Government to spend 18 Million to kill elk

[victorcharlie]

Instead of selling hunting licenses and making 18 million, seems they are going to hire someone to shoot them with a silenced weapon at night.

Now ask yourself......who are the poachers, and what college boy could have possibly thought up this hair brained scheme?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060523/ap_on_sc/elk_thinning

[DWTim]

Perhaps you recall when they attempted to give contraceptives to deer in New York to reduce the herd. I hope the taxpayers zing 'em for this one. The last thing we need is this extravagant jaunt into a uptopian fantasy of "animal liberties".

There is no good reason to spend 18 million on this, other than to spite sportman.

[dave375hh]

The Ohio DNR was planning an archery culling operation in a urban park in Columbus. The park had over 600 deer in a 100 acre park. the deer were starving and causing many car/deer accidents. The bleeding heart liberals were outraged over the planned culling. They asked to trap and relocate the deer themselves. They caught about 40 deer and loaded them on a truck to take them out of the city. Every one of the deer died from stress while in the truck. The DNR told them to go fly a kite, and said the archery hunt was more humane. The meat was donated to local shelters.These morons asked to have the archers shoot the deer with birth control drugs. The DNR told them to leave at that point.

[Siskiyou]

Oh! the Parkies.  Lets not have hunting that will pay for itself, but spend a lot of money to correct the problem they created by not allowing hunting.  I have no numbers regarding attendance to the Park in late September and the month of October, but I will bet it is way down.  The Park Service (NPS) could create zones within the park that would allow for limited hunting.  These zones would maximize safety.

Hunting could be limited to two, seven day periods.  Bull tags could go for a thousand dollars and cow tags for $500.  Hunters would be allowed to stay in Park campgrounds for no additional fee.  Hunters would be required to purchase a State-hunting license.  The money from the tag fee would go back into the Park for wildlife management and a small percentage, not to exceed 25%, for overhead.  There is a cost to managing such a program.  And I am sure that there will be additional Law Enforcement cost because of actions by the anti-hunting crowd.  Hunter’s campsites, vehicles, and persons will need protection.  Prisoners can be kept in portable live stock pens. (Hunters who break the rules could spoil the chance of future hunts.)

The recreation season drops in most campgrounds after Labor Day.  With the coming of cold weather recreation also drops.  The influx of hunters into the Park will help business outside the Park.

If the NPS sells 300 cow tags and 200 bull tags the first year they will gross $350000.  

Will there be conflicts, there are always conflicts.  Most hunters will abide by the all the rules.  One of them is OHV use.  I am sure it would not be allowed.  Each hunter should bring to companions to help carry out their kill.  Or arrangements made with a NPS license packer to bring out their kill.

But there will also be conflicts with the anti-hunting people if the NPS contracts to have the elk killed and they will have to plan and finance protection for the contractor.

A serious conflict could be with bears.  This problem could make or break the future on continuing this type of hunt.  Kills need to immediately be removed from the area and transported out of the Park for processing.   This is good for local meat processors.

Another conflict could be between a blow-hard hunter, and an anti-hunter NPS employee.  Hopefully an orientation program for either would resolve or at least neutralize most problems.

The key to acceptance of such a program is putting money back into the cash strapped Park.  If the money goes back into facilities, wildlife personnel, wildlife improvement it is like to gain acceptance.  The plan would require a number of years to reach the target elk populations.  A number of things happen, the habitat improves; hunters get a chance to enjoy hunting a prime elk herd and at the same time help save the herd.  The Park gets some badly needed funding.  And Park employees realize that funding disappears if there is no funding.

The tags would be given out after a drawing.  Taking a page from many States a non-refundable fee of $35.00 would be submitted with each application.  If 5000 hunters apply for the 500 tags this fee would generate around $175,000 to cover cost and wildlife improvement.  I just had a flash.  Because such a hunt offers some real trophy elk their maybe a demand from non-citizen hunters.  Ten tags to could be set aside for non-citizen for $8000 a tag.  Of course a guide would be required.

Anyway a few thoughts on how to sell a hunting oppertunity.

[Datil]

Siskiyou Young Fellow you have a lot of common sense! Therefore
 you can not work for the NPS :-D  :-D  :-D  :-D  :-D  :-D  :-D
 All they think about is spending money, never think of some to make
 money. my 3 cents Marv.

[Siskiyou]

Thanks Marv,

A little footnote to my first post on the topic.  I checked a couple of webpages on the park.  Grizzly are not found in the Park but Black Bear are.  From experience in hunting deer in areas that the bear season is not open Black Bear soon identify the sound of gunfire as the dinner bell.  So one must be alert.

No I have never worked for the Park Service, I think they would find me to radical because I eat meat.  But I have met a couple of nice people from NPS.  Back in the early 60's they surrounded me on Fisherman's Bridge in Yellowstone because they thought I was fishing with bait.  I was catching fish and nobody else was.  To their surprise I was reeling the fish out of the river on a barbless fly.  A friend of my mother gave me a couple of these hand tied fly's before the trip.  He told me to use them in Yellowstone.  They worked.

Anyway Park bears can be a real problem.  

Back in the 70's I did a little research on the hunting units around the Park because of reports of the migration out of there.  I never followed up.

And I forgot to mention that a cousin is married to a lady who works for NPS.  I have never met her.  But she cannot be bad.  She likes living in the country, not the city.

[Ron T.]

The whole idea of paying personnel to shoot elk when hunters would PAY to do it is RIDICULOUS, but then I'm not the first American Citizen to recognize that some of the bureaucrats and appointees who are working for our Government are IDIOTS!!!  :evil:    :eek:


Strength & Honor...

Ron T.

[Echo4Lima]

SisQ,

Why not $50.00 each?  What about the "common man"?

[Siskiyou]

"SisQ,
y not $50.00 each? What about the "common man"?"

Echo4Lima asked a fair question.  I will try a provide a “fair” answer.  First off this common man cannot afford the tag, but many can.  How I see the situation.

The Park Service is asking Congress for $18 million to kill elk over a number of years.  Realistically they have little chance of getting that money.  But the risk of mass starvation and disease will continue to exist.  Game animals such as deer and elk are at risk from disease when over population allows disease to spread between animals.  The drool from an infected animal on to a food source or into water can spread disease.  Chronic Wasting Disease has been found in some areas of Colorado.

A mass die-off of the elk herd inside the Park and spreading outside of the Park will create a public relations nightmare for the Park Service.

My hunting alternative provides the Park Service the funding it needs to support its wildlife program in the Park.   The bull tag provides the “common man” the opportunity to take a trophy animal without the high cost of a guided hunt into a Wilderness Area.

Where does some of the money go?  By law some Federal Agency’s give counties with their boundaries twenty-five percent of all gross receipts.  So $250 from each bull tag would go to the local county.  The Park Service would incur cost because of the hunt.  The nature of the activity may generate some search and rescue cost.  A helicopter to search for a lost hunter can cost a $1000 an hour, or the same helicopter can be used to fly an injured hunter out of the woods.

Campsites will need maintence before and after the hunts.  This all cost money.  The cost of this would be included in the cost of the tag.  Many Park Service employees are only funded during the summer.  This would require funding outside the normal period of time.

While many hunters will chose to stay in resorts outside the park in motels, others will camp in approved campgrounds.  I would think that the campgrounds would require security because of overt action by anti-hunting groups.  Because the big issue will be hunting in a National Park.  If my pickup is parked out on the road I would have some comfort in knowing the road is being patrolled.

So my proposal is to create a strong economic incentive to the Park Service, and local government to allow “Controlled” hunting.  I think it makes more sense then the slaughter of game animals by the Park Service over the years.  The ugly truth is the Park Service has killed thousands of animals across the Nation because of over population.  They then say hunting would disturb the Natural chain of events.

A fifty-dollar elk tag does not provide a strong economic incentive; a thousand hundred dollar bull tag puts real money on the table.  

The thousand dollar bull tag or the five hundred dollar cow tag also provides an economic incentive to the hunter.  First off the chance of success in this hunt would be far higher then most hunts because of the high herd density.  Second the chance of getting a true trophy animal from this un-hunted herd is greater then hunting other public lands.

The price of a $1000 bull tag would hurt me; a $500 cow tag would make me cry.  The higher price also provides with a greater chance of success.  But if I cannot afford it I sure would put forth the effort to make this hunt happen.  Because one of these days the Park Service will be killing off deer in a Park near me.  A successful Rocky Mountain hunt could open other doors.

[Echo4Lima]

I dont have any problem with the fund raising aspects of it.  I just see a lot of things hunting related being priced out of reach for most.

[victorcharlie]

I dont have any problem with the fund raising aspects of it.  I just see a lot of things hunting related being priced out of reach for most.

You hit the X-ring with that one......it's sure to get worse......

That's one of the steps to gun control........

[Siskiyou]

Public Land Sales

I share your concerns regarding the availability of lands to hunt, fish, and enjoy.  As a kid I was fortunate to have the run of a number of private ranches for fishing, duck hunting, and deer hunting.  Most of the old ranch families are now gone, the property has been bought by movie stars, or developers.  So those lands are now closed to me.  The other landowner ship that is rapidly changing is the private timberlands.  Lands owned by corporate timber outfits are being logged down to the smallest pine, and knurly oak.  After logging these lands are being sub divided not replanted, roads and homes are being built in these traditional open forest areas.  In the old days gun clubs were common on private ranches, but they are spreading to the private timberlands.  One side effect is that some of these lands share a road system with National Forest and BLM lands.  The clubs are preventing access to these lands by posting armed members on public roads.  While these members have the right to prevent trespass on private land they can be convicted of a felony if they take possession of public land and they are armed.  Call the sheriff, do not take overt action.  In one California County one man is dead, and another in jail over a right-of-way dispute.  While it had nothing to do with hunting it shows things can get out of hand.  In this case both people lost, one dead and the other is going to spend the reminder of his life in prision if convicted.  As it is he has been behind bars for months.

 I am fortunate that there is a lot of land in my State managed by the Forest Service and BLM.  But the Bush administration has proposed selling lands administered by BLM, and the Forest Service (NF) across the Nation.  As example the proposal includes NF lands in six Southern States, in Tennessee these lands are located in nine counties.  Another example is in California where lands located in 19 Counties would be sold.  

I was concerned about the proposed sale of these lands before the White House went public.  A number of California Congressmen have close ties with the Real Estate Industry and support the sale of these lands.  Before and after the White House went public I was writing letters to my Congressmen on the both sides of the aisle.  One Congressman’s reply to me was in conflict with a campaign brochure I received in the mail two days later.  Clearly you have to watch what side of his mouth he is talking out of.

For years I have been a two-issue voter, basically pro-gun and law & order.  But I am now a three-issue voter, pro-gun, law & order, and the retention of public hunting lands.  As one of the little guys I cannot afford to spend thousands for trespass fees.  As a kid I belonged to a gun club.  I killed a number of deer on that club.  A few years later the land was sub divided by a bunch of lawyers.  They attempted to get the County to give up its road right-of-way across the mountain. This action would have landlocked BLM land.  The locals put up a fight and brought an end to that issue.  At least for the time being.  Of course the lawyers put up No Trespassing signs on the road right of way and on the entrance to the BLM section.  

Write your Congressman!  They need to be reminded that there are a lot of American families that use public land and do not support the sale of those lands.