Advertisement

Efficiency of a recreational deer hunting bag limit

  • Geoffrey N. KerrEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Satisfaction Ordered logit Red deer Hunting New Zealand Latent class analysis 

Notes

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.

References

  1. Alderighi M, Lorenzini E (2012) Cultural goods, cultivation of taste, satisfaction and increasing marginal utility during vacations. J Cult Econ 36:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alessi MG, Miller CA (2012) Comparing a convenience sample against a random sample of duck hunters. Hum Dimens Wildl 17(2):155–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson LG, Seijo JC (2010) Bioeconomics of fisheries management. Wiley-Blackwell, AmesGoogle Scholar
  4. Apollonio M, Andersen R, Putman R (eds) (2010) European ungulates and their management in the 21st century. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker GS, Murphy KM (1988) A theory of rational addiction. J Polit Econ 96:675–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Castiglione C, Infante D (2016) Rational addiction and cultural goods: the case of the Italian theatregoer. J Cult Econ 40:163–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caughley GJ (1983) The deer wars: the story of deer in New Zealand. Heinemann, AucklandGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Clark CW (2006) The worldwide crisis in fisheries: economic models and human behavior. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Cornicelli L, Grund MD (2011) Assessing deer hunter attitudes toward regulatory change using self-selected respondents. Hum Dimens Wildl 16(3):174–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Decker DJ, Brown TL, Gutiérrez RJ (1980) Further insights into the multiple-satisfactions approach for hunter management. Wildl Soc Bull 8:323–331Google Scholar
  12. Figgins G, Holland P (2012) Red deer in New Zealand: game animal, economic resource or environmental pest? N Z Geogr 68:36–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Floyd MF, Gramann JH (1997) Experience-based setting management: implications for market segmentation of hunters. Leis Sci 19(2):113–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frey SN, Conover MR, Borgo JS, Messmer TA (2003) Factors influencing pheasant hunter harvest and satisfaction. Hum Dimens Wildl 8:277–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gan C, Luzar EJ (1993) A conjoint analysis of waterfowl hunting in Louisiana. J Agric Appl Econ 25:36–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gossen HH (1983) The laws of human relations and the rules of human action derived therefrom. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Hackett SC (2011) Environmental and natural resources economics: theory, policy, and the sustainable society, 4th edn. M.E. Sharpe, ArmonkGoogle Scholar
  18. Hammitt WE, McDonald CD, Patterson ME (1990) Determinants of multiple satisfaction for deer hunting. Wildl Soc Bull 18:331–337Google Scholar
  19. Heberlein TA, Kuentzel WF (2002) Too many hunters or not enough deer? Human and biological determinants of hunter satisfaction and quality. Hum Dimens Wildl 7:229–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hunter K (2009) Hunting: a New Zealand history. Random House, AucklandGoogle Scholar
  21. Kerr GN, Abell W (2014) Big game hunting in New Zealand: per-capita effort, harvest and expenditure in 2011-2012. N Z J Zool 41(2):124–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kerr GN, Abell W (2016) What are they hunting for? Investigating heterogeneity among sika deer (Cervus nippon) hunters. Wildl Res 43:69–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lee YH, Smith TG (2008) Why are Americans addicted to baseball? An empirical analysis of fandom in Korea and the United States. Contemp Econ Policy 26:32–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marshall A (1920) Principles of economics, 8th edn. MacMillan & Co. Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. McCullough DR, Carmen WJ (1982) Management goals for deer hunter satisfaction. Wildl Soc Bull 10:49–52Google Scholar
  26. McDowall RM (1994) Gamekeepers for the nation: the story of New Zealand’s acclimatisation societies 1861–1990. University of Canterbury Press, ChristchurchGoogle Scholar
  27. Powers JE, Lackey RT (1976) A multiattribute utility function for management of a recreational resource. Va J Sci 27:191–198Google Scholar
  28. Putman R, Apollonio M, Andersen R (eds) (2011) Ungulate management in Europe: problems and practices. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Rollins R, Romano L (1989) Hunter satisfaction with the selective harvest system for moose management in Ontario. Wildl Soc Bull 17:470–475Google Scholar
  30. Schroeder SA, Fulton DC, Lawrence JS (2006) Managing for preferred hunting experiences: a typology of Minnesota waterfowl hunters. Wildl Soc Bull 34(2):380–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shelby BB, Heberlein TA (1986) Carrying capacity in recreational settings. Oregon State University Press, CorvallisGoogle Scholar
  32. Stigler GJ, Becker GS (1977) De gustibus non est disputandum. Am Econ Rev 67:76–90Google Scholar
  33. Wam HK, Pedersen HC, Hjeljord O (2012) Balancing hunting regulations and hunter satisfaction: an integrated biosocioeconomic model to aid in sustainable management. Ecol Econ 79:89–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wam HK, Andersen O, Pedersen HC (2013) Grouse hunting regulations and hunter typologies in Norway. Hum Dimens Wildl 18(1):45–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wodzicki KA (1950) Introduced mammals of New Zealand: an ecological and economic survey. Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  36. Yerex D (2001) Deer: the New Zealand story. Canterbury University Press, ChristchurchGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental ManagementLincoln UniversityLincolnNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations