|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
large (1000x1000 max)
extra large (2000x2000 max)
full size
original image
|
|
161616996 National Survfvf ey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated rRrRrRecrenenenation U.S. Department of Commerce William M. Daley, Secretary Robert L. Mallet, Deputy Secretary Economics and Statistics Administration Lee Price, Acting Under Secretary for Economic Affairs BUREAU OF THE CENSUS Martha Farnsworth Riche, Director U.S. Department of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, Secretary FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Jamie Rappaport Clark, Director Issued November 1997 FHW/96 NAT As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure their development in the best interests of all our people. The Department also has a major responsibil-ity for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration. The mission of the Department’s Fish and Wildlife Service is to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service is respon-sible for national programs of vital importance to our natural resources, including administration of the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration and the Federal Aid of Wildlife Restoration Programs. These two grant programs provide financial assistance to the States for projects to enhance and protect fish and wildlife resources and to assure their availability to the public for recreational purposes. Funds from the administrative portion of these programs are used to pay for the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Suggested Citation U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Economics and Statistics Administration Lee Price, Acting Under Secretary for Economic Affairs BUREAU OF THE CENSUS Martha Farnesworth Riche, Director Bradford R. Huther, Deputy Director Nancy M. Gordon, Associate Director for Demographic Programs U.S. Department of Interior Bruce Babbitt, Secretary FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Jamie Rappaport Clark, Director Division of Federal Aid Robert E. Lange, Jr., Chief iii List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................... iv Foreword ................................................................................................................................................ vi Survey Background and Method ............................................................................................................ vii Highlights Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 2 Summary................................................................................................................................................. 4 Fishing Highlights .................................................................................................................................... 8 Hunting Highlights ................................................................................................................................. 22 Wildlife-Watching Highlights ...................................................................................................................34 Tables Guide to Statistical Tables ...................................................................................................................... 56 Fishing and Hunting Tables ....................................................................................................................58 Wildlife-Watching Tables ........................................................................................................................ 87 State Tables ........................................................................................................................................... 97 Appendices A. Definitions .................................................................................................................................... A-2 B. Comparability With Previous Surveys ........................................................................................... B-2 C. Selected Data From Screening Interviews.................................................................................... C-2 D. Sample Design and Statistical Accuracy ...................................................................................... D-2 Contents iv Fishing and Hunting: 1996 1. Anglers and Hunters 16 Years Old and Older, Days of Participation, and Trips, by Type of Fishing and Hunting ....................................................................................................... 58 2. Anglers, Trips, and Days of Fishing, by Type of Fishing .................................................................. 58 3. Freshwater Anglers and Days of Fishing, by Type of Fish ..............................................................59 4. Great Lakes Anglers and Days of Fishing, by Type of Fish .............................................................59 5. Saltwater Anglers and Days of Fishing, by Type of Fish ................................................................. 60 6. Hunters, Trips, and Days of Hunting, by Type of Hunting ................................................................ 60 7. Hunters and Days of Hunting, by Type of Game .............................................................................61 8. Selected Characteristics of Anglers and Hunters ........................................................................... 62 9. Selected Characteristics of Anglers, by Type of Fishing ................................................................. 64 10. Selected Characteristics of Hunters, by Type of Hunting ................................................................ 66 11. Summary of Expenditures for Fishing and Hunting ........................................................................ 68 12. Expenditures for Fishing .................................................................................................................69 13. Trip and Equipment Expenditures for Freshwater Fishing ..............................................................70 14. Trip and Equipment Expenditures for Freshwater Fishing, Except Great Lakes ............................. 71 15. Trip and Equipment Expenditures for Great Lakes Fishing .............................................................72 16. Trip and Equipment Expenditures for Saltwater Fishing ................................................................. 73 17. Expenditures for Hunting ................................................................................................................74 18. Trip and Equipment Expenditures for Big Game Hunting ............................................................... 75 19. Trip and Equipment Expenditures for Small Game Hunting ...........................................................76 20. Trip and Equipment Expenditures for Migratory Bird Hunting ......................................................... 77 21. Trip and Equipment Expenditures for Hunting Other Animals ........................................................ 78 22. Special Equipment Expenditures for Fishing and Hunting ..............................................................79 23. Anglers and Hunters Who Purchased Licenses or Were Exempt ................................................... 79 24. Selected Characteristics of Anglers and Hunters Who Purchased Licenses .................................. 80 25. Freshwater Anglers and Days of Fishing, by Type of Water ............................................................81 26. Great Lakes Anglers and Days of Fishing, by Great Lake ..............................................................81 27. Hunters and Days of Hunting on Public and Private Land, by Type of Hunting .............................. 81 28. Hunters and Days of Hunting on Public Land, by Selected Characteristic ..................................... 82 29. Hunters and Days of Hunting on Private Land, by Selected Characteristic .................................... 83 30. Participation in Catch and Release Fishing, Ice Fishing, and Fly-Fishing ...................................... 84 31. Hunters Using Bows and Arrows, Muzzleloaders, and Other Primitive Firearms for Hunting ......... 84 32. Land Owned or Leased for the Primary Purpose of Fishing and Hunting ...................................... 85 33. Persons With Disabilities Who Participated in Fishing and Hunting ............................................... 85 34. Why Anglers and Hunters Did Not Participate More in 1996 .......................................................... 86 Wildlife-Watching Activities: 1996 35. Wildlife-Watching Participants, by Type of Activity .......................................................................... 87 36. Participants, Trips, and Days of Participation in Nonresidential (Away From Home) Wildlife-Watching Activities ............................................................................................................. 87 37. Participation in Residential (Around the Home) Wildlife-Watching Activities .................................. 88 38. Nonresidential Wildlife-Watching Participants, by Area or Site Visited ...........................................89 List of Tables v 39. Nonresidential Wildlife-Watching Participants, by Wildlife Observed, Photographed, or Fed and Place .................................................................................................... 90 40. Expenditures for Wildlife Watching ..................................................................................................91 41. Selected Characteristics of Participants in Nonresidential Wildlife-Watching Activities .................. 92 42. Selected Characteristics of Participants in Residential Wildlife-Watching Activities ....................... 94 43. Land Owned or Leased for the Primary Purpose of Wildlife Watching ........................................... 96 44. Persons With Disabilities Who Participated in Wildlife Watching .................................................... 96 45. Participation of Wildlife-Watching Participants in Fishing and Hunting ........................................... 96 46. Participation of Sportsmen in Wildlife-Watching Activities ..............................................................96 State Wildlife-Related Recreation: 1996 47. Participants in Wildlife-Related Recreation, by Participant’s State of Residence ........................... 97 48. Expenditures for Wildlife-Related Recreation, by State Where Spending Took Place .................... 98 49. Expenditures for Wildlife-Related Recreation, by Participant’s State of Residence ...................... 100 50. Anglers and Hunters, by Sportsman’s State of Residence ........................................................... 102 51. Anglers and Hunters, by State Where Fishing or Hunting Took Place ..........................................103 52. Hunters, by Type of Hunting and State Where Hunting Took Place .............................................. 104 53. Days of Hunting, by State Where Hunting Took Place and Hunter’s State of Residence ............. 105 54. Days of Hunting, by Type of Hunting and State Where Hunting Took Place ................................. 106 55. Expenditures for Hunting, by State Where Spending Took Place ................................................. 107 56. Freshwater (Except Great Lakes) Anglers and Days of Fishing, by State Where Fishing Took Place ...................................................................................................................................108 57. Great Lakes Anglers and Days of Great Lakes Fishing, by State Where Fishing Took Place .......109 58. Saltwater Anglers and Days of Saltwater Fishing, by State Where Fishing Took Place................ 109 59. Days of Fishing, by State Where Fishing Took Place and Angler’s State of Residence ............... 110 60. Expenditures for Fishing, by State Where Spending Took Place .................................................. 111 61. Participants in Wildlife-Watching Activities, by Participant’s State of Residence ..........................112 62. Participants in Nonresidential Wildlife-Watching Activities, by State Where Activity Took Place .. 113 63. Days of Nonresidential Wildlife-Watching Activity, by State Where Activity Took Place and Participant’s State of Residence ............................................................................................ 114 64. Expenditures for Wildlife-Watching Activities, by State Where Spending Took Place ................... 115 vi Foreword Ours is a country with a rich tradition of enjoying nature. Whether casting a fly or snap-ping a shutter, Americans find wildlife-associated recreation a source of lifelong enjoyment and renewal. The results of the 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation reflect this national passion for wild things and wild places. Seventy-seven million Ameri-cans 16 years or older, or 40 percent of the adult population, enjoyed some form of wildlife-related recreation during 1996. In doing so, they pumped $100 billion into the national economy, supporting hundreds of thou-sands of jobs. The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is to con-serve and enhance our nation’s fish and wildlife and its habitat. The Service works in partner-ship with state wildlife agencies, conservation organizations, sportsmen’s groups, local governments, corporations, and individual citizens to perform this mission. For conservation efforts to be effective, however, natural resource managers need de-tailed information on how people use fish and wildlife resources. The 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation is the most comprehensive survey of its kind. It is an important tool for natural resource profession-als in planning and managing these resources for the enjoy-ment and benefit of all Ameri-cans. The 1996 Survey was requested by the States through the Inter-national Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. It is the ninth in a series of surveys on resource use by anglers, hunt-ers, and those who enjoy ob-serving wildlife. The Survey has been sponsored by the Service since 1955. It is financed by hunters, anglers, and boaters through excise taxes on sporting arms, ammunition, fishing equipment, and motorboat fuels as authorized under the Federal Aid in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Acts. We can all be gratified that wildlife-related recreation and the conservation ethic that flows from it remain strong in America. Jamie Rappaport Clark, Director Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior vii Survey Background and Method The National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (Survey) has been conducted since 1955 and is one of the oldest and most comprehensive continuing recreation surveys. The purpose of the Survey is to gather infor-mation on the number of anglers, hunters, and wildlife-watching participants (formerly known as primary nonconsumptive wildlife-related participants) in the United States. Information also is collected on how often these recreationists participate and how much they spend on their activities. The planning process for the 1996 Survey began in 1994 when the International Associa-tion of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA) passed a resolution asking the Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct the ninth National Survey of wildlife-related recreation. Funding for the Survey came from the ad-ministrative portion of the Fed-eral Aid in Sport Fish and Wild-life Restoration Programs. Consultations with State and Federal agencies and nongov-ernmental organizations such as the Wildlife Management Insti-tute, American Sportfishing Association, B.A.S.S., Inc., Wild Bird Feeding Institute, and American Fisheries Society started in early 1994 to ascertain survey content. Other sportsmen’s organizations and conservation groups, industry representatives, and researchers also provided valuable advice on questionnaire development, data collection, and reporting. Four regional technical commit-tees were set up under the auspices of the IAFWA to ensure that State fish and wildlife agencies had an opportunity to participate in all phases of survey planning and design. The committees were made up of agency representatives. The Survey was conducted in two phases by the U.S. Bureau of Census for the Fish and Wildlife Service. The first phase was the screen which began in April 1996. During the screening phase, the Bureau of Census interviewed a sample of 80,000 households nationwide, primarily by telephone, to determine who in the household had fished, hunted, or engaged in wildlife-watching activities in 1995, and who had engaged or planned to engage in those activities in 1996. In most cases, one adult household member provided information for all household members. It is important to note that the screen primarily covered 1995 activities while the next, more in-depth phase covered 1996 activities. For more infor-mation on the 1995 data, refer to Appendix C. The second phase of the Sur-vey consisted of detailed inter-views conducted about every four months. The first interview wave began in April 1996, the second in September 1996, and the last in January 1997. Inter-views were conducted with samples of likely anglers, hunt-ers, and wildlife-watching partici-pants who were identified in the initial screening phase. These interviews were conducted viii primarily by telephone, with in-person interviews for those respondents who could not be reached by telephone. Respon-dents in the second survey phase were limited to those at least 16 years old. Each respon-dent provided information per-taining only to his or her activi-ties and expenditures. Sample sizes were designed to provide statistically reliable results at the State level for fishing, hunting, and wildlife-watching activities. Altogether, interviews were completed for 22,578 anglers and hunters and 11,759 wildlife watchers. More detailed infor-mation on sampling procedures and response rates is found in Appendix D. Comparability with Previous Surveys The 1996 Survey questions and methodology were similar to those used in the 1991 Survey. Therefore, the 1996 estimates are comparable to the 1991 estimates. The 1996 Survey was the first to use computer-assisted interviews which im-proved the efficiency and timeli-ness of data collection. The methodology of the 1996 and 1991 Surveys did differ significantly from the 1985 and 1980 Surveys, so their estimates are not directly comparable to those earlier surveys. The changes in methodology in-cluded reducing the recall period over which respondents had to remember their activities and expenditures. Previous Surveys used a 12-month recall period which resulted in greater reporting bias. Research on recall bias found that the amount of activity and expendi-tures reported in 12-month recall Surveys was over-esti-mated in comparison with the amount reported in shorter recall periods. The trends information pre-sented in this report takes the differences of the earlier surveys into account in compar-ing their estimates with those of the 1996 and 1991 Surveys. See the Summary Section and Appendix B. 1 Highlights 2 Introduction The National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation reports results from interviews with U.S. residents about their fishing, hunting, and other fish- and wildlife-related recreation. This report focuses on 1996 participation and expen-ditures of U.S. residents 16 years of age and older. The numbers reported can be compared with those in the 1991 Survey reports. The methodol-ogy used in 1996 was similar to that used in 1991. These results should not be directly compared with the results from Surveys earlier than 1991 because of changes in methodology. These changes in methodology were made in 1991 and 1996 to improve accuracy in the informa-tion provided. Trend information from 1955 to 1985 is presented in Appendix B. The report also provides information on participation in wildlife-related recreation in 1995, particularly of persons 6 to 15 years of age. The 1995 information is provided in Appendix C. Additional informa-tion about the scope and cover-age of the Survey can be found in the Survey Background and Method section of this report. The remainder of this section defines important terms used in the Survey. Wildlife-Associated Recreation Wildlife-associated recreation includes fishing, hunting, and wildlife-watching activities. These categories are not mutu-ally exclusive because many individuals enjoyed fish and wildlife in several ways in 1996. Wildlife-associated recreation is reported in two major categories: (1) fishing and hunting, and (2) wildlife watching (formerly referred to as nonconsumptive wildlife-related recreation). Wildlife-watching includes observing, photographing, and feeding fish and wildlife. Fishing and Hunting This Survey reports information about residents of the United States who fished or hunted in 1996, regardless of whether they were licensed. The fishing and hunting sections of this report are organized to report three groups: (1) sportsmen, (2) anglers, and (3) hunters. Sportsmen Sportsmen are persons who fished or hunted. Individuals who fished or hunted commer-cially in 1996 are reported as sportsmen only if they fished or hunted for recreation. The sportsmen group is composed of the three subgroups in the diagram below: (1) those who Sportsmen Anglers Hunters Fished and hunted Fished only Hunted only 3 fished and hunted, (2) those who only fished, and (3) those who only hunted. The total number of sportsmen is equal to the sum of people who only fished, only hunted, and both hunted and fished. It is not the sum of all anglers and all hunt-ers, because those people who both fished and hunted are included in both the angler and hunter population and would be incorrectly counted twice. Anglers Anglers are sportsmen who only fished plus those who fished and hunted. The angler group includes not only licensed hook and line anglers, but also those who have no license and those who use special methods such as fishing with spears. Three types of fishing are reported: (1) freshwater, excluding the Great Lakes, (2) Great Lakes, and (3) saltwater. Since many anglers enjoyed more than one type of fishing, the total number of anglers is less than the sum of the three types of fishing. Hunters Hunters are sportsmen who only hunted plus those who hunted and fished. The hunter group includes not only licensed hunters using common hunting practices, but also those who have no license and those who engaged in hunting with a bow and arrow, muzzleloader, other primitive firearms, or a pistol or handgun. Four types of hunting are reported: (1) big game, (2) small game, (3) migratory bird, and (4) other animals. Since many hunters enjoyed more than one type of hunting, the sum of hunters for big game, small game, migratory bird, and other animals exceeds the total num-ber of hunters. Wildlife-Watching Activities (formerly Nonconsumptive Wildlife-Related Recreation) Since 1980, the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife- Associated Recreation has included information on wildlife-watching activities in addition to fishing and hunting. However, the 1991 and 1996 Surveys, unlike the 1980 and 1985 Sur-veys, collected data only for those activities where the pri-mary purpose was wildlife watching (observing, photo-graphing, or feeding wildlife). Secondary wildlife-watching activities, such as incidentally observing wildlife while pleasure driving, are not included. Many people, including sports-men, enjoyed wildlife-related recreation other than fishing or hunting. We refer to these nonharvesting activities, such as observing, feeding, or photo-graphing fish and other wildlife, as wildlife-watching activities. Two types of wildlife-watching activity are reported: (1) non-residential and (2) residential. Because some people partici-pate in more than one type of wildlife-watching activity, the sum of participants in each type will be greater than the total number of wildlife-watching participants. Only those engaged in activities whose primary purpose was wildlife watching are included in the Survey. The two types of wildlife-watching activities are defined below. Nonresidential This group included persons who took trips or outings of at least 1 mile for the primary purpose of observing, feeding, or photographing fish and wildlife. Trips to fish or hunt or scout and trips to zoos, circuses, aquariums, and museums were not considered wildlife-watching activities. Residential This group included those whose activities are within 1 mile of home and involve one or more of the following: (1) closely observ-ing 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 where benefit to wildlife is the primary concern; (5) maintaining plantings (shrubs, agricultural crops, etc.) where benefit to wildlife is the primary concern; or (6) visiting public parks within 1 mile of home for the primary purpose of observing, feeding, or photographing wildlife. 4 Total Wildlife-Associated Recreation Participants 77 million Expenditures $101 billion Sportsmen Total participants 39.7 million Anglers 35.2 million Hunters 14.0 million Total days 883 million Anglers 626 million Hunters 257 million Total expenditures $72 billion Fishing $38 billion Hunting $21 billion Unspecified $14 billion Wildlife Watching Total participants 62.9 million Residential 60.8 million Nonresidential 23.7 million Total expenditures $29 billion Summary The Survey revealed that 77 million U.S. residents 16 years old and older participated in wildlife-related recreation activi-ties in 1996. During that year, 35.2 million people fished, 14.0 million hunted, and 62.9 million enjoyed at least one type of wildlife-watching recreation activity including observing, feeding, or photographing fish and other wildlife, in the United States. The information for participation and expenditures of persons 16 years old and older is based on estimates from the detailed phase of the 1996 Survey. This information is comparable with estimates from the 1991 Survey, but not with earlier ones because of changes in methodology. A complete explanation is provided in Appendix B. Persons 6 to 15 years old were not included in the second phase (detailed) interviews of 1996 participants. However, an estimate of their participation was calculated using data from the 1991 and 1996 screening surveys. Both screening sources had nearly identical proportions of 6- to 15- year-old participants (9 percent for hunting; 22 per-cent for fishing; and 16 percent for wildlife-watching activity). Based on these percentages, there were 1.4 million hunters, 10.5 million anglers, and 12.0 million wildlife-watching partici-pants 6 to 15 years old in 1996. More information on 6- to 15- year-olds is provided in Appen-dix C. For the rest of this report all information pertains to partici-pants 16 years old and older, unless otherwise indicated. Among anglers, hunters, and wildlife-watching participants, there was a considerable overlap in activities. In 1996, 68 percent of the hunters also fished, and 27 percent of the anglers hunted. In addition, 65 percent of the anglers and 68 percent of the hunters participated in wildlife-watching activities, while 41 percent of all wildlife-watch-ing participants reported hunting and/or fishing during the year. Expenditures associated with wildlife-related recreation totaled $101 billion in 1996. 5 Trip-related costs were $30.0 billion, while $60.4 billion was spent on equipment and $10.8 billion was spent on other items. Anglers spent a total of $37.8 billion, hunters $20.6 billion, and wildlife-watching participants $29.2 billion. Fishing and Hunting In 1996, 40 million U.S. residents 16 years old and older went fishing and/or hunting. This includes 35.2 million who fished and 14 million who hunted. The overage is accounted for by those who both fished and hunted, 9.5 million. In 1996, expenditures by sports-men totaled $71.9 billion. Trip-related expenditures, including those for food, lodging, and transportation, were $20.5 billion, 29 percent of all fishing and hunting expenditures. Total equipment expenditures amounted to $43.7 billion, 61 percent of the total. Other expenditures such as those for magazines, membership dues, contributions, land leasing and ownership, and licenses, stamps, tags, and permits accounted for $7.7 billion, or 11 pecent of all sportsmen’s expenditures. Wildlife-Watching Recreation Observing, feeding, or photo-graphing wildlife was enjoyed by 62.9 million people 16 years old and older in 1996. Among this group, 23.7 million people took trips for the primary purpose of Other $7.7 billion 11% Equipment $43.7 billion Trip- 61% related $20.5 billion 29% Sportsmen unspecified $13.5 billion 13% Expenditures for Wildlife-Related Recreation (Total expenditures $101.2 billion) Fishing $37.8 billion 37% Other $10.8 billion 11% Equipment $60.4 billion Trip- 60% related $30.0 billion 30% Wildlife-watching $29.2 billion 29% Hunting $20.6 billion 20% Expenditures by Sportsmen (Total expenditures $71.9 billion) Other $3.1 billion 11% Equipment $16.7 billion Trip- 57% related $9.4 billion 32% Expenditures by Wildlife- Watching Participants (Total expenditures $29.2 billion) enjoying wildlife, while 60.8 million stayed within a mile of their homes to participate in wildlife-watching activities. In 1996, wildlife-watching partici-pants spent $29.2 billion. Trip-related expenses, including food, lodging, and transportation, totaled $9.4 billion, 32 percent of the total expenditures. A total of $16.7 billion was spent on equipment, 57 percent of all wildlife-watching expenses. The remaining $3.1 billion, 11 percent of the total, was spent on magazines, member-ship dues, and contributions made to conservation or wildlife-related organizations. 6 1991 and 1996 Comparison A comparison of estimates from the 1991 and 1996 Surveys show that millions of Americans continue to enjoy wildlife-related recreation. While participation in fishing and hunting remained the same, expenditures increased significantly over that 5-year period. In 1991, there were 35.6 million anglers and 14.1 million hunters. In 1996, there were 35.2 million anglers and 14.0 million hunters. In 1996, anglers spent 37 percent more and hunters spent 45 percent more than they did in 1991 for their trips and equipment. Although participation in wildlife watching (observing, feeding, and photographing wildlife) decreased by 17 percent, from 76.1 million in 1991 to 62.9 million in 1996, expenditures for trips and equipment increased by 21 percent. 1955 to 1996 Findings The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has conducted these National Surveys at approximate 5-year intervals since 1955 (see Appendix B). A 41-year trend can be traced for the number of anglers and hunters that partici-pated in a given year. The number of wildlife-watching participants can be traced over 16 years because wildlife watch-ing has been part of the Survey only since 1980. Trends show that the number of anglers increased at over twice the rate of the U.S. population growth from 1955 to 1966. The U.S. population increased by 62 percent while the fishing popula-tion increased by 138 percent during that period. The number of hunters also increased over the 41-year period, but not at a rate equal to the overall population growth. The number of hunters in-creased 41 percent from 1955 to 1996. The number of wildlife-watching participants who took trips away from home for the primary purpose of observing, feeding, Wildlife-Watching Participants: 1980-1996 (Indices are used to simplify comparisons between the wildlife-related recreation activities) Index (1980=100) Hunters and Anglers: 1955-1996 (Indices are used to simplify comparisons between the wildlife-related recreation activities) Index (1955=100) 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990/ 1991 1996 1980 1985 1990/1991 1996 0 U.S. Population Residential wildlife feeding Total nonresidential U.S. Population Anglers Hunters 0 50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250 or photographing wildlife de-creased 12 percent from 1980 to 1996. The number of people who fed wildlife around their home decreased by 21 percent. This trend information is based on published findings from the 1955 to the 1996 Survey reports and unpublished screening data from the 1985 to 1991 Surveys. As explained in Appen-dix B, the estimates from the published reports of the 1985 and 1991 Surveys are not directly comparable due to methodological changes. 7 Fishing 8 Total Fishing (In millions) Total anglers Freshwater Saltwater Days Trips 35.2 29.7 9.4 103 87 515 420 626 507 Anglers Scale enlarged to show detail. Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses. Fishing Highlights In 1996, 35.2 million U.S. residents 16 years old and older enjoyed a variety of fishing opportunities throughout the United States. Anglers fished 626 million days and took 507 million fishing trips. They spent almost $38 billion on fishing-related expenses during the year. Among the 29.7 million freshwater angers, including those who fished in the Great Lakes, 515 million days were spent and 420 million trips were taken freshwater fishing. Freshwater anglers spent $24.5 billion on freshwater fishing trips and equipment. Saltwater fishing attracted 9.4 million anglers who enjoyed 87 million trips on 103 million days. They spent $8.1 billion on their trips and equipment. Total Fishing Anglers 35.2 million Freshwater 29.7 million Saltwater 9.4 million Days 626 million Freshwater 515 million Saltwater 103 million Trips 507 million Freshwater 420 million Saltwater 87 million Expenditures $37.8 billion Freshwater 24.5 billion Saltwater 8.1 billion Unspecified 5.2 billion Source: Tables 1, 12, 13, and 16 Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses and nonresponse. 9 Expenditures (Total expenditures $37.8 billion) Percent of Total Fishing Expenditures (Total expenditures $37.8 billion) Unspecified $5.2 billion Saltwater $8.1 billion Freshwater $24.5 billion Other 9% Equipment 51% Trip-related 41% Fishing Expenditures Anglers spent $37.8 billion in 1996 including $15.4 billion spent on travel-related costs, 41 percent of all fishing expendi-tures. Six billion dollars, 39 percent of all trip-related costs, was spent on food and lodging, and $3.7 billion, 24 percent of trip-related expenditures, was spent on transportation. Other trip expenditures such as land use fees, guide fees, equipment rental, boating expenses, and bait cost anglers $5.7 billion, 37 percent of all trip expenses. Fishing equipment expenditures totaled $19.2 billion in 1996, 51 percent of all fishing expendi-tures. Anglers spent $5.3 billion on fishing equipment such as rods, reels, tackle boxes, depth finders, and artificial lures and flies. This amounted to 28 percent of all equipment expen-ditures. Auxiliary equipment, such as camping equipment, binoculars, and special fishing clothing, amounted to $1.0 billion, 5 percent of equipment costs. Special equipment such as boats, vans, and trail bikes cost anglers $12.8 billion, 67 percent of all equipment costs. Anglers also spent a consider-able amount on land leasing and ownership, $2.3 billion or 6 percent of all expenditures. They spent $902 million on maga-zines, books, membership dues and contributions, licenses, stamps, tags, and permits. Total Fishing Expenditures Total fishing expenditures $37.8 billion Total trip-related $15.4 billion Food and lodging 6.0 billion Transportation 3.7 billion Other trip costs 5.7 billion Total equipment expenditures $19.2 billion Fishing equipment 5.3 billion Auxiliary equipment 1.0 billion Special equipment 12.8 billion Total other fishing expenditures 3.2 million Magazines, books 0.2 billion Membership dues and contribution 0.2 billion Land leasing and ownership 2.3 billion Licenses, stamps, tags, and permits 0.6 billion Source: Table 12 10 Freshwater Trip and Equipment Expenditures Great Lakes $1.4 billion Freshwater, except Great Lakes $22.4 billion Freshwater Fishing (In millions) Freshwater Anglers Freshwater Days Freshwater Trips 29.7 29.0 20 17 485 403 515 420 Total Freshwater, except Great Lakes Great Lakes Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses. 2.0 Freshwater Fishing Highlights Freshwater fishing was the most popular type of fishing. In 1996, 29.7 million Americans fished 515 million days and took 420 million trips. Their expenditures for trips and equipment totaled $24.2 billion for the year. Ex-cluding those who fished the Great Lakes, freshwater anglers numbered 29.0 million, 82 percent of all anglers. Freshwa-ter anglers who did not fish the Great Lakes took 403 million trips on 485 million days and spent $22.4 billion on trips and equipment for an average of $776 per angler. The 2.0 million anglers who fished the Great Lakes enjoyed 20 million days and 17 million trips fishing. Their trip and equipment expenditures, $1.4 billion, were 7 percent of the total freshwater trip and equipment expenditures. Great Lakes anglers averaged $689 for the year. Freshwater Fishing Expenditures Trip and equipment expendi-tures for freshwater fishing (excluding the Great Lakes) totaled $22.4 billion in 1996. Total trip-related expenditures came to $10.0 billion. Food and lodging amounted to $4.1 billion, 41 percent of all trip-related costs. Transportation costs were $2.8 billion, 28 percent of all freshwater trip costs. Other trip-related ex-penses for anglers fishing freshwater other than the Great Lakes included guide fees, equipment rental, and bait at a cost of $3.2 billion. Over $12.4 billion was spent on equipment for freshwater fishing, excluding the Great Lakes. Non-Great Lakes fresh-water anglers purchased $3.5 billion of fishing equipment such as rods and reels, tackle boxes, depth finders, and artificial lures and flies. Expenditures for auxiliary equipment including Freshwater Fishing Anglers 29.7 million Freshwater, except Great Lakes 29.0 million Great Lakes 2.0 million Days 515 million Freshwater, except Great Lakes 485 million Great Lakes 20 million Trips 420 million Freshwater, except Great Lakes 403 million Great Lakes 17 million Trip and equipment expenditures $24.2 billion Freshwater, except Great Lakes 22.4 billion Great Lakes 1.4 billion Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses and nonresponse. Source: Tables 1, 13, 14, and 15 11 camping equipment and binocu-lars totaled $692 million for the year. Expenditures for special equipment such as boats, vans, and trail bikes accounted for $8.2 billion. Great Lakes anglers spent $1.4 billion on trips and equipment in 1996. Trip-related expenses totaled $719 million. Of these expenditures, almost $295 million was spent on food and lodging, 41 percent of trip costs; $141 million was spent on transportation, 20 percent of trip costs; and $283 million was spent on other items such as guide fees, equipment rental, and bait, 39 percent of trip costs. Great Lakes anglers spent $686 million on equipment. They bought $180 million worth of fishing equipment (rods, reels, etc.). They spent $35 million on auxiliary equipment (camping equipment, binoculars, etc.) and $471 million on the purchase of special equipment (boats, vans, etc.). Saltwater Fishing Highlights In 1996, 9.4 million anglers enjoyed saltwater fishing on 87 million trips totaling 103 million days. Overall, they spent $8.1 billion during the year on trips and equipment. Of their expen-ditures, trip-related costs gar-nered the largest portion, $4.6 billion. Food and lodging cost $1.6 billion, 34 percent of trip expenditures; transportation costs totaled $824 million, or 18 percent of trip costs; and other trip costs such as equipment rental, bait, and guide fees were $2.2 billion. Saltwater anglers spent $3.4 billion on equipment. They spent $1.1 billion on fishing equipment (rods, reels, etc.), $138 million on auxiliary equipment (camping equipment, binoculars, etc.), and $2.2 billion on special equipment (boats, vans, etc.) Saltwater Fishing Anglers 9.4 million Days 103 million Trips 87 million Trips and equipment $8.1 billion expenditures Source: Tables 1 and 16 49% Trip and Equipment Expenditures Trip-related Equipment Great Lakes Saltwater Freshwater, except Great Lakes 51% 42% 55% 58% 45% $1.4 billion $8.1 billion $22.4 billion 12 Comparative Fishing by Type of Fishing Days per angler Trips per angler Trip expenditures per angler Trip expenditures per day 18 17 10 11 14 $436 $346 $353 $25 $21 $36 $45 14 8 9 $492 All fishing Freshwater, except Great Lakes Great Lakes Saltwater Comparative Fishing Highlights In 1996, anglers spent an aver-age of 18 days fishing and took an average of 14 fishing trips. Freshwater, non-Great Lakes anglers averaged 17 days fishing and 14 trips. While Great Lakes anglers averaged 10 days fishing and 8 trips, saltwater anglers fished an average of 11 days and took an average of 9 trips. Overall, anglers spent an aver-age of $1,072 on fishing-related expenses in 1996. They aver-aged $436 per angler on trip-related expenses, a daily aver-age of $25. Freshwater anglers, excluding the Great Lakes, averaged $346 per participant in 1996 for trip-related expenses, $21 per day. Great Lakes anglers spent an average of $353 on trip-related expenses, $36 per day. Salt-water anglers averaged $492 on their trip expenditures and spent an average of $45 per day. Fishing for Selected Fish Of the 29.0 million anglers who fished freshwater sources other than the Great Lakes, 12.7 million spent 191 million days fishing for black bass. Panfish were sought by 8.0 million anglers on 103 million days. Catfish and bullheads drew 7.4 million anglers on 91 million days. About 6.4 million anglers fished for crappie on 91 million days. Trout fishing attracted 9.0 million anglers on 94 million days in 1996, and 4.8 million anglers fished for white bass and striped bass on 62 million days. Freshwater anglers also com-monly fished for walleye, sauger, salmon, and steelhead. In 1996, 2.0 million anglers fished the Great Lakes. Walleye and sauger attracted 724 thou-sand anglers on nearly 6 million days. Perch were fished for on more than 5 million days by 624 Selected Fish by Type of Fishing (In millions) Type of Fishing Anglers Days Freshwater, except Great Lakes Black bass 12.7 191 Trout 9.0 94 Panfish 8.0 103 Catfish/bullhead 7.4 91 Crappie 6.4 91 White bass, striped bass, 4.8 62 and striped bass hybrids Great Lakes Walleye/sauger 0.7 6 Perch 0.6 5 Salmon 0.6 4 Black bass 0.5 5 Lake trout 0.3 2 Steelhead 0.3 3 Saltwater Flatfish (flounder, halibut) 2.6 29 Bluefish 1.5 13 Striped bass 1.4 15 Seatrout 1.2 14 Mackerel 0.7 5 Salmon 0.6 4 13 thousand Great Lakes anglers. Salmon drew 587 thousand anglers for almost 4 million days of fishing. Black bass and lake trout attracted 492 and 349 thousand anglers respectively. Among the 9.4 million saltwater anglers, 2.6 million fished for flatfish, including flounder and halibut, on 29 million days. Bluefish were a favorite of 1.5 million anglers on 13 million days. Seatrout was sought by 1.2 million anglers on 14 million days, and 683 thousand anglers fished for mackerel on 5 million days. Striped bass were sought by 1.4 million anglers on 15 million days. Four million days were spent fishing for salmon by 637 thousand anglers Participation by Geographic Division In 1996, 201 million people 16 years old and older lived in the United States. More than 1 out of every 6 U.S. residents went fishing. While the national participation rate was 17 per-cent, the regional rates ranged from 12 percent in the Middle Atlantic Division to 25 percent in the West North Central Division. The West North Central, East North Central, East South Central, West South Central, South Atlantic, and Mountain Divisions all reported participa-tion rates above the national rate. The West South Central Division had a participation rate of 21 percent. The East South Central and Mountain Divisions had participation rates of 20 percent. The East North Central and South Atlantic Divisions both recorded participation rates of 18 percent. The New England Division recorded a participation rate of 15 percent. The Pacific Division had a participation rate of 14 percent. Fishing Participation (National participation rate: 17%) West South Central 21% East South Central 20% South Atlantic 18% New England 15% Middle Atlantic 12% East North Central 18% West North Central 25% Mountain 20% Pacific 14% 14 Fishing in State of Residence and in Other States A majority of the 35.2 million anglers who fished in 1996 did so within their home state. Approximately 32.2 million participants, 91 percent of all anglers, fished in their state of residence. More than 9.0 mil-lion, 26 percent, fished out-of-state. Percentages do not add to 100 because those sportsmen who fished both in-state and out-of-state were included in both categories. Most of the 29.0 million freshwa-ter anglers (excluding the Great Lakes) fished within their resi-dent state, 26.6 million or 92 percent. Six million, 21 percent, of these freshwater anglers, fished out-of-state. Eighty-two percent of Great Lakes anglers enjoyed fishing within their home state. Nearly 1.7 million anglers fished the Great Lakes within their state of residence. Comparatively, 479 thousand or 23 percent of Great Lakes anglers fished out-of-state. Thirty-one percent of saltwater anglers fished out-of-state. Almost 7.2 million saltwater anglers, 76 percent, also re-ported fishing within the borders of their home state. Those saltwater anglers fishing out-of-state numbered 2.9 million. Fishing in State of Residence and in Other States (In millions) In-State Out-of-State Total Anglers 32.2 9.0 Freshwater, except Great Lakes 26.6 6.0 Great Lakes 1.7 0.5 Saltwater 7.2 2.9 Source: Table 2 Percent of All Fishing, in State of Residence and Other States (Total: 35.2 million participants) Other states only 9% In state of residence only 74% In state of residence and in other states 17% 15 Days Total freshwater Lakes and reservoirs Rivers and streams 24.8 Anglers Types of Freshwater Fished, Excluding Great Lakes (In millions) 13.4 28.9 485 361 145 Total freshwater (excluding Great Lakes) Lakes and reservoirs Rivers and streams Types of Freshwater Fished, Excluding Great Lakes Freshwater anglers fished in a variety of waters. Most non- Great Lakes freshwater anglers, 24.8 million (86 percent), fished in flatwater including ponds, lakes, or reservoirs on 361 million days. Rivers and streams were utilized by 13.4 million freshwater anglers (46 percent) on 145 million days. Great Lakes Anglers Great Lakes fishing includes not only the Great Lakes, but also their tributaries, bodies of water that connect the Great Lakes, and the St. Lawrence River south of the bridge at Cornwall. The most popular of the lakes among anglers was Lake Erie. Thirty-seven percent of all the Great Lakes anglers fished Lake Erie on an average of 9 days during 1996. Lake Michigan was a close second in popularity. Thirty-five percent enjoyed fishing in Lake Michigan waters with an average of 6 days per angler recorded. Lake Huron was fished by 14 percent of all Great Lakes anglers. Anglers fished Lake Huron an average of 7 days in 1996. The tributaries to the lakes attracted 10 percent of all Great Lakes anglers. They averaged 12 days of fishing on these waters in 1996. While Lake St. Clair was fished by only 4 percent of all Great Lakes anglers, these participants fished an average of 14 days per year, more than any other Great Lake or their con-necting waters. Great Lakes Fishing Percentage Anglers of all Great (thousands) Lakes anglers Total, all Great Lakes 2,039 100 Lake Erie 746 37 Lake Michigan 715 35 Lake Huron 279 14 Lake Ontario 260 13 Tributaries to the Great Lakes 205 10 Lake Superior 140 7 St. Lawrence River 95 5 Lake St. Clair 91 4 Source: Table 26 16 20% 9% 27% Percent of U.S. Population Who Fished, by Age Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Fished, by Sex Men 16 and 17 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 16% 21% 22% 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 and older 20% 15% 9% Percent of Anglers 16 Years Old and Older, by Sex Men 73% Women 27% Women Percent of Anglers, by Age 16 and 17 4% 45 to 54 20% 18 to 24 9% 25 to 34 20% 35 to 44 27% 55 to 64 10% 65 and older 9% Sex and Age of Anglers While fishing was enjoyed by more men than women in 1996, a substantial number of women fished as well. In 1996, 27 percent of American males fished, while 9 percent of Ameri-can females fished. Of the 35.2 million anglers who fished in the U.S., 73 percent (25.7 million) were male and 27 percent (9.5 million) were female. Almost 10 million anglers, 27 percent of all anglers, were 35 to 44 years old, which is 22 percent of the U.S. population in that age group. They were followed by 7.2 million anglers 25 to 34 years old who comprised 20 percent of all anglers and had a participation rate of 21 percent. Next came the 45- to 54-year-old age group, 7.0 million partici-pants who accounted for 20 percent of all anglers. That age group had a participation rate of 20 percent. The 3.5 million 55- to 64-year-olds who fished, comprised 10 percent of all anglers and had a participation rate of 15 percent. Anglers 18 to 24 years old numbered 3.3 million, 9 percent of total an-glers, and recorded a 16 percent participation rate. The 3.1 million anglers 65 years old and older made up 9 percent of the angler population, and had a participation rate of 9 percent. The 16- and 17-year-olds added 1.4 million individuals to the angler population. They made up only 4 percent for the total angler population, but had a 20 percent participation rate. Size of Residence of Anglers In 1996, 70 percent of U.S. residents who fished lived inside a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) with most anglers coming from large MSA’s. People living in MSA’s with populations of 1,000,000 or more had a partici-pation rate of 14 percent. Thirty-eight percent of all anglers came from these large urban areas. Within MSA’s with populations of 250,000 to 999,999, 18 percent of the total population enjoyed fishing, representing 20 percent of the angler population. In Anglers, by Sex and Age Total, both sexes 35.2 million Male 25.7 million Female 9.5 million Total, all ages 35.2 million 16 and 17 1.4 18 to 24 3.3 25 to 34 7.2 35 to 44 9.7 45 to 54 7.0 55 to 64 3.5 65 and older 3.1 Source: Table 9 17 addition, MSA’s with populations of 50,000 to 249,999 had a participation rate of 21 percent; they made up 11 percent of all anglers. In areas outside of MSA’s, 25 percent of the popula-tion fished in 1996. These participants made up 30 percent of all anglers. Income of Anglers Anglers at all income levels enjoyed fishing in 1996. Partici-pation rates ranged from 9 percent for all individuals with household incomes of $10,000 or less to 23 percent for those who reported annual household incomes of $40,000 to $49,999 and $50,000 to $74,999. Those living in households with incomes of $10,000 or less comprised 4 percent of all anglers; those with $50,000 to $74,999 incomes made up 21 percent of all anglers; and those with household incomes of $40,000 to $49,999 comprised 12 percent of all anglers. Twenty-one percent of the individuals with household earnings of $75,000 to $99,999 represented 9 percent of all anglers. Persons with house-hold earnings of $25,000 to $29,999 had a participation rate of 21 percent and comprised 8 percent of the angler population. Another 8 percent of the angler population had household earnings of $100,000 or more, and a 20 percent participation rate. Anglers with household incomes of $10,000 to $19,999 had a participation rate of 13 percent and made up 7 percent of all anglers. Nineteen percent of persons in households with incomes of $30,000 to $34,999 represented 7 percent of all anglers, as did persons in households with incomes of $35,000 to $39,999. However, persons with household incomes of $35,000 to $39,999 had a participation rate of 22 percent, while those within the $30,000 to $34,999 income group had a participation rate of 19 percent. Finally 16 percent of all persons in households earning $20,000 to $24,999 fished and made up 6 percent of the total angler population in 1996. Twelve percent of anglers did not report their income. Percent of Anglers 16 Years Old and Older, by Residence (Angler population: 35.2 million) Outside MSA 30% Large MSA 38% Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Fished, by Residence (17% of total U.S. population fished) Large MSA (1,000,000 or more) Medium MSA (250,000 to 999,999) Small MSA (50,000 to 249,999) Outside MSA 14% 18% 21% 25% Medium MSA 20% Small MSA 11% Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Fished, by Income Less than $10,000 $10,000 to 19,999 $20,000 to 24,999 $25,000 to 29,999 9% 13% 16% 21% 19% 22% 23% $40,000 to 49,999 $50,000 to 74,999 $75,000 to 99,999 $30,000 to 34,999 $35,000 to 39,999 23% 21% 20% $100,000 or more 18 10% 19% 11% Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Fished, by Education Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Fished, by Race White 8 years or less 9 to 11 years 12 years 1 to 3 years of college 9% 17% 18% 19% 4 years of college 5 years or more of college 18% 19% Percent of Anglers 16 Years Old and Older, by Race Other 5% Black 5% Black Percent of Anglers 16 Years Old and Older, by Education 5 years or more of college 13% 12 years 36% 4 years of college 14% 1 to 3 years of college 24% 9 to 11 years 10% 8 years or less 3% White 90% Other Education and Race of Anglers People from a variety of educa-tional backgrounds fished in 1996. The lowest participation rate, 9 percent, was found among those with 8 years of education or less. They made up 3 percent of all anglers. The highest participation rate, 19 percent, was found among those individuals with 1 to 3 years of college, and those who had 5 years or more of college. Those persons with 1 to 3 years of college made up 24 percent of all anglers, while those with 5 years or more made up 13 percent of all anglers. Those persons who had 4 years of college had a participation rate of 18 percent, which repre-sented 14 percent of all anglers, while individuals with 12 years of education made up 36 per-cent of all anglers. They, too, had a participation rate of 18 percent. Finally, those with 9 to 11 years of education had a participation rate of 17 percent, which represented 10 percent of all anglers. Participation rates among people of different races varied. Nineteen percent of the White population fished, compared with 10 percent of the Black population and 11 percent of other races. Among anglers, 90 percent of the total were White, 5 percent were Black, and 5 percent were other races. Angler, by Education and Race (In millions) Total anglers 35.2 Education 0-8 1.1 9-11 3.6 12 years 12.6 1-3 years college 8.6 4 years 5.0 5 years or more college 4.5 Race White 31.8 Black 1.8 Other 1.7 Source: Table 9 19 1991-1996 Comparison of Fishing Activity The number of people fishing in the United States is roughly the same for the last two National Survey years, but their number of fishing days and expenditures for fishing have increased sub-stantially. The number of fishing days increased 22 percent and the fishing expenditures in-creased 37 percent. The number of anglers in fresh-water and saltwater did not change (at the 95 percent confidence level), although the number of Great Lakes anglers decreased 20 percent. The amount of activity of the anglers increased, with freshwater days up 17 percent and saltwater days up more than twice the freshwater rate, 38 percent. Fishing expenditures increased for both the trip-related and equipment categories. Trip-related expenditures went up 13 percent and the equip-ment expenditures increased 78 percent. The purchase of special equipment such as boats and campers more than doubled, increasing 123 percent. Expenditures for fishing equip-ment, such as rods and reels, increased 23 percent. Number of Anglers* (Millions) 35.6 35.2 511 626 $27.6 $37.8 1991 1996 1991 1996 1991 1996 Days of Fishing (Millions) Fishing Expenditures (Billions) *The difference is not significant at the 0.05 level. Participants, days and expenditures 1991 1996 Percent (Numbers in millions) Number Percent Number Percent change Anglers, Total .......................................................... 35.6 100 35.2 100 -1* All freshwater ........................................................ 31.0 87 29.7 84 -4* Freshwater, except Great Lakes ....................... 30.2 85 28.9 82 -4* Great Lakes....................................................... 2.6 7 2.0 6 -20 Saltwater ............................................................... 8.9 25 9.4 27 6* Days, Total ............................................................... 511 100 626 100 22 All freshwater ........................................................ 440 86 515 82 17 Freshwater, except Great Lakes ....................... 431 84 485 78 13 Great Lakes....................................................... 25 5 20 3 -21* Saltwater ............................................................... 75 15 103 17 38 Fishing Expenditures, Total** ................................ $27,589 100 $37,673 100 37 Trip-related ............................................................ 13,625 49 15,257 40 12 Equipment ............................................................ 10,770 39 19,174 51 78 Fishing equipment............................................. 4,301 16 5,309 14 23 Auxiliary equipment ........................................... 712 3 1,037 3 46 Special equipment ............................................ 5,756 21 12,828 34 123 Other ..................................................................... 3,194 12 3,235 9 1* * Not different from zero at the 95 percent confidence level. This means that for 95 percent of all possible samples, the estimate for one survey year is not different from the estimate for the other survey year. ** 1991 expenditure estimates have been adjusted for inflation to be comparable to 1996 expenditure totals. Excludes expenditures for heating and cooking fuel because 1991 Survey did not collect this information. 21 Hunting 22 Hunting Highlights In 1996, 14 million people, 16 years old and older, enjoyed hunting a variety of game ani-mals within the United States. They hunted 257 million days and took 223 million trips. Their expenditures totaled $20.6 billion. In 1996, 11.3 million hunters pursued big game such as deer and elk on 154 million days. They spent $9.7 billion on trips and equipment during the year. A total of 6.9 million people hunted small game including squirrels and rabbits. They hunted small game on 75 million days and spent $2.5 billion on their hunting trips and equip-ment. Migratory bird hunters numbered 3.1 million. They spent 27 million days hunting birds such as waterfowl and dove. Their trip and equipment expenditures totaled $1.3 billion. Other animals, such as raccoons and groundhogs, were sought by 1.5 million hunters on 25 million days. These hunters spent $433 million on trips and equipment for the year. Total Hunting (In millions) Total Hunters Big game Small game Migratory bird Other animals Days Trips 14.0 11.3 6.9 25 23 154 114 257 223 Hunters Scale enlarged to show detail. Detail of days does not add to total because of multiple responses. 3.1 1.5 75 27 64 23 23 Hunting Expenditures Of the $ 20.6 billion spent by hunters in 1996, 25 percent, $5.2 billion, was spent on trip-related expenses. Food and lodging totaled $2.5 billion, 49 percent of all trip-related ex-penses. Transportation cost hunters $1.8 billion, 35 percent of their trip-related expenditures. Other trip-related expenses such as guide fees, land use fees, and equipment rental were $864 million or 17 percent of all trip-related expenses. Total hunting equipment expen-ditures were $11.3 billion in 1996, 55 percent of all hunting expenses. Hunting equipment, such as guns and rifles, tele-scopic sights, and ammunition, cost hunters $5.5 billion, 49 percent of all equipment costs. Expenditures for auxiliary equip-ment, including camping equip-ment, binoculars, and special hunting clothing, accounted for $1.2 billion or 11 percent of all equipment expenses. Special equipment, such as campers or trail bikes, amounted to $4.5 billion or 40 percent of all equipment expenditures. Hunters spent $355 million on magazines, books, membership dues and contributions, 2 per-cent of total expenses. Land leasing and ownership expendi-tures totaled $3.2 billion, 15 percent of the total. Total Hunting Hunters 14.0 million Big game 11.3 million Small game 6.9 million Migratory bird 3.1 million Other animals 1.5 million Days 257 million Big game 154 million Small game 75 million Migratory bird 27 million Other animals 25 million Trips 223 million Big game 114 million Small game 64 million Migratory bird 23 million Other animals 23 million Expenditures $20.6 billion Big game 9.7 billion Small game 2.5 billion Migratory bird 1.3 billion Other animals 0.4 billion Unspecified 6.7 billion Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses and nonresponse. Source: Tables 1 and 17-21 Total Hunting Expenditures Total hunting expenditures $20.6 billion Total trip-related $ 5.2 billion Food and lodging 2.5 billion Transportation 1.8 billion Other trip costs 0.9 billion Total equipment expenditures $11.3 billion Hunting equipment 5.5 billion Auxiliary equipment 1.2 billion Special equipment 4.5 billion Total other hunting expenditures $4.1 billion Magazines, books 0.1 billion Membership dues and contributions 0.2 billion Land leasing and ownership 3.2 billion Licenses, stamps, tags, and permits 0.7 billion Source: Table 17 Expenditures (Total expenditures $20.6 billion) Percent of Total Hunting Expenditures (Total expenditures $20.6 billion) Other animals $0.4 billion Migratory bird $1.3 billion Small game $2.5 billion Other 20% Equipment 55% Trip-related 25% Unspecified $6.7 billion Big game $9.7 billion 24 Big Game Hunting Trip and Equipment Exenditures (Total expenditures $9.7 billion) Equipment $6.5 billion Trip-related $3.2 billion Small Game Hunting Trip and Equipment Exenditures (Total expenditures $2.5 billion) Equipment $1.3 billion Trip-related $1.2 billion Big Game Hunting In 1996, 11.3 million hunters devoted 154 million days to hunting big game including deer, elk, bear, and wild turkey. They took 114 million trips. Each hunter spent an average of 14 days hunting big game in 1996. Trip and equipment expenditures for big game hunters amounted to $9.7 billion. Trip-related expenses totaled $3.2 billion. Of that amount, food and lodging totaled $1.6 billion or 49 percent of the trip-related costs. Trans-portation costs were $1.0 billion for big game hunters, 32 percent of trip-associated costs. Other trip-related expenses amounted to $585 million, or 18 percent of trip costs. Big game hunters spent $6.5 billion on equipment. Hunting equipment (guns, ammunition, etc.) accounted for $2.6 billion. Purchases of auxiliary equip-ment (camping equipment, binoculars, etc.) totaled $847 million. And special equipment (vans, trail bikes, etc.) cost big game hunters $3.1 billion. Small Game Hunting On a total of 75 million days in 1996, 6.9 million hunters pursued small game such as rabbits, squirrel, pheasants, quail, and grouse. They took 64 million trips. Small game sportsmen averaged 11 days in the field hunting. Small game hunters spent $2.5 billion on trips and equipment in 1996. Of the $1.2 billion spent on trip-related costs, $595 million, or 50 percent of all small game trip-related costs, were spent on food and lodging. Transportation costs accounted for $450 million or 38 percent of small game trip expenses. Other trip-related expenditures contrib-uted $147 million or 12 percent to the total spent on small game hunting trips. Small game equipment expendi-tures totaled $1.3 billion. Spe-cifically, purchases of hunting equipment (guns, ammunition, etc.) accounted for $965 million spent by small game hunters during the year. Auxiliary equip-ment (camping equipment, binoculars, etc.) cost $62 million, and special equipment (vans, trail bikes, etc.) cost small game hunters $262 million for the year. Big Game Hunters 11.3 million Days 154 million Trips 114 million Trip and equipment expenditures $9.7 billion Source: Tables 1 and 18 Small Game Hunters 6.9 million Days 75 million Trips 64 million Trip and equipment expenditures $2.5 billion Source: Tables 1 and 19 25 Migratory Bird Hunting In 1996, 3.1 million migratory bird hunters devoted 27 million days on 23 million trips for hunting birds such as doves, ducks, and geese. Migratory bird hunters spent an average of 9 days hunting for the year. The $1.3 billion spent by migra-tory bird hunters in 1996 was spent on hunting trips and equipment. Of the items contrib-uting to this sum, $576 million was spent on trip-related ex-penses. A further breakdown reveals food and lodging cost migratory bird hunters $263 million, or 46 percent of trip-related expenses; transportation accounted for $196 million, or 34 percent of all trip costs. Other trip expenses amounted to $116 million making up 20 percent of the total trip-related expendi-tures for migratory bird hunters. Migratory bird hunters pur-chased $720 million worth of equipment in 1996. They spent $503 million on hunting equip-ment (guns, ammunition, etc.). Another $82 million was spent by migratory bird hunters on auxiliary equipment (camping equipment, binoculars, etc.), and $135 million was spent on special equipment (vans, trail bikes, etc.). Hunting Other Animals During 1996, 1.5 million hunters reported spending 25 million days on 23 million trips pursuing other animals such as ground-hogs, raccoons, foxes, and coyotes. They averaged 16 days of hunting in 1996. Overall, they spent $433 million in 1996 on trips and equipment. Trip-related costs totaled $211 million. Of that, food and lodging cost $86 million or 41 percent of trip-related costs; transportation was $110 million, 52 percent percent of trip-related expenses; and other trip expenses were $14 million, 7 percent of trip-related costs. Equipment expenditures for hunting other animals totaled $222 million in 1996. Hunters pursuing other animals spent $117 million on hunting equip-ment (guns, ammunition, etc.), and $10 million on auxiliary equipment (camping equipment, binoculars, etc.). Migratory Bird Hunters 3.1 million Days 27 million Trips 23 million Trip and equipment expenditures $1.3 billion Source: Tables 1 and 20 Other Animals Hunters 1.5 million Days 25 million Trips 23 million Trip and equipment expenditures $433 million Source: Tables 1 and 21 Migratory Bird Hunting Trip and Equipment Expenditures (Total expenditures $1.3 million) Equipment $720 million Trip-related $576 million Trip and Equipment Expenditures for Hunting Other Animals (Total expenditures $433 million) Equipment $222 million Trip-related $211 million 26 Comparative Hunting Highlights In 1996, big game hunters averaged 14 days of hunting and 10 trips per hunter. Small game hunters spent an average of 11 days hunting in the field on an average of 9 trips. In compari-son, migratory bird hunters spent an average of 9 days and 7 trips hunting. Those partici-pants hunting other animals averaged 16 days and 15 trips pursuing their game. On average, big game hunters spent more money on trips and equipment than other hunters in 1996. They averaged $860 per hunter for the year. Small game hunters spent an average of $357 per hunter during 1996. Migratory bird hunters averaged $422, and those hunting other animals spent $284 per hunter for the year. In 1996, trip expenditures for all hunting averaged $369 per hunter for the year, a daily average of $20. The average for trip expenditures per hunter varied by type of hunting. Ex-penditures for big game hunting trips averaged $281 per hunter for lodging, food, transportation and other trip-related expenses for the year ($21 per day). Small game hunters spent $172 on average for their annual hunting trip expenses ($16 per day). Persons taking trips for migratory bird hunting spent an average of $187 ($22 per day) while trip expenditures for hunting other animals averaged $139 per hunter for the year ($9 per day). Hunting for Selected Game For big game hunters, deer was the most popular draw among 10.7 million hunters on 131 million days. The 959 thousand hunters who hunted elk went out on 7 million days. While bear attracted 405 thousand hunters on 3 million days, wild turkey drew 2.2 million hunters on 19 million days. In addition, 513 thousand hunters spent 5.5 million days hunting other big game animals. In 1996, approximately 3.1 million small game hunters hunted rabbits and hares on 29 Comparative Hunting, by Type of Hunting Days per hunter Trips per hunter Trip expenditures per hunter Trip expenditures per day 18 14 11 9 16 $369 $281 $172 $139 $20 $21 $16 16 10 9 $187 Total Big game Small game Migratory bird Other animals 7 15 $22 $9 Hunting for Selected Game (In millions) Type of hunting Hunters Days Big game 11.3 154 Deer 10.7 131 Wild turkey 2.2 19 Elk 1.0 7 Bear 0.4 3 Small game 6.9 75 Squirrels 3.2 25 Rabbits and hares 3.1 29 Pheasant 2.3 17 Quail 1.5 11 Grouse/prairie chicken 1.2 10 Migratory bird 3.1 27 Doves 1.6 8 Ducks 1.6 14 Geese 0.9 8 Other animals 1.5 25 Source: Table 7 27 Hunting Participation (National participation rate: 7%) West South Central 8% East South Central 10% South Atlantic 6% New England 5% Middle Atlantic 5% East North Central 8% West North Central 14% Mountain 9% Pacific 4% million days. Quail was flushed by 1.5 million hunters on 11 million days, while grouse and prairie chicken were favorites of 1.2 million hunters on 10 million days. Squirrels were hunted by 3.2 million participants on 25 million days. Pheasants at-tracted 2.3 million hunters on 17 million days. In addition, 447 thousand hunters spent 4.3 million days hunting other small game animals. Among those hunting migratory birds, 8 million days were spent by 1.6 million participants dove hunting. Ducks were hunted by 1.6 million enthusiasts on 14 million days. On 8 million days, 915 thousand hunters hunted geese in 1996. An additional 291 thousand sportsmen hunted other migratory bird species on 2 million days. Participation by Geographic Division In 1996, 201 million people 16 years old and older lived in the United States. The national hunting participation rate was 7 percent. Regionally, participation rates ranged from 4 percent in the Pacific Census Division to 14 percent in the West North Cen-tral Division. The East North Central, East South Central, West South Central, and Moun-tain Divisions all had participa-tion rates above the national rate of 7 percent. The East North Central and West South Central Divisions both had a participa-tion rate of 8 percent. The East South Central Division’s partici-pation rate was 10 percent and the Mountain Division recorded a rate of 9 percent. The Middle Atlantic and New England Divisions recorded participation rates of 5 percent, while the South Atlantic Division disclosed a participation rate of 6 percent. Hunting in State of Residence and in Other States An overwhelming majority of participants hunted within their state of residence, 13.3 million or 95 percent of all hunters. Only 2.0 million, 14 percent, hunted in another state. Percentages do not add to 100 because those sportsmen who hunted both in-state and out-of-state were included in both categories. 28 In 1996, 10.8 million big game hunters, 95 percent of all big game hunters, hunted within their state of residence, while only 12 percent, 1.4 million people, traveled to another state to hunt big game. Likewise, 95 percent of all small game hunt-ers, 6.6 million hunters, pursued game in their resident state. Eleven percent, 737 thousand, ventured across state lines to hunt small game. Ninety-four percent of all migratory bird hunters, 2.9 million participants, hunted within their resident state. Eleven percent or 323 thousand of these sportsmen hunted out-of-state. Among sportsmen who hunted other animals, 95 percent, 1.5 million, hunted in-state and 9 percent, 140 thousand participants, hunted out-of-state. Hunting on Public and Private Lands In 1996, 14 million hunters 16 years old and older hunted on public land, private land, or both. Some hunters, 2.3 million, 17 percent, used publicly owned lands exclusively. Those hunters who hunted only on private land numbered 7.2 million, 51 per-cent. Slightly over 4 million hunters, 30 percent, hunted on both public and private lands. Over 6.5 million, 47 percent, hunted on publicly owned lands compared to 11.4 million, 81 percent, who hunted on privately owned land. In 1996, 6.5 million hunters used public lands on 77 million days, 30 percent of all hunting days. Forty-four percent of big game hunters spent 43 million days on public lands. Among the 6.9 million small game hunters, 38 percent used public land on 20 million days. Approximately 1.1 million migratory bird hunters, 36 percent of all migratory bird hunters, spent 7.8 million days on public lands. Of the partici-pants who hunted other animals in 1996, 394 thousand, 26 percent pursued their game on public lands on 6 million days. In contrast, 11.4 million hunters spent 198 million days, 77 percent of all hunting days, pursuing their sport on private lands in 1996. Seventy-seven percent of big game hunters, 82 percent of small game hunters, 77 percent of migratory bird hunters, and 86 percent of hunters pursuing other animals spent time hunting on private lands. People Hunting on Public and Private Lands Public only 17% Private only 51% Public and private 30% Unspecified 2% Percent of All Hunting, in State of Residence and Other States (Total: 14.0 million participants) In other states only 5% In state of residence only 86% In state of residence and in other states 9% Hunting in State of Residence and in Other States (In millions) In-state Out-of-state All hunters 13.3 2.0 Big game 10.8 1.4 Small game 6.6 0.7 Migratory bird 2.9 0.3 Other animals 1.5 0.1 Source: Table 6 29 9% 1% 13% Percent of U.S. Population Who Hunted, by Age Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Hunted, by Sex Men 16 and 17 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 7% 8% 9% 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 and older 8% 6% 3% Percent of Hunters 16 Years Old and Older, by Sex Men 91% Women 9% Women Percent of Hunters, by Age 16 and 17 5% 45 to 54 20% 18 to 24 10% 25 to 34 20% 35 to 44 27% 55 to 64 11% 65 and older 7% Days spent hunting on private land also varied by type of hunting. In 1996, big game hunters spent 69 percent (106 million days) of their total hunt-ing days on private lands; small game hunters spent 73 percent (55 million days) of their hunting days on private lands; and migratory bird hunters spent 67 percent (18 million days) of their hunting days on private lands. Persons hunting other animals spent 81 percent (20 million days) of their hunting days on private lands. Sex and Age of Hunters Of the U.S. population 16 years old and older, 13 percent of the males and 1 percent of the females enjoyed hunting in 1996. Of the 14 million partici-pants who hunted in 1996, 91 percent (12.8 million) were male and 9 percent (1.2 million) were female. Hunter participation was seen in all age groups around the country. The proportion of hunters by age group ranged from 5 percent among hunters 16 and 17 years old to 27 per-cent for those hunters 35 to 44 years old. Nine percent of the age group 16 and 17 years old hunted in 1996. They numbered 672 thousand hunters. The participation rate for 35- to 44- year olds also was 9 percent, but they numbered 3.8 million hunters. Eight percent of all persons 25 to 34 years old hunted. They numbered 2.8 million hunters, 20 percent of all hunters. Another 20 percent of hunters, 2.9 million people, were 45 to 54 years old. Their partici-pation rate was 8 percent. Hunters 55 to 64 years old numbered 1.5 million and repre-sented 6 percent of the general population 55 to 64 years old and 11 percent of all hunters. In the 18- to 24-year-old group, 1.4 million hunters made up 10 percent of all hunters. That age group had a participation rate of 7 percent. Finally, 967 thousand people 65 years old and older made up 7 percent of all hunters. This age group had a participa-tion rate of 3 percent for hunting in 1996. Hunters, by Sex and Age Total, both sexes 14.0 million Male 12.8 million Female 1.2 million Total, all ages 16 and 17 0.7 million 18 to 24 1.4 million 25 to 34 2.8 million 35 to 44 3.8 million 45 to 54 2.9 million 55 to 64 1.5 million 65 and older 1.0 million Source: Table 10 30 Size of Residence of Hunters While most hunters were from areas outside heavily populated Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA), a substantial number of people living in large MSA’s also enjoyed hunting. Twenty-four percent of all hunters were from MSA’s with populations of 1,000,000 or more. Three percent of the total residents of these large MSA’s hunted. For MSA’s with populations of 250,000 to 999,999, 7 percent of the population hunted; they comprised 19 percent of all hunters. Nine percent of all residents of MSA’s with popula-tions of 50,000 to 249,999 hunted in 1996. Thirteen percent of all hunters resided in these areas. Although 21 percent of the U.S. population 16 years of age and older resided in areas outside MSA’s in 1996, 44 percent of all hunters lived outside MSA’s. Fifteen percent of all people living outside MSA’s hunted in 1996 in contrast with 5 percent of all people living inside MSA’s who hunted. Income of Hunters Participation rates among hunters with different annual household incomes varied from 3 percent of persons living in households earning less than $10,000 a year (3 percent of all hunters came from these house-holds) to 10 percent of those persons living in households reporting incomes of $40,000 to $49,999 (13 percent of all hunters came from these house-holds). Five percent of the persons in households reporting incomes of $10,000 to $19,999 comprised 7 percent of all hunters. Six percent of the nation’s population with house-hold incomes of $20,000 to $24,999 a year enjoyed hunting. They made up 6 percent of all hunters. Eight percent of all people in households earning $25,999 to $29,999 hunted. They constituted 7 percent of all hunters. In households reporting incomes of $30,000 to $34,999, 9 percent was the participation Percent of Hunters 16 Years Old and Older, by Residence (Hunter population: 14.0 million) Outside MSA 44% Large MSA 24% Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Hunted, by Residence (7% of total U.S. population hunted) Large MSA (1,000,000 or more) Medium MSA (250,000 to 999,999) Small MSA (50,000 to 249,999) Outside MSA 3% 7% 9% 25% Medium MSA 19% Small MSA 13% Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Hunted, by Income Less than $10,000 $10,000 to 19,999 $20,000 to 24,999 $25,000 to 29,999 3% 5% 6% 8% 9% 9% 10% $40,000 to 49,999 $50,000 to 74,999 $75,000 to 99,999 $30,000 to 34,999 $35,000 to 39,999 9% 8% 6% $100,000 or more 15% 31 2% 8% 3% Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Hunted, by Education Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Hunted, by Race White 8 years or less 9 to 11 years 12 years 1 to 3 years of college 4% 8% 8% 7% 4 years of college 5 years or more of college 6% 6% Percent of Hunters 16 Years Old and Older, by Race Other 3% Black 2% Black Percent of Hunters 16 Years Old and Older, by Education 5 years or more of college 10% 12 years 41% 4 years of college 12% 1 to 3 years of college 22% 9 to 11 years 12% 8 years or less 3% White 95% Other rate. Residents of these house-holds represented 8 percent of all hunters. Nine percent of the persons in households reporting incomes of $35,000 to $39,999 totaled 7 percent of all hunters. Nine percent of those in house-holds earning $50,000 to $74,999 represented 22 percent of all hunters. In households with incomes of $75,000 to $99,999, 8 percent of the resi-dents hunted. Persons in that income bracket made up 8 percent of all hunters. Finally, 6 percent of those in households earning $100,000 or more per year enjoyed hunting and contributed 6 percent to the hunter population. Thirteen percent of the sample did not report their income. Education and Race of Hunters People from a variety of educa-tional backgrounds went hunting in 1996. Participation rates ranged from 8 percent among those individuals with 9 to 12 years of school to 4 percent among individuals with 8 years or less of education. Those with 8 years or less of education represented 3 percent of all hunters. Those with 9 to 11 years of education represented 12 percent of all hunters and those with 12 years of education made up 41 percent of all hunt-ers. Hunters with 1 to 3 years of college made up 22 percent of the hunter total, showing a 7 percent participation rate. Twelve percent of all hunters had 4 years of college. Six percent of all people in the U.S. with 4 years of college hunted in 1996. Those with 5 years or more of college represented 10 percent of all hunters, and of that group, 6 percent participated. While 7 percent of the U.S. population went hunting in 1996, participation among races varied. Eight percent of the nation’s White population hunted, 2 percent of the Black population hunted, and 3 per-cent of the other races hunted. Of the 14 million hunters, 95 percent were White, 2 percent were Black, and 3 percent were of other races. Hunters, by Education and Race Total hunters 14.0 million Education 0 to 8 years 0.5 million 9 to 11 years 1.6 million 12 years 5.8 million 1 to 3 years of college 3.1 million 4 years of college 1.7 million 5 years or more of college 1.3 million Race White 13.2 million Black 0.3 million Other 0.4 million Source: Table 10 32 1991-1996 Comparison of Hunting Activity The number of people hunting in the United States and their days pursuing their sport are roughly the same for the last two Na-tional Survey years, but their expenditures for hunting have increased 45 percent. A robust 1996 economy after several years of an economic downturn can at least partly explain the expenditure increase. The number of hunters did not change (at the 95 percent confidence level) for any type of hunting except small game hunters, who decreased in number by 9 percent. The level of activity of the hunters as measured by days in the field significantly changed for big game, which increased 20 percent, and migratory birds, which increased 19 percent. Hunting expenditures increased for both the trip-related and equipment categories. Trip-related expenditures went up 30 percent and equipment expenditures increased 90 percent. The purchase of special equipment such as boats and campers more than tripled, increasing 215 percent. Expendi-tures for hunting equipment such as firearms and ammunition increased 46 percent. Participants, days and expenditures 1991 1996 Percent (Numbers in millions) Number Percent Number Percent change Hunters, Total .......................................................... 14.1 100 14.0 100 -1* Big game............................................................... 10.7 76 11.3 81 5* Small game ........................................................... 7.6 54 6.9 50 -9 Migratory bird ........................................................ 3.0 21 3.1 22 2* Other animal ......................................................... 1.4 10 1.5 11 8* Days, Total ............................................................... 236 100 257 100 9* Big game............................................................... 128 54 154 60 20 Small game ........................................................... 77 33 75 29 -3* Migratory bird ........................................................ 22 9 27 10 19 Other animal ......................................................... 19 8 25 10 27* Hunting Expenditures, Total** ............................... $14,187 100 $20,329 100 43 Trip-related ............................................................ 3,957 28 4,871 24 23 Equipment ............................................................ 5,944 42 11,273 55 90 Hunting equipment ............................................ 3,776 27 5,519 27 46 Auxiliary equipment ........................................... 731 5 1,233 6 69 Special equipment ............................................ 1,437 10 4,521 22 215 Other ..................................................................... 4,286 30 4,178 21 -3* * Not different from zero at the 95 percent confidence level. This means that for 95 percent of all possible samples, the estimate for the number of dollars for one survey year is not different from the estimate for the other survey year. ** 1991 expenditure estimates have been adjusted for inflation to be comparable to 1996 expenditure estimates. Excludes expenditures for boating costs and heating and cooking fuel because the 1991 Survey did not collect this information. Number of Hunters* (Millions) 14.1 14.0 236 257 $14.2 $20.3 1991 1996 1991 1996 1991 1996 Days of Hunting* (Millions) Hunting Expenditures (Billions) * The difference is not significant at the 0.05 level. 33 Wildlife Watching 34 Wildlife-watching (formerly called nonconsumptive) activities including observing, feeding, and photographing wildlife continue to be popular in the United States. These activities are categorized here as being either residential—within a mile of one’s home—or nonresiden-tial, at least 1 mile from home. The 1996 Survey collected information only on primary wildlife-watching activities, those activities whose main objective was to observe, feed, or photograph wildlife. Second-ary or incidental participation such as observing wildlife while pleasure driving was not included in the Survey. In 1996, 62.9 million U.S. resi-dents, 31 percent of the U.S. population 16 years old and older, enjoyed a variety of wildlife-watching activities. People who took a primary interest in wildlife around their homes numbered 60.8 million, while those who took trips away from their homes for the primary purpose of participating in wildlife-watching recreation numbered 23.7 million people. Wildlife- Watching Highlights Wildlife-Watching Participants, by Activity (In millions) Total wildlife-watching 62.9 participants Nonresidential 23.7 Observed wildlife 22.9 Photographed wildlife 12.0 Fed wildlife 10.0 Residential 60.8 Fed wildlife 54.1 Observed wildlife 44.1 Photographed wildlife 16.0 Maintained plantings 13.4 or natural areas Visited public parks 11.0 or areas Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses. Source: Table 35 Wildlife-Watching Participants (In millions) Total 62.9 (100%) Residential 60.8 (97%) 23.7 (38%) Nonresidential 35 Wildlife-Watching Expenditures In 1996, 84 percent of all pri-mary wildlife-watching partici-pants 16 years old and older spent $29.2 billion, an average of $554 per spender. These expenditures represented 29 percent of the total amount spent for all wildlife-related recreation. In 1996, wildlife-watching partici-pants spent $9.4 billion on trips to pursue their activities. Food and lodging accounted for $5.4 billion, transportation expenses were $2.9 billion, and other trip costs, such as land use fees and equipment rental, were $1.1 billion for the year. These recreationists purchased $16.7 billion worth of equipment. They spent $8.2 billion on wildlife-watching equipment including binoculars, film, bird food, and special clothing. Auxiliary equipment expendi-tures for items such as tents and backpacking equipment amounted to $858 million for the year. Participants spent $7.6 billion on special equipment including off-road vehicles, trail bikes, and boats. For the year, wildlife-watching participants also spent $395 million on magazines and books; $862 million on membership dues and contributions; $1.3 billion on land leasing and ownership; and $537 million on plantings. Wildlife-Watching Expenditures Total wildlife-watching expenditures $29.2 billion Total trip-related $9.4 billion Food and lodging 5.4 Transportation 2.9 Other trip costs 1.1 Total equipment expenditures $16.7 billion Wildlife-watching equipment 8.2 Auxiliary equipment 0.9 Special equipment 7.6 Total other expenditures $3.1 billion Magazines, books 0.4 Membership dues and contributions 0.9 Land leasing and ownership 1.3 Plantings 0.5 Source: Table 40 Wildlife-Watching Expenditures (Total expenditures $29.2 billion) Trip-Related Expenditures (Total expenditures $9.4 billion) Other $3.1 billion 11% Other trip-related costs $1.1 billion 12% Lodging $1.9 billion 20% Trans-portation $2.9 billion 31% Equipment $16.7 billion 57% Trip-related $9.4 billion 32% Food $3.4 billion 36% 36 Residential Activities Highlights Residential participants 16 years old and older numbered 60.8 million in 1996, 97 percent of all wildlife-watching recreationists. The most popular residential wildlife-watching activity, feeding birds and other wildlife, was enjoyed by 54.1 million people, 89 percent of all residential wildlife-watching participants. Over 44 million people observed wildlife in 1996, constituting 73 percent of the residential participants. Photographing wildlife was enjoyed by over 16 million people, or 26 percent of all residential participants. Eleven million people, 18 percent of all residential participants, visited public areas including parks within one mile of their homes. Approximately 9.2 million partici-pants, 15 percent of all residen-tial participants, maintained plantings for the primary pur-pose of benefiting wildlife. Finally, 7.9 million people, 13 percent of the residential partici-pants, maintained natural areas for the primary purpose of benefiting wildlife. Residential Participants (In millions) Total participants 60.8 Feed wild birds 52.2 Observe wildlife 44.1 Feed other wildlife 19.6 Photograph wildlife 16.0 Visit public areas 11.0 Maintain plantings 9.2 Maintain natural areas 7.9 Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses. Source: Table 37 Percent of Total Residential Participation, by Activity (Total: 60.8 million participants) Observe 26% 73% 86% 32% 13% 15% 18% Feed Photograph wild birds Feed other wildlife Maintain natural areas Maintain plantings Visit public areas 37 Wildlife Observed, Fed, or Photographed by Residential Participants Of the 44.1 million participants who reported observing wildlife around their homes, a large majority, 42.2 million, observed birds. Observing mammals was popular among 38.5 million participants. Insects and spiders attracted the attention of 19.8 million people; 13.6 million observed amphibians or reptiles; and 11.1 million people reported observing fish or other wildlife. Of the 54.1 million residential wildlife feeders in 1996, 96 percent fed birds. Over 52 million people fed birds an average of eight months in 1996. Approximately 19.6 million participants fed other wildlife for 7 months, on average, during the year. More than 16 million residential participants photographed wildlife. Twenty-nine percent of these photographers spent 2 to 3 days taking pictures of wildlife during the year. Eight percent (1.2 million) of the participants spent 21 or more days photo-graphing wildlife. Sixteen per-cent (2.5 million) of the partici-pants spent 1 day photographing wildlife; 18 percent (2.9 million) 4 to 5 days; 18 percent (2.8 mil-lion) 6 to 10 days; and 11 per-cent (1.7 million) 11 to 20 days. 96% Percent of Residential Wildlife Observers, by Type of Wildlife Observed (Total wildlife observers 44.1 million) Birds Mammals Insects and spiders Reptiles and amphibians 87% 45% Fish and other wildlife 31% 25% Days Spent Photographing Wildlife (Total participants: 16 million) 6-10 days 18% 1 day 16% 2-3 days 29% 11-20 days 11% 21 days or more 8% 4-5 days 18% 38 Residential Participation by Geographic Division In 1996, 201 million people 16 years old and older lived in the United States. Of those individuals, 30 percent ob-served, fed, or photographed wildlife around their homes. The participation rates of these residential participants varied from region to region. Residential wildlife-watching participation rates ranged from 26 percent for residents in the West South Central Division to 35 percent for those in the West North Central and New England Divisions. The New England, East North Central, West North Central, and Mountain Divisions all had participation rates above the national participation rate of 30 percent. The East North Central Division’s participation rate was 34 percent. The Moun-tain Division followed with a participation rate of 32 percent. The participation rates for both the South Atlantic and East South Central Divisions were 30 percent. The Middle Atlantic and Pacific Divisions both had participation rates of 27 percent. Wildlife-Watching Residential Participation (National participation rate: 30%) West South Central 26% East South Central 30% South Atlantic 30% New England 35% Middle Atlantic 27% East North Central 34% West North Central 35% Mountain 32% Pacific 27% 39 18% 31% 29% Percent of U.S. Population Who Participated, by Age Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Participated, by Sex Men 16 and 17 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 15% 26% 34% 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 and older 34% 36% 32% Percent of Residential Participants 16 Years Old and Older, by Sex Men 46% Women 54% Women Percent of Residential Participants by Age 16 and 17 2% 45 to 54 20% 18 to 24 5% 25 to 34 15% 35 to 44 25% 55 to 64 14% 65 and older 19% Sex and Age of Residential Participants Residential wildlife-watching activities were enjoyed by males and females in similar propor-tions. In 1996, 29 percent of American males 16 years old and older enjoyed residential activities, as did 31 percent of American females of the same age group. Of the 60.8 million residential wildlife-watching participants, 46 per-cent (28.1 million) were male and 54 percent (32.7 million) were female. Of the 60.8 million residential participants in 1996, 25 percent or 15.3 million were 35 to 44 years old, and 20 percent or 12.3 million were 45 to 54 years old. The participation rate for residential wildlife-watching recreation for both the 35- to 44- year-old age group as well as for the 45- to 54-year-olds was 34 percent. Participants 65 years old and older numbered 11.4 million with a 32 percent participation rate. They repre-sented 19 percent of all residen-tial participants. Participants 25 to 34 years old numbered 9.2 million and represented 15 percent of all residential partici-pants. Their participation rate was 26 percent. There were 8.3 million participants in the 55- to 64-year-old age category, ac-counting for 14 percent of all residential recreationists and having a participation rate of 36 percent. The 18- to 24-year-old participants numbered 3.0 million, or 5 percent of the residential participants. Their participation rate was 15 percent in 1996. Finally, the 16- and 17- year-old participants totaled 1.2 million with a participation rate of 18 percent, accounting for 2 percent of the residential wildlife-watching participants. Residential Participants, by Sex and Age (In millions) Total, both sexes 60.8 Male 28.1 Female 32.7 Total, all ages 60.8 16 and 17 1.2 18 to 24 3.0 25 to 34 9.2 35 to 44 15.3 45 to 54 12.3 55 to 64 8.3 65 and older 11.4 Source: Table 42 40 Size of Residence of Residential Participants In 1996, 30 percent of all U.S. residents 16 years old and older participated in wildlife-watching recreation around their homes. Seventy-five percent of these residential wildlife participants lived in metropolitan areas of various sizes. Participation rates varied by population size of metropolitan areas. People living in Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA’s) with populations of 1,000,000 or more had a participation rate of 27 percent. These recreationists comprised 44 percent of the total residential participants. In MSA’s of 250,000 to 999,999 the partici-pation rate was 30 percent, reflecting 20 percent of all residential recreationists. Eleven percent of the residential wildlife-watching participants were from MSA’s with populations of 50,000 to 249,999. The popula-tion of these areas had a partici-pation rate of 35 percent. The highest participation rate for residential wildlife-watching participants was among persons residing outside of MSA’s. While 21 percent of the total U.S. population lived outside these areas in 1996, they represented 25 percent of all residential wildlife-watching participants. Thirty-six percent of that population group participated in wildlife-watching activities around their homes in 1996. Percent of Residential Participants 16 Years Old and Older, by Residence (Total residential participants 60.8 million) Large MSA 44% Small MSA 11% Medium MSA 20% Outside MSA 25% Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Participated, by Residence (30% of total U.S. population participated) Large MSA (1,000,000 or more) 27% 30% 35% 36% Medium MSA (250,000 to 999,999) Small MSA (50,000 to 249,999) Outside MSA 41 Income of Residential Participants Residential wildlife-watching activities were enjoyed by people of all income levels. Participa-tion rates ranged from 22 per-cent among U.S. residents living in households earning less than $10,000 per year to 40 percent among participants living in households earning $75,000 to $99,999 annually. These groups represented 5 percent and 10 percent of all residential wildlife-watching participants, respec-tively. Participants in house-holds earning $10,000 to $19,999 a year had a participa-tion rate of 26 percent and constituted 8 percent of all residential recreationists. The participation rate among recreationists with annual house-hold incomes of $20,000 to $24,999 was 28 percent, making up 6 percent of all residential participants. People with annual household incomes of $25,000 to $29,999 participated at a rate of 32 percent and made up 6 percent of all residential partici-pants. Those people with annual household incomes of $30,000 to $34,999, representing 6 percent of the residential participants, had a participation rate of 30 percent. Those whose annual incomes totaled $35,000 to $39,999 showed a participation rate of 34 percent while representing 6 percent of all residential participants. Persons from households with incomes of $40,000 to $49,999 chalked up a participation rate of 36 percent and represented 11 percent of all residential participants. Among the 18 percent of residential partici-pants who reported annual household incomes of $50,000 to $74,999, the participation rate was 34 percent. Finally, those individuals with annual house-hold incomes of $100,000 or more reported a participation rate of 37 percent, representing 8 percent of the of all residential recreationists. Fourteen percent of the residential wildlife-watching sample did not report their income. Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Participated, by Income Less than $10,000 $10,000 to 19,999 $20,000 to 24,999 $25,000 to 29,999 22% 26% 28% 32% 30% 34% $40,000 to 49,999 $50,000 to 74,999 $75,000 to 99,999 $30,000 to 34,999 $35,000 to 39,999 36% 34% 40% $100,000 or more 37% 42 Education and Race of Residential Participants Among residential participants, a wide range of educational backgrounds was recorded. The highest rate of participation was found among recreationists with 5 years or more of college, 43 percent. They made up 16 percent of all residential wildlife-watching participants. The lowest participation rate, 16 percent, was among people with 8 years of education or less, 3 percent of all residential partici-pants. The participation rate among those with 9 to 11 years of education was 23 percent. They constituted 8 percent of all residential participants. Resi-dential recreationists with 12 years of education, 32 percent of all residential participants, had a participation rate of 27 percent. Participants with 1 to 3 years of college had a participation rate of 32 percent, while those with 4 years of college had a participa-tion rate of 35 percent in 1996. Those groups represented 24 percent and 16 percent of all residential wildlife-watching participants, respectively. A wide variety of participation rates was found among the different races. For the U.S. Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Participated, by Education 8 years or less 9 to 11 years 12 years 1 to 3 years of college 16% 23% 27% 32% 4 years of college 5 years or more of college 35% 43% 5 years or more of college 16% Percent of Residential Participants 16 Years Old and Older, by Education 12 years 32% 4 years of college 16% 1 to 3 years of college 24% 9 to 11 years 8% 8 years or less 3% 43 Residential Participants, by Education and Race (In millions) Total participants 60.8 Education 0 to 8 years 2.0 9 to 11 years 4.9 12 years 19.3 1 to 3 years of college 14.7 4 years of college 9.8 5 years or more of college 9.9 Race White 56.6 Black 1.9 Other 2.2 Source: Table 42 10% 34% 15% Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Participated, by Race White Percent of Residential Participants 16 Years Old and Older, by Race Other 4% Black 3% Black White 93% Other population, 34 percent of the White population engaged in residential wildlife-watching activities, 10 percent of the Black population enjoyed such activities, and 15 percent of individuals of other races partici-pated. Of the total number of residential participants, 93 percent were White, 3 percent were Black, and 4 percent were all other races. 44 51% 97% 42% Percent of Nonresidential Participants, by Activity Observe Percent of Nonresidential Participants in State of Residence and Other States In state of residence and in other states 19% Photograph In state of residence only 68% Feed Other states only 13% Nonresidential Activities Highlights In 1996, almost 24 million people 16 years old and older took trips away from home for the primary purpose of observ-ing, feeding, or photographing wildlife. They constituted 38 percent of all wildlife-watching participants. The most popular nonresidential activity was observing wildlife. Almost 23 million participants, 97 percent of all nonresidential participants, observed wildlife on an average of 12 days during the year. Photographing wildlife was enjoyed by 12.0 million people, 51 percent of all nonresidential participants, with an average of 7 days per participant. Nearly 10 million people fed wildlife on an average of 9 days while away from home. This consti-tuted 42 percent of all nonresidential recreationists. Eighty-seven percent of all nonresidential participants took trips within their state of resi-dence. Sixty-eight percent of the nonresidential participants took trips only in their state of residence, 19 percent took trips both in their state of residence and to another state, and 13 percent took trips only to other states. Altogether, 32 percent of nonresidential participants took at least some of their trips to other states. Nonresidential (In millions) Total participants 23.7 Observers 22.9 Photographers 12.0 Feeders 10.0 Total days 314 Observing 279 Photographing 79 Feeding 90 Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses. Source: Table 36 45 Wildlife Observed, Fed, or Photographed by Nonresidential Participants In 1996, many types of wildlife were enjoyed by the 23.7 million people who took trips for the primary purpose of observing, feeding, or photographing fish and wildlife in the United States. Birds attracted the attention of the largest number of people, 17.7 million individuals, 75 percent of all nonresidential participants 16 years old and older. Over 14 million people observed waterfowl on their trips. Shorebirds such as herons and pelicans were enjoyed by 9.5 million people. Almost 13 million people observed songbirds; 10.6 million, birds of prey; and 6.5 million, other birds. Land mammals such as deer, bear, and coyotes drew as much attention as birds. Approximately 17.7 million participants, 75 percent of all nonresidential participants, observed, fed, or photographed land mammals. Fish attracted the attention of 8.4 million participants, 36 percent of all nonresidential recreationists. Almost 3.5 million people, 15 percent of all nonresidential participants, observed, fed, or photographed marine mam-mals such as whales, seals, and dolphins. Other wildlife such as butterflies, snakes, and turtles were of interest to 11.5 million nonresidential participants, 49 percent of all wildlife-watching participants. Nonresidential Participants, by Type of Wildlife Observed, Fed, or Photographed (In millions) Total participants 23.7 Birds, total 17.7 Waterfowl 14.3 Songbirds 12.9 Birds of prey 10.6 Shore birds 9.5 Other birds 6.5 Land mammals, total 17.7 Small land mammals 15.2 Large land mammals 13.2 Fish 8.4 Marine mammals 3.5 Other 11.5 (turtles, butterflies, etc.) Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses. Source: Table 39 75% 75% 36% Percent of Nonresidential Participants Who Observed, Fed, or Photographed Wildlife (Total participants: 23.7 million) Birds Land mammals Fish 15% 49% Marine mammals Other (turtles, butterflies, etc.) 46 Area or Site Visited by Nonresidential Participants In 1996, both public and private areas provided significant opportunities for Americans to enjoy wildlife-watching activities. Approximately 8 million, or 34 percent of all nonresidential participants, said they had visited both public and private areas during 1996. Many non-residential participants, 12.0 million or 51 percent, reported visiting only public areas to enjoy their activities, while 2.4 million or 10 percent of nonresi-dential participants visited only private areas. People also visited many differ-ent types of wildlife habitat while pursuing their activities during 1996. An estimated 18.3 million people visited woodland habi-tats, 77 percent of the nonresi-dential participants. Lakes and streamsides also attracted a large number of visitors, 16.3 million people or 69 percent of the total. Brush-covered areas and open fields attracted a similar number of people, 14.1 million (59 percent), and 14.8 million (63 percent), respectively. Wetlands were visited by 10.4 million, or 44 percent of all nonresidential participants, and manmade areas had 9.1 million recreational visitors, 39 percent of all nonresidential participants. Oceanside areas were visited by 6.4 million people accounting for 27 percent of all nonresidential recreationists. Other types of habitats accounted for 3.3 million nonresidential partici-pants, 14 percent of the total nonresidential population. Nonresidential Participants, by Site Visited (In millions) Total participants 23.7 Woodland 18.3 Lake or streamside 16.3 Open field 14.8 Brush-covered area 14.1 Wetland, marsh, swamp 10.4 Manmade area 9.1 Oceanside 6.4 Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses. Source: Table 38 69% 77% 63% Type of Site Visited by Nonresidential Participants Woodland Nonresidential Participants, by Area Visited Public and private 34% Lake or streamside Unspecified 5% Open field Private only 10% Public only 51% Brush-covered area Wetland, marsh, swamp Manmade area Oceanside 59% 44% 39% 27% 47 Nonresidential Participants by Geographic Division In 1996, 201 million people 16 years old and older lived in the United States. Of those individu-als, 12 percent participated in nonresidential activities. Nonresidential participation rates ranged from 9 percent in the East South Central Division to 16 percent in the Mountain Division. Participants in the Middle Atlantic and West South Central Divisions had participa-tion rates of 10 percent. Indi-viduals in the South Atlantic and Pacific Divisions recorded participation rates of 11 percent. The New England, East North Central, and West North Central Divisions all had participation rates of 14 percent—above the national participation rate of 12 percent. Nonresidential Wildlife-Watching Participation (National participation rate: 12%) West South Central 10% East South Central 9% South Atlantic 11% New England 14% Middle Atlantic 10% East North Central 14% West North Central 14% Mountain 16% Pacific 11% 48 Sex and Age of Nonresidential Participants Nearly equal numbers of males and females 16 years old and older enjoyed nonresidential wildlife-watching activities. In 1996, 12 percent of American males and 11 percent of American females enjoyed observing, feeding, or photo-graphing wildlife away from home. Among the 23.7 million nonresidential participants, 50 percent (11.7 million) were male, and 50 percent (11.9 million) were female. The age group with the most nonresidential participants, 6.9 million, was the 35- to 44- year-olds who had a participa-tion rate of 16 percent. This group was closely followed by the 5.3 million participants in the 45- to 54-year-old age group whose participation rate was 15 percent. These two groups represented 29 percent and 22 percent of all nonresidential participants, respectively. There were 4.6 million partici-pants in the 25- to 34-year-old age group, 19 percent of all non-residential participants. Thirteen percent of the people in this age group participated in nonresi-dential activities. The 55- to 64-year-old age group, which had a participation rate of 11 percent, numbered 2.5 million participants and represented 10 percent of all nonresidential recreationists. Six percent of persons 65 years old and older participated in nonresidential Percent of Nonresidential Participants 16 Years Old and Older, by Sex Men 50% Women 50% 11% 12% Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Participated, by Sex Men Women Primary Nonresidential Participants by Sex and Age Total, both sexes 23.7 million Male 11.7 million Female 11.9 million Total, all ages 23.7 million 16 to 17 0.6 million 18 to 24 1.7 million 25 to 34 4.6 million 35 to 44 6.9 million 45 to 54 5.3 million 55 to 64 2.5 million 65 and older 2.1 million Source: Table 41 49 activities. They represented 9 percent of all participants. Participants 18 to 24 years old numbered 1.7 million. They accounted for 7 percent of all nonresidential participants and had a participation rate of 8 percent. Finally, persons 16 to 17 years old had a participation rate of 9 percent. These 608 thousand individuals comprised 3 percent of all nonresidential participants. 55 to 64 10% Percent of Nonresidential Participants by Age 25 to 34 19% 45 to 54 22% 35 to 44 29% 18 to 24 7% 16 and 17 65 and 3% over 9% Percent of U.S. Population Who Participated, by Age 16 and 17 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 9% 8% 13% 16% 65 and older 45 to 54 55 to 64 15% 11% 6% 50 Size of Residence of Nonresidential Participants Nonresidential wildlife-watching activities were enjoyed by a substantial number of people from both urban and rural areas. In 1996, 11 percent of all per-sons living in Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA’s) took trips primarily for the enjoyment of wildlife. They comprised 75 percent of all nonresidential participants. Those living in MSA’s with populations of 1,000,000 or more participated at a rate of 11 percent and represented 45 percent of all nonresidential participants. The participation rate for nonresiden-tial recreationists in MSA’s with populations of 250,000 to 999,999—20 percent of all nonresidential participants—was 12 percent. MSA’s with popula-tions of 50,000 to 249,999 had a participation rate of 13 percent and participants therein repre-sented 11 percent of all nonresi-dential recreationists. Those participants residing in areas outside an MSA had a participa-tion rate of 14 percent and represented 25 percent of the nonresidential total. Percent of Nonresidential Participants 16 Years Old and Older, by Residence (Total nonresidential participants: 23.7 million) Small MSA 11% Large MSA 45% Outside MSA 25% Medium MSA 20% Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Participated, by Residence (12% of total U.S. population participated) Large MSA (1,000,000 or more) 11% 12% 13% 14% Medium MSA (250,000 to 999,999) Small MSA (50,000 to 249,999) Outside MSA 51 Income of Nonresidential Participants People from households at all income levels enjoyed wild-life- watching activities away from home. Participation rates ranged from 6 percent for those in households earning less than $10,000 per year (4 percent of all nonresidential participants) to 17 percent in those house-holds earning $100,000 or more annually (10 percent of all nonresidential participants). Following close behind this income group were participants from households earning $50,000 to $74,999 and $75,000 to $99,999 per year with partici-pation rates of 16 percent. They represented 22 percent and 11 percent of all nonresidential participants, respectively. Those in the $35,000 to $39,999 and $40,000 to $49,999 income groups had a participation rate of 14 percent, and constituted 6 percent and 11 percent of all nonresidential participants, respectively. Of those with an annual household income of $25,000 to $29,999, 13 percent enjoyed nonresidential activities. They represented 7 percent of the nonresidential total. Participants in the $30,000 to $34,999 household income group had a 12 percent partici-pation rate, and represented 6 percent of all nonresidential recreationists. Lastly, individuals with household earnings of $10,000 to $19,999 or $20,000 to $24,999 recorded participa-tion rates of 10 percent. They represented 8 percent and 6 percent of all nonresidential participants, respectively. Ten percent of the nonresidential wildlife-watching sample did not report their income. Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Participated, by Income Less than $10,000 $10,000 to 19,999 $20,000 to 24,999 $25,000 to 29,999 6% 10% 10% 13% 12% 14% $40,000 to 49,999 $50,000 to 74,999 $75,000 to 99,999 $30,000 to 34,999 $35,000 to 39,999 14% 16% 16% $100,000 or more 17% 52 Education and Race of Nonresidential Participants People of all educational levels participated in nonresidential activities in 1996. Two percent of the U.S. population with 8 years of education or less participated in a nonresidential wildlife-watching activity, 1 percent of the nonresidential total. In comparison, 22 percent of the population with 5 years or more of college joined in nonresiden-tial activities and represented 21 percent of all nonresidential participants. The participation rate of persons with 9 to 11 years of education was 7 per-cent. These participants made up 6 percent of all nonresidential enthusiasts. Those with 12 years of education had a 9 percent participation rate and represented 27 percent of the nonresidential total. Participants with 1 to 3 years of college participated at a rate of 13 percent, contributing 26 percent to the nonresidential total. Lastly, 16 percent of those with 4 years of college participated in nonresidential activities, making up 18 percent of all nonresiden-tial participants. The participation rates among races varied greatly. Thirteen Nonresidential Participants, by Education and Race Total participants 23.7 million Education 8 years or less 0.3 million 9 to 11 years 1.5 million 12 years 6.4 million 1 to 3 years of college 6.0 million 4 years of college 4.4 million 5 years or more of college 5.1 million Race White 22.1 million Black 0.5 million Other 1.1 million Source: Table 41 5 years or more of college 21% Percent of Residential Participants 16 Years Old and Older, by Education 12 years 4 years 27% of college 18% 1 to 3 years of college 26% 9 to 11 years 6% 8 years or less 1% Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Participated, by Education 8 years or less 9 to 11 years 12 years 1 to 3 years of college 2% 7% 9% 13% 4 years of college 5 years or more of college 16% 22% 53 percent of all White individuals living in the U.S. participated in nonresidential activities in 1996, 2 percent of all Black individuals participated, and 7 percent of individuals of other races partici-pated. Of the total 23.7 million nonresidential participants, 93 percent were White, 2 percent were Black, and 5 percent were other races. 2% 13% 7% Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Participated, by Race White Black Other Percent of Residential Participants 16 Years Old and Older, by Race Other 5% Black 2% White 93% 54 1991-1996 Comparison of Wildlife-Watching Activity The number of people observ-ing, photographing, or feeding wildlife in the United States in 1996 was substantially less than in 1991. There were 17 percent fewer people wildlife watching in 1996, with 18 percent fewer residential participants and 21 percent fewer nonresidential participants. However, the number of days of nonresidential wildlife watching did not change (at the 95 percent confidence level), and expenditures for wildlife watching increased 21 percent. The percentage of residential participants that decreased the most, 29 percent, were those who visited public parks or other public areas for the primary purpose of observing, photo-graphing, or feeding wildlife. The number of 1996 residential participants that did not change relative to 1991 were those who photographed wildlife and those who maintained plantings or natural areas. All categories of nonresidential participation decreased at least 15 percent in the number of participants. The days of partici-pation in nonresidential activities did not decrease, however, when compared at the 95 percent confidence level. Expenditures increased for the equipment category, but not for the trip-related category. Equip-ment expenditures increased 35 percent. The purchase of auxil-iary equipment such as tents and backpacking equipment increased 88 percent. Number of Wildlife- Watching Participants (Millions) 76.1 62.9 342 314 $21.2 $25.7 1991 1996 1991 1996 1991 1996 Days of Nonresidential Activity* (Millions) Wildlife-Watching Expenditures (Billions) *The difference is not significant at the 0.05 level. Participants, days and expenditures 1991 1996 Percent (Numbers in millions) Number Percent Number Percent change Total wildlife watching ........................................... 76.1 100 62.9 100 -17 Residential ............................................................ 73.9 97 60.8 97 -18 Observe wildlife ................................................. 54.7 72 44.1 70 -21 Photograph wildlife ............................................ 17.0 22 16.0 25 -6* Feed wild birds or other wildlife ......................... 65.4 86 54.1 86 -17 Visit public parks or areas ................................. 15.5 20 11.0 18 -29 Maint. Plantings or Natural Area ....................... 13.6 18 13.4 21 -1* Nonresidential ....................................................... 30.0 39 23.7 38 -21 Observe Wildlife ................................................ 28.8 38 22.9 36 -21 Photograph Wildlife ........................................... 14.2 19 12.0 19 -15 Feed Wildlife ...................................................... 13.3 17 10.0 16 -25 Days, nonresidential ............................................. 342 100 314 100 -8* Observing wildlife .............................................. 296 87 279 89 -6* Photographing wildlife ....................................... 82 24 79 25 -3* Feeding wildlife ................................................. 102 30 90 29 -12* Total Wildlife-Watching Expenditure** ................. $21,242 100 $25,654 100 21 Trip-related ............................................................ 8,604 41 9,007 35 5* Equipment ............................................................ 10,994 52 14,854 58 35 Wildlife-watching equipment ............................. 6,559 31 7,773 30 19* Auxiliary equipment ........................................... 402 2 755 3 88 Special equipment ............................................ 4,032 19 6,326 25 57* Other ..................................................................... 1,643 8 1,793 7 9* * Not different from zero at the 95 percent confidence level. This means that for 95 percent of all possible samples, the estimate for one survey year is not different from the estimate for the other survey year. ** 1991 expenditure estimates have been adjusted for inflation to be comparable to 1996 expenditure estimates. Excludes expenditures for land lease and ownership, food for wildlife other than birds, boats and trip-related boating costs, cabins, and heating and cooking fuel because the 1991 survey did not collect this information. 55 Tables 56 Guide to Statistical Tables Purpose and Coverage of Tables The statistical tables of this report were designed to meet a wide range of needs for those interested in knowing about wildlife-related recreation. Special terms used in these tables are defined in Appendix A. The tables are based on re-sponses to the 1996 Survey which was designed to collect data about participation in wildlife-related recreation. To have taken part in the Survey, a respondent must have been a U.S. resident (a resident of one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia). No one residing outside the United States (in-cluding U.S. citizens) was eli-gible for interviewing. Therefore, reported state and national totals do not include participa-tion by those who were not U.S. residents or who were residing outside the United States. Comparability With Previous Surveys The numbers reported can be compared with those in the 1991 Survey Reports. The methodol-ogy used in 1996 was similar to that used in 1991. These results should not be directly compared to results from Surveys earlier than 1991 since there were major change in meth
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
Rating | |
Title | 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation |
Contact | mailto:library@fws.gov |
Description | nat_survey1996.pdf |
FWS Resource Links | http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/subpages/nationalsurvey/National_Survey.htm |
Subject |
Document Fishing Hunting Recreation Economics Statistics Wildlife viewing |
Publisher | U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service |
Date of Original | Circa 1996 |
Type | Text |
Format | |
Source |
NCTC Conservation Library Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program Library |
Rights | Public domain |
File Size | 2844933 Bytes |
Original Format | Document |
Full Resolution File Size | 2844933 Bytes |
Transcript | 161616996 National Survfvf ey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated rRrRrRecrenenenation U.S. Department of Commerce William M. Daley, Secretary Robert L. Mallet, Deputy Secretary Economics and Statistics Administration Lee Price, Acting Under Secretary for Economic Affairs BUREAU OF THE CENSUS Martha Farnsworth Riche, Director U.S. Department of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, Secretary FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Jamie Rappaport Clark, Director Issued November 1997 FHW/96 NAT As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure their development in the best interests of all our people. The Department also has a major responsibil-ity for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration. The mission of the Department’s Fish and Wildlife Service is to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service is respon-sible for national programs of vital importance to our natural resources, including administration of the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration and the Federal Aid of Wildlife Restoration Programs. These two grant programs provide financial assistance to the States for projects to enhance and protect fish and wildlife resources and to assure their availability to the public for recreational purposes. Funds from the administrative portion of these programs are used to pay for the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Suggested Citation U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Economics and Statistics Administration Lee Price, Acting Under Secretary for Economic Affairs BUREAU OF THE CENSUS Martha Farnesworth Riche, Director Bradford R. Huther, Deputy Director Nancy M. Gordon, Associate Director for Demographic Programs U.S. Department of Interior Bruce Babbitt, Secretary FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Jamie Rappaport Clark, Director Division of Federal Aid Robert E. Lange, Jr., Chief iii List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................... iv Foreword ................................................................................................................................................ vi Survey Background and Method ............................................................................................................ vii Highlights Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 2 Summary................................................................................................................................................. 4 Fishing Highlights .................................................................................................................................... 8 Hunting Highlights ................................................................................................................................. 22 Wildlife-Watching Highlights ...................................................................................................................34 Tables Guide to Statistical Tables ...................................................................................................................... 56 Fishing and Hunting Tables ....................................................................................................................58 Wildlife-Watching Tables ........................................................................................................................ 87 State Tables ........................................................................................................................................... 97 Appendices A. Definitions .................................................................................................................................... A-2 B. Comparability With Previous Surveys ........................................................................................... B-2 C. Selected Data From Screening Interviews.................................................................................... C-2 D. Sample Design and Statistical Accuracy ...................................................................................... D-2 Contents iv Fishing and Hunting: 1996 1. Anglers and Hunters 16 Years Old and Older, Days of Participation, and Trips, by Type of Fishing and Hunting ....................................................................................................... 58 2. Anglers, Trips, and Days of Fishing, by Type of Fishing .................................................................. 58 3. Freshwater Anglers and Days of Fishing, by Type of Fish ..............................................................59 4. Great Lakes Anglers and Days of Fishing, by Type of Fish .............................................................59 5. Saltwater Anglers and Days of Fishing, by Type of Fish ................................................................. 60 6. Hunters, Trips, and Days of Hunting, by Type of Hunting ................................................................ 60 7. Hunters and Days of Hunting, by Type of Game .............................................................................61 8. Selected Characteristics of Anglers and Hunters ........................................................................... 62 9. Selected Characteristics of Anglers, by Type of Fishing ................................................................. 64 10. Selected Characteristics of Hunters, by Type of Hunting ................................................................ 66 11. Summary of Expenditures for Fishing and Hunting ........................................................................ 68 12. Expenditures for Fishing .................................................................................................................69 13. Trip and Equipment Expenditures for Freshwater Fishing ..............................................................70 14. Trip and Equipment Expenditures for Freshwater Fishing, Except Great Lakes ............................. 71 15. Trip and Equipment Expenditures for Great Lakes Fishing .............................................................72 16. Trip and Equipment Expenditures for Saltwater Fishing ................................................................. 73 17. Expenditures for Hunting ................................................................................................................74 18. Trip and Equipment Expenditures for Big Game Hunting ............................................................... 75 19. Trip and Equipment Expenditures for Small Game Hunting ...........................................................76 20. Trip and Equipment Expenditures for Migratory Bird Hunting ......................................................... 77 21. Trip and Equipment Expenditures for Hunting Other Animals ........................................................ 78 22. Special Equipment Expenditures for Fishing and Hunting ..............................................................79 23. Anglers and Hunters Who Purchased Licenses or Were Exempt ................................................... 79 24. Selected Characteristics of Anglers and Hunters Who Purchased Licenses .................................. 80 25. Freshwater Anglers and Days of Fishing, by Type of Water ............................................................81 26. Great Lakes Anglers and Days of Fishing, by Great Lake ..............................................................81 27. Hunters and Days of Hunting on Public and Private Land, by Type of Hunting .............................. 81 28. Hunters and Days of Hunting on Public Land, by Selected Characteristic ..................................... 82 29. Hunters and Days of Hunting on Private Land, by Selected Characteristic .................................... 83 30. Participation in Catch and Release Fishing, Ice Fishing, and Fly-Fishing ...................................... 84 31. Hunters Using Bows and Arrows, Muzzleloaders, and Other Primitive Firearms for Hunting ......... 84 32. Land Owned or Leased for the Primary Purpose of Fishing and Hunting ...................................... 85 33. Persons With Disabilities Who Participated in Fishing and Hunting ............................................... 85 34. Why Anglers and Hunters Did Not Participate More in 1996 .......................................................... 86 Wildlife-Watching Activities: 1996 35. Wildlife-Watching Participants, by Type of Activity .......................................................................... 87 36. Participants, Trips, and Days of Participation in Nonresidential (Away From Home) Wildlife-Watching Activities ............................................................................................................. 87 37. Participation in Residential (Around the Home) Wildlife-Watching Activities .................................. 88 38. Nonresidential Wildlife-Watching Participants, by Area or Site Visited ...........................................89 List of Tables v 39. Nonresidential Wildlife-Watching Participants, by Wildlife Observed, Photographed, or Fed and Place .................................................................................................... 90 40. Expenditures for Wildlife Watching ..................................................................................................91 41. Selected Characteristics of Participants in Nonresidential Wildlife-Watching Activities .................. 92 42. Selected Characteristics of Participants in Residential Wildlife-Watching Activities ....................... 94 43. Land Owned or Leased for the Primary Purpose of Wildlife Watching ........................................... 96 44. Persons With Disabilities Who Participated in Wildlife Watching .................................................... 96 45. Participation of Wildlife-Watching Participants in Fishing and Hunting ........................................... 96 46. Participation of Sportsmen in Wildlife-Watching Activities ..............................................................96 State Wildlife-Related Recreation: 1996 47. Participants in Wildlife-Related Recreation, by Participant’s State of Residence ........................... 97 48. Expenditures for Wildlife-Related Recreation, by State Where Spending Took Place .................... 98 49. Expenditures for Wildlife-Related Recreation, by Participant’s State of Residence ...................... 100 50. Anglers and Hunters, by Sportsman’s State of Residence ........................................................... 102 51. Anglers and Hunters, by State Where Fishing or Hunting Took Place ..........................................103 52. Hunters, by Type of Hunting and State Where Hunting Took Place .............................................. 104 53. Days of Hunting, by State Where Hunting Took Place and Hunter’s State of Residence ............. 105 54. Days of Hunting, by Type of Hunting and State Where Hunting Took Place ................................. 106 55. Expenditures for Hunting, by State Where Spending Took Place ................................................. 107 56. Freshwater (Except Great Lakes) Anglers and Days of Fishing, by State Where Fishing Took Place ...................................................................................................................................108 57. Great Lakes Anglers and Days of Great Lakes Fishing, by State Where Fishing Took Place .......109 58. Saltwater Anglers and Days of Saltwater Fishing, by State Where Fishing Took Place................ 109 59. Days of Fishing, by State Where Fishing Took Place and Angler’s State of Residence ............... 110 60. Expenditures for Fishing, by State Where Spending Took Place .................................................. 111 61. Participants in Wildlife-Watching Activities, by Participant’s State of Residence ..........................112 62. Participants in Nonresidential Wildlife-Watching Activities, by State Where Activity Took Place .. 113 63. Days of Nonresidential Wildlife-Watching Activity, by State Where Activity Took Place and Participant’s State of Residence ............................................................................................ 114 64. Expenditures for Wildlife-Watching Activities, by State Where Spending Took Place ................... 115 vi Foreword Ours is a country with a rich tradition of enjoying nature. Whether casting a fly or snap-ping a shutter, Americans find wildlife-associated recreation a source of lifelong enjoyment and renewal. The results of the 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation reflect this national passion for wild things and wild places. Seventy-seven million Ameri-cans 16 years or older, or 40 percent of the adult population, enjoyed some form of wildlife-related recreation during 1996. In doing so, they pumped $100 billion into the national economy, supporting hundreds of thou-sands of jobs. The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is to con-serve and enhance our nation’s fish and wildlife and its habitat. The Service works in partner-ship with state wildlife agencies, conservation organizations, sportsmen’s groups, local governments, corporations, and individual citizens to perform this mission. For conservation efforts to be effective, however, natural resource managers need de-tailed information on how people use fish and wildlife resources. The 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation is the most comprehensive survey of its kind. It is an important tool for natural resource profession-als in planning and managing these resources for the enjoy-ment and benefit of all Ameri-cans. The 1996 Survey was requested by the States through the Inter-national Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. It is the ninth in a series of surveys on resource use by anglers, hunt-ers, and those who enjoy ob-serving wildlife. The Survey has been sponsored by the Service since 1955. It is financed by hunters, anglers, and boaters through excise taxes on sporting arms, ammunition, fishing equipment, and motorboat fuels as authorized under the Federal Aid in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Acts. We can all be gratified that wildlife-related recreation and the conservation ethic that flows from it remain strong in America. Jamie Rappaport Clark, Director Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior vii Survey Background and Method The National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (Survey) has been conducted since 1955 and is one of the oldest and most comprehensive continuing recreation surveys. The purpose of the Survey is to gather infor-mation on the number of anglers, hunters, and wildlife-watching participants (formerly known as primary nonconsumptive wildlife-related participants) in the United States. Information also is collected on how often these recreationists participate and how much they spend on their activities. The planning process for the 1996 Survey began in 1994 when the International Associa-tion of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA) passed a resolution asking the Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct the ninth National Survey of wildlife-related recreation. Funding for the Survey came from the ad-ministrative portion of the Fed-eral Aid in Sport Fish and Wild-life Restoration Programs. Consultations with State and Federal agencies and nongov-ernmental organizations such as the Wildlife Management Insti-tute, American Sportfishing Association, B.A.S.S., Inc., Wild Bird Feeding Institute, and American Fisheries Society started in early 1994 to ascertain survey content. Other sportsmen’s organizations and conservation groups, industry representatives, and researchers also provided valuable advice on questionnaire development, data collection, and reporting. Four regional technical commit-tees were set up under the auspices of the IAFWA to ensure that State fish and wildlife agencies had an opportunity to participate in all phases of survey planning and design. The committees were made up of agency representatives. The Survey was conducted in two phases by the U.S. Bureau of Census for the Fish and Wildlife Service. The first phase was the screen which began in April 1996. During the screening phase, the Bureau of Census interviewed a sample of 80,000 households nationwide, primarily by telephone, to determine who in the household had fished, hunted, or engaged in wildlife-watching activities in 1995, and who had engaged or planned to engage in those activities in 1996. In most cases, one adult household member provided information for all household members. It is important to note that the screen primarily covered 1995 activities while the next, more in-depth phase covered 1996 activities. For more infor-mation on the 1995 data, refer to Appendix C. The second phase of the Sur-vey consisted of detailed inter-views conducted about every four months. The first interview wave began in April 1996, the second in September 1996, and the last in January 1997. Inter-views were conducted with samples of likely anglers, hunt-ers, and wildlife-watching partici-pants who were identified in the initial screening phase. These interviews were conducted viii primarily by telephone, with in-person interviews for those respondents who could not be reached by telephone. Respon-dents in the second survey phase were limited to those at least 16 years old. Each respon-dent provided information per-taining only to his or her activi-ties and expenditures. Sample sizes were designed to provide statistically reliable results at the State level for fishing, hunting, and wildlife-watching activities. Altogether, interviews were completed for 22,578 anglers and hunters and 11,759 wildlife watchers. More detailed infor-mation on sampling procedures and response rates is found in Appendix D. Comparability with Previous Surveys The 1996 Survey questions and methodology were similar to those used in the 1991 Survey. Therefore, the 1996 estimates are comparable to the 1991 estimates. The 1996 Survey was the first to use computer-assisted interviews which im-proved the efficiency and timeli-ness of data collection. The methodology of the 1996 and 1991 Surveys did differ significantly from the 1985 and 1980 Surveys, so their estimates are not directly comparable to those earlier surveys. The changes in methodology in-cluded reducing the recall period over which respondents had to remember their activities and expenditures. Previous Surveys used a 12-month recall period which resulted in greater reporting bias. Research on recall bias found that the amount of activity and expendi-tures reported in 12-month recall Surveys was over-esti-mated in comparison with the amount reported in shorter recall periods. The trends information pre-sented in this report takes the differences of the earlier surveys into account in compar-ing their estimates with those of the 1996 and 1991 Surveys. See the Summary Section and Appendix B. 1 Highlights 2 Introduction The National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation reports results from interviews with U.S. residents about their fishing, hunting, and other fish- and wildlife-related recreation. This report focuses on 1996 participation and expen-ditures of U.S. residents 16 years of age and older. The numbers reported can be compared with those in the 1991 Survey reports. The methodol-ogy used in 1996 was similar to that used in 1991. These results should not be directly compared with the results from Surveys earlier than 1991 because of changes in methodology. These changes in methodology were made in 1991 and 1996 to improve accuracy in the informa-tion provided. Trend information from 1955 to 1985 is presented in Appendix B. The report also provides information on participation in wildlife-related recreation in 1995, particularly of persons 6 to 15 years of age. The 1995 information is provided in Appendix C. Additional informa-tion about the scope and cover-age of the Survey can be found in the Survey Background and Method section of this report. The remainder of this section defines important terms used in the Survey. Wildlife-Associated Recreation Wildlife-associated recreation includes fishing, hunting, and wildlife-watching activities. These categories are not mutu-ally exclusive because many individuals enjoyed fish and wildlife in several ways in 1996. Wildlife-associated recreation is reported in two major categories: (1) fishing and hunting, and (2) wildlife watching (formerly referred to as nonconsumptive wildlife-related recreation). Wildlife-watching includes observing, photographing, and feeding fish and wildlife. Fishing and Hunting This Survey reports information about residents of the United States who fished or hunted in 1996, regardless of whether they were licensed. The fishing and hunting sections of this report are organized to report three groups: (1) sportsmen, (2) anglers, and (3) hunters. Sportsmen Sportsmen are persons who fished or hunted. Individuals who fished or hunted commer-cially in 1996 are reported as sportsmen only if they fished or hunted for recreation. The sportsmen group is composed of the three subgroups in the diagram below: (1) those who Sportsmen Anglers Hunters Fished and hunted Fished only Hunted only 3 fished and hunted, (2) those who only fished, and (3) those who only hunted. The total number of sportsmen is equal to the sum of people who only fished, only hunted, and both hunted and fished. It is not the sum of all anglers and all hunt-ers, because those people who both fished and hunted are included in both the angler and hunter population and would be incorrectly counted twice. Anglers Anglers are sportsmen who only fished plus those who fished and hunted. The angler group includes not only licensed hook and line anglers, but also those who have no license and those who use special methods such as fishing with spears. Three types of fishing are reported: (1) freshwater, excluding the Great Lakes, (2) Great Lakes, and (3) saltwater. Since many anglers enjoyed more than one type of fishing, the total number of anglers is less than the sum of the three types of fishing. Hunters Hunters are sportsmen who only hunted plus those who hunted and fished. The hunter group includes not only licensed hunters using common hunting practices, but also those who have no license and those who engaged in hunting with a bow and arrow, muzzleloader, other primitive firearms, or a pistol or handgun. Four types of hunting are reported: (1) big game, (2) small game, (3) migratory bird, and (4) other animals. Since many hunters enjoyed more than one type of hunting, the sum of hunters for big game, small game, migratory bird, and other animals exceeds the total num-ber of hunters. Wildlife-Watching Activities (formerly Nonconsumptive Wildlife-Related Recreation) Since 1980, the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife- Associated Recreation has included information on wildlife-watching activities in addition to fishing and hunting. However, the 1991 and 1996 Surveys, unlike the 1980 and 1985 Sur-veys, collected data only for those activities where the pri-mary purpose was wildlife watching (observing, photo-graphing, or feeding wildlife). Secondary wildlife-watching activities, such as incidentally observing wildlife while pleasure driving, are not included. Many people, including sports-men, enjoyed wildlife-related recreation other than fishing or hunting. We refer to these nonharvesting activities, such as observing, feeding, or photo-graphing fish and other wildlife, as wildlife-watching activities. Two types of wildlife-watching activity are reported: (1) non-residential and (2) residential. Because some people partici-pate in more than one type of wildlife-watching activity, the sum of participants in each type will be greater than the total number of wildlife-watching participants. Only those engaged in activities whose primary purpose was wildlife watching are included in the Survey. The two types of wildlife-watching activities are defined below. Nonresidential This group included persons who took trips or outings of at least 1 mile for the primary purpose of observing, feeding, or photographing fish and wildlife. Trips to fish or hunt or scout and trips to zoos, circuses, aquariums, and museums were not considered wildlife-watching activities. Residential This group included those whose activities are within 1 mile of home and involve one or more of the following: (1) closely observ-ing 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 where benefit to wildlife is the primary concern; (5) maintaining plantings (shrubs, agricultural crops, etc.) where benefit to wildlife is the primary concern; or (6) visiting public parks within 1 mile of home for the primary purpose of observing, feeding, or photographing wildlife. 4 Total Wildlife-Associated Recreation Participants 77 million Expenditures $101 billion Sportsmen Total participants 39.7 million Anglers 35.2 million Hunters 14.0 million Total days 883 million Anglers 626 million Hunters 257 million Total expenditures $72 billion Fishing $38 billion Hunting $21 billion Unspecified $14 billion Wildlife Watching Total participants 62.9 million Residential 60.8 million Nonresidential 23.7 million Total expenditures $29 billion Summary The Survey revealed that 77 million U.S. residents 16 years old and older participated in wildlife-related recreation activi-ties in 1996. During that year, 35.2 million people fished, 14.0 million hunted, and 62.9 million enjoyed at least one type of wildlife-watching recreation activity including observing, feeding, or photographing fish and other wildlife, in the United States. The information for participation and expenditures of persons 16 years old and older is based on estimates from the detailed phase of the 1996 Survey. This information is comparable with estimates from the 1991 Survey, but not with earlier ones because of changes in methodology. A complete explanation is provided in Appendix B. Persons 6 to 15 years old were not included in the second phase (detailed) interviews of 1996 participants. However, an estimate of their participation was calculated using data from the 1991 and 1996 screening surveys. Both screening sources had nearly identical proportions of 6- to 15- year-old participants (9 percent for hunting; 22 per-cent for fishing; and 16 percent for wildlife-watching activity). Based on these percentages, there were 1.4 million hunters, 10.5 million anglers, and 12.0 million wildlife-watching partici-pants 6 to 15 years old in 1996. More information on 6- to 15- year-olds is provided in Appen-dix C. For the rest of this report all information pertains to partici-pants 16 years old and older, unless otherwise indicated. Among anglers, hunters, and wildlife-watching participants, there was a considerable overlap in activities. In 1996, 68 percent of the hunters also fished, and 27 percent of the anglers hunted. In addition, 65 percent of the anglers and 68 percent of the hunters participated in wildlife-watching activities, while 41 percent of all wildlife-watch-ing participants reported hunting and/or fishing during the year. Expenditures associated with wildlife-related recreation totaled $101 billion in 1996. 5 Trip-related costs were $30.0 billion, while $60.4 billion was spent on equipment and $10.8 billion was spent on other items. Anglers spent a total of $37.8 billion, hunters $20.6 billion, and wildlife-watching participants $29.2 billion. Fishing and Hunting In 1996, 40 million U.S. residents 16 years old and older went fishing and/or hunting. This includes 35.2 million who fished and 14 million who hunted. The overage is accounted for by those who both fished and hunted, 9.5 million. In 1996, expenditures by sports-men totaled $71.9 billion. Trip-related expenditures, including those for food, lodging, and transportation, were $20.5 billion, 29 percent of all fishing and hunting expenditures. Total equipment expenditures amounted to $43.7 billion, 61 percent of the total. Other expenditures such as those for magazines, membership dues, contributions, land leasing and ownership, and licenses, stamps, tags, and permits accounted for $7.7 billion, or 11 pecent of all sportsmen’s expenditures. Wildlife-Watching Recreation Observing, feeding, or photo-graphing wildlife was enjoyed by 62.9 million people 16 years old and older in 1996. Among this group, 23.7 million people took trips for the primary purpose of Other $7.7 billion 11% Equipment $43.7 billion Trip- 61% related $20.5 billion 29% Sportsmen unspecified $13.5 billion 13% Expenditures for Wildlife-Related Recreation (Total expenditures $101.2 billion) Fishing $37.8 billion 37% Other $10.8 billion 11% Equipment $60.4 billion Trip- 60% related $30.0 billion 30% Wildlife-watching $29.2 billion 29% Hunting $20.6 billion 20% Expenditures by Sportsmen (Total expenditures $71.9 billion) Other $3.1 billion 11% Equipment $16.7 billion Trip- 57% related $9.4 billion 32% Expenditures by Wildlife- Watching Participants (Total expenditures $29.2 billion) enjoying wildlife, while 60.8 million stayed within a mile of their homes to participate in wildlife-watching activities. In 1996, wildlife-watching partici-pants spent $29.2 billion. Trip-related expenses, including food, lodging, and transportation, totaled $9.4 billion, 32 percent of the total expenditures. A total of $16.7 billion was spent on equipment, 57 percent of all wildlife-watching expenses. The remaining $3.1 billion, 11 percent of the total, was spent on magazines, member-ship dues, and contributions made to conservation or wildlife-related organizations. 6 1991 and 1996 Comparison A comparison of estimates from the 1991 and 1996 Surveys show that millions of Americans continue to enjoy wildlife-related recreation. While participation in fishing and hunting remained the same, expenditures increased significantly over that 5-year period. In 1991, there were 35.6 million anglers and 14.1 million hunters. In 1996, there were 35.2 million anglers and 14.0 million hunters. In 1996, anglers spent 37 percent more and hunters spent 45 percent more than they did in 1991 for their trips and equipment. Although participation in wildlife watching (observing, feeding, and photographing wildlife) decreased by 17 percent, from 76.1 million in 1991 to 62.9 million in 1996, expenditures for trips and equipment increased by 21 percent. 1955 to 1996 Findings The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has conducted these National Surveys at approximate 5-year intervals since 1955 (see Appendix B). A 41-year trend can be traced for the number of anglers and hunters that partici-pated in a given year. The number of wildlife-watching participants can be traced over 16 years because wildlife watch-ing has been part of the Survey only since 1980. Trends show that the number of anglers increased at over twice the rate of the U.S. population growth from 1955 to 1966. The U.S. population increased by 62 percent while the fishing popula-tion increased by 138 percent during that period. The number of hunters also increased over the 41-year period, but not at a rate equal to the overall population growth. The number of hunters in-creased 41 percent from 1955 to 1996. The number of wildlife-watching participants who took trips away from home for the primary purpose of observing, feeding, Wildlife-Watching Participants: 1980-1996 (Indices are used to simplify comparisons between the wildlife-related recreation activities) Index (1980=100) Hunters and Anglers: 1955-1996 (Indices are used to simplify comparisons between the wildlife-related recreation activities) Index (1955=100) 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990/ 1991 1996 1980 1985 1990/1991 1996 0 U.S. Population Residential wildlife feeding Total nonresidential U.S. Population Anglers Hunters 0 50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250 or photographing wildlife de-creased 12 percent from 1980 to 1996. The number of people who fed wildlife around their home decreased by 21 percent. This trend information is based on published findings from the 1955 to the 1996 Survey reports and unpublished screening data from the 1985 to 1991 Surveys. As explained in Appen-dix B, the estimates from the published reports of the 1985 and 1991 Surveys are not directly comparable due to methodological changes. 7 Fishing 8 Total Fishing (In millions) Total anglers Freshwater Saltwater Days Trips 35.2 29.7 9.4 103 87 515 420 626 507 Anglers Scale enlarged to show detail. Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses. Fishing Highlights In 1996, 35.2 million U.S. residents 16 years old and older enjoyed a variety of fishing opportunities throughout the United States. Anglers fished 626 million days and took 507 million fishing trips. They spent almost $38 billion on fishing-related expenses during the year. Among the 29.7 million freshwater angers, including those who fished in the Great Lakes, 515 million days were spent and 420 million trips were taken freshwater fishing. Freshwater anglers spent $24.5 billion on freshwater fishing trips and equipment. Saltwater fishing attracted 9.4 million anglers who enjoyed 87 million trips on 103 million days. They spent $8.1 billion on their trips and equipment. Total Fishing Anglers 35.2 million Freshwater 29.7 million Saltwater 9.4 million Days 626 million Freshwater 515 million Saltwater 103 million Trips 507 million Freshwater 420 million Saltwater 87 million Expenditures $37.8 billion Freshwater 24.5 billion Saltwater 8.1 billion Unspecified 5.2 billion Source: Tables 1, 12, 13, and 16 Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses and nonresponse. 9 Expenditures (Total expenditures $37.8 billion) Percent of Total Fishing Expenditures (Total expenditures $37.8 billion) Unspecified $5.2 billion Saltwater $8.1 billion Freshwater $24.5 billion Other 9% Equipment 51% Trip-related 41% Fishing Expenditures Anglers spent $37.8 billion in 1996 including $15.4 billion spent on travel-related costs, 41 percent of all fishing expendi-tures. Six billion dollars, 39 percent of all trip-related costs, was spent on food and lodging, and $3.7 billion, 24 percent of trip-related expenditures, was spent on transportation. Other trip expenditures such as land use fees, guide fees, equipment rental, boating expenses, and bait cost anglers $5.7 billion, 37 percent of all trip expenses. Fishing equipment expenditures totaled $19.2 billion in 1996, 51 percent of all fishing expendi-tures. Anglers spent $5.3 billion on fishing equipment such as rods, reels, tackle boxes, depth finders, and artificial lures and flies. This amounted to 28 percent of all equipment expen-ditures. Auxiliary equipment, such as camping equipment, binoculars, and special fishing clothing, amounted to $1.0 billion, 5 percent of equipment costs. Special equipment such as boats, vans, and trail bikes cost anglers $12.8 billion, 67 percent of all equipment costs. Anglers also spent a consider-able amount on land leasing and ownership, $2.3 billion or 6 percent of all expenditures. They spent $902 million on maga-zines, books, membership dues and contributions, licenses, stamps, tags, and permits. Total Fishing Expenditures Total fishing expenditures $37.8 billion Total trip-related $15.4 billion Food and lodging 6.0 billion Transportation 3.7 billion Other trip costs 5.7 billion Total equipment expenditures $19.2 billion Fishing equipment 5.3 billion Auxiliary equipment 1.0 billion Special equipment 12.8 billion Total other fishing expenditures 3.2 million Magazines, books 0.2 billion Membership dues and contribution 0.2 billion Land leasing and ownership 2.3 billion Licenses, stamps, tags, and permits 0.6 billion Source: Table 12 10 Freshwater Trip and Equipment Expenditures Great Lakes $1.4 billion Freshwater, except Great Lakes $22.4 billion Freshwater Fishing (In millions) Freshwater Anglers Freshwater Days Freshwater Trips 29.7 29.0 20 17 485 403 515 420 Total Freshwater, except Great Lakes Great Lakes Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses. 2.0 Freshwater Fishing Highlights Freshwater fishing was the most popular type of fishing. In 1996, 29.7 million Americans fished 515 million days and took 420 million trips. Their expenditures for trips and equipment totaled $24.2 billion for the year. Ex-cluding those who fished the Great Lakes, freshwater anglers numbered 29.0 million, 82 percent of all anglers. Freshwa-ter anglers who did not fish the Great Lakes took 403 million trips on 485 million days and spent $22.4 billion on trips and equipment for an average of $776 per angler. The 2.0 million anglers who fished the Great Lakes enjoyed 20 million days and 17 million trips fishing. Their trip and equipment expenditures, $1.4 billion, were 7 percent of the total freshwater trip and equipment expenditures. Great Lakes anglers averaged $689 for the year. Freshwater Fishing Expenditures Trip and equipment expendi-tures for freshwater fishing (excluding the Great Lakes) totaled $22.4 billion in 1996. Total trip-related expenditures came to $10.0 billion. Food and lodging amounted to $4.1 billion, 41 percent of all trip-related costs. Transportation costs were $2.8 billion, 28 percent of all freshwater trip costs. Other trip-related ex-penses for anglers fishing freshwater other than the Great Lakes included guide fees, equipment rental, and bait at a cost of $3.2 billion. Over $12.4 billion was spent on equipment for freshwater fishing, excluding the Great Lakes. Non-Great Lakes fresh-water anglers purchased $3.5 billion of fishing equipment such as rods and reels, tackle boxes, depth finders, and artificial lures and flies. Expenditures for auxiliary equipment including Freshwater Fishing Anglers 29.7 million Freshwater, except Great Lakes 29.0 million Great Lakes 2.0 million Days 515 million Freshwater, except Great Lakes 485 million Great Lakes 20 million Trips 420 million Freshwater, except Great Lakes 403 million Great Lakes 17 million Trip and equipment expenditures $24.2 billion Freshwater, except Great Lakes 22.4 billion Great Lakes 1.4 billion Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses and nonresponse. Source: Tables 1, 13, 14, and 15 11 camping equipment and binocu-lars totaled $692 million for the year. Expenditures for special equipment such as boats, vans, and trail bikes accounted for $8.2 billion. Great Lakes anglers spent $1.4 billion on trips and equipment in 1996. Trip-related expenses totaled $719 million. Of these expenditures, almost $295 million was spent on food and lodging, 41 percent of trip costs; $141 million was spent on transportation, 20 percent of trip costs; and $283 million was spent on other items such as guide fees, equipment rental, and bait, 39 percent of trip costs. Great Lakes anglers spent $686 million on equipment. They bought $180 million worth of fishing equipment (rods, reels, etc.). They spent $35 million on auxiliary equipment (camping equipment, binoculars, etc.) and $471 million on the purchase of special equipment (boats, vans, etc.). Saltwater Fishing Highlights In 1996, 9.4 million anglers enjoyed saltwater fishing on 87 million trips totaling 103 million days. Overall, they spent $8.1 billion during the year on trips and equipment. Of their expen-ditures, trip-related costs gar-nered the largest portion, $4.6 billion. Food and lodging cost $1.6 billion, 34 percent of trip expenditures; transportation costs totaled $824 million, or 18 percent of trip costs; and other trip costs such as equipment rental, bait, and guide fees were $2.2 billion. Saltwater anglers spent $3.4 billion on equipment. They spent $1.1 billion on fishing equipment (rods, reels, etc.), $138 million on auxiliary equipment (camping equipment, binoculars, etc.), and $2.2 billion on special equipment (boats, vans, etc.) Saltwater Fishing Anglers 9.4 million Days 103 million Trips 87 million Trips and equipment $8.1 billion expenditures Source: Tables 1 and 16 49% Trip and Equipment Expenditures Trip-related Equipment Great Lakes Saltwater Freshwater, except Great Lakes 51% 42% 55% 58% 45% $1.4 billion $8.1 billion $22.4 billion 12 Comparative Fishing by Type of Fishing Days per angler Trips per angler Trip expenditures per angler Trip expenditures per day 18 17 10 11 14 $436 $346 $353 $25 $21 $36 $45 14 8 9 $492 All fishing Freshwater, except Great Lakes Great Lakes Saltwater Comparative Fishing Highlights In 1996, anglers spent an aver-age of 18 days fishing and took an average of 14 fishing trips. Freshwater, non-Great Lakes anglers averaged 17 days fishing and 14 trips. While Great Lakes anglers averaged 10 days fishing and 8 trips, saltwater anglers fished an average of 11 days and took an average of 9 trips. Overall, anglers spent an aver-age of $1,072 on fishing-related expenses in 1996. They aver-aged $436 per angler on trip-related expenses, a daily aver-age of $25. Freshwater anglers, excluding the Great Lakes, averaged $346 per participant in 1996 for trip-related expenses, $21 per day. Great Lakes anglers spent an average of $353 on trip-related expenses, $36 per day. Salt-water anglers averaged $492 on their trip expenditures and spent an average of $45 per day. Fishing for Selected Fish Of the 29.0 million anglers who fished freshwater sources other than the Great Lakes, 12.7 million spent 191 million days fishing for black bass. Panfish were sought by 8.0 million anglers on 103 million days. Catfish and bullheads drew 7.4 million anglers on 91 million days. About 6.4 million anglers fished for crappie on 91 million days. Trout fishing attracted 9.0 million anglers on 94 million days in 1996, and 4.8 million anglers fished for white bass and striped bass on 62 million days. Freshwater anglers also com-monly fished for walleye, sauger, salmon, and steelhead. In 1996, 2.0 million anglers fished the Great Lakes. Walleye and sauger attracted 724 thou-sand anglers on nearly 6 million days. Perch were fished for on more than 5 million days by 624 Selected Fish by Type of Fishing (In millions) Type of Fishing Anglers Days Freshwater, except Great Lakes Black bass 12.7 191 Trout 9.0 94 Panfish 8.0 103 Catfish/bullhead 7.4 91 Crappie 6.4 91 White bass, striped bass, 4.8 62 and striped bass hybrids Great Lakes Walleye/sauger 0.7 6 Perch 0.6 5 Salmon 0.6 4 Black bass 0.5 5 Lake trout 0.3 2 Steelhead 0.3 3 Saltwater Flatfish (flounder, halibut) 2.6 29 Bluefish 1.5 13 Striped bass 1.4 15 Seatrout 1.2 14 Mackerel 0.7 5 Salmon 0.6 4 13 thousand Great Lakes anglers. Salmon drew 587 thousand anglers for almost 4 million days of fishing. Black bass and lake trout attracted 492 and 349 thousand anglers respectively. Among the 9.4 million saltwater anglers, 2.6 million fished for flatfish, including flounder and halibut, on 29 million days. Bluefish were a favorite of 1.5 million anglers on 13 million days. Seatrout was sought by 1.2 million anglers on 14 million days, and 683 thousand anglers fished for mackerel on 5 million days. Striped bass were sought by 1.4 million anglers on 15 million days. Four million days were spent fishing for salmon by 637 thousand anglers Participation by Geographic Division In 1996, 201 million people 16 years old and older lived in the United States. More than 1 out of every 6 U.S. residents went fishing. While the national participation rate was 17 per-cent, the regional rates ranged from 12 percent in the Middle Atlantic Division to 25 percent in the West North Central Division. The West North Central, East North Central, East South Central, West South Central, South Atlantic, and Mountain Divisions all reported participa-tion rates above the national rate. The West South Central Division had a participation rate of 21 percent. The East South Central and Mountain Divisions had participation rates of 20 percent. The East North Central and South Atlantic Divisions both recorded participation rates of 18 percent. The New England Division recorded a participation rate of 15 percent. The Pacific Division had a participation rate of 14 percent. Fishing Participation (National participation rate: 17%) West South Central 21% East South Central 20% South Atlantic 18% New England 15% Middle Atlantic 12% East North Central 18% West North Central 25% Mountain 20% Pacific 14% 14 Fishing in State of Residence and in Other States A majority of the 35.2 million anglers who fished in 1996 did so within their home state. Approximately 32.2 million participants, 91 percent of all anglers, fished in their state of residence. More than 9.0 mil-lion, 26 percent, fished out-of-state. Percentages do not add to 100 because those sportsmen who fished both in-state and out-of-state were included in both categories. Most of the 29.0 million freshwa-ter anglers (excluding the Great Lakes) fished within their resi-dent state, 26.6 million or 92 percent. Six million, 21 percent, of these freshwater anglers, fished out-of-state. Eighty-two percent of Great Lakes anglers enjoyed fishing within their home state. Nearly 1.7 million anglers fished the Great Lakes within their state of residence. Comparatively, 479 thousand or 23 percent of Great Lakes anglers fished out-of-state. Thirty-one percent of saltwater anglers fished out-of-state. Almost 7.2 million saltwater anglers, 76 percent, also re-ported fishing within the borders of their home state. Those saltwater anglers fishing out-of-state numbered 2.9 million. Fishing in State of Residence and in Other States (In millions) In-State Out-of-State Total Anglers 32.2 9.0 Freshwater, except Great Lakes 26.6 6.0 Great Lakes 1.7 0.5 Saltwater 7.2 2.9 Source: Table 2 Percent of All Fishing, in State of Residence and Other States (Total: 35.2 million participants) Other states only 9% In state of residence only 74% In state of residence and in other states 17% 15 Days Total freshwater Lakes and reservoirs Rivers and streams 24.8 Anglers Types of Freshwater Fished, Excluding Great Lakes (In millions) 13.4 28.9 485 361 145 Total freshwater (excluding Great Lakes) Lakes and reservoirs Rivers and streams Types of Freshwater Fished, Excluding Great Lakes Freshwater anglers fished in a variety of waters. Most non- Great Lakes freshwater anglers, 24.8 million (86 percent), fished in flatwater including ponds, lakes, or reservoirs on 361 million days. Rivers and streams were utilized by 13.4 million freshwater anglers (46 percent) on 145 million days. Great Lakes Anglers Great Lakes fishing includes not only the Great Lakes, but also their tributaries, bodies of water that connect the Great Lakes, and the St. Lawrence River south of the bridge at Cornwall. The most popular of the lakes among anglers was Lake Erie. Thirty-seven percent of all the Great Lakes anglers fished Lake Erie on an average of 9 days during 1996. Lake Michigan was a close second in popularity. Thirty-five percent enjoyed fishing in Lake Michigan waters with an average of 6 days per angler recorded. Lake Huron was fished by 14 percent of all Great Lakes anglers. Anglers fished Lake Huron an average of 7 days in 1996. The tributaries to the lakes attracted 10 percent of all Great Lakes anglers. They averaged 12 days of fishing on these waters in 1996. While Lake St. Clair was fished by only 4 percent of all Great Lakes anglers, these participants fished an average of 14 days per year, more than any other Great Lake or their con-necting waters. Great Lakes Fishing Percentage Anglers of all Great (thousands) Lakes anglers Total, all Great Lakes 2,039 100 Lake Erie 746 37 Lake Michigan 715 35 Lake Huron 279 14 Lake Ontario 260 13 Tributaries to the Great Lakes 205 10 Lake Superior 140 7 St. Lawrence River 95 5 Lake St. Clair 91 4 Source: Table 26 16 20% 9% 27% Percent of U.S. Population Who Fished, by Age Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Fished, by Sex Men 16 and 17 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 16% 21% 22% 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 and older 20% 15% 9% Percent of Anglers 16 Years Old and Older, by Sex Men 73% Women 27% Women Percent of Anglers, by Age 16 and 17 4% 45 to 54 20% 18 to 24 9% 25 to 34 20% 35 to 44 27% 55 to 64 10% 65 and older 9% Sex and Age of Anglers While fishing was enjoyed by more men than women in 1996, a substantial number of women fished as well. In 1996, 27 percent of American males fished, while 9 percent of Ameri-can females fished. Of the 35.2 million anglers who fished in the U.S., 73 percent (25.7 million) were male and 27 percent (9.5 million) were female. Almost 10 million anglers, 27 percent of all anglers, were 35 to 44 years old, which is 22 percent of the U.S. population in that age group. They were followed by 7.2 million anglers 25 to 34 years old who comprised 20 percent of all anglers and had a participation rate of 21 percent. Next came the 45- to 54-year-old age group, 7.0 million partici-pants who accounted for 20 percent of all anglers. That age group had a participation rate of 20 percent. The 3.5 million 55- to 64-year-olds who fished, comprised 10 percent of all anglers and had a participation rate of 15 percent. Anglers 18 to 24 years old numbered 3.3 million, 9 percent of total an-glers, and recorded a 16 percent participation rate. The 3.1 million anglers 65 years old and older made up 9 percent of the angler population, and had a participation rate of 9 percent. The 16- and 17-year-olds added 1.4 million individuals to the angler population. They made up only 4 percent for the total angler population, but had a 20 percent participation rate. Size of Residence of Anglers In 1996, 70 percent of U.S. residents who fished lived inside a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) with most anglers coming from large MSA’s. People living in MSA’s with populations of 1,000,000 or more had a partici-pation rate of 14 percent. Thirty-eight percent of all anglers came from these large urban areas. Within MSA’s with populations of 250,000 to 999,999, 18 percent of the total population enjoyed fishing, representing 20 percent of the angler population. In Anglers, by Sex and Age Total, both sexes 35.2 million Male 25.7 million Female 9.5 million Total, all ages 35.2 million 16 and 17 1.4 18 to 24 3.3 25 to 34 7.2 35 to 44 9.7 45 to 54 7.0 55 to 64 3.5 65 and older 3.1 Source: Table 9 17 addition, MSA’s with populations of 50,000 to 249,999 had a participation rate of 21 percent; they made up 11 percent of all anglers. In areas outside of MSA’s, 25 percent of the popula-tion fished in 1996. These participants made up 30 percent of all anglers. Income of Anglers Anglers at all income levels enjoyed fishing in 1996. Partici-pation rates ranged from 9 percent for all individuals with household incomes of $10,000 or less to 23 percent for those who reported annual household incomes of $40,000 to $49,999 and $50,000 to $74,999. Those living in households with incomes of $10,000 or less comprised 4 percent of all anglers; those with $50,000 to $74,999 incomes made up 21 percent of all anglers; and those with household incomes of $40,000 to $49,999 comprised 12 percent of all anglers. Twenty-one percent of the individuals with household earnings of $75,000 to $99,999 represented 9 percent of all anglers. Persons with house-hold earnings of $25,000 to $29,999 had a participation rate of 21 percent and comprised 8 percent of the angler population. Another 8 percent of the angler population had household earnings of $100,000 or more, and a 20 percent participation rate. Anglers with household incomes of $10,000 to $19,999 had a participation rate of 13 percent and made up 7 percent of all anglers. Nineteen percent of persons in households with incomes of $30,000 to $34,999 represented 7 percent of all anglers, as did persons in households with incomes of $35,000 to $39,999. However, persons with household incomes of $35,000 to $39,999 had a participation rate of 22 percent, while those within the $30,000 to $34,999 income group had a participation rate of 19 percent. Finally 16 percent of all persons in households earning $20,000 to $24,999 fished and made up 6 percent of the total angler population in 1996. Twelve percent of anglers did not report their income. Percent of Anglers 16 Years Old and Older, by Residence (Angler population: 35.2 million) Outside MSA 30% Large MSA 38% Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Fished, by Residence (17% of total U.S. population fished) Large MSA (1,000,000 or more) Medium MSA (250,000 to 999,999) Small MSA (50,000 to 249,999) Outside MSA 14% 18% 21% 25% Medium MSA 20% Small MSA 11% Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Fished, by Income Less than $10,000 $10,000 to 19,999 $20,000 to 24,999 $25,000 to 29,999 9% 13% 16% 21% 19% 22% 23% $40,000 to 49,999 $50,000 to 74,999 $75,000 to 99,999 $30,000 to 34,999 $35,000 to 39,999 23% 21% 20% $100,000 or more 18 10% 19% 11% Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Fished, by Education Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Fished, by Race White 8 years or less 9 to 11 years 12 years 1 to 3 years of college 9% 17% 18% 19% 4 years of college 5 years or more of college 18% 19% Percent of Anglers 16 Years Old and Older, by Race Other 5% Black 5% Black Percent of Anglers 16 Years Old and Older, by Education 5 years or more of college 13% 12 years 36% 4 years of college 14% 1 to 3 years of college 24% 9 to 11 years 10% 8 years or less 3% White 90% Other Education and Race of Anglers People from a variety of educa-tional backgrounds fished in 1996. The lowest participation rate, 9 percent, was found among those with 8 years of education or less. They made up 3 percent of all anglers. The highest participation rate, 19 percent, was found among those individuals with 1 to 3 years of college, and those who had 5 years or more of college. Those persons with 1 to 3 years of college made up 24 percent of all anglers, while those with 5 years or more made up 13 percent of all anglers. Those persons who had 4 years of college had a participation rate of 18 percent, which repre-sented 14 percent of all anglers, while individuals with 12 years of education made up 36 per-cent of all anglers. They, too, had a participation rate of 18 percent. Finally, those with 9 to 11 years of education had a participation rate of 17 percent, which represented 10 percent of all anglers. Participation rates among people of different races varied. Nineteen percent of the White population fished, compared with 10 percent of the Black population and 11 percent of other races. Among anglers, 90 percent of the total were White, 5 percent were Black, and 5 percent were other races. Angler, by Education and Race (In millions) Total anglers 35.2 Education 0-8 1.1 9-11 3.6 12 years 12.6 1-3 years college 8.6 4 years 5.0 5 years or more college 4.5 Race White 31.8 Black 1.8 Other 1.7 Source: Table 9 19 1991-1996 Comparison of Fishing Activity The number of people fishing in the United States is roughly the same for the last two National Survey years, but their number of fishing days and expenditures for fishing have increased sub-stantially. The number of fishing days increased 22 percent and the fishing expenditures in-creased 37 percent. The number of anglers in fresh-water and saltwater did not change (at the 95 percent confidence level), although the number of Great Lakes anglers decreased 20 percent. The amount of activity of the anglers increased, with freshwater days up 17 percent and saltwater days up more than twice the freshwater rate, 38 percent. Fishing expenditures increased for both the trip-related and equipment categories. Trip-related expenditures went up 13 percent and the equip-ment expenditures increased 78 percent. The purchase of special equipment such as boats and campers more than doubled, increasing 123 percent. Expenditures for fishing equip-ment, such as rods and reels, increased 23 percent. Number of Anglers* (Millions) 35.6 35.2 511 626 $27.6 $37.8 1991 1996 1991 1996 1991 1996 Days of Fishing (Millions) Fishing Expenditures (Billions) *The difference is not significant at the 0.05 level. Participants, days and expenditures 1991 1996 Percent (Numbers in millions) Number Percent Number Percent change Anglers, Total .......................................................... 35.6 100 35.2 100 -1* All freshwater ........................................................ 31.0 87 29.7 84 -4* Freshwater, except Great Lakes ....................... 30.2 85 28.9 82 -4* Great Lakes....................................................... 2.6 7 2.0 6 -20 Saltwater ............................................................... 8.9 25 9.4 27 6* Days, Total ............................................................... 511 100 626 100 22 All freshwater ........................................................ 440 86 515 82 17 Freshwater, except Great Lakes ....................... 431 84 485 78 13 Great Lakes....................................................... 25 5 20 3 -21* Saltwater ............................................................... 75 15 103 17 38 Fishing Expenditures, Total** ................................ $27,589 100 $37,673 100 37 Trip-related ............................................................ 13,625 49 15,257 40 12 Equipment ............................................................ 10,770 39 19,174 51 78 Fishing equipment............................................. 4,301 16 5,309 14 23 Auxiliary equipment ........................................... 712 3 1,037 3 46 Special equipment ............................................ 5,756 21 12,828 34 123 Other ..................................................................... 3,194 12 3,235 9 1* * Not different from zero at the 95 percent confidence level. This means that for 95 percent of all possible samples, the estimate for one survey year is not different from the estimate for the other survey year. ** 1991 expenditure estimates have been adjusted for inflation to be comparable to 1996 expenditure totals. Excludes expenditures for heating and cooking fuel because 1991 Survey did not collect this information. 21 Hunting 22 Hunting Highlights In 1996, 14 million people, 16 years old and older, enjoyed hunting a variety of game ani-mals within the United States. They hunted 257 million days and took 223 million trips. Their expenditures totaled $20.6 billion. In 1996, 11.3 million hunters pursued big game such as deer and elk on 154 million days. They spent $9.7 billion on trips and equipment during the year. A total of 6.9 million people hunted small game including squirrels and rabbits. They hunted small game on 75 million days and spent $2.5 billion on their hunting trips and equip-ment. Migratory bird hunters numbered 3.1 million. They spent 27 million days hunting birds such as waterfowl and dove. Their trip and equipment expenditures totaled $1.3 billion. Other animals, such as raccoons and groundhogs, were sought by 1.5 million hunters on 25 million days. These hunters spent $433 million on trips and equipment for the year. Total Hunting (In millions) Total Hunters Big game Small game Migratory bird Other animals Days Trips 14.0 11.3 6.9 25 23 154 114 257 223 Hunters Scale enlarged to show detail. Detail of days does not add to total because of multiple responses. 3.1 1.5 75 27 64 23 23 Hunting Expenditures Of the $ 20.6 billion spent by hunters in 1996, 25 percent, $5.2 billion, was spent on trip-related expenses. Food and lodging totaled $2.5 billion, 49 percent of all trip-related ex-penses. Transportation cost hunters $1.8 billion, 35 percent of their trip-related expenditures. Other trip-related expenses such as guide fees, land use fees, and equipment rental were $864 million or 17 percent of all trip-related expenses. Total hunting equipment expen-ditures were $11.3 billion in 1996, 55 percent of all hunting expenses. Hunting equipment, such as guns and rifles, tele-scopic sights, and ammunition, cost hunters $5.5 billion, 49 percent of all equipment costs. Expenditures for auxiliary equip-ment, including camping equip-ment, binoculars, and special hunting clothing, accounted for $1.2 billion or 11 percent of all equipment expenses. Special equipment, such as campers or trail bikes, amounted to $4.5 billion or 40 percent of all equipment expenditures. Hunters spent $355 million on magazines, books, membership dues and contributions, 2 per-cent of total expenses. Land leasing and ownership expendi-tures totaled $3.2 billion, 15 percent of the total. Total Hunting Hunters 14.0 million Big game 11.3 million Small game 6.9 million Migratory bird 3.1 million Other animals 1.5 million Days 257 million Big game 154 million Small game 75 million Migratory bird 27 million Other animals 25 million Trips 223 million Big game 114 million Small game 64 million Migratory bird 23 million Other animals 23 million Expenditures $20.6 billion Big game 9.7 billion Small game 2.5 billion Migratory bird 1.3 billion Other animals 0.4 billion Unspecified 6.7 billion Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses and nonresponse. Source: Tables 1 and 17-21 Total Hunting Expenditures Total hunting expenditures $20.6 billion Total trip-related $ 5.2 billion Food and lodging 2.5 billion Transportation 1.8 billion Other trip costs 0.9 billion Total equipment expenditures $11.3 billion Hunting equipment 5.5 billion Auxiliary equipment 1.2 billion Special equipment 4.5 billion Total other hunting expenditures $4.1 billion Magazines, books 0.1 billion Membership dues and contributions 0.2 billion Land leasing and ownership 3.2 billion Licenses, stamps, tags, and permits 0.7 billion Source: Table 17 Expenditures (Total expenditures $20.6 billion) Percent of Total Hunting Expenditures (Total expenditures $20.6 billion) Other animals $0.4 billion Migratory bird $1.3 billion Small game $2.5 billion Other 20% Equipment 55% Trip-related 25% Unspecified $6.7 billion Big game $9.7 billion 24 Big Game Hunting Trip and Equipment Exenditures (Total expenditures $9.7 billion) Equipment $6.5 billion Trip-related $3.2 billion Small Game Hunting Trip and Equipment Exenditures (Total expenditures $2.5 billion) Equipment $1.3 billion Trip-related $1.2 billion Big Game Hunting In 1996, 11.3 million hunters devoted 154 million days to hunting big game including deer, elk, bear, and wild turkey. They took 114 million trips. Each hunter spent an average of 14 days hunting big game in 1996. Trip and equipment expenditures for big game hunters amounted to $9.7 billion. Trip-related expenses totaled $3.2 billion. Of that amount, food and lodging totaled $1.6 billion or 49 percent of the trip-related costs. Trans-portation costs were $1.0 billion for big game hunters, 32 percent of trip-associated costs. Other trip-related expenses amounted to $585 million, or 18 percent of trip costs. Big game hunters spent $6.5 billion on equipment. Hunting equipment (guns, ammunition, etc.) accounted for $2.6 billion. Purchases of auxiliary equip-ment (camping equipment, binoculars, etc.) totaled $847 million. And special equipment (vans, trail bikes, etc.) cost big game hunters $3.1 billion. Small Game Hunting On a total of 75 million days in 1996, 6.9 million hunters pursued small game such as rabbits, squirrel, pheasants, quail, and grouse. They took 64 million trips. Small game sportsmen averaged 11 days in the field hunting. Small game hunters spent $2.5 billion on trips and equipment in 1996. Of the $1.2 billion spent on trip-related costs, $595 million, or 50 percent of all small game trip-related costs, were spent on food and lodging. Transportation costs accounted for $450 million or 38 percent of small game trip expenses. Other trip-related expenditures contrib-uted $147 million or 12 percent to the total spent on small game hunting trips. Small game equipment expendi-tures totaled $1.3 billion. Spe-cifically, purchases of hunting equipment (guns, ammunition, etc.) accounted for $965 million spent by small game hunters during the year. Auxiliary equip-ment (camping equipment, binoculars, etc.) cost $62 million, and special equipment (vans, trail bikes, etc.) cost small game hunters $262 million for the year. Big Game Hunters 11.3 million Days 154 million Trips 114 million Trip and equipment expenditures $9.7 billion Source: Tables 1 and 18 Small Game Hunters 6.9 million Days 75 million Trips 64 million Trip and equipment expenditures $2.5 billion Source: Tables 1 and 19 25 Migratory Bird Hunting In 1996, 3.1 million migratory bird hunters devoted 27 million days on 23 million trips for hunting birds such as doves, ducks, and geese. Migratory bird hunters spent an average of 9 days hunting for the year. The $1.3 billion spent by migra-tory bird hunters in 1996 was spent on hunting trips and equipment. Of the items contrib-uting to this sum, $576 million was spent on trip-related ex-penses. A further breakdown reveals food and lodging cost migratory bird hunters $263 million, or 46 percent of trip-related expenses; transportation accounted for $196 million, or 34 percent of all trip costs. Other trip expenses amounted to $116 million making up 20 percent of the total trip-related expendi-tures for migratory bird hunters. Migratory bird hunters pur-chased $720 million worth of equipment in 1996. They spent $503 million on hunting equip-ment (guns, ammunition, etc.). Another $82 million was spent by migratory bird hunters on auxiliary equipment (camping equipment, binoculars, etc.), and $135 million was spent on special equipment (vans, trail bikes, etc.). Hunting Other Animals During 1996, 1.5 million hunters reported spending 25 million days on 23 million trips pursuing other animals such as ground-hogs, raccoons, foxes, and coyotes. They averaged 16 days of hunting in 1996. Overall, they spent $433 million in 1996 on trips and equipment. Trip-related costs totaled $211 million. Of that, food and lodging cost $86 million or 41 percent of trip-related costs; transportation was $110 million, 52 percent percent of trip-related expenses; and other trip expenses were $14 million, 7 percent of trip-related costs. Equipment expenditures for hunting other animals totaled $222 million in 1996. Hunters pursuing other animals spent $117 million on hunting equip-ment (guns, ammunition, etc.), and $10 million on auxiliary equipment (camping equipment, binoculars, etc.). Migratory Bird Hunters 3.1 million Days 27 million Trips 23 million Trip and equipment expenditures $1.3 billion Source: Tables 1 and 20 Other Animals Hunters 1.5 million Days 25 million Trips 23 million Trip and equipment expenditures $433 million Source: Tables 1 and 21 Migratory Bird Hunting Trip and Equipment Expenditures (Total expenditures $1.3 million) Equipment $720 million Trip-related $576 million Trip and Equipment Expenditures for Hunting Other Animals (Total expenditures $433 million) Equipment $222 million Trip-related $211 million 26 Comparative Hunting Highlights In 1996, big game hunters averaged 14 days of hunting and 10 trips per hunter. Small game hunters spent an average of 11 days hunting in the field on an average of 9 trips. In compari-son, migratory bird hunters spent an average of 9 days and 7 trips hunting. Those partici-pants hunting other animals averaged 16 days and 15 trips pursuing their game. On average, big game hunters spent more money on trips and equipment than other hunters in 1996. They averaged $860 per hunter for the year. Small game hunters spent an average of $357 per hunter during 1996. Migratory bird hunters averaged $422, and those hunting other animals spent $284 per hunter for the year. In 1996, trip expenditures for all hunting averaged $369 per hunter for the year, a daily average of $20. The average for trip expenditures per hunter varied by type of hunting. Ex-penditures for big game hunting trips averaged $281 per hunter for lodging, food, transportation and other trip-related expenses for the year ($21 per day). Small game hunters spent $172 on average for their annual hunting trip expenses ($16 per day). Persons taking trips for migratory bird hunting spent an average of $187 ($22 per day) while trip expenditures for hunting other animals averaged $139 per hunter for the year ($9 per day). Hunting for Selected Game For big game hunters, deer was the most popular draw among 10.7 million hunters on 131 million days. The 959 thousand hunters who hunted elk went out on 7 million days. While bear attracted 405 thousand hunters on 3 million days, wild turkey drew 2.2 million hunters on 19 million days. In addition, 513 thousand hunters spent 5.5 million days hunting other big game animals. In 1996, approximately 3.1 million small game hunters hunted rabbits and hares on 29 Comparative Hunting, by Type of Hunting Days per hunter Trips per hunter Trip expenditures per hunter Trip expenditures per day 18 14 11 9 16 $369 $281 $172 $139 $20 $21 $16 16 10 9 $187 Total Big game Small game Migratory bird Other animals 7 15 $22 $9 Hunting for Selected Game (In millions) Type of hunting Hunters Days Big game 11.3 154 Deer 10.7 131 Wild turkey 2.2 19 Elk 1.0 7 Bear 0.4 3 Small game 6.9 75 Squirrels 3.2 25 Rabbits and hares 3.1 29 Pheasant 2.3 17 Quail 1.5 11 Grouse/prairie chicken 1.2 10 Migratory bird 3.1 27 Doves 1.6 8 Ducks 1.6 14 Geese 0.9 8 Other animals 1.5 25 Source: Table 7 27 Hunting Participation (National participation rate: 7%) West South Central 8% East South Central 10% South Atlantic 6% New England 5% Middle Atlantic 5% East North Central 8% West North Central 14% Mountain 9% Pacific 4% million days. Quail was flushed by 1.5 million hunters on 11 million days, while grouse and prairie chicken were favorites of 1.2 million hunters on 10 million days. Squirrels were hunted by 3.2 million participants on 25 million days. Pheasants at-tracted 2.3 million hunters on 17 million days. In addition, 447 thousand hunters spent 4.3 million days hunting other small game animals. Among those hunting migratory birds, 8 million days were spent by 1.6 million participants dove hunting. Ducks were hunted by 1.6 million enthusiasts on 14 million days. On 8 million days, 915 thousand hunters hunted geese in 1996. An additional 291 thousand sportsmen hunted other migratory bird species on 2 million days. Participation by Geographic Division In 1996, 201 million people 16 years old and older lived in the United States. The national hunting participation rate was 7 percent. Regionally, participation rates ranged from 4 percent in the Pacific Census Division to 14 percent in the West North Cen-tral Division. The East North Central, East South Central, West South Central, and Moun-tain Divisions all had participa-tion rates above the national rate of 7 percent. The East North Central and West South Central Divisions both had a participa-tion rate of 8 percent. The East South Central Division’s partici-pation rate was 10 percent and the Mountain Division recorded a rate of 9 percent. The Middle Atlantic and New England Divisions recorded participation rates of 5 percent, while the South Atlantic Division disclosed a participation rate of 6 percent. Hunting in State of Residence and in Other States An overwhelming majority of participants hunted within their state of residence, 13.3 million or 95 percent of all hunters. Only 2.0 million, 14 percent, hunted in another state. Percentages do not add to 100 because those sportsmen who hunted both in-state and out-of-state were included in both categories. 28 In 1996, 10.8 million big game hunters, 95 percent of all big game hunters, hunted within their state of residence, while only 12 percent, 1.4 million people, traveled to another state to hunt big game. Likewise, 95 percent of all small game hunt-ers, 6.6 million hunters, pursued game in their resident state. Eleven percent, 737 thousand, ventured across state lines to hunt small game. Ninety-four percent of all migratory bird hunters, 2.9 million participants, hunted within their resident state. Eleven percent or 323 thousand of these sportsmen hunted out-of-state. Among sportsmen who hunted other animals, 95 percent, 1.5 million, hunted in-state and 9 percent, 140 thousand participants, hunted out-of-state. Hunting on Public and Private Lands In 1996, 14 million hunters 16 years old and older hunted on public land, private land, or both. Some hunters, 2.3 million, 17 percent, used publicly owned lands exclusively. Those hunters who hunted only on private land numbered 7.2 million, 51 per-cent. Slightly over 4 million hunters, 30 percent, hunted on both public and private lands. Over 6.5 million, 47 percent, hunted on publicly owned lands compared to 11.4 million, 81 percent, who hunted on privately owned land. In 1996, 6.5 million hunters used public lands on 77 million days, 30 percent of all hunting days. Forty-four percent of big game hunters spent 43 million days on public lands. Among the 6.9 million small game hunters, 38 percent used public land on 20 million days. Approximately 1.1 million migratory bird hunters, 36 percent of all migratory bird hunters, spent 7.8 million days on public lands. Of the partici-pants who hunted other animals in 1996, 394 thousand, 26 percent pursued their game on public lands on 6 million days. In contrast, 11.4 million hunters spent 198 million days, 77 percent of all hunting days, pursuing their sport on private lands in 1996. Seventy-seven percent of big game hunters, 82 percent of small game hunters, 77 percent of migratory bird hunters, and 86 percent of hunters pursuing other animals spent time hunting on private lands. People Hunting on Public and Private Lands Public only 17% Private only 51% Public and private 30% Unspecified 2% Percent of All Hunting, in State of Residence and Other States (Total: 14.0 million participants) In other states only 5% In state of residence only 86% In state of residence and in other states 9% Hunting in State of Residence and in Other States (In millions) In-state Out-of-state All hunters 13.3 2.0 Big game 10.8 1.4 Small game 6.6 0.7 Migratory bird 2.9 0.3 Other animals 1.5 0.1 Source: Table 6 29 9% 1% 13% Percent of U.S. Population Who Hunted, by Age Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Hunted, by Sex Men 16 and 17 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 7% 8% 9% 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 and older 8% 6% 3% Percent of Hunters 16 Years Old and Older, by Sex Men 91% Women 9% Women Percent of Hunters, by Age 16 and 17 5% 45 to 54 20% 18 to 24 10% 25 to 34 20% 35 to 44 27% 55 to 64 11% 65 and older 7% Days spent hunting on private land also varied by type of hunting. In 1996, big game hunters spent 69 percent (106 million days) of their total hunt-ing days on private lands; small game hunters spent 73 percent (55 million days) of their hunting days on private lands; and migratory bird hunters spent 67 percent (18 million days) of their hunting days on private lands. Persons hunting other animals spent 81 percent (20 million days) of their hunting days on private lands. Sex and Age of Hunters Of the U.S. population 16 years old and older, 13 percent of the males and 1 percent of the females enjoyed hunting in 1996. Of the 14 million partici-pants who hunted in 1996, 91 percent (12.8 million) were male and 9 percent (1.2 million) were female. Hunter participation was seen in all age groups around the country. The proportion of hunters by age group ranged from 5 percent among hunters 16 and 17 years old to 27 per-cent for those hunters 35 to 44 years old. Nine percent of the age group 16 and 17 years old hunted in 1996. They numbered 672 thousand hunters. The participation rate for 35- to 44- year olds also was 9 percent, but they numbered 3.8 million hunters. Eight percent of all persons 25 to 34 years old hunted. They numbered 2.8 million hunters, 20 percent of all hunters. Another 20 percent of hunters, 2.9 million people, were 45 to 54 years old. Their partici-pation rate was 8 percent. Hunters 55 to 64 years old numbered 1.5 million and repre-sented 6 percent of the general population 55 to 64 years old and 11 percent of all hunters. In the 18- to 24-year-old group, 1.4 million hunters made up 10 percent of all hunters. That age group had a participation rate of 7 percent. Finally, 967 thousand people 65 years old and older made up 7 percent of all hunters. This age group had a participa-tion rate of 3 percent for hunting in 1996. Hunters, by Sex and Age Total, both sexes 14.0 million Male 12.8 million Female 1.2 million Total, all ages 16 and 17 0.7 million 18 to 24 1.4 million 25 to 34 2.8 million 35 to 44 3.8 million 45 to 54 2.9 million 55 to 64 1.5 million 65 and older 1.0 million Source: Table 10 30 Size of Residence of Hunters While most hunters were from areas outside heavily populated Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA), a substantial number of people living in large MSA’s also enjoyed hunting. Twenty-four percent of all hunters were from MSA’s with populations of 1,000,000 or more. Three percent of the total residents of these large MSA’s hunted. For MSA’s with populations of 250,000 to 999,999, 7 percent of the population hunted; they comprised 19 percent of all hunters. Nine percent of all residents of MSA’s with popula-tions of 50,000 to 249,999 hunted in 1996. Thirteen percent of all hunters resided in these areas. Although 21 percent of the U.S. population 16 years of age and older resided in areas outside MSA’s in 1996, 44 percent of all hunters lived outside MSA’s. Fifteen percent of all people living outside MSA’s hunted in 1996 in contrast with 5 percent of all people living inside MSA’s who hunted. Income of Hunters Participation rates among hunters with different annual household incomes varied from 3 percent of persons living in households earning less than $10,000 a year (3 percent of all hunters came from these house-holds) to 10 percent of those persons living in households reporting incomes of $40,000 to $49,999 (13 percent of all hunters came from these house-holds). Five percent of the persons in households reporting incomes of $10,000 to $19,999 comprised 7 percent of all hunters. Six percent of the nation’s population with house-hold incomes of $20,000 to $24,999 a year enjoyed hunting. They made up 6 percent of all hunters. Eight percent of all people in households earning $25,999 to $29,999 hunted. They constituted 7 percent of all hunters. In households reporting incomes of $30,000 to $34,999, 9 percent was the participation Percent of Hunters 16 Years Old and Older, by Residence (Hunter population: 14.0 million) Outside MSA 44% Large MSA 24% Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Hunted, by Residence (7% of total U.S. population hunted) Large MSA (1,000,000 or more) Medium MSA (250,000 to 999,999) Small MSA (50,000 to 249,999) Outside MSA 3% 7% 9% 25% Medium MSA 19% Small MSA 13% Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Hunted, by Income Less than $10,000 $10,000 to 19,999 $20,000 to 24,999 $25,000 to 29,999 3% 5% 6% 8% 9% 9% 10% $40,000 to 49,999 $50,000 to 74,999 $75,000 to 99,999 $30,000 to 34,999 $35,000 to 39,999 9% 8% 6% $100,000 or more 15% 31 2% 8% 3% Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Hunted, by Education Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Hunted, by Race White 8 years or less 9 to 11 years 12 years 1 to 3 years of college 4% 8% 8% 7% 4 years of college 5 years or more of college 6% 6% Percent of Hunters 16 Years Old and Older, by Race Other 3% Black 2% Black Percent of Hunters 16 Years Old and Older, by Education 5 years or more of college 10% 12 years 41% 4 years of college 12% 1 to 3 years of college 22% 9 to 11 years 12% 8 years or less 3% White 95% Other rate. Residents of these house-holds represented 8 percent of all hunters. Nine percent of the persons in households reporting incomes of $35,000 to $39,999 totaled 7 percent of all hunters. Nine percent of those in house-holds earning $50,000 to $74,999 represented 22 percent of all hunters. In households with incomes of $75,000 to $99,999, 8 percent of the resi-dents hunted. Persons in that income bracket made up 8 percent of all hunters. Finally, 6 percent of those in households earning $100,000 or more per year enjoyed hunting and contributed 6 percent to the hunter population. Thirteen percent of the sample did not report their income. Education and Race of Hunters People from a variety of educa-tional backgrounds went hunting in 1996. Participation rates ranged from 8 percent among those individuals with 9 to 12 years of school to 4 percent among individuals with 8 years or less of education. Those with 8 years or less of education represented 3 percent of all hunters. Those with 9 to 11 years of education represented 12 percent of all hunters and those with 12 years of education made up 41 percent of all hunt-ers. Hunters with 1 to 3 years of college made up 22 percent of the hunter total, showing a 7 percent participation rate. Twelve percent of all hunters had 4 years of college. Six percent of all people in the U.S. with 4 years of college hunted in 1996. Those with 5 years or more of college represented 10 percent of all hunters, and of that group, 6 percent participated. While 7 percent of the U.S. population went hunting in 1996, participation among races varied. Eight percent of the nation’s White population hunted, 2 percent of the Black population hunted, and 3 per-cent of the other races hunted. Of the 14 million hunters, 95 percent were White, 2 percent were Black, and 3 percent were of other races. Hunters, by Education and Race Total hunters 14.0 million Education 0 to 8 years 0.5 million 9 to 11 years 1.6 million 12 years 5.8 million 1 to 3 years of college 3.1 million 4 years of college 1.7 million 5 years or more of college 1.3 million Race White 13.2 million Black 0.3 million Other 0.4 million Source: Table 10 32 1991-1996 Comparison of Hunting Activity The number of people hunting in the United States and their days pursuing their sport are roughly the same for the last two Na-tional Survey years, but their expenditures for hunting have increased 45 percent. A robust 1996 economy after several years of an economic downturn can at least partly explain the expenditure increase. The number of hunters did not change (at the 95 percent confidence level) for any type of hunting except small game hunters, who decreased in number by 9 percent. The level of activity of the hunters as measured by days in the field significantly changed for big game, which increased 20 percent, and migratory birds, which increased 19 percent. Hunting expenditures increased for both the trip-related and equipment categories. Trip-related expenditures went up 30 percent and equipment expenditures increased 90 percent. The purchase of special equipment such as boats and campers more than tripled, increasing 215 percent. Expendi-tures for hunting equipment such as firearms and ammunition increased 46 percent. Participants, days and expenditures 1991 1996 Percent (Numbers in millions) Number Percent Number Percent change Hunters, Total .......................................................... 14.1 100 14.0 100 -1* Big game............................................................... 10.7 76 11.3 81 5* Small game ........................................................... 7.6 54 6.9 50 -9 Migratory bird ........................................................ 3.0 21 3.1 22 2* Other animal ......................................................... 1.4 10 1.5 11 8* Days, Total ............................................................... 236 100 257 100 9* Big game............................................................... 128 54 154 60 20 Small game ........................................................... 77 33 75 29 -3* Migratory bird ........................................................ 22 9 27 10 19 Other animal ......................................................... 19 8 25 10 27* Hunting Expenditures, Total** ............................... $14,187 100 $20,329 100 43 Trip-related ............................................................ 3,957 28 4,871 24 23 Equipment ............................................................ 5,944 42 11,273 55 90 Hunting equipment ............................................ 3,776 27 5,519 27 46 Auxiliary equipment ........................................... 731 5 1,233 6 69 Special equipment ............................................ 1,437 10 4,521 22 215 Other ..................................................................... 4,286 30 4,178 21 -3* * Not different from zero at the 95 percent confidence level. This means that for 95 percent of all possible samples, the estimate for the number of dollars for one survey year is not different from the estimate for the other survey year. ** 1991 expenditure estimates have been adjusted for inflation to be comparable to 1996 expenditure estimates. Excludes expenditures for boating costs and heating and cooking fuel because the 1991 Survey did not collect this information. Number of Hunters* (Millions) 14.1 14.0 236 257 $14.2 $20.3 1991 1996 1991 1996 1991 1996 Days of Hunting* (Millions) Hunting Expenditures (Billions) * The difference is not significant at the 0.05 level. 33 Wildlife Watching 34 Wildlife-watching (formerly called nonconsumptive) activities including observing, feeding, and photographing wildlife continue to be popular in the United States. These activities are categorized here as being either residential—within a mile of one’s home—or nonresiden-tial, at least 1 mile from home. The 1996 Survey collected information only on primary wildlife-watching activities, those activities whose main objective was to observe, feed, or photograph wildlife. Second-ary or incidental participation such as observing wildlife while pleasure driving was not included in the Survey. In 1996, 62.9 million U.S. resi-dents, 31 percent of the U.S. population 16 years old and older, enjoyed a variety of wildlife-watching activities. People who took a primary interest in wildlife around their homes numbered 60.8 million, while those who took trips away from their homes for the primary purpose of participating in wildlife-watching recreation numbered 23.7 million people. Wildlife- Watching Highlights Wildlife-Watching Participants, by Activity (In millions) Total wildlife-watching 62.9 participants Nonresidential 23.7 Observed wildlife 22.9 Photographed wildlife 12.0 Fed wildlife 10.0 Residential 60.8 Fed wildlife 54.1 Observed wildlife 44.1 Photographed wildlife 16.0 Maintained plantings 13.4 or natural areas Visited public parks 11.0 or areas Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses. Source: Table 35 Wildlife-Watching Participants (In millions) Total 62.9 (100%) Residential 60.8 (97%) 23.7 (38%) Nonresidential 35 Wildlife-Watching Expenditures In 1996, 84 percent of all pri-mary wildlife-watching partici-pants 16 years old and older spent $29.2 billion, an average of $554 per spender. These expenditures represented 29 percent of the total amount spent for all wildlife-related recreation. In 1996, wildlife-watching partici-pants spent $9.4 billion on trips to pursue their activities. Food and lodging accounted for $5.4 billion, transportation expenses were $2.9 billion, and other trip costs, such as land use fees and equipment rental, were $1.1 billion for the year. These recreationists purchased $16.7 billion worth of equipment. They spent $8.2 billion on wildlife-watching equipment including binoculars, film, bird food, and special clothing. Auxiliary equipment expendi-tures for items such as tents and backpacking equipment amounted to $858 million for the year. Participants spent $7.6 billion on special equipment including off-road vehicles, trail bikes, and boats. For the year, wildlife-watching participants also spent $395 million on magazines and books; $862 million on membership dues and contributions; $1.3 billion on land leasing and ownership; and $537 million on plantings. Wildlife-Watching Expenditures Total wildlife-watching expenditures $29.2 billion Total trip-related $9.4 billion Food and lodging 5.4 Transportation 2.9 Other trip costs 1.1 Total equipment expenditures $16.7 billion Wildlife-watching equipment 8.2 Auxiliary equipment 0.9 Special equipment 7.6 Total other expenditures $3.1 billion Magazines, books 0.4 Membership dues and contributions 0.9 Land leasing and ownership 1.3 Plantings 0.5 Source: Table 40 Wildlife-Watching Expenditures (Total expenditures $29.2 billion) Trip-Related Expenditures (Total expenditures $9.4 billion) Other $3.1 billion 11% Other trip-related costs $1.1 billion 12% Lodging $1.9 billion 20% Trans-portation $2.9 billion 31% Equipment $16.7 billion 57% Trip-related $9.4 billion 32% Food $3.4 billion 36% 36 Residential Activities Highlights Residential participants 16 years old and older numbered 60.8 million in 1996, 97 percent of all wildlife-watching recreationists. The most popular residential wildlife-watching activity, feeding birds and other wildlife, was enjoyed by 54.1 million people, 89 percent of all residential wildlife-watching participants. Over 44 million people observed wildlife in 1996, constituting 73 percent of the residential participants. Photographing wildlife was enjoyed by over 16 million people, or 26 percent of all residential participants. Eleven million people, 18 percent of all residential participants, visited public areas including parks within one mile of their homes. Approximately 9.2 million partici-pants, 15 percent of all residen-tial participants, maintained plantings for the primary pur-pose of benefiting wildlife. Finally, 7.9 million people, 13 percent of the residential partici-pants, maintained natural areas for the primary purpose of benefiting wildlife. Residential Participants (In millions) Total participants 60.8 Feed wild birds 52.2 Observe wildlife 44.1 Feed other wildlife 19.6 Photograph wildlife 16.0 Visit public areas 11.0 Maintain plantings 9.2 Maintain natural areas 7.9 Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses. Source: Table 37 Percent of Total Residential Participation, by Activity (Total: 60.8 million participants) Observe 26% 73% 86% 32% 13% 15% 18% Feed Photograph wild birds Feed other wildlife Maintain natural areas Maintain plantings Visit public areas 37 Wildlife Observed, Fed, or Photographed by Residential Participants Of the 44.1 million participants who reported observing wildlife around their homes, a large majority, 42.2 million, observed birds. Observing mammals was popular among 38.5 million participants. Insects and spiders attracted the attention of 19.8 million people; 13.6 million observed amphibians or reptiles; and 11.1 million people reported observing fish or other wildlife. Of the 54.1 million residential wildlife feeders in 1996, 96 percent fed birds. Over 52 million people fed birds an average of eight months in 1996. Approximately 19.6 million participants fed other wildlife for 7 months, on average, during the year. More than 16 million residential participants photographed wildlife. Twenty-nine percent of these photographers spent 2 to 3 days taking pictures of wildlife during the year. Eight percent (1.2 million) of the participants spent 21 or more days photo-graphing wildlife. Sixteen per-cent (2.5 million) of the partici-pants spent 1 day photographing wildlife; 18 percent (2.9 million) 4 to 5 days; 18 percent (2.8 mil-lion) 6 to 10 days; and 11 per-cent (1.7 million) 11 to 20 days. 96% Percent of Residential Wildlife Observers, by Type of Wildlife Observed (Total wildlife observers 44.1 million) Birds Mammals Insects and spiders Reptiles and amphibians 87% 45% Fish and other wildlife 31% 25% Days Spent Photographing Wildlife (Total participants: 16 million) 6-10 days 18% 1 day 16% 2-3 days 29% 11-20 days 11% 21 days or more 8% 4-5 days 18% 38 Residential Participation by Geographic Division In 1996, 201 million people 16 years old and older lived in the United States. Of those individuals, 30 percent ob-served, fed, or photographed wildlife around their homes. The participation rates of these residential participants varied from region to region. Residential wildlife-watching participation rates ranged from 26 percent for residents in the West South Central Division to 35 percent for those in the West North Central and New England Divisions. The New England, East North Central, West North Central, and Mountain Divisions all had participation rates above the national participation rate of 30 percent. The East North Central Division’s participation rate was 34 percent. The Moun-tain Division followed with a participation rate of 32 percent. The participation rates for both the South Atlantic and East South Central Divisions were 30 percent. The Middle Atlantic and Pacific Divisions both had participation rates of 27 percent. Wildlife-Watching Residential Participation (National participation rate: 30%) West South Central 26% East South Central 30% South Atlantic 30% New England 35% Middle Atlantic 27% East North Central 34% West North Central 35% Mountain 32% Pacific 27% 39 18% 31% 29% Percent of U.S. Population Who Participated, by Age Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Participated, by Sex Men 16 and 17 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 15% 26% 34% 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 and older 34% 36% 32% Percent of Residential Participants 16 Years Old and Older, by Sex Men 46% Women 54% Women Percent of Residential Participants by Age 16 and 17 2% 45 to 54 20% 18 to 24 5% 25 to 34 15% 35 to 44 25% 55 to 64 14% 65 and older 19% Sex and Age of Residential Participants Residential wildlife-watching activities were enjoyed by males and females in similar propor-tions. In 1996, 29 percent of American males 16 years old and older enjoyed residential activities, as did 31 percent of American females of the same age group. Of the 60.8 million residential wildlife-watching participants, 46 per-cent (28.1 million) were male and 54 percent (32.7 million) were female. Of the 60.8 million residential participants in 1996, 25 percent or 15.3 million were 35 to 44 years old, and 20 percent or 12.3 million were 45 to 54 years old. The participation rate for residential wildlife-watching recreation for both the 35- to 44- year-old age group as well as for the 45- to 54-year-olds was 34 percent. Participants 65 years old and older numbered 11.4 million with a 32 percent participation rate. They repre-sented 19 percent of all residen-tial participants. Participants 25 to 34 years old numbered 9.2 million and represented 15 percent of all residential partici-pants. Their participation rate was 26 percent. There were 8.3 million participants in the 55- to 64-year-old age category, ac-counting for 14 percent of all residential recreationists and having a participation rate of 36 percent. The 18- to 24-year-old participants numbered 3.0 million, or 5 percent of the residential participants. Their participation rate was 15 percent in 1996. Finally, the 16- and 17- year-old participants totaled 1.2 million with a participation rate of 18 percent, accounting for 2 percent of the residential wildlife-watching participants. Residential Participants, by Sex and Age (In millions) Total, both sexes 60.8 Male 28.1 Female 32.7 Total, all ages 60.8 16 and 17 1.2 18 to 24 3.0 25 to 34 9.2 35 to 44 15.3 45 to 54 12.3 55 to 64 8.3 65 and older 11.4 Source: Table 42 40 Size of Residence of Residential Participants In 1996, 30 percent of all U.S. residents 16 years old and older participated in wildlife-watching recreation around their homes. Seventy-five percent of these residential wildlife participants lived in metropolitan areas of various sizes. Participation rates varied by population size of metropolitan areas. People living in Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA’s) with populations of 1,000,000 or more had a participation rate of 27 percent. These recreationists comprised 44 percent of the total residential participants. In MSA’s of 250,000 to 999,999 the partici-pation rate was 30 percent, reflecting 20 percent of all residential recreationists. Eleven percent of the residential wildlife-watching participants were from MSA’s with populations of 50,000 to 249,999. The popula-tion of these areas had a partici-pation rate of 35 percent. The highest participation rate for residential wildlife-watching participants was among persons residing outside of MSA’s. While 21 percent of the total U.S. population lived outside these areas in 1996, they represented 25 percent of all residential wildlife-watching participants. Thirty-six percent of that population group participated in wildlife-watching activities around their homes in 1996. Percent of Residential Participants 16 Years Old and Older, by Residence (Total residential participants 60.8 million) Large MSA 44% Small MSA 11% Medium MSA 20% Outside MSA 25% Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Participated, by Residence (30% of total U.S. population participated) Large MSA (1,000,000 or more) 27% 30% 35% 36% Medium MSA (250,000 to 999,999) Small MSA (50,000 to 249,999) Outside MSA 41 Income of Residential Participants Residential wildlife-watching activities were enjoyed by people of all income levels. Participa-tion rates ranged from 22 per-cent among U.S. residents living in households earning less than $10,000 per year to 40 percent among participants living in households earning $75,000 to $99,999 annually. These groups represented 5 percent and 10 percent of all residential wildlife-watching participants, respec-tively. Participants in house-holds earning $10,000 to $19,999 a year had a participa-tion rate of 26 percent and constituted 8 percent of all residential recreationists. The participation rate among recreationists with annual house-hold incomes of $20,000 to $24,999 was 28 percent, making up 6 percent of all residential participants. People with annual household incomes of $25,000 to $29,999 participated at a rate of 32 percent and made up 6 percent of all residential partici-pants. Those people with annual household incomes of $30,000 to $34,999, representing 6 percent of the residential participants, had a participation rate of 30 percent. Those whose annual incomes totaled $35,000 to $39,999 showed a participation rate of 34 percent while representing 6 percent of all residential participants. Persons from households with incomes of $40,000 to $49,999 chalked up a participation rate of 36 percent and represented 11 percent of all residential participants. Among the 18 percent of residential partici-pants who reported annual household incomes of $50,000 to $74,999, the participation rate was 34 percent. Finally, those individuals with annual house-hold incomes of $100,000 or more reported a participation rate of 37 percent, representing 8 percent of the of all residential recreationists. Fourteen percent of the residential wildlife-watching sample did not report their income. Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Participated, by Income Less than $10,000 $10,000 to 19,999 $20,000 to 24,999 $25,000 to 29,999 22% 26% 28% 32% 30% 34% $40,000 to 49,999 $50,000 to 74,999 $75,000 to 99,999 $30,000 to 34,999 $35,000 to 39,999 36% 34% 40% $100,000 or more 37% 42 Education and Race of Residential Participants Among residential participants, a wide range of educational backgrounds was recorded. The highest rate of participation was found among recreationists with 5 years or more of college, 43 percent. They made up 16 percent of all residential wildlife-watching participants. The lowest participation rate, 16 percent, was among people with 8 years of education or less, 3 percent of all residential partici-pants. The participation rate among those with 9 to 11 years of education was 23 percent. They constituted 8 percent of all residential participants. Resi-dential recreationists with 12 years of education, 32 percent of all residential participants, had a participation rate of 27 percent. Participants with 1 to 3 years of college had a participation rate of 32 percent, while those with 4 years of college had a participa-tion rate of 35 percent in 1996. Those groups represented 24 percent and 16 percent of all residential wildlife-watching participants, respectively. A wide variety of participation rates was found among the different races. For the U.S. Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Participated, by Education 8 years or less 9 to 11 years 12 years 1 to 3 years of college 16% 23% 27% 32% 4 years of college 5 years or more of college 35% 43% 5 years or more of college 16% Percent of Residential Participants 16 Years Old and Older, by Education 12 years 32% 4 years of college 16% 1 to 3 years of college 24% 9 to 11 years 8% 8 years or less 3% 43 Residential Participants, by Education and Race (In millions) Total participants 60.8 Education 0 to 8 years 2.0 9 to 11 years 4.9 12 years 19.3 1 to 3 years of college 14.7 4 years of college 9.8 5 years or more of college 9.9 Race White 56.6 Black 1.9 Other 2.2 Source: Table 42 10% 34% 15% Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Participated, by Race White Percent of Residential Participants 16 Years Old and Older, by Race Other 4% Black 3% Black White 93% Other population, 34 percent of the White population engaged in residential wildlife-watching activities, 10 percent of the Black population enjoyed such activities, and 15 percent of individuals of other races partici-pated. Of the total number of residential participants, 93 percent were White, 3 percent were Black, and 4 percent were all other races. 44 51% 97% 42% Percent of Nonresidential Participants, by Activity Observe Percent of Nonresidential Participants in State of Residence and Other States In state of residence and in other states 19% Photograph In state of residence only 68% Feed Other states only 13% Nonresidential Activities Highlights In 1996, almost 24 million people 16 years old and older took trips away from home for the primary purpose of observ-ing, feeding, or photographing wildlife. They constituted 38 percent of all wildlife-watching participants. The most popular nonresidential activity was observing wildlife. Almost 23 million participants, 97 percent of all nonresidential participants, observed wildlife on an average of 12 days during the year. Photographing wildlife was enjoyed by 12.0 million people, 51 percent of all nonresidential participants, with an average of 7 days per participant. Nearly 10 million people fed wildlife on an average of 9 days while away from home. This consti-tuted 42 percent of all nonresidential recreationists. Eighty-seven percent of all nonresidential participants took trips within their state of resi-dence. Sixty-eight percent of the nonresidential participants took trips only in their state of residence, 19 percent took trips both in their state of residence and to another state, and 13 percent took trips only to other states. Altogether, 32 percent of nonresidential participants took at least some of their trips to other states. Nonresidential (In millions) Total participants 23.7 Observers 22.9 Photographers 12.0 Feeders 10.0 Total days 314 Observing 279 Photographing 79 Feeding 90 Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses. Source: Table 36 45 Wildlife Observed, Fed, or Photographed by Nonresidential Participants In 1996, many types of wildlife were enjoyed by the 23.7 million people who took trips for the primary purpose of observing, feeding, or photographing fish and wildlife in the United States. Birds attracted the attention of the largest number of people, 17.7 million individuals, 75 percent of all nonresidential participants 16 years old and older. Over 14 million people observed waterfowl on their trips. Shorebirds such as herons and pelicans were enjoyed by 9.5 million people. Almost 13 million people observed songbirds; 10.6 million, birds of prey; and 6.5 million, other birds. Land mammals such as deer, bear, and coyotes drew as much attention as birds. Approximately 17.7 million participants, 75 percent of all nonresidential participants, observed, fed, or photographed land mammals. Fish attracted the attention of 8.4 million participants, 36 percent of all nonresidential recreationists. Almost 3.5 million people, 15 percent of all nonresidential participants, observed, fed, or photographed marine mam-mals such as whales, seals, and dolphins. Other wildlife such as butterflies, snakes, and turtles were of interest to 11.5 million nonresidential participants, 49 percent of all wildlife-watching participants. Nonresidential Participants, by Type of Wildlife Observed, Fed, or Photographed (In millions) Total participants 23.7 Birds, total 17.7 Waterfowl 14.3 Songbirds 12.9 Birds of prey 10.6 Shore birds 9.5 Other birds 6.5 Land mammals, total 17.7 Small land mammals 15.2 Large land mammals 13.2 Fish 8.4 Marine mammals 3.5 Other 11.5 (turtles, butterflies, etc.) Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses. Source: Table 39 75% 75% 36% Percent of Nonresidential Participants Who Observed, Fed, or Photographed Wildlife (Total participants: 23.7 million) Birds Land mammals Fish 15% 49% Marine mammals Other (turtles, butterflies, etc.) 46 Area or Site Visited by Nonresidential Participants In 1996, both public and private areas provided significant opportunities for Americans to enjoy wildlife-watching activities. Approximately 8 million, or 34 percent of all nonresidential participants, said they had visited both public and private areas during 1996. Many non-residential participants, 12.0 million or 51 percent, reported visiting only public areas to enjoy their activities, while 2.4 million or 10 percent of nonresi-dential participants visited only private areas. People also visited many differ-ent types of wildlife habitat while pursuing their activities during 1996. An estimated 18.3 million people visited woodland habi-tats, 77 percent of the nonresi-dential participants. Lakes and streamsides also attracted a large number of visitors, 16.3 million people or 69 percent of the total. Brush-covered areas and open fields attracted a similar number of people, 14.1 million (59 percent), and 14.8 million (63 percent), respectively. Wetlands were visited by 10.4 million, or 44 percent of all nonresidential participants, and manmade areas had 9.1 million recreational visitors, 39 percent of all nonresidential participants. Oceanside areas were visited by 6.4 million people accounting for 27 percent of all nonresidential recreationists. Other types of habitats accounted for 3.3 million nonresidential partici-pants, 14 percent of the total nonresidential population. Nonresidential Participants, by Site Visited (In millions) Total participants 23.7 Woodland 18.3 Lake or streamside 16.3 Open field 14.8 Brush-covered area 14.1 Wetland, marsh, swamp 10.4 Manmade area 9.1 Oceanside 6.4 Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses. Source: Table 38 69% 77% 63% Type of Site Visited by Nonresidential Participants Woodland Nonresidential Participants, by Area Visited Public and private 34% Lake or streamside Unspecified 5% Open field Private only 10% Public only 51% Brush-covered area Wetland, marsh, swamp Manmade area Oceanside 59% 44% 39% 27% 47 Nonresidential Participants by Geographic Division In 1996, 201 million people 16 years old and older lived in the United States. Of those individu-als, 12 percent participated in nonresidential activities. Nonresidential participation rates ranged from 9 percent in the East South Central Division to 16 percent in the Mountain Division. Participants in the Middle Atlantic and West South Central Divisions had participa-tion rates of 10 percent. Indi-viduals in the South Atlantic and Pacific Divisions recorded participation rates of 11 percent. The New England, East North Central, and West North Central Divisions all had participation rates of 14 percent—above the national participation rate of 12 percent. Nonresidential Wildlife-Watching Participation (National participation rate: 12%) West South Central 10% East South Central 9% South Atlantic 11% New England 14% Middle Atlantic 10% East North Central 14% West North Central 14% Mountain 16% Pacific 11% 48 Sex and Age of Nonresidential Participants Nearly equal numbers of males and females 16 years old and older enjoyed nonresidential wildlife-watching activities. In 1996, 12 percent of American males and 11 percent of American females enjoyed observing, feeding, or photo-graphing wildlife away from home. Among the 23.7 million nonresidential participants, 50 percent (11.7 million) were male, and 50 percent (11.9 million) were female. The age group with the most nonresidential participants, 6.9 million, was the 35- to 44- year-olds who had a participa-tion rate of 16 percent. This group was closely followed by the 5.3 million participants in the 45- to 54-year-old age group whose participation rate was 15 percent. These two groups represented 29 percent and 22 percent of all nonresidential participants, respectively. There were 4.6 million partici-pants in the 25- to 34-year-old age group, 19 percent of all non-residential participants. Thirteen percent of the people in this age group participated in nonresi-dential activities. The 55- to 64-year-old age group, which had a participation rate of 11 percent, numbered 2.5 million participants and represented 10 percent of all nonresidential recreationists. Six percent of persons 65 years old and older participated in nonresidential Percent of Nonresidential Participants 16 Years Old and Older, by Sex Men 50% Women 50% 11% 12% Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Participated, by Sex Men Women Primary Nonresidential Participants by Sex and Age Total, both sexes 23.7 million Male 11.7 million Female 11.9 million Total, all ages 23.7 million 16 to 17 0.6 million 18 to 24 1.7 million 25 to 34 4.6 million 35 to 44 6.9 million 45 to 54 5.3 million 55 to 64 2.5 million 65 and older 2.1 million Source: Table 41 49 activities. They represented 9 percent of all participants. Participants 18 to 24 years old numbered 1.7 million. They accounted for 7 percent of all nonresidential participants and had a participation rate of 8 percent. Finally, persons 16 to 17 years old had a participation rate of 9 percent. These 608 thousand individuals comprised 3 percent of all nonresidential participants. 55 to 64 10% Percent of Nonresidential Participants by Age 25 to 34 19% 45 to 54 22% 35 to 44 29% 18 to 24 7% 16 and 17 65 and 3% over 9% Percent of U.S. Population Who Participated, by Age 16 and 17 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 9% 8% 13% 16% 65 and older 45 to 54 55 to 64 15% 11% 6% 50 Size of Residence of Nonresidential Participants Nonresidential wildlife-watching activities were enjoyed by a substantial number of people from both urban and rural areas. In 1996, 11 percent of all per-sons living in Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA’s) took trips primarily for the enjoyment of wildlife. They comprised 75 percent of all nonresidential participants. Those living in MSA’s with populations of 1,000,000 or more participated at a rate of 11 percent and represented 45 percent of all nonresidential participants. The participation rate for nonresiden-tial recreationists in MSA’s with populations of 250,000 to 999,999—20 percent of all nonresidential participants—was 12 percent. MSA’s with popula-tions of 50,000 to 249,999 had a participation rate of 13 percent and participants therein repre-sented 11 percent of all nonresi-dential recreationists. Those participants residing in areas outside an MSA had a participa-tion rate of 14 percent and represented 25 percent of the nonresidential total. Percent of Nonresidential Participants 16 Years Old and Older, by Residence (Total nonresidential participants: 23.7 million) Small MSA 11% Large MSA 45% Outside MSA 25% Medium MSA 20% Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Participated, by Residence (12% of total U.S. population participated) Large MSA (1,000,000 or more) 11% 12% 13% 14% Medium MSA (250,000 to 999,999) Small MSA (50,000 to 249,999) Outside MSA 51 Income of Nonresidential Participants People from households at all income levels enjoyed wild-life- watching activities away from home. Participation rates ranged from 6 percent for those in households earning less than $10,000 per year (4 percent of all nonresidential participants) to 17 percent in those house-holds earning $100,000 or more annually (10 percent of all nonresidential participants). Following close behind this income group were participants from households earning $50,000 to $74,999 and $75,000 to $99,999 per year with partici-pation rates of 16 percent. They represented 22 percent and 11 percent of all nonresidential participants, respectively. Those in the $35,000 to $39,999 and $40,000 to $49,999 income groups had a participation rate of 14 percent, and constituted 6 percent and 11 percent of all nonresidential participants, respectively. Of those with an annual household income of $25,000 to $29,999, 13 percent enjoyed nonresidential activities. They represented 7 percent of the nonresidential total. Participants in the $30,000 to $34,999 household income group had a 12 percent partici-pation rate, and represented 6 percent of all nonresidential recreationists. Lastly, individuals with household earnings of $10,000 to $19,999 or $20,000 to $24,999 recorded participa-tion rates of 10 percent. They represented 8 percent and 6 percent of all nonresidential participants, respectively. Ten percent of the nonresidential wildlife-watching sample did not report their income. Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Participated, by Income Less than $10,000 $10,000 to 19,999 $20,000 to 24,999 $25,000 to 29,999 6% 10% 10% 13% 12% 14% $40,000 to 49,999 $50,000 to 74,999 $75,000 to 99,999 $30,000 to 34,999 $35,000 to 39,999 14% 16% 16% $100,000 or more 17% 52 Education and Race of Nonresidential Participants People of all educational levels participated in nonresidential activities in 1996. Two percent of the U.S. population with 8 years of education or less participated in a nonresidential wildlife-watching activity, 1 percent of the nonresidential total. In comparison, 22 percent of the population with 5 years or more of college joined in nonresiden-tial activities and represented 21 percent of all nonresidential participants. The participation rate of persons with 9 to 11 years of education was 7 per-cent. These participants made up 6 percent of all nonresidential enthusiasts. Those with 12 years of education had a 9 percent participation rate and represented 27 percent of the nonresidential total. Participants with 1 to 3 years of college participated at a rate of 13 percent, contributing 26 percent to the nonresidential total. Lastly, 16 percent of those with 4 years of college participated in nonresidential activities, making up 18 percent of all nonresiden-tial participants. The participation rates among races varied greatly. Thirteen Nonresidential Participants, by Education and Race Total participants 23.7 million Education 8 years or less 0.3 million 9 to 11 years 1.5 million 12 years 6.4 million 1 to 3 years of college 6.0 million 4 years of college 4.4 million 5 years or more of college 5.1 million Race White 22.1 million Black 0.5 million Other 1.1 million Source: Table 41 5 years or more of college 21% Percent of Residential Participants 16 Years Old and Older, by Education 12 years 4 years 27% of college 18% 1 to 3 years of college 26% 9 to 11 years 6% 8 years or less 1% Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Participated, by Education 8 years or less 9 to 11 years 12 years 1 to 3 years of college 2% 7% 9% 13% 4 years of college 5 years or more of college 16% 22% 53 percent of all White individuals living in the U.S. participated in nonresidential activities in 1996, 2 percent of all Black individuals participated, and 7 percent of individuals of other races partici-pated. Of the total 23.7 million nonresidential participants, 93 percent were White, 2 percent were Black, and 5 percent were other races. 2% 13% 7% Percent of U.S. Population 16 Years Old and Older Who Participated, by Race White Black Other Percent of Residential Participants 16 Years Old and Older, by Race Other 5% Black 2% White 93% 54 1991-1996 Comparison of Wildlife-Watching Activity The number of people observ-ing, photographing, or feeding wildlife in the United States in 1996 was substantially less than in 1991. There were 17 percent fewer people wildlife watching in 1996, with 18 percent fewer residential participants and 21 percent fewer nonresidential participants. However, the number of days of nonresidential wildlife watching did not change (at the 95 percent confidence level), and expenditures for wildlife watching increased 21 percent. The percentage of residential participants that decreased the most, 29 percent, were those who visited public parks or other public areas for the primary purpose of observing, photo-graphing, or feeding wildlife. The number of 1996 residential participants that did not change relative to 1991 were those who photographed wildlife and those who maintained plantings or natural areas. All categories of nonresidential participation decreased at least 15 percent in the number of participants. The days of partici-pation in nonresidential activities did not decrease, however, when compared at the 95 percent confidence level. Expenditures increased for the equipment category, but not for the trip-related category. Equip-ment expenditures increased 35 percent. The purchase of auxil-iary equipment such as tents and backpacking equipment increased 88 percent. Number of Wildlife- Watching Participants (Millions) 76.1 62.9 342 314 $21.2 $25.7 1991 1996 1991 1996 1991 1996 Days of Nonresidential Activity* (Millions) Wildlife-Watching Expenditures (Billions) *The difference is not significant at the 0.05 level. Participants, days and expenditures 1991 1996 Percent (Numbers in millions) Number Percent Number Percent change Total wildlife watching ........................................... 76.1 100 62.9 100 -17 Residential ............................................................ 73.9 97 60.8 97 -18 Observe wildlife ................................................. 54.7 72 44.1 70 -21 Photograph wildlife ............................................ 17.0 22 16.0 25 -6* Feed wild birds or other wildlife ......................... 65.4 86 54.1 86 -17 Visit public parks or areas ................................. 15.5 20 11.0 18 -29 Maint. Plantings or Natural Area ....................... 13.6 18 13.4 21 -1* Nonresidential ....................................................... 30.0 39 23.7 38 -21 Observe Wildlife ................................................ 28.8 38 22.9 36 -21 Photograph Wildlife ........................................... 14.2 19 12.0 19 -15 Feed Wildlife ...................................................... 13.3 17 10.0 16 -25 Days, nonresidential ............................................. 342 100 314 100 -8* Observing wildlife .............................................. 296 87 279 89 -6* Photographing wildlife ....................................... 82 24 79 25 -3* Feeding wildlife ................................................. 102 30 90 29 -12* Total Wildlife-Watching Expenditure** ................. $21,242 100 $25,654 100 21 Trip-related ............................................................ 8,604 41 9,007 35 5* Equipment ............................................................ 10,994 52 14,854 58 35 Wildlife-watching equipment ............................. 6,559 31 7,773 30 19* Auxiliary equipment ........................................... 402 2 755 3 88 Special equipment ............................................ 4,032 19 6,326 25 57* Other ..................................................................... 1,643 8 1,793 7 9* * Not different from zero at the 95 percent confidence level. This means that for 95 percent of all possible samples, the estimate for one survey year is not different from the estimate for the other survey year. ** 1991 expenditure estimates have been adjusted for inflation to be comparable to 1996 expenditure estimates. Excludes expenditures for land lease and ownership, food for wildlife other than birds, boats and trip-related boating costs, cabins, and heating and cooking fuel because the 1991 survey did not collect this information. 55 Tables 56 Guide to Statistical Tables Purpose and Coverage of Tables The statistical tables of this report were designed to meet a wide range of needs for those interested in knowing about wildlife-related recreation. Special terms used in these tables are defined in Appendix A. The tables are based on re-sponses to the 1996 Survey which was designed to collect data about participation in wildlife-related recreation. To have taken part in the Survey, a respondent must have been a U.S. resident (a resident of one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia). No one residing outside the United States (in-cluding U.S. citizens) was eli-gible for interviewing. Therefore, reported state and national totals do not include participa-tion by those who were not U.S. residents or who were residing outside the United States. Comparability With Previous Surveys The numbers reported can be compared with those in the 1991 Survey Reports. The methodol-ogy used in 1996 was similar to that used in 1991. These results should not be directly compared to results from Surveys earlier than 1991 since there were major change in meth |
Original Filename | nat_survey1996.pdf |
Date created | 2012-08-08 |
Date modified | 2013-05-17 |
|
|
|
A |
|
D |
|
I |
|
M |
|
V |
|
|
|