77th (2013) Session
Opinions

Reports | View Comments | Submit an Opinion

View all submitted comments for each bill by the most recent, by votes for, or by votes against.

Select any Bill:	or type bill here Example: AB362
Sort by:	Most Recent Votes For Votes Against

AB168
-
Against	Why don't the people that are seeking passage of AB168 just state they want an Animal Activist to be appointed to the County Game Boards. We all know that is their intent. The system by which Game Board members are appointed now is not broken. They just want to load up these Boards with members sympathetic to their cause. After all Hunters, Trappers and Anglers are all part of the general public. Aren't we?	May-01-2013
For		Apr-26-2013
Against		Apr-26-2013
Against		Apr-22-2013
Against		Apr-22-2013
Against		Apr-21-2013
For		Apr-15-2013
Against		Apr-10-2013
Against	Who is the general public. Are people who buy fishing, hunting and trapping licenses members of the general public which I believe they are then there are many general public representatives on the county advisory boards as they now exist. If you want to have an anti-hunting/fishing/trapping representative on these boards then call it by its true name, DON'T MIX WORDS!!!!!! I did not give up my membership as a member of the general public when I purchased my fishing and hunting license. Currently if an animal rights activist want to serve on a county advisory board all they have to do is purchase a fishing license which is a very minimal requirement i.e. they do not even he to put a line in the water.	Apr-09-2013
Against		Apr-09-2013
For		Mar-24-2013
Against	Another attempt to put anti-hunting anti-trapping "Animal Rights" zealots in positions of authority over the people they want to destroy! STOP TRYING TO MAKE NEVADA INTO KALIFORNIA! Kill this bill.	Mar-22-2013
Against		Mar-22-2013
Against		Mar-22-2013
Against		Mar-22-2013
Against		Mar-22-2013
Against		Mar-22-2013
Against		Mar-22-2013
Against		Mar-22-2013
Against		Mar-22-2013
Against		Mar-22-2013
Against		Mar-22-2013
Against		Mar-22-2013
Against		Mar-22-2013
Against		Mar-22-2013
Against		Mar-22-2013
Against		Mar-22-2013
Against		Mar-22-2013
Against		Mar-22-2013
Against		Mar-22-2013
Against		Mar-22-2013
Against		Mar-22-2013
Against		Mar-22-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against		Mar-21-2013
Against	I strongly oppose this bill. The sportsman pays for most of the wildlife management in this state through taxes on sporting equipment, ammunition, hunting license. A majority of the work to improve our wildlife environment is through voluntary work done by sportsman's conservation groups. Stop acting like California politicians and trying to destroying our Nevadan heritage.	Mar-19-2013
Against		Mar-14-2013
For	Although I support this bill, the correct reason that sportsmen and women must be appointed is that their main duty is to submit recommendations on seasons and quotas to the Commission per NRS 501.303. It stands to reason that people affected by the quota are hunters and learn/know how the quota structure works. Also think that "General Public" should NOT include someone who is a member of a certain group such as an animal rights activist, such as the Humane Society or PETA, or ASPCA, etc.	Mar-12-2013
For	More diversity is needed on the wildlife boards.	Mar-11-2013
Against	I believe that in order to have a seat at the table it must be earned and not given. This is like saying you want to be on a football team but you don't want to practice or workout in order to earn the privilege of playing in the game. Every person who is currently on the board or has been on a board has recently been out in the field.In the real world nobody is assigned to a committee who is not prepared to be on one. I believe that if the public wants to be on a board then they should be able to identify wildlife and know its characteristics before coming on a board. They should also attend a hunter safety course but not required to purchase a license.	Mar-11-2013
For	The CABs are charged with protecting the public trust -- the wildlife that belong to ALL of us. Times are changing. A system designed for all hunters all the time needs to be updated. One new member on each county board won't change the unbalanced situation. But it opens the door. "General public" doesn't mean the new face on the board will be an animal advocate. But they certainly should be.	Mar-11-2013
For	We need to diversify wildlife management. By excluding all other stakeholders, we exclude ideas and talent. It is well shown in business models that excluding large populations of people, is a set-up for failure longterm.	Mar-11-2013
For	With the current CAB structure, only a small special interest group is represented. The CABs are also filled with sportsmen who have serious conflicts of interest and do not recuse themselves when appropriate. Our wildlife belongs to everyone. Our wildlife includes more than game animals that are the primary, and in most cases, only interest of the sportsmen. Sportsmen have an incorrect sense of entitlement to our wildlife that is perpetuated by the Department. This needs to change. Involving other stakeholders will help diversify opinions and show that there are some areas we can agree upon in wildlife management. Having a license does not give a person special knowledge about wildlife. Game management is not rocket science. I fully believe that those without a license will be able to make sound amnagement decisions.	Mar-11-2013
Against		Mar-08-2013
Against		Mar-07-2013
Against		Mar-07-2013
For	How can a public advisory board possibly represent the general public when its membership is exclusively limited to one narrow special interest group? This is the current, unacceptable situation at the 17 county advisory boards to manage wildlife. No citizen can serve on these boards unless they have held a trapping, hunting or fishing license for several years. How are wildlife's best interests considered when the only people on these boards seek policies to kill as much of that wildlife as possible? The obvious answer is wildlife currently has no protection from those who seek to exploit these creatures for financial gain, recreation or personal validation. Policies and actions of both the county advisory boards and the state Wildlife Department and its Commission reflect an unwavering bias toward exploiting the maximum amount of wildlife. This one-sided perspective toward wildlife that belongs to every state resident must be balanced by what is in the best interests of wildlife. AB 168 requires the county advisory boards to have one representative out of five who represents the general public's interests and who does not hold a wildlife killing license. This is an overdue and important change that allows a human to speak for wildlife's best interests. Wildlife faces an uncertain future without adequate safeguards. Vote Yes on AB 168.	Mar-06-2013
For	The Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners is, with few exceptions, composed of hunters, anglers and TRAPPERS. They usually vote with each other. The County Advisory Boards to Manage Wildlife (reporting directly to NBWC) are composed, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, of trappers, hunters and anglers, and they almost ALWAYS vote together. These boards are a joke and anyone who spends any time at all watching them knows it. Public be damned! Whatever is in the best interests of the TRAPPER, HUNTER and angler is the ONLY thing these people care about. Try raising an issue before one of these high-testosterone committees to air another opinion and you might as well be tarred and feathered and run out of town. They love to thump themselves on the chest and roar about what good deeds they do for wildlife habitat, but the only deeds they do are for the reproduction of animals in order to brag about what good citizens they are and then kill those animals. They fool themselves into thinking they live a healthy, moral, family-oriented life, but what they do is kill wildlife. It would be nice if these boards represented the public, but they do not. Only ONE qualified member who represents the interests of the public? The requirement that ANY member MUST be a hunter, trapper or angler should be completely eliminated. This reasonable bill should be passed!	Mar-05-2013
For		Mar-05-2013
Against		Mar-04-2013
Against	to be a member of the county cab you must have a fishing or hunting license for three years. Our we not the public? Or are they saying you must have someone on the board without the licenses. So what would be that person qualification to be on the board?	Mar-04-2013
Against		Mar-04-2013
Against	Currently members of the county advisory boards to manage wildlife are choose by the county commissioners of each county. These elected officials use there best judgement choosing members of the county advisory boards to manage wildlife. What will give some one qualifications to repentance the general public? Does being a anti hunter make you part of the general public, does being a sportsmen make you a member of the general public? Just what makes some one qualified to represent the general public?	Mar-04-2013
Against	This is just more political BS as the CAB members now represent the public. I have served on the CABs for many years and I served for hunters, fishermen, photograhers, anti bear hunters, antihunters, antidog people, etc. Mainly I served for the wildlife of the State of Nevada and its protection and well being. This is another Political Bill that needs the circular file. Thank You.	Mar-04-2013
Against	All members of the CAB are the "General Public". This is a "political dirty trick" by the anti-hunting activists to get their members on each board.	Mar-03-2013
Against		Mar-03-2013
Against		Mar-03-2013
Against		Mar-01-2013
For		Feb-28-2013
Against		Feb-28-2013
Against		Feb-28-2013
Against		Feb-28-2013
Against		Feb-28-2013
Against		Feb-28-2013
Against		Feb-28-2013
Against		Feb-28-2013
Against		Feb-28-2013
Against	The assumption of this bill is that the current members of the county advisory boards do not represent the interests of the general public. This is a condescending and inaccurate assumption and I find it offensive. This bill has been introduced to mandate each advisory board include a member of the public who is against hunting and/or trapping and to disguise said individuals as "representative of the interests of the public" is deceptive and demeaning.	Feb-28-2013
Against	Anti-Hunting people should not have any part in the management of wildlife or population control conserning wildlife. And the last time I checked Hunters and Sportsmen,Sportswomen are also the general public. The County Advisory Boards have been preforming the duties of management with the general public's concerns to wildlife for years with over all herd populations, mature health and suvival on the rise. Nevada dose not need any changes to the process. And anti- hunting special interest groups just want to stop hunting all togather in every State in the United States and that is what this bill AB168 is all about. Stop this bill here and now so wildlife can be managed by people that truely under stand wildlife management Sportsmen,Sportswomen also called general public.	Feb-27-2013
Against	I strongly oppose this bill.	Feb-27-2013
Against	General public? all members of the CAB's are members of the general public. They all have different views and interests. They just happen to sit on a wildlife advisory board.	Feb-27-2013
Against	The intent of this bill is contrary to the intent and purpose of the county wildlife advisory board. Let the county commissioners decide who they want on the board instead of further tying their hands. Aren't there bigger fish to fry!!	Feb-27-2013
Against	This is simply an attack on the sportsmen and women of Nevada	Feb-25-2013
For		Feb-25-2013

77th (2013) SessionOpinions

77th (2013) Session
Opinions