Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and... 
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
|
Participation and
Expenditure Patterns
of African-American,
Hispanic, and Female
Hunters and Anglers
Addendum to the 2001 National
Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Report 2001-4
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Participation and
Expenditure Patterns
of African-American,
Hispanic, and Female
Hunters and Anglers
Addendum to the 2001 National
Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Report 2001-4
May 2004
Erin Henderson
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Economics
Arlington VA
This report is intended to complement the National and State reports from the
2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.
The conclusions are the authors and do not represent official positions of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
2 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Hunting Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Regional Distribution of Hunters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Hunting Participation Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Hunting Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Hunting on Private and Public Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Types of Hunting and Selected Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Female Hunters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Female’s Hunting Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Female Hunters’ Participation Levels (Days & Trips) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Female’s Hunting Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Female Hunting on Private and Public Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Hunting Trends 1991, 1996 & 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Fishing Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Regional Distribution of Anglers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Fishing Avidity & Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Types of Fishing and Selected Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Female, African American & Hispanic Anglers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Participation Levels (Days & Trips) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Fishing Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Fishing Trends 1991, 1996, & 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Participation Models for Hunting & Fishing Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Hunting Participation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Fishing Participation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Appendix A: Sample Sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Contents
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 3
Since the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
began tracking the demographics of
hunters and anglers in 1955, participation
rates of females and minorities have
consistently been below the national
averages for hunting and fishing
activities. This trend is becoming more
significant to the future of hunting and
fishing due to the changing demographics
of the United States.
According to U.S. Census projections,
Hispanic and African-American
populations are growing at a faster rate
than the rest of the American population.
In 2001, the Nation’s Hispanic population
totaled 38.7 million, a 73 percent increase
since 1990. Furthermore, 1 in 8 Americans
were Hispanic in 2001. In 2030, almost 1 in
5 Americans will be Hispanic. In 2001, the
Nation’s African-American population
totaled 38.3 million, a 28 percent increase
since 1990. Today 1 in 8 Americans are
of African-American descent, a ratio that
will continue to 2030. Females are also
under-represented in hunting and fishing.
Although females comprise 51 percent
of the population (which is expected to
remain constant through 2030), their
participation in hunting and fishing is far
below the national average.
This report highlights differences among
select low participation groups in terms
of participation rates, geographical
distribution, participation levels (days
and trips per year), and associated
expenditures. It also reports the relative
usage of private or public land hunting,
types of hunting and fishing, and species
sought. In addition to descriptive
statistics, the report concludes with
an empirical model to determine the
probability of an individual’s decision to
hunt or fish.
The descriptive statistics of this report
are divided into a hunting section and a
fishing section. Each section compares
all anglers to the participation rates,
participation levels, expenditures, and
hunting and fishing preferences for
African-Americans, Hispanics, and
females. At the end of the hunting
section, females’ participation and
expenditures for hunting activities are
further analyzed by selected demographic
characteristics. Due to small sample sizes,
this further analysis is not provided for
African-American or Hispanic hunters.
However, the larger sample sizes for
fishing activities provide adequate data
to analyze each subpopulation in this
demographic detail in the fishing section.
Appendix A shows sample sizes.
All reported data are from the “2001
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting
and Wildlife-Associated Recreation” and
represent participation and expenditures
for the calendar year 2001 of persons
age 16 years and older. The data for the
total population of hunters and anglers
include all subpopulations (henceforth
referred to as ‘all hunters’ or ‘all
anglers,’ respectively). Data for African-
Americans include all persons who
identified themselves as Black or African-
American in the Survey. This includes all
African-American participants who are
male or female and those who identified
themselves also as Hispanic. Likewise,
the Hispanic category includes persons
of both sexes and of any race. The female
category includes all races.
The 2001 survey was conducted for
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by
the U.S. Census Bureau. The survey
was conducted in two phases. First, a
screening interview was conducted to
identify wildlife-related recreationists.
Second, multiple interviews were
conducted to collect detailed information
on participation and expenditures for
persons 16 years of age and older. The
U.S. Census Bureau collected the data
primarily by telephone; respondents who
could not be reached by telephone were
interviewed in person. The response rate
was 75 percent for the screen phase and
88 percent for the detailed sportsmen
phase. Refer to the 2001 National Survey
of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-
Associated Recreation1 for more detailed
information on the methods of data
collection.
Introduction
1This document is available on the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service webpage: http://
federalaid.fws.gov/surveys/surveys.html.
Mike Hemming/USFWS
4 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers
Overview
Table 1 highlights the total number of
hunting participants, days and trips, and
trip-related and equipment expenditures
for African-American hunters, Hispanic
hunters, female hunters, and the total
population of hunters. Females were the
largest subpopulation, and spent the
most money, a combined total of $492
million on hunting equipment and trip-related
expenditures. Hispanic hunters
spent more on average for hunting than
the other subpopulations; and in the case
of trip-related expenditures, Hispanic
hunters spent more than the national
average for all hunters. African-American
hunters spent more days hunting and
took more hunting trips per year on
average than the other subpopulations.
Hunting Participation
Hunting participation rates are
calculated by dividing the number of
hunters in a particular subgroup by
the total population in that subgroup.
The subgroup population in the U.S. is
determined by using the data from the
screening sample.
Figure 1 reveals the U. S. hunting
participation rates for persons age
16 and over for the total population,
African-Americans, Hispanics, and
females. Hunting participation is not
consistent across subgroubs. The
participation rates of the African-
Americans, Hispanics, and females were
much lower than the total population.
While about 6 percent of the total
population hunt, only 2 percent of
Hispanics hunt, 1 percent of African-
Americans hunt, and 1 percent of
females hunt.
Hunting
Table 1. Hunters, Days, Trips and Expenditures: 2001
(Includes hunters 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
All
Hunters
African-
American
Hunters
Hispanic
Hunters
Female
Hunters
Hunters 13,034 288 428 1,189
Days of Hunting 228,367 5,382 5,139 14,068
Mean Days of Hunting 18 19 12 12
Trips 200,124 4,431 3,337 11,927
Mean Hunting Trips 16 16 8 10
Total Hunting Expenditures $11,016,945 $213,300 $399,379 $491,833
Trip Expenditures* $5,252,391 $106,593 $236,530 $188,237
Mean Trip Expenditures $407 $374 $552 $164
Equipment Expenditures** $5,764,554 $106,707 $162,849 $303,596
Mean Equipment Expenditures $442 $370 $380 $255
*Trip-related expenditures include food, drink, lodging, public and private transportation, guide fees,
pack trip or package fees, public and private land use access fees, equipment rental, boating costs, and
heating and cooking fuel.
**Equipment expenditures consist of rifles, shotguns, other firearms, ammunition, bows and arrows,
telescopic sights, decoys, hunting dogs and associated costs. Also included are auxiliary equipment such
as camping equipment, binoculars, special hunting clothing, processing and taxidermy costs. Excluded
from equipment expenditures are special equipment purchases such as boats, campers, trucks, and cabins.
Figure 1. Participation Rates for Hunting
����������
����
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 5
Regional Distribution Of Hunters
The regional distribution of hunters
illustrates where hunting generally
occurs in the U.S. With this information,
we are better equipped to understand
where pressure on game and hunting
resources may occur.
Figure 2 shows the distribution of hunter
subpopulations throughout the country.
The majority of African-American
hunters live in the South (73 percent).
The largest regional population of
Hispanic hunters and female hunters
also live in the South (51 percent and 39
percent, respectively). Sample sizes for
African-American hunters were too small
to report data reliably for the Northeast
and West regions. Samples sizes were
also too small for Hispanic hunters in the
Northeast region.
Hunting Participation Levels
In addition to data regarding the
number of people hunting, data about
the frequency of hunting also presents
valuable information for resource
management.
Figures 3 and 4 show the mean annual
hunting days and mean annual hunting
trips for each population group. The
national participation average for
all hunters is 18 days and 15 trips
(Figures 3 and 4). Of the subpopulations,
African-Americans hunted nearly
50 percent more (19 days) than did
Hispanics (12 days) and females
(12 days). The same pattern continues
for the average number of hunting trips.
African-American hunters took the most
hunting trips (16 trips), followed by
females (10 trips) and Hispanics (8 trips).
Figure 2. Where Do They Live? Regional Distribution of Hunters
����
������
���
Figure 3. Mean Days of Hunting
����
�������
Figure 4. Mean Hunting Trips
�� ���
*Estimate based on a small sample size. African-American and Hispanic hunters do not sum to 100
because some samples were too small to report.
6 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers
Hunting Expenditures
Hunting expenditures are divided into
two categories: trip-related expenditures2
and equipment expenditures.3 Figure
5 illustrates a comparison of mean trip
expenditures for hunters. Hispanics
spent considerably more on average
($552) for hunting trips than all hunters
($403). The other subpopulations spent
less on average than all hunters: African-
Americans spent $373 per year and
females spent the least, $163.
Average spending for hunting equipment
is shown in Figure 6. In this case, each of
the subpopulations average less than the
national average for all hunters ($442).
Of the subpopulations, Hispanics again
spent the most ($380), while African-
Americans spent $370 and females spent
$255.
Hunting on Private and Public Land
The number of people hunting on private
and public land reveals hunting choices
and levels of resource use. Figures 7 and
8 show, respectively, the percentage of
each group that hunt on private land and
the percentage of each group that hunt
on public land. Typically, more hunters
hunt on private land than on public land
although many hunt on both. At least 68
percent of each subpopulation hunt on
private land. A far greater percentage
of African-American hunters hunt on
private land (84 percent) than on public
land (32 percent). Female hunters also
favor private land hunting (80 percent)
versus public land hunting (28 percent).
In contrast, the margin between private
land (68 percent) and public land (48
percent) for Hispanic hunters is much
smaller.
Figure 5. Mean Trip Expenditures for Hunters
������
Figure 6. Mean Equipment Expenditures for Hunters
�� ���
Figure 7. Hunters Hunting on Private Land
���� �����
����
2Trip-related expenditures include
food, drink, lodging, public and private
transportation, guide fees, pack trip or
package fees, public and private land use
access fees, equipment rental, boating costs,
and heating and cooking fuel.
3Equipment expenditures consist of firearms,
ammunition, bows and arrows, telescopic
sights, decoys, hunting dogs and associated
costs. Also included are auxiliary equipment
such as camping equipment, binoculars,
special hunting clothing, processing and
taxidermy costs. Excluded from equipment
expenditures are special equipment purchases
such as boats, campers, trucks, and cabins.
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 7
Types of Hunting and Selected Game
To understand better the needs of
African-American, Hispanic, and female
hunters, it is helpful to know in what
kind of hunting they participate and
which type of game they hunt. Figure
9 shows the percentage of hunters that
participate in big game hunting, small
game hunting, migratory bird hunting,
and other animal hunting.4 Figure 10
depicts the percentage of hunters that
hunt selected game. These game were
selected because they were the most
sought after species in 2001.
In general, female hunters follow the
national trend for all hunters with
83 percent participating in big game
hunting, fewer in small game hunting
(27 percent), and fewer still pursuing
migratory birds (12 percent) and other
animals (4 percent). Similar to all
hunters, deer is the most popular type of
game for females (76 percent).
For Hispanic hunters, big game hunting
is far more popular than other types of
hunting. Seventy-five percent of Hispanic
hunters hunt big game in comparison
to 29 percent hunting small game,
35 percent hunting migratory birds,
and 9 percent hunting other animals.
Consistent with these findings, 67 percent
of Hispanic hunters hunt deer and only
10 percent hunt rabbit. Estimates for
hunting “other animals,” wild turkey,
squirrel, and rabbit, are based on small
sample sizes.
African-American hunters hunt
small game (69 percent), which is
considerably more than the general
hunting population (42 percent). This
preference for small game is reflected in
their high participation in rabbit hunting
(45 percent) and squirrel hunting (37
percent), which is greater than for all
other groups of hunters. The sample size
for wild turkey was too small to report
reliable estimates.
Figure 8. Hunters Hunting on Public Land
������ ��
Figure 9. Percent of Hunters, by Type of Hunting
�����������
��
������
Figure 10. Percent of Hunters, by Selected Game
�����
����
��
��
��
4Other animals include coyotes, crows,
foxes, groundhogs, prairie dogs, raccoons,
and similar animals. Other animals may be
classified as unprotected or non-game animals
by the state in which they are hunted.
*Estimate based on a small sample size.
*Estimate based on a small sample size.
8 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers
Female Hunters
For a more in-depth statistical analysis
of hunters, data on participation,
expenditures and private/public land
preferences are evaluated by age,
education, income and place of residence.
These comparisons are made between
female hunters and all hunters. Due to
small sample sizes, African-American
and Hispanic hunting populations are not
analyzed in further detail.
Female’s Hunting Participation
Only 1 percent of females 16 years
of age and over in the United States
participated in hunting (see Figure 1)
as opposed to 6 percent for the entire
population. A comparison of all hunters
and female hunters by age, education,
income, and place of residency follows.
Hunting participation for females is
constant across all age groups, where one
percent of the female population hunts
in each respective age group (Figure 11).
This pattern does not hold true for the
general population, which has its greatest
percentage of hunters in the 35 to 44
and 45 to 54 age groups (8 percent and
7 percent, respectively).
As shown in Figure 12, females of all
education levels participate at the rate of
1 percent. The hunting participation rate
for the total population, however, peaks
at 7 percent for those hunters with a high
school degree or some college. The lowest
participation rate for the total population
is 5 percent for those hunters without
a high school degree or with at least a
college degree.
Hunting participation is positively
correlated with income for the total
population (Figure 13). Eight-percent
of the total population earning over
$30,000 annually participates in hunting
activities, which is almost three times
greater than the percentage of the total
population earning less than $20,000
(3 percent). For the female population,
the participation rate remains constant
across income levels at 1 percent.
Figure 11. Participation Rates for Hunting, by Age
����
��
Figure 12. Participation Rates for Hunting, by Education
���
����
Figure 13. Participation Rates for Hunting, by Income
�������
��
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 9
People residing in rural areas are over
three times more likely to hunt than
people living in urban areas (Figure 14).
Female hunters living in rural areas are
also about three times more likely to hunt
than females living in urban areas.
Female Hunters’ Participation Levels
(Days & Trips)
Figures 15 thru 18 compare the mean
days and trips for female hunters and all
hunters by age, education, income, and
place of residence.
Figure 15 shows that female hunters’
mean hunting days are lowest (9 days)
for females age 16 to 24, and highest for
those age 20 to 34 (15 days) and age 45
to 54 (14 days). In contrast, the mean
hunting days for all hunters decreases
from 19 days for 16 to 34 year-old hunters
to 16 days for hunters 55 and over.
Similar to the pattern for all hunters,
females’ hunting days and education are
inversely related (Figure 16). Thus, the
number of hunting days decreases for
female hunters without a high school
degree (13 days) to those female hunters
who are college graduates (10 days).
Income level and mean hunting days
are depicted in Figure 17. With one
exception, females’ average hunting
days by income level follow the relatively
stable trend of activity as shown by
the general hunting population. The
exception occurs at the $20,000 to $29,999
income category, where the number of
hunting days is nearly half of any other
income category.
Figure 14. Participation Rates for Hunting, by Place of Residence
���
Figure 15. Mean Days of Hunting, by Age
���
����
Figure 16. Mean Days of Hunting, by Education
�� ��
10 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers
Figure 18 shows that female hunters
who live in rural areas hunt almost twice
as many days annually (14 days) than
female hunters who live in urban areas
(8 days). This is similar to the pattern for
all hunters, where hunters in rural areas
hunt 20 days annually while hunters in
urban areas hunt 14 days annually.
Figures 19 thru 22 depict various
demographic characteristics by the
number of annual mean hunting trips
in 2001. As shown in these figures, the
pattern of mean hunting trips is similar
to that of mean hunting days.
Figure 17. Mean Days of Hunting, by Income
����
���
����
Figure 18. Mean Days of Hunting, by Place of Residence
���
Figure 19. Mean Hunting Trips, by Age
��
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 11
Figure 20. Mean Hunting Trips, by Education
��
��
���
���
Figure 21. Mean Hunting Trips, by Income
���
��
Figure 22. Mean Hunting Trips, by Place of Residence
��������
����
12 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers
Females’ Hunting Expenditures
As seen in Figures 5 and 6, female
hunters on average spent considerably
less for hunting trips and equipment
than all hunters spend. Despite this
finding, a demographic breakdown
of female hunter trip and equipment
expenditures identifies spending patterns
somewhat similar to that of all hunters.
Figures 23 through 26 display mean trip
expenditures for female hunters and all
hunters.
Females’ trip expenditures for hunting
are sporadic across all age groups, all
else constant (Figure 23). This is not
consistent with the trip expenditure
patterns for all hunters, which increases
until reaching the age 55+ category.
Trip expenditures for all hunters are
positively correlated with both education
and income levels (Figures 24 and 25).
Thus, as income increases, annual trip
expenditures double from $264 for those
hunters with less than $20,000 household
income to $585 for those hunters with
over $50,000 household income. In
addition, as education increases, annual
hunting trip expenditures increase at
about the same rate from $256 for those
hunters without a high school degree
to $566 for those hunters with at least a
college degree.
Females’ trip expenditures do not follow
the same trends for all hunters within
the income and education brackets.
While all hunters’ trip expenditures
are positively correlated with both
income and education, females’ trip
expenditures had one education and
income category (“some college” and
“$20,000-$29,999”) that did not follow the
positive correlation pattern. Females��
annual trip expenditures are less than
half of the trip expenditures for all
hunters across all category levels.
Figure 23. Mean Trip Expenditures, by Age
���
���
��� ���
Figure 24. Mean Trip Expenditures, by Education
����
������� ����
Figure 25. Mean Trip Expenditures, by Income
���
��������
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 13
As depicted in Figure 26, mean trip
expenditures for female hunters living
in urban areas are 20 percent greater
than mean trip expenditures for female
hunters living in rural areas. All hunters
also show this pattern. On average,
hunters living in urban areas spent $488
while hunters in rural areas spent $340
(a 30 percent difference).
Figures 27 thru 30 compare the annual
mean equipment expenditures by
demographic characteristics for female
hunters and all hunters. As with trip
expenditures, female hunters’ equipment
expenditures are about half of all hunters’
expenditures across nearly all categories.
Furthermore, no pattern for equipment
expenditures by age emerges for
female hunters, as is the result for trip
expenditures (Figure 27).
Figure 28 compares equipment
expenditures by education. Females’
equipment expenditures do not follow the
same positive correlation as all hunters.
Instead, females’ expenditures peak for
those females with a high school degree
($341) and decrease for those female
hunters with at least a college degree
($158).
Figure 26. Mean Trip Expenditures, by Place of Residence
��
Figure 27. Mean Equipment Expenditures, by Age
������
Figure 28. Mean Equipment Expenditures, by Education
���
��
����
�������
14 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers
Figure 29 conveys that both female
hunters’ and all hunters’ equipment
expenditures are positively correlated
with income. However, in comparison,
equipment expenditures for all hunters
doubled while equipment expenditures
for females tripled, moving from those
with less than $20 thousand income to
those with over $50 thousand income.
Female hunters’ and all hunters’
equipment spending do not follow
similar patterns, when categorized by
place of residence (Figure 30). Female
hunters living in urban areas spent
$143 on equipment in 2001 while female
hunters living in rural areas spent about
30 percent more ($194). Conversely, all
hunters living in urban areas spent more
($342) than those hunters living in rural
areas ($295).
Females Hunting on
Private and Public Land
As shown earlier in Figures 7 and 8,
many more female hunters hunt on
private land (80 percent) than on public
land (28 percent). A demographic
analysis follows in Figures 31 thru 38.
Categorizing by age shows that 75 to 85
percent of female hunters of all ages hunt
on private land (Figure 31). Similarly for
all hunters as well, between 81 and 85
percent of all hunters in each age group
hunt on private land. Figure 32 shows
the percentage of hunters hunting on
public land, by age. No pattern emerges
for either all hunters or female hunters
when participation is categorized by age.
The highest percent of female hunters
hunting on public land (39 percent) is in
the age 55 and over category, while the
highest percent of all hunters hunting on
public land (41 percent) is in the 35 to 44
age category.
Figure 29. Mean Equipment Expenditures, by Income
����
����
����
����
Figure 30. Mean Equipment Expenditures, by Place of Residence
���
���
���
��
Figure 31. Hunters Hunting on Private Land, by Age
���
��� ����
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 15
Figure 33 shows that private land
hunting by education averages between
81 and 86 percent of all hunters. Hunting
on private land for females averages
slightly below at 77 to 83 percent.
Participation patterns compared by
educational achievement are more
pronounced for hunters on public land
(Figure 34). For both all hunters and
female hunters, the participation rate and
educational achievement are positively
correlated. For all hunters, participation
rates increased from 38 percent for
those without a high school diploma to 41
percent for those with at least a college
degree. Participation for female hunters
also increased but at a faster rate.
Twenty-three percent of female hunters
without a high school degree hunt on
public land while 34 percent of female
hunters with at least a college degree
hunt on public land.
Figure 32. Hunters Hunting on Public Land, by Age
����
���
Figure 33. Hunters Hunting on Private Land, by Education
���
��
��
Figure 34. Hunters Hunting on Public Land, by Education
��
��
���� ���
16 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers
Household income has little impact on
hunters’ decisions to partake in hunting
activities on private land (Figure 35).
Participation for all hunters ranges
between 77 and 85 percent while
participation for female hunters varies
between 77 and 84 percent. Figure 36
illustrates the positively correlated
relationship between household income
and the decision to hunt on public land
for all hunters. No pattern emerges for
female hunters.
Figure 35. Hunters Hunting on Private Land, by Income
���
���
���
Figure 36. Hunters Hunting on Public Land, by Income
��
����
���
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 17
Figures 37 and 38 demonstrate that
the highest percent of female hunters
hunting on private land are residents
of rural areas (86 percent); whereas,
the highest percent of female hunters
hunting on public land are residents of
urban areas (33 percent). For all hunters,
the largest percent hunting on private
land are also rural residents (87 percent),
and the largest percent hunting on public
land are urban residents (44 percent).
Figure 37. Hunters Hunting on Private Land, by Place of Residence
����
Figure 38. Hunters Hunting on Public Land, by Place of Residence
��
��
18 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers
Hunting Trends 1991, 1996, & 2001
Table 2 highlights the number of hunting
participants, days, and expenditures
from the 1991, 1996, and 2001 Surveys
and the percentage change between each
year. All expenditures are depicted in
2001 dollars. Two changes are made to
the 2001 expenditures to be consistent
with 1991 and 1996 estimates. First,
trip expenditures for 2001 are slightly
different from those reported in Table
1 because heating and cooking fuel
are not included. Second, the 2001
equipment expenditures are also slightly
different than Table 1 because auxiliary
expenditures are excluded to remain
consistent with previous reports.
While remaining approximately similar
between 1991 and 1996, the total number
of people hunting and their hunting days
between 1996 and 2001 decreased by
7 percent and 11 percent, respectively.
Unlike the general hunting population,
the number of hunters with Hispanic
ethnicity increased by over 50 percent
between 1991 and 2001. Correspondingly,
the number of hunting days by Hispanic
hunters also increased substantially,
by 59 percent. This increase in hunting
participation outpaces the Hispanic
population increase in the United States
over the last decade. African-American
hunters do not have a significant change
in their hunting participation or the
number of days hunted.
Although the total number of hunters has
decreased over the past 10 years, total
trip expenditures increased from $4.48
billion to $5.18 billion. However, total trip
expenditures in 2001 declined slightly
from 1996 ($5.52 billion). Between
1991 and 2001, Hispanic hunters’ trip
expenditures increased dramatically by
250 percent, which again far outpaces
their growth in participation. No
significant trends emerged for African-
American hunters or female hunters for
trip expenditures.
Between 1996 and 2001, total hunting
equipment expenditures declined by 27
percent, and females’ hunting equipment
expenditures also declined by 25 percent.
Although this change represents a
marked decrease, the equipment
expenditures for the total hunting
population and female hunters changed
only marginally between 1991 and 2001.
On the other hand, Hispanic hunters’
equipment expenditures, which remained
nearly equivalent between 1996 and 2001,
increased by 69 percent from 1991 to
2001. There was no significant change for
African-American hunters.
Table 2. Hunting Comparison: Participants, Days, & Expenditures in 1991, 1996, & 2001
(Numbers in thousands)
Annual Estimates Percentage Change*
1991 1996 2001 1991 to 1996 1996 to 2001 1991 to 2001
Hunters
Total Hunters 14,006 13,975 13,034 * –7 –7
African-American 294 303 288 * * *
Hispanic 274 335 428 * +28 +56
Women 1,069 1,192 1,189 * * *
Days
Total Days 235,806 256,676 228,367 * –11 *
African-American 5,499 4,839 5,382 * * *
Hispanic 3,229 4,363 5,139 * * +59
Women 13,512 13,074 14,068 * * *
Hunting Expenditures**
Total Trip Expenditures $4,484,853 $5,521,508 $5,176,031 +23 * +15
African-American $86,018 $92,222 $105,928 * * *
Hispanic $65,806 $209,072 $230,371 +218 * +250
Women $241,194 $247,544 $193,924 * * *
Total Equipment Expenditures $4,280,683 $6,255,967 $4,561,709 +46 –27 *
African-American $66,505 $98,293 $92,370 * * *
Hispanic $72,922 $129,911 $123,360 +78 * +69
Women $193,732 $255,575 $192,185 +72 –25 *
The “*” denotes that the percentage change is not different from zero at the 90 percent confidence level. Thus, for 90 percent of all possible samples, the estimate
between one survey year is not different from another survey year. Expenditures are in 2001 dollars.
**All expenditures are depicted in 2001 dollars. Two changes are made to the 2001 expenditures to be consistent with 1991 and 1996 estimates. First, trip
expenditures for 2001 are slightly different from those reported in Table 1 because heating and cooking fuel are not included. Second, the 2001 equipment
expenditures are also slightly different because auxiliary expenditures are excluded. These exclusions were necessary to make the estimates comparable with
previous publications.
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 19
Overview
Table 3 highlights the total number of
anglers, total and mean fishing days,
fishing trips, trip expenditures and
equipment expenditures for African-
American, Hispanic, female, and
all anglers. Females are the largest
subpopulation (8.9 million), and they
spend the most money ($3.2 billion
on trip and equipment expenditures).
However, on average, Hispanic anglers
spend more than African-American
or female anglers. Hispanic anglers
spend 25 percent more than African-
American anglers and female anglers on
mean trip expenditures; and they also
spend 38 percent more than African-
American anglers and 47 percent more
than female anglers on mean equipment
expenditures. African-American anglers
spend more days fishing (16 days) and
take more trips (14) on average than
Hispanic anglers and female anglers.
Fishing Participation
Figure 39 shows the fishing participation
rates (the percent of the sub-population
in the U.S. that fished in 2001) for persons
age 16 and older for the total population,
African-Americans, Hispanics, and
females. All subpopulations participate
at remarkably lower rates than the
population as a whole for general fishing
and freshwater fishing. For general
fishing participation rates, females
had the highest participation rate (8
percent) while African-Americans and
Hispanics each had a participation
rate of 7 percent. Females also had the
highest participation rate (7 percent) for
freshwater fishing. For saltwater fishing,
Hispanics had the highest participation
rate of 3 percent.
Fishing
Table 3. Anglers Days, Trips and Expenditures: 2001
(Includes anglers 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
All
Anglers
African-
American
Anglers
Hispanic
Anglers
Female
Anglers
Anglers 34,071 1,563 1,564 8,912
Days of Fishing 557,394 24,702 19,060 107,692
Mean Days of Fishing 16 16 12 12
Trips 436,662 19,870 15,179 78,028
Mean Fishing Trips 13 14 10 9
Total Fishing Expenditures $19,994,661 $578,996 $817,384 $3,191,799
Trip Expenditures* $14,656,000 $402,604 $536,357 $2,339,622
Mean Trip Expenditures $449 $273 $359 $278
Equipment Expenditures** $5,338,661 $176,392 $281,026 $852,177
Mean Equipment Expenditures $157 $113 $180 $96
*Trip expenditures are composed of food, drink, lodging, public and private transportation, guide fees,
pack trip or package fees, public and private land use access fees, boat fuel, launching, mooring, storage,
maintenance, insurance fees, bait, ice, and equipment rental.
**Equipment expenditures are made up of rods, reels, lines, lures, tackle boxes, creels, stringers, fish
nets, minnow traps, seines, bait containers, depth and fish finders, ice and spear fishing equipment.
Also included are auxiliary camping equipment such as binoculars, special fishing clothing, processing
and taxidermy costs. Special equipment such as boats, campers, trucks and cabins are excluded
from equipment expenditures due to small sample sizes and to remain consistent with the equipment
expenditure analysis for hunters in the preceding section.
Figure 39. Participation Rates for Fishing
����
20 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers
Figures 40 thru 43 show participation
by age, education, income, and place
of residence. Participation rates are
determined by dividing the number
of anglers in each subcategory by the
number of people in the U.S. in each
subcategory.
For most groups, fishing participation
increases with age until the 35 to
44 age category, after which, fishing
participation decreases with age (Figure
40). African-Americans follow this basic
pattern except their participation peaks
in the 45 to 54 age category.
Figure 41 depicts the association
between fishing participation rates
and educational attainment. No trends
emerge for fishing participation rates
for African-Americans anglers. For
Hispanics and females, however,
participation in fishing increases with
educational achievement.
Figure 42 shows that participation is
positively correlated with income. That
is, as household income increases, the
rate of participation for each group also
increases. However, for Hispanic anglers,
participation slightly decreases for those
earning between $20,000 and $29,999
annually.
Participation by place of residence
is illustrated in Figure 43. For all
populations, rural residents were nearly
twice more likely to participate in fishing
than urban residents.
Figure 40. Participation Rates for Fishing, by Age
����
������
��
Figure 41. Participation Rates for Fishing, by Education
��� ����
����
���� ��� ���
Figure 42. Participation Rates for Fishing, by Income
�������
��
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 21
Regional Distribution of Anglers
Several topics reported in this study such
as type of fishing and species sought are
highly variable by region of the country.
Figure 44 shows the percent of each
angler subpopulation that resides in
the Northeast, the South, the Midwest
and the West. As a whole, the South has
the highest percent of all anglers (39
percent). It also has the highest shares
of African-American (67 percent) and
female anglers (40 percent). The West
has a slightly higher percent of Hispanic
anglers (44 percent) than the South
(41 percent). All regions have nearly
the same share of female anglers as all
anglers. The Northeast has the lowest
share of all anglers (14 percent) and low
shares for all subpopulations.
Figure 43. Participation Rates for Fishing, by Place of Residence
���� ��
����
����
Figure 44. Where Do They Live? Regional Distribution of Anglers
��
��
��
���
��������
22 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers
Fishing Avidity & Expenditures
In terms of resource management and
economic impacts, how often people
fish is as important a question as how
many people fish. Thus, the following
information is presented on the mean
number of fishing days, the mean
number of fishing trips, the mean trip
expenditures,5 and the mean equipment
expenditures for anglers.6
Figures 45 and 46 represent mean fishing
days and mean fishing trips, respectively.
African-American anglers, on average,
spend more days fishing (16 days) and
take more trips (14 trips) per year than
Hispanic anglers and female anglers.
Hispanic anglers and female anglers
spend the identical number of days
fishing (12 days) and take about the same
amount of fishing trips (10 and 9 trips,
respectively). Comparing fishing days to
fishing trips, very few trips are multi-day
angling trips.
Figure 47 shows mean annual fishing
trip expenditures, and Figure 48 shows
mean equipment expenditures. Hispanic
anglers spend, on average, $359 on
trip-related expenditures and $180 on
equipment. These expenditures are
larger than African-American and female
expenditures. Furthermore, Hispanic
anglers’ average equipment expenditures
exceed those of all anglers by about $20
annually.
Figure 45. Mean Days of Fishing
���� �������
Figure 46. Mean Fishing Trips
����
���
Figure 47. Mean Trip Expenditures for Anglers
��� ���� ���
��
5Trip expenditures are composed of
food, drink, lodging, public and private
transportation, guide fees, pack trip or
package fees, public and private land use
access fees, boat fuel, launching, mooring,
storage, maintenance, insurance fees, bait, ice,
and equipment rental.
6Equipment expenditures are made up of
rods, reels, lines, lures, tackle boxes, creels,
stringers, fish nets, minnow traps, seines,
bait containers, depth and fish finders, ice
and spear fishing equipment. Also included
are auxiliary camping equipment such as
binoculars, special fishing clothing, processing
and taxidermy costs. Special equipment such
as boats, campers, trucks and cabins are
excluded from equipment expenditures due to
small sample sizes and to remain consistent
with the equipment expenditure analysis for
hunters in the preceding section.
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 23
African-American anglers and female
anglers spend about the same amount
on trip-related fishing expenses ($273
and $278, respectively). For fishing
equipment, African-American anglers
spend more ($113) than female anglers
spend ($96).
Types of Fishing and Selected Species
Figure 49 shows the percent of each
angler subpopulation that participates
in Great Lakes, saltwater and other
freshwater fishing (i.e., excluding Great
Lakes fishing). Other freshwater fishing
is the most popular type of fishing
with at least 69 percent of each angler
subpopulation participating. The percent
of African-American anglers (76 percent)
and female anglers (81 percent) that
fish in other freshwater are close to the
percentage for all anglers (82 percent).
Other freshwater fishing is least popular
with Hispanic anglers (69 percent).
Participation in saltwater fishing is lower
than freshwater fishing participation.
Only 27 percent of all anglers fish in
saltwater. However, a relatively large
percentage of Hispanic anglers (44
percent) participate in saltwater fishing.
This is greater than African-American
anglers (31 percent) and female anglers
(24 percent).
Participation in Great Lakes fishing is
low for all subpopulations of anglers.
Only 5 percent of all anglers fish in the
Great Lakes. The African-American
angler participation rate is 8 percent
while 3 percent of female anglers
participate. The sample size for Hispanic
anglers fishing in the Great Lakes was
too small to report reliably.
Figure 48. Mean Equipment Expenditures for Anglers
�� ���
����
Figure 49. Percent of Anglers, by Type of Fishing
��� ��
���
�����
��
24 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers
Figures 50 and 51 depict the percentage
of each angler subpopulation that pursue
popular freshwater and saltwater
fish species. Great lakes fishing is not
included. For purposes of comparison, the
percentage of all freshwater anglers and
the percentage of all saltwater anglers
that pursued each species is presented
in each figure. As depicted in Figure 49,
excluding the Great Lakes, 82 percent
of all anglers fish in freshwater. While
participating in freshwater fishing, black
bass, panfish, trout, and catfish are the
species most often targeted.
For African-American freshwater
anglers, catfish is the most pursued
species (Figure 50). Fifty percent
of African-American freshwater
anglers fish for catfish, more than any
other subpopulation. Many African-
American freshwater anglers also fish
for panfish (39 percent) and black bass
(35 percent). However, only 10 percent of
African-Americans fish for trout, which
is far below the rates for all anglers and
other angler subpopulations.
Thirty-nine percent of Hispanic
freshwater anglers fished for trout,
which exceeds the rate for all freshwater
anglers and other freshwater angler
subpopulations (Figure 50). Hispanic
freshwater angling for black bass
and catfish are also well-represented
(32 percent each), but panfishing is not
nearly as popular as it is with other
groups (9 percent).
For female freshwater anglers, fishing
for black bass (29 percent) and trout
(24 percent) are below the participation
rates for all freshwater anglers. Panfish
and catfish have approximately the same
participation rates for female freshwater
anglers as they do for all freshwater
anglers.
Figure 51 shows that the most sought
after saltwater species for saltwater
anglers include flatfish (25 percent)
(flounder, halibut, sole), striped bass
(19 percent), sea trout (16 percent) and
blue fish (13 percent). In general, the
subpopulations’ participation rates are
slightly below those for all saltwater
anglers. The most pursued species by
Hispanics, African-Americans, and
females is flatfish (20, 20, and 22 percent,
respectively). Hispanic angling and
African-American angling estimates are
based on small sample sizes for striped
bass, sea trout, and blue fish. Small
sample sizes for flatfish also exist for
Hispanic anglers.
Figure 50. Percent of Freshwater Anglers (excluding Great Lakes),
by Type of Freshwater Species
��
����
��
Figure 51. Percent of Saltwater Anglers, by Type of Saltwater Species
��
���
����
��
*Estimate based on a small sample size.
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 25
Female, African-American, and
Hispanic Anglers
The following section examines fishing
days, trips and expenditures by age,
education, income and residency. This
in-depth analysis is conducted for each
subpopulation.
Participation Levels (Days & Trips)
Figures 52 through 55 portray the
average annual number of fishing days
by age, education, income, and place of
residency. Differences in days and trips
of two or less are not usually statistically
significant at the 90 percent confidence
level and therefore should not be treated
as true differences.12
As seen in Figure 52, age and mean
fishing days are compared for all anglers
and each subpopulation. For each
population group, anglers that spend the
most days fishing tended to be age 16 to
24 or over the age of 55.
Average fishing days and education are
inversely related for all anglers (Figure
53). African-American anglers depict the
same inverse relationship, where fishing
days decrease as educational attainment
increases. Hispanic anglers and female
anglers, however, do not show any clear
pattern between average annual fishing
days and education.
Figure 54 shows the relationship
between mean fishing days and income
for all anglers and for African-American
anglers. Those anglers with $20,000 to
$49,999 incomes spent more days fishing
than those anglers outside of that income
range. In comparison, fishing days are
inversely related to income for female
anglers. No pattern emerges for Hispanic
anglers.
Figure 52. Mean Days of Fishing, by Age
����
����
��
��
Figure 53. Mean Days of Fishing, by Education
��
����
��
���
Figure 54. Mean Days of Fishing, by Income
�� �� ������
��
12This means that for 90 percent of all possible
samples, differences of 2 days or less are not
statistically significant.
26 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers
Place of residency is a factor in how often
anglers fish. Figure 55 shows that mean
days are lower for urban residents.
Figures 56 thru 59 compare mean fishing
trips with age, education, income, and
place of residency. The pattern of mean
trips is very similar to that of mean days.
Figure 55. Mean Days of Fishing, by Place of Residence
��������
Figure 56. Mean Fishing Trips, by Age
���
����
��
��
Figure 57. Mean Fishing Trips, by Education
����
���
��
����
����
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 27
Fishing Expenditures
As shown in Figures 47 and 48, females
spent on average $278 per year for
fishing trips and $96 per year on fishing
equipment. This was substantially
below the average expenditures for
all anglers. Furthermore, with the
exception of Hispanic anglers’ equipment
expenditures, all subgroups had lower
mean expenditures than all anglers.
In order to better understand which
segments of the subpopulations are
spending more and which are spending
less and how this compares with anglers
in general, expenditures are analyzed by
particular demographic characteristics
such as age, education, income, and
residency. This analysis finds some
differences between the spending
patterns of females, African-Americans,
Hispanics, and all anglers.
Figure 60 depicts the relationship
between mean trip expenditures and
age. Both all anglers and female anglers’
trip expenditures increase with age up
to the 45 to 54-age category, after which
spending decreases. No apparent pattern
between trip expenditures and age
emerges for African-American anglers or
Hispanic anglers. Across all age groups,
each subpopulation spent less than all
anglers, except for Hispanic anglers age
16 to 24.
Figure 58. Mean Fishing Trips, by Income
����
���
Figure 59. Mean Fishing Trips, by Place of Residence
���
��
���
Figure 60. Mean Trip Expenditures, by Age
�� ����
����
����
����
28 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers
Mean trip expenditures increase as
education increases for both all anglers
and female anglers (Figure 61). Neither
African-American anglers nor Hispanic
anglers follow the same spending pattern.
Mean trip expenditures for African-
American anglers is $205 for those
without a high school degree, increases to
$376 for those anglers with some college,
and decreases to $308 for those anglers
with at least a college degree. No pattern
emerges for Hispanic anglers.
Figure 62 demonstrates the correlation
between mean fishing trip expenditures
and income. All anglers’ trip expenditures
are positively correlated with income,
increasing from $279 for those anglers
with less than $20,000 income to $639
for those anglers with greater than
$50,000 income. Female anglers’
trip expenditures are also positively
correlated with income. Their trip
expenditures are $194 for those anglers
with less than $20,000 income and almost
double to $381 for anglers with greater
than $50,000 income. No pattern emerges
for African-American or Hispanic
anglers. However, all subpopulations
have the greatest spending for those
anglers with incomes greater than
$50,000.
Similar to all anglers, Hispanic anglers
and female anglers from urban areas
spend more, on average, for fishing trips
than rural residents spend (Figure 63).
In contrast, African-American anglers
living in rural areas had higher fishing
trip expenditures ($342) than African-
American anglers living in urban areas
($252).
Figure 61. Mean Trip Expenditures, by Education
����
���
���
�����
Figure 62. Mean Trip Expenditures, by Income
��
����
���
���
Figure 63. Mean Trip Expenditures, Place of Residence
�� �������
��
����
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 29
Figures 64 thru 67 show mean equipment
expenditures and their relationship to
age, education, income, and residence,
all else constant. Figure 64 shows the
relationship between mean equipment
expenditures and age. For both all
anglers and African-American anglers,
the highest equipment expenditures
occur for those anglers age 35 to 44 and
the lowest equipment expenditures occur
for those anglers age 16 to 24 or over age
55. No pattern for Hispanic anglers or
female anglers emerges.
For education in Figure 65, mean
equipment expenditures gradually
increase with increasing educational
achievement for all anglers. African-
American anglers follow this same
pattern, with a slight spending decrease
for those with at least a college degree.
Neither Hispanic anglers nor female
anglers show any pattern.
Figure 64. Mean Equipment Expenditures, by Age
���� ��
���
����
�� ����
Figure 65. Mean Equipment Expenditures, by Education
��
���
����
30 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers
Income and mean equipment
expenditures are positively correlated
for all anglers, African-American
anglers, and Hispanic anglers (Figure
66). However, female anglers’ equipment
expenditures do not follow this general
pattern. Equipment expenditures for
female anglers remain relatively steady
($85 to $90) for anglers with up to $49,999
income, and increase to $113 annually for
female anglers earning over $50,000.
Similar to trip expenditures patterns,
equipment expenditures are higher for
urban residents than for rural residents
(Figure 67). The exception to this pattern
is the African-American angler.
Figure 66. Mean Equipment Expenditures, by Income
�� ����
����
����
��
Figure 67. Mean Equipment Expenditures, by Place of Residence
���� ������
����
��
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 31
Fishing Trends 1991, 1996, & 2001
Table 4 highlights the number of fishing
participants, days, and expenditures
from the 1991, 1996, and 2001 Surveys
and the percentage change between the
years. All expenditures are depicted
in 2001 dollars. Two changes are made
to 2001 expenditures in this table to be
consistent with 1991 and 1996 estimates.
First, fishing trip expenditures for
2001 are slightly different from those
reported in Table 3 because they do not
include heating and cooking fuel. Second,
2001 equipment expenditures are also
somewhat different from Table 3 because
auxiliary expenditures are not included to
remain consistent with previous reports.
The number of all anglers decreased
marginally (5 percent) between 1991
and 2001. The number of African-
American anglers and female anglers
also decreased during this period.
Between 1996 and 2001, African-
American angler participation decreased
from 1.80 million to 1.56 million. Female
anglers decreased from 9.51 million to
8.91 million. Conversely, Hispanic anglers
dramatically increased by nearly one-third.
Although the total number of anglers
declined over the last decade, the fishing
frequency of those anglers participating
increased, with the exception of African-
American anglers. Total fishing days
increased by over 40 million days
between 1991 and 2001. Hispanic and
female fishing days increased by 33
percent and 10 percent respectively.
Although fishing days for African-
American anglers decreased by 38
percent between 1996 and 2001, this
represents a marginal change from the
number of fishing days in 1991.
Between 1996 and 2001, fishing trip
expenditures for all anglers, African-
American anglers, and female anglers
decreased by 16 percent, 39 percent,
and 12 percent, respectively. There is no
significant change for Hispanic anglers.
During this same period, total fishing
equipment expenditures decreased for all
anglers, African-American anglers, and
female anglers by 23 percent, 37 percent,
and 13 percent respectively. Hispanic
anglers have no significant change in
equipment expenditures between 1996
and 2001. However, Hispanic anglers
are the only subpopulation that had
increasing trip expenditures (38 percent)
and increasing equipment expenditures
(49 percent) between 1991 and 2001.
Table 4. Angling Comparison: Participants, Days, & Expenditures in 1991, 1996, & 2001
(Numbers in thousands)
Annual Estimates Percentage Change*
1991 1996 2001 1991 to 1996 1996 to 2001 1991 to 2001
Anglers
Total Anglers 35,787 35,246 34,071 * –3 –5
African-American 1,815 1,802 1,564 * –13 –14
Hispanic 1,218 1,185 1,564 * +32 +28
Women 9,935 9,509 8,912 * –6 –10
Days
Total Days 511,328 625,893 557,394 +22 –11 +9
African-American 23,273 40,131 24,702 +72 –38 *
Hispanic 14,375 16,685 19,060 * * +33
Women 97,699 112,841 107,692 +16 * +10
Fishing Expenditures**
Total Trip Expenditures $15,443,868 $17,299,985 14,578,102 +12 –16 *
African-American $569,120 $659,450 401,003 * –39 –30
Hispanic $385,395 $577,791 532,569 +50 * +38
Women $2,654,437 $2,625,915 2,321,156 * –12 –13
Total Equipment Expenditures $5,199,844 $6,017,407 $4,617,612 +16 ���23 –11
African-American $182,371 $260,875 $163,347 +43 –37 *
Hispanic $167,547 $206,509 $249,084 * * +49
Women $946,316 $757,855 $662,179 –20 –13 –30
The “*” denotes that the percentage change is not different from zero at the 90 percent confidence level. Thus, for 90 percent of all possible samples, the estimate
between one survey year is not different from another survey year. Expenditures are in 2001 dollars.
**All expenditures are depicted in 2001 dollars. Two changes are made to the 2001 expenditures to be consistent with 1991 and 1996 estimates. First, trip
expenditures for 2001 are slightly different from those reported in Table 1 because heating and cooking fuel are not included. Second, the 2001 equipment
expenditures are also slightly different because auxiliary expenditures are excluded. These exclusions were necessary to make the estimates comparable with
previous publications.
32 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers
The descriptive statistics presented in
the previous sections show that African-
Americans, Hispanics, and females
are less likely to fish and hunt than the
general population in 2001. However,
these descriptions are limited because
conclusions cannot be made with
certainty whether low participation is
due to a person’s race or gender, or if it
is due to a combination of other social
factors. For example, these groups often
have lower education levels than the
general population. Is low participation
by minorities and females because of
low education levels? Or, is participation
low regardless of education? Empirical
models are utilized to separate the
effects of race, gender, and other
socioeconomic variables on hunting and
fishing participation. The implemented
models remove the confounding effects
of the correlation between race or
gender and various socio-demographic
characteristics to determine each
characteristic’s individual contribution to
the probability of participating in hunting
or fishing.13 Hunting and fishing are each
addressed in separate empirical models.
The data are from the 2001 FHWAR
screener survey and the 2001 FHWAR
sportsmen survey. For the hunting model,
the dependent variable is equal to one
if the respondent hunted in 2001 or is
equal to zero if the respondent did not
hunt in 2001. The model hypothesizes
that a person’s decision whether or
not to hunt is based on race, ethnicity,
gender, urban residency, and other socio-demographic
characteristics. The fishing
model is constructed identically, with
the exception of the dependent variable
determining the probability of fishing
rather than hunting.
Table 5 defines the explanatory variables,
which include continuous and binary
variables. The frequency distribution by
age suggests that middle-aged people are
more likely to hunt than younger or older
people are. To capture this hypothesized
Participation Models for
Hunting & Fishing Activities
Table 5. Definition of Variables for Probability Models
Variable Definition Unit of Measurement
PROBHUNT Probability of hunting
1 = if respondent hunts
0 = otherwise
PROBFISH Probability of fishing
1 = if respondent fishes
0 = otherwise
HISPANIC Ethnicity of individual
1 = if respondent indicated Hispanic ethnicity
0 = otherwise
BLACK Race of individual
1 = if respondent indicated race is Black
0 = otherwise
GENDER Sex of individual
1 = if respondent is male
0 = if respondent is female
METRO Urban residence
1 = if residence is in an urban area
0 = otherwise
RETIRED Retirement status
1 = if respondent is retired
0 = otherwise
WEST
Location of respondent’s
residence
1 = if respondent resides in West
0 = otherwise
SOUTH
Location of respondent’s
residence
1 = if respondent resides in South
0 = otherwise
MID
Location of respondent’s
residence
1 = if respondent resides in Midwest
0 = otherwise
AGE Age of respondent Years ≥ 16
AGE2 Age of respondent, squared Years ≥ 16
SCHOOL Education level
Ordinal number between 1 and 18
(i.e., 1 = kindergarten; 18 = graduate or
professional degree)
SCHOOL2 Education level, squared
Ordinal number between 1 and 36
(i.e., 1 = kindergarten; 36 = graduate or
professional degree)
INCOME Annual household income Thousands of dollars
13The model is a type of qualitative response
model, where the dependent variable has
a discrete outcome with a “yes or “no”
decision. By using a logit model to estimate
the probability of a particular outcome, the
unboundedness problem is avoided. Equation 2
shows the model that is estimated. Equation 2
is estimated separately for hunting and fishing.
(1)
(2)
where:
Pi = Probability that the ith individual fished/
hunted (i.e., “yes”)
Xi = Vector of explanatory variables
β = Vector of coefficients to be estimated
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 33
bell shaped distribution, age is represented
by two variables: (1) AGE represents the
age of the respondent, and (2) AGE2 is
AGE squared. Education has a similar
distribution. The variable SCHOOL is a
continuous variable for the number of years
of education completed, and SCHOOL2 is
the school variable squared.
Hunting Participation Model
The hunting participation model is
estimated from a sample of 73,453
households in the United States. The
results are shown below in Table 6.
Standard errors are in parentheses.
All variables (except RETIRED) for
the hunting participation model were
significant at the one percent level.
As expected, the variables BLACK,
HISPANIC, and GENDER show that
African-Americans, Hispanics, and
females are less likely to hunt compared
to the those people who are not black,
Hispanic, or female. The coefficient for
GENDER is the largest of the three
groups indicating that being a woman
more heavily influences whether a person
will hunt compared to being Hispanic or
African-American.
As shown by the results for the INCOME
variable, income has only a marginal
impact on whether a person will
choose to hunt. Although this result is
consistent with Figure 13, we expected
the INCOME coefficient to have a larger
magnitude. The insignificance of the
Retired variable indicates that retired
people were not more or less likely to
hunt than non-retired people.
A person’s residence in a particular
region of the U.S. affects whether a
person will choose to hunt. The positive
significant signs for SOUTH and MID
reveal that people who live in the South
or Midwest are more likely to hunt
than people who live in the Northeast.
Conversely, the negative significant sign
for WEST implies that people living
in the West are less likely to hunt than
people living in the Northeast.
The age and education variables indicate
that participation increased with age and
education up to a point (reflected by the
positive sign for AGE and SCHOOL) and
then decreased (reflected by the negative
sign on the squared variables: AGE2 and
SCHOOL2).
In summary, the hunting participation
model finds that a person who is African-
American, Hispanic or female is less likely
to hunt based on these classifications
alone. Other factors that contribute
to whether or not someone hunts are
residency, age, education, and income.
Table 6. Results: Hunting Participation
Variable
Hunting Participation Model
Coefficient Marginal Effect*
INTERCEPT
���6.1906
(0.0062)
––
HISPANIC
–1.1732
(0.0021)
–0.0086
(0.0005)
BLACK
–1.4733
(0.0024)
–0.0122
(0.0006)
GENDER
2.4622
(0.0012)
0.2444
(0.0010)
METRO
–1.1798
(0.0008)
–0.0479
(0.0005)
RETIRED
0.0442
(0.0017)
0.00002
(0.0001)
WEST
–0.1725
(0.0013)
–0.0004
(0.0001)
SOUTH
0.1582
(0.0011)
0.0006
(9.96*10–5)
MID
0.4566
(0.0011)
0.0031
(0.0002)
AGE
0.0748
(0.0001)
0.0056
(2.80*10–5)
AGE2
–0.00099
(1.604*10–6)
–0.0001
(3.77*10–7)
SCHOOL
0.2384
(0.0008)
0.0179
(4.81*10–5)
SCHOOL2
–0.0112
(0.00003)
–0.0008
(2.66*10–6)
INCOME
0.00209
(0.00001)
0.0002
(1.19*10–6)
*Note: The logit model in Equation 2 is solved using a maximum likelihood estimator (MLE), where the
estimated coefficients are the impact on the log of the ratio for the decision to hunt to the decision not to
hunt. To simplify the understanding of each variable’s impact, marginal effects are included with the
MLE results as well.
34 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers
Fishing Participation Model
The model below was estimated from a
sample of 73,453 households in the United
States. All variables were significant at
the 1 percent level. Standard errors are
in parentheses.
Consistent with the results for the
hunting participation model, the
variables BLACK, HISPANIC, and
GENDER show that African-Americans,
Hispanics, and females are less likely to
fish compared to the those people who
are not black, Hispanic, or female. Once
again, the coefficient for GENDER is
the largest of the three groups indicating
that being a woman more heavily
influences whether a person will fish
compared to being Hispanic or African-
American. However, the magnitude of
the GENDER coefficient is much smaller
than in the hunting participation model.
The positive signs for WEST, SOUTH,
and MIDWEST reveal that people who
live in these regions are more likely to
fish than people who live in the Northeast
(the omitted variable). This variable is
strongest for those living in the South or
Midwest.
The positive sign for AGE and the
negative sign for AGE2 demonstrates
that the likelihood of fishing increases
with age up to a certain point and then
decreases. This result reaffirms the
finding for all anglers in Figure 40.
Education behaves in the same manner
as age; participation increases with
education and then decreases after a
certain point. This is different from the
finding in Figure 41, which does not
show any particular pattern for fishing
participation associated with educational
attainment.
The METRO variable reveals that people
living in urban areas are less likely to fish
than people living in rural areas. This
result is consistent with Figure 43, which
illustrated that 9 percent of anglers
are urban residents while 22 percent of
anglers are rural residents. The marginal
effect of living in a urban residence has
a larger impact than being African-
American or Hispanic on whether or not
a person decides to fish.
In summary, African-Americans,
Hispanics, and females are less likely
to fish regardless of their age, income,
education or income levels. Retired
people, residents of the South and
people with higher incomes are more
likely to fish. Education and age are also
important predictors of whether or not
someone fishes.
Table 7. Results: Fishing Participation
Variable
Fishing Participation Model
Coefficient Marginal Effect
INTERCEPT
–4.7376
(0.0039)
––
HISPANIC
–0.9888
(0.0011)
–0.0057
(.0004)
BLACK
–0.8855
(0.0011)
–0.0042
(0.0004)
GENDER
1.2711
(0.0005)
0.0547
(0.0005)
METRO
–0.6054
(0.0005)
–0.0135
(0.0002)
RETIRED
0.2748
(0.0011)
0.0008
(0.0001)
WEST
0.1955
(0.0008)
0.0005
(0.0001)
SOUTH
0.4479
(0.0008)
0.0044
(0.0002)
MID
0.5449
(0.0008)
0.0041
(0.0002)
AGE
0.0753
(0.0001)
0.0051
(0.00003)
AGE2
–0.0010
(1.016*10–6)
–0.0001
(3.50*10–7)
SCHOOL
0.1839
(0.0005)
0.0125
(0.00003)
SCHOOL2
–0.0082
(0.00002)
–0.0006
(1.60*10–6)
INCOME
0.0042
(7.604*10–6)
0.0003
(1.69*10–6)
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 35
This report has presented detailed
information on the participation and
expenditure patterns of African-
American, Hispanic, and female hunters
and anglers. This information includes
participation rates, participation levels
(days and trips), expenditures, usage
of public and private land, types of
hunting and fishing, and species pursued.
Comparisons of this information among
the different populations for hunters and
anglers reveal that these populations are
unique in many respects. Also presented
are models that predict the likelihood
of participation in hunting and fishing.
The models explain that regardless of
socio-demographics, African-Americans,
Hispanics, and females are less likely to
hunt and fish than the general population.
The data can be used in several ways to
improve hunting and fishing experiences
of these low participation groups.
One way might be to shape hunting
and fishing conservation and safety
programs for specific groups. Data on
participation rates, participation levels,
and expenditures can help pinpoint
certain groups of people more likely to
participate. For instance, the data show
that females living in rural areas are
more likely to hunt than females living in
urban areas. Furthermore, females living
in rural areas take more hunting trips
and hunt more days, on average, than
females living in urban areas. Hunting
conservation and safety programs
designed toward these demographics
could be both well received and cost
effective.
Hunting and fishing experiences might
be improved through efficient allocation
of resources. Data provided on the use of
private and public land, types of hunting
and fishing, and species sought combined
with other data on participation might
help resource managers make informed
decisions. For example, the report shows
that many hunters hunt predominately on
private land. To avoid overcrowding and
over-hunting, resource managers could
examine the reasons why private land is
preferred over public land for hunting
and increase efforts to make public land
more favorable. Information about types
of hunting and fishing and species sought
could be used in a similar manner.
Another use of the data is directing
information toward the appropriate user
groups. For instance, the report shows
that a large proportion of Hispanic
anglers reside and trout fish in the West.
Changes in trout fishing regulations or
trout fish advisories in the West could
have a large impact on this group.
Wildlife professionals could target
information to this group in Spanish and
English and choose the best medium
(e.g., newspaper, magazines, television,
posters) to disseminate the information.
Expenditure information can provide
the hunting and fishing industry with a
better understanding of their customers.
Demographic profiles of trip and
equipment expenditures can be used to
better serve customers and for marketing
purposes. A key finding is that Hispanic
anglers spend more on average on trips
and equipment than many other groups.
Furthermore, the number of Hispanic
anglers and their spending has increased
significantly over the last decade.
Above are just a few ways the report’s
information can be used. Wildlife
professionals can use this information in
any number of ways to arrive at a better
understanding of groups who do not
hunt or fish as much as the rest of the
population.
Summary
Photodisc
36 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers
Sample sizes for hunters and anglers
are presented in Tables A-1, A-2, A-3,
and A-4. For the statistical analysis,
small sample sizes are considered to be
between 10 and 29 observations. Samples
sizes with less than ten were considered
too small to report data reliably. These
assumptions are consistent with the “2001
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation.”
Appendix A: Sample Sizes
Mike Hemming/USFWS
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 37
Table A-1. Sample Sizes for Hunters
All Hunters African American Hunters Hispanic Hunters Female Hunters
Category Days Trips
Trip
Expend.
Equip
Expend. Days Trips
Trip
Expend.
Equip
Expend. Days Trips
Trip
Expend.
Equip
Expend. Days Trips
Trip
Expend.
Equip
Expend.
Age
16–24 824 822 822 827 12 12 12 12 25 25 25 25 89 88 86 89
25–34 1,043 1,041 1,043 1,052 19 19 20 20 32 32 32 32 121 120 122 123
35–44 1,472 1,469 1,471 1,485 18 18 18 18 40 40 40 40 139 137 136 141
45–54 1,261 1,258 1,255 1,267 28 28 28 28 35 35 35 35 116 115 115 117
55+ 1,082 1,082 1,080 1,088 28 28 28 29 17 17 17 17 77 77 77 78
Education
< High School 753 751 753 759 26 26 26 27 24 24 24 24 55 54 54 57
H.S. Graduate 2,190 2,187 2,187 2,204 42 42 43 43 68 68 68 68 221 218 219 224
Some College 1,513 1,510 1,504 1,523 26 26 26 26 34 34 34 34 172 171 169 172
College Graduate + 1,226 1,224 1,227 1,233 11 11 11 11 23 23 23 23 94 94 94 95
Income
< $20,000 1,555 1,550 1,550 1,582 40 40 41 42 41 41 41 41 172 170 170 178
$20–29,999 611 611 611 614 24 24 24 24 12 12 12 12 72 71 71 72
$30–49,999 1,333 1,329 1,330 1,336 20 20 20 20 45 45 45 45 117 115 115 117
$50,000+ 2,183 2,182 2,180 2,187 21 21 21 21 51 51 51 51 181 181 180 181
Region
Midwest 1,663 1,661 1,657 1,675 10 10 10 10 16 16 16 16 145 143 142 145
Northeast 766 765 765 770 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 56 56 57 58
South 1,873 1,870 1,871 1,884 83 83 84 85 33 33 33 33 169 167 166 171
West 1,380 1,376 1,378 1,390 8 8 8 8 95 95 95 95 172 171 171 174
38 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers
Table A-2. Sample Sizes for Hunters continued
Category All Hunters African American Hunters Hispanic Hunters Female Hunters
Type of Hunting
Big Game 457 69 130 459
Small Game 2,468 77 48 155
Migratory Birds 1,281 12 39 60
Other Animals 498 11 10 25
Type of Game
Deer 4,325 69 106 393
Wild Turkey 944 9 13 63
Squirrel 820 40 11 46
Rabbit 860 55 16 55
Region
Midwest 1,675 10 16 145
Northeast 770 4 5 58
South 1,884 85 33 171
West 1,390 8 95 174
Type of Land
Private Land 4,461 86 76 397
Public Land 2,887 41 106 223
Residence
Urban 2,493 46 99 199
Rural 3,226 61 50 349
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 39
Table A-3. Sample Sizes for Anglers
All Anglers African American Anglers Hispanic Anglers Female Anglers
Category Days Trips
Trip
Expend.
Equip
Expend. Days Trips
Trip
Expend.
Equip
Expend. Days Trips
Trip
Expend.
Equip
Expend. Days Trips
Trip
Expend.
Equip
Expend.
Age
16–24 1,687 1,659 1,654 1,698 64 63 63 64 89 88 88 89 417 411 409 423
25–34 2,463 2,401 2,399 2,482 93 90 91 96 124 121 120 125 700 675 676 710
35–44 3,493 3,410 3,410 3,524 118 111 111 120 131 126 127 133 958 928 925 968
45–54 2,752 2,688 2,676 2,775 122 118 118 123 70 70 69 71 689 670 665 697
55+ 2,788 2,713 2,712 2,817 130 124 128 136 49 46 47 49 617 598 595 626
Education
< High School 1,610 1,580 1,580 1,621 131 129 130 133 104 100 99 104 355 351 349 359
H.S. Graduate 4,560 4,442 4,433 4,610 192 185 187 198 168 167 167 170 1,191 1,150 1,146 1,208
Some College 3,547 3,454 3,443 3,571 136 127 128 138 113 108 108 114 976 947 944 990
College Graduate + 3,466 3,395 3,395 3,494 68 65 66 70 78 76 77 79 859 834 831 867
Income
< $20,000 3,845 3,724 3,722 3,914 242 233 237 252 149 145 146 153 1,112 1,080 1,077 1,137
$20–29,999 1,376 1,349 1,346 1,386 78 74 74 80 67 65 64 67 362 353 351 365
$30–49,999 2,812 2,762 2,757 2,823 100 96 97 100 112 110 110 112 715 695 692 720
$50,000+ 5,150 5,036 5,026 5,173 107 103 103 107 135 131 131 135 1,192 1,154 1,150 1,202
Region
Midwest 3,378 3,264 3,271 3,413 70 66 69 72 47 47 48 49 935 900 902 950
Northeast 2,035 1,963 1,955 2,058 41 36 38 46 44 42 42 45 402 380 377 409
South 4,330 4,248 4,239 4,364 375 363 363 380 106 102 102 106 1,128 1,105 1,100 1,143
West 3,440 3,396 3,386 3,461 41 41 41 41 266 260 259 267 916 897 891 922
40 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers
Table A-3. Sample Sizes for Anglers continued
Category All Anglers African American Anglers Hispanic Anglers Female Anglers
Type of Fishing
Freshwater (excludes Great Lakes) 11,161 425 361 2,833
Saltwater 3,412 168 165 776
Great Lakes 451 30 8 75
Type of Freshwater Species
Black Bass 3,898 153 91 749
Panfish 2,844 174 45 753
Trout 3,748 46 173 817
Catfish 2,656 213 104 651
Type of Saltwater Species
Flatfish 871 41 27 193
Striped Bass 779 29 19 101
Sea Trout 407 28 12 71
Blue Fish 535 16 19 69
Region
Midwest 3,413 72 49 950
Northeast 2,058 46 45 409
South 4,364 380 106 1,143
West 3,461 41 267 922
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Division of Federal Aid
Washington, DC 20240
http://federalaid.fws.gov
May 2004
Cover: Photodisc
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
| Rating | |
| Title | Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers Addendum to the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation Report 2001-4 |
| Description | nat_survey2001_minorities.pdf |
| FWS Resource Links | http://library.fws.gov |
| Subject | Document |
| Publisher | U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service |
| Date of Original | May 2004 |
| Type | Text |
| Format | |
| Source |
NCTC Conservation Library Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program Library |
| Rights | Public domain |
| File Size | 1921653 Bytes |
| Original Format | Document |
| Full Resolution File Size | 1921653 Bytes |
| Transcript | Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers Addendum to the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation Report 2001-4 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers Addendum to the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation Report 2001-4 May 2004 Erin Henderson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Economics Arlington VA This report is intended to complement the National and State reports from the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. The conclusions are the authors and do not represent official positions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Hunting Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Regional Distribution of Hunters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Hunting Participation Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Hunting Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Hunting on Private and Public Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Types of Hunting and Selected Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Female Hunters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Female’s Hunting Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Female Hunters’ Participation Levels (Days & Trips) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Female’s Hunting Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Female Hunting on Private and Public Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Hunting Trends 1991, 1996 & 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Fishing Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Regional Distribution of Anglers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Fishing Avidity & Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Types of Fishing and Selected Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Female, African American & Hispanic Anglers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Participation Levels (Days & Trips) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Fishing Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Fishing Trends 1991, 1996, & 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Participation Models for Hunting & Fishing Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Hunting Participation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Fishing Participation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Appendix A: Sample Sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Contents Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 3 Since the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began tracking the demographics of hunters and anglers in 1955, participation rates of females and minorities have consistently been below the national averages for hunting and fishing activities. This trend is becoming more significant to the future of hunting and fishing due to the changing demographics of the United States. According to U.S. Census projections, Hispanic and African-American populations are growing at a faster rate than the rest of the American population. In 2001, the Nation’s Hispanic population totaled 38.7 million, a 73 percent increase since 1990. Furthermore, 1 in 8 Americans were Hispanic in 2001. In 2030, almost 1 in 5 Americans will be Hispanic. In 2001, the Nation’s African-American population totaled 38.3 million, a 28 percent increase since 1990. Today 1 in 8 Americans are of African-American descent, a ratio that will continue to 2030. Females are also under-represented in hunting and fishing. Although females comprise 51 percent of the population (which is expected to remain constant through 2030), their participation in hunting and fishing is far below the national average. This report highlights differences among select low participation groups in terms of participation rates, geographical distribution, participation levels (days and trips per year), and associated expenditures. It also reports the relative usage of private or public land hunting, types of hunting and fishing, and species sought. In addition to descriptive statistics, the report concludes with an empirical model to determine the probability of an individual’s decision to hunt or fish. The descriptive statistics of this report are divided into a hunting section and a fishing section. Each section compares all anglers to the participation rates, participation levels, expenditures, and hunting and fishing preferences for African-Americans, Hispanics, and females. At the end of the hunting section, females’ participation and expenditures for hunting activities are further analyzed by selected demographic characteristics. Due to small sample sizes, this further analysis is not provided for African-American or Hispanic hunters. However, the larger sample sizes for fishing activities provide adequate data to analyze each subpopulation in this demographic detail in the fishing section. Appendix A shows sample sizes. All reported data are from the “2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation” and represent participation and expenditures for the calendar year 2001 of persons age 16 years and older. The data for the total population of hunters and anglers include all subpopulations (henceforth referred to as ‘all hunters’ or ‘all anglers,’ respectively). Data for African- Americans include all persons who identified themselves as Black or African- American in the Survey. This includes all African-American participants who are male or female and those who identified themselves also as Hispanic. Likewise, the Hispanic category includes persons of both sexes and of any race. The female category includes all races. The 2001 survey was conducted for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the U.S. Census Bureau. The survey was conducted in two phases. First, a screening interview was conducted to identify wildlife-related recreationists. Second, multiple interviews were conducted to collect detailed information on participation and expenditures for persons 16 years of age and older. The U.S. Census Bureau collected the data primarily by telephone; respondents who could not be reached by telephone were interviewed in person. The response rate was 75 percent for the screen phase and 88 percent for the detailed sportsmen phase. Refer to the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife- Associated Recreation1 for more detailed information on the methods of data collection. Introduction 1This document is available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service webpage: http:// federalaid.fws.gov/surveys/surveys.html. Mike Hemming/USFWS 4 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers Overview Table 1 highlights the total number of hunting participants, days and trips, and trip-related and equipment expenditures for African-American hunters, Hispanic hunters, female hunters, and the total population of hunters. Females were the largest subpopulation, and spent the most money, a combined total of $492 million on hunting equipment and trip-related expenditures. Hispanic hunters spent more on average for hunting than the other subpopulations; and in the case of trip-related expenditures, Hispanic hunters spent more than the national average for all hunters. African-American hunters spent more days hunting and took more hunting trips per year on average than the other subpopulations. Hunting Participation Hunting participation rates are calculated by dividing the number of hunters in a particular subgroup by the total population in that subgroup. The subgroup population in the U.S. is determined by using the data from the screening sample. Figure 1 reveals the U. S. hunting participation rates for persons age 16 and over for the total population, African-Americans, Hispanics, and females. Hunting participation is not consistent across subgroubs. The participation rates of the African- Americans, Hispanics, and females were much lower than the total population. While about 6 percent of the total population hunt, only 2 percent of Hispanics hunt, 1 percent of African- Americans hunt, and 1 percent of females hunt. Hunting Table 1. Hunters, Days, Trips and Expenditures: 2001 (Includes hunters 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.) All Hunters African- American Hunters Hispanic Hunters Female Hunters Hunters 13,034 288 428 1,189 Days of Hunting 228,367 5,382 5,139 14,068 Mean Days of Hunting 18 19 12 12 Trips 200,124 4,431 3,337 11,927 Mean Hunting Trips 16 16 8 10 Total Hunting Expenditures $11,016,945 $213,300 $399,379 $491,833 Trip Expenditures* $5,252,391 $106,593 $236,530 $188,237 Mean Trip Expenditures $407 $374 $552 $164 Equipment Expenditures** $5,764,554 $106,707 $162,849 $303,596 Mean Equipment Expenditures $442 $370 $380 $255 *Trip-related expenditures include food, drink, lodging, public and private transportation, guide fees, pack trip or package fees, public and private land use access fees, equipment rental, boating costs, and heating and cooking fuel. **Equipment expenditures consist of rifles, shotguns, other firearms, ammunition, bows and arrows, telescopic sights, decoys, hunting dogs and associated costs. Also included are auxiliary equipment such as camping equipment, binoculars, special hunting clothing, processing and taxidermy costs. Excluded from equipment expenditures are special equipment purchases such as boats, campers, trucks, and cabins. Figure 1. Participation Rates for Hunting ���������� ���� Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 5 Regional Distribution Of Hunters The regional distribution of hunters illustrates where hunting generally occurs in the U.S. With this information, we are better equipped to understand where pressure on game and hunting resources may occur. Figure 2 shows the distribution of hunter subpopulations throughout the country. The majority of African-American hunters live in the South (73 percent). The largest regional population of Hispanic hunters and female hunters also live in the South (51 percent and 39 percent, respectively). Sample sizes for African-American hunters were too small to report data reliably for the Northeast and West regions. Samples sizes were also too small for Hispanic hunters in the Northeast region. Hunting Participation Levels In addition to data regarding the number of people hunting, data about the frequency of hunting also presents valuable information for resource management. Figures 3 and 4 show the mean annual hunting days and mean annual hunting trips for each population group. The national participation average for all hunters is 18 days and 15 trips (Figures 3 and 4). Of the subpopulations, African-Americans hunted nearly 50 percent more (19 days) than did Hispanics (12 days) and females (12 days). The same pattern continues for the average number of hunting trips. African-American hunters took the most hunting trips (16 trips), followed by females (10 trips) and Hispanics (8 trips). Figure 2. Where Do They Live? Regional Distribution of Hunters ���� ������ ��� Figure 3. Mean Days of Hunting ���� ������� Figure 4. Mean Hunting Trips �� ��� *Estimate based on a small sample size. African-American and Hispanic hunters do not sum to 100 because some samples were too small to report. 6 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers Hunting Expenditures Hunting expenditures are divided into two categories: trip-related expenditures2 and equipment expenditures.3 Figure 5 illustrates a comparison of mean trip expenditures for hunters. Hispanics spent considerably more on average ($552) for hunting trips than all hunters ($403). The other subpopulations spent less on average than all hunters: African- Americans spent $373 per year and females spent the least, $163. Average spending for hunting equipment is shown in Figure 6. In this case, each of the subpopulations average less than the national average for all hunters ($442). Of the subpopulations, Hispanics again spent the most ($380), while African- Americans spent $370 and females spent $255. Hunting on Private and Public Land The number of people hunting on private and public land reveals hunting choices and levels of resource use. Figures 7 and 8 show, respectively, the percentage of each group that hunt on private land and the percentage of each group that hunt on public land. Typically, more hunters hunt on private land than on public land although many hunt on both. At least 68 percent of each subpopulation hunt on private land. A far greater percentage of African-American hunters hunt on private land (84 percent) than on public land (32 percent). Female hunters also favor private land hunting (80 percent) versus public land hunting (28 percent). In contrast, the margin between private land (68 percent) and public land (48 percent) for Hispanic hunters is much smaller. Figure 5. Mean Trip Expenditures for Hunters ������ Figure 6. Mean Equipment Expenditures for Hunters �� ��� Figure 7. Hunters Hunting on Private Land ���� ����� ���� 2Trip-related expenditures include food, drink, lodging, public and private transportation, guide fees, pack trip or package fees, public and private land use access fees, equipment rental, boating costs, and heating and cooking fuel. 3Equipment expenditures consist of firearms, ammunition, bows and arrows, telescopic sights, decoys, hunting dogs and associated costs. Also included are auxiliary equipment such as camping equipment, binoculars, special hunting clothing, processing and taxidermy costs. Excluded from equipment expenditures are special equipment purchases such as boats, campers, trucks, and cabins. Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 7 Types of Hunting and Selected Game To understand better the needs of African-American, Hispanic, and female hunters, it is helpful to know in what kind of hunting they participate and which type of game they hunt. Figure 9 shows the percentage of hunters that participate in big game hunting, small game hunting, migratory bird hunting, and other animal hunting.4 Figure 10 depicts the percentage of hunters that hunt selected game. These game were selected because they were the most sought after species in 2001. In general, female hunters follow the national trend for all hunters with 83 percent participating in big game hunting, fewer in small game hunting (27 percent), and fewer still pursuing migratory birds (12 percent) and other animals (4 percent). Similar to all hunters, deer is the most popular type of game for females (76 percent). For Hispanic hunters, big game hunting is far more popular than other types of hunting. Seventy-five percent of Hispanic hunters hunt big game in comparison to 29 percent hunting small game, 35 percent hunting migratory birds, and 9 percent hunting other animals. Consistent with these findings, 67 percent of Hispanic hunters hunt deer and only 10 percent hunt rabbit. Estimates for hunting “other animals,” wild turkey, squirrel, and rabbit, are based on small sample sizes. African-American hunters hunt small game (69 percent), which is considerably more than the general hunting population (42 percent). This preference for small game is reflected in their high participation in rabbit hunting (45 percent) and squirrel hunting (37 percent), which is greater than for all other groups of hunters. The sample size for wild turkey was too small to report reliable estimates. Figure 8. Hunters Hunting on Public Land ������ �� Figure 9. Percent of Hunters, by Type of Hunting ����������� �� ������ Figure 10. Percent of Hunters, by Selected Game ����� ���� �� �� �� 4Other animals include coyotes, crows, foxes, groundhogs, prairie dogs, raccoons, and similar animals. Other animals may be classified as unprotected or non-game animals by the state in which they are hunted. *Estimate based on a small sample size. *Estimate based on a small sample size. 8 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers Female Hunters For a more in-depth statistical analysis of hunters, data on participation, expenditures and private/public land preferences are evaluated by age, education, income and place of residence. These comparisons are made between female hunters and all hunters. Due to small sample sizes, African-American and Hispanic hunting populations are not analyzed in further detail. Female’s Hunting Participation Only 1 percent of females 16 years of age and over in the United States participated in hunting (see Figure 1) as opposed to 6 percent for the entire population. A comparison of all hunters and female hunters by age, education, income, and place of residency follows. Hunting participation for females is constant across all age groups, where one percent of the female population hunts in each respective age group (Figure 11). This pattern does not hold true for the general population, which has its greatest percentage of hunters in the 35 to 44 and 45 to 54 age groups (8 percent and 7 percent, respectively). As shown in Figure 12, females of all education levels participate at the rate of 1 percent. The hunting participation rate for the total population, however, peaks at 7 percent for those hunters with a high school degree or some college. The lowest participation rate for the total population is 5 percent for those hunters without a high school degree or with at least a college degree. Hunting participation is positively correlated with income for the total population (Figure 13). Eight-percent of the total population earning over $30,000 annually participates in hunting activities, which is almost three times greater than the percentage of the total population earning less than $20,000 (3 percent). For the female population, the participation rate remains constant across income levels at 1 percent. Figure 11. Participation Rates for Hunting, by Age ���� �� Figure 12. Participation Rates for Hunting, by Education ��� ���� Figure 13. Participation Rates for Hunting, by Income ������� �� Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 9 People residing in rural areas are over three times more likely to hunt than people living in urban areas (Figure 14). Female hunters living in rural areas are also about three times more likely to hunt than females living in urban areas. Female Hunters’ Participation Levels (Days & Trips) Figures 15 thru 18 compare the mean days and trips for female hunters and all hunters by age, education, income, and place of residence. Figure 15 shows that female hunters’ mean hunting days are lowest (9 days) for females age 16 to 24, and highest for those age 20 to 34 (15 days) and age 45 to 54 (14 days). In contrast, the mean hunting days for all hunters decreases from 19 days for 16 to 34 year-old hunters to 16 days for hunters 55 and over. Similar to the pattern for all hunters, females’ hunting days and education are inversely related (Figure 16). Thus, the number of hunting days decreases for female hunters without a high school degree (13 days) to those female hunters who are college graduates (10 days). Income level and mean hunting days are depicted in Figure 17. With one exception, females’ average hunting days by income level follow the relatively stable trend of activity as shown by the general hunting population. The exception occurs at the $20,000 to $29,999 income category, where the number of hunting days is nearly half of any other income category. Figure 14. Participation Rates for Hunting, by Place of Residence ��� Figure 15. Mean Days of Hunting, by Age ��� ���� Figure 16. Mean Days of Hunting, by Education �� �� 10 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers Figure 18 shows that female hunters who live in rural areas hunt almost twice as many days annually (14 days) than female hunters who live in urban areas (8 days). This is similar to the pattern for all hunters, where hunters in rural areas hunt 20 days annually while hunters in urban areas hunt 14 days annually. Figures 19 thru 22 depict various demographic characteristics by the number of annual mean hunting trips in 2001. As shown in these figures, the pattern of mean hunting trips is similar to that of mean hunting days. Figure 17. Mean Days of Hunting, by Income ���� ��� ���� Figure 18. Mean Days of Hunting, by Place of Residence ��� Figure 19. Mean Hunting Trips, by Age �� Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 11 Figure 20. Mean Hunting Trips, by Education �� �� ��� ��� Figure 21. Mean Hunting Trips, by Income ��� �� Figure 22. Mean Hunting Trips, by Place of Residence ���� ���� ���� 12 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers Females’ Hunting Expenditures As seen in Figures 5 and 6, female hunters on average spent considerably less for hunting trips and equipment than all hunters spend. Despite this finding, a demographic breakdown of female hunter trip and equipment expenditures identifies spending patterns somewhat similar to that of all hunters. Figures 23 through 26 display mean trip expenditures for female hunters and all hunters. Females’ trip expenditures for hunting are sporadic across all age groups, all else constant (Figure 23). This is not consistent with the trip expenditure patterns for all hunters, which increases until reaching the age 55+ category. Trip expenditures for all hunters are positively correlated with both education and income levels (Figures 24 and 25). Thus, as income increases, annual trip expenditures double from $264 for those hunters with less than $20,000 household income to $585 for those hunters with over $50,000 household income. In addition, as education increases, annual hunting trip expenditures increase at about the same rate from $256 for those hunters without a high school degree to $566 for those hunters with at least a college degree. Females’ trip expenditures do not follow the same trends for all hunters within the income and education brackets. While all hunters’ trip expenditures are positively correlated with both income and education, females’ trip expenditures had one education and income category (“some college” and “$20,000-$29,999”) that did not follow the positive correlation pattern. Females�� annual trip expenditures are less than half of the trip expenditures for all hunters across all category levels. Figure 23. Mean Trip Expenditures, by Age ��� ��� ��� ��� Figure 24. Mean Trip Expenditures, by Education ���� ������� ���� Figure 25. Mean Trip Expenditures, by Income ��� �������� Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 13 As depicted in Figure 26, mean trip expenditures for female hunters living in urban areas are 20 percent greater than mean trip expenditures for female hunters living in rural areas. All hunters also show this pattern. On average, hunters living in urban areas spent $488 while hunters in rural areas spent $340 (a 30 percent difference). Figures 27 thru 30 compare the annual mean equipment expenditures by demographic characteristics for female hunters and all hunters. As with trip expenditures, female hunters’ equipment expenditures are about half of all hunters’ expenditures across nearly all categories. Furthermore, no pattern for equipment expenditures by age emerges for female hunters, as is the result for trip expenditures (Figure 27). Figure 28 compares equipment expenditures by education. Females’ equipment expenditures do not follow the same positive correlation as all hunters. Instead, females’ expenditures peak for those females with a high school degree ($341) and decrease for those female hunters with at least a college degree ($158). Figure 26. Mean Trip Expenditures, by Place of Residence �� Figure 27. Mean Equipment Expenditures, by Age ������ Figure 28. Mean Equipment Expenditures, by Education ��� �� ���� ���� ��� 14 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers Figure 29 conveys that both female hunters’ and all hunters’ equipment expenditures are positively correlated with income. However, in comparison, equipment expenditures for all hunters doubled while equipment expenditures for females tripled, moving from those with less than $20 thousand income to those with over $50 thousand income. Female hunters’ and all hunters’ equipment spending do not follow similar patterns, when categorized by place of residence (Figure 30). Female hunters living in urban areas spent $143 on equipment in 2001 while female hunters living in rural areas spent about 30 percent more ($194). Conversely, all hunters living in urban areas spent more ($342) than those hunters living in rural areas ($295). Females Hunting on Private and Public Land As shown earlier in Figures 7 and 8, many more female hunters hunt on private land (80 percent) than on public land (28 percent). A demographic analysis follows in Figures 31 thru 38. Categorizing by age shows that 75 to 85 percent of female hunters of all ages hunt on private land (Figure 31). Similarly for all hunters as well, between 81 and 85 percent of all hunters in each age group hunt on private land. Figure 32 shows the percentage of hunters hunting on public land, by age. No pattern emerges for either all hunters or female hunters when participation is categorized by age. The highest percent of female hunters hunting on public land (39 percent) is in the age 55 and over category, while the highest percent of all hunters hunting on public land (41 percent) is in the 35 to 44 age category. Figure 29. Mean Equipment Expenditures, by Income ���� ���� ���� ���� Figure 30. Mean Equipment Expenditures, by Place of Residence ��� ��� ��� �� Figure 31. Hunters Hunting on Private Land, by Age ��� ��� ���� Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 15 Figure 33 shows that private land hunting by education averages between 81 and 86 percent of all hunters. Hunting on private land for females averages slightly below at 77 to 83 percent. Participation patterns compared by educational achievement are more pronounced for hunters on public land (Figure 34). For both all hunters and female hunters, the participation rate and educational achievement are positively correlated. For all hunters, participation rates increased from 38 percent for those without a high school diploma to 41 percent for those with at least a college degree. Participation for female hunters also increased but at a faster rate. Twenty-three percent of female hunters without a high school degree hunt on public land while 34 percent of female hunters with at least a college degree hunt on public land. Figure 32. Hunters Hunting on Public Land, by Age ���� ��� Figure 33. Hunters Hunting on Private Land, by Education ��� �� �� Figure 34. Hunters Hunting on Public Land, by Education �� �� ���� ��� 16 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers Household income has little impact on hunters’ decisions to partake in hunting activities on private land (Figure 35). Participation for all hunters ranges between 77 and 85 percent while participation for female hunters varies between 77 and 84 percent. Figure 36 illustrates the positively correlated relationship between household income and the decision to hunt on public land for all hunters. No pattern emerges for female hunters. Figure 35. Hunters Hunting on Private Land, by Income ��� ��� ��� Figure 36. Hunters Hunting on Public Land, by Income �� ���� ��� Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 17 Figures 37 and 38 demonstrate that the highest percent of female hunters hunting on private land are residents of rural areas (86 percent); whereas, the highest percent of female hunters hunting on public land are residents of urban areas (33 percent). For all hunters, the largest percent hunting on private land are also rural residents (87 percent), and the largest percent hunting on public land are urban residents (44 percent). Figure 37. Hunters Hunting on Private Land, by Place of Residence ���� Figure 38. Hunters Hunting on Public Land, by Place of Residence �� �� 18 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers Hunting Trends 1991, 1996, & 2001 Table 2 highlights the number of hunting participants, days, and expenditures from the 1991, 1996, and 2001 Surveys and the percentage change between each year. All expenditures are depicted in 2001 dollars. Two changes are made to the 2001 expenditures to be consistent with 1991 and 1996 estimates. First, trip expenditures for 2001 are slightly different from those reported in Table 1 because heating and cooking fuel are not included. Second, the 2001 equipment expenditures are also slightly different than Table 1 because auxiliary expenditures are excluded to remain consistent with previous reports. While remaining approximately similar between 1991 and 1996, the total number of people hunting and their hunting days between 1996 and 2001 decreased by 7 percent and 11 percent, respectively. Unlike the general hunting population, the number of hunters with Hispanic ethnicity increased by over 50 percent between 1991 and 2001. Correspondingly, the number of hunting days by Hispanic hunters also increased substantially, by 59 percent. This increase in hunting participation outpaces the Hispanic population increase in the United States over the last decade. African-American hunters do not have a significant change in their hunting participation or the number of days hunted. Although the total number of hunters has decreased over the past 10 years, total trip expenditures increased from $4.48 billion to $5.18 billion. However, total trip expenditures in 2001 declined slightly from 1996 ($5.52 billion). Between 1991 and 2001, Hispanic hunters’ trip expenditures increased dramatically by 250 percent, which again far outpaces their growth in participation. No significant trends emerged for African- American hunters or female hunters for trip expenditures. Between 1996 and 2001, total hunting equipment expenditures declined by 27 percent, and females’ hunting equipment expenditures also declined by 25 percent. Although this change represents a marked decrease, the equipment expenditures for the total hunting population and female hunters changed only marginally between 1991 and 2001. On the other hand, Hispanic hunters’ equipment expenditures, which remained nearly equivalent between 1996 and 2001, increased by 69 percent from 1991 to 2001. There was no significant change for African-American hunters. Table 2. Hunting Comparison: Participants, Days, & Expenditures in 1991, 1996, & 2001 (Numbers in thousands) Annual Estimates Percentage Change* 1991 1996 2001 1991 to 1996 1996 to 2001 1991 to 2001 Hunters Total Hunters 14,006 13,975 13,034 * –7 –7 African-American 294 303 288 * * * Hispanic 274 335 428 * +28 +56 Women 1,069 1,192 1,189 * * * Days Total Days 235,806 256,676 228,367 * –11 * African-American 5,499 4,839 5,382 * * * Hispanic 3,229 4,363 5,139 * * +59 Women 13,512 13,074 14,068 * * * Hunting Expenditures** Total Trip Expenditures $4,484,853 $5,521,508 $5,176,031 +23 * +15 African-American $86,018 $92,222 $105,928 * * * Hispanic $65,806 $209,072 $230,371 +218 * +250 Women $241,194 $247,544 $193,924 * * * Total Equipment Expenditures $4,280,683 $6,255,967 $4,561,709 +46 –27 * African-American $66,505 $98,293 $92,370 * * * Hispanic $72,922 $129,911 $123,360 +78 * +69 Women $193,732 $255,575 $192,185 +72 –25 * The “*” denotes that the percentage change is not different from zero at the 90 percent confidence level. Thus, for 90 percent of all possible samples, the estimate between one survey year is not different from another survey year. Expenditures are in 2001 dollars. **All expenditures are depicted in 2001 dollars. Two changes are made to the 2001 expenditures to be consistent with 1991 and 1996 estimates. First, trip expenditures for 2001 are slightly different from those reported in Table 1 because heating and cooking fuel are not included. Second, the 2001 equipment expenditures are also slightly different because auxiliary expenditures are excluded. These exclusions were necessary to make the estimates comparable with previous publications. Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 19 Overview Table 3 highlights the total number of anglers, total and mean fishing days, fishing trips, trip expenditures and equipment expenditures for African- American, Hispanic, female, and all anglers. Females are the largest subpopulation (8.9 million), and they spend the most money ($3.2 billion on trip and equipment expenditures). However, on average, Hispanic anglers spend more than African-American or female anglers. Hispanic anglers spend 25 percent more than African- American anglers and female anglers on mean trip expenditures; and they also spend 38 percent more than African- American anglers and 47 percent more than female anglers on mean equipment expenditures. African-American anglers spend more days fishing (16 days) and take more trips (14) on average than Hispanic anglers and female anglers. Fishing Participation Figure 39 shows the fishing participation rates (the percent of the sub-population in the U.S. that fished in 2001) for persons age 16 and older for the total population, African-Americans, Hispanics, and females. All subpopulations participate at remarkably lower rates than the population as a whole for general fishing and freshwater fishing. For general fishing participation rates, females had the highest participation rate (8 percent) while African-Americans and Hispanics each had a participation rate of 7 percent. Females also had the highest participation rate (7 percent) for freshwater fishing. For saltwater fishing, Hispanics had the highest participation rate of 3 percent. Fishing Table 3. Anglers Days, Trips and Expenditures: 2001 (Includes anglers 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.) All Anglers African- American Anglers Hispanic Anglers Female Anglers Anglers 34,071 1,563 1,564 8,912 Days of Fishing 557,394 24,702 19,060 107,692 Mean Days of Fishing 16 16 12 12 Trips 436,662 19,870 15,179 78,028 Mean Fishing Trips 13 14 10 9 Total Fishing Expenditures $19,994,661 $578,996 $817,384 $3,191,799 Trip Expenditures* $14,656,000 $402,604 $536,357 $2,339,622 Mean Trip Expenditures $449 $273 $359 $278 Equipment Expenditures** $5,338,661 $176,392 $281,026 $852,177 Mean Equipment Expenditures $157 $113 $180 $96 *Trip expenditures are composed of food, drink, lodging, public and private transportation, guide fees, pack trip or package fees, public and private land use access fees, boat fuel, launching, mooring, storage, maintenance, insurance fees, bait, ice, and equipment rental. **Equipment expenditures are made up of rods, reels, lines, lures, tackle boxes, creels, stringers, fish nets, minnow traps, seines, bait containers, depth and fish finders, ice and spear fishing equipment. Also included are auxiliary camping equipment such as binoculars, special fishing clothing, processing and taxidermy costs. Special equipment such as boats, campers, trucks and cabins are excluded from equipment expenditures due to small sample sizes and to remain consistent with the equipment expenditure analysis for hunters in the preceding section. Figure 39. Participation Rates for Fishing ���� 20 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers Figures 40 thru 43 show participation by age, education, income, and place of residence. Participation rates are determined by dividing the number of anglers in each subcategory by the number of people in the U.S. in each subcategory. For most groups, fishing participation increases with age until the 35 to 44 age category, after which, fishing participation decreases with age (Figure 40). African-Americans follow this basic pattern except their participation peaks in the 45 to 54 age category. Figure 41 depicts the association between fishing participation rates and educational attainment. No trends emerge for fishing participation rates for African-Americans anglers. For Hispanics and females, however, participation in fishing increases with educational achievement. Figure 42 shows that participation is positively correlated with income. That is, as household income increases, the rate of participation for each group also increases. However, for Hispanic anglers, participation slightly decreases for those earning between $20,000 and $29,999 annually. Participation by place of residence is illustrated in Figure 43. For all populations, rural residents were nearly twice more likely to participate in fishing than urban residents. Figure 40. Participation Rates for Fishing, by Age ���� ������ �� Figure 41. Participation Rates for Fishing, by Education ��� ���� ���� ���� ��� ��� Figure 42. Participation Rates for Fishing, by Income ������� �� Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 21 Regional Distribution of Anglers Several topics reported in this study such as type of fishing and species sought are highly variable by region of the country. Figure 44 shows the percent of each angler subpopulation that resides in the Northeast, the South, the Midwest and the West. As a whole, the South has the highest percent of all anglers (39 percent). It also has the highest shares of African-American (67 percent) and female anglers (40 percent). The West has a slightly higher percent of Hispanic anglers (44 percent) than the South (41 percent). All regions have nearly the same share of female anglers as all anglers. The Northeast has the lowest share of all anglers (14 percent) and low shares for all subpopulations. Figure 43. Participation Rates for Fishing, by Place of Residence ���� �� ���� ���� Figure 44. Where Do They Live? Regional Distribution of Anglers �� �� �� ��� �������� 22 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers Fishing Avidity & Expenditures In terms of resource management and economic impacts, how often people fish is as important a question as how many people fish. Thus, the following information is presented on the mean number of fishing days, the mean number of fishing trips, the mean trip expenditures,5 and the mean equipment expenditures for anglers.6 Figures 45 and 46 represent mean fishing days and mean fishing trips, respectively. African-American anglers, on average, spend more days fishing (16 days) and take more trips (14 trips) per year than Hispanic anglers and female anglers. Hispanic anglers and female anglers spend the identical number of days fishing (12 days) and take about the same amount of fishing trips (10 and 9 trips, respectively). Comparing fishing days to fishing trips, very few trips are multi-day angling trips. Figure 47 shows mean annual fishing trip expenditures, and Figure 48 shows mean equipment expenditures. Hispanic anglers spend, on average, $359 on trip-related expenditures and $180 on equipment. These expenditures are larger than African-American and female expenditures. Furthermore, Hispanic anglers’ average equipment expenditures exceed those of all anglers by about $20 annually. Figure 45. Mean Days of Fishing ���� ������� Figure 46. Mean Fishing Trips ���� ��� Figure 47. Mean Trip Expenditures for Anglers ��� ���� ��� �� 5Trip expenditures are composed of food, drink, lodging, public and private transportation, guide fees, pack trip or package fees, public and private land use access fees, boat fuel, launching, mooring, storage, maintenance, insurance fees, bait, ice, and equipment rental. 6Equipment expenditures are made up of rods, reels, lines, lures, tackle boxes, creels, stringers, fish nets, minnow traps, seines, bait containers, depth and fish finders, ice and spear fishing equipment. Also included are auxiliary camping equipment such as binoculars, special fishing clothing, processing and taxidermy costs. Special equipment such as boats, campers, trucks and cabins are excluded from equipment expenditures due to small sample sizes and to remain consistent with the equipment expenditure analysis for hunters in the preceding section. Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 23 African-American anglers and female anglers spend about the same amount on trip-related fishing expenses ($273 and $278, respectively). For fishing equipment, African-American anglers spend more ($113) than female anglers spend ($96). Types of Fishing and Selected Species Figure 49 shows the percent of each angler subpopulation that participates in Great Lakes, saltwater and other freshwater fishing (i.e., excluding Great Lakes fishing). Other freshwater fishing is the most popular type of fishing with at least 69 percent of each angler subpopulation participating. The percent of African-American anglers (76 percent) and female anglers (81 percent) that fish in other freshwater are close to the percentage for all anglers (82 percent). Other freshwater fishing is least popular with Hispanic anglers (69 percent). Participation in saltwater fishing is lower than freshwater fishing participation. Only 27 percent of all anglers fish in saltwater. However, a relatively large percentage of Hispanic anglers (44 percent) participate in saltwater fishing. This is greater than African-American anglers (31 percent) and female anglers (24 percent). Participation in Great Lakes fishing is low for all subpopulations of anglers. Only 5 percent of all anglers fish in the Great Lakes. The African-American angler participation rate is 8 percent while 3 percent of female anglers participate. The sample size for Hispanic anglers fishing in the Great Lakes was too small to report reliably. Figure 48. Mean Equipment Expenditures for Anglers �� ��� ���� Figure 49. Percent of Anglers, by Type of Fishing ��� �� ��� ��� �� �� 24 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers Figures 50 and 51 depict the percentage of each angler subpopulation that pursue popular freshwater and saltwater fish species. Great lakes fishing is not included. For purposes of comparison, the percentage of all freshwater anglers and the percentage of all saltwater anglers that pursued each species is presented in each figure. As depicted in Figure 49, excluding the Great Lakes, 82 percent of all anglers fish in freshwater. While participating in freshwater fishing, black bass, panfish, trout, and catfish are the species most often targeted. For African-American freshwater anglers, catfish is the most pursued species (Figure 50). Fifty percent of African-American freshwater anglers fish for catfish, more than any other subpopulation. Many African- American freshwater anglers also fish for panfish (39 percent) and black bass (35 percent). However, only 10 percent of African-Americans fish for trout, which is far below the rates for all anglers and other angler subpopulations. Thirty-nine percent of Hispanic freshwater anglers fished for trout, which exceeds the rate for all freshwater anglers and other freshwater angler subpopulations (Figure 50). Hispanic freshwater angling for black bass and catfish are also well-represented (32 percent each), but panfishing is not nearly as popular as it is with other groups (9 percent). For female freshwater anglers, fishing for black bass (29 percent) and trout (24 percent) are below the participation rates for all freshwater anglers. Panfish and catfish have approximately the same participation rates for female freshwater anglers as they do for all freshwater anglers. Figure 51 shows that the most sought after saltwater species for saltwater anglers include flatfish (25 percent) (flounder, halibut, sole), striped bass (19 percent), sea trout (16 percent) and blue fish (13 percent). In general, the subpopulations’ participation rates are slightly below those for all saltwater anglers. The most pursued species by Hispanics, African-Americans, and females is flatfish (20, 20, and 22 percent, respectively). Hispanic angling and African-American angling estimates are based on small sample sizes for striped bass, sea trout, and blue fish. Small sample sizes for flatfish also exist for Hispanic anglers. Figure 50. Percent of Freshwater Anglers (excluding Great Lakes), by Type of Freshwater Species �� ���� �� Figure 51. Percent of Saltwater Anglers, by Type of Saltwater Species �� ��� ���� �� *Estimate based on a small sample size. Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 25 Female, African-American, and Hispanic Anglers The following section examines fishing days, trips and expenditures by age, education, income and residency. This in-depth analysis is conducted for each subpopulation. Participation Levels (Days & Trips) Figures 52 through 55 portray the average annual number of fishing days by age, education, income, and place of residency. Differences in days and trips of two or less are not usually statistically significant at the 90 percent confidence level and therefore should not be treated as true differences.12 As seen in Figure 52, age and mean fishing days are compared for all anglers and each subpopulation. For each population group, anglers that spend the most days fishing tended to be age 16 to 24 or over the age of 55. Average fishing days and education are inversely related for all anglers (Figure 53). African-American anglers depict the same inverse relationship, where fishing days decrease as educational attainment increases. Hispanic anglers and female anglers, however, do not show any clear pattern between average annual fishing days and education. Figure 54 shows the relationship between mean fishing days and income for all anglers and for African-American anglers. Those anglers with $20,000 to $49,999 incomes spent more days fishing than those anglers outside of that income range. In comparison, fishing days are inversely related to income for female anglers. No pattern emerges for Hispanic anglers. Figure 52. Mean Days of Fishing, by Age ���� ���� �� �� Figure 53. Mean Days of Fishing, by Education �� ���� �� ��� Figure 54. Mean Days of Fishing, by Income �� �� ������ �� 12This means that for 90 percent of all possible samples, differences of 2 days or less are not statistically significant. 26 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers Place of residency is a factor in how often anglers fish. Figure 55 shows that mean days are lower for urban residents. Figures 56 thru 59 compare mean fishing trips with age, education, income, and place of residency. The pattern of mean trips is very similar to that of mean days. Figure 55. Mean Days of Fishing, by Place of Residence �������� Figure 56. Mean Fishing Trips, by Age ��� ���� �� �� Figure 57. Mean Fishing Trips, by Education ���� ��� �� ���� ���� Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 27 Fishing Expenditures As shown in Figures 47 and 48, females spent on average $278 per year for fishing trips and $96 per year on fishing equipment. This was substantially below the average expenditures for all anglers. Furthermore, with the exception of Hispanic anglers’ equipment expenditures, all subgroups had lower mean expenditures than all anglers. In order to better understand which segments of the subpopulations are spending more and which are spending less and how this compares with anglers in general, expenditures are analyzed by particular demographic characteristics such as age, education, income, and residency. This analysis finds some differences between the spending patterns of females, African-Americans, Hispanics, and all anglers. Figure 60 depicts the relationship between mean trip expenditures and age. Both all anglers and female anglers’ trip expenditures increase with age up to the 45 to 54-age category, after which spending decreases. No apparent pattern between trip expenditures and age emerges for African-American anglers or Hispanic anglers. Across all age groups, each subpopulation spent less than all anglers, except for Hispanic anglers age 16 to 24. Figure 58. Mean Fishing Trips, by Income ���� ��� Figure 59. Mean Fishing Trips, by Place of Residence ��� �� ��� Figure 60. Mean Trip Expenditures, by Age �� ���� ���� ���� ���� 28 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers Mean trip expenditures increase as education increases for both all anglers and female anglers (Figure 61). Neither African-American anglers nor Hispanic anglers follow the same spending pattern. Mean trip expenditures for African- American anglers is $205 for those without a high school degree, increases to $376 for those anglers with some college, and decreases to $308 for those anglers with at least a college degree. No pattern emerges for Hispanic anglers. Figure 62 demonstrates the correlation between mean fishing trip expenditures and income. All anglers’ trip expenditures are positively correlated with income, increasing from $279 for those anglers with less than $20,000 income to $639 for those anglers with greater than $50,000 income. Female anglers’ trip expenditures are also positively correlated with income. Their trip expenditures are $194 for those anglers with less than $20,000 income and almost double to $381 for anglers with greater than $50,000 income. No pattern emerges for African-American or Hispanic anglers. However, all subpopulations have the greatest spending for those anglers with incomes greater than $50,000. Similar to all anglers, Hispanic anglers and female anglers from urban areas spend more, on average, for fishing trips than rural residents spend (Figure 63). In contrast, African-American anglers living in rural areas had higher fishing trip expenditures ($342) than African- American anglers living in urban areas ($252). Figure 61. Mean Trip Expenditures, by Education ���� ��� ��� ��� �� Figure 62. Mean Trip Expenditures, by Income �� ���� ��� ��� Figure 63. Mean Trip Expenditures, Place of Residence �� ��� ���� �� ���� Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 29 Figures 64 thru 67 show mean equipment expenditures and their relationship to age, education, income, and residence, all else constant. Figure 64 shows the relationship between mean equipment expenditures and age. For both all anglers and African-American anglers, the highest equipment expenditures occur for those anglers age 35 to 44 and the lowest equipment expenditures occur for those anglers age 16 to 24 or over age 55. No pattern for Hispanic anglers or female anglers emerges. For education in Figure 65, mean equipment expenditures gradually increase with increasing educational achievement for all anglers. African- American anglers follow this same pattern, with a slight spending decrease for those with at least a college degree. Neither Hispanic anglers nor female anglers show any pattern. Figure 64. Mean Equipment Expenditures, by Age ���� �� ��� ���� �� ���� Figure 65. Mean Equipment Expenditures, by Education �� ��� ���� 30 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers Income and mean equipment expenditures are positively correlated for all anglers, African-American anglers, and Hispanic anglers (Figure 66). However, female anglers’ equipment expenditures do not follow this general pattern. Equipment expenditures for female anglers remain relatively steady ($85 to $90) for anglers with up to $49,999 income, and increase to $113 annually for female anglers earning over $50,000. Similar to trip expenditures patterns, equipment expenditures are higher for urban residents than for rural residents (Figure 67). The exception to this pattern is the African-American angler. Figure 66. Mean Equipment Expenditures, by Income �� ���� ���� ���� �� Figure 67. Mean Equipment Expenditures, by Place of Residence ���� ������ ���� �� Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 31 Fishing Trends 1991, 1996, & 2001 Table 4 highlights the number of fishing participants, days, and expenditures from the 1991, 1996, and 2001 Surveys and the percentage change between the years. All expenditures are depicted in 2001 dollars. Two changes are made to 2001 expenditures in this table to be consistent with 1991 and 1996 estimates. First, fishing trip expenditures for 2001 are slightly different from those reported in Table 3 because they do not include heating and cooking fuel. Second, 2001 equipment expenditures are also somewhat different from Table 3 because auxiliary expenditures are not included to remain consistent with previous reports. The number of all anglers decreased marginally (5 percent) between 1991 and 2001. The number of African- American anglers and female anglers also decreased during this period. Between 1996 and 2001, African- American angler participation decreased from 1.80 million to 1.56 million. Female anglers decreased from 9.51 million to 8.91 million. Conversely, Hispanic anglers dramatically increased by nearly one-third. Although the total number of anglers declined over the last decade, the fishing frequency of those anglers participating increased, with the exception of African- American anglers. Total fishing days increased by over 40 million days between 1991 and 2001. Hispanic and female fishing days increased by 33 percent and 10 percent respectively. Although fishing days for African- American anglers decreased by 38 percent between 1996 and 2001, this represents a marginal change from the number of fishing days in 1991. Between 1996 and 2001, fishing trip expenditures for all anglers, African- American anglers, and female anglers decreased by 16 percent, 39 percent, and 12 percent, respectively. There is no significant change for Hispanic anglers. During this same period, total fishing equipment expenditures decreased for all anglers, African-American anglers, and female anglers by 23 percent, 37 percent, and 13 percent respectively. Hispanic anglers have no significant change in equipment expenditures between 1996 and 2001. However, Hispanic anglers are the only subpopulation that had increasing trip expenditures (38 percent) and increasing equipment expenditures (49 percent) between 1991 and 2001. Table 4. Angling Comparison: Participants, Days, & Expenditures in 1991, 1996, & 2001 (Numbers in thousands) Annual Estimates Percentage Change* 1991 1996 2001 1991 to 1996 1996 to 2001 1991 to 2001 Anglers Total Anglers 35,787 35,246 34,071 * –3 –5 African-American 1,815 1,802 1,564 * –13 –14 Hispanic 1,218 1,185 1,564 * +32 +28 Women 9,935 9,509 8,912 * –6 –10 Days Total Days 511,328 625,893 557,394 +22 –11 +9 African-American 23,273 40,131 24,702 +72 –38 * Hispanic 14,375 16,685 19,060 * * +33 Women 97,699 112,841 107,692 +16 * +10 Fishing Expenditures** Total Trip Expenditures $15,443,868 $17,299,985 14,578,102 +12 –16 * African-American $569,120 $659,450 401,003 * –39 –30 Hispanic $385,395 $577,791 532,569 +50 * +38 Women $2,654,437 $2,625,915 2,321,156 * –12 –13 Total Equipment Expenditures $5,199,844 $6,017,407 $4,617,612 +16 ���23 –11 African-American $182,371 $260,875 $163,347 +43 –37 * Hispanic $167,547 $206,509 $249,084 * * +49 Women $946,316 $757,855 $662,179 –20 –13 –30 The “*” denotes that the percentage change is not different from zero at the 90 percent confidence level. Thus, for 90 percent of all possible samples, the estimate between one survey year is not different from another survey year. Expenditures are in 2001 dollars. **All expenditures are depicted in 2001 dollars. Two changes are made to the 2001 expenditures to be consistent with 1991 and 1996 estimates. First, trip expenditures for 2001 are slightly different from those reported in Table 1 because heating and cooking fuel are not included. Second, the 2001 equipment expenditures are also slightly different because auxiliary expenditures are excluded. These exclusions were necessary to make the estimates comparable with previous publications. 32 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers The descriptive statistics presented in the previous sections show that African- Americans, Hispanics, and females are less likely to fish and hunt than the general population in 2001. However, these descriptions are limited because conclusions cannot be made with certainty whether low participation is due to a person’s race or gender, or if it is due to a combination of other social factors. For example, these groups often have lower education levels than the general population. Is low participation by minorities and females because of low education levels? Or, is participation low regardless of education? Empirical models are utilized to separate the effects of race, gender, and other socioeconomic variables on hunting and fishing participation. The implemented models remove the confounding effects of the correlation between race or gender and various socio-demographic characteristics to determine each characteristic’s individual contribution to the probability of participating in hunting or fishing.13 Hunting and fishing are each addressed in separate empirical models. The data are from the 2001 FHWAR screener survey and the 2001 FHWAR sportsmen survey. For the hunting model, the dependent variable is equal to one if the respondent hunted in 2001 or is equal to zero if the respondent did not hunt in 2001. The model hypothesizes that a person’s decision whether or not to hunt is based on race, ethnicity, gender, urban residency, and other socio-demographic characteristics. The fishing model is constructed identically, with the exception of the dependent variable determining the probability of fishing rather than hunting. Table 5 defines the explanatory variables, which include continuous and binary variables. The frequency distribution by age suggests that middle-aged people are more likely to hunt than younger or older people are. To capture this hypothesized Participation Models for Hunting & Fishing Activities Table 5. Definition of Variables for Probability Models Variable Definition Unit of Measurement PROBHUNT Probability of hunting 1 = if respondent hunts 0 = otherwise PROBFISH Probability of fishing 1 = if respondent fishes 0 = otherwise HISPANIC Ethnicity of individual 1 = if respondent indicated Hispanic ethnicity 0 = otherwise BLACK Race of individual 1 = if respondent indicated race is Black 0 = otherwise GENDER Sex of individual 1 = if respondent is male 0 = if respondent is female METRO Urban residence 1 = if residence is in an urban area 0 = otherwise RETIRED Retirement status 1 = if respondent is retired 0 = otherwise WEST Location of respondent’s residence 1 = if respondent resides in West 0 = otherwise SOUTH Location of respondent’s residence 1 = if respondent resides in South 0 = otherwise MID Location of respondent’s residence 1 = if respondent resides in Midwest 0 = otherwise AGE Age of respondent Years ≥ 16 AGE2 Age of respondent, squared Years ≥ 16 SCHOOL Education level Ordinal number between 1 and 18 (i.e., 1 = kindergarten; 18 = graduate or professional degree) SCHOOL2 Education level, squared Ordinal number between 1 and 36 (i.e., 1 = kindergarten; 36 = graduate or professional degree) INCOME Annual household income Thousands of dollars 13The model is a type of qualitative response model, where the dependent variable has a discrete outcome with a “yes or “no” decision. By using a logit model to estimate the probability of a particular outcome, the unboundedness problem is avoided. Equation 2 shows the model that is estimated. Equation 2 is estimated separately for hunting and fishing. (1) (2) where: Pi = Probability that the ith individual fished/ hunted (i.e., “yes”) Xi = Vector of explanatory variables β = Vector of coefficients to be estimated Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 33 bell shaped distribution, age is represented by two variables: (1) AGE represents the age of the respondent, and (2) AGE2 is AGE squared. Education has a similar distribution. The variable SCHOOL is a continuous variable for the number of years of education completed, and SCHOOL2 is the school variable squared. Hunting Participation Model The hunting participation model is estimated from a sample of 73,453 households in the United States. The results are shown below in Table 6. Standard errors are in parentheses. All variables (except RETIRED) for the hunting participation model were significant at the one percent level. As expected, the variables BLACK, HISPANIC, and GENDER show that African-Americans, Hispanics, and females are less likely to hunt compared to the those people who are not black, Hispanic, or female. The coefficient for GENDER is the largest of the three groups indicating that being a woman more heavily influences whether a person will hunt compared to being Hispanic or African-American. As shown by the results for the INCOME variable, income has only a marginal impact on whether a person will choose to hunt. Although this result is consistent with Figure 13, we expected the INCOME coefficient to have a larger magnitude. The insignificance of the Retired variable indicates that retired people were not more or less likely to hunt than non-retired people. A person’s residence in a particular region of the U.S. affects whether a person will choose to hunt. The positive significant signs for SOUTH and MID reveal that people who live in the South or Midwest are more likely to hunt than people who live in the Northeast. Conversely, the negative significant sign for WEST implies that people living in the West are less likely to hunt than people living in the Northeast. The age and education variables indicate that participation increased with age and education up to a point (reflected by the positive sign for AGE and SCHOOL) and then decreased (reflected by the negative sign on the squared variables: AGE2 and SCHOOL2). In summary, the hunting participation model finds that a person who is African- American, Hispanic or female is less likely to hunt based on these classifications alone. Other factors that contribute to whether or not someone hunts are residency, age, education, and income. Table 6. Results: Hunting Participation Variable Hunting Participation Model Coefficient Marginal Effect* INTERCEPT ���6.1906 (0.0062) –– HISPANIC –1.1732 (0.0021) –0.0086 (0.0005) BLACK –1.4733 (0.0024) –0.0122 (0.0006) GENDER 2.4622 (0.0012) 0.2444 (0.0010) METRO –1.1798 (0.0008) –0.0479 (0.0005) RETIRED 0.0442 (0.0017) 0.00002 (0.0001) WEST –0.1725 (0.0013) –0.0004 (0.0001) SOUTH 0.1582 (0.0011) 0.0006 (9.96*10–5) MID 0.4566 (0.0011) 0.0031 (0.0002) AGE 0.0748 (0.0001) 0.0056 (2.80*10–5) AGE2 –0.00099 (1.604*10–6) –0.0001 (3.77*10–7) SCHOOL 0.2384 (0.0008) 0.0179 (4.81*10–5) SCHOOL2 –0.0112 (0.00003) –0.0008 (2.66*10–6) INCOME 0.00209 (0.00001) 0.0002 (1.19*10–6) *Note: The logit model in Equation 2 is solved using a maximum likelihood estimator (MLE), where the estimated coefficients are the impact on the log of the ratio for the decision to hunt to the decision not to hunt. To simplify the understanding of each variable’s impact, marginal effects are included with the MLE results as well. 34 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers Fishing Participation Model The model below was estimated from a sample of 73,453 households in the United States. All variables were significant at the 1 percent level. Standard errors are in parentheses. Consistent with the results for the hunting participation model, the variables BLACK, HISPANIC, and GENDER show that African-Americans, Hispanics, and females are less likely to fish compared to the those people who are not black, Hispanic, or female. Once again, the coefficient for GENDER is the largest of the three groups indicating that being a woman more heavily influences whether a person will fish compared to being Hispanic or African- American. However, the magnitude of the GENDER coefficient is much smaller than in the hunting participation model. The positive signs for WEST, SOUTH, and MIDWEST reveal that people who live in these regions are more likely to fish than people who live in the Northeast (the omitted variable). This variable is strongest for those living in the South or Midwest. The positive sign for AGE and the negative sign for AGE2 demonstrates that the likelihood of fishing increases with age up to a certain point and then decreases. This result reaffirms the finding for all anglers in Figure 40. Education behaves in the same manner as age; participation increases with education and then decreases after a certain point. This is different from the finding in Figure 41, which does not show any particular pattern for fishing participation associated with educational attainment. The METRO variable reveals that people living in urban areas are less likely to fish than people living in rural areas. This result is consistent with Figure 43, which illustrated that 9 percent of anglers are urban residents while 22 percent of anglers are rural residents. The marginal effect of living in a urban residence has a larger impact than being African- American or Hispanic on whether or not a person decides to fish. In summary, African-Americans, Hispanics, and females are less likely to fish regardless of their age, income, education or income levels. Retired people, residents of the South and people with higher incomes are more likely to fish. Education and age are also important predictors of whether or not someone fishes. Table 7. Results: Fishing Participation Variable Fishing Participation Model Coefficient Marginal Effect INTERCEPT –4.7376 (0.0039) –– HISPANIC –0.9888 (0.0011) –0.0057 (.0004) BLACK –0.8855 (0.0011) –0.0042 (0.0004) GENDER 1.2711 (0.0005) 0.0547 (0.0005) METRO –0.6054 (0.0005) –0.0135 (0.0002) RETIRED 0.2748 (0.0011) 0.0008 (0.0001) WEST 0.1955 (0.0008) 0.0005 (0.0001) SOUTH 0.4479 (0.0008) 0.0044 (0.0002) MID 0.5449 (0.0008) 0.0041 (0.0002) AGE 0.0753 (0.0001) 0.0051 (0.00003) AGE2 –0.0010 (1.016*10–6) –0.0001 (3.50*10–7) SCHOOL 0.1839 (0.0005) 0.0125 (0.00003) SCHOOL2 –0.0082 (0.00002) –0.0006 (1.60*10–6) INCOME 0.0042 (7.604*10–6) 0.0003 (1.69*10–6) Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 35 This report has presented detailed information on the participation and expenditure patterns of African- American, Hispanic, and female hunters and anglers. This information includes participation rates, participation levels (days and trips), expenditures, usage of public and private land, types of hunting and fishing, and species pursued. Comparisons of this information among the different populations for hunters and anglers reveal that these populations are unique in many respects. Also presented are models that predict the likelihood of participation in hunting and fishing. The models explain that regardless of socio-demographics, African-Americans, Hispanics, and females are less likely to hunt and fish than the general population. The data can be used in several ways to improve hunting and fishing experiences of these low participation groups. One way might be to shape hunting and fishing conservation and safety programs for specific groups. Data on participation rates, participation levels, and expenditures can help pinpoint certain groups of people more likely to participate. For instance, the data show that females living in rural areas are more likely to hunt than females living in urban areas. Furthermore, females living in rural areas take more hunting trips and hunt more days, on average, than females living in urban areas. Hunting conservation and safety programs designed toward these demographics could be both well received and cost effective. Hunting and fishing experiences might be improved through efficient allocation of resources. Data provided on the use of private and public land, types of hunting and fishing, and species sought combined with other data on participation might help resource managers make informed decisions. For example, the report shows that many hunters hunt predominately on private land. To avoid overcrowding and over-hunting, resource managers could examine the reasons why private land is preferred over public land for hunting and increase efforts to make public land more favorable. Information about types of hunting and fishing and species sought could be used in a similar manner. Another use of the data is directing information toward the appropriate user groups. For instance, the report shows that a large proportion of Hispanic anglers reside and trout fish in the West. Changes in trout fishing regulations or trout fish advisories in the West could have a large impact on this group. Wildlife professionals could target information to this group in Spanish and English and choose the best medium (e.g., newspaper, magazines, television, posters) to disseminate the information. Expenditure information can provide the hunting and fishing industry with a better understanding of their customers. Demographic profiles of trip and equipment expenditures can be used to better serve customers and for marketing purposes. A key finding is that Hispanic anglers spend more on average on trips and equipment than many other groups. Furthermore, the number of Hispanic anglers and their spending has increased significantly over the last decade. Above are just a few ways the report’s information can be used. Wildlife professionals can use this information in any number of ways to arrive at a better understanding of groups who do not hunt or fish as much as the rest of the population. Summary Photodisc 36 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers Sample sizes for hunters and anglers are presented in Tables A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4. For the statistical analysis, small sample sizes are considered to be between 10 and 29 observations. Samples sizes with less than ten were considered too small to report data reliably. These assumptions are consistent with the “2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.” Appendix A: Sample Sizes Mike Hemming/USFWS Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 37 Table A-1. Sample Sizes for Hunters All Hunters African American Hunters Hispanic Hunters Female Hunters Category Days Trips Trip Expend. Equip Expend. Days Trips Trip Expend. Equip Expend. Days Trips Trip Expend. Equip Expend. Days Trips Trip Expend. Equip Expend. Age 16–24 824 822 822 827 12 12 12 12 25 25 25 25 89 88 86 89 25–34 1,043 1,041 1,043 1,052 19 19 20 20 32 32 32 32 121 120 122 123 35–44 1,472 1,469 1,471 1,485 18 18 18 18 40 40 40 40 139 137 136 141 45–54 1,261 1,258 1,255 1,267 28 28 28 28 35 35 35 35 116 115 115 117 55+ 1,082 1,082 1,080 1,088 28 28 28 29 17 17 17 17 77 77 77 78 Education < High School 753 751 753 759 26 26 26 27 24 24 24 24 55 54 54 57 H.S. Graduate 2,190 2,187 2,187 2,204 42 42 43 43 68 68 68 68 221 218 219 224 Some College 1,513 1,510 1,504 1,523 26 26 26 26 34 34 34 34 172 171 169 172 College Graduate + 1,226 1,224 1,227 1,233 11 11 11 11 23 23 23 23 94 94 94 95 Income < $20,000 1,555 1,550 1,550 1,582 40 40 41 42 41 41 41 41 172 170 170 178 $20–29,999 611 611 611 614 24 24 24 24 12 12 12 12 72 71 71 72 $30–49,999 1,333 1,329 1,330 1,336 20 20 20 20 45 45 45 45 117 115 115 117 $50,000+ 2,183 2,182 2,180 2,187 21 21 21 21 51 51 51 51 181 181 180 181 Region Midwest 1,663 1,661 1,657 1,675 10 10 10 10 16 16 16 16 145 143 142 145 Northeast 766 765 765 770 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 56 56 57 58 South 1,873 1,870 1,871 1,884 83 83 84 85 33 33 33 33 169 167 166 171 West 1,380 1,376 1,378 1,390 8 8 8 8 95 95 95 95 172 171 171 174 38 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers Table A-2. Sample Sizes for Hunters continued Category All Hunters African American Hunters Hispanic Hunters Female Hunters Type of Hunting Big Game 457 69 130 459 Small Game 2,468 77 48 155 Migratory Birds 1,281 12 39 60 Other Animals 498 11 10 25 Type of Game Deer 4,325 69 106 393 Wild Turkey 944 9 13 63 Squirrel 820 40 11 46 Rabbit 860 55 16 55 Region Midwest 1,675 10 16 145 Northeast 770 4 5 58 South 1,884 85 33 171 West 1,390 8 95 174 Type of Land Private Land 4,461 86 76 397 Public Land 2,887 41 106 223 Residence Urban 2,493 46 99 199 Rural 3,226 61 50 349 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 39 Table A-3. Sample Sizes for Anglers All Anglers African American Anglers Hispanic Anglers Female Anglers Category Days Trips Trip Expend. Equip Expend. Days Trips Trip Expend. Equip Expend. Days Trips Trip Expend. Equip Expend. Days Trips Trip Expend. Equip Expend. Age 16–24 1,687 1,659 1,654 1,698 64 63 63 64 89 88 88 89 417 411 409 423 25–34 2,463 2,401 2,399 2,482 93 90 91 96 124 121 120 125 700 675 676 710 35–44 3,493 3,410 3,410 3,524 118 111 111 120 131 126 127 133 958 928 925 968 45–54 2,752 2,688 2,676 2,775 122 118 118 123 70 70 69 71 689 670 665 697 55+ 2,788 2,713 2,712 2,817 130 124 128 136 49 46 47 49 617 598 595 626 Education < High School 1,610 1,580 1,580 1,621 131 129 130 133 104 100 99 104 355 351 349 359 H.S. Graduate 4,560 4,442 4,433 4,610 192 185 187 198 168 167 167 170 1,191 1,150 1,146 1,208 Some College 3,547 3,454 3,443 3,571 136 127 128 138 113 108 108 114 976 947 944 990 College Graduate + 3,466 3,395 3,395 3,494 68 65 66 70 78 76 77 79 859 834 831 867 Income < $20,000 3,845 3,724 3,722 3,914 242 233 237 252 149 145 146 153 1,112 1,080 1,077 1,137 $20–29,999 1,376 1,349 1,346 1,386 78 74 74 80 67 65 64 67 362 353 351 365 $30–49,999 2,812 2,762 2,757 2,823 100 96 97 100 112 110 110 112 715 695 692 720 $50,000+ 5,150 5,036 5,026 5,173 107 103 103 107 135 131 131 135 1,192 1,154 1,150 1,202 Region Midwest 3,378 3,264 3,271 3,413 70 66 69 72 47 47 48 49 935 900 902 950 Northeast 2,035 1,963 1,955 2,058 41 36 38 46 44 42 42 45 402 380 377 409 South 4,330 4,248 4,239 4,364 375 363 363 380 106 102 102 106 1,128 1,105 1,100 1,143 West 3,440 3,396 3,386 3,461 41 41 41 41 266 260 259 267 916 897 891 922 40 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers Table A-3. Sample Sizes for Anglers continued Category All Anglers African American Anglers Hispanic Anglers Female Anglers Type of Fishing Freshwater (excludes Great Lakes) 11,161 425 361 2,833 Saltwater 3,412 168 165 776 Great Lakes 451 30 8 75 Type of Freshwater Species Black Bass 3,898 153 91 749 Panfish 2,844 174 45 753 Trout 3,748 46 173 817 Catfish 2,656 213 104 651 Type of Saltwater Species Flatfish 871 41 27 193 Striped Bass 779 29 19 101 Sea Trout 407 28 12 71 Blue Fish 535 16 19 69 Region Midwest 3,413 72 49 950 Northeast 2,058 46 45 409 South 4,364 380 106 1,143 West 3,461 41 267 922 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Division of Federal Aid Washington, DC 20240 http://federalaid.fws.gov May 2004 Cover: Photodisc |
| Tag | Library-Source-pubs |
| Date created | 2012-08-08 |
|
|