Primarily elk:
Lacey, J.R., S.B. Laursen, J.C. Gilchrist, R.M. Brownson, J. Anzick, and S. Doggett. 1988. Eonomic and social implications of managing wildlife on private land in Montana. Northwest Sci. 62:1-9.
Documented Case History
Significance: Reduced wildlife depredation of private land forage will improve elk-cattle management by reducing pressure between livestock producers and wildlife enthusiasts. This study presents results of a survey of Montana private landowner views of fee hunting and/or other recreational activities provided on private land. The survey was designed to provide information that could be used in evaluating multiple-use management alternatives for private landowners.
Methods: One thousand randomly selected members of the Montana Stockgrowers Association received a self-administered mail-back questionnaire in April 1986. A second questionnaire was delivered two weeks later to landowners that did not respond to the first letter. Members of this Association were selected because their lands accounted for a majority of the lands in Montana where hunting occurred. The questionnaires were intended to analyze wildlife value perception by private landowners, and to determine the extent of consideration for wildlife habitat maintenance in land management decisions on private land. Regional trends were accounted for by dividing the state into 5 regions.
Results: The survey consisted of 526 respondents. Regional leasing activity to sportsman depended on the proportion of private land vs. public land, and the quantity of cropland. The northcentral region was comprised of 45% cropland resulting in less incentive to lease big game hunting. Only 3% of respondents increased leasing activity to sportsman between 1975 and 1985. However, during the same period 54% of respondents leased more than one-half of their land to hunters.
Elk were reported to occur on 30 ranches in the study and consumed a total of 576 AUMs of forage. Combined mule deer and elk utilization totaled 986 AUMs. Most respondents that provided elk hunting opportunity to sportsman reported $1,000 to $2,000 of total 1985 gross income. Elk and mule deer hunting opportunities were reported as the two activities that would realize the greatest economic return. However, hunting leases provided only 5% of the respondents total annual income, and only 8% of the lessees reported a 15% or greater return from hunting fees. There was great variation in the time hunters were allowed to hunt on a region-wide basis because of the informal manner in which leases were provided.
More than half of the respondents (57% ) used management practices to improve habitat. Additionally, 14% had established food and/or cover plantings or manipulated wetlands. Only 8% of the landowners that did not lease to sportsman were aware of habitat improvement practices that could be implemented on their property. Thirty-nine percent of the respondents felt that development of a certain number of hectares was necessary for creating sportsman opportunities on their land. Thirty-four percent of lessees felt that overall habitat quality would improve with leasing.
Implications: Wildlife populations were noted as increasingly threatened by expanding urban populations in the western United States. This problem was amplified as private landowners incurred the responsibility of managing increased numbers of wildlife inhabiting their lands. A proportion of landowners attempted to incorporate sustainable wildlife management into their private operations, however, a significant proportion did not. In this situation, wildlife were considered an economic burden as competitors with livestock for forage, and agents of destruction to crops and hayfields. Without proper incentive to provide for wildlife, quality of habitat will decline. Providing economic incentives to all landowners to promote cooperation between natural resource agencies, sportsman, and landowners is critical. In this survey, 90% of all respondents felt that landowners should be reimbursed for providing opportunities to sportsman. Lack of proper economic incentive for the landowner to improve wildlife habitat on private land would be detrimental to wildlife populations.
Lacey, J.R., K. Jamtgaard, L. Riggle, and T. Hayes. 1993. Impacts of big game on private land in southwestern Montana: Landowner perceptions. J. Range Manage. 46:31-37.
Documented Case History
Significance: Reduced wildlife depredation of private land forage should improve elk-cattle management indirectly by reducing tension among livestock producers and wildlife enthusiasts. Study of big-game numbers and exact costs incurred by private landowners will also direct management toward specific needs for improving wildlife-livestock management. This study reveals big game economic impacts sustained by private landowners and possible measures to reduce the impact.
Methods: Self-administered, mail-back questionnaires were sent to 858 rural landowners of 7 southwestern Montana counties in December 1989. The study area included. The intent of the survey was to estimate the impact of big game animals on private land. Possible error in response consisted of overestimated animal densities and duration of time spent on private lands. The impacts of big game grazing on hay and grain yield or long-term range productivity were not evaluated. A rate of $11.00/month supply of forage for a 455 kg animal was used to estimate the monetary value of forage harvested by big game. Respondent acceptance of non-monetary big-game benefits was summed using an index of intangible benefits. Four categories (enjoyment of big game occupancy, family hunting, hunting by friends, and other) comprised the index. Nonresponse bias was not evaluated, nor was nonrespondent analysis conducted to ensure that only actual response was statistically analyzed. Size of private landowner acreage was treated as a control variable.
Results: A 53% response rate of useful information was attained. Large landowners comprised a majority of the respondent population. Bureau of Land Management leases averaged 437 animal unit months (AUM) and 37% of the population while Forest Service leases averaged 1,082 AUMs and 32% of the population. State administered lands accounted for 33% of the leases. Agricultural income accounted for an average of 75% of total respondent income.
Half of the respondents reported significant elk use of private lands. Big game costs, before economic returns from hunting were incorporated, averaged $6,467 per landowner. Therefore, livestock/big game interactions were adverse because of economic impacts on private land relative to forage, soil, crop, and fence damage. Elk consumed the most forage (214 AUMs) of any big game species per landowner based on animal number, duration of private land occupancy, and animal size. The cost of forage consumed by big game averaged $5,616/landowner. Haystack damage was reported by 49% of the respondents with an average loss of 7.5 tons/landowner. Other costs associated with wildlife damage incurred by landowners included fencing and labor.
The net economic cost of big game per respondent, after economic returns from hunting were incorporated was $6,353. Four percent of landowners earned $1,000-$5,000 from hunting. Big game hunting on private lands totaled 227 days. The estimated value/day of hunting was estimated at $28. Consequently, landowners incurred a cost while providing benefits to hunters because costs associated with wildlife damage were more than income gained through hunting enterprises. Some landowners requested compensation for providing wildlife habitat and recreation.
A majority of landowners (70%) in operation for more than 10 years reported increases in whitetail deer and elk on their land. Landowners that owned large parcels of land reported more big game animals. Fewer animals were desired as the economic cost of big game increased. Fewer elk, antelope, whitetail deer, and mule deer were desired by 32%-44% of respondents. Landowners less dependant on agricultural income reported less economic impact by big game. Size of landholding and income from big game, however, were not useful explanatory variables of harmful effect on crop yields. Respondents with a high intangible value index for wildlife also reported less economic impact. Half of the respondents reported that they enjoyed big game occupancy on their lands.
Implications: Big game can adversely impact landowner income. However, hunting opportunities used by landowners can reduce economic impacts caused by big game while improving cooperation among landowners, sportsman, and resource management agencies. Additionally, big game utilization of private forage supports the need to increase forage quantity and improve winter forage quality on public ranges. Such measures will reduce the potential for landowners to be affected by wildlife damage.
Badlands
FWIW, the AUM cost here were calculated at $11/AUM. When I was home last year the AUM cost was $25-$30/AUM. Costs to landowners at those rates would be $12763 and $15316. Hunters--Bring the checkbook!!!!!!