TRNP Success

Good question.

Well the problem is with restocking is A. Ranchers are going to be pissed because of more elk and will raise a huge stink.  B.  The elk will come back to the South Unit anyway.  Elk will move where they want.  If they grew up in the South Unit.... they will go back to it.
Biggest issue landowners.  During the first day of training, basically that was the biggest issue for everything.  The park was all for pushing the elk out of the park and trying to patch a bunch of holes and let the tag holders haverst an elk but they could not get that ran through because of pressure from the ranchers.  (which I understand both points)

I think the ranchers will freak out.

I don't get it.  I am all for the landowner rights and they can do what they want.  I understand the Elk cause damage but I think they could more than supplement the damage by leasing access to their land.  I am not for pay hunting in the least but if I was lucky enough to get a tag, I would pay some guy a $1000.00 to get access to shoot a my once in a lifetime bull.  No problem.  You can pay for alot of damage by to bails or a hay field for $1000.00 or 3 or 4 or 5000 a year.

I think the way they're doing it is just about right.  A lottery at no cost to the hunters involved.  No license fee, no paying a landowner to hunt an animal you as a citizen already own, just send in your app and if you're lucky you get elk on the table.

Mad Dog Said:
I don't get it.  I am all for the landowner rights and they can do what they want.  I understand the Elk cause damage but I think they could more than supplement the damage by leasing access to their land.  I am not for pay hunting in the least but if I was lucky enough to get a tag, I would pay some guy a $1000.00 to get access to shoot a my once in a lifetime bull.  No problem.  You can pay for alot of damage by to bails or a hay field for $1000.00 or 3 or 4 or 5000 a year.

no offense to you, but I would never pay a penny to shoot an animal. No matter what tag it was.
again no offense to you personally, I think that is the same things as paid hunting.

bowhunter_24 Said:

Mad Dog Said:
I don't get it.  I am all for the landowner rights and they can do what they want.  I understand the Elk cause damage but I think they could more than supplement the damage by leasing access to their land.  I am not for pay hunting in the least but if I was lucky enough to get a tag, I would pay some guy a $1000.00 to get access to shoot a my once in a lifetime bull.  No problem.  You can pay for alot of damage by to bails or a hay field for $1000.00 or 3 or 4 or 5000 a year.

no offense to you, but I would never pay a penny to shoot an animal. No matter what tag it was.
again no offense to you personally, I think that is the same things as paid hunting.

I won't pay either.  When horns became worth big money, family hunting took it in the shorts.

Just look at a map once and see who is the by far and away the biggest landowner around the North unit.  Just glanced at a map, and the only private land adjacent to the park is already outfitter-operated.

I'm all for planting about 50 head in the Stone Hills.

If they become a problem, shoot em.  Best to keep this new method of population control in service....put it on the shelf in a few years, and its apt to get taken away when nobody is looking.

Oh, and I doubt an elk release into the North Unit would want to go all the way back to the SU.  The NU is probably the best elk habitat in the state.  Maybe they'd make a trip back south only to tell their buddies how great it is up North, and then return ten-fold.

I don't understand the landowner argument against elk in general.  I realize they can cause damage but they were here before any beef cattle.    Why couldn't the game and fish have a supplemental fencing fund?   As for them eating too much grass etc.... I'd say the lease cost on forest service land is way lower than market value so that argument is moot.   

I also think the landowner excuse gets thrown around too much. Honestly, there are only 3 landowners that border the north unit, for a whopping 4 miles of border. The rest is public. Of course, some elk will stray further in time, but even at that you're still counting landowners using just your digits. And you're telling me that these few, quiet, ranching, plus one outfitting, individuals have enough swing to make or break National Park policies?? I don't buy it. Elk would be good for business for many of the landowners down there.

Plus, the park now has the ability to thin their own herds, landowners get depredation tags to harvest problem animals, and everyone gets the chance to see an elk in one of the few wild places our state has left. I see no problem.

What would the Park's namesake think about this if he were still around?

bump

I didn't think a few land owners had that much pull.      They must have a lawyer on the payroll.

Geothermal Said:
I didn't think a few land owners had that much pull.      They must have a lawyer on the payroll.

Or in their group

Well...... I would suggest calling the nice lady in charge of the park and ask her these questions.  She did a great job of explaining it.  I do think that yes, the ranchers do have alot of pull.  In the black hills the landowners agree to let the park push the elk out to let hunters at them and they shot alot of elk. 
There are better solutions to the problem but the government has so many rules that this is the best option. 

bowhunter_24 Said:

Mad Dog Said:
I don't get it.  I am all for the landowner rights and they can do what they want.  I understand the Elk cause damage but I think they could more than supplement the damage by leasing access to their land.  I am not for pay hunting in the least but if I was lucky enough to get a tag, I would pay some guy a $1000.00 to get access to shoot a my once in a lifetime bull.  No problem.  You can pay for alot of damage by to bails or a hay field for $1000.00 or 3 or 4 or 5000 a year.

no offense to you, but I would never pay a penny to shoot an animal. No matter what tag it was.
again no offense to you personally, I think that is the same things as paid hunting.

+1

The question that I have to ask is why are there not more elk in the north unit right now?  I shot my lifetime elk about 8 miles NE of the north unit and there are elk around the park and in the park right now.  So why aren't there more?  Habitat?  Too small? Don't like longhorns?     
Why is there an overpopulation of elk in the South unit and yet not  many in the North Unit.   There sure should be!  Elk cross the north unit fence all the time!
Until those questions are answered with any degree of certaintly, to me it would look like a waste of time letting a few more go loose in the north unit.   Doesn't seem to me like they would hang around anyway!  If not, why not?  

How can it be that landowners in general can support the right of their neighbor to run a high-fence elk ranch, but completely disapprove of elk within a high-fenced National Park surrounded by National Grasslands.

It just doesn't make any sense. Everyone is using the landowners as a scapegoat for not doing anything. Two landowners actively ranching, one of whom currently outfits. The third is an older lady who lives in town from what I can gather.

Now that the NPS has the tools they need to manage their elk the way they want to, there is no reason whatsoever not to relocate some to the North Unit. Other than they just don't feel like it. I think I will write to Ms Naylor about this. I encourage other who agree with me to do the same.

I know there are elk close by, but I've never see one West of 85 in that area. I would have to think there has been a rogue elk in the NU at some point, but I am unaware of any resident herd of sorts. I could be wrong though.

Maybe no one cares if they relocate elk to the N U.