Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Reintroduction Bighorn topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
RAC approves bighorn and mountain goat plan review; removes Boulder Mountain as prospective transplant site
Summary
After a lengthy discussion about disease risk to domestic sheep and local stakeholder concerns, the Southern Region RAC voted 5–3 to accept the mountain goat and bighorn sheep plan review submitted by the Division of Wildlife Resources with Boulder Mountain removed from the list of prospective reintroduction sites.
Rusty, Division staff, summarized the mountain goat and bighorn plan reviews and said the committee that wrote the plans found them well‑written and largely up to date, with only minor changes needed to reflect legislative updates. “They were both very well written plans and the Bighorn plan, especially was very forward thinking,” Rusty said.
Discussion focused on disease risk, local producer concerns and the process required before any reintroduction could occur. Division staff noted a 2023 state code change that requires unit plans and local stakeholder committees for reintroductions and described the Wild Sheep Initiative (WAFWA) guidelines as advisory: “We don't have to follow these. We're our own agency,” Rusty said, while adding that the division used the 2025 WAFWA language where appropriate.
Kevin, Division staff, described Utah’s management approach and its contrast with other Western states: “We decided in Utah that we're going to take the risk. We're going to accept the risk on the bighorn sheep population and not put any risk onto the domestic populations,” he said, describing tools such as emergency removal authorizations (CO Rs) that let permittees remove bighorn sheep that threaten domestic operations.
Public commenters and several RAC members urged close local consultation before any reintroduction. Producers said they were particularly concerned about the effect of pathogens associated with wild sheep on domestic lamb weights and livelihood. Division staff said any site added to the plan is only a potential option: a unit‑level reintroduction would still require formation of a local committee, creation of a mitigation plan and further public process.
Two specific non‑biological clarifications emerged during debate: Fremont Island was discussed as a possible non‑hunted “nursery” population, and the Boulder Mountain entry on the list was characterized as a planning placeholder that gives the division the option to start the public planning process within the life of the plan. RAC members worried that listing Boulder Mountain (given existing nearby sheep and the potential for cross‑movement) would create unnecessary local conflict.
Motion and vote: Trevor Barnson, RAC member representing agriculture, moved to approve the plans as submitted but to remove Boulder Mountain from the list of prospective reintroduction sites. The motion was seconded and passed on a 5–3 vote. The minutes recorded at least two named opposing votes (Chad Utley and Mike Grant); the RAC recorded the final vote as 5 in favor and 3 opposed.
What happens next: With RAC approval of the plan review (as amended), the division may still pursue reintroductions at other listed sites, but any future transplant onto a unit would require unit‑level planning, stakeholder committees, and a mitigation plan and would return to the RAC and wildlife board for further action.
Ending: RAC members and public commenters emphasized the need to involve local producers early in unit planning if reintroduction proposals are advanced.
