Trout fishing in 2006: a demographic description and economic analysis: addendum to the 2006 national survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Trout Fishing in 2006:
A Demographic Description and Economic Analysis
Addendum to the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Report 2006-6U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
April 2010
Anna Harris
Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs
Division of Policy and Programs
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Arlington, VA
This report is intended to complement the National and State Reports for the
2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.
The conclusions in this report are the author’s and do not represent official
positions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The author thanks Sylvia Cabrera, Richard Aiken, James Caudill, and Ted Maillett for valuable input into this report.
Trout Fishing in 2006:
A Demographic Description and Economic Analysis
Addendum to the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Report 2006-62 Trout Fishing in 2006: A Demographic Description and Economic Analysis
Contents
Introduction � � 3
Geography � � 4
National Participation � � 4
Regional Participation � � 6
State Participation � � 7
Demographics � 11
Gender � � 11
Age � 11
Education � 13
Income � � 13
Measures of Economic Importance � � 14
Expenditures and Economic Impacts � 14
Net Economic Values � � 16
Summary � 18
References � 19
Appendix A. Economic Impact Methods � � 20
Appendix B. Contingent Valuation Methods and 2006 Survey Questions � � 21
Tables
Table 1. Freshwater Anglers and Days of Fishing by Type of Fish: 2006 � � 4
Table 2. Trout Anglers and Days of Fishing by Year � � 5
Table 3. Freshwater and Trout Anglers by Region � 6
Table 4. Freshwater and Trout Anglers by State Where Fishing Occurred � 7
Table 5. Freshwater and Trout Fishing Days by State Where Fishing Occurred � 8
Table 6. Average Days Freshwater and Trout Fishing by State Where Fishing Occurred � � 9
Table 7. Gender Distribution of U.S. Population, Freshwater Anglers, and Trout Anglers � 11
Table 8. Age Distribution of U.S. Population, Freshwater Anglers, and Trout Anglers � � 11
Table 9. Educational Distribution of U.S. Population, Freshwater Anglers, and Trout Anglers � � 13
Table 10. Income Distribution of U.S. Population, Freshwater Anglers, and Trout Anglers � 13
Table 11. Expenditures by Freshwater and Trout Anglers � � 15
Table 12. Economic Impact of Trout Anglers � 16
Table 13. Trout Fishing Net Economic Values � � 17
Figures
Figure 1. Freshwater Anglers: 1996–2006 � � 5
Figure 2. Trout Anglers: 1996–2006 � � 5
Figure 3. Percent of Freshwater Anglers Who Seek Trout by Region � 6
Figure 4. Average Days Freshwater Anglers Seek Trout � � 10
Figure 5. Age Trends for Trout Anglers, Freshwater Anglers, and the U.S. Population � � 12
Figure 6. Individual Trout Angler’s Demand Curve for Fishing Trips � � 16Trout Fishing in 2006: A Demographic Description and Economic Analysis 3
Introduction
All data estimates presented here came from the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (Survey). It is the most comprehensive survey of wildlife-related recreation in the U.S. Overall, about 22,000 detailed angler interviews were completed with a response rate of 77 percent. The Survey focused on 2006 participation and expenditures by U.S. residents 16 years of age or older.
While campaigning during the primary election, President Obama made a promise to the residents of Montana to get some gear and learn the art of fly fishing when he revisited the state. In the summer of 2009, the commander in chief made good on this campaign promise by refusing to let thunderstorms and unseasonably cool weather stop him from learning how to fly fish for Montana’s famed trout. President Obama’s fly fishing quest received a frenzy of media attention including coverage by the New York Times, CNN, and National Public Radio.
The President’s trout fishing trip is another reminder of the legacy and tradition of fishing in the U.S. For centuries trout have been prized for their beauty, fight and flavor (Razzano, 2007). As a versatile freshwater fish, trout are very particular about where they live, preferring clear, cool, well-oxygenated mountain streams, ponds, and lakes. This type of habitat is a big part of their appeal, giving anglers the opportunity to fish in some of the wildest, most scenic settings in America. As a result of their appeal and continued popularity, 6.8 million anglers fished for trout in the U.S. (excluding Great Lakes fishing) in 2006.
This report provides information on freshwater and trout anglers 16 years old and older in the United States. By understanding who these anglers are, how avid they are, where they live, and where they fish, stream restoration and habitat protection projects can be more effectively tailored. In addition to demographic information, this report includes net economic values for trout fishing, and estimates of the economic impacts for trout fishing on the U.S. economy. This type of information provides another tool for policymakers to use when making decisions about the protection of trout and their habitats.
For this report, a trout angler is considered anyone who is 16 years of age or older who fished for trout at least once during the year. Trout refers to all freshwater trout, including rainbow, brown, brook, lake and so forth. The focus is on freshwater fishing that does not occur in the Great Lakes.
USFWS/Carl Zitsman4 Trout Fishing in 2006: A Demographic Description and Economic Analysis
Geography
National Participation
As one of the most popular sport fish in the U.S., trout were sought by 6.8 million anglers in 2006. To put this number in perspective, consider in 2006 there were 6.8 million teachers in the U.S (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). When one considers all the teachers that he or she encounters, or schools that they drive by, the total number of trout anglers is surprising.
Table 1 compares the popularity of trout fishing to other types of freshwater fishing using the number of anglers, days of fishing, and average days of fishing.
The 6.8 million trout anglers account for 27 percent of all freshwater anglers. By comparison, the most popular freshwater fish species is black bass with 10.0 million anglers (40 percent), followed by 7.5 million (30 percent) panfish anglers, and 7.0 million (28 percent) anglers fishing for both catfish and bullheads.
Examination of the average days per angler reveals that the more active anglers appear to be fishing for the more popular fish species. Black bass and panfish, the two most popular fishing species, make up over half of all freshwater fishing days. Trout anglers collectively fished for trout a total of 75 million days with an average of 11 days per angler. It is important to keep in mind that anglers can fish for more than one species in a day. The average days per trout angler is slightly lower than expected but this may be due to a relatively short licensing period as well as terrain, accessibility, and climate of trout habitat.
Table 1. Freshwater Anglers and Days of Fishing by Type of Fish: 2006
(Population 16 years of age or older. Numbers in the thousands. Excludes Great Lakes Fishing)
Anglers
Days of fishing
Average Days
per Angler
Type of fish
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Total, all types of fish
25,035
100
419,942
100
17
Black bass (largemouth, small mouth, etc.)
10,013
40
161,005
38
16
Panfish
7,534
30
101,569
24
13
Catfish and bullheads
6,954
28
98,190
23
14
Trout
6,750
27
75,485
18
11
Crappie
6,210
25
90,732
22
15
White bass, striped bass, and striped bass hybrids
4,751
19
65,211
16
14
Anything1
4,000
16
35,507
8
9
Walleye
2,672
11
39,117
9
15
Northern pike, pickerel muskie, muskie hybrids
1,788
7
24,762
6
14
Another type of
freshwater fish
1,640
7
22,328
5
14
Salmon
937
4
8,643
2
9
Steelhead
434
2
4,307
1
10
Sauger
244
1
2,875
1
12
1 Respondent fished for no specific species and identified “Anything” from a list of categories of fish.
Note: The two percent columns indicate 1) the share of total anglers and 2) the days of fishing that are attributable to each species. Since anglers can fish for more than one species, the sum of the number of anglers by species is larger than the total number of anglers.Trout Fishing in 2006: A Demographic Description and Economic Analysis 5
One goal of the 2006 Survey was to capture data comparable with previous years. Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the trend in freshwater and trout fishing participation from 1996 to 2006.
As demonstrated in both figures, the number of freshwater and trout anglers 16 years and older in the U.S. has decreased. The number of trout anglers has decreased from around 9 million anglers in 1996 to 6.8 million in 2006. Diminished trout populations due to whirling disease and habitat destruction may have contributed to some of the decline in angler participation. As for freshwater anglers, their numbers have declined from 29 million anglers in 1996 to 25 million in 2006. Between 2001 and 2006 participation declined by 3 million freshwater anglers. What’s causing this trend? Some explanations include demographic changes in the U.S., difficulties with access, and personal time constraints as factors. Although Figures 1 and 2 appear to show a grim picture for the future of freshwater and trout fishing, there are other ways to measure fishing activity. Table 2 describes not only the number of freshwater and trout anglers, but also includes the days of fishing from 1996 to 2006 and an average day per angler.
If activity is measured by the average fishing days per angler, then angling has remained constant. Even though freshwater and trout anglers are not increasing in participation, they are spending more time fishing per person. One explanation for the decrease in angler participation but the consistency in average fishing days per angler may be related to the demographic characteristics (such as an aging population) of freshwater and trout anglers.
Table 2. Trout Anglers and Days of Fishing by Year
(Population 16 years of age or older. Numbers in the thousands. Excludes Great Lakes Fishing)
Anglers
Days of fishing
Average Days
Year
Freshwater
Trout
Percent of freshwater
Freshwater
Trout
Percent of freshwater
Freshwater
Trout
1996
28,921
8,974
31
485,474
93,566
19
17
10
2001
27,913
7,819
28
443,247
83,325
19
16
11
2006
25,035
6,750
27
419,942
75,485
18
17
11
Note: Between each of the five year intervals, there is no difference at the 0.05 level of significance for these columns except for freshwater anglers between 2001 and 2006. This means that for 95 percent of all possible samples, the estimates are not different.
Figure 1. Freshwater Anglers: 1996–2006
(Population 16 years of age or older. Excludes Great Lakes Fishing)
Figure 2. Trout Anglers: 1996–2006
(Population 16 years of age or older. Excludes Great Lakes Fishing)
012345678910199620012006MillionsYear199620012006MillionsYear0510152025306 Trout Fishing in 2006: A Demographic Description and Economic Analysis
Regional Participation
Freshwater and trout anglers are located throughout the United States. Table 3 presents the distribution of all freshwater and trout anglers by geographic region according to the nine U.S. Census Bureau divisions.
The South Atlantic and East North Central regions have the highest proportion of freshwater anglers in the U.S. with 19 percent and 18 percent respectively. As for trout anglers, the Mountain and Pacific have the highest participation with roughly 1.6 million (23 percent) anglers fishing in each region. These two regions encompass almost 50 percent of the landmass in the U.S. and contain some of wildest trout streams. With only 2 percent of all trout anglers fishing in the East South Central, this region has the lowest number of trout anglers compared to the other eight regions. Freshwater fish like black bass and catfish occupy these anglers’ time.
Like any type of freshwater angling, trout fishing can be enjoyed by anyone willing to learn when and where to fish as well as the right gear to use. Figure 3 presents a map of the nine U.S. Census Bureau divisions along with their respective percentage of freshwater anglers who seek trout.
Nationally, 27 percent of all freshwater anglers fished for trout in 2006. Regionally, the percent of freshwater anglers seeking trout varied widely depending on where an angler lived. The range in freshwater anglers seeking trout hit a high of 78 percent in the Mountain Region and a low of 6 percent in the East South Central. Lack of suitable habitat and an abundance of other freshwater fish are key factors for why freshwater anglers in the East South Central don’t pursue trout.
Table 3. Freshwater and Trout Anglers by Region
(Population 16 years of age or older. Numbers in the thousands. Excludes Great Lakes Fishing)
All Freshwater Anglers
Trout Anglers
Census Regions
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Percent of Freshwater
U.S. Total
25,035
100
6,750
100
27
New England
935
4
539
8
58
Middle Atlantic
1,770
7
1,033
15
58
East North Central
4,515
18
420
6
9
West North Central
3,244
13
304
5
9
South Atlantic
4,660
19
792
12
17
East South Central
2,313
9
140
2
6
West South Central
3,251
13
358
5
11
Mountain
2,028
8
1,583
23
78
Pacific
2,318
9
1,580
23
68
Figure 3. Percent of Freshwater Anglers Who Seek Trout by Region
(Population 16 years of age or older. Excludes Great Lakes Fishing)
* The nine U.S. Census Bureau divisions.
Mountain78%West North Central9%National27%West SouthCentral11%East SouthCentral6%SouthAtlantic17%East North Central9%MiddleAtlantic58%NewEngland58%Pacific68%FLNMHIDEMDTXOKKSNESDNDMTWYCOUTIDAZNVWACAORKYMENYPAMIVTNHMARICTVAWVOHINILNCTNSCALMSARLAMOIAMNWINJGAAK
*Trout Fishing in 2006: A Demographic Description and Economic Analysis 7
State Participation
Freshwater and trout anglers can be broken down further to show the differences between states. Table 4 outlines the number of freshwater and trout anglers by state where fishing occurred. Additionally, the table also provides the percent of all freshwater anglers who sought trout.
Texas has the most freshwater anglers but trout is clearly not the freshwater fish these anglers are after (only nine percent of anglers participated). This may be due to unsuitable trout habitat in Texas. States in the Mountain and Pacific regions like Washington, Oregon, and Utah have a lot of trout anglers. Yet, it’s California who leads the states with 871 thousand trout anglers while Pennsylvania and Colorado are close seconds with around 600 thousand trout anglers. As shown in column 1 of Table 4, Colorado has an estimated 660 thousand freshwater anglers (age 16 years or older) and over 90 percent of them seek trout! This makes Colorado the state with the highest participation rate, followed by Wyoming (88 percent) and Utah (87 percent). Minnesota has the lowest reportable participation rate with only two percent of its freshwater anglers fishing for trout.
Table 4. Freshwater and Trout Anglers by State Where Fishing Occurred
(Population 16 years of age or older. Numbers in the thousands. Excludes Great Lakes Fishing)
Freshwater Total
Total Trout
State
Number
Number
Percent of freshwater
US Total
25,035
6,750
27
Alaska
191
66
35
Alabama
714
…
…
Arkansas
655
143
22
Arizona
422
209
49
California
1,224
871
71
Colorado
660
608
92
Connecticut
204
130
63
Delaware
58
*14
*24
Florida
1,417
*70
*5
Georgia
1,025
140
14
Hawaii
22
...
...
Iowa
438
*34
*8
Idaho
350
258
74
Illinois
777
...
...
Indiana
677
...
...
Kansas
404
*18
*4
Kentucky
721
*38
*5
Louisiana
549
*72
*13
Massachusetts
292
156
53
Maryland
364
77
21
Maine
303
179
59
Michigan
1,192
*157
*13
Minnesota
1,381
*27
*2
Missouri
1,076
156
15
Mississippi
508
...
...
Montana
291
236
81
North Carolina
884
257
29
North Dakota
106
...
...
Nebraska
198
*22
*11
New Hampshire
198
89
45
New Jersey
243
77
32
New Mexico
248
184
74
Nevada
142
106
75
New York
741
391
53
Ohio
982
*62
*6
Oklahoma
611
...
...
Oregon
491
320
65
Pennsylvania
914
610
67
Rhode Island
50
14
28
South Carolina
612
*21
*3
South Dakota
135
*18
*13
Tennessee
871
95
11
Texas
1,860
*160
*9
Utah
375
328
87
Virginia
622
138
22
Vermont
114
60
53
Washington
538
337
63
Wisconsin
1,253
*90
*7
West Virginia
376
177
47
Wyoming
203
179
88
* Estimate based on sample size of 10–29
… Sample size less than 10.8 Trout Fishing in 2006: A Demographic Description and Economic Analysis
It’s important to know how many freshwater and trout anglers reside in a state but what if a state has a lot of trout anglers who rarely go fishing? In other words, Table 4 tells us nothing about the popularity of trout fishing or how active trout anglers are. Is a trout angler in California more active than a trout angler in Montana? To help answer this question, Table 5 presents the number of days spent freshwater and trout fishing.
The share of all days that anglers spent fishing for trout in a specific state is also reported in the last column of Table 5. At 83 percent, Wyoming has the highest percent of freshwater fishing days spent fishing for trout. This is followed closely by Colorado with 82 percent and Utah with 79 percent. As we’ve seen, these states also contain the highest participation rates.
Table 5. Freshwater and Trout Fishing Days by State Where Fishing Occurred
(Population 16 years of age or older. Numbers in the thousands. Excludes Great Lakes Fishing)
Freshwater Total
Total Trout
State
Number
Number
Percent of freshwater days
US Total
419,942
75,485
18
Alaska
1,826
486
27
Alabama
12,987
…
…
Arkansas
10,812
960
9
Arizona
4,156
1,067
26
California
12,307
8,273
67
Colorado
6,374
5,205
82
Connecticut
4,354
2,061
47
Delaware
1,133
*98
*9
Florida
24,512
*703
*3
Georgia
15,646
1,719
11
Hawaii
67
...
...
Iowa
6,215
*215
*3
Idaho
4,301
2,671
62
Illinois
15,631
...
...
Indiana
8,289
...
...
Kansas
5,314
*63
*1
Kentucky
9,231
*336
*4
Louisiana
8,743
*881
*10
Massachusetts
5,345
2,158
40
Maryland
4,799
1,036
22
Maine
4,272
2,318
54
Michigan
19,677
*1,051
*5
Minnesota
24,041
*103
(Z)
Missouri
16,569
1,177
7
Mississippi
7,095
...
...
Montana
2,927
2,100
72
North Carolina
13,923
4,203
30
North Dakota
953
Nebraska
3,096
*146
*5
New Hampshire
2,733
1,191
44
New Jersey
3,646
872
24
New Mexico
2,596
1,781
69
Nevada
1,526
914
60
New York
10,994
5,438
49
Ohio
12,827
*473
*4
Oklahoma
10,580
...
...
Oregon
7,053
3,239
46
Pennsylvania
14,456
6,090
42
Rhode Island
541
131
24
South Carolina
10,658
*349
*3
South Dakota
1,697
*215
*13
Tennessee
15,103
989
7
Texas
27,074
*1,403
*5
Utah
3,822
3,003
79
Virginia
6,417
676
11
Vermont
1,665
572
34
Washington
7,524
3,622
48
Wisconsin
16,216
*690
*4
West Virginia
6,885
2,555
37
Wyoming
1,691
1,408
83
* Estimate based on sample size of 10–29.
… Sample size less than 10.
(Z) Less than 0.5 percentTrout Fishing in 2006: A Demographic Description and Economic Analysis 9
Another piece of information that can be used to help answer the question about who is more active (a California vs. a Montana trout angler) is the average days of trout fishing by state where fishing occurred. This information is presented for both freshwater and trout anglers in Table 6.
If we use average days as the criteria for how active anglers are, it’s a tie between California and Montana with each state’s anglers averaging nine days of trout fishing. Remember that these days do not represent fishing for trout exclusively; the anglers could have sought more than one species of fish on a day of fishing.
Table 6. Average Days Freshwater and Trout Fishing by State Where Fishing Occurred
(Population 16 years of age or older. Excludes Great Lakes Fishing)
State
Average Days Freshwater
Average Days Trout
US Total
17
11
Alaska
10
7
Alabama
18
…
Arkansas
17
7
Arizona
10
5
California
10
9
Colorado
10
9
Connecticut
21
16
Delaware
20
*7
Florida
17
10
Georgia
15
*12
Hawaii
3
…
Iowa
14
*6
Idaho
12
10
Illinois
20
…
Indiana
12
…
Kansas
13
*4
Kentucky
13
*9
Louisiana
16
*12
Massachusetts
18
14
Maryland
13
13
Maine
14
13
Michigan
17
*7
Minnesota
17
*4
Missouri
15
8
Mississippi
14
…
Montana
10
9
North Carolina
16
16
North Dakota
9
…
Nebraska
16
*7
New Hampshire
14
13
New Jersey
15
11
New Mexico
10
10
Nevada
11
9
New York
15
14
Ohio
13
*8
Oklahoma
17
…
Oregon
14
10
Pennsylvania
16
10
Rhode Island
11
9
South Carolina
17
*17
South Dakota
13
*12
Tennessee
17
10
Texas
15
*9
Utah
10
9
Virginia
10
5
Vermont
15
10
Washington
14
11
Wisconsin
13
*8
West Virginia
18
14
Wyoming
8
8
* Estimate based on sample size of 10–29.
… Sample size less than 10.10 Trout Fishing in 2006: A Demographic Description and Economic Analysis
The average number of days spent trout fishing is another way to judge how actively freshwater anglers seek trout. The average number of days from Table 6 is presented graphically in Figure 4. The heavily shaded states have an average number of trout fishing days greater than or equal to 11. States with an average of nine or ten days are moderately shaded. Grey represents states with an average of eight days or less. The blank States contain a sample size of less than 10 which made their results not reliable enough to include in the figure.
It is interesting to note that some states with high levels of participation had less than average days of participation. For instance, Wyoming reported a low average for days freshwater anglers sought trout (eight days) yet ranked second in participation of freshwater anglers seeking trout (88 percent). One explanation may be that anglers in some states with high participation are not as avid and therefore the number of days they fish for trout is lower. This would lower the average for the state. Some states such as South Dakota and Louisiana have high average days but low levels of angler participation. This implies that although some states have relatively fewer trout anglers, their anglers are more avid about trout fishing.
Trout anglers enjoy fishing throughout the U.S., ranging in participation from 23 percent in the Mountain and Pacific regions to 2 percent in the East South Central region. These anglers come from Maine, with 179 thousand anglers, to California, with 871 thousand anglers, and every state in between (as well as Alaska and Hawaii). Now that we know the geography of trout fishing, the next question to ask is: what characteristics describe a typical trout angler?
Figure 4. Average Days Freshwater Anglers Seek Trout
(Population 16 years of age or older. Excludes Great Lakes Fishing)
FLNMHIDEMDTXOKKSNESDNDMTWYCOUTIDAZNVWACAORKYMENYPAMIVTNHMARICTVAWVOHINILNCTNSCALMSARLAMOIAMNWINJGAAK Small Sample <= 8 days 9–10 days >= 11 days
National Average
11Trout Fishing in 2006: A Demographic Description and Economic Analysis 11
Demographics
In North America, there are about a dozen different varieties of trout found coast to coast with different populations requiring different environmental conditions. Just like the different varieties of trout, there is variation in the characteristics that make up a trout angler. The following section examines the socioeconomic characteristics of the U.S. population and all freshwater and trout anglers (excluding Great Lakes) 16 years of age and older by gender, age, education and income. Tables 7 through 10 show the proportion of the U.S. population that participates in freshwater fishing (for example, Table 8 illustrates that in 2006, 14 percent of the U.S. population 35 to 44 years old were freshwater anglers). The columns labeled “Percent” in Tables 7 through 10 provide the percent of participants in each activity by category (for example, Table 8 reveals that 25 percent of both freshwater and trout anglers are between the ages of 35 and 44 years old). Because of the relatively large sample sizes for national estimates, differences in characteristics that are 3 percent or larger are usually significant at the 95 percent confidence level.
Gender
Fishing continues to be a male dominated sport. Females make up a quarter (25 percent) of all freshwater anglers and even fewer trout anglers (21 percent). This is disproportionately lower than the U.S. population where women are the majority at 52 percent (Table 7).
While many women 16 years of age and older participated in freshwater fishing (6.3 million), this comprised only five percent of the female population in the U.S. In comparison, 17 percent of the male population 16 years of age and older
Table 7. Gender Distribution of U.S. Population, Freshwater Anglers, and Trout Anglers
(Population 16 years of age or older. Numbers in the thousands. Excludes Great Lakes Fishing)
U.S. Total
All Freshwater Anglers
Trout Anglers
Gender
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Percent of U.S. Population
Number
Percent
Percent of Freshwater Anglers
U.S. Total
229,245
100
25,035
100
11
6,750
100
27
Male
110,273
48
18,723
75
17
5,330
79
28
Female
118,972
52
6,312
25
5
1,420
21
22participated in freshwater fishing. Female freshwater anglers participated in trout fishing at a rate of 22 percent while male freshwater anglers participated at a rate of 28 percent.
Age
Trout fishing is popular at any age (16 years or older). At least 21 percent of freshwater anglers in every age category fished for trout (Table 8). However, about half of all trout anglers (49 percent) are between the ages of 35 to 54 years old.
Comparing trout anglers to the U.S. population reveals that trout anglers are younger than the general population. The percent of trout anglers 65 and older (10 percent) is less than the U.S. population (17 percent), while freshwater anglers are even more youthful with only nine percent 65 years or older.
Table 8. Age Distribution of U.S. Population, Freshwater Anglers, and Trout Anglers
(Population 16 years of age or older. Numbers in the thousands. Excludes Great Lakes Fishing)
U.S. Population
All Freshwater Anglers
Trout Anglers
Age
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Percent of U.S. Population
Number
Percent
Percent of Freshwater Anglers
U.S. Total
229,245
100
25,035
100
11
6,750
100
27
16–17
8,272
4
981
4
12
202
3
21
18–24
23,292
10
2,133
9
9
489
7
23
25–34
37,468
16
4,119
16
11
1,068
16
26
35–44
45,112
20
6,184
25
14
1,666
25
27
45–54
44,209
19
5,515
22
12
1,605
24
29
55–64
32,867
14
3,730
15
11
1,077
16
29
65+
38,024
17
2,373
9
6
643
10
2712 Trout Fishing in 2006: A Demographic Description and Economic Analysis
Though trout fishing is predominately made up of a middle-aged generation, the trend is moving toward older participants. Figure 5 compares the age of trout anglers, freshwater anglers, and the U.S. population in 2001 and in 2006.
The number of trout anglers 25 to 44 years old decreased from 49 percent of all trout anglers in 2001 to 41 percent in 2006. The number of freshwater anglers 25 to 44 years old also decreased from 47 percent in 2001 to 41 percent in 2006. As for the U.S. population in 2001, 38 percent was 25 to 44 years old; in 2006 it dropped to 36 percent. In contrast, the percent of 55-to 64-year olds increased in all three populations. It is appropriate to assume that the aging of the U.S. population, freshwater anglers, and trout anglers is related to the aging of the “Baby Boom” generation. This trend provides another explanation about why the average days spent trout fishing has remained constant between 1996 and 2006, while the total number of anglers fishing for trout has decreased. With an increase in age, anglers may have more leisure time to spend fishing for trout.
Figure 5. Age Trends for Trout Anglers, Freshwater Anglers, and the U.S. Population
Percent of Trout Anglers, by Age0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%16–1718–2425–3435–4445–5455–6465+20012006Percent of Freshwater Anglers, by Age0%5%10%15%20%25%30%16–1718–2425–3435–4445–5455–6465+20012006Percent of U.S. Population, by Age0%5%10%15%20%25%16–1718–2425–3435–4445–5455–6465+20012006Trout Fishing in 2006: A Demographic Description and Economic Analysis 13
Education
People with all types of educational backgrounds participate in freshwater and trout fishing. Overall, trout anglers tend to complete more years of education than freshwater anglers and the U.S. population.
Table 9 illustrates that 15 percent of the U.S. population 16 years and older had not completed high school, compared to only 10 percent of both freshwater and trout anglers in 2006. As for advanced degrees, 13 percent of trout anglers earned graduate degrees compared to only 10 percent of all freshwater anglers and the U.S. population. It’s safe to say that trout anglers are among the most educated anglers.
Freshwater anglers’ participation in trout fishing increased as their years of education increased; from 20 percent for anglers with less than 12 years of education to 36 percent for anglers with 5 or more years of college.
Income
Generally, income is used as a measure of the money one earns from working and as the saying goes; “a bad day of fishing is better than a good day of work.” The income distribution for the U.S. population, freshwater anglers, and trout anglers is given in Table 10.
In 2006, the median household income for the U.S. was slightly over $48,000, while that of trout anglers was over $50,000 (DeNava-Walt et. al., 2007). Trout anglers also had more advanced degrees than the U.S. population. Generally, we expect to find a positive correlation between education and income. Table 10 supports this claim. Twenty-four percent of trout angler households earned more than $100,000, compared with only 17 percent of households in the U.S.
The last column in Table 10 reports that about a quarter of freshwater anglers sought trout. Freshwater anglers from households earning between $35,000 and $39,999 a year participated in trout fishing at the lowest rate of 18 percent. Freshwater anglers from households earning more than $100,000 had the highest participation rate, 35 percent.
Trout fishing is a male dominated sport with females representing less than a quarter of all anglers. Trout anglers comprise all age groups and are well educated. In addition, trout anglers are more likely to come from households making more than $50,000 a year, the U.S. median income. Now that we know the geography and demographics of trout anglers, another question to ask is how much do trout anglers enjoy trout fishing? In other words, how valuable is trout fishing to these anglers? There are multiple ways to interpret how someone values a recreational activity like trout fishing and for this report, two measures of economic importance are examined.
Table 9. Educational Distribution of U.S. Population, Freshwater Anglers, and Trout Anglers
(Population 16 years of age or older. Numbers in the thousands. Excludes Great Lakes Fishing)
U.S. Population
All Freshwater Anglers
Trout Anglers
Education
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Percent of U.S. Population
Number
Percent
Percent of Freshwater Anglers
U.S. Total
229,245
100
25,035
100
11
6,750
100
27
0–11 years
34,621
15
3,503
14
10
701
10
20
12 years
78,073
34
8,723
35
11
2,238
33
26
1–3 years of college
53,019
23
6,340
25
12
1,621
24
26
4 years of college
39,506
17
4,065
16
10
1,323
20
33
5 years or more of college
24,025
10
2,403
10
10
866
13
36
Table 10. Income Distribution of U.S. Population, Freshwater Anglers, and Trout Anglers
(Population 16 years of age or older. Numbers in the thousands. Excludes Great Lakes Fishing)
U.S. Population
All Freshwater Anglers
Trout Anglers
Household Income
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Percent of U.S. Population
Number
Percent
Percent of Freshwater Anglers
U.S. Total
229,245
100
25,035
100
11
6,750
100
27
Under $10,000
10,673
6
621
3
6
166
3
27
$10–$19,999
15,373
9
1,242
6
8
269
5
22
$20–$24,999
11,374
7
1,192
5
10
280
5
23
$25–$29,999
10,524
6
1,169
5
11
322
5
28
$30–$34,999
11,161
7
1,373
6
12
362
6
26
$35–$39,999
10,349
6
1,350
6
13
241
4
18
$40–$49,999
17,699
10
2,313
11
13
621
10
27
$50–$74,999
33,434
20
5,136
24
15
1,343
23
26
$75–$99,999
21,519
13
3,287
15
15
951
16
29
$100,000 or More
29,159
17
4,005
18
14
1,408
24
35
Note: Detail does not add up to total because unreported incomes were deleted14 Trout Fishing in 2006: A Demographic Description and Economic Analysis
Measures of Economic Importance
Expenditures and net economic values are two widely used but distinctly different measures of economic importance of wildlife-related recreation. For example, as President Obama prepared for his fly fishing expedition, he might have spent money to purchase the gear and equipment. Lodging accommodations might have been another expense. The money spent would ripple through Montana’s economy, supporting local salaries and wages in the state. Purchases made solely for one trip might seem insignificant, but when multiplied by the 6.8 million trout anglers over the course of the year, the economic effect in the U.S. becomes apparent. These purchases supply money for salaries and jobs which in turn generate more sales and more jobs and tax revenue. This is the economic output or impact of trout anglers’ expenditures and one of two economic measures presented in this paper.
Economic impact numbers are useful indicators of the importance of trout fishing to local, regional, and national economies. They measure the new dollars brought into the economy by non-residents or from the sale of goods made locally and exported. However, they do not measure the economic benefit to either the individual participant or, when aggregated, to society because, theoretically, money not spent on trout fishing would be spent on other activities. Money used in purchases is just transferred from one group to another. Nevertheless, from the perspective of a given community or region, out-of-region residents spending money for trout fishing represents real economic wealth.
Expenditures and Economic Impacts
This section examines spending by anglers for freshwater fishing in 2006. It does not include spending on saltwater or Great Lakes fishing. Spending is examined by type of angler not by type of fish pursued. One must participate in freshwater and trout fishing to be considered as a spender. The categories are not mutually exclusive. All trout anglers are freshwater anglers and some freshwater anglers are trout anglers.
Expenditures by freshwater and trout anglers are presented in Table 11. In 2006, spending by freshwater anglers totaled $24.6 billion while trout anglers spent $4.8 billion. Dividing these expenditure totals by the number of freshwater and trout anglers results in averages of $982 and $712 respectively.
As a reminder, most fishing equipment is used for multiple types of fishing. Therefore, to properly allocate the equipment expenditures to trout fishing, the expenditures were multiplied by the ratio of days that the freshwater angler fished for trout in 2006 to the number of days of all freshwater fishing (e.g., if a freshwater angler fished for trout 30 percent of the time, then 30 percent of his total freshwater fishing equipment expenditures were allocated to his trout fishing activities).
For trip costs, freshwater anglers average higher spending than trout anglers. This is mainly attributable to boating costs and bait, where the average boating costs of freshwater anglers is 60 percent higher than that of trout anglers. Trout anglers average higher spending on public transportation, guide fees, and equipment rentals. Freshwater anglers average higher spending in nearly every
USFWS/Vanessa RabaTrout Fishing in 2006: A Demographic Description and Economic Analysis 15
category for equipment expenditures. However, trout anglers average higher spending on auxiliary equipment such as boots, waders and camping equipment bought for the primary purpose of fishing. Freshwater anglers average higher spending on special equipment which includes items like boats, canoes, and campers.
Though it’s interesting to know how much trout anglers spent, what about the ripple effect on the U.S. economy from their spending? This question can be answered by using economic multipliers to determine how powerful of an economic force trout fishing is on the U.S. economy.
The $4.8 billion spent by trout anglers in 2006 had an overall economic impact of $13.6 billion (Table 12). The economic impact of the 6.8 million trout anglers also produced $1.8 billion in tax revenues and supported over 100 thousand jobs nationwide. For details on the economic impact estimation methods see Appendix A.
Table 11. Expenditures by Freshwater and Trout Anglers
(Population 16 years of age or older. Numbers in the thousands. Excludes Great Lakes Fishing)
Expenditure Item
All Freshwater (Thousands
of dollars)
Average for Freshwater Angler (dollars)
Trout Anglers (Thousands
of dollars)
Average for
Trout Angler (dollars)
Total, all items
24,581,671
982
4,807,177
712
Trip-Related Expenditures
Total trip-related
11,521,818
460
2,529,220
375
Food and lodging, total
4,235,176
169
1,064,587
158
Food
3,038,376
121
751,096
111
Lodging
1,196,800
48
313,491
46
Transportation, total
3,667,944
147
885,344
131
Public
281,318
11
103,286
15
Private
3,386,626
135
782,058
116
Other trip costs, total
3,618,698
145
579,289
86
Guide fees, pack trip or package fees
272,634
11
83,869
12
Public land use fees
140,129
6
32,362
5
Private land use fees
67,391
3
18,654
3
Equipment rental
209,491
8
59,052
9
Boating costs¹
1,798,118
72
187,533
28
Heating and cooking fuel
95,458
4
25,356
4
Bait
785,113
31
126,112
19
Ice
250,365
10
46,352
7
Equipment Expenses
Fishing equipment
3,361,439
134
695,997
103
Rods, reels, poles and rodmaking components
1,447,041
58
322,542
48
Lines and leaders
349,449
14
78,660
12
Artificial lures, flies, baits and dressing
648,870
26
124,839
18
Hooks, sinkers, and swivels
257,959
10
49,108
7
Tackle boxes
89,756
4
17,551
3
Creels, stringers, fish bags and landing gear
60,014
2
11,996
2
Minnow traps, seines, and bait containers
37,016
1
4,357
1
Depth and fish finders, and other electronics
259,122
10
33,167
5
Ice fishing equipment
81,329
3
9,926
1
Other fishing equipment
130,885
5
43,851
6
Auxiliary equipment
600,558
24
211,498
31
Camping equipment
337,021
13
118,992
18
Binoculars, spotting scopes
26,365
1
6,288
1
Special fishing and hunting clothing, boots, foul weather gear
174,772
7
74,846
11
Processing and taxidermy costs
32,581
1
*4,809
*1
Other
29,820
1
6,562
1
Special equipment²
9,097,856
363
1,370,462
203
* Estimate based on a sample size of 10–29
¹ Boating costs include launching, mooring, storage, maintenance, insurance, pumpout fees, and fuel
² Special equipment includes boats, campers, cabins, trail bikes, etc.16 Trout Fishing in 2006: A Demographic Description and Economic Analysis
Even though trout fishing may not appear to be a major force driving the U.S. economy, on a local level these economic impacts can be a savior to a small town’s commerce. Towns like Roscoe, New York, and Cotter, Arkansas attract thousands of trout anglers a year who, in turn, pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into local economies.
Net Economic Values
An important economic concept is trout fishing’s economic benefit to individuals and society: the amount that people are willing to pay over and above what they actually spend to trout fish. This is known as net economic value, or consumer surplus, and is an appropriate measure of the economic benefits to individuals from participation in freshwater fishing (Johnston et al., 2006).
Net economic value is measured as participants’ “willingness to pay” for trout fishing over and above what they actually spend to participate. The benefit to society is the summation of willingness to pay across all individuals. There is a direct relationship between expenditures and net economic value, as shown in Figure 6.
A demand curve for a representative trout angler is shown in the figure. An individual trout angler’s demand curve gives the number of trips the angler would take per year for each different cost per trip. The downward sloping demand curve represents marginal willingness to pay per trip and indicates that each additional trip is valued less by the angler than the previous trip. All other factors equal, the lower the cost per trip (vertical axis) the more trips the angler will take (horizontal axis). The cost of a trout fishing trip serves as an implicit price for trout fishing since a market price generally does not exist for this type of activity. At $60 per trip, the trout angler would choose not to fish, but if trout fishing were free, the angler would take 16 fishing trips.
Table 12. Economic Impact of Trout Anglers
(Population 16 years of age or older. Excludes Great Lakes Fishing)
Retail Sales (expenditures)
$4,807,177,000
Economic Output or Ripple Effect
$13,559,213,102
Salaries, Wages and Business Earnings
$4,080,407,626
Jobs
109,379
Federal Tax Revenues
$965,201,922
State and Local Tax Revenues
$807,005,252
At a cost per trip of $20 the trout angler takes 10 trips, with a total willingness to pay of $375 (area acde in Figure 6). Total willingness to pay is the total value the trout angler places on participation. The trout angler will not take more than 10 trips because the cost per trip ($20) exceeds what he would pay for an additional trip. For each trip between zero and 10, however, the trout angler would actually have been willing to pay more than $20 (the demand curve, showing marginal willingness to pay, lies above $20).
The difference between what the trout angler is willing to pay and what is actually paid is net economic value. Therefore, for this example, the net economic value is $175 [(($55–$20) ×10÷2) (triangle bcd in Figure 6)] and angler expenditures are $200 [($20×10) (rectangle abde in Figure 6)]. Thus, the trout anglers’ total willingness to pay ($375) is composed of net economic value ($175) and total expenditures ($200). Net economic value is simply total willingness to pay minus expenditures. The relationship between net economic value and expenditures is the basis for asserting that net economic value is the appropriate measure of the benefit an individual derives from participation in an activity and that expenditures are not the appropriate benefit measure.
Expenditures are out-of-pocket expenses on items an angler purchases in order to fish. The remaining value, net willingness to pay (net economic value), is the economic measure of an individual’s satisfaction after all costs of participation have been paid. Summing the net economic values of all individuals who participate in an activity derives the value to society. For example, assume that there are 100 trout anglers who fish at a particular stream and all have demand curves identical to that of our typical trout angler presented in Figure 6. The total value of this stream to society is $17,500 [$175 × 100].
Contingent valuation is a recreational valuation technique used by Federal and State agencies for the past three decades (Bateman and Willis, 1999). In order to estimate the net economic values using contingent valuation, information about a trout angler’s net willingness to pay for trout fishing is required. The National Survey captures this key information by first asking trout anglers about trips taken in 2006, then asking anglers to consider expenses, and finally at what
Cost per Trip ($)Trips per Year6055504540353025201510501051520baedcExpendituresNet Economic Value
Figure 6. Individual Trout Angler’s Demand Curve for Fishing TripsTrout Fishing in 2006: A Demographic Description and Economic Analysis 17
Table 13. Trout Fishing Net Economic Values
(Population 16 years of age or older. Excludes Great Lakes Fishing. Dollar values for 2006.)
State Resident
Out-of-Stater
Day
Year
Day
Year
State
Mean
Median
Mean
Median
Mean
Median
Mean
Median
Aggregate
56
23
337
130
135
50
475
200
Alaska
56
25
334
112
…
…
…
…
Arizona
87
33
475
200
…
…
…
…
California
78
35
305
175
50
45
305
175
Colorado
52
22
296
140
151
100
566
350
Connecticut
43
15
278
75
…
…
…
…
Idaho
48
22
315
110
63
50
246
100
Maine
30
15
247
76
157
62
949
250
Montana
38
17
348
120
128
77
491
400
Nevada
50
28
335
180
…
…
…
…
New Hampshire
38
15
284
75
<<<
<<<
<<<
<<<
New Jersey
<<<
<<<
361
75
…
…
…
…
New Mexico
42
25
271
100
…
…
…
…
New York
49
13
256
113
74
21
206
75
Oregon
58
20
319
125
112
56
630
210
Pennsylvania
43
16
306
75
96
18
297
60
Utah
61
26
558
150
111
58
340
200
Vermont
29
17
305
188
…
…
…
…
Washington
49
25
410
112
…
…
…
…
Wyoming
50
25
446
135
76
60
341
150
… Sample size less than 10
<<< 95% confidence interval includes zero.
cost per trip they would not have gone at all because it was too expensive. Please see Appendix B for the survey methodology and detailed questions.
As shown in Table 13, the net economic value for a typical trout angler in his or her resident state is $337 per year or $56 per fishing day. Trout anglers who travel outside their resident state to fish have a different demand curve and have a net economic value of $475 per year or $135 per fishing day. The net economic value of trout fishing is much higher for out-of-staters versus those who reside in the state where the activity occurred. This is expected since those who live out of state generally have to spend more money and time to reach their trout fishing destinations. One exception is California, where the net economic values per year are similiar between both residents and non-residents. This may have been caused by resident anglers traveling far distances within California to find suitable trout fishing locations.
The net economic values in Table 13 can be used to evaluate management actions that would have an impact on trout fishing. For example, the impact of dam construction, dam removal, and other human activities along trout streams can affect trout angler participation rates. Also, dams can negatively influence trout fishing by creating physical barriers to spawning areas or increasing water temperatures. Let’s assume that in 2006 the state of Maine proposed a policy action to remove an old dam from a trout stream to improve its water quality to blue ribbon status. If a fishery manager knows the number of days Maine residents go trout fishing on a blue ribbon trout stream with no dams over the whole season, 1,000 days for example, it is possible to develop an estimate of the fishery gains from the dam removal. This estimate is accomplished by multiplying the net economic value per fishing day ($30 from Table 13) by the days of participation, resulting in $30,000 ($30 x 1,000). If the fishery manager had data on the number of in-state and out-of-state anglers then the numbers could be adjusted to reflect their appropriate values.
There are two important caveats to remember when using these value estimates. First, if trout anglers can shift their fishing to another location then the values are an overestimate and second, if a loss of trout fishing habitat causes an overall degradation in trout populations and the quality of the fishing experiences also declines, then the values are an under-estimate. The key issues to avoid misuse are:
Each of the different value estimates has slightly different interpretations and uses. Using the median values represents a more conservative approach.
If an action changes participation, it is necessary to consider the extent to which participants substitute another site to fish. Failure to consider substitution will result in overestimation of the resource.
Using per participant value estimates to compute losses or benefits requires additional information, particularly on resource conditions and participation rates.18 Trout Fishing in 2006: A Demographic Description and Economic Analysis
Summary
Nationally, trout fishing ranks fourth in popularity for freshwater fishing. In 2006, 6.8 million anglers in the U.S. pursued trout nearly 75 million days. Though participation in trout fishing is down from 1996 to 2006, on average the 11 days anglers spend fishing has remained constant. The states with the largest number of trout anglers were California, Pennsylvania, and Colorado. Participation rates varied widely among states, from over 80 percent of freshwater anglers in Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado seeking trout, to less than 10 percent of freshwater anglers in Texas, Ohio, and Kentucky fishing for trout. This variation in angler participation can be attributed to differences in trout stream habitat and angler preferences.
Males are the majority when it comes to both freshwater and trout anglers. They comprise 75 percent of all freshwater anglers and 79 percent of all trout anglers. As for household income, almost a quarter of trout anglers earn $100,000 or more. Trout anglers are among the most educated anglers: 13 percent earned graduate degrees compared to 10 percent of all freshwater anglers and the U.S. population. Trout fishing is popular among all age groups, but about half of trout anglers are 35 to 54 years old.
In 2006, trout anglers spent $2.5 billion on trip-related expenses (food, lodging, guide fees etc.), $696 million on equipment expenses (lures and leaders etc.) and $211 million on auxiliary equipment such as boots and waders. Special equipment such as yearly payments for boats and cabins purchased primarily for fishing totaled $1.4 billion in 2006.
USFWS/Tim Knepp
The spending by trout anglers rippled through the U.S. economy generating $13.6 billion in economic output and supported over 100 thousand jobs. From an economic perspective, trout anglers have a high value for their fishing experience. Resident anglers value trout fishing at around $56 per fishing day while out-of-staters regard trout fishing as a prized experience, with a value of $135 per fishing day. These values can be used by resource managers and others to evaluate management actions that would have an impact on trout fishing. Accordingly, in the years ahead it will be important to monitor changes in trout populations and their habitats as well as participation rates of trout fishing. The 2011 Survey will aid this conservation effort by providing trend information on trout fishing and trout anglers.Trout Fishing in 2006: A Demographic Description and Economic Analysis 19
References
Aiken, R. 2009. “Net Economic Values of Wildlife-Related Recreation in 2006.” Addendum to the 2006 National Survey of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Bateman, I.J. and K.G. Willis. 1999. Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the U.S., E.U., and Developing Countries. Oxford University Press, New York. Pg. 613.
DeNavas-Walt, C., B. D. Proctor, and J. Smith. 2007. “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006.” U.S. Census Bureau. Current Population Reports, P60-233. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. Accessed from: <http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf> on December 10th, 2009.
Gouras, M. 2009. “President Catches Six Trout in First Fly-Fishing Outing.” Chicago Sun-Times. Accessed from <http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/-1718833,CST-NWS-obamafish16.article> on August 17, 2009.
Johnston, R. J., M. H. Ranson, E. C. Helm. 2006. “What Determines Willingness to Pay per Fish? A Meta-Analysis of Recreational Fishing Values.” Marine Resource Economics. Vol. 21: 1-32.
Razzano, J. 2007. “Trout Fishing Anyone?” Empire State Adventures. New York State Conservationists, April 2007.
Southwick Associates. Sportfishing in America: An Economic Engine and Conservation Powerhouse. Produced for the American Sportfishing Association with funding from the Multistate Conservation Grant Program, 2007.
U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2009 (129th Edition) Washington, DC. Accessed from <http://www.census.gov/statab/www/> on October 22, 2009.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Issued October, 2007.20 Trout Fishing in 2006: A Demographic Description and Economic Analysis
Appendix A. Economic Impact Methods
The 2006 National Survey contains estimates of annual travel and equipment expenditures by trout anglers. To obtain the economic impact figures, these expenditures were used in conjunction with economic multipliers designed by Southwick Associates. The Southwick Associate multipliers were created using freshwater fishing expenditures and participation data from the 2006 National Survey. The impacts were derived using IMPLAN, an input-output (I/O) software and data system widely used for estimating the job and income effects of the interdependencies and interactions of economic sectors and consumers to estimate output, income, and employment effects. The freshwater fishing multipliers were appropriate to use as a trout fishing multiplier because of the similarities between the two fishing sectors (i.e. money spent on freshwater fishing goes into the same industrial sectors as money spent on trout fishing).
USFWS/Carl ZitsmanTrout Fishing in 2006: A Demographic Description and Economic Analysis 21
Appendix B. Contingent Valuation Methods and 2006 Survey Questions
USFWS/Vanessa Raba
Respondents were asked their total number of angling trips in 2006 and average cost per trip. The respondents were then asked how much money would have been too much to pay per trip. This question was reiterated in another form in case there was a misunderstanding. Assuming a linear demand curve, annual net economic value was calculated using the difference between current cost and the maximum cost at the intercept and the number of trips taken in 2006.
The valuation sequence was posed in terms of numbers of trips and cost per trip because respondents were thought more likely to think in terms of trips. The economic values here are reported in days to facilitate their use in analysis. Outliers were deleted if respondents answered in a way that resulted in zero or negative willingness to pay. Observations were also dropped from the sample if the CV response resulted in an annual net economic value for an activity that exceeded 10 percent of an individual’s household income.
In the next few questions, I will ask you about ALL your trips taken during the ENTIRE calendar year of 2006 to PRIMARILY fish for TROUT in [fill RESIDENT STATE].
How many trips lasting a single day or multiple days did you take to fish PRIMARILY for TROUT during 2006 in [fill RESIDENT STATE]?
Think about what it cost you for a TYPICAL TROUT fishing trip. Include expenses for things such as gasoline and other transportation costs, food, and lodging.
Remember to include ONLY YOUR SHARE of expenses.
How much did a TYPICAL fishing trip cost you during 2006 when you fished PRIMARILY for trout in [fill RESIDENT STATE]?
What was the average length of your TROUT caught in [fill RESIDENT STATE] in 2006?
Still thinking about a TYPICAL TROUT fishing trip in [fill RESIDENT STATE]…
What is the cost that would have prevented you from taking even one such trip? In other words, if the trip cost was below this amount, you would have gone TROUT fishing in [fill RESIDENT STATE], but if the trip cost was above this amount, you would not have gone.
Keep in mind that the cost per trip of other kinds of fishing, hunting and recreational activities would not have changed.
So, in other words, $[fill amount] would have been too much to pay for one TYPICAL TROUT fishing trip last year in [fill RESIDENT STATE]?
If “NO,”
How much would have been too much to pay for one TYPICAL TROUT fishing trip last year in [fill RESIDENT STATE]?U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov
Cover photo: USFWS/Anna Harris