Fiscal effects of voter initiatives to ban certain methods of bear and cougar hunting

Oregon's experience

Bibliographic Data

ID15327679
AuthorsChristopher N Carter (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, corresponding author)
Year1998
Volume3
Issue2
Pages29-41
Publication date1998-06-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueHuman Dimensions of Wildlife (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1087-1209 • E-ISSN: 1533-158X
PublisherTaylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/10871209809359123
OpenAlexW2034466466
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited7

In November 1994, Oregon voters approved a ballot initiative that banned the hunting of cougar with dogs and the hunting of bear with bait or dogs. It was initially feared that this ban would have an adverse effect on wildlife agency revenues, and negative effects on the financial economy and user values. In the 1995 hunting season, numbers of bear and cougar tags dropped by 20 percent and 35 percent, respectively. But, by extending the general season's bear tag sale deadline in 1996, Oregon was able to completely recover resident bear tag revenues. This outcome was feasible because the banned hunting methods were associated with higher harvest rates than the methods not banned. Provided there are means by which a management agency can offset negative fiscal effects, the main arguments about these kinds of initiatives should focus on biological and management effects. Economic effects on the financial economy and user values should be considered if well defined and measured

Agency (philosophy · Ballot · Business · Economics · Geography · Hunting season · Political science · Population · Revenue · Wildlife · Wildlife management · Demography · Economic and Environmental Valuation · Forest Management and Policy · Law · Wildlife Ecology and Conservation · Ecology · Finance

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub