RAC endorses mountain goat and bighorn mid‑plan reviews, cites partnerships with producers
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The Central Region RAC reviewed mid‑plan updates for mountain goats and bighorn sheep, commended long‑standing partnerships with ranchers and sportsmen, and voted unanimously to accept the plans as presented.
The Central Region RAC unanimously accepted mid‑plan reviews for mountain goat and bighorn sheep management after Division staff and committee members described the plans as largely unchanged since the initial bighorn plan in 2018 and praised the partnerships that supported the program.
Rusty Robinson, a division staff member who led the plan review, told the RAC the 2018 bighorn strategy “helped unite the division, the ag community, [and] sportsmen,” and said the updated mid‑plans mostly add minor edits to keep guidance current. Robinson said managers are intentionally balancing sheep recovery with ranching concerns: “we’re not gonna grow bighorn at the expense of producers,” he said.
Why it matters: RAC members and public commenters emphasized the value of interagency and landowner cooperation in bighorn conservation. The plan’s collaborative approach — including producer outreach and disease‑risk considerations — was cited as a primary strength.
Public input: the division summarized two online comments on the bighorn/mountain goat review (one strongly in agreement and one neutral). Wade Garrett of the Utah Farm Bureau spoke during public comment to thank the division and the RAC for working with agriculture and supporting partnership approaches.
Outcome: Scott Jensen moved to accept the plans as presented; Bryce Castanetto seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Background: Robinson said the bighorn program has focused on disease risk, strategic transplants (such as recent transfers to Willard Peak), and using nursery populations (for example, Fremont Island was discussed as a potential nursery population rather than an immediate huntable population). The review included discussion of adding references to updated national guidance (WAFWA guidelines) with a statement that the state treats those as non‑binding guidance rather than mandatory rules.
Discussion vs decision: RAC acceptance was a formal action; discussion included public comments, committee consensus on plan value, and technical clarifications about nursery populations and references to national guidance.