Turkey Hunting in 2006: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics, Trends, and Economic Impacts Addendum to the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation Report 2006-7

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Turkey Hunting in 2006: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics, Trends, and Economic Impacts
Addendum to the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Report 2006-7U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
July 2010
Anna Harris
Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs
Division of Policy and Programs
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Arlington, VA
This report is intended to complement the National and State Reports for the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.
Turkey Hunting in 2006: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics, Trends, and Economic Impacts
Addendum to the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Report 2006-72 Turkey Hunting in 2006: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics, Trends, and Economic Impacts
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to Stephen and Lori Robertson, Gypsy Hanks, and Brittany Petersen for providing impressive photos for this report.
Finally, thank you to Craig Matson—a good friend and avid hunter who gave me the opportunity to fulfill my newfound desire to hunt wild turkeys. Through his patience, knowledge of the land, and skills from years afield, I was able to experience first-hand the blood-pumping, adrenalin racing excitement I heard so many turkey hunters describe while writing this report.
While all of these people provided valuable assistance, the conclusions in this report are the author’s and do not represent any official positions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, state agencies, or other affiliated parties.
Thanks to Sylvia Cabrera and Richard Aiken who helped develop the analysis and provided editorial and organizational support of this effort as it worked its way to completion. Also thanks to Thomas McCoy whose comments and early review were most helpful.
Conversations with wild turkey hunters provided regional perspectives, advice, and encouragement—in particular many thanks to Wayne Doyle, Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks; Bill Cline, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; and Mark Cousins, Colorado Division of Wildlife.
Perceptive criticisms were offered by Gordon Batcheller, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; Corky Pugh, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources; Dr. Daniel Decker, Cornell University; Dr. Jonathan Gassett, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources; Andrew Laughland and James Caudill, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Tom Allen, Southwick Associates; and Mike Schiavone, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Their assistance in interpretation of data and insights into hunter behavior were invaluable.Turkey Hunting in 2006: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics, Trends, and Economic Impacts 3
Contents
Acknowledgements � 2
Introduction � 4
Hunting Participation � 5
General Demographic Characteristics � 8
Population Density � 8
Geographic Divisions � 8
Age � 8
Gender � 8
Ethnicity and Race � 8
Education � 8
Income � 8
Land Ownership and Wildlife Watching Patterns � 10
Hunting Land Ownership and Leasing � � 10
Public and Private Land Hunting Days � 11
Wildlife-Watching Patterns � 11
Trends � 12
Population Density: 1996–2006 � 13
Hunting Land Leasing and Ownership: 1996–2006 � 13
Geographic Division: 1996–2006 � 13
Age: 1996–2006 � 14
Gender: 1996–2006 � 15
Education: 1996–2006 � 15
Income: 1996–2006 � 15
The Economic Activity of Wild Turkey Hunters � 16
Expenditures and Effort � 16
State-Level Economic Activity � 18
Summary � 20
References � 21
Appendix. Economic Multipliers � � 22
Tables
Table 1. All Hunters by Species Type � 5
Table 2. Hunters by State Where Hunting Occurred � � 6
Table 3. Days of Hunting by State Where Hunting Occurred � 7
Table 4. Selected Demographic Characteristics of the U.S. Population and Hunters � � 9
Table 5. Hunting Land Ownership and Leasing � 10
Table 6. Private and Public Land Hunting Days � 11
Table 7. Wildlife-Watching Patterns by Hunters � 11
Table 8.a. Trends in Turkey Hunters’ Demographics � 13
Table 8.b. Trends in Turkey Hunters’ Income � 15
Table 9. Hunting by Type, Days and Expenditures � 16
Table 10. Top 10 States Ranked by Retail Sales In-State � 18
Table 11. Economic Impacts of Turkey Hunting—State and National Totals: 2006 � 19
Table A-1. Deer and Turkey Hunting Expenditure Distribution by Category � 22
Figures
Figure 1. Trends for the U.S. Population and Hunters � 12
Figure 2. Turkey Hunter Participation Rate in the U.S.: 1996–2006 � 14
Figure 3. Turkey Hunting Expenditures by Major Category � 17
Figure 4. Trip Expenditures for Turkey Hunting: 2006 � 174 Turkey Hunting in 2006: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics, Trends, and Economic Impacts
Introduction
For my own part I wish the Bald Eagle
had not been chosen the Representative
of our Country. He is a bird of bad moral
character…For the truth the turkey is
in comparison a much more respectable
bird, and withal a true original Native of
America…He is besides, though a little
vane and silly, a Bird of Courage…
~ Benjamin Franklin, 1784
In the early 1900s, faced with
unregulated hunting and largely non-sustainable
land management practices,
wild turkeys in the United States were on
the brink of extinction. Today, populations
have rebounded to more than 7 million
birds across North America thanks
to the ambitious restoration efforts of
state, federal, and nongovernmental
conservation organizations (U.S. DOI,
2009). “The comeback of the wild
turkey is arguably one of the greatest
conservation success stories in our
nation’s history,” said James Earl
Kennamer, Ph.D., National Wild Turkey
Federation Chief Conservation Officer.
Because of these efforts, wild turkey
hunting has become one of the fastest
growing hunting activities in the U.S.
This report provides an analysis of wild
turkey hunters using data from the
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting,
and Wildlife-Associated Recreation
(Survey). The Survey has been
conducted since 1955, and provides
the most comprehensive database on
fishing, hunting, and wildlife-related
recreation in the U.S. This report offers
information about the demographic
characteristics of turkey hunters as well
as land ownership and leasing behavior
and how these aspects have changed over
time. It also includes spending patterns
and the economic activity supported by
turkey hunting in the U.S. It is intended
to be used as an informational tool by
resource managers, academics, product
manufacturers, and other interested
parties.
To help make this information more
useful, this report often contrasts
turkey hunters with all other types of
hunters. These categories are mutually
exclusive. For the “wild turkey”
category, a hunter could have hunted
another species but must have hunted
turkey to be considered as such. The
“all other” hunter category implies that
a hunter hunted for anything except
wild turkey.
All reported data contained herein are
from the National Survey of Fishing,
Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated
Recreation and all participation, dollar
expenditures, and hunter demographics
statistics are representative of 2006,
unless otherwise specified. Additionally,
all data represents persons age 16 years
and older.1
1 Survey documents are available on the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service webpage:
http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/
NationalSurvey/NatSurveyIndex.htm.
NYDEC/Gordon Batcheller
Turkey Hunting in 2006: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics, Trends, and Economic Impacts 5
Hunting Participation
In 2006, 5% of the U.S. population (12.5
million people) 16 years old or older
went hunting. Of these 12.5 million
hunters, 21% (2.6 million) went wild
turkey hunting, making turkey one of
the most popular game species, second
only to deer. Table 1 indicates that 80%
of all hunters (10.1 million) participated
in deer hunting, the most popular type
of hunting. Squirrel and rabbit hunting
ranked third with almost 2 million
hunters apiece followed by several bird
species at 1 to 1.6 million.
The final two columns of Table 1 provide
additional information on the other
hunting activities of turkey hunters. The
third column labeled “Hunters who also
Hunted Turkey” indicates the number
of other game hunters pursuing turkeys.
For example, this table indicates that
there were 1.1 million duck hunters
in the U.S., and 358 thousand of these
duck hunters hunted wild turkey. The
fourth column labeled “Percent Turkey
Hunters” measures the proportion of
other species hunters that hunt wild
turkey. Following this example, the 358
thousand duck hunters who also hunt
wild turkey represented 31% of all duck
hunters.
The “Percent Turkey Hunters” column
reveals that hunters who pursue other
animals such as bear, woodchuck
(“groundhog”), fox, and raccoon are likely
to hunt turkey. Foxhunters are most
likely to turkey hunt but the small sample
size calls into question the reliability of
this estimate. Fifty-eight percent of bear
hunters also hunt turkeys. Twenty-three
percent of deer hunters pursue turkey,
while only 15% of elk hunters participate
in turkey hunting. Thirty percent of
migratory bird hunters (geese, ducks,
and doves) also hunt turkey. There is one additional question of
interest with respect to the other species
hunting as compared with the activity of
turkey hunters. Given the 21% crossover
rate of other species hunting with turkey
hunting, one might be inclined to ask the
question: how many hunters seek turkey
and nothing else? While it is not evident
in Table 1, about 125 thousand or only
5% of wild turkey hunters pursue wild
turkeys and nothing else.
Table 1. All Hunters by Species Type
(Population 16 years of age or older. Numbers in thousands)
Type of Game Number
Percent of
All Hunters
Hunters who also
Hunted Turkey
Percent
Turkey Hunters
All Hunting 12,510 100 2,569 21
Total, big game 10,682 85 2,569 24
Deer 10,062 80 2,293 23
Elk 799 6 119 15
Bear 399 3 233 58
Turkey 2,569 21 2,569 100
Other big game 578 5 162 28
Total, all small game 4,797 38 1,321 28
Rabbit 1,923 15 727 38
Quail 1,046 8 318 30
Grouse 800 6 286 36
Squirrel 1,845 15 650 35
Pheasant 1,632 13 409 25
Other small game 325 3 *83 *26
Total, all migratory birds 2,293 18 692 30
Geese 700 6 239 34
Ducks 1,147 9 358 31
Doves 1,238 10 405 33
Other migratory birds 150 1 *29 *19
Total, all other animals 1,128 9 477 42
Groundhog 248 2 *128 *52
Raccoon 305 2 155 51
Fox 194 2 *130 *67
Coyote 665 5 334 50
Other animals 153 1 *30 *19
*Estimate based on a sample size of 10–29. Use results with caution.
Note: Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses.
6 Turkey Hunting in 2006: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics, Trends, and Economic Impacts
Tables 2 and 3 contain state-by-state estimates of turkey hunting participation (number of hunters, percent of all hunters) and effort (total and average number of days, percent of all days), respectively. Fourteen states have sample sizes too small to report estimates on turkey hunting participation.
Pennsylvania has the most wild turkey hunters with 369 thousand. Along with Pennsylvania, Texas, New York, Wisconsin and Missouri rank as the top five states for participation in wild turkey hunting. Tennessee has the highest proportion (36%) of hunters pursuing turkey. Among other things, Table 2 reveals that turkey hunting is popular throughout the U.S. At least 16% of hunters in all but a few states hunt wild turkey, and five states had 30% or more of all hunters pursuing wild turkey.
Table 2. Hunters by State Where Hunting Occurred
(Population 16 years of age or older. Numbers in thousands)
Total, all Hunters
Wild Turkey Hunters
State
Number
Number
Percent
US Total
12,510
2,569
21
Alabama
391
98
25
Arkansas
354
86
24
Arizona
159
…
…
California
281
51
18
Colorado
257
…
…
Connecticut
38
…
…
Delaware
42
…
…
Florida
236
*82
*35
Georgia
481
*79
*16
Hawaii
18
…
…
Iowa
251
51
20
Idaho
187
*25
*13
Illinois
316
*61
*19
Indiana
272
*35
*13
Kansas
271
51
19
Kentucky
291
*76
*26
Louisiana
268
*47
*18
Massachusetts
73
*14
*19
Maryland
160
*25
*16
Maine
175
*21
*12
Michigan
753
*81
*11
Minnesota
532
…
…
Missouri
606
155
26
Mississippi
304
*67
*22
Montana
197
…
…
North Carolina
304
*75
*24
North Dakota
128
…
…
Nebraska
118
*22
*19
New Hampshire
61
*13
*21
New Jersey
89
*27
*30
New Mexico
99
*23
*23
Nevada
61
…
…
New York
566
164
29
Ohio
500
*96
*19
Oklahoma
251
72
29
Oregon
237
…
…
Pennsylvania
1,044
369
35
Rhode Island
14
…
…
South Carolina
208
*64
*31
South Dakota
171
*12
*7
Tennessee
329
120
36
Texas
1,099
182
17
Utah
166
…
…
Virginia
413
120
29
Vermont
73
*15
*21
Washington
180
…
…
Wisconsin
697
159
23
West Virginia
269
*73
*27
Wyoming
102
…
…
*Estimate based on a sample size of 10–29. Use results with caution.
… Sample size too small to report data reliably.Turkey Hunting in 2006: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics, Trends, and Economic Impacts 7
With 2.7 million days afield, Pennsylvania hunters spent more time pursuing turkeys than hunters in any other state (Table 3). Texas and Missouri follow closely with 2 million days apiece. About a quarter of all hunting days in Virginia, Florida, and South Carolina were spent pursuing wild turkey.
Another measure of wild turkey hunters’ avidity is the average days afield. South Carolina has the highest, with an average of 16 hunting days spent pursuing turkey. Alabama and Georgia, where turkey hunters average 15 days afield, follow this closely.
Table 3. Days of Hunting by State Where Hunting Occurred
(Population 16 years of age or older. Numbers in thousands)
Total, All Hunting
Wild Turkey Hunting
State
Number
Number
Average
Per Hunter
Percent
US Total
219,925
25,828
10
12
Alabama
8,649
1,482
15
17
Arkansas
7,882
1,006
12
13
Arizona
1,509
…
…
…
California
3,374
144
3
4
Colorado
2,376
…
…
…
Connecticut
509
…
…
…
Delaware
654
…
…
…
Florida
3,769
*935
*11
*25
Georgia
8,228
*1173
*15
*14
Hawaii
420
…
…
…
Iowa
3,849
335
7
9
Idaho
2,117
*63
*3
*3
Illinois
4,688
*422
*7
*9
Indiana
4,808
*232
*7
*5
Kansas
3,017
323
6
11
Kentucky
5,429
*423
*6
*8
Louisiana
5,979
*552
*12
*9
Massachusetts
1,149
*54
*4
*5
Maryland
2,260
*89
*4
*4
Maine
2,283
*159
*8
*7
Michigan
11,905
*830
*10
*7
Minnesota
6,492
…
…
…
Missouri
9,714
2,022
13
21
Mississippi
6,835
*630
*9
*9
Montana
2,142
…
…
…
North Carolina
4,880
*474
*6
*10
North Dakota
1,344
…
…
…
Nebraska
1,611
*191
*9
*12
New Hampshire
1,057
*110
*8
*10
New Jersey
1,457
*204
*8
*14
New Mexico
852
*148
*6
*17
Nevada
615
…
…
…
New York
10,289
1,383
8
13
Ohio
10,633
*668
*7
*6
Oklahoma
5,534
515
7
9
Oregon
2,729
…
…
…
Pennsylvania
16,863
2,722
7
16
Rhode Island
155
…
…
…
South Carolina
4,318
*1040
*16
*24
South Dakota
1,719
*102
*8
*6
Tennessee
5,729
1,189
10
21
Texas
14,050
2,056
11
15
Utah
1,714
…
…
…
Virginia
6,771
1,714
14
25
Vermont
1,111
*122
*8
*11
Washington
2,126
…
…
…
Wisconsin
10,059
1,187
7
12
West Virginia
3,940
*727
*10
*18
Wyoming
904
…
…
…
*Estimate based on a sample size of 10–29. Use results with caution.
… Sample size too small to report data reliably.8 Turkey Hunting in 2006: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics, Trends, and Economic Impacts
General Demographic Characteristics
This section focuses on the demographics
of wild turkey hunters, including
comparisons with other hunters and the
U.S. population. Presented in Table 4
is the distribution of the U.S. resident,
wild turkey hunter, and all other hunter
populations for widely used demographic
characteristics such as age, income,
gender, race, and geographic location.
The first two columns present the
distribution of the U.S. population for
the demographic variables of interest.
The “Number” column indicates
the distribution in quantity, and the
second column, “Percent,” presents the
proportion of total individuals that appear
in each representative category for the
demographic variables of interest. For
example, the first column reports that
11 million people live in New England
and the second column indicates that
New England’s population represents
5% of the total U.S. population. The
“Number” and “Percent” columns within
the Wild Turkey Hunters and All Other
Hunter categories are handled similarly.
The “Percent of U.S. Population” under
each indicates the proportion of the
U.S. population that participates in each
hunting category. For example, 1% of the
U.S. population hunts wild turkey and 4%
hunts other species such as deer, doves,
and squirrels.
Population Density
As the population of rural America
continues to shrink, where people live and
how they perceive the basics of life will
continue to change from an agriculturally
dominated economy to an industry-information
driven economy. This has
a significant bearing on the future of
hunting in America. Rural residents are
the minority in the U.S., but represent
a majority when it comes to hunting.
Almost 60% of wild turkey hunters live in
rural areas, while in the U.S. overall, less
than a quarter of the population resides
in rural areas.
Geographic Divisions
The proportion of the U.S. population
participating in turkey hunting is 2%
or less in all nine U.S. Census Bureau
divisions (Table 4; see the “Percent of
U.S. population” column). For hunters
pursuing other species, the proportion
of the U.S. population participating in
all other hunting is highest in the West
North Central division (10%) and lowest
in the Pacific division (2%).
As for wild turkey hunters, the Middle
Atlantic division has the largest
proportion of turkey hunters (20%)
followed closely by the South Atlantic
(19%). The East North Central division
has the highest proportion of hunters
pursuing game other than wild turkeys
(20%).
Age
Hunters are on average older than the
U.S. population. In 2006, the median age
for wild turkey hunters was 44 years
old and for all other hunters it was 43
years old. As for the U.S. population, in
2006, the median age was 36 years old
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). The age
distribution of both hunting categories
is very similar (Table 4). Eight percent
of all hunters are between 18 and 24
years old. Half of all hunters are between
35 and 54 years old. This is consistent
with the U.S. population where the
majority of people are between the ages
of 35 and 54 years old. Nine percent
of wild turkey hunters are 65 years
old or older compared to 10% of all
other hunters. One area that cannot
be analyzed, given data constraints, is
the popularity of youth turkey hunting.
Several states offer youth wild turkey
hunting opportunities to encourage youth
participation. Because the Survey only
asks about hunters 16 years and older,
there is no way to measure the number of
wild turkey hunters under 16.
Gender
In America, females outnumber males in
the general population. Yet, for hunting,
90% of hunters are male. Six percent of
all wild turkey hunters (157 thousand)
are female. There were over 1 million
women hunting game other than turkeys
in the U.S. in 2006.
Ethnicity and Race
Hispanics make up 13% of the U.S.
population but only 4% of all other
hunters identify themselves as Hispanic.
Even fewer Hispanics participate in
wild turkey hunting (2%). Hunters are
predominately white, representing 97%
of all wild turkey hunters and 96% of
all other hunters. Only 2% of all other
hunters are Black and about 2% of
hunters identify themselves as a race
other than White, Black, or Asian.
Education
Turkey hunting is a popular activity for
hunters of all educational backgrounds.
Half of all turkey hunters went to college,
which is higher than all other hunters
(46%). Thirty-nine percent of turkey
hunters have only a high school education
and 11% have less than a high school
education. The proportion of turkey
hunters with 4 years of college or more
is 22%, while 21% of all other hunters
completed 4 years of college or more.
Income
The percent of the U.S. population that
hunts wild turkey increases as income
increases, making wild turkey hunting
positively correlated with income.
Compared to all other hunters, a slightly
higher proportion of wild turkey hunters
come from households earning $100,000
or more (18% vs. 15%).
Turkey Hunting in 2006: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics, Trends, and Economic Impacts 9
Table 4. Selected Demographic Characteristics of the U.S. Population and Hunters
(Population 16 years old and older. Numbers in thousands)
Characteristic
U.S. population
Wild Turkey Hunters
All Other Hunters
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Percent of U.S. Population
Number
Percent
Percent of U.S. Population
Total persons
229,245
100
2,569
100
1
9,940
100
4
Population Density of Residence
Urban
176,740
77
1,067
42
1
4,549
46
3
Rural
52,504
23
1,502
58
3
5,383
54
10
Census Geographic Division
New England
11,233
5
59
2
1
315
3
3
Middle Atlantic
31,518
14
507
20
2
1,013
10
3
East North Central
35,609
16
431
17
1
1,945
20
5
West North Central
15,458
7
285
11
2
1,494
15
10
South Atlantic
43,965
19
477
19
1
1,407
14
3
East South Central
13,722
6
315
12
2
786
8
6
West South Central
25,407
11
373
15
1
1,438
14
6
Mountain
15,651
7
47
2
(Z)
821
8
5
Pacific
36,681
16
76
3
(Z)
722
7
2
Age
16 to 17 years
8,272
4
*54
*2
*1
447
4
5
18 to 24 years
23,292
10
217
8
1
751
8
3
25 to 34 years
37,468
16
410
16
1
1,647
17
4
35 to 44 years
45,112
20
616
24
1
2,459
25
5
45 to 54 years
44,209
19
647
25
1
2,223
22
5
55 to 64 years
32,867
14
404
16
1
1,448
15
4
65 years and older
38,024
17
221
9
1
965
10
3
Gender
Male
110,273
48
2,412
94
2
8,939
90
8
Female
118,972
52
157
6
(Z)
1,001
10
1
Ethnicity
Hispanic
29,218
13
*52
*2
(Z)
373
4
1
Non-Hispanic
200,027
87
2,518
98
1
9,568
96
5
Race
White
189,255
83
2,493
97
1
9,536
96
5
Black
25,925
11
…
…
…
165
2
1
Asian
10,104
4
…
…
…
45
(Z)
(Z)
All others
3,960
2
*43
*2
*1
195
2
5
Education
11 years or less
34,621
15
277
11
1
1,448
15
4
12 years
78,073
34
1,012
39
1
3,884
39
5
1 to 3 years college
53,019
23
717
28
1
2,517
25
5
4 years college
39,506
17
354
14
1
1,396
14
4
5 years or more college
24,025
10
209
8
1
695
7
3
Annual Household Income
Less than $10,000
10,673
5
*58
*2
*1
165
2
2
$10,000 to $19,999
15,373
7
102
4
1
477
5
3
$20,000 to $24,999
11,374
5
111
4
1
375
4
3
$25,000 to $29,999
10,524
5
*84
*3
*1
483
5
5
$30,000 to $34,999
11,161
5
150
6
1
587
6
5
$35,000 to $39,999
10,349
5
180
7
2
490
5
5
$40,000 to $49,999
17,699
8
220
9
1
989
10
6
$50,000 to $74,999
33,434
15
549
21
2
2,205
22
7
$75,000 to $99,999
21,519
9
302
12
1
1,437
14
7
$100,000 or more
29,159
13
458
18
2
1,519
15
5
Not reported
57,981
25
355
14
1
1,213
12
2
*Estimate based on a sample size of 10–29. … Sample size too small to report data reliably. (Z) Less than 0.5 percent.
Note: Percent of U.S. Population shows the percent of each row’s population who participated in the activity named by the column (the percent of males who hunted turkeys, etc.). Percent columns show the percent of each column’s participants who are described by the row heading (percent of turkey hunters who are male, etc.).10 Turkey Hunting in 2006: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics, Trends, and Economic Impacts
Land Ownership and Wildlife Watching Patterns
The demand for land to lease or own for
hunting has grown rapidly in the U.S.
This is attributable primarily to the
decline in public access opportunities for
hunting (Benson, 2001). The following
section breaks down hunters who own
or lease land and those who do not. It
also provides estimates on the number
of hunters who engage in another
type of recreational activity: wildlife
watching. Wildlife watching around-the-
home denotes hunters who closely
observed, fed, or photographed wildlife
within a one-mile radius of their homes
or maintained natural areas around
their home primarily to benefit wildlife.
Wildlife watching away-from-home refers
to hunters who took trips at least one
mile from their homes for the primary
purpose of observing, photographing, or
feeding wildlife.
Hunting Land Ownership and Leasing
Table 5 presents the number of hunters
who own and lease hunting land as well
as those who do not. The majority of wild
turkey hunters (84%) do not own land for
the primary purpose of hunting. An even
higher proportion of all other hunters
(91%) do not own hunting land. As for
leasing hunting land, turkey hunters
are more likely to lease land for hunting
compared with all other hunters.
Table 5. Hunting Land Ownership and Leasing
(Population 16 years of age or older. Numbers in thousands)
Wild Turkey
Hunters
Percent of
Wild Turkey
Hunters
All Other
Hunters
Percent of
All Other
Hunters
Total Hunters 2,569 100 9,941 100
Own Land for Hunting
Does Own 401 16 935 9
Does Not Own 2,134 84 8,938 91
Lease Land for Hunting
Does Lease 269 11 591 6
Does Not Lease 2,266 89 9,286 94
Note: Detail does not add to total because of nonresponse. Leasing or owning hunting land is defined as
owning or leasing land either singly or in cooperation with others for the primary purpose of hunting on it.
USFWS/Steve Maslowski
Turkey Hunting in 2006: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics, Trends, and Economic Impacts 11
Table 6. Private and Public Land Hunting Days
(Population 16 years of age or older. Numbers in thousands)
Wild Turkey Hunters
Percent of Wild Turkey Hunters
All Other Hunters
Percent of All Other Hunters
Total Hunting Days
25,828
100
194,097
100
Private Land Days¹
18,635
78
145,684
75
Public Land Days²
5,279
22
49,154
25
¹ Days of hunting on private land includes both days spent solely on private land and those spent on private and public land.
² Days of hunting on public land includes both days spent solely on public land and those spent on public and private land.
Note: Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses and nonresponse.
Table 7. Wildlife-Watching Patterns by Hunters
(Population 16 years of age or older. Numbers in thousands)
Wild Turkey Hunters
Percent of Wild Turkey Hunters
All Other Hunters
Percent of All Other Hunters
Total Hunters
2,569
100
9,941
100
Did not engage in wildlife-watching activities
874
34
4,487
45
Engaged in wildlife-watching activities
1,695
66
5,454
55
Around the home
1,491
58
4,704
47
Away from home
966
38
2,739
28
Note: Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses
Public and Private Land Hunting Days
Interestingly, both types of hunters spend three quarters or more of their days hunting on private land even though less than 20% either own or lease land for the primary purpose of hunting (Table 6). Turkey hunters are more likely to hunt on private land compared to other species hunters. This supports the previous findings that turkey hunters were more likely to own or lease hunting land.
These results underline the importance of access to both public and private lands. Successful game management in the U.S., particularly in the eastern and central regions, is highly dependent on hunter access (Brown et. al., 1984; Cordell et al., 1999). Restricted access limits hunting opportunities, which in turn dampen interest in hunting and license sales (Brown et. al., 1984).
Wildlife-Watching Patterns
A large proportion of hunters engage in wildlife-watching activities (Table 7). Wild turkey hunters are wildlife enthusiasts. Sixty-six percent of wild turkey hunters watched wildlife while only 55% of all other hunters engaged in some type of wildlife-watching activity.
Closely observing, feeding, or photographing wildlife around-the-home was the most popular form of wildlife watching. Fifty-eight percent of wild turkey hunters and almost half of all other hunters observed wildlife around-the-home. Thirty-eight percent of all wild turkey hunters and 28% of all other hunters took trips at least a mile from their homes to observe, photograph, or feed wildlife.12 Turkey Hunting in 2006: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics, Trends, and Economic Impacts
Trends
Millions of Americans deepen their
appreciation and understanding of the
land and its wildlife through hunting.
By purchasing hunting licenses and
paying federal excise taxes on hunting
equipment and ammunition, individual
hunters have made huge contributions
toward ensuring the future of many
species of wildlife and habitat. Due in
large part to restoration programs,
improved habitat conditions and better
protection through hunting regulations,
wild turkey populations in the U.S.
have flourished over the last 45 years.
Populations are estimated at around 7
million birds in the U.S.
Just as the population of wild turkeys has
changed over time, the characteristics of
wild turkey hunters have also evolved.
This section focuses on the trends in
turkey hunting participation from 1996
to 2006. As a reminder, for this report, a
turkey hunter is someone who hunted for
turkey during the specific survey year,
resided in the U.S. and was 16 years of
age or older. All measures of statistical
significance in this report are at the 90%
confidence level.
Figure 1 displays the U.S. population,
all other hunters, and wild turkey
hunters from 1996 to 2006. During
this period, participation by all other
hunters decreased by 19%.2 However,
during the same period, turkey hunting
saw a 15% increase in participation!
A significant increase in participation
occurred between 1996 and 2001, where
the number of turkey hunters rose by
13%. Between 2001 and 2006, the number
of turkey hunters remained steady at
around 2.5 million participants (Figure 1).
The trends in turkey hunting are broken
down into a select group of demographic
characteristics in Table 8.a.
2 Decreased participation in small game,
migratory bird, and other animal hunting
are the main factors contributing to this
decline.
Figure 1. Trends for the U.S. Population and Hunters
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in millions)
1996 2001 2006
0
50
100
150
200
250
United States Population
1996 2001 2006
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
All Other Hunters
1996 2001 2006
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Wild Turkey Hunters
Turkey Hunting in 2006: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics, Trends, and Economic Impacts 13
Population Density: 1996–2006
Between 1996 and 2006, the number of rural residents participating in turkey hunting increased by 21%. Conversely, the U.S. rural population decreased by 8% from 1996 to 2006. One possible explanation for the 21% increase in turkey hunting participation by rural residents involves the number of turkeys available for hunters to take. More birds mean more opportunity for hunters to participate in turkey hunting. Generally, rural areas exhibit the kind of habitat suitable for wild turkeys, including open areas for mating and forested areas for protection and roosting. This gives rural residents, who usually live within a closer proximity to these habitats, more access to hunt wild turkeys.
Hunting Land Leasing and Ownership: 1996–2006
Land ownership can affect whether or not someone participates in turkey hunting. “Access to hunting land is a major obstacle in keeping the rich hunting tradition alive…” (Rob Keck, CEO of the NWFT). As previously mentioned (Table 6), turkey hunters were more likely to own or lease land for the primary purpose of hunting compared with other hunters. Have turkey hunters increased their ownership of private land? A look at Table 8.a. reveals that between 1996 and 2006, the number of turkey hunters who owned or leased land primarily for hunting increased by 27%. This trend will continue as long as hunters remain active and access to hunting land continues to decline.
Geographic Division: 1996–2006
The increase in wild turkey hunting was not distributed evenly across the U.S. (Table 8.a). From 1996 to 2006, the West South Central division experienced the greatest increase in participation (40%), followed by the East North Central division ( 32%). Although the Middle Atlantic, South Atlantic and Pacific divisions all experienced what appear to be declines in turkey hunting participation, these results were not statistically significant. Yet, even without an increase in participation, the Middle Atlantic division is home to the most turkey hunters (507,000 in 2006) of any division in the U.S.
Table 8.a. Trends in Turkey Hunters’ Demographics
(Population 16 years of age or older. Numbers in thousands)
Characteristic
1996 Number
2001 Number
2006 Number
96–06 Percent Change
Total Turkey Hunters
2,189
2,504
2,569
15
Population Density of Residence
Urban
1,001
1,025
1,067
6
Rural
1,188
1,479
1,502
21
Own or Lease Land
Does Own or Lease
453
664
624
27
Census Geographic Division
New England
46
60
59
21
Middle Atlantic
525
565
507
–4
East North Central
295
386
431
32
West North Central
242
277
285
15
South Atlantic
514
466
477
–8
East South Central
224
290
315
29
West South Central
224
326
373
40
Mountain
39
58
47
18
Pacific
*80
76
76
*–5
Age
16–17 years
*72
102
*54
*–33
18–24 years
162
220
217
25
25–34 years
439
437
410
–7
35–44 years
696
649
616
–13
45–54 years
505
628
647
22
55–64 years
176
286
404
56
65 years and older
139
183
221
37
Gender
Male
2,073
2,330
2,412
14
Female
116
174
157
27
Education
11 years or less
253
309
277
8
12 years
930
1,051
1,012
8
1 to 3 years college
479
588
717
33
4 years college
278
407
354
21
5 years or more college
248
148
209
–19
The percents in italics are statistically significant at the 90% confidence level. This means that for 90% of all possible samples, the estimate from one survey year is different from the estimate for the other survey year
*For these categories, the sample size for turkey hunting is small (N=10–29). Use the results with caution.14 Turkey Hunting in 2006: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics, Trends, and Economic Impacts
Nationally turkey hunting has increased by 15% between 1996 and 2006, with the majority of increases observed in the Midwest and South (Figure 2). The regions in grey represent areas where wild turkey hunter participation has remained constant. The blue regions show where participation in wild turkey hunting has increased—in both cases by over 30%. As demonstrated by this map, the central regions of the U.S. have experienced substantial increases in the number of participants engaging in turkey hunting.
Age: 1996–2006
Age plays a role in determining whether someone participates in turkey hunting (Table 8). Previously, we saw that 45- to 54-year-olds made up the largest proportion of turkey hunters in 2006. The number of 45- to 54-year-olds participating in turkey hunting increased by 22% between 1996 and 2006, though this result is not statistically significant. The number of 55- to 64-year-olds participating in turkey hunting had the largest increase between 1996 and 2006 (56%). This result is consistent with the trend in the U.S. population, as the baby boomers continue to age.
Figure 2. Turkey Hunter Participation Rate in the U.S.: 1996–2006
WestMountainWestNorth CentralWestSouthCentralEastSouthCentralSouthAtlanticEastNorth CentralMiddleAtlanticNewEnglandPacificMidwestSouthNortheastAlaskaWashingtonIdahoOregonCaliforniaHawaiiNevadaUtahArizonaNew MexicoColoradoWyomingMontanaNorthDakotaMinnesotaIowaWisconsinOhioKentuckyVirginiaTennesseeGeorgiaIllinoisMissouriSouthDakotaNebaskaKansasOklahomaArkansasTexasAlabamaIndianaLouisianaMississippiSouthCarolinaNorth CarolinaFloridaWest VirginiaDelawareNew JerseyConnecticutRhode IslandMassachusettsNew HampshireVermontMarylandPennsylvaniaMaineNew York Michigan
n Constant
n IncreasingTurkey Hunting in 2006: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics, Trends, and Economic Impacts 15
Gender: 1996–2006
Turkey hunting is a male dominated sport where females made up less than 10% of all turkey hunters in 2006. Males have increased in participation in turkey hunting by 14%. On the other hand, females have become more actively engaged in turkey hunting, where the 10-year-trend from 1996 to 2006 reveals an increase of 27% (not statistically significant).
A combination of outreach efforts by government and non-government agencies have targeted female participation in outdoor activities. The National Wild Turkey Federation has spotlighted women hunters and is making a conscious effort to use them in their wild turkey hunting advertising and promotional material. In addition, state agencies have a number of youth hunting opportunities, with the focus on recruiting young hunters. These programs have lead to mothers attending turkey-hunting events, and, in some cases, even acting as mentors in the actual youth hunt. Finally, programs like “Becoming an Outdoors Woman” and “Women in the Outdoors” are specifically designed to train women to enjoy the outdoors and recruit future female hunters.
Education: 1996–2006
In 2006, half of all turkey hunters were college educated. Turkey hunters completing 1 to 3 years of college has increased by 33% between 1996 and 2006. The trend in the other education categories were not found to be statistically significant and the unexpected decrease in the number of turkey hunters completing 5 years or more of college does not follow the U.S. trend in overall higher-level education.
Julie Clements/El Dorado Times
Income: 1996–2006
Income can affect whether or not someone goes wild turkey hunting because it usually requires money to buy a hunting license and equipment to conduct the hunt. In 1996 more than half of all turkey hunters were below the median U.S. household income (Table 8.b.). During the ten year period between 1996 and 2006 wild turkey hunters have continually increased their household incomes, surpassing the median household income, and creating a majority of hunters with above average incomes. In 2001 65% of wild turkey hunters earned more than the median U.S. household income. This dropped slightly in 2006 (59%) but continues to show a trend of wild turkey hunters earning more than the average U.S. household income. This result supports the rise in land purchased specifically for hunting. More disposable income for hunters can mean more opportunity to acquire hunting land.
Table 8.b. Trends in Turkey Hunters’ Income
(Population 16 years of age or older. Numbers in thousands)
Household Income
1996
2001
2006
All Participants
Percent of total
All Participants
Percent of total
All Participants
Percent of total
Total
1,944
100
2,047
100
2,214
100
Below median
1,063
55
714
35
905
41
Above median
881
45
1,333
65
1,309
59
Note: “All Participants” totals do not match totals from other non-income tables because all respondents did not report their income.16 Turkey Hunting in 2006: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics, Trends, and Economic Impacts
The Economic Activity of Wild Turkey Hunters
Hunting is not only an important outdoor
experience; it is also a huge contributor
to our nation’s economy. In 2006, hunters
spent $22.9 billion on equipment, trips,
and other hunting-related expenses.
How do retail sales for wild turkey
hunting fit into these equipment and
trip-related expenses? The following
section breaks expenditures into five
different hunting types: (1) Wild Turkey,
(2) Deer, Elk, Bear, (3) Small Game, (4)
Migratory Birds, and (5) Other Animals.
Then, the focus is on wild turkey hunting
expenditures by state and the economic
activity related to wild turkey hunting.
Expenditures and Effort
Trip expenditures are directly related
to hunting trips (Table 9). They include
but are not limited to food, drink,
lodging, and transportation costs.
Equipment expenditures include both
hunting equipment such as shotguns,
ammunition, and decoys and auxiliary
equipment bought primarily for hunting
such as camping equipment, clothing, and
taxidermy services. Special equipment
such as boats, campers, trucks, and
cabins used primarily for hunting are also
included in the equipment expenditures.
Per person spending is defined as the
total spending divided by the total
number of wild turkey hunters or non-turkey
hunters. Other expenditures for
licenses, land leasing, and land ownership
were not included in these expenditure
estimates.
The average number of hunting days
for turkey hunters is 10 days while deer,
elk and bear hunters averaged 17 days
of hunting in 2006 (Table 9). Small game
hunters averaged 11 hunting days while
migratory birds had the lowest average
with 9 days. Hunters who pursued
other animals like fox and coyote had an
average of 13 days afield. The average
number of trips had a very similar
pattern: turkey-hunting trips were less
than the average trips taken by deer, elk
and bear hunters. Migratory bird hunters
averaged the same number of trips (7) as
wild turkey hunters, while the average
number of trips taken to pursue other
animals was 11 and small game was 9
trips.
In 2006, big game hunting expenditures
totaled $11.8 billion. 3 Wild turkey
hunters are responsible for $1.6 billion
or 13% of the total, while deer, elk, and
bear hunters make up the difference
with $10.2 billion. Small game hunters
3 The Survey defines wild turkey as a big
game species.
spent $2.4 billion in 2006 while migratory
bird expenditures totaled $1.3 billion.
Expenditures by hunters who pursued
other animals totaled $208 million. In
2006, wild turkey hunters spent $614
per person on trip and equipment
expenditures with an average of $298 on
trip-related expenditures and $316 on
equipment expenditures. Deer, elk, and
bear hunters spent the most per person
per trip ($478). Migratory bird hunters
averaged $301 on trips while small game
hunters spent $249 per person on trips. A
shorter hunting season may explain why
spending patterns by turkey hunters are
lower than other species hunters. The
average per trip costs may appear high,
but these averages include spending on
food, lodging, transportation, public and
private land use fees, guide fees, and
other trip-related expenses.
Equipment averages include the cost
of items owned primarily for hunting
including, but not limited to, rifles,
shotguns, muzzleloaders, pistols,
archery equipment, game calls, decoys,
and ammunition. The equipment cost
averages also include big ticket items
like cabins, pickups, boats, and RVs used
primarily for hunting as well as auxiliary
equipment like sleeping bags, special
hunting clothes and taxidermy services.
Table 9. Hunting by Type, Days and Expenditures
(Population 16 years of age or older. Numbers in thousands)
Big Game
Hunters
Wild Turkey
Hunters
Deer, Elk, &
Bear Hunters
Small Game
Hunters
Migratory
Bird Hunters
Other Animal
Hunters
Hunters 10,682 2,569 8,113 4,797 2,293 1,128
Days of Hunting 164,061 25,828 138,233 52,395 19,770 15,205
Mean Days of Hunting 15 10 17 11 9 13
Trips 115,255 18,213 97,042 40,856 16,390 12,898
Mean Hunting Trips 11 7 12 9 7 11
Total Hunting Expenditures $11,754,122 $1,578,207 $10,175,915 $2,365,778 $1,349,148 $207,856
Trip $4,648,341 $766,790 $3,881,551 $1,196,318 $691,288 $142,667
Per Person Trip $435 $298 $478 $249 $301 $126
Equipment $7,105,781 $811,418 $6,294,363 $1,169,460 $657,860 $65,189
Per Person Equipment $665 $316 $776 $244 $287 $58
Note: ‘Deer, Elk, Bear’ includes all big game hunters except those who hunted turkey.
Turkey Hunting in 2006: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics, Trends, and Economic Impacts 17
Again, deer, elk, and bear hunters spent the most per person on equipment averaging $776 per person in 2006. Wild turkey hunters averaged $316 per person on equipment while small game hunters spent an average of $244 per person on equipment. Migratory bird hunters averaged $287 on equipment while other animal hunters spent the least amount on equipment averaging $58 per person.
As demonstrated, turkey hunters spend money on a variety of goods and services for trip-related and equipment-related purchases not including land leasing and ownership costs and license fees. Almost half of all turkey-hunting purchases are made on trip expenses (Figure 3). Retail sales on auxiliary and hunting equipment account for 35% of hunters’ spending and the rest (16%) is comprised of special equipment purchases.
A closer look at the trip expenses (Figure 4) reveals that transportation expenses account for 42% of the total, while food and lodging combined make up 40% of the trip-related expenses. Other expenses for items such as guide fees and equipment rentals comprise the remaining 18%.
Figure 3. Turkey Hunting Expenditures by Major Category
(Population 16 years of age or older.)
Figure 4. Trip Expenditures for Turkey Hunting: 2006
(Population 16 years of age or older.)
Note: Equipment includes both hunting equipment (e.g. guns, rifles, decoys, etc.) and auxiliary equipment (e.g. camping equipment, hunting clothing, binoculars, etc.).
Note: ‘Other’ trip expenditures includes guide fees, equipment rentals, public and private land use fees, etc.
Trip 49%Equipment 35%Special Equipment 16%Food 30%Lodging 10%Transportation 42%Other 18%18 Turkey Hunting in 2006: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics, Trends, and Economic Impacts
State-Level Economic Activity
The spending patterns of wild turkey hunters help demonstrate how important hunting is to the U.S. economy. When we do a state-by-state comparison of hunting-related retail sales, Texas has the highest amount of retail sales attributable to turkey hunting with $214 million (Table 10). Pennsylvania ranks second with $173 million and Missouri is third with just under $100 million.
Direct expenditures listed in Table 9 are only part of the contribution of turkey hunting to the U.S. economy. The effect on the economy over and above direct expenditures is known as the multiplier effect (See the appendix for more detailed information on how the multipliers were generated). For example, an individual may purchase a game call to use while turkey hunting. Part of the purchase price will stay with the local retailer. The local retailer, in turn, pays a wholesaler who in turn pays the manufacturer of the game calls. When enough money is spent on an activity like wild turkey hunting, businesses benefit from the rippling cycle by adding new employees, whose wages and salaries, when spent, will support still more jobs. Taxes will be generated, too. Economic multipliers, while subtle, can be immensely important. 4
4 A state’s economic multiplier is typically smaller than the multiplier for the United States as a whole because a state multiplier will reflect all interactions between businesses and industry throughout that state only. Any flows of dollars to businesses outside the state are leakages that are not included in the multiplier. As the geographic area expands to include more businesses and industries that supply goods and services, the size of the multiplier increases.
Table 10. Top 10 States Ranked by Retail Sales In-State
(Sales in thousands)
State
2006 Retail Sales
Number of
Turkey Hunters
Texas
$214,226
182,427
Pennsylvania
$173,304
369,299
Missouri
$98,889
154,831
Virginia
$88,476
119,704
Florida*
$72,641
81,947
Tennessee
$70,734
119,547
Arkansas
$72,825
85,597
New York
$61,662
164,461
Louisiana*
$56,225
46,770
Alabama
$51,065
98,115
*For these states, the sample size for turkey hunting is small (N=10–29). Use the results with caution.
This report presents the economic activity related to wild turkey hunting. We choose to distinguish between economic activity and economic impacts. The economic impacts of expenditures depends on the assumptions regarding hunting and its substitutes. If hunters would have gone outside the U.S. to hunt, then impacts are appropriate because a net loss of that activity would have occurred. On the other hand, if hunters found a substitute activity with a similar amount and type of spending, a loss in U.S. recreational hunting expenditures would have been offset by a gain in some other type of expenditures, resulting in little net change in impacts.
The $1.6 billion spent by turkey hunters in 2006 rippled through the U.S. economy generating $4.1 billion in total economic output (Table 11). Total output includes the direct, indirect, and induced effects of the expenditures associated with turkey hunting. Increases in wild turkey hunting creates greater demand for turkey game calls and leads to a direct increase in game call manufacturing (the direct effect). The game call manufacturer, in turn, must increase its purchases of inputs from other businesses to meet the increased demand for more game calls, which leads to increased output in other industries (the indirect effect). Induced effects refer to the changes in economic activity that result from changes in household income (and spending) as a result of changes in employment associated with the direct and indirect effects. On the state level, Texas, Pennsylvania and Missouri generated the largest amount of total output with $376 million, $303 million, and $167 million, respectively.
In 2006, wild turkey hunting supported over 37 thousand jobs. The states with the most jobs supported were Texas (4,412), Pennsylvania (2,698), and Florida (2,302). This includes both full- and part-time jobs with a job defined as one person working for at least part of the calendar year. Federal and state tax revenue are derived from turkey hunting-related spending. In 2006, $272 million in state tax revenue and $313 million in federal tax revenue were generated. As for states with the largest amount of tax revenue generated from turkey hunting-related spending, again Texas ranked first, followed by Pennsylvania and Missouri.Turkey Hunting in 2006: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics, Trends, and Economic Impacts 19
Table 11. Economic Impacts of Turkey Hunting—State and National Totals: 2006
(Dollars values are in thousands)
State
Trip & Equipment Expenditures
Total Output
Job Income
State Tax Revenue
Federal Tax Revenue
United States
$1,578,208
$4,112,062
37,741
$272,438
$312,693
Alabama
$51,065
$81,853
1,176
$5,363
$5,917
Arizona
…
…
…
…
…
Arkansas
$72,825
$114,420
1,551
$8,172
$7,592
California
$16,741
$29,614
277
$2,269
$2,397
Colorado
…
…
…
…
…
Connecticut
…
…
…
…
…
Delaware
…
…
…
…
…
Florida
$72,641
$127,638
2,302
$7,915
$11,066
Georgia*
$35,545
$59,150
798
$4,310
$4,616
Hawaii
…
…
…
…
…
Idaho*
$15,861
$25,089
339
$1,961
$1,951
Illinois*
$20,518
$36,839
362
$2,573
$2,991
Indiana*
$11,067
$18,199
220
$1,279
$1,376
Iowa
$20,518
$32,094
435
$2,241
$2,320
Kansas
$23,197
$40,032
561
$2,643
$2,887
Kentucky*
$21,085
$32,898
391
$2,587
$2,280
Louisiana
$56,225
$92,854
1,315
$5,913
$6,056
Maine*
$6,165
$9,286
115
$775
$671
Maryland*
$9,814
$16,431
196
$1,348
$1,426
Massachusetts*
$5,765
$9,812
99
$701
$930
Michigan*
$22,695
$36,973
375
$3,005
$2,788
Minnesota
…
…
…
…
…
Mississippi*
$28,549
$43,089
622
$3,528
$2,696
Missouri
$98,889
$166,603
1,694
$12,015
$11,716
Montana
…
…
…
…
…
Nebraska*
$14,282
$22,986
303
$1,748
$1,619
Nevada
…
…
…
…
…
New Hampshire*
$4,912
$7,770
90
$525
$725
New Jersey*
$10,243
$17,733
169
$1,191
$1,680
New Mexico*
$15,639
$26,304
304
$1,672
$1,727
New York
$61,662
$103,132
837
$9,204
$8,505
North Carolina*
$38,892
$64,846
686
$4,026
$4,747
North Dakota
…
…
…
…
…
Ohio*
$33,055
$57,714
507
$3,366
$3,579
Oklahoma
$32,306
$55,307
627
$3,136
$3,479
Oregon
…
…
…
…
…
Pennsylvania
$173,304
$302,620
2,698
$21,604
$22,839
Rhode Island
…
…
…
…
…
South Carolina*
$11,975
$18,173
288
$1,424
$1,410
South Dakota*
$5,299
$8,001
91
$628
$545
Tennessee
$70,734
$122,898
1,502
$7,007
$9,170
Texas
$214,226
$375,882
4,412
$24,987
$28,595
Utah
…
…
…
…
…
Vermont*
$5,430
$7,005
94
$579
$577
Virginia
$88,476
$146,317
1,639
$9,026
$11,584
Washington
…
…
…
…
…
West Virginia*
$46,264
$69,309
945
$4,528
$4,825
Wisconsin
$44,152
$68,421
771
$6,535
$4,808
Wyoming
…
…
…
…
…
*For these states, the sample size for turkey hunting is often small (N=10–30). Use the results with caution.
��� Sample size too small to report data reliably20 Turkey Hunting in 2006: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics, Trends, and Economic Impacts
Summary
Over 2.5 million hunters throughout the
United States pursued Ben Franklin’s
choice for our nation’s bird, the wild
turkey, in 2006. Due in large part to the
rapid growth in wild bird populations,
wild turkey hunting participation
increased 15% from 1996 to 2006. The
Mid-Atlantic Division has the most
turkey hunters while the West South
Central Division has seen the largest
increase, 40%, in participation. Wild
turkeys now roam all States except
Alaska and hunters take advantage of
their extended range by hunting in all
corners of the U.S. Pennsylvania has the
largest number of turkey hunters; South
Carolina is the state with the most effort;
and Tennessee has the largest proportion
of all hunters pursuing wild turkey.
Ninety-five percent of turkey hunters
hunt another type of animal, with the
most popular types including bear, fox,
and woodchucks.
Wild turkey hunters reside in rural areas,
particularly in the Middle and South
Atlantic Divisions. They enjoy spending
time hunting on private land, where they
were more likely to own or lease private
hunting land compared with all other
hunters. Turkey hunters were also more
likely to spend more days hunting on
private land. Half of all turkey hunters
are between 35 and 54 years old and 97%
are white. Turkey hunters come from
diverse educational backgrounds and a
large majority make higher than average
incomes.
On average, wild turkey hunters spent
$298 per hunter on trip expenses and
$316 per hunter on equipment purchases
in 2006. Total wild turkey hunting
expenditures in 2006 were $1.6 billion,
which generated $4.1 billion in economic
output. Turkey hunting supported over
37 thousand jobs and generated $272
million and $313 million in state and
federal tax revenue, respectively. On the
state level, Texas led the way with $376
million in total output, supporting over
4 thousand jobs. Spending by turkey
hunters in Pennsylvania generated $303
million in output and supported over 2
thousand jobs. In Missouri, spending by
turkey hunters rippled through the state
generating $167 million in output and
supporting over 16 hundred jobs.
Turkey hunting, like all hunting,
continues to be a white male dominated
activity. However, females are becoming
even more engaged in wild turkey
hunting with a 27% increase from
1996 to 2006 compared to the male
increase of 14%. Also, in contrast with
overall hunting, wild turkey hunting
continued to grow as a sport increasing
15% from 1996 to 2006. Based on the
results of the 2006 Survey, the future
and legacy of turkey hunting in the U.S.
looks bright. The findings of the 2011
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting,
and Wildlife-Associated Recreation will
help researchers establish which trends
will dominate the future of wild turkey
hunting in the U.S. These new results,
projected to be available in 2012, will
help us analyze one of America’s fastest
growing hunting activities.
USFWS/Stephen Robertson
Turkey Hunting in 2006: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics, Trends, and Economic Impacts 21
References
Benson, Delwin. 2001. Survey of State
Programs for Habitat, Hunting, and
Nongame Management on Private
Lands in the United States. Wildlife
Society Bulletin, Vol. 29:1.
Brown, Tommy, Daniel Decker, and John
Kelley. 1984. Access to Private Lands
for Hunting in New York: 1962–1980.
Wildlife Society Bulletin. Vol. 12:4.
Cordell, K., Carter Betz, J. Michael
Bowker, Donald English, Shela Mou,
John Bergstrom, Jeff Teasley, Michael
Tarrant and John Loomis. 1999.
Outdoor Recreation in American Life:
A National Assessment of Demand
and Supply Trends. Champaign, IL:
Sagamore Publishing.
National Wild Turkey Federation.
2010. North American Wild Turkey
Management Plan. Accessed from:
http://www.nwtf.org/NAWTMP/ on
March 19th, 2010.
Southwick Associates. 2007. Hunting
in America: An Economic Engine and
Conservation Powerhouse. Produced
for the Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies with funding from the
Multistate Conservation Grant Program.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2006. Population
Estimates Program. Accessed on June
1st, 2010 from< http://factfinder.census.
gov/servlet/GCTTable?_bm=y&-geo_
id=01000US&-_box_head_nbr=GCT-T2-
R&-ds_name=PEP_2006_EST&-
format=US-9Sa>.
U.S. Department of Interior. 2009.
The State of the Birds, United States
of America. North American Bird
Conservation Initiative, U.S. Committee,
2009. Washington, D.C. 36 pages.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service and U.S. Department
of Commerce, Bureau of Census. 2006
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting,
and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.
Issued October, 2007.
USFWS/Stephen Robertson
22 Turkey Hunting in 2006: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics, Trends, and Economic Impacts
Appendix. Economic Multipliers
Southwick Associates created state
multipliers based on deer hunting data
from the 2006 National Survey using
IMPLAN input-output software and
data. IMPLAN is widely used to model
the interactions between economic
sectors to estimate the output, income,
and employment effects of changes in
regional economies. As Table A-1 shows,
the spending pattern of deer hunters
is similar to that of turkey hunters.
Both spend a similar proportion in each
industrial sector even though the total
amounts differ. Since this pattern is
similar, the multipliers derived from
deer hunting are used to estimate
turkey-hunting impacts.
Table A-1. Deer and Turkey Hunting Expenditure Distribution by Category
(Numbers are percentages of total expenditures)
Spending Category Deer Hunting Turkey Hunting
Trip Expenses 37 49
Food 13 15
Transportation 15 21
Lodging 3 5
Other 6 9
Equipment 35 35
Firearms 11 12
Ammunition 3 3
Gear 3 3
Auxillary 9 7
Special 28 16
Note: This is only a snapshot of the expenditure distribution; therefore, not all categories are included in
the table.
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov
July 2010
Cover photo: USFWS/Patrick Donnelly