NATIONAL PARK SERVICE TO SHOOT ELK . . . National parks are generally out of bounds for the shooting of game, but an escalating elk population in Colorado's Rocky Mountain National Park has led to a plan that includes a recommendation for park employees or contractors to shoot 200-700 elk during the draft elk management plan's first four years. After that, another 25-150 would be killed annually for 16 years. The goal is to reduce the current elk population of 3,000 down to 1,200-1,700. Biologists say the elk have overgrazed, hurting other animals -- and plants -- because of the loss of habitat. Public comment on the draft plan may be submitted in writing by July 4 or at a series of four meetings being held in Colorado this week.

It would be so much better to sell them to hunters raise money to surport the parks instead of wasteing money hiring some park service employees to go hunting .

"It would be so much better to sell them to hunters raise money to surport the parks instead of wasteing money hiring some park service employees to go hunting ."

I guess they don't trust us to do it right!

They are extending the alligator hunting seasons in Florida and other states to reduce people eating !!.Simple ,logical. effective !!!

Heck, I'd pay to shoot a cow elk in the park. And I certainly would if they lowered the cost of the tag to reflect nuisance status. I would even be ok with a park service person "supervising". I would go so far as to do it in late January or February when tourist populations are lowest.

Time to comment.

Having visited RMNP many, many times, I have some sympathy for the problem the Park Service finds itself with.

First, it would be great if the excess elk could be captured and transplanted to some of the few remaining areas of elk habitat that is not populated, but that is exceedingly expensive. The Park Service is not the F&WS and has no funds for transplantation. Maybe before commiting to destroying a part of the herd, they should pick up the phone and call F&WS to see if they would participate in capture and relocation; but with the hugh drain on the budget represented by Iraq and tax give-aways to the rich, there is little or no funding for such efforts. Could a private foundation like RMEF help? Don't know, but they should be talking.

If you've visited RMNP then you'll realize that "hunting" the elk there would be like hunting Siberian tigers at the Los Angeles zoo. The elk are fully acclimated to humans and traffic and exhibit no survival behavior relative to the otherwise abnormal human encroachment. Let me assure you, no real hunter would want to "hunt" in RMNP.

A second problem with allowing members of the public to "hunt" would be that the hunting would result in the elk quickly developing an aversion to humans, making the huge public attraction of elk-watching a thing of the past. The non-hunting public (and me, too, come to think of it) would strenuously object to having their wildlife viewing opportunities impaired due to a "bunch of bubbas running around shooting our elk". Wouldn't that be great public relations for the hunting fraternity?

The Park Service proposal represents the only economical way currently available to them that allows them to both control the numbers in the herd and continue the public's opportunity to view the magnificence of wapiti "up close and personal". I, too, hope they can find still a better way.

quote:

but with the hugh drain on the budget represented by Iraq and tax give-aways to the rich

You do realize that with the exception of the first Gulf War the current war is the least expensive war as a percentage of GDP this country has ever been involved in, don't you?

I disagree that it would be too expensive to trap and move the elk from RMNP. I think it would be less costly then hiring someone to shoot them. Unless there are some reasons that I don't understand. It would be interesting to see their discussion on why that alternative was not selected.

465H&H

Stonecreek, whether the elk are shot by park employees or bunter, they are still being shot. It would be far better to have specific guided hunts, that are payed for by some hunter than paying a govt. employee to shoot them. This kind of assenine "managemnet" goes on in third world countries. We should be smarter, but, oh yeah it's the govt.
465, th eproblem trapping & moving is the high loss rate due to stress, that's really ehat makes it so cost prohibitive.

Well, the parks, at least the "hard" park (not perserves) are supposed to be managed to minimize human influence on the natural setting. If hunting is not allowed due to this management concern, I don't believe the park should manage the animals, either and let the natural course (boom and bust cycles) occur as it would naturally. This seems to be the prime driver behind the wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone.

Sad as it would be to see the elk herd decimated by disease or starvation, it would be "natural" and is in line with park policy. Just as they should have let Yellowstone burn without fire suppression during the big blaze in the 90's. Ma Nature can be a bitch, but if "natural" is what our National Parks are, then let nature take its course.

Personally, without conflicting with management objectives, I believe drawing permits for hunting the parks would be the way to go on an annual basis.

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
I disagree that it would be too expensive to trap and move the elk from RMNP. I think it would be less costly then hiring someone to shoot them. Unless there are some reasons that I don't understand. It would be interesting to see their discussion on why that alternative was not selected.

465H&H

I think with the disease concerns (CWD is in this area) moving the elk is not much of an option. With all the hoopla over this disease, where would these elk go?

The last time I was in RMNP, the countryside has been trashed by so many elk. They should have done something years ago.

I would love for them to have a hunt, but since these elk are damn near in (and all around) town, having the wrong type of person "hunting" these elk could be a media hayday, and a big kick to the crotch for all hunters in general if someone screwed up.

MG

I have trapped and transplanted hundreds of elk not to mention many for radio-collaring or tagging. Capture myopathy deaths are almost non-existant if elk are handled properly. Colorado DNR are well versed in how to do it. CWD, that is another matter. If RMNP elk have CWD they should all be killed. Perhaps they could be trapped and euthanized then checked for CWD. That would create less havock with the public.

465H&H

Stone creek the park service plan is a waste of tax dollars. it would be much better to raise money then to spend it.

You don't think the anti's and public isn't going to complain about the NPS shooting there elk. They well yell just as loud.


This is going to be a shoot for the first ones the rest well the move away from the roads ect and have to be hunted.

No it is much better to raise money for park improvement then to waste funds hireing goverment lackeys to do the work.

Or may we should just transplant some yellow stone wolves down there then once they clean up the park elk population they can move onto the rest of CO. elk.

quote:

Originally posted by M38:
You do realize that with the exception of the first Gulf War the current war is the least expensive war as a percentage of GDP this country has ever been involved in, don't you?

As they say, you get what you pay for.

Rocky Mountain Elk Plan May Cost $18 Million

May 24, 2006 — By Associated Press
BOULDER, Colo. — A 20-year plan to thin the burgeoning elk herd in Rocky Mountain National Park could cost $18 million to kill some animals and disperse others, park officials said.

An estimated 2,200 to 3,000 elk live in the park, overgrazing vegetation that is also important to other wildlife including songbirds, beavers and butterflies, biologists say. Elk numbers have escalated because the animals have few predators and no hunting is allowed in the park.

The park's goal is a herd of 1,200 to 1,700 elk.

Park officials outlined the proposed program and its estimated costs during a public meeting Monday. The park's favored plan would involve killing up to 700 elk annually for four years. After that, an additional 25 to 150 elk would be culled annually for 16 years.

The costs would come from hiring extra staff or a contractor to shoot elk, building fences to protect vegetation, transporting carcasses, testing them for disease and processing the meat.

"Doing something like this is not going to be cheap, for sure," said park Superintendent Vaughn Baker. "But we're talking 20 years."

The park's preferred plan calls for killing elk at night with silencer-equipped guns in part to minimize disturbances to park visitors.

Park officials said they recognize that some people are upset by the prospect of killing elk in the park. While most recognize that something needs to be done to manage the population, there are contentious disagreements over the best method, said park biologist Therese Johnson.

"For and against wolves. For and against hunting. And we have heard from people who prefer fertility control to killing the elk," she said.

Congress would have to approve any plan to allow hunting in a national park.

A draft elk-management plan released last month did not suggest releasing wolves in the park, but park officials have said wolves would best meet environmental objectives and do the least damage. Any proposal to release wolves in Colorado would have to be considered by federal and state agencies and likely would meet strong opposition from ranchers and others.

Some people at Monday's meeting expressed dismay at the thought of killing elk. Others questioned why the park waited so long to do something about the growing elk population.

"Fewer elk are going to help all of us," said Wally Wedel, who owns a cabin near the park.

Wedel said elk are crowing out deer and damaging private property.

The park is accepting public comments until July 4. It has scheduled other public meetings this week in Loveland, Grand Lake and Estes Park.

Source: Associated Press

Stonecreek

If you did not benifit from the tax cut you either don't make enought to pay taxes or your on welfare.

I see your from Texas since when did you guys ever care if something is wild enought hell you shoot your deer right in front of the feed hopper from a AC/Heated tower.

You hunt them elk for one day and they will know what it is to be wild again, them that don't will be at the meat locker.

Hunt-ducks,

I can't help but envy how serene it must make a person to have a mind so simple as yours.

Enjoy!

Better then having a trap door that is always closed.

Park Service is a bastion of mismanagement with every piece of land they control.I've never forgotten the first comment by Dr. Roger Hungerford ,Wildlife Mgt Biologist, teaching an introductory Conservation course in Sept 1961 at the Univ of AZ "Everything The Park Service Touches They Mess Up"it holds true to this day .The AR types they hire and who they allow to set principals don't trust the true conservationist hunters to effectively manage the herds.They brought in hunters from New Zealand they paid millions to for the eradication wild hogs from the Channel Islands N.P.,CA hunters would've paid for the priviledge to hunt pigs and the USPS would've made money instead of wasting it.

yeb 18 million to shoot a couple of thousand of elk sounds to me like a typical government operation. Hell just give me the 18 million permisson to kill them. I'll retire from my current job and take up elk shooting/hunting.

18 million at 2000 elk is 900 each hell sell hunts for 1000 apiece and they make 20 million instead of wasteing 18.

More bullshit from the government by not letting hunters control the wildlife on the lands we paid for by Pittman Robertson funds. Just like they managed the buffalo out of Yellow Stone. Heaven forbid they use there heads and sell some tags on a draw basis so someone might actually get a nice bull or cow and the herd gets decreased plus the government makes some money!

They are just going to use the bad publicity from shooting the elk as a good excuse to re-introduce wolves to the park to "control" the excess elk "naturally" .

Then after 10-15 years or so , you Colorado folks will enjoy all the benefits of having wolves like the Wy , Idaho , and Mont. currently enjoy........