The Role and Economic Importance of Private Lands in Providing Habitat for Wyoming s Big Game

Similar documents
Fremont County Related Hunting and Fishing Spending, 2015

Teton County Related Hunting and Fishing Spending, For the Wyoming Wildlife Federation. David T. Taylor & Thomas Foulke

Carbon County Related Hunting and Fishing Spending, 2015

Improving Big Game Migration Corridors in Southwest Wyoming

Identifying Mule Deer Migration Routes Along the Pinedale Front

Key Findings from a Statewide Survey of Wyoming Voters October 2018 Lori Weigel

Marrett Grund, Farmland Wildlife Populations and Research Group

Splitting seasons into multiple, shorter ones is preferable to long, crowded seasons.

Resident Outdoor Recreation for Fremont County, WY July 1999

Northwest Parkland-Prairie Deer Goal Setting Block G7 Landowner and Hunter Survey Results

2017 Wyoming Outdoor Hall of Fame Nomination Form

NEWS RELEASE. Harvest allocation ensures certainty for hunting sector

Central Hills Prairie Deer Goal Setting Block G9 Landowner and Hunter Survey Results

Job Title: Game Management, Subsection B Game Management Mountain Lion. SPECIES: Mountain Lion

Job Title: Game Management, Subsection B Game Management Mountain Lion. SPECIES: Mountain Lion

Identifying mule deer migration routes to and from the Pinedale Anticline Project Area

2017 LATE WINTER CLASSIFICATION OF NORTHERN YELLOWSTONE ELK

The Lake Creek Ranch. Located in the foothills of the Owl Creek Mountains in western Hot Springs County, Wyoming

Evaluating the Influence of Development on Mule Deer Migrations

Northern Yellowstone Cooperative Wildlife Working Group 2012 Annual Report (October 1, 2012-September 30, 2012) Member Agencies

Attachment 2 SPECIAL AUCTION AND RAFFLE TAGS

Mule Deer. Dennis D. Austin. Published by Utah State University Press. For additional information about this book

The 2001 Economic Benefits of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Watching in MISSOURI. Prepared by:

ECONOMIC VALUE OF OUTFITTED TRIPS TO CONSERVATION ORGANIZATIONS

Wyoming Game & Fish Department: Private Lands Public Wildlife Access Program

Shimmerhorn Ranch. Buford, Wyoming // Albany County

The University of Georgia

ALTERNATIVE DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS. 12A, 12B, 13A, 13B, 16A, 45A, 45B, 45C, and White-tailed Deer Units

DEER AND ELK POPULATION STATUS AND HARVEST STRUCTURE IN WESTERN NORTH AMERICA: A SUMMARY OF STATE AND PROVINCIAL STATUS SURVEYS.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Feasibility Study on the Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to the Olympic Peninsula

Identifying Mule Deer Migration Routes

Hunter and Angler Expenditures, Characteristics, and Economic Effects, North Dakota,

Hunter use of public-access lands in the Rainwater Basin and beyond

Copyright 2018 by Jamie L. Sandberg

The Intended Consequences of Wildlife Allocations in British Columbia

Job Title: Game Management, Subsection B Game Management Mountain Lion. SPECIES: Mountain Lion

Big Game Season Structure, Background and Context

March 14, Public Opinion Survey Results: Restoration of Wild Bison in Montana

Stakeholder Activity

Wyoming Public Lands Initiative (WPLI) Fortification Creek Advisory Committee Meeting March 13, 2017

MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR LION DAU-L17

B. PURPOSE: to achieve the following on large, contiguous blocks of private land:

CPW Marketing FISCAL YEAR OVERVIEW

Hunt ID: CO-ElkMDeerGoatSheepBear-All-ISONGUNN-CGSG-JN

The 2006 Economic Benefits of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Watching in NORTH CAROLINA. Prepared by:

Job Title: Game Management, Subsection B Game Management Mountain Lion

NORTH DAKOTA STATE REPORT June 2016

Albany County, Wyoming

2009 WMU 527 Moose, Mule Deer, and White tailed Deer

The 2006 Economic Benefits of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Watching in TEXAS. Prepared by:

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION Bringing the University to You

Sport Fishing Expenditures and Economic Impacts on Public Lands in Oregon

Big Game Allocation Policy Sub-Committee Recommendations to AGPAC

DMU 072 Roscommon County Deer Management Unit

PROPOSED RULEMAKING GAME COMMISSION

NORTH DAKOTA STATE REPORT June 2018

contents 2009 Big Game Statistics

Alberta Conservation Association 2016/17 Project Summary Report. Primary ACA staff on project: Stefanie Fenson, Jeff Forsyth and Jon Van Dijk

Sport Fishing Expenditures and Economic Impacts on Public Lands in Washington

WGFD. News Release. Dec. 23, Contact: Al Langston (307) For Immediate Release:

BIG GAME SEASON STRUCTURE

Thank you in advance for considering this important issue. We hope that we may hear from you soon with a positive answer.

Hunter Perceptions of Chronic Wasting Disease in Illinois

contents 2004 Big Game Statistics

The Greater Sage-Grouse:

Final Report, October 19, Socioeconomic characteristics of reef users

Independent Economic Analysis Board. Review of the Estimated Economic Impacts of Salmon Fishing in Idaho. Task Number 99

San Juan Basin Elk Herd E-31 Data Analysis Unit Plan Game Management Units 75, 751, 77, 771, and 78

Wildlife and American Sport Hunting

Colorado West Slope Mule Deer Strategy Public Engagement Report

Basic Information Everyone Should Know

H. R To provide for the protection of the last remaining herd of wild and genetically pure American buffalo. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

PRESENTATION TO THE BRITISH COLUMBIA LEGISALTIVE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE September 26, 2013

2010 Wildlife Management Unit 510 moose

Spring 2012 Wild Turkey Harvest Report

Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Annual Performance Report of Survey-Inventory Activities 1 July June IS 0 N

2009 Update. Introduction

WILD HOGS IN MISSISSIPPI

Job Title: Game Management, Subsection B Game Management Predator and Furbearer Management. SPECIES: Predatory and Furbearing Mammals

DMU 038 Jackson County

Minnesota Deer Population Goals

Acquisition by Capture Cont d. Carol M. Rose, Possession as the Origin of Property, Perspectives, p. 180

RANCHING Wildlife. Texas White-Tailed Deer 2017 Hunting Forecast

Peace Region Wildlife Regulations Proposed Changes for Comment ( )

Introduced in August public meetings

15, 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2008 WMU 106 mule deer

Full summaries of all proposed rule changes, including DMU boundary descriptions, are included in the additional background material.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

HUNTING AND FISHING IN THE ELLIOTT STATE FOREST

NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE HARVEST MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR HUNTING SEASONS

TWO FORKS RANCH A5 REAL ESTATE. 790 Acres. Smiths Fork - Lincoln County - Wyoming

BLACK GAP WMA/ECLCC MULE DEER RESTORATION PROJECT UPDATE. February 2, 2016

Hunt ID: 5044-G-C-5500-ElkMDeerAlopeSheepLionBear-CO-XXX-TCLIF3FEWES- DC7OS-O1MT-Ranching 4 Wildlife

Washington, D.C Washington, D.C April 22, Dear Chairs Mikulski and Rogers and Ranking Members Shelby and Lowey:

Minnesota Deer Population Goals. East Central Uplands Goal Block

H. R. To provide for the protection of the last remaining herd of wild and genetically pure American Buffalo. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES A BILL

COUNTY ADVISORY BOARD TO MANAGE WILDLIFE 2019 BIG GAME SEASONS RECOMMENDATIONS

San Luis Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex, CO; Availability of Record of

Economic Impact of Mountain Biking in the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests

Transcription:

March 2004 B-1150 The Role and Economic Importance of Private Lands in Providing Habitat for Wyoming s Big Game By Roger Coupal, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics; Gary Beauvais, Wyoming Natural Diverity Database; and Dennis Feeney and Scott Lieske, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics William D. Ruckelshaus Institute of Environment and Natural Resources Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics Wyoming Natural Diversity Database Wyoming Geographic Information Science Center Cooperative Extension Service For more information: 307.766.5080 www.uwyo.edu/openspaces Wyoming s wildlife is an important asset to residents and visitors, providing pleasure for viewing and hunting and generating dollars in the state s economy. Wildlife generally does not respond to the boundaries of human society as animals move among private, state, tribal, and federal lands. These movements occur in yearly, seasonal, and daily patterns. Animals that are on public lands during the summer and autumn, especially in areas of high elevation, are very often found on lower elevation private lands during the winter. The mix, availability, and quality of seasonal range, both private and public, are critically important to big game herd size and viability, and herd size and viability can ultimately affect the enjoyment of residents and visitors. For this reason, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) works closely with private landowners and public land management agencies to manage the state s wildlife populations, both to enhance people s enjoyment and to decrease wildlife damage to private property. This publication describes the relationships among private lands, public lands, and seasonal range as well as the economic importance of private lands in providing seasonal habitat for six major big game species in Wyoming: pronghorn, elk, moose, bighorn sheep, mule deer, and white-tailed deer. This analysis was conducted to assess some of the potential consequences of habitat loss on private lands due to rural land development. Seasonal Range To estimate the role of private lands in providing seasonal range, a geographic information system (GIS) analysis was conducted using 2001 seasonal range data from WGFD and a land ownership map (University of Wyoming 1996). Seasonal range was categorized into winter, spring-summer-fall, and year-long range. Year-long range includes places where animals are able to reside in the same area throughout the year. Winter range identifies areas where animals migrate from spring-summer-fall range to get away from harsh winter conditions such as deep snow. The three types of seasonal range are not mutually exclusive, and overlapping ranges among the six species were accounted for in this analysis as described in the following examples: If an area of 100 acres was classified as winter range for two or more species, it was counted as 100 (not 200 or more) acres in the total for winter range. If an area of 100 acres was classified as spring-summer-fall range for one species and winter range for another species, it was counted as 100 acres in the spring-summer-fall range category and again as 100 acres in the winter range category.

2 Figure 1. Seasonal range categories and acreages on private and public lands in Wyoming for six big game species combined. This analysis does not distinguish among different levels of habitat quality within a specific range classification. Characteristics such as slope, elevation, vegetation, human use patterns, and water availability can make some areas more attractive than others within a seasonal range category. Because information on these micro-level characteristics is not available, however, the analysis took a statewide perspective and assumed that they were similar within seasonal range categories. Winter range on private and public land accounts for more than 35.1 million acres, spring-summer-fall range is approximately 19.2 million acres, and year-long range totals 32.2 million acres (Figure 1). Year-long range is 56 percent private land and is located in areas of the state that are predominantly privately owned. Forty-four percent of winter range is in private ownership; much of this is critical to animals that summer in higher elevations. Spring-summer-fall range is predominantly on public land with only 25 percent on private lands. Map 1 displays aggregate seasonal ranges on private land and public land for all six species combined. No seasonal range is shown for Yellowstone National Park because it was not included in this study. Maps 2 to 7 show the types of seasonal range on private land for each individual species. Areas not identified as private land winter, spring-summer-fall, or yearlong range on Maps 2 to 7 are either public land seasonal range or are not considered seasonal range for any of the species studied. The overall importance of private land is greater for some big game species than for others (Figure 2). White-tailed deer in some places generally occur in bottomland along rivers, and these areas are mostly privately owned. Eighty percent of white-tailed deer seasonal range is private. Mule deer (58 percent) and pronghorn (51 percent) also substantially depend on private land seasonal range. In contrast, bighorn sheep have the least amount of seasonal range on private land, totaling only 7 percent. Twenty-seven percent of elk seasonal range is private as is 17 percent of moose seasonal range. Typically, for many of these species, a high percentage of spring-summerfall range on public land correlates with a high percentage of winter range on private land. w y o m i n g o

3 Figure 2. Seasonal range categories and acreages on private and public lands for six big game species in Wyoming. Hunter Expenditures While it is not known exactly how much hunting and wildlife watching occurs each year on public or private land in the state, WGFD data and other studies can be used to estimate the activity and economic benefits related to hunting. Private lands support a proportion of hunter days directly through access arrangements, but more importantly they support hunter days indirectly by providing habitat for animals during other times of the year. Annual hunter-day data collected by WGFD were used to allocate hunter-day information to each seasonal range category. ( Hunter days are determined by WGFD questionnaires that ask hunters how many days of effort they expended). WGFD groups hunter data by geographic areas called herd units with boundaries that are unique for each species. Hunters are assigned to specific herd units, and the agency collects resident and non-resident hunter-day data for each herd unit. For this study, hunter-day data were allocated to seasonal range areas within each herd unit and then summarized by seasonal range type. Total expenditures were estimated using hunter-day estimates and expenditure studies for Wyoming (Lee and others 1989; Responsive Management 1998). Hunter-day expenditure categories were taken from these two sources and inflated to 2002 dollars. Hunter expenditures were summarized across herd units and allocated to seasonal range types, both public and private, based on the acreage for each type within each herd unit. Estimates of hunter days and hunter expenditures from individual herd units were then added for a state total. Resident and non-resident hunters pursuing these six species totaled almost 918,000 hunter days in Wyoming in the year 2000. Residents accounted for 71 percent of total hunter days. The six species reviewed here generated more than $120.3 million in hunter expenditures in 2000, with resident hunters accounting for 49 percent and non-resident hunters accounting for 51 percent of this total. Based on the acreages of private seasonal range for each species and speciesspecific hunter information, it is estimated that private lands supported more than $58 million in p e n s p a c e s

4 Figure 3. Annual hunter expenditures in 2000 for six big game species supported by habitat on private and public lands in Wyoming. hunter expenditures in 2000 or just under 50 percent of the total. Values ranged from $60,067 for bighorn sheep to $23.7 million for mule deer (Figure 3). Private landowners do receive some compensation in the form of payments for wildlife damage and hunter access fees, but most economic activity related to wildlife accrues to the state s businesses such as motels, gasoline stations, restaurants, retail outlets, and food stores. Thus, private land seasonal range provides a positive economic spillover from agriculture and other private landowners to the broader economy. The loss of private ranchlands in some areas of the state to rural development (as discussed in American Farmland Trust 2002 and Taylor 2003) could adversely affect the sizes of big game herds, causing potential important consequences to Wyoming s economy. Literature Cited American Farmland Trust. 2002. Strategic Ranchland in the Rocky Mountain West: Mapping the Threats to Prime Ranchland in Seven Western States. www.farmland.org. Lee, Be-Ling, Walter M. Hudson, and Thomas Buchanan.1989. Hunting and Fishing Expenditure Estimates for Wyoming. Report Submitted to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Responsive Management. December, 1998. Wyoming 1997 Hunting Expenditures. Report Submitted to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. w y o m i n g o

5 Map 1. Aggregate seasonal range on private lands (blue) and public lands (orange) for six major big game species in Wyoming. Yellowstone National Park was not included in this analysis. Other green areas are not considered seasonal range for any of the species studied. Taylor, David T. 2003. The Role of Agriculture in Maintaining Open Spaces in Wyoming. University of Wyoming Cooperative Extension Service Bulletin B-1141, Laramie, Wyoming. University of Wyoming Spatial Data and Visualization Center. 1996. Land Ownership and Management for Wyoming. Wyoming GAP Analysis. Laramie, Wyoming. Additional publications in this series include: B-1121 Population Change in Wyoming, 1990-2000 B-1120 Second Home Growth in Wyoming, 1990-2000 B-1132 Conservation Easement: An Introductory Review for Wyoming B-1133 The Cost of Community Services for Rural Residential Development in Wyoming B-1135 Public Funding Mechanisms for Open Space Protection: An Introduction for Wyoming B-1141 The Role of Agriculture in Maintaining Open Spaces in Wyoming For more information on the Wyoming Open Spaces Initiative and future publications, please visit the Web site at www.uwyo.edu/openspaces. p e n s p a c e s

6 Map 2. Seasonal range on private lands for bighorn sheep in Wyoming. Dark blue areas are private winter range, light blue areas are private year-long range, and yellow areas are private spring-summer-fall range. Green areas are either public land seasonal range or are not considered seasonal range for this species. Map 3. Seasonal range on private lands for elk in Wyoming. See Map 2 for explanation of colors. Map 4. Seasonal range on private lands for moose in Wyoming. See Map 2 for explanation of colors. w y o m i n g o

7 Map 5. Seasonal range on private lands for mule deer in Wyoming. See Map 2 for explanation of colors. Map 6. Seasonal range on private lands for white-tailed deer in Wyoming. See Map 2 for explanation of colors. p e n s p a c e s

8 Map 7. Seasonal range on private lands for pronghorn in Wyoming. See Map 2 for explanation of colors. Funding for the Wyoming Open Spaces Initiative is provided by private individuals and foundations. If you would like to contribute, please contact us at (307) 766-5080 or ienr@uwyo.edu Persons seeking admission, employment or access to programs of the University of Wyoming shall be considered without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation or political belief. Wyoming Open Spaces Initiative Department 3971 1000 E. University Avenue Laramie, WY 82071 PRE-SORTED STANDARD U.S. POSTAGE PAID LARAMIE, WY 82072 PERMIT No. 1