HomeMy WebLinkAbout20090347.tiffSTATE OF COLORADO
Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Thomas E. Remington, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1192
wildlife.state.co.us
January 23, 2009
Bill Garcia
Chairman
Weld County Commission
PO Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632-0758
Dear Chairman Garcia:
Hunting, fishing, and wildlife watching contribute several billion dollars to Colorado's economy and
support tens of thousands of jobs all over the state. The enclosed report, The Economic Impacts of Hunting,
Fishing and Wildlife Watching in Colorado, documents the economic impact of wildlife -related recreation
statewide and in local communities. The report is compiled every five years and applies an economic impact
model developed for the Division of Wildlife. The report is based on data from the Division of Wildlife, the Fish
and Wildlife Service, the US Census Bureau, and other sources.
Hunters, anglers, and other wildlife enthusiasts contribute to our state's economy every time they purchase a
license, buy equipment, hire an outfitter, enjoy a meal, or stay overnight at one of Colorado's hotels, motels or
lodges. These direct expenditures are magnified as the new dollars are re -spent in local communities.
• The total economic impact of hunting and fishing in 2007 was more than $1.8 billion. This includes
just over $1 billion in direct spending on equipment, transportation, food, and lodging, plus an additional
$767 million in secondary economic activity.
• Wildlife watching generated about $703 million in direct expenditures, plus an additional $515 million in
secondary spending, for a total economic impact of $1.2 billion in 2006.
The economic activity generated by hunters, anglers, and other wildlife enthusiasts translates into wages and
salaries of workers around Colorado. According to this study, hunting and fishing supported more than 21,000
jobs statewide in 2007 and wildlife watching supported about 12,800 jobs statewide in 2006. While the
greatest number of wildlife jobs are located in Front Range communities, these jobs make up a larger share of the
total employment base in Colorado's rural counties.
Hunting, fishing, and other wildlife -related recreation produce sustainable economic growth for Colorado's small
towns, rural areas, and urban communities. The Division of Wildlife and Wildlife Commission are very aware of
the importance of hunting and fishing in supporting local economies, and we are committed to continuing to
provide Coloradans and visitors with rich opportunities to hunt, fish, and view wildlife.
Sincerely,
Thomas E. Remington
Director
4717111eitil-riz.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Hams D. Sherman, Executive Director
"nOINILDLIFE COMMISSION, Robert Bray, Chair • Brad Coors, Vice Chair • Tim Glenn, Secretary
Members, Dennis Buechler • Jeffrey Crawford • Dorothea Farris • Roy McAnally • Richard Ray • Robert Streeter
Ex Officio Members, Hams Sherman and John Stulp
r--S11,OO - b3417
COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
The Economic Impacts of
Hunting, Fishing & Wildlife
o‘DR4a0 Watching in Colorado
COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE • 6060 Broadway • Denver, CO 80216 • (303) 297-1192 • www.wildlife.state.co.us
Final Report
Sept 26, 2008
The Economic Impacts of
Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife
Watching in Colorado
Prepared for
Colorado Division of Wildlife
Prepared by
BBC Research & Consulting
3773 Cherry Creek N. Drive, Suite 850
Denver, Colorado 80209-3827
303.321.2547 fax 303.399.0448
www.bbcresearch.com
bbc@bbcresearch.com
B
RESEARCH &
CONSULTING
B
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Background 1
Overview of Statewide Economic Impacts of Hunting and Fishing 1
Overview of Statewide Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching Activities 2
I. Introduction
Background 3
Objectives 3
Process 4
Model Capabilities 4
11. Model Overview
III. Statewide Results
Statewide Economic Impacts of Hunting and Fishing 9
Statewide Economic Impacts of Hunting and Fishing by Residents and Non -Residents 11
Statewide Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching Activities 13
IV. County -Level Results
V. Comparison with Previous Impact Estimates
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
In 1988, the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) selected BBC Research & Consulting (BBC)
to build a model that estimated the economic effects of hunting and fishing in Colorado. CDOW
used and maintained this model, and provided periodic updates of economic effects as new
information became available. State and local government officials and CDOW personnel regularly
used the model's results to help them educate the public, consider policy choices and allocate
resources.
BBC last revised and updated the model in 2004, using 2002 data. In early 2008, CDOW asked
BBC to complete a new update, based on the most recently available data. In addition to desiring a
more current set of economic impact estimates, CDOW recognized that, due to circumstances in
2002 including drought, wildfires and a poor economy, estimates for 2002 may not accurately reflect
the prevailing economic impact of hunting, fishing and wildlife watching in Colorado.
The estimates presented here are based on data from a number of different sources, including
CDOW game harvest information for 2007, a survey of Colorado anglers conducted by CDOW in
early 2008, CDOW expenditure data for Fiscal Year 2007 and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
(USFWS) 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife -Associated Recreation.
Overview of Statewide Economic Impacts of Hunting and Fishing
Hunting and fishing are an important part of Colorado's tourism economy. During 2007, the most
recent year for which hunting and fishing data are available, there were roughly 12.7 million hunting
and fishing activity days in Colorado. An activity day consists of one hunter or angler spending at
least part of one day hunting or fishing. Colorado residents account for approximately 91 percent of
hunting and fishing activity days.
Direct expenditures. Excluding purchases of hunting and fishing licenses (captured in CDOW
expenditures), hunters and anglers spent an estimated $1.0 billion on trip expenses and sporting
equipment in Colorado during 2007. In addition, CDOW spent $58 million on operations that
directly support hunting and fishing in the state. (Information about the CDOW budget categories
involved in this estimate are provided on page 10 of the main report.) Combining these, total direct
expenditures in support of hunting and fishing were approximately $1.1 billion.
Total impact. The total economic impact of hunting and fishing is the sum of new dollars injected
into the economy (trip expenses, sporting equipment purchases and CDOW expenditures that
support hunting and fishing) and the secondary impact of the dollars that are re -spent within the
economy. The secondary economic impact of hunting and fishing dollars during 2007 is estimated at
$767 million, yielding a total impact of just over $1.8 billion.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, PAGE 1
Jobs. This level of economic activity supports an estimated 21,000 full-time jobs in Colorado. These
jobs are located across the state, representing an important part of the economic base, particularly in
some rural counties.
Residents and non-residents. Colorado residents provided 82 percent of statewide hunting and
fishing trip and equipment expenditures. Non-resident hunters and anglers also provided an
important boost for local economies:
• Non-resident hunters and anglers typically spent more money per day than residents
did. For example, non-resident big game hunters spent an estimated $216 per day,
while resident big game hunters spent about $106 per day.
• Non-resident hunters and anglers contributed $186 million, or 18 percent, of the
statewide trip and equipment expenditures.
• Non-resident hunters and anglers brought money into the Colorado economy that
would probably have gone to another state if not for Colorado's variety of hunting and
fishing opportunities.
Comparison with 2002. Adjusting for inflation, hunters and anglers spent 17 percent more on
trips and sporting equipment in 2007 than in 2002. Fishing activity days increased by 30 percent
between 2002 and 2007 and hunting activity days increased by 6 percent. The total economic impact
of these activities increased by 1 1 percent, with a similar number of jobs being supported statewide in
each year. A more detailed comparison of 2002 and 2007 is presented in Section V of this report.
Overview of Statewide Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching Activities
Estimates for wildlife watching activities in Colorado use a slightly different methodology to the
hunting and fishing estimates. Estimates of trip and equipment expenditures and activity days for
wildlife watching more than one mile from home are based on the wildlife watching sample of the
2006 USFWS national survey.
Total impact. During 2006, the most recent year for which wildlife watching expenditure data are
available, trip and equipment expenditures that are primarily for wildlife watching activities more
than one mile from home are estimated at $703 million. The secondary economic impact of these
expenditures is estimated at $515 million, yielding a total estimated economic impact of $1.2 billion.
This level of spending supports roughly 12,800 jobs in Colorado's economy.
Residents and non-residents. Wildlife watching by Colorado residents amounts to 41 percent of
the total economic impact, with the remaining 59 percent coming from non-residents. Although
non-residents represented roughly one -quarter of all activity days in 2006, non-residents spent
considerably more money per day, on average, than residents when watching Colorado's wildlife.
People who watch wildlife and hunt or fish. Many people who watch wildlife in Colorado also
hunt or fish in the state. Based on the 2006 USFWS survey, 12 percent of those who engaged in
wildlife watching in Colorado in 2006 hunted or fished in the state in 2006. Among Colorado
residents the figure is 20 percent; among non-residents the figure is 2 percent.
BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, PAGE 2
SECTION I.
Introduction
Background
In 1988, the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) selected BBC Research & Consulting (BBC)
to build a model that estimated the economic effects of hunting and fishing in Colorado. The
Division used and maintained this model and provided periodic updates of economic effects as new
information became available. State and local government officials and CDOW personnel regularly
used the model's results to help them educate the public, consider policy choices and allocate
resources.
BBC last completed a model update in October 2004, providing estimates of the economic impact of
hunting and fishing in 2002 and of wildlife watching in 2001. BBC's estimates and CDOW data
both showed a decline in hunting and fishing activity as well as expenditures in 2002 relative to
previous years. It was recognized that lower activity and total expenditures may have resulted from
unfavorable conditions in 2002, including drought, wildfires and a weak economy. By providing a
new set of estimates based on the most recently available data, BBC has been able to provide an
assessment that more accurately reflects the prevailing economic impact of hunting, fishing and
wildlife watching in Colorado.
Objectives
CDOW specified several objectives for this update.
• Work with CDOW personnel to integrate the most recently available information and
refine working assumptions;
• Provide statewide and individual county estimates of the economic effects of elk
hunting, deer hunting, other big game hunting, small game hunting and fishing;
• Distinguish between resident and non-resident impacts; and
• Provide a statewide estimate of the economic effects of wildlife watching, using a
methodology similar to that for hunting and fishing.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 3
Process
BBC completed six tasks in order to update the model. These tasks included:
• Project initiation BBC met with CDOW staff at the beginning of this project to
assemble the data needed from CDOW and to review data sources and model
assumptions.
• Data collection BBC obtained the most recent available data from CDOW, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the Colorado State
Demographer's Office, and the IMPLAN Group, Inc.
• Core model implementation BBC updated the CDOW economic impact model
with new data inputs and made adjustments to the model implementation where
necessary to accommodate changes such as new Game Management Units, revised
survey questions and new data sources.
• Hunting and fishing results — BBC developed estimates of the economic impacts of
hunting and fishing for the most recent available year (2007).
• Wildlife watching results BBC developed estimates of the economic impacts of
wildlife watching in 2006.
• Final report BBC summarized the results of the model in a report delivered to
CDOW staff.
Section II of this report provides an overview of the economic impact model.
Model Capabilities
The model provides estimates of the annual economic impacts of hunting and fishing activity for
each county and statewide for the 2007 hunting and fishing seasons. All economic impact results are
reported in 2007 dollars. Economic impacts are reported in terms of activity days, trip and
equipment expenditures, total economic impacts (measured in terms of output/sales) and jobs.
Hunting impacts can be further broken down into impacts related to hunting several key species,
including elk, deer, other big game and small game. Economic impacts are further divided into
impacts resulting from Colorado resident hunting and fishing activity and those resulting from non-
resident activity.
Economic impacts associated with wildlife watching activities are available for residents and non-
residents, but only at the statewide level. The model reports the economic impacts resulting from
wildlife watching in 2006, the most recent year for which data are available.
Section III of this report describes statewide results and Section IV of this report describes county -
level results. Section V of this report compares results of this updated model with the 2002 hunting
and fishing estimates from the last model update.
BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 4
SECTION II.
Model Overview
The updated economic impact model developed for CDOW combines the most recently available
information from a variety of sources to generate estimates of the impacts of hunting, fishing and
wildlife watching in Colorado. This section of the report provides an overview of the model.
General model structure. The overall structure of the economic impact model is shown in
Exhibit II -1, on the next page. The model begins with information about resident and non-resident
participants in Colorado. Estimates of equipment expenditures and per -visitor day direct
expenditures for trip costs come from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Bureau of the
Census "2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation." Estimates
of the number of hunting and fishing activity days, along with their location, come from CDOW
surveys and license sales.
The model then estimates direct expenditures, by type of visitor and activity, based on estimated
expenditures per visitor day and per trip (specific to each type of activity and each type of visitor),
combined with data on CDOW expenditures that support hunting and fishing activities. The
location of sales depends on the type of expenditure, the locations where hunting and fishing
activities take place and where equipment or trip support services are purchased.
Secondary expenditures, reflecting the re -spending of hunting and fishing dollars within Colorado,
are estimated using the IMPLAN input-output model originally developed by the U.S. Forest
Service. The model then combines the direct and secondary expenditures to produce total economic
impact estimates and estimates of total employment related to hunting and fishing activities.
The wildlife watching component of the model follows a similar structure. However, due to data
limitations, there is no county -level detail available for wildlife watching impacts. Economic effects of
wildlife watching are only provided at a statewide level.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 5
Exhibit II -1.
Overall Economic Impact Model Structure
Source: BBC Research & Consulting.
1
1
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 6
Inputs to the model. Data for the model come from a variety of sources and are depicted in
Exhibit II -2:
• CDOW provided data on hunting and fishing activity levels by location and species,
direct CDOW expenditures and license agent commissions, and the geographic and
economic relationship between Game Management Units and county boundaries;
• Colorado -specific information in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Bureau of
the Census "2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated
Recreation" provides estimates of hunting, fishing and wildlife watching expenditures
in Colorado per visitor and per visitor day;
• Data from the U.S. Census County Business Patterns was used to apportion equipment
expenditures based on the locations of retail outlets for hunting, fishing and wildlife
watching equipment;
• Data from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis was used
to convert all dollar figures into 2007 dollars; and
• The IMPLAN economic impact model was used to estimate secondary economic
impacts ("re -spending" effects) and total employment impacts.
Exhibit II -2.
Inputs to the Model
Expenditures
20061 USFWS Survey of
Fishing, Hunting and
W itdlite-Associated'
Recreation
Ucense'Agent
Commissions
interviews with
CDOW Staff
rUS Bureau of
Economic Analysis
Price Escalators
Census'. Data on
County Business
Patterns
Activity
CDOW Big Game t;
Harvest Surveys
GMU to County.
Expenditure
Distribution '..
CDOW Small
Game Hunting
Surveys & USFW S
Waterfowl Survey
1
2008 CDOW Survey
of Colorado Anglers
Total Activity Days and
County -level Distribution
Economic Impacts
Source: BBC Research U Consulting.
IM PLAN Economic
Impact Model
BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING
SECTION II, PAGE 7
Model outputs. Apart from producing overall statewide estimates of the total economic impact of
hunting, fishing and wildlife watching activities, the model is able to produce a variety of more
specialized results. As summarized in Exhibit II -3, the model can show results for hunting and fishing
impacts at both the state and county levels, as well as results for wildlife watching impacts at the state
level. The model can also generate impact results for more specific activities, such as elk hunting or
small game hunting. A variety of economic measures are available from the model, including direct
expenditures, total output and jobs.
Exhibit I1-3.
Available Model Results
Source-
BC Research & Consulting.
BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 8
SECTION III.
Statewide Results
Statewide Economic Impacts of Hunting and Fishing
Hunting and fishing are an important and sizable portion of Colorado's tourism economy.
Exhibit III -1 summarizes direct expenditures, total economic impacts and total jobs in Colorado
related to hunting and fishing in 2007. Overall, the economic impacts of fishing were greater than
those of hunting, reflecting the fact that fishing activity days represented more than 80 percent of all
activity days. However, the economic impact of each hunting day is nearly twice that of an individual
fishing day, on average. Among the major game species hunted in Colorado in 2007, the economic
impacts of elk hunting were the largest, followed by deer hunting.
Exhibit III -l.
Statewide Economic Impacts of Hunting and Fishing in 2007
Elk hunting
Deer hunting
Other big game hunting
Fishing
Small game hunting
CDOW expenditures
Total
$172,700
58,300
4,700
725,200
56,900
58,500
$1,076,300
Note: Measured in 2007 dollars.
1_ Trip and equipment expenditures and CDOW expenditures in support of these activities.
2. Direct expenditures plus secondary spending by businesses and households (multiplier effects).
3. Includes lob creation from direct and secondary expenditures.
Source: BBC Research By Consulting, based on data from CDOW and USFWS 2006 national survey.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PACE 9
Direct expenditures. Hunters and anglers spent an estimated $1.0 billion on trip expenses' and
sporting equipment' (direct expenditures) in Colorado during 2007. Expenditures by Colorado
residents made up about 82 percent of this total. Expenditures per day were greater, on average, for
non-residents than for Colorado residents. In addition, CDOW spent an estimated $58 million on
items that directly support hunting and fishing activities in the state. (For a description of included
CDOW budgetary groups, see below.) When combined, total direct expenditures are estimated to
equal $1.1 billion.
Total economic impacts. Businesses receive revenue from hunter and angler purchases and use a
portion of this money to pay employees and purchase goods and services that support business
operations. Thus, the hunter and angler expenditures re -circulate in the local economy — providing
an economic impact beyond just the original expenditures. This additional re -spending impact is
often termed a "multiplier" effect or secondary impact.
The total economic impact of the hunting and fishing industry consists of both new dollars injected
into the economy from hunter and angler trip expenses and sporting equipment purchases (direct
expenditures) and the secondary impact as these dollars are re -spent within the economy. The
secondary economic impact of hunting and fishing dollars during 2007 is estimated at $767 million.
Adding this figure to the trip and equipment purchases, the total estimated impact is $1.8 billion.
Jobs. A portion of the direct expenditures of hunters and anglers and the subsequent re -spending of
these revenues pay for wages and salaries that currently support an estimated 21,000 full-time jobs in
Colorado. These jobs, located across Colorado, form an important component of the local economic
base, particularly in certain rural counties.
Activity days. During 2007, the most recent year for which data are available, there were about
12.7 million hunting and fishing activity days. An activity day consists of one hunter or angler
spending at least part of one day hunting or fishing. Resident hunter and angler activity days
comprised approximately 91 percent of the total hunting and fishing activity days in Colorado. Non-
resident hunter and angler activity days were 9 percent of the total. The portion of non-resident
activity days varied considerably for different activities: non-residents were responsible for less than 5
percent of fishing activity days but more than one-third of big game activity days. Exhibit III -2 on
the next page shows these results.
Includes expenditures on the following goods and services: food, lodging, public transportation, private transportation,
guide fees, public land access fees, private land access fees, equipment rental, boat fuel, other boating costs, and hearing and
cooking fuel. Excludes expenditures on hunting and fishing licenses as these are represented by CDOW expenditures.
2
Includes some or all of the expenditures on the following items: guns and rifles, ammunition, other hunting equipment,
fishing gear, camping equipment, binoculars, clothing, taxidermy, boats, trucks, campers, recreational vehicles, magazines
and books, membership dues and contributions, film, bird food, and food For other wildlife.
3 CDOW expenditures include the following expenditure groups: operating (i.e. instare travel, supplies, motor vehicles,
etc.), capital (IT, equipment, etc.), and all other expenditures in direct support of fish and wildlife management.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 10
Exhibit 11I-2.
Hunting and Fishing Activity Days, 2007
Big game hunting
Small game hunting
Fishing
Total
Source: BBC Research & Consulting, based on fishing and hunting activity data provided by CDOW.
Statewide Economic Impacts of Hunting
and Fishing by Residents and Non -Residents
Resident and non-resident hunters and anglers provide an important boost for local economies and
bring money into the Colorado economy that may well be spent in another state if not for Colorado's
unique outdoor experience. Residents contributed approximately $832 million, or 82 percent of the
statewide trip and equipment expenditures (excluding direct CDOW expenditures). Non-residents
contributed $186 million, or 18 percent, of these direct expenditures.
Daily expenditures. Non-residents typically spent more money per day than residents. For example,
non-resident big game hunters spent an estimated $216 per day in 2007, while resident big game hunters
spent about $106. Exhibit III -3 shows additional information about average per day expenditures.
Exhibit I11-3.
Average Expenditures per Hunter and Angler per Day, 2007
Big game hunting
Small game hunting
Fishing
Note: Measured in 2007 dollars.
Source: BBC Research & Consulting, based on 2006 USEWS national survey -
Expenditure type. Exhibits I1I-4 and III -5, on the next page, show how hunters and anglers spent
their trip and equipment expenditures in Colorado. For both residents and non-residents, the
primary trip expenditures — food, lodging and transportation — represented a sizable portion of total
direct expenditures. These trip expenditures made up approximately 40 percent of the total for
residents and 62 percent of the total for non-residents. Guide and membership fees were a much
larger share of non-resident than resident expenditures, while equipment expenditures (for sporting
goods purchased in Colorado) were a much greater share of resident expenditures.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION HI, RAGE 11
Exhibit 111-4.
Direct Expenditures by
Expenditure Type for
Residents
Source:
BBC Research & Consulting, based on 2006
USFWS national survey.
Exhibit III -S.
Direct Expenditures by
Expenditure Type for
Non-residents
Other (8%)
Food and lodging (21%)
Boating (16%)
Guide and
membership fees (2%)
Transportation (19%)
Sporting goods (34%)
Other (4%)
Sporting goods (3%)
Food and lodging (35%)
Source: Transportation (27%)
BBC Research & Consulting, based on 2006
USFWS national survey.
Guide and membership fees (31%)
Expenditures by activity. Exhibit III -6 shows additional detail for expenditures by place of
residence and hunting or fishing activity. Non-residents were responsible for more than one-half of
all direct expenditures relating to deer and elk hunting. Residents contributed more than 90 percent
of fishing -related direct expenditures.
Exhibit 111-6.
Hunting and Fishing Trip and Equipment
Expenditures by Residents and Non -Residents, 2007
Hunting
Deer
Elk
Other big game
Small game
Note: Measured in 2007 dollars.
Source: BBC Research & Consulting, based on CDOW hunting and fishing activity data and 2006 USFWS national survey.
$29,600
73,200
4,100
54,900
$161,800
$58,300
172,700
4,700
56,900
$292,600
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
SECTION III, PAGE 12
Statewide Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching Activities
Estimates for wildlife watching activities in Colorado use a slightly different methodology to the
hunting and fishing estimates. Hunting and fishing figures are based on a combination of estimates
of per -day expenditures from the 2006 USFWS national survey and CDOW estimates of activity
days for 2007. For wildlife watching, all estimates are based on the wildlife watching sample of the
2006 USFWS national survey as CDOW does not collect activity day data for wildlife watching. All
estimates provided here are for wildlife watching activities that take place at least one mile from
home.
Total economic impacts. Trip and equipment expenditures that are primarily for wildlife
watching activities more than one mile from home are estimated at $703 million for calendar year
2006 (the most recent year available). The secondary economic impact of these expenditures is
estimated at $515 million, yielding a total estimated impact of $1.22 billion. Direct and secondary
expenditures at this level are estimated to support approximately 12,800 jobs in Colorado.
Wildlife watching by Colorado residents made up about $498 million, or 41 percent of the total
economic impact of wildlife watching in 2006. Non-residents watching wildlife in Colorado
contributed an estimated $720 million to the Colorado economy. Exhibit III -7 shows the total
economic impacts of wildlife watching in Colorado.
Exhibit 111-7.
Economic Impact of
Wildlife Watching In
Colorado, 2006
Note: Measured in 2007 dollars.
1. Trip and equipment expenditures in
support of wildlife watching.
2. Direct expenditures plus secondary
spending by businesses and households
(multiplier effects).
3. Includes job creation from direct and
secondary expenditures.
Source: BBC Research G Consulting, based
on 2006 USFW5 national survey.
Expenditures per day. Although residents were responsible for approximately three-quarters of all
wildlife watching activity days, non-residents spent considerably more per day, on average, than
residents. Estimates of total activity days and daily expenditures for residents and non-residents are
shown in Exhibit III -8.
Exhibit III -8.
Activity Days and Daily
Direct Expenditures for
Wildlife Watching, 2006
Note: Per day expenditures measured in
2007 dollars.
Source: BBC Research & Consulting, based
on 2006 USFW5 national survey.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 13
People who watch wildlife and hunt or fish. Many people who watch wildlife in Colorado also
hunt or fish in the state. Based on the wildlife watching sample of the 2006 USFWS survey, 12
percent of the individuals who watched wildlife in Colorado in 2006 also hunted or fished in the
state in that year. Among Colorado residents, the figure was 20 percent; among non-residents the
figure was 2 percent.
BBC RESEARCH SL CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 14
SECTION IV.
County -Level Results
The hunting and fishing portion of the model also estimates the economic effects of these activities
for individual counties. In absolute terms, the largest impacts on business output and employment
from hunting and fishing take place in the Colorado counties with the largest populations and
economies. This occurs because a large portion of the equipment expenditures occurs where hunters
and anglers live. Consequently, urban areas can see large economic contributions from hunting and
fishing, even though urban areas have little or no local hunting and fishing activity. Three counties in
the Denver Metropolitan Area, as well as El Paso, Larimer and Boulder County, have more than
1,000 jobs supported by hunting and fishing.
In relative terms, hunting and fishing activity has a greater economic impact in some of Colorado's
rural counties. Exhibit IV -1 shows the counties that are most dependent on hunting and fishing
activity. In Jackson County, hunting and fishing activities directly or indirectly support more than 12
percent of all local jobs.
Exhibit IV -1.
Colorado Counties with Largest Proportion
of Employment Related to Hunting and Fishing, 2007
1,192 12.1%
580 6.7%
813 6.3%
5,224 5.8%
11,186 5.1%
13,402 4.6%
3,150 4.4%
8,036 4.1%
690 3.7%
10,849 3.5%
source: BBC Research Et Consulting. Total county employment from U 5. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates for 2006.
Exhibit IV -2 shows direct expenditures (i.e., hunting and fishing trip and equipment expenditures
and estimated CDOW expenditures) for each of Colorado's 64 counties. This exhibit also shows the
estimated total economic impacts and the number of jobs sustained by these activities.
BBC RESEARCH 8T CONSULTING
SECTION IV, PAGE 15
Exhibit IV -2.
Estimated Hunting and Fishing Economic Impacts by County, 2007
Note: Measured in 2007 dollars.
1. Trip and equipment expenditures and CDOW expenditures in support of these activities.
2. Direct expenditures plus secondary spending by businesses and households (multiplier effects).
3. Includes job creation from direct and secondary expenditures.
Source: BBC Research St Consulting, based on hunting and fishing activity data from CDOW and 2006 USFWS national survey.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
SECTION IV, PAGE 16
Exhibit IV -2 (Continued).
Estimated Hunting and Fishing Economic Impacts by County, 2007
La rimer
Las Anil
Lincoln
Logan;
Mesa
Moffat
Montezu r a'
Montrose
Vlorgah
Otero
Park
14,250
Pitkin
Prowers
Pueblo
-Rio Blanco
Rio Grande
Roc
Saguache
San Juan .
San Miguel
Sedgwick
Summit
Teller -
Washington
Weld
Yuma
Total
$89,070
affeissKmirffse
1,940
43,980
18,450
1`2;230 20,790
17,150 29,180
$154,830
3,090
1,739
26
620. , .' 134
-1,1677
Terriffe
76,100 813
31,170
3
3,090
10,450
38,270
325
320
5,020 54.
3,440" 37
17,790 207
24,850 327
5,500
65,990
697
7,880 13,350 136
/980' 45,630 ' 528
.
2,280 3,350 23
2,390 ;3,970' 39.
10,090 17,380
29,710 51,800
' $,330 8,960 ,!
1,050 1,600
22,480
2,410
$1,076,310
39,210
4,020
$1,843,310
227
S.
708
107',
11
34
20,614
Note: Measured in 2007 dollars. Values may not sum due to rounding.
1. Trip and equipment expenditures and CDOW expenditures in support of these activities.
2. Direct expenditures plus secondary spending by businesses and households (multiplier effects).
3. Includes job creation from direct and secondary expenditures.
Source: BBC Research & Consulting, based on hunting and fishing activity data from CDOW and 2006 USEWS national survey.
BBC RESEARCH Sz CONSULTING
SECTION IV, PAGE 17
Exhibit IV -3 provides additional detail regarding the county -level economic impacts of hunting and
fishing. In this exhibit, total economic impacts are shown in five categories: resident and non-resident
hunting impacts, resident and non-resident fishing impacts, and impacts from expenditures by
CDOW.
Exhibit IV -3.
Economic Impacts by County, Activity and Residence, 2007
'a fielc] .
Gilpin
Gunnison
Huerfano 860
Jackson'
Jefferson 18,950
'Kfowa 200
Kit Carson 720
La Plata 5,780'-
Lake 1,970 940 7,770
2,410 66,610
1,220 4,050
4,350 6,690.'
3,670. 89,200
9,570 19,01O Y
Note:
Source:
24,150
Measured in 2007 dollars.
Total economic impacts include direct expenditures plus secondary spending by business and households (multiplier effects).
1. Total impacts from CHOW in support of hunting and fishing_
850 Research & Consulting, based on hunting and fishing activity data from CDOW and 2006 U5FWS national survey.
SECTION IV, PAGE 18
BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING
Exhibit IV -3 (continued).
Economic Impacts by County, Activity and Residence, 2007
$20,580
$5,900
117,430 $4,090
$6,820
$154,830
Larimer
Montrose
Morgan
Otero
9ara
Pi
Pueblo
Ric Blanco'
Rio Grande
Saguache
.yan )uarW,, y
San Miguel
Yuma
Total
12,730
1,010
$281,000
230
1,050
4,020
7,710
800
34,830 2,050
6,420
730 30
23,080 ₹-r
240 1,640 70
$221,370 $1,162,740 $96,650
$81,510
1,600
$1,843,310
Note: Measured in 2007 dollars.
Total economic impacts include direct expenditures plus secondary spending by business and households (multiplier effects).
1. Total impacts Iron CDOW support of hunting and fishing.
Source: BBC Research & Consulting, based on hunting and fishing activity data from CDOW and 2006 USEWS national survey.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION IV, PACE 19
SECTION V.
Comparison with Previous Impact Estimates
When updating an economic impact model, it is informative to compare the results of the new model
and most recent information with prior economic impact estimates. CDOW updated the original
model estimates in 1997 using 1996 data and BBC updated the model in 2004 using 2002 data. As
there were substantial methodological changes made to the model after 1997, comparisons are only
made here between the 2002 and 2007 estimates.
Comparison with 2002 results. Exhibit V-1 compares the direct expenditures and total
economic impact for the 2007 hunting and fishing season with estimates for the 2002 hunting and
fishing seasons. After adjusting for inflation, both the total direct expenditure on hunting and fishing
and the total economic impact of these activities in Colorado increased from 2002 to 2007.
Exhibit V-1.
Comparison of Hunting and Fishing Expenditures and Impacts, 2002 and 2007
Big game hunting $276,300 $235,700
Small game hunting 93,000 56,900
Fishing 501,000 725,200
CDOW expenditures 53,400 58,600
Total $923,700 $1,076,300
Note: Measured in 2007 dollars.
1. Trip and equipment expenditures and CDOW expenditures in support of these activities.
2. Direct expenditures plus secondary spending by businesses and households (multiplier effects).
Source: BBC Research & Consulting, based on CDOW data and USEWS national surveys.
$403,700
98,700
1,259,400
81,500
$1,843,300
The year of the last update, 2002, was recognized to be a poor year for hunting and fishing in
Colorado due to a number of factors, such as drought and wildfires. The increased economic impact
of hunting and fishing in 2007 can partly be explained by an increase in total activity days,
particularly for fishing. There were a total of 10.5 million fishing activity days in 2007, compared to
8.05 million in 2002. Big game activity days also increased between these two periods, although small
game activity days declined. Exhibit V-2 compares the total activity days for 2002 and 2007.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PACE 20
Exhibit V-2.
Hunting and Fishing
Activity Days, 2002 and
2007
Source: BBC Research & Consulting, based on
CUOW data.
Big game hunting
Small game hunting
Fishing
Total
1,421 1,607
672 605
8,054 10,466
10,147 12,672
Despite the overall increase in activity days, the total number of non-resident activity days has
declined between 2002 and 2007. As non-residents tend to spend more per day than residents, this
has resulted in the increase in direct expenditures and total impacts being small relative to the
increase in total activity days. Between 2002 and 2007, hunting and fishing direct expenditures
increased by approximately 17 percent, while total activity days increased by approximately 25
percent.
Exhibit V-3 compares the per -day expenditures for hunting and fishing in 2002 and 2007.
Although the figures for Colorado residents are broadly similar for both years, average hunting
expenditures per day have declined for non-residents while average per -day fishing expenditures for
non-residents have increased. Note that methodological differences between the two study periods
may account for some of the differences in expenditures and that sample sizes in the 2006 USFWS
national survey for some non-resident activities were small.
Exhibit V-3.
Per -day Expenditures, 2002 and 2007
Big game hunting
Small game hunting
Fishing
Note: Measured in 2007 dollars.
Source: BBC Research & Consulting from 2001 and 2006 USFWS national surveys.
The estimated total number of jobs supported by hunting and fishing is roughly the same in 2007 as
in 2002. At the county level, the individual counties with the highest percentage of jobs supported by
hunting and fishing are largely the same. Of the ten counties with the highest percentage of jobs
supported by hunting and fishing in 2002, nine are also in the top ten in 2007.
Wildlife watching. Exhibit V-4 on the next page compares the economic impact of wildlife
watching in 2001 and 2006. After adjusting for inflation, both direct expenditures and the total
impact of wildlife watching were greater in 2006 than in 2001. In both years, non-residents spent
more money and had a greater economic impact than residents. Wildlife watching supported a
similar number of jobs in 2006 and 2001.
BBC RESEARCH Si CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 21
Exhibit V-4.
Comparison of Wildlife Watching Expenditures and Impacts, 2001 and 2006
Note: Measured in 2007 dollars.
1. Direct expenditures plus secondary spending by businesses and households (multiplier effects).
Source: BBC Research & Consulting from 2001 and 2006 USFWS national surveys.
Comparability of models. Slight methodological differences between model years may also
contribute to changes in estimates of economic impacts. In addition, BBC model results are primarily
based on estimates derived from surveys, including the national U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
survey. Due to this being a nationwide survey, samples sizes specific to Colorado in some categories
were small, requiring BBC to use alternative methods for estimating expenditures.
For these reasons, caution should be used when making comparisons between years, particularly for
individual categories (such as small game hunting and non-resident activities) where the total number
of activity days is small.
BBC RESEARCH SI CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 22
Process
BBC completed six tasks in order to update the model. These tasks included:
• Project initiation — BBC met with CDOW staff at the beginning of this project to
assemble the data needed from CDOW and to review data sources and model
assumptions.
• Data collection BBC obtained the most recent available data from CDOW, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the Colorado State
Demographer's Office, and the IMPLAN Group, Inc.
• Core model implementation — BBC updated the CDOW economic impact model
with new data inputs and made adjustments to the model implementation where
necessary to accommodate changes such as new Game Management Units, revised
survey questions and new data sources.
• Hunting and fishing results — BBC developed estimates of the economic impacts of
hunting and fishing for the most recent available year (2007).
• Wildlife watching results BBC developed estimates of the economic impacts of
wildlife watching in 2006.
• Final report BBC summarized the results of the model in a report delivered to
CDOW staff.
Section II of this report provides an overview of the economic impact model.
Model Capabilities
The model provides estimates of the annual economic impacts of hunting and fishing activity for
each county and statewide for the 2007 hunting and fishing seasons. All economic impact results are
reported in 2007 dollars. Economic impacts are reported in terms of activity days, trip and
equipment expenditures, total economic impacts (measured in terms of output/sales) and jobs.
Hunting impacts can be further broken down into impacts related to hunting several key species,
including elk, deer, other big game and small game. Economic impacts are further divided into
impacts resulting from Colorado resident hunting and fishing activity and those resulting from non-
resident activity.
Economic impacts associated with wildlife watching activities are available for residents and non-
residents, but only at the statewide level. The model reports the economic impacts resulting from
wildlife watching in 2006, the most recent year for which data are available.
Section III of this report describes statewide results and Section IV of this report describes county -
level results. Section V of this report compares results of this updated model with the 2002 hunting
and fishing estimates from the last model update.
BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 4
SECTION II.
Model Overview
The updated economic impact model developed for CDOW combines the most recently available
information from a variety of sources to generate estimates of the impacts of hunting, fishing and
wildlife watching in Colorado. This section of the report provides an overview of the model.
General model structure. The overall structure of the economic impact model is shown in
Exhibit II -1, on the next page. The model begins with information about resident and non-resident
participants in Colorado. Estimates of equipment expenditures and per -visitor day direct
expenditures for trip costs come from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Bureau of the
Census "2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation." Estimates
of the number of hunting and fishing activity days, along with their location, come from CDOW
surveys and license sales.
The model then estimates direct expenditures, by type of visitor and activity, based on estimated
expenditures per visitor day and per trip (specific to each type of activity and each type of visitor),
combined with data on CDOW expenditures that support hunting and fishing activities. The
location of sales depends on the type of expenditure, the locations where hunting and fishing
activities take place and where equipment or trip support services are purchased.
Secondary expenditures, reflecting the re -spending of hunting and fishing dollars within Colorado,
are estimated using the IMPLAN input-output model originally developed by the U.S. Forest
Service. The model then combines the direct and secondary expenditures to produce total economic
impact estimates and estimates of total employment related to hunting and fishing activities.
The wildlife watching component of the model follows a similar structure. However, due to data
limitations, there is no county -level detail available for wildlife watching impacts. Economic effects of
wildlife watching are only provided at a statewide level.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, RAGE 5
Hello