IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/joaaec/15394.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Depredation Claim Behavior And Tolerance Of Wildlife In Wyoming

Author

Listed:
  • Van Tassell, Larry W.
  • Yang, Bozheng
  • Phillips, Clynn

Abstract

Wyoming Game and Fish Department depredation payments were established to increase landowner tolerance toward, and this the supply of, certain types of wildlife. This study examined how socio-economic and demographic characteristics of farmers and ranchers in Wyoming relate to tolerance toward wildlife and depredation claim submission. The severity of depredation and landowner satisfaction with the depredation policy were evaluated. The financial stability and economic intent of farmers and ranchers significantly influenced tolerance toward wildlife. Landowners tended to be less tolerant of depredation ensuing from elk. The complexity of the submission process was a deterrent to damage claim submissions.

Suggested Citation

  • Van Tassell, Larry W. & Yang, Bozheng & Phillips, Clynn, 2000. "Depredation Claim Behavior And Tolerance Of Wildlife In Wyoming," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 32(1), pages 1-14, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:joaaec:15394
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.15394
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/15394/files/32010175.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.15394?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christine A. Ervin & David E. Ervin, 1982. "Factors Affecting the Use of Soil Conservation Practices: Hypotheses, Evidence, and Policy Implications," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 58(3), pages 277-292.
    2. Kevin T. McNamara & Michael E. Wetzstein & G. Keith Douce, 1991. "Factors Affecting Peanut Producer Adoption of Integrated Pest Management," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 13(1), pages 129-139.
    3. Amemiya, Takeshi, 1981. "Qualitative Response Models: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 1483-1536, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bastian, Chris T. & McLeod, Donald M. & Germino, Matthew J. & Reiners, William A. & Blasko, Benedict J., 2002. "Environmental amenities and agricultural land values: a hedonic model using geographic information systems data," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 337-349, March.
    2. Andrew Gregory & Emma Spence & Paul Beier & Emily Garding, 2021. "Toward Best Management Practices for Ecological Corridors," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-25, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Owens, Nicole N. & Swinton, Scott M. & van Ravenswaay, Eileen O., 1997. "Will Farmers Use Safer Pesticides?," Staff Paper Series 11577, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    2. Wang, H. Holly & Young, Douglas L. & Camara, Oumou M., 2000. "The Role Of Environmental Education In Predicting Adoption Of Wind Erosion Control Practices," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 25(2), pages 1-12, December.
    3. Norris, Patricia E. & Batie, Sandra S., 1987. "Virginia Farmers' Soil Conservation Decisions: An Application Of Tobit Analysis," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 19(1), pages 1-12, July.
    4. Traxler, Emilia & Li, Tongzhe, 2020. "Agricultural Best Management Practices, A summary of adoption behaviour," Working Papers 305271, University of Guelph, Institute for the Advanced Study of Food and Agricultural Policy.
    5. Jolejole, Christina B. & Swinton, Scott M. & Lupi, Frank, 2009. "Incentives to Supply Enhanced Ecosystem Services from Cropland," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49356, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Magali Aubert & Jean Marie Codron & Sylvain Rousset & Murat Yercan, 2017. "Which factors lead tomato growers to implement integrated pest management? Evidence from Turkey," Post-Print hal-02735805, HAL.
    7. Magali Aubert & Jean Marie Codron & Sylvain Rousset & Murat Yercan, 2013. "The adoption of IPM practices by small scale producers: the case of greenhouse tomato growers in Turkey," Post-Print hal-02749133, HAL.
    8. Arturo Estrella & Anthony P. Rodrigues, 1998. "Consistent covariance matrix estimation in probit models with autocorrelated errors," Staff Reports 39, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
    9. Seyoung Chae & Almas Heshmati, 2024. "The effects of lifetime work experience on incidence and severity of elderly poverty in Korea," Journal of Social and Economic Development, Springer;Institute for Social and Economic Change, vol. 26(2), pages 521-554, August.
    10. Preusse, Verena & Wollni, Meike, 2021. "Adoption of sustainable agricultural practices in the context of urbanisation and environmental stress – Evidence from farmers in the rural-urban interface of Bangalore, India," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 312690, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Barlow, G. R. & Nieuwoudt, W. L. & Levin, J. B., 1995. "Factors Influencing The Adoption Of Soil Conservation Practices On Commercial Farms In Kwazulu - Natal," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 34(3), September.
    12. T.R.L. Fry & R.D. Brooks & Br. Comley & J. Zhang, 1993. "Economic Motivations for Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variable Models," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 69(2), pages 193-205, June.
    13. Banerjee, Swagata (Ban) & Martin, Steven W. & Roberts, Roland K. & Larson, James A. & Hogan, Robert J., Jr. & Johnson, Jason L. & Paxton, Kenneth W. & Reeves, Jeanne M., 2007. "Adoption of Conservation-Tillage Practices in Cotton Production," 2007 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2007, Mobile, Alabama 34842, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    14. Paleti, Rajesh, 2018. "Generalized multinomial probit Model: Accommodating constrained random parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 248-262.
    15. Ferrer, Stuart R.D. & Nieuwoudt, W. Lieb, 1997. "Factors affecting soil conservation decisions of KwaZulu-Natal commercial sugarcane farmers," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 36(4), pages 1-9, December.
    16. Maria Iacovou, 2002. "Class Size in the Early Years: Is Smaller Really Better?," Education Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(3), pages 261-290.
    17. Erik Stam & Roy Thurik & Peter van der Zwan, 2010. "Entrepreneurial exit in real and imagined markets," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(4), pages 1109-1139, August.
    18. Saem Lee & Trung Thanh Nguyen & Patrick Poppenborg & Hio-Jung Shin & Thomas Koellner, 2016. "Conventional, Partially Converted and Environmentally Friendly Farming in South Korea: Profitability and Factors Affecting Farmers’ Choice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-18, July.
    19. Ahmet Kubas & I. Inan & Gokhan Unakitan & E. Erbay, 2008. "The Estimation of the Relationships between Water-Natural Gas Usage and Discharge-Emission Permission by Using Binary Logistic Model for the Industrial Establishments," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 35-44, February.
    20. Chu-Ping C. Vijverberg & Wim P. M. Vijverberg, 2016. "Pregibit: a family of binary choice models," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 50(3), pages 901-932, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:joaaec:15394. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/saeaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.