144.07A4 51,10.70

Cop.?'

:h Bulletin 70OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

II I12 0005423286

11

February 1991

The Market for Waterfowl Huntingon Private Agricultural Land inWestern Oregon

Raymond Rasker

Rebecca L. Johnson

David Cleaves

FOREIT REIERRCH LR6College of Forestry Oregon State University

-

Ir.

The Forest Research Laboratory of Oregon State University was es-tablished by the Oregon Legislature to conduct research leading to expandedforest yields, increased use of forest products, and accelerated economicdevelopment of the State. Its scientists conduct this research in laboratoriesand forests administered by the University and cooperating agencies andindustries throughout Oregon. Research results are made available to po-tential users through the University's educational programs and throughLaboratory publications such as this, which are directed as appropriate toforest landowners and managers, manufacturers and users of forest products,leaders of government and industry, the scientific community, and thegeneral public.

As a research bulletin, this publication is one of a series that compre-hensively and in detail discusses a long, complex study or summarizesavailable information on a topic.

The Authors

Raymond Rasker is an economist, The Wilderness Society, Bozeman,Montana; Rebecca L. Johnson and David Cleaves are associate professors,Department of Forest Resources, Oregon State University, Corvallis.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the following for their comments on an earlierdraft: Dr. Michael Martin, Department of Agricultural and Resource Eco-nomics, Oregon State University; Mr. Roy Elicker, National Wildlife Federa-tion; and Mr. Frank Newton, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Theyalso thank Mr. Palmer Sekora, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for his supportand helpful suggestions in the development of the questionnaire. Finally,but most important, they thank the landowners who so patiently partici-pated in the survey and whose actions hold the balance for future availabilityof winter habitat for migratory waterfowl in western Oregon.

To Order Copies

Copies of this and other Forest Research Laboratory publications areavailable from:

Forestry Publications OfficeOregon State UniversityForest Research Laboratory 225Corvallis, OR 97331-5708Please include author(s), title, and publication number if known.

ML.S7

The Market for Waterfowl Hunting ft`on Private Agricultural Land in fio'70

Western Oregon

Raymond Rasker

Rebecca L. Johnson

David Cleaves

Contents1 Executive Summary

1 Introduction2 Objectives2 Background

2 Trends2 Fee Hunting in Oregon3 Issues

3 Study Areas and Rationale

5 Study Methods5 Results

5 Development of Habitat and Hunting Opportunities6 Access Fees and Access Policies

7 Fees Charged and Quality Characteristics

8 Characteristics of Hunt Management9 Trespass/Liability9 Damage from Waterfowl

11 Summary and Conclusions

12 Literature Cited

Executive SummaryTwo trends have increased interest among

farmers in managing land for wildlife and thereby cre-ating recreational opportunities: (1) an increased de-mand for outdoor recreation and (2) changing eco-nomic conditions that call for a diversification of farmenterprises. One way to diversify a farm operation isto charge hunters a fee for access to the land (a prac-tice referred to as fee hunting). Some farmers andranchers are beginning to view wildlife as one of theproducts of farming and are devoting resources todevelop and manage wildlife habitat.

Fish and wildlife agencies throughout the Westare investigating whether financial incentives work asa means to promote management of wildlife habitat.In Oregon, fee hunting is growing in popularity. How-ever, it is controversial, and recent interest in this en-terprise by farmers and ranchers has been criticizedby some wildlife enthusiasts, wildlife agency person-nel, and local politicians.

The objective of this study was to investigatean existing market for wildlife-related recreation in Or-egon with the purpose of (1) describing how the mar-ket operates, (2) identifying problems and benefitsassociated with management of wildlife habitat byprivate landowners, and (3) addressing some of theconcerns raised during the ongoing debate over feehunting.

Two areas in western Oregon where waterfowlhunting is concentrated were surveyed as a casestudy-farmland around Sauvie Island, 15 miles west

of Portland, and farmland adjacent to three wildliferefuges in the Willamette Valley. In each area, farmershaving waterfowl habitat or the potential to developsuch habitat were interviewed. Of the respondents,87 percent allowed hunters on their land; of these, 54percent charged an access fee and 46 percent allowedfree hunting. Survey results indicated that the twoareas constitute distinct markets for waterfowl hunt-ing. Fees charges for this activity on the two areaswere disparate, reflecting differing demands for ac-cess and differing qualities of the lands for hunting(size of waterfowl populations and level of habitatimprovements).

Over half of the survey respondents invested inhabitat improvements. Incentives listed for such activ-ity included financial returns from hunting leases, aes-thetic appreciation, and personal enjoyment from wa-terfowl hunting. Deterrents listed by landowners werenegative attitudes toward hunters and concern aboutbeing sued by hunters who use their land. Althoughdamage to crops from waterfowl, particularly fromgeese, was perceived as substantial, there was no evi-dence that such damage deters farmers from habitatmanagement. It does, however, lead to friction be-tween wildlife agencies and private landowners. Thus,policies designed to stimulate habitat improvementby farmers should address the issues of wildlife damageand landowner liability. Nevertheless, largely becauseof the potential restrictions on waterfowl hunting inOregon, wildlife agencies should not rely on fee hunt-ing as the only driving force behind habitat manage-ment on private land.

IntroductionOf the 2.4 billion acres in the United States,

over 60 percent is privately owned. Of this land, about421 million acres are used for cropland, 394 millionare classified as forest land, and 539 million are usedfor pasture and rangeland (USDA Forest Service 1980;USDA Soil Conservation Service 1984). It is not sur-prising, therefore, that much of the wildlife-relatedrecreation takes place on private farms, ranches, andforests (Carlson 1985; Tomlinson 1985). The 1975National Survey of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Asso-ciated Recreation revealed that hunters in the UnitedStates participated in 395 million days of recreation,of which 67 percent, or 265 million days, occurred onprivate land (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1977a, b).A similar survey in 1985 revealed that about 82 per-

cent of all hunting occurred on private land and thathunters paid landowners $77.8 million in access fees(USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1988).

Because wildlife is largely dependent on private,land, an investigation of the market for wildlife-relatedrecreation and of farmers' attitudes, motives, and be-havior toward wildlife is important. In Oregon no suchformal studies have been made. This study attemptsto help fill that need. Along the way, it probes theissue of fee hunting, a topic that has become increas-ingly controversial in the state and has resulted infriction among landowners, hunters, and fish andwildlife agencies.

1

ObjectivesThis study had two objectives: first, to review

briefly the topic of fee hunting in Oregon and tohighlight the issues that have been raised about man-aging for wildlife habitat on private land; second, toreport on a case study in which farmers who engageor might engage in managing waterfowl habitat inwestern Oregon were surveyed. The purpose of thesurvey was to determine not only the potential andactual involvement of farmers in managing for water-fowl habitat but also how these individuals influenceopportunities for waterfowl hunting.

BackgroundTrends

In the last 10 years two concurrent trends haveled to active participation by some private landownersin habitat management and propagation of wildlife.The first is an increased demand for outdoor recreation(Jahn 1986; President's Commission on AmericansOutdoors 1987). In 1962, the Outdoor RecreationalResources Review Commission predicted that the de-mand for outdoor recreation would triple by the year2000. That prediction was realized by 1983 (Doig1986). One of the recommendations of the President'sCommission on Americans Outdoors (1987) was thatways be found to stimulate the private sector to providerecreational opportunities.

The second (long-term) trend is an overallslowing down of the agricultural sector. Comparedwith the rise in agricultural production and prices afterWorld War II, the farm economy of the 1980's hasfrequently been characterized by low agricultural prices,which result from surpluses, high costs of production,and increased international competition. Although thevigor of the farming sector is cyclical, long-term trendsindicate that there is no longer the same high rate ofagricultural expansion seen between the mid-1950'sand the mid-1970's (McCorkle 1981).

Many farmers whose land values are depreciat-ing and whose profits from farming are declining nowseek alternative uses of their land. Stated differently,they are searching for ways to enhance the marketingpossibilities of all resources available on the land. Thedefinition of "marketable resources" now extends be-yond traditional agricultural products to include recre-ation. The current demand for outdoor leisure activities,particularly hunting, can provide an alternative sourceof revenue and simultaneously provide the incentive

This study was designed to help highlight someof the benefits and problems that arise when privatelandowners are involved in habitat management. Bylooking at one type of fee hunting, we may learnwhat form of cooperation between landowners andhunters benefits both groups while ensuring that thegoals of state and federal fish and game agencies aremet. Such positive cooperation is increasingly impor-tant if high-quality wildlife habitat is to be developedon private land.

for active management of land resources for the ben-efit of wildlife.

Fee Hunting in OregonFee hunting is becoming increasingly popular

in Oregon, as it is in much of the West. It reflects agrowing emphasis on tourism and outdoor recreation,it can provide income for ranchers and farmers, and italso provokes some controversy among hunters, land-owners, and wildlife agency personnel. Recent interestin a short course entitled Developing Profitable Re-source-Based Recreation on Private Land, as well asincreasing requests for information from Oregon StateUniversity's Cooperative Extension Service by land-owners, indicate a need for understanding the marketfor wildlife-related recreation (see Rasker and Bedell1987).

Many western states, through their fish andgame agencies, now provide incentives for landown-ers to manage land for the benefit of game species.One example is California's Ranch for Wildlife Pro-gram, under which agricultural landowners can, afterapproval by the Fish and Game Commission, increasethe bag limit on their land beyond that imposed onthe rest of the state and sell tags or permits directly tohunters (Long 1987; J.D. Massie, personal communi-cation, Calif. Dep. Fish and Game, Sacramento, 1988).1Compared to other states, however, Oregon has takena relatively passive role in establishing incentive pro-grams.

' Also see Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Biological Services(1986) and Pineo (1985) for reviews of state incentive programs forwildlife management and hunter access on private land.

2

In the fall of 1987, the Oregon Fish and Wild-life Commission appointed an eight-member task forceto investigate approaches to fee hunting in other statesand to conduct public hearings on whether a changein policy on this issue is acceptable in Oregon. Thistask force was appointed, in part, because of a grow-ing debate over fee hunting involving the legislature,hunting groups, wildlife enthusiasts, and private land-owners. At this writing, the task force's recommenda-tions are being evaluated by the Fish and WildlifeCommission; the Oregon Department of Fish andWildlife, other interested agencies, special-interestgroups, and citizens.

Much of the controversy over incentive pro-grams for wildlife management on private land arisesbecause the term fee hunting is not understood. Forsome it brings to mind the introduction of exotic game(Geist 1987), the privatization or de-facto privatizationof wildlife (Griffith 1987; Geist 1988, 1989), or re-stricted access to publicly owned grazing lands byhunters and other recreationists (Ernst 1987). To othersit means nothing more than the practice of charginga fee for access to private land (Benson 1987; Pineo1987). In this study, landowners were surveyed who,because waterfowl are present on their land, have theopportunity to charge hunters an access fee. In thispaper, therefore, the term fee hunting refers to charg-ing (or paying) such a fee.

IssuesDuring the ongoing debate over fee hunting in

Oregon, some important issues have been raised. Al-though this case study was not designed to investi-gate all of these issues, it may shed light on some ofthe more pressing ones:

(1) Do land managers who charge access feesuse these revenues to develop and improve wildlife

- habitat and hunting opportunities?

(2) What are the benefits, if any, to wildlifepopulations when land managers become involved inmanaging land for hunting?

(3) Are concerns over trespass and liability amajor deterrent to land managers developing habitatand allowing hunters on their land?

(4) Is crop damage from wildlife a major deter-rent to such management?

As in many other states in the West, there isalso a concern that hunting may become availableonly to those able to pay an access fee, a practice thatwould exclude people with low incomes (Burger andTeer 1981; Geist 1987). Although this case study doesnot directly address the equity issue from the hunters'point of view, it does provide some information onthat issue in the analysis of prices and hunting qualityin the markets investigated.

Study Areas and RationaleThe study areas selected in western Oregon

consist of farms adjacent to the Sauvie Island WildlifeManagement Area (WMA) and those adjacent to theWilliam L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), theAnkeny NWR, and the Baskett Slough NWR (Figure1). The Sauvie Island WMA, located 15 miles north-west of Portland at the confluence of the Columbiaand Willamette Rivers, is operated by the Oregon De-partment of Fish and Wildlife. The three NationalWildlife Refuges, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wild-life Service, are in the Willamette Valley.

These areas were selected for several reasons.The first criterion was similarity to other regions of thestate in the following respects: (1) A public resource(wild animals) is present on private land; (2) publiclyowned wildlife habitat is adjacent to private agricul-tural land; (3) farmers face a market where they must

weigh the returns, monetary or otherwise, from theproduction of wildlife habitat against those from agri-cultural production; and (4) a market for wildlife-re-lated recreation exists.

All four of the refuges are known for theirabundance of migratory waterfowl in the wintermonths. The proximity to the refuges provides localfarmers the opportunity to market access to their landfor hunting wild ducks and geese. The Willamette Val-ley and Sauvie Island, long used for waterfowl hunt-ing, have an estimated 200 to 500 duck clubs onprivate land (R.L Jarvis, personal communication, Dep.Fisheries and Wildlife, OSU, Corvallis, 1987).

The second criterion for selecting these areas istheir importance to the management of winteringwaterfowl. Western Oregon is important to the Pacific

3

0BASKELLSLOUGHNWR

ANKENYNWR

0WILLIAM LFINLEYNW R

0 NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE (NWR)

A STATE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA (WMA)

Figure 1. The study areas.

Flyway. The refuges and the surrounding private landsserve as a stopover for ducks and geese migrating tothe wintering grounds of California and Mexico. Theyalso serve as the primary wintering grounds of thedusky Canada goose (Branta canadensis occidentalis),whose declining population is a principal managementconcern on the flyway. The population of the duskyCanada goose has declined from 25,000 in the 1970'sto 10,000 in 1984 (Jarvis and Comely 1988). Thisdecline is due to a combination of depressed recruit-ment2 in the summer and high mortality, particularlyfrom hunting, during the winter (Chapman et of. 1969;Jarvis and Comely 1988). The decline in recruitment islargely due to an earthquake in Alaska in 1964, whichresulted in the flooding of nesting habitat.

In response, the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service(1980, p. 13) has declared that the primary role ofthe three refuges in the Willamette Valley is "to providesuitable wintering habitat for the dusky Canada goosepopulation." One element of the habitat provided bythe refuges is protection from hunting. The refuges

2 Recruitment The recently mature, breeding-age animals added tothis year's population.

are also planted with crops, which are left unharvestedto provide waterfowl feed.

Until recently, much of the research on water-fowl by wildlife managers has focused on the nestinghabitat of wild ducks and geese. The most dramaticlosses in such habitat have occurred in the north, andit was long believed that these areas were the criticallink in the management of wild populations (Wellerand Batt 1988). An over-emphasis on breeding habi-tat has caused some researchers to undervalue theimportance of wintering areas (Fretwell 1972;Heitmeyer and Fredrickson 1981; Weller and Batt1988). One of the alarming trends in wintering areasis the elimination of seasonal and permanent wet-lands.

It is estimated that, nation-wide, wetlands aredisappearing at a rate of 300,000 to 450,000 acresper year. From the mid-1950's to the mid-1970's, 87percent of all wetland losses were due to agriculturaldevelopment (liner 1984). Current research has iden-tified the West Coast as a major problem area in theloss of wetlands for wintering waterfowl (Tiner 1984;Stewart et al. 1988). In the Willamette Valley, an esti-mated half-million acres of marshes, shallow ponds,

4

potholes, and wet meadows have been lost as water-fowl habitat because of agricultural development (USDIFish and Wildlife Service 1980).

At a recent workshop entitled "Waterfowl inWinter," wildlife biologists concerned with habitat

Study MethodsA questionnaire was designed, pre-tested, and

administered as an in-person interview to farmersmanaging land next to each of the four wildlife ref-uges in western Oregon (Figure 1). One hundred andthree individuals were identified as suitable.; Each ofthese was sent a letter outlining the purpose of theresearch and later contacted by telephone to establishan interview date.4 Of the 103 possible interviews, 87were completed between November 1988 and Febru-ary 1989. One individual refused to participate in the

3 Only crop and livestock farmers were interviewed because theirlands have the potential to be converted to waterfowl habitat.Woodlots and Christmas tree farms are predominantly located onhillsides and therefore are not suitable.

Some individuals were contacted without appointment. All inter-views were conducted by the senior author.

ResultsAnalysis of the survey responses revealed that

there are distinct differences between the farms adja-cent to the Sauvie Island WMA and those neighboringthe three NWR's in the Willamette Valley. Farms in thetwo areas differ in size and in the types of crops pro-duced. The average Willamette Valley farm surveyedwas 890 acres, whereas the average Sauvie Island farmwas 570 acres. The Willamette Valley farmers inter-viewed grow predominantly grass seed and wintergrains. The Sauvie Island farms consist largely of amixture of row crops and pasture.

The farms next to Sauvie Island WMA offer arecreational opportunity distinctly different from thatoffered by the Willamette Valley farms. Duck popula-tions on Sauvie island are approximately double thoseof the three national wildlife refuges combined (USDIFish and Wildlife Service 1987/1988). Sauvie Island is

management were urged to "become more involvedwith extension activities for the private landowner"(Pederson et aL 1988, p. 463). Analyzing western Or-egon landowners with existing, or potential, water-fowl habitat is consistent with the spirit of this recom-mendation.

study, five had moved or retired, three were no longerfarming, and seven could not be located.

Respondents were asked questions about theirfarming practices and activities related to waterfowland waterfowl hunting for the 1987-88 season (Octo-ber 1 7-January 10). They were asked to describe thecharacteristics of their farms, their attitude towardhunting on their land, their investments in improvingwaterfowl habitat, costs related to waterfowl damage,their beliefs about how refuges are managed by stateand federal agencies, and their concerns about trespassand liability. Respondents were also asked how closelythey agreed with statements designed to measure theirattitudes toward waterfowl and hunting.s

S For full details of the questionnaire and responses to all surveyquestions, see Rasker (1989).

also close to the large metropolitan area of Portland,while the three refuges are more rural and requirecomparatively more travel time to reach. Because ofthese differences, the following discussion of the surveyresults will include, where possible, a distinction be-tween the two areas.

Development of Habitatand Hunting Opportunities

Survey respondents were asked whether theyhad "participated in any activities that were intendedto be for the benefit of waterfowl or for the manage-ment of the hunting operation." These activities in-cluded planting food and cover crops for waterfowl,building ponds or wetlands to attract wild ducks and

5

geese, constructing water-control structures such asdams or levees, regulating water levels, and takingland out of agricultural production to establish wetlandsor hunting areas.6

Of the 87 individuals interviewed, 52 percentinvested in developing waterfowl habitat.' Figure 2shows the percentage of total respondents who did ordid not invest in improving waterfowl habitat neareach refuge. The annual costs per farmer for plantingwaterfowl food and cover and controlling the waterlevel in ponds or wetlands averaged $1,366.49, rangingfrom zero to a maximum of $6,000. Annual costs perfarm for the Sauvie Island area averaged $2,857.22and, for the Willamette Valley area, $422.17.

Five individuals built waterfowl hunting areas,or "duck ponds," at an average cost of $1,570, and16 invested in water-control structures to retain waterin ponds at an average cost of $623.13.

25

20 -I

15-1

10-

5-

0

DID INVEST

Q DID NOT INVEST

FINLEY NWR BASKETT ANKENY NWR SAUVIESLOUGH NWR ISLAND WMA

NEARBY REFUGE

Figure 2. Percentages of total respondents (87) who didand did not invest in benefiting waterfowl and waterfowlhunting near each refuge.

' In this study, wetland is defined as in Cowardin et al. (1979, p. 3):an area which is "saturated with water or covered by shallow waterat some time during the growing season of each year."

' The term waterfowl habitat refers to any area where a wild duck orgoose will land to seek food, water, or refuge. This definition in-cludes wetlands but is not limited to land that is submerged orseasonally flooded. For instance, it includes grass and corn fieldswhere geese may land to rest and feed.

Slightly more than half (52%) of theinterviewees were aware of government programsaimed at preserving wetlands and those helping payfor the costs of developing waterfowl habitat or wild-life food plots. Over 40 percent (44%) were familiarwith Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Ser-vice programs that pay part of the costs of establish-ing shallow-water areas and food plots; 7 percent werefamiliar with the "Swampbuster" (a provision of the1985 Food Security Act; it restricts access to federalfarm-support programs if wetlands on farms are delib-erately destroyed); and one was aware of a state-implemented program that pays for seed for wildlifefood. Less than 6 percent of the farmers interviewedparticipated in any of these programs.

Access Fees and AccessPolicies

Twenty-two percent of the farmers intervieweddid not allow people other than their immediate fami-lies to hunt on their land, 42 percent allowed huntingbut charged an access fee, and 36 percent allowedhunting without charge.

Figure 3 shows the percentages of total respon-dents who did and did not charge an access fee forhunting near each refuge. Note that the majority ofthe farmers adjacent to the Sauvie Island WMA chargedhunters an access fee. In contrast, less than half of thefarmers in the Willamette Valley charged a fee.

25

20 -

15-1

10-

ACESS FEE

NO ACCESS FEE

FINLEY NWR BASKETT ANKENY NWR SAUVIESLOUGH NWR ISLAND WMA

NEARBY REFUGE

Figure 3. Percentages of total respondents (87) who didand did not charge waterfowl hunters an access fee forhunting near each refuge.

6

One of the questions we hoped to address waswhether landowners who charge a fee also invest inhabitat development and improvement. Of those whocharged an access fee, 92 percent invested in water-fowl habitat improvements, such as planting food cropsor creating shallow-water areas. Figure 4 shows thepercentage of respondents who invested in habitatimprovements (45) and who did or did not chargehunters an access fee for hunting near each refuge. Ofthe total respondents, 48 percent did not invest inhabitat improvements, 12 percent invested butcharged no access fee, and 40 percent invested andcharged a fee.

40

30 -

10-4

0

ACESS FEE

Q NO ACCESS FEE

FINLEY NWR BASKETT ANKENY NWR SAUVIESLOUGH NWR ISLAND WMA

NEARBY REFUGE

Figure 4. Percentages of total respondents who investedin habitat improvements (45) and who did and did notcharge hunters an access fee for hunting near each refuge.

From these data it appears that the financialincentive is closely tied with habitat developments,particularly in the Sauvie island area and on farmsadjacent to the Finley NWR. When asked about thefinancial prospects of leasing hunting rights, 83 per-cent of all respondents agreed with the statement,"Waterfowl hunting on my land could increase myincome." Almost three-fourths (74%) also agreed that"Having good waterfowl hunting on my land couldincrease the value of my land." However, these datamust be investigated more closely before concludingthat financial gain is the only motive for improvinghabitat.

Of the farmers who invested labor, capital, ormachinery to develop or improve waterfowl habitat,

24 percent did not charge an access fee. Therefore,there may also be motives besides financial gain atwork.

We hypothesized that one of the factors affect-ing investments in habitat is the land manager's par-ticipation in waterfowl hunting. Of the total respon-dents, 37 percent invested in habitat improvementand were themselves waterfowl hunters, whereas only15 percent invested in habitat but were not waterfowlhunters. One drawback to hunting as a motive forhabitat improvements was noted. Eleven (130% of therespondents mentioned that they were formerly in-volved in habitat developments to attract ducks andgeese. All claimed that because of increased restrictionsagainst hunting certain races of Canada goose," they nolonger invested in such developments. Their reactionpoints to one of the problems when an animal, previ-ously considered a game species, requires protection.9If pleasure derived from hunting is one of the motivesfor habitat developments, then further species, bag,or season restrictions may erode landowners' incentivesfor such developments.

A second important factor to consider is land-owners' attitudes toward waterfowl. Nearly three-fourths of the respondents (72%) agreed that, even ifhunting waterfowl were illegal, having them on one'sproperty would be enjoyable "just for their beauty."As will be seen later, however, many farmers appreci-ated the presence of wild ducks but not large flocks ofgeese, mainly because of the costs incurred fromdamage by geese to crops (i.e., depredation) or fromtrying to prevent such damage by hazing (scaring thegeese away).

Fees Charged and QualityCharacteristics

The average fee charged per person for seasonalhunting rights was $628, ranging from $100 to $1,700.Higher fees have been reported in a study of water-

The 1987 and 1988 Oregon Game Bird Regulations issued by theOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife restrict the bag limit toone cackling Canada goose or one dusky Canada goose per personper season. To be eligible for a special goose-hunt permit, huntersmust attend a goose identification class. They must also register atU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or Oregon Department of Fish andWildlife check stations prior to hunting and check out after thehunt.

9 See Chapman et aL (1969) for an account of the status of thedusky Canada goose at a time when excessive harvests threatenedthe population.

7

-

fowl leases in Missouri, where the price of seasonalhunting rights ranged from $300 to $3,000 per per-son (Schenck et at 1987). In a study of Texas ricegrowers who marketed waterfowl hunting, Willis andMertes (1979) found that prices were based on acombination of management practices, including thepresence or absence of water and waterfowl food andhunter amenities supplied by the farmer. A similarconclusion can be drawn here. The range of pricesfound in this study largely reflects differences in hunt"quality" and in local demand for waterfowl hunting.These factors vary considerably between the WillametteValley and Sauvie Island (Table 1).

Table 1. Averages per farm for quality characteristicsand seasonal access fees in the Sauvie Island andWillamette Valley areas, 1987-88 waterfowl huntingseason.1

Quality characteristicor fee

SauvieIsland

WillametteValley

Travel distance (mi)2 11.00 20.00(0.65) (0.47)

Investments in plantingfood and regulatingwater ($) 2,857.22 481.57

(1,314.47) (65.05)Ducks harvested perseason (No.) 3 712.53 63.17

(179.25) (12.66)Geese harvested perseason (No.)3 76.00 6.14

(33.15) (1.37)Seasonal fees perperson ($) 1,015.50 191.34

(82.77) (23.18)

1 These averages are only for those farms at which a fee wascharged. Standard errors are in parentheses.2 To the nearest city with population >40,000.3 Total reported duck harvests were 13,538 for the Sauvie Islandfarms and 2,652 for the Willamette Valley farms; total numbers ofgeese harvested were 1,445 and 258, respectively. Thesenumbers are underestimates as three individuals on Sauvie Islandand six in the Willamette Valley were unable to estimate the numberof birds harvested.

For the Sauvie Island area, the average seasonalfee was 1$1,015 per person for the season, rangingfrom $500 to $1,700.10 For the Willamette Valley re-gion, the average seasonal charge per person was$191. The lowest seasonal fee per person was $100,

10 The length of the Oregon waterfowl season varies from 73 to 93days, depending on federal regulation of the Pacific Flyway. Theseason generally begins October 10 and ends January 14.

and the highest was $436. Most farmers leased landfor hunting to a group of individuals, generally calleda "duck club," who received exclusive hunting rights.

Only two respondents actively pursued "clients."All others let the hunters contact them. The market-ing, or advertisement, of opportunities for waterfowlhunting, therefore, was not necessary to attract hunt-ers.

Annual profits (calculated from survey responsesas revenuesminus_ variable costs, not including op-portunity costs-cost of next best alternative- forgone-or depredation costs) were as varied as the--range- infees and quality characteristics. For the Sauvie Islandarea, annual profits per farm-Tanged from $1,300 to$61,670. In the Willamette Valley, annual profits weresubstantially lower, ranging from $300 to $2,820.Three individuals broke even, and one operated at anet loss.

The difference in access fees between SauvieIsland and the Willamette Valley reflects a differencein hunt quality on the two areas. The latter differenceis reflected in three characteristics: the travel distancerequired for the hunters, the level of habitat invest-ments by farmers, and the waterfowl populationspresent as reflected in the number of ducks and geeseharvested. Hunter amenities such as a clubhouse,freezer, and decoys were difficult to quantify accu-rately and are therefore omitted from the discussion.From casual observation it appeared that, in manyinstances, amenities such as blinds, decoys, and club-houses were provided by the hunters themselves andnot by the landowner.

It is also important to mention that Sauvie Is-land is close to the Portland metropolitan area, withover half a million inhabitants. In comparison, theWillamette Valley farms surveyed are located near Sa-lem and Corvallis, with populations of 90,000 and40,000, respectively. Therefore, the demand for wa-terfowl hunting is probably greater for Sauvie Islandthan for the rural areas of the Willamette Valley. Con-sequently, landowners on Sauvie Island are able tocharge higher prices.

Characteristics of HuntManagement

One of the concerns identified in this study iswhether land developed for waterfowl hunting alsoserves as a benefit to the wintering waterfowl popula-tion. In all but two of the hunting-lease operations

8

studied, the amount of hunting was regulated, eitherby the landowner or by the duck club, to certain daysof the week and, in some cases, also to certain timesof day. These regulations were in addition to legalhunting restrictions. On Sauvie Island, for example,the norm was to hunt 3 days of the week and holidays.The effect of these regulations was twofold: first, theyapparently resulted in higher-quality hunting (i.e., moreopportunities for harvest); second, they allowed forrest periods. During the off days, the land had thecharacteristics of habitat for wintering waterfowl: food,water, and rest from hunting (P.C. Sekora 1989, per-sonal communication, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Corvallis). Furthermore, these characteristics are presentbefore and after the legal hunting period.

The 37 farms where fees were charged pro-vided, on the average, 48.35 days each for huntingduring the 1987-88 season. In total, they supplied1,789 days for hunting. Multiplying this figure by thenumber of people hunting on each farm yields a totalof 15,413 Hunter Days (HD). This amounts to an aver-age of 416.57 HD supplied per farm."

Trespass/LiabilityIn previous research, landowner concerns over

trespass and liability have been identified wheneverhunters use private land and as deterrents to manag-ing wildlife habitat (Horvath 1976; Webster 1980;Burger and Teer 1981; Shelton 1981; Jahn 1986). Inthis study, over one-third (36%) of the respondentsagreed with the statement, "In general, I considerhunters on my land to be a nuisance and a bother."Close to three-fourths (70%) of the people who re-sponded this way did not allow hunters on their land,and 74 percent did not invest in development of habi-tat or hunting opportunities.

When asked about their concerns over beingsued when hunters use their land, 55 percent of thosewho invested in habitat and 45 percent of those whodid not invest agreed that this possibility worried them.

It was noteworthy that trespass was not a prob-lem for over a third (37%) of the survey respondentsand only "sometimes" a problem for a little less thanhalf (46%). Twenty-six of the 37 (70%) farmers whocharged a fee for hunting said that duck club membershelped protect against trespassers.

" This figure assumes that all people who have the right to hunt onthe farm actually do so on every available day. Hunter Days, there-fore, are a measure of recreational opportunities supplied, not nec-essarily a measure of use.

Damage from WaterfowlThe issue of crop damage by migratory water-

fowl provoked the most ardent reactions from thefarmers interviewed. Many distinguished between theirattitudes toward ducks and toward geese.

Almost three-fourths (74%) of the respondentsreported having incurred goose-related costs duringthe winter of 1987-88, either from damage to crops(depredation) or from having to scare birds away fromcrops (hazing). The average annual costs estimated bythe 64 individuals who reported goose-related damagewere $5,162 per farm, ranging from $50 to as high as$29,625. The sum of all costs, as seen in Table 2, was$336,191.36.

Table 2. Estimated costs of goose-related damage onthe 64 affected farms during the winter of 1987-88.

Problem or activity Totalcaused by damage Number who costor prevention incurred costs ($)

Decrease in crop yield 47 283,752.00Replanting 8 6,360.00Spraying' 2 1,150.00Hazing equipment 40 6,091.00Hazing labor 2 38 30,352.00Transportation 20 8,487.00

Total 336,191.36

1 Spraying against weeds spread in goose manure.2 Costs are those of hired labor. When hazing is conductedby the landowner or manager, this cost is probably higher.Therefore, the figure given represents a minimum.

Figure 5 shows the crop types for which therewas depredation by geese. The crops most frequentlygrazed on by geese were grass seed, hay, and grain.As mentioned previously, the farmers in the WillametteValley predominantly grow grass seed and wintergrains. The majority of the costs (86%) related togoose depredation and hazing were incurred on thefarms in the Willamette Valley.

There are several difficulties associated withmeasuring the costs of waterfowl damage by a ques-tionnaire, and results should be interpreted cautiously.One of the problems is determining such costs. Mostsurvey respondents had little trouble itemizing hazingcosts, and many had them documented. The costsresulting from decreases in crop yield and from weedsspread in goose manure, however, are more difficultto estimate.

9

were specifically requested to list minimum cost esti-mates.

ANNUAL & PERENNIALRYEGRASS SEED 44%

0. 0.

PEAS5%

ALFALFA ANDGRASS HAY 23%>

Figure S. Percentage of the 64 affected farms on whichgoose depredation was reported, by crop type.

Costs related to hazing are easier to estimatewhen they are an integral component of the farm'swinter activities. Over 60 percent of all respondentswho reported having goose-related damage regularlyconducted hazing, usually on a daily basis. There wereseveral individuals who hired a full-time "hazer" for 2to 3 months, who each day drove from one field toanother, chasing geese.

A second measurement problem was farmers'inability to recall the costs of hazing and goose dam-age from the previous year. In February 1988, theAnimal Damage Control Division of the U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture implemented a mail survey withthe objective of measuring costs of waterfowl damagein the Willamette Valley and Columbia River Basin.The response rate was poor (less than 10%). One ofthe reasons was believed to be people's inability toaccurately measure and recall these costs (T. Hall 1988,personal communication, USDA Animal Damage Con-trol, Portland).

A third difficulty with measuring damage costsis the potential for bias. Land managers may betempted to exaggerate costs if they believe results ofthe survey may lead to policies that benefit them,such as compensation or increased government assis-tance in hazing. For this reason, survey participants

Although this study was not conducted to ob-tain a precise measure of all costs related to the pres-ence of waterfowl on agricultural fields, one conclu-sion that can be drawn is that damage from geese isperceived to be a major problem. It is not clear, how-ever, whether damage serves as a deterrent to farmers'decisions to manage land for the benefit of waterfowlor for a hunting operation. Almost half (49%) of thepeople who incurred damage from waterfowl also in-vested in habitat improvements.

When asked whether they believed that "hunt-ing helps reduce damage to my crops by scaring wa-terfowl," 64 percent agreed. The hazing effect ofhunting, therefore, may be one of the factors farmersconsider when allowing hunters on their land. Morethan 80 percent of the farmers who incurred goosedamage allowed hunting.

Over half (60%) of those who incurred goosedamage believed leasing hunting rights could helppay for the costs of this damage. However, 24 percentdisagreed and did not believe damage costs could berecovered through hunting fees.

The most important consequence of goosedamage on farm crops is the strain it causes betweenrefuge managers and landowners. When asked whetherthey believed the wildlife refuges helped reduce goosedamage to crops on neighboring farms, over half ofthe respondents (53%) disagreed. Of the 34 individu-als who did believe the refuge helped reduce dam-age, almost half (48%) were adjacent to the SauvieIsland WMA. In other words, of the 22 farmers inter-viewed on Sauvie Island, about three-fourths agreedthat current refuge management helped reduce dep-redation. Again, there is evidence that the waterfowlsituation on Sauvie Island is distinct from that in theWillamette Valley. There were 10 positive commentsabout refuge management's ability to plant crops thatalleviate crop depredations on neighboring farms. Allbut one were directed toward the Sauvie Island WMA.In contrast, there were 24 negative comments con-cerning this issue, all directed at the management ofthe three refuges in the Willamette Valley. It is probablethat refuge management is not the only factor influ-encing cooperation between public and private inter-ests. However, the evidence presented does suggest aneed for close inspection of the variation among man-agement strategies and the relationships that exist be-tween refuges and neighboring farmers.

10

Summary and ConclusionsOne objective of this study was to identify, by

means of a case study, the benefits and problemsassociated with managing wintering waterfowl on pri-vate land. Along the way, some of the issues sur-rounding the controversy of the growth in fee hunt-ing in Oregon were also addressed.

The most-obvious conclusion from the study isthat there is potential for mutual benefit if huntersand wildlife enthusiasts cooperate with fish and gameagencies to encourage management for wildlife habi-tat on private land. The landowners' proximity to therefuges is similar to the position of many farmers andranchers elsewhere in the state: by being next to apublicly managed area, the farmer receives additionalbenefits, such as, in this example, large concentra-tions of wild ducks and geese. For a rancher in easternOregon, the additional benefits might be elk or deerthat migrate between public and private land. Whetherthe presence of wildlife on private land is considered abenefit depends on many factors, including whetherthere is damage to crops and whether the landownerpersonally gains, financially or otherwise, from provid-ing for wildlife on the farm or ranch. Hunters and fishand game agencies are in a position to influence land-owners' behavior toward wildlife in such a way thatboth wildlife and the public benefit.

It appears from this case study that landown-ers' incentives for improving waterfowl habitat includedfinancial returns from hunting leases, aesthetic appre-ciation, and personal enjoyment from hunting water-fowl. The attitudes of these landowners were gener-ally positive toward waterfowl and hunters. Given thisscenario, it is easy to envision a mutually beneficialattitude between the managers of waterfowl refugesand neighboring farmers. In the same way that thefarmers can gain from their proximity to the refuge,the refuge managers gain from habitat developmentson private land. As demonstrated earlier, although theprimary purpose of the waterfowl areas on privateland is for hunting, they do provide important aspectsof waterfowl habitat-such as food, water, and cover-during most of the winter. Private landowners, there-fore, provide benefits for both wildlife and the public.

If we consider the issue of waterfowl damage,however, this win-win situation for waterfowl and wa-terfowl hunters becomes clouded. Although it wasnot conclusive that damage to crops by geese is adeterrent to habitat development, it was apparent thatrelations between refuge management in theWillamette Valley and the farmers who incur goose-related costs were strained. Given that there is a po-tential for mutual cooperation and mutual benefit, it

is to the advantage of refuge managers to promote acloser working relationship with neighboring farmers.Such a relationship must include, as a starting point,the understanding that goose depredation is perceivedas a major issue by most of the farmers involved.

One of the most controversial issues related tofee hunting in Oregon is the question of whetherincreasing use by landowners of access fees will leadto hunters being excluded from hunting opportuni-ties because they cannot pay for them. This is a com-plicated issue and cannot be fully investigated by thiscase study. The market for waterfowl hunting in west-ern Oregon does, however, shed light on some of thepossible trends in fee hunting for the rest of the state.The first observation is that the price of hunting onprivate lands appears to reflect the demand for hunt-ing and the quality of the hunting area. In this study,the range of prices varied enormously, as did the de-gree of investments in habitat improvements and thelocation. The price to hunt on a farm next to theSauvie Island WMA, on a pond that has been wellplanted to attract waterfowl, is much different fromthat on a farm adjacent to one of the WillametteValley refuges, where landowner investments in habi-tat improvements are correspondingly smaller andwaterfowl populations are lower. Almost half of thefarmers investigated in this study did not charge afee, and there is a perception on the part of somelandowners that the presence of hunters helps reducedamage to crops by geese. For those willing to payfor the right to hunt on private land, access is avail-able for a variety of prices. As in the marketing ofmost products and services, the price serves as a signalthat reflects relative value.

An important observation that is often forgot-ten in the fee-hunting debate in Oregon is the chal-lenge of convincing landowners to open their land tohunters and other wildlife-related recreation and find-ing ways to convince them to manage their land forwildlife habitat. The first step in achieving this goal isto identify deterrents to managing land for the benefitof wildlife and hunters. Of those individuals who didnot allow hunting and did not invest in habitat im-provements, many considered hunters to be "a nui-sance and a bother." Of all people interviewed, in-cluding those who did and those who did not investin habitat improvements, there was concern over thepossibility of being sued by hunters. This is an issuethat has been identified by many authors as a signifi-cant deterrent to habitat developments, and shouldbe treated in Oregon as a priority issue.

11

It should be stressed that there appeared to beseveral motives for developing waterfowl habitat andhunting areas. The financial incentive is the most ob-vious, but it is undoubtedly shaped by attitudes andpersonal enjoyment of waterfowl. A question must beasked, however: what would happen if there were nofinancial incentive? Would altruistic and nonfinancialmotives be sufficient to provide the amount of habitatthat currently exists? In a time when farmers mustseriously evaluate every possible use of their land foreconomic returns, such a prospect is unlikely.

Finally, there is one important observation worthexploring in further detail. In this study, the develop-ment of habitat and hunting opportunities by farmerswas financed primarily by the hunter. While govern-ment cost-share programs designed to help providewaterfowl habitat do exist, and awareness of theseprograms was relatively high among the landownerssurveyed, participation in them was low. The hunters,therefore, are paying the bill. This is an important

Literature CitedBENSON, E.D. 1987. Holistic ranch management and

the ecosystem approach to wildlife conservation.P. 67-69 in Proceedings of the Privatization ofWildlife and Public Lands Access Symposium.Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Casper,Wyoming.

BURGER, G.V., and J.G. TEER. 1981. Economic andsocioeconomic issues influencing wildlife manage-ment on private land. P. 252-278 in Wildlife Man-agement on Private Lands. R.T. Dumke, G.V.Burger, and J.R. March, eds. The Wildlife Society,Wisconsin Chapter, Madison, Wisconsin.

CARLSON, A. 1985. Wildlife and agriculture: can theycoexist? Journal of Soil and Water Conservation40(2):263-266.

CHAPMAN, J.A., J.H. CHARLES, and H.M. WIGHT.1969. The status, population dynamics, and har-vest of the Dusky Canada goose. Wildlife Mono-graphs No.18. 48 p.

COWARDIN, L.M., V. CARTER, and E.T. LaROE. 1979.Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitatsof the United States. U.S. Government PrintingOffice, Washington, D.C.

factor, and it points to a potential problem. Whatwould happen if it is necessary to further restrict hunt-ers of waterfowl? For example, what would happen ifpoor recruitment resulting from a severe drought forcesthe cessation of waterfowl hunting for a season? Willhunters continue to pay for the development of habi-tat for wintering ducks and geese? Will farmer's non-financial motives be sufficient to induce them to plantcrops for waterfowl to eat and to fill duck ponds withwater? These are difficult questions to answer.

Further research should investigate why fewfarmers participated in cost-share programs for devel-oping waterfowl habitat, and there should be a searchfor additional sources of capital for developing suchhabitat. In years when hunting is severely restricted,or in the event that the demand for waterfowl hunt-ing in western Oregon decreases, programs should bedeveloped to induce the private agricultural landownerto manage land resources for the benefit of water-fowl.

DOIG, E.H. 1986. The importance of private lands torecreation. P. 7-10 in Recreation on Private Lands- Issues and Opportunities. Presidential Task Forceon Recreation on Private Lands, Washington, D.C.

ERNST, J.P. 1987. Privatization of wildlife resources: aquestion of public access. Paper presented at theSouth Dakota Wildlife Federation 42nd AnnualMeeting, Pierre, South Dakota. 24 p.

FEE HUNTING TASK FORCE. 1988. Fee hunting taskforce report. Presented to the Fish and WildlifeCommission of the State of Oregon, Portland, Or-egon. Unpublished manuscript. 10 p.

FRETWELL, S.D. 1972. Populations in a seasonal envi-ronment. Princeton University Press, Princeton,New Jersey. Monographs in Population Biology S.217 p.

GEIST, V. 1987. Three threats to wildlife: game mar-kets, pay hunting and hunting for "fun." P. 46-58in Proceedings of the Privatization of Wildlife andPublic Lands Access Symposium. Wyoming Gameand Fish Department, Casper, Wyoming.

GEIST, V. 1988. How markets in wildlife meat andparts, and the sale of hunting privileges, jeopar-

12

dize wildlife conservation. Conservation Biology2(1):15-26.

GEIST, V. 1989. Legal trafficking and paid huntingthreaten conservation. Transactions of the NorthAmerican Wildlife and Natural Resources Confer-ence 54:171-178.

GRIFFITH, C. 1987. Turning wildlife private. OregonBowhunter July:4-5.

HEITMEYER, M.E., and L.H. FREDRICKSON. 1981. Dowetland conditions on the Mississippi Delta hard-woods influence mallard recruitment? Transactionsof the North American Wildlife and Natural Re-sources Conference 46:44-57.

HORVATH, W.J. 1976. Habitat programs and recre-ation opportunities on private agricultural land:opportunities and constraints. Transactions of theNorth American Wildlife and Natural ResourcesConference 41:504-509.

JAHN, L.R. 1986. Summary remarks. P. 63-65 in Recre-ation on Private Lands - Issues and Opportunities.Presidential Task Force on Recreation on PrivateLands, Washington, D.C.

JARVIS, R.L., and J.E. CORNELY. 1988. Recent changesin wintering populations of Canada geese in west-ern Oregon and southwest Washington. P. 517-528 in Waterfowl in Winter. M.W. Weller, ed. Uni-versity of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

LONG, W. 1987. Wildlife management programs onprivate land in California. P. 40-41 in DevelopingProfitable Resource-Based Recreation on PrivateLand. R. Rasker and T.E. Bedell, eds. Proceedingsof the 1987 Pacific Range Management ShortCourse. Oregon State University Cooperative Ex-tension Service, Corvallis, Oregon.

McCORKLE, O.C., Jr. 1981. Trends in American agri-culture relevant to wildlife management on pri-vate lands. P. 11-16 in Wildlife Management onPrivate Lands. R.T. Dumke, G.V. Burger, and J.R.March, eds. The Wildlife Society, Wisconsin Chap-ter, Madison, Wisconsin.

PEDERSON, R.L., R.H. CHABRECK, D.P. CONNELLY,L.H. FREDRICKSON, and H.R. MURKIN. 1988.Workshop summary: habitat management in win-ter. P. 459-466 in Waterfowl in Winter. M.W.Weller, ed. University of Minnesota Press, Minne-apolis, Minnesota.

PINEO, D. 1985. Wildlife and recreation managementon private lands: a guide for Washington. Wash-

ington Forest Protection Association, Olympia,Washington. 91 p.

PINEO, D. 1987. Characteristics and general require-ments for successful recreation enterprises. P. 8-12 in Developing Profitable Resource-Based Recre-ation on Private Land. R. Rasker and T.E. Bedell,eds. Proceedings of the 1987 Pacific Range Man-agement Short Course. Oregon State UniversityCooperative Extension Service, Corvallis, Oregon.

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON AMERICANS OUT-DOORS. 1987. Americans Outdoors: the Legacy,the Challenge. Island Press, Washington, D.C.426 p.

RASKER, R. 1989. Agriculture and wildlife: an economicanalysis of waterfowl habitat management on farmsin western Oregon. Unpublished dissertation. Col-lege of Forestry, Oregon State University, Corvallis,Oregon.

RASKER, R., and T.E. BEDELL, editors. 1987. Develop-ing Profitable Resource-Based Recreation on Pri-vate Land. Proceedings of the 1987 Pacific North-west Range Management Short Course. OregonState University Cooperative Extension Service,Corvallis, Oregon. 177 p.

SCHENCK, E.W., W. ARNOLD, E.K. BROWN, and D.J.WITTER. 1987. Commercial hunting and fishingin Missouri: management implications of fish andwildlife "markets." Transactions of the NorthAmerican Wildlife and Natural Resources Confer-ence 52:516-524.

SHELTON, R. 1981. Motivating the landowner/man-ager to manage for wildlife. P. 301-306 in WildlifeManagement on Private Lands. R.T. Dumke, G.V.Burger, and J.R. March, eds. The Wildlife Society,Wisconsin Chapter, Madison, Wisconsin.

STEWART, E.R., G.L. KRAPU, JR., B. CONANT, H.F.PERCIVAL, and D.L. HALL. 1988. Workshop sum-mary: habitat loss and its effect on waterfowl. P.613-617 in Waterfowl in Winter. M.W. Weller, ed.University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Min-nesota.

TINER, R.W. 1984. Wetlands of the United States: cur-rent status and recent trends. U.S. Fish and Wild-life Service, Washington, D.C. 59 p.

TOMLINSON, B.W. 1985. Economic values of wildlife:opportunities and pitfalls. Transactions of the NorthAmerican Wildlife and Natural Resources Confer-ence 50:262-270.

13

USDA FOREST SERVICE. 1980. An assessment of theforest and rangeland situation in the United States.FS-345. U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash-ington, D.C.

USDA SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE. 1984. Nationalsummary - 1982 NRI. SCS mimeographed sum-maries. Washington, D.C.

USDI FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 1977a. The 1975national survey of hunting, fishing and wildlife-associated recreation. U.S. Government PrintingOffice, Washington, D.C.

USDI FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 1977b. Conceptplan for waterfowl wintering habitat preservation,Central Valley, California. Fish and Wildlife ServiceRegion 1, Portland, Oregon.

USDI FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 1980. Objectivesfor managing the Willamette Valley national wild-life refuges. Willamette Valley and Oregon CoastalRefuge Complex, Corvallis, Oregon. 70 p.

USDI FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 1982. The 1980national survey of hunting, fishing and wildlife-associated recreation. U.S. Government PrintingOffice, Washington, D.C.

USDI FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 1987/1988. Aerialwaterfowl survey of the Willamette Valley and lowerColumbia. November and December, 1987, Janu-ary and February, 1988. Unpublished documents.

USDI FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 1988. The 1985national survey of hunting, fishing and wildlife-associated recreation. U.S. Government PrintingOffice, Washington, D.C. 167 p.

WEBSTER, B. 1980. Are there too many birders? Na-tional Wildlife 18(4):17-19.

WELLER, W.M., and B.D.J. BATT. 1988. Waterfowl inwinter: past, present and future. P. 3-8 in Water-fowl in Winter. M.W. Weller, ed. University ofMinnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

WILLIS, R.W., and J.D. MERTES. 1979. Preliminary as-sessment of the economic and management as-pects of fee-lease hunting arrangements in Texas.USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest andRange Experiment Station, Ft. Collins, Colorado.Report RM-1717-4. 26 p.

WYOMING GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT, BIOLOGI-CAL SERVICES. 1986. Commercialization/privatization of wildlife. Casper, Wyoming. Un-published manuscript.

14

RASKER, R., R.L. JOHNSON, and D. CLEAVES. 1991. THE MARKET FOR WA-TERFOWL HUNTING ON PRIVATE AGRICULTURAL LAND IN WESTERN OREGON.Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon State University, Corvallis. Research Bulletin 70,14 p.

Trends in fee hunting in Oregon are examined, with particular emphasis onwaterfowl in the western part of the state. Farmers with potential or existingwaterfowl habitat in western Oregon were surveyed about their views on managingtheir lands for waterfowl. As incentives to such practices, they listed the financialreturns from leasing access to hunting, aesthetic appreciation of waterfowl, andpersonal enjoyment from waterfowl hunting. As deterrents, they listed negativeattitudes toward hunters and concerns over lawsuits by hunters. They also identi-fied damage to crops by waterfowl as a source of friction between wildlife agenciesand landowners.

RASKER, R., R.L. JOHNSON, and D. CLEAVES. 1991. THE MARKET FOR WA-TERFOWL HUNTING ON PRIVATE AGRICULTURAL LAND IN WESTERN OREGON.Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon State University, Corvallis. Research Bulletin 70,14 p.

Trends in fee hunting in Oregon are examined, with particular emphasis onwaterfowl in the western part of the state. Farmers with potential or existingwaterfowl habitat in western Oregon were surveyed about their views on managingtheir lands for waterfowl. As incentives to such practices, they listed the financialreturns from leasing access to hunting, aesthetic appreciation of waterfowl, andpersonal enjoyment from waterfowl hunting. As deterrents, they listed negativeattitudes toward hunters and concerns over lawsuits by hunters. They also identi-fied damage to crops by waterfowl as a source of friction between wildlife agenciesand landowners.