[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 3]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 4568-4569]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  INTRODUCTION OF BILL REGARDING MANAGEMENT OF ELK IN ROCKY MOUNTAIN 
                             NATIONAL PARK

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, February 16, 2007

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I am today introducing a bill 
to clarify the authority of the Secretary of the Interior with regard 
to managing elk in Rocky Mountain National Park.
  Elk are a major attraction for visitors to Rocky Mountain National 
Park and nearby Estes Park, attracting thousands of people who come to 
enjoy viewing them and listening to the bulls bugle in late summer and 
early fall.
  But while the elk are a true asset, their numbers are a concern, 
Property damage and human safety concerns in Estes Park have increased 
as elk increasingly use parks, golf courses, and yards in close 
proximity to people and they are also causing adverse effects on the 
other resources of the park itself. This has led the National Park 
Service to consider possible steps to address this by reducing the 
number of elk within the park. My bill is intended to resolve a 
question that has arisen about how this might be done.
  Some historical perspective is useful in understanding the situation.
  Elk, or wapiti, are native to the area that includes Rocky Mountain 
National Park, but hunters had all but eliminated them by the 1870s--
and by early in the Twentieth Century, wolves, their only significant 
predator in the area, had disappeared as well.

[[Page 4569]]

  They were reintroduced in 1913 and 1914, shortly before Rocky 
Mountain National Park was established in 1915. Since then, because of 
the lack of any significant predation--by wolves, other animals, or 
people--the park's elk population has flourished. By the early 1930s, 
it had increased so much that the National Park Service became 
concerned about resulting deteriorating vegetation conditions on their 
winter range.
  Starting in 1944, the elk population was limited, primarily by having 
rangers cull the herd by shooting some of the elk but also by some 
trapping and transplanting. For the next 25 years, the number of elk 
using Rocky Mountain National Park was maintained between 350 and 800 
animals.
  This ended in 1969, when a ``natural regulation'' policy--meaning no 
active management within the park--was instituted. In part, this was 
because the National Park Service thought hunting in adjacent areas 
would control the elk population in and near the park.
  But since then, the park's elk numbers have continued to increase and 
vegetation changes have been observed, particularly a decline in willow 
and aspen on the elk's primary winter range.
  As a result, the National Park Service has been reconsidering the 
appropriate size for the park's elk population and ways to address the 
problem of chronic wasting disease, CWD, a fatal brain disease known to 
affect deer and elk, which has been detected in elk within the park. 
Research begun in 1994 was aimed at gathering critical information 
needed to provide a scientific basis for a new management plan.
  I have been following this matter with interest, and last year I 
wrote the National Park Service about the four alternatives discussed 
in their draft environmental impact statement, DEIS, on the subject.
  As I said in that letter, while I am not a wildlife biologist, my own 
observations and discussions of the matter with both nearby residents 
and people with some professional expertise led me to conclude that the 
document correctly identified adverse consequences for aspen trees and 
other vegetation that would result from continued high elk densities in 
the park. Accordingly, as my letter said, I support action to reduce 
the numbers of elk in the park to something like the numbers that would 
be expected under natural conditions.
  One option discussed in the DEIS would be release of a limited number 
of gray wolves, in order to return a natural predator that could 
control elk numbers. However, the DEIS notes that this would involve 
``numerous uncertainties,'' including ``whether park managers could 
effectively control wolf behavior and movements and keep wolves in the 
park,'' which I think is a source of valid concern for ranchers who 
operate on nearby lands and for other park neighbors. And, in any case, 
the DEIS indicates that it would still be necessary for there to be 
``lethal reduction''--meaning shooting of elk--at least for some time 
because the small number of wolves would not be enough to accomplish 
the desired reduction in the number of elk in the park.
  So, as I noted in my letter, I readily understand why this has not 
been identified as the preferred alternative.
  Instead, the DEIS said it would be preferable to have people cull the 
elk herd by ``lethal reduction''--meaning the shooting of selected 
animals to reduce the overall numbers to a more appropriate level.
  The DEIS identified two ``lethal reduction'' scenarios, differing 
mainly in the number of elk to be shot: 100 to 200 annually over 20 
years or 200 to 700 elk annually for four years and after that 25 to 
150 elk annually for 15 years. The DEIS says ``adaptive use of wolves'' 
could eventually become part of the second scenario, and it identified 
it as the preferred alternative.
  I think the DEIS did a good job of providing reasons for that choice. 
However, as I said in my letter, I think serious consideration should 
be given to some changes in its implementation--particularly by 
exploring ways to increase participation by Colorado sportsmen and 
sportswomen.
  There are several reasons I think this should be explored, especially 
the potential for significant savings to the taxpayers.
  The DEIS estimates that implementing the preferred alternative would 
cost between about $16.55 million and $18.26 million over the next 20 
years, with ``labor'' accounting for between $6.55 million and $7.37 
million of those totals. Evidently, these ``labor'' costs would be 
mostly for compensating the people doing the shooting, between 3 and 10 
FTEs, with a smaller amount for administration (1.5 FTEs).
  As I indicated in my letter, I think the National Park Service should 
explore the possibility that those costs could be substantially reduced 
by offering qualified Coloradans an opportunity to take part--under the 
strict guidance and direction of the National Park Service--either 
without compensation or for less compensation than the amounts on which 
the DEIS estimates were based.
  Having reviewed my letter and other public comments on the DEIS, the 
National Park Service is now moving toward a decision on how to go 
about reducing the number of elk in Rocky Mountain National Park. That 
is what they should be doing.
  But I am concerned that some of their statements in a recent meeting 
with Colorado wildlife officials suggest they have mistakenly concluded 
that they do not have the legal authority to act along the lines I 
suggested. My bill is intended to make it clear that they do have that 
authority.
  At the meeting, the National Park Service distributed a paper 
entitled ``Legal Analysis of Hunting within Rocky Mountain National 
Park.'' I am not a lawyer, and I do not dispute the accuracy of that 
paper. But I do dispute its relevance--because what is involved here is 
not ``hunting,'' as that term is generally used, but instead a plan to 
reduce elk numbers by having people selected by the National Park 
Service and acting in accordance with its instructions shoot specified 
numbers of animals over specified periods of time.
  So, the question is not whether the National Park Service plans to 
have elk shot--it does. The question is whether the National Park 
Service has the authority to consider allowing qualified Coloradans--
specifically, those who have hunting licenses and who meet whatever 
qualifications the National Park Service may set--do the shooting.
  My bill would resolve that question by making it clear that the laws 
applicable to Rocky Mountain National Park do not prevent the National 
Park Service from doing that.
  It also would require the National Park Service to consult with the 
Colorado Division of Wildlife regarding the possible participation of 
that state agency in implementing the new plan for managing elk in the 
park. I have included that provision because, while management of the 
park is and should remain the sole responsibility of the National Park 
Service, I think the Service should at least discuss the matter to see 
whether the Division of Wildlife can be helpful in addressing this 
matter of concern to both agencies and the public.
  I think my bill can help the National Park Service to move forward to 
resolve a real management problem in a cost-effective manner.
  For the benefit of our colleagues, here is an outline of the 
legislation:
  Section 1 provides definitions of terms used in the bill
  Section 2 states that nothing in the laws applicable to management of 
Rocky Mountain National Park is to be construed as prohibiting the 
Interior Department from using the services of qualified individuals, 
as volunteers or under contract, from assisting in implementation of 
the new elk and vegetation management plan by using lethal means to 
reduce the park's elk population. The term ``qualified individuals'' 
means people with Colorado resident big-game hunting licenses who have 
whatever other qualifications the National Park Service may set after 
consulting with the Colorado Division of Wildlife. This section would 
not require the National Park Service to use the services of qualified 
Coloradans, but it would make clear that there is no legal obstacle to 
their doing so.
  Section 3 would require the National Park Service to consult with the 
Colorado Division of Wildlife regarding that state agency's possible 
participation in implementing the new plan to manage elk in the park. 
This would not require such participation, but it would require the 
National Park Service to consider it.
  Section 4 states that nothing in the bill is to be construed as 
applying to the taking of wildlife within the park for any purpose 
other than implementation of the new elk management plan.

                          ____________________