|
Post by 956dna on Jan 12, 2024 8:20:47 GMT -6
Ecotourism brings $400 million into the Rio Grande Valley every year....... where do y'all think most of that is spent? That's why I refer to them as assets.
|
|
|
Post by 956dna on Jan 12, 2024 8:31:33 GMT -6
Wildlife-associated recreational activities generate billions of $ for Texas, and Cameron County is a Mecca for these activities. Again, y'all have your assets, and we have ours.
|
|
|
Post by Minion on Jan 12, 2024 8:43:16 GMT -6
You were saying?
Santa Ana Wildlife Refuge Butterfly Center Bentsen State Park Anzalduas Park McAllen Nature Center Quinta Mazatlan and World Birding Center Sal de Rey Estero Llano Grande State Park Old Hidalgo Pumphouse Museum and World Birding Center The Edinburg Wetlands and World Birding Center
|
|
|
Post by Minion on Jan 12, 2024 8:46:24 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by 956dna on Jan 12, 2024 9:51:20 GMT -6
Without a doubt $ will be spent in Hidalgo County at the larger State and National Wildlife Refuge Parks, but just like y'all have the larger commercial developments with more options (restaurants, dining, entertainment) that attract more people, when it comes to ecotourism we have the leverage with our overwhelming assets/options (fishing, hunting, kayaking, Surfing, Kite Boarding, SUP) situated in one area, not spread out throughout your county. The whole reason Quinta Mazatlan is being expanded is because the city of McAllen - and specifically Jim Darling - realized they needed to come up with a plan to counter not only what other cities in their county have, but to counter the overwhelming assets of Cameron County. They held meetings about this with all the stakeholders participating (including the MEDC) as it was in the local newspapers. McAllen is trying, but there's only s much they can do now. The majority of ecotourists that come to RGV will stay on SPI and travel to Hidalgo County for day trips.
The 22,000 acre Bahia Grande unit of the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge - with it's unique features found nowhere else in the RGV (salt water lakes, wetlands, marshes. sand dunes, lomas) - has more acreage than all of Hidalgo County's city parks, State/National parks and Lower RGV tracts combined, and its not even close.
|
|
|
Post by 956dna on Jan 12, 2024 10:07:26 GMT -6
Ecotourism brings $400 million into the Rio Grande Valley every year....... where do y'all think most of that is spent? That's why I refer to them as assets. That $$ can't be right. HC Ecotourism brings in over $300M to HCC alone(in 2022) per this article www.borderreport.com/news/top-stories/south-texas-leaders-push-locals-to-engage-in-ecotourism/Yeah there's no way that figure is accurate. I'd like to see their source. Well now the race is on to find the most accurate data - let's go!
|
|
|
Post by 956dna on Jan 12, 2024 10:23:09 GMT -6
Texas A&M released a report in 2012 based off of 2010 numbers...... now 14 years old. Im still combing through the rest of the report. texasbirding.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/STNMC-Final-report-4-16-12.pdf"Expenditures reported among intentional nature tourists appear valid relative to Texas travel report spending estimates. Expenditures per person-day in 2010 averaged $79.80 for the McAllen- Edinburg-Pharr MSA (Hidalgo County) and $111.50 for the Brownsville-Harlingen MSA (Cameron County)."
|
|
|
Post by 956dna on Jan 12, 2024 10:28:44 GMT -6
"The D.K. Shifflet & Associates (2011) report for the Texas Office of the Governor (Economic Development and Tourism Division) estimates that 10.01 million leisure person-days occurred in the McAllen-Edinburg-Pharr (4.09 million) and Brownsville-Harlingen (5.92 million) MSAs in 2010. The report indicates that 23.5% of visitors experienced nature tourism in McAllen and 23.3% of visitors in Brownsville did so. Nature tourism, as defined by this project, includes the categories nature/culture observation, park attendance, camping, and hiking/biking from the D.K Shifflet reports. Visitors may select more than one activity during their vacations; however, the percentages are consistent with total nature tourism shares as aggregated by the tourism division. Those tourism division shares include visiting beaches, which is likely to include a large amount of non-nature tourism activities, especially near Brownsville and South Padre Island. Because it does not reflect observational nature tourism, beach- going was excluded as a nature tourism activity for this study. Only leisure visitors are considered in this study to account only for intentional nature tourism person-days, which are"estimated at 2.34 million annually across the region, based on total leisure person-days and the share of nature tourism stays.
Almost 2 million more days were spent in Cameron County vs. Hidalgo County....... in 2010. And this number doesn't take into account people visiting SPI, or hunting, fishing, outdoor/water recreational activities in Cameron County. If that $300 million dollar # for Hidalgo County is correct, I can only imagine how much the Cameron County portion has swelled up to be. Now throw in SpaceX tourism.
|
|
|
Post by Minion on Jan 12, 2024 11:06:09 GMT -6
"The D.K. Shifflet & Associates (2011) report for the Texas Office of the Governor (Economic Development and Tourism Division) estimates that 10.01 million leisure person-days occurred in the McAllen-Edinburg-Pharr (4.09 million) and Brownsville-Harlingen (5.92 million) MSAs in 2010. The report indicates that 23.5% of visitors experienced nature tourism in McAllen and 23.3% of visitors in Brownsville did so. Nature tourism, as defined by this project, includes the categories nature/culture observation, park attendance, camping, and hiking/biking from the D.K Shifflet reports. Visitors may select more than one activity during their vacations; however, the percentages are consistent with total nature tourism shares as aggregated by the tourism division. Those tourism division shares include visiting beaches, which is likely to include a large amount of non-nature tourism activities, especially near Brownsville and South Padre Island. Because it does not reflect observational nature tourism, beach- going was excluded as a nature tourism activity for this study. Only leisure visitors are considered in this study to account only for intentional nature tourism person-days, which are"estimated at 2.34 million annually across the region, based on total leisure person-days and the share of nature tourism stays.Almost 2 million more days were spent in Cameron County vs. Hidalgo County....... in 2010. And this number doesn't take into account people visiting SPI, or hunting, fishing, outdoor/water recreational activities in Cameron County. If that $300 million dollar # for Hidalgo County is correct, I can only imagine how much the Cameron County portion has swelled up to be. Now throw in SpaceX tourism. You can't compare the two counties on tourism. It's no contest. But yet, the same percentage amount of visitors to both counties did nature tourism ---- but hIdAlGo has nothing to offer. Wah wah.
|
|
|
Post by Minion on Jan 12, 2024 11:06:59 GMT -6
Texas A&M released a report in 2012 based off of 2010 numbers...... now 14 years old. Im still combing through the rest of the report. texasbirding.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/STNMC-Final-report-4-16-12.pdf"Expenditures reported among intentional nature tourists appear valid relative to Texas travel report spending estimates. Expenditures per person-day in 2010 averaged $79.80 for the McAllen- Edinburg-Pharr MSA (Hidalgo County) and $111.50 for the Brownsville-Harlingen MSA (Cameron County)." Most of our nature offerings are free or cheaper? lol
|
|