Economic Benefits of Wolves

[Wally Dog]

Bangs says "could see an increase of $23 million in visitor expenditures"
Duffield says "projected a regional impact of $43 million a year"
Right on, I'm hoping to see 30,000 geese tomorrow morning (just west of Eagle Road).
What if I don't? What then? Oh well, no ramifications.
WD

 

[JoseCuervo]

Actually, it looks like little follow-up was ever done. As one projection was dated 1992, and the other 1994.

Obviously the livestock losses have been immaterial, as $139k is not very much. And now that hunters can't shoot big bull elk in a single day, they probably have to stay 2 or 3 days in Montana to shoot a bull, thus they double or triple the money they throw around at the Cafe, Motel, and local strip clubs....

 

[Michaelr]

they probably have to stay 2 or 3 days in Montana to shoot a bull, thus they double or triple the money they throw around at the Cafe, Motel, and local strip clubs.... |oo |oo

Oh brother

 

[Ithaca 37]

"Therer is stuff out there to "back up" the claims that wolves are not really so great, but it's just as one sided, biased bull chit as the stuff that claims wolves are fantastic...."

Great! Can you produce it? I don't mean the looney tune stuff, either.

 

[wyomingtim]

Yep, I hear people talking all over the place saying...."Why don't we go to Yellowstone so we can see a wolf." How do they attribute the money that may be brought in to only wolves? Are they trying to say that the extra millions would be spent just because the wolves are there? I find that hard to believe. I also remember some posts recently here that was talking about how wolves have not impacted the elk herds. Now this one says that wolves have impacted the elk herds. More proof that people come up with the result they want then do the study to back it up.

 

[jerrym]

Most of the people that go to Yellowstone are such idiots that they should have just said they transplanted wolves. My brother in law works in the park and told me last fall he came across a big pile of cars and everybody running around filming a coyote out in a field, he told them it was a coyote and they told him he was stupid. He has probably killed more coyotes then they have seen in their lifetime. I told him they must be the same ones I saw a few summers ago who thought a big cinnamon black bear was a grizzly and a group of bedded muley bucks were elk. The lady with her gucci bag was quite upset when I told her it was a black bear. She told me though- I was the idiot because it wasn't black. The wolves have costed millions and will continue to cost millions and are a bad investment. The feds spent millions studying them for years before they ever put one in the park. If you think anything the fed govt has part of can be profitable I have some ocean front property to sell you in Arizona.

 

[A-con]

Thanks for reading a few lines of my post Ithica, let me explain the rest of it to you.
IT'S ALL JUNK, INCULDING THE SCIENTIFIC STUDYS BY PEOPLE WITH DEGREES !
These studys are paid for and preformed by people with a dog in this fight (pun intended) They find what they want to find, and I for one will not post a link to them as long as I feel there is an agenda, hidden or not.
Besides, the above referances to positive economic impact are just predictions.
So I ask again, do you really belive it ?

 

[Ithaca 37]

A-con, I give more weight to peer reviewed scientific studies than any others. I certainly don't dismiss them all as biased. Ya gotta start somewhere and then sort them all out to figure out the truth.

So, I guess there's no scientific study of any kind on any subject that you would believe? Where do you get your information from, The National Enquirer and the experts down at the local bar? How about this scientific study? http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/

And here's a little more info for you. Of course, since scientific study proved the Earth isn't flat, I wouldn't expect you to believe it.

" Some people believe that since at times we revise our ideas in science, scientific knowledge is no different than myths or legends, and our knowledge does not progress.

Nonsense. We may refine our ideas often and change them completely occasionally, but the success of science is difficult to question. There are different levels of certainty in scientific knowledge, and there are clear examples of progress:

The Earth is flat.
The Earth is a sphere.
The Earth is an oblate spheroid.
That sure looks like progress to me......"

That's taken from the following real basic introduction to the concept of scientific study. I hope it's basic enough for you to understand.

http://eqseis.geosc.psu.edu/~cammon/HTML/Classes/IntroQuakes/Notes/science_lecture.html

 

[1_pointer]

I do believe that there is junk science out there, but not all, hell probably most, isn't. The problem is that too many don't know the enough about the subject to understand the methods sufficiently. Studying animals is even more complicated than plants in this regard. All to often on issues like this the information quoted comes from secondary sources that have edited the primary ones. As IT suggested, go the the peer reviewed journals for the best information. IMO, these are THE best places to get as objective information as possible, which is why they are relied upon by the scientific community.

 

[A-con]

The fact is, I find it very frustrating that there is so much one sided, biased information out there. So much in fact that it is near imposable to find the "truth" on any controversial subject.

Over the past three decades, I have found the most accurate way to get information is to take what you read in "studies" and throw out everything that could possibly be opinion, just look at the facts, like (example) so&so group counted 500 wolves in the greater Yellowstone area, then figure that they are stupid, so if they counted 500 the real number is probably more like 800. Then use common sense. We know (at least I believe) that the elk is THE #1 pray species for wolves, and 800 wolves means about 80 packs, and a pack of wolves probably kill about two elk a week, one adult and one calf. Then do the math. 80 packs X 2 elk X 52 weeks = 8320 elk per year (4160 adults & 4160 calf’s)
I know this involves a LOT of guesswork by an armature (me) but I have found that eventually, facts come out, and the beliefs that I have formed are usually more accurate than the crap that has been spred by the "professionals".
Regarding the above theory, that wolves provide a great economic impact, there are just too many variables to make that claim, so I call Bullchit. OPEC could decide to have a secrete conference in the Yellowstone hotel, spend a fortune at the bar on Gray Goose martinis, and somebody would say, "look at all the money we made, it must be the wolves!

 

[A-con]

The people (scientist) who came up with the theroy that the earth wasn't flat were not being paid by people who wanted to prove that the earth isn't flat, in fact quite the opposite.
You will also remember that at one time, all the great scientist claimed the earth was in fact flat, because to say different was politacly incorrect, kinda like it is today if they say anything against the wolf.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the wolf recovery in the lower 48, I'm just VERY sceptical with all the BS being spread by people with an agenda.

 

[1_pointer]

Acon- I don't totally disagree with you. But, one thing to keep in mind, especially with animals, is that a 100% count is nearly impossible. Most are estimates. That's also why the primary literature is where one should look for hard information. The peer review process does a very good job of weeding out 'junk' science. I believe that if the numbers were as far off as some here claim that some scientist would have proven it so (maybe it's in the literature and I haven't seen it). It would make them instantly (in)famous in their respective discipline. Besides this project is quite young, we can't predict everything, which is what can make science exciting.

 

[Point Creep]

ElkGunner, Do you have access to that Missoula expert's study, or just the media spin? What's the economic impact of no late-season hunters and drastically reduced numbers of general season hunters in the greater yellowstone area?

I don't know about you, but I prefer elk and elk hunters instead of wolves and wolf-huggers. I was over there yesterday looking for bulls. That elk herd is pretty much #@)(*%* and it's really as simple as that.

You can make wise-cracks about the cake-walk 1 day big bulls, which makes it pretty clear that you are clueless to the reality of it. That area has always been hunted hard. Last year during the general hunt the success rate was roughly 16% with 24 days hunted per elk harvested. During the late hunt (cows) success rate runs about 40%, bulls last year was 65%. This season's numbers will be much lower and the late hunt will be all but gone. Now, give it 3 more years... Historically, that area has been a slam dunk for a 6-point bull. But if you wanted to hunt for one of the best bulls in the unit and not rely on getting lucky on an easy bull, it's a 4-day physical torture-test, not to mention the days looking prior to the hunt. The groups of mature bulls are up high, away from roads, and in deep snow. It seems to be the current choice of terrain for the wolves as well.

 

[1_pointer]

Greenhorn- In your estimation, were there too many elk in the Gardiner area for the habitat before wolves? I agree with you though, lets manage the wolves and get some shooting going. I'm also wondering if the elk will become better at avoiding wolves in the future; heck they didn't have to for ~80+yrs. Thoughts?

 

[JoseCuervo]

I was over there yesterday looking for bulls. That elk herd is pretty much #@)(*%* and it's really as simple as that.

You can make wise-cracks about the cake-walk 1 day big bulls, which makes it pretty clear that you are clueless to the reality of it. That area has always been hunted hard. Last year during the general hunt the success rate was roughly 16% with 24 days hunted per elk harvested. During the late hunt (cows) success rate runs about 40%, bulls last year was 65%. This season's numbers will be much lower and the late hunt will be all but gone. Now, give it 3 more years... Historically, that area has been a slam dunk for a 6-point bull.

Let me make sure I understand what you are saying, because it sounds like you and I have much different expectations on Elk Hunting.

bulls last year was 65% You are telling me that last year the success rate was 65% on bull elk in some unit (and keep in mind there were wolves LAST YEAR) and this year it will be lower. In my experience, any unit that has a 65% success rate probably has too many Elk for the carrying capacity of the country. I am not sure how MT measures success rates but is it 65% of the tags ISSUED or 65% of the hunters who had tags who ACTUALLY HUNTED? But, in either case, are you really ready to throw in the towel, because some hunt will have less than 65% success rates? No offense, but 65% success rates are not "hunts", those are "shoots". |oo

And this dramatic fall-off all happened in a single year?

Greenhorn,
I am not "pro-wolf" or "anti-wolf", but since the wolves are here, we need to get to the process of managing them. And if they generate $$$$ for the towns around YNP, then that is probably a good thing. I haven't been to YNP since I was your son's age, so I can't comment on how it has changed, but some of the people I have talked to who have visited lately thought it was pretty cool when they saw a wolf. Did they drop more coin than some Elk hunter? I don't know. But I would bet it spent the same when the motel keeper deposited it at the local First National Bank and Trust.

 

[Point Creep]

ELKGUNNER: "In my experience, any unit that has a 65% success rate probably has too many Elk for the carrying capacity of the country."

Is that how you gauge the health of a herd/range? Hunter success rate? Don't quit your day job to become a wildlife manager. That 65% will soon become 0% -- because the hunt is going to be cancelled. "Throwing in the towel" isn't a choice, it's being required due to the wolves.

Arizona, Utah, and Nevada elk units must have "too many elk for the carrying capacity of the country" as some of the archery hunts have success rates 65% or better. The Gardiner hunt used to be one of the premier hunts in Montana. Call it a shoot if you want, but my guess is you have never done it. You've probably read some coverage on it in Defenders of Wildlife quarterly.

Instead of being a wise-ass, take a drive to YNP right now, stop by Gardiner MT and ask some questions on how the wolves have helped the local economy. Talk to the folks at hotels, restraunts, gas stations, and the outfitters. Or would you rather just cut/paste comments from a University of MT study or maybe from the archives of the Defender's of Wildlife?

 

[Horn Seeker]

I haven't read but a couple posts here, but I will say this with confidence and no evidence to back it up. Wolves or NO, Yellowstone and the surrounding towns will be very busy during the tourist season. It was jam packed all season before the wolves were brought back......AND they got the late season hunters staying and the outfitters were booked solid. Now, it will be about as busy as it was with tourists and there wont be any income for the late season elk hunt....and the income from general season elk hunts will drop too. Where's the economic benefit now?
As for it being a "shoot" and not a hunt, I know several people that have gone WITH OUTFITTERS and got skunked on that hunt, several years ago!

 

[Ithaca 37]

This is for you Montana boys. Your only chance is to shoot wolves----legally, of course. Hell, just shooting at them and missing will be almost as good. Anything to make them stay away will benefit you. Now, we all know the immediate obstacle to delisting is the Wyoming legislature which is controlled by the Wyoming cattlemen. Here in Idaho the ranchers are getting so upset about WY holding up the process that they are starting to contact WY ranchers and putting pressure on them to quit holding up the delisting. This is being done thru some official channels, like the cattlemen's association, and unofficially by ranchers just calling fellow ranchers in WY. I hope the Montana ranchers are doing the same thing. After all, the actions by the WY ranchers are causing financial problems for the Idaho and Montana ranchers. What the hell is the matter with those guys in WY?

I'm going to try to start a movement to get the Idaho legislature to pass a resolution asking the WY legislature to quit holding up the delisting. Maybe you guys should try getting sportsman's groups in MT do do the same thing.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Is that how you gauge the health of a herd/range? Hunter success rate? Don't quit your day job to become a wildlife manager.

Arizona, Utah, and Nevada elk units must have "too many elk for the carrying capacity of the country" as some of the archery hunts have success rates 65% or better. The Gardiner hunt used to be one of the premier hunts in Montana. Call it a shoot if you want, but my guess is you have never done it.

So, let me get this correct, the Gardiner unit (and Arizona, Utah, and Nevada) have far more room to carry more Elk on the lands, but the local F&G keeps permitting "shoots" that have more than 2 out of every 3 stick flingers whacking a bull? Why aren't you upset that the MTFWP doesn't reduce the tags, in order to allow the herd to grow to the level that your Wildlife Biology degree says can be carried on the land?

And honestly, is a 65% success rate indicate a "premier hunts in Montana"? I think there are some High Fence Operations that can't promise that high of success rates. You go ahead and enjoy your 65% "premier hunts" and the " hotels, restraunts," and I'll enjoy the 20% "crappy hunts" in Idaho, the ones where you wear out a pair of boots every other year, the ones where you work so damn hard to get into the Elk, that at night you can't even stick your face inside your sleeping bag due to the stink.

I guess everybody has their own idea of a "premier" hunt.....

The wolves are here, we might as well figure out how to "manage" them, and how to profit from them.

 

[Point Creep]

Ithaca.... now your talking! Good idea and thank you.

ElkGunner, This is really confusing for you, huh? Are we in the same conversation here or have you had one too many Hot Buttered Rums? The 65% you keep bringing up is late season bull permits, I've never personally hunted there, but have been with hunters who have drawn the permit. Why would I complain to the MTFWP?? They are reducing the tags, as a matter of fact they are nearly eliminating them because the elk numbers have plummeted. I have no complaints with the FWP, as they have to reduce the permits based on the status of the elk herd.

Also, if 65% success rate means a hunt is just a "shoot", I guess I should feel guilty about hunting antelope, and I should forget about applying for sheep, goat, and moose.

It must take a real bad ass mo-foe to dare your 20% roughin-it premier hunting area, "where you wear out a pair of boots every other year, the ones where you work so damn hard to get into the Elk, that at night you can't even stick your face inside your sleeping bag due to the stink." ..Spare us. Have you scheduled your flight to the inauguration yet? Or are you going to stay home and watch Fahrenheit 911 again?