Post by: jon.brown509 on January 28, 2014, 05:49:31 PM
http://www.krem.com/news/northwest-news/242296221.html (http://www.krem.com/news/northwest-news/242296221.html)
Post by: CAMPMEAT on January 28, 2014, 06:11:39 PM
Post by: snowpack on January 28, 2014, 06:15:16 PM
Post by: Wea300mag on January 28, 2014, 06:32:06 PM
Post by: Wea300mag on January 28, 2014, 06:33:43 PM
Post by: sagewalker on February 04, 2014, 05:19:18 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 04, 2014, 05:41:35 PM
ID needs long term predator management, not a $2 million temporary band-aid.
I love the co-op idea, let the hunters/trappers create their own economy rather than blow that kind of cash down the toilet for a temporary reprieve. In the meanwhile Elk populations will boom drawing in more wolves as they disperse from neighboring states, which in turn will boom then you're looking at another 2 million dollar wolf removal project.
Haphazardly killing them down to 500 total isn't the correct approach, you'll destroy established packs and create a vacuum. Any stabilization of ungulate/predator relations will be on a roller coaster and impossible to stabilize. I'd rather see wolves dispersed state wide but pack sizes very small and heavily controlled by trapping/hunting.
At $4000 bounty per wolf you'd have so many trappers in the woods you couldn't turn around without bumping a trap, a smaller bounty would suffice and you could increase/decrease on the needs of the state. If the population ever drops where USFWS start threatening action ID could drop the bounty to nothing. As they start gaining raise it.
Post by: sagewalker on February 04, 2014, 06:09:18 PM
Post by: jon.brown509 on February 04, 2014, 08:50:52 PM
This is what every "I wanna kill all the wolves to save my hunting " logic is wanting now there going to get it.Just the after effects well be far worse with juveniles leading new packs instead of mature dogs guess they'll have to blow away more money to fix it.Sad thing is no one well try to defend Idaho fish and game anymore because of stuff like this.
Post by: sagewalker on February 04, 2014, 08:56:11 PM
Post by: JLS on February 04, 2014, 09:12:14 PM
Wrong approach.
ID needs long term predator management, not a $2 million temporary band-aid.
I love the co-op idea, let the hunters/trappers create their own economy rather than blow that kind of cash down the toilet for a temporary reprieve. In the meanwhile Elk populations will boom drawing in more wolves as they disperse from neighboring states, which in turn will boom then you're looking at another 2 million dollar wolf removal project.
Haphazardly killing them down to 500 total isn't the correct approach, you'll destroy established packs and create a vacuum. Any stabilization of ungulate/predator relations will be on a roller coaster and impossible to stabilize. I'd rather see wolves dispersed state wide but pack sizes very small and heavily controlled by trapping/hunting.
At $4000 bounty per wolf you'd have so many trappers in the woods you couldn't turn around without bumping a trap, a smaller bounty would suffice and you could increase/decrease on the needs of the state. If the population ever drops where USFWS start threatening action ID could drop the bounty to nothing. As they start gaining raise it.
Actually, it sounds like it will be funneled into wildlife services and will not go as a $4k bounty per wolf.
I do agree with you, that it would make much more sense to greatly broaden the trapping season and let that be the mechanism by which numbers are reduced.
Should this money be authorized, there is a very good chance that a lawsuit will be filed and I think a very substantial chance that the wolf delisting could be jeopardized because Idaho is supposed to go five years under their approved plan without substantially altering it.
I think this is as much playing to Otter's constituency and a political show as anything.
Post by: splitshot on February 04, 2014, 09:12:14 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 04, 2014, 09:40:33 PM
Smart economics! :tup: :tup: :tup:
Post by: mkcj on February 04, 2014, 09:42:45 PM
Post by: WA hunter14 on February 04, 2014, 10:03:31 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 04, 2014, 10:29:13 PM
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!
Post by: huntnphool on February 04, 2014, 10:41:03 PM
Wrong approach.No kidding, why not just open a year around, shoot on sight season for them, and save the money?
I love the co-op idea, let the hunters/trappers create their own economy rather than blow that kind of cash down the toilet for a temporary reprieve.
I'm thinking Idaho finally did the math and realized that 'wolf watching" is not generating as much revenue as they lost in hunting related revenue.
Post by: bearpaw on February 04, 2014, 11:07:09 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 04, 2014, 11:30:24 PM
:yeah: :chuckle: Last I heard, not one elk outfitter has sold a wolf watching trip.Where is that pinhead (can't remember his name) that was forever preaching to us how many hundreds of $Millions were generated in this state by whale watching and the same thing would happen with millions of people flocking to Washington to watch wolves?
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 05, 2014, 12:39:02 AM
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 (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.
Post by: KFhunter on February 05, 2014, 09:12:48 AM
Wrong approach.
ID needs long term predator management, not a $2 million temporary band-aid.
I love the co-op idea, let the hunters/trappers create their own economy rather than blow that kind of cash down the toilet for a temporary reprieve. In the meanwhile Elk populations will boom drawing in more wolves as they disperse from neighboring states, which in turn will boom then you're looking at another 2 million dollar wolf removal project.
Haphazardly killing them down to 500 total isn't the correct approach, you'll destroy established packs and create a vacuum. Any stabilization of ungulate/predator relations will be on a roller coaster and impossible to stabilize. I'd rather see wolves dispersed state wide but pack sizes very small and heavily controlled by trapping/hunting.
At $4000 bounty per wolf you'd have so many trappers in the woods you couldn't turn around without bumping a trap, a smaller bounty would suffice and you could increase/decrease on the needs of the state. If the population ever drops where USFWS start threatening action ID could drop the bounty to nothing. As they start gaining raise it.
Actually, it sounds like it will be funneled into wildlife services and will not go as a $4k bounty per wolf.
I do agree with you, that it would make much more sense to greatly broaden the trapping season and let that be the mechanism by which numbers are reduced.
Should this money be authorized, there is a very good chance that a lawsuit will be filed and I think a very substantial chance that the wolf delisting could be jeopardized because Idaho is supposed to go five years under their approved plan without substantially altering it.
I think this is as much playing to Otter's constituency and a political show as anything.
That $4000 bounty was in reference to post #4 and I was trying to explain how I'd rather see the money go to hunters/trappers than paid hunters for USFWS who would mostly come from out of state. Probably the same guys who killed the Elk at night in WA recently. I really dislike contract killing of animals in this way, especially Elk. Should have explained that better I guess.
I think they could get it done for 1/10 of that.
$400 per wolf bounty year round would put a lot of trappers and hunters in the field. Wolves will be pushed into the back country where they belong, anywhere there is roads and easy access they'd be shot on sight. Not mention fur prices on top of that, which would put trappers out in the winter when fur is prime..A good time to help out the Elk herds in their winter ranges huh. Think breakaway snares setup around a carcass.
If I were ID.gov I think I'd want to encourage a culture of wolf trapping and hunting.
heck Id take a couple weeks off work in the winter and try to make me some $ :chuckle:
edit: And I think your right about Otter pandering to the voters, this bill doesn't "feel" like a bill that has a chance of passing, more like a bill to make a statement.
Post by: JLS on February 05, 2014, 09:20:15 AM
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 (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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 05, 2014, 09:25:33 AM
Post by: AspenBud on February 05, 2014, 09:31:08 AM
we don't have a governor who'll be willing to declare an emergency when the ungulate populations are declining everywhere.
That's because our economy isn't so dependent on hunting revenues. It's a lot harder to make a living in Idaho these days than here.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 05, 2014, 09:43:07 AM
we don't have a governor who'll be willing to declare an emergency when the ungulate populations are declining everywhere.
That's because our economy isn't so dependent on hunting revenues. It's a lot harder to make a living in Idaho these days than here.
Our I-5 economy may not be, but that's not so true in the E. part of the state. As well, those hunting revenues are very important to keep the WDFW funded. License sales make up a huge portion of the wildlife management budget in this state, the very budget which allows us to to coddle these elk-eating machines. The WDFW with their hyper-aggressive wolf plan may have just written their own epitaph. Once the department has to start spending the kind of money that's being spent in ID, they're screwed. See if the wolf huggers pay the bills that hunters have been paying forever. Let me give you a hint: WA isn't Yellowstone (where many people pay to see the wolves), and these patchouli wearing wolf-hippies won't put their money where their mouths are when hunting declines ahead of license revenues.
Post by: Hunter Dug on February 05, 2014, 10:02:17 AM
Post by: boneaddict on February 05, 2014, 10:10:13 AM
It makes you wonder where we come up with these idiots.
Post by: AspenBud on February 05, 2014, 10:20:06 AM
we don't have a governor who'll be willing to declare an emergency when the ungulate populations are declining everywhere.
That's because our economy isn't so dependent on hunting revenues. It's a lot harder to make a living in Idaho these days than here.
Our I-5 economy may not be, but that's not so true in the E. part of the state. As well, those hunting revenues are very important to keep the WDFW funded. License sales make up a huge portion of the wildlife management budget in this state, the very budget which allows us to to coddle these elk-eating machines. The WDFW with their hyper-aggressive wolf plan may have just written their own epitaph. Once the department has to start spending the kind of money that's being spent in ID, they're screwed. See if the wolf huggers pay the bills that hunters have been paying forever. Let me give you a hint: WA isn't Yellowstone (where many people pay to see the wolves), and these patchouli wearing wolf-hippies won't put their money where their mouths are when hunting declines ahead of license revenues.
I'm not disagreeing, Heck, there's any number of studies that show if eastern WA were to become it's own state it would be one of the poorer states in the union.
I'm just pointing out that if you take away hunting from Idaho, that's huge problem from the little guy all the way up to state tax revenues. In WA it's not nearly as much of an issue from the perspective of Olympia since it's not a big revenue generator compared to the rest. It would take a special governor to really get up in arms about wolves here the way Idaho's has.
When people in the eastern half of the US talk about "going out west" to hunt they talk about North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho far more than Washington or Oregon. That's not a recent phenomenon.
I think Olympia puts WDFW very low in their priorities.
Post by: AspenBud on February 05, 2014, 10:23:07 AM
We do such a dang good job at eradicating coyotes with 24/7 365 seasons, why would an animal twice as smart and cunning be easier to get rid of with conventional hunting methods. Notice I didn't include trapping, since of course Washington has outlawed that already for the most part. :DOH:
It makes you wonder where we come up with these idiots.
Something I haven't seen yet is whether wolves here will be as good at adapting to urban life as coyotes. Part of the problem with yotes is they can live anywhere and blend in. I saw two sunning themselves right off SR-14, near Vancouver, about 4 months ago. Apartments were right behind where they were laying.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 05, 2014, 10:25:22 AM
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 (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.
Well that shoots down Bearpaw's theory too then, doesn't it?
Post by: JLS on February 05, 2014, 10:31:11 AM
Since delisting the population of wolves in the state of Idaho has tripled.
Actually, it's gone down since delisting.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 05, 2014, 10:35:46 AM
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.
Post by: AspenBud on February 05, 2014, 10:40:10 AM
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.
Post by: JLS on February 05, 2014, 10:41:28 AM
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.
Post by: JLS on February 05, 2014, 10:43:41 AM
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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 05, 2014, 10:44:35 AM
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.
Post by: AspenBud on February 05, 2014, 10:54:42 AM
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.
Post by: bearpaw on February 05, 2014, 10:55:07 AM
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 (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 (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 (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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 05, 2014, 11:00:23 AM
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.
Post by: bearpaw on February 05, 2014, 11:01:33 AM
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. :mgun:
That last comment was just meant to be a joke. :chuckle:
Post by: JLS on February 05, 2014, 11:05:42 AM
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.
Post by: AspenBud on February 05, 2014, 11:10:14 AM
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/jan/29/idaho-sees-drop-out-state-hunters/ (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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 05, 2014, 11:16:37 AM
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/jan/29/idaho-sees-drop-out-state-hunters/ (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.
Post by: KFhunter on February 05, 2014, 11:17:35 AM
Post by: JLS on February 05, 2014, 11:24:37 AM
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/jan/29/idaho-sees-drop-out-state-hunters/ (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.
Post by: Old Man Yager on February 05, 2014, 11:27:38 AM
Post by: KFhunter on February 05, 2014, 11:38:02 AM
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.
Post by: AspenBud on February 05, 2014, 11:47:22 AM
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/jan/29/idaho-sees-drop-out-state-hunters/ (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.
Post by: JLS on February 05, 2014, 11:58:56 AM
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/jan/29/idaho-sees-drop-out-state-hunters/ (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 (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.
Post by: AspenBud on February 05, 2014, 01:21:43 PM
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.
Post by: AspenBud on February 05, 2014, 01:30:37 PM
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.
Post by: KFhunter on February 05, 2014, 01:37:51 PM
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
Post by: AspenBud on February 05, 2014, 01:40:46 PM
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.
:tinfoil:
It may also just be the state being preemptive and recognizing they are having/will have an impact without saying as much for now.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 06, 2014, 11:46:53 AM
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.
Post by: KFhunter on February 06, 2014, 12:06:03 PM
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.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=75422.0;attach=141933;image)
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 06, 2014, 12:15:57 PM
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.
Post by: bearpaw on February 10, 2014, 10:41:35 PM
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 (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.