I know its long thought you might enjoy
elk
Sharpshooters, wolves and birth control possible overpopulation remedies
By Charlie Meyers
Denver Post Outdoors Editor
Wildlife managers want to remove about half of an overpopulated elk herd at Rocky Mountain National Park to restore balance to the surrounding ecosystem. (Post / Charlie Meyers)
Marauding wolves? Sharpshooters? Trophy hunters? Would you believe prophylactics?
All these - and perhaps a few more wild ideas still floating around in tavern rafters - are the proposals for reducing an over-the-top elk herd in Rocky Mountain National Park.
Wildlife managers, choose your weapons.
You already may have heard about the flap over a park elk herd that has grown too many teeth and hooves. By best estimate, this 415 square miles of high-elevation paradise is home to 3,000 elk, every one of them hungry.
These beasts, tourist favorites all, are eating themselves out of house and home. Biologists are alarmed at the increasing impact on vegetation and related habitat. Free from hunting pressure and predators, the herds just keep growing. To restore a balance, they want to remove about half of them.
How to do it is the dilemma. As anyone who paid attention to similar problems with elk and bison in recent years at Yellowstone National Park can attest, eliminating animals in a place tangled in laws, tradition and, ah, yes, tourists, can be a daunting task.
Think wildlife management in a fish bowl.
Among the more serious proposals for animal control: turning loose a pack of up to 14 gray wolves; either rapid or measured reduction by lethal means, i.e., shooting; fertility control.
Another alternative, doing nothing, seems least attractive of all, since habitat destruction takes decades to repair in a fragile environment. Seriously depleted forage can lead to mass starvation and, ultimately, a diminished carrying capacity.
Under one scheme, the National Park Service would spend an estimated $18 million dollars to eliminate several hundred animals each year over an extended period of time, using hired sharpshooters.
Such a notion has raised the ire of Rick Enstrom, a two-term member of the Colorado Wildlife Commission who criticized this plan as "trying to put a Band-Aid on a serious wound."
Enstrom, and many others in the state wildlife community, prefers that hunters be commissioned to perform the herd reduction.
"Hunters will do the job and actually pay to do it," Enstrom said. "It's ridiculous to spend so much money to lay down a few elk when the Division of Wildlife can assist in a process we have been doing forever."
Enstrom further emphasized that hunters will make use of the elk meat and hides, rather than having this resource wasted. Enstrom has asked the agency's counsel to draft a resolution for a vote at the July 13 commission meeting in Fort Collins.
Enstrom said he believes he can muster a commission majority for the resolution but isn't sure where things go from there. It literally requires an act of Congress to allow hunting in a protected park. He hopes a commission directive might spur Colorado's congressional delegation to draft enabling legislation or otherwise push the Park Service into action.
Meanwhile, the debate over various aspects of the issue continue. Befitting an animal whose very being triggers volatile emotions, much of the discussion centers around wolves.
Many wildlife regulars view the proposal to control park elk with wolves as a ploy to circumvent an ongoing Colorado review of reintroducing the species. Among the most vocal critics of the wolf plan is Jim Beers, a 32-year veteran of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
"You really don't get wolf control inside the park. They spread outside the park and kill deer and elk there. They're smart and adaptable," said Beers, who retired in 2000 after holding a variety of positions, including chief operations officer for the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Beers cites the problem with an expanding population of free-roaming wolves around Yellowstone as a blueprint for disaster along Colorado's heavily populated Front Range.
"The Park Service is the greenest of the green among the federal agencies," Beers said. "They think they can put wolves in there. It's a lot of nonsense."
Beers also scoffs at the notion of professional sharpshooters as expensive and probably ineffective, nor does he hold hope for plans involving birth control.
Ultimately, he joins Enstrom in the conclusion that tightly controlled public hunting is the most feasible means for herd reduction.
"I'm not arguing for hunters because I'm going hunting," Beers said. "It generates income and you can control the animals where you want them. It's just common logic, it seems to me."
Enstrom points out that Rocky Mountain National Park isn't the only place where protected animals cause trouble.
"Elk from Sand Dunes National Park are coming down into the valley," he said of a situation in which damage to San Luis Valley crops caused DOW to initiate a special summer hunt on private property.
Problems also exist in residential areas along the Front Range, where deer clash with humans and serve as an inadvertent lure to mountain lions.
Whether these conflicts can be solved through regulated public hunting - or even whether official approval might be obtained - isn't at all certain. But it certainly should be given a long look.
The deadline for public comment on the issue is July 4. The addresses are Superintendent, Rocky Mountain National Park, Estes Park, 80517 or romo-superintendent@nps.gov.
elk
Sharpshooters, wolves and birth control possible overpopulation remedies
By Charlie Meyers
Denver Post Outdoors Editor
Wildlife managers want to remove about half of an overpopulated elk herd at Rocky Mountain National Park to restore balance to the surrounding ecosystem. (Post / Charlie Meyers)
Marauding wolves? Sharpshooters? Trophy hunters? Would you believe prophylactics?
All these - and perhaps a few more wild ideas still floating around in tavern rafters - are the proposals for reducing an over-the-top elk herd in Rocky Mountain National Park.
Wildlife managers, choose your weapons.
You already may have heard about the flap over a park elk herd that has grown too many teeth and hooves. By best estimate, this 415 square miles of high-elevation paradise is home to 3,000 elk, every one of them hungry.
These beasts, tourist favorites all, are eating themselves out of house and home. Biologists are alarmed at the increasing impact on vegetation and related habitat. Free from hunting pressure and predators, the herds just keep growing. To restore a balance, they want to remove about half of them.
How to do it is the dilemma. As anyone who paid attention to similar problems with elk and bison in recent years at Yellowstone National Park can attest, eliminating animals in a place tangled in laws, tradition and, ah, yes, tourists, can be a daunting task.
Think wildlife management in a fish bowl.
Among the more serious proposals for animal control: turning loose a pack of up to 14 gray wolves; either rapid or measured reduction by lethal means, i.e., shooting; fertility control.
Another alternative, doing nothing, seems least attractive of all, since habitat destruction takes decades to repair in a fragile environment. Seriously depleted forage can lead to mass starvation and, ultimately, a diminished carrying capacity.
Under one scheme, the National Park Service would spend an estimated $18 million dollars to eliminate several hundred animals each year over an extended period of time, using hired sharpshooters.
Such a notion has raised the ire of Rick Enstrom, a two-term member of the Colorado Wildlife Commission who criticized this plan as "trying to put a Band-Aid on a serious wound."
Enstrom, and many others in the state wildlife community, prefers that hunters be commissioned to perform the herd reduction.
"Hunters will do the job and actually pay to do it," Enstrom said. "It's ridiculous to spend so much money to lay down a few elk when the Division of Wildlife can assist in a process we have been doing forever."
Enstrom further emphasized that hunters will make use of the elk meat and hides, rather than having this resource wasted. Enstrom has asked the agency's counsel to draft a resolution for a vote at the July 13 commission meeting in Fort Collins.
Enstrom said he believes he can muster a commission majority for the resolution but isn't sure where things go from there. It literally requires an act of Congress to allow hunting in a protected park. He hopes a commission directive might spur Colorado's congressional delegation to draft enabling legislation or otherwise push the Park Service into action.
Meanwhile, the debate over various aspects of the issue continue. Befitting an animal whose very being triggers volatile emotions, much of the discussion centers around wolves.
Many wildlife regulars view the proposal to control park elk with wolves as a ploy to circumvent an ongoing Colorado review of reintroducing the species. Among the most vocal critics of the wolf plan is Jim Beers, a 32-year veteran of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
"You really don't get wolf control inside the park. They spread outside the park and kill deer and elk there. They're smart and adaptable," said Beers, who retired in 2000 after holding a variety of positions, including chief operations officer for the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Beers cites the problem with an expanding population of free-roaming wolves around Yellowstone as a blueprint for disaster along Colorado's heavily populated Front Range.
"The Park Service is the greenest of the green among the federal agencies," Beers said. "They think they can put wolves in there. It's a lot of nonsense."
Beers also scoffs at the notion of professional sharpshooters as expensive and probably ineffective, nor does he hold hope for plans involving birth control.
Ultimately, he joins Enstrom in the conclusion that tightly controlled public hunting is the most feasible means for herd reduction.
"I'm not arguing for hunters because I'm going hunting," Beers said. "It generates income and you can control the animals where you want them. It's just common logic, it seems to me."
Enstrom points out that Rocky Mountain National Park isn't the only place where protected animals cause trouble.
"Elk from Sand Dunes National Park are coming down into the valley," he said of a situation in which damage to San Luis Valley crops caused DOW to initiate a special summer hunt on private property.
Problems also exist in residential areas along the Front Range, where deer clash with humans and serve as an inadvertent lure to mountain lions.
Whether these conflicts can be solved through regulated public hunting - or even whether official approval might be obtained - isn't at all certain. But it certainly should be given a long look.
The deadline for public comment on the issue is July 4. The addresses are Superintendent, Rocky Mountain National Park, Estes Park, 80517 or romo-superintendent@nps.gov.
