Elk graze in Yellowstone National Park.

Grand Teton National Park has always been the subject of controversy. From its present-day inception to conserve a large, open valley in 1950, to the reintroduction of wolves and the expanding growth of grizzly bears, and even to present day where a growing population is seeking an end to the annual elk hunt within park boundaries.

The park came into formation back in 1950. Back then, wolves had been exterminated, and grizzly bears were closely following that route thanks to the mindset that predators weren’t welcome in nature. As a result, the elk population exploded causing a plethora of overpopulation side effects to the species, as well as aspen trees. Thus, the annual elk reduction hunt was initiated to keep the population at bay. Yet many are wondering if present day circumstances still require the hunt.

I personally am not a hunter, nor do I have any interest in hunting. However I am not against it, nor hunters in general. I understand that it’s a passionate tradition and having plenty of fresh meat for an entire winter is certainly something worth having. Instead this argument stems from the fact that the national park service, whose very purpose "is to conserve the scenery and … wild life therein … in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations," is altering the behavior of the very wildlife it claims to be protecting. It’s a subject that has become a hot topic of debate in recent years with many conservationists accusing the park of being hypocritical in their purpose.

While it certainly does go a long way in supporting Wyoming Game & Fish financially, it’s caused a number of additional side effects that have begun altering the very ecosystem they’re trying to protect.

First, the still-endangered grizzly bears have now become dependent and expectant of gut piles that hunters leave behind. While lightening the hunters’ load, this creates countless encounters between both grizzlies and hunters, and while its required for hunters to carry bear spray within park boundaries, what’s the reality that a hunter will reach for bear spray before a gun? I’d like to think most would, but I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to learn that the opposite were true. This puts an endangered species at risk, as was the unfortunate case with an offspring of the now world famous grizzly bear, #399, of the park. Not only does this leave their lives at risk, but in keeping the hunt alive, the park has left artificial feedings available for them, much like Yellowstone National Park before it enforced a no bear feeding policy in the mid-20th century.

Another side effect is human lives are at risk. Eye-witness reports come first hand of people being shot at because they’re moving at a far distance from a hunter, and many hunters that come to the area have a shoot first, ask questions later mentality. This also bodes poorly for not just humans, but any other creatures that might be in the line of fire.

While out on a walk in rural, northern Jackson last fall, I found myself enjoying the company of an elk herd off the road nearby, cautiously observing me several dozen yards away in a large open field. A few hundred yards away in the tree line, I saw a small spark of light followed quickly by the sound of a gunshot. The ears of the elk perked up as they looked in that direction while I threw my hands up in the air wondering what on Earth they were thinking. I assumed they had seen me until I saw another shot fired, and angrily walked away before getting any more senses involved than just sight and sound.

The fall before that, I was watching elk in the National Elk Refuge with a couple of other photographers, when we noticed one cow in particular trailing from her herd. Upon closer inspection, we discovered that her jaw had been carelessly shot, and was simply left alive to starve since it was unable to eat.

In keeping the annual elk hunt alive, it has altered the behavior of elk toward humans. They’ve become deathly afraid and cautious of any human they encounter, whereas other elk, such as in Mammoth Hot Springs, will stand their ground and even walk right through campsites. (It should be noted here that elk, as well as any wildlife, should never be approached, especially during mating season, and should always be viewed from a respectful distance.) They can be a majestic and magnificent creature to watch in their natural environment, but unfortunately it’s not a behavior you can witness in Grand Teton National Park. Elk remain hidden and out of sight in Grand Teton National Park during daylight hours.

I’ve often begun to wonder if the Jackson Elk Herd in general is a smaller, weaker herd compared to other herds that are able to experience year-round protection, such as the one that summers around Mammoth Hot Springs in Yellowstone National Park. That herd doesn’t have anyone "trophy hunting" the biggest and strongest bulls, thus leaving them alive for years to procreate and pass on their genes, while encouraging other bulls to evolve to challenge them. On a similar note, wolves remove the slower, sicker and smaller of the herds. In Mammoth Hot Springs, this would leave the average and stronger to continue to thrive. In Grand Teton National Park, which would be left?

A black wolf in Yellowstone National Park.

On another similar note, as mentioned in the linked article, with the reintroduction of wolves, an elk reduction hunt isn’t as necessary today than in recent decades since wolves are now naturally reducing the elk herd. Combined with the powerful comeback of grizzly bears in the area, we see nature beginning to restore its own natural balance. Considering nature had everything in perfect balance before European settlers arrived anyway, who are we to say how nature should behave and be regulated? I’ve always had the belief that nature has a much better idea of how it should be controlled rather than humans.

As mentioned earlier, I am not against hunting or hunters in general. I understand the benefits, and I know there are plenty of responsible hunters out there who would probably even agree with everything I’ve said. My intention is not to attack hunters or hunting. My point is simply that in continuing an elk hunt within Grand Teton National Park every year, they have completely contradicted their own mission statement and in doing so, have clearly altered the behavior and safety of several species, including the very humans that feed their tourism dollars.

Admittedly though, it is a step in the right direction to see the park trying to take a stronger approach toward hunting solely cow elk. As the article mentioned, the elk population peaked in 1996 at 16,236. This was before grizzlies and wolves had even begun to really reestablish even a hint of their presence. Yet with the tremendous health and growth of these predatory populations, one has to wonder if the annual elk hunt will even be necessary in a few more years. As their presence returns to their original, natural state, perhaps nature is solving this whole controversy on its own thanks to the strides the park service has taken thus far to ensure the safety of these animals.

With the park service seeming not yet ready to budge on their hunting stance, we can only hope that this ecosystem will bring itself back into full balance, despite the growth and tourism that has expanded in the area. For that to happen though, we need to ensure that the safety and well-being of both wolves and grizzly bears is seen beyond park boundaries, which is an another issue altogether. …or is it?