7/11/2008 - 2:33:18 PM
Wolves bring economic benefit to Wyoming?
By Brodie Farquhar
YELLOWSTONE - Most news about wolves in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem is about conflict. Set against a background of dead or injured livestock, the focus is often on economic loss and emotional pain -but not always.
According to research by faculty of the University of Montana, and despite the economic costs of livestock losses, the net economic impact of wolf recovery is positive and estimated at $34 million per year. Indeed, the economic multiplier effect on the economies of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana were about $58 million in 2005 (within low and high estimates of $34 to $80 million).
"It is important that the public understand that wolves are important, not just ecologically, but economically," said Suzanne Asha Stone, Northern Rockies representative for Defenders of Wildlife.
"There's been a whole ripple effect from wolves in the environment and the economy. Tourists don't just come to Yellowstone National Park to see wolves in the summer - they come year-round. That means that regional businesses that used to close during the shoulder seasons can operate all year," she said.
The study was conducted by two University of Montana faculty members - economist John W. Duffield and mathematician David Patterson. They were joined by Chris Neher, a senior economist with Bioeconomics Inc. in Missoula.
The three surveyed park visitors in 2005 about their expenditures and reasons for visiting Yellowstone. Of the 2,992 surveys distributed from December 2004 to February 2006, 1,943 were completed and returned for an impressive return rate of 66.4 percent.
Wolves a top attraction in park
Visitors were asked to list the three animals (from a list of 16) that they would most like to see while in the park. There were similar surveys in 1991 and 1999. In the 2005 survey, 44 percent of visitors listed wolves as the species they would most like to see, second after grizzlies.
By applying statistical analysis to the number of North Entrance visitors who saw wolves, the researchers estimated that 326,000 visitors to Yellowstone saw wolves in 2005.
Survey results also indicated that 3.7 percent of Yellowstone visitors (1.5 percent in the spring, nearly 5 percent in the fall) specifically came to the park to see wolves.
"We estimate that approximately 94,000 visitors from outside the three-state region came to the park specifically to see or hear wolves in 2005, and they spent an average of $375 per person, or a total of $35.5 million in the three states," the trio wrote in "Yellowstone Science."
Prior to wolf reintroduction in 1994, Duffield had estimated that a recovered wolf population would lead to increased visitation from outside the three states, resulting in an additional $19.35 million in direct visitor spending. Adjusted for inflation, that's $27.74 million in 2005, less than the $35.5 million estimate based on the 2005 survey.
Livestock losses relatively small
The researchers based livestock loss costs based on market prices for wolf kills verified by Defenders of Wildlife. Losses in the three states averaged $63,818 in 2004 and 2005. The researchers acknowledged criticisms from livestock interests that wolf kills are notoriously difficult to document, but said that even if loss estimates were doubled, they'd still average less than $130,000 per year.
The original wolf reintroduction environmental impact statement projected a decline of 2,439 to 6,157 hunter days for elk, deer and moose, said the researchers, equal to foregone annual hunter expenditures between $207,000 and $538,000. The researchers noted that deer and bison numbers have not declined as predicted, and noted there wasn't enough data to evaluate the moose population.
Based on another study, researchers found that elk herd declines associated with wolf predation and hunter impact are in the range predicted by the EIS - $342,000 to $890,000 in 2005 dollars.
Duffield, Neher and Patterson wrote that the 1994 wolf reintroduction EIS has been relatively accurate, slightly overestimating the number wolf-focused visitors, but underestimating the amount of money they would spend in the region.
Predation losses have been in the range predicted by the EIS, while impact on hunter harvests in the first 10 years has been negligible, and that harvest and permits have either been higher or unchanged.
With no scientific consensus over whether the elk population decline is due to wolves, human hunting pressure or a long-term drought, the long-term impact on big-game hunting remains within EIS projections of $342,000 to $890,000 per year, they wrote.
Wyoming Business Report Managing Editor Brodie Farquhar can be reached at brodief@wyoming.com or the Casper office, 307-577-1111.
|
|
|
