1996 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching Based on the 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation

              1996 National and State
Economic Impacts of
Wildlife Watching
Based on the 1996 National
Survey of Fishing, Hunting and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
(96-1)
1996 National and State
Economic Impacts of
Wildlife Watching
Based on the 1996 National
Survey of Fishing, Hunting and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation
(96-1)
April, 1998
Prepared by:
James Caudill, Ph.D. and
Andrew Laughland, Ph.D.
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Division of Economics
Arlington, Virginia
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Observing, feeding, and photographing
wildlife in the United States is an
important pastime for millions of
Americans and contribute significantly to
the national and state economies. In 1996,
more than 60 million people 16 years of
age and older spent over $29 billion on
trips and equipment in pursuit of these
activities. Wildlife-watching expenditures
have contributed substantially to Federal
and state tax revenues, jobs, earnings,
and industry output.
The 1996 National Survey of Fishing,
Hunting and Wildlife-Associated
Recreation (FHWAR) (U.S. Department
of the Interior et al.) is the most
comprehensive survey of wildlife-related
recreation in the U.S. Over 34,000
interviews were completed with anglers,
hunters, and wildlife watchers. The
survey focuses on 1996 participation and
expenditures by U.S. residents 16 years
of age or older.
Two other reports used the 1996 FHWAR
to address the national and state
economic impacts of hunting and fishing.1
In this report, estimates of national and
state economic impacts of wildlife
watching based on the 1996 FHWAR
are reported. The following topics are
addressed: (1) national participation in
wildlife watching; (2) expenditures
associated with participation in wildlife
watching; (3) estimates of the total
economic activity generated by these
expenditures; (4) total employment and
employment income associated with
these expenditures; and (5) estimates of
associated state and federal tax revenue.
2
Introduction
1 See The Economic Importance of Hunting:
Economic data on hunting throughout the entire
United States., Southwick Associates, Arlington,
VA, 1998; and The Economic Importance of Sport
Fishing: Economic data on sport fishing
throughout the entire United States, American
Sportfishing Association, Alexandria, VA., 1998.
Summary of National Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching: 1996
Participation 62.9 million
Total Expenditures $29.2 billion
Total Industry Output $85.4 billion
Employment 1,010,590 jobs
Employment Income $24.2 billion
State Sales Tax $1.04 billion
State Income Tax $323.5 million
Federal Income tax $3.8 billion
Wildlife-related recreation is one of the
most popular forms of recreation in the
United States. In 1996, 77 million people
participated in hunting, fishing and
wildlife watching. By comparison, total
attendance in 1996 for all major league
baseball and football games numbered
about 73.8 million (Carter and Sloan,
1997a,b).
Over 62 million people participated in
some form of wildlife watching, which
refers to nonharvesting activities such as
observing, feeding and photographing
wildlife. The figure of 62 million includes
only primary participants in wildlife
watching. Primary means that the
principal motivation for the trip, activity
or expenditure is wildlife related.
Primary participation is further
categorized as residential or
nonresidential. Primary residential
participants include those whose
activities2 are within one mile of home
and primary nonresidential participants
refers to people who take trips or outings
of at least one mile for the primary
purpose of observing, feeding, or
photographing wildlife. For the purposes
of the survey, trips to zoos, circuses,
aquariums, museums and for scouting
game are not considered wildlife
watching.
3
Participation in
Wildlife Watching
2 These activities include one or more of the
following: (1) closely observing or trying to identify
birds or other wildlife; (2) photographing wildlife;
(3) feeding birds or other wildlife on a regular basis;
(4) maintaining natural areas of at least one-quarter
acre for which benefit to wildlife is the primary
purpose; (5) maintaining plantings (shrubs,
agricultural crops, etc.) for which benefit to wildlife
is the primary concern, or (6) visiting public parks
within one mile of home for the primary purpose of
observing, feeding, or photographing wildlife (p. 3,
U.S. Department of the Interior et al. 1997).
USFWS Photo by Nan Rollison
State sales tax impacts were estimated
using sales tax rates obtained from the
Federation of Tax Administrators (1998).
State income tax rates were estimated by
dividing state individual income tax
revenues by state wage and salary plus
proprietors’ income (U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1997a,d). Federal income tax
rates were derived similarly (U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1997b).
Spending associated with wildlife
watching generates a substantial amount
of economic activity across the U.S.
Participants spend money on a wide
variety of goods and services. Trip-related
expenditures for nonresidential
participants include expenses for food,
lodging, and transportation. Both
residential and nonresidential
participants also buy equipment and
related goods for the primary purpose of
engaging in wildlife watching such as
binoculars, cameras, wild bird food,
membership in wildlife organizations,
camping equipment, motor homes,
campers, and off-road vehicles.
Because this spending directly benefits
towns and communities where these
purchases are made, wildlife watching
can have a significant impact on local
economies, especially in small towns and
rural areas. For example, the town of
High Island, near Galveston, Texas, is a
prime bird watching site each spring as
migrating songbirds concentrate in the
area after their journey across the Gulf
of Mexico. In 1992, 6,000 birdwatchers
from across the U.S. and several foreign
countries spent about $2.5 million dollars
in the area, despite there being only one
restaurant and one hotel in the area
(Eubanks et al. as summarized in
Dickinson and Edmondson).
These direct expenditures are only part
of the total picture, however. Businesses
and industries that supply the local
retailers where the purchases are made
also benefit from wildlife-watching
expenditures. For example, a family may
decide to purchase a pair of binoculars to
use primarily for birdwatching on an
upcoming vacation. Part of the total
purchase price will go to the local retailer,
say a sporting goods store. The sporting
goods store in turn pays a wholesaler
that in turn pays the manufacturer of the
binoculars. The manufacturer then
spends a portion of this income to pay
businesses supplying the manufacturer.
In this fashion, each dollar of local retail
expenditures can affect a variety of
businesses at the local, regional and
national level. Consequently, consumer
spending associated with wildlife
watching can have a significant impact on
economic activity, employment, and
household income across the nation.
Methods
The 1996 FHWAR contains estimates of
annual travel and equipment
expenditures by wildlife-watching
participants. Travel expenditures were
obtained only for nonresidential
participants3 while equipment
expenditures were obtained for both
residential and nonresidential
participants. These expenditures were
used in conjunction with an economic
modeling method known as input-output
analysis4 to estimate total industry
output, employment and employment
income associated with these
expenditures.
4
The Economic Impacts of
Wildlife Watching
3 Theoretically, residential participants would
not have any travel expenses since all wildlife-associated
activity took place within one mile of
their home.
4 The estimates of total economic activity,
employment and employment income in this report
were derived using IMPLAN, a regional input-output
model and software system. For additional
information, see MIG, Inc. IMPLAN System
(1994 data and software) and Olson and Lindall,
IMPLAN Professional Software, Analysis and Data
Guide. For additional information on input-output
modeling, see Miller and Blair Input-Output
Analysis .
USFWS Photo
manufacturing with $5.5 billion (22.8
percent) and finance-insurance-real
estate at $1.7 billion (7.1 percent). Table 2
summarizes economic impacts by major
business sector (column sums may not
equal column totals due to rounding).
Direct Expenditures
Figures 1 and 2 summarize major
expenditure categories for 1996. In
Figure 1, the category “Other” includes
books and magazines, dues and
contributions, expenses associated with
owning or leasing land for wildlife
watching and plantings. In Figure 2, the
“Other” category includes guide fees,
pack trips, public and private land use
and access fees, equipment rental, boat
fuel, other boating costs and heating and
cooking fuel.
Total direct expenditures by participants
was $29.2 billion in 1996. Trip-related
expenditures accounted for about
$9.4 billion (32.3 percent of total
expenditures). Food and drink accounted
for 36.5 percent of total trip-related
expenditures and transportation and
lodging accounted for 31.2 and 20.2
percent, respectively.
Equipment and other expenditures
accounted for $19.8 billion (67.7 percent
of total expenditures). Off-road vehicles,
tent trailers, motor homes and pick-up
trucks accounted for 31.4 percent of total
equipment and other expenditures.
Packaged and bulk wild bird food
accounted for 13.9 percent of equipment
and related expenditures, while film
purchases (including developing) and
photographic equipment accounted for
5.6 and 8.8 percent, respectively.
Table 1 summarizes nationwide
expenditures for wildlife watching
in 1996.
Total Industry Output
The direct expenditures of $29.2 billion in
1996 generated $85.4 billion in total
industrial output (TIO) across the U.S.
TIO includes the direct, indirect and
induced effects5 of wildlife-watching
expenditures. The ratio of TIO to direct
expenditures, 2.92, means that for each
$1 of direct spending associated with
wildlife watching, an additional $1.92 of
economic activity is generated. Major
sectors affected include manufacturing
which accounted for $27.0 billion (31.7
percent); service sector $16.4 billion (19.3
percent); trade (both wholesale and
retail) $16.1 billion (18.8 percent); and
finance-insurance-real estate which
accounted for $12.1 billion (14.1 percent)
of output.
Employment and Employment Income
The total industrial output of $85.4 billion
resulted in 1,010,590 jobs (full and part
time) with total wages and salaries of
$24.2 billion. This results in a national
average of $23,931 per job per year. With
respect to employment, major industrial
sectors affected include trade with over
357,000 jobs (35.6 percent); services with
301,000 jobs (30.0 percent);
manufacturing with 131,000 jobs (13.1
percent) and agriculture with over 70,000
jobs (7.0 percent).
The service sector accounted for the
largest portion of employment income at
$6.9 billion (28.4 percent); trade
accounted for $6.8 billion (28.1 percent);
5
5 Direct effects are production changes associated
with the immediate effects of changes in final
demand (in this case, changes in wildlife-associated
expenditures); indirect effects are production
changes in those industries which supply the inputs
to industries directly affected by final demand;
induced effects are changes in regional household
spending patterns caused by changes in regional
employment (generated from the direct and
indirect effects) (Taylor et al. 1993, Appendix E,
p. E-1).
Figure 2. Trip Expenditures for Wildlife Watching, 1996
$9.4 billion
Figure 1. Wildlife Watching Expenditures by Major Category, 1996
$29.2 billion
Trip 32%
Other 11%
Other 12%
Food 37%
Lodging 20%
Transportation 31%
Equipment 57%
6
Table 1. National Expenditures for Wildlife Watching: 1996
Total Percent of Percent of
Expenditures Category Total
Expenditure item (in millions) Expenditures Expenditures
(1) Travel-related
Food $3,446.7 36.5 % 11.8 %
Lodging $1,904.9 20.2 % 6.5 %
Public Transportation $810.9 8.6 % 2.8 %
Private Transportation $2,131.6 22.6 % 7.3 %
Guide fees, pack trip or package fees $310.5 3.3 % 1.1 %
Public land use/access fees $173.7 1.8 % 0.6 %
Private land use/access fees $106.6 1.1 % 0.4 %
Equipment rental $121.8 1.3 % 0.4 %
Boat fuel $101.0 1.1 % 0.3 %
Other boat costs $271.5 2.9 % 0.9 %
Heating and cooking fuel _____$_6_4_._6 _____0_.7_ _%_ _____0_.2_ _%_
Total, Travel-related $9,443.8 100.0 % 32.3 %
(2) Equipment and other items
a. Wildlife-Watching Equipment and related items
Binoculars, spotting scopes $635.6 3.2 % 2.2 %
Cameras, video cameras, special lenses and other photographic equipment $1,748.2 8.8 % 6.0 %
Film and developing $1,103.8 5.6 % 3.8 %
Packaged wild bird food $2,129.5 10.8 % 7.3 %
Bulk wild bird food $603.7 3.1 % 2.1 %
Feed for other wildlife $456.8 2.3 % 1.6 %
Nest boxes, bird houses, feeders, baths $831.6 4.2 % 2.8 %
Other wildlife-watching equipment $167.1 0.8 % 0.6 %
Day packs, carrying cases, and special clothing ____$_5_5_3_._4 _____2_.8_ _%_ _____1_.9_ _%_
Wildlife-watching, sub-total $8,229.7 41.6 % 28.2 %
b. Auxiliary Equipment
Tents and tarps $285.9 1.4 % 1.0 %
Frame packs and backpacking equipment $134.8 0.7 % 0.5 %
Other camping equipment $334.4 1.7 % 1.1 %
Other auxiliary equipment ____$_1_0_3_._2 _____0_.5_ _%_ _____0_.4_ _%_
Auxiliary, sub-total $858.3 4.3 % 2.9%
c. Special Equipment
Off-the-road vehicles $3,970.4 20.1 % 13.6 %
Travel or tent trailer, pick-up, camper, van, motor home $2,247.3 11.4 % 7.7 %
Boats $435.8 2.2 % 1.5 %
Boat Accessories $101.3 0.5 % 0.3 %
Cabins* — — —
Other equipment ____$_1_0_8_._6 _____0_.5_ _%_ _____0_.4_ _%_
Special, sub-total $7,564.5 38.2 % 25.9%
d. Other items
Magazines and books $395.0 2.0 % 1.4 %
Membership dues and contributions $861.8 4.4 % 2.9 %
Land leasing and ownership $1,338.2 6.8 % 4.6 %
Plantings ____$_5_3_6_._6 _____2_.7_ _%_ _____1_.8_ _%_
Other items, sub-total ___$_3_,1_3_1_._6 ____1_5_.8_ _%_ ____1_0_.7_ _%_
Total, equipment and other items $19,784.1 100 % 67.7 %
National Total $29,227.9 — 100.0 %
*Sample size is too small to report data reliably.
percentage of total (annual) state
employment. Finally, the third column
shows estimated employment income as a
percentage of total state wage and salary
disbursements (U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1997c,d). Ten states derive
more than 1 percent of their gross state
product from wildlife-watchers’ activities.
Almost 5 percent of Alaska employment
is derived from wildlife watching.
An additional way to help place wildlife-watching
expenditures in context is to
think of these expenditures as the 1996
annual sales revenue of a particular
company. With a total of $29.2 billion in
sales, this company would rank 23rd on
the Fortune 500 list for 1996, just behind
Citicorp ($32.6 billion), PepsiCo, Inc.
($31.6 billion), and Kmart Corporation
($31.4 billion) (Fortune).
Federal and State Taxes
Wildlife-watching expenditures generate
taxes at both the state and federal level
in two ways. First, direct and indirect
expenditures generate state sales tax
(except in those states without sales tax).
Second, employment earnings are taxed
at both the state (with the exception of
states which do not tax income) and
federal levels. Based on 1996
expenditures on wildlife watching,
associated total industrial output and
associated employment and employment
income, 1996 tax revenue is estimated as
follows:
(1) total state sales tax revenue:
$1.04 billion;
(2) total state income tax revenue:
$323.5 million; and
(3) total federal individual income tax
revenue: $3.82 billion.
State Impacts
Table 3 shows the economic impacts of
wildlife-watching expenditures by state
for 1996 (special equipment expenditures
were not included in the state models
because of the small number of
observations for this category; therefore
the numbers reported here will not
match state expenditure totals in other
reports). U.S. totals are shown at the
bottom of Table 3. With the exception of
state sales and income tax revenue totals
for the U.S., state totals do not add up to
U.S. totals. The state impact figures show
only those impacts which occur within the
state. For example, a Boise, Idaho
sporting goods store may carry a brand
of fishing tackle that is manufactured in
Salt Lake City, Utah. When an angler
purchases the fishing tackle, only a
portion of the money is kept by the
retailer. Part of the total selling price
goes to the Salt Lake City manufacturer.
This transaction between the sporting
goods store and the manufacturer (or
wholesaler, depending on the situation)
will not appear in the Idaho state totals.
The U.S. totals capture these interstate
impacts, however.
To help put these numbers in context,
Table 4 shows the estimated impacts as a
percentage of commensurate state totals
for 1996. The first column shows total
industry output as a percentage of Gross
State Product (GSP).6 The second column
shows estimated employment as a
7
6 Gross state product (GSP) is the sum of gross
state products originating in all industries in a
particular state. An industry’s GSP is equivalent to
its gross output (sales or receipts and other
operating income, commodity taxes, and inventory
change) minus its intermediate inputs (consumption
of goods and services purchased from other
industries or imported). GSP is sometimes referred
to as the State counterpart of the nation’s gross
domestic product (GDP) (U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1997c).
Table 2. National Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching by Major Industrial Sector, 1996
(all dollar amounts in millions)
Total Sector as Sector as Sector as
Industrial Percent Percent Employment Percent
Sector Output of Total Employment of Total Income of Total
Agriculture $3,136.4 3.7 % 70,591 7.0 % $498.2 2.1 %
Mining $842.0 1.0 % 3,169 0.3 % $140.3 0.6 %
Construction $2,213.7 2.6 % 25,314 2.5 % $694.3 2.9 %
Manufacturing $27,042.5 31.7 % 131,301 13.1 % $5,493.7 22.8 %
TCPU (1) $6,396.2 7.5 % 45,102 4.5 % $1,396.1 5.8 %
Trade $16,091.2 18.8 % 357,748 35.6 % $6,778.1 28.1 %
FIRE (2) $12,079.8 14.1 % 57,464 5.7 % $1,703.3 7.1 %
Services $16,441.5 19.3 % 301,415 30.0 % $6,863.1 28.4 %
Government $1,142.0 1.3 % 12,172 1.2 % $565.2 2.3 %
Other _____$_5_2_._6 _____0_.1_ _%_ _____6_,_3_1_2 _____0_.6_ _%_ _____$_5_2_._7 _____0_.2_ _%_
Totals $85,437.9 100.0 % 1,010,590 100.0 % $24,184.9 100.0 %
(1) TCPU: Transportation, Communications, Public Utilities
(2) FIRE: Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
8
Table 3. Wildlife-watching Expenditures and Economic Impacts, State and National Totals: 1996
All dollar amounts in millions
State State
Expenditures/ Job Sales Tax Income Tax Federal
State Sales Output Jobs Income Revenue Revenue Income Tax
Alabama $207.3 $336.4 5,536 $94.6 $8.3 $2.7 $14.9
Alaska $727.9 $994.3 14,311 $279.8 $0.0 $0.0 $44.1
Arizona $426.9 $692.5 10,230 $200.3 $21.3 $5.0 $31.6
Arkansas $183.7 $301.6 5,162 $75.9 $8.5 $2.9 $12.0
California $2,123.6 $3,677.5 47,716 $1,131.9 $127.4 $45.1 $178.6
Colorado $786.2 $1,368.9 19,784 $402.5 $23.6 $13.9 $63.5
Connecticut $199.0 $318.1 4,282 $110.6 $11.9 $4.3 $17.4
Delaware $59.2 $90.1 1,571 $32.0 $0.0 $1.4 $5.0
Florida $1,259.5 $2,141.8 31,271 $659.9 $75.6 $0.0 $104.1
Georgia $793.4 $1,265.9 13,883 $280.3 $31.7 $10.2 $44.2
Hawaii $286.2 $451.0 5,197 $131.8 $11.4 $6.8 $20.8
Idaho $120.3 $196.2 4,126 $58.0 $6.0 $2.5 $9.1
Illinois $667.9 $1,220.2 16,663 $381.1 $41.7 $10.6 $60.1
Indiana $263.8 $454.7 7,511 $129.5 $13.2 $5.2 $20.4
Iowa $174.3 $298.2 5,164 $81.1 $8.7 $3.1 $12.8
Kansas $102.4 $175.9 3,048 $46.3 $5.0 $1.7 $7.3
Kentucky $181.8 $275.0 4,839 $79.0 $10.9 $3.3 $12.5
Louisiana $184.5 $299.0 5,136 $85.6 $7.4 $1.9 $13.5
Maine $212.8 $335.2 5,800 $98.6 $12.8 $4.5 $15.6
Maryland $374.0 $610.9 8,709 $193.6 $18.7 $8.6 $30.5
Massachusetts $468.6 $793.4 11,448 $275.8 $23.4 $15.4 $43.5
Michigan $724.2 $1,173.0 17,779 $353.8 $43.5 $13.6 $55.8
Minnesota $360.0 $645.1 10,613 $200.4 $23.4 $10.0 $31.6
Mississippi $117.8 $193.5 3,558 $53.6 $8.2 $1.3 $8.5
Missouri $394.8 $738.8 11,637 $218.8 $16.7 $8.0 $34.5
Montana $212.4 $328.5 5,962 $82.5 $0.0 $3.2 $13.0
Nebraska $80.8 $138.3 2,457 $37.6 $4.0 $1.2 $5.9
Nevada $143.6 $219.6 3,029 $68.8 $9.3 $0.0 $10.8
New Hampshire $281.2 $413.1 4,836 $91.2 $0.0 $0.0 $14.4
New Jersey $646.3 $1,053.7 13,556 $366.7 $38.8 $11.7 $57.9
New Mexico $223.2 $366.3 6,093 $100.2 $11.2 $3.2 $15.8
New York $868.7 $1,403.1 18,058 $494.9 $34.7 $25.3 $78.1
North Carolina $502.7 $852.1 13,425 $242.8 $20.1 $10.9 $38.3
North Dakota $33.1 $52.1 1,045 $14.1 $1.7 $0.2 $2.2
Ohio $454.6 $748.9 11,872 $220.4 $22.7 $7.6 $34.8
Oklahoma $201.4 $345.1 6,302 $91.6 $9.1 $3.5 $14.5
Oregon $406.7 $710.6 11,759 $216.1 $0.0 $12.6 $34.1
Pennsylvania $688.2 $1,216.6 18,435 $371.2 $41.3 $11.0 $58.6
Rhode Island $48.4 $71.7 1,065 $22.6 $3.4 $0.9 $3.6
South Carolina $247.0 $393.0 6,623 $114.2 $12.3 $4.4 $18.0
South Dakota $137.8 $216.6 4,183 $56.4 $5.5 $0.0 $8.9
Tennessee $439.3 $741.0 11,486 $212.6 $26.4 $0.0 $33.5
Texas $1,103.9 $1,963.7 29,071 $556.4 $69.0 $0.0 $87.8
Utah $225.8 $381.1 6,749 $115.7 $10.7 $4.8 $18.3
Vermont $187.1 $270.2 3,408 $52.3 $9.4 $1.8 $8.3
Virginia $583.4 $953.0 15,438 $300.7 $20.4 $12.2 $47.4
Washington $875.3 $1,452.2 21,454 $426.9 $56.9 $0.0 $67.4
West Virginia $112.9 $159.0 2,913 $45.7 $6.8 $1.8 $7.2
Wisconsin $1,159.6 $1,830.6 26,441 $462.0 $58.0 $24.9 $72.9
Wyoming $217.5 $316.7 6,193 $82.8 $8.7 $0.0 $13.1
United States $29,227.9 $85,437.9 1,010,590 $24,184.9 $1,039.8 $323.5 $3,815.2
9
Table 4. Economic Impacts as Percentage of State Totals, 1996
Generated Employment
Total Output Generated Employment Income as Percentage of
as Percentage of as Percentage of Total Total State Wage and
State Gross State Product State Employment Salary Disbursements
Alabama 0.36 % 0.28 % 0.20 %
Alaska 4.01% 4.89 % 3.02 %
Arizona 0.69 % 0.51 % 0.38 %
Arkansas 0.56 % 0.45 % 0.30 %
California 0.39 % 0.34 % 0.26 %
Colorado 1.28 % 0.97 % 0.70 %
Connecticut 0.27 % 0.26 % 0.19 %
Delaware 0.32 % 0.39 % 0.27 %
Florida 0.63 % 0.47 % 0.39 %
Georgia 0.65 % 0.37 % 0.28 %
Hawaii 1.16 % 0.84 % 0.78 %
Idaho 0.76 % 0.77 % 0.47 %
Illinois 0.34 % 0.28 % 0.21 %
Indiana 0.31% 0.26 % 0.17 %
Iowa 0.41% 0.35 % 0.24 %
Kansas 0.27 % 0.23 % 0.15 %
Kentucky 0.29 % 0.27 % 0.18 %
Louisiana 0.28 % 0.27 % 0.19 %
Maine 1.22 % 1.01 % 0.73 %
Maryland 0.43 % 0.36 % 0.27 %
Massachusetts 0.40 % 0.36 % 0.26 %
Michigan 0.46 % 0.39 % 0.25 %
Minnesota 0.49 % 0.42 % 0.28 %
Mississippi 0.36 % 0.30 % 0.21 %
Missouri 0.54 % 0.43 % 0.31 %
Montana 1.83 % 1.53 % 1.01 %
Nebraska 0.31% 0.28 % 0.18 %
Nevada 0.47 % 0.34 % 0.27 %
New Hampshire 1.31% 0.84 % 0.58 %
New Jersey 0.39 % 0.36 % 0.28 %
New Mexico 0.90 % 0.81 % 0.57 %
New York 0.23 % 0.22 % 0.16 %
North Carolina 0.43 % 0.35 % 0.25 %
North Dakota 0.36 % 0.32 % 0.20 %
Ohio 0.26 % 0.21 % 0.15 %
Oklahoma 0.49 % 0.44 % 0.27 %
Oregon 0.90 % 0.75 % 0.52 %
Pennsylvania 0.39 % 0.33 % 0.24 %
Rhode Island 0.28 % 0.23 % 0.18 %
South Carolina 0.46 % 0.37 % 0.27 %
South Dakota 1.17 % 1.14 % 0.75 %
Tennessee 0.55 % 0.43 % 0.31 %
Texas 0.38 % 0.33 % 0.23 %
Utah 0.86 % 0.67 % 0.47 %
Vermont 1.91% 1.17 % 0.75 %
Virginia 0.50 % 0.45 % 0.31 %
Washington 0.95 % 0.82 % 0.55 %
West Virginia 0.42 % 0.41 % 0.27 %
Wisconsin 1.36 % 0.97 % 0.67 %
Wyoming 1.82 % 2.61 % 1.53 %
United States 1.17 % 0.79 % 0.67 %
Wildlife based recreation in the U.S. has
significant economic impacts at the local,
regional, state and national levels.
Hunting, fishing and wildlife watching
together generated over $254 billion in
total economic output in 1996 (American
Sportfishing Association; and Southwick
Associates). Wildlife watching is a
significant portion of this total and its
continued popularity gives evidence to
the importance that people attach to
diverse, accessible and robust fish and
wildlife populations.
10
Summary
USFWS Photo by Barbara Ely
Southwick Associates. The Economic
Importance of Hunting: Economic data
on hunting throughout the entire United
States. Arlington VA: Southwick
Associates, 1998.
Taylor, Carol, Susan Winter, Greg Alward
and Eric Siverts. Micro IMPLAN User’s
Guide. Fort Collins CO: U.S. Department
of Agriculture — Forest Service, Land
Management Planning Systems Group,
1993.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1996
State Tax Collection Data by State.
Bureau of the Census..
http://www.census.gov/govs/
statetax/96tax.wk11997a.
U.S. Department of Commerce. Personal
Income by Major Source and Earnings
by Industry, 1995:II- 1996:IV Bureau of
Economic Statistics. Survey of Current
Business 77 (5 May, 1997): 100- 111. 1997b.
U.S. Department of Commerce. Gross
State Product by Industry. Bureau of
Economic Analysis, Regional Economic
Analysis Division. 1997c.
U.S. Department of Commerce.
Employment and Income by State, 1996.
Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1997d.
U.S. Department of Commerce. Personal
Consumption Expenditures by Type of
Expenditure. Table B.4, p. D-29. Survey
of Current Business. 77 (December,
1997). 1997e.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service and U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census. 1996 National Survey of Fishing,
Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated
Recreation. Washington DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1997.
11
American Sportfishing Association. The
Economic Importance of Sport Fishing:
Economic data on sport fishing
throughout the entire United States.
Alexandria VA: American Sportfishing
Association, 1998.
Carter, Craig and Dave Sloan, eds.
Baseball Guide 1997: The Almanac of the
1996 Season. St. Louis: The Sporting
News, 1997a.
Carter, Craig and Dave Sloan, eds. Pro
Football Guide: 1997. St. Louis: The
Sporting News, 1997b.
Dickinson, Rachel and Brad Edmondson.
Golden Wings. American Demographics.
December 1996.
Eubanks, Ted, Paul Kerlinger and R.H.
Payne. High Island, Texas: Case Study
in Avitourism. Birding. December, 1993.
Federation of Tax Administrators. State
Sales Tax Rates and Vendor Discounts,
January 1998.
http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/
sale_vdr.html.
Fortune. Fortune 500. Fortune 500 lists
available on Fortune web site: http://
fortune.com. List as of September 23,
1997 (for 1996).
Olson, Doug and Scott Lindall. IMPLAN
Professional Software, Analysis and Data
Guide. 1940 South Greeley Street, Suite
101, Stillwater, MN 55082. 1996.
MIG, Inc. IMPLAN System (1994 Data
and Software). 1940 South Greeley
Street, Suite 101, Stillwater, MN 55082.
1997.
Miller, Ronald E. and Peter D. Blair.
Input-Output Analysis: Foundations and
Extensions. Englewood Cliffs NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1985.
Sources
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Division of Economics
Arlington, Virginia
http://www.fws.gov