Are APR's safer than a 3" rule?

This U of V/Michigan State research is from a few years back, but still quite interesting...

Moral Hazard in Hunting: Economists Find Increased Freedom in Deer Hunting Leads to an Increase in Accidental Shootings
http://ift.tt/2mcsdoc

University of Virginia economist John Pepper has examined the interaction of hunting regulations and hunter safety as a case study of the economic concept of “moral hazard” — whether reducing the risks in one area can increase the risks in another area. He and two colleagues at Michigan State University have found that changes in hunting regulations can have unanticipated and unintended effects on hunter safety.

The paper focused on accidental shootings due to mistaken identity during the primary deer-hunting season — the three weeks beginning with the Monday after Thanksgiving, when deer could be hunted with rifles. These “accidents related to moral hazard” include cases when the “victim was shot as game,” and the “victim was in line of fire.” Other accidents — those “unrelated to moral hazard” — including those resulting from unintentional discharges of a weapon or when a “hunter slipped or fell,” are used to assess the robustness of the findings.

While the Pennsylvania Game Commission changed the regulations several times over the course of the study period, the authors focus on two types of regulations. The first restricts the gender of deer that could be shot at a particular time:

• From 1990-98 – Only bucks could be hunted for 12 days, then only does for three days.
• From 1998-2000 – Most hunters, those 16-65 years old, could hunt only bucks for 12 days, then only does for three days but younger and older hunters could take both bucks and does during part of the buck season.
• In 2000 – All hunters could take both bucks and does on the last day of buck season, but for the next two days, does only.
• After 2000 – All hunters could take both bucks and does during the 12-day hunting season.

The second regulation restricts the size and age of buck that could be taken, requiring hunters to let the smaller, younger bucks go free and hunt only the larger, older animals:

• Before 2002 – At least one of the buck’s antlers had to have at least 2 points.
• In 2002 and after – Ten counties required the buck to have at least four points on at least one antler; the other 51 counties required at least three points on at least one antler.

“By allowing hunters to harvest both bucks and does at the same time, the law provides insurance against harvesting the wrong type of deer,” Pepper said. “This lowers the marginal cost of taking a shot at a potential deer and therefore increases the probability of accidentally shooting a person.

“But the laws passed in 2002, which restricted buck harvests to those with a minimum of three or four points on one antler, increased the marginal cost of taking a shot at a potential deer,” he said. “In counties with the higher, four-point restriction, the probability of an accident related to mistaking another hunter as game decreases dramatically and at statistically significant levels.”

In particular, the authors find that allowing hunters to harvest both bucks and does throughout the 1990s would have increased the expected number of related accidents from 100 to 258 and thereby increased the expected number of hunting deaths by approximately 22.” At the same time, the 2002 laws to restrict buck hunting led to a reduction in accidental shootings.

NATURE OF PENNSYLVANIA DEER-HUNTING ACCIDENTS, 1990-2002

Accidents related to moral hazard
(mistaken identity)

“victim shot as game”
“victim was in line of fire”
“a ricochet”
“a stray bullet”

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Are APR's safer than a 3" rule?