Sequim lets it all out with its love-hate relationship with elk
During Wednesday's elk-fence forum in Sequim, Roger Blume calls the Dungeness elk "tanks" that leave "huge destruction in their wake." Blume and his wife, Tracy, seated at right, oppose the state Fish and Wildlife Department proposal to erect a fence that would keep the herd near their Happy Valley home. -- Photo by Diane Urbani de la Paz/Peninsula Daily News
By Diane Urbani de la Paz, Peninsula Daily News
Print This |
Email This
Recent Headlines
To our readers . . . about the Aspire! Quartet’s Singing Valentine program -- 2/10/12 -01:53 PM
Floating luxury home hits the water, now moored at Point Hudson [**Video**] -- 2/10/12 -01:03 PM
Mountain goat population up about 40 percent in Olympic Mountains -- 2/10/12 -12:07 PM
417.9 million bites later . . . (does this video warrant that much attention?) -- 2/10/12 -12:02 PM
Josh Powell had ‘incestuous’ sex images, investigators say -- 2/10/12 -09:32 AM
They saunter through her yard just about every night, though motion-sensitive sprinklers that emit a loud noise that sometimes scares them off.
But often, Blume says, the animals act all too tame, and "just look at you."
Blume's husband Roger uses stronger words.
"They are like tanks," he said of Sequim's iconic creatures.
"They leave huge destruction in their wake. . . . and they are not a wild herd," anymore.
The Blumes were among about 40 Sequim area residents who attended Wednesday night's elk-fence forum.
The session was hosted by the herd's co-managers, the state Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Jamestown S'Klallam tribe.
First forum in two years
The meeting, the first public forum in nearly two years, reflected a love-hate relationship with the beasts.
The band of ungulates that ranges around Sequim numbers only about 60 — down from some 130 five years ago — but it is still a costly concern.
The state and tribe spend more than $100,000 a year in staff time and other expenses, said Jack Smith, the Fish and Wildlife Olympic region manager who moderated Wednesday's discussion.
That amount is a pittance compared with what a fence to keep the elk south of U.S. Highway 101 could cost.
But Fish and Wildlife has focused on fencing as a long-term solution to the problem of elk damaging crops on farms north of the highway.
The animals also are incompatible with an increasingly urban Sequim, Smith has said.
But a fence, which could run along the highway, go south along Louella Road or cut in toward Happy Valley Road, could cost the state $1.5 million to $4 million, depending on its length, and acquisition of easements along private property.
Other issues surfaced during Wednesday's meeting. The Blumes, for instance, don't want a fence keeping the herd on or near their Happy Valley place.
And Sequim City Councilwoman Susan Lorenzen, who said she enjoys watching the elk "grazing on the prairie," suggested fences around the farms instead, to keep the animals from trampling crop fields.
Instead of sinking millions into a 3- to 9-mile fence along the highway, "we could protect the crops somehow. We could reimburse the farmers that have crop damage and call it a day.
'Can't fence Peninsula'
"We can't put a fence across the Peninsula," she added. "They're going to get out somehow."
Kurt Grinnell, a member of the Jamestown tribal council, didn't want to completely dismiss the long-fence idea.
He said, however, that the tribe "thinks there are better alternatives."
Other management techniques employed by the state and tribe include increased issuance of hunting permits and relocation of the elk.
In April 1995, 17 animals were taken east to the Dosewallips area.
And in 2006, the state and tribe put forth a proposal to move nearly the entire herd.
The outcry from people in and around Sequim was loud and passionate against that plan.
Hence the fence, or at least the idea of building one.
But during Wednesday's discussion, it seemed that few want to see such a thing.
Frank Roach, who happily watches the elk herd visit his farm north of the highway, drew laughter and applause with his suggestions.
'Fence out developers'
First Roach raised a question: "Should we have fenced out developers?"
To his mind, they're the ones who've brought on the dilemma of removing or confining the elk.
"We've got to take a look at what we're doing in the whole area," Roach said.
"I urge you to stop and think about good management," of growth, water and wildlife, "so we can all live together."
Roach, whose farm has been in his family for generations, said the elk "don't do that much damage," though they eat a lot and have a lot of calves.
A 1,000-pound bull might try leaping over a fence, he added. If the animal doesn't quite clear it, he could "get his antlers caught, break his neck and die. Is that what we want to see?"
Then Roach offered to make a deal with Fish and Wildlife to develop elk-forage habitat on his land.
Smith thanked him, and many in the room clapped as Roach returned to his seat.
Fish and Wildlife is accepting public input on the fence proposal throughout August, Smith added.
Written comments should be sent to Smith, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA 98563.
The department may go to the state Legislature in January to ask for funding for a fence; the process of obtaining easements and finalizing the fence route would begin no sooner than July 2009.
________
Sequim-Dungeness Valley Editor Diane Urbani de la Paz can be reached at 360-681-2391 or diane.urbani@peninsuladailynews.com.
Last modified: July 30. 2008 9:00PM