Wildlife watching-not including hunting and fishing-contributes more income and employs more people than public lands grazing in the West.
In 1996, more than 62 million people participated in wildlife watching nationally, which refers to nonharvesting activities such as observing, feeding and photographing wildlife. This figure of 62 million includes only primary participants in wildlife watching--those whose principal motivation for a trip, activity, or expenditure is to watch wildlife.
In 1996, wildlife watchers spent $29.2 billion on travel, lodging, food and drink, and equipment to pursue their hobby across the country, including in small western towns that were founded on grazing. Their expenditures generated $85.4 billion in total industrial output, resulting in 1,010,590 full and part-time jobs, with wages and salaries totaling $24.2 billion and an average annual income of $23,931 per job. [Source Data] Compare the economic contributions of wildlife watching to public lands grazing in the eleven western states.
Table A. Wildlife-watching Expenditures and
Economic Impacts, State and National Totals, 1996
(dollar
amounts in millions)
|
State
|
Expenditures / Sales
|
Output
|
Jobs
|
Job Income
|
State Sales Tax Revenue
|
State Income Tax Revenue
|
Federal Income Tax
|
|
Arizona |
$426.9
|
$692.5
|
10,230
|
$200.3
|
$21.3
|
$5.0
|
$31.6
|
|
California |
$2,123.6
|
$3,677.5
|
47,716
|
$1,131.9
|
$127.4
|
$45.1
|
$178.6
|
|
Colorado |
$786.2
|
$1,368.9
|
19,784
|
$402.5
|
$23.6
|
$13.9
|
$63.5
|
|
Idaho |
$120.3
|
$196.2
|
4,126
|
$58.0
|
$6.0
|
$2.5
|
$9.1
|
|
Montana |
$212.4
|
$328.5
|
$5,962
|
$82.5
|
$0.0
|
$3.2
|
$13.0
|
|
Nevada |
$143.6
|
$219.6
|
3,029
|
$68.8
|
$9.3
|
$0.0
|
$10.8
|
|
New Mexico |
$223.2
|
$366.3
|
6,093
|
$100.2
|
$11.2
|
$3.2
|
$15.8
|
|
Oregon |
$406.7
|
$710.6
|
11,759
|
$216.1
|
$0.0
|
$12.6
|
$34.1
|
|
Utah |
$225.8
|
$381.1
|
6,749
|
$115.7
|
$10.7
|
$4.8
|
$18.3
|
|
Washington |
$875.3
|
$1,452.2
|
21,454
|
$426.9
|
$56.9
|
$0.0
|
$67.4
|
|
Wyoming |
$217.5
|
$316.7
|
6,193
|
$82.8
|
$8.7
|
$0.0
|
$13.1
|
Table B. Economic Impacts as Percentage of State Totals, 1996
|
State
|
Total Output as
Percentage of Gross State Product |
Generated Employment
as Percentage of Total State Employment |
Generated Employment
Income as Percentage of Total State Wage and Salary Disbursements |
| Arizona |
0.69%
|
0.51%
|
0.38%
|
| California |
0.39%
|
0.34%
|
0.26%
|
| Colorado |
1.28%
|
0.97%
|
0.70%
|
| Idaho |
0.76%
|
0.77%
|
0.47%
|
| Montana |
1.83%
|
1.53%
|
1.01%
|
| Nevada |
0.47%
|
0.34%
|
0.27%
|
| New Mexico |
0.90%
|
0.81%
|
0.57%
|
| Oregon |
0.90%
|
0.75%
|
0.52%
|
| Utah |
0.86%
|
0.67%
|
0.47%
|
| Washington |
0.95%
|
0.82%
|
0.55%
|
| Wyoming |
1.82%
|
2.61%
|
1.53%
|
Source: Caudill, J. and A. Laughland. 1998. 1996 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching. USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Economics. Arlington, VA. (citations omitted). [Source Data]