Most Wyoming wildlife dollars spent on wildife viewing

[cgarner]

There is an article in The Wildlife Professional titled "Most Wyoming wildlife dollars spent on wildlife viewing" about a study conducted by the University of Wyoming and the Wyoming game and fish department that found that hunters, anglers and wildlife viewers spent $760 million in Wyoming in 2016. Of that amount, the study found that wildlife viewers spent $364 million. According to the study that amount is more than hunters spent ($206 million) and fishering ($186 million) spent seperately.

Not knowing much about the wildlife viewing industry in Wyoming, I was a little surprised that more was spent on wildlife viewing than hunting.

 

[JLS]

There is an article in The Wildlife Professional titled "Most Wyoming wildlife dollars spent on wildlife viewing" about a study conducted by the University of Wyoming and the Wyoming game and fish department that found that hunters, anglers and wildlife viewers spent $760 million in Wyoming in 2016. Of that amount, the study found that wildlife viewers spent $364 million. According to the study that amount is more than hunters spent ($206 million) and fishering ($186 million) spent seperately.

Not knowing much about the wildlife viewing industry in Wyoming, I was a little surprised that more was spent on wildlife viewing than hunting.

Given two major national parks in the Cowboy State, this doesn't surprise me. It's a double edged sword for sure.

 

[Jwill]

I would title the article "Most Wyoming wildlife dollars spent on hunting and fishing"

 

[cgarner]

I would title the article "Most Wyoming wildlife dollars spent on hunting and fishing"

I found that odd as well. Not knowing anything about the research conducted or the funding behind it, I didn't want to point that out, but the way the title is worded seems odd.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

It doesn't seem odd to me at all. The total tourists spend is more than the amounts hunters and fishermen spend IF the study is accurate, so the title is correct. JLS hit the nail on the head though, as even with the millions of dollars we spend when you figure the amount of tourists, especially foreigners, that go through the two Parks every year and the money they spend is absolutely huge!

 

[cgarner]

According to the article, more was spent on hunting and fishing combined than wildlife viewing. I agree that when you consider visitors to National Parks and such the dollars spent would be huge.

 

[JLS]

Why is there a need to arbitrarily group the activities? You could also title it "Wildlife Viewers and Hunters Spent More Than Anglers". Typically, when you are evaluating different variables, you view them independently.

Hunters are not necessarily anglers, anglers are not necessarily hunters, and viewers don't necessarily exclude or include either of those groups.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

447,000 people went through Yellowstone in the month of May alone. The results of this study do not surprise me at all

 

[wytex]

I'm not that surprised.
Like stated above, with National Parks and Monuments we have tons of wildlife viewers. They spend money on lodging, food, entrance fees and travel expenses all here in state.
Most hunters spend on licenses, fuel, and some food and do camping or limited hotel stays .

 

[cgarner]

It would be interesting to see what was included in the study.

 

[PrairieHunter]

Makes sense and those folks are around many months of the year where hunting is a bit more seasonal. And those tourist are worth more to the state because they spend more money per person where many hunters don't spend a lot when it comes to hotels, restaurants, shopping, etc..

 

[jryoung]

Another variable can be the qualification of activity. For example hunting and fishing are not subjective at all as you have to enter in the regulatory process. For wildlife viewers it is way more subjective of what could qualify as recreational intent. That said, we all together probably have very similar interest and desires in our experiences with nature and wildlife as evidenced by the $760M dollars spent or $1300 per resident of Wyoming that has been injected to their economy.

 

[Coach Chris]

Doesn't surprise me. Our traffic here in Jackson goes from almost non-existent to almost a complete standstill almost overnight when schools let out across the nation.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Dollars versus user would be interesting to look at as well.
I think these are old number but... visitors to just the parks are orders of magnitude higher. Also would be interesting to show dollars utilized in NPs v. the rest of the state as the uses don't seem to overlap much. Your average tourist probably doesn't spend much time running around the Red Desert and vice versa.

140,000 hunters
300,000 anglers
3,800,000 visitors to Yellowstone alone

 

[TOGIE]

But are those economic dollars? Or wildlife dollars? Any one of those parties staying in a hotel does nothing to benefit wildlife. The parks and their tourists bring a lot to the economy of wyoming but they obviously don't bring anywhere near what hunters and anglers bring in terms of conservation dollars. License dollars are still being used to help manage wildlife in the Parks, no?

 

[llewellinsetter]

Any one of those parties staying in a hotel does nothing to benefit wildlife.

You say this as those visiting parks and those hunting and fishing are mutually exclusive. I wonder, how many people going to visit Wyoming for the parks with their families buy a hunting and or fishing licenses because of the destination opportunity that otherwise would never even be in the state to begin with. Without one the otehr would surely suffer. There sure is a bunch of this is better, that is worse around here.

 

[JLS]

The link has a table where spending is broken down somewhat categorically.

3/5/2018 3:33:01 PM
Cheyenne -
A new analysis from the University of Wyoming shows hunting, fishing and wildlife viewing activities made a significant impact on the state’s economy in 2016. Data show that hunters, anglers and wildlife watchers spent an estimated $788 million in Wyoming, with the total economic importance up to $1 billion in business activity.

“Hunting, fishing and wildlife watching are all good economic drivers for the state. It’s a significant amount and is very impactful on the people of Wyoming,” David ‘Tex’ Taylor said, University of Wyoming professor in the Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, and lead on the analysis.

The 2016 data also showed that wildlife-related activities account for an estimated 9,600 jobs in Wyoming, with a total labor income of $262 million. These jobs are those directly connected to wildlife, but also those in the service and hospitality industries.
“The impact is important for the workforce. Imagine if 9,600 jobs were missing from the state’s economy. We’d notice,” Taylor said.

The $788 million analysis is lower than the last estimate of $1.1 billion, conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 2011. The discrepancy is attributed to errors in the USFWS report and a small angler sample size that was used in that year’s report.

To improve upon the last analysis, several local sources of data were used to document spending related to wildlife activities including Wyoming Game and Fish Department license sales data, harvest surveys, USFWS reports, and other economic studies on Wyoming. 2016 is the most recent year from which all of the data is available.

Taylor says this analysis also shows the economic diversity of the state, and that these types of activities have the potential to generate more dollars and jobs. This supports data made available from Governor Matthew Mead’s Task Force on Outdoor Recreation which also illuminated the potential for further growth in the outdoor industry for Wyoming.

“Thanks to U.W. and Dr. Taylor for doing this analysis. We believe that the economic information is a reminder that wildlife contributes to our quality of life here in Wyoming and it creates jobs,” said Scott Smith, deputy director of Game and Fish.

https://wgfd.wyo.gov/News/Hunting,-fishing-and-wildlife-viewing-are-economic

There is no reason to be cynical and myopic about this. Hotel bills don't directly benefit wildlife, but local bed taxes sure help local infrastructure. The gas you guy helps pay for highway maintenance. The gear you buy helps fund Pittman Robertson and Dingell Johnson funding. The store owner, restaurant owner, fishing guide, or bike shop you patronize may very well put some of that money back into local conservation efforts.

Natural resources and public lands are huge assets to western states. Solid, objective data is absolutely invaluable for developing fisheries, wildlife and public land policy.

 

[TOGIE]

You say this as those visiting parks and those hunting and fishing are mutually exclusive. ... There sure is a bunch of this is better, that is worse around here.

I think in the world of generalities that we sometimes have to live in there is some mutual exclusivity to this idea, especially with Parks like GRTE and YS. I bet you're average GRTE visitor does not have a fishing license.

Further, I think this thread has some interest because of this very sentiment of "this is better, that is worse." Why? We are concerned with what best for wildlife here. Hunters and fishers are surprised that people watching moose and antelope from Teton Park Road are "contributing more dollars to wildlife." Are they contributing more dollars to wildlife or more dollars to the economy? It's simply an important distinction. Especially in the media world where people could grasp onto this stuff to try and further attack the relevance of hunting in today's society.

Yes, I, as a hunter and fisherman, do way more to benefit wildlife than wildlife viewing tourists in GRTE. It's basically just a fact. That doesn't make me morally superior though.

 

[cgarner]

I don't think the article painted a negative picture of hunting and fishing or an adversarial stance between wildlife viewing and hunting and fish and I don't think it's wise or fair to do that. Although, It's easy to fall into the consumptive user vs the noncomsumptive user and who benefits wildlife the most arguement. There is a time for that arguement but I'm not sure this is it.

A total economic impact of over $1 billion is a great thing for Wyoming and the outdoors. It's true that all of these dollars may not directly benefit habitat conservation, but I don't think anyone can argue this isn't good for Wyoming's economy and wildife and fisheries.

Wildlife viewing was the gateway drug to hunting for many of us I bet. At least it was for me. If not, I bet most if not all of use enjoy viewing wildife in the non-hunting season.

 

[cgarner]

Thanks for sharing that link. Interesting for sure.

Does anyone know what - adjusted for inflation means?

The budget table states that Wildlife viewing trip spending was adjusted for inflation.