Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Study: Hunting, Fishing in Rockies Proven to be Recession Proof

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

Field Notes
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

August 03, 2011

Study: Hunting, Fishing in Rockies Proven to be Recession Proof

By Chad Love

In the current political climate it's fashionable (on both sides of the aisle) to cut programs and legislation that "doesn't pay its way." Not surprisingly, conservation and environmental programs and legislation are currently under attack because we "can't afford it any more." But what if, as many of us have been arguing for years, not only can good conservation and environmental programs pay their way, they also pump money into the economy even in the depths of a recession?
 
That's the gist of a recent economic study from the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks department that revealed hunting and fishing activity along the front range of the Rocky Mountains is a remarkably recession-proof activity and an important regional economic engine. And that's a very good reason, argues one sportsmans's group, to encourage further environmental legislation to protect the area.

From this story in the Great Falls Tribune:
The Coalition to Protect the Rocky Mountain Front said that based on economic indicators from recent Fish, Wildlife & Parks studies of hunting's impact, the Front needs further legislative protection. Five Montana sportsmen said in a teleconference call Tuesday that the hunting industry is a rare economic bright spot in the current recession, and called the Front a poster child of this sustainable economic engine. "The remarkable thing we are seeing here is stability," said Randy Newberg, an accountant and host of the hunting television series "On Your Own Adventures." "The numbers along the Front show public land hunting has not been as susceptible to the broader economic challenges facing other industries during the recent recession," he said.

The coalition cited five years of hunting data collected by FWP regarding hunting on the Front. The numbers say that during 2006, sportsmen hunting along the Front spent $9.8 million; which grew to $10.4 million in 2008 ˜ in the middle of the recession; and fell slightly in 2010, to $10.1 million. "Hunting is annually renewable," said Stoney Burke of Choteau. "It is not boom and bust. It is a huge economic stimulus for these little communities along the Front."

Makes sense to me, and I'd be willing to bet the same economic argument could be made about any number of conservation programs that are in very real danger of being eliminated under the guise of deficit reduction. Your thoughts?

 

Comments (4)

Top Rated
All Comments
from aferraro wrote 2 years 37 weeks ago

We need to support habitat preservation for many other reasons, but hunting and fishing will never equal the economic impact as development. The economic agruement for conservation is pretty weak. 10 million dollars is nothing (US GDP is 13.5 trillion)? One oilwell, or a single Walmart store will product more economic activity. Nothing is recesson proof, some industries just suffer less than others.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from baconboy206 wrote 2 years 37 weeks ago

while im glad that the industry is doing well, we need to focus on other issues as to why areas need to be protected,10 million nothing , the grocery store i work at does 60-70 million in business every year, 1 or two housing developments would be far more than that, no special interest group wanting to harm our wildlands or any politician will be impressed with 10 million, trying to find big money with money is pointless, its better to focus on winning over the public and convincing other americans that these areas need to be preserved

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 37 weeks ago

baconboy..couldn't disagree with you more. The public is not going to buy "set aside this land" to protect anymore, especially after going through the economic catastrophe we are experiencing.
Slick Willy made the statement that "we can have a good environment, and a good economy as well, and the environmental left had better understand the necessity of including the good economy. Right now we have more than our share of "obstructionist" environmentalism, and that is going to get canned more, and more as we struggle to survive economically. The left had better wake up, and put man at the top of the food chain.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from hutter wrote 2 years 37 weeks ago

I hate to disagree with the experts but I hunted Montana for years and as soon as they more than doubled their tag fees a year or two ago I bailed. I'm a hard working man and have to save and work odd jobs to support my habit but twice the price is not twice the fun. I guess only the richer than me and TV Show hosts can afford to "Hunt Montana". I took my money and went to North Dakota where the everyman can afford to still have a hunt!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from baconboy206 wrote 2 years 37 weeks ago

while im glad that the industry is doing well, we need to focus on other issues as to why areas need to be protected,10 million nothing , the grocery store i work at does 60-70 million in business every year, 1 or two housing developments would be far more than that, no special interest group wanting to harm our wildlands or any politician will be impressed with 10 million, trying to find big money with money is pointless, its better to focus on winning over the public and convincing other americans that these areas need to be preserved

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from hutter wrote 2 years 37 weeks ago

I hate to disagree with the experts but I hunted Montana for years and as soon as they more than doubled their tag fees a year or two ago I bailed. I'm a hard working man and have to save and work odd jobs to support my habit but twice the price is not twice the fun. I guess only the richer than me and TV Show hosts can afford to "Hunt Montana". I took my money and went to North Dakota where the everyman can afford to still have a hunt!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 37 weeks ago

baconboy..couldn't disagree with you more. The public is not going to buy "set aside this land" to protect anymore, especially after going through the economic catastrophe we are experiencing.
Slick Willy made the statement that "we can have a good environment, and a good economy as well, and the environmental left had better understand the necessity of including the good economy. Right now we have more than our share of "obstructionist" environmentalism, and that is going to get canned more, and more as we struggle to survive economically. The left had better wake up, and put man at the top of the food chain.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from aferraro wrote 2 years 37 weeks ago

We need to support habitat preservation for many other reasons, but hunting and fishing will never equal the economic impact as development. The economic agruement for conservation is pretty weak. 10 million dollars is nothing (US GDP is 13.5 trillion)? One oilwell, or a single Walmart store will product more economic activity. Nothing is recesson proof, some industries just suffer less than others.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

bmxbiz-fs