ABSTRACT
IDENTIFICATION OF THE SELWAY-BITTERROOT
WILDERNESS AIRPLANE ACCESS USERS IN

COMPARISON WITH CONVENTIONAL
ACCESS USERS

BY

MaryAlice Taylor Stoner

This study dealt with identifying the visitors to
the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness who used an aircraft to
gain access to the Wilderness at Moose Creek Ranger Station
and airstrip. In addition, these visitors were compared
with visitors who gained access to the Wilderness by more
conventional means at other trailheads.

This was a secondary analysis of a U.S. Forest
Service questionnaire survey conducted during the summer
and fall use seasons of 1971 in the Selway-Bitterroot
Wilderness.

The results of the study indicate that the Moose
Creek visitors fall into two distinct groups: those who
engaged the services of a professional outfitter and those
who chose not to be outfitted. In addition, both Moose
Creek user groups varied from users who gained access to

the Selway-Bitterroot by more conventional means of travel.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE SELWAY-BITTERROOT
WILDERNESS AIRPLANE ACCESS USERS IN
COMPARISON WITH CONVENTIONAL

ACCESS USERS

BY

MaryAlice Taylor Stoner

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Park and Recreation Resources

1976

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank my advisor, Dr. Lewis Moncrief,
and the members of my graduate committee, Professor Louis

Twardzik, Mr. Paul Risk, and Dr. James Kielbaso for their

assistance.

Special recognition is due to Dr. George H.

Stankey whose assistance and advice throughout the study

was invaluable.

Thanks also to Dr. Bob Lucas and Dr. Mike Chubb

for their contributions to the study.

Finally, I wish to thank my understanding husband,

Doug, for all his patient editing.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

LIST OF MAPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
III. THE STUDY AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
IV. THE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

V. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
APPENDIX
I I SAMPLE DESIGN 0 O O O O C O O O O C O O O O O 80

II. BASELINE STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . 90

iii

LIST OF MAPS

Map Page
1. Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness . . . . . . . . . . 29
2. Moose Creek Ranger Station and Airstrip . . . . . 30

iv

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

LIST OF TABLES

Distribution (in percent) of Users'
Occupations . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Distribution (in percent) of Users'
Incomes O O O O I O O O O O O O O O 0

Distribution (in percent) of Users'
Residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Distribution (in percent) of Travel
Expenses O O O O C C O O O O C O O O 0

Distribution (in percent) of Other
Expenses O O O O O O I O O O O O O O 0

Seasonal Use Distribution (in percent) .

Distribution (in percent) of Moose Creek
Users by Season . . . . . . . . . . .

Party Size Distribution (in percent) . .

Distribution (in percent) of Types of
Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number of Nights Stayed (in percent) . .

Distribution (in percent) of Distance
Traveled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Frequency (in percent) of Reasons for
the Trip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Distribution (in percent) of User Ratings

of the Trip . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Frequency (in percent) of Reasons Cited
for Satisfaction with the Trip . . . .

Distribution (in percent) of Educational
Attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page

34

35

37

39

41

42

43

44

46

47

49

51

53

54

55

Table Page
16. Age Distribution (in percent) of Users . . . . . 57

17. Distribution (in percent) of Male and
Female Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

18. Importance of Wilderness to Users
(in percent) 0 O O O O O O O O O I O O O C O O 59

19. Frequency (in percent) of Participation
in ACtiVities O O C O O O C O O O O O C O O O 61

20. Percentage of Users Who Fished . . . . . . . . . 62
21. Percentage of Users Who Rode Horses . . . . . . 63
22. Percentage of Users Who Hunted . . . . . . . . . 64
23. Percentage of Users Who Hiked . . . . . . . . . 65
24. Percentage of Users Who Took Pictures . . . . . 66
25. Percentage of Users Who Studied Nature . . . . . 67

26. Percentage of Users Who Swam . . . . . . . . . . 68

vi

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

At this point in the evolution of the American
society, it is considered prudent to protect undeveloped
areas of the country. The Wilderness Act of 1964 estab-
lished such areas
in order to assure that an increasing population,
accompanied by expanding settlement and growing
mechanization does not modify and occupy all areas
within the United States . . . leaving no lands
designated for preservation and protection in their
natural condition.

It was enacted by Congress "to secure for the American

people of present and future generations the benefits of

an enduring resource."2

However, the intent of the Act, and reality often
are not in complete accord due to the political compro-
mises common to the democratic process. Because of such
compromises, provisions for certain non-wilderness uses

already established in the areas being designated as

wilderness were incorporated into the Act.

 

1Stewart M. Brandborg, A Handbook on the Wilderness
Act (Washington, D.C.: The Wilderness Society, n.d.), P. l.

2

 

Ibid.

The Act states

Within wilderness areas designated by this Act the

use of aircraft or motorboats, where these uses have

already become established, may be permitted to con-

tinue subject to such restrictions as the Secretary

of Agriculture deems desirable.l
Additionally, the Act provided for mining, water resources,
grazing, outfitting, and ownership of private and state
lands.

The major issue raised by the presence of such
uses is not one of legality, but one of appropriateness.
These uses are legally allowable exceptions to the intent
of wilderness legislation which the Secretary of Agricul-
ture may allow to continue. However, these uses are also
non-conforming with the basic purpose of preserving areas
in a natural and unmechanized state.

One of the more conspicuous inconsistent uses is
that of aircraft. The issue of aircraft in wilderness is
not an easy one to deal with. The fact that the aircraft
use meets legal sanctions does not necessarily justify
its existence. There are many factors which affect
decisions regarding aircraft and the wilderness airstrips
which are available to them.

These factors affect at least three categories of
people: (1) the aircraft user; (2) the other wilderness

users; and (3) the vicarious user. Some basic considera-

tions of the first group include safety and maintenance

 

lIbid., p. 5.

factors of the facilities for aircraft, the range of
opportunities, and the availability of alternative oppor-
tunities for the same activity.

The importance of the effect of aircraft activity
on other users in the wilderness must not be overlooked.
The intrusion of mechanization in their wilderness experi-
ence, the crowding factors in an otherwise remote area,
and the knowledge that aircraft users can attain the same
destination often with little effort as compared to the
person arriving by more conventional means of travel may
negatively alter the wilderness experience. For instance,
in Cooke's study of Kings Canyon National Park,

the component of accessability was found a major per-
ceived component of wilderness. Increasing distance
into the study area enhances the quality of wilderness
perceived. It is perceived as important because of
the difficulty of travel, the increased degree of
isolation possible, and the decreasing signs of over-
use and crowding of the landscape.

The third group of people to be considered is that
of persons who derive benefits from simply knowing that the
wilderness exists, but who will most likely never visit it
themselves. It is quite possible that they would perceive
the value of such an area differently if it is totally

free of mechanization than when aircraft intrude on the

solitude and naturalness of the wilderness.

 

lDouglas Bryan Cooke, The Perceived Environment of
Wilderness in Kings Canyon National Park (unpublished
Masters Thesis, University of Cincinnati, 1971). P. 77.

 

 

It is necessary for administrators to be cognizant
of these factors when determining whether to allow aircraft
use to continue in its present state, to modify it, or to
eliminate such use altogether. Administrators also need
to consider the user characteristics, motivations and
attitudes in order to arrive at a decision which most
nearly satisfies the users needs and desires.

This study primarily deals with the aircraft user,
his identity, and his reasons for participating in such
use, as compared to persons arriving in the same wilder-
ness by more conventional means of access.

Rising recreational demands on wilderness tend to
create increased conflicts with regard to management and
uses of wilderness. Some of the conflicts arise from the
varying concepts of wilderness among different individuals
and groups, some from economic interests incompatible with
wilderness philosophy, and some due to inconsistent uses
established prior to wilderness classification. The latter
group of conflicts is especially important with regard to
such areas as Moose Creek Ranger Station and airstrip in
the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. For many wilderness
users, the vast areas of economically undeveloped land,
free from the influences of the modern mechanized civili-
zation, serve as a refreshing change from the pressures of

their work-a-day world. The intrusion of motorized

vehicles, such as airplanes at Moose Creek, can create an
infringement on their wilderness experience.

As early as 1946, comments were being made regarding
the effects of air use in backcountry areas. John Sieker
noted

there must be places where those who desire it can
still have the fun of travelling only 10 or 20 miles
a day along a quiet traillwithout breathing dust,
gas fumes, or jet blasts.
Coffman summed up the feelings of many wilderness users
when he stated
airplanes as modes of travel within [backcountry
areas] are destructive of the atmosphere of remote-
ness, serenity, and peace, wherein lies the value of
these areas for inspiration, recreation and relaxation.
The opposite point of view was also expressed by Sieker
when he observed that
without commitment as to policy and practice, we can
visualize situations where it might be less harmful
to a given wilderness to have an airfield from which
wilderness parties would radiate than to have pack
strings bringing people in and then overgrazing the
mountain meadows.
Presently the public is reviewing the Selway-Bitterroot

Management plan. Among other items, the use of Moose

Creek Ranger Station and airstrip is being reviewed by the

 

1John Sieker, "Aircraft and Forest Recreation,"
Journal of Forestry 44 (1946), p. 890.

2John D. Coffman, "The Airplane Problem as it
Relates to the National Park System," Proceedings of
American Foresters Meeting, 1946, p. 107.

3John Sieker, "Airplanes and National Forest
Wilderness," Proceedings of American Foresters Meeting,
1948, p. 105.

 

 

 

 

Forest Service to determine the suitability of the air-
strip in the wilderness and assess the options open for
future administrative policy regarding the facilities.
While existing prior to wilderness classification, Moose
Creek fosters the conflicting use of aircraft in wilder-
ness. In addition, it appears to be attracting heavier
use in spite of or perhaps because of the primitive nature
of the facilities for aircraft. Such increases in the use
may be a significant factor in any decision regarding the
future use of Moose Creek. Other factors, such as visitor
attitudes, preferences, and characteristics; resource
capabilities; wilderness values and philosophy; and public
opinion also should be taken into consideration when making
such a decision.

A number of management options for Moose Creek
Ranger Station and airstrip are available to the Forest
Service. The major options are:

1. Remove all uses of Moose Creek, destroy the
existing facilities and allow the land to revert
back to wildland;

2. Remove all air use from Moose Creek, allow the
airstrip to revert back to wildland;

3. Limit the airstrip use to official Forest Service
purposes such as administration, fire control,
maintenance;

4. Limit the amount of visitor use of the airstrip;

5. Maintain the facilities in their present status;
or

6. Update and enlarge the existing facilities,
improve the communications system.

Because of the increases in use each year and the
type and condition of the facilities, it is doubtful that
the airstrip can be maintained in its present status over
a long period of time. "Because of increased traffic it
will be increasingly more difficult to maintain the sur—
face at Moose Creek."l Safety problems will increase as
the number of flights increase and as the number of inex-

2 Because of these and other

perienced pilots increases."
reasons it simply does not seem possible for Moose Creek
to remain the same. The choice then becomes one of
development to handle the increased use, or limitations to
preserve the wilderness character of the area. Therefore,
a decision will have to be made to either increase the
capability of the facility to handle visitor use, or to
limit the amount and/or type of uses allowed. Essentially,
the Forest Service will have to choose between accommo-

dating the increasing recreational demands of a segment of

the public (an anthropocentric approach) or managing the

 

lU.S. Forest Service, "Selway-Bitterroot Wilder-
ness Management Plan," Missoula, Montana, 1975, p. 26.
(Mimeographed)

21bid.

wilderness as a resource of which recreation is one of
many factors (a biocentric approach).1
A major question to be dealt with by administrators

is "Does the airstrip serve as a wilderness entry point or
as an intrusion in the heart of the wilderness?" It is
hypothesized that:

Visitors who enter the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness

by flying into Moose Creek airstrip view it as a

destination rather than as a wilderness access point.
That is, their reasons for flying to Moose Creek relate to
the existence of the airstrip rather than to the wilderness.

It is further hypothesized that:

Moose Creek is serving a different public than are
the other sampled wilderness access points.

That is, visitors entering the Selway-Bitterroot by flying
into Moose Creek exhibit significant variation in their
characteristics, activities, and motivations from visitors
entering the wilderness at other sampled access points.

By investigating the reasons expressed by the
visitors for going to Moose Creek and the activities they
engage in during their visit, some insight into the
attraction of Moose Creek airstrip should be gained. In
addition, the factors motivating visitor use at Moose

Creek will be looked at to determine if the benefits

 

1For a discussion of the anthropocentric and bio-
centric approaches to management of wilderness, see John C.
Hendee and George H. Stankey, "Biocentricity in Wilder-
ness Management," BioScience 23 (9): September, 1973, pp.
535-538.

 

derived by visitors are dependent upon a wilderness loca-
tion or if they can be fulfilled by facilities provided
outside a wilderness.

This involves the concept of substitutability.
Substitutability "refers to the interchangeability of
recreation activities in satisfying participant's motives,
needs, and preferences."1 For example, if a beach is too
crowded, a group may picnic instead. However, it appears
that certain desires and needs cannot be satisfied if
certain activities or facilities are not available. Hendee
and Burdge propose that "activities for which there are no
substitutes tend to be area based such as in wilderness
and natural or historical areas."2 Using this assumption,
if aircraft users are motivated more by the existence of
the airstrip than by the presence of the wilderness, it
appears more suitable that facilities for the activity of
flying to backcountry airstrips be provided outside
wilderness.

The issue of such airstrips is not confined solely
to Moose Creek. It is probable that information regarding
the use of Moose Creek airstrip could be helpful in

determining future use and administration of a number of

 

1John C. Hendee and Rabel J. Burdge, "The Substitu-
tability Concept: Implications for Recreation Research and
Management," Seattle, p. l. (Unpublished Draft) (To be
published in Journal of Leisure Research)

2

 

Ibid., p. 8.

10

other public airstrips located within the boundaries of

wilderness and primitive areas in the Rocky Mountains.

CHAPTER II

METHODOLOGY

During the summer and fall of 1971 (June 20 to
November 26) a U.S. Forest Service study of visitors to
the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness in Montana and Idaho was
conducted by Dr. Robert C. Lucas of the Forestry Sciences
Laboratory, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station, Missoula Montana. Basically, this Baseline Survey
was designed "to determine for wildernesses in the
Northern Rocky Mountains, the nature of recreational use,
major visitor characteristics, experience levels, and key

attitudes."l

Contact with visitors was made through the
use of special registration stations or roadside check
stations and supplemented by personal contact to check for
non-registration. A questionnaire was mailed during the
fall and winter to a cluster sample of the visitors con-
tacted in the field.

This Baseline Survey lends itself well to secondary

analysis. More information was generated than can be

 

1Robert C. Lucas, "A Baseline Survey of Wilderness
Visitors in the Northern Rocky Mountains" (unpublished
project work plan, Missoula, Montana, March 11, 1970),
p. 2.

ll

12

published in the basic study report. The objectives of
the Baseline Survey closely parallel those of this thesis
and the data was aimed directly at some of the concerns
being examined in this thesis, thus reducing the possi-
bility of slippage. In addition, the author was involved
in the Baseline Survey and so is aware of many of the

intuitive factors inherent in the study.

Sample Design

 

The sample design used in the study was a
cluster sample with paired selection of primaries
from unequal-sized clusters, chosen with probability
proportional to size (PPS) and subsampled with prob-
abilities inversely proportional to size.
(Details of this design are included in Appendix I.) The
use of a simple random sample was rejected. To draw a
random sample, all visitors would have to have been con-
tacted, which was impractical in an area such as the
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness.

Sampling with probability proportional to size was
used to adjust for the unequal distribution of trail use.
This is a

standard way of maintaining both roughly equal-sized
clusters and equal probability of selection for all
elements (people, in this case). This is achieved
by selecting clusters with probability proportional
to estimates or measures of size and then subsampling

clusters at a rate inversely proportional to the same
size measures. The estimates of size cancel out, a

 

 

 

lLucas, "A Baseline Survey," p. 6.

l3
constant sampling fraction results, and a self-
weighting sample is produced.
Sampling periods of two week intervals were
established separately for the summer and fall seasons to
allow for fluctuations in use due to the seasonal variation

in visitor activities.

Field Techniques

 

A combination of eight methods was used to con-
tact the visitors. Five of the eight methods were used
at locations on the perimeter of the wilderness, while the
other three were used at Moose Creek airstrip. In every
case, all persons 16 years and older in the party (not
only the party leader) were asked to register. With one
exception involving commercial outfitters, study regis-
tration cards were substituted for the regular Forest
Service registration cards during the sampling period.

The primary method of contact was through the use
of special portable registration stations at trailheads.
These stations were placed on specific trails during
sample periods of three weeks and were moved according to
a pre—determined schedule.

The second method used was the roadside check
station. Two roads were suitable for this method--the
Darby-Elk City Road (Magruder Road) south of the Selway-

Bitterroot, and the Elk Summit Road on Powell Ranger

 

lIbid., p. 7.

14

District at the north end of the wilderness. These roads
lead to a large number of wilderness trailheads with
little non-recreational use, making it very efficient to
simply check all traffic using the two roads. These check
stations were set up periodically at Savage Pass on the
Elk Summit Road, at Watchtower Creek on the east end of
the Darby-Elk City Road, and near the junction of that
road with the Dixie Road at the west end of the road.

Special warning and stop signs were used to stop
exiting vehicles at the check station between about
10:00 a.m. and dusk (about 7:30 p.m.). Nearly all traffic
on the road earlier than 10:00 a.m. was Forest Service
vehicles. Persons leaving the area from a wilderness trip
were asked to fill out a special study registration card.

The third method was personal contact at the
trailheads where the special registration stations were
set up. Entering visitors were contacted following the
opportunity to register. Those who had registered were
not contacted further. Those who had not registered were
asked to fill out a registration card. The field tech-
nician later indicated on the card that the visitors were
non-registrants.

The principal objective of personal contact at the
trailhead was to obtain a sample of non-registrants. Pre-
cautions were taken to avoid making the visitor feel spied

upon, such as positioning the special registration station

15

so that the field technician could observe the station
from a distance and contact the parties casually at a
point far enough up the trail that her presence would not
be obviously connected with the special registration
station.

In the fourth method, visitors entering the Wilder-
ness at Paradise Guard Station were asked to register on
study registration cards by an employee from the Magruder
Ranger District of the Bitterroot National Forest. This
access is a major take-off point for floating the Selway
River, so most of the visitors contacted at Paradise were
rafters or other river users.

Persons who used the services of a commercial out-
fitter were handled a little differently on the Clear-
water National Forest. This Forest requires the outfitters
to furnish the names and addresses of all guests on special
forms. Copies of these forms for the Powell and Lochsa
Ranger Districts on the Clearwater were obtained so these
visitors would not have to repeat the same information on
study registration cards. Persons using an outfitter on
other Districts on the perimeter of the Wilderness were
contacted by the same methods as those not serviced by an
outfitter.

Of the three interior Forest Service access points
(Fish Lake, Shearer, and Moose Creek airstrips), only

Moose Creek was sampled. A slight modification of the

16

study registration station was used as the primary method
of collection at Moose Creek. The stations were erected
at the beginning of the study season and remained up until
November 26, rather than being set up at the beginning of
a sampling period and removed at the end as was the case
at other access points.

Secondly, a supply of study registration cards
was on hand at the Ranger Station, where District personnel
contacted visitors who had not registered at the study
registration stations.

Finally, commercial outfitters based out of Moose
Creek were given a supply of study registration cards and

requested to register all guests.

The Samples

 

Two major samples were drawn from the data col-
lected during the field season. The first was a sample
for the Selway-Bitterroot Baseline Survey. Included in
this was a sample of Moose Creek visitors drawn from
registration cards collected during specific Baseline
Survey sampling periods.

A second sample consisting exclusively of Moose
Creek visitors was drawn, since nearly a 100 percent
registration rate was obtained there by leaving the
registration stations in place for the entire field season.
This was a quarter sample, taken to gain more understanding

of that particular special-use group.

17

Both samples were sent a summer or fall version
of the same questionnaire. This questionnaire was basically
a revised form of that used in the 1969 Pilot Study and
1970 Baseline Survey conducted by Dr. Lucas. (See
Appendix II for copies of the questionnaire.)

The questionnaire was sent on a delayed mailing
schedule with a maximum of four follow—up mailings. These
follow-up mailings went out at about l4-day intervals and

resulted in an overall response rate of 91 percent.

CHAPTER III

THE STUDY AREA

The Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness is the largest
unit in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Its
1,239,840 acres sprawl over parts of two states, Montana
and Idaho, and cover large portions of the watersheds of
three major rivers. Bounded on the north by the Lochsa
River, the Wilderness extends about 50 miles south to the
Magruder Corridor (a narrow strip of unclassified land
separating the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness from the Salmon
River Breaks Primitive Area). The Montana towns of Darby,
Hamilton, Stevensville, Lolo and Missoula are located in
close proximity to the Wilderness, whereas the nearest
Idaho towns, Kooskia, Grangeville, and Elk City are located

a number of miles by road from the area (see map 1).

Physical Setting

 

The majestic Bitterroot Mountain Range dominates a
large portion of the Wilderness, with high, glaciated
peaks, numerous lakes, and beautiful alpine meadows.

Swift creeks tumbling downward cut into the granitic base

of the Idaho Batholith. Elevations range from 10,157 feet

18

19

at Trapper Peak to 1,734 at Race Creek trailhead. Although
the physical setting is rugged and mountainous, "natural
landslides, sheet erosion, and eroding wildlife trails all
attest to the fragility of the area."1

During the summer, temperatures often exceed 100
degrees in the lower valleys. Dry lightning fires become
more frequent in the high country during August, thus
driving the fire danger into the extreme ranges. Winters
are severe, with sub-zero temperatures and large snowfalls.
Normally by mid-November much of the area is inaccessible
because of the weather conditions.

Vegetation varies from the delicate alpine and
subalpine plants to cathedral-like stands of western red
cedar. Numerous wildflowers highlight the meadows and
hillsides while brush such as alder, willows, and red
osier dogwood are often found along streambeds.

Wildlife is plentiful in the area, including non-
game species of bobcat, coyote, fox, marmot, and various
rodents. The availability of game species such as mountain
goats, bighorn sheep, mountain lion, elk, moose, deer and
black bear attracts many hunters, while grouse and other
game birds often provide a fall visitor with a meal.
Grizzly bear inhabited the area until about the 19305 when

the salmon runs apparently declined due to dam construction

 

1Report of the Magruder Corridor Review Committee,
April 17, 1967, p. 21.

20

downstream, thus cutting off one of their primary food
sources. Many birds are sighted also, including osprey,
eagles, swans and various smaller species.

Fishing is considered excellent in the wilderness
lakes and streams. Species include rainbow, golden and
cutthroat trout. The Lochsa and Selway Rivers are clas-
sified under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and provide
numerous opportunities for fishing, scenery, and recreation.
Both rivers serve as spawning grounds for the chinook
salmon and steelhead trout. The Chinook salmon was re-
introduced about 1964 to the Lochsa and Selway following
modifications to allow fish to bypass such barriers as

dams and falls.

Access

Access to most western wildernesses is by trails
originating at roads on the perimeter. The Selway-
Bitterroot Wilderness is unique since not only does a
large trail system with numerous trailheads provide
opportunity for dispersion of visitors, but also, two
alternative forms of access are available--aircraft and
non-motorized boating. A number of airstrips, both public
and private, exist in the wilderness. All of them offer
the challenge of hazardous mountain flying.

The Selway River provides excellent floating and
it is not uncommon for an entire wilderness visit to be

confined to a river journey from Paradise Guard Station to

21

Race Creek trailhead. Boaters also utilize Moose Creek
airstrip as a starting point or destination, because it is
located nearly halfway between Paradise and Race Creek.

The trail system originally was developed in the
19305 and was primarily for fire control access. However,
recreation demands on the system are now much greater than
those of fire control. Most parts of the wilderness can
be reached by trail, although a few areas still are left
without improved routes. There is much variation in the
quality and challenge of the trails, ranging from rugged
and seldom maintained to those which offer little challenge
and are well maintained.

Similarly, the trailheads vary greatly, from a
mere path leading off into the woods, to those with well
developed stock and parking facilities. In general, most
trailheads have some space for parking and limited signs
listing major trail destinations and mileage. In some
places on the Lochsa River, picturesque pack bridges carry
the visitors across the river from the trailhead facility
to the trail.

About half of the wilderness access points are
reached on highways U.S. 12 or U.S. 93. Access to the
remaining trailheads is more difficult since most are
remote. The seasonal roads serving these more distant
trailheads generally are unimproved or graveled, receiving

little or no maintenance other than some downed tree

22

removal and occasional grading. In addition, these trail-
heads are often located at a distance from the Wilderness
boundary, so that entering the Wilderness from them is a
major effort.

Moose Creek Ranger Station
and Airstrip

 

 

Moose Creek Ranger Station and airstrip is located
at the junction of Moose Creek and the Selway River in the
heart of the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. Since the
nearest road is approximately 25 miles downstream, nearly
all the visitors gain access by aircraft. However, some
visitors do arrive via float trips in the early summer or
by foot or stock from one of the many trailheads on the
wilderness perimeter.

Moose Creek serves two major functions: (1) as the
administrative headquarters for the Moose Creek Ranger
District of the Nezperce National Forest, and (2) as a
wilderness access point for the public.

Being the only Forest Service District totally
contained within wilderness boundaries greatly affects the
administrative responsibilities and priorities. Some of
the traditional functions of Districts (such as timber
harvest) are not performed at Moose Creek. The primary
workload of the District involves wilderness adminis-
tration, fire control and recreation. The station normally

is manned from March through December, although visitor

23

use generally is light until much later in the spring and
diminishes soon after hunting season ends.

As an access point, the airstrip serves primarily
three recreational functions: (1) for day use (local hiking
and fishing); (2) as a wilderness entry point (wilderness
rafting, hiking, and hunting); and (3) as a destination
(camping at the airstrip and flying from one backcountry

airstrip to another).

The Physical Setting

 

The physical setting is quite picturesque. Built
in the 19205, the log buildings nestle in the trees at
the east end of the short runway. The station consists of
the District administrative office and attached cookhouse,
two residences, a bunkhouse, a fire cache and a barn.
Stock is maintained at the station for administrative pur—
poses and grazes at night on the airfield. A tractor is
used to mow the airstrip, and propane provides fuel for
the cookstoves and hot water heaters. The station also
has an electric generator which is seldom used (see map 2)-

Construction on the airstrip was begun by the CCC's
in the 19305 with subsequent improvements and enlargements.
Presently there are two runways with no public air to
ground communications, necessitating extra caution and
safety procedures to clear the field. These factors plus
the effect of the surrounding mountains and the hazardous

approaches make Moose Creek a challenging airstrip.

24

Other developments associated with the Ranger
Station and airstrip are camping areas, trails, and
bridges. Moose Creek is a major trail junction, with
large suspension pack bridges at the trail crossings of

the Selway River and Moose Creek.

Development

 

A number of non-wilderness uses were present in
the Selway-Bitterroot prior to classification under the
Wilderness Act of 1964. This act provides protection of
prior-existing facilities and uses, but does not guarantee
their permanence. For example, the Act states

the grazing of livestock, where established prior to
the effective date of this Act shall be permitted to

continue subject to such reasonable regulations as
are deemed necessary by the Secretary of Agriculture.

1
Likewise, similar provisions are made for mining, water
resources, aircraft, motor boats, and private or State
lands within the boundaries. Many such inholdings and
non-wilderness uses occur in the Selway-Bitterroot,
including airstrips, buildings, some private lands, a few
grazing permits and a number of irrigation dams.
Homesteading was undertaken around the turn of the

century, but generally it was not practical because

"proving up on such inaccessible land was extremely

 

1Brandborg, A Handbook, p. 7.

 

25

difficult."l However, some homesteaders maintained their
claim to the land and later turned to dude ranching and
outfitting, which proved to be a more successful venture.
The Wilderness Act provided for the continuation of such
dude ranching and outfitting by stating that

commercial services may be performed within the

wilderness areas designated by this Act to the extent

necessary for activities which are prOper for realizing

the recreational or other wilderness purposes of the

areas.2

Outfitting operations vary from casual outfitting
for an occasional party to major hunting and fishing
excursions. There are a number of options which an out-
fitted party can choose. They range from spot packing,
where a party's gear is packed to a base camp and picked
up again at a pre-arranged time, to a completely outfitted
trip where all but the visitor's personal gear is supplied
and the outfitter also serves as a hunting or fishing
guide.
Outfitters operating on Forest Service land are

required to have a special use permit which normally
specifies their season of use, the campsites they may use

and various rules and regulations they must follow in

relation to use of the area.

 

1Three-forks (unpublished historical account of
the area).

2

 

Brandborg, A Handbook, p. 7.

 

26

The Forest Service gradually has bought out some
of the homesteads and ranches, destroyed the buildings,
and allowed the land to revert back to natural conditions.
Only five ranches still exist on private land within the
Wilderness boundary. These ranches include: the Renshaw
Ranch, an outfitter base; the Seminole Ranch, a private
ranch; Selway Lodge, a dude operation; North Star Ranch,

a private ranch with subsistence farming and outfitting;
and Running Creek Ranch, a retirement place, with some
outfitting. North Star Ranch and Running Creek Ranch are
occupied year-round, and both have grazing permits for
horses and livestock on Forest Service land adjacent to
the ranch property.

All of the ranches use a certain amount of
motorized equipment. Generally, these are limited to
Chainsaws, generators, pumps, a jeep or two and a few
tractors. Running Creek Ranch, Selway Lodge, Seminole
Ranch and North Star Ranch presently have private airstrips
open to public use, as did Moose Creek Ranches prior to
being purchased by the Forest Service in 1967.1

Some other claims on the wilderness resource still
exist. In addition to the ranch grazing permits, there is
a cattle grazing allotment in the Ghost Mountain area. In
the northeast portion of the Wilderness, a number of alter-

nate sections are owned by the Burlington Northern

 

1Per conversation with Bill Holman.

27

Railroad. These sections have had no development. Primi-
tive roads on Big Fog Mountain and at Elk Summit were
closed and gradually are reverting back to natural con-
ditions. Some abandoned cabins are scattered through the
Wilderness so it still is possible to come upon the ruins
of an old shack in the woods off the present trails.

Many streams on the Montana side of the Bitterroot
range are regulated by irrigation dams. Most of these are
earthen dams built in the 19205 and are now maintained by
hand, although in a few instances, motorized equipment has
been used. A few irrigation dams were also constructed on
the Idaho side, but these were abandoned long ago and most
traces have disappeared.

In addition to the private non-wilderness uses of
the area, there are some administrative uses which are not
truly wilderness oriented. Triangulation stations and
State Line border markers are located at various points in
the Wilderness, but generally go unnoticed by visitors.

The Forest Service maintains some lookout facili-
ties in the Selway-Bitterroot. Of these, only a few
normally are manned during fire season, with spot-manning
of others during extreme fire conditions. In the past,
lookouts were posted throughout the area, but air patrols
have reduced this need.

Telephone wires were strung to connect most of the

lookouts and Ranger Stations prior to the development of

28

adequate communications. Presently, some of these phone
lines on the Moose Creek District are maintained and used
to supplement radio operations.

The Forest Service also maintains one Ranger
Station (Moose Creek) and four guard stations (Fish Lake,
Shearer, Horse Camp and Coopers Flat) within the Wilder-
ness boundary. Airstrips are open to the public at Fish
Lake, Shearer and Moose Creek. These airstrips are
hazardous due to such factors as topography, weather
situations, the condition of the landing surface, and
effective density altitude (a combination of temperature,
altitude and humidity). Of the three airstrips, Fish Lake
is considered the most dangerous. At least seven accidents
and a number of fatalities have occurred there, due pri-
marily to poor pilot judgment regarding effective density
altitude.

Use estimates for the three Forest Service air-
strips indicate that Fish Lake receives the least use
with 706 estimated landings in 1972. At Moose Creek "over

1600 flights occurred during the 1972 season."1

 

lU.S. Forest Service, "Management Plan," p. 25.

29

 

     
  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

x, V
.t / ‘
\ogr . 4..
' . ‘3'].
W" i
7 S
‘ In-
P f'. SUI—Elle $-
ufi'fr‘ea 2”“ 7-
/ V0 .) (
/ 9&3 t
/ AFLi‘ée 5,)?
/' ‘1
004 .552 WAY d“ ‘ cc. ,4 1
4o ‘0 “9 \' *L
51 "231007 2 ) HM. ON
0“ czse" :
a
W/wafléfifi : M006E
42:53;
9‘ .,
92"” K .
I D- ,. BY
6HEAZEZ. A .'\. 4
./ r
5
~'.~.
k ..
7'0 I
62.6. EV/LLE .
K
?
.'/.
\. .-
”07.4%!!er mamas /' -”
_ Manganese Bow/MY 'A'.\ F.
-. {\m'
fix/626 K. I
_ H _ 5715.116 (.14.: W ' .°
A pow; Azesv'z/Ps

 

 

30

 

M0055 62566
A /€57’.€/P

    
 

/000
L

In

 

/500
__J

 

 

  

FEET

 

 

CHAPTER IV

THE DATA

For the purposes of this study, the data from two
samples was used. The first is the visitors sampled for
the 1971 Baseline Survey who entered the Selway-Bitterroot
Wilderness on foot, with stock, or in a boat from one of
the access points on the perimeter of the Wilderness. For
convenience, this population will be referred to as the
"Selway-Bitterroot" users (although technically, those
persons entering the Wilderness by airplane at Moose Creek
are also users of the Selway—Bitterroot Wilderness).

The second population includes: (1) the visitors
from the Baseline Survey who gained access to the Wilder—
ness by flying to Moose Creek; and (2) a special quarter
sample of persons using Moose Creek who were not sampled
for the Baseline Survey, but whose names were drawn from
the names left over after the Baseline Survey sample was
drawn. (All persons sampled in this second population
gained access to the Wilderness by flying into the air-
strip. That is the only way one could bggig a wilderness

journey at Moose Creek, since one would have to travel

31

32

through the Wilderness to reach Moose Creek by any other
travel method.)

It appears that Moose Creek visitors who engage
the services of a commercial outfitter may represent a
different public or may have different reasons for visit-
ing the Wilderness than persons who do not use such serv-
ices. For this reason, the Moose Creek users will be
presented in categories of visitors who were commercially
outfitted and those who were not. For convenience, these
categories will be referred to as "outfitted" and "non-
outfitted" visitors. The Selway-Bitterroot population
will not be so divided since the sample of outfitted per-
sons was far too small to be reliable. Instead, basic
undivided tabulations will be included for that population
for comparison with the Moose Creek population.

For purposes of this thesis, the 0.05 level con-
stitutes significance. Nevertheless, the data will be
included showing whatever level of significance is achieved
in order to give the reader as much information as possible.
The presence of statistical significance is not irrelevant,
but it does not tell the whole story. It does not neces-
sarily indicate real significance for management policy,
since most tests of significance are very sensitive to
sample size. In the real world situation, managers often
have no control over factors which show a strong statistical

significance, but rather must work with the information

33

available concerning the factors over which they have some

control.

Occupation

 

The bulk of the Moose Creek users were professional
people and managers. These two occupational areas account
for 56 percent of the visitors. The rest of the users were
evenly spread over the remaining categories (see Table 1).

Occupational background reflected some differences
between the outfitted and non-outfitted groups. The out-
fitted persons were primarily professional, managers, and
craftsmen, while over half of the non-outfitted visitors
were professionals and managers.

The Selway-Bitterroot visitors generally come from
two occupational areas--professional and student. These
two groups account for 61 percent of the usage. The rest
of the users are evenly spread over the other occupational
categories. The large student use of the Selway-Bitterroot
may be explained by the fact that the University of Montana

is located nearby in Missoula.

Income

The majority of the Selway-Bitterroot and Moose
Creek visitors had average to above average incomes.
Table 2 shows the Selway-Bitterroot users with 75 percent
in the $7,000 or more categories and Moose Creek with an

even higher count (93 percent) in those categories.

34

.Ho>mH mNo.o on» ocommn HGMOHMHcmHm mH pH .Eoommum mo mowumop HH
cuH3 mm.mN mHmsqm mHnmu mHsu mo coHuuom xomuo wmooz may now wumsvmanO«

 

omm ooa m m a mm m m o m a H m 4 mm poouumuuamummsamm

 

OVH OOH H v m h N m HH v H 0N m mm H0909
Hm 00H v N m NN 5 mN Hm nmuuHmusO
mm OOH H m m m N m m N H mH m mm wmuuHmuDOICOZ
«.v—HOOHU OmOOS

M Tu O H H S n1 S O 3 S 3 W .d .d

O 1. O 8 .4. D. a d I E T. P p. I

1. U. n 1. n q I 8 2 TL 3 u m 0

p. a S T. D. O A I 1.. 3 I 9 I.

T. l 3 I 8 I T. E 1. S X. .b a a

M 8 U 3 3 3. S 3 I S

% I. P 1 I .e T. m d I s

1.. A a 3 T...

8 8 u I O

S S u

0 E

u .l

S

 

.mcoHummsooo .mume mo Aucmoumm GHV coHuannumHoll.H mHQmB

35

.Ho>oH moo.o on» ocomon uCMOHchmHm mH pH .Eoommum mo mooummo o
cqu 5N.om mHmsqm anm» mHnu mo coHuuom xomnu mmooz on» How mumsqmanO«

 

 

 

van OOH m ma mm mm «a m m ,uoouumuuflmummzamm
mmH 00H mN om mN MH v N H Hmuoe
om ooH mv vm NH w UwuuHmpso
mm 00H NH mN mm hH h N H wouuHMMSOICOZ
«xmwuo mmooz
N I cw év ¢v cw ¢v év
0 Z .L T.
m .s .s .o .L .s .2
I 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 O 0 0 0
an O 0 0 0 0 O 0
+ _ . . _ _ _
s s s s s .5.
Z T. I
C.. C... 0 I. S CL
0 O 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0. 0 0. 0. 0
.mmeoocH .mummo mo Apcmoumm GHV coHuanuumHoul.N mHQme

36

Although the two groups are quite similar when
viewed at the $7,000 or more level, these similarities
disappear rapidly towards the upper end of the scale. The
Moose Creek visitors dominate the higher salary cate-
gories. Fifty five percent had salaries of $15,000 or
more, while only 24 percent of the Selway-Bitterroot
visitors did. Twenty five percent of the Moose Creek
users earned over $25,000, as compared to 8 percent of the
Selway—Bitterroot visitors.

The non-outfitted Moose Creek users and the
Selway-Bitterroot users are very similar throughout all
salary categories. The decision to be outfitted at Moose
Creek appears to be closely related to income level, with
over half of the outfitted visitors earning over $25,000
per year and only 18 percent of them earning less than

$15,000.

Residence

 

The Selway-Bitterroot appears to be frequented
mostly by local users (see Table 3). Nearly half (40%)
of these users are from Montana, with an additional 27
percent from the Mountain states of Arizona, Idaho, New
Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming. The third
largest amount of use comes from the Pacific states of
California, Oregon, and Washington, with 17 percent of

the visitors residing there.

37

.Hw>mH moo.o on» pcommn HGOOHMHcmHm mH uH .Eoommum mo momumoo n

 

 

suHB Nb.mh mHmsvw mHnmu man mo GOHuHom xomuu mmooz may now mumsvmlHauw
ROM OOH H m H O O OH Om O OO uoouumuuHmnsmaHmO
mvH OOH v H m m 0v om NH 5 HMHOB
Om OOH OH O O OO O OO OmuuHHnso
mm OOH H H m¢ mv OH QOHHHMHSOICOZ
*xmmuo mmooz
N I a N S H S d W n W
o o o o e o e o d o
1 1 1 n s n o n d u
e a 1 1 1 1 I. u a 1
.1. T: "Ul U. U: T: 1.. J 9
6 a a T a I. e u
% u e e e 1 o I. W e
s s H u u I.
1 1 a S P
d 1 S m
S I e 1 a
1 e 1 e s
e I. a 1 1
1 u s e
w s s

 

.mochHmmm .mumms mo Anamoumm ch coHuanuumHonn.m wHQmB

38

Eighty-two percent of the Moose Creek use comes
from the Pacific states, the Mountain states, and the
Upper Midwest states of Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota,
South Dakota, and Wisconsin. However, there is some
variation between the outfitted and non-outfitted groups.
The non-outfitted visitors tended to reside in the Moun-
tain and Pacific states, whereas the outfitted visitors
generally come from the Pacific and the Upper Midwest

states.

Travel Expenses

 

The Moose Creek user's travel expenses varied
greatly. However, the number of visitors falling into
each category was about the same and is spread evenly
across the table. Thirty-four percent of the users spent
from $51 to $200, while 40 percent spent less than $30
(see Table 4).

The outfitted users and the non-outfitted users
exhibit some different spending patterns. The non-
outfitted visitors are evenly spread from zero expenses
to $200, with 64 percent spending less than $30. The
outfitted user's expenses were greater, with 66 percent
of them spending from $51 to $300. It is not surprising
that the outfitted persons spent more on traveling. They
generally come from further away and probably used com-
mercial transportation rather than private vehicles on

much of the journey.

39

.Hm>mH moo.o may ccoamn HGOOHMHcmHm mH pH .Eoomoum mo momumoo OH
:pHB mo.HO mHmsww oHnmu mHsu mo GOHuHom Hmouu mmooz on» How mumsqmanO«

 

OON OOH O O O O N O OH OO NH uoouumuuHmuOmszO
OOH OOH O N O OH OH O O HH OH HH O Hmuoe
OO OOH NH O OH HO ON O N O N OmuuHOuso
OO OOH H O OH O OH OH ON OH O OmuuHOHsoucoz

*xomuo wmooz

 

N I .3 la év év év év év év év cv Z
o F at ya T. e
.4 0 0 0 0 S .V cc Z T. I
e T. T. T. T. T. I I T. T. T. 0
T

+ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _
%
év év éq év év cv év év év
V .t Z .L
nu 0 O nu c. V E .6 1L
nu 0 0 AU nu n. nu 0 0

 

.mmmcmmxm Hm>mue Ho Aucmoumm sHv GOHpsQHHumHQII.O mHQMB

40

The majority of the Selway-Bitterroot visitors
did not spend a great deal of money on traveling to the
Wilderness. Fifty-nine percent of them spent $10 or less,
while 85 percent spent less than $50. This may be
explained partly in that most Selway-Bitterroot users are

from Montana or the nearby mountain states.

Other Expenses

 

The other expenses incurred by wilderness users
followed the same general pattern as that of travel
expenses (see Table 5). The Moose Creek visitors ranged
fairly evenly from zero to over $500. However, in exam-
ining outfitted and non-outfitted users, some obvious
differences arise. The non-outfitted visitors spent $100
or less for other expenses, while only 14 percent of the
outfitted visitors were able to get by on that amount.
Nearly a fifth of the outfitted visitors spent from $100
to $200, and over half spent more than $500. The fact
that many of the outfitted persons are from out-of-state
and engage in hunting may account for much of the extra
expense. Hunting licenses are rather expensive in Idaho
and Montana for out-of-state hunters, and in Montana it is
required that such hunters be accompanied by a Montanan or
a licensed outfitter or guide. As was the case for travel
expenses, 59 percent of the Selway-Bitterroot visitors
spent $10 or less on expenses other than travel. Only 12

percent of them spent over $100.

41

.Hm>mH moo.o on» ocoaon unmoHMHQOHm .Eowmmum mo mwmumoo HH
nuHB mm.Om mHmsqm mHnmu mHnu mo coHuuom xmwuo omooz may MOM wumsvmlH£O«

 

 

OON OOH H N N O O O O N O HH HO OH poouumuuHmnOmsHmm
OHH OOH ON O N N O OH O N O OH OH O Hmuoe
NO OOH OO O O N OH O N N N OmuuHmuso
HO OOH N N OH OH O O ON ON OH omuuHmusoucoz
«xwmuo mmooz
N I Q. ¢v .5 .3 15 A: év cw cw év .3 Z
O S .7 to z T. 8
1. 0 0 0 0 0 C. .7 cc Z T. I
W 0 I OL TL T. T. T. T. I T. I o
as + . . . . . _ . _ . _
.S. .S. s s s s .3. .S. S .S.
C._ .7 cc 7. T.
0 0 0 0 0 S .7 Ct Z T.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 

.mmmsmmxm umsuo mo Hucmoumm GHV QOHHDQHuumHDII.m mHQme

42

Season of Use

 

The majority (80 percent) of the Selway-Bitterroot
visitors are summer visitors.

Moose Creek tends to show more balance between
summer and fall use, with 60 percent of the use coming
during the summer months (see Table 6). However, much of
this balance is gained due to the large percentage of out-
fitted persons using the Wilderness during the fall. This
fall outfitted use is probably influenced by the local
hunting seasons, whereas the non-outfitted users follow a
similar pattern to the Selway-Bitterroot visitors, with
78 percent of their use coming during the summer months.

Table 7 indicates that non-outfitted visitors
accounted for 64 percent of the total Moose Creek use.

However, there is a major difference between the summer

Table 6.--Seasonal Use Distribution (in percent).

 

 

% Summer % Fall Total % N

Moose Creek*
Non-outfitted 78 22 100 96
Outfitted 26 74 100 53
Total 60 40 100 149
Selway-Bitterroot 80 20 100 337

 

*Chi-square for the Moose Creek portion of the
table equals 37.96 with 1 degree of freedom. It is signifi-
cant beyond the 0.005 level.

43

Table 7.--Distribution (in percent) of Moose Creek Users
by Season.

 

 

 

Summer Fall Total
% Non-outfitted 84 35 64
% Outfitted 16 65 36
Total % 100 100 100
N 89 60 149
X2 = 37.96 with 1 degree of freedom. Significant

beyond .005 level.

and fall usage. Nearly all of the summer visitors are
not outfitted, while only one-third of the visitors in

the fall were not outfitted.

Party Size

 

Table 8 shows the average wilderness party to be
composed of two to four people. Sixty-seven percent of
the Selway—Bitterroot and 59 percent of the Moose Creek
visitors fell into these categories. The non-outfitted
Moose Creek users also followed the same pattern, with 72
percent in these categories.

Generally, the outfitted parties were larger, with
only 34 percent in the two to four person categories.
Sixty-six percent of the outfitted users were in groups
of five or more, as compared to only 27 percent of the
non-outfitted and 29 percent of the Selway-Bitterroot

users. It should also be noted that better than one-fifth

44

.Hm>mH OOO.O may OnoOmn HOOOHOHOOHO

.Eoommuw mo moonmmo HH

 

 

 

nuH3 ON.mm mHmsqm mHnmu mHnu mo GOHHHOQ xmmuu wmooz map How mumsqmlHQOO
OOO OOH N O O N N O O O ON OH ON O poouumuuHmummszO
OOH OOH O HH N O O N O O ON NH ON H Hmuos
HO OOH NN O OH O N OH OH OH O OH nmuuHmuso
OO OOH O O H N H N O O ON OH ON N OmuuHmusoncoz
«xomuu mmooz
ON
O +ON OH O O O O O O O N H
z Hmuoe uHH
wNHm muumm

 

.Hucmoumm GHO coHuanHumHo mNHm muummll.m anme

45

of the outfitted persons traveled in groups ranging in
size from eleven to twenty people.

Few visitors were in the wilderness alone.

Type of Group

 

Forty percent of the visitors to the Selway-
Bitterroot were in family groups and an additional 36
percent were in groups composed of friends and acquain-
tances. The pattern for the Moose Creek totals showed 24
percent of the visitors in family groups and 57 percent in
groups made up of friends and acquaintances (see Table 9).

The non-outfitted visitors at Moose Creek exhibited
a similar trend with 78 percent falling into the same two
categories. However, the outfitted users were predominately
in groups composed of friends and acquaintances (76 per-

cent).

Nights Stayed

 

Three-fourths of the trips into the Selway-
Bitterroot are two nights or less in length, with half of
the visitors taking day trips (see Table 10).

Day trips accounted for about one-third of the use
at Moose Creek. Only one of the outfitted persons was a
day user, while half of the non-outfitted persons did not
stay overnight in the wilderness.

The total overnight use at Moose Creek was spread

relatively evenly over one through seven nights. However,

46

.Hm>mH OHO.O mnu osommn uCMOHMHcmHm mH UH .Eocmmum mo momummw O
nqu Nm.OH mHmsqm anmu mHsu mo soHuHom xmmuu mmooz map How mumsqmlH£O«

 

 

Nmm OOH m m mm OH OO uoouumupHmumm3Hmm
OOH OOH H O OO OH ON Hmuoa
HO OOH OO NH NH OmupHmuso
OO OOH H O OO OH HO OmuuHOusoucoz
Oxmmuu mwooz
mmocmuchsvom mccwHum
z Hmuoe mcoHO Hmsuo O mOcmHum O OHHEOO OHHEOO

 

.mmsouw mo momma mo Hucmoumm GHV soHuanHumHQ||.m mHnt

47

.Hm>oH OOO.O onu ocommn unmonHcmHm mH pH .Eowmmnm mo mwmumww HH
suH3 OO.OO mHmsvm mHnmu mHsu mo COHHHOQ xmmuu mmooz map How mumswmanO«

 

OOO OOH H N H O N O O O O NH OH OO uoouumuuHmnmmszO
OOH OOH H H H H O OH O O O OH O OO Hmuos
OO OOH N N N O ON ON OH O OH O N N OmuuHOuso
OO OOH H O O O O ON OH OO OmuuHOuso-coz

Oxoouu mmooz

 

+HH OH O O O O O O O N H O

Z w HmuOB masmwz m0 HOQEDZ

 

.Hucmoumm sHV pmwmum musmHz mo MODESZII.OH mHnms

48

there were some major differences between the outfitted
and non-outfitted groups. Generally, the outfitted users
stayed from five to seven nights in the Wilderness,
whereas the non-outfitted visitors averaged three or less
nights there. This could be explained partially by the
fact that the non-outfitted users frequent the weekends,
while the outfitted visitors who go to the effort and

expense of securing an outfitter stay longer.

Distance Traveled

 

Most of the Selway-Bitterroot visitors traveled
less than twenty-five miles, with 39 percent of them
going ten miles or less. However, all of the Selway-
Bitterroot users traveled at least one mile (see Table 11).

Of the total Moose Creek users, 22 percent stayed
in the area around the airstrip, thus showing zero miles
traveled. An additional 24 percent traveled from one to
ten miles.

Nearly all of the outfitted persons covered more
than ten miles. Sixty three percent traveled in excess
of 25 miles and all of the outfitted visitors traveled at
least six miles.

The non-outfitted users did not indicate as much
travel as did the other wilderness users. Thirty six per-
cent of them did not travel beyond the immediate area of

the airstrip, and another 20 percent hiked less than five

49

.Hm>mH OOO.O may Ocoamn HOOOHOHOOHO OH OH

.Eoommum mo mmmumow HH

zuHB NH.mm mHmsvo mHnmu mHnu mo coHuHom xomuu omooz on» How mumsvmlHQOO

 

 

OOO OOH O O O N O OH OH OH ON OH uoouumuuHm-OmszO
ONH OOH O O O H HH O O O HH OH NN Hmuoe
OO OOH OH HH OH N ON O OH O O omuuHmuso
HO OOH O O O H O O O O OH ON OO OmuuHOuso-coz
«xwwuo mmooz

N I C. V E r. .6 .C I I Z

O T. T. 0, TL 0. T. o. T. 9 T. a

1 1

p. _ . . . . . . . _ . O

I 6. S V. C. E Z 7. T. I

% 8 0 0 C. 0 C. 0 S 0 CH

 

pwHo>MHB meHS

 

.omHm>mna mosmumHo mo Hucoouom cHO GOHusQHHumHQII.HH mHQme

50

miles. Fifteen of the remaining 44 percent traveled over

25 miles.

Reasons for the Trip

 

One-third of the Selway-Bitterroot visitors cited
wilderness as the major reason for making their trip. In
addition, aesthetic values, fishing, hunting, and hiking
each accounted for about 10 percent of the reasons (see
Table 12).

With the exception of hiking, Moose Creek users
followed the same pattern. However, the picture changes
somewhat when they are separated into outfitted and non-
outfitted persons. Wilderness was an important reason
for both groups, but the outfitted persons indicated
hunting as an important reason for taking the trip two to
one over wilderness.

Non—outfitted persons came to fish, for aesthetic
reasons, because of the airstrip, and to one degree or
another, use the wilderness. Twelve percent of them

indicated that the airstrip was a major attraction.

Satisfaction with the Trip

 

The majority of users were well satisfied with
their trip. Fifty—eight percent of the Selway—Bitterroot
users rated the trip very good with an additional 28 per-

cent rating it good. Nine percent of them felt it was

51

.Hw>mH OOO.O on» Ocowmn ucmoHMHsmHm mH pH .Eoommnm mo mmmummw HH
nqu OH.OO mHmsqm mHnmu mHnu mo COHuuom xmmuo mmooz on» H0O mumsvmanoOO

.mmmcommmu mmunu

 

 

o» as m>Hm stoo HOUHmH> comm .mmmcommmn mo mmmucmouma CH commoumxm«
OOO OOH NH N O OH OO O m H O O HH uoouumuuHmI>m3Hmm
OON OOH O O N O HH ON O O N N OH OH Hmuoe
OO OOH O HH O ON O m mm O OmuuHmuso
OOH OOH O NH N O OH ON O O m N H NN UmpunuSOICOZ
«Oxmmuo mmooz
N I O "v H S V M H O .u H H .a
o 1. I. e o e I. a 1. a I. n I
1 U. I e o s T. T. u. A H. u s
e a s T. I. 1 n. e a a I. 1. H
I 1 1 1 e H a x 1 .L u I. .L
1 u. T. a 1 e o .b u u
% T. T. 1 u 1 V Au nu 6
d z T. a I. 0
e o s o 1. S
1 s s u I. X
I. A I.
o I. I
u 1. I
A s

 

«.QHHB may now m50mmmm mo Hucwoumm GHV mocmswmumuu.NH wHQma

52

fair, 3 percent felt their trip was poor and only 2 per-
cent rated the trip very poor (see Table 13).

Ninety percent of the Moose Creek users felt the
trip was very good or good. Only 8 percent of them rated
it fair and only 2 percent indicated dissatisfaction.

The primary reasons given for this high degree of
satisfaction were related to the fact that the visitors
encountered a wilderness environment, that they were able
to experience its natural beauty and that it was a clean
area (see Table 14). Outfitted persons also mentioned
that good outfitters were an important reason for their
satisfaction, while non-outfitted visitors cited that good

fishing added to their satisfaction.

Education

 

About the same percentage of users from each group
fell into the various categories (see Table 15). Twenty-
seven percent of the Selway—Bitterroot and of the Moose
Creek visitors had a high school education, 23 percent of
each attended some college, and 36 percent of the Selway-
Bitterroot users and 38 percent of the Moose Creek users
graduated from college, with most doing some additional
coursework beyond their bachelor's degree.

It appears that people with formal educations tend
to frequent the wilderness more often than do less for-
mally educated persons. This may be due in part to the

higher level of education that the general public is

53

.Hw>OH OO0.0 ms» Ocommn ucmoHMHcme OH OH .Eovmmum mo momummw O
SHHB OO.m mHmsqm mHnmu mHnu mo COHuHom xmmuo mmooz may H0O oumsqmnHaoO

 

 

NOO OOH N O O ON OO HoouumuuHmuOmszO
OOH OOH H H O OH OO Hmuoe
HO OOH N N OH NN OO OmuuHOHOo
OO OOH H H O OH NO OmuuHOpsoucoz
«xmmuo wmooz
m o Hoom H00 HHm 00 @006
2 H u a Oum> O . O O o Oum>

 

.mHHB may mo mmchmm HOOD mo

Hucmouwm GHV coHuanuumHoll.mH mHnme

54

.Hm>mH OOO.O may pcowmn usmonHcmHm mH UH .Eoomwum mo wmmummc NH
guH3 OO.mm mHmswm mHnmu mHsu mo GOHHHOQ xmmuu mmooz map How mumswmlH£OO«

.cOHuommmHumm H0O msommmu ucmHOOMHO owns» 0» m: squ Ucommmu UHsoo mummDO

 

OOO OOH O m N NH O ON m mN m O O HOOHHOOuHmlwm3HOm
HNN OOH O m O N OH N OH N om O O m m HmuOB
mO OOH O m NH H O O ON Nm O O UOuuHmuso
OOH OOH O O O OH H OH m om O H m UmuuHMHDOICOZ

OOxmmHO mmooz

 

% I91OI

19H1O

5UI1195 I90154Qd
1811TJ1HO P009
Kuedmoa poos
291v ueato

951v £1JIQ
aneeg

pepmoxa
sseuzepIIM
seI1IAI1ov poos
1unH JO qsIg Jood
EUI1unH p009
PUIHSIJ 9005

 

“.mHua
mnu QHHS coHuomOmHumm How pmuHO mnemmmm mo Hucmouom cHV mocmswmumll.OH OHQMB

55

.Hm>mH OOO.O may ncommn “GOOHMHcmHm mH pH .Eowmmum mo mmmuwmw m

 

 

 

suHB OO.O mHmswm mHQmu mHsu mo coHuuom xmwuo wmooz may H0O wumsvaH£UO
ONO OOH ON O O O OH ON O O N O poouumuuHmu>m3Hmm
OOH OOH ON NH O NH O ON O m N N Hmuoe
HO OOH ON NH O NH O ON N N O OmuuHOuso
OO OOH ON NH O NH O ON O O N OmuuHOusoucoz
Oxmmuu mmooz
2 O Hmpoe +OH OH OH OH OH NH HH OH O O

UwumHmEoo coHumosom mo mumm»

 

.flCGEGHMHHAN HMGOHHMODUW MO AHGGUHOQ CHHV GOHHSQflHUWHQII.mH QHQMB

56

attaining and the increased amounts of time and money that
this public has to spend on leisure time activities.

It does not appear that educational attainment has
a noteable influence on the method of access or the choice
between being outfitted or not outfitted for wilderness

trips.

593

The Selway-Bitterroot generally drew more young
people than did Moose Creek. Forty nine percent of the
Selway-Bitterroot users were in the 16 to 30 year old
categories, as compared to only 24 percent of the Moose
Creek users (see Table 16). These figures are nearly
reversed in the middle aged, or 31-45 year old categories,
with the Selway-Bitterroot users at 26 percent and the
Moose Creek people totaling 48 percent. The two groups
are similar in the 46 and older categories, with about
one-fourth of each in these older age groupings.

The non-outfitted and outfitted visitors are
similar except for the fact that the outfitted visitors
are represented a bit more in the 46 and older categories.
Forty percent of the outfitted visitors are over 45 years
old, while only 22 percent of the non-outfitted users fall

into this category.

57

.Hm>wH OOH.o may ccomon unmoHMHcmHm mH pH .Eocmmnm mo mmmummc OH
nuHB OO.OH mHmsvm mHnmu mqu mo QOHuuom xmmuo omooz map you mumsvmnH£U«

 

ONO OOH O N O O O O O NH OH OH OH poouumuuHmuOm3Hmm
OOH OOH N O O O OH ON OH OH OH O O Hmuoe
HO OOH O O NH OH O HH OH HN O O O omuuHOuso
OO OOH H H O O HH ON OH OH NH O O OmuuHOusoucoz

*vmmmHU mmOOZ

 

N L 9, o, S S b. b. E F. Z Z I
O c._ T. 9 T 9 T. 9 T. 9 T. 9
q
E + . . . . _ _ . . _ .
I
o, 9 .5 C. b. v r. V. Z Z
% c. 0 .5 n. C. 0 c. O. S 0

 

wm< mo mummy

 

.mummD mo Anamoumm CHO coHuannumHo mm¢II.OH mHnt

58

Sex
The ratio of females to males in the Wilderness is
slightly less than one to four. Only 27 percent of the
Selway-Bitterroot and 16 percent of the Moose Creek
populations were female (see Table 17).
The low percentage of females may be partly
explained because
even in our contemporary view, campcraft--the art of
building fires, preparing outdoor meals, providing
for shelter and storage, the knowledge of woods and

fields and streams necessary for safe outdoor living--
is primarily associated with men and boys.1

Table l7.--Distribution (in percent) of Male and Female
Users.

 

 

% Male % Female Total % N

Moose Creek*
Non-outfitted 80 20 100 90
Outfitted 92 8 100 51
Total 84 16 100 141
Selway-Bitterroot 73 27 100 332

 

*Chi-square for the Moose Creek portion of this
table equals 3.65 with 1 degree of freedom. It is signifi-
cant beyond the 0.100 level.

 

1Margaret Mead, "Outdoor Recreation in the Context
of Emerging Cultural Values: Background Considerations,"
Trends in American Living_and Outdoor Recreation, ORRRC
§tudy Report 22 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Print—
ing Office, 1962), p. 4.

 

59

Importance of Wilderness

 

Wilderness was considered very important by nearly
all of the visitors (see Table 18). The percentages run
about the same for the Selway-Bitterroot and the Moose
Creek users, with little difference between outfitted and
non-outfitted users. A scant 2 percent of the Moose Creek
users and 1 percent of the Selway-Bitterroot users felt
that the area was not very important. Wilderness is
definitely one of the things the visitors want or think

they want.

Table 18.--Importance of Wilderness to Users (in percent).

 

Importance of Wilderness
Not Total

 

 

Very Fair Very % N

Moose Creek*
Non-outfitted 89 10 l 100 90
Outfitted 92 6 l 100 50
Total 90 9 2 100 140
Selway-Bitterroot 92 7 1 100 329

 

*Chi-square for the Moose Creek portion of this
table equals .81 with 2 degrees of freedom. It is signifi-
cant beyond the 0.750 level.

Activities

 

Respondents were asked to check the activities
they participated in during their wilderness visit. The

kinds and number of activities were recorded for each

60

respondent to see what they did and how active they were

in general.

Participation in Activities

 

Over half of the Selway-Bitterroot users (62 per-
cent) participated in two to three activities while in the
Wilderness, whereas one to four activities accounted for
90 percent of the respondents. Table 19 indicates that
the majority of the Moose Creek users were active. Over
half of the respondents involved themselves in three or
more activities. The outfitted tended to be the more
active, with 64 percent participating in three or more
activities, as compared to the non-outfitted user group
which had 85 percent of its respondents participating in
three or less activities. The Selway-Bitterroot users are
very similar to the Moose Creek users with respect to
activeness. Moose Creek users had 57 percent in three or
more activities and 73 percent in three or less. Selway-
Bitterroot visitors had 54 percent in three or more

activities and 66 percent in three or less.

Fishing .

Fishing appears to be more important to Moose
Creek users than to the Selway-Bitterroot visitors. Less
than half (43 percent) of the Selway-Bitterroot reSpon-
dents indicated they fished, while 60 percent of the Moose

Creek persons fished (see Table 20).

61

.Hm>mH OO0.0 mnu UQOOOQ unmoOchmHm mO pH
nOHz Hm.NN mHmsvm mHQmu was“ NO :oHuHom xmmnu mmooz map How mumswmlH£OO

.Eowmmum mo mmmuwmw m

 

 

OOO OOH N O OH OO NO OH poouumpuflmnOmszO
OOH OOH H OH OH ON ON ON Hmuoe
OO OOH N HN ON OH OH OH OmuuHOuso
OO OOH H O HH NO ON ON OmuuHOusoacoz

«xmmuo mmooz
z Hmuoe O O O O N H

 

mmHuH>Ouom Oo “Onasz

 

.mmHuH>Huo¢ CH coHummHOHuumm mo Hpcmonmm GOO mocmsUmHmI|.OH mHnt

62

Table 20.--Percentage of Users Who Fished.

 

 

% Yes % No Total % N

Moose Creek*
Non-outfitted 72 28 100 96
Outfitted 4O 60 100 53
Total 60 40 100 149
Selway-Bitterroot 43 57 100 337

 

*Chi-square for the Moose Creek portion of this
table equals 14.85 with 1 degree of freedom. It is sig-
nificant beyond the 0.005 level.

Breaking the Moose Creek users into outfitted and
non-outfitted categories show some variation. Seventy-two
percent of the non-outfitted visitors fished, as compared
to 40 percent of the outfitted users. Considering the
amount of day use and the short distance hiked by most of
the non-outfitted group, it appears that the tendency of
non-outfitted persons to fish may be due in part to the
quality of fishing near the airstrip. It is an activity
one can participate in without traveling far from the plane
and fishing success tends to be high. In contrast, the
seasonality of outfitting may explain the lack of fishing
by the outfitted group. Most of the outfitted persons are
there for fall hunting seasons and must sacrifice valuable

hunting time to engage in fishing.

63

Riding Horses

 

Horseback riding does not appear to be an important
activity to the Selway-Bitterroot users. Only one-fifth
(19%) of the respondents indicated that they participated
in this activity (see Table 21). Likewise, the majority
of the Moose Creek visitors did not ride horses. Nearly
all those who did ride fall into the outfitted group.

This is more than likely due to the fact that horses gen-
erally are not available to non-outfitted persons. Some

Selway—Bitterroot visitors do ride, probably in the fall

in conjunction with the hunting season, but in general

they tend to hike instead.

Table 21.-—Percentage of Users Who Rode Horses.

 

 

% Yes % No Total % N

Moose Creek*
Non-outfitted 3 97 100 96
Outfitted 70 30 100 53
Total 27 73 100 149
Selway-Bitterroot 19 81 100 337

 

*Chi-square for the Moose Creek portion of this
table equals 77.33 with 1 degree of freedom. It is sig—
nificant beyond the 0.005 level.

64

Hunting

Hunting does not appear to draw many visitors to
the Selway-Bitterroot when compared to the total number of
users. Only 15 percent of the visitors indicated that
they hunted (see Table 22).

Similarly, the majority (74 percent) of the Moose
Creek visitors did not hunt. However, there is a large
difference between the outfitted and non-outfitted Moose
Creek users. Two percent of the non-outfitted persons
indicated that they hunted, while 70 percent of the out-
fitted users were hunters. It is not surprising that most
of the outfitted persons were hunters. The majority of
the outfitting in the area is seasonal (done in the fall).
Administratively, this would mean that the airstrip is

serving a different public during the fall hunting season

Table 22.--Percentage of Users Who Hunted.

 

 

% Yes % No Total % N

Moose Creek*
Non-outfitted 2 98 100 96
Outfitted 70 30 100 53
Total 26 74 100 149
Selway-Bitterroot 15 85 100 337

 

*Chi-square for the Moose Creek portion of this
table equals 81.06 with 1 degree of freedom. It is sig-
nificant beyond the 0.005 level.

65

as compared with the summer season, and perhaps different
problems and needs will be of concern during the out-

fitting season.

Hiking

Hiking was one activity in which many users partici-
pated. As Table 23 indicates, 77 percent of the Selway-
Bitterroot visitors hiked and 55 percent of the Moose Creek
visitors also hiked.

Forty percent of the non-outfitted Moose Creek
visitors did not hike. This would tend to indicate that
they flew in with private planes and did not leave the
airstrip area. There is little opportunity for these
people to move about without hiking, as horses generally

are available only through outfitters.

Table 23.--Percentage of Users Who Hiked.

 

 

% Yes % No Total % N

Moose Creek*
Non-outfitted 59 41 100 96
Outfitted 47 53 100 53
Total 55 45 100 149
Selway-Bitterroot 77 23 100 337

 

*Chi-square for the Moose Creek portion of this
table equals 2.06 with 1 degree of freedom. It is sig-
nificant beyond the 0.25 level.

66

Fifty-three percent of the outfitted Moose Creek
visitors also did not hike. This is probably due to the

availability of riding stock provided by the outfitter.

Taking Pictures

 

Taking pictures appears to be a popular activity
with Moose Creek and Selway-Bitterroot visitors (see
Table 24). There seems to be little relation between the
method of access and picture taking, with about three-
fifths of the visitors to both areas taking pictures. It
is a common way of recording many of the social and
aesthetic values of the wilderness trip for future enjoy-

ment.

Table 24.--Percentage of Users Who Took Pictures.

 

 

% Yes % No Total % N

Moose Creek*
Non-outfitted 57 43 100 96
Outfitted 62 38 100 53
Total 59 41 100 149
Selway-Bitterroot 59 41 100 337

 

*Chi-square for the Moose Creek portion of this
table equals .35 with 1 degree of freedom. It is sig-
nificant beyond the 0.75 level.

67

Nature Study

 

It appears that the majority of wilderness users
are not there to study nature (see Table 25). The Selway—
Bitterroot showed the greater degree of involvement with
37 percent of its population participating in some sort of
nature study, while only 12 percent of the Moose Creek

people showed such interests.

Table 25.--Percentage of Users Who Studied Nature.

 

 

% Yes % No Total % N

Moose Creek*
Non-outfitted 14 86 100 96
Outfitted 9 91 100 53
Total 12 88 100 149
Selway-Bitterroot 37 63 100 337

 

*Chi-square for the Moose Creek portion of this
table equals .54 with 1 degree of freedom. It is sig—
nificant beyond the 0.500 level.

Swimming

Although swimming conditions are favorable in the
area for about two months during the summer, few users
swam. Only 18 percent of each total participated in this
activity, with little difference between outfitted and non-

outfitted persons (see Table 26).

68

Table 26.—-Percentage of Users Who Swam.

 

 

% Yes % No Total % N

Moose Creek*
Non-outfitted 19 81 100 96
Outfitted 17 83 100 53
Total 18 82 100 149
Selway-Bitterroot 18 82 100 337

 

*Chi-square for the Moose Creek portion of this
table equals .07 with 1 degree of freedom. It is sig-
nificant beyond the 0.900 level.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS

The study reveals that the first hypothesis is
partially true. About one-third of the Moose Creek non-
outfitted users were destination-oriented. They were the
least active and did not leave the airstrip except perhaps
to fish at the nearby river junction. An additional 20
percent of the non-outfitted visitors traveled less than
five miles.

The other half of the non-outfitted visitors and
all of the outfitted visitors used the airstrip as their
point of access rather than as one of destination.

The study further reveals that visitors gaining
access to the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness at Moose Creek
airstrip fall into two distinct categories: (1) those who
are served by a commercial outfitter; and (2) those who
are not. In addition, both groups are different from
visitors who arrived in the same Wilderness by means other
than aircraft. Therefore, the second hypothesis is true--
Moose Creek users are a different public than other users

of the Selway-Bitterroot.

69

70

The Moose Creek non-outfitted user is generally a
31 to 45 year old man from the Mountain or Pacific states.
He is well educated and earns between $10,000 and $25,000
in a professional or managerial position. He primarily
hikes during the summer in groups of two to four friends
or acquaintances, or perhaps in a family group. He travels
less than ten miles in the Wilderness and quite possibly
does not leave the airstrip area. He stays one or two
nights and in many cases, is a day user. His overall
expenses are less than $300 with travel accounting for
about two-thirds of the total cost. He participates in no
more than three wilderness activities, probably including
fishing, hiking or picture taking, and was drawn to the
area because of its wilderness characteristics, to fish,
for aesthetic reasons, or because of the airstrip.

The Moose Creek outfitted user is generally an
older man, probably between 31 and 45 years of age and in
many cases, over 45. Working as a professional person, a
manager, or a craftsman, he earns at least $15,000 and
often over $25,000 per year. He lives in the Upper
Midwest or the Pacific states and is well educated. He is
primarily a fall visitor and is accompanied by five or
more friends or acquaintances. He covers 25 miles or more
on his trip and generally stays five to seven nights. He
spends $50 to $300 on travel expenses and an additional

$400 or more on other expenses. Being very active, he

71

participates in three or more activities, generally
including hunting, riding horses, or picture taking. His
primary reasons for the trip are hunting and the fact that
the area is classified as a wilderness.

The typical Selway-Bitterroot visitor is generally
a well educated young man between the ages of 16 and 30,
who earns over $7,000 and probably between $10,000 and
$25,000. He is a student or a professional person from
Montana or a nearby state. He is a summer visitor accom-
panied by two to four persons which may be his family, or
friends and acquaintances. He probably hikes over ten
miles and stays less than three nights. He spends less
than $50 on travel and about the same amount on other
expenses. He participates in two or three activities
probably including hiking or taking pictures. His reasons
for the trip include aesthetics, fishing, hunting, hiking
and the wilderness.

From these composites, administrators may gain
further insight to arrive at management decisions which
take into consideration the needs and desires of the
users. There are two primary areas of management to which
this thesis may apply. The first is the management of
airstrips in a similar type of situation as Moose Creek.
There are two other Forest Service airstrips in the Selway-
Bitterroot which quite probably will follow the same

management direction as that of Moose Creek. The Idaho

72

Primitive area has a number of similar airstrips. That
area, presently before Congress for wilderness classifi-
cation, is located a short distance south of the Selway-
Bitterroot and has many things in common with Moose Creek.
Much of the information dealing with use at Moose Creek
can be adapted to the airstrips in such areas as this.
Shafer airstrip in the Middle Fork area is another similar
area which could derive benefits from management infor-
mation regarding Moose Creek.

The second area of management is obviously that of
Moose Creek Ranger Station and airstrip. It does not appear
that Moose Creek can remain the same as it is presently.
Visitor use will undoubtedly rise as in most other forms of
recreation. It will be very difficult to accommodate such
an increase with present facilities.

It is questionnable that developing the facilities
to accommodate use would be the best policy. The study
has indicated that both the destination-oriented and the
wilderness-oriented visitors cite "wilderness" as an
important reason for using Moose Creek. The quality and
quantity of construction necessary to adequately accommo-
date the increasing air traffic at Moose Creek could have a
detrimental impact on the area. The quality of wilderness
in and around the airstrip could be greatly reduced.
Eventually, it is quite conceivable that the present

clientele will be disenfranchised and seek a different

73

area, undoubtedly still in a wilderness or primitive

area, with opportunities similar to those lost through the
modernization of Moose Creek. A new clientele could then
be attracted by the quality of the facilities rather than
by the existence of the Wilderness, thereby increasing

the destination-orientation of the airstrip users and
probably creating additional conflicts between the
activities of wilderness-oriented visitors and those of
aircraft users.

The logistics of providing adequate administration
of the Wilderness without any use of Moose Creek could
become overwhelming. It would easily take nearly a week's
time for the Forest Service work crews to travel in and
out of the Wilderness to maintain some of the more remote
sections. Not having a central point of operations could
make their work less efficient and more difficult. In
addition, "the historical value of having a working Ranger
Station made of logs, not located in town nor accessible by
a road should not be overlooked."1

Closure of the airstrip would reduce administrative
efficiency of the area even if the Ranger Station were
still active. The costs of administration would increase
substantially because of the additional time necessary to
perform tasks presently done with the assistance of air-

craft.

 

lU.S. Forest Service, "Management Plan," p. 37.

74

As far as the public is concerned,
the ramifications of an airfield closure at this time
are uncertain. It is assumed that on a national scale,
public opinion would be in favor of a closure, and
that local opinion would be against.

Politically, it is doubtful that the Forest Service
would decide to eliminate public use of the Moose Creek
airstrip at this time. There are a number of major con-
troversial wilderness or preservation-oriented issues
before the public in Montana and Idaho. In many instances,
the difference between support and opposition is marginal.
It would be unwise to threaten the possibility of gaining
better protection of these lands by alienating the aircraft
users. Many of them strongly support wilderness classifi-
cation for some areas, but if that classification threatened
their recreational activity, they undoubtedly would with-
draw their support.

Limiting the airstrip to only Forest Service use
would leave a large recreational group with fewer places
to pursue their activity. Each of the individual items
which draw the users to Moose Creek is substitutable.
However, in combination, it would be very difficult to
provide all of those items in one package outside the
Wilderness. Other similar areas generally are already

within wilderness or primitive area boundaries. Finding

a location suitable for a new airstrip and generating the

 

Ibid.

75

funding necessary for its construction and maintenance would
be next to impossible. The legal aspects of constructing

an airstrip specifically for recreation must also be con-
sidered. In addition, intangibles such as sentimentality
and tradition must be considered when deciding whether to
relocate or eliminate a facility such as Moose Creek.

It is doubtful that the things the non-outfitted
Moose Creek visitors are seeking could be provided outside
the Wilderness. These users indicate that they go to
Moose Creek because it is a wilderness, because of the air-
strip, for fishing, and for aesthetic reasons. Their
reasons for being satisfied with the trip include wilder-
ness and the beauty of the area. The fact that Moose
Creek is a natural area with a challenging airstrip adds
to its drawing power.

The outfitted persons, in contrast, appear to be
going to the Wilderness for hunting and for the wilderness
experience. The existence of the airstrip does not appear
to be as important to them as it is to the non-outfitted
users. Perhaps for this user group, arriving at an out-
fitter's camp by other means of travel and being taken
into the Wilderness on riding stock would provide an
equally satisfying experience without the intrusion of
aircraft. However, they constitute only about one-third of

the Moose Creek visitors.

76

The option chosen in the Forest Service management
plan appears to be the most suitable. "The management

direction, in general, will be to limit air traffic within

the Wilderness."1

2

"Public airstrips will not be expanded
or improved." Unlimited use would have an undesirable
impact on the area. Maintaining limited use would allow
adequate administration of the area and provide recrea-
tional opportunity in a unique setting for some visitors,
and at the same time, reduce the amount of intrusion on
other wilderness visitors' experiences.

When considering options which reduce visitor use,
an assumption of the management plan was that "a decrease
in public aircraft use would increase stock use."3 How-
ever, most of the Moose Creek users are not stock-oriented.
They do not ride horses in the Wilderness. Nearly a third
of the non-outfitted persons do not show that they even
partake of the actual wilderness experience. Persons using
the rest of the Selway-Bitterroot show little tendency to
use stock. There does not seem to be much evidence to
indicate that private use of stock would mushroom following
the closing of a facility such as Moose Creek. The out-
fitted persons do not indicate that they are being out-

fitted at that particular place because of the airstrip.

Therefore, this study does not support the assumption that

 

l 2

Ibid., p. 54. Ibid., p. 49.

31bid., p. 26.

77

a decrease in aircraft use would substantially increase
stock use. It is questionable that visitors would choose
to sacrifice the extra travel time necessary to reach Moose
Creek without the use of aircraft when they could visit
other areas which are closer to conventional trailheads and
would leave the visitor more time to enjoy the wilderness

experience.

LITERATURE CITED

LITERATURE CITED

Brandborg, Stewart M. A Handbook on the Wilderness Act.

Coffman,

 

Washington, D.C.: The Wilderness SoCiety. n.d.

John D. "The Airplane Problem as it Relates to
the National Park System." Proceedings of
American Foresters' Meeting. ‘1946.

 

Cooke, Douglas Bryan. "The Perceived Environment of

Hendee,

Lucas,

Wilderness in Kings Canyon National Park."
Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of
Cincinnati, 1971.

John C., and Rabel J. Burdge. "The Substitutability
Concept: Implications for Recreation Research and
Management." Seattle (unpublished draft) (to be
published in Journal of Leisure Research).

 

, and George H. Stankey. "Biocentricity in
Wilderness Management." Bioscience 23 (9),
September, 1973.

 

Robert C. "A Baseline Survey of Wilderness Visitors

in the Northern Rocky Mountains." Missoula,
Montana (Unpublished Project Work Plan), March 11,
1970.

Mead, Margaret. "Outdoor Recreation in the Context of

Sieker,

Emerging Cultural Values: Background Considerations."
Trends in American Living and Outdoor Recreation.
ORRRC Study Report 22. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1962.

 

 

.John. "Aircraft and Forest Recreation." Journal

of Forestry 44 (1946).

 

. "Airplanes and National Forest Wilderness."
Proceedings of American Foresters' Meeting. 1948.

 

U.S. Forest Service. "Report of the Magruder Corridor

Review Committee." April 17, 1967. (Unpublished).

78

79

. "Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Management Plan."
Missoula, Montana, 1975. (Mimeographed).

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I

SAMPLE DESIGN

APPENDIX I

SAMPLE DESIGN1

The design chosen is a cluster sample, with paired
selection of primaries from unequal—sized clusters, chosen
with probabilities proportional to size (PPS) and sub-
sampled with probabilities inversely proportional to size
(Kish 1967, Chap. 7).

This system is explained in detail below. It seems
to be the best compromise for an extremely difficult sam-
pling situation. Basically, we have two alternatives:

(1) a simple, random sample (SR5)2 or (2) an unequal-sized
cluster design. (The clusters consist of all people using3
a given access point over some specified period of time
such as a week.)

The simple random sample is appealing in terms of

the simplicity of calculations of means, variances, and

 

1Robert C. Lucas, A Baseline Survey of Wilderness
Visitors In the Northern Rocky Mountains, unpublished
Project Work PIan, Missoula, Montana, March 11, 1970.

2This could be stratified also, by season, level
or type of trail use, or on any other relevant basis for
which data were available.

3
or both.

 

 

"Using" could be defined as entering, leaving,

80

81

other measures, and would almost surely produce smaller
standard errors than the cluster sample, for the same size
sample. The problem is that there is no way to draw an
SRS sample without a complete listing of all (or at least
nearly all) visitors.

A complete listing would require a registration
station on every trail all season long, and intensive or
even 100 percent checking for non-registrants. This would
be impossible to do without much more money and manpower
than is available. Furthermore, many more people would be
contacted than would be sampled--perhaps up to 100 times as
many in heavily visited areas such as the Sawtooth Primi-
tive Area or the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. This is
inefficient, and an unreasonable imposition on visitors.
Most groups who registered would not have anyone in their
group sampled, which could cause disappointment and mis-
understanding.

Therefore, collecting names and addresses only on
sample trails during sample periods, and subsampling at a
fairly high rate, is preferable. There are problems here,
also, however. This method can only produce clusters, and
the clusters of people on a given trail or access road
(entering, exiting, or both) for a specified period of
time are very unequal. Past studies have shown a single
trail may account for half of all use, and a few trails

usually account for almost all use. The frequency

82

distribution of season-long use totals by trails often
approaches the log-normal distribution. When the season's
use is split into weeks of other time intervals, variation
almost certainly increases even more.

If all the people who registered on a sample trail-
time unit were sampled, or if a constant sampling fraction
was used, the sample clusters would reflect this great
size variation. This is undesirable because it produces
biased estimates. The ratio mean (the only type of mean
that can be calculated from a cluster sample) requires that
the coefficient of variation of cluster sizes be relatively
small; less than 0.20 if possible is a suggested rule of
thumb (Kish 1967, p. 187, 208-209, 217-220).

Sampling with probability proportional to size (PPS)
is the standard way of maintaining both roughly equal-
sized clusters and equal probability of selection of all
elements (people, in this case). This is achieved by
selecting clusters with probability proportional to esti-
mates or measures of size (the larger clusters are more
likely to be chosen) and then subsampling clusters at a

rate inversely proportional to the same size measures

 

(the subsampling rate is high for small clusters and low
for large clusters). The estimates of size cancel out, a
constant sampling fraction results, and a self-weighting

sample is produced.

83

For a numerical example, imagine trail A has an
estimated use of 10 people per week, and trail B has an
estimated use of 100 people per week. A visitor to B is

10 times as likely to have his name and address requested

 

as a visitor to A. Perhaps 500 names and addresses would
be collected from 2,000 visitors at B (1 out of 4), and 5
names from 200 visitors at A (1 out of 40). However, a
visitor to A who giygs his name and address is 10 times as
likely to be chosen as a respondent as is a visitor to B.
At A, all 5 people might be sampled (5 out of 5, and 1 out
of 40 overall, whereas at B we might sample 50 out of the
500 (1 out of 10, or 1 out of 40 overall). Thus, visitors
to A and B have the same probability of receiving a ques-
tionnaire, 1 chance out of 40 in this example.

If the actual cluster sizes are the same as (or

directly proportional to) the estimated cluster sizes,

 

then, obviously, the sample clusters would be equal-sized
(Kish, p. 226). This is the major flaw in this method for
wilderness surveys. Accurate season-long use estimates by
trails are rarely available,4 and fluctuations over time

are even less well-measured. (A self-registration system

 

4Experience to date suggests that administrators
usually can rank trails in terms of use fairly well, but
that their estimates of absolute use are much less accu-
rate. They have tended to underestimate use on heavily-
used trails and to overestimate use on lightly-used trails,
to overestimate horse use, and to grossly overestimate
length of stay.

84

vigorously administered would be invaluable for this pur-
pose.)

However, there is no apparent alternative to
employing administrative use estimates as the basis for
PPS sampling at this time, and no feasible alternative to
some type of PPS design. A PPS design will at least reduce
variation in cluster size, and probably reduce it con-
siderably.

The selection equation (Kish, p. 224) is:

2 Mos « . b* = 2b* 1 f
2 Phi Mos « 2 Fb* - F - '

where:

Mos a = a measure of size (estimate use) for a trail,
or group of trails covered by one roadside
checkpoint, for a specified time period
(defined as a number of weeks, usually two)

F = sampling interval = l/f (the overall sampling
fraction)

b* = planned sample cluster size = 12

f = overall sampling fraction (to produce a sample

of about 480 individuals per area).
If the number of trails with significant estimated
use (generally, at least three visitors per week) in a
particular wilderness is less than 12, two sample locations
per time period will be chosen. If the number of trails
meeting this criterion is 12 to 23 four locations will be
sampled. If it is 24 to 35, six locations will be sampled.

If 36 or more, 8 will be sampled.

85

The selections will be made as two paired selections
per time period, taken from strata formed by subdividing
the original seasonal (summer/fall) strata on the basis of
the importance of horseman use. The trails (and any
groups of trails served by one road to be checked on the
road) will be ranked on the basis of the estimated percent
horseman use, and split as near the appropriate dividing
point of cumulated use as possible. Thus, the strata will
be approximately equal in total estimated use.

The proportion of horseman use is thought to be
the best stratification variable, because, of the few
variables for which prior information is available, it is
most strongly associated with the other variables being
measured.

It is possible for a trail to be selected as a
sample trail more than once in a time period, and if a
trail has very heavy use relative to the other potential
samples, this is likely. In such cases, the trail is
simply sub-sampled more than once.

For each wilderness, the value of F, the sampling
interval, comes from dividing total estimated use for the
wilderness5 by 480 (the planned size of the sample for

each area).

 

5The total estimated use for all trails in the
pool of potential sample would be the figure used. This
might exclude a few very lightly-used trails.

86

The number of time-period "zones" in each stratum
will then be determined by dividing the total estimated use
for that stratum by 2 Fb* = 24F. This number will be used
to choose the closest available number of time zones using
weeks as the smallest divisible unit of time. The reason
for using weeks as the minimum period is to equalize
representation of each of the 7 days of the week between
time zones because of use variation associated with each
day of the week. Alternatively, we could define time-
period zones in days (for example 11 days, 16 days, 17,
etc.). This would reduce the effect of rounding errors.
However, given the relative magnitudes of the sources of
error, and in view of the very rough measures of size,
keeping days of the week equally represented in each time-
period zone seems more important than eliminating small
potential inequalities between strata in cluster size or
F. (Two- to four-week zones are the most likely result.
The longer the time-period zones, the less work and expense
will be involved in moving registration stations. The
total number of zones for all strata combined should
usually equal about 20, which, with the planned cluster
size of 12, would yield the desired total sample of about
480.)

Next, for each stratum, two primary sample trails
or roadside checkpoints will be chosen for each "zone" or

time period. The weekly use estimates will be multiplied

87

by the number of weeks per zone in the stratum. The order
of possible sample locations in each stratum will be ran-
domized, and the Mos a (the weekly use estimates multiplied
by the number of weeks in the time-period zone) cumulated.
(The total of the Mos m for each zone will equal 2Fb* (or
24F) approximately, but not exactly, due to rounding

errors in the selection of the number of zones, as des-
cribed above.)

A single random number, R, from 1 through Fb*
(adjusted due to rounding errors to equal 2 Mos m/Z) will
be chosen. The sample location in which this number R
falls (in cumulated use figures) is the first primary
selection. Then R + Fb* is the second selection from the
same zone and stratum (Kish, p. 229, sec. 7.4B 1.). Then
a new R is chosen, and it and R + Fb* are the two selec-
tions from the next zone, and so on. The same procedure
is then repeated for the other stratum. The probability
of R or R + Fb* falling in a particular trail is, of
course, exactly proportional to the amount of use estimated
for that trail.

The primary selections are then subsampled with

b*
Mos m'

 

probability =
This will be done with a random start and systematic
interval k = Egg—E.

For the roadside checkpoints, or other special

situations requiring personal contact, only a few days'

88

traffic can be checked per zone, compared to every day in
the time-period zone for the trails with special signs.

This means that for the roadside checkpoints, the sub-

sampling selection formula is: E . _Q_E:__ = —2:—- where
d n Mos « Mos a '

the total number of days in the time-period zone, and

d
n = the number of sample days per zone. The systematic
interval k = g . Bafl%%—: = fl%§—S. Where traffic can be
checked both in and out, n will be multiplied by a cor-
rection factor between 1.0 and 2.0, estimated to account
for day use. If all use was day use, the factor would
= 1.0, since there is no gain in contacts. If no day-use
existed, the factor would = 2.0.

To avoid many sample clusters falling much below
b*, sample locations estimated to average less than 6
individuals per sample period (whether a few days or whole
time-period zones) will be excluded from the sampling
frame.6

Sample locations in each wilderness will have the

portable registration signs set up and moved on the same

day in each time-period zone, or nearly as possible.

 

6This "minimum sufficient size" would yield b*/2
sample individuals with a 100 percent sub-sampling rate
(Kish, p. 243). This introduces some bias due to cluster
size variation, and the minimum sufficient size could be
raised to 12. However, since these are only rough esti-
mates, and since use is variable over time, this seems to
be "spurious accuracy." A higher minimum sufficient size
would exclude more moderately used trails, and this could
introduce more serious bias than a small increase in the
coefficient of variation of cluster size.

89

These days will need to be staggered from wilderness to
wilderness to fit work schedules, but for each wilderness
the signs will be in place for the same number of days,

and the same days of the week, in each time period.7

 

7There may be minor exceptions, usually no more than
plus or minus 1 or 2 days, necessitated by practical prob-
lems of work scheduling.

APPENDIX II

BASELINE STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX II

BASELINE STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE

(Summer Form) OMB No. 40-8-70057
Expires: March 31, 1973
Questionnaire No. [[l l /4/ /

 

FOREST SERVICE WILDERNESS STUDY

 

 

All of the following questions refer to the visit you
made to the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness

 

, 1971.

 

 

 

 

IMPORTANT! The term "wilderness" in this questionnaire
means the roadless, undeveloped country reached only by
trails or waterways. These questions refer only to the
wilderness portion of your trip, not to places along the
roads.

 

1. How many people were in your party in the roadless
wilderness on this trip, including yourself?
How many were under 16?
Were these people (skip if you were alone):

[:7 A family or families (including husband and wife,
part of a family, etc.)

[:7 A family plus friends
[:7 Friends and acquaintances
[:7 From an organization (Scouts, Club, etc.)

[:7 Other (describe )

 

90

 

 

2.

91

How did you travel in the wilderness (the roadless
country) on this visit? (Check all that apply, but

if more than one, underline the way you traveled
most.)

[:7 Hiked, carrying our equipment ourselves
[:7 Hiked, leading horses, mules, or burros

[:7 Horseback

How many horses, mules, or burros did your

party take?

 

Were these animals turned out to graze?

[7 No [:7 Yes

Was supplemental feed packed in?

[:7 No [:7 Yes

If yes: What kind of feed?

‘[:7 Hay [:7 Grain [:7 Pellets

[:7 Boat, canoe, raft, etc., with motor
[:7 Boat, canoe, raft, etc., no motor

[:7 Other (describe

 

Which of the following things did you do in the
wilderness (the roadless country) on this visit?

(Check only those things that you personally did.)

Ride horses

Take pictures

flowers, rock study, etc.)

Mountain climb (using ropes, special equipment,

£7

£7

[:7 Nature study (bird watching, identifying wild-
[7

etc., not just hiking up)

[7

Swim

92

[:7 Photography
[:7 Other (describe )

 

Which of the following wildlife did you see in the
wilderness (away from the roads)? (Check all that
you saw.)

[:7 Grizzly bear [:7 Elk [:7 Moose
[ 7 Black bearn [:7 Deer [:7 Coyote
[ 7 Bear, not sure [:7 Mountain goats [:7 Bald eagle

which kind
[:7 Bighorn sheep [:7 Other

 

Did your party stay out overnight in the wilderness
country beyond the road on this visit?

[:7 No [:7 Yes-—-9'(Total number of nights .
Did you build a woodfire [:7;
or use a gas stove [:7: or

both [7?)

Did an outfitter or guide go with you?

‘[:7 No [:7 Yes-——9’(Was it a fully outfitted trip
[:7; or a "spot pack" or "drop
camp" (brought in and left) [:7)

Did your party have maps or guidebooks for the wilder-
ness you visited?

[7 No D Yes-a (What kinds?

 

 

Please estimate your share of the expenses for this
wilderness trip for the two items below (whether or
not you personally paid any part of the costs of the
trip).

 

a. Traveling to and from the wilderness (including
meals and lodging while traveling) $

 

b. All other expenses (including outfitter's fees,
licenses, film, food, and equipment bought for
camping, hunting, or fishing). Do not include
the cost of equipment used on previ5§§ trips

$

 

9.

10.

ll.

12.

93

Was this your first visit to a roadless wilderness?

[:7 Yes [:7 No -——> (At about what age did you
first visit a wilderness?

Was this with your

parents? [:7 Yes [:7 No)

Did you ever go car camping with your parents?

[:7 Yes [:7 No

Have you visited the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness
before?

5N0
[:7 Yes ———49 (About how many times? )

If Yes, would you say the quality of
the area was:

 

[:7 Getting better Any comments?

[:7 About the same

 

[:7 Getting worse

 

Including this visit, how many times did you visit a
roadless wilderness in the past 12 months?

 

 

How many total da 5 did you spend in the wilderness
on all visits in the past 12 months?

 

94

 

The following questions ask for your personal opinion or
attitude about the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. This
information will assist the Forest Service to better
manage the Wilderness.

 

13.

14.

15.

What was your main reason for choosing to visit this
kind of area (a roadless wilderness) for this trip?

 

 

 

How satisfied were you, personally, with this trip
into the Selway—Bitterroot Wilderness? (Just the

country beyond the end of the road.) What kind of
a grade would you give it? (Check one)

[:7 A, very good
[:7 B, good
[:7 C, fair
[:7 D, poor
[:7 F, very poor

What was there about this trip that made you feel
this way?

 

 

 

When you are camped in the roadless wilderness, about
how many other parties would you like camped within
sight or sound of your campsite?

 

If you camped out on this trip into the Selway—
Bitterroot Wilderness, were you able to find this
preferred kind of campsite:

[:7 Every night [:7 Some of the time

[ 7 None of the time

16.

17.

18.

95

How did you feel about the number of other people you
saw in the roadless wilderness country on this visit?
(Check one)

Saw way too few

Saw too few

About right

Saw too many

Saw way too many

Did not matter to me one way or the other

DQDDDDD

Do not remember

About how many other parties did you see in the
wilderness on this trip? How many of these
were large parties (say, over 10 people)?

How many of the parties had horses or mules?

 

How did you feel about the condition of the Selway-
Bitterroot Wilderness in terms of wear and tear from
use, causing erosion and loss of vegetation, and in
terms of littering (check one box in each column).

Wear and tear Littering

 

 

E. Very poor

A. Very good [:7 [:7
B. Good [:7 [:7
0. Fair [:7 [:7
D. Poor [:7 [:7
[:7 [:7
[:7 [:7

F. Do not remember

Please describe what seemed wrong, if anything:

 

 

How did the trails in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness
compare to your idea of what wilderness trails should
be like?

 

 

96

RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN mwms on mumst

How msouwmcmo
mum umnu mum>Hu
um>o mmOOHHm .m

RUN OUN. RUN RUN RUN ummm

umz umm mmHBHwnuo
UHaoz muman
mumss mxmmuo
um>o mmOOHum .m

RUN RUN RUN OUN OUN mHHE m N

no H mnhwa .HHMHH
ms» mmouom c306
:30Hn mwmuu 3wm d .o

mHHmHu 0: nuHs
mmmnm meow mcH>OOH .0

DD
DD
DD
DD
DD

Hmuaou
ummuHOSm may nos
.OGHUGH3 .mmHum>

momum .30uum:

IIHOOHH memo m mxHH

OOSBOEOmO mHHmHu
vumocmum 30H .m

D D D D NN 3:333 OHHHOO

.mwomum mummum
.me3v mHHmuu
Unmcamum smHm .m

 

 

 

 

mHnmuHmmvcs no:
mHnmuHmmo HmnuHmc
.Hmuusmz

mHnmuHm mHnm
Imw hum> IHHmma

mHnmuHm mHnmuHmmO
smog: In: mum>
H.EmuH comm

Hmumm xon mco xomnuv mmH mmcHnu OCH3OHHom way no spam xcHnu :0» CU mHQmuHm
nova: no mHnmuHmmo 3o: .huucsoo mmmcumeH3 mmmHomou ms» usonm Oman mcchHnB

.mH

97

D

DDDDD D

D

D

DDDDD D

D

 

D

DDDDD D

D

D

DDDDD D

D

 

mHnmuHm
Imw >H0>

mHQm
IHHmmo

mHnmuHmmoc: uoc
mHQmHHmmU HmsuHmc
.Hmuusmz

mHnmuHm
ImwaD

D

D

D DD D D D

 

mHQmHHmmU
Ia: hum>

mprm
Imemo um mmHnmu
oHcoHO OoH HHHOO

Amm>oum mmm mo
mma mcHuHsUmHv
moumom mH @003
ommn mumn3 mmHHm
@003 mcHanHzoum

mmHuHmm mmuon
an mms on mmmum
meow mchoHU

mmmuon
How mwuHmmEmo
um mHmuuoo mHom

OchunOHH
an Ompumum mmuHm
ummMOM Hmndumz

mmomHmeHm xoou
mmOOH .HHmEm

mmumum HmumE
nqu mwomHmmuHm
xoou omucmsmo

HmumHHou
uHmv mmmsosuso

.0

98

RUN RUN mHmomm

NH on mmHuumm mo
mNHm map mcHuHEHH

RUN RUN cwuumn

ummH mmme cmuumn
can .mconoum o:
Inwumanm Hmusum: O

RUN RUN mcHumucm

cmss umumHmmH
ou mHOUHmH>
HHm mcHustwm

Hummm mmuoa OCH
thuumo mcHanwmnv
mmmuon .muouHmH>
an maHumum
OaHumcHeHHO

muHommmo ocoxmn
Omms OCHOQ mH

HO OH mmum cm on
mnouHmH> mo MODES:
may mcHuoHuumwm

RUN RUN Humummnm Ocm
.mme anm .xmmuo
mmoozv mmmcumnHHz

uoouumuuHm
I>m3Hmm Gnu
mchcH mUHmeuHm
oHHnsO mausu was

 

 

 

memuHm
IOU mum>

mHnm
luHme

mHnmuHmmcas no:
mHnmuHmmw umnuHmc
.Hmuusmz

mHanHm mHnmnHmmO
IOGGD IGD %HO>

99

 

 

DN D hN HN RIIN
RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN
RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN
RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN
RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN
RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN
RUN RN RUN D RN
RUN .RUN RUN RUN RUN
mHnmuHmmUc: Hon
OOO.O... OOO. OOO. .OMOH

.Hmuusmz

uso Moms
mcHHn on no: #59
mmmcumcHH3 ms» :H
umm on anm noumo
ou muouHmH> 30HH¢

mmmcumcHH3 mnu mo
#50 xomn mmmnumm
mHnmcusncs mconmm

Ems» ou

UmcmHmmm mmnm may :H
uanc comm mEmo cho
OHsoo muouHmH> om
muHEme mHuu mammH

awe mumusoom
.cmHHmumo fl

mmmcumvHH3 may
on xooanHsO a

mmmhu MO mHHMHu
HMOHO Op mHOHMHu.
uchHsOm mg» mg
m3mm :Hmno mo mm:

momnumm mHnm
tenanc: mchusm

muoumHn mHumm no
mwusummm Hmusumc
OCHaHmmem HHmuu

map mcon mcmHm

.3

.>

100

 

 

RUN

mHnmuHm
Imc hum>

RUN

RUN

 

mHQm
IuHmmo

mHnmnHmmUCD HOC
mHQmuHmmU HwCuHmC
.Hmnusmz

mm>onm H.U.U Cmsounu <O mEmuH ms» Co mquEEou ow
82 D m3 Q OmmmcumOHHz

may CH HmmCmu

m ume so» UHQV

R N RUN muquooxomn OCH

CH CwEHouumm
Ho mummCmm .U.U

 

anmnHm mHnmuHmmO
IOUCD ICS WHO>

20.

101
How important or valuable are wilderness areas to
you personally?
Extremely important
Very important
Fairly important

Not very important

DDDDD

Not at all important

 

We would also like some background information about you.
This information is needed to predict future use and to
compare different kinds of recreation areas. We respect
your privacy-—all this information will be kept strictly
confidential.

 

21.

22.

Do you belong to any conservation or outdoor recre-
ation clubs?

/_7 NO
[:7 Yes ——> (Which ones?

 

 

Where do you live? And where did you live most of
your life before age 18? (Check one box in each
column.) (If you live or used to live in a suburb,
answer in terms of the whole metropolitan area.)

 

Where did you
live most of
Where do you your life

 

 

now live? before age 18?

A. On a farm [:7 [:7
B. Rural or small town

(under 1,000 popu-

lation) [:7 [:7
C. Town (1,000-5,000

population) [:7 [:7
D. Small city (5,000-

50,000 population) [:7 [ 7

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

102

Where did you
live most of
Where do you your life
now live? before age 18?

 

 

E. Medium city
(50,000-1 million
population) [:7 [:7

F. Large city (over
1 million

population) [:7 [:7

What is the highest year of school you have completed?
(Circle)

Elementary High School
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12
College

13 14 15 16 16+
Are you still a student? [:7 Yes [:7 No

What is your occupation? (If retired, also show
occupation before retirement)

A. What kind of work are you doing?

 

B. What are your most important work activities or
duties?

 

 

Please check the box that comes closest to your
total family income, before taxes.

 

[:7 less than $3,000 [:7 $10,000 up to $15,000
[:7 $3,000 up to $5,000 [:7 $15,000 up to $25,000
[:7 $5,000 up to $7,000 [:7 $25,000 and over

[:7 $7,000 up to $10,000

How many weeks of paid vacation does the head of your
household receive each year?

 

Please check the box that applies to you.

[:7 Male [77 Female

103

28. Your age last birthday?

 

PLEASE FOLD THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE AND MAIL IT IN THE
ENCLOSED SELF-ADDRESSED ENVELOPE. NO STAMP IS NEEDED;
WE HAVE ALREADY PAID THE POSTAGE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH

Ill.-.» .I\

146 0813

I
1"
I'll
III
III
|
Ill
llll
III
III
I
I
II
I
I
III
III!
II
I
I
I
I'll
I'll
l
|

3 1293 03