JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
The Comparative Economic Value of Bear Viewing and Bear Hunting
in the Great Bear Rainforest
Authors: Martha Honey, Jim Johnson, Claire Menke, Austin Cruz, Judy Karwacki, and
William H. Durham
This study is the first to compare the economic value of bear viewing and trophy
hunting of both grizzly (Ursus arctos) and black bears (U. americanus) in the Great Bear
Rainforest in British Columbia (BC), Canada. We assess trends in these two sectors of
wildlife recreation over several decades and analyze their economic impacts based on
2012 data. We examine both non-resident bear hunting with guide outfitters and
independent local (resident) hunters, as well as bear viewing offered by tourism
companies in the Great Bear Rainforest (GBR). The study was conducted in the midst of
public controversy as the BC government continues to authorize bear hunting despite the
Coastal First Nations’ call for a moratorium. We provide strong evidence that bear
viewing in the Great Bear Rainforest generates more economic value, both in terms of
total visitor expenditures and GDP, and offers greater employment and government
revenue than does bear hunting. As we show, bear viewing companies generated over 12
times more in visitor spending than guided non-resident and independent resident hunters
combined ($15.1 million versus $1.2 million) and 11 times more in government revenues
($7.3 million versus $660,5001). Such findings should be useful to policy makers in
determining allocations of public resources and priorities for conservation efforts. In our
assessment, if bear viewing continues to expand at its current rate, the economy of the
Great Bear Rainforest will not experience any negative impacts from a ban on bear
hunting.
Keywords: Great Bear Rainforest; Canada; sustainable tourism; bear
hunting; bear viewing; economic valuation
[Word Count: 9323]
Introduction
This study, undertaken by the Center for Responsible Travel (CREST) in
collaboration with two BC-based firms, Pacific Analytics and Small World Consulting,
assesses the relative economic value of the bear hunting and bear viewing industries in
the Great Bear Rainforest (GBR) of British Columbia, the world’s largest intact
temperate rainforest. The GBR is home to grizzly and black bears, and is the only place
on earth where the iconic all-white form of black bear – the Kermode, or Spirit Bear – is
11
All financial figures with $ are given in Canadian dollars (CAD) unless marked with US $.
1
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
found. In 2012, the Coastal First Nations, an alliance of the Native American tribes that
act as stewards of the GBR, announced that they were declaring an end to bear hunting in
the region. Among the reasons given, Coastal First Nations pointed out that grizzly bear
trophy hunting threatens the growing ecotourism economy centered on bear viewing. It
also threatens the persistence of culturally-important Spirit Bears, the black bears that
carry the Kermode gene. Since one cannot tell by sight which black bears carry the gene,
a ban on hunting best preserves the Kermode gene and Spirit Bears for future
generations.
Despite efforts of the First Nations, the BC government has continued to
authorize hunting of black and grizzly bears in the GBR, contending that the provincial
government has the sole authority to regulate hunting. Local regulations apply to both
local citizens of BC province who hunt (hereafter termed resident hunters) and hunters
who visit as tourists to the region (hereafter called non-resident hunters). BC residents
can hunt independently, after obtaining licenses and permits, but those from outside the
province must be accompanied by a registered guide outfitter. Different taxation, legal
structures, and hunting territories also apply to each of these two hunter populations.
BC’s Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (MFLNRO)
argues that the hunting industry is important because it contributes $350 million to the
entire province annually (CBC News, 2012; Shore, 2012). This figure is also cited by the
hunting outfitter representation body, the Guide Outfitters Association of British
Columbia (GOABC), which has claimed in recent years that between $116 to over $120
million is begin generated by guided tours of non-resident hunters (Vancouver Sun,
2012). As described below, these figures were again reported in a September 2013 report
on the economic value of resident hunting in BC (Responsive Management, 2013).
Literature Review
Our assessment of the economic value of bear hunting and viewing activities
contributes to the larger issue of consumptive versus non-consumptive use of wildlife in
recreational activities. We conducted a literature review of academic journals,
government reports, and documents and analysis by academics, international agencies,
and environmental organizations that evaluated the economic contributions of specific
wildlife species as well as the overall value of wildlife hunting and viewing. We
identified the appropriate literature using the Google Scholar Search engine as well as a
list of leading English language academic journals on tourism and wildlife. We based our
searched on a series of strategic keywords including ‘economic value of wildlife hunting
and viewing’, ‘wildlife viewing’, ‘wildlife hunting’, ‘non-consumptive and consumptive
wildlife tourism’, ‘viewing and hunting tourism’, ‘wildlife recreation’, ‘wildlife
ecotourism’, and ‘trophy hunt’. We also used these key words to search specific species
where there have been efforts to ban hunting, including whales, sharks, elephants, lions,
and bears. Here we briefly summarize key findings from this literature review.
2
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
In terms of the overall value of wildlife hunting and viewing, a 2011 U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service survey found that 13.7 million people went hunting and spent $34.0
billion on trips, equipment, licenses, and other items. That same year, nearly 71.8 million
people – over five times more -- observed wildlife, spent US $55.0 billion – or 60% more
-- on these activities. Bears were not listed among the wildlife hunted, but they were
among the large wildlife mammals observed (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2012).
Wildlife viewing has been increasing in the U.S.: in 2001, 66 million adults spent
US$38.4 million feeding, observing, and photographing wildlife (Higginbottom, 2004),
and this marked an increase over findings from five years earlier (Caudill and Laughland,
1998). No comparable statistics for hunting were provided in these articles.
Much of the research on hunting and viewing activities has focused on specific
specifies of wildlife. Among the numerous studies of recreational whale-watching tours
and commercial whaling (hunting), a 2008 analysis estimated that 13 million people in
119 countries participated in whale watching, generating a total expenditure of US$ 2.1
billion in direct and indirect expenditures. This reflects the rapid growth in whale
watching in recent years: from 4 million and 31 countries in 1991 to 9 million in 87
countries in 1998, with a growth of over 12% per year in through the 1990s (Curtin,
2003; O’Connor, Campbell, Cortez, & Knowles, 2009). Similarly, direct and indirect
expenditures from whale-watching excursions grew from US $14 million in 1981 to over
US $1 billion in 1998, with an “extremely high” rate of return for communitybased/owned whale-watching businesses of 25% (Hoyt, 2001).
The whale watching industry slowly gained prominence and profitability after the
International Whaling Commission ban on commercial hunting in 1986 (Cunningham,
Huijbens & Wearing, 2012). In comparing whale viewing and hunting, a global
evaluation in 1988 (just after the ban) found that whaling brought an estimated US$154
million in revenue while whale watching brought only US$56 million in total
expenditures. A decade later, 1998, as stated above, whale viewing had grown to over US
$1 billion; no comparable global estimates for whaling were available (Krauss 1989; Holt
and Hvenegaard, 2002).
However research in several locations – Tonga, Norway, Azores, Iceland, and
Japan – of both whaling and whale watching offers evidence that whale watching, an
expanding industry, is generating more revenue than whaling, a declining industry. For
instance, a 1993 assessment of some 16 resident whales in Ogota, Japan determined that
if whaled, the meat would bring US $4.3 million in revenue, more than whale-watching
was generating per year. However, considered over 15 years, with tourist numbers
remaining constant, whale watching would bring US $41.4 million, or nearly ten times
more than a one-time harvest of meat from these same whales (Hoyt, 1993; Holt and
Hvenegaard, 2002).
Similarly, research on other species show that viewing over the life of an animal
generates far more revenue than hunting. In Africa, for instance, an adult lion in Kenya’s
3
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
Amboseli National Park was estimated to earn US $515,000 from wildlife viewers per
year, while sport hunting generated only US$8,500 per kill (Thresher, 1981). Similarly,
an elephant herd was estimated to be generating $610,000 per year from wildlife viewers,
while hunting was generating less than 10% of this amount (Holt and Hvenegaard, 2002).
Elsewhere in Africa, a large percentage of the US$6 billion that South Africa earned from
tourism in 1995came from wildlife viewing, while only slightly over US$2 million came
from trophy hunting fees for rhinos and other wildlife (Holt and Hvenegaard, 2002).
Similarly, Botswana earns some $100 million per year from nature tourism, but only a
tiny fraction comes from trophy hunting (Nilsson, 2005).
The growing body of studies and reports on shark viewing and hunting also
demonstrate similar findings. For instance, shark diving in Palau is generating US $18
million per year while, if harvested, the economic value of the approximately 100 sharks
viewed by tourists would be at most US $10,000, a fraction of their worth as a nonconsumptive resource (Vianna, et al, 2012). Similarly, in the Maldives, a single grey reef
shark, which can live at least 18 years, was estimated to be worth over $35,000 per year
at the most popular dive sites, while local fishers received only US $32 if the same shark
were caught (Topelko & Deardon, 2005). Shark-observing was estimated to be
generating US $2.3 million annually for the local economy, leading the Maldives
government to declare a ban on shark fishing in 2010 (Gallagher & Hammerschlag,
2011).
Our literature review also sought to assess the economic value of bear hunting and
viewing in North America, outside BC. Two studies on polar bear hunting by the Inuit in
the Canadian Arctic are particularly pertinent to the current debates regarding trophy
hunting in the GBR. Both examine the economic, cultural, and ecological dimensions of
the growth of sport hunting compared to the Inuit’s traditional subsistence hunt of polar
bear. In one, Dowsley determines that each polar bear sport hunt bear by an Inuit
community brings about 20 times more monetary value than a subsistence hunt. She
finds that commercial polar bear hunting is concurrently helping to revive cultural
traditions such as dog meshing while also positively influencing Inuit views towards
western-style wildlife management and the market economy (Dowsley, 2009). In another
analysis, Freeman and Weinzel also find that community-based polar bear trophy hunts
involving non-local trophy hunters are generating much greater economic returns for the
Inuit than subsistence hunting. Further, the authors contend that commercial hunting is
not threatening cultural values which emphasize conservation of local wildlife resources
(Freeman & Weinzel, 2006). While both demonstrate the economic value of trophy
hunting for Inuit communities, they not include the central issue for First Nations in the
GBR: the economic value of bear watching ecotourism versus trophy hunting.
Instructive to this debate is a 1998 paper (Miller et al., 1998) that investigates the
attitudes of Alaska residents regarding the economic benefits of hunting and viewing of
brown and black bears. Their research indicates that resident bear viewing had a greater
4
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
economic impact (US $29.1 million per year) than the combined value of bear hunting
trips taken by nonresidents (US $17 million) and residents (US $4.1 million), which total
US $21.1 million annually. This study and the preponderance of others examined here
demonstrate that where wildlife viewing ecotourism is an option, it brings more
economic value than sport hunting over the life span of an animal, and sometimes even
on an annual basis.

The Economics of Bear Hunting and Viewing in British Columbia
As part of the literature review, we examined over two-dozen reports that
included information on the economics of hunting and wildlife viewing conducted in BC
province from 1981 to the present, in part to determine the origin of the widely cited
$350 million figure. In September 2013, as we were in the midst of our research,
MFLNRO released new analysis it had commissioned to assess expenditures of resident
hunting. The report, Expenditures of British Columbia Resident Hunters, which was
carried out by a U.S. consulting firm Responsible Management, estimated that over
79,000 adult hunters were active in the 2012-13 hunting year and that on average they
spent $2,900 each for total annual expenditure of approximately $230 million. This
finding, together with GOABC’s estimates that guide outfitters is generating from $116
million to over $120 million a year from non-resident hunters, (GOABC, 2010; GOABC,
2013) neatly totals about $350 million. However, as is discussed in more detail below,
CREST found a number of problems with this MFLNRO/Responsible Management
report and concludes that its expenditure estimates appear inflated.
Several earlier reports, including some financed by hunting associations, found
lower figures for the economic value of hunting in BC. For instance, in 2003 the GOABC
commissioned Pacific Analytics to do an in-depth analysis of the province’s guide
outfitting industry. That report found that the direct value-added (GDP) impacts of nonresident hunting in BC were $40 million in 2002 (Pacific Analytics, 2003). Other
research, undertaken by the BC Government’s official statistical agency, BC STATS,
found that, based on 2003 data, the direct GDP value of the resident hunting sector was
$29 million and the non-resident hunting sector was $19 million, for a total of $48
million (BC Stats, 2005). Taken together, these studies show a maximum total direct
GDP value of $69 million for resident and non-resident hunting in BC a decade ago – far
below the oft-quoted figure of $350 million. Given the fact that both resident and nonresident hunting have contracted somewhat since the early 2000s, even after accounting
for inflation, it is unlikely that the true value (in GDP terms) of the whole hunting sector
to the BC economy was much above a $80-$90 million figure in 2012.
Based on our review past research, the economic value of bear viewing seems
equally imprecise and even less carefully tracked than bear hunting. For instance, while
the BC STATS analysis mentioned above calculated the economic value of resident and
non-resident hunting, it did not assess the value of wildlife viewing because “no data on
the value of this component…[are] available.” (BC STATS, 2005, p. 1) Several other
5
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
reports sought to examine the value of wildlife viewing in BC, but they did so without
breaking out either bear viewing as a separate activity or the GBR as a distinct
geographical area; as with hunting, the estimated economic values varied widely. A 1995
report estimated that the direct use value of wildlife viewing in BC was $505 million
(Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, 1995), while another report based on 2001
data found that BC’s nature-based tourism contributed $1.55 billion in revenue (Tourism
British Columbia Research Services, 2005). A third report, also based on 2001 data,
estimated that “the total GDP impacts of commercial nature-based tourism” was $783
million, while direct impact was $429 million (Tourism British Columbia Research
Services, 2004, p. i).
Only a few of these reports have sought to directly compare the economic value
of bear hunting and viewing in BC. For instance, the 1995 report by the Ministry of
Environment, Lands and Parks (mentioned above) compared grizzly bear hunting (both
resident and non-resident) and viewing in BC. It found that resident and non-resident
hunters spent a total of $2.83 million on grizzly bear hunting. It further estimated the total
direct expenditures by resident and non-resident hunters for all types of hunting in BC at
$144 million. In terms of viewing, it found that 25% of people in BC took trips that
included bear viewing, but the report did not calculate the economic value of bear
viewing. It did, as stated above, estimate that the total direct use value of all wildlife
viewing outings in BC was over $505 million per year, or 3.5 times more than for hunting
(Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, 1995). In 2003, Raincoast Conservation
Foundation, an environmental organization, commissioned another report that compared
the economic value of grizzly bear hunting and viewing in BC. It estimated that for
“ecotourism operations involving grizzly viewing, total revenues directly attributable to
the presence of grizzlies are approximately $6.1 million annually,” while the revenue
generated by “grizzly hunting activities” conducted by guide outfitters was $3.3 million
(Parker & Gorter, 2003, p. 3). Over the next decade, there were no other assessments that
compared the economic value of bear hunting and bear viewing in all or part of British
Columbia.
As we were beginning our own research, we received an unpublished paper,
“Coastal Grizzlies: An Economic Overview of Grizzly Bear Viewing Versus Hunting on
the Central Coast of British Columbia,” by Rosie Child of the Hakai-Raincoast Applied
Conservation Science Lab at the University of Victoria. (Child, April 2013). This
research calculated, based on surveys and economic analysis of 23 bear viewing
companies and six guide operators that grizzly bear viewing revenues in BC’s central and
north coast (essentially equivalent to the Great Bear Rainforest) were over $16.6 million
in 2012, while revenues from grizzly bear hunting with guide outfitters were just
$120,500. Child’s paper proved to be most relevant and recent analysis, although our
research goes a few steps further because we look at both grizzly and black bears and at
6
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
independent, unguided resident hunters as well as non-resident hunters accompanied by
guide outfitters.
Methods
The research was carried out between April and December 2013 by CREST
researchers in Washington, D.C. and Stanford University and a BC-based ecotourism
expert and a statistician who has done similar economic analysis of wildlife tourism for
government agencies, hunting and wildlife associations, and other clients. All interviews
and surveys were conducted in accordance with the protocols of Stanford University’s
Institutional Review Board (IRB). Financial and economic value and impacts were
calculated using Canada’s National Accounting (Input-Output) methods. Statistics
Canada, Canada’s national statistical agency, uses this to determine the GDP and other
estimates for other sectors such as forestry and mining. The estimates presented here are
thus directly comparable to other Statistics Canada (and Statistics BC) measures.
(Johnson, 2013)
An early challenge was defining the geographical dimensions of the study area.
Our objective was to study the exact area where the Coastal First Nations proposed the
hunting ban. The Great Bear Rainforest gained its name in the 1990s when environmental
groups joined with coastal First Nations people to campaign for its conservation and
protection. Today the name is used as well by wildlife viewing tourism companies and
academics, however the BC government and hunters usually refer to the region as the
Central and North Coast. Since the BC government does not recognize the geographical
boundaries of the GBR, we asked the Coastal First Nations’ Bear Working Group to
provide us with a map of the territory that they include within their ban. This map (Map
1) shows the study area used for our analysis.
7
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
Map 1: Great Bear Rainforest Study Area
Map 1. Great bear rainforest study area (dark line), superimposed over hunting management units (regions
in different colors). Note: Map created by Vern Brown, Central Coast Bear Working Group, Klemtu,
British Columbia.
In designing our methodology, we began with Internet research of commercial
websites to identify bear viewing and trophy hunting companies operating in the GBR.
Despite a proliferation of new forms of social media, websites remains a primary
advertising and booking tool for the tourism industry (Gallagher and Hammerschlag,
2011), although they frequently do not indicate if a company has stopped operating. We
identified 73 companies (including lodges, tour operators, and tourism boats) as well as
8
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
seven guide outfitters who seemed to be operating in the GBR. Using their websites, we
compiled as much data as possible about each company’s viewing or hunting operations,
company size, price structure, activities offered, and so forth. Based on this, and
information gathered through our literature review, we drafted surveys for both viewing
and hunting companies.
In July 2013, two members of the CREST team conducted two weeks of field
research in Vancouver, Comox, Nanaimo, Victoria, Surrey, and Bella Coola. Using a
snowball or chain-referral sampling, we conducted several dozen unstructured interviews
with key experts and officials with government, tourism hunting associations, First
Nations, nonprofit organizations, academia, and wildlife viewing and outfitter companies.
Those interviewed were identified by our two BC experts, through our literature review,
and during the site visit. They provided useful contextual information on the operations
and growth of bear hunting and viewing, government policies and operations, and the
economic value of hunting and viewing industries in the GBR. We also obtained a range
of documents, checked the accuracy of our database of bear viewing companies and
guide outfitters, and tested our draft surveys on some eight outfitter and bear viewing
companies.
o Bear Viewing
A centerpiece of the research was the survey we administered to tourism businesses
offering bear viewing within the GBR study area. Through our field trip, we narrowed
our initial list of 73 companies down to a subset of 53 companies (Appendix 1) which
met the criteria that (1) they operated in our study area in 2012 and 2) they confirmed
active involvement in bear viewing. Beginning in August 2013, we sent these
companies, via email, our Survey of Bear Viewing Companies in Great Bear Rainforest
(Appendix 3) and cover letter explaining our research project; we then followed up with
telephone calls. Of these 53 qualified companies, six failed to respond (11%) and 17
others (32%) did not complete the survey due to lack of time. Thus our final sample
consists of 30 companies, representing a 57% completion rate. Of these 30 firms, 15 or
50% provided full financial information used to assess economic value (see below).
In addition to the analysis of bear viewing companies, we also sought to assess
the overall economic impact of the visitors who take part in bear viewing in the GBR.
We requested the 30 bear viewing companies that completed the survey to send our
Visitor/ Client Survey: Bear Viewing (Appendix 4) to 10-20 randomly selected tourists
they had hosted during 2012. A half dozen of these companies agreed to do so. The
objective of this short survey was to discover how much the visitors spent in BC before
and after the bear viewing part of their vacation in the GBR. During a ten-day period in
September 2013, 95 visitors responded to the survey. Of these, 71 individuals (75% of
respondents) successfully completed the survey.
Our study was not able to assess the value of independent travelers in the GBR
who come to view bears. Anecdotal evidence from interviews with park officials and
9
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
tour operators indicates that growing numbers of Canadians and US visitors are
driving to and camping in parks such as Tweedsmuir in Bella Coola, where they do
bear viewing, along with fishing and other activities. These independent visitors are
virtually unrecorded and therefore their economic impacts are largely
undetermined.
o Bear Hunting: Non Resident Outfitters
As with our analysis of bear viewing, we initially planned to conduct an economic
analysis of bear hunting based on surveys of guide outfitters as well as surveys with both
non-resident and resident hunters. We emailed the seven companies identified through
web research our Survey of Hunting Outfitters in Central and North Coast, BC (Appendix
5), plus a cover letter, to parallel the survey we sent to bear viewing companies. Despite
numerous follow up phone calls, only two outfitters completed the surveys (a 28.6%
completion rate). While these results yielded some valuable information, we found that
guide outfitters were generally less willing to participate; several expressed hesitation on
the grounds, they said, that research by non-governmental organizations was typically
biased against hunting.
In particular, they resisted providing financial data. As a result, our collection of
accurate financial data from guide outfitters was not as successful as from bear-viewing
companies; additional financial data were obtained using Pacific Analytics’ 2008 data of
guide outfitters on Vancouver Island which were adapted for the purposes of this research
(Pacific Analytics, 2010).
Given our difficulties in collecting data directly from guide outfitters and also
our need for data on resident hunters, CREST entered into a Research Agreement
with MFLNRO’s Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Management Branch in Victoria to obtain
specific information related to both guide outfitters and non-resident bear hunters,
plus resident bear hunters operating in the GBR study area. From MFLNRO, we
solicited information on government regulations, policies, operations, and bear
hunting data from the last fifteen years. Over the course of several months, a small
technical team provided spreadsheets, maps, memos, documents, and other data
and answered numerous questions about the government’s complex systems for
bear-management. The data provided us by this technical team are the best-estimated
values based on the geographic boundaries presented in Map 1 (above). Because, as
explained, the GBR is not a government-recognized boundary, hunting zones and
operation areas of local companies did not directly coincide with the boundary provided
by Coastal First Nations. The companies interviewed in this study all had offices in, and
largely operated within, these boundaries; calculations were completed to the best of our
abilities given the information provided. The BC government’s management and
monitoring systems overseeing bear hunting are widely viewed as cumbersome,
costly, and at times contradictory. The current system includes a mixture of
10
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
different categories designated for hunting – Limited Entry Hunting (LEH) areas,
guide areas, guide territories, Wildlife Management Units (MUs), Grizzly Bear
Population Units. etc. – that frequently overlap and make it difficult to determine
where bear kills actually occur.
BC province is divided into 225 Wildlife Management Units (MUs) in BC “for
the purpose of efficient game management.” (Fish and Wildlife Branch, 2010, p. 1). Of
these, we identified 11 MUs whose area lies at least halfway within the GBR boundaries.
Map 2 shows both the boundaries and numbers of these 11 MUs as well as the names and
certificate numbers of the licensed guides who hold the hunting title within each.
11
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
Map 2: Guide Areas and MUs: Non-Resident Hunters
Guide Outfitter Territories and Wildlife
Management Units (MUs), 2012
6-16
6-15
6-14
MILLIGAN – 601036
6-10
6-13
LEWIS
601071
6-11
BLACKWELL
600668
6-3
5-10
6-12
5-9
5-11
ASHTON
100678
MCDONOUGH
500943
5-6
5-8
5-7
KLAUI
100623
ERICKSON
500904
1-14
2-15
1-15
VENUS
100675
Source: This and other maps were prepared by MFLNRO’s Fish, Wildlife, and Habitat
Management Branch technical team, based on CREST’s map of the Great Bear
Rainforest study area, September – October 2013. Colors are used to highlight
the different MU units.
This map includes the names of the seven guide outfitters we identified in our
initial Internet search, all of whom hold guiding licenses for blocks located within
specific MUs that are indicated with numbers and colors. However, through data supplied
by the MFLNRO’s technical team and interviews with GOABC and several guide
outfitters, we determined that only four of these outfitters actually conducted bear
12
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
hunting trips with non-resident hunters in 2012 (Appendix 2). In several hunting blocs,
guide outfitters were paid by an environmental organization or a bear viewing company
not to conduct hunts (although resident hunting has continued in these areas) and in
another case, the outfitters’ authorized hunting bloc fell outside the GRF study area.
During 2012, the four outfitters operating inside the GBR study area guided 14
non-resident hunters who killed 6 grizzly bears and 60 non-resident hunters who killed an
estimated 67 black bears. As explained further below, the BC government’s Compulsory
Inspection (CI) system for grizzly bears records the exact location of kills; however,
hunters are not required to report kills of the more ubiquitous black-bear. For outfitters’
hunting bloc that extend outside the GBR, it is impossible to know if a black bear was
killed inside or outside the study area (Artelle et. al., 2013). The MFLNRO technical
team admitted that their statistic of 67 black bears killed by non-resident hunters in 2012
in our study area was, in essence, their best estimate based on where guide outfitters were
licensed to operate.

Bear Hunting: Resident Hunters
Our research team faced challenges as well in obtaining information about
resident bear hunters and was heavily dependent on data proved by the MFLNRO
technical team. Based privacy concerns, MFLNRO would not provide us with the names
and home addresses of resident (or non-resident) hunters who hunted grizzly and black
bears in our study area in 2012, so we were unable to directly survey any of them. In
contrast, MFLNRO did provide hunter contact information to Responsive Management
because its 2013 expenditures analysis of BC resident hunters was commissioned by
MFLNRO.
As with non-resident hunters, calculating the number of resident bear hunters and
kills within the GBR study area proved to be difficult because the MFLNRO’s
Compulsory Inspection system only records the exact location of grizzly bears killed by
resident hunters, but not of black bears killed. The BC government’s annual ‘Hunter
Sample’ survey of resident hunters is voluntary and also does not record the exact
location of kills. Further,
Another complicating factor is that resident hunters are subject to a separate set of
provincial regulations than non-resident hunters. BC residents can hunt and kill up to two
black bears with a species license during General Open Season hunts. To hunt grizzly
bears (and other designated species), residents apply annually through the Limited Entry
Hunting (LEH) lottery system to hunt in a specific area or LEH zone (Map 3). These
zones are based on MUs, but their geographical dimensions (and numbering system) may
be different and have varied slightly over time.
13
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
Map 3: Limited Resident Hunting (LEH) Zones with GBR Outline Superimposed
Entry Hunting (LEH) zones, 2009 – 2013 used to issue resident licenses.Prepared for CREST by the
technical team from MFLNRO’s Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Management Branch, based on boundaries of
GBF (in red) used in this study.
Results
o Analysis of Bear Viewing: Economic Findings
The economic analysis of bear viewing was based primarily on our surveys of
tourism businesses within the GBR study area (Appendix 3). These surveys contained
five sections, two of which – Employment Information (Questions 24-28) and Financial
Information (Questions 29-36) – were particularly important in determining this sector’s
economic impact. The survey ask companies for the percentage of gross revenue
14
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
attributed to bear viewing (Question 30) as well as data on their employees in 2012
(Questions 24-26). Based on analysis from a 2010 Vancouver Island report (Pacific
Analytics, 2010) we estimated revenue-to-employment ratio, adjusted for inflation, for
each company’s hunting and non-hunting activities in the GBR and applied that to the
total employment data. We found that, on average, companies employed 9 individuals, 2
to 3 of which were hired full-time; the rest were contract or seasonal (Questions 25, 26).
The most common jobs were guides, followed by managers, office staff, and accountants.
The total number of people directly employed in bear viewing on the GBR was estimated
at 510 individuals in 2012, and their total salaries, gratuities, and benefits were estimated
to cost $4.9 million. An additional 25 people received indirect or induced employment.
This totaled 535 direct, indirect, and induced jobs that generated an estimated $6.3
million in total labor costs in 2012 (Table 1).
The survey (Appendix 3) also asked bear viewing companies how many
employees (full time, seasonal, and contract) were from the GBR and how many are
Coastal First Nations (Question 27) so as to determine the amount of impact felt in the
immediate region. Historically, tourism in the GBF has been dominated by companies
owned or operated by “southerners” from outside the region. Coastal First Nations
leaders interviewed for this study stated that they consider bear viewing as an important
employment opportunity for their communities. However, when asked how many of their
employees are from the Coastal First Nations, a majority (13) of the 24 companies that
responded to this question said none, one-third (8) said one to three, and only two had
significant numbers: 12 out of 75 (16%) and 20 out of 28 (71%) employees. The latter is
the only lodge surveyed that is owned by a Coastal First Nation community.
In addition, the survey collected detailed financial information from bear viewing
companies – revenues, wage and salaries, various material expenses, interest and
depreciation costs, and capital investments (Questions 29-36). Fifteen firms that
provided full financial information and, since these included the larger companies, we
estimated that these responses represent about 60% of total revenue generated by bearviewing companies in 2012.
Revenues for businesses that did not provide complete financial data were
estimated, where possible, based on information provided regarding the number of
guided trips, the number of clients escorted on each trip, and the cost per person for each
trip. For other firms, revenues were based on the number of rooms, and the average costs
of accommodation and/or bear-viewing tours. For each of the firms for which we did not
have financial statements, a financial structure was assigned according to their business
type (land-based guided, water-based guided, and small, land-based non-guided
operations), after which an aggregate revenue estimate for all 53 firms was generated. It
should be noted that for 3 of the largest companies that have other significant revenue
generating activities (sport fishing and heli-skiing) in addition to bear viewing, we
included only the portion of their revenue and expenses calculated to be from bear
15
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
viewing. This prevented the survey’s financial from data being skewed by non-bear
viewing income and expenses.
The data collected in the survey relate to financial data, not economic data, and it
is economic data that enable an estimate of the contribution to the economy. In order to
generate these economic estimates, the individual financial expense items from the
aggregate financial statement (described above) are mapped to their appropriate InputOutput category and then made the necessary adjustments (Johnson, 2013). The result, as
shown in Table 1, is an aggregate National Accounting statement from which, when run
through the Input-Output Model, all the impacts in this study are calculated.
Table 1. Bear Viewing: Economic Impacts ($000)
Direct
Visitor Spending2
Company Revenues2
Material Purchases3
GDP4 --- of which
Labor costs
Wages and Salaries5
Mixed Income6
Benefits (Supplementary
Labor Income or SLI)
Employment: full, part
time, & seasonal
Employment (FTE)7
Total Taxes
Total Federal Taxes
Total Indirect Taxes8
Personal Income Taxes
Corp. Income Taxes
Total Provincial Taxes
Total Indirect Taxes8
Personal Income Taxes
Corp. Income Taxes
Indirect
Induced
TOTAL
$15,109.0
$14,114.9
$6,805.6
$7,309.3
$4,889.6
$4,486.9
$0.0
$1,884.0
$756.2
$1,127.9
$722.2
$584.1
$57.9
$1,700.8
$596.3
$1,104.6
$646.3
$434.4
$157.6
$17,699.8
$8,158.1
$9,541.7
$6,258.1
$5,505.4
$215.5
$402.6
$80.3
$54.2
$537.1
510
111
13
11
12
10
$2,483.9
$971.4
$724.8
$194.6
$52.1
$1,512.5
$1,421.9
$68.5
$22.1
$241.6
$145.0
$7.2
$111.5
$26.3
$96.6
$46.0
$39.4
$11.1
$207.8
$99.0
$13.3
$59.7
$26.0
$108.8
$76.9
$20.9
$11.0
535
133
$2,636.0
$1,215.4
$745.2
$365.8
$104.4
$1,717.9
$1544.8
$128.9
$44.3
Visitor spending includes company revenues plus gratuities plus HST (or Harmonized Sales Tax) charged.
Beginning in April 2013, the 12% HST reverted back to a 5% GST (Goods and Services Tax).
2 Company Revenues includes gratuities earned by employees but not HST.
3 Material Purchases refers to all goods and services purchased by companies, excluding labor costs.
4 GDP (Gross Domestic Product) represents the contribution to the economy and is defined as Company Revenues
minus Material Purchases or, equivalently, the sum of labor costs, interest payments, depreciation and profits.
16
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
5 Wages and Salaries include estimated gratuities, even though gratuities are not, strictly speaking, a labor cost to
companies; gratuities are paid by clients directly to the employees.
6 Mixed Income is unincorporated income including self-employed earnings
7 FTE Employment (Full-Time Equivalent) converts total jobs (full-time, part-time and seasonal) to full time full
season jobs.
8 Indirect taxes (Federal and Provincial) include taxes such as gasoline taxes, liquor taxes, etc. and also includes net
HST payments to the respective governments.
As Table 1 highlights, direct Visitor Spending on bear viewing in 2012 was
estimated at $15.1 million, of which $1.0 million were Harmonized Sales Tax (HST)
payments and $14.1 million went to the bear viewing firms as Company Revenues
(including gratuities that were then paid as additional wages). After subtracting the firms’
Material Purchases (excluding labor costs), the estimated contribution of GBR bear
viewing to the BC economy (GDP) was estimated to be $7.3 million. The overall direct
contribution to government coffers (Total Taxes) was estimated at $2.5 million, of which
$1.0 million went to the federal government and $1.5 million went to the provincial
government.
In addition to these direct impacts, Table 1 also highlights the indirect and
induced impacts generated by the bear-viewing sector in 2012. Overall, including direct,
indirect and induced activity, bear-viewing generated $17.7 million in Company
Revenues, which resulted in $9.5 million in GDP.
o Bear Viewing Visitor Surveys
The 71 individuals who completed our bear viewing Visitor/Client Surveys
(Appendix 3) came from a wide range of countries, including the UK, Australia, the US,
the Netherlands, and Canada outside BC (Question 2). We recognize that because these
surveys were solicited by only a few of the viewing companies, this breakdown of
nationalities may not accurately reflect the total composition of non-BC residents
and foreigners taking part in bear viewing in the GBF, but it does reflect anecdotal
information that unlike trophy hunting, the tourism sector involved in bear viewing
is more diverse and not dominated by the US market.
In addition, more than three-quarters (79%) of these tourists indicated bear
viewing as a reason for their visit to BC (Question 3). It is therefore clear that without the
opportunity to view bears in the GBR, many, if not most, of these travelers may not have
chosen BC as their holiday destination.
17
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
Table 2: Reasons for Visiting British Columbia
90%
80%
79%
70%
Tourists
60%
45%
50%
40%
30%
21%
20%
13%
10%
0%
Bear Viewing
Wildlife Viewing Cultural Tourism
Other
Reason for visiting the GBRF
The length of visits to BC ranged from a minimum of two days to a maximum of
24 days. On average, visitors spent 13 days on holiday in BC, 3.8 days in the GBR and,
of those, 3.4 days were spent viewing bears. This means that these visitors spent about
one-quarter (26%) of their time in BC and 89% of that time in GBR involved in bear
viewing tourism (Question 4). In addition, 62% said that while bear viewing they
incurred additional expenses – including for tips, souvenirs, additional transportation -that were not included in their viewing package price (Questions 7, 8). Finally, the survey
found that on average a visitor (or visitor’s party) spent an additional $1,124 per day in
BC in lodging, restaurants, travel costs, entertainment, and miscellaneous expenses
(Question 9). We were not able to calculate the total visitor spending per trip before and
after visiting the GBR and therefore Visitor Spending in Table 1 is based on bear viewing
company revenues. The total infusion of revenue into the BC economy by bear viewing
visitors is clearly considerably higher than the $15.1 million calculated for bear viewing
activities alone.
 Analysis of Bear Hunting: Economic Findings
In contrast with the economic analysis of bear viewing which depended heavily on
our surveys, the analysis of bear hunting – non-resident outfitters and licensed resident
hunters – is based largely on data assembled from MFLNRO’s Fish, Wildlife, and
Management Operations Branch, combined with information from our in-depth
interviews, websites, reports and studies, and a handful of company surveys.
18
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
o Non-Resident Hunters and Guide Outfitters
Non-BC residents are required to hunt with licensed guide outfitters. As stated
above, in 2012 only four outfitting guides carried out hunts within the 11 Wildlife
Management Units (MUs) that fall within the GBR study area (Map 2). These four
outfitters took 14 non-resident hunters who killed 6 grizzly bears and 60 non-resident
hunters who killed an estimated 67 black bears in 2012. While the Compulsory
Inspection (CI) system for grizzle bears is designed to record the exact location of kills,
reporting of the location of black bear kills is not required and therefore there is no way
to know how many of the 67 black bears were killed within the precise boundary of the
GBR study area (MFLNRO Technical Team data and correspondence).
To analyze the economic value of non-resident hunting with guide outfitters, we
used the government data to estimate the cost for guided hunts for black and grizzly
bears. The resulting figure, when multiplied by the number of clients, provides an
estimate of hunt revenue for each guide outfitter. The cost to participate in a guided hunt
covers the outfitter charges, trophy-fees (an additional charge if a hunt is successful), plus
the costs of licenses and other required payments (as, for example, to the Habitat
Conservation Trust Fund). As Table 3 shows, the total direct outfitter revenue from black
and grizzly bear hunting in the GBR is estimated at $900,400. This figure, in combination
with Harmonized Sales Tax (HST), means the total direct hunter spending is $963,800.
Based on the collected financial information and following Statistics Canada’s
methods, we estimate the direct non-labor material purchases at $331,900 as in Table 1,
giving an estimated direct GDP impact of $568,500. Direct labor costs to employees
amounted to $220,500 going to 11 employees. Total government revenues (including
licenses and tags) are thus estimated at $143,100, of which $62,400 went to the Federal
government and $80,700 to the BC provincial government. On the basis of these figures,
and taking into account total direct, indirect and induced impacts, we calculate that bear
hunting in the GBR generated $669,100 in provincial GDP in 2012, with $282,400 of
income going to an estimated 13 employees and governments receiving $163,600 in
revenues (Table 3).
19
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
Table 3. Bear Hunting: Estimated Economic Impacts of Guide Outfitters,
GBR, 2012 ($000)
Direct
Indirect
Induced
TOTAL
Hunter Spending
$963.8
Outfitter Revenue
$900.4
$55.9
$77.3
$1,033.7
Material Purchases
$331.9
$5.6
$27.1
$364.6
GDP --- which breaks into:
$568.5
$50.3
$50.2
$669.1
Labor Costs
Wages and Salaries
$220.5
$219.3
$32.5
$26.2
$29.4
$19.8
$282.4
$265.3
$0.0
$2.7
$7.2
$9.9
$1.2
11
4.8
$143.1
$62.4
$3.6
1
0.5
$11.1
$6.7
$2.5
1
0.5
$9.5
$4.5
$7.3
13
5.8
$163.6
$73.6
$52.1
$0.3
$0.6
$53.1
$7.9
$5.2
$2.7
$15.8
Corp. Income Taxes
Total Provincial Taxes
$2.4
$80.7
$1.2
$4.4
$1.2
$5.0
$4.7
$90.0
Total Indirect Taxes
$76.9
$2.1
$3.5
$82.5
Personal Income Taxes
$2.7
$1.8
$1.0
$5.5
Corp. Income Taxes
$1.0
$0.5
$0.5
$2.0
Mixed Income
Benefits
Employment
Employment (FTE)
Total Taxes
Total Federal Taxes
Total Indirect Taxes
Personal Income Taxes
Source: Estimates generated using Statistics Canada’s Input-Output Model of the British Columbia
economy.
Non-residents who hunt experience pre- and post-hunt costs for accommodation,
food, travel, etc. Because our study team was not able to survey a representative
20
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
sampling of non-resident hunters, we based our calculations of hunters’ additional
expenses on the 2003 report by the Guide Outfitters Association of British Columbia (Pacific
Analytics, 2003). This report calculated that on average an additional $2200 was spent on
accommodation, food and travel to and from the hunting location per person. This value
excludes any extended holidays in BC related to the hunting trip as well as costs for
shopping, taxidermy services and the like. Using the $2200/person/trip from the GOABC
report, we calculate that the 74 non-resident hunters spent an estimated $162,800 on
travel to/from the hunting location in 2012, which was not accounted for in the original
estimates of guide outfitter impacts.
Using spreadsheets provided by the MFLNRO technical team, we also analyzed
trends over the 15 years from 1998 – 2012. During this period the overwhelming majority
of hunters who went with guide outfitters in the GBR were foreigners, and interviews and
documents state that most were from the United States. During this period, only 6 of the
205 grizzly bear non-resident hunters and 13 of the 999 non-resident black-bear hunters
were Canadians. These non-resident hunters killed a total of 81 grizzly and 786 black
bears between 1998 and 2012, for an average of 5 grizzly and 52 black bears per year.
Further, non-resident hunters purchased, during these 15 years, over six times more black
bear than grizzly bear licenses. However, between 2005 and 2012, the number of hunting
licenses purchased declined from 20 to 14 for grizzly bears and from 125 to 60 for black
bears, an indication of a decreasing popularly among foreigners for hunting both species
(MFLNRO Technical Team data and correspondence).
o Resident Hunters
Resident hunting is administered following a different set of BC provincial
regulations. In 2012, there were 7,880 resident black-bear hunters and 1,457 resident
grizzly bear hunters in BC (Responsive Management, 2013), and of these, an estimated
65 residents hunted for black bears (with 34 kills) and 47 residents hunted for grizzly
bears (with six kills) within the GBR study area (Table 4). Like non-resident hunter
trends, the number of residents hunting black bears in the GBR has been declining, from
198 in 1998 to 90 in 2005 to 65 in 2012. In contrast, there is no discernible downward
trend for residents hunting grizzly bears in the GBR: residents licensed to hunt grizzly
bears has fluctuated up and down, from 40 in 1998, to 28 in 2005, and 47 in 2012.
However, MLFNRO statistics for the entire province reveal a steep decline in the
percentage of BC residents applying for resident hunting licenses, from a high of 7.5% of
the population in 1980 to 2.5% in 2010 (Hatter, 2011) to about 2% in 2012 (Responsible
Management, 2013).
Total spending by resident hunters for each bear species was estimated as the total
number of hunters multiplied by the hunting days per hunter multiplied by the average
daily expenditures (Table 4). Resident hunter expenditures include the purchases of
goods and services during their hunting trip (e.g., food, accommodation, ammunition)
21
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
plus the use of capital goods related to hunting (e.g., the use of an RV while hunting). In
order to estimate these average expenditures per hunter in 2012, our study team made use
of the 2013 report by Responsive Management (RM) on resident hunting in BC
(Responsible Management, 2013). While the survey data were not specific to the GBR
area, they did provide estimates for the regions most closely associated with the Central
and North Coast (Region 5, Region 6 and partially Regions 1 and 7). Consequently we
were able to calculate reasonable estimates of an individual’s average daily expenditures
and average expenditures per trip of $1,145/trip to hunt black bears and $2,983/trip to
hunt grizzlies (Table 4). In sum, based on extrapolations from the 2013 RM report, the
total expenditures in 2012 for all resident bear-hunters in the GBR study area are
estimated at $140,223 for grizzly bears and $74,402 for black bears, for a grand total of
$214,625 in total spending by resident hunters in the GBR study area (Table 4).
Table 4. Economic Impacts of Resident Hunting, GBR Study Area, 2012.
Grizzly Bears
Black Bears
TOTAL
# of Resident
Hunters
47
65
112
# of Bears
Killed
6
34
40
Expenditures
Total
per Hunter Expenditures
$2,983
$140,223
$1,145
$74,402
$1,916
$214,625
A 2005 report by BC STATS (Service BC/BC Stats, 2005) estimated a GDP-toExpenditure ratio of approximately 0.43 (that is, for every dollar of resident hunting
expenditure, provincial GDP went up $0.43). Using this estimate, the $214,625 in
resident hunting expenditures translates into roughly $92,000 in GDP in 2012. Wages
and salaries accounted for 29% of total expenditures, or $62,000 (Service BC/BC Stats,
2005). Unfortunately, the available expenditure information in the BC STATS report was
not sufficient to calculate a credible estimate of employment or total government
revenues.
o Analysis of 2013 Resident Hunter Report
The 2013 RM survey is the most recent and most comprehensive analysis
available on resident hunting in BC. However, our review of the paper raised some
questions. First, the RM report suggests that total resident hunter expenditures reached
$230 million in 2012. This is in contrast to the 2005 research undertaken by BC STATS
for the year 2003 in which total revenues were estimated at $70 million, and this figure
represented a decline of $6 million from 1991(Service BC/BC Stats , 2005).
In the same BC STATS report, hunter days in 2003 were estimated at 5.7 days, up
slightly from 1991 estimate of 5.0 days. This is in contrast to the RM statistical analysis
which estimated the number of hunter days at 15.1, a putative increase of 300% since
2003. In contrast, the Ministry data provided to CREST for the study area indicate an
average of 4.7 days for black bear and 5.3 for grizzly. It therefore appears likely that the
22
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
RM results estimate of 15.1 hunter days is too high. Since hunting-days feed directly into
the calculation of total expenditures, the total expenditure estimate of $230 million may
be questionable.
At the same time, hunting licenses issued to residents declined from just over
160,000 in 2003 to slightly fewer than 80,000 in 2012. A threefold increase in
expenditures since 2003 contrasts strongly with a 50% decline in people hunting and it
suggests that there may be some errors in the RM results.
Given these and other uncertainties, it is not really possible to say how accurate
the 2013 Expenditure of British Columbia Resident Hunters report is. The survey
methods for the collection of the data appear sound; the gross up to universe totals,
however, raises considerable doubts. When estimating the total expenditures made by
resident hunters, our study relied on hunter numbers directly from MFLNRO, while also
relying on hunter-expenditure data taken from the RM report since CREST was unable to
obtain from the government contact information in order to interview resident hunters for
this study. Since these RM data are possibly over-estimated, it is fair to say that the total
expenditure results in our study may be biased upwards.
It is important to raise one final caveat concerning resident hunters. Many
analysts believe that the resident hunter expenditures should not be considered as an
increase in provincial economic activity since the funds spent on hunting are dollars that
are already in the province and not available to be spent in the economy on other goods
and services. That is, if the resident hunters did not go hunting, they would be able to
spend these additional dollars on other items, such as restaurants, entertainment, and the
like. This is not true with non-resident hunting, since they bring new dollars into the BC
economy, and therefore the impacts of that spending are correctly interpreted as an
increase in economic activity.
o Comparison of Resident and Non-Resident Bear Hunting
In comparing the two categories of hunters in the GBR during 2012 (Table 5), the
number of resident hunters was considerably higher but the kill or “harvest” success rate
was considerably higher for non-residents, undoubtedly because they are accompanied by
professional guide operators.
Table 5. Summary of Grizzly and Black Bear Hunting in GBR , 2012.
Grizzly Bears
Black Bears
Total
% of
Non-Resident
Hunters
14
60
74
# of
Bears
Killed
6
67
73
Kill Rate
43%
117%
99%
# of
Resident
Hunters
47
65
112
# of Bears
Killed
6
34
40
Kill Rate
13%
52%
36%
Total #
Killed
(Harvested)
12
101
113
Even though the number of resident hunters exceeds non-resident, our analysis
demonstrates that that non-resident grizzly hunting makes a greater economic
23
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
contribution: $244,600 in non-resident grizzly GDP for 4 kills or $61,000 per kill
compared to $60,000 for resident grizzly GDP for 6 kills or $10,000 per kill.
Table 6: Non-Resident and Resident Grizzly Bear Hunting
Non-Resident
Resident
Total Economic
Contribution to GDP
$244,600
$60,000
# of Kills
Value/Kill
4
6
$61,000
$10,000

Comparing Bear Viewing and Bear Hunting Economic Contributions
In comparing the revenue generated by bear viewing companies versus bear hunts
with guide outfitters, our data show that bear viewing in the GBR provides a greater
source of revenue, and subsequently GDP, to the region, than does guided bear hunting.
In 2012, bear viewing companies in the GBR generated 12 times more in visitor spending
than guide outfitters, and over 11 times the value of direct revenue for BC’s provincial
government. In addition, bear viewing companies directly employed an estimated 510
persons, while guide-hunting outfitters generated only 11 jobs in 2012 (Table 7).
Table 7: Economic Value of Bear Viewing and Non-Resident Hunting in GBR, 2012
Number of Companies
Number of Clients
Employment (direct)
Client Spending
Total Contribution in GDP
(direct, indirect, induced)
Total Revenue to BC Govt
(direct, indirect, induced)
Bear Viewing with
Companies
53
11,369*
510
$15.1 million
Bear Hunting with Guide
Bear Outfitters
4
74
11
$963,800
$9.54 million
$669,100
$1.7 million
$90,000
*Note: This figure is low since it is only for 25 of the 53 bear viewing companies that completed the
relevant survey sections.
Table 8 provides an overview of the ways in which bear viewing and hunting
contributed to the provincial and federal economies in terms of overall expenditures,
GDP, wages and salaries, and taxes. Overall, these data show that bear viewing provides
much more economic value to the region than does bear hunting, both resident and nonresident combined.
24
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
Table 8. Economic Value of Bear Hunting and Bear Viewing in the GBR, 2012.
SECTOR
EXPENDITURES
GDP
WAGES &
SALARIES
$4,486,900
FEDERAL
TAXES
$971,400
PROVINCIAL
TAXES
$1,512,500
Bear Viewing
$15,109,000
$7,309,300
Non-Resident
$963,800
$568,500
$220,500
$62,400
$80,700
Hunting
Grizzly Bear
$414,700
$244,600
$94,900
$26,800
$34,700
Black Bear
$549,100
$323,900
$125,600
$35,600
$46,000
Resident
$214,625
$92,000
$62,000
Unknown*
Unknown*
Hunting
Grizzly Bear
$140,223
$60,000
$40,500
Unknown*
Unknown*
Black Bear
$74,402
$32,000
$21,500
Unknown*
Unknown*
Source: Data are calculated using Statistics Canada’s Input-Output Model of the British Columbia
economy. Note: The amount of revenue from licenses and tags going to the provincial government would
total roughly $5,500 for grizzly bears and $3,500 for black bears for a total of approximately $9,000. Other
taxes stemming from resident hunting activity are unknown.
Discussion
In recent years, a highly charged debate has grown in BC concerning the value of
grizzly and black bears within the Great Bear Rainforest. The debate is wide-ranging,
encompassing issues of wildlife stewardship and management, credible science, public
opinion of trophy-hunting, traditions and values, rights of First Nations peoples versus
non-Aboriginal British Columbians, ecological impacts of increased bear viewing and a
ban on hunting, and the balance of authority between the BC government and the Coastal
First Nations in the GBR. However, all involved have recognized the importance of
accurately answering the question of whether trophy hunting of bears leads to greater
economic value to the region, or whether bear viewing provides greater economic
opportunities. Based on our findings, the overwhelming conclusion is that bear viewing
generates more revenue and provides greater employment opportunities than does
hunting.
In addition, this study finds evidence that bear viewing in the GBR study area is
likely to continue to be a far stronger economic sector than bear hunting in the future. In
2012 at least 60 times more visitors took part in bear viewing activities than in sport
hunting and these bear viewing tourists come from various countries while the nonresident hunters are overwhelmingly from the United States. Dependence on a single
market can be risky, as was demonstrated by a 20% drop in non-resident hunter numbers
coming to BC during the Unites States’ recent economic recession. A majority of the
bear viewing companies in our survey experienced growth over the last five years and
they state that they expect to continue to grow over the next decade (Questions 37, 38). In
contrast, based on interviews, it is apparent that a number of outfitters are seeking buyouts from conservation organizations or ecolodges.
25
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
Conclusion
This paper has assessed the relative economic value of the bear hunting and bear
viewing industries in the Great Bear Rainforest (GBR) of British Columbia, the world’s
largest intact temperate rainforest. Drawing on government data, original surveys,
information from interviews, and past studies and reports, we show that bear viewing in
the Great Bear Rainforest generates more economic value than does bear hunting, both in
terms of total visitor expenditures and GDP. The data show that bear viewing generated
over 12 times more in visitor spending than guided non-resident and independent resident
hunters combined ($15.1 million versus $1.2 million) and 11 times more in GDP ($7.3
million versus $660,500). Our evidence thus fits with the general global trend of
decreasing popularity of trophy hunting and increasing valuation of wildlife viewing.
And more to the point, it fits with the call of the Coastal First Nations of BC, to promote
viewing not hunting and thus conserve the culturally important population of Spirit Bears
with their unique Kermode genes.
Beyond that, there are also administrative costs to hunting, especially where the
government’s administrative apparatus is complex, cumbersome, and costly. While we
have no good estimates of what the BC government is spending to oversees bear hunting,
several officials indicated it is a ‘net loss’ because revenue from fees and taxes does not
cover the cost. Bear viewing, in contrast, is largely unlicensed and unregulated. With
growing popularity of bear viewing and the need for more industry protocols and
government regulations over how it is done in order to protect both the tourists and the
bears, there appear to be opportunities for the government — as well as businesses and
associations involved in bear viewing — to increase revenue from this type of nonconsumptive wildlife tourism.
Not surprisingly, the Great Bear Rainforest is rapidly gaining an international
reputation for outstanding nature-based tourism, including bear viewing. Within less than
two decades, bear viewing has become a leading tourism draw – perhaps the leading
draw – for international visitors to the GBR. While the arguments for and against hunting
are many and varied, the economics suggest that as long as grizzly and black bear
populations are robust and well protected, bear viewing is well positioned to continue to
expand, bringing more visitors, more jobs, and more economic value to both BC province
and the GBR. Based on our findings and assessment, we expect that if bear viewing
continues to expand at its current rate, the economy of the Great Bear Rainforest will not
experience any negative impacts from a ban on bear hunting.
26
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
Acknowledgments
We are grateful for the competent work by CREST researchers in Washington, DC
and at Stanford, including Kelsey Wiseman, Hayley Pallan, Kehan DeSousa,
Gwendolyn Burke, Jeanette Lim, Roger Robinson, Alejandra Borja, Samantha
Hogenson, David Krantz, and Yuebo Li. The study also built upon the timely April
2013 research paper on bear hunting and viewing in the GBR by Rosie Child of the
Hakai-Raincoast Applied Conservation Science Lab at the University of Victoria who
generously shared her approach, data, and findings with us. We also wish to thank
Douglas Neasloss, Councillor, Kitassoo/Xaixais Band Council and members of the
Coastal First Nations’ Bear Working Group who provided information, insights, and
interviews, as well as the MFLNRO technical team (Ian Hatter, Manager; Mike
Wolowicz and Carol Wrenshall) with the Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Management
Branch in Victoria who provided statistics and maps and explained BC government
policies. We appreciate the many bear-viewing companies and two guide outfitters
who participated in the surveys on short notice and during high tourism season. We
are grateful as well to the many BC organizations and individuals who provided
information and analysis as well as feedback on early drafts of our report. Finally,
we are enormously grateful to Mike Robbins, Chair of the CREST Board and
Catherine Ardagh, former CREST Program Associate who initially proposed CREST
to undertake this study.
The research would not have been possible without financial support from Tides
Canada and The Nature Conservancy USA. While this study could not have done
without the help of all these people and institutions, the Center for Responsible
Travel is solely responsible for its content.
Author Contributions
The project was directed by CREST Co-Director Martha Honey, Ph.D., in collaboration
with two BC-based experts, statistical analyst Jim Johnson, Managing Principal, Pacific
Analytics, Inc. and tourism professional Judy Karwacki, Managing Director, Small Planet
Consulting. Claire Menke, CREST Program Associate at Stanford University, oversaw
the IRB approval, initial research, and survey analysis. Martha Honey and Jim Johnson
wrote the final report. Austin Cruz and Martha Honey wrote this article. William H.
Durham, Ph.D., CREST Co-Director at Stanford University reviewed the research
methodology and the final report, and, together with Claire Menke and Martha
Honey, edited this article based on reviewers’ comments.
27
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
References
Artelle, K.A., Anderson, S.C., Cooper, A.B., Paquet , P.C., Reynolds, J.D., & Darimont,
C.T. (2013). “Confronting Uncertainty in Wildlife Management: Performance of
Grizzly Bear Management.” PLOS ONE. November 06, 2013.
Aumiller, L.D., & Matt, C.A. (1994). “Management of McNeil River State Game
Sanctuary for Viewing of Brown Bears.” Bears: Their Biology and Management.
Vol. 9, Part 1: A Selection of Papers from the Ninth International Conference on
Bear Research and Management, Missoula, Montana, February 23-28, 1992. 5161.
Balme, G.A., Hunter, L.T.B., Goodman, P., Fergusen, H., Craigie, J., & Slotow, R.
(2012). “An Adaptive Management Approach to Trophy Hunting of Leopards
(Panthera pardus): A Case Study from KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.” Plos One.
April 2012. Vol. 7(4).
Barnes, J. (1996) “Economic Characteristics of the Demand for
Wildlife‐Viewing Tourism in Botswana.”Development Southern Africa, Vol.13
(3), 377-397.
Barnes, J., Burgess, J., & Pearce, D. (1992). “Wildlife Tourism.” Economics for the
Wilds: Wildlife, Wildlands, Diversity and Development. Edited by Timothy M.
Swanson, Edward Farbier. Washington, DC: Island Press. 292 p.
BC Stats. (2005). British Columbia’s Hunting, Trapping & Wildlife Viewing Sector.
Service BC. Ministry of Labor & Citizen’s Services, British Columbia. August
12, 2005.
“Bear Hunt Battle Shaping up,” (2012). 250 News, September 13, 2012.
“Bear hunting ban declared by 10 BC First Nations: But provincial government says only
it has the authority to issue such a ban .” (2012). CBC News. British Columbia.
September, 13, 2012.
Bell, C. (2012). “Collecting Eco-Cultural Capital: Polar Bear Tourism.” Online Journal
of Social Sciences Research.
British Columbia Wildlife Federation. (2011). “The Intended Consequences of Wildlife
Allocations in British Columbia.” May 4, 2011, 9p.
Burke, Gwendolyn and Lim, Jeanette. (2013). “Great Bear Rainforest: Background
Information.” Stanford University: Center for Responsible Travel (CREST).
Caudill, James and Laughland, Andrew (1998). 1996 National and State Economic
28
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
Impacts of Wildlife Watching: Based on the 1996 National Survey of Fishing,
Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Arlington, VA: U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service.
Child, R. (2013). “Coastal Grizzlies: An Economic Overview of Grizzly Bear Viewing
Versus Hunting on the Central Coast of British Columbia,” University of
Victoria, unpublished paper.
Cisneros-Montemayor, A., Barnes-Mauthe, M., Al-Abdulrazzak, D., Navarro-Holm, E.,
& Sumaila, U. (2013) “Global Economic Value of Shark Ecotourism:
Implications for Conservation.” Oryx, Vol. 10 (1017), 8p.
Clayton, C., & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of Watchable Wildlife: A Case Study
of McNeil River. Journal of Environmental Management. 39( 2), 101-106.
Cole, J.S. & Scott, D. (1999). “Segmenting Participation in Wildlife Watching: A
Comparison of Casual Wildlife Watchers and Serious Birders.” Human
Dimensions of Wildlife: An International Journal. Vol.4 (4), 44-61.
Coltman, D.W., O’Donoghue, P., Jorgenson, J.T., Hogg, J.T., Strobeck, C., & FestaBianchet, M. (2003). “Undesirable Evolutionary Consequences of Trophy
Hunting.” Nature, Vol. 426 (6967), 655-8.
Cunningham, P., Huijbens, E., & Wearing, S. (2012). “From Whaling to Whale
Watching: Examining Sustainability and Cultural Rhetoric.”
Journal of Sustainable Tourism. Vol.20 (1), 143-161.
Curtin, Susanna. (2003). “Whale-Watching in Kaikoura: Sustainable Destination
Development?” Journal of Ecotourism. Vol. 2 (3), 173-23.
Dawson, J., Johnston, M.J., Stewart, E.J., Lemieux, C. J., Lemelin, R. H., Maher, P. T., &
Grimwood, B.S.R. (2011). “Ethical Considerations of Last Chance Tourism.”
Journal of Ecotourism. 10 (3), 250-265.
Dawson, J., Johnston, M.E., & Stewart, E.J. (2014). “Governance of Arctic Expedition
Cruise Ships in a Time of Rapid Environmental and Economic Change. Oceans
and Coastal Management. Vol. 89, 89-99.
Diagle, J., Hrubes, D. & Ajzen, I. (2002). “A Comparative Study of Beliefs, Attitudes,
and Values Among Hunters, Wildlife Viewers, and Other Outdoor
Recreationists.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife: An International Journal, Vol.7
(1), 1-19.
Dobson, J., Jones, E., Botterill, D. (2005). Exploitation or Conservation: Can Wildlife
29
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
Tourism Help Conserve Vulnerable and Endangered Species? Prepared for
Interdisciplinary Environmental Review. Vol.7 (2), 1-12.
Dowsley, M. (2009). “Inuit-Organised Polar Bear Sport Hunting in Nunavut territory,
Canada.” Journal of Ecotourism. Vol.8 (2) 161-175.
Duffus, D.A., & Dearden, P. (1990). “Non-consumptive Wildlife-oriented Recreation: A
Conceptual Framework.” Biological Conservation, Vol. 53 (3), 213-231.
Festa-Bianchet, M. (2012). “Rarity, Willingness to Pay and Conservation.” Animal
Conservation. Vol. 15, 12–13.
Fish and Wildlife Branch. (2010). Guide Outfitters in British Columbia: 2010-2011,
Ministry of Environment, British Columbia, updated July 2010.
Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Management Branch (2010). Grizzly Bear Hunting:
Frequently Asked Questions, Ministry of Environment, British Columbia.
Freeman, M. & Weinzel,G. (2006). “The Nature and Significance of Polar Bear
Conservation Hunting in the Canadian Arctic.” Arctic. Arctic Institute of North America.
Vol. 59 (1), 21-30.
Gallagher, A.J. & Hammerschlag. N. (2011). “Global Shark Currency: The Distribution,
Frequency and Economic Value of Shark Eco-tourism.” Current Issues in
Tourism, 14 (8), 797-812.
Gosselin, J., Zedrosser, A., Swenson, J.E., & Pelletier, F. (2014). “The Relative
Importance of Direct and Indirect Effects of Hunting Mortality on the Population
Dynamics of Brown Bears.” Proceedings. Royal Society. Vol. 282 (20141840).
GS Gislason & Associates Ltd. (2002). The Guide Outfitting Industry in BC - An
Economic Profile. Prepared for Economic Development Branch, BC Ministry of
Sustainable Resource Management.
Guide Outfitters Association of British Columbia. (2013). “Economic Contribution.”
Guide
Outfitters
Association
of
British
Columbia
website:
http://goabc.org/economic-contribution.aspx.
Guide Outfitters Association of British Columbia. (2008). “Grizzly Bears – Hunters
Provide the Majority of Funding for Conservation.” News Release. July 30, 2008.
Guide Outfitters Association of British Columbia. (2010). “Wildlife Management.” News
Release. February 16, 2010.
Hatter, I. (2011). “Hunter Recruitment and Retention in BC: A Progress Report.” Fish,
30
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
Wildlife and Habitat Management Branch, MFLNRO, British Columbia, Canada.
Power point presentation to International Wildlife Management Symposium,
December 9, 2011.
Hayward, M.W. & Hayward, G.J. (2009). “The Impact of Tourists on Lion. Panthera leo
Behaviour, Stress and Energetics.” Acta Theriologica, 54(2), 219-224.
Higginbottom, K., editor (2004). Wildlife Tourism: Impacts, Management and Planning.
CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd., Australia, 301p.
Hoyt, Erich. (2001). Whale Watching 2001: World-wide Tourism Numbers, Expenditures,
and Expanding Socio-economic Benefits. Crowborough, UK: International
Fund for Animal Welfare, 165p.
Hoyt, Erich, Berry, George, & Smith, Alison. (1993). Kujira Watching. Whales and
Dolphins: Alive and Being Watched Japanese-style, Bath, UK: Whale and
Dolphin Conservation Society, 16p.
Hoyt, Erich & Hvenegaard, Glen. (2002) “A Review of Whale-Watching and Whaling
with Applications for the Caribbean.” Coastal Management 30 (4), 381-399.
Johnson, J. (2013). “An Input-Output Primer” and “Definitions.” Pacific Analytics Inc,
Victoria, BC. 7p.
Kontogeorgopoulos, N., (2009), “Wildlife Tourism in Semi-Captive Settings: A Case
Study of Elephant Camps in Northern Thailand.” Current Issues in Tourism. Vol.12
(5-6), 429-449.
Krauss, Scott. (1989).“Whales for Profit.” Whalewatcher Journal. 23(2),18-19.
Krofel, M., Jonozovic, M., & Jerina, K. (2012). “Demography and mortality patterns of
removed brown bears in a heavily exploited population.” Ursus, 23, 1, 91-103.
Lambert, E., Hunter, C., Pierce, G., & MacLeod, C. (2010). “Sustainable WhaleWatching Tourism and Climate Change: Towards a Framework of Resilience.”
Journal of Sustainable Tourism. Vol.18 (3), 409-427.
Lemelin, R. H., Johnston, M. E., Dawson, J., Stewart, E. S., & Mattina, C. (2012).
“From Hunting and Fishing to Cultural Tourism and Ecotourism: Examining the
Transitioning Tourism Industry in Nunavik.” The Polar Journal. Vol.2 (1), 39-60.
Lindsey, P.A., Balme, G.A., Booth, V.R., & Midlane, N. (2012). “The Significance of
African Lions for the Financial Viability of Trophy Hunting and the Maintenance
of Wild Land.” PLoS One, 7 (1).
31
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
MacKay, K.J., & Campbell, J.M. (2004). “An Examination of Residents’ Support for
Hunting as a Tourism Product.” Tourism Management, 25 (4), 443-452.
McLellan, B.N. (2005). “Sexually Selected Infanticide in Grizzly Bears: The Effects of
Hunting on Cub Survival.” Ursus, 16 (2), 141-156.
Miller, S.M., Miller, S.D. & McCollum, D.W. (1998). “Attitudes Toward and Relative
Value of Alaskan Brown and Black Bears to Resident Voters, Resident Hunters,
and Nonresident Hunters.” Ursus, Vol. 10, A Selection of Papers from the Tenth
International Conference on Bear Research and Management, Fairbanks, Alaska,
July 1995, and Mora, Sweden, September 1995, 357-376.
Milner, J.M., Nilsen, E.B., & Andreassen, H.P. (2006). “Demographic Side Effects of
Selective Hunting in Ungulates and Carnivore.” Conservation Biology, 21(1),
36-47.
Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Province of British Columbia. (1995).
Conservation of Grizzly Bears in British Columbia: Background Report.
Victoria, BC: Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, May 1995.
Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. (2012). British Columbia
Grizzly Bear Population Estimate for 2012. April 2012. 9 p.
Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations. British Columbia: Limited
Entry Hunting: Regulations Synopsis, 2013-2014.
Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations. (2009). Central and North
Coast EBM Implementation -- Biodiversity, Mining and Tourism Areas. British
Columbia.
Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. (2013). Fish, Wildlife and
Habitat Management.
Natalie Mladenov, N., Gardner, R.J., Flores, E.N., Mbaiwa, E.J., Mmopelwa, G. &
Strzepek. M.K. (2007) “The Value of Wildlife-Viewing Tourism as an
Incentive for Conservation of Biodiversity in the Okavango Delta, Botswana.”
Development Southern Africa, Vol.24 (3), 409-423.
Nevin, O.T., Swain, P., & Covery, I. (2014). “Bears, Place-Making, and Authenticity in
British Columbia.” Natural Areas Journal. Unpublished proof. Vol. 34 (2), 500505.
Nilsson, G. (2005). “Persecution and Hunting: Trophy Hunting vs. Ecotourism
Revenues.” Endangered Spices Handbook. Prepared for Animal Welfare Institute.
O’Connor, S., Campbell, R., Cortez, H., & Knowles, T. (2009). Whale Watching
32
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
Worldwide: Tourism Numbers, Expenditures and Expanding Economic Benefits.
A Special Report from the International Fund for Animal Welfare, Yarmouth
MA. Prepared by Economists at Large.
Okello, M.M., Manka, S.G., & D’Amour, D.E. (2008). “The Relative Importance of
Large Mammal Species for Tourism in Amboseli National Park, Kenya.” Tourism
Management, 29, 751-760.
Pacific Analytics, Inc. (2003). The Guide Outfitting Industry in BC: An Economic
Analysis of 2002, prepared for the Guide Outfitters Association of BC.
-----, (2010). The Vancouver Island Guide Outfitting Industry: An Economic
Analysis of 2008, prepared for the Vancouver Island Guide Outfitters.
Parsons, E.C.M. & C. Rawles. (2003). “The Resumption of Whaling by Iceland and the
Potential Negative Impact in the Icelandic Whale-Watching Market.” Current
Issues in Tourism. 6 (5), 444–448.
Packer, J. & Ballantyne, R. (2012-14). “Comparing Captive and Non-Captive Wildlife
Tourism.”Annals of Tourism Research, Vol.39 (2), 1242-1245.
Parker, Z., and R. Gorter. (2003). Crossroads: Economics, Policy, and the Future of
Grizzly Bears in British Columbia. Centre for Integral Economics, Victoria, BC.
Prepared for Raincoast Conservation Foundation.
Peck, R., & Guide Outfitters Association of BC. (2001). “Looking Back Down the Trail
at BC Guide Outfitters.” PowerPoint presentation, GOABC International Wildlife
Management Symposium-Dec 2001.
Reid, R. (2006). The Value and Characteristics of Resident Hunting: Results of the 1981
Provincial Survey, Vancouver, BC: Province of British Columbia, Ministry of
Environment, Wildlife Branch, 1985.
Rainforest Solutions Project, "Economic Alternatives." Website:
http://www.savethegreatbear.org/region/economic_alternatives
Rainforest Solutions Project. (2010). “Slipping Through the Cracks? The Fate of Focal
Species in the Great Bear Rainforest.”
Responsive Management. (2013). Expenditures of British Columbia Resident Hunters,
conducted for the BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations
(MFLNRO).
33
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
Ripple, W.J., Estes, J.A., Beschta, R.L., Wilmers, C.C., Ritchie, E.G., Hebblewhite, M.,
Berger, J., Elmhagen, B., Letnic, M., Nelson, M.P., Schmitz, S.J., Smith, D.W.,
Wallach, A.D., & Wiring, A.J. (2014). “Status and Ecological Effects of the
World’s Largest Carnivores.” Science. Vol. 343, 10 January 2014 , 11 p.
Schwartz, C.C., Swenson, J.E., & Miller, S.D. (2003). “Large Carnivores, Moose and
Humans: A Changing Paradigm of Predator Management in the 21st Century.”
ALCES. 39, 41-63.
Service BC/BC Stats. (2005). “British Columbia’s Hunting, Trapping & Wildlife
Viewing Sector,” Ministry of Labour & Citizen’s Services, August 2005.
Shore, Randy. (2012) “Hunting generates $350 million in economic activity annually,
Victoria says.” Vancouver Sun. September 5, 2013.
Silva, Luís (2015). “How Ecotourism Works at the Community-Level: The Case of
Whale-Watching in the Azores.” Current Issues in Tourism. Vol.18, Issue 3,
196-211.
Smith, Julian S. (2001). Bear-Viewing Ecotourism in British Columbia: Ecological,
Economic, and Social Perspectives Using a Case-Study Analysis of Knight Inlet
Lodge, BC, All Graduate Reports and Creative Projects, Paper 235, Utah State
University.
Smith, K.J. (2010). “Wanted Alive, Not Dead: The Financial Value of Thriving Bears in
BC.” Maple Leaf Adventures Wildlife Cruises Blog.
Sun, L., van Kooten, G.C., & Voss, G.M. (2009). Demand for Wildlife Hunting in British
Columbia. Working Paper 2014-09. Resource and Environmental Economics and
Policy Analysis (REPA) Research Group, University of Victoria. 33p.
Swain, P. (2006). The Value of Watchable Wildlife: Measuring the Impacts of Bear
Viewing in British Columbia, Masters Dissertation, University of Central
Lancashire, Lancashire, United Kingdom.
Thresher, Philip. (1981). “The Economics of a Lion.” Rome: FAO Investment Centre.
FAO Corporate Document Repository.
Topelko, K. N. & Dearden, P. (2005). “The Shark Watching Industry and Its Potential
Contribution to Shark Conservation.” Journal of Ecotourism. 4(2): 108-128.
Tourism British Columbia Research Services. (2005). Characteristics of the Commercial
Nature-based Tourism Industry in British Columbia.
34
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
Tourism British Columbia Research Services with Pacific Analytics and Wilderness
Tourism Association. (2004). Economic Value of the Commercial Nature-Based
Tourism Industry in British Columbia, Tourism British Columbia.
Treves, A., & Naughton-Treves, L. Risk and opportunity for humans coexisting with
large carnivores. Journal of Human Evolution, 36(3), 275-282.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2012). 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation: National Overview. August 2012.
Van Kooten, G.C., and E.H. Bulte. (1999). “How much primary coastal temperate
rainforest should society retain?” Canadian Journal of Forest Research 29,18791890.
Vaske, J., Hardesty. K., & Sikorowski, L. (2003). “Wildlife Viewing in Colorado: A
Review and Synthesis of Existing Data.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife: An
International Journal. Vol.8 (3), 231-234.
Venter, F.J. (2007). “Balancing Conservation Management and Tourism Development
with Wilderness Stewardship in the Kruger National Park, South Africa.” USDA
Forest Service Proceedings RMRS.
Vianna, G., Meekan, M., Pannell, D., Marsh, S., Meeuwig, J. (2012). “Socio-economic
Value and Community Benefits from Shark-diving Tourism in Palau: A
Sustainable Use of Reef Shark populations.” Biological Conservation 145, 267277.
Whittaker, D., & Knight, R.L. (1998). Understanding Wildlife Responses to Humans.
Wildlife Society Bulletin. 26(2):312-317.
Wielgus, R.B. (2002). “Minimum Viable Population and Reserve Sizes for Naturally
Regulated Grizzly Bears in British Columbia. Biological Conservation, Vol.106
(3), August 2002, 381–388.
Wielgus, R.B., & Bunnell, F.L. (1994). “Sexual Segregation and Female Grizzly Bear
Avoidance of Males.” The Journal of Wildlife Management, 58 (3), 405-413.
Wielgus, R.B., Morrison, D., Cooley, H.S., & Maletzke, B. (2013). “Effects of male
trophy hunting on female carnivore population growth and persistence.”
Biological Conservation. 167, 69-75.
Williams, P., & Heidt, A. (2008). Nature-Based Tourism and Tenuring Strategy. Part 1:
North and Central Coast Profile. Prepared for Coastal First Nations Rainforest
Solutions Project, December 23, 2008.
35
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
Williams, P., Reilly, J., Heidy, A., & Johnsen, S. (2008). Nature-Based Tourism
and Tenuring Strategy. Part 11: Practices and Case Studies. Prepared for Coastal
First Nations Rainforest Solutions Project, December 23, 2008.
Yorio, P., Frere, E., Gandini, P., & Schavini, A. (2001). “Tourism and recreation at
seabird breeding sites in Patagonia, Argentina: current concerns and future
prospects.” Bird Conservation International. Vol. 11, 231–245.
36
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
Appendix 1. Bear Viewing Companies Operating in GBF study area in 2012
The following are the 53 companies the research team identified as involved in bear
viewing within the Great Bear Rainforest study area. We attempted to survey all 53 of
these companies. Of these, six did not respond, 17 did not complete the full survey, and
30 completed all or a significant portion of the survey:
Name
Website
1. Aboriginal Journeys
www.aboriginaljourneys.com
2. Bear Coast Tours (Nan Charter Boat)
www.bearcoasttours.com
3. Bella Coola Cumbrian Inn
www.bellacoolacumbrianinn.com
4. Bella Coola Grizzly Tours
www.bcgrizzlytours.com
5. Bella Coola Motel
www.bellacoolamotel.com
6. Bella Coola Valley Inn
www.bellacoolavalleyinn.com
7. Bella Coola’s Eagle Lodge
www.eaglelodgebc.com
8. Bluewater Adventures
www.bluewateradventures.ca
9. Bones Bay Lodge
www.bonesbaylodge.com
10. Campbell River Whale Watching
www.campbellriverwhalewatching.com
11. Casa Bella Guest Cottage
www.casabellaguestcottage.com
12. Coast Mt Guesthouse
www.bellacoola.ca
13. Cottonwood Cottages
www.bellacoola.ca
14. Dam Good Logistics
www.damgoodlogistics.com
15. Discovery Marine Safaris
www.adventurewhalewatching.com
16. Doug on the Trail
www.bellacoola.ca
17. Eco Tours BC
www.ecotours-bc.com
18. Gnome’s Home RV
www.gnomeshome.ca
19. Great Bear Chalet Ltd.
www.greatbearchalet.com
20. Great Bear Lodge
www.greatbeartours.com
21. H2O Adventures
www.h20adventure.com
22. Kingfisher Wilderness Adventures
www.kingfisher-adventures.com
23. Knight Inlet Lodge
www.grizzlytours.com; www.knightinletlodge.com
24. Kynoch West Coast Adventures www.bcmountainlodge.com
25. Maple Leaf Adventures
www.mapleleafadventures.com
26. Mothership Adventures
www.mothershipadventures.com
27. Natural Habitat
www.nathab.com
28. Nimmo Bay Resort
www.nimmobay.com
29. Northern Rockies Lodge
www.northern-rockies-lodge.com
30. Nusatsum River Guest House
www.bellacoolacabin.com
31. Ocean Adventures Charter Co.
www.oceanadventures.bc.ca
32. Ocean Light II Adventures
www.oceanlight2.bc.ca
33. Outershores Expeditions
www.outershores.ca
34. Pacific Catalyst II Inc
www.pacificcatalyst.com
35. Pacific Yellowfin Charters
www.pacificyellowfin.com
36. Palmerville Adventures
www.palmerville.bc.ca
37
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
37. Prince Rupert Adventure Tours
38. Rainforest Guest House
39. Redfern River Lodge
40. Rip Rap Campsite
41. River’s Inlet Lodge
42. Sailcone's Grizzly Bear Lodge
43. Seawolf
44. Shearwater Resort & Marina
45. Spirit Bear Lodge
46. Sun Chaser Eco-Tours
47. Suntree Guest Cottages
48. Tallheo Cannery Guest House
49. The Float House Inn
50. Thunder 1 Adventures Inc
51. Tide Rip Grizzly Tours
52. Tweedsmuir Park Lodge/
Bella Coola Heli Skiing
53. Whiskey Cove
Center for Responsible Travel
www.adventuretours.net
No website available
www.redfernriverlodge.ca
www.riprapcamp.com
www.riversinlet.com
www.grizzly-bear-watching.com
www.seawolfadventures.net
www.shearwater.ca
www.spiritbear.com
www.sunchasercharters.ca
www.suntree.ca
www.bellacoolacannery.com
www.thefloathouseinn.com
www.thunder1.ca
www.tiderip.com
www.tweedsmuirparklodge.com;
www.bellacoolaheliskiing.com
www.whiskeycovebedandbreakfast.com
38
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
Appendix 2. Guide Outfitting Companies Operating in GBF study area in 2012
The following are four guide outfitting companies identified by the MFLNRO Technical
Team as operating in the GBR study area in 2012. The statistics are drawn from three
spreadsheets prepared for CREST in October 2013 by the Technical Team: “Guide
Outfitters and Black Bear Activity in 11 MUs in Study Area, 1998-2012,” “Guide
Outfitters Bear Activity in 11 MUs in Study Area, 1998-2012,” and “CI REort and
Declaration of Guide Outfitter and Resident Hunters.”
Type of Bears
Name
Company
JH Sievers
GE Venus
MR Lewis
R Milligan
North Coast
Trophy West
Bolen Lewis
Milligan
Outfitting
Totals
Managem
ent Units
114,115,
115
603
610, 611,
614
Black
# of
Hunters
15
8
16
21
60
Black
Total
Killed
13
5
20
29
67
Grizzly
# of
Hunters
7
2
1
4
14
Grizzly
Total
Killed
1
0
1
4
6
39
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
Appendix 3. Survey of Bear Viewing Companies in Great Bear Rainforest
Survey of Ecotourism/Bear Viewing Companies in Great Bear Rainforest
Conducted by:
Center for Responsible Travel (CREST)
at Stanford University and in Washington, DC
The information provided will be kept strictly confidential by the research team and will
be destroyed at the conclusion of the study. Only aggregate information will be released
and under no circumstances will your information be released to any individual,
government, government agency, company, or association. Please enter all requested
dollar values in Canadian Dollars.
Respondent Name: ____________________________________________
Respondent Email: ____________________________________________
Respondent Phone Number: ____________________________________________
Respondent Role in Company: ____________________________________________
Company Name: ____________________________________________
Company Address: _____________________________________________________
Company Website: ____________________________________________
Company General Email Address: ____________________________________
Company Phone Number: ____________________________________________
Company Fax Number: ____________________________________________
Background Information:
1. Does your company offer tours/packages that include bear viewing within Central
and North Coast (Great Bear Rainforest/GBF)? _____Yes
_____No
2. Does your company provide accommodations for visitors who participate in bear
viewing in the Central and North Coast (Great Bear Rainforest/GBF)? (Check
yes, even if only a small number of your guests participate in bear viewing.)
_____ Yes
_____ No
(If your answer is “No” to both Questions 1 and 2, do not continue with this survey.)
3. When was your company founded? _______________
4. In 2012, what did your company’s operations in the GBF include:
____Individual guide(s)
____Tour operator
____Bed and breakfast
____Hotel or motel
____Cabins and cottages
____Lodge or inn
40
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
____Tent site/trailer park
____Small ship (with accommodations)
____Other (specify): ______________________________
5. If you offered any form of accommodation, what is the maximum number of
visitors/guests you could accommodate/night in 2012? ____________persons
6. In 2012, did your company own, or rent/lease from a third party, accommodation
facilities or partner with another operator to provide accommodation?
____ We owned accommodations
____ We rented/leased accommodations
Name(s) of Owner(s): ______________________
____ We partnered with another operator to provide accommodations
Name(s) of Partner(s): _______________________
____ Our company does not provide accommodations
7. In 2012, what was the total number of guests/visitors your company handled?
____________
8. How many of your total guests in 2012 were from:
(Give actual numbers, not %)
______BC
______ Canada (not BC)
______ U.S.
______ Europe
______ Other countries
9. In 2012, please estimate the total number of guests/visitors who did bear viewing
activities in the GBF, either with your company or independently.
_________________persons
Bear Viewing Information – General:
(If your company does not offer bear viewing tours, please skip to Question 24)
10. In what area within GBF do you offer bear viewing?
___________________________
11. Is this an area where bear hunting also takes place?
____ Yes _____No
12. In 2012, how often did clients see hunters while on your tours?
Never ____
Occasionally_____ Often______ Always ______
13. In 2012, did your company and/or clients find any bear carcasses left by hunters?
___Yes ___No
If yes, how many: _______
41
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
14. Do you operate your own bear viewing tours or do you sub-contract?
_____ Own bear viewing tours
_____ Sub-contract
_____ Sub-contract but only when demand is beyond the capacity of your company's
own operation
Name(s) of contractor(s): __________________________________
15. Which months do you offer trips with bear viewing components in GBF? Please
list which months:__________________________________________________
16. How important is bear viewing to your tourism packages/operations in GBF?
____Somewhat important
____Important (one of top 3 reasons people buy the package)
____Very important (the main reason people buy the package)
17. What types of bear viewing do you offer in GBF? (Check all that apply)
______ Grizzly
_______Spirit/Kermode ________Black
18. In 2012, how often did your clients see bears on your tours in GBF?
Never ____
Occasionally_____ Often______ Always ______
Estimated number of bears sighted per tour day: __________
19. What % of your company’s bear viewing in GBF is done via the following:
_______ Land/Walking
_______ Watercraft (without accommodations)
________Small ship/ferry (with accommodations)
________From Lodge
________Air (plane or helicopter)
________Horseback
________Other -- Specify:_________________________________________
20. In 2012, how many protected areas/conservancies did your company access for
viewing in the GBF, and which were they?
___________________________________________
21. Describe the different bear viewing packages in GBF that your company offered
in 2012? (Please use chart to fill in your responses; add more cells if needed.
Please specify amounts in Canadian $)
Name or Total # Length of Avg. # of Cost of
location of tours
tour:
clients/ package/
of tour
in 2012 # of days
tour
guest
(group
size)
Cost of
lodging/person/
night (if not in
package)
Average additional
expenses/
guest*
42
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
*Do not include tips/gratuities here. This is covered in Question 28 below.
22.
Please list what is included in the package price: (e.g. chartered flight, scheduled
flight, guide, food, lodge, small ship, boat, ground vehicles, park fees, etc.)
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
23.
Please list what “additional expenses” your clients incur on bear viewing trips that
are NOT included in the package price: (e.g. alcohol, equipment rental, chartered
flight, scheduled flight, park fees, etc. DO NOT include cost of transport from
outside BC)_______________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Employment Information:
(We are seeking data for your entire company, not simply your bear viewing activities.)
24.
During what months in 2012 did your company employ staff (full-time, part-time
or contract)? This may include staff based outside GBF, as well as owners and
other family members who work for the company.
____January
____ May
____ September
____February
____ June
____ October
____March
____ July
____ November
____April
____ August
____ December
25.
How many employees did your company have in 2012? (This may include staff
based outside GBF, as well as owners and other family members who work for the
company.)
i. Full time _______
ii. Seasonal ______
iii. Contract______
iv. Total______
26. For 2012, please specify the main employee types, number of persons, and total
person-months of employment. (e.g., 1 guide working 2 months plus another guide
working 7 months = 9 person-months of guiding). Add more rows as needed to list
all employee types.
43
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Employee Types
Owner(s)
Managers
Guides
Accountants
Number of Persons
Center for Responsible Travel
Total Person-Months
TOTAL
27. How many of your staff (full time, seasonal and contract) are originally from towns
or communities in GBF in 2012? ________
How many are Coastal First Nations? ______
28. What is the total estimated amount that your staff (including guides, waiters,
housekeeping, owners, managers, etc.) received in tips and gratuities in 2012?
$_______________
Financial Information (Revenue and Expenses):
As stated above, the information provided in this survey will be kept strictly confidential
and will be destroyed at the conclusion of the study. In order to determine the economic
value of both bear hunting and bear viewing in the Great Bear Rainforest, it is extremely
important that we receive the following financial information (Revenue and Expenses,
Questions 29-34) from the companies included in this survey.
Or, instead of answering Questions 29-34, please consider providing us with your 2012
financial statements (income statement and balance sheet). These statements will be kept
confidential. Your 2012 financial statements can be sent to CREST via:
Email: survey@responsibletravel.org
Mail: Survey, Center for Responsible Travel, 1333 H Street, NW,
Suite 300, East Tower, Washington, DC 20005
If you prefer, one of our research team can contact your accountant. If you would like us
to contact your accountant, please specify:
Your accountant’s name__________________________________________________
Contact information:______________________________________________________
44
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Telephone number
Center for Responsible Travel
Email
Revenue
29. In 2012, what was your company’s annual gross revenue from all your operations
(exclude GST) in Canadian Dollars? $_______________
30. Of the total 2012 revenue (from Q29), what % of your gross revenue can be
attributed to:
______% Bear viewing (both guided and self guided)
______% Other wildlife viewing activities (whale watching, birding etc)
______% All other activities (skiing, fishing, boating, trail-riding, cultural etc.)
Expenses
31. What were your company’s total expenses (including interest and amortization) in
2012? $_____________
32. Of the 2012 operating expenses (Q31), what was paid for each of the following
categories? (Please put zero if there were no expenses in a particular category.)
$_____ Labour expenses (wages, salaries)
$_____ Benefits (e.g., medical, pension, WCB, etc.)
$_____ Advertising and promotional activities
$_____ Liability insurance
$_____ New facilities, vehicles, equipment, and/or animals (capital investments)
$_____ Maintenance of existing facilities and/or equipment
$_____ Mortgage and rent
$_____ Transportation and fuel (Guest related and freight)
$_____ Food and beverage
$_____ Interest
$_____ Amortization
$_____ All other expenses
$_____ = TOTAL EXPENSES (Please check that this is the same amount as
in Q31)
33. Please estimate the market value of all physical assets (excluding tenure and leases)
owned by your company at the end of 2012. $_______________ Total Assets
33. Knowing the value of taxes/fees paid to governments is extremely important. Please
indicate the total amount of direct taxes/fees paid to governments in 2012:
$________________Total paid to governments
45
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
34. Please breakdown the government fees/taxes into the following categories:
$__________Gross GST
$__________Provincial hotel tax
$__________Other PST
$__________Crown land lease
$__________Park/conservancy user fee
$__________Daily client park fee (sum total for year)
$__________Property Taxes
$__________Grazing license
$__________Guide/Assistant Guide fee
$__________Business license
$__________Other fees, licenses, or taxes
36. Does your company pay protocol fees to First Nations in the GBF?
____Yes ____No
If yes, how much did you pay in 2012? $__________________
Trends:
37. How has the size of your business changed in the last 5 years?
____Grown _____Diminished
______Stayed the same ____ Don’t know
Why? _________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
38. Do you expect bear viewing tours in your company to increase, stay the same, or
decrease in the GBF over the next 10 years? Why?
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
39. Other Businesses:
Attached is a full list of companies we are contacting. Could you look over this list and
add names of any other businesses that are involved in bear viewing in the GBF?
1. Name of company__________________________________________________
Person to interview_________________________________________________
Email_______________________________________Telephone____________
2. Name of company__________________________________________________
Person to interview_________________________________________________
Email_______________________________________Telephone____________
46
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
3. Name of company__________________________________________________
Person to interview_________________________________________________
Email_______________________________________Telephone____________
4. Name of company__________________________________________________
Person to interview_________________________________________________
Email_______________________________________Telephone____________
5. Name of company_________________________________________________
Person to interview_________________________________________________
Email_______________________________________Telephone____________
47
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
Appendix 4. Visitor/Client Survey: Bear Viewing
Visitor/Client Survey: Bear Viewing
(Please indicate all dollar amounts in Canadian Dollars.)
1. Name________________________________________________________
2.
Home Town, Province or Country _____________________________________
3.
What was the main reason for your visit to BC? (If applicable, check both)
Bear Viewing______
Other (specify)_________________________________________
4.
In 2012, how long was your trip in BC?________________
a. How long were you in the Great Bear Rainforest?_____________
b. How many days included bear viewing in the Great Bear
Rainforest?___________
c. What is the total number of days you spent in BC before and after you
visited the Great Bear Rainforest?_______
5.
Number of others who traveled with you to the Great Bear Rainforest_________
6.
What did you spend on the bear viewing portion of your
holiday?________________
How many people did this amount cover?____________
7.
While bear viewing, did you have any additional costs not included in your
viewing package price? ____Yes ____No
8.
If yes, please indicate these costs below:
a.
Tips to bear viewing guides $______________
b.
Other tips $______________
c.
Souvenirs & Gifts $____________
d.
Other (Please specify__________) $____________
9.
Prior to and following your viewing trip, how much per day did you (and your
traveling companions, if applicable) spend on average in BC for the following:
a.
Room (include taxes and tips) $____________per day
b.
Restaurant food and beverage (include taxes and tips) $__________ per
day
c.
Travel costs (excluding flights to/from BC) $_____________ per day
d.
Entertainment (include taxes and tips) $_____________ per day
e.
Shopping (include taxes and tips) $__________ per day
f.
Other expenses (include taxes and tips) $__________ per day
48
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
10. Comments:
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
____________
49
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
Appendix 5. Survey of Hunting Outfitters in Central and North Coast, BC.
Survey of Hunting Outfitters in Central and North Coast, BC
Conducted by:
Center for Responsible Travel (CREST)
at Stanford University and in Washington, DC
The information provided will be kept strictly confidential by the research team and will
be destroyed at the conclusion of the study. Only aggregate information will be released
and under no circumstances will your information be released to any individual,
government, government agency, company, or association. Please enter all requested
dollar amounts in Canadian Dollars.
Respondent Name: ____________________________________________
Respondent Email: ____________________________________________
Respondent Phone Number: ____________________________________________
Respondent Role in Company: ____________________________________________
Company Name: ____________________________________________
Company
Address:___________________________________________________________
Company Website: ____________________________________________
Company General Email Address: ____________________________________
Company Phone Number: ____________________________________________
Company Fax Number: ____________________________________________
Background information:
2.Does your company conduct guided bear hunting or transport hunters to hunting
areas within the Central and North Coast of BC? The following Wildlife
Management Units (WMUs) are included in this study: 114, 115, 215, 506, 507,
508, 509, 510, 511, 603, 610, 611, 614, 615
______Yes
_______No
(If no, please do not continue with the survey)
3.In 2012, which areas(s) within the Central and North Coast was your company
licensed to guide bear hunters? (Please specify by
WMUs)______________________________
______________________________________________________________________
4.Are you aware of any bear viewing tours that also take place in this area?
______Yes ______No
50
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
5.If yes, how often do you encounter/see non-hunting tour groups?
Never ____
Occasionally_____
Often______ Always ______
6.When was your guide outfitter company founded? __________
7.In 2012, what base camp and facilities did your company have? (check all that
apply)
_____ Lodge
_____Trucks/ATVs
_____ Cabins
_____ Pack/riding horses
_____ Hotel/motel
_____ Aircraft
_____ Tents
_____ Watercraft
_____ Other (please specify)___________________________________________
8.How many satellite camps did your company have in 2012?
________Tenured
______ Non-Tenured
Bear Hunting Information – General:
9.What type of bear hunts do you offer?
_____Grizzly
_____Black
_____Both
10.How important is bear hunting to your operations in the Central and North Coast?
____Somewhat important
____Important (one of top 3 reasons people buy the package)
____Very important (main reason people buy the package)
11.Which months do you hunt bears in the Central and North Coast?
_______________________________________________________________________
12.In 2012, what was the maximum number of grizzly bears that your company was
permitted to hunt within the Central and North Coast?__________________
13.In 2012, how many guided grizzly hunts did your company conduct in the Central
and North Coast? _________
14.In 2012, how many grizzlies did your clients harvest in this area? __________
15.In 2012, how many black bears did your clients harvest in the Central and North
Coast? ___________
16.In 2012, how many of bears harvested by your company in the Central and North
Coast were sent for taxidermy preparation?
51
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
____________Grizzly bears
Center for Responsible Travel
________ Black bears
17.Has your number of grizzly and black bear hunts guided by your company
increased or decreased in the past five years?
_____ Increased
_____ Decreased
_____ Stayed the same
Why do you think that is? And what do you think the main reasons for that trend are?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
18.In 2012, did your company hunt any other big game in the Central and North
Coast?
_____ Yes ______ No
If yes, what
species:________________________________________________________
19.Please name any protected areas/conservancies that your company accessed for
hunting in the Central and North Coast in 2012?
_____________________________________
Detailed Information on Your Bear Hunting Packages:
20. What was the total number of guests/visitors your company handled in 2012?
_______in total.
______Number of hunters _______ Number of non-hunters
21. In 2012, what was the total number of clients your company took on trips that
included bear (grizzly and/or black bear) hunting in the Central and North Coast?
____________Total number of clients.
________Number of hunters
_______ Number of non-hunters
22. In 2012, what are the different bear hunting packages that your company offered?
(Please answer using this chart, and add more cells if necessary. Put in Canadian $.)
Name or # of
# of Hunted: Hunter: Total # Average Cost of
Average
Location trips in days/tr Grizzly, Guide
of clients Cost of lodging/pers additional
2012 ip
Black
Ratio
in 2012 package/cl on/night
expenses/
or both
ient
(if not in
guest*
package)
52
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
*Do not include tips/gratuities here. This is covered in Question 29 below.
23.Please list what is included in the package price (e.g. chartered flight, guide, food,
lodging, boat, other local transport, permit fees, licenses,
etc.)______________________
________________________________________________________________________
24.Please list additional expenses that your clients incurred on these hunting trips
(e.g. chartered flight, taxidermy cost, alcohol, ammunition, fees, licenses, royalties, etc.;
DO NOT include cost of transport getting to British
Columbia)______________________
________________________________________________________________________
25.How many of your total guests in 2012 were from:
(Please give actual numbers, not %)
______BC
______Canada (outside BC)
______U.S.
______Europe
______Other countries
Employment Information:
(We are seeking data for your entire company, not simply your bear hunting activities.)
26.During which months in 2012 did your company employ full-time, part-time or
contract staff? (Please include owners and all family members who work for the
company)
____January
____ May
___September
____February
____ June
___October
____March
____ July
___ November
____ April
____ August
___ December
27.How many employees did your company have in 2012? (This may include staff
based outside the Central and North Coast.)
i. Full time _______
ii. Seasonal/Part time______
iii. Contract______
iv. Total_______
28.For 2012, please specify the main employee types, number of persons, and total
person-months of employment. (e.g., 1 guide working 2 months plus another guide
53
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
working 7 months = 9 person-months of guiding) Add more rows as needed to list
all employee types.
Employee Types
Owner(s)
Managers
Guides
Assistant Guides
Base Camp Helpers
Satellite Camp Helpers
Number of Persons
Total Person-Months
TOTAL
29.How many of your staff (full time, seasonal and contract) are originally from towns
or communities in the Central and North Coast? ________
How many are Coastal First Nations? _______
30.What is the total estimated amount that your staff (including guides, waiters,
housekeeping, owners, managers, etc.) received in tips and gratuities in 2012?
$_______________
Financial Information (Revenue and Expenses):
As stated above, the information provided will be kept strictly confidential and will be
destroyed at the conclusion of the study. In order to determine the economic value of both
bear hunting and bear viewing in the Central and North Coast, it is extremely important
that we receive the following financial information (Revenue and Expenses, Questions
30-34) from the companies included in this survey.
Or, instead of answering Questions 30-34, please consider providing us with your 2012
financial statements (income statement and balance sheet). These statements will be kept
confidential. Your 2012 financial statements can be sent to CREST via:
Email: survey@responsibletravel.org
Mail: Survey, Center for Responsible Travel, 1333 H Street, NW,
Suite 300, East Tower, Washington, DC 20005
If you prefer, one of our research team can contact your accountant. If you would like us
to contact your accountant, please specify:
Your accountant’s
name_________________________________________________________
54
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
Contact
information:____________________________________________________________
Telephone number
Email
Revenue
31.In 2012, what was your company’s annual gross revenue from all your operations?
$______________
32.In 2012, what is the estimated percentage (%) of your revenue that was derived
from bear hunting and from other activities? (The sum of all three responses
should be 100)
___% Bear (grizzly and black) hunting
___% Other hunting
___% Non-hunting activities (skiing, trail riding, boating, fishing, cultural, etc)
Expenses
33.What were your company’s total operating expenses (including interest and
amortization) in 2012? $___________
34.Of the 2012 operating expenses (Q32), what was paid for each of the following
categories? (Please mark zero (0) if there were no expenses in a particular
category)
$_____ Labour expenses (wages, salaries)
$_____ Benefits (e.g., medical, pension, WCB, etc)
$_____ Advertising and promotional activities
$_____ Insurance (liability, life, property, etc)
$_____ New facilities, vehicles, equipment, and/or animals (capital investments)
$_____ Maintenance of existing facilities and/or equipment
$_____ Mortgage and rent
$_____ Transportation and fuel (Guest related and freight)
$_____ Food and beverage
$_____ Interest
$_____ Amortization
$_____ All other expenses
$_____TOTAL EXPENSES (Please check that this is the same amount as in Q32)
35.Please estimate the market value of all physical assets (excluding tenure and leases)
owned by your company at the end of 2012. $_______________ Total Assets
36.Knowing the value of taxes/fees paid to governments is extremely important.
Please indicate the total amount of direct taxes/fees paid to governments in 2012:
55
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
$________________Total paid to governments
Please breakdown the government fees/taxes into the following categories:
$__________Gross GST
$__________Provincial hotel tax
$__________Other PST
$__________Crown land lease
$__________Park/conservancy user fee
$__________Property Taxes
$__________Grazing license
$__________Guide/Assistant Guide fee
$__________Business license
$__________Permits and tags
$__________Hunt royalties for harvested grizzlies
$__________Hunt royalties for other harvested species
$__________Other fees, licenses, and taxes
37.Does your company pay protocol fees to First Nations in the Central and North
Coast?
____Yes ____No
If yes, how much did you pay in 2012? $__________________
Trends:
38.How has the size of your business changed in the last 5 years?
____Grown
_____Diminished
_____Stayed the same?
____ Don’t know
Why do you think it has shown this trend?
___________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
39.Do you expect bear hunting tours in your company to increase, stay the same, or
decrease in the Central and North Coast over the next 10 years? Why?
__________________________________________________________________
_______
40.Other businesses:
Attached is a full list of guide outfitters we are contacting. Could you look over this
list and add names of any other businesses that are involved in bear hunting in the
Central and North Coast?
56
JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15
Center for Responsible Travel
41.
Name of company______________________________________________________
Person to interview______________________________________
Email_______________________________________Telephone_____________
42.
Name of company______________________________________________________
Person to interview______________________________________
Email_______________________________________Telephone_____________
43.
Name of company______________________________________________________
Person to interview______________________________________
Email_______________________________________Telephone_________________
57