Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Antelope Island hunting permits draw sharp divide on Senate floor
Summary
A proposal to allow limited special hunting permits on Antelope Island provoked sustained debate about wildlife management, park mission and revenue; opponents including DNR and local officials opposed the bill, while supporters emphasized herd management and revenue generation; bill advanced toward third reading.
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senators debated First Substitute Senate Bill 187, a measure to allow a limited set of special hunting permits on Antelope Island for a small number of species and a tightly constrained number of permittees.
Sponsor Sen. Hickman said the measure permits only a handful of special permits annually and that rules would be set by Parks and Recreation and the Division of Wildlife Resources to protect the island’s character. Supporters argued the state already uses hunting and auctions to manage herds and that permit revenue could help fund stewardship.
Opponents included park managers, the Division of Natural Resources, the Davis County Commission and a biologist responsible for Antelope Island; they warned the bill could undermine the island’s purpose as a public‑use area and damage visitors’ experience. "There really is no real reason to do this," Sen. McCoy said, citing broad local opposition and agency concerns. Sen. Kilpack echoed those concerns, saying the island is more like a place to observe large game than to permit expanded hunting.
Debate was robust and bipartisan, with senators weighing preservation and public sentiment against potential revenue and wildlife‑management arguments. After discussion the bill was placed on the third‑reading calendar for further consideration; floor record shows recorded votes at calendar advancement rather than final adoption during this session.
Next steps: SB 187 was moved toward third reading for final action at a later time; no final enactment occurred during the Feb. 18 session.
