RMNP ELK HUNT?????

[TFinalshot]

Feds are leery of plan to cull herd in national park

By Todd Hartman, Rocky Mountain News
February 20, 2007

A Colorado congressman wants the state's Division of Wildlife and its licensed hunters to help reduce the bulging elk herd in Rocky Mountain National Park.

Rep. Mark Udall, D-Eldorado Springs, has introduced a bill designed to clear up legal questions over whether the National Park Service can allow the participation of private hunters in a proposal to reduce the park's elk population.

The bill comes amid fierce debate on the issue. Park service officials, citing safety of the park's three million annual visitors, have proposed a tightly controlled culling program, run by park service personnel. They have also argued federal law prevents such a public hunt in the park.

But Colorado wildlife commissioners say licensed hunters - supervised by the state Division of Wildlife - could do the job effectively and far more cheaply than the $16 to $18 million initially proposed by the park service.

Udall agrees, and said using the "expertise" of Colorado hunters would save taxpayer dollars. He said the bill would maintain the park service's authority to carefully supervise such a program.

"This bill does not declare open season Elmer Fudd style in Rocky Mountain National Park," Udall said in a statement. "It makes sure the Park Service has the authority to allow qualified Colorado sportsmen and sportswomen to participate under strict guidelines."

Few disagree that elk population in and around the park needs to be controlled, as the animals are overgrazing important vegetation, pouring into neighboring Estes Park and moving as far east as Loveland in the winter.

But not everyone believes a project to cull the elk herd should be left to private hunters. Park service officials are leery about public reaction to such a move, as the elk remain a major draw for visitors.

Some environmentalists argue the elk problem shows the need for wolf reintroduction. The predators would not only reduce numbers, but would keep elk on the move, preventing them from loitering and degrading aspen and willow stands.

Some worry that changing federal protections to the park could set a damaging precedent: "Making exemptions in national parks sets terrible precedent. Next someone will want to exempt cyanide heap-leach gold mines. Where's the limit?"

[email protected] or 303-954-5048
Copyright 2007, Rocky Mountain News. All Rights Reserved.

 

[sremim]

Its a long shot but hopefully it'll happen.





It's Bush's fault!!!

 

[idhunters]

"Making exemptions in national parks sets terrible precedent. Next someone will want to exempt cyanide heap-leach gold mines. Where's the limit?"

What an asinine statement to make. Shooting elk=cyanide heap-leach blah blah blah?

We talk alot on this site about good image/bad image for hunters...is anyone else sick of being compared to Elmer Fudd?

I sure hope they allow some hunting to take care of the elk.

 

[eelgrass]

That sounds pretty complicated and controversial. Why not just introduce some grizzly bears and wolves? It seems to be working just fine in Yellowstone!

Steve

 

[HiMtnHntr]

LAST EDITED ON Feb-20-07 AT 06:52PM (MST)[p]I'm certain you've got to be kidding eelgrass, judging by the smiley face!....A 265,000 acre park is hardly going to contain a bunch of wolves, let alone griz. We have already seen the wolves and bears in Yellowstone expand far beyond the boundaries of the park as a result of their continued protected status. Wolves in RMNP would be a disaster. They are already in North Park, so they may find their way to RMNP anyway!

A hunt sponsered by the DOW is the only way to go IMO. Include a certification process for hunters to organize hunters and ease the minds of those in opposition. Hold the hunt early in the season before many of the elk come down to Estes. The park is mostly wilderness high mountain country, with most of the backpacker traffic on designated trails, etc....Much of the problem is distribution rather than population in the case of the Eastern boundary of the park, IMO. But, limited hunting in the park would eliviate some of the pressure on Estes and the forage in the valleys in winter areas. Archery hunting would likely be more apt to be accepted as it is less visible and less audible. Hunting the park, while a long shot, is the sensible solution.

 

[sremim]

This time of year would be best to hunt these elk. Sure many of the cows would be pregnant, but it would reduce the herd that much more and there are very few people visiting. It needs to be done, and soon.





It's Bush's fault!!!

 

[CFHUNTER]

We need this to happen before Colorado gets any more Californized. Next thing we know they'll be spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars feeding elk birth control pills like they do out at Point Reyes National Seashore in Cali. There is no reason they can't set up a safe and sensible elk hunt where the park can protect the land and even bring in some extra dollars to work with. Sell tags, reduce herd damage, WIN WIN WIN.

 

[eelgrass]

HiMtnHtr, you are very correct, I was just kidding! A well organized controlled hunt is the way to go. If not, there will be a big crash that will take a long time to recover from.

Eel

 

[HiMtnHntr]

Agreed....The real problem is that elk in the area congregate oftentimes outside of the park in and around Estes Park where there is an abundance of fractured private land. The elk have adapted to living near humans, and have thus lost their fear. They are living in "fat city," so to speak, and why go anywhere else? Because a lot of elk herd up in these areas, it is easy to see why many feel there is an overpopulation of elk. Killing elk while they are wintering in the park would thin the herd, but why not push for a more subtle, more enjoyable, opportunity for hunters, like an extended bowhunt (Aug-Oct, with maybe some supplemental hunting later in the season). A good amount of hunting in the park would, over time, reinstill the fear of humans that these elk have lost, and hopefully keep the population in check, but more importantly would redistribute the elk.