All Recent Comments
Mar 28th - 16:02pm | ecbuck
Nowhere in the enabling legislation does it allow for hunting on either federal, state, or private lands within the park's boundaries outside of the annual elk culling. It has no jurisdiction over those lands to allow or prevent hunting as acknowledge by "The park shall comprise, subject to valid existing rights,...."
Mar 28th - 15:57pm | Gary Wilson
Because, the consequences is carnivore species are mostly minimized in the process, and that goes against the National Park Service mission because it creates an impariment of cultural resources.
Mar 28th - 15:57pm | Kurt Repanshek
Having an ecosystem in balance should be the goal, no? A natural, not artificial, balance. But that's a pretty lofty goal in this crowded world.As for som sai's comments, that interpretation was not part of the enabling legislation for Grand Teton:
Mar 28th - 15:44pm | ecbuck
As Gary notes, too often it is designed to bolster prey for hunters, and not predators to naturally manage prey.
Mar 28th - 15:39pm | Kurt Repanshek
Well, that's a discussion that could go in many directions. Personally, I have no objections to hunting. But the feeding grounds have been identified as a source of disease, and some would say artificially inflate elk numbers beyond carrying capacity.
Mar 28th - 15:30pm | ecbuck
That perhaps is true Kurt, but what would be gained by that? From what I can see, having the feeding grounds and a brief hunt does not harm while providing recreation and food for a good number.
Mar 28th - 15:25pm | Gary Wilson
Mission: 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.
Mar 28th - 14:39pm | Kurt Repanshek
My guess is that if Wyoming's elk feeding grounds were closed, the elk problem would solve itself and there would be no need to cull/hunt elk inside Grand Teton.
Mar 28th - 14:36pm | ecbuck
Obviously, it didn't register Because once again it didn't provide an answer. If it does no harm or even is beneficial, why ban it.
Mar 28th - 14:32pm | ecbuck
There is nothing scientific about the elk hunt in Grand Teton National Park Do you have any science to indicate it is detrimental? Seems it was a pretty attractive trade, to get GTNP (or its predecessor) for a hunt that has no ill effects.
Mar 28th - 14:16pm | Alfred Runte
So now we believe in science. But what if the scientists have a hidden agenda? What if, in working for a federal agency, they do exactly as they are told?
Mar 28th - 14:06pm | Gary Wilson
Once again, you asked and I gave you an answer. Obviously, it didn't register. Once again, in NPS lands, carnivores are usually a key component, and especially in the Yellowstone ecosystem they play a key role, which is usually not allowed to occur in other areas outside of the boundaries, because these state game agencies intentionally try and mininimize the role of grizzlies, wolv
Mar 28th - 14:05pm | ecbuck
Obviously, it didn't register, The only thing that has registered is your wild conspiracy theories about various wildlife agencies. The question, which you continue to refuse to answer is "If the science says there will be no ill effects and maybe even a beneficial impact, why not allow hunting".
Mar 28th - 13:57pm | Gary Wilson
delete post.. duplicate.
Mar 28th - 13:30pm | ecbuck
Gary the issue isn't ungulates versus carnivores. The issue that was being discussed was hunting in general. If the science shows there is no ill effects on the ecosystem, I see no logical reason to ban it.
Mar 28th - 13:26pm | Gary Wilson
Because, ungulate species in the USFS and state game land are usually unnaturally inflated to keep the fish and game agencies in the state afloat because that's their bread and butter money when they sell tags. Whereas in the NPS, that is not the case, and not a factor, and carnivore species are protected and not intentionally minimized so that the F&G agency can promote unnaturally l
Mar 28th - 13:00pm | ecbuck
So quit putting words in my mouth, What words did I put in your mouth? You have a problem with consumptive on NPS lands. I don't - at least not if the science indicates they won't be destructive to the long term health of the ecosystem. I will ask again, what makes an Elk in GTNP any more sacrosanct then one in a National Forest.
Mar 28th - 12:35pm | Gary Wilson
I don't have a problem with consumptive use in USFS areas or state game lands. Where I have a problem with it is in NPS lands. So quit putting words in my mouth, overlord troll.
Mar 28th - 12:21pm | ecbuck
I think the better description would be non-consumptive visitation vs consumptive. Sorry Gary, I don't see anything inherently evil in consumptive actives, especially with a renewable resource.
Mar 28th - 12:17pm | Gary Wilson
I think the better description would be non-consumptive visitation vs consumptive. Consumptive use would assume they would be doing something like hunting, removing fish, logging, rock hounding etc. Non-consumptive use would be wildlife watching, skiiing, going on a hike, backpacking, or just road trekking etc.
Mar 28th - 12:16pm | ecbuck
Hunting typically is not permitted in "national parks,"
Mar 28th - 11:50am | Kurt Repanshek
Hunting typically is not permitted in "national parks," though it is in national preserves. Camping, fishing, and boating traditionally are permitted. Beyond that, no one is arguing that camping, fishing, and boating should be banned from Grand Teton...though there are plenty of places elsewhere in Wyoming for those activities.
Mar 28th - 11:46am | ecbuck
On what basis do you make that distinction Kurt?
Mar 28th - 11:22am | Kurt Repanshek
You're comparing apples (hunting) with oranges (camping, fishing, boating) when it comes to national parks and what they can be used for.
Mar 28th - 11:20am | ecbuck
Really?!?? With all the national forest lands, BLM lands, state lands, and private ranches that allow hunting? Did you read the whole sentence? I find in no more valid than to argue that camping, fishing, boating.... should be banned because there are "plenty of other places" to do those activities.
Mar 28th - 11:14am | Kurt Repanshek
I don't buy his argument that are "plenty of other places to hunt". Really?!?? With all the national forest lands, BLM lands, state lands, and private ranches that allow hunting?
Mar 28th - 11:13am | ecbuck
you'll have to take up your questions with USFWS and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, No Kurt, they calculate the revenues but they aren't the ones making the bogus comparisons.
Mar 28th - 11:07am | ecbuck
SO stating that they are paying 0 in fees is wrong.
Mar 28th - 11:00am | Gary Wilson
EC, most of the people paying gate fees at Yellowstone/Grand Tetons, which is by the way the biggest tourism related revenue generating machines in the entire state of Wyoming are voting with their wallet to go to a place to see wildlife/nature. SO stating that they are paying 0 in fees is wrong. Same can be said when they purchase a boat permit to go on a rafting adventure, or pay
Mar 28th - 10:43am | Alfred Runte
Can we please get past the argument of what the national parks "pay" the country? As J. Horace McFarland noted a century ago, our health and patriotism were the real beneficiaries, "which would make the parks worth while, if there were not a cent of revenue in it, and if every visitor to the parks meant that the Government would have to pay a tax of $1 simply to get him there."
Mar 28th - 10:26am | Kurt Repanshek
EC, you'll have to take up your questions with USFWS and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, which calculated those revenues.
Mar 28th - 10:18am | ecbuck
Retail sales accounts for $350 million in Wyoming.
Mar 28th - 09:56am | Kurt Repanshek
Retail sales accounts for $350 million in Wyoming. Here's the link:http://digitalmedia.fws.gov/cdm/ref/collection/document/id/1906
Mar 28th - 09:31am | ecbuck
Or roughly 10 times what hunting specifically brought in Only if you limit what hunting "brought in" to the license fees. How much in license fees did "animal watching" bring in? The link in your earlier post indicated $175 million in total local and state taxes from tourism so how does animal watching bring in $350 million?
Mar 28th - 09:17am | Kurt Repanshek
Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. As I noted, there was a separate, $350 million, breakout on wildlife watching specifically. Or roughly 10 times what hunting specifically brought in. So no matter how you want to cut it, according to those sources, wildlife watching brings in roughly 10 times what hunting brings in.
Mar 28th - 09:14am | ecbuck
EC, looks like Wyoming hunting revenues are about $33 million per year, and tourism is about $3.4 BILLION. And those hunters don't spend any tourism dollars and every tourist is touring for the purpose of animal watching?
Mar 28th - 09:04am | Kurt Repanshek
EC, looks like Wyoming hunting revenues are about $33 million per year, and tourism is about $3.4 BILLION.https://www.hcn.org/issues/46.8/hunting-for-conservation-dollars/hunting...
Mar 28th - 16:01pm | SmokiesBackpacker
The Divine Right of Kings.
Mar 28th - 14:10pm | Still Hiking
Having supported this cause from the outset, i finally saw the futility of continuing the fight against a corrupt federal government agency. Especially with a two bit pro bono lawyer at the helm.And furthermore washed my hands of Quillen after he turned vulgar towards former friends who dared not continue to go along with his vindictive ways.
Mar 28th - 15:53pm | Anonymous
It is relavent to note that the NPS is still pursuing funding to buy the remaining 1200 acres of state school land in Grand Teton. The $85 million dollar price tag may seem unreasonable with all the talk of a maintenance backlog but its the best way to ensure that lands not owned by the NPS are managed according to NPS policy.
Mar 28th - 15:31pm | som sai
I support scientific wildlife management as establishde by Aldo Leopold and implemented by among others, our US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and Wyoming Fish and Game. Scientific Wildlife Management uses hunting as one of it's primary tools.
Mar 28th - 14:39pm | Leslie Lund
I am appalled by the lack of concern for and long term care for wildlife. Traps have been banned in Europe for decades since the cruel and inhumane way in which they make animals is torture and animal abuse. The FBI now keeps a listing of animal abusers, any hunters using traps or snares should be added to this list. These people are more likely to become criminals and harm other humans.
Mar 28th - 12:30pm | Ray Bane
There is no excuse for voluntarily ceeding jurisdiction over park lands and resources unless specifically directed to do so by valid legislation or the direction of the courts. It is difficult to understand why the NPS would take such a step knowing the likely impacts that would result to park resources and values.
Mar 28th - 11:33am | Nudy
It seems our national parks are dying a slow, torturous death, caught in the traps of greed and politics....
Mar 28th - 11:24am | Suzi White
This is absolutely outrageous and can not be allowed to happen!
Mar 28th - 11:49am | ecbuck
Tahoma, your four horsemen will certainly play a role but I think going back to personal responsibility and less free stuff could be important contributors as well.
Mar 28th - 11:26am | tahoma
Thanks to Dr Runte for daring to raise the critical, but forbidden, issue of overpopulation again.
Mar 28th - 10:24am | Alfred Runte
Yes, it takes two to make a baby, but the problem worldwide is the absence of women's rights. While in the Army, my brother served two years in the Middle East. He will be glad to tell you how they treat women. I am not talking so much about the United States--unless we want to accuse ourselves of overconsumption again.
Mar 28th - 10:10am | Kurt Repanshek
Steven, just fyi, and perhaps you know, but the Traveler is not connected with the Park Service. As for Cape Cod National Seashore, they do have some restrictions as to where pets can go, and when they are on the national seashore, they are required to be leashed.
Mar 28th - 09:59am | Steven Carothers
There are two types of people in this world. Those who want to be left alone and those who will not leave them alone. The Federal Gov't is full of the 2nd type. The space in question is less than .001% of the total recreational area. Do you think that could be spare it for us poor dog owners? Do you think the creatures in the park could spare the space?