Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:18:51.471Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of Bounties and Human Behavior on Louisiana Nutria Harvests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

Cheikhna Dedah ,
Richard F. Kazmierczak Jr.  and
Walter R. Keithly Jr.
Cheikhna Dedah
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA
Richard F. Kazmierczak Jr.
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA
Walter R. Keithly Jr.
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In response to nutria-linked degradation of much of its coastal wetlands, Louisiana established the Coastwide Nutria Control Program (CNCP) in January 2002. CNCP instituted, among other things, an "economic incentive payment” of $4.00 per delivered nutria tail from registered participants in the program. To examine whether this bounty has had an impact on nutria harvest and whether alternative bounty levels can, in general, generate additional harvesting activities, we developed a bioeconomic supply model that relates Louisiana's annual nutria harvests to a suite of economic and environmental factors. Results suggested that the annual nutria harvest is responsive to both the price received per animal and costs. Results also suggested that the nutria harvest has increased as a result of the bounty, but that the initial bounty of $4.00 per tail may be insufficient to achieve the state's goal of harvesting 400,000 animals per year but that a bounty equal to $5.00 per tail would likely achieve the stated goal.

Keywords

bountieslong-run supplynutriaopen accessQ210
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , February 2010 , pp. 133 - 142
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bax, N., Williamson, A., Aguero, M., Gonzalez, E., and Greeves, W. “Marine Invasive Alien Species: A Threat to Global Biodiversity.” Marine Policy 27(2003):313-23.Google Scholar
Bell, F.W. Food from the Sea: The Economics and Politics of Ocean Fisheries. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Bulte, E.H., and Rondeau, D. “Why Compensating Wildlife Damages May be Bad for Conservation.” The Journal of Wildlife Management 69(2005): 14–19.Google Scholar
Clark, C.W. Mathematical Bioeconomics: The Optimal Management of Renewable Resources. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1976.Google Scholar
Copes, P. “The backwards-bending supply curve for the fishing industry.” Scottish Journal of Political Economy 17(1970):69–77.Google Scholar
Evans, J. “About Nutria and Their Control.” Resource Pub No.86. Denver, CO: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1970.Google Scholar
Genesis Laboratories, Inc. “Nutria (Myocastor coypus) in Louisiana.” Technical Report 80549. Wellington: Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, 2002.Google Scholar
Gosling, L.M., Baker, S.J., and Skinner, J.R. “A Simulation Approach to Investigating the Response of a Coypu (Myocastor coypus) Population to Climatic Variation.” EPPO Bulletin 13(1983): 183-92.Google Scholar
Hartwick, J.M., and Olewiler, N.D. The Economics of Natural Resource Use. New York: Harper & Row, 1986.Google Scholar
Kelly, J. (2004) “Selling the Kangaroo Industry to the World.” RIRDC Web Publication No. W04/114. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. Internet site: http://www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/NAP/02-166.pdf (Accessed February 1, 2005).Google Scholar
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF). Louisiana Coastwide Nutria Control Program. Internet site: http://www.nutria.com (Accessed February 1, 2005).Google Scholar
Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission. 13th Biennial Report 1968-1969. 1970.Google Scholar
Lowery, G.H. The Mammals of Louisiana and its Adjacent Waters. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
Marx, J., Mouton, E., and Linscombe, G. (2004) Nutria Harvest Distribution 2002-2003 and a Survey of Nutria Herbivory Damage in Coastal Louisiana in 2003. Internet site: http://lacoast.gov/reports/project/2003%20Harvest%20Damage%20Report.pdf (Accessed May 24, 2008).Google Scholar
Newsom, J.D., Joanen, T., and Haward, R.J. Habitat Suitability Index Models: American Alligator. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior, 1987.Google Scholar
Newson, R.M. “Reproduction in the Feral Coypu (Myocastor coypus).” Symposia of the Zoological Society of London 15(1966):323–34.Google Scholar
Nowak, R.M., and Ernest, W.P. Walker's Mammals of the World. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
Reggiani, G., Boitani, L., and Stefano, R. De. “Population Dynamic and Regulation in the Coypu (Myocastor coypus) in Central Italy.” Ecography 18(1995):138-46.Google Scholar
SAS Institute Inc. Version 9.00. Cary, NC, 2002.Google Scholar
Turner, R.E. “Wetland Loss in Northern Gulf of Mexico: Multiple Working Hypotheses.” Estuaries 20(1997): 1–13.Google Scholar
Valentine, J.M., Walther, J.R., McCartney, K.M., and Ivy, L.M. “Alligator Diets on the Sabine National Wildlife Refuge, Louisiana.” The Journal of Wildlife Management 36(1972):809–815.Google Scholar
Wolfe, J.L., Bradshaw, D.K., and Chabreck, R.H. “Alligator Feeding Habits: New Data and Review.” Northeast Gulf Science 9(1987): 1–8.Google Scholar