Northern RAC backs housekeeping changes to DWR variance and surrender rules, extends variance window to 60 days

The Northern Regional Advisory Council recommended unanimous approval of proposed housekeeping changes to Utah Division of Wildlife Resources rules R657-42 and R657-57, including shortening medical paperwork deadlines, adding court subpoenas as a qualifying variance event and extending the post‑hunt variance filing window to 60 days.

The changes were presented to the council by Wendy, a Division staff member, who said the amendments mainly address timing and consistency between rules for surrendering permits, requesting refunds and applying for variances. "The current rule does allow them to surrender and get their points minus 1 to the current year... the rule does not allow them to qualify for the refund minus $25," Wendy said, adding the proposed change aligns the refund and point treatment for those cases.

Wendy told the council the division also wants to shorten the time to submit a physician statement for medical surrenders from 90 days to 30 days, and to reduce the variance application filing period from 120 days to a shorter interval so staff can process eligibility in a timely manner. She also proposed adding court subpoenas or court orders that occur during a hunt as a new qualifying event and removing COVID‑19 as a named variance reason because the division considers that emergency past.

Why it matters: the rule package affects hunters seeking refunds, waiting‑period credit and variances when unforeseen events prevent them from hunting. Council members stressed the change must not penalize people coping with serious medical events or family emergencies. "I think a little bit more time is how I feel on something like that," Ross Worthington, a RAC member, said during discussion, urging more than the initially proposed 30 days for variance filing.

Discussion and motion: RAC members questioned current volumes and timing. Wendy said medical surrenders account for roughly 17–20% of surrendered permits in recent years and that yearly variances range from about 25 to 50, never exceeding 50 in the last five years. After debate about a 30‑day vs. a longer filing window, Ross Worthington moved to accept the division recommendation with the variance filing window set to 60 days; Rob (RAC member) seconded the motion. The RAC voted unanimously to approve the recommendation with the change to 60 days.

Discussion vs. decision: the record shows the RAC provided a recommendation to approve the rule amendments as modified. This was a formal RAC action (motion, second, recorded vote) forwarded to the Division/board process; the transcript does not show adoption of the rule by the Wildlife Board itself at this meeting.

Public comment: the division summarized public input on this item as minimal; one member of the public submitted neutral feedback and provided no substantive comment.

Next steps: the RAC’s recommendation will be transmitted to the division and, as appropriate, to the Wildlife Board and formal rule‑making channels for the state. Specific future actions (board hearing dates or adoption timelines) were not specified in the meeting record.

Ending: The council recorded the motion and moved on to the next agenda item. No additional conditions or contingencies on enforcement or implementation were stated in the transcript.