Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permit Allocation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Division revises once‑in‑a‑lifetime nonresident allocations; RAC endorses flexibility to call alternates during disease events
Summary
Staff described a new method for allocating the resident/nonresident split of once‑in‑a‑lifetime permits to better achieve a 90/10 overall distribution; the RAC recommended adding flexibility to call alternates from ram lists during disease events.
Division staff described a new approach to allocating once‑in‑a‑lifetime species permits (for species such as bighorn and bison) that aims to produce a true 90 percent resident / 10 percent nonresident split at the species or total‑permit level rather than applying rounding rules to each individual hunt. The rationale is to give long‑term nonresident applicants clearer pathways to the bonus (point) pool while reducing local instances where rounding produced a higher nonresident share than intended.
Rusty Robinson, who presented the item, said the change seeks to concentrate nonresident opportunity on fewer hunts with slightly larger bonus pools rather than give scattered single nonresident permits across many hunts. He acknowledged that some individual residents could see less access on certain small hunts but said the method makes the overall proportion closer to the statutory or historical goal.
The council discussed diseased bighorn herds (several speakers described ongoing pneumonia events) and whether the division could call alternates from draw alternate lists to allow more hunters to assist with removal of diseased animals before they die on the landscape. The division representatives said they would be open to calling alternates from the lists in disease events and indicated they would work with the bighorn advisory committee on timing and logistics. The RAC moved and unanimously approved language to support that approach and asked the division to consider using alternates from affected lists to help remove animals when disease events occur.
Public comment supported the proposed allocation changes with the caveat that some commenters asked the division to consider increasing tags to allow hunter involvement in disease response and to review mid‑plan sheep management strategies that broaden hunter participation.
The RAC’s formal motion instructed the division to retain the proposed allocation approach and to incorporate programmatic flexibility to call alternates from affected lists to help address disease‑driven population declines.
