The major expense is for gas to drive to
good birding spots.

Although I don't know how the "wildlife watching" economic impact
statistics are computed, I really wonder about Kelly's description of
the "average" birding trip to a place like the Skagit. Clarice and I
go there a lot (probably 10 times a winter, anyway) from Puyallup.
Our trips always involve an overnight stay, and at least 6 meals (two
people times dinner, breakie, and lunch). Gas is not a major part of
the expenses we incur on birding trips. We also go on a lot of out of
state trips, using airlines, hotels, etc., and sometimes employ
guides. In fact, my two favorite excuses for going on a trip to an
exotic location are scuba diving and birding. The amount we end up
pumping in to the overall economy in one trip to Peru takes care of a
whole raft of Kelly's "average" birding trips. Also, we bought a
4-wheel drive Subaru and tent trailer, in a very large part because
of birding-- does that count?

Also, what is wrong with including bird seed sales-- considering that
surely most people feed birds in order to watch them?

>
> 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.

Probably the economic impact of birding is proportional to the
resources used, just as with everything else. My airplane ticket to
Peru example, for instance. In short, the statistics may just be
telling us that birding is NOT a low-impact, low-resource method of
entertainment. Possible?


Jerry Broadus
P.O. Box 249
Puyallup, WA. 98371