AN ANALYSIS OF FAMILY CAMPER
SOHO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS,
PREFERENCES, AND ATTITUDES TOWARD
FEES IN THE HURON NATIONAL FOREST

Thesis for the Degree of M. S.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

DON RAVECAREK
7

 

 

 

D

‘0'"? "79$" “Ix/fl:

" LITA-"z .

-. . 51.2%. a

DEM 2000
Dilsbi

 

 

ABSTRACT

AN ANALYSIS OF FAMILY CAMPER SOCIO-ECONOMIC
CHARACTERISTICS, PREFERENCES, AND ATTITUDES
TOWARD FEES IN THE HURON NATIONAL FOREST

by Don Earl Krejcarek

The use of land for outdoor recreation is growing
rapidly due to increasing demand. Since the Huron National
Forest is located comparatively near Michigan's major poPu-
lation centers, the Forest Service is feeling the effects
of this demand and must meet the challenge with carefully
planned facilities and administrative programs if the valu-
able recreational resources within the forests are to be
enhanced and prOperly managed. The socio-economic charac-
teristics and preferences of the users are highly significant
in determining trends in use patterns and deciding probable
future needs.

This study was carried out to determine the average
camper's preferences toward provided or desired facilities,
and his attitudes toward fees. Also, it was intended to
discover if the average family camper's characteristics had
changed in the last four years. The investigation of these
factors is necessary periodically in order to keep abreast

of changes in the types of users and their desires.

Don Earl Krejcarek

Data was collected at Huron National Forest campgrounds
from June 17 to August 11, 1966. The inventory was by means
of personal interviews using a prepared questionnaire. Four
hundred and twelve camping parties were interviewed, of which
three hundred and forty were family campers. Before the
actual analysis was carried out, a weighting procedure was
used to correct for an inherent bias in the sampling tech-
nique. The data was compiled by means of a computer program
and analysis was completed in the early months of 1967.

The data analysis is presented in three separate chapters.

Chapter 4 contains comparisons with a previous study
in 1962 and shows certain changes in characteristics and
use patterns. The average length of stay per trip decreased
from 5 days to approximately 3 days. The average family
income increased $750 in the last four years. The predomi-
nant type of shelter changed from tents to some type of
wheeled shelter (trailer house, tent trailer, or camper
truck).

Chapter 5 on the attitudes and preferences for pro-
vided or desired facilities also revealed some interesting
results. All the campers preferred a more primitive type
of camping experience to one at more highly developed fa-
cilities. But at certain high attraction campgrounds with
extremely heavy use, the campers preferred flush toilets
and running water. They also indicated they did not want

the type of facilities found in Michigan State Parks to be

Don Earl Krejcarek

installed in national forest campgrounds. They liked the
wider spacing and more screening between the sites that
exists at national forest campgrounds. The typical camper
seemed to be a different type of camper than the typical
camper at Michigan State Park campgrounds..

In Chapter 6 on the acceptance of the Land and Water
Conservation fees, the discussion arrives at two major con-
clusions. First, the acceptance by the campers of the
$7.00 entrance fee was very high considering 1965 was the
first year for any type of camping charges on the Forest.
Second, the campers did not accept the additional $1.00
user fee with enthusiasm. Some 60 percent indicated they
did not feel the additional user fee was justified.

Since this investigation was limited to the Huron
National Forest during the summer, the findings are not
claimed to be representative of all National Forest campers
nor of early spring and late fall campers. However, it
does represent an accurate description of the characteristics
and desires of the average camper who used the Forest during

the summer months of 1966.

AN ANALYSIS oF FAMILY CAMPER SOCIO-ECONOMIC
CHARACTERISTICS, PREFERENCES, AND ATTITUDES

TOWARD FEES IN THE HURON NATIONAL FOREST

by

Don Earl Krejcarek

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Resource Development

1967

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Michael
Chubb, my thesis advisor, for his conscientious guidance in
completion of this study. I would like to thank Dr. Raleigh
Barlowe, Professor Louis F. Twardzik, and Dr. George Petrides,
members of my graduate committee, for their constructive
criticism.

Special credit is also due to the U. S. Forest Service
for their financial aid and c00peration in making the com-
pletion of this investigation possible. I would like to
thank Mr. Thomas Isley for the photography work.

I wish to show my appreciation to my parents and
sisters for their continued guidance in promoting my educa-
tion. Finally, as an expression of sincere appreciation to
my wife for her patience and coOperative support in the com-
pletion of this research study, I dedicate this thesis to
her.

Don Earl Krejcarek

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vii
LIST OF APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O x

Chapter

I. OBJECTIVES, SIGNIFICANCE, REVIEW OF
LITERATURE AND DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . 1

Objectives
Significance

Review of Literature
Definitions

II. THE STUDY AREA- . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 11

Location
History
Geography

The Campground

III. PROCEDURE. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 27

Basic Methodology Employed
Methodology Used to Determine Sample
Structure

IV. CHARACTERISTICS OF FAMILY CAMPERS. . . . . . . 37

Bias Correction Weighting

Deviations from the 1962 Study Procedures
Analysis of Camper Characteristics

The Origin of Family Campers

Distance Traveled

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter Page

Campground Use

Stated Objective of Trip

Income

Occupation of Family Camping Heads

Education of Family Group Heads

Family Structure

Camping Experience of Family Campers

Type of Shelter Used by Family Campers

Ways in Which Campers Became Aware
of Campgrounds

Summary and Conclusions

V. ANALYSIS OF THE AVERAGE CAMPER'S ATTITUDES
TOWARD FACILITIES AND SERVICES . . . . . . 57

Combined Camper Attitudes
Attitudes Concerning Individual
Campgrounds
Wagner Lake Campground
Mack Lake Campground
Horseshoe Lake Campground
Silver Valley Campground
Corsair Campground
Round Lake Campground
Pine River Campground
Kneff Lake Campground
Monument Campground
Rollways Campground
Island Lake Campground
Gorden Creek Campground
Conclusions

VI. INVESTIGATION OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF LAND
AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND FEES BY
CAMPERS. O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O 82

Analysis of Data
Summary and Conclusions

VII. SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS & IMPLICATIONS. . . 90

Summary
Implications and Recommendations

BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 97

APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 101

iv

10.
ll.
12.

l3.

14.

LIST OF TABLES

Number of Designated Camping Units per
campground O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Allotment of Huron National Forest Camp-
.ground Groups to Particular Days for
Sampling Purposes. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Order of Travel to the Campgrounds Within
the Assigned Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Calculations of Weights Used to Correct Bias
in Sample Data for the Total Huron
National Forest Sample, 1966 . . . . . . . .
Distance Traveled by Camping Groups. . . . . .

Length of Stay of Family Camper in 1966. . . .

Comparison of Length of Stay in 1962 and
1966 StUdies O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Income of Camping Families . . . . . . . . . .

Structure of Camping Families and Distribution
of Children. . . .7. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Camping Experience of Family Heads . . . . . .
Type of Shelter Used by Family Campers . . . .

Ways in Which Campers Became Aware of
Campgrounds O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Percentages of Campers Favoring Various
Types of Facilities on the Huron National
Forest Should Provide. . . . . . . . . . . .

Percentage of Campers Favoring Modern and
Primitive Facilities by Campground . . . . .

Page

29

32

34

38

44

45

45
47

51
52

53

54

58

59

Table

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Percent of Samples from Individual

Campgrounds . . . . . . . .

Percent of Campers Indicating
Attitudes Toward Facilities
at Wagner Lake Campground .

Percent of Campers Indicating
Attitudes Toward Facilities
at Mack Lake Campground . .

Percent of Campers Indicating
Attitudes Toward Facilities

. 0

Various

and Services.

Various
and Services

Various
and Services

at Horseshoe Lake Campground.

Percent of Campers Indicating
Attitudes Toward Facilities
at Silver Lake Campground .

Percent of Campers Indicating
Attitudes Toward Facilities
at Corsair Campground . . .

Percent of Campers Indicating
Attitudes Toward Facilities
at Round Lake Campground. .

Percent of Campers Indicating
Attitudes Toward Facilities
at Pine River Campground. .

Percent of Campers Indicating
tudes Toward Facilities and
Kneff Lake Campground . . .

Percent of Campers Indicating
Attitudes Toward Facilities
at Monument Campground. . .

Percent of Campers Indicating
tudes Toward Facilities and
Rollways Campground . . . .

Percent of Campers Indicating
Attitudes Toward Facilities
at Island Lake Campground .

Various Means of Providing Public

Recreation Areas. . . . . .

vi

Various
and Services

Various
and Services

Various
and Services

Various
and Services

Various Atti-
Services at

Various
and Services

Various Atti-
Services at

Various
and Services

Page

62

63

65

67

68

70

71

73

74

76

77‘

78

84

Figure

11.

12.

13.

14.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Map Showing Huron National Forest in Rela-
tion to Population Centers and
Transportation Routes . . . . . . . . . .-.

Typical Scenery at the Horseshoe Lake
campground. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

The Highway Sign at the Turn-off to the
Horseshoe Lake Campground . . . . . . . . .

The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act
Sign at the Entrance to the Monument
Campground. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Typical Highly Developed Campsite at
Monument Campground . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Typical Campsite with Limited Development
at the Pine River Campground. . . . . . . .

A Typical Garbage Can Installation at the
Monument Campground . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Typical Hand Pump at the Horseshoe Lake
campground. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Piped Water Faucet at the Monument Campground

Typical Vault Toilet at the Horseshoe
Lake Campground . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Firewood Storage and Tools at the
Horseshoe Lake Campground . . . . . . . . .

The Swimming Beach at the Island Lake
C ampground O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O 0

Pine River Campground Shelter . . . . . . . .0

A Trail at the Pine River Campground. . . . .

vii

Page

15

15

16

16

l7

17

18
18

19

19

20
20

21

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued)

Figure Page

15. A Trail Sign at the Island Lake
campground O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2 2

16. A View of the Ausable River from
Michigan State Highway 65 . . . . . . . . . . 23

17. Map Showing Location of Campgrounds on
the Huron National Forest . . . . . . . . . . 30

18. Map of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan
Showing the Percent of 1966 Huron
National Forest Camping Families by
Michigan County of Residence. . . . . . . . . 42

19. Comparison of Family Campers Origins in
1962 and 1966 O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O 43

20. Bar-graph Showing the Occupations of
Family Heads Using the Huron National
Forest in 1962 and 1966 . . . . . . . . . . . 48

21. Bar-graph Showing the Educational Level

of Heads of Families Using the Huron
National Forest in 1962 and 1966. . . . . . . 50

viii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page
A Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
B Pamphlet Given to Campers Explaining

the Land and Water Conservation Fees. . . . 112

ix

INT RODUCT ION

In planning the use of natural resources for recrea-
tional purposes, it is essential that all those factors
which influence growth in recreation demand be taken into
consideration. Two of the most significant groups of in-
fluencing factors are the socio-economic characteristics
of the users and the attitudes of the users toward the
facilities and management. In order to detect changes
in these two groups of factors it is necessary to study
these phenomena periodically by interviewing recreation
users. Information gathered in this manner is useful to
recreation planners and also to those who are charged
with recreation area management. As Wagar has pointed
out, "If outdoor recreation is to be managed with effec-
tiveness in prOportion to its apparent importance, then
simple, readily employed comparisons and outlines are
needed to guide both managers and participants."1

This present investigation is an inventory and

analysis of the socio-economic characteristics, attitudes

toward facilities provided and desired facilities, and

 

1J. V. K. Wagar, "Some Fundamental Characteristics
of Outdoor Recreation," Journal of Forestry, LXIV, 10
(October 1966), p. 667.

reaction to fees charged, of campers using developed national
forest campgrounds in the Huron National Forest, Michigan.
It is divided into two major parts. The first section des-
cribes the background of the study including a description
of the methodology employed. The second part analyzes the
camper characteristics and attitudes and includes a dis-
cussion of the conclusions reached and their implications.
Since this investigation almost replicates a study under-
taken in the same forest in 1962, it has been possible to
make comparisons with the camper characteristics and atti-
tudes existing at that time.

The present study was undertaken with the coopera-
tion and financial assistance of the U. S. Forest Service
and the Department of Resource DeveIOpment at Michigan
State University. The field work was carried out by the
author during the summer of 1966 with the cooperation of
Forest Service personnel. Analysis of the data was completed

in the early months of 1967.

xi

CHAPTER I

OBJECTIVES, SIGNIFICANCE, REVIEW OF

LITERATURE AND DEFINITIONS

Objectives

 

The study had three main objectives. The first was to
determine the nature and extent of any changes between 1962 in
the socio-economic characteristics of campers in the Huron Na-
tional Forest. The second was to discover if any significant
differences existed between the preferences of campers for
various types of camp ground facilities and the facilities
actually present in the campgrounds. The third objective was
to measure camper acceptance of fees under the Land and Water

Conservation Fund Act at National Forest campgrounds.

Significance

 

The Huron National Forest (see Figure l) was selected
for several reasons. First, the forest is relatively compact
which reduced traveling time and made possible the Sampling
of various campgrounds more frequently than if the forest sec—
tions were more dispersed. Second, the previous study of
campers using the Huron National Forest in 1962 offered a
unique opportunity to determine whether or not the character-
istics and attitudes of campers are changing. Third, the

l .

 

' (WT-'3
r000 £05! I \

n." ,1 - (o'.~.- -'.« 3‘- (; I. ‘
. .ICIIIIOI I 3-. .,_ If? I, 7 Ti A '33 ‘o‘w :3 'V' ".
no ' . ‘ - ”(EH -- . I 9 H ‘ ‘ .
. m ‘ P (’3’ ' - .‘, I , ‘ > :1. " . . '

' ”L. ....,, d. I “I“ u!
. 'L..:' "" § 0“ :m'! V M .. o
". ”V * -. ”Dag n. Huron National

J _ ’, . 1:, ... ..
' EC ; . . V v' V 7-; -.~.- u. I? ' \‘-v- " '1... -...- .. -u.’ v- I -' fl; . II ‘ ‘1‘?)
, ‘3 b ”‘3 Y (P— 4—. ‘V c “f . a?
c .-' l
h I \
(

   
 

 

     
   
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\
F ' 1“ ‘ .... i "
’ -- ' O
‘lll. IIIII .0" n , Forest
X‘ “'0
munc- '- .
a A
’ o.-
\
.III a.
a *r‘
nu
U
‘-
I 1"; J~;uoll .-.
"3 no -. .‘l. . 1‘ fi'
-' 'I .lLlOUIlv-I'. , g
I" v. :I
Y .,.....‘.
._ _ 7 . (new... '3"-
o '0 20 30 .‘M ..,... . . .4 .- ' _’ .. .5 ”f (I. 0' '
K‘I'UV'I . .'.'.‘h"" "K I... I‘llr «I» -~II' . , 'l
' "" 7:". , 31 J -.., ;-w- ' -...
'0 Ian.“ 1' "Wan 'Y‘ -- 'f‘e "' ‘
so" .0. ' pm ' '-g~. ' .-
E 4.... ‘ . . deal ,I ' o
‘0 -. - . w- 3. I 1.. L “as"! .‘J
- ‘r' . .Ll Ivl
at: ' ouclor‘: ‘W; .1 "'""""'" O u g
:‘ 1? fl.” - "‘"' “ .ulO- '
F - v 2 . u c ‘ 5"
y . 1 o— n . p . . at. (c
“w". 1 ' ‘ ‘9‘: n.‘ ”:Auy Il' ‘ f '|.:
' A’s-3:- .7. '5. DIN. II I J . . .mu
0—}: ll. nuflL‘r’fv‘Co'W‘fik" """U P: not! _ — '
a "- In; “ ' ‘ ' .fl _ J“ . 3 .u‘
:I. ‘- ’2‘.“ ~I' ¢i153 3‘ t? ““1211; t é '- ‘l\ l' ; I j I . ‘ -' L ‘
9‘ .om- ' J -- v u I O L I
I? 5" ~ '4‘": , f
- , V; 6"“- 4-; 1- "t . ‘ wt”- . v
‘ I V: J " «. K. .'- . x ‘ unv- alto
\,.103 :n- .uo-:v cgfru um ~-r"9 ‘
i ’3 ho, IA. III _ ‘ - _ g"
'.." , —-~ 5"- . me’ “o
p0-.'5‘- ‘ ~ (n _ g;-
_.. .2. '5'" .uvun ®
”9": 0.0!! 0 <9 1 ul-
.- * " I 0
_ 1'
dusty __ ‘ ' e- ." c Lu-
5 . I vein 0" .
’- é' “I a ' .
r & . C .. @
_‘L|vIlOIYOI I...“
”but I ‘
“hi
I Al O - ‘ .
_ ' _
e ‘ gs
A I I I "53 13'
- -
‘ .‘Iuv u
1.. - - " A
,‘3 I J a I LI 0
O- i-
L' I 1‘

 

a III-mi -“.ul.

Fig. l--Map Showing Huron National Forest in Relation to
Population Centers and Transportation Routes.

forest is comparatively close to the investigator's base of
operations at Michigan State University and this was significant
in view of the limited time and financial resources available.
Finally, the selection of the Huron National Forest made it
possible to obtain financial assistance from the U. S. Forest
Service.

Studies involving the socio-economic characteristics of
campers are important to recreation resource planners both in
the development of plans for recreation systems and in the de-
signing of individual sites. Analysis of such data enables
the planner to detect changes in the types of peOple using
recreational facilities. This makes it possible to predict
with more accuracy the kinds of people who are likely to use
facilities in the future. Recreation resource planners can
then adjust their plans to provide the best possible facili-
ties for the anticipated clientele. As King has stated, "At
the present time descriptive studies of recreationists are most
useful as benchmarks for comparisons over time."1

The questions concerning camper preferences and atti-
tudes toward camping facilities provided in the Huron National
Forest developed campgrounds were intended to show if the U. S.
Forest Service is satisfying the desires and needs of the aver-

age camper. The questionnaire also contained questions on

 

1David A. King, Characteristics of Family Campers Using
the Huron-Manistee National Forests, Research Paper L.S.-1§7
TSt. Paul, Minn.: Lake States Forest Experiment Station, 1965),
p. 11.

 

 

facilities that the campers felt were omitted from developed
campgrounds. It is hoped that the responses to these questions
will be of assistance to the Forest Service in providing
facilities that are presently lacking in existing campgrounds
and in designing new camps.

Finally, it is hOped that the results of this study
will provide the basis for further investigation of camper
characteristics and preferences. To this end, some problem

areas will be identified and recommended for further attention.
Review of Literature

The following review of selected literature includes
only those reports and articles that the author feels are
pertinent to the main areas of investigation in this study.
Particular emphasis has been given to reports concerning recrea-
tion on national and state forest lands.

One of the first studies that probed the field of camper
characteristics and preferences was the report by Taves,

Hathaway, and Bultens, entitled, Canoe Country Vacationers.2

 

The purpose of the project was to obtain data on "Who vaca-

tioned in the area, for what reasons, and with what effects;

what these vacationers think of the area; and what they would
3

like done with it." It was undertaken following a previous

smaller study which attempted to investigate the human elements

 

2Marvin J. Taves, William Hathaway and Gorden Bultens,
Canoe Country Vacationers (Miscellaneous Report 39, University
of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station), June 1960.

3Ibid., p. 6.

of wilderness use.4 An interesting feature of this investiga-
tion was the use of two questionnaires. The first question-
naire was completed before or during the camping experience,
while the second was to be filled out after the camping experi-
ence had been completed. From analysis of the two question-
naires the authors were able to determine whether or not
camper motivations, perception of attractions and preferences
had changed due to participation in the camping experience.

Another relevant research project was carried out in
1959 by Fine and Werner.5 Personal interviews were conducted
to investigate camper characteristics, preferences, and atti-
tudes. The authors felt that the information obtained would
be of value in planning future camping facilities. Ideas for
suitable questions for use in the present study were obtained
from this source.

In 1960, a survey of family campers in Northern Wiscon-
sin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan was made by Loren
Woerpel of Michigan Technological University.6 Data was
collected by means of a questionnaire distributed among campers
of which some 357 were completed and returned. The selection

of the sample did not comply with accepted sampling procedures

 

4Gregory F. Stone and Marvin J. Taves, "Research into
the Human Element of Wilderness Use," Proceedings of the
Society of American Foresters (Memphis, Tennessee: 1956),
pp. 26-32.

5I. V. Fine and E. E. Werner, "Camping in State Parks
and Forests in Wisconsin," Wisconsin Vacation Recreation
Pa ers, Vol. 1, No. 3 (University of Wisconsin, Bureau of
Bus1ness Research, 1960).

6Loren S. Woerpel, Characteristics of the Family Camper
.in Northe£n Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan
(Stevens Point: Wisconsin Federation of Conservatio: Flats

-r. ,.. '= '1- \
11m, Q .1. , .1

 

 

so a bias was probably introduced into the results. One in-
teresting finding was that campers did appear to change their
preferences for facilities after they have gained camping
experience with family campers tending to desire less deve10ped
facilities.7 However, this finding may have been only true

for the particular type of camper encountered in that area

at that time. There is strong evidence that campers as a
whole generally prefer fairly well developed facilities.

An unpublished M.S. thesis by Alphonse Gilbert examines
camper needs and preferences in Iron County, Michigan.8 The
data was collected by a personal interview type of question-
naire. One interesting aspect of the analysis was the separa-
tion of male and female responses. This was done in order to
detect any differences in preferences and attitudes and re-
vealed that differences did exist in a number of areas.

Visitor characteristics and recreation activities on
two National Forest areas were investigated by Wagar in 1963.9
A questionnaire was given to campers to fill in at their con-
venience and some 60 per cent were returned. No follow-up

was made on those who did not return questionnaires. Analysis

 

71bid., p. 20.

8Alphonse H. Gilbert, "A Survey of Vacation Camping in
Iron County, Michigan," (unpublished Master's thesis, Depart-
ment of Resource Development, Michigan State University, 1963).

9J. A. Wagar, "Relationships Between Visitor Character-
istics and Recreation Activities on Two National Forest Areas,"
USFS Research Paper EE-7 (Upper Darby, a.: Northwestern
Forest Experiment Station, 1963).

of the results indicated that participation in camping at the
areas concerned was not independent of distances from the
place of residence. It was also demonstrated that many dif-
ferences existed between visitors to the two areas. These
areas were basically similar except that fees were charged
at one and not at the other.

The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission
(ORRRC) reports provide an important source of camping in-

formation.10 Study Report No. 5, The Quality of Outdoor

 

Recreation: As Evidenced by User Satisfaction, presents a

nationwide user survey which tests the usefulness of user

satisfaction as a measure of recreation area quality. Study

Reports Nos. 19 and 20 include discussion of the recreation

preferences and habits of the American peOple. Camping is

one of the activities discussed. The report indicates that

ease of access to recreation areas from centers of population

is an important variable affecting the amount of participation.11
Finally, there is the study by King in cooperation

with Lucas on camper characteristics and attitudes in the

Huron-Manistee National Forests. King has authored two arti-

cles concerning this study, both of which have been published.

In the Academy of Science paper he compares certain socio-

economic characteristics of family campers with the general

 

10U. 5., Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commis-

sion, Outdoor Recreation for America (Washington, D.C.:
U. S. Government Printing Office, 1962).

11Ibid., pp. 26-27.

socio-economic characteristics of the population in the area
where the camper resided. The characteristics compared in-
cluded family income, occupation, and education.12 Analysis
of the results showed that the campers in the sample were
generally in a higher socio-economic class than was the aver-
age in that area of residence. He also confirmed that once
the effect of population size was removed, the number of
campers was inversely proportional to the distance between
the campground and the camper's place of residence.13
King's other study on the characteristics of family

14 It showed that

campers was of a more descriptive nature.
the average length of stay of family campers was not very
great and that the campers using the National Forest camp-

grounds generally had some camping experience.

Definitions

 

The following list of definitions is included since
at present there is no commonly accepted glossary of terms
in the recreation field. These definitions are given in
order to clarify the author's meaning in using the terms

in this thesis.

 

12David A. King, Some Socio-Economic Comparisons of
the Huron and Manistee National Forest Family Campers With
Market Populations. tiubiished paper presented at Michigan
Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters, East Lansing, Michigan,
March 27, 1964).

 

l3Ibid., p. 51.

14Ibid., p. 53.

Camper characteristics are those characteristics of
campers which were inventoried for this investigation. They
were, family personal income, occupation, origin and destina-
tion, family composition, educational levels, place of resi-
dence, camping equipment used and previous camping experience.

Camper attitudes are those attitudes and preferences
of campers that were inventoried. These included the camp-
ers' attitudes and preferences concerning types of campsites
and the facilities that were available or were lacking.

Camping equipment is defined as all equipment directly
related to the actual act of camping. It does not include
boats, fishing equipment, other sports equipment, or vehicles
except when they are used for living or for sleeping purposes.

A campground is an area specifically designed for
camping or an area that is made available and plainly marked
for use by campers. Both modern and undeveloped campsites
are included.

A campsite is an area used by one family or small group
for camping purposes. It is usually equipped with a table
and a fireplace.

A family group is a group related by marriage, blood,
or adoption, in which the father and mother, if living, are
present.

A group spokesman for a family_is the father or any
adult member, if the father is not at the campsite.

A group spokesman for an unrelated group is whoever
speaks for the group. The group may choose him or he may

be self-chosen.

10

An organized_gromp is any unrelated group consisting
of several camping units and belonging to an organization

such as the Boy Scouts or Y.M.C.A.

An unrelated group is any group not classified as a

family.

A survey week runs from Friday through to the next

Thursday.

CHAPTER II
THE STUDY AREA

Before discussing the methodology used in this study,
it is felt that a general description of the Huron National
Forest will give the reader a better understanding of the
area involved. In the following sections of this chapter,
the general characteristics of the Forest and the actual

campgrounds are discussed.
Location

The Huron National Forest is one of the closest Na-
tional Forests to the major population centers of the Mid-
west being located in the northeastern part of lower Michigan.
Detroit, Flint, Saginaw, and Lansing are some of the nearby
cities which supply a large number of the campers. All these
cities are within half a day's traveling time by automobile.

Some of the major transportation routes that inter-
sect the Forest are Interstate 75, M-33, U.S.-23, M-72, and
M-65. These main arteries make the Huron National Forest
readily accessible to the residents of both the southern and
northern parts of lower Michigan.

The Huron National Forest has two other National For-
ests located near it. They are the Manistee National Forest

11

12

on the northwestern side of lower Michigan, and the Hiawatha
National Forest located in the eastern half of the Upper
Peninsula of Michigan. There are also Michigan State For-
ests adjacent to the southern and northern boundaries of the

Forest.

History

This National Forest was created in 1909 when federal
lands were set aside for watershed protection and timber
production.1 The area had been considered a paradise for
lumbermen during the high tide of the lumber industry, mainly
in the period from 1860 to 1890. In 1929 the area was named
the Huron National Forest after the Huron Indian Tribe which
had previously inhabited the area.2 Under the supervision
of the Forest Service, the burned and logged over lands were
reforested principally with various pine species. Soil ero-
sion was checked and the Forest Service provided protection
from fires, insects, and disease. There are some 415,000
acres of federally owned land within the present boundaries
of the forest. The policy of the U. S. Forest Service is
"to develop all the renewable resources for the use and bene-

fit of all people."3

 

1U. S., Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

"Huron National Forest," Section on Historical Notes, NF-4R.9
(U. S. Government Printing Office, 1933), p. 2.

21bid., p. 2.

3 .

U. S., Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Huron National Forest "Recreation Map" (Delmer Lithograph
Company, Waukesha, Wisconsin, 1963) map side.

13

Geography

 

The Huron National Forest is located in a glaciated
area which explains the topography and variety of soil types
in certain sections. Many marshes and lakes dot the terrain.
The Forest lies in the heart of what was once the virgin
"forest primeval" of Michigan. Much of the area was subjected
to repeated burning during the famous lumbering era and a
relatively low organic content in many of the soils has re-
sulted. Most of the major soil types are of a generally
sandy nature, Grayling, Rabricon, and Emmet, being a few of
the more common ones. Due to previous forest fires, the
soils in public ownership are usually of low fertility and
a large percentage of the forest cover is jackpine, scrub
oak, and aspen. The area is covered predominantly with
second and third growth forest, and approximately 90% of
federal timber sales are pulpwood sales.4

The area is noted for its two famous trout rivers,
the Ausable and Big Creek. The Ausable transects the Forest
from west to east. This river is one of the major factors
that contributes to the area's great recreation potential.

The climate of the area is nearly ideal for recrea-
tion. During the year the temperature varies from 30°F be-

low zero to over 100°F but the mean monthly temperature for

 

4Iosco County Planning Commission, Overall Economic

Development Plan Revision (Iosco County, Michigan) 1966,
Section on Forest Industry, p. 1.

 

14

July, the heaviest tourist month, is 67°F.5 The area has

also approximately 50 inches of snow each year which contri-
butes to its uses as a winter recreation area particularly
with the increased popularity of the snowmobile.

One limiting factor for recreation in this region is
its susceptibility to drought. Since the soils are mostly
sands and a large portion of the forest cover is jackpine,
the fire hazard is often dangerously high during the summer
season. The author particularly noticed this to be the case
during the data collection period in 1966. Forest Service
personnel indicated that high fire hazard during the recrea-
tion season is one of the major problems with which they

must contend.

The Campgrounds

 

The areas provided by the Forest Service for camping
are generally quite scenic. Figure 2 shows some of the
typical campground scenery which attracts campers to this
Forest. Fair-sized trees, water in the form of a lake or
a stream, and the general tranquility of a forest environ-
ment are common characteristics of U. S. Forest Service

campgrounds in this region.

 

5Ogemaw County RedeveloPment Area Organization, Over-
all Economic Development Plan Ogemaw County (Ogemaw County,
Michigan) 1963, Section on Redevelopment Area and Its
Economy, p. l.

15

 

 

Fig. 2.--Typica1 scenery at the Horseshoe Lake Campground

 

V—

Fig. 3.--The highway sign at the turn-off to the
Horseshoe Lake Campground

16

 

Fig. 4.--The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act sign at
the entrance to the Monument Campground

 

 

Fig. 5.--A typical highly developed campsite at Monument
Campground

17

 

Fig. 6.--A typical campsite with limited development at the
Pine River Campground

 

 

Fig. 7.--A typical garbage can installation at the Monument
Campground

Fig.

Fig.

18

 

 

 

 

9.--Piped water faucet at the Monument Campground

l9

 

Fig. 10.--Typica1 vault toilet at the Horseshoe Lake Camp-
ground

 

Fig. 1l.--Firewood storage and tools at the Horseshoe Lake
Campground

20

 

 

 

 

Fig. l3.--Pine River Campground shelter

21

 

 

Fig. l4.--A trail at the Pine River Campground

22

 

 

\

Fig. lS.--A trail sign at the Island Lake Campground

23

 

Fig. 16.--A view of the Ausable River from Michigan State
Highway 65

24

Entrances to National Forest campgrounds from main
highways are generally well marked. An example of the typi-
cal turn-off sign is shown in Figure 3. The camper usually
sees only one such sign as he approaches a Forest campground
turn-off and they are normally located quite close to the
point where the turn has to be made. The sign shown is the
standard type erected by the Michigan Department of State
Highways.

On entering the campground the camper will see a sign
such as is shown in Figure 4, if Land and Water Fund Act
Fees are being charged for the campground. Such fees are
required of campers who stay at areas with improved facili-
ties. Entrance fees are payable on entry into the designated
areas, and user fees are required for special facilities such
as flush toilets or where the recreation attraction is of
high quality. At a few of the campgrounds no fees were charged
and a further discussion is included in Chapter 7.

The facilities provided at the various campgrounds
differed to some extent. Some of the facilities commonly
found at the campground are shown in the illustrations.
Figure 5 shows a typical campsite at a developed campground.
Such sites normally have creosoted posts inserted along their
open sides in order to prevent vehicles from leaving the
roadways and parking spurs and thus encouraging orderly use
of the campground. At a few of the campgrounds which serve
principally as overflow areas, the boundaries of campsites

are not clearly designated. A typical example of this type

25

of site is shown in Figure 6. Only the bare necessities are
provided such as a table, garbage can, and sometimes a fire-
place.

The garbage can shown in Figure 7 is typical of those
provided by the Forest Service. The cover is usually attached
by a chain to some immovable object such as a pipe or tree.
At a few of the campgrounds the garbage cans are buried in
the ground so that the lid is flush with the surface. Plastic
liners are put inside the cans to facilitate cleaning.

Water is provided either from a hand pump as shown in
Figure 8 or by a piped pressure system as shown in Figure 9.
The toilets provided are all similar to the one shown in
Figure 10 except at Kneff Lake Campground where flush toilets
have been installed. The vault toilets are simple but are
well ventilated and frequently cleaned.

At some of the campgrounds "do it yourself firewood
kits" are provided for the use of campers. This makes fire-
wood readily available to campers without resulting in un-
necessarily high consumption of wood due to excessive burning
or theft. A theft problem does exist with the tools so they
are chained to the wood rack as a precautionary measure.
Another problem is porcupine damage to certain wooded facili-
ties and in an effort to prevent this, the bases of posts
are covered with tin. These points are illustrated in
Figure 11.

Swimming beaches are at a premium at the campgrounds

in the Huron National Forest. Only four of them have good

26

beaches. Figure 12 shows a typical example. Swimming is
one of the many activities at these campgrounds particularly
for families with children. Shelters are provided at some
of the campgrounds. They usually contain tables and are
well ventilated. A typical example is shown in Figure 13.
Scenic trails have been constructed at a few of the camp-
grounds. They are well marked and well maintained. Figure
14 shows a trail leading down to the river at the Pine River
campground. Figure 15 shows the beginning of a trail at

the Island Lake campground.

No description of the area would be complete without
mention of the aesthetic values of the scenery along the
Ausable River. Two of the campgrounds included in the study
are located on the ridge overlooking this famous river.

Figure 16 shows a typical view of the river scenery.

CHAPTER III

PROCEDURE

Basic Methodology Employed

 

Only those campgrounds in the Huron National Forest
that were open to the public during the summer of 1966 were
included in this study. The necessary field work was begun
on June 15, 1966 and lasted until August 11, 1966. During
this time, data was collected using a prepared personal in-
terview technique with the interviewer asking the questions
and recording the answers. A copy of the questionnaire (see
Appendix A) was given to all the campers interviewed. The
interviewer retained this blank questionnaire after the in-
terview. When the questionnaire was being field tested, it
was found that respondents were much quicker in answering
questions if they had been given a c0py of the questionnaire
to follow as the interviewer went through it.

The time it took to interview a particular camper de-
pended upon a number of factors. One of the most important
factors was the educational level of the camper. It was
generally found that those with a higher level of education
responded more quickly than those with a lower educational

level. Other factors that caused differences in the time

27

28

required for interviewing were; the general emotional condi-
tion of the camper regarding management practices such as
fees, motorcycles, and other problems, the weather conditions
at the time, and the activity the camper was doing or about
to do. It took from ten minutes to as much as one hour to
conduct a single interview, the average time being close to
15 minutes.

It was quickly discovered that it would take more than
one person to complete the number of interviews required at
each campground. It was therefore necessary to obtain the
assistance of two other people to keep up with the sampling

schedule.

Methodology Used to Determine Sample

All the campgrounds of the Huron National Forest were
included in the sample. These campgrounds are all clearly
marked as areas to be used for camping purposes. During the
summer of 1966 they ranged in size from a maximum of 34 de-
veloped campsites to a minimum of six developed family units.
Table 1 lists these campgrounds with the number of family
units in each in June 1966.

The methodology used to determine how the sampling
would be done was basically the same as that used by King
during his 1962 study. This was done in order to make it
possible to compare the results of the current study with

the 1962 values. The author also felt that King's technique

29

TABLE 1. Number of Designated Camping Units Per Campground1

 

 

Campground Designated Units

 

Mio District

1. Island Lake 17
2. Kneff Lake 18
3. Mack Lake 26
4. Wagner Lake 12

Tawas District

1. Corsair Campground 12
2. Corden Creek 10
3. Lumbermans Monument 20
4. Rollaways Campground l9
5. Round Lake 34
6. Silver Valley 6 (no desig-

nated spurs)
Harrisville District

1. Horseshoe Lake 6
2. Pine River 6
3. Jewel Lake Not Complete

 

 

1From a personal interview with Wayne Worthington,
Landscape Architect, Huron National Forest, Cadillac, Michigan,
June 2, 1966.

effectively eliminated bias and yet was still relatively easy
to put into practice.

The twelve campgrounds in the forest were first grouped
for sampling purposes into three groups in order to keep
travel time between campgrounds to a minimum (see Figure 17).
All the campgrounds in a particular group were sampled on
the days selected for that group. After consideration of
the time available and distances involved, it was decided

that each campground would be sampled six times on each day

30

 

 

  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l'“‘)__ _ ___
I ——————
7 l
--J H- _'-
Mio 5 :
4. 6 . rJ
l
I
---------- a
Roscommon ;___---_ -11.. 8' I.»
Rose City '| 9' [fl
' 012'!-J
\\West L--J‘
Br h
List of Campgrounds
A. Group 1 C. Group 3
l. Kneff Lake 9. Gorden Creek
2. Wagner Lake 10. Silver Valley
3. Island Lake 11. Corsair
4. Mack Lake 12. Round Lake
B. Group 2 LEGEND
5. Horseshoe Lake ---------- H.N.F. Boundary
6. Pine River State & Federal Hwys.
7. Rollways o Campground Locations
8. Monument

FIGURE 17.—-Map showing location of campgrounds on the Huron
National Forest.

31

of the week, that is, on six Sundays, six Mondays, six Tues-
days, etc. The sample period was eight weeks in length.

To make sure that sampling at any given campground would be
distributed to some extent through the season, the sample
period was put into two segments. The same sampling tech-
nique for assigning campground groups to particular days was
carried out separately for each four-week segment. Therefore,
only the procedure for sampling one four-week segment will

be described.

In the first four-week segemnt, the three campground
groups were sampled on separate days with each group being
visited one day of each day of the week for the four-week
segment. For example, in the first four—week segment, camp-
ground group 2 was sampled on the first Sunday, campground
group 1 was sampled on the third Sunday, and campground group
3 was sampled on the fourth Sunday. The Sunday when no samp-
ling was to be done was selected randomly (see Table 2).
Thus, there were 21 sampling days in the first four-week
segment. In order to select on a reasonable random basis
the seven days when no sampling would be done, the days in
the four-week segment were numbered from 1 to 28 and a table
of random numbers was then used to select the particular days
within the four Mondays, four Tuesdays, etc., when no sampling
was to take place. Only one restriction was imposed and that
was that there would be at least one but not more than two
days in any survey week when no sampling would take place.

A survey week was considered to begin on Friday and end on

the following Thursday.

32

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 2. Allotment of Huron National Forest Campground
Groups to Particular Days for Sampling Purposes
Week No. Dates Days of the Week
8 S M T W T

1) June 17-

June 23 2 l 2 3
2) June 24-

June 30 l 3 l 3
3) July 1-

July 7 3 l 2 2 1
4) July 8-

July 14 2 3 3 l 2
5) July 15-

July 21 1 3 l 2 3
6) July 22-

July 28 l 3 2 3 2
7) July 29-

Aug. 4 2 2 l 1
8) Aug. 5-

Aug. 11 3 2 l 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ticular days was also done on a restricted random
The days selected were chosen by using a table of
numbers.
table was again consulted and the appearance of a
2 or 3 was used to determine which group would be

to the day in question.

After each day was selected, the random

once and no more than twice in each survey week.

The assignment of the three campground groups to par-

basis.
random
numbered
number 1,

assigned

Each group was sampled at least

33

At each campground the sample size was set at 25% of
the occupied campsites or one interview in cases when less
than four campsites were occupied. Therefore, the sampling
rate was slightly higher than 25% of occupied campsites for
the entire study.

The camping parties to be interviewed were also selected
on a random basis. Some restrictions were necessary to meet
the various circumstances encountered. In order that no camp-
ground was sampled more than once at the same time of day
during the sample period, the order in which campgrounds were
visited was rotated for each campground group (see Table 3).
For example, campgrounds in group 1 were numbered consecutively,
and the order in which they were to be visited for the first
sample was set at 1, 2, 3, 4. For the second visit the order
was set at 2, 3, 4, 1 and so on for the fourteen times each
group was sampled.

The interviewing of campers was conducted during the
period from 1:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on each sample day. The
interviewer used a rough map of the campground to determine
which sites would be sampled. As the interviewer went through
the campground, he numbered the occupied sites. Where two
sites lay directly opposite one another, the site on the
right side of the road was always numbered first. If the
campground was filled to over capacity and there were camping
parties in non-designated areas near or within the campground,
they were numbered in the same manner as the developed sites.

After all the occupied sites were numbered, the interviewer

34

 

 

 

TABLE 3. Order of Travel to the Campgrounds Within the
Assigned Groups
Campground Sample Order Sample Order
A. Group 1
1. Kneff Lake 1 1,2,3,4 l2 2,3,4,1
2. Wagner Lake 2 4,1,2,3 l3 1,2,3,4
3. Island Lake 3 3,4,1,2 14 4,1,2,3
4. Mack Lake 4 2,3,4,1
5 1,2,3,4
6 4,1,2,3
7 3,4,1,2
8 2,3,4,1
9 1,2,3,4
10 4,1,2,3
ll 3,4,1,2
B. Group 2
l. Horseshoe Lake 1 1,2,3,4 12 2,3,4,1
2. Pine River 2 4,1,2,3 l3 1,2,3,4
3. Rollways 3 3,4,1,2 l4 4,1,2,3
4. Monument 4 2,3,4,1
5 1,2,3,4
6 4,1,2,3
7 3,4,1,2
8 2,3,4,1
9 1,2,3,4
10 4,1,2,3
ll 3,4,1,2
C. Group 3
l. Gorden Creek 1 1,2,3,4 12 2,3,4,1
2. Trail Camp 2 4,1,2,3 13 1,2,3,4
Silver Valley 3 3,4,1,2 l4 4,1,2,3
3. Corsair Camp 4 2,3,4,1
4. Round Lake 5 1,2,3,4
6 4,1,2,3
7 3,4,1,2
8 2,3,4,1
9 1,2,3,4
10 4,1,2,3
ll 3,4,1,2

 

 

 

 

 

consulted a table of random numbers to determine which sites

would comprise the 25% sample to be interviewed.

35

Campers who were already in the process of breaking
camp were not included in the determination of which sites
would be interviewed. If a situation occurred where a camp-
ing party would have been included in a sample more than
once (i.e. if the party was in the same campground when it
was sampled again or if it had moved to another campground
that was being sampled), only the information on length of
stay and family name was recorded. This meant that only the
last page of the questionnaire (see Appendix A) was filled
out for campers that had been previously interviewed. If
more than one party was occupying a site, all of the parties
using the campsite were interviewed.

A number of problems were encountered during the actual
interviewing. The large number of campers that used certain
campgrounds on the July 4th weekend resulted in the number
of interviews for those days being much larger than had been
anticipated. For example, although the largest campground
had only 36 designated sites, one campground was occupied
by over 70 camping families when it was visited for sampling
purposes. However, with three peOple interviewing it was
possible to complete the sampling on the day to which it had
been assigned. Another problem was that some campers refused
to answer the questions. In all, only three peOple refused
to answer all questions and in these three cases, other
campers were selected by similar methods. Finding people
at their campsites was also a problem. If some of the camp-

ing parties selected were not home when they were to be

36

interviewed, they were by-passed and the rest of the selected
units were interviewed. If after one hour they were still
not at their campsite, new campers were selected. Only once
did campers not return to the only occupied site within the
hour. In this case, the campground was dr0pped from the
sample.

There was also some difficulty concerning certain
questions on the questionnaire. Some of them were not ap-
plicable at particular campgrounds. For example, when the
camper being interviewed was not occupying a develOped camp-
site, the questions on his reaction to facilities did not
apply. To compensate for this, the interviewer told the
camper of the facilities that were normally available on a
developed site and the camper was then asked to answer the
question as if he had such facilities available to him.

These then were the main problems that confronted the
interviewer while attempting to complete the sampling. The
fact that more difficulties were not experienced with the
questionnaire indicates that its structure was generally

quite satisfactory.

CHAPTER IV
CHARACTERISTICS OF FAMILY CAMPERS
Bias Correction Weighting

Before actually proceeding with the analysis of data,
it was necessary to make a correction for a bias in the data
by using a method devised by Lucas.1 This bias is due to
the fact that the probability of a family being in the sample
is a function of the number of days they spent camping within
the Forest during the study period. Those campers who stayed
for longer periods are over-represented compared to campers
who only stayed a short time.

This bias is a problem when an estimate of average
length of stay or analysis of other related variables are
needed. A simple weighting process can be used to correct
for the bias. The calculations used to determine the weights
are shown in Table 4 and the procedure used was as follows.

The first step was to divide the number of sample
families (n) in each length-of-stay class by the length of

stay (i). For example:

 

Robert C. Lucas, "Bias in Estimating Recreationists'
Length of Stay from Sample Interviews." Journal of Forestry,

 

37

38

 

 

 

oo.maw oo.ooa omm.mma Nae mq¢aoa
How. Hm.a mm. mmm. w +ma m
mam. mm.m mm.m ¢H~.m me ea m
mom. mm.h mh.a mmw.m mm m.aa h
vmm. mm.v o~.H hem.a «a m.m m
hem. mm.hh mm.ma mam.mm mwa m.m m
moo.H ma.vm nm.ma mmm.am em m w
wom.a mm.>m hH.HN ooo.m~ mm m m
hoo.m ov.mma mm.mm ooo.mm mm a m
3 .c m s a
munmflwz mocmswmnm coHvanHumHo M woswswoum mama Ga asapou
mamamm pmusmflmz mmmuswuumm c mHmEmm Scum mo sumsmq mnflmssqflummso

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

puma .mamsmm ammuom
Hmcowumz counm Hmuoa How mama mamamm GH moan uowuuou o» munmamz mo coaumasoamu .¢ Hands

39

n _ 5_ _
i — 1. - 53.000

Then, to arrive at the figures for the percentage
distribution (P) in the fifth column, each value in the
third column was divided by the sums of the values in that

column, for example

p E
‘ i _ 53.000 _
p ' *136.980 ' 38°69
i

The weighted frequency in each length-of-stay class
(n') was found by first converting the values in the "Per-
centage Distribution“ columns to decimals and then multiply-
ing these values by the total sample size (N), for example:
n' = P X N = .3869 X 412 = 159.40
Finally, the weights (W) were calculated by dividing
the weighted frequencies (n') by the unweighted frequencies

(n), for example:

:3

' _ 159.40

W= -—-§-§——=3.007

”I

A good explanation of the above procedure is given

by David A. King in a supplement to Research Paper L.S.-l9.2
Deviations From the 1962 Study Procedures

In order to fulfill the first objective of this

study, the data were collected and analyzed in basically

 

2David A. King, "Sampling and Length-of—Stay Bias

Adjustment Supplement to Research Paper L.S.-l9," Lakes
States Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minnesota,
December 6, 1965. p.8 (Mimeographed)

40

the same fashion as was done in the 1962 study. However,
there was some deviation from the previous procedure which
should be mentioned at this time.

First, the data collection period of the present
study was shortened due to the available time and financial
resources being limited. Second, some new campgrounds were
added to the sample while one campground, which was changed
to a day use area, was removed from the sample. Campgrounds
are typical and should not cause any significant differences
in analysis. Finally, the length of stay question asked
of campers grouped the number of days stayed after 3 as
follows: 4 to 7 days, 8 to 9 days, 10 to 13 days, and 15
or more days. The 1962 study recorded length of stay by
the actual number of days. Since length of stay was the
factor used to determine the weights which corrected the
sampling bias, the use of length of stay groupings may be
a possible source of error. The reason for grouping the
length of stay was to keep the questionnaire coding for
that question to numbers less than 10. Also, the author
believes that this source of error is negligible because
the data collected in 1962 showed sample frequencies that

were very similar for the days included in the groupings.
Analysis of Camper Characteristics

The types of camping groups that visited the camp-
grounds were predominantly families. Eighty-two and a

half percent were families, 10.4 percent‘ were families

41

and friends, 4.0 percent were groups of unrelated friends,
2.1 percent were organized groups and 1.1 percent were
individuals. Of the 412 camping groups interviewed, 340
were families. Since the 1962 study analyzed only family
campers, this portion of the investigation also used family
campers. If data for other camper groups is included in

the analysis, an explanation is given.
The Origin of Family Campers

Most of the campers came from a comparatively small
area in the southeastern corner of lower Michigan. Figure
18 shows in detail the percentage of family campers by
origin county. Some 50 percent of all the family campers
who visited the Forest came from the area lying east of a
line drawn from Bay through Wayne counties. Ohio is the
highest out-of-state origin area with 6.7 percent coming
from that state.

When the 1966 data was compared to the 1962 study,
it was discovered that little change in the origins of the
campers had occurred. Figure 19 shows a direct comparison
of the origins for the two years. It appears that an in-
creasing number of campers is coming from outside the North
Central region of the United States. Approximately 5 per-
cent came to the Forest from outside the North Central Re-

gion in 1966 compared to less than 3 perCent in 1962.

 

_ .
. 4 _ . 1..
_ . "11. J
" wt|u|_ 9 _
"IIIIJ. 7 _ lllll J 1.
. I I
c O rIIIII-I‘ O — l-
_ 2 n 7 _ 8 _lull.l_ 6
- 4 I I
_ . -1--." u _.-L_
_ _ 5
1:114 5_ l rw uuuuu _ .. 3
. _ _L. :_ . _ fl _ 2 _ .
_ «JFEFIHIWIJ7. _ QNTIILIIIJ .l
._ _ 3. 6 _ _ II_ 6. 8 _|I|u..
_II.|..II_ I- I _.|Il..|||_ll [— _ I
_ _ _ 4 _ _ _ 4. l—
. WIIAIIJ 3. 3 TII.
_ _ _ L ._ 6 till. 1
----_ _ w|-_---1 ._ 1--I
4 _I- _ _ _ 3 . .Illl _ 2 —
. _ _ _ “I I.— l.
i!“ _ _ 15..-]; 7r---4-..1
. _ 2_ _ 2 _
rulllllllklc III: .

_ u . e _ _ 5”
III" I ll'l— Ill III'II
.. _ .HI _ .I L

_ IV uh _ _ _ . 2
III] lI-Ill- — I
w. _ _ 1 _ 1-....II
_ _ . 2

 

Percent of camping families from out state origins
in 1966

 

9~1032
6 A.
1.

m

a

C

k .m
r OT
0 .10
Y IT
03

Wilt
ehn
N00
9909
lqz
S Ya
.1 akk
OhCS
naua
.litr
ltdnub
lnee
IIKN

Forest camping families by Michigan county

showing the percent of 1966 Huron National
of residence.

FIGURE 18.--Map of the lower peninsula of Michigan

43

.9. ma mcomflnmmeoo How poms usmonma ummHHmEmQ

.e .m .umwnom HMcOHumz

 

 

mwumflsmzlconsm on» mwflms mummEMUANAflEmm mo moflumflumuomumso .mcflm .d ©H>mam

.mwma can Mmmma ca mcflmfluo “mason maflamm mo GOmHHmmEoonl.mH mmame

    

 
       

D
K “35.3
«$553.5 \\ FEES ”WU
\
a s \ .
fillllulll-lld
36 he mzeazH 02 Mi 0 2% SEE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

meme meme

44

Distance Traveled

 

This analysis of the distance traveled by family
campers from their place of residence to the campground
is based on data that was not weighted. The computer pro-
gram designed by the Forest Service for the 1962 study,
and also used for this study, could not weigh the distance
traveled. The analysis is also based on the total sample.
The investigation showed that 75.2% of the campers traveled
a distance of 50-200 miles. This indicates distances that
would fit the average weekend camper. No data was readily

available to make comparisons with the 1962 study.

TABLE 5. Distance Traveled by Camping Groups

 

 

 

 

Miles Traveled Number of

From Origin Camping Groups Percent

0- 50 10 2.4

51-100 35 20.6

101-150 103 25’0

151—200 122 29,5

201-250 35 8.7

251-400 22 5.3

401 34 8.4

412 100.0

 

 

 

Campground Use

 

The mean days camped per family per trip (assuming
each sample taken represents one trip) in 1966 was 3.1 days
while in 1962 it was 5.0 days. A reason for the decrease
in the mean days camped per trip in 1966 might be due to

different methods of computation. The 1962 investigation

45

sent a post card to each family in the fall requesting

number of trips, length of stays,etc.

The average length

of stay in 1966 of close to 3 days and the fact that 75

percent

stayed less than 3 days suggests high weekend use.

In analyzing this data an Opportunity existed to compare

weighted and unweighted data.

ences between the two sets of data.

The table shows great differ-

 

 

 

TABLE 6. Length of Stay of Family Camper in 1966
Length of Stay Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted
in Days Frequency Frequency Percentage Percentage

1 49 147.34 12.56 38.48

2 51 76.70 13.08 20.03

3 61 61.12 15.64 15.97

5.5(4-7) 137 74.94 35.13 19.58

8.5(8-9) 13 4.60 3.33 1.20

11.5(10-13) 28 7.34 7.18 1.92

14 43 9.24 11.03 2.38

15 8 1.61 2.05 .41

 

 

 

 

 

When the length of stay in 1966 is compared to the

1962 values the percentages show an increase in l to 3 day
camping by approximately 30 percent. This is probably
explained by the high weekend use which occurs at many of

the campgrounds.

 

 

 

TABLE 7. Comparison of Length of Stay in 1962 and 1966
Studies
Trip Length
in Days 1962 1966
1-3 45 74.5
4-9 45 20.8
10- 10 4.7

 

 

 

46
Stated Objective of Trip

Approximately half of the family campers interviewed
gave one of the following three basic reasons for their
visit. "StOpping overnight“ or “temporarily camping“ was
given as a main reason by 7.7 percent, 34.3 percent said
it was "one of a number of primary places“ they were to
visit, and 3.6 percent stated they were "camping only for
the sake of lodging while visiting other areas nearby.“
However, the majority of the campers (54.4 percent) gave
"visiting the Forest" as the primary purpose of the trip.
In comparing these figures with those of 1962, a large
drOp (27.6 percent) occurred in the percentage of campers
who gave visiting the Forest as the primary purpose of the

trip.
Income

Comparison of the mean incomes from the two studies
is not particularly reliable because they may have been
computed differently and extreme values may have distorted
the mean income values. A better value to use for compari-
son is the median income. The 1966 median income shows an
increase of some 750 dollars over the 1962 value. In com-
paring the distribution of camping families among income
classes, it is evident that there were fewer low income
families and more high income families. Some noticeable

increases occurred in the $7,000 to $9,999 class (13 percent)

47

and in the $10,000 to $14,999 class (8 percent). In general,
respondents' attitudes toward this question was receptive

with only 8 percent refusing to give answers about their in-

come .

TABLE 8. Income of Camping Families

 

 

 

 

 

Percentg Percents
Income Class in 1962 in 1966
Less than 2,999 App. 5 4.2
3,000 to 4,999 App. 9 3.1
5,000 to 6,999 39 19.2
7,000 to 9,999 26 39.3
10,000 to 14,999 14 21.9
15,000 7 4.3
100 100.0
Mean Income 8100 7440
Median Income 6500 7250

 

 

 

Occppations of Family Camping Heads

The bar-graphs in Figure 20 show the occupation
classes used in the investigation and the percent of family
heads in each class. A number of changes from the situa-
tion of 1962 are noticeable. One reason for the changes
is the fact that campers were allowed to select their own
occupations from classes that were difficult to differenti-
ate between, for example, the classification separating

craftsman and manual laborers. Another reason was that

 

3King, Characterigpics of Family Campers Usingythe
Huron-Manistee National Forests, p. 6.

48

 

.h .m .mummuom Hmsoflumz

mmumwcmzlsousm on» wsHmD mummEmo mawamm mo mowumfluwuomumno .msflmm

.mwma can enema cw ummuom Henceumz
cousm may msflms mpmmn hawamM mo msowummsooo on» msfl3onm smmumlummll.om mmome

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

me wow wmm
mu wNm adv
mmmmfio M<AAOU mem m¢AAOU HBHSB
om mm pa o
~13_\N\\\\\~\
mrll
méflxx
firllllll
m.nmm. \ x .W.\. N‘ x N N w‘ \me 1m to x I.
¢.m \1 \
«Hm U‘ \
m.mb~ \. N \
m1 - .5- -
mm
m.mm\\\\w\
#r
m.mauw \A\ \
mHH

 

.ufimmm

 

v.oN_W\ \ \NV\\\.\\\\\\L

 

 

 

mmww

 

 

momma mHflEmm mo usmoumm

coma E
«mad ”—
m¢mw szwmfl
mm>fl3mmsom

moonwumm

mumuonmq House: a
Eumm .mow>umm .Uaonwmsom

A.oum .mHmUHOK .mumxomm
.mnm>flun xosuav mm>Humummo

cmEmuom w swamummuo

mwamm .mxuwao

mnoumwumoum
a mamaoammo .mnmmmcmz

mummmsmz Eumm a mHmEMmm

Umuocflx a
Hmowsnoma .Hmsofimmmmonm

msowummsooo

49

the camper interviewed was asked to give his or her own
occupation, whereas the 1962 study asked the interviewed
camper to give the occupation of the family head. Often
the family head was not at the campsite, and this may have
accounted for the larger percent of housewives interviewed.
In classifying the family heads as blue or white collar
workers both classes dropped because of 18 percent being

housewives and classified as "other."

Education of Family Group Heads

Slightly over two-thirds of the family heads had at
least a high school education, being close to the value ob-
tained in 1962. Forty-three point four percent were high
school graduates. Figure 21 shows a comparison of the

findings.

Family Structure

 

No weighting of data was used in the analysis, which
includes two groups of campers; families and families with
friends. The addition of families with friends should not
affect the family structure, since friends were disregarded
when questions were asked concerning number and age of
children. Eighty-four percent of the camping families were
families with children and there was an average of 4.8 mem-
bers to a family. The number of families in the various

size classes is shown in Table 9. The average age of the

 

.m .m .mummuom HMGOflumz
mmumwsszsonsm on» means wcwmemo NHHEmm mo mowumflumuowumnu .mcHM .¢ ©H>mnm

 

.mmma use Mmmma as ammuom HMGOHumz sous:
one means mmHHHEMM mo mono: mo Hm>mH GOHDMUSGO may mca30£m ammumlnmmll.am mmeHm

50

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v.ma m.aa mmma
m.mH NH mmma
Z¢Ham£ z¢mz
ow om om oa
_ _ L p
139/ / /
e:
27/ /I/
27

 

 

sfl//MW//////////

[

637/ // //
:—

 

 

93 _,/ ./ / /
miI

 

 

mnmmm MHHEmm mo usmoumm

a
D

QZmUmQ
HO>O a ma
ma I ma
ma
Ha I m
m I a
coaumoscm

mo whom»

family head was 40 years.

51

Unfortunately no average age

was given for the family head in the 1962 study.

TABLE 9. Structure of Camping Families

 

 

 

 

 

 

Family Size Percent . Family Size Percent
1966 1962
l l
2 15.64 2 l7
3 11.79 3 20
4 21.79 4 24
5 20.26 5 16
6 16.15 6 12
7 6.41 7 7
8 2.82 8 1
Above 8 3.85 Above 8 .__3
Average 4.79 100.0 Average 4 100

 

Distribution of Children

 

 

I 1962 Percents

 

Age . 1966 Percent

l-5 31.2 25
6-12 43.2 49
13-18 25.6 26

 

 

 

4King, Characteristics of

Huron-Manistee National Forest,

5King, Characteristics of

Huron-Manistee National Forest,

Family Campers Using the

p. 8.

Family Campers Usingythe

p. 6.

Camping Experience of Family Campers

Camping experience was measured in years of camping

at any location, years of camping in Michigan State Parks,

and years of camping in the Huron National Forest. Only

5.8 percent of the family campers had no previous camping

52

experience. However, for 33.6 percent it was their first
experience in the Huron National Forest, whereas in 1962
approximately 8 percent had no camping experience and 50
percent had not camped in either the Huron or Manistee
National Forests. Twenty-three point seven percent had

not had camping experience at state parks, though as pre-
viously mentioned, only 5.8 percent had no camping experi-
ence. This probably confirms that many campers gained
much of their experience in state parks as King suggested.6
Table 10 summarizes the data on the camping experience of

family heads.

TABLE 10. Camping Experience of Family Heads

 

 

 

 

Camping Experience Camping Experi- Camping Experience
Anywhere ence on Michigan on Huron National
State Parks Forest
Years Percent Years Percent Years Percent
None 23.7

1st time 5.8 1 11.6 1st time 33.6
1 2.2 2 10.6 1 5.6
2 9.1 3 9.9 2 17.2
3-4 21.6 4 8.2 3-4 18.3
5-6 11.2 5-7 9.6 5-6 7.9
7 1.9 8-10 6.2 7 1.6
8-12 8.8 10-15 5.6 8-12 5.8
13 39.4 15 14.6 13 10.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6King, Characteristics of Family Campers Using the
Huron-Manistee National Forest, p. 2.JL

 

53

Type of Shelter Used by Family Campers

Fifty-five point seven percent of the campers used
some type of wheeled shelter. Tents were used by 44.2 per-
cent compared to 56 percent in 1962. This is a reflection
of the effect of our affluent society on outdoor recreation.
The cost of camping equipment ranged from nearly nothing to
over $5,000, with 66.2 percent of the equipment costing less
than $1,000. Table 11 shows the distribution of shelter

types and the percentage occurring in each cost group.

TABLE 11. Type of Shelter Used by Family Campers

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type of Shelter Percent Cost of Shelter Percent
Tent 44.2 N.A. 2.7‘
House Trailer 28.7 0-500 42.0
Tent Trailer 14.7 501-1000 24.2
Camper Truck 8.6 1001-2000 16.1
Station Wagon 2.0 2001-3000 8.5
Other (Bus, etc.) 1.7 3001-4000 3.4
3883:4000 1r:§

 

Ways in Which Campers Become Aware of Campgrounds

The camper was questioned as to how he first heard
about the particular campground in which he was camping.
The largest percentage (32.6) indicated that it was through
friends or acquaintances. This proves “word of mouth“ is
still one of the best means of advertising campgrounds. If
the campers are pleased with their National Forest camp-
grounds, they will be certain to let others know about it.

The distribution of ways in which campers became aware of

54

the campground in which they were camped is shown in Table

12.

TABLE 12. Ways in Which Campers Became Aware of Campgrounds

 

 

Source Percent.

 

Don't remember

Forest Service Recreation Maps
Road Maps

Newspapers or magazines

Local tourist information centers
Local businessmen

Friends or acquaintances

Drove by

Live nearby, familiar with area
Other

I.—l

ml—‘CDNl-‘NWUP-NH

rehaw
O O O O O O O O
mppmwmmpwm

 

 

Campers were also questioned as to what they thought
of the Forest Service's methods of advertising the location
of campgrounds in the Huron National Forest. Some 8.9 per-
cent thought it was excellent, 56.4 percent thought it was
adequate, and 34.7 percent thought it was inadequate. Dur-
ing the interviews many of the campers who felt the methods
were sufficient or excellent, added statements to the effect
that "We like it as it is - quiet and uncrowded - the more
they advertise the more peOple will come.“ The general
forest environment of quietness and calmness apparently

pleased many campers and they wished it to remain so.
Summary and Conclusions

1. The origin areas of the family campers generally

followed the same pattern as in 1962. The results were

55

similar, with the majority of campers coming from the south-
eastern corner of lower Michigan. However, a point that
should be considered is that the major pOpulation center

of Michigan is also located in the southeastern corner of
lower Michigan. Therefore, the large number of campers who
came from that area has reduced meaning because of the lar-
ger pOpulation in the area.

2. A median income increase of $750 per family per
4 years follows the general pattern of rising incomes.7
Expectation of the income increase was justified. The
relatively high mean or median income indicates that campers
should be able to pay the fees charged without hardship.

3. The majority of campers traveled from 50-200
miles to reach the Forest. A large increase in the percent
of weekend campers (75 percent in 1966 compared to 45 per-
cent in 1962) resulted in over-use at the campgrounds on
weekends. The Forest itself still remains the primary trip
objective, but 30 percent fewer family heads indicated this
was the case than in the 1962 study.

4. The distribution of campers among the various
occupation classes in the two studies cannot be readily
compared. This is because of the large increase in the

number of housewives interviewed in 1966. Another reason

 

7Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Michi an
Statistical Abstract, Graduate School of Business Adminis-
tration, Michigan State University (2nd ed., 1966) PP. 97—
98.

56

was the difficulty in differentiating between certain occu-
pation classifications. The differences in values between
the two studies when classified as either blue or white
collar workers equals the increase in housewives interviewed
(18 percent) in 1966.

5. As in the previous study, slightly over two-
thirds of the family heads had at least a high school edu-
cation. Eleven point eight percent of the campers indicated
having 16 or more years of education.

6. The average family size was 4.79 persons, while
the average in 1962 was just a little over 4 persons. The
average age of the family head was 40 years. The general
family structure has hardly changed since 1962.

7. In 1966, 34 percent of the campers had never
before camped in the Forest, whereas some 50 percent had no
previous experience in the Forest in the 1962 study. Only
8 percent in 1962 and 5.8 percent in 1966 had no previous
camping experience. Some 76 percent indicated they had
obtained previous camping experience in the Michigan State
Parks.

8. The typical type of shelter used by family campers
in the Huron National Forest campgrounds is changing rapidly
from tents to various types of wheeled shelters.

9. The majority of campers first became aware of
campgrounds through friends and acquaintances. The majority
also desired no further advertisement of the Forest's recrea-
tional features, preferring its quietness and calmness at the

present level of use.

CHAPTER V

ANALYSIS OF THE AVERAGE CAMPERS ATTITUDES
TOWARD FACILITIES AND SERVICES

All the analyses in this chapter are based upon re-
sponses received from family campers and families with
friends. Ninety-two point eight percent of the campers
were in these two classes.- Since one of the objectives of
the study was to find out if adequate facilities are being
provided by the Forest Service, it was decided that family
groups and family with friends groups were the typical or
average camping groups using the Forest Service campgrounds.
The other 7.2 percent of the campers were groups of unre-
lated friends, organized groups, or single individuals.

In these groups the majority of campers were under 18 or
elderly bachelors. Since it is probably desirable that
Forest Service policy should be to provide facilities for
average family campers, the analysis is based upon data
from all family campers.

Campers' attitudes are combined in the analysis of
certain questions and separately by campground for other
questions. The purpose of separate campground analysis was
to find if certain facilities at a specific campground were

considered to be inadequate. Combining camper attitudes

57

58

for all campgrounds should indicate general camper attitudes
and reactions and help in determining present and future

policies.

Combined Camper Attitudes

A number of questions were asked concerning present
and future campground develOpment. The first question is
shown in Table 13.

TABLE 13. Percentages of Campers Favoring Various Types of

Facilities the Huron National Forest Should
Provide

 

 

Do you think the Huron National
Forest should provide: Answers in Percent

 

1. High quality modern camping
facilities (flush toilets,
electricity, etc.) 8.9

2. Primitive camping facilities
(pit toilets, hand water
pumps, etc.) 58.6

3. Both high quality modern camping
facilities and primitive camping
facilities 31.6

4. No Opinion .9

 

 

Over half of the campers interviewed said they pre-
ferred primitive campground facilities - similar to those
provided at the majority of campgrounds in the Huron National
Forest. However, there was considerable differences in
attitudes between campers at the various type of campgrounds

as shown in Table 14.

59

TABLE 14. Percentage of Campers Favoring Modern and Primitive
Facilities by Campground

 

 

 

Modern Primitive No
Campground Facilities Facilities Both Opinion
Kneff Lake 9.7 41.4 -46.5 2.4
Wagner Lake 7.5 58.8 33.7
Island Lake 5.6 59.0 29.8 5.6
Mack Lake 1.3 68.3 30.4
Horseshoe Lake 4.3 83.9 11.8
Pine River 90.1 9.9
Rollways 8.3 53.9 37.8
Monument 23.5 40.4 36.1
Garden Creek 67.2 32.8
Silver Valley 9.6 33.4 57.0
Corsair 5.1 69.5 25.4
Round Lake 12.7 59.6 27.7

 

 

 

 

 

Kneff Lake campground (56.2 percent), Monument Camp-
ground (59.6 percent), and Silver Valley Campground (66.6
percent) were the only areas where over 50 percent of the
campers indicated they wanted either modern or both modern
and primitive facilities. Only Kneff Lake Campground had
modern facilities - namely flush toilets, and a pressure
water supply.

The second question was, "DO you think National
Forest Campgrounds should be comparable to the facilities
(flush toilets, pressure water, electricity, etc.) of the
Michigan State Parks?" Of the answers given, 22.3 percent
indicated yes, 71.3 percent indicated no, 1.3 percent indi-
cated no Opinion, and 5.1 percent indicated they were not
familiar with Michigan State Parks. The majority of the
campers (71.3 percent against 22.3 percent) indicated they

did not want the Forest Service Campgrounds to be similar

60

to Michigan State Park facilities. Another question closely,
related to this question was, "Do you think the National
Forest should have the same spacing (distance between family
units) as Michigan State Park Campgrounds?" Three point

two percent were in favor, 4.8 percent indicated no opinion,
and 92.0 percent were not in favor. The results confirm
that the average camper on the Huron National Forest does.
not want facilities comparable with those in Michigan State
Parks and suggests they like the forest campground environ-
ment and the seclusion of wider spacing. The results indi-
cate strongly that the average Huron National Forest camper
is a different kind of camper compared to those using the
typical Michigan State Park.

Two other questions were also asked of campers. The
first question tried to find what general reasons the campers
had for coming to the Forest. Fourteen point one percent
selected, "Get away from the grind of life;“ 7.4 percent
selected "Be alone with family;“ 63.7 percent selected
"Camping outdoors;“ and 14.8 gave "Other" as the general
reasons for coming to the Forest. The classification "Other“
usually included all the classifications combined as the
reason for coming to the Forest. The results show what
would normally be expected from campers at a Forest type
campground. I

The last question dealt with the type of fishing
preferred by campers. This question was asked to discover

if it is desirable to continue the system whereby the

61

Michigan Conservation Department plants trout in lakes
within federal ownership, particularly in lakes located
adjacent to Forest Campgrounds. The answers of campers
were as follows: 11.2 percent preferred cold water trout
fishing; 15.9 percent preferred warm water pan fish such

as bluegills; 13.7 percent preferred warm water game fish
such as bass and pike; 40.6 percent preferred both warm
water game fish and pan fish - bass, pike, bluegills, perch,
etc.; 5.37 percent preferred "other;" and 13.2 percent gave
no Opinion. The question was worded so that it related to
fishing in lakes only.

The campers' preference for various types of fishing
was also analyzed by campgrounds. Only Kneff Lake campers
indicated a high preference for fishing trout (46.6 per-
cent). This lake was planted with trout and probably was
the major reason why such a high percentage of campers pre-
ferred trout fishing. At the rest of the campgrounds,
campers preferred game or pan fishing or combinations of
both game and pan fishing. One point of interest is that
Horseshoe Lake was also planted with trout but only 7.7
percent of its campers indicated interest in trout fishing
in lakes. Since the sample period was during the time of
peak camper use, it is probable that families with children
were over-represented. Usually family campers with children
wanted to catch fish, not caring if they were trout or pan
fish. It was therefore natural that more campers preferred
either game or pan fishing because of the greater chances

for successful fishing.

62

Attitudes Concerning Individual Campgrounds

This section is concerned with attitudes toward the
individual campgrounds. Table 15 shows what percent of the

samples are Obtained from each campground.

TABLE 15. Percent of Samples from Individual Campgrounds

 

 

 

Percent of Groups
Campground in Sample
Kneff Lake 5.7
Wagner Lake 10.5
Island Lake 14.2
Mack Lake 11.1
Horseshoe Lake 3.4
Pine River 4.1
Rollways 10.1
Monument 10.2
Gordon Creek .8
Silver Valley 4.3
Corsair 5.2
Round Lake 20.4

 

 

Wagner Lake Campground

Table 16 indicates camper attitudes toward facilities
and services at Wagner Lake Campground. The campers there
desired primitive camping and were generally satisfied with
the facilities provided. The majority Obviously felt the
hand pump water supply was adequate and the pit toilets
were satisfactory. Concerning size Of the campground, 89.8
percent felt it was about the right size, with 10.2 percent
stating it was too small. Fifty-three point nine percent
of the campers felt the spacing between the campsites was

about right, 38.6 percent thought it was excellent and only

63

 

 

m.o~ H.mh o.m mpmom nssoummamu
H.ma m.Hm muHmEEmO no menu
N.Hm m.ma m.m e.sm pmumummmm mmuam
HOHHMHB a Hams
o.m s.om m.m m. meexume
ossoummamo
m.mm m.wm mcmu mmmnumw
m.HH p.mm e.sm e.H H.e~ masses messes
m.m m.>h m.om msmwm
m.va m.n m.hm ~.m m.m coaumEHomsH
pumom sapmaasm
m.ma m.m m.mm «.mm mmud
msflsucsmq umom
m.mm m. manna
m.m v.H m.a~ m.mm m.~ N.H o.m OOO3OHHm
«.3 o.ea e.oa m.ep m.s mmomaemuem
m.¢ ~.oa m.mb N.m m.a mumaaoa Dam
H.vm m.mm mumawoa nmsam
m.~ «.mm m.m sameem
Hmwm3 asbm can:
N.ss m.- Redeem
Hmumz magmmmnm
OHHmOQ OHHmOO manmummo omummumu U000 auouomm psmumm MHODOMM Hoom mmow>uwm
Oz I0< uoz IcH uoz wnm> Imflumm IMHOGH ImHDMmsD Mnm> a mmflufiawomm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

um mOUH>HOm can mmauflaflomm Onmzoa monsufiuufi msownm> msHDMOHOdH mummEmu mo unmouwm

unsoummfimo oxen Hmdmcz

.mH mqmda

64

7.5 percent felt the campsites were too close. The amount
of screening between campsites was considered about right,
with only 11.7 percent of campers feeling there was too
little. Over half of the campers interviewed at Wagner

Lake generally liked everything about the campground.
Eighteen point seven percent particularly liked it because
Of being uncrowded, and 11 percent especially enjoyed the
scenery. Seventy percent of the campers felt the campground
could be doubled in size. Nearly half the campers were at
Wagner Lake especially for camping, while 29.1 percent were

there for general leisure.

Mack Lake Campground

Attitudes concerning the Mack Lake Campground are
shown in Table 17. In general, primitive camping was de-
sired by the majority interviewed at this campground. Be-
cause certain areas at Mack Lake Campground used for camping
are not specifically designated as campsites, a variety of
answers under such headings as fireplaces, tables, etc.,
was received. Those campers who did not have facilities
on the site where they were camped (due to overflow on
crowded days) usually did desire them. The responses indi-
cating that the pressure water supply was satisfactory
(Mack Lake did not have a pressure water system) were those
campers who felt the supply was adequate no matter what
system was used. In answering the question on trails, many

campers still felt there were enough satisfactory paths to

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m.oa m.es e.~ m.~a memos peeoumeemo
~.m m.em mesmeemo mo muem
~.~m m.m m.a o.s~ pmumnmemm mmuem
HOHHMMB a Dams
o.HH o.am menxume
osdoummfimu
o.mH m.HH o.mm e.m ~.eH m.H memo memenmo
>.oa m.a~ «.mv H.om m.H maflmua usaxam
m.m p.mm e.s «.6 memem
o.a~ m.m> m.m cOaumEHomsH
numom saumaasm
fl m.mm o.hm m.- o.ma m.a m.a moud
msflnoasmq umom
p.ma m.H o.ha m.mw m.m manna
O.HH m.m m.mm m.a m.am m.a m.m noo3muam
~.m m.mm m.m «.ma m.H m.mm m.a v.m h.v mOOMHQOHHm
m.a v.m o.>m m.m mumaaoa Dam
m.mm m.m¢ ~.H mumaaoa nmsam
m.m e.~ m.m o.HH p.mp m.a m.m p.m maeesm
Hmumz masm Osmm
v.mw o.m~ m.~ Mammsm
Hope: musmmmum
Hm3msd whammo when OHOODQOO Omummumu U000 muouomu Dawson mnowomm uoom m00fl>umm
oz 02 Iwo Ind #02 IGH uoz mum> Imfinmm IMHOGH Influenza mum> a mmflvwaflomm

 

 

gum: um mOOH>HOw paw mOHuHHHomm OHM3OB mmvsuwuufi mdoflnm> UGADMOAOGH mummfimo mo usmoumm

wssoummfimo oxen

.hH mqmda

66

follow even if there were no specifically marked trails.
Nine point six percent still felt Mack Lake campground was
too small, while 3.7 percent felt the campsites were too
close together and 3 percent felt they were too far apart.
Eighty percent thought the amount of screening was good
while 0.6 percent felt that there was too much. Campers
were drawn to Mack Lake for a number of reasons, among

them camping, general leisure, boating or fishing, swim-
ming, and bird watching, particularly the Kirtland's Warbler
which is unique to this area. One thing which upset many

of the campers here (with perhaps the exception of the bird-

watchers) was the large number Of insects in the campground.

Horseshoe Lake Campground

Attitudes concerning the Horseshoe Lake Campground
are shown on Table 18. Flush toilets were desired by 70.1
percent of the campers interviewed here, although only 27
percent desired pressure water. Fifty-nine point two per-
cent indicated a desire for a boat launching area. All
the campers interviewed felt this campground was about the
right-size and had the right amount of screening. Eleven

point eight percent stated that the campsites were too far

apart.
Silver Valley Campground

Table 19 summarizes campground attitudes toward Sil-

ver Valley Campground. The campsites are not designated

67

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o.ooa mcmom vssoummemu
~.ha m.~m muammsmu mo Imam
N.SH m.m~ m.¢ m.Hm Omumummmm mouam
HOHHMHB a name
o.~ o.mm mcaxumm
Osboummamu
N.Hm m.mm memo mamaumo
H.ma h.m m.mm v.mm maamua msflxflm
m.mm w.¢ msmwm
m.HH m.vo m.mm coaumeuousH
Onmom swumaasm
m.mm ~.>H o.m~ mmud
msasossmq umom
m.ma N.mm manna
w.v m.HH m.Hm o.m OOO3OHHm
v.m m.mm mmomammuam
m.HH m.vw v.m mumawoa Dam
m.mm H.0h muwafioa cmsam
H.m m.es p.mm maeeem
Hmumz mfism can:
o.mn o.>~ Magnum
Hmumz whammmum
madame whammo OHQIHQOO Omummumu doom wuouomm usmumm wuouomw Hoom mmoa>umm
oz Ioa uoz IeH uoz snm> Imeumm ImepeH ImHuMmeb mum> a mmeueaeomm

 

um mwow>umm can mmfluwaflomm Unm3oa nonsuauud msoaum> mswumoHOsH OHOQEMU mo unmoumm

osdoummamu mxmq monmmmuom

.mH mflmda

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N.As m.m m.mH mpeom eesoumeseo
e.m e.em muemdseo mo euem
m.>m o.ow m.H~ Omueuemmm meuflm
Hmaaeue a uses
m.m h.om msaxuem
Ocsonmmfieo
H.Om m.mv mseu emenuew
«.mm ~.e H.om m.e maeeue meexem
~.m m.mh m.ma mamam
v.m p.mm m.m m.mH coaueEH0msH
eueom saueaasm
~.mm o.mm m.mm emnd
8 mcfinosseq ueom
6 H.vm ~.m m.mm v.m wanes
v.a¢ m.H~ m.ma H.ma nooseuflm
~.vm m.m m.ma m.m~ m.n meoeammuflm
p.ma ¢.Hm mueaaoa Dam
h.mv m.hv ¢.m mumafioe nmsam
m.em m.ma manage
umuez msdm one:
m.mm v.vm mammsm
Hmuez musmmeum
um3msd enammo euwm maneummo Omummueu OOOO muouoew useuem mnouoem Hoom meoa>uem
oz 02 IOO Io< uoz IcH uoz mue> Influew IMHOGH Influemco mum> a meduflafloem

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ue emow>umm use meHuHHHOem OHe3OB mewsuauufl msOflHe> mcaueoansH muemaeu mo useouem

Ussonmmfieo meHe> Hw>HHm

.mH mqmda

69

there, so more campers than the number for which the area
is designed Often stay there. This is one reason for the
large number desiring fireplaces and tables. Ninety-three
point eight percent interviewed felt this campground was
the right size, with 6.2 percent indicating campers were
too close together. Three point four percent desired more
screening, while the rest felt the existing screening was

sufficient.

Corsair Campground

Attitudes concerning the Corsair Campground are pre-
sented in Table 20. In general the campers seemed satis-
fied with the campground. Five point one percent felt the
campground was too small and two point eight percent indi-
cated the campsites were too far apart. Ten point two per-
cent felt there was not enough screening. Campers stated

they were drawn there mainly for camping itself.

Round Lake Campground

Table 21 shows attitudes concerning Round Lake Camp-
ground. Opinions were almost equally divided on the desir-
ability Of modern or primitive facilities. Campers seemed
pleased with the campground, the majority coming for the
swimming beach. Nearly 75 percent indicated it was a satis-
factory size with the right amount Of screening and prOper
spacing. Sixty-two point one felt the campground could be

doubled in size if necessary.

 

 

H.m m.vm moeom essonmmeeu
o.am o.mh euammeeu mo muflm
m.me H.m m.~ e.~e emueueemm mmuem
umaeeue a.ueea
m.h H.Nm mswxuem
Ossoummseu
m.He H.mm memo mmenumu
m.h m.ma N.Hm «.hv mHHeHB mswxwm
H.m O.m> m.ma mcmam
m.mH p.ma «.mm coaueeuomsH
cueom cflumaasm
m.mH o.~m m.om o.ma eene
0 mcHnOGOeA ueom
7 o.a~ o.mn wanes
o.mH m.ha o.~m m.oa eooseuam
m.mm s.oe mmoeaemuee
m.~ ~.>m mueafloa yam
m.mm o.m~ m.h mueawoa nmsam
e.ma m.a m.ee m.sa maeesm
Heuez @Edm One:
«.mm «.ma m.ma H.m mammdm
Hebe: musmmenm
Hmsmse enameo muflm maneumeo eeumeueu OOOO muouoem uceuem muouoem Hoom meOH>HOm
oz oz Ieo nod uoz IcH uoz mue> Imauem InflncH Influenza mue> a mefluflaaoem

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ue mm0w>umm Use mOHuHHHoem Oue3oa mmvduwuu¢ mOOHHe> msflueoHOsH mummaeu mo unmouwm

TI

Ossoummaeu Haemuoo

.oN Hands

71

 

 

:.~H o.Hm a. ~.e memom peeoumeseo
s.em m.es o.H opemeeeu mo muem
e.me m.e m.m m.H m.o~ m.a emueueemm mmuem
HOHHeHB w paws
m.a m.~m m.s meexuem
undoummfieo
e. m.m p.mm e.em 4. menu mmenueo
s. ~.m~ e.oe m.mm maeepe menses
s.~ o.me m.em a.s memem
m.s~ e.H m.ae o.~ m.s m. eoeuesuomeH
eueom enumaasm
m.mm m.m~ m.sm m. meme
msanocseq ueom
m.s a. s.e m.mm magma
H.m e.oa m.m o.m N.em m.m H.e a.» eooeenee
a. e.m H.e o.m~ m.ee mmoeaemuem
a. e.m m.~m s. o.mH a. mumaeoe use
m.ee o.me a. m.e mumaeoe emcee
e. s.m 0.3 o.es e.m m.e magnum
umuez mesa esem
e.mm s.ee s. seemsm
Heuez musmmeum
muflmea muflmmo maneummo Omummueu OOOU muouoew “semen muouoem Hoom meoa>umm
oz Ice #02 IGH uoz mue> ImHDem IMHOGH InfluemsD anm> a mefluflafloem

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ue mmow>umm Ode mefluflawoem Oue3oa mensuwuu< m30flue> msHDeOHOGH mummEeU mo useouem

Ossoummaeo exeq endow

.HN mqm<fi

72
Pine River Campground

Attitudes toward Pine River campground are presented
in Table 22. Primitive camping is apparently preferred by
the majority who camp there. One point which may be noticed
is that 28.8 percent_felt the road signs could be improved.
Nineteen point three felt the campground was tOO small, how-
ever 100 percent indicated the spacing between campsites
was about right and there was the proper amount of screen-
ing. Fifty-four point five percent of the campers were

drawn to the area strictly for camping itself.
Kneff Lake Campground

Table 23 shows those attitudes concerning Kneff
Lake. This campground ground was the only one in the sample
which provided flush toilets. It also had a pressure water
supply. The majority of campers here indicated the flush
toilets and pressure water supply were satisfactory. At
the beginning of the season the flush toilets were closed
which accounts for the answers concerning pit toilets.
One hundred percent of the campers interviewed here stated
this campground was the right size and had prOper spacing
between campsites. Sixty-five point two percent felt it

could be doubled in size.

73

 

 

m.m m.wm m.m meeom OGOOHOQEeU
m.mm b.5m euammfieo m0 exam
m.mw m.m N.MN weueuemem meuam
saddens a name
o.ooa msaxuem
Ossoummfieo
m.oa «.mm mseo mmenuew
m.m~ m.~m H.¢~ v.¢H mafleua msaxflm
N.Ah m.m~ msmHm
m.mH m. m.om coaueeuomsH
Uneom saueaasm
m.hm >.~m m.ma emud
msflnosseq ueom
m.HH «.mm manea
m.m m.vm m.¢m h.~ ©0030HHm
m.m o.am m.ma m.mv meoeadeufim
o.OOH mumafloa uwm
m.vm «.mm mumawoe nmdam
o.ooa Mammsm
Hmuez masm use:
m.mm v.m mammdm
umuez Ousmmmum
enamoa mufieeo maneummo Oeummumu U000 wuouoem usmuem muouoem Hoom m00H>H0m
Oz I04 uoz IcH uoz >Hm> Influem maOcH Influenza mum> e mefiuwafioem

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ue m00H>Hem one mmwuwafloem UHe3OB mmpsufluud meHHe> msHMeOAOdeHOQEeU m0 useoumm

Ossoummseo H0>Hm eswm

.NN mqmfla

74

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

e.eH e.oe o.mm meeom eeooumoseo
s.e~ m.es o.a mnemoseo mo muem

N.Hm m.mH e.e o.ea eoueueomm mmoem
neaeeue a news

m.m~ m.ee 0.4 e.e measueo
nssonmmfieu
m.mH H.mm H.Hm memo mmeoueo
m.~ e.m m.m o.ee e.ae manage meexem
a.» m.sm o.m moose

m.ea e.e e.so H.s e.e ooeuesuomoe
oneom caueaasm

p.mm H.s s.ae o.mm m.~ meme
msflnosseq_ue0m
~.ea m.mm manna
H.s e.~ e.mm e.s~ eoosmuem
m.~ o.ee o.ea H.sm mmoeaomuee
o.em e.e e.m mpoaeoe hem
m.ma N.Am m.ae mumaeoe emoam

H.mm m.e maooom
Heuez mesa One:

m.mm a.es maooom
Hebe: ensemmum

whamma OHHmOO manepmeo Oeumwumu @000 muonuem usmnmm mnouoem Hoom m00a>umm
oz Io< uoz IeH uoz suo> Imeuem IeHeeH Imeuemoo muo> a mmeueaeoem

 

 

undoummfieu mxeq uumnm

we mmoa>u0m one mmfluflafloem ouezoa meesuwuu4 mSOHHe> msflueuflosH mnemfieo m0 usmoumm

.mm mamda

75

Monument Campground

Attitudes toward Monument Campground are presented
in Table 24. The pressure water supply was indicated as
satisfactory, and flush toilets were desired by 67 percent
of the campers. Twenty six percent of the campers also
indicated a desire for a marked hiking trail. Eighty-six
point eight percent felt this campground was the right
size while eleven point two percent felt it was too small.
Ninety-eight percent felt the spacing between campsites
was about right while 100 percent felt there was the proper

amount of screening.

Rollways Campground

Attitudes concerning Rollways Campground are shown
in Table 25. Campers there indicated the pressure water
supply was satisfactory, with only 37.9 percent indicating
a desire for flush toilets. In general, the campground
was satisfactory to the majority. Ten point one percent
felt it could be larger and 7.8 percent felt there could
be more screening. Either boating or fishing or both ac-
tivities were the main attraction for nearly half Of the

campers there.

Island Lake Campground

Table 26 presents attitudes concerning Island Lake

Campground. Over half of the interviewed campers here

 

 

¢.¢ m.mw m.m moeom tssoummeeo
h.om m.mh muammeeo m0 enam
m.s m.mm ~.~H e. H.o~ emueueomm mouse
HOHHeHB a name
H.o~ m.m~ meexuem
Itsdoummfieu
o.¢~ o.ow mGeU mmenuew
o.o~ ~.He m.s m.m~ manage oceans
n.5m m.e m.s moose
v.m p.ma v.mh m.m m.H soaueeuomsH
eueom saueaasm
m.m «.ma H.hH v.m m.mm m.m eeud
6 msfisocseq.ueom
7 I e.m e.om wanes
¢.m m.mm w.H «.mv m.> coozeuwm
N.o~ v.H «.mh meoeamenwm
m.~ H.om o.m mueafioa yam
o.mm o.hm muwafioa nmsam
v.5m ~.m ¢.m hammsm
Hopes mean one:
~.m m.om mamasm
Hope: eusmmeum
ue3ms¢ enameo when maneummo teammumu 0000 muouoem useuem wuouoem Hoom m00a>uem
02 Oz lea I0< uoz IcH uoz >00> Imauem InflecH Influenza >H0> a mefiuaafloem

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ue meow>umm one mewpflaaoem onesoa meesuwbud mOOHHe> msaueowtsH mummEeu mo useoumm

ecsoummeeo usesssoz

.vN mqmda

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

s.oa m.mm meeom eeooumoEeo
e.o~ m.me euemoeeo mo anew
m.ee m.m~ m.m emueueomm mmuem
Heaaeua 0 uses
m.h «.mm mcfixuem
essoummfieo
m.m~ H.ee memo omeoumo
e.~ m.mH H.mm m.mm m.m maemue oeexem
o.om m.m o.a m.e mamam
¢.mH m.m H.wm m.m coaueEuOmcH
oneom saumaasm
m.h m.m ¢.H m.hm v.ma m.n eons
7 mswnoaseq ueom
7 m. >.h v.Hm wanes
S.HH H.0H h.¢ H.00 v.H toosonam
m.m H.NN ~.me e.H mmomaomuee
O. v.ma o.~m m.m w.a mueafloa uwm
m.mm m.hm m. w.> mueafloa Sedan
e.mm a. m.m maeoem
Hmuez masm Osem
m.s m.HH m.om saooom
Heuea eusmeeum
mesons enameo when manepmeo 000mmueu 0000 muouoem useuem muouoeu Hoom meoa>nem
oz oz I00 Ind 002 IsH uoz mu0> Influem IMHOsH Influenza >H0> a mefluwaaoem

 

 

ue m00H>H0m fine mmfluflafloem 0He3oa mwcsufluud mOOHHe> msflpeOAOGH muemfieo m0 useonwm

ocsoummfieo mmesaaom

.mN Manda

78

 

 

H.ma m.es o.a o.m o.H meeom eoeoumoseo
e.om «.mo o.H ouemoeeo no muse
m.a p.ma o.ma m.m eoueueoem meuem
uoaeeue a some
e.m H.ms o.H s.m m.e meexueo
0csoummae0
e.m o.me m.me m.m memo mmenueo
o.e e.me m.m H.me o.H maeeoe oceans
m.H o.~m s.m m.e momem
o.sH m.H m.mm o.a e.H~ eoeuesuomoH
oueom eeuoaaom
~.m~ e.m~ m.am e. m.e m.oa e. e.m meme
mcwnosseq ueom
m.e m.m m.em m.H wanes
H.m m. p.mm m.m e.e~ o.H H.4H e.s eoosmuem
m.H m. «.mm m.eH w.mm s.a w.a mmoeaomuee
m.~ m.e m.~ «.mo o.H e.m e.ea mumaeoe use
«.mm m.mm m.~ m.m mumaeoe emoam
m.~ m.m m.e~ o.H o.ae m.mm Redeem
Hmue3 masm 0cem
m.me o.em s.~ maooem
Hope: musmmmum
enameo mufimmo maneummo 0000000» 0000 muouoem uceumm muouoem Hoom 000H>H0m
Oz Ioa uoz IsH uoz mue> Influem Iwfl0sH Influenza mn0> a mefiuwawoem

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ 0:50Hmmee0 exeq 0seHmH
ue mmow>uem 0se mmfluflafloem 0He309 m00suauu¢ mOOHue> msaue0H0dH muemfieo m0 unmouem

.mN mamda

79

expressed a desire for pressure water and flush toilets.

A large percentage (67.9) were not pleased with the hand
pump water supply at this particular campground. Thirty
six point nine percent felt this campground was too small,
with 9.1 percent stating there was too little screening
and 11.6 percent stating the campsites could be closer to-
gether. The swimming area at Island Lake was the attrac-
tion for many campers, with some of them suggesting ideas
such as providing a raft for swimmers and also having a

lifeguard on duty.
Gordon Creek Campground

Gordon Creek was not included in this grouping since
only 0.8 percent of the total sample were interviewed there.
Gordon Creek Campground was unique in the fact that it was
mainly for horseback riders and was also used as an over-
flow area. Three riding groups were seen using the facili-
ties, however, one Of these groups was not interviewed
because it was a day on which no interviewing had been
scheduled for that campground. The riding groups inter-
viewed seemed well pleased with the facilities provided

at the campground.
Conclusions

1. Primitive camping is preferred at many of the
campgrounds. Island Lake campers, however, seemed to de-

sire modern facilities, with both flush toilets and pressure

80

water. At Horseshoe Lake and Monument Campgrounds, indica-
tions were made that flush toilets were desired. At Round
Lake and Silver Valley, Opinions were rather evenly divided
concerning the desirability of flush toilets. At most of
these campgrounds the campers considered the pit toilets—
satisfactory, even though they preferred to have flush
toilets.

2. The average camper did not want Michigan State
Park standards introduced in National Forest Campgrounds.
They preferred the spacing and screening common to most of
the National Forest campgrounds. This preference for a
more primitive type of camping suggests a different type
of camper uses the National Forests compared to those using
the typical Michigan State Park campground.

3. The average summer camper preferred to fish in
lakes for game and pan fish. Only at Kneff Lake, which has
been planted with trout, did the campers prefer to fish in
lakes for trout. Campers at Horseshoe Lake, which also had
trout, did not prefer that type of fishing.

4. Campers preferred flush toilets and pressure
water supplies at some of the high attraction campgrounds
with the heaviest use. Two examples were Island Lake and
Monument Campgrounds. Where use is heavy and major sani-
tation problems are common, flush toilets should be speci-

fied without exception.

81

5. Many campers indicated that although most Of the
present facilities provided were satisfactory and mainten-
ance was adequate, more Of the same type Of facilities were
required in many cases. For example, a number of people
mentioned signs. They felt the existing signs were good
but many more could be added. In general the Forest Service

seems to be providing most Of the desired facilities.

CHAPTER VI

INVESTIGATION OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF LAND AND WATER
CONSERVATION FUND FEES BY CAMPERS
The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act was created
by Congress to apprOpriate money for public recreation area
acquisition and development. It became effective on January
1, 1965 and is to last 25 years.1 The sources of revenue
for the Fund would be: entrance and user fees at certain
federal recreation areas; net proceeds from the sale of
surplus federal real property; existing taxes on motorboat
fuels; and repayable advance appropriations by Congress.2
The only source of revenue that is Of concern to this study
is the entrance and user fees.
Five conditions must be met at an area if fees are
to be charged. They are that the area must:
1. Be designated and posted as areas where
fees are collected.
2. Be administered by a federal agency.
This excludes Federal areas leased to
state, local or private agencies.
3. Contain recreation facilities or offer

recreation services provided at federal
expense.

 

1Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recrea-
tion, "Fact Sheet on the Land and Water Conservation Fund
Program," (Washington, D.C., May 1965), p. 1.

2Ibid.

82

83

4. Be administered primarily for scenic, scien-
tific, historical, cultural, or other
recreation purposes.

5. Be of such nature that fee collection is a -
ministratively and economically practical.

The program applied to most of the campgrounds that
were sampled in the Huron National Forest in 1966. Those
where no fees were charged were Corsair Campground, Mack
Lake Campground, Gordon Creek Trail Campground, and the Pine
River Campground. Only a few of the campgrounds had the
extra one dollar per day user fee for above average facili-
ties. Those campgrounds where no fees were charged could
be considered as less attractive areas. Of those, only Mack
Lake Campground had a large body of water next to it, and it
has a number of poor qualities, including a muck bottom,
shallow water, and poor fishing.

A pamphlet explaining the $7.00 fee (see Appendix II)
was available to campers. To give the program color, the
term "Golden Passport" was used for the annual $7.00 entrance

permit. This permit runs from April 1 to March 31 of the

next year; and could be purchased from the campground

administrator.
Analysis Of Data

The entrance and camping fees charged under the Land

and Water Conservation Fund Act are the first recreational

 

31bid., p. 2.

84

user fees ever to be charged on the Forest. Negative reac-
tions were received from many campers, particularly those
who had used the Forest for many years. In this portion

Of the study, the campers were asked about their feelings
on the acceptance of the fees. The questions were kept
simple in order to reduce the likelihood of the camper giv-
ing biased answers. Each question will be presented and
discussed in turn. Analysis is based on all campers
interviewed.

The first question asked was, "Do you think public
recreation areas should be provided through general public
funds or by fees charged to the users?“ Five answers were
available on the questionnaire for the camper to select

from. The question and responses are shown in Table 27.

TABLE 27. Various Means of Providing Public Recreation

 

 

 

Areas

Various Answers Percent
General Public Funds (taxes to all people) 10.9
Only have users charged for use of a facility 27.6
Only have entrance fees charged 25.8
Combination of both entrance and user

fees charged 27.5

Other--specify 8.2

 

100.0

 

It was explained verbally that "public recreation
areas" was meant to include all National Parks, State Parks,
National Forest Campgrounds, etc. Some 80.9 percent of the

group heads definitely indicated that they wanted a fee to

85

be charged to the people who use the recreation area. This
indicates that those who generally use the facility are
willing to pay for its development. This question set the
pace for the questions to follow. The author was glad the
questionnaire had not first asked the campers if they ac-
cepted the new fees. The question helped to prevent many
long statements on the campers' viewpoint on the matter.

As it was, much time was spent trying to Obtain answers to
the few questions asked on the subject.

The second question was, “How do you feel about the
$7.00 recreation fee for entrance to improved campgrounds
on the National Forests with primitive facilities (pit
toilets)?" Some 24 percent of reSpondents were against the
fee in this case, 3.8 percent were undecided, and 72.3
percent were in favor of the entrance fee charged. From
these figures it can plainly be seen that the "Golden Pass-
port" was generally being accepted by campers using Huron
National Forest Campgrounds. Such a high acceptance of
the entrance fee during its second year of use shows that
campers appear to be very willing to cooperate in recrea-
tion area acquisition and develOpment through the new Land
and Water Conservation Fund $7.00 entrance fee.

The third question asked was, "How do you feel about
this entrance fee on modern campground facilities (flush
toilets)?" Eighteen and a half percent were against the
fee, 2.7 percent were undecided, and 78.8 percent were in

favor Of the entrance fee. Since no great change occurred

86

in the responses to the two questions, it appears that
campers at these campgrounds do not expect deluxe facili-
ties in return for the payment of entrance fees. Only 23.9
percent were against the entrance fee at campgrounds with
primitive facilities compared to 18.5 percent against in
the case of modern facilities.

The fourth question asked was, "How do you feel about
the user fees paid by campers for the use of modern facili—
ties on high recreation attraction areas ($1.00 user fee
per day)?“ Some 30 percent were against this additional
fee, 2.6 percent were undecided, and 68.5 percent were in
favor of it if modern facilities were available. It is
significant that a 10 percent increase occurred in those
who were against fees.

The fifth and final question asked was, “How do you
feel about the user fees paid by campers for the use of
primitive facilities on high recreation attraction areas?
($1.00 per day user fee)." Some 58 percent were against a
fee in this case, 2.3 percent were undecided, and 39.7
percent were in favor of it. A large change occurred in
this case. The attitude Of the campers in this regard is
particularly significant in that all of the campgrounds had
only primitive facilities, with the exception of Kneff Lake.
With about two-thirds Of the campers expressing Opposition
to the user fee under these circumstances, it appears a

change in policy may be considered.

 

87

Many campers said they would not object to the $1.00
a day user fee if the annual fee was less than $7.00, or
they would not Object to an annual fee of about $10.00, if
that was the only fee. They did not like the feeling of
paying twice. However, it must still be remembered that
close to 40 percent indicated being in favor of the addi-
tional user fee and this is a surprisingly high prOportion

considering 1965 was the year fees were introduced.

 

Summary and Conclusions

 

A number of findings emerged from this portion of
the study; with each point being presented with a brief
discussion.

1. The results definitely show that most campers
accept the annual entrance permit fee. Some 75 percent of
all campers indicated acceptance.’

2. The user fee in addition to the entrance fee was
not accepted with enthusiasm. It seems that the campers'
main reason for objecting to the user fee was the feeling
they were being charged twice. Since 1965 was the first
year of fee collection, many campers would be particularly
conscious of the additional cost.

Since the origin areas of approximately 85 percent
of the campers were in Michigan, the author decided to make
a comparison with the cost of camping in Michigan State
Parks and Recreation Areas. The cost would vary depending

upon the situations. The annual entrance fees are $7.00

88

for a National entrance permit, and $2.00 for a Michigan
State Park entrance permit. The daily entrance fee, if
no annual permit is purchased, is $1.00 for a National per-
mit and $.50 for a Michigan State Park permit. The user
fee is $1.00 for a National permit and $2.00 or $1.50 for
a Michigan State Park permit. The variation in the Michi-
gan State Park user fee is dependent upon the facilities
provided. Assume an average weekend of two days. If a
camper has no entrance permit but buys the annual entrance
permits, his cost would be $9.00 at some National Forest
campgrounds and $5.00 at a Michigan State Park with primi-
tive facilities or $6.00 at a Michigan State Park with
modern facilities. If a camper has no entrance permit and
doesn't buy any, his cost would be $4.00 at some National
Forest campgrounds and $4.00 at a Michigan State Park with
primitive facilities or $5.00 at a Michigan State Park with
modern facilities. But, the facilities provided at national
forest and state parks differ considerably. The Michigan
State parks usually provide flush toilets, running water
and electricity, whereas the Huron National Forest only had
one small campground with a flush toilet and the rest had
pit toilets and no electricity. This may be a good reason
for a re-evaluation of the user fees presently charged by
the Forest Service.

3. Another common complaint of the campers was that
day users often took up parking space in campgrounds and

used campsite facilities but were not charged as campers

89

would have been. This is one administrative problem that
will probably be resolved as experience is gained in fee

collection techniques.

CHAPTER VII

SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS & IMPLICATIONS

Summary

This study was conducted to determine the average
camper‘s preferences toward provided or desired facilities,
attitudes toward fees, and generally, to find out the aver-
age family campers' characteristics. An examination of
these factors is periodically necessary in order to keep
up with changes in users and the way they use the Forest.

The average Huron National Forest family in 1966
consisted of a family with three children, one between 1-3
years, another between 4-12 years and the third between
12-18 years. The father was about 40 years old and had at
least a high school education with many also having a col—
lege education. He was probably a blue collar worker but
possibly a white collar worker. His approximate yearly
income, including his wife's salary was $7250.

The family had probably gained some camping experi-
ence at Michigan State Parks, however, they had also had
about 3-4 years of camping experience in the Huron National
Forest. The distance they traveled to arrive at the Forest

was from 50 to 200 miles, usually having come from the

90

91

southeastern corner of Michigan's lower peninsula. They
came to the Forest particularly for camping and stayed about
three days - a little longer than an average weekend.
Generally, the chances were twice as good that they would

go there to camp on a weekend than on week days.

Some form of wheeled shelter, generally a tent trailer
or housetrailer, was most popular with the family. Chances
are that the family would have stayed at Island Lake, Round
Lake or Monument Campground in particular because of nearby
attractions such as swimming, fishing, etc. These camp-
grounds are all located in the southern part of the Forest.

Primitive facilities were preferred by the average
family. However, at Island Lake, they desired flush toilets
and a pressure water supply, if they could be provided
without major damage to the area's scenery. They also wished
to have more firewood provided at the campgrounds, and to
have the campgrounds expanded where possible, creating more
campsites.

The family did not mind buying the $7.00 “Golden
Passport," but they did mind paying the additional user
fee. They did not like being "charged twice," especially
when they saw others stay overnight and then leave before
having to pay. They felt there should be more consistency
in the method of fee collection in order to create fair-
ness. The family was also rather disturbed by day users
who parked in camping spurs thereby forcing new campers to

select different sites or possibly a different campground.

92

The facilities provided by the Forest Service were
generally satisfactory to the average camping family. They
liked the table, fireplace, garbage cans, hiking trails,
roads and signs; and chances are they will be back again

next year.
Implications & Recommendations

The author would like to make a few statements con-
cerning the reliability of this study. In fulfilling the
first objective of the investigation, it became quite ap-
parent that making comparisons over a length Of time is
very difficult. In comparing the two studies, changes
such as: more campers, more campgrounds, more money per
camper, and inflation may have influenced results and may
be the cause of possible sources of error. Other sources
of possible error that may have affected the results were
the different lengths of time involved in sample collection,
different personnel used in data collection, and different.
but similar techniques used in weighting data in the analy-
sis. These errors may be affecting the results to some
extent, but in all cases they have been held to the minimum.

Another problem that may have occurred was the in—
terpretation of the questions asked the campers. Certainly
peOple get different meanings from similar questions due to
personality differences, educational differences, etc. One
reason for peOple being biased in their answers showed it-

self in the answers to the question about advertisement.

93

The majority of the campers indicated "sufficient'' or "ex-
cellent" in their response to the question about Forest
Service's method of advertisement. It appears that the
reason they gave for these answers was that they liked it
as it was - quiet and uncrowded and if the areas were better
advertised they were afraid they would become noisy and
crowded - something which they certainly wished to prevent.

There are a number of conclusions and recommendations
which may be made from this 1966 study, when compared to
King's 1962 study. The Huron National Forest seems to be
gaining in pOpularity as an increased number of pe0ple hear
about it, and certain facilities may have to be increased
and improved in order to maintain both an adequate level of
satisfaction among the campers and to preserve the high
quality of areas concerned.

The administrative staff of the campground areas
should be increased, thereby allowing for stricter enforce-
ment and management of the areas. If the campgrounds are.
not better protected, everything which has attracted the
campers will be eventually destroyed. The Forest Service
would lose a most important characteristic in these areas -
environmental quality, which is certainly one of the important'
reasons for the campers coming to such primitive but pleas-
ing campgrounds. A particular problem in this regard is
the motorcycles. There were many justified complaints about
motorcycles being overly noisy, and traveling Off the road-

ways causing depreciation of site quality. Increased

94

administrative staff and controls may be the only way to
solve this and similar problems.

On those campgrounds which are considered high recrea-
tion attraction areas, Island Lake and Round Lake Campgrounds
in particular, flush toilets and pressure water supplies
should be considered essential. These facilities are not
as important from the viewpoint of convenience of the camper
as they are from the vieWpoint of providing adequate sanita-
tion which will protect the site. It should be noted that
either half or a greater percentage of campers indicated
they preferred flush toilets and pressure water supply at
these campgrounds. The installation of these facilities
need not effect the over-all natural design of the camp-
grounds but should be integrated as unobtrusively as pos—
sible into the present campground design. More campsites
could be carefully added to these high attraction areas
thereby justifying the increased expenses of these additional
facilities. Sanitation problems should then be reduced to
a minimum.

Another problem of concern at the high recreation
attraction campgrounds is overuse. How long will the present
lakes remain unpolluted and how much more use can the camp-
grounds stand? If swimming is such a high attraction on
these areas today, what will become of it in the future?

Use at this type of campground is sure to increase with in-
creasing population and mobility. What will happen to the

"quality" aspect of recreation at these campgrounds? The

 

95

author strongly recommends that a research project be under-
taken which would investigate all aspects of use at such
campgrounds. Design standards for how much water is needed
per campsite (i.e. 1 foot acre of water per campsite) or
how much use can a certain amount of water sustain and not
become polluted are desperately needed. Some more adequate
system is needed to calculate the capacity of various sites
and then the number of campsites should be designated ac-
cording to an area's ability to withstand use. The preser-
vation of quality is becoming a most important problem in
the field of outdoor recreation administration today.

Day users of campground facilities are a source of
much irritation to campers. Swimming beaches at campgrounds
are one example in connection with this. Day users park
on a camping spur and often utilize a table and fireplace
as well as the beach. Campers who would have used the camp-
sites have to go elsewhere to find camping space. This
situation can and should be rectified by increased adminis-
trative staff and more controls.

Re-evaluation of user fees should be considered.

The majority of campers felt there should be a charge for
camping and agreed on the $7.00 entrance fee but were against
the additional user fee. With the limited facilities pro-
vided, the campers felt the amounts they paid were too high.
Campers indicated they didn't care if they paid the dollar
extra if they were given flush toilets, etc., but if facili-

ties remain as they are, then the author recommends a

96

re-evaluation of the user fee. If flush toilets are in-
stalled then fees should remain as they are.

Having spent much time in the Huron National Forest
completing this study, the author feels the Forest Service
provides many very valuable recreational areas within the
Forest. It is hOped that this study and its recommendations
will assist the Forest Service in maintaining and improving

its management of the campgrounds concerned. I

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Reports and Bulletins

Bultens, Gorden, Hathaway, William and Taves, Marvin J.,
Canoe Country Vacationers. Miscellaneous Report
39. University of Minnesota: Agricultural Ex-
periment Station, June 1960.

Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Michigan Statisti-
cal Abstract. Graduate School of—Business Adminis-
tration, MiEhigan State University: 2nd ed., 1966.
pp. 97-98.

Fine, Irving V. and Werner, E. E., “Camping in State Parks
and Forests in Wisconsin; Wisconsin Vacation-
Recreation Papers I. University of Wisconsin,
March 1960.

Iosco County Planning Commission, Overall Economic Develop-
ment Plan Revision. Iosco County, Michigan, 1966.

King, David A. Characteristics of Family Campers Using
the Huron-Manistee National Forest, Research
Paper, L.S.-l9. St. Paui} Minnesota: Lake States
Forest Experiment Station, 1965.

Ogemaw County RedevelOpment Area Organization. Overall
Economic Development Plan Ogemaw County. Ogemaw
County, Michigan, 1963.

Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. Outdoor
Recreatiopygor America. A report to the PreSIdent
and to the Congress. Washington: U. S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, January 1962.

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. “Huron
National Forest Recreation Map" Waukesha,
Wisconsin: Delzer Lithograph Company, 1963.

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Huron

National Forest. N.F. 4R.-9. Washington:
U. S. Government Printing Office, 1933.

98

99

Wagar, J. Alan, Relationships Between Visitor Characteris-
tics and Recreation Activities on Two NationaI
Forest Areas: Research Paper N. E. -7. Upper Darby,
Penn.: Northeast Forest Experiment Station, 1963.

Woerpel, Loren 8., "Characteristics of the Family Camper
in Northern Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of
Michigan.“ Wisconsin Federation of Conservation
Clubs. Stevens Point, Wis.: June, 1961.

Articles and Periodicals

King, David A. Some Socio- Economic Comparisons of the
Huron and Manistee National Forest FamilngEmpers
with Market POpulatiOns. Paper presented at
Michigan Academy of Science, Arts and Letters,
East Lansing, Michigan (March 27, 1964).

Stone, Gregory P., and Taves, Marvin J. “Research Into the
Human Elements of Wilderness Use,“ Proceedings of
the Society of American Foresters. Memphis,
Tennessee, 1956.

 

U. S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation.
"Fact Sheet on the Land and Water Conservation
Fund Program," Washington: U. S. Government Print-
ing Office (May 1965).

Wagar, J. Alan. "Some Fundamental Characteristics of Out-
door Recreation." Journal of Forestry, LXIV,
No. 10 (October 1966). pp. 666-669.

Unpublished Material

Gilbert, Alphonse H. "A Survey of Vacation Camping in Iron
County, Michigan." Unpublished Master's Thesis,
College of Agriculture and Applied Science, Michi-
gan State University, 1963.

Hannahs, Lyle W. "Investigation of the Vehicle Entrance
Fee in Michigan State Parks." Unpublished Master's
Thesis, College of Agriculture and Applied Science,
Michigan State University, 1963.

King, David A. "Sampling and Length-of-Stay Bias Adjustment
Supplement to Research Paper L.S.-l9." Lake
States Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minn.:
December 6, 1965 (Mimeographed).

100

Reed, David J. "Origins and Destinations of Michigan Fisher-
men and Their Attendance Distribution - 1964."
Unpublished Master's Thesis, College of Agricul-

ture and Applied Science, Michigan State University,
1966.

Reid, Leslie M. "Utilizing User Preferences in Predicting
Outdoor Recreation Demand." Speech given at
National Recreation Research Conference at Penn-

sylvania State University, November 7-10, 1965
(Mimeographed).

Other Sources

Worthington, Wayne. Personal interview with Landscape
Architect of Huron-Manistee National Forest
Administration, Cadillac, Michigan. June, 1966.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
Campground Questionnaire

The Department of Resource DevelOpment of Michigan State
University is making a recreation survey. We have the co-
operation of the U. S. Forest Service. The Forest Service
is interested in the results we obtain. We are making this
survey to find if the National Forests are serving you with
what you want. You can help us a great deal if you will
answer some questions. The information you provide will be
kept confidential.

A. Description of family users.

 

 

_
—‘ I

1. Who is in your party? 1
2 Family g_Organized group
2 Family and friends §_Alone
2 Group of friends (unrelated)
2. When did you arrive at this campground? —————
Day Month 2,3,4 1 ,

 

 

 

3. How long are you going to camp here?

 

 

 

2 Day use only 2 8 thru 9 days 5
2 1 day 2 10 thru 13 days

2 2 days 2’14 days

2 3 days 2_More than 14 days

5

4 thru 7 days

4. Was this trip planned for the primary
purpose of visiting this National Forest?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 Primary purpose 6
2 One of a number of primary places
to visit
2 St0pping overnight or temporarily
camping
2 Camping only for sake of lodging
while visiting
2 Other areas nearby
5. Are you on your vacation?
2| Yes 2 Retiree 7
2 No

102

103

6. What is the greatest number of years
any members of your group has been on
camping trips?

2 lst time 2 5-6 years
2 1 year 2 7 years

2 2 years 2| 8-12 years
2 3-4 years 2’ 13+ years

7. What is the number of years any member
(you) of your group has been camping in
Michigan State Parks?

2 None 2 5-7 years
2 1 year ‘2 8-10 years
2 2 years 2' 10-15 years
2 3 years 2 15+ years
2 4 years

8. What is the greatest number of years any
member of your group has camped on the

Huron National Forest

2 lst time 2 5-6 years
2 1 year 2’ 7 years

2 2 years 2 8-12 years
2 3-4 years ‘2 13+ years

9. What is the greatest number of times any
member of your family has camped on this
National Forest this year? (If over 8
times, put 9)

No. of times Where

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10

 

 

 

 

11

 

Month Date Length of Stay Campground

l.

 

2.

 

3.

 

B. We Would like your Opinion on facilities, preferences,

etc. The following questions pertain to this.
10. How do you feel about the size of this
campground?

2 Too large Too small

3
2 .About the right 2 No Opinion
size

12

 

 

 

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

104

What do you think about the spacing
(distance) between the campsites? 13

‘2 Excellent 2 Too close 2_No Opinion
2_ About right 2 Too far apart

What do you think about the amount of
screening (trees, bushes, etc.)

between the campsites? l4
2 Excellent 2' Too much

2 About right 2_ No Opinion

‘2 Too little

Is there anything about this place you
particularly dislike?

 

 

15

‘2 Nothing 2_ Poor facilities
2 General everything 2_ Crowded
2 Scenery 2 Hard to reach
2 Uncrowded, private 2 Other, specify
2 Debris on the beach,

dirty and unclean

campgrounds
Is there anything about this place you
particularly like?
2 Nothing 2| Cleanliness 16
2 General everything 2 Hard to reach
2 Scenery 2, Crowded
2 Uncrowded 2 Other, specify
2 Facilities

provided
Do you think this campground could be
doubled in size?
‘2 Yes 2_ No 2} No Opinion 17
What recreation attraction caused you
to come here?

18

i None 2 Camping
2 Boating or 6 General leisure

f' ' _

'lSYlng 2 Facilities
‘2 Sw1mming provided
2 Forest environ- 2_ Other, specify

ment (scenic
characteristics)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

105

Here is a list of facilities that are available on many
recreation areas. This campground has

some of them.

If

 

 

 

this place does not have some of the facilities, would you
like to have them added? Circle desired answers.
Facilities IF YOU USED DID NOT USE INOT AVAILABLE
& Services Very Unsatis- Indif Satis- Very No in- Not De- Not
Poor factory ferent factory Good terest accept- sired de-
able sired
17 Pressure
water
supply 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 19
18 Hand
pump
water
supply 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 20
19 Flush
toilets 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 21
20 Pit
toilets l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 22
21 Fire-
place 2 8 9 23
22 Firewood l 24
23 Table l 25
24 Boat
launch-
ing
area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 26
25 Bulletin
board
informa-
tion 1 27
26 Signs 1 2 3 28
27 Hiking
trails 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 29
28 Garbage
cans l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 30
29 Campgr.
roads 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 31
30 Campgr.
parking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 32
31 Tent &
trailer
sites
separated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 33
32 Size of
campsite l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 34

 

 

 

 

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

106

Why did you come to this campground?

 

35
2 Get away from the grind of life
2 Improve physical health
2 Re-evaluate and think about life
2 Be alone with family
2 Camping outdoors
2 Other, specify
When you fish in lakes, what kind of fishing
do you prefer?

36
2 Cold water trout fishing
2 Warm water pan fish such as bluegills, etc.
2 Warm water game fish such as bass, pike, etc.
2 Both warm water game fish and pan fish--

bass, pike, bluegills, perch, etc.

2 Other, specify

 

‘2 No Opinion

Do you think the Huron National Forest
should provide:
37
2 High quality modern camping
facilities (flush toilets,
electricity, etc.

2 Primitive camping facilities (pit toilets,
hand water pump, etc.)

2 Both high quality modern camping facili-
ties and primitive camping facilities

‘2 No Opinion

What is the length of vacation you receive
each year? Weeks

38
What is the longest vacation you were on
or will take this summer (1966)?
Weeks 39

Do you think you will come back to this
National Forest next year?

40
2 Yes 2 No 3 Undecidec.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. I

 

 

 

 

 

 

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

107

Do you think national forest campgrounds
should be comparable to the facilities

(flush toilets, pressure water, electricity,

 

 

 

etc.) of the Michigan State Parks? 41
2 Yes 2_ No
2 No Opinion 2_ Aren't familiar with

Michigan State Parks

Do you think the National Forest should

have the same spacing (distance between
family units) as Michigan State campgrounds? 42

2 Yes 2_ No 2 No Opinion

Does your group own all of the camping

equipment normally used on a camping

trip such as this one? 43

‘2 Yes ‘2 No 2 No Opinion

What is the approximate total cost of

equipment (not vehicle)?

1. Not applicable 2 $2,001-3,000 44 ————-

2 0-$500 2 $3,001—4,000

2 $501-l,000 2 $4,001—5,000

2 $1,001-2,000 2 $5,001 +

If your family is staying overnight at

this location, are you using:

2 not staying 2_ camper truck 45h———4
overnight

2 tent 2 station wagon

2 house trailer 2 nothing (outdoors)

2 tent trailer 2 other, specify

Would you mind telling me your approximate

gross annual income before taxes and pay-

roll deductions in 1965? What group are 2

you in? Of course, this will be kept

confidential. 46

1 Less than $2,999/yr. $7,000 to 9,999/yr.

2.
2

$3,000 to 4,999/yr.
$5,000 to 6,999/yr.

:1.
2
£5.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$10,000 to 14,999/yr.
$15,000 and over/yr.

 

108

45. What is the occupation of the head of
your family?
47,48
2 Professional,technical, and kindred

 

2 Farmer, farm manager
2 Clerk, sales
2 Craftsmen and foremen
2 Managers, officials and proprietors
2 Operatives (truck drivers, packers, welders,
etc.)
2 Household, service, farm, and manual laborers
2 Retirees
2 Students
.2. Housewife
46. Indicate family (group) structure
’ 49
number in family (group)
(over 8, code 9)
47. What is the age of the family head
(you)? 50,51
48. What is the number of children in
each age class?
52
l - 5 years
6 - 12 years 53
13 - 18 years 54
49. How many years of formal education has
the family head had? Years 55,56
50. What is your family's place of
residence? 57

2 Urban (incorporated or unincorporated
places of 2,500 inhabitants or more,
and the towns, townships, and counties

classified as urban.
2 Suburban 2 Rural farm
2 Rural non farm 2 Central city

51. What distance did you travel for this camping
trip? In miles . 58.59.50

|
l J

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘F I
I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I IILII

 

 

 

 

 

109

Attitudes toward fees

 

52. Do you think public recreation areas

53.

54.

55.

56.

should be provided through general
public funds or by fees charged to the
users?

1 General public funds (taxes to all

peOple)

Only have users charged for use of a
facility

lw

Only have entrance fees charged

2 Combination of both entrance fees
and user fees charged

lm

Other, specify

 

How do you feel about the $7.00
"Recreation Fee“ for entrance to im-
proved campgrounds on the national
forests with primitive facilities
(pit toilets)

2 Against 2 In favor of

2 Undecided

How do you feel about this entrance fee
on modern campground facilities (flush
toilets, etc.)?

2 .Against 2 In favor of

2- Undecided

How do you feel about the user fees paid
by campers for the use of modern facili-

ties on high recreation attraction areas?

($1.00 user fee per day)
2 Against 2 In favor of

2 Undecided

How do you feel about the user fees paid
by campers for the use of primitive
facilities on high recreation attraction
areas? ($1.00 user fee per day)

2 .Against 2 In favor of

2 Undecided

61‘

62

63,

64

65‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

110

 

57. How did you first find out about this
campground? 66,67

 

 

 

1 Don't remember

2 From Forest Service Recreation Maps

2 From road maps

2 From newspapers or magazines

2 From local tourist information centers
2 From local businessmen

2 From friends or acquaintances

2 Drove by

2 Live nearby, familiar with area

0 Other, specify

 

58. What do you think about the Forest Service's
methods of advertising the location of camp-
grounds on the Huron National Forest? 68

 

 

 

2 Lacking 2 Excellent

2 Sufficient

59. In order to be able to contact you later,
may I have your name and address? 69,70

 

l 1

 

Name

 

Street

 

City & State

 

County

 

In order to find out the number and lengths of stay on
National Forest campgrounds, we would like to mail you a
postcard this coming fall. Would you be willing to answer
such a postcard?

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

111

DO NOT ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS

61. Name of location

2 Kneff Lake
2 Wagner Lake
2 Island Lake
2 Mack Lake
2 Horseshoe Lake
2 Jewel Lake
62. Month Date

 

63. Sample period

1

.7;

.2

lst period
2nd period

3rd period

64. Day of week

IN If”

It»

Sunday
Monday

Tuesday

 

71,72! I i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 Pine River
2 Rollways
2’ Monuments
22 Gorden Creek Trail Camp
22 Silver Valley
22 Corsair Camp
22 Round Lake
73,74,75
76
77
'2, Wednesday
2’ Thursday
2 Friday
2 Saturday

If any group has been interviewed before,
record only length of stay and name of family.

65. Questionnaire number

 

 

 

 

78,79,80 _

112

APPENDIX B

Pamphlet Available to Campers Explaining the Fees

   

/\

LAND I w

CONSERVATION

   

DESIGNATED RECREATION AREAS
INTHE
NATIONAL FORESTS OF THE EASTERN REGION
UNDER THE
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND ACT OF 1955

       

More and more people are seeking the great outdoors and a scenic spot
in which to relax. More public recreational areas are needed, not only
for Americans today, but also for tomorrow's generations. Public-land
managers are doing something about it, but your support is needed too!
You needn't be a professional conservationist to help.

This pamphlet lists recreational areas within 15 of the 17 National Forests
in the Eastern Region of the Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture.
These areas, under the provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
Act of 1965, require an entrance permit, either annual or daily. The fees
collected from the sales of the entrance permits go into the Land and
Water Conservation Fund to help Federal and State agencies acquire or
develop more public recreational areas.

Not all recreational areas within the National Forests need a permit to enter,
but those listed here offer improved facilities.

You can help provide a more beautiful, more spacious outdoors! Here's how:

Seven dollars purchases an annual entrance permit that slips into a billfold.
It is called a “Golden Passport” because it is gold-colored and is a passport
to 7,000 Federal recreation areas across the Nation, any number of times
from April 1 of this year to March 31 of next year. With it, the purchaser
and his car passengers will be admitted, ifentry is by a noncommercial vehicle.

0R:

One dollar buys a daily entrance permit to any of the recreational areas
listed in this pamphlet. Again, the purchaser and his car passengers can
enter, if entry is by a noncommercial vehicle. For those who enter by other
means, there is an individual daily entrance fee of 50 cents.

Children under 16 years are admitted free.

The Act also provides for an additional charge for use of above-average
facilities. These are shown and explained in the listings.

Your Golden Passport can be bought from any Federal agency that admin-
isters recreational areas. They can be purchased at any Forest Service office
or from the attendant at the designated area. Daily permit fees, and use
fees also, can be paid to the attendant, or where provided, deposited in
machines. Each recreation area has instructions and information posted.

In the Eastern Region, the charge season varies on individual National
Forest recreation areas, depending upon climatic conditions. Entrance and
use fees are normally needed from about mid-May through mid-September.

 

"Iiiiiiilliiiiiiii