Abstract

Many native trout reintroduction programmes and non-native trout suppression programmes are being sold to the public on the fact that through these programmes anglers can catch more and bigger fish. Most studies of recreational demand lump all species within a category of fish into a single species such as lumping rainbow, brook and bull trout into trout. This study disaggregates the effects of individual species on recreational demand. Our goal is to understand the role of species specific characteristics on recreational demand that may or may not be observable. We find that the interaction between angler characteristics and species plays a major role in how anglers choose locations.

Notes

2.

One problem with using this data set is that it was designed by ecologists to understand population dynamics at a large number of streams in Alberta. As such there was no record of how many people were approached or how many declined to participate, which does not allow us to calculate a participation rate. This is a convenience sample that we used to test whether or not species specific preferences exist.

3.

The rivers that were segmented into multiple fishing locations were the Bow River, Elbow River, Sheep River, Red Deer River, Highwood River, Oldman River, Clearwater River, North Saskatchewan River, Crowsnest River, and Athabasca River. All other locations were aggregated to a single access point. These larger streams make up approximately 25% of the locations that anglers visited and 33% of the fishing trips.

4.

This does introduce an endogeneity problem as discussed in Morey and Waldman (1998), Waldman (2000) and Train et al. (2000). But if there exist other unobserved site characteristics, the Morey and Waldman approach will result in biased coefficient estimates (Train et al., 2000). Our econometric approach tries to address these other unobserved site characteristics by using the original Murdoch approach. Murdoch also proposes an alternative to the strategy that we are using, where a set of instruments corresponding to population estimates, which we do not have for all sites. Hence, we should be cautious when interpreting any of the results, especially welfare results, relating to catch rate.

5.

We would like to thank an anonymous referee for pointing out this idea.

The text of this article is only available as a PDF.

References

Berry, S. T. (1994) Estimating discrete-choice models of product differentiation, The Rand Journal of Economics, 25(2), pp. 242–262.
Berry, S. T., Levinsohn, J., & Pakes, A. (1995) Automobile prices in market equilibrium, Econometrica, 63(4), pp. 841–890.
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority
(2002) Draft FY 2003–2005 Middle Snake River Province Work Plan.
Hauber, A. B., & Parsons, G. (2000) The effects of nesting structure on welfare estimation in random utility models of recreation demand: An application to the demand for recreational fishing, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 82(3), pp. 501–514.
Hubble, M. (2003) The ecological significance of body size in tropical wrasses (Pisces: Labridae), PhD Thesis, James Cook University.
Morey, E. R., & Waldman, D. (1998) Measurement error in recreational demand models: The joint estimation of participation, site choice and site characteristics, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 35(3), pp. 262–276.
Murdoch, J. (2006) Handling unobserved site characteristics in random utility models of recreation demand, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 51(1), pp. 1–15.
Mushens, C., & Post, J. (2000) Population dynamics of the Lower Kananakis Lake bull trout Progress Report, Alberta: Alberta Conservation Association and TransAlta Utilities
Parsons, G. R., & Needelman, M. (1992) Site aggregation in a random utility model of recreation, Land Economics, 68(4), pp. 418–433.
Paul, A. J. (2000) Recruitment dynamics in bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus): Linking theory and data to species management, PhD Thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.
Paul, A. J., Post, J., & Stelfox, J. (2003) Can anglers influence the abundance of native and non-native salmonids in a stream from the Canadian Rocky Mountains? North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 23, pp. 109–119.
Post, J. R., Mushens, V., Paul, A., & Sullivan, M. (2003) Assessment of alternative harvest regulation for sustaining recreational fisheries: Model development and application to bull trout, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 23, pp. 22–34.
Sullivan, M. (2001) How much angling can a bull trout population sustain? in: Bull Trout II Conference Proceedings, Calgary, Alberta, Trout Unlimited.
Timmons, C., & Murdoch, J. (2007) A revealed preference approach to the measurement of congestion in travel cost models, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 53(2), pp. 230–249.
Train, K. (1998) Demand models with taste differences over people, Land Economics, 74(2), pp. 230–239.
Train, K., McFadden, D., & Johnson, R. (2000) Discussion of Morey and Waldman's “Measurement error in recreational demand models”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 40(1), pp. 76–81.
Waldman, D. M. (2000) Estimation in discrete choice models with choice-based samples, The American Statistician, 54(4), pp. 303–306.