ElkManagement.com
Return Home
The Real Story
This is about the already well-known elk problem in Evergreen. In Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) geographical units, this is the central portion of Data Analysis Unit (DAU) E-39.
I began looking seriously into this situation about a month ago after noticing the increased, severe damage to my neighborhood and the larger and much more frequent numbers of elk than in recent years. I took notice of the indications throughout the broader Evergreen area also. These include many more fences, frequent elk disruptions in town, broken off trees and shrubs virtually everywhere, and elk droppings fence to fence throughout open space parks. The problem has been known and debated for years and the money and effort spent within the community to combat it is undeniable. I started to wonder why people put up with this.
I conducted as much research as I could, which really isn't that hard to do--just type in "elk management" in any search engine and you will quickly see the breadth and maturity of the subject. I read many scientific articles, as well as newspaper, magazine, and Internet pieces, and communicated with several writers, commentators, and experts on the subject. I studied state laws and the DOW’s statutory charter and responsibilities; I spoke with people at the DOW and Jefferson County, and met and spoke with numerous local residents. I have contacted and communicated with several newspapers and I have written to the DOW (with no response) and met with the local DOW manager at my home. I considered traveling to Banff, Alberta to witness firsthand an elk management situation gone completely haywire. In an effort to share and enhance this knowledge I even helped start the now-defunct ElkManagement.com.
At first I found the subject compelling and thought maybe I was learning things unknown to others; I thought this was information worth sharing; particularly since I had learned that peoples' knowledge and understanding of the subject varied widely. I will not go into the facts, disconnects, myths, and absurdities that I have uncovered here; suffice it to say that I no longer find the subject particularly complex or even interesting. Besides, the DOW already knows everything I know, and more.
The only thing that could make the situation intractable is if the DOW would not do anything. All the knowledge, information dissemination, debate, and planning in the world will not do any good if the DOW will not act.
Five years ago the DOW put together an elk management plan for the Evergreen DAU, and a five-year updating should be underway. The massive, still-outstanding problem with the plan is that action items to implement it are completely off-base. Per the plan, the DOW knows very well what is going on:
· elk is a species that requires population control;
· elk populations are growing faster in this suburban environment than in other areas;
· this suburban growth is time-sensitive in that it will be more difficult to control in the future (i.e., with larger populations);
· elk near the town of Evergreen do not migrate seasonally;
· the DOW does not currently have in place ways to count, to monitor migration, or to assess the impact of this elk herd; and
· suburban environments present a problem that the DOW (historically) has not been able to successfully manage.
Noticeably absent in the report is a specific discussion of habituation, although it is implied within the topic of time sensitivity. Certainly the DOW knows the extremely powerful, hard to reverse, and deleterious affects of habituation.
Whether some of the people know these things or not is relatively irrelevant; the experts (e.g., the DOW) know them and they are fact. Despite influences pulling them in other directions, the DOW recognized the situation and the 1998 action plan called for maintaining the then-current number of animals. But the DOW’s colossal error came in only recommending/instituting hunting as a solution. Hunting is not feasible due to the dense population and open space no-hunting edicts in this area. Following is the “Summary of Management Decisions” from the 1998 plan.
“Removals of elk by hunting will be adequate in the western one-half of the Data Analysis Unit (DAU) to maintain elk numbers at objective, however cow elk removals must increase in the eastern portion of the area. Since hunting was the most acceptable population control method,1 the CDOW should implement additional hunting strategies to increase cow elk harvest in the eastern one-half of the DAU. Strategies include increasing private land only (PLO) (hunting) licenses and seasons, multiple antlerless licenses, splitting Game Management Unit (GMU) 39 into GMUs 39 and 391, opening more public land to limited antlerless elk hunting, and encouraging private landowners to allow hunting on their property.”
Even with their own, countless numbers the DOW now says the number has grown by some 25%. Because there is very limited hunting, it is safe to conclude that the situation has become more pressing—the opposite of the plan’s objective—in the “eastern portion” of the area.
In the short term it does not appear as if Evergreen residents have any say in whether or not their town becomes an outdoor zoo, a perversion of nature, or a postcard opportunity fluke. If the DOW doesn’t put remedies in action nobody will.
It is a challenge to see the big picture, the motivations behind the powers in place, and unfortunately I can only speculate. The DOW has not been able to reconcile the wants of hunters and sightseers with suburban residents who make up the majority. The fact that some property is destroyed, or even a whole town is overrun and ransacked, is probably of relatively little importance in the bigger picture. For urban residents the more wild anything in the DAU the better, and in the western part there is enough national forest to withstand the impact of virtually any animal(s). Evergreen sits right in the middle, between the city and the Continental Divide. There is a legitimate lure of hunting in the quick-to-become-steep mountains. But there is also a broader marketing benefit: elk are large, free-ranging animals that, because they are so intolerable in populated areas, only live in spacious, rural environments. They are among the very few, easily visible, wild animals left and they have appeal. This plays on a lot of fronts, including to the soft spots of environmentalists, conservationists, and others who do not see the bigger picture. But all of this is just background since the DOW recognizes the situation and pledged to maintain specific population levels.
It is not completely clear why the DOW clings to hunting as such an essential method of implementing the plan—whether it is a scapegoat tactic or if the wants, and revenue, of hunters take priority; certainly it is not, legitimately, because of some very limited input from a five year-old survey of residents. In a letter from the then DOW Director to the Jeffco Open Space chief contained in the plan, the DOW begs for hunting even though Jeffco says no. The former DOW Director makes the absurd statement that “Currently, the only realistic tool we have to limit population growth is antlerless harvest through hunting.” What is the DOW waiting for, everyone to move out of western Jefferson county? The stated constraints are not going to change. Hunting cannot be the sole, or seemingly even a primary, management tool in this geographic area.
The position of Jefferson County is only a little disappointing—I have never read or heard a comment from a Jeffco administrator that even attempted to show concern for local residents, and I do not understand why the elected commissioners never seem to communicate anything. Jefferson County, along with Denver Parks, owns most of the open space in the immediate Evergreen area. The problem is not theirs, however, since wild animals are the property of the state and the DOW has sole responsibility for their management.
I must conclude that, in its current incarnation, the DOW simply is not up to the task. There is too much evasiveness, excuse-making, and buck-passing going on. Five years is a long time and they haven’t even been close. There are many potential solutions (e.g., sterilization, contraception, fencing, moving of animals (even within the DAU), creation of winter range and/or providing food, culling, hunting (where appropriate), tracking of migration, and more. (The DOW are the experts here, not me). Almost certainly there is no one, simple, quick fix. The situation needs to be actively managed and time, money, and effort are required. If the DOW isn’t willing to do this a renewed planning effort isn’t going to help because it will just be more empty promises to area residents.
© 2003 Peter C. Pfeiffer All Rights Reserved.
Originally posted Summer, 2003