Elk Island National Park considers hunt to cull herds

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by waterninja

Kurt, quit digging. No one is talking about a trophy hunt, though I bet there are are a couple in there.
So, c'mon Kurt, tell us your plan on how to solve the problem of too many big game animal's in Elk Island Park? I am serious. Tell us your secret.

I didn't sign up to be a teacher of a special ed class...

[DJS]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

I didn't sign up to be a teacher of a special ed class...

I'm surprised you've entertained a couple of these guys as long as you have Kurt. They must be bored. Reading your posts it's very easy to understand your position and I completely agree.

[Full Curl Earl]

Is there not presently wildlife laws regarding cervid harvest preserves in Alberta? If the animals are contained by an appropriate fence that does not allow easy escape, I think it would fall under this law. And we certainly don't want to open that can of worms, it's good for no one.

[alta270]

Originally Posted by Full Curl Earl

Is there not presently wildlife laws regarding cervid harvest preserves in Alberta? If the animals are contained by an appropriate fence that does not allow easy escape, I think it would fall under this law. And we certainly don't want to open that can of worms, it's good for no one.

EINP is not considered a game farm.

[waterninja]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

I didn't sign up to be a teacher of a special ed class...

Very witty. You still haven't told us what your solution would be.

[Pixel Shooter]

guys you were warned once, you wont be again. enough of the personal shots and badgering

[elkhunter11]

If they are going to allow any hunting, open it to all residents. And for all non licenses hunters, require that the skull plate be severed, so that the antlers are not eligible as trophies.

[wildwoods]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

If they are going to allow any hunting, open it to all residents. And for all non licenses hunters, require that the skull plate be severed, so that the antlers are not eligible as trophies.

^^^Seems like a reasonable way to go about it. The bonus is meat in the freezer and probably a ton of fun participating in the cull

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

If they are going to allow any hunting, open it to all residents. And for all non licenses hunters, require that the skull plate be severed, so that the antlers are not eligible as trophies.

Even licensed hunters. I say make the culls totally about the meat. (We pretty much know that allowing white licenced hunters to keep antlers as trophies and making native treaty hunters destroy them is not gonna fly.....)

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Even licensed hunters. I say make the culls totally about the meat. (We pretty much know that allowing white licenced hunters to keep antlers as trophies and making native treaty hunters destroy them is not gonna fly.....)

And that would be okay as well, although the licensed hunters would have to draw, and obey bag limits, while the unlicensed hunters do not. I guess allowing licensed hunters to keep the skull plate intact to somewhat even things out would be seen by some as discrimination against unlicensed hunters.

[waterninja]

What do you mean by "unlicenced" hunters? If they did allow a hunt to happen, you would still have to have a tag that would probably come from a lottery draw like they did for Suffield.
Are you guys suggesting some kind of "free for all" hunt for anyone with a PAL? I don't see that ever happening.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by waterninja

What do you mean by "unlicenced" hunters? If they did allow a hunt to happen, you would still have to have a tag that would probably come from a lottery draw like they did for Suffield.
Are you guys suggesting some kind of "free for all" hunt for anyone with a PAL? I don't see that ever happening.

There is a large component of hunters that can hunt all year without a license or tags.

A PAL has nothing to do with it.

LC

[waterninja]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

There is a large component of hunters that can hunt all year without a license or tags.

A PAL has nothing to do with it.

LC

I understand that part. I am not talking about First Nation hunters, or is that what you fellows mean by "Unlicenced Hunters"? Someone had suggested all Residents should be able to hunt.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by waterninja

I understand that part. I am not talking about First Nation hunters, or is that what you fellows mean by "Unlicenced Hunters"? Someone had suggested all Residents should be able to hunt.

Yup that's what they mean. All eligible resident hunters not just all residents. I don't think anyone suggested ALL RESIDENTS regardless of hunting eligibility should be able to hunt there, that would be ridiculous.

LC

[waterninja]

Originally Posted by Pixel Shooter

guys you were warned once, you wont be again. enough of the personal shots and badgering

I am not trying to be rude at all. I would simply like to hear what his plan is, or on which #post he presented it on.

[Outdoorfanatic]

One solution EINP staff are proposing is installing jump rails all around the fence. So how do the trophy purist propose to deal with this in the general bow zone of 248 and 242? Is it not good enough that the trophy book designates a time, place, weapon, fence no fence qualifier on everything? And I'm still confused utilizing Blackfoot and or Ministik is good or not?

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by Outdoorfanatic

One solution EINP staff are proposing is installing jump rails all around the fence. So how do the trophy purist propose to deal with this in the general bow zone of 248 and 242? Is it not good enough that the trophy book designates a time, place, weapon, fence no fence qualifier on everything? And I'm still confused utilizing Blackfoot and or Ministik is good or not?

Ministik animals are free ranging.

LC

[waterninja]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Yup that's what they mean. All eligible resident hunters not just all residents.

LC

Well, there is nothing new about that. Isn't that how they did it at Suffield? I never drew there, and only know what I read or heard about that hunt.
From all accounts I thought it went pretty smoothly. Nothing is ever perfect.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by waterninja

Well, there is nothing new about that. Isn't that how they did it at Suffield? I never drew there, and only know what I read or heard about that hunt.
From all accounts I thought it went pretty smoothly. Nothing is ever perfect.

Point being FN only access was an idea many disagree on.

LC

[waterninja]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Point being FN only access was an idea many disagree on.

LC

Yeh, well you can put me in that same category. But quite honestly it seems like that is the way the wind is blowing.
Oh well, we can only try are best to be included if there is a hunt.

[waterninja]

I recently read 2 articles from the 1st and 2nd vice-presidents of the AFGA, and they each mention how Hunters Anglers and Trappers are being kept out of the loop, and being marginalized by the Notley govt. Ecological and indigenous groups, as well as the media are recieving much more attention.

[Outdoorfanatic]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Ministik animals are free ranging.

LC

Lefty number one WMU 936 is fenced. Number 2 EINP trophy elk being allow to leave the park via a jump rail is still an EINP elk. So if someone arrows it in the bow zone does that count as a legit trophy? And if so then why require that same person to forfeit the antlers if killed in the park provided the trophy book has an asterisk beside the entry?

[Full Curl Earl]

Originally Posted by alta270

EINP is not considered a game farm.

And what makes the distinction that it isn't? Is there free coming and going of animals into Elk Island? No. It's pretty much a zoo actually. It's historical importance in Alberta is a nice story, but I've been there many times and its not much of a "Wild" National Park, at least in my opinion.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by Outdoorfanatic

Lefty number one WMU 936 is fenced. Number 2 EINP trophy elk being allow to leave the park via a jump rail is still an EINP elk. So if someone arrows it in the bow zone does that count as a legit trophy? And if so then why require that same person to forfeit the antlers if killed in the park provided the trophy book has an asterisk beside the entry?

I have never seen a fence keeping animals in around Ministik...therefore it's a fair chase area. Suffield and Wainwright bases....fair chase. You have to contact P&Y and/or B&C, usually fenced in means it's not fair chase. If an animal is out in the wild and taken via legal means in a fair chase situation...it can be entered is my understanding.

LC

[Outdoorfanatic]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

I have never seen a fence keeping animals in around Ministik...therefore it's a fair chase area. Suffield and Wainwright bases....fair chase. You have to contact P&Y and/or B&C, usually fenced in means it's not fair chase. If an animal is out in the wild and taken via legal means in a fair chase situation...it can be entered is my understanding.

LC

Lefty You didn't address the question. 936? And EINP trophy elk exiting the park into the bow zone. Trophy or not?

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by Outdoorfanatic

Lefty You didn't address the question. 936? And EINP trophy elk exiting the park into the bow zone. Trophy or not?

Yes I did...contact P&Y or B&C, I don't know the answer.

When you say "Trophy or not" are you asking my opinion? Or if it meets the P&Y or B&C minimum if it can be entered?

LC

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by Outdoorfanatic

Lefty You didn't address the question. 936? And EINP trophy elk exiting the park into the bow zone. Trophy or not?

Outdoorfanatic, I think that is a question you have to answer for yourself.

[waterninja]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

I have never seen a fence keeping animals in around Ministik...therefore it's a fair chase area. Suffield and Wainwright bases....fair chase. You have to contact P&Y and/or B&C, usually fenced in means it's not fair chase. If an animal is out in the wild and taken via legal means in a fair chase situation...it can be entered is my understanding.

LC

Wasn't it a year or two ago that someone in Sask. harvested a trophy elk in a fair chase area, but they had to do a DNA analysis to see if it had escaped from a farm? I think there is some rule about escapee's that disqualifies them from entering the record books. Apparantly all elk farms have a DNA registry. I'm betting that the Elk from Elk Island Park have some sort of DNA registry also.
How all that plays out as far as Provincial, State, or even world records go, I don't know. I do know that it doesn't have to break any records to still be considered a trophy.
Heck, if I could harvest a legal 3 pointer I would consider it a trophy.

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by waterninja

I am not trying to be rude at all. I would simply like to hear what his plan is, or on which #post he presented it on.

Post # 181 by Kurt505

This isn't a hunt, it's a cull. If anyone is allowed to enter the park to shoot the animals, they should put a ban on the retention of antlers. This way the anti's can't call it a trophy hunt, the people who only shoot out of their vehicles can stay home too, this won't be a trophy hunt for them either. Managing the herd is #1 priority, #2 is filling the freezer for those who will eat it.

Anyone who would consider this a hunt, isn't a hunter.

[Outdoorfanatic]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Yes I did...contact P&Y or B&C, I don't know the answer.

When you say "Trophy or not" are you asking my opinion? Or if it meets the P&Y or B&C minimum if it can be entered?

LC

Seems like much of the resistance on here to the EINP "hunt/cull" is the issue of whether a trophy might be taken which due to a fence doesn't "count" correct? So would you support someone taking an EINP trophy outside the park? Say in 936? Or in the bow zone around the park?