The Rush To An Elk Season

7x7 at Hicks Run Winter 1998: Minolta XE-7 400mm Vivitar

Rawland Cogan directed the development of a Management Plan for Elk in Pennsylvania that was approved in 1996. The plan also advocated the implementation of hunting as a means of population control. It was decided to explore the possibility of holding an elk hunt in the near future. At first the target was 1998, but it was decided that this was too short of a time frame to put the necessary mechanism in place.

Instead The Commission concentrated on a trap and transfer program designed to alleviate overpopulation in the central elk range, while at the same time expanding the elk herd into other areas.

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation funded a study gauging “The Economic Impact of Pennsylvania’s Elk Herd”. Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry, and Penn State, research interns conducted the interviews. This study also included a survey of public sentiment about a limited elk hunt away from the major viewing areas. (Strauss, Tzilkowski, Lord, - The School of Forest Resources The Pennsylvania State University -University Park, Pennsylvania 9/30/99)

In either 1997 or 1998 I encountered the interns when I returned to a PGC parking lot after a morning of photography. A large crowd of tourists was there and I was not one of those selected to participate in the survey. For some reason I did not videotape this and thus missed recording an important moment in the history of Pennsylvania’s elk herd.

The report is extremely detailed, but the results on hunt approval can be condensed to the following:

1. 53% of those surveyed approved of a possible hunt.
2. 62% of hunters approved
3. 39% of non- hunters approved
4. Of those surveyed who expressed approval, the most common membership affiliations were with The National Rifle Association and The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

During this time frame PGC Commissioner George Miller toured the elk range. I learned of this from Dr. Perk. He was impressed with Mr. Miller, but this was before Miller allegedly made a remark to the effect that a hunt must be held soon or public sentiment would be so against it that it would be impossible in the future.


The PGC adopted the position that a hunt would soon be needed to control the expanding population, so an Elk Hunt Advisory Committee was formed in 1999 with Cogan as chairman. The committee included representatives from the Pennsylvania Game Commission, hunters, the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources; tourism and agricultural interests; the legislature and other stakeholders in the elk program.

Perk could see the world as he knew it coming to an end as these events unfolded and he was extremely unhappy as the rush toward the first modern day Pennsylvania elk hunt began. As it turned out he was not alone!

Dr. Perk-The Story Continues: Part 3

According to the “Management Plan For Elk In Pennsylvania 2006-2016-Jon Marc DeBerti Wildlife Biologist” (page 14)

“In October 1995, the PGC (Commissioners) voted unanimously to prohibit the artificial feeding of elk under 58 Pa. Code S137.32. However, prosecution of this violation will remain difficult until the interpretation of this violation is accepted as intended by the judiciary. A new regulation closing loopholes will be in effect beginning in 2006. With the passage of this revised regulation, the PGC will begin to address artificial feeding situations on a case by case basis.”

“The PGC does not support artificial feeding of elk for the following reasons:
1) Feeding creates a public safety hazard for vehicles along
roadways, especially Route 555,
2) The feeding creates a public safety hazard because elk display
aggressive behavior in artificial feeding situations,
3) Diseases such as brainworm and chronic wasting disease (CWD),
along with parasites such as winter ticks are of paramount concern
when large concentrations of elk are fed for a prolonged period of
time in the same vicinity,
4) Elk may become dependent upon the artificial feeding sites to
survive the winter,
5) Elk also become acclimated to humans making them more
susceptible to poaching,
6) tourists travel to the elk range to view elk in their "natural"
environment,
7) Studies indicate that the habitats near feeding locations can be
degraded because of the high use by concentrations of elk and
deer (Michigan DNR 1999).”

Tourists feed and photograph spike bull at Grant 1998

Perk continued to feed the animals, staking his hopes on a sign, which he erected in his lawn that stated the feed was for deer only not elk.

I am unclear as to the chronology of some of these events, but the situation heated up with both parties making derogatory comments about the other.

On one occasion I traveled with my supervisor (maintenance), Billie Cromwell, to visit Mr. Cogan. This was strictly unofficial as we both were on vacation. Billie was involved in an unofficial capacity in filming the PGC Elk Video: Pennsylvania Elk Reclaiming The Alleghenies. (We will delve into this more in the near future).I recall little from the meeting except that Cogan definitely had a negative opinion of Perk. At the time I was inclined to agree on most points.

Perk was both attracted to the PGC and at the same time exhibited an attitude toward it. Notice the black hat in the first post about him. This is a story in itself, but the condensed version is that cap was an “unofficial” PGC hat, which many officers wore with the lawn enforcement uniform. This was against policy, but at the time the approved headgear was a Stetson and most did not like wearing it in the field. Someone designed this hat and it ended up being used a great deal. It had the state insignia and Pennsylvania Game Commission emblazoned on the front. If an officer made the mistake of wearing it around supervisory personnel, they were given a verbal or written reprimand. In time it was approved to wear this type of cap for most functions, albeit in a modified version which was not as attractive as the original. In short, Perk was not illegally wearing a uniform item. He was not above wearing this cap and a revolver when he interacted with the public and it is likely that he hoped they perceived him as an officer.

I usually went into the backcountry to videotape. When I ran into Perk (back in civilization),he would always ask if I had seen any bears, mountain lions, black panthers, etc. He also told me it was too dangerous for him back there. I don’t know if he thought I was a greenhorn and was trying to scare me or if he meant it, but depending on my mood the comments either amused me or irritated me.

Another classic case was when a bull was gored in a fight with another, and the PGC had to put it down, as intestines were dangling from the animal. Perk arrived on the scene. He agreed with what had to be done, but then came off with a fantastic statement to the effect that, “I wonder what his wife and children will do now that he’s gone”, this in reference to the dead bull!

As a result I was somewhat ambivalent about him. He never invited me back to the house to shoot, but again neither was he hostile to me, I definitely sympathized with his desire to see and record elk.

I was told that eventually the PGC placed his residence under surveillance and caught him feeding the elk. The problem was that they actually saw him hand feeding one, so the deer feeding excuse did not work. It is my understanding that he was not charged with the offense, but rather given a warning.

Elk Feeding: Game Lands Near Perk's House Winter 1998

A major part of the controversy arose when ill fortune befell “Jake”. I have no personal knowledge of the incident, but I do know something about the type of procedure that followed.

According to the story that circulated, “Jake” was creating problems, either by taking up residence in a town or near someone’s house. In any case, a complaint was registered. When this happens someone is assigned to deal with the incident and it must be resolved. This usually involves tranquilizing the animal and moving him far away. “Jake” had been moved before, but always found his way back. This time as the story goes, Cogan tranquilized him, transported him to the remote Quehanna Wild Area, and released him. The upshot was that he died! Cogan reportedly said that he was found a mile from where he released him, but Perk and his friends said that you could track the trailer tracks to “Jake’s” body. They lost no opportunity to tell anyone that would listen that “Rawley” killed Jake”. It was implied that it was on purpose!

"Jake in 1995"

To be fair, tranquilizing and relocating a large animal such as an elk or bear is not an exact science and much can go wrong even when one has the best of intentions.

By this time feelings were running high in both camps and neither side seemed likely to back down.

To be continued:

Dr. Perk-The Story Continues

I knew about Perk before I first went to Elk County, and had seen one of his videos, but I was not certain where he lived. On the first evening of my late September trip that year, I drove down Dewey Road intending to park and walk through nearby meadows in the hopes of finding elk.


There was a house in a hollow to my left. To my amazement I saw a woman sitting at a picnic table leaning slightly backward with an apple in her hand. A spike bull was standing between her legs and eating the apple. I noticed a large bull and some cows lying in the lawn, but it wasn’t until I talked to an elk watcher of many years, that I realized that this was Perk’s house. The spike was to become famous among elk watching circles as “Nicholas”.

I walked into the backcountry each evening with my camcorder while my wife sat in the car along Dewey Road, which was where, many parked and looked for elk. This was also Dr. Perk’s favorite spot to approach tourists. They struck up a conversation, which resulted in him inviting her to his house to videotape elk. She was using a Sharp VHS camcorder, which I had retired when I bought a Panasonic AG-455MUP S/VHS camcorder. (The Panasonic was my first semi-professional video camera.)

When I returned from my excursion at dark she was waiting for me in a high state of excitement. The highlights of the evening included her videotaping “Nicholas” when he took an apple from a window sill (the window was open and Perk fed him by placing apples there), and the great monster bull “Jake”. “Jake” is legendary among old time elk watchers. He was a tremendous bull. It turned out that Perk had invited us to visit him that night.

" Jake"

" Eating Apples"

"At Rest"

This was truly a night to remember. Other elk were there, but “Jake” was the main attraction. He was tired from the rutting activity and spent a lot of time sleeping near the front door to the house. Perk and Tom Murphy threw apples to him at times and he fed on them. One of the major topics of conversation was about a proposed ban on the feeding of elk.

Perk named every elk that he could identify and this was a tremendous irritant to some. Rawland Cogan, the elk biologist allegedly expressed the sentiment that naming a magnificent big game animal was demeaning to it. I personally heard this sentiment voiced by a prominent PGC official although not in those exact words. His comments on the situation at Perk’s were laced with ridicule and disgust.

To each his own, but I cannot see how naming is as demeaning as fitting the animals with bright yellow collars with large black numbers. When conversing with other tourists and photographers one can go through a convoluted description of an animal they have seen, but if it has a name one knows instantly which animal is being discussed. If they have a numbered collar it is really simple, but then the animal is not photogenic, nor is it pleasing to look at.

It was of course impossible to outlaw the naming of elk, but feeding could be addressed and it was in October of 1995 when the PGC Board of Commissioners unanimously passed a ban on the activity. (58 Pa. Code S137.32.)

Be sure to come back for the next installment when the question of “why was feeding outlawed ?” is addressed.

Dr. Perk-A Controversial Figure

I first went to Winslow Hill to videotape the elk in 1995

At that time The Gilbert Viewing Area did not exist. The land was still owned by Kenny Gilbert, the farmer for which the viewing area was named. The fields were much as they are today except that no crops were planted to attract the wildlife. At times portions of the meadows were mowed. This area was the hotspot for observing large numbers of elk, several of which were monster bulls.
There was no elk hunt, and there was little talk of one.

A white frame house was located on a small parcel of land in a hollow. This was to the left of what is now known as Dewey Road-the public road, which passes through The Gilbert Viewing Area.

Dr. Perk's House: The cabin to the right was not there in 1995

This was home to Claude M. Nye. Mr. Nye was deeply interested in the elk herd and loved to videotape the animal. He initially used a VHS camcorder. Each year he made a tape of what he saw and offered it to the public for a modest price.

He portrayed himself as an elk expert and called himself "Dr. Perk". This aroused the ire of Rawland ‘Rawley’ Cogan who was the PGC elk biologist at the time and the two became enemies. Perk’s expertise was not biological in nature, nor did he portray it to be. He attracted elk to his property by feeding them and soon had a herd of “habituated” elk that visited each day. By his daily observations he was eventually able to differentiate between individual animals and named most of them. He would tell someone what day, hour, and minute an animal was born.

At the time I thought that this could not be. It was possible to distinguish bulls because of the different antler configurations, but there was no way he could distinguish individual cows.

In time I found that I was wrong. A day came that I could distinguish individual antlerless deer under certain circumstances and I had to eat my words! Now you are saying that I am nuts, but stop and think! Can a farmer differentiate between individual animals in his herd? Can you tell your pet cat or dog from every other dog of the same type out there? One only has to spend a large amount of time around the same group of animals and observe them closely. Soon one notices the differences rather than just the similarities. I do think that he was guessing about the hour and minute of birth in many cases.

1995; Dr. Perk explaining how antlers are shed

Dr. Perk: Second from left in blue jacket

During mating season or “The Rut” as it is normally called, the herd of “habituated” cows that frequented his lawn, brought monster bulls to the area in large numbers.

Dr. Perk was on a collision course with The Pennsylvania Game Commission!

Note: Above photos except Mr. Nye’s residence are frame captures from an S/VHS camcorder as this is from a period when I did not take still photos.