 |
Analysis and Comment on the USFWS 2006 National Survey on Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Recreation
By Bowsite.com
|
Since 1996 the US Fish and Wildlife Service has been conducting a survey on Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife related activities. The 2006 National Survey is 11th in a series of surveys conducted since 1958. It is compiled from data collected by the US bureau of Census which interviewed 85,000 households in April and May of 2006. 31,500 active and potential anglers are selected from the initial households to be interviewed in detail on their participation and expenditures regarding hunting, fishing and wildlife watching. Bowsite.com has summarized this data as it pertains primarily to hunting. For more information on fishing and wildlife related activities please download these two reports which contain detailed graphs and statistics:
2006 National Survey
2006 Statewide Survey
2006 Recruitment Survey
At A Glance
Five percent of the U.S. population 16 years old and older, 12.5 million people, hunted in 2006. They spent an average of 18 days pursuing their sport. The number of all hunters declined by 4% from 2001 to 2006 and there was a 3% drop in overall expenditures (not a statistically significant change). Although the total number of hunters declined from 2001 to 2006, the number of big game hunters held their own. The biggest declines were in migratory bird hunting (-22%) and small animal hunting (-12%).
As in the case of fishing expenditures, expenditures for hunting equipment (firearms, ammunition, etc.) actually increased 3%, as did hunting trips which rose by 13%. The biggest drop in expenditures was for special equipment—big ticket items like trucks and cabins—which declined by 30%.
|
| National Hunting Participation in 2006 |
In 2006 over 12.5 million people 16 years old and older enjoyed hunting. This represents approximately 5% of the total US population 16 and older. Of this number, they spent an average of 18 days hunting. Big game, such as deer and elk, attracted 10.7 million hunters (85%) who spent 164 million days afield. Nearly 5 million (38%) pursued small game including squirrels, rabbits, quail, and pheasant on 53 million days. Migratory birds—doves, waterfowl, and woodcock—attracted 2.3 million hunters (18%) who spent 20 million days hunting. Hunting of other animals such, as coyote, fox, prairie dogs and raccoons attracted 1.1 million hunters (9%) who spent 15.2 million days afield.
Overall hunting participation dropped 4% from 2001 to 2006. The number of big game hunters was relatively stable falling only 2%, but the number of migratory bird hunters declined 22%. The decline among small game hunters was between these two extremes at 12%. Lastly, the hunters seeking other animals increased by 8%.
States with the most hunters
This list represents the total number of hunting participants within a given state. Texas tops this list. This number is affected by total population and ranking does not reflect the percentage of people per state (see next list for that):
- Texas – 1,115,000
- Pennsylvania – 1,027,000
- Michigan – 756,000
- Wisconsin – 698,000
- Missouri – 618,000
States with the least hunters
This represents the states with the least amount of hunters in order of appreciation. Geographic size is a factor in this number and this does not reflect the total percentage of hunting participants.
- Rhode Island – 14,000
- Hawaii – 18,000
- Connecticut – 38,000
- Delaware – 42,000
- New Hampshire – 60,000
States with highest percentage of hunters
These states have a high rate of hunting participation as a total percentage of their population.
- Montana – 19%
- North Dakota – 17%
- South Dakota – 15%
- Arkansas, Maine, West Virginia – 14%
- Minnesota, Missouri, Wyoming – 13%
States with least percentage of hunters
These states have a low rate of hunting participation as a total percentage of their population.
- California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey – 1%
- Florida, Hawaii, Rhode Island – 2%
- Arizona, Delaware, Illinois, Nevada, New York – 3%
- Colorado, New Mexico, North Carolina, Washington – 4%
- Georgia, Indiana, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina – 5%
| National Hunting Expenditures in 2006 |
Hunters spent nearly $23 billion on trips, equipment, licenses, and other items to support their hunting activities in 2006. The average expenditure per hunter was $1,814. Total trip-related expenditures comprised 30% of all spending at $6.7 billion. Other Expenditures totaled $5.6 billion or 25% of all spending. Other Expenditures includes spending on land leases and land ownership, spending on licenses, tags, and permits, and spending on memberships dues and contributions. Spending on hunting equipment comprised 24% of spending or $5.4 billion.
Five Year Trend: 4% Decline
Examination of expenditures shows that while sportspersons are a minority of all recreationists, they spend almost twice as much in total as wildlife watchers. About two-thirds of all wildlife-related recreation expenditures have been for hunting and/or fishing in 1996 (71%), 2001 (65%), and 2006 (63%).
12.5 million hunters spent $22.7 billion in 2006. Each hunter spent an average of $1,814
 .
Total hunting-related spending was similar between 2001 and 2006. It declined only 3% over the period. The category with the greatest decline was special equipment at 30%. A few categories did increase such as spending on hunting equipment like guns, ammunition, bows and arrows, which increased by 3%. Trip related spending was up 13% over the period.
The 10-year comparison of the 1996 and 2006 Surveys shows a decline in both the total number of hunters and the total amount spent by hunters. Overall participation was down 10% over the period. However, big game hunting remained relatively consistent with a decline of 5%. The declines for small game, migratory birds, and other animals were all noticeably greater at 31%, 25%, and 26% respectively.
| Hunting Recruitment in 2006 |
The overall decline in hunter numbers continues into 2006. Recruitment rates remain low nationally but significantly low in urban geographies and in homes with no male parent who hunts. This data is not surprising and is evident across the spectrum of wildlife related activities including Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Watching. However, recruitment rates are particularly poor within the hunting segment.
Reasons for quitting
Interestingly money does not appear to be a statistically significant reason for quitting. However, families with higher incomes lose fewer hunters than families with lower incomes. So a loose correlation can be drawn between discretionary income, free time and the cost of hunting.
After review of the 2006 USFWS Survey of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife survey including the National, Statewide, and Recruitment data it is evident that we continue to lose more hunters than we recruit for a variety of reasons. Some things we noted: First, big game hunting appears to be holding its’ own while bird hunting is dramatically declining. While this survey does not draw distinctions between big game hunting methods (i.e., bowhunting, shotgun, and firearm) we are confident by stating bowhunting is likely increasing but the total number is offset by declining firearms hunters.
Still, this bright spot is overshadowed by an alarming trend that comes as no surprise to anyone within the hunting community. Our theory over this loss is many-faceted. First, the obvious. Access to hunting properties is declining nationally. Along our coasts and around major cities urban sprawl continues to replace once open hunting lands with developments that are either physically or culturally prohibitive to hunting. But even in rural areas, access challenges exist. Increased leasing is having a dramatic impact on youth recruitment in the lower socioeconomic levels and/or where a parent does not actively hunt. The cost of leasing is prohibitively expensive to people at lower income levels and to children with no real income of their own. The data also shows that where a parent actively hunts, the child has a significantly greater recruitment rate than those children without a parent who hunts. The societal trend toward single-mother families (particularly in urban areas) contributes to low recruitment numbers. However the single greatest contributing factor in our opinion is a societal shift toward longer work hours and less free time. There is no denying the fact that American Society, as a whole, has significantly less time to pursue hunting. Kids are signed up for more activities than they were 30 years ago. Parents are on tighter schedules with less free time available. And there are lots of competition for free time, such as electronics, and technologies not available 30 years ago.
There is no real upside to these trends. Less numbers equate to less expenditures. When you add them up, our political clout continues to erode while wildlife watchers expand and become a greater political force in wildlife decision making. The good news here is that sportsmen still contribute twice as much funding for wildlife compared to non-consumptive activities. Not all of this news is bad. We still have children becoming hunters, we are a still a significant political force (albeit declining), and we have a proven track record as the group that shoulders the burden for all wildlife. Sportsmen can take credit for a fantastically successful program where we continue to be stewards for all wildlife. It is imperative to our continued existence that we act locally to recruit younger hunters and look for ways to protect and expand opportunities for hunting. If that does not happen, then the 2016 report will likely be grim.
|
