Deer culling operations will resume next month in Gettysburg National Military Park and Eisenhower National Historic Site as officials continue to reduce the white-tailed deer population to prevent over-browsing of vegetation.
This will be the second fall that marksmen head out into the two units to kill deer. All venison will be donated to area food banks.
"Management of white-tailed deer at Gettysburg and Eisenhower parks has reduced the impacts of past deer damage to historic woodlots and farm fields. We must continue the management program to maintain this recovery," said Superintendent Bob Kirby.
An important purpose of the herd reduction is to support forest regeneration in historic woodlots that played a role in the fighting of the Battle of Gettysburg. The management program also provides for the long-term protection, conservation and restoration of native species and cultural landscapes.
"Long-term forest monitoring at Gettysburg and Eisenhower parks indicates that more seedlings and saplings are living to become trees than in the 1990's," said Zach Bolitho, the park's chief of resource management. "We're making progress in healthier landscapes here."
The deer management program will continue through the end of March. Annual deer reductions will continue from October through March each year, as necessary. A deer reduction community safety committee is consulted on matters of public safety related to the program. The committee is composed of the local Pennsylvania Game Commission officer, the chiefs of police from Gettysburg Borough and Cumberland Township, the chairman of the Gettysburg National Military Park Advisory Commission, and the park superintendent, chief ranger, and biologist.
In 1995, an Environmental Impact Statement described and considered a variety of options for meeting park objectives for deer management, including public hunting, relocation, and the use of sterilization and contraception. Hundreds of people participated in the public review of the EIS and many commented on it in writing. The NPS decided to reduce the number of deer in the parks through shooting.
The park conducts monitoring of the deer population and long-term forest monitoring to help assess the program and set deer management goals.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
And there are quite a few units of the park system -- mainly preserves, ie Katmai National Preserve, Big Cypress National Preserve -- where hunting is allowed. There's even a limited hunt at Grand Teton, and waterfowl hunting at national seashores, though these hunting seasons are by congressional decree, not NPS decision, I believe.
As far as being an absolutist, I think it's important to keep in mind why the park system was established -- hunting is not mentioned in the Organic Act-- and that there are vast amounts of public lands outside the parks (FS, BLM, FWS) where hunting is permitted and more appropriate. Hunting was considered, and dismissed, at Rocky Mountain due to the inherent problems with other visitation.
As I believe I noted on another post, far and away most parks just aren't set up for hunting....there are few access roads into the backcountry, four-wheelers aren't typically allowed. People come to the parks to enjoy the views, hike, watch the wildlife...not watch hunters or be kept out of areas due to hunting.
Neither is fishing, camping, hiking, building hotels, operating gift shops..........
And they do the same in other federal lands with no conflict with hunting. Once again, there are places it is not appropriate but there are many places in NPs that would be appropriate for hunting, target shooting or trapping.
Ah, but there are conflicts. I've been riding my mountain bike in a national forest only to see a deer dart in front of me, a nick out of its back from an arrow, soon to be followed by a pickup full of hunters. Another time our search for a quiet hiking trail to enjoy with our dogs was met with numerous four-wheelers darting here and there. The result was we left the national forest.
When you consider these hunting seasons start in late August in some places and run into November if not longer, the conflicts are not insignificant.
That's not anti-hunting, simply an observation that there are natural conflicts between various recreational uses of public lands.
You suggested that I'm an absolutist when it coms to the parks. Turn that question around: Why do you want to open up national park lands to uses that are more appropriately handled and provided for elsewhere in the public lands arena?
Because I don't want to open ALL National Park areas only those where it is indeed appropriate. I believe there are many areas where it is - you take the absolutist position that it isn't appropriate anywhere. Oh, and by the way - I am not a hunter and despite having thousands of miles on the trail, I have never had an unpleasant encounter with a hunter.
Sorry, but you're inserting words in my keyboard. I have not taken an absolutist position, and even pointed out where hunting is permitted in the park system.
Those are your words from your keyboard. You don't consider them absolutist? There isn't a spot in all of Yellowstone that hunting or a shooting range couldn't be appropriate, Glacier, Yosemite?
You can't be serious.
Yellowstone, Glacier, Yosemite, no.
Those are three out of nearly 400 units of the park system, five if you add Grand Canyon and Great Smoky. I wouldn't describe that as absolutist.