Elk and Tourism, is it profitable to keep them around?
I love Yellowstone National Park, so naturally after Mr. Kay finished with his lecture I was disturbed. He was very persuasive, and after class I found myself thinking that Yellowstone had some serious issues to work out. I found an article that was expressing concern with some economic factors. It mentions how although tourism of Yellowstone has increased, prices have not, which means they do not have money (of course no one ever does) to continue its resource preservation. It also suggests that the elk are an importance source of revenue for the park because over 93% of tourists are there to see the elk. Would decreasing the amount of elk hurt the park financially? And if it did, would the increase in benefits to the ecosystem be enough of a justification for ridding Yellowstone of the elk population? I tend to think Yellowstone has enough other attractions to make the loss of ‘elk profit’ up just fine. Still, it’s clear to me that Yellowstone is in desperate need of some economists.
posted by Sarah @ 12:22 PM
7 Comments:
I want to know who they surveyed that 93% responded that they go to Yellowstone to see the elk!!! What kind of choices were given on that survey?? "What would you like to see the most? Elk, trees, or rocks?" How about Old Faithful, Grizzly Bears, and the breathtaking scenery? I have a hard time believing that many people actually go there for the sole purpose of seeing a glorified deer. If you decreased the number of elk in Yellowstone I highly doubt that tourism would drop dramtically if at all.
I was at yellowstone, and the first 3-4 elk were fun to see, but the next 5,000 got really boring. I have been to Yellowstone about 4-5 times and have never seen a biighorn sheep while iw as there, and they were the most plentiful before the elk boom. So d rather see a mix of animals than one main one.
I believe that tourism to Yellowstone is done for the sake of going to see one of the "wonders" of the west. If people want to see elk there are more appropriate places (like Cache Valleys Hardware Ranch). However, if the survey is true-- a little promotion about the other wonders of Yellowstone will still bring in the crowds.
When I went to Yellowstone, I went for the whole experience. It isn't worth the park entry fee to see a couple of elk, and it's definitely not worth it to brake because someone sees an elk every three miles.
On the other hand, visiting Old Faithful and the other hot springs and pools were much more interesting experiences unique to Yellowstone.
i've been to yellowstone a couple of times and i can honestly say that the most fun thing is to watch how close some people will walk up to these wild animals. i'm sure that the animals are so used to seeing people with their cameras that they hardly even notice, but people have been mauled before. i'll admit that once i got out to take some pictures of some bison, but i was smart enough to keep a lady between me and the animals.
i do think that the wildlife is great, but i wouldn't travel to far to pay to enter the park and not be guaranteed to see anything. now at the zoo you're guaranteed.
I would be in favor of letting some of the elk in Yellowstone to be hunted yearly. There are some avid hunters around that would pay a lot of money to hunt the quality type of elk in Yellowstone. This would generate extra money for the park, and also help control the elk populations. Of course, there would be things to work out, such as hunting seasons and areas in the park, but it is an idea in solving the elk problems there.
I agree with what casey wrote, I too would much rather see different kinds of animals. I think the park could raise their prices to enter if people thought that they would see a bear or bighorn sheep pr lots of different animals. The idea of hunting the elk would be great if you could figure out all the small details and how they would work out. I think that the park needs to put some heads together to figure out an intelligant way to solve the elk epidemic.
Post a Comment
<< Home