consistently quite close. It is not surprising that the guided 

 and nonresident hunters whose average incomes were substantially 

 greater than those of the resident and nonguided group placed a 

 substantially higher value on their hunting experiences. 

 Following the willingness to pay statistics are the per hunter 

 day valuations for each of the three methods. Again, allowing 

 for the longer average length of trip for the nonresident and 

 guided hunters there is a substantial difference between the 

 values which they place on the experience and those of the 

 resident and nonguided subgroups. 



As in many other studies, the estimated median values are much 

 lower than the estimated mean values. This indicates that the 

 distribution of willingness to pay is skewed with a greater 

 proportion of individuals being willing to pay high values 

 (compared to a normal bell-shaped curve) . The median indicates 

 the minimum amount that at least 50 percent of the population 

 would be willing to pay. However, for purposes of aggregation 

 (such as estimating the total benefits of Montana deer hunting) 

 the mean is the correct measure. See Duffield and Patterson 

 (1990) for further discussion regarding choice of welfare 

 measures. 



Analysis of Values Across CVM Questions 



One of the major objectives of the Montana DFWP Deer Hunting 

 Survey was to estimate net economic values for the current trip 

 under three scenarios of hypothetically improved conditions. 

 Specifically, these improvements were (1) doubling the hunters 

 chance of bagging a mature buck, (2) increasing the hunters 

 chances of bagging a doe or small buck, and (3) allowing the 

 hunter to bag an extra deer on his/her trip. The results of the 

 economic analysis of these three questions (presented in Table 

 14) proved to be unexpected and somewhat problematic. The 

 problems did not stem from a qualitative interpretation of values 

 returned, but rather from their magnitudes. Table 13 shows that 

 per trip net economic values were very consistent in their 

 ranking across questions. Doubling chances for a mature buck was 

 valued highest, the chance for an extra deer was valued slightly 

 lower, and a good chance for a doe or small buck was valued 

 significantly below both. The consistency of these responses 

 suggests that Montana deer hunters place very different values on 

 alternative deer hunting experiences. This is consistent with 

 the investigators expectations. What is, however, unexpected is 

 that nearly all of the improved condition questions returned net 

 economic values which were lower than for the current conditions 

 question. There are two possible reasons for this. First, this 

 may simply indicate that Montana deer hunters are, on a whole, 

 satisfied with current hunting conditions and do not view the 

 improved condition scenarios as important to their enjoyment of 

 the current trip. While it is likely that this type of hunter 

 satisfaction plays a role in explaining the differences between 



25 



