UPDATE: Audit reports elk program cost 3 times original estimate

Wednesday, December 28, 2011 | 4:53 p.m. CST; updated 9:04 p.m. CST, Wednesday, December 28, 2011

JEFFERSON CITY — Missouri's elk restoration program has cost about three times more than initially estimated, to a cost of about $30,000 per animal, the state auditor's office said in a review released Wednesday.

Republican Missouri Auditor Tom Schweich said in the study that the Department of Conversation spent about $1.2 million for expenses such as employee salaries, equipment and habitat improvement.

The Department of Conservation had budgeted about $411,000 for operational costs to introduce up to 150 animals. In all, the review calculated that the Department of Conservation spent about $30,000 on each of the roughly three dozen elk introduced so far.

Conservation officials said the audit's cost calculation is misleading because it includes one-time costs such as building pens for the elk. In addition, the department said the audit counted expenses for habitat improvements that benefit all wildlife, road maintenance and other project costs that likely would have been incurred regardless of any elk restoration.

Tim Ripperger, the deputy director for the Conservation Department, said the agency spent about $363,000 for operational expenses such as trapping, relocating and testing the elk. The four-member Conservation Commission approved the elk restoration plan last year, and Ripperger said commissioners knew at that time some expenses were not included in the cost estimate.

Ripperger said the budgeting process was not unusual and has been used for other Conservation Department projects.

The Conservation Department has said restoring elk could be an economic boost for Missouri through tourism and hunting.

A group with 34 elk was released in June to a 346-square-mile elk restoration zone in parts of Shannon, Carter and Reynolds counties in southern Missouri. The animals were fitted with GPS radio collars to help track their movement, health and preferred types of vegetation. Conservation officials said there now are 36 animals, including five calves. The elk were brought to Missouri from Kentucky.

Eventually up to 150 elk could be released over the next several years. Wild elk had not been present in Missouri in more than 150 years. The department plans to keep elk to the restoration zone through trapping, relocation and euthanasia.

Opponents of the elk restoration have raised concerns about the potential for crop damage, spreading disease to livestock and accidents with vehicles.

The state audit rated the overall performance of the Conservation Department as "good."

Besides the budget, auditors also said they believed some discussions about elk restoration wrongly were held during closed meetings. The audit said commissioners and executive staff discussed elk restoration during closed sessions at the Conservation Commission's meetings in January, April and May.

Missouri's open meetings law, called the Sunshine Law, generally requires public entities to meet in sessions open to the public. However, closed meetings are allowed for certain topics, such as litigation and personnel issues.

The Conservation Department said discussions during the closed sessions related to potential legal actions and were allowed. The agency said in a written response included with the audit's findings that its general counsel reviews every topic planned for discussion during a closed meeting to ensure it is permitted under the Sunshine Law and that commissioners stick to those issues.


Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Robert Whitacre December 28, 2011 | 5:50 p.m.

$30,000.00 per Elk. More than a lot of family's make in a year. This sums up the whole problem with out of control government spending. It is way to easy for government to spend someone eases money on useless things.

(Report Comment)
Corey Parks December 28, 2011 | 10:11 p.m.

Unless this money came from the Missouri Conservation fund then I don't have any problems with them spending the money on what it was intended to do. Part of the reason all other states and many other countries look to Missouri on how to model their programs. Grant money from the govt though should not be used for this. And I would hope that the next 150 elk being released could be done in a more cost efficient manor.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.