What is Wildlife Worth?

By Pat Barber, law enforcement program manager, Arizona Game and Fish Department

There has been some recent discussion and confusion in some corners of the state in response to recent changes to the Game and Fish statutes relating to civil assessments imposed by the Arizona Game and Fish Commission.

Arizona Revised Statutes Title 17-314 allows the commission to bring civil action against an individual for unlawfully taking, wounding, killing, or unlawfully in possession of wildlife, and to recover minimum sums of money for damages. These actions are taken during public commission meetings, and this is the process by which wildlife violators are compelled to reimburse the state for the loss of wildlife associated with their unlawful activities.

New poaching penalties legislation
The statute was revised during the 2006 legislative session to increase the minimum sums that can be sought by the commission. This new legislation, which also increased the length of time a wildlife violator could have his or her license revoked, was called the “Anti-Poaching Bill”, and enjoyed support of many Arizonans.

Under the old statute the minimum sums ranged from $10 for each nongame bird or game fish to $750 for each buffalo, elk, bighorn sheep, eagle or endangered species. The ranges under the new statute are $50 for each small game or aquatic animal to $8,000 for each “trophy” animal or endangered species (see comparison chart below).

What is a “trophy” animal?
What some people have taken exception to is how we define a trophy animal worthy of an $8,000 civil assessment. Some have complained that we use the term “trophy” to describe animals that are nowhere near the trophy books (Boone and Crockett or Pope & Young), or they comment that a certain rack would never get $8,000 at an auction and that we are being unfair. This confusion is partly a result of the differences between a “plain language” definition and a “statutory” definition.

A “plain language” definition is a definition that is generally accepted by most people and is similar to a dictionary definition. When dealing in the legal world (statutes and rules), the statutory definitions take precedence and are often different then the “plain language” version of like phrases.

A good example of these differences is the use of the term “take” in the Game and Fish statutes. The dictionary definition of the word “take”, much like the plain language definition is, “To get into one’s possession by force, skill, or artifice” (American Heritage Dictionary). The statutory definition of “take” in A.R.S. 17-101 is, “’Take’ means pursuing, shooting, hunting, fishing, trapping, killing, capturing, snaring or netting wildlife or the placing or using of any net or other device or trap in a manner that may result in the capturing or killing of wildlife.” The statutory definition of “take” has been explained to quite a few individuals who wondered why they were cited for unlawful “take” of wildlife when they never actually killed anything. The statutory definitions allow legislators to clarify their intent when they pass laws.

As it relates to civil assessments and “trophy” animals, the Legislature clearly defined what is considered a “trophy” animal in statute. In A.R.S. 17-101, the statutory definition of a trophy animal is established as:

• A mule deer buck with at least four points on one antler, not including the eye guard point.
• A whitetail deer buck with at least three points on one antler, not including the eye guard point.
• A bull elk with at least six points on one antler, including the eye guard point and the brow tine point.
• A pronghorn (antelope) buck with at least one horn exceeding or equal to fourteen inches in total length.
• Any bighorn sheep.
• Any bison (buffalo).

The statute is not saying a small 6×6 set of elk antlers scoring 200 inches should be included in the trophy books, and it is not asserting this animal’s antlers would raise a lot at an antler auction. What the statute is saying is that the loss of this animal is worth at least $8,000 to the State of Arizona.

Antlers or horns can have value and are often sold. They have medicinal value in some parts of the world and can be sold for this purpose. They are often collected, sold, and then used to create artwork that is sold again. Their greatest value, however, is achieved through the sale of large or unique antlers or horns to “trophy” collectors (this use of “trophy” is the plain language definition).

Examples from the Game and Fish Department’s Wildlife Assets Program include a mount of a 6×6, 400 class bull elk that sold for $17,000 in 2005, and a 12×13, 245-inch mule deer skull that sold for $22,000 in the spring of 2007.

While some antlers and horns can be sold for a lot of money, antlers that generate this much money are the exceptions rather then the rule. The 200-inch elk antlers mentioned above would typically sell for less then $500 at a typical assets auction. So, how can an animal be worth more then the value of its antlers or horns?

Other aspects of “value”
The Arizona Legislature, the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, and many members of the public understand that the value of a set of antlers or horns is just one small part of an animal’s total value. When the new civil assessment statute went into effect and it became clear that there was some confusion regarding the value of wildlife, I was asked to do some research to explain more fully what an animal is worth.

Antlers and horns are tangible parts of wildlife that have value and can be reduced to possession by an individual. Another tangible component of wildlife that has value is meat that a person could possess had they legally harvested an animal. It is possible to determine some minimum level of value for an animal. Game meat is sold in some markets, but the value based on these market prices may be misleading because what are usually sold are the prime cuts, and the per-pound prices include the cost of processing the meat.

If we look in the available literature and determine the average size of a given animal (the 6×6 bull elk, for example), and subtract the weight that would be lost after the animal is field dressed, we could establish the typical field-dressed weight of an animal. If we then multiply that by the prices for wholesale beef, we would get an approximate value of around $750. This would likely be a conservative estimate, as most people would assert that wild elk meat is worth more then beef.

The value of wildlife-related activities
Additional values can be assigned based on data developed through surveys administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that evaluate what people typically spend during wildlife-related activities. This is a legitimate aspect of value to the state, in that these expenses represent what is put into local economies as a result of wildlife-related recreational activities.

For instance, using the bull elk example, the survey indicates that hunters in Arizona spent an average of $142.50 per day while hunting (adjusted for inflation from 2001, when that particular survey was conducted). Multiply this by the number of days the average bull elk hunter spends in the field (4.9 days) and we determine a legal hunter would have put about $700 dollars into the state economy if this bull was still alive and available for hunting.

This survey also gathered information on what people spend while viewing wildlife. The average person spent $88 per day (adjusted for inflation) viewing wildlife. If the 6×6 bull resulted in 15 days of viewing, it would represent approximately $1,315 that would go into the state’s economy.

In addition to the tangible, quantifiable values, there are other “intrinsic” values that are real but difficult to put a dollar figure on. Is there additional value if the animal is taken from an area where there is a very high demand for hunt opportunities? What about the value to the health of the population and its future reproductive potential? Was the animal from a population that resulted from a transplant or served as a source for a transplant to another area? What about the impact to property values in the area, the animal’s importance to the ecosystem, the importance of the population’s genetic diversity, the cultural/religious value?

Some surveys have indicated that citizens who do not even participate in wildlife-related recreation assign a lot of value to simply knowing a wild animal is there. All of this is lost by the state and its citizens when an animal is unlawfully taken.

Special tags: Another indicator of value
One final indicator of what an animal might be worth, based on very real market data, can be found in the Special Big Game Tag program. Each year as many as three Arizona permits for most species of big game are auctioned or raffled. Money generated from this program must be used to benefit wildlife, and this surely influences what people are willing to pay, but it is also a clear indication of what an individual is willing to pay for an opportunity to hunt big game animals in Arizona.

In the case of bull elk, this figure has ranged from $100,000 to $137,500 over the last five years. In all cases where special tags have been issued, this data indicates people are willing to spend significantly more for the opportunity than the $8,000 minimum civil assessment established by A.R.S. 17-314 for “trophy” animals (see table below).

In conclusion, when someone looks at a set of antlers and says they are not worth the amount of the civil assessment imposed on an individual, they are probably right. But the Arizona Game and Fish Commission is not seeking damages for the loss of the antlers; the commission is seeking damages for the loss of the animal from the state and its citizens. In Arizona, wildlife is highly valued, and the commission is seeking recovery for that value.