PA Elk Hunt

ORIGINAL: RSB

Elk are just like any other species as far as their habitat and range only being suitable for a give number of animals without it having an adverse affect on the habitat and the elk them selves.
 
Back before there was ever a plan in place to hunt the elk it was pretty clear that the traditional elk range was filled with elk to the point the elk would not tolerate any more elk in the traditional range. There were more and more elk moving out of the traditional range and into the closest farmlands they could find each year. That was resulting in more and more elk/farmer conflicts and more elk being killed for crop damage.
 
It was then known that we either had to reduce the elk population or expand the elk range. Penn State was charged with surveying the existing elk range and applying that model to all other areas of the state to locate any other areas with the same or similar habitat and land use types (meaning large areas of suitable habitat with little agriculture impacts). They came back with a model of the state (based on satellite imagery) that had an area of Clinton County with some pretty good habitat and little farming interest.
 
Over the next two years many meetings were held in the proposed elk relocation area, with sportsmen, council people, politicians and anyone else from the public interested in attending to feel out the possibilities of relocating elk to that part of Clinton County. I attended many of those meetings and I heard no negative comments about elk being moved to the area and everyone was excited about the idea of a herd of elk being located to Clinton County.
 
Over the next three years we live trapped, moved and soft released about 50-60 elk to three different release sites in Clinton County. It was quickly realized that even though no one had come to the meetings with opposition to trap and transfer of elk they weren’t really socially accepted outside of their old traditional range. That was evident in the fact that a few very small farmers killed a pretty high percentage of the relocated elk that moved into one valley.
 
The decision was then made to do two things. One was to do more habitat management on the public land in the expanded elk range to make it more attractive to the elk and to start planning for a hunt that would keep the elk numbers within the traditional and expanded range within the levels acceptable to the elk without having large numbers of elk moving into the farmlands.
 
Since that time a number of elk, both bulls and cows, are permitted as harvests each year. The number of permits for each unit is based on how many elk need to be removed from that unit to either keep the stable or to still allow fro some herd growth within that unit based on the quality of the habitat and current elk numbers within the unit.
 
In some units the elk are pretty accustomed to people but we still have to remove some of them to keep the population within acceptable numbers. Those elk are mostly just a culling of the excess animals and perhaps not as difficult to harvest as elk in some of the other units. But, there are units where the elk almost never see people and they are just as wild as the elk in most western states. I know some of them are very wild because we have some collared for research purposes and even using radio equipment that tells you where the elk are it can sometimes take days of trying to even see one of those elk.
 
The bottom line is that it is very necessary, from a management perspective, that we have an elk hunt and remove excess elk from various parts of the elk range. It also provides and excellent hunting experience for fifty or so hunters each year. That is really a positive experience that other hunters shouldn’t be trying to undermine.
 R.S. Bodenhorn       

ORIGINAL: crappiefisher

ORIGINAL: RSB

Elk are just like any other species as far as their habitat and range only being suitable for a give number of animals without it having an adverse affect on the habitat and the elk them selves.
 
Back before there was ever a plan in place to hunt the elk it was pretty clear that the traditional elk range was filled with elk to the point the elk would not tolerate any more elk in the traditional range. There were more and more elk moving out of the traditional range and into the closest farmlands they could find each year. That was resulting in more and more elk/farmer conflicts and more elk being killed for crop damage.
 
It was then known that we either had to reduce the elk population or expand the elk range. Penn State was charged with surveying the existing elk range and applying that model to all other areas of the state to locate any other areas with the same or similar habitat and land use types (meaning large areas of suitable habitat with little agriculture impacts). They came back with a model of the state (based on satellite imagery) that had an area of Clinton County with some pretty good habitat and little farming interest.
 
Over the next two years many meetings were held in the proposed elk relocation area, with sportsmen, council people, politicians and anyone else from the public interested in attending to feel out the possibilities of relocating elk to that part of Clinton County. I attended many of those meetings and I heard no negative comments about elk being moved to the area and everyone was excited about the idea of a herd of elk being located to Clinton County.
 
Over the next three years we live trapped, moved and soft released about 50-60 elk to three different release sites in Clinton County. It was quickly realized that even though no one had come to the meetings with opposition to trap and transfer of elk they weren’t really socially accepted outside of their old traditional range. That was evident in the fact that a few very small farmers killed a pretty high percentage of the relocated elk that moved into one valley.
 
The decision was then made to do two things. One was to do more habitat management on the public land in the expanded elk range to make it more attractive to the elk and to start planning for a hunt that would keep the elk numbers within the traditional and expanded range within the levels acceptable to the elk without having large numbers of elk moving into the farmlands.
 
Since that time a number of elk, both bulls and cows, are permitted as harvests each year. The number of permits for each unit is based on how many elk need to be removed from that unit to either keep the stable or to still allow fro some herd growth within that unit based on the quality of the habitat and current elk numbers within the unit.
 
In some units the elk are pretty accustomed to people but we still have to remove some of them to keep the population within acceptable numbers. Those elk are mostly just a culling of the excess animals and perhaps not as difficult to harvest as elk in some of the other units. But, there are units where the elk almost never see people and they are just as wild as the elk in most western states. I know some of them are very wild because we have some collared for research purposes and even using radio equipment that tells you where the elk are it can sometimes take days of trying to even see one of those elk.
 
The bottom line is that it is very necessary, from a management perspective, that we have an elk hunt and remove excess elk from various parts of the elk range. It also provides and excellent hunting experience for fifty or so hunters each year. That is really a positive experience that other hunters shouldn’t be trying to undermine.
 R.S. Bodenhorn       

u spent the time to write this??? on here??? think I would copy & paste it /much easier u noe/


crappy

ORIGINAL: Outdoor Adventures

Ive been hearing a lot about the Pa elk from hunters. They feel that Pa elk hunt is no more than a canned hunt. Many view the elk every year and find them holding back traffic and laying in peoples yards next to Halloween decorations. Many pay no attention to people. I also heard comments about not being fair chase. What's your opinion ?

old traditional range

As I recall those adjectives were used to define folks that ignore, not willing to accept facts, do illegal things, are anti-hunting, anti-PGC no matter what, post things that are not true, etc, etc.. in general it was intended for those that "the shoe fits" ....

I do not recall RSB using those terms to define all folks that do not agree with the PGC ....

ORIGINAL: Outdoor Adventures

HOW MUCH MONEY GOES OUT FOR DAMAGE ??

You see that many slobs and violaters you better have the PGC on speed dial or you are just as equally a slob for not reporting it.