SEMO

My point was that Missouri or the ozarks as a whole wasn't this endless "park like" woodland that elk just had their pick of endless forbs and grasses. Though much more of that condition did exist in the past. The conditions have always been changing and the fact that it looked a certain way when settlers arrived doesn't mean that is the "perfect forest type" that should be managed for. Anyway you make some good points, I just think as a state we tend to (and especially MDC) only manage for 1 time period when louis and clark explored (that may or may not have represented long term vegetation). Anyway the climate (and soil) changes and I don't really care what we "decide" the landscape should be but I will tell you that the "state/Feds" waste a lot of money in my opinion trying to make certain conditions exist where and when managers think they should. Thanks for the welcome, I probably won't post again until I can stop this preachy rant thing I seem to have created.

Because this is my first post ever on the forum it is probably best left ignored. But some of the ideas on Missouri's forested past noted here led me to my first posting. I think it is misleading to look at the elk's impact on forest communities as only compared to this idealized version what the settlers saw circa 1700ish to pre civil war. Sometimes a little perspective....such as the elk were here for thousands of years under varying habitat conditions may need to be considered. I think this is part the point that ozark trout fisher was stating (of which I agree). By the way...I think the elk are probably getting in at the back of the line on those things impacting songbirds.