A Possible Problem With Elk In The Future.

[ozark trout fisher]

LOL! at this post. Must be a record of "I think" comments.

Not sure what post you were reading. I reread it. I said "I think" exactly once, but whatever.

[SEMO]

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.

[ozark trout fisher]

I any case, I'm just trying to add something to the discussion. I've spent a lot of time in Peck Ranch over the past 10 years, so I can't help but feel a little bit involved in what goes on there. And "I think" elk will fit into the ecosystem perfectly there.

[bfishn]

...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...

Welcome!

That's a good point, but how does one determine the specific local historical geographic conditions with no information? If it's too old to be in the written record, and too young to be in the fossil record, can we do any more than speculate? IOW, do we know that "elk were here for thousands of years under varying habitat conditions", or is that just wishful thinking? Maybe the glaciers pushed them here when they stopped short of the Mo. River. Maybe they were here before that. Maybe not till lonnng after. Just sayin'...

I don't have a dog in this hunt either way, I just have a bad habit of trying to sift the facts from the fluff. ;-)

[Wayne SW/MO]

BTW, I enjoy the little titmouses

Same here. They and the cardinals, 4 pair, are year around visitors at my feeders. I also have some ladderbacks and flickers that are dependable.

[SEMO]

Welcome!

That's a good point, but how does one determine the specific local historical geographic conditions with no information? If it's too old to be in the written record, and too young to be in the fossil record, can we do any more than speculate? IOW, do we know that "elk were here for thousands of years under varying habitat conditions", or is that just wishful thinking? Maybe the glaciers pushed them here when they stopped short of the Mo. River. Maybe they were here before that. Maybe not till lonnng after. Just sayin'...

I don't have a dog in this hunt either way, I just have a bad habit of trying to sift the facts from the fluff. ;-)

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.

[Al Agnew]

Ah, keep posting...it wouldn't be much fun without rants and counter-rants!

I agree that we don't know for sure what the Ozarks looked like back when elk were here before, or when the elk showed up in the first place. I suspect it was pretty diverse, everything from wooded and cane-covered bottoms to open grasslands on the wider ridge tops, lots of savannah type habitat, and thicker woods in places. Not only did wildfires burn unchecked, but when the first Europeans got here they noted that the Indians also did a lot of burning.

An interesting book I read not long ago (I'm drawing a blank on the title) posited that the pre-settlement Indian population may have been far greater than what we think, all over North and South America. Their theory was that the first European explorers brought diseases that decimated the Indian populations all over the Americas, even before there were a lot of settlers moving in. The populations that the later explorers and early settlers found could have been less than 20% of what it had been before, and the populations of wildlife were probably greater than in pre-European times. Much more land was cleared and farmed before the Indian populations shrunk, and there was much more hunting pressure as well.

If that is true, then your point is especially well taken. We are only looking at the reports of early settlers in determining what the "natural" Ozarks looked like. It may have been very different before that.

[ozark trout fisher]

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.

Don't worry about it. As rants go this isn't too bad!

I agree that the conditions that the first settlers/explores saw in the Ozarks and elsewhere isn't necessarily indicative of the way things have always been. After all, Native Americans lived here too for forever essentially, and had their own effects on the land, however insignificant compared to what's going on now. And who's to say accounts from 200+ years ago are terribly reliable? But it's also the best reference point we have. Really it's the only reference we have, even if it's imperfect.

So I think it's logical and understandable that we'd base some management decisions on what the land looked like then.

[Wayne SW/MO]

We didn't have big concrete dams and trout, ever, so if the environment can stand that it should be able to withstand the reintroduction of a native species.

[ozark trout fisher]

We didn't have big concrete dams and trout, ever, so if the environment can stand that it should be able to withstand the reintroduction of a native species.

That's kind of what I've been thinking this whole time.....