Economic analysis of alternative bison and elk management practices on the National Elk Refuge and Grand Teton National Park: A comparison of visitor and household responses

Abstract

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Park Service (NPS) are preparing a management plan for bison and elk inhabiting the National Elk Refuge (NER) and Grand Teton National Park (GTNP). These animals are part of the bison and elk herds in Jackson Hole, one of the largest concentrations of freeranging bison and elk in the world. A range of alternatives for managing the bison and elk herds in the project area will be developed in an Environmental Impact Statement. The EIS will likely include such issues as habitat management, disease management, winter-feeding and hunting programs related to the NER and GTNP. The purposes of this study are to determine how the current management and EIS alternatives for bison and elk inhabiting the NER and GTNP would change: Visitor use Total visitor expenditures in the local and regional economy Local area employment and income in the local and regional economy Visitor net economic benefits Acceptability of individual elk and bison management practices to visitors and household living in Teton County, rest of Wyoming, and rest of the United States. Assessing public attitudes and economic effects for different EIS alternatives can provide managers with valuable information regarding the advantages and disadvantages of these alternatives. Economic issues such as local job and income effects are often raised by interest groups opposed to changes in current agency management actions. Having objective data on what the job and income impacts are can help to defuse that issue. Survey data on visitor and public preferences is also useful to supplement the traditional public involvement process conducted as part of the EIS process. This is because the survey reaches visitors and a broad geographic array of residents who may not typically participate in the traditional EIS public involvement process. That is, the survey reflects the effort of the EIS planning team reaching out to the public, rather than requiring the public to come to the EIS meeting locations. Attendance at public meetings is often inconvenient for occasional visitors to the NER and GTNP who frequently live long distances from the relevant FWS and NPS offices. It is also inconvenient for residents of states outside the state where the resource is located.