The Nevada Wildlife Commission has approved of a plan going forward to use in including public engagement, on a statewide basis, managing elk management plans.  The subcommittee, appointed by the Wildlife Commission, is known as the “Elk Management Committee” and they held their first meeting to begin their work on January 22^nd.

The Elk Management Committee is chaired by Wildlife Commissioner Casey Kiel.  He is joined on the committee by Wildlife Commissioners Shane Rogers, Shane Boren, Wyatt Mesna.  There are also three public representatives: Tom Barnes, Cory Lytle and Joel McConnell.

Based on the plan outline, covered in the start-up meeting, the consideration of managing of the statewide program will be carried out on the basis of treating designated elk herds on a herd-by-herd basis (mostly connected to “Unit Groups”) that are presented in this Map.

This table ties in with the Map and shows the corresponding details of herd sizes, population make-up, 2025 Population Estimates and objectives.

This information was presented to the Elk Management Committee, who will again be meeting March 12 in Boulder City, NV. At the March meeting they will be making their recommendations to the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners. Those recommendations will include population objectives (which could allow increases or decreases in the identified 2025 Population Estimates and Objectives column with the range of up to 10 percent increases or 10 percent decreases) …things could also be kept the same. They will also be covering hunting seasons and hunting limits.

At some point before the March 12^th meeting the local county game advisory boards will be meeting and offering their input. This could be a time for county Farm Bureau leaders or interested private landowners to attend and discuss thoughts with the county game advisory boards. If ranchers within these designated herd areas see reasons for not increasing or perhaps supporting decreases based on range conditions, exceptional overabundance of wild horses or heavily decreased grazing AUMs being held in suspension for whatever reason the BLM or Forest Service have decided – these points could be made at the county meeting as well as shared with the Nevada Farm Bureau.

While this process is still unknown, there is reason to recognize that by specifically addressing issues and opportunities at the ground level in response to the question of whether there should be more elk or less elk, people who are directly impacted need to be prepared to spell out their experiences and direct knowledge. Our goal is to get the people who know engaged to share that ground level insight.

In addition to the Map and Table noted above with their links, we also offer a couple of brochures on elk related (Damage Compensation) and (The Elk Incentive Tag Program – for private landowners)

Nevada Farm Bureau has been invited and has joined a working group connected with the University of Nevada, College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources (CABNR).  More specifically the group is interested in the Nevada Ag Experiment Station and UNR Extension.

This group has developed a set of questions which they are seeking consideration, discussion and feedback:  Perhaps taking the different entities on a separate basis, will provide more meaningful responses, allowing for specific input, one unit at a time…with this in mind, we’ll begin with the Nevada Ag Experiment System: (Please consider these questions and email Doug Busselman (doug@nvfb.org) 

1. Please share your opinion (positive, negative, neutral) of Nevada’s Ag Experiment Station system and how it connects with you and your agricultural enterprise.
2. Please explain your understanding of the ties and similarities and differences between UNR CABNR, Nevada’s Ag Experiment Stations (as well as the whole Ag Experiment program) and UNR Extension programs.
3. What agricultural research that is connected with Nevada’s Ag Experiment Station system has been useful to you and add value to your operations, interests and community?
4. Do you know any Nevada Ag Experiment Station faculty or researchers on a first name basis?
5. What do you believe should be the focus of the Nevada Ag Experiment Station system regarding research, and outreach in the months and years to come? In other words, what are the big concerns you have, from an agricultural perspective, Nevada’s Ag Experiment Station system can/should address going forward?

Mike Teglas, Department Chair for the Dept. of Agriculture, Veterinary and Rangeland Sciences is on the left and Todd Steury is the Department Chair for the Dept. of Natural Resources and Environmental Science is on the right

While we are on the topic of the University of Nevada (UNR) , College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources (CABNR) we forward to you the announcement from CABNR of the official appointment of two new Department chairs within the college.  Mike Teglas is now officially the chair for the Department of Agriculture, Veterinary and Rangeland Sciences.  Todd Steury is the Department Chair for the Dept. of Natural Resources and Environmental Science.

Teglas has actually been serving in the chair since July, following the retirement of Dr. Barry Peryman.  He has been with UNR since 2006.  Early in his tenure, Teglas collaborated on a regional research effort addressing epizootic bovine abortion, a devastating disease for cattle producers in foothill and mountainous regions of California, northern Nevada and southern Oregon. That work became a defining chapter of his career, culminating in the development of a vaccine now used by producers across Nevada.

Steury is new at UNR, coming from the University of Auburn University where he served as associate dean of academic affairs and a professor in the College of Forestry, Wildlife and Environment. His research spans carnivore ecology and conservation, as well as quantitative ecology, with projects ranging from black bear research in Alabama to jaguar studies in Paraguay.

The Joint Interim Standing Committee on Natural Resources held their first interim meeting on January 28^th.  The two topics covered in this initial session covered Cloud Seeding and the second area – Geothermal activities in Nevada and the legislation from the most recent session, AB 109 which basically seeks to require the State Engineer to treat water (even if it isn’t actually consumptively “used” in a closed system geothermal process) to go through the public process of treating it as a water right with the ability for public notice, public input and potentially interests to push forward in having the request for a water right denied.

The committee’s plans include future meetings:

• Wednesday, February 25 (where Nevada Farm Bureau President Bevan Lister will present)
• Wednesday, March 25 (where there will be a joint committee meeting covering data centers)
• Wednesday, May 27
• Wednesday, June 24 (which will cover water legislation)
• Wednesday, August 12 (where the committee will consider what they bring forward as bill topics)

** (The joint committee meeting for March 25 will include the Joint Interim Standing Committee on Growth and Industry meeting together with the Natural Resources Committee.)

In his recent Market Intel article, American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) economist Bernt Nelson provides an overview of the impacts that actions of how they want livestock production controlled, taken in one state, has consequences for consumers as well as other producers in the nation.  This article is part of a series examining six priority policy areas:

• Trade
• Biofuels
• Whole Milk In Schools
• Interstate Commerce
• Transparent Input Markets
• Prioritizing U.S. – Grown produce

The Key Takeaways from the article, “Threats to Interstate Commerce”

• State laws passed by ballot initiative or ballot measure bypass the normal legislative process. Many ballot initiatives provide voters with minimal information about the issue before they head to the polls.
• State laws on farm practices could fragment the marketplace. These laws allow one state to enforce its own production preferences on other states, creating a patchwork of laws that disrupt interstate commerce.
• Laws such as California’s Proposition 12 have resulted in increased costs to farmers, higher prices paid by consumers for regulated products and costly disruptions to supply chains.

Offer a solid foundation for the points he works through in the piece.

“Ultimately, consumers pay the bill for the disruption caused by these laws.” Nelson writes, adding “Farmers are price-takers, not price-makers. A farmer who has invested in complying with laws like Proposition 12 is at the mercy of a packer to pay a premium for a product they can sell in Massachusetts or California - though even that premium may not cover the farmer's costs. When packers pay farmers more, they likely pass that cost on to retailers, who then charge shoppers more for pork.”

Nevada has had its own experience with the consequences of legislation limiting the nature of agricultural commodities which can be sold in the state – coming from another state where practices don’t match what Nevada’s Legislature has decided.  In the 2025 Nevada Legislature it became an emergency action to pass AB 171, workaround to the legislation passed in the 2021 Legislature which passed the law required all eggs (in every form) requiring to come from “cage-free” poultry producers.