Lawmakers: $2M aimed to kill more than 500 wolves

[JLS]

Since delisting the population of wolves in the state of Idaho has tripled.

Actually, it's gone down since delisting.

[pianoman9701]

Since delisting the population of wolves in the state of Idaho has tripled.

Actually, it's gone down since delisting.

Well, according to the state of ID, not near enough.

[AspenBud]

Since delisting the population of wolves in the state of Idaho has tripled.

Actually, it's gone down since delisting.

Well, according to the state of ID, not near enough.

My guess is if they get to the 150 mark they'll be looking at hopping on the ESA train again. It will simply prove wolves are pretty easy to kill off  or that the population was too small to handle the sustained hunting they have going on, lawsuits will be filed, etc.

That's a big if however.

[JLS]

Since delisting the population of wolves in the state of Idaho has tripled.

Actually, it's gone down since delisting.

Well, according to the state of ID, not near enough.

I didn't say it had gone down enough.  I was merely pointing out that it had not tripled as was alleged in the post I quoted. 

[JLS]

Since delisting the population of wolves in the state of Idaho has tripled.

Actually, it's gone down since delisting.

Well, according to the state of ID, not near enough.

My guess is if they get to the 150 mark they'll be looking at hopping on the ESA train again. It will simply prove wolves are pretty easy to kill off  or that the population was too small to handle the sustained hunting they have going on, lawsuits will be filed, etc.

That's a big if however.

I don't think they will have to approach or break the 150 mark to trigger ESA action.  If you will recall, genetic connectivity was a big reason the delisting process stalled after the original benchmarks were met.  Based on that, I dont' think there is a chance in Hades that the populations will approach 150 before an injunction is filed and the relisting petitions are submitted.

[pianoman9701]

Since delisting the population of wolves in the state of Idaho has tripled.

Actually, it's gone down since delisting.

Well, according to the state of ID, not near enough.

I didn't say it had gone down enough.  I was merely pointing out that it had not tripled as was alleged in the post I quoted.

OK, understood.

Since delisting the population of wolves in the state of Idaho has tripled.

Actually, it's gone down since delisting.

Well, according to the state of ID, not near enough.

My guess is if they get to the 150 mark they'll be looking at hopping on the ESA train again. It will simply prove wolves are pretty easy to kill off  or that the population was too small to handle the sustained hunting they have going on, lawsuits will be filed, etc.

That's a big if however.

They'll never kill 500 wolves in a year and that's what they need to do to get within manageable number. They do reproduce fast. No ones going to stand for poisoning, which is effective.

[AspenBud]

Since delisting the population of wolves in the state of Idaho has tripled.

Actually, it's gone down since delisting.

Well, according to the state of ID, not near enough.

I didn't say it had gone down enough.  I was merely pointing out that it had not tripled as was alleged in the post I quoted.

OK, understood.

Since delisting the population of wolves in the state of Idaho has tripled.

Actually, it's gone down since delisting.

Well, according to the state of ID, not near enough.

My guess is if they get to the 150 mark they'll be looking at hopping on the ESA train again. It will simply prove wolves are pretty easy to kill off  or that the population was too small to handle the sustained hunting they have going on, lawsuits will be filed, etc.

That's a big if however.

They'll never kill 500 wolves in a year and that's what they need to do to get within manageable number. They do reproduce fast. No ones going to stand for poisoning, which is effective.

Maybe not in a year, but if the population is trending downward that means they're either running out of food and dying, open hunting and trapping is proving more affective than everyone thought it would be, or the numbers are simply an anomaly.

I'm just saying if the Idaho governor gets his wish he may be re-digging the hole for Idaho. Again, it's a big if.

[bearpaw]

If one wolf eats 17 elk per year (a widely accepted number) and if the average hunter success is 20% then 17 elk saved from one wolf would provide recreation for 85 additional hunters. Guided non-resident elk hunters leave approx $5000 per hunter in Idaho (outfitter fees, plus license and tags, plus 6% sales tax, plus travel, lodging, and meals before and after the hunt). Unguided non-resident elk hunters likely leave $1000 to $2000 ($1500 average) in Idaho. I would imagine that unguided resident hunters spend at least $500 to elk hunt in Idaho and probably closer to $1000. If half the hunters are unguided residents @ $500, 1/4 are guided @ $5000, and 1/4 are unguided non-residents @ $1500, then the average elk hunter in Idaho likely directly brings in about $1875 per hunter directly in commerce.

Multiply $1875 x 85 additional hunters and that means one wolf is likely costing Idaho $159,375. If Idaho removes 500 wolves as the article mentions that could allow as many as 42,500 additional elk hunters which means nearly 80 million dollars per year could be spent by the additional elk hunters.

2 Million is a small price to pay. Praise governor Otter for his economic wisdom!

Math evidently isn't your strong suit. Why you ask? How about we reverse engineer your figures? First you infer that every elk supposedly saved by killing wolves is an elk that a hunter will kill. Not realistic. Those 8500 elk you think will be saved?  With the estimated population of about 117,000 elk in 2011 ( http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/elkPlan/state.pdf) the statewide harvest was just over 15,000 elk for a exploitation rate of about 13% of the total herd. So if the herd gained 8500 elk, with an exploitation rate of 13%, that would mean hunters would actually take about 1105 more elk, except those 8500 elk you supposedly saved? A good percent of them will be cows and calves which may or may not even be legal to take depending on where they live.

So say only about 800 more elk are going to be killed by hunters from the elk that you may be saving. Idaho has 29 elk zones and 78 units. That means on average each Zone might have 25-30 more elk killed. I hardly think that will equate to 42,500 more hunters hunting in Idaho. At a 20% hunter success rate 800 extra elk killed would equate to about 4,000 more hunters, about 10% of your estimate.

My question to you though, is, even if your numbers were correct, is that what you really want for Idaho elk hunting? 42,500 more elk hunters? That's over 50% more elk hunters than in 2011. I'm sure local hunters would beg to differ with that. There were over 74,700 elk hunters in Idaho in 2011. Add your total of 42,500 new hunters and you'd get 117,200 elk hunters. That might be a good deal for a guy like you who makes money off of more hunters, but it would sure take away from the total experience for guys who don't like circus style hunting. Personally, I know I'd rather hunt in an area with less animals and less hunters than more animals and more hunters and all the negative things that go with crowding in the woods, from camping spots, to feeling like you're in a race to beat someone to where you want to hunt, to garbage in the woods, to more drawing hunts, etc etc.

Idaho only sells a maximum of 10.5k non resident elk tags.

If one wolf eats 17 elk per year (a widely accepted number) and if the average hunter success is 20% then 17 elk saved from one wolf would provide recreation for 85 additional hunters. Guided non-resident elk hunters leave approx $5000 per hunter in Idaho (outfitter fees, plus license and tags, plus 6% sales tax, plus travel, lodging, and meals before and after the hunt). Unguided non-resident elk hunters likely leave $1000 to $2000 ($1500 average) in Idaho. I would imagine that unguided resident hunters spend at least $500 to elk hunt in Idaho and probably closer to $1000. If half the hunters are unguided residents @ $500, 1/4 are guided @ $5000, and 1/4 are unguided non-residents @ $1500, then the average elk hunter in Idaho likely directly brings in about $1875 per hunter directly in commerce.

Multiply $1875 x 85 additional hunters and that means one wolf is likely costing Idaho $159,375. If Idaho removes 500 wolves as the article mentions that could allow as many as 42,500 additional elk hunters which means nearly 80 million dollars per year could be spent by the additional elk hunters.

2 Million is a small price to pay. Praise governor Otter for his economic wisdom!

Math evidently isn't your strong suit. Why you ask? How about we reverse engineer your figures? First you infer that every elk supposedly saved by killing wolves is an elk that a hunter will kill. Not realistic. Those 8500 elk you think will be saved?  With the estimated population of about 117,000 elk in 2011 ( http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/elkPlan/state.pdf) the statewide harvest was just over 15,000 elk for a exploitation rate of about 13% of the total herd. So if the herd gained 8500 elk, with an exploitation rate of 13%, that would mean hunters would actually take about 1105 more elk, except those 8500 elk you supposedly saved? A good percent of them will be cows and calves which may or may not even be legal to take depending on where they live.

So say only about 800 more elk are going to be killed by hunters from the elk that you may be saving. Idaho has 29 elk zones and 78 units. That means on average each Zone might have 25-30 more elk killed. I hardly think that will equate to 42,500 more hunters hunting in Idaho. At a 20% hunter success rate 800 extra elk killed would equate to about 4,000 more hunters, about 10% of your estimate.

My question to you though, is, even if your numbers were correct, is that what you really want for Idaho elk hunting? 42,500 more elk hunters? That's over 50% more elk hunters than in 2011. I'm sure local hunters would beg to differ with that. There were over 74,700 elk hunters in Idaho in 2011. Add your total of 42,500 new hunters and you'd get 117,200 elk hunters. That might be a good deal for a guy like you who makes money off of more hunters, but it would sure take away from the total experience for guys who don't like circus style hunting. Personally, I know I'd rather hunt in an area with less animals and less hunters than more animals and more hunters and all the negative things that go with crowding in the woods, from camping spots, to feeling like you're in a race to beat someone to where you want to hunt, to garbage in the woods, to more drawing hunts, etc etc.

Nice try blacktail.

Much of Idaho has either sex or cow elk seasons. Seasons are structured to take excess elk, by eliminating 500 wolves studies seem to indicate that we would have approx (500 x 17elk per year) 8500 more excess elk for hunters to harvest each year. Perhaps in areas with deer it would equate as follows (1 wolf removed leaves 44 more deer available to hunters) which would be an even greater economic boom for Idaho. Because I didn't lookup the average statewide harvest I stand corrected, with a 13% success rate those 8500 elk could provide hunting opportunity for more than 65,000 hunters. It seems I heard that Colorado sustains 200,000 to 300,000 elk hunters per year. Not saying I want this much hunting competition but 117,000 elk hunters can surely fit into Idaho if we had the elk to support them. The point is that the state of Idaho is losing tens of millions of dollars to wolves no matter how precise my estimated figures may be.

If one wolf eats 17 elk per year (a widely accepted number) and if the average hunter success is 20% then 17 elk saved from one wolf would provide recreation for 85 additional hunters. Guided non-resident elk hunters leave approx $5000 per hunter in Idaho (outfitter fees, plus license and tags, plus 6% sales tax, plus travel, lodging, and meals before and after the hunt). Unguided non-resident elk hunters likely leave $1000 to $2000 ($1500 average) in Idaho. I would imagine that unguided resident hunters spend at least $500 to elk hunt in Idaho and probably closer to $1000. If half the hunters are unguided residents @ $500, 1/4 are guided @ $5000, and 1/4 are unguided non-residents @ $1500, then the average elk hunter in Idaho likely directly brings in about $1875 per hunter directly in commerce.

Multiply $1875 x 85 additional hunters and that means one wolf is likely costing Idaho $159,375. If Idaho removes 500 wolves as the article mentions that could allow as many as 42,500 additional elk hunters which means nearly 80 million dollars per year could be spent by the additional elk hunters.

2 Million is a small price to pay. Praise governor Otter for his economic wisdom!

Math evidently isn't your strong suit. Why you ask? How about we reverse engineer your figures? First you infer that every elk supposedly saved by killing wolves is an elk that a hunter will kill. Not realistic. Those 8500 elk you think will be saved?  With the estimated population of about 117,000 elk in 2011 ( http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/elkPlan/state.pdf) the statewide harvest was just over 15,000 elk for a exploitation rate of about 13% of the total herd. So if the herd gained 8500 elk, with an exploitation rate of 13%, that would mean hunters would actually take about 1105 more elk, except those 8500 elk you supposedly saved? A good percent of them will be cows and calves which may or may not even be legal to take depending on where they live.

So say only about 800 more elk are going to be killed by hunters from the elk that you may be saving. Idaho has 29 elk zones and 78 units. That means on average each Zone might have 25-30 more elk killed. I hardly think that will equate to 42,500 more hunters hunting in Idaho. At a 20% hunter success rate 800 extra elk killed would equate to about 4,000 more hunters, about 10% of your estimate.

My question to you though, is, even if your numbers were correct, is that what you really want for Idaho elk hunting? 42,500 more elk hunters? That's over 50% more elk hunters than in 2011. I'm sure local hunters would beg to differ with that. There were over 74,700 elk hunters in Idaho in 2011. Add your total of 42,500 new hunters and you'd get 117,200 elk hunters. That might be a good deal for a guy like you who makes money off of more hunters, but it would sure take away from the total experience for guys who don't like circus style hunting. Personally, I know I'd rather hunt in an area with less animals and less hunters than more animals and more hunters and all the negative things that go with crowding in the woods, from camping spots, to feeling like you're in a race to beat someone to where you want to hunt, to garbage in the woods, to more drawing hunts, etc etc.

Idaho only sells a maximum of 10.5k non resident elk tags.

Good point I overlooked the current statewide nonresident elk tag quota, but quotas can be changed if the state had more elk.

However, since wolves have taken over many units, the state has not sold their quota of non-resident tags. I have been able to purchase elk tags till the end of hunting season every year. 15 years ago elk tags were sold out very early each year.

Even if the additional opportunity went to residents, if 65,000 resident hunters spent at least $500 hunting elk that would be $32,500,000 in commerce to Idaho. Ok worse case scenario, lets say only 1/5 as many resident hunters and no non-resident hunters take advantage of the new elk hunting opportunities, that's still 6.5 million each year, that's a pretty good return on the 2 million investment in killing wolves.

[pianoman9701]

Since delisting the population of wolves in the state of Idaho has tripled.

Actually, it's gone down since delisting.

Well, according to the state of ID, not near enough.

I didn't say it had gone down enough.  I was merely pointing out that it had not tripled as was alleged in the post I quoted.

OK, understood.

Since delisting the population of wolves in the state of Idaho has tripled.

Actually, it's gone down since delisting.

Well, according to the state of ID, not near enough.

My guess is if they get to the 150 mark they'll be looking at hopping on the ESA train again. It will simply prove wolves are pretty easy to kill off  or that the population was too small to handle the sustained hunting they have going on, lawsuits will be filed, etc.

That's a big if however.

They'll never kill 500 wolves in a year and that's what they need to do to get within manageable number. They do reproduce fast. No ones going to stand for poisoning, which is effective.

Maybe not in a year, but if the population is trending downward that means they're either running out of food and dying, open hunting and trapping is proving more affective than everyone thought it would be, or the numbers are simply an anomaly.

I'm just saying if the Idaho governor gets his wish he may be re-digging the hole for Idaho. Again, it's a big if.

Big if is right. Unfortunately, wolves will never again become extinct in the lower 48, or anywhere near it. We simply won't be allowed to employ the means necessary to do that. They have no natural predators other than man. They breed like dogs. And, unlike most other predators they're highly adaptable to needed changes in diet and habitat.

[bearpaw]

Since delisting the population of wolves in the state of Idaho has tripled.

Actually, it's gone down since delisting.

Well, according to the state of ID, not near enough.

I didn't say it had gone down enough.  I was merely pointing out that it had not tripled as was alleged in the post I quoted.

OK, understood.

Since delisting the population of wolves in the state of Idaho has tripled.

Actually, it's gone down since delisting.

Well, according to the state of ID, not near enough.

My guess is if they get to the 150 mark they'll be looking at hopping on the ESA train again. It will simply prove wolves are pretty easy to kill off  or that the population was too small to handle the sustained hunting they have going on, lawsuits will be filed, etc.

That's a big if however.

They'll never kill 500 wolves in a year and that's what they need to do to get within manageable number. They do reproduce fast. No ones going to stand for poisoning, which is effective.

If they use helicopters and that's what wildlife services will likely use, then I imagine they will take out hundreds of wolves.

Watch for it on TV, Ted Nugent hunting wolves from choppers. 

That last comment was just meant to be a joke. 

[JLS]

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/jan/29/idaho-sees-drop-out-state-hunters/

I don't think it's coincidence that tag sales dropped following a license fee increase.  Montana saw the same thing.

I would hazard a guess that economics are as much a part of this equation as wolves.

[AspenBud]

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/jan/29/idaho-sees-drop-out-state-hunters/

I don't think it's coincidence that tag sales dropped following a license fee increase.  Montana saw the same thing.

I would hazard a guess that economics are as much a part of this equation as wolves.

Even without that the recession has done its share of damage in the last 7 years. If it's traveling out of state to hunt versus making ends meet the out of state hunt loses.

[pianoman9701]

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/jan/29/idaho-sees-drop-out-state-hunters/

I don't think it's coincidence that tag sales dropped following a license fee increase.  Montana saw the same thing.

I would hazard a guess that economics are as much a part of this equation as wolves.

Where do you think a large part of their expense increase came from, chipmunk control? They're dumping huge amounts of money into rancher/homeowner compensation, control, etc. Not only are ungulates decreasing in many areas, which drives license sales down, but they're spending more money each year on the wolves. This proposal for $2M is a great example of it. Raising prices in a declining market is always a disaster and because of their legislative mandate to keep license costs in line with operating costs, they're stuck between a wolf and a hard place. We're only a couple of years behind.

[KFhunter]

Increase tag costs = less hunters chasing Elk, but retains revenue flowing to the state.

[JLS]

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/jan/29/idaho-sees-drop-out-state-hunters/

I don't think it's coincidence that tag sales dropped following a license fee increase.  Montana saw the same thing.

I would hazard a guess that economics are as much a part of this equation as wolves.

Even without that the recession has done its share of damage in the last 7 years. If it's traveling out of state to hunt versus making ends meet the out of state hunt loses.

I agree with the recession part, but look at the timing of the dropoffs.  Idaho raised fees in 2009 = dropoff.  The same year I did not draw a Montana tag.  When Montana raised fees = instant dropoff and you can buy surplus licenses OTC every year since.