Efficiency of a recreational deer hunting bag limit
Maximisation of aggregate recreational hunter benefits involves managing both the prey and the hunter. The biology of game animals, and hence the supply side of the management situation, is reasonably well understood, but there is relatively little information on the demand side. On public lands, where there is no market to signal the quality of the hunting experience, the game manager has little guidance on how to allocate the resource amongst individual hunters. In New Zealand, there is no attempt to do so. Whilst seeing and killing game are known to enhance individual hunters’ benefits, the allocation of the resource across hunters raises the prospect of limiting individual hunter harvests, normally enacted through a bag limit. The benefits of doing so are dependent upon the marginal benefits of different levels of harvest. The relationship between hunter satisfaction and the number of animals killed is explored using data from a longitudinal study of a large panel of deer hunters. Latent class models of satisfaction outperform random parameter models and identify heterogeneous groups of hunters whose satisfaction is differentially dependent on game sightings and harvest. Personal attributes and hunter motivations help explain some of these differences. Heterogeneous and rapidly diminishing marginal satisfaction present a strong case for management of at least part of the open-access New Zealand red deer herd to enhance social welfare by increasing the number of hunters harvesting a deer rather than going home empty-handed.
KeywordsSatisfaction Ordered logit Red deer Hunting New Zealand Latent class analysis
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
In 2013, the author was appointed to the inaugural New Zealand Game Animal Council and is a current councillor. Data collection was complete at the time of appointment to the Game Animal Council.
Research involving human participants
The Lincoln University Human Ethics Committee approved the data collection instruments and survey methods. Data collection complied with approved processes.
Research involving animals
This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by the author.
- Anderson LG, Seijo JC (2010) Bioeconomics of fisheries management. Wiley-Blackwell, AmesGoogle Scholar
- Apollonio M, Andersen R, Putman R (eds) (2010) European ungulates and their management in the 21st century. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Caughley GJ (1983) The deer wars: the story of deer in New Zealand. Heinemann, AucklandGoogle Scholar
- Challies CN (1985) Establishment, control, and commercial exploitation of wild deer in New Zealand. In Fennessy PF, Drew KR (eds) Biology of deer production. Proceedings of an international conference held at Dunedin, 13–18 February 1983. The Royal Society of New Zealand Bulletin 22:23–36Google Scholar
- Clark CW (2006) The worldwide crisis in fisheries: economic models and human behavior. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Decker DJ, Brown TL, Gutiérrez RJ (1980) Further insights into the multiple-satisfactions approach for hunter management. Wildl Soc Bull 8:323–331Google Scholar
- Gossen HH (1983) The laws of human relations and the rules of human action derived therefrom. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Hackett SC (2011) Environmental and natural resources economics: theory, policy, and the sustainable society, 4th edn. M.E. Sharpe, ArmonkGoogle Scholar
- Hammitt WE, McDonald CD, Patterson ME (1990) Determinants of multiple satisfaction for deer hunting. Wildl Soc Bull 18:331–337Google Scholar
- Hunter K (2009) Hunting: a New Zealand history. Random House, AucklandGoogle Scholar
- Marshall A (1920) Principles of economics, 8th edn. MacMillan & Co. Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
- McCullough DR, Carmen WJ (1982) Management goals for deer hunter satisfaction. Wildl Soc Bull 10:49–52Google Scholar
- McDowall RM (1994) Gamekeepers for the nation: the story of New Zealand’s acclimatisation societies 1861–1990. University of Canterbury Press, ChristchurchGoogle Scholar
- Powers JE, Lackey RT (1976) A multiattribute utility function for management of a recreational resource. Va J Sci 27:191–198Google Scholar
- Putman R, Apollonio M, Andersen R (eds) (2011) Ungulate management in Europe: problems and practices. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Rollins R, Romano L (1989) Hunter satisfaction with the selective harvest system for moose management in Ontario. Wildl Soc Bull 17:470–475Google Scholar
- Shelby BB, Heberlein TA (1986) Carrying capacity in recreational settings. Oregon State University Press, CorvallisGoogle Scholar
- Stigler GJ, Becker GS (1977) De gustibus non est disputandum. Am Econ Rev 67:76–90Google Scholar
- Wodzicki KA (1950) Introduced mammals of New Zealand: an ecological and economic survey. Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
- Yerex D (2001) Deer: the New Zealand story. Canterbury University Press, ChristchurchGoogle Scholar