Economic impact of waterfowl hunting in the United States: addendum to the 2006 national survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States

Addendum to the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation

Report 2006-2Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States

Addendum to the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation

Report 2006-2

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

November 2008

Erin Carver

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Division of Economics

Arlington VA

This report is intended to complement the National and State reports from 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 thanks Sylvia Cabrera and Richard Aiken for their input into

this report.2 Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States

Contents

Introduction.......................................................................3

Waterfowl Hunters................................................................4

Demographics....................................................................5

Avidity and Expenditures..........................................................8

The Economic Impacts of Waterfowl Hunting.......................................10

Total Industry Output............................................................10

Employment and Employment Income............................................10

Federal and State Taxes..........................................................10

State Impacts....................................................................10

Summary.........................................................................12

Appendix A – Sample Sizes........................................................13

References.......................................................................13Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States 3

Every year millions of sportspersons take to the field to hunt. Among them are waterfowl hunters who pursue ducks and geese in the nation’s flyways. Waterfowl hunters have an important economic impact on local, state, and national economies. In 2006, waterfowl hunters represented 10 percent of all hunters, 7 percent of all hunting trip-related expenditures, and 6 percent of all hunting equipment expenditures.

This report provides information on these hunters, including their participation, demographic characteristics, and the economic impact of their expenditures. The first section of this report examines the demographic characteristics of waterfowl hunters. The second section examines the economic impact of waterfowl hunting on State and national economies. Due to small sample sizes, some state-level impacts are not presented. All dollar estimates are presented as 2006 dollars.

All data are from the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation and represent participation and expenditures for the 2006 calendar year by U.S. residents 16 years of age and older. The 2006 survey was conducted for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the U.S. Census Bureau. The survey was conducted in two phases. First, the screening interview identified wildlife-related recreationists. Second, multiple interviews collected detailed information on participation and expenditures for persons 16 years of age and older. The U.S. Census Bureau collected the data primarily by telephone; respondents who could not be reached by telephone were interviewed in person. The response rate was 90 percent for the screen phase and 77 percent for the detailed sportsmen phase. For more detailed information on the methods of data collection, refer to the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation1.

1 This document is available on the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service webpage: http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov

Introduction

Mike Hemming/USFWS4 Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States

Waterfowl Hunters

Table 1 highlights the total number of waterfowl hunters, days, and trip-related and equipment-related expenditures2. In 2006, approximately 1.3 million people participated in waterfowl hunting. While some hunters do hunt both ducks and geese, nearly 90 percent of waterfowl hunters at least hunt ducks. Waterfowl hunters spent $494 million on trip expenditures and $406 million on equipment expenditures in 2006. For trip expenditures, 36 percent was allocated for food and lodging, 37 percent was spent on transportation, and 27 percent was spent on other costs such as guide fees, user fees, and boat costs.

2 The Survey does not have an expenditure category for waterfowl hunters. Therefore, expenditures are prorated by multiplying migratory bird expenditures by a ratio to derive waterfowl expenditures. This ratio is (number of days hunting geese and ducks)/(total number of days hunting migratory birds). For separate duck and geese expenditures, the numerator included only duck hunting days or goose hunting days.

Table 1. 2006 Waterfowl Hunters, Days, & Expenditures

(Includes hunters 16 years of age and older.)

Hunters, all waterfowl*

1,306,000

Duck

1,147,000

Geese

700,000

Days, all waterfowl

13,071,000

Duck

12,173,000

Geese

6,008,000

Total Waterfowl Expenditures

$900,285,000

Trip Expenditures**

$493,987,000

Food and Lodging

$177,125,000

Transportation

$184,329,000

Other Trip Costs

$132,533,000

Equipment Expenditures***

$406,298,000

*The number of duck hunters, goose hunters, and days of hunting does not sum to the total number of waterfowl hunters because of multiple responses.

**Trip-related expenditures include food, drink, lodging, public and private transportation, guide fees, pack trip or package fees, public and private land use access fees, equipment rental, boating costs, and heating and cooking fuel.

***Equipment expenditures consist of rifles, shotguns, other firearms, ammunition, telescopic sights, decoys, hunting dogs and associated costs. Also included are auxiliary equipment such as camping equipment, binoculars, special hunting clothing, processing and taxidermy costs. Due to small sample sizes, special equipment purchases such as boats, campers, trucks, and cabins are excluded from equipment expenditures.

Donna Dewhurst/USFWSEconomic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States 5

Demographics

This section illustrates the demographic characteristics for waterfowl hunters. In addition, demographic characteristics are presented for all hunters to depict the differences and similarities with the waterfowl hunter subset.

Figures 1 and 2 show where hunters live by region and flyway. By region, the majority of waterfowl hunters live in the South (42 percent) and the Midwest (32 percent). While 17 percent of waterfowl hunters live in the West, only 9 percent live in the Northeast.

The continental United States is divided into four flyways: Atlantic, Central, Mississippi, and Pacific. These flyways represent major migration routes for migratory birds. Figure 2 shows that the majority of waterfowl hunters live in the Mississippi flyway (45 percent). Less than 1 percent of waterfowl hunters do not live in a designated flyway in the continental United States, instead living in Hawaii or Alaska.

Figure 1. Distribution of Waterfowl Hunters by Region

(Population 16 years of age and older.)

Figure 2. Distribution of Waterfowl Hunters by Flyway

(1.3 million total waterfowl hunters)

West17%Midwest32%South42%Northeast9%FLNMHIDEMDTXOKKSNESDNDMTWYCOUTIDAZNVWACAORKYMENYPAMIVTNHMARICTVAWVOHINILNCTNSCALMSARLAMOIAMNWINJGAAKPacific12%Central21%Mississippi45%Atlantic22%FLNMDEMDTXOKKSNESDNDMTWYCOUTIDAZNVWACAORKYMENYPAMIVTNHMARICTVAWVOHINILNCTNSCALMSARLAMOIAMNWINJGA6 Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States

For waterfowl hunters, participation increases with age until the 35-44 age category (29 percent), after which waterfowl hunting decreases with age (Fig 3). This pattern does not follow for all hunters, for which participation remains relatively constant after the 35-44 age category.

Figure 4 depicts the association between waterfowl hunting and educational attainment. The number of waterfowl hunters generally increases with educational achievement. Only 84,000 waterfowl hunters (6 percent) have not obtained their high school degrees. Unlike waterfowl hunters, the percentage of all hunters does not increase with educational attainment. Instead, the percentage of all hunters decreases after attaining a high school diploma.

Figure 5 shows that waterfowl hunting is positively correlated with income. That is, as household income increases, the percentage of waterfowl hunters for each group also increases. Income is also positively correlated with the participation rate of all hunters. However, all hunters do not tend to be as affluent as waterfowl hunters. Waterfowl hunters with an annual household income of over $50,000 is 74 percent (885,000 hunters) compared with 52 percent for all hunters (6.5 million hunters). (In Figure 5, “all hunters” does not sum to 100 percent due to those that did not report household income.)

Figure 3. Percent of Hunters by Age

Figure 4. Percent of Hunters by Education

Figure 5. Percent of Hunters by Annual Household Income

Percents of all hunters does not add to 100 because of nonresponse.

12202118121625232429Waterfowl HuntersAll HuntersPercent051015202530354016-2425-3435-4445-5455+303614392621628Waterfowl HuntersAll HuntersPercent0510152025303540< High SchoolH.S. GraduateSome CollegeCollege Graduate +42450715152230319Waterfowl HuntersAll HuntersPercent01020305040< $20,000$20-34,999$35-49,999$50-74,999$75,000+Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States 7

Figures 6 and 7 compare hunting participation by residents of metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) with that of individuals living outside those areas. A MSA is a major populated area comprising a central city or urban core of 50,000 or more people and its surrounding counties or communities, as identified by the U.S. Census Bureau. It is not surprising that a majority of hunters also reside in those areas.

In 2006, 83 percent of the U.S. population 16 years of age and older, 62 percent of all hunters, and 70 percent of waterfowl hunters lived in MSAs (Figure 6). In contrast, 17 percent of the U.S. population lived outside MSAs compared with 38 percent of all hunters and 30 percent of waterfowl hunters.

It is not difficult to see that hunters are less urban than the population as a whole, and that a nonmetropolitan resident has a higher percentage chance of being a hunter than does a metropolitan resident. In 2006, 12 percent of all nonmetropolitan residents hunted and 2 percent waterfowl hunted; while, only 4 percent of all metropolitan residents hunted and 1 percent waterfowl hunted (Figure 7).

Figure 6. Percent of Hunters by Residence

Figure 7. Percent of U.S. Population Who Hunted by Residence

Inside Metropolitan Statistical AreaOutside Metropolitan Statistical AreaWaterfowl HuntersAll Hunters70%30%62%38%PercentInside Metropolitan Statistical AreaOutside Metropolitan Statistical Area14212051015Waterfowl Hunters All Hunters8 Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States

Avidity and Expenditures

Figure 8 depicts the mean days of waterfowl hunting nationwide. Waterfowl hunters that hunt both ducks and geese average over twice as many days (21 days) as waterfowl hunters that do not hunt both. On average, duck hunters spend more days hunting (11 days) than goose hunters (9 days). All hunters averaged about 18 days per year, which is more often than the estimate for all waterfowl hunters (10 days).

In addition to hunting two more days on average, duck hunters also tend to spend more than goose hunters annually (Figure 9). However, waterfowl hunters that hunt both ducks and geese spend over 50 percent more ($854) than duck hunters or goose hunters. All hunters tend to spend more ($1,069) than waterfowl hunters.

Table 2 shows the number of people that participated in waterfowl hunting and the number of waterfowl hunting days by state. The 3 States with the most waterfowl hunters were Texas (121,000 hunters), Arkansas (100,000 hunters), and Louisiana (74,000 hunters).

Figure 8. Average Annual Days of Hunting

Figure 9. Average Annual Expenditures

(Including Trip-related and Equipment-related expenditures)

Days1810119210510152025All HuntersAll WaterfowlBoth Ducksand GeeseDucksGeese1,069689568350854Dollars ($)All HuntersAll WaterfowlBoth Ducksand GeeseDucksGeese02004006008001,0001,200Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States 9

Table 2. Number of Waterfowl Hunters and Hunting Days (thousands)

(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)

Number of Hunters

Number of Days

State

Waterfowl

Ducks

Geese

Waterfowl

Ducks

Geese

Alabama

24

24

-

203

157

-

Arkansas

100

100

-

1,807

1,483

-

California

61

61

-

700

583

-

Colorado

32

-

-

403

-

-

Delaware

12

10

9

164

93

71

Georgia

29

-

-

123

-

-

Idaho

27

26

-

260

142

-

Illinois

71

65

57

1,418

798

620

Iowa

22

-

19

231

-

169

Kansas

30

27

20

498

273

225

Louisiana

74

72

-

1,326

1,191

-

Maryland

43

39

35

490

257

233

Massachusetts

14

13

-

145

92

-

Minnesota

52

49

-

897

472

-

Mississippi

41

41

-

318

270

-

Missouri

42

36

-

695

629

-

Montana

13

13

-

107

65

-

Nebraska

34

28

24

480

242

238

North Dakota

22

20

13

209

136

73

Oklahoma

38

34

21

375

270

105

Oregon

28

27

-

292

253

-

South Carolina

32

32

-

384

373

-

South Dakota

26

14

21

205

103

102

Tennessee

36

33

-

480

323

-

Texas

121

102

71

1,241

914

327

Utah

20

20

11

139

101

38

Vermont

5

-

-

66

-

-

Virginia

29

26

-

199

112

-

Washington

20

18

-

199

157

-

Wisconsin

66

48

54

1,001

517

483

Note: A hyphen (-) denotes sample sizes that are too small to report reliably (9 or less). States NOT listed have sample sizes too small to report reliably for any category (9 or less). These sample size criteria are consistent with the “2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.”10 Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States

The Economic Impacts of Waterfowl Hunting

Waterfowl hunters spend money on a variety of goods and services for trip-related and equipment-related purchases. Trip-related expenditures include food, lodging, transportation, and other incidental expenses. Equipment expenditures consist of guns, decoys, hunting dogs, camping equipment, special hunting clothing, and other costs. By having ripple effects throughout the economy, these direct expenditures are only part of the economic impact of waterfowl hunting. The effect on the economy in excess of direct expenditures is known as the multiplier effect. For example, an individual may purchase decoys to use while duck hunting. Part of the purchase price will stay with the local retailer. The local retailer, in turn, pays a wholesaler who in turn pays the manufacturer of the decoys. The manufacturer then spends a portion of this income to pay businesses supplying the manufacturer. In this sense, each dollar of local retail expenditures can affect a variety of businesses. Thus, expenditures associated with waterfowl hunting can ripple through the economy by impacting economic activity, employment, and household income. To measure these effects, a regional input-output modeling method3 is utilized to derive estimates for total industry output, employment, employment income, and tax revenue associated with waterfowl hunting.

Total Industry Output

Table 3 depicts the economic effect of waterfowl hunting in 2006. The trip expenditures of $494 million by waterfowl hunters generated $1.2 billion in total output while equipment expenditures of $406 million generated $1.1 billion in total output in the United States. Total output includes the direct, indirect, and induced effects of the expenditures associated with waterfowl hunting.

3 The estimates for total industry output, employment, employment income, and federal and state taxes were derived using IMPLAN, a regional input-output model and software system.

Direct effects are the initial effects or impacts of spending money; for example, purchasing ammunition or a pair of binoculars are examples of direct effects. An example of an indirect effect would be the purchase of the ammunition by a sporting goods retailer from the manufacturer.

Finally, induced effects refer to the changes in production associated with changes in household income (and spending) caused by changes in employment related to both direct and indirect effects. More simply, people who are employed by the sporting goods retailer, by the wholesaler, and by the ammunition manufacturer spend their income on various goods and services which in turn generate a given level of output (induced effects).

Employment and Employment Income

Table 3 shows that waterfowl hunting expenditures in 2006 created 27,618 jobs and $884 million in employment income. Thus, each job had an average annual salary of $32,000. Jobs and job income in Table 3 include direct, indirect, and induced effects in a manner similar to total industrial output. Jobs include both full and part-time jobs, with a job defined as one person working for at least part of the calendar year. Job income consists of both employee compensation and proprietor income.

Federal and State Taxes

Federal and State tax revenue are derived from waterfowl hunting-related recreational spending. In 2006, $154 million in State tax revenue and $193 million in Federal tax revenue were generated.

State Impacts

The economic impact of a given level of expenditures depends, in part, on the degree of self-sufficiency of the area under consideration. An area with a high degree of self-sufficiency (out-of-area imports are comparatively small) will generally have a higher level of impacts associated with a given level of expenditures than an area with significantly higher imports (i.e., a comparatively lower level of self-sufficiency). Thus, the economic impacts of a given level of expenditures will generally be less for rural and other less economically integrated areas compared with other, more economically diverse areas or regions. The impacts in each State are only those impacts that occur within the State, and a State’s multiplier is typically smaller than the multiplier for the United States.

Table 4 shows the economic impacts of trip-related and equipment-related waterfowl hunting expenditures by state in 2006. Due to small sample sizes, the economic impacts are not depicted for all States. Texas, Arkansas, and California generated the largest amount of total output at $205 million, $124 million, and $106 million, respectively.

Table 3. Summary of Economic Impacts

Waterfowl Hunters

1,306,000

Total Expenditures

$900,285,000

Total Industry Output

$2,349,964,000

Employment

27,618

Employment Income

$884,496,000

State Tax Revenue

$153,805,000

Federal Tax Revenue

$192,576,000Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States 11

Table 4. Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting - State and National Totals, 2006.

(Dollar values are in thousands.)

State

Trip & Equipment Expenditures

Total Output

Job Income

Jobs

State Tax Revenue

Federal Tax Revenue

United States

$900,285

$2,349,965

$884,497

27,618

$153,805

$192,576

Arkansas

$91,000

$124,005

$47,895

2,505

$9,154

$9,404

California

$74,328

$105,939

$43,843

1,242

$8,214

$9,483

Colorado

$20,799

$32,616

$13,140

480

$2,546

$2,866

Delaware

$2,761

$3,972

$1,606

59

$336

$343

Idaho

$8,596

$12,636

$4,928

243

$1,123

$986

Illinois

$55,372

$82,770

$32,565

1,067

$5,736

$7,231

Iowa

$7,906

$11,425

$4,341

216

$1,036

$909

Kansas

$16,842

$24,193

$9,637

439

$1,765

$1,954

Louisiana

$43,086

$62,166

$24,347

1,101

$4,255

$4,351

Maryland

$33,587

$51,991

$21,108

726

$5,030

$4,845

Massachusetts

$3,258

$4,896

$2,130

64

$364

$477

Minnesota

$28,563

$43,122

$16,761

653

$3,370

$3,767

Mississippi

$12,041

$17,189

$6,705

349

$1,404

$1,244

Missouri

$48,092

$72,079

$27,691

1,135

$5,146

$5,683

Montana

$9,163

$13,706

$5,044

279

$1,254

$1,158

Nebraska

$17,019

$24,381

$9,582

441

$1,860

$1,893

North Dakota

$9,034

$9,447

$3,753

166

$498

$740

Oklahoma

$16,002

$23,249

$8,769

404

$1,763

$1,808

South Carolina

$17,284

$22,934

$9,027

411

$1,849

$1,832

South Dakota

$2,768

$3,511

$1,402

65

$225

$274

Tennessee

$29,783

$48,951

$19,441

775

$3,627

$4,033

Texas

$135,628

$204,875

$78,557

2,948

$15,770

$16,661

Utah

$12,187

$19,117

$7,238

315

$1,617

$1,475

Virginia

$12,149

$17,088

$7,880

338

$1,833

$1,842

Washington

$4,660

$6,366

$2,584

94

$455

$573

Wisconsin

$19,070

$26,208

$10,364

444

$2,195

$2,147

Note: States NOT listed have sample sizes too small to report reliably (9 or less). These sample size criteria are consistent with the “2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.”12 Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States

Summary

This report has presented information on the participation and expenditure patterns of approximately 1.3 million waterfowl hunters. Compared to all hunters, waterfowl hunters tend to be younger, have higher educational achievements, and are more affluent. The majority (74 percent) of waterfowl hunters live in the South and Midwest.

Trip-related and equipment-related expenditures associated with waterfowl hunting generated over $2.3 billion in total economic output in 2006. This impact was dispersed across local, state, and national economies.

Glen Smart/USFWSEconomic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States 13

References

MIG, Inc. IMPLAN System. Stillwater, MN. 1998.

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.

State

Trip Expenditures

Waterfowl Hunters

Waterfowl Days

Alabama

8

12

12

Arizona

2

3

3

Arkansas

36

41

41

California

16

16

16

Colorado

10

12

12

Connecticut

4

4

4

Delaware

23

28

28

Florida

3

6

5

Georgia

9

11

11

Idaho

12

12

12

Illinois

20

23

23

Indiana

9

9

9

Iowa

13

13

13

Kansas

17

17

17

Kentucky

5

6

6

Louisiana

28

31

31

Maine

5

6

6

Maryland

32

35

35

Massachusetts

10

12

12

Michigan

6

9

9

Minnesota

11

14

14

Mississippi

12

16

16

Missouri

15

16

16

Montana

14

15

15

Nebraska

32

35

35

Nevada

4

5

5

New Hampshire

5

6

6

New Jersey

8

8

8

New Mexico

5

6

6

New York

5

6

6

North Carolina

6

9

8

North Dakota

24

28

27

Ohio

1

3

3

Oklahoma

18

18

18

Oregon

9

11

11

Pennsylvania

9

9

9

Rhode Island

4

4

4

South Carolina

10

12

12

South Dakota

22

31

31

Tennessee

13

16

15

Texas

16

19

18

Utah

18

19

19

Vermont

7

10

10

Virginia

10

12

12

Washington

11

13

13

West Virginia

2

2

2

Wisconsin

16

21

21

Wyoming

6

7

7

Appendix A – Sample SizesU.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov

Cover photo: Wyman Meinzer/USFWS