Elk Populations Up 44% Over 25 Years

[noharleyyet]

April 29, 2009.

From the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

Wild elk populations in 23 states are higher now than 25 years ago when the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) was launched to help conserve habitat for elk and other wildlife.

Nationally, elk numbers grew 44 percent, from about 715,000 to over 1,031,000, between 1984 and 2009.


During that same time span, Elk Foundation fundraisers generated millions of dollars, which helped leverage millions more, for a conservation effort that has enhanced or protected nearly a square mile of habitat per day—now totaling over 5.5 million acres.

Population highlights among top elk states: California, Nevada and New Mexico experienced the greatest increases with growth exceeding 100 percent. Colorado, Montana and Utah herds are 50-70 percent larger. Oregon and Wyoming are up 20-40 percent.

Several states with smaller elk herds documented exponential growth rates over the past 25 years. For example, Nebraska’s herd expanded from 80 to 1,650 elk (1,963 percent).

RMEF has been instrumental in helping restore elk to long-vacant parts of their historic range, such as in Kentucky, Tennessee and Wisconsin. In these three states together, elk numbers have swelled from zero to over 10,400.

“Growth in elk populations is one measure of our success. Since we opened our doors on May 14, 1984, we’ve been all about habitat conservation with a focus on elk. Of course, when habitat is good for elk, it’s also good for other species of wildlife and fish. And that, in turn, is good for people who enjoy these resources,” said David Allen, president and CEO of the Elk Foundation.

Allen pointed out that elk populations are tied to many factors besides habitat, such as weather, predators—and, perhaps most importantly, herd management objectives of the respective states. State wildlife agencies are ultimately responsible for growing or reducing local elk herds to fit biological and cultural tolerances.

However, Allen said, “The Elk Foundation is extremely proud of our role ensuring that habitat conditions are optimum for healthy, flourishing elk herds. These latest population statistics validate our hard work over the past 25 years.”

Like elk populations, public awareness and enthusiasm for elk and habitat conservation have also appeared to grow alongside RMEF education efforts through the years.

“As the Elk Foundation celebrates its silver anniversary, I hope our volunteers, partners and other supporters will stop and look back at all that we’ve helped accomplish, because it’s really quite amazing,” said Allen.

A logger, realtor, pastor and drive-in owner, each a Montanan worried about habitat loss and its impacts on elk hunting, co-founded the Elk Foundation. The first office was in the back of a trailer in Troy, Mont. Today the nonprofit organization has a modern headquarters in Missoula, Mont., and 150,000 members worldwide. Some 10,000 volunteers host over 550 fundraisers annually. To date, this funding has supported more than 6,100 different conservation projects across the country.

Habitat enhancement projects include prescribed burns, weed treatments, forest thinning, water developments and more. RMEF land protection work, such as brokering a 2008 land swap that added 61,578 acres of elk habitat to the state forest system in Washington’s central

 

[JoseCuervo]

Millions of dollars, huge staff, 10,000 volunteers, 150k members and they still aren't as effective as Jon Marvel and his "rag-tag" bunch of environmentalists and lawyers.

 

[noharleyyet]

....yea, they do a shitty job.

 

[JoseCuervo]

....yea, they do a shitty job.

What did they do last month other than sit around and write press releases for their 25th anniversary and pat each other on the back?

WWP Wins Appeal of Grazing Decision on 412,000 Acres of Arizona Desert
For immediate release - March 6, 2009

Contact: Greta Anderson (520) 623-1878

WWP Wins Appeal of Grazing Decision on 412,000 Acres of Arizona Desert

Tucson, Ariz – Today, a federal judge reversed the Bureau of Land Management’s decision to allow livestock grazing on 412,000 acres of public land managed by the Bureau’s Kingman Field Office. Saying, “Cattle are not ghosts. They are bigger and heavier than any native wildlife,” Administrative Law Judge Andrew Pearlstein admonished the BLM for not sufficiently considering the impacts of cattle grazing on four livestock allotments before issuing the permit.

The judge determined that the BLM failed to justify any economic need for the decision, failed to provide any site-specific information on fences, watering sites and other range developments, failed to consider retiring the area from grazing, and failed to meaningfully analyze the potential environmental impacts of grazing on annual ephemeral vegetation. Western Watersheds Project (WWP) had raised all of these points in its appeal of the decision in October of 2008.

The four allotments- Planet, Primrose, Alamo Crossing, and Crossman Peak- have not been grazed for 18 to 25 years. The area includes two federally-designated Wildernesses, the Bill Williams River, and habitat for desert tortoise, bald eagle, and bighorn sheep. Additionally, hundred of archeological sites have been recorded within the allotments. The region receives just 3 to 7 inches of rain a year and summer temperatures reach near 110 degrees.

“We’re pleased that the Judge recognized the detrimental effect of livestock on soils, vegetation, and riparian areas. It is great that such a large expanse of desert will continue to be spared those impacts,” said Greta Anderson, Arizona Director of Western Watersheds Project. “It’s also a good reminder to the Arizona BLM that they have a statutory obligation under the National Environmental Policy Act to take a hard look at their proposed actions.”

 

[noharleyyet]

...so you dispel RMEF because it doesn't personify the tactics of your alter ego?

 

[Dinkshooter]

What did Jose do last month?

 

[Bambistew]

That article is exactly why I'm never giving another dime to the RMEF. elk= western version of the whitetail deer. Locked up private land, leasing and game managment is 99% of the reason the population boomed, not that the RMEF has preserved 3/4 the amount of land that Ted Turner owns out right...

Flame retardent underwear on...

 

[----]

That's still a hell of a lot of land that I otherwise wouldn't have access to.

 

[Bambistew]

That's still a hell of a lot of land that I otherwise wouldn't have access to.

Do you know how much of that land you or joe public has access too, much less could hunt on?

Since we opened our doors on May 14, 1984, we’ve been all about habitat conservation with a focus on elk. Of course, when habitat is good for elk, it’s also good for other species of wildlife and fish

While I can't deny that they do a good job in conservation, they use elk as thier 'poster child' to promote thier cause. They're hardly a hunting organization or give two chits about anyones hunting rights, its all about conservation.

About the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Founded in 1984 and headquartered in Missoula, Mont., the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is a nonprofit organization dedicated to ensuring the future of elk, other wildlife and their habitat. The Elk Foundation and its partners have permanently protected or enhanced over 5.2 million acres, a land area larger than Connecticut, Delaware and District of Columbia combined. More than 500,000 acres previously closed to public access are now open for hunting, fishing and other recreation. The Elk Foundation has more than 150,000 members, a staff of 150 and 10,000 active volunteers. To help protect wild elk country or learn more about the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, visit www.elkfoundation.org or call 800-CALL-ELK.

So they increased the amount of land the public can hunt on by 500,000 ares. While nothing to sneeze at, its hardly 5.2 million acres, that total includes areas that were open to hunting before, and the vast majority is in conservation easements on places that lease thier hunting rights or don't allow hunting at all. The vast majority of the land they've protected has been protected from development, which is great, however elk seem to be thriving in 'developments' much like whitetail deer. I wonder of that 500,000 if they're including the Double H at 95,000 acres? Its open to the public... 2 hunters a year or something...

 

[----]

I have read about a few of the ranches that they limit hunting on and open up for people with connections before the public.
I killed my first elk on land that RMEF bought and donated to FWP, so I'll admit I'm a little partial in my opinion of them.

 

[Big Fin]

.......While I can't deny that they do a good job in conservation, they use elk as thier 'poster child' to promote thier cause. They're hardly a hunting organization or give two chits about anyones hunting rights, its all about conservation.

Bambi:

I am not here to say RMEF is a perfect group, but I find your last sentence kind of odd. RMEF has never said they are a hunting group. From the beginning, they have said they are a conservation group. They have taken a lot of heat from hunters, about not being a hunting group. If you look at their mission statement, it is all about the conservation.

If hunters want an "elk hunting" organization, that is great. I would be one of the first to sign up. But, that doesn't mean that RMEF should be that group, or criticized for their conservation work - work that is the core of thier mission.

The reality is, most of the critical conservation work on public lands has been done, though I can think of many more places I would like to see conserved, but won't happen due to political issues out of the control of conservation groups such as RMEF. The hard work ahead lies in doing conservation work on private land. That is hard to do in a country where private property rights are paramount to the liberties and economic system we operate under.

This private land conservation is not going to involve public access, as much as I would like it to require public access. It will not involve hunting rights, as much as I am an advocate for hunting rights.

It is much easier (read less expensive) to acquire a conservation easement that does not include public access on critical habitat, than it is to go and buy that ground from the private landowner, in the effort to acquire public access. Many times more expensive to buy, and way more expensive to maintain.

In simplest terms, it if you have limited funds, and you are charged with preserving as much habitat as possible with those funds, you look at the avenue that gives you the most bang for your buck. In the current real estate climate of western valleys, where most of the critical elk habitat exists, conservation easements from private land owners is the most effective way to do it. I wish it was different, but it is not.

Expect more of the conservation work for all species to be private land conservation.

A good private land example would be Ted Turner's ranch outside of Bozeman has been a boom to elk. No, we can't go hunt his land, but he habitat he has kept intact has resulted in a huge elk herd, with many mature bulls that wander onto the public land. We shoot more bull elk on public land around Turner's place than was shot on that land, when it was open to hunting (a long long time ago.) I wish it was open to public hunting, but it is not. The conservation easement and the way he manages the place is very helpful to those willing to hoof it into the areas around this ranch.

The Double H in New Mexico was an estate transfer, subject to the restrictions and requirements placed on it by the donor. RMEF was faced with taking it with those restrictions, or not taking it. I am glad they took it. It is one impressive piece of property, and if you are lucky to draw a public land tag near the perimter, you will have one hell of an elk hunt. I still think it is great that the former owner of the ranch donated it to RMEF, rather than sold it for ranchettes. As much as I would love to see it open for public hunting, that is not allowed under the restrictions the former owner placed on the property, so I will live with it, knowing it is helping produce some great elk hunting for the neighboring public land areas.

I share the frustrations you have about conservation work, using public money or non-profit money, occurring on private land. But, if that is where the best and most critical habitat is, I guess that is where the work needs to be done.

I wish they operated solely to my liking, but that is never going to happen. They do enough good work, that they will keep getting my membership and my donations.

And, though we don't have access to all the land they have done conservation work on, we have access to a lot of it. Lots of it that is public land and has been impoved by the work RMEF has done, and a lot of it that was private land, that they acquired by purchase or donation, and then was transfered to a public agency for public use. Not all of it, but a lot of it.

 

[DRAFTSTUD]

Well put Big Fin. John

 

[Bambistew]

I guess my point is... if its all about conservation and the elk habitat, would you all still support the RMEF if they were anti-hunting?

How many acres has the Nature Conservancy 'conserved'? How many of those acres are open to hunting, and how many hunters benefit from their cause? I would venture to guess its at least as much on all counts probably 2-3 times as much as the RMEF, yet they are looked upon as green 'hippies' by many hunters.

How many acres are currently (and 25 years ago) being utilized by elk across the western US, both public and private? 300+/- million acres? Is the RMEF saying that the increase in elk population is due to them preserving 5.2 million acres? As the population grows so does the elk range does it not? Elk are showing up in areas they haven’t been seen in decades. Is that due to their effort? IMO… No.

Like I said yes the RMEF does a good job at conservation, and I have no doubt that many hunters benefit from their efforts. But as stated above the article makes it sound like they are responsible (instrumental) for the increase of the elk population.

These latest population statistics validate our hard work over the past 25 years

Give me a break. They’ve conserved 1% +/- of total elk habitat yet played an instrumental role in the 44% population increase for the last 25 years. I’m sure someone will point out that many of the places that they conserved are winter range. I’ll give you that, but again, of all the land currently used by elk, how much is winter range and what percentage did the RMEF conserve? I'm guessing not enough for a 44% population increase.

What about the increase of elk population prior to the RMEF? Who can take credit for that? Who saved the winter range then? Elk are very adaptable and in some places difficult to manage even with standard hunting seasons. Going off memory (which is bad) there was only something like 15,000 elk left in the us at the turn of the century, and according to the RMEF stats page there was about 640,000+/- at their inception, who gets credit for that increase?

If it was all about habitat and conservation why are mule deer struggling? What about sheep? Is it maybe that elk are much more adaptable and has less to do with conservation efforts? Think about it. Mule deer are vanishing because of loss of habitat yet elk numbers are up 44% because the RMEF has saved 5.2 million acres? I would think there would be some sort of overlap there and if it was all about habitat shouldn’t the deer population at least be stable over the last 25 years?

I get sick of the RMEF taking credit for things that they shouldn't be taking credit for.

 

[sreekers]

You are using a quote that says their work was validated. Well I take that to mean that their work is paying off in the overall effort to help the Elk herds grow numerically.

Mule deer are struggling because they aren't nearly as hardy of an animal as an elk. Their winter range needs are far different than an elk's. Elk are also far more adaptable and can survive nicely in a format where they are fed all winter. That is against the mule deer's nature. Using the MD as an example vs the Elk is not a viable argument.

I guess I just don't like it that you are trying to discredit a group that is doing good for part of the OVERALL health of the species. They are a part of the rebound, and 5.25 million acres is nothing to snuff at.

Something you seem to be missing is that this group needs to build support to continue their growth. Don't read their articles if you don't want them to try and sell the organization to you. They have to sell it to continue their work. They have to increase membership, to do that you have to be a viable investment.

 

[Bambistew]

I will admitt I have a jaded view of the RMEF, I grew up around it and get sick of the propaganda.

How many people here bash the Nature Conservency and the Sierra Club?

I'm not stupid I realize that its a very complex issue. But the RMEF makes it sound like its as simple as saving a piece of land here and there and viola we have a 44% increase in the population.

Again it goes back to total acres of everything. The total that they preserved is peanuts in the over all picture. They're taking credit for something they shouldn't which is typical for them.

You all can send in your money all you want I don't care. My opinion is just that.

Yes I hunt elk every year and am not a member of the RMEF.

Yes I own guns and am not a member of the NRA (anymore)

Yes I celebrate Christmas and I'm not a Christian

Yes I get Saturday and Sunday off and I'm not in the Union

The world is full of hypocrites.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Something you seem to be missing is that this group needs to build support to continue their growth. Don't read their articles if you don't want them to try and sell the organization to you. They have to sell it to continue their work. They have to increase membership, to do that you have to be a viable investment.

Bingo, we have a winner. Why do they have to continue to grow? Can't they just keep doing the same things with the current membership? Where in their charter is it that they have to return 10% annual growth in membership?

If you want to fund Conservation groups, there are other groups way more effective for the dollar spent.

 

[noharleyyet]

Why do they have to continue to grow?

...uh, because they're not depending on rag tag juris obstructionists?