Pricing Policies for Antlerless Elk Hunting Permits

Sandrey, Ron; Buccola, Steven T.; Brown, William G.

doi:10.2307/3145658

Cited by 12 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our focus is on differentiating between groups at this aggregate level. Readers interested in estimating nonmarket values for big game using various approaches see Balkan & Kahn (1988); Boxall (1995); Creel & Loomis (1990); Loomis (1982); Loomis, Donnelly, Sorg, & Oldenburg (1985) and Sandrey, Buccola, & Brown (1983).…”

Section: Modeling Lottery Applications Across Huntsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants of lottery participation for big game hunting privileges: Resident versus nonresident elk hunters in New Mexico

Scrogin¹,

Berrens²

1999

Human Dimensions of Wildlife

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Modeling Lottery Applications Across Huntsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants of lottery participation for big game hunting privileges: Resident versus nonresident elk hunters in New Mexico

Scrogin¹,

Berrens²

1999

Human Dimensions of Wildlife

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Abatement methods that reduce the damage caused by wildlife can be graded according to the harm caused to the animals, where hunting is the most harmful abatement method (Rollins et al 1996;Yoder 2000). Public policies that control abatement include incentives for changes in hunting pressure, incentives for non-lethal abatement methods such as translocation of problem animals, scare devices, guard dogs, barriers, and improved livestock husbandry (Sandry et al 1983;Rollins et al 1996;Breck and Meier 2004). Abatement strategies for reducing damage have been examined by means of cost-benefit analysis, e.g., for supplemental feeding programs for black bears to reduce forestry damage (Ziegltrum 2006), and cost-efficiency analysis, e.g., with regard to the trade-off between fox culling and various prevention measures for sheep farms (Moberly et al 2004).…”

Section: Wildlife Payment Programs and Economic Incentives For Wildlimentioning

confidence: 99%

Economics of wildlife management—an overview

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study makes an explorative overview on two main research topics in economics of wildlife management: determination of population sizes and policy design. The results point out a large and comprehensive research on each of these issues, in particular on the estimation of values and costs of wildlife, where this information is necessary for the determination of population size. A drawback is that most of the value and cost studies do not relate their estimates to wildlife population size, which limits their usability for efficient policy design. Most valuation studies estimate the recreational value of hunting, which can range between 13 and 545 USD/hunting day (in 2013 prices), and two thirds of the included studies have been applied to wildlife in the USA. A majority of the studies on the costs of wildlife management calculate losses from carnivore predation on livestock and ungulate damage to crops, while a few consider dispersal of diseases and the cost of traffic collisions. Unlike valuation studies, several of the cost estimates apply to wildlife in developing and emerging economies. With respect to policy design the literature, which is mainly theoretical, suggests economic incentives for conflict resolution, where those suffering from wildlife damages are compensated for their losses. However, there are some issues which remain to be addressed by economists: relating costs and benefits to wildlife populations; estimating values and costs of wildlife in developing countries; evaluating wildlife policies in practice; addressing implications of uncertainty in population size, costs, and benefits for policy design; and estimating transaction costs for implementation and enforcement of wildlife policies.

show abstract

“…An argument in favor of keeping prices for deer tags low has been that since legally deer belong to the people of each state, the state should not charge a high price for use of this resource. Lotteries and other allocation mechanisms are regularly used to limit the number of tags issued: Sandrey et al [20], Hussain and Tschirhart [21], Roach et al [22]. Wildlife managers who allocate the tags do not have authority to raise prices, but by increasing the number of tags can often increase revenue to their department.…”

Section: H1mentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Management Decisions Related to the Decline of California Deer Populations: A Comparative Management Approach

Webb¹

2016

eer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Analysis of data obtained from an ongoing internet search indicates that the U.S. deer harvest has been falling since about the year 2000. California has had the largest decline from peak to recent harvest of any state. Declining timber sales are highly correlated with the decline in California. States like California with a relatively high proportion of public land, a low hunter success rate, and a persistently skewed buck-to-doe harvest ratio report a lower harvest as a percent of peak. An economic framework is presented to explain how the public decision making process for deer management and the practice of setting the price of deer hunting licenses well below market equilibrium incentivizes some of these result.

show abstract

Pricing Policies for Antlerless Elk Hunting Permits

Cited by 12 publications

References 8 publications

Determinants of lottery participation for big game hunting privileges: Resident versus nonresident elk hunters in New Mexico

Determinants of lottery participation for big game hunting privileges: Resident versus nonresident elk hunters in New Mexico

Economics of wildlife management—an overview

Public Management Decisions Related to the Decline of California Deer Populations: A Comparative Management Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About