Mdc Killed An Elk

[Justin Spencer]

I'm glad they did it because I think they are cool, and I really don't think other programs have suffered because of it. Otters are cool too. Wish we had wolves back.

[eric1978]

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.

Eliminating humans...yeah, good luck with that one. There couldn't possibly be a more reasonable solution...

"Not destined to live in MO." It always baffles me how you can just shrug off all the environmental and ecological problems that humans cause as simply the natural order of things, and your apparent belief that we have no responsibility to prevent or repair the damage we cause whenever possible. Somewhere around the point that we invented firearms, or electricity, or the automobile, or deforestation, or plastic, we veered off the course of benign symbiosis with the Earth, and we now have a totally artificial, and devastating, impact on our environment...whether you allow yourself to admit it or not...we do. And with that enormous impact comes enormous responsibility to minimize the damage we leave in our wake...if for no other reason, to maintain an inhabitable and hospitable environment for ourselves.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Eliminating humans...yeah, good luck with that one. There couldn't possibly be a more reasonable solution...

"Not destined to live in MO." It always baffles me how you can just shrug off all the environmental and ecological problems that humans cause as simply the natural order of things, and your apparent belief that we have no responsibility to prevent or repair the damage we cause whenever possible. Somewhere around the point that we invented firearms, or electricity, or the automobile, or deforestation, or plastic, we veered off the course of benign symbiosis with the Earth, and we now have a totally artificial, and devastating, impact on our environment...whether you allow yourself to admit it or not...we do. And with that enormous impact comes enormous responsibility to minimize the damage we leave in our wake...if for no other reason, to maintain an inhabitable and hospitable environment for ourselves.

Nice work eric. I have more that I would like to add but I promise he did understand a word of what you just said.

[Outside Bend]

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.

Interesting logic. So then deer, ducks, turkeys, black bears, walleye, trout, muskellunge, prairie chickens, paddlefish, ruffed grouse, bald eagles- they weren't "destined" to live in the state either, right?

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.

That's my point- it's easy to justify MDC's expenses based on what you get in return. A waterfowler can say MDC's doing a great job because they intensively manage for ducks, a noodler can say MDC's doing a terrible job because they've banned their sport. But that's not the best metric for gauging MDC's success, and just because an individual doesn't see benefit doesn't mean a given MDC program is a bad idea or a waste of money.

Elk have no benefit unless someone can prove otherwise.

There's a whole body of research documenting the effects elk have on the ecosystem- shaping riparian and woodland plant communities, reducing noxious and nonnative weeds through grazing, maintaining open woodlands and glades through browsing woody vegetation, altering the distribution of competing species like beavers. Google it.

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.

I guess it's one of those tomato/tomahto things. I see a 20% poverty rate as a 20% poverty rate, you see it as "low cost of living, country style." You're right that the area has historically lived off the land, and it's also true the area has historically been one of the poorest in the state. I'm just saying their may be some correlation there, and that diversifying the economy of the region with a little more hunting/tourism revenue probably wouldn't hurt.

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.

Deer and turkey aren't elk- they have different food requirements, different habitat requirements, fill different roles in the ecosystem. And while elk density would only be about one animal per square mile, that animal runs 700-1000 lbs. It's analogous to putting another half-dozen or more whitetails on a square mile- that's enough to cause some notable habitat changes.

[jdmidwest]

Eliminating humans...yeah, good luck with that one. There couldn't possibly be a more reasonable solution...

"Not destined to live in MO." It always baffles me how you can just shrug off all the environmental and ecological problems that humans cause as simply the natural order of things, and your apparent belief that we have no responsibility to prevent or repair the damage we cause whenever possible. Somewhere around the point that we invented firearms, or electricity, or the automobile, or deforestation, or plastic, we veered off the course of benign symbiosis with the Earth, and we now have a totally artificial, and devastating, impact on our environment...whether you allow yourself to admit it or not...we do. And with that enormous impact comes enormous responsibility to minimize the damage we leave in our wake...if for no other reason, to maintain an inhabitable and hospitable environment for ourselves.

The point was "rocky mountain elk" species was never destined to live in MO, we introduced it here in a feeble attempt to replace an extinct species of elk that was native to MO for sporting purposes. It is not really about the elk, it is about hunting elk in the future. You can fluff it up by saying that they are here to kill weeds, but the main reason for the reintroduction was to create a hunting animal population for those too cheap to pay to go out west. Man's interests were the driving reason behind the elk, the personal gain of being able to hunt elk again in MO. And Elk Hunting was what drove them to extinction in the first place. Man and his interests or needs have nothing to do with what is best for nature.

It is not a native animal, who knows what disease or change it may bring to the Ozarks. Look at the wild horses, they are nice to look at, but were not native and they cause problems. Feral hogs, MDC did not introduce them, and they can't manage them. There are no predators for the elk, they will have to rely on man to control the population. It will have to be managed to prevent harming other populations of hunting animals already here.

And, if you really looked at what I meant, I was simply stating that man needs to be controlled in order for the rest of nature to be returned to balance. We know that will never happen. I never really shrug off mankind's role in the natural world, but I never stand around hugging a tree trying to figure it out. The obvious solution will never be an answer until something wipes us out.

[Al Agnew]

Who knows whether the "Rocky Mountain" elk are the same subspecies as the original MO elk? Elk were native to much of the U.S., but were easy to hunt and never had huge populations east of the Rockies so they were extirpated rather quickly in the East and Midwest. Given that there were elk in the river bottoms and woodlands pretty much contiguously across the country from Pennsylvania to Illinois to Missouri to Kansas to Colorado, there's a pretty good chance that they had fairly similar DNA, but we'll never know for sure. However, I wouldn't be too quick to say that the elk being reintroduced are not a native species. The feral horses and hogs are a whole order of magnitude farther away from "native", since they were absent from North America for hundreds of thousands of years if not always--I think some of the horse's ancestors were found in prehistoric North America, but not true horses.

Other than that, we all have different philosophies. JD's seems to be that if it ain't here now it shouldn't be here because it might disrupt human activities or harm species that are already here. Others seem to have the attitude that we should restore as much of the natural world that Europeans found as possible. I like to think we can do stuff like this with some intelligence. MDC's track record is pretty good in recent decades other than the otters, and I'm not convinced that the otters aren't beginning to fit in as well. Other than otters, the fiascos that MDC has had in the past have pretty much been non-native species (other than ruffed grouse). A long time ago they tried introducing pheasants, coturnix quail, nutria, and probably some other species I'm not remembering right now. I think they've smartened up since then.

The elk are doing okay in Arkansas, apparently. The area where they are being introduced is big enough and wild enough that they have a chance of doing well without undue human conflicts. Time will tell. We can't quite go back and recreate the Missouri of 1700; wolves probably can't coexist with humans here, and the jury is still out on mountain lions. But I think we are smart enough to manage the elk, including killing them when they start causing trouble.

[Outside Bend]

The point was "rocky mountain elk" species was never destined to live in MO, we introduced it here in a feeble attempt to replace an extinct species of elk that was native to MO for sporting purposes.

Subspecies, not species. Even that depends on who you ask- they're genetically indistinct. And it's tough saying definitively what subspecies (if the term is appropriate) we even had in the state- whether they were eastern elk, western elk, or an intergrade. All we know for certain is that we had elk. Elk were native. While you can run into trouble supplanting one subspecies for another, it hasn't borne out in the places where western elk have been moved east.

It is not really about the elk, it is about hunting elk in the future. You can fluff it up by saying that they are here to kill weeds, but the main reason for the reintroduction was to create a hunting animal population for those too cheap to pay to go out west. Man's interests were the driving reason behind the elk, the personal gain of being able to hunt elk again in MO. And Elk Hunting was what drove them to extinction in the first place. Man and his interests or needs have nothing to do with what is best for nature.

You think deer or turkey were reintroduced to the state to sell post cards? You could say the exact same thing about ANY game animal that has been reintroduced to the state- so why are elk somehow the exception?

It is not a native animal, who knows what disease or change it may bring to the Ozarks. Look at the wild horses, they are nice to look at, but were not native and they cause problems. Feral hogs, MDC did not introduce them, and they can't manage them. There are no predators for the elk, they will have to rely on man to control the population.

It is a native animal (see above) and they are being tested for disease before being transported from Kentucky. Feral hogs and horses were never native to the state, its an apples-to-oranges comparison. We've already demonstrated our capacity to manage, even eliminate, elk from the state.

It will have to be managed to prevent harming other populations of hunting animals already here.

If elk harmed other populations of hunting animals, there wouldn't be other populations of hunting animals- they would've been outcompeted by elk long before we arrived. Other species got along fine living with elk for thousands of years, plants and animals adapted and coevolved with them. Historically, elk played as much a role in the populations of other game and non-game species as any other native species we see today. The presence of elk isn't the anomaly in Ozark woodlands- the absence of elk is.

[ness]

Who knows whether the "Rocky Mountain" elk are the same subspecies as the original MO elk? Elk were native to much of the U.S., but were easy to hunt and never had huge populations east of the Rockies so they were extirpated rather quickly in the East and Midwest. Given that there were elk in the river bottoms and woodlands pretty much contiguously across the country from Pennsylvania to Illinois to Missouri to Kansas to Colorado, there's a pretty good chance that they had fairly similar DNA, but we'll never know for sure. However, I wouldn't be too quick to say that the elk being reintroduced are not a native species. The feral horses and hogs are a whole order of magnitude farther away from "native", since they were absent from North America for hundreds of thousands of years if not always--I think some of the horse's ancestors were found in prehistoric North America, but not true horses.

Other than that, we all have different philosophies. JD's seems to be that if it ain't here now it shouldn't be here because it might disrupt human activities or harm species that are already here. Others seem to have the attitude that we should restore as much of the natural world that Europeans found as possible. I like to think we can do stuff like this with some intelligence. MDC's track record is pretty good in recent decades other than the otters, and I'm not convinced that the otters aren't beginning to fit in as well. Other than otters, the fiascos that MDC has had in the past have pretty much been non-native species (other than ruffed grouse). A long time ago they tried introducing pheasants, coturnix quail, nutria, and probably some other species I'm not remembering right now. I think they've smartened up since then.

The elk are doing okay in Arkansas, apparently. The area where they are being introduced is big enough and wild enough that they have a chance of doing well without undue human conflicts. Time will tell. We can't quite go back and recreate the Missouri of 1700; wolves probably can't coexist with humans here, and the jury is still out on mountain lions. But I think we are smart enough to manage the elk, including killing them when they start causing trouble.

Good post -- kind of along the lines of what I was suggesting earlier. We can't go back, and we need to be smart about reintroductions into the current environment. 'The way it used to be' isn't necessarily the best answer. Things have a way of balancing out over time, and when we interfere there are often consequences we didn't think of.

I don't know enough to say whether this was a good or bad move. In the research I've done the last couple days, because of this thread, I've found little information about the benefits they expected to accrue from this other than providing humans an opportunity to view and eventually hunt elk. The good news is they've taken a measured approach, kept them in a pretty well-defined area, and feel like they've got their arms around disease worries.

What were the fiascoes you referred to Al? Surely pheasant don't rise to that level?

[ColdWaterFshr]

I don't have much of an opinion on it. All sorts of Govt agencies blow our money like they are throwing it off the back of a moving train . . . and elk reintroduction really seems like another one of those. This is MDC trying to puff out its chest and pretend to be a western state.

But what strikes me as really bizarre are the bright yellow radio collars. I think it would be really cool to see an elk down on the Current River or while out on a hike somewhere . . . up until I spotted that goofy radio transmitter collar and that would totally spoil it for me. Are they planning to keep tabs on every single elk this way, or is this just part of the initial reintroduction?

[Daryk Campbell Sr]

For those who wish to see them now, today, you can go to Lone Elk Park in St Louis County, Off of Hwy 44. (or 44 hwy for the rural members) The website is http://stlouisco.com/ParksandRecreation/ParkPages/LoneElk . It is a free park, donations are accepted. The wild bird sanctuary is right across the road, and is really neat also. There is an area in Lone Elk Park that you can exit your vehicle and walk on the road and be as close as you dare to the elk with no fence. There are trails to walk through the park also and the animals are familiar with people, so they will generally stay their ground.

There are elk, deer, buffalo, turkey, and many other wildlife that are allowed to roam while you drive through the park kind of safari like. They can do damage to your car, beware.

As far as Peck Ranch goes, I am in the wait and see campaign. I know that many other things MDC has done have had general outlash and then turned to benefit the state more than have negative effects. I would like to see a large elk roaming through the area freely, but I realize that we will have to pay for that benefit. I am not sure the cost outweighs the benefit at this time, but I will quietly wait and see.

I do see a problem that does need addressed which is the human population. Not nessicarily the population, but the ability to live 3-5 times longer than we did as well as being immune to a good amount of the problems that used to have control of us. I know some here will nominate ME to make the first sacrifice, But it is illegal. I don't like to intentionally break the law.