Final mountain goat management plan for Olympic National Park released

[520backyard]

https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7491&context=etd

Public opinion once saved the mountain goats in ONP. Let's hope it happens again. I am working on doing my part through various different avenues of approach. Plan B (relocation)it's the only choice!!!!!!

I believe that ship has sailed. The plan has been out for a while, public meetings were held, Tribes, WDFW, and ONP want this to happen. In reality I think hunters should want this to happen too. I cant find the budget numbers anywhere but when I looked at them they seemed reasonable given the terrain.

Why i think hunters should be for the transfer. 1) moving 300 goats (hopefully more) into areas with prime native habitat and low native goat numbers should augment the population and possibly open up more permit opportunities in the future. 2) These goats aren't from the cascades they are actually from Alaska and will add genetic diversity to cascade goats who have shown signs of being compartmentalized by freeways and highways. 3) The park is set on eliminating goats, we should want to move as many as possible before they are culled. 4) where these goats are being moved is directionally related to areas with historically high goat numbers so the vegetation, mineral nutrition and topography should be ideal to potentially create high goat numbers like the park was producing. 5) Lots of parties have been working for years to get this plan hammered out and like all plans with conflicting points of view its not perfect but everyone is giving up something... if this gets dropped who knows what the next plan will be? Possibly eliminating all goats without moving any?

Well I think the ship hasn't sailed quite yet, do not underestimate the power of public opinion. The alternative plan has not yet been selected from ABC or D. Do I think that relocating the goats is good for all concerned yes I do plan B is an excellent option plan D not so much. And if you read the plan it says they will relocate as many as "viably" possible it does not set a number in stone. This means they will relocate as many as funds and safety allow, it is much cheaper and safer to shoot them than relocate them. There are more areas than the North Cascades that will support healthy Mtn goat numbers such as central and southern cascade ranges, the population used to be above 8000 at one time in this state throughout the Cascades. The current population of goats in the state outside the parks is 2400 to 3400.

[bigtex]

Well if you really want to be look at the subject of problem goats and a reduction of the goat population in the Olympic National Park then you have to ask why were these goats not subject to a special hunt in the park? Contrary to popular belief it is not illegal under certain circumstances to hunt in the National Parks by federal law in fact quite the opposite is true. So read the below and then ask yourself why the hell wasn't this put on the table for consideration at reducing the goat population in the ONP in lieu of lethal removal and letting they lay where they drop. I get it's a national park and public safety is paramount but it's also a million acre park and there are short range weapons options to account for that.

TITLE 36–PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC PROPERTY CHAPTER I–NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR PART 2–RESOURCE PROTECTION, PUBLIC USE AND RECREATION–Table of Contents Sec. 2.2 Wildlife protection. (a) The following are prohibited: (1) The taking of wildlife, except by authorized hunting and trapping activities conducted in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section. (2) The feeding, touching, teasing, frightening or intentional disturbing of wildlife nesting, breeding or other activities. (3) Possessing unlawfully taken wildlife or portions thereof. (b) Hunting and trapping. (1) Hunting shall be allowed in park areas where such activity is specifically mandated by Federal statutory law. (2) Hunting may be allowed in park areas where such activity is specifically authorized as a discretionary activity under Federal statutory law if the superintendent determines that such activity is consistent with public safety and enjoyment, and sound resource management principles. Such hunting shall be allowed pursuant to special regulations. (3) Trapping shall be allowed in park areas where such activity is specifically mandated by Federal statutory law. (4) Where hunting or trapping or both are authorized, such activities shall be conducted in accordance with Federal law and the laws of the State within whose exterior boundaries a park area or a portion thereof is located. Nonconflicting State laws are adopted as a part of these regulations. (c) Except in emergencies or in areas under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, the superintendent shall consult with appropriate State agencies before invoking the authority of Sec. 1.5 for the purpose of restricting hunting and trapping or closing park areas to the taking of wildlife where such activities are mandated or authorized by Federal statutory law. (d) The superintendent may establish conditions and procedures for transporting lawfully taken wildlife through the park area. Violation of these conditions and procedures is prohibited. (e) The Superintendent may designate all or portions of a park area as closed to the viewing of wildlife with an artificial light. Use of an artificial light for purposes of viewing wildlife in closed areas is prohibited. (f) Authorized persons may check hunting and trapping licenses and permits; inspect weapons, traps and hunting and trapping gear for compliance with equipment restrictions; and inspect wildlife that has been taken for compliance with species, size and other taking restrictions. (g) The regulations contained in this section apply, regardless of land ownership, on all lands and waters within a park area that are under the legislative jurisdiction of the United States. [48 FR 30282, June 30, 1983, as amended at 49 FR 18450, Apr. 30, 1984; 51 FR 33264, Sept. 19, 1986; 52 FR 35240, Sept. 18, 1987]

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is what you posted. The CFR are regulations written by the agency. The US Code (USC) is enacted by Congress. The USC overrides the CFR. In 1942 Congress enacted a law (16 USC 256b) banning hunting in Olympic National Park. So in this case Congress' action overrides the CFR you posted. Now, if Congress had never passed that law/changes the law then the NPS could look at hunting in the park.

[520backyard]

Well if you really want to be look at the subject of problem goats and a reduction of the goat population in the Olympic National Park then you have to ask why were these goats not subject to a special hunt in the park? Contrary to popular belief it is not illegal under certain circumstances to hunt in the National Parks by federal law in fact quite the opposite is true. So read the below and then ask yourself why the hell wasn't this put on the table for consideration at reducing the goat population in the ONP in lieu of lethal removal and letting they lay where they drop. I get it's a national park and public safety is paramount but it's also a million acre park and there are short range weapons options to account for that.

TITLE 36–PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC PROPERTY CHAPTER I–NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR PART 2–RESOURCE PROTECTION, PUBLIC USE AND RECREATION–Table of Contents Sec. 2.2 Wildlife protection. (a) The following are prohibited: (1) The taking of wildlife, except by authorized hunting and trapping activities conducted in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section. (2) The feeding, touching, teasing, frightening or intentional disturbing of wildlife nesting, breeding or other activities. (3) Possessing unlawfully taken wildlife or portions thereof. (b) Hunting and trapping. (1) Hunting shall be allowed in park areas where such activity is specifically mandated by Federal statutory law. (2) Hunting may be allowed in park areas where such activity is specifically authorized as a discretionary activity under Federal statutory law if the superintendent determines that such activity is consistent with public safety and enjoyment, and sound resource management principles. Such hunting shall be allowed pursuant to special regulations. (3) Trapping shall be allowed in park areas where such activity is specifically mandated by Federal statutory law. (4) Where hunting or trapping or both are authorized, such activities shall be conducted in accordance with Federal law and the laws of the State within whose exterior boundaries a park area or a portion thereof is located. Nonconflicting State laws are adopted as a part of these regulations. (c) Except in emergencies or in areas under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, the superintendent shall consult with appropriate State agencies before invoking the authority of Sec. 1.5 for the purpose of restricting hunting and trapping or closing park areas to the taking of wildlife where such activities are mandated or authorized by Federal statutory law. (d) The superintendent may establish conditions and procedures for transporting lawfully taken wildlife through the park area. Violation of these conditions and procedures is prohibited. (e) The Superintendent may designate all or portions of a park area as closed to the viewing of wildlife with an artificial light. Use of an artificial light for purposes of viewing wildlife in closed areas is prohibited. (f) Authorized persons may check hunting and trapping licenses and permits; inspect weapons, traps and hunting and trapping gear for compliance with equipment restrictions; and inspect wildlife that has been taken for compliance with species, size and other taking restrictions. (g) The regulations contained in this section apply, regardless of land ownership, on all lands and waters within a park area that are under the legislative jurisdiction of the United States. [48 FR 30282, June 30, 1983, as amended at 49 FR 18450, Apr. 30, 1984; 51 FR 33264, Sept. 19, 1986; 52 FR 35240, Sept. 18, 1987]

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is what you posted. The CFR are regulations written by the agency. The US Code (USC) is enacted by Congress. The USC overrides the CFR. In 1942 Congress enacted a law (16 USC 256b) banning hunting in Olympic National Park. So in this case Congress' action overrides the CFR you posted. Now, if Congress had never passed that law/changes the law then the NPS could look at hunting in the park.

Interesting thing is 16 USC 256b kicks it right back to the CFR's as to the discretionary powers available to the park superintendent.
All hunting or the killing, wounding, or capturing at any time of any wild bird or animal, except dangerous animals when it is necessary to prevent them from destroying human lives or inflicting personal injury, is prohibited within the limits of the park, nor shall any fish be taken out of any of the waters of the park, except at such seasons and at such times and in such manner as may be directed by the Secretary of the Interior.
The Secretary of the Interior shall make and publish such general rules and regulations as he may deem necessary and proper for the management and care of the park
 

[idaho guy]

Well if you really want to be look at the subject of problem goats and a reduction of the goat population in the Olympic National Park then you have to ask why were these goats not subject to a special hunt in the park? Contrary to popular belief it is not illegal under certain circumstances to hunt in the National Parks by federal law in fact quite the opposite is true. So read the below and then ask yourself why the hell wasn't this put on the table for consideration at reducing the goat population in the ONP in lieu of lethal removal and letting they lay where they drop. I get it's a national park and public safety is paramount but it's also a million acre park and there are short range weapons options to account for that.

TITLE 36–PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC PROPERTY CHAPTER I–NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR PART 2–RESOURCE PROTECTION, PUBLIC USE AND RECREATION–Table of Contents Sec. 2.2 Wildlife protection. (a) The following are prohibited: (1) The taking of wildlife, except by authorized hunting and trapping activities conducted in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section. (2) The feeding, touching, teasing, frightening or intentional disturbing of wildlife nesting, breeding or other activities. (3) Possessing unlawfully taken wildlife or portions thereof. (b) Hunting and trapping. (1) Hunting shall be allowed in park areas where such activity is specifically mandated by Federal statutory law. (2) Hunting may be allowed in park areas where such activity is specifically authorized as a discretionary activity under Federal statutory law if the superintendent determines that such activity is consistent with public safety and enjoyment, and sound resource management principles. Such hunting shall be allowed pursuant to special regulations. (3) Trapping shall be allowed in park areas where such activity is specifically mandated by Federal statutory law. (4) Where hunting or trapping or both are authorized, such activities shall be conducted in accordance with Federal law and the laws of the State within whose exterior boundaries a park area or a portion thereof is located. Nonconflicting State laws are adopted as a part of these regulations. (c) Except in emergencies or in areas under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, the superintendent shall consult with appropriate State agencies before invoking the authority of Sec. 1.5 for the purpose of restricting hunting and trapping or closing park areas to the taking of wildlife where such activities are mandated or authorized by Federal statutory law. (d) The superintendent may establish conditions and procedures for transporting lawfully taken wildlife through the park area. Violation of these conditions and procedures is prohibited. (e) The Superintendent may designate all or portions of a park area as closed to the viewing of wildlife with an artificial light. Use of an artificial light for purposes of viewing wildlife in closed areas is prohibited. (f) Authorized persons may check hunting and trapping licenses and permits; inspect weapons, traps and hunting and trapping gear for compliance with equipment restrictions; and inspect wildlife that has been taken for compliance with species, size and other taking restrictions. (g) The regulations contained in this section apply, regardless of land ownership, on all lands and waters within a park area that are under the legislative jurisdiction of the United States. [48 FR 30282, June 30, 1983, as amended at 49 FR 18450, Apr. 30, 1984; 51 FR 33264, Sept. 19, 1986; 52 FR 35240, Sept. 18, 1987]

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is what you posted. The CFR are regulations written by the agency. The US Code (USC) is enacted by Congress. The USC overrides the CFR. In 1942 Congress enacted a law (16 USC 256b) banning hunting in Olympic National Park. So in this case Congress' action overrides the CFR you posted. Now, if Congress had never passed that law/changes the law then the NPS could look at hunting in the park.

Interesting thing is 16 USC 256b kicks it right back to the CFR's as to the discretionary powers available to the park superintendent.
All hunting or the killing, wounding, or capturing at any time of any wild bird or animal, except dangerous animals when it is necessary to prevent them from destroying human lives or inflicting personal injury, is prohibited within the limits of the park, nor shall any fish be taken out of any of the waters of the park, except at such seasons and at such times and in such manner as may be directed by the Secretary of the Interior.
The Secretary of the Interior shall make and publish such general rules and regulations as he may deem necessary and proper for the management and care of the park

It seems like there is a way but saying "no hunting in a national park ever" is the easy way to dismiss that as an option. It would definitely take a lot more effort to allow hunting and create controversy for sure but the benefits would be worth it. I think relocating them is an awesome option but I am really skeptical of how much time, money and effort will go into that vs just shooting the hard to reach goats and leaving them lay. I would invest my own time and money If they made a real effort to relocate as many goats as possible only asking that some come to Idaho   Its seems like general laziness and wanting to take the easy(although way more expensive) route and bs politics. Really the main complaint I have had is the goats outside the park they should be relocated or public hunting period. Since I first heard about this I cant understand why a legitimate(lots of or unlimited tags) hunting season isn't the first and only option. Let hunters(more than 6) do their best and then go to plan b.  Using paid snipers on those goats is asinine. Wouldn't that be outside the parks authority?        

[James]

I guess in my mind, we need to treat this as an opportunity.

We conservationists we have done an amazing job rehabilitating, restoring and reintroducing North American big game animals to their native range.  White tail deer, turkeys, “Eastern Elk” etc. are amazing success, BUT we haven’t even scratched the surface of putting Mt Goats, Sheep, etc. back to proper levels.

While I can’t say I agree with the Parks conclusion that Mt goats are non native to ONP, If I was king I would push the park to come up with what they feel the carrying capacity of ONP is for goats and use a combination of relocation (to rebuild goat populations across their native range) and liberal hunting season outside the park to get the goat numbers to this mark.

Goats are never going to be recovered without relocation efforts, why not use this as an opportunity to have a Goat Hatchery of sorts? I know Hatcheries is a bad word these days, so maybe call it “Mt Goat reintroduction and restoration fountainhead” or something that all people that care about animals and the environment can get behind and support.

[520backyard]

I guess in my mind, we need to treat this as an opportunity.

We conservationists we have done an amazing job rehabilitating, restoring and reintroducing North American big game animals to their native range.  White tail deer, turkeys, “Eastern Elk” etc. are amazing success, BUT we haven’t even scratched the surface of putting Mt Goats, Sheep, etc. back to proper levels.

While I can’t say I agree with the Parks conclusion that Mt goats are non native to ONP, If I was king I would push the park to come up with what they feel the carrying capacity of ONP is for goats and use a combination of relocation (to rebuild goat populations across their native range) and liberal hunting season outside the park to get the goat numbers to this mark.

Goats are never going to be recovered without relocation efforts, why not use this as an opportunity to have a Goat Hatchery of sorts? I know Hatcheries is a bad word these days, so maybe call it “Mt Goat reintroduction and restoration fountainhead” or something that all people that care about animals and the environment can get behind and support.

That is the idea behind alternative B. They can continually relocate goats every year or two and greatly reduce their numbers and overall impact on the fauna in the park which seems to be the major reason for this eradication effort. Make no mistake you hit the nail on the head they will catch the easy ones and then go into slaughter mode. I got a case of beer says they will not even get close to half of those goats and they won't try too hard, it's much much cheaper to just shoot them. And that is exactly what early reports that were done on the goats state. Put it this way in 9 years they relocated 407 goats in 1981-1989. The current plan calls for  mountain goats would first
be captured and translocated in
years 1 to 2, with decreasing
feasibility or need in years 3, 4,
and 5. Management would switch
to lethal removal when mountain
goats become more difficult to
capture, there are no willing
recipients, funding becomes
limited, or it is no longer safe and
efficient to capture mountain
goats. Limited lethal removals in
some areas could start as early
as the fall of year 1 but are
expected to start following the
completion of the second round of
captures in year 2 using skilled
public volunteers and park staff.

[X-Force]

https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7491&context=etd

Public opinion once saved the mountain goats in ONP. Let's hope it happens again. I am working on doing my part through various different avenues of approach. Plan B (relocation)it's the only choice!!!!!!

I believe that ship has sailed. The plan has been out for a while, public meetings were held, Tribes, WDFW, and ONP want this to happen. In reality I think hunters should want this to happen too. I cant find the budget numbers anywhere but when I looked at them they seemed reasonable given the terrain.

Why i think hunters should be for the transfer. 1) moving 300 goats (hopefully more) into areas with prime native habitat and low native goat numbers should augment the population and possibly open up more permit opportunities in the future. 2) These goats aren't from the cascades they are actually from Alaska and will add genetic diversity to cascade goats who have shown signs of being compartmentalized by freeways and highways. 3) The park is set on eliminating goats, we should want to move as many as possible before they are culled. 4) where these goats are being moved is directionally related to areas with historically high goat numbers so the vegetation, mineral nutrition and topography should be ideal to potentially create high goat numbers like the park was producing. 5) Lots of parties have been working for years to get this plan hammered out and like all plans with conflicting points of view its not perfect but everyone is giving up something... if this gets dropped who knows what the next plan will be? Possibly eliminating all goats without moving any?

Well I think the ship hasn't sailed quite yet, do not underestimate the power of public opinion. The alternative plan has not yet been selected from ABC or D. Do I think that relocating the goats is good for all concerned yes I do plan B is an excellent option plan D not so much. And if you read the plan it says they will relocate as many as "viably" possible it does not set a number in stone. This means they will relocate as many as funds and safety allow, it is much cheaper and safer to shoot them than relocate them. There are more areas than the North Cascades that will support healthy Mtn goat numbers such as central and southern cascade ranges, the population used to be above 8000 at one time in this state throughout the Cascades. The current population of goats in the state outside the parks is 2400 to 3400.

I would be very surprised if a this point the ONP does an about-face. When it comes to public opinion this plan has been given the green light. ONP, WDFW, USNF have developed the plan together. Tribes, outdoor advocacy and conservation groups have backed the plan. The money has been allocated for 4 goat relocation mobilizations (2 this year, 2 next year). The helo company working with the parks service has done this style of relocation before and they are estimating roughly 300 goats being moved. The areas that were listed as relocation areas are mainly or entirely north of I90 because those areas have shown a drastic decrease in goat populations in those areas compared to historical averages. St Helens, Adams, Goat rocks, Rainier, eastern slopes of the central cascades all have stable or growing populations so those areas were not part of the transplant. The areas between Hwy 2 and I90 have shown a the most drastic decrease of goat populations and those are the target areas of the transplant.

If I am not mistaken there wouldn't even be a conversation on this subject if biologists believed that relocated goats would successfully stay in the North Cascades National Park. If goats would stay in the park they could do an interagency transport without the need for public input. That was my understanding from the goat relocation meeting.

[520backyard]

https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7491&context=etd

Public opinion once saved the mountain goats in ONP. Let's hope it happens again. I am working on doing my part through various different avenues of approach. Plan B (relocation)it's the only choice!!!!!!

I believe that ship has sailed. The plan has been out for a while, public meetings were held, Tribes, WDFW, and ONP want this to happen. In reality I think hunters should want this to happen too. I cant find the budget numbers anywhere but when I looked at them they seemed reasonable given the terrain.

Why i think hunters should be for the transfer. 1) moving 300 goats (hopefully more) into areas with prime native habitat and low native goat numbers should augment the population and possibly open up more permit opportunities in the future. 2) These goats aren't from the cascades they are actually from Alaska and will add genetic diversity to cascade goats who have shown signs of being compartmentalized by freeways and highways. 3) The park is set on eliminating goats, we should want to move as many as possible before they are culled. 4) where these goats are being moved is directionally related to areas with historically high goat numbers so the vegetation, mineral nutrition and topography should be ideal to potentially create high goat numbers like the park was producing. 5) Lots of parties have been working for years to get this plan hammered out and like all plans with conflicting points of view its not perfect but everyone is giving up something... if this gets dropped who knows what the next plan will be? Possibly eliminating all goats without moving any?

Well I think the ship hasn't sailed quite yet, do not underestimate the power of public opinion. The alternative plan has not yet been selected from ABC or D. Do I think that relocating the goats is good for all concerned yes I do plan B is an excellent option plan D not so much. And if you read the plan it says they will relocate as many as "viably" possible it does not set a number in stone. This means they will relocate as many as funds and safety allow, it is much cheaper and safer to shoot them than relocate them. There are more areas than the North Cascades that will support healthy Mtn goat numbers such as central and southern cascade ranges, the population used to be above 8000 at one time in this state throughout the Cascades. The current population of goats in the state outside the parks is 2400 to 3400.

I would be very surprised if a this point the ONP does an about-face. When it comes to public opinion this plan has been given the green light. ONP, WDFW, USNF have developed the plan together. Tribes, outdoor advocacy and conservation groups have backed the plan. The money has been allocated for 4 goat relocation mobilizations (2 this year, 2 next year). The helo company working with the parks service has done this style of relocation before and they are estimating roughly 300 goats being moved. The areas that were listed as relocation areas are mainly or entirely north of I90 because those areas have shown a drastic decrease in goat populations in those areas compared to historical averages. St Helens, Adams, Goat rocks, Rainier, eastern slopes of the central cascades all have stable or growing populations so those areas were not part of the transplant. The areas between Hwy 2 and I90 have shown a the most drastic decrease of goat populations and those are the target areas of the transplant.

If I am not mistaken there wouldn't even be a conversation on this subject if biologists believed that relocated goats would successfully stay in the North Cascades National Park. If goats would stay in the park they could do an interagency transport without the need for public input. That was my understanding from the goat relocation meeting.

Curious why are you for plan D that calls for relocation and lethal removal of the goats as opposed to plan B which is just relocation? As one poster said it would be a source of Mountain goats to relocate for years if plan B is chosen and they were not eradicated from the peninsula. So why plan D?

[bigtex]

Well if you really want to be look at the subject of problem goats and a reduction of the goat population in the Olympic National Park then you have to ask why were these goats not subject to a special hunt in the park? Contrary to popular belief it is not illegal under certain circumstances to hunt in the National Parks by federal law in fact quite the opposite is true. So read the below and then ask yourself why the hell wasn't this put on the table for consideration at reducing the goat population in the ONP in lieu of lethal removal and letting they lay where they drop. I get it's a national park and public safety is paramount but it's also a million acre park and there are short range weapons options to account for that.

TITLE 36–PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC PROPERTY CHAPTER I–NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR PART 2–RESOURCE PROTECTION, PUBLIC USE AND RECREATION–Table of Contents Sec. 2.2 Wildlife protection. (a) The following are prohibited: (1) The taking of wildlife, except by authorized hunting and trapping activities conducted in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section. (2) The feeding, touching, teasing, frightening or intentional disturbing of wildlife nesting, breeding or other activities. (3) Possessing unlawfully taken wildlife or portions thereof. (b) Hunting and trapping. (1) Hunting shall be allowed in park areas where such activity is specifically mandated by Federal statutory law. (2) Hunting may be allowed in park areas where such activity is specifically authorized as a discretionary activity under Federal statutory law if the superintendent determines that such activity is consistent with public safety and enjoyment, and sound resource management principles. Such hunting shall be allowed pursuant to special regulations. (3) Trapping shall be allowed in park areas where such activity is specifically mandated by Federal statutory law. (4) Where hunting or trapping or both are authorized, such activities shall be conducted in accordance with Federal law and the laws of the State within whose exterior boundaries a park area or a portion thereof is located. Nonconflicting State laws are adopted as a part of these regulations. (c) Except in emergencies or in areas under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, the superintendent shall consult with appropriate State agencies before invoking the authority of Sec. 1.5 for the purpose of restricting hunting and trapping or closing park areas to the taking of wildlife where such activities are mandated or authorized by Federal statutory law. (d) The superintendent may establish conditions and procedures for transporting lawfully taken wildlife through the park area. Violation of these conditions and procedures is prohibited. (e) The Superintendent may designate all or portions of a park area as closed to the viewing of wildlife with an artificial light. Use of an artificial light for purposes of viewing wildlife in closed areas is prohibited. (f) Authorized persons may check hunting and trapping licenses and permits; inspect weapons, traps and hunting and trapping gear for compliance with equipment restrictions; and inspect wildlife that has been taken for compliance with species, size and other taking restrictions. (g) The regulations contained in this section apply, regardless of land ownership, on all lands and waters within a park area that are under the legislative jurisdiction of the United States. [48 FR 30282, June 30, 1983, as amended at 49 FR 18450, Apr. 30, 1984; 51 FR 33264, Sept. 19, 1986; 52 FR 35240, Sept. 18, 1987]

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is what you posted. The CFR are regulations written by the agency. The US Code (USC) is enacted by Congress. The USC overrides the CFR. In 1942 Congress enacted a law (16 USC 256b) banning hunting in Olympic National Park. So in this case Congress' action overrides the CFR you posted. Now, if Congress had never passed that law/changes the law then the NPS could look at hunting in the park.

Interesting thing is 16 USC 256b kicks it right back to the CFR's as to the discretionary powers available to the park superintendent.
All hunting or the killing, wounding, or capturing at any time of any wild bird or animal, except dangerous animals when it is necessary to prevent them from destroying human lives or inflicting personal injury, is prohibited within the limits of the park, nor shall any fish be taken out of any of the waters of the park, except at such seasons and at such times and in such manner as may be directed by the Secretary of the Interior.
The Secretary of the Interior shall make and publish such general rules and regulations as he may deem necessary and proper for the management and care of the park

Your bolded section has to do with fish, not game.

[X-Force]

https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7491&context=etd

Public opinion once saved the mountain goats in ONP. Let's hope it happens again. I am working on doing my part through various different avenues of approach. Plan B (relocation)it's the only choice!!!!!!

I believe that ship has sailed. The plan has been out for a while, public meetings were held, Tribes, WDFW, and ONP want this to happen. In reality I think hunters should want this to happen too. I cant find the budget numbers anywhere but when I looked at them they seemed reasonable given the terrain.

Why i think hunters should be for the transfer. 1) moving 300 goats (hopefully more) into areas with prime native habitat and low native goat numbers should augment the population and possibly open up more permit opportunities in the future. 2) These goats aren't from the cascades they are actually from Alaska and will add genetic diversity to cascade goats who have shown signs of being compartmentalized by freeways and highways. 3) The park is set on eliminating goats, we should want to move as many as possible before they are culled. 4) where these goats are being moved is directionally related to areas with historically high goat numbers so the vegetation, mineral nutrition and topography should be ideal to potentially create high goat numbers like the park was producing. 5) Lots of parties have been working for years to get this plan hammered out and like all plans with conflicting points of view its not perfect but everyone is giving up something... if this gets dropped who knows what the next plan will be? Possibly eliminating all goats without moving any?

Well I think the ship hasn't sailed quite yet, do not underestimate the power of public opinion. The alternative plan has not yet been selected from ABC or D. Do I think that relocating the goats is good for all concerned yes I do plan B is an excellent option plan D not so much. And if you read the plan it says they will relocate as many as "viably" possible it does not set a number in stone. This means they will relocate as many as funds and safety allow, it is much cheaper and safer to shoot them than relocate them. There are more areas than the North Cascades that will support healthy Mtn goat numbers such as central and southern cascade ranges, the population used to be above 8000 at one time in this state throughout the Cascades. The current population of goats in the state outside the parks is 2400 to 3400.

I would be very surprised if a this point the ONP does an about-face. When it comes to public opinion this plan has been given the green light. ONP, WDFW, USNF have developed the plan together. Tribes, outdoor advocacy and conservation groups have backed the plan. The money has been allocated for 4 goat relocation mobilizations (2 this year, 2 next year). The helo company working with the parks service has done this style of relocation before and they are estimating roughly 300 goats being moved. The areas that were listed as relocation areas are mainly or entirely north of I90 because those areas have shown a drastic decrease in goat populations in those areas compared to historical averages. St Helens, Adams, Goat rocks, Rainier, eastern slopes of the central cascades all have stable or growing populations so those areas were not part of the transplant. The areas between Hwy 2 and I90 have shown a the most drastic decrease of goat populations and those are the target areas of the transplant.

If I am not mistaken there wouldn't even be a conversation on this subject if biologists believed that relocated goats would successfully stay in the North Cascades National Park. If goats would stay in the park they could do an interagency transport without the need for public input. That was my understanding from the goat relocation meeting.

Curious why are you for plan D that calls for relocation and lethal removal of the goats as opposed to plan B which is just relocation? As one poster said it would be a source of Mountain goats to relocate for years if plan B is chosen and they were not eradicated from the peninsula. So why plan D?

Im not a biologist or a geneticist but my assumption is that you cant use these goats as a continual source for relocations because they do not have the genetic diversity needed to use them as a continual stock for relocations.

The majority of hunters and people on this site are mad that wolves were reintroduced to Wyoming and Idaho because they are nonnative and they are harming native species. Goats on the Olympic peninsula are nonnative and potentially disturbing the original ecosystem but they are ok because they are a species we prize? Im just trying to follow the logic.

[Katmai Guy]

https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7491&context=etd

Public opinion once saved the mountain goats in ONP. Let's hope it happens again. I am working on doing my part through various different avenues of approach. Plan B (relocation)it's the only choice!!!!!!

I believe that ship has sailed. The plan has been out for a while, public meetings were held, Tribes, WDFW, and ONP want this to happen. In reality I think hunters should want this to happen too. I cant find the budget numbers anywhere but when I looked at them they seemed reasonable given the terrain.

Why i think hunters should be for the transfer. 1) moving 300 goats (hopefully more) into areas with prime native habitat and low native goat numbers should augment the population and possibly open up more permit opportunities in the future. 2) These goats aren't from the cascades they are actually from Alaska and will add genetic diversity to cascade goats who have shown signs of being compartmentalized by freeways and highways. 3) The park is set on eliminating goats, we should want to move as many as possible before they are culled. 4) where these goats are being moved is directionally related to areas with historically high goat numbers so the vegetation, mineral nutrition and topography should be ideal to potentially create high goat numbers like the park was producing. 5) Lots of parties have been working for years to get this plan hammered out and like all plans with conflicting points of view its not perfect but everyone is giving up something... if this gets dropped who knows what the next plan will be? Possibly eliminating all goats without moving any?

Well I think the ship hasn't sailed quite yet, do not underestimate the power of public opinion. The alternative plan has not yet been selected from ABC or D. Do I think that relocating the goats is good for all concerned yes I do plan B is an excellent option plan D not so much. And if you read the plan it says they will relocate as many as "viably" possible it does not set a number in stone. This means they will relocate as many as funds and safety allow, it is much cheaper and safer to shoot them than relocate them. There are more areas than the North Cascades that will support healthy Mtn goat numbers such as central and southern cascade ranges, the population used to be above 8000 at one time in this state throughout the Cascades. The current population of goats in the state outside the parks is 2400 to 3400.

I would be very surprised if a this point the ONP does an about-face. When it comes to public opinion this plan has been given the green light. ONP, WDFW, USNF have developed the plan together. Tribes, outdoor advocacy and conservation groups have backed the plan. The money has been allocated for 4 goat relocation mobilizations (2 this year, 2 next year). The helo company working with the parks service has done this style of relocation before and they are estimating roughly 300 goats being moved. The areas that were listed as relocation areas are mainly or entirely north of I90 because those areas have shown a drastic decrease in goat populations in those areas compared to historical averages. St Helens, Adams, Goat rocks, Rainier, eastern slopes of the central cascades all have stable or growing populations so those areas were not part of the transplant. The areas between Hwy 2 and I90 have shown a the most drastic decrease of goat populations and those are the target areas of the transplant.

If I am not mistaken there wouldn't even be a conversation on this subject if biologists believed that relocated goats would successfully stay in the North Cascades National Park. If goats would stay in the park they could do an interagency transport without the need for public input. That was my understanding from the goat relocation meeting.

Curious why are you for plan D that calls for relocation and lethal removal of the goats as opposed to plan B which is just relocation? As one poster said it would be a source of Mountain goats to relocate for years if plan B is chosen and they were not eradicated from the peninsula. So why plan D?

Im not a biologist or a geneticist but my assumption is that you cant use these goats as a continual source for relocations because they do not have the genetic diversity needed to use them as a continual stock for relocations.

The majority of hunters and people on this site are mad that wolves were reintroduced to Wyoming and Idaho because they are nonnative and they are harming native species. Goats on the Olympic peninsula are nonnative and potentially disturbing the original ecosystem but they are ok because they are a species we prize? Im just trying to follow the logic.

Xforce, if we want to go down that road then we need to eliminate the Roosevelt elk because they are non-native also, if I remember correctly.  Eliminating current populations of non native species that are currently thriving is way different than introducing a new non native species in this era.  If you or I did that we would be convicted, fined, thrown into the stocks and have a huge I for "introducer" carved in our forehead.

 What I would like to know is if these goats being transferred will act like a non-native species and reproduce at a faster rate than the resident goat population. Like they did in the park.

[520backyard]

https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7491&context=etd

Public opinion once saved the mountain goats in ONP. Let's hope it happens again. I am working on doing my part through various different avenues of approach. Plan B (relocation)it's the only choice!!!!!!

I believe that ship has sailed. The plan has been out for a while, public meetings were held, Tribes, WDFW, and ONP want this to happen. In reality I think hunters should want this to happen too. I cant find the budget numbers anywhere but when I looked at them they seemed reasonable given the terrain.

Why i think hunters should be for the transfer. 1) moving 300 goats (hopefully more) into areas with prime native habitat and low native goat numbers should augment the population and possibly open up more permit opportunities in the future. 2) These goats aren't from the cascades they are actually from Alaska and will add genetic diversity to cascade goats who have shown signs of being compartmentalized by freeways and highways. 3) The park is set on eliminating goats, we should want to move as many as possible before they are culled. 4) where these goats are being moved is directionally related to areas with historically high goat numbers so the vegetation, mineral nutrition and topography should be ideal to potentially create high goat numbers like the park was producing. 5) Lots of parties have been working for years to get this plan hammered out and like all plans with conflicting points of view its not perfect but everyone is giving up something... if this gets dropped who knows what the next plan will be? Possibly eliminating all goats without moving any?

Well I think the ship hasn't sailed quite yet, do not underestimate the power of public opinion. The alternative plan has not yet been selected from ABC or D. Do I think that relocating the goats is good for all concerned yes I do plan B is an excellent option plan D not so much. And if you read the plan it says they will relocate as many as "viably" possible it does not set a number in stone. This means they will relocate as many as funds and safety allow, it is much cheaper and safer to shoot them than relocate them. There are more areas than the North Cascades that will support healthy Mtn goat numbers such as central and southern cascade ranges, the population used to be above 8000 at one time in this state throughout the Cascades. The current population of goats in the state outside the parks is 2400 to 3400.

I would be very surprised if a this point the ONP does an about-face. When it comes to public opinion this plan has been given the green light. ONP, WDFW, USNF have developed the plan together. Tribes, outdoor advocacy and conservation groups have backed the plan. The money has been allocated for 4 goat relocation mobilizations (2 this year, 2 next year). The helo company working with the parks service has done this style of relocation before and they are estimating roughly 300 goats being moved. The areas that were listed as relocation areas are mainly or entirely north of I90 because those areas have shown a drastic decrease in goat populations in those areas compared to historical averages. St Helens, Adams, Goat rocks, Rainier, eastern slopes of the central cascades all have stable or growing populations so those areas were not part of the transplant. The areas between Hwy 2 and I90 have shown a the most drastic decrease of goat populations and those are the target areas of the transplant.

If I am not mistaken there wouldn't even be a conversation on this subject if biologists believed that relocated goats would successfully stay in the North Cascades National Park. If goats would stay in the park they could do an interagency transport without the need for public input. That was my understanding from the goat relocation meeting.

Curious why are you for plan D that calls for relocation and lethal removal of the goats as opposed to plan B which is just relocation? As one poster said it would be a source of Mountain goats to relocate for years if plan B is chosen and they were not eradicated from the peninsula. So why plan D?

Im not a biologist or a geneticist but my assumption is that you cant use these goats as a continual source for relocations because they do not have the genetic diversity needed to use them as a continual stock for relocations.

The majority of hunters and people on this site are mad that wolves were reintroduced to Wyoming and Idaho because they are nonnative and they are harming native species. Goats on the Olympic peninsula are nonnative and potentially disturbing the original ecosystem but they are ok because they are a species we prize? Im just trying to follow the logic.

Well one of the reasons why relocating these goats from the peninsula is a good idea is that they do increase the genetic diversity among the goat populations in the Cascades. Now that being said is there a time frame when they no longer have a positive effect on the genetic diversity of the Cascade goat population? I am sure there is but that is decades from now. These goats could and should be used as a means to replenish the obviously mismanaged and depleted mountain goat population within the state. Relocating these goats in substantial numbers would be a long term plan that would reduce the impact of the goats upon the park and increase the goat population in this state and everyone wins to some degree. Any plan that calls for lethal removal of this resource is not a win for the citizens of this state.

The problem as I see it is that the NPS want's a final solution to their "goat problem" and so they are pushing for eradication.

[X-Force]

Roosevelt elk are native to California, Oregon, Washington and BC. They aren't native to Alaska.

The reason for this move is specifically because of the ONP and the parks determination to remove nonnative and invasive species. If goats were only outside of the park on national forest, private or dnr land there wouldn't be an issue.

I will be curious just like you on how these goats inhabit their new space. I would be awesome to see a growth rate of 8%.

[X-Force]

Well one of the reasons why relocating these goats from the peninsula is a good idea is that they do increase the genetic diversity among the goat populations in the Cascades. Now that being said is there a time frame when they no longer have a positive effect on the genetic diversity of the Cascade goat population? I am sure there is but that is decades from now. These goats could and should be used as a means to replenish the obviously mismanaged and depleted mountain goat population within the state. Relocating these goats in substantial numbers would be a long term plan that would reduce the impact of the goats upon the park and increase the goat population in this state and everyone wins to some degree. Any plan that calls for lethal removal of this resource is not a win for the citizens of this state.

The problem as I see it is that the NPS want's a final solution to their "goat problem" and so they are pushing for eradication.

National Parks around the country are trying to provide a place where people can go and experience a land that is as close to untouched by human hands as possible; Yellow Stone is removing lake trout, Grand Canyon is removing buffalo, Olympics are removing goats.

[520backyard]

Roosevelt elk are native to California, Oregon, Washington and BC. They aren't native to Alaska.

The reason for this move is specifically because of the ONP and the parks determination to remove nonnative and invasive species. If goats were only outside of the park on national forest, private or dnr land there wouldn't be an issue.

I will be curious just like you on how these goats inhabit their new space. I would be awesome to see a growth rate of 8%.

Approximately 15% of the goats to be removed reside on USFS land outside the park and the goats are under the control of WDFW. Only 10% of the total population of those goats outside the park migrate back forth between USFS land and ONP.

In talking to the WDFW biologist the other day I specifically asked why those goats had to be removed and the reply was "because they are not native".