Elk Management in Rocky Mountain National Park€¦ · Web viewElk management within Rocky...
Transcript of Elk Management in Rocky Mountain National Park€¦ · Web viewElk management within Rocky...
Metropolitan State University of Denver
Elk Management in Rocky Mountain National Park
Environmental Policy and Planning ENV 4200
Kalli Hawkins4-23-2018
Abstract
Elk management within Rocky Mountain National Park has been an ever-adapting
complex issue. Due to the extermination of natural predators within Colorado in the late
1800’s, an increase in elk populations have occurred and degradation of vegetation within
Rocky Mountain National Park has been observed. The National Park implemented an
Elk and Vegetation Management Plan in 2008 as an effort to decrease the elk population
to a more natural number while preserving at risk aspen and willow populations. Elk
management methods implemented have been culling, fencing off areas within the winter
range, and contraceptive practices to female elk. The twenty-year management plan has
proved to be successful so far with re-evaluation of population numbers annually. As we
progress into changing administration policies and an unknown changing climate,
analysis into the sustainability of the current Elk and Vegetation Management Plan needs
to be assessed.
PAGE 1
Introduction
There was a conservation and environmental movement that started in the
beginning of the 1900’s, developed and primarily lead by conservationist and president at
the time Theodore Roosevelt. He along with another well-known naturalist, John Muir;
wanted to preserve areas of land where humans would have minimal impact on
ecosystems and wildlife. Roosevelt and Muir strived to protect specific regions across the
United States with the establishment of National Parks. The following president to take
office, Woodrow Wilson continued with the preservation of pristine landscapes. He
signed the Rocky Mountain National Park Act on January 26, 1915 and the Rocky
Mountain National Park was then formed (National Park Service, 2017). The National
Park Service states that “The current NPS policy is to manage natural resources to
preserve fundamental physical and biological processes, as well as individual species,
features, and plant and animal communities” (Fix et al., 2010).
The park in total spans 415 square miles and has a diverse topography, containing
three ecological zones; Montane, Subalpine, and Alpine Tundra. Below I have attached a
topographic map of the Rocky Mountain National Park. As displayed in the map, the park
is bordered by towns such as Grand Lake to the west and Estes Park, Lyons, Boulder to
the East and is only a short distance from the city of Denver.
PAGE 2
Rocky Mountain National Park Map. (National Park Service, 2017).
The Rocky Mountain National Park in addition to it’s diverse topography has a
dynamic variety of species that live in each ecological zone. Ungulates, hooved mammals
such as elk are regulatory migrating mammals and tend to spend the hot summer months
in higher elevations where it is cooler and in the winter months the herds will move to
lower elevations where the snowpack is less intense and where it will be easier to find a
source of food. The area that the elk migrate to during the winter months is known as the
winter range. “This winter range encompasses approximately 10,000 ha in five major
valleys in the upper montane zone along the park boundary near the town of Estes Park,
Colorado. The elk winter range includes areas where elk concentrate during winter
PAGE 3
(Moraine Park, Beaver Meadows, Horseshoe Park) that are referred to as the “core” elk
winter range and other areas that elk use to a lesser degree, referred to as the “noncore”
winter range.” (Zeigenfuss, L.C., Johnson, 2015). These winter ranges have come to be of
great concern in the recent decades as uncontrolled elk populations have begun to
degrade the vegetative fields. Below is a figure of the location of the winter ranges of the
elk within Rocky Mountain National Park.
.
Rocky Mountain National Park Elk Winter Range Map (Zeigenfuss, L.C., Johnson, 2015).
PAGE 4
Environmental Impacts
As the gold rush progressed out west in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s,
homesteading began to take place in areas such as Colorado. Certain species were hunted
to extinction or near extinction. Elk were one of these species as they were overhunted in
the late 1800’s resulting in a near complete extirpation of the species in Northern
Colorado. As an effort to replenish the species, forty-nine elk were taken from
Yellowstone National Park and were then introduced into the area that is now Rocky
Mountain National Park in 1913-1914 (Vanhoozer, n.d). After the elk were introduced,
increased hunting practices on predators were used to ensure the introduced elk had the
best chances of surviving. Predators such as grizzly bears and wolves were essentially
eliminated from Colorado. This proved to be successful as the elk population drastically
began to increase over the following years. However, with the ecosystem balance altered
the now ever-growing elk population began to cause destruction of the vegetation within
the park. “Many years of research indicated that high elk densities in Rocky Mountain
National Park were resulting in the complete loss of aspen clones or reduction of many
aspen on core winter-range areas to a shrub-like state” (Zeigenfuss, L.C., Johnson, 2015).
In the years of 1944-45 management plans were implemented to reduce the population of
1,000 elk in the park (Zeigenfuss, L.C., Johnson, 2015). At the time current objective
goals were to keep the elk population between 300-600. Over the course of the following
twenty years, management practices such as culling were used to reduce the population.
Culling is a conservation tool that uses targeted strategic practices in the lethal
reduction of the elk population. “The National Park Service defines culling as a
PAGE 5
conservation tool used “to reduce [ungulate] populations that have exceeded the carrying
capacity of their habitat.” Unlike hunting, which is recreational and involves fair chase,
culling is “done under very controlled circumstances in order to minimize impacts on
park operations, visitors, private inholdings and neighbors” (Vanhoozer, n.d.). In 1968, the
Rocky Mountain National Park achieved their target population goals and stopped
deliberate lethal reduction of the elk. However, in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s the elk
population had rebounded to 1,000 in the park and 2,000 in the surrounding town of Estes
Park and was now causing vegetative destruction again. “A recent analysis of historical
aerial photography showed that over the last 50-59 years willow cover has declined by
19-21%. These decreases were associated with 44-56% decreases in total stream channel
density, which was believed to be a consequence of reduced beaver activity”
(Coughenour, 2002). The effects of loss of vegetation along riparian areas began to
trickle down to other species habitats such as beavers and fish.
As an effort to combat and mitigate this rising problem the Rocky Mountain
National Park implemented an Elk and Vegetation Management Plan in 2008. They had
started research again in the early 2000’s to gather data for the Environmental Impact
Statement that was going to be used for the Management Plan. The purpose of this plan
was to study what the current populations of elk were within the park, and the specific
regions that were being affected by vegetation loss due to over grazing. Strategies were
proposed to reduce the elk populations to more natural levels, as well as strategies to
conserve the aspen and willow plants. The plan was based on a 20-year period with
reviews of progress every five years. The plan consisted of management plans such as
PAGE 6
reusing culling, fencing of specific willow and aspen species, and various sterilization
methods for female elk.
Every year the management plan is adjusted based on the successfulness of
culling practices and other targeted reduction practices that are observed. Each year the
National Park Service will set population reduction goals for culling practices. To have
the least impact or effect on the public, culling practices typically will take place in the
early mornings during the winter months. The process of culling involves staff within the
National Park Service (NPS) as well as other federal agencies such as Colorado Parks and
Wildlife (CPW). “A work group of NPS and CPW staff developed a process to identify
and recruit qualified volunteers to assist agency staff in the elk culling operations. For all
recruitment efforts, applicants were required to submit a comprehensive application, pass
a background investigation, complete an interview process, and complete and pass a
comprehensive training” (National Park Service, 2017). In 2008, twenty-nine volunteers
were hired to assist in the culling practices. One beneficial result of the culling practices
is the distribution of elk meat to the public. The meat is given to Colorado Parks and
Wildlife and is tested for Chronic Waste Disease (CWD), if proved to be negative it is
then distributed through a lottery system to the public who have previously applied.
“Since winter culling in January 2009 through February 2011, a total of 47 animals have
been disbursed to the public” (National Park Service, 2017). In addition to the culling
practices, fencing of riparian areas that have been greatly affected have been
implemented throughout the park. Various National Park Service staff have set up
cameras throughout the park to study crucial areas that have been degraded by the elk.
Another management tool used is the injection of a contraceptives, “Fertility control
PAGE 7
offers a potential nonlethal method for reducing abundance of elk populations when
lethal methods are not acceptable” (Conner et al., 2007). This method of essentially
sterilizing certain female elk so they lose the ability to reproduce annually has proven to
be successful in other National Park management plans across the United States.
However, one could argue that this could be a form of selective breeding.
A case study of elk management practices that has been studied has been
Yellowstone National Park. Yellowstone experienced a similar issue where due to
decreased predator populations, the elk population was able to thrive and in turn began to
cause degradation to plant species as well as negatively influence multiple ecosystems.
As an effort to solve the issue the National Park Service decided to reintroduce wolves, a
keystone species into the park. “From 1995 to 1997, 41 wild wolves from Canada and
northwest Montana were released in Yellowstone National Park” (National Park Service,
2017). Since the mid 1990’s when the wolves were introduced they have been closely
managed and proved to be a successful management tool for the National Park. A
reduction in the elk population has been observed as well as restoration of a multitude of
various ecosystem elements. Having reintroduced a hierarchal species back into the
natural ecosystem was exponential in restoring other species and their habitats such as
beavers, fish, insects, and plants species.
Economic Impacts
One of the benefits of the expansive elk population would be experienced most in
the neighboring town of Estes Park. The small mountain town that borders the Rocky
PAGE 8
Mountain National Park was established in 1859 and through the years has transitioned
into the town known as the ‘Gateway to the Rocky Mountain National Park’. The town
has seen an increase in economic benefits due to the ever-growing elk population. If you
drive through the town, typically in specific months of the year it is almost guaranteed
that you will see a herd of elk. This has drawn tourists from all over the United States and
proved to be financially beneficial for the small town. “Gateway communities such as
Estes Park benefit economically from an in-flux of visitors in the fall when people come
to experience elk bugling in the park. Residents and local businesses in these areas also
experience elk-related damage to landscaping (e.g., greens on golf courses), and, in some
cases, threats to human safety (e.g., elk charging people, elk–vehicle collisions)” (Fix et
al., 2010). Despite the financial benefits from the increased elk populations in the recent
years there has been pushback from the homeowners as they have begun to see
destruction to their personal property. This ties into the direct human impact that the
increased herd populations have on an also ever growing human population in the region.
Human Impacts
As per required for an Environmental Impact Statement, public comments and
concerns must be considered. In the years leading up to the 2008 Elk and Vegetation
Management Plan, public opinion and comments were gathered. Multiple public
meetings were held, and survey forms were distributed through the mail. The public was
asked for their opinions on how the elk population should be managed within the park.
Below I have attached a figure of the public’s proposals and results that were gathered.
PAGE 9
Public Scoping Comments Figure. (United States, 2007)
As you can see, elk population management was highly supported and understood.
However, there were multiple alternatives such as wolf reintroduction, and hunting inside
the park proposed.
The proposed alternative such as reintroduction of wolves in the park would
certainly have human impacts. The main concern is that the wolf population may not stay
in the park boundaries and would then begin to affect livestock populations surrounding
the park. If this was the case the National Park Service would have to reimburse each
farmer for each livestock lost. In addition, the cooperation between multiple agencies
would need to take place if wolves were reintroduced. The National Park Service handles
wildlife and ecosystem management within the park, whereas the surrounding area
outside the park consists of Bureau of Land Management, public land, and private
property. Wildlife outside of the park is handled by United States Fish and Wildlife
PAGE 10
Service and Colorado Parks and Wildlife. It would take the collaboration of multiple
agencies to discuss all possible scenarios of how to handle a predator being reintroduced
into the state. There are definite pros and cons of the proposal of reintroducing wolves
into the Rocky Mountain National Park. Benefits would be reimplementation of a
keystone species, this would not only help to reduce the elk population but would also
replenish other ecosystem entities such as, vegetation, beaver populations, trout and other
native fish populations just as what was observed in Yellowstone National Park.
However, the National Park Service has stated that the cons outweigh the benefits
currently. There are too many variables to consider and a higher density of a human
population surrounding the Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP). “RMNP is one-
ninth the size of Yellowstone, is an hour away from Denver, and is situated within a
matrix of private and public lands with different management objectives. They argue it
would be difficult if not impossible to keep the predators from harassing livestock and
communities outside the park’s boundaries” (Vanhooser, n.d).
The second alternative proposed by the public was opening the park to public
hunting to reduce the elk population. Public hunting was proposed in the Environmental
Impact Assessment as an alternative. Some of the factors that were discussed were that it
would have a negative impact on the park as well as on the park visitors. Essentially it
would limit areas where park recreation visitors could not go if hunting was
implemented. Visitor safety could potentially be compromised and that was of upmost
importance. The park is adamant about their image, “The National Park Service preserves
unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the National Park System for
the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations” (National Park
PAGE 11
Service, 2017). Also, if the Rocky Mountain National Park did open it up to public
hunting, there is concern over the ethics of each individual hunter. The hunting practices
as well as the individual hunter’s morals would need to align with what the National
Park’s image represents. That could prove to be a hard thing to regulate and is why the
management tool of culling by professional National Park and Colorado Parks and
Wildlife staff is used instead.
This topic of culling and managing the elk population has raised some pushback
from the public. The image and representation of what the National Park Service is
supposed to project as an unaltered, untouched space that embodies wilderness unaffected
by humans can seem contradictory to their current management practices. The
management plans of culling, sterilization of certain female elk, and fencing off areas
seems to challenge what the National Park Service encompasses. To essentially let
nature, be nature is an argument presented by organizations and various people in the
public that oppose the current management tools. The overall consensus is that ‘nature
will take care of itself or it will work itself out’. However, that is a naïve statement.
Humans have unequivocally changed certain natural processes within ecosystems. For
example, the extirpation of predators in the early 1900s. So, to state that we shouldn’t
further have our hand in how nature and species populations interact is to not fully
understand the situation as a whole. Due to our misguided efforts of our ancestors we
now have an issue that we must continue to keep our hand in to ensure that we can
protect and conserve all ecosystems and species within to the best of our ability.
PAGE 12
Conclusion
As we progress in a continued changing climate future, changes to our current
ecological management plans will need to change and adapt as well. Currently the
management practices of culling, fencing, and restoring vegetation within the park are
working to mitigate the issue. However, a growing problem will the be the increase in
warmer temperatures and how that will affect the parasites that feed off ungulates such as
deer, and elk populations. If an onset of a tick infestation and or if a massive outbreak of
chronic waste disease takes place there is a potential that we could lose a large part of our
elk population. Our management plans will need to adjust annually to deal with this
potential problem. Currently, I think the management plan is working to reduce and
maintain the elk population however, I worry with the current defunding of our National
Park Service agencies as well as the variable of a changing climate, if our current
management practices will be sustainable.
When I started out on this paper I had in my mind that I had a potential solution to
the problem. I wanted to propose opening the park to public hunting on a very restrictive
regulated process. To open the season on a lottery-based system where the price per tag
was a minimum of $5,000, and it would increase dependent on a bull or cow tag. Not
only would this be financially beneficial for the National Park Service in that they would
be receiving revenue in what is now a current defunded position but would also be
minimizing the elk and allowing new blood lines to emerge within the elk population.
Some of the laws attached to public hunting within the park that I had thought of was that
each individual hunter had to be accompanied by a National Park Service staff or guide to
PAGE 13
ensure that the National Park Service image and representation was being respected. In
addition, the individual hunter had the option to donate the meat to Colorado Parks and
Wildlife to be distributed to the public and would then gain additional points credited to
their tags for the following year. However, through my research I discovered that
congress had passed a law in 1929 that banned hunting in National Parks. If public
hunting was to be proposed and then opened to the public a bill would need to be passed
in congress which could take a substantial amount of time and resources.
In a world now, that is ever changing the lines between conservation and
preservation are becoming blurred. Conservation can be seen as the protection of a
species, natural resource, or ecosystem service. Whereas preservation can be seen as the
careful management of the quality of each of those entities. “A conservationist is one
who is humbly aware that with each stroke [of the axe] he is writing his signature on the
face of the land” (Aldo Leopold, 1949). The National Park Service must straddle the
boundary between these two, to ensure that they are currently protecting what currently
exists and to then preserve to the best of their ability each resource through various
management plans for this and for future generations.
PAGE 14
References
Conner, M.M., Baker, D.L., Wild, M.A., Powers, J.G., Hussain, M.D., Dunn, R.L., &
Nett, T.M. (2007). Fertility control in free-ranging elk using gonadotropin-
releasing hormone agonist leuprolide: Effects on reproduction, behavior, and
body condition. Journal of Wildlife Management, 71(7), 2346-2356.
doi:10.2193/2006-463
Coughenour, MB. (2002). Elk in the Rocky Mountain National Park Ecosystem - A
Model-Based Assessment. Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory - CSU. Fort
Collins, Colorado
Fix, P. J., Teel, T. L., Manfredo, M. J., & Boston, S. S. (2010). Assessing public
acceptance of wildlife management trade-offs: A case study of elk and vegetation
management in rocky mountain national park, colorado. Human Dimensions of
Wildlife, 15(6), 405-417. doi:10.1080/10871209.2010.503235
Leopold, Aldo. (1949). A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press, Inc.
National Park Service [Website]. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.nps.gov/
United States. National Park Service. (2007). Rocky mountain national park (N.P.), elk
and vegetation management plan: Environmental impact statement
Vanhoozer, Dane M. (n.d). Colorado Encyclopedia. Retrieved from
https://coloradoencyclopedia.org/article/elk-culling
Wang, G., Thompson Hobbs, N., Singer, F. J., Ojima, D. S., & Lubow, B. C. (2002).
Impacts of climate changes on elk population dynamics in rocky mountain
PAGE 15
national park, Colorado, U.S.A. Climatic Change, 54(1), 205-223.
doi:10.1023/A:1015725103348
Zeigenfuss, L. C., Johnson, T. L., United States. National Park Service, & Geological
Survey (U.S.). (2015). Monitoring of vegetation response to elk population and
habitat management in rocky mountain national park, 2008-14. (No. 2015-1216.).
Reston, Virginia: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.
PAGE 16