2001 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching Addendum to the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation Report 2001-2

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
2001 National and State
Economic Impacts of
Wildlife Watching
Addendum to the 2001National
Survey of Fishing, Hunting and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Report 2001-2
2001 National and State
Economic Impacts of
Wildlife Watching
Addendum to the 2001National
Survey of Fishing, Hunting and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Report 2001-2
August 2003
James Caudill, Ph.D.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Economics
Arlington VA
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.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Observing, feeding, and photographing
wildlife in the United States is an
important pastime for millions of
Americans and contributes significantly
to the national and state economies. In
2001, more than 66 million people 16 years
of age and older spent over $38.4 billion
on trips and equipment in pursuit of
these activities. Wildlife-watching
expenditures have contributed
substantially to Federal and state tax
revenues, jobs, earnings, and industry
output.
The 2001 National Survey of Fishing,
Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated
Recreation (FHWAR) (U.S. Department
of the Interior et al.) is the most
comprehensive survey of wildlife-related
recreation in the U.S. Over 40,000
detailed interviews were completed with
anglers, hunters, and wildlife watchers.
The survey focused on 2001 participation
and expenditures by U.S. residents 16
years of age or older.
Two reports used the 2001FHWAR to
address the national and state economic
impacts of hunting and fishing.1 In this
report, estimates of national and state
economic impacts of wildlife watching
based on the 2001FHWAR are reported.
The following topics are addressed:
(1) national participation in wildlife
watching; (2) expenditures associated
with participation in wildlife watching;
(3) estimates of the total economic
activity generated by these expenditures;
(4) total employment and employment
income associated with these
expenditures; and (5) estimates of
associated state and federal tax revenue.
2 2001 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching
Introduction
Summary of National Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching: 2001
Participation 66.1 million
Total Expenditures $38.4 billion
Total Industry Output $95.8 billion
Employment 1,027,833 jobs
Employment Income $27.8 billion
State Sales Tax $2.1 billion
State Income Tax $712 million
Federal Income tax $3.3 billion
Figure 1. Wildlife Watching Expenditures by Major Category: 2001
$38.4 billion
Figure 2. Trip Expenditures for Wildlife Watching: 2001
$8.2 billion
61% $23.5b Equipment
24% $2.0b Lodging
9% $0.7b Other
Trip $8.2b 21%
Other $6.7b 17%
Food $2.8b 35%
Transportation $2.6b 32%
1 See The Economic Importance of Hunting
in America, International Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Washington DC,
2002 and Sportfishing in America, American
Sportfishing Association, Alexandria,VA, 2002.
Wildlife-related recreation is one of the
most popular forms of recreation in the
United States. In 2001, 82 million people
participated in hunting, fishing and
wildlife watching. By comparison, total
attendance in 2001 for all major league
baseball and professional football games
numbered about 89 million
(Infoplease.com).
Over 66 million people participated in
some form of wildlife watching, which
refers to nonharvesting activities such as
observing, feeding and photographing
wildlife. The figure of 66 million includes
only primary participants in wildlife-watching.
Primary means that the
principal motivation for the trip, activity or
expenditure is wildlife-related. Primary
participation is further categorized as
residential or nonresidential. Primary
residential participants include those
whose activities2 are within one mile of
home and primary nonresidential
participants refers to people who take
trips or outings of at least one mile for
the primary purpose of observing,
feeding, or photographing wildlife.
For the purposes of the survey, trips to
zoos, circuses, aquariums, museums and
for scouting game are not considered
wildlife watching.
Table 1 summarizes the number of state
residents and state nonresidents who
participated in wildlife-watching
activities by state in 2001.
2001 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching 3
Participation in Wildlife Watching
2 These activities include one or more of
the following: (1) closely observing or
trying to identify birds or other wildlife;
(2) photographing wildlife; (3) feeding
birds or other wildlife on a regular basis;
(4) maintaining natural areas of at least one-quarter
acre for which benefit to wildlife is the
primary purpose; (5) maintaining plantings
(shrubs, agricultural crops, etc.) for which
benefit to wildlife is the primary concern, or
(6) visiting public parks within one mile of
home for the primary purpose of observing,
feeding, or photographing wildlife (pp. 2–3,
U.S. Department of the Interior et al. 2002).
Laura Riley, USFWS
4 2001 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching
Table 1. Number of Wildlife-Watching Participants by State: 2001
(Population 16 years and older. Number in thousands)
Total participants Non-State Residents State Residents
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
United States, Total 66,105 100 21,823 33 62,928 95
Alabama 1,016 100 72 7 944 93
Alaska 420 100 185 44 235 56
Arizona 1,465 100 367 25 1,098 75
Arkansas 845 100 67 8 778 92
California 5,720 100 384 7 5,336 93
Colorado 1,552 100 362 23 1,190 77
Connecticut 965 100 90 9 875 91
Delaware 232 100 64 28 168 72
Florida 3,240 100 490 15 2,750 85
Georgia 1,494 100 178 12 1,317 88
Hawaii 220 100 96 43 125 57
Idaho 643 100 264 41 379 59
Illinois 2,621 100 176 7 2,445 93
Indiana 1,866 100 80 4 1,786 96
Iowa 1,028 100 63 6 966 94
Kansas 807 100 76 9 731 91
Kentucky 1,362 100 102 8 1,259 92
Louisiana 931 100 111 12 819 88
Maine 778 100 260 33 518 67
Maryland 1,524 100 234 15 1,290 85
Massachusetts 1,686 100 205 12 1,481 88
Michigan 2,666 100 250 9 2,416 91
Minnesota 2,155 100 171 8 1,984 92
Mississippi 631 100 55 9 576 91
Missouri 1,826 100 219 12 1,607 88
Montana 687 100 325 47 362 53
Nebraska 565 100 71 13 494 87
Nevada 543 100 222 41 320 59
New Hampshire 766 100 320 42 445 58
New Jersey 1,895 100 225 12 1,670 88
New Mexico 671 100 202 30 469 70
New York 3,887 100 392 10 3,495 90
North Carolina 2,168 100 300 14 1,868 86
North Dakota 190 100 56 29 134 71
Ohio 2,897 100 145 5 2,752 95
Oklahoma 1,131 100 105 9 1,026 91
Oregon 1,680 100 401 24 1,280 76
Pennsylvania 3,794 100 293 8 3,502 92
Rhode Island 298 100 58 19 240 81
South Carolina 1,186 100 128 11 1,059 89
South Dakota 358 100 110 31 248 69
Tennessee 2,084 100 382 18 1,701 82
Texas 3,240 100 174 5 3,066 95
Utah 806 100 244 30 562 70
Vermont 496 100 214 43 282 57
Virginia 2,460 100 313 13 2,147 87
Washington 2,496 100 286 11 2,210 89
West Virginia 605 100 105 17 500 83
Wisconsin 2,442 100 283 12 2,159 88
Wyoming 498 100 327 66 171 34
Note: Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses.
Spending associated with wildlife
watching generates a substantial amount
of economic activity across the U.S.
Participants spend money on a wide
variety of goods and services. Trip-related
expenditures for nonresidential
participants include expenses for food,
lodging, and transportation. Both
residential and nonresidential
participants also buy equipment and
related goods for the primary purpose of
engaging in wildlife watching such as
binoculars, cameras, wild bird food,
memberships in wildlife organizations,
camping equipment, motor homes,
campers, and off-road vehicles.
These direct expenditures are only part
of the total picture, however. Those
businesses and industries that supply the
local retailers where the purchases are
made also benefit from wildlife-watching
expenditures. For example, a family may
decide to purchase a pair of binoculars to
use primarily for birdwatching on an
upcoming vacation. Part of the total
purchase price will go to the local retailer,
say a sporting goods store. The sporting
goods store in turn pays a wholesaler that
in turn pays the manufacturer of the
binoculars. The manufacturer then
spends a portion of this income to pay
businesses supplying the manufacturer.
In this fashion, each dollar of local retail
expenditures can affect a variety of
businesses at the local, regional and
national level. Consequently, consumer
spending associated with wildlife
watching can have a significant impact on
economic activity, employment, and
household income across the nation.
2001 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching 5
The Economic Impacts of
Wildlife Watching
If Wildlife Watching were a
company, its sales of $38.4
billion would rank it 33rd in
the Forbes 500 list for 2001—
placing it just ahead of
Motorola and Kmart.
Doug Canfield, USFWS
6 2001 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching
Methods
The 2001FHWAR contains estimates
of annual travel and equipment
expenditures by wildlife-watching
participants. Travel expenditures were
obtained only for nonresidential
participants3 while equipment
expenditures were obtained for
both residential and nonresidential
participants. These expenditures were
used in conjunction with an economic
modeling method known as input-output
analysis4 to estimate total industry
output, employment and employment
income associated with these
expenditures.
Direct Expenditures
Total direct expenditures by participants
was $38.4 billion in 2001. Trip-related
expenditures accounted for about
$8.2 billion (21.2 percent of total
expenditures). Food and drink accounted
for 34.7 percent of total trip-related
expenditures and transportation and
lodging accounted for 31.8 and 24.3
percent, respectively.
Equipment and other expenditures
accounted for $30.3 billion (78.8 percent
of total expenditures). Off-road vehicles,
tent trailers, motor homes and pick-up
trucks accounted for 42.8 percent of total
equipment and other expenditures.
Packaged and bulk wild bird food
accounted for 8.7 percent of equipment
and related expenditures, while film
purchases (including developing) and
photographic equipment accounted for
3.0 and 5.5 percent, respectively.
Table 2 summarizes nationwide
expenditures for wildlife watching
in 2001.
3 Theoretically, residential participants
would not have any travel expenses since all
wildlife-associated activity took place within
one mile of their home.
4 The estimates of total economic activity,
employment, employment income and federal
and state taxes in this report were derived
using IMPLAN, a regional input-output
model and software system. For additional
information, see MIG, Inc. IMPLAN System
(1998 data and software) and Olson and
Lindall, IMPLAN Professional Software,
Analysis and Data Guide. For additional
information on input-output modeling, see
Miller and Blair Input-Output Analysis .
High-Tech Wildlife Watchers
■ In one year, wildlife
watchers spent more than
$2.6 billion on cameras,
video cameras and
associated photographic
equipment.
■ Binoculars and spotting
scopes accounted for
$507 million in spending.
Wildlife Watching
Expenditures Close to Home:
Each year wildlife watchers
spend over $3.1 billion on food
for birds and other wildlife;
and $733 million on bird
houses and feeders.
Rick Bohn, USFWS
2001 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching 7
Table 2. National Expenditures for Wildlife Watching: 2001
Total Percent of Percent of
Expenditures Category Total
Expenditure item (in millions) Expenditures Expenditures
(1) Travel-related
Food $2,835.9 34.7 % 7.4 %
Lodging $1,983.0 24.3 % 5.2 %
Public Transportation $702.2 8.6 % 1.8 %
Private Transportation $1,893.3 23.2 % 4.9 %
Guide fees, pack trip or package fees $113.0 1.4 % 0.3 %
Public land use/access fees $114.8 1.4 % 0.3 %
Private land use/access fees $50.4 0.6 % 0.1 %
Equipment rental $105.2 1.3 % 0.3 %
Boat costs $326.5 4.0 % 0.8 %
Heating and cooking fuel $38.1 0.5 % 0.1 %
Total, Travel-related $8,162.4 100.0 % 21.2 %
(2) Equipment and other items
a. Wildlife-Watching Equipment and related items
Binoculars, spotting scopes $507.4 1.7 % 1.3 %
Cameras, video cameras, special lenses and other photographic equipment $1,656.8 5.5 % 4.3 %
Film and developing $910.4 3.0 % 2.4 %
Packaged wild bird food $2,034.8 6.7 % 5.3 %
Bulk wild bird food $569.9 1.9 % 1.5 %
Feed for other wildlife $503.0 1.7 % 1.7 %
Nest boxes, bird houses, feeders, baths $732.7 2.4 % 2.4 %
Other wildlife-watching equipment $116.0 0.4 % 0.4 %
Day packs, carrying cases, and special clothing $323.0 1.1 % 1.1 %
Wildlife-watching, sub-total $7,353.9 24.3 % 19.1 %
b. Auxiliary Equipment
Tents and tarps $185.6 0.6 % 0.5 %
Frame packs and backpacking equipment $129.4 0.4 % 0.3 %
Other camping equipment $266.4 0.9 % 0.7 %
Other auxiliary equipment $135.6 0.4 % 0.4 %
Auxiliary, sub-total $716.9 2.4 % 1.9%
c. Special Equipment
Off-the-road vehicles $6,677.7 22.1 % 17.4 %
Travel or tent trailer, pick-up, camper, van, motor home $6,272.3 20.7 % 16.3 %
Boats, boat accessories $996.5 3.3 % 2.6 %
Cabins* — — —
Other equipment $572.4 1.9 % 1.5 %
Special, sub-total $15,468.7 51.1 % 40.3 %
d. Other items
Magazines and books $332.0 1.1 % 0.9 %
Membership dues and contributions $920.2 3.1 % 2.4 %
Land leasing and ownership $4,761.0 15.7 % 12.4 %
Plantings $699.3 2.3 % 1.8 %
Other items, sub-total $6,712.5 22.2 % 17.5 %
Total, Equipment and other items $30,252.0 100 % 78.8 %
National Total $38,414.5 — 100.0 %
* Sample size is too small to report data reliably.
Total Industry Output
The direct expenditures of $38.4 billion in
2001 generated $95.8 billion in total
industrial output (TIO) across the U.S.
TIO includes the direct, indirect and
induced effects5 of wildlife-watching
expenditures. The ratio of TIO to direct
expenditures, 2.49, means that for each $1
of direct spending associated with wildlife
watching, an additional $1.49 of economic
activity is generated. Major sectors
affected include manufacturing which
accounted for $37.3 billion (39 percent);
service sector $17 billion (17.8 percent);
trade (both wholesale and retail) $17.9
billion (18.7 percent); and finance-insurance-
real estate which accounted for
$10.1 billion (10.5 percent) of output.
Employment and Employment Income
The total industrial output of $95.8 billion
resulted in 1,027,833 jobs (full and part
time) with total wages and salaries of
$27.8 billion. This results in a national
average of $27,047 per job per year.
With respect to employment, major
industrial sectors affected include trade
with over 350,000 jobs (34.1 percent);
services with 301,000 jobs (29.3 percent);
manufacturing with 176,000 jobs (17.1
percent) and agriculture with over
59,000 jobs (5.8 percent).
The trade sector accounted for the
largest portion of employment income at
$7.8 billion (28.3 percent); services
accounted for $7.3 billion (26.3 percent);
manufacturing with $7.3 billion (26.2
percent) and finance-insurance-real
estate at $1.9 billion (6.8 percent). Table 3
summarizes economic impacts by major
business sector (column sums may not
equal column totals due to rounding).
Federal and State Taxes
Wildlife-watching expenditures generate
taxes at both the state and federal level in
two ways. First, direct and indirect
expenditures generate state sales tax
(except in those states without sales tax).
Second, employment earnings are taxed
at both the state (with the exception of
states which do not tax income) and
federal levels. Based on 2001
expenditures on wildlife-watching,
associated total industrial output and
associated employment and employment
income, 2001 tax revenue is estimated as
follows:
(1) total state sales tax revenue:
$2.1 billion;
(2) total state income tax revenue:
$712 million; and
(3) total federal individual income tax
revenue: $3.3 billion.
8 2001 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching
12 States derived 1% or
more of their total Economic
Gross Product from the
impacts of wildlife-watching
expenditures.
Table 3. National Economic Impacts of Wildlife-Watching by Major Industrial Sector, 2001
(all dollar amounts in millions)
Total Sector as Sector as Sector as
Industrial Percent Percent Employment Percent
Sector Output of Total Employment of Total Income of Total
Agriculture $2,754.6 2.9 % 59,741 5.8 % $452.7 1.6 %
Mining $874.0 0.9 % 3,693 0.4 % $162.2 0.6 %
Construction $1,242.5 1.3 % 17,733 1.7 % $507.5 1.8 %
Manufacturing $37,322.2 39.0 % 176,233 17.1 % $7,266.7 26.2 %
TCPU (1) $6,560.6 6.8 % 47,561 4.6 % $1,663.6 6.0 %
Trade $17,922.2 18.7 % 350,958 34.1 % $7,845.0 28.3 %
FIRE (2) $10,088.7 10.5 % 53,454 5.2 % $1,899.3 6.8 %
Services $17,047.1 17.8 % 300,985 29.3 % $7,298.1 26.3 %
Government $1,281.6 1.3 % 11,606 1.1 % $607.0 2.2 %
Other $62.4 0.1 % 5,871 0.6 % $62.4 0.2 %
Totals $95,784.1 100.0 % 1,027,833 100.0 % $27,754.5 100.0 %
(1) TCPU: Transportation, Communications, Public Utilities
(2) FIRE: Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
5 Direct effects are production changes
associated with the immediate effects of
changes in final demand (in this case, changes
in wildlife associated expenditures); indirect
effects are production changes in those
industries which supply the inputs to
industries directly affected by final demand;
induced effects are changes in regional
household spending patterns caused by
changes in regional employment (generated
from the direct and indirect effects) (Taylor et
al. 1993, Appendix E, p. E-1).
State Impacts
Table 4 shows the economic impacts of
wildlife-watching expenditures by state
for 2001. U.S. totals are shown at the
bottom of Table 4. With the exception of
state sales and income tax revenue totals
for the U.S., state totals do not add up to
U.S. totals. The state impact figures
show only those impacts which occur
within the state. For example, a Boise,
Idaho, sporting goods store may carry a
brand of fishing tackle that is
manufactured in Salt Lake City, Utah.
When an angler purchases the fishing
tackle, only a portion of the money is
kept by the retailer. Part of the total
selling price goes to the Salt Lake City
manufacturer. This transaction between
the sporting goods store and the
manufacturer (or wholesaler, depending
on the situation) will not appear in the
Idaho state totals. The U.S. totals
capture these interstate impacts,
however.
To help put these numbers in context,
Table 5 shows the estimated impacts as a
percentage of commensurate state totals
for 2001. The first column shows total
industry output as a percentage of Gross
State Product (GSP).6 The second column
shows estimated employment as a
percentage of total (annual) state
employment. Finally, the third column
shows estimated employment income as a
percentage of total state wage and salary
disbursements (U.S. Department of
Commerce, 2003 a,b). Twelve states
derive 1 percent or more of their gross
state product from wildlife watchers’
activities.
An additional way to help place wildlife-watching
expenditures in context is to
think of these expenditures as the 2001
annual sales revenue of a particular
company. With a total of $38.4 billion in
sales, this company would rank 33rd on
the Forbes 500 list for 2001, just behind
Proctor and Gamble and WorldCom and
just ahead of Motorola and Kmart
(Forbes.com).
Table 6 shows the economic impacts
of wildlife watching expenditures by
state for 2001 for nonresidents
(out-of-state visitors).
2001 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching 9
6 Gross state product (GSP) is the sum of
gross state products originating in all
industries in a particular state. An industry’s
GSP is equivalent to its gross output (sales or
receipts and other operating income,
commodity taxes, and inventory change)
minus its intermediate inputs (consumption of
goods and services purchased from other
industries or imported). GSP is sometimes
referred to as the State counterpart of the
nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) (U.S.
Department of Commerce, 2003a).
Top 10 States Ranked by Economic Output*
Economic Output Wildlife Watchers
California $5,169,100,000 5,720,000
Florida $2,815,400,000 3,240,000
New York $2,625,300,000 3,887,000
Texas $2,455,900,000 3,240,000
Wisconsin $2,453,600,000 2,442,000
New Jersey $2,264,700,000 1,895,000
Pennsylvania $1,955,200,000 3,794,000
Washington $1,781,500,000 2,496,000
Maryland $1,772,900,000 1,524,000
North Carolina $1,593,900,000 2,168,000
*Total industry output which includes direct, indirect, and induced effects of wildlife-watching
expenditures.
Top 10 States Ranked by Nonresident Wildlife-Watching Economic Impacts
Nonresident Nonresident State
Economic Output* Wildlife Watchers
California $943,300,000 384,000
Florida $750,300,000 490,000
Maryland $749,800,000 234,000
Colorado $667,100,000 362,000
Alaska $660,100,000 185,000
Georgia $609,500,000 178,000
New York $537,800,000 392,000
Oregon $500,600,000 401,000
Indiana $434,600,000 80,000
Arizona $388,600,000 185,000
*Total industry output which includes direct, indirect, and induced effects of wildlife-watching
expenditures
Nan Rollison, USFWS
10 2001 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching
Table 4. Total Wildlife-watching Expenditures and Economic Impacts, State and National Totals: 2001
(all dollar amounts in millions)
State State Federal
Expenditures/ Job Sales Tax Income Tax Income
State Sales Output Jobs Income Revenue Revenue Tax
Alabama $624.4 $1,216.4 17,479 $348.1 $29.8 $7.7 $34.2
Alaska $498.9 $791.9 12,828 $236.9 $2.1 $0.0 $27.0
Arizona $820.7 $1,411.8 17,939 $424.6 $39.8 $7.0 $46.7
Arkansas $244.0 $351.2 5,094 $94.1 $12.8 $2.6 $8.5
California $2,580.9 $5,169.1 61,360 $1,599.9 $132.3 $46.9 $190.3
Colorado $624.4 $1,186.7 15,994 $368.0 $32.5 $8.8 $44.1
Connecticut $225.0 $406.2 4,300 $130.0 $9.0 $3.6 $21.0
Delaware $42.3 $74.1 1,031 $23.0 $0.0 $0.8 $2.5
Florida $1,575.5 $2,815.4 35,231 $874.0 $76.5 $0.0 $109.0
Georgia $535.8 $1,062.7 12,506 $312.5 $28.4 $8.5 $34.7
Hawaii $131.6 $207.6 2,536 $62.2 $7.4 $2.5 $5.4
Idaho $227.5 $384.0 5,938 $100.7 $9.0 $3.2 $9.3
Illinois $596.2 $1,277.3 13,168 $375.0 $23.6 $7.6 $46.9
Indiana $721.9 $1,453.6 21,583 $425.1 $30.1 $14.0 $46.2
Iowa $188.4 $342.7 5,140 $91.9 $7.6 $2.8 $9.1
Kansas $128.7 $243.7 3,925 $66.5 $6.3 $1.8 $7.5
Kentucky $601.6 $1,018.1 18,523 $300.4 $22.4 $11.5 $29.2
Louisiana $138.4 $274.8 4,129 $78.4 $9.6 $1.3 $8.0
Maine $513.6 $856.5 13,638 $255.2 $16.1 $8.1 $25.5
Maryland $862.7 $1,772.9 24,667 $571.9 $29.2 $24.3 $68.1
Massachusetts $469.3 $881.5 9,992 $289.0 $15.3 $11.9 $37.9
Michigan $692.8 $1,307.0 17,350 $392.1 $34.2 $11.0 $45.8
Minnesota $531.1 $1,021.7 12,730 $296.3 $21.1 $10.9 $32.7
Mississippi $303.5 $461.5 6,268 $116.2 $13.7 $2.1 $10.4
Missouri $448.8 $926.2 11,365 $258.7 $25.9 $7.0 $26.4
Montana $350.3 $575.9 10,302 $160.0 $0.0 $4.3 $14.3
Nebraska $129.7 $247.1 3,248 $69.2 $4.8 $1.7 $6.8
Nevada $250.1 $372.7 4,207 $106.7 $11.4 $0.0 $13.7
New Hampshire $342.9 $567.3 8,239 $172.9 $0.0 $0.0 $22.4
New Jersey $1,243.8 $2,264.7 20,033 $672.8 $32.9 $14.3 $90.3
New Mexico $558.3 $931.5 14,761 $273.2 $30.0 $6.2 $25.2
New York $1,407.2 $2,625.3 31,450 $831.2 $55.6 $37.4 $98.6
North Carolina $826.9 $1,593.9 20,597 $456.9 $37.8 $15.0 $46.7
North Dakota $27.1 $45.1 725 $11.5 $0.8 $0.2 $1.0
Ohio $623.1 $1,299.6 15,714 $371.4 $28.8 $13.9 $38.6
Oklahoma $193.2 $370.0 6,141 $96.9 $12.1 $2.8 $9.7
Oregon $769.4 $1,485.5 21,535 $450.2 $0.0 $18.2 $43.4
Pennsylvania $961.8 $1,955.2 22,298 $566.3 $39.0 $16.6 $65.2
Rhode Island $169.6 $259.6 3,073 $80.0 $4.6 $2.1 $8.5
South Carolina $256.4 $488.3 7,032 $140.5 $12.9 $3.8 $14.1
South Dakota $92.0 $147.9 2,607 $38.7 $3.8 $0.0 $4.3
Tennessee $448.5 $895.4 12,756 $251.5 $29.9 $0.0 $28.2
Texas $1,282.9 $2,455.9 28,377 $664.2 $56.1 $0.0 $83.1
Utah $555.7 $1,037.7 16,374 $316.6 $29.4 $9.5 $29.5
Vermont $203.7 $348.0 6,951 $109.7 $4.1 $2.8 $11.9
Virginia $788.6 $1,548.0 25,135 $489.2 $27.6 $13.9 $56.6
Washington $979.7 $1,781.5 22,439 $527.7 $58.1 $0.0 $68.3
West Virginia $163.5 $252.5 3,946 $74.7 $6.4 $1.9 $6.3
Wisconsin $1,311.6 $2,453.6 34,010 $711.8 $41.1 $26.3 $75.6
Wyoming $264.9 $426.0 6,557 $108.4 $8.6 $0.0 $14.4
United States $38,414.5 $95,784.1 1,027,833 $27,754.6 $2,073.8 $712.0 $3,250.1
2001 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching 11
Table 5. Economic Impacts as Percentage of State Totals, 2001
Generated Employment
Total Output as Generated Employment Income as Percentage of
Percentage of Gross as Percentage of Total Total State Wage and
State State Product State Employment Salary Disbursements
Alabama 1.0 % 0.9 % 0.6 %
Alaska 2.8 % 4.0 % 2.1 %
Arizona 0.9 % 0.8 % 0.5 %
Arkansas 0.5 % 0.4 % 0.3 %
California 0.4 % 0.4 % 0.2 %
Colorado 0.7 % 0.7 % 0.4 %
Connecticut 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.2 %
Delaware 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.1 %
Florida 0.6 % 0.5 % 0.4 %
Georgia 0.4 % 0.3 % 0.2 %
Hawaii 0.5 % 0.4 % 0.3 %
Idaho 1.0 % 1.0 % 0.6 %
Illinois 0.3 % 0.2 % 0.2 %
Indiana 0.8 % 0.7 % 0.4 %
Iowa 0.4 % 0.3 % 0.2 %
Kansas 0.3 % 0.3 % 0.2 %
Kentucky 0.8 % 1.0 % 0.5 %
Louisiana 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.1 %
Maine 2.3 % 2.2 % 1.4 %
Maryland 0.9 % 0.9 % 0.6 %
Massachusetts 0.3 % 0.3 % 0.2 %
Michigan 0.4 % 0.4 % 0.2 %
Minnesota 0.5 % 0.5 % 0.3 %
Mississippi 0.7 % 0.5 % 0.4 %
Missouri 0.5 % 0.4 % 0.3 %
Montana 2.5 % 2.5 % 1.5 %
Nebraska 0.4 % 0.3 % 0.3 %
Nevada 0.5 % 0.4 % 0.3 %
New Hampshire 1.2 % 1.3 % 0.8 %
New Jersey 0.6 % 0.5 % 0.4 %
New Mexico 1.7 % 1.8 % 1.2 %
New York 0.3 % 0.4 % 0.2 %
North Carolina 0.6 % 0.5 % 0.4 %
North Dakota 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.1 %
Ohio 0.3 % 0.3 % 0.2 %
Oklahoma 0.4 % 0.4 % 0.2 %
Oregon 1.2 % 1.3 % 0.8 %
Pennsylvania 0.5 % 0.4 % 0.3 %
Rhode Island 0.7 % 0.6 % 0.5 %
South Carolina 0.4 % 0.4 % 0.3 %
South Dakota 0.6 % 0.7 % 0.4 %
Tennessee 0.5 % 0.5 % 0.3 %
Texas 0.3 % 0.3 % 0.2 %
Utah 1.5 % 1.4 % 0.9 %
Vermont 1.8 % 2.2 % 1.2 %
Virginia 0.6 % 0.7 % 0.4 %
Washington 0.8 % 0.8 % 0.5 %
West Virginia 0.6 % 0.5 % 0.4 %
Wisconsin 1.4 % 1.2 % 0.8 %
Wyoming 2.1% 2.5 % 1.5 %
United States 0.9 % 0.7 % 0.6 %
12 2001 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching
Table 6. Non-Resident Wildlife-Watching Expenditures and Economic Impacts, State Totals: 2001
(all dollar amounts in millions)
State State Federal
Expenditures/ Job Sales Tax Income Tax Income
State Sales Output Jobs Income Revenue Revenue Tax
Alabama $25.0 $43.8 653 $13.2 $1.3 $0.3 $1.3
Alaska $411.8 $660.1 11,055 $198.6 $1.7 $0.0 $22.6
Arizona $226.2 $388.6 5,718 $122.4 $11.5 $2.1 $13.7
Arkansas $12.0 $17.6 273 $4.9 $0.6 $0.1 $0.5
California $471.7 $943.3 10,891 $293.2 $25.2 $8.8 $35.5
Colorado $349.4 $667.1 9,060 $209.5 $18.1 $5.0 $25.0
Connecticut $60.0 $95.8 908 $30.6 $2.1 $0.8 $4.9
Delaware $10.3 $16.4 221 $5.1 $0.0 $0.2 $0.5
Florida $402.1 $750.3 10,548 $249.1 $22.1 $0.0 $31.4
Georgia $308.2 $609.5 6,602 $176.0 $14.4 $4.7 $19.1
Hawaii $52.8 $84.9 1,042 $27.2 $3.3 $1.0 $2.3
Idaho $89.9 $149.0 2,330 $39.3 $3.5 $1.2 $3.6
Illinois $57.3 $121.0 1,427 $40.0 $2.8 $0.8 $4.9
Indiana $213.3 $434.6 4,382 $120.9 $8.0 $3.8 $12.6
Iowa $17.7 $29.3 368 $8.0 $0.5 $0.2 $0.7
Kansas $31.7 $56.9 913 $16.8 $1.7 $0.4 $1.8
Kentucky $122.5 $233.1 5,950 $77.8 $4.6 $3.0 $7.7
Louisiana $33.9 $56.6 836 $17.0 $1.9 $0.3 $1.7
Maine $109.2 $188.8 3,319 $59.3 $3.9 $1.9 $5.9
Maryland $352.5 $749.8 13,839 $271.4 $12.2 $11.8 $33.2
Massachusetts $148.8 $282.7 3,351 $94.4 $4.8 $3.9 $12.5
Michigan $121.8 $223.8 3,109 $70.7 $5.7 $2.0 $8.1
Minnesota $57.7 $109.8 1,539 $34.7 $2.4 $1.3 $3.8
Mississippi $37.2 $54.7 703 $13.7 $1.5 $0.2 $1.2
Missouri $117.8 $229.8 3,135 $68.3 $6.8 $1.8 $6.9
Montana $169.2 $277.6 5,456 $80.4 $0.0 $2.1 $7.2
Nebraska $19.6 $34.4 533 $10.3 $0.8 $0.3 $1.0
Nevada $61.0 $95.0 1,177 $30.4 $3.2 $0.0 $4.0
New Hampshire $178.7 $322.7 5,075 $103.3 $0.0 $0.2 $13.4
New Jersey $53.9 $100.0 1,085 $32.1 $1.7 $0.7 $4.4
New Mexico $107.3 $183.8 3,088 $56.2 $6.1 $1.3 $5.1
New York $265.0 $537.8 8,570 $186.3 $11.2 $8.8 $23.2
North Carolina $176.7 $340.0 6,095 $108.4 $8.4 $3.6 $11.2
North Dakota $7.1 $12.1 217 $3.3 $0.2 $0.0 $0.3
Ohio $64.3 $129.1 1,630 $37.6 $2.8 $1.4 $3.9
Oklahoma $33.3 $62.2 909 $16.9 $1.8 $0.5 $1.6
Oregon $263.6 $500.6 8,198 $163.5 $0.0 $6.6 $15.9
Pennsylvania $95.6 $191.6 2,197 $55.5 $3.7 $1.6 $6.3
Rhode Island $147.8 $217.5 2,519 $66.5 $3.8 $1.8 $7.1
South Carolina $48.6 $87.2 1,345 $26.1 $2.3 $0.7 $2.6
South Dakota $48.1 $78.1 1,389 $21.4 $2.1 $0.0 $2.2
Tennessee $189.7 $360.4 4,964 $107.7 $12.5 $0.0 $11.9
Texas $81.9 $149.3 1,824 $42.8 $3.7 $0.0 $5.4
Utah $148.9 $292.4 4,972 $92.3 $8.5 $2.8 $8.6
Vermont $122.6 $228.9 4,964 $75.0 $2.6 $1.9 $8.1
Virginia $109.3 $202.8 2,810 $63.1 $3.8 $1.8 $7.3
Washington $135.4 $243.2 3,149 $76.7 $8.2 $0.0 $10.0
West Virginia $29.2 $45.1 776 $13.5 $1.1 $0.3 $1.1
Wisconsin $203.2 $380.4 5,570 $113.4 $6.5 $4.2 $12.1
Wyoming $178.7 $284.9 4,554 $74.4 $5.9 $0.0 $9.8
2001 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching 13
USFWS
Wildlife-based recreation in the U.S. has
significant economic impacts at the local,
regional, state and national levels.
Hunting, fishing, and wildlife watching
together generated over $236 billion in
total economic output in 2001. Wildlife
watching is a significant portion of this
total and its continued popularity gives
evidence to the importance that people
attach to diverse, accessible and robust
fish and wildlife populations.
14 2001 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching
Summary
Quick Facts
Over 66 million Wildlife Watchers spent $38.4 billion on their
activities in 2001. These expenditures rippled through the
economy resulting in—
$95.8 Billion in Total Industry Output
$6.1 Billion in State and Federal Tax Revenues
1,027,833 Jobs
The sheer magnitude of its
economic impacts prove that
wildlife watching is a major
force, driving billions in
spending around the country.
These economic impacts can
be the life-blood of a local
economy. Rural areas can
attract thousands of wildlife
watchers each year, generating
millions of dollars.
Bruce Eilerts, USFWS
American Sportfishing Association.
Sportfishing in America. Alexandria
VA, 2002.
Forbes.com. Forbes 500 lists available on
Forbes web site: http://www.forbes.com/
tool/toolbox/forbes500s. June 24, 2003
Infoplease.com. 2001 professional sports
attendance. http://www.infoplease.com/
ipsa/A0105485.html. June 24, 2003.
International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies. Economic Importance
of Hunting in America. Washington DC,
2002.
MIG, Inc. IMPLAN System (1998 Data
and Software). 1940 South Greeley
Street, Suite 101, Stillwater, MN 55082.
1998.
Miller, Ronald E. and Peter D. Blair.
Input-Output Analysis: Foundations
and Extensions. Englewood Cliffs NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1985.
Olson, Doug and Scott Lindall. IMPLAN
Professional Software, Analysis and
Data Guide. 1940 South Greeley Street,
Suite 101, Stillwater, MN 55082. 1996.
Taylor, Carol, Susan Winter, Greg Alward
and Eric Siverts. Micro IMPLAN User’s
Guide. Fort Collins CO: U.S. Department
of Agriculture—Forest Service, Land
Management Planning Systems Group,
1993.
U.S. Department of Commerce. Gross
State Product by Industry, 2001. Bureau
of Economic Analysis, Regional
Economic Analysis Division. 2003a.
U.S. Department of Commerce.
Employment and Income by State, 2001.
Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2003b.
U.S. Department of Commerce. Personal
Consumption Expenditures by Type of
Expenditure. Table B.4, p. D-29. Survey
of Current Business. 77 ( December,
1997). 1997e.
U.S. Department of the Interior, 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.
2001 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching 15
Sources
16 2001 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Division of Federal Aid
Washington, DC 20240
http://federalaid.fws.gov
August 2003
Cover photo: Debbie McCrensky, USFWS