Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elk Management Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Elko CAB backs streamlined path to revise elk population objectives, supports Alternative 3
Summary
The Elko County advisory board voted to recommend Alternative 3 — a direct evaluation of elk population objectives within the statewide Elk Management Plan — saying it would be faster than the traditional subplan process and better enable local stakeholder input on compensation and mitigation programs.
The Elko County Advisory Board to Manage Wildlife voted Wednesday to recommend Alternative 3, asking the Nevada Department of Wildlife and the Wildlife Commission to pursue a streamlined, state-plan–level review of elk population objectives rather than opening lengthy, traditional subplans.
Board members said Alternative 3 could address population objectives faster than the standard subplan route. "Bottom line is anticipated timeline is 2 to 3 years per subplan," a CAB presenter said of the traditional process; "Alternative 3 ... anticipated the timeline would be less than 1 year," the presenter added.
Department staff described Alternative 3 as a mechanism to address population-objective questions within the statewide revision while preserving stakeholder input. "Alternative 3 would allow the department to develop a modernized and streamlined process in the current revision of the Elk State Management Plan to address ... requests," Travis Allen, Nevada Department of Wildlife, said. "It wouldn't just be solely based on population numbers."
Multiple CAB members emphasized local concerns about elk damage compensation and mitigation. One CAB member summarized constituent comments: smaller landowners are not qualifying under current compensation rules and landowners are experiencing recurring issues such as open gates during shed hunting that prolong cattle work. "If we can't make some changes ... I don't think that I would be able to support that idea," a CAB member said.
Department speakers noted the compensation fund balance cited during the meeting ("$2,100,000" in discussion) and said the department is willing to explore whether language in the state plan or related programs could better address on-the-ground issues such as gate management and localized mitigation projects.
After public comment and discussion the CAB moved and passed a motion to support Alternative 3. The motion passed by voice vote with no recorded opposition.
The board and department staff stressed that stakeholder participation is central to making Alternative 3 effective and that the approach is intended to accelerate updates while preserving public input.
