This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
Analysis of a Publicly Operated
Pheasant Hunt in Southern California
Erick Burres\ David Fischer2 , and Daniel Wegner3
Abstract.-The purpose of this study was to provide information
about the wild pheasant hunts and hunters of southern California. Characteristics of southern California pheasant hunters,
public demands regarding opportunity, access and participation
regarding pheasant hunts, and hunt quality were studied. All
hunters participating in the 1994 and 1995 hunts held at San
Jacinto Wildlife Area (SJWA) were asked to participate in the
study. Survey forms were returned by 467 hunters (256 in 1994
and 211 in 1995). The 1994 hunt was sampled using a questionnaire developed by Pheasants Forever. In 1995 an expanded
version of the 1994 questionnaire was used. Every aspect of
demand (opportunity to participate, access, number of potential
and actual participation) increased. Both the 1994 and 1995 hunts
recorded high quality and willingness to return ratings, and the
1994 hunt was shown to have provided for a higher quality hunt.
The majority of the hunters surveyed were 24-45 years of age,
have hunted pheasants before, and have an annual income of
$25,000 to $59,000. Public managers are able to plan and use
resources best when they have information on the products being
offered, the potential or actual customers receiving that product,
and environmental elements. It is hoped that this study has
provided such information.
Resumen4.-El prop6sito de este estudio es el de proveer
informacion acerca la caza de faisanes salvajes en el sur del estado
de California (EEUU). En el estudio se revisan las caracteristicas
de los cazadores, la demanda de acuerdo al acceso, y la
participaci6n por parte de los cazadores, como asi tambien la
calidad de las piezas cobradas. El estudio comprende datos
collectados en el area de vida silvestre de San Jacinto (San Jacinto
Wildlife Area- SJWA) durante las temporadas de caza de 1994 y
1
Erick Burres has a B.S. in zoology from San Diego State University and a MPA in public
policy and administration from Long Beach State University. Currently he is a Wildlife Biologist
and the Assistant Regional Lands Coordinator for the California Department of Fish and Game,
Regions 5 and 6 (Southern California and Eastern Sierra counties)
2
California Department of Fish and Game
3
California State University Long Beach
4
Translation by Diego Busatto, Marine/Fishery Biologist-Department of Fish and Game,
Long Beach, California
244
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-5. 1998
1995. El estudio comprende el analisis de datos censuales de
cazadores. Un total de 467 cazadores fueron c ensados, 256 en
1994 y 211 en 1995. Para el censo de la temporada de 1994 se
utilizo un questionario elaborado por Pheasant Forever. En 1995
se utilizo una version mas extensa que la utilizada en 1994. El
estudio muestra que todos los aspectos de la demanda
(oportunidad de participacion, acceso, numero potencial y
numero real de participantes) aumento durante las temporadas
censadas. Las dos temporadas de caza analizadas muestran un
aumento record en la calidad de las presas y en el deseo de
participar nuevamente en cacerias por parte de los cazadores. La
temporada de caza de 1994 muestra la mayor calidad de piezas
cobradas. La edad de los cazadores muestreados esta
comprendida entre los 24 y 45 aii.os, todos los cazadores
entrevistados participaron de cacerias de faisanes anteriormente,
y poseen un ingreso de entre 25,000 a 59,000 dolares anuales. Los
administradores pueden planear el uso de los recursos cuando
poseen informacion sobre el mismo, sus posible usuarios y
usuarios actuales, y los elementos del medio ambiente. Este
estudio provee la informacion mencionada con la esperanza de
facilitar el manejo de los cotos de caza.
INTRODUCTION
Since 1972 there has been a dramatic decline in the numbers of Californians buying hunting licenses. In 1990 half as many hunting licenses were
purchased as there were in 1972 (DFG 1993) and from 1992/93 to 1993/94
hunting licence sales decreased by nearly 3,900. If this trend is to stop
several things should occur. The demands and opportunities for the increased use of hunting programs must be determined and the programs
should also be evaluated for the overall quality of the hunting experiences
they offer. Where ever possible public entities should promote management activities that will increase public hunting access and participation.
Continued analysis of these programs will offer information that can be
used to adaptively manage these programs so that over time they will
continue to meet their goals.
The model for this study was a public wild pheasant hunting program
located in southern California. Within California pheasant hunt programs
are a possible recreational activity that could be used to increase hunter
participation. Nationally 47o/o of small game hunters hunt pheasant and
38% of all time spent hunting small game is spent hunting pheasants
(USDI). This translates to 2.3 million pheasant hunters who spent 16
million days hunting. In California 446,000 hunters participated in that
activity during 1991 and 5,211,000 days were spent hunting (USDI).
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-5. 1998
245
Ninety-eight percent of California's hunters are residents, most hunters
use public land and generally take trips of less than 49 miles (USDI ).
Within southern California wild pheasant hunting opportunity is scarce
and publicly offered hunts are limited to two sites. As pheasant hunting is
important there should be significant management concerns on how this
recreational activity is managed. This descriptive study looked at southern
California wild pheasant hunts to determine current recreational demands, opportunity, participation and quality.
METHODS
Study Area
This study was conducted at San Jacinto Wildlife Area (SJWA). SJWA is
a 6,198 acre complex of upland and wetland habitats actively managed by
the State of California, Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) in Riverside
County.
Treatments
The study period covered the 1994 and 1995 hunting seasons. Each
season's hunting program was conducted under different management
prescriptions. During the 1994 pheasant hunting season, hunts were held
on each Monday of the pheasant season (November 12 through December
11) for a total of 4 hunt days. Entry into this hunt was through a random
drawing. Potential participants mailed in postcards, one postcard per
hunter with a maximum of two hunters per postcard. After a specified
entry deadline, 100 hunters were selected for each hunt-day. Selected
hunters were randomly assigned to a field which they could hunt until a
specified time, after which they were allowed access to the entire area
open for hunting.
In 1995 the hunts were held each Wednesday and Saturday during the
peasant season (November 11 through December 10) for a total of 9 hunt
days. Entry for this hunt was through the use of the CDFG reservation
card system for Type A wildlife areas. One reservation card with a validation stamp could be sent in by a potential participant for each hunt day.
Only those cards which were received at least 10 days prior to the selected
hunt day, and were filled out correctly, were allowed into the drawing.
From this pool25 reservation cards were randomly selected for a maximum total of 225 reservations to hunt pheasant at SJWA. Each reservation
card allowed up to 2 adult and 2 junior hunters. The waterfowl season
was concurrent with the entire pheasant season and both hunts were
conducted on the same days. Hunters were randomly assigned to fields
246
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-5. 1998
.,'_-·.
but due to the concurrent waterfowl hunt, pheasant hunters were prohibited from hunting until noon that portion of the wildlife area where waterfowl hunting occurred. From noon until the close of the hunt day the
hunters were free to hunt all open areas.
Instrument Development
A survey tool was developed by Pheasants Forever Chapter #466. This
questionnaire was used to collect data during the 1994 pheasant season
hunts at SJWA. In 1995 the questionnaire was expanded to address other
questions, using a Leichter scale when possible, to provide information on
hunter demographics, recreational demands, and possible satisfaction
factors or indicators (personal communication with Tom Paulek, Associate
Wildlife Biologist/ Manager SJWA, John Massie, Senior Biologist). Basic
questions asked in the 1994 form were kept as to allow for a comparison
between the two public hunt management prescriptions.
Sampling Protocol/Implementation
During a mandatory pre-hunt orientation all pheasant hunters were
informed of the survey and asked to voluntarily complete the questionnaire at the conclusion of their hunt. The questionnaire was distributed at
this time on the reverse side of the wildlife area map. It was mandatory
that all hunters check-out before leaving the wildlife area, it was at this
time surveys were collected.
RESULTS
Hunt accessibility from 1994 to 1995 increased due to elements that
changed in the management prescriptions. Firstly the number of hunt
days increased and a potential participant was able to apply for entry of
each of nine hunt days whereas previously the potential participant could
only apply once for a chance at one of four hunt days . In addition the
total number of possible participants also increased which allowed for
greater possible participation.
Accessibility of the public hunts went from a maximum of 400 potential
hunters in 1994 to possible participation of up to 900 hunters (225 reservations each allowing up to two adult and two junior hunters) in 1995. In
1994 72% of the applicants (288 hunters) selected participated and surveys
were returned by 256 hunters (89%). In 1995 159 reservation cards (71 %)
were submitted as entry passes for 312 participants and surveys were
returned by 211 of these hunters (67%). The pheasant population was
about the same for the two seasons (1995 Paulek) but there was no habitat
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-5. 1998
247
information The hunts will be discussed in terms of those hunters that
returned survey forms.
The 1995 pheasant season saw a 37% decrease in pheasants bagged than
from the prior as well as a decrease in the average number of pheasants
bagged. Actual annual bag averages have varied but suggest a moderate
upward trend.
The 1994 pheasant hunt averaged 72 hunters per day for its 4 hunt-day
season and 35 hunters per day for the 9 hunt-day season in 1995. The
surveys returned from the 1994 season hunters had a mean of 5.17 roosters
and 6.44 hens observed per hunter and in 1995 3.26 roosters and 5.07 hens
observed per hunter. The mean for shots taken per hunter of 4.55 and·2.63
respectively for the 1994 and 1995 seasons.
Hunters in 1994 reportedly bagged 253 pheasants (.99 birds/hunter)
and 137 pheasants (.65 birds/hunter) ere bagged in 1995. Hunters surveyed also reported loosing .34 pheasants per hunter in 1994 and .27
pheasants per hunter in 1995.
The public hunts overall were rated as "good" for 1994 and "fair" for
1995 respectively. There was a statistically significant difference of the
ratings distribution between both the public hunts (t=4.54, a=.05). Since
the 1995 hunt-days were held on Wednesdays and Saturdays a comparison of the quality ratings was made. No statistical difference between the
two was observed (t=.56, alpha=.05).
When asked whether or not the hunter would like to return for another
hunt 99o/o of those surveyed in 1994 and 96% in 1995 responded with a yes.
Additionally, in the 1995 surveys 63% of the public hunters said that they
would return if they had not taken a pheasant and 63% would return if
they had not seen any pheasant.
When asked whether or not the hunter would be willing to pay more
that the $12.00 fee, 46% said yes while 52% said no. From those that would
pay more 78% said how much. The average amount that this group would
pay was $20.55.
Hunters on Type A wildlife areas must have a permit for that days hunt.
One-day Hunting Area Permits are $12.00, Two-day Hunting Area Permits
are $17.60 ($8.80/ day) and junior hunters are free. Seventy-five percent of
the participants paid the 12.00 fee, 19% used the Two-day Hunting Area
Permit and 6% had free entry (junior hunters).
When asked to state the average amount spent per hunting trip (gas/
food/lodging/ fees) for wild pheasant hunts and licensed pheasant club
hunts, 81% of the surveys returned had a response to this question. The
hunter spent an average of $53.39 per wild pheasant hunt and $76.21 per
pheasant club hunt.
Seventy percent of the participants hunted pheasant within the last
three years but only 51% hunted them last year. Fifty-eight percent of
248
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-5. 1998
those that had not hunted pheasant within the last three years responded
that it was due to little or no opportunity. When the hunters were asked if
they were to not hunt at SJWA that day, 38% would not have hunted and
48% would have hunted elsewhere. But 87% of those that would have
hunted elsewhere would have done so on public land.
Distance from the hunters' residences to SJWA was calculated from data
obtained from the reservation cards returned at the check station. Ninetyone percent of the cards were returned by hunters living within 120 miles
of SJWA and 91% of these hunters lived within 60 miles.
Demographically the survey revealed that 61% of the hunters were.
between the ages of 24 and 45. Sixty-one percent reported an annual
income between $25,000-59,999 band only 5% had an annual income of
less than $25,000. The majority of respondents have hunted pheasants
before (77%). Sixty-four percent of all respondents have hunted on a
licensed pheasant club but only 7% of the respondents were members.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The pheasant hunting program at SJWA is fairly new. Over its 5 seasons
the program has expanded in the number of hunters able to apply, access
and participation in its hunts. The managerial perception has been that the
public pheasant hunts held at this site are well received by the hunting
public. The two public hunts both received high ratings in terms of quality
which support that perception.
Although defining satisfying factors was not the scope of this study, it
was successful in describing the hunters that participated and in determining the hunts' quality. The rates at which the public hunters would
like to return, even if they did not take a bird or if they did not see birds,
suggests that the hunts largely do provide a satisfying hunt for the hunters surveyed. There are several levels or types of hunters and many factors
related to what is a satisfying experience and/ or why a hunter may no
longer hunt. There are many studies that have been conducted on hunter
desertion, dissatisfaction, satisfaction (Duda 1993, Schole 1973, Siemer et
al1995) and while this survey did not attempt to specifically address the
issue of hunter desertion, the questions asked might be of importance to
that issue. If some reasons that hunters did not hunt were due to opportunity, lack of experience or low success it is possible that appropriate management steps could be taken which could eliminate these possible
dissatisfiers. For those hunting a public hunt whom had not hunted in the
past 3 years, their responses said that it was due either to "little or no
opportunity" or a" lack of experience." These elements could both be
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-5. 1998
249
easily dealt with in expanding opportunities for participation and by
offering hunting education opportunities.
Demand can be thought of in various ways. It can be defined by the
opportunity to participate, accessability of participating, or the actual
participation of a given activity (Clawson and Knetsch 1996, Miles and
Seabrooke, Searle 1972). SJWA draws from a very populous community
and the rural area surrounding it is also becoming more developed. A
national survey has shown that 64% of hunters travel less than 49 miles
(USDI 1991). This study has shown a similar tendency, 82o/o of all reservations were filled by participants that lived within a 60 mile radius.
As this hunting program has developed, more hunters have attempted
to obtain access to its hunts but both hunts experienced around 20% of the
available entry slots not being filled. This might show that the demand for
this type of activity is not as high as management expected. Yet for half of
those surveyed, if they had not participated at that particular hunt, would
not have hunted at all which does identify this program's importance.
The 1995 season at SJWA produced more hunters but fewer pheasants
were observed (flushed) or bagged, and both hunts had similar rates of
hunter I dog use. Although this season received an overall"fair" quality
rating it was still significantly lower in quality than the 1994 hunt which
had more hunters. The pheasant population sex ratio (roosters:hens) prior
to the hunting season should approximate a ratio of 1:1 and at the end of
the season it should be significantly less than 1:1 if properly exploited
(Hart 1993, personal communication with Massie). The ratio of hunter
observed roosters:hens at the conclusion of the 1995 season suggests that
more pressure, both an increase in hunters and pheasants taken, could
have been placed on the pheasant population. A detriment to 1995 hunters
was the overlapping of waterfowl and pheasant season. This excluded
prime pheasant hunting areas until afternoon when waterfowl hunting for
the day had ended.
Hunter opportunity, access, participation and use of the resources at
SJWA could be improved in several ways. Increasing hunter participation
could be gained through an increase in the number of reservations drawn,
allowing vacant reservations to be filled with other hunters (i.e. "sweatline"), or exiting hunters may be replaced with new hunters (i.e. "refillline"). The 1994 season, if used as an example, indicates that more hunters
can safely hunt at SJWA, have quality hunts and potentially harvest more
pheasant.
The CDFG relies on the sale of sport license sales and its share of federal
excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment for up to 64% of its operating budget. The revenue structure acts to both support the CDFG and
programs must be constructed that will generate revenue but not at the
detriment of financially excluding citizens from participating in those
250
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-5. 1998
activities (Anderson and Reiling 1985) When asked if they would be
willing to pay more than the $12.00 permit fee to hunt, 52 % answered no.
Those that said yes and indicated how much more, averaged around
$20.00 per hunt. If a raise in the cost of permits were to occur it is doubtful
that there would be a decline in participation. Statewide the average
amount spent per hunt is $102.00 spent per trip (USDI) which is more than
the amount reported by those surveyed (mean of $53.39).
It must also be brought to mind that SJWA is a multiple use wildland
and that the management decisions that have positive effects on one
program may have an additional impact elsewhere which could be negative (Johnson and Johnson 1990). This may have been the case in 1995.with
the waterfowl and pheasant hunts. An important part of managing public
wildlands involves accessing the various demands that are placed on an
area. As more non-consumptive demands rise that benefit wildlife
through wildlife management policy it is possible that the overflow effect
could be beneficial to hunting opportunity (Arther and Wilson 1979).
Public hunting opportunity is important and it is hoped that as various
wildland/wildlife programs are developed in southern California, public
pheasant hunting will programs continue to prosper. The goal of this
study was not to design a pheasant hunt but to provide information that
should be helpful to manage public pheasant hunts in southern California
and accomplish related Departmental goals such as creating more hunting
opportunities and improved license sales.
LITERATURE CITED
Anderson, M. W. and S.D. Reiling. 1985. Consumer demand theory and
wildlife agency revenue structure. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13:375-384.
Arthur, L.M. and W.R. Wilson. 1979. Assessing the demand for wildlife
resources: a first step. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 7(1): 30-34.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1990. Draft Environmental Document: Resident Game Bird Hunting. State Printing Office,
Sacramento, CA.
_ _ _ _ 1993. A plan to improve hunting license sales. Unpublished.
California Department of Fish and Game.
Clawson, M. and J.L. Knetsch. 1966. Economics of Outdoor Recreation.
The John Hopkins Press, Baltimore.
Duda, M.D. 1993. Factors Related to Hunting and Fishing Participation in
the United States, Phase 1: Literature Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service-Responsive Management, Harrisonburg, VA.
Hart, C. 1956. Controlled pheasant hunting areas in California. Western
Assn. of Game and Fish Comm. Con£. 37:256-264.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-5. 1998
251
_ _ _ _ 1990. Management Plan for the Ring-necked Pheasants in
California. California Department of Fish and Game. State Printing
Office, Sacramento, CA.
Johnson, R.L. and G.V. Johnson. 1990. Economic Valuation of Natural
Resources: Issues, Theory, and Applications. Westview Press, Boulder,
co.
Miles, C.W.N. and W. Seabrooke. Recreational Land Management. Department of Land Management and Development, University of Reading,
London.
Schole, B.J. 1973. Hunter Behavior, Attitudes and Philosophies. M.S. Thesis, Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, Colorado.
Searle, G.A.C. 1972. Recreational Economics and Analysis. Longman
Group Limited, Burnt Mill, England.
Siemer, W.F., T. Brown, R.M. Sanford and L.G. Clark. 1995. Satisfactions,
Dissatisfactions, and Management Preferences of New York State Turkey Hunters. HDRU Series Publication 95-4.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1993. 1991 National Survey of
Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. U.S. Government
Printing Office. Washington, DC.
252
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-5. 1998