Economic Benefits of Wolves

[JoseCuervo]

I think there was something like $139k in livestock losses this year by wolves, and $23 million in benefits from Wolves. Makes me feel good to be a Republican to see that kind of investment and payback.

Researchers ponder the positives of wolf recovery ... In some locations, the benefits of wolves are clear


YELLOWSTONE -- If you're hoping to catch a glimpse of a wild wolf in the lower 48 states, grab your camera and head to the Lamar Valley in Yellowstone National Park, says one federal official.

"It's the best place in the world to see wolves," said Ed Bangs, wolf recovery leader for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

People from all over the world call Bangs asking him for wolf-spotting tips. The answer is always the same -- go to Lamar Valley.

"It's incredible," he said.

In the years since wolf reintroduction, the visibility of wolves in that location pleasantly surprised Bangs. While the public often hears stories of the economic losses livestock producers have faced due to wolf recovery, the benefits of reintroduction are harder to quantify, Bangs said.

In 1994, the Fish and Wildlife Service published its study assessing the effects of wolf recovery in Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho. The assessment included possible economic benefits to those communities. The federal agency predicted both Yellowstone and central Idaho could see an increase of $23 million in visitor expenditures annually because of wolf recovery.

John Duffield, an economics professor at the University of Montana, analyzed social and economic impacts of wolf recovery in Yellowstone in 1992. His research projected a regional impact of $43 million a year. Duffield is expected to release another report in the near future comparing his initial estimates with the actual benefits.

Bangs noted an unexpected impact of wolves that wolf advocates tout as beneficial to the environment.

"Elk act differently when wolves are around," Bangs said.

It's not that the elk population has suffered due to wolves in Yellowstone, he said. It's the way elk now behave with wolves around. Elk no longer linger in open areas.

The change in elk behavior allowed willow trees and aspens to spring up in places elk typically grazed when wolves were not present. Oregon State University forest resources professors William J. Ripple and Robert L. Beschta published a study in October verifying Bangs' statement.

"When you remove the wolves, the elk are able to browse unimpeded wherever they want, as long as they want," Beschta said.

However, the reintroduction of wolves changed the demeanor of elk and other wildlife. These changes over the course of time alter the ecosystem. Wolf advocates argue that bringing wolves back to places the animal historically roamed restores balance to the environment.

"This large-scale extirpation that happened in the United States may have far-reaching consequences," Ripple said. "We are just at the very infancy of understanding the importance of these apex predators sitting at the top of the food chain affecting entire ecosystems."

 

[Nemont]

I wonder if the study took into account the impact of far fewer hunters spending money in the region and what the lost revenue totalled for the region? I would like to see the analysis that says wolves bring more visitors into the area. I could make the numbers look as good or as bad as I wanted.

Nemont

 

[A-con]

Nemont has nailed it, depending on your point of veiw, you can twist the numbers any way you want. Just try to find a study, even a commint about any "wolf" related subject that isn't tainted by the authors opinion.

 

[1_pointer]

Bias is always there, just in varying degrees. Even 'good' scientists show bias by selecting what to study instead of have a randomly picked subject provided to them.

 

[Michaelr]

Key part of that article........ Idaho could see an increase of $23 million

What is the value of all the mature
bull Elk lost?

 

[MattK]

Michaelr- If you read the article, it says the impact on elk isn't as high as one would expect. The reason people don't see as many elk is due to the change in an elk's habits. I don't know if this is the case, as I have not studied wolves impact on elk populations, but it does seem reasonable. I believe there are more variables than just wolves when you look at the elk population in Yellowstone. I have went through the park for the last 10 years during the bugling season and have seen many elk. This last year I still saw herds of over 200 in areas near lamar valley. I went through in the summer and saw a mere handful. Am I to assume there are no elk in the park during the summer or are they in areas I just don't see?

I can't say the impact on elk hasn't been great but there are still a lot of elk in Yellowstone. If there is a bias in this article can I assume there is a bias in all the articles saying elk populations around the park are decreasing?

 

[Nemont]

assume there is a bias in all the articles saying elk populations around the park are decreasing?

Have you read any of the numbers coming out of the park regarding elk number and the impact the wolves have had?

The northern Yellowstone herd hit a peak of about 19,000 animals in 1994. The next year, wolves were reintroduced and elk have been on a steady decline ever since.

"It's just one more mouth to feed," Alt said of the wolves.


.As recently as 2000, FWP offered more than 2,800 tags for the late hunt, which aimed to harvest mostly female elk that migrated out of Yellowstone National Park.

"We expect to observe less than 8,000 elk during this December's count," Alt said. "Wolf lovers will have a hard time accepting that wolves are having such an impact."

He noted that in 1968, when the National Park Service stopped culling elk inside the park, there were about 4,000 elk there. By 1975, the year the late hunt commenced, the number had climbed to 12,000. In those years, there were no wolves, about half as many grizzly bears as there are today, and a lot fewer lions, Alt noted.He said that, with the abundance of predators in and near the park, he fears that "one bad winter" could drop the elk herd to the 1968 level and the smaller herd would then face all those predators.
Critics of wolf reintroduction have pointed to reduced elk numbers for years and blamed wolves for them.

Now it turns out they're right, at least partly.http://bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2004/12/17/news/02latehunt.txt

How can it be biased if it is true.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Well, Maybe the anti -wolf crowd should document exactly how much the economy loses every year because of wolves. I don't know anyone who has quit hunting because of wolves and I doubt there's much loss there. What other detrimental effects would wolves have on the economy? Aren't all the small towners in MT and ID always bitchin' about the economy? Can anyone show how much the wolves are affecting the economy of small towns?

 

[Bullhound]

Oh, good to see ya IT

Bangs is as full of shit as they come. Buzz, do you really believe this bullshit? Are you willing to say that you believe that the introduction of these wolves has or will benefit Idaho economically?

IT,

ya must have been posting while I was. Same question.........

 

[Bullhound]

Sorry Buzzy!!

Sorry bout that. Somehow I had that you were the one that posted this benefit to Idaho crap. If you're out there, I owe ya one!

 

[MattK]

Nemont- Are you saying wolves decreased the population by 11,000 elk since they were put in the park? That's like saying hunters killed all the bison. It would be impossible. I can not look at those numbers and feel wolves had that great of an impact.

Also, who says the number of elk are "fact"? The same people who say the economic increase to the area is "fact"? Which study would you have me believe? Which way are the numbers being twisted by science? How accurate are the numbers?

Which article is biased?

Nemont "I could make the numbers look as good or as bad as I wanted."

 

[Bullhound]

Matt,

You're right. Both sides play with the numbers to make their own arguments look good. But for anyone to say that Idaho will, or has, benefited economically because of the wolf is absolutely stupid. Take a little time and think about it. How could Idaho possibly benefit?

 

[MattK]

Bullhound- Off the top of my head without putting a lot of thought into it....
One way- federal tax dollars
Second way- tourism
Third way- hunting license (if delisted)

 

[Nemont]

MattK,
Did you read the article? It says there are more predators period but that wolves are having a huge impact upon the elk herd. Why don't you explain why the numbers have dropped off so dramatically since the introduction of wolves. The winters have generally not been sevre enough for a big winterkill. I am not necessarily anti-wolf but I can't see how it is an economic boon for Montana. If you factor in the anticipated upside you also need to factor in the known downside.

Ithaca,
Would you quit hunting if there weren't tags available? Take 1,100 fewer tags for the late elk and see if having 1,100 fewer hunters around has any impact. Figure it out less hunting opportunity=fewer hunters=less $$$. Not difficult to figure out.

Nemont

 

[Ithaca 37]

Nemont, "Would you quit hunting if there weren't tags available?" Not exactly, I'd just go where tags were available. What would you do?

I don't think any responsible person would say that the YNP elk weren't overpopulated. That's been real clear for a long time.

Here's the federal dollars spent in 2001 responding to wolf complaints:

Expenditures = Idaho Wildlife Services spent approximately $158,290 in Federal funds responding to complaints of reported wolf predation, conducting control, preventative control, and management actions, and for other wolf related costs. (Idaho Wildlife Services 2001)

#################################################

NWF has helped the tribe secure additional funding for the wolf program, which costs approximately $300,000 a year. NWF is also appealing a recent court order to remove the wolves from Idaho and Yellowstone. For more information about this and other NWF programs involving wolves, write: Wolves, NWF, 240 N. Higgins #2, Missoula, Montana 59802.

#############################################

Annual cost projections that follow are estimates of IDFG and USDA APHIS Wildlife Services implementation, operation, and maintenance expenses of the wolf management program and cost for compensation for wolf-caused livestock losses.

Personnel

1 Project Coordinator + benefits and overhead $60,000

6 Technicians + benefits and overhead @ 8 months (1,385 hrs max. each) $116,000

Wolf Monitoring $200,000

(aircraft rental, vehicle, fuel & repair, telemetry equip., etc.)

Wolf Management $20,000

(coordinate wolf capture, handling & instrumentation w/ USDA Wildlife Services, training, harvest season proposal development and input processes, implementation of hunts, tagging of hides, lab work.)

Enhancement of Ungulate Monitoring $100,000

Education / materials $50,000

(Hunter & Trapper education, public information updates, travel expenses for requested talks, updates, etc., and prep. of presentation materials.)

Overhead on all IDFG non-Personnel costs @ 28.1%

$ 325,000 x 0.281 = $ 91,325

Wolf Control $100,000

(USDA APHIS Wildlife Services through Idaho State Animal Damage Control Board)

Depredation Compensation $ 100,000

Estimated Total Annual Budget: $837,325

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=wolf+cost+idaho&btnG=Google+Search

 

[Michaelr]

6 Technicians + benefits and overhead @ 8 months (1,385 hrs max. each) $116,000
Ya right, that is 19,333 a year thats less than a drive thru worker at Rotten Ronnies.

1 Project Coordinator + benefits and overhead $60,000

Sure I would guess $160,000

Wolf Monitoring $200,000

(aircraft rental, vehicle, fuel & repair, telemetry equip., etc.)

this will run closer to a million per year.

ithaca, find better info :wank:

Point being.... what a crock of chit :MAD

Wolves are worthless pieces of chit, didn't want them didn't need them.

Please all you mighty know it all hunters explain how wolves eating bull elk is beneficial to me as a hunter. :BLEEP: :BLEEP:

 

[Nemont]

Estimated Total Annual Budget: $837,325

Well if the average guided elk hunting trip in Montana costs $4,500 it would only take 186 guided hunters annually to equal that amount of economic activity ($837,325/$4,500=186). If each wolf pack is killing one elk per week 4 packs would exceed the number of elk needed to equal the economic benefit of the federal budgeted $$$; for wolf re-introduction. ie the wolves would kill 208 elk, granted not all would be bulls but I don't think the wolves care if they kill male or female elk calves.

Therefore wolves are a net economic drain upon the western states forced to host them.

Nemont

 

[A-con]

What about all the money spending tourist that want to go to Yellowstone and photograph an elk ? Will they take their dollars and go to Colorado now ? Not because the elk arn't there (in Yellowstone) but you can't see them because their hideing from the wolves now.

I know, I know. Lets open up Yellowstone to oil & gas drilling. Then the oil companys will build roads into the bush, and the tourist can drive down thoses roads and photograph the cute, cuddely wolves ! Everybody will get rich ! ( and you don't even have to buy a lotto ticket !)

 

[Ithaca 37]

If the wolves are such an economic drain on the economy, how come you guys can't find anything to back up your claims? Are you the first ones to figure it out?

 

[A-con]

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.
I few weeks back, Ithica, we had a difference of opinion on weather wolves killed/ate more elk calfs or adult elk, and you ask if I could post something to "back up" my point of veiw. I searched and found about five "studys" One backing up my point of view, two backing yours (you win) and several inconculsive. What struck me most was that it was easy to see that every one had a pre-concived opinion. They found what they wanted to find.
Thats my point here, there are lots of "studys" showing what ever point of view you want about wolves. Most (all) of them do not prove a hill of beans.
Does anyone really belive that the presants of wolves means an economic benifit ?
For every eco tourist that comes to see wolves, another tourist stays away because their afraid that the wolves will carry off their children, or eat fido !
There are simply too many varitables in such an equation to say that,,, it's B.S. !
Can I prove it ? NO, sorry, but do you really belive it ?