Dec 18, 2008 - 04:06:07 CST
A range of alternatives for removing hundreds of elk from Theodore Roosevelt National Park near Medora includes letting volunteer sportsmen shoot them, but not in the unrestricted manner promoted by state game officials.State Game and Fish Department wildlife chief Randy Kreil said the department is not pleased with how the elk hunting would be handled.
"We're disappointed. We stand by our alternative as more viable, economical and one that would garner the most support from the public," Kreil said.
The park service released a draft environmental document Wednesday with four alternatives for reducing the herd from 1,000 to 200 animals within five years, and maintaining it at that level for another decade.
The park got stuck with a growing population when its usual method of rounding up excess animals and shipping them to other locations was halted by a moratorium imposed to prevent spread of chronic wasting disease.
The issue raised hackles when the park proposed using federal sharpshooters to kill the elk. The state Game and Fish Department withdrew as a cooperating agency and then "re-engaged" when the park service agreed to at least study a plan to use North Dakota sportsmen in the process.
Kreil said the park service refused his agency's request to look at the document a month ago, so the state was in the same position Wednesday as the public of getting its first look at the plan.
Kreil, speaking somewhat tongue-in-cheek, said he knows the park crossed out the state's sportsmen alterative, as well as an alternative to introduce grizzly bears and wolves.
"Our alternative was not included, but the devil is in the details," Kreil said.
The park says it drew a compromise between federal sharpshooters and volunteer sportsmen.
It did so, because the state's proposal to have certified volunteers go out on their own, check in and out of the park, kill the elk, and keep the elk meat is basically public hunting, prohibited in park policy, according to the document.
Instead, the park proposes that teams of federal employees, or their agents, and a skilled volunteer, would locate and kill selected elk, and the meat would be processed and distributed to charities or elsewhere.
Kreil said a key difference between the two is that the state wants sportsmen to keep the meat.
"Otherwise, they're just out there killing animals," Kreil said. He said the state will study the document fully and make official comments when the park holds several public meetings, starting sometime in early February.
Park superintendent Valerie Naylor said two alternatives include volunteer sportsmen, though the one inside the park is "very much more sharpshooting rather than hunting." The other, working with game officials and landowners, would be to release elk outside the park boundaries for public hunting.
Naylor said the public should read the document because it contains lots of good, thorough information. "We looked at every alternative and every angle after working through this for five years," she said.
The final decision should come next year, possibly be in effect by winter and could include one or a combination of alternatives, she said.
Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., has been critical of an expensive sharpshooter-helicopter aided plan all along and said Wednesday the draft statement appears to clear the way for volunteer sportsmen to hunt elk.
The public can comment on the draft plan until March 19.
The costs range from about $1 million to just over $2.1 million, depending on the alternative, for the 15-year life of the management plan.
Besides rifle hunting, other alternatives are rounding them up for euthanasia; a mortality test for chronic wasting and transferring the elk; and releasing the elk outside the park for public hunting.
All the alternatives involve testing for CWD and would be structured to enhance hunting outside the park, which has been successfully expanded the past two years, the document says.
Here is a brief synopsis of the alternatives: Alternatives A and F have either been eliminated or aren't considered viable for reducing the herd.
n Alternative A: No action. This wouldn't meet the park's goal of reducing the herd to ideal numbers for the existing habitat.
n Alternative B (cost $1.7 million): Direct reduction with firearms. Under this plan, federal employees, or their agents, teamed with a skilled volunteer, would hunt either on foot or horseback, using non-lead bullets. The teams would shoot pre-located animals in most instances either in fall, to coincide with hunting outside the park, or in winter, when public hunting is concluded. The animal carcass would be taken to a refrigerated location, held there while chronic wasting disease testing is done and then donated.
Park personnel would work with state wildlife officials on the park's fall hunt near the park boundaries, and a winter hunt, which would be conducted in the park's interior at a time when there would be less disruption to visitors, and less need to close the park or place other restrictions.
In this plan, about 270 elk would be killed each year for five years for a total of 1,360. The larger number accounts for births, even during years when the population is being reduced.
Once the elk population reaches 200 animals, the herd would be left for another three to four years, when the population would double and more reduction would be implemented.
n Alternative C (cost $1.8 million): Roundup and euthanasia. The herd would be forced by helicopter to the park's animal handling facilities, where animals would be loaded out to a commercial processor, killed and the meat distributed. The killing and processing would be done by the park service or its agents if no commercial processor is indentified.
In this plan, some 800 elk would be removed in about 22 days.
n Alternative D (cost $1.1 million): CWD testing and translocation. In this alternative, 370 elk would be killed and tested for chronic wasting disease, in order to reach a statistical probability that the entire herd is disease-free. If tests are negative, elk could be transferred to other locations if recipients can be found, until the ideal number of 200 remaining elk is reached.
n Alternative E (cost $2.1 million): Hunting outside the park. The park proposes to work with North Dakota Game and Fish and local landowners to locate elk outside the park, by helicopter - which accounts for half the cost, approximately - or by manipulating fences, for public hunting. The plan proposes to release about 270 animals a year that way, more if possible.
n Alterative F ($1.1 million): Fertility control. This plan is dismissed in the draft statement, unless it's used for future herd population maintenance.
The draft environmental statement can be accessed on the Internet at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/thro.
(Reach reporter Lauren Donovan at 888-303-5511 or lauren@;westriv.com.)
Hunter wrote on Dec 18, 2008 1:18 PM:
Matt wrote on Dec 18, 2008 12:56 PM:
1. NDGF Lottery: Designate 270 elk tickets a year
2. Example: It is a lottery so charge $50 to 100$ to enter lottery, lets say 10,000/yr enter the lottery . Thats 500,000 to 1,000,000 in revenue each year for spending little issuing a tag to enjoy a hunt of a lifetime.
3. For God sakes, people need to speak up about this and start stirring the beaucratic pot.
4. "
unbelievable wrote on Dec 18, 2008 12:49 PM:
Secondly, it does not cost over $1,800,000 to butcher 800 animals. Let's do the math. $2250 per elk. These are not food processors, they are pork-barrel processors.
Thirdly, we all know this wouldn't even be close to the final price-tag.
Some simple CWD testing before butchering is fine. I'll admit there is a little cost there along with some transportation costs. But it surely won't be millions of dollars as proposed. In fact just firing all of these people that "study" the situation would be a good thing. I've read their reports before. They are always written like a fictional wilderness novel. As you can see by their proposals, their reality is far different from the rest of the nation. Dorgan should tell these people NO. Conrad and Pomeroy need to make their voices heard as well. "
zuzu wrote on Dec 18, 2008 9:53 AM:
down the drain wrote on Dec 18, 2008 9:51 AM:
Independent wrote on Dec 18, 2008 9:17 AM:
NDfarmer wrote on Dec 18, 2008 9:03 AM:
hugo wrote on Dec 18, 2008 8:50 AM:
Doh wrote on Dec 18, 2008 7:55 AM:
What gets me is how decisions like this take 5 years to consider. For crying out loud. Government can't solve problems when government policy is the problem. Park policy should be more flexible to accommodate healthy game management in stead of facilitating a problem getting worse. "
Eddy wrote on Dec 18, 2008 7:25 AM:
If I shoot one.. I want the meat "
Imagine_That wrote on Dec 18, 2008 7:22 AM:
Dumbfounded wrote on Dec 18, 2008 4:25 AM:
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.