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

[Old Man Yager]

How about giving a wolf tag with your big game tag purchase?

[KFhunter]

Bearpaw you're in favor of the $2million eradication of wolves,  do you think my suggestion be too little too late, too slow or just ineffectual?


Just seems to me with a good bounty on them they'd get a lot of trappers out there and hopefully get a new trapping culture going.

[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.

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.

Some of the timing was right in the middle of the worst of the recession. A lot of guys in the rust belt were sweating whether the auto bailout would happen or were flat out of work in '09. Those states hold a lot of hunters who travel in good years. Say what you want about the UAW, a lot of those guys made bank and they spread that money around.

I suspect a few other things may be going on too. Depending on where someone lives it is now possible to hunt elk in closer locales. If you live in Ohio you can go hunt elk in Kentucky for much less. Granted, the quota is smaller, but as some states' reintroduced elk herds grow the attraction to go out west may diminish with some.

[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.

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.

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/about/?getPage=270

According to their annual reports, their greatest increase in expenditures has come from fuel and vehicle maintenance, and hatchery operations.

Based upon your response, I don't think you were fully tracking the point I was getting at.

Rocky Mountain states have been able to leverage their hunting assets for many years, funding a very large portion of their operating expenses off of NR license sales.  As a result, residents have benefited through very cheap license costs.  It is a recurring theme that some of these states are finding out that they have maxed out their assets in terms of NR supply and demand.

Yet, many residents are reluctant to pay more for what they get.  License fee increases in some of these states have never been popular and it was always easy to shift the burden to the out of staters.  That well is going dry, and some hard choices will have to be made in the futurer.

Disclaimer:  None of this means that I don't realize and acknowledge there are costs (sometimes significant) involved in wolf management.  And for the record, I very much dislike the fact that license dollars are going to the management of wolves.  I do not believe sportsmen should have to pay for the difference between wolf tag revenues and total management costs.

[AspenBud]

The problem with out of state hunting is once you figure in the gas, vehicle wear and tear, food, motel rooms, license and tag fees, and so forth it gets hard to justify. You can often feed your household for far less with food from the grocery store. Seriously, look at bird hunters, you can buy a chicken for less than many of them pay for gas just to get to their destination in state let alone out of state.

An economic downturn will keep the average guy away and leave the non-resident game to doctors, lawyers, and so on for the most part. An increase in non-res license fees is one thing, but a sharp jump in gas prices, high unemployment/cuts in pay/job insecurity, coupled with an increase can be devastating and that's just what has happened in the last 7 years.

[AspenBud]

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

From a licensing perspective that may be true. But the state loses the multiplier affect of those extra hunters. Fewer hunters means fewer people renting rooms, buying ammo, buying food, buying gas, and more. It actually hurts the state's revenue flow when badly timed or raised too much.

[KFhunter]

I was just thinking of WA doing that as a backdoor way to hide less hunter opportunity for Elk and OIL tags.


Recently they changed antler only in the NE,  but once permits get cut back and OTC tags go away then the westside hunters will feel the pinch. 


raise tag prices = less hunters chasing Elk,  helps delay verifying wolf impacted areas by reducing hunter opportunity.


I had my tin foil hat on

[AspenBud]

I was just thinking of WA doing that as a backdoor way to hide less hunter opportunity for Elk and OIL tags.


Recently they changed antler only in the NE,  but once permits get cut back and OTC tags go away then the westside hunters will feel the pinch. 


raise tag prices = less hunters chasing Elk,  helps delay verifying wolf impacted areas by reducing hunter opportunity.


I had my tin foil hat on

That's not an unreasonable guess from that angle. Though I'd say it also keeps more food around for wolves which can mean more pups living to adulthood and speeding their path to 15 breeding pairs.

 

It may also just be the state being preemptive and recognizing they are having/will have an impact without saying as much for now.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

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.

No Bearpaw, you had the harvest rate correct, about a 20% harvest rate. That is the percentage of hunters that are successful. The 13% exploitation rate I mentioned is the % of the herd that gets harvested.

In other words, out of 100 hunters, 20 of them kill an elk. But out of 100 elk, only 13 of them get killed by hunters. Hence, IF you save 8500 elk from being killed by wolves, only 13% of those elk or 1105 will be killed by hunters if the exploitation rate is constant.

And here's another thought. You are claiming that these 500 wolves are causing the elk population to plummet by killing those 8500 elk. But if hunters were to kill those same 8500 elk, and if you were correct in your assumption, then the herd would still be plummeting, but now it is caused by hunters and not wolves.

Your scenario doesn't compute.

[KFhunter]

Hunters are a short season, during mating season when it doesn't affect calving.
Wolves are year around.

Cows get chased off calving grounds and calves go abandoned, the coyotes/bears/cats slip in and get them

Hunters choose what they kill and are regulated,  antler only hunts
Wolves kill breeder cows



big difference.

Would this cow be in danger from a hunter on April 12? I think not, she probably has calf in her that's going to also die.
What about June?  The same thing plays out but there is a calf on the ground going to die too.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Here's an interesting report on Idaho elk hunting.  http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/elkPlan/state.pdf

Go to page 5 of 12 and look at the chart that shows the elk harvest in Idaho over the years.The current harvest with wolves present would be the envy of hunters before 1990. In fact look at 1976, the harvest plummeted WITHOUT wolves. And then it rebounded due to a multitude of factors and dropped again starting in about 1997, long before wolves were established and an influence on elk herds in Idaho. And the harvest numbers have stayed fairly consistent since that drop.

That 15 year high peak? Part of it could have been from browse getting a rest after the big winter die outs of the mid 70's, and part of it could have been from increased logging activity starting in the mid 80's. But the rise and decline certainly wasn't because of wolves or because of a lack of wolves. Environmental causes were the cause and affect back then. Weather and habitat.

Hunters just got spoiled during an unusual peak that eventually couldn't be sustained. But to say hunting is bad now is ridiculous. I saw a herd in early November, when I was in Idaho blackpowder hunting for elk in the Elk City Zone, of about 40 animals and at least 6 of them were branched bulls  and 5 or 6 spikes. This was after the modern season was over. A herd like that would be marveled at here on the west side of Washington. We also saw upwards of 50 deer that day, both mulies and whitetails and some of the bucks were pretty nice. The elk got onto private property unfortunately before we could catch up to them. And the area we were in was closed for late deer hunting. But I'm going back to the same spot next year for modern season.

[bearpaw]

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.

No Bearpaw, you had the harvest rate correct, about a 20% harvest rate. That is the percentage of hunters that are successful. The 13% exploitation rate I mentioned is the % of the herd that gets harvested.

In other words, out of 100 hunters, 20 of them kill an elk. But out of 100 elk, only 13 of them get killed by hunters. Hence, IF you save 8500 elk from being killed by wolves, only 13% of those elk or 1105 will be killed by hunters if the exploitation rate is constant.

And here's another thought. You are claiming that these 500 wolves are causing the elk population to plummet by killing those 8500 elk. But if hunters were to kill those same 8500 elk, and if you were correct in your assumption, then the herd would still be plummeting, but now it is caused by hunters and not wolves.

Your scenario doesn't compute.

Even if I use your numbers and exploitation rate the idea of a good return to the Idaho economy is sound.

Here's an estimate by IDFG of the economic impact of elk hunting. So if 2Mil is spent eliminating 500 wolves and that increases hunting opportunity with the 8500 elk saved each year, that is roughly an 8% gain on the Idaho elk population (using IDFG current elk population stats and published wolf predation rates on elk), I still see a good return for the Idaho economy. 8% of 175 Mil could be about a 14 mil economic boost in additional hunting opportunity.

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/elkPlan/approvedElkManagementPlan_FullBooklet.pdf
page 50

Economics of Elk and Elk Hunting in Idaho
Elk have substantial consumptive (hunting) and non-consumptive (wildlife viewing) values. Of the two, hunting related revenue is easier to quantify: dollars spent on hunting licenses, elk tags, and hunting-related travel expenses are both definable and quantifiable. Elk are considered one of IDFG’s flagship species, with >80,000 hunters spending >$6.1 million annually on tags (20% of IDFG’s annual license and tag revenue). While nonresident elk tags represent only 10% of total elk tags, they provide 60% of elk-tag revenue. Additionally, direct hunting expenditures (e.g., fuel, meals, lodging, etc.), based on Cooper et al. (2002), indicate elk hunters contribute >$70 million annually; much of it in small, rural economies dependent on tourism dollars. Using a typical economic multiplier of 2.5 (Gordon and Mulkey 1978), total estimated economic impact of elk hunting in Idaho exceeded $175 million.