The 2001 Economic Benefits of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Watching in MISSOURI. Prepared by:

Transcription

1 The 2001 Economic Benefits of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Watching in MISSOURI Prepared by: Southwick Associates, Inc. PO Box 6435 Fernandina Beach, FL Ph (904) Fax (904) For the: Missouri Department of Conservation October 6, 2003

2 Acknowledgements This report examines the contributions of hunting, sportfishing and wildlife viewing to the Missouri economy. Robert Southwick and Thomas Allen are the authors. This project was commissioned by the Missouri Department of Conservation. The authors wish to thank all who assisted with this project, especially David Thorne, but remain solely responsible for the contents herein. ii

3 Table of Contents Acknowledgments List of Tables Executive Summary ii iv v Introduction 1 Methods 1 Demographics 2 Participation 7 Economic Impacts 14 Retail Sales 14 Total Economic Effect (Output) 14 Earnings 17 Employment 17 Tax Revenues 17 Per Participant and Per Day Expenditures 18 Travel-Related Expenditures 20 Public and Private Land Activity, Expenditures and Impacts 21 Conclusion 27 Appendix A Definitions 28 Appendix B Methods 29 Appendix C Detailed Fishing Expenditures and Impacts 33 Appendix D Detailed Hunting Expenditures and Impacts 36 Appendix E Detailed Wildlife Watching Expenditures and Impacts 42 iii

4 List of Tables Table E-1. Executive Summary Table 1. Demographic Background of Hunters by Species Hunted in Missouri in Table 2. Missouri Angler Demographics by Species Fished, Table 3. Missouri Wildlife Watching Demographics, Table 4. Hunting Participation by Residential Status and Species Hunted in Missouri in Table 5. Fishing Participation by Residential Status and Species Fished in Missouri in Table 6. Participation in Non-Residential Watchable Wildlife Recreation in Missouri in Table 7. Participation in Non-residential Watchable Wildlife Recreation by Site Visited and Wildlife Observed, Fed, or Photographed in Missouri in Table 8. Participation in Residential Watchable Wildlife Recreation in Missouri in Table 9. Participation in Residential Watchable Wildlife Recreation by Wildlife Observed in Missouri in Table 10. Economic Activity Generated by Missouri Anglers, Table 11. Economic Activity Generated by Missouri Hunters, Table 12. Economic Activity Generated by Missouri Wildlife Watchers, Table 13. Combined Economic Impacts of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Watching Recreation, Table 14. Per Day and Per Person Expenditures, Table 15. Travel-Related Expenditures, Table 16. Percentage of Non-Residential* Activity and Days Occurring on Public and Private Land 22 Table 17. Percentage of Hunters and Hunting Days on Public and Private Land 23 Table 18. Economic Activity Generated by Wildlife Viewers, by Type of Land Used, Table 19. Economic Activity Generated by Missouri Hunters, by Type of Land Used, Table 20. Economic Activity Generated by Hunters and Wildlife Viewers Combined, by Type of Land Used, v iv

5 Executive Summary The purpose of this project was to help resource managers and the public develop a better understanding of the economic contributions of hunting, sportfishing and wildlife watching activities in Missouri in When used effectively, economic data can help increase legislative, public, business and media awareness of the importance of fish and wildlife, and as a result, help boost conservation efforts and public recreational opportunities. In 2001, 2.49 million residents and non-residents participated in some form of fish and wildliferelated recreation in Missouri. These anglers, hunters and wildlife viewers spent $1.66 billion in retail sales ($1.34 billion by residents and $321.2 million by nonresidents), creating $731.5 million in salaries and wages, and supporting more than 29,700 jobs. The total economic effect (multiplier effect) from fish and wildlife-related recreation was estimated at $3.35 billion. Table E-1: Executive Summary RETAIL SALES OUTPUT EARNINGS JOBS STATE SALES REVENUES STATE INCOME REVENUES FEDERAL INCOME ES All Freshwater Fishing: $772,090,940 $1,561,999,764 $340,274,506 13,870 $38,755,026 $13,301,380 $54,393,949 Residents Only: $641,655,614 $1,307,703,741 $281,625,890 11,432 $31,436,740 $10,963,242 $44,832,495 Non-Residents Only: $130,435,326 $254,296,023 $58,648,617 2,438 $7,318,285 $2,338,138 $9,561,455 All Hunting: $437,194,608 $853,390,343 $191,169,148 8,007 $18,074,340 $7,362,338 $29,950,530 Residents Only: $364,212,555 $705,122,876 $157,479,427 6,647 $14,602,960 $6,111,631 $24,862,563 Non-Residents Only: * $72,982,053 $148,267,468 $33,689,721 1,360 $3,471,380 $1,250,707 $5,087,967 All Wildlife Watching Activities: $448,755,690 $937,795,501 $200,070,083 7,850 $22,095,502 $7,977,385 $32,844,290 Residents Only: $330,963,066 $708,187,827 $151,781,687 5,820 $15,520,300 $5,914,482 $24,350,958 Non-Residents Only: * $117,792,624 $229,607,674 $48,288,396 2,030 $6,575,202 $2,062,903 $8,493,332 All Fish and Wildlife Related Recreation (combined): $1,658,041,238 $3,353,185,608 $731,513,737 29,727 $78,924,868 $28,641,103 $117,188,769 Residents Only: $1,336,831,235 $2,721,014,444 $590,887,004 23,899 $61,560,000 $22,989,355 $94,046,016 Non-Residents Only: $321,210,003 $632,171,165 $140,626,734 5,828 $17,364,867 $5,651,748 $23,142,754 * = data based on a small sample size v

6 Introduction Expenditures made for fish and wildlife-related recreation support significant industries. Unlike traditional industries which are often easily recognized by large factories, the hunting, fishing and wildlife viewing industries are comprised of widely scattered retailers, manufacturers, wholesalers and support services that, when considered together, become quite significant. Given that outdoor recreation dollars are often spent in rural or lightly populated areas, the economic contributions of fish and wildlife resources can be especially important to rural economies. This project assesses the 2001 economic contributions of fish and wildlife-based recreation in Missouri. The purpose was to provide resource managers with the economic information necessary to better conserve and manage wildlife and other natural resources. Only the effects of recreation expenditures that occurred within Missouri are considered. This report contains sections devoted to demographic, participation, and economic impact information that provide the reader with a better understanding of the activities undertaken by outdoor recreationists. Definitions of several terms used in this report are provided in Appendix A. Appendix B provides methodological descriptions. Appendix C presents detailed expenditures for hunting, and Appendices D and E provide detailed expenditures for fishing and wildlife watching respectively. Methods Data on demographics, participation and expenditures were obtained from the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (Survey), which is conducted approximately every five years by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Bureau of the Census. The Survey provides data required by natural resource management agencies, industry and private organizations at state and national levels to assist in optimally managing natural resources. The Survey is funded through excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment through the Federal Aid in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Acts. The expenditure data were analyzed using economic models to quantify economic impacts. A more detailed description of the methods used to generate the economic estimates is presented in Appendix B. 1

7 Demographics Hunter Demographics Participants (Table 1) are approximately 42 years old, are predominantly male, and are likely to be married. The average household income for Missouri hunters is approximately $57,838, significantly higher than the $41,339 state average (U.S. Census Bureau). About 50 percent have at least some college experience. Non-resident hunters typically have higher income and more education. Only a small percentage of hunters in Missouri report they are non-white. Table 1 does not necessarily represent the most popular types of game in Missouri. The species presented are those most often cited by hunters as targets of their activity, which may be driven by availability rather than preference. In other words, hunters may often pursue species based on the higher likelihood of hunting success rather than the species they actually desire. Angler Demographics Anglers ((Table 2) are approximately 42 years old, are predominantly male, and are likely to be married. The average household income for anglers participating in freshwater fishing in Missouri is approximately $52,450. About 52.4 percent of freshwater anglers in Missouri have at least some college experience. Non-resident hunters, non-resident freshwater anglers are typically older and have a slightly higher income. Demographic characteristics across species fished were similar except trout and white bass anglers typically have higher incomes. Only a small percentage of freshwater anglers in Missouri report they are non-white. The table below does not necessarily represent the most popular species in Missouri. The species presented are those most often cited by anglers as targets of their activity, which may be driven by availability rather than preference. In other words, anglers may often fish for the species that is more likely to bite on a given day rather than the species they would actually prefer to catch. 2

8 Table 1. Demographic Background of Hunters by Species Hunted in Missouri in 2001 (Participants 16 years old and older) ALL HUNTERS Big Game Small Game Upland Game Migratory Bird Deer Turkey Rabbit Squirrel All Hunting Race (non-white) 3.6% 4.4% 6.7% * 4.8% * 4.1% 4.2% 6.4% * 6.4% * 4.1% Average age * 42.6 * * 37.9 * 42.0 Gender (male) 88.9% 86.6% 88.6% * 91.0% * 89.4% 89.6% 83.2% * 85.5% * 90.2% Marital Status (married) 76.1% 66.8% 55.5% * 76.7% * 74.5% 77.9% 62.4% * 71.6% * 73.9% Average household income $56,594 $56,319 $55,991 * $60,297 * $55,243 $59,585 $53,461 * $57,998 * $57,838 Education 8 years or less 3.4% 5.6% 10.1% * 13.0% * 3.9% 5.5% 6.9% * 8.1% * 3.0% 9-11 years 5.6% 11.0% 4.7% * - * 6.3% 3.4% 9.5% * 13.3% * 4.8% 12 years 44.6% 50.1% 45.2% * 33.3% * 47.9% 38.8% 51.8% * 49.5% * 42.7% 1-3 years college 23.9% 15.5% 22.4% * 17.4% * 19.7% 29.5% 8.4% * 12.2% * 23.4% 4 years college or more 22.5% 17.9% 17.7% * 36.3% * 22.3% 22.8% 23.4% * 17.0% * 26.2% RESIDENT Race (non-white) 1.0% 3.9% 5.0% * 5.3% * 1.0% 2.5% 6.6% * 5.5% * 1.5% Average age * 42.0 * * 38.0 * 41.0 Gender (male) 88.0% 85.8% 87.7% * 90.2% * 88.0% 90.8% 82.8% * 85.3% * 89.5% Marital Status (married) 73.1% 65.7% 54.9% * 76.3% * 72.9% 73.3% 61.5% * 71.3% * 70.9% Average household income $53,774 $55,188 $55,713 * $60,107 * $53,256 $57,279 $53,688 * $57,637 * $54,979 Education 8 years or less 4.1% 5.9% 10.8% * 14.2% * 4.4% 6.6% 7.0% * 8.2% * 3.6% 9-11 years 6.6 % 11.7% 5.0% * - * 7.2% 4.1% 9.7% * 13.4% * 5.8% 12 years 50.7% 52.3% 46.3% * 36.3% * 53.1% 43.4% 53.0% * 48.9% * 48.8% 1-3 years college 24.9% 14.2% 21.5% * 13.7% * 21.3% 26.1% 6.3% * 12.3% * 23.8% 4 years college or more 13.7% 15.9% 16.4% * 35.9% * 13.9% 19.8% 23.9% * 17.2% * 18.1% (Continued next page) * = sample size is small and results should be interpreted with caution. ** = sample size is too small to report reliably NOTE: a hunter may target multiple species and can be included in more than one species above. 3

9 Table 1. (Continued) Demographic Background of Hunters by Species Hunted in Missouri in 2001 (Participants 16 years old and older) NONRESIDENT Big Game Small Game Upland Game Migratory Bird Deer Turkey Rabbit Squirrel All Hunting Race (non-white) 17.0% * ** ** ** 25.7% * ** ** ** 16.4% * Average age 47.5 * ** ** ** 46.8 * ** ** ** 47.0 * Gender (male) 93.4% * ** ** ** 100.0% * ** ** ** 93.3% * Marital Status (married) 91.0% * ** ** ** 86.4% * ** ** ** 88.5% * Average household income $68,820 * ** ** ** $67,029 * ** ** ** $69,697 * Education 8 years or less - * ** ** ** - * ** ** ** - * 9-11 years - * ** ** ** - * ** ** ** - * 12 years 13.1% * ** ** ** 9.7% * ** ** ** 13.3% * 1-3 years college 18.9% * ** ** ** 7.8% * ** ** ** 21.5% * 4 years college or more 68.0% * ** ** ** 82.5% * ** ** ** 65.3% * * = sample size is small and results should be interpreted with caution. ** = sample size is too small to report reliably NOTE: a hunter may target multiple species and can be included in more than one species above. 4

10 Table 2. Missouri Angler Demographics by Species Fished, 2001 (Participants 16+ years old) ALL ANGLERS Crappie Panfish White Bass Black Bass Catfish Trout Any other All species Race (non-white) 3.6% 3.7% 2.1% 2.8% 4.6% 1.6% 0.0% 2.8% Average age Gender (male) 71.9% 67.4% 80.2% 77.5% 70.8% 77.0% 55.5% 72.3% Marital Status (married) 74.9% 68.4% 73.6% 73.2% 68.5% 61.3% 53.3% 69.3% Average household income $52,162 $49,763 $57,402 $50,777 $46,477 $57,197 $57,592 $52,448 Education 8 years or less 1.7% 3.7% 0.0% 2.8% 3.5% 3.9% 2.0% 2.3% 9-11 years 7.0% 9.3% 11.7% 9.7% 12.0% 8.1% 9.6% 9.0% 12 years 41.2% 35.2% 33.8% 36.9% 39.2% 32.2% 35.7% 36.3% 1-3 years college 26.6% 24.9% 31.9% 28.0% 24.1% 24.4% 18.4% 25.1% 4 years college or more 23.2% 26.8% 22.5% 22.6% 21.0% 31.4% 34.3% 27.3% RESIDENT Race (non-white) 3.1% 4.0% 1.6% 2.1% 5.0% 2.3% 0.0% * 2.5% Average age * 40.2 Gender (male) 70.8% 67.6% 79.2% 74.7% 70.2% 77.4% 53.0% * 71.3% Marital Status (married) 74.9% 66.2% 70.6% 71.2% 66.0% 59.7% 52.2% * 68.7% Average household income $53,231 $52,782 $53,285 $50,746 $48,484 $55,578 $52,052 * $51,382 Education 8 years or less 2.1% 3.2% 0.0% 2.3% 3.1% 5.6% 2.6% * 2.4% 9-11 years 8.2% 10.4% 13.0% 11.2% 13.1% 10.8% 9.8% * 10.7% 12 years 40.5% 31.1% 35.1% 38.8% 38.9% 34.7% 32.3% * 35.9% 1-3 years college 28.9% 25.7% 32.2% 27.4% 24.7% 20.9% 22.9% * 25.2% 4 years college or more 20.3% 29.5% 19.7% 20.2% 20.1% 27.9% 32.3% * 25.8% * = sample size is small and results should be interpreted with caution. ** = sample size is too small to report reliably Note: an angler may fish for multiple species and can be included in more than one species above. 5

11 Table 2. (Continued) Missouri Angler Demographics by Species Fished, 2001 (Participants 16+ years old) NONRESIDENT Crappie Panfish White Bass Black Bass Catfish Trout Any other All species Race (non-white) 5.5% * 2.0% * ** 6.0% 1.9% * 0.0% * ** 3.4% Average age 50.2 * 49.7 * ** * 43.3 * ** 47.3 Gender (male) 77.6% * 65.9% * ** 91.3% 74.1% * 76.1% * ** 75.9% Marital Status (married) 75.2% * 79.4% * ** 82.8% 82.6% * 65.0% * ** 71.2% Average household income $47,261 * $34,608 * ** $50,906 $37,005 * $61,110 * ** $55,653 Education 8 years or less 0.0% * 5.8% * ** 5.2% 5.6% * 0.0% * ** 1.9% 9-11 years 1.5% * 4.1% * ** 2.4% 5.8% * 1.8% * ** 3.0% 12 years 45.1% * 55.8% * ** 27.5% 41.1% * 26.1% * ** 37.7% 1-3 years college 16.1% * 21.3% * ** 30.9% 21.3% * 32.7% * ** 24.9% 4 years college or more 37.3% * 13.0% * ** 34.0% 26.3% * 39.4% * ** 32.5% * = sample size is small and results should be interpreted with caution. ** = sample size is too small to report reliably Note: an angler may fish for multiple species and can be included in more than one species above. 6

12 Wildlife Viewer Demographics Wildlife watching is divided into two major categories: Residential--activities that occur within one mile of the home; and Non-Residential--activities that occur one mile or further from home. Each activity can be divided into two: residents and non-residents. Residents are people who reside in Missouri, and non-residents represent out-of-state visitors. As a result of these definitions, terms will arise such as resident non-residential participation meaning state residents who participate in wildlife viewing one mile or more from their home. Participants (Table 3) tend to be older than hunters and anglers, are split fairly evenly between male and female, and are likely to be married. Only a small percentage of wildlife viewers in Missouri report they are non-white. Table 3. Missouri Wildlife Watching Demographics, 2001 (Participants 16 years+) Nonresidential Activity Residential All Resident Nonresident * Activity Participants: Race (non-white) 2.9% - 1.4% 1.6% Average age Gender (male) 54.4% 32.8% 45.4% 46.3% Marital Status (married) 59.7% 71.4% 69.9% 67.7% Average HH Income $50,127 $61,072 $54,714 $54,274 Education 8 years or less 1.0% - 2.7% 2.1% 9-11 years 6.3% 2.9% 7.7% 6.9% 12 years 35.8% 21.2% 36.3% 34.7% 1-3 years college 19.9% 47.0% 26.2% 26.8% 4 years college or more 37.1% 28.9% 27.0% 29.5% * = data based on a small sample size The average household incomes for residents participating in non-residential and residential activities are approximately the same. Non-residents (out-of-state visitors) have, on average, a household income higher than resident participants. Just like hunters and anglers, wildlife watchers tend to have incomes higher than the 2001 state average ($41,339, U.S. Census Bureau). As with income levels, the education levels of residents who participate in residential and non-residential activities are similar. Participation Hunter Participation In 2001, there were 489,000 hunters (residents and nonresidents), hunting a total of 6.6 million days in Missouri (Table 4). Of the total hunters in Missouri, 405,000 were state residents and 84,000 were nonresidents. Deer hunting was the most popular in terms of hunters and days, easily surpassing the second-ranked category of turkey hunting 2-to-1. 7

13 Table 4. Hunting Participation by Residential Status and Species Hunted in Missouri in 2001 (Participants 16+ years) Number of participants Big Game Small Game Upland Game Migratory Bird Deer Turkey Rabbit Squirrel All Hunting Resident 353, ,997 ** 63,110 * 326, ,898 93,222 * 108,733 * 404,532 Nonresident 69,612 * 10,178 * ** ** ** ** ** ** 84,080 * Total 423, ,175 56,607 68, , ,076 96, , ,611 Number of days Resident 4,272,271 1,536,066 ** 816,074 * 3,616,518 1,487, ,732 * 1,184,231 * 6,224,714 Nonresident 319,110 * 22,445 * ** ** ** ** ** ** 380,887 * Total 4,591,381 1,558, , ,866 3,783,251 1,668, ,803 1,185,370 6,605,601 Average Days of Participation Resident ** 12.9 * * 10.9 * 15.4 Nonresident 4.6 * 2.2 * ** ** ** ** ** ** 4.5 * Total NOTE: a hunter may target multiple species and can be included in more than one species above. NOTE: Each category above is not exclusive of others. For example, deer and turkey are also part of Big Game. The Definitions appendix explains each category. * = sample size is small and results should be interpreted with caution. ** = sample size is too small to report reliably 8

14 Angler Participation In 2001, there were 1.2 million freshwater anglers (residents and nonresidents), fishing a total of 13.3 million days in Missouri (Table 5). Of the total freshwater anglers in Missouri, 942,000 were state residents and 272,000 were nonresidents. Most fishing effort was directed at black bass. Wildlife Watching Participation Participation information is divided into two subsections. The first subsection explores nonresidential activities by state residents and visitors (non-residents). The second subsection examines residential activities (activities occurring within one mile of home). Non-Residential Participation (activity occurring one or more miles from home): In 2001, there were 738,000 watchable wildlife recreationists (residents and non-residents) participating in non-residential activities in Missouri (Table 6). Of the total recreationists in Missouri participating in activities more than one mile from home, 519,000 were state residents and 219,000 were non-residents. Altogether, these recreationists spent 12.4 million days in nonresidential activities in Missouri. The primary watchable wildlife activity, measured in terms of number of participants, was observing wildlife, with photographing wildlife the second preferred activity. In terms of days of activity, feeding wildlife ranked higher than photographing wildlife. Please note one participant may engage in two or more activities per trip as these activities are not exclusive of one another. Participation by resident and non-resident recreationists in terms of sites visited and wildlife observed, fed, or photographed is presented in Table 7. Note that the results presented in Table 7 do not necessarily imply that recreationists prefer a certain site type or prefer to observe a certain wildlife type. This is because the results in Table 7 reflect participants preferences and the availability of sites and wildlife. Residential Participation (activity occurring within one mile of home): In 2001, there were 1.51 million residential watchable wildlife participants in Missouri (Table 8). This number represents Missouri residents participating in watchable wildlife recreation within one mile of their home. Compared to non-residential activity, there are nearly three times more residents who participate within one mile of their homes than those who travel away from home. However, the bulk of expenditures associated with wildlife viewing are made for activities away from home. 9

15 Table 5. Fishing Participation by Residential Status and Species Fished in Missouri in 2001 (Participants 16+ years) Number of participants Crappie Panfish White Bass Black Bass Catfish Trout Any other All species Resident 417, , , , , ,516 95, ,479 Nonresident 87,337 * 65,948 * ** 98,527 68,942 * 57,926 * ** 272,471 Total 504, , , , , , ,473 1,214,950 Number of days Resident 3,749,509 3,302,299 1,674,486 5,080,024 4,621, , ,010 11,308,772 Nonresident 1,024,156 * 201,040 * ** 469, ,700 * 308,109 * ** 1,970,055 Total 4,773,664 3,503,339 1,765,503 5,549,661 4,930,229 1,185, ,724 13,278,827 Average Days of Participation Resident Nonresident 11.7 * 3.0 * ** * 5.3 * ** 7.2 Total * = sample size is small and results should be interpreted with caution. ** = sample size is too small to report reliably 10

16 Table 6. Participation in Non-Residential Watchable Wildlife Recreation in Missouri in 2001 (Participants 16+ years) Resident Nonresident * Total Number of participants 519, , ,384 observing wildlife 374, , ,087 photographing wildlife 153,273 64, ,736 feeding wildlife 138,993 71, ,226 Number of days 10,937,486 1,510,458 12,447,944 observing wildlife 9,342, ,633 10,164,399 photographing wildlife 1,276, ,144 1,521,551 feeding wildlife 4,947, ,924 5,431,751 Number of trips 3,534, ,781 4,076,273 Average Days Participation observing wildlife photographing wildlife feeding wildlife * = data based on a small sample size 11

17 Table 7. Participation in Non-residential Watchable Wildlife Recreation by Site Visited and Wildlife Observed, Fed, or Photographed in Missouri in 2001 (Participants 16+ years; Ranked by number of participants per activity) Resident Nonresident * Total Number of participants 519, , ,384 Number of recreationists visiting: Woodlands 431, , ,169 public land 380, , ,025 brush-covered areas 390, , ,364 lakes and/or streams 362, , ,016 open fields 365, , ,315 private land 190, , ,310 Wetlands 184,005 34, ,356 man-made areas 135,503 42, ,829 other sites 48,329 8,532 56,861 Ocean Number of recreationists Observing, feeding, photographing: Birds 446, , ,120 waterfowl 348, , ,527 songbirds 363, , ,280 birds of prey 352,257 76, ,803 other birds 252, , ,863 shorebirds 211, , ,162 mammals 409, , ,705 small land mammals 343, , ,915 large land mammals 324, , ,088 ocean mammals other wildlife 222,143 67, ,154 fish 177,304 45, ,325 * = data based on a small sample size Table 8. Participation in Residential Watchable Wildlife Recreation in Missouri in 2001 (Participants 16+ years) Number of participants 1,513,507 feeding birds & wildlife 1,372,318 birds 1,319,885 other wildlife 423,668 observing wildlife 1,002,985 photographing wildlife 319,036 visiting parks near home 246,378 maintaining natural areas around home 152,021 maintaining plantings around home 84,716 Number of days observing wildlife 101,873,001 photographing wildlife 4,374,812 12

18 The primary residential watchable wildlife activity, measured in terms of number of participants, was feeding wildlife. Observing wildlife was the second most popular residential watchable wildlife activity. This is in contrast to the ranking of the non-residential activities, where observing wildlife was the most popular activity. Of those who participate in feeding birds and wildlife, most feed wild birds. Given the manner in which the survey questions were asked, we cannot determine the number of days spent feeding wildlife. However, we can determine the number of days spent observing and photographing wildlife around the home. In terms of days spent in watchable wildlife activities, observing wildlife again was the most popular activity. Residents spent approximately 102 million days observing wildlife around their home. The number one type of wildlife observed by residential recreationists in Missouri was birds (Table 9). The second most prominent category to be observed by residents was small mammals. The results in Table 9 do not necessarily imply that recreationists prefer to observe a certain wildlife type because the results reflect participants preferences and the availability of wildlife types. Table 9. Participation in Residential Watchable Wildlife Recreation by Wildlife Observed in Missouri in 2001 (Participants 16+ years) Number of recreationists birds 904,683 mammals 887,742 large mammals 437,155 small mammals 830,611 insects or spiders 303,026 amphibians or reptiles 241,186 fish & other insects 188,647 13

19 Economic Impacts Retail Sales Tables 10, 11 and 12 present retail sales and resulting economic impacts in Missouri associated with hunting, fishing and wildlife watching, and Table 13 presents combined expenditures and impacts for all fish and wildlife-related recreation in total. Altogether, these activities generated $1.66 billion in consumer expenditures for equipment and services consumed as part of their outdoor activities. Most of these were made by residents ($1.34 billion), while nonresidents contributed $321 million. Tables detailing the expenditures and economic impacts of each activity and by species are provided in Appendices C-E. Total Economic Effect (Output) Original expenditures made by hunters, anglers and wildlife watchers generate rounds of additional spending throughout the economy. For example, a retailer buys more inventory and pays bills, wholesalers buy more from manufacturers, and all these pay employees who then spend their paychecks. The sum of these impacts is the total economic impact resulting from the original expenditures (Appendix B includes methods and sources). The total economic effect from 2001 fish and wildlife-related recreation in Missouri was estimated to be $3.353 billion. In other words, if hunters, anglers and wildlife watchers were to stop spending money in Missouri and not spend these dollars on other in-state items, the state economy would shrink by $3.353 billion. Sportfishing accounted for $1.561 billion, with $853 million and $938 million from hunting and wildlife-watching, respectively. 14

20 Table 10. Economic Activity Generated by Missouri Anglers, 2001 (Participants 16+ years) RETAIL SALES OUTPUT EARNINGS JOBS STATE SALES REVENUES STATE INCOME REVENUES FEDERAL INCOME ES All Freshwater Fishing: $772,090,940 $1,561,999,764 $340,274,506 13,870 $38,755,026 $13,301,380 $54,393,949 Residents Only: $641,655,614 $1,307,703,741 $281,625,890 11,432 $31,436,740 $10,963,242 $44,832,495 Non-Residents Only: $130,435,326 $254,296,023 $58,648,617 2,438 $7,318,285 $2,338,138 $9,561,455 Black Bass Fishing: $274,859,227 $560,823,740 $123,026,604 5,021 $13,099,679 $4,806,010 $19,649,019 Residents Only: $255,722,149 $525,259,079 $114,909,039 4,670 $11,896,350 $4,470,720 $18,278,210 Non-Residents Only: $19,137,078 $35,564,661 $8,117, $1,203,330 $335,290 $1,370,809 Trout Fishing: $115,561,474 $240,096,201 $51,811,704 2,078 $5,523,020 $2,042,459 $8,376,608 Residents Only: $91,161,570 $191,526,694 $40,657,142 1,598 $4,302,854 $1,570,272 $6,440,057 Non-Residents Only*: $24,399,903 $48,569,507 $11,154, $1,220,166 $472,187 $1,936,551 Crappie Fishing: $121,141,119 $242,102,174 $50,217,451 2,012 $6,719,851 $1,980,708 $8,124,892 Residents Only: $97,580,278 $40,582,854 $8,373, $1,910,329 $356,622 $1,462,868 Non-Residents Only*: $23,560,841 $201,519,320 $41,844,421 1,650 $4,809,522 $1,624,086 $6,662,024 Panfish Fishing: $50,849,325 $96,562,154 $21,538, $2,910,509 $814,267 $3,290,563 Residents Only: $47,649,327 $90,417,027 $20,037, $2,717,394 $754,865 $3,050,511 Non-Residents Only*: $3,199,998 $6,145,127 $1,501, $193,114 $59,402 $240,052 White Bass Fishing: $57,622,581 $115,149,019 $23,849, $2,759,210 $928,094 $3,789,343 Residents Only: $54,795,211 $109,982,192 $22,769, $2,571,268 $884,616 $3,611,824 Non-Residents Only**: Catfish Fishing: $79,612,643 $156,831,989 $34,891,048 1,475 $4,430,446 $1,336,847 $5,428,490 Residents Only: $70,088,786 $138,177,669 $30,604,511 1,286 $3,907,264 $1,165,652 $4,733,323 Non-Residents Only*: $9,523,857 $18,654,321 $4,286, $523,181 $171,195 $695,166 Any Other Fish: $7,098,815 $12,997,030 $2,787, $479,577 $105,566 $426,894 Residents Only: $5,437,424 $10,065,970 $2,155, $357,610 $82,210 $332,448 Non-Residents Only**: $1,661,391 $2,931,060 $632, $121,967 $23,355 $94,447 * = data based on a small sample size ** = sample size too small to report results reliably 15

21 Table 11. Economic Activity Generated by Missouri Hunters, 2001 (Participants 16+ years) RETAIL SALES OUTPUT EARNINGS JOBS STATE SALES REVENUES STATE INCOME REVENUES FEDERAL INCOME ES All Hunting: $437,194,608 $853,390,343 $191,169,148 8,007 $18,074,340 $7,362,338 $29,950,530 Residents Only: $364,212,555 $705,122,876 $157,479,427 6,647 $14,602,960 $6,111,631 $24,862,563 Non-Residents Only*: $72,982,053 $148,267,468 $33,689,721 1,360 $3,471,380 $1,250,707 $5,087,967 Big Game Hunting: $331,004,789 $647,189,058 $142,651,002 6,012 $12,970,040 $5,475,149 $22,246,475 Residents Only: $275,931,717 $535,120,936 $115,937,298 4,888 $10,587,586 $4,451,637 $18,087,768 Non-Residents Only*: $55,073,072 $112,068,122 $26,713,705 1,124 $2,382,453 $1,023,512 $4,158,707 Deer Hunting: $228,156,541 $445,403,674 $98,151,124 4,162 $8,974,197 $3,754,050 $15,234,397 Residents Only: $200,377,454 $387,523,868 $84,985,492 3,612 $7,840,207 $3,258,118 $13,221,844 Non-Residents Only*: $27,779,087 $57,879,806 $13,165, $1,133,990 $495,932 $2,012,553 Upland Game Hunting*: $12,069,901 $23,670,474 $5,672, $529,869 $197,065 $770,916 Residents Only**: Non-Residents Only**: Migratory Bird Hunting: $34,857,535 $66,044,839 $15,389, $1,656,488 $589,929 $2,395,896 Residents Only*: $31,768,390 $59,983,852 $13,952, $1,492,536 $536,259 $2,177,925 Non-Residents Only**: Small Game Hunting: $46,391,122 $89,966,991 $21,858, $2,149,330 $833,868 $3,380,807 Residents Only: $42,911,769 $82,579,741 $20,120, $1,984,945 $772,634 $3,132,541 Non-Residents Only**: Turkey Hunting: $125,705,015 $248,146,380 $54,742,966 2,301 $4,987,699 $2,104,162 $8,553,974 Residents Only: $100,225,959 $194,771,218 $42,528,821 1,764 $4,024,054 $1,613,011 $6,557,315 Non-Residents Only**: Squirrel Hunting: $13,449,697 $24,394,214 $5,057, $757,863 $193,647 $786,137 Residents Only*: $13,356,207 $24,213,346 $5,018, $752,306 $192,247 $780,452 Non-Residents Only**: Rabbit Hunting: $9,242,771 $16,903,011 $3,481, $613,378 $133,318 $541,255 Residents Only*: $9,242,771 $16,903,011 $3,481, $613,378 $133,318 $541,255 Non-Residents Only**: * = data based on a small sample size ** = sample size too small to report results reliably 16

22 Table 12. Economic Activity Generated by Missouri Wildlife Watchers, 2001 (Participants 16+ years) STATE SALES REVENUES STATE INCOME REVENUES FEDERAL INCOME ES RETAIL SALES OUTPUT EARNINGS JOBS All Wildlife Watching Activities: $448,755,690 $937,795,501 $200,070,083 7,850 $22,095,502 $7,977,385 $32,844,290 Residents Only: $330,963,066 $708,187,827 $151,781,687 5,820 $15,520,300 $5,914,482 $24,350,958 Non-Residents Only*: $117,792,624 $229,607,674 $48,288,396 2,030 $6,575,202 $2,062,903 $8,493,332 * = data based on a small sample size Table 13: Combined Economic Impacts of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Watching Recreation in Missouri, 2001 (Participants 16+ years) STATE SALES REVENUES STATE INCOME REVENUES FEDERAL INCOME ES RETAIL SALES OUTPUT EARNINGS JOBS All Fish and Wildlife Related Recreation: $1,658,041,238 $3,353,185,608 $731,513,737 29,727 $78,924,868 $28,641,103 $117,188,769 Residents Only: $1,336,831,235 $2,721,014,444 $590,887,004 23,899 $61,560,000 $22,989,355 $94,046,016 Non-Residents Only: $321,210,003 $632,171,165 $140,626,734 5,828 $17,364,867 $5,651,748 $23,142,754 Earnings The business activity stimulated throughout the Missouri economy by outdoorsmen and women generate salaries and wages. In addition, many of the businesses supporting these individuals pay dividends. Altogether, these represent earnings created for Missouri as a result of hunting, fishing and wildlife watching activities. Total earnings in 2001 in Missouri from fish and wildlife related activities were estimated at $732 million, with $591 million from residents and nearly $141 million from non-residents. Employment Expenditures made for hunting, fishing and wildlife watching activities support jobs throughout the state. Many of these are in companies that directly serve recreationists such as retailers, restaurants, and more. Others are in companies that support the first companies and employees such as wholesalers, utilities, manufacturers, grocers and more. Total jobs, full and part time, supported in Missouri in 2001 from fish and wildlife related activities were estimated at 29,700, with 8,000, 13,900 and 7,900 from hunting, fishing and wildlife watching respectively. Tax Revenues State sales tax revenues generated from 2001 fish and wildlife-related recreation in Missouri were estimated to be $78.9 million ($61.6 million by residents and $17.4 million by nonresidents). Anglers accounted for $38.8 million, while hunters and wildlife watchers generated 17

23 $22.1 million, and $18.1 million of the total, respectively. Fish and wildlife generated another $28.6 million in state income tax revenues, while the federal government received $117.2 million in income tax revenues. Per Participant and Per Day Expenditures Table 14 presents estimates of the amount spent by recreationists per person and per day. These estimates can be used to approximate changes in economic activity when it is known how specific management or other actions may affect participation in fish and wildlife recreation. 18

24 Table 14. Per Day and Per Person Expenditures, 2001 (Participants 16+ years) Big Game Small Game Upland Game HUNTING Migratory Bird Deer Turkey Rabbit Squirrel All Hunting All Hunters: Average daily expenditures $17.98 $7.81 $26.83 $13.97 $16.27 $25.76 $6.86 $5.32 $16.18 Average annual expenditures $ $ $ $ $ $ $95.92 $ $ Resident Hunters: Average daily expenditures $11.57 $7.49 $26.91 $12.35 $10.60 $12.70 $6.88 $5.29 $11.47 Average annual expenditures $ $ $ $ $ $ $99.15 $ $ Non-Resident Hunters*: Average daily expenditures $ $29.71 $25.98 $67.41 $ $ $0.00 $40.00 $93.13 Average annual expenditures $ $ $ $ $ $ $0.00 $82.08 $ White Bass FISHING Black Bass Catfish Trout Any other species All Freshwater Species 1 Crappie Panfish All Anglers: Average daily expenditures $12.00 $9.83 $10.37 $16.83 $10.26 $43.71 $8.27 $23.95 Average annual expenditures $ $ $ $ $ $ $55.69 $ Resident Anglers: Average daily expenditures $9.82 $9.48 $9.41 $15.29 $8.95 $37.30 $7.89 $21.69 Average annual expenditures $ $ $ $ $ $ $56.65 $ Non-Resident Anglers: Average daily expenditures $20.00 $15.61 $28.03 $33.43 $29.84 $62.00 $9.69 $36.97 Average annual expenditures $ $48.52 $ $ $ $ $52.76 $ These figures present the average expenditures for all anglers, regardless of species targeted. These figures include big-ticket items such as vehicles, boats, and other items that anglers could not assign to any specific species. Many of these big-ticket items are left out of the species specific expenditure estimates, thus the All Freshwater Species expenditure averages are generally higher than reported for any other species in the above table. 19

25 Table 14. (Continued) Per Day and Per Person Expenditures, 2001 (Participants 16+ years) WILDLIFE WATCHING: Average per participant, annually Residents Non- Residents* All Participants On residential activities, annually $ On non-residential activities, annually $ $ $ Avg. per day, per participant For non-residential activities, including equipment items: $19.06 $74.13 $25.74 For non-residential activities, travel expenses only (food, hotel, etc): $9.90 $68.70 $12.61 * Non-resident expenditures only includes money spent in Missouri. Expenditures made in other states are not included. Data based on a small sample size. ** Many expenditures made by state residents were for vehicles and boats. Even though efforts were made to only include vehicles and boats purchased for the primary purpose of viewing wildlife, some of these items may also be used for non-related activities. If these items were moved from the equation, the average annual expense would be $ per resident annually, while the average amount spent per day for residents would be $9.16. Travel-Related Expenditures: Table 15 presents travel-related expenditures made by Missouri anglers, hunters and wildlife viewers. Through travel, participants help distribute wealth to rural areas where economic opportunities may be limited compared to urban and suburban regions. These expenditures include food, transportation costs (mostly fuel), lodging, guide fees, equipment rental, etc. While not all of these dollars may be spent in rural areas, many are. In addition to travel expenses, many participants will spend money on equipment and services in rural areas. Such equipment and service expenditures are not included in the table below. 20

26 Table 15. Travel-Related Expenditures, Missouri 2001 (Participants 16+ years) Hunting: Big Game $82,541,326 Small Game $12,169,171 Upland Game $7,419,949 Migratory Bird $11,746,025 Deer $61,539,215 Turkey $42,983,885 Rabbit $5,615,887 Squirrel $6,305,513 All Hunting, all species $106,881,661 Fishing: Crappie $57,297,141 Panfish $29,561,846 White Bass $16,730,846 Black Bass $87,945,423 Catfish $23,767,028 Trout $11,538,289 Any other $6,170,041 All Fishing, All Species $318,071,693 Wildlife Viewing: $156,985,840 (Non-residential only) Public and Private Land Activity, Expenditures and Impacts Use of Public Lands Hunters and wildlife viewers depend on a combination of public and private lands. With urban and suburban populations increasing, it is likely that public lands will play an increasing role in supplying residents and visitors alike with opportunities to experience Missouri s wildlife resources. Table 16, using data from the 2001 National Survey, presents the percentage of Missouri wildlife viewers using public and private lands for non-residential activities (those occurring more one or more miles from home). Table 17, also using data from the 2001 National Survey, presents the percentage of Missouri hunters using public and private lands. The 2001 National Survey does not ask anglers about activities on public and/or private waters. Therefore, estimates regarding fishing on public waters are not possible. Comparing the two tables, wildlife viewers are much more dependent on public lands. One reason among several for this difference might be related to a higher percentage of participants living in non-rural regions and therefore less likely to have access to private lands. 21

27 Table 16. Percentage of Non-Residential Activity and Days Occurring on Public and Private Land (participants 16+ years) Residents Nonresidents Total Public Land Exclusively Participants 56.6%* ** 48.8% Days of Participation 44.4% ** 42.6% Private Land Exclusively Participants ** ** 19.7%* Days of Participation ** ** 26.2%* Use Both Public and Private Lands Participants 23.5% 50.4%* 31.5% Days of Participation 26.8% 62.7%* 31.2% Non-Residential describes people who watch, photograph and/or feed wildlife one mile or more from their place of residence. * = data based on a small sample size ** = sample size too small to report results reliably 22

28 Table 17. Percentage of Hunters and Hunting Days on Public and Private Land (participants 16+ years) NUMBER OF HUNTERS WHO USE: All Hunting Big Game Small Game Upland Game * Migratory Bird* All Types of Land: 488, , ,175-56,607-68,848 - Residents: 404, , ,997-51,717-63,110 - Non-residents*: 84,080-69,612-10,178-4,890-5,737 - Public Lands Exclusively: 23, % 23, % 14, % 2, % 0 0.0% Residents: 17, % 17, % 14, % 2, % 0 0.0% Non-residents*: 5, % 5, % 0** 0.0% 0** 0.0% 0** 0.0% Private Lands Exclusively: 372, % 323, % 129, % 44, % 54, % Residents: 299, % 265, % 120, % 40, % 48, % Non-residents*: 72, % 58, % 9, % 3, % 5, % Private and Public Lands 93, % 76, % 20, % 9, % 14, % Residents: 87, % 70, % 19, % 8, % 14, % Non-residents*: 5, % 5, % 1, % 1, % 0 0.0% DAYS OF HUNTING: All Hunters, All Types of Land 6,605,601-4,591,381-1,558, , ,866 - Residents: 6,224,714-4,272,271-1,536, , ,074 - Non-residents*: 380, ,110-22,445-24,131-24,793 - By Hunters Using Public Lands Exclusively: 186, % 174, % 80, % 5, % 0 0.0% Residents: 166, % 155, % 80, % 5, % 0 0.0% Non-residents*: 19, % 19, % 0** 0.0% 0** 0.0% 0** 0.0% By Hunters Using Private Lands Exclusively: 4,517, % 3,343, % 1,272, % 191, % 524, % Residents: 4,194, % 3,070, % 1,249, % 167, % 499, % Non-residents*: 323, % 272, % 22, % 24, % 24, % By Hunters Using Public and Private Lands: 1,901, % 1,073, % 205, % 79, % 316, % Residents: 1,863, % 1,046, % 205, % 79, % 316, % Non-residents*: 37, % 27, % 0** 0.0% 0** 0.0% 0** 0.0% * = data based on a small sample size ** = no responses were received in the survey from non-resident hunters using this type of land. The results do not mean that non-residents did not use these types of lands. The results do imply that such use by non-residents is infrequent. 23

29 Expenditures (Retail Sales) and Economic Impacts Associated with Activities on Public and Private Lands Significant public funds go into managing fish and wildlife on all lands, public and private. Additional funds are used to acquire and manage habitat on public lands. To help gain an understanding of the return from public lands, Table 18 estimates the expenditures and economic impacts created by wildlife viewers associated with their activity occurring on public and private lands. Just the impacts from non-residential activities (more than one mile from home) are included in these estimates. Table 19 presents the same information for hunters, and Table 20 presents the combined impacts by type of land used. These estimates are based on the number of days each spends on public and private lands respectively. The 2001 National Survey does not ask anglers about activities on public and/or private waters. Therefore, such estimates are not possible here. Table 18. Economic Activity Generated by Wildlife Viewers, by Type of Land Used, 2001 (Participants 16+ years) RETAIL SALES EARNING S STATE SALES RECEIPTS STATE INCOME RECEIPTS FEDERAL INCOME ES OUTPUT JOBS Public Land Exclusively $126,242,498 $383,361,672 $81,885,674 3,193 $8,866,777 $3,245,479 $13,362,205 Residents* $92,490,819 $314,146,182 $67,329,084 2,582 $6,884,675 $2,623,615 $10,801,881 Non-Residents** Private Land Exclusively* $68,129,187 $138,050,444 $28,767,589 1,085 $3,514,641 $1,102,778 $4,540,332 Residents** Non-Residents** Use Both Public and Private Lands $126,096,770 $249,520,570 $52,128,126 2,080 $6,821,808 $2,113,537 $8,701,803 Residents $55,905,371 $113,993,596 $23,738, $2,846,373 $896,299 $3,690,222 Non-Residents* $70,191,399 $135,526,974 $28,389,297 1,198 $3,975,436 $1,217,238 $5,011,581 * = data based on a small sample size ** = sample size too small to report results reliably 24

30 Table 19. Economic Activity Generated by Missouri Hunters, by Type of Land Used, 2001 STATE SALES RECEIPTS STATE INCOME RECEIPTS FEDERAL INCOME ES (Participants 16+ years) RETAIL SALES OUTPUT EARNINGS JOBS All Types of Hunting: $437,194,608 $853,390,343 $191,169,148 8,007 $18,074,340 $7,362,338 $29,950,530 Residents Only: $364,212,555 $705,122,876 $157,479,427 6,647 $14,602,960 $6,111,631 $24,862,563 Non-Residents Only: $72,982,053 $148,267,468 $33,689,721 1,360 $3,471,380 $1,250,707 $5,087,967 Big Game Hunting: $331,004,789 $647,189,058 $142,651,002 6,012 $12,970,040 $5,475,149 $22,246,475 Residents Only: $275,931,717 $535,120,936 $115,937,298 4,888 $10,587,586 $4,451,637 $18,087,768 Non-Residents Only: $55,073,072 $112,068,122 $26,713,705 1,124 $2,382,453 $1,023,512 $4,158,707 Migratory Bird Hunting: $34,857,535 $66,044,839 $15,389, $1,656,488 $589,929 $2,395,896 Residents Only: $31,768,390 $59,983,852 $13,952, $1,492,536 $536,259 $2,177,925 Non-Residents Only: $3,089,145 $6,060,987 $1,437, $163,951 $53,670 $217,971 Small Game Hunting: $46,391,122 $89,966,991 $21,858, $2,149,330 $833,868 $3,380,807 Residents Only: $42,911,769 $82,579,741 $20,120, $1,984,945 $772,634 $3,132,541 Non-Residents Only: $3,479,353 $7,387,250 $1,737, $164,384 $61,234 $248,267 Hunters Who Use Public Lands Exclusively: Sample size to small to report reliably Hunters Who Use Private Lands Exclusively: (Participants 16+ years) RETAIL SALES OUTPUT EARNINGS JOBS STATE SALES RECEIPTS STATE INCOME RECEIPTS FEDERAL INCOME ES All Types of Hunting: $307,366,740 $583,688,109 $130,752,778 5,477 $12,362,194 $5,035,573 $20,485,079 Residents Only: $245,441,306 $475,179,335 $106,124,723 4,479 $9,840,873 $4,118,602 $16,754,776 Non-Residents Only*: $61,925,434 $125,805,275 $28,585,803 1,154 $2,945,474 $1,061,228 $4,317,152 Big Game Hunting: $245,291,429 $471,220,660 $103,864,703 4,377 $9,443,532 $3,986,476 $16,197,738 Residents Only: $198,343,856 $384,652,955 $83,337,469 3,513 $7,610,516 $3,199,903 $13,001,759 Non-Residents Only*: $46,947,573 $95,533,554 $22,772, $2,030,945 $872,503 $3,545,130 Migratory Bird Hunting: $28,938,211 $53,916,095 $12,563, $1,352,283 $481,592 $1,955,904 Residents Only: $25,849,066 $48,807,212 $11,352, $1,214,436 $436,339 $1,772,117 Non-Residents Only*: $3,089,145 $6,060,987 $1,437, $163,951 $53,670 $217,971 Small Game Hunting: $31,900,154 $62,236,475 $15,120, $1,486,842 $576,845 $2,338,741 Residents Only: $28,420,800 $54,693,209 $13,326, $1,314,645 $511,722 $2,074,706 Non-Residents Only*: $3,479,353 $7,387,250 $1,737, $164,384 $61,234 $248,267 * = data based on a small sample size 25

31 Table 20. Economic Activity Generated by Hunters and Wildlife Viewers Combined, by Type of Land Used, 2001 (Participants 16+ years) RETAIL SALES OUTPUT EARNINGS JOBS STATE SALES REVENUES STATE INCOME REVENUES FEDERAL INCOME ES Public Land Exclusively $139,772,256 $407,435,412 $87,278,466 3,419 $9,376,646 $3,453,167 $14,207,096 Residents $102,239,013 $333,018,883 $71,544,040 2,759 $7,275,525 $2,787,193 $11,467,331 Non-Residents $37,533,243 $76,897,967 $16,302, $2,161,971 $686,670 $2,823,957 Private Land Exclusively $375,495,927 $721,738,553 $159,520,368 6,562 $15,876,835 $6,138,351 $25,025,411 Residents $305,549,551 $597,742,782 $131,648,198 5,428 $12,901,231 $5,082,284 $20,722,423 Non-Residents $69,946,376 $141,292,272 $31,829,917 1,291 $3,399,757 $1,200,324 $4,889,837 Use Both Public and Private Lands $242,394,880 $495,149,064 $107,151,704 4,384 $12,024,085 $4,232,614 $17,322,364 Residents $164,928,426 $325,064,435 $70,878,577 2,872 $7,217,609 $2,725,750 $11,132,559 Non-Residents $77,466,454 $150,306,689 $31,747,583 1,333 $4,321,472 $1,341,912 $5,518,764 26

32 Conclusion Fish and wildlife provide numerous recreation opportunities for Missouri residents. The recreation expenditures benefit Missouri with significant jobs, income and other economic activity. These benefits are particularly important in rural or remote areas where other sources of income are limited. Anglers, hunters and wildlife viewers spend dollars that, in turn, benefit many other industries throughout the state. The resulting economic benefits reach every corner of the State and its economy. Every resident and tourist of Missouri benefits from fish and wildlife recreation spending. It is clear that fish and wildlife generates significant economic impacts that must be considered in policy-making. 27