|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
large (1000x1000 max)
extra large (2000x2000 max)
full size
original image
|
|
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Economic Impact of
Waterfowl Hunting in the
United States
Addendum to the 2001 National
Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Report 2001-9
Economic Impact of
Waterfowl Hunting in the
United States
Addendum to the 2001 National
Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Report 2001-9
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
July 2005
Erin Henderson
Division of Economics
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Arlington, Virginia
This report is intended to complement the National and State reports from the
2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.
The conclusions are the authors and do not represent official positions of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The author thanks Sylvia Cabrera, Richard Aiken, Jim Caudill, and Jerry Leonard
for their input into this report.
2 Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States
Introduction . . . 3
Waterfowl Hunters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Avidity and Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
The Economic Impacts of Waterfowl Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Total Industry Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Employment and Employment Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Federal and State Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
State Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Summary . . . . . 12
Appendix A—Sample Sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
References . . . 13
Contents
Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States 3
Every year millions of sportspersons
take to the field to hunt. Among them are
waterfowl hunters who pursue ducks and
geese in the nation’s flyways. Waterfowl
hunters are having an increasing
economic impact on local, state, and
national economies, more so than the
average hunter. Since 1991, the number
of duck hunters has increased by 37
percent and the number of goose hunters
by 13 percent (Aiken 2004). During this
same time period, the number of duck
hunting days increased by 108 percent
and the number of goose hunting days
increased by 60 percent1 (Aiken 2004).
In 2001, waterfowl hunters represented
14 percent of all hunters, 9 percent of
all hunting trip-related expenditures,
and 10 percent of all hunting equipment
expenditures.
This report provides information on these
hunters, including their participation,
demographic characteristics, and the
economic impact of their expenditures.
The first section examines the
demographic characteristics of waterfowl
hunters. The second section examines the
economic impact of waterfowl hunting
on state and national economies. Due
to small sample sizes, some state-level
impacts are not presented. All dollar
estimates are presented as 2001 dollars.
All data are from the 2001 National
Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation and
represent participation and expenditures
for the 2001 calendar year by U.S.
residents 16 years of age and older.
The 2001 survey was conducted for the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the
U.S. Census Bureau. The survey was
conducted in two phases. First, the
screening interview identified wildlife-related
recreationists; second, multiple
interviews collected detailed information
on participation and expenditures for
persons 16 years of age and older. The
U.S. Census Bureau collected the data
primarily by telephone; respondents who
could not be reached by telephone were
interviewed in person. The response rate
was 75 percent for the screen phase and
88 percent for the detailed sportsmen
phase. For more detailed information on
the methods of data collection, refer to
the 2001 National Survey of Fishing,
Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated
Recreation.2
Introduction
1 In the early 1990s, drought caused bird
populations to plummet. In response, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service changed
regulations to shorten hunting seasons and
reduce the number of birds a hunter could
take. These restrictions, along with a likely
reduction in the probability of making kills
due to a lower bird population, drove away
many hunters. When the drought ended
in the mid-nineties and regulations were
relaxed, hunters returned. Thus, some of
the substantial increase in hunters and days
is attributable to the variable regulations
during these years.
2 This document is available on the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service webpage: http://
federalaid.fws.gov/surveys/surveys.html.
4 Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States
Waterfowl Hunters
Table 1 highlights the total number of
waterfowl hunters, days, and trip-related
and equipment-related expenditures.3
In 2001, approximately 1.8 million
people participated in waterfowl
hunting. While some hunters hunt both
ducks and geese, over two-thirds of
waterfowl hunters at least hunt ducks.
Waterfowl hunters spent $495 million
on trip expenditures and $440 million on
equipment expenditures in 2001. Of trip
expenditures, 42 percent was spent for
food and lodging, 37 percent was spent on
transportation, and 21 percent was spent
on other costs such as guide fees and
land use fees.
Table 1. Waterfowl Hunters, Days, and Expenditures: 2001
(Includes hunters 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
Hunters, all waterfowl (1) 1,799
Duck 1,589
Geese 1,000
Days, all waterfowl Not Available
Duck 18,290
Geese 10,508
Total Waterfowl Expenditures $934,803
Trip Expenditures (2) $494,988
Food and Lodging $205,508
Transportation $183,656
Other Trip Costs $105,825
Equipment Expenditures (3) $439,815
(1) The number of duck hunters and goose hunters does not sum to the total number of waterfowl hunters
because of multiple responses.
(2) Trip expenditures include food, drink, lodging, public and private transportation, guide fees, pack trip
or package fees, public and private land use access fees, equipment rental, boating costs, and heating and
cooking fuel.
(3)Equipment expenditures consist of rifles, shotguns, other firearms, ammunition, telescopic sights,
decoys, hunting dogs and associated costs. Also included are auxiliary equipment such as camping
equipment, binoculars, special hunting clothing, processing and taxidermy costs. Due to small sample
sizes, special equipment purchases such as boats, campers, trucks, and cabins are excluded from
equipment expenditures.
3 The Survey does not have an expenditure
category for waterfowl hunters. Therefore,
expenditures are prorated by multiplying
migratory bird expenditures by a ratio to
derive waterfowl expenditures. This ratio is
(number of days hunting geese and ducks)/
(total number of days hunting migratory
birds). For separate duck and geese
expenditures, the numerator included only
duck hunting days or goose hunting days.
Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States 5
Demographics
This section illustrates the demographic
characteristics for waterfowl hunters.
In addition, demographic characteristics
are presented for all hunters to depict
the differences and similarities with the
waterfowl hunter subset.
Figures 1 and 2 show where hunters
live by region and flyway. By region, the
majority of waterfowl hunters live in the
South (36 percent) and the Midwest (34
percent). While 20 percent of waterfowl
hunters live in the West, only 10 percent
live in the Northeast.
The continental United States is divided
into four flyways: Atlantic, Central,
Mississippi, and Pacific. These flyways
represent major migration routes for
migratory birds. Figure 2 shows that
the majority of waterfowl hunters live
in the Mississippi flyway (44 percent).
Less than 1 percent of waterfowl hunters
did not live in a designated flyway in
the continental United States, but lived
instead in Hawaii or Alaska.
������
Figure 1. Distribution of Waterfowl Hunters by Region
(Population 16 years of age and older)
���
���
��
Figure 2. Distribution of Waterfowl Hunters by Flyway
(1.8 million total waterfowl hunters)
6 Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States
For waterfowl hunters, participation
increases with age until the 35-44 age
category (29 percent), after which,
waterfowl hunting decreases with age
(Fig 3). This pattern is similar for all
hunters as well. Fifty-three percent of all
waterfowl hunters are 25 to 44 years old.
Figure 4 depicts the association between
waterfowl hunting and educational
attainment. The number of waterfowl
hunters increases with educational
achievement. Only 202,000 waterfowl
hunters (11 percent) have not obtained
their high school degrees. Unlike
waterfowl hunters, the percentage
of all hunters does not increase with
educational attainment. Instead, the
percentage of all hunters decreases after
attaining a high school diploma.
Figure 5 shows that waterfowl hunting
is positively correlated with income.
That is, as household income increases,
the percentage of waterfowl hunters
in each income group also increases.
Income is also positively correlated with
the participation level of all hunters.
However, all hunters do not tend to be as
affluent as waterfowl hunters. Waterfowl
hunters with an annual household income
of over $50,000 are 67 percent (1.0 million
hunters) compared with 51 percent for all
hunters (5.7 million hunters).
����
Figure 3. Percent of Hunters by Age
����
���
����
Figure 4. Percent of Hunters by Education
����
��
���
Figure 5. Percent of Hunters by Annual Household Income
Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States 7
Figures 6 and 7 compare hunting
participation by residents of metropolitan
statistical areas (MSA) with that of
individuals living outside those areas.
A MSA is a heavily populated area
comprising a central city or urban
core of 50,000 or more people and its
surrounding counties or communities, as
identified by the U.S. Census Bureau. A
vast majority of the U.S. population lives
in these areas. It is not surprising that a
majority of hunters do also.
In 2001, 81 percent of the U.S. population
16 years of age and older, 59 percent of
all hunters, and 67 percent of waterfowl
hunters lived in MSAs (Figure 6). In
contrast, only 19 percent of the U.S.
population lived outside MSAs compared
with 41 percent of all hunters and 33
percent of waterfowl hunters.
It is not difficult to see that hunters are
less urban than the population as a whole,
and that a nonmetropolitan resident
has a higher percentage chance of
being a hunter than does a metropolitan
resident. In 2001, 13 percent of all
nonmetropolitan residents hunted and
2 percent waterfowl hunted. While, only
5 percent of all metropolitan residents
hunted and 1 percent waterfowl hunted
(Figure 7).
���
����
���
Figure 6. Percent of Hunters by Residence
�� ���
���
��
Figure 7. Percent of U.S. Population Who Hunted by Residence
8 Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States
Avidity and Expenditures
Figure 8 depicts the mean days of
waterfowl hunting nationwide. Waterfowl
hunters who hunt both ducks and geese
average over twice as many days (26
days) as waterfowl hunters who do not
hunt both. On average, duck hunters
spend more days hunting (12 days) than
goose hunters (11 days). All hunters
average about 18 days per year, which is
similar to the estimate for all waterfowl
hunters (16 days).
In addition to hunting one more day
on average, duck hunters also tend to
spend more than goose hunters annually
(Figure 9). However, waterfowl hunters
who hunt both ducks and geese spend
nearly twice as much ($751) as duck
hunters or goose hunters. All hunters
tend to spend more ($845) than waterfowl
hunters.
Table 2 shows the number of people
who participated in waterfowl hunting
and the number of waterfowl hunting
days by state in 2001. The 3 States
with the most waterfowl hunters were
Minnesota (179,000 hunters), Arkansas
(157,000 hunters), and Louisiana (129,000
hunters). All three of these States are
within the Mississippi flyway, which
was the flyway with the most waterfowl
hunters (Fig 2).
���
����
Figure 8. Average Annual Days of Hunting
����
Figure 9. Average Annual Expenditures
(Including Trip-related and Equipment-related Expenditures)
Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States 9
Table 2. Number of Waterfowl Hunters and Hunting Days: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
Number of Hunters Number of Days
State Waterfowl Ducks Geese Waterfowl Ducks Geese
Alabama 27 27 – N.A. 153 –
Arkansas 157 154 34 N.A. 1,741 216
California 102 97 76 N.A. 1,524 1,288
Colorado 48 33 41 N.A. 309 392
Delaware 7 – – N.A. – –
Idaho 31 28 26 N.A. 204 144
Illinois 44 39 – N.A. 742 –
Iowa 48 45 25 N.A. 521 359
Kansas 38 26 28 N.A. 323 228
Kentucky 25 23 – N.A. 135 –
Louisiana 129 127 – N.A. 1,021 –
Maryland 43 33 36 N.A. 186 185
Minnesota 179 165 120 N.A. 1,337 1,054
Mississippi 42 39 – N.A. 237 –
Missouri 41 35 27 N.A. 577 464
Montana 19 16 17 N.A. 134 114
Nebraska 38 33 30 N.A. 265 297
Nevada 14 13 – N.A. 92 –
New Mexico 16 15 – N.A. 132 –
New York 82 55 50 N.A. 913 810
North Carolina 51 48 – N.A. 673 –
North Dakota 57 49 39 N.A. 334 290
Ohio 58 43 518 N.A. 425 413
Oklahoma 32 32 – N.A. 720 –
Oregon 32 29 – N.A. 264 –
South Carolina 21 21 – N.A. 164 –
South Dakota 44 34 38 N.A. 335 300
Tennessee 57 54 – N.A. 522 –
Texas 94 90 – N.A. 1,437 –
Utah 42 42 23 N.A. 410 249
Washington 48 42 32 N.A. 394 231
Wisconsin 52 46 46 N.A. 311 189
Wyoming 7 – – N.A. – –
Note: A hyphen (–) denotes sample sizes that are too small to report reliably (9 or less). States NOT listed have sample sizes too small to report reliably for any
category (9 or less). State sample sizes are shown in Appendix A. Sample size criteria are consistent with the “2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation.”
(N.A.) Not Available
10 Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States
Waterfowl hunters spend money on a
variety of goods and services for trip-related
purchases and equipment-related
purchases. Trip expenditures include
food, lodging, transportation, and
other incidental expenses. Equipment
expenditures consist of guns, decoys,
hunting dogs, camping equipment,
special hunting clothing, and other costs.
By having ripple effects throughout
the economy, these direct expenditures
are only part of the economic impact of
waterfowl hunting.
The effect on the economy in excess
of direct expenditures is known as
the multiplier effect. For example, an
individual may purchase decoys to use
while duck hunting. Part of the purchase
price will stay with the local retailer. The
local retailer, in turn, pays a wholesaler
who in turn pays the manufacturer of
the decoys. The manufacturer then
spends a portion of this income to pay
businesses supplying the manufacturer.
In this sense, each dollar of local retail
expenditures can affect a variety of
businesses.
Thus, expenditures associated with
waterfowl hunting can ripple through the
economy by impacting economic activity,
employment, and household income. To
measure these effects, a regional input-output
modeling method4 is utilized
to derive estimates for total industry
output, employment, employment
income, and tax revenue associated with
waterfowl hunting.
The Economic Impacts of
Waterfowl Hunting
Total Industry Output
Table 3 depicts the economic effect of
expenditures by waterfowl hunters
in 2001. Their trip and equipment
expenditures totaling $934.8 million, as
shown in Table 1, generated $2.3 billion
in total output in the United States.
Total output includes the direct, indirect,
and induced effects of the expenditures
associated with waterfowl hunting.
Direct effects are the initial effects or
impacts of spending money; for example,
purchasing ammunition or a pair of
binoculars are examples of direct effects.
An example of an indirect effect would
be the purchase of the ammunition
by a sporting goods retailer from the
manufacturer.
Finally, induced effects refer to the
changes in production associated
with changes in household income
(and spending) caused by changes in
employment related to both direct and
indirect effects. More simply, people
who are employed by the sporting goods
retailer, by the wholesaler, and by the
ammunition manufacturer spend their
income on various goods and services
which in turn generate a given level of
output (induced effects).
Employment and Employment Income
Table 3 shows that waterfowl hunting
expenditures in 2001 created 21,415 jobs
and $725.2 million in employment income.
Thus, each job had an average annual
salary of $33,860. Jobs and job income
in Table 3 include direct, indirect, and
induced effects in a manner similar to
total industrial output. Jobs include both
full and part-time jobs, with a job defined
as one person working for at least part
of the calendar year. Job income consists
of both employee compensation and
proprietor income.
Federal and State Taxes
Federal and State tax revenues are
derived from waterfowl hunting related
recreational spending. In 2001, over
$129.5 million in State tax revenue and
$201.8 million in Federal tax revenue
were generated.
State Impacts
The economic impact of a given level
of expenditures depends, in part, on
the degree of self-sufficiency of the
area under consideration. An area
with a high degree of self-sufficiency
(out-of-area imports are comparatively
small) will generally have a higher
level of impacts associated with a
given level of expenditures than an
area with significantly higher imports
(a comparatively lower level of self-sufficiency).
Thus, the economic impacts
of a given level of expenditures will
generally be less for rural and other less
economically integrated areas compared
with other, more economically diverse
areas or regions. The impacts in each
State are only those impacts that occur
within the State, and a State’s multiplier
is typically smaller than the multiplier for
the United States.
Table 4 shows the economic impacts
of trip-related and equipment-related
waterfowl hunting expenditures by state
in 2001. Texas, California, and Arkansas
generated the largest amount of total
output at $206.0 million, $143.7 million,
and $133.6 million, respectively. Due to
small sample sizes, the economic impacts
are not depicted for all States.
Table 3. Summary of Economic
Impacts: 2001
(Dollar values are in thousands.)
Waterfowl Hunters 1,799,000
Total Expenditures $934,803
Total Industry Output $2,326,691
Employment 21,415
Employment Income $725,162
State Tax Revenue $129,484
Federal Tax Revenue $201,826
4 The estimates for total industry output,
employment, employment income, and
federal and state taxes were derived using
IMPLAN, a regional input-output model and
software system.
Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States 11
Table 4. Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting—State and National Totals: 2001
(Dollar values are in thousands.)
State
Trip and
Equipment
Expenditures Total Output Job Income Jobs
State Tax
Revenue
Federal Tax
Revenue
United States $934,803 $2,326,691 $725,162 21,415 $129,484 $201,826
Alabama $14,064 $21,127 $5,817 202 $997 $1,593
Arkansas $96,344 $133,567 $27,909 1,557 $6,887 $8,991
California $86,487 $143,669 $44,957 1,303 $8,430 $12,501
Colorado $20,205 $32,739 $9,663 319 $1,704 $2,798
Delaware $1,972 $1,402 $692 27 $125 $195
Idaho $9,126 $12,793 $3,244 154 $665 $822
Illinois $50,608 $84,160 $23,642 694 $4,587 $2,466
Iowa $16,840 $24,588 $7,239 282 $1,375 $1,943
Kansas $12,759 $14,818 $5,732 209 $1,092 $1,583
Louisiana $68,488 $105,483 $30,260 1,184 $5,302 $7,369
Maryland $10,172 $15,595 $5,907 149 $1,119 $1,617
Minnesota $82,767 $132,501 $41,243 1,403 $8,140 $11,581
Mississippi $6,837 $9,752 $2,744 97 $514 $710
Missouri $19,691 $31,553 $9,568 338 $1,701 $2,552
Montana $4,189 $5,935 $1,502 72 $296 $415
Nebraska $21,933 $32,874 $9,481 337 $1,678 $2,437
Nevada $18,515 $26,143 $7,535 227 $1,119 $2,209
New Mexico $7,764 $12,428 $3,622 127 $702 $907
New York $12,742 $19,915 $6,372 176 $1,328 $1,762
North Carolina $22,320 $34,931 $9,236 350 $1,663 $2,622
North Dakota $12,028 $17,552 $4,458 236 $851 $1,172
Ohio $12,641 $18,409 $5,566 198 $1,007 $1,431
Oklahoma $10,246 $16,292 $4,707 184 $912 $1,231
Oregon $23,478 $38,664 $11,122 391 $2,002 $3,070
South Carolina $9,811 $14,346 $4,002 127 $729 $1,089
South Dakota $17,085 $24,267 $3,289 332 $1,154 $1,817
Tennessee $40,889 $64,791 $19,366 573 $3,074 $5,253
Texas $121,115 $206,037 $62,870 1,877 $9,785 $17,762
Utah $13,261 $21,219 $6,276 240 $1,185 $1,616
Washington $38,714 $57,734 $17,063 560 $2,976 $4,893
Wisconsin $9,103 $13,777 $3,892 147 $789 $1,047
Wyoming $1,682 $2,574 $561 35 $96 $164
Note: States NOT listed have sample sizes too small to report reliably (9 or less). State sample sizes are shown in Appendix A. These sample size criteria are
consistent with the “2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.”
12 Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States
Summary
This report has presented information
on the participation and expenditure
patterns of approximately 1.8 million
waterfowl hunters. Compared to all
hunters, waterfowl hunters tend to be
younger, have more years of education,
and are more affluent. The majority
(70 percent) of waterfowl hunters live
in the South and Midwest regions of the
United States.
Trip-related and equipment-related
expenditures associated with waterfowl
hunting generated over $2.3 billion
in total economic output in 2001. This
impact was dispersed across local, state,
and national economies.
Appendix A—Sample Sizes
State Waterfowl Hunters Waterfowl Days Trip Expenditures
Alabama 15 14 11
Arizona 8 8 7
Arkansas 57 57 52
California 16 15 12
Colorado 22 22 22
Connecticut 1 1 0
Delaware 13 13 11
Florida 7 7 3
Georgia 8 7 5
Idaho 21 21 19
Illinois 12 12 11
Indiana 5 5 1
Iowa 24 24 24
Kansas 31 31 27
Kentucky 11 11 6
Louisiana 51 49 43
Maine 7 7 6
Maryland 21 21 18
Massachusetts 9 8 6
Michigan 9 9 7
Minnesota 42 42 30
Mississippi 20 20 18
Missouri 16 16 13
Montana 19 19 17
Nebraska 45 45 41
Nevada 16 16 15
New Hampshire 7 7 3
New Jersey 1 1 1
New Mexico 13 13 12
New York 17 17 13
North Carolina 15 15 10
North Dakota 71 71 64
Ohio 14 14 13
Oklahoma 12 12 11
Oregon 20 20 18
Pennsylvania 9 9 6
Rhode Island 3 3 2
South Carolina 13 13 11
South Dakota 60 60 54
Tennessee 19 19 18
Texas 16 16 13
Utah 42 42 38
Vermont 2 2 2
Virginia 5 5 5
Washington 26 26 22
West Virginia 3 3 1
Wisconsin 16 15 15
Wyoming 11 11 9
References
Aiken, Richard. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Division of Federal Aid. “Fishing
and Hunting 1991- 2001: Avid, Casual,
and Intermediate Participation Trends.
Addendum to the 2001 National Survey
of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-
Associated Recreation.” July 2004.
MIG, Inc. IMPLAN System. Stillwater,
MN. 1998.
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census. 2001 National Survey
of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-
Associated Recreation. Washington
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,
October 2002.
Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States 13
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Division of Economics
Washington, DC 20240
July 2005
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
| Rating | |
| Title | Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States Addendum to the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation Report 2001-9 |
| Contact | mailto:library@fws.gov |
| Description | nat_survey2001_waterfowlhunting.pdf |
| FWS Resource Links | http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/subpages/nationalsurvey/National_Survey.htm |
| Subject | Document |
| Publisher | U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service |
| Date of Original | July 2005 |
| Type | Text |
| Format | |
| Source |
NCTC Conservation Library Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program Library |
| Rights | Public domain |
| File Size | 932404 Bytes |
| Original Format | Document |
| Full Resolution File Size | 932404 Bytes |
| Transcript | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States Addendum to the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation Report 2001-9 Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States Addendum to the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation Report 2001-9 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service July 2005 Erin Henderson Division of Economics U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arlington, Virginia This report is intended to complement the National and State reports from the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. The conclusions are the authors and do not represent official positions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The author thanks Sylvia Cabrera, Richard Aiken, Jim Caudill, and Jerry Leonard for their input into this report. 2 Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States Introduction . . . 3 Waterfowl Hunters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Avidity and Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 The Economic Impacts of Waterfowl Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Total Industry Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Employment and Employment Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Federal and State Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 State Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Summary . . . . . 12 Appendix A—Sample Sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 References . . . 13 Contents Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States 3 Every year millions of sportspersons take to the field to hunt. Among them are waterfowl hunters who pursue ducks and geese in the nation’s flyways. Waterfowl hunters are having an increasing economic impact on local, state, and national economies, more so than the average hunter. Since 1991, the number of duck hunters has increased by 37 percent and the number of goose hunters by 13 percent (Aiken 2004). During this same time period, the number of duck hunting days increased by 108 percent and the number of goose hunting days increased by 60 percent1 (Aiken 2004). In 2001, waterfowl hunters represented 14 percent of all hunters, 9 percent of all hunting trip-related expenditures, and 10 percent of all hunting equipment expenditures. This report provides information on these hunters, including their participation, demographic characteristics, and the economic impact of their expenditures. The first section examines the demographic characteristics of waterfowl hunters. The second section examines the economic impact of waterfowl hunting on state and national economies. Due to small sample sizes, some state-level impacts are not presented. All dollar estimates are presented as 2001 dollars. All data are from the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation and represent participation and expenditures for the 2001 calendar year by U.S. residents 16 years of age and older. The 2001 survey was conducted for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the U.S. Census Bureau. The survey was conducted in two phases. First, the screening interview identified wildlife-related recreationists; second, multiple interviews collected detailed information on participation and expenditures for persons 16 years of age and older. The U.S. Census Bureau collected the data primarily by telephone; respondents who could not be reached by telephone were interviewed in person. The response rate was 75 percent for the screen phase and 88 percent for the detailed sportsmen phase. For more detailed information on the methods of data collection, refer to the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.2 Introduction 1 In the early 1990s, drought caused bird populations to plummet. In response, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service changed regulations to shorten hunting seasons and reduce the number of birds a hunter could take. These restrictions, along with a likely reduction in the probability of making kills due to a lower bird population, drove away many hunters. When the drought ended in the mid-nineties and regulations were relaxed, hunters returned. Thus, some of the substantial increase in hunters and days is attributable to the variable regulations during these years. 2 This document is available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service webpage: http:// federalaid.fws.gov/surveys/surveys.html. 4 Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States Waterfowl Hunters Table 1 highlights the total number of waterfowl hunters, days, and trip-related and equipment-related expenditures.3 In 2001, approximately 1.8 million people participated in waterfowl hunting. While some hunters hunt both ducks and geese, over two-thirds of waterfowl hunters at least hunt ducks. Waterfowl hunters spent $495 million on trip expenditures and $440 million on equipment expenditures in 2001. Of trip expenditures, 42 percent was spent for food and lodging, 37 percent was spent on transportation, and 21 percent was spent on other costs such as guide fees and land use fees. Table 1. Waterfowl Hunters, Days, and Expenditures: 2001 (Includes hunters 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.) Hunters, all waterfowl (1) 1,799 Duck 1,589 Geese 1,000 Days, all waterfowl Not Available Duck 18,290 Geese 10,508 Total Waterfowl Expenditures $934,803 Trip Expenditures (2) $494,988 Food and Lodging $205,508 Transportation $183,656 Other Trip Costs $105,825 Equipment Expenditures (3) $439,815 (1) The number of duck hunters and goose hunters does not sum to the total number of waterfowl hunters because of multiple responses. (2) Trip expenditures include food, drink, lodging, public and private transportation, guide fees, pack trip or package fees, public and private land use access fees, equipment rental, boating costs, and heating and cooking fuel. (3)Equipment expenditures consist of rifles, shotguns, other firearms, ammunition, telescopic sights, decoys, hunting dogs and associated costs. Also included are auxiliary equipment such as camping equipment, binoculars, special hunting clothing, processing and taxidermy costs. Due to small sample sizes, special equipment purchases such as boats, campers, trucks, and cabins are excluded from equipment expenditures. 3 The Survey does not have an expenditure category for waterfowl hunters. Therefore, expenditures are prorated by multiplying migratory bird expenditures by a ratio to derive waterfowl expenditures. This ratio is (number of days hunting geese and ducks)/ (total number of days hunting migratory birds). For separate duck and geese expenditures, the numerator included only duck hunting days or goose hunting days. Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States 5 Demographics This section illustrates the demographic characteristics for waterfowl hunters. In addition, demographic characteristics are presented for all hunters to depict the differences and similarities with the waterfowl hunter subset. Figures 1 and 2 show where hunters live by region and flyway. By region, the majority of waterfowl hunters live in the South (36 percent) and the Midwest (34 percent). While 20 percent of waterfowl hunters live in the West, only 10 percent live in the Northeast. The continental United States is divided into four flyways: Atlantic, Central, Mississippi, and Pacific. These flyways represent major migration routes for migratory birds. Figure 2 shows that the majority of waterfowl hunters live in the Mississippi flyway (44 percent). Less than 1 percent of waterfowl hunters did not live in a designated flyway in the continental United States, but lived instead in Hawaii or Alaska. ������ Figure 1. Distribution of Waterfowl Hunters by Region (Population 16 years of age and older) ��� ��� �� Figure 2. Distribution of Waterfowl Hunters by Flyway (1.8 million total waterfowl hunters) 6 Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States For waterfowl hunters, participation increases with age until the 35-44 age category (29 percent), after which, waterfowl hunting decreases with age (Fig 3). This pattern is similar for all hunters as well. Fifty-three percent of all waterfowl hunters are 25 to 44 years old. Figure 4 depicts the association between waterfowl hunting and educational attainment. The number of waterfowl hunters increases with educational achievement. Only 202,000 waterfowl hunters (11 percent) have not obtained their high school degrees. Unlike waterfowl hunters, the percentage of all hunters does not increase with educational attainment. Instead, the percentage of all hunters decreases after attaining a high school diploma. Figure 5 shows that waterfowl hunting is positively correlated with income. That is, as household income increases, the percentage of waterfowl hunters in each income group also increases. Income is also positively correlated with the participation level of all hunters. However, all hunters do not tend to be as affluent as waterfowl hunters. Waterfowl hunters with an annual household income of over $50,000 are 67 percent (1.0 million hunters) compared with 51 percent for all hunters (5.7 million hunters). ���� Figure 3. Percent of Hunters by Age ���� ��� ���� Figure 4. Percent of Hunters by Education ���� �� ��� Figure 5. Percent of Hunters by Annual Household Income Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States 7 Figures 6 and 7 compare hunting participation by residents of metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) with that of individuals living outside those areas. A MSA is a heavily populated area comprising a central city or urban core of 50,000 or more people and its surrounding counties or communities, as identified by the U.S. Census Bureau. A vast majority of the U.S. population lives in these areas. It is not surprising that a majority of hunters do also. In 2001, 81 percent of the U.S. population 16 years of age and older, 59 percent of all hunters, and 67 percent of waterfowl hunters lived in MSAs (Figure 6). In contrast, only 19 percent of the U.S. population lived outside MSAs compared with 41 percent of all hunters and 33 percent of waterfowl hunters. It is not difficult to see that hunters are less urban than the population as a whole, and that a nonmetropolitan resident has a higher percentage chance of being a hunter than does a metropolitan resident. In 2001, 13 percent of all nonmetropolitan residents hunted and 2 percent waterfowl hunted. While, only 5 percent of all metropolitan residents hunted and 1 percent waterfowl hunted (Figure 7). ��� ���� ��� Figure 6. Percent of Hunters by Residence �� ��� ��� �� Figure 7. Percent of U.S. Population Who Hunted by Residence 8 Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States Avidity and Expenditures Figure 8 depicts the mean days of waterfowl hunting nationwide. Waterfowl hunters who hunt both ducks and geese average over twice as many days (26 days) as waterfowl hunters who do not hunt both. On average, duck hunters spend more days hunting (12 days) than goose hunters (11 days). All hunters average about 18 days per year, which is similar to the estimate for all waterfowl hunters (16 days). In addition to hunting one more day on average, duck hunters also tend to spend more than goose hunters annually (Figure 9). However, waterfowl hunters who hunt both ducks and geese spend nearly twice as much ($751) as duck hunters or goose hunters. All hunters tend to spend more ($845) than waterfowl hunters. Table 2 shows the number of people who participated in waterfowl hunting and the number of waterfowl hunting days by state in 2001. The 3 States with the most waterfowl hunters were Minnesota (179,000 hunters), Arkansas (157,000 hunters), and Louisiana (129,000 hunters). All three of these States are within the Mississippi flyway, which was the flyway with the most waterfowl hunters (Fig 2). ��� ���� Figure 8. Average Annual Days of Hunting ���� Figure 9. Average Annual Expenditures (Including Trip-related and Equipment-related Expenditures) Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States 9 Table 2. Number of Waterfowl Hunters and Hunting Days: 2001 (Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.) Number of Hunters Number of Days State Waterfowl Ducks Geese Waterfowl Ducks Geese Alabama 27 27 – N.A. 153 – Arkansas 157 154 34 N.A. 1,741 216 California 102 97 76 N.A. 1,524 1,288 Colorado 48 33 41 N.A. 309 392 Delaware 7 – – N.A. – – Idaho 31 28 26 N.A. 204 144 Illinois 44 39 – N.A. 742 – Iowa 48 45 25 N.A. 521 359 Kansas 38 26 28 N.A. 323 228 Kentucky 25 23 – N.A. 135 – Louisiana 129 127 – N.A. 1,021 – Maryland 43 33 36 N.A. 186 185 Minnesota 179 165 120 N.A. 1,337 1,054 Mississippi 42 39 – N.A. 237 – Missouri 41 35 27 N.A. 577 464 Montana 19 16 17 N.A. 134 114 Nebraska 38 33 30 N.A. 265 297 Nevada 14 13 – N.A. 92 – New Mexico 16 15 – N.A. 132 – New York 82 55 50 N.A. 913 810 North Carolina 51 48 – N.A. 673 – North Dakota 57 49 39 N.A. 334 290 Ohio 58 43 518 N.A. 425 413 Oklahoma 32 32 – N.A. 720 – Oregon 32 29 – N.A. 264 – South Carolina 21 21 – N.A. 164 – South Dakota 44 34 38 N.A. 335 300 Tennessee 57 54 – N.A. 522 – Texas 94 90 – N.A. 1,437 – Utah 42 42 23 N.A. 410 249 Washington 48 42 32 N.A. 394 231 Wisconsin 52 46 46 N.A. 311 189 Wyoming 7 – – N.A. – – Note: A hyphen (–) denotes sample sizes that are too small to report reliably (9 or less). States NOT listed have sample sizes too small to report reliably for any category (9 or less). State sample sizes are shown in Appendix A. Sample size criteria are consistent with the “2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.” (N.A.) Not Available 10 Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States Waterfowl hunters spend money on a variety of goods and services for trip-related purchases and equipment-related purchases. Trip expenditures include food, lodging, transportation, and other incidental expenses. Equipment expenditures consist of guns, decoys, hunting dogs, camping equipment, special hunting clothing, and other costs. By having ripple effects throughout the economy, these direct expenditures are only part of the economic impact of waterfowl hunting. The effect on the economy in excess of direct expenditures is known as the multiplier effect. For example, an individual may purchase decoys to use while duck hunting. Part of the purchase price will stay with the local retailer. The local retailer, in turn, pays a wholesaler who in turn pays the manufacturer of the decoys. The manufacturer then spends a portion of this income to pay businesses supplying the manufacturer. In this sense, each dollar of local retail expenditures can affect a variety of businesses. Thus, expenditures associated with waterfowl hunting can ripple through the economy by impacting economic activity, employment, and household income. To measure these effects, a regional input-output modeling method4 is utilized to derive estimates for total industry output, employment, employment income, and tax revenue associated with waterfowl hunting. The Economic Impacts of Waterfowl Hunting Total Industry Output Table 3 depicts the economic effect of expenditures by waterfowl hunters in 2001. Their trip and equipment expenditures totaling $934.8 million, as shown in Table 1, generated $2.3 billion in total output in the United States. Total output includes the direct, indirect, and induced effects of the expenditures associated with waterfowl hunting. Direct effects are the initial effects or impacts of spending money; for example, purchasing ammunition or a pair of binoculars are examples of direct effects. An example of an indirect effect would be the purchase of the ammunition by a sporting goods retailer from the manufacturer. Finally, induced effects refer to the changes in production associated with changes in household income (and spending) caused by changes in employment related to both direct and indirect effects. More simply, people who are employed by the sporting goods retailer, by the wholesaler, and by the ammunition manufacturer spend their income on various goods and services which in turn generate a given level of output (induced effects). Employment and Employment Income Table 3 shows that waterfowl hunting expenditures in 2001 created 21,415 jobs and $725.2 million in employment income. Thus, each job had an average annual salary of $33,860. Jobs and job income in Table 3 include direct, indirect, and induced effects in a manner similar to total industrial output. Jobs include both full and part-time jobs, with a job defined as one person working for at least part of the calendar year. Job income consists of both employee compensation and proprietor income. Federal and State Taxes Federal and State tax revenues are derived from waterfowl hunting related recreational spending. In 2001, over $129.5 million in State tax revenue and $201.8 million in Federal tax revenue were generated. State Impacts The economic impact of a given level of expenditures depends, in part, on the degree of self-sufficiency of the area under consideration. An area with a high degree of self-sufficiency (out-of-area imports are comparatively small) will generally have a higher level of impacts associated with a given level of expenditures than an area with significantly higher imports (a comparatively lower level of self-sufficiency). Thus, the economic impacts of a given level of expenditures will generally be less for rural and other less economically integrated areas compared with other, more economically diverse areas or regions. The impacts in each State are only those impacts that occur within the State, and a State’s multiplier is typically smaller than the multiplier for the United States. Table 4 shows the economic impacts of trip-related and equipment-related waterfowl hunting expenditures by state in 2001. Texas, California, and Arkansas generated the largest amount of total output at $206.0 million, $143.7 million, and $133.6 million, respectively. Due to small sample sizes, the economic impacts are not depicted for all States. Table 3. Summary of Economic Impacts: 2001 (Dollar values are in thousands.) Waterfowl Hunters 1,799,000 Total Expenditures $934,803 Total Industry Output $2,326,691 Employment 21,415 Employment Income $725,162 State Tax Revenue $129,484 Federal Tax Revenue $201,826 4 The estimates for total industry output, employment, employment income, and federal and state taxes were derived using IMPLAN, a regional input-output model and software system. Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States 11 Table 4. Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting—State and National Totals: 2001 (Dollar values are in thousands.) State Trip and Equipment Expenditures Total Output Job Income Jobs State Tax Revenue Federal Tax Revenue United States $934,803 $2,326,691 $725,162 21,415 $129,484 $201,826 Alabama $14,064 $21,127 $5,817 202 $997 $1,593 Arkansas $96,344 $133,567 $27,909 1,557 $6,887 $8,991 California $86,487 $143,669 $44,957 1,303 $8,430 $12,501 Colorado $20,205 $32,739 $9,663 319 $1,704 $2,798 Delaware $1,972 $1,402 $692 27 $125 $195 Idaho $9,126 $12,793 $3,244 154 $665 $822 Illinois $50,608 $84,160 $23,642 694 $4,587 $2,466 Iowa $16,840 $24,588 $7,239 282 $1,375 $1,943 Kansas $12,759 $14,818 $5,732 209 $1,092 $1,583 Louisiana $68,488 $105,483 $30,260 1,184 $5,302 $7,369 Maryland $10,172 $15,595 $5,907 149 $1,119 $1,617 Minnesota $82,767 $132,501 $41,243 1,403 $8,140 $11,581 Mississippi $6,837 $9,752 $2,744 97 $514 $710 Missouri $19,691 $31,553 $9,568 338 $1,701 $2,552 Montana $4,189 $5,935 $1,502 72 $296 $415 Nebraska $21,933 $32,874 $9,481 337 $1,678 $2,437 Nevada $18,515 $26,143 $7,535 227 $1,119 $2,209 New Mexico $7,764 $12,428 $3,622 127 $702 $907 New York $12,742 $19,915 $6,372 176 $1,328 $1,762 North Carolina $22,320 $34,931 $9,236 350 $1,663 $2,622 North Dakota $12,028 $17,552 $4,458 236 $851 $1,172 Ohio $12,641 $18,409 $5,566 198 $1,007 $1,431 Oklahoma $10,246 $16,292 $4,707 184 $912 $1,231 Oregon $23,478 $38,664 $11,122 391 $2,002 $3,070 South Carolina $9,811 $14,346 $4,002 127 $729 $1,089 South Dakota $17,085 $24,267 $3,289 332 $1,154 $1,817 Tennessee $40,889 $64,791 $19,366 573 $3,074 $5,253 Texas $121,115 $206,037 $62,870 1,877 $9,785 $17,762 Utah $13,261 $21,219 $6,276 240 $1,185 $1,616 Washington $38,714 $57,734 $17,063 560 $2,976 $4,893 Wisconsin $9,103 $13,777 $3,892 147 $789 $1,047 Wyoming $1,682 $2,574 $561 35 $96 $164 Note: States NOT listed have sample sizes too small to report reliably (9 or less). State sample sizes are shown in Appendix A. These sample size criteria are consistent with the “2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.” 12 Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States Summary This report has presented information on the participation and expenditure patterns of approximately 1.8 million waterfowl hunters. Compared to all hunters, waterfowl hunters tend to be younger, have more years of education, and are more affluent. The majority (70 percent) of waterfowl hunters live in the South and Midwest regions of the United States. Trip-related and equipment-related expenditures associated with waterfowl hunting generated over $2.3 billion in total economic output in 2001. This impact was dispersed across local, state, and national economies. Appendix A—Sample Sizes State Waterfowl Hunters Waterfowl Days Trip Expenditures Alabama 15 14 11 Arizona 8 8 7 Arkansas 57 57 52 California 16 15 12 Colorado 22 22 22 Connecticut 1 1 0 Delaware 13 13 11 Florida 7 7 3 Georgia 8 7 5 Idaho 21 21 19 Illinois 12 12 11 Indiana 5 5 1 Iowa 24 24 24 Kansas 31 31 27 Kentucky 11 11 6 Louisiana 51 49 43 Maine 7 7 6 Maryland 21 21 18 Massachusetts 9 8 6 Michigan 9 9 7 Minnesota 42 42 30 Mississippi 20 20 18 Missouri 16 16 13 Montana 19 19 17 Nebraska 45 45 41 Nevada 16 16 15 New Hampshire 7 7 3 New Jersey 1 1 1 New Mexico 13 13 12 New York 17 17 13 North Carolina 15 15 10 North Dakota 71 71 64 Ohio 14 14 13 Oklahoma 12 12 11 Oregon 20 20 18 Pennsylvania 9 9 6 Rhode Island 3 3 2 South Carolina 13 13 11 South Dakota 60 60 54 Tennessee 19 19 18 Texas 16 16 13 Utah 42 42 38 Vermont 2 2 2 Virginia 5 5 5 Washington 26 26 22 West Virginia 3 3 1 Wisconsin 16 15 15 Wyoming 11 11 9 References Aiken, Richard. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Federal Aid. “Fishing and Hunting 1991- 2001: Avid, Casual, and Intermediate Participation Trends. Addendum to the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife- Associated Recreation.” July 2004. MIG, Inc. IMPLAN System. Stillwater, MN. 1998. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife- Associated Recreation. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, October 2002. Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States 13 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Division of Economics Washington, DC 20240 July 2005 |
| Original Filename | nat_survey2001_waterfowlhunting.pdf |
| Date created | 2012-08-08 |
| Date modified | 2013-05-17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| A |
|
| D |
|
| I |
|
| M |
|
| V |
|
|
|