Hunting 1991-2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species Addendum to the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife- Associated Recreation Report 2006-8

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991-2006:
A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
Addendum to the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Report 2006-8U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
December 2010
Richard Aiken
703-358-1839
This report is intended to complement the National and State Reports for the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.
The conclusions are the author’s and do not represent official positions of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The author wishes to thank Sylvia Cabrera and Anna Harris for providing
helpful advise on different aspects of this report.
Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991-2006:
A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
Addendum to the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Report 2006-82 Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
Contents
Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006:
A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species ........................................3
National Hunting and Fishing Trends 1991–2006 ...................................3
National Hunting and Fishing Trends by Species 1991–2006 ........................4
National and State Trends by Species Sought ......................................5
Fishing ..........................................................................5
Hunting ........................................................................13
Fishing days ....................................................................22
Hunting days ...................................................................26
Fishing Expenditures ...........................................................29
Hunting Expenditures ...........................................................33
State Participation Trends .......................................................36
Hunting Participation Rates .....................................................36
Fishing Participation Rates ......................................................48
Demographic Trends ............................................................60
Fishing .........................................................................60
Hunting ........................................................................63
Crossover Activity of Hunters and Anglers .......................................66
Conclusion ......................................................................67Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species 3
Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991-2006:
A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
Figure 1. Anglers a The National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, nd Hunters: 1955–2006
and Wildlife-Associated Recreation dates
back to 1955, and has been repeated
at five-year intervals since. The first
four Surveys collected only national
fishing and hunting data. Beginning in
1975 state-level data was acquired, and
beginning in 1980 wildlife watching was
added.
This report is concerned only with fishing
and hunting trends. Figure 1 shows the
trends of the general population, anglers,
and hunters since 1955, indexed with
1955=100.
Fishing participation increased faster
than the general population, and hunting
kept pace with the general population,
until 1991. Since 1991 both have had a
downward trend. This report looks closer
at data from the 1991–2006 Surveys,
to get a clearer picture of why this
downturn is happening.
National Hunting and Fishing Trends
1991–2006
Fishing and hunting both have
experienced declines since 1991.
From the perspective of a percentage
of the total population, the decline in
hunting and fishing is more pronounced.
Table 2 details the drop in participation
rates of fishing from 21.0% in 1991 to
13.1% in 2006. Participation rates for
hunting fell from 7.4% to 5.5%.
Table 1. Hunters and Anglers 16 years and older: 1991–2006
(numbers in thousands)
Year Population Anglers Hunters
2006 229,245 29,952 12,510
2001 212,298 34,071 13,034
1996 201,472 35,246 13,975
1991 189,966 35,578 14,063
Table 2. Participation Rates 16 years and older: 1991–2006
Year Anglers Hunters
2006 13.1% 5.5%
2001 16.0% 6.1%
1996 17.5% 6.9%
1991 21.0% 7.4%
Note: Participation rates are percents of the population that fished or hunted.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1991 1996 2001 2006
Index 1955=100
Population Hunters Anglers
4 Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
National Hunting and Fishing Trends by Species 1991–2006
The National Survey disaggregates hunting into four types: big game, small game, migratory bird, and other animals. Similarly, fishing is categorized as Great Lakes, other freshwater, and saltwater. This report takes the disaggregation further and presents the trend in selected species of game and fish. This will enable us to narrow the focus as we look at the past and future of our hunting and fishing traditions.
The National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation tracks hunting and fishing for selected species. For fishing, the list is as follows:
Great Lakes fishing
■■black bass
■■walleye, sauger
■■northern pike, pickerel, muskie, and muskie hybrids
■■perch
■■salmon
■■steelhead
■■lake trout
■■other trout
■■other
■■anything
Other freshwater fishing
■■black bass
■■white bass, striped bass, and striped bass hybrids
■■panfish
■■crappie
■■catfish and bullheads
■■walleye
■■sauger
■■northern pike, pickerel, muskie, and muskie hybrids
■■trout
■■salmon
■■steelhead
■■other
■■anything
Saltwater fishing
■■salmon
■■striped bass
■■flatfish (flounder, halibut)
■■bluefish
■■red drum (redfish)
■■sea trout (weakfish)
■■mackerel
■■shellfish
■■other
■■anything
For hunting:
Big game hunting
■■deer
■■elk
■■bear
■■turkey
■■other
Small game hunting
■■rabbit, hare
■■quail
■■grouse/prairie chicken
■■squirrel
■■pheasant
■■other
Migratory bird hunting
��■geese
■■duck
■■dove
■■other
Other animals, such as fox, raccoon, and groundhog
Some of the most popular species were chosen for this report. “Anything” means the angler was not fishing for any particular species, but for anything that he/she could catch. In this report “freshwater anything anglers” means people who were freshwater fishing for anything. “Saltwater anything anglers” means people who were saltwater fishing for anything. Trend data for all species mentioned above are available. Contact the author for further information.Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species 5
National and State Trends by Species Sought
While the 1991–2006 trend is the
primary area of interest, the 2001–2006
comparison is also presented because it
is a measure of the most recent activity
trend available.
Fishing
In aggregate, freshwater fishing
participation decreased significantly1
from 1991 to 2006. Looking at the species
trends, black bass, trout, catfish, and
freshwater anything all had significant
decreases both for the 1991–2006 and
2001–2006 comparisons. This consistency,
where no species fishing bucked the
overall trend, means than no one
freshwater fishery was responsible for
the downturn and, alternatively, no one
fishery has shown a likelihood for an
upturn.
1 Statistical significance in this report is
determined at the 95 percent level of
significance. For the two survey estimates
being compared, 95% of all possible samples
would have demonstrated a difference for
the two estimates.
Figure 2. Freshwater Fishing Trend
Figure 3. Indexed Freshwater Fishing Trend
1991 1996 2001 2006
Participants (thousands)
Trout anglers Catfish anglers Bass anglers
Freshwater anglers Freshwater anything anglers
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
1991 1996 2001 2006
Index of participation
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Trout anglers Catfish anglers Bass anglers
Freshwater anglers Freshwater anything anglers
6 Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
Table 3. Trend in the Number of Black Bass Anglers, by State of Activity: 1991–2006
(in 000’s)
1991
1996
2001
2006
2006–1991 Ratio
2006–2001 Ratio
U.S. Total
13,139
12,972
10,956
10,181
0.8
0.9
Alabama
451
455
383
399
0.9
1.0
Alaska
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Arizona
180
247
148
152
0.8
1.0
Arkansas
398
335
317
260
0.7
0.8
California
499
653
495
351
0.7
0.7
Colorado
77
84
71
92
1.2
1.3
Connecticut
128
131
112
80
0.6
0.7
Delaware
25
43
28
28
1.1
1.0
Florida
823
663
647
822
1.0
1.3
Georgia
509
496
389
512
1.0
1.3
Hawaii
12
7
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Idaho
42
73
53
54
1.3
1.0
Illinois
494
620
390
378
0.8
1.0
Indiana
455
507
361
324
0.7
0.9
Iowa
223
218
192
176
0.8
0.9
Kansas
202
188
170
204
1.0
1.2
Kentucky
413
405
339
344
0.8
1.0
Louisiana
408
409
272
187
0.5
0.7
Maine
118
117
107
129
1.1
1.2
Maryland
238
146
155
160
0.7
1.0
Massachusetts
208
228
155
168
0.8
1.1
Michigan
653
568
429
531
0.8
1.2
Minnesota
325
428
345
351
1.1
1.0
Mississippi
263
246
239
214
0.8
0.9
Missouri
650
621
574
376
0.6
0.7
Montana
27
…
22
22
0.8
1.0
Nebraska
96
91
108
66
0.7
0.6
Nevada
48
52
37
30
0.6
0.8
New Hampshire
126
114
97
105
0.8
1.1
New Jersey
185
240
171
138
0.7
0.8
New Mexico
53
73
47
56
1.1
1.2
New York
582
668
507
389
0.7
0.8
North Carolina
548
495
375
348
0.6
0.9
North Dakota
7
6
6
…
N.A.
N.A.
Ohio
632
541
553
457
0.7
0.8
Oklahoma
488
325
381
301
0.6
0.8
Oregon
87
73
63
70
0.8
1.1
Pennsylvania
644
595
559
443
0.7
0.8
Rhode Island
38
49
23
28
0.7
1.2
South Carolina
326
407
285
248
0.8
0.9
South Dakota
26
49
22
17
0.7
0.8
Tennessee
477
399
460
368
0.8
0.8
Texas
1088
1315
892
852
0.8
1.0
Utah
53
46
68
60
1.1
0.9
Vermont
52
66
41
46
0.9
1.1
Virginia
420
446
390
299
0.7
0.8
Washington
122
150
102
75
0.6
0.7
West Virginia
180
151
143
156
0.9
1.1
Wisconsin
495
387
501
420
0.8
0.8
Wyoming
7
…
…
8
1.1
N.A.
N.A. Not available … Sample size too small to report data reliably.
The ratios are calculated by dividing the later year’s estimate by the earlier year’s estimate. The ratio is useful in comparing trends across states.Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species 7
Table 4. Trend in the Number of Trout Anglers, by State of Activity: 1991–2006
(in 000’s)
1991
1996
2001
2006
2006–1991 Ratio
2006–2001 Ratio
U.S. Total
9,497
9,290
8,118
7,022
0.7
0.9
Alabama
30
30
19
…
N.A.
N.A.
Alaska
108
111
83
66
0.6
0.8
Arizona
228
218
219
209
0.9
1.0
Arkansas
108
152
131
143
1.3
1.1
California
1628
1526
1174
871
0.5
0.7
Colorado
706
699
806
608
0.9
0.8
Connecticut
175
168
118
130
0.7
1.1
Delaware
12
9
11
14
1.2
1.3
Florida
46
…
90
70
1.5
0.8
Georgia
108
160
108
140
1.3
1.3
Hawaii
8
7
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Idaho
319
409
332
258
0.8
0.8
Illinois
118
178
90
38
0.3
0.4
Indiana
48
43
34
26
0.5
0.8
Iowa
26
48
48
34
1.3
0.7
Kansas
16
…
18
18
1.1
1.0
Kentucky
39
39
41
38
1.0
0.9
Louisiana
48
39
37
72
1.5
1.9
Maine
275
185
163
179
0.7
1.1
Maryland
87
89
101
77
0.9
0.8
Massachusetts
201
179
133
156
0.8
1.2
Michigan
305
288
239
249
0.8
1.0
Minnesota
89
88
78
49
0.6
0.6
Mississippi
14
…
23
…
N.A.
N.A.
Missouri
236
255
195
156
0.7
0.8
Montana
285
266
293
236
0.8
0.8
Nebraska
33
27
25
22
0.7
0.9
Nevada
89
159
111
106
1.2
1.0
New Hampshire
171
131
121
89
0.5
0.7
New Jersey
213
195
140
77
0.4
0.6
New Mexico
213
237
210
184
0.9
0.9
New York
748
560
436
454
0.6
1.0
North Carolina
183
197
173
257
1.4
1.5
North Dakota
4
6
6
…
N.A.
N.A.
Ohio
132
74
101
74
0.6
0.7
Oklahoma
39
…
59
…
N.A.
N.A.
Oregon
428
395
417
320
0.7
0.8
Pennsylvania
879
750
653
613
0.7
0.9
Rhode Island
38
39
22
14
0.4
0.6
South Carolina
46
38
49
21
0.5
0.4
South Dakota
30
42
16
18
0.6
1.1
Tennessee
148
120
137
95
0.6
0.7
Texas
97
141
140
160
1.6
1.1
Utah
263
341
431
328
1.2
0.8
Vermont
116
107
100
60
0.5
0.6
Virginia
177
239
116
138
0.8
1.2
Washington
533
628
436
337
0.6
0.8
West Virginia
143
174
112
177
1.2
1.6
Wisconsin
220
139
200
192
0.9
1.0
Wyoming
268
357
256
179
0.7
0.7
N.A. Not available … Sample size too small to report data reliably.
The ratios are calculated by dividing the later year’s estimate by the earlier year’s estimate. The ratio is useful in comparing trends across states.8 Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
Table 5. Trend in the Number of Catfish Anglers, by State of Activity: 1991–2006
(in 000’s)
1991
1996
2001
2006
2006–1991 Ratio
2006–2001 Ratio
U.S. Total
9,195
7,430
7,517
6,954
0.8
0.9
Alabama
334
331
230
245
0.7
1.1
Alaska
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Arizona
221
128
105
119
0.5
1.1
Arkansas
295
274
340
235
0.8
0.7
California
502
441
403
180
0.4
0.4
Colorado
37
48
68
35
0.9
0.5
Connecticut
37
36
13
…
N.A.
N.A.
Delaware
12
9
6
13
1.1
2.2
Florida
304
223
299
389
1.3
1.3
Georgia
352
248
467
395
1.1
0.8
Hawaii
6
6
…
6
1.0
N.A.
Idaho
28
40
32
25
0.9
0.8
Illinois
616
430
421
335
0.5
0.8
Indiana
333
303
277
223
0.7
0.8
Iowa
301
242
196
214
0.7
1.1
Kansas
216
166
216
216
1.0
1.0
Kentucky
310
251
305
275
0.9
0.9
Louisiana
338
288
246
207
0.6
0.8
Maine
10
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Maryland
131
77
64
74
0.6
1.2
Massachusetts
51
24
27
27
0.5
1.0
Michigan
134
…
…
64
0.5
N.A.
Minnesota
60
33
38
71
1.2
1.9
Mississippi
276
194
277
215
0.8
0.8
Missouri
540
411
467
448
0.8
1.0
Montana
6
…
12
…
N.A.
N.A.
Nebraska
135
80
107
69
0.5
0.6
Nevada
23
23
28
23
1.0
0.8
New Hampshire
24
11
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
New Jersey
73
48
35
44
0.6
1.3
New Mexico
48
72
60
59
1.2
1.0
New York
183
128
82
72
0.4
0.9
North Carolina
308
269
275
294
1.0
1.1
North Dakota
7
9
8
…
N.A.
N.A.
Ohio
416
248
342
288
0.7
0.8
Oklahoma
418
510
321
264
0.6
0.8
Oregon
43
…
35
30
0.7
0.9
Pennsylvania
255
156
165
143
0.6
0.9
Rhode Island
4
4
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
South Carolina
238
210
273
226
0.9
0.8
South Dakota
37
32
25
19
0.5
0.8
Tennessee
387
223
261
298
0.8
1.1
Texas
1149
1136
974
1035
0.9
1.1
Utah
44
32
48
54
1.2
1.1
Vermont
18
7
10
…
N.A.
N.A.
Virginia
225
181
185
153
0.7
0.8
Washington
42
…
…
23
0.5
N.A.
West Virginia
116
87
89
108
0.9
1.2
Wisconsin
137
82
54
46
0.3
0.9
Wyoming
13
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A. Not available … Sample size too small to report data reliably.
The ratios are calculated by dividing the later year’s estimate by the earlier year’s estimate. The ratio is useful in comparing trends across states.Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species 9
Table 6. Trend in Number of Freshwater Anything Anglers, by State of Activity: 1991–2006
(in 000’s)
1991
1996
2001
2006
2006–1991 Ratio
2006–2001 Ratio
U.S. Total
5,285
4,475
4,872
4,120
0.8
0.8
Alabama
107
128
141
115
1.1
0.8
Alaska
26
19
12
…
N.A.
N.A.
Arizona
65
70
85
59
0.9
0.7
Arkansas
109
68
123
117
1.1
1.0
California
144
220
192
87
0.6
0.5
Colorado
50
56
113
23
0.5
0.2
Connecticut
24
85
55
32
1.3
0.6
Delaware
7
16
24
14
2.0
0.6
Florida
300
203
480
268
0.9
0.6
Georgia
255
175
209
202
0.8
1.0
Hawaii
9
…
5
…
N.A.
N.A.
Idaho
17
…
…
30
1.8
N.A.
Illinois
283
231
262
138
0.5
0.5
Indiana
186
120
101
106
0.6
1.0
Iowa
116
55
96
52
0.4
0.5
Kansas
66
36
57
45
0.7
0.8
Kentucky
140
198
124
116
0.8
0.9
Louisiana
100
137
89
67
0.7
0.8
Maine
40
50
40
46
1.2
1.2
Maryland
64
62
99
70
1.1
0.7
Massachusetts
67
79
80
52
0.8
0.7
Michigan
243
225
181
209
0.9
1.2
Minnesota
147
153
90
149
1.0
1.7
Mississippi
114
70
99
74
0.6
0.7
Missouri
224
101
127
160
0.7
1.3
Montana
28
36
55
13
0.5
0.2
Nebraska
40
21
65
52
1.3
0.8
Nevada
…
…
…
11
N.A.
N.A.
New Hampshire
34
43
48
25
0.7
0.5
New Jersey
77
58
81
44
0.6
0.5
New Mexico
16
24
25
14
0.9
0.6
New York
312
257
171
132
0.4
0.8
North Carolina
200
153
154
167
0.8
1.1
North Dakota
15
6
23
9
0.6
0.4
Ohio
379
165
206
290
0.8
1.4
Oklahoma
118
142
254
118
1.0
0.5
Oregon
21
…
44
43
2.0
1.0
Pennsylvania
257
280
231
67
0.3
0.3
Rhode Island
9
7
15
11
1.2
0.7
South Carolina
78
111
129
122
1.6
0.9
South Dakota
28
9
20
17
0.6
0.9
Tennessee
201
98
120
227
1.1
1.9
Texas
318
322
258
285
0.9
1.1
Utah
18
22
28
21
1.2
0.8
Vermont
27
23
40
17
0.6
0.4
Virginia
172
157
128
163
0.9
1.3
Washington
59
…
42
29
0.5
0.7
West Virginia
56
46
60
72
1.3
1.2
Wisconsin
213
180
129
166
0.8
1.3
Wyoming
25
11
…
17
0.7
N.A.
N.A. Not available … Sample size too small to report data reliably.
The ratios are calculated by dividing the later year’s estimate by the earlier year’s estimate. The ratio is useful in comparing trends across states.10 Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
In aggregate, saltwater fishing participation also significantly decreased from 1991 to 2006. At the species level there was a difference. Flatfishing participation did not decrease significantly either from 1991 to 2006 or 2001 to 2006. Fishing for saltwater anything decreased significantly. Looking at all saltwater species fishing, bluefish and mackerel fishing has gone way down, contributing significantly to the overall downward trend.
Figure 4. Saltwater Fishing Trend
Figure 5. Indexed Saltwater Fishing Trend
1991199620012006Participants (thousands)Flatfish anglersSaltwater anglersSaltwater anything anglers010,0001,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,0001991199620012006Index of participation020406080100120Flatfish anglersSaltwater anglersSaltwater anything anglersTrends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species 11
Table 7. Trend in Number of Saltwater Anything Anglers, by State of Activity: 1991–2006
(in 000’s)
1991
1996
2001
2006
2006–1991 Ratio
2006–2001 Ratio
U.S. Total
2,831
2,964
3,110
2,424
0.9
0.8
Alabama
69
81
89
61
0.9
0.7
Alaska
25
6
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
California
343
346
314
245
0.7
0.8
Connecticut
17
39
47
22
1.3
0.5
Delaware
39
18
30
45
1.2
1.5
Florida
973
1086
1278
920
0.9
0.7
Georgia
27
51
35
71
2.6
2.0
Hawaii
110
92
68
53
0.5
0.8
Louisiana
74
93
143
65
0.9
0.5
Maine
28
…
15
20
0.7
1.3
Maryland
98
96
134
102
1.0
0.8
Massachusetts
65
75
59
57
0.9
1.0
Mississippi
53
39
45
35
0.7
0.8
New Hampshire
…
…
…
13
N.A.
N.A.
New Jersey
86
123
150
99
1.2
0.7
New York
…
77
72
46
N.A.
0.6
North Carolina
224
286
260
187
0.8
0.7
Oregon
22
…
25
…
N.A.
N.A.
Rhode Island
23
8
25
24
1.0
1.0
South Carolina
110
132
146
134
1.2
0.9
Texas
308
261
148
204
0.7
1.4
Virginia
110
107
117
140
1.3
1.2
Washington
53
49
28
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A. Not available … Sample size too small to report data reliably.
The ratios are calculated by dividing the later year’s estimate by the earlier year’s estimate. The ratio is useful in comparing trends across states.12 Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
Table 8. Trend in Number of Flatfish Anglers, by State of Activity: 1991–2006
(in 000’s)
1991
1996
2001
2006
2006–1991 Ratio
2006–2001 Ratio
U.S. Total
2,302
2,626
2,269
2,069
0.9
0.9
Alabama
33
27
29
47
1.4
1.6
Alaska
109
143
159
113
1.0
0.7
California
176
214
191
202
1.1
1.1
Connecticut
38
51
42
35
0.9
0.8
Delaware
49
77
56
67
1.4
1.2
Florida
266
307
322
232
0.9
0.7
Georgia
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Hawaii
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Louisiana
71
56
62
61
0.9
1.0
Maine
…
10
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Maryland
95
132
84
97
1.0
1.2
Massachusetts
81
74
71
68
0.8
1.0
Mississippi
35
40
18
…
N.A.
N.A.
New Hampshire
18
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
New Jersey
382
444
285
288
0.8
1.0
New York
214
209
206
110
0.5
0.5
North Carolina
208
291
190
140
0.7
0.7
Oregon
14
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Rhode Island
34
20
39
34
1.0
0.9
South Carolina
73
95
90
59
0.8
0.7
Texas
333
385
300
463
1.4
1.5
Virginia
92
143
152
94
1.0
0.6
Washington
60
…
26
…
N.A.
N.A.
Note: the 1991–2006 and 2001–2006 U.S. totals are not statistically significantly different.
N.A. Not available … Sample size too small to report data reliably.
The ratios are calculated by dividing the later year’s estimate by the earlier year’s estimate. The ratio is useful in comparing trends across states.Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species 13
Hunting
Big game hunting as a single category had no significant differences in participation from 1991 to 2006 or 2001 to 2006. The same is true with deer hunting. Turkey hunting underwent a significant increase 1991–2006 and had no significant difference 2001–2006. Deer hunting (the major component of big game hunting) had the same stable trend as overall big game hunting.
Figure 6. Big Game Hunting Trend
Figure 7. Indexed Big Game Hunting Trend
1991199620012006Participants (thousands)02,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00014,00016,000Deer huntersBig game huntersTurkey hunters1991199620012006Index of participation020406080100120140160Deer huntersBig game huntersTurkey hunters14 Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
Table 9. Trend in Number of Deer Hunters, by State of Activity: 1991–2006
(in 000’s)
1991
1996
2001
2006
2006–1991 Ratio
2006–2001 Ratio
U.S. Total
10,277
10,722
10,272
10,062
1.0
1.0
Alabama
249
269
379
334
1.3
0.9
Alaska
9
15
19
17
1.9
0.9
Arizona
90
74
63
76
0.8
1.2
Arkansas
243
296
314
277
1.1
0.9
California
186
239
85
107
0.6
1.3
Colorado
208
243
99
66
0.3
0.7
Connecticut
30
42
27
21
0.7
0.8
Delaware
16
28
11
24
1.5
2.2
Florida
180
130
156
168
0.9
1.1
Georgia
323
322
332
405
1.3
1.2
Hawaii
5
11
7
9
1.8
1.3
Idaho
149
183
125
119
0.8
1.0
Illinois
248
256
238
204
0.8
0.9
Indiana
204
262
215
231
1.1
1.1
Iowa
149
187
133
165
1.1
1.2
Kansas
63
100
140
118
1.9
0.8
Kentucky
205
271
231
238
1.2
1.0
Louisiana
199
228
207
202
1.0
1.0
Maine
154
169
145
160
1.0
1.1
Maryland
97
109
126
125
1.3
1.0
Massachusetts
82
76
56
57
0.7
1.0
Michigan
742
839
667
713
1.0
1.1
Minnesota
335
473
475
415
1.2
0.9
Mississippi
295
345
288
276
0.9
1.0
Missouri
364
416
373
492
1.4
1.3
Montana
178
135
154
162
0.9
1.1
Nebraska
63
74
78
63
1.0
0.8
Nevada
27
28
25
26
1.0
1.0
New Hampshire
60
65
67
52
0.9
0.8
New Jersey
101
75
111
67
0.7
0.6
New Mexico
62
56
75
31
0.5
0.4
New York
651
576
651
506
0.8
0.8
North Carolina
280
259
207
215
0.8
1.0
North Dakota
57
58
74
74
1.3
1.0
Ohio
386
312
417
426
1.1
1.0
Oklahoma
125
224
199
181
1.4
0.9
Oregon
195
221
183
164
0.8
0.9
Pennsylvania
937
810
932
978
1.0
1.0
Rhode Island
15
20
6
11
0.7
1.8
South Carolina
177
228
207
161
0.9
0.8
South Dakota
66
68
68
57
0.9
0.8
Tennessee
220
266
228
242
1.1
1.1
Texas
722
752
860
814
1.1
0.9
Utah
147
109
139
102
0.7
0.7
Vermont
90
89
92
63
0.7
0.7
Virginia
309
326
313
345
1.1
1.1
Washington
177
214
156
150
0.8
1.0
West Virginia
294
343
259
244
0.8
0.9
Wisconsin
665
552
596
620
0.9
1.0
Wyoming
88
62
66
55
0.6
0.8
N.A. Not available … Sample size too small to report data reliably.
The ratios are calculated by dividing the later year’s estimate by the earlier year’s estimate. The ratio is useful in comparing trends across states.Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species 15
Table 10. Trend in Number of Turkey Hunters, by State of Activity: 1991–2006
(in 000’s)
1991
1996
2001
2006
2006–1991 Ratio
2006–2001 Ratio
U.S. Total
1,720
2,189
2,504
2,569
1.5
1.0
Alabama
64
59
80
98
1.5
1.2
Alaska
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Arizona
9
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Arkansas
37
76
106
86
2.3
0.8
California
…
…
…
51
N.A.
N.A.
Colorado
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Connecticut
…
10
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Delaware
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Florida
39
…
96
82
2.1
0.9
Georgia
49
61
83
79
1.6
1.0
Hawaii
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Idaho
…
…
13
25
N.A.
1.9
Illinois
23
…
…
61
2.7
N.A.
Indiana
19
…
37
35
1.8
0.9
Iowa
22
51
25
51
2.3
2.0
Kansas
18
31
58
51
2.8
0.9
Kentucky
17
73
105
76
4.5
0.7
Louisiana
12
…
31
47
3.9
1.5
Maine
…
…
…
21
N.A.
N.A.
Maryland
23
29
20
25
1.1
1.3
Massachusetts
15
…
…
14
0.9
N.A.
Michigan
36
…
68
81
2.3
1.2
Minnesota
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Mississippi
63
89
95
67
1.1
0.7
Missouri
137
169
165
155
1.1
0.9
Montana
5
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Nebraska
14
8
16
22
1.6
1.4
Nevada
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
New Hampshire
…
…
12
13
N.A.
1.1
New Jersey
…
…
…
27
N.A.
N.A.
New Mexico
11
…
13
23
2.1
1.8
New York
141
215
270
164
1.2
0.6
North Carolina
30
…
53
75
2.5
1.4
North Dakota
…
…
…
7
N.A.
N.A.
Ohio
25
77
92
96
3.8
1.0
Oklahoma
28
57
76
72
2.6
0.9
Oregon
…
…
17
…
N.A.
N.A.
Pennsylvania
346
343
301
369
1.1
1.2
Rhode Island
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
South Carolina
36
53
46
64
1.8
1.4
South Dakota
7
13
10
12
1.7
1.2
Tennessee
34
43
86
120
3.5
1.4
Texas
179
108
128
182
1.0
1.4
Utah
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Vermont
11
8
16
15
1.4
0.9
Virginia
160
151
103
120
0.8
1.2
Washington
…
…
18
…
N.A.
N.A.
West Virginia
98
117
79
73
0.7
0.9
Wisconsin
49
93
119
159
3.2
1.3
Wyoming
4
…
6
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A. Not available … Sample size too small to report data reliably.
The ratios are calculated by dividing the later year’s estimate by the earlier year’s estimate. The ratio is useful in comparing trends across states.16 Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
Small game hunting in aggregate had significant decreases for both 1991–2006 and 2001–2006. Rabbit and squirrel hunting had significant decreases in participation for 1991–2006. In the more recent interval of 2001–2006, squirrel hunting had significant decreases but rabbit hunting did not. Squirrel hunting and, to a lesser extent, rabbit hunting have been the root cause of the downward trend in small game hunting.
Figure 8. Small Game Hunting Trend
Figure 9. Indexed Small Game Hunting Trend
1991199620012006Participants (thousands)0Rabbit huntersSquirrel huntersSmall game hunters1,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,0001991199620012006Index of participation020406080100120Rabbit huntersSquirrel huntersSmall game huntersTrends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species 17
Table 11. Trend in Number of Rabbit Hunters, by State of Activity: 1991–2006
(in 000’s)
1991
1996
2001
2006
2006–1991 Ratio
2006–2001 Ratio
U.S. Total
3,980
3,146
2,099
1,923
0.5
0.9
Alabama
90
27
47
66
0.7
1.4
Alaska
10
11
7
…
N.A.
N.A.
Arizona
25
23
21
18
0.7
0.9
Arkansas
55
80
49
28
0.5
0.6
California
64
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Colorado
34
47
23
…
N.A.
N.A.
Connecticut
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Delaware
8
11
3
5
0.6
1.7
Florida
37
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Georgia
70
…
55
65
0.9
1.2
Hawaii
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Idaho
18
21
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Illinois
159
166
…
55
0.3
N.A.
Indiana
157
123
100
53
0.3
0.5
Iowa
109
114
49
32
0.3
0.7
Kansas
60
56
34
29
0.5
0.9
Kentucky
150
138
97
63
0.4
0.6
Louisiana
138
149
68
86
0.6
1.3
Maine
24
20
17
12
0.5
0.7
Maryland
35
21
26
17
0.5
0.7
Massachusetts
26
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Michigan
321
318
130
131
0.4
1.0
Minnesota
37
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Mississippi
118
132
110
49
0.4
0.4
Missouri
158
175
96
101
0.6
1.1
Montana
13
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Nebraska
31
20
10
11
0.4
1.1
Nevada
12
…
…
7
0.6
N.A.
New Hampshire
14
16
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
New Jersey
54
32
27
…
N.A.
N.A.
New Mexico
19
8
…
12
0.6
N.A.
New York
216
173
160
107
0.5
0.7
North Carolina
107
117
58
52
0.5
0.9
North Dakota
6
…
5
…
N.A.
N.A.
Ohio
373
235
208
127
0.3
0.6
Oklahoma
64
65
51
29
0.5
0.6
Oregon
10
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Pennsylvania
473
241
224
235
0.5
1.0
Rhode Island
5
3
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
South Carolina
40
40
41
30
0.8
0.7
South Dakota
14
13
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Tennessee
124
118
67
66
0.5
1.0
Texas
148
…
…
122
0.8
N.A.
Utah
42
33
27
37
0.9
1.4
Vermont
26
19
14
…
N.A.
N.A.
Virginia
108
57
41
70
0.6
1.7
Washington
16
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
West Virginia
87
45
50
43
0.5
0.9
Wisconsin
155
163
64
67
0.4
1.0
Wyoming
13
8
13
7
0.5
0.5
Note: the 2001–2006 U.S. total difference is not statistically significant.
N.A. Not available … Sample size too small to report data reliably.
The ratios are calculated by dividing the later year’s estimate by the earlier year’s estimate. The ratio is useful in comparing trends across states.18 Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
Table 12. Trend in Number of Squirrel Hunters, by State of Activity: 1991–2006
(in 000’s)
1991
1996
2001
2006
2006–1991 Ratio
2006–2001 Ratio
U.S. Total
3,569
3,207
2,119
1,845
0.5
0.9
Alabama
96
56
60
86
0.9
1.4
Alaska
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Arizona
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Arkansas
117
143
125
92
0.8
0.7
California
62
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Colorado
…
…
…
���
N.A.
N.A.
Connecticut
8
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Delaware
7
13
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Florida
85
…
���
49
0.6
N.A.
Georgia
82
86
80
86
1.0
1.1
Hawaii
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Idaho
13
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Illinois
136
163
…
44
0.3
N.A.
Indiana
140
122
94
55
0.4
0.6
Iowa
76
77
33
23
0.3
0.7
Kansas
31
26
23
…
N.A.
N.A.
Kentucky
167
146
92
72
0.4
0.8
Louisiana
167
191
88
90
0.5
1.0
Maine
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Maryland
46
29
19
28
0.6
1.5
Massachusetts
12
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Michigan
189
224
92
91
0.5
1.0
Minnesota
52
44
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Mississippi
156
146
111
65
0.4
0.6
Missouri
168
193
110
152
0.9
1.4
Montana
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Nebraska
16
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Nevada
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
New Hampshire
8
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
New Jersey
19
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
New Mexico
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
New York
121
129
101
…
N.A.
N.A.
North Carolina
152
166
73
42
0.3
0.6
North Dakota
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Ohio
209
177
171
115
0.6
0.7
Oklahoma
62
73
51
29
0.5
0.6
Oregon
10
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Pennsylvania
365
258
215
203
0.6
0.9
Rhode Island
3
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
South Carolina
49
56
52
23
0.5
0.4
South Dakota
4
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Tennessee
163
135
112
78
0.5
0.7
Texas
156
…
…
66
0.4
N.A.
Utah
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Vermont
8
11
12
…
N.A.
N.A.
Virginia
156
110
88
78
0.5
0.9
Washington
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
West Virginia
162
181
109
114
0.7
1.0
Wisconsin
138
145
62
60
0.4
1.0
Wyoming
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A. Not available … Sample size too small to report data reliably.
The ratios are calculated by dividing the later year’s estimate by the earlier year’s estimate. The ratio is useful in comparing trends across states.Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species 19
As with small game hunting, migratory bird hunting had significant decreases from 1991 to 2006. Duck hunting had no significant difference from 1991 to 2006, although in the most recent time interval, 2001–2006, there was a significant decrease. Conversely, dove hunting had a significant decrease in participation for 1991 to 2006, although no significant difference for 2001 to 2006. Dove and duck hunting combined create the overall downward trend. Dove hunting pulled down migratory bird hunting levels over the longer-term, and duck hunting pulled it down in the most recent time period.
Figure 10. Migratory Bird Hunting Trend
Figure 11. Indexed Migratory Bird Hunting Trend
1991199620012006Participants (thousands)0Duck huntersMigratory bird huntersDove hunters5001,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5001991199620012006Index of participation020406080100120140160Duck huntersMigratory bird huntersDove hunters20 Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
Table 13. Trend in Number of Duck Hunters, by State of Activity: 1991–2006
(in 000’s)
1991
1996
2001
2006
2006–1991 Ratio
2006–2001 Ratio
U.S. Total
1,164
1,596
1,589
1,147
1.0
0.7
Alabama
…
…
27
24
N.A.
0.9
Alaska
12
10
11
…
N.A.
N.A.
Arizona
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Arkansas
46
78
154
100
2.2
0.6
California
97
131
97
61
0.6
0.6
Colorado
28
33
33
…
N.A.
N.A.
Connecticut
5
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Delaware
8
13
…
10
1.3
N.A.
Florida
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Georgia
20
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Hawaii
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Idaho
19
33
28
26
1.4
0.9
Illinois
55
52
39
65
1.2
1.7
Indiana
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Iowa
23
31
45
…
N.A.
N.A.
Kansas
10
…
26
27
2.7
1.0
Kentucky
18
20
23
…
N.A.
N.A.
Louisiana
74
111
127
72
1.0
0.6
Maine
10
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Maryland
14
46
33
39
2.8
1.2
Massachusetts
15
…
…
13
0.9
N.A.
Michigan
45
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Minnesota
66
132
165
49
0.7
0.3
Mississippi
35
59
39
41
1.2
1.1
Missouri
26
…
35
36
1.4
1.0
Montana
17
24
16
13
0.8
0.8
Nebraska
22
27
33
28
1.3
0.8
Nevada
8
9
13
…
N.A.
N.A.
New Hampshire
5
5
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
New Jersey
17
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
New Mexico
6
…
15
…
N.A.
N.A.
New York
36
…
55
…
N.A.
N.A.
North Carolina
25
…
48
…
N.A.
N.A.
North Dakota
18
17
49
20
1.1
0.4
Ohio
29
…
43
…
N.A.
N.A.
Oklahoma
20
…
32
34
1.7
1.1
Oregon
23
52
29
27
1.2
0.9
Pennsylvania
35
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Rhode Island
2
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
South Carolina
25
44
21
32
1.3
1.5
South Dakota
20
30
34
14
0.7
0.4
Tennessee
16
…
54
33
2.1
0.6
Texas
100
101
90
102
1.0
1.1
Utah
9
20
42
20
2.2
0.5
Vermont
4
9
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Virginia
15
…
…
26
1.7
N.A.
Washington
35
53
42
18
0.5
0.4
West Virginia
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Wisconsin
73
79
46
48
0.7
1.0
Wyoming
3
18
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A. Not available … Sample size too small to report data reliably.
The ratios are calculated by dividing the later year’s estimate by the earlier year’s estimate. The ratio is useful in comparing trends across states.Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species 21
Table 14. Trend in Number of Dove Hunters, by State of Activity: 1991–2006
(in 000’s)
1991
1996
2001
2006
2006–1991 Ratio
2006–2001 Ratio
U.S. Total
1,851
1,581
1,450
1,238
0.7
0.9
Alabama
96
68
72
59
0.6
0.8
Alaska
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Arizona
68
69
50
32
0.5
0.6
Arkansas
41
45
36
24
0.6
0.7
California
161
159
…
108
0.7
N.A.
Colorado
28
23
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Connecticut
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Delaware
7
13
…
3
0.4
N.A.
Florida
60
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Georgia
68
117
75
97
1.4
1.3
Hawaii
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Idaho
10
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Illinois
59
53
…
30
0.5
N.A.
Indiana
25
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Iowa
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Kansas
46
41
50
34
0.7
0.7
Kentucky
63
54
49
…
N.A.
N.A.
Louisiana
70
58
24
38
0.5
1.6
Maine
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Maryland
22
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Massachusetts
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Michigan
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Minnesota
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Mississippi
58
85
38
26
0.4
0.7
Missouri
52
40
34
54
1.0
1.6
Montana
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Nebraska
30
19
13
17
0.6
1.3
Nevada
12
8
12
…
N.A.
N.A.
New Hampshire
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
New Jersey
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
New Mexico
19
16
27
6
0.3
0.2
New York
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
North Carolina
79
89
92
…
N.A.
N.A.
North Dakota
6
…
6
…
N.A.
N.A.
Ohio
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Oklahoma
62
48
59
37
0.6
0.6
Oregon
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Pennsylvania
74
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Rhode Island
����
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
South Carolina
57
71
51
28
0.5
0.5
South Dakota
13
13
9
…
N.A.
N.A.
Tennessee
60
50
69
54
0.9
0.8
Texas
412
291
461
394
1.0
0.9
Utah
12
12
21
13
1.1
0.6
Vermont
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Virginia
78
32
38
38
0.5
1.0
Washington
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
West Virginia
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Wisconsin
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Wyoming
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
Note: the 2001–2006 U.S. total difference is not statistically significant.
N.A. Not available … Sample size too small to report data reliably.
The ratios are calculated by dividing the later year’s estimate by the earlier year’s estimate. The ratio is useful in comparing trends across states.22 Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
Fishing days
An additional method of looking at species fishing and hunting is analyzing days afield. This gives us a measure of the effort of the participants. If the average angler changes his/her level of effort, the same number of anglers from one year to the next can contribute more (or less) days.
There was no significant difference in aggregate fishing days when comparing 1991 to 2006, although from 2001 to 2006 days decreased significantly. Bass, trout, catfish and freshwater anything fishing days showed no significant difference from 1991 to 2006 (although freshwater anything did undergo a significant decrease from 2001 to 2006). As for the saltwater species, flatfishing and saltwater anything days had no significant difference for the 1991–2006 time span. All species fishing days followed the aggregate fishing days trend of no significant difference for the 1991–2006 comparison. However, of this report’s selected species, only freshwater anything days followed the overall downward trend from 2001 to 2006. In an aside from this report’s focus species, walleye, sauger, and steelhead days tended down, but not significantly, while salmon fishing days dropped significantly from 2001 to 2006.
Table 15. Trend In Days of Fishing and Hunting by Species: 1991–2006
(U.S. Totals. Totals in thousands)
Average Days
1991
1996
2001
2006
1991
1996
2001
2006
Total fishing days
511,329
625,893
557,394
516,781
14
18
16
17
Bass
162,595
196,385
166,202
163,924
12
15
15
16
Trout
86,626
97,978
89,285
82,143
9
11
11
12
Catfish
96,451
91,498
103,664
98,190
10
12
14
14
Freshwater anything
40,558
41,280
48,251
37,135
8
9
10
9
Flatfish
16,170
28,644
21,111
20,478
7
11
9
10
Saltwater anything
17,861
24,807
25,240
20,774
6
8
8
9
Total hunting days
235,806
256,676
228,368
219,925
17
18
18
18
Deer
112,853
131,345
133,457
132,194
11
12
13
13
Turkey
13,483
18,532
23,165
25,828
8
8
9
10
Duck
8,800
13,800
18,290
12,173
8
9
12
11
Dove
9,480
8,141
9,041
5,893
5
5
6
5
Squirrel
29,602
25,401
22,333
18,534
8
8
11
10
Rabbit
35,624
28,873
22,768
20,513
9
9
11
11Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species 23
Figure 12. Freshwater Fishing Days Trend
Figure 13. Indexed Freshwater Fishing Days Trend
1991199620012006Days (thousands)0100,000200,000300,000400,000500,000600,000700,000Bass angling daysFreshwater angling daysTrout angling days1991199620012006Index of days020406080100120140Bass angling daysFreshwater angling daysTrout angling days24 Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
Figure 14. Freshwater Fishing Days Trend
Figure 15. Indexed Freshwater Fishing Days Trend
1991199620012006Days (thousands)Catfish angling daysFreshwater angling daysFreshwater anything angling days0100,000200,000300,000400,000500,000600,000700,0001991199620012006Index of days020406080100120140Catfish angling daysFreshwater angling daysFreshwater anything angling daysTrends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species 25
Figure 16. Saltwater Fishing Days Trend
Figure 17. Indexed Saltwater Fishing Days Trend
1991199620012006Days (thousands)Flatfish angling daysSaltwater angling daysSaltwater anything angling days020,00040,00060,00080,000100,000120,0001991199620012006Index of days0Flatfish angling daysSaltwater angling daysSaltwater anything angling days2040608010012014016018020026 Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
Hunting days
Similar to fishing days, there was no significant difference in the number of aggregate hunting days for the 1991–2006 comparison. Unlike fishing days, there was no significant difference for the 2001–2006 time span. Deer and turkey days saw a significant increase 1991–2006 and no significant difference 2001–2006. Duck days had a significant increase for 1991–2006 and a significant decrease for 2001–2006. Dove days had a significant decrease for 1991���2006 and 2001–2006. Rabbit and squirrel days underwent a significant decrease for 1991–2006 and no significant difference 2001–2006. The deer/turkey/duck hunting days’ 1991–2006 increase counteracted the dove/rabbit/squirrel days’ decrease. All but duck and dove hunting days (which decreased) followed the overall trend (no change) for 2001–2006.
Figure 18. Big Game Hunting Day Trend
Figure 19. Indexed Big Game Hunting Day Trend
1991199620012006Days (thousands)0Deer hunting daysBig game hunting daysTurkey hunting days20,00040,00060,00080,000100,000120,000140,000160,000180,0001991199620012006Index of days0Deer hunting daysBig game hunting daysTurkey hunting days50100150200250Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species 27
Figure 20. Small Game Hunting Days Trend
Figure 21. Indexed Small Game Hunting Days Trend
1991199620012006Days (thousands)0Rabbit hunting daysSmall game hunting daysSquirrel hunting days10,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,00080,00090,0001991199620012006Index of days020406080100120Rabbit hunting daysSmall game hunting daysSquirrel hunting days28 Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
Figure 22. Migratory Bird Hunting Days Trend
Figure 23. Indexed Migratory Bird Hunting Days Trend
1991199620012006Days (thousands)0Duck hunting daysMigratory bird hunting daysDove hunting days5,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,0001991199620012006Index of days050100150200250Duck hunting daysMigratory bird hunting daysDove hunting daysTrends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species 29
Fishing Expenditures
Aggregate fishing expenditures increased a third from 1991 to 1996, fell a fifth from 1996 to 2001, and rose slightly from 2001 to 2006. Comparing 2006 to 1991 expenditures finds an 18% increase in inflation-adjusted dollars. Fishing expenditures for all of this report’s selected species increased from 1991 to 1996, but there was not as much similarity with aggregate fishing expenditures after that. Bass, trout, and catfish angling expenditures mirrored the aggregate trend. Freshwater anything, saltwater anything, and flatfish angling expenditures declined from 1996 to 2006.
Table 16. Trend in Trip and Equipment Hunting and Fishing Expenditures by Species: 1991–2006
(U.S. totals. Dollars adjusted for inflation.)
Averages
1991 (thousands of dollars)
1996 (thousands of dollars)
2001 (thousands of dollars)
2006 (thousands of dollars)
1991 (dollars)
1996 (dollars)
2001 (dollars)
2006 (dollars)
Fishing
Bass
4,720,032
7,451,326
5,028,546
5,673,291
359
574
459
557
Trout
2,514,699
3,717,524
2,701,374
2,842,910
265
400
333
405
Catfish
2,799,913
3,471,657
3,136,419
3,398,285
305
467
417
489
Freshwater anything
1,177,374
1,566,264
1,459,864
1,285,216
223
350
300
312
Flatfish
1,041,692
1,949,511
1,270,560
1,245,751
453
742
560
602
Saltwater anything
1,150,628
1,688,365
1,519,063
1,263,758
406
570
488
521
Hunting
Deer
6,183,360
9,871,898
8,956,092
8,904,846
602
921
872
885
Turkey
738,751
1,392,866
1,554,567
1,739,825
430
636
621
677
Duck
336,768
704,279
735,551
653,633
289
441
463
570
Dove
362,791
415,474
363,593
316,426
196
263
251
256
Squirrel
604,481
832,118
576,807
625,194
169
259
272
339
Rabbit
727,452
945,858
588,042
691,950
183
301
280
36030 Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
Figure 24. Freshwater Fishing Trip and Equipment Expenditures Trend
Figure 25. Indexed Freshwater Fishing Trip and Equipment Expenditures Trend
1991199620012006Expenditures (thousands)0Bass angling expendituresFreshwater angling expendituresTrout angling expenditures5,000,00010,000,00015,000,00020,000,00025,000,00030,000,00035,000,0001991199620012006Index of expenditures0Bass angling expendituresFreshwater angling expendituresTrout angling expenditures20406080100120140160180Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species 31
Figure 26. Freshwater Fishing Trip and Equipment Expenditures Trend
Figure 27. Indexed Freshwater Fishing Trip and Equipment Expenditures Trend
1991199620012006Expenditures (thousands)Catfish angling expendituresFreshwater angling expendituresFreshwater anything angling expenditures05,000,00010,000,00015,000,00020,000,00025,000,00030,000,00035,000,0001991199620012006020406080100120140160Index of expendituresCatfish angling expendituresFreshwater angling expendituresFreshwater anything angling expenditures32 Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
Figure 28. Saltwater Fishing Trip and Equipment Expenditures Trend
Figure 29. Indexed Saltwater Fishing Trip and Equipment Trend
1991199620012006Expenditures (thousands)0Flatfish angling expendituresSaltwater angling expendituresSaltwater anything angling expenditures2,000,0004,000,0006,000,0008,000,00010,000,00012,000,0001991199620012006020406080100120140160180200Index of expendituresFlatfish angling expendituresSaltwater angling expendituresSaltwater anything angling expendituresTrends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species 33
Figure 30. Big Game Hunting Trip and Equipment Expenditures Trend
Figure 31. Indexed Big Game Hunting Trip and Equipment Expenditures Trend
1991199620012006Expenditures (thousands)0Deer hunting expendituresBig game hunting expendituresTurkey hunting expenditures2,000,0004,000,0006,000,0008,000,00010,000,00012,000,00014,000,0001991199620012006050100150200250Index of expendituresDeer hunting expendituresBig game hunting expendituresTurkey hunting expenditures
Hunting Expenditures
Aggregate hunting expenditures increased 43% from 1991 to 1996, fell 10% from 1996 to 2001, and were level from 2001 to 2006. The comparison of 1991 and 2006 reveals a 23% increase. As with fishing, all species hunting expenditures increased from 1991 to 1996, but there was no consistency after that. Deer hunting expenditures followed the aggregate trend. Turkey hunting expenditures increased steadily from 1991 to 2006 (more than doubling). Duck hunting expenditures increased from 1991 to 2001 then declined 10% from 2001 to 2006. Dove hunting expenditures decreased steadily from 1996 to 2006 (a 24% decrease). Squirrel and rabbit hunting expenditures increased from 1991 to 1996, decreased from 1996 to 2001, and increased from 2001 to 2006. The 1991 to 2006 comparison reveals no change for both squirrel and rabbit hunting expenditures.34 Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
Figure 32. Small Game Hunting Trip and Equipment Expenditures Trend
Figure 33. Indexed Small Game Hunting Trip and Equipment Expenditures Trend
1991199620012006Expenditures (thousands)0Rabbit hunting expendituresSmall game hunting expendituresSquirrel hunting expenditures500,0001,000,0001,500,0002,000,0002,500,0003,000,0003,500,0001991199620012006Index of expenditures020406080100120140160180Rabbit hunting expendituresSmall game hunting expendituresSquirrel hunting expendituresTrends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species 35
Figure 34. Migratory Bird Hunting Trip and Equipment Expenditures Trend
Figure 35. Indexed Migratory Bird Hunting Trip and Equipment Expenditures Trend
1991199620012006Expenditures (thousands)0Duck hunting expendituresMigratory bird hunting expendituresDove hunting expenditures200,000400,000600,000800,0001,000,0001,200,0001,400,0001,600,0001,800,0001991199620012006050100150200250Index of expendituresDuck hunting expendituresMigratory bird hunting expendituresDove hunting expenditures36 Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
State Participation Trends
National trends are interesting and
important, but the requisite data
aggregation masks regional variation.
Analyzing state estimates gives insight
into who is doing what and where.
The tool used here to measure state
trends is the participation rate of state
residents. (The denominator of the
participation rate calculation is the state
population, so state resident participants
has to be used as the numerator. There
is no easy way to calculate participation
rates for in-state participants.)
Participation rates are the proportion
of state residents that participate in
an activity. They are a good measure
of the popularity of an activity among
the general population, plus it is easy
to compare them across states. Using
participation rates removes the disparity
in population levels among the states
from the comparison.
Hunting Participation Rates
The aggregate participation rate for
deer hunting was 5% in 1991, 1996, and
2001, then fell to 4% in 2006. Twenty-six
states had above average deer hunting
participation rates in 2006 (Alabama,
Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas,
Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West
Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming). The
five states with the highest participation
rates were Montana, North Dakota,
Wisconsin, Maine, and West Virginia. The
state with the lowest rate was California.
Figure 36. The State Participation Rates of Deer Hunters Relative to the
National Participation Rate: 2006
FL
NM
HI
DE
MD
TX
OK
KS
NE
SD
MT ND
WY
CO
UT
ID
AZ
NV
WA
CA
OR
KY
ME
NY
PA
MI
VT
NH MA
CT RI
VA
WV
OH
IL IN
NC
TN
SC
MS AL
AR
LA
MO
IA
MN
WI
NJ
GA
AK
National Participation Rate: 4%
n States twice the national participation rate
n States national rate to double the rate
n States below the national average
Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species 37
Table 17. Trend in Number of Deer Hunters, by State of Residence: 1991–2006
(Numbers in thousands)
Number of participants
Participation rates
1991
1996
2001
2006
1991
1996
2001
2006
U.S. Total
10,277
10,722
10,272
10,062
5
5
5
4
Alabama
219
212
293
284
7
6
9
8
Alaska
9
17
18
20
2
4
4
4
Arizona
94
72
65
70
3
2
2
2
Arkansas
217
268
278
268
12
14
14
12
California
235
298
93
131
1
1
(Z)
(Z)
Colorado
108
144
72
41
4
5
2
1
Connecticut
36
51
34
29
1
2
1
1
Delaware
17
27
12
17
3
5
2
3
Florida
265
161
242
252
3
1
2
2
Georgia
259
299
307
305
5
5
5
4
Hawaii
7
11
8
9
1
1
1
1
Idaho
132
152
108
92
18
17
11
8
Illinois
277
286
252
176
3
3
3
2
Indiana
200
263
200
208
5
6
4
4
Iowa
141
178
131
164
7
8
6
7
Kansas
67
97
111
88
4
5
6
4
Kentucky
184
255
201
215
7
8
6
7
Louisiana
213
254
214
211
7
8
6
6
Maine
117
135
115
138
12
14
11
13
Maryland
114
97
106
127
3
2
3
3
Massachusetts
97
82
68
59
2
2
1
1
Michigan
713
800
640
696
10
11
8
9
Minnesota
332
463
467
410
10
13
13
10
Mississippi
248
257
221
234
13
13
10
11
Missouri
352
406
339
453
9
10
8
10
Montana
134
117
132
125
22
17
19
17
Nebraska
61
75
73
61
5
6
6
4
Nevada
32
29
24
26
4
2
2
1
New Hampshire
57
54
46
45
7
6
5
4
New Jersey
106
78
112
61
2
1
2
1
New Mexico
58
56
62
26
5
4
5
2
New York
613
552
578
464
4
4
4
3
North Carolina
289
258
221
226
6
5
4
3
North Dakota
60
61
77
72
13
13
16
14
Ohio
379
296
417
404
5
3
5
5
Oklahoma
127
218
192
180
5
9
7
7
Oregon
190
215
177
159
9
9
7
6
Pennsylvania
836
703
825
892
9
8
9
9
Rhode Island
13
16
8
11
2
2
1
1
South Carolina
139
200
191
135
5
7
6
4
South Dakota
60
56
51
54
11
10
9
9
Tennessee
214
236
201
223
6
6
5
5
Texas
713
703
857
774
6
5
6
5
Utah
137
90
128
95
12
6
8
5
Vermont
65
65
70
54
15
14
15
11
Virginia
293
324
270
310
6
6
5
5
Washington
180
210
169
156
5
5
4
3
West Virginia
237
236
208
186
17
16
14
13
Wisconsin
599
527
547
594
16
14
13
14
Wyoming
49
44
40
31
14
12
11
8
(Z) Less than 0.5 percent.38 Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
The aggregate participation rate for turkey hunting was 1% in every survey year. Eighteen states had above average turkey hunting participation rates in 2006 (Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin). The states with the highest rates were Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Mississippi, Missouri, Vermont, and West Virginia. The states with the lowest rate (for states which have estimates) were California and New Jersey.
Figure 37. The State Participation Rates of Turkey Hunters Relative to the
National Participation Rate: 2006
FLNMHIDEMDTXOKKSNESDNDMTWYCOUTIDAZNVWACAORKYMENYPAMIVTNHMARICTVAWVOHINILNCTNSCALMSARLAMOIAMNWINJGAAK
National Participation Rate: 1%
n States twice the national participation rate
n States national rate to double the rate
n States below the national average
n States with no reportable estimateTrends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species 39
Table 18. Trend in Number of Turkey Hunters, by State of Residence: 1991–2006
(Numbers in thousands)
Number of participants
Participation rates
1991
1996
2001
2006
1991
1996
2001
2006
U.S. Total
1,720
2,189
2,504
2,569
1
1
1
1
Alabama
58
45
54
86
2
1
2
2
Alaska
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Arizona
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Arkansas
31
67
105
82
2
4
5
4
California
…
…
…
48
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
(Z)
Colorado
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Connecticut
…
10
…
…
N.A.
(Z)
N.A.
N.A.
Delaware
…
4
…
…
…
1
…
…
Florida
47
…
105
85
(Z)
…
1
1
Georgia
46
67
77
72
1
1
1
1
Hawaii
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Idaho
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Illinois
28
53
57
67
(Z)
1
1
1
Indiana
19
…
47
33
(Z)
…
1
1
Iowa
20
41
24
51
1
2
1
2
Kansas
16
25
48
47
1
1
2
2
Kentucky
21
73
97
63
1
2
3
2
Louisiana
22
…
26
56
1
…
1
2
Maine
…
…
10
18
…
…
1
2
Maryland
25
…
21
26
1
…
1
1
Massachusetts
15
19
…
…
(Z)
(Z)
N.A.
N.A.
Michigan
37
…
68
78
1
…
1
1
Minnesota
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Mississippi
51
68
72
56
3
3
3
3
Missouri
125
149
139
140
3
4
3
3
Montana
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Nebraska
14
10
15
23
1
1
1
2
Nevada
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
New Hampshire
…
7
11
10
…
1
1
1
New Jersey
…
…
24
20
N.A.
N.A.
(Z)
(Z)
New Mexico
12
…
13
20
1
…
1
1
New York
126
209
269
144
1
1
2
1
North Carolina
32
49
60
82
1
1
1
1
North Dakota
3
…
…
7
1
…
…
1
Ohio
30
79
98
97
(Z)
1
1
1
Oklahoma
29
56
72
66
1
2
3
2
Oregon
…
…
16
…
…
…
1
…
Pennsylvania
314
309
272
343
3
3
3
4
Rhode Island
…
…
…
��
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
South Carolina
31
45
48
51
1
2
2
2
South Dakota
6
9
6
6
1
2
1
1
Tennessee
31
39
69
110
1
1
2
2
Texas
175
…
120
169
1
…
1
1
Utah
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Vermont
10
8
17
13
2
2
4
3
Virginia
154
164
85
116
3
3
2
2
Washington
…
…
17
…
N.A.
N.A.
(Z)
N.A.
West Virginia
85
88
68
43
6
6
5
3
Wisconsin
49
93
116
155
1
2
3
4
Wyoming
…
…
6
…
…
…
2
…
… Sample size too small to report data reliably.
N.A. Not available (Z) Less than 0.5 percent.40 Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
The aggregate participation rate for squirrel hunting was 2% in 1991 and 1996 and 1% in 2001 and 2006. Eight states had above average participation rates in 2006 (Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia). The states with the highest rates in 2006 were West Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Missouri. The states with the lowest rate (for states which have estimates) were Florida, Illinois, and Texas.
Figure 38. The State Participation Rates of Squirrel Hunters Relative to the
National Participation Rate: 2006
FLNMHIDEMDTXOKKSNESDNDMTWYCOUTIDAZNVWACAORKYMENYPAMIVTNHMARICTVAWVOHINILNCTNSCALMSARLAMOIAMNWINJGAAK
National Participation Rate: 1%
n States twice the national participation rate
n States national rate to double the rate
n States below the national average
n States with no reportable estimateTrends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species 41
Table 19. Trend in Number of Squirrel Hunters, by State of Residence: 1991–2006
(Numbers in thousands)
Number of participants
Participation rates
1991
1996
2001
2006
1991
1996
2001
2006
U.S. Total
3,569
3,207
2,119
1,845
2
2
1
1
Alabama
88
49
57
72
3
1
2
2
Alaska
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Arizona
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Arkansas
108
134
107
88
6
7
5
4
California
65
…
…
…
(Z)
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Colorado
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Connecticut
8
…
…
…
(Z)
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Delaware
7
8
…
…
1
1
…
…
Florida
109
…
…
60
1
…
…
(Z)
Georgia
74
92
80
88
2
2
1
1
Hawaii
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Idaho
12
…
…
…
2
…
…
…
Illinois
125
166
…
48
1
2
…
(Z)
Indiana
134
119
88
53
3
3
2
1
Iowa
67
69
33
24
3
3
1
1
Kansas
33
22
22
…
2
1
1
…
Kentucky
162
137
94
77
6
5
3
2
Louisiana
165
196
81
100
5
6
2
3
Maine
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Maryland
52
35
21
31
1
1
1
1
Massachusetts
14
…
…
…
(Z)
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Michigan
181
216
93
91
3
3
1
1
Minnesota
53
…
…
…
2
…
…
…
Mississippi
141
115
91
64
7
6
4
3
Missouri
152
175
109
144
4
4
3
3
Montana
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Nebraska
16
…
…
…
1
…
…
…
Nevada
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
New Hampshire
8
…
…
…
1
…
…
…
New Jersey
27
…
…
…
(Z)
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
New Mexico
…
…
…
��
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
New York
123
128
101
…
1
1
1
…
North Carolina
151
161
73
42
3
3
1
1
North Dakota
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Ohio
212
170
168
114
3
2
2
1
Oklahoma
56
76
49
29
2
3
2
1
Oregon
10
…
…
…
(Z)
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Pennsylvania
354
245
204
197
4
3
2
2
Rhode Island
3
…
…
…
(Z)
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
South Carolina
49
51
52
23
2
2
2
1
South Dakota
4
…
…
…
1
…
…
…
Tennessee
174
137
117
62
5
3
3
1
Texas
152
…
…
64
1
…
…
(Z)
Utah
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Vermont
8
10
12
…
2
2
3
…
Virginia
151
116
84
77
3
2
2
1
Washington
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
West Virginia
152
160
101
97
11
11
7
7
Wisconsin
135
142
58
60
4
4
1
1
Wyoming
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
… Sample size too small to report data reliably.
N.A. Not available (Z) Less than 0.5 percent.42 Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
The aggregate participation rate for rabbit hunting was the same as squirrel hunting: 2% in 1991 and 1996, 1% in 2001 and 2006. Nine states had higher than average participation rates in 2006 (Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Utah, and West Virginia). The states with the highest rates in 2006 were Louisiana and West Virginia. The states with the lowest rate (for states which have estimates) were Arizona, Maryland and Nevada.
Figure 39. The State Participation Rates of Rabbit Hunters Relative to the
National Participation Rate: 2006
FLNMHIDEMDTXOKKSNESDNDMTWYCOUTIDAZNVWACAORKYMENYPAMIVTNHMARICTVAWVOHINILNCTNSCALMSARLAMOIAMNWINJGAAK
National Participation Rate: 1%
n States twice the national participation rate
n States national rate to double the rate
n States below the national average
n States with no reportable estimateTrends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species 43
Table 20. Trend in Number of Rabbit Hunters, by State of Residence: 1991–2006
(Numbers in thousands)
Number of participants
Participation rates
1991
1996
2001
2006
1991
1996
2001
2006
U.S. Total
3,980
3,146
2,099
1,923
2
2
1
1
Alabama
83
31
37
58
3
1
1
2
Alaska
10
11
7
…
3
3
2
…
Arizona
20
23
21
20
1
1
1
(Z)
Arkansas
50
81
45
28
3
4
2
1
California
73
…
…
…
(Z)
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Colorado
35
54
23
…
1
2
1
…
Connecticut
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Delaware
8
12
5
5
2
2
1
1
Florida
42
…
…
…
(Z)
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Georgia
68
…
53
65
1
…
1
1
Hawaii
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Idaho
15
…
…
…
2
…
…
…
Illinois
166
168
…
58
2
2
…
1
Indiana
161
118
95
56
4
3
2
1
Iowa
86
97
49
32
4
4
2
1
Kansas
55
38
32
27
3
2
2
1
Kentucky
149
143
99
67
5
5
3
2
Louisiana
134
152
70
95
4
5
2
3
Maine
22
18
15
…
2
2
1
…
Maryland
42
23
24
14
1
1
1
(Z)
Massachusetts
30
…
…
…
1
…
…
…
Michigan
315
318
120
131
4
4
2
2
Minnesota
31
…
…
…
1
…
…
…
Mississippi
107
97
77
47
6
5
4
2
Missouri
155
169
93
98
4
4
2
2
Montana
11
…
…
…
2
…
…
…
Nebraska
29
16
8
11
2
1
1
1
Nevada
11
7
…
8
1
1
…
(Z)
New Hampshire
14
12
…
…
2
1
…
…
New Jersey
55
28
30
…
1
(Z)
(Z)
…
New Mexico
21
8
…
15
2
1
…
1
New York
218
172
158
98
2
1
1
1
North Carolina
108
98
62
52
2
2
1
1
North Dakota
7
…
4
…
1
…
1
…
Ohio
368
220
202
126
4
3
2
1
Oklahoma
60
61
52
29
2
2
2
1
Oregon
9
…
…
…
(Z)
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Pennsylvania
452
231
204
233
5
2
2
2
Rhode Island
6
4
…
…
1
1
…
…
South Carolina
39
27
42
25
1
1
1
1
South Dakota
12
10
…
…
2
2
…
…
Tennessee
126
124
65
49
3
3
2
1
Texas
140
…
…
107
1
…
…
1
Utah
43
25
28
38
4
2
2
2
Vermont
24
15
13
…
5
3
3
…
Virginia
107
59
40
72
2
1
1
1
Washington
17
…
…
…
(Z)
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
West Virginia
79
45
45
38
6
3
3
3
Wisconsin
152
154
64
65
4
4
2
1
Wyoming
10
8
12
…
3
2
3
…
… Sample size too small to report data reliably.
N.A. Not available (Z) Less than 0.5 percent.44 Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
The aggregate participation rate for duck hunting was 1% for every survey year. Five states had higher than average participation rates (Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska and North Dakota) in 2006. The state with the highest participation rate was Arkansas. The states with the lowest rate (for states which have estimates) were California, Massachusetts and Texas.
Figure 40. The State Participation Rates of Duck Hunters Relative to the
National Participation Rate: 2006
FLNMHIDEMDTXOKKSNESDNDMTWYCOUTIDAZNVWACAORKYMENYPAMIVTNHMARICTVAWVOHINILNCTNSCALMSARLAMOIAMNWINJGAAK
National Participation Rate: 1%
n States twice the national participation rate
n States national rate to double the rate
n States below the national average
n States with no reportable estimateTrends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species 45
Table 21. Trend in Number of Duck Hunters, by State of Residence: 1991–2006
(Numbers in thousands)
Number of participants
Participation rates
1991
1996
2001
2006
1991
1996
2001
2006
U.S. Total
1,164
1,596
1,589
1,147
1
1
1
1
Alabama
…
…
22
25
…
…
1
1
Alaska
10
10
11
…
3
2
2
…
Arizona
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Arkansas
35
72
76
68
2
4
4
3
California
97
145
101
62
(Z)
1
(Z)
(Z)
Colorado
26
…
30
…
1
…
1
…
Connecticut
7
…
…
…
(Z)
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Delaware
8
8
3
9
2
1
1
1
Florida
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Georgia
23
…
…
…
(Z)
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Hawaii
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Idaho
17
31
18
…
2
4
2
…
Illinois
55
59
55
61
1
1
1
1
Indiana
11
…
…
…
(Z)
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Iowa
19
29
34
…
1
1
2
…
Kansas
10
…
24
23
1
…
1
1
Kentucky
14
…
…
…
(Z)
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Louisiana
80
91
104
66
3
3
3
2
Maine
10
…
…
…
1
…
…
…
Maryland
11
…
23
28
(Z)
…
1
1
Massachusetts
12
…
…
13
(Z)
N.A.
N.A.
(Z)
Michigan
42
…
…
…
1
…
…
…
Minnesota
64
129
160
52
2
4
4
1
Mississippi
25
51
27
32
1
3
1
1
Missouri
23
…
36
33
1
…
1
1
Montana
11
13
14
13
2
2
2
2
Nebraska
21
19
29
23
2
2
2
2
Nevada
6
10
14
…
1
1
1
…
New Hampshire
4
…
…
…
(Z)
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
New Jersey
18
…
…
…
(Z)
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
New Mexico
6
…
15
…
1
…
1
…
New York
33
…
…
…
(Z)
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
North Carolina
21
…
57
…
(Z)
…
1
…
North Dakota
15
13
22
8
3
3
5
2
Ohio
29
…
43
…
(Z)
N.A.
(Z)
N.A.
Oklahoma
20
…
32
28
1
…
1
1
Oregon
23
52
29
26
1
2
1
1
Pennsylvania
35
…
48
…
(Z)
…
1
…
Rhode Island
3
…
…
…
(Z)
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
South Carolina
26
41
21
29
1
1
1
1
South Dakota
19
23
26
9
4
4
5
1
Tennessee
18
…
66
47
(Z)
…
2
1
Texas
99
…
104
81
1
…
1
(Z)
Utah
9
20
41
20
1
1
3
1
Vermont
4
…
…
…
1
…
…
…
Virginia
15
…
…
…
(Z)
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Washington
37
47
36
25
1
1
1
1
West Virginia
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Wisconsin
65
81
47
48
2
2
1
1
Wyoming
…
9
…
…
…
2
…
…
… Sample size too small to report data reliably.
N.A. Not available (Z) Less than 0.5 percent.46 Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
The aggregate participation rate for dove hunting was the same as for duck hunting (1% every survey year). The states that had higher than average participation rates in 2006 were Kansas and Texas. The states with the lowest rate (for states which have estimates) were California, Florida, Illinois and New Mexico.
Figure 41. The State Participation Rates of Dove Hunters Relative to the
National Participation Rate: 2006
FLNMHIDEMDTXOKKSNESDNDMTWYCOUTIDAZNVWACAORKYMENYPAMIVTNHMARICTVAWVOHINILNCTNSCALMSARLAMOIAMNWINJGAAK
National Participation Rate: 1%
n States twice the national participation rate
n States national rate to double the rate
n States below the national average
n States with no reportable estimateTrends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species 47
Table 22. Trend in Number of Dove Hunters, by State of Residence: 1991–2006
(Numbers in thousands)
Numbers of participants
Participation rates
1991
1996
2001
2006
1991
1996
2001
2006
U.S. Total
1,851
1,581
1,450
1,238
1
1
1
1
Alabama
90
54
67
52
3
2
2
1
Alaska
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Arizona
47
56
35
30
2
2
1
1
Arkansas
38
44
…
24
2
2
…
1
California
183
168
…
109
1
1
…
(Z)
Colorado
29
26
…
…
1
1
…
…
Connecticut
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Delaware
7
8
…
4
1
1
…
1
Florida
64
…
…
39
1
…
…
(Z)
Georgia
63
106
73
80
1
2
1
1
Hawaii
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Idaho
10
…
…
…
1
…
…
…
Illinois
52
57
…
31
1
1
…
(Z)
Indiana
24
…
…
…
1
…
��
…
Iowa
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Kansas
46
38
44
38
2
2
2
2
Kentucky
62
54
45
…
2
2
1
…
Louisiana
73
56
26
42
2
2
1
1
Maine
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Maryland
21
…
…
…
1
…
…
…
Massachusetts
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Michigan
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Minnesota
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Mississippi
50
75
38
24
3
4
2
1
Missouri
54
…
35
45
1
��
1
1
Montana
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Nebraska
27
14
9
17
2
1
1
1
Nevada
13
8
14
…
1
1
1
…
New Hampshire
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
New Jersey
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
New Mexico
21
16
27
6
2
1
2
(Z)
New York
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
North Carolina
91
87
95
…
2
2
2
…
North Dakota
6
…
6
…
1
…
1
…
Ohio
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Oklahoma
58
48
59
37
2
2
2
1
Oregon
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Pennsylvania
73
…
…
…
1
…
…
…
Rhode Island
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
South Carolina
55
69
48
25
2
2
2
1
South Dakota
14
13
6
…
3
2
1
…
Tennessee
63
52
65
53
2
1
2
1
Texas
398
279
464
377
3
2
3
2
Utah
12
12
20
13
1
1
1
1
Vermont
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Virginia
66
32
38
39
1
1
1
1
Washington
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
West Virginia
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Wisconsin
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Wyoming
…
…
…
…
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
… Sample size too small to report data reliably.
N.A. Not available (Z) Less than 0.5 percent.48 Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
Fishing Participation Rates
There has been a steady decline in the participation rate of bass fishing nationally: 7% in 1991, 6% in 1996, 5% in 2001, and 4% in 2006. In 2006, 25 states had above average participation rates (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin). The states with the highest participation rates were Oklahoma, West Virginia, Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky and Mississippi. The states with the lowest rates were California, North Dakota and Washington.
Figure 42. The State Participation Rates of Black Bass Anglers Relative to the
National Participation Rate: 2006
FLNMHIDEMDTXOKKSNESDNDMTWYCOUTIDAZNVWACAORKYMENYPAMIVTNHMARICTVAWVOHINILNCTNSCALMSARLAMOIAMNWINJGAAK
National Participation Rate: 4%
n States twice the national participation rate
n States national rate to double the rate
n States below the national average
n States with no reportable estimateTrends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species 49
Table 23. Trend in Number of Black Bass Anglers, by State of Residence: 1991–2006
(Numbers in thousands)
Number of participants
Participation rates
1991
1996
2001
2006
1991
1996
2001
2006
U.S. Total
13,139
12,972
10,956
10,181
7
6
5
4
Alabama
340
327
293
325
11
10
9
9
Arizona
145
198
147
129
5
6
4
3
Arkansas
290
201
236
197
16
11
12
9
California
575
691
489
357
3
3
2
1
Colorado
98
102
100
115
4
3
3
3
Connecticut
128
122
101
79
5
5
4
3
Delaware
27
28
18
20
5
5
3
3
Florida
761
626
578
765
7
6
5
5
Georgia
438
454
393
486
9
8
6
7
Hawaii
13
7
…
…
2
1
…
…
Idaho
38
46
38
45
5
5
4
4
Illinois
555
730
508
483
6
8
5
5
Indiana
417
421
360
310
10
9
8
6
Iowa
217
214
185
188
10
10
8
8
Kansas
210
183
175
187
11
10
9
9
Kentucky
336
354
272
308
12
12
9
9
Louisiana
363
351
226
159
11
11
7
5
Maine
67
67
75
83
7
7
7
8
Maryland
213
148
128
130
6
4
3
3
Massachusetts
220
220
162
178
5
5
3
4
Michigan
551
481
310
425
8
7
4
5
Minnesota
245
270
250
276
7
8
7
7
Mississippi
219
213
211
196
11
10
10
9
Missouri
494
515
486
301
13
13
12
7
Montana
11
8
22
21
2
1
3
3
Nebraska
114
90
102
66
9
7
8
5
Nevada
34
41
38
35
4
3
3
2
New Hampshire
80
64
68
56
9
7
7
5
New Jersey
229
253
174
143
4
4
3
2
New Mexico
30
60
37
39
3
5
3
3
New York
557
625
421
315
4
4
3
2
North Carolina
490
437
325
329
10
8
5
5
North Dakota
15
16
10
5
3
3
2
1
Ohio
663
528
562
517
8
6
7
6
Oklahoma
418
310
339
262
17
12
13
10
Oregon
86
74
59
57
4
3
2
2
Pennsylvania
591
506
505
412
6
5
5
4
Rhode Island
37
43
23
22
5
6
3
3
South Carolina
268
335
249
187
10
12
8
6
South Dakota
24
41
18
16
5
8
3
3
Tennessee
382
354
397
288
10
9
9
6
Texas
1093
1231
864
821
9
9
6
5
Utah
16
22
43
46
1
2
3
3
Vermont
30
32
33
22
7
7
7
4
Virginia
372
384
359
226
8
7
7
4
Washington
123
127
107
73
3
3
2
1
West Virginia
143
132
111
145
10
9
8
10
Wisconsin
360
275
339
316
10
7
8
7
Wyoming
6
…
…
9
2
…
…
2
Note: Alaska is not included because its participation rates were based on a sample size less than 10.
… Sample size too small to report data reliably.50 Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
There has been a decline in the national participation rate of trout fishing since 1996: 5% in 1991 and 1996, 4% in 2001, and 3% in 2006. Seventeen states had above average participation rates in 2006 (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming). The states with the highest participation rates were Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Utah, and Colorado. The states with the lowest rates were Alabama, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas.
Figure 43. The State Participation Rates of Trout Anglers Relative to the
National Participation Rate: 2006
FLNMHIDEMDTXOKKSNESDNDMTWYCOUTIDAZNVWACAORKYMENYPAMIVTNHMARICTVAWVOHINILNCTNSCALMSARLAMOIAMNWINJGAAK
National Participation Rate: 3%
n States twice the national participation rate
n States national rate to double the rate
n States below the national average
n States with no reportable estimateTrends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species 51
Table 24. Trend in Number of Trout Anglers, by State of Residence: 1991–2006
(Numbers in thousands)
Number of participants
Participation rates
1991
1996
2001
2006
1991
1996
2001
2006
U.S. Total
9,497
9,290
8,118
7,022
5
5
4
3
Alabama
31
24
21
25
1
1
1
1
Alaska
66
78
67
42
18
18
15
8
Arizona
194
215
214
186
7
7
6
4
Arkansas
66
59
84
41
4
3
4
2
California
1673
1557
1163
866
7
7
4
3
Colorado
490
551
529
478
19
19
16
13
Connecticut
173
170
119
124
7
7
5
5
Delaware
11
14
13
11
2
2
2
2
Florida
76
…
113
83
1
…
1
1
Georgia
120
159
104
136
2
3
2
2
Hawaii
17
10
…
…
2
1
…
…
Idaho
212
252
213
180
28
29
22
16
Illinois
166
235
143
66
2
3
2
1
Indiana
66
44
57
33
2
1
1
1
Iowa
33
57
50
44
2
3
2
2
Kansas
55
41
48
28
3
2
2
1
Kentucky
36
49
41
…
1
2
1
…
Louisiana
51
54
28
62
2
2
1
2
Maine
167
136
124
133
18
14
12
12
Maryland
80
87
112
85
2
2
3
2
Massachusetts
238
218
155
166
5
5
3
3
Michigan
274
248
211
207
4
3
3
3
Minnesota
94
71
62
55
3
2
2
1
Mississippi
18
29
31
…
1
1
1
…
Missouri
181
226
163
146
5
6
4
3
Montana
144
140
174
134
24
21
25
18
Nebraska
43
37
35
29
4
3
3
2
Nevada
108
157
125
128
12
13
9
7
New Hampshire
107
85
82
60
12
10
9
6
New Jersey
248
231
151
88
4
4
2
1
New Mexico
131
165
153
142
12
13
11
9
New York
675
509
384
430
5
4
3
3
North Carolina
163
151
125
202
3
3
2
3
North Dakota
8
8
6
…
2
2
1
…
Ohio
185
121
133
145
2
1
2
2
Oklahoma
60
51
69
26
2
2
3
1
Oregon
346
347
344
306
16
14
13
11
Pennsylvania
809
619
577
566
9
7
6
6
Rhode Island
33
37
22
15
4
5
3
2
South Carolina
40
43
51
29
2
2
2
1
South Dakota
28
38
12
17
5
7
2
3
Tennessee
122
99
121
81
3
2
3
2
Texas
271
253
319
236
2
2
2
1
Utah
216
270
363
266
19
19
23
15
Vermont
68
50
65
41
15
11
14
8
Virginia
174
260
115
107
4
5
2
2
Washington
552
591
462
347
15
14
10
7
West Virginia
113
130
96
147
8
9
7
10
Wisconsin
161
112
158
144
4
3
4
3
Wyoming
101
103
107
88
29
28
28
22
… Sample size too small to report data reliably.52 Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
As with bass and trout fishing, catfishing has declined in participation: 5% of Americans participated in 1991, 4% in 1996 and 2001, and 3% in 2006. Eighteen states had above average participation rates in 2006 (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia). The states with the highest participation rates were Arkansas, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri and Oklahoma. The state with the lowest rate (for states which have estimates) was New York.
Figure 44. The State Participation Rates of Catfish Anglers Relative to the
National Participation Rate: 2006
FLNMHIDEMDTXOKKSNESDNDMTWYCOUTIDAZNVWACAORKYMENYPAMIVTNHMARICTVAWVOHINILNCTNSCALMSARLAMOIAMNWINJGAAK
National Participation Rate: 3%
n States twice the national participation rate
n States national rate to double the rate
n States below the national average
n States with no reportable estimateTrends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species 53
Table 25. Trend in Number of Catfish Anglers, by State of Residence: 1991–2006
(Numbers in thousands)
Number of participants
Participation rates
1991
1996
2001
2006
1991
1996
2001
2006
U.S. Total
9,195
7,430
7,517
6,954
5
4
4
3
Alabama
306
284
207
240
10
9
6
7
Arizona
167
110
101
103
6
3
3
2
Arkansas
222
225
271
236
12
12
14
11
California
575
445
403
205
3
2
2
1
Colorado
53
62
79
55
2
2
2
2
Connecticut
34
32
15
…
1
1
1
…
Delaware
15
9
8
7
3
2
1
1
Florida
303
217
280
365
3
2
2
3
Georgia
320
272
456
389
7
5
7
6
Hawaii
10
6
…
6
1
1
…
1
Idaho
25
44
24
31
3
5
2
3
Illinois
619
488
452
353
7
5
5
4
Indiana
325
281
288
211
8
6
6
4
Iowa
289
249
198
214
13
11
9
9
Kansas
218
172
234
205
12
9
12
10
Kentucky
284
248
257
256
10
8
8
8
Louisiana
318
253
195
206
10
8
6
6
Maine
6
…
…
…
1
…
…
…
Maryland
123
74
53
70
3
2
1
2
Massachusetts
52
24
29
33
1
1
1
1
Michigan
130
…
…
…
2
…
…
…
Minnesota
43
…
…
…
1
…
…
…
Mississippi
234
161
229
185
12
8
11
8
Missouri
463
371
429
395
12
9
10
9
Montana
8
…
12
…
1
…
2
…
Nebraska
131
83
91
66
11
7
7
5
Nevada
22
28
30
18
2
2
2
1
New Hampshire
23
9
…
…
3
1
…
…
New Jersey
82
57
28
55
1
1
(Z)
1
New Mexico
40
63
37
43
4
5
3
3
New York
209
129
82
72
2
1
1
(Z)
North Carolina
253
277
274
293
5
5
5
4
North Dakota
7
9
5
…
1
2
1
…
Ohio
424
224
339
284
5
3
4
3
Oklahoma
340
341
308
250
14
14
12
9
Oregon
43
…
47
…
2
…
2
…
Pennsylvania
266
154
164
149
3
2
2
2
Rhode Island
4
3
…
…
1
(Z)
…
…
South Carolina
209
167
231
187
8
6
8
6
South Dakota
30
23
19
11
6
4
3
2
Tennessee
326
230
248
246
9
6
6
5
Texas
1156
1144
972
1001
9
8
6
6
Utah
27
18
31
46
2
1
2
3
Vermont
13
7
10
…
3
2
2
…
Virginia
203
178
171
134
4
3
3
2
Washington
51
…
…
32
1
…
…
1
West Virginia
96
83
84
111
7
6
6
8
Wisconsin
83
…
35
…
2
…
1
…
Wyoming
11
…
8
…
3
…
2
…
Note: Alaska is not included because its participation rates were based on sample sizes less than 10.
… Sample size too small to report data reliably.
(Z) Less than 0.5 percent.54 Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
Since 1996 the participation rate for freshwater anything fishing has been flat: 3% in 1991 and 2% in 1996, 2001, and 2006. Sixteen states had above average participation rates in 2006 (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin). The states with the highest rates were Tennessee, Arkansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma and West Virginia. The state with the lowest rate (for states which have estimates) was California.
Figure 45. The State Participation Rates of Freshwater Anything Anglers Relative to the National Participation Rate: 2006
FLNMHIDEMDTXOKKSNESDNDMTWYCOUTIDAZNVWACAORKYMENYPAMIVTNHMARICTVAWVOHINILNCTNSCALMSARLAMOIAMNWINJGAAK
National Participation Rate: 2%
n States twice the national participation rate
n States national rate to double the rate
n States below the national average
n States with no reportable estimateTrends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species 55
Table 26. Trend in Number of Freshwater Anything Anglers, by State of Residence: 1991–2006
(Numbers in thousands)
Number of participants
Participation rates
1991
1996
2001
2006
1991
1996
2001
2006
U.S. Total
5,285
4,475
4,872
4,120
3
2
2
2
Alabama
90
117
134
122
3
4
4
3
Alaska
3
8
8
…
1
2
2
…
Arizona
49
68
72
51
2
2
2
1
Arkansas
87
70
108
87
5
4
5
4
California
162
243
219
82
1
1
1
(Z)
Colorado
50
47
65
…
2
2
2
…
Connecticut
29
76
55
38
1
3
2
1
Delaware
9
11
12
14
2
2
2
2
Florida
274
212
455
256
3
2
4
2
Georgia
254
136
203
181
5
2
3
3
Hawaii
10
…
6
…
1
…
1
…
Idaho
13
…
…
…
2
…
…
…
Illinois
340
304
267
160
4
3
3
2
Indiana
175
126
103
106
4
3
2
2
Iowa
105
63
93
54
5
3
4
2
Kansas
70
41
62
40
4
2
3
2
Kentucky
136
173
106
107
5
6
3
3
Louisiana
85
128
79
66
3
4
2
2
Maine
30
30
23
31
3
3
2
3
Maryland
60
71
90
59
2
2
2
1
Massachusetts
74
94
100
54
2
2
2
1
Michigan
203
160
132
170
3
2
2
2
Minnesota
113
118
76
129
3
3
2
3
Mississippi
103
49
92
62
5
2
4
3
Missouri
232
96
102
152
6
2
2
3
Montana
12
9
38
…
2
1
5
…
Nebraska
37
23
61
59
3
2
5
4
Nevada
8
18
15
20
1
1
1
1
New Hampshire
14
14
29
14
2
2
3
1
New Jersey
66
53
83
47
1
1
1
1
New Mexico
20
25
19
13
2
2
1
1
New York
339
229
138
125
2
2
1
1
North Carolina
162
149
119
167
3
3
2
2
North Dakota
16
11
23
9
3
2
5
2
Ohio
412
150
212
304
5
2
2
3
Oklahoma
102
142
263
101
4
6
10
4
Oregon
21
…
41
39
1
…
2
1
Pennsylvania
244
288
219
68
3
3
2
1
Rhode Island
12
11
12
13
2
1
2
2
South Carolina
62
95
138
106
2
3
4
3
South Dakota
22
8
17
9
4
1
3
1
Tennessee
159
84
109
215
4
2
3
5
Texas
344
333
267
291
3
2
2
2
Utah
15
…
24
42
1
…
2
2
Vermont
21
14
22
11
5
3
5
2
Virginia
170
111
145
165
4
2
3
3
Washington
57
…
42
30
2
…
1
1
West Virginia
62
46
56
60
4
3
4
4
Wisconsin
150
126
97
135
4
3
2
3
Wyoming
6
7
…
…
2
2
…
…
… Sample size too small to report data reliably.
(Z) Less than 0.5 percent.56 Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
Flatfishing participation nationally has been steady at 1% of Americans since 1991. Seven coastal states had participation rates above the national average in 2006 (Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Texas and Virginia), as well as the noncoastal state Pennsylvania. The states with the highest rates were Alaska, Delaware, New Jersey and Texas. No coastal state which had a reportable estimate had a participation rate below the national average.
Figure 46. The State Participation Rates of Flatfish Anglers Relative to the
National Participation Rate: 2006
FLNMHIDEMDTXOKKSNESDNDMTWYCOUTIDAZNVWACAORKYMENYPAMIVTNHMARICTVAWVOHINILNCTNSCALMSARLAMOIAMNWINJGAAK
National Participation Rate: 1%
n States twice the national participation rate
n States national rate to double the rate
n States below the national average
n States with no reportable estimateTrends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species 57
Table 27. Trend in Number of Flatfish Anglers, by State of Residence: 1991–2006
(Numbers in thousands)
Number of participants
Participation rates
1991
1996
2001
2006
1991
1996
2001
2006
U.S. Total
2,302
2,626
2,269
2,069
1
1
1
1
Alabama
29
25
32
33
1
1
1
1
Alaska
55
67
61
44
15
16
13
9
California
183
211
185
201
1
1
1
1
Connecticut
45
52
51
44
2
2
2
2
Delaware
26
48
28
21
5
9
5
3
Florida
195
233
281
186
2
2
2
1
Georgia
22
55
37
45
(Z)
1
1
1
Louisiana
68
39
48
51
2
1
1
1
Maryland
95
100
60
59
3
3
1
1
Massachusetts
80
62
57
66
2
1
1
1
Mississippi
31
37
21
…
2
2
1
…
New Hampshire
9
7
…
7
1
1
…
1
New Jersey
273
281
180
209
5
5
3
3
New York
220
229
205
92
2
2
1
1
North Carolina
113
205
119
97
2
4
2
1
Oregon
17
…
28
…
1
…
1
…
Pennsylvania
150
188
154
152
2
2
2
2
Rhode Island
15
11
17
18
2
1
2
2
South Carolina
50
75
66
43
2
3
2
1
Texas
321
375
315
447
3
3
2
3
Virginia
118
178
164
97
2
3
3
2
Washington
69
…
35
28
2
…
1
1
Note: States where participation rates were zero or based on a sample size less than 10 are not shown.
(Z) Less than 0.5 percent.
… Sample size too small to report data reliably.58 Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
As with flatfishing, saltwater anything has been steady at 1% of Americans since 1991. Ten coastal states had participation rates above the national average in 2006 (Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Virginia). The states with the highest rates were Florida, Hawaii, Delaware and Virginia. The coastal state with the lowest rate (for states which had reportable estimates) was New York.
Figure 47. The State Participation Rates of Saltwater Anything Anglers Relative to the
National Participation Rate: 2006
FLNMHIDEMDTXOKKSNESDNDMTWYCOUTIDAZNVWACAORKYMENYPAMIVTNHMARICTVAWVOHINILNCTNSCALMSARLAMOIAMNWINJGAAK
National Participation Rate: 1%
n States twice the national participation rate
n States national rate to double the rate
n States below the national average
n States with no reportable estimateTrends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species 59
Table 28. Trend in Number of Saltwater Anything Anglers, by State of Residence: 1991–2006
(Numbers in thousands)
Number of participants
Participation rates
1991
1996
2001
2006
1991
1996
2001
2006
U.S. Total
2,831
2,964
3,110
2,424
1
1
1
1
Alabama
60
47
85
40
2
1
2
1
Alaska
6
6
…
…
2
1
…
…
California
348
284
309
234
2
1
1
1
Connecticut
25
46
51
26
1
2
2
1
Delaware
9
19
15
22
2
3
3
3
Florida
711
743
883
631
7
7
7
4
Georgia
66
104
90
150
1
2
1
2
Hawaii
80
64
64
44
10
7
7
4
Louisiana
71
71
95
63
2
2
3
2
Maine
10
…
…
…
1
…
…
…
Maryland
102
91
127
87
3
2
3
2
Massachusetts
69
77
78
72
1
2
2
1
Mississippi
42
41
49
33
2
2
2
1
New Hampshire
…
11
13
9
…
1
1
1
New Jersey
98
119
111
98
2
2
2
1
New York
98
94
96
58
1
1
1
(Z)
North Carolina
131
198
154
116
3
4
3
2
Ohio
59
55
45
…
1
1
1
…
Oregon
16
…
…
…
1
…
…
…
Pennsylvania
72
85
124
…
1
1
1
…
Rhode Island
13
10
16
16
2
1
2
2
South Carolina
47
71
109
65
2
2
4
2
Texas
296
250
187
210
2
2
1
1
Virginia
140
186
130
162
3
4
2
3
Washington
55
78
28
…
1
2
1
…
Note: States where participation rates were zero or based on a sample size less than 10 are not shown.
(Z) Less than 0.5 percent.
… Sample size too small to report data reliably.60 Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
Demographic Trends
Demographic trends analysis gives
insight into what is happening to the
hunting and angling population. A
common use of demographics is to build
a profile of the typical angler or hunter.
Here, however, we take the opposite
approach. Instead of listing the median or
mean of each demographic category for
a hunter or angler, we find the preferred
type of hunting or fishing for selected
demographic cohorts. The focus is for
which species a demographic cohort is
most (or least) likely to hunt or fish.
The proportion of all participants who
fall into defined demographic categories
is the metric used in this analysis. This
enables us to see how substantive the
people in each demographic category are
in the composition of the total number of
participants. Using proportions instead of
total numbers of participants facilitates
comparison of typical groups of each type
of fishing and hunting equally, without
having the more populous types be
unduly dominant.
Fishing
It is interesting how opposite the
preferences of the youngest and oldest
anglers are. In 2006 the angler groups
that had the highest proportion of 16–24
year old anglers were those who fished
for catfish or freshwater anything (the
two groups tied); flatfish anglers had
the highest proportion of 55 years old
and older anglers. Similarly, in 1991 the
most popular fish for 16–24 year old
anglers was catfish; the most popular fish
for anglers 55 and older was saltwater
anything. Alternatively, the fish that had
the smallest proportion of 16–24 year
olds in 2006 was flatfish; the fish with the
smallest proportion of 55 years old and
older anglers was freshwater anything.
In 1991 the least popular fish for 16–24
year old anglers was flatfish; it was bass
for anglers 55 and older.
In both 2006 and 1991 the target fish
that had the highest proportion of female
anglers was freshwater anything, the
smallest proportion of female anglers
were those seeking bass.
In 2006 the game fish that had the
highest proportion of Hispanic
participants was flatfish, while in 1991
it was saltwater anything. The lowest
proportion of Hispanic anglers in both
years were those fishing for bass.
Catfishing had the highest proportion of
rural anglers in both 1991 and 2006. The
rural population’s least popular game
fish were flatfish and saltwater anything
(tied) in 2006 and saltwater anything in
1991.
In both 2006 and 1991 the angling
species that the largest proportion of
above median income anglers fished for
was flatfish. In both years the largest
proportion of below median income
anglers was that of catfish anglers.
USFWS/Steve Hillebrand
Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species 61
Table 29. Demographics for Species Anglers: 1991
(Percent of total participants)
Total
bass
trout
catfish
freshwater anything
flatfish
saltwater anything
Urban/rural*
Urban
63
60
66
57
62
74
78
Rural
37
40
34
43
38
26
22
Marital
Married
67
66
67
64
65
68
67
Not married
33
34
33
36
35
32
33
Education
Less than twelve
16
14
13
22
23
12
14
Twelve
40
41
38
43
37
37
34
College
44
45
49
34
39
51
52
Ethnicity
Hispanic
3
2
5
4
3
4
6
Not hispanic
97
98
95
96
97
96
94
Race
White
92
93
94
89
88
95
89
Black
5
5
2
8
9
3
6
All others
3
2
3
3
3
2
5
Household income
Below median
41
41
39
52
47
30
36
Above median
59
59
61
48
53
70
64
Gender
Male
72
80
77
74
63
77
69
Female
28
20
23
26
37
23
31
Age cohorts
16–17
4
4
4
6
6
2
3
18–24
13
15
14
15
13
10
14
25–34
28
28
28
29
29
32
26
35–44
24
25
25
22
23
25
24
45–54
14
13
14
12
14
16
15
55–64
9
8
9
9
8
8
9
65 and older
8
6
7
7
7
7
9
*Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) data are not available from the 1991 dataset. Urban/rural designation was supplied by the Bureau of Census, and was based on a modified version of the current MSA categorization.62 Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
Table 30. Demographics for Species Anglers: 2006
(Percent of total participants)
Total
bass
trout
catfish
freshwater anything
flatfish
saltwater anything
MSA designator*
1 - Inside MSA
73
72
75
65
73
88
88
3 - Outside MSA
27
28
25
35
27
12
12
Marital
Married
69
70
69
64
67
72
69
No longer married
13
11
13
16
12
11
11
Never married
18
19
18
20
21
18
21
Education
Less than twelve
13
13
10
19
18
8
12
Twelve
34
35
33
39
33
33
30
College
52
51
56
41
49
59
58
Ethnicity
Hispanic
5
4
6
6
5
13
10
Not hispanic
95
96
94
94
95
87
90
Race
White
92
93
95
88
90
89
87
Black
5
4
2
8
7
8
9
All others
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
Household income
Below median
41
40
38
53
47
29
34
Above median
59
60
62
47
53
71
66
Gender
Male
75
80
79
73
66
79
74
Female
25
20
21
27
34
21
26
Age cohorts
16–17
4
4
3
4
5
1
3
18–24
8
9
7
10
9
7
7
25–34
16
16
15
17
20
14
19
35–44
25
24
25
26
25
28
26
45–54
22
22
24
20
21
24
24
55–64
15
16
16
13
12
17
14
65 and older
10
8
10
9
8
10
7
*MSA is the Bureau of the Census’ Metropolitan Statistical Area. Very simply, the cutoff for a metropolitan area is 50,000 inhabitants. See the National Survey’s national report for further details.Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species 63
Hunting
In 2006 and 1991 the game animal that had the highest proportion of 16–24 year old hunters was squirrel. In both years the game animal that had the lowest proportion of 16���24 year old hunters was turkey. There was movement in the preferences of the oldest age cohort: in 2006 the game animals with the highest proportion of 55 and older hunters was turkey and dove (a tie), and in 1991 turkey was the game animal (as with fishing, the age groups are opposite-minded in regard to turkey hunting preferences). In 1991 the game animal with the lowest proportion of 55 and older hunters was dove, but in 2006 duck had taken its place. For the oldest hunters (55 years old and older), dove hunting has gone from least likely to undertake in 1991 to a tie for most likely in 2006.
In 2006 and 1991 the game animal that had the highest proportion of female hunters was deer. In 1991 duck hunting had the least proportion of female hunters, but in 2006 rabbit hunting had taken its place.
Hispanic preferences have been quite stable. In both 1991 and 2006 the highest proportion of Hispanic hunters was dove hunters, and the lowest proportion was turkey, squirrel, and duck hunters (a tie).
In 2006 rabbit hunting had the highest proportion of rural hunters; in 1991 it was turkey hunting. For both 1991 and 2006 the game animal with the smallest proportion of rural hunters was duck.
In 1991 and 2006 duck hunting had the highest proportion of above median income hunters. In 1991 and 2006 squirrel hunting had the highest proportion of below median income hunters.
Missouri Department of Conservation64 Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
Table 31. Demographics for Species Hunters: 1991
(Percent of total participants)
Total
deer
turkey
rabbit
squirrel
duck
dove
Urban/rural
Urban
47
44
40
46
42
56
52
Rural
53
56
60
54
58
44
48
Marital
Married
69
70
69
62
61
65
65
Not married
31
30
31
38
39
35
35
Education
Less than twelve
17
17
14
19
23
8
12
Twelve
44
47
47
45
46
36
36
College
39
36
39
35
32
56
53
Ethnicity
Hispanic
2
2
1
2
1
1
3
Not hispanic
98
98
99
98
99
99
97
Race
White
97
97
98
95
95
97
97
Black
2
2
2
4
4
1
1
All others
1
1
(Z)
1
1
1
2
Household income
Below median
43
44
39
45
49
28
33
Above median
57
56
61
55
51
72
67
Gender
Male
92
92
96
96
96
97
94
Female
8
8
4
4
4
3
6
Age cohorts
16–17
5
4
3
7
8
4
5
18–24
14
14
14
19
20
17
19
25–34
28
29
28
28
26
29
28
35–44
24
24
26
22
23
25
25
45–54
15
15
15
13
12
13
14
55–64
8
8
9
7
6
7
6
65 and older
6
5
5
4
5
4
4Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species 65
Table 32. Demographics for Species Hunters: 2006
(Percent of total participants)
Total
Deer
Turkey
Rabbit
Squirrel
Duck
Dove
MSA designator
1 - Inside MSA
62
60
60
57
58
70
67
3 - Outside MSA
38
40
40
43
42
30
33
Marital
Married
72
73
74
69
68
76
70
Not married
28
27
26
31
32
24
30
Education
Less than twelve
14
15
11
18
16
6
8
Twelve
39
41
39
42
46
30
33
College
47
44
50
40
38
65
58
Ethnicity
Hispanic
3
3
2
5
2
2
8
Not hispanic
97
97
98
95
98
98
92
Race
White
96
96
97
94
95
97
98
Black
2
1
1
4
3
1
1
All others
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
Household income
Below median
41
43
41
50
52
25
34
Above median
59
57
59
50
48
75
66
Gender
Male
91
91
94
96
95
95
94
Female
9
9
6
4
5
5
6
Age cohorts
16–17
4
4
2
2
3
3
3
18–24
8
8
8
9
11
8
9
25–34
16
18
16
19
18
20
21
35–44
25
25
24
27
24
30
23
45–54
23
23
25
22
23
19
19
55–64
15
14
16
12
12
13
19
65 and older
9
9
9
8
8
6
666 Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
Crossover Activity of Hunters and Anglers
Deer hunting is the most popular hunting activity for all anglers. Turkey hunting is second for bass and trout anglers; squirrel hunting is second for catfish, freshwater any, and saltwater any anglers; dove hunting is second for flatfish anglers. Duck and dove hunting is last for all anglers except flatfish anglers, whose least popular hunting was for rabbits and squirrels.
Bass fishing is the most popular fishing activity for all hunters. Trout fishing is second for deer and duck hunters; catfishing is second for turkey, rabbit, squirrel, and dove hunters. Saltwater anything fishing is least popular for all hunters.
Table 33. Crossover Participation by Species: 2006
(Numbers in thousands)
Type of angler
Rank of hunting
Number of anglers who hunt for species
Type of hunter
Rank of fishing
Number of hunters who fish for species
Bass
Deer
3,066
Deer
Bass
3,066
Turkey
1,025
Trout
1,919
Squirrel
845
Catfish
1,890
Rabbit
833
Freshwater anything
721
Dove
544
Flatfish
400
Duck
473
Saltwater anything
286
Trout
Deer
1,919
Turkey
Bass
1,025
Turkey
558
Catfish
619
Rabbit
399
Trout
558
Squirrel
376
Freshwater anything
183
Duck
258
Flatfish
115
Dove
247
Saltwater anything
65
Catfish
Deer
1,890
Rabbit
Bass
833
Squirrel
655
Catfish
618
Turkey
619
Trout
399
Rabbit
618
Freshwater anything
186
Dove
435
Flatfish
101
Duck
244
Saltwater anything
65
Freshwater anything
Deer
721
Squirrel
Bass
845
Squirrel
205
Catfish
655
Rabbit
186
Trout
376
Turkey
183
Freshwater anything
205
Duck
69
Flatfish
90
Dove
64
Saltwater anything
85
Flatfish
Deer
400
Duck
Bass
473
Dove
138
Trout
258
Turkey
115
Catfish
244
Duck
114
Flatfish
114
Rabbit
101
Freshwater anything
69
Squirrel
90
Saltwater anything
51
Saltwater anything
Deer
286
Dove
Bass
544
Squirrel
85
Catfish
435
Turkey
65
Trout
247
Rabbit
65
Flatfish
138
Dove
57
Freshwater anything
64
Duck
51
Saltwater anything
57Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species 67
Conclusion
The generalization that hunting and
fishing are declining in popularity is often
heard, but is not strictly speaking true.
The growth in the fishing population
has been higher than the growth in the
U.S. population when the base year
for comparison is 1955 (see Figure
1). Also, while participation in certain
types of hunting and fishing is dropping,
other types present a different picture.
Participation rates for flatfishing and
saltwater anything fishing have held
steady since 1991. The same is true for
turkey and duck hunting. The number of
deer hunters has been remarkably steady
since 1991.
The shorter-term trends show a drop-off
since the high-water mark of 1991. Since
1991 hunting and fishing participation
has dropped significantly. But even in
recent years there are areas of stability.
Several species hunter/anglers stand
out. Turkey hunting is important
because it is increasing in popularity
at a time when outdoor recreation
participation is decreasing. Duck hunting
stands out because the demographics
of duck hunters are so striking:
urban, remarkably high income, and a
preponderance of younger participants.
Flatfishing trends and demographics
have similarities to those of turkey and
duck hunting. Flatfishing participation
has not decreased while all other species
fishing has gone down, and participants
tend to be urban and have remarkably
high incomes. Unlike turkey and duck
hunters, Hispanics and people 55 years
old and older flatfish at a relatively
high rate.
USFWS/ Carl Zitsman
Older white males have been the
dominant demographic group for
fishing and hunting for decades. Youth
and women have recently gotten more
attention as potential sources of new
participants. Squirrel hunting and
catfishing have the highest proportions
of young adult participants. Deer
hunting and freshwater anything fishing
have the highest proportions of women
participants. Knowing their fishing and
hunting preferences could be useful in
any efforts to encourage participation.
68 Trends in Fishing and Hunting 1991–2006: A Focus on Fishing and Hunting by Species
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov
December 2010
Cover photos
Fishing: USFWS/George Gentry
Hunting: Missouri Department of Conservation