1991-2016 Trend in 

Participation Rates for 

Wildlife Watching, by 

Demographic Group

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
02 1991-2016 Trend in Participation Rates for Wildlife Watching, by Demographic Group

Contents

Introduction................................................................................ 2

All Wildlife Watching............................................................. 3

Around-the-Home Wildlife Watching................................ 4

Age ............................................................................... 4

Metropolitan Statistical Area................................... 5

Gender......................................................................... 5

Region.......................................................................... 6

Income......................................................................... 6

Race.............................................................................. 7

Away-from-Home Wildlife Watching................................ 8

Age ............................................................................... 8

Metropolitan Statistical Area................................... 9

Gender......................................................................... 9

Region........................................................................ 10

Income....................................................................... 10

Race............................................................................ 11

Conclusions ............................................................................. 12
1991-2016 Trend in 

Participation Rates for 

Wildlife Watching, by 

Demographic Group

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

1991-2016 Trend in Participation Rates for Wildlife Watching, by Demographic Group 1 

December 2020

Author: Richard AikenU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Wildlife and Sport Fish Recreation (WSFR)

This report is intended to complement the National Report from the 2016 National Survey of 

Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. The conclusions are the author’s and do not 

represent official positions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Included photos are courtesy of USFWS. 
2 1991-2016 Trend in Participation Rates for Wildlife Watching, by Demographic Group

Wildlife watching is closely observing 

wildlife with the intent to identify, 

photograph, or feed. Also included 

in wildlife-watching activities are 

maintaining plantings and natural areas 

for the benefit of wildlife and visiting 

local parks with the primary purpose 

of observing wildlife. These activities 

have always been popular with a wide 

spectrum of Americans. This report 

quantifies over time the proportion of 

Americans who were wildlife watchers, 

and then points out the specific 

demographic cohorts that were most 

responsible for the trends.

The primary measure of wildlife watching 

in this report is the participation rate. 

This is the percentage of a given group 

that participates. This measure lends 

Introduction

itself to easier comparison across cohorts, 

since a participation rate is calculated 

the same across categories, presenting 

the number of participants per hundred 

people in each demographic category.

This analysis is based on data from the 

National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, 

and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, 

done about every five years since 1955. 

Wildlife watching was introduced into 

the survey in 1980, and this analysis 

restricts the study period to 1991-2016 

because the survey methodology was 

the same for those years. See the 2016 

National Report for further details 

about that methodology, at https://www.

census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/

publications/2018/demo/fhw16-nat.pdf.

The National Survey divides wildlife 

watching into “around the home” and 

“away from home.” Around the home is 

activity within one mile of home. Away 

from home is trips or outings at least 

one mile from home for the primary 

purpose of observing, photographing, 

or feeding wildlife. Wildlife watching 

around the home encompasses activities 

that are not possible for away-from-home 

participants—for example, maintaining a 

backyard birdfeeder and plantings such 

as shrubs and agricultural crops for the 

benefit of wildlife.
1991-2016 Trend in Participation Rates for Wildlife Watching, by Demographic Group 3

The highpoint of wildlife watching 

participation rates was 1991, when 

40 percent of Americans 16 years of age 

and older watched wildlife. The second 

highest participating year was 2016, with 

34 percent participating. See Table 1. 

Wildlife Watching Trends.

Comparing the two peak years of 

participation shows which cohorts 

increased or decreased their 

participation. The demographic 

categories with the biggest percentage 

increases were Blacks, All Other races, 

45- to 64-year-olds, 65 and older, and 

the West region. The cohorts with the 

smallest increases were 25- to 44-yearolds and the South region. 

Overall there was a one-third increase 

in population from 1991 to 2016. All 

wildlife watching participation increased 

13%. The categories with the biggest 

percentage increases were 45- to 64-yearolds, Blacks, and All Other races. The 

categories with the biggest percentage 

decreases were 25- to 34-year-olds, 16- to 

24-year-olds, and the Midwest region. 

The biggest percentage increase in 

participation rate for all wildlife watching 

was Blacks. (Participation rate is a 

percent, so all the changes are based on 

the same concept, unlike the percentage 

increases of totals, where a percent 

change in a big number is different in 

effect from a percent change in a small 

number.) The next biggest were All Other 

races and 45- to 64-year-olds. The biggest 

decrease was 25- to 44-year-olds. Others 

were 16- to 24-year-olds, the Midwest 

region, and females. See Table 2. Total 

Population and Wildlife Watching 

Estimates, by Cohort.

To help explain which demographic 

groups were responsible for the dynamics 

of wildlife watching trends from 1991 to 

2016, the rest of this report is divided into 

around-the-home and away-from-home 

comparisions, using tables and graphs. 

All Wildlife Watching

Table 1. Wildlife Watching Trends

(Population 16 years of age and older.)

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

Total Number 76,111 62,868 66,105 71,132 71,776 86,042

Participation Rate 40% 31% 31% 31% 30% 34%

Around the home, 

participation total 73,904 60,751 62,928 67,756 68,598 81,128

Away from home, 

participation total 29,999 23,652 21,823 22,977 22,496 23,720

Table 2. Total Population and Wildlife Watching Estimates, by Cohort 

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

Total Population Total Participation

Demographic 

Cohorts 1991 2016

Percent 

Change 1991 2016

Percent 

Change

Age

16+ 189,964 254,686 34% 76,111 86,042 13%

16-24 29,553 36,892 25% 8,551 7,092 -17%

25-44 81,272 84,432 4% 35,383 22,769 -36%

45-64 48,106 84,991 77% 20,358 38,025 87%

65+ 21,032 48,372 56% 11,819 18,155 54%

Race

White 162,367 199,086 23% 71,065 74,710 5%

Black 18,395 33,358 81% 3,111 7,384 137%

All Others 9,202 22,242 142% 1,934 3,948 104%

Region

Northwest 39,396 45,386 15% 15,154 16,600 10%

South 65,275 65,579 -0- 24,946 31,067 25%

Midwest 45,692 53,395 17% 21,435 18,670 -13%

West 39,600 60,233 52% 14,576 19,705 35%

Gender

Male 90,369 121,775 35% 37,188 51,125 37%

Female 99,595 132,911 33% 38,924 34,917 -10%
4 1991-2016 Trend in Participation Rates for Wildlife Watching, by Demographic Group

Around-the-Home Wildlife Watching

While overall wildlife watching increased 

from 2011 to 2016, this was due almost 

entirely to participation around the home. 

Away-from-home participation went 

down overall, and for most demographic 

groups.

Comparing 1991 and 2016 participation, 

the increase was 10%. The categories 

with the biggest percentage increases 

were 45- to 64-year-olds, 65 years old and 

older, Blacks, and All Other races. The 

categories with the biggest percentage 

decreases were 25- to 44-year-olds, 16- to 

24-year-olds, and the Midwest region. See 

Chart 1. Around-the-Home Participation 

Rates.

The biggest percentage increase in 

participation rate for around-the-home 

wildlife watching was Blacks. The next 

were All Other races and 45- to 64-yearolds. The biggest decreases were for 

25- to 44-year-olds, 16- to 24-year-olds, 

the Midwest region, and females.

Age

Three age cohorts had similar decreases 

in participation rates from 1991 to 2011: 

16- to 24-year-olds, 25- to 34-year-olds, 

and 35- to 44-year-olds. They then had 

similar increases from 2011 to 2016. The 

45- to 54-year-old, 55- to 64-year-old, 

and 65 and older cohort rates decreased 

from 1991 to 1996, then increased 

until 2006, whereupon they diverged 

markedly. The 55- to 64-year-old cohort 

steadily increased, the 45- to 54-year-olds 

decreased then increased, and the 65 and 

older cohort increased then decreased. 

See Chart 2. Around-the-Home 

Participation Rates, by Age.

Chart 1. Around-the-Home Participation Rates: 1991-2016

0

10

20

30

40

50

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

Around the Home Participation Rates: 1991-2016 

Chart 2. Around-the-Home Participation Rates, by Age

0

10

20

30

40

50

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

Around the Home Participation Rates, 

by Age

16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 and older

Table 3. Around-the-Home Participation Rates: 1991-2016

(Population 16 years of age and older.)

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

Participation Rate 39% 30% 30% 30% 29% 32%

Table 4. Around-the-Home Participation Rates, by Age

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

16-24 27% 15% 14% 13% 10% 16%

25-34 39% 26% 23% 19% 17% 23%

35-44 45% 34% 32% 31% 23% 26%

45-54 40% 34% 34% 36% 32% 38%

55-64 44% 36% 39% 40% 41% 48%

65 and older 38% 32% 34% 35% 47% 37%
1991-2016 Trend in Participation Rates for Wildlife Watching, by Demographic Group 5

Metropolitan Statistical Area

A Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) 

is a grouping of one or more counties or 

equivalent entities that contain at least 

one urbanized area of 50,000 or more 

inhabitants. A large MSA is a million 

residents or more. A medium MSA is 

250,000 to 999,999 residents. A small 

MSA is 50,000 to 249,999 residents. (See 

www.census.gov/population/metro/about/

for more information.) The participation 

rate trends were more or less level for 

all MSAs. The Outside MSA category 

had the highest participation rate for 

most of the study period. See Chart 3. 

Around-the-Home Participation Rates, 

by Metropolitan Statistical Area.

Gender

The participation rates for women and 

men were similar from 1991 to 2011, with 

the rate for females staying higher than 

the rate for males. From 2011 to 2016, 

the male rate was higher than the female 

rate. See Chart 4. Around-the-Home 

Participation Rates, by Gender.

Chart 3. Around-the-Home Participation Rates, by Metropolitan Statistical Area

0

10

20

30

40

50

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

Around the Home Participation Rates, 

by Metropolitan Statistical Area

Large MSA Medium MSA Small MSA Outside MSA

Chart 4. Around-the-Home Participation Rates, by Gender

0

10

20

30

40

50

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

Around the Home Participation Rates, by Gender

Male Female

Table 5. Around-the-Home Participation Rates, by Metropolitan Statistical Area

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

Large MSA 33% 27% 25% 25% 25% 25%

Medium MSA 42% 30% 29% 32% 33% 41%

Small MSA 44% 35% 39% 34% 32% 42%

Outside MSA 45% 36% 39% 38% 38% 39%

Table 6. Around-the-Home Participation Rates, by Gender

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

Male 40% 29% 28% 29% 27% 39%

Female 38% 31% 31% 31% 30% 26%
6 1991-2016 Trend in Participation Rates for Wildlife Watching, by Demographic Group

Region

The participation rate trends for the four 

regions of the country were fairly level 

from 1996 to 2011. The Midwest rate 

was the highest from 1991 to 2011. The 

Northeast rate increased to the highest 

in 2016. See Chart 5. Around-the-Home 

Participation Rates, by Region.

Income

The above median income cohort 

maintained a consistently higher 

participation rate throughout the study 

period. “Not reported” is the category 

of respondents who would not divulge 

their income during data collection. See 

Chart 6. Around-the-Home Participation 

Rates, by Income.

Chart 5. Around-the-Home Participation Rates, by Region

0

10

20

30

40

50

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

Around the Home Participation Rates, by Region

Northeast South Midwest West

Chart 6. Around-the-Home Participation Rates, by Income

0

10

20

30

40

50

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

Around the Home Participation Rates, by Income

Below median income Above median income Not reported

Table 7. Around-the-Home Participation Rates, by Region

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

Northeast 38% 29% 30% 30% 29% 36%

South 37% 29% 28% 28% 28% 30%

Midwest 46% 34% 35% 36% 34% 34%

West 35% 28% 27% 25% 25% 29%

Table 8. Around-the-Home Participation Rates, by Income

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

Below median income 36% 27% 28% 28% 26% 28%

Above median income 45% 36% 38% 38% 35% 37%

Not reported 29% 22% 20% 20% 21% 27%
1991-2016 Trend in Participation Rates for Wildlife Watching, by Demographic Group 7

Race

The participation rate for the White 

cohort was consistently higher than those 

for the Black and All Others cohorts. The 

Black cohort rate reached its highest 

level in 2016, surpassing that of the All 

Others cohort. See Chart 7. Around-theHome Participation Rates, by Race.

Chart 7. Around-the-Home Participation Rates, by Race

0

10

20

30

40

50

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

Around the Home Participation Rates, by Race

White Black All Others

Table 9. Around-the-Home Participation Rates, by Race

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

White 43% 34% 33% 33% 34% 35%

Black 17% 10% 9% 10% 11% 22%

All Others 20% 15% 13% 17% 11% 17%
8 1991-2016 Trend in Participation Rates for Wildlife Watching, by Demographic Group

Away-from-Home Wildlife Watching

Away-from-home participation decreased 

21% over the study period. The only 

categories with percentage increases 

were 65 years old and older, 45- to 

64-year-olds, and males. The categories 

with the biggest percentage decreases 

were 25- to 44-year-olds, the Midwest 

region, and females. See Chart 8. 

Away-from-Home Participation Rates: 

1991-2016.

Age

Each age cohort had a differing trend in 

participation rate. The 25- to 34-year -old 

cohort decreased throughout the 1991-

2016 study period. The 16- to 24-year-old 

cohort rate decreased from 1991 to 2011, 

then increased dramatically in 2016. 

The 35- to 44-year-old cohort had an 

overall downward trend, as did the 44- to 

54-year-old cohort, although they had 

inflection points at different intervals. 

The 55- to 64-year-old cohort rate 

increased, as did the 65 and older cohort, 

although again not at the same points 

in time. See Chart 9. Away-from-Home 

Participation Rates, by Age.

Chart 8. Away-from-Home Participation Rates: 1991-2016

0

5

10

15

20

25

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

Away from Home Participation Rates: 1991-2016 

Chart 9. Away-from-Home Participation Rates, by Age

0

5

10

15

20

25

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

Away from Home Participation Rates, by Age

16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 years old and older

Table 10. Away-from-Home Participation Rates: 1991-2016

(Population 16 years of age and older.)

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

Participation Rate 16% 12% 10% 10% 9% 9%

Table 11. Away-from-Home Participation Rates, by Age

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

16-24 14% 8% 7% 5% 3% 10%

25-34 21% 13% 11% 8% 7% 8%

35-44 20% 16% 13% 13% 11% 11%

45-54 16% 15% 12% 12% 12% 7%

55-64 12% 11% 11% 13% 12% 13%

65 and older 8% 6% 6% 7% 9% 8%
1991-2016 Trend in Participation Rates for Wildlife Watching, by Demographic Group 9

Metropolitan Statistical Area

The Outside MSA category had the 

highest participation rate for most of the 

study period. The medium MSA cohort 

had the highest rate in 2016. The large 

MSA rate was the lowest throughout 

the study period. See Chart 10. Awayfrom-Home Participation Rates, by 

Metropolitan Statistical Area.

Gender

Unlike around-the-home participation, 

the participation rate for men was higher 

than the rate for women throughout 

the study period except for 1996, 

when they were approximately the 

same. See Chart 11. Away-from-Home 

Participation Rates, by Gender.

Chart 10. Away-from-Home Participation Rates, by Metropolitan Statistical Area

0

5

10

15

20

25

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

Away from Home Participation Rates,

by Metropolitan Statistical Area 

Large MSA Medium MSA Small MSA Outside MSA

Chart 11. Away-from-Home Participation Rates, by Gender

0

5

10

15

20

25

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

Away from Home Participation Rates, by Gender

Male Female

Table 12. Away-from-Home Participation Rates, by Metropolitan Statistical Area

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

Large MSA 13% 11% 9% 9% 8% 8%

Medium MSA 16% 12% 10% 10% 10% 13%

Small MSA 18% 13% 13% 12% 11% 9%

Outside MSA 19% 14% 13% 13% 12% 11%

Table 13. Away-from-Home Participation Rates, by Gender

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

Male 18% 12% 11% 11% 10% 13%

Female 14% 11% 9% 9% 9% 6%
10 1991-2016 Trend in Participation Rates for Wildlife Watching, by Demographic Group

Chart 12. Away-from-Home Participation Rates, by Region

0

5

10

15

20

25

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

Away from Home Participation Rates, by Region 

Northeast South Midwest West

Table 14. Away-from-Home Participation Rates, by Region

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

Northeast 15% 11% 10% 10% 9% 11%

South 13% 10% 8% 9% 9% 8%

Midwest 18% 14% 12% 12% 10% 8%

West 18% 13% 12% 11% 11% 11%

Region

The participation rate trends for the four 

regions of the country paralleled each 

other from 1991 to 2011. The Northeast 

rate increased in 2016. See Chart 12. 

Away-from-Home Participation Rates, 

by Region.

Income

Similar to around-the-home participation 

trends, the above median income 

cohort maintained a consistently higher 

participation rate throughout the study 

period. It declined throughout the 

study period, while the below median 

income cohort rate increased in 2016. 

See Chart 13. Away-from-Home 

Participation Rates, by Income.

Chart 13. Away-from-Home Participation Rates, by Income

0

5

10

15

20

25

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

Away from Home Participation Rates, by Income

Below median income Above median income Not reported

Table 15. Away-from-Home Participation Rates, by Income

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

Below median income 13% 10% 9% 9% 7% 9%

Above median income 21% 16% 15% 15% 13% 11%

Not reported 10% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5%
1991-2016 Trend in Participation Rates for Wildlife Watching, by Demographic Group 11

Race

Again similar to around-the-home 

participation trends, the participation 

rate for the White cohort was 

consistently higher than those for the 

Black and All Others cohorts. Dissimilar 

to around-the-home participation trends, 

the Black cohort rate was the lowest of 

the three categories throughout the study 

period. See Chart 14. Away-from-Home 

Participation Rates, by Race.

Table 16. Away-from-Home Participation Rates, by Race

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

White 18% 13% 11% 11% 11% 11%

Black 4% 2% 2% 3% 3% 2%

All Others 9% 7% 5% 5% 4% 3%

Chart 14. Away-from-Home Participation Rates, by Race

0

5

10

15

20

25

1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

Away From Home Participation Rates, by Race

White Black All Others
12 1991-2016 Trend in Participation Rates for Wildlife Watching, by Demographic Group

Conclusions

Similar to findings of studies of other 

outdoor recreation activities, the baby 

boomers and middle-aged cohorts 

are maintaining or increasing their 

historical activity levels, while the 

participation of younger cohorts is falling 

off. Around-the-home activities such as 

photographing and feeding wildlife are 

the most popular. It is interesting that 

the most recent year of data, 2016, is the 

year of second-most activity in the study 

period. The next Survey in 2022 will help 

determine if this high level of activity is 

a new normal, or was an unusual year for 

wildlife watching. 

14 1991-2016 Trend in Participation Rates for Wildlife Watching, by Demographic Group

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov

December 2020