Elk
...ial possibility, and administrative operability. Concerning this issue, technical feasibility concerns how the plan will be implemented, can it be implemented with current technology, and can the issue be completely resolved. That is, if the elk need to moved, can they be moved without being harmed and is there a process available to the NGPC and the state of Nebraska to move them. Also, is this issue going to be a recurring issue, will the elk continually find their way to private land or is there a way to make them stay on the public land, if that is the alternative that is chosen. Political viability addresses the concerns of all stakeholders. Will a certain plan address all the stakeholders’ needs, if not, which plan will satisfy the most people? Also, will the community involved support the plan? Lastly, is it an economically sound plan? Will the plan be costly, and if it is, will the costs be recovered somehow. Economic and financial possibility also covers the monetary part of the plan. It concerns the entire state of Nebraska, will taxes have to be raised in order to implement the plan, and in the long run, is the plan cost effective. Administrative operability concerns the management of the plan. There needs to be an agency within the state or federal government, preferably the state, which will carry out the plan. In this issue, the agency would be the NGPC. There are many possible alternatives to the situation in Pine Ridge. Since hunting is the main way to control the population, many people will want hunting to be allowed. Controlled hunting can be allowed, as it is now, on private property. The same number of hunting permits should be issued with the same provisions. The government, whether it is state or federal, will compensate the landowners for damage to their property and crops eaten by the elk. This alternative would leave the elk in the state they are in now. Another possibility would be moving the elk to the public lands in the Pine Ridge area, and continue to allow hunting to aid in controlling the growing population. The land would become a wildlife management area under the control of the NGPC. A fee would be issued to enter the park to help cover some of the costs of moving the elk. Another idea for this alternative would be to increase the price of hunting permit application fees and issue more hunting licenses, possibly to out of state residents at an even higher price. A third alternative would also include moving the elk to the public land, but make the public land a conservation area also with a fee to enter. Contraceptives could be used to control the elk population. If the elk were to stay in the area they are now, with no action being taken as the management practice, many stakeholders would be unhappy. According to Bill Kelly, a correspondent for the Nebraska series Statewide, the state of Nebraska pays for temporary fencing around hay bales and permanent fencing around cattle feed. This can cost upwards of $1200 per permanent fence (3). Farmers and landowners are not opposed to free ranging elk, but are concerned about agricultural losses and any livestock losses. The elk in the UNL study tended to stay away from the livestock and homes. They were still wild elk, and were afraid of humans. However, deer at one time were the same way. There is concern that the elk will become more docile like deer are now, and will not shy away from livestock in the future, and will start coming closer to homes in search for food. Many people do not want to wait and see if this is the case. They would prefer the elk be moved now, before they become accustomed to the humans and what they are providing for the elk. None of the main stakeholders would like this plan, except perhaps hunters that can gain permission to hunt on private land and certain conservation groups like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation since the elk have chosen this land as most suitable to them. If the elk were moved to the public Pine Ridge area, the land could be given to the NGPC and changed into a wildlife management area. This plan would follow the plan that the people in south central Nebraska took concerning their elk herd. The elk would be moved onto the land, either by some type of herding, like fences or repellents. This would be costly, but it would protect landowners from any other unwanted animals on their property too. The elk could also be moved by humans. If the elk were moved by humans, they would have to be trapped and immobilized to be physically taken to the public land. This is also costly. However, some of the costs can be covered by the wildlife management area. The area would have an entrance fee, so tourists could come in and see the elk, and there would be trails so they could hike or bike. Hunters would be allowed in during hunting season, under strict conditions. The hunting permit application fee could be raised, and hunting could be opened to people out of state. Some of these provisions would help cover the upkeep of the habitat as well. Main supporters of this plan would be landowners, state and federal agencies, hunters, and tourists. The third option also moves the elk onto the public land, and then makes the land a conservation area. The elk would not be harmed in this area, meaning no hunting would be allowed. Contraceptives would be used to help control the elk population. However, no elk contraceptives have been approved. If any are approved, it would be costly to implement. The main supporters of this plan would be conservation groups, landowners, and tourists. Tourists would probably prefer the wildlife area over the conservation area because the management area would provide recreational activities for them. Landowners Hunters State and Federal Government Conservation Groups Tourists No Action Plan No Yes No No No Wildlife Management Area-hunting allowed Yes Yes Yes No Yes Conservation Area-no hunting allowed Yes No No Yes Yes Of the alternatives listed, the best choice is to move the elk to the public area and make the area a wildlife management area. The Pine Ride area is the optimal place for the elk. It was where they lived before colonization of the land and before they were driven out of the state. It would seem that this area is capable of handling the elk, and the ecosystem could sustain the elk and the other wildlife as long as the carry capacity is not overrun. Hunting would be the ideal population control since it has been working very well for the past few decades. It would also bring in money to help cover costs of the management area and the movement of the elk onto the land. As stated before, there are many ways of making hunting profitable for the region. The prices of the hunting permit application fee can be raised to $10 from the current $7, and more permits can be issued. The price of the permits will stay the same, at $130. In recent years, only fifty permits had been issued a year and of those fifty issued, on average less than half of those hunters bagged a cow. The NGPC can sell more permits easily because elk is the biggest game animal in Nebraska and there is demand for a permit, and the population of elk is increasing. Also, the NGPC could eliminate the provision that states a hunter can only kill one elk in the state of Nebraska. They should only be allowed to kill one buck in the state of Nebraska, and as many cows as they want. More hunters would then be able to purchase permits. Hunting should be opened to out of state residents, with the license costing more to them, perhaps around $175. It is common in hunting licensing that out of state resident licenses cost more than resident licenses. Tourists would come to this area as well. Elk prefer rugged terrain, which is rare in Nebraska, especially to people in central and eastern Nebraska. Tourists would be drawn to the area for the landscape and the hope of seeing one of the majestic animals. The area would have good hiking trails and possibly good biking trails. The area could require a Nebraska Parks permit, which, last season, ran $21 for an annual, $7 for a week, or $2.50 for a day. The elk in close proximity of the land would be ‘herded,’ or pushed, into the area. Fences and repellents would be put around private property to keep the elk on the public land. The money from the hunting permits and entrance fees would also help cover the costs of the fences and repellents for the private landowners. Elk further away from the public land, 20 miles or more, would need to be trapped and brought to the area. Since the elk herd tends to be on the move constantly, we are not concerned there will be many elk outside the 20 mile radius. If there is not enough public land to sustain the herd, private land may be bought if it is directly adjoining the wildlife area and the landowners are willing to sell. The land would be protected from timber harvests so the herd is not disrupted. The elk should also be provided with food, as is done n the Yellowstone region. This will be another way to keep the elk inside the wildlife area, and will decrease death from starvation. Multiple agencies would be interested in this venture and could be approached about money. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Bureau of Land Management, and Wildlife Restoration Program would be willing participants and could provide grants. The Wildlife Restoration Program provided the Wapiti Wildlife Management Area in south central Nebraska with $215,600 to purchase and keep up the area for the elk. Another possibility to secure more funding would be to determine if there was an endangered species on the land in the Pine Ridge area. If there is, a Recovery Land Acquisition Grant could be given to the NGPC to aid in the recovery of that endangered species and securing...