There must be other options than a hunt
I have been reading and listening for weeks about the possible hunt (if you want to call shooting nearly tame elk a “hunt”) that Estes Park is planning for its overpopulated elk herd.
Am I the only one that thinks this is absurd?
With the many areas of Colorado and surrounding states devastated by fire the last few years, I don’t understand why the idea of relocating the “problem” elk to an area that has lost much of its wildlife is not at the top of the list.
Why is killing an animal that has lost its fear of humans the only plan that is being discussed, at least in the forums available to me?
A little research about other options might generate better ideas.
Relocating large herds has been done before, and could be a viable answer to this problem that Estes Park has found itself in.
Why do we, the people who keep encroaching into the domain of wildlife, find it so easy to just “clean house” when faced with a problem? Let’s think it through and find a better option — and keep on top of this “overpopulation” before it becomes such a problem again.
Susan Wilson, Idaho Springs
Sure there are plenty of other options.
1 Let the animals starve to death.
2 Let the over population get hit by vehicals in the road.
3 Move these animals to YOUR back yard.
4 Move these animals to these desolate areas you recommend that at the moment will not support them (see solution 1)
5 hold a legal hunt
There are some options for you
Posted by on July 23, 2007 05:57 AMWhy don't we just make them pets, start a save the Elk foundation.
Posted by FW on July 23, 2007 06:21 AMJust do the shoot. My freezer is empty.
Posted by on July 23, 2007 06:39 AMmaybe its the overpopulation of people that should be moved from the Elk's back yard.
Posted by on July 23, 2007 06:43 AMThere's an excellent group, Sportsmen Against Hunger that could use the meat to distribute to the needy. I hope the Estes Park will consider this and not waste the meat.
P.S. If you relocate the herds to areas that have lost their animal population due to fire, what will they eat??????
Posted by CWW on July 23, 2007 09:09 AMOverpopulation translates into six billion humans. Jesus needs to act quicker than he initially said he would about 2000 years ago claiming he would come within a generation because in his Second Coming, the Jew transmogrified into an anti-Semitic god, will practice holy genocide and the elk will again be safe. Susan: Pray for "fruit of the womb" to come.
Deicide Corner: “Soul is not even that Crackerjack prize that God and Satan scuffle over after the worms have all licked our bones. That's why, when we ponder--as sooner or later each of must--exactly what we ought to be doing about our soul, religion is the wrong, if conventional, place to turn. Religion is little more than a transaction in which troubled people trade their souls for temporary and wholly illusionary psychological comfort--the old give-it-up-in-order-to-save-it routine. Religions lead us to believe that the soul is the ultimate family jewel and that in return for our mindless obedience, they can secure it for us in their vaults, or at least insure it against fire and theft. They are mistaken.” Tom Robbins
Posted by Richard Grimes, Deicide r22037@yahoo.com (ffrf.org ask for FreeThought Today) Intelligent enough to on July 23, 2007 09:25 AMI think that the writer didn't really think through her statements. The amount of money that would be required to move a herd is enormous. However, the reveue that a hunt would produce could be used to help protect the habitat of wildlife. Most hunters I know love the outdoors and provide the bulk of the money that protects wildlife habitats. Also, it is state law that all animals taken in a hunt be harvested for the meat. This is a source of food for many people. A hunting license is a lot cheaper than beef or poultry.
Posted by Rob on July 23, 2007 10:53 AMHey we can put yet another tax on smokers. Also we can tax all republicans and make then pay for the move for those elk.
Posted by on July 23, 2007 11:24 AMLet's have an "elk drive" like the cattle drive to the Frontier days, right to Ms. Wilson's backyard in Idaho Springs.
Posted by RickyLee on July 23, 2007 12:11 PMMaybe the News could offer the most experienced and skilled among them early retirement packages to save a few more "bucks".
Posted by FYK on July 23, 2007 12:56 PMThere is no such thing as a "tame" wild animal. People have been killed by elk they went to "pet". I hope they do the hunt and donate the meat to a food bank or offer it at a low price. I need to fill my freezer.
Posted by Raygina on July 23, 2007 01:08 PMI would like definitive proof there actually is an "overpopulation" problem. Seems like just another attempt to allow shooting wildlife in a protected area. And yes, it smacks very much of a canned hunt.
If is a problem, why don't we stop building more unneeded developments on wildlife habitat? This is ridiculous, there are plenty of homes for sale, we don't need to build more. Can't people be happy living in a house that's not new? Selfish.
Posted by mytwosense on July 23, 2007 01:09 PMMost hunters I know love the outdoors and provide the bulk of the money that protects wildlife habitats.
They may like the outdoors, but why aren't more hunters protesting the outdoors are getting decimated?
As for hunters funding wildlife iniatives, that's because the state isn't budgeting more of our tax money to preserve our public lands. Instead, they're relying on hunting and fishing license fees.
I am sure a great deal of the public would be happy to see more of our tax dollars spent on preserving Colorado's public lands - and adding to them.
Posted by on July 23, 2007 01:13 PMMTS Just looked through a bunch of articles and have not seen 1 that addresses that an Elk Overpopulation does NOT exist. Many differences in the strategy of handling the overpopulation but none describing any lack of overpopulation.
Can you send me where you are finding that the overpopulation is not true? Thanks
We have not yet realized that every casual killing of animals takes away something
from the security of every persons life. We first make our habits which can then be a source of of our own destruction.
We will know for sure when there is an actual elk overpopulation for that particular environment. The elk will become diseased and suffer tremendous loss in number.
Anything short of that milestone is just "too many elk in one place" for us.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 23, 2007 07:02 PMSusan, I liked your letter, but you must know that your womanly wisdom to seek a kinder alternative to slaughter is the ultimate downer to the macho notion that killing things is the quickest, cheapest way to solve a problem, including, but not limited to, a troublesome divorce or people who pray to a different god.
Posted by hikingartist on July 23, 2007 07:18 PMRemember this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDIJUbJZESU&mode=related&search=
Posted by Get Real on July 23, 2007 08:13 PMOr this?
http://www.flicklife.com/554f9e9ea350b699bc6a/Moose_attacks_a_lady.html
Posted by Get Real on July 23, 2007 08:23 PMIn response to:
"... I am sure a great deal of the public would be happy to see more of our tax dollars spent on preserving Colorado's public lands - and adding to them."
There is no need to add tax dollars (and effectively double-charge those folks (hunters) who are funding wildlife conservation that EVERYONE can enjoy). There is ample opportunity for non-hunters to help fund the CDOW through either private donations (you can cut them a check any time you want), the checkoff on your tax return, or THE HABITAT STAMP. There are VERY FEW non-hunters who have had the commitment to wildlife resource to actually purchase this stamp and help fund the CDOW. Do you have a habitat stamp? Until you and all the rest of your buddies have one, you have no room to complain or even try to force everyone to spend tax dollars on something that can be (and is) funded by folks who actually care about the future of our wildlife. Put your personal money where your mouth is.
Also, to anyone who doubts the overpopulation... you might want to actually sit down with the scientific literature and READ IT.
hikingartist
It is difficult to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person... So I will suggest that you might want to actually learn about the issue and READ the literature and the documents created by the park before you speak.
Hey Posted by on July 24, 2007 11:01 AM
By posting that there is no overpopulation creates "noise" and diverts the solutions that need to happen to protect our environment and wildlife. The fact that there are groups out there that help stop hunger for the needy is not valid to them. Ok to feed them beef hamburgers and hotdogs, but HELL NO to feeding the hungry with lean meat that is better for you anyways.
Posted by bwr on July 24, 2007 11:18 AMTo 11:01, I prefer to simply refrain from blowing the heads off wildlife animals. Seems to be a more clearcut answer to protecting them rather than affixing a stamp advocating habitat protection to my mail.
Posted by mytwosense on July 24, 2007 11:23 AMMTS so do you believe that there is an overpopulation problem or not?
Are you a vegetarian?
BWR, yes, I'm a vegetarian - and a staunch advocate of animal rights and protection.
As for the overpopulation problem, I am not convinced based on what I've read that there is one. The two thing I keep hearing as "proof" of an overpopulation problem is that visitors to Rocky Mountain Park are having to stop their cars more often for elk to cross the roads (big deal! Isn't seeing wildlife the main draw at Rocky Mountain National Park???), and that the elk is eating more willow trees, thus, potentially endangering other species somehow (haven't seen studies showing that other species are definitively becoming affected by this, either).
Posted by mytwosense on July 24, 2007 01:21 PMIn response:
"To 11:01, I prefer to simply refrain from blowing the heads off wildlife animals. Seems to be a more clearcut answer to protecting them rather than affixing a stamp advocating habitat protection to my mail."
Ah... you might want to learn what the Habitat Stamp is before you open your mouth. Go to the CDOW website and look it up.
Also, as far as a more clearcut answer... you might want to learn about the issues by actually READING the documents made available by the Park and the peer-reviewed scientific literature rather than making ignorant emotional statements that have no basis in fact or logic. When you become educated on the topic--then and only then are you truly entitled to an opinion.
Posted by on July 24, 2007 01:29 PMAlso, as far as a more clearcut answer... you might want to learn about the issues by actually READING the documents made available by the Park and the peer-reviewed scientific literature rather than making ignorant emotional statements that have no basis in fact or logic.
With all due respect, what kind of "logic" do you subscribe to, anyway? Must I read "scientific reports" on this issue, or can I get the green light from you - pretty please with sugar on top! - to rely on plain common sense to conclude that killing wildlife is the opposite of conserving them?
And don't tell me you're conserving them by keeping their population under control. If you really believed that, you'd be against hunting their natural predators too, which I would bank any amount of money on you don't oppose this kind of hunting, either - even though it's nature's way of population control.
I would also bet you are dismissive of controlling their population by expanding their natural habitat instead of encroaching upon it.
You like to kill animals, period. Have the moral courage to at least be honest about your motivations, instead of framing your avid enthusiasm for blood "sports" in conservationist terms.
Posted by mytwosense on July 24, 2007 02:15 PMMTS as you may guess I am not a vegetarian. I however do not hunt anymore, but that is due to other reasons. I do fish. I support those hunters that are conservationists to the land and wildlife. I also promote those groups who give the meat to needy and the hungry. Other agencies use the meat to feed prisons. Both are economical, taxpayer savings, and healthier than Beef or Pork. It so happens that growing up, my family depended on the harvest of deer, elk and fish to live. We did not have the luxury of buying food. We did not ask for handouts.
The Park from my research has exceeded its sustainable number of animals. There are multiple ways to handle the management of the wildlife in the Park. We may disagree on the method of control, but something must be done to manage this situation or the unthinkable will happen. By using this process, we are managing the wildlife along with feeding our citizens.
to mytwosense,
Here is a site that gives an unbiased assessment of the situation.
http://www.npca.org/magazine/2006/fall/news1.html
In this article, its estimated that RMNP can support 2500 elk, and that the current size is about 4000. My math tells me that there are more elk there that can be supported by the land.
to sharon b. if you really followed wildlife issues, you'd know that the elk population is already showing of disease, CWD. This disease also poses a problem for relocating the elk because you don't want to move elk with CWD into a new area.
These people who call themselves supporters of animal protection should try to see the forest from the trees. Further endangering the whole herd so that some won't be killed is misguided and ultimately more destructive to the animals that you want to protect. If you want to protect animals, use your brain to think through things logically. For many of these people, their only knowledge of hunting comes from "Bambi".
Expand your horizons a little.
Posted by Rob on July 24, 2007 02:44 PMmytwosense :
My logic is the science.
You say: "You like to kill animals, period. Have the moral courage to at least be honest about your motivations"
BLAH BLAH BLAH
Actually, I do not hunt and have no innate desire to kill just to kill as you seem to think I must because I feel your statements are emotional drivel not based on fact or science. It is too bad you refuse to READ the documents. It is easier to stay ignorant and be able to cowardly attack a person and try to demean them into silence then to actually become educated and be able to intelligently debate the issue.
Rob, are you really asking for me to "expand my horizons a little" - or to just agree that killing the elk is the best way to manage their population?
I have and will continue to have a single stance on this issue: hunting on public lands sets a terrible precedent of killing wildlife instead of protecting them. You say the best way to protect them is to cull out the sick and diseased through hunting. I say the best way to protect them is to stop encroaching on their territory. Over the years, increased development in Colorado has crowded wildlife out of their natural habitats.
It doesn't seem you're taking that into consideration at all, so please don't talk to me about "expanding my horizons."
Posted by mytwosense on July 24, 2007 03:37 PMIt is easier to stay ignorant and be able to cowardly attack a person and try to demean them into silence then to actually become educated and be able to intelligently debate the issue.
Well, reality - I certainly agree with you on this. So, do you have some thoughtful counterpoints on the issues I raised about natural population control and encroaching on wildlife territory? Because all I'm seeing from you is a verbal attack on my position as "emotional drivel."
Posted by mytwosense on July 24, 2007 03:51 PMMTS I will address the Natural population control. While you are a vegetarian by choice, many are not.
We are and were hunter gatherers. Now we "hunt" for bargains and gather with shopping carts for the most part. Previous to Hunter gatherers we were actually scavengers. Although we have opposable thumbs and have reasoning methods that only we understand in the animal kingdom, well we have problems there too..... :-)
We are part of nature We are part of the lifecycle, and are part of the food chain. This does not make us cruel, does not make us callous or lack compassion. It makes us humans and part of nature.
I know my view can be unpopular in this area, but I think that wolves do need to be repopulated. Will this have adverse affects? Hell yes. You think that the people in Roxborough Park and Highlands Ranch are worried about coyotes and Mtn Lions....hehehehe well they dont hold a candle to the wolf.
Real Estate and growth is an entirely different picture and has its own inherit problems. And this piece of the discussion makes the wolf comments look like cuddly little puppies.
Managing growth comes with affordability, immigration(legal and illegal) cyclical job markets, etc etc.
In the end I guess my point is Dont villify hunting. Most hunters and people who fish care about conservation and wildlife. There are a few that ruin it for all and that happens in all walks of life. Hey because Mike Vick kills dogs does that mean that most of the other NFL players do so also?
We seem to be hellbent to abolish, ban and outlaw any activity that we do not like or approve of. Be careful of this fact as the next activity may be yours. Just the libertarian coming out. Sorry
Posted by bwr on July 24, 2007 05:15 PMRob, yes I know about the CWD in animals. As I said, without uttering one word how I think and what I feel about hunting, if the range can`t carry the heard it will die off due to starvation and disease.
Mom nature always has a solution to the overpopulation of any, including human, animals that breed in a too favorable environment.
All I ask is, how many elk can the area carry? is the heard over that number? What is the total amount the land can hold safely.
If the experts say we are over the limit, then we probably are.
And if we don`t hunt them with bullets. mom will hunt them with bacterial and virus.
No, we can`t relocate Colorado elk. Can`t even get a good steak anymore, my hunter friends don`t want CWD or any other of the new problems in deer and elk.
MTS, I think we may be at the cull someway or kill point even if we don`t like it.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 24, 2007 05:43 PMMTS
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person. You read the documents, let me know, and we will have a debate.