Elk were once native to nearly all of Canada and the entire United States save for Florida and Maine. By 1900, though, setllement, habitat destruction and overhunting had taken a heavy toll. Biologsts estimate that 10 million elk roamed North America when Columbus arrived. By 1900, fewer than 100,000 remained, holding on in a few isolated pockets in the West. Realizing what had been lost, a few visionary hunter-conservationists began an effort to bring elk back. They restored elk to every western state and provinceby the 1930s, and brought wild elk back in Pennsylvania and a few midwestern states as well. In the past 15 years, the Elk Foundation has helped lead a second wave of elk restoration, reintroducing them to states (mainly east of the Mississippi River) where they hadn't been seen for up to 160 years.  

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation’s mission and objectives include conserving natural habitats; perpetuating wild, free-ranging elk populations that may be hunted or otherwise enjoyed; conservation education; and encouraging sound management of elk, other wildlife and their habitat.

As a conservation organization with a focus on elk, the Elk Foundation’s involvement in elk restoration efforts has been natural. Given the increased interest in elk restoration efforts in recent years, it is important that the Foundation clearly define its conservation philosophy and role in elk restoration efforts. The prospect of returning elk to their former range is a very complex issue. The Elk Foundation has no legislated authority or responsibility for elk restoration or management, but stands ready to assist, facilitate, finance, and otherwise support restorations when the responsible authority in each state has determined that restoration is desirable and suitable.

Status

Wild elk were restored in Wisconsin under an experimental study program in 1995. In 1998, wild elk from Utah were reintroduced into eastern Kentucky to re-establish a free-ranging elk herd, and soon the Bluegrass State will be home to the East’s largest elk herd. Restoration efforts in Tennessee began in December 2000. In February 2001, 26 elk were released in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, situated on the border of Tennessee and North Carolina. Between 1998 and 2001, 460 elk were transported from Elk Island National Park, Alberta, for release in four areas of Ontario. Restoration study efforts are underway by state and federal agencies in other states such as New York, Virginia, and Missouri. The Elk Foundation’s primary role in these efforts has been to assist the state and federal agencies in funding feasibility studies, transporting and monitoring elk, and providing public information assistance.

Many factors must be considered in addressing wild elk reintroductions, including habitat suitability and availability, disease implications and testing, potential to impact agriculture or other land uses, transporting animals, selecting a source of wild elk, coordination with agencies, and program costs.

Given the enthusiasm of Elk Foundation members for restoration efforts, it is imperative that the Foundation clearly articulates its position on the restoration of elk.

Position Statement

The Elk Foundation believes that there are potential opportunities to reintroduce elk into historical ranges in states east of the Mississippi River, but only after careful consideration of many important issues. Restoration efforts will be fostered by social, ecological, educational, economic and cultural benefits existing in various combinations in specific locations. These restoration efforts constitute elements of the Foundation’s mission that may include opportunities such as hunting, habitat management and enhancement, wildlife viewing and conservation education.

Restoration efforts may occur in the following two categories:

• Establishment of wild, free-ranging populations that may provide hunting opportunities and other public benefits. This represents the ideal situation.
  
• Restoration into enclosures where large-scale habitat management efforts allow elk to exist in a natural landscape supported by native vegetation and to coexist with other wildlife. The landscape scale and the opportunity for public benefits such as conservation education and wildlife viewing will be important parameters in this situation.
  

Each of these two categories will be subject to all applicable state, provincial and federal laws.

RMEF will coordinate and define its level of assistance with appropriate state, provincial and federal agencies having legislated authority and responsibility for managing habitat or populations of wildlife.

RMEF believes that decisions regarding elk restoration efforts are the responsibility of appropriate state or provincial wildlife agencies and habitat management agencies complemented with broad public involvement. At the request of appropriate agencies, the RMEF may become involved in restoration efforts. RMEF’s primary role will be to assist the appropriate agencies in any of several capacities that are appropriate and timely.

Many important considerations must be addressed by the appropriate agency before a determination can be made to restore elk into historic ranges. The RMEF may assist in these efforts as appropriate. While not an exhaustive list, Appendix A contains a checklist of elements that need to be addressed prior to any decision to move wild elk into historic ranges.

The long-term relationship of the RMEF in elk restoration poses additional challenges. In general, newly restored elk will pose a financial burden to state, provincial and federal agencies. Assisting with management costs resulting from a relocation effort will be considered by the RMEF on a case-by-case basis. In general, the RMEF will work to withdraw from routine management costs over time, looking for state, provincial and federal agencies to assume fiscal responsibility for routine management.

Appendix A

While not an exhaustive list, the following list represents important decision criteria for any proposed elk relocation effort:

• Habitat suitability, including all seasonal requirements that would sustain a free-ranging population and not require supplemental feeding. Included in this evaluation is a determination of the potential for depredation on traditional agricultural crops in an area of consideration. Opportunities for prevention or mitigation of depredation should be evaluated.
  
• Potential conflict with resident wildlife for life-supporting resources, space and traditional human-related uses. Elk are adaptive and can pose a significant competitive force with other wildlife, resulting in a change in other important wildlife resources.
  
• Social opportunities or concerns regarding the educational, recreational and aesthetic values of elk restoration. Public awareness and support for restoration efforts must be carefully evaluated.
  
• Disease transmission between elk and other wildlife, domestic livestock and humans must be evaluated and analyzed with regard to risk. This is a complex area and will be strongly influenced by the source of reintroduced elk, and by the knowledge and technology regarding testing and transmission of disease.
  
• The source of wild elk for restoration and the willingness and desirability of source agencies to provide elk is a key consideration in a restoration effort. Genetics, diseases, behavior and reproductive status are all important considerations.
  
• Logistical considerations in capturing, transporting and releasing elk are directly relevant to successful restoration. Capture methodology, disease and health checks, distance and method of transportation, sexes and ages of the transplanted elk, and release timing and procedures are all important considerations.
  
• Long-term management strategy and responsibility: concerns regarding the long-term population and habitat management must be addressed, as well as roles and responsibilities over time. The RMEF cannot replace state, provincial or federal agencies and budgets, and will need to identify as early as possible in the restoration effort when we will end active financial involvement.