Report estimates revenue loss from Idaho wolves

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Big Bill

Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
1,476
Location
Idaho
Report estimates revenue loss from Idaho wolves

Associated Press - February 20, 2009 3:34 PM ET

BOISE, Idaho (AP) - The Idaho Department of Fish and Game says the state could be losing up to $24 million annually in hunting revenue due to wolves killing deer and elk.

The agency says the study is an update of a 1994 environmental impact statement related to the introduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park.

The recent study says the estimated 800 wolves in Idaho kill about 9,500 elk a year.

:what:

The study estimates an elk killed by a hunter has an economic value of $8,000.

The study also considers elk killed by wolves as illegal kills and sets the value of each dead elk at $750.

The study also factors in how much the state is losing because people choose not to spend money on hunting due to lack of game.

Republican Sen. Gary Schroeder of Moscow requested the study.


Information from: Lewiston Tribune, http://www.lmtribune.com

http://www.kivitv.com/Global/story.asp?S=9879957
 
I killed my first elk in Idaho this fall and didn't spend anything near $8000. I spent a few hundred on a grinder, gas, food, clothes, ammo, and hours and hours of scouting and hunting and saw a ton of animals. When I called in y harvest report, the lady said I was one of the few people that harvested a deer and an elk, let alone an elk. I think people blame the wolves for not getting their elk but there are a lot of animals out there. Put in the hours and hard work and you will find them.
 
the thing is that the only places where wolves are going to effect elk numbers, is where the plack is hunting/staying.There might not have been many wolves in the area you hunted but other places have seen elk numbers drop by the hundreds or thousands from last year. Frank Church area is one of them IIRC.
 
I actually did see fresh wolf tracks and poop. It was kind of surreal actually. Anyway, i guess in this day and age they must be managed like everything else.
 
ChefJeff1 wrote:
"I killed my first elk in Idaho this fall and didn't spend anything near $8000. I spent a few hundred on a grinder, gas, food, clothes, ammo, and hours and hours of scouting and hunting and saw a ton of animals. When I called in y harvest report, the lady said I was one of the few people that harvested a deer and an elk, let alone an elk. I think people blame the wolves for not getting their elk but there are a lot of animals out there. Put in the hours and hard work and you will find them."


I'm sure you didn't spend that much in Idaho, that is unless you hunted with an overpriced outfitter. I believe the study takes into consideration that only about 1/7 to 1/10 of hunters bag an elk yearly in Idaho and when you take this into consideration the numbers add up. Wolves are becoming a problem for elk and mule deer populations here. The sooner they are delisted and their numbers controlled the better off Idaho will be.

Pat
 
So, do you think the "I thought it was a coyote closer in" defense is gonna fly?

Malum prohibitum or Malum in se?

The study seems a bit ummm, skewed, perhaps - gee, I wonder what that legislator who requested it WANTED it to find? I wouldn't doubt that it costs them SOME revenue, but over 20 million?
 
^^^no reason to wound them. If your gonna SSS, do it humanely. Best if you don't as its illegal.

I hunted elk here in Idaho last fall and saw elk tracks as well as wolf tracks. I saw some elk as well. There is no way it costs the average joe 8000$/elk, that is based solely on outfitting wallstreet executives who are spending our tax bailout money.
 
Right, but there are people in Idaho whose kids' meals and clothes depend on their family guide business being able to deliver some elk.

And those people ARE impacted by this.

Anyone who says that the imported Canadian wolves have no impact, or a positive impact, on the elk population, is a liar.

One can argue that having a lot of unmanaged, imported Canadian wolves here instead of the native wolves that they wiped out is some sort of a good thing, because people have pictures of wolves on their sweatshirts or something. But claims that they don't have any negative impact are simply untrue.

Furthermore, if we want to restore the animal populations that inhabited the area before people came in large numbers, why not buffalo? They provide a lot of meat for hunters, and they can help sustain a lot of wolves in the ecosystem, too. Why just wolves? They weren't the only species to see its numbers reduced in the late 19th Century.

If you want to restore the past animal population, then I say DO IT -- but do it comprehensively, don't just throw a bunch of Canadian Timberwolves into the existing mix of wildlife, because some people who live 1000 miles away think the wolves look cool. And practice management -- don't just apply unconditional protection to any wolf while every other species is being hunted and managed.
 
if we want to restore the animal populations that inhabited the area before people came in large numbers, why not buffalo?
Click to expand...

Thats an excellent idea! I wish it could come to fruition.

However, I suspect cattle ranchers will be anti-bison as well due to the possibility of brucellosis.
 
woof, who cares? Me, I could care less about a wolf's notions about anything--as if a wolf could even have a notion about anythig. All a wolf is is a four-legged meat-eater with an appetite.

My family's well-being is infinitely more important. Well, yours, also, actually.
 
There is no way it costs the average joe 8000$/elk, that is based solely on outfitting wallstreet executives who are spending our tax bailout money.
Click to expand...
That includes all the revenue that all hunters spend on everything related to elk hunting. It's a very well studied economic fact and has no relation to average Joes.

BTW, Grizfire, do you elk hunt? To do it right, it takes a load of gear!
 
Most of the revenue that comes from hunting elk is usually gotten from out of staters. Most in staters spend their time and money near where they are going to hunt. Out of staters are the ones that spend big $$$ on first the license/fees (usually for multiple animals), transportation, guides, equipment, meat packing, hide tanning, celebration beers, etc. I have seen californians come, buy an expensive gun and scope, pay for someone to sight it in for them, and spend every bit of money possible to make their trip seem more like a gimme than a hunt. Weird stuff rich people do and one of the weird things they do is throw money away.
 
This just in from Idaho Fish & Game website:



IDAHO FISH AND GAME
HEADQUARTERS NEWS RELEASE
Boise, ID

Date: March 6, 2009
Contact: Ed Mitchell
(208) 334-3700



wolf delisting rule announced


Idaho Fish and Game officials welcomed the announcement Friday, March 6, that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar affirmed the decision to delist the gray wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountains.

"We applaud this effort," Fish and Game Director Cal Groen said. "This is good news for wolves, elk, rural communities and hunters. I believe this action will help defuse the animosity and anger associated with wolves when we can manage wolves in concert with our other big game species."

The Endangered Species Act was not meant to keep animals listed forever; it was designed to turn management back to the states, he said.

Friday's announcement doesn't include Wyoming, because that state's wolf management plan has not met the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Salazar said. Idaho and Montana have approved wolf management plans.

"I don't believe we should hold these two states hostage," Salazar said.

The Fish and Wildlife Service, which made the decision to delist gray wolves in Idaho and Montana in January, will send the delisting rule to the Federal Register for publication. The rule would take effect in mid to late April, 30 days after publication.

When delisting becomes official, Idaho would again take over managing wolves under state law adopted in 2008 and under a wolf population management plan also adopted last year.

"Our plan is to manage wolves as we do other big game," Groen said.

Fish and Game is ready to apply the same professional wildlife management practices to wolves as it has applied to all big game species, which all have recovered from low populations during the early 1900s, he said.

Wolves were all but extirpated in Idaho by the 1930s. They were declared endangered in 1974, and a federal recovery effort brought 35 wolves to central Idaho in 1995 and 1996. Wolf numbers have grown steadily since then, to a minimum of 846 today.

Fish and Game has supported recovery efforts. Based on the Legislature's 2002 Wolf Conservation Plan, Fish and Game biologists developed a wolf population management plan, adopted by the Idaho Fish and Game Commission in March 2008.

Fish and Game will propose wolf hunting seasons this fall, subject to Fish and Game Commission approval.

For information contact Fish and Game Deputy Director Jim Unsworth at 208-334-3700.

The Fish and U.S. Wildlife Service delisting documents are available at http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/.
 
It seems to me that therre's a great big difference between the idea of, "Hey, it's neat to have wolves around," and, "There're just too danged many of those calf-killers!"

Years ago I worked on an environmental program for the Texas coast. We had a couple of cartoons in the office. One was of a seer smiling at her crystal ball, with a guy coming from behind to hit her with a club: "Striking a happy medium."

The other was of a knight in armor, about to spear an ox: "Whose ox is gored?"

The problem is that for pro-wolf folks, it's all abstract. For those whose livlihoods are impacted, it's harsh reality.
 
So, do you think the "I thought it was a coyote closer in" defense is gonna fly?
Click to expand...

No, but it doesn't mean that there isn't already some population control going on. I think the number of dead grizzlies found this past year was around 130. The people who are actually out in the woods a lot are tired of it.

There is no way it costs the average joe 8000$/elk
Click to expand...

I would bet that most guys spend more than they care to admit. I have a lot of stuff, but I recently went hunting overnight and spent $1,200 a couple of days before at the outdoor store. Add in the $4,000 I took with me in the form of a rifle and pistol, $600 pack, $500 in sleeping bag, silk liners, and pad, $200 in cooking stuff and food, $50 in gas, $500 GPS radio, $200 in knives, hatchet, and saw, $1000 easy in special clothing, $1700 for the binoculars,...WAIT, should I stop at $8000? Or should I add in all of the ammo I've bought over the year shooting that rifle so that I know how it shoots when I take it with me? Did I mention that I drove only about 30 minutes, many guys drive from many states away to add another grand or so onto the cost and pay an outfitter.

I think the $8000 is cheap. Just don't let your wife add up the REAL costs or you won't be hunting any longer.

By the way, there were three other guys that went in at the same time the other week. They froze to death (or would have if they couldn't have gotten out the next day). They got up about half way through the night and made a fire because they were too cold to sleep.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

O
  • Locked
Idaho wants public input on plan to kill wolves
Replies
12
Views
670
caribou
caribou
I
  • Locked
Will you hunt wolves?
2 3
Replies
56
Views
2K
Gunrunner
G
T
  • Locked
Wolf Tickets for Sale
Replies
5
Views
589
Titan6
T
G
  • Locked
Idaho bags its first wolf
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
gallo
G
P
  • Locked
Wolves in Yellowstone producing ecological change
Replies
15
Views
880
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top