Table 4.4 — Projections of indexes of participa- 

 tion (medium population level) in fishing and 

 hunting in the contiguous States by activity 

 and section, 1990-2030 



(1977 = 100) 



Type of activity 



Year 



and region 



1977 



1990 



2000 



2010 



2020 



2030 



Population index' 



100 



112 



120 



127 



134 



139 



Saltwater fishing 















Nortfieast 



100 



129 



159 



188 



217 



247 



North Central 



100 



130 



159 



185 



207 



236 



Southeast 



100 



130 



165 



198 



233 



265 



South Central 



100 



128 



159 



189 



220 



251 



Rocky Mountains 



100 



130 



159 



185 



207 



235 



Great Plains 



100 



129 



157 



182 



203 



231 



Pacific Coast 



100 



132 



166 



199 



234 



266 



All regions 



100 



130 



162 



193 



225 



256 



Freshwater fishing 















Northeast 



100 



116 



134 



148 



261 



176 



North Central 



100 



118 



138 



155 



172 



187 



Southeast 



100 



120 



144 



166 



189 



206 



South Central 



100 



117 



137 



155 



171 



187 



Rocky Mountains 



100 



119 



139 



161 



184 



201 



Great Plains 



100 



118 



138 



155 



171 



187 



Pacific Coast 



100 



116 



140 



160 



179 



196 



All regions 



100 



118 



139 



157 



174 



190 



Waterfowl hunting 















Northeast 



100 



116 



125 



135 



141 



149 



North Central 



100 



118 



132 



146 



158 



167 



Southeast 



100 



120 



139 



159 



175 



185 



South Central 



100 



118 



131 



146 



158 



167 



Rocky Mountains 



100 



120 



134 



148 



161 



169 



Great Plains 



100 



118 



132 



146 



158 



167 



Pacific Coast 



100 



121 



137 



156 



170 



179 



All regions 



100 



119 



133 



148 



160 



169 



Big game hunting 















Northeast 



100 



113 



122 



129 



135 



141 



North Central 



100 



113 



124 



132 



139 



145 



Southeast 



100 



115 



131 



144 



157 



163 



South Central 



100 



113 



123 



131 



139 



145 



Rocky Mountains 



100 



119 



135 



149 



162 



168 



Great Plains 



100 



113 



124 



132 



139 



145 



Pacific Coast 



100 



117 



131 



142 



153 



159 



All regions 



100 



114 



125 



134 



142 



148 



Small game hunting 















Northeast 



100 



106 



109 



112 



112 



115 



North Central 



100 



106 



112 



117 



119 



122 



Southeast 



100 



106 



116 



124 



129 



132 



South Central 



100 



106 



111 



116 



119 



122 



Rocky Mountains 



100 



106 



129 



131 



138 



141 



Great Plains 



100 



106 



112 



117 



119 



122 



Pacific Coast 



100 



106 



122 



130 



135 



134 



All regions 



100 



106 



113 



118 



121 



124 



plex of Federal laws sets as a national objective the 

 maintenance of a variety of physical conditions capa- 

 ble of supporting as wide a variety of species as possi- 

 ble.'" The reasons behind these laws vary from a philo- 

 sophical belief that preservation is morally right to a 

 recognition of the practical value of preserving gene 

 pools. 



From the perspective of altering the physical condi- 

 tion of forest and range lands and associated waters, 

 the first ecological concerns are for those species that 

 are already in danger of extinction. The numbers of 

 endangered or threatened species and major sub- 

 species listed by the Federal government are shown 

 by animal category and geographic area in the top 

 quarter of table 4.5. By law. Federal agencies are 

 required to try to improve the status of each until it 

 can be removed from the list. 



The second quarter of table 4.5 lists the additional 

 numbers of species that have been placed on compar- 

 able lists by individual States. Occurrence of a species 

 on a State list is frequently an indication that it will 

 later appear on the Federal list. 



The third quarter of the table contains the addi- 

 tional numbers of species judged by Forest Service 

 wildlife biologists to be particularly "sensitive" to 

 changes in physical conditions caused by applying 

 standard management practices. These species have 

 been designated as requiring particular consideration 

 when evaluating the likely impacts of management 

 activities on the National Forests. 



The bottom part of table 4.5 shows that nearly 

 2,000 species and major subspecies of vertebrates and 

 invertebrates may require some sort of special con- 

 sideration in the management of our forests and 

 rangelands. 



The entire preceding discussion of demands is 

 based on the notion that wildlife and fish have clien- 

 teles or advocates because those resources are recog- 

 nized by people as having value. But given our rudi- 

 mentary understanding of how ecological systems 

 function and of the actual and potential contributions 

 made by wild fauna, it is certainly true that there can 

 also be actual values that are not recognized. For 

 want of a more suitable categorization, the insistence 

 by some that our present limited knowledge calls for 

 a conservative approach to altering our land and 

 water base is included here as an ecological demand. '* 



Index o( proiecled increases in population (medium level) 

 Source Dyer. A D and W E Wegert. Demand analysis and proieclion o! use 

 tor hunting and listiing opportunities. M.S. dissertation. College of Forestry and 

 Natural Resources. Colorado State University. Fort Collins 1978 



'■t Bean, M. J. The evolution of national wildlife law, op. cit. 



'5 See Fisher, A. C. and J. V. Krutilla. Valuing long run ecologi- 

 cal consequences and irreversibilities. J. Environ. Econ. and Man- 

 age. 1:96-108. 1974. For a discussion of American attitudes 

 towards animals, see S. R. Kellert. Perceptions of animals in 

 American Society. In Trans. No. Amer. Wildl. and Nat. Res. Conf. 

 41:546-553. 1976. 



117 



