The elk restoration project in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park is about to be declared a success. But does that mean their protective status should be removed and that elk should be hunted in North Carolina forests surrounding the park?
Though elk are native to North Carolina, they had been absent from the state since before the 19th century. But the species returned in 2001 when a band of the animals was released in the Cataloochee Valley on the North Carolina side of the national park to kick-start a recovery program. Another band of elk was released in the valley in 2002, as well. Now the herd has grown to more than 100 elk from a start of 52 animals from the two introductions.
Under that recovery program, the elk had been protected from hunters through their listing as a "Special Concern" species by North Carolina wildlife officials. But now the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, a state organization chartered to manage the state's wildlife resources, is moving to remove that classification. This commission, which sets the rules on hunting and fishing in the state, recently issued an updated draft of hunting, fishing, and trapping regulations. In this 24-page document the commission calls for removing elk from the state's list of Special Concern species.
Remove elk (Cervus elephus) from the state’s list of Special Concern species.
Justification: The only free-ranging population of elk in North Carolina was introduced by the National Park Service into the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. The Park Service has indicated to the Commission that they will soon declare their elk-restoration project a success, and elk will no longer be an “experimental population.” Because of the current status of the restoration effort and elk population in western North Carolina, the extra protections afforded Special Concern species are no longer necessary for elk.
The NC Camouflage Coalition, a network of hunters and fishers that is part of the North Carolina Wildlife Federation, opposes the change in protection. They say the designation shouldn't be lifted "until a management plan for elk has been developed and is in place to define the status of elk when they leave the confines of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. At present, wandering elk are protected as species of special concern; what will be their status if we remove that classification?"
You can weigh in on this debate by going to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission website and registering your concern (see the box in the upper right-hand corner of the site). Better yet, if you live in the area go to one of the open meetings and speak your mind. The proposed regulation is H6 – interesting that they classified it under “hunting."
The last day to comment is Friday, January 22.
Comments
If the elk are dispersing out of the park, then they've probably built up as large a population as possible. So, why not allow the hunt?
But NC should wait for the NPS to declare it a success rather than jumping in front.
Bob, let's be honest here. You do not "hunt" habituated elk any more than you "hunt" habituated bison or "hunt" habituated bears. You just shoot them. I know that there are logical arguments on both sides of this issue, but it really galls me to see this killing referred to as "hunting." Call it harvesting, or culling, or something like that, but when you call it "hunting" you insult ethical hunters everywhere. I take this personally, Bob. I've been hunting for nearly 60 years now, and I apologize to no one for being an ethical hunter.
Just because the elk restoration project within the park will be considered a success does not mean that there is a viable, sustainable population, that could withstand "hunting" pressure outside the park. The NCWRC justification appears to indicate that the State does not want an elk population to become established outside the park. As a hunter and a North Carolina resident, I would love to see a widespread, sustainable elk population outside the park before an elk season is established. There needs to be a geographically wide spread population so that you don't have people just lining the park boundary to shot an elk that wanders out. That is not a hunt, that is a shoot and just plain madness!
I'm not a hunter, so it's funny that I'm the one supporting hunting here against the two hunters. For me it isn't about hunting, ethical or not, but about the lack of a natural predator. The wolf introduction failed. Without predators, the elk will be hoofed locusts that destroy vegetation in the Smokies.
I don't want hunting (or culling or whatever) in the park, so the control has to come on the adjacent national forest lands. Politically, NC hunters will insist on being the ones that pull the trigger. Legally, NC "owns" the elk once they're outside the park.
Both Bob & Jon are right that a "firing line" outside the park is crazy. I'm surprised to hear from Jon that NCWRC doesn't seem to want a sustainable elk population outside the park. I'd have guessed that most NC hunters, like Jon, would like a widespread elk population available for hunting. That's what I'd rather see too.
One small correction, Bob. The predator translocation failure you mentioned was an attempt to reintroduce the red wolf to Great Smoky. Can't leave off the "red" part of that descriptor, since it changes everything. The red wolf translocation project (1991-1998) at Great Smoky Mts. failed primarily because the animals couldn't find enough food, were plagued by parasites and disease, and ended up miserably wandering outside the park.
Wow, what a fascinating turn of events in the hunting-at-parks debate! The hunters want a clear, defined policy and a report of elk herd sustainability before lifting a hunting ban! This is a terrific surprise!
I personally haven't hunted in years, but I have lots of ethical hunters amongst my family and friends, and they know full well the dangers of overhunting any species. Kudos to Bob & Jon and the NC Camouflage Coalition!
==========================
My travels through the National Park System: americaincontext.com
It is definitely prudent to wait for the determination. I personally feel that the Elk should be given more time to grow in population. A herd of 100 is not that many. Especially when you consider predators, disease, accidents, and hunting. It just seems to me that with all of those stimulators the small population would not last long. Just recently we saw the awful poaching of one of the original herd that was introduced. I agree about controlling of the hunt once it is allowed. It would be no more than a "turkey" shoot once the Elk crossed into NC. There are a lot of us ethical hunters but unfortunately there a plenty of unethical ones who would just love to kill them right as the Elk come over. I was raised to hunt as a good sportsman. This includes giving all animals a fair chance. That is why I will not even hunt with dogs.
Keith, I agree with almost everything you said, but I do take exception to your remark about hunting with dogs. Dogs trained to retrieve game shot by hunters recover many wounded birds and animals that might otherwise never be found. Since preventing unnecessary suffering is a cornerstone of ethical hunting, using dogs where the situation calls for it is to be applauded instead of condemned. Most of the controversy here in the Deep South seems to center on the use of dogs for deer hinting. There seems to be no middle ground on that one, and I'm staying out of it. [Full disclosure: I've hunted all my adult life with dogs, in many U.S. states and in Germany.]