Hunting and fishing essential to economy

[WhiteFeather]

Couple articles to share with the anti hunting people

all so note:
Humane Society of the United States = PETA

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,680196284,00.html

It's no secret the Humane Society of the United States would like to end all hunting. Its CEO, Wayne Pacelle, has said so many times.

"If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would. ... Our goal is to get sport hunting in the same category as cock fighting and dog fighting," he said. Fishing, I'm sure, wouldn't be far behind.

I've asked, and I'll ask again, from where do all these anti-hunters expect to make up the economic shortfall if hunting and fishing end?

A survey recently released by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shows hunting and fishing are a major contributor to the nation's economy — roughly $64 billion.

Include wildlife watching and the figure jumps to $120 billion.

And, for those who think wildlife watching isn't tied into hunting and fishing, think again.

Here in Utah, sportsmen pay to raise fish, feed deer and elk, improve habitat for birds, for both those hunted and those not hunted, and are responsible for introducing most of Utah's big game animals people want to see — elk, moose, buffalo, antelope, bighorn sheep and Rocky Mountain goats.

Some of the interesting findings in the report show:


• In 2006, more than 87 million Americans, or 38 percent of the U.S. population age 16 and older, hunted, fished or observed wildlife.

• They spent $120 billion pursuing those activities, which is an amount roughly equal to Americans' total spending at all spectator sports, casinos, motion pictures, golf courses and country clubs, amusement parks and arcades combined.

• 30 million or 13 percent of those 16 and older fished and spent $41 billion on their activities,

• 12.5 million or 5 percent of those 16 or older hunted and spent $23 billion.

• 71 million or 31 percent of those 16 or older observed wildlife and spent $45 billion.

As Jerry Leonard, survey economist, pointed out, "This expenditure of $120 billion highlights the benefits of these activities on national and state economies."

The report does show that the number of people hunting and fishing is dropping. Over a 10-year period — 1996 to 2006 — the number of anglers dropped from 35.2 million to 30 million. Spending on fishing equipment, however, was up.

Between 1996 and 2006, there was a 10 percent drop in the number of hunters, from 14 to 12.5 million. This resulted in an overall drop in hunter-spend revenues by 14 percent.

The survey is conducted every five years.

Again, how do you make up a $120 billion shortfall in the economy?

You don't.

Of course, the argument is if they don't spend it hunting and fishing, they'll spend it elsewhere.

A share of the money spent, the survey notes, goes into the economy of rural areas that have come to rely heavily on sportsmen's spending. They simply won't fit into this diverted spending plan.

And what about wildlife?

Don't look for outside sources to foot the bill for wildlife management. States can't ever pay all the bills. Sportsmen pay the biggest share of wildlife management through license sales, donations and volunteer work.

As the report shows, hunting and fishing do play an important role in the nation's economy — that's a fact

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07182/798452-358.stm

Hunting: Number of hunters is dropping, but not public support for those who hunt
Sunday, July 01, 2007

By Ben Moyer

There may be fewer hunters in the United States, but it's not because of public opinion. That's a conclusion suggested by two recent national surveys, which show that while the number of hunters in America continues to fall, public support for hunting is strong and growing.


The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has released preliminary data from its 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation, an assessment of participation trends among Americans over age 16, compiled at five-year intervals. Hunter numbers, according to the survey, fell by 4 percent nationwide since 2001. Only 5 percent of Americans now consider themselves hunters.

Another survey, though, indicates that America's remaining hunters enjoy quite a crowd of cheerleaders. Responsive Management Inc., a social research firm that specializes in natural resource matters, found earlier this year that 78 percent of Americans support hunting as an outdoor activity, up from 73 percent since 1995. Eighty percent of respondents indicated that "hunting has a legitimate place in modern society." Meanwhile, the percentage of Americans who say they disapprove of hunting declined from 22 percent in 1995 to 16 percent today.

Responsive Management conducted its survey for the National Assembly of Sportsmen's Caucuses, a national organization of state legislators interested in wildlife and sportsmen's issues.

"Americans seem to be acquiring a more realistic view of hunting and wildlife management, possibly due to increases in populations of deer and resident geese in urban areas," said Mark Damian Duda, Responsive Management executive director.

Duda said that when his firm asked respondents specifically about hunting as a source of food or as a wildlife management tool, public support soared to more than 80 percent.

"Support dropped off markedly, however, when we asked about hunting for sport or trophy collection," Duda said recently in a presentation to the Outdoor Writers Association of America.

Despite the nationwide decline in the total number of hunters, Duda said his research indicates that the ranks of female hunters are growing.

"It looks like an increase for women," Duda said. "But it's very interesting. With women, we could not identify specific variables that influence hunting. With men you can look at factors like race or rural background and say it tends to increase the odds of an individual hunting, but with women we did not find that relationship."

Duda acknowledged the various programs, such as Becoming an Outdoors Woman, which introduce women from diverse backgrounds to shooting, fishing, canoeing and other outdoor skills, aided the growth in female participation, but stopped short of attributing it to any particular factor.

As the motivations of hunters in general change and evolve, Duda suggested, it could be that hunting is becoming more attractive and more accessible for women.

For example, survey data indicate that only 9 percent of hunters in 1980 said they hunted primarily to spend time with family. Responsive Management's recent survey found that 20 percent of today's hunters cite being with family as the most important reason they hunt.

Among former hunters nationwide, 26 percent said they quit hunting because of a "lack of time." Twenty-two percent said they dropped out because of conflicts with work, and 18 percent cited family obligations. Only 3 percent said they quit because of a lack of game.

"Unfortunately, these factors are not easily dealt with by the state wildlife agencies," Duda said. "[Agencies] might be able to help the situation if we could go to them and say, 'People are quitting because your regulations are too complex,' but that's not the case. By far, the most important reason for hunting decline is urbanization and its demands on people's lives."

Pennsylvania continues to be a major stronghold for hunting and fishing, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife survey. Slightly more than 1 million state residents and non-residents hunted in Pennsylvania in 2006, surpassed only by Texas with 1.1 million resident and visiting hunters. Pennsylvanians, though, were more active than Texans and led the nation in days afield. Keystone State residents enjoyed 15.8 million hunter-days in Pennsylvania last year, while collectively hunters in Texas spent 13.9 million days afield.

Fishing participation declined by 12 percent nationwide since 2001, but Pennsylvanians who fish remain avid anglers. Eleven states -- California, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Wisconsin -- have more resident anglers than Pennsylvania's 824,000. But Pennsylvanians rank seventh in the nation in angler-days spent on the water, with nearly 17 million.

Pennsylvanians also account for more days fishing in other states than anglers from anywhere except Illinois. Pennsylvanians fished out-of-state on 3.8 million days last year, while anglers from Illinois spent 5.7 million days on other states' lakes and streams.

The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service will issue its final version of the report in November, and individual state reports will be available soon after.

[JIMMYC308]

great post!