Metropolitan State University of Denver

Elk Management in Rocky Mountain National Park

Environmental Policy and Planning ENV 4200

Kalli Hawkins4-23-2018

Abstract

Elk management within Rocky Mountain National Park has been an ever-adapting

complex issue. Due to the extermination of natural predators within Colorado in the late

1800’s, an increase in elk populations have occurred and degradation of vegetation within

Rocky Mountain National Park has been observed. The National Park implemented an

Elk and Vegetation Management Plan in 2008 as an effort to decrease the elk population

to a more natural number while preserving at risk aspen and willow populations. Elk

management methods implemented have been culling, fencing off areas within the winter

range, and contraceptive practices to female elk. The twenty-year management plan has

proved to be successful so far with re-evaluation of population numbers annually. As we

progress into changing administration policies and an unknown changing climate,

analysis into the sustainability of the current Elk and Vegetation Management Plan needs

to be assessed.

PAGE 1

Introduction

There was a conservation and environmental movement that started in the

beginning of the 1900’s, developed and primarily lead by conservationist and president at

the time Theodore Roosevelt. He along with another well-known naturalist, John Muir;

wanted to preserve areas of land where humans would have minimal impact on

ecosystems and wildlife. Roosevelt and Muir strived to protect specific regions across the

United States with the establishment of National Parks. The following president to take

office, Woodrow Wilson continued with the preservation of pristine landscapes. He

signed the Rocky Mountain National Park Act on January 26, 1915 and the Rocky

Mountain National Park was then formed (National Park Service, 2017). The National

Park Service states that “The current NPS policy is to manage natural resources to

preserve fundamental physical and biological processes, as well as individual species,

features, and plant and animal communities” (Fix et al., 2010).

The park in total spans 415 square miles and has a diverse topography, containing

three ecological zones; Montane, Subalpine, and Alpine Tundra. Below I have attached a

topographic map of the Rocky Mountain National Park. As displayed in the map, the park

is bordered by towns such as Grand Lake to the west and Estes Park, Lyons, Boulder to

the East and is only a short distance from the city of Denver.

PAGE 2

Rocky Mountain National Park Map. (National Park Service, 2017).

The Rocky Mountain National Park in addition to it’s diverse topography has a

dynamic variety of species that live in each ecological zone. Ungulates, hooved mammals

such as elk are regulatory migrating mammals and tend to spend the hot summer months

in higher elevations where it is cooler and in the winter months the herds will move to

lower elevations where the snowpack is less intense and where it will be easier to find a

source of food. The area that the elk migrate to during the winter months is known as the

winter range. “This winter range encompasses approximately 10,000 ha in five major

valleys in the upper montane zone along the park boundary near the town of Estes Park,

Colorado. The elk winter range includes areas where elk concentrate during winter

PAGE 3

(Moraine Park, Beaver Meadows, Horseshoe Park) that are referred to as the “core” elk

winter range and other areas that elk use to a lesser degree, referred to as the “noncore”

winter range.” (Zeigenfuss, L.C., Johnson, 2015). These winter ranges have come to be of

great concern in the recent decades as uncontrolled elk populations have begun to

degrade the vegetative fields. Below is a figure of the location of the winter ranges of the

elk within Rocky Mountain National Park.

.

Rocky Mountain National Park Elk Winter Range Map (Zeigenfuss, L.C., Johnson, 2015).

PAGE 4

Environmental Impacts

As the gold rush progressed out west in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s,

homesteading began to take place in areas such as Colorado. Certain species were hunted

to extinction or near extinction. Elk were one of these species as they were overhunted in

the late 1800’s resulting in a near complete extirpation of the species in Northern

Colorado. As an effort to replenish the species, forty-nine elk were taken from

Yellowstone National Park and were then introduced into the area that is now Rocky

Mountain National Park in 1913-1914 (Vanhoozer, n.d). After the elk were introduced,

increased hunting practices on predators were used to ensure the introduced elk had the

best chances of surviving. Predators such as grizzly bears and wolves were essentially

eliminated from Colorado. This proved to be successful as the elk population drastically

began to increase over the following years. However, with the ecosystem balance altered

the now ever-growing elk population began to cause destruction of the vegetation within

the park. “Many years of research indicated that high elk densities in Rocky Mountain

National Park were resulting in the complete loss of aspen clones or reduction of many

aspen on core winter-range areas to a shrub-like state” (Zeigenfuss, L.C., Johnson, 2015).

In the years of 1944-45 management plans were implemented to reduce the population of

1,000 elk in the park (Zeigenfuss, L.C., Johnson, 2015). At the time current objective

goals were to keep the elk population between 300-600. Over the course of the following

twenty years, management practices such as culling were used to reduce the population.

Culling is a conservation tool that uses targeted strategic practices in the lethal

reduction of the elk population. “The National Park Service defines culling as a

PAGE 5

conservation tool used “to reduce [ungulate] populations that have exceeded the carrying

capacity of their habitat.” Unlike hunting, which is recreational and involves fair chase,

culling is “done under very controlled circumstances in order to minimize impacts on

park operations, visitors, private inholdings and neighbors” (Vanhoozer, n.d.). In 1968, the

Rocky Mountain National Park achieved their target population goals and stopped

deliberate lethal reduction of the elk. However, in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s the elk

population had rebounded to 1,000 in the park and 2,000 in the surrounding town of Estes

Park and was now causing vegetative destruction again. “A recent analysis of historical

aerial photography showed that over the last 50-59 years willow cover has declined by

19-21%. These decreases were associated with 44-56% decreases in total stream channel

density, which was believed to be a consequence of reduced beaver activity”

(Coughenour, 2002). The effects of loss of vegetation along riparian areas began to

trickle down to other species habitats such as beavers and fish.

As an effort to combat and mitigate this rising problem the Rocky Mountain

National Park implemented an Elk and Vegetation Management Plan in 2008. They had

started research again in the early 2000’s to gather data for the Environmental Impact

Statement that was going to be used for the Management Plan. The purpose of this plan

was to study what the current populations of elk were within the park, and the specific

regions that were being affected by vegetation loss due to over grazing. Strategies were

proposed to reduce the elk populations to more natural levels, as well as strategies to

conserve the aspen and willow plants. The plan was based on a 20-year period with

reviews of progress every five years. The plan consisted of management plans such as

PAGE 6

reusing culling, fencing of specific willow and aspen species, and various sterilization

methods for female elk.

Every year the management plan is adjusted based on the successfulness of

culling practices and other targeted reduction practices that are observed. Each year the

National Park Service will set population reduction goals for culling practices. To have

the least impact or effect on the public, culling practices typically will take place in the

early mornings during the winter months. The process of culling involves staff within the

National Park Service (NPS) as well as other federal agencies such as Colorado Parks and

Wildlife (CPW). “A work group of NPS and CPW staff developed a process to identify

and recruit qualified volunteers to assist agency staff in the elk culling operations. For all

recruitment efforts, applicants were required to submit a comprehensive application, pass

a background investigation, complete an interview process, and complete and pass a

comprehensive training” (National Park Service, 2017). In 2008, twenty-nine volunteers

were hired to assist in the culling practices. One beneficial result of the culling practices

is the distribution of elk meat to the public. The meat is given to Colorado Parks and

Wildlife and is tested for Chronic Waste Disease (CWD), if proved to be negative it is

then distributed through a lottery system to the public who have previously applied.

“Since winter culling in January 2009 through February 2011, a total of 47 animals have

been disbursed to the public” (National Park Service, 2017). In addition to the culling

practices, fencing of riparian areas that have been greatly affected have been

implemented throughout the park. Various National Park Service staff have set up

cameras throughout the park to study crucial areas that have been degraded by the elk.

Another management tool used is the injection of a contraceptives, “Fertility control

PAGE 7

offers a potential nonlethal method for reducing abundance of elk populations when

lethal methods are not acceptable” (Conner et al., 2007). This method of essentially

sterilizing certain female elk so they lose the ability to reproduce annually has proven to

be successful in other National Park management plans across the United States.

However, one could argue that this could be a form of selective breeding.

A case study of elk management practices that has been studied has been

Yellowstone National Park. Yellowstone experienced a similar issue where due to

decreased predator populations, the elk population was able to thrive and in turn began to

cause degradation to plant species as well as negatively influence multiple ecosystems.

As an effort to solve the issue the National Park Service decided to reintroduce wolves, a

keystone species into the park. “From 1995 to 1997, 41 wild wolves from Canada and

northwest Montana were released in Yellowstone National Park” (National Park Service,

2017). Since the mid 1990’s when the wolves were introduced they have been closely

managed and proved to be a successful management tool for the National Park. A

reduction in the elk population has been observed as well as restoration of a multitude of

various ecosystem elements. Having reintroduced a hierarchal species back into the

natural ecosystem was exponential in restoring other species and their habitats such as

beavers, fish, insects, and plants species.

Economic Impacts

One of the benefits of the expansive elk population would be experienced most in

the neighboring town of Estes Park. The small mountain town that borders the Rocky

PAGE 8

Mountain National Park was established in 1859 and through the years has transitioned

into the town known as the ‘Gateway to the Rocky Mountain National Park’. The town

has seen an increase in economic benefits due to the ever-growing elk population. If you

drive through the town, typically in specific months of the year it is almost guaranteed

that you will see a herd of elk. This has drawn tourists from all over the United States and

proved to be financially beneficial for the small town. “Gateway communities such as

Estes Park benefit economically from an in-flux of visitors in the fall when people come

to experience elk bugling in the park. Residents and local businesses in these areas also

experience elk-related damage to landscaping (e.g., greens on golf courses), and, in some

cases, threats to human safety (e.g., elk charging people, elk–vehicle collisions)” (Fix et

al., 2010). Despite the financial benefits from the increased elk populations in the recent

years there has been pushback from the homeowners as they have begun to see

destruction to their personal property. This ties into the direct human impact that the

increased herd populations have on an also ever growing human population in the region.

Human Impacts

As per required for an Environmental Impact Statement, public comments and

concerns must be considered. In the years leading up to the 2008 Elk and Vegetation

Management Plan, public opinion and comments were gathered. Multiple public

meetings were held, and survey forms were distributed through the mail. The public was

asked for their opinions on how the elk population should be managed within the park.

Below I have attached a figure of the public’s proposals and results that were gathered.

PAGE 9

Public Scoping Comments Figure. (United States, 2007)

As you can see, elk population management was highly supported and understood.

However, there were multiple alternatives such as wolf reintroduction, and hunting inside

the park proposed.

The proposed alternative such as reintroduction of wolves in the park would

certainly have human impacts. The main concern is that the wolf population may not stay

in the park boundaries and would then begin to affect livestock populations surrounding

the park. If this was the case the National Park Service would have to reimburse each

farmer for each livestock lost. In addition, the cooperation between multiple agencies

would need to take place if wolves were reintroduced. The National Park Service handles

wildlife and ecosystem management within the park, whereas the surrounding area

outside the park consists of Bureau of Land Management, public land, and private

property. Wildlife outside of the park is handled by United States Fish and Wildlife

PAGE 10

Service and Colorado Parks and Wildlife. It would take the collaboration of multiple

agencies to discuss all possible scenarios of how to handle a predator being reintroduced

into the state. There are definite pros and cons of the proposal of reintroducing wolves

into the Rocky Mountain National Park. Benefits would be reimplementation of a

keystone species, this would not only help to reduce the elk population but would also

replenish other ecosystem entities such as, vegetation, beaver populations, trout and other

native fish populations just as what was observed in Yellowstone National Park.

However, the National Park Service has stated that the cons outweigh the benefits

currently. There are too many variables to consider and a higher density of a human

population surrounding the Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP). “RMNP is one-

ninth the size of Yellowstone, is an hour away from Denver, and is situated within a

matrix of private and public lands with different management objectives. They argue it

would be difficult if not impossible to keep the predators from harassing livestock and

communities outside the park’s boundaries” (Vanhooser, n.d).

The second alternative proposed by the public was opening the park to public

hunting to reduce the elk population. Public hunting was proposed in the Environmental

Impact Assessment as an alternative. Some of the factors that were discussed were that it

would have a negative impact on the park as well as on the park visitors. Essentially it

would limit areas where park recreation visitors could not go if hunting was

implemented. Visitor safety could potentially be compromised and that was of upmost

importance. The park is adamant about their image, “The National Park Service preserves

unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the National Park System for

the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations” (National Park

PAGE 11

Service, 2017). Also, if the Rocky Mountain National Park did open it up to public

hunting, there is concern over the ethics of each individual hunter. The hunting practices

as well as the individual hunter’s morals would need to align with what the National

Park’s image represents. That could prove to be a hard thing to regulate and is why the

management tool of culling by professional National Park and Colorado Parks and

Wildlife staff is used instead.

This topic of culling and managing the elk population has raised some pushback

from the public. The image and representation of what the National Park Service is

supposed to project as an unaltered, untouched space that embodies wilderness unaffected

by humans can seem contradictory to their current management practices. The

management plans of culling, sterilization of certain female elk, and fencing off areas

seems to challenge what the National Park Service encompasses. To essentially let

nature, be nature is an argument presented by organizations and various people in the

public that oppose the current management tools. The overall consensus is that ‘nature

will take care of itself or it will work itself out’. However, that is a naïve statement.

Humans have unequivocally changed certain natural processes within ecosystems. For

example, the extirpation of predators in the early 1900s. So, to state that we shouldn’t

further have our hand in how nature and species populations interact is to not fully

understand the situation as a whole. Due to our misguided efforts of our ancestors we

now have an issue that we must continue to keep our hand in to ensure that we can

protect and conserve all ecosystems and species within to the best of our ability.

PAGE 12

Conclusion

As we progress in a continued changing climate future, changes to our current

ecological management plans will need to change and adapt as well. Currently the

management practices of culling, fencing, and restoring vegetation within the park are

working to mitigate the issue. However, a growing problem will the be the increase in

warmer temperatures and how that will affect the parasites that feed off ungulates such as

deer, and elk populations. If an onset of a tick infestation and or if a massive outbreak of

chronic waste disease takes place there is a potential that we could lose a large part of our

elk population. Our management plans will need to adjust annually to deal with this

potential problem. Currently, I think the management plan is working to reduce and

maintain the elk population however, I worry with the current defunding of our National

Park Service agencies as well as the variable of a changing climate, if our current

management practices will be sustainable.

When I started out on this paper I had in my mind that I had a potential solution to

the problem. I wanted to propose opening the park to public hunting on a very restrictive

regulated process. To open the season on a lottery-based system where the price per tag

was a minimum of $5,000, and it would increase dependent on a bull or cow tag. Not

only would this be financially beneficial for the National Park Service in that they would

be receiving revenue in what is now a current defunded position but would also be

minimizing the elk and allowing new blood lines to emerge within the elk population.

Some of the laws attached to public hunting within the park that I had thought of was that

each individual hunter had to be accompanied by a National Park Service staff or guide to

PAGE 13

ensure that the National Park Service image and representation was being respected. In

addition, the individual hunter had the option to donate the meat to Colorado Parks and

Wildlife to be distributed to the public and would then gain additional points credited to

their tags for the following year. However, through my research I discovered that

congress had passed a law in 1929 that banned hunting in National Parks. If public

hunting was to be proposed and then opened to the public a bill would need to be passed

in congress which could take a substantial amount of time and resources.

In a world now, that is ever changing the lines between conservation and

preservation are becoming blurred. Conservation can be seen as the protection of a

species, natural resource, or ecosystem service. Whereas preservation can be seen as the

careful management of the quality of each of those entities. “A conservationist is one

who is humbly aware that with each stroke [of the axe] he is writing his signature on the

face of the land” (Aldo Leopold, 1949). The National Park Service must straddle the

boundary between these two, to ensure that they are currently protecting what currently

exists and to then preserve to the best of their ability each resource through various

management plans for this and for future generations.

PAGE 14

References

Conner, M.M., Baker, D.L., Wild, M.A., Powers, J.G., Hussain, M.D., Dunn, R.L., &

Nett, T.M. (2007). Fertility control in free-ranging elk using gonadotropin-

releasing hormone agonist leuprolide: Effects on reproduction, behavior, and

body condition. Journal of Wildlife Management, 71(7), 2346-2356.

doi:10.2193/2006-463

Coughenour, MB. (2002). Elk in the Rocky Mountain National Park Ecosystem - A

Model-Based Assessment. Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory - CSU. Fort

Collins, Colorado

Fix, P. J., Teel, T. L., Manfredo, M. J., & Boston, S. S. (2010). Assessing public

acceptance of wildlife management trade-offs: A case study of elk and vegetation

management in rocky mountain national park, colorado. Human Dimensions of

Wildlife, 15(6), 405-417. doi:10.1080/10871209.2010.503235

Leopold, Aldo. (1949). A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press, Inc.

National Park Service [Website]. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.nps.gov/

United States. National Park Service. (2007). Rocky mountain national park (N.P.), elk

and vegetation management plan: Environmental impact statement

Vanhoozer, Dane M. (n.d). Colorado Encyclopedia. Retrieved from

https://coloradoencyclopedia.org/article/elk-culling

Wang, G., Thompson Hobbs, N., Singer, F. J., Ojima, D. S., & Lubow, B. C. (2002).

Impacts of climate changes on elk population dynamics in rocky mountain

PAGE 15

national park, Colorado, U.S.A. Climatic Change, 54(1), 205-223.

doi:10.1023/A:1015725103348

Zeigenfuss, L. C., Johnson, T. L., United States. National Park Service, & Geological

Survey (U.S.). (2015). Monitoring of vegetation response to elk population and

habitat management in rocky mountain national park, 2008-14. (No. 2015-1216.).

Reston, Virginia: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.

PAGE 16