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

              2006 National Survey
of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated
Recreation
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
Dirk Kempthorne,
Secretary
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
H. Dale Hall,
Director
U.S. Department of Commerce
Carlos M. Gutierrez,
Secretary
Economics and Statistics Administration
Cynthia A. Glassman,
Under Secretary for Economic Affairs
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU
Charles Louis Kincannon,
Director
2006 National Survey of
Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation
FHW/06-NAT
The U.S. Department of the Interior protects and manages the Nation’s natural resources and cultural
heritage; provides scientifi c and other information about those resources; and honors its trust responsi-bilities
or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affi liated Island Communities.
The mission of the Department’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve,
protect, and enhance fi sh, wildlife, and their habitats for the continuing benefi t of the American people.
The Service is responsible for national programs of vital importance to our natural resources, including
administration of the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs. These two programs provide fi nan-cial
assistance to the States for projects to enhance and protect fi sh and wildlife resources and to assure
their availability to the public for recreational purposes. Multistate grants from these programs fund the
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.
Suggested Citation
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S.
Census Bureau. 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
H. Dale Hall,
Director
Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration
Rowan Gould,
Assistant Director
U.S. Department of the Interior
Dirk Kempthorne,
Secretary
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU
Charles Louis Kincannon,
Director
Economics and Statistics
Administration
Cynthia A. Glassman,
Under Secretary for Economic Affairs
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation iii
Contents
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
Survey Background and Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Highlights
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Fishing Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Hunting Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Wildlife-Watching Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Tables
Guide to Statistical Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Fishing and Hunting Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Wildlife-Watching Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
State Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Appendixes
A. Defi nitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
B. 2005 Participation of 6-to-15-Year-Olds and Historical Participation of Sportspersons:
Data From Screening Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
C. Signifi cant Methodological Changes From Previous Surveys and Regional Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
D. Sample Design and Statistical Accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
iv 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Fishing and Hunting: 2006
1. Anglers and Hunters 16 Years Old and Older, Days of Participation, and Trips by Type of Fishing and Hunting . . . 57
2. Anglers, Trips, and Days of Fishing by Type of Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3. Freshwater Anglers and Days of Fishing by Type of Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4. Great Lakes Anglers and Days of Fishing by Type of Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5. Saltwater Anglers and Days of Fishing by Type of Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
6. Hunters, Trips, and Days of Hunting by Type of Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
7. Hunters and Days of Hunting by Type of Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
8. Selected Characteristics of Anglers and Hunters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
9. Selected Characteristics of Anglers by Type of Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
10. Selected Characteristics of Hunters by Type of Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
11. Summary of Expenditures for Fishing and Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
12. Expenditures for Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
13. Trip and Equipment Expenditures for Freshwater Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
14. Trip and Equipment Expenditures for Freshwater Fishing, Except Great Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
15. Trip and Equipment Expenditures for Great Lakes Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
16. Trip and Equipment Expenditures for Saltwater Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
17. Expenditures for Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
18. Trip and Equipment Expenditures for Big Game Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
19. Trip and Equipment Expenditures for Small Game Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
20. Trip and Equipment Expenditures for Migratory Bird Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
21. Trip and Equipment Expenditures for Hunting Other Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
22. Special Equipment Expenditures for Fishing and Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
23. Anglers and Hunters Who Purchased Licenses or Were Exempt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
24. Selected Characteristics of Anglers and Hunters Who Purchased Licenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
25. Freshwater Anglers and Days of Fishing by Type of Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
26. Great Lakes Anglers and Days of Fishing by Great Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
27. Hunters and Days of Hunting on Public and Private Land by Type of Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
28. Hunters and Days of Hunting on Public Land by Selected Characteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
29. Hunters and Days of Hunting on Private Land by Selected Characteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
30. Anglers Fishing From Boats and Days of Participation by Type of Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
31. Anglers Fishing From Motorboats and Non-Motorboats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
32. Boats and Boat Launches Used by Anglers and Completion of Boating Safety Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
33. Anglers Fishing Most Often From Boats Alone or With Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
34. Information Used by Anglers Fishing From Boats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
35. Participation in Ice Fishing and Fly-Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
36. Participation in Catch-and-Release Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
37. Hunters Using Bows and Arrows, Muzzleloaders, or Other Firearms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
38. Land Owned or Leased for the Primary Purpose of Fishing or Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
List of Tables
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation v
Wildlife-Watching Activities: 2006
39. Wildlife-Watching Participants by Type of Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
40. Participants, Area Visited, Trips, and Days of Participation in Wildlife Watching Away From Home . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
41. Participation in Wildlife-Watching Activities Around the Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
42. Away-From-Home Wildlife Watchers by Wildlife Observed, Photographed, or Fed and Place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
43. Wild Bird Observers and Days of Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
44. Expenditures for Wildlife Watching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
45. Selected Characteristics of Participants in Wildlife-Watching Activities Away From Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
46. Selected Characteristics of Participants in Wildlife-Watching Activities Around the Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
47. Land Owned or Leased for the Primary Purpose of Wildlife Watching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
48. Participation of Wildlife-Watching Participants in Fishing and Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
49. Participation of Sportspersons in Wildlife-Watching Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
State Wildlife-Related Recreation: 2006
50. Participation in Wildlife-Associated Recreation by State Residents Inside and Outside Their Resident State . . . . . 96
51. Participation in Wildlife-Associated Recreation in Each State by Both Residents and Nonresidents of the State . . . 97
52. Expenditures for Wildlife-Related Recreation by State Where Spending Took Place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
53. Expenditures for Wildlife-Related Recreation in the United States by State Residents
Both Inside and Outside Their Resident State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
54. Anglers and Hunters by Sportsperson’s State of Residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
55. Anglers and Hunters by State Where Fishing or Hunting Took Place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
56. Hunters by Type of Hunting and State Where Hunting Took Place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
57. Days of Hunting by State Where Hunting Took Place and Hunter’s State of Residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
58. Days of Hunting by Type of Hunting and State Where Hunting Took Place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
59. Expenditures for Hunting by State Where Spending Took Place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
60. Freshwater (Except Great Lakes) Anglers and Days of Fishing by State Where Fishing Took Place . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
61. Great Lakes Anglers and Days of Great Lakes Fishing by State Where Fishing Took Place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
62. Saltwater Anglers and Days of Saltwater Fishing by State Where Fishing Took Place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
63. Days of Fishing by State Where Fishing Took Place and Angler’s State of Residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
64. Expenditures for Fishing by State Where Spending Took Place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
65. Participation in Wildlife-Watching Activities by State Residents Both Inside and Outside Their Resident State . . . 112
66. Participation in Wildlife-Watching Activities by State Where Activity Took Place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
67. Participation in Away-From-Home Wildlife Watching by State Where Activity Took Place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
68. Days of Wildlife Watching Away From Home by State Where Activity Took Place
and Participant’s State of Residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
69. Expenditures for Wildlife-Watching Activities by State Where Spending Took Place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
vi 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
I fi nd duck hunting with friends in
a bottomland hardwood swamp or
fi shing with my kids on an Oregon
river bolsters my spirit and reminds me
why I care about conservation and our
wildlife heritage.
But wildlife-associated and vital
recreation—activities such as hunting,
fi shing, and birding—also provide
signifi cant fi nancial support for wildlife
conservation in our Nation’s economy.
According to information from the
newest National Survey of Fishing,
Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated
Recreation, 87.5 million Americans
spent more than $122 billion in 2006
on wildlife-related recreation. And
this spending supports hundreds of
thousands of jobs in industries and
businesses.
The Survey is conducted every fi ve
years at the request of State fi sh and
wildlife agencies to measure the impor-tance
of wildlife-based recreation to the
American people. The 2006 Survey
represents the 11th in a series that
began in 1955. Developed in collabo-ration
with the States, the Association
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and
national conservation organizations,
the Survey has become one of the most
important sources of information on
fi sh and wildlife-related recreation in
the United States.
In the 75-year history of the Sport Fish
and Wildlife Restoration Programs,
excise taxes on fi rearms, ammunition,
archery, and angling equipment have
generated a cumulative total of more
than $10 billion for wildlife conserva-tion
efforts by State and Territorial
wildlife agencies for fi sh and wildlife
management.
My thanks go to the men and women
who took time to participate in the
survey, as well as to the State fi sh and
wildlife agencies for their fi nancial
support through the Multistate State
Conservation Grant Programs. Without
that support, the 2006 Survey would
never have been possible.
I am comforted to know that my chil-dren
and all Americans will have the
opportunity to appreciate our Nation’s
rich wildlife tradition. Along with
a record number of Americans, we
continue to enjoy wildlife. We are
laying the foundation for conservation’s
future.
H. Dale Hall
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Foreword
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation vii
Survey Background and Method
The National Survey of Fishing,
Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated
Recreation (Survey) has been
conducted since 1955 and is one of
the oldest and most comprehensive
continuing recreation surveys. The
Survey collects information on the
number of anglers, hunters, and wild-life
watchers; how often they partici-pate;
and how much they spend on their
activities in the United States.
Preparations for the 2006 Survey began
in 2004 when the Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) recom-mended
that the Fish and Wildlife
Service conduct the eleventh Survey
of wildlife-related recreation. Funding
came from the Multistate Conservation
Grant Programs, authorized by Sport
Fish and Wildlife Restoration Acts, as
amended.
We consulted with State and Federal
agencies and nongovernmental
organizations such as the Wildlife
Management Institute and American
Sportfi shing Association to determine
survey content. Other sportsper-sons’
organizations and conservation
groups, industry representatives, and
researchers also provided valuable
advice.
Four regional technical committees
were set up under the auspices of the
AFWA to ensure that State fi sh and
wildlife agencies had an opportunity to
participate in all phases of survey plan-ning
and design. The committees were
made up of agency representatives.
Data collection for the Survey was
carried out by the U.S. Census Bureau
in two phases. The fi rst phase was
the screen which began in April 2006.
During this phase the Census Bureau
interviewed a sample of 85,000 house-holds
nationwide to determine who
in the household had fi shed, hunted,
or wildlife watched in 2005, and who
had engaged or planned to engage
in those activities in 2006. In most
cases, one adult household member
provided information for all members.
The screen primarily covered 2005
activities while the next, more in-depth
phase covered 2006 activities. For
more information on 2005 data, refer to
Appendix B.
The second phase of data collection
consisted of three detailed inter-view
waves. The fi rst began in April
2006 concurrent with the screen, the
second in September 2006, and the
last in January 2007. Interviews were
conducted with samples of likely
anglers, hunters, and wildlife watchers
who were identifi ed in the initial
screening phase. Interviews were
conducted primarily by phone, with
in-person interviews for respondents
who could not be reached by phone.
Respondents in the second survey
phase were limited to those who were
at least 16 years old. Each respondent
provided information pertaining only to
his or her activities and expenditures.
Sample sizes were designed to provide
statistically reliable results at the state
level. Altogether, interviews were
completed with 21,938 anglers and
hunters and 11,279 wildlife watchers.
More detailed information on sampling
procedures and response rates is found
in Appendix D.
Comparability With Previous
Surveys
The 2006 survey questions and method-ology
were similar to those used in the
2001, 1996, and 1991 Surveys. There-fore,
the estimates are comparable.
The methodology of these Surveys
did differ importantly from the 1985
and 1980 Surveys, so these estimates
are not directly comparable to those
of earlier surveys. Changes in meth-odology
included reducing the recall
period over which respondents had to
report their activities and expenditures.
Previous Surveys used a 12-month
recall period, which resulted in greater
reporting bias. Research found that the
amount of activity and expenditures
reported in 12-month recall surveys
was overestimated in comparison
with that reported using shorter recall
periods.
Highlights
2 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Introduction
The National Survey of Fishing,
Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated
Recreation reports results from inter-views
with U.S. residents about their
fi shing, hunting, and wildlife watching.
This report focuses on 2006 participa-tion
and expenditures of persons 16
years of age and older.
However, in addition to 2006 estimates,
we also provide trend information in
the Highlights section and Appendix
C of the report. The 2006 numbers
reported can be compared with those
in the 1991, 1996, and 2001 Survey
reports because they used similar meth-odologies.
However, 2006 estimates
should not be directly compared with
results from Surveys conducted earlier
than 1991 because of changes in meth-odology
to improve accuracy.
The report also provides information
on participation in wildlife recreation
in 2005, particularly of persons 6 to 15
years of age. The 2005 information is
provided in Appendix B. Information
about the Survey’s scope and coverage
is in Appendix D. The remainder of
this section defi nes important terms
used in the Survey.
Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Wildlife-associated recreation is
fi shing, hunting, and wildlife-watching
activities. These categories are not
mutually exclusive because many indi-viduals
participated in more than one
activity. Wildlife-associated recreation
is reported in two major categories: (1)
fi shing and hunting and (2) wildlife
watching, which includes observing,
photographing, and feeding fi sh or
wildlife.
Fishing and Hunting
This Survey reports information about
residents of the United States who
fi shed or hunted in 2006, regardless of
whether they were licensed. The fi shing
and hunting sections report information
for three groups: (1) sportspersons, (2)
anglers, and (3) hunters.
Sportspersons
Sportspersons are those who fi shed
or hunted. Individuals who fi shed
or hunted commercially in 2006 are
reported as sportspersons only if they
also fi shed or hunted for recreation.
The sportspersons group is composed
of three subgroups as shown in the
diagram below: (1) those that fi shed
and hunted, (2) those that only fi shed,
and (3) those that only hunted.
The total number of sportspersons is
equal to the sum of people who only
fi shed, only hunted, and both hunted
and fi shed. It is not the sum of all
anglers and all hunters because those
people who both fi shed and hunted are
included in both the angler and hunter
population and would be incorrectly
counted twice.
Anglers
Anglers are sportspersons who only
fi shed plus those who fi shed and
hunted. Anglers include not only
licensed hook and line anglers, but
also those who have no license and
those who use special methods such as
fi shing with spears.
Three types of fi shing are reported: (1)
freshwater, excluding the Great Lakes,
(2) Great Lakes, and (3) saltwater.
Since many anglers participated in
more than one type of fi shing, the total
number of anglers is less than the sum
of the three types of fi shing.
Hunters
Hunters are sportspersons who only
hunted plus those who hunted and
fi shed. Hunters include not only
licensed hunters using rifl es and shot-guns
but also those who had no license
and those who hunted with a bow and
arrow, primitive fi rearm, or pistol or
handgun.
Four types of hunting are reported: (1)
big game, (2) small game, (3) migra-tory
bird, and (4) other animals. Since
many hunters participated in more than
one type of hunting, the sum of hunters
for big game, small game, migratory
bird, and other animals exceeds the
total number of hunters.
Wildlife Watchers
Since 1980, the National Survey has
included information on wildlife-watching
activities in addition to
fi shing and hunting. The 1991, 1996,
2001, and 2006 Surveys, unlike the
1980 and 1985 Surveys, collected data
only for activities where the primary
purpose was wildlife watching. The
1980 and 1985 Surveys included esti-mates
of unplanned wildlife watching
around the home and while on trips
taken for another purpose.
The 2006 Survey uses a strict defi ni-tion
of wildlife watching. Participants
must either take a “special interest”
in wildlife around their homes or take
a trip for the “primary purpose” of
Sportspersons
Anglers Hunters
Fished
only
Fished
and
hunted
Hunted
only
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation 3
wildlife watching. Secondary wild-life
watching, such as incidentally
observing wildlife while pleasure
driving, is not included.
Two types of wildlife watching
are reported: (1) away-from-home
(formerly nonresidential) activities and
(2) around-the-home (formerly residen-tial)
activities. Because some people
participated in more than one type of
wildlife watching, the sum of partici-pants
in each type will be greater than
the total number of wildlife watchers.
The two types of wildlife-watching
activity are explained next.
Away-From-Home Wildlife
Watching
This group includes persons who
took trips or outings of at least 1 mile
from home for the primary purpose of
observing, feeding, or photographing
fi sh and wildlife. Trips to fi sh, hunt, or
scout and trips to zoos, circuses, aquar-iums,
and museums are not considered
wildlife-watching activities.
Around-The-Home Wildlife
Watching
This group includes those who
participated within 1 mile of home and
involves one or more of the following:
(1) closely observing or trying to iden-tify
birds or other wildlife; (2) photo-graphing
wildlife; (3) feeding birds or
other wildlife; (4) maintaining natural
areas of at least 1/4 acre where benefi t
to wildlife is the primary concern; (5)
maintaining plantings (shrubs, agri-cultural
crops, etc.) where benefi t to
wildlife is the primary concern; or (6)
visiting public parks within 1 mile
of home for the primary purpose of
observing, feeding, or photographing
wildlife.
4 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Summary
The 2006 Survey found that 87.5
million U.S. residents 16 years old and
older participated in wildlife-related
recreation. During that year, 30.0
million people fi shed, 12.5 million
hunted, and 71.1 million participated in
at least one type of wildlife-watching
activity such as observing, feeding, or
photographing fi sh and other wildlife in
the United States.
The focus of the National Survey is to
estimate participation and expenditures
of persons 16 years old and older in a
single year. These estimates are based
on data collected in the detailed phase
of the 2006 Survey. They are compa-rable
to estimates from the 1991, 1996,
and 2001 Surveys but not with earlier
ones because of changes in method-ology.
A complete explanation of the
change is provided in Appendix C.
While the focus of the Survey is to
estimate wildlife-related recreation-ists
16 years old and older and their
associated expenditures in a single
year, information collected in the
survey screen can be used to estimate
the number of anglers and hunters who
were active over a fi ve-year window of
time. Because many do not participate
every year, the following estimates may
be more representative of the number
of individuals considered to be anglers
and hunters in the United States: 44.4
million individuals fi shed and 18.6
million hunted in the United States over
the fi ve-year period from 2002 to 2006.
The survey screen also provides some
information about 6-to-15-year-olds’
participation. Assuming their propor-tion
of participation was the same in
2006 as in 2005, the following esti-mates
were calculated: of the 6-to-
15-year-olds in the United States, 1.6
million hunted, 8.3 million fi shed, and
12 million wildlife watched in 2006.
More information about this age group
is provided in Appendix B. For the rest
of this report, all information pertains
to participants 16 years old and older.
There was a considerable overlap in
activities among anglers, hunters, and
wildlife watchers. In 2006, 68 percent
of all hunters also fi shed and 29 percent
of all anglers also hunted. In addition,
52 percent of anglers and 57 percent
of hunters wildlife watched, while 25
percent of all wildlife watchers reported
hunting and/or fi shing during the year.
Wildlife recreationists’ avidity also
is refl ected in the $122.3 billion they
spent in 2006 on their activities, which
equated to 1 percent of the Gross
Domestic Product. Of the total amount
spent, $37.4 billion was trip-related,
$64.1 billion was spent on equipment,
and $20.7 billion was spent on other
items such as licenses and land leasing
and ownership.
Sportspersons spent a total of $76.7
billion in 2006—$42.0 billion on
fi shing, $22.9 billion on hunting, and
$11.7 billion on items used for both
hunting and fi shing. Wildlife watchers
spent $45.7 billion on their activities
around the home and on trips away
from home.
Fishing and Hunting
In 2006, 33.9 million U.S. residents 16
years old and older went fi shing and/or
Total Wildlife-Related Recreation
Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87.5 million
Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $122.3 billion
Sportspersons
Total participants* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.9 million
Anglers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.0 million
Hunters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.5 million
Total days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 737 million
Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517 million
Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 million
Total expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $76.7 billion
Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.0 billion
Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.9 billion
Unspecifi ed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.7 billion
Wildlife Watchers
Total participants** . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.1 million
Around the home . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67.8 million
Away from home . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.0 million
Total expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $45.7 billion
* 8.5 million both fi shed and hunted.
** 19.7 million both wildlife watched around the home and away
from home.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation 5
hunting. This includes 30.0 million who
fi shed and 12.5 million who hunted—
8.5 million both fi shed and hunted.
In 2006, expenditures by sportsper-sons
totaled $76.7 billion. Trip-related
expenditures, including food, lodging,
and transportation, were $24.6
billion—32 percent of all fi shing and
hunting expenditures. Total equipment
expenditures amounted to $41.0 billion,
53 percent of the total. Other expendi-tures—
magazines, membership dues,
contributions, land leasing and owner-ship,
and licenses, stamps, tags, and
permits—accounted for $11.1 billion,
or 15 percent of all sportspersons’
expenditures.
Wildlife-Watching Recreation
Observing, feeding, or photographing
wildlife was enjoyed by 71.1 million
people 16 years old and older in 2006.
Among this group, 23.0 million people
took trips away from home for the
primary purpose of enjoying wildlife,
while 67.8 million stayed within a
mile of home to participate in wildlife-watching
activities.
In 2006, wildlife watchers spent $45.7
billion. Trip-related expenses, including
food, lodging, and transportation,
totaled $12.9 billion, 28 percent of all
expenditures. A total of $23.2 billion
was spent on equipment, 51 percent of
all wildlife-watching expenses. The
remaining $9.6 billion, 21 percent of
the total, was spent on magazines,
membership dues, and contributions
made to conservation or wildlife-related
organizations, plantings, and land
leasing and ownership for the purpose
of wildlife watching.
2001 and 2006 Comparison
Six percent more people 16 years of
age and older participated in wildlife-related
recreation in 2006 than in 2001.
Although 5.2 million more people
participated, there were declines in
some activities.
The number of sportspersons fell from
37.8 million in 2001 to 33.9 million in
2006. Their expenditures decreased
from $79.7 billion (in 2006 dollars) in
2001 to $76.7 billion in 2006.
In 2006, 30.0 million U.S. residents 16
years of age and older fi shed compared
to 34.1 million who fi shed in 2001, a
drop of 12 percent. The 4 percent drop
in the number of hunters, 13.0 million
in 2001 to 12.5 million in 2006, is not
statistically signifi cant.
Although fi shing participation declined
from 2001 to 2006, overall expen-ditures
for fi shing held steady. No
expenditure category had a statistically
signifi cant change.
Hunting participation and overall
hunting expenditures stayed about the
same from 2001 to 2006. No expendi-ture
category had a statistically signifi -
cant change.
Expenditures for Wildlife-Related Recreation
(Total expenditures: $122.3 billion)
Expenditures by Sportspersons
(Total expenditures: $76.7 billion)
Expenditures by Wildlife-Watching Participants
(Total expenditures: $45.7 billion)
Unspecified
10%
$11.7 billion
Hunting
19%
$22.9 billion
Wildlife watching
37%
$45.7 billion
Fishing
34%
$42.0 billion
Other
17%
$20.7 billion
Trip-related
31%
$37.4 billion
Equipment
52%
$64.1 billion
Other
15%
$11.1 billion
Trip-related
32%
$24.6 billion
Equipment
53%
$41.0 billion
Other
21%
$9.6 billion
Trip-related
28%
$12.9 billion
Equipment
51%
$23.2 billion
6 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
2001–2006 Wildlife-Associated Recreation Comparison of Participants
(Numbers in thousands)
2001 2006
Number Percent Number Percent
Total wildlife-related recreationists . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82,302 100 87,465 100
Total sportspersons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37,805 46 33,916 39
Anglers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34,071 41 29,952 34
Hunters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,034 16 12,510 14
Total wildlife-watching participants . . . . . . . . . . . . 66,105 80 71,132 81
Around the home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62,928 76 67,756 77
Away from home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,823 27 22,977 26
2001–2006 Wildlife-Associated Recreation Comparison of Expenditures
(Numbers in billions of 2006 dollars)
2001 2006
Number Percent Number Percent
Total wildlife-related recreation expenditures . . . . 123.4 100 122.3 100
Total fi shing and hunting expenditures . . . . . . . . . . 79.7 100 76.7 100
Angling expenditures, total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.6 100 42.0 100
Trip-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.7 41 17.9 43
Equipment, total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.3 48 18.8 45
Fishing equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 13 5.3 13
Auxiliary equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 2 0.8 2
Special equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2 33 12.6 30
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 11 5.4 13
Hunting expenditures, total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.5 100 22.9 100
Trip-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0 26 6.7 29
Equipment, total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.8 50 10.7 47
Hunting equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 22 5.4 24
Auxiliary equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 6 1.3 6
Special equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 22 4.0 17
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 24 5.5 24
Wildlife-watching expenditures, total . . . . . . . . . . 43.7 100 45.7 100
Trip-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3 21 12.9 28
Equipment, total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.8 61 23.2 51
Wildlife-watching equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4 19 9.9 22
Auxiliary equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 2 1.0 2
Special equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.6 40 12.3 27
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7 17 9.6 21
The increase in wildlife-related
recreation participation from 2001 to
2006 was due to wildlife watching
(observing, feeding, and photographing
wildlife). During this period, the
number of people wildlife watching
increased by 8 percent. Although their
overall expenditures showed little
change, they did spend 38 percent more
on trips and 18 percent more on bird
food and wildlife-watching equipment
(such as binoculars, cameras, bird
feeders). Total expenditures over the
fi ve-year period showed little change
because wildlife watchers spent 14
percent less on equipment in 2006 than
in 2001.
Fishing
8 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Fishing Highlights
In 2006, 30.0 million U.S. residents 16
years old and older enjoyed a variety
of fi shing opportunities throughout
the United States. Anglers fi shed 517
million days and took 403 million
fi shing trips. They had $42.0 billion
in fi shing-related expenses during the
year. Freshwater anglers numbered
25.4 million. They fi shed 433 million
days and took 337 million trips to
freshwater in 2006. Freshwater anglers
spent $26.3 billion on freshwater
fi shing trips and equipment. Saltwater
fi shing attracted 7.7 million anglers
who enjoyed 67 million trips on 86
million days. They spent $8.9 billion
on their saltwater trips and equipment.
Total Fishing
Anglers . . . . . . . . 30.0 million
Freshwater . . . . 25.4 million
Saltwater . . . . . 7.7 million
Days . . . . . . . . . . 516.8 million
Freshwater . . . . 433.3 million
Saltwater . . . . . 85.7 million
Trips . . . . . . . . . . 403.5 million
Freshwater . . . . 336.5 million
Saltwater . . . . . 67.0 million
Expenditures . . . $42.0 billion
Freshwater . . . . 26.3 billion
Saltwater . . . . . 8.9 billion
Nonspecifi c . . . 6.8 billion
Note: Detail does not add to total
because of multiple responses
and nonresponse.
Source: Tables 1, 12, 13, and 16.
Fishing
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Total Freshwater Saltwater
Million
Days Trips
Freshwater
Saltwater
Note: Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses and nonresponse.
517 million
403 million
433
86
337
67
Anglers
Anglers
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation 9
Fishing Expenditures
Anglers spent $42.0 billion in 2006
including $17.9 billion on travel-related
items—43 percent of all fi shing expen-ditures.
Food and lodging accounted
for $6.3 billion, 35 percent of all trip-related
costs. Spending on transporta-tion
totaled $5.0 billion, 28 percent of
trip-related expenditures. Other trip
expenditures, such as land use fees,
guide fees, equipment rental, boating
expenses, and bait, cost anglers $6.6
billion—37 percent of all trip expenses.
Fishing equipment expenditures
totaled $18.8 billion in 2006, 45
percent of all fi shing expenditures.
Anglers spent $5.3 billion on fi shing
equipment, such as rods, reels, tackle
boxes, depth fi nders, and artifi cial
lures and fl ies. This amounted to 28
percent of all equipment expenditures.
Auxiliary equipment expenditures,
which includes camping equipment,
binoculars, and special fi shing clothing,
totaled $779 million—4 percent of
equipment costs. Expenditures for
special equipment, such as boats, vans,
and cabins, were $12.6 billion—67
percent of all equipment expenditures.
Anglers also spent a considerable
amount on other fi shing-related items,
such as land leasing and ownership,
membership dues, contributions,
licenses, stamps, and permits. Land
leasing and ownership spending totaled
$4.6 billion, which is 11 percent of
all expenditures. Expenditures on
magazines, books, membership dues,
contributions, licenses, stamps, tags,
and permits were $776 million.
Total Fishing Expenditures
Total fi shing expenditures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $42.0 billion
Total trip-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $17.9 billion
Food and lodging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 billion
Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0 billion
Other trip costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 billion
Total equipment expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $18.8 billion
Fishing equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 billion
Auxiliary equipment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 billion
Special equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.6 billion
Total other fi shing expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5.4 billion
Magazines, books . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 billion
Membership dues and contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 billion
Land leasing and ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 billion
Licenses, stamps, tags, and permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 billion
Source: Table 12.
Percent of Total Fishing Expenditures
(Total expenditures: $42.0 billion)
Fishing Expenditures by Type of Fishing
(Total expenditures: $42.0 billion)
Freshwater
63%
$26.3 billion
Saltwater
21%
$8.9 billion
Nonspecific
16%
$6.8 billion
Other
13%
Equipment
45%
Trip-related
43%
10 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Freshwater Fishing Highlights
Freshwater fi shing was the most
popular type of fi shing. In 2006, 25.4
million anglers went freshwater fi shing
for 433 million days and 337 million
trips. Their expenditures for trips and
equipment totaled $26.3 billion for the
year. Freshwater fi shing can be sepa-rated
into Great Lakes and freshwater
other than the Great Lakes.
There were 25.0 million anglers who
fi shed for 420 million days on 323
million trips to freshwater other than
the Great Lakes. Trip and equipment
expenditures for non-Great Lakes
freshwater fi shing totaled $24.6 billion
for an average of $982 per angler.
Total trip expenditures were $11.5
billion. Food and lodging composed
$4.2 billion or 37 percent of total trip
expenditures. Transportation costs
were $3.7 billion or 32 percent. Other
trip expenses, which include guide fees,
equipment rental, and bait, were $3.6
billion or 31 percent.
Anglers spent $13.1 billion on equip-ment
for non-Great Lakes freshwater
fi shing. Expenditures for fi shing equip-ment,
such as rods and reels, tackle
boxes, depth fi nders, and artifi cial lures
and fl ies, totaled $3.4 billion. Expen-ditures
for auxiliary equipment such
as binoculars and camping equipment
were $601 million. Expenditures for
Freshwater Fishing
Anglers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.4 million
Freshwater except Great Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.0 million
Great Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 million
Days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433.3 million
Freshwater except Great Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419.9 million
Great Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.0 million
Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336.5 million
Freshwater except Great Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323.3 million
Great Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.3 million
Trip and equipment expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $26.3 billion
Freshwater except Great Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.6 billion
Great Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 billion
Note: Detail does not add to total because of multiple response and nonresponse.
Source: Tables 1, 13, 14, and 15.
Freshwater Fishing Trip and Equipment Expenditures
(Total expenditures: $26.3 billion)
Freshwater except Great Lakes
94%
$24.6 billion
Great Lakes
6%
$1.5 billion
Freshwater Fishing
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Great
Lakes
Freshwater
except Great
Lakes
Total
Million
Note: Detail does not add to total because of
multiple responses and nonresponse.
Freshwater anglers
Days
(Total: 433.3 million)
Freshwater except Great Lakes
415.3 million
Great Lakes
13.4 million
Both
4.6 million
Trips
(Total: 336.5 million)
Freshwater except Great Lakes
323.3 million
Great Lakes
13.3 million
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation 11
special equipment such as boats, vans,
and cabins accounted for $9.1 billion.
There were 1.4 million people who
fi shed 18 million days on 13 million
trips to the Great Lakes in 2006. Their
Great Lakes-related expenditures
totaled $1.5 billion. Trip-related
expenses totaled $1.1 billion. Of these
expenditures, $375 million was spent
on food and lodging, 35 percent of trip
costs; $238 million went for transpor-tation,
22 percent of trip costs; and
$453 million, or 43 percent, was spent
on other items such as guide fees,
equipment rental and bait. Equipment
expenditures totaled $442 million. Of
this $442 million, $165 million was for
fi shing equipment (rods, reels, etc.),
$18 million was for auxiliary equip-ment
(camping equipment, binoculars,
etc.), and $258 million was for special
equipment (boats, vans, etc.).
Saltwater Fishing Highlights
In 2006, 7.7 million anglers enjoyed
saltwater fi shing on 67 million trips
totaling 86 million days. Overall, they
spent $8.9 billion during the year
on trips and equipment for saltwater
fi shing. Trip-related expenditures
accounted for $5.3 billion or 60 percent
of the total. Spending for food and
lodging was $1.7 billion or 32 percent
of trip expenditures. Transporta-tion
spending totaled $1.1 billion, 20
percent of trip expenditures. Other trip
expenditures, such as equipment rental,
bait, and guide fees, were $2.5 billion
(48 percent).
Anglers spent a total of $3.6 billion on
equipment for saltwater fi shing. Of the
$3.6 billion, $1.3 billion was for fi shing
equipment (rods, reels, etc.), $108
million was for auxiliary equipment
(camping equipment, binoculars, etc.),
and $2.2 billion was for special equip-ment
(boats, vans, etc.).
Saltwater Fishing
Anglers . . . . . . . . 7.7 million
Days . . . . . . . . . . 85.7 million
Trips . . . . . . . . . . 67.0 million
Trip and equipment
expenditures . . . $8.9 billion
Source: Tables 1 and 16.
Comparative Trip and Equipment Expenditures
Total expenses
Trip-related
Equipment
Freshwater
except
Great Lakes
Great Saltwater
Lakes
$1.5 billion
$8.9 billion
$24.6 billion
Freshwater
except
Great Lakes
Great Saltwater
Lakes
71%
60%
47%
29%
40%
53%
12 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Comparative Fishing Highlights
In 2006, anglers spent an average of 17
days fi shing and took an average of 13
fi shing trips. Similarly, in freshwater
excluding the Great Lakes, anglers
fi shed an average of 17 days and took
13 trips. For Great Lakes fi shing,
participants averaged 13 days of fi shing
on an average of 9 trips. Saltwater
anglers fi shed fewer days, averaging 11
days of fi shing on 9 saltwater trips.
Overall, anglers spent an average of
$1,407 on fi shing-related expenses in
2006. They averaged $597 per angler
on their trips, or about $35 per day. For
freshwater fi shing excluding the Great
Lakes, participants averaged $460 in
trip-related expenses in 2006, equaling
$27 per day. For fi shing in the Great
Lakes, participants averaged $751 in
trip-related expenses, equaling $59 per
day. Anglers in saltwater averaged trip
expenditures of $686 per participant,
which amounts to approximately $62
per day.
Fishing for Selected Fish
The most popular fi sh species among
the 25.0 million anglers who fi shed
freshwater other than the Great Lakes
was black bass. Ten million spent 161
million days fi shing for black bass.
Following black bass in popularity
were several species with a similar
number of anglers and days of fi shing.
Panfi sh were pursued by 7.5 million
anglers on 102 million days. Catfi sh
and bullheads drew 7.0 million anglers
on 98 million days. About 6.8 million
anglers fi shed for trout on 76 million
days. Crappie fi shing attracted 6.2
million anglers on 91 million days.
Three species were very close in
popularity among Great Lakes anglers.
Walleye and sauger attracted nearly
500 thousand anglers, as did perch.
Anglers fi shed for walleye and sauger
for 4.9 million days and for perch, 5.5
million days. Salmon followed closely
with 418 thousand anglers fi shing for
5.7 million days. Lake trout, black bass
and steelhead were also popular Great
Lakes species, as they were pursued by
328 thousand, 298 thousand, and 201
thousand anglers, respectively.
Among the 7.7 million saltwater
anglers, 2.1 million fi shed for fl atfi sh,
which includes fl ounder and halibut, on
21 million days. Redfi sh (red drum)
followed in popularity with 1.8 million
Selected Fish by Type of Fishing
(In millions)
Type of fi shing Anglers Days
Freshwater except Great Lakes, total . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.0 419.9
Black bass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.0 161.0
Panfi sh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 101.6
Catfi sh/bullhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.0 98.2
Trout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8 75.5
Crappie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 90.7
White bass, striped bass, and striped bass hybrids . . 4.8 65.2
Great Lakes, total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 18.0
Walleye, sauger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 4.9
Perch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 5.5
Salmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 5.7
Lake trout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 4.4
Black bass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 2.9
Steelhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 1.9
Saltwater, total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7 85.7
Flatfi sh (fl ounder, halibut) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 20.5
Redfi sh (red drum) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 20.2
Sea trout (weak fi sh). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 18.2
Striped bass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 15.4
Bluefi sh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 9.9
Salmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6 3.4
Source: Tables 3, 4, and 5.
Comparative Fishing by Type of Fishing
All fishing
Freshwater except Great Lakes
Great Lakes
Saltwater
17
17
13
11
13
13
9
9
$597
$460
$751
$686
$35
$27
$59
$62
Trips per angler
Days per angler
Trip expenditures
per day
Trip expenditures
per angler
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation 13
anglers fi shing for 20 million days.
Also popular were sea trout and striped
bass with 1.5 and 1.4 million anglers
who fi shed for 18.2 and 15.4 million
days, respectively. Other prominent
saltwater species were bluefi sh with 1.0
million anglers and salmon with nearly
600 thousand anglers.
Participation by Geographic Region
In 2006, 229 million people 16 years
old and older lived in the United States
and 1 of every 8 of these U.S. resi-dents
went fi shing. While the national
participation rate was 13 percent, the
regional rates ranged from 8 percent
in the Middle Atlantic and Pacifi c to
21 percent in the West North Central.
The West North Central, East North
Central, East South Central, West South
Central, and South Atlantic all reported
participation rates above the national
rate. The Mountain region tied the
national rate at 13 percent, and New
England was below the national rate at
11 percent.
Fishing in State of Residence and
in Other States
A large majority of the 30.0 million
anglers who fi shed in 2006 did so
within their home state. Approximately
27.6 million participants, 92 percent of
all anglers, fi shed in their resident state.
Nearly 6.5 million, 22 percent, fi shed
out of state. Percentages do not add to
100 because those anglers who fi shed
both in state and out of state were
included in both categories.
Of the 25.0 million non-Great Lakes
freshwater anglers, 93 percent, 23.3
million, fi shed within their resident
state. About 4.6 million, 18 percent, of
these freshwater anglers fi shed out of
state.
Eighty-three percent, 1.2 million,
of all Great Lakes anglers enjoyed
fi shing within their home state in 2006.
Twenty-two percent, 306 thousand, of
all Great Lakes anglers fi shed out of
state.
Of the three different types of fi shing,
saltwater fi shing had both the highest
percentage of anglers fi shing outside
their resident state, 28 percent, and the
lowest percentage fi shing within their
resident state, 79 percent. Nonresident
saltwater anglers numbered 2.2 million
and resident anglers 6.1 million.
Fishing in State of Residence
and in Other States
(In millions)
Out of
In state state
Total anglers . . . . . 27.6 6.5
Freshwater except
Great Lakes . . . 23.3 4.6
Great Lakes . . . . 1.2 0.3
Saltwater . . . . . . . 6.1 2.2
Source: Table 2.
AK
WA
OR
CA
MT
WY
ID
NV
UT
AZ
CO
NM
ND
SD
NE
KS
OK
TX
MN
IA
MO
AR
LA
WI
IL
MI
IN OH
KY
TN
MS AL
FL
GA
SC
NC
WV VA
PA
NY
NH ME
VT
MA
RI
CT
NJ
DE
MD
DC
HI
Fishing Participation
(National participation rate: 13%)
Pacific
8%
Mountain
13%
West North
Central
21%
East
North
Central
15%
Middle
Atlantic
8%
New England
11%
South Atlantic
14%
East South
Central
West South 18%
Central
16%
Percent of All Fishing—in State of Residence and in Other States
(Total: 30.0 million participants)
In state of residence and
other states
14%
In state of residence only
78%
In other states only
8%
14 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Types of Freshwater Fished,
Excluding Great Lakes
Excluding the Great Lakes, 84 percent
or 21.1 million of all freshwater anglers
fi shed in reservoirs, lakes, and ponds.
Forty-fi ve percent or 11.3 million fi shed
in rivers and streams. They spent 304
million days fi shing in lakes, reservoirs,
and ponds and 136 million days fi shing
in rivers and streams.
Great Lakes Anglers
Great Lakes fi shing includes not only
the Great Lakes, but also their tribu-taries—
bodies of water that connect
the Great Lakes—and the St. Lawrence
River south of the bridge at Cornwall.
The most popular of the Lakes among
anglers was Lake Erie, attracting 37
percent of all the Great Lakes anglers.
They averaged 9 days of fi shing in
Lake Erie during 2006. Lake Michigan
ranked second in popularity, hosting
33 percent of Great Lakes anglers who
fi shed there for an average of 12 days.
Lake Ontario attracted 15 percent of
the anglers, 218 thousand, who aver-aged
6 fi shing days. The tributaries
to the Lakes drew 9 percent of Great
Lakes anglers who averaged 9 days per
angler. Lake Huron drew 7 percent, 93
thousand anglers, who averaged 9 days
of fi shing.
Great Lakes Fishing
Percentage
Anglers of all Great
(thousands) Lakes anglers
Total, all Great Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,420 100
Lake Erie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 526 37
Lake Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474 33
Lake Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 15
Tributaries to the Great Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 9
Lake Huron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *93 7
Lake Superior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *89 6
St. Lawrence River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ...
Lake St. Clair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ...
* Estimate based on a sample size of 10–29.
... Sample size too small to report data reliably.
Source: Table 26.
Types of Freshwater Fished, Excluding Great Lakes
(In millions)
25.0
21.1
11.3
419.9
304.5
136.0
Anglers
Days
Rivers and streams
Lakes and reservoirs
Total freshwater
excluding Great Lakes
Rivers and streams
Lakes and reservoirs
Total freshwater
excluding Great Lakes
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation 15
Sex and Age of Anglers
Although more men than women
fi shed in 2006, a substantial number of
women fi shed as well. Twenty percent
of all males 16 years and older went
fi shing, while 6 percent of females
fi shed. Of the 30.0 million anglers who
fi shed in the United States, 75 percent,
22.3 million, were male and 25 percent,
7.6 million, were female.
Of the age categories, 7.5 million
anglers, 25 percent of all anglers, were
35 to 44 years old. Their participa-tion
rate was also the highest at 17
percent. They were followed by 6.6
million anglers 45 to 54 years old who
composed 22 percent of all anglers and
had a participation rate of 15 percent.
Next came the 25-to-34-year-old age
group with 4.9 million participants
who accounted for 16 percent of all
anglers and had a participation rate of
13 percent. The 4.6 million 55-to-64-
year-olds who fi shed accounted for 15
percent of all anglers and had a partici-pation
rate of 14 percent. Anglers
65 years old and older numbered 2.8
million, 10 percent of total anglers, and
had a 7 percent participation rate. The
2.4 million anglers 18 to 24 years old
made up 8 percent of the angler popula-tion,
and they had a participation rate
of 10 percent. The 16- and 17-year-olds
added 1.1 million individuals to
the angler population. They made up
4 percent of the total angler population
and had a 13 percent participation rate.
Anglers by Sex and Age
Total, both sexes . . 30.0 million
Male . . . . . . . . . . 22.3 million
Female . . . . . . . . 7.6 million
Total, all ages . . . . . 30.0 million
16 and 17 . . . . . . 1.1 million
18 to 24 . . . . . . . . 2.4 million
25 to 34 . . . . . . . . 4.9 million
35 to 44 . . . . . . . . 7.5 million
45 to 54 . . . . . . . . 6.6 million
55 to 64 . . . . . . . . 4.6 million
65 and older . . . . 2.8 million
Source: Table 9.
Percent of Anglers by Sex
Percent of Males and Females Who Fished in the United States
Percent of Anglers by Age
Males
75%
Females
25%
65 and older
10%
55 to 64
15%
16 and 17
4%
45 to 54
22%
35 to 44
25%
25 to 34
16%
18 to 24
8%
Females
Males 20%
6%
Percent of U.S. Population Who Fished by Age
65 and older
55 to 64
45 to 54
35 to 44
25 to 34
18 to 24
16 and 17 13%
10%
13%
17%
15%
14%
7%
16 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan
Anglers
While residents of metropolitan statis-tical
areas (MSAs)1 had lower partici-pation
rates in fi shing than non-MSA
residents, they still accounted for the
majority of anglers. Eleven percent
of all MSA residents fi shed in 2006,
but they composed 73 percent of all
anglers. By comparison, non-MSA
residents composed 27 percent of all
anglers, but their participation rate was
more than twice as high at 21 percent.
Larger MSAs had lower participation
rates in fi shing than smaller MSAs but
composed more of the angler popula-tion.
Large MSAs with populations
of 1,000,000 or more had the lowest
participation rate at 10 percent, but
they made up 39 percent of all anglers.
Medium MSAs with a population of
250,000 to 999,999 had a 13 percent
participation rate and represented 20
percent of all anglers. Those MSAs
with populations under 250,000 had
a participation rate of 18 percent and
composed 14 percent of all anglers.
Household Income of Anglers
The participation rate in fi shing tended
to increase as household income
increased. The participation rate is
the percent of each income group that
fi shed. The rate for those who reported
incomes of $75,000 to $99,999 was
the highest at 19 percent. Those with
incomes of $50,000 to $74,999 and
$100,000 or more had a slightly lower
rate at 18 percent. The participation
rate declined as income decreased.
Those with incomes $40,000 to
$49,999 participated at a 16 percent
rate, and it declined steadily to 15
percent among those with incomes
$35,000 to $39,999, 14 percent among
those with incomes $30,000 to $34,999,
and 13 percent among those with
incomes $20,000 to $29,999. Those
with incomes under $20,000 had the
lowest participation rates at under 10
percent.
The majority of anglers had household
incomes of $50,000 or more. Among
anglers who reported income, 59
percent were from households with
incomes of $50,000 or more and 41
percent were from households with
incomes of less than $50,000.
1 See Appendix A for defi nition of metropolitan
statistical area.
Percent of Anglers by Residence
Outside MSA
Large MSA 27%
39%
Percent of U.S. Population Who Fished by Residence
(Total U.S. population that fished: 13%)
Outside MSA
Small MSA
(249,999 or less)
Medium MSA
(250,000 to 999,999)
Large MSA
(1,000,000 or more)
10%
13%
18%
21%
Percent of U.S. Population Who Fished by Household Income
$100,000 or more
$75,000 to $99,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$40,000 to $49,999
$35,000 to $39,999
$30,000 to $34,999
$25,000 to $29,999
$20,000 to $24,999
$10,000 to $19,999
Less than $10,000
Small MSA
14%
Medium MSA
20%
18%
19%
18%
16%
15%
14%
13%
13%
9%
7%
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation 17
Education, Race, and Ethnicity
People of all educational backgrounds
had similar participation rates. Those
with 11 years of education or less and
those with 5 years of college or more
had participation rates of 12 percent.
Those with 12 years of education and
those with 4 years of college had partic-ipation
rates of 13 percent. Those with
1 to 3 years of college had the highest
participation rate at 14 percent.
While the highest participation rate
is among those with 1 to 3 years
of college, those with 12 years of
education make up the largest share
of anglers. Thirty-four percent or
10.3 million anglers have 12 years of
education.
Fishing was most popular among
Whites and those identifi ed as other
races. Whites participated at a 15
percent rate. Other races, which
include Native Americans, Pacifi c
Islanders, and those of mixed race,
participated at a 16 percent rate.
Blacks and Asians participated at
comparatively lower rates at 6 percent
and 3 percent, respectively. Of all
anglers, 92 percent were White, 5
percent were Black, 1 percent was
Asian, and 2 percent were other races.
Hispanics, who represent a growing
percentage of the U.S. population,
fi shed at a much lower rate than non-
Hispanics. Five percent of Hispanics
fi shed in 2006 compared to 14 percent
of non-Hispanics. The 1.6 million
Hispanics who fi shed in 2006 made up
5 percent of all anglers.
Anglers by Education, Race,
and Ethnicity
(In millions)
Total anglers . . . . . . . . . . . 30.0
Education
11 years or less . . . . . . . . 4.0
12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3
1 to 3 years . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6
4 years of college . . . . . . 5.1
5 years or more of college 2.9
Race
White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.5
Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5
Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6
Ethnicity
Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6
Non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . 28.4
Source: Table 9.
Percent of Anglers by Education
Percent of U.S. Population Who Fished by Ethnicity
4 years of college
17%
11 years or less
13%
Percent of Anglers by Race
White 92%
Other 2%
Black 5%
Asian 1%
Hispanic
Non-Hispanic 14%
5%
Percent of U.S. Population Who Fished by Education
5 years or more
of college
4 years of college
1 to 3 years of college
12 years
11 years or less 12%
13%
14%
13%
12%
Percent of U.S. Population Who Fished by Race
Other
Asian
Black
White
5 years or more of college
10%
1 to 3 years of college
25%
12 years
34%
15%
6%
3%
16%
18 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
1996–2006 Comparison of Fishing
Activity
In 2006, participation for all types of
fi shing was down signifi cantly from
both 1996 and 2001. The majority
of the downturn occurred over the
fi ve-year period from 2001 to 2006.
As a result, the percent changes from
1996 to 2006 and 2001 to 2006 are
similar. The total number of anglers
fell 15 percent from 1996 to 2006 and
12 percent from 2001 to 2006. Over
the ten years from 1996 to 2006 and
the fi ve years between 2001 and 2006,
fi shing in the Great Lakes experienced
the greatest downturn at 30 percent and
23 percent, respectively. Fishing in
freshwater other than the Great Lakes
fared the best with a decline of only 13
percent between 1996 and 2006 and
a decline of only 10 percent between
2001 to 2006. The decline in saltwater
fi shing was between these two with an
18 percent decline from 1996 to 2006
and a 15 percent decline from 2001 to
2006.
The trend in fi shing days was similar
to that of total participants. For all
types of fi shing, there was a decline of
7 percent in the number of fi shing days
from 2001 to 2006. As with anglers,
the decline in days from 2001 to 2006
was sharpest for Great Lakes fi shing
at 22 percent, which was followed by
saltwater fi shing at 6 percent. The
decline among freshwater other than
Great Lakes fi shing was the least at 5
percent. Overall, the decline in days
from 2001 to 2006 was not as large as
the decline in the number of anglers.
This indicates that the average number
of days fi shing by anglers increased
over the period.
The trend in fi shing expenditures is
different from that of total participants.
Fishing-related expenditures declined
signifi cantly from 1996 to 2006 but
remained roughly the same from 2001
to 2006. Total fi shing expenditures
fell 13 percent from 1996 to 2006 and
increased 4 percent from 2001 to 2006,
but this is not a statistically signifi cant
change. None of the changes from
2001 to 2006 were signifi cant.
Number of Anglers
(Millions)
1996 2001 2006
Days of Fishing
(Millions)
1996 2001 2006
Fishing Expenditures
(Billions of 2006 dollars)
1996 2001 2006
35.2 34.1
30.0
625.9
557.4
516.8
$48.6
$40.6 $42.0
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation 19
1996–2006 Fishing Participants, Days, and Expenditures
(U.S. population 16 years old and older. Numbers in thousands)
1996 2006 1996–2006
Number Percent Number Percent percent change
Anglers, total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35,246 100 29,952 100 –15
All freshwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,734 87 25,431 85 –14
Freshwater, except Great Lakes . . 28,921 85 25,035 84 –13
Great Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,039 7 1,420 5 –30
Saltwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,438 25 7,717 26 –18
Days, total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 625,893 100 516,781 100 –17
All freshwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515,115 82 433,337 84 –16
Freshwater, except Great Lakes . . 485,474 78 419,942 81 –13
Great Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,095 3 18,016 3 –10 *
Saltwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103,034 16 85,663 17 –17
Fishing, total (2006 dollars) . . . . . . . . . $48,565,444 100 $42,011,124 100 –13
Trip-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,763,326 41 17,878,560 43 –10 *
Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,636,355 51 18,757,370 45 –24
Fishing equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,821,115 14 5,332,401 13 –22
Auxiliary equipment . . . . . . . . . . . 1,332,134 3 778,740 2 –42
Special equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,483,106 34 12,646,229 30 –23 *
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,165,763 9 5,375,195 13 29 *
* Not different from zero at the 5 percent level of signifi cance.
2001–2006 Fishing Participants, Days, and Expenditures
(U.S. population 16 years old and older. Numbers in thousands)
2001 2006 2001–2006
Number Percent Number Percent percent change
Anglers, total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34,071 100 29,952 100 –12
All freshwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,439 83 25,431 85 –11
Freshwater, except Great Lakes . . 27,913 82 25,035 84 –10
Great Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,847 5 1,420 5 –23
Saltwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,051 27 7,717 26 –15
Days, total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 557,394 100 516,781 100 –7
All freshwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 466,984 84 433,337 84 –7
Freshwater, except Great Lakes . . 443,247 80 419,942 81 –5 *
Great Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,138 4 18,016 3 –22 *
Saltwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90,838 16 85,663 17 –6 *
Fishing, total (2006 dollars) . . . . . . . . . $40,560,198 100 $42,011,124 100 4 *
Trip-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,682,925 41 17,878,560 43 7 *
Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,309,578 48 18,757,370 45 –3 *
Fishing equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,256,228 13 5,332,401 13 1 *
Auxiliary equipment . . . . . . . . . . . 820,770 2 778,740 2 –5 *
Special equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,232,580 33 12,646,229 30 –4 *
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,567,694 11 5,375,195 13 18 *
* Not different from zero at the 5 percent level of signifi cance.
Hunting
22 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
In 2006, 12.5 million people 16 years
old and older enjoyed hunting a variety
of animals within the United States.
They hunted 220 million days and took
185 million trips. Hunting expendi-tures
totaled $22.9 billion.
Big game hunting was the most popular
type of hunting. An estimated 10.7
million hunters pursued big game, such
as deer and elk, on 164 million days.
Big game related-expenditures on trips
and equipment totaled $11.8 billion.
There were 4.8 million hunters of small
game including squirrels and rabbits.
They hunted small game on 52 million
days and spent $2.4 billion on small
game hunting trips and equipment.
Migratory bird hunters numbered 2.3
million. They spent 20.0 million days
hunting birds such as waterfowl and
dove. Migratory bird-related trip and
equipment expenditures totaled $1.3
billion. About 1.1 million hunters
sought other animals, such as raccoons
and groundhogs, on 15 million days,
and their expenditures on trips and
equipment were $208 million.
Hunting Highlights
Hunting
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Other
animals
Migratory
bird
Small
game
Big
game
Total
hunting
Million
Days Trips
Big game
Small game
Migratory bird
Other animals
Note: Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses and nonresponse.
220 million
185 million
Hunters
164
115
52
41
20 16
15 13
Total Hunting
Hunters . . . . . . . . . . 12.5 million
Big game . . . . . . 10.7 million
Small game . . . . . 4.8 million
Migratory bird . . 2.3 million
Other animal . . . . 1.1 million
Days . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 million
Big game . . . . . . 164 million
Small game . . . . . 52 million
Migratory bird . . 20 million
Other animal . . . . 15 million
Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 million
Big game . . . . . . 115 million
Small game . . . . . 41 million
Migratory bird . . 16 million
Other animal . . . . 13 million
Expenditures . . . . . $22.9 billion
Big game . . . . . . 11.8 billion
Small game . . . . . 2.4 billion
Migratory bird . . 1.3 billion
Other animal . . . . 0.2 billion
Nonspecifi c . . . . . 7.1 billion
Source: Tables 1 and 17–21.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation 23
Hunting Expenditures
Of the $22.9 billion spent by hunters
in 2006, 29 percent, $6.7 billion, was
spent on trip-related expenses. Food
and lodging totaled $2.8 billion, 42
percent of all trip-related expenses.
Transportation spending was $2.7
billion, 40 percent of trip expenditures.
Other trip expenses, such as guide fees,
land use fees, and equipment rental,
were $1.2 billion or 18 percent of all
trip-related expenses.
Total equipment expenditures for
hunting were $10.7 billion in 2006,
47 percent of all hunting expenses.
Hunting equipment, such as guns
and rifl es, telescopic sights, and
ammunition, composed $5.4 billion
or 50 percent of all equipment costs.
Expenditures for auxiliary equip-ment,
including camping equip-ment,
binoculars, and special hunting
clothing, accounted for $1.3 billion or
12 percent of all equipment expenses.
Special equipment, such as campers or
all-terrain vehicles, amounted to $4.0
billion or 38 percent of all equipment
expenditures.
Land leasing and ownership for hunting
was a large expenditure category.
Hunters spent $4.4 billion on land
leasing and ownership, which was 19
percent of all hunting-related expen-ditures.
Expenditures for magazines,
books, membership dues, contributions,
licenses, stamps, tags, and permits
totaled $1.1 billion or 5 percent.
Percent of Total Hunting Expenditures
(Total expenditures: $22.9 billion)
Hunting Expenditures by Type of Hunting
(Total expenditures: $22.9 billion)
Big game
$11.8 billion
51%
Other animals
$0.2 billion
1%
Other
24%
Trip-related
29%
Equipment
47%
Small game
$2.4 billion
10%
Nonspecific
$7.1 billion
31%
Migratory bird
$1.3 billion
6%
Total Hunting Expenditures
Total hunting expenditures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $22.9 billion
Total trip-related expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $6.7 billion
Food and lodging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 billion
Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 billion
Other trip costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 billion
Total equipment expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10.7 billion
Hunting equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 billion
Auxiliary equipment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 billion
Special equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 billion
Total other hunting expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5.5 billion
Magazines, books . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 billion
Membership dues and contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 billion
Land leasing and ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 billion
Licenses, stamps, tags, and permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.7 billion
Source: Table 17.
24 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Big Game Hunting
In 2006, a majority of hunters, 10.7
million, devoted 164 million days to
hunting big game including deer, elk,
bear, and wild turkey. They took 115
million trips and spent an average of 15
days hunting big game.
Trip and equipment expenditures for
big game hunting totaled $11.8 billion.
Trip-related expenses were $4.6 billion.
Of that amount, food and lodging
accounted for $2.0 billion or 42 percent
of all trip-related costs. Transportation
costs reached $1.8 billion, 39 percent of
trip costs. Other trip-related expenses
amounted to $868 million or 19 percent
of trip costs.
Sixty percent of big game-related
expenditures was on equipment,
which totaled $7.1 billion. Hunting
equipment, which includes fi rearms,
ammunition, bows, and arrows,
accounted for $3.0 billion or 42
percent of all equipment. Purchases
of auxiliary equipment, such as tents
and binoculars, totaled $1.1 billion (15
percent). Special equipment, such
as campers and all-terrain vehicles,
accounted for $3.0 billion (43 percent).
Small Game Hunting
Small game, such as rabbits, squirrels,
pheasants, quail, and grouse, was also
popular with 4.8 million hunters who
pursued small game on a total of 52
million days. They took 41 million
trips and averaged 11 days in the fi eld
hunting small game.
These hunters spent $2.4 billion on
trips and equipment for small game
hunting. Trip-related expenditures
totaled $1.2 billion. Spending on food
and lodging was $510 million or 43
percent of all trip expenditures. Trans-portation
costs totaled $535 million or
45 percent of small game trip expenses.
Other trip-related expenditures were
$151 million or 13 percent of all trip
costs.
Equipment expenditures for small game
hunting were $1.2 billion. Of that
amount, hunting equipment accounted
for $776 million (66 percent), auxil-iary
equipment accounted for $62
million (5 percent), and special equip-ment
accounted for $331 million (28
percent).
Big Game Hunting Trip and Equipment Expenditures
(Total expenditures: $11.8 billion)
Small Game Hunting Trip and Equipment Expenditures
(Total expenditures: $2.4 billion)
Trip-related
Equipment $7.1 billion
$4.6 billion
Trip-related
Equipment $1.2 billion
$1.2 billion
Big Game
Hunters . . . . . . . . . 10.7 million
Days . . . . . . . . . . . 164 million
Trips . . . . . . . . . . . 115 million
Trip and equipment
expenditures . . . . $11.8 billion
Source: Tables 1 and 18.
Small Game
Hunters . . . . . . . . . 4.8 million
Days . . . . . . . . . . . 52 million
Trips . . . . . . . . . . . 41 million
Trip and equipment
expenditures . . . . $2.4 billion
Source: Tables 1 and 19
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation 25
Migratory Bird Hunting
In 2006, 2.3 million migratory bird
hunters devoted 20 million days on 16
million trips for hunting birds, such as
doves, ducks, and geese. Hunters aver-aged
9 days pursuing migratory birds
for the year.
Migratory bird-related spending for
trips and equipment was $1.3 billion in
2006. Of this amount, $691 million was
spent on hunting trips. An estimated
$261 million or 38 percent of all trip
expenditures were on food and lodging,
and $266 million (38 percent) were
on transportation. Other trip expenses
were $165 million (24 percent) of
the total trip-related expenditures for
migratory bird hunters.
Equipment purchases for migratory
bird hunting totaled $658 million in
2006. Of this amount, $416 million,
or 63 percent, was spent on hunting
equipment (fi rearms, ammunition,
etc.). Spending on auxiliary equip-ment
was $68 million (10 percent) and
$174 million (26 percent) was spent on
special equipment.
Hunting Other Animals
Over 1.1 million hunters reported
spending 15 million days on 13 million
trips pursuing other animals, such
as groundhogs, raccoons, foxes, and
coyotes. They averaged 13 days of
hunting.
These hunters spent $208 million in
2006 on trips and equipment for the
pursuit of other animals. Trip-related
costs totaled $143 million. Of that,
food and lodging was $52 million or
36 percent of all trip costs; transporta-tion
was $84 million, 59 percent of trip
expenses; and other trip expenses were
$7 million, 5 percent of all trip costs.
Equipment expenditures for hunting
other animals totaled $65 million. For
the pursuit of other animals, hunters
spent $51 million on hunting equip-ment
(fi rearms, ammunition, etc.) and
$15 million on auxiliary equipment.
Comparative Hunting Highlights
In 2006, big game hunters pursued big
game an average of 15 days and 11
trips. Small game hunters pursued
small game an average of 11 days and
9 trips. Migratory bird hunters hunted
migratory birds an average of 9 days
and 7 trips. Individuals hunting other
animals did so an average of 13 days
and 11 trips.
Average spending on trips and equip-ment
was about twice as high for big
game hunting than for other types
of hunting. For hunting big game,
participants spent an average of $1,100
for the year. By comparison, spending
Migratory Bird Hunting Trip and Equipment Expenditures
(Total expenditures: $1.3 billion)
Trip and Equipment Expenditures for Hunting Other Animals
(Total expenditures: $208 million)
Trip-related
Equipment $0.7 billion
$0.7 billion
Trip-related
Equipment $65 million
$143 million
Migratory Bird
Hunters . . . . . . . . 2.3 million
Days . . . . . . . . . . 20 million
Trips . . . . . . . . . . 16 million
Trip and equipment
expenditures . . $1.3 billion
Source: Tables 1 and 20.
Other Animals
Hunters . . . . . . . . 1.1 million
Days . . . . . . . . . . 15 million
Trips . . . . . . . . . . 13 million
Trip and equipment
expenditures . . $208 million
Source: Tables 1 and 21.
26 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
on small game hunting by participants
averaged $493, spending on migratory
bird hunting by participants averaged
$588, and spending on other animal
hunting averaged $184.
During 2006, trip expenditures for all
hunting averaged $534 per hunter, a
daily average of $30. In pursuit of big
game, hunters averaged trip expen-ditures
of $435, which was $28 per
day. Hunters spent an average of $249
while seeking small game ($23 per day)
and spent an average of $301 ($35 per
day) while pursuing migratory birds.
Hunters averaged $126 ($9 per day)
while pursuing other animals.
Hunting for Selected Game
Among big game species, deer was the
most popular animal pursued, attracting
10.1 million hunters on 132 million
days. Wild turkey attracted 2.6 million
hunters on 26 million days, while elk
drew 799 thousand on 7 million days,
and bear 399 thousand on 3 million
days. In addition, 578 thousand hunters
spent 6 million days hunting other big
game animals.
Among small game species, rabbit was
the most popular quarry with nearly 2
million small game hunters pursuing
rabbits on 21 million days. Squirrels
were hunted by 1.8 million partici-pants
on 19 million days, and pheas-ants
attracted 1.6 million hunters on
12 million days. Quail was fl ushed by
1.0 million hunters on 8 million days,
while grouse and prairie chicken were
pursued by 800 thousand hunters on 7
million days. In addition, 325 thousand
hunters spent 4 million days hunting
other small game animals.
Among those hunting migratory birds,
1.1 million pursued duck on 12 million
days. There were 1.2 million hunters
who pursued dove on 6 million days.
On 6 million days, 700 thousand
hunters hunted geese in 2006. Other
migratory bird species attracted 150
thousand people who hunted on 1
million days.
Comparative Hunting by Type of Hunting
Total
Big game
Small game
Migratory birds
Other animals
18
15
11
9
15
11
9
7
$534
$435
$249
$301
$30
$28
$23
$35
13
11
$126
$9
Trips per hunter
Days per hunter
Trip expenditures
per day
Trip expenditures
per hunter
Hunting for Selected Game
(In millions)
Type of hunting Hunters Days
Big game, total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.7 164
Deer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1 132
Wild turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 26
Elk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 7
Bear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 3
Small game, total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8 52
Rabbit and hare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 21
Squirrel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 19
Pheasant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 12
Grouse/prairie chicken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 7
Quail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 8
Migratory birds, total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 20
Doves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 6
Ducks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 12
Geese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.7 6
Source: Table 7.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation 27
Participation by Geographic
Regions
Regionally, participation rates in
hunting ranged from 2 percent in the
Pacifi c Region to 12 percent in the
West North Central Region. The East
North Central, East South Central, West
South Central, and Mountain Regions
also had participation rates above the
national average of 5 percent. The
participation rates in the South Atlantic
and New England Regions were below
the national average at 4 percent and
3 percent, respectively. The rate in
the Middle Atlantic was equal to the
average at 5 percent.
Hunting in State of Residence and
in Other States
A large majority of participants, 96
percent or 12.0 million, hunted within
their resident state. Only 1.8 million,
15 percent, hunted in another state.
Percentages do not add to 100 because
those who hunted both in state and out
of state were included in both catego-ries.
The overall resident/nonresident divi-sion
is relatively constant across all
types of hunting. About 10.3 million
big game hunters, 96 percent of all
big game hunters, hunted within their
state of residence, while 12 percent, 1.3
million people, traveled to another state
to hunt big game. About 4.5 million
small game hunters, 93 percent of all
small game hunters, pursued game in
their resident state. About 625 thou-sand,
13 percent, ventured across state
lines to hunt small game. Ninety-fi ve
percent of all migratory bird hunters,
2.2 million participants, hunted within
their resident state. Thirteen percent
or 291 thousand hunted out of state.
Among sportspersons who hunted other
animals, 96 percent, 1.1 million, hunted
in-state and 10 percent, 112 thousand
participants, hunted out of state.
AK
WA
OR
CA
MT
WY
ID
NV
UT
AZ
CO
NM
ND
SD
NE
KS
OK
TX
MN
IA
MO
AR
LA
WI
IL
MI
IN OH
KY
TN
MS AL
FL
GA
SC
NC
WV VA
PA
NY
NH ME
VT
MA
RI
CT
NJ
DE
MD
DC
HI
Hunting Participation
(National participation rate: 5%)
Pacific
2%
Mountain
6%
West North
Central
12%
East
North
Central
7%
Middle
Atlantic
5%
New England
3%
South Atlantic
4%
East South
Central
West South 8%
Central
7%
Hunting in State of Residence
and in Other States
(In millions)
Out of
In state state
All hunters . . . . . . 12.0 1.8
Big game . . . . . . 10.3 1.3
Small game . . . . 4.5 0.6
Migratory bird . . 2.2 0.3
Other animal . . . 1.1 0.1
Source: Table 6.
28 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Hunting on Public and Private
Lands
In 2006, 12.5 million hunters 16 years
old and older hunted on public land,
private land, or both. Of this number,
4.9 million or 39 percent hunted on
publicly owned lands compared to 10.2
million or 82 percent who hunted on
privately owned land. Some hunters
hunted exclusively on public land and
others hunted exclusively on private
land—1.9 million, 15 percent of all
hunters, used public lands only, and 7.2
million hunted only on private land, 58
percent of all hunters. Slightly over 3
million hunters, 24 percent, hunted on
both public and private lands.
During 2006, 4.9 million hunters used
public lands on 54 million days, which
represents 25 percent of all hunting
days. Thirty-fi ve percent of big game
hunters pursued big game on public
land for 37 million days. Thirty-fi ve
percent of all small game hunters,
1.7 million, pursued small game on
public land for 13 million days. Nearly
800 thousand migratory bird hunters,
35 percent, hunted migratory birds
on public lands for 6 million days.
Twenty-eight percent, 311 thousand,
of other animal hunters pursued their
game on public land for 3 million days.
The percent of hunters on private land
differs little among different types of
hunting. Eighty percent of big game
hunters hunted on private land, which
compares to 79 percent seeking small
game, 76 percent seeking migratory
birds, and 82 percent seeking other
animals.
Of all days hunting, 75 percent or 164
million were on private land. The
percent of hunting days on private land
varied more among types of hunting
than the percent of hunters. Seventy-three
percent of big game and small
game hunting days, 68 percent of
migratory bird days, and 81 percent
of other animal days were on private
land. Total hunting days pursuing these
species on private land were as follows:
big game, 120 million; small game, 38
million; migratory birds, 13 million;
and other animals, 12 million.
People Hunting on Public and Private Lands
Percent of All Hunting—in State of Residence and in Other States
(Total: 12.5 million participants)
In state of residence only
85%
In state of residence
and other states
10%
Private only
7.2 million
Public only
1.9 million
In other states only
4%
Public and private
3.0 million
Undetermined
0.4 million
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation 29
Sex and Age of Hunters
Of the U.S. population 16 years old
and older, 10 percent of males and 1
percent of females enjoyed hunting in
2006. Of the 12.5 million participants
who hunted, 91 percent (11.4 million)
were male and 9 percent (1.2 million)
were female.
The participation rate in hunting tended
to increase with age until individuals
reached 35 to 44 years of age, and
thereafter it declined. During 2006, 6
percent or 501 thousand 16- and 17-
year-olds hunted. The participation rate
climbed from 4 percent of individuals
18 to 24 years old to 7 percent of those
35 to 44. After age 44 the rate declined
to 6 percent of those 45 to 64 and 3
percent of those 65 and over.
The majority of hunters were 35 to 44
years old. An estimated 3.1 million
hunters, which was 25 percent of
all hunters, were 35 to 44 years old.
Individuals aged 45 to 54 were close in
total number of hunters at 2.9 million.
Percent of Hunters by Sex
Percent of Males and Females Who Hunted in the United States
Percent of Hunters by Age
Males
91%
Females
9%
65 and older
9%
55 to 64
15%
16 and 17
4%
45 to 54
23%
35 to 44
25%
25 to 34
16%
18 to 24
8%
Females
Males 10%
1%
Percent of U.S. Population Who Hunted by Age
65 and older
55 to 64
45 to 54
35 to 44
25 to 34
18 to 24
16 and 17 6%
4%
5%
7%
6%
6%
3%
Hunters by Sex and Age
Total, both sexes . . 12.5 million
Male . . . . . . . . . . 11.4 million
Female . . . . . . . . 1.2 million
Total, all ages . . . . . 12.5 million
16 and 17 . . . . . . 0.5 million
18 to 24 . . . . . . . . 1.0 million
25 to 34 . . . . . . . . 2.1 million
35 to 44 . . . . . . . . 3.1 million
45 to 54 . . . . . . . . 2.9 million
55 to 64 . . . . . . . . 1.9 million
65 and older . . . . 1.2 million
Source: Table 10.
30 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan
Hunters
As was the case for fi shing, participa-tion
rates for hunting were the lowest
among residents of the largest metro-politan
statistical areas (MSAs)1 and
were the highest among non-MSA
residents. Residents of MSAs with a
population of 1 million or more hunted
at a 3 percent rate, which compares to
12 percent of those who resided outside
MSAs. Furthermore, the smaller the
MSA the higher was the participa-tion
rate. The rate among residents of
MSAs of 249,999 or less was 9 percent
and among residents of MSAs with
250,000 to 999,999 inhabitants, the rate
was 5 percent.
Despite the lower participation rates
among MSA residents, they still made
up the majority of hunters. Sixty-two
percent of hunters were MSA residents,
28 percent were from the largest MSAs,
and 34 percent were from smaller to
mid-sized MSAs.
Household Income of Hunters
The participation rate in hunting
tended to increase as household income
increased. Participation rates for those
who reported incomes of $50,000 to
$99,000 were the highest at 8 percent.
Those with incomes of $40,000 to
$49,999 and $100,000 or more had a
slightly lower rate at 7 percent. Those
with incomes of $35,000 to $39,999
also had a participation rate of 7
percent, and it declined to 5 percent
among those with incomes $25,000 to
$29,999, 4 percent among those with
incomes $10,000 to $24,999, and 2
percent among those with incomes of
under $10,000.
The majority of hunters had house-hold
incomes of $50,000 or more.
Among hunters who reported income,
59 percent had household incomes
of $50,000 or more and 41 percent
had household incomes of less than
$50,000. Fishing had the exact same
percentages of participants with over
and under $50,000 in household
income.
1 See Appendix A for defi nition of MSA.
Percent of U.S. Population Who Hunted by Residence
(Total U.S. population that hunted: 5%)
Outside MSA
Small MSA
(249,999 or less)
Medium MSA
(250,000 to 999,999)
Large MSA
(1,000,000 or more)
3%
5%
9%
12%
Percent of U.S. Population Who Hunted by Household Income
$100,000 or more
$75,000 to $99,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$40,000 to $49,999
$35,000 to $39,999
$30,000 to $34,999
$25,000 to $29,999
$20,000 to $24,999
$10,000 to $19,999
Less than $10,000
7%
8%
8%
7%
6%
7%
5%
4%
4%
2%
Percent of Hunters by Residence
Outside MSA
38%
Large MSA
28%
Small MSA
17%
Medium MSA
17%
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation 31
Education and Race of Hunters
Participation rates were highest among
those with 12 years of education and
those with 1 to 3 years of college.
Those with 11 years of education or
less had a slightly lower participation
rate at 5 percent, and those with 4 years
of college or more participated at a 4
percent rate.
The largest category of education
was 12 years, which accounted for 39
percent of the hunting population. This
was followed by those with 1 to 3 years
of college at 26 percent. Those with
11 years or less of education and those
with 4 years of college each composed
14 percent of hunters. Individuals with
5 years or more of college made up 7
percent of all hunters.
While people of all races participate in
hunting, the majority are White. Six
percent of the nation’s White popula-tion,
1 percent of the Black population,
6 percent of those identifi ed as other
races, and less than 0.5 percent of the
Asian population went hunting in 2006.
Percent of Hunters by Education
Percent of U.S. Population Who Hunted by Ethnicity
4 years of college
14%
11 years or less
14%
Percent of Hunters by Race
White 96%
Other 2%
Black 2%
Hispanic
Non-Hispanic 6%
1%
Percent of U.S. Population Who Hunted by Education
5 years or more
of college
4 years of college
1 to 3 years of college
12 years
11 years or less 5%
6%
6%
4%
4%
Percent of U.S. Population Who Hunted by Race
Other
Black
White
5 years or more of college
7%
1 to 3 years of college
26%
12 years
39%
6%
1%
6%
Hunters by Education, Race,
and Ethnicity
(In millions)
Total hunters . . . . . . . . . . . 12.5
Education
11 years or less . . . . . . . . 1.7
12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9
1 to 3 years of college . . 3.2
4 years of college . . . . . . 1.8
5 years or more of college 0.9
Race
White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.0
Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2
Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1
Ethnicity
Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4
Non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . 12.1
Source: Table 10.
32 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
1996–2006 Comparison of Hunting
Activity
The overall number of hunters in the
United States declined from 1996 to
2006, but the latest results for 2006
indicate that the sharp downturn
experienced in the 1990s may be
abating. The downturn from 1996
to 2001 was 7 percent, a statistically
signifi cant change. The downturn from
2001 to 2006 was 4 percent and is not
sig nifi cant.
All types of hunting had signifi cant
declines in participation from 1996
to 2006; however, only some types
had signifi cant declines from 2001 to
2006. Big game hunting has remained
relatively stable over time. The decline
of 2 percent from 2001 to 2006, is
not signifi cant. However, some types
of hunting have not remained stable.
From 2001 to 2006, the decline of 12
percent for small game hunting and 22
percent for migratory bird hunting are
both signifi cant.
Among the different types of hunting,
the trend in hunting days was similar
to that of total participants. There was
a 14 percent decline in the number of
hunting days for all types of hunting
from 1996 to 2006 and a decline of
4 percent from 2001 to 2006. The
decline from 2001 to 2006 is not
signifi cant. Big game hunting days
actually went up 7 percent from 2001
to 2006. Over the same period, small
game hunting days declined 13 percent
and migratory bird hunting declined 33
percent.
The trend in hunting expenditures is
similar to that of total participants.
While the number of hunters declined
10 percent from 1996 to 2006, hunting-related
expenditures declined 14
percent. Additionally, from 2001 to
2006 the number of hunters declined 4
percent (not signifi cant), and hunting-related
expenditures declined 2 percent
(not signifi cant).
No expenditure categories experienced
notable changes from 2001 to 2006.
The stability of hunting expenditures
across the board from 2001 to 2006 is
noteworthy.
Number of Hunters
(Millions)
1996 2001 2006
Days of Hunting
(Millions)
1996 2001 2006
Hunting Expenditures
(Billions of 2006 dollars)
1996 2001 2006
14.0
13.0
12.5
256.7
228.4 219.9
26.5
23.5 22.9
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation 33
1996–2006 Hunting Participants, Days, and Expenditures
(U.S. population 16 years old and older. Numbers in thousands)
1996 2006 1996–2006
Number Percent Number Percent percent change
Hunters, total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,975 100 12,510 100 –10
Big game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,288 81 10,682 85 –5 *
Small game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,945 50 4,797 38 –31
Migratory bird . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,073 22 2,293 18 –25
Other animal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,521 11 1,128 9 –26
Days, total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256,676 100 219,925 100 –14
Big game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153,784 60 164,061 75 7 *
Small game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75,117 29 52,395 24 –30
Migratory bird . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,501 10 19,770 9 –25
Other animal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,522 10 15,205 7 –38
Hunting, total (2006 dollars) . . . . . . . $26,486,173 100 $22,893,156 100 –14 *
Trip-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,624,069 25 6,678,614 29 1 *
Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,484,381 55 10,731,501 47 –26
Hunting equipment . . . . . . . . . . . 7,091,539 27 5,366,357 23 –24
Auxiliary equipment . . . . . . . . . . 1,584,433 6 1,330,216 6 –16 *
Special equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,808,408 22 4,034,928 18 –31 *
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,377,723 20 5,483,041 24 2 *
* Not different from zero at the 5 percent level of signifi cance.
2001–2006 Hunting Participants, Days, and Expenditures
(U.S. population 16 years old and older. Numbers in thousands)
2001 2006 2001–2006
Number Percent Number Percent percent change
Hunters, total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,034 100 12,510 100 –4 *
Big game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,911 84 10,682 85 –2 *
Small game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,434 42 4,797 38 –12
Migratory bird . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,956 23 2,293 18 –22
Other animal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,047 8 1,128 9 8 *
Days, total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228,368 100 219,925 100 –4 *
Big game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153,191 67 164,061 75 7 *
Small game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,142 26 52,395 24 –13 *
Migratory bird . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,310 13 19,770 9 –33
Other animal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,207 8 15,205 7 –21 *
Hunting, total (2006 dollars) . . . . . . . $23,461,530 100 $22,893,156 100 –2 *
Trip-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,978,797 25 6,678,614 29 12 *
Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,794,490 50 10,731,501 47 –9 *
Hunting equipment . . . . . . . . . . . 5,192,593 22 5,366,357 23 3 *
Auxiliary equipment . . . . . . . . . . 1,369,198 6 1,330,216 6 –3 *
Special equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,232,699 22 4,034,928 18 –23 *
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,688,242 24 5,483,041 24 –4 *
* Not different from zero at the 5 percent level of signifi cance.
Wildlife Watching
36 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Nearly a third of the U.S. population
enjoyed wildlife watching in 2006.
Wildlife watching is defi ned here as
closely observing, feeding, and photo-graphing
wildlife, visiting public parks
around the home because of wildlife,
and maintaining plantings and natural
areas around the home for the benefi t
of wildlife. These activities are catego-rized
as around the home (within a mile
of home) or away from home (at least
one mile from home).
The 2006 Survey counts as wildlife-watching,
recreational activities in
which the primary objective was to
watch wildlife, as defi ned above.
Secondary or incidental participation,
such as observing wildlife while doing
something else, was not included in the
Survey.
During 2006, 71 million U.S. residents,
31 percent of the U.S. population 16
years old and older, participated in
wildlife-watching activities. People
who took an interest in wildlife around
their homes numbered 68 million,
while those who took trips away from
their homes to wildlife watch numbered
23 million people.
Wild Bird Observers
Of all the wildlife in the United States,
birds attracted the biggest following.
Approximately 47.7 million people
observed birds around the home and
on trips in 2006. A large majority,
88 percent (41.8 million), observed
wild birds around the home, while 42
percent, 19.9 million, took trips away
from home to observe wild birds.
Participants averaged a startling 115
days of birding in 2006, due to the
124 days of around-the-home birders.
Away-from-home birders averaged 14
days.
Wildlife-Watching Highlights
Wildlife-Watching Participants
by Activity
(In millions)
Total wildlife-watching
participants . . . . . . . . . . 71.1
Away from home . . . . . . . 23.0
Observers . . . . . . . . . . . 21.5
Photographers . . . . . . . . 11.7
Feeders . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1
Around the home . . . . . . . 67.8
Feeders . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.5
Observers . . . . . . . . . . . 44.5
Photographers . . . . . . . . 18.8
Maintainers of plantings
or natural areas . . . . . . 14.5
Visitors of public parks
or areas . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.3
Source: Table 39.
Wildlife-Watching Participants
(In millions)
Away from home
Around the home
Total 71.1
67.8
23.0
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation 37
Wildlife-Watching Expenditures
Thirty-seven percent of all the dollars
spent in 2006 for all wildlife-related
recreation was due to wildlife watching.
Wildlife-watching participants 16 years
old and older spent $45.7 billion, an
average of $816 per spender. Seventy-nine
percent of all wildlife watchers
spent money on their avocation.
Wildlife watchers spent $12.9 billion
on trips pursuing their activities. Food
and lodging accounted for $7.5 billion
(58 percent of all trip-related expendi-tures),
transportation expenses totaled
$4.5 billion (35 percent), and other trip
costs, such as land use fees and equip-ment
rental, amounted to $903 million
(7 percent) for the year.
These recreationists purchased $23.2
billion worth of equipment for wild-life
watching. They spent $9.9 billion
(43 percent of all equipment expendi-tures)
on wildlife-watching equipment
including binoculars, cameras, bird
food, and special clothing. Expendi-tures
for auxiliary equipment, such
as tents and backpacking equipment,
totaled $1.0 billion (4 percent) for the
year. Participants spent $12.3 billion
(53 percent) on special equipment,
including off-road vehicles, campers,
and boats.
Also for the year, wildlife watchers
spent $6.6 billion on land leasing and
owning; $1.6 billion on plantings for
the benefi t of wildlife; $1.1 billion on
membership dues and contributions;
and $360 million on magazines and
books.
Total Wildlife-Watching Expenditures
Total wildlife-watching expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $45.7 billion
Total trip-related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $12.9 billion
Food and lodging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 billion
Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 billion
Other trip costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 billion
Total equipment expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $23.2 billion
Wildlife-watching equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.9 billion
Auxiliary equipment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 billion
Special equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3 billion
Total other expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $9.6 billion
Land leasing and owning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 billion
Plantings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 billion
Membership dues and contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 billion
Magazines, books . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 billion
Source: Table 44.
Trip-Related Expenditures
(Total expenditures: $12.9 billion)
Wildlife-Watching Expenditures
(Total expenditures: $45.7 billion)
Transportation
$4.5 billion
35%
Other trip-related costs
$0.9 billion
7%
Other
$9.6 billion
21%
Trip-related
$12.9 billion
28%
Equipment
$23.2 billion
51%
Food
$4.3 billion
33%
Lodging
$3.2 billion
25%
38 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Around-The-Home Wildlife-
Watching Highlights
In 2006 around-the-home participants
16 years old and older numbered 67.8
million—95 percent of all wildlife-watching
recreationists. The most
popular activity, feeding birds and other
wildlife, accounted for 55.5 million
wildlife watchers, 82 percent of all
around-the-home participants. About
44.5 million people observed wildlife,
representing 66 percent of all around-the-
home participants.
Approximately 18.8 million recreation-ists
(28 percent of all around-the-home
wildlife watchers) photographed
wildlife. About 14.5 million maintained
plantings or natural areas for the benefi t
of wildlife. They made up 21 percent
of all around-the-home participants.
Finally, 13.3 million people visited
public areas within a mile of their
homes for wildlife watching. They
comprised 20 percent of all around-the-home
participants.
Around-The-Home Participants
(In millions)
Total participants . . . . . . . 67.8
Feed wild birds . . . . . . . . 53.4
Observe wildlife . . . . . . . 44.5
Feed other wildlife . . . . . 19.2
Photograph wildlife . . . . 18.8
Visit public areas . . . . . . 13.3
Maintain natural areas . . 10.2
Maintain plantings . . . . . 9.6
Source: Table 41.
Percent of Total Around-The-Home Participants by Activity
(Total: 67.8 million participants)
Maintain
plantings
Maintain
natural
areas
Visit
public
areas
Feed Photograph
other
wildlife
Feed Observe
wild
birds
79%
15% 14%
20%
28% 28%
66%
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation 39
Wildlife Fed, Observed, or
Photographed by Around-The-Home
Participants
Of the 55.5 million people feeding
wildlife around their homes in 2006,
96 percent (53.4 million) fed wild birds
while 35 percent (19.2 million) fed
other wildlife.
Approximately 44.5 million partici-pants
closely observed wildlife around
their homes, of which 41.8 million
observed birds. Observing mammals
was undertaken by 36.6 million partici-pants.
Insects and spiders attracted
the attention of 16.0 million people;
12.8 million observed amphibians
or reptiles; and 9.1 million people
observed fi sh or other wildlife. The
median days of around-the-home obser-vation
for all animals was a little over
80 days in 2006.
About 18.8 million people photo-graphed
wildlife around their homes.
The median number of days people
took pictures of wildlife around their
homes in 2006 was 5 days, although
2.9 million people (15 percent) photo-graphed
wildlife 21 days or more.
Around-The-Home Wildlife
Watchers by Geographic Region
In 2006, 229 million people 16 years
old and older lived in the United States.
Of those, 30 percent wildlife watched
around their homes. The participation
rates of these around-the-home partici-pants
varied by region.
The percentages of regional popula-tions
that wildlife watched around
their homes ranged from 24 percent
in the Pacifi c Region to 42 percent in
the West North Central Region. The
New England, East North Central, West
North Central, and East South Central
Regions had participation rates above
the national average of 30 percent.
Percent of Around-The-Home Observers
by Type of Wildlife Observed
(Total wildlife observers: 44.5 million)
Percent of Around-The-Home Photographers
by Days Spent Photographing Wildlife
(Total wildlife photographers: 18.8 million)
21 days or more
15%
11 to 20 days
11%
6 to 10 days
15%
Fish and
other wildlife
Reptiles and
amphibians
Insects and
spiders
Mammals
Birds 94%
20%
29%
36%
82%
4 to 5 days
13%
2 to 3 days
29%
1 day
14%
AK
WA
OR
CA
MT
WY
ID
NV
UT
AZ
CO
NM
ND
SD
NE
KS
OK
TX
MN
IA
MO
AR
LA
WI
IL
MI
IN OH
KY
TN
MS AL
FL
GA
SC
NC
WV VA
PA
NY
NH ME
VT
MA
RI
CT
NJ
DE
MD
DC
HI
Around-The-Home Wildlife-Watching Participation
(National participation rate: 30%)
Pacific
24%
Mountain
29%
West North
Central
42%
East
North
Central
33%
Middle
Atlantic
27%
New England
38%
South Atlantic
28%
East South
Central
West South 34%
Central
25%
40 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Sex and Age of Around-The-Home
Wildlife Watchers
Females and males had similar partici-pation
rates for around-the-home
wildlife watching. In 2006, 31 percent
of females and 29 percent of males
enjoyed around-the-home activities.
Of the 67.8 million around-the-home
wildlife watchers, 54 percent (36.3
million) were females and 46 percent
(31.5 million) were males.
People in the 55-to-64-year-old age
group were most likely to participate
at 40 percent (13.0 million). People
in the 18-to-24-year-old age group
were least likely to participate, with 13
percent (3.0 million). The disparity in
participation rates between people 16
to 34 years old (17 percent) and those
35 years old and older (35 percent) is
striking.
Around-The-Home Participants
by Sex and Age
Total, both sexes . . 67.8 million
Male . . . . . . . . . . 31.5 million
Female . . . . . . . . 36.3 million
Total, all ages . . . . . 67.8 million
16 and 17 . . . . . . 1.3 million
18 to 24 . . . . . . . . 3.0 million
25 to 34 . . . . . . . . 7.1 million
35 to 44 . . . . . . . . 13.8 million
45 to 54 . . . . . . . . 16.1 million
55 to 64 . . . . . . . . 13.0 million
65 and older . . . . 13.5 million
Source: Table 46.
Percent of Around-The-Home Wildlife Watchers by Sex
(Total participants: 67.8 million)
Percent of U.S. Males and Females Who Participated
Percent of Around-The-Home Wildlife Watchers by Age
(Total participants: 67.8 million)
Males
46%
Females
54%
65 and older
20%
55 to 64
19%
16 and 17
2%
45 to 54
24%
35 to 44
20%
25 to 34
11%
18 to 24
4%
Females
Males 29%
31%
Percent of U.S. Population Who Participated by Age
65 and older
55 to 64
45 to 54
35 to 44
25 to 34
18 to 24
16 and 17 16%
13%
19%
31%
36%
40%
35%
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation 41
Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan
Around-The-Home Participants
Approximately 78 percent of around-the-
home wildlife watchers lived in
metropolitan areas, as defi ned by
the U.S. Census Bureau. Metro-politan
statistical areas, or MSAs (see
Appendix A), with populations of 1
million or more had a participation rate
of 25 percent, lower than any smaller
MSA or non-MSA. Nonetheless,
recreationists from the most populous
MSAs comprised 44 percent of all
around-the-home wildlife watchers.
In MSAs of 250,000 to 999,999, the
participation rate was 32 percent and
they made up 22 percent of all around-the-
home recreationists. About 12
percent of around-the-home wildlife
watchers lived in MSAs with a popula-tion
less than 250,000. The population
of these areas had a participation rate of
34 percent.
The participation rate for nonmetropol-itan
populations was 38 percent, higher
than for any MSA. Seventeen percent
of the total U.S. population lived
outside MSAs in 2006 and represented
22 percent of all around-the-home
wildlife watchers.
Percent of U.S. Population Who Participated by Residence
Percent of Around-The-Home Wildlife Watchers by Residence
(Total participants: 67.8 million)
Outside MSA
22%
Small MSA
12%
Outside MSA
Small MSA
(249,999 or less)
Medium MSA
(250,000 to 999,999)
Large MSA
(1,000,000 or more)
38%
34%
32%
25%
Medium MSA
22%
Large MSA
44%
42 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Household Income of Around-The-
Home Participants
Participation rates ranged from 21
percent among U.S. residents living in
households earning less than $10,000
per year to 40 percent among partici-pants
living in households earning
$100,000 or more annually. These
groups represented 3 percent and 17
percent, respectively, of all around-the-home
wildlife watchers.
Participants in households earning
$10,000 to $19,999 a year constituted
5 percent of all around-the-home
recreationists. The recreationists with
incomes of $20,000 to $24,999 made
up 4 percent of all around-the-home
participants. People with incomes of
$25,000 to $29,999 accounted for 5
percent. Those people with incomes
of $30,000 to $34,999 constituted 4
percent. Recreationists whose incomes
totaled $35,000 to $39,999 represented
5 percent. People from households
with annual incomes of $40,000 to
$49,999 constituted 9 percent of all
around-the-home participants. Approxi-mately
19 percent of around-the-home
participants had incomes of $50,000 to
$74,999. Recreationists with incomes
of $75,000 to $99,999 accounted for 12
percent.
Percent of U.S. Population Who Participated by Household Income
$100,000 or more
$75,000 to $99,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$40,000 to $49,999
$35,000 to $39,999
$30,000 to $34,999
$25,000 to $29,999
$20,000 to $24,999
$10,000 to $19,999
Less than $10,000
40%
37%
38%
36%
31%
26%
30%
22%
24%
21%
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation 43
Education, Race, and Ethnicity of
Around-The-Home Participants
Looking at the educational back-ground
of participants, the highest
rate of participation was found among
recreationists with 5 years or more of
college, 42 percent. They made up 15
percent of all around-the-home wildlife
watchers. The lowest participation rate,
19 percent, was among people with less
than 12 years of education—10 percent
of all around-the-home participants.
Recreationists with 12 years of educa-tion,
31 percent of all around-the-home
participants, had a participation rate
of 27 percent. Participants with 1 to 3
years of college had a participation rate
of 32 percent, while those with 4 years
of college had a participation rate of 34
percent. Those groups represented 25
percent and 20 percent of all around-the-
home wildlife watchers, respec-tively.
A wide range of participation rates was
found among the different races and
ethnic groups. About 33 percent of the
White population engaged in around-the-
home wildlife watching, contrasted
with 10 percent of the Black popula-tion,
12 percent of the Asian popula-tion,
and 29 percent of individuals
comprising the “other” race category.
Of the total number of around-the-home
participants, 93 percent were
White, 4 percent were Black, 2 percent
were Asian, and 2 percent were all
other races.
Approximately 12 percent of the U.S.
Hispanic population engaged in wild-life
watching around their homes in
comparison with 32 percent of the non-
Hispanic population. The 64.2 million
non-Hispanic participants comprised 95
percent of all around-the-home wildlife
watchers and the 3.6 million Hispanic
participants made up 5 percent.
Around-The-Home
Participants by Education,
Race, and Ethnicity
(In millions)
Total participants . . . . . . . 67.8
Education Level
11 years or less . . . . . . . . 6.6
12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.9
1 to 3 years of college . . 17.0
4 years of college . . . . . . 13.2
5 years or more of college 10.0
Race
White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.9
Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5
Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1
Ethnicity
Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6
Non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . 64.2
Source: Table 46.
Percent of Around-The-Home Wildlife Watchers by Education
(Total: 67.8 million participants)
5 years or more of college
15%
4 years of college
20%
1 to 3 years of college
25%
12 years
31%
11 years or less
10%
Percent of U.S. Population Who Participated by Education
5 years or more
of college
4 years of college
1 to 3 years of college
12 years
11 years or less 19%
42%
34%
32%
27%
Percent of U.S. Population Who Participated by Ethnicity
Percent of Around-The-Home Wildlife Watchers by Race
(Total: 67.8 million participants)
Hispanic
Non-Hispanic 32%
White 93%
Asian 2%
Black 4%
12%
Other 2%
44 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Away-From-Home Wildlife-
Watching Highlights
In 2006, 23 million people 16 years
old and older took trips away from
home to feed, observe, or photograph
wildlife. They comprised 32 percent
of all wildlife watchers. Most popular
with away-from-home participants
was closely observing wildlife. About
21.5 million participants, 9 percent of
the U.S population, observed wildlife
an average of 14 days in 2006. Photo-graphing
wildlife was enjoyed by 11.7
million people, 5 percent of the U.S.
population. They averaged 9 days
per photographer. Approximately 7.1
million people fed wildlife an average
of 11 days and comprised 3 percent of
the U.S. population.
About 83 percent of all away-from-home
participants took trips within
their resident state to participate in
wildlife watching. Approximately 67
percent took trips only in their resident
state, 16 percent took trips both inside
and outside their resident state, and 17
percent took trips only to other states.
Altogether, 33 percent of all away-from-
home participants took at least
some of their trips to other states.
Away-From-Home Participants
(In millions)
Total participants . . . . . . 23.0
Observers . . . . . . . . . . . 21.5
Photographers . . . . . . . . 11.7
Feeders . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1
Total days . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352
Observing . . . . . . . . . . . 291
Photographing . . . . . . . 104
Feeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Source: Table 40.
Percent of U.S. Population Who Participated by Type of Activity
(Total: 23 million participants)
Percent of Away-From-Home Wildlife Watchers—
in State of Residence and in Other States
(Total participants: 23 million)
Feed
Photograph
Observe
Total 10%
In state of residence and
in other states
16%
3%
5%
9%
In state of residence only
67%
In other states only
17%
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation 45
Wildlife Observed, Fed, or
Photographed by Away-From-Home
Participants
Wild birds attracted the most interest
from wildlife watchers on their trips—
20.0 million people or 87 percent of
all away-from-home participants. The
most-watched birds, waterfowl (ducks
and geese, primarily), were watched by
15.4 million people. Next on the list of
most-watched were birds of prey which
drew 14.0 million trip-takers, followed
by songbirds with 13.7 million
watchers. Herons, shore birds, and
other water birds attracted 11.5 million
recreationists. Lastly, other birds, such
as road runners and turkeys, attracted
8.8 million wildlife watchers.
Land mammals, such as deer, bears,
and coyotes, were observed, fed, or
photographed by 16.2 million people—
70 percent of all away-from-home
participants. Fish attracted the atten-tion
of 6.8 million people or 29 percent
of all away-from-home recreationists.
About 3.4 million people or 15 percent
of all away-from-home participants
observed, fed, or photographed marine
mammals, such as whales, seals, and
dolphins. Other wildlife, such as butter-fl
ies, snakes, and turtles, appealed to
10.4 million people or 45 percent of all
away-from-home wildlife watchers.
Away-From-Home Participants
by Type of Wildlife Observed,
Fed, or Photographed
(In millions)
Total participants . . . . . . . 23.0
Birds, total . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.0
Waterfowl . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.4
Birds of prey . . . . . . . . . . 14.0
Songbirds . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.7
Water birds . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5
Other birds . . . . . . . . . . . 8.8
Land mammals, total . . . . 16.2
Small land mammals . . . 13.4
Large land mammals . . . 12.8
Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8
Marine mammals . . . . . . . 3.4
Other (turtles,
butterfl ies, etc.) . . . . . . . . 10.4
Source: Table 42.
Percent of Away-From-Home Wildlife Watchers Who
Observed, Fed, or Photographed Wildlife
(Total: 23 million participants)
Other (turtles,
butterflies, etc.)
Marine mammals
Fish
Land mammals
Birds 87%
45%
15%
29%
70%
46 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Area Visited by Away-From-Home
Participants
In 2006, the most visited areas for
Americans to observe, feed, or photo-graph
wildlife were publicly owned.
Approximately 80 percent of all
trip-taking wildlife watchers used
public areas while just 38 percent used
private areas. About 27 percent of all
away-from-home participants, 6.2
million, visited both p