U.S. currency carries the motto "In God We Trust."

But in North Dakota, there doesn't seem to be much trust that the National Park Service will comply with the spirit of its preferred alternative plan to reduce the over population of elk in Theodore Roosevelt National Park. Representatives of the governor's office and the director of the state Game and Fish Department have been trying unsuccessfully to get the NPS to clarify how it's going to go about using volunteers (hunters) over the next five years to cull the 900 head of free ranging park elk down to 400.

"We want to have these questions answered and make sure everyone understands the questions the same and understands the answers the same," Terry Steinwand, director of the North Dakota Game and Fish Department said in the Tribune on Friday.

It's worth remembering that the NPS had to be pushed and pulled to reach its "preferred alternative" by U.S. Sen. Byron Dorgan, Gov. John Hoeven, Steinwand and goodly numbers of North Dakota hunting enthusiasts.

And there are wise people in the state who do not believe volunteers actually will be used to reduce elk numbers. That the NPS will create rules and regulations for the volunteers that will make it at best an unsatisfactory experience.

So nailing down the details before the end of the comment period, which Steinwand says has been extended, would be smart.

Dorgan, Steinwand and other North Dakota officials were to meet with NPS officials on Aug. 31, but that didn't happen. NPS wants the North Dakota people to come to Washington for a face-to-face meeting, and state officials would prefer a meeting in North Dakota. Minneapolis or a teleconference appears to be the compromise.

The difficulty in even arranging a meeting between parties raises questions about the depth of good faith existing between Bismarck and Washington.

The NPS has said that using volunteer hunters would be the preferred alterative. Now it needs to provide details on the process to North Dakota officials and the public on how that will be done. It needs to be a process sound in its science, safe in its practice, effective in its results and conducted with respect for the hunting and non-hunting public.

Given the history of this issue, North Dakota officials have every right to be skeptical of federal actions. The NPS, through its actions, needs to put North Dakota concerns to rest.