338.437992

F2mbvm

1995

m

41

41

^lOICONOfHIG
iTUDU

A

Li<?n HUn-hin^:^:

Mun-her
A-l'-l'i-i'Ud^-^

m

STATE DOCUMENTS COLLECTION

JAN 2 5 20'}1

MONTANA STATE L

1515 E. 6th A\

HELENA, MONTANA

A\£

BRARY

E.

59620

^^\ (S\/toT\tat\a. "Fisfi.
pl 'WtldUfe (El VaH(s

MONTANA STATE LIBRARY

3 0864 0015 7062 4

Major portions of the funding
required to produce the reports
in this series were provided by

the Federal Aid in Sport Fish
Restoration Acts.

'■■'roRPsy^

MONTANA BIOECONOMICS STUDY

A CONTINGENT VALUATION ASSESSMENT

OF MOUNTAIN LION HUNTING:

HUNTER ATTITUDES AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS

Prepared by:

Robert Brooks

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks

December, 1995

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The objective of the mountain lion hunter study was to estimate
the economic value of mountain lion hunting as well as develop a
profile of lion hunters/chasers. This information will help in
setting management direction for mountain lion hunting/chasing in
Montana.

One thousand eight hundred license holders were mailed a
questionnaire using the Dillman Total Design Method. A large
sample was needed due to the fact that about 50% of licenses
holders do not hunt in any given year. Seven hundred and
seventeen people returned the survey. The overall response rate
was 40%. Chapter II provides details on the response rates and
survey methods .

Mountain lion hunters are mainly men with an average age of 41
years. To better understand mountain lion hunters, resident and
nonresident responses were separated. While incomes for resident
hunters were lower than nonresidents, as expected, it was
surprising that almost 70% of residents had incomes between
twenty and seventy-five thousand dollars. The majority of
nonresidents, 65%, made over forty thousand dollars a year and
39% of these hunters made more that seventy-five thousand dollars
a year. Residents hunted lions twice as often as nonresidents
but spent only about half as much as nonresident hunters during
the mountain lion hunt/chase season. Residents spent an average
of $29.00 per day on their lion hunting/chasing while
nonresidents spent an average of $250.00 per day pursuing lions.

Lion hunters were also asked to respond to a contingent valuation
question in order to estimate what they felt mountain lion
hunting was worth over and above their actual expenditures. An
analysis of their responses provided estimates of value. Net
economic value for resident hunters is $25.00 per day and $50.00
per day for nonresidents hunters. Chapter IV provides a detailed
look at the estimation of the net economic value analysis.

MONTANA BIOECONOMICS STUDY
Table of Contents

Execut i ve Summary i

Study-
Purpose i

Data Sources i

Descriptive Statistics i

Trip Valuation i

Chapter I - Introduction 1

Scope and Objectives 1

Definition of Economic Benefits 1

Chapter II - Methods 3

Survey Design 3

Sample and Survey Administration 3

Survey Response Rates 3

The Contingent Valuation Method 4

Estimation of Net Economic Value Using Dichotomous
Choice CVM 5

Chapter III - Descriptive Statistics 6

Hunter Characteristics 6

Trip Characteristics 8

Lion Hunter Motivation and Management Preferences 8

Mountain Lion Hunter Opinions on Management Options 10

Mountain Lion Hunter Expenditures 12

Chapter IV - Contingent Valuation Estimates 14

Valuation Questions Asked 14

Outlier and Protest Responses 14

Model Specification 15

Benefit Estimates 15

Literature Cited 16

Appendix A Mountain Lion Hunter Survey 17

Appendix B Estimated Bivariate Equations 22

List of Tables and Figures

Table Title £aae

1 Percentage of respondents in income level 7

2 Trip characteristics for resident and non-
resident mountain lion hunters 8

3 General reasons for mountain lion hunting 9

4 Reasons for choosing a mountain lion hunting area.... 10

5 Options to reduce hunter numbers 10

6 Why access is restricted H

7 Options to reduce the number of chase participants ... 12

8 Mountain Lion hunter Expenditures, by residency 1994.13

9 Montana mountain lion hunting net economic values:

per season and per day - 1994 16

Figures Title Page

1 Mountain Lion hunter survey - Respondent's Educ 6

2 Mountain Lion hunter survey - Respondent's Gender 7

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Scope and Objectives

The objective of this study was twofold: 1) to statistically
estimate the net economic value of mountain lion hunting in the
state of Montana and 2) to provide a profile of lion
hunters/chasers. To accomplish this, a survey was administered
to a random sample of mountain lion license holders for 1993.
The survey asked hunters a variety of questions regarding their
lion hunting, their attitudes about mountain lion management,
their actual expenditures for the 1993 hunting/chasing season and
the value they place on the hunting experience as well as some
socio-demographic questions. Descriptive statistics were used to
analyze hunter and trip characteristics. The economic valuation
questions were analyzed using logistic regression techniques.

As stated above, the intent of this study is to estimate the
economic value of mountain lion hunting. Other values
associated with this resource have not been examined in this
report. While these values (existence, option, bequest) may make
up a large part of the total value associated with mountain
lions, the estimation of these values is beyond the scope of this
study. While nonuse values are important when discussing the
loss or large scale impact to a resource, current use values
(net economic value of hunting) are an adequate measure when
showing the economic effects of marginal changes in mountain lion
management .

Definition of Economic Benefits

Value is the benefit gained from the use of a good or service and
can accrue to either an individual or society as a whole. In the
case of a wildlife resource such as mountain lions these benefits
are non-monetary. To compare the uses of various resources and
make efficient allocation of them, these resources need to placed
on common ground. Generally the standard used for this type of
comparison is the monetary system.

The estimates of economic value of wildlife provide answers to
the question, "What is the net social benefit from the use of
wildlife?" (Fay and Thomas , 1986a) . This valuation can be used to
derive demand curves or price-quantity relationships that are
used to show the value of wildlife related activities. The area
under the demand curve and above actual expenditures is called
consumer surplus, net economic value or net willingness to pay.

The concept of net economic value is often hard to grasp. One
way to view this value is to consider it a personal income
equivalent in that it is equal to real income but not actually
cash in hand. It can also be considered the "added" benefit a
person gains from the use of the good or service.

The U.S. Water Resources Council Principles and Guidelines (1983)
requires that many federal agencies employ net willingness to pay
in measuring the value of resources. The U.S. Department of the
Interior also requires that net willingness to pay be used in
measuring society's gains and losses when assessing natural
resource damage (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1986) . The
Bureau of Land Management also uses this concept when estimating
the value of wildlife in their cost benefit analyses.

CHAPTER II

METHODS

Survey Design

The Montana Mountain Lion Hunting Survey (See example in Appendix
A) was used to collect a wide range of information from
respondents who hunted and/or chased mountain lions. The survey
was divided into four sections (See Appendix A for a copy of the
survey) .

Section I covered the respondent's mt.lion hunting/chasing
activities, reasons for hunting mt . lions, and
reasons they chose an area.

Section II dealt with different mountain lion management
options .

Section III provided information on the hunters' trip

expenditures, travel time, distance traveled, as
well as contingent valuation questions.

Section IV furnished information on socio-demographic
characteristics including age, income, sex,
employment, etc.

The data collected from Sections I, II, and IV of the survey are
presented in Chapter III. The information from the contingent
valuation questions in Section III is detailed in Chapter IV.

Sample and Survey Administration

The population from which the sample was drawn was resident and
nonresident hunters who purchased a mountain lion license during
1993. The Dillman Total Design Method (1978) was used to conduct
the mail survey. Mountain lion hunters first received a cover
letter and survey along with a postage paid return envelope. One
week later everyone was sent a reminder postcard. Those hunters
who had not returned their surveys after the third week were
mailed a second survey, cover letter, and return envelope.

Survey Response Rates

A large sample size was decided upon due to the fact that about

3

half (49.3% in 1993-1994) of all license buyers do not hunt/chase
lions in any given year (Annual Game Harvest Report, 1993-1994).
This effectively reduces our return rate by half since we could
only expect half of the hunters we sampled to have actually
hunted/chased lions. One thousand eight hundred (1800)
questionnaires were mailed to mountain lion license holders.

From the initial mailing of 1800, seventy eight surveys were
undeliverable and 717 were returned. There were 702 surveys
included in the analysis, the remaining 15 surveys did not
contain information or were returned too late to be included.
The overall response rate of 40% was lower than other mail
surveys conducted by the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
(Duffield and Neher, 1991; Brooks, 1993) .

The Contingent Valuation Method

The contingent valuation method (CA/M) is one of two widely
accepted methodologies for estimating net willingness to pay (net
economic value) , the other is the travel cost method (TCM) . Both
are recommended by the U.S. Water Resource Council (1983) for
valuing nonmarket resources. The U.S. Forest Service also
recognizes these methods and incorporates net willingness to pay
values into their RPA analyses.

The contingent valuation method differs from the travel cost
method in that TCM relies upon observed behavior to estimate the
value of a recreational activity. CVM on the other hand takes a
more direct approach by simply asking people what they are
willing to pay for something - in this case a season of mountain
lion hunting/chasing.

A number of question formats have been developed for contingent
valuation use. They are 1) the open-ended question where
respondents are asked the maximum amount they would pay for the
recreational activity, 2) iterative bidding game format where a
person is asked to respond yes or no to a specific bid, if they
respond yes then the bid amount is raised till they respond no -
in this manner their maximum willingness to pay is revealed, and
3) the dichotomous choice format where the respondent is asked to
respond yes or no to a specific dollar bid which simulates actual
market transactions. While each of these question formats have
their strengths and weaknesses, the dichotomous choice format has
shown it can provide fair approximations to actual market
transactions (Welsh, 1986; Bishop and Heberlein, 1980).

Contingent valuation has been used to value a wide variety of
resources (water and air quality, hunting, fishing, and scenic
beauty) and is limited only by the ability of the person
developing the survey to draft understandable questions and the
person answering them to be willing to provide accurate estimates

4

of value. To this end, researchers have identified six areas
that are critical in developing sound CVM questions: 1) target
population, 2) product definition, in this case mountain lion
hunting, 3) payment vehicle, 4) question format, 5) method of
analysis and 6) supplemental data. While most of these areas are
straightforward, it is important that the payment vehicle chosen
is realistic and emotionally neutral.

Estimation of Net Economic Value using Dichotomous Choice CVM

The Montana Mountain Lion Hunting Survey utilized a dichotomous
choice format to value lion hunting. Although the analysis of
the data is more complex than the other question formats
discussed, the advantages of this method - high response rate,
realistic market-like situation and lends itself to a mail survey
format - as well as the fact that advancements in discrete choice
modelling have make this format acceptable.

The estimation of a demand curve using dichotomous choice
requires discovering the relationship between the bid amount
asked and probability of a respondent saying "yes" to that bid
amount. This relationship can be shown graphically as a two
dimensional curve. The area under the curve represents the
maximum willingness to pay for a season of mountain lion hunting.
Generally the integration occurs between zero and some maximum
value, usually the highest bid amount.

CHAPTER III
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

The Montana Mountain Lion Hunting Survey asked lion hunters about
their lion hunting behavior, their attitudes and preferences
regarding specific lion management options, social and economic
values concerning lion hunting, and socio-demographic data.

The information provided by the seven hundred and two (702)
people who sent back a completed questionnaire is presented for
the sample as a whole and by resident/nonresident subgroups.
Information is also presented by other groupings where
appropriate; by whether the person owned hounds for treeing lions
as an example .

Hunter Characteristics

Figure 1 .

Mountain Lion Hunter Survey

Repondent's Education

■Postered

□ Rnished College

■ Finished H. S.

Full Sample Residents Nonresidents

Figure 2

Mountain Lion Hunter Survey

Respondent's Gender

■Females
□Males

Nonresidents

As Figures 1 and 2 show, a large majority of lion hunters are men
(97%) and almost half of the sample had finished college. The
incomes of residents and nonresidents were quite different.
Thirty eight percent (38%) of residents had incomes in the $20-40
thousand dollar range while thirty nine percent (39%) of
nonresidents reported income greater than $75,000 (See Table 1).
A majority of both groups were members of a sports or
conservation organization.

Table 1. Percentage of respondents in each income level.

<$20 $20-$40 $41-$75 >$75
($$ in thousands)

Full Sample

19%

36%

30%

15%

Resident

20%

38%

31%

11%

Nonresident

11%

25%

25%

39%

Section I of the survey asked respondents questions about their
mountain lion hunting/chasing as well as a number of questions
regarding their reasons for hunting. Table 2. provides details
about the hunter's 1993-1994 season. The major differences

between resident and nonresident hunter's trips lies in the miles
driven, number of years hunting mountain lions and the number of
trips to the hunting area. While the average (mean) number of
trips by residents and nonresidents is 13 and 3 trips
respectively, the median number of trips is only 6 and 1. It is
obvious that some of the sample took multiple trips to the
huntina area.

TABLE 2 : Trip characteristics for resident and
nonresident mountain lion hunters.

RESIDENTS

NONRESIDENTS

FULL SAMPLE

Mean Median N

Mean Median N

Mean Median N

Yrs Hunted Lion

5.8

3

449

3

1

72

5.5

3

543

Yrs Hunted Lion
in Montana

5.6

3

444

2

1

72

5.1

3

537

Days/yr hunted
lion in Montana

14

8

431

7.5

7

70

13

7

521

Days/yr chased
lions in MT .

13

10

206

6.4

4

19

12

8

234

# of Trips

13

6

342

3

1

55

12

5

408

Lions treed.

14

4

301

3

2

59

12

3

373

Lions killed

2

1

198

1

1

45

2

1

256

Mountain Lion Hunter Motivation and
Management Preferences :

It is important to wildlife managers to understand the reasons a
person chooses to mountain lion hunt and the reasons they chose
the area they did to hunt . Understanding how hunters feel about
mountain lion management is also of interest to managers. A
number of questions were asked in the Montana Mountain Lion
Hunter Survey to provide insight into these areas.

Table 3 . presents the information on why respondents hunted
mountain lions. The top three reasons were: to be outdoors, to
be in a natural setting, and to learn about lions. The least
important reason was for hunting mountain lions was to take a
lion .

Some of the reasons hunters chose an area to hunt and their
importance are given in Table 4 . The most important reasons
given for choosing an area was high lion numbers and good access
followed by being able to hunt with family/friends and
familiarity with the area.

Table 3. General reasons for mountain lion hunting.

Very Not Very Not at All
Important Important Important Important

For the
solitude

29%

50%

17%

4%

Test hunt
skills

19%

47%

26%

8%

Kill trophy
lion

15%

37%

36%

13%

To be outdoors

65%

33%

1%

1%

Take a lion

13%

31%

41%

16%

Natural setting

43%

46%

9%

2%

Learn about
lions

34%

52%

11%

4%

To run my dogs

32%

21%

13%

33%

Table 4. Reasons for choosing a mountain lion hunting area.

Very Not Very Not at all
Important Important Important Important

Good Access

44%

39%

14%

3%

High Lion
numbers

32%

54%

12%

2%

Close to home

23%

40%

27%

10%

Chance for
trophy

21%

36%

33%

10%

Hunt with
family/ friends

36%

41%

16%

7%

Familiar w/
area

31%

42%

21%

6%

Mountain Lion Hunter Opinions on Management Options

The questions regarding the management of mountain lion hunting
provide insight into how hunters feel about lion populations,
hunter numbers, access,
etc.. Only twenty four
percent of respondents felt
there were too many hunters
where they hunt mountain
lions. These individuals
were asked to rank a number
of options to reduce hunter
numbers . Forty percent
(40%) of respondents felt
that reducing the number of
nonresident hunters was the
solution while twenty
percent (20%) felt that
restricting vehicular
traffic would help solve the
problem.

Table 5 . Options to Reduce Hunter
Numbers

%

N

Choose time period

7

11

Restrict veh. traffic

20

31

Restrict NR hunters

40

63

Permit Only

7

11

Choose hunting area

17

27

Other

9

14

10

Access is a concern for
most hunters in Montana.
Respondents were asked if
"The opportunity to
hunt/chase lions where you
want" was restricted in the
areas they hunted. A
majority of lion hunters
(56%) didn't feel access
was a problem. Those who
did were then asked what
they felt was the major
reason. As Table 6. points
out, not being able to
hunt private land and road
closures were the biggest
problems .

Table 6 . Why access is restricted?

%

N

Limited public hunting on
private lands

39

107

Too many road closures

36

97

Not enough public land

3

9

Limited access to public
land

10

26

Subdivisions

3

7

Other

9

25

Respondent's were also asked about the quality of mountain lion
hunting in Montana. Ninety two percent (92%) of them felt that
lion hunting was good or excellent. Only two percent (2%)
responded that lion hunting was poor. The majority of hunters
(74%) thought that lion numbers in the areas they hunted had
increased and twenty one percent believed lion numbers had
stabilized. The remaining five percent felt mountain lion
numbers had decreased.

Respondents were also asked if lion hunting without dogs should
be allowed during the general big game hunting season. Fifty
eight (58%) percent of those responding said yes while forty two
(42%) said no.

Those individuals who chase lions were asked if there are too
many houndsmen where they chase lions? A large majority, 82%
said no. Those that did feel there are too many houndsmen where
they chase lions were asked which option listed they thought
might reduce the problem. More individuals felt reducing the
number of nonresident houndsmen would solve the problem.
Restricting vehicular traffic and choosing your area to chase
lions were also possible options to reduce the numbers of lion
chasers .

11

Table 7. Options to reduce the number of chase participants.

%

N

Choose time period to chase

5

5

Restrict vehicular traffic

19

18

Restrict number of nonresident
houndsmen

39

37

Permit only

8

8

Choose your chase area

20

19

Other

9

9

Mountain Lion Hunter Expenditures

Lion hunters were asked to provide i
their 1993-1994 lion hunt/chase seas
transportation, food, lodging, outfi
fees. Resident hunters spent an ave
Nonresidents spent considerably more
$3493.00 per season due to the long
the outfitter/guide fees they paid,
presented in detail in Table 8. Ove
spent approximately 1.7 million doll
hunt/chase seasons pursuing lions in

nformation about the costs of
on. The categories were
tter/guide fees, and access
rage of $789.00 per season.

than resident hunters,
distances they traveled and

This information is
rail, mountain lion hunters
ars during the 1993/1994

Montana .

Respondents were also asked to estimate the current market value
of their hunting/chasing equipment. This included kennels, dog
trailers, radio collars, dogs, etc.. Residents reported they had
about $6300 invested in these items, while nonresidents valued
their equipment at $5800. Asked how much they spent on just
their hounds during the year, residents and nonresidents reported
spending $850 and $1050 respectively.

12

Table 8. Mountain Lion Hunter Expenditures, by Residency, 1994

Expenditure Category

Residents

Nonresidents

Mean
($)

Median
($)

Mean

($)

Median
($)

Transportation

334

150

589

500

Lodging

193

150

260

200

Food/Beverages

133

50

189

200

Access Fees

129

15

214

250

Season Subtotal

789

365

1257

1150

Guide Fees

737

225

2241

2500

SEASON TOTAL

1526

590

3493

3650

Total / Per Trip

61

61

1164

3650

Total / Per Day

29

20

250

332

The per day and per trip estimates for residents are based on the
season subtotal since only 20 hunters used the services of a
guide or outfitter. A significant number of nonresident lion
hunters used the services of a guide/outfitter so their per trip
and per day values are based on the season total estimate.

Expenditures were also broken out for resident and nonresident
hunters who owned dogs. Resident hunters owning dogs spent
considerably more than the average resident hunter - $1281 per
season compared to $789. There was very little difference in the
expenditures of the two nonresident groups - $3800 for those who
owned dogs compared to $3650 for those who did not.

13

CHAPTER IV

CONTINGENT VALUATION ESTIMATES

Valuation Questions Asked

Mountain lion hunters were asked how much they spent on lion
hunting/chasing during the 1993/1994 season as well as what this
activity was worth to them over and above what they actually
spent. A dichotomous choice contingent valuation question format
was used. The actual question read:

Suppose that everything about this last season was the same
except your trip expenses increased by Sxxxx , would you still
have hunted/chased Mtn. lions?

This economic valuation question presented the respondent with a
specific dollar amount which he/she could response "yes or no"
to, similar to an actual market situation. The dollar amounts
($xxxx) were one of ten predetermined bid levels and were
randomly selected ranging from $25 to $500.

Outlier and Protest Responses

The analysis of the responses to the CVM questions requires that
responses to these questions be excluded if they are willing but
unable to pay the stated bid amount or they are protesting in
some way the hypothetical market.

In the first case, if a respondent answers yes to the bid amount
but is obviously unable to pay this amount based on their income
they are removed from the analysis. Economic theory requires
both a willingness and ability to pay. Ability to pay was
calculated by determining what percent of their income hunters
were spending on mountain lion hunting/chasing. The following
equation shows how this was calculated:

Percent = (Total + Bid) / Income
where :

Total = total amount spent for the season
Bid = bid amount asked
Income= reported annual income

Initially, all respondents with a Percent equal to or greater
than one were excluded since this group obviously lacks the

14

ability to pay since the amount they said they would pay exceeds
their income.

The other group of respondents excluded from the analysis were
those hunters who were protesting the simulated market. The
U.S. Water Resource Council recommends that a followup question
be asked to determine the reasons for a negative response.
Mountain lion hunters who indicated they would not pay the bid
amount but had a valid reason were left in the sample. Hunters
were excluded from the sample as protest bids if they indicated
they did not understand the question or were opposed to any
increases in fees or taxes, etc.

Model Specification

Lion hunters' net willingness to pay (net economic value) was
estimated by analyzing their responses to the CVM question using
logistic regression. A comprehensive discussion of this theory
and methods is provided in Duf field and Patterson (1991) .

Economic theory suggests that particular variables will influence
an individual's response to a CVM question. This study used a
bivariate model that regressed "yes and no" responses upon the
bid amounts asked. It is assumed that as the bid amount
increases, the probability of a "yes" response will decrease.

The specification of the logit equation is shown in Equation 1.

ln(P/l-P) = BO + Bl In(Bid)

where: P = probability of a "yes" response

Bid = dollar amount of increased trip costs respondent
was asked to pay.

The estimated equations are shown in Appendix B. The
coefficients for the independent variable In (Bid) had the
expected sign (negative) and were significant at the 95% level.
Based on the results of the models, the responses are logical and
consistent with economic theory.

Benefit Estimates

The measure of economic benefits (net economic value) used in
this study is the truncated mean. The bivariate form of the
model can be graphed with the probability of a "yes" response on
the vertical axis and the bid amount on the horizontal axis.
Graphing this relationship shows a high probability of acceptance
at low bid amounts with the probability decreasing and
approaching zero at high bid levels. Integrating the logit
function from zero to an upper limit, generally the highest bid

15

amount, provides an estimate of the mean or maximum willingness
to pay. The upper level of integration for the mountain lion
study was $500.00, the highest bid level.

While there is no analytical method for deriving standard errors
of the truncated means, a bootstrapping procedure by Duf field and
Patterson (1991) provides reliable estimates.

Table 9. presents the estimates of net economic value associated
with mountain lion hunting. These estimates are for resident and
nonresidents lion hunters and represent the value these
individuals place on hunting/chasing mountain lions over their
actual costs. Resident hunters valued their hunting/chasing at
$25.00 per trip while nonresidents valued their trips at
$125.00. This is not surprising given their higher income levels
and the length of time they have to hunt lions.

Table 9. Montana mountain lion hunting net economic values:
Per season and per day - 1994

Model Sample Size

Net Economic Value
(Truncated Mean) *

Per Trip
($)

Per Day

($)

Entire Sample

563

27.50

25.00

Residents

476

25.00

25.00

Nonresidents

77

125.00

50.00

*The truncation point for the mean value estimate was $500.00,
the maximum bid level.

The total net economic value of mountain lion hunting is
estimated to be $450,525 for the 1993/1994 hunt/chase season.
This includes both resident and nonresident value calculated at
$369,525 and $81,000 respectively.

16

LITERATURE CITED

Bishop, R. C, and T. A. Heberlein. 1985. The contingent
valuation method. Paper presented at the National Workshop on
Non- Market valuation Methods and Their use in Environmental
Planning, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Dec. 2-5.

Brooks, R. 1993. Montana Bioeconomics Study - A Contingent
Valuation Assessment of Black Bear Hunting: Hunter Attitudes and
Economic Benefits. Montana Department of Fish, Wildl . and Parks,
Bozeman, Mt .

Dillman, D. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys. John Wiley and
Sons, New York, NY

Duf field, J. W. and C. Neher. 1991. Montana Bioeconomics Study
- A Contingent Valuation Assessment of Montana Waterfowl Hunting:
Hunter Attitudess and Economic Benefits. Montana Department of
Fish, Wildl. and Parks. Bozeman, Mt .

Duf field, J. D., and D. Patterson. 1991. Interference and
optimal design for the welfare measure in logistic contingent
valuation. Land Economics. 67 (2) (forthcoming. May).

Duf field, J. W. 1988. The net economic value of elk hunting in
Montana. Montana Dept . Fish, Wildl. and Parks. Bozeman, Mt .

Fay, G. and M. Thomas. 1986. Moose Hunter Economic Expenditures

and Use Survey, Southeast Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and

Game, Division of Habitat and Game. Habitat Technical Report 86-

8.

Just, R. E., D. L. Hueth, and A. Schmitz. 1982. Applied welfare

economics and public policy. Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood

Cliffs, NJ.

U.S. Department of Interior. 1986. 1986 natural resource damage
assessments: final rule. 43 CFR Part 11, Federal Register Vol.
58, No. 14 8. August 1.

U.S. Water Resources Council. 1983. Economic and environmental
principles for water and related land resources implementation
studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Welsh, M. P. 1986. Exploring the accuracy of the contingent
valuation method: comparisons with simulated markets.
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Agricultural Economics,
University of Wisconsin, Madison.

17

APPENDIX A

Montana Mountain Lion
Hunting Survey 1993/1994

18

MONTANA

MOUNTAIN LION

HUNTING

SURVEY

1993/1994

i 6

V -^

— X

■= w *-

- S

E -

ra — —

.9 o
— c
o ro

o

z

8.

E

Di t:

o a

CT> E

c

c —

TO

^ o

o

■c

?, -c

2

o

o —

u.

O VI

E

" u

C 0)

,

0) :=

c

^ <B

CD

s ^

t:

>- to

8

'4

:§ 8.

o *"

c <J

ra o

E E

n a a a a a

a a a a a □

a n n a a a

□ n n n n n

— ^ PS

E *

F

C

TO

^ ^~

<D

-" E

O) *

0) -;

O -C

Q £

z
o

-J
CE

o

>
»-

o

CD

<

z
o

p

(/)

tu

3

o

<

EC
UJ

z

UJ

o
UJ ..

s<

O Z

w <

ii

UJ z

^3

h-'Z

w p

5 5^

z

O

o

UJ

UJ

w

to

<

<

I

X

o

o

0)

^ '-u ~

Q ? Q
o> ^ g.

.9 T>

— a ~

5 ^

O 2

VI

c

c
o

S!

re

>«

«

c

(0

r

t

o

'nT 'o* ?

£2

o 5

o- a,

O (0

c/> —

» » -o

~ £

o

*-

Q.

Jt

C

"d"

ro

4

(/)

a>

TO

</>

(S

ro

^ = o —

<I> m W

^ ?

E £ c 5

c £ = a,

>- £

•:= -^ o

O O)

E

E

2

o
to

(A

il

Cl *

= « c

— o

K C

O ._

XI O

l|

o c

<s ^

tn O <TJ

ni c a

— ■ _ n

Q. c ^

. w nj

cnr "5

■E a. 3

=^ E ^

3 .5 W

^ _. Q.

Jr c <n

£ ro S

" ^ "^

°|:^

^ « =

rS (A C

v> n o
u> > ■—

1 1

^ TO C

v) a o
:= >- en

n T3 S

^- TO

i ■= ■"

III

11- OT E

■ >» —

C>J TO =

C\J in TO

if

naaanaan

aaannaaa

nanaaaon

nnannana

c :=

2 -8 °

o

z
o
z
a
O

IE

3

o .

>- CO

0 H
uj S

3 UJ

o o
so

liJ z
ZF
liJ z

1 3
H X

i

^ ^- .s r

E

:o^ E

$ 2

<n 'G

8 ^

5 5^

S-5

E 2

£• >>

Z 5

— X

« c

o c

> *"

ro T3

— 0)

3 =

o c

>»■-

o ?

T3 .^

W TO

O Q.

E -y

V)

II ti

(D

>« (0

S o.

ii

e o

o o
> >

D I-

Z 3

< o

t- CQ

LU ^
t/) UJ

o O
p w

0 5

5i

S^
^-^

CO CD

< in

UJ 10

<^ 5

LU O

1 Q.

H en

. UJ

^ oc

§ 5

8

•D

8.

0)

£

a

F

F

n

o

</;

11.

w

t
{

tn <S

r E

^" ■= £ o

,^ E

3 .0-
o o

TS */>

HI

I
1-

o

z

!5

2

o

Q

CO

<

1-

(/5

(0

Z

X

UJ

c

3

CO

o

3

1-

cn

QC

z

UJ

j:

UJ

1—

m

^

O

z

CE

"2

z

3

Z3

io

X

o

z

o

>■

CO

C

tr

UJ
Q
CO

z
o

3
UJ

>

O

Q
z

3
O

S

_l z

u <

o t-

o

5i

1-

»-

E

^i

o

UJ

3

o

o

o5

to

m

3

f2

3

<

o

w-J

(—

:*:

•*^

UJ z

z

z

E

so

Ouj

UJ
IT

<

X

o

5"

UJ <

si

UJ o
z >-

3

o

>-

UJ
CO

3

UJ

rsi

<

Q.

3

i
o

3

UJ UJ

UJ

m

5

I z>

CE

H _l

UJ

5

<

55

■r^

10 -

3 >•

o —:■

5 ^5

£ TO =

>, =* ™

m 'I ~

3 ■£ J2

§ E i

> a> -*•

3 " =

o 2 o

<s .9
P

II

. a-

■y " _-

en 2 ro

c Q -

^ Q. I

lis 1

o t) S «"

T3 « y- TO

g S S s

Q. 0) "o ^

en

•- — c

Q- CD >

3 <J :S

O 3 O

*■ o ":;

3 O J3

p in O

^ <9 re

> O Q

o " S

j:; T £

3 CJ) £

5

■ ro

< O) ~

o> iii o

^ 0) (3

S :£ Z

o — ^

? ^ -

— 0) -'-

o » ^

a: s.

2 a n

c

c

c:

c

c

(D

a>

o

o

Q>

n

Q.

CL

a.

Ci

w

W)

tf>

E E E E O

7. During the hunting season this year, were you...? (Check one)

Employed full time Retired

Employed part time Homemaker

Unemployed Other:

8. Please check your household's income before taxes last year:

Under 5,000 20,000-24,999 40,000-49,000

5,000-9,999 25,000-29,999 50,000-74,999

10,000-14,999 30,000-34,999 75,000-100.000

15,000-19.999 35,000-39,999 over 100,000

Thank you for your help. Is there anything else you'd like to tell us about Lion
hunting/chasing? We would appreciate any comments.

-7-

APPENDIX B

Estimated bivariate logistic contingent valuation equations

Model

Statistics

Likelihood Ratio-Goodness of
Fit Test

Intercept

Log (Bid)

Degrees of
Freedom

Chi
Sguare

p-Value

Full
Sample

6.23

-1.034

8

13.38

.099

Residents

6.74

-1.14

8

13.40

.098

Nonresdnts

3 .62

- .47

8

4 .31

.83

19