6
Social and Economic Implications of Predator Control

INTRODUCTION

In its review, in chapter 5, of biological data upon which wildlife management decisions in Alaska are based, the committee did not attempt to address questions of the social or economic implications of those decisions. Alaskan environments and the life-history traits of the focal species were described in purely scientific terms. The committee evaluated the success of past control efforts according to the stated goal of increasing moose and caribou for human harvest, without assessing whether the goal itself is economically or socially desirable. That question is addressed in this chapter, in terms of what is known about the attitudes and values of the public in Alaska and elsewhere, about the economic impacts of predator control in Alaska and elsewhere, and about how this information has been brought to bear on decision-making regarding predator control in Alaska.

There are 2 reasons for raising the issues considered in this chapter. The first is that they were specifically identified in Governor Knowles' request to the National Academy of Sciences; the statement of task directed the committee to examine what studies and research methods could be used to evaluate the full economic costs and benefits of predator control. The second is that in the committee's view economic impacts are central to modern wildlife management and depend, to a large degree, on public values. In democratic societies, government programs, such as wildlife management, should be based on widely shared public goals that legitimize the actions taken and the allocation of public financial and human resources to them. Funds for wildlife management are largely from



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 134
Wolves, Bears, and their Prey in Alaska: Biological and Social Challenges in Wildlife Management 6 Social and Economic Implications of Predator Control INTRODUCTION In its review, in chapter 5, of biological data upon which wildlife management decisions in Alaska are based, the committee did not attempt to address questions of the social or economic implications of those decisions. Alaskan environments and the life-history traits of the focal species were described in purely scientific terms. The committee evaluated the success of past control efforts according to the stated goal of increasing moose and caribou for human harvest, without assessing whether the goal itself is economically or socially desirable. That question is addressed in this chapter, in terms of what is known about the attitudes and values of the public in Alaska and elsewhere, about the economic impacts of predator control in Alaska and elsewhere, and about how this information has been brought to bear on decision-making regarding predator control in Alaska. There are 2 reasons for raising the issues considered in this chapter. The first is that they were specifically identified in Governor Knowles' request to the National Academy of Sciences; the statement of task directed the committee to examine what studies and research methods could be used to evaluate the full economic costs and benefits of predator control. The second is that in the committee's view economic impacts are central to modern wildlife management and depend, to a large degree, on public values. In democratic societies, government programs, such as wildlife management, should be based on widely shared public goals that legitimize the actions taken and the allocation of public financial and human resources to them. Funds for wildlife management are largely from

OCR for page 134
Wolves, Bears, and their Prey in Alaska: Biological and Social Challenges in Wildlife Management license sales and federal aid from excise taxes on firearms and ammunition. Nevertheless, some general public funds are appropriated for wildlife management, and their expenditure means that the public implicitly agrees to forgo the benefits of other uses of the funds. Any analysis of the social and economic dimensions of wildlife management programs must recognize that people differ in their attitudes, their values, and their economic situation. Consequently, there will be differences in how they view the programs. Accordingly, the committee organizes its discussion on the basis of the different groups that might be affected by wildlife management programs in distinctive ways—Alaska Natives, other Alaska residents, and people outside Alaska who visit it or otherwise take an interest in its wildlife. The economic and social implications of predator control programs cannot be assessed without reference to people's attitudes and values. Therefore, each case begins with an analysis of what is known about attitudes toward wolves, bears, and their primary prey followed by a consideration of the economic implications of the attitudes for predator management and control options. The first section of this chapter considers general North American attitudes toward the gray wolf and, to a lesser extent, bears, and related views of predator management. The next section focuses on views of Alaskans and visitors to Alaska. The remaining sections analyze the economic costs and benefits associated with wolf and bear control in Alaska for non-Native residents of Alaska, nonresidents, and for Alaska Natives, and the social and economic impacts of decision-making procedures themselves. NORTH AMERICAN ATTITUDES TO WOLVES, BEARS, AND PREDATOR MANAGEMENT Much of North America's historical treatment of wolves, bears, and other large carnivores focused on suppressing them, as reflected most dramatically in extensive efforts to reduce and even eliminate their populations (Lopez 1978; Matthiessen 1988). The wolf was particularly targeted because of its perceived threat to livestock and human settlement and its presumed competition with people for other wildlife (Dunlap 1988). The prevailing image in colonial America of wolves and, to a lesser extent, bears is reflected in John Adams's remark of 1756: "The whole continent was one continuing dismal wilderness, the haunt of wolves and bears and more savage men. Now the forests are removed, the land covered with fields of corn, orchards bending with fruit and the magnificent habitations of rational and civilized people" (Kellert 1996:104). Widespread negative perceptions persisted well into the 20th century, as illustrated by the remarks of the historian and trapper Stanley Young; an early director of the US Biological Survey, E.A. Goldman; and the first president of the New York Zoological Society, William Hornaday: "There was sort of an unwritten law of the range that no cow man would knowingly pass by a carcass of any kind without

OCR for page 134
Wolves, Bears, and their Prey in Alaska: Biological and Social Challenges in Wildlife Management inserting in it a goodly dose of strychnine sulfate, in the hope of killing one more wolf" (Young 1946:27). "Large predatory animals, destructive of livestock and game, no longer have a place in our advancing civilization" (Dunlap 1988:51). "Of all the wild creatures of North America, none are more despicable than wolves. There is no depth of meanness, treachery or cruelty to which they do not cheerfully descend" (Kellert 1996:105). Those unsympathetic attitudes contributed to the extirpation of wolves and brown bears from much of their range in the 48 states and their eventual listing under the terms of the US Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Kellert 1996). Radically changing views of wildlife and large carnivores during the second half of the 20th century, a view of wolves and bears as imperiled species, and increasing knowledge of these species all contributed to more-positive attitudes toward these animals. This change has been especially notable among urban, and younger Americans, and those with more extensive formal education (Kellert 1991, 1994). A national study conducted in 1980 showed Americans roughly equally divided in positive and negative views of wolves and bears (Kellert 1985, 1980). More recent studies in Michigan, Minnesota, Idaho, Montana, and New Mexico and among visitors to various protected areas show widespread appreciation and concern for wolves and bears among a majority of respondents (Kellert 1996). A substantial minority express strong protectionist views toward the species. The wolf, in particular, has emerged as a powerful symbol for protecting and restoring wildlife and wilderness (Kellert 1996; Naess and Mysterud 1987). Popular books, films, and other media have celebrated the positive attributes and qualities of wolves and bears. Many new and established nongovernment organizations have marshaled considerable resources and public support for protecting and restoring wolf and bear populations. Studies among visitors to Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks have strongly endorsed the existence value of those species and supported the reintroduction and augmentation of populations in these areas (Bath 1987, 1991; Biggs 1988; Jobes 1991; McNaught 1987; Reading and others 1994). Considerable ambivalence remains, however, among most demographic groups regarding wolves and, to a lesser extent, bears (Arthur and others 1977; Bath 1991; Buys 1975; Herrero 1970; Book and Robinson 1982; Jonkel 1975; Kellert 1996; McNamee 1984; Shepard and Sanders 1985). Largely hostile and exploitative attitudes occur among resource-dependent and rural groups, especially livestock producers (Herrero 1978; Kellert 1986, 1994, 1996; Pelton and others 1976; Stuby and others 1979). Negative, albeit less-antagonistic views have also been observed among the elderly and people with less formal education. Recreational hunters and commercial trappers often reveal positive attitudes toward and greater knowledge about these species than most groups, but are inclined to support their harvest and control. Various studies suggest that positive sentiments toward wolves and bears typically increase with geographic distance from either extent or proposed reintroduced populations (Llewellyn 1978). Attitudes toward and knowledge of wolves and bears are often surprisingly

OCR for page 134
Wolves, Bears, and their Prey in Alaska: Biological and Social Challenges in Wildlife Management independent (Burghardt and others 1972; Kellert and others 1996; Murray 1975; Peek and others 1991; Petko-Seus 1985). Both people who are strongly in favor and those who are strongly opposed to protection and restoration often possess relatively high levels of knowledge of the species, but most people have limited factual understanding of either animal. North American attitudes toward controlling wolf, bear, and other large-predator populations—especially to minimize livestock depredations—have been examined (Arthur and others 1977; Braithwaite and McCool 1988; Brown and others 1981; Buys 1975; Colorado Division of Wildlife 1989; Hastings 1986; Herrero 1978; Jope and Shelby 1984; Kellert 1985; McCool and others 1990; Petko-Seus and Pelton 1984; Trahan 1987). The majority of the general public favors limiting control to situations where substantial depredations have been clearly and convincingly demonstrated. Issues of culpability and humaneness (with respect to perceived pain and suffering) tend to be more important considerations than the cost of control. Much of the general public disapproves of indiscriminate population reductions that are independent of an individual wolf's or bear's guilt. They also strongly oppose using poisons, denning, or aerial gunning. Livestock producers and other resource-dependent groups are far more accepting of these latter control methods. A number of economic implications relevant to wolf and bear management in Alaska can be drawn from those findings. Considerable potential consumer demand appears to exist among many groups of North Americans for visits to areas that have populations of wolves, bears, and other large carnivores. Results from the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, Glacier and Yellowstone national parks, and other protected areas suggest that the presence of those species constitutes a major attraction. Intensive wolf or bear management in Alaska conflicts with this potential consumer demand; additional data on Alaska tourism presented in the next section confirm this view. Widespread public support for wolf protection and restoration in the lower 48 states and a general perception among the public of wolves and brown bears as imperiled species are likely to encourage advocacy groups to oppose wolf and bear control in Alaska. That could produce economic actions, such as support of a tourism boycott. A majority of the general public supports geographically limited predator control when a clear and compelling need has been demonstrated, when indigenous populations suffer from the absence of control, and if humane control methods are used. The need for convincing scientific data to support control programs and the use of animal-specific and humane control methods are both likely to increase management costs. ALASKAN ATTITUDES TOWARD WILDLIFE The Alaskan population is now largely urban: 67% of Alaskans live in cities. About 16% of the population is Alaska Native, the majority of whom reside in

OCR for page 134
Wolves, Bears, and their Prey in Alaska: Biological and Social Challenges in Wildlife Management rural Alaska. These Alaska Natives are economically and culturally dependent on subsistence hunting. Immigrants from other states amounted to an average of roughly 10% of Alaska's population each year during the decade 1980–1990; these immigrants tend to be much younger and to have more formal education than long-term residents of Alaska. Various surveys that have assessed attitudes of the Alaskan people are discussed below. These surveys were conducted by different groups, including the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), other government agencies, trade organizations, and citizen interest groups. They varied considerably in sampling techniques, survey methods, and data-collection procedures, so their quality and representativeness vary. Most relied on telephone data-collection procedures, which often underrepresent rural, especially Alaskan Native, population groups. All the studies were cross-sectional (conducted at one point in time) and thus reflect bias associated with the time of the year when the studies were conducted and the particular issues and events occurring then. Nevertheless, the results collectively present a crude approximation of the views and perceptions of the Alaska public and provide a useful perspective of prevailing wildlife attitudes and values in Alaska. According to the 1991 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, 41.2% of the Alaskan population age 16 and older participated in hunting or fishing; this is a higher percentage than that of any other state; and much higher than the national average of 21%. Some 20% of Alaskans purchase a hunting license in an average year, but the percentage has been slightly and steadily declining for more than a decade. A majority of Alaskans report that they have at some point purchased a hunting license. Less than 10% of Alaskans oppose hunting. The proportions of Alaskans who have ever hunted and who object to the activity are, respectively, considerably higher and lower than in the contiguous 48 states. In 1991, about 62.1% of the adult Alaskan population participated in some form of primary nonconsumptive wildlife activity (viewing, photographing, or feeding fish or wildlife); this is substantially higher than that in most other states and much higher than the national average of about 40%. The harvesting of furbearers (for example, more than 1,000 wolves each year) and the amount of subsistence hunting are far greater in Alaska than elsewhere in the United States (ADFG 1994; ADFG 1994–95; Miller and McCollum 1994a). Much of the latter activity is associated with the relatively large Alaska Native population. The nonconsumptive value of wolves and bears is suggested by both statistical and anecdotal findings among residents and visitors to Alaska. According to one study, for example, the most popular and economically important species for viewing purposes were bears, wolves, and marine mammals, with a higher preference for viewing bears than wolves (Miller and others 1997). Alaska is the only place in North America where opportunities for viewing brown and black bears are readily available.

OCR for page 134
Wolves, Bears, and their Prey in Alaska: Biological and Social Challenges in Wildlife Management Some 96% of Alaskans believe that wildlife adds considerably to their ''enjoyment of living in Alaska" (Miller and McCollum 1994b). A majority of the Alaskan population report a desire for more state-managed areas for wildlife-viewing purposes, although only a minority of resident hunters support creating more wildlife-observation areas. Nearly three-fourths of resident hunters object to establishing such areas if it will result in closing areas to hunting. Tolerance of large carnivores among the Alaskan public is suggested by the fact that nearly half approve of bears living near urban areas, although only a minority of hunters support this idea (Miller and McCollum 1994a). Most Alaskans endorse the hunting of bears, although a large majority object to baiting and attracting bears with food, and a majority disapprove of trophy hunting (the main objective of most bear hunting). Recreational wolf hunting generates little interest among Alaskan residents or nonresident visitors (Miller and McCollum 1994a), but wolves are extensively harvested for their pelts, and most Alaskans support this use. As with bear hunting, issues of "fair chase" and humane harvesting of wolves are important among the Alaska public. Most Alaskans object to using airplanes, denning, and poisons as methods of harvesting wolves, as discussed later (Alaska Wildlife Alliance 1992; Kellert 1980; Miller and McCollum 1994a,b,c). Surveys of public attitudes toward controlling wolves and, to a lesser extent, bears to increase moose and caribou populations generate varied responses, depending on the wording of the questions and the group surveyed (Alaska Wildlife Alliance 1992; Miller and McCollum 1994a). In one study, a near majority (47%) of the Alaska public supported and 37% disapproved of killing wolves in some areas to increase moose and caribou populations. A majority of Alaska nonconsumptive wildlife users and female residents object to killing wolves to increase ungulate populations, but more than 60% of resident Alaskan hunters support this notion. Strong support for wolf control has been found in areas that have experienced substantial decreases in moose or caribou populations presumably because of predators (Anderson 1995, Wolfe 1991; Gardner and Taylor 1992; Wolfe and Walker 1987). Some 90% of residents in game management unit 19D east, for example, support a reduction in wolf populations to increase moose numbers; more than 70% favor decreasing wolf populations for more than 5 years to maintain high moose numbers. A slight majority of residents of this area support brown bear control to increase moose numbers. Those views, as well as more ethnographic and anecdotal data from other areas of the state, indicate that a majority of rural, native, and especially subsistence groups support wolf control and harvest. The food, economic, and cultural importance of subsistence hunting and trapping is generally associated with support among Native populations for limiting wolf and, to a lesser extent, bear populations in areas where ungulates have declined presumably because of predators. A majority of nonindigenous Alaskans, particularly residents of urban areas

OCR for page 134
Wolves, Bears, and their Prey in Alaska: Biological and Social Challenges in Wildlife Management and females, object to reducing wolf numbers (Alaska Wildlife Alliance 1992; Miller and McCollum 1994a). Those groups reluctantly endorse wolf control only in specific areas where clear and convincing data reveal substantial declines in moose and caribou numbers because of wolf predation. Moreover, one survey found that 43% of Alaskans believe that the overall number of wolves killed for control purposes should be reduced, whereas only 8% favored increasing the number of wolves killed for this reason. A majority of Alaskans remain unconvinced that reducing wolf numbers will increase moose and caribou hunting opportunities. Public attitudes toward different methods of wolf and bear control have also been examined (Alaska Wildlife Alliance 1992; Kellert 1980; McCollum and others 1996; Miller and McCollum 1994a). Most data reveal an aversion to aerial techniques, as the outcome of a recent statewide referendum corroborates. Results from Alaska, as well as other areas of the United States, suggest that issues of fair chase and humaneness are major determinants of public opinion and often override economic considerations. For example, most people oppose poisoning, denning, and aerial gunning even when these techniques appear cost-effective. Far greater support exists for ground-based hunting, trapping, and snaring to kill wolves, although majorities of female, urban, and antihunting groups object to these control methods as well. Most Alaskans support wolf and bear control by local hunters rather than by professional wildlife personnel. Many, especially rural and native groups, believe that wolf and bear control should generate practical gains, such as meat and furs. The views of key Alaskan groups suggest the following conclusions. Majorities of urban Alaskans, nonconsumptive users, younger people, females, and people with higher levels of formal education tend to object to wolf control and, especially, bear control unless a substantial problem of declining moose and caribou populations has been clearly and convincingly demonstrated in geographically specific areas. Those groups often object to control methods perceived as inhumane (for example, likely to cause pain and suffering) or unfair (for example, violating presumptions of a fair chase). The views of Alaska sport hunters tend to be more diverse. Strong support exists among resident sport hunters for wolf control and sometimes bear control in areas where substantial declines in large ungulate populations have occurred and that afford relatively easy road access for hunting purposes. Most Alaska sport hunters object to indiscriminate wolf reduction throughout the state and to control methods regarded as unsportsmanlike (for example, airborne hunting). Subsistence hunters, especially rural and native peoples, generally support wolf and bear control for cultural, economic, and food-gathering benefits. For 2 reasons, the cost of a wolf and bear control effort is likely to increase substantially if prevailing attitudes among the Alaskan general public, especially urban residents and nonhunters, persist. First, most of the public objects to wolf and bear control except in specific geographic areas where a serious decrease in

OCR for page 134
Wolves, Bears, and their Prey in Alaska: Biological and Social Challenges in Wildlife Management ungulate populations has been clearly and convincingly related to wolf or bear predation and where serious economic or cultural harm has been inflicted on resident sport or subsistence hunters; demonstrating and communicating such a magnitude of effect will inevitably increase management costs. Second, most of the Alaskan public objects to control methods perceived as inhumane or unfair—for example, aerial control, denning, toxicants, and trophy hunting. Other control methods tend to be more costly, labor-intensive, time-consuming, or technically challenging. A partially offsetting economic effect might be associated with widespread support for wolf control by local people who derived economic and practical benefits from the activity. Alaska has experienced a slight but consistent decline in the number of licensed hunters during the last decade and more. It might be due to decreasing ungulate numbers in areas readily accessible to large urban populations. But absolute and proportionate declines in the number of licensed hunters have been observed throughout the United States. If the decline in ungulate numbers in areas readily accessible to hunters has contributed to a decline in hunting participation, wolf and bear control could produce positive economic benefits. Brown bear control could also generate economic returns if conducted by nonresident trophy hunters, although widespread opposition to trophy hunting suggests that the meat and possibly pelts should be distributed to local populations. A greater harvest of ungulates resulting from wolf and bear control would produce substantial economic and cultural benefits for subsistence and native populations in rural Alaska. Most nonconsumptive wildlife users and urban wildlife enthusiasts believe that intensive wolf and bear control reflects an entrenched bias among Alaska game management officials and hunting interests. That view encourages the use of legislative and judiciary methods for promoting policy change, rather than attempts to exercise influence on administrative agencies. The success of the 1997 ballot initiative involving aerial hunting of predators will probably reinforce the perception, which is likely to result in substantially greater management-associated costs because of the heavy economic burden created by using legislation and litigation as a means of achieving policy goals. Many nonconsumptive wildlife users also view ADFG as less interested in providing recreational viewing than hunting opportunities; this perception is likely to encourage opposition to user fees and taxes on nonconsumptive users as a way of generating additional wildlife agency revenues. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT From an economic perspective, Alaska has at least 3 very striking features. First, it is a huge area—more than one-half million square miles—with a population of about 610,000, most of whom reside in and around 3 cities (Alaska Department of Labor 1996). Second, about 60% of the land is in federal ownership,

OCR for page 134
Wolves, Bears, and their Prey in Alaska: Biological and Social Challenges in Wildlife Management 28% is in state ownership, and 12% is Native lands (figure 6.1). Only 1% is private, non-Native land. Third, natural resources and resource-based activities, such as petroleum extraction, tourism, and hunting, play a dominant role in the state's economy. The petroleum industry accounted for more than one-third of the gross state product (GSP) in 1993. More than one-fourth of all employment in the state is government-related, including federal, state, and local government employees. The seafood industry is the state's largest private employer and the tourist industry is the second-largest private sector employer, annually attracting nearly 1 million visitors who spend more than $1 billion of a total GSP of about $24 billion. Alaskans themselves are estimated to have spent about $89 million on hunting, $239 million on fishing, and $144 million on primary nonconsumptive wildlife activity in 1991. Although hunting and tourism provide an important contribution to the Alaskan economy, there are 2 reasons why the data on expenditure and employment can be misleading in assessing the economic benefits of wolf control or the economic consequences of a tourism disruption triggered by public opposition to wolf control. The first reason has to do with the distinction between total and marginal economic impacts on the economy. The total impact is the entire contribution of a sector. The marginal impact is the increase or decrease in the contribution associated with some expansion or contraction in the activity within the sector. If what is at issue is the total elimination of a sector, whether hunting or tourism, the total impact is the appropriate measure to use. But if the change is smaller than that, the correct measure is the marginal impact of the change. For example, if it involves some increase in hunting or some decrease in tourism, the appropriate quantity is not the total value of all hunting or all tourism, but the value of the particular increase or decrease expected to occur. The marginal impact is harder to determine because it involves forecasting the magnitude of the specific increase or decrease in activity, as well as assessing the economic value associated with it. Nevertheless, this is the appropriate approach for evaluating the economic implications of predator control policies. The second reason is that expenditure is generally not a correct measure of value, and the increase or decrease in expenditure is generally not an appropriate monetary measure of the increase or decrease in well-being. There is a basic distinction between financial or accounting revenues or costs and economic benefits or costs. Accounting revenues and costs reflect an assessment of monetary inflows and outflows according to the principles and conventions of accounting rules. Economic costs and benefits are intended to reflect a broader social perspective based on real costs, in the sense of resources actually used up, and real benefits, in the sense of actual changes in people's well-being. Although not unrelated to financial revenues and costs, economic benefits and costs represent a different standpoint for assessment.

OCR for page 134
Wolves, Bears, and their Prey in Alaska: Biological and Social Challenges in Wildlife Management FIGURE 6.1 Distribution of public land ownership in Alaska.

OCR for page 134
Wolves, Bears, and their Prey in Alaska: Biological and Social Challenges in Wildlife Management Marginal Costs and Opportunity Costs The correct concept to use in an economic assessment of the costs of wolf control is the economic concept of marginal cost (Freeman 1993, Turner and others 1993). This should not be confused with average cost. The average cost is simply the total cost for some item divided by the quantity of the item; marginal cost is the change in cost per unit change in the quantity of the item. If all units of a commodity cost exactly the same, there is no difference between average and marginal cost; if not, there is a difference. Such differences can arise for several reasons, including the presence of fixed costs. By definition, where there are only fixed costs, the marginal cost is zero—since cost does not vary with the quantity of the item, there is zero increment in cost when the quantity is raised, and zero decrement when it is lowered. But, although the marginal cost is zero where there are fixed costs, the average cost is positive. It can make a substantial difference, therefore, whether one uses average or marginal cost. Marginal cost is generally the relevant concept for an economic analysis because it reflects the marginal impact; for the reasons given above, this is what the analysis should aim to measure. For example, if a hunter already owns some hunting equipment such as a rifle, the marginal cost of an extra hunting trip is the ammunition and the cost of gas needed to make the trip but not the cost of the rifle. Conversely, if somebody who did not previously hunt or own a rifle is now induced to take up hunting by an improvement in the moose population, say, then the cost of a rifle counts as part of the marginal cost of the increase in hunting associated with this person. The economic concept of marginal cost also includes costs that are implicit rather than explicit. These are known as opportunity costs and they reflect the notion that the real cost of an item might be not what one pays directly to obtain it, but rather what one forgoes to obtain it. For example, in the case of a government agency with a fixed budget and a fixed staff, part of the cost of providing a new activity—say, wolf control—might be the other services that have to be reduced or postponed when agency personnel are diverted to work on the new activity. There could be no direct increase in payroll, because no extra staff are hired, but substantial opportunity cost in terms of something else forgone. Another example of opportunity cost is the time spent by a hunter in traveling to and from a site and hunting there. Depending on the situation, he might otherwise have spent his time in earning income at work or doing something else of value; if so, the opportunity cost of his time counts as part of the marginal cost of the hunting trip from an economic perspective. Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept Similarly, with benefits the correct concept to use is the marginal benefit, that is, the equivalent monetary value of the change in people's well-being as a

OCR for page 134
Wolves, Bears, and their Prey in Alaska: Biological and Social Challenges in Wildlife Management Economic Values of Subsistence Use As Klein (1989) has observed, fish and wildlife are essential to the subsistence way of life of many northern peoples. It is obvious that without these local food sources, the subsistence communities could not exist. The "importance" of these resources includes their economic contribution to the communities that use them and the more subjective psychological well-being "derived from a sense of economic security, and the cultural traditions or spiritual values that are interwoven with the resources" (Klein 1989:99). In principle, the economic value of an incremental change in these resources is the equivalent in monetary income that would make a given person just as well off. The problem is to find a method to measure the equivalence. For marketed resources, the value of the last unit of a good that is consumed can be closely approximated by the market price. A person is observed to have made the tradeoff of money and the good, and one can infer that the good is worth at least as much as the price of the last unit taken. However, many or most subsistence resources are not traded in established markets. Subsistence resources are distributed by sharing, rather than sale, so local markets do not exist. Aside from problems of isolation, there are laws in most states, including Alaska, that prohibit the sale of most wildlife resources. Even where some important resources are available in markets (such as markets for salmon or halibut), the resulting prices are generally not relevant for those who do not participate in these markets. This includes most residents of rural Alaskan villages. The price of king salmon in Anchorage provides little information on what the salmon is worth to a resident of Nikolai and is perhaps no more relevant than the price of sockeye salmon in Tokyo. Nonetheless, the most common approach to valuing subsistence resources is to use the replacement cost based on market prices. That is clearly inappropriate, in that the cost of the replacement might have little or nothing to do with the actual change in economic well-being that a person realizes by having or not having the given resource. Although the approach is in principle wrong, estimates based on it have been used in the context of environmental impact assessment (Usher 1976), in litigation (Duffield 1997), and descriptively (Wolfe and Bosworth 1994). For example, Wolfe and Bosworth (1994) assume a replacement cost of $3–$5 per pound and estimate the replacement cost of all wild food harvests in Alaska at $131.1–$218.6 million. Although those numbers are questionable, they indicate the relative importance of wild foods to Alaska Natives. The per capita cash value of subsistence foods in the rural interior is estimated to be $3,063 per person, or about half the 1990 per capita income for Native families of $6,205. Of course, for any analysis of a change in management, the relevant issue would be not total values, but the marginal value of changes. The problem with interpreting replacement cost as the marginal value of a

OCR for page 134
Wolves, Bears, and their Prey in Alaska: Biological and Social Challenges in Wildlife Management subsistence resource is compounded by the problem of choosing the appropriate replacement or substitute. Many subsistence products have no commercially available equivalents, and available "substitutes" might be judged inferior on the basis of taste, texture, amount of fat, and possible presence of pollutants (Hensel 1994). The use of a range of $3–$5 per pound in some applications is based on retail prices of beef or salmon, which might or might not be equivalent to the resource at issue. In the Exxon Valdez case, the issue of using exact replacement of all subsistence resources, including marine mammals, led to average prices in 1994 of $10–$14 per pound in the settlement of the Alaska Native claim (Duffield 1997). Brown and Burch (1992) reviewed the sparse literature on the economic value of subsistence harvest. They suggested a microeconomic model of subsistence harvests that has 2 components of value: the demand for participation in the activity and the demand for the product. Whether or not that is a useful way to frame the issue, the problem of estimating the components remains. The authors reviewed the range of possible methods, including travel cost and contingent valuation, and concluded that the latter, at least in principle, could provide relevant measures. Wolfe and Walker (1987) analyzed a database that included both per capita subsistence harvests and income. They developed a model that shows a systematic tradeoff between those 2 components of the mixed cash-subsistence economies and provided an interpretation concerning factors that affect economic development in Alaskan rural villages. Not surprisingly, in areas where subsistence harvests are quite high, cash incomes tend to be low and vice versa. That is consistent with what one would expect because people have a fixed amount of time to allocate to different activities and the types and value of available work differ among communities. Duffield (1997) used the Wolfe-Walker data to calculate the marginal value of subsistence harvests based on the observed tradeoff of income and subsistence harvest. That approach, which used wage differentials across communities as a method for valuing site specific amenities, yielded estimated values of subsistence harvests in Alaska of about $30 per pound. These analyses assume that Native peoples who live by subsistence hunting and fishing do so by choice, rather than out of necessity, and that they perceive themselves better off than if they were fully absorbed into the market economy. There is some support in the literature for that perspective on the part of Alaska and northern Canada Natives (Berger 1985; Klein 1989; Usher 1976). Hensel (1994:10) provides anecdotal evidence for this view in the following quotation from an interview with a Yup'ik woman professional in Bethel in July 1992: "You know, I have had some really good offers, more money and advancement if I would move to Anchorage or Juneau, but I've wanted to stay here so that I could continue to do subsistence. "One time when my supervisor was out from Anchorage, we were having her over to dinner and serving her moose, strips, salmonberry and blueberry pie. I

OCR for page 134
Wolves, Bears, and their Prey in Alaska: Biological and Social Challenges in Wildlife Management told her how important it was for me to be able to eat this food, and hunt and fish. I thanked her for all her help with my career but told her that I wanted to stay here." Other Social Science Perspectives As the preceding discussion suggests, converting changes in individual welfare to monetary measures for subsistence users is difficult. Assistance can be provided by other disciplines, such as cultural anthropology, that take account of the profound cultural differences associated with wildlife and wildlife management. In fact, anthropological studies are a valuable approach used by ADFG Division of Subsistence for evaluating management issues. The committee has attempted to identify the marginal value of additional information on the basis of the likelihood that it would change a management decision. Several examples of ADFG Division of Subsistence community-level studies by that criterion have proved valuable in leading to apparently positive management changes. This type of social and economic analysis might be most appropriate for the remote rural communities because of the relatively homogeneous and distinct cultures in these communities; the relative autonomy and self-governance of these communities due to isolation, history, and the legal definition of subsistence rights to wildlife resources; and the recognition and acceptance by the larger society of the unique cultural and economic setting of the communities. The ADFG Division of Subsistence, which was established around 1980, is unique in ADFG in that social science studies are important in its work. Some of these studies use an economic perspective (for example, Wolfe and Walker 1987) but a number of community-specific harvest surveys, which are very different from the Division of Wildlife Conservation hunter surveys, have been conducted. Hunter surveys focus on the primary game animals (moose, caribou, and so on) and provide a time series for harvests and hunter participation for all licensed hunters from 1983 to the present (Robert J. Walker pers. comm. 1997). In contrast, the Division of Subsistence studies are for all subsistence resources (from roe on kelp, to gull eggs, to berries, and so on), are at the community level, and typically collect data for 1 year only. Thus, the Division of Subsistence surveys provide a detailed picture of all subsistence activities for one time for the given community. In addition to the harvest surveys and related reports, the division also has undertaken social-impact studies that focus on a specific resource in a given region, sometimes from the perspective of cultural anthropology. Reports of 2 of those studies are discussed here as examples of social science studies that have led to wildlife management changes in the communities of interest. The methods and findings might have elements of benefit-cost or other economic analyses but are predominantly cultural studies in which the behavior at issue appears to be

OCR for page 134
Wolves, Bears, and their Prey in Alaska: Biological and Social Challenges in Wildlife Management largely motivated by ethical or cultural values. The first study summarized below concerns brown bear use in northwestern Alaska by village residents. It provides an example of where management changes were based almost entirely on cultural considerations and financial concerns were not an issue. The second study concerns changes in moose-hunting regulations in the upper Kuskokwim River drainage (part of GMU 19D), particularly affecting the villages of Nikolai and Telida. Here, the change involved resolution of conflict between subsistence users and fly-in hunters and was made mainly on equity grounds. Both of those policy changes appear to have been in the public interest, and the social science analysis, although it involved no formal economic analysis, was relevant and appropriate to the problem at hand. Brown Bear Use in Northwestern Alaska Loon and Georgette (1989) examined subsistence use of brown bears by residents of northwestern Alaska, particularly the Kotzebue Sound region (GMU 23) and to a lesser extent Norton Sound (GMU 22). The use of brown bears for food and raw material was prevalent in all the inland study communities, but coastal communities rarely used bears for food, because the flesh of coastal bears, which feed on carcasses of sea mammals has an unpleasant flavor. The authors note that northwestern Alaskans have an extensive array of traditional laws and lore regarding human-bear interactions. The traditional practices cover hunting strategies, butchering processes, personal conduct, methods of defense, and appropriate attitudes. Because brown bears are believed to have keen hearing, Inupiat hunters do not openly discuss their bear hunts. There are believed to be severe consequences to the hunter and his family if these laws are not heeded. Hensel (1994:2), in a study for the Association of Village Council Presidents in western Alaska, makes similar observations for Yup'ik, noting that "the hunting of brown bears, and even discussing these animals, is potentially dangerous." Loon and Georgette discuss the incongruity between the brown bear hunting regulations in place at the time and the customary and traditional hunting practices. The state regulations in the late 1980s presume that the primary use of a brown bear is as a trophy, whereas subsistence hunters' rules presume that the primary use is as a source of food and raw material. For example, state regulations in the late 1980s required that a person who kills a bear must personally present the skin and skull to an authorized representative of the ADFG for sealing within 30 days after taking. A person with a bear had to keep the skin and skull together until a representative of the department removed a rudimentary premolar tooth from the skull. In contrast with the treatment of most big-game species, discarded brown bear meat is not considered waste under the regulations. Almost all of these brown bear hunting regulations were at odds with customary subsistence hunting practice. Some subsistence hunters leave the head in the field at the kill site as a sign of respect, a practice that is in conflict with the

OCR for page 134
Wolves, Bears, and their Prey in Alaska: Biological and Social Challenges in Wildlife Management sealing requirements. Requiring hunters to salvage the skin and skull does not accommodate those who hunt for meat and fat only; to subsistence hunters not requiring the salvage of bear meat is objectionable. A bag limit of 1 bear every 4 years is inconsistent with the fact that in most villages only a small number of men actually harvest bears, and these hunters share their harvests throughout the community. The strong prohibition on speaking openly about brown bears includes not even speaking about one's intentions to hunt. Requiring local hunters to purchase a hunting tag before hunting brown bears, and thereby deliberately making their intentions known, is incompatible with traditional hunting practices. The regulatory hunting seasons at that time, April 15 -May 25 and September 1 -October 10, also conflicted with traditional hunting times, which can begin as early as March when some bears first come out of their dens. Those many differences between the hunting regulations and traditional practices are culturally based, "learned differences which derive from the social values of the hunter's community" (Loon and Georgette 1989:49). Not surprisingly, given the mismatch between the regulations and traditional practices, Alaska Natives generally ignored the regulations. As a result, the state was able to collect only very limited information on harvest and use of bears. Loon and Georgette estimate that of the bears killed by interviewed hunters over the previous decade, only 3% were reported. They concluded that hunters would be more likely to report their bear harvests if regulations accommodated their hunting practices and if the reporting procedure were simple. The study by Loon and Georgette led to changes in the management of bear hunts in some areas (Hensel 1994). For example, a western Alaska brown bear management area (covering essentially the Yukon-Kuskokwim delta and the Aniak and Togiak drainages) was established as a cooperative agreement of the Association of Village Council Presidents and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. In that area, tagging and sealing requirements were suspended after the fall of 1991. Residents were required to register in advance of brown bear hunting but paid no fee. The season was extended to run from September 1 to May 31. Subsistence Resource Use in the Upper Kuskokwim In the early 1980s, the ADFG Division of Subsistence produced a series of reports concerning subsistence use in the upper Kuskokwim River drainage, particularly communities of Nikolai and Telida (Andrews and Stokes 1984; Stickney 1980, 1981; Stokes 1984; Stokes and Andrews 1982), which depend heavily on subsistence resources. The studies began in 1980 when the McGrath local Fish and Game Advisory Committee asked the Board of Game to implement a controlled-use zone around the 2 villages. According to Stickney (1980), the proximity of the region to the municipalities of Anchorage and Fairbanks created a situation in which the game resources, especially moose, were subject to competition from urban hunters, as well as boat hunters from down-river

OCR for page 134
Wolves, Bears, and their Prey in Alaska: Biological and Social Challenges in Wildlife Management Kuskokwim communities. In Stickney's opinion, hunting by outsiders, annual village take, marginal moose habitat, and a high wolf population all acted to keep moose at a low density in the area. Moose was the most important food item in the local diet, and alternative subsistence resources (salmon, whitefish, and caribou) were not plentiful enough in the area to be dependable buffers for inadequate moose harvests. Stickney's assessment of the situation was that the survival of the villages was at stake. With regard to Nikolai, "the villagers hunt for meat for the winter and they will not return empty handed if possible even if their prey does not conform to the State's regulations." With regard to Telida, "in this case …the regulations imposed by the State have apparently little bearing on what the village of Telida faces as a reality. The villagers will ensure their own survival even if the regulations compel them to operate outside the permitted system." Stickney concluded that as of 1980 there were not enough data to make firm recommendations to resolve the problem. At the spring 1981 Board of Game meeting, a controlled use area for moose harvest was established for part of GMU 19D, partly on the basis of the report presented by division staff (Stickney 1980, 1981). Stokes and Andrews (1982) monitored the controlled use area during the 1981 season and concluded that probably no aircraft entered the region for hunting. The institution of the controlled-use area was looked on favorably as a management tool by local residents. In 1981, the season was also changed to include a winter hunt in late November and early December. Stokes and Andrews noted that some traditional spring hunting of moose is also important for spring and summer food needs. In March 1982, the Board of Game adopted an extended winter moose season in portions of the controlled-use area from December 1 through February. Stokes (1983) and Andrews and Stokes (1984) evaluated the 1982-1984 winter moose seasons and concluded that they were successful in providing Nikolai residents the opportunity to harvest moose legally during times compatible with local environmental conditions and with cultural needs. Sustainable Use of Wildlife by Alaskans and the Global Environment Harvest of wildlife by Alaskans on a sustained yield basis for subsistence use, or as a replacement for store purchases of foods, presents an admirable model of human compatibility with the world environment through its minimal contribution to depletion of the world's nonrenewable energy and mineral resources, and the environmental pollution associated with their use (Harbo 1993). This is in contrast to most people in developed countries who are dependent upon food produced by intensive agriculture. The amount of energy and minerals consumed in the production of commercial food stuffs, especially in the United States, represents a major component of all nonrenewable resource use. This includes production of farm equipment, use of petroleum products for fertilizer production, operation of farm machinery, processing of foods, their storage, and

OCR for page 134
Wolves, Bears, and their Prey in Alaska: Biological and Social Challenges in Wildlife Management shipment to markets. The contributions from agricultural production to pollution of the atmosphere (including "greenhouse" gases), the waters, and lands of the world are immense. Alaska's contribution to the nation's energy needs through the production of oil from the North Slope reserves is appreciated by many Americans. However, most Americans are not aware of the contribution that Alaskans make to the conservation of energy and other resources through their sustainable harvest and use of wild meats. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS IN RELATION TO DECISION-MAKING ON WOLF CONTROL In its review of the social science methods that can be used to assess the social and economic impacts of a predator control program and by describing what is known about those impacts in relation to wolf control in Alaska, the committee identified major gaps in existing information. The next chapter discusses the general context in which wildlife management decisions must be made and the constraints on those decisions. REFERENCES ADFG (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 1994–95. Trapper questionnaire statewide report. ADFG (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 1994. Subsistence in Alaska: 1994 Update. Division of Subsistence, Juneau, AK. Alaska Department of Labor. 1996. Labor Department Estimates Population Trends. Research and Analysis Section. Alaska Wildlife Alliance. 1992. Survey among Alaska residents regarding wolf hunting. AWRTA (Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Association). 1995. Results of economic survey of AWRTA tourism business members on the effects of the tourism boycott. AWRTA, Wolf Issue/Tourism Boycott: Survey Results. Anderson DB. 1995. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game public opinion survey on predator control in Game Management Unit 19D East. Report to the Alaska Board of Game. Division of Subsistence and Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, AK. Andrews EL and J Stokes. 1984. An overview of the Upper Kuskokwim controlled use area and the use of moose by area residents, 1981–1984. Technical Paper No. 99. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence. Arrow K, R Solow, E Leamer, P Portney, R Hadner, and H Schuman. 1993. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 58: 4601–4614. Arthur LR, E Gum, E Carpenter, and W Shaw. 1977. Predator control: the public viewpoint. Pp. 135–155 in Transactions of the 42nd North America Wildlife Conference. Bath AJ. 1987. Attitudes of various interest groups in Wyoming toward wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park. MA thesis, University of WY, Laramie. 123 Pp. Bath AJ. 1991. Public attitudes in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho toward wolf restoration in Yellowstone National Park. Pp. 91–95 in Transactions of the 56th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, DC. Berger TR. 1985. Village journey: the report on the Alaska Native Review Commission. Inuit Circumpolar Conference. New York: Hill and Wang.

OCR for page 134
Wolves, Bears, and their Prey in Alaska: Biological and Social Challenges in Wildlife Management Biggs JR. 1988. Reintroduction of the Mexican wolf into New Mexico—an attitude survey. MA thesis. NM State Univ, Las Cruces, NM. 66 Pp. Boertje RD, P Valkenburg, and ME McNay. 1996. Increases in moose, caribou, and wolves following wolf control in Alaska. J Wildl Manage 60:474–489. Boyce JR, DW McCollum, and JA Morrison. 1995. An economic impact analysis of the big game hunting guide industry in Alaska. Braithwaite A and S McCool. 1988. Social-normative influences and backcountry visitor behavior in occupied grizzly bear habitat. Symp Soc Sci in Res Mgt, Univ Ill., Urbana, IL. Brown TL, DJ Decker, and DL Hustin. 1981. Public attitudes toward black bears in the Catskills. New York State Department of Env. Conservation. Albany, NY. Pp. 108. Brown TC and ES Burch, Jr. 1992. Estimating the economic value of subsistence harvest of wildlife in Alaska . In GL Peterson and others, Eds. Valuing wildlife resources in Alaska. Boulder: Westview. Burghardt GM, RD Hietala, and MR Pelton. 1972. Knowledge and attitudes concerning black bears by users of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Int Conf Bear Res Mgt 2:255–273. Buys C. 1975. Predator control and rancher's attitudes. Environ & Beh 7:81–89. Carson RT and RC Mitchell. 1989. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. Carson RT, WM Hanemann, and D Steinberg. 1990. A discrete choice contingent valuation estimate of the value of Kenai King Salmon. J Behavior Econ 19:1–15. Ciriacy-Wantrup SV. 1947. Major economic forces affecting agriculture with particular reference to California. Hilgardia; a journal of agricultural science 18:2–21. Clawson M and J Knetsch. 1966. Economics of outdoor recreation. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. Colorado Division of Wildlife. 1989. Attitudes about wildlife and black bears. Denver, CO. Davis RK. 1964. The value of big game hunting in a private forest. Trans N Am Wildl and Nat Resour Conf. 29:393–403. Desvousges WH, AR Gable, RW Dunford, and SP Hudson. 1993. Contingent valuation: the wrong tool to measure passive-use losses? Choices: the magazine of food, farm and resource issues. Second Quarter 8:9–11. Diamond PA and JA Hausman. 1994. Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number? J Econ Persp 8:45–64. Duffield JW and CJ Neher. 1996. Economics of wolf recovery in Yellowstone National Park. Trans. 61st N Am. Wildl and Nat Resour Conf 61:285–292. Duffield JW. 1997. Nonmarket valuation and the courts: the case of the Exxon Valdez forthcoming Contemporary Economic Policy. Dunlap T. 1988. Saving America's wildlife. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 222 Pp. Fall JA, JC Schichnes, M Chythlook, and RJ Walker. 1986. Patterns of wild resource use. In Dillingham: Hunting and fishing in an Alaskan regional center. Technical Paper No. 135. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Freeman AM. 1993. The measurement of environmental and resource values. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. Gardner C and K Taylor. 1992. Results of the wildlife management survey in the upper Tanana/Fortymile region. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Fairbanks, AK. Hanemann WM. 1994. Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. J Econ Persp 8:9–44. Harbo S. 1993. Environmental sanity: think globally, act locally. Paper presented at the Wolf Summit. Fairbanks, Alaska, January 1993. Hastings B. 1986. Wildlife-related perceptions of visitors in Cades Cove, Great Smoky Mountains National Park. PhD dissertation, Univ TN, Knoxville.

OCR for page 134
Wolves, Bears, and their Prey in Alaska: Biological and Social Challenges in Wildlife Management Hensel C. 1994. Brown bear harvests in the western Alaska brown bear management area, 1992/1993: Statistical Information and Cultural Significance. Manuscript. Herrero S. 1970. Man and the grizzly bear. Biosci 20:1148–1153. Herrero S. 1978. People and grizzly bears: the challenge of coexistence. Pp 167–179 in CM Kirkpatrick, Ed. Wildlife and people. The 1978 John S. Wright Forestry Conference. Purdue Res Foundation, West Lafayette, IN . Hook R and W Robinson. 1982. Attitudes of Michigan citizens toward predators. In F Harrington and P Paquet, Eds. Wolves of the world. NJ: Noyes Publishing. Hotelling H. 1931. The economics of exhaustible resources. J Polit Econ 29:137–75. Jobes PC. 1991. The greater Yellowstone social system. Cons Biol 5:387–394. Jonkel CJ. 1975. Opinion—of bears and people. Western Wildlands 2:30–37. Jope K and B Shelby. 1984. Hiker behavior and the outcome of inter-actions with grizzly bears. Leis Sci 6:257–270. Kellert SR. 1980. A national study of American attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors toward wildlife: Phases I, II, III. US Govt Printg Off, Supt Doc 024-010-00-625-1/2/4. Kellert SR. 1985. Public perceptions of predators, particularly the wolf and coyote. Biol Conser 31:167–189. Kellert SR. 1986. The public and the timber wolf in Minnesota. Transactions of the 51st North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, DC. Kellert SR. 1991. Public views of wolf restoration in Michigan. Transactions of the 56th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Wildlife Management Institute. Washington, DC. Kellert SR. 1994. Public attitudes toward bears and their conservation. In JJ Clear, C Servheen, and LJ Lyons, Eds. Proceedings of the Ninth International Bear Conference. U.S. Forest Service, Missoula, MT. Kellert SR. 1996. The value of life: biological diversity and human society. Island Press, Washington, DC. Klein DR. 1989. Northern subsistence hunting economies. Pp. 96–111 in RJ Hudson and others, Eds. Wildlife production systems. Cambridge University Press, New York. Krutilla JV. 1967. Conservation reconsidered. Amer Econ Rev 4:777–786. Llewellyn L. 1978. Who speaks for the timber wolf. Transactions of the 43rd North American Wildlife Conference. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, DC. Loomis JB and MH Thomas. 1992. Pricing and revenue capture: Converting willingness to pay into state and private revenue . Pp. 255–274 in GL Peterson and others, Eds. Valuing wildlife resources in Alaska. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Loon H and S Georgette. 1989. Contemporary brown bear use in northwest Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsidence. Technical Paper No. 163. Lopez B. 1978. Of wolves and men. New York: Scribner's. Matthiessen P. 1988. Wildlife in America. New York: Viking. McCollum DW and SM Miller. 1994. Alaska voters, Alaska hunters, and Alaska nonresident hunters: their wildlife related trip characteristics and economics. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. McConnell KE, IE Strand, and NE Bockstael. 1990. Habit formation and the demand for recreation: issues and a case study. Pp. 217–235 in A Link, Ed. Advances in applied micro-economics, Volume 5. JAI Press. McCool S, A Braithwaite, and D Cikanek. 1990. Beliefs about bears. Wildl Soc Bulletin. McNamee T. 1984. The grizzly bear. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. McNaught DA. 1987. Wolves in Yellowstone Park? Park visitors respond. Wildl Soc Bulletin 15:518–521.

OCR for page 134
Wolves, Bears, and their Prey in Alaska: Biological and Social Challenges in Wildlife Management Merculieff L and W Soboleff. 1994. Letter to the Alaska Federation of Natives and the participants of the Elders and Youth Conference from participants in the Alaska Native traditional knowledge and ways of knowing workshop, September 13–14, 1994. Miller SM and DW McCollum. 1994a. Alaska voters, Alaska hunters, and Alaska nonresident hunters: their characteristics and attitudes towards wildlife. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Miller SM and DW McCollum. 1994b. Tradeoffs between uses and users in natural resource management: A case study of who gains, who loses, and what it means. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Miller SM, R Sinnot, and D McCollum. 1994c. Differentiating among wildlife-related attitudinal groups in Alaska. Transactions of the 59th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Pp. 512–523. Miller SM, SD Miller, and DW McCollum. 1997. Attitudes toward and relative values of Alaskan brown and black bears to resident voters, resident hunters, and nonresident hunters. Int Conf. on Bear Res and Management, Vol 10. Murray A. 1975. Influence of education programs on wolf conservation in Canada. In DH Pimlott, Ed. Wolves. Supplementary. 43 Pp. World Conservation Union, Morges, Switzerland. Naess A and I Mysterud. 1987. Philosophy of wolf policies. I: general principles and preliminary exploration of selected norms. Cons Biol 2:16. Peek JM and others. 1991. Restoration of wolves in North America. The Wildlife Society, Technical Review 91–1. Wildlife Society, Washington, DC. Petko-Seus PA and MR Pelton. 1984. Backpacker bear knowledge in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Hum Dim Wildlife Newsletter 3:8–12. Petko-Seus PA. 1985. Knowledge and attitudes of campers toward black bears in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. MS. thesis, Univ TN, Knoxville, TN. Reading R, TW Clark, and SR Kellert. 1994. Attitudes and knowledge of people living in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Soc and Nat Resour 7:349–365. Reid R and D Janz. 1995. Economic evaluation of Vancouver Island wolf control. Pp. 515–521 in LN Carbyn, SH Fritts, and DR Seip, eds. Ecology and conservation of wolves in a changing world. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Occasional Publication No. 35, Edmonton. Shepard P and B Sanders. 1985. The sacred paw: the bear in nature, myth, and literature. Viking Penguin, Toronto, Canada. Stickney A. 1980. Subsistence resource utilization: Nikolai and Telida—interim report. Technical Paper No. 20. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Stickney A. 1981. Subsistence resource utilization: Nikolai and Telida—interim report II. Technical Paper No. 21. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Stokes J and E Andrews. 1982. Subsistence hunting of moose in the Upper Kuskokwim controlled use area, 1981. Technical Paper No. 22, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Stokes J. 1983. Winter moose season in the Upper Kuskokwim controlled use area, 1982–1983. Technical Paper No. 72. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Stokes J. 1984. Natural resource utilization of four Upper Kuskowin communities. Technical Paper No. 86. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsidence. Stuby R, E Carpenter, and L Arthur. 1979. Public attitudes toward coyote control. USDA Economic Statistics and Cooperative Service. ESCE-54. Washington, DC. Trahan RG. 1987. Wilderness user's attitudes, information use and behaviors in relation to grizzly bear dangers in the backcountry. Yellowstone National Park, National Park Service. Trice AH and SE Wood. 1958. Measurement of recreation benefits. Land Econ 34:195–207.

OCR for page 134
Wolves, Bears, and their Prey in Alaska: Biological and Social Challenges in Wildlife Management Turner RK, D Pearce, and I Bateman. 1993. Environmental economics. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. Usher PJ. 1976. Evaluating country food in the northern native economy. Arctic 105–20. Usher PJ. 1981. Sustenance or recreation? The future of native wildlife harvesting in northern Canada. Pp. 56–71 in Proceedings, First International Symposium on Renewable Resources and the Economy of the North, M Freeman, Ed. Assoc of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies, Ottawa. Wolfe RJ. 1981. Norton Sound/Yukon delta sociocultural systems baseline analysis. Technical Paper No. 59. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Wolfe RJ. 1984. Commercial fishing in the hunting-gathering economy of a Yukon River Yup'ik Society. Etides/Inuit Studies Supplemental Issue 8:159–183. Wolfe RJ and RJ Walker. 1987. Subsistence economies in Alaska: productivity, geography, and development impacts. Arctic Anthropology 2:56–81. Wolfe RJ. 1991. Trapping in Alaska communities with mixed subsistence-cash economies. Technical Paper No. 217. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Wolfe RJ and RG Bosworth. 1994. Subsistence in Alaska: 1994 update. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, 4 Pp. Wolfe RJ. 1996. Subsistence food harvests in rural Alaska and food safety issues. Paper presented to the Institute of Medicine. National Academy of Sciences Committee on Environmental Justice, Spokane, WA. Young S. 1946. The wolf in North American history. Caldwell, ID, Caxton Printers. Yu X. 1991. Valuing the impact of Alaska's guiding industry on the state's economy. M.Sc. thesis, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.