Bear Tags As Revenue Generators: How Much Will Wyoming Make Bringing Back Griz Hunt?
One of the arguments states use in pushing for grizzly delisting is bringing back a trophy season to help them recoup money they've spent on bear recovery. Does the premise add up?
This grizzly is believed to have been #587, one of famed Jackson Hole Grizzly 399's original triplets and brother to sisters 610 and 615. Grizzly 587 was lethally removed from the wild as a young bear after he was accused of preying on livestock. Sister 615 died after being shot by a hunter in the Bridger-Teton National Forest who claimed she was behaving aggressively but who was convicted of illegally killing her. Lots of grizzlies die every year in all kinds of run-ins with humans. If Wyoming brings back a sport hunt of grizzlies, bears like this will be pursued as trophies. Today, 587, portrayed in this pose by a taxidermist, is part of public education efforts to make people in northwest Wyoming more aware about living and playing in grizzly country. Photo by Todd Wilkinson
by Todd Wilkinson
Cattle and sheep losses are real for livestock producers. They have an impact on the bottom line, they create management challenges, and bears have the potential to be dangerous.
When ranchers say they suffer lost income-earning potential when cattle are taken by carnivores, it means that their investment and hard work in raising cows, that are good producers or breeders supporting herd stability, are squandered. That perspective was explored in a 2010 Journal of Wildlife Management article written by Albert Sommers, who runs cattle in the Upper Green River country near Pinedale and recently served as Speaker of the Wyoming House, ranching colleague Charles Price, writer and sheep rancher Cat Urbigkit and Eric Peterson.
A year ago, Joy Ufford, reporter with the Sublette Examiner newspaper interviewed Sommers who grazes his livestock as part of a rancher cooperative in the Upper Green."Sommers referred to 2015 as the 'worst year' on Upper Green allotments," Ufford wrote. "Grizzlies killed two cows, 11 yearlings and 66 calves; wolves killed seven calves and two yearlings. In 2020, grizzlies killed 50 calves, two cows and 18 yearlings; wolves killed a calf."
In 2019, the US Forest Service re-authorized livestock grazing for 10 years in the Upper Green. As part of the decision, the US Fish and Wildlife Service rendered a biological opinion, granting approval to the human take—killing—of 72 grizzlies in the livestock permit area over the span of a decade as part of likely conflict occurring between bears and livestock. The Fish and Wildlife Service said it would not jeopardize survival of the bear population.
That decision of allowable take was challenged in court by a number of groups, the Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, Western Watersheds Project, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, and the Yellowstone to Uintas Connection. This year, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Fish and Wildlife Service and Forest Service had erred in its decision, specifically because there was no cap on allowable female grizzly deaths and activities that could result in a sink of the local population. Notably, as Mike Koshmrl of Wyofile reported, it did not halt grazing in the historic allotment, which has more bear-livestock conflict than any corner of Greater Yellowstone.
In Wyoming, the state has a system of reimbursing ranchers and farmers for livestock lost to grizzlies, wolves and mountain lions. But livestock producers still will often point out, “We don’t raise our cows to be eaten by grizzlies and wolves.”
In parallel with the growing wildlife-watching economy in Greater Yellowstone, it is no different in thinking about the "replacement value"of a bear like famed Jackson Hole Grizzly 399, who has been an exceptional mother passing along solid genes, instincts and calm temperament, producing 18 cubs and having at least two dozen descendants in her direct blood line.
Should a bear like her be treated as being expendable or as a "surplus animal" available for harvest inside a three-state area where hundreds of bears roam?
399’s "value" compared to a domestic bovine bound for a feedlot is inestimable yet a sport hunt that allows hunters to randomly kill female grizzlies or aspire to target her, could wipe a bear like 399 from the map. Moreover, would her removal come with any real reflection on biological cost to the population and future lost opportunity costs for citizen wildlife watchers or nature-tourism companies?
That, wildlife advocates like Lisa Robertson of Jackson Hole say, provides a bold illustration of how balance sheet thinking related to nature is antiquated.
Wyoming leaders have intimated that a major reason for removing Greater Yellowstone grizzlies from federal protection is that under state control bears could be hunted again with revenue generated from selling tags helping states recoup costs associated with bear management.
How much revenue could be generated for the states from sport hunting grizzlies? It's important to do the math. Wyoming has more acreage in Greater Yellowstone than Montana or Idaho and therefore a higher percentage of the ecosystem bear population.
In parallel with the growing wildlife-watching economy in Greater Yellowstone, it is no different in thinking about the "replacement value"of a bear like famed Jackson Hole Grizzly 399, who has been an exceptional mother passing along solid genes, instincts and calm temperament, producing 18 cubs and having at least two dozen descendants in her direct blood line. Should a bear like her be treated as being expendable or as a "surplus animal" available for harvest inside a three-state area where hundreds of bears roam?
In 2018, the year after Greater Yellowstone grizzlies were temporarily delisted, Wyoming said it would make available 22 grizzly bear hunting tags via a lottery, part of the first trophy hunt of grizzlies staged there in 44 years. Some 7000 people, not all of them hunters, paid the non-refundable $5 lottery entrance fee for Wyoming residents or the $10 fee charged out of staters.
If a person’s name was drawn, a Wyoming resident would pay $600 to get the tag. In 2023, the Wyoming legislature upped the tag fee for out of staters from $6,000 to $7500.
Wyoming officials in 2018 said that 75 percent of tags would go to Wyomingites so if 16 tags were sold at $600 apiece it would generate $9,600. (Tags cannot be resold like scalpers hawking concert tickets). If the remaining six tags offered to out of staters generated $7,500 apiece that equates to another $45,000.
There is also the possibility of Wyoming’s governor auctioning off an additional trophy tag, as happens with species like bighorn sheep and pronghorn. Bighorn tags in some states have generated hundreds of thousands of dollars and certainly a grizzly tag would go for more. Let’s say $1 million but the revenue would likely be directed to a conservation charity of the governor's choice instead of into state coffers.
In addition, it’s likely that most of the16 in-staters would not enlist the expensive services of an outfitter and guide but the out of staters would. If the services cost $15,000 and six out of staters paid the outfitters, that would generate another $90,000 for those private businesspeople. Add in another $30,000 in economic activity generated by hunters paying for travel, hotel and meals when they aren’t hunting, and it’s $120,000.
Add in the $70,000 generated from non-refundable entrance fees in the bear tag lottery, plus $9,600 paid by resident hunters for a tag, plus $45,000 generated from out of staters and you have about $125,000. Throw in the $120,000 paid to outfitters and the total is in the neighborhood of $250,000 minus expenses associated with Game and Fish staging the hunts, holding mandatory education courses that grizzly hunters must attend, plus additional staff time. It turns out that monetizing 22 bears does not generate a lot of money.
Wyoming says it has spent $52 million on grizzly recovery since 1975. It would take decades of staging grizzly bear sport hunts and allowing the taking of hundreds of bears, or more, before the state came close to matching that figure. In fact, it's possible that Wyoming would be spending more to administer grizzly hunts than the amount of money the state takes in from selling tags, which takes the griz hunting as revenue source argument for delisting off the table.
In Alaska, which has the largest brown bear/grizzly populations in the US at 30,000, one guide charges $28,500 for a 10-day hunt of trophy brown bears and $18,000 for a grizzly hunt. Here's how the latter offering is described by the outfitter: "These boys are the prettiest of all bears. They come in silver tip, dark brown blonde, and blonde with dark brown boots. Besides, they make great rugs—(remember every bear wants to be a rug). Hunting these boys consists of a lot of glassing from high areas so some climbing is in order; it pays to be in good shape for this hunt. Most importantly, know your weapon - I cannot stress this enough because when you shoot at these bad boys they will most likely charge you and you need to stand your ground and keep firing. It's a real rush!!!"
Earlier this year, Dan Thompson, Wyoming Game and Fish's senior large carnivore specialist, told Wyofile that, in fact, if sport hunting is brought back, Wyoming may offer at least 39 hunting tags, not 22, and possibly even more than that. Speculation is that bear tags may be offered to allow hunters to kill grizzlies in the Upper Green as a way to help reduce livestock conflicts and protect cattle grazing on public lands.
Across the ecosystem in all three Greater Yellowstone states, Thompson said the annual number of bears that could be taken in hunts, with the demographic monitoring area (DMA), could be 69, in the form of 51 males and 18 females. Even more grizzlies could be taken outside the DMA because bears there don't count toward meeting population recovery metrics.
Those 69 bears killed in "allowable harvest" would be additive to other bears removed in management actions, conflicts involving livestock, hunter self defense, bears killed in vehicle collisions, killed by poachers and other causes. Every year dozens are grizzlies are removed from the population and, over the last few decades, hundreds of bears have been removed that way.
Wyoming says it has spent $52 million on grizzly recovery since 1975. It would take decades of staging grizzly bear sport hunts and allowing the taking of hundreds of bears, or more, before the state came close to matching that figure. In fact, it's possible that Wyoming would be spending more to administer grizzly hunts than the amount of money the state takes in from selling tags, which takes the griz hunting as revenue source argument for delisting off the table.
That $52 million sounds like a lot, but tens of millions of dollars, if not more, are generated every year through nature-naturism based on the allure of watching bears live in Yellowstone and Jackson Hole.
Of course, a hunter will say that taking a Greater Yellowstone grizzly would deliver a priceless thrill of a lifetime and bring with it personal boasting rights. So, too, does that same thrill and bragging rights exist for millions of people who travel to the ecosystem hoping to see grizzlies live.
In 2018, a group of five Jackson Hole women came together to accent that point. In advance of the proposed hunt, they created a grassroots effort called “Shoot’Em With A Camera."
The founders were Robertson, Judy Hofflund, the late Deidre Bainbridge, Ann Smith and Heather Lang. Robertson also was the co-author of a study assessing the economic value of a single live bobcat in Yellowstone.
In Wyoming's lottery system, anyone could enter. The five Jackson Hole wildlife advocates
encouraged non hunters to put their names into the drawing to secure a grizzly hunting tag but with no intention of shooting a bear. Even globally-renowned conservationist Dr. Jane Goodall entered the lottery, at the behest of her good friend, Jackson Hole wildlife photographer Thomas Mangelsen. As fate would have it, Mangelsen drew a tag and noted, very publicly, that he intended to use it as an opportunity to tout the value of seeing bears alive instead of sending dead grizzlies to a taxidermist.
Such maneuvering caught the state of Wyoming by surprise, and they said afterward that their intent is to make sure bears are hunted because its part of their overall management strategy. I wrote several stories that year about delisting and Wyoming’s sport hunt for National Geographic.
Wyoming did not reveal the names of the 7000 people who put in for a tag but Lisa Robertson said the number of bear advocates inspired by Shoot'Em With A Camera may have numbered in the few thousands.
Brian Nesvik, who was then chief game warden with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and today leads the agency, was left chagrined. He saw the action of grizzly advocates flooding the lottery process as a stunt to mess with an orderly system of allotting tags.
Nesvik acknowledged he was surprised at how fast the campaign mobilized, heightening a level of drama that was already unprecedented given that it involves the wildlife symbol of the Yellowstone region. “This is more about taking away hunting opportunity than having an impact on our population management objective,” Nesvik said, noting that with between 700 and 1100 grizzlies in the Greater Yellowstone region, Wyoming’s quota would not jeopardize the population.
Dr. Chris Servheen, who for 35 years oversaw national grizzly bear recovery for the US Fish and Wildlife Service, said hunting grizzlies is not "bear management" and is not a replacement for professional management of the last several decades. Hunting is just that—hunting. And hunting grizzlies which are slow to reproduce is different from staging hunts of elk. Servheen, who hunts game animals for meat, shares that observation not as a critique of hunting but where it fits into the argument of harvesting bears as a strategic form of management.
The discussion about wildlife management in America has long been dominated by hunters, but with their numbers declining nationwide, non-consumptive admirers of nature are refusing to stand passively on the sidelines, said Jackson Hole attorney and Shoot’Em With A Camera co-founder Deidre Bainbridge.
Concern over grizzlies has created a force to be reckoned with, she said. “Now we, many strong women, are speaking out for wildlife management based on science, fact and respect for life, not money and politics.” Bainbridge died tragically because of a medical issue in 2019.
Judy Hofflund had been coming to Wyoming for 50 years and remembers the era when grizzlies were virtually eliminated and few thought they would return. Hofflund has a home in Jackson Hole and recently retired from a long career as an agent in Hollywood for actors such as Kenneth Branagh, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Sally Field, and Kevin Kline.
Yet it’s been a different star—Grizzly 399—that caught her eye and it inspired her to join the Shoot’Em With A Camera fold. “When the Greater Yellowstone grizzly population was delisted [removed from federal protection] and it became apparent states like Wyoming wanted to offer bears as trophies to hunters, it broke my heart,” she told me for the NatGeo story. “Grizzly 399 is such a beautiful mother, intelligent and caring. This effort is our attempt to give bears like her a voice.”
The actions of Shoot'Em With A Camera infuriated hunters and hunting groups but it struck a chord with a diverse range of people. As an experiment, it was touted as an example of how bear protectors could compete in the marketplace with traditional models of revenue generation through hunting.
Sportsman Brian Yablonski, president of the politically conservative non-profit Property and Environment Research Center in Bozeman, which champions free market approaches to addressing conservation challenges, applauded Shoot’Em With A Camera because those efforts allowed advocates to vote with their wallets in seeking desirable outcomes. Yablonski previously served as chair of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, appointed by former Governor Jeb Bush, and saw controversy erupt over the state bringing back black bear hunting.
"I thought Shoot-Em With A Camera was a creative idea because it allowed members of the public to demonstrate what they were willing to do to keep bears alive— as a competing interest to how hunters do the very same thing when they buy tags and licenses," he said. Like Servheen, Yablonski did not make that statement as a person who is opposed to bear hunting.
The issue of whether bears should be hunted is another question that ought to be based on science and culture. "That's up for the individual states to decide," he said.
The first Greater Yellowstone grizzly hunt in two human generations did not happen in 2018 because a lawsuit brought by EarthJustice on behalf of several conservation organizations and individuals, yielded a ruling from federal District Court Judge Dana Christensen in Missoula that halted the hunt and put Greater Yellowstone’s bears back under federal protection where they remain today.
Opponents of bear hunting argue sport hunting of grizzlies gives Wyoming, Montana and Idaho a black eye, especially for millions of people around the world who head to those states year after year to watch grizzlies in Jackson Hole, Yellowstone and Glacier National Park in northern Montana. If a mother bear with cubs is shot, leaving her offspring orphaned, it will result in a backlash, they say, like the one that accompanied the killing of Cecil the Lion in Zimbabwe, that with social media quickly circled the globe.
What do you think? Send us your thoughts by clicking here. Be respectful and stay on point. We may publish your comments in the space below.
Thanks for the as ever great investigative journalism. I just returned from the Great Bear Campout in Idaho where 100 grizzly bear advocates gathered to strategize how to protect grizzlies, help them reinhabit their rightful domain and how to stop delisting and trophy hunting.
Delisting could happen this winter and then we are going to see Montana, Wyoming and Idaho all chomping at the bit to sell tags to kill grizzlies. Your figures debunking hunting as a revenue generator for the states are very helpful.
I also love that story about Shoot'em with a Camera. This is the sort of creative action needed to push back against the outdated and cruel model of wildlife "management" being shoved down our throats by state Fish and Game agencies.
If Montana, Wyoming and Idaho's treatment of wolves (snaring, trapping, multiple kills per hunter, night hunting, killing on park borders, baiting etc) is any indication of how grizzlies will be treated—and you can bet your life it is—we need to pull out the stops to prevent trophy hunting of grizzlies. The Great Bear deserves far better.
Phil Knight
Bozeman, Montana
About Todd Wilkinson
Todd Wilkinson, founder of Mountain Journal, is author of the book Ripple Effects: How to Save Yellowstone and American's Most Iconic Wildlife Ecosystem. Wilkinson has been writing about Greater Yellowstone for 35 years and is a correspondent to publications ranging from National Geographic to The Guardian. He is author of several books on topics as diverse as scientific whistleblowers and Ted Turner, and a book about the harrowing story of Jackson Hole grizzly mother 399, the most famous bear in the world which features photographs by Thomas Mangelsen. For more information on Wilkinson, click here. (Photo by David J Swift).
