Browsing Journal of Range Management, Volume 46, Number 1 (January 1993) by Subjects
Now showing items 1-2 of 2
Fee hunting in the Texas Trans Pecos area: A descriptive and economic analysisPrevious studies of fee hunting have focused only on fee-hunting ranches with little consideration given to ranches that choose not to operate fee-hunting enterprises. Our study compares feed-hunting with non-fee-hunting ranches. The most important reasons given for engaging in fee hunting were increased income, trespass control, and prevention of nuisance requests for free hunts. The most important reason offered for choosing not to have fee hunting was to keep the ranch available for hunting by family and friends. The potential exists for a large expansion of private land fee hunting by current non-fee-hunting ranches. Ranchers with fee hunting were more likely to manage the grazing resources, wildlife population, and wildlife habitat than non-fee-hunting ranchers. The typical hunting enterprise in the Texas Trans Pecos ares provided a total annual net revenue of about 7,900. Average annual net grazing returns per livestock animal unit were smaller on fee-hunting ranches but fee-hunting revenue offset the difference. The fee-hunting enterprises also reduced risk by providing a second source of cash returns.
Impacts of big game on private land in south-western Montana: landowner perceptionsIncreasing populations of big game animals are a problem for private landowners in some parts of western North America. Influence of bit game costs, hunting-related income, noneconomic benefits, size of private land holding, and proportion of total income from agriculture upon landowner management goals as well as perception of damage to forage resources were studied in 1989-1990 using a mail survey of 858 randomly selected southwestern Montana landowners. They reported that elk (Cervus canadensis) populations increased, did not change, or decreased on 71%, 25%, or 4% of their private lands, respectively. Similar trends were reported for mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginia), and antelope (Antilocapra americana). More than 50% of the respondents thought that bit tame damaged forage and crop yields, while less than 2% of the respondents thought that bit game was beneficial to forage and crop yields. Big Same consumed a mean of 511 AUMs per private landowner, which contributed to the mean big game cost of 6,353 per landowner. Respondents desiring fewer elk, deer, and antelope outnumbered those desiring more by a 4-to-1 margin. As costs of big game increased and as dependency on agricultural income for livelihood increased, respondents desired fewer big game animals and perceived the impact of big game to be more harmful to forage and crop yields. Landowner attitudes toward big game were not significantly affected by economic returns from big game. Although owners with larger land holdings were more likely to allow hunters access to hunt big game, owners of large- and of small-sized ranches generally regarded big game populations similarly. Results from this survey should be useful in forming natural resource policy.