Birds, bears and big dollars

When owls moved from Canada into northern Minnesota last winter in search of food, they brought $1 million. Well, not exactly.

Carrol Henderson, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Nongame Wildlife Program supervisor, estimates that money was spent locally by birding tourists that flocked to see the rare birds.

While the owls were rare, the birding tourist is not. Bird and other wildlife watching is a large and growing business in the region and across the United States.

“People that come up from urban areas and see some bears or an eagle are in seventh heaven,” says Larry McDonald, operator of Cooper Hill House bed and breakfast,

and Apostle Island Outfitters, both in Bayfield. “Wildlife is a crucial part of the mix of attractions to our area.”

McDonald sells binoculars at his store. “Two-thirds of the binocular sales are for birds and wildlife,” he says.

According to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service survey in 2001, 66 million Americans spent $38.4 billion on wildlife watching, mostly on birds. That’s a $738 average annual expenditure per watcher. In 2001 watchers spent $23.5 billion on equipment, $4.8 billion on food and lodging, $2.6 billion on transportation, and $0.7 billion on other trip costs. They spent an additional $6.7 billion on related books, magazines, memberships, and leases.

In Minnesota, bird watchers and other wildlife viewers contribute more than half a billion dollars per year to the state’s tourist economy. More money is spent in Minnesota for wildlife watching activities than on hunting. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service survey, wildlife watchers spent $531 million in 2000 for wildlife viewing, nature photography and bird feeding, compared with $480 million for hunting.

According to the same survey, Wisconsin residents rank No. 3 nationwide in the number of resident wildlife watchers. In total, more than 3.1 million residents and tourists participated in wildlife watching activities in the state.

The national survey has been conducted every five years since 1955, and wildlife watching is expected to grow fast. That growth is tied in part to the aging of a large segment of the population. Rachel Dickinson and Brad Edmondson wrote in the December 1996 issue of American Demographics:

“As the U.S. population ages, the number of birdwatchers and bird feeders should grow rapidly. These activities offer outdoor fun for people who prefer to avoid more strenuous things, such as backpacking and hunting. They have a strong appeal to well-educated people and environmentalists. As baby boomers move into middle age and beyond, more of them will join the suet-and-binoculars set. Marketing tie-ins that support habitat protection are another growing opportunity.”

The demographics from Fish and Wildlife studies over the years predict growth well beyond boomers. They’ve identified a growing cohort of younger people, especially those vacationing where the intended activity is watching or photographing wildlife.

Birds dominate this group. There also is a growing number of “listers” — bird watchers who keep lists of species they see. It can be pretty competitive. In some ways, it has become a sport. There’s even a World Series of Birding each year in New Jersey. It started in the early 1990s in Cape May, NJ, one of the main bird watching destinations in the country.

Teams of experienced birders compete to see who can compile the highest tally of species sighted in one day. The competition is complete with corporate sponsorships by optics, clothing and car manufacturers.

The periods of bird migration, when the greatest diversity of birds are flying through Northeastern Minnesota and Northwest Wisconsin, fall neatly into or near the regional tourism industry’s slow months called “gap” periods, or “shoulder” seasons — March through May, and late August through October. Marketing the area’s bird attractions promises extra revenue when the industry needs it most.

The economic impact of watching in Wisconsin, ain’t bird seed. Most bird watchers and photographers that travel across state lines have higher than average discretionary income. According to 2001 figures provided by Susan Foote-Martin, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources trails specialist, wildlife viewing accounted for a $1.3 billion impact. That is nearly one-half of the combined total for watching, hunting and fishing.

Money spent by wildlife watchers for food, lodging and transport was more than $250 million, nearly $100 million more than the $167.1 million spent by hunters, and about half of that spent by fishing folk.

The amount spent by wildlife watchers and photographers for equipment was $837 million. Equipment purchases on hunting and fishing was less, about $682 million.

While some towns are beginning to key in on this, the effort to appeal to this growing market is just beginning.

“People are not cashing in as much as they could,” says Craig Schowalter, of Washburn. His firm, Business Plans, Etc., produces rural marketing and feasibility studies for clients in 22 states.

“It is definitely a growing area for tourism in Minnesota and Wisconsin. To put $38 billion (the Fish and Wildlife estimate of wildlife spending in 2001) in perspective, Pepsico is $31.6 billion (in revenues), Citicorp is $32.6 billion. It’s big,” Schowalter says.

One of the essential elements to tourism success in this area is an abundance of nearby high quality public lands, such as national parks, national forests, and large state parks.

“That key habitat is directly tied to the quality and quantity of the wildlife that is the product, the experience, sold to the visitor,” he says.

Schowalter notes that the region’s public resource lands not only draw tourists.

“When you compare rural areas around public lands with rural areas elsewhere, the numbers look different. The former attracts new residents, and related retail and services development,” he says.

The studies about the economic impact of wildlife watchers concentrate on non-hunting or fishing tourists. But the “watcher” category may potentially be higher yet. Schowalter’s research points

to another relevant demographic point: “About 40 percent of hunters also are wildlife photographers. Hunting is seasonal. Those same people may want to come at other times of the year, get to

understand the landscape better, and

take some photos. Hunting guides have skills that add to the quality of the

hunting experience. Those same skills could help the photographers and watchers,” he says.

Useful links:

Minnesota DNR Nongame Wildlife Program

Wisconsin DNR's Public Wildlife Recreation Lands

Jay Moynihan is an Ashland-based management and strategic planning consultant. You can reach him at www.jaymoynihan.com