|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
double cabin 
Group: Members
Posts: 15438
Joined: Nov. 2005
|
 |
Posted on: Dec. 15 2012, 10:35 am |
|
    |
We have grizzly populations expanding into places that are not suitable habitat, committee chairman Harv Fosgren of the U.S. Forest Service said. We need to show were willing to step up and manage those bears.
I still want to wait a couple of years and see what shakes out from the demise of Whitebark Pines.
I do believe in revenue, not expenditure, based game management. However I want any hunters lucky enough to win a lottery for a tag to be directed to specific 'probl;em" bears by G&F. I believe this has worked well with black bears in the Upper Midwest.
--------------
We have nothing to fear but an industry of fear...and man skirts.
http://www.facebook.com/media/albums/?id=129511480442251
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
wycanislatrans
Group: Members
Posts: 2268
Joined: Nov. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 15 2012, 12:21 pm |
|
|
IMO, the state of Wyo loses money on predator management because they take a very shortsighted (and 1950's) approach to predator management.
To be more specific I don't know that the programs could or would be a money maker, but I would be willing to bet they could at least operate near the break-even point. Just won't happen however.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
SW Mtn backpacker
Born to hike, forced to work ...
Group: Members
Posts: 6720
Joined: Jul. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 15 2012, 2:17 pm |
|
|
The West is not unpopulated, so letting them get accustomed to a food source in town isn't realistic. The ideal would be to expand Yellowstone, keep the deeper forest wilderness areas a safe place for grizzly breeding populations, and allow hunting on the outskirts of town (probably not that comforting to condo owners nearby but welcome to the wild West).
--------------
Usually Southwest and then some.
In wildness is the preservation of the world. - Henry Thoreau
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
double cabin
Group: Members
Posts: 15438
Joined: Nov. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 15 2012, 4:07 pm |
|
|
"Grizzly hunting will not be revenue-based. No bear or predator-hunting program in the state of Wyoming pays for itself. Grizzly hunting won't either. The costs to administer a grizzly-hunting program in the state of Wyoming will far exceed revenue gained."
Travis,
There are no specifics for costs in the reports. Are we talking salaries, collar/chip monitoring by plane, sign posting, hunter education courses,...? Are these actual hunt administration costs or complete species management costs?
When it comes down to killing predators beyond poaching in maintaining population numbers hunters either pay for licenses or professional/government marksman/trappers are paid by the State or Federal Government. One is revenue, one is expense, no?
What I'd like to know is if you know of anywhere I can get an itemized report of management program costs?
thanks Travis.
--------------
We have nothing to fear but an industry of fear...and man skirts.
http://www.facebook.com/media/albums/?id=129511480442251
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
TravisNWood
W Y O M I N G
Group: Members
Posts: 14892
Joined: Apr. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 15 2012, 5:28 pm |
|
|
QUOTE Travis: QUOTE
"Grizzly hunting will not be revenue-based. No bear or predator-hunting program in the state of Wyoming pays for itself. Grizzly hunting won't either. The costs to administer a grizzly-hunting program in the state of Wyoming will far exceed revenue gained."
Travis, There are no specifics for costs in the reports. Are we talking salaries, collar/chip monitoring by plane, sign posting, hunter education courses,...? Are these actual hunt administration costs or complete species management costs? When it comes down to killing predators beyond poaching in maintaining population numbers hunters either pay for licenses or professional/government marksman/trappers are paid by the State or Federal Government. One is revenue, one is expense, no? What I'd like to know is if you know of anywhere I can get an itemized report of management program costs? thanks Travis.
You know what, DC? I'd bet you did not even look for details.  Find Annual Reports for the last nine years at Commission Annual Reports. The most recent report to be published, of course, is the Commission Annual Report 2011 (PDF download) available from the link above.
You can find details for the Mountain Lion Program on Page A-11 of that document. Rounding off, in 2010 the program cost $575,000. But the revenue was only $219,000, only 38% of costs to the state of Wyoming.
You can find details for the Black Bear Program on Page A-9 of that document. Rounding off, in 2010 the program cost $761,000. But the revenue was only $373,000, only 49% of costs to the state of Wyoming.
But don't get me wrong. Hunters spend money while they are in the state of Wyoming. The problem is that the money does not go to Game and Fish. It goes to outfitters, motels, restaurants, etc.
Great! The Wyoming Game and Fish Department is subsidizing the tourist industry while we read again this year: Wyoming Game and Fish faces budget shortfall.
That is not revenue-based management. And it is a poor model to hold up for grizzly management. Regarding your other questions of break-down of costs such as employee salarees, signing, etc. etc., you need to do your own work. There is plenty of that information there and in other Game and Fish documents.
The point is that you have NO foundation for claiming revenue-based management.
--------------
Location Wyoming
Webpages Cloud Peak Wilderness Maps Rocky Mountain Wildlife
Photos Bighorn Mountains Wyoming Steppes
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
wycanislatrans
Group: Members
Posts: 2268
Joined: Nov. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 15 2012, 7:19 pm |
|
|
(johnhens @ Dec. 15 2012, 12:29 pm)
QUOTE
(wycanislatrans @ Dec. 15 2012, 11:21 am)
QUOTE IMO, the state of Wyo loses money on predator management because they take a very shortsighted (and 1950's) approach to predator management.
To be more specific I don't know that the programs could or would be a money maker, but I would be willing to bet they could at least operate near the break-even point. Just won't happen however. I would be interested in hearing your opinions of their problems with predator mgmt.
Well the problems are several, but it can be boiled down to a philosophical issue. We still view predators as a nuisance that should be cut to minimal populatins at all cost. We view them as a issue to deal with rather than an asset to the state.
Lets take Travis' mountain lion numbers for example.
QUOTE You can find details for the Mountain Lion Program on Page A-11 of that document. Rounding off, in 2010 the program cost $575,000. But the revenue was only $219,000, only 38% of costs to the state of Wyoming.
All the while the cost of a resident mountain lion permit is $30.00
http://wgfd.wyo.gov/fiscal/license/licprices/default.aspx
Now I note the non-resident price is $362. Why the huge gap? The reason is mountain lion is not considered a valuable animal here. I can tell you that dedicated mountian lion hunters, while they would gripe about the cost increase would pay more than $30. As a sidenote, we have no-problem gouging the out-of-staters.
Wolf is an even better example, the resident tags were $18.00. Why? Take a look at the price range of elk tags and you will see why.
http://wgfd.wyo.gov/fiscal/license/licprices/default.aspx
A resident pays $52 and a non-resident pays $577.
We would rather be in the business of elk farming than have more balance in our populations.
Now I note I never said G/F would or should make money off predators, but I also don't support public funding to kill predators either. If ranchers have a problem with predators they should allow hunters paying for predator hunts. Either that or the Wyoming Livestock Growers should fund it themselves, not the state.
I also personally believe the trend (and there is data to support this) is gravitating towards wildlife viewing rather than hunting. I'm not saying hunting will go away, nor should it. However alternative forms of revenue should be looked at with this in mind and management should come at this issue with a similar perspective.
Currently game and fish tend to focus on "game species" big game most importantly. Non-game species are often an afterthought. (Unless the issue is forced by federal means such as endangered species) Even then the endangered species are not really considered as much of an asset.
In a nutshell, money talks and the revenue generators for game and fish are antelope, deer and elk.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
BradMT
Group: Members
Posts: 3411
Joined: May 2005
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 16 2012, 12:02 am |
|
|
Personally, I love those dang grizzlies. But their population could likely benefit from reduced numbers. No, it won't be a money maker, and will cost. But it's time imo. Doubt I'd even put in for a tag, but agree problem bears should be targeted somehow.
--------------
Contentment is natural wealth, luxury is artificial poverty. Socrates
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
johnhens
Group: Members
Posts: 4980
Joined: Jan. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 16 2012, 3:42 am |
|
|
Thanks wycanislatrans, good insight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
