Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Pronghorn Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
RAC approves pronghorn permit increases despite debate over Parker Mountain pace
Summary
The council approved the division's pronghorn permit recommendations, including substantial increases on Parker Mountain, after members amended and then re-approved the recommendation in a contested sequence of votes.
The Northern Regional Advisory Council approved the Division of Wildlife Resources's pronghorn permit recommendations for 2025, including large permit increases on some productive units such as Parker Mountain, after a contentious discussion and a pair of votes that highlighted differing views on harvest pace and transplant risks.
Division presenters described pronghorn management objectives and noted pronghorn reach horn-growth potential at younger ages than deer and elk, which supports managing for a younger average harvested age while providing opportunity. Dax Mangus explained the Parker Mountain recommendation would substantially increase permits (division staff said one presentation recommended raising overall Parker permits from 75 to 200 while simultaneously altering weapon-season splits to spread hunter pressure over time).
Council debate focused on Parker Mountain. Some members and public commenters argued the increase risked repeating a previous cycle of heavy harvest followed by population crashes and asked the division to prefer transplants or more conservative increases. Division staff said they had transplanted roughly 300 pronghorn from Parker in a prior operation and were monitoring survival; early post-translocation mortality raised caution and the division said it would study results for a year before deciding whether to do further large-scale transplants.
The RAC first approved an amended motion to accept the recommendations but cut the Parker Mountain doe pronghorn permits roughly in half (motion passed 5-3 with one abstention). Then the council voted on a subsequent motion to approve the division's original recommendations as presented; that motion passed unanimously in a later roll-call, making the original division numbers effective.
Public commenters, including hunters and sportsmen's groups, offered mixed views: some supported increased hunter opportunity; others urged caution and reminded the council of past local winter losses and the uncertainty inherent in transplants.
The division said it will monitor outcomes, consider splitting hunts and season dates to reduce concentrated pressure, and report back to the council. The RAC's recommendation will be forwarded to the wildlife board.
