|
Go to Southwick Associate's home page and you learn that:
Southwick Associates specializes in the business-side of fish and wildlife. We help natural resource agencies & the outdoor industries understand the retail sales, economic impacts, and other benefits business and people receive from wildlife and fisheries.
If we assume these people know their business, then here's a stiff dose of their cold reality:
Today, many of the driving influences in fish and wildlife management originate within state and federal legislatures, corporate boardrooms, courtrooms and media offices. These influences decide not only the financial resources available for fish and wildlife but also shape public attitudes that ultimately decide the fate of all natural resource programs.
With that in mind, I encourage you to read the appended article from the most recent Southwick Newsletter about pricing Outdoor Recreation. It begins with these important words:
Everyone remembers their Econ 101 professor saying “when prices go up, sales go down.” This is true for fishing, hunting and other outdoor pursuits. When sportsmen pay more for fuel, we know fewer will fish and hunt. But, price increases are realized in more places than the cash register, and the effects can be severe for conservation and commerce.
I have long suggested that the rapidly increasing cost of recreation user-fees is, at least partially, to blame for declining visitation to America's National Parks and for declining recreational use of our National Forests and other public lands. The visitation trends are well established. The cause remains a matter of much debate.
 Try as hard as you will, you are unlikely to find even one public land manager willing to admit the possibility of a correlation between pricing and visitation. Today's public land managers take their marching orders from outside of their own agencies, as Southwick so clearly says, and those who give the orders insist that the issue of user-fees is never discussed — or so I suggest.
Now read the article from Southwick Associates and you'll discover that even they fail to mention the issue of user-fees in their discussion of cost-related visitation trends!! It that because people in corporate boardrooms prefer that Soutwick avoids the subjects of fees and privatization and focuses attention instead upon a very different set of recreation costs — a set of recreation costs that are of greater interest to those sitting within a
board room, think tank, or private meeting between industry and government
officials!?
Scott
--- begin quoted ---
Winter 2007
Welcome to the Southwick Newsletter focusing on economics and
statistics related to fish & wildlife management and outdoor
recreation. This newsletter highlights recent research from Southwick
Associates.
Price Increases in any Form Impact Participation
Everyone remembers their Econ 101 professor saying “when prices go up,
sales go down.” This is true for fishing, hunting and other outdoor
pursuits. When sportsmen pay more for fuel, we know fewer will fish and
hunt. But, price increases are realized in more places than the cash
register, and the effects can be severe for conservation and commerce.
Any additional cost you incur to buy something is a price increase.
Anything that is considered a negative, or detraction, from the joys of
spending a day outdoors, is effectively a price increase. For example,
when new regulations are regarded as a hassle by anglers, this acts as
a price increase. The extra hassle, or cost, reduces the overall
benefits from fishing and is enough to discourage many anglers from
participating altogether. These anglers will find some other way to
spend their free time, and we lose their license revenues and tackle
purchases. Increasingly longer drives to huntable lands or rising
tempers at boat ramps also act as defacto price increases and take away
from the satisfaction received from a day spent outdoors. Every slight
increase is enough to encourage more anglers to find a new recreational
activity.
Price increases are not just man-made. Red tide outbreaks in marine
waters reduce catches and foul the air, thus increasing the negatives
associated with a day of fishing. If hunters perceive a greater risk of
harvesting diseased game, this is tantamount to a price increase and
will be enough to drive some hunters to other activities. And these
types of price increases are not new to the outdoor community. New
rules telling people where they can or cannot mountain bike or ride jet
skis also add to the intrinsic cost of participation – a price increase
– and reduce sales and days spent outdoors. Economists call many of
these problems “opportunity costs”, and just like a nominal price
increase, they are additional costs imposed on the user, and are enough
to discourage many from participating.
Increased costs do not have to be real to impact participation and
expenditures. Just the perception of potential cost increases, such as
rumors of long waits to get onto limited access lands or fears of
increased user fees, will stop many people from participating.
Why bring up this issue? If we are trying to increase the number of
people participating in nature-based sports, we must do all we can to
lower their cost of participation. Whether the additional costs are
real or perceived, additional costs impact people’s decisions to go
outdoors or do something else. Often, price hikes, regulatory changes
and other similar actions are necessary. However, by carefully
considering the impacts on participants from any actions or changes,
resource agencies and outdoor-related businesses can minimize the
negative effects of price hikes.
|
- Various 
