ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE MIGRATORY BIRD HUNTING REGULATIONS FOR THE 2021-2022 SEASON - Prepared by: Economics Branch Policy, Economics, Risk ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE MIGRATORY BIRD
HUNTING REGULATIONS FOR THE 2021-2022 SEASON
Prepared by:
Economics Branch
Policy, Economics, Risk Management, and Analytics (PERMA)
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
August 2020Contents Economic Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 3 Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ......................................................................................... 10 References ..................................................................................................................................... 28 Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 29
Economic Analysis
Economic Background and Significance
The purpose of this economic analysis is to determine the economic effects of Federal
regulatory alternatives for the 2021-2022 hunting season for migratory birds. This
analysis centers on changing daily bag limits and season lengths, the two most important
policy variables in the Federal framework. The analysis will show that differences in
those key variables between alternatives result in measurable changes in the number of
hunters, how often they hunt, and the amount of consumer surplus they enjoy as well as
the amount of money they spend in pursuit of their sport. There are two components to
this analysis: first, each of the regulatory alternatives will be evaluated for their effects on
consumer surplus and second, each alternative will be evaluated for their effects on
hunter expenditures. The results of this analysis will document the expected economic
effects of the final framework for the 2021-2022 Fall migratory bird hunting season.
Over harvesting at the turn of the century resulted in depleted bird populations and
inspired the Migratory Bird Treaties between the United States, Great Britain (Canada),
Mexico, Japan, and the Soviet Union. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Act) implementing
the treaties authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to establish national frameworks
within which States may establish migratory bird hunting regulations. The status of
migratory bird populations are discussed in a series of annual reports. Environmental
considerations are covered under a separate Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
These reports and more information about Adaptive Harvest Management are available at
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewsPublicationsReports.html.
The Act is permissive. Without the national frameworks, the States cannot establish
hunting seasons and hunting is prohibited. The national framework indirectly regulates
migratory bird hunting in the United States by setting maximums for season length and
bag limits under which the States can set their own hunting regulations. The States can be
more restrictive than the Federal framework but not more lenient, i.e., the States can set
shorter seasons and/or lower bag limits.
Government policies generate economic effects by changing the use of resources in the
economy. Alternative resource allocations may increase the efficiency of the national
economy and generate greater welfare for its citizens, or policies may redistribute
resources from one region or industry to another. The former are national economic
effects. The latter are regional economic effects. By permitting hunting, the migratory
bird hunting framework regulations generate both types of effects.
3Approximately 1.5 million people bought duck stamps in 2017 1 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2018). In addition to State hunting licenses, duck stamps are necessary to hunt
ducks or geese in the United States. This analysis estimates the economic effects of
regulatory alternatives on duck hunting – a major component of all migratory bird
hunting. Sufficient data exists for duck hunting to generate an analysis of hunter behavior
in response to regulatory alternatives. The analysis for all migratory bird hunting is not
possible because of data limitations but can be inferred from the results of the duck
hunting analysis presented here. Duck hunters represented approximately 51 percent of
all migratory bird hunters in 2016, or 57% of the number of days hunting (2016 National
Survey).
Evidently, hunters derive more pleasure from duck hunting than from their next most
preferred option for spending that time and money. The increment in their welfare versus
the next most preferred activity and the increment in producer surplus versus the next
most productive use of the resources are the national welfare benefits of duck hunting.
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) has determined that the migratory bird hunting frameworks
rulemaking constitutes an economically significant rule, under the definition of Executive
Order 12866.
Effects of Allowing Migratory Bird Hunting
The Service calculates annually the biological impacts of each regulatory alternative as
part of the regulation development process and in consultation with the four Flyway
Councils. This annual assessment process occurs when the Service obtains current year
duck population status information and the updated expected harvest information for each
alternative in August. The results from this assessment are considered each year at the
Flyway Council meetings and Service Regulations Committee meetings, and results are
provided for public review in the subsequent hunting season frameworks proposed rule.
These expected harvests and population level impacts under each alternative are
evaluated annually and part of the formal decision making process. The optimal
regulatory alternative is derived each year based on current population status, expected
harvest under each alternative, and the population and harvest management objectives
adopted by the four Flyway Councils and the Service. The annual Environmental
Assessment of the migratory bird hunting regulations provides detailed descriptions of
three alternative frameworks for the annual duck hunting season:
Alternative 1. Issue restrictive regulations allowing fewer days than those issued
during the 2020-2021 season.
Alternative 2. Issue moderate regulations allowing more days than those in
Alternative 1.
1
Stamp sale data is scheduled to be updated by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service after
January 2021.
4Alternative 3. Issue liberal regulations identical to the regulations in the 2020-
2021 season.
The Service proposes to issue liberal migratory bird hunting regulations in 2021-2022
(Preferred Alternative 3). This alternative is consistent with the objectives for long-term
sustained duck population levels and harvest objectives. A final determination of which
alternative to promulgate will be made when the analysis of the bird population status,
due to be completed in the summer of 2021, is available.
Economic Model
An economic model of duck hunting was developed to estimate changes in annual duck
hunting days, changes in expenditures, and changes in consumer surplus for each
Alternative (Appendix A). The underlying model utilizes data on the number of duck
hunters, number of duck hunter days, and duck harvest by flyway. The model uses data
from the Migratory bird hunting activity and harvest during the 2017-18 and 2018-19
hunting seasons and the 2011 and 2016 National Surveys of Fishing, Hunting and
Wildlife Associated Recreation. The model will be updated once new data are available
from the next iteration of the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife
Associated Recreation, scheduled to take place in 2022. Current economic effects were
determined by comparisons with the most restrictive Federal framework under
Alternative 1, i.e. the minimum migratory bird hunting permitted. Alternatives 2 and 3
increase season length and permitted harvest which result in an increase in consumer
surplus when compared to the baseline (Alternative 1). The estimated economic benefits
resulting from the preferred alternative (Alternative 3) are the maximum achievable with
the proposed framework.
Estimating Consumer Surplus 2
Estimates of individual’s willingness to pay for duck hunting provides some insight into
the consumer surplus derived from this activity. Willingness to pay for migratory
waterfowl hunting (which includes both ducks and geese) averaged $81 per day (2018$)
(Walsh, Johnson, and McKean 1990). This is the average of 17 estimates the authors
found in the research literature. In order to account for regional differences in consumer
surplus estimates, data for estimating consumer surplus of waterfowl hunting by flyway
are needed. The most recent flyway estimates in the existing literature has only one study
where sufficient data were collected to derive consumer surplus estimates by flyway. Hay
(1988) is the only study found that estimated values for each of the four flyways. Average
consumer surplus estimates are required to evaluate the alternative duck hunting
frameworks, which are specified by flyway. In this report, the consumer surplus is
presented as a range taken from the Hay (1988) study. To date, this is the most recent
study that estimated consumer surplus by flyway. The daily consumer surplus estimates
2
“Consumers’ surplus is the difference between what a consumer pays for a unit of a good or
service and the maximum amount the consumer would be willing to pay for that unit” (U.S.
Office of Management and Budget 2003).
5are used to determine the economic value of the baseline (restrictive migratory bird
hunting regulations) and the estimated effects of changes brought about by different
frameworks. The estimates from the Hay (1988) study provided the 95 percent
confidence intervals for flyway consumer surplus per day used in this analysis. The
estimates range from $43 to $69 (2018$) per hunting day. This range of estimates used is
more conservative than the Walsh, Johnson, and McKean findings from the literature.
Estimating Producer Surplus 3
The estimation of producer surplus is the missing value for a complete analysis of the
economic benefits generated by the migratory bird framework. Producer surplus is more
difficult to quantify in the case of a natural resource. There may be some producer
surplus associated with land leases for access to waterfowl hunting as well as habitat
leases to provide primary constituent elements needed to allow waterfowl to reproduce.
Any producer surplus associated with the sale of equipment and services to hunters is not
easily estimated since the data on profit margins for all these items are not known. Also,
the large numbers of suppliers of services and equipment would tend to eliminate excess
profits through competition. Since most of the services and equipment have non-duck
hunting applications, producers cannot set a price that discriminates between duck
hunters, who would presumably be willing to pay more, and other customers. Therefore,
they could not extract excess profits from duck hunters. Data to estimate producer surplus
are not available. Given competitive markets and the inability to price discriminate,
producer surplus is probably minimal compared to consumer surplus.
Consumer Surplus Effects of Alternative Frameworks
Using the economic model described in Appendix A, duck hunting days are estimated for
each Alternative. Table 1 shows the estimated consumer surplus from duck hunting by
Alternative and by flyway. Total consumer surplus ranges from $265 million for the
restrictive framework (Alternative 1) to $305 million for the preferred framework
(Alternative 3).
3
“Producers’ surplus is the difference between the amount a producer is paid for a unit of a good
or service and the minimum amount the producer would accept to supply that unit.” (U.S. Office
of Management and Budget 2003).
6Table 1. Estimated Total Consumer Surplus for Alternative Frameworks (thousand
2018$).
Consumer
Surplus
Per Day Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Flyway (2018$) Restrictive Moderate Preferred
Atlantic $43 - $62 $37,000 $42,100 $47,800
Mississippi $50 - $64 $131,900 $138,300 $145,400
Central $48 - $60 $43,600 $46,800 $49,300
Pacific $50- $69 $52,100 $57,400 $62,500
Total $264,600 $284,600 $305,000
Alternative 1 This alternative includes restrictive regulations allowing fewer days than
those issued in 2020-2021. Bag limits are 3 ducks below the 2020 levels
and seasons are 30 to 47 days shorter. The reduced bag limit reduces the
probability of hunting about 1.5 percent resulting in 138,000 fewer
hunters. Total hunting days would be approximately 723,000 fewer days.
Taken together the restrictive framework results in an estimated $265
million (2018$) in duck hunter consumer surplus.
Alternative 2 Bag limits under this alternative are the same as under the preferred
alternative (Alternative 3) but season lengths are 14 to 21 days shorter.
Duck hunters would spend fewer days afield. The reduced season length
decreases the probability of hunting resulting in 65,000 fewer hunters.
Estimated consumer surplus would be $285 million (2018$).
Alternative 3 The preferred regulations are similar to the 2020-2021 regulations and
have the most positive economic effect when compared to Alternative 1.
The estimated consumer surplus ranges from $263 to $347 million with a
mid-point estimate of $305 million. The bag limits and season lengths
results in an estimated 910,000 duck hunters. This alternative is the
preferred alternative and maximizes the total hunters’ welfare benefits
which are related to bag and days afield.
The net effect of alternative frameworks results in relatively modest increases in
consumer surplus primarily reflecting the fact that the frameworks are not severely
binding on duck hunters decisions on how many days to hunt (Table 1). The differences
between season length, days afield, and bag limits and actual harvest are large enough
that only marginal changes in hunter behavior are expected from alternative frameworks.
The season length and bag limits set in the National framework, for example 90 days of
hunting and 5 as a bag limit per day, are significantly higher than the typical hunter uses.
Typically, hunters hunt for 9 days and bag slightly more than 2 ducks per day. Thus, any
7changes in the National framework are expected to have only a small impact on hunter
behavior (days afield and hunter bag) and migratory bird populations.
Duck hunting accounted for approximately 51 percent of all migratory bird hunting days
in 2016. This analysis of duck hunting benefits, if extrapolated to all migratory bird
hunting, would be 2 times higher than the duck hunting estimate discussed above. There
is no data to support the extrapolation so it is not performed.
The frameworks safeguard the efficient use of the resource over time by imposing limits
on its exploitation. Overexploitation when access to the resource was unconstrained
threatened its sustainability. Limiting resource consumption ensures future hunting
opportunities and the resulting ongoing benefits to hunters.
The frameworks have little direct effect on other agencies’ actions nor any material
budgetary impact. As the framework procedure has been in place for over 20 years, no
novel legal or policy issues are raised by these regulations.
Effects on Migratory Bird Populations
As noted above, the frameworks do not severely dictate duck hunter’ choices on how
many days to hunt since participation trends have been relatively flat since 1991.
Furthermore, the season length and bag limits set in the National framework, for example
90 days of hunting and 5 as a bag limit per day, are significantly higher than the typical
hunter trends of 9 days of hunting and about 2 birds per day. Thus, the differences
between the three Alternatives are expected to have only small impacts on hunter
behavior (days afield and hunter bag) and, consequently, migratory bird populations. As
a result, when comparing the preferred alternative to the most restrictive alternative, the
preferred alternative would have minimal impacts on migratory birds and the various
ecosystem services (such as birdwatching, pest control, disease regulation, and nutrient
cycling) that they provide.
Costs Incurred by States
The framework regulations for migratory bird hunting impose some costs of
administration and enforcement on the States. If there were no migratory bird hunting,
the States could apply their resources to different ends. As the States also derive revenue
from licenses and sales taxes on hunting supplies, the net effect on State resources is
uncertain.
8If States were free to set hunting seasons and bag limits (abrogating the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act), some might opt for longer seasons and higher bag limits without regard to
the health of the waterfowl populations. To the extent the frameworks constrain the
regulatory regime these States may impose, the framework imposes an opportunity cost
on the States. The opportunity cost is the lost revenue and hunter expenditures the State
cannot recover because it is constrained by the framework in its hunting regulations.
There is no way to quantify this cost. In particular, the long run impact of over harvesting
the population would be difficult to estimate and value.
9Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Background
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-354) requires agencies to
evaluate the potential effects of their proposed and final rules on small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
Section 603 of the Act requires agencies to prepare and make available for public
comment a regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) describing the impact of proposed rules
on small entities. Section 603(b) of the Act specifies the content of a RFA. Each RFA
must contain:
A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being considered;
A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule;
A description – and, where feasible, an estimate of the number – of small entities
to which the proposed rule will apply;
A description of the projected reporting, record keeping, and other compliance
requirements of the proposed rule including an estimate of the classes of small
entities which will be the subject to the requirement and the type of professional
skills necessary for preparation of the report or record; and
An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules that may
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.
1. Description of the reasons why action by the agency is being considered
Over harvesting at the turn of the century resulted in depleted bird populations and
inspired the Migratory Bird Treaties between the United States, Great Britain (Canada),
Mexico, Japan, and the Soviet Union. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Act) implementing
the treaties authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to establish national frameworks
within which States may establish migratory bird hunting regulations.
The Act is permissive. Without the national frameworks, the States cannot establish
hunting seasons and hunting is prohibited. The proposed regulation indirectly regulates
migratory bird hunting in the United States by setting maximums for season length and
bag limits under which the States can set their own hunting regulations. The States can be
more restrictive than the Federal framework but not more lenient, i.e., the States can set
shorter seasons and/or lower bag limits.
2. Objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS or Service) is the Federal agency delegated the
primary responsibility for managing migratory birds. This delegation is authorized by the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA, 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.). We implement the provisions
of the MBTA through regulations in parts 10, 13, 20, 21, and 22 of title 50 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR).
10Migratory game birds are those bird species so designated in conventions between the
United States and several foreign nations for the protection and management of these
birds. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703–712), the Secretary of the
Interior is authorized to determine when “hunting, taking, capture, killing, possession,
sale, purchase, shipment, transportation, carriage, or export of any * * * bird, or any part,
nest, or egg” of migratory game birds can take place, and to adopt regulations for this
purpose. These regulations are written after giving due regard to “the zones of
temperature and to the distribution, abundance, economic value, breeding habits, and
times and lines of migratory flight of such birds” and are updated annually (16 U.S.C.
704(a)). This responsibility has been delegated to the Service as the lead Federal agency
for managing and conserving migratory birds in the United States. However, migratory
game bird management is a cooperative effort of State, Tribal, and Federal governments.
3. Description and estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rule
would apply
The underlying model utilizes data from the “Migratory bird hunting activity and harvest
during the 2017-18 hunting season” for the number of duck hunters, number of duck
hunter days, and duck harvest by flyway. Expenditure data are from the 2011 and 2016
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation.
Major Categories of Hunter Expenditures
Waterfowl and other migratory bird hunting represent an important part of the total
economic activity generated by fishing and hunting in the United States. The 2016
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation indicates that all
migratory bird hunter expenditures, exclusive of licenses, stamps, tags, permits, and
special equipment totaled over $2.1 billion in 2016 (2018$).
This analysis looks at duck hunting and the economic effects of regulatory alternatives on
that major component of migratory bird hunting. Expenditure data specific to duck
hunters are not directly available from the Survey. An estimate of duck hunter
expenditures was obtained by using the numbers of active duck hunters and hunter days
reported in the “Migratory bird hunting activity and harvest during the 2017-18 hunting
season” and the per capita and per day expenditure data reported in the 2011 and 2016
Surveys updated to 2018 dollars. Resulting duck hunter expenditures for travel and
equipment in the four flyways totaled $1.1 billion (2018$). Equipment and daily spending
were estimated for each flyway. Expenditure data are from the 2016 National Survey and
are weighted using flyway-level expenditure estimates calculated from the 2011 Survey.
Assuming that duck hunters distributed their spending among the Survey’s travel
expenditure categories in the same way as did other migratory bird hunters in 2016, duck
hunters spending would have been as follows:
11Table 2. 2016 Expenditures by Migratory Bird Hunters and Duck Hunters
Expenditures (million 2018$)
Category Percent All MB Hunters1 Duck Hunters
Equipment 37% $788.6 $398.5
Food 15% $327.6 $165.5
Transportation 24% $505.9 $255.7
Lodging 11% $225.2 $113.8
Other 13% $285.0 $144.0
Total 100.0% $2,132.4 $1,077.5
Source: 2016 National Survey of National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated
1
Recreation
Migratory bird hunters spent $2.1 billion for guns, ammunition, travel, and recreational
services in 2016 (2018 $). These resources would have been spent on other activities if
migratory bird hunting had not been possible so they do not represent a change in
national economic efficiency or welfare. Nevertheless, this spending is important for the
industries and regions where the money is spent. If items like hunting camps, off-road
vehicles, and land are included, 2016 spending for migratory bird hunting increases
substantially.
Beneficiaries of the Rule
There were an estimated 1.2 million duck hunters in the U.S. in 2016 (U.S. Department
of the Interior 2016). In addition to hunters, a wide range of businesses and individuals
benefit economically from the establishment of the annual migratory bird hunting
regulations. A partial list of migratory bird hunter expenditure categories and the types of
businesses that benefit from those expenditures are shown in Table 3.
Migratory bird hunting regulations generate significant economic activity for small
businesses. Nationwide, migratory bird hunters spent $1.6 billion at small businesses in
2016 (Table 5). Over 800,000 small businesses will share in these sales. All but two of
the States with reported sales derive, as a minimum, an excess of $2 million in small
business sales from migratory bird hunting.
12Table 3. Types of Expenditures by Migratory Bird Hunters
Expenditure Item Examples Beneficiaries
Equipment and Supplies Guns, ammunition, boats Sporting goods stores,
department stores, boat
dealers
Transportation Gasoline, oil, repairs, air Service stations, vehicle
travel, vehicles dealers and rental
agencies
Lodging Motels, campgrounds
Food and Beverages Restaurants, grocery
stores
Lands and Leases Club memberships, daily Hunting clubs, private land
and seasonal hunting fees owners
Clothing Specialized clothing, Retail clothing stores, mail
waders, boots order firms
Limited information is available on the number of businesses and individuals in the
various categories who benefit from duck hunter expenditures. This is not surprising
considering that those who provide equipment, supplies and services to duck hunters
often provide identical or similar items to non-hunters. For example:
1. A motel in a duck hunting area may obtain a portion of its income from duck hunters.
Registrants are not requested to indicate the nature of their travel. The same situation
prevails for food service establishments, gasoline stations, etc.
2. The number of sporting goods stores in the United States is obtainable. However,
such stores may cater to fishermen, bowlers, skiers, joggers, etc., in addition to
hunters. Without knowledge of their specialty, knowing the number of sporting goods
stores is not sufficient.
3. Considerable leasing of lands for hunting and other purposes is accomplished
informally without record keeping, and the payment is often in cash or otherwise
undocumented.
Methods
This analysis combines information from the 2011 and 2016 National Surveys of Fishing,
Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (Survey) and the U.S. Department of
Commerce County Business Patterns 2017 database to develop estimates of migratory
bird hunters’ expenditures at small businesses. The Survey provides excellent
13information about hunters and anglers expenditures for sporting trips and equipment. Trip
expenditures are categorized as food, lodging, transportation, and other travel items (e.g.,
guide fees, access fees, and rentals). Equipment expenditures include guns, ammunition,
and decoys. Expenditures for vehicles, cabins, and land are excluded from this analysis.
As very few respondents purchased these items, the data are considered unreliable.
The Surveys do not collect information about vendors. Therefore, another method is
necessary to find the proportion of total expenditures that can be attributed to small
businesses. The U.S. Department of Commerce publishes the County Business Patterns
database that includes the number of enterprises by county and North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS). To assess the effects of the rule on small entities, this
analysis focuses on retail establishments. The U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA) defines a small business as one with annual revenue or employment that meets or
is below an established size standard (Table 4).
Table 4. Small Business Size Standards
Industry Code Description Small Business Size Percentage of
Standard (millions) Businesses that
are Small1
Full-Service 99%
722511 $8.0
Restaurants
Limited-Service 98%
722513 $12.0
Restaurants
Supermarkets and 98%
Other Grocery
445110 $35.0
(except Convenience)
Stores
Hotels (except Casino 99%
721110 $35.0
Hotels) and Motels
Gasoline Stations 98%
447110 with Convenience $32.0
Stores
Other Gasoline 92%
447190 $16.5
Stations
Sporting Goods 99%
451110 $16.5
Stores
1
US Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census
The U.S. Census Bureau’s Economic Census provides national level data for the number
of firms by sales and industry type. Since the Economic Census does not provide state
level data for the number of firms by sales and industry type, the national estimate is
applied. As shown in Table 4, the majority of businesses qualify as small businesses.
The County Business Patterns information permits calculation of small business’ share of
businesses but not their share of sales. An alternative method was used to allocate sales to
small businesses from establishment information for each State. If all businesses sell
about the same amount, the share of expenditures spent at small businesses will be the
14proportion small businesses are to the total number of firms. This proportion probably
overstates small business’ share. A large discount department store probably sells more
guns and ammunition than a small neighborhood gun shop. Using this method generates
estimates of expenditures by migratory bird hunters at small businesses. To illustrate the
State level of benefits, the following tables have been developed based on the 2011 and
2016 National Surveys. The estimates are reported in Table 5 and are shown by State and
expenditure category.
Table 6, Estimated Migratory Bird Hunters’ Expenditures on Food, illustrates the
calculations for each of the expenditure categories shown on Tables 6 through 9. All
expenditures in this section are reported in thousands of 2018 dollars.
The first column contains State totals of the amounts respondents to the Survey reported
they spent for food while on trips whose primary purpose was to hunt migratory birds.
Food may be bought at a full service restaurant (NAICS 722511), limited service
restaurant (NAICS 722513), or grocery store (NAICS 445110) so all types of firms were
combined. The second column shows the number of establishments in NAICS 72200 or
44510 in each State. The third column shows the number of establishments categorized as
small businesses in each State. The proportion small business establishments are of the
total is the method used to allocate expenditures to small businesses. This allocation is
shown in the fifth column.
Although more than 25,000 hunters and anglers were interviewed for the Survey, these
expenditure estimates are based on only those who actually hunted during 2011 and
stated that the primary purpose of their trip or equipment purchase was hunting migratory
birds – a sample of about 485 individuals. Only a small subset of hunters in each State
meets both criteria so the expenditures are quite sensitive to individual responses. Zero
totals may be based on small sample sizes. Small samples may also inflate expenditure
estimates. Lodging observations were sparse so state lodging estimates are spotty and
unreliable. A zero estimate for a state indicates a small sample size and no estimate was
attempted.
County business pattern information may also introduce errors. To avoid disclosure of
private information, the Census Bureau withholds employment information when there
are few establishments in a geographic area. Exclusion of a single large employer can
greatly affect the proportion attributed to small business. In addition, entry of enough
firms into an area results in all of the establishments appearing in the statistics. This
exacerbates the instability of the published series. No effort was made to compensate for
unreported firms in this analysis.
Surveys of a wide range of businesses would be required to obtain the necessary detailed
data. The Small Entity Analysis included in this section spreads expenditures across all
beneficiary businesses in proportion to the number of establishments.
The direct expenditures described above cycle through the economy generating additional
income and sales. Analysis of this multiplier effect is beyond the scope of this report but
clearly $2.1 billion is the minimum stimulus from the migratory bird regulations.
15Results
Migratory bird hunting generates considerable revenue for small businesses. In Arkansas,
California, and Minnesota, migratory bird hunting would be considered a significant
industry generating over $100 million in expenditures in each state. The multiplier effect
in each of these regions generates significantly more economic activity. Nationwide,
migratory bird hunters spent approximately $1.6 billion at thousands of small businesses
in 2016. Some of this economic activity would occur without the annual promulgation of
hunting regulations. Since much of the equipment and services used in migratory bird
hunting can be used for other purposes, some of the annual sales would continue even if
migratory bird hunting were prohibited. Much, if not all of this business activity would be
redirected to alternative pursuits.
4. Description of the projected reporting, record keeping, and other compliance
requirements for small entities
The proposed rule would establish national frameworks within which States may
establish migratory bird hunting regulations. No reporting, record keeping, or other
compliance requirements are necessary.
5. Duplication with other Federal rules
There are no relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
proposed rule.
6. Description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule
Each alternative outlined in the economic analysis results in a different level of economic
stimulus generated from duck hunter spending. State expenditures for enforcement of
duck hunting regulations are not affected by any of the proposed alternatives. In each
case, the States would be required to field about the same enforcement effort. Only if the
frameworks greatly relaxed bag limits and seasons would the States be able to reduce
enforcement effort significantly. Alternatives 1 and 2 will reduce State license sales and
sales taxes on hunting goods compared to the preferred Alternative 3. These revenue
losses would be in addition to the lost stimulus of expenditures in local economies.
Although reduced hunting now may result in more ducks to hunt next year, higher
populations also increase the risk of disease outbreaks and unhealthy competition, in the
absence of adequate natural predation. The opportunity cost of duck hunting, ignoring
long run effects, is minimized by the preferred framework, Alternative 3.
QUESTIONS FOR COMMENT TO ASSIST REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY
ANALYSIS:
161. Please provide comment on any or all of the frameworks in the proposed rule with
regard to (a) the impact of the provision(s) (including any benefits and costs), if
any, and (b) what alternatives, if any, the Service should consider, as well as the
costs and benefits of those alternatives, paying specific attention to the effect of
the rule on small entities in light of the above analysis.
2. Please describe ways in which the proposed rule could be modified to reduce any
costs or burdens for small entities consistent with the Service’s requirements.
3. Please identify all relevant federal, state or local rules that may duplicate, overlap
or conflict with the proposed rule.
4. Please provide consumer surplus data for migratory bird hunting by flyway.
5. Please provide information regarding change in sales and associated revenue due
to the proposed rule.
17Table 5. Estimated Expenditures by Migratory Bird Hunters at Small Businesses – Summary
(Millions of 2018 dollars)
State Food Lodging Transportation Equipment Total
Alabama 6.3 - 0.1 5.8 12.2
Alaska 0.5 0.2 4.3 0.8 5.8
Arizona 2.6 1.1 19.8 14.2 37.7
Arkansas 17.3 - 4.4 234.5 256.1
California 30.9 7.8 44.7 58.2 141.6
Colorado 1.4 - 1.2 5.4 8.0
Connecticut 2.3 - 1.5 31.3 35.1
Delaware 0.3 - 0.2 4.2 4.7
Florida 1.4 - 12.3 6.2 19.9
Georgia 2.9 0.7 3.0 39.6 46.3
Hawaii - - - - -
Idaho 0.9 - 0.9 1.3 3.1
Illinois 3.4 - 1.8 33.3 38.6
Indiana 4.1 - 10.1 5.0 19.2
Iowa 0.3 - 3.1 14.5 17.9
Kansas 1.6 - 1.7 2.6 5.9
Kentucky 2.2 - 4.4 11.5 18.0
Louisiana 14.3 0.1 20.4 42.9 77.7
Maine 2.5 - 3.7 0.7 6.9
Maryland 0.9 - 0.6 0.5 2.0
Massachusetts 2.7 1.5 5.3 11.9 21.4
Michigan 5.5 - 12.3 66.6 84.4
Minnesota 27.1 - 44.0 77.5 148.5
Mississippi 4.5 3.5 26.2 14.3 48.5
Missouri 11.4 - 4.5 27.6 43.5
Montana 5.1 0.3 2.1 19.7 27.2
Nebraska 1.8 0.5 22.0 1.5 25.8
Nevada 1.3 0.9 2.5 2.6 7.3
New Hampshire 0.1 0.8 3.4 - 4.2
New Jersey 0.8 - 1.5 4.2 6.4
New Mexico 3.6 - 1.0 5.9 10.5
New York 0.2 0.4 10.1 0.1 10.9
North Carolina 29.2 0.1 11.9 7.9 49.1
North Dakota 1.0 - 0.6 2.4 4.0
Ohio 2.4 13.6 4.6 16.5 37.1
Oklahoma 1.3 - 7.5 3.5 12.3
Oregon 1.6 0.7 2.3 0.1 4.6
Pennsylvania 0.2 - 3.0 - 3.2
18Table 5. Estimated Expenditures by Migratory Bird Hunters at Small Businesses – Summary
(Millions of 2018 dollars)
State Food Lodging Transportation Equipment Total
Rhode Island 0.3 - 0.6 1.1 2.0
South Carolina 1.5 - 1.5 7.1 10.0
South Dakota 8.3 9.0 29.9 9.7 57.0
Tennessee 4.3 - 5.2 11.2 20.7
Texas 19.1 - 30.3 17.4 66.8
Utah 2.4 - 12.3 9.0 23.7
Vermont 0.2 1.4 18.6 17.7 37.9
Virginia 20.2 - 0.3 14.3 34.7
Washington 5.2 3.6 4.2 6.4 19.5
West Virginia - 0.3 12.0 - 12.3
Wisconsin 5.4 - 0.1 23.3 28.8
Wyoming 0.8 - 1.9 0.6 3.3
Total $ 263.6 46.5 $ 419.9 $ 892.6 $1,622.3
19Table 6. Estimated Migratory Bird Hunters' Expenditures on Food
(Expenditures in thousands of 2018 dollars)
State Total MB Hunter Total Number of Number of Small Estimated MB
Expenditures on Firms Businesses Hunters'
Food Expenditures at
Small Businesses
Alabama $8,048 9,105 8,140 $7,195
Alaska $1,719 1,925 1,806 $1,613
Arizona $10,712 12,786 11,254 $9,429
Arkansas $4,913 5,673 5,162 $4,470
California $80,681 93,154 84,762 $73,413
Colorado $11,497 13,409 12,078 $10,356
Connecticut $8,380 9,488 8,804 $7,776
Delaware $1,875 2,226 1,970 $1,659
Florida $37,110 44,550 38,987 $32,476
Georgia $18,749 22,138 19,697 $16,682
Hawaii $3,353 3,961 3,523 $2,982
Idaho $3,215 3,662 3,378 $2,966
Illinois $26,552 30,593 27,895 $24,210
Indiana $11,478 13,537 12,059 $10,225
Iowa $6,168 7,068 6,480 $5,655
Kansas $5,213 6,100 5,477 $4,681
Kentucky $7,048 8,368 7,404 $6,236
Louisiana $8,700 10,221 9,140 $7,780
Maine $3,397 3,831 3,569 $3,165
Maryland $11,263 13,296 11,833 $10,024
Massachusetts $17,164 19,700 18,032 $15,711
Michigan $18,508 21,416 19,444 $16,804
Minnesota $10,037 11,730 10,545 $9,023
Mississippi $4,703 5,517 4,941 $4,212
Missouri $10,902 12,814 11,453 $9,744
Montana $2,744 3,090 2,883 $2,560
Nebraska $4,005 4,555 4,208 $3,700
Nevada $5,771 6,785 6,063 $5,157
New Hampshire $3,194 3,642 3,356 $2,943
New Jersey $21,498 24,177 22,585 $20,082
New Mexico $3,270 3,908 3,435 $2,874
New York $57,851 64,352 60,777 $54,637
North Carolina $18,370 21,945 19,299 $16,155
North Dakota $1,633 1,879 1,716 $1,491
20Table 6. Estimated Migratory Bird Hunters' Expenditures on Food
(Expenditures in thousands of 2018 dollars)
State Total MB Hunter Total Number of Number of Small Estimated MB
Expenditures on Firms Businesses Hunters'
Food Expenditures at
Small Businesses
Ohio $22,169 25,907 23,290 $19,930
Oklahoma $6,989 8,085 7,343 $6,348
Oregon $10,775 11,972 11,320 $10,188
Pennsylvania $26,595 30,679 27,940 $24,221
Rhode Island $2,929 3,275 3,077 $2,752
South Carolina $9,151 10,923 9,614 $8,054
South Dakota $1,853 2,098 1,947 $1,720
Tennessee $11,260 13,319 11,829 $10,000
Texas $48,135 57,299 50,569 $42,481
Utah $4,810 5,637 5,053 $4,312
Vermont $1,659 1,848 1,743 $1,565
Virginia $16,262 19,085 17,084 $14,557
Washington $16,139 18,167 16,955 $15,062
West Virginia $3,156 3,640 3,316 $2,875
Wisconsin $12,618 14,440 13,256 $11,583
Wyoming $1,281 1,438 1,346 $1,199
21Table 7. Estimated Migratory Bird Hunters' Expenditures on Lodging
(Expenditures in thousands of 2018 dollars)
State Total MB Hunter Total Number of Number of Small Estimated MB
Expenditures on Firms Businesses Hunters'
Lodging Expenditures at
Small Businesses
Alabama - 853 814 -
Alaska 712 284 261 $654
Arizona 4,464 721 694 $4,297
Arkansas - 1,080 932 -
California 31,226 5,735 4,899 $26,674
Colorado - 1,353 1,199 -
Connecticut - 382 326 -
Delaware - 180 164 -
Florida - 3,388 2,791 -
Georgia 2,970 1,996 1,855 $2,760
Hawaii 3 293 178 $2
Idaho - 759 713 -
Illinois - 373 351 -
Indiana - 1,489 1,270 -
Iowa - 991 931 -
Kansas - 607 582 -
Kentucky - 745 707 -
Louisiana 272 909 839 $251
Maine - 778 633 -
Maryland - 700 603 -
Massachusetts 5,914 516 484 $5,547
Michigan - 1,343 1,225 -
Minnesota - 931 815 -
Mississippi 13,895 1,074 976 $12,627
Missouri - 679 657 -
Montana 1,126 530 497 $1,056
Nebraska 2,115 1,801 1,661 $1,951
Nevada 3,789 318 301 $3,586
New Hampshire 2,988 456 427 $2,798
New Jersey - 332 297 -
New Mexico - 1,041 934 -
New York 1,618 631 582 $1,492
North Carolina 709 457 404 $627
22Table 7. Estimated Migratory Bird Hunters' Expenditures on Lodging
(Expenditures in thousands of 2018 dollars)
State Total MB Hunter Total Number of Number of Small Estimated MB
Expenditures on Firms Businesses Hunters'
Lodging Expenditures at
Small Businesses
North Dakota 194 2,340 1,965 $163
Ohio 55,006 1,419 1,302 $50,471
Oklahoma - 862 820 -
Oregon 2,679 967 878 $2,432
Pennsylvania - 1,479 1,309 -
Rhode Island 116 140 112 $93
South Carolina - 1,118 1,001 -
South Dakota 37,385 439 419 $35,682
Tennessee - 1,391 1,286 -
Texas 67 5,259 4,882 $62
Utah - 612 536 -
Vermont 5,746 1,523 1,349 $5,090
Virginia - 236 203 -
Washington 14,207 1,221 1,081 $12,578
West Virginia 1,201 1,097 995 $1,089
Wisconsin - 320 300 -
Wyoming - 397 365 -
Note: A hyphen (-) denotes that sample sizes are too small to report data.
23Table 8. Estimated Migratory Bird Hunters' Expenditures on Transportation
(Expenditures in thousands of 2018 dollars)
State Total MB Total Number of Number of Small Estimated MB
Hunter Firms Businesses Hunters'
Expenditures Expenditures at
on Small Businesses
Transportation
Alabama $169 3,217 3,202 $168
Alaska $4,922 182 182 $4,922
Arizona $22,929 1,529 1,520 $22,794
Arkansas $5,084 1,604 1,584 $5,021
California $51,776 7,488 7,424 $51,333
Colorado $1,364 1,555 1,540 $1,351
Connecticut $1,691 1,066 1,062 $1,685
Delaware $275 247 246 $274
Florida $14,118 6,336 6,312 $14,065
Georgia $3,460 5,063 5,038 $3,443
Hawaii $1 244 243 $1
Idaho $1,079 1,745 1,733 $1,072
Illinois $2,071 657 652 $2,055
Indiana $11,701 3,816 3,787 $11,612
Iowa $3,621 2,737 2,712 $3,588
Kansas $1,960 1,072 1,056 $1,931
Kentucky $5,065 2,024 2,014 $5,040
Louisiana $23,619 2,419 2,399 $23,424
Maine $4,309 1,970 1,968 $4,305
Maryland $725 1,480 1,474 $722
Massachusetts $6,089 773 772 $6,081
Michigan $14,230 3,562 3,547 $14,170
Minnesota $50,850 2,134 2,118 $50,469
Mississippi $30,394 2,669 2,636 $30,018
Missouri $5,132 2,022 2,016 $5,117
Montana $2,430 505 499 $2,401
Nebraska $25,378 4,491 4,475 $25,288
Nevada $2,904 459 449 $2,841
New Hampshire $3,891 968 961 $3,863
New Jersey $1,715 563 562 $1,712
New Mexico $1,146 2,346 2,263 $1,105
New York $11,778 837 820 $11,539
24Table 8. Estimated Migratory Bird Hunters' Expenditures on Transportation
(Expenditures in thousands of 2018 dollars)
State Total MB Total Number of Number of Small Estimated MB
Hunter Firms Businesses Hunters'
Expenditures Expenditures at
on Small Businesses
Transportation
North Carolina $13,894 800 784 $13,616
North Dakota $649 4,974 4,941 $645
Ohio $5,285 3,904 3,871 $5,240
Oklahoma $8,628 1,858 1,849 $8,586
Oregon $2,683 928 914 $2,643
Pennsylvania $3,465 3,943 3,908 $3,434
Rhode Island $654 306 306 $654
South Carolina $1,739 2,609 2,590 $1,726
South Dakota $34,507 617 615 $34,395
Tennessee $5,958 3,466 3,444 $5,920
Texas $35,041 11,397 11,300 $34,743
Utah $14,325 746 733 $14,075
Vermont $21,496 3,107 3,084 $21,337
Virginia $352 416 415 $351
Washington $4,888 1,896 1,885 $4,860
West Virginia $13,865 2,575 2,563 $13,800
Wisconsin $141 937 927 $139
Wyoming $2,277 323 315 $2,221
25Table 9. Estimated Migratory Bird Hunters' Expenditures on Equipment
(Expenditures in thousands of 2018 dollars)
State Total MB Hunter Total Number of Number of Small Estimated MB
Expenditures on Firms Businesses Hunters'
Equipment Expenditures at
Small Businesses
Alabama $5,261 248 225 $4,773
Alaska $761 77 73 $721
Arizona $12,865 440 423 $12,368
Arkansas $212,165 190 177 $197,648
California $52,635 2,250 2,183 $51,068
Colorado $4,876 780 745 $4,657
Connecticut $28,359 276 267 $27,434
Delaware $3,804 78 74 $3,609
Florida $5,625 1,563 1,522 $5,477
Georgia $35,877 494 456 $33,117
Hawaii - 121 121 -
Idaho $1,138 215 205 $1,085
Illinois $30,170 640 605 $28,520
Indiana $4,548 420 402 $4,353
Iowa $13,107 221 210 $12,455
Kansas $2,345 166 152 $2,147
Kentucky $10,362 266 254 $9,895
Louisiana $38,856 225 202 $34,884
Maine $668 151 146 $646
Maryland $459 291 279 $440
Massachusetts $10,806 502 481 $10,354
Michigan $60,306 735 713 $58,501
Minnesota $70,106 512 482 $65,998
Mississippi $12,901 129 120 $12,001
Missouri $24,989 346 326 $23,545
Montana $17,870 195 183 $16,770
Nebraska $1,378 120 111 $1,275
Nevada $2,378 159 153 $2,288
New Hampshire - 195 193 -
New Jersey $3,804 510 489 $3,647
New Mexico $5,352 159 156 $5,251
New York $129 1,189 1,143 $124
North Carolina $7,135 676 644 $6,797
26Table 9. Estimated Migratory Bird Hunters' Expenditures on Equipment
(Expenditures in thousands of 2018 dollars)
State Total MB Hunter Total Number of Number of Small Estimated MB
Expenditures on Firms Businesses Hunters'
Equipment Expenditures at
Small Businesses
North Dakota $2,137 53 48 $1,935
Ohio $14,950 674 641 $14,218
Oklahoma $3,210 215 199 $2,971
Oregon $69 435 417 $66
Pennsylvania - 814 766 -
Rhode Island $1,005 76 76 $1,005
South Carolina $6,386 277 257 $5,925
South Dakota $8,815 86 82 $8,405
Tennessee $10,159 371 351 $9,611
Texas $15,744 1,167 1,017 $13,720
Utah $8,102 334 321 $7,787
Vermont $16,007 121 118 $15,610
Virginia $12,895 492 465 $12,187
Washington $5,796 559 534 $5,537
West Virginia - 116 112 -
Wisconsin $21,041 476 459 $20,290
Wyoming $526 92 90 $515
Note: A hyphen (-) denotes that sample sizes are too small to report data reliably.
27References
Hay, Michael J. Net Economic Recreation Values for Deer, Elk and Waterfowl Hunting
and Bass Fishing. Addendum to the 1985 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting,
and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. July 1988.
Raftovich, R.V., K.K. Fleming, S. C. Chandler, and C.M. Cain, 2019. Migratory bird
hunting activity and harvest during the 2017-18 and 2018-19 hunting seasons.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland, USA.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Economic Census. Washington,
DC. 2017. Available from: https://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed July 2020.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
DC.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
DC.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird
Management. Administrative Report – July 2012, Preliminary estimates of
waterfowl harvest and hunter activity in the United States during the 2010 and
2011 hunting season. USFWS/OMBM: Laurel, MD. 2012.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Environmental Assessment. Duck Hunting
Regulations for 2007. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2018. Federal Duck Stamp Sales by Year.
https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/get-involved/DuckStampSales.pdf.
Accessed May 2018
U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4. September 30, 1993.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf
Walsh, Richard G., Johnson, Donn M., and John R. McKean. What Can We Learn From
20 Years Of Work With TCM And CVM. W-133 and Western Regional Science
Assn., Annual Meeting, Molokai Hawaii, February 22, 1990.
28Appendix A
Introduction
The economic model was originally developed in the early 2000s to analyze duck hunter
behavior under different regulatory migratory bird hunting frameworks.. The underlying
model utilizes ratios on the number of duck hunters, number of duck hunter days, and
duck harvest by flyway. This model has been updated with the most current data
available: the 2011 and 2016 National Surveys of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-
Associated Recreation and the Migratory bird hunting activity and harvest during the
2017-18 and 2018-19 hunting seasons. The primary research interest of this analysis is
the tradeoff between season length and bag limit assuming a desired total harvest of
ducks. This is not the question these alternative frameworks pose. Each framework varies
both bag limit and season length in order to not over harvest the species. The present
analysis seeks to quantify these relationships and apply them to changes in both season
length and bag limit.
Because of the less stringent data requirements, the empirical approach employed for this
analysis is a reduced form of the random utility model bypassing the site decision
equation. The hunter’s decision is limited to two questions. First, does the hunter choose
to hunt ducks? Second, how many total days does the hunter choose to hunt ducks during
one hunting season? The methodology used to analyze the impacts of varying the season
length and/or bag limit is explained in the following text.
In any season, the total harvest of ducks (K) is the product of average bag per day per
hunter (B), average days afield per hunter per season (DAF), the probability that a hunter
will hunt ducks (PROB), and total hunters of all game (H):
(1) K = (B) (DAF) (PROB) H
The variables in the model and in the subsequent empirical analysis are defined in Table
8. The analysis was conducted under the assumption that total harvest, K, is set according
to annual biological considerations. To develop the parameters of the model it was
assumed that once K is determined, it remains constant under all alternative combinations
of daily bag and season length. Therefore in the model, any change in K, denoted as (dK),
is equated to zero.
This can be seen in the total differential of equation (1):
δK δK δK
(2) dK = dB + dDAF + d(PROB) =0
δB δDAF δPROB
The differential shows that the various components of dK can be allowed to vary as long
as the effects of their changes on K net out to zero. The components are the changes in
duck harvest that can be attributed to changes in bag per day (dB), days afield (dDAF),
and probability (dPROB). It is assumed that total number of hunters (H) remains
29constant. Measuring the compensating changes in these components is what ultimately
permits the determination of the tradeoffs between bag limit and season length. The
magnitude of the change in harvest caused by each of the components is the product of
the initial change in the component and the partial derivative of K with respect to the
component. For example, the effect on K of a change in daily bag (dB) is the product of
dB and the partial derivative of harvest with respect to daily bag (δK/δB). Thus, equation
(2) summarizes the nature of the tradeoffs between daily bag limits and season length in
setting the regulatory framework. It shows that any increase in daily bag (dB > 0) must be
offset by decreases in DAF and PROB such that total harvest remains the same (dK = 0).
Table 10. Definition of Variables
Variable Definition Unit of Measurement
PROB Probability of duck hunting, 1 = if hunts ducks
given that a person hunts 0 = otherwise
DAF Days afield per hunter per season Days
SL Season length Days
BL Bag limit per hunter per day Ducks
B Actual daily harvest per hunter Ducks
K Duck harvest per season Ducks
H Number of hunters of all species Participants
DH Number of duck hunters Participants
HD Duck hunting days (DAF x DH) Days
AGE Age of individual Years
INC Individual’s household income Thousands of dollars
Gender Sex of individual 1 = if male
0 = female
METRO Urban residence 1 = if residence is in urban area
0 = otherwise
BD05 2017 average daily harvest of Ducks
ducks per hunter in individual’s
state of residence
WH05 Square miles of waterfowl habitat Square miles of wetlands per
in individual’s state of residence square mile of total state area
in 2005
AES Average 2016 equipment 2018 Dollars
expenditures of duck hunters
AVS Average 2016 variable 2018 Dollars
expenditures per day for duck
hunting
E Elasticity of season length with Unitless Number
respect to days afield
30To measure those tradeoffs it is first necessary to express the components of (2) in other
terms. From equation (1), the partial derivatives of total harvest with respect to daily bag
(B), days afield (DAF), and probability (PROB) are:
δK
(2.1) = DAF(PROB)H
δB
δK
(2.2) = B(PROB)H
δDAF
δK
(2.3) = B(DAF)H
δPROB
Two equations were specified to incorporate hunter behavior into the model. It is
assumed that a hunter makes two decisions.
First, a hunter decides whether to hunt ducks. The decision to participate is binary; the
individual either hunts ducks (PROB=1) or he does not (PROB=0). The mean of PROB is
the proportion of hunters that hunts ducks, the participation rate.
As discussed in detail below, the decision to participate is influenced by a number of
factors. The probability that a given hunter will hunt ducks is a function of age, sex,
residence in a rural versus urban area, income, season length, and the amount of
waterfowl habitat and the bag per day per hunter in the individual’s home state. To
simplify the discussion, all factors influencing the decision to hunt ducks except bag per
day can be combined in the intercept (a), making the probability that an individual hunts
ducks a function of bag per day.
(3) PROB = a + bB
Second, after deciding to hunt ducks the hunter must decide how many days to hunt
during the season (DAF). The days afield decision is influenced by a number of the same
variables: income, availability of duck habitat, and bag per day. Once again, all factors
influencing DAF except bag per day can be summarized in the intercept ©.
(4) DAF = c + eB
Solving equation (4) for B and substituting into equation (3) yields:
b(DAF - c)
(5) PROB = a +
e
The derivative of (5) with respect to DAF is:
dPROB b
(6) =
dDAF e
31Substituting (6) and the partial derivatives (2.1, 2.2, and 2.3) into equation (2) and
solving for the change in DAF results in:
− dB(DAF)(PROB)H
(7) dDAF =
b
B(PROB)H + B(DAF)H
e
Equation (7) may be simplified by combining all factors on the right hand side except dB
into a constant, J. This makes the tradeoffs between changes in DAF and B apparent, in
equation (8).
(DAF)(PROB)H
(7.1) J=
b
B(PROB)H + B(DAF)H
e
(8) dDAF = -dB(J)
Note that B in the model is actual bag whereas the policy variable set in the regulations is
bag limit (BL), a maximum number of ducks per day attained by relatively few hunters.
The estimated relationship between changes in B and BL for each flyway is shown in
Table 10. When dBL is known, the corresponding dB is determined from those estimates.
The change in days afield (dDAF) for a given dB is derived from (8). With H and K
constant, the new probability (PROB) is then calculated by substituting the new levels of
DAF and B into equation (1). This keeps the duck hunters in the flyway on the isoquant
representing a constant total harvest (K) while allowing BL and SL to vary.
The change in SL consistent with the change in BL is determined programmatically. The
elasticity of SL with respect to DAF (the ratio of the percent change in SL to the percent
change in DAF):
dSL dDAF dSL DAF
(9) E= =
SL DAF dDAF SL
Equation (9) shows how much DAF must change in response to the change in SL to
produce the required new level of BL. If BL is increased, SL must decrease if total
harvest is to be held constant.
After the new probability of duck hunting is determined, the difference (dPROB)
between it and the base probability is multiplied by the total number of hunters (H) to
obtain the change in the number of duck hunters (dDH). This model assumes that the new
hunters will spend the same amount on equipment as the average of previous duck
hunters (AES), the product of dDH and AES is the first part of the economic impact
(IMP1) caused by changing BL. The second part of the impact (IMP2) is the change in
32variable expenditures. It is the product of dHD, the change in hunter days due to the
change in BL, and average variable spending (AVS) per day.
(10) Impact = IMP1 + IMP2
(10.1) IMP1 = dDH(AES), where:
dDH = (dPROB)(H)
(10.2) IMP2 = (dHD)(AVS), where:
dHD = dDH(DAF + dDAF) + dDAF(DH)
Thus, the economic impacts are measured as changes from the base case in terms of
hunter equipment spending and spending for food, travel and lodging as the number of
duck hunters and days afield change in response to the regulatory alternatives.
Estimation of the Model Parameters
As discussed above, the individual hunter is assumed to first decide whether to hunt
ducks and then decide the amount of time to spend in the field. The individual’s decision
whether or not to hunt ducks is specified as a function of age, sex, residence in rural
versus urban areas, income, season length, and average bag per day and amount of
waterfowl habitat in the hunter’s home state. The last two variables are included as
measures of the relative quality and availability of waterfowl among states. The days
afield (DAF) equation is a function of household income, average daily harvest, season
length, and residence in rural versus urban areas. The variables in the equations are
defined in Table 8. Data used for this analysis are from the 2011 and 2016 National
Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation, and the Waterfowl
Harvest and Hunter Activity Administrative Reports for the 1979 through 2011 seasons.
These data sources provide the required variability in harvest, season length and bag
limits to allow the estimation of the economic model.
The two equations were estimated on a national basis because there was insufficient
variation for some variables to estimate individually for each flyway. The probability
equation was estimated with logit equation, and the days afield equation was estimated
with ordinary least squares. Below each parameter estimate is the t-value in parentheses.
The probability equation is estimated for all hunters. The days afield equation is
estimated for those hunters who hunted ducks. The results are shown in Table 11 below.
33You can also read
