United States 

Department of 

Agriculture Satisfaction, Valuation, and 

Forest Service Views Toward Allocation of 

Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station Vermont Goose Hunting 

Research Paper NE-668 Opportunities 

Ronald J. Glass 

Thomas A. More 
Abstract 

Goose hunting opportunities are becoming increasingly limited and demand often 

exceeds supply. The results of a survey of goose hunters on Dead Creek Goose 

Management Area in Vermont indicated that hunters were satisfied with the 

management of the area, approved of the regulations imposed, and enjoyed 

interacting with management staff. With respect to motivations for goose hunting, 

the highest satisfaction scores were "sharing experience with friends" and 

"enjoying the aesthetics of the area," whereas shooting a goose was rated midlevel. The current lottery system to select hunters was preferred over "first-come, 

first-served" and "pay to hunt" as the means of allocating goose hunting 

opportunities. Assuming goose hunting permits could be bought and sold, the 

average price that respondents were willing to pay was $33.34, while the price at 

which they would sell a permit was $74.44. 

The Authors 

RONALD J. GLASS is a research economist with the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Recreation Research unit at the Northeastern 

Forest Experiment Station's George D. Aiken Forestry Sciences Laboratory at 

Burlington, Vermont. He also has workBd with the Economic Research Service of 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 

He received MS. and Ph.D. degrees in economics from the University of 

Minnesota and the State University of New York at Syracuse. 

THOMAS A. MORE is a social scientist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Services, Forest Recreation Research unit at the Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station at Burlington, Vermont. He also has taught forestry and 

recreation resource management at West Virginia University. He received B.S. 

and M.S. degrees in forestry from the University of Massachusetts, and a Ph.D. 

degree in forestry from the University of Michigan. 

Manuscript received for publication 26 May 1992 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station 

5 Radnor Corporate Center 

100 Matsonford Road, Suite 200 

P.O. Box 6775 

Radnor, Pennsylvania 19087-4585 

December 1992 
Introduction 

Although there has been a long tradition of free hunting in 

North America, changing socioeconomic conditions are 

reducing such opportunities in many localities so that, 

today, public agencies are increasingly involved in 

allocating hunting opportunities. In order to satisfy public 

wants, it is essential to develop a better understanding of 

hunter expectations, satisfactions, payoffs, and tolerance 

toward more restrictive regulations associated with scarcity. 

Hunter satisfaction is related to packages of goods and 

services that constitute pleasurable outdoor experiences 

(Hendee 1974; More 1973, 1984). The components of this 

package include biological and physical attributes of the 

quarry and the hunting site, but also involve deeper 

interrelationships between humans and the natural 

environment. 

Resource scarcity also implies the allocation of a limited 

supply to potential users. As a matter of policy, public 

agencies often forego monetary returns in order to satisfy 

other concerns like the long-term well-being of wildlife 

populations or equity in the distribution of wildlife-related 

benefits. While such policies may be representative of 

society in general, the views of active hunters toward the 

allocation of hunting opportunities are of particular interest 

because hunters are involved in "consumptive" use and 

because they have long advocated wildlife management 

and protective regulations. Besides pressing for wildlife 

conservation measures, hunters finance most programs 

through the purchase of licenses and hunting stamps as 

well as through payment of excise taxes on guns and 

ammunition through the Pittman-Robertson Act. 

Most of Northern New England has yet to reach the stage 

where hunting opportunities are severely limited for most 

wildlife species, so residents have not experienced the sale 

of hunting rights to the extent that this has become 

commonplace in other regions (Langner 1987). However, 

goose hunting opportunities in Vermont traditionally have 

been quite limited and thus provide a means to examine 

hunters' views toward allocating relatively scarce hunting 

rights. In thispaper, we examine the views of wild goose 

hunters on Dead Creek Goose Management Area in 

Addison, Vermont. 

The Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department established the 

Dead Creek Wildlife Management Area in 1953 to develop a 

viable local population of Canada geese (Branta 

canadensis) (Coffin 1988). Forty-four wild, trapped Canada 

geese were introduced in 1956; the first viable nesting 

occurring in 1960. From this beginning, a nesting population 

of about 100 Canada geese developed, but there are often 

another 10,000 to 12,000 migrating Canada and snow 

geese (Chen caerulescens) on the area during the fall. The 

management area includes 2,858 acres of state-owned land 

with 1,000 acres of adjacent private lands being leased by 

the state for their hunting rights. 

Goose hunting was first permitted on the Dead Creek 

Wildlife Management Area in 1974. It is a controlled hunt in 

which the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife 

constructs up to 15 blinds (average of 10 to 12 blinds) 

accommodating a maximum of 3 hunters each. The 

Department also supplies about 20 silhouette goose decoys 

for use with each blind. Instruction on local rules and 

regulations, safety, and goose hunting techniques is given 

before the hunt. Hunting is permitted on Mondays, 

Wednesdays, and Fridays (one-half hour before sunrise to 

11:OO a.m.) each week from early October to the end of 

November. 

Since demand exceeds available opportunities, a lottery 

system has been established to select those allowed to 

hunt. Applications, for which there are no charges, are 

submitted before goose season. Applicants select three 

dates: their chance of success varies with the total number 

of hunters applying for those dates. Each successful 

applicant may bring two guests to share the blind. Lottery 

winners must be present 2 hours before the official opening 

time on the date for which they were successful, or forfeit 

the opportunity. Forfeited opportunities, or those not 

allocated by the lottery, may be claimed by standby hunters. 

Standby hunters come in before the forfeiture time and 

place their names on a list maintained by the Department 

staff. The names of hunters (maximum of three) wishing to 

hunt together are treated as a single entry, one person 

being designated to draw a number from a hat to determine 

which of these groups could hunt and the sequence to 

select the specific blind for each group. Once groups are 

designated, no one can be added, so a blind may have from 

one to three hunters, depending on the names entered. This 

is in contrast to lottery winners who can designate up to two 

additional hunters at any time, or can hunt by themselves. 

Lottery winners also pick numbers out of a hat to determine 

the sequence in which they can select individual blinds, all 

lottery winners making a selection before the standbys. 

In this paper, we examine the results of a survey of Dead 

Creek goose hunters conducted by the Vermont Fish and 

Wildlife Department in cooperation with the Northeastern 

Forest Experiment Station. The views of goose hunters 

toward the fairness of the lottery and toward alternative 

systems for allocating goose hunting opportunities on Dead 

Creek are examined. Reasons for desiring to hunt in the 

area and the monetary value of the goose hunting 

opportunity also are discussed. 
Methods 

Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department staff gave each 

person who hunted on Dead Creek during the 1987 goose 

hunting season a stamped, mail-back questionnaire seeking 

information on the day's hunt, views toward alternative 

allocation systems, levels of satisfaction, and the monetary 

value placed on the hunt, as well as selected personal 

characteristics. Hunters were asked to complete only one 

questionnaire during the season to eliminate the remote 

possibility of double responses from the few hunters who 

might have had an opportunity to hunt on the area more 

than once. Mail-back questionnaires designed according to 

Dillman's (1978) Total Design Method were used since 

there was limited time and opportunity to complete them at 

the site. A follow-up reminder post card was mailed after the 

close of goose season in December. In total, 598 

questionnaires were distributed, of which 275 were 

returned completed, a 46 percent response rate. * 

Individual questions varied in form depending upon the kind 

of response being solicited. Those questions relating to 

satisfaction with the physical setting, special regulations, 

and interactions with the Management Area staff called for 

"yes" or "no" responses only. For questions dealing with 

hunter satisfactions, the respondents were asked to circle a 

number between 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) 

in response to specific statements. The statements were 

grouped into 11 categories: friendship, novelty, meeting 

new people, stress reduction, aesthetics, excitement, skill 

sharing, nostalgia, equipment, harvest, and challenge. The 

average value of responses was calculated within each 

category and the relative importance ranked by score. 

Questions relating to valuation asked respondents how 

much they would pay for a permit or take for one that they 

had drawn, assuming it was legal and proper to buy and sell 

permits. Respondents also rated the appropriateness of 

these allocation systems ("first-come, first-served," "pay to 

hunt," and a lottery) on a 5-point scale ranging from very 

inappropriate (1) to very appropriate (5). Hunters also were 

asked to rank these three systems in order of preference. 

The primary means of gaining access to hunt Dead Creek 

during the 1987 goose season was selection in the lottery or 

being a guest of someone who had been selected in the 

lottery; combined, these accounted for 82 percent of those 

hunting, while stand-by hunters accounted for the remaining 

18 percent. The principal reasons for choosing Dead Creek 

to hunt geese were "a good quality goose hunting area" by 

75 percent of the respondents; ','past experience," 43 

percent; "enjoy talking and dealing with Wildlife 

Management Area staff," 35 percent; "the availability of 

specialized goose hunting equipment," 30 percent; and 

"understood there was a good chance of bagging a goose," 

29 percent. 

Generally, the respondents were quite satisfied with the 

hunting equipment provided at Dead Creek. For seven 

questions dealing with physical attributes, an overwhelming 

majority indicated the existing situation was favorable 

(Table 1). In fact, 96 percent of the respondents agreed that 

the Management Area was a good place to hunt. Blind 

construction and locations also were approved by an 

overwhelming proportion of the respondents. Only in the 

case of the adequacy of the goose decoys provided at each 

blind did as many as one-fourth of the hunters respond 

negatively; still, 73 percent felt the decoys were adequate. 

Table 1 .-Hunters' views toward locational and physical attributes of Dead Creek goose hunt 

Hunter response 

Yes No 

Attribute Number Percent Number Percent 

Construction and design of goose blind was satisfactory 256 93.4 18 6.6 

Goose blind was far enough from next blind 245 89.4 29 10.6 pp - 

Goose blind was far enough from houses, barns, 

and roads. 

Goose blind was located ideally relative to cropping 

patterns in immediate area 

Goose blind was located too close to restricted 

areas 13 4.7 262 95.3 

Goose decoys provided at Wildlife Management 

Area were adequate 197 73.0 73 27.0 

Area provided a good environment for a hunt 263 96.3 7 2.7 
Finally, over 97 percent of the respondents approved of the 

instructions and information provided by the Dead Creek 

management staff (Table 2). On the negative side, 37 

percent of the respondents revealed problems caused by 

hunters shooting at geese which were out of range, thereby 

diminishing shooting opportunities for other hunters. 

Another source of difficulty was that some hunters would 

stand around their blinds talking after bagging their limits of 

geese' making it more difficult for those in adjacent blinds 

to draw geese into shotgun range. 

Table 2.-Hunters' views toward interaction with other 

people 

Hunter response 

Yes No 

Human contact Number Percent Number Percent 

Instructions and information 

provided by Management 

Area staff prior to hunt 

was useful 265 97.4 7 2.6 

Hunters shooting at geese 

that were out of range was 

a distraction 102 37.1 171 62.2 

With respect to special regulations imposed upon hunters at 

Dead Creek, the hunters generally agreed with existing policies 

(Table 3). The most notable exceptions pertained to closing 

Dead Creek to goose hunting before the statewide 

Table 3.-Views of hunters toward special regulations 

for goose hunting on Dead Creek Goose 

Management Area 

Hunter response 

Regulation 

Favored Opposed 

Number Percent Number Percent 

Limit of eight (8) shotgun 

shells per hunter 197 72.2 76 27.8 

Shooting hours, one-half 

hour before sunrise to 

11 :00 a.m. 233 85.1 41 14.9 

Hunts available only 

three davs ~er week 246 90.1 27 9.9 

Limit of two geese per 

hunter per day 212 77.1 63 22.9 

Prohibition against 

usina doas 235 85.8 39 14.2 

Maximum of three 

~eo~le ~er blind 263 95.6 12 4.4 

Closing of goose season 

on the Management Area 

before statewide season 

closes 136 51.9 126 48.1 

season closure. In this case, 48 percent opposed the early 

closure as opposed to 52 percent who favored it. Having 

hunts available only 3 days per week and a maximum of 

three people to a blind were approved by over 90 percent of 

the respondents. The bag limit of two geese per day and 

limit of eight shotgun shells per hunter were generally 

approved, but 23 percent and 28 percent of the 

respondents, respectively, disapproved of these regulations. 

Regulations barring the use of dogs and limiting the hunting 

hours from one-half hour before sunrise to 11 :00 a.m. met 

the approval of over 85 percent of'the respondents. 

The most important motives or satisfactions related to the 

Dead Creek goose hunt were friendship (being with friends), 

aesthetics (enjoying the natural environment), temporary 

escape (relaxing and relieving tensions), excitement 

(action), and nostalgia (past memories) (Table 4). It is 

particularly noteworthy that harvest (bagging a goose) was 

ranked near the middle in relative importance rather than at 

the top. Lowest rated motives were spiritual contact with 

Table 4.-Motivations of Dead Creek Wildlife Management 

Area hunters 

Motive Ranking Mean score* Standard 

deviation 

Friendship 

Aesthetics 

Temporary escape 

Excitement 

Nostalgia 

Novelty 

Harvest 

Equipment 

Meet new people 

Teaching others 

Spiritual 

*Ranked on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). 

nature, teaching others about goose hunting, meeting new 

people, and using goose hunting equipment. With the 

respect to hunters' motive structure, age appears to be an 

important factor. With increasing age, the importance of the 

harvest and excitement motives tend to decline, while there 

is increased emphasis on teaching others. 

Respondents were queried regarding the appropriateness of 

using alternative allocation systems for Dead Creek goose 

hunting opportunities. Three systems were examined in this 

context: "first-come, first-served," "pay to hunt," and the 

current lottery system. An overwhelming majority of hunters 

rejected both "first-come, first-served" and "pay to hunt," 

but accepted the lottery system. With respect to "first-come, 

first-served," over 86 percent of the respondents thought it 

either "very inappropriate" or "inappropriate." In fact, only 

slightly over 6 percent favored the "first-come, first-served" 

allocation system. 
Allocating goose hunting opportunities by pay-to-hunt 

privileges also was soundly rejected by goose hunters. 

More than 86 percent of the respondents viewed "pay to 

hunt" as "very inappropriate" or "inappropriate" as 

compared to 6 percent who viewed it favorably. 

By contrast, allocation of hunting opportunities by the lottery 

system was viewed favorably. Over 90 percent of hunters 

rated the lottery as either "very appropriate" or 

"appropriate" as compared to less than 7 percent that felt 

this system was not appropriate to allocate goose hunting 

opportunities. 

The respondents also ranked the three alternative allocation 

systems. Here again, the lottery system was most favored; 

ranked first by 93 percent and second by 6.2 percent of the 

hunters. By contrast, neither "first-come, first-served" nor 

"pay to hunt" was ranked first by as many as 4 percent of 

the respondents. However, the "firstcome, first-served" 

allocation system was placed second by 64 percent, while 

"pay to hunt" was ranked second by 29 percent of the 

respondents. Thus, two-thirds of the respondents ranked 

market pricing as the least favored means to allocate goose 

hunting permits at Dead Creek Goose Management Area. 

To provide a basis for valuation, hunters were asked four 

questions relating to the price at which they would buy or 

sell permits if it was legal and considered proper to do so. 

The average price that hunters would spend for a permit 

was $33.34, with the median at $20.00. On the other hand, 

the average price for which hunters would sell a permit was 

$74.44. 

While many goose hunters prefer the Dead Creek area, 

other opportunities are available nearby. In fact, 61 percent 

of the hunters at Dead Creek intended to hunt geese at 

least once more in Vermont during the current year, and 42 

percent planned to hunt geese five times or more. Dead 

Creek goose hunters also were quite active in pursuing 

other game species. Eighty-four percent of the respondents 

hunted both big game and wild ducks whereas 75 percent 

hunted upland game birds. With respect to hunting small 

mammals such as rabbits and squirrels, 37 percent of the 

respondents participated. 

Discussion 

As hunting opportunities become increasingly scarce, a 

number of actions are necessarily undertaken by public 

management agencies to provide opportunities for people to 

engage in this activity. Many of the actions are likely to 

infringe upon the latitude in which individuals can 

participate in the hunt: seasons are shortened, bag limits 

reduced, restrictions placed on hunt techniques, and other 

limitations may be placed on traditional forms and styles of 

hunting. Dead Creek provides an opportunity to examine 

the response of goose hunters to a relatively structured 

hunting environment. 

It is noteworthy that the respondents appeared to readily 

accept the myriad of special restrictions and limited access 

imposed upon them at Dead Creek. Those who opposed 

participation in such a structured situation probably did not 

apply for a hunting permit or may have sought hunting 

opportunities elsewhere. On the other hand, those who 

hunted generally accepted the imposition of a number of 

restrictions including access itself. 

The most frequently cited motivations of Dead Creek 

hunters also revealed that interrelationships with other 

people (friends) and nature (aesthetics) were important 

motivational factors. While bagging a goose was an 

important consideration, it ranked near the middle of the 

various motivations in terms of importance. However, the 

presence of geese certainly contribute to other factors such 

as aesthetics and excitement. 

Of the three alternatives presented as a means of allocating 

goose hunting opportunities on Dead Creek, only the 

current lottery system was widely accepted. Familiarity with 

the existing system may have contributed to its support. 

The respondents apparently appreciated the difficulties 

associated with administering the "first-come, first-served" 

approach, considering a relatively high demand for limited 

opportunities. However nearly two-thirds of the respondents 

placed "first-come, first-served" as the second most 

favored allocative process. "Pay to hunt" received very little 

support, although it would have assured'a blind for those 

willing to pay for an opportunity to goose hunt rather than 

being content with a 1-in-8 probability of being selected. In 

other regions where hunters have become accustomed to 

pay for hunting opportunities, "pay to hunt" might be more 

favorably viewed. 

Other &dies involving both game and nongame species 

indicate that considerable altruistic, bequest, and intrinsic 

values, which occur outside of traditional concepts of the 

market, exist for wildlife (Glass et al. 1990). A sizable 

number of people apparently believe that wildlife cannot 

and should not be valued within the traditional precepts of 

neoclassical economic theory. Further, many believe that 

publicly-owned resources should be allocated in a manner 

where fairness in distribution should be given emphasis 

over market efficiency. 

Concern for equity in the distribution of hunting 

opportunities has a long history in North America and is still 

a basic consideration when allocating hunting opportunities. 

When wildlife populations are at reduced levels that will not 

sustain open hunting even with abbreviated seasons, the 

most common practice employed by public wildlife 

management agencies is the use of lotteries to determine 

who is to receive hunting rights. This is in sharp contrast to 

the traditional economic efficiency approach which would 

advocate auctioning of hunting rights to generate maximum 

revenue and provide hunting opportunities only to those 

willing to pay the highest prices-theoretically a reflection of 

the value that they place on the opportunity. However, 
maximizing monetary returns is seldom a politically 1 acceptable objective for public agencies when allocating 

wildlife-related opportunities. While the views of present or 

potential users toward the allocation of hunting 

opportunities provides useful insights, it represents a small 

portion of all Vermont hunters and does not consider the 

I views of other segments of the general population. Even 

though hunters have traditionally provided the revenues 

supporting wildlife management, more information is 

needed on the attitudes, concerns, and values associated 

with wildlife by the general public. Common property 

resources belong to all, and a broader spectrum of public 

opinion must be considered in allocation and management 

policy formulation. 

Literature Cited 

Coffin, Howard. 1988. The geese of Addison. Vermont 

Quarterly. 7(2): 9-12. 

Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: the total 

design method. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 325 p. 

Glass, R. J.; T. More; T. Stevens. 1990. Public attitudes, 

politics, and extra market values for reintroduced 

wildlife: examples from New England. In: Transactions 

55th North American Wildlife and Natural Resource 

Conference; 1990 March 19-22; Denver, CO. 

Washington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute: 55: 

548-557. 

Hendee, J. 1974. A multiple-satisfactions approach to 

game management. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 

2: 104-1 13. 

Langner, Linda L. 1987. Hunter participation in fee access 

hunting. In: Transactions 52nd North American Wildlife 

and Natural Resource Conference; 1987 March 20-25; 

Quebec City, Canada. Washington, DC: Wildlife 

Management Institute: 52: 475-482. 

More, T. 1973. Attitudes of Massachusetts hunters. In: 

Transactions 33rd North American Wildlife and Natural 

Resource Conference; 1973 March 18-21; Washington, 

DC. Washington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute. 

38: 230-234. 

More, T. 1984. Hunting: A theoretical explanation with 

management implications. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 

1 2(4): 338-344. 
Glass, Ronald J.; More, Thomas A. 1992. Satisfaction, valuation, and 

views toward allocation of Vermont goose hunting opportunities. 

Res. Pap. NE-668. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 5 p. 

A survey of goose hunters on a limited access area, Dead Creek Goose 

Management Area, in Vermont, was conducted during the fall of 1987. 

Respondents appeared well adapted to the structured hunting environment 

and agreed with most of the special rules and regulations. The current 

lottery system was favored over "first-come, first-served'' and market 

pricing as alternative marketing systems. 

Keywords: Goose hunting; wildlife allocation; hunting values; structured hunts 

aU. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 19921750-123160003 
Headquarters of the Northeastern Forest Experiment Station Is In Radnor, Pennsylvania. Field laboratories are maintained at: 

Amherst, Massachusetts, in cooperation with the University of Massachusetts 

Burlington, Vermont, in cooperation with the University of Vermont 

Delaware, Ohio 

Durham, New Hampshire, in cooperation with the University of New Hampshire 

Hamden, Connecticut, in cooperation with Yale University 

Morgantown, West Virginia, in cooperation with West Virginia University 

Orono, Maine, in cooperation with the University of Maine 

Parsons, West Virginia 

Princeton, West Virginia 

Syracuse, New York, in cooperation with the State University of New York, 

College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry at Syracuse University 

University Park, Pennsylvania, in cooperatioo with The Pennsylvania State University 

Warren, Pennsylvania 

Persons of any race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, or with any handicapping condition are welcome to use and enjoy all facilities, programs, and services of 

the USDA. Discrimination in any form is strictly against agency policy, and should be 

reported to 'the Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250. 

"Caring for the Land and Sewing People Through Research'