Hunting: Market Style

Teddy Roosevelt was credited by the NY Times recently as saying that ‘wildlife belongs to all, and not just to those with land and wealth’. Of course Mr. Roosevelt was president of the United States from 1901 to 1909 when the population was around 90 million and there were only 46 states (New Mexico and Arizona joined in 1912 and Alaska and Hawaii in 1959). In Mr. Roosevelt’s time, wildlife was not terribly scarce.

Now, with 50 states, 320 million people and an estimated 223 million firearms held by individuals, there is not enough wildlife for everyone to shoot. When a shortage occurs, the most efficient allocation method usually involves a market.

This is the approach that Utah has taken. Some licenses are available for $35 in a blind draw, the method used in most jurisdictions. The supply of licenses is determined to conserve wildlife which, for most species means there will be an excess demand.

Some of the licenses are given to non-profit organizations that support conservation. These licenses are auctioned off to the highest bidder; and that will be the market equilibrium. Still others are given to private land owners willing to open their land to hunters. These tend to be the most expensive licenses. Landowners that participate in this program have a profit incentive to create an environment that is conducive to the survival of wildlife. As such, the likelihood of ‘bagging’ an animal is higher on private land and thus the price is higher. This further increases the incentive for land owners.

The primary objection to this profit-maximizing program is that ‘money’ is being used to determine who gets to hunt. This is true, but it is also a tried and true method of allocating scarce resources in an efficient manner. When a resource is scarce, efficiency dictates that it should be used I the most ‘valuable’ endeavor.

One may argue that wildlife is a social resource, as President Roosevelt did, and this implies that hunting should maximize ‘social welfare’. I’ll admit that I am not a hunter, but as a member of the society that ‘owns’ an elk, I would hope that that elk would be ‘sold’ for the highest possible price.

The NY Times article quotes a dentist from Utah that is complaining about the market allocation of game. We can’t help but wonder if the dentist uses something other than the price mechanism to allocate his services. Perhaps he treats patients for a nominal fee and then schedules his appointments by lottery. Somehow, we doubt that.