Table 4.16 — Major values associated with wildlife and fish occurring on forest and range land 



Category of values 



Major components 



Direct values 



Derived values 



Market products 



Marketed salmon products 

 Marketed fur products 



Nonmarketed wildlife and 

 fish consumed as food 



Income, employment of 

 fishermen 



Income of trappers 



Dollar-equivalent income 

 supplements of sub- 

 sistence users (major) and 

 of sport hunters and 

 anglers (less) 



Income, employment in 

 dependent fish processing 

 and marketing industry 



Income, employment in 

 dependent fur processing 

 and marketing industry 



Contributions to national 

 balance of payments 



Social experiences 



Recreational experiences 

 Cultural experiences 



Contributions to physical 

 and mental health 



Preservation of dependent 

 cultures and means of 

 self-identification 



Income, employment in 

 dependent recreation 

 industry 



Funds to support State 

 wildlife and fish 

 management programs 



Ecological perceptions 



Perceptions that species 

 and communities of 

 species should be 

 preserved 



Preservation of national 

 heritage, gene pools, 

 opportunities for study 

 and understanding 



Natural control of 

 economic pests 



Benchmark for measuring 

 conditions where resources 

 are not preserved 



Current projections suggest that substantial in- 

 creases in opportunities to hunt and fish will be 

 necessary to meet future recreational demands. To 

 the extent additional opportunities are not available, 

 conditions will be more crowded and success ratios 

 will be lower. In addition, some who would have par- 

 ticipated will not have that opportunity. This is 

 already true for hunters of some big game species 

 which are available in such limited numbers that only 

 the winners of special lotteries can hunt them. 



The current numbers of hunters and sport anglers 

 and their expenditures indicate that such recreation is 

 valuable to the participants. Evidence that recreation- 

 ists are willing to spend more for some kinds of activi- 

 ties than others provides a basis for a rough ranking 

 of the values of these activities to the recreationists. 

 For example, differences in average expenditures per 

 day (table 4.3) suggest that the loss of a given number 

 of recreation-days of salmon fishing or big game 

 hunting would represent a larger loss to participants 



than would a loss of the same number of oppor- 

 tunities for warmwater fishing or small game hunting. 

 This seems reasonable because (1) that loss would 

 represent a larger share of all opportunities of the 

 more highly valued activities, and (2) there are gener- 

 ally perceived to be fewer opportunities to substitute 

 other "equivalent" experiences for those that are most 

 highly valued." 



A second-order consequence of not meeting de- 

 mands for recreational opportunities would be a 

 slowing in the growth of income to the supporting 

 recreation industries (although other firms might 

 benefit as substitute activities become more popular). 

 Many rural communities depend substantially on the 

 expenditures of hunters and anglers, and the manu- 

 facture of sport hunting and fishing equipment is of 

 national economic significance. The 1975 national 

 survey of the Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that 

 sport hunters and anglers spent more than $15 billion 

 annually in the United States.-* 



132 



