Subject: Re: Economic impact of birding
Date: Nov 02 18:19:57 1998
From: osprey at nwinfo.net - osprey at nwinfo.net
Kelly,
I think that you have under-estimated birders' financial contributions to
the local economies in which they bird. Living in Eastern Washington, I
travel to Western Washington at least four times a year for a weekend of
birding.
My first trip to LaConner was in the company of a new lady-friend. We spent
two nights at a B&B - $170; ate dinner out two nights - about $75; lucnches,
snacks, coffee, etc. - $30; gas - $20. I can't remember if we spent
anything on keepable items. So we added to the economy of Skagit County
about $295. That is just one couple for one weekend. We ran into quite a
few birders during the weekend some of whom must have been from far enough
out of town to need a motel and food for the weekend. LaConner is a small
place but if you figure how many other towns hosted birders that weekend in
Washington, or that month, or that year, we birders have added a substantial
amount of cash to each of the local economies. I personally keep nearly all
of the mini-marts in business just from the diet sodas that I buy in a weekend.
Denny Granstrand
Yakima, WA
At 03:18 PM 11/2/98 -0800, you wrote:
>Birders occasionally tout the economic impact of birding as a way of making
>friends and influencing politicians. I am skeptical that birders have much
>of an economic impact, and even more skeptical that having an economic
>impact is a desirable thing.
>
> Picture the average day visitor to the La Conner area during the Tulip
>festival period in spring. A nice family activity, so let's bring along the
>two kids. Mom, dad, and the kids tootle up to La Conner in the minivan.
>They stop at a tulip farm, buy a couple of lattes and couple of hot
>chocolates for the kids ($8), admire the tulips, and purchase a bunch of
>bulbs, for an average of (wild guess, here), say $30. By now, the kids are
>getting bored and cranky, and mom and dad want to get more out of an 80-mile
>drive than a bunch of bulbs, so they head for La Conner. They eat lunch
>($25), buy the kids a couple of T-shirts ($20), buy a picture of tulips or
>some other trinket ($15), and a couple of ice cream cones for the kids, who
>are getting really whiny by now ($3). They head back home, having spent
>roughly $100 in and around La Conner.
>
>Contrast that with the average day birding trip to see the birds wintering
>in the tulip fields. The average birder is at the age where the kids have
>been shown the door and maybe the income is fixed. Mr. Birder frugally
>gasses up his 10-year old cheap sedan before leaving Seattle, knowing gas
>will be more expensive in boonies. He packs a lunch and a thermos of
>coffee, since he never knows where he'll be around lunch time. Mr. Birder
>drives into La Conner, feeling the urge to use the restroom after all that
>coffee. He finds a gas station and buys a cup of coffee ($0.70), so as not
>to feel guilty about using the restroom. Oh, what the heck, he's a
>Seattlite; he'll buy a latte and one of those donuts instead ($2.50).
>After a leisurely day of scanning the fields and blocking traffic on narrow
>roads in the Skagit Flats, he makes another pit-stop in La Conner, and picks
>up a Coke and bag of Doritos ($1.50). He's spent about $4.00 in and around
>La Conner.
>
> Question: Which tourists would you want if you were a La Conner
>businessman?
>
> Aha, you say, what about those expensive binoculars and that spotting
>scope? That's a major economic outlay. Let's say the average birder owns a
>$300 pair of binoculars and a $400 scope. Assuming the birder (unlike this
>birder) avoids dropping the binos into too many creeks or down too many
>rocky slopes, the binoculars probably get used for 10 years and the scope
>for maybe 20 years. On an annual basis, that's about $50 for the optics.
>Birders eventually feel the need to acquire every useful field guide, so
>maybe Mr. Birder buys 3 or 4 books a year, too ($100); maybe he's a real
>fanatic and has a membership in WOS ($20/year).
>
> Compared to the typical trip to the local mall by the average teenager,
>an outing to a professional football game, or even to the video store for
>two or three movies per week, birding does not seem like a hobby that pumps
>a lot of money into the economy. The major expense is for gas to drive to
>good birding spots. The "wildlife watching" statistics evidently include
>anyone who buys bird seed. Bird feeding has the intangible benefit of
>making people aware of wildlife, but, on the whole, it's probably
>detrimental to native birds, and most birders don't consider it "birding,"
>anyway.
>
> The other thing about those statistics that bugs me is the idea that
>birding *should* have a big economic impact. As a quick and dirty rule
>(with lots of qualifications), economic outlay is roughly proportional to
>resources used. Birding is generally a low-impact, low-resource method of
>entertainment.
>
> As it should be!
>
> Kelly Cassidy
>
>
>
>
osprey at nwinfo dot net