
Elk hunters had a large investment expenditure because of 
the need for a variety of equipment and because of the small number of 
times such equipment was used each year. In addition to rather expen- 
sive rifles, these elk hunters used binoculars, camping equipment, and 
special clothing, which is not ordinarily required for small-game 
hunting. According to the Montana survey [8], elk hunters go hunting 
about 2 days each year, whereas duck and pheasant hunters go hunting 
a total of about 10 days each year; thus, it is obvious that investment 
expenditures for the average elk hunter, prorated on a daily basis, 
would be considerably greater than for the average pheasant or duck 
hunter. Investment expenditures of the South Dakota deer hunter f 22] 
were small compared to that of Montana license holders [8] or the elk 
hunter [23] , because these Missouri River bottom-land hunters used 
shotguns that also were used for small-game hunting. Since the South | 
Dakota deer season was only 3 days long, and because the hunters came 
from a limited area (over 60 percent of the hunters came from within a 
radius of 25 miles), the expense of camping equipment was limited to a 
relatively few individuals. 
Another factor that caused significant variations in invest- 
ment expenditures was the method of determination. Even after adjust- 
ment to those for the hunter in the field, the investment expenditures 
obtained from the Montana license-holder study were larger than those 
determined in the field. The greater accuracy of the Montana study 
probably was the cause of this increase, 
Trip and transportation expenses are affected by the type of 
hunting. The elk hunter, as an example, traveled a considerable dis- 
tance §.23] and had large associated trip expenditures. On the other 
hand, transportation and trip expenditures of deer hunters using the 
areas along the Missouri River were small because of the relatively 
short trip necessary to arrive at the chosen hunting area (radius of 
influence). .From 60 to 80 percent of the deer hunters using the Mis- 
souri River unit areas came from within a radius of 25 miles [22] . 
Although there was some variation in the transportation and trip ex- 
penditure of duck and pheasant hunters using different areas, this dif- 
ference was small generally, indicating a similarity in the radius of 
influence. Generally, the radius of influence was small, the majority 
of the hunters coming from within a radius of 25 miles, On the aver- 
age, Nebraska pheasant hunters traveled a little further than pheasant 
hunters in other areas, 
