By National Shooting Sports Foundation
National Shooting Sports Foundation’s “Hunting in America” and “Target Shooting in America” reports reveal the broad impact that spending by hunters and target shooters have on America’s economy. Now, responding to demand for a combined report, NSSF has issued “Economic Impact of Hunting and Target Shooting in America,” showing, among other significant statistics, that spending by America’s sportsmen and women results in a total impact of $110 billion annually to the U.S. economy.
America’s hunters and target shooters create one giant economic engine whose hum can be felt throughout our country and by businesses of all sizes.
The report contains some surprising findings and interesting comparisons. The more than 866,000 jobs supported by hunting and target shooting would rank as the seventh largest employer in the world, ahead of IBM or McDonald’s. And the $48 billion in retail sales exceed those of Fortune 100 Companies like Coca-Cola, Federal Express or Disney.
Given that taxes were on everyone’s mind recently, it’s notable that expenditures by hunters and target shooters result in combined state, local and federal taxes of more than $15 billion, an annual collection that would pay more than 336,000 firefighters.
The report includes a state-by-state breakdown of the economic contributions from combined hunting and target shooting activities. Leading the pack is Texas whose hunters and shooters generate $5.1 billion in economic activity, followed by Michigan and New York at $4.6 billion and Wisconsin at $4.2 billion. Even tiny Rhode Island’s economy benefits to the tune of more than $109 million.
These impressive economic numbers show that the popularity of target shooting and hunting are good for industry and good for America.
The “Economic Impact of Hunting and Target Shooting in America” report, as well as the individual “Hunting in America” and “Target Shooting in America” reports, are available at nssf.org/research.
“Hunting in America” was a joint effort of NSSF and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. The findings in both reports are based on spending activity from 2011.
