim Trail? How would it affect townships around Lake Tahoe during the tourist season? And finally, before deciding to carry on, how much would the hunt cost the taxpayers? NDoW spokesman, Chris Healy said to Channel 7 News, San Francisco, a few weeks ago, "The [bear] hunt will cost us money." As the hunt will not even begin until August the critical mandate of the original directive will be negated. Killing innocent creatures like bears is despicable and these are the people who should have a non biased and informed opinion. The people on this council do not belong in a position of authority. | May-05-2011 |
| Against | May-05-2011 | |
| Against | May-05-2011 | |
| Against | May-05-2011 | |
| Against | May-05-2011 | |
| Against | I am against allowing bear hunts in Nevada. | May-05-2011 |
| Against | May-05-2011 | |
| Against | May-05-2011 | |
| Against | NO BEAR HUNTING!!!!!!! | May-05-2011 |
| Against | Bears are after food - rather than kill them, provide bear proof garbage disposal containers. Humans should be held responsible - killing of our wildlife should not be the solution. | May-05-2011 |
| Against | May-05-2011 | |
| Against | As a 40 year Lake Tahoe North Shore resident I have to say that this bill is ridiculous!! This bill contains a provision in Section 1.1(c) to make the newly regulated bear hunt permanent. The purpose of the original temporary regulation, LCB File No. T004-10, enacted just a few months ago in December 2010, was to determine how the bear hunt performed administratively, judge its popularity and to discern how the majority of people react to the first regulated bear hunt in Nevada history. Would the hunt disrupt recreation seekers along the Eastern Sierra trails to Mt. Rose or mountain bikers along the Tahoe Rim Trail? How would it affect townships around Lake Tahoe during the tourist season? And finally, before deciding to carry on, how much would the hunt cost the taxpayers? NDoW spokesman, Chris Healy said to Channel 7 News, San Francisco, a few weeks ago, "The [bear] hunt will cost us money." As the hunt will not even begin until August the critical mandate of the original directive will be negated. To enact this temporary measure as permanent without the agreed upon trial period is an unsavory development. The likely reason the provision was slipped in at this time is to avoid the challenge of mounting opposition. NoBearHuntNV.org currently has over 2500 signatures against the hunt and growing. Additionally, the non-profit organization has completed its first round of fund-raising reaching its stated $15,000 goal 29 days ahead of schedule. Legal opposition to the hunt will continue. A hearing is set for 12 May. Pending the outcome, NoBearHuntNV.org is fully prepared to take the matter into the courts on procedural technicalities and violations of Open Meeting Law. Over 3000 emails were received by NDoW against the hunt, but the communications were dismissed as "spam" in order for the public panel to not take public opinion into consideration as required by NRS 233B.061, "The agency shall consider fully all written and oral submissions respecting the prop | May-05-2011 |
| Against | May-05-2011 | |
| Against | This bill contains a provision in Section 1.1(c) to make the newly regulated bear hunt permanent. The purpose of the original temporary regulation, LCB File No. T004-10, enacted just a few months ago in December 2010, was to determine how the bear hunt performed administratively, judge its popularity and to discern how the majority of people react to the first regulated bear hunt in Nevada history. Would the hunt disrupt recreation seekers along the Eastern Sierra trails to Mt. Rose or mountain bikers along the Tahoe Rim Trail? How would it affect townships around Lake Tahoe during the tourist season? And finally, before deciding to carry on, how much would the hunt cost the taxpayers? NDoW spokesman, Chris Healy said to Channel 7 News, San Francisco, a few weeks ago, "The [bear] hunt will cost us money." As the hunt will not even begin until August the critical mandate of the original directive will be negated. To enact this temporary measure as permanent without the agreed upon trial period is an unsavory development. The likely reason the provision was slipped in at this time is to avoid the challenge of mounting opposition. NoBearHuntNV.org currently has over 2500 signatures against the hunt and growing. Additionally, the non-profit organization has completed its first round of fund-raising reaching its stated $15,000 goal 29 days ahead of schedule. Legal opposition to the hunt will continue. A hearing is set for 12 May. Pending the outcome, NoBearHuntNV.org is fully prepared to take the matter into the courts on procedural technicalities and violations of Open Meeting Law. Over 3000 emails were received by NDoW against the hunt, but the communications were dismissed as "spam" in order for the public panel to not take public opinion into consideration as required by NRS 233B.061, "The agency shall consider fully all written and oral submissions respecting the proposed regulation." To vote for this divisive provision at this time would unwisely curtail the | May-05-2011 |
| Against | May-05-2011 | |
| Against | I am very much opposed to a regulated bear hunt in Nevada, whether temporary OR permanent. I believe nuisance bears can be controlled by enforcing bear proof garbage can regulations. This is just a BAD idea and I fear for all of us citizens who hike and bike and love our scenic areas. Please vote NO! | May-05-2011 |
| Against | May-05-2011 | |
| Against | May-05-2011 | |
| Against | May-05-2011 | |
| Against | STOP this bill, with the Tahoe area, the eastern Sierra's as a worldwide tourists destination area you all NUTS. There will be undoubtly a major casuality with hunters near hiking trails, camp sites in "AUGUST". I only see this bill as creating more problems, rather than anything else!!! We as a state seem to be going backwards! | May-05-2011 |
| Against | This bill contains a provision in Section 1.1(c) to make the newly regulated bear hunt permanent. The purpose of the original temporary regulation, LCB File No. T004-10, enacted just a few months ago in December 2010, was to determine how the bear hunt performed administratively, judge its popularity and to discern how the majority of people react to the first regulated bear hunt in Nevada history. Would the hunt disrupt recreation seekers along the Eastern Sierra trails to Mt. Rose or mountain bikers along the Tahoe Rim Trail? How would it affect townships around Lake Tahoe during the tourist season? And finally, before deciding to carry on, how much would the hunt cost the taxpayers? NDoW spokesman, Chris Healy said to Channel 7 News, San Francisco, a few weeks ago, "The [bear] hunt will cost us money." As the hunt will not even begin until August the critical mandate of the original directive will be negated. To enact this temporary measure as permanent without the agreed upon trial period is an unsavory development. The likely reason the provision was slipped in at this time is to avoid the challenge of mounting opposition. NoBearHuntNV.org currently has over 2500 signatures against the hunt and growing. Additionally, the non-profit organization has completed its first round of fund-raising reaching its stated $15,000 goal 29 days ahead of schedule. Legal opposition to the hunt will continue. A hearing is set for 12 May. Pending the outcome, NoBearHuntNV.org is fully prepared to take the matter into the courts on procedural technicalities and violations of Open Meeting Law. Over 3000 emails were received by NDoW against the hunt, but the communications were dismissed as "spam" in order for the public panel to not take public opinion into consideration as required by NRS 233B.061, "The agency shall consider fully all written and oral submissions respecting the proposed regulation." To vote for this divisive provision at this time would unwisely curtail the | May-05-2011 |
| For | May-05-2011 | |
| Against | This bill contains a provision in Section 1.1(c) to make the newly regulated bear hunt permanent. The purpose of the original temporary regulation, LCB File No. T004-10, enacted just a few months ago in December 2010, was to determine how the bear hunt performed administratively, judge its popularity and to discern how the majority of people react to the first regulated bear hunt in Nevada history. To enact this temporary measure as permanent without the agreed upon trial period is an unsavory development. The likely reason the provision was slipped in at this time is to avoid the challenge of mounting opposition. | May-05-2011 |
| Against | how it is possible that we elect unenlightened savages to represent us? the bear population is infitessimal and why not actually get to work on real problems and try to find solutions that do not involve killing or shooting your gun! try thinking through a problem before acting on it. THINK??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? | May-05-2011 |
| Against | This bill contains a provision in Section 1.1(c) to make the newly regulated bear hunt permanent. The purpose of the original temporary regulation, LCB File No. T004-10, enacted just a few months ago in December 2010, was to determine how the bear hunt performed administratively, judge its popularity and to discern how the majority of people react to the first regulated bear hunt in Nevada history. Would the hunt disrupt recreation seekers along the Eastern Sierra trails to Mt. Rose or mountain bikers along the Tahoe Rim Trail? How would it affect townships around Lake Tahoe during the tourist season? And finally, before deciding to carry on, how much would the hunt cost the taxpayers? NDoW spokesman, Chris Healy said to Channel 7 News, San Francisco, a few weeks ago, "The [bear] hunt will cost us money." As the hunt will not even begin until August the critical mandate of the original directive will be negated. To enact this temporary measure as permanent without the agreed upon trial period is an unsavory development. The likely reason the provision was slipped in at this time is to avoid the challenge of mounting opposition. NoBearHuntNV.org currently has over 2500 signatures against the hunt and growing. Additionally, the non-profit organization has completed its first round of fund-raising reaching its stated $15,000 goal 29 days ahead of schedule. Legal opposition to the hunt will continue. A hearing is set for 12 May. Pending the outcome, NoBearHuntNV.org is fully prepared to take the matter into the courts on procedural technicalities and violations of Open Meeting Law. Over 3000 emails were received by NDoW against the hunt, but the communications were dismissed as "spam" in order for the public panel to not take public opinion into consideration as required by NRS 233B.061, "The agency shall consider fully all written and oral submissions respecting the proposed regulation." To vote for this divisive provision at this time would unwisely curta | May-05-2011 |
| Against | This bill contains a provision in Section 1.1(c) to make the newly regulated bear hunt permanent. The purpose of the original temporary regulation, LCB File No. T004-10, enacted just a few months ago in December 2010, was to determine how the bear hunt performed administratively, judge its popularity and to discern how the majority of people react to the first regulated bear hunt in Nevada history. Would the hunt disrupt recreation seekers along the Eastern Sierra trails to Mt. Rose or mountain bikers along the Tahoe Rim Trail? How would it affect townships around Lake Tahoe during the tourist season? And finally, before deciding to carry on, how much would the hunt cost the taxpayers? NDoW spokesman, Chris Healy said to Channel 7 News, San Francisco, a few weeks ago, "The [bear] hunt will cost us money." As the hunt will not even begin until August the critical mandate of the original directive will be negated. To enact this temporary measure as permanent without the agreed upon trial period is an unsavory development. The likely reason the provision was slipped in at this time is to avoid the challenge of mounting opposition. NoBearHuntNV.org currently has over 2500 signatures against the hunt and growing. Additionally, the non-profit organization has completed its first round of fund-raising reaching its stated $15,000 goal 29 days ahead of schedule. Legal opposition to the hunt will continue. A hearing is set for 12 May. Pending the outcome, NoBearHuntNV.org is fully prepared to take the matter into the courts on procedural technicalities and violations of Open Meeting Law. Over 3000 emails were received by NDoW against the hunt, but the communications were dismissed as "spam" in order for the public panel to not take public opinion into consideration as required by NRS 233B.061, "The agency shall consider fully all written and oral submissions respecting the proposed regulation." To vote for this divisive provision at this time would unwisely curtail the | May-05-2011 |
| Against | May-05-2011 | |
| Against | May-05-2011 | |
| Against | May-05-2011 | |
| Against | I'm totally against the Bear Hunts in Nevada. I'm ashamed of any Nevadan who helped write this BILL and for any Nevadan who votes for this BILL to be Approved. We are the cause of the Bears being in our yards and towns because we are greedy and had to keep taking their land to build on and have left them no food. We need to come up with a no kill solution to the problem. Please do not vote for this BILL. | May-05-2011 |
| Against | Please amend to strip Section 1.1(c) from AB403: "The Board of Wildlife Commissioners shall adopt a permanent regulation to replace LCB File No. T004-10," or vote no on AB403. | May-05-2011 |
| Against | May-05-2011 | |
| Against | The animal shall not be measured by man. In a world older and more complete than ours, they move finished and complete, gifted with extension of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren; they are not underlings; they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendor and travail of the earth. Henry Beston, “The Outermost House,” 1928 | May-05-2011 |
| Against | No bear hunting!!!! | May-05-2011 |
| Against | May-05-2011 | |
| Against | This bill represents an affront by a select few to the grater number of citizens who do not wish to see the slaughter of any number of native Black Bears. Bear proof garbage cans and public education are the humane permanent answer. | May-05-2011 |
| Against | Simply wrong | May-05-2011 |
| Against | May-05-2011 | |
| Against | Making the bear hunt permanent is despicable! But trying to sneak this legislation through is not just despicable, but downright corrupt! There is compelling opposition to the bear hunt and YOU NEED TO PAY ATTENTION! The bear hunt is NOT justified and is serving the interests of a few powerful, selfish people. I am disgusted with your ethics! | May-05-2011 |
| Against | This bill contains a provision in Section 1.1(c) to make the newly regulated bear hunt permanent. The purpose of the original temporary regulation, LCB File No. T004-10, enacted just a few months ago in December 2010, was to determine how the bear hunt performed administratively, judge its popularity and to discern how the majority of people react to the first regulated bear hunt in Nevada history. Would the hunt disrupt recreation seekers along the Eastern Sierra trails to Mt. Rose or mountain bikers along the Tahoe Rim Trail? How would it affect townships around Lake Tahoe during the tourist season? And finally, before deciding to carry on, how much would the hunt cost the taxpayers? NDoW spokesman, Chris Healy said to Channel 7 News, San Francisco, a few weeks ago, "The [bear] hunt will cost us money." As the hunt will not even begin until August the critical mandate of the original directive will be negated. To enact this temporary measure as permanent without the agreed upon trial period is an unsavory development. The likely reason the provision was slipped in at this time is to avoid the challenge of mounting opposition. NoBearHuntNV.org currently has over 2500 signatures against the hunt and growing. Additionally, the non-profit organization has completed its first round of fund-raising reaching its stated $15,000 goal 29 days ahead of schedule. Legal opposition to the hunt will continue. A hearing is set for 12 May. Pending the outcome, NoBearHuntNV.org is fully prepared to take the matter into the courts on procedural technicalities and violations of Open Meeting Law. Over 3000 emails were received by NDoW against the hunt, but the communications were dismissed as "spam" in order for the public panel to not take public opinion into consideration as required by NRS 233B.061, "The agency shall consider fully all written and oral submissions respecting the proposed regulation." To vote for this divisive provision at this time would unwisely curta | May-05-2011 |
| Against | Definitely do NOT pass this bill! NO bear hunting in Nevada!!! | May-05-2011 |
| Against | Individual e-mails were sent to: Senators John Lee; Mark Manendo; Michael Schneider; Joe Hardy and James Settelmeyer regarding my concerns. | May-05-2011 |
| Against | May-05-2011 | |
| Against | All scientific evidence states that this would not be an effective way to manage the bear problem in Lake Tahoe and Northern Nevada. Please place the burden on the home owners to manage their trash and homes. | May-05-2011 |
| Against | Stop the irrational slaughter of wildlife! | May-05-2011 |
| Against | May-05-2011 | |
| Against | This bill contains a provision in Section 1.1(c) to make the newly regulated bear hunt permanent. The purpose of the original temporary regulation, LCB File No. T004-10, enacted just a few months ago in December 2010, was to determine how the bear hunt performed administratively, judge its popularity and to discern how the majority of people react to the first regulated bear hunt in Nevada history. Would the hunt disrupt recreation seekers along the Eastern Sierra trails to Mt. Rose or mountain bikers along the Tahoe Rim Trail? How would it affect townships around Lake Tahoe during the tourist season? And finally, before deciding to carry on, how much would the hunt cost the taxpayers? NDoW spokesman, Chris Healy said to Channel 7 News, San Francisco, a few weeks ago, "The [bear] hunt will cost us money." As the hunt will not even begin until August the critical mandate of the original directive will be negated. To enact this temporary measure as permanent without the agreed upon trial period is an unsavory development. The likely reason the provision was slipped in at this time is to avoid the challenge of mounting opposition. NoBearHuntNV.org currently has over 2500 signatures against the hunt and growing. Additionally, the non-profit organization has completed its first round of fund-raising reaching its stated $15,000 goal 29 days ahead of schedule. Legal opposition to the hunt will continue. A hearing is set for 12 May. Pending the outcome, NoBearHuntNV.org is fully prepared to take the matter into the courts on procedural technicalities and violations of Open Meeting Law. Over 3000 emails were received by NDoW against the hunt, but the communications were dismissed as "spam" in order for the public panel to not take public opinion into consideration as required by NRS 233B.061, "The agency shall consider fully all written and oral submissions respecting the proposed regulation." To vote for this divisive provision at this time would unwisely curtail the | May-05-2011 |
| Against | May-05-2011 | |
| Against | May-05-2011 | |
| Against | Please consider the risk to public safety,. | May-04-2011 |
| Against | May-04-2011 | |
| Against | May-04-2011 | |
| Against | Making the bear hunt permanent goes against the overwhelming public opinion against it. There is a citizen's group in the process of appealing this regulation. This bill would circumvent that public process. Also, despite NDOW's claims that there is no fiscal impact, Chris Healy, their spokesman says that it will cost the department in biologists, game wardens, and public relations costs. | May-04-2011 |
| Against | There is a provision in this bill that would make the bear hunt permanent. This hunt was just authorized this year and has not yet taken place. It is scientifically unsound to begin with. Making it permanent before results are known makes no sense at all. Thousands of Nevadans oppose this hunt. It will endanger tourists and tourism in the Incline area. Bears are not a threat to people. | May-03-2011 |
| Against | May-03-2011 | |
| Against | Do not make the Bear Hunt permanent. This is still extremely unpopular legislation brought forth by a biased, unrepresentative committee. The chance for the public to continue to oppose this need not be taken away. | May-03-2011 |
| Against | I do not want a nevada bear hunt at all, and this would make the bear hunt permanent. I am against this law. I live in Incline Village, NV with the bears and am happy to share the land with them. They do not attack humans. Humans get hurt only when they are between the bear and it's cub, it's food, or it's escape route. If you don't leave your food/garbage out, you don't have any problems with the bear. The hunt would impinge on the safety of all humans who use the mountains for hiking, biking and camping as the hunters shooting at the bears could cause the bear to run straight into innocent people as it tries to run for it's life. Also there will be more than just the bear tag limit killed as many poachers will now come for the lucrative bear gallbladers. There are not enough Rangers to patrol and find and check each hunter in the area to make sure they really have a bear tag. Also, killing bear is not a sport in any way. These hunters use dogs to chase the bear up a tree. Then they just shoot it down. This is cruel and I don't want animal murders in my backyard and playground. Please do not pass this bill to make the bear hunt permanent. | May-03-2011 |
| Against | I do not want a nevada bear hunt at all, and this would make the bear hunt permanent. I am against this law. I live in Incline Village, NV with the bears and am happy to share the land with them. They do not attack humans. Humans get hurt only when they are between the bear and it's cub, it's food, or it's escape route. If you don't leave your food/garbage out, you don't have any problems with the bear. The hunt would impinge on the safety of all humans who use the mountains for hiking, biking and camping as the hunters shooting at the bears could cause the bear to run straight into innocent people as it tries to run for it's life. Also there will be more than just the bear tag limit killed as many poachers will now come for the lucrative bear gallbladers. There are not enough Rangers to patrol and find and check each hunter in the area to make sure they really have a bear tag. Also, killing bear is not a sport in any way. These hunters use dogs to chase the bear up a tree. Then they just shoot it down. This is cruel and I don't want animal murders in my backyard and playground. Please do not pass this bill to make the bear hunt permanent. | May-03-2011 |
| Against | I oppose this bill because of the provision to make the bear hunt permanent. | May-03-2011 |
| Against | Opposed to making the temporary bear hunt permanent. NoBearHuntNV.org has a hearing with Wildlife Commission on legality of regulation. Pending result, NoBearHuntNV.org is preparing actions with the Attorney General's Office and court of law if necessary. | May-02-2011 |
| Against | Keep the rule making with the legislators. Agencys have a tendency to run amock on fees and rules. | Apr-06-2011 |
| Against | No Comment | Mar-22-2011 |
 Session Info | NELIS | Interim Info | Law Library | General Info | Counsel Bureau | Research Library | Assembly | Senate | FAQs View Scheduled Meetings | Publications | Proposals | Career Opportunities | Gift Shop | Site Map | Contact Us © 2013 Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau |
|