INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
I agree that method of using volunteer hunters to cull the herd should be tried first. It makes the most sense. I hope it is a great success.
If the moose are very old, disabled, or diseased, then killing them makes sense, but I would expect that some effort would be put into resettling them if practicable. If healthy moose are to be killed, then I think that the hunters may take a family-sized portion and the greater balance if the meat given to poor Indians on reservations, homeless shelters, and/or other charities that feed the indigent.
I think you have misread. Moose will not be dealt with in any fashion in this situation but rather, elk.
Why don't they just let predators like wolves return to their natural habitat? Then they would not have to cull healthy animials.
I disagree with many of these strategies. I read about 200 wild horses and burros who were given to a man in Nebraska after Bureau of Land Management roundups, and he starved them. Why not just let them alone in the wild, concentrate on restoring habitat and ecology?
I agree. We don't cull people. Yet we constantly are overpopulating and damaging the planet far more then any animal could. If we would just let nature be nature and stop trying to control everything maybe we would have a better planet. We think just cause we can do things we should. By controlling animal populations in National parks they become like a zoo. If there was a balance of prey, predator and land there would not be a problem. But the lack of land and predetor problems are due to people, so our way to fix it is kill the now overpopulated prey? Why do we never look to ourselves as the problem and try to fix what people are doing to contribute to these problems? Maybe we should control our population?
I applaud this decision to use volunteer hunters who have demonstrated firearm proficiency to help cull the elk herd in TRNP. This plan is cost effective and sensible. donating the meat (if proven to be free of MCD) is ethical and just. Huzzah!!
We don't cull people. Yet we constantly are overpopulating and damaging the planet far more then any animal could. If we would just let nature be nature and stop trying to control everything maybe we would have a better planet. We think just cause we can do things we should. By controlling animal populations in National parks they become like a zoo. If there was a balance of prey, predator and land there would not be a problem. But the lack of land and predetor problems are due to people, so our way to fix it is kill the now overpopulated prey? Why do we never look to ourselves as the problem and try to fix what people are doing to contribute to these problems? Maybe we should control our population?
We have already messed with nature and are trying to restore some balance. Although my frst choice would be to introduce predators such as wolves, I realize that they, themselves, would probably be annihilated again by man. I do not hunt and hate the thought of Bambi being shot, but it seems a far less cruel fate than starving to death. The long, painful process of starvation is what faces the overpopulated elk herd. I have seen this problem where I live in northern Michigan. I applaud the National Park Service and Senator Dorgan for the solution they have come up with to this sad problem.
It's good to see that there still might be a little common sense left in this world. Thank you Senator Dorgan for all the work you did on this. Now let's carry this through.
If there was a balance of prey, predator and land there would not be a problem.
Everyone is assuming that using volunteer hunters to cull the elk will be cheaper than paying professional hunters. Given the cost of training, regulating, and supervising the volunteer hunters so that the right animals in the right areas are culled, earlier estimates were that it would cost more to use volunteers than professionals.
I don't know what the current cost estimates are, but the "common sense" that volunteers are free or at least cheaper isn't necessarily true if the object is to do the job right.
This is a victory for common sense if management of the volunteers is simple, direct and light-handed. However, if it is heavy-handed and over-regulated, common sense will have been compromised in the deal. Responsible adults who volunteer should be screened for basic proficiency with a rifle, trained on the rules of engagement, and trusted to act ethically in accord with the rules of this non-typical outdoor opportunity. Assign park service personnel to supervise and oversee the activity in the field, and manage the process like any other large scale field operation. I think everyone will be satisfied with the efficiency, effectiveness and integrity of skilled volunteers who genuinely want to help solve a problem in an ethical manner. North Dakotans are by nature an honest lot. They do the right thing more often than not. They can be trusted to do the right thing in the field. They understand the long term consequences of actions better than most. Light oversight and simple rules to manage their activity afield should be the order of the day. Only then, will common sense have prevailed.
Even if you hire professionals, you still have to supervise them. That is because they are not from that park. They also charge for ammo and a number of other things. The volunteers will gladly pay for their own ammo, transportation, and any other cost they need to cover to do this. Also they will not assume to know better than the staff. Most of us just want to know what hoops we have to jump through to do this, which we will be happy to do.
What makes these high priced professional "sharp shooters" Professional sharp shooters? All I can think of is that 1) they get paid so I guess that makes them professionals; and 2) they haven't managed to shoot themselves, if that is what it takes to be a sharp shooter. If anyone can correct me on this I would be more than happy to stand corrected. I just noticed that I fit this description when I was in the army. I'm so not inpressed by that title. But I still will volunteer myself to help with this problem.
I'd assume they would have a track record.
Here's White Buffalo, Inc, which was contracted to reduce the fallow and axis deer populations at Point Reyes National Seashore. The photo they use on this page looks like Point Reyes. I can see Drakes Estero in the background. I wasn't aware that they're also a registered non-profit.
http://www.whitebuffaloinc.org/aboutus.html
Their staff seems to be wildlife specialists, although I'm not sure who their sharpshooters are. I understand at Point Reyes they used skilled marksmen who shot from helicopters using night vision.
http://www.whitebuffaloinc.org/staff.html
This is the best way to go about this problem we have in the park, let the volunteer hunters in. I think Jeanie and others that think hunting is such a terrible thing need to stop being such hippy-liberals and pick up a gun and go hunting! If you think poor Bambi is being shot by hunters your pathetic because hunting is nothing like killing a poor little baby deer. It's about passing on the tradition of hunting through our generations, taking our kids hunting whether they are our own kids or kids who are too unfortunate to have a real father in their life to take them out or a kid that just wants to get out into the outdoors to hunt and experience it. I once heard a professional hunter say to kids on his TV show "Hunting and successfully taking an animal will give you a rush, a feeling that no drug can give you." and he is right! Everyone that has felt this knows exactly how it feels and what he is talking about. It brings family members closer together to experience something like that together, whether it's their first animal taken together or their 100th animal taken together. This paln to bring in volunteer hunters is excellent! Let the successful volunteer hunters take home the meat too! Not donate the meat like [email protected] says to "the indians on the reservation", we give them enough and besides these hunters volunteered to go out and help reduce the elk. They deserve to take home the meat. Our past generations lived and survived all those years by hunting these same animals as we do today. Some of you that say let nature take it's course and bring the wolves in because us hunters are inhuman and we kill poor little Bambi and what not, need to open up your eyes and maybe even watch a video on how wolves hunt! Most prey that wolves take down are still alive while one wolf has it's neck, one wolf has it's nose, and then the others go right in and start ripping them apart, they don't wait for their prey to die peacefully. And you think this a better way for elk or any other animal to die more human than being harvested by us hunters? Then when the wolves are over populated you'll scream bloody murder when they try to reduce the wolves. Some wolves will get out of the park and start packs outside the park and they will take pretty much anything down to survive. When ranchers go and shoot these predators after their livestock gets attacked you'll once again scream bloody murder because these ranchers were protecting their way of life and the way they support their families from what some of you thought would be a better way to help reduce the elk in the park. I could go on and on with this subject but I think I have made a strong enough point here.