Elk will be gone in Idaho by 2012

[Special T]

Yes and i also saw that ID will be raising rates since many out of state hunters are not comeing to the state in the numbers they once did. Some because the areas they know and hunted are now void of elk numbers. Some are more hisitant at dropping a decent chunk of change  when the likely hood of hitting a dead zone has greatly increased and only have a week to hunt.

That doesn't make sense on face value. If people are not coming to hunt because it isn't worth it, you raise the prices and that somehow makes it more worth it?

It's called elasticity of demand. Econ 101, Francis.
http://m.sparknotes.com/economics/micro/elasticity/section1.rhtml

You may (or perhaps not) be surprised that, when i was at college a few snows ago, Half the business class failed the test on Supply and Demand in my course.

I have not seen that "technical" term used in quite some time... I would also have to say that the IDFG have no idea what it means or how to operate thier pricing in regaurds to it. 

[AspenBud]

The problem is, as far as I can tell, everything being said here is anecdotal when it comes to wolves and their impact on potential outfitting clients and the businesses surrounding some of those areas. A lot of that lost business occurred when wolves were expanding and having an impact AND when the economy took the worst nose dive since the Great Depression AND when the highest gas prices ever seen in this country appeared.

Now, realistically, I don't think the recession impacted wealthier clients. But those saving their pennies for that once in a lifetime hunt etc...they took a hit and wolves were probably the least of their reasons for not going.

From 2007 to 2014 you had the perfect storm.   

This should not be construed to mean wolves have not had an impact. But objectively when I look at the facts beyond wolves it's what I see. 

[bearpaw]

The problem is, as far as I can tell, everything being said here is anecdotal when it comes to wolves and their impact on potential outfitting clients and the businesses surrounding some of those areas. A lot of that lost business occurred when wolves were expanding and having an impact AND when the economy took the worst nose dive since the Great Depression AND when the highest gas prices ever seen in this country appeared.

Now, realistically, I don't think the recession impacted wealthier clients. But those saving their pennies for that once in a lifetime hunt etc...they took a hit and wolves were probably the least of their reasons for not going.

From 2007 to 2014 you had the perfect storm.   

This should not be construed to mean wolves have not had an impact. But objectively when I look at the facts beyond wolves it's what I see. 

And specifically what is your position/knowledge of the hunting industry.

I stand by my statements having been in the business since 1978 including through many economic downturns.

Please explain why there are still more and more applicants for tags in states with no wolves?

Please explain why the states with the most wolf impacts have lost the most license sales?

[mfswallace]

The problem is, as far as I can tell, everything being said here is anecdotal when it comes to wolves and their impact on potential outfitting clients and the businesses surrounding some of those areas. A lot of that lost business occurred when wolves were expanding and having an impact AND when the economy took the worst nose dive since the Great Depression AND when the highest gas prices ever seen in this country appeared.

Now, realistically, I don't think the recession impacted wealthier clients. But those saving their pennies for that once in a lifetime hunt etc...they took a hit and wolves were probably the least of their reasons for not going.

From 2007 to 2014 you had the perfect storm.   

This should not be construed to mean wolves have not had an impact. But objectively when I look at the facts beyond wolves it's what I see. 

So 90% wolves and 10% other

[Special T]

The problem is, as far as I can tell, everything being said here is anecdotal when it comes to wolves and their impact on potential outfitting clients and the businesses surrounding some of those areas. A lot of that lost business occurred when wolves were expanding and having an impact AND when the economy took the worst nose dive since the Great Depression AND when the highest gas prices ever seen in this country appeared.

Now, realistically, I don't think the recession impacted wealthier clients. But those saving their pennies for that once in a lifetime hunt etc...they took a hit and wolves were probably the least of their reasons for not going.

From 2007 to 2014 you had the perfect storm.   

This should not be construed to mean wolves have not had an impact. But objectively when I look at the facts beyond wolves it's what I see. 

Wolves of course are not the SOLE reason for less hunters... BUT it is a far cry (and a bunch of BS) to say that hunting has gotten better.

People go to extra ordinary measures for great products/experiences. They will forgo other "things", go into debt, work more etc... If booked outfitter hunts are increasing in places like UT and other non wolf related areas for elk, that would tell me that Wolves are a HUGE part of the issue.

If ID really wanted to do something good for thier herds they would offer out of state predator packs. Wolf, bear, cougar tags at a huge discount to out of state hunters...

I wish WA would do the same thing. Small game W/ bear and Cougar tags for $50-60...  It would help out the herds a bunch, but instead they are choosing the opposite approach.

[Bean Counter]

You may (or perhaps not) be surprised that, when i was at college a few snows ago, Half the business class failed the test on Supply and Demand in my course.

I have not seen that "technical" term used in quite some time... I would also have to say that the IDFG have no idea what it means or how to operate thier pricing in regaurds to it. 

Yep. this is nothing new under the sun, sadly.

An example of government stupid insofar as demand elasticity regards bus fares. Often the metro bus system will attempt to raise revenues by increasing bus fares. Only to  when revenue plummets. Morons. Sometimes you get more money when you LOWER prices because more people consume the product and the loss in revenue per transaction is far outstripped by the overall increase in new business.

Tobacco by contrast is usually demand inelastic. so while raising prices will cause a very small segment to stop smoking, most will pay the higher price and the loss in a few customers is far outstripped by the additional revenue per pack.

[bearpaw]

Elk ranching has greatly benefited from wolves. I know some sportsmen don't like game ranching, but the fact is that wolves have been a boom to elk ranching. As more hunters are disenfranchised by sorely mismanaged game herds more and more of these hunters are turning to game ranches to experience a successful elk hunt.

I know and understand it's not the same satisfaction as a wild hunt, but the fact remains, more and more hunters are turning to game ranches and spending their money there. I have friends who are elk ranchers and each year their businesses have grown considerably despite the economic downturn.

The bottom line is that hunters want to have a successful hunt when they go hunting, after a couple/few unsuccessful hunts they simply quit or go elsewhere.

[AspenBud]

The problem is, as far as I can tell, everything being said here is anecdotal when it comes to wolves and their impact on potential outfitting clients and the businesses surrounding some of those areas. A lot of that lost business occurred when wolves were expanding and having an impact AND when the economy took the worst nose dive since the Great Depression AND when the highest gas prices ever seen in this country appeared.

Now, realistically, I don't think the recession impacted wealthier clients. But those saving their pennies for that once in a lifetime hunt etc...they took a hit and wolves were probably the least of their reasons for not going.

From 2007 to 2014 you had the perfect storm.   

This should not be construed to mean wolves have not had an impact. But objectively when I look at the facts beyond wolves it's what I see. 

And specifically what is your position/knowledge of the hunting industry.

I stand by my statements having been in the business since 1978 including through many economic downturns.

Please explain why there are still more and more applicants for tags in states with no wolves?

Please explain why the states with the most wolf impacts have lost the most license sales?

Who represents the majority of your clients? Wealthier people or folks who saved their pennies? If the latter represents a substantial portion the recession took a giant chunk out of your business whether you know it or not. Your industry has never had to face a downturn like this last one, particularly since 1978.

I'm basing my comments on what I saw. I knew fellow hunters who had to start being more strategic in how often and where they hunted simply because they went from paying $36.00 for a tank of gas to $72.00. Guys who would make a two hour one way drive to hit the woods every weekend for two days cut back. I knew hunters who had to sell everything they owned, including their bird dogs, because they lost their jobs. I knew others who simply stopped spending extra because they wanted to save in case they got unemployed too (I was one). The Northwest was pretty insulated from the worst of the recession compared to the rest of the country, it really was. But if many of your clients are out of state you got hit by what was happening elsewhere.

At this point I am sure wolves now have had an impact on where people choose to hunt. That makes sense, big game numbers are down in some areas and the constant negative advertising from places as simple as this forum feed that fire (sorry). Idaho is also doing a terrible job advertising these days imo. But there has been more to the decline in business than wolves in recent years, a lot more.

[AspenBud]

The problem is, as far as I can tell, everything being said here is anecdotal when it comes to wolves and their impact on potential outfitting clients and the businesses surrounding some of those areas. A lot of that lost business occurred when wolves were expanding and having an impact AND when the economy took the worst nose dive since the Great Depression AND when the highest gas prices ever seen in this country appeared.

Now, realistically, I don't think the recession impacted wealthier clients. But those saving their pennies for that once in a lifetime hunt etc...they took a hit and wolves were probably the least of their reasons for not going.

From 2007 to 2014 you had the perfect storm.   

This should not be construed to mean wolves have not had an impact. But objectively when I look at the facts beyond wolves it's what I see. 

People go to extra ordinary measures for great products/experiences. They will forgo other "things", go into debt, work more etc... If booked outfitter hunts are increasing in places like UT and other non wolf related areas for elk, that would tell me that Wolves are a HUGE part of the issue.

I have a news flash for you. Access to credit was a huge problem and there was no such thing as working more when employers were cutting staff and going out of business.

[MR5x5]

Why debate the what ifs when you have the perfect environmental experiment to understand the wolf cycle impact. , i.e. Yellowstone.  Rough numbers; since the 1996 reintroduction of wolves the elk are down from 18,000 to 3,000, moose are down from 1000 to 10's.  Don't want to here the rough winter BS. Pretty sure there was a rough one or two before wolves.  The single new variable is wolves.  They ate it out, then they moved on.  They will do it here too.  Washington, with it's politics is already lost.  Only question now is how long it will take to complete the cycle.

Again, I really don't understand the argument.  Simply look to the Yellowstone for the answer.

[Special T]

I have a news flash for you. Access to credit was a huge problem and there was no such thing as working more when employers were cutting staff and going out of business.

Well I see plenty of people put things on the card that are not necessary and they tell me that they dont really have the cash but...

I didnt say it was right, smart, or always possible... The simple fact is that people DO spend $ on quality.

I also realize that it is not easy to make more $ like it has in the past. Picking up a little overtime is pretty easy in comparison to starting a side job or something else of that nature.... That said I know several people that are making good money on the side. They have had to think outside of the box, invest some $ and time... Not only is it good insurance against a layoff, but its a great way to pay for a hobby, Like hunting. 

[idaho guy]

Fact is hunting is not nearly as good in ID as it was even 5 years ago.

Do you base this statement on personal experience...or??  I think you are way off the mark on this.  I doubt many who have actually hunted Idaho for years (and still hunt Idaho) would agree with your statement.

I agree 100% with special t statement and I hunt all seasons in idaho every year. If you hunt all the different seasons you are in the woods hunting something at least 10 months out of the year. Dont twist it by saying guys still kill elk, some areas elk are increasing. Elk hunting in Idaho is still good but no denying in most areas it is not as good as 5 years ago and definitely not like ten years or more ago   

[idaho guy]

Just looking at tag sales and reg changes, something is going on in Idaho.  Gee, I wonder what

I agree, its clear deer and elk numbers are definitely increasing.  Did you see all those new hunts and permit level increases proposed for 2015 in Idaho?

I did not notice all the new tags and permits. I guess I was still praying they would bring back the week of archery season we lost and add the days back to the end of the rifle hunt we had or possibly bring back the muzzleloader elk season to the st joe . Or maybe bring back either sex archery elk or the  week of either sex rifle season. We had all of these hunt opportunitys in the panhandle but they have been taken away since the wolf. Are we getting these back? I hope I missed something exciting with "all these new hunts "but I doubt it

[idaho guy]

Why debate the what ifs when you have the perfect environmental experiment to understand the wolf cycle impact. , i.e. Yellowstone.  Rough numbers; since the 1996 reintroduction of wolves the elk are down from 18,000 to 3,000, moose are down from 1000 to 10's.  Don't want to here the rough winter BS. Pretty sure there was a rough one or two before wolves.  The single new variable is wolves.  They ate it out, then they moved on.  They will do it here too.  Washington, with it's politics is already lost.  Only question now is how long it will take to complete the cycle.

Again, I really don't understand the argument.  Simply look to the Yellowstone for the answer.

 :yeah:The perfect case study! Same few members want to deflect any blame off the wolf and onto habitat,weather,economy probably the moon phase too. Facts are out the argument should is over. 

[jasnt]

Why debate the what ifs when you have the perfect environmental experiment to understand the wolf cycle impact. , i.e. Yellowstone.  Rough numbers; since the 1996 reintroduction of wolves the elk are down from 18,000 to 3,000, moose are down from 1000 to 10's.  Don't want to here the rough winter BS. Pretty sure there was a rough one or two before wolves.  The single new variable is wolves.  They ate it out, then they moved on.  They will do it here too.  Washington, with it's politics is already lost.  Only question now is how long it will take to complete the cycle.

Again, I really don't understand the argument.  Simply look to the Yellowstone for the answer.

Why debate the what ifs when you have the perfect environmental experiment to understand the wolf cycle impact. , i.e. Yellowstone.  Rough numbers; since the 1996 reintroduction of wolves the elk are down from 18,000 to 3,000, moose are down from 1000 to 10's.  Don't want to here the rough winter BS. Pretty sure there was a rough one or two before wolves.  The single new variable is wolves.  They ate it out, then they moved on.  They will do it here too.  Washington, with it's politics is already lost.  Only question now is how long it will take to complete the cycle.

Again, I really don't understand the argument.  Simply look to the Yellowstone for the answer.

Why debate the what ifs when you have the perfect environmental experiment to understand the wolf cycle impact. , i.e. Yellowstone.  Rough numbers; since the 1996 reintroduction of wolves the elk are down from 18,000 to 3,000, moose are down from 1000 to 10's.  Don't want to here the rough winter BS. Pretty sure there was a rough one or two before wolves.  The single new variable is wolves.  They ate it out, then they moved on.  They will do it here too.  Washington, with it's politics is already lost.  Only question now is how long it will take to complete the cycle.

Again, I really don't understand the argument.  Simply look to the Yellowstone for the answer.

 :yeah:The perfect case study! Same few members want to deflect any blame off the wolf and onto habitat,weather,economy probably the moon phase too. Facts are out the argument should is over. 

  all the facts are right there in front of there faces and yet they still spew out the same old crap.  Washington will not fair as well as any of these other states.