Participation and 

Expenditure Patterns 

of African-American, 

Hispanic, and Female 

Hunters and Anglers

Addendum to the 2001 National 

Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and 

Wildlife-Associated Recreation

Report 2001-4

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Participation and 

Expenditure Patterns 

of African-American, 

Hispanic, and Female 

Hunters and Anglers

Addendum to the 2001 National 

Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and 

Wildlife-Associated Recreation

Report 2001-4

May 2004

Erin Henderson

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Division of Economics

Arlington VA

This report is intended to complement the National and State reports from the 

2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. 

The conclusions are the authors and do not represent official positions of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
2 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Hunting Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Regional Distribution of Hunters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Hunting Participation Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Hunting Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Hunting on Private and Public Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Types of Hunting and Selected Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Female Hunters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Female’s Hunting Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Female Hunters’ Participation Levels (Days & Trips) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Female’s Hunting Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Female Hunting on Private and Public Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Hunting Trends 1991, 1996 & 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Fishing Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Regional Distribution of Anglers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Fishing Avidity & Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Types of Fishing and Selected Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Female, African American & Hispanic Anglers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

 Participation Levels (Days & Trips) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

 Fishing Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Fishing Trends 1991, 1996, & 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Participation Models for Hunting & Fishing Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Hunting Participation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Fishing Participation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Appendix A: Sample Sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Contents
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 3

Since the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

began tracking the demographics of 

hunters and anglers in 1955, participation 

rates of females and minorities have 

consistently been below the national 

averages for hunting and fishing 

activities. This trend is becoming more 

significant to the future of hunting and 

fishing due to the changing demographics 

of the United States.

According to U.S. Census projections, 

Hispanic and African-American 

populations are growing at a faster rate 

than the rest of the American population. 

In 2001, the Nation’s Hispanic population 

totaled 38.7 million, a 73 percent increase 

since 1990. Furthermore, 1 in 8 Americans 

were Hispanic in 2001. In 2030, almost 1 in 

5 Americans will be Hispanic. In 2001, the 

Nation’s African-American population 

totaled 38.3 million, a 28 percent increase 

since 1990. Today 1 in 8 Americans are 

of African-American descent, a ratio that 

will continue to 2030. Females are also 

under-represented in hunting and fishing. 

Although females comprise 51 percent 

of the population (which is expected to 

remain constant through 2030), their 

participation in hunting and fishing is far 

below the national average.

This report highlights differences among 

select low participation groups in terms 

of participation rates, geographical 

distribution, participation levels (days 

and trips per year), and associated 

expenditures. It also reports the relative 

usage of private or public land hunting, 

types of hunting and fishing, and species 

sought. In addition to descriptive 

statistics, the report concludes with 

an empirical model to determine the 

probability of an individual’s decision to 

hunt or fish.

The descriptive statistics of this report 

are divided into a hunting section and a 

fishing section. Each section compares 

all anglers to the participation rates, 

participation levels, expenditures, and 

hunting and fishing preferences for 

African-Americans, Hispanics, and 

females. At the end of the hunting 

section, females’ participation and 

expenditures for hunting activities are 

further analyzed by selected demographic 

characteristics. Due to small sample sizes, 

this further analysis is not provided for 

African-American or Hispanic hunters. 

However, the larger sample sizes for 

fishing activities provide adequate data 

to analyze each subpopulation in this 

demographic detail in the fishing section. 

Appendix A shows sample sizes.

All reported data are from the “2001 

National Survey of Fishing, Hunting 

and Wildlife-Associated Recreation” and 

represent participation and expenditures 

for the calendar year 2001 of persons 

age 16 years and older. The data for the 

total population of hunters and anglers 

include all subpopulations (henceforth 

referred to as ‘all hunters’ or ‘all 

anglers,’ respectively). Data for AfricanAmericans include all persons who 

identified themselves as Black or AfricanAmerican in the Survey. This includes all 

African-American participants who are 

male or female and those who identified 

themselves also as Hispanic. Likewise, 

the Hispanic category includes persons 

of both sexes and of any race. The female 

category includes all races.

The 2001 survey was conducted for 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by 

the U.S. Census Bureau. The survey 

was conducted in two phases. First, a 

screening interview was conducted to 

identify wildlife-related recreationists. 

Second, multiple interviews were 

conducted to collect detailed information 

on participation and expenditures for 

persons 16 years of age and older. The 

U.S. Census Bureau collected the data 

primarily by telephone; respondents who 

could not be reached by telephone were 

interviewed in person. The response rate 

was 75 percent for the screen phase and 

88 percent for the detailed sportsmen 

phase. Refer to the 2001 National Survey 

of Fishing, Hunting, and WildlifeAssociated Recreation1 for more detailed 

information on the methods of data 

collection.

Introduction

1

This document is available on the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service webpage: http://

federalaid.fws.gov/surveys/surveys.html.

Mike Hemming/USFWS
4 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers

Overview

Table 1 highlights the total number of 

hunting participants, days and trips, and 

trip-related and equipment expenditures 

for African-American hunters, Hispanic 

hunters, female hunters, and the total 

population of hunters. Females were the 

largest subpopulation, and spent the 

most money, a combined total of $492 

million on hunting equipment and triprelated expenditures. Hispanic hunters 

spent more on average for hunting than 

the other subpopulations; and in the case 

of trip-related expenditures, Hispanic 

hunters spent more than the national 

average for all hunters. African-American 

hunters spent more days hunting and 

took more hunting trips per year on 

average than the other subpopulations.

Hunting Participation

Hunting participation rates are 

calculated by dividing the number of 

hunters in a particular subgroup by 

the total population in that subgroup. 

The subgroup population in the U.S. is 

determined by using the data from the 

screening sample.

Figure 1 reveals the U. S. hunting 

participation rates for persons age 

16 and over for the total population, 

African-Americans, Hispanics, and 

females. Hunting participation is not 

consistent across subgroubs. The 

participation rates of the AfricanAmericans, Hispanics, and females were 

much lower than the total population. 

While about 6 percent of the total 

population hunt, only 2 percent of 

Hispanics hunt, 1 percent of AfricanAmericans hunt, and 1 percent of 

females hunt.

Hunting

Table 1. Hunters, Days, Trips and Expenditures: 2001

(Includes hunters 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)

All 

Hunters

AfricanAmerican 

Hunters

Hispanic 

Hunters

Female 

Hunters

Hunters 13,034 288 428 1,189

Days of Hunting 228,367 5,382 5,139 14,068

 Mean Days of Hunting 18 19 12 12

Trips 200,124 4,431 3,337 11,927

 Mean Hunting Trips 16 16 8 10

Total Hunting Expenditures $11,016,945 $213,300 $399,379 $491,833

 Trip Expenditures* $5,252,391 $106,593 $236,530 $188,237

 Mean Trip Expenditures $407 $374 $552 $164

 Equipment Expenditures** $5,764,554 $106,707 $162,849 $303,596

 Mean Equipment Expenditures $442 $370 $380 $255

*Trip-related expenditures include food, drink, lodging, public and private transportation, guide fees, 

pack trip or package fees, public and private land use access fees, equipment rental, boating costs, and 

heating and cooking fuel.

**Equipment expenditures consist of rifles, shotguns, other firearms, ammunition, bows and arrows, 

telescopic sights, decoys, hunting dogs and associated costs. Also included are auxiliary equipment such 

as camping equipment, binoculars, special hunting clothing, processing and taxidermy costs. Excluded 

from equipment expenditures are special equipment purchases such as boats, campers, trucks, and cabins.

Figure 1. Participation Rates for Hunting

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

�����������������������������������

���������������� ����������������� ��������� �����
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 5

Regional Distribution Of Hunters

The regional distribution of hunters 

illustrates where hunting generally 

occurs in the U.S. With this information, 

we are better equipped to understand 

where pressure on game and hunting 

resources may occur.

Figure 2 shows the distribution of hunter 

subpopulations throughout the country. 

The majority of African-American 

hunters live in the South (73 percent). 

The largest regional population of 

Hispanic hunters and female hunters 

also live in the South (51 percent and 39 

percent, respectively). Sample sizes for 

African-American hunters were too small 

to report data reliably for the Northeast 

and West regions. Samples sizes were 

also too small for Hispanic hunters in the 

Northeast region.

Hunting Participation Levels

In addition to data regarding the 

number of people hunting, data about 

the frequency of hunting also presents 

valuable information for resource 

management.

Figures 3 and 4 show the mean annual 

hunting days and mean annual hunting 

trips for each population group. The 

national participation average for 

all hunters is 18 days and 15 trips 

(Figures 3 and 4). Of the subpopulations, 

African-Americans hunted nearly 

50 percent more (19 days) than did 

Hispanics (12 days) and females 

(12 days). The same pattern continues 

for the average number of hunting trips. 

African-American hunters took the most 

hunting trips (16 trips), followed by 

females (10 trips) and Hispanics (8 trips). 

Figure 2. Where Do They Live? Regional Distribution of Hunters

�

��

��

��

��

���

����������� ����������������

�������

���������������� �������������

�������

��������� ������� ����� ����

�� ��

��

��� ���

��

�� ��

��

��

�� �� ��

Figure 3. Mean Days of Hunting

����������� ������������������������ ���������������� ��������������

��

��

�� ��

�

�

��

��

��

�����������������

Figure 4. Mean Hunting Trips

����������� ������������������������ ���������������� ��������������

������������������

��

��

�

��

�

�

��

��

��

*Estimate based on a small sample size. African-American and Hispanic hunters do not sum to 100 

because some samples were too small to report.
6 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers

Hunting Expenditures

Hunting expenditures are divided into 

two categories: trip-related expenditures2

and equipment expenditures.3

 Figure 

5 illustrates a comparison of mean trip 

expenditures for hunters. Hispanics 

spent considerably more on average 

($552) for hunting trips than all hunters 

($403). The other subpopulations spent 

less on average than all hunters: AfricanAmericans spent $373 per year and 

females spent the least, $163.

Average spending for hunting equipment 

is shown in Figure 6. In this case, each of 

the subpopulations average less than the 

national average for all hunters ($442). 

Of the subpopulations, Hispanics again 

spent the most ($380), while AfricanAmericans spent $370 and females spent 

$255.

Hunting on Private and Public Land

The number of people hunting on private 

and public land reveals hunting choices 

and levels of resource use. Figures 7 and 

8 show, respectively, the percentage of 

each group that hunt on private land and 

the percentage of each group that hunt 

on public land. Typically, more hunters 

hunt on private land than on public land 

although many hunt on both. At least 68 

percent of each subpopulation hunt on 

private land. A far greater percentage 

of African-American hunters hunt on 

private land (84 percent) than on public 

land (32 percent). Female hunters also 

favor private land hunting (80 percent) 

versus public land hunting (28 percent). 

In contrast, the margin between private 

land (68 percent) and public land (48 

percent) for Hispanic hunters is much 

smaller.

Figure 5. Mean Trip Expenditures for Hunters

����������� ������������������������ ���������������� ��������������

�����������

���

���

���

���

�

���

���

���

���

���

���

Figure 6. Mean Equipment Expenditures for Hunters

����������� ������������������������ ���������������� ��������������

�����������

���

��� ���

���

�

���

���

���

���

���

���

Figure 7. Hunters Hunting on Private Land

����������� ������������������������ ���������������� ��������������

�������

�� ��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

���

2

Trip-related expenditures include 

food, drink, lodging, public and private 

transportation, guide fees, pack trip or 

package fees, public and private land use 

access fees, equipment rental, boating costs, 

and heating and cooking fuel.

3

Equipment expenditures consist of firearms, 

ammunition, bows and arrows, telescopic 

sights, decoys, hunting dogs and associated 

costs. Also included are auxiliary equipment 

such as camping equipment, binoculars, 

special hunting clothing, processing and 

taxidermy costs. Excluded from equipment 

expenditures are special equipment purchases 

such as boats, campers, trucks, and cabins.
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 7

Types of Hunting and Selected Game

To understand better the needs of 

African-American, Hispanic, and female 

hunters, it is helpful to know in what 

kind of hunting they participate and 

which type of game they hunt. Figure 

9 shows the percentage of hunters that 

participate in big game hunting, small 

game hunting, migratory bird hunting, 

and other animal hunting.4

 Figure 10 

depicts the percentage of hunters that 

hunt selected game. These game were 

selected because they were the most 

sought after species in 2001.

In general, female hunters follow the 

national trend for all hunters with 

83 percent participating in big game 

hunting, fewer in small game hunting 

(27 percent), and fewer still pursuing 

migratory birds (12 percent) and other 

animals (4 percent). Similar to all 

hunters, deer is the most popular type of 

game for females (76 percent).

For Hispanic hunters, big game hunting 

is far more popular than other types of 

hunting. Seventy-five percent of Hispanic 

hunters hunt big game in comparison 

to 29 percent hunting small game, 

35 percent hunting migratory birds, 

and 9 percent hunting other animals. 

Consistent with these findings, 67 percent 

of Hispanic hunters hunt deer and only 

10 percent hunt rabbit. Estimates for 

hunting “other animals,” wild turkey, 

squirrel, and rabbit, are based on small 

sample sizes.

African-American hunters hunt 

small game (69 percent), which is 

considerably more than the general 

hunting population (42 percent). This 

preference for small game is reflected in 

their high participation in rabbit hunting 

(45 percent) and squirrel hunting (37 

percent), which is greater than for all 

other groups of hunters. The sample size 

for wild turkey was too small to report 

reliable estimates.

Figure 8. Hunters Hunting on Public Land

����������� ������������������������ ���������������� ��������������

�������

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

���

Figure 9. Percent of Hunters, by Type of Hunting

����������� ������������������������ ���������������� ��������������

�������

��

��

��

�

�� ��

����

���

��

��

��

���

��

��

��

��� �

��

��

��

��

���

�������� ���������� ��������������� �������������

Figure 10. Percent of Hunters, by Selected Game

����������� ������������������������ ���������������� ��������������

�������

�

��

��

��

��

���

���� ����������� �������� ������

��

�� �� ��

��

��

��

��

��� ��� ��

��

��

�� ��

�������������������������

������������������������

�

4

Other animals include coyotes, crows, 

foxes, groundhogs, prairie dogs, raccoons, 

and similar animals. Other animals may be 

classified as unprotected or non-game animals 

by the state in which they are hunted.

*Estimate based on a small sample size.

*Estimate based on a small sample size.
8 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers

Female Hunters

For a more in-depth statistical analysis 

of hunters, data on participation, 

expenditures and private/public land 

preferences are evaluated by age, 

education, income and place of residence. 

These comparisons are made between 

female hunters and all hunters. Due to 

small sample sizes, African-American 

and Hispanic hunting populations are not 

analyzed in further detail.

Female’s Hunting Participation

Only 1 percent of females 16 years 

of age and over in the United States 

participated in hunting (see Figure 1) 

as opposed to 6 percent for the entire 

population. A comparison of all hunters 

and female hunters by age, education, 

income, and place of residency follows.

Hunting participation for females is 

constant across all age groups, where one 

percent of the female population hunts 

in each respective age group (Figure 11). 

This pattern does not hold true for the 

general population, which has its greatest 

percentage of hunters in the 35 to 44 

and 45 to 54 age groups (8 percent and 

7 percent, respectively).

As shown in Figure 12, females of all 

education levels participate at the rate of 

1 percent. The hunting participation rate 

for the total population, however, peaks 

at 7 percent for those hunters with a high 

school degree or some college. The lowest 

participation rate for the total population 

is 5 percent for those hunters without 

a high school degree or with at least a 

college degree.

Hunting participation is positively 

correlated with income for the total 

population (Figure 13). Eight-percent 

of the total population earning over 

$30,000 annually participates in hunting 

activities, which is almost three times 

greater than the percentage of the total 

population earning less than $20,000 

(3 percent). For the female population, 

the participation rate remains constant 

across income levels at 1 percent.

Figure 11. Participation Rates for Hunting, by Age

����������� �����

�����������������������������������

�

�

�

�

�

� � � � � �

�

��

��

����� ����� ����� ����� ���

Figure 12. Participation Rates for Hunting, by Education

����������� �����

�����������������������������������

�

� �

�

� � � � �

�

��

��

������������� ������������� ������������ ������������������

Figure 13. Participation Rates for Hunting, by Income

����������� �����

�����������������������������������

�

�

� �

� � � � �

�

��

��

��������� ���������� ���������� ��������
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 9

People residing in rural areas are over 

three times more likely to hunt than 

people living in urban areas (Figure 14). 

Female hunters living in rural areas are 

also about three times more likely to hunt 

than females living in urban areas.

Female Hunters’ Participation Levels 

(Days & Trips)

Figures 15 thru 18 compare the mean 

days and trips for female hunters and all 

hunters by age, education, income, and 

place of residence.

Figure 15 shows that female hunters’ 

mean hunting days are lowest (9 days) 

for females age 16 to 24, and highest for 

those age 20 to 34 (15 days) and age 45 

to 54 (14 days). In contrast, the mean 

hunting days for all hunters decreases 

from 19 days for 16 to 34 year-old hunters 

to 16 days for hunters 55 and over. 

Similar to the pattern for all hunters, 

females’ hunting days and education are 

inversely related (Figure 16). Thus, the 

number of hunting days decreases for 

female hunters without a high school 

degree (13 days) to those female hunters 

who are college graduates (10 days). 

Income level and mean hunting days 

are depicted in Figure 17. With one 

exception, females’ average hunting 

days by income level follow the relatively 

stable trend of activity as shown by 

the general hunting population. The 

exception occurs at the $20,000 to $29,999 

income category, where the number of 

hunting days is nearly half of any other 

income category.

Figure 14. Participation Rates for Hunting, by Place of Residence

����������� �����

�����������������������������������

�

��

�

� �

�

��

��

����� �����

Figure 15. Mean Days of Hunting, by Age

����������� �������������

��������������������

�� ��

�� �� ��

�

��

��

��

��

�

�

��

��

��

��

����� ����� ����� ����� ���

Figure 16. Mean Days of Hunting, by Education

����������� �������������

��������������������

�� ��

��

��

�� ��

��

��

�

�

��

��

��

��

������������� ������������� ������������ ������������������
10 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers

Figure 18 shows that female hunters 

who live in rural areas hunt almost twice 

as many days annually (14 days) than 

female hunters who live in urban areas 

(8 days). This is similar to the pattern for 

all hunters, where hunters in rural areas 

hunt 20 days annually while hunters in 

urban areas hunt 14 days annually.

Figures 19 thru 22 depict various 

demographic characteristics by the 

number of annual mean hunting trips 

in 2001. As shown in these figures, the 

pattern of mean hunting trips is similar 

to that of mean hunting days.

Figure 17. Mean Days of Hunting, by Income

����������� �������������

��������������������

��

�� �� ��

��

�

�� ��

�

�

��

��

��

��

��������� ���������� ���������� ��������

Figure 18. Mean Days of Hunting, by Place of Residence

����������� �������������

��������������������

��

��

�

��

�

�

��

��

��

��

����� �����

Figure 19. Mean Hunting Trips, by Age

����������� �������������

������������������

��

��

�� ��

��

�

��

�

��

�

�

�

��

��

��

����� ����� ����� ����� ���
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 11

Figure 20. Mean Hunting Trips, by Education

����������� �������������

������������������

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� ��

�

�

��

��

��

������������� ������������� ������������ ������������������

Figure 21. Mean Hunting Trips, by Income

����������� �������������

������������������

��

��

��

��

��

�

�� ��

�

�

��

��

��

��������� ���������� ���������� ��������

Figure 22. Mean Hunting Trips, by Place of Residence

����������� �������������

������������������

��

��

�

��

�

�

��

��

��

����� �����
12 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers

Females’ Hunting Expenditures

As seen in Figures 5 and 6, female 

hunters on average spent considerably 

less for hunting trips and equipment 

than all hunters spend. Despite this 

finding, a demographic breakdown 

of female hunter trip and equipment 

expenditures identifies spending patterns 

somewhat similar to that of all hunters. 

Figures 23 through 26 display mean trip 

expenditures for female hunters and all 

hunters.

Females’ trip expenditures for hunting 

are sporadic across all age groups, all 

else constant (Figure 23). This is not 

consistent with the trip expenditure 

patterns for all hunters, which increases 

until reaching the age 55+ category.

Trip expenditures for all hunters are 

positively correlated with both education 

and income levels (Figures 24 and 25). 

Thus, as income increases, annual trip 

expenditures double from $264 for those 

hunters with less than $20,000 household 

income to $585 for those hunters with 

over $50,000 household income. In 

addition, as education increases, annual 

hunting trip expenditures increase at 

about the same rate from $256 for those 

hunters without a high school degree 

to $566 for those hunters with at least a 

college degree.

Females’ trip expenditures do not follow 

the same trends for all hunters within 

the income and education brackets. 

While all hunters’ trip expenditures 

are positively correlated with both 

income and education, females’ trip 

expenditures had one education and 

income category (“some college” and 

“$20,000-$29,999”) that did not follow the 

positive correlation pattern. Females’ 

annual trip expenditures are less than 

half of the trip expenditures for all 

hunters across all category levels.

Figure 23. Mean Trip Expenditures, by Age

����������� �������������

�����������

���

��� ���

���

���

��

���

���

���

���

�

���

���

���

���

���

���

����� ����� ����� ����� ���

Figure 24. Mean Trip Expenditures, by Education

����������� �������������

�����������

���

���

���

���

��� ��� ���

���

�

���

���

���

���

���

���

������������� ������������� ������������ ������������������

Figure 25. Mean Trip Expenditures, by Income

����������� �������������

�����������

��� ���

���

���

���

��

���

���

�

���

���

���

���

���

���

��������� ���������� ���������� ��������
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 13

As depicted in Figure 26, mean trip 

expenditures for female hunters living 

in urban areas are 20 percent greater 

than mean trip expenditures for female 

hunters living in rural areas. All hunters 

also show this pattern. On average, 

hunters living in urban areas spent $488 

while hunters in rural areas spent $340 

(a 30 percent difference).

Figures 27 thru 30 compare the annual 

mean equipment expenditures by 

demographic characteristics for female 

hunters and all hunters. As with trip 

expenditures, female hunters’ equipment 

expenditures are about half of all hunters’ 

expenditures across nearly all categories. 

Furthermore, no pattern for equipment 

expenditures by age emerges for 

female hunters, as is the result for trip 

expenditures (Figure 27).

Figure 28 compares equipment 

expenditures by education. Females’ 

equipment expenditures do not follow the 

same positive correlation as all hunters. 

Instead, females’ expenditures peak for 

those females with a high school degree 

($341) and decrease for those female 

hunters with at least a college degree 

($158).

Figure 26. Mean Trip Expenditures, by Place of Residence

����������� �������������

�����������

���

���

���

���

�

���

���

���

���

���

���

����� �����

Figure 27. Mean Equipment Expenditures, by Age

����������� �������������

�����������

���

���

���

���

���

���

��

���

���

���

�

���

���

���

���

���

���

����� ����� ����� ����� ���

Figure 28. Mean Equipment Expenditures, by Education

����������� �������������

�����������

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

�

���

���

���

���

���

���

������������� ������������� ������������ ������������������
14 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers

Figure 29 conveys that both female 

hunters’ and all hunters’ equipment 

expenditures are positively correlated 

with income. However, in comparison, 

equipment expenditures for all hunters 

doubled while equipment expenditures 

for females tripled, moving from those 

with less than $20 thousand income to 

those with over $50 thousand income.

Female hunters’ and all hunters’ 

equipment spending do not follow 

similar patterns, when categorized by 

place of residence (Figure 30). Female 

hunters living in urban areas spent 

$143 on equipment in 2001 while female 

hunters living in rural areas spent about 

30 percent more ($194). Conversely, all 

hunters living in urban areas spent more 

($342) than those hunters living in rural 

areas ($295).

Females Hunting on 

Private and Public Land

As shown earlier in Figures 7 and 8, 

many more female hunters hunt on 

private land (80 percent) than on public 

land (28 percent). A demographic 

analysis follows in Figures 31 thru 38.

Categorizing by age shows that 75 to 85 

percent of female hunters of all ages hunt 

on private land (Figure 31). Similarly for 

all hunters as well, between 81 and 85 

percent of all hunters in each age group 

hunt on private land. Figure 32 shows 

the percentage of hunters hunting on 

public land, by age. No pattern emerges 

for either all hunters or female hunters 

when participation is categorized by age. 

The highest percent of female hunters 

hunting on public land (39 percent) is in 

the age 55 and over category, while the 

highest percent of all hunters hunting on 

public land (41 percent) is in the 35 to 44 

age category.

Figure 29. Mean Equipment Expenditures, by Income

����������� �������������

�����������

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

�

���

���

���

���

���

���

��������� ���������� ���������� ��������

Figure 30. Mean Equipment Expenditures, by Place of Residence

����������� �������������

�����������

���

���

���

���

�

���

���

���

���

���

���

����� �����

Figure 31. Hunters Hunting on Private Land, by Age

����������� �����

�������

�� �� �� �� ��

��

�� ��

�� ��

�

��

��

��

��

���

����� ����� ����� ����� ���
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 15

Figure 33 shows that private land 

hunting by education averages between 

81 and 86 percent of all hunters. Hunting 

on private land for females averages 

slightly below at 77 to 83 percent. 

Participation patterns compared by 

educational achievement are more 

pronounced for hunters on public land 

(Figure 34). For both all hunters and 

female hunters, the participation rate and 

educational achievement are positively 

correlated. For all hunters, participation 

rates increased from 38 percent for 

those without a high school diploma to 41 

percent for those with at least a college 

degree. Participation for female hunters 

also increased but at a faster rate. 

Twenty-three percent of female hunters 

without a high school degree hunt on 

public land while 34 percent of female 

hunters with at least a college degree 

hunt on public land.

Figure 32. Hunters Hunting on Public Land, by Age

����������� �����

�������

�� �� �� �� ��

��

�� �� ��

��

�

��

��

��

��

���

����� ����� ����� ����� ���

Figure 33. Hunters Hunting on Private Land, by Education

����������� �����

�������

�� �� ��

�� �� �� ��

��

�

��

��

��

��

���

������������� ������������� ������������ ������������������

Figure 34. Hunters Hunting on Public Land, by Education

����������� �����

�������

�

��

��

��

��

���

������������� ������������� ������������ ������������������

�� �� �� ��

�� ��

��

��
16 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers

Household income has little impact on 

hunters’ decisions to partake in hunting 

activities on private land (Figure 35). 

Participation for all hunters ranges 

between 77 and 85 percent while 

participation for female hunters varies 

between 77 and 84 percent. Figure 36 

illustrates the positively correlated 

relationship between household income 

and the decision to hunt on public land 

for all hunters. No pattern emerges for 

female hunters.

Figure 35. Hunters Hunting on Private Land, by Income

����������� �����

�������

��

��

�� ��

�� �� ��

��

�

��

��

��

��

���

��������� ���������� ���������� ��������

Figure 36. Hunters Hunting on Public Land, by Income

����������� �����

�������

�� ��

�� ��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

���

��������� ���������� ���������� ��������
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 17

Figures 37 and 38 demonstrate that 

the highest percent of female hunters 

hunting on private land are residents 

of rural areas (86 percent); whereas, 

the highest percent of female hunters 

hunting on public land are residents of 

urban areas (33 percent). For all hunters, 

the largest percent hunting on private 

land are also rural residents (87 percent), 

and the largest percent hunting on public 

land are urban residents (44 percent).

Figure 37. Hunters Hunting on Private Land, by Place of Residence

����������� �����

�������

��

�� ��

��

�

��

��

��

��

���

����� �����

Figure 38. Hunters Hunting on Public Land, by Place of Residence

����������� �����

�������

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

���

����� �����
18 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers

Hunting Trends 1991, 1996, & 2001

Table 2 highlights the number of hunting 

participants, days, and expenditures 

from the 1991, 1996, and 2001 Surveys 

and the percentage change between each 

year. All expenditures are depicted in 

2001 dollars. Two changes are made to 

the 2001 expenditures to be consistent 

with 1991 and 1996 estimates. First, 

trip expenditures for 2001 are slightly 

different from those reported in Table 

1 because heating and cooking fuel 

are not included. Second, the 2001 

equipment expenditures are also slightly 

different than Table 1 because auxiliary 

expenditures are excluded to remain 

consistent with previous reports.

While remaining approximately similar 

between 1991 and 1996, the total number 

of people hunting and their hunting days 

between 1996 and 2001 decreased by 

7 percent and 11 percent, respectively. 

Unlike the general hunting population, 

the number of hunters with Hispanic 

ethnicity increased by over 50 percent 

between 1991 and 2001. Correspondingly, 

the number of hunting days by Hispanic 

hunters also increased substantially, 

by 59 percent. This increase in hunting 

participation outpaces the Hispanic 

population increase in the United States 

over the last decade. African-American 

hunters do not have a significant change 

in their hunting participation or the 

number of days hunted.

Although the total number of hunters has 

decreased over the past 10 years, total 

trip expenditures increased from $4.48 

billion to $5.18 billion. However, total trip 

expenditures in 2001 declined slightly 

from 1996 ($5.52 billion). Between 

1991 and 2001, Hispanic hunters’ trip 

expenditures increased dramatically by 

250 percent, which again far outpaces 

their growth in participation. No 

significant trends emerged for AfricanAmerican hunters or female hunters for 

trip expenditures.

Between 1996 and 2001, total hunting 

equipment expenditures declined by 27 

percent, and females’ hunting equipment 

expenditures also declined by 25 percent. 

Although this change represents a 

marked decrease, the equipment 

expenditures for the total hunting 

population and female hunters changed 

only marginally between 1991 and 2001. 

On the other hand, Hispanic hunters’ 

equipment expenditures, which remained 

nearly equivalent between 1996 and 2001, 

increased by 69 percent from 1991 to 

2001. There was no significant change for 

African-American hunters.

Table 2. Hunting Comparison: Participants, Days, & Expenditures in 1991, 1996, & 2001

(Numbers in thousands)

Annual Estimates Percentage Change*

1991 1996 2001 1991 to 1996 1996 to 2001 1991 to 2001

Hunters

Total Hunters 14,006 13,975 13,034 * –7 –7

 African-American 294 303 288 * * *

 Hispanic 274 335 428 * +28 +56

 Women 1,069 1,192 1,189 * * *

Days

Total Days 235,806 256,676 228,367 * –11 *

 African-American 5,499 4,839 5,382 * * *

 Hispanic 3,229 4,363 5,139 * * +59

 Women 13,512 13,074 14,068 * * *

Hunting Expenditures**

Total Trip Expenditures $4,484,853 $5,521,508 $5,176,031 +23 * +15

 African-American $86,018 $92,222 $105,928 * * *

 Hispanic $65,806 $209,072 $230,371 +218 * +250

 Women $241,194 $247,544 $193,924 * * *

Total Equipment Expenditures $4,280,683 $6,255,967 $4,561,709 +46 –27 *

 African-American $66,505 $98,293 $92,370 * * *

 Hispanic $72,922 $129,911 $123,360 +78 * +69

 Women $193,732 $255,575 $192,185 +72 –25 *

The “*” denotes that the percentage change is not different from zero at the 90 percent confidence level. Thus, for 90 percent of all possible samples, the estimate 

between one survey year is not different from another survey year. Expenditures are in 2001 dollars.

**All expenditures are depicted in 2001 dollars. Two changes are made to the 2001 expenditures to be consistent with 1991 and 1996 estimates. First, trip 

expenditures for 2001 are slightly different from those reported in Table 1 because heating and cooking fuel are not included. Second, the 2001 equipment 

expenditures are also slightly different because auxiliary expenditures are excluded. These exclusions were necessary to make the estimates comparable with 

previous publications.
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 19

Overview

Table 3 highlights the total number of 

anglers, total and mean fishing days, 

fishing trips, trip expenditures and 

equipment expenditures for AfricanAmerican, Hispanic, female, and 

all anglers. Females are the largest 

subpopulation (8.9 million), and they 

spend the most money ($3.2 billion 

on trip and equipment expenditures). 

However, on average, Hispanic anglers 

spend more than African-American 

or female anglers. Hispanic anglers 

spend 25 percent more than AfricanAmerican anglers and female anglers on 

mean trip expenditures; and they also 

spend 38 percent more than AfricanAmerican anglers and 47 percent more 

than female anglers on mean equipment 

expenditures. African-American anglers 

spend more days fishing (16 days) and 

take more trips (14) on average than 

Hispanic anglers and female anglers.

Fishing Participation

Figure 39 shows the fishing participation 

rates (the percent of the sub-population 

in the U.S. that fished in 2001) for persons 

age 16 and older for the total population, 

African-Americans, Hispanics, and 

females. All subpopulations participate 

at remarkably lower rates than the 

population as a whole for general fishing 

and freshwater fishing. For general 

fishing participation rates, females 

had the highest participation rate (8 

percent) while African-Americans and 

Hispanics each had a participation 

rate of 7 percent. Females also had the 

highest participation rate (7 percent) for 

freshwater fishing. For saltwater fishing, 

Hispanics had the highest participation 

rate of 3 percent.

Fishing

Table 3. Anglers Days, Trips and Expenditures: 2001

(Includes anglers 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)

All 

Anglers

AfricanAmerican 

Anglers

Hispanic 

Anglers

Female 

Anglers

Anglers 34,071 1,563 1,564 8,912

Days of Fishing 557,394 24,702 19,060 107,692

 Mean Days of Fishing 16 16 12 12

Trips 436,662 19,870 15,179 78,028

 Mean Fishing Trips 13 14 10 9

Total Fishing Expenditures $19,994,661 $578,996 $817,384 $3,191,799

 Trip Expenditures* $14,656,000 $402,604 $536,357 $2,339,622

 Mean Trip Expenditures $449 $273 $359 $278

 Equipment Expenditures** $5,338,661 $176,392 $281,026 $852,177

 Mean Equipment Expenditures $157 $113 $180 $96

*Trip expenditures are composed of food, drink, lodging, public and private transportation, guide fees, 

pack trip or package fees, public and private land use access fees, boat fuel, launching, mooring, storage, 

maintenance, insurance fees, bait, ice, and equipment rental.

**Equipment expenditures are made up of rods, reels, lines, lures, tackle boxes, creels, stringers, fish 

nets, minnow traps, seines, bait containers, depth and fish finders, ice and spear fishing equipment. 

Also included are auxiliary camping equipment such as binoculars, special fishing clothing, processing 

and taxidermy costs. Special equipment such as boats, campers, trucks and cabins are excluded 

from equipment expenditures due to small sample sizes and to remain consistent with the equipment 

expenditure analysis for hunters in the preceding section.

Figure 39. Participation Rates for Fishing

����������� ������������������������ ���������������� �������������

�����������������������������������

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

������������� ���������� ���������
20 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers

Figures 40 thru 43 show participation 

by age, education, income, and place 

of residence. Participation rates are 

determined by dividing the number 

of anglers in each subcategory by the 

number of people in the U.S. in each 

subcategory.

For most groups, fishing participation 

increases with age until the 35 to 

44 age category, after which, fishing 

participation decreases with age (Figure 

40). African-Americans follow this basic 

pattern except their participation peaks 

in the 45 to 54 age category.

Figure 41 depicts the association 

between fishing participation rates 

and educational attainment. No trends 

emerge for fishing participation rates 

for African-Americans anglers. For 

Hispanics and females, however, 

participation in fishing increases with 

educational achievement.

Figure 42 shows that participation is 

positively correlated with income. That 

is, as household income increases, the 

rate of participation for each group also 

increases. However, for Hispanic anglers, 

participation slightly decreases for those 

earning between $20,000 and $29,999 

annually.

Participation by place of residence 

is illustrated in Figure 43. For all 

populations, rural residents were nearly 

twice more likely to participate in fishing 

than urban residents.

Figure 40. Participation Rates for Fishing, by Age

����������� ������������������������ ���������������� �������������

�����������������������������������

��

��

��

��

��

�

� �

��

�

� �

��

�

�

�

��

��

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

����� ����� ����� ����� ���

Figure 41. Participation Rates for Fishing, by Education

����������� ������������������������ ���������������� �������������

�����������������������������������

��

��

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�� ��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

������������� ������������� ������������ ������������������

Figure 42. Participation Rates for Fishing, by Income

����������� ������������������������ ���������������� �������������

�����������������������������������

��

��

��

��

� �

� �

�

�

�� ��

� �

�� ��

�

�

��

��

��

��

��������� ���������� ���������� ��������
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 21

Regional Distribution of Anglers

Several topics reported in this study such 

as type of fishing and species sought are 

highly variable by region of the country. 

Figure 44 shows the percent of each 

angler subpopulation that resides in 

the Northeast, the South, the Midwest 

and the West. As a whole, the South has 

the highest percent of all anglers (39 

percent). It also has the highest shares 

of African-American (67 percent) and 

female anglers (40 percent). The West 

has a slightly higher percent of Hispanic 

anglers (44 percent) than the South 

(41 percent). All regions have nearly 

the same share of female anglers as all 

anglers. The Northeast has the lowest 

share of all anglers (14 percent) and low 

shares for all subpopulations.

Figure 43. Participation Rates for Fishing, by Place of Residence

����������� ������������������������ ���������������� �������������

�����������������������������������

��

��

�

��

�

��

�

��

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

����� �����

Figure 44. Where Do They Live? Regional Distribution of Anglers

��������� ������� ����� ���� ��������� ������� ����� ����

��������� ������� ����� ���� ��������� ������� ����� ����

���

���

���

���

�����������

��

���

���

��

������������������������

���

���

���

���

�������������

��

��

���

���

����������������
22 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers

Fishing Avidity & Expenditures

In terms of resource management and 

economic impacts, how often people 

fish is as important a question as how 

many people fish. Thus, the following 

information is presented on the mean 

number of fishing days, the mean 

number of fishing trips, the mean trip 

expenditures,5 and the mean equipment 

expenditures for anglers.6

Figures 45 and 46 represent mean fishing 

days and mean fishing trips, respectively. 

African-American anglers, on average, 

spend more days fishing (16 days) and 

take more trips (14 trips) per year than 

Hispanic anglers and female anglers. 

Hispanic anglers and female anglers 

spend the identical number of days 

fishing (12 days) and take about the same 

amount of fishing trips (10 and 9 trips, 

respectively). Comparing fishing days to 

fishing trips, very few trips are multi-day 

angling trips.

Figure 47 shows mean annual fishing 

trip expenditures, and Figure 48 shows 

mean equipment expenditures. Hispanic 

anglers spend, on average, $359 on 

trip-related expenditures and $180 on 

equipment. These expenditures are 

larger than African-American and female 

expenditures. Furthermore, Hispanic 

anglers’ average equipment expenditures 

exceed those of all anglers by about $20 

annually.

Figure 45. Mean Days of Fishing

����������� ������������������������ ���������������� �������������

�����������������

�� ��

�� ��

�

�

��

��

��

Figure 46. Mean Fishing Trips

����������� ������������������������ ���������������� �������������

������������������

��

��

��

�

�

�

��

��

��

Figure 47. Mean Trip Expenditures for Anglers

����������� ������������������������ ���������������� �������������

�����������

���

���

���

���

�

���

���

���

���

���

5

Trip expenditures are composed of 

food, drink, lodging, public and private 

transportation, guide fees, pack trip or 

package fees, public and private land use 

access fees, boat fuel, launching, mooring, 

storage, maintenance, insurance fees, bait, ice, 

and equipment rental.

6

Equipment expenditures are made up of 

rods, reels, lines, lures, tackle boxes, creels, 

stringers, fish nets, minnow traps, seines, 

bait containers, depth and fish finders, ice 

and spear fishing equipment. Also included 

are auxiliary camping equipment such as 

binoculars, special fishing clothing, processing 

and taxidermy costs. Special equipment such 

as boats, campers, trucks and cabins are 

excluded from equipment expenditures due to 

small sample sizes and to remain consistent 

with the equipment expenditure analysis for 

hunters in the preceding section.
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 23

African-American anglers and female 

anglers spend about the same amount 

on trip-related fishing expenses ($273 

and $278, respectively). For fishing 

equipment, African-American anglers 

spend more ($113) than female anglers 

spend ($96).

Types of Fishing and Selected Species

Figure 49 shows the percent of each 

angler subpopulation that participates 

in Great Lakes, saltwater and other 

freshwater fishing (i.e., excluding Great 

Lakes fishing). Other freshwater fishing 

is the most popular type of fishing 

with at least 69 percent of each angler 

subpopulation participating. The percent 

of African-American anglers (76 percent) 

and female anglers (81 percent) that 

fish in other freshwater are close to the 

percentage for all anglers (82 percent). 

Other freshwater fishing is least popular 

with Hispanic anglers (69 percent).

Participation in saltwater fishing is lower 

than freshwater fishing participation. 

Only 27 percent of all anglers fish in 

saltwater. However, a relatively large 

percentage of Hispanic anglers (44 

percent) participate in saltwater fishing. 

This is greater than African-American 

anglers (31 percent) and female anglers 

(24 percent).

Participation in Great Lakes fishing is 

low for all subpopulations of anglers. 

Only 5 percent of all anglers fish in the 

Great Lakes. The African-American 

angler participation rate is 8 percent 

while 3 percent of female anglers 

participate. The sample size for Hispanic 

anglers fishing in the Great Lakes was 

too small to report reliably.

Figure 48. Mean Equipment Expenditures for Anglers

����������� ������������������������ ���������������� �������������

�����������

���

���

���

��

�

���

���

���

���

���

Figure 49. Percent of Anglers, by Type of Fishing �������

����������� ������������������������ ���������������� �������������

�������������������������

������������������������

��������������������������������� ��������� �����������

��

��

�

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

� �

��

��

��

��

���
24 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers

Figures 50 and 51 depict the percentage 

of each angler subpopulation that pursue 

popular freshwater and saltwater 

fish species. Great lakes fishing is not 

included. For purposes of comparison, the 

percentage of all freshwater anglers and 

the percentage of all saltwater anglers 

that pursued each species is presented 

in each figure. As depicted in Figure 49, 

excluding the Great Lakes, 82 percent 

of all anglers fish in freshwater. While 

participating in freshwater fishing, black 

bass, panfish, trout, and catfish are the 

species most often targeted.

For African-American freshwater 

anglers, catfish is the most pursued 

species (Figure 50). Fifty percent 

of African-American freshwater 

anglers fish for catfish, more than any 

other subpopulation. Many AfricanAmerican freshwater anglers also fish 

for panfish (39 percent) and black bass 

(35 percent). However, only 10 percent of 

African-Americans fish for trout, which 

is far below the rates for all anglers and 

other angler subpopulations.

Thirty-nine percent of Hispanic 

freshwater anglers fished for trout, 

which exceeds the rate for all freshwater 

anglers and other freshwater angler 

subpopulations (Figure 50). Hispanic 

freshwater angling for black bass 

and catfish are also well-represented 

(32 percent each), but panfishing is not 

nearly as popular as it is with other 

groups (9 percent).

For female freshwater anglers, fishing 

for black bass (29 percent) and trout 

(24 percent) are below the participation 

rates for all freshwater anglers. Panfish 

and catfish have approximately the same 

participation rates for female freshwater 

anglers as they do for all freshwater 

anglers.

Figure 51 shows that the most sought 

after saltwater species for saltwater 

anglers include flatfish (25 percent) 

(flounder, halibut, sole), striped bass 

(19 percent), sea trout (16 percent) and 

blue fish (13 percent). In general, the 

subpopulations’ participation rates are 

slightly below those for all saltwater 

anglers. The most pursued species by 

Hispanics, African-Americans, and 

females is flatfish (20, 20, and 22 percent, 

respectively). Hispanic angling and 

African-American angling estimates are 

based on small sample sizes for striped 

bass, sea trout, and blue fish. Small 

sample sizes for flatfish also exist for 

Hispanic anglers.

Figure 50. Percent of Freshwater Anglers (excluding Great Lakes), 

by Type of Freshwater Species

����������� ������������������������ ���������������� �������������

�������

��

�� �� ��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

�� ��

�� ��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

���������� ������� ����� �������

Figure 51. Percent of Saltwater Anglers, by Type of Saltwater Species

����������� ������������������������ ���������������� �������������

�������

��

��

��

��

��

����

����

���

����

���

����

���

��

��

��

�

�

��

��

��

��

�������� ������������ ��������� ���������

*Estimate based on a small sample size.
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 25

Female, African-American, and 

Hispanic Anglers

The following section examines fishing 

days, trips and expenditures by age, 

education, income and residency. This 

in-depth analysis is conducted for each 

subpopulation.

Participation Levels (Days & Trips)

Figures 52 through 55 portray the 

average annual number of fishing days 

by age, education, income, and place of 

residency. Differences in days and trips 

of two or less are not usually statistically 

significant at the 90 percent confidence 

level and therefore should not be treated 

as true differences.12

As seen in Figure 52, age and mean 

fishing days are compared for all anglers 

and each subpopulation. For each 

population group, anglers that spend the 

most days fishing tended to be age 16 to 

24 or over the age of 55.

Average fishing days and education are 

inversely related for all anglers (Figure 

53). African-American anglers depict the 

same inverse relationship, where fishing 

days decrease as educational attainment 

increases. Hispanic anglers and female 

anglers, however, do not show any clear 

pattern between average annual fishing 

days and education.

Figure 54 shows the relationship 

between mean fishing days and income 

for all anglers and for African-American 

anglers. Those anglers with $20,000 to 

$49,999 incomes spent more days fishing 

than those anglers outside of that income 

range. In comparison, fishing days are 

inversely related to income for female 

anglers. No pattern emerges for Hispanic 

anglers.

Figure 52. Mean Days of Fishing, by Age

����������� ������������������������ ���������������� �������������

��������������������

��

��

�� ��

��

��

�� ��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

�� ��

��

��

�

�

��

��

��

��

����� ����� ����� ����� ���

Figure 53. Mean Days of Fishing, by Education

����������� ������������������������ ���������������� �������������

��������������������

�� ��

��

��

��

��

��

�� ��

��

��

��

�� �� ��

��

�

�

��

��

��

��

������������� ������������� ������������ ������������������

Figure 54. Mean Days of Fishing, by Income

����������� ������������������������ ���������������� �������������

��������������������

��

��

��

��

��

�� ��

��

��

�

��

�

�� ��

�� ��

�

�

��

��

��

��

��������� ���������� ���������� ��������

12This means that for 90 percent of all possible 

samples, differences of 2 days or less are not 

statistically significant.
26 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers

Place of residency is a factor in how often 

anglers fish. Figure 55 shows that mean 

days are lower for urban residents.

Figures 56 thru 59 compare mean fishing 

trips with age, education, income, and 

place of residency. The pattern of mean 

trips is very similar to that of mean days.

Figure 55. Mean Days of Fishing, by Place of Residence

����������� ������������������������ ���������������� �������������

��������������������

��

��

��

�� ��

��

��

��

�

�

��

��

��

����� �����

Figure 56. Mean Fishing Trips, by Age

����������� ������������������������ ���������������� �������������

������������������

�� ��

�� ��

��

�� ��

��

��

��

��

�

�

��

��

�� �� � � �

�

�

��

��

��

��

����� ����� ����� ����� ���

Figure 57. Mean Fishing Trips, by Education

����������� ������������������������ ���������������� �������������

������������������

�� ��

��

��

��

�� ��

�

�� ��

�

�� �� �� ��

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

������������� ������������� ������������ ������������������
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 27

Fishing Expenditures

As shown in Figures 47 and 48, females 

spent on average $278 per year for 

fishing trips and $96 per year on fishing 

equipment. This was substantially 

below the average expenditures for 

all anglers. Furthermore, with the 

exception of Hispanic anglers’ equipment 

expenditures, all subgroups had lower 

mean expenditures than all anglers. 

In order to better understand which 

segments of the subpopulations are 

spending more and which are spending 

less and how this compares with anglers 

in general, expenditures are analyzed by 

particular demographic characteristics 

such as age, education, income, and 

residency. This analysis finds some 

differences between the spending 

patterns of females, African-Americans, 

Hispanics, and all anglers.

Figure 60 depicts the relationship 

between mean trip expenditures and 

age. Both all anglers and female anglers’ 

trip expenditures increase with age up 

to the 45 to 54-age category, after which 

spending decreases. No apparent pattern 

between trip expenditures and age 

emerges for African-American anglers or 

Hispanic anglers. Across all age groups, 

each subpopulation spent less than all 

anglers, except for Hispanic anglers age 

16 to 24.

Figure 58. Mean Fishing Trips, by Income

����������� ������������������������ ���������������� �������������

������������������

��

�� ��

�� ��

��

��

��

�

�

��

�

�� ��

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

��������� ���������� ���������� ��������

Figure 59. Mean Fishing Trips, by Place of Residence

����������� ������������������������ ���������������� �������������

������������������

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

�

��

��

��

����� �����

Figure 60. Mean Trip Expenditures, by Age

����������� ������������������������ ���������������� �������������

�����������

���

��� ���

���

���

���

���

���

��� ���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

�

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

����� ����� ����� ����� ���
28 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers

Mean trip expenditures increase as 

education increases for both all anglers 

and female anglers (Figure 61). Neither 

African-American anglers nor Hispanic 

anglers follow the same spending pattern. 

Mean trip expenditures for AfricanAmerican anglers is $205 for those 

without a high school degree, increases to 

$376 for those anglers with some college, 

and decreases to $308 for those anglers 

with at least a college degree. No pattern 

emerges for Hispanic anglers.

Figure 62 demonstrates the correlation 

between mean fishing trip expenditures 

and income. All anglers’ trip expenditures 

are positively correlated with income, 

increasing from $279 for those anglers 

with less than $20,000 income to $639 

for those anglers with greater than 

$50,000 income. Female anglers’ 

trip expenditures are also positively 

correlated with income. Their trip 

expenditures are $194 for those anglers 

with less than $20,000 income and almost 

double to $381 for anglers with greater 

than $50,000 income. No pattern emerges 

for African-American or Hispanic 

anglers. However, all subpopulations 

have the greatest spending for those 

anglers with incomes greater than 

$50,000.

Similar to all anglers, Hispanic anglers 

and female anglers from urban areas 

spend more, on average, for fishing trips 

than rural residents spend (Figure 63). 

In contrast, African-American anglers 

living in rural areas had higher fishing 

trip expenditures ($342) than AfricanAmerican anglers living in urban areas 

($252).

Figure 61. Mean Trip Expenditures, by Education

����������� ������������������������ ���������������� �������������

�����������

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

�

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

������������� ������������� ������������ ������������������

Figure 62. Mean Trip Expenditures, by Income

����������� ������������������������ ���������������� �������������

�����������

���

��� ���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

��� ���

���

�

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

��������� ���������� ���������� ��������

Figure 63. Mean Trip Expenditures, Place of Residence

����������� ������������������������ ���������������� �������������

�����������

���

���

���

���

���

���

��� ���

�

���

���

���

���

���

����� �����
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 29

Figures 64 thru 67 show mean equipment 

expenditures and their relationship to 

age, education, income, and residence, 

all else constant. Figure 64 shows the 

relationship between mean equipment 

expenditures and age. For both all 

anglers and African-American anglers, 

the highest equipment expenditures 

occur for those anglers age 35 to 44 and 

the lowest equipment expenditures occur 

for those anglers age 16 to 24 or over age 

55. No pattern for Hispanic anglers or 

female anglers emerges.

For education in Figure 65, mean 

equipment expenditures gradually 

increase with increasing educational 

achievement for all anglers. AfricanAmerican anglers follow this same 

pattern, with a slight spending decrease 

for those with at least a college degree. 

Neither Hispanic anglers nor female 

anglers show any pattern.

Figure 64. Mean Equipment Expenditures, by Age

����������� ������������������������ ���������������� �������������

�����������

���

��� ��� ���

���

��

��

���

���

��

��� ���

���

���

���

���

��

���

���

��

�

��

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

����� ����� ����� ����� ���

Figure 65. Mean Equipment Expenditures, by Education

����������� ������������������������ ���������������� �������������

�����������

���

��� ��� ���

�� ��

��� ���

��

���

���

���

��

��

��

���

�

��

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

������������� ������������� ������������ ������������������
30 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers

Income and mean equipment 

expenditures are positively correlated 

for all anglers, African-American 

anglers, and Hispanic anglers (Figure 

66). However, female anglers’ equipment 

expenditures do not follow this general 

pattern. Equipment expenditures for 

female anglers remain relatively steady 

($85 to $90) for anglers with up to $49,999 

income, and increase to $113 annually for 

female anglers earning over $50,000.

Similar to trip expenditures patterns, 

equipment expenditures are higher for 

urban residents than for rural residents 

(Figure 67). The exception to this pattern 

is the African-American angler.

Figure 66. Mean Equipment Expenditures, by Income

����������� ������������������������ ���������������� �������������

�����������

���

���

���

���

��

��

���

���

��

���

���

���

�� �� ��

���

�

��

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

��������� ���������� ���������� ��������

Figure 67. Mean Equipment Expenditures, by Place of Residence

����������� ������������������������ ���������������� �������������

�����������

���

���

��� ��� ���

���

�� ���

�

���

���

���

���

���

����� �����
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 31

Fishing Trends 1991, 1996, & 2001

Table 4 highlights the number of fishing 

participants, days, and expenditures 

from the 1991, 1996, and 2001 Surveys 

and the percentage change between the 

years. All expenditures are depicted 

in 2001 dollars. Two changes are made 

to 2001 expenditures in this table to be 

consistent with 1991 and 1996 estimates. 

First, fishing trip expenditures for 

2001 are slightly different from those 

reported in Table 3 because they do not 

include heating and cooking fuel. Second, 

2001 equipment expenditures are also 

somewhat different from Table 3 because 

auxiliary expenditures are not included to 

remain consistent with previous reports.

The number of all anglers decreased 

marginally (5 percent) between 1991 

and 2001. The number of AfricanAmerican anglers and female anglers 

also decreased during this period. 

Between 1996 and 2001, AfricanAmerican angler participation decreased 

from 1.80 million to 1.56 million. Female 

anglers decreased from 9.51 million to 

8.91 million. Conversely, Hispanic anglers 

dramatically increased by nearly onethird.

Although the total number of anglers 

declined over the last decade, the fishing 

frequency of those anglers participating 

increased, with the exception of AfricanAmerican anglers. Total fishing days 

increased by over 40 million days 

between 1991 and 2001. Hispanic and 

female fishing days increased by 33 

percent and 10 percent respectively. 

Although fishing days for AfricanAmerican anglers decreased by 38 

percent between 1996 and 2001, this 

represents a marginal change from the 

number of fishing days in 1991.

Between 1996 and 2001, fishing trip 

expenditures for all anglers, AfricanAmerican anglers, and female anglers 

decreased by 16 percent, 39 percent, 

and 12 percent, respectively. There is no 

significant change for Hispanic anglers. 

During this same period, total fishing 

equipment expenditures decreased for all 

anglers, African-American anglers, and 

female anglers by 23 percent, 37 percent, 

and 13 percent respectively. Hispanic 

anglers have no significant change in 

equipment expenditures between 1996 

and 2001. However, Hispanic anglers 

are the only subpopulation that had 

increasing trip expenditures (38 percent) 

and increasing equipment expenditures 

(49 percent) between 1991 and 2001.

Table 4. Angling Comparison: Participants, Days, & Expenditures in 1991, 1996, & 2001

(Numbers in thousands)

Annual Estimates Percentage Change*

1991 1996 2001 1991 to 1996 1996 to 2001 1991 to 2001

Anglers

Total Anglers 35,787 35,246 34,071 * –3 –5

 African-American 1,815 1,802 1,564 * –13 –14

 Hispanic 1,218 1,185 1,564 * +32 +28

 Women 9,935 9,509 8,912 * –6 –10

Days

Total Days 511,328 625,893 557,394 +22 –11 +9

 African-American 23,273 40,131 24,702 +72 –38 *

 Hispanic 14,375 16,685 19,060 * * +33

 Women 97,699 112,841 107,692 +16 * +10

Fishing Expenditures**

Total Trip Expenditures $15,443,868 $17,299,985 14,578,102 +12 –16 *

 African-American $569,120 $659,450 401,003 * –39 –30

 Hispanic $385,395 $577,791 532,569 +50 * +38

 Women $2,654,437 $2,625,915 2,321,156 * –12 –13

Total Equipment Expenditures $5,199,844 $6,017,407 $4,617,612 +16 –23 –11

 African-American $182,371 $260,875 $163,347 +43 –37 *

 Hispanic $167,547 $206,509 $249,084 * * +49

 Women $946,316 $757,855 $662,179 –20 –13 –30

The “*” denotes that the percentage change is not different from zero at the 90 percent confidence level. Thus, for 90 percent of all possible samples, the estimate 

between one survey year is not different from another survey year. Expenditures are in 2001 dollars.

**All expenditures are depicted in 2001 dollars. Two changes are made to the 2001 expenditures to be consistent with 1991 and 1996 estimates. First, trip 

expenditures for 2001 are slightly different from those reported in Table 1 because heating and cooking fuel are not included. Second, the 2001 equipment 

expenditures are also slightly different because auxiliary expenditures are excluded. These exclusions were necessary to make the estimates comparable with 

previous publications.
32 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers

The descriptive statistics presented in 

the previous sections show that AfricanAmericans, Hispanics, and females 

are less likely to fish and hunt than the 

general population in 2001. However, 

these descriptions are limited because 

conclusions cannot be made with 

certainty whether low participation is 

due to a person’s race or gender, or if it 

is due to a combination of other social 

factors. For example, these groups often 

have lower education levels than the 

general population. Is low participation 

by minorities and females because of 

low education levels? Or, is participation 

low regardless of education? Empirical 

models are utilized to separate the 

effects of race, gender, and other 

socioeconomic variables on hunting and 

fishing participation. The implemented 

models remove the confounding effects 

of the correlation between race or 

gender and various socio-demographic 

characteristics to determine each 

characteristic’s individual contribution to 

the probability of participating in hunting 

or fishing.13 Hunting and fishing are each 

addressed in separate empirical models.

The data are from the 2001 FHWAR 

screener survey and the 2001 FHWAR 

sportsmen survey. For the hunting model, 

the dependent variable is equal to one 

if the respondent hunted in 2001 or is 

equal to zero if the respondent did not 

hunt in 2001. The model hypothesizes 

that a person’s decision whether or 

not to hunt is based on race, ethnicity, 

gender, urban residency, and other sociodemographic characteristics. The fishing 

model is constructed identically, with 

the exception of the dependent variable 

determining the probability of fishing 

rather than hunting.

Table 5 defines the explanatory variables, 

which include continuous and binary 

variables. The frequency distribution by 

age suggests that middle-aged people are 

more likely to hunt than younger or older 

people are. To capture this hypothesized 

Participation Models for 

Hunting & Fishing Activities

Table 5. Definition of Variables for Probability Models

Variable Definition Unit of Measurement

PROBHUNT Probability of hunting 1 = if respondent hunts

0 = otherwise

PROBFISH Probability of fishing 1 = if respondent fishes

0 = otherwise

HISPANIC Ethnicity of individual 1 = if respondent indicated Hispanic ethnicity

0 = otherwise

BLACK Race of individual 1 = if respondent indicated race is Black

0 = otherwise

GENDER Sex of individual 1 = if respondent is male

0 = if respondent is female

METRO Urban residence 1 = if residence is in an urban area

0 = otherwise

RETIRED Retirement status 1 = if respondent is retired

0 = otherwise

WEST Location of respondent’s 

residence

1 = if respondent resides in West

0 = otherwise

SOUTH Location of respondent’s 

residence

1 = if respondent resides in South

0 = otherwise

MID Location of respondent’s 

residence

1 = if respondent resides in Midwest

0 = otherwise

AGE Age of respondent Years ≥ 16

AGE2 Age of respondent, squared Years ≥ 16

SCHOOL Education level

Ordinal number between 1 and 18

(i.e., 1 = kindergarten; 18 = graduate or 

professional degree)

SCHOOL2 Education level, squared

Ordinal number between 1 and 36

(i.e., 1 = kindergarten; 36 = graduate or 

professional degree)

INCOME Annual household income Thousands of dollars

13The model is a type of qualitative response 

model, where the dependent variable has 

a discrete outcome with a “yes or “no” 

decision. By using a logit model to estimate 

the probability of a particular outcome, the 

unboundedness problem is avoided. Equation 2 

shows the model that is estimated. Equation 2 

is estimated separately for hunting and fishing.

(1) 

(2) 

where:

Pi = Probability that the ith individual fished/

hunted (i.e., “yes”)

Xi = Vector of explanatory variables

β = Vector of coefficients to be estimated
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 33

bell shaped distribution, age is represented 

by two variables: (1) AGE represents the 

age of the respondent, and (2) AGE2 is 

AGE squared. Education has a similar 

distribution. The variable SCHOOL is a 

continuous variable for the number of years 

of education completed, and SCHOOL2 is 

the school variable squared.

Hunting Participation Model

The hunting participation model is 

estimated from a sample of 73,453 

households in the United States. The 

results are shown below in Table 6. 

Standard errors are in parentheses. 

All variables (except RETIRED) for 

the hunting participation model were 

significant at the one percent level.

As expected, the variables BLACK, 

HISPANIC, and GENDER show that 

African-Americans, Hispanics, and 

females are less likely to hunt compared 

to the those people who are not black, 

Hispanic, or female. The coefficient for 

GENDER is the largest of the three 

groups indicating that being a woman 

more heavily influences whether a person 

will hunt compared to being Hispanic or 

African-American.

As shown by the results for the INCOME 

variable, income has only a marginal 

impact on whether a person will 

choose to hunt. Although this result is 

consistent with Figure 13, we expected 

the INCOME coefficient to have a larger 

magnitude. The insignificance of the 

Retired variable indicates that retired 

people were not more or less likely to 

hunt than non-retired people.

A person’s residence in a particular 

region of the U.S. affects whether a 

person will choose to hunt. The positive 

significant signs for SOUTH and MID 

reveal that people who live in the South 

or Midwest are more likely to hunt 

than people who live in the Northeast. 

Conversely, the negative significant sign 

for WEST implies that people living 

in the West are less likely to hunt than 

people living in the Northeast.

The age and education variables indicate 

that participation increased with age and 

education up to a point (reflected by the 

positive sign for AGE and SCHOOL) and 

then decreased (reflected by the negative 

sign on the squared variables: AGE2 and 

SCHOOL2).

In summary, the hunting participation 

model finds that a person who is AfricanAmerican, Hispanic or female is less likely 

to hunt based on these classifications 

alone. Other factors that contribute 

to whether or not someone hunts are 

residency, age, education, and income.

Table 6. Results: Hunting Participation

Variable

Hunting Participation Model

Coefficient Marginal Effect*

INTERCEPT –6.1906

(0.0062) ––

HISPANIC –1.1732

(0.0021)

–0.0086

(0.0005)

BLACK –1.4733

(0.0024)

–0.0122

(0.0006)

GENDER 2.4622

(0.0012)

0.2444

(0.0010)

METRO –1.1798

(0.0008)

–0.0479

(0.0005)

RETIRED 0.0442

(0.0017)

0.00002

(0.0001)

WEST –0.1725

(0.0013)

–0.0004

(0.0001)

SOUTH 0.1582

(0.0011)

0.0006

(9.96*10–5)

MID 0.4566

(0.0011)

0.0031

(0.0002)

AGE 0.0748

(0.0001)

0.0056

(2.80*10–5)

AGE2 –0.00099

(1.604*10–6)

–0.0001

(3.77*10–7)

SCHOOL 0.2384

(0.0008)

0.0179

(4.81*10–5)

SCHOOL2 –0.0112

(0.00003)

–0.0008

(2.66*10–6)

INCOME 0.00209

(0.00001)

0.0002

(1.19*10–6)

*Note: The logit model in Equation 2 is solved using a maximum likelihood estimator (MLE), where the 

estimated coefficients are the impact on the log of the ratio for the decision to hunt to the decision not to 

hunt. To simplify the understanding of each variable’s impact, marginal effects are included with the 

MLE results as well.
34 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers

Fishing Participation Model

The model below was estimated from a 

sample of 73,453 households in the United 

States. All variables were significant at 

the 1 percent level. Standard errors are 

in parentheses.

Consistent with the results for the 

hunting participation model, the 

variables BLACK, HISPANIC, and 

GENDER show that African-Americans, 

Hispanics, and females are less likely to 

fish compared to the those people who 

are not black, Hispanic, or female. Once 

again, the coefficient for GENDER is 

the largest of the three groups indicating 

that being a woman more heavily 

influences whether a person will fish 

compared to being Hispanic or AfricanAmerican. However, the magnitude of 

the GENDER coefficient is much smaller 

than in the hunting participation model.

The positive signs for WEST, SOUTH, 

and MIDWEST reveal that people who 

live in these regions are more likely to 

fish than people who live in the Northeast 

(the omitted variable). This variable is 

strongest for those living in the South or 

Midwest.

The positive sign for AGE and the 

negative sign for AGE2 demonstrates 

that the likelihood of fishing increases 

with age up to a certain point and then 

decreases. This result reaffirms the 

finding for all anglers in Figure 40.

Education behaves in the same manner 

as age; participation increases with 

education and then decreases after a 

certain point. This is different from the 

finding in Figure 41, which does not 

show any particular pattern for fishing 

participation associated with educational 

attainment.

The METRO variable reveals that people 

living in urban areas are less likely to fish 

than people living in rural areas. This 

result is consistent with Figure 43, which 

illustrated that 9 percent of anglers 

are urban residents while 22 percent of 

anglers are rural residents. The marginal 

effect of living in a urban residence has 

a larger impact than being AfricanAmerican or Hispanic on whether or not 

a person decides to fish.

In summary, African-Americans, 

Hispanics, and females are less likely 

to fish regardless of their age, income, 

education or income levels. Retired 

people, residents of the South and 

people with higher incomes are more 

likely to fish. Education and age are also 

important predictors of whether or not 

someone fishes.

Table 7. Results: Fishing Participation

Variable

Fishing Participation Model

Coefficient Marginal Effect

INTERCEPT –4.7376

(0.0039) ––

HISPANIC –0.9888

(0.0011)

–0.0057

(.0004)

BLACK –0.8855

(0.0011)

–0.0042

(0.0004)

GENDER 1.2711

(0.0005)

0.0547

(0.0005)

METRO –0.6054

(0.0005)

–0.0135

(0.0002)

RETIRED 0.2748

(0.0011)

0.0008

(0.0001)

WEST 0.1955

(0.0008)

0.0005

(0.0001)

SOUTH 0.4479

(0.0008)

0.0044

(0.0002)

MID 0.5449

(0.0008)

0.0041

(0.0002)

AGE 0.0753

(0.0001)

0.0051

(0.00003)

AGE2 –0.0010

(1.016*10–6)

–0.0001

(3.50*10–7)

SCHOOL 0.1839

(0.0005)

0.0125

(0.00003)

SCHOOL2 –0.0082

(0.00002)

–0.0006

(1.60*10–6)

INCOME 0.0042

(7.604*10–6)

0.0003

(1.69*10–6)
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 35

This report has presented detailed 

information on the participation and 

expenditure patterns of AfricanAmerican, Hispanic, and female hunters 

and anglers. This information includes 

participation rates, participation levels 

(days and trips), expenditures, usage 

of public and private land, types of 

hunting and fishing, and species pursued. 

Comparisons of this information among 

the different populations for hunters and 

anglers reveal that these populations are 

unique in many respects. Also presented 

are models that predict the likelihood 

of participation in hunting and fishing. 

The models explain that regardless of 

socio-demographics, African-Americans, 

Hispanics, and females are less likely to 

hunt and fish than the general population.

The data can be used in several ways to 

improve hunting and fishing experiences 

of these low participation groups. 

One way might be to shape hunting 

and fishing conservation and safety 

programs for specific groups. Data on 

participation rates, participation levels, 

and expenditures can help pinpoint 

certain groups of people more likely to 

participate. For instance, the data show 

that females living in rural areas are 

more likely to hunt than females living in 

urban areas. Furthermore, females living 

in rural areas take more hunting trips 

and hunt more days, on average, than 

females living in urban areas. Hunting 

conservation and safety programs 

designed toward these demographics 

could be both well received and cost 

effective.

Hunting and fishing experiences might 

be improved through efficient allocation 

of resources. Data provided on the use of 

private and public land, types of hunting 

and fishing, and species sought combined 

with other data on participation might 

help resource managers make informed 

decisions. For example, the report shows 

that many hunters hunt predominately on 

private land. To avoid overcrowding and 

over-hunting, resource managers could 

examine the reasons why private land is 

preferred over public land for hunting 

and increase efforts to make public land 

more favorable. Information about types 

of hunting and fishing and species sought 

could be used in a similar manner.

Another use of the data is directing 

information toward the appropriate user 

groups. For instance, the report shows 

that a large proportion of Hispanic 

anglers reside and trout fish in the West. 

Changes in trout fishing regulations or 

trout fish advisories in the West could 

have a large impact on this group. 

Wildlife professionals could target 

information to this group in Spanish and 

English and choose the best medium 

(e.g., newspaper, magazines, television, 

posters) to disseminate the information.

Expenditure information can provide 

the hunting and fishing industry with a 

better understanding of their customers. 

Demographic profiles of trip and 

equipment expenditures can be used to 

better serve customers and for marketing 

purposes. A key finding is that Hispanic 

anglers spend more on average on trips 

and equipment than many other groups. 

Furthermore, the number of Hispanic 

anglers and their spending has increased 

significantly over the last decade.

Above are just a few ways the report’s 

information can be used. Wildlife 

professionals can use this information in 

any number of ways to arrive at a better 

understanding of groups who do not 

hunt or fish as much as the rest of the 

population.

Summary

Photodisc
36 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers

Sample sizes for hunters and anglers 

are presented in Tables A-1, A-2, A-3, 

and A-4. For the statistical analysis, 

small sample sizes are considered to be 

between 10 and 29 observations. Samples 

sizes with less than ten were considered 

too small to report data reliably. These 

assumptions are consistent with the “2001 

National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and 

Wildlife-Associated Recreation.”

Appendix A: Sample Sizes

Mike Hemming/USFWS
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 37

Table A-1. Sample Sizes for Hunters

All Hunters African American Hunters Hispanic Hunters Female Hunters

Category Days Trips

Trip 

Expend.

Equip 

Expend. Days Trips

Trip 

Expend.

Equip 

Expend. Days Trips

Trip 

Expend.

Equip 

Expend. Days Trips

Trip 

Expend.

Equip 

Expend.

Age

16–24 824 822 822 827 12 12 12 12 25 25 25 25 89 88 86 8925–34 1,043 1,041 1,043 1,052 19 19 20 20 32 32 32 32 121 120 122 12335–44 1,472 1,469 1,471 1,485 18 18 18 18 40 40 40 40 139 137 136 14145–54 1,261 1,258 1,255 1,267 28 28 28 28 35 35 35 35 116 115 115 11755+ 1,082 1,082 1,080 1,088 28 28 28 29 17 17 17 17 77 77 77 78

Education

< High School 753 751 753 759 26 26 26 27 24 24 24 24 55 54 54 57

H.S. Graduate 2,190 2,187 2,187 2,204 42 42 43 43 68 68 68 68 221 218 219 224Some College 1,513 1,510 1,504 1,523 26 26 26 26 34 34 34 34 172 171 169 172College Graduate + 1,226 1,224 1,227 1,233 11 11 11 11 23 23 23 23 94 94 94 95

Income

< $20,000 1,555 1,550 1,550 1,582 40 40 41 42 41 41 41 41 172 170 170 178$20–29,999 611 611 611 614 24 24 24 24 12 12 12 12 72 71 71 72$30–49,999 1,333 1,329 1,330 1,336 20 20 20 20 45 45 45 45 117 115 115 117$50,000+ 2,183 2,182 2,180 2,187 21 21 21 21 51 51 51 51 181 181 180 181

Region

Midwest 1,663 1,661 1,657 1,675 10 10 10 10 16 16 16 16 145 143 142 145Northeast 766 765 765 770 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 56 56 57 58South 1,873 1,870 1,871 1,884 83 83 84 85 33 33 33 33 169 167 166 171

West 1,380 1,376 1,378 1,390 8 8 8 8 95 95 95 95 172 171 171 174
38 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers Table A-2. Sample Sizes for Hunters continued Category All Hunters African American Hunters Hispanic Hunters Female Hunters Type of Hunting Big Game 457 69 130 459 Small Game 2,468 77 48 155 Migratory Birds 1,281 12 39 60 Other Animals 498 11 10 25 Type of Game Deer 4,325 69 106 393 Wild Turkey 944 9 13 63 Squirrel 820 40 11 46 Rabbit 860 55 16 55 Region Midwest 1,675 10 16 145 Northeast 770 4 5 58 South 1,884 85 33 171 West 1,390 8 95 174 Type of Land

Private Land 4,461 86 76 397

Public Land 2,887 41 106 223

Residence

Urban 2,493 46 99 199

Rural 3,226 61 50 349
Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers 39

Table A-3. Sample Sizes for Anglers

All Anglers African American Anglers Hispanic Anglers Female Anglers

Category Days Trips

Trip 

Expend.

Equip 

Expend. Days Trips

Trip 

Expend.

Equip 

Expend. Days Trips

Trip 

Expend.

Equip 

Expend. Days Trips

Trip 

Expend.

Equip 

Expend.

Age

16–24 1,687 1,659 1,654 1,698 64 63 63 64 89 88 88 89 417 411 409 42325–34 2,463 2,401 2,399 2,482 93 90 91 96 124 121 120 125 700 675 676 71035–44 3,493 3,410 3,410 3,524 118 111 111 120 131 126 127 133 958 928 925 96845–54 2,752 2,688 2,676 2,775 122 118 118 123 70 70 69 71 689 670 665 69755+ 2,788 2,713 2,712 2,817 130 124 128 136 49 46 47 49 617 598 595 626

Education

< High School 1,610 1,580 1,580 1,621 131 129 130 133 104 100 99 104 355 351 349 359H.S. Graduate 4,560 4,442 4,433 4,610 192 185 187 198 168 167 167 170 1,191 1,150 1,146 1,208Some College 3,547 3,454 3,443 3,571 136 127 128 138 113 108 108 114 976 947 944 990College Graduate + 3,466 3,395 3,395 3,494 68 65 66 70 78 76 77 79 859 834 831 867

Income

< $20,000 3,845 3,724 3,722 3,914 242 233 237 252 149 145 146 153 1,112 1,080 1,077 1,137$20–29,999 1,376 1,349 1,346 1,386 78 74 74 80 67 65 64 67 362 353 351 365$30–49,999 2,812 2,762 2,757 2,823 100 96 97 100 112 110 110 112 715 695 692 720$50,000+ 5,150 5,036 5,026 5,173 107 103 103 107 135 131 131 135 1,192 1,154 1,150 1,202

Region

Midwest 3,378 3,264 3,271 3,413 70 66 69 72 47 47 48 49 935 900 902 950Northeast 2,035 1,963 1,955 2,058 41 36 38 46 44 42 42 45 402 380 377 409South 4,330 4,248 4,239 4,364 375 363 363 380 106 102 102 106 1,128 1,105 1,100 1,143West 3,440 3,396 3,386 3,461 41 41 41 41 266 260 259 267 916 897 891 922
40 Participation and Expenditure Patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and Female Hunters and Anglers Table A-3. Sample Sizes for Anglers continued Category All Anglers African American Anglers Hispanic Anglers Female Anglers Type of Fishing Freshwater (excludes Great Lakes) 11,161 425 361 2,833 Saltwater 3,412 168 165 776 Great Lakes 451 30 8 75 Type of Freshwater Species Black Bass 3,898 153 91 749 Panfish 2,844 174 45 753 Trout 3,748 46 173 817 Catfish 2,656 213 104 651 Type of Saltwater Species Flatfish 871 41 27 193 Striped Bass 779 29 19 101 Sea Trout 407 28 12 71 Blue Fish 535 16 19 69 Region Midwest 3,413 72 49 950

Northeast 2,058 46 45 409South 4,364 380 106 1,143West 3,461 41 267 922

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Division of Federal Aid

Washington, DC 20240

http://federalaid.fws.gov

May 2004

Cover: Photodisc