Days per hunterTrips per hunterTrip expendituresper hunterTrip expendituresper dayComparative <strong>Hunting</strong> by Type <strong>of</strong> <strong>Hunting</strong>$37$34$31$40$198910111114Selected Game by Type <strong>of</strong> <strong>Hunting</strong>(In millions)16181921$350$365$301TotalBig gameSmall gameMigratory birdsOther animals$627Type <strong>of</strong> hunting Hunters DaysBig game, total ............................... 11.6 212Deer ....................................... 10.9 168Wild turkey ................................. 3.1 33Elk ........................................ 0.9 8Bear ....................................... 0.5 5Small game, total ............................. 4.5 51Squirrel. .................................... 1.7 21Rabbit <strong>and</strong> hare .............................. 1.5 17Pheasant .................................... 1.5 10Quail. ...................................... 0.8 9Grouse/prairie chicken. ........................ 0.8 8$762seeking small game ($31 per day) <strong>and</strong>spent an average <strong>of</strong> $365 ($40 perday) while pursuing migratory birds.Hunters averaged $301 ($19 per day)while pursuing other animals.<strong>Hunting</strong> for Selected GameAmong big game species, deer was themost popular animal pursued, attracting10.9 million hunters for 168 milliondays. Wild turkey attracted 3.1 millionhunters for 33 million days, while elkdrew 867 thous<strong>and</strong> for 8 million days,<strong>and</strong> bear was hunted by 526 thous<strong>and</strong>for 5 million days. Moose was pursuedby 106 thous<strong>and</strong> hunters for 1 milliondays. In addition, 305 thous<strong>and</strong> huntersspent 5 million days hunting other biggame animals.Among small game species, squirrelswere the most popular quarry with 1.7million small game hunters who huntedthem 21 million days in 2011. Rabbitswere hunted by 1.5 million participantsfor 17 million days, <strong>and</strong> pheasantsattracted 1.5 million hunters for 10million days. Quail was flushed by 841thous<strong>and</strong> hunters on 9 million days,while grouse <strong>and</strong> prairie chicken werepursued by 812 thous<strong>and</strong> hunters on 8million days. In addition, 299 thous<strong>and</strong>hunters spent 3 million days huntingother small game animals.Among those hunting migratory birds,1.4 million pursued ducks for 15million days. There were 1.3 millionhunters who pursued doves on 7million days. On 9 million days, 781thous<strong>and</strong> hunters hunted geese in 2011.Other migratory bird species attracted227 thous<strong>and</strong> people who hunted for 2million days.Migratory birds, total ......................... 2.6 23Ducks ...................................... 1.4 15Doves ...................................... 1.3 7Geese ...................................... 0.8 9Source: Table 7.26 2011 <strong>National</strong> <strong>Survey</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Fishing</strong>, <strong>Hunting</strong>, <strong>and</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong>-Associated Recreation U.S. Fish <strong>and</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> Service <strong>and</strong> U.S. Census Bureau
Participation by Geographic RegionRegionally, participation rates inhunting ranged from 3 percent in thePacific Region to 11 percent in the EastSouth Central Region. The East NorthCentral, West North Central, <strong>and</strong> WestSouth Central Regions also had participationrates above the national average<strong>of</strong> 6 percent. Regions with participationrates below the national rate wereNew Engl<strong>and</strong>, Middle Atlantic, SouthAtlantic, <strong>and</strong> Pacific. The rate in theMountain Region was equal to theaverage at 6 percent.<strong>Hunting</strong> in State <strong>of</strong> Residence <strong>and</strong>in Other StatesA large majority <strong>of</strong> participants, 94percent or 12.9 million, hunted withintheir resident state in 2011. Only 1.9million, 14 percent, hunted in anotherstate. Percentages do not add to 100because those who hunted both in state<strong>and</strong> out <strong>of</strong> state were included in bothcategories.The overall resident/nonresident patternis relatively constant across all types<strong>of</strong> hunting. Eleven million big gamehunters, 95 percent <strong>of</strong> all big gamehunters, hunted within their state <strong>of</strong>residence, while 11 percent, 1.3 millionpeople, traveled to another state tohunt big game. Four million smallgame hunters, 90 percent <strong>of</strong> all smallgame hunters, pursued game in theirresident state. An estimated 708 thous<strong>and</strong>small game hunters, 16 percentventured across state lines to hunt smallgame. Over 2.4 million migratory birdhunters, 94 percent <strong>of</strong> all migratory birdhunters, hunted within their residentstate. Eleven percent or 284 thous<strong>and</strong>hunted out <strong>of</strong> state. Among sportspersonswho hunted other animals, 92percent, 2 million, hunted in state <strong>and</strong>10 percent, 224 thous<strong>and</strong> participants,hunted out <strong>of</strong> state.<strong>Hunting</strong> in State <strong>of</strong> Residence<strong>and</strong> in Other States(In millions)Out <strong>of</strong>In state state<strong>All</strong> hunters ...... 12.9 1.9Big game ....... 11.0 1.3Small game ..... 4.0 0.7Migratory birds .. 2.4 0.3Other animals ... 2.0 0.2Source: Table 6.Pacific3%AKWAORNVCAIDAZ<strong>Hunting</strong> Participation(<strong>National</strong> participation rate: 6 percent)UTMountain6%MTWYNMCOWest NorthCentral10%NDSDNEKSOKMNIAMOARWIILEastNorthCentral7%INTNMIKYOHWVSCPAVANCNYNHVTNew Engl<strong>and</strong>4%MEMARICTNJDEMDDCMiddleAtlantic5%HITXWest SouthCentral7%LAMSALEast SouthCentral11%GAFLSouth Atlantic4%U.S. Fish <strong>and</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong> Service <strong>and</strong> U.S. Census Bureau 2011 <strong>National</strong> <strong>Survey</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Fishing</strong>, <strong>Hunting</strong>, <strong>and</strong> <strong>Wildlife</strong>-Associated Recreation 27
- Page 1: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service2011Nat
- Page 4 and 5: Economics and StatisticsAdministrat
- Page 6 and 7: List of TablesFishing and Hunting1.
- Page 8 and 9: ForewordWhen I was growing up, it w
- Page 11 and 12: Highlights
- Page 13 and 14: watching (observing, photographing,
- Page 15 and 16: Expenditures for Wildlife-Related R
- Page 17 and 18: Fishing
- Page 19 and 20: Fishing ExpendituresAnglers spent $
- Page 21 and 22: Freshwater Fishing ExpendituresAngl
- Page 23 and 24: pike, pickerel, and muskie, as well
- Page 25 and 26: Sex and Age of AnglersAlthough more
- Page 27 and 28: The majority of anglers had househo
- Page 29: 2001-2011 Fishing Participants, Day
- Page 32 and 33: Hunting HighlightsIn 2011, 13.7 mil
- Page 34 and 35: Big Game HuntingIn 2011, a majority
- Page 38 and 39: Hunting on Public and PrivateLandsm
- Page 40 and 41: Large MSA25%Medium MSA17%Percent of
- Page 42 and 43: Hispanics, who represent a growingp
- Page 45 and 46: Wildlife WatchingU.S. Fish and Wild
- Page 47 and 48: Wildlife-Watching ExpendituresThirt
- Page 49 and 50: Wildlife Fed, Observed, orPhotograp
- Page 51 and 52: Metropolitan and NonmetropolitanAro
- Page 53 and 54: Education, Race, and Ethnicity ofAr
- Page 55 and 56: Away-From-Home Participantsby Type
- Page 57 and 58: Away-From-Home WildlifeWatchers by
- Page 59 and 60: Metropolitan and NonmetropolitanAwa
- Page 61 and 62: 2001-2011 Comparison of Wildlife-Wa
- Page 63: 2006-2011 Wildlife-Watching Partici
- Page 66 and 67: Guide to Statistical TablesPurpose
- Page 68 and 69: Table 3. Freshwater Anglers and Day
- Page 70 and 71: Table 7. Hunters and Days of Huntin
- Page 72 and 73: Table 8. Selected Characteristics o
- Page 74 and 75: Table 9. Selected Characteristics o
- Page 76 and 77: Table 10. Selected Characteristics
- Page 78 and 79: Table 12. Expenditures for Fishing:
- Page 80 and 81: Table 14. Trip and Equipment Expend
- Page 82 and 83: Table 16. Trip and Equipment Expend
- Page 84 and 85: Table 18. Trip and Equipment Expend
- Page 86 and 87:
Table 20. Trip and Equipment Expend
- Page 88 and 89:
Table 22. Special Equipment Expendi
- Page 90 and 91:
Table 25. Freshwater Anglers and Da
- Page 92 and 93:
Table 29. Hunters and Days of Hunti
- Page 94 and 95:
Table 33. Hunters Preparing for Hun
- Page 96 and 97:
Table 37. Participation in Wildlife
- Page 98 and 99:
Table 40. Expenditures for Wildlife
- Page 100 and 101:
Table 41. Selected Characteristics
- Page 102 and 103:
Table 42. Selected Characteristics
- Page 104 and 105:
Table 46. Total Wildlife-Related Pa
- Page 106 and 107:
Appendix A.DefinitionsAnnual househ
- Page 108 and 109:
State governments (such as State pa
- Page 110 and 111:
Appendix B.2010 Participation of 6-
- Page 112 and 113:
Table B-4. Most Recent Year of Fish
- Page 114 and 115:
Table B-7. Selected Characteristics
- Page 116 and 117:
Table B-9. Participation by 6-to-15
- Page 118 and 119:
Appendix C.Significant Methodologic
- Page 120 and 121:
Table C-1. Major Characteristics of
- Page 122 and 123:
Table C-2. Anglers and Hunters by C
- Page 124 and 125:
household income in the 2001Survey.
- Page 126 and 127:
Table C-4. Comparison of Major Find
- Page 128 and 129:
Table C-5. Anglers and Hunters by C
- Page 130 and 131:
Appendix D.Sample Design and Statis
- Page 132 and 133:
lation 6 to 15 years of age were de
- Page 134 and 135:
compute in advance the standard err
- Page 136 and 137:
Illustration of the Computation of
- Page 138 and 139:
Table D-2. Approximate Standard Err
- Page 140 and 141:
Table D-4. Approximate Standard Err
- Page 143:
U.S. Department of the InteriorU.S.