Birdwatchers and the American economy
By Charlie • July 16, 2009 • 15 commentsIn a July 1st post about Duck Stamps (Time to buy a duck stamp…or not) Mike wrote a very telling paragraph: “Yet, when it comes time to draft important conservation legislation or plan the creation a 21st Century Youth Conservation Corps, we non-extractive wildlife enthusiasts are forgotten in favor of the hook and bullet club. Apparently, when it comes time to calculate the financial contributions of the different sectors of outdoor enthusiasts, only hunters and anglers put up worthwhile cash, in part through the sale of hunting and fishing licenses.”
The sentiment is undeniably true. Why aren’t the views of so many people taken into account? Could it really be because birdwatching is worth so little to the economy?
Well, a press-release sent out just yesterday (15th July) by the US Fish and Wildlife Service seems to put that particular question to bed once and for all, by stating that birdwatchers contributed a massive $36 billion to the U.S. economy in 2006!
Here’s the full release:
A new report released today by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shows one
of every five Americans watches birds, and in doing so, birdwatchers
contributed $36 billion to the U.S. economy in 2006, the most recent year
for which economic data are available. The report – Birding in the United
States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis –shows that total participation
in birdwatching is strong at 48 million, and remaining at a steady 20
percent of the U.S. population since 1996.Participation rates vary, but are generally greater in the northern half of
the country. The five top states with the greatest birding participation
rates include Montana (40 percent), Maine (39 percent), Vermont (38
percent), Minnesota (33 percent) and Iowa (33 percent).The report identifies who birders are, where they live, how avid they are,
and what kinds of birds they watch. In addition to demographic information,
this report also provides an estimate of how much birders spend on their
hobby and the economic impact of these expenditures.The report is an addendum to the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting,
and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. The 2006 survey is the eleventh in a
series of surveys conducted about every 5 years that began in 1955. The
survey, conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in partnership with
state wildlife agencies and national conservation organizations, has become
the reference for participation and expenditure information on fish and
wildlife recreation in the United States. The survey helps quantify how
enjoyment of the outdoors and wildlife contributes to society and promotes
a healthy economy – and further strengthens the Service’s commitment to
conserve the nation’s wildlife for the enjoyment and benefit of the
American people.A copy of the Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic
Analysis can be downloaded here:
http://library.fws.gov/Pubs/birding_natsurvey06.pdfIn conjunction with the release of the birding report, the Service also
issued another similar addendum to the 2006 Survey entitled, Wildlife
Watching Trends: 1991–2006 A Reference Report. This report shows similar
trends in wildlife-watching, a broader category that includes large and
small-mammal viewing.An overview of the Survey, and a wealth of other information, can be found
online at:
http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/NationalSurvey/National_Survey.htm
It seems to me that very birder in the country should memorise the stats in that first paragraph (or at the very least carry them around on a crib sheet), because they provide an extremely strong reason why we birders should most emphatically be allowed “to draft important conservation legislation or plan the creation of a 21st Century Youth Conservation Corps”.
We definitely count, and we definitely contribute, and in the light of data like this it’s absolutely ridiculous for anyone to try to suggest otherwise…
(Thanks to Monica Engebretson, Senior Program Associate with Born Free USA, for the heads-up)
Sometimes I feel as if I contribute $1 billion of that each year myself!
Corey, whenever I check the prices of high-end optics or bird books or scan through the catalogues of travel companies that specialize in birding tours I sincerely wish I COULD spend $1 billion each year myself.
If this isn’t an argument for a “Birding Stamp” or some other federally funded initiative specifically for non-game wildlife, I don’t know what is.
I wish our “advocates” like the Audubon Society or the ABA would take a leadership role in demanding it.
A quick google search shows relative impact on economy …
birding $36B
fishing $45B
hunting $67B
(this just represents the results of a quick google search …. not a scientific study)
Based on this, plus a general feeling, birders have a definite disproportionally SMALL voice for their economic impact compared with anglers and hunters.
@Jory- How much of the impact of fishers and hunters is voluntary though? Much of the fish/hunt revenue is acquired passively, in the form of license fees and taxes, whereas there’s no similar system in place for birders to accrue revenue.
I’d like to see something itemized, and at least a distinction made between voluntary and mandatory revenue streams. I think birders would come out better on that end, at least I hope they would.
I know this may be a tired point, but in addition to an itemization of economic impact, I’d like to see a stricter definition of “birdwatcher” than what USFWS uses. As much as I’d like to believe it, I find the assertian that 39% of Mainers (or 513,417 of 1,316,456) are birdwatchers in any meaningful sense to be optimistic at best and, at worst, just plain wrong. I think the relative ease of participation in birding compared to hunting and even fishing can lead to many people self-identifying as birdwatchers, but something feels incorrect about that number.
Nick: You wrote, “I think the relative ease of participation in birding compared to hunting and even fishing can lead to many people self-identifying as birdwatchers”…Isn’t the fact that birding is so much easier than hunting (ie it can be done anywhere from backyards to city parks to refuges, and done at all skill levels without someone getting shot accidentally) exactly why the numbers are so high? And I wonder whether ‘hunters’ are so rigorous in their own definitions: do you have to hunted ever, or be a regular once every few days hunter to be counted in that lobby’s numbers?
Personally I’m extremely grateful that so many people do consider themselves birdwatchers - that hasn’t always been the situation. In fact roll on the time when 100% of Americans call themselves birdwatchers even if they only take a glance out of the living-room window to see what’s on the bird-table occasionally - that’s far better than the alternative of nobody caring or everybody declaring themselves a ‘consumptive user’ of wildlife surely…
[...] Go here to read the rest: Birdwatchers and the American economy [...]
[...] See more here: Birdwatchers and the American economy [...]
A bit of history: Duck Stamp funding towards wildlife refuges was a result of the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (1934).
Gun and ammunition excise taxes were set up in 1937 by the Pittman-Robertson Act, with proceeds going to the federal government to dole out to states to use for wildlife habitat restoration and management. A similar act, the Dingell-Johnson act, does the same thing for fisheries.
* In the past, a similar effort was made in Congress to have an excise tax on recreational sporting goods - things like hiking boots, backpacks, binoculars, etc. The goal was to have non-consumptive wildlife enthusiasts foot part of the bill for maintaining wildlife refuges and state game lands. This is only fair, since we create wear and tear on refuge roads and dikes, disturb waterfowl and other wildlife with our presence, etc. etc. etc. It would also get birders more consideration in management decisions, since we would be part of their revenue stream, instead of ‘financial leeches’.
However, in large part due to Republican howls about “tax and spend” liberals, the proposed legislation did not pass.
This is unfortunate, and we should try, try again.
But people need to be aware that conservation groups and advocates are well aware of the discrepancy and there have been significant past attempts to make it happen. Sadly they failed…
Nathan Dias
I agree with the USFWS study’s conclusions that birders contribute one heck of a lot of money to the economy, both locally and nationally. Billions and billions of dollars as Carl Sagan would have said…
But I cry foul on their gross over-estimation of the number of “birders”.
According to the survey’s definition:
anyone who looks out their window, sees a Blue Jay, and identifies it, is a birder.
Actually, one would not even have to identify the Blue Jay correctly - simply trying to and mistakenly calling it a Cardinal is enough by their definition:
“To be counted as a birder, an individual must have either taken a trip one mile or more from home for the purpose of observing birds and/or closely observed or tried to identify birds around the home.”
So anyone who has ever tried (successfully or not) to identify a bird around the home is a “birder”. Or anyone who has ever ‘closely observed’ a bird around the home is a “birder”. Talk about a stretch…
In terms of my own state (where I personally know most real birders):
The report says 19% of South Carolina residents are birders. Rubbish! Only a completely bogus definition could have that high a proportion. According to the U.S. Census Bureau there were 4,479,800 SC residents in 2008. So according to the survey, there are roughly 851,162 birders in SC. Anyone who knows anything about South Carolina birding (or our backwards, right-wing society in general) will tell you that is hogwash.
A friend of mine made the point that this super-loose definition is just as intellectually dishonest as a survey defining a runner as: anyone who ever purchased a set of running shoes.
If there really were that many true “birders”, then we would have no trouble getting things like a non-consumptive excise tax passed to help we nature-lovers fund refuges and game lands…
How many copies of his field guides did Sibley sell? That might give an indication.
Nathan: I understand what you’re saying, but (and this is a polite response, genuinely not a flame) I’m not sure why you’re saying it. You’re a conservationist/birder - as I’d hope I am - and for me telling someone that they’re not a birder because they only look at (’look’ not ‘watch’ I’ll grant you) birds around their home seems counter-productive? I’m always very careful not to nip a potential birder in the bud by comparing them with so-called ‘real birders’ - in my mind a birdwatcher is someone into birds, no matter how much time they spend doing it or what level of expertise they’re currently at. Figures like the one the USFWS have produced may be way out as far as active, field birders are concerned but if they are accurate in terms of people ‘who like birds’ isn’t that a powerful argument to legislators that they should sit up and take notice?
I’m not for a minute dismissing what you’re saying, just wondering whether we might be better to embrace the report and see it as something positive rather than dubious - though perhaps there is a danger in overstating what influence we really have if these very casual birders are included in the ‘population estimates’ as it were?
Charlie - I wasn’t intending to demean beginning birders, backyard birders, people who tried to ID a Blue Jay, etc.
What I was objecting to was the USFWS once AGAIN giving wildly inaccurate numbers in this type of report. And then presenting them as fact, when everyone I’ve talked to agrees the numbers are ridiculously inflated.
It was obvious they had good intentions, but if we conservationists / birders have to “lie” about our numbers and falsely inflate them, what does that say about us?
Yesterday afternoon I went to the town hall where I live. Prominently posted were:
- a fee schedule for hunters and anglers. Lots of categories, lots of different charges, lots of money.
- a poster for venison and hunger … how to donate your deer to feed the poor.
I did NOT see:
- a fee schedule for birders, with a separate fee for those who watch shorebirds vs. a fee for those who take pictures of raptors.
- a poster showing where we can donate our life lists and pictures to feed the poor.
Conclusion … if I was an extra-terrestrial and just landed at my town hall, I would assume that hunters and anglers directly contribute to the economy, while birders skip along merrily without paying anything (charitable contributions are another matter entirely).