In the last 200 years the importance of wild animals to man has taken two distinct forms: the use of creatures that provide 'game" for sport hunting, and the existence of value for the scientific or aesthetic appreciation of wildlife. Further, the relative strength of these two uses has shifted over time. It appears that a recent, significant growth in the number of people who hold high value for nongame uses of wildlife has taken place. The traditional emphasis of state wildlife management agencies has been on the production of game species in response to the overwhelming financial support from sportsmen. It is often argued that game management contributes to the welfare of nongame species. The reverse is also true, and sportsmen's interests could be served by a wildlife program giving greater weight to nongame activities. Through a modest redefinition of objectives the Arizona Game and Fish Department could effect a political alignment of game (consumptive) and nongame (monconsumptive) wildlife interests. This study is based on a federally funded research project in which the nonconsumptive uses and values of wildlife are being assessed. In particular, the purpose of this study is two-phased: to estimate the economic benefits to nonconsumptive wildlife users from viewing, studying, and photographing wild animals, and to relate these benefits to the political process in which the Arizona Game and Fish Department obtains its funding and political support. A modification of the travel-cost technique was used in this study to estimate economic benefits obtained by nonconsumptive wildlife users. Importantly, an explicit measure of the monetary value of travel time is empirically derived, providing improved benefit estimates. Visitors to seven wildlife viewing locations in Southeast Arizona responded to a mailed questionnaire at a rate of 86 per cent to provide a voluntary sample of more than 600 wildlife enthusiasts. An array of social and economic data were gathered for individuals and households. Respondents can be generally characterized as highly educated, affluent, middle aged, metropolitan residents. Using multiple regression analysis, demand functions were estimated for each household visiting three representative sites. Consumers' surplus values were then estimated for each site, incorporating an explicit measure of the value of travel time. These values compare favorably to consumers' surplus values estimated for hunting and fishing activities in Arizona. The results of the economic analysis performed in this study are primarily methodological. They are suggestive, however, of considerable political influence regarding wildlife management in Arizona. Importantly, a method exists for measuring the economic value or social welfare of the nonconsumptive use of wildlife. Such measures, widely assessed, could permit the comparison of economic values between consumptive and nonconsumptive wildlife uses and the evaluation of the associated change in consumer welfare resulting from alternative management activities. Based on the estimates of the number of people for whom nonconsumptive wildlife appreciation is important, there is reason to expect that significant political involvement in wildlife management issues will occur. These findings portend a major opportunity for the Arizona Game and Fish Depar went in terms of operational budgets and continued wildlife management authority in the state. Several recommendations are made to the Arizona Game and Fish Department, including improvement in their public image and greater political involvement with nonconsumptive wildlife interest groups.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

This study examines urban wildlife conservation in Arizona as a function of public opinion and agency involvement. In the fall of 1985, a questionnaire was mailed to 1000 randomly chosen households. Respondents answered questions about urban wildlife-related activities, preferred species and locations for urban wildlife conservation, wildlife-related pest problems, a public agency's responsibility for urban wildlife, and potential agency-sponsored urban wildlife programs. Analysis of the survey data indicate that Tucsonans are aware of, have favorable opinions about, and actively encourage the presence of urban wildlife. An analysis of urban wildlife conservation as a public issue yields additional information pertinent to the design and implementation of a state agency urban wildlife conservation program. The combined results of these analyses suggest that state agency involvement in urban wildlife conservation is publicly acceptable; an urban constituency can potentially benefit an agency's support base; and urban wildlife conservation's unique characteristics warrant special attention during program and policy development.