A Buck’s Worth

 

The city of Bloomington, Indiana had a problem.  The city’s Griffy Lake Preserve was overrun with deer.  The critters were eating up the vegetation in the 1200 acre preserve and trampling much of what was left.

What does any self-respecting government official do when there is a problem?

Why, throw money at it, of course.

——————————————

The parks board paid the wildlife management firm White Buffalo Incorporated $35,000 to kill up to 100 deer from mid-December 2017 through early January 2018.

The city intended to do good things at the same time.  All the deer killed were to be taken to a butcher and the meat would be donated to the Hoosier Hills Food Bank to be distributed to the needy.

The problem comes in when you start doing the math.

——————————————

The company killed 62 deer during the hunt.  If you figure an average live-weight of 100 pounds per animal…no, let’s bump that up to 150 pounds, that leaves you with 9300 pounds of dead deer.  By the time you cut out the internal organs and remove the skin, then debone what’s left, you end up with about 30% of the live weight as useable meat.  That’s 45 pounds of meat per deer, or about 2790 pounds of edible flesh, total.

Considering the cost of butchering those deer, let’s figure at least $100 apiece.  That’s about what we paid to get my son’s most recent buck cut up and wrapped, and we went with the cheapest job.  I’ll bet the city of Bloomfield paid more but let’s give them the benefit of the doubt.

So that comes out to $6200 for processing the deceased whitetails.  Add that to the $35,000 paid to the hunters, and the total comes to $41,200 for the killing and processing, or about $665 per deer.

Yep, that adds up to almost $15 per pound ($14.76 if you want to know).  Of course we know the meat has to be distributed to the poor, but you’ll see why I’m ignoring that in a minute.

——————————————

The obvious question is, why pay that much money when hunters will pay you to let them do the job for you?

You heard me right.

The Missouri Department of Conservation has a program called “Share the Harvest.”  Under that program, legally licensed hunters donate deer they have killed.  Yes, I said donate.  Not only that, but they do it at butchers in different parts of the state, where the animals are processed.

This is either paid for by the hunters themselves or there are multiple charitable organizations that will pay the costs for them.  I assume the state of Illinois has a similar program, or one can be set up easily.

——————————————

The state of Illinois charges approximately $25.50 for a resident to get the opportunity to take one deer.  A non-resident has to pay a much higher price but, for the sake of this discussion, we’ll use the lower amount.  Remember, the “experts” had only 62% success.  Let’s say those paying hunters have the same success rate on the opportunity to hunt up to 100 deer.  In other words, the hunters pay $2550 for a chance at taking 100 deer but only harvest 62.

——————————————

Obviously there are other expenses involved in the storage of the processed meat and its delivery to the needy individuals, but those expenses should be the same with each alternative.  For the purposes of this post, we can ignore those.

Are you with me?  The end result of both methods is almost exactly the same; needy people get food for their families.  The biggest difference is that one way taxpayers bear the expense of getting the food.  With the other method, the Department of Conservation actually makes a profit.

——————————————

With one method, the hunters pay $2550 to the taxpayers.  With the other method, the taxpayers pay $41,200.  Think about it, that’s a difference of $43,750!

——————————————

Now I don’t have any problem with White Buffalo Incorporated making a profit and I don’t mind the company’s employees making a living.  What I do mind is taxpayers’ dollars going to pay for something that people will pay for the privilege of doing.

——————————————

I’m not so naïve that I think there was no good reason for choosing the costly method over the profitable one.  I assume safety was the pivotal concern.  Risk to the public will be involved no matter which method is engaged but it can be minimized.  The company has a vested interest in hiring safety-minded employees.  Paying hunters can be selected and informed of the same safety requirements, perhaps tested to ensure that they are safety-minded.  They might even be restricted to using hunting methods that may not be as productive for them, like bowhunting, but would ensure a safer environment.  Obviously, the paying hunters would do so at their own risk.

——————————————

Hmmm, it looks like it all comes down to paying someone to get a task done, or making a profit and getting it done for you…expense or profit.  Looks fairly simple to me.

So what’s the problem, Bloomington?

 

(above) Missouri has a program whereby hunters donate venison to people in need.  It costs nothing to the taxpayer.  Bloomington, Indiana paid sharpshooters to thin their deer heard and gave the flesh to the poor.  It cost their taxpayers plenty.

 

(below) When deer overpopulate, they don’t look happy and healthy like this doe.