This paper explores the extent and nature of anchoring and shift effects in a double-bounded contingent valuation of recreational fishing in Tasmania’s inshore saltwater fishery. In particular we model the situation where respondents, when answering the second valuation question, evaluate the bid amount partly with reference to the size of the first bid amount. The estimates of the coefficients and mean WTP for a day of fishing are compared across different contingent valuation models, including a single-bounded model, a conventional double-bounded model and models that control anchoring and exogenous shift effects in both homogeneous and heterogeneous forms. Overall we find consistent evidence of anchoring, but mixed evidence of a shift effect. Results show that both males and females anchor in the same way, but that respondents who have a mainstream view of what recreational fishing represents anchor more strongly than those whose view of fishing is not mainstream. The estimated mean WTP for a day’s recreational fishing is consistently higher in all models which account for bias in responses than in either the single-bounded or double-bounded models. We indicate the possibility that anchoring behaviour may be more complex than is captured in our models and suggest that this needs to be addressed if the results of contingent valuations are to reliably inform resource allocation decisions and recreational fishing management.