The Economic Impact of
Hunters in Sutton County
Hunting is an important part of Texas culture and the Texas economy. The opportunity
to enjoy nature and wildlife, spend time with family and friends, and perhaps harvest a
trophy animal attracts hunters from across the state and US to rural counties in particular.
These hunters spend money on hunting fees, food, lodging, gasoline, retail purchases, and
other expenditures.
Sutton County welcomes hunters by hosting the Sonora Game Dinner. Approximately
1,500 people attended the 44th annual dinner in 2010. About 80% of dinner attendees were
non-local (not residents of Sutton County). Expenditures by non-locals are new money in
the county economy. The new money introduced to the local economy generates an
economic impact in the county. Event organizers surveyed a sample of the non-local
attendees about their hunting habits and expenditures. Half of respondents reported
Sutton County as their primary hunting destination, about the same share as in 2005. 1
However, hunters may still spend money in the county even if they do not hunt there.
Table 1. Average spending non-local hunters in Sutton County.
Category
Hunt fees
Food service
Auto expenses
Lodging
Retail
Miscellaneous items
Sutton County Total
Overall Total
% of spending in Sutton County
Spending by All Non-Local
Hunters at Game Dinner
$900.21
$47.70
$245.33
$77.37
$22.37
$220.28
$1,513.27
$1,803.47
Spending by Non-Locals
Hunting in Sutton County
$553.33
$79.80
$155.10
$1.18
$40.00
$427.60
$1,257.01
$1,721.09
83.9%
73.0%
Table 1 shows the average reported spending of
hunters in Sutton County. The average visiting hunter reported
spending $1.513.27 annually in Sutton County and spent an
additional $290.21 outside Sutton County, for a total average
annual hunting expenditure of $1,803.47. 2 The largest
expenditure was for hunting fees, which averaged $900.21
per hunter. This fee average was skewed by a few very large
fees, which likely included leases. Spending in the county was
Jason Johnson, Texas AgriLife Extension Service, 2005.
While the spending total is likely accurate, the spending reported for Sutton County by visitors who hunted
exclusively in other counties is likely a result of wording asking how much was spent “in this county”, not “in Sutton
County”. Respondents seemed to indicate their spending in the county in which they hunted, as evidenced by
high hunt fees (mostly leases). An exception would be fees paid to a landowner or guide residing in Sutton County
for land or services in another county.
1
2
$528.53 lower among respondents hunting in Sutton County as compared to game dinner
respondents who reported other hunting destinations. One reason may be substantially
larger travel parties among Sutton County hunters, allowing hunters to divide expenses.
However, direct spending by hunters is not the only benefit to the local economy. A
hunter’s direct expenditure at a local store, café, or hotel is multiplied as firms purchase
inputs (indirect effect) and pay employees who also make regional purchases (induced
effect). The total effect on employment, labor income, value added (contribution to gross
regional product), and output in the county is greater than the initial dollar spent. Of
course, some of the original expenditure leaks out of the regional economy, for example as
inventory is imported from other regions, employees commute from other regions, and
businesses and households pay state and federal taxes.
Table 2. Economic Impact of Non-Local Hunters to the Sutton County Economy.
Employment
Direct Effect
Total Effect
12.7
17.2
Labor Income
$352,900
$481,000
Value Added
$578,100
$869,300
Output
$1,815,900
$2,284,100
Hunting by non-local game dinner attendees alone contributed 12.7 direct full- and
part-time jobs and $1,815,900 in gross sales (output) in Sutton County (Table 2). Using the
IMPLAN modeling system (Minnesota IMPLAN Group, 2010, Hudson, WI), these visiting
hunters expenditures resulted in 17.2 jobs across the entire economy. The $2,284,100 in gross
sales generated across the economy included an $869,300 impact on gross regional
product (value added) and $481,000 in labor income. Labor income is a subset of value
added, which is part of output, so these figures cannot be summed.
Of course, these figures represent only the economic contributions of non-local hunters
attending the game dinner. Hunting expenditures and economic contributions by all
hunters over the year are likely larger. The average non-local hunter reported hunting 20.1
days over the year. Hunters in Sutton County hunted 22.1 days in 2010, down from 25.7 in
2005. Hunters with other destination counties reported hunting 17.9 days, down from 30.3 in
2005.
Most survey respondents (52.9%) leased hunting land, 38.2% owned their hunting land,
26.5% hunted as a guest or family member, and 5.9% hunted public lands. Within Sutton
County, 58.8% leased land in 2010, compared to 37.5% in 2005, and 35.3% owned land, up
from 20.0% in 2005. The share of hunters who were invited guests in Sutton County was
17.6%, down from 42.5% in 2005.
The average hunting party included 6.6 people. Among Sutton County hunters, the
travel party averaged 8.5 people, up from 5.8 five years ago. Travel party size averaged 4.5
people for hunters with other destinations. The average survey respondent traveled 231.4
miles to attend the game dinner. The most popular reason for hunting in Sutton County was
spending time with family and friends (76.5% of survey respondents), a fairly stable result
from 80% in 2005. Enjoying the rural atmosphere (41.2%) and seeing vast quantities of
wildlife (35.3%) were less popular reasons for hunting than in 2005. The opportunity to
harvest a trophy animal was an important consideration for 41.2% of respondents, a stable
result.
Rebekka Dudensing and Pascual Hernandez
CED11-08
June 2011