Post by: jackelope on May 04, 2018, 11:12:49 AM
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/
May 4, 2018
Contacts: Penny Wagner, Olympic National Park, 360-565-3005
Rich Harris, WDFW, 360-902-2515
Stephen Baker, U.S. Forest Service, 503-808-2690
Final mountain goat management plan for Olympic National Park released
PORT ANGELES, Wash. -- The National Park Service (NPS), the USDA Forest Service (USFS), and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) have released the Mountain Goat Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for managing non-native mountain goats in the Olympic Mountains. The NPS preferred alternative involves the relocation of the majority of mountain goats to USFS lands in the North Cascades forests and the lethal removal of the remaining mountain goats in the park.
The FEIS is available for public viewing at https://parkplanning.nps.gov/OLYMgoat. The plan's purpose is to allow Olympic National Park to reduce or eliminate the environmental damage created by non-native mountain goats and the public safety risks associated with their presence in the park.
"We are very pleased to collaborate with our partners the USDA Forest Service and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife to develop the FEIS," said Olympic National Park Superintendent Sarah Creachbaum. "Federal and state agencies are poised to begin the effort that will help grow a depleted population of mountain goats in the Cascades; and eliminate their impact on the Olympic Peninsula."
A 2016 population survey of mountain goats in the Olympic Mountains showed that the population increased an average of eight percent annually from 2004-2016. It has more than doubled since 2004 to about 625. The population is expected to grow by another 100 in just 2018. By 2023, the population could be nearly 1,000 goats. At the same time, mountain goats are native to the North Cascades Mountains, but exist in low numbers in many areas. Both the USFS and the WDFW have long been interested in restoring mountain goats to these depleted areas.
Public meetings to review the draft EIS were held in August 2017.
Approximately 2,300 comments were received on the draft EIS and were used to develop the FEIS, which includes modified versions of alternatives C and D (the preferred alternative), other minor revisions, and the agencies' responses to public comments.
For the NPS, publication of the FEIS begins a 30-day wait period which is required before making a final decision on a proposed action. After the wait period, the NPS will sign a Record of Decision (ROD) documenting the final decision and course of action. At that time, the NPS will move forward to coordinate implementation of the plan and the selected alternative for summer 2018.
Following the publication of the FEIS, the USFS will issue a draft decision document (ROD), subject to the Agency's objection process, before making a final decision. Legal notices to initiate the objection period will be published in the newspapers of record for the three national forests involved in the plan: Olympic National Forest, Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest.
Paper copies of the FEIS will be available at public libraries in Darrington, Enumclaw, Granite Falls, North Bend, Sedro-Woolley, Skykomish, Sultan, Aberdeen, Amanda Park, Hoquiam, Hoodsport, Forks, Port Angeles, and Port Townsend.
Post by: Mudman on May 04, 2018, 11:18:33 AM
Post by: X-Force on May 04, 2018, 11:20:26 AM
Remind me why leaving them alone to naturally exist is a problem? is it so the hikers don't get bothered? :dunno:
The national park service across the country has been pushing to remove invasive and nonnative species... Goats on the peninsula are nonnative.
From the parks perspective these goats have to go and i don't see that changing.
Post by: Mudman on May 04, 2018, 11:23:12 AM
Post by: X-Force on May 04, 2018, 11:23:43 AM
I guess the question I have is, why are the goats on the Peninsula doing so well, and the goats in these populations in the Cascades not?
Traditionally, native populations of goats grow at a much slower rate than transplanted goats. There is lots of evidence to support that difference in population growth. I have not seen any studies as to why native goat populations grow at a slower rate.
Post by: jackelope on May 04, 2018, 11:27:45 AM
Hmm. Not Native to park or not to Wa.? Retarded. Leave em be and save some $. Can we use that argument for wolves too? :tup:
It's mostly greenie reasons I suppose. I believe the argument for removal is non-native species destroying native growth. Also human/goat interaction.
Post by: X-Force on May 04, 2018, 11:32:16 AM
Hmm. Not Native to park or not to Wa.? Retarded. Leave em be and save some $. Can we use that argument for wolves too? :tup:
To the peninsula.
The park is arguing that they are trying to save the natural beauty and unique alpine spaces from an nonnative species. No different then removing Nutria, Boas, or Scotch Broom.
Post by: Mudman on May 04, 2018, 01:06:53 PM
Post by: jackelope on May 04, 2018, 01:15:09 PM
Well that argument would require all newly evolved species be eradicated too? Silly and stupid. Goats are a native species in N America are they not?
They are native to the US, but they were introduced to the Olympics.
Post by: Mudman on May 04, 2018, 01:36:07 PM
Post by: 520backyard on May 06, 2018, 08:47:02 AM
As sportsmen, as citizens of the state of Washington and as citizens of the US it is up to us to make our voices heard in this matter. Collectively we put a lot of money in state coffers and local economies thorough our sporting activities and that collective power needs to come to bear on those who make these kinds of egregious decisions. We have 28 days until a final decision on which mountain goat plan is implemented by the NPS. It's time to ring the bell gentlemen, doing nothing in this case is not an option.
Post by: 520backyard on May 06, 2018, 09:46:05 AM
As described in Chapter 4, the 1990 estimate of goat numbers in the metapopulation (389 ± 106) was significantly lower than the 1983 estimate (1,175 ± 171). The smaller 1990 population resulted from removals by the National Park Service, perhaps combined with relatively more severe winters
https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/science/25/chap14.htm
So assuming a 20% mortality rate as a result of severe winters, the NPS "removed" 630 mountain goats in 7 years between 1983 and 1990.
Post by: Deerelk37 on May 06, 2018, 10:13:04 AM
I’m not sure how many goats reside or wander out of the park but 6 permits seems like a small number. Why not up the permits and get more hunters out there and save us some tax dollars from multiple helicopter trips. I’m not sure how effective it would be but I’m tired of reading about wolves, elk and now goats being killed on our dime instead of using hunters. :bash:
Post by: 520backyard on May 06, 2018, 10:26:45 AM
I just read this on the website and I just shake my head.
I’m not sure how many goats reside or wander out of the park but 6 permits seems like a small number. Why not up the permits and get more hunters out there and save us some tax dollars from multiple helicopter trips. I’m not sure how effective it would be but I’m tired of reading about wolves, elk and now goats being killed on our dime instead of using hunters. :bash:
The real question is if the NPS has been trying to eradicate the goats out of the of the Olympic national park and the surrounding NFS area bordering it for decades, why haven't more tags been made available by WDFW to hunt goats in the NFS area around the park for decades where it is legal to hunt? Their proposed plan now calls for eradicating all goats in the park and NFS areas surrounding the park.
Post by: cem3434 on May 06, 2018, 10:34:19 AM
Post by: Katmai Guy on May 06, 2018, 11:37:40 AM
Post by: 520backyard on May 06, 2018, 12:39:48 PM
And this is hardly a new campaign by the NPS. The difference this time is they want them ALL gone from the Olympic national parks.And if those 630 Mountain goats that were "removed" and if they were relocated and assuming a 8% normal reproduction rate then there should be 1400 more mountain goats in 28 years and that is not taking into account the reproduction rate of the offspring of that 1400. So I guess the question is where are all those offspring of the mountain goats that were removed?
As described in Chapter 4, the 1990 estimate of goat numbers in the metapopulation (389 ± 106) was significantly lower than the 1983 estimate (1,175 ± 171). The smaller 1990 population resulted from removals by the National Park Service, perhaps combined with relatively more severe winters
https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/science/25/chap14.htm
So assuming a 20% mortality rate as a result of severe winters, the NPS "removed" 630 mountain goats in 7 years between 1983 and 1990.
Post by: jackelope on May 07, 2018, 09:20:35 AM
I just read this on the website and I just shake my head.
I’m not sure how many goats reside or wander out of the park but 6 permits seems like a small number. Why not up the permits and get more hunters out there and save us some tax dollars from multiple helicopter trips. I’m not sure how effective it would be but I’m tired of reading about wolves, elk and now goats being killed on our dime instead of using hunters. :bash:
The real question is if the NPS has been trying to eradicate the goats out of the of the Olympic national park and the surrounding NFS area bordering it for decades, why haven't more tags been made available by WDFW to hunt goats in the NFS area around the park for decades where it is legal to hunt? Their proposed plan now calls for eradicating all goats in the park and NFS areas surrounding the park.
Of the 6 tags issued in 2017, only 4 were filled. One unit averaged 9 hunter days, the other 4. They're not easy tags to fill, even though they encourage you to shoot the first goat you see. It would be interesting to find out if any of the hunters were trying to shoot billies. Regardless, they're not going to put more tags out if the ones they have now aren't getting filled.
Based on that stat, these hunts aren't doing what they're intended to do.
Post by: idaho guy on May 07, 2018, 10:35:14 AM
I just read this on the website and I just shake my head.
I’m not sure how many goats reside or wander out of the park but 6 permits seems like a small number. Why not up the permits and get more hunters out there and save us some tax dollars from multiple helicopter trips. I’m not sure how effective it would be but I’m tired of reading about wolves, elk and now goats being killed on our dime instead of using hunters. :bash:
The real question is if the NPS has been trying to eradicate the goats out of the of the Olympic national park and the surrounding NFS area bordering it for decades, why haven't more tags been made available by WDFW to hunt goats in the NFS area around the park for decades where it is legal to hunt? Their proposed plan now calls for eradicating all goats in the park and NFS areas surrounding the park.
Of the 6 tags issued in 2017, only 4 were filled. One unit averaged 9 hunter days, the other 4. They're not easy tags to fill, even though they encourage you to shoot the first goat you see. It would be interesting to find out if any of the hunters were trying to shoot billies. Regardless, they're not going to put more tags out if the ones they have now aren't getting filled.
Based on that stat, these hunts aren't doing what they're intended to do.
66% percent success rate sounds pretty good to me especially compared to elk and deer hunts? Why not factor the success rate in to the number of tags and desired harvest rate? Just like any other hunt is supposed to be-100 tags! maybe get 65 goats handled hunters are happy and the state MAKES money :dunno: I guess that makes too much sense and greenies don't like when people pay to have fun killing an animal. Plus they actually eat it and might even preserve the hide and antlers for (god forbid) a trophy on their wall! They only want paid professionals that just do the killing for a living damnit! They don't want to see some redneck pay for the privilege and possibly get some enjoyment out of it and use the animal for horrific things like feed his family and preserve the memory with a mount. Montana used hunters to get rid of a sheep herd and I don't think the success rate was great percentage wise but it kinda made more sense.
Post by: idaho guy on May 07, 2018, 10:55:00 AM
I know, it seems silly to argue that point. Its that way with sooo many animals etc. Its not like its a Cape Buffalo in the Oly Park. What would they do with the birds and insects? They are native species period. To many hikers getting chased, bottom line. Madness imop. Instead we will run em out, wait for an extinction and libs to cry and then introduce em to a "Great" ecosystem for em to thrive. :bash:
I have been told the elk in the st joe of Idaho were transplanted from Yellowstone. I guess they are non-native too-Heard that the blue mountain elk were introduced from Yellowstone also-kill em all :bash:
Post by: sjhgraysage on May 07, 2018, 11:10:03 AM
Feral horses in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming as well as a couple other states are competing with true native wildlife and nobody can do a damn thing about it :bash:
Sorry for the off topic rant. :sry:
Post by: idaho guy on May 07, 2018, 11:17:53 AM
I just read this on the website and I just shake my head.
I’m not sure how many goats reside or wander out of the park but 6 permits seems like a small number. Why not up the permits and get more hunters out there and save us some tax dollars from multiple helicopter trips. I’m not sure how effective it would be but I’m tired of reading about wolves, elk and now goats being killed on our dime instead of using hunters. :bash:
The real question is if the NPS has been trying to eradicate the goats out of the of the Olympic national park and the surrounding NFS area bordering it for decades, why haven't more tags been made available by WDFW to hunt goats in the NFS area around the park for decades where it is legal to hunt? Their proposed plan now calls for eradicating all goats in the park and NFS areas surrounding the park.
Of the 6 tags issued in 2017, only 4 were filled. One unit averaged 9 hunter days, the other 4. They're not easy tags to fill, even though they encourage you to shoot the first goat you see. It would be interesting to find out if any of the hunters were trying to shoot billies. Regardless, they're not going to put more tags out if the ones they have now aren't getting filled.
Based on that stat, these hunts aren't doing what they're intended to do.
66% percent success rate sounds pretty good to me especially compared to elk and deer hunts? Why not factor the success rate in to the number of tags and desired harvest rate? Just like any other hunt is supposed to be-100 tags! maybe get 65 goats handled hunters are happy and the state MAKES money :dunno: I guess that makes too much sense and greenies don't like when people pay to have fun killing an animal. Plus they actually eat it and might even preserve the hide and antlers for (god forbid) a trophy on their wall! They only want paid professionals that just do the killing for a living damnit! They don't want to see some redneck pay for the privilege and possibly get some enjoyment out of it and use the animal for horrific things like feed his family and preserve the memory with a mount. Montana used hunters to get rid of a sheep herd and I don't think the success rate was great percentage wise but it kinda made more sense.
also 9 and especially 4 hunter days is nothing, give out enough tags and some hunters will get the tag that realize the opportunity and would gladly take a month off to be able to harvest a goat. For really difficult to access or hunt areas why not unlimited tags like Montana sheep hunts?
Post by: jackelope on May 07, 2018, 11:41:50 AM
Post by: 520backyard on May 07, 2018, 11:58:56 AM
I just read this on the website and I just shake my head.
I’m not sure how many goats reside or wander out of the park but 6 permits seems like a small number. Why not up the permits and get more hunters out there and save us some tax dollars from multiple helicopter trips. I’m not sure how effective it would be but I’m tired of reading about wolves, elk and now goats being killed on our dime instead of using hunters. :bash:
The real question is if the NPS has been trying to eradicate the goats out of the of the Olympic national park and the surrounding NFS area bordering it for decades, why haven't more tags been made available by WDFW to hunt goats in the NFS area around the park for decades where it is legal to hunt? Their proposed plan now calls for eradicating all goats in the park and NFS areas surrounding the park.
Of the 6 tags issued in 2017, only 4 were filled. One unit averaged 9 hunter days, the other 4. They're not easy tags to fill, even though they encourage you to shoot the first goat you see. It would be interesting to find out if any of the hunters were trying to shoot billies. Regardless, they're not going to put more tags out if the ones they have now aren't getting filled.
Based on that stat, these hunts aren't doing what they're intended to do.
An average of only 9 hunter days is not bad at all for a Mountain goat. I am well aware of the requirements of mountain goat hunting and the unique situations and circumstances that it presents ie geographical and elevational issues. And if few tags are getting filled then the logical thing to do would be to increase tags so that more hunters are afield to reduce the goat numbers in the conflict area. Interestingly enough 111 goats were harvested outside the park from 1981-1989, that breaks down to 12.3 goats harvested per year.
During 1981-89, under provisions of the two environmental assessments, the National Park Service removed 407 goats from the park, including 360 (88%) captured and translocated from the park, 28 (7%) capture-related deaths, and 19 (5%) collected as scientific specimens (Table 37). Two hundred sixty of these animals were removed during 1981-87, under the EMP; 147 were removed during 1988-89, under the OMP. In addition, three known illegal kills occurred in the park, and 111 goats were harvested legally by recreational hunters (archers) outside the park during 1981-89 (Washington Department of Wildlife 1982-90).
https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/science/25/chap14.htm
I have a very simple question and that is who do those mountain goats belong too that are on USFS land? The state issues the tags so I can only assume that they are the property of the citizens of the state of Washington under control of the WDFW. So if that is the case then why are goats outside the park part of the goat management plan proposed by ONP? I have read the goat management plan and know that some of the goats go back and forth from USFS land and ONP. I believe 15% of the total number of the goat population to be removed are located on USFS land. I also know that plans C and D call for a "Desired eventual population size of zero" so ONP has decided what is to happen to goats outside the park and their jurisdiction? Or is WDFW ok with eradicating goats within their jurisdiction?
Post by: idaho guy on May 07, 2018, 12:17:37 PM
9 seemed like a lot of days to me. It was the highest average days/kill in 2017. The only reason I mention that is because guys make it sound like it would be easy to just walk in there and shoot one. An average of 9 days is a lot of days especially when you're supposed to be culling goats shooting the first one you see. 4, I agree, is easy peasy. Makes it seem like it's not as easy as maybe some think.
I agree that its probably tougher than most regular draw goat hunts. But 65% percent success is great and if they made the tags more available you would get hunters more than willing to pay and put in the extra effort just to have the opportunity. Look at otc elk hunt success in Washington or any state and there is always plenty of hunters lining up for that opportunity. The unlimited hunt Montana did to eradicate the Tendoy big horn sheep herd had 311 hunters and they got half of the sheep (18) for a 5-6% success rate. Point is Montana MADE a ton of money and got half the sheep gone in one season. How many hunters got too hunt sheep for the first time on this hunt? And the succesfull ones ate sheep and probably preserved part of the animal. I did the regular unlimited hunt in Montana decades ago(has a harvest quota) and the success rate was around 3% but I was happy just to have a sheep tag. I got lucky and got into the 3% but was happy to have the opportunity regardless of harvest. Bought the tag otc and it cost 50 bucks. Letting hunters address the problem makes way too much sense I guess. I would organize and push for a hunter solution to this. I will call or write whoever just not sure who? I will pay for the out of state tag if they make it unlimited. I will probably draw this year in Idaho though :chuckle: The goats are going to die regardless would it be ok for the state(huge budget deficit) to make money on it? Would it be ok if a bunch of hunters get a once in a lifetime hunting opportunity even if its not a slam dunk harvest? How about his family gets to enjoy goat meat and he actually uses the hide and horns? No none of that makes sense apparently only paid government sharp shooters who leave them lay. Really?
Post by: jackelope on May 07, 2018, 01:18:11 PM
I applied.
Post by: 520backyard on May 07, 2018, 02:32:34 PM
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]
Post by: Bob33 on May 07, 2018, 02:58:24 PM
Post by: 520backyard on May 07, 2018, 04:12:55 PM
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!!!!!!
Post by: X-Force on May 07, 2018, 04:29:46 PM
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?
Post by: 520backyard on May 07, 2018, 05:18:30 PM
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.
Post by: bigtex on May 07, 2018, 06:44:48 PM
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.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.
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]
Post by: 520backyard on May 07, 2018, 07:57:15 PM
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.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.
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]
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
Post by: idaho guy on May 08, 2018, 11:59:05 AM
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.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.
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]
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 :chuckle: 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? :dunno:
Post by: James on May 08, 2018, 12:22:03 PM
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.
Post by: 520backyard on May 08, 2018, 02:00:29 PM
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.
Post by: X-Force on May 08, 2018, 03:03:21 PM
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.
Post by: 520backyard on May 08, 2018, 04:14:59 PM
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?
Post by: bigtex on May 08, 2018, 05:05:20 PM
Your bolded section has to do with fish, not game.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.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.
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]
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
Post by: X-Force on May 09, 2018, 08:54:51 AM
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.
Post by: Katmai Guy on May 09, 2018, 09:49:36 AM
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.
Post by: 520backyard on May 09, 2018, 09:52:13 AM
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.
Post by: X-Force on May 09, 2018, 10:01:18 AM
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%.
Post by: X-Force on May 09, 2018, 10:13:55 AM
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.
Post by: 520backyard on May 09, 2018, 10:18:44 AM
Roosevelt elk are native to California, Oregon, Washington and BC. They aren't native to Alaska.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.
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%.
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".
Post by: 520backyard on May 09, 2018, 10:26:13 AM
There are many such cases and in many cases what the NPS wants and what the citizens want are two different things. And public opinion and what the citizens want has stopped some of those actions by the NPS. The parks belong to the citizens not to a government entity, a fact that is at times overlooked.
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.
Post by: X-Force on May 09, 2018, 10:29:23 AM
Roosevelt elk are native to California, Oregon, Washington and BC. They aren't native to Alaska.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.
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%.
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".
The biologist is right, the park service wants the goat gone because they are nonnative and the park service asked WDFW, USFS to remove the goats on their land because of the possibility of them moving back into the park. If there are 650 goats on the peninsula and 97 of them live outside of the park and 10 of those 97 move in and out of the park then that is roughly the same number of goats that started this herd so I can see why the park would want those outside goats gone.
Post by: 520backyard on May 09, 2018, 10:59:34 AM
Roosevelt elk are native to California, Oregon, Washington and BC. They aren't native to Alaska.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.
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%.
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".
The biologist is right, the park service wants the goat gone because they are nonnative and the park service asked WDFW, USFS to remove the goats on their land because of the possibility of them moving back into the park. If there are 650 goats on the peninsula and 97 of them live outside of the park and 10 of those 97 move in and out of the park then that is roughly the same number of goats that started this herd so I can see why the park would want those outside goats gone.
So 9 goats would be hard to remove from the park as needed yearly or every few years and be a maintenance problem in your opinion. I disagree with the fact that goats outside the park are going to be eradicated and think that the 9 goats could be dealt with in a maintenance fashion as need to prevent their number from increasing without further reducing WDFW goat populations in the area. And the whole reason the goat population is what it is in the park is because those goats initially put there were not managed and their population was allowed to continually increase. Had they been managed and their numbers reduced throughout the years after it was made a park in 1938 this problem would likely not be what we are lead to believe it is today. In effect the NPS's own policies created this problem.
Post by: Katmai Guy on May 09, 2018, 11:11:47 AM
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%.
My bad, I had that about the elk screwed up.
Post by: jackelope on September 13, 2018, 02:51:31 PM
Post by: jackelope on September 13, 2018, 03:04:50 PM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180913/8ee1605e5b875af6b8f7917c1a4f00f5.png)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180913/be0420cae4bf4e68ffbae71a0cc453e9.png)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180913/aaa16f50f20971695e39486e94f7397e.png)
Post by: X-Force on September 13, 2018, 03:10:29 PM
Weather hasnt been the best but goats are still moving.