CHAPTKR :;: AFFKCTKD ENVIRONMENT 



Table 12. Continued 



Table 13. Summary of expenditures associated with hunting in Montana by all U.S. Residents^ 1996. 



Source: USFWS and U.S. Department of Commerce 1998, Table 15. Not all expenditure items 

 are included in the table, so the items shown will not sum to the total. 



Recreational and Social Values 



Hunting Values. Wolves have the potential to influence several types of recreation, including hunting 

 and tourism. The net economic values that an individual places on these recreational experiences have 

 been estimated on a per-trip or per-day basis in a number of studies. This net economic value (sometimes 

 referred to as willingness to pay) is the additional amount of money hunters and other recreationists say 

 an activity is worth over and above actual expenditures. Expenditures commonly include transportation 

 costs, lodging, food, guide fees, and other purchases, excluding license fees. Nonresidents place 

 substantially higher values on their hunting-related recreational experiences in Montana than residents 

 (Table 14). An examination of nonresident big game license sales (discussed below under FWP Fiscal) 

 shows that nonresident hunting values are substantial based on their willingness to pay for the license fees 

 (up to $1,100) for the right to hunt deer and elk in Montana. Data from a 1992 survey of outfitter fees 

 paid for hunting on private land also tend to show substantial value attached to hunting in Montana 

 (Duffield et al. 1993b). For the relatively small subsample of outfitters who paid landowners on a per- 

 animal-harvested or per-hunter basis (as opposed to the more common lump sum rental for a season's 

 access), the pcr-animal charges were between $50 and $200 while the per hunter charges were between 

 $10 and $1000. 



50 



