Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Landowner Permit Rule topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rack adds public‑access condition to new landowner permit rule language; motion passes 6‑3
Summary
The Rack amended proposed implementing criteria for the recently enacted landowner‑permit statute (HB202/R6‑57‑43) to add an interpretive condition that, where private‑land antlerless harvest is necessary to meet population objectives, the Division should favor options that are open to public draw. The motion passed 6‑3.
The Rack considered proposed administrative‑rule language to implement a recently passed legislative change allowing qualifying landowners (large contiguous ownership) to receive up to two limited‑entry vouchers and approved an amendment adding public‑access language to the criteria.
Division staff explained the statutory change: House Bill 202 (referenced in the meeting) gives the Division rule‑making authority to establish criteria for awarding 0, 1 or 2 limited‑entry full‑tag vouchers to qualifying landowners who own contiguous acreage that meets the statute. Division staff proposed administrative criteria that include the landowner’s historic contributions to habitat, the property’s wildlife value and any wildlife convictions.
Several Rack members raised procedural and policy concerns, including the potential for loss of public access and the need for transparency about how vouchers would be awarded and reported. Rack members asked whether vouchers could be opened to the public or otherwise used to provide public benefit.
A motion was introduced to add three words to the proposed rule language so the relevant sentence would read (paraphrased): willingness to help manage the elk herd for population objectives, which may be necessary through private ranch antlerless harvest open to public draw when population estimates are over objective. In debate Rack members noted the amendment would not bind the Division to a single method but would signal a preference for drawing public participation where population objectives justify it.
That motion passed 6‑3. The division noted the statutory language gives the Division authority to set criteria and that the rule is intended to be a transparent set of criteria for how the Division will evaluate applications; the Division also said it will publish aggregate reports on vouchers by unit (number of vouchers per unit) rather than by individual landowner.
Rack members pressed the Division to ensure applicants cannot double‑dip by receiving vouchers while simultaneously claiming depredation compensation on the same property; division staff said code limits depredation claims for applicants and the rule will clarify that the landowner cannot use the same unit for compensation and voucher allocation.
The motion recorded was to approve the draft rule text with the added public‑draw language; the amendment passed 6‑3. The Division will proceed to implement administrative procedures and publish a public summary of vouchers awarded by unit.
