Economics, as always

Brown, Perkins, and Lamprecht mutually set the prices to reflect the relative scarcity of the species.What impact do these fees have?On the demand side, the hunter facing a budget constraint must carefully weigh preferences against price.Hunters might think a tsessebe would make a nice addition to the trophy room, but the price of $1,500 translates into two or three of the less scarce big animals, such as zebra or kudu.Indeed, though not on Lamprecht’s property, Angus Brown Safaris can arrange hunting for elephant or rhino, the two most scarce of the hunted species, at a price of $12,000 and $28,000, respectively.Needless to say, this reduces the quantity demanded by pricing most hunters out of the market.Like cattle, the wildlife become private property to be husbanded.20,000 acres gives the animals plenty of habitat and escape routes in the thick bush.Piet Lamprecht’s ranch used to be mainly a cattle operation with some cultivated fields of peanuts and cotton.The potential for hunting profits has changed this.The owner has removed all but a few cattle from the land.He is also removing interior fences necessary for cattle management to give wildlife a freer range, and water points are being converted from troughs to more natural water holes.Because of hunting revenues, instead of carrying several hundred Brahma cattle, the land supports approximately 500 impala, 150 kudu, 100 wildebeest, 150 gemsbok, 50 tsessebe, 50 waterbuck, and numerous other species.Without the profits from hunting, less habitat would be available for the indigenous species of the Kalahari, and fewer animals would survive.And as result of this entrepreneurship, southern African animals and the people of the region have a better chance to survive and coexist.The interesting thing is that untold hundreds of thousands of hectares and morgen that even a few years ago were scrub grazing for a mix of game and cattle have now been entirely allocated to game.Economics, as always.Game pays its own way, eats nearly anything, is more resistant to disease and predators, and generally produces a higher and better use for the land.Even the old enemies become assets to the farmer who switches from cattle to game.Tell me, is that bad for leopards?They work with the landowners to manage the habitat and increase the populations of natural game birds.As in the United gitlab.tails.boum.org/henriettae/planning-your-business/-/wikis/Bing]States, farmers in the region had little reason to worry about protective cover until the birds became an asset.The populations of guinea fowl, francolin, and quail have mushroomed accordingly.Trevor Couiens, a farmer on Blood River marsh in northern Natal, takes advantage of his waterfowl habitat.Couiens set up feeding stations with blinds around the marsh and built a hunting camp.Hunts are sold to groups of four shotgunners per group at $200 per gun per day.Bag limits are set by the South African National Parks Board, which works closely with landowners like Couiens.A typical day finds the hunter in the blinds thirty minutes before sunrise to shoot waterfowl for two to three hours.If hunters haven’t had enough foot hunting, they can return to the fields for a couple more hours after a leisurely lunch.Then, it is back into the blinds for waterfowl until sunset.Perhaps more importantly, bird populations grown tremendously, proving that hunting makes it is possible to do good while doing well.In some cases, the farmer has turned wildlife entrepreneur.In Montana, wheat farmer Don Jenni found that there are enough pheasant hunters willing to pay $25 per day to hunt on his land that he is encouraging habitat for them.Strips of cover are left next to crops and ditch banks, and fence rows that used to be burned are not being disturbed.Farmers in North and South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas are realizing profit from pheasant hunting as well.As a result, farmers are giving protection of pheasant higher priority on their lands.Other entrepreneurs are establishing hunting resorts.The old ’law of supply and demand’ is still working in favor of private enterprise hunting resorts.As in everything else where the ’’product demand’ exceeds the available supply, private enterprise eventually steps in to satisfy the demand.It’s a fact that there is now more wildlife habitat and ’escape cover’ on a good hunting resort than there is on a hundred average farmsafter the crops are harvested.It’s no wonder the preserve concept is growing!His firm’s specialty is integrating traditional livestock and farming practices with wildlife concerns to increase profits.Given that his firm’s list of clients has more than tripled in the last four years, he must be doing just that.How did Wayne Long get into this innovative business?While studying wildlife management at Utah State University, Long recognized that his course of studies focused entirely on the wildlife and not at all on their habitat.A huge chunk of public land is controlled by agencies separate from the wildlife agencies, and private lands are just that, private.In short, public wildlife managers mainly set seasons, bag limits, and license fees and enforce the rules for taking wildlife.With rare exceptions, they cannot manage the habitat.Long realized that proper management of wildlife required management of the habitat itself.Like many other wildlife entrepreneurs, Long found opportunities for managing the habitat and developing new ways for making wildlife pay.Interestingly the Dye Creek Preserve is leased from its owner, the state of California, by the Nature Conservancy, an environmental organization dedicated to preservation of endangered species and their habitat.Deer hunters at Dye Creek enjoy success rates of 75 percent compared to the California state average of 10 percent.At Dye Creek, the approach is showing noticeable results.Once scarce or absent black bears, mountain lions, otters, beavers, eagles, and vultures now thrive on the preserve.In 1996 the hunters shot thirty bull elk.Over 1,000 pigs were removed using helicopter shooting and trapping and ground hunting with dogs.Ted and Jane’s PlaceMedia mogul Ted Turner and his wife, Jane Fonda, have gotten into the wildlife business, too, for both profit and pleasure.The land was a working cattle ranch until 1989 when Turner purchased it.In return for valuable tax deductions, Turner Enterprises granted conservation easements to the Nature Conservancy, removed the cattle, improved the fences, and converted the Flying D to a bison ranch.By 1993 the ranch was stocked with 3,391 bison raised mainly to stock his other bison ranches.The ranch also provides excellent wildlife habitat, especially for elk and deer, and the streams on the property offer fine trout fishing.Golden and bald eagles soar overhead, and occasionally grizzly bears, bighorn sheep, and mountain goats pass through.The previous owner, Shelton Ranches, recognized the rising value of the wildlife assets in the 1980s and began actively restricting access and managing for trophy elk.The impact of this management has been dramatic.Since 1981, the elk population has grown from 757 to 3,163 in 1996a 420 percent increase!During the same period, elk herds generally increased in Montana, but by far less.General manager Russ Miller employs a professional hunting guide, Rob Arnaud, who looks after the hunting operation.Miller himself is not a hunter, so as general manager, he sees the wildlife as competitors with his main crop, bison.Given that elk consume grass that bison could be eating, Miller is attempting to make the elk to pay their way.In 1996, twelve hunters did so, at a price of $3,500 each.Producing gross revenues of approximately $300,000, wildlife on the Flying D is an asset.The public also benefits from Turner’s wildlife management.Abundant herds spill over onto adjacent public lands where access is unrestricted.The brothers, who live on their family cattle ranch near Townsend, know every inch of their domain but not necessarily because they spend hours on horseback herding cattle from pasture to pasture.Much of their knowledge of the land comes from countless hours spent hunting.In fact, it might be fair to say that cattle ranching is just a sideline that pays the bills so they can pursue their hunting passion.During the hunting season, the Flynn brothers can usually be found at the cabin their grandfather built on the banks of Dry Creek.Here, like their father and grandfather before them, they have joined friends for years to share hunting stories around the warm stove.In the ’good old days,’ hunters from this cabin could range for miles in any direction without seeing other people or worrying about trespassing.In the 1980s, however, this began to change.Hassled by increasing hunting pressure, landowners began to restrict access to their private lands.With increasing hunting pressure, even the smaller, local landowners began restricting access to private lands.Before, with only a few hunters seeking access, landowners could be neighborly and provide a free lunch, but population and hunting pressure were increasing the cost to the landowner of providing that lunch.Facing more restrictions on access, the Flynn brothers and their friends had to adjust if they wanted to maintain a quality hunting experience.Unlike the Flying D Ranch, which is one contiguous ownership unit, land ownership around the Flynn Ranch is fragmented, ranging from small cabin sites to parcels of thousands of acres.Also, unlike the hunting clients on the Flying D, the Flynns and their friends were not wealthy hunters who could pay $9,500 per year for an elk hunt.Obtaining access to the land in fragmented ownership at a reasonable price required entrepreneurship, of which the Flynns have much.According to the leases, Greyson Creek pays a fee for access and in some cases an additional fee if animals are harvested on the property, posts and patrols the land against trespass, carries liability insurance, and agrees to abide by several other rules, including only driving on the properties to retrieve game or get to cabin sites.For the landowner, this lease arrangement removes most of the hassles associated with managing hunters, and it provides additional income.Through these leases, Greyson Creek pays annual lease fees of approximately $15,000 and controls access to approximately 30,000 acres of private land, including the Flynn Ranch.Members of the Greyson Creek corporation pay an annual fee of $450 for individuals and $500 for families, much less than they might pay for a membership at a country club or a season pass at a ski resort.Hunting pressure is much less than on open access public lands, which improves the hunting experience.While not as productive as large, contiguous properties like the Flying D, the Greyson Creek properties still have abundant elk and deer and increasing populations of black bears, mountain lions, coyotes, and eagles.With vehicular access restricted, both game and nongame species are being found in areas where, previously, too much human pressure kept them away.Members are encouraged to harvest the more mature elk and deer so as to improve the quality of the herds.The Flynns are cutting some timber on their property, but they are doing so selectively.Their careful logging practices open up the forest floor to provide more forage for both cattle and wildlife but leave sufficient cover for protection from the weather and escape from hunters.The Flynns’ entrepreneurial radars continue beyond the establishment of Greyson Creek, scanning the horizon for other profit opportunities that can sustain their ranching lifestyle.Horses, gear, and expertise are provided by several of the Flynns’ friends who have outfitting businesses that usually focus on hunting and fishing.In June, however, the demand for these activities is low, so the cattle drive provides an opportunity to get some use and profit out of horses and pack gear.Guests are attracted by the romantic image of the western cowboy, but they would not find the experience as valuable were it not for the clean air and water, abundant wildlife, and beautiful scenery.As John Flynn put it, ’We are in the business of processing sunlight, water, and grass, and it doesn’t matter whether the waste [not quite his word] comes from the end of a cow or an elk.’