Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elk Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Elko CAB backs revamped Elk Species Management Plan to allow annual tweaks to population objectives
Summary
The Elko County Citizen Advisory Board voted to support Addendum 2 to the Elk Species Management Plan, which creates a six‑member Elk Management Subcommittee to recommend annual adjustments (±10% from the prior year baseline) to elk population objectives and tag quotas.
The Elko County Citizen Advisory Board voted to support Addendum 2 to the Elk Species Management Plan, approving a new Elk Management Subcommittee that will meet twice yearly to review herd status and recommend population objectives and tag quotas. The CAB’s motion to support the plan carried by voice vote.
Department staff said the subcommittee would consist of six appointed members — four commissioners representing sportsmen, ranching, farming and conservation interests, plus two public representatives — and would meet during January and March Wildlife Commission sessions. "We reached out to the Duck Valley Indian Reservation biologists… and during that survey, we found 274 on the Patan and a 119, on the Indian reservation," Department biologist Travis Allen said, noting counts help estimate how many animals are available to hunters.
Supporters said the new process adds flexibility to respond to population changes more frequently than the previous multiyear review cycle. A CAB member who spoke in favor called the change "nimble" and said it would let the department and stakeholders address problems faster than the prior 20‑ to 30‑year plan. Opponents and questioning members pressed staff on whether population estimates reflected total headcount or only 'huntable' animals; officials replied the baseline is intended to reflect animals available to sportsmen during seasons and that annual adjustments are tied to the year's population estimate rather than historical objective numbers.
The CAB’s support does not itself change state regulation; it is a recommendation that will accompany the department’s materials to the Wildlife Commission. Staff noted the approach is not intended to force large single‑year swings but would allow modest annual adjustments and would require quota changes (cow or bull tag allocations) to achieve objectives over time. The CAB also heard public comment in favor of the plan from local sportsmen who said ranchers and hunters in their communities support the revision.
