table - pacific analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/master.be…  · web...

84
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 $660,500 1 ). 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 1 All financial figures with $ are given in Canadian dollars (CAD) unless marked with US $. 1

Upload: lynga

Post on 06-Feb-2018

220 views

Category:

Documents


5 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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 found. In 2012, the Coastal First Nations, an alliance of the Native American tribes that 1 All financial figures with $ are given in Canadian dollars (CAD) unless marked with US $.

1

Page 2: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15 Center for Responsible Travel

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 ReviewOur 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.

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

2

Page 3: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15 Center for Responsible Travel

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 community-based/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 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,

3

Page 4: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15 Center for Responsible Travel

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 non-consumptive 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 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

4

Page 5: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15 Center for Responsible Travel

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 non-resident 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 non-resident 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 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

5

Page 6: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15 Center for Responsible Travel

(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 independent, unguided resident hunters as well as non-resident hunters accompanied by guide outfitters.

MethodsThe research was carried out between April and December 2013 by CREST

researchers in Washington, D.C. and Stanford University and a BC-based ecotourism

6

Page 7: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15 Center for Responsible Travel

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

Page 8: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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

Page 9: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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 ViewingA 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

Page 10: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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 OutfittersAs 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

Page 11: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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

Page 12: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15 Center for Responsible Travel

Map 2: Guide Areas and MUs: Non-Resident Hunters

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

Page 13: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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

Page 14: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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.

Resultso 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

Page 15: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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 bear-viewing 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

Page 16: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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 Input-Output 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 Indirect Induced TOTAL

Visitor Spending2 $15,109.0Company Revenues2 $14,114.9 $1,884.0 $1,700.8 $17,699.8Material Purchases3 $6,805.6 $756.2 $596.3 $8,158.1GDP4 --- of which $7,309.3 $1,127.9 $1,104.6 $9,541.7Labor costs $4,889.6 $722.2 $646.3 $6,258.1

Wages and Salaries5 $4,486.9 $584.1 $434.4 $5,505.4Mixed Income6 $0.0 $57.9 $157.6 $215.5Benefits (SupplementaryLabor Income or SLI) $402.6 $80.3 $54.2 $537.1

Employment: full, part time, & seasonal 510 13 12 535Employment (FTE)7 111 11 10 133Total Taxes $2,483.9 $241.6 $207.8 $2,636.0Total Federal Taxes $971.4 $145.0 $99.0 $1,215.4 Total Indirect Taxes8 $724.8 $7.2 $13.3 $745.2 Personal Income Taxes $194.6 $111.5 $59.7 $365.8 Corp. Income Taxes $52.1 $26.3 $26.0 $104.4Total Provincial Taxes $1,512.5 $96.6 $108.8 $1,717.9 Total Indirect Taxes8 $1,421.9 $46.0 $76.9 $1544.8 Personal Income Taxes $68.5 $39.4 $20.9 $128.9 Corp. Income Taxes $22.1 $11.1 $11.0 $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.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 earnings7 FTE Employment (Full-Time Equivalent) converts total jobs (full-time, part-time and seasonal) to full time full season jobs.

2

16

Page 17: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15 Center for Responsible Travel

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

Page 18: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15 Center for Responsible Travel

Table 2: Reasons for Visiting British Columbia

Bear Viewing Wildlife Viewing Cultural Tourism Other0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%79%

45%

21%

13%

Reason for visiting the GBRF

Tou

rist

s

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

Page 19: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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

Page 20: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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 $220.

5 $32.5 $29.4 $282.4 Wages and Salaries $219.3 $26.2 $19.8 $265.3

Mixed Income

$0.0 $2.

7 $7.

2 $9.9

Benefits

$1.2 $3.

6 $2.

5 $7.3Employment 11 1 1 13Employment (FTE) 4.8 0.5 0.5 5.8Total Taxes $143.1 $11.1 $9.5 $163.6Total Federal Taxes $62.4 $6.7 $4.5 $73.6

Total Indirect Taxes

$52.1 $0.3 $0.6 $53.1

Personal Income Taxes

$7.9 $5.2 $2.7 $15.8

Corp. Income Taxes

$2.4 $1.2 $1.2 $4.7Total Provincial Taxes $80.7 $4.4 $5.0 $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 $2.0Source: 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

Page 21: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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

Page 22: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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.

A 2005 report by BC STATS (Service BC/BC Stats, 2005) estimated a GDP-to-Expenditure 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 ReportThe 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

Page 23: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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 HuntingIn 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.% ofNon-Resident Hunters

# of Bears Killed

Kill Rate # of Resident Hunters

# of Bears Killed

Kill Rate Total # Killed (Harvested)

Grizzly Bears 14 6 43% 47 6 13% 12Black Bears 60 67 117% 65 34 52% 101Total 74 73 99% 112 40 36% 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

Page 24: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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 HuntingTotal Economic Contribution to GDP

# of Kills Value/Kill

Non-Resident $244,600 4 $61,000Resident $60,000 6 $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 Bear Viewing with

CompaniesBear Hunting with Guide

Bear OutfittersNumber of Companies 53 4

Number of Clients 11,369* 74Employment (direct) 510 11

Client Spending $15.1 million $963,800Total Contribution in GDP (direct, indirect, induced) $9.54 million $669,100

Total Revenue to BC Govt(direct, indirect, induced) $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 non-resident combined.

24

Page 25: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15 Center for Responsible Travel

Table 8. Economic Value of Bear Hunting and Bear Viewing in the GBR, 2012.

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.

DiscussionIn 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 non-resident 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 buy-outs from conservation organizations or ecolodges.

25

Page 26: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15 Center for Responsible Travel

ConclusionThis 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 non-consumptive 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

Page 27: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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

Page 28: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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. 51-61.

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

Page 29: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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., & Festa-Bianchet, 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 Tourism Help Conserve Vulnerable and Endangered Species? Prepared for

29

Page 30: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15 Center for Responsible Travel

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

Page 31: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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 Whale-Watching 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

Page 32: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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), 500-505.

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

Page 33: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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

Page 34: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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

Page 35: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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 29,1879-1890.

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, 267-277.

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

Page 36: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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

Page 37: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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.com2. Bear Coast Tours (Nan Charter Boat) www.bearcoasttours.com3. Bella Coola Cumbrian Inn www.bellacoolacumbrianinn.com4. Bella Coola Grizzly Tours www.bcgrizzlytours.com5. Bella Coola Motel www.bellacoolamotel.com6. Bella Coola Valley Inn www.bellacoolavalleyinn.com7. Bella Coola’s Eagle Lodge www.eaglelodgebc.com8. Bluewater Adventures www.bluewateradventures.ca9. Bones Bay Lodge www.bonesbaylodge.com10. Campbell River Whale Watching www.campbellriverwhalewatching.com11. Casa Bella Guest Cottage www.casabellaguestcottage.com12. Coast Mt Guesthouse www.bellacoola.ca13. Cottonwood Cottages www.bellacoola.ca14. Dam Good Logistics www.damgoodlogistics.com15. Discovery Marine Safaris www.adventurewhalewatching.com16. Doug on the Trail www.bellacoola.ca17. Eco Tours BC www.ecotours-bc.com18. Gnome’s Home RV www.gnomeshome.ca19. Great Bear Chalet Ltd. www.greatbearchalet.com20. Great Bear Lodge www.greatbeartours.com21. H2O Adventures www.h20adventure.com22. Kingfisher Wilderness Adventures www.kingfisher-adventures.com23. Knight Inlet Lodge www.grizzlytours.com; www.knightinletlodge.com24. Kynoch West Coast Adventures www.bcmountainlodge.com25. Maple Leaf Adventures www.mapleleafadventures.com26. Mothership Adventures www.mothershipadventures.com27. Natural Habitat www.nathab.com28. Nimmo Bay Resort www.nimmobay.com29. Northern Rockies Lodge www.northern-rockies-lodge.com30. Nusatsum River Guest House www.bellacoolacabin.com31. Ocean Adventures Charter Co. www.oceanadventures.bc.ca32. Ocean Light II Adventures www.oceanlight2.bc.ca33. Outershores Expeditions www.outershores.ca34. Pacific Catalyst II Inc www.pacificcatalyst.com35. Pacific Yellowfin Charters www.pacificyellowfin.com36. Palmerville Adventures www.palmerville.bc.ca

37

Page 38: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15 Center for Responsible Travel

37. Prince Rupert Adventure Tours www.adventuretours.net38. Rainforest Guest House No website available39. Redfern River Lodge www.redfernriverlodge.ca40. Rip Rap Campsite www.riprapcamp.com41. River’s Inlet Lodge www.riversinlet.com42. Sailcone's Grizzly Bear Lodge www.grizzly-bear-watching.com43. Seawolf www.seawolfadventures.net44. Shearwater Resort & Marina www.shearwater.ca45. Spirit Bear Lodge www.spiritbear.com46. Sun Chaser Eco-Tours www.sunchasercharters.ca47. Suntree Guest Cottages www.suntree.ca48. Tallheo Cannery Guest House www.bellacoolacannery.com49. The Float House Inn www.thefloathouseinn.com50. Thunder 1 Adventures Inc www.thunder1.ca51. Tide Rip Grizzly Tours www.tiderip.com52. Tweedsmuir Park Lodge/ www.tweedsmuirparklodge.com;

Bella Coola Heli Skiing www.bellacoolaheliskiing.com53. Whiskey Cove www.whiskeycovebedandbreakfast.com

38

Page 39: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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 BearsBlack Black Grizzly Grizzly

Name Company Management Units

# of Hunters

Total Killed

# of Hunters

Total Killed

JH Sievers North Coast 114,115, 15 13 7 1GE Venus Trophy West 115 8 5 2 0MR Lewis Bolen Lewis 603 16 20 1 1R Milligan Milligan

Outfitting610, 611, 614

21 29 4 4

Totals 60 67 14 6

39

Page 40: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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 RainforestConducted 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

Page 41: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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

Page 42: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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 locationof tour

Total #of toursin 2012

Length of tour:

# of days

Avg. # of clients/

tour(group size)

Cost of package/

guest

Cost of lodging/person/ night (if not in

package)

Average additional expenses/

guest*

42

Page 43: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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

Page 44: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15 Center for Responsible Travel

Employee Types Number of Persons Total Person-MonthsOwner(s)ManagersGuidesAccountants

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: [email protected]: 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:______________________________________________________

Telephone number Email

44

Page 45: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15 Center for Responsible Travel

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

Page 46: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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

Page 47: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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

Page 48: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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 dayb. Restaurant food and beverage (include taxes and tips) $__________ per

dayc. Travel costs (excluding flights to/from BC) $_____________ per dayd. Entertainment (include taxes and tips) $_____________ per daye. Shopping (include taxes and tips) $__________ per dayf. Other expenses (include taxes and tips) $__________ per day

48

Page 49: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15 Center for Responsible Travel

10. Comments: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

49

Page 50: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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, BCConducted 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

Page 51: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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

Page 52: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

JOE Revised Submission. 2.3.15 Center for Responsible Travel

____________Grizzly bears ________ 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 ______ NoIf 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 Location

# of trips in 2012

# of days/trip

Hunted: Grizzly,Blackor both

Hunter: Guide Ratio

Total # of clients in 2012

Average Cost of package/client

Cost of lodging/person/night(if not in package)

Average additional expenses/guest*

52

Page 53: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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

Page 54: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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 Number of Persons Total Person-MonthsOwner(s)ManagersGuidesAssistant GuidesBase Camp HelpersSatellite Camp Helpers

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: [email protected] 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

Page 55: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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

Page 56: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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

Page 57: Table - Pacific Analyticspacificanalytics.ca/sites/default/files/reports/MASTER.Be…  · Web viewWord Count: 9323] Intro. duction. This ... & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). The Value of

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