Mdc Killed An Elk

[Feathers and Fins]

Ya I am in the "WHY" Crowd myself, 400 Elk if that is the target goal is just not something I can get behind. Either total restoration and by that I mean ( free roaming groups ) and a Viable sport Hunting season in time, or just put them in a few Zoos so people can see them.

[eric1978]

But why?

Other than a few sports minded persons that think there will be a viable elk population in MO and a few nature viewers, how do you justify the expense? They have been gone a long time. Our "native species" is extinct.

Why waste all of the dollars just to be in vogue with other states?

Because some people think there's value in restoring nature to the way it's s'posed to be...as much as possible anyway. I'm one of 'em.

[Outside Bend]

But why?

Other than a few sports minded persons that think there will be a viable elk population in MO and a few nature viewers, how do you justify the expense? They have been gone a long time. Our "native species" is extinct.

Why waste all of the dollars just to be in vogue with other states?

And we can question the value of building and maintaining waterfowl hunting areas, installing fish structure on Table Rock, stocking private impoundments, reintroducing prairie chickens, or any other big MDC project. I'd agree it's probably unwise to begin an elk program given current budget issues, the spending itself is no different than any other project.

Aside from generating revenue for the department and tourism dollars for an economically depressed part of the state, Ozark woodlands were historically shaped and influenced by the presence of elk. Elk grazing influences the pref many plant species, helping promote woodland diversity. They also alter woodland succession, browsing down shade-tolerant maples and in turn benefiting deer, turkey and other wildlife.

[Feathers and Fins]

Guys I can understand wanting to have the ( woodlands ) problem I see and have from day one of this experiment and that is what it is! Is this. If the animals are not allowed to roam which is what elk do and instead are killed when they leave the reservation, what good is it? Sorry If I offend anyone but its pure stupidity to introduce or re-introduce an animal species in the name of conservation when you will kill the things for leaving where you stocked them..

Could anyone have imagined what would have been the outcome if Turkey, Deer, Gator, P Chicks etc were only allowed to be in one area or face killing for leaving it. If you want to support this then fine. But under the currect rules its not conservation nor a re-introduction, it is a zoo nothing more.

[Outside Bend]

I see what you're saying F&F, I just think it's a pretty liberal definition of the term "zoo." MDC's elk zone is as much a zoo as Yellowstone, where bison are shot for leaving Park boundaries with some regularity.

We can define that management regime as a zoo, but I don't understand why it's a bad thing. We're still getting ecosystem benefits, we're benefitting the Ozark landscape. I understand it's not optimal, but it's what we can reasonably do. I agree establishing elk throughout the Ozarks is the optimal solution, I just don't see the rationale that no elk is a better compromise than some elk.

[Feathers and Fins]

OB, its not that some are better than none, its more Politics need to be checked at the door and do what needs to be done which is re-introduce them and let them be ELK!

I could think of nothing I would like more than to one day be sitting on one of the lakes or rivers and hear Elk sounding the cry with loons calling as well. Those two calls seem to represent Wild America to me, just as much as every fall you can hear the geese migrating. Some sounds should be heard and heard from all areas not just one.

Some things need to not be political or experimental with restrictions but be done and let free for all to enjoy! Could you Imagine the AR Elk heard and MO Heardss meeting up and being throughout the Ozarks. I tend to think much larger then just an experiment for a few to see.. I look at, they were here one time lets bring them back again, the Ozarks would be a better place with them running free for all to see.

[Outside Bend]

OB, its not that some are better than none, its more Politics need to be checked at the door and do what needs to be done which is re-introduce them and let them be ELK!

And if the Ozarks still had the human population it did in the mid-1800's, if there were fewer roads, if there was more public land, a broader introduction would be possible. But that's not the reality of the sitation- we have to work with what we have.

Large parts of the Ozarks just aren't capable of sustaining elk anymore- too many people, too many roads, too many cows. A lack of forage, a lack of open woodlands, savanna, and glade habitats suitable for elk. The decision for the elk zone was not entirely political, it was the best area in the state for an elk herd to thrive, with the fewest number of private landowners to complain about it. To me that's being pragmatic, not politlcal.

[ness]

And if the Ozarks still had the human population it did in the mid-1800's, if there were fewer roads, if there was more public land, a broader introduction would be possible. But that's not the reality of the sitation- we have to work with what we have.

Large parts of the Ozarks just aren't capable of sustaining elk anymore- too many people, too many roads, too many cows. A lack of forage, a lack of open woodlands, savanna, and glade habitats suitable for elk. The decision for the elk zone was not entirely political, it was the best area in the state for an elk herd to thrive, with the fewest number of private landowners to complain about it. To me that's being pragmatic, not politlcal.

That highlights the main issue I have -- if we're going to reintroduce an animal, we need to understand the current environment. As much as I'd love to have things the way they were 300 years ago, including shipping all you back to Europe, it's just not possible. So, we've got to work with what we've got, or modify what we've got so things work better. Problem is, you hit all kinds of resistance when you try the latter, or you take a chance at screwing things up beyond repair.

I don't know how elk will fit into the current environment -- but I know there aren't any predators. So, I wonder if their population will sky rocket unchecked. Things are drastically different than when they last lived here, so reintroduction based solely on the fact they used to be here isn't enough. Nature will find a balance over time, but it may not be to our liking. And, it make take longer than we short-sighted humans can comprehend.

I also don't know how quail, bear, mountain lion or other natives will fit into a new order.

[jdmidwest]

Ya I am in the "WHY" Crowd myself, 400 Elk if that is the target goal is just not something I can get behind. Either total restoration and by that I mean ( free roaming groups ) and a Viable sport Hunting season in time, or just put them in a few Zoos so people can see them.

I have seen elk up close, and tasted them. I have a friend that raises them and I can buy one on the hoof if I want to. MDC elk are off limits and will only be hunted by a lottery ticket like in Ark. Meanwhile, many of my dollars are whizzed away creating a nice little hunting preserve.

Because some people think there's value in restoring nature to the way it's s'posed to be...as much as possible anyway. I'm one of 'em.

It is not restoring nature, it is a feeble attempt to restore a species that was not destined to live in MO. If you want to restore nature as it was s'posed to be, eliminate the original problem.

And we can question the value of building and maintaining waterfowl hunting areas, installing fish structure on Table Rock, stocking private impoundments, reintroducing prairie chickens, or any other big MDC project. I'd agree it's probably unwise to begin an elk program given current budget issues, the spending itself is no different than any other project.

Aside from generating revenue for the department and tourism dollars for an economically depressed part of the state, Ozark woodlands were historically shaped and influenced by the presence of elk. Elk grazing influences the pref many plant species, helping promote woodland diversity. They also alter woodland succession, browsing down shade-tolerant maples and in turn benefiting deer, turkey and other wildlife.

Waterfowl management is a part of a nationwide interest due to migratory reasons, we have to do our part. Fish structures improve fishing that generates fishing interest that generates revenue. Private stockings is a way of giving back to the taxpayer that funds the dept. I don't have a reason for prairie chickens, I would rather have them stock more mountain lions so I can get a shot at one of them. Elk have no benefit unless someone can prove otherwise.

That part of the state has always been economically depressed, it is called low cost of living, country style. That part of the state has always made a living off the land. If the land needed more browsing, why have deer and turkey been so plentiful in the past few decades without any elk? That part of the argument is BS, elk will never reach a population to affect the browse vegetation without mans manipulation.

[jdmidwest]

The decision for the elk zone was not entirely political, it was the best area in the state for an elk herd to thrive, with the fewest number of private landowners to complain about it. To me that's being pragmatic, not politlcal.

Many meetings were held and landowners were against the elk for the majority. But, then suddenly, the program progresses to the boondoggle we have now.