# Park service cancels elk meetings



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Park service cancels elk meetings
By LAUREN DONOVAN
Bismarck Tribune

Meetings to talk about how to take out as many as 1,000 elk from the Theodore Roosevelt National Park at Medora have been cancelled.

The National Park Service called off meetings Wednesday and Thursday after the State Game and Fish Department pulled out because the park won't let qualified hunters shoot the elk, rather than using contract sharpshooters.

Park superintendent Valerie Naylor said the sudden withdrawal by Game and Fish makes it better to talk about the elk issue at a later date.

Until Friday and for the past several years, the Game and Fish Department was what's called a "cooperating agency" in the park's development of an environmental impact statement. The process will deal with a population explosion of elk in the park that's the result of a moratorium on moving elk to other places because of the threat of chronic wasting disease.

The park has alternatives to reduce the population and wanted to talk with the public this week about how exactly to carry them out.

The alternatives include hiring sharpshooters to kill the elk in the park and airlifting out some carcasses and leaving some for predators, rounding them up and killing them for processing and meat distribution, or transferring them if it's possible by the 2008 timeframe when the plan would be implemented.

The park has habitat for about 400 elk and expects the elk population to be close to 1,500 by then.

Game and Fish wildlife chief Randy Kreil said the decision to cancel the meetings this week could be good news, if it means the park is reconsidering its no-hunting alternative.

He said the park has known for some time that the Game and Fish might withdraw as a cooperating agency if none of the alternatives would let qualified hunters into the park to kill one elk each under closely vetted and monitored conditions.

Kreil said it will cost the federal government a great deal of money to hire sharpshooters, hire helicopters to pick up the carcasses, process the meat and distribute it.

He said qualified sportsmen would cost nothing and in fact might pay for the experience. The state wildlife agency wanted the park to consider allowing qualified hunters into the park, either as a stand-alone alternative, or in combination with others.

Naylor said it would take an act of Congress to change law allowing hunting inside a national park.

"&#8230; that is not a reasonable or legal alternative that the park can pursue," she said.

Kreil said the distinction between a sharpshooter and a qualified hunter is "murky."

He said the agency didn't envision a wide-open hunt in the park, but rather a tightly monitored method used over several seasons.

Game and Fish has never withdrawn as a cooperating agency in protest before.

Kreil said it would still conduct a critical review of the park's draft plan, when it's released.

He couldn't comment on how or under what conditions the department might return as a cooperating agency.

Naylor said the environmental impact process will continue on schedule and the public will be asked to comment when the draft elk management plan is released


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

Have the USF&G turn the wolves loose in the park like Wy. Id. and Mont. that will bring do the population


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

By Todd Hartman, Rocky Mountain News
February 20, 2007
A Colorado congressman wants the state's Division of Wildlife and its licensed hunters to help reduce the bulging elk herd in Rocky Mountain National Park.

Rep. Mark Udall, D-Eldorado Springs, has introduced a bill designed to clear up legal questions over whether the National Park Service can allow the participation of private hunters in a proposal to reduce the park's elk population.

The bill comes amid fierce debate on the issue. Park service officials, citing safety of the park's three million annual visitors, have proposed a tightly controlled culling program, run by park service personnel. They have also argued federal law prevents such a public hunt in the park.

But Colorado wildlife commissioners say licensed hunters - supervised by the state Division of Wildlife - could do the job effectively and far more cheaply than the $16 to $18 million initially proposed by the park service.

Udall agrees, and said using the "expertise" of Colorado hunters would save taxpayer dollars. He said the bill would maintain the park service's authority to carefully supervise such a program.

"This bill does not declare open season Elmer Fudd style in Rocky Mountain National Park," Udall said in a statement. "It makes sure the Park Service has the authority to allow qualified Colorado sportsmen and sportswomen to participate under strict guidelines."

Few disagree that elk population in and around the park needs to be controlled, as the animals are overgrazing important vegetation, pouring into neighboring Estes Park and moving as far east as Loveland in the winter.

But not everyone believes a project to cull the elk herd should be left to private hunters. Park service officials are leery about public reaction to such a move, as the elk remain a major draw for visitors.

Some environmentalists argue the elk problem shows the need for wolf reintroduction. The predators would not only reduce numbers, but would keep elk on the move, preventing them from loitering and degrading aspen and willow stands.

Some worry that changing federal protections to the park could set a damaging precedent: "Making exemptions in national parks sets terrible precedent. Next someone will want to exempt cyanide heap-leach gold mines. Where's the limit?"

[email protected] or 303-954-5048


----------



## MOB (Mar 10, 2005)

Bob Kellam said:


> By Todd Hartman, Rocky Mountain News
> But Colorado wildlife commissioners say licensed hunters - supervised by the state Division of Wildlife - could do the job effectively and far more cheaply than the $16 to $18 million initially proposed by the park service.
> 
> Some environmentalists argue the elk problem shows the need for wolf reintroduction. The predators would not only reduce numbers, but would keep elk on the move, preventing them from loitering and degrading aspen and willow stands.
> ...


----------



## dieseldog (Aug 9, 2004)

hey 280 how bout we turn the wolves loose in your neighborhood instead. The ranchers in the area would be the ones to suffer with that option.


----------



## Ande8183 (Sep 18, 2005)

Another problem with releasing wolves into the park would be the impact on other species. The wolves would prey on deer as well as the elk, and what would we do if the wolf population boombed and got out of hand?

This is a very complex situation. There have been a lot of comments lately that are closed minded. We need to look at the problem as a whole ecosystem and political problem, rather than just an elk problem.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

dieseldog you are not tell me anything we have some pasture close to Yellowstone If you want to reduce the elk popualtion it will work along with the deer , livestock, pets, as you know thats what wolves do


----------



## Whelen35 (Mar 9, 2004)

This seems to be right on board with people today. Lets spend millions to temporaly solve a problem when the state could stand to gain some $$$ by offering a hunt that could bring the herd down to the number that they want. Why do we let thid happen? If the park is concerned about how the hunters act, require that they employ a park ranger to act as a guide so areas that are of concern are not disturded, and that the anamals they want are harvested. Boy, in the real world if you can achieve your goals and still make money this is considered a good thing. In government if you spend a lot of your money when you don't have to, cause a lot of dedbate, seperate, divide groups, and make a total mudd hole, you have done your job. Introduction of predators, hey, lets get the ballace just right so none of us get to hunt.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

Do you feel every elk,deer,or any game animal should die from a hunters bullet? I have hunted for 45 years all over and still don't feel all game animals are for me to kill. Is the management of our game for the pleasure of the hunter or is to generate income for the state?
mother nature will and always has taken care of the overpopulation of any one type of game animal.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

*280IM *

The issue is not


> Do you feel every elk,deer,or any game animal should die from a hunters bullet?


The issue is, one way or another, some of these animals are going to die. Why shouldn't hunters be allowed to harvest them?

Jim


----------



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

I don't feel every game animal should die from a bullet. I would love to have the opportunity to shoot one of these elk with my *bow.* I would even pay for the experience. It would be nice to have a freezer full of elk steaks.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

You have the right idea now convice the people in charge. What would be wrong, ifa tag sold for a smalll fee the to the hunter who keeps half the elk, the other half goes to the needy? let every one know we are hunters and killers and others can benifit from what is needed to be done


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Stop being ridiculous and get a grip on reality. A hunter shooting a elk doesn't make them anyone more of a killer than the home owner who poisons or uses traps for mice...... sprays termite poison...... sprays or swats a fly&#8230;&#8230;.floods, gasses or poisons a gopher. I suppose every time you go hunting you run down and distribute half your game to the needy right.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

Don't have to run them down the, needy, the Game and Parks have a number of Meat process he in MO you take any game you harvest and they distubute it . That is why many doe tags are sold many in up with poeple who can use them. Go right ahead and shoot the surpluse just like the surplus buffalo where taken care of out side of Yellow Stone the publisity will do the park a lot of good. Animal rights group like to see the surplus game animals shoot. Get a grip a charity hunt to solve a surplus problem has been done be for.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*Dorgan says he'll advocate elk hunt in national park*By Dale Wetzel, Associated Press
Published Thursday, February 22, 2007

BISMARCK - North Dakota hunters should be given a chance to thin the elk herd in the Theodore Roosevelt National Park, Sen. Byron Dorgan says.

"I don't think we need to hire federal sharpshooters to harvest the elk," Dorgan said Wednesday. "I think North Dakota sportsmen with a pickup truck will do just fine."

The National Park Service has been considering options to reduce elk numbers in the south unit of the park, where the animals were reintroduced in 1985. The unit can sustain about 360 elk, but officials estimate between 750 and 900 elk are there now.

Elk have multiplied rapidly in the park because there are few natural predators, hunting is not allowed inside the park, and the animals' winter survival and reproduction rates have been good. They had been taken from the park and shipped elsewhere, but that practice stopped in 2003 because of fears of chronic wasting disease.

Since 2004, the Park Service has been preparing an environmental impact statement for a proposed elk management plan.

The agency is considering several alternatives, including using teams of sharpshooters to kill elk, and a helicopter to transport carcasses to a central location. Another alternative is to use a helicopter to herd the animals into corrals, where they would be killed.

The option of allowing public elk hunts was considered and dropped, in part because it would require permission from Congress, the Park Service said.

Dorgan, D-N.D., in remarks Wednesday to the North Dakota House and Senate, said he will introduce legislation next week to allow a controlled public elk hunt in the park. His suggestion drew applause in the House.

Dorgan said in an interview afterward that the legislation will include the possibility of a public elk hunt in the Rocky Mountain National Park in north-central Colorado, which he said has a similar problem with elk overpopulation.

Hiring sharpshooters and using helicopters "is nuts. That makes no sense at all. It's as if there is a bottomless well here for the taxpayers to pay for these things," Dorgan said.

The Park Service had scheduled meetings this week in Medora and Bismarck to discuss elk management alternatives in the Theodore Roosevelt National Park's south unit, but they were canceled when the state Game and Fish Department said it would not participate.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Where do we sign up???!!!! :lol: :lol:


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

Will there be any NR permits issued?????


----------



## h2ofwlr (Feb 6, 2004)

Well I'll be damned, 2 politicians that are actually trying to do something positive--save the taxpayers $ and give more hunting opportunities at the same time. :beer:

Maybe a comprehensive overhaul via legislation is what is needed regarding National Parks. Meaning allow limited hunting when the unit has established no other viable alternatives to hunting to thin the troublesome popultion, whether it be Elk, deer, or what ever animal. And as mentioned, tight supervision of the hunters, like keeping away from areas visitors frequent ( an Elk dropping dead in a parking lot after running 200 yds after being shot is not good PR for the hunting community), possibly having haunters passed advanced hunter safety course, etc... I bet a few other untis across the country have similar problems, thus a plan should be in place to allow culling by hunters so it is legal, and yet done is such a way to assure the public that not all NPs are going to automatically open up all of it lands, thus have a beuracracy of hearings (like they are doing now) to establish a limited season.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*From the Journal of the ND Senate 2/2107*

_*MOTION

SEN CHRISTMANN MOVED that a committee of two be appointed to escort the Honorable
Senator Byron Dorgan to the rostrum, which motion prevailed. The President appointed
Sens. Oehlke and Krauter.

REMARKS OF THE HONORABLE BYRON DORGAN, UNITED STATES SENATOR
Members of the State Senate, especially the Lt. Governor, Father, Thank you very much for
inviting me to say a few words to you here today. I should tell you that a few days ago I was in
New Mexico, touring the national laboratories, Los Alamos and Sandia, and I picked up the
morning paper from Albuquerque. I think the cut line said you were so excited about the
budget surplus that you did snow angels in the front of the capitol building. May be I missed
the cut line but there was certainly a wonderful North Dakota picture in the New Mexico papers.
I'm really pleased to be here and I should tell you that while I work for North Dakota in the
federal government, I don't want to be burdened by all of the federal government's positions on
issues. As you know, the federal government at this point takes the position that we don't have
enough prairie dogs in North Dakota. Let me disavow that position if I might and that we have
too many elk in North Dakota. The implication is we might deal with these elk by hiring paid
sharpshooters and helicopters to send the carcasses out of the park and let me disavow that as
well. With respect to prairie dogs, they talk about the need for addition prairie dogs because
they want to introduce the black footed ferret in North Dakota. The last black footed ferret
reported to have been sighted in North Dakota was 20 years ago by someone who was
reported to have been drunk. So to reintroduce the black footed ferret they need prairie dogs
which are food for the black footed ferret - a position which I do not embrace. With respect to
the elk, the proposition that some have advanced is that we might want to hire sharpshooters to
harvest elk in our park and then use helicopters to ferry them out is something i also disavow.
It seems we don't need to pay money for sharpshooters or helicopters. What we might want to
consider is North Dakota sportsmen with pickup trucks. I'm going to introduce legislation in the
U S Senate next Monday when we return suggesting there is a better way for the park service
to use volunteers who will harvest the necessary elk in a way that makes some sense.*_


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Not to make light of the park situation, but this is noting more than political posturing so that when Dorgan or Conrad or Pooperboy vote for banning guns in the near future they can use this as a way to appease the hunters of ND!!

Just stop and think about the Open Lands Program that had support from both sides that never moved. It would have competed with ethanol acres. Just remember it was the negotiations of Dorgan,Dashle that stripped CRP funding and changed the enrollment rules. Had Bush not signed a Pres directive only 20% of all acres enrolled last time around would have went in!

Remember also that Dorgan and Conrad have been behind or directly involved in crafting the rule changes that have gutted the Swampbuster program and is in dire need of enforcement funding which they wanted stripped and got.

Sorry boys and girls ND residents will not be shooting elk in the Park unless it is done illegally or as a hired sharpshooter by the Park service.


----------



## Aythya (Oct 23, 2004)

I agree with Ron's conclusion but for somewhat different reasons. I think this is political grandstanding of the finest sort and nothing will come of it. And unless the proposed legislation includes provisions to by-pass NEPA the Park Service will have to revise their EIS and go through the process of evaluating this as an alternative. And I don't think it is likely that Congress will pass legislation to by-pass NEPA.

But more importantly, the process of promulgating rules and regulations for this legislation, should it successfully pass, could take quite a bit of time. And without rules and regs the Park Service is not likely to move forward very fast.

And finally, it is hard to believe that any single purpose piece of legislation has much chance to get through Congress without a zillion riders attached; many of which could be troublesome for a variety of reasons. By the time the legislation gets through the grinder it will contain all kinds of nonsense, some of which we could come to regret.

And while I agree with the good senator that the public hunting would make sense from a number of perspectives I just don't see it happening.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

I think G/F did the right thing on this issue. Sometime it takes a move like that to get enough visibility on an issue to get some action. The only sensible solution is to have a well monitored hunting season and thin the herd. It needs to be conducted in such a fashion that it doesn't force a lot of animals out of the park and onto private lands.

There is a presidence for this as I have hunted many years on Grand Teton National Park in WY. Hunting is allowed in the park and on the National Game Refuge to control the herd. However I have always gotten the impression that the Park Service are not in favor of the hunt. Different mind set and I am sure the same opinion is present here in ND.

This would be a great opportunity for ND's to harvest an elk. It would also be quite easy to get a tag since 70+ % of ND and many true "hunters" on this site would not find it ethical to shoot an elk in a pen.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

I will give you one thing Kim you never miss a chance to take a shot at anyone that disagrees with you. :lol:

Bob


----------



## frosty (Dec 6, 2002)

4590 said:


> I think G/F did the right thing on this issue. Sometime it takes a move like that to get enough visibility on an issue to get some action. The only sensible solution is to have a well monitored hunting season and thin the herd. It needs to be conducted in such a fashion that it doesn't force a lot of animals out of the park and onto private lands.
> 
> There is a presidence for this as I have hunted many years on Grand Teton National Park in WY. Hunting is allowed in the park and on the National Game Refuge to control the herd. However I have always gotten the impression that the Park Service are not in favor of the hunt. Different mind set and I am sure the same opinion is present here in ND.
> 
> This would be a great opportunity for ND's to harvest an elk. It would also be quite easy to get a tag since 70+ % of ND and many true "hunters" on this site would not find it ethical to shoot an elk in a pen.


If the elk weren't able to escape this "pen" I would agree with you. It has always been common knowledge that these elk come and go from the park as they please. Hence, the need for reduction due to private landowners complaining of too many elk.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

4590,

I am amazed that no one has picked up on the fact that you go to Wyoming to hunt elk.Why not just shoot one of those out your back door in your pen?


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Well Frosty, I am sure this would still be too little challenge for you. After all the elk density in the park is about twice that of our hunting preserve. All you would have to do is hide by one of the holes in the fence and ... oh that would be just too easy. But then someone would have to do it so why not you.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> 4590....guess you don't like my question.
> 
> Question.......Why go to Wyoming to hunt elk when you can shoot one in your pen right out the back door?
> 
> Answer......not really hunting then is it?


What he said!!!!!!!!!!!! I really want to see that answer!!!! I bet we won't though!!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

4590 said:


> Well Frosty, I am sure this would still be too little challenge for you. After all the elk density in the park is about twice that of our hunting preserve. All you would have to do is hide by one of the holes in the fence and ... oh that would be just too easy. But then someone would have to do it so why not you.


Guess.....this answers my question about why you have to go to Wyoming to get a REAL elk hunt.Not much of a challenge for you to shoot a penned up one out your back door is it? :eyeroll:

You don't even have to hide near a fence hole.....just poke the old rifle out the door and :sniper: ...........instant trophy hunt!!!You could save all that money not going to Wyoming.And they taste the same don't they????

Heck you could even do like one of those Whitetail hunts I saw advertised on ebay.Use any weapon you want....just toss a grenade out the door.....ready made elk hamburger.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Well you guys really got me there. I actually have butchered my own elk every year as we need meat in the freezer. Just like any other livestock producer would. I don't shoot my own bulls because they are too valuable and cows are better eating anyway.

Guess doesn't much matter though where or what I enjoy hunting, it is a matter of choice. No one is forced to hunt on a preserve, or over bait, or with dogs. Same old arguements. I happen to enjoy the Tetons and the company of good friends on a hunting trip to WY. I have shot deer with my bow over bait though. Didn't bother me a bit either.

However good dodge you guys. Your are the ones who never responded to the hypocrisy of wanting to hung in TRNP even though it is a FENCED preserve. I think you guys are confused here, I am not the one debating or picking on how or where anyone else hunts.

Now I answered your question, how about you answer mine. Ken W and djleye. Do you think they should have a season in TRNP, and would you apply for a license if they did?????????


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Is TRNP a HIGH FENCE that keeps the animals in or is it a fence that just marks the boundries??? Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that a high fence surrounds TRNP and the elk come and go from the park. I would bet your elk do NOT come and go as they please because if they got out the taxpayers would probably end up paying for that mess!!! :eyeroll:


----------



## tumblebuck (Feb 17, 2004)

> TRNP even though it is a FENCED preserve


The only portion of the fence that surrounds TRNP that is high enough to keep an animal in is the portion that borders I-94. Go to the north, west, or east side, and it's a standard barbwire fence. Just like the pastureland that surrounds it.

Nice try 4590.


----------



## badlander (Dec 15, 2006)

No the fence is the same all the way around. I have hunted Elk there with Family and friends. And do know that for a fact.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> No the fence is the same all the way around.


The same what......High????


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Hypocracy?????That's shooting a penned up animal and calling it hunting.Then going somewhere where there is real hunting and not admiting it.


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

Actually Ken, it is called hunting (verbiage from their website). You, I, and the vast majority of the population knows that it is idiots with money shooting a pen raised, domesticated livestock that has no fear of humans, but in their minds it is called hunting.

Back by popular demand, the top ten reasons why you should pay a minumum of $3,900 to shoot a domesticated livestock. Kim you truly are a marketing genius :bowdown: uke:

#10. No over zealous game wardens. You will not be stopped searched or questioned at our preserve. You will get a shipping manifest to prove ownership of your trophy.

#9. You can overcome the time constraints of short, state imposed seasons. Book your elk hunting trip early and have your pick from Oct 1 through Feb 15. We allow you to hunt with a bow or rifle, when, "Your little heart wants to!"

#8. Efficient use of time.  Don't use all three weeks of vacation on one elk hunting trip. Hunt at XXX, your elk hunting outfitters, and still have time for other adventures.

#7. AVAILABILITY, How long have you tried to get an elk license in a good unit? Some of us will never get drawn. Come to XXX and get the trophy bull you deserve.

#6. No OVERCROWDING, you and your partners will be the only ones at our preserve, we do not book more than one party at a time.

#5. TROPHY BULLS, the only way you will take a small bull, is by your choice. We let you hunt. We have big bull elk.

#4. Health Concerns, our bulls are tested and retested. North Dakotas' elk are under one of the most stringent testing procedures in North America.

#3.Improve and help the wild elk herd by taking hunting pressure off of a natural resource that has been pushed to it's limit.

#2. You deserve success. Do you really want to hunt for a good number of years and never take a trophy elk. The success rate for a trophy elk in the wild is approx. 4% allowing 10 days of hunting, plus travel time. 96 hunters out of a hundred will go home with nothing.

#1. GOOD STEWARDSHIP! Make good use of your time and money. When you compare costs of hunting in the wild and at XXX. there is not much difference, we may even cost less, but we guarantee a 100% success rate. Hunting at XXX will provide you with a great hunting experience. You will not feel, " fenced in". The elk have been in the preserve long enough to know where to hide and are experts at eluding your best elk hunting tactics. WE HAVE FUN! We enjoy being out there, helping you get your TROPHY.

And the prices are so affordable:
300-330 SCI $ 3900.00
331-369 SCI $ 4500.00
370-385 SCI $ 6500.00
386-399 SCI $ 7500.00
400 SCI Plus Price on request

But hey, don't forget, you get _*free lodging and meals*_!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Bioman,

I take it back (inside joke) that was stake in the heart if I ever read one and I loved it :beer:


----------



## tumblebuck (Feb 17, 2004)

You can drive right up to the fence on the west and north sides. There is even a pedestrian gate on the west side for day hikers. I surely don't remember the fence being "high". A healthy elk or deer would have no problems jumping over the fence I remember seeing.


----------



## badlander (Dec 15, 2006)

There is a 8 ft high fence all the way around it. And there is not a pedestrian gate on the west side that is open to the general public. I had a lic for that area and walked the fence many times. I do know this for a fact. I have seen a few Elk jump the fence but never a Deer. If there going to reduce the herd it will be a Cow and Calf only season. When I had my Lic the park rangers went around the week before the season opened and fixed the fence. This happens alot but when they fix the fence it during the day when the Elk are back in the park. The Elk are not free roaming. The only time they get out is when there is a hole in the fence.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Thanks Bandlander,

This site needs someone to keep them honest pretty regular.

As I suspected MY Question goes unanswered!!!!!!!


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Kim



> I suspected MY Question goes unanswered!!!!!!!


You did not ask me but my answer to your question would be No.

Take Care.

Bob


----------



## tumblebuck (Feb 17, 2004)

> And there is not a pedestrian gate on the west side that is open to the general public.


They must have added the gate after you had your elk license then. :roll:

I was there most of this last summer.

Do you have a grasslands map? I will give you directions.

Exit I-94 at Camels Hump Lake. Take the County gravel road North/northwest to Forest Service (FS) Road #726 (about 7 miles). Go north approximately 3 miles from the Adams Ranch. Turn east (right) on FS Road #730. About two miles past the Knutson Creek Substation, there is a two-track road that goes northwest (left). Follow this road about a mile and a half. There is a pedestrian gate for permitted hikers to access the Petrified Forest.

It's located almost in the middle of the section line between Sections 28 and 27 of Township 141 N, Range 102 West.

The road is even marked with a little yellow and black sign with the likeness of ol' Teddy pointing the way to the gate.

Can't miss it.


----------



## badlander (Dec 15, 2006)

tumblebuck said:


> .[/quote There is a pedestrian gate for permitted hikers to access the Petrified Forest.
> 
> Your right there is a gate there. I had heard they were going to put a turn style gate in there. ( did they ) But it was never open when I was there. There is also 2 big swing gates about 100 yds South of there.
> 
> ...


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

> Thanks Bandlander,
> 
> This site needs someone to keep them honest pretty regular.
> 
> As I suspected MY Question goes unanswered!!!!!!!


Kim,

According to you, any elk hunting in the Park would essentially be a high fence hunt. So I have a wondrous idea to mitigate this, we should capture the wild elk, transport them to your 470 acres (is it more?) and have your domesticated herd train them to be experts at hiding. After all you did say, and one of the reasons to hunt your livestock:



> The elk have been in the preserve long enough to know where to hide and are experts at eluding your best elk hunting tactics.


This intensive boot camp would aid the wild elk to learn from your domesticated animals to be "experts at eluding the best elk hunting tactics" also. This training boot camp would also aid in dropping the hunter success rate down to your estimate:


> 96 hunters out of a hundred will go home with nothing.


 Once the wild elk are trained by your experts, they would be transported back to the Park. I would think the Game and Fish should support this, after all lower hunter success = more hunters & more money for the State.


----------



## tumblebuck (Feb 17, 2004)

> Did you go South of the gate about a mile in the big draw?


I know the spot of which you speak.



> I stilled ended up shooting a nice 7x7 .


Dat's a nice bull. Pictures?

And you didn't have to spend $4,000+ to shoot it. :stirpot:


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*Congressional researchers: Parks could allow allow elk hunt*

By MARY CLARE JALONICK 
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The National Park Service appears to have the authority to allow elk hunting in Theodore Roosevelt National Park, congressional researchers say.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said in a letter to Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., that federal law allows "authorized agents" of the National Park Service to thin animal herds. That means qualified private hunters with authorization from the agency could be used to help control the elk population in southwestern North Dakota national park.

The agency has been considering options to reduce elk numbers in the south unit of the park, where the animals are overpopulated. North Dakota lawmakers, including Dorgan and Republican Gov. John Hoeven, have been pressuring Park Service officials to allow private citizens to hunt elk instead of taxpayer-funded sharpshooters.

The Park Service has not said publicly whether it will support the idea. Agency officials in Washington and at the park said Tuesday that discussions are still ongoing and no decision will be made until the end of the year.

Elk have multiplied rapidly in the park because there are few natural predators. Hunting is not allowed inside the park, and the animals' winter survival and reproduction rates have been good. The practice of shipping them elsewhere stopped in 2003 because of fears of chronic wasting disease.

Elk were reintroduced in the park, which covers about 70,000 acres, in 1985. The park can sustain about 360 elk, but officials estimate between 750 elk and 900 elk are there now.

Dorgan, who has introduced legislation that would allow elk hunting in the park, said he has sent the report to the Park Service.

"We need to manage this herd in a way that preserves the integrity of our national park, but also protects taxpayer dollars," he said.


----------

