U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

2001National and State

Economic Impacts of

Wildlife Watching

Addendum to the 2001 National

Survey of Fishing, Hunting and

Wildlife-Associated Recreation

Report 2001-2

2001National and State

Economic Impacts of

Wildlife Watching

Addendum to the 2001 National

Survey of Fishing, Hunting and

Wildlife-Associated Recreation

Report 2001-2

August 2003

James Caudill, Ph.D.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Division of Economics

Arlington VA

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

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

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

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Observing, feeding, and photographing

wildlife in the United States is an

important pastime for millions of

Americans and contributes significantly

to the national and state economies. In

2001, more than 66 million people 16 years

of age and older spent over $38.4 billion

on trips and equipment in pursuit of

these activities. Wildlife-watching

expenditures have contributed

substantially to Federal and state tax

revenues, jobs, earnings, and industry

output.

The 2001 National Survey of Fishing,

Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated

Recreation (FHWAR) (U.S. Department

of the Interior et al.) is the most

comprehensive survey of wildlife-related

recreation in the U.S. Over 40,000

detailed interviews were completed with

anglers, hunters, and wildlife watchers.

The survey focused on 2001 participation

and expenditures by U.S. residents 16

years of age or older.

Two reports used the 2001 FHWAR to

address the national and state economic

impacts of hunting and fishing.1 In this

report, estimates of national and state

economic impacts of wildlife watching

based on the 2001 FHWAR are reported.

The following topics are addressed:

(1) national participation in wildlife

watching; (2) expenditures associated

with participation in wildlife watching;

(3) estimates of the total economic

activity generated by these expenditures;

(4) total employment and employment

income associated with these

expenditures; and (5) estimates of

associated state and federal tax revenue.

2 2001 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching

Introduction

Summary of National Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching: 2001

Participation 66.1 million

Total Expenditures $38.4 billion

Total Industry Output $95.8 billion

Employment 1,027,833 jobs

Employment Income $27.8 billion

State Sales Tax $2.1 billion

State Income Tax $712 million

Federal Income tax $3.3 billion

Figure 1. Wildlife Watching Expenditures by Major Category: 2001

$38.4 billion

Figure 2. Trip Expenditures for Wildlife Watching: 2001

$8.2 billion

61% $23.5b Equipment

24% $2.0b Lodging

9% $0.7b Other

Trip $8.2b 21%

Other $6.7b 17%

Food $2.8b 35%

Transportation $2.6b 32%

1 See The Economic Importance of Hunting

in America, International Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Washington DC,

2002 and Sportfishing in America, American

Sportfishing Association, Alexandria,VA, 2002.
Wildlife-related recreation is one of the

most popular forms of recreation in the

United States. In 2001, 82 million people

participated in hunting, fishing and

wildlife watching. By comparison, total

attendance in 2001 for all major league

baseball and professional football games

numbered about 89 million

(Infoplease.com).

Over 66 million people participated in

some form of wildlife watching, which

refers to nonharvesting activities such as

observing, feeding and photographing

wildlife. The figure of 66 million includes

only primary participants in wildlifewatching. Primary means that the

principal motivation for the trip, activity or

expenditure is wildlife-related. Primary

participation is further categorized as

residential or nonresidential. Primary

residential participants include those

whose activities2 are within one mile of

home and primary nonresidential

participants refers to people who take

trips or outings of at least one mile for

the primary purpose of observing,

feeding, or photographing wildlife. 

For the purposes of the survey, trips to

zoos, circuses, aquariums, museums and

for scouting game are not considered

wildlife watching.

Table 1 summarizes the number of state

residents and state nonresidents who

participated in wildlife-watching

activities by state in 2001.

2001 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching 3

Participation in Wildlife Watching

2 These activities include one or more of 

the following: (1) closely observing or 

trying to identify birds or other wildlife; 

(2) photographing wildlife; (3) feeding 

birds or other wildlife on a regular basis; 

(4) maintaining natural areas of at least onequarter acre for which benefit to wildlife is the

primary purpose; (5) maintaining plantings

(shrubs, agricultural crops, etc.) for which

benefit to wildlife is the primary concern, or

(6) visiting public parks within one mile of

home for the primary purpose of observing,

feeding, or photographing wildlife (pp. 2–3,

U.S. Department of the Interior et al. 2002).

Laura Riley, USFWS
4 2001 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching

Table 1. Number of Wildlife-Watching Participants by State: 2001

(Population 16 years and older. Number in thousands)

Total participants Non-State Residents State Residents

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

United States, Total 66,105 100 21,823 33 62,928 95

Alabama 1,016 100 72 7 944 93

Alaska 420 100 185 44 235 56

Arizona 1,465 100 367 25 1,098 75

Arkansas 845 100 67 8 778 92

California 5,720 100 384 7 5,336 93

Colorado 1,552 100 362 23 1,190 77

Connecticut 965 100 90 9 875 91

Delaware 232 100 64 28 168 72

Florida 3,240 100 490 15 2,750 85

Georgia 1,494 100 178 12 1,317 88

Hawaii 220 100 96 43 125 57

Idaho 643 100 264 41 379 59

Illinois 2,621 100 176 7 2,445 93

Indiana 1,866 100 80 4 1,786 96

Iowa 1,028 100 63 6 966 94

Kansas 807 100 76 9 731 91

Kentucky 1,362 100 102 8 1,259 92

Louisiana 931 100 111 12 819 88

Maine 778 100 260 33 518 67

Maryland 1,524 100 234 15 1,290 85

Massachusetts 1,686 100 205 12 1,481 88

Michigan 2,666 100 250 9 2,416 91

Minnesota 2,155 100 171 8 1,984 92

Mississippi 631 100 55 9 576 91

Missouri 1,826 100 219 12 1,607 88

Montana 687 100 325 47 362 53

Nebraska 565 100 71 13 494 87

Nevada 543 100 222 41 320 59

New Hampshire 766 100 320 42 445 58

New Jersey 1,895 100 225 12 1,670 88

New Mexico 671 100 202 30 469 70

New York 3,887 100 392 10 3,495 90

North Carolina 2,168 100 300 14 1,868 86

North Dakota 190 100 56 29 134 71

Ohio 2,897 100 145 5 2,752 95

Oklahoma 1,131 100 105 9 1,026 91

Oregon 1,680 100 401 24 1,280 76

Pennsylvania 3,794 100 293 8 3,502 92

Rhode Island 298 100 58 19 240 81

South Carolina 1,186 100 128 11 1,059 89

South Dakota 358 100 110 31 248 69

Tennessee 2,084 100 382 18 1,701 82

Texas 3,240 100 174 5 3,066 95

Utah 806 100 244 30 562 70

Vermont 496 100 214 43 282 57

Virginia 2,460 100 313 13 2,147 87

Washington 2,496 100 286 11 2,210 89

West Virginia 605 100 105 17 500 83

Wisconsin 2,442 100 283 12 2,159 88

Wyoming 498 100 327 66 171 34

Note: Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses.
Spending associated with wildlife

watching generates a substantial amount

of economic activity across the U.S.

Participants spend money on a wide

variety of goods and services. Triprelated expenditures for nonresidential

participants include expenses for food,

lodging, and transportation. Both

residential and nonresidential

participants also buy equipment and

related goods for the primary purpose of

engaging in wildlife watching such as

binoculars, cameras, wild bird food,

memberships in wildlife organizations,

camping equipment, motor homes,

campers, and off-road vehicles.

These direct expenditures are only part

of the total picture, however. Those

businesses and industries that supply the

local retailers where the purchases are

made also benefit from wildlife-watching

expenditures. For example, a family may

decide to purchase a pair of binoculars to

use primarily for birdwatching on an

upcoming vacation. Part of the total

purchase price will go to the local retailer,

say a sporting goods store. The sporting

goods store in turn pays a wholesaler that

in turn pays the manufacturer of the

binoculars. The manufacturer then

spends a portion of this income to pay

businesses supplying the manufacturer.

In this fashion, each dollar of local retail

expenditures can affect a variety of

businesses at the local, regional and

national level. Consequently, consumer

spending associated with wildlife

watching can have a significant impact on

economic activity, employment, and

household income across the nation.

2001 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching 5

The Economic Impacts of 

Wildlife Watching

If Wildlife Watching were a

company, its sales of $38.4

billion would rank it 33rd in

the Forbes 500 list for 2001—

placing it just ahead of

Motorola and Kmart.

Doug Canfield, USFWS
6 2001 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching

Methods

The 2001 FHWAR contains estimates 

of annual travel and equipment

expenditures by wildlife-watching

participants. Travel expenditures were

obtained only for nonresidential

participants3 while equipment

expenditures were obtained for 

both residential and nonresidential

participants. These expenditures were

used in conjunction with an economic

modeling method known as input-output

analysis4 to estimate total industry

output, employment and employment

income associated with these

expenditures.

Direct Expenditures 

Total direct expenditures by participants

was $38.4 billion in 2001. Trip-related

expenditures accounted for about

$8.2 billion (21.2 percent of total

expenditures). Food and drink accounted

for 34.7 percent of total trip-related

expenditures and transportation and

lodging accounted for 31.8 and 24.3

percent, respectively.

Equipment and other expenditures

accounted for $30.3 billion (78.8 percent

of total expenditures). Off-road vehicles,

tent trailers, motor homes and pick-up

trucks accounted for 42.8 percent of total

equipment and other expenditures.

Packaged and bulk wild bird food

accounted for 8.7 percent of equipment

and related expenditures, while film

purchases (including developing) and

photographic equipment accounted for

3.0 and 5.5 percent, respectively.

Table 2 summarizes nationwide

expenditures for wildlife watching

in 2001.

3 Theoretically, residential participants 

would not have any travel expenses since all

wildlife-associated activity took place within

one mile of their home.

4 The estimates of total economic activity,

employment, employment income and federal

and state taxes in this report were derived

using IMPLAN, a regional input-output

model and software system. For additional

information, see MIG, Inc. IMPLAN System

(1998 data and software) and Olson and

Lindall, IMPLAN Professional Software,

Analysis and Data Guide. For additional

information on input-output modeling, see

Miller and Blair Input-Output Analysis .

High-Tech Wildlife Watchers

■ In one year, wildlife

watchers spent more than

$2.6 billion on cameras,

video cameras and

associated photographic

equipment.

■ Binoculars and spotting

scopes accounted for

$507 million in spending.

Wildlife Watching 

Expenditures Close to Home:

Each year wildlife watchers

spend over $3.1 billion on food

for birds and other wildlife;

and $733 million on bird

houses and feeders.

Rick Bohn, USFWS
2001 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching 7

Table 2. National Expenditures for Wildlife Watching: 2001

Total Percent of Percent of 

Expenditures Category Total

Expenditure item (in millions) Expenditures Expenditures

(1) Travel-related

Food $2,835.9 34.7 % 7.4 %

Lodging $1,983.0 24.3 % 5.2 %

Public Transportation $702.2 8.6 % 1.8 %

Private Transportation $1,893.3 23.2 % 4.9 %

Guide fees, pack trip or package fees $113.0 1.4 % 0.3 %

Public land use/access fees $114.8 1.4 % 0.3 %

Private land use/access fees $50.4 0.6 % 0.1 %

Equipment rental $105.2 1.3 % 0.3 %

Boat costs $326.5 4.0 % 0.8 %

Heating and cooking fuel $38.1 0.5 % 0.1 %

Total, Travel-related $8,162.4 100.0 % 21.2 %

(2) Equipment and other items

a. Wildlife-Watching Equipment and related items

Binoculars, spotting scopes $507.4 1.7 % 1.3 %

Cameras, video cameras, special lenses and other photographic equipment $1,656.8 5.5 % 4.3 %

Film and developing $910.4 3.0 % 2.4 %

Packaged wild bird food $2,034.8 6.7 % 5.3 %

Bulk wild bird food $569.9 1.9 % 1.5 %

Feed for other wildlife $503.0 1.7 % 1.7 %

Nest boxes, bird houses, feeders, baths $732.7 2.4 % 2.4 %

Other wildlife-watching equipment $116.0 0.4 % 0.4 %

Day packs, carrying cases, and special clothing $323.0 1.1 % 1.1 %

Wildlife-watching, sub-total $7,353.9 24.3 % 19.1 %

b. Auxiliary Equipment

Tents and tarps $185.6 0.6 % 0.5 %

Frame packs and backpacking equipment $129.4 0.4 % 0.3 %

Other camping equipment $266.4 0.9 % 0.7 %

Other auxiliary equipment $135.6 0.4 % 0.4 %

Auxiliary, sub-total $716.9 2.4 % 1.9%

c. Special Equipment

Off-the-road vehicles $6,677.7 22.1 % 17.4 %

Travel or tent trailer, pick-up, camper, van, motor home $6,272.3 20.7 % 16.3 %

Boats, boat accessories $996.5 3.3 % 2.6 %

Cabins* — ——

Other equipment $572.4 1.9 % 1.5 %

Special, sub-total $15,468.7 51.1 % 40.3 %

d. Other items

Magazines and books $332.0 1.1 % 0.9 %

Membership dues and contributions $920.2 3.1 % 2.4 %

Land leasing and ownership $4,761.0 15.7 % 12.4 %

Plantings $699.3 2.3 % 1.8 %

Other items, sub-total $6,712.5 22.2 % 17.5 %

Total, Equipment and other items $30,252.0 100 % 78.8 %

National Total $38,414.5 — 100.0 %

* Sample size is too small to report data reliably.
Total Industry Output

The direct expenditures of $38.4 billion in

2001 generated $95.8 billion in total

industrial output (TIO) across the U.S.

TIO includes the direct, indirect and

induced effects5 of wildlife-watching

expenditures. The ratio of TIO to direct

expenditures, 2.49, means that for each $1

of direct spending associated with wildlife

watching, an additional $1.49 of economic

activity is generated. Major sectors

affected include manufacturing which

accounted for $37.3 billion (39 percent);

service sector $17 billion (17.8 percent);

trade (both wholesale and retail) $17.9

billion (18.7 percent); and financeinsurance-real estate which accounted for

$10.1 billion (10.5 percent) of output.

Employment and Employment Income

The total industrial output of $95.8 billion

resulted in 1,027,833 jobs (full and part

time) with total wages and salaries of

$27.8 billion. This results in a national

average of $27,047 per job per year. 

With respect to employment, major

industrial sectors affected include trade

with over 350,000 jobs (34.1 percent);

services with 301,000 jobs (29.3 percent);

manufacturing with 176,000 jobs (17.1

percent) and agriculture with over

59,000 jobs (5.8 percent).

The trade sector accounted for the

largest portion of employment income at

$7.8 billion (28.3 percent); services

accounted for $7.3 billion (26.3 percent);

manufacturing with $7.3 billion (26.2

percent) and finance-insurance-real

estate at $1.9 billion (6.8 percent). Table 3

summarizes economic impacts by major

business sector (column sums may not

equal column totals due to rounding).

Federal and State Taxes

Wildlife-watching expenditures generate

taxes at both the state and federal level in

two ways. First, direct and indirect

expenditures generate state sales tax

(except in those states without sales tax).

Second, employment earnings are taxed

at both the state (with the exception of

states which do not tax income) and

federal levels. Based on 2001

expenditures on wildlife-watching,

associated total industrial output and

associated employment and employment

income, 2001 tax revenue is estimated as

follows:

(1) total state sales tax revenue: 

$2.1 billion;

(2) total state income tax revenue: 

$712 million; and

(3) total federal individual income tax

revenue: $3.3 billion.

8 2001 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching

12 States derived 1% or 

more of their total Economic

Gross Product from the

impacts of wildlife-watching

expenditures. 

Table 3. National Economic Impacts of Wildlife-Watching by Major Industrial Sector, 2001

(all dollar amounts in millions)

Total Sector as Sector as Sector as

Industrial Percent Percent Employment Percent

Sector Output of Total Employment of Total Income of Total

Agriculture $2,754.6 2.9 % 59,741 5.8 % $452.7 1.6 %

Mining $874.0 0.9 % 3,693 0.4 % $162.2 0.6 %

Construction $1,242.5 1.3 % 17,733 1.7 % $507.5 1.8 %

Manufacturing $37,322.2 39.0 % 176,233 17.1 % $7,266.7 26.2 %

TCPU (1) $6,560.6 6.8 % 47,561 4.6 % $1,663.6 6.0 %

Trade $17,922.2 18.7 % 350,958 34.1 % $7,845.0 28.3 %

FIRE (2) $10,088.7 10.5 % 53,454 5.2 % $1,899.3 6.8 %

Services $17,047.1 17.8 % 300,985 29.3 % $7,298.1 26.3 %

Government $1,281.6 1.3 % 11,606 1.1 % $607.0 2.2 %

Other $62.4 0.1 % 5,871 0.6 % $62.4 0.2 %

Totals $95,784.1 100.0 % 1,027,833 100.0 % $27,754.5 100.0 %

(1) TCPU: Transportation, Communications, Public Utilities

(2) FIRE: Finance, Insurance, Real Estate

5 Direct effects are production changes

associated with the immediate effects of

changes in final demand (in this case, changes

in wildlife associated expenditures); indirect

effects are production changes in those

industries which supply the inputs to

industries directly affected by final demand;

induced effects are changes in regional

household spending patterns caused by

changes in regional employment (generated

from the direct and indirect effects) (Taylor et

al. 1993, Appendix E, p. E-1).
State Impacts

Table 4 shows the economic impacts of

wildlife-watching expenditures by state

for 2001. U.S. totals are shown at the

bottom of Table 4. With the exception of

state sales and income tax revenue totals

for the U.S., state totals do not add up to

U.S. totals. The state impact figures

show only those impacts which occur

within the state. For example, a Boise,

Idaho, sporting goods store may carry a

brand of fishing tackle that is

manufactured in Salt Lake City, Utah.

When an angler purchases the fishing

tackle, only a portion of the money is

kept by the retailer. Part of the total

selling price goes to the Salt Lake City

manufacturer. This transaction between

the sporting goods store and the

manufacturer (or wholesaler, depending

on the situation) will not appear in the

Idaho state totals. The U.S. totals

capture these interstate impacts,

however.

To help put these numbers in context,

Table 5 shows the estimated impacts as a

percentage of commensurate state totals

for 2001. The first column shows total

industry output as a percentage of Gross

State Product (GSP).6 The second column

shows estimated employment as a

percentage of total (annual) state

employment. Finally, the third column

shows estimated employment income as a

percentage of total state wage and salary

disbursements (U.S. Department of

Commerce, 2003 a,b). Twelve states

derive 1 percent or more of their gross

state product from wildlife watchers’

activities.

An additional way to help place wildlifewatching expenditures in context is to

think of these expenditures as the 2001

annual sales revenue of a particular

company. With a total of $38.4 billion in

sales, this company would rank 33rd on

the Forbes 500 list for 2001, just behind

Proctor and Gamble and WorldCom and

just ahead of Motorola and Kmart

(Forbes.com).

Table 6 shows the economic impacts 

of wildlife watching expenditures by 

state for 2001 for nonresidents

(out-of-state visitors).

2001 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching 9

6 Gross state product (GSP) is the sum of

gross state products originating in all

industries in a particular state. An industry’s

GSP is equivalent to its gross output (sales or

receipts and other operating income,

commodity taxes, and inventory change)

minus its intermediate inputs (consumption of

goods and services purchased from other

industries or imported). GSP is sometimes

referred to as the State counterpart of the

nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) (U.S.

Department of Commerce, 2003a).

Top 10 States Ranked by Economic Output*

Economic Output Wildlife Watchers

California $5,169,100,000 5,720,000

Florida $2,815,400,000 3,240,000

New York $2,625,300,000 3,887,000

Texas $2,455,900,000 3,240,000

Wisconsin $2,453,600,000 2,442,000

New Jersey $2,264,700,000 1,895,000

Pennsylvania $1,955,200,000 3,794,000

Washington $1,781,500,000 2,496,000

Maryland $1,772,900,000 1,524,000

North Carolina $1,593,900,000 2,168,000

*Total industry output which includes direct, indirect, and induced effects of wildlife-watching

expenditures. 

Top 10 States Ranked by Nonresident Wildlife-Watching Economic Impacts

Nonresident Nonresident State

Economic Output* Wildlife Watchers

California $943,300,000 384,000

Florida $750,300,000 490,000

Maryland $749,800,000 234,000

Colorado $667,100,000 362,000

Alaska $660,100,000 185,000

Georgia $609,500,000 178,000

New York $537,800,000 392,000

Oregon $500,600,000 401,000

Indiana $434,600,000 80,000

Arizona $388,600,000 185,000

*Total industry output which includes direct, indirect, and induced effects of wildlife-watching

expenditures

Nan Rollison, USFWS
10 2001 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching

Table 4. Total Wildlife-watching Expenditures and Economic Impacts, State and National Totals: 2001

(all dollar amounts in millions)

State State Federal

Expenditures/ Job Sales Tax Income Tax Income

State Sales Output Jobs Income Revenue Revenue Tax

Alabama $624.4 $1,216.4 17,479 $348.1 $29.8 $7.7 $34.2

Alaska $498.9 $791.9 12,828 $236.9 $2.1 $0.0 $27.0

Arizona $820.7 $1,411.8 17,939 $424.6 $39.8 $7.0 $46.7

Arkansas $244.0 $351.2 5,094 $94.1 $12.8 $2.6 $8.5

California $2,580.9 $5,169.1 61,360 $1,599.9 $132.3 $46.9 $190.3

Colorado $624.4 $1,186.7 15,994 $368.0 $32.5 $8.8 $44.1

Connecticut $225.0 $406.2 4,300 $130.0 $9.0 $3.6 $21.0

Delaware $42.3 $74.1 1,031 $23.0 $0.0 $0.8 $2.5

Florida $1,575.5 $2,815.4 35,231 $874.0 $76.5 $0.0 $109.0

Georgia $535.8 $1,062.7 12,506 $312.5 $28.4 $8.5 $34.7

Hawaii $131.6 $207.6 2,536 $62.2 $7.4 $2.5 $5.4

Idaho $227.5 $384.0 5,938 $100.7 $9.0 $3.2 $9.3

Illinois $596.2 $1,277.3 13,168 $375.0 $23.6 $7.6 $46.9

Indiana $721.9 $1,453.6 21,583 $425.1 $30.1 $14.0 $46.2

Iowa $188.4 $342.7 5,140 $91.9 $7.6 $2.8 $9.1

Kansas $128.7 $243.7 3,925 $66.5 $6.3 $1.8 $7.5

Kentucky $601.6 $1,018.1 18,523 $300.4 $22.4 $11.5 $29.2

Louisiana $138.4 $274.8 4,129 $78.4 $9.6 $1.3 $8.0

Maine $513.6 $856.5 13,638 $255.2 $16.1 $8.1 $25.5

Maryland $862.7 $1,772.9 24,667 $571.9 $29.2 $24.3 $68.1

Massachusetts $469.3 $881.5 9,992 $289.0 $15.3 $11.9 $37.9

Michigan $692.8 $1,307.0 17,350 $392.1 $34.2 $11.0 $45.8

Minnesota $531.1 $1,021.7 12,730 $296.3 $21.1 $10.9 $32.7

Mississippi $303.5 $461.5 6,268 $116.2 $13.7 $2.1 $10.4

Missouri $448.8 $926.2 11,365 $258.7 $25.9 $7.0 $26.4

Montana $350.3 $575.9 10,302 $160.0 $0.0 $4.3 $14.3

Nebraska $129.7 $247.1 3,248 $69.2 $4.8 $1.7 $6.8

Nevada $250.1 $372.7 4,207 $106.7 $11.4 $0.0 $13.7

New Hampshire $342.9 $567.3 8,239 $172.9 $0.0 $0.0 $22.4

New Jersey $1,243.8 $2,264.7 20,033 $672.8 $32.9 $14.3 $90.3

New Mexico $558.3 $931.5 14,761 $273.2 $30.0 $6.2 $25.2

New York $1,407.2 $2,625.3 31,450 $831.2 $55.6 $37.4 $98.6

North Carolina $826.9 $1,593.9 20,597 $456.9 $37.8 $15.0 $46.7

North Dakota $27.1 $45.1 725 $11.5 $0.8 $0.2 $1.0

Ohio $623.1 $1,299.6 15,714 $371.4 $28.8 $13.9 $38.6

Oklahoma $193.2 $370.0 6,141 $96.9 $12.1 $2.8 $9.7

Oregon $769.4 $1,485.5 21,535 $450.2 $0.0 $18.2 $43.4

Pennsylvania $961.8 $1,955.2 22,298 $566.3 $39.0 $16.6 $65.2

Rhode Island $169.6 $259.6 3,073 $80.0 $4.6 $2.1 $8.5

South Carolina $256.4 $488.3 7,032 $140.5 $12.9 $3.8 $14.1

South Dakota $92.0 $147.9 2,607 $38.7 $3.8 $0.0 $4.3

Tennessee $448.5 $895.4 12,756 $251.5 $29.9 $0.0 $28.2

Texas $1,282.9 $2,455.9 28,377 $664.2 $56.1 $0.0 $83.1

Utah $555.7 $1,037.7 16,374 $316.6 $29.4 $9.5 $29.5

Vermont $203.7 $348.0 6,951 $109.7 $4.1 $2.8 $11.9

Virginia $788.6 $1,548.0 25,135 $489.2 $27.6 $13.9 $56.6

Washington $979.7 $1,781.5 22,439 $527.7 $58.1 $0.0 $68.3

West Virginia $163.5 $252.5 3,946 $74.7 $6.4 $1.9 $6.3

Wisconsin $1,311.6 $2,453.6 34,010 $711.8 $41.1 $26.3 $75.6

Wyoming $264.9 $426.0 6,557 $108.4 $8.6 $0.0 $14.4

United States $38,414.5 $95,784.1 1,027,833 $27,754.6 $2,073.8 $712.0 $3,250.1
2001 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching 11

Table 5. Economic Impacts as Percentage of State Totals, 2001

Generated Employment

Total Output as Generated Employment Income as Percentage of

Percentage of Gross as Percentage of Total Total State Wage and

State State Product State Employment Salary Disbursements

Alabama 1.0 % 0.9 % 0.6 %

Alaska 2.8 % 4.0 % 2.1 %

Arizona 0.9 % 0.8 % 0.5 %

Arkansas 0.5 % 0.4 % 0.3 %

California 0.4 % 0.4 % 0.2 %

Colorado 0.7 % 0.7 % 0.4 %

Connecticut 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.2 %

Delaware 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.1 %

Florida 0.6 % 0.5 % 0.4 %

Georgia 0.4 % 0.3 % 0.2 %

Hawaii 0.5 % 0.4 % 0.3 %

Idaho 1.0 % 1.0 % 0.6 %

Illinois 0.3 % 0.2 % 0.2 %

Indiana 0.8 % 0.7 % 0.4 %

Iowa 0.4 % 0.3 % 0.2 %

Kansas 0.3 % 0.3 % 0.2 %

Kentucky 0.8 % 1.0 % 0.5 %

Louisiana 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.1 %

Maine 2.3 % 2.2 % 1.4 %

Maryland 0.9 % 0.9 % 0.6 %

Massachusetts 0.3 % 0.3 % 0.2 %

Michigan 0.4 % 0.4 % 0.2 %

Minnesota 0.5 % 0.5 % 0.3 %

Mississippi 0.7 % 0.5 % 0.4 %

Missouri 0.5 % 0.4 % 0.3 %

Montana 2.5 % 2.5 % 1.5 %

Nebraska 0.4 % 0.3 % 0.3 %

Nevada 0.5 % 0.4 % 0.3 %

New Hampshire 1.2 % 1.3 % 0.8 %

New Jersey 0.6 % 0.5 % 0.4 %

New Mexico 1.7 % 1.8 % 1.2 %

New York 0.3 % 0.4 % 0.2 %

North Carolina 0.6 % 0.5 % 0.4 %

North Dakota 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.1 %

Ohio 0.3 % 0.3 % 0.2 %

Oklahoma 0.4 % 0.4 % 0.2 %

Oregon 1.2 % 1.3 % 0.8 %

Pennsylvania 0.5 % 0.4 % 0.3 %

Rhode Island 0.7 % 0.6 % 0.5 %

South Carolina 0.4 % 0.4 % 0.3 %

South Dakota 0.6 % 0.7 % 0.4 %

Tennessee 0.5 % 0.5 % 0.3 %

Texas 0.3 % 0.3 % 0.2 %

Utah 1.5 % 1.4 % 0.9 %

Vermont 1.8 % 2.2 % 1.2 %

Virginia 0.6 % 0.7 % 0.4 %

Washington 0.8 % 0.8 % 0.5 %

West Virginia 0.6 % 0.5 % 0.4 %

Wisconsin 1.4 % 1.2 % 0.8 %

Wyoming 2.1 % 2.5 % 1.5 %

United States 0.9 % 0.7 % 0.6 %
12 2001 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching

Table 6. Non-Resident Wildlife-Watching Expenditures and Economic Impacts, State Totals: 2001

(all dollar amounts in millions)

State State Federal

Expenditures/ Job Sales Tax Income Tax Income

State Sales Output Jobs Income Revenue Revenue Tax

Alabama $25.0 $43.8 653 $13.2 $1.3 $0.3 $1.3

Alaska $411.8 $660.1 11,055 $198.6 $1.7 $0.0 $22.6

Arizona $226.2 $388.6 5,718 $122.4 $11.5 $2.1 $13.7

Arkansas $12.0 $17.6 273 $4.9 $0.6 $0.1 $0.5

California $471.7 $943.3 10,891 $293.2 $132.3 $46.9 $190.3

Colorado $349.4 $667.1 9,060 $209.5 $18.1 $5.0 $25.0

Connecticut $60.0 $95.8 908 $30.6 $2.1 $0.8 $4.9

Delaware $10.3 $16.4 221 $5.1 $0.0 $0.2 $0.5

Florida $402.1 $750.3 10,548 $249.1 $22.1 $0.0 $31.4

Georgia $308.2 $609.5 6,602 $176.0 $14.4 $4.7 $19.1

Hawaii $52.8 $84.9 1,042 $27.2 $3.3 $1.0 $2.3

Idaho $89.9 $149.0 2,330 $39.3 $3.5 $1.2 $3.6

Illinois $57.3 $121.0 1,427 $40.0 $2.8 $0.8 $4.9

Indiana $213.3 $434.6 4,382 $120.9 $8.0 $3.8 $12.6

Iowa $17.7 $29.3 368 $8.0 $0.5 $0.2 $0.7

Kansas $31.7 $56.9 913 $16.8 $1.7 $0.4 $1.8

Kentucky $122.5 $233.1 5,950 $77.8 $4.6 $3.0 $7.7

Louisiana $33.9 $56.6 836 $17.0 $1.9 $0.3 $1.7

Maine $109.2 $188.8 3,319 $59.3 $3.9 $1.9 $5.9

Maryland $352.5 $749.8 13,839 $271.4 $12.2 $11.8 $33.2

Massachusetts $148.8 $282.7 3,351 $94.4 $4.8 $3.9 $12.5

Michigan $121.8 $223.8 3,109 $70.7 $5.7 $2.0 $8.1

Minnesota $57.7 $109.8 1,539 $34.7 $2.4 $1.3 $3.8

Mississippi $37.2 $54.7 703 $13.7 $1.5 $0.2 $1.2

Missouri $117.8 $229.8 3,135 $68.3 $6.8 $1.8 $6.9

Montana $169.2 $277.6 5,456 $80.4 $0.0 $2.1 $7.2

Nebraska $19.6 $34.4 533 $10.3 $0.8 $0.3 $1.0

Nevada $61.0 $95.0 1,177 $30.4 $3.2 $0.0 $4.0

New Hampshire $178.7 $322.7 5,075 $103.3 $0.0 $0.2 $13.4

New Jersey $53.9 $100.0 1,085 $32.1 $1.7 $0.7 $4.4

New Mexico $107.3 $183.8 3,088 $56.2 $6.1 $1.3 $5.1

New York $265.0 $537.8 8,570 $186.3 $11.2 $8.8 $23.2

North Carolina $176.7 $340.0 6,095 $108.4 $8.4 $3.6 $11.2

North Dakota $7.1 $12.1 217 $3.3 $0.2 $0.0 $0.3

Ohio $64.3 $129.1 1,630 $37.6 $2.8 $1.4 $3.9

Oklahoma $33.3 $62.2 909 $16.9 $1.8 $0.5 $1.6

Oregon $263.6 $500.6 8,198 $163.5 $15.8 $0.0 $6.5

Pennsylvania $95.6 $191.6 2,197 $55.5 $3.7 $1.6 $6.3

Rhode Island $147.8 $217.5 2,519 $66.5 $3.8 $1.8 $7.1

South Carolina $48.6 $87.2 1,345 $26.1 $2.3 $0.7 $2.6

South Dakota $48.1 $78.1 1,389 $21.4 $2.1 $0.0 $2.2

Tennessee $189.7 $360.4 4,964 $107.7 $12.5 $0.0 $11.9

Texas $81.9 $149.3 1,824 $42.8 $3.7 $0.0 $5.4

Utah $148.9 $292.4 4,972 $92.3 $8.5 $2.8 $8.6

Vermont $122.6 $228.9 4,964 $75.0 $2.6 $1.9 $8.1

Virginia $109.3 $202.8 2,810 $63.1 $3.8 $1.8 $7.3

Washington $135.4 $243.2 3,149 $76.7 $8.2 $0.0 $10.0

West Virginia $29.2 $45.1 776 $13.5 $1.1 $0.3 $1.1

Wisconsin $203.2 $380.4 5,570 $113.4 $6.5 $4.2 $12.1

Wyoming $178.7 $284.9 4,554 $74.4 $5.9 $0.0 $9.8
2001 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching 13

USFWS
Wildlife-based recreation in the U.S. has

significant economic impacts at the local,

regional, state and national levels.

Hunting, fishing, and wildlife watching

together generated over $236 billion in

total economic output in 2001. Wildlife

watching is a significant portion of this

total and its continued popularity gives

evidence to the importance that people

attach to diverse, accessible and robust

fish and wildlife populations. 

14 2001 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching

Summary

Quick Facts

Over 66 million Wildlife Watchers spent $38.4 billion on their

activities in 2001. These expenditures rippled through the 

economy resulting in—

$95.8 Billion in Total Industry Output

$6.1 Billion in State and Federal Tax Revenues

1,027,833 Jobs

The sheer magnitude of its

economic impacts prove that

wildlife watching is a major

force, driving billions in

spending around the country.

These economic impacts can

be the life-blood of a local

economy. Rural areas can

attract thousands of wildlife

watchers each year, generating

millions of dollars.

Bruce Eilerts, USFWS
American Sportfishing Association.

Sportfishing in America. Alexandria 

VA, 2002.

Forbes.com. Forbes 500 lists available on

Forbes web site: http://www.forbes.com/

tool/toolbox/forbes500s. June 24, 2003

Infoplease.com. 2001 professional sports

attendance. http://www.infoplease.com/

ipsa/A0105485.html. June 24, 2003.

International Association of Fish and

Wildlife Agencies. Economic Importance

of Hunting in America. Washington DC,

2002.

MIG, Inc. IMPLAN System (1998 Data

and Software). 1940 South Greeley

Street, Suite 101, Stillwater, MN 55082.

1998.

Miller, Ronald E. and Peter D. Blair.

Input-Output Analysis: Foundations

and Extensions. Englewood Cliffs NJ:

Prentice-Hall, 1985.

Olson, Doug and Scott Lindall. IMPLAN

Professional Software, Analysis and

Data Guide. 1940 South Greeley Street,

Suite 101, Stillwater, MN 55082. 1996.

Taylor, Carol, Susan Winter, Greg Alward

and Eric Siverts. Micro IMPLAN User’s

Guide. Fort Collins CO: U.S. Department

of Agriculture—Forest Service, Land

Management Planning Systems Group,

1993.

U.S. Department of Commerce. Gross

State Product by Industry, 2001. Bureau

of Economic Analysis, Regional

Economic Analysis Division. 2003a.

U.S. Department of Commerce.

Employment and Income by State, 2001.

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2003b.

U.S. Department of Commerce. Personal

Consumption Expenditures by Type of

Expenditure. Table B.4, p. D-29. Survey

of Current Business. 77 ( December,

1997). 1997e.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and

Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of

Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2001

National Survey of Fishing, Hunting,

and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.

Washington DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, October 2002.

2001 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching 15

Sources
16 2001 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Division of Federal Aid

Washington, DC 20240

http://federalaid.fws.gov

August 2003

Cover photo: Debbie McCrensky, USFWS