U.S. Department of Commerce Donald L. Evans, Secretary Samuel W. Bodman, Deputy Secretary Economics and Statistics Administration Kathleen B. Cooper, Under Secretary for Economic Affairs U.S. CENSUS BUREAU Charles Louis Kincannon, Director 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation Utah U.S. Department of the Interior Gale A. Norton, Secretary FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Steve Williams, Director FHW/01-UT-Rev. Revised March 2003
86
Embed
2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife ... · American culture. Whether we are fishing, hunting, watching wildlife or feeding backyard birds, Americans derive many
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
U.S. Department of CommerceDonald L. Evans,
SecretarySamuel W. Bodman,
Deputy Secretary
Economics and Statistics AdministrationKathleen B. Cooper,
Under Secretary for Economic Affairs
U.S. CENSUS BUREAUCharles Louis Kincannon,
Director
2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Utah
U.S. Department of the InteriorGale A. Norton,
Secretary
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICESteve Williams,
Director
FHW/01-UT-Rev.
Revised March 2003
Suggested CitationU.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.
Economics and StatisticsAdministration
Kathleen B. CooperUnder Secretary for Economic Affairs
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU
Charles Louis KincannonDirector
Department of InteriorGale A. Norton, Secretary
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICESteve Williams, Director
Division of Federal AidKris E. LaMontagne, Chief
As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility formost of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest useof our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental andcultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of lifethrough outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works toassure their development in the best interests of all our people. The Department also has a majorresponsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territoriesunder U.S. administration.
The mission of the Department’s Fish and Wildlife Service is to conserve, protect, and enhance fish andwildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service is responsiblefor national programs of vital importance to our natural resources, including administration of theFederal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration and the Federal Aid of Wildlife Restoration Programs. These twogrant programs provide financial assistance to the States for projects to enhance and protect fish andwildlife resources and to assure their availability to the public for recreational purposes. Multistategrants from these programs pay for the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-AssociatedRecreation.
Fish and wildlife resources are part of ourAmerican culture. Whether we arefishing, hunting, watching wildlife orfeeding backyard birds, Americans derivemany hours of enjoyment from wildlife-related recreation. Wildlife recreation isthe cornerstone of our Nation’s greatconservation ethic.
The 2001 National Survey of Fishing,Hunting, and Wildlife-AssociatedRecreation is a partnership effort with theStates and national conservationorganizations, and has become one of themost important sources of information onfish and wildlife recreation in the UnitedStates. It is a useful tool that quantifiesthe economic impact of wildlife-basedrecreation. Federal, State, and privateorganizations use this detailed informationto manage wildlife, market products, andlook for trends. The 2001 Survey is thetenth in a series that began in 1955.
More than 82 million U.S. residents fished,hunted, and watched wildlife in 2001.They spent over $108 billion pursuing theirrecreational activities, contributing tomillions of jobs in industries andbusinesses that support wildlife-relatedrecreation. Furthermore, funds generatedby licenses and taxes on hunting andfishing equipment pay for many of theconservation efforts in this country.
Wildlife recreationists are among theNation’s most ardent conservationists.They not only contribute financially toconservation efforts, but also spend timeand effort to introduce children and othernewcomers to the enjoyment of theoutdoors and wildlife.
I appreciate the assistance of those whotook time to participate in this valuablesurvey. We all can be grateful thatAmerica’s great tradition of wildlife-related recreation remains strong.
Steve WilliamsDirector, U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Department of the Interior
Foreword
vi Utah—U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
The National Survey of Fishing, Hunting,and Wildlife-Associated Recreation(Survey) has been conducted since 1955and is one of the oldest and mostcomprehensive continuing recreationsurveys. The purpose of the Survey is togather information on the number ofanglers, hunters, and wildlife-watchingparticipants (formerly known asnonconsumptive wildlife-relatedparticipants) in the United States.Information also is collected on how oftenthese recreationists participate and howmuch they spend on their activities.
Preparations for the 2001 Survey began in1999 when the International Associationof Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA)asked us, the Fish and Wildlife Service, toconduct the tenth national survey ofwildlife-related recreation. Funding camefrom the Multistate Conservation GrantPrograms, authorized by Sport Fish andWildlife Restoration Acts, as amended.
We consulted with State and Federalagencies and nongovernmentalorganizations such as the WildlifeManagement Institute and AmericanSportfishing Association to determinesurvey content. Other sportspersons’organizations and conservation groups,industry representatives, and researchersalso provided valuable advice.
Four regional technical committees wereset up under the auspices of the IAFWAto ensure that State fish and wildlifeagencies had an opportunity to participatein all phases of survey planning and
design. The committees were made up ofagency representatives.
Data collection for the Survey was carriedout in two phases by the U.S. CensusBureau. The first phase was the screenwhich began in April 2001. During thescreening phase, the Census Bureauinterviewed a sample of 80,000households nationwide to determine whoin the household had fished, hunted, orengaged in wildlife-watching activities in2000, and who had engaged or planned toengage in those activities in 2001. Inmost cases, one adult household memberprovided information for all householdmembers. The screen primarily covered2000 activities while the next, more in-depth phase covered 2001 activities. Formore information on the 2000 data, referto Appendix C.
The second phase of the data collectionconsisted of three detailed interviewwaves. The first wave began in April2001, the second in September 2001, andthe last in January 2002. Interviews wereconducted with samples of likely anglers,hunters, and wildlife watchers who wereidentified in the initial screening phase.These interviews were conductedprimarily by telephone, with in-personinterviews for those respondents whocould not be reached by telephone.Respondents in the second survey phasewere limited to those at least 16 years old.Each respondent provided informationpertaining only to his or her activities andexpenditures. Sample sizes weredesigned to provide statistically reliable
results at the State level. Altogether,interviews were completed for 25,070respondents from the sportspersonssample and 15,303 from the wildlifewatchers sample. More detailedinformation on sampling procedures andresponse rates is found in Appendix D.
Comparability With Previous SurveysThe 2001 Survey’s questions andmethodology were similar to those usedin the 1996 and 1991 Surveys. Therefore,the estimates of all three surveys arecomparable.
The methodology of the 2001, 1996, and1991 Surveys did differ significantly fromthe 1985 and 1980 Surveys, so theirestimates are not directly comparable tothose earlier surveys. The changes inmethodology included reducing the recallperiod over which respondents had toreport their activities and expenditures.Previous Surveys used a 12-month recallperiod which resulted in greater reportingbias. Research found that the amount ofactivity and expenditures reported in 12-month recall surveys was overestimatedin comparison with that reported usingshorter recall periods. See the SummarySection and Appendix B.
Survey Background and Method
Highlights
2 Utah—U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
The National Survey of Fishing, Hunting,and Wildlife-Associated Recreationreports results from interviews with U.S.residents about their fishing, hunting, andother wildlife-related recreation. Thisreport focuses on 2001 participation andexpenditures of U.S. residents 16 years ofage and older.
In addition to the 2001 numbers, we alsoprovide 11-year trend data. The 2001numbers reported can be compared withthose in the 1991 and 1996 Survey reportsbecause these three surveys used similarmethodologies. However, the 2001estimates should not be directly comparedwith the results from Surveys earlier than1991 because of changes in methodology.These changes were made to improveaccuracy in the information provided.Trend information from 1991 to 2001 ispresented in Appendix B.
The report also provides information onparticipation in wildlife-related recreationin 2000, particularly of persons 6 to 15years of age. The 2000 information isprovided in Appendix C. Additionalinformation about the scope and coverageof the Survey can be found in the SurveyBackground and Method section of thisreport. The remainder of this sectiondefines important terms used in theSurvey.
Wildlife-Associated RecreationWildlife-associated recreation includesfishing, hunting, and wildlife-watchingactivities. These categories are notmutually exclusive because manyindividuals enjoyed fish and wildlife inseveral ways in 2001. Wildlife-associatedrecreation is reported in two majorcategories: (1) fishing and hunting and(2) wildlife watching (formerlynonconsumptive wildlife-relatedrecreation). Wildlife watching includesobserving, photographing, and feedingfish and wildlife.
Fishing and HuntingThis Survey reports information aboutresidents of the United States who fishedor hunted in 2001, regardless of whetherthey were licensed. The fishing andhunting sections of this report areorganized to report three groups: (1)sportspersons, (2) anglers, and (3)hunters.
SportspersonsSportspersons are those who fished orhunted. Individuals who fished or huntedcommercially in 2001 are reported assportspersons only if they also fished orhunted for recreation. The sportspersonsgroup is composed of the three subgroupsin the diagram below: (1) those whofished and hunted, (2) those who onlyfished, and (3) those who only hunted.The total number of sportspersons isequal to the sum of people who only
fished, only hunted, and both hunted andfished. It is not the sum of all anglers andall hunters, because those people whoboth fished and hunted are included inboth the angler and hunter population andwould be incorrectly counted twice.
AnglersAnglers are sportspersons who onlyfished plus those who fished and hunted.Anglers include not only licensed hook-and-line anglers, but also those who haveno license and those who use specialmethods such as fishing with spears.Three types of fishing are reported: (1)freshwater, excluding the Great Lakes, (2) Great Lakes, and (3) saltwater. Sincemany anglers participated in more thanone type of fishing, the total number ofanglers is less than the sum of the threetypes of fishing.
HuntersHunters are sportspersons who onlyhunted plus those who hunted and fished.Hunters include not only licensed huntersusing common hunting practices, but alsothose who have no license and those whoengaged in hunting with a bow and arrow,muzzleloader, other primitive firearms, ora pistol or handgun. Four types of huntingare reported: (1) big game, (2) smallgame, (3) migratory bird, and (4) otheranimals. Since many hunters participatedin more than one type of hunting, the sumof hunters for big game, small game,migratory bird, and other animals exceedsthe total number of hunters.
Introduction
Sportspersons
Anglers Hunters
Fished only
Fishedandhunted
Huntedonly
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service—Utah 3
Wildlife-Watching Activities(formerly Nonconsumptive Wildlife-Related Recreation)Since 1980, the National Survey ofFishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-AssociatedRecreation has included information onwildlife-watching activities in addition tofishing and hunting. However, the 1991,1996, and 2001 Surveys, unlike the 1980and 1985 Surveys, collected data only forthose activities where the primary purposewas wildlife watching (observing,photographing, or feeding wildlife). TheSurvey uses a strict definition of wildlifewatching. Participants must either take a“special interest” in wildlife around theirhomes or take a trip for the “primarypurpose” of wildlife watching. Secondarywildlife-watching activities such asincidentally observing wildlife while
pleasure driving were included in the1980 and 1985 Surveys but not in thesucceeding ones.
Two types of wildlife-watching activityare reported: (1) nonresidential and (2)residential. Because some peopleparticipate in more than one type ofwildlife-watching activity, the sum ofparticipants in each type will be greaterthan the total number of wildlifewatchers. The two types of wildlife-watching activities are defined below.
Nonresidential (away from the home)This group included persons who tooktrips or outings of at least 1 mile for theprimary purpose of observing, feeding, orphotographing fish and wildlife. Trips tofish, hunt, or scout and trips to zoos,
circuses, aquariums, or museums were notconsidered wildlife-watching activities.
Residential (around the home)This group included those whoseactivities are within 1 mile of home andinvolve one or more of the following: (1) closely observing or trying to identifybirds or other wildlife; (2) photographingwildlife; (3) feeding birds or otherwildlife on a regular basis; (4)maintaining natural areas of at least one-quarter acre where benefit to wildlife isthe primary concern; (5) maintainingplantings (shrubs, agricultural crops, etc.)where benefit to wildlife is the primaryconcern; or (6) visiting public parkswithin 1 mile of home for the primarypurpose of observing, feeding, orphotographing wildlife.
Trip and equipment expenditures by nonresidents in Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$130,879,000
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service—Utah 5
2001 Utah Summary(Participants 16 years old and older)
Activities in the United States by Utah Residents Activities in Utah by U.S. Residents
6 Utah—U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Participation in UtahThe 2001 Survey revealed that 1.1 millionUtah residents and nonresidents 16 yearsold and older fished, hunted, or wildlifewatched in Utah. Of the total number ofparticipants, 517 thousand fished, 198thousand hunted, and 806 thousandparticipated in wildlife-watchingactivities, including observing, feeding,and photographing wildlife. The sum ofanglers, hunters, and wildlife watchersexceeds the total number of participantsin wildlife-related recreation becausemany individuals engaged in more thanone wildlife activity.
Participation by 6- to 15-year-old Utah ResidentsThe focus of this report is on the activityof participants 16 years old and oldersince they are the primary source ofwildlife-associated expenditures. How-ever, the activity of 6 to 15 year olds canbe calculated using the screening datacovering the year 2000. It is assumed forestimation purposes that the relative
activity levels of 6- to 15-year-oldparticipants and participants 16 years oldand older remained the same from 2000to 2001. Based on this assumption, inaddition to the 424,000 resident anglers16 years old and older in Utah, there were152,000 resident anglers 6 to 15 yearsold. Also, there were 178,000 16-year-oldand older Utahns and 26,000 6- to 15-year-old Utahns who hunted. Finally,there were 572,000 Utahns 16 years oldand older and 160,000 Utahns 6 to 15years old who wildlife watched. Furtherinformation on 6 to 15 year olds isprovided in Appendix C.
Expenditures in UtahIn 2001, state residents and nonresidentsspent $1.4 billion on wildlife recreation inUtah. Of that total, trip-related expendi-tures were $437 million and equipmentpurchases totaled $776 million. Theremaining $163 million was spent onlicenses, contributions, land ownershipand leasing, and other items and services.
Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Participants in Wildlife-Associated Recreation in Utah—2001
Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses.
Percent of Total Participation by Activity
Wildlife Watching
HuntingFishing
47%
18%
74%
(Total: 1.1 million participants)
Wildlife-Associated Recreation Expenditures
in Utah (Total: $1.4 billion)
Trip-related 32%
Other12%
Equipment 56%
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service—Utah 7
In 2001, 585 thousand state resident andnonresident sportspersons 16 years oldand older fished or hunted in Utah. Thisgroup comprised 517 thousand anglers(88 percent of all sportspersons) and 198
thousand hunters (34 percent of allsportspersons). Among the 585 thousandsportspersons who fished or hunted in thestate, 387 thousand (66%) fished but didnot hunt in Utah. Another 68 thousand
(12%) hunted but did not fish there. Theremaining 130 thousand (22%) fished andhunted in Utah in 2001.
Sportspersons
Sportspersons' Participation in Utah
(State residents and nonresidents 16 years old and older)
Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses.
8 Utah—U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Anglers
Participants and Days of FishingIn 2001, 517 thousand state residents andnonresidents 16 years old and older fishedin Utah. Of this total, 388 thousandanglers (75%) were state residents and129 thousand anglers (25%) werenonresidents. Anglers fished a total of 5.2 million days in Utah—an average of 10 days per angler. State residentsfished 4.7 million days, 90 percent of allfishing days within Utah compared tononresidents who fished 537 thousand
days—10 percent of all fishing days inthe state.
There were 424 thousand Utahns 16 yearsold and older who fished in the UnitedStates in 2001. These anglers fished atotal of 5.3 million days. Approximately388 thousand resident anglers (91%)fished in Utah. They spent 4.7 milliondays, 88 percent of their total fishingdays, fishing in their resident state.
Some state residents fished in other statesas well as in Utah. In 2001, 111 thousandanglers fished in other states—26 percentof the resident angler total. They fished644 thousand days as nonresidents,representing 12 percent of all days fishedby Utah residents. For further detailsabout fishing in Utah, see Table 3.
Anglers in Utah
(State residents and nonresidents 16 years old and older)
Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses.
Fishing Expenditures in UtahAnglers 16 years old and older spent $393million on fishing expenses in Utah in2001. Trip-related expenditures includingfood and lodging, transportation, andother expenses totaled $172 million—44percent of all their fishing expenditures.They spent $79 million on food andlodging and $53 million on transportation.Other trip expenses such as equipmentrental, bait, and cooking fuel totaled $41million. Each angler spent an average of$333 on trip-related costs during 2001.
Anglers spent $196 million on equipmentin Utah in 2001, 50 percent of all fishingexpenditures. Fishing equipment (rods,reels, line, etc.) totaled $60 million—30percent of the equipment total. Auxiliaryequipment expenditures (tents, specialfishing clothes, etc.) and special equip-ment expenditures (boats, pickups, etc.)amounted to $137 million, 70 percent ofthe equipment total. Special and auxiliaryequipment are items that were purchasedfor fishing, but could be used in activitiesother than fishing.
The purchase of other items such asmagazines, membership dues, licenses,permits, stamps, and land leasing andownership amounted to $24 million—6percent of all fishing expenditures. Formore details about fishing expenditures in Utah, see Tables 19, 21-23.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service—Utah 9
Fishing Expenditures in Utah
(State residents and nonresidents 16 years old and older)
Fishing Expenditures in Utah (Total: $393 million)
Trip-related 44%
Other6%
Equipment 50%
10 Utah—U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Hunters
Participants and Days of HuntingIn 2001, there were 198 thousandresidents and nonresidents 16 years oldand older who hunted in Utah. Residenthunters numbered 177 thousandaccounting for 89 percent of the huntersin Utah. There were 22 thousandnonresidents who hunted in Utah—11percent of the State's hunters. Residentsand nonresidents hunted 2.5 million daysin 2001, an average of 12 days per hunter.Residents hunted on 2.3 million days inUtah or 95 percent of all hunting days,
while nonresidents spent 123 thousanddays hunting in Utah, 5 percent of allhunting days.
There were 178 thousand Utah residents16 years old and older who hunted in theUnited States in 2001. Of the total 2.5million days of hunting by state residents,2.3 million days (93 percent of the total)were spent pursuing game within Utah.
Some state residents hunted in other statesas well as in Utah. Altogether, 23
thousand Utah hunters, 13 percent of thetotal, hunted as nonresidents in otherstates. Their 180 thousand days ofhunting in other states represented 7percent of all days Utah residents spenthunting in 2001. For more informationon hunting activities by Utah residents,see Table 3.
Hunters in Utah
(State residents and nonresidents 16 years old and older)
Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service—Utah 11
Hunting Expenditures in UtahHunters 16 years old and older spent $292 million in Utah in 2001. Trip-related expenses such as food andlodging, transportation, and other tripcosts totaled $88 million, 30 percent oftheir total expenditures. They spent $39million on food and lodging and $30million on transportation. Other expensessuch as equipment rental totaled $19million for the year. The average trip-related expenditure per hunter was $445.
Hunters spent $167 million onequipment—57 percent of all huntingexpenditures. Hunting equipment (guns, ammunition, etc.) totaled $55million and comprised 33 percent of allequipment costs. Hunters spent $112million on auxiliary equipment (tents,special hunting clothes, etc.) and specialequipment (boats, pickups, etc.), account-ing for 67 percent of total equipmentexpenditures for hunting. Special andauxiliary equipment are
items that were purchased for hunting but could be used in activities other thanhunting.
The purchase of other items such asmagazines, membership dues, licenses,permits, and land leasing and ownershipcost hunters $37 million—13 percent ofall hunting expenditures. For more detailson hunting expenditures in Utah, seeTables 20-23.
Hunting Expenditures in Utah
(State residents and nonresidents 16 years old and older)
Hunting Expenditures in Utah (Total: $292 million)
Trip-related 30%
Other13%
Equipment 57%
12 Utah—U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Wildlife-Watching Activities
Participants and Days of ActivityIn 2001, 806 thousand U.S. residents 16years old and older fed, observed, orphotographed wildlife in Utah.Approximately 64 percent—515 thousand
of the wildlife watchers—enjoyed theiractivities close to home and are called"residential" participants. Those personswho enjoyed wildlife at least 1 mile fromhome are called "nonresidential"
participants. People participating innonresidential activities in Utah in 2001numbered 530 thousand—66 percent of all wildlife watchers in Utah. Of the530 thousand, 286 thousand were stateresidents and 244 thousand were non-residents.
Utahns 16 years old and older whoenjoyed nonresidential wildlife watchingwithin their state totaled 286 thousand.Of this group, 280 thousand participantsobserved wildlife, 150 thousand photo-graphed wildlife, and 35 thousand fedwildlife. Since some individuals engagedin more than one of the three nonresi-dential activities during the year, the sum of wildlife observers, feeders, andphotographers exceeds the total numberof nonresidential participants.
Utahns spent nearly 3.2 million daysengaged in nonresidential wildlife-watching activities in their state. During2001, they spent 2.7 million days ob-serving wildlife, 1.2 million daysphotographing wildlife, and 465 thousanddays feeding wildlife. The sum of daysobserving, feeding, and photographingwildlife exceeds the total days of wildlife-watching activity because individuals mayhave engaged in more than one activityon some days. For further details aboutnonresidential activities, see Table 25.
Utah residents also took an active interestin wildlife around their homes. In 2001,515 thousand state residents enjoyedobserving, feeding, and photographingwildlife within 1 mile of their homes.Among this residential group, 372thousand observed wildlife; 368 thousandfed wildlife, and 131 thousand photo-graphed wildlife around their homes.Another 110 thousand residential partici-pants visited public parks within a mile of home; 67 thousand participantsmaintained plantings for the benefit ofwildlife; and 61 thousand participantsmaintained natural areas of one-quarteracre or more for wildlife. Adding theparticipants in these six activities resultsin a sum that exceeds the total number ofresidential participants because manypeople participated in more than one typeof residential activity. For further detailsabout Utah residents participating inresidential wildlife-watching activities,see Table 28.
Nonresidential (away from home) Wildlife-Watching Participation in Utah(State residents and nonresidents 16 years old and older)
Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service—Utah 13
Wild Bird ObserversBird watching attracted many wildlifeenthusiasts in Utah. In 2001, 616thousand people observed birds aroundthe home and on trips. Approximately 56percent (348 thousand), observed wildbirds around the home while 67 percent(410 thousand) took trips away fromhome to watch birds.
People bird watching in Utah varied intheir ability to identify different birdspecies. Within Utah, 400 thousand ofthese 616 thousand birders (65 percent)could identify 1 to 20 different types ofbirds; 135 thousand birders (22 percent)could identify 21 to 40 types of birds; and66 thousand birders (11 percent) couldidentify 41 or more types of birds.
Approximately 43 thousand wild birdenthusiasts kept birding life lists in 2001.Participants keeping these lists—a tally of
bird species seen by a birder during his orher lifetime—comprised 7 percent of allwild bird observers in Utah. For furtherdetails about birding in Utah, see Tables30 and 31.
Wildlife-Watching Expenditures in UtahParticipants 16 years old and older spentnearly $556 million on wildlife-watchingactivities in Utah in 2001. Trip-relatedexpenditures, including food and lodging($104 million), transportation ($58million), and other trip expenses such asequipment rental ($14 million) amountedto $176 million. This summationcomprised 32 percent of all wildlife-watching expenditures by participants.The average trip-related expenditure fornonresidential participants was $332 perperson in 2001.
Wildlife-watching participants spentnearly $278 million on equipment—
50 percent of all their expenditures.Specifically, wildlife-watching equipment(binoculars, special clothing, etc.) totaled$72 million, 26 percent of the equipmenttotal. Auxiliary equipment expenditures(tents, backpacking equipment, etc.) andspecial equipment expenditures (campers,trucks, etc.) amounted to $206 million—74 percent of all equipment costs. Specialand auxiliary equipment are items thatwere purchased for wildlife-watchingrecreation but can be used in activitiesother than wildlife-watching activities.
Other items purchased by wildlife-watching participants such as magazines,membership dues and contributions, landleasing and ownership, and plantingstotaled $102 million—18 percent of allwildlife-watching expenditures. For more details about wildlife-watchingexpenditures in Utah, see Table 33.
Wild Bird Observers in Utah
(State residents and nonresidents 16 years old and older)
Comparing the estimates from the 1991,1996, and 2001 National Surveysprovides a picture of wildlife-relatedrecreation in the 1990s and early 2000s inUtah. Only the most general recreationcomparisons are presented here.
The best way to compare estimates fromsurveys is to compare the confidenceintervals around the estimates—not tocompare the estimates themselves. A 90-percent confidence interval around anestimate gives the range of estimates that
90 percent of all possible representativesamples would supply. If the 90-percentconfidence intervals of two survey'sestimates overlap, it is not possible to saythe two estimates are statistically differentat the 10 percent level of significance.
The state resident estimates cover theparticipation and expenditure activity ofUtah residents anywhere in the UnitedStates. The in-state estimates cover theparticipation, day, and expenditureactivity of U.S. residents in Utah.
The expenditure estimates were madecomparable by adjusting the estimates forinflation—all dollar estimates are in 2001dollars. Also, expenditure items that werenot common to each survey were notincluded in the comparisons. Therefore,expenditure estimates used in thecomparisons may not match the estimatespresented elsewhere in this report.
*No significant difference at the 0.10 level of significance.
200119961991
Number of Utah Resident Hunters and Anglers: 1991-2001(Thousands)
200119961991
Number of Utah Resident Wildlife Watchers: 1991-2001 (Thousands)
Total Expenditures by Utah Residents: 1991-2001(Millions. In constant 2001 dollars)
200119961991
251
297
424
200214
398
AnglersHunters
AnglersHunters Total wildlife watchers
162
115
178
463
515
380
284
323
220
ResidentialNonresidential
112
190
306
215
147
368
Utah 1996 and 2001 Comparison
16 Utah—U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Guide to Statistical Tables
Purpose and Coverage of TablesThe statistical tables of this report weredesigned to meet a wide range of needsfor those interested in wildlife-relatedrecreation. Special terms used in thesetables are defined in Appendix A.
The tables are based on responses to the2001 Survey which was designed tocollect data about participation inwildlife-related recreation. To have takenpart in the Survey, a respondent musthave been a U.S. resident (a resident ofone of the 50 states or the District ofColumbia). No one residing outside theUnited States (including U.S. citizens)was eligible for interviewing. Therefore,reported state and national totals do notinclude participation by those who werenot U.S. residents or who were residingoutside the United States.
Comparability With Previous SurveysThe numbers reported can be comparedwith those in the 1991 and 1996 SurveyReports. The methodology used in 2001was similar to that used in 1996 and 1991.These results should not be directlycompared to results from surveys earlierthan 1991 since there were major changesin methodology. These changes weremade to improve accuracy in theinformation provided.
Coverage of an Individual Table
Since the Survey covers many activities invarious places by participants of differentages, all table titles, headnotes, stubs, andfootnotes are designed to identify andarticulate each item being reported in thetable. For example, the title of Table 2shows that data about anglers and hunters,their days of participation, and theirnumber of trips are being reported by typeof activity. By contrast, the title of Table 7indicates that it contains data onfreshwater anglers and the days theyfished for different species of fish.
Percentages Reported in the TablesPercentages are reported in the tables forthe convenience of the user. Whenexclusive groups are being reported, thebase of a percentage is apparent from itscontext because the percents add to 100percent (plus or minus a rounding error).For example, if a table reports the numberof trips taken by big game hunters (57percent), those taken by small game hunters(23 percent), those taken by migratory birdhunters (12 percent), and those taken bysportspersons hunting other animals (8percent), then these percentages would total100 percent because they are exclusivecategories.
Percents should not add to 100 whennonexclusive groups are being reported.Using Table 2 as an example, note thatadding the percentages associated withtotal number of big game hunters, totalsmall game hunters, total migratory birdhunters, and total hunters of other animalswill not necessarily yield 100 percentbecause respondents could hunt for morethan one type of game.
When the base of the percentage is notapparent in context, it is identified in afootnote. For example, Table 12 reports 3percentages with different bases: one forthe number of hunters, one for the numberof trips, and one for days of hunting.Footnotes are used to clarify the bases ofthe reported percentages.
Footnotes to the TablesFootnotes are used to clarify theinformation or items that are beingreported in a table. Symbols in the body ofa table indicate important footnotes. Thesesymbols are used in the tables to refer tothe same footnote each time they appear:
* Estimate based on a small sample size.
... Sample size too small to report datareliably.
W Less than .5 dollars.
Z Less than .5 percent.
X Not applicable.
NA Not available.
Estimates based upon fewer than 10responses are regarded as being based ona sample size that is too small for reliablereporting. An estimate based upon at least10 but fewer than 30 responses is treatedas an estimate based on a small samplesize. Other footnotes appear, as necessary,to qualify or clarify the estimates reportedin the tables. In addition, these twoimportant footnotes appear frequently:
• Detail does not add to total becauseof multiple responses.
• Detail does not add to total because ofmultiple responses and nonresponse.
“Multiple responses” is a term used toreflect the fact that individuals or theircharacteristics fall into more than onecategory. Using Table 2 as an example,those who fished in saltwater andfreshwater appear in both of these totals.Yet each angler is represented only oncein the “Total, all fishing” row. Similarly,in Table 12 those who hunt for big gameand small game are counted only once asa hunter in the “Total, all hunting” row.Therefore, totals may be smaller than thesum of subcategories when multipleresponses exist.
"Nonresponse" exists because the surveyquestions were answered voluntarily andsome respondents did not or could notanswer all the questions. The effect ofnonresponses is illustrated in Table 18where the total for hunting expendituresmay be greater than the sum for thedifferent types of hunting expenditures.This occurs because some respondents didnot specify the type of hunting as theprimary purpose of the purchase. As aresult, it is known that the expenditureswere for hunting, but it is not knownwhether they were primarily for aparticular type of hunting. In this case,totals are greater than the sum ofsubcategories when nonresponses haveoccurred.
Table 1. Fishing and Hunting in Utah by Resident and Nonresident Sportspersons: 2001(Population 16 years old and older. Numbers in thousands)
* Estimate based on a small sample size. ... Sample size too small to report data reliably.
1 Days of hunting on public land includes both days spent solely on public land and those spent on public and private land.2 Days of hunting on private land includes both days spent solely on private land and those spent on private and public land.
Note: Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses and nonresponse.
24 Utah—U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Table 15. Selected Characteristics of Utah Resident Anglers and Hunters: 2001(State population 16 years old and older. Numbers in thousands)
* Estimate based on a small sample size. ... Sample size too small to report data reliably.
Note: Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses. Percent who participated shows the percent of each row’s population who participated inthe activity named by the column (the percent of those living in urban areas who fished, etc.). Remaining percent columns show the percent of eachcolumn’s participants who are described by the row heading (the percent of anglers who lived in urban areas, etc.).
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service—Utah 25
Table 16. Summary of Expenditures in Utah by U.S. Residents for Fishing and Hunting: 2001(Population 16 years old and older)
* Estimate based on a small sample size. ... Sample size too small to report data reliably.
1 Includes boating costs, equipment rental, guide fees, access fees, heating and cooking fuel, and ice and bait (for fishing only).2 Includes tents, special clothing, etc.3 Includes boats, campers, 4x4 vehicles, cabins, etc.4 Includes land leasing and ownership, licenses, stamps, tags, and permits.5 Respondent could not specify whether expenditure was primarily for either fishing or hunting.
Note: Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses and nonresponse. See Tables 19-20 for a detailed listing of expenditure items.
26 Utah—U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Table 17. Summary of Fishing Trip and Equipment Expenditures in Utah by U.S. Residents,by Type of Fishing: 2001
1 Includes boat or equipment rental and fees for guides, pack trip (party and charter boats, etc.), public land use, and private land use.2 Includes boat launching, mooring, storage, maintenance, insurance, pumpout fees and fuel.3 Includes electronic fishing devices (depth finders, fish finders, etc.), tackle boxes, ice fishing equipment, and other fishing equipment.4 Includes tents, special fishing clothing, etc.5 Includes boats, campers, 4x4 vehicles, cabins, etc.6 Includes magazines and books, membership dues and contributions, land leasing and ownership, licenses, stamps, tags, and permits.
Note: Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses and nonresponse. Percent of anglers may be greater than 100 because spenders who did notfish in this state are included.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service—Utah 29
Table 20. Expenditures in Utah by U.S. Residents for Hunting: 2001(Population 16 years old and older)
* Estimate based on a small sample size. ... Sample size too small to report data reliably.
1 Includes guide fees, pack trip or package fees, public and private land use access fees, and rental of equipment such as boats and hunting or campingequipment.
2 Includes bows, arrows, archery equipment, telescopic sights, decoys and game calls, handloading equipment and components, hunting dogs and associatedcosts, hunting knives, and other hunting equipment.
3 Includes tents, special hunting clothing, etc.4 Includes boats, campers, 4x4 vehicles, cabins, etc.5 Includes magazines and books, membership dues and contributions, land leasing and ownership, licenses, stamps, and permits.
Note: Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses and nonresponse. Percent of hunters may be greater than 100 percent because spenders whodid not hunt in this state are included.
30 Utah—U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Table 21. Trip and Equipment Expenditures in Utah for Fishing and Hunting by UtahResidents and Nonresidents: 2001
(Population 16 years old and older)
Equipment itemAmount
(thousandsof dollars)
Spenders(thousands)
Averageper spender
(dollars)
Average persportsperson
(dollars)
STATE RESIDENTS AND NONRESIDENTS
Trip and equipment expenditures for fishing and hunting, total . . 758,599 593 1,280 1,246
* Estimate based on a small sample size. ... Sample size too small to report data reliably.
1 Includes boat launching, mooring, storage, maintenance, insurance, pumpout fees, and fuel.2 Includes equipment rental, guide and access fees, ice and bait for fishing, and heating and cooking oil.3 Respondent could not specify whether item was for fishing or for hunting.
Note: Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses and nonresponse.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service—Utah 31
Table 22. Summary of Expenditures by Utah Residents in the United States for Fishing and Hunting: 2001(State population 16 years old and older)
1 Includes boating costs, equipment rental, guide fees, access fees, heating and cooking fuel, and ice and bait (for fishing only).2 Includes tents, special clothing, etc.3 Includes boats, campers, 4x4 vehicles, cabins, etc.4 Includes land leasing and ownership, licenses, stamps, tags, and permits.5 Respondent could not specify whether expenditure was primarily for either fishing or hunting.
Note: Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses and nonresponse. See Tables 19-20 for a detailed listing of expenditure items.
32 Utah—U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Table 23. Summary of Expenditures by Utah Residents in State and Out of Statefor Fishing and Hunting: 2001
* Estimate based on a small sample size. ... Sample size too small to report data reliably.
1 Includes tents, special hunting or fishing clothing, etc.2 Includes boats, campers, 4x4 vehicles, cabins, etc.3 Includes magazines, books, membership dues, contributions, land leasing and ownership, stamps, tags, and licenses.4 Respondent could not specify whether expenditure was primarily for either fishing or hunting.
Note: Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses and nonresponse.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service—Utah 33
Table 24. U.S. Residents Participating in Wildlife Watching in Utah: 2001(Population 16 years old and older. Numbers in thousands)
Note: Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses. The column showing percent of participants is based on total participants. The columnshowing percent of population is based on the state population 16 years old and older, including those who did not participate in wildlife watching.
36 Utah—U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Table 30. Wild Bird Observers and Days of Observation in Utah: 2001(Population 16 years old and older. Numbers in thousands)
* Estimate based on a small sample size. ... Sample size too small to report data reliably.
Note: Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses and nonresponse. Percent who participated shows the percent of each row’s population whoparticipated in the activity named by the column (the percent of those living in urban areas who participated, etc.). Percent columns show the percent ofeach column’s participants who are described by the row heading (the percent of those who participated who live in urban areas, etc.).
38 Utah—U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Table 33. Expenditures in Utah by U.S. Residents for Wildlife Watching: 2001(Population 16 years old and older)
* Estimate based on a small sample size. ... Sample size too small to report data reliably.
1 Percent of wildlife-watching participants column for trip-related expenditures is based on nonresidential participants. For equipment and other expenditures,the percent of wildlife-watching participants column is based on total wildlife-watching participants.
2 Includes equipment rental and fees for guides, pack trips, public land use and private land use, boat fuel, other boating costs, and heating and cooking fuel.3 Includes tents, tarps, frame packs and other backpacking equipment, other camping equipment, and other auxiliary equipment.4 Includes travel or tent trailers, off-the-road vehicles, pickups, campers or vans, motor homes, boats, and other special equipment.
Note: Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses and nonresponse.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service—Utah 39
Table 34. Trip and Equipment Expenditures in Utah for Wildlife Watching byResidents and Nonresidents: 2001
1 Includes equipment rental and fees for guides, pack trips, public land use, private land use, boat fuel, other boating costs, and heating and cooking fuel.2 Includes wildlife watching, auxiliary and special equipment.
Note: Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses and nonresponse. See Table 33 for a detailed listing of expenditure items.
40 Utah—U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Table 35. Expenditures in the United States by Utah Residents for Wildlife Watching: 2001(Population 16 years old and older)
* Estimate based on a small sample size. ... Sample size too small to report data reliably.
1 Percent of wildlife-watching participants column for trip-related expenditures is based on nonresidential participants. For equipment and other expenditures,the percent of wildlife-watching participants column is based on total wildlife-watching participants.
2 Includes equipment rental and fees for guides, pack trips, public land use and private land use, boat fuel, other boating costs, and heating and cooking fuel.3 Includes tents, tarps, frame packs and other backpacking equipment, other camping equipment, and other auxiliary equipment.4 Includes travel or tent trailers, off-the-road vehicles, pickups, campers or vans, motor homes, boats, and other special equipment.
Note: Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses and nonresponse.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service—Utah 41
Table 36. Summary of Expenditures by Utah Residents in State and Out of Statefor Wildlife Watching: 2001
* Estimate based on a small sample size. ... Sample size too small to report data reliably.
Note: See Table 33 for detailed listing of expenditure items.
42 Utah—U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Table 37. Participation of Utah Resident Wildlife-Watching Participants in Fishing and Hunting: 2001(State population 16 years old and older. Numbers in thousands)
Note: Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses and nonresponse.
Table 38. Participation of Utah Resident Sportspersons in Wildlife-Watching Activities: 2001(State population 16 years old and older. Numbers in thousands)
Note: Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses and nonresponse.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service—Utah 43
Table 39. Participants in Wildlife-Associated Recreation by Participant’s State of Residence: 2001(Population 16 years old and older. Numbers in thousands)
Note: Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses. U.S. totals include responses from participants residing in the District of Columbia, asdescribed in the statistical accuracy appendix.
44 Utah—U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Table 40. Participants in Wildlife-Associated Recreation by State Where Activity Took Place: 2001(Population 16 years old and older. Numbers in thousands)
State where activity took placeTotal participants Sportspersons Wildlife-watching participants
Note: Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses. U.S. totals include responses from participants residing in the District of Columbia, asdescribed in the statistical accuracy appendix.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service—Utah 45
Table 41. Anglers and Hunters by State Where Fishing or Hunting Took Place: 2001(Population 16 years old and older. Numbers in thousands)
* Estimate based on a small sample size. ... Sample size too small to report data reliably.
Note: Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses. U.S. totals include responses from participants residing in the District of Columbia, asdescribed in the statistical accuracy appendix.
46 Utah—U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Appendix A
Appendix A A-2 Utah—U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Annual household income—Total 2001income of household members beforetaxes and other deductions.
Auxiliary equipment—Equipmentowned primarily for wildlife-associatedrecreation. These include for thesportspersons section—camping bags,packs, duffel bags and tents, binoculars,field glasses, telescopes, special fishingand hunting clothing, foul weather gear,boots, waders, and processing andtaxidermy costs; and for the wildlife-watching section—tents, tarps, framepacks, backpacking equipment and othercamping equipment.
Big game—Antelope, bear, deer, elk,moose, wild turkey, and similar largeanimals which are hunted.
Birding life list—A tally of bird speciesseen during a birder’s lifetime.
Census DivisionsEast North CentralIllinoisIndianaMichiganOhioWisconsin
East South CentralAlabamaKentuckyMississippiTennessee
Middle AtlanticNew JerseyNew YorkPennsylvania
MountainArizonaColoradoIdahoMontanaNevada
New MexicoUtahWyoming
New EnglandConnecticutMaineMassachusettsNew HampshireRhode IslandVermont
PacificAlaskaCaliforniaHawaiiOregonWashington
South AtlanticDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaMarylandNorth CarolinaSouth CarolinaVirginiaWest Virginia
West North CentralKansasIowaMinnesotaMissouriNebraskaNorth DakotaSouth Dakota
West South CentralArkansasLouisianaOklahomaTexas
Day—Any part of a day spent in a givenactivity. For example, if someone hunted2 hours 1 day and 3 hours another day, itwould be recorded as 2 days of hunting. Ifsomeone hunted 2 hours in the morningand 3 hours in the evening of the same
day, it would be considered 1 day ofhunting.
Education—The highest completedgrade of school or year of college.
Expenditures—Money spent in 2001 forwildlife-related recreation trips in theUnited States and wildlife-relatedrecreational equipment purchased in theUnited States. Expenditures include bothmoney spent by participants forthemselves and the value of gifts theyreceived.
Federal land—Public land owned by thefederal government such as NationalForests and National Wildlife Refuges.
Fishing—The sport of catching orattempting to catch fish with a hook,line, bow and arrow, or spear; it alsoincludes catching or gathering shellfish(clams, crabs, etc.); and thenoncommercial seining or netting of fish,unless the fish are for use as bait. Forexample, seining for smelt is fishing, butseining for bait minnows is not includedas fishing.
Fishing equipment—Items ownedprimarily for fishing. These items arelisted in Table 19.
Freshwater—Reservoirs, lakes, ponds,and the nontidal portions of rivers andstreams.
Great Lakes fishing—Fishing in LakesSuperior, Michigan, Huron, St. Clair,Erie, and Ontario, their connectingwaters such as the St. Marys Riversystem, Detroit River, St. Clair River,and the Niagara River, and the St.Lawrence River south of the bridge atCornwall, New York. Great Lakesfishing includes fishing in tributaries ofthe Great Lakes for smelt, steelhead, andsalmon.
Appendix A. Definitions
Home—The starting point of a wildlife-related recreational trip. It may be apermanent residence or a temporary orseasonal residence such as a cabin.
Hunting—The sport of shooting orattempting to shoot wildlife withfirearms or archery equipment.
Hunting equipment—Items ownedprimarily for hunting. These items arelisted in Table 20.
Local land—Public land owned by localgovernment such as county parks ormunicipal watersheds.
Maintain natural areas—To set asideone-quarter acre or more of naturalenvironment such as wood lots or openfields for the primary purpose ofbenefiting wildlife.
Maintain plantings—To introduce orencourage the growth of food and coverplants for the primary purpose ofbenefiting wildlife.
Metropolitan statistical area (MSA)—Except in the New England States, anMSA is a county or group of contiguouscounties containing at least one city of50,000 or more inhabitants or twin cities(i.e., cities with contiguous boundariesand constituting, for general social andeconomic purposes, a single community)with a combined population of at least50,000. Also included in an MSA arecontiguous counties that are socially andeconomically integrated with the centralcity. In the New England States, an MSAconsists of towns and cities instead ofcounties. Each MSA must include atleast one central city.
Migratory birds—Birds that regularlymigrate from one region or climate toanother. The survey focuses on migratorybirds which may be hunted, includingbandtailed pigeons, coots, ducks, doves,gallinules, geese, rails, and woodcocks.
Multiple responses—The term used toreflect the fact that individuals or theircharacteristics fall into more than onereporting category. An example of a biggame hunter who hunted for deer and elkdemonstrates the effect of multipleresponses. In this case, adding thenumber of deer hunters (1) and elkhunters (1) would over state the numberof big game hunters (1) because deer andelk hunters are not mutually exclusive
categories. In contrast, total participantsis the sum of male and femaleparticipants, because male and femaleare mutually exclusive categories.
Nonresidential activity (away fromhome)—Trips or outings at least 1 milefrom home for the primary purpose ofobserving, photographing, or feedingwildlife. Trips to zoos, circuses,aquariums, and museums are notincluded.
Nonresidents—Individuals who do notlive in the state being reported. Forexample, a person living in Texas whowatches whales in California is anonresident participant in California.
Nonresponse—Nonresponse is a termused to reflect the fact that some surveyrespondents provide incomplete sets ofinformation. For example, a surveyrespondent may have been unable toidentify the primary type of hunting forwhich a gun was bought. Huntingexpenditures will reflect the gunpurchase, but it will not appear asspending for big game or any other typeof hunting. Nonresponses result inreported totals that are greater than thesum of their parts.
Observe—To take special interest in ortry to identify birds, fish, or otherwildlife.
Other animals—Coyotes, crows, foxes,groundhogs, prairie dogs, raccoons, andsimilar animals that are often regarded asvarmints or pests. Other animals may beclassified as unprotected or nongameanimals by the state in which they arehunted.
Participants—Individuals who engagedin fishing, hunting, or a wildlife-watching activity.
Primary purpose—The principalmotivation for an activity, trip, orexpenditure.
Public areas—Public lands owned bylocal, state, or federal governments.
Public land—Land that is owned by thelocal, state, or federal government.
Private land—Land that is owned by aprivate individual, group of individuals,or nongovernmental organization.
Residential activity (around thehome)—Activity within 1 mile of homewith a primary purpose: (1) closelyobserving or trying to identify birds orother wildlife, (2) photographingwildlife, (3) feeding birds or otherwildlife, (4) maintaining natural areas ofat least one-quarter acre primarily for thebenefit to wildlife, (5) maintainingplantings (shrubs, agricultural crops,etc.) primarily for the benefit of wildlife,or (6) visiting public parks within 1 mileof home to observe, photograph, or feedwildlife.
Residents—Individuals who lived in thestate being reported. For example,persons who live in California and watchwhales in California are residentparticipants in California.
Rural—Respondent lived in a ruralnonfarm, or rural farm area, asdetermined by Census.
Saltwater—Oceans, tidal bays andsounds, and the tidal portions of riversand streams.
Screening interviews—The first surveycontact with a household. Screeninginterviews with a householdrepresentative in each household toidentify respondents who are eligible forindepth interviews. Screening interviewsgather data about the individuals in thehouseholds, such as their age and sex.Screening interviews are discussed in theSurvey Background and Method sectionof this report.
Small game—Grouse, partridge,pheasants, quail, rabbits, squirrels, andsimilar small animals and birds forwhich many states have small gameseasons and bag limits.
Special equipment—Items of equipmentthat are owned primarily for wildlife-related recreation. These include for thesportsmen section bass boat and othertypes of motor boat; canoe and othertypes of nonmotor boat; boat motor, boattrailer/hitch, and other boat accessories;pickup, camper, van, travel or tent trailer,motor home, house trailer, RV, cabin;and trail bike, dune buggy, 4x4 vehicle,four-wheeler, and snowmobile. For thewildlife-watching section these includeoff-the-road vehicles such assnowmobiles, four-wheeler, 4x4 vehicle,trail bike, dune buggy, travel or tenttrailer, motor home, pickup, camper, van,
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service—Utah Appendix A A-3
Appendix A A-4 Utah—U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
house trailer, RV, boat and boataccessories, and cabin.
Spenders—Individuals who reported anexpenditure value for fishing, hunting, orwildlife-watching activities orequipment.
Sportspersons—Individuals whoengaged in fishing, hunting, or both.
State land—Public land owned by astate such as state parks or state wildlifemanagement areas.
Trip—An outing involving fishing,hunting, or wildlife-watching activities.In the context of this survey, a trip maybegin from an individual’s principalresidence or from another place, such asa vacation home or the home of a
relative. A trip may last an hour, a day, ormany days.
Type of fishing—Three types of fishingare reported: fishing in (1) freshwaterexcept Great Lakes, (2) Great Lakes, and(3) saltwater.
Type of hunting—Four types of huntingare reported: hunting for (1) big game,(2) small game, (3) migratory bird, and(4) other animals.
Urban—Respondent lived in an urbanarea, as determined by the U.S. CensusBureau.
Wildlife—Animals such as birds, fish,insects, mammals, amphibians, andreptiles that are living in natural or wildenvironments. Wildlife does not include
animals living in aquariums, zoos, andother artificial surroundings or domesticanimals such as farm animals or pets.
Wildlife-associated recreation—Recreational fishing, hunting, or wildlifewatching.
Wildlife-watching activity—An activityengaged in primarily for the purpose offeeding, photographing, or observing fishor other wildlife. In previous years, thiswas termed nonconsumptive activity.(See also residential and nonresidentialactivities.)
Wildlife-watching equipment—Itemsowned primarily for observing,photographing, or feeding wildlife.These items are listed in Table 33.
Appendix B
Appendix B B-2 Utah—U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Appendix B provides national andregional trend information based on the1991, 1996, and 2001 Surveys. Since allthree surveys used similarmethodologies, their publishedinformation is directly comparable.
Fishing and HuntingComparing national hunting and fishingestimates for the 1991, 1996, and 2001Surveys found participation declinedover that 10-year time period. In 1991and 1996, the number of people whohunted and fished remained essentiallyunchanged. In 2001, the overall numberof people who hunted and fisheddeclined from their 1991/1996 levels. In1991, there were 35.6 million anglersand 14.1 million hunters. In 1996, therewere 35.2 million anglers and 14.0million hunters. In 2001, there were34.1 million anglers—a 4 percent dropfrom its 1991 level, and 13.0 millionhunters—a 7 percent drop from 1991.
The amount of time people spent fishingand hunting fluctuated between 1991 and2001. The number of days spent fishingrose 22 percent between 1991 and 1996and then fell 11 percent between 1996and 2001. Days of hunting followed asimilar pattern. Between 1991 and 1996,hunting days increased 9 percent butthen fell 11 percent between 1996 and2001.
The amount of money spent for fishingand hunting trips and equipment rosefrom 1991 to 1996 and fell from 1996 to2001. Total fishing expenditures rose 37percent from $31.2 billion in 1991 to$42.7 billion in 1996; and, then fell 17percent to $35.6 billion in 2001.Likewise, hunting expendituresincreased from $16.0 billion in 1991 to$23.3 billion in 1996—45 percentincrease—and then fell 12 percent to$20.6 billion in 2001.
Wildlife WatchingComparing the results from the last threesurveys finds different trends for various
types of wildlife watching. The numberof wildlife watchers decreased 17percent from 1991 to 1996 and increased5 percent from 1996 to 2001—with 76.1million participants in 1991, 62.9 millionin 1996, and 66.1 million in 2001.Residential wildlife watching, thepreeminent type of wildlife watching,lead this trend with an 18 percent dropfrom 1991 to 1996 and a 4 percentincrease from 1996 to 2001. Unlikeresidential wildlife watching,nonresidential wildlife watching droppedthroughout the ‘90s and early ‘00s with a21 percent drop from 1991 to 1996 andan 8 percent drop from 1996 to 2001.Days afield by participants tendedupward, counter to the trend inparticipation, although the increase is notstatistically significant. Totalexpenditures for wildlife watchingincreased 21 percent from 1991 to 1996and 16 percent from 1996 to 2001,making an overall increase of 41 percentfrom 1991 to 2001.
Differences in the 1991, 1996, and2001 SurveysThe 1996 and 2001 Surveys underwent anumber of changes in order to improvedata collection, lower costs, and meet thedata needs of its users. The mostsignificant design differences in the threesurveys are as follows:
1. The 1991 Survey data was collectedby interviewers filling out paperquestionnaires. The data entrieswere keyed in a separate operationafter the interview. The 1996 and2001 survey data were collected bythe use of computer-assistedinterviews. The questionnaires wereprogrammed into computers, andinterviewers keyed in the responsesat the time of the interview.
2. The 1991 Survey screening phasewas conducted in January andFebruary of 1991, when the samplehouseholds were contacted and ahousehold respondent was
interviewed on behalf of the entirehousehold. The 1991 screeninginterview consisted primarily ofsociodemographic questions andwildlife-related recreation questionsconcerning activity in the year 1990and intentions for the year 1991. Thescreening interviews for the 1996and 2001 Surveys were conductedApril through June of their surveyyears in conjunction with the firstwave of the detailed interviews. Thescreening interviews consistedprimarily of sociodemographicquestions and wildlife-relatedrecreation questions concerningactivity in the previous year (1995or 2000) and intentions for thesurvey year (1996 or 2001).
3. In the 1991 Survey, an attempt wasmade to contact every sample personin all three detailed interview waves.In 1996 and 2001, respondents whowere interviewed in the first detailedinterview wave were not contactedagain until the third wave. Also, allinterviews in the second wave wereconducted by telephone. In-personinterviews were only conducted inthe first and third waves.
Important instrument differences inthe 1991, 1996, and 2001 Surveys1. The 1991 Survey collected
information on all wildlife-relatedrecreation purchases made byparticipants without reference towhere the purchase was made. The1996 and 2001 Surveys asked inwhich state the purchase was made.
2. In 1991, respondents were askedwhat kind of fishing they did, i.e.,Great Lakes, other freshwater, orsaltwater, and then were asked inwhat states they fished. In 1996 and2001, respondents were asked inwhich states they fished and thenwere asked the pertinent kind offishing questions. This method hadthe advantage of not asking about,
Appendix B. National and Regional 1991-2001 Comparisons
for example, saltwater fishing whenthey only fished in a noncoastalstate. In 1991, respondents wereasked how many days they"actually" hunted or fished for aparticular type of game or fish andthen how many days they "chiefly"hunted or fished for the same type ofgame or fish rather than another typeof game or fish. To get total days ofhunting or fishing for a particulartype of game or fish, the "actually"day response was used, while to getthe sum of all days of hunting orfishing, the "chiefly" days weresummed. In 1996 and 2001,respondents were asked their totaldays of hunting or fishing in theUnited States and each state, thenhow many days they hunted orfished for a particular type of gameor fish.
Trip-related and equipmentexpenditure categories were not thesame for all Surveys. "Guide fee"and "Pack trip or package fee" weretwo separate trip-related expenditureitems in 1991, while they werecombined into one category in the1996 and 2001 Surveys. "Boatingcosts" was added to the 1996 and2001 hunting and wildlife-watchingtrip-related expenditure sections."Heating and cooking fuel" wasadded to all of the trip-relatedexpenditure sections. "Spearfishingequipment" was moved from aseparate category to the "Other" list."Rods" and "Reels" were twoseparate categories in 1991 but werecombined in 1996 and 2001. "Lines,hooks, sinkers, etc." was onecategory in 1991 but split into"Lines" and "Hooks, sinkers, etc." in1996 and 2001. "Food used to feedother wildlife" was added to thewildlife-watching equipmentsection, "Boats" and "Cabins" wereadded to the wildlife-watchingspecial equipment section, and"Land leasing and ownership" wasadded to the wildlife-watchingexpenditures section.
5. Questions asking sportspersons ifthey participated as much as theywanted were added in 1996 and2001. If the sportspersons said no,they were asked why not.
6. The 1991 Survey included questionsabout participation in organizedfishing competitions; anglers usingbows and arrows, nets or seines, orspearfishing; hunters using pistols orhandguns and target shooting inpreparation for hunting. Thesequestions were not asked in 1996and 2001.
7. The 1996 Survey included questionsabout catch and release fishing andpersons with disabilitiesparticipating in wildlife-relatedrecreation. These questions were notpart of the 1991 Survey. The 2001Survey included questions aboutpersons with disabilitiesparticipating in wildlife-relatedrecreation but not about catch andrelease fishing.
8. The 1991 Survey included questionsabout average distance traveled torecreation sites. These questionswere not included in the 1996 and2001 Surveys.
9. The 1996 Survey included questionsabout the last trip the respondenttook. Included were questions aboutthe type of trip, where the activitytook place, and the distance anddirection to the site visited. Thesequestions were not asked in 2001.
10. The 1991 Survey collected data onhunting, fishing, and wildlifewatching by U.S. residents inCanada. The 1996 and 2001 Surveyscollected data on fishing andwildlife-watching by U.S. residentsin Canada.
Important instrument changes in the2001 Survey1. The 1991 and 1996 single race
category "Asian or Pacific Islander"was changed to two categories"Asian" and "Native Hawaiian orOther Pacific Islander." In 1991 and1996, the respondent was required topick only one category, while in2001 the respondent could pick anycombination of categories. The nextquestion stipulated that therespondent could only be identifiedwith one category and then askedwhat that category was.
2. The 1991 and 1996 land leasing andownership sections asked therespondent to combine the two typesof land use into one and give totalacreage and expenditures. In 2001,the two types of land use wereexplored separately.
3. The 1991 and 1996 wildlifewatching sections includedquestions on birdwatching forresidential users only. The 2001Survey added a question onbirdwatching for nonresidentialusers. Also, questions on the use ofbirding life lists and how manyspecies the respondent can identifywere added in 2001.
4. "Recreational vehicles" was addedto the sportspersons and wildlifewatchers special equipment sectionin 2001. "House trailer" was addedto the sportspersons specialequipment section.
5. Total personal income was asked inthe detailed phase of the 1996Survey. This was changed to totalhousehold income in the 2001Survey.
6. A question was added to the trip-related expenditures section in the2001 Survey to ascertain how muchof the total was spent in therespondent’s state of residence whenthe respondent participated inhunting, fishing, or wildlifewatching out-of-state.
7. Boating questions were added to the2001 Surveys fishing section. Therespondent was asked about theextent of boat usage for the threetypes of fishing.
8. The 1996 Survey included questionsabout the months residential wildlifewatchers fed birds. These questionswere not repeated in the 2001Survey.
9. The contingent valuation sections ofthe three types of wildlife-relatedrecreation were altered, using anopen-ended question format insteadof 1996's dichotomous choiceformat.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service—Utah Appendix B B-3
Appendix B B-4 Utah—U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Table B-1. Comparison of Wildlife-Related Recreation in the United States: 1991 to 2001(U.S. population 16 years old and older. Numbers in thousands)
Table B-3. Wildlife-Watching (Nonconsumptive) Participants by Census Division: 1991, 1996, and 2001(U.S. population 16 years old and older. Numbers in thousands)
The 2001 National Survey of Fishing,Hunting, and Wildlife-AssociatedRecreation was carried out in twophases. The first (or screening) phasebegan in April 2001. The main purposeof this phase was to collect informationabout persons 16 years old and older inorder to develop a sample of potentialsportsmen and wildlife-watchingparticipants for the second (or detailed)phase. Information was also collected onthe number of persons 6 to 15 years oldwho participated in wildlife-relatedrecreation activities in 2000. These dataare reported here in order to include therecreation activity of 6- to 15-year-oldsin this report.
It is important to emphasize that theinformation reported here from the 2001screening questionnaires relates toactivity only up to and including 2000.
Also, these data were based on long-termrecall (at least 12-month recall wasrequired for most of these tables) andwere reported, in most cases, by onehousehold respondent speaking for allhousehold members rather than theshorter term recall of the actualparticipant, as in the case of the 2001detailed phase.
Tables C-1 to C-3 report data onparticipants 6 to 15 years old in 2000.Detailed expenditures and recreationalactivity data were not gathered for the 6-to 15-year-old participants.
Because of the difference inmethodologies of the screening phaseand the detailed phase of the 2001Survey, the data are not comparable.Only participants 16 years old and olderwere eligible for the detailed phase. The
detailed phase was a series of threeinterviews conducted at 4-monthintervals. The screening interviews were1-year recall. The shorter recall period ofthe detailed phase had better dataaccuracy. It has been found in surveystudies that in many cases longer recallperiods result in over-estimatingparticipation in and expenditures onwildlife-related recreation activities.
Appendix C. Participants 6 to 15 Years Old
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service—Utah Appendix C C-3
Table C-1. Utah Residents 6 to 15 Years Old Participating in Fishing and Hunting: 2000(State population 6 to 15 years old. Numbers in thousands)
* Estimate based on a small sample size. ... Sample size too small to report data reliably.
Note: Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses. Column showing percent of sportspersons is based on the ‘‘Total sportspersons’’ row. Col-umn showing percent of population is based on the state population 6 to 15 years old, including those who did not fish or hunt. Data reported on thistable are from screening interviews in which one adult household member responded for household members 6 to 15 years old. The screening inter-view required the respondent to recall 12 months worth of activity. Includes state residents who fished or hunted only in other countries.
Appendix C C-4 Utah—U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Table C-2. Selected Characteristics of Utah Resident Anglers and Hunters 6 to 15 Years Old: 2000(State population 6 to 15 years old. Numbers in thousands)
* Estimate based on a small sample size. ... Sample size too small to report data reliably.
Note: Percent who participated shows the percent of each row’s population who participated in the activity named by the column (the percent of those liv-ing in urban areas who fished, etc.). Remaining percent columns show the percent of each column’s participants who are described by the row head-ing (the percent of anglers who lived in urban areas, etc.). Data reported on this table are from screening interviews in which one adult householdmember responded for 6 to 15 year olds. The screening interview required the respondent to recall 12 months worth of activity. Includes state resi-dents who fished or hunted only in other countries.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service—Utah Appendix C C-5
Table C-3. Utah Residents 6 to 15 Years Old Participating in Wildlife Watching: 2000(State population 6 to 15 years old. Numbers in thousands)
Note: Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses. The column showing percent of participants is based on total participants. The columnshowing percent of population is based on the state population 6 to 15 years old, including those who did not participate in wildlife watching. Datareported on this table are from screening interviews in which one adult household member responded for household members 6 to 15 years old. Thescreening interview required the respondent to recall 12 months worth of activity.
Appendix D
Appendix D D-2 Utah—U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
This Appendix is presented in two parts.The first part is the U.S. Census BureauSource and Accuracy Statement. Thisstatement describes the sampling designfor the 2001 Survey and highlights thesteps taken to produce estimates from thecompleted questionnaires. The statementexplains the use of standard errors andconfidence intervals. It also providescomprehensive information about errorscharacteristic of surveys, and formulasand parameters to calculate anapproximate standard error or confidenceinterval for each number published inthis report. The second part reportsapproximate standard errors (S.E.s) forselected measures of participation andexpenditures for wildlife-relatedrecreation. Tables D-1 to D-3 showcommon estimates by state with theirestimated standard errors. Tables D-4 toD-9 provide parameters for computingS.E.s.
Source and Accuracy Statement forthe Utah State Report of the 2001National Survey of Fishing, Hunting,and Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Source of DataThe estimates in this report are based ondata collected in the 2001 NationalSurvey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (FHWAR).
The 2001 FHWAR Survey was designedto provide state-level estimates of thenumber of participants in recreationalhunting and fishing, and in wildlife-watching activities (e.g., wildlifeobservation). Information was collectedon the number of participants, where andhow often they participated, the type ofwildlife encountered, and the amounts ofmoney spent on wildlife-relatedrecreation.
The survey was conducted in two stages:an initial screening of households to
identify likely sportspersons and wildlife-watching participants, and a series offollow-up interviews of selected personsto collect detailed data about theirwildlife-related recreation during 2001.
The 2001 FHWAR state samples wereselected from expired samples of theCurrent Population Survey (CPS).
Sample DesignA. CPS - Current Population Survey
The expired CPS samples used forthe 2001 FHWAR had been selectedinitially from 1990 decennial censusfiles with coverage in all 50 statesand the District of Columbia. Thesamples, while active, had beencontinually updated to reflect newconstruction. The sample addresseswere located in 754 geographicareas consisting of a county orseveral contiguous counties.
B. The FHWAR Screening Sample
The screening sample consisted of households identified from theabove sources. In Utah, 1,168household interviews were assignedto be interviewed. Of these, 8.0percent were found to be vacant or otherwise not enumerated. Of the remaining households, about 23.2 percent could not beenumerated because the occupantswere not found at home afterrepeated calls or were unavailablefor some other reason.
Overall, 817 completed householdinterviews were obtained for a stateresponse rate of 76.8 percent. Thefield representatives asked screeningquestions for all household members6 years old and older. Interviewingfor the screen was conducted duringApril, May, and June of 2001.
Data for the FHWAR sportspersonssample and wildlife-watchers samplewere collected in three waves. Thefirst wave started in April 2001, thesecond in September 2001, and thethird in January 2002. In thesportspersons sample, all personswho hunted or fished in 2001 by thetime of the screening interview wereinterviewed in the first wave. Theremaining sportspersons samplewere interviewed in the secondwave. All sample persons (fromboth the first and second waves)were interviewed in the third wave.
The reference period was thepreceding 4 months for waves 1 and2. In wave 3, the reference periodwas either 4 or 8 months dependingon when the sample person was firstinterviewed.
C. The Detailed Samples
Two independent detailed sampleswere chosen from the FHWARscreening sample. One consisted ofsportspersons (people who hunt orfish) and the other of wildlifewatchers (people who observe,photograph, or feed wildlife).
1. Sportspersons
The Census Bureau selected thestate detailed samples based oninformation reported during thescreening phase. Every person16 years old and older in theFHWAR screening sample wasassigned to a sportspersonsstratum based on time devoted tohunting/fishing in the past andtime expected to be devoted tohunting/fishing in the future.
Appendix D. Sample Design and Statistical Accuracy
The four sportspersonscategories were:
Active - a person who had alreadyparticipated in hunting/fishing in2001 at the time of the screenerinterview.
Likely - a person who had notparticipated in 2001 at the time ofthe screener but had participatedin 2000 OR said they were likelyto participate in 2001.
Inactive - a person who had notparticipated in 2000 or 2001AND said they were somewhatunlikely to participate in 2001.
Nonparticipant - a person whohad not participated in 2000 or2001 AND said they were veryunlikely to participate in 2001.
Persons were selected for thedetailed phase based on thesegroupings.
Active sportspersons were giventhe detailed interview twice—atthe same time of the screeninginterview (April-June 2001) andagain in January/February 2002.Likely sportspersons and asubsample of the inactivesportspersons were alsointerviewed twice—first inSeptember/October 2001, then inJanuary/February 2002. IfCensus field representatives werenot able to obtain the firstinterview, they attempted tointerview the person in the finalinterviewing period with thereference period being the entireyear. Persons in thenonparticipant group were noteligible for a detailed interview.
About 805 persons weredesignated for interviews in Utah. Overall, 729 detailedsportspersons interviews werecompleted for a response rate of90.6 percent.
2. Wildlife Watchers
The wildlife-watching statedetailed sample also was selectedbased on information reportedduring the screening phase.Every person 16 years of age and
older was assigned to a categorybased on time devoted towildlife-watching activities inprevious years, participation in2001 by the time of the screeninginterview, and intentions toparticipate in activities during theremainder of 2001.
Each person was placed into oneof the following five groupsbased on their past participation:
Active - a person who had alreadyparticipated in 2001 at the time ofthe screening interview.
Avid - a person who had not yetparticipated in 2001 but in 2000had taken trips to participate inwildlife-watching activities for 21or more days or had spent $300or more.
Average - a person who had notyet participated in 2001 but in2000 had taken trips to wildlife-watch for less than 21 days andhad spent less than $300 OR hadnot participated in wildlife-watching activities but said theywere very likely to in theremainder of 2001.
Infrequent - a person who had notparticipated in 2000 or 2001 butsaid they were somewhat likelyor somewhat unlikely toparticipate in the remainder of2001.
Nonparticipant - a person whohad not participated in 2000 or2001 and said they were veryunlikely to participate during theremainder of 2001.
Persons were selected for thedetailed phase based on thesegroupings. Persons in thenonparticipant group were noteligible for a detailed interview.A subsample of each of the othergroups was selected to receive adetailed interview with thechance of being selecteddiminishing as the likelihood ofparticipation diminished.
Wildlife-watching participantswere given the detailed interviewtwice. Some received their firstdetailed interview at the same
time as the screening interview(April-June 2001). The restreceived their first detailedinterview in September/October2001. All wildlife-watchingparticipants received their secondinterview in January/February2002. If Census fieldrepresentatives were not able toobtain the first interview, theyattempted to interview the personin the final interviewing periodwith the reference period beingthe entire year.
About 339 persons weredesignated for interviews in Utah. Overall, 314 detailedwildlife-watching participantinterviews were completed for a response rate of 92.6 percent.
Estimation ProcedureSeveral stages of adjustments were usedto derive the final 2001 FHWAR personweights. A brief description of the majorcomponents of the weights is givenbelow.
All statistics for the population 6 to 15years of age were derived from thescreening interview. Statistics for thepopulation 16 and over came from boththe screening and detailed interviews.Estimates which came from thescreening sample are presented inAppendix C.
A. Screening Sample
Every interviewed person in thescreening sample received a weightthat was the product of the followingfactors:
1. Base Weight. The base weight isthe inverse of the household’sprobability of selection.
2. Household NoninterviewAdjustment. The noninterviewadjustment inflated the weightassigned to interviewedhouseholds to account forhouseholds eligible for interviewbut for which no interview wasobtained.
3. First-Stage Adjustment. The 754areas designated for our sampleswere selected from over 2,000such areas of the United States.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service—Utah Appendix D D-3
Some sample areas represent onlythemselves and are referred to asself-representing. The remainingareas represent other areas similarin selected characteristics and arethus designated nonself-representing. The first-stagefactor reduces the component ofvariation arising from samplingthe nonself-representing areas.
4. Second-Stage Adjustment. Thisadjustment brings the estimatesof the total population in eachstate into agreement with census-based estimates of the civiliannoninstitutional and nonbarrackmilitary populations for eachstate.
B. Sportspersons Sample
Every interviewed person in thesportspersons detailed samplereceived a weight that was theproduct of the following factors:
1. Screening Weight. This is theindividual’s final weight from thescreening sample.
2. Sportspersons StratumAdjustment. This factor inflatedthe weights of persons selectedfor the detailed sample to accountfor the subsampling done withineach sportsperson’s stratum.
3. Sportspersons NoninterviewAdjustment. This factor adjuststhe weights of the interviewedsportspersons to account forsportspersons selected for thedetailed sample for whom nointerview was obtained. A personwas considered a noninterview ifhe/she were not interviewed inthe third wave of interviewing.
4. Sportspersons Ratio AdjustmentFactor. This is a ratio adjustmentof the detailed sample to thescreening sample withinsportspersons sampling stratum.This adjustment brings thepopulation estimates of personsage 16 years old or older fromthe detailed sample intoagreement with the sameestimates from the screeningsample, which was a much largersample.
C. Wildlife-Watchers Sample
Every interviewed person in thewildlife-watchers detailed samplereceived a weight that was theproduct of the following factors:
1. Screening Weight. This is theindividual’s final weight from thescreening sample.
2. Wildlife-Watchers StratumAdjustment. This factor inflatedthe weights of persons selectedfor the detailed sample to accountfor the subsampling done withineach wildlife-watcher stratum.
3. Wildlife-Watchers NoninterviewAdjustment. This factor adjuststhe weights of the interviewedwildlife-watching participants toaccount for wildlife watchersselected for the detailed samplefor which no interview wasobtained. A person wasconsidered a noninterview ifhe/she were not interviewed inthe third wave of interviewing.
4. Wildlife-Watchers RatioAdjustment Factor. This is aratio adjustment of the detailedsample to the screening samplewithin wildlife-watcherssampling strata. This adjustmentbrings the population estimates ofpersons age 16 years old or olderfrom the detailed sample intoagreement with the sameestimates from the screeningsample, which was a much largersample.
Accuracy of the EstimatesSince the 2001 estimates came from asample, they may differ from figuresfrom a complete census using the samequestionnaires, instructions, andenumerators. A sample survey estimatehas two possible types of error—sampling and nonsampling. Theaccuracy of an estimate depends on bothtypes of error, but the full extent of thenonsampling error is unknown.Consequently, one should be particularlycareful when interpreting results basedon a relatively small number of cases oron small differences between estimates.The standard errors for the 2001FHWAR estimates primarily indicate themagnitude of sampling error. They alsopartially measure the effect of some
nonsampling errors in responses andenumeration, but do not measuresystematic biases in the data. (Bias isthe average over all possible samples ofthe differences between the sampleestimate and the actual value.)
Nonsampling VariabilityLet us suppose that a comparablecomplete enumeration was conducted.That is, an interview is attempted forevery person 16 years old and older inthe United States. Chances are we willnot correctly estimate every parameterunder consideration (for example, theproportion of people who fished). In thisinstance, the difference is due solely tononsampling errors. Nonsampling errorsalso occur in sample surveys and can beattributed to several sources includingthe following:
• The inability to obtain informationabout all cases in the sample.
• Definitional difficulties.
• Differences in the interpretation ofquestions.
• Respondents’ inability orunwillingness to provide correctinformation.
• Respondents’ inability to recallinformation.
• Errors made in data collection suchas in recording or coding the data.
• Errors made in the processing ofdata.
• Errors made in estimating values formissing data.
• Failure to represent all units with thesample (undercoverage).
Overall CPS undercoverage is estimatedto be about 8 percent. Generally,undercoverage is larger for males thanfor females and larger for Blacks andother races combined than for Whites.Ratio estimation to independentpopulation controls, as describedpreviously, partially corrects for the biasdue to survey undercoverage. However,biases exist in the estimates to the extentthat missed persons in missedhouseholds or missed persons ininterviewed households have different
Appendix D D-4 Utah—U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
characteristics from those of interviewedpersons in the same age group.
Comparability of Data. Data obtainedfrom the 2001 FHWAR and othersources are not entirely comparable.This results from differences in fieldinterviewer training and experience andin differing survey processes. This is an
example of nonsampling variability notreflected in the standard errors. Usecaution when comparing results fromdifferent sources (See Appendix B).
Note When Using Small Estimates.Because of the large standard errorsinvolved, summary measures (such asmedians and percentage distributions)
would probably not reveal usefulinformation when computed on a basesmaller than 100,000. Take care in theinterpretation of small differences. Forinstance, even a small amount ofnonsampling error can cause a borderlinedifference to appear significant or not,thus distorting a seemingly validhypothesis test.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service—Utah Appendix D D-5
Sampling VariabilityThe particular sample used for the 2001 FHWAR Survey is one of a large number of all possible samples of the same size thatcould have been selected using the same sample design. Estimates derived from the different samples would differ from eachother. This sample-to-sample variability is referred to as sampling variability and is generally measured by the standard error.The exact sampling error is unknown. However, guides to the potential size of the sampling error are provided by the standarderror of the estimate.
Since the standard error of a survey estimate attempts to provide a measure of the variation among the estimates from the possiblesamples, it is a measure of the precision with which an estimate from a particular sample approximates the average result of allpossible samples. Standard errors, as calculated by methods described next in “Standard Errors and Their Use,” are primarilymeasures of sampling variability, although they may include some nonsampling error.
The sample estimate and its standard error enable one to construct a confidence interval, a range that would include the averageresult of all possible samples with a known probability. For example, if all possible samples were surveyed under essentially thesame general conditions and using the same sample design, and if an estimate and its standard error were calculated from eachsample, then approximately 90 percent of the intervals from 1.645 standard errors below the estimate to 1.645 standard errorsabove the estimate would include the average result of all possible samples.
A particular confidence interval may or may not contain the average estimate derived from all possible samples. However, onecan say with specified confidence that the interval includes the average estimate calculated from all possible samples.
Standard errors may also be used to perform hypothesis testing—a procedure for distinguishing between population parametersusing sample estimates. One common type of hypothesis is that the population parameters are different. An example would becomparing the proportion of anglers to the proportion of hunters.
Tests may be performed at various levels of significance where a significance level is the probability of concluding that thecharacteristics are different when, in fact, they are the same. To conclude that two characteristics are different at the 0.10 level ofsignificance, the absolute value of the estimated difference between characteristics must be greater than or equal to 1.645 timesthe standard error of the difference.
This report uses 90-percent confidence intervals and 0.10 levels of significance to determine statistical validity. Consult standardstatistical textbooks for alternative criteria.
Standard Errors and Their Use. A number of approximations are required to derive, at a moderate cost, standard errors applicableto all the estimates in this report. Instead of providing an individual standard error for each estimate, parameters are provided tocalculate standard errors for each type of characteristic. These parameters are listed in tables D-4 to D-9. Methods for using theparameters to calculate standard errors of various estimates are given in the next sections.
Standard Errors of Estimated Numbers. The approximate standard error, sx, of an estimated number shown in this report can beobtained using the following formulas. Formula (1) is used to calculate the standard errors of levels of sportspersons, anglers,and wildlife watchers.
(1)
Here, x is the size of the estimate and a and b are the parameters in the tables associated with the particular characteristic.
Formula (2) is used for standard errors of aggregates, i.e., trips, days, and expenditures.
(2)
Here, x is again the size of the estimate; y is the base of the estimate; and a, b, and c are the parameters in the tables associatedwith the particular characteristic.
Appendix D D-6 Utah—U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Illustration of the Computation of the Standard Error of an Estimated Number
Suppose that a table shows that 37,805,000 persons 16+ either fished or hunted in the United States in 2001. Using formula (1)with the parameters a= -0.000020 and b= 4,289 from table D-5, the approximate standard error of the estimates number of37,805,000 sportspersons 16+ is
The 90-percent confidence interval for the estimated number of sportspersons 16+ is from 37,203,800 to 38,406,200, i.e.,37,805,000 ± 1.645 x 365,500. Therefore, a conclusion that the average estimate derived from all possible samples lies within arange computed in this way would be correct for roughly 90 percent of all possible samples.
Suppose that another table shows that 13,034,300 hunters 16+ engaged in 228,367,800 days of participation in 2001 in the UnitedStates. Using formula (2) with the parameters a = 0.000168, b = -11,904, and c = 12,496 from table D-7, the approximatestandard error on 228,367,800 estimated days on an estimated base of 13,034,300 hunters is
The 90-percent confidence interval on the estimate of 228,367,800 days is from 216,053,200 to 240,682,400, i.e., 228,367,800 ± 1.645 x 7,486,100. Again, a conclusion that the average estimate derived from all possible samples lies within a range computed in this way would be correct for roughly 90 percent of all possible samples.
Standard Errors of Estimated Percentages. The reliability of an estimated percentage, computed using sample data for bothnumerator and denominator, depends on the size of the percentage and its base. Estimated percentages are relatively morereliable than the corresponding estimates of the numerators of the percentages, particularly if the percentages are 50 percent ormore. When the numerator and the denominator of the percentage are in different categories, use the parameter in the tablesindicated by the numerator.
The approximate standard error, sx,p, can be obtained by use of the formula
(3)
Here, x is the total number of sportspersons, hunters, etc., which is the base of the percentage; p is the percentage (0 < p < 100);and b is the parameter in the tables associated with the characteristic in the numerator of the percentage.
Illustration of the Computation of the Standard Error of an Estimated Percentage
Suppose that a table shows that of the 13,034,300 hunters 16+ in the United States, 22.7 percent hunted migratory birds. Fromtable D-5, the appropriate b parameter is 3,793. Using formula (3), the approximate standard error on the estimate of 22.7 percentis
Consequently, the 90-percent confidence interval for the estimate percentage of migratory bird hunters 16+ is from 21.5 percent to 23.9 percent, i.e. 22.7 ± 1.645 x 0.71.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service—Utah Appendix D D-7
Standard Error of a Difference. The standard error of the difference between two sample estimates is approximately equal to
(4)
where sx and sy are the standard errors of the estimates x and y. The estimates can be numbers, percentages, ratios, etc. This willrepresent the actual standard error quite accurately for the difference between estimates of the same characteristic in two differentareas, or for the difference between separate and uncorrelated characteristics in the same area. However, if there is a high positive(negative) correlation between the two characteristics, the formula will overestimate (underestimate) the true standard error.
Illustration of the Computation of the Standard Error of a Difference
Suppose that a table shows that of the 13,034,300 hunters in the United States, 9,985,100 were licensed hunters, and 1,689,300were exempt from a hunting license. The corresponding percentages are 76.6 percent and 13.0 percent, respectively. Theapparent difference between the percent of licensed hunters and hunters who are exempt from a license is 63.6 percent. Usingformula (3) and the appropriate b parameter from Table D-5, the approximate standard errors of 76.6 percent and 13.0 percent are0.83 and 1.59, respectively. Using formula (4), the approximate standard error of the estimated difference of 63.6 percent is
The 90-percent confidence interval on the difference between licensed hunters and those who were exempt from a hunting licenseis from 62.1 to 65.1 percent, i.e., 63.6 ± 1.645 x 0.92. Since the interval does not contain zero, we can conclude with 90 percentconfidence that the percentage of licensed hunters is greater than the percentage of hunters who are exempt from a huntinglicense.
Standard Errors of Estimated Averages. Certain mean values for sportspersons, anglers, etc., shown in the report were calculatedas the ratio of two numbers. For example, average days per angler is calculated as:
Standard errors for these averages may be approximated by the use of formula (5) below.
(5)
In formula (5), r represents the correlation coefficient between the numerator and the denominator of the estimate. In the aboveformula, use 0.7 as an estimate of r.
Illustration of the Computation of the Standard Error of an Estimated Average
Suppose that a table shows that the average days per angler 16 years old or older for all fishing was 16.4 days. Using formulas(1) and (2) above, we compute the standard error on total days, 557,393,900, and total anglers, 34,071,100, to be 8,726,000 and350,600, respectively. The approximate standard error on the estimated average of 16.4 days is
therefore, the 90-percent confidence interval on the estimated average of 16.4 days is from 16.1 to 16.7, i.e., 16.4 ± 1.645 x 0.18.
Appendix D D-8 Utah—U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service—Utah Appendix D D-9
Table D-1. Approximate Standard Errors of Resident Anglers, Days of Fishing by State Residents, andExpenditures for Fishing by State Residents
(Numbers in thousands)
StateParticipation Days Expenditures in dollars
Estimate Standard error Estimate Standard error Estimate Standard error
Table D-3. Approximate Standard Errors of Resident Nonresidential Participants, Days of NonresidentialParticipation by State Residents, and Trip-Related Expenditures for Nonresidential Activitiesby State Residents
(Numbers in thousands)
StateParticipation Days Expenditures in dollars
Estimate Standard error Estimate Standard error Estimate Standard error
Table D-8. Parameters a and b for Calculating Approximate Standard Errors of Levels of Wildlife-WatchingParticipants for the Detailed Wildlife-Watching Sample