Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The backcountry of Manning Provincial Park : management and use Fox, Lucy 1976-12-31

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1976_A8 F69.pdf [ 9.44MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0093764.json
JSON-LD: 1.0093764+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0093764.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0093764+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0093764+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0093764+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0093764 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0093764.txt
Citation
1.0093764.ris

Full Text

THE EACKCCUNTBY CP MANNING PROVINCIAL MANAGEMENT AND USE  A.B.,  LUCY FOX U n i v e r s i t y of M i c h i g a n ,  EARK  1973  THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT THE BEQUIEEMENTS FGB THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS  OF  in THE FACULTY CF GRADUATE STUDIES S c h o o l of Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g  we a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g to the r e g u i r e d s t a n d a r d  THE ONIVEFSITY CF EBITISH COLUMBIA April, 1976  copyright  claimed  Lucy  Fox,  1976  In  presenting  requirements  this  thesis  for  an  British  Columbia, I  freely  available  that  permission  in  partial  advanced  agree t h a t for  for  degree at the  reference  extensive  copying  of  this  granted  by  the  may  Department  or  representatives.  copying  publication  shall  School  not  cf  be a l l o w e d  of  1,  1976  thesis  my w r i t t e n  Community and B e g i c n a l  The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h 2075 H e s b r c o k P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 115 April  this  without  I  It  is  for  Columbia  the  make  further  Head  of if  agree  thesis of  for my  understood  that  financial  gain  permission.  Planning  of  University  shall  and s t u d y .  purposes  or  the  library  scholarly  by h i s  be  fulfillment  i ABSTRACT This of  the  thesis  backcountry  miles  east  American  of  the  near  increased  camping  areas  to  become  more c r o w d e d ,  of  physical hikers.  indicate has  and t h e  of  a given area's can  litter,  more  These  refer  humans  area,  for  i n the  experience  can r u i n  biophysical numbers, is  enhanced  individuals,  Little  it  is  to  some by  new  growth  in  trails  and  on  of  which  important hiker's  streams, trees  use  for  have  the  for  been  other  wilderness  encounters, of  for  backcountry  tolerance  backpackers  may  capacity  live  heavy  both  experience"  of  of  are  campsites  effects  pollution  hiking  lands  deterioration,  mere e v i d e n c e  is  recreation  "wilderness  social  Park  backcountry  chopping  the  North  another  while  for  camping  trip.  information  on  characteristics  types felt  a  the  as  140  of  than  consequences  management.  population  biophysical carrying  the  recently  located  Manning  negative  include  and  Psychological  recognized  party  possible  portion  popularity  faster  e n v i r o n m e n t and on t h e  exceeded,  firewood.  certain  current  Environmental q u a l i t y  been  to  The r e s u l t :  with  a  L i k e many o t h e r  Demand f o r  systems.  that  presence  due  of  Park,  centres.  pressure  be i n c r e a s i n g  added  the  park  and management  urban  activities.  appears to  use  Vancouver a r e a .  surrounding area  and  the  i n Manning P r o v i n c i a l  wildlands  experiencing the  studies  Manning and  Park's  problems,  and n e e d s — h a s been c o l l e c t e d . managers  and p l a n n e r s  have  backcountry— and  visitor  Additionally,  not g i v e n  adeguate  ii  attention  to  visitors.  the  preferences  Thus, the  *1  An  available  •2 focusing  examination  relevant  A  case  cn t h e  of  study  of  facilities,  i n the  questionnaires  and  management  the  conducted and t h e Branch  was  practices,  with  planners  cf  The use  case  levels,  which  park,  were  followed Second,  on  and  for  conducted  up w i t h  mailed  information  about  developments,  backcountry  use  and  interviews  administrators, fox  obtained  management  were  future  Personal  Park,  preferences  interviews  practicable  create a  study  and  the area  were  planners,  by t h e  management  Parks  procedures  backccuntry environment  while aiding  revealed opinions,  greatly  Visitors, its  data  Manning  i n the  meeting  maintenance  of  quality.  visitor  would  efforts.  cf  and d e s i r e s ,  environmental  through  examined.  Suggestion  needs  managers  plan developed  was  choices  areas,  visitors,  planned  naturalists,  which would h e l p t o user  of  1975,  obtained.  conceptual  •3  numbers  O c t o b e r 1975.  opinions  development,  hiking  backgrounds,  summer o f  in  management  First,  Half-hour personal  campsites  bacxcountry  undertaken:  the b a c k c c u n t r y o f  Heather T r a i l .  backccuntry  present  various  of  literature;  visitors--their  at  were  backccuntry  regarding  alternatives.  opinions  following steps  in planning for  a review of  and  features,  assist  too,  lack  that  managers l a c k  and e n v i r o n m e n t a l future  management  information  and f a c i l i t i e s .  the  d a t a on  conditions, and p l a n n i n g  concerning  A d d i t i o n a l l y , they  the are  iii  not  exposed  behaviour,  to those  environment. the  information  Two  least  about  likely  the  to  proper  types  damage the b i o p h y s i c a l  primary reasons e x i s t f o r t h i s  deficiency:  park s u p p l i e s l i t t l e i n f o r m a t i o n , and v i s i t o r s  avoid  the  Nature  House,  of  tend  to  thus not r e c e i v i n g the a v a i l a b l e  information. The f o l l o w i n g recommendations were s e t forward: » 1 That a h i k e r r e g i s t r a t i o n system be extensive  information  hired  to  hike  the  of i t ; * 3 That a  That  mere  visiters  naturalist  Heather T r a i l loop during peak use  times; *4 That unobtrusive p h y s i c a l curb t r a i l  «2  be made a v a i l a b l e , and that  be encouraged t o take advantage be  implemented;  measures  e r o s i o n and widening; «5 That a new  be  taken  lec-p t r a i l  to be  c o n s t r u c t e d connecting the Three Brothers peaks; and * 6 That park  managers p a r t i c i p a t e i n seminars and workshops d e a l i n g  with  biophysical  problems to  them.  and  psychological  carrying  i n the backccuntry, and v a r i o u s workable  capacity solutions  iv  TABLE CP CONTENTS Pacje  INTRODUCTION CHAPTER  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1  1—OVERVIEW Of THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2  Historical  Context  Problem Statement Study  Design  Objectives Study  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11  Components  CHAPTER 2 — C A S E Area  2  12  STUDY  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14  Description  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23  Study  Methodology  User  Information  Contact  With  CHAPTER 3 — S T U D Y  Regarding  Amount Of Use Impact  Background Age  Managers  And P l a n n e r s  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i . . ^ . . . . . . .  Observations  Use  23  Use  32  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * .. 32  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  And E v i d e n c e Of O v e r u s e  Information  29  To H i k e r s  34  . . . . . . .  41  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41  Experience  Pertaining  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Frequency  Of H i k i n g  Education  .4,....................,......*.......  Occupation Place  Activity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Of O r i g i n  42 43 44 45 46  V  Sex Trip  Distribution  Details  and  Information,  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Planning  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  A d v i c e , And S u g g e s t i o n s  . . . . . . . . . . .  Group S i z e Trip  Hiker  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  D i s t r i b u t i o n Over C a m p s i t e s  Attitudes  Trails  Towards  Backcountry  . . • ..  Informational  49  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Improvements  . .  , • Signs  51 52 54 54  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  55  Garbage H a n d l i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • - . . . . . .  57  Firewood  59  Provision Numbers  Of A d d i t i o n a l T r a i l s  And C o n g e s t i o n  60  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  61  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  66  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  69  Depreciative  Eebavicur  Use Of D e s i g n a t e d General  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Wilderness  Campsites  . . . . . . . . .  Attitudes  Management Behaviour  . . .  61  I n Camps Behaviour  And C a m p s i t e s  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  On The T r a i l  To A l t e r  And Use P a t t e r n s Or R e s t r i c t i n g  Procedures  72  Trail  Present  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  76  Behaviour  76  Which Would L i m i t  T y p i c a l Heather  69  73  Procedures  Altering  The  48  50  Length  Hiker  47  Numbers  Backpacker  CHAPTER 4—THE MANAGEMENT CF MANNING PARK: THE PRESENT SITUATION AND FUTURE TRENDS  . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  82 92 100  M a n a g e r i a l A t t e n t i o n To P h y s i c a l A s p e c t s Of B a c k c c u n t r y Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 1  vi  The  R o l e Of A d m i n i s t r a t o r s  The  Role  Managerial  Of N a t u r a l i s t s Contact  Backcountry  . . . . . . . .  103  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  103  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  104  R o l e Of A d m i n i s t r a t o r s  The  H o l e Of N a t u r a l i s t s Attitudes  Backcountry  Use  And P o l i c i e s Of Managers  Their  In  Roles  Probable  Future  Hikers  Towards  Perceptions  Backcountry  Relating  Affecting  Problems  107  Use  . . . . . . . . . . ,  Perceived  Developments  To  108  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  111  Conceptual  P l a n And H i k i n g  Trails  The  Conceptual  P l a n And N a t u r e  Interpretation  Of Managers  5—CONCLUSIONS  Conclusions Criteria  . . . . . . . . . . ..  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  AND RECOMMENDATIONS  111 113 114  .............119  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  For Decisionmaking  Recommendations BIBLIOGRAPHY  107  By Managers  The  Reactions CHAPTER  With  102  The  Managerial  .....101  119 125  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  126  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  137  APPENDIX  1—TABLES  141  APPENDIX  2—QUESTIONNAIRES  172  vii  L I S T OF TABLES Table  Page  I— Age . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . .  II— Experience  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  III— Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV— Place  142  . . . . . . . . . . . .  143 144  Of O r i g i n  145  V — A t t r a c t i o n Of Manning P a r k  146  V I — A t t r a c t i o n Of H e a t h e r  147  Trail  VII— - I i i f o r m a t i o n  Sources  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  148  V I I I — Group S i z e  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  149  IX— T r i p  Length  X— D e s i r a b l e  150  Treatment  XL—Signs Beguested XII— -Management  C£ Hud P a t c h e s  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  151  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  152  Of L i t t e r  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  X I I I — P r o v i s i o n Of F i r e w o o d XIV— -Mean O v e r a l l XV— I d e a l  Beaction  To H i k e r  Numbers  XVIII— l i m i t a t i o n XIX— Fees  .,  Behaviour  155  ..  Number Of Camped G r o u p s  XVII— Observed D e p r e c i a t i v e  XX— Dogs  154  Number Of Camped Groups  X V I — Maximum T o l e r a b l e  156 . . . . . . . . .  157  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  158  Of C a m p f i r e s  .. .  Size  Limits  XXII— Begistration  System  161 162  . . . . . . . . . . . . . • - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  XXIII— Patrols  163 164  XXIV— B e s p o n s i b i l i t y XXV— B a t i o n i n g  159 160  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  XXI— Party  153  F o r Damage C a u s e d  Systems  165 166  viii  XXVI— Preferred X X V I I — Advance  Type Of R a t i o n i n g Signup  System  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  For C a m p s i t e s  X X V I I I — Advance S i g n u p F o r I n d i v i d u a l  167 168  Spots . . . . . . . . . . . .  169  X X I X — E l i m i n a t i o n Of Eoad A c c e s s  170  XXX— C e r t i f i c a t i o n  171  ix  L I S T OF FIGURES Figure  Page  1— Map  Cf Manning  2— Map  Of Case  3— P h o t o g r a p h s 4— Sample  Provincial  Study  C.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36  6— - C o n t i n u u m S e t ,  The H e a t h e r T r a i l  14 18  Set,  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  C o m p l e t e d U s i n g Mean R e s p o n s e s  . . . . . . . .  61 62  Completed  Illustrating 7— P h o t o g r a p h s  B.  . . . . . . . . . . .  Continuum S e t  5— C o n t i n u u m  8— - N a t u r e  area:  Park,  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  63  . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  95  House T r a i l  Numbering System  Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  123  X  JCKN08IEDGEMENTS Many i n d i v i d u a l s who producing  this  Professors valuable study.  I r v i n g Fox and  The  particularly were h e l p f u l ,  them  Young,  Columbia  moments.  Hundreds  people  interest  namely  Naturalist Green, feelings  connected  and c o o p e r a t i o n  possible,  the  Graham B e l l ,  who with  took me.  challenging  Parks  Branch  Horton,  the  my  with  Manning  this  study  and time  was an  Trail  share  me  time.  in  go  produce to  without not  the  assistance  me t o  thanks Park,  District to  for  would  and  enthusiastic  patient  possible  the  planners,  their  who e n c o u r a g e d  Finally,  Heather  with  and M e l T u r n e r ,  with  hours of  by Howard C h e r n i a c k made i t  a computer-printed t h e s i s . many  of  me  both  generous  assistant,  thanks.  provided  f r i e n d and h u s b a n d ,  field  warmest  and  c r i t i c i s m throughout  Campbell, Barbara  my  developing  my  been  and  in  flees  and  has  interested,  and r e s o u r c e f u l darker  William  British  Colin  me  deserve  guidance,  Working w i t h  satisfying.  given  document  support,  Charlie  assisted  the whose  have  been  backpackers.  Park  Superintendent  Herb  their  o p i n i o n s and  1  OIlCDUCTIpJ  This  thesis  study  of  a  which  borders  Columbia.  the is  this  facility  hand,  it  are  not  towards  study,  therefore,  b o t h on  experience goals  the and  results  area  populous  believed  geared  use  the  backcountry  It  is  presents  that  Lower  in popularity,  receiving  helping  cope  concerned  hikers* cn  and p r a c t i c e s  their for  the  Mainland  of  use  British  b o t h day and o v e r n i g h t  presently  is  a recreational  i n Manning P r o v i n c i a l P a r k ,  increasing  it  of  management  enjoyment opinions  of of  effects  use.  of  their desirable  of  other  attention  with i n t e n s i f i e d  with the  area.  On t h e  use  This  increased  backcountry management  2  CHAPTER J  Q2M1IM  CF THE H G B I E H  HISTORICAL CONTEXT In  an  America,  increasingly  many f o r m s  physical  challenge,  gaining  popularity.  previously larly to  (1964,  wildland  recreation.  Greater  pressure  density  only  a  points  to  than  resources  available  are  are  1971  1974,  province's  increased hectares Much  of  Canada  from 2 . 6 8 in  1974  the  estimate).  million  (British  newly-added  Columbia,  however,  Mainland  residents.  and i s  according  relative forms  that  parkland therefore  use  the  camping  in  is  of  lew-  faster  In  British  U058  between  rose  by  Provincial 1971  236), by  i n number  population  Parks  outdoor  users  jumped  hectares i n  Columbia  in  growing. use  of  demand  (1962,page  increasing  overnight  (Statistics  evidence,  ether  states  exerting particu-  i n wilderness  p r o v i n c i a l park  9%  are  are  lands,  increase  120),  resources  while the  escape,  and s o l i t u d e  Center  Columbia, and  providing  a greater  fcr  fourfold  (1971,page  recreation  North  people  A l l available  increase  Willard  the  25)  of  urbanized  on r e c r e a t i o n a l  eightfold  and  general.  page  numbers  Research  year  2000,  recreation  The W i l d l a n d an  and  communion w i t h n a t u r e ,  recreation  predicted  than  outdoor  wildland resources.  Lucas  for  unfelt  of  populated  to  parklands 3.8  Branch  million figures).  in northern  inaccessible  just  to  British Lower  3  Since usable  demand  " w i l d l a n d " or  growing  areas  Throughout urban  Peak  Canada and  according  dent,  (1968,  in  on 1500  to  USDA  increased  data  and L e s than  reports  small  the  to  within seen  450  a  people  the  summer weekend. peak.  and  Service  Haft  increased  designated (Stankey,  wilderness 1973,  page  by  and  of  sharper  12%.  Nash  have camped  at  Wilderness.  Sierra's  highest weekends  t h r o u g h t h e Grand visiters  Visitors  and P r i m i t i v e 1970.  acreage 2).  1973  hours  much  1972.  Wildernesses 1946  reached  from e i g h t y  16,422 i n  between  4).  L a b o r Day  travel  1965,  page  a few  flinarets the  and  Superinten-  over  Forest  times  Park  that  1970,  3$  has  increased  1963 and  n a t i o n a l average of  9935 i n  approximately  Jasper  Glacier  1968,  the  Colorado Siver  fourteen  to  easily  near  population  1958  (Hendee,  c l i m b Mt. W h i t n e y ,  the  to  by 30$ between  Shadow Lake i n  average  people  period  between  National Park,  Angeles,  attention.  Washington,  7400 a n n u a l l y ,  of  rapidly-  wildlands  Visitors  The C a l i f o r n i a S i e r r a ,  use  v i a the  1958  page 1 3 6 ) .  increased  hundred people  Canyon  same  to  some  vulnerable  Seattle,  i n Jasper  page 268)  peak,  the  1971,  supply  near  States,  communication, Flanagan,  time at  Three  in  use  Francisco  than the  the s i t u a t i o n  United  registration  1975).  increase  faster  particularly  residents,  (personal  the  near  431,  to  Backcountry  send  are  (MacNeill,  approximately  one  parkland,  Wilderness,  Calgary  increasing  i n B r i t i s h Columbia deserves  centres  pressures  San  is  to  Areas  Over  increased  the by  a  is  it  important  under  discussion  may be  referred  areas. as  In  trails  cleared  patrolled.  i n the l i t e r a t u r e  this to  wilderness.  human u s e , rustic  but  as  may be managed  trails, In  the  recreational  "wildernesses,"  constructed,  used i n r e f e r e n c e true  that  not t r u e  they  are  off  are  to  fact,  to note  pit  although  wild  or  regularly,  cleaned,  deadfall  and  campsites  litter  collected,  thesis,  t h e term " w i l d l a n d s "  these backccuntry areas Such a r e a s a r e  with the  cared  i n t e n t i o n cf  they  wilderness  and s e r v i c e d  toilets  areas  for  which  will are  not  and managed  protecting  the  be  for  wild  and  atmosphere.  PROBLEM STATEMENT The p r o b l e m s b r o u g h t on by o v e r u s e stood  if  common air,  one l o o k s property  oceans  at  w i l d l a n d s used  resource.  and f i s h e r i e s ,  They  c r economic u n i t .  tional  may impose  finite,  a  more u s e r s t h a n a r e psychologically others of  to s u f f e r  Thorsell  (1971,  socially,  page  25)  his  a  owned,  like  by more t h a n  one  of  the  use  an  addiis  beyond which t h e r e  are  physically,  additional  or a d e c l i n e i n  or h e r p r e s e n c e  expresses  as  resource  economically, The  disutilities, thus  publicly  But s i n c e  point e x i s t s ,  desirable.  the e x p e r i e n c e ;  are  under-  recreation  A t low l e v e l s  no c o s t .  saturation  for  and c a n be used  individual user  may be b e t t e r  is  user the  or  causes guality  negative.  the dilemma,  "This is the type o f problem f a c i n g w i l d e r n e s s p l a n n e r s and managers. The c e n t r a l i s s u e i s that of any common property resource—the s p e c t r e of  As  5  g r o w i n g demand, r i s i n g p o p u l a t i o n , f i n i t e stocks, unlimited entry, congestion, decline i n quality, and l a c k o f e f f e c t i v e c o n t r o l mechanisms t o e n s u r e an u n i m p a i r e d y i e l d o f benefits," as  use  increases  practices (e.g.,  and  must  benefits,"  deals  to  the  carrying  exceeded.  effects  environment.  For  ability  terrain  of  carrying than  the  capacity  that  hardiness site's  of  surpassed  effects plant  to  or a  that  to  numbers  site  of  of  of  or  not  capacity" non-living  would i n c l u d e  erosion.  The  the  physical  dune would be much l o w e r floor,  on t h e  Additionally,  and of  basis  a  bridges  without  wilderness  guality  available  empty  of  in  deadfall  camping  the  timber  spots  might  had  been  266).  will  i n the  or types  are  physical carrying capacity  page  of  psycho-  area  on t h e  impact.  carrying capacity  life  and  physical carrying capacity  dearth  activity  yield  carrying  trails  The l a c k  1967,  given  category  deterioration  an a r e a ' s  (Nash,  on  a  resist  "absorb"  context.  human  biological,  of  this  cross-country  "unimpaired  a well-drained forest  Biological which  recreation  human v i s i t a t i o n  to  significant  campfires  low-density  an  a primary sand  be a d e t e r m i n a n t  indicate  of  management  "physical  example,  of  capacity  recreation for  term  and r e s i s t a n c e  experiencing would  ensure  capacities  areas,  canoeing,  physical,  The s p e c i f i c  with the  for  day-hiking,  adapt  or that  logical  wildland  policies  backpacking,  skiing)  in  have  refers  to the  permanent  -  wildland environment. in  the  numbers,  point  beyond  irreversible A change  behaviour,  in or  6  distribution animal  feeds  alter  life  systemic of  an a n i m a l s p e c i e s  relationships  bodies, to  of  bread  tc  concept, to  experience wildland  complete  wilderness  At  to  (Nash,  one  a  and f o r  people  1967,  to  all-encompassing different  the  regarded  of  influence  the  In  sight,  party  i n the  seek  out  value.  It  different intensity.  is  and i n v e s t m e n t  and  One assume  user  levels  single  even  ruins  the  hand,  are  organ-  nearby.  NOT a  single,  changing  will  different  groups  tents  and  area  needs  parties,  then, i s  under  with  user  probably  capacities,  o r managed  Management can e x e r t  an a r e a ' s  other  is  among  or  vicinity  flexible,  here  who  sound,  other  the  o f human  vary  person  and p i t c h i n g t h e i r  experiences.  over  is  is  wilderness  The q u e s t i o n  tolerance  carrying capacity,  differently by  of  popu-  one  267-268).  Not uncommon, on the  who a c t i v e l y  management  and  bio-  capacity  which  before  pages  whom t h e  camping  experience.  Recreational  likely  more r e c e n t l y  degree  extreme  community c a m p f i r e s  levels  the  levels  another  visitors  viewed  he i s  biological carrying  a d e g r e e an i n t r u s i o n .  solitude  knowledge o f  needs  the  other  threshold:  individuals;  izing  o r dams a s t r e a m ,  water  At some p o i n t t h e s e c u m u l a t i v e  refers  declines  to  plant-  8hen man p o l l u t e s  carrying capacity,  tolerate  is  of  those  ether  e n v i r o n m e n t any human a c t i v i t y o r e v i d e n c e  presence one  affect  area.  Psychological  willing  bears,  may a f f e c t  a recreational  larized  i n the s y s t e m ,  systems.  changes  will  a  carrying capacity.  at  great  be if  differing deal  For example,  of a  7  trail  constructed  relatively  on  high  biophysical  visitors'  tolerance  capacity,  may  factor  is  hand,  the  limited  not  carrying can  of  alter  use,  biophysical  of  of  of  will  more o p p o r t u n i t i e s  Lower  levels  use  access  surpassed, In  users;  to time  but  in this  and s h o u l d  many s h o r t  for  benefits  the  use  might  be  psychological management  to  tolerate  levels  respect  page 61)  provides  i n which  managers  involved  here:  benefits  more are  resource.  horizon, nentbers  likely  a  can  only  the  case,  carrying society  play  management, preferences the  the  be some  will  will  management  short-lived. people be  share  are  stretched is  mot  them.  with a  view  recreation  These  to  planner  the  resource  perceptions  i n the f o r m u l a t i o n  decisions,  the  heavier  capacity  and n e e d s p f  recreationists.  in  With  capacity  an i m p o r t a n t r o l e  and l o n g - r a n g e  if  greater  society,  to  Benefits  if of  to  people.  wildland carrying  resources  consider  is  may be a c h i e v e d  fewer  examining  improving  can  of  a longer  that  (1972,  c n some ways  bring certain  these  should  Stankey  trade-off  however,  over  its  other  capacity.  use,  denied  wetland  environment  numbers so  limiting  the  In s u c h a c a s e ,  biophysical  discussion  use  before  its  carrying  On  coastal  a  while  Thus, the  psychological.  factors  limit  capacity,  lower.  was r e a c h e d .  the  guestion  levels  but  have  Mill  psychological  a more s e n s i t i v e  or  carrying  A  others,  constraints.  more l e n g t h y  form  ecological  rock  carrying  considerably  capacity  heavier  for  biophysical  either  alter  be  use  by  erosion-resistant  from  of  trail  8  widening  and  firewood  rationing  campground s p a c e .  management  decisions  stating  the  a  that  view  cf  defined  p r o v i s i o n to Lucas  which  social  as  fees  support  user  and for  opinions,  have s u c c e s s f u l l y  objects  entirely in physical  user  expressed  incorporate  sciences  resources  charging  advanced  culturally perceived,  not  terms.  " R e c r e a t i o n a l r e s o u r c e s can scarcely be studied except i n perceptual terms. This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e o f a r e s o u r c e so e l u s i v e and subjective as wilderness." ( 1 9 6 4 c , page 2 2 . ) But he f e e l s  that  "...it would be impossible to give every r e c r e a t i o n i s t what he s a y s he wants a t e v e r y time and place. Some w i s h e s , i f met now would a f f e c t t h e r e s o u r c e so t h a t t h e w i s h e s c o u l d n o t be met i n the f u t u r e . " Hendee's second  viewpoint  statement:  wilderness  not  "be  that  " i n f o r m a t i o n about  operate  reduced  in  criterion decisions." not  be  a  to  with  to  depict  predictable would  user and  which  behavior is  be  not  to  shape  Ecological, legal,  wildland  the  the  is  similar  cannot  wildland  inaccurate.  He  the  sole  should  emphasizes  and a t t i t u d e s  dees  or  wilderness  of  not  ultimate management  visitor  not a s i m p l e  Although i t  recreationist  characteristics  and  Lucas'  may  public.  incorporation  answers.  to  and o t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n s  decisionmaking i s  "correct"  2)  management  w e l l - u n d e r s t o o d by t h e  clear-cut,  page  a popularity contest."  vacuum  Additionally, into  (1968,  or f e a t u r e s ,  Backccuntry  process  may as  such  hikers  attitudes  be  having  tempting  having  certain  a  stereotype  are  by no means  9  homogeneous  in  experience, such as  small  damage the  Lucas  illustrate then,  (1964b),  these  for  pieces  like a  jigsaw?  result, lover  hand,  treating  indiscriminate needs  and t a s t e s  fied.  It  precisely  be  accommodated  the  same t i m e ,  lie  be  Island  mean  or i n a  only  which  the  different  are  for  the  i n an  visitor  would be  says Stankey,  would be l o s t  On  responses  average"  elsewhere  it  environmental  aficionado.  that  visitor,  cutting  satisfied—neither  visitors*  this  near-natural environments,  and  Do we t r y  visitor types,  " o n the  opportunities  studies,  (1971),  managed?  Irreparable  Coney  might  whose  is  all  wilderness  fashion  visitor  differences.  and nobody w i l l  nor t h e  wilderness  Stankey  s h o u l d w i l d l a n d s be  wildland  could  background,  Many w i l d l a n d  one  solitude  other  (1968),  whom,  manage  into  attitudes.  (1971)  Per to  or  Hendee  Thorsell  socio-economic  satis-  who  can  activity. those  At  seeking  ever-diminishing  and  irreplaceable. Having  decided  preservation, are  that  conservation,  most r e l e v a n t  i n the  process,  how  visitors  holding these  those  visitors  planning  and  does  the  sub-groups  and m i n i m a l  wilderness  the  manager beliefs?  whose a t t i t u d e s management,  to Overnight v i s i t o r s into  viewpoints  also  This  human  intervention  those  I n an e f f o r t  would be  most  particular  means  towards  or backcountry p l a n n i n g  isolate  who p e n e t r a t e d  backcountry. was used  this  oriented  to  by Semmarstrom  single  relevant  study  8.5  differentiating (1966),  out for  was l i m i t e d  a minimum o f of  wildland  who d i d  miles user not  10  sample Lucas  hikers (1964)  entiating weight felt  paddling canoeists canoeists*  canoeists  motorboaters; crucial  visits  for  The  thus,  wildland  wilderness  after  from  views  wculd  first  rating "a  rough  (1968)  Users  more  solitude,  Stankey users  oriented  people  were t h u s  the  scale.  subjective, particular backcountry  felt  user  than mere  to  admittedly  3,  1962,  cf  values to  partial 135). for  wilderness  civilization  the  underlying  preservation  labelled  prior  page  developed s c a l e s  wilderness  were  fell  use.  ideals, at  "purists."  one  These  to be more i m p o r t a n t i n d e c i s i o n m a k i n g  nonpurists Thus,  to  and  on t h e b a s i s  to  t h e c o n t i n u u m and  of  (1971)  and m i n i m a l i n t r u s i o n o f  were t h e  He  relevant  according  and m o t i v a t i o n s r e l a t i n g  end o f  than  mere  were  isolated  users  Hendee  opinions  placing  opinions  Center  o f c o m m i t m e n t " (ORBBC R e p o r t  their  differ-  and w i l d e r n e s s c o n c e p t s .  measure  of  by  days.  planning.  experience,  differentiation  tastes  motorboaters,  canoeists"  Research  and  than three  be mere p r e s e r v a t i o n - o r i e n t e d  the  Wildland  viewpoints  were s h o r t e r  handled v a r i a t i o n i n v i s i t o r  on t h e  that  whose  it  or  is  isolate  possible, the  sub-groups,  recreation  "urbanists"  for  areas.  at  although  perceptions the  the  purpose  and of  opposite  end  unavoidably o p i n i o n s of planning  for  11  STUDY DESIGN  Objectives towards the  the  choices  available to  desired  by  of  were f o u r f o l d ,  user  a range o f  values  and  and  directed  opinions  administrative  i n planning for  determine  what t y p e  Heather  development, numbers  study  into  process:  To examine  (2) is  the  incorporation of  planning (1)  of  Trail  facilities  visiters,  and  management  backcountry h i k i n g of  backcountry  users:  desired,  and d e g r e e o f  trail  environment  and  optimum  areas;  campsite  and  tolerable  administrative  regulation  preferred; (3) of  To a c g u i r e  Manning •  Provincial  Attitudes  management *  relevant  Management  (4)  To  management  procedures  evolve  procedures  of  seme  presently overall  with t h e  perceptions  and o p i n i o n s w i l l  development  users  and  use,  crowding,  and  meeting  the  management  staff;  levels  environment  in  present  backcountry  by park  regarding  and f a c i l i t i e s ; ••  held  about  backcountry:  towards  goals  Information  Park's  data  of  user  guidelines  aim o f needs receive  practicable  in effect;  creating and  and a  specific  backcountry  desires.  primary  proposals,  and  User  consideration  but  ecological.  12  administrative,  and p o l i t i c a l c o n c e r n s  Study  similar  section studies  Canada,  their  perceptions,  compilation  of  alternatives  of  been i n c l u d e d i n t h i s  investigation the  of  United  recreationists,  opinions,  and  (2)  backcountry  management  and  policy  literature,  studies.  a  frequently  based  findings  have  Pertinent  thesis.  Study A  backcountry  use  in  Manning P r o v i n c i a l  of  this  area  weighed.  and  i n the  user  an  backcountry  needs,  various  (1)  i n w i l d l a n d areas of  covering  advocated  results  of  conducted  and  Case  be  Components  consisted  States  on t h e  also  Beview  Literature This  sill  type  is  have  and management  Park,  where no p r e v i o u s  been c o n d u c t e d .  deserving  cf  study  It  attention  is  was  undertaken  investigations  believed  and c o n c e r n ,  that for  the  several  reasons: (1) centre,  its  proximity  being  (2)  only  problems  to  three of  the  hours  areas c l o s e r  section  Garibaldi Provincial  It  was  decided to  to  Mainland  from c e n t r a l  congestion  recreation of  Lower  are  Vancouver;  mounting i n w i l d l a n d  V a n c o u v e r , s u c h as  limit  population  the  Black  Tusk  Park.  the e f f o r t  to  the  Heather  Trail  13  loop p o r t i o n of Chapter  2.  opinions  of  minimum  of  Manning P a r k f o r  The  case study focused  backcountry users one  reasons  night  and  t o be d i s c u s s e d  in  on t h e p e r c e p t i o n s  and  who v i s i t e d penetrated  the at  least  Users  were i n t e r v i e w e d and o b s e r v e d  i n the  were  subsequently  a mailback  several user  months l a t e r .  backgrounds,  physical  user  management  congestion, management In  re-surveyed  user  with  area  needs,  behaviour,  existing  perceptions and  a  8.5 miles.  backcountry,  and  questionnaire  I n f o r m a t i o n was g e n e r a t e d opinions of  for  relating  facilities of  reactions  and  numbers to  to  and  various  alternatives. addition,  the  naturalists,  and p l a n n e r s  effort  made  was  backcountry development.  use  to  roles  park  were e x p l o r e d  understand  problems,  of  their  management  administrators,  cursorily, attitudes  priorities,  and  and  an  towards policy  14  CHAPTER CASE  2  STOBI  ABES EESCBIFIICN  ZIGU.BE 1 x Manning Mountains, British shewn  BANNING £ B C V I N C I A L Provincial one  hundred  Columbia,  in Figure  1.  Eark  Over  is  forty  touching  PABK^ BBI.TIS.H CCLUMBIA  the  located  ailes  east  in of  International  176,000 a c r e s  in  the  Cascade  Vancouver, Boundary,  size,  it  as  holds  15  recreational  opportunities  interests.  Summer  packing,  nature  offers  strolls,  the other hand, a t t r a c t s the Gibsons motel car  campgrounds,  (hereafter passing lunch  "Die's")  or r e s t  stop.  these  visitors  General location  western  i n an a r e a  p o r t i o n of is  western  red cedar  fflSSSissii]*  by  and  £Sij°i2^§ill£OJ3  and  patterns  (Lyons, i n the  [Bubus  l a c r o E h y l l u m ], shrubs.  grow s t a n d s o f  Engelmann s p r u c e  facilities  for  a  trails, are  Manning  1952,  pages  used  and  6-12).  The river  forest  vegetation:  Douglas f i r  [ Pseudotsucja  heterophylla 1  u r s i n u s ],  elder,  Park's  forest  S u m a l l o and S k a g i t  The u n d e r s t o r y  salmonberry [Bubus  and o t h e r  centre  34).  redberry  campsites  nature  reflect  hemlock [ T s u g a  page  at  Motorists  t r a n s i t i o n between c o a s t a l  [ T h u j a £ l i c a t a ],  western  a  by o v e r n i g h t e r s .  zones  blackberry  arborescens],  park's  as  at  cabins,  attractive  point,  day-use  and  can s t a y  trails.  d o m i n a t e d by t y p i c a l c o a s t a l  £ S £ v i f I c r u s ],  U y a ^ u r s i ],  lookout  trails  wilderness  area  back-  w i n t e r , on  in rustic  overnight  the park,  H a r c o m b e , 1970,  ized Cli  of  room,  outdoors  dayhiking,  Park v i s i t o r s  and o t h e r  many  cross-country  the park c e n t r e  sell  biotic  valleys,  and  as  with  and f i s h i n g .  i n designated the  vegetation  interior  area.  The  area,  to  and d i n i n g  cn  find  meadows  canoeing,  or tent  through  alpine by  a sauna  people  picnicking,  skiers  Pass d o w n h i l l  offering  for  character-  thimbleberry  [Sambucus  s ^ e c t a b i 1 i s ],  Kinnikinnick  is  (Cyca  racemgsa  rhododendron  £ Arc t o s t aphylos  Near Manning P a r k Lodge a t lodgepole  [Picea glauca  ssp.  var  the  pine [Pinus contorta ] J n a g l m ^ n n i i ],  while  16  further  east,  f Populps  approaching  t r i c h o c a r n a ],  Ponderosa  pine  elevations  alpine  £2iSiJ§  § I f e l S S i J l i s ],  l y a l l i ] are  seen.  of  flowers  alpine  expanse  to  lands,  £cnderosa]  are  and l e s s  abundantly  fifteen  alpine  and  At h i g h e r  white  bark  pine  larch  [Larix  incredible  array  and A u g u s t .  miles,  Niccmen B i d g e  t r e m u l o i d e s ],  b o a s t s an  during July  cottcnwcod  common.  l a s i o c a r p a ],  for  black  [PA  [Abies  Manning P a r k  stretches  northwest  drier  t r e m b l i n g aspen  [Pinus fir  the  The b e s t - k n c w n  from  Blackwall  (Cyca and Harcombe,  Peak  1970,  pages  34-36) . The  park's  hiking  overnight  visitors,  the  focus  of  of  varied  lakes  Lake,  difficulty  Lake t o  is  Skyline  intended  DEC.  day's  than  have  stump  "chairs."  early  i n the  pit  mile s t r o l l the  from t h e  northwest  taxing.  involve  more  uphill  overnight such as  Creek-Skaist,  for  toilets,  used  by  linked  to  use  Several  loops  hikers.  parking end  of  strenuous  generally  c o n t a i n two o r of  campsites  cement  and  walking.  have  at  three, nothing  fireplaces  provide  at  Strike  and a few r o c k f i r e  grates,  The  lot  Mount F r o s t y - W i n d y J o e ,  tenting fire  or  The Mount F r o s t y  Some c a m p s i t e s c o n s i s t  cleared  Others  they are  by o v e r n i g h t  least  hike apart.  spaces  used  the  for  as  those  A p p r o x i m a t e l y ten t r a i l s  D8C a t  Longer l o o p s ,  Heather-Grainger a  the  particularly  attention,  are  a 5.5  probably trails  Trails  deserve  thesis.  Chain T r a i l ,  Lightning  one  this  trails,  cut  least and placed more rings. and  firewood  season.  Manning P a r k t r a i l s  do  not  all  receive  equal  foot  17  traffic. Chain  Relatively  and H e a t h e r T r a i l s  traveled  and  are  hikers.  On t h e  reached  but  water, with  hiker  a  sparse  sampled  trail  would be  where  trails  levels.  remote  and i n d i v i d u a l l y graded  frail.  experience  from The  than the  opinions. possible  former latter,  to  survey,  hikers  and f a c i l i t i e s  workers  had l e s s  felt in  that  Manning  group and h o l d  if  possible,  data  of  for  throughout  little  that  might  on  Park,  different  possess  park.  all  of  one  collectively  different  c o u l d be g a t h e r e d  its  easy-acccess  and  greater  preferences  however, i t  superficially, the  data  users  may d i f f e r an  would be and  at  of  each  Manning  constraints,  even  easily  perceptions  backpackers  t h a n two months i n which  usable Park.  taking  certain  overnight  communication  and m a i n t a i n e d  trail  those  Given  Its  likely  and a r d u o u s  as  management,  important  is  freguently  Trail,  Collection  managed it  well  visitor  area  personally  used,  as  LaXes  1975).  of  and  particularly  most  (personal  summer  studied.  Additionally,  relatively  use  w o u l d be t r e a t e d .  are  the  the  c l i m b and o f f e r i n g  examination  be  like  Bonnevier  steep  numbers,  would  trails  the  summer  and i n t e r v i e w e d  management  probably  naturalist,  thorough  hikes  with one-day  requiring  behaviour,  overnight  not  popular  hand,  Manning P a r k a  are  other  receives  In  and  non-strenuous  was  backcountry  Since  to  work,  for  only  two it one  field was trail  18  The  Heat.her-Grai.nger  "Heather  Trail")  suspected  that  overuse  was  chosen  physical,  problems over  the  parking  and t h e  "Undiscovered" n  as  loop  the  be  very  Kicking  area.  and  developing popular  (hereafter  study  biological,  could  particularly lot  Creek-Skaist  along  the  segment  Old  (see  New  Ridge  Fourth Brother o Horse a  Kicking  Horse °  Road Trail  Designated  Campsite  n Unofficial  Campsite  0  the  the  crosses.  Its  p  a  r  J  k  Lodge CASE STUDY AREA—THE  trail  fifteen  begins ^  •i  Miles  1  FIGURE 2 .  First,  ntn.  Buckhorn  / / Highway •  Mtn<  Buck  W  y Secondary  Figure  Three Brothers Mtns. Big  ^ T r a i l  the  N t  Lake  Kicking  loop,  between  Camp  Nicomen  is  psychological  Horse c a m p s i t e a r e a  Nicomen  It  or  is  regarded  more  miles  by t h e of  HEATHER  public  as  TRAIL  unique,  uninterrupted  u n i g u e n e s s may be c o n t r i b u t i n g  to  due  meadow the  to it  trail's  19  popularity, a  nine  relative  mile  greater  thus  with  easily  probably not  not  exist.  Peak  uphill  other road  t h a n 6500 f e e t )  associated are  to  be  strong  only  imately  4300  An  feet). effects  themselves.  The  vulnerable  to  vegetation  communities at  nature hut  damage  area  increased  at  and  to  is  walks  by  are are  These  otherwise  factor  human  longer  located  all  approxpossibly  of  alpine  fragile use  in  the  nature parking  might  which b e g i n s  are  several  and a  attractions  and  than  Fourth,  conducted,  Heather T r a i l ,  Blackwall  (elevation  more  road  nearly  the n a t u r e  are  latter  neither  are  lower e l e v a t i o n s .  pamphlets  the  climbs,  of  usually  The  beginning at  meadows on  climb  them, d i d the  miles  overuse  (elevation  would  additional  B l a c k w a l l Peak.  traffic  whc  the highway  brought  p a t h s where g u i d e d  with d i s p l a y s  lot  of  Second,  meadows.  reach  thirteen to  meadows  people  two s i g n i f i c a n t  returning hikers  the  alpine  mile loop  The s e c o n d  the  of  enough t o  downhill,  exacerbating  most  to  Park t r a i l s .  the t r a i l h e a d  viewing cf  The t w e n t y - s i x  mile.  to  erases  accessible  contains  t h a n one  the  Manning  bring  at  this  point. The  anatomy  of  attention  at  the a l p i n e  meadows,  Buckhorn Ridge  this  campsite  nearly  the  point. begin (see  Heather  The t r a i l ' s approximately Figure  unbroken, although  2),  From Nicomen R i d g e t h e t r a i l  Lake,  skirts  north side,  deserves  predominant one-half  and c o n t i n u e  dotted  firs.  its  Trail  with  drops  small  sharply  some feature,  mile  past  t o Nicomen clumps  of  t o Nicomen  and d e s c e n d s g r a d u a l l y  through  20  coast  forest  noted  on  consists at  for  the of  again  camp t o  to f i v e  for  fact,  attached  the t r a i l a  blocked  road  exists  the only  The imately  cooking  water tent  between  all  widens t o o r so  23;  Several with  traverses paths  number t w o , known as  Buckhorn,  set  between  although  just  from  in  a  into  August,  the  water.  shelter  small  pots,  an and a  leg.  In was  slash  "road"  Buckhorn, has  the  has  today  Horse, 5.6  actually park  cleared providing  connecting  is  are and  woodstove.  approx-  miles  from  Brothers  (see  two  campsites,  administration.  "Gid Kicking  remains  outhouse  in  and  trail.  Fourth  sites  bedframes  worn  and  approx-  outhouse,  campsite,  Kicking  called  an  set  and main  which  once  highway  rusting  by t h e  the t e n t i n g  contains  with t a b l e s ,  is  hereafter  depression  although It  Horse  recognized  The o r i g i n a l c a m p s i t e ,  Skaist  the  rings  and  narrows  a jeep road  at  Elackwall  the T h i r d  Kicking one i s  stream  trail  varying i n width  have been  Campsite  miles  the  are  highwayi  located  fen r o c k f i r e  of  which  the  thus,  areas  2 ) .  of  p o i n t and t h e  A stream  8.5  miles  F o r many y e a r s l o g g i n g  and f i r e  Figure  path  containing several  and a b o u t  season.  elevation  three  i n from B l a c k w a l l P e a k ,  imately  lies  miles  campsite,  shelter  areas.  in  G r a i n g e r C r e e k and t h e  that  miles  pots,  tenting  four  around mile  largest  three-sided  The p a t h  wagon r o a d .  three  The f i r s t  a well-compacted  between  originally  Changes  overgrown jeep r o a d ,  feet.  the l a s t  miles.  map.  a partially  Buckhorn  f r o m one  thirteen  slightly  Horse," swampy  unaffected a In  by  three-sided 1975  the  21  shelter  contained  was  o n l y by t h e  used  large  puddles  trail  established  camping s p o t s ,  the  It  trail.  was  spots  to  ethers,  for  desirable  This  Kicking  discussion better  Old  site,  Horse,  will  as  they are  isolates  unfamiliar  with  Horse,  for  stay  one o r  unaware  Boisterous  of  groups  occasionally Nicomen (three with  area  the  in  one  at  tenting over  spots) a  located  lake,  quite  muddy  desirably  to  s e r v e as  located  as  has  and  one  most  the  larger  hilly  even  though  area.  Hikers  New K i c k i n g way  Old Kicking can  they Horse.  be  heard  night. one  considerably  the  an o v e r f l o w c a m p s i t e the  The  yards.  tenting  of  has  and  leave  where t h e t r a i l for  for  fire  two c a m p s i t e s :  dozen c l e a r e d  area,  appeared  13,  from G i d  seven  Horse,  sites  the  has  at  of  the  more  than  arrive  on a w i n d l e s s  mile  The'smaller was  cf  a  source  or  hundred  and  bother  Horse"  or s h e l t e r .  existence  i n the o t h e r , Lake,  six  sometimes  two d a y s ,  tc  two  well-drained,  water  New from O l d K i c k i n g  the  or  do n o t  Kicking  to  several  one  from  m i l e back a l o n g  Horse i s  no o u t h o u s e  by o n l y  the  and five  visible  by o v e r f l e w  "New  addition  There i s  separated  entered,  in  is  instead  created  New K i c k i n g  Horse,  areas.  space,  back  season,  H o r s e has  newcomers  one-quarter  be known  the  one  after  and more c o n v e n i e n t l y - l o c a t e d  topography  area  turning  probably  purposes.  Kicking  tenting  only  occupied,  about  of  Old Kicking  although  are  camp l o c a t e d  trail.  a  the  crew.  most  hypothesized that  easily-located look  for  and f i r e  first  larger spots.  meets  1975 and  small  season. was  The l a t t e r  is  not  the It as  located  22  more a e s t h e t i c a l l y , of  the  unless  lake.  It  last  officially circuit miles  half  and n o t in  a  few,  perhaps  DHC's.  One  600  to  abandoned  trail  Grainger  Creek  located  but the  Hikers  with  feet,  located  Figure  These  off  2).  leave climb  "mountains"  the  the above  Fourth the  Brother  south  side  cf  are  area  campsite  and a  down  is  of of  an  main c i r c u i t  track  little  more  the  meadows, rock  alternatively, or  trail.  absence  hundred f e e t  are  although  slopes.  the  or a l l  to  all  scars  two,  effort  of  fire  by p r e s e n t - d a y  one,  of  ascent  the  cleared  beaten  upward e x t e n s i o n s climbed,  the  thirteen-plus  along  from t h e  no  at  ideally travellers  leg.  rolling  be  completing  large f i r e p l a c e ,  This  undiscovered  wanting t c usually  a  several  forks  loop contains  due t o a  Hidge.  lake.  final  trail,  new G r a i n g e r - S k a i s t  explore  Brothers.  of  end  distance,  Nicomen  Backpackers the  northwest  from a  the  scattered  campsite  remains  at  Heather T r a i l  dozen  which  (see  visible  make camp somewhere  stretch  is  the  from a t o p  hike  square  picnic table,  along  nor s h e l t e r  a  larger  approximately  spotted  the  wishing  this  readily  campsites.  one day must  along  who use  is  of  recognized  visible  or  not  n e i t h e r outhouse  The  crude  is  a colourful tent  There i s  Quite  i n a dry s e c t i o n  climb the  of  bushwhack the  than  and r e g u i r e faces  Three gently little  prevent  backpackers  rocky scree  Nicomen L a k e .  to  easy  can  visit  slope  rising  23  STUDY Information and  management  about  was  BETAGDOLOGY  the  Heather T r a i l  gathered  »  Overnight hikers  •  B a n n i n g Park  •  Planners  from t h r e e  in July  managerial  and  users,  sources:  August;  and n a t u r a l i s t  and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s  environment,  located  staff;  outside  the  park  0£€£ Gathering Heather  mentioned comprise  was  the  felt  case  an i m p o r t a n t  Second,  and  every  these data  themselves; the  to  aspect of  no o u t s i d e  experience up-to-date  available  to  the  agencies  statistics  n o t been  park  staff  good  that  anyway  have  no c o n c r e t e  (Hendee  There are  perceptions  and L u c a s , several  of  meaning  opinions  related  Park  user  Not o n l y  was use  use  i n which  them.  on t h e  unpublished  ways  from  several  cf  obtain  speculate  system  idea  perceptions  hikers  concerned. but  as  the  Manning  registration  managers' 1  can  First,  decisionmaking  be made t o only  and  gathered,  and  wildland  the  important  reasons.  opinions  should  using  extremely  several  the  observer  no  hiker  an  obtained  Additionally,  optional  for  effort  recreationists  be  visitor  c a n be  wildland  about  study,  previously,  process,  of  information  Trail  component o f  Information  to  data  have  years  levels  are  manuscript, user  are  opinion ago  discontinued; levels.  it.  the thus,  Chances  are  incorrect page 4 ) .  i n f o r m a t i o n can  be  24  collected.  An i n t e r v i e w c a n be a d m i n i s t e r e d o r a l l y t c  country  hikers,  points.  Similarly, hikers  questionnaires box,  ox  points,  as  studies  be  for  with  the  interview  British  gathered  In the  to  User steps. and  interviews  respondent's  i n the  for  Horse  Horse,  when a p a r t y  on  their  way t o  camp a t  based  Respondents  were a t  the  selected made,  ORESC' after  and  at  least  survey*  a g r o u p was  permission to  The  hikers  or  first  may make  soliciting  later. study  was  gathered  Nicomen L a k e .  months l a t e x generally  was m e r e l y  years  held  passing  desired  approached,  old,  New These  with a mailed  Horse a r r i v e d f o r  conduct the  i n two  were c o n d u c t e d a t  and a t  fifteen  exit user  may  merely  Nicomen L a k e , and a t  Kicking  and  fire  from  w i t h a few e x c e p t i o n s  Kicking  when p a r t i e s  or  up by m a i l ,  interviews  spot,  at  registers,  follow  were  i n a drop  questionnaires  researcher  sites  exit  handed  Branch  the  this  Interviews camping  trail  backccuntry,  at  in  mail  were f o l l o w e d up t h r e e  questionnaire.  be  be p l a c e d  sometimes  case  fifty-seven  Kicking  can  Parks  from  and l a t e r  information  Old  can  Columbia  send a q u e s t i o n n a i r e  first,  or at  questionnaires  registrations,  last  minimal c o n t a c t  places  completion  Researchers  subjects  permission  i n these  on t r a i l s ,  Alternatively,  automobile  themselves.  campsites,  returned immediately, l e f t  their  addresses  permits,  at  back.  (1975).  home  only  to  mailed  instructions  to  either  back-  as  at  the  occurring through,  Nicomen day  Lake,  visits.  was t h e  case  r e s p o n d e n t (s)  were  introductions  were  i n t e r v i e w was  granted.  25  If  the  (e.g.,  situation if  was  the  not c o n d u c i v e t o  party  had  gear),  arrangements•were  at  designated  a  strict  sampling  viewers selecting  time.  to  the  interview off  interviewer to  Due t o t h e  the  an  a r r i v e d and t a k e n  made f o r  procedures  adhered  just  holding  small  its  return  population  size,  were n o t  followed.  The  inter-  following  guidelines,  however,  in  respondents:  • The r a t i o approximate  o f male t o f e m a l e r e s p o n d e n t s was t h a t of the backpacker p o p u l a t i o n ;  to  • I n e x p e r i e n c e d as w e l l as e x p e r i e n c e d b a c k p a c k e r s were to be i n t e r v i e w e d (There was a t e n d e n c y f o r seasoned h i k e r s to v o l u n t e e r to be interviewed, while the novices showed a reluctance to participate); •The age distribution in the backpacker p o p u l a t i o n was t o be matched i n t h e sample c h o s e n . This was accomplished fairly easily, because i n t r a g r o u p age d i f f e r e n c e s were usually slight; and • For groups of five o r fewer r e s p o n d e n t was c h o s e n ; f o r g r o u p s two were c h o s e n , and so o n . Interviews Respondents  generally  were  questions  and  outcome o f  the  study.  group  the  interviewers  respondent several swayed  extremely  frequently  by  reguired  instances  those the  by comments from  to f o r t y  showing i n t e r e s t  members o t h e r t h a n t h e  from  thirty  cooperative,  Sometimes  attempted  i n d i v i d u a l s , one of f i v e to ten,  to  added  this  answering  all  i n the  and  enthusiasm  respondent.  In  aims  was  shared  these  cases  s e p a r a t e comments made by by  respondent's h i s or  minutes.  her  others views  present, were  companions.  but  the in  definitely  26  Behaviour information important could  observation  not a s c e r t a i n a b l e component  not expect  of  to  "Do  you  respondent  d u r i n g the might  observation against  through  the  obtain  guestion,  campsite  by t h e i n t e r v i e w e r s ,  an  litter?"  the  was e m p l o y e d a l s o ideas.  Did  to  was n o t  the  who s a i d  he does n o t  pay  social  information  is  hoped : t h a t person  In  packing But  It  not Old Here  Kicking it  behaviour. visitors' the  Some were  interviewers,  who s a i d  like all  of  of  the her  Behaviour actions a  litter  behind?  camp  his  the  or  that  litter  to  near  Did other  neighbours?  course,  observation  of  look at  all  several of  the out  but  and  Such  it  was  apply  was o n l y  a s p e c t s of  camped  one the  tenting of  unless  the  was  areas,  individual  the  back-  which  would  unfortunately particularly  and to  a g r o u p was camped were  partial  interviewers'  were r e l u c t a n t  observations  a  questionnaires.  groups,  checks,  observe  The i n t e r v i e w e r s sc  to  his  information.  not covered i n mailed  was d i f f i c u l t t o  privacy,  response  would be a v o i d e d by h a v i n g  a close  n o t one b u t  Horse,  one  group.  generally  feasible.  For example,  behaviour observation  observation  necessitate  an  check r e s p o n d e n t s 1  subjective,  behaviour  afforded  trip  full  the  to each  reality  success.  to  inconsistencies  same s t a n d a r d s  was  observation  needed l e a v e  visits  extremely  compile a l l  an  people  facility  groups  accurate  desired  collection person  study.  But  acquire  questioning,  i n t e r v i e w and a c h e c k o f  yield  their  •user  to  sporadic  in  sight.  intergrcup intrude  on  in sight  of  and  not  27  consistent.  Wood  dishwashing, observe.  gathering,  and n a t u r a l l y ,  On  the  other  fixe  toilet  habits  hand, b l a t a n t  r e c o g n i z e d camping e t h i c s — c h o p p i n g new f i r e s c a r s ,  and a b a n d o n i n g  When  possible,  after  its  sure  that  found  in fireplaces It  drawn  the  last  based  little  usable  i n the  which  may  findings,  and  conclusions  First  covering  seventeen  the  end o f  Figure  the  2 ) .  conceivable  spatial  and  sixteen  days  campsite  will  be  campsite  for  they  some h i k e r s  were n e v e r  the  be  litter  would be  preferred  camping  For  several  several  and  more  exten-  as  the  only  (from the  weaknesses,  applicability  in  two  as  and  interviewers Horse  to  illustrated  on  h i k e d and camped t o g e t h e r who c o u l d have  even s p o t t e d . aspects. trail:  The five  This  it  is  otherwise  been  p r o b l e m had  both  interviewers Friday  the  subsequent  New K i c k i n g  loop,  of  results  presented  were  trail  through  Chapter 3 .  are  there of  out.  conclusions  be t r e a t e d  recalled  p o r t i o n of  Because  on  each  choices.  contained  study  miles  temporal  of  validity  all,  Skaist  that  interviewed  the  of  stand  a l t h o u g h one c o u l d n o t  groups'  area  approach  the  chapters.  to  of  creating  i n f o r m a t i o n c o u l d be o b t a i n e d  should of  wood,  were r e s p o n s i b l e  and  EEHAVIOOB s e c t i o n  affect  violations  made t o examine  o r i g i n a l l y that  This  The i n t e r v i e w  live  to  trees.  cn t h e i r  observation.  sively  hacked  individuals'  environment, reasons  were  occupants  or  visible  of  littering,  were d i f f i c u l t  t i n cans—tended  had d e p a r t e d ,  was a n t i c i p a t e d about  pure  attempts  occupants  building,  through  spent Sunday  28  periods  plus  probable justify  one Monday  weekday v i g i l s  the  overnight quarters  of  bias  to the  visitors the  miles  around,  around  mile  headed  and  for  that  the  is  Thus,  c o u l d not  procedure,  Trail three-  as  much as  It  is  unlikely of  that  the  user  over-  beyond New K i c k i n g  Horse  from t h e  any  tents  afternoon  trail  of the  of  were l o s t  the  as  watches  area  i n the  the  the  were  number  of  B i g Buck  non-DHC use  interview  an a r e a  be s c a n n e d  the  of  several  trailside  from  most  tops for  entering  the  that  out  the  The  weekend  parties  although  part  questionnaire A  up  along  area,  Heather  confinement  Judging  likely  Park  fifty-seven  for  90% o f  or  point  that  would n o t with  of  of  the  large  range as  completely,  because the  the it  is  is (see  Three felt  interviewers  DHC's.  second  follow-up  use.  over  to  EEC's.  in this  the  The  1975.  it  meadows  at  kind  the  when S a t u r d a y  v e r y few i n t e r v i e w s  stayed  that  H o r s e and Nicomen L a k e .  that  firescars  2).  Brothers  to  revealed  mile 4-5,  Figure  felt  sample  when meadow o b s e r v a t i o n  6-7  concentrated  of  Kicking  certain  failed  recently-made area,  out  travelling  DWC's,  Brothers  overnight  arose  felt  the  who c o u l d a c c o u n t  DHC's a t  Three  all  was  communication  predominant  the t r a i l ' s  interviewers  used  Thus,  most  visitor,  spatial  night  (personal  1975).  represents  search  It  v e r y low Monday t h r o u g h T h u r s d a y numbers  Naturalist,  a  holiday.  postal but  after  of sent  strike  the to  user all  study  respondents  interfered  a telephoned  or  consisted  with  in the  hand-delivered  of  a  October mailback reminder  29  to  all  return naire, up  in  non-respondents rate four  of  living  personal  alternatives,  the  86% was a c h i e v e d .  pages i n l e n g t h ,  the  in  the  area,  The f o l l o w - u p  t o u c h e d on p o i n t s  interviews,  particularly  Vancouver  and expanded guestiens  question-  net on  of  a  brought  management  overuse  and  rationing. Both and t h e  parts  of  the  user  study,  follow-up questionnaire,  following  the  gathered  personal  interview  information in  the  categories:  ( 1 ) Data on i t i n e r a r y ground s o c i o - e c o n o m i c  and group members, d a t a on r e s p o n d e n t s ;  (2) Data on t r i p p l a n n i n g , v i s i t o r the services provided by park areas;  back-  m o t i v a t i o n , and staff i n these  (3) O p i n i o n s on p r e s e n t f a c i l i t i e s and amount of development, r e a c t i o n s to the p r o v i s i o n of v a r i o u s hypothetical amenities; (4) Reactions to numbers, and perceptions of t o l e r a b l e use l e v e l s i n c a m p s i t e s and on trails; and (5) Reactions to various management s t r a t e g i e s which c o u l d be i m p l e m e n t e d to cut or forestall overuse, by r e d u c i n g v i s i t e r t r a f f i c and p l a c i n g c c n t r o l s on b e h a v i o u r .  Contact Several  With  persons  Managers  involved  management  policies  for  the  Mr. D a v i d  Bruce,  study.  office Park  of  the Parks  falls,  survey  were  and in  Planners the  Manning P a r k were c o n t a c t e d of  the  North  B r a n c h , under whose  was i n t e r v i e w e d b e f o r e undertaken.  administration  It  the  of  during  Vancouver R e g i o n a l  jurisdiction case study  was hoped t o o b t a i n  Manning  and  user  an i d e a  of  30  the  amount o f  Park's  attention  backcountry,  information  on the  management  problems  seriousness  of  knowledge physical with  of  pressing. from to  relative  of  these  to  Manning  other  and  provide  the  personnel  cf  present and  Mr.  by h i s  problems  to  addition,  prevent  undertake  i n f o r m a t i o n on b a c k c o u n t r y  the  by  need t o  perceived  to  his deal  be  his  mere  office  studies  problems  the  Bruce's  limited partly  A d d i t i o n a l l y , l i m i t e d funds  hiring  In  sought.  is  Manning  backcountry,  from t h e m , and a l s o  areas  to  perception  was  problems  gives areas.  Park's  problems,  Manning P a r k  park  government  administrations's  detachment  with  the  required  in  Manning  Park. Mr. in  D. E .  (Herb)  Manning P a r k ,  user  study  was  levels,  and  completed. park,  problems visitor  priorities.  District  Because  as  needs,  they as  have well  Manning P a r k managers and b a c k c o u n t r y managers i n i n f l u e n c i n g use  patterns  realized  little  users.  Green  The i m p r e s s i o n  personal  interest  do  favour  maintenance  needs,  are  running.  Mr. Green by s t u d e n t s  mentioned for  after  is  to  over  his  keeping that  assistance  and  he  between  and t h e but  with  role it  study.  the is and  of was  backcountry  budgeting  backcountry  use  management  was s o u g h t , contact  with  time,  contacts  users,  the  stationed  present'  was c o n v e y e d t h a t not  "immediate"  frequently  has  based  be f a m i l i a r  changed as  relating  and  he  he was assumed t o  Information  that  Superintendent,  i n t e r v i e w e d both before  was  permanently i n the backcountry  Green,  and More  machinery approached funds,  and  31  gave  the  wish to  impression  tell  him "how t o  understandable,  but  the i n t e r v i e w e r s  at  Although Messrs,  and  valuable,  dealing  The  time i s  with  was a l s o  gained  from  it  felt  mere  was  that  user-manager  trips  are  was  gained  office  naturalists*  spent  was  data  M r . Graham B e l l ,  Superintendent's  their  relations,  and  the  with  day  that  this  the  "real  limited, users,  this  Naturalist,  i n t o the  familiarity  somewhat  Park  Eor  relations  Nature  House  with  backccuntry  because  the b u l k of  and  few  backccuntry  made. was  felt  without  regard  future  development  government.  plan  opinions  Insight  u s e r s and p r o b l e m s  therefore  hesitancy  and b a c k c c u n t r y needs was r e q u i r e d .  personnel.  It  His  t h e s e who  may have b l o c k e d c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h  an i n t e r v i e w w i t h  the  show."  wary o f  times.  the  conducted.  between  it  information  habits,  purpose, was  run h i s  E r u c e and G r e e n were  extensive user  of being consequently  for  The also  for  the  contacts  will  as  Branch  consulted, was  be p r e s e n t e d  s h o u l d n o t be  world",  conceived  Parks  park  study  by  or the  Planning  undertaken  Manning  Park's  B r i t i s h Columbia Division  was  and Mr. M e l T u r n e r * s c o n c e p t u a l  studied.  Details  i n Chapter 4.  of  all  these  32  C J AFTER 3 STUDY FINDINGS This the  user  gathered from  chapter  presents  portion of  a summary o f  the case s t u d y .  from o b s e r v a t i o n ,  the  personal  Relevant  data  backccuntry  from  users  ether are  Some o f  while ether  interviews  the data  facts  and m a i l b a c k  North  the were  data  in  were  obtained  questionnaires.  American  included for  obtained  studies  c o m p a r i s o n and  of  contrast  purposes.  OBSERVATIONS  REGARDING USE  Amount o f An a t t e m p t picture loop.  of  was made t o  the  Since  amount o f nc  administration based  primarily  several  points  estimating  or  create  summer  records  are  naturalists, on  direct  determined  Use  use kept the  a  reasonably  along by  the  Heather  either  author's  observation. through observation  accurate  the  estimates  park are  Additionally, governed  procedure:  • The h i k i n g s e a s o n i n c l u d e s J u l y and A u g u s t ; • weekday use (Honday through Thursday) is minimal; • Overnighters reaching New K i c k i n g Horse or beyond were c o u n t e d ; • Ten p e r c e n t was added t o each weekend t o t a l , to account for g r o u p s n o t s e e n by t h e i n t e r v i e w e r s ; and • Each g r o u p c o n s i s t s o f 3.8 i n d i v i d u a l s .  <  Trail  the  33  Thus, made,  over  the f i v e  eighty-five  overnight  inclusive.  added,  to  in  groups  on w e e k e n d s ,  Lake,  were  between  To  account f o r  August.  weekends  this use  This brings  which u s e r  estimated  to  New K i c k i n g figure  on the  the  for  subtotal  were  have  camped  H o r s e and  Nicomen  sixty  three  counts  more g r o u p s  unmonitored  t o 550  were  weekends  individuals.  B u c k h o r n JJsej: Personal probable the  use  eight  observation of  Euckhcrn  weekends.  would be added t o  and r e p o r t  camp a t Thus,  the  area  from h i k e r s  twelve  groups  approximately  placed  the  each  of  on  390 i n d i v i d u a l s  total.  I^JiSday Ose,: If  one c o n c l u d e s  overnight period  groups  (half  on t h e  use  the  stopping  at  H o r s e o r Nicomen L a k e ) , As  a  ballpark  summer o v e r s i g h t was  use  same b a s e s  area  then the  the  Kicking  a r o u n d 730 i n d i v i d u a l s ^  fetches  1300  total  then,  about  twelve  Monday t h r o u g h T h u r s d a y  E u c k h o r n and h a l f  figure, of  every  that  is it  going  to  increased c a n be  Kicking by  365.  stated  Hor.se-Nicomen L a k e  I n c l u d i n g Buckhorn^ the  that area  fijgure  oyernighters..  Day Use.: Estimation dayhikers into  of  venture  the area  day  use  is  beyond t h e  where t h e y  jnuch  more  difficult.  Eig B u c k - F i r s t Brother area  would be s e e n  by t h e  Few and  interviewers.  34  Many h i k e o n l y lot.  one o r two m i l e s  A discussion  helpful,  of  unless  and r e l a t i v e day-hiking  "day  impacts  cf  parties  figure given  this  for that  while  overnight the  Is  groups no  and the  This  is  2000  of  the  800  but  be  for  4.0  habits  the  felt  to  actual  reasonable,  take  day  were more l i k e l y  B r o t h e r on Sunday  trips, to  spotted  make  between  afternoons,  day-hiking  .100 day h i k e r s  cf  individuals.  be  tended t o  of  sake  h i g h e r than the  t h e numbers  that  the  The a v e r a g e s i z e  twenty-five  that  of  groups  used t h e  trail  extending  from  summer. the  area  and c o n t i n u i n g on t o  individuals  in  the  r e g i o n a r o u n d and i n c l u d i n g  summer  the of  E u c k h c r n camjs  hikers.  This biological  section data  environmental the  was  Nicomen l a k e a  Use Impact  of  First  likely  highway^ r e c e i v e d about  saw  from  means  H o r s e to  and t h a t  it  particularly  available  slightly  throughout the  summary i t  is  to  children  weekend f i g u r e  Kicking  se  groups.  and c l u b s  Judging  weekend, 800 l£  not  was assumed  groups,  with  proposed.  each  New  family  parking l o t  is  per  was n o t d e t e r m i n e d ,  overnight  trips.  an a v e r a g e  hiking  figure  couples  Blackwall parking  some i n d i c a t i o n i s  ease i n computation i t Although  use"  beyond t h e  and E v i d e n c e o f  was n e t  following  compiled s c i e n t i f i c a l l y ,  were g a t h e r e d ,  parameters. items:  Overuse since  n o r were measurements  Observations  consisted  no  made o f  primarily  35  • visible campsites, •  evidence  degree of campsite  • changes s e a s o n , and •  in t r a i l  Evidence of  Much of Trail  does  thousands parts  of  cf  twenty-six  not  display  and f l o w e r s remaining  fragile  to  The p r o b l e m s p o t s remain  are  though  the  trail  can  July.  Meltwater  path at  dozens  the  of  summer  receives  feet  rivulets  t h e s e swampy s t r e t c h e s ,  Hikers  through the  point  the  not  where t h e  the  minding  puddles,  considering  the  and  itself  stretches. of  snow  season, dry  downwards,  by  beating  meadows the  creating  rivulet  tendency out  as  mid-  and  to  the size  long  hikers  alternate  adjacent mud  for  even  crossing  making mud p u d d l e s a  in  grasses  path  i n the  the  Even  Patches  late  Heather  ( t h e s e d i m i n i s h i n number and  There i s  destroying  the  untrampled  however.  course  avoid  trail.  tall  trailside,  until  progresses), feet.  the  capacity.  season.  be c o m p l e t e l y c l e a r  points  over  wide o v e r m i l e - l o n g  area  to f i f t y  and  and a r e a  each  area,  the  forty  paths  levels  numerous,  the  appearance  mile loop comprising  up t o  two  throughout  use  meadows  grow r i g h t one  campsite  much wear and t e a r ,  it  and i n  Presence  the  the  on t r a i l s  use,  of  Human  footsteps  human p r e s e n c e  and  hiker perceptions  Visible  as  of  the  wetness  (see  to  parallel original plunge  an e v e r - w i d e n i n g p o t h o l e  and t r a i l i n t e r s e c t  as  at  Figure  Evidence cf ponding, trail-widening, p a t h s , and d e s t r o y e d vegetation.  fIGUJE  3  alternate  37  Amount o f  1975  Campsite  It  would be d i f f i c u l t  use  estimates,  under-used. exist. the  lower  six  weekend,  On t h e  per  Niccmen L a k e ,  observed, tent the only  and  August  is  Two o r either  finding  were  patterns  fire  some  either  of  use  most  of  summer  over  or  appeared crowded  to  when  sunny d r y w e a t h e r .  A  draw  the  and s i x  Kicking  to  Horse s i t e s ,  Buckhorn.  9,  and  10,  A  1975,  H o r s e and none t o three fcr  groups  a day t r i p to  as  defined  by  areas,  was n o t  exceeded  August  1 to  camping p a r t i e s  an u n o c c u p i e d camping  say  It  rainy  only  two  Horse.  their  hikes  complete  for  the  campsites  number  of  existing  in  1975,  was  at  the  except  over  this  time  may have had d i f f i c u l t y  spot.  or  to  that  the  4.  drew  Old Kicking  or  four  c o l d and  would e x t e n d  safe  capacity,  basis  o r A u g u s t would p r o b a b l y  8,  probably  h o l i d a y weekend, that  campsites  night  New K i c k i n g  It  on t h e  was e x p e r i e n c i n g  to each of  average.  circuit.  state,  Horse and B u c k h o r n were  s u c h as to  to  consistent  weekend i n J u l y  groups  groups  that  Mainland  groups  seven  to  No  Kicking  pleasant to  Dse  in  38  Changes;  in Trail  Campsites  and C a m p s i t e withstood  Appearance  the  manifesting  dramatic  changes;  season  probably  more  are  provided were  that  human use  altered  new c l e a r e d Kicking  little  tenting  Horse.  adjacent  to  It  area  possible  created  i n 1975  (see  Figure  3).  Until  areas received  showed  no  (see  apparent  Figure  3),  approximately  very  forty  a d o z e n wads  exposed  areas during that  during  Lake  Trail early  July  barely are  dry s p o t s  vulnerable  barely  over,  still  saturated  earlier,  the  hikers  hiking  visitors  to  Cld  branches branches so  isolate,  Nicomen Lake  pits  taken  were is  at  consequently  100 y a r d s  paper  very  on t h a t  markedly over Euckhcrn  t h a n swampy damage a t  1966,  to a v o i d the  the  were  made  from a  lake  in area,  and  scattered  in  possible  that  weekend t h a n  season.  and K i c k i n g  stretches.  this  season has  (Onderhill, tended  were seen  One  the s e a s o n ,  and  F o u r new f i r e  It  sites  period.  between  to  use  a m i l e by  changed  numerous  But many  been d i f f i c u l t  weekend.  Horse  created  beginning of  toilet  however,  some l o w e r t r e e  little  more  similar  conditions  more  most  of  received  any o t h e r  was  August h o l i d a y ,  fish  o n e - t h i r d of  perhaps  Nicomen  the  change.  over  ring  the  and mid A u g u s t .  were chopped o f f .  would have  camping  July  that  the  without  permanent,  Both K i c k i n g  early  absent at  scars  less  and f i r e  traffic  changes n o t i c e d over  continues.,  campsites  were c o n s p i c u o u s l y  the  or  between  is  summer  time,  begun, pages  In  Horse  Meadow  were soils  when snowmelt  and t h e 3-4).  ground  is is  As m e n t i o n e d  mud by l e a v i n g  the  trail  39  for  considerable  they r e v e r t e d regenerate Research  will the  that  season  take Heather  bare-  about  meadows sixty  such  of  1S66,  years  the  where created  wear f a c t o r s page  and  as  these,  3)  came  of  not  eradicated.  national  recovery  Along  dried,  meadow w i l l  States  days,  apparently  A study  gradually  Eut t h e  United  particularly  scars,  ten  mud  was t r a m p l e d  100 y e a r s .  (Onderhill,  conclusions  it  the  dry  Trail,  widespread.  Trail  in  about  the  o r i g i n a l path.  on is  As  where  conducted  occurs; are  to the  readily  indicates growing  distances.  where  worn  alpine  parks  ground  stretches  summer  the  of  inundation  over  past  seasons,  along  the  Heather  to  the f o l l o w i n g  ago:  S o i l compaction is and will remain the major problem involved in use h e r e . The c o n d i t i o n o f seme o f t h e o l d e s t t r a i l s i n the park indicates that natural f a c t o r s o p e r a t e e x t r e m e l y s l o w l y to relieve compaction and that plant growth is inhibited as long as the condition persists. Where o f f - t r a i l wear r e s u l t s in soil compaction results will be slow and i n s i d i o u s and w i l l be extremely d i f f i c u l t to r e p a i r . In a d d i t i o n t o campsites several a  and  the  expected  trails,  new f i r e s c a r s  evidence  (see  visitors  who s e t  Horse  before  Figure out  dark.  cf  which a p p e a r e d  windswept and d r y p l a t e a u  Brother  wear and t e a r  2). too  use  was  on t h e  between B u c k h o r n This  area  l a t e i n the  day  on  apparent  B i g Buck and  seemed to  designated  the  in  ridge, First  to  attract  reach  Kicking  40  User P e r c e p t i o n s Hiker  indicator  determining draw  the  out  many d i r e c t indicated  or  til®* of  users  as  all,  shortage. of  Ninety-one  tc  are  be  the  area's  difficulty  but  findings  aware  physical  In  were  many p e o p l e , " These  felt  but a t  of  absence. the  seemed  at  firewood  area least  at  seme  half  will  small  of  live the  hikers  did  a  July wood  future  or  lets  h o l i d a y weekend. time  could  d i d not f e e l  be d i s c u s s e d  chapter.  of  many p e o p l e the  a  adequate  possibility  over  a number  season than  do  this  however, of  Late  too  apparent  Only  chopping  aware,  meeting too  this  they  worsening  t o be more t h a n  questions  parts  its  except the  but  a concern; i n fact*  r e c o g n i z e d the  rare,  percent  or  finding  C o m p l a i n t s about  of  Any p r o b l e m s  wood s u p p l y .  appeared  people  in later  general,  mentioned People  attempted  -  very s e r i o u s  (105?)  in  without asking  with overuse.  cn  an  area,  somewhat  as  are  element  The i n t e r v i e w e r s  in this  commented  and t h e r e  had a r r i v e d . detail  of  and o v e r u s e  psychological  questions.  a problem.  people  "too  level.  was n o t r a i s e d  more  visitors, for  use  feelings  visiters  nature  ne  the  evidence  e n v i r o n m e n t a l wear and t e a r ,  {20%)  number o f  had  of  use  of  visitors  felt  litter  finite  of  them c a u s a l l y  not  branches  Levels and A r e a C a p a c i t y  leading  that  link  now a r e  ideal  user  manifestations not  Use  perceptions  important  to  of  in  that  have time  greater  41  BACKGROUND INFORMATION PERTAINING TO HIKERS  Aae The  overnight  thirty (See  and 1 5 1  Table The  between  twenty  distribution  for  younger  to  twenty-four  for  comparable  of  the  age  were  (Horton,  (8555  were  be s i m i l a r  inclusive.  of  those  cne-guarter  to  forty-nine,  very s i m i l a r  years,  under h a l f  12).  of  Garibaldi-  were from f i f t e e n and  obtained one-third  the  Just  shows fifteen  and t w e n t y - f o u r  1 9 7 5 , page  were  to  users,  465?  and  fifteen  and T a y l o r ,  backpackers  Approximately  fifteen  users  between  Assinibcine users  the  twenty-  inclusive)  Figures  ( G a i n and  for  Swanky,  2).  one l o o k s the  bulk  Hendee's  Pacific  revealed  only  group.  fifty-four,  with  (Hendee, around  at  some s t u d i e s cf  conducted  wilderness  Northwest  about  twenty-four  gathered  15% under  t h o s e i n the  1 9 7 5 , pages 4 - 6 ) .  Mount  four  Trail  Head t r a i l  between  Swanky,  page  to  users,  (Gain,  States,  young,  twenty-four,  populations.  Mount Robson b a c k c o u n t r y  If  and  specifically  Garibaldi-Diamond  inclusive  1975,  generally  Heather  group,  hiking  Tusk u s e r s  four  of  users,  the Garibaldi-Cheakamus Black  are  I.)  age  figures  visitors  survey,  1 9 % of  users  A h i g h 4 6 3 were a quarter  1968, the  pages  users  11-12).  same t i m e ,  be i n t h e  between  the  seem t o  conducted to  between  in  be in  United older. 1965,  sixteen  thirty-five  twenty-five  and  Scmmarstrom's  showed a s i m i l a r  to and  thirtydata,  pattern  to  42  exist  among b a c k c o u n t r y  where  over  1966,  pages It  half  gradually,  trend in  there  that  population  and  that  the  activities is  late  the  over  older  forties  States  the  of  last  Peninsula, (Scmmarstrcm,  result  hiking  of  populations,  people  into  indeed  such a  high  birth  rates  Alternatively,  structures as  changing  (if  fifties.  i n t h e age  and  are  young  decade  and i n t o t h e  American i n t e r e s t  by Nash  Olympic  pyramids  influx  inevitable  c o u l d be d i f f e r e n c e s  and U n i t e d  the  than t h i r t y - f i v e  be  exists)  the  were o l d e r  on  10-11).  may  wilderness  users  a  cf  Canadian  result  involvement i n h i k i n g  of  the  discussed  (1967).  Experience Heather  Trail  15% h a v i n g made length" fewer  for  trip.  years It  is  to  or l e s s , assumed  21-28).  new t o  of  years, were  "serious"  made a t  at  the  least  nearly  sport,  two n i g h t s  half  not counted  hiking  least  one  with  for  here,  excursions.) previous  in  two o r in  an  nearly  backpacking  II.) G a r i b a l d i Park  hiking,  one-night t r i p s pages  trips  fewer  less  had  Table  Visitors country  out  (83%)  (See  or  fairly  (One-night t r i p s  to r u l e  everyone  are  "backpacking  five  years.  effort  hikers  with  about  and a b o u t that in  451  respondents this  Bobson  s i m i l a r l y new t o  having backpacked  one-quarter  answering  Mount  were  for  were  two t o  for  two  five  years.  permitted to  include  guesticn  visitors  back-  (Horton,  were somewhat  1975, more  43  experienced, and  an  additional  One-guarter be  o n e - t h i r d having zero  noted  together  had  more t h a n t e n  that for  riders,  this  Backpackers  bit  experienced.  active  for  number  of  hiked  for  over  Heather  Trail  in  years  respondents.  O n e - h a l f the  night  over  The  the  these  Hendee  interesting Trail  of  Hiking  was  6 , 3 , of  trips of  are  no more  Average findings realizes  than  trip (see that  hikers  fiobson,  22$ (less  should  sere  lumped  than h a l f  the  cateqory) page  2).  activity  for  means  than  average  days  each.  (Hendee,  length i s  not  inconsistent  section  on  Trip  two  summers.  offers  is  an  Heather  typical of  for  trips  respondent,  Although over  a  the  season  1 9 6 8 , page 2 1 ) . with  length).  Heather T r a i l  made  each  14.5 person-days  months  10% had  number  for  mest two-  finding that  in 1965,  2.3  had  fewer  study  frequently The  Only  previous  Northwest  areas,"  101 o f  been  Activity  over the  hike l e s s  this  25% h a d  in this  r e i n f o r c i n g the  three  only  It  and T a y l o r , 1 9 7 5 ,  two summers.  trips  average l e n g t h short,  and  u s e r s had made two o r  past  comparison,  "wilderness-type  experience.  an o c c a s i o n a l  North American backpackers. into  years  ( G a i n and Swanky,  Pacific  backpackers  background.  backpackers  B a c k p a c k i n g - seems to be  more t h a n s i x  five  Mount  and o n l y  Frequency of  trips  experience,  ( G a i n , Swanky,  As  years,  fewer  years  two y e a r s  i n Mount A s s i n i b o i n e Park s e r e e v e n a  ten  two o r  two t o  climbers,  question  page 1 2 ) . more  with  21%  tc  users  Heather But  when  made s i x  Trail cne trips  44  over  the  past  comparatively  two summers,  the  Pacific  Northwest  users  are  active.  Education The s a m p l e was with  the  Canadian  Table  III).  of  remaining  high school economic park  degree.  some u n i v e r s i t y  the  and  received  at  page 7 1 ) .  Findings support  to  were  seme  179  showed 49$  of  more  riders, as  university  California o n l y 1851 t o  with  some  High have  socio-  to  have  (Blackwall,  1971,  that  backcountry than  outdoor  would  Pacific  educated  as  or  a  degree,  users  only high school  by  Trail 36%  and 28% had  page 1 3 ) .  wilderness  a degree,  Northwest  Heather  degree,  1968,  lend  sampled  a high school  Sierra  cr  studies  day-hikers  (Hendee,  finished  university  some  finishing A  educated  user  and  highly  work  upon  at  Columbia p r o v i n c i a l  The 1346  education  some g r a d u a t e  an  general.  distinction.  nearly  that  age.  suggest  backcountry  horseback  (see  beyond  persons sampled  highly  campers i n  a whole  would a p p e a r  education  would  compared  had f i n i s h e d  university  the  high school  other  percent  British  o n l y 36% had no more t h a n  completed on  cr  in  as  training  appropriate  685? o f  may - be  this  backpackers,  had  showed  It  attend  the  This s t a t i s t i c  recreaticnists  users:  175? w i l l  most a  recreationists  Hendee  training.  when  force)  university  conducted  campgrounds  (labour  Eighty-three  reaching  survey  well-educated,  population  O n e - t h i r d had  undergraduate least  extremely  Data in  or  and o n e - t h i r d  1960 less, with  45  graduate the  school  training, results  Heather T r a i l  survey.  Paddling canoeists  1960-61  were  finished  only high s c h o o l or  degree or some that  also  data  fifteen  work  on t h e years  for  society  (Hendee,  1975  education.  is  page  would  point  with  i n the  12),  a  is  remembered  overall  very  few  one  Sierra, lower  studies  the  of  available, in  location,  and o t h e r  factors,  any  to  level  differences  to  in  and BWC&  the  certainty  appre-  downward  which would l e a d  an  nearly  an e x p a n d i n g  High  had  completed  now  diffusing  Northwest,  BWC& i n  university  s h o u l d be  that  of  One-fifth  had  users  is  those  and 24% had  It  and  the  geographic  to  1964).  show  to  54%  possible  considering  methodology,  less,  values  Pacific  Owing and  difficult  It  1968,  that  of  Sierra  wilderness  conclusion  however^  High  to  well-educated.  instruction,  (Lucas,  eld.  ciation  users  extremely  some u n i v e r s i t y  graduate  very s i m i l a r  survey it  is  trend.  Occupation From o c c u p a t i o n income  group,  high-status  for  data i t the  most  jobs or  with  status.  One-guarter  are  (doctors,  lawyers,  as  labourers.  seems t h a t  users are  part,  a high p r o p o r t i o n i n  the  with  potential  students  and e n g i n e e r s ) .  and  to  11% a r e  Only  16%  in a  acguire  high  such  professionals were  employed  46  Place The  trail  three-hour trail  drive  users  north  seems of  live  shore  Valley Table  live  within a  (including  Mainland  American.  Surrey).  and  (For  the  Vancouver,  R i c h m o n d , and  Lower  5% a r e  of  Fraser  details  see  IV.) of  origin  figures  and t h e  Swanky,  and  extremely  the  pattern  Taylor,  showed  British figures  are  Swanky,  1975,  for  figures  were  Park.  Eighty-three Cheakamus  originated  study)  closely  hikers,  by  for  percent  of  visitors,  (Horton,  1975,  43% the  Americans. single  Americans  (35%),  while  14% o f and  the  use.  climbers  Provincial these  Park  gathered  the  Black  "Fraser  and  visitor  i n Manning users, Tusk  V a l l e y " i n the  21-29).  These  (Gain  (which may i n c l u d e  pages  and  largest  and 75% of  as  161  riders,  and fewer  was  only  from A l b e r t a  Diamond Head t r a i l  Vancouver  classified  tc  (Gain,  form t h e  only  Garibaldi  Trail:  horseback  riders,  much c l o s e r  i n Greater  communities  for  study  survey  Heather  Albertans  accounted  page 3 ) .  origin  the  Park,  i n Mount  The d i s t r i b u t i o n  E r i t i s h Columbians  followed  Columbians  Branch  11).  en t h e  As  hikers  i n both T h o r s e l ^ s  w h i l e 2151 were  States. more  page  that  Columbians,  United  (37%) ,  backccuntry  similar  1975,  from  Mount A s s i n i b o i n e  group  were  for  E r i t i s h Columbia Parks  different  were B r i t i s h  Trail  living  Over t h r e e - f i f t h s  Coguitlam, the  Only  (1971)  the  people  Lower M a i n l a n d  in  P r o v i n c i a l Park  of  attract  communities,  Robson  In  Origin  Manning P a r k .  combined.  Place  from  to  i n the  Over f o u r - f i f t h s  of  78%  users  some  of  Heather  47  Sex There Heather  Trail.  surveyed this  were  by  In the  figure."  pages  females  four  134).  If  difference today,  1960.  many males as  comparison,  to  sex  Tusk,  this  ORBBC s t u d y  were  repeated  males and f e m a l e s  women  activities  may to  be  in  areas  males  today,  might n o t  to at  (Horton,  outnumbered  Center,  extent  (70%)  Cheakamus  participating  a greater  the  B r a n c h was c l o s e  (60%) a t  (wildland Research  study  between  the  hiking  males was h i g h e s t  and l o w e s t In  cne  of  females  distribution  B r i t i s h Columbia Parks  4-6).  since  recreation  as  The p e r c e n t a g e  Garibaldi-Black 1975,  twice  Distribution  1962, such be in  than they  a  page marked  the  case  wildland did  in  48  TBIP  DETAILS AND PLANNING  Choice of Nineteen "alpine  percent  meadows"  Manning P a r k . Park  to  as  this  group,  accessible  park's  proximity  area to  named by 25%.  recommendation  Heather  main  reason  although is  advance. trail reasons  its  length,  trip  little  of  Convenience,  Manning or  or f a m i l y  to  Heather  take of  this  Manning member  (see  Table  trail  i n advance  is  generally  of  Trail  and l o n g e r  t h a n most  for  its  relative  putting For  the  ease  meadows  a more c o m p l e t e  and within  breakdown,  had  their were  known  trip.  which Primary  three:  a two-to-three  other  guick  park  trails  night (21%),  by  road,  convenient reach  (18%)•  see  V).  made i n  (46%), appropriate  the  Trail  the respondents  Heather  Park  and •  the  friend  the  •  in reality  Manning  on  choosing meadows  synonymous:with  of  16% c h o s e  hike,  the  choice  Another  would  •  their  cited  Valley,  of a  the  Eighty percent  for  for  visitors  Lower M a i n l a n d and E r a s e r  decision  they  are  Trail  i n meadow.  Choice of The.  Park  of  E v i d e n t l y meadows  Park's  was  the  Manning  access  Table  VI.  49  I n f o r m a t l o P j Aclvice^ and Suggestions Communication was  of i n f o r m a t i o n and advice about the  accomplished p r i m a r i l y through contact with f r i e n d s and  f a m i l y members, p a r t i c u l a r l y The popular t r a i l and  !03  Hikes  h e a v i l y used. Park  to  visitors  particularly  deciding  for  persuasive  choice  and  trip  plans,  than  used  it.  Fewer  respondents v i s i t e d the Nature  meadows). the  Half  House  before  one-fifth  adjacent  of  to  A mere 7 f u t i l i z e d  the Nature Hut l o c a t e d  up  time a c t u a l l y  b i t less  Hut  visited  ( 8 % ) than those who already knew the area  were  are  distribution  carried  by  from  clear  the  clientele  Nature  different  of types  (11%).  House  and  (see Table V I I ) .  similarities  in  p a t t e r n s f o r the Heather T r a i l  are  Hut  22%, a l a r g e number of these  and f o r Mount Bcbson and Mount A s s i n i b o i n e  reguire  f o r the  the Nature House and Nature  v i s i t i n g the two nature f a c i l i t i e s There  in  only s e v e r a l hundred f e e t from the t r a i l h e a d .  S i m i l a r l y , maps and pamphlets  the  the  Manning  S u r p r i s i n g l y , those v i s i t o r s using the Heather T r a i l  Nature  their  (across the highway from the access road to the  meadows,  first  the  on the Heather T r a i l i n advance had used  arrival  lodge  Manning  i n h e l p i n g h i k e r s to  undecided  had  (33%) were  Exploring  t h i s bock, while only 1 4 % of those  Park  Park ( 4 9 % )  i n Southwestern B r i t i s h Columbia There was a tendency  be  (57%).  for inexperienced hikers  guidebooks, Exjeloring Manning  formulate t h e i r t r a i l  a  trail  information i n Manning Park  Parks,  although  d i v e r s e o r i g i n s and would seemingly of  information  and  patronize  50  different relied  information  heavily  50%.  Fewer  and  Taylor,  the  on a d v i c e  (28%)  used  1975,  named  information  iJElil^  of  none wrote  stopped  at  the  considering the  14).  source,  to  Victoria  a  with another  20%  the  Swanky,  specifically  most  frequently Hiking  Heather  Trail  and o n l y low  1975,  page  10%  number,  u s e r s and 43% were  from  13).  larger  groups  encountered  comprising  consisting  The a v e r a g e  (Gain,  by  Size  sample,  twenty-two).  maps  surprisingly  predominated,  were  was r e c e i v e d  information,  ( G a i n and Swanky,  two  which  As w i t h t h e  for  House,  Group of  users  f o l l o w e d by a g u i d e b o o k ,  65% were f i r s t - t i m e  United States  Groups  or  Assinibcine  F o r Mount E o b s o n ,  RcckieSi,  Nature  that  guides  wcrd-of-mouth i s  Canadian  users,  Mount  from f r i e n d s ,  trail  page  Berg Lake T r a i l ,  the  sources.  group  of  (of size  38%  of  threes.  eleven, was  Several  thirteen,  3.8  the  (see  and  Table  VIII). Results indicate  of • t h e  similar  Garibaldi-Diamond individuals, (Horton, boine 2.7  and  1975;  Parks  survey,  group  and  in  other  Black  pages 4 - 8 ) .  two  areas.  groups  averaged averaged  most  average  and T a y l o r ,  page 4 ) .  were  backcountry  smaller  Swanky,  1975,  surveys  3.5 3.6  Mount Rcbson and Mount A s s i n i -  a slightly  (Gain,  Branch  Tusk p a r t i e s  Garifcaldi-Cheakamus  and Swanky, groups c f  sizes  Head  attracted  individuals  and G a i n  B r i t i s h Columbia Parks  As i n t h e common  in  1975,  group  of  page  11,  Heather the  Trail  Olympic  51  National  Park backcountry  Trips to  permit part  delay.  or a l l  IX).  cn t h e i r  the  trip  hikers  because  avoid  the  trips  lot.  they  to  did  the  not  lasted  However, t h e i r  muddy p a t c h e s  to  and  It  one o r  two  or  2.28  fewer nights  were n o t an trail  to  these  cases,  c o u l d be  argued  not  the  readiness  no  the  did  see  with  nights  I n most o f  trails  want  stayed  20% l e f t  own o r bushwhack.  stuck  l o n g enough  backpackers  about  10).  hiked  were t h r e e trip  page  just  be  groups  Trail  Only  to  was on t h e T h r e e B r o t h e r s .  unnecessarily. to  the  Heather  adventurous  side  of  1966,  point,"  the c i r c u i t  percent  explore  that  of  the  The a v e r a g e b a c k p a c k  Table  overly  and " t o  and o v e r 90% o f  length.  (see  short  Seventy  nights, in  were  (Sommarstrom,  bushwhack  meadows  to leave  might not be c o n s i s t e n t  damaged  the  with  trails  such  an  attitude. Other  surveys,  backcountry overnight nights, 2,4  t r i p l e n g t h to  hikes.  (Gain  and  averaged The hand,  1975,  3.3  Swanky,  difference  trips pages  nights  3 nights  be c l o s e  Hendee's to t h a t  (1968),  of  G a r i b a l d i - D i a m o n d Head h i k e s  Cheakamus  (Hcrton,  averaged  i n a d d i t i o n to  2.5  nights  Mount  (horseback  rides  page  ( G a i n , Swanky, between  parks  5).  Manning on t h e  averaged  were t w i c e  Mount  as  Trail 2.3 trips  Assiniboine  and T a y l o r , such  Heather  and B l a c k Tusk  21-28).  1975,  and G a r i b a l d i o r  ,  showed  as  fiobson 1975,  hikes long) visits  page  12).  Mount R o b s c n , on one  other hand,  seems  to  52  explain  the  discrepancy;  Robson  and t h e  distances  from  probably  Valley  family  has  travelled  days  does  1000  not  Rocky  Mountain  and v i s i t  Hew K i c k i n g Horse,  contain  not  Additionally, at  New K i c k i n g  Horse are  of  generally  full  eleven entered  groups the  the  over  the  on S u n d a y .  one  of  three in  are  the  on  a  trip,  Campsites  of  that  than  Horse  did  t h e two  tenting  Old  campsites  spaces.  This  probably r e s u l t e d  only campsite  Kicking  Horse the  three  just  to  given  the  weather  experienced  each)  capacity  on S a t u r d a y s  area).  Few  Use was  heavier  and  were  (nine  overnight over  spots  visiters  Vancouver Horse  to  ahead.  some  have  groups  from  apparent  camping  H o r s e might  Assuming t h a t  (two t o  entire  When  a Mount Robson  more c o n s p i c u o u s ;  or approaching  Fraser  p o i n t e d out  New and O l d K i c k i n g  cn F r i d a y s  area  fact  Old K i c k i n g  both  a  a stay  16% more use  Old  abandonment.  encouraging,  of  however,  mentioned i n Chapter 2,  impression  use  received  of  was  States,  area.  i n l i n e " and t h e  deserted  moderate  i n the  aware as  It  exclusively  New K i c k i n g  a seemingly  was  not  trail,  Mount  who ccme  United  than t h a t  visitors,  same number  of  being " f i r s t  reach the  most  despite  use  newcomers  to  D i s t r i b u t i o n Over  roughly the  increased its  that  Horse  the  longer  very l o n g .  parks  Hiker  Kicking  miles  trip,  other  visitors,  a weekend i n Manning P a r k .  seem  Mount Robson s t u d y  a stay  remoteness of  by i t s  E d m o n t o n , and  justify  spending  relative  travelled  Vancouver, Calgary,  would  the  the  to  users August  53  1-4  holiday,  Kicking  but  was  Horse s i t e .  different  and  lake  received  sites  not  Nicomen l a k e  surprising. little  two g r o u p s e a c h  weekend)  night  weekend.  holiday  observed  overnight  with the At t h a t  the  lakeside  camps,  created  by  parties  occupying  the  reaching  remaining  parking  lot.  the  half  lake  use  ,,  time  the  (i.e.,  the  cf  over  new  were  fire  entire miles  bcth 2,  no more the  than  groups  rings  were  About h a l f circuit, back  the  three-  nineteen  sites.  thirteen  either  i n Chapter  exception  n€wn  completed  retraced  use  and f o u r  hand a t  patterns  As d i s c u s s e d  occupied  groups  first  to  the  while the  54  HIKER ATTITUDES TOWARDS EACKCCUNTBY IMPROVEMENTS  that  Heather  Trail  the  s h o u l d be l e f t  area  backcountry  should  whereone  can  "bureaucratic" complain^  third the  of  area  kept  escape  from  rules about  three-sided  should  page  393}  that  are  Park  users  to  The place  improvements  and  People  did  which  trails.  not  include  About  one-  to  of  Center  United  Gray  area  pages  to  As w i t h  existing  Eby  Provincial  maintained  civilization,  and r o a d s .  wanted  improvements.  Wells  the  (1962),  States  rudimentary improvements.  objections 1968,  Research  additional  of  that  by b o t h M e r r i a m and Ammcns  see  campgrounds,  (Hendee,  asked,  natural.  western  a majority  with only  no  without being  and  the  scorned i n t r u s i o n s  sample,  raised  and  Wildland  and opposed  wanted  shelters,  Trail  possible.  facilities,  supported  visitors  determined that  "wilderness",  stated,  and t h e  (1972)  new  opinion  a  regulations.  existing  the  development,  planned  be k e p t r u s t i c  campgrounds  also  cf  shelters,  respondents  simple  sample  free  cf  »  the  who r e p o r t  generally  p r i m i t i v e as  w  These f i n d i n g s (1964,  and  are  as  be  however,  outhouses, ff  backpackers  as  Hendee's  objecting the  to  Heather  facilities  were  45-54).  Trails Satisfaction deemed'"excellent" 60%  respectively.  with t r a i l s  was  high;  their condition  o r " g o o d " by t h e e n t i r e Bridges  and s t r e a m  sample,  crossings  as  40%  was and  t h e y now  55  exist  sere  attitude that 2,  of  approved  was  extended  muddy p l a c e s  numerous  fifty off  feet  the  supposed  own  way  expressed to  and  want s p e c i a l suggesting  be t h i s  do i t  treatment"  stepping leg  popular,  way,"  were  fable  this  time  indicators.  popular  located mile  at  stretch  BUCKHORN ity  of  signs  is  meets  there  the  situated  the at  confusing  about "Leave  hikers  the it  to  to  mud.  natural,  make  ycur  i n t h e bush—we  don't  Of t h e  mud, o n e - h a l f  40%  recom-  such  as  were c o n s i d e r a b l y  less  Signs  sign only  signs  and  reading  sign  approximately  there  spots  One o f  when a c r u d e a great  the  twenty-six  mile 3,  when g u e s t i o n e d 42% f e l t  directional HEATHE.fi TBAIL  along  and  about  was  reads  the  some  gualinade-  were c i t e d f r e g u e n t l y  these  is  the p o i n t  B u c k h o r n camp and d i s a p p e a r s  was  Chapter  most  possibilities,  v e r y few the  and m a r k i n g s ,  August,  tree,  from  clarification.  jeep road Until  are  trailhead,  Several  needing  force  sentiments.  and g r a v e l ,  CAMP—JUST AHEAD.  quacy.  a  the  in  as  X.)  there  Aside  here  Other  bridges,  (See  out  such  from t h r e e  and " Y o u ' v e g o t  coping with  stones.  sell,  the t r a i l ,  enough t c  Informational At  as  As d i s c u s s e d  a common t h e m e :  yourself  a method f c r  corduroy,  questions  trail.  unpleasant  anti-development  Yet 60% wanted n o t h i n g done  given  mended  cn t h e  l o n g , were  it's  to o t h e r  The  i n u n d a t e d segments c f  path.  Seasons  unanimously.  sign  indicating  deal  of  (see  TBAIL  u n c e r t a i n t y as  as  where  the  Figure  2).  was t i e d to  to  whether  56  the  trail  point that  cut  of most  tial,  the campsite  confusion people  to  markings  across  said  label. were  is  the  it  Bcnnevier T r a i l  needed,  v o i c e d the  it  needed.  Humours were c i r c u l a t e d  the  ridge  thinking several mile out  (mile  they miles  away  sight.  places  hikers  this  trail  backpackers obtained common  be  and  elsewhere  the  particularly or  or lies  ridge  rely  back, still  and  cne  barely  at  these  the  fact  maps  80% o r  maps o r  top  just  markings  T h u s , the  were  the  were  i n view of  topographical  presently  fiidge  topographical  Nature House.  mcst  lake  that  Horse.  of  so  of  guidebooks  on w o r d - o f - m o u t h and  sense,  wanted  what t y p e s  to  see  booklets.  remaining favoured reguested  of  none,  sentiments.  more d e s i r a b l e  flowers  the  felt  sketch  not p o s s e s s i n g  development it  obtain  from  the  campsite  turning  lake  fork  essen-  reaching  and  t u c k e d away below visitors  not  Nicomen  the  In f a c t  helpful,  cannot  When a s k e d 42%  passed  from i t .  at  2)  a  Kicking  parties  Figure  somehow  point,  of  Another  cutoff,  but  at  markings  on  Although  would  that  that  12.5  had  from t h i s of  felt  it.  opinion that  particularly  Lastly,  of  skirted  would be h e l p f u l *  Others  was  or  to  by  was d e s i r e d  and  of  needed  reflection opposing  the  distances to  (See  needed,  of  anti-  signs  information i n  were  information  by 18%.  were  information reguested  markers  Specific  16%,  a  Most v i s i t o r s  types  mileage  (21%).  again  provide the  Of t h e  58%,  information signs  the  about  Table XI.)  most  felt maps-  by  the  heavily  campsites  were  mountains  and  hikers  w i t h no  57  previous  experience  category  t h a n were v i s i t o r s  Hendee users  found  favoured  distance  that  signs  (Thorsell,  garbage users  strongly  a  rationale,  ameliorate litter  the  cn  collection usual  "organization" would of  mean.  bears,  removing  the  respondents not packs  Those  felt  cans.  an  also  needed  aversion  litter  with  the  in  essence of  packs  in.  One-guarter  were  opposed  to  the  convenience  that  the  cans  "need"  to  to  and  the  would discard  backcountry  litter  reasons. the  the  The  increased that  messiness,  backcountry. cans  a  Best  civilization  costs,  from t h e  she  of  see  cited  supportive  mentioned the  that  what he o r  w h i l e 23%  camps.  were s t r o n g l y  opposing  of  administrative  compatible out  was  litter  key  reguested  would l i k e t o  by r e m o v i n g t h e  and e n c r o a c h m e n t  and  and  were  backcountry  stated  a variety  Users  Northwest  30%  signs  they  at  many  ground.  defence  Pacific  directional  Those i n s u p p o r t and  offered  background.  pages 4 5 - 4 7 ) ,  meant l i t t e r  situation  the  if  while one-half  such a development. as  1968,  asked  this  in favour,  only  latter  Handling  facility  assumed t h a t  fen  the  113).  were  collection  of  years  interpretive  Garbage Respondents  out  name  remaining  (Hendee,  page  to  several  The  sample f e l t  1971,  with  conveying  material  Thorsell*s  likely  seven  information.  interpretive of  were more  this  attraction problem  of  About 25% o f  the  backccuntry  backpacking,  that  were one  58  Supporters youngest no  visitors  previous  twenty-four strongly a  of  and t h i r t y  deal  to  each).  This  number o f  clear  from  outhouse  at  convenient Horse. yet  feeling  bottle  Old  Kicking  an i n c e n t i v e words, so  "If  with o n e . "  someone  another  Respondents having litter bags  with  completed bags.  bags  which  bag  is  university  Horse Lake the  (21%  slightly  wrappers  in  the  had at  found  a  New K i c k i n g  an  outhouse,  lake.  to  to  give  positively  to  litterbags  to  The  strongest  b a g s would n o t  littering;  in  without a bag,  mentioned become wasteful training, most  w i t h mixed f e e l i n g s  might be n e c e s s a r y / f o r  favoured  is  have  was t h a t  w o r k , were  most  It  negative.  litter  to  Horse.  available  accustomed  was  to  users  does n o t  group  going to  graduate  Those  that  were  Seme r e s p o n d e n t s  eaten,  Tang  be a good i d e a  negative  carry  and  with  the  Nicomen  the sample responded  One-third  backpackers and  of  were  Kicking  the  The t w e n t y  New K i c k i n g  n o t i c e d i n the  "Would i t  you're  New  be  and t h o s e  disposal  and  not  however,  one-half  to  groups  of  Horse  receptacle  among t h e  age  may be a t t r i b u t e d  vodka  to  backcountry.  Horse  the  backpackers?"  nineteen),  users  using  was  tended  Garbage  novices  garbage  guestion,  idea.'  Old Kicking  trash  Nearly the  the  Nicomen L a k e ,  little  and o v e r  difference  larger  to  i n the  more by t h e  t h a n by t h o s e a t  disposal  (ages f i f t e e n  experience  opposed  great  garbage  some h i k e r s ,  that  other  you'll  nearly  emptied and  as  do all  food  is  unnecessary.  especially likely often but  be  I  those  to  oppose  said,  "Litter  don't  need  59  them."  See  garbage  Table  XII  for  h a n d l i n g and l i t t e r  a breakdown o f  user  opinions  on  bags.  Firewood As m e n t i o n e d appear  to  firewood overall  previously,  shortage.  use  the  in  by 9 5 %  area  early  hatchet  or  pieces.  Dsers  provision  saw  were how  cut  wood  in  positive  the  obvious  convenience  But c o s t s ization wood  to  the  which  campsite be  flatly  only  Kicking  and  72%  Horse.  Comparisons  lost opposed as (See  if  the  for  service  at  Table  XIII.)  with data  campsites without the  were 16%  addition  felt  that  to the  "hackers." organ-  monetary  costs,  Additionally,  many  part  of  the  Wood  Nearly  provision  H o r s e as  backcountry  carry  excursion,  were p r o v i d e d .  New K i c k i n g  from o t h e r  the  another In  a  larger  about  i n t r o d u c t i o n of  these reasons.  popular  the  wood and h a v i n g t o  be an i n t e g r a l  the  kindling  would-be  backccuntry,  for  show  the  and  was  deter  transport.  foraging  tc  it  including:the  not  diminish  feel  problems.  afforded  wood  consider  would  40% were was  foresaw  not  One-quarter  wood s u p p l y ,  and c i v i l i z a t i o n t o t h e  sources,  to  utilize  would  does  did  Those  to  they  c h o p p e d wood might  were s e v e r a l ,  backpackers it  of  but  however.  campsites.  a cut  scmewhat  groups  circling  unable  asked  of  there  even t h o u g h some o f  season,  felt  availability  overnight  were  supportive  time  While checks  immediately  i n the  camp  of  cf  supply,  the  disappeared  strongly  this  be a f i r e w o o d  available  located  at  at  studies  Old  is  60  risky, is  because c o n d i t i o n s  interesting  Eobson  to  sample  favoured  the  (Gain,  More t h a n  meadows  those the  trails  were  natural.  of  Over  60%  with  the  and  wanted  longer  that  among a r e a s .  85%  of  Taylor,  Trails  Heather to  of  "only  and t h a t  and  the  1975,  It  Mount  page  22)  Campsites  Trail see  had  more  the t r a i l  some o f  the  area  in  of  of  the  these  About h a l f  system  a . couple"  sufficient  trails  one-guarter  or l o o p t r a i l s .  an e x p a n s i o n  needed,  that  approximately  by a d d i n g  differ  firewood.  Additional  specifying  favouring  reguest  Swanky,  75% f e l t  area,  respondents  however,  p r o v i s i o n of  Provision  campsites.  note,  and s u p p l y  of  gualified additional  should  be  left  61  NUMEERS ANL CONGESTION  user  Approximately  20%  perceptions  numbers  trail  and i n  of  of  the  questionnaire  and  was d e v o t e d  congestion,  both  on  to the  campsites.  Very •  Pleasant  Very  Pleasant  Very  Unpleasant. 1  Very  Unpleasant  Very  Unpleasant  I  Very  Pleasant  Very  Pleasant  1  »'  Very  Unpleasant 1  i  Very  Pleasant  Very  Unpleasant 1  i  Very  Pleasant  Very  Unpleasant »  u IIGUBE 4.  SAMPLE CONTINUUM S J T X  Cn The Respondents certain  numbers o f  interviewer) 0,  2;,  were  4,  performance  i n the 8, of  12, the  course and  Trail  asked  groups  to  (as of  imagine themselves dictated  a day's  16—were  exercise.  AS SHOWN TO HIKERS  hike.  to  them These  not d i s c l o s e d  seeing by  the  numbers--  prior  to  the  62  Very  Very  Unpleasant  Very  Unpleasant  Pleasant  -J  - r * / 0 Groups Very  I  Pleasant  I 2 Groups  Very  Very  Pleasant  Unpleasant  J  I 4 Groups Very  Very  pleasant  Unpleasant  J  L 8 Groups Very  Very  Pleasant  LVery  Unpleasant  J  12 G r o u p s Very  Pleasant  Unpleasant * — >  16 G r o u p s  FIGUEE  5.  CCNTINDUK SET- COMPLETED USING MEAN BESPCNSES  Respondents  quantified  separately,  by  placing  continuum, ranging nes per  l i n e was  used  respondent,  ratings  generated  as  Figure  in  their a  reaction slash  mark  from VEBY PLEASANT t o for  each group  as  in  a curve  6.  translated  into eight  Pleasant"  and  For  Figure as  the  data  each  on  5. six  a  points  Unpleasant,"  as  horizontal  lines  T h u s , each  analysis  number  VEBY UNPLEASANT.  number, s i x  numbered s e g m e n t s ,  8 = "Very  to  where  all  respondents  were  the  in  A  connected,  c o n t i n u u m was 0  in Figure  =  "Very  7.  Mean  63  values in  for  the  six  lines  (graphs)  are  summarized  graphically  Table X I V . .  Very  Very  Pleasant  I  I  K*  1  J  ;—  Unpleasant  I  T  0 Groups Very  I  I  I  8 Very  1— —~ 2 Groups  '. 5  7  Unpleasant  1  T  T  Very  Pleasant  7  1  I  1  'V 1  1  r  1  12  Very  6  1  '  5  f  16  I1GUHE 6..  CONTINUUM S I T A  Unpleasant  I  3 *.  Groups  Pleasant 7  I  1  Very  r  5  T  Unpleasant  T  8 Groups  Pleasant  I8  I  4 Groups  I Very  Very  Pleasant 1~  Unpleasant  T  1  7  8 Very  it  1—  a Very  Very  Pleasant  4  3  1  Unpleasant 2.  1  Groups  COMflETED^ I M J S T J M I N G JJUJBEBIKG SYSTEM  In few"  summary, most  groups  per day.  more a t t r a c t i v e groups,  the  users  of  the  idea  Even t h o u g h s e e i n g  prospect  idea  like  than  being  is  of  no one a t  seeing  completely  seeing  eight alone  "just  a  all is  a  or makes  mere seme  64  visitors  feel  uncomfortable.  reassured  of  distances  t o camps.  Seeing  very  (0  or  8)  or  particular  the  route  lew  about  except  the  over  the  informed  trail  to  other  those  pertaining  weekend.  someday cf  to  result  interconnected  and  were  motivations,  conditions,  use  levels,  the  and t h e  size  influenced  by t h e s e v a r i a b l e s , would  be  general  trends,  attitudes  probed,  however*  numbers  and c r o w d i n g  Stankey  (1971)  BWCA and t h e  Bridger  High pages  Uintas  believed Provincial  that Parks  in  users.  the  respondents  which  and  data  conclusions  with  difficult.  Such  of  factors;  many  wilderness  weather  and  terrain  and b e h a v i o u r  of  of  responses  perceptual  differ  greatly  Per  recording  seme r e l e v a n t  other  the  among  purposes  the  findings  of  range  of  related  to  fellow. found  that  25% o f  the  visiters  and Bob M a r s h a l l W i l d e r n e s s e s  Primitive  42-43).  is  misleading.  charting  given  people."  the  expectations,  C o m p a r i n g and c o n t r a s t i n g  areas,  (7  nonexistent,  interaction  parties.  study  and  and c r o w d i n g p e r c e p t u a l of  be  high  (teenaged)  many  poorly-understood  attitudes,  ahead  very  largely  Heather T r a i l from  either  Xet 89% o f  and c o m p a r i s o n  the  needs t o  w i t h low r a t i n g s  have " t o o  numbers  the  conditions  younger  holiday  studies,  perceptions  and  numbers  Interpretation from  3),  high  could  cf  no cne r a t e d  by i n e x p e r i e n c e d  Complaints  felt  and  Soaie e x p r e s s e d  The Bowrcn were  Area  felt  crowded  of  Thorsell's  majority Lake,  Mount  becoming  Bobson,  saturated  to  and  (Stankey, 1971 and and  the the  1973, sample  Garibaldi could  not  65  6  accommodate percent 25S  cf  further the  1971,  pages  that  generally  meet  feeling  6.5  a  may  not  crowded  park. who  Fifty  crowded,  to the  and  per  just  four  accustomed  groups.  to  levels  would  Garibaldi  Bowron  mere  as  many  users before  lake  users  two  groups  The l a t t e r  seeing  feel  1 9 7 5 , page 1 3 ) .  (about 2 3 p e o p l e )  w h i l e Mount Bobscn and  meet  tolerating  that  day  revealed  when t h e y  they  25%  Swanky,  and  (Thorsell,  Tolerance  said  determined  groups  threshold of be  five  127)  feel  few  (Gain  page  to  i n the  the  than  groups  crowded,  had  groups  less  felt  i n f i n d i n g campsites  begin  from  (1975,  Thorsell could  other  meeting fifty  increases.  The Mount A s s i n i b o i n e s t u d y  hikers  though,  crowded than  difficulty  125-127).  fifteen  varied,  population  Bowron Lake P a r k c a n o e i s t s  experienced  around  user  visitors  as  r  Garibaldi  Park  receives.  (1966,  Scmmarstrom correlation hiking, percent  between numbers  received said  enjoyment response.  the  they  tion; one  or  a more  in  that  is,  fifth  of  was i n f l u e n c e d Two-thirds  the Only  establish gained  said  that were  number o f Stankey's  more  not  find  less  Heather  Trail  their  people Bridger  they and  response  encountered  enjoyment. that  from  the  1% p e r c e i v e d a r e v e r s e  meant  a  Twenty-eight  encountered,  groups  sample d i d  by t h e of  they  percent  more p e o p l e the  responses.  which would match t h e  whether camps.  i n t r y i n g to  and e n j o y m e n t  of  people  received,  24),  seen  variety  Twenty-five  would depend on trails  page  their  on  correlaHowever, enjoyment  encountered. Eob  Marshall  66  Wilderness you d o n ' t the  samples meet  agreed  anyone i n the  BWCA and H i g h U i n t a s  These  figures  important  to  that,  show  users  of  "It's  most e n j o y a b l e  wilderness,"  w h i l e one h a l f  P r i m i t i v e Area u s e r s  that  being  alone  these  areas  than  when  felt  of  that  way.  may have been  more  for  Heather  Trail  backpackers. Stankey's tolerant  of  numbers a t  with other  groups  backcountry intruders Trail  the  see  other  sections,  groups may  twenty-five Lake  that of  expected, where  1S73,  than  other  pages  would  penetrating  have to  camped a t  not  be  an  when  in  groups  26-27).;  were  exist;  encounters  the were  Along  more  interior seen  the  as  Heather  only about  15%  Nicomen Lake were s u r p r i s e d that  intended  t h i r t y miles  hikers  a trip,  d i s t i n c t i o n d i d n o t seem t o  respondents  Stankey  showed  the o u t s e t  were  (Stankey,  this  of  findings  far  the  into  term  o r more,  interior  the  backcountry.  "interior"  i n which spot,  to  to  case  but  mean  Nicomen  still  on t h e  periphery.  A variety "What this  of  Camps  responses  were  would be t h e i d e a l campsite?"  vegetative may have  led  number  of  was  Also  6.  In  cover,  given  number o f  groups  to  besides  Naturally,  differences  open s p a c e ,  and d i s t a n c e s  to  different  overall  groups  cited  3.81,  freguently  was  chosen  were  the  in  1,  0,  and  yours,  at  terrain,  between  responses. while the  question,  The  groups mean  modal r e s p o n s e 2,  in  that  67  order. "What  (See would  tolerate in  of  be  to  by  significant  like  the  of  the  a sense  exchange  of  areas  allowing  size  numbers  in  camping  to  Generally,  where  separated  by  exchanged.  responses modal  among  response  qualified  their  and h a b i t s  were  determining  presence  feet  as  their  several  12$ classified  were n o t p a r t i c u l a r ,  but  interacted  a  thirty  At  dozen o r  were  so  apart,  observed.  choose  to  be  inter-  group  had  been  "extremely  with  Horse  minimum,  feet  greetings as  mainly  t h e same t i m e  Little  initial  groups  presence.  interaction  campsites.  after  at  where t h e  would  even  Kicking  one a n o t h e r ' s  people  the  consisting  i n t e r a c t i o n but a t  visitor  o t h e r humans  In f a c t ,  to  do n o t  communion,  apart  Lake c a m p s i t e ,  possible  of  and p a r t i c u l a r s .  g e n e r a l l y twenty of  and  with c o n t a c t  be aware o f  occurred, The  of  the  minimal.  fifty  open Niccmen  examples  be  greetings are  spots are  activity  differences  backcountry v i s i t o r s  security  little,  a low l e v e l  groups  large  you c o u l d  "pleasant-unpleasant"  group  most  of  may  interacted  facilitating  many  actual  interaction  tenting  the  'that  asked,  level.  seems t o c r e a t e  generally  Again,  respondents  and t o t h e  be a l o n e i n a c a m p s i t e ;  though  groups  may have a l t e r e d  was c o n c l u d e d t h a t  to  of  move a w a y ? "  questions  stating  as  satisfaction If  number  Table XVI.) s e v e r a l  these  continuum  you'd  were s u b s e q u e n t l y  The mean number was 8 . 9 , w i t h a  (See  answers  maximum  characteristics  areas. 10.  the  here before  campsite  the  T a b l e XV.) r e s p o n d e n t s  anyone  gregarious" who  would  68  pay  attention  A*titj}des). the  of  group  subsequent  separation  is  more t h a n f o u r - f i f t h s  (for  have  its  they  cf  the  d i d not  want  to  other  parties  that  65%  indicated  camped n e a r  feel  overall  the r e s p o n d e n t .  (80%  in  the  would e x p e r i e n c e  recreational  guality  the  by that  who d i d  wanted  to  sharing  if,  a  after  loss  a r r i v e d on t h e  said  they  remain  camped  actually  would e n j c y  page 2 7 ) . degree of  data  the  Heather aversion  presented.  at  presence of Trail  scene.  that the  groups,  site,  as  did  or  isolated Only  30%  and j u s t 3 %  newcomers  respondents  to o t h e r  concluded  satisfaction  making camp i n an  parties  for  and Bob M a r s h a l l  of  two o r t h r e e would  intolerance  Stankey  Bridger  spot,  the  Those  warmth)  an e v e n g r e a t e r  Wildernesses)  this  enforced  respondents  ring.  c o c k i n g , or  on G e n e r a l  upon them.  Other studies  1973,  section  further  own f i r e  socializing,  voluntarily;  forced  (see  of  should  share a f i r e do so  them  The i d e a  feeling  every  to  not  (Stankey, exhibit  one can s e e  from  69  EEEAVICUB Most  conclusions  observations Whenever  about  camped  one-half  were  user  but t h i s  the  behaviour  author  camping p a r t i e s  within the  ethics,  the  situation,  behaviour  (2)  by  possible,  interview in  made  about  total  were  added  cases;  author's  during  s e r e drawn from the  observed  insight  that  sight.  interviews.  is,  Two  outside  was  only  gained  when a g r o u p  general  types  observed:  (1)  behaviour  which c o u l d a f f e c t  the  b i o p h y s i c a l environment,  social  behaviour.  They k e e p t o do  this.  but  this  the t r a i l s They  exploration  and seem  do n o t  reluctance  increasing  In g e n e r a l  erosion,  relating  users are  more from a  a  concern  for  as  was n o t e d  lack  the  into of  trampling  i n the  to  was of  camping and  well-behaved.  be aware o f  make many s i d e t r i p s  stems  than  to  the  section  need the  to  bush,  desire  for  meadows  and  TBIP  DETAILS  AND PLANNING.  J2§I£§ciative Bikers Six  or  left  eight  twenty-six  pieces  miles  that  a  1975,  and n o t a t  leader, to  very l i t t l e  is  clean-up  1975).  the  litter  remarkably  i n 1974  At l e a s t  problem i s  not  conspicuous  over  c o n s i d e r i n g the  fact  the area  once i n e a r l y  (conversation  one-fifth  regarding  places.  and gum w r a p p e r s )  little,  crew v i s i t e d all  in  (cigarette butts  interview questions  that  Eehayiour  of  litter  with  the  sample  disposal  s e r i o u s enough t o  youth  require  July, crew  responded by  saying  managerial  70  attention. the in  Although  interviews, their  some l i t t e r  only  19% o f  campsites. .  •  Visitor  comments  in  impression  that  litter  repulsive  and  contributes  than along  the  be  foremost  significant 49-53)  reported  carelessness the  most  the  that  Bowrcn l a k e  Stankey's  and Mount  sample  annoyance  of  litter  respondents,  litter  was j u d g e d  many  (1973,  page  freguently ay a b o u t Taylor, of  mentioned  one-quarter 1975,  Cheakamus  Tusk  users The  Heather  litter,  page  detriment of  the  25).  In  visitors  Trail  littering  users  paper  acceptable to  or  the  plastic  leave t i n  pages  guality to  be  of  the  the Park,  cited  Swanky,  however,  pages  never  o n l y 8% Black  that dream  found i t  cans i n t h e f i r e p i t s ,  and  21-28).  i n the f a c t  trail  too mcst  Diamond Head and 1975,  of  expressed  was  (Gain,  of  1971).  than encountering  probably  on t h e  most  o f human  two-thirds  i n Mount Bobson  (Horton,  would  the  (99%)  Garbage  were i n t e r e s t e d who  (1964,  (Thorsell,  Garibaldi Park,  mentioned l i t t e r interviewers  worse  respondents  and none o f  the  to  named by o n e - t h i r d  for  29).  seems  found " g a r b a g e "  users  and  degradation  evidence  unanimously  finding  and  and i s  i n determining  at  people  other  complaint,  almost  prevalent  Priddle  and  Robson  the  problem  respondents  Thorsell  cited  more  litter  give  wilderness  behaviour.  experience.  frequently  to  left  studies  The l i t t e r  were v e r y c r u c i a l  wilderness  the  more  minds  depreciative  user  ordinarily  Trail.  the  groups observed  other  is  Heather in  the  d u r i n g 25% o f  was n o t i c e d  after  many of  perfectly having  71  burned  off-  simply  net  the food seen  as  remains.  littering,  refuse  where  it  will  covered  with a s h e s .  not  Conceivably this but r a t h e r  The m o t i v a t i o n s  could  not  the  litter  always  discovered  for  it  had l e f t  the  Other forms only  or  of  Only  the  party  of  22%  a bath  Nearly  everyone'displayed  three  cr  fires  behaviour  be  behaviour hecause  responsible  the  were  were  washing  i n a stream  proper  campfire  seen  observed  respondents  and nobody was s e e n  or t a k i n g  four  this  i n any d e p t h ,  after  depreciative  hacking t r e e s ,  clothing,  be e x p l o r e d  the  and e v e n t u a l l y  behind  is  area.  infrequently.  observed  depositing  annoy p e o p l e ,  unfortunately was  as  practice  were dishes  o r Nicomen  habits,  burning  lake.  and  with  only  no one i n  attendance. User be  behaviour i s  remembered  side,  as  one-half  interview Each behaviour to  that  the  figures groups  are  were  It  should  p r o b a b l y on t h e  low  seen  the  only  in  situation. of  the  fifty-seven  c o n t i n u u m , which |5),  during  times.  insufficient automatically.  the  Those  from  interview nine  Conservationist  was  at  (1)  ( 3 ) . The  observation  of  the  and whenever p o s s i b l e  respondents  Wood-gathering waste  was r a n k e d on a  N e u t r a l or average  interviewer's  information  fire-extinguishing,  respondents  ranged  with  were b a s e d on t h e  respondent other  these  of  Utilizationist  ratings  summarized i n T a b l e X V I I .  habits,  disposal,  for  whom  received  (3)'s  (16%)  obtained  at  campfire-making, dishwashing,  and  72  behaviour the  towards  rating  other  procedure  examined  was  author's  personal  contact than  coloured But  a  highly  half-hour  (2)  failed than  tc  out  the  10%  be the  personal longer  undoubtedly  actual  behaviour.  evaluate  e v e r y o n e by  of  the  rating  respondents  Conservationist";  Only  were  scored  there  deemed  were no  "Somewhat  or " U t i l i z a t i c n i s t . "  minority,  5 % , who  do s o  more o f t e n  a desire aware  to  that  create the  out  of  avoid the their  new  for'fire  rings  flat  on which t c  Campsites d i d n o t use  ignorance  DWC's;  Many they  and were a s s u r e d  sleep.  of  DWC's,  planning  Visitors  i m p a c t would  campsites.  the  or poor  campsites.  overall  convenience of  tote rocks place  Half  to  was  any p a r t  small  for  amount c f  to  basing  only  on  freguently  was made t o  behaviour;  variables  evaluation  related  Hot  largely  the  Wilderness  d i d not  grateful  based  Ose o f D e s i g n a t e d  of  generally they  net  and t o a v o i d  "Conservationists."  The  choice of  Due t o  interview,  l e v e l o r "Somewhat  Utilizationist"  the  considered.  respondent,  attempt  on s t a t e m e n t s — o n l y a  and  by i m p r e s s i o n s  standards  were  subjective,  standards.  conscious  uniform  at  but a l s o  between a u t h o r  the  groups  were  be l e s s  visitors  were  d i d not have a  if  to  relatively  73  General Hikers knowledge far  were r u l e - c c n s c i o u s ,  of  environmental  beyond  "Don't  the  litter,"  pictures  and  manifested  perceiving  (23%) ,  of  state  examples  trail,  11%  clearcut the  Buckhorn A  as  they  frem  18%  (7%).  Hhen  (as  recent  three  firewood asked  to  from  the  or a u d i b l e  firescars  aware  of  as  of  a  1972)  mile  stretch  tc  the  made large  across between  Horse. scale,  devised  identical for  the  "Conservationist,"  purpose  the  scored  on t h e  "Conservation  users  " side,  "Utilizationist" 3.7,  of  "Somewhat  half  averaged  Those  cf  Nearly  teens  wildland  use  Utilizationist,"  their  human  (25%),  "Somewhat  the  of  consist  were  a two t o  users  the  16% n o t i c e d  roads  Few  Approximately  on  it  but  to  "Neutral,"  on  effects  relieved  and e r o s i o n  just  bromides:  had " m u c h " i m p a c t .  flowers  and l o g g i n g  visible  was  the  the  extend  nothing  environment.  airplanes,  and  five-point  continuum,  "Take  footprints..."  of  but  seem t o  inviolable  of human a c t i v i t y : v i s i b l e  and K i c k i n g  attitudes  and  few  above,  not  " n o " impact  generally  (15%),  trail,  valley,  or  5% f e l t  noticed  space  but  biophysical  meadows  a  did  trail,"  awareness  an i m p a c t  the  the  had " l i t t l e "  footsteps  beside  on  A mere  mentioned  principles  nothing  upon t h e  environment.  crushing  "Stay  deeper  they  as  memcrizaticn of  leave  a  visitation 60% f e l t  Attitudes  and  side, while  1 and 2 , or  4 and  the  rating  user  Conservationist," "Utilizationist."  " N e u t r a l , " another or  behaviour  and 5.  rest  32%  24% were  scored placed  fiespondents of  the  in  sample  74  averaged  2.6,  slightly  Hendee*s  findings  Trail  survey,  and  environmental  awareness  was  that  evidence a  to  and for  one-half beds and  respondent Heather were  it that  a  did  not  the  gap  manifested  This  low  attitude  the  Northwest  scored  pollution  but  sometimes  page  cf  42)  of  when  attitudes  number  1965.  would  differences Heather to  on  users  washing  two s u r v e y s . if  It  sampled  is in  and  campfires, things the  exist,  that  between  Pacific  users.  basic  a more l i k e l y  the  condone  Trail a  brush  Northwest  beds and  explanations  attributed  group,  live  v e r y few who d i d t h e s e  and  but  buried,  Trail  towards  it  lakes.  than 2.6  Heather  one  felt  be  Pacific  lower  the  believed  ten  to c u t t i n g  Although  a more h i g h l y d e v e l o p e d  than they d i d i n  of  should  typical  possible  might be  between  Heather  percent  out  garbage  objections  from t h e  two s a m p l e s ,  same P a c i f i c  three  or c u t t i n g b r u s h f o r  the  the  s h o u l d be removed  only  their  respondents  discrepancies  1968,  scale;  Several  Northwest  high,  {Hendee,  probably  about  assumed  explain  causes  Ninety  see  correspondingly  probably  in  and wash c l o t h i n g i n s t r e a m s and  attitude  asked  practices.  year  and  is  as  low.  visitation  would have  be  certain  nonccmbustible  i n streams  can  between  of  campsires.  Trail  not  bathing  users  bathe  B u t 855? b e l i e v e d  that  degradation  campsite,  permissible  with  surprisingly  Northwest  leaves  Conservationist.  indicated  familiarity  Pacific all  mere  difference  cause i s  the  probable  that  1975,  environmental  The  tenthe  would have conscience  75  Gain, the gap  Swanky, and  Taylor  ( 1 9 7 5 ,  17)  a l s o write of  between v i s i t e r awareness of what they should  what they  dc  and  a c t u a l l y dc.  Visitors information  generally see  section  kept  to  to  from  (for  more  CONGESTION). (1)  Much  «hen inter-  ( 4 ) No i n t e r a c t i o n with other groups, 7 5 % of  sample scored  3 cr 4.  For the r a t i n g p r o c e s s , g r e e t i n g s  exchange of "small  talk"  effect  the  throughout  interaction.  themselves  on NOMBEfiS AND  ranked on a f o u r - p o i n t s c a l e ranging action  page  upon stay,  arrival, was  with  considered  no a  (3),  the and  lasting Little  76  MANAGEMENT  IEOCEDDUES TO A I T E E PRESENT  BEHAVIOUR AND OSE  PATTERNS  SI  l i j i t a t^cns  cn  J^§stxicting  Camcfires  Restriction  of  campfires  impact  on t h e  support  a l i m i t a t i o n on f i r e s  diminish, the  75% s a i d  reason  "Yes,  a bit  regulation.  negative  about  that  might  be  wildland resources.  sample s t a t e d  such a  Behaviour  the  reluctantly  idea  evening  of  to  Bhen a s k e d i f wood  definitely."  Fewer t h a n  the  the  if  employed  supply  they  would  began  the  was  to  11% o f  would  support  remaining  14% were  limiting fires,  campfire  they  An a d d i t i o n a l  that  10% o f  lessen  usually  both  for  the  important  and  irreplaceable.  1974 users the  Overall,  about  favoured  limits  tc  carry  users  users  were  in  Cheakamus  Trail  d i d mere  views  of  Heather  strikingly  favour  user  it,  of  users  views,  Trail  different  visitors.  Only o n e - f i f t h  supported  a  ban  which  would  varied  54% i n f a v o u r  supported  were  Garibaldi  G a r i b a l d i sample  Precentages  visitors  it.  the  on c a m p f i r e s ,  stoves,  Diamond Bead  t h e Cheakamus  half  oppose t h e which  users from of  ban.  those the  cn c a m p f i r e s  of  the  ban  Table of  Mount  the  44% o f  along  the  support  resembled XVIII),  the were  Assiniboine  Assiniboine  (Gain and Swanky,  all  Garibaldi  than  Mount  in  trails;  ban,  the  Only  somewhat  (see  require  among  w h i l e 48% o f  the  surveyed  sample  1975,  page  77  12) .  Thirty  with  the  20),  percent  idea  cf  a larger  Heather  User  Trail  a ban  figure  the  Mount  Robson  visitors  ( G a i n , Swanky, and T a y l o r , but  visitors  still  less  supporting  a  than h a l f  agreed  1975,  the  page  number o f  ban.  Fees Backccuntry  cover  the  public;  that  were  of  s u c h as  favour  specific  amount  although  some  fees, not  given  that  charged  the  Reasons  should  " A fee  Details  to are  cover  by  them was  low-density  opposing  will  mean  costs  of  similar $2.00  fee  their  the to per  included, "Public  wood  year,"  A  interviewers,  people,"  be p r o v i d e d n e x t  opposed.  (which i s  that  40%  t h e amcunt o f  a  low-income  costs  presented,  " a n amount  campgrounds"  has  general  per c a p i t a  the  wondered about  to  the  for  It  to  and  lands  running  and " F e e s  will  administration."  provided i n Table XIX.  User fees sample  will  argument  suggested  for  against  go  And  not the  and 45% were c l e a r l y  car  "Discrimination  only  costs.  was  The r e s p o n s e  from a t a p  resource,  when t h i s  respondents  water  maintenance.  the  was  be f r e e , "  while helping  backccuntry h i k i n g ,  fee.  night).  the  these  of  at  use  and c a m p s i t e  users of  bear  tremendous. in  could discourage trail  the  should  recreation, be  fees  costs  been a r g u e d  can  of  (1968,  were  supported  page  60).  respondents  surveyed  backpackers  questioned  by  In  by S t a n k e y , by t h e  about  40%  contrast,  only  and  the  10% o f  cf  Hendee*s 23% o f  the  Mount Rcbson  B r i t i s h Columbia Parks  Branch  78  (Gain, fees.  Swanky, It  Bight  response as  a  to  number o f  feel  not  hikers.  Taylor,  possible  a  a  majority, Swanky,  page  their  percent  the  to  of  In  to  the  knew hew t h e s e  questions regarding  close  idea  of  by  to  fees  the  being  a  (Gain  and  attitudes,  it  researchers user  horseback  Assiniboine  net  user  were  given  Mount  comparing  higher  Fees  Mount Bobson  the  user  (25%), who might  hikers.  although  favourably 12).  helpful  presented  Hendee's  riders  from  16% o f  number  responded  be  attribute  supported  much h i g h e r r e s p o n s e t h a n t h a t  larger  1975,  to  page 20)  horseback  by o n l y  Twenty-five  hikers,  1975,  differently  however,  riders,  would  be  the  group  favoured,  and  phrased  and  fees.  Dogs Approximately the  trail,  long  as  the  whether over  a practice animals  46%  felt  divided reguiring  the  respondents  which does n o t  are  dogs s h o u l d  leashed,  be p e r m i t t e d ne  circumstances.  (see  11% o f  dogs  Most  the  among p e r m i t t i n g  dogs  them t o  te  leashed  violate  on t h e be  dogs  on  rules  as  were  Heather  asked  Trail.  allowed  remaining to  park  fiespondents  should  of  brought  Just  under  respondents  run l o o s e always  i n campsites but  not  any were  (26%) on  and  trails  Table XX). flhen  domestic one-half favour,  the  Garibaldi  animals, of  the  figures  users  were q u e s t i o n e d  three-quarters Cheakamus  which a g r e e  and  of  the  Black  about  Tusk q r o u p  Diamond Head h i k e r s  with the  Heather  a ban on  Trail  were  and in  results.  79  It  «as  noted  i n the  the  high p o s i t i v e  been a r e f l e c t i o n ated  size  half  (45%)  of  support  their  animals  for  i n that  might be a b e n e f i c i a l indicated  group.  Cf t h i s  limits  would  large  the  21-28)  that  might  have  recently-inaugur-  area.  tc  Approximately  would h e l p t c  believed  they  two-fifths  party  opposed  overall parties limit.  be  limits  numbers of  but  using  seven  or  For a d e t a i l e d see  Canoeists of  crowding, noise  of  six  twelve  per  of  • the  stated  area.  that  while another  and r o w d i n e s s .  one-third  felt  to enforce  respondents  individuals  size third  Of  that  and  with  the such  therefore  disagreed  In general  breakdown o f  with  controlling people  from  d i d not support  attitudes  towards  a  party  Table XXI. in  the  restricting  approximately  a limit  on  majority  means.  more  Nearly  since  were i n agreement  other  step.  e n v i r o n m e n t a l damage,  impossible Several  cn  that  demands  limits,  pointless.  limits,  guestion  to  limits  indicated  this  alleviate  would  size  of  a •limit  over o n e - h a l f  would h e l p r e d u c e  restrictions be  11% f a v o u r e d  greater  one-third  placing  would f a v o u r  reduce  exerted  that  management  they  56% m a j o r i t y , help  groups  limits  that  An a d d i t i o n a l  group.  size  pages  from E l a c k T u s k u s e r s  was s u g g e s t e d t o r e s p o n d e n t s  party  would  (1975,  on Group, S i z e  It  per  study  response  ban on d o m e s t i c  Limits  Horton  half  the  BWCA party  were  equally  size.  As  Bridger  for  d i v i d e d on  the  backpackers,  Wilderness users  wanted  to  80  see  limits  instituted,  for  backpacker  by  Stankey,  Primitive limits  For  on  (Stankey,  interesting,  in light  encounter  horse  parties,  attitudes in  an  Park,  were  for  Party  Cheakamus  the  size  users  (47%  popular  with  opposed)  (florton,  the  responses  harder  to  riders,  hikers,  thirds  cf  limited, Swanky,  1975,  interpret,  Assiniboine  21-29).  limits  because  most  Park,  the  popular  Taylor, 52% o f  1975, the  benefit  associated  whose  sampled  ether  of  is  users, and no their range  Garibaldi  welcome  with  and  F o r Mount  least and  53%  Bobson  Park  more c o m p l i c a t e d  and  all  being  pages  hikers  more  in  i n favour  the  together.  limits  hand,  many  in  most  (33%  size  parties  individuals  they r e f l e c t all  mere  T h e r e was seme  are  of  Stankey  and 44% o p p o s e d ) ,  pages  felt  was r e c e i v e d  positive  were  users  and c l i m b e r s  respondents  and  more  Head  size  idea  This conclusion  3.8  trails  i n favour  party  with the  of  restrictions  Uintas  Heather T r a i l  limits*  different  Diamond  te  that  group  size  the  affect  page 3 5 ) .  considerably party  studied  High  On t h e  would  fact  average  towards  responses  the  little  persons.  1973, cf  and  backpackers,  parties  support  backpackers,  see  for  no areas  areas,  parties cn  four  horse  individuals  who  limits  to  two w e s t e r n Wilderness  hcrse  limits  virtually  western  visitors  three  restrictions  other  three  of  were  size  only  all  most  was  Marshall  size  that  group  average  Eob  than  concluded with  the  the  favourably  there  l i m i t s ' i n the  area.  on  yet  attitudes A  high  two-  groups should 12 o r  21-22).  supported  size  of  be  6  (Gain,  In  Mount  limits,  a  81  figure  not t o o  far  (Gain  and Swanky,  Hiker  Registration During  curious.to for  the  from t h a t 1975,  the  personal  Heather T r a i l  Manning  Park  determine  be  those  interviews  the  (see  statistics,  for  the  users  of  believed  Table  XXII).  however,  should  and t h a t  the  whole o f  try  of  demand  to  registration  systems  as for  was  decided  existing  for  such  be c o m p u l s o r y ,  factors  amass  exist  It  4.  one s h o u l d  was a l s o  were  Manning P a r k  such  i n Chapter  Safety it  many r e s p o n d e n t s systems d i d not  absence  amount  in favour;  administration  (or  discussed  Three-fifths  29% d i d n o t of  will  Trail  12).  know why s e l f - r e g i s t r a t i o n  Seasons behind  system.  page  Heather  Systems  well).  to  g i v e n by  felt  as and  motivated  most  that  park  accurate  the trail  would be one s t e p t c  use this  end. The popular for  idea  of  with a l l  Cheakamus,  a  compulsory  G a r i b a l d i groups  and 7 0 S f o r  registration (68% for  system  was  Diamond H e a d , 7 2 %  B l a c k Tusk u s e r s )  (Horton, 1 9 7 5 ,  21-29).  pages  Patrols Respondents patrols at most  what  along  the  were  Heather  intervals.  popular  asked  response  Gnly was  Trail 11%  if  they  were  that  regular  and  if  so,  patrols.  The  necessary,  d i d not  "weekly,"  believed  support named  by  one-third.  82  Twice-weekly the  patrols  hikers.  See  Table  towards compulsory want t o do  not  the  their  r a n g e r s a r e on presence,  checked  up on  While  one  favouring  i n mind t h e  XXIV)  for  damage  patrols  of  about  were  posed  determine with areas,  the degree  that tc  or  two  than  people  that  they  figure.  In  they  Trail  favoured were b e i n g  1973,  page  user  39).  reaction  t h r e e - g u a r t e r s c f the hikers  s h o u l d be  campsites. times  were  held  Respondents  a week were more  those  Which Would L i m i t  less  enthu-  Numbers  with the concept  cf visitor  and  familiarity  rationing  of  rationing  one-quarter  include Park  the  system  had was  Eowron  in british  and  to  experience  systems i n o t h e r w i l d l a n d  to d i s c o v e r user r e a c t i o n  reservation-permit  Provincial  that  d u r i n g t h e p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w s , i n an a t t e m p t  Approximately  areas  felt  one  that  (Stankey,  about  questions dealing  reservation and  attitude  where U n i t e d S t a t e s F o r e s t  Heather  done  of  patrols.  Procedures Several  authority  that  t h i s idea  frail  the  seasonally, two-thirds  should note  tc support  siastic  an  Stankey, duty  and  r e a s o n s , and  users d i d not f e e l  Table  responsible  of  i n a n e g a t i v e sense  (see  likely  and  keeping  to p a t r o l s , sample  by  one-quarter  seem t o i n d i c a t e  for safety  presence  •studied  by a b o u t  These r e s p o n s e s  up o n "  o b j e c t to the  Service  23.  registration  be " c h e c k e d  areas  were f a v o u r e d  to  rationing  visited  in effect.  an  area  where  Examples o f  Lake canoe c i r c u i t Columbia),  systems.  Grand  (Bowron  Canyon,  a  these Lake North  83  Cascades, States,  and  and J a s p e r  If  we  lock  rationing  It  it,  is  for  been  the  Park  to  to a  supportive.  See  people  from  motivating was  in  hikers  are  possessed  who  reservation  cf  whether  visit  people,  an a r e a known  who  where and  of  About  or  at  least  group  never  one-third  were  tolerant  trait at  setting the  them  same t i m e  rationing  would  and  system  be d i f f i c u l t  with r a t i o n i n g systems i n d i c a t e s  much more p o s i t i v e l y  (Hendee and l u c a s ,  than i s  the  system.  the  a  have  never  the  and  or  have  positively  a particular  them t o  not  users  while  XXV.  to  the p r i n c i p l e .  visitors  approximately  Table  is  to  much more t o l e r a n t  those  idea,  negative  respond  that  group r e a c t e d  Experience  by managers  say  responses  whole, 4 4 % supported  negatively  a r a t i o n i n g or  the  effect,  determine.  to  system,  negative  as , a  than are  the  experiencing  apart  safe  "exposed"  tolerantly  positive  sample  United  in Alberta. and  systems elsewhere  Manning  the  positive  w h i l e 53% r e a c t e d  exposed  83% o f  N a t i o n a l Parks i n the  N a t i o n a l Park  probably  experienced  Mountain  at  from  tolerated  idea  Rocky  usually  to  that  expected  unpublished manuscript,  pages  6-7) . The greater  rationing-reservations depth  with  more was known about the  area.  elicited asked  if  A a  the the  related  similar  they thought  guestion  mailback users, but  negative  use  was  treated  guestionnaire. patterns  differently response.  in  Somewhat  and p r o b l e m s  phrased  question  Respondents  r a t i o n i n g was n e c e s s a r y  on t h e  of  were  Heather  8a  Trail (in  during July contrast,  personal  for  rationing,  on  weekends  5 3 % were n o t  supportive  with  per  with  Eleven  week.  percent  Mest  numbers  to  rationing  restrictive,  reliant  and  Those system, a  choice  they  various  the  and a m a i l  first^come  was n o t dc  would r a t h e r  from these  appears  exert  people  Many  live  plan  for  find  i n or c l o s e weeks  was  for  rationing large damage.  it  was  and  too  overly  leave  to check  system.  over  ether  it  important  given the  in  times to  their  one  Table  first-ccme percent  The  to  the  that  chance,  but  activities. as  It  well  interviews  make l a s t - m i n u t e dc  lottery  suggests  question,  i n the  V a n c o u v e r , and (which i s  alone.  "fate"  this  a  Thirty  This  their  at  i n advance  were t h e n  r a t i o n i n g , c h o s e n by 39%  system  to  a rationing  summarized  anyone.  response  to  for  a combination of  seme c o n t r o l  made  are  form of  by  to  from t h e  statements  and were a s k e d  first-served  like  support  reservation  selected  not  felt  the t i m e ,  selections  segment,  option  also  Their  "positive"  a  people  systems  acceptable  chose  system  excessively  bureaucratic,  or a l l  The most  first-served  generally  need  rationing  psychological  indicating  on weekends  preferred.  XXVI. of  of  the  a rationing  as  "no"  regulations.  respondents  either  felt  favouring  well not  said  rationing during  supported  people  (as  psychologically cn r a l e s  cf  advocating  (35%)  environmental,  opposed  percent  F o r t y - f i v e percent  most  excessive  parties) Those  Fifty-cne  only.  days  eguated  August.  intervievs).  the  seven  and  not  amount o f  cr  as  that plans. cannot  time  they  85  perceive  a'  reservation  characteristic parks  is  n o t as  mentioned  likely  and U n i t e d  t o be  thirds  (68.4$)  first  visit  heather  attract  States  hiking  with  weekends.  chapter;  respondents* of  those  favoured  Trail  cf  supported  were  between per  groups  those  average  number  enough, those  campsites of  the  Their  are  net  as  was  but  be two-  not  the  week  or  visitors  wanting i t  or  with  possibly  the time  not  groups  on  to  the  142%  wanting only  to  rationing  on  had seen  weekends.  on t h e  average  more t h a n t h o s e  wanting  supporting  at  seen  was  highertolerance "ideal" of the  respect  significant  all  groups).  days  a  week  for  people  in  of  groups  in  number named by  the  number  ideal  it 5;7  wanting r a t i o n i n g seven  average  4.7,  may  Over  was  all  examined  respondents  of  slightly Their  this  time  sample.  Age and o c c u p a t i o n d i d n o t a p p e a r one's  trips  fiobson out-cf-  Heather T r a i l  either  cn t h e t r a i l ,  on weekends  campgrounds.  rest  day  only  a  were  week and t h o s e  per  exhibited  p r o p o r t i o n of  whom  first  slight  Those w a n t i n g r a t i o n i n g a l l  Strangely  Mount  any r a t i o n i n g .  there  differences  for  the  rationing  (whose  This  B r i t i s h Columbia  example.  on t h e  rationing  variables  rationing  them).  v i e w s on r a t i o n i n g .  users  other  7.2  for  a higher  experience  O n l y 36%  days  i n other  visitors.  when  seven  of  spur-of-the-moment.  Previous connected  require  important  in this  and Mount a s s i n i b o i n e province  would  opinion  cn  rationing.  There  to  be c o r r e l a t e d  may,  however,  with be  a  86  connection more  between e d u c a t i o n l e v e l  highly  favour  educated  rationing  and r a t i o n i n g  respondents  on a s e v e n  days  per  those with l e s s f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n . presented high  school  college level for  earlier  graduate,  Lower M a i n l a n d  were  Using the e d u c a t i o n  scale  5=graduate  basis  (1=scme h i g h s c h o o l , 2 = or  college,  4=  work) t h e mean e d u c a t i o n  seven-day  rationing  d i d n o t seem t o a f f e c t  although the i n t e r v i e w e r s residents  Island,  as l i k e l y t o  was 2 . 8 *  3 . 5 and f o r no r a t i o n i n g 3 . ? .  origin  rationing,  week  university  favouring  weekend r a t i o n i n g  not  The  as  chapter  3=some  and  of respondents  Vancouver  this  graduate,  Geographic to  in  were  views.  would r e s p o n d  United  States,  one's  response  had s u s p e c t e d  more f a v o u r a b l y  and  o t h e r more  that than  distant  users. There rationing  was tc  such a s l i m i t s The in just  a rationing  tendency  system,  to these t h a t agreed  that  they  supported  system  upon f o r t h e H e a t h e r  be  up  in  Kicking  could  U s e r s were i n s t r u c t e d  a rationing  a rationing  (Buckhorn,  controls,  be  included  were s e t b e f o r e a l l r e s p o n d e n t s , n o t  they thought signed  favouring  on o t h e r b e h a v i o u r  two p r o v i s i o n s , w h i c h  o f some t y p e .  been  respondents  on c a m p f i r e s .  t h o s e who i n d i c a t e d  reacting  for  also look kindly  following  programme  had  a  system  advance  Horse,  Trail.  for  the  {55%)  rationing  t o assume i n some  variety  i h e n asked i f  should reguire  visitors  different  and Nicomen Lake)  d a y s , a m a j o r i t y o f t h e sample  of  a  for  was n e u t r a l .  to  campsites particular This  high  87  figure  cf undecided  c r uncommitted views was  not very s u r p r i s i n g . with  the  thought  concept  Although  even l a r g e r percentage  Fifteen Table for  n e a r l y everyone  was  tut  familiar  c f r a t i o n i n g , few had given any .previous  to i t s mechanics.  assignment  unexpected  See Table XXVII f o r d e t a i l s .  An  (two-thirds) were n e u t r a l towards the  of- i n d i v i d u a l camping spots at the campgrounds.  percent l i k e d XXVIII).  the i d e a ,  and  11%  opposed  it  T h i s d e t a i l i s probably even more  (see  difficult  most people t o v i s u a l i z e , and they t h e r e f o r e cannot give  definite  responses.  Despite surprising  the  high  number  number  favoured  event t h a t a procedure  of  neutral  these  two  such as campsite  s e r i o u s l y contemplated  by  the  of  neutral  cr  undecided  easily  manipulated  cr  "converted,"  fiespondents procedures  provisions. assignment  administration,  number  programmes were c a r e f u l l y  responses,  visiters if  In the  were ever the  large  might be  fairly  public  relations  designed.  were a l s o presented with s e v e r a l management  that  would  t h e o r e t i c a l l y c o n t r o l behaviour  l i m i t use with cut p l a c i n g a r b i t r a r y l i m i t s on numbers. example, an u n l i m i t e d number of v i s i t o r s might be the or  let  and For into  area as long as they conformed te a p a r t i c u l a r standard exhibited  general to  a  certain  respondents  these c o n t r o l s .  questionnaire  that  levels  of  talent  or  were not c e r t a i n about Fcr example, i t the  l i m i t s to overnight users.  was  prowess.  In  their reactions  suggested  in  the  p r e s e n t l y - u s e d access road be o f f Only  day  hikers  planning  to  88  remain  in  trails would ten  presumably mile not  cutting such  a trail  a  casual  overnight more  be  to  hikers  probably  the  visitor  goal  in this  some  basic  wildland  to  te  The most  quarters  of  and p r o v i d i n g  of  involve  Point,  and  object  of  meadows  were  See  Table  of  a  neutral,  a  XXIX.  similar  idea  ensure  of  passed  that  this  of  requiring  certification,  a course or  Response t o  proof  that  a test.  The  users  principles guestion  and 20% n e g a t i v e .  which  possessed and  proper  was  similar:  See  T a b l e XXX  responses.  and  means f o r  increased  sample f a v o u r e d  better  handling overuse  conventional  accommodate the  with the  environmental  acceptable  traditional tc  of  29% p o s i t i v e ,  a breakdown o f  153%)  upon p r e s e n t a t i o n  c a s e would be t o  neutral,  (Another  discouraging  the  i n favour  some t y p e  completed  behaviour,  facilities  presented  obtain  knowledge  by  or  32-33).  granted  had  The  use  The m a j o r i t y  a nine  would  Buckhorn.  respondents  via  exist.  negative responses.  his  were  2)  the•Lookout  lower  nature  Overnighters  and making t h e h i k e t o  outweighed  Respondents overnight  most  would  pages  Figure  at  short  road.  presently  up, to  (1973,  and  questionnaire,  spct  trips  lot  the  (see  that  f o u n d 40% of  procedure  i n the  challenging.  positive  Stankey  for  from  on  does n o t  halfway  procedure  little  51%  road  parking  Buckhorn  which  presented  the  the  permitted  reach  trail  blocking  would  v i c i n i t y of  would t h e n be  option,  but  the  dispersal.  solution:  was  the  building  mere  numbers.  spreading There  Over  out is  the a  threevisiters  difference  89  between  the  number o f  t h e number s t a t i n g trails  were  the context  in  it  personal  Perhaps  that  more  was  trails  of  mere  felt  i n the  at  Heather  Trail  respondents  elsewhere.  reflects other  the  earlier  surveys  programmes general,  other of  educational  (1968,  Only t h r e e  out  of  feels  that  hinges  greatly  has  cf  other this  controls  limitations.  groups  of  be  by  Hendee  unpopular.  "the  restricted  In  instead  1966).  that  tc  overuse  be  and  rationing  favouring with  and  these  Service  backpackers  agreed  at  mere  public approval.  found r a t i o n i n g to  be  needed  study  several  (Sommarstrom,  to  the  diffence  many  Forest  coping  on an u n d e r s t a n d i n g for  after  systems,  users  of  were  Heather T r a i l  shown  i n a given area  acceptance  necessity  60)  ten  areas  people  not  behaviour  page  wilderness-type numbers o f  have  words,  somewhat  that  r a p i d l y gained  an  rationing.  were  States  d i r e c t e d at  depreciative  well  United  rationing  campaigns  possible  area  from  as  time  be  inaugurated  have  studies  to  Additionally, the  to  than  between t h e  Service  which  supportive  reducing  made,  Parks  is  gap  surveys.  were  National  It  time  seem  concepts  the  and mere  In o t h e r  meadows  a viable alternative  rationing  that  trails  presented.  on as  of  alternative  the d i s c r e p a n c y r e s u l t e d  building  rationing  this  interview  later  sampled  the  favouring  p e o p l e ' w h o m i g h t n o t have  tolerant  as  the  which t h e  to  interview saw  in  needed.  alternative some  people  use  of  to  limited  a given t i m e . "  Hendee  s u c h as on t h e This  rationing part  of  systems  users  understanding  can  of be  90  conveyed  through c a r e f u l l y  Not one o f by S t a n k e y the  (1973,  sample;  popular 43%,  Trail  pages  than o t h e r s .  (18%).  This  include  the  combination  "mail  concluded  Hail  that  was  if  reservations  users  of  the  t a k e an a c t i v e  role  i n assuring In  deemed n e c e s s a r y ,  In 1975)  rely  501 o f t h e  i m p l e l e n t a t i c n of  of  the  had  groups with  used  compare  this  because  it  system" hikers  not  was d e f i n e d . sampled  did  visitors. Bob  Marshall prefer  users,  i n the  past.  30-31),  Heather  Branch, favoured  Trail  is  difficult  data,  how t h e t e r m " w i l d e r n e s s  Fewer,  tut  by g u e s t i o n n a i r e  (57%)  a  majority  supported  10% tc  however,  clear  still  80%  Robson P a r k  although only It  in  do n o t  A very h i g h  i n Mount  to  on numbers  i n Bcwron Lake P a r k system.  won  Stankey  themselves  pages  not  served"  still  restrictions  permit" system,  with  (18%)  for  1973,  Heather  come-first  Heather T r a i l  a reservation  system  figure is  that  interviewed personally  a  of  ( B r i t i s h Columbia Parks  canoeists  a "wilderness such  like  a place  (Stankey,  surveys  the  agreed  they,  that  Uintas P r i m i t i v e Area  the e v e n t  on a l o t t e r y  more r e c e n t  ever  High  Trail  by  first-served  Stankey  and f i r s t  of  more  favoured  EWCA, B r i d g e r and  the  want t o  to  that  Heather  and  are  were  The u n p o p u l a r l o t t e r y with  majority  first-come  one c o n s i d e r s  than  backcountry.  a  by a  proposed  were c o n s i d e r a b l y  reservations  Wildernesses,  the  was a c c e p t e d  however,  campaigns.  technigues  breakdown was s i m i l a r  option.  support  rationing  30-32)  second-ranked  respondents,  more  "direct"  Some m e t h o d s ,  while  system  the  planned p u b l i c i t y  permit of  permits,  the but  91  only  2 0 % agreed  served  with  reservations.  method was more popular  contrary  to  what  reservations f e l t permitting  Stankey them  spontaneity,  Heather T r a i l v i s i t o r s  to  than  A first-come advance  discovered. be  too  first-  reservations,  The  60% opposing  bureaucratic  and  not  comments i d e n t i c a l to these made by (Gain,  Swanky,  and  Taylor, 1 9 7 5 ,  pages 2 0 - 2 1 ) ; Eesult  tabulated  for  Hount A s s i n i b o i n e users are not  g r e a t l y d i f f e r e n t : 67.% of h i k e r s supported permits, 25%  advocated a- r e s e r v a t i o n s system.  served  system  was  r e s e r v a t i o n system  somewhat  more  A  first-come  acceptable  but only first-  than a mail  (Gain and Swanky, 1 9 7 5 , page 1 2 ) .  92  THE TYPICAL BEATHEB TBAIL The f o l l o w i n g significant opinions  and memorable  of  frequent  Heather T r a i l  visitor  interviewers. meet  this  As  call  of  at  previously the  he  backpackers, and  based  on  would be  and  the  mest  made by  the  likely  to  eld  very  years  a  degree.  Vancouver  university  visited  as  his  third  and t h e trip  worker.  and o n e - n i g h t  about  or  on t h e  trips  two y e a r s .  Pond.  This  Maurice  i n Manning  Beaver  trips  made  such e x c u r s i o n .  attractions  area day  day  for  A  social  only backpacked,  in length  other  a  a government  he has  hike i s  made  perceptions,  observations  he made f r e q u e n t  but  downhillskI  once  characteristics,  seme  twenty-three  two n i g h t s  Trail  summarize  M a u r i c e ; he i s  employed  Scouts,  least  Heather  as  him with  he i s  to  hiker."  a teenager  with the  intended  A summer t r a v e l l e r  Caucasian,  resident,  is  responses  "typical  We'll and  scenario  EACKPACKEB  Park,  has such  Additionally,  Heather T r a i l ,  as  far  as  B u c k h o r n camp. He and J a n e ,  a friend,  because,  leaving  spend  much t i m e i n  too  Garibaldi  Park,  Friday  their  c h o s e Manning P a r k t h i s afternoon,  transit.  they  Jane  other  had  choice,  did  not  heard  was  weekend want  too  to  that  expectinq  bad  weather. The H e a t h e r T r a i l flowers, and late  which,  Harcombe, July.  was c h o s e n  acccrdinq  1970,  page 4 0 ) ,  Maurice's  to  especially  Exploring  were a t  brother,  for  flanning  a peak at  who  its  alpine  Park that  had v i s i t e d  the  (Cyca time, area  93  precisely about the  one y e a r  the  meadows.  Nature  received other they  the  sources. hoped t o  place  arrive  forms  litter  at  litter  flowers, wood  she  pile  of  the  that  fun of  gather  wood a t  it  "roughing was  in  trail.  very  that  the  Kicking  He was  and  dark.  she  streams, trail.  for  had u s e d  not  three  at  to f i n d  not  what t h e y seemed  groups  of  pieces  each o t h e r  a  at  of  that  had b r o u g h t  as  clean.  the  Nature  dayhikers  Jane n o t i c e d a p i l e  it in.  They Hut.  admiring  the  of  cut  shelter,  and r e m a r k e d t o  Maurice  tempting  to  with  a  part  of  settle  down  i t - would somehow t a k e  it."  One  of  the  reasons  c o u l d do t h i n g s and  maneuver  She hoped t h e r e  for her  away she  liked  herself way  would net  like  around be  pre-  Horse.  M a u r i c e commented the  out  Euckhorn.  wood, b u t  wood, f o r d  obstacles  had  panabode  would f i n d  backpacking  cut  reached  beside  that  the  they  afternoon,  off.  packed  several  from  disappointed  bags were handed out  passing  use  l i k e they  and commented t o  Garibaldi  had  and l o o k e d a r o u n d  box,  Slightly  they set  lot  at  they  could possibly i n the  words  stopping  Hut;  Horse b e f o r e  designated  the t r a i l ,  at  After  Nature  late  Kicking  Park.  was a good t h i n g p e o p l e  wondered i f  was  against  and J a n e n o t i c e d o n l y two o r  along  The t r a i l  meadows  it  enthusiastic  decided  and a d r o p - o f f  register,  Maurice  some  i n f o r m a t i o n they  Besides,  National to  The c o u p l e  parked i n the  registration Jasper  added  House o r a l p i n e all  They  earlier,  to J a n e on t h e  somewhat  surprised  excellent  c o n d i t i o n of  that  popular  such  and  94  accessible  trails  He g u e s s e d  that  earlier, By t h i s  for time  felt.  was  much o f  possible  to  in  consulting  the  the  footprints, use  they  After have—and  hours  should a  parts.  About  cleared,  but t h e r e  have  somewhat a  contrary  to  that  place  the  They  was n e i t h e r  pitched  greeting  the  must  other  be t h e  tents  parties,  trail  he  believed  it  as  natural  as  and  following  way.  They would  signs  everywhere however,  Horse.  in  if  any  what  could  A lovely  stream  into  and f i r e  an o u t h o u s e  nor  had s a i d . since  areas a  (see  were  shelter, decided  groups  supper.  a tent  stream  several  They  two  cooking  they chose the  at  plateau  tenting  were  from them, a c r o s s  Maurice  but  they a r r i v e d  campsite,  and  fun,  the  wondered,  Kicking  dozen  patches.  J a n e and M a u r i c e ; by  right  rustic-locking  half  had  fork.  hiking  been  the  guidebook  what M a u r i c e ' s b r o t h e r  already  hundred f e e t  of  of  grasses,  map t h a n see  wrong  muddy  from  did not f a z e  anyway.  divided  this  or  than a h i k e .  was.  Park  followed-the three  it  weeks  from snowmelt  experience  c o u l d p i c k out  a guidebook  ever  the  mud as  trail  part  deviating  hiking  Manning  backcountry,  hikers  the  was a l l  upon  the  and l e a v e  t h e y had n o t come two  occasional  in  damage  undeveloped.  been a swim r a t h e r  only  that  keep  p r i m i t i v e and  wetness r e s u l t i n g  stretches  some  Forks  rather  the  leaving  He r e a l i z e d  important  fortunate  would have  these  inflicted  the  it it  disappeared, Bypassing  c o u l d r e m a i n so  site  had After  about  Figure  7).  cue  95  M a u r i c e ' s and J a n e ' s t e n t s i t e . New K i c k i n g H c r s e .  Maurice enjoys a At Nicomen L a k e .  View o f C l d K i c k i n g Hcrse v a l l e y , from camp's c e n t r e  Panabcde s h e l t e r s e t reddish trees i n l e f t  FIGURE  7  snack  behind photo.  96  They  set  up  their  tent  stew on t h e  stove  they  exceedingly  were  forward check  the  Heather  was  Trail,  six  a  friendly  faces  reasons  he  groups  at  and  and  would n o t f i l l Saturday towards about  mile  and  figured  abandoned,  since  see off  Horse;  enjoyed  no  sign  at  guick  crowding along  they  had  the  trails  seen  only  a huge c r o w d .  With  would have  presence  begun  passing  of  hoped  few  similar  t h e two the  to  a  For  from it  bit  the  trail? the  if  five  miles  camp  they  one M a u r i c e ' s  the  appeared  other  campsite  tc  be u s i n g  and e x p a n s i v e  lake.  the  top  cf  started  away.  Only  noticed brother had  it,  views  had been  Jane  very  a  and  much,  having hiked  a ridge,  they  could  Could they p o s s i b l y  have  veered  turn  back,  hikers  coming  Maurice suggested  moment  and  campsite  c o n c e r n e d when, a f t e r  and r e a c h e d  of  their  was t h e  flowers a  a p i c n i c lunch  approximately  no one  the  miles  the c o r r e c t  precisely  a  Garibaldi Park's  they  packed  wondered  became  four  and  looked  firewood.  enjoyed  the  when  They  pleasantries. ,  however,  morning they  They  about  of  trail  Maurice  exchanging  one-guarter  they  the  this,  up.  mentioned.  but  but  of  by no means  groups  Lake,  Maurice  lack  Heather T r a i l  Friday,  Nicomen  shelter,  by t h e  Jane enjoyed  Kicking  Saturday,  w i t h some o f  On t h e  circus,  cn  like  was d a r k .  an abundance  struck  or eight  times  and i t  a campfire  groups  more t h a n s i x resemble  tired  compared  t h e y had t a k e n . or  along f o r  area revealed  Maurice  five  brought  to enjoying  cf  and c o o k e d some d e h y d r a t e d c h i c k e n  when  a  group  they of  97  towards  them  minutes!" the  lake  called,  Sure jumped  "You've  enough, at  they  only  walked  get fifty  them from a h a l f - m i l e  another feet  twenty  and  below  suddenly  (see  Figure  Kicking  Horse,  7) . Shen  they  all  the  six  was  not  unbearably  hill  and  against their  cr  returned seven  out  the  man's i m p a c t  their  they  of  put  out  pick  Jane  would  even  favour  give  up  cr  which would c o n t r o l t h e ethics.  They  would  love  held responsible  the  although  area,  monitoring  if  an  violaticns  themselves,  they  and p r o s e c u t i o n s  a good  beauty  a  of  cf  see  for  damage  patrols rules  uncertain  could  be  as  carried  the their would  shortage  fire. of  They  the  and  backpackers, they  many  of  They  wood  evening  to  are  support  a result.  twice-weekly  like  to  garbage,  with plenty  the  campfires  they  out  and  about  tried  meadows, e v e n t h o u g h  be l i m i t e d as  weekly  fires  preserve  might  though  and  packed  probably  surrounding  and  Maurice  flowers.  would to  which  knew s o m e t h i n g  they  their  decided  impact  meadows.  least,  and  They  the  At  Trail  developed,  the  mark.  Heather  to  moving down  environment,  and  willing  realizing  campers,  help  be  camp  natural  didn't  action  Although the  groups.  on t h e  which m i g h t  cf  other  after  measures  freedom  full.  to  considered  the  would have  later  the  trail,  And t h e y  Maurice  were  conscientious  on  on t h e  water.  sight  and f i r e  J a n e were f a i r l y  stayed  crowded,  of  hours  campsites  move, h o w e v e r ,  tent  minimize  five  area,  camping including  inflicted to  on  how s u c h  cut.  Dogs  98  should  not be a l l o w e d  would  certainly  wholeheartedly pay  enjoy  public  a fee  Columbia lands,  the  supporting  willingly if  British  on t h e t r a i l ,  taxpayers  however.  being  car  campgrounds.  they  parties, when  l i k e that  noticed  Sometimes  spoke  Trail fire  earlier  country Besides,  drive get  impact  a  is  the  earlier,  three  hours  permit.  It to  lowOne  hiking  Buckhorn have  exert  a  alone  and t h a t  which had n o t  like  a  used  regulations, plan  and  the  noticed on  the  in  to the  and for  would be t e r r i b l e  he  satisfactory  One comes  Manning P a r k ,  become  on  they  existed  those  possibly  will  One c o u p l e  Y e t M a u r i c e does not know o f  i n advance.  at  trail  years  rules,  to  environment.  four  bureaucratic.  closer  fee.  to  of a  J a n e and M a u r i c e  practically  systems,  see  that  large  staying  had  trip  not  would  concern for  tend  if  Trail  they  this  they  suspect  afford  on t h e  been  Hhile  maintenance  Heather  area.  wonders  escape  a  they  twenty-two  he and J a n e c o u l d n o t  dawn,  the  limited  groups  great  sound t e r r i b l y  weeks,  able tc  group of  Reservation  even  the  see  they  They would r a t h e r  backpackers.  scars  to  fee,  numbers o f  visit.  solution. States,  to  Maurice  with s a i d  several  like  by i n c r e a s i n g  Heather  a user  They a l s o e x p r e s s e d  larger  disproportionately  spoiled  like  although  pet.  subsidize  passed through they that  feel,  their  who might n o t be a b l e t c would  they  of  additionally,  would b r i n g a r e a s  thing  idea  was r e g u i r e d .  fee  groups  company o f  the  user  income  they  to  the back-  line-ups, months, wake  then  up  not  or at be  99  He  had  would  be t c  road  to  heard cut  the  day  extra  meadows.  visitors  couldn't unfair, as  ten  His reaction  make t h a t  miles  hike,  uphill  t h e n be b a r r e d  walk t e n but t h e  about  how g r e a t  to  of  access  was m i x e d .  Sure,  he and  not i n a  weekend,  Would e l d e r l y  from t h e  strenuous  idea  the  tut  do.  nature  miles?  for  with  people  trails  if  That c e r t a i n l y  a roadblock  it  and they  would  ovarnighters  was  be not  preposterous. Maurice  for  hikers talking  down cn c r o w d i n g by b l o c k i n g o f f  Jane c o u l d s t i l l the  some  a  twc-to-three  meadows  area,  presently  using  restrictive while. his  mind;  one more t r a i l  accommodate  some  to the  Heather  needed of  Trail.  suitable  soon  the This  in  was nowhere n e a r b e i n g  Heather T r a i l  weekend i n  but i t  way,  1975.  a  more for  disastrous,  c o u l d d e f i n i t e l y become was g u i t e  the  backpackers  l i k e r a t i o n i n g c o u l d be put o f f  i n the f u t u r e ,  a July  least be  measures  the  at  day h i k e would  The s i t u a t i o n  crowded spend  concluded that  pleasant  a in  over-  place  to  100  CHAPTEB J4 ' THE MANAGEMENT OF J!ANNING PASK THE PEESENT SITOATION AND FUTUBI Before  new  management  p o l i c i e s and s t r a t e g i e s can be  recommended, i t i s important policy  and  procedures.  to understand  The  the p e r c e p t i o n s c f those people and i t s backcountry.  his  staff),  i n charge  of  the  naturalists  House), who together comprise about  managing  into the  In order to s i m p l i f y d i s c u s s i o n , two  ( r e f e r r i n g t c the D i s t r i c t and  overall  t o provide an i n s i g h t  the i n d i v i d u a l s i n v o l v e d are d i v i d e d i n t o administration  present  f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n summarizes  e x i s t i t g c o n d i t i o n s , and attempts  park  T8ENDS  the  groups:  the  Superintendent and  (who  staff  management.  the Nature Information  present management p r a c t i c e s was obtained i n p e r s o n a l  interviews  with  Superintendent  Messrs. and  Green  and  Bell,  District  Park N a t u r a l i s t , r e s p e c t i v e l y .  i n f o r m a t i o n about the former's  Further  p e r c e p t i o n s and o p i n i o n s  has  9  been  taken  from a mailed g u e s t i o n n a i r e administered by the  author, and from h i s w r i t t e n plan c r e a t e d by the Parks  reactions  Branch.  to  the  conceptual  101  MANAGERIAL ATTENTION TO PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF EACKCGUNIBY USE  The R c l e o f According trails At  are  this  away o r country  most  late  time  Mr. used  deadfall  sawed o f f . skiers  and t h e  little Green  example,  was  ring  to  a bell  this  and trail.  information, emphasis  it  It  with Green. does n o t  therefore But it  on e t h e r  if  of  cross1975  the  Trail  Since  the  largely  in  Trail,  reflects greater  n o t one  the  centre, trail  was  but  the  its  mention d i d is to  the  not  that the  the  logged  existence  genuine the  but  by C y c a  1972,  attention  a  not For  in  not r e c o g n i z e assumes  was  park's  possibility draw  he  heavily  described  i n the  that  are  backcountry.  rumoured t h a t  Another  one  is  Horse i s  operations  does  and  Chain  that  the  surprised  probably areas  seemed  located  wish t o  Lakes  Trail  Kicking  is  carried  In  which t r a i l s  Prospector's  him.  hikers  crew.  are  i n mid J u l y .  about  that  page 8.2),  paths  all  required.  know  Yet  nevertheless  administration  by  Heather  to  u s e l e s s by l e g g i n g was  areas,  The  maintenance  and h a u l e d away.  work was  not.  (1970,  unknown  author  the  well-informed  campsites.  rendered  of  he was n o t aware  and Harccmbe  deposited  w o r k i n g on t h e  appeared  and which a r e  by a  Heather T r a i l  clearing  particularly  two  leg  Superintendent,  b l o c k i n g the  collected  were o b s e r v e d  June,  District  season  trees  Litter  is  heavily-used  meadow,  Mr.,Green,  c h e c k e d once e a c h  trail'crews in  to  Adjinisfrators  lack  of of  administration's  priority, felt  to  be  mere  102  d e s e r v i n g of time and large  money,  number of day-to-day  I t i s easy  camps,  sewage  see  that  maintenance tasks f a l l i n g  should.ers of the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n car  to  (e.g., overflow  the  on the  crowds  at  d i s p o s a l , and read r e p a i r s ) could dwarf  l e s s pressing questions  involving  the  backcountry.  More  frequent and open communication between the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ' s office  and  the  Nature  g u a l i t y of i n f o r m a t i o n better and  communication  enthusiasm  administration  trails,  reaching  regarding  hikes  generate  backcountry,  one  familiar  and  after of  which  levels  with of  the  updated  are  sent  the  completing trails  to  the  through  a  trip.  every two  who Each  weeks, to  use  levels.  s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ' s o f f i c e and  are  periodically.  As one should expect, n a t u r a l i s t s informed  the  various  use,  r e p o r t on muddiness, snow, l i t t e r , and apparent Reports  Eut  interest  days" and from speaking with h i k e r s  stop a t the Nature House naturalist  administration.  Naturalists  become  conditions,  "hiking  probably improve the  lack.  Bole of  naturalists  occasional  the  the  seems to now  their  could  would not by i t s e l f  The Park  House  about  trail  than are a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .  locations  seem  to  and campground  be  better  facilities  103  MANAGERIAL CONTACT RITH EACKCOONIBY OSEBS  The The  administration  backcountry although them.  Bcle of A d m i n i s t r a t o r s does  not  view  interaction  v i s i t o r s as one c f i t s primary  with  responsibilities,  Green s t a t e s that h i s o f f i c e does communicate with  Contacts are of s e v e r a l t y p e s : •Correspondence  with  prospective  visitors  desiring  park and t r a i l i n f o r m a t i o n , * Handling complaints, s u g g e s t i o n s , and p r a i s e . On  the  whole  t h e i r p e r s o n a l contact with  v i s i t o r s i s minimal naturalists,  who  and most l i k e l y carry  indirect,  The  office,  through  the  out t h e i r orders and i n s t r u c t i o n s .  Most v i s i t o r s are probably aware of superintendent's  backcountry  but  existence  of the  do not g i v e i t much  thought.  b u i l d i n g s are s e t back s e v e r a l  the  hundred  feet  from  the  highway, and are not r e a d i l y v i s i b l e t o h i k e r s bound f o r the alpine  meadows.  Mr. Green  f o r any  (or any  cf  appointment would probably understand  that  the  visitor  the  other  wanting  to  meet with  administrators)  have to be pre-arranged.  superintendent  would  One can  not be able to  maintain "open house" f c r park v i s i t o r s , y e t i t would desirable  that  the  administration  to  have  c o n t a c t with them, i n c l u d i n g the backcountry  an  some  hikers.  seem  direct  104  The Nearly the  Bole of N a t u r a l i s t s  a l l backccuntry biker-manager  naturalists.  They occur at the  contacts  Nature House, set i n a  grove c f t r e e s s e v e r a l hundred yards from Nature  House  provides  a  variety  nowhere e l s e i n the park. areas  are  kept,  as  First,  A d d i t i o n a l l y , c o l o u r f u l and to h i k e r s can can  be  be obtained,  of  available  reports in  for  this  booklets  The  most  chapter.  of i n t e r e s t  d i s p l a y s of n a t u r a l phenomena  viewed.  -  Prospective  hikers  sometimes  enguire  t r a t i o n ; t h a t i s , s i g n i n g up f o r a t r a i l starting  and  according  to B e l l ,  system search  lodge.  services  earlier  informative and  the  trail  described  involve  does  finishing  not  dates.  by i n f o r m i n g exist,  and  w i l l be conducted i n  return  cn  schedule,  about  and  The  regis-  recording  one's  n a t u r a l i s t s respond,  people t h a t  a  registration  I f they want to ensure t h a t a  the  event  they should  that  they  do  not  n o t i f y the Boyal Canadian  Mounted P o l i c e or a f r i e n d . Users f r e g u e n t l y Bell.  Naturalists  well-used tends  to  ask  which t r a i l s are  usually  describe  or even crowded, but discourage  use.  recommend  this  Naturalists  route  this  B e l l i s wary about recommending the Heather  as  or f l a t .  lawsuit  against  the  There i s apparently park  could  result  a possibility if  a  and  want to view  flowers. easy  hikers  meadows,  people who  as  comment  as well as  with a l p i n e to  states  the Heather T r a i l  do not know i f  a s s o c i a t e the Three E r c t h e r s area usually  crowded,  hiker  Trail that a were  105  injured  after  "easy."  taking  This  a  trail  possibility  administration,  recommended by t h e was  naturalists,  mentioned  and  planners  staff  as  by  the  from t h e  Parks  Branch. The N a t u r e  House a l s o r e c e i v e s  and g e n e r a l • c o m m e n t s suggest Nature  that House.  repaired. about  one-fifth  Others  that  shelters  ask  recalled  of  he c o n t a c t s confirm  less  Heather  meadows  first  House t o all trips is  aversion  their  relative  there  is  to  the  visitors  to  know about  backcountry.  probably  not  useful  geared  to  to  the  perceived  backpackers, needs  that  of  In  estimate  the  Nature  believes He to  feeling after  offering  roadside  that  survey  addition,  while  Nature  Heather T r a i l  Eell  hiking,  the  than  would  use  the  overnight  users  exists.  as  complain  less  visited  seasoned backpackers  i n t o the  services  fact  Although  experience,  and  receives  with  backcountry  frequency  of  than  sample  visitors,  in visitation  hikers  naturalists  The  of  the  cleaned  H u t , and E e l l ' s  30%  time  the  Trail  Nature  be  at  Trail."  users  to B e l l .  statement.  alleged  House  day  show " e x p e r i e n c e d "  difference  know  with  visitors  available  occasionally  of  suggestions,  Some  made  Heather  role  a maximum o f  than  that  the  education  the  this  not  of  according  House o r a l p i n e  few  be  emphasis  backpackers,  the  maps  the " d i f f i c u l t y  greater  did  from r e t u r n i n g h i k e r s .  topographic  Bell  The n a t u r e  complaints,  it  House that  attributes the  Nature  that  they  h a v i n g made a the  Nature  information appears  campers  a  and  to  and be  casual  106  strollers. extent. above.  This perception  may  be  valid,  to  a  certain  No topographic maps are a v a i l a b l e , as was mentioned The sketch map provided shows no d e t a i l and does not  even i n c l u d e most of the Heather T r a i l l o o p . Park  naturalists  information, although  this  trail  are  reports,  function  tries  and  a  source  wildflower  i s emphasized.  e x c e l l e n t p o s i t i o n t o educate behaviour  not  backcountry  are  users about  and e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y sound camping p r a c t i c e s .  t c s t r e s s c e r t a i n p o i n t s when t a l k i n g  leashes.  Yet  of  pamphlets,  They  i n an proper Bell  with h i k e r s ; f o r  example, camping i n the designated areas, and on  merely  keeping  dogs  he does not want to give people t h e i d e a  t h a t many r u l e s are being t h r u s t at them.  107  MANAGERIAL ATTITUDES TOWARDS BACKCOUNTRY USE AND POLICIES  P e r c e p t i o n s Of Managers R e l a t i n g To T h e i r Rcles In A f f e c t i n g Use Mr. Green b e l i e v e s he e x e r t s some degree over  hiker  behaviour  and  backcountry  speaking f o r the n a t u r a l i s t s , does net have  very  much  impact  This i n e f f e c t u a l authority  of  influence  use,  while  Eell,  believe  the  latter  on the way the backcountry  feeling  is  attributed  to  the  i s used. lack  of  i n t h e hands c f n a t u r a l i s t s , who have no power to  enforce the r u l e s governing camping areas, dogs, and l i t t e r . A d d i t i o n a l l y , they do not c o n t a c t very many o f the whose  behaviour they might i n f l u e n c e .  more e f f e c t on the behaviour  and  Perhaps backcountry  as  serious  B e l l f e e l s they have  attitudes  p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the guided nature  visitors  of  day  users  inability  to  reach  walks.  as  the  v i s i t o r s i s the apparent  lack  of  communication  and exchange o f i d e a s and suggestions r e l a t e d to backccuntry management,  between  a c c o r d i n g to B e l l . more  attention  on  naturalists  In order f o r the backccuntry  and  naturalists  problems  administrations's  backing  would  naturalists  directly  responsible  are  Superintendent.  administration,  be  and  to users,  reguired, to  the  place the since  District  108  Backcountry Problems  Perceived  By  Managers  Litter Green sees and s k i e r s , sacksfull  backcountry  as  a  carried  Judging  from t h e  it  safe  is'  applicable  to  serious  as  Camping  Cutside  to  groups  a  park this which  would  Three  1975  that  litter  along  this  but  the  park.  does  not  to  areas  statement  i n the  Designated raised  outside  hikers  the  many  each  season.  Heather  Trail,  is  probably  Bell, perceive  more  too, it  sees  tc  be  as  it.  DWC»s,  over  reguired  the  L i g h t n i n g Lakes  on a t  do c o v e r  probably  very l i m i t e d a c t i o n  for  the  and t h a t least  one  move.  It  the  minor.  The  tc  deal  was  August  inputs  during  was s e e n i n  weekend.  with  reported,  was m o n i t o r e d  a patrol  visits on  money and t i m e  patrols. area  Eell  encounters  and l o c a l i z e d  campers i s  be  area  be  but  he u r g e s them t o  areas they  because of  season,  When  infreguent  small  takes  probably  on  the  and t h e  influence  Areas  by b o t h G r e e n and B e l l ,  naturalists*  hiking  Ercthers  heavily-used  that  administration problem,  pointing  mere e m p h a s i s  the  their  however, the  of  backcountry  visits,  problem,  by b o t h  matters.  tenting  the  cf  trails  problem i s place  deposited  of  problem,  other  Considering to  say  other  as  seems  out  dearth  to  litter  This  major  litter,  the  109  i  Dogs Dogs not kept on a l e a s h Bell's  opinion.  g u i e t , or at  They  least  are  a  serious  problem, ' i n  annoy campers d e s i r i n g s o l i t u d e  relief  from  city  noises.  and  They  may  r  attract  bears  to  the  campsites,  harass w i l d l i f e , and  a t t a c k e d by bears and coyotes i n h a b i t i n g area.  B e l l f e e l s that many dog  these  problems  or  other campers. pet  could  that  Nicomen  owners are e i t h e r unaware of  they f r e q u e n t l y deny that  anyone c r be harmed i t s e l f .  corrective  lake  i n s e n s i t i v e to the wishes and r i g h t s of  E i t h e r way,  harm  the  be  measures  necessary,  if  o u t s i d e of  designated  imposed  from  Bell  the  are  to  be  believes  outside  the dog s i t u a t i o n and the problem areas  their  are  of t e n t i n g  corrected,  for,  u n f o r t u n a t e l y "people w i l l do what they can get away with." ;  The  park  managers  are somewhat handicapped  with backccuntry problems,  because  they l a c k  i n coping  the  necessary  i n f o r m a t i o n and d i r e c t c o n t a c t with h i k e r s and t r a i l s . devotes  only  backcountry the  a  small  of  use and c o n d i t i o n s .  maintenance  experiencing  an  ( B r i t i s h Columbia size  h i s time t o i n v e s t i g a t i n g Green  hills,  average  and annual  Parks Branch and  picnic  responsible  statistics).  such as  which  in  use  In  a  for  are  of 105? park  of  d i v e r s i t y these amenities are extremely  the backccuntry, which v i s i t o r s , may  areas,  increase  v a l u a b l e and must be given a t t e n t i o n .  park's  is  and management of many f a c i l i t i e s ,  r o a d s i d e camps, s k i  Manning's  part  Bell  receives  only  I t i s easy to see a  fraction  of  take on a r e l a t i v e l y low p r i o r i t y .  how the To  110  place  the  gives  tc  are  same e m p h a s i s ether  limited.  with  the  areas,  But t h e  deficiencies. a  vague  psychological involved. which  idea  guality  use  of  environment let  "minimize  the  permitting reference  an tc  incongruous, impact  method  exists  present  management  the  see  of  of  it  for  basic  present  the  to  been  a  or  goal  human use  areas  compiled,  of  standards can  be  current  and  decline  the  and  in  the  psychological  level  use  this  at  of  the  is  not of  area.  information reguired  for  does n o t  has to  same  time  visitation."  The  that  will  levels,  backecuntry,  impact"  realized  in  the  while  evaluation  inputs  i n f o r m a t i o n . Green  for  the  is  the  of  figure  use  various  handle  about  lack  b a c k c o u n t r y use  how an a c c e p t a b l e  most  namely  present  "minimizing  present  biological,  adoption  geared  for  serious  ramifications  biophysical  acceptable  when  concern  administration  has  the  bringing  management impact  cf  staff  contact  are  the  it  established.  despite t h i s a  that  and i t s  policies  be  use  and  of  of  physical,  for  use  the  absence  information  basis  without  cannot  articulated  to  a  either  the  no  Management  projected  is  that  budget  lack  capacities  which i n c r e a s i n g  evaluated.  his  increased  of  Therefore, form  that  apparent  conseguence  carrying  could  against  and from  One  management  administration's  resulting  only  considering  backecuntry  problems  has  on b a c k e c u n t r y  seems first  of  known. the  rather all,  the  Second,  no  administration's  And i t  is  difficult  be d e t e r m i n e d , when  exist.  such  a  decision,  FBOEAEIE FDTDEE DEVELOPMENTS Future Manning  developments  Park  are  uncertain  Planning  Division  cf  conceptual  plan f o r  the  before  the  treats  almost  including activity. roadside  affecting  plan  the  many o n l y  feature  area.  the  area  and p r o b l e m s  hiking  covered trails  direct and  the  b e a r i n g on t h e been  a  steps  remain  The p l a n as  a whole  b a c k c o u n t r y and  hiking  for  in  park  employees,  facilities  in this  for  thesis,  of emphasis  for  i n the  were f e l t  and i t s  selected  created  the  of d o u b t f u l r e l e v a n c e  addressed  area  Coastal  park,  interpretation,  study  has  of  the  quarters  Two a r e a s  and n a t u r e  The  facility  Such t o p i c s ,  here.  have t h e r e f o r e  Branch  and r e s t a u r a n t  ski  be  and  These i n c l u d e l i v i n g  downhill  not  time.  be i m p l e m e n t e d .  spots,  backccuntry  however, s e v e r a l  p e r i p h e r a l to  picnicking  study  this  Parks  park;  can  every  at  the  future  to  will plan,  to  have  management,  discussion  in  this  section.  The C o n c e p t u a l P l a n and H i k i n g The  plan  groups  Manning  Park  Trails  features  into  three  classes: (1) (4) found  Easy  Preservation Access.  Features,  Class  i n some E r i t i s h  (2),  Columbia  (3)  Primitive  access,  and  Nature Conservancy a r e a s , Provincial  Parks  other  are than  Manning. Features  judged  to  be  unique, for  either  ecological  or  112  historical (Class  reasons, The  1 ) .  ecological  group,  environments; Specific  geologic  are  the  for  reasons of  its  Other  Sumallo  considered  to  Grove  plant  the  the  alpine  Cascades. ecological  communities  classed  as  Strawberry  and  ecological  Flats  [Fragaria  macrochy11urn ],  forest).  preservation  and  areas's  [Rhododendron  (coastal  worthy c f  of  include  into  subalpine  this  Features  falls  l a n d systems o f  areas  Rhododendron F l a t s  Preservation area  its  diversity  Features  as  Ercthars  contributing  units.  Preservation s p p . 3#  Three  representative  factors  uniqueness  may be c l a s s e d  Historical  include  the  and  features  Dewdney  and  Hope T r a i l s . The Brothers  Preservation meadows  and o b s e r v a t i o n three Trail  i n the  activities,  hiking, with  proposed.  One P a r k s  are  no f u t u r e  limits It  even  increase.  It  start  "acting  Parks  Branch  have a l w a y s is  is  on use  felt  if  of  that  the  the  number  an i v o r y  planner),  been r e a c h a b l e designated  identifies  a  tower"  and  the  provided  exists;  the  of  will  should remain  suddenly c l o s e  by e v e r y b o d y .  easily  accessible  continues  proposed  remote  all  alpine  to to  communication, off  areas  while the to  be  easily  p o l i t i c a l l y speaking, (personal  no  indicated  Trail  hikers  for  Heather  apparently  Branch planner Heather  Three  interpretation,  facilities  the t r a i l  would be d i f f i c u l t , like  nature  makes  The p l a n f o r e s e e s  presently  accessible  plan  for  designation  same way i t  considered.  Trail  suitable  p r i m i t i v e campgrounds.  changes that  Feature  that  Heather  visitors,  the  trail,  the  113  Chuwanten  Loop  (Class  seeking  solitude  varying  in d i f f i c u l t y ,  expected  to  3),  Parks  a side  service which  is  be e x t r e m e l y  receives  so  many v i s i t e r s  by t h e  planning  R e l o c a t i o n of  (several south (2)  the  Expansion of  w i t h an a m p h i t h e a t r e , guided  walks  apparent would the  reason  be  the  for  the  remoteness,  devoted a  conceptual  important  and  is  needs.  considerable plan  to  re-  programme. in  This  Manning  each y e a r .  Nature  House  Several  from  d i r e c t l y west  Park, changes  resulting  relocation  a centrally located  of  Place  the  present lodge)  behind the lodge and  trails,  the  exhibits  cf  (and  Nature area the  to .  services,  assemblage  interpretive  Meeting  its  of  facilities  more i n t e r p r e t i v e  theme " T h e C a s c a d e s :  Interior."  have  interpretive  The  trails  Interpretation  Similkameen R i v e r ,  added.  backpackers  staff:  hundred yards  bank o f  and  interpretation  to  (1)  the  nature  of  of i n t e r e s t s  and N a t u r e  felt  were p r o p o s e d  site  range  and s p a c e i n t h e  the  needs  T h u s , a h i e r a r c h y of  Branch planners  amount o f e f f o r t  the  accessibility,  accommodate  organizing  serve  and i s o l a t i o n .  _Jhe C o n c e p t u a l P l a n The  to  and the  House)  built Coast  along and  114  Reactions  of  Managers  The a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and n a t u r a l i s t s reacted  to  management  these  proposals  questions  the  Although  Green  backcountry regarding most  area  does  trail  nature  of  that  the  other  than s e l f - g u i d i n g on c o s t s  maintenance, in  his  are let  planners  no  and t h e f a c t being  used  alone  their  w r i t t e n response  to  that  present comments  Green  out  plan*s  the  He c o n t e n d s  He  facilities bases  he does n o t f e e l  expansion.  differs  towards  and  down.  the  class.  the  negative  h e a v i l y enough t o  the  to  Features  i n Manning P a r k .  scaled  future  i n c l u s i o n of  attitude  House s h o u l d be p h a s e d trails  the  additions.  in his  have  ways.  need t o expand  trail  interpretation  Nature  Preservation the  to  objections  nor t o  be o f f e r e d  proposed  place  facilities  i n the  system,  the f o u r  generally  raised  system,  n o t see  m a r k e d l y from the  response  has n o t  classification  Three Brothers  Manning P a r k  i n v a r i e d and i n t e r e s t i n g  The•administration three-part  and  of  present  justify  According  to  his  their Green,  proposals.  I t i s our o p i n i o n t h a t the p r e s e n t n a t u r e program is too expensive. He s h o u l d have a s t a f f member who i s i n v o l v e d i n - t h e m a r k i n g , maintenance, and care of a comprehensive s e l f - g u i d e d nature trails system. The p r e s e n t N a t u r e House s y s t e m s h o u l d be phased o u t . He e x p l a i n s  why he f e e l s  the  Nature  House i s  under-used:  We b e l i e v e t h a t the N a t u r e House has n e v e r been a focal point for visitors. The f o c a l p o i n t h a s a l w a y s been t h e l o d g e . One has only to compare the use figures tc arrive at t h i s c o n c l u s i o n . I n f o r m a t i o n has a l w a y s been d i s s e m i n a t e d from the lodge, and we b e l i e v e t h a t t h e N a t u r e House has a v e r y minor r o l e i n t h i s v i s i t o r s e r v i c e .  115  The use  figures  House a t r a c t e d about  three  facilities  Green m e n t i o n s r e v e a l  22,456 times  are  of  visitors that  i n 1974,  number.  questionable  different  purposes.  should  the  House be j u d g e d  Nature  disseminate information we a c c e p t lodge  Green's  N a t u r e House? the  figures,  three  highway,  the  lodge  little  if  restaurant,  do  not  people  publicity.  washroom,  nowhere e l s e  i n the  take f u l l spread  particularly 250 a d a y ,  and  park.  over lew.  a fairly  a It  be  evaluated  provision on n a t u r e  of  values,  for  22,456  includes  naturalists  example.  visitors  that  the  true the  the the  visible  The N a t u r e receives  lodge  provides available  backcountry  Nature House, but season  if  and  does  mean 7500 v i s i t o r s  users 22,000  not  per  seem  month o r  flow. other hand, that  criteria These  and t h e Ie  and s i g n s .  that  information.  appreciation  to that  visited  It  on t h e by  who  facilities,  three-month  steady  assumption  newsstand  would  serve  capability  unobtrusive,  is  two  basically,  more c o n s p i c u o u s ,  Second,  advantage of  we might a s s u m e , should  people  is  is  most  on i t s  the  they  be s i g n i f i c a n t  displaying flags  s u r r o u n d e d by t r e e s ,  all,  drew  a v a l i d c r i t e r i o n , and  the  House i s  any  is  of  since  make t h e  should i t  times  First,  only  we  p r o v i s i o n by i t s e l f  attracted  from  If  cf  Nature  lodge  Comparisons  First  information?  the  w h i l e the  validity,  guite  that  must  than  Nature  dissemination then  getting  ask  if  services counted  of the  House  the  might i n c l u d e i t s  utilizing  without a c t u a l l y  ether  a  mere  emphasis  conservation figure  p r o v i d e d by at  the  of the  Nature  116  House.  If  this  is  the  case,  seems i l l o g i c a l , b e c a u s e inside the  the  Nature  self-guiding  exposed  to  trails,  values*  downplay  the  naturalists figures phasing  cut  Bell's  the  those  strongly  are  held  i n the  programmes,  on t h e  shared  does  personnel,  and f u n d i n g  problems.  Naturalists,  backcountry see.  and  Their  backcountry Through contacts, reduced latter  Bell  believes  benefit  advocates  the  of  hiker  backccuntry  that to  depreciative  problems  believes House  emphasis, use  and  in  the  problems  they  distribution  of  not  sufficient.  hiker-naturalist behaviour  more e v e n l y o v e r congestion  on p r e s e n t l y  differ  l i m i t e d time  is  effective  a "hiking  He  enough  the  the  programme,  Nature  to correct  use  justify  backcountry  spend  "live™  the  naturalists,  present  on  could help a l l e v i a t e  of  which  and  Green's  House and  with  behaviour  and  degradation  that  i n order to  feel  alone  dispersed  hiring  Nature  the  be  appreciation  administration.  devoted  that  certainly  noted  ether  he s t a t e s ,  freguent  and h i k e r s  environmental  assess  and  using  interpretation  have no a u t h o r i t y  use  Persons  nature  park  are  step  programme.  not  influence  more  the  argument  must  Nature  importance  but  be  bias,  by t h e  the  would  nature  interpreted,  existing  by  of  cne  from i t .  should  strong  been  opinions  which he f e e l s from  a  that  instance,  importance  have of  for  It  reflects  may  benefit  naturalists'  conservation  administration's  assumes  House t o  the  of  it  the  could  the a r e a . and  The  resultant  crowded t r a i l s . naturalist,"  be  Bell  who would  and e n v i r o n m e n t a l c h a n g e s ,  while  117  determining  visitor  management,  He i s  programme believes  will the  Bell  alsc  that  compensate  programmes  conseguently beliefs that in  are  want  When United  plan  to  that  Heather  Trail  people  1974,  logical.  Bell  management  pages  them, a l t h o u g h  their  Bell  believes  such systems  operating  negative  rationing  * suggests  strategies  problems,  and  pages  754-756), a slide  used  pamphlets  in  this  preserve  systems  experience. as  Bell alsc  sees  idea  facilitating  success  and  (Hendee  and  seems  and  guite  alternative  coping  backcountry  new the  the  show f e a t u r i n g with  angle  the  technigues  States  a r e a s and enhance  this  in  6 - 8 , and F a z i o  e x p l a i n i n g seme o f  hiking  attitudes.  greater  e m p l o y e d i n C a n a d i a n and U n i t e d  tc  regard and  met w i t h  manuscript,  rationing  freedom,  erase these  fact  future  these  hearsay. to  more  of  where a  their  and  now f o r  become  t h a n managers o r i g i n a l l y a n t i c i p a t e d  Gilbert,  programme  area  t o do w i t h  help to the  to  the  Some o f  consistently  unpublished  presently  a hiking  even i n d i r e c t ,  would  S t a t e s have  Lucas,  problems  threats  considers  acceptance  before  b a s e d on f a n t a s y  parks  one  important  used.  nothing  some e x p o s u r e ,  other  order  as  is  he  it."  in  visited  such  for  nature  since  out  have  was  orientation,  borne  survey,  system  the  wear and t e a r  as  reservation  that  the  Many u s e r s ,  or  it  regarding  for  years."  never  however,  would n o t " g o  preservation,  "tc  preferences  a backecuntry  administration  backcountry  and  not o p t i m i s t i c ,  develop  feels  serious,  needs  of  the  parks  in  wilderness  the  implementation of  nature certain  118  regulations  he  believes  These  restrictions  dogs,  and s t r i c t  rule  Although  the  that  use for  concentrate  on  and the  still  for  nature  to  Park c o u l d address  funds  size,  of  does n o t  a  Parks  is  ban  areas  Branch  supposed  not l i k e l y  an a l t e r n a t e  and  to  be  projects,  way i n which  to  role  and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . are  on  attention  view t h i s  which  above.  camping  the  more  investigations  issues.  discussed  designated  give  House,  that  suggest these  it  education  backecuntry  unable  the  Division  problems, Nature  as  on p a r t y  Park s h o u l d  Branch r e c o g n i z e s  available  of  Planning  Manning  appropriate  is  enforcement exists.  backcountry  Parks  include limits  which now  believes  necessary,  as to The  made but  Manning  119  COJCIDSICKS  AND BECCMMJNDATIONS  CONCLUSIONS Many c o n c l u s i o n s drawn  from  gathered  these  in  the  particularly program  of  for  visitor  for  the  There  parking  user  is  very  Parks lot  covering  in planning for  of  a  be  data  to  be  management and  more  The f o l l o w i n g  points  the  next  several  years  use  H e l e y a n t To Management  little  of  the  existing  Branch study  levels,  1966),  Nicomen Lake)  present  physical areas  the  Except  alpine  no c u r r e n t  in planning for  a  meadows  ten-  near  information  the  exists  and c h a n g e s ,  or  Campsites studied  dc not  (two a t  appear to  capacities;  and f i r e  use  management.  campsites  one a t  of  of  biophysical conditions  regarding  three  data  backccuntry.  Dse o f  tenting  appear  backccuntry,  Heather T r a i l .  {Onderhill,  opinions  The  and t h e  Several  development  Park*s  Cf Data  management  year-old  the  can  activity.  £&§£ice  the  in  £ 0 1 management  observations,  survey.  Banning  be c o n s i d e r e d  hiker  for  situations,  relevant  specifically should  and i m p l i c a t i o n s  rings.  that  be  is,  The o n l y  Kicking  used  the  H o r s e and  beyond  number o f  exception  their cleared  to  this  120  c o n c l u s i o n would be the E r i t i s h Columbia in  early  August.  Here  needed on the Heather  Day  h o l i d a y weekend  campsites, then, are probably not  T r a i l at t h i s time, s i n c e the e x i s t i n g  ones seem t o be handling the demand.  T h i s i s not  meant  to  imply that v i s i t e r s occupying p r e v i o u s l y designated spots do not e x e r t an impact It  is  does not  also  exceed  ceilings  cn the b i o p h y s i c a l environment, probably  either  suggested  t r u e t h a t the number of campers  the  by  however.  "ideal"  or  respondents  "tolerable" (see  Chapter  use 3).  T h e r e f o r e , i t can be s t a t e d that campsites are not r e c e i v i n g more  use  than  visitors  feel  they  should,  p s y c h o l o g i c a l c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y has not been  Use  of  the  Ose Cf The  Trail  trail  hikers  by  is  been  inflicting  areas i s compacting of c e r t a i n  activity  of  patterns  could  meadews  pocket be  Intense impact concentrated i n s m a l l  the  soil  and  may  along the t r a i l  be  affecting  plant s p e c i e s as well as the gophers affected  and by  meadow  mice.  the ponding  caused by many f o o t s t e p s i n wet or sncwy  remains  The  some  p a r t i a l l y or completely e r a d i c a t e d i n some spots  adjacent to the t r a i l .  viability  their  reached.  b i o p h y s i c a l damage on the n a t u r a l environment. have  and  the  burrowing Drainage  and-muckiness  patches.  Erosion  i s v i s i b l e , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n areas where snow  u n t i l mid-summer.  Here, h i k e r s make detours around  the extremely v u l n e r a b l e wet or muddy  areas,  only  causing  121  them  tc  spread;  destroys  slope  numbers  are  at  the  same t i m e  stability  on c u t  increasing  means  the a c t i o n  banks. this  of  The f a c t  impact  their  hoots  that  hiker  is  greater  every  which  hikers  were  year. That observed  portion  of  continually,  Lake,  does  hikers  can t o l e r a t e  limits  the  not  based  trail  between  presently  on  (see  attract  Chapter  for  this  environmental  information,  establishment  of  and Nicomen  numbers i n e x c e s s  3).  But no  such  Trail p r i o r to  area.  which  limits,  Information  information  the Three Brothers  would  has  what  the  or  constraints visitor  and  prereguisite  to  collected.  Distribution are  hikes.  not r e c e i v i n g  This  deficiency  i n d i r e c t l y to  could  be  directly  misuse o f  the  backcountry.  The i n f o r m a t i o n l a c k i n g c a n be c a t e g o r i z e d  in  the  way:  Knowledge C o n c e r n i n g the P a r k as Hikers would  offer  disperse  are a  'often  similar  hikers  more  learned  of  and a r e  not i n f o r m e d of  a  unaware  Jhcle of  experience egually  the Heather T r a i l other  the  adeguate  contributing  following  and  be  n o t been  backpackers their  Again,  of  thresholds  b i o p h y s i c a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l  have been e s t a b l i s h e d  Heather  over  alternate and  at  over the  from f r i e n d s , trail  trails,  the  trails. quite  choices.  same They  which time have  freguently,  122  Imprecise  Knowledge Cf Campsites And JDistances  Hikers  know  that  there  are  three  campsites  named  Buckhorn, K i c k i n g Horse, and Nicomen Lake, but they o f t e n do not  know  how  long  a  hike  e s p e c i a l l y K i c k i n g Horse. and  perhaps  as  many  wherever' they  as  guidebooks  reach them,  probably  by  happen  dark.  They  pitch  to  they need i t .  translate "five  hiking,  their  to be when n i g h t f a l l s .  describing  Heather  Trail  Even  visitors  the t r a i l and i t s f e a t u r e s ,  t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s not r e a l l y h e l p f u l to them at when  10%  1 5 % c f the groups cannot plan i n  though more than two-thirds of the consult  to  The r e s u l t i s that  advance to reach the campsite tents  i s required  the  time  a l i k e l y reason i s that they are unable miles"-  in  print  to  "five  and t h e r e f o r e misjudge d i s t a n c e s .  t h i s to be common among i n e x p e r i e n c e d  miles"  One would  hikers,  who  of  expect form  a  l a r g e segment c f the overnight p o p u l a t i o n .  L a c k Of Information on T e r r a i n and Topography Hikers its  ups,  are poorly informed dcwns,  Topographical  maps  and are  other  about the l a y of the t r a i l : descriptivedetails.  a v a i l a b l e o u t s i d e the park but the  Nature House does not stock them.  Thus, s i n c e most v i s i t e r s  do not t o t e t h e i r guidebooks, the only remaining the  park's  trail  map,  which  is  c o n t a i n s only the f i r s t s i x  miles c f the Heather T r a i l l o o p , up to {see F i g u r e 8) .  choice  the  Three  Brothers  123  The  resulting  problem  the t r a i l i s easy camp  wherever  i s not a danger of g e t t i n g l e s t , f o r  to f o l l o w ,  they get t i r e d  Eut people are acre l i k e l y  or when i t gets dark, i f they  do not know where the next carap i s . instance,  that  It  i s suspected, f o r  many of the c a s p f i r e s c a r s on Niccmen  would not have been made,  i f the  known they were only cne a i l e  to  hikers  from the Lake.  fiidge  r e s p o n s i b l e had  124  I n s u f f i c i e n t Information Little  emphasis  is  camping p r a c t i c e s l e a s t Although  ftbout  Proper Behaviour  given  l i k e l y to  to informing damage  d e p r e c i a f i v e behaviour was  been expected, i t was  nevertheless  e v i d e n t : the  staff  on the are  guite  with v i s i t o r s . however, i t was  willing  had  due  to  Nature House  tc d i s c u s s backcountry behaviour  Most h i k e r s do not stop at the discovered.  as  interviewers  largely  part of f i r s t - t i m e backpackers.  the  environment.  not as p r e v a l e n t  b e l i e v e d t h i s behaviour to be i n a d v e r t e n t , naivete  the  h i k e r s of  Nature House,  125  CRITERIA ICR Management  decisions  extent  by  certain  various  alternative  decisionmaker  arrive  at  statement  aids  i n the  procedure  in  several  decisions  and  thus  readily  Additionally,  may o r  noticeable have  more  departure  immediately  management  decisions  Park s h o u l d  be  should  biophysical  elements  preserved  the  enhanced,  The  of  the  area.  not  be  and  the  are  to  from t h e  stated  the  in  reaching and  The b i a s e s  become  is  Such a  decisionmaking  can of  apparent.  criteria  challenge.  which i t  the  criteria,  visible  likely  will  be  Two c r i t e r i a  believed  backcountry  of  future Manning  greatest  as  the sell  carrying  capacity  of  the  exceeded;  i n other  words,  its  should  be  should  be  aesthetic possible  backecuntry  through  preferences,  At some p o i n t  and g u e s t i o n e d .  affecting  which  steps taken  employed  against  against  explicitly.  cf  The  some  guiding  be s t a t e d  and open t o  biophysical  backcountry  (2)  these  tc  assessed:  The  to  examined.  ways.  identified  influenced  standards,  clarification  been e s t a b l i s h e d ,  (1)  may n o t  reasoning  are any  cr  are  they  decisionmakers  always  actions  although  be  are  criteria  must  the  DEC!SIGN-MAKING  extent.  hiking  consideration as  the  qualities  experience of  psychological  hiker  needs  carrying  and  capacity  126  BECCMKENEATICNS Several study  recommendations  conclusions  Although users  they  in  limited  and  were  mind,  to t h i s  are  adhering  designed their  to  the  with the  drawn  from  above two  Heather  applicability  is  criteria.  Trail not  the  and  its  necessarily  situation.  That a backcountry  (1)  proposed,  hiker  registration  system  be  implemented: A  registration  system  between  managers and  provide  information  distribution  over  create  a  visitors  c o u l d ask  an i d e a l  position  point  cut the of  importance  when  of  Trail  most  that exert and  questions  it  is  overnight  revealed  it  involves  the  a comparable thus  to  It  at  the  3 below). that  would  also  exchange:  values"  Nature  nearly first  half  A l t h o u g h the  permits  registration  who  for  Manning  i n f l u e n c e ' o n hiker-manager camping  (see gains  cf  two  the  years  gained  Park, the  Rocky M o u n t a i n  and r a t i o n i n g ,  system  in and  House  This dialogue  in their  and  would  i n Bocky M o u n t a i n N a t i o n a l  inputs.  gap  who would be  use  was t h e s e b a c k p a c k e r s  on w i l d e r n e s s  it  hiker-manager  available  the  destinations,  naturalists,  are  shrink  First,  "backcountry  hikers  mandatory  proposed  hikers.  remembered  Testing  to  campsites.  of  convey  from i n t e r p r e t i v e  system  and  conducive  to  begin  h i k e r numbers,  recommendation  backpacking;  Colorado,  about  information  description  Heather  backecuntry  trails  setting  would  it  is  felt  Park  could  communications  interpretation.Thus,  Heather  127  Trail  managers could c o n c e i v a b l y  recreationists are  at  especially  a  i n f l u e n c e l a r g e numbers  of  point i n t h e i r development when "they  amenable  wilderness  in  ways  qualities"  (Fazio  envisioned  registration  to  that and  learning  will  how  help  Gilbert,  use  preserve  1974,  system  to  could  paqe  the  i t s unigue 756).  operate  The  i n a manner  s i m i l a r to the f o l l o w i n q : * A l l backcountry h i k i n q p a r t i e s would r e g i s t e r at Nature  House,  conveniently  l o c a t e d , adjacent  to the  Heather T r a i l v i s i t o r s could a l t e r n a t i v e l y r e g i s t e r alpine when  meadows the  Nature  Nature  House  Hut. is  not  party,  (including  length  open  could  the  leave  their  of  would i n c l u d e name, address, stay,  and  proposed  route  campsites).  * A d d i t i o n a l r e g i s t r a t i o n forms and deposit  at  o u t s i d e the door.  * Registration information In  lodge.  Hikers s t a r t i n g out at times  r e g i s t r a t i o n i n a d e p o s i t box  number  the  box  could  .fee  placed  at  v i s i t o r s n e g l e c t i n g tc stop at the  a  covered  trailheads, Nature  wooden  f o r use  House,  by  ensuring  maximum compliance. *  large  signs  in  plain  highway, s e v e r a l hundred yards and  Nature  policy;  House,  for  REGISTER  AT  RIGHT(LEFT). simple  informing  example, THE  GOING NATURE  view could be e r e c t e d on east and  west  of  v i s i t e r s of the HIKING  the  AHEAD  PLEASE ON  YCUR  I t i s b e l i e v e d that the mere presence of  these  d i r e c t i o n a l s i g n s could draw  JUST  lodge  registration  OVERNIGHT?  HOUSE,  the  registrants  who  would  128  otherwise  ignore  (Brown and  Hunt,  1969,  patterns,  such  as  be i n f l u e n c e d  the  registration page 80)  revealed  visitation  markedly  of  by s i g n s  Hunt b e l i e v e  that  people  do  guestioning  it,  unless  it  policy.  A Utah  that  facility  roadside rest  pointing  what  the  they  violates  use  areas,  way.  are  their  study  could  Brown and  told  fixed  without  beliefs  or  experiences. This as  an  procedure  inconvenience;  surveyed cost but  of it  favoured  would be  keeping  the  the  of  hiking  system  this  rationing  implemented major  and  justify use  next  this  of  need  the  Heather  several  years,  seriously.  In  backcountry  visitor  efforts  (see  that  by  over  60% o f  those  system.  The  be e s t i m a t e d  could  rationing  be  was  responsible  for  the  for  the  area i n guestion  finally,  L i m i t a t i o n of  rationing. Trail  that  a  information  on  environmental  would be d i f f i c u l t felt,  continues  to  increase  may  the  3),  have t o  information and  the  would be  be  would be  is  registration  Becommendation  however,  It  rationing event,  it  the  should not  levels,  capacity,  over  numbers  concrete  use  data.  systems,  decided  maximum  precisely, 3  was  and w i t h o u t  hikers  Becommendation  It  step,  for  to  viewed  registration  and c o l l e c t i n g  given  and c a r r y i n g  the  contrary,  naturalist  time.  optimal  degradation,  if  study.  and s e r i o u s  present  was  be  Assuming t h a t  in order  system at  the  not  system cannot  minimal.  Consideration course  on  a "compulsory"  a registration  implemented,  a  would p r o b a b l y  hiking  however,  be  to  that  over  the  considered  provided  by  naturalist's  extremely  useful  in  129  planning damage,  a  system  which  and enhance  displeasing (2)  or  for  more  prospective  information  An e x i s t i n g primary • store •  Sketch  (e.g..  reproduced •  natural  be  or  obtain  contacts fifty  with  and  he  guality  is  hikers.  seen  as  It  cculd  provide:  the  price  one would pay a t  drawn  trail,  for  in  per  of  the  a map  and  visiters.  prominent  features  the  one-half  ccncerned of  materials perusal  information. this  campsite  A map o f  about  geography  the  indicating  Heather  hour,  and  copy.  books  These  take advantage c f  i2fcrmati.cn  backccuntry  House,  Niccmen Badge).-.  and  House o n l y ,  needs o f  distances,  library  area.  racjcccuntrx  Nature  each  a few c e n t s  history  i n the  register  of  Brother,  A small  Nature  to  at  not  Canada,  approximate  First  while  public.  the  maps f o r  maps  loop could  trails  to  the  Information  location,  the  facility,  biophysical  experience,  to i n c r e a s e t h e q u a n t i t y  geared  Topographic  reduce  hikers:  information centre.  or  Trail  the  extensive  Much c a n be done of  backccuntry  alienating  That  available  the  wculd h e l p t o  with  the  would be of  hikers  Naturalists  "library  corner"  The c o s t  backpacking,  Cascades,  and  for  the  in  stopping would  through  would n o t  use  have  in  be  to  able  increased to  exceed  dollars. •  A  blackboard  information excessive  about  mud, and  or  large  trail use  flannel  conditions,  levels.  These  board, such  as  displays  displaying snow could  and be  130  updated board  easily, would  be  registering example, An  when new i n f o r m a t i o n was r e c e i v e d . time-saving;  and  learning  c o u l d do so  hikers  which  i n f o r m a t i o n b o a r d would p r o b a b l y  an e n t i r e •  season,  A  examples  than  slide of  show,  pointing  sensible  and  more s i m p l y " d o ' s  be e x p o s e d  to  evidence  The s l i d e  strategies  rationing.  Ideally,  shewing  maintenance  how  they  all  backcountry  concluded,  on t h e  basis  responses  tc  post-visit  (e.g.,  was  statewide  newspaper  visitors'  knowledge  procedures  •(Fazio  show c o u l d be q u i t e no n a r r a t i o n was a  switch.  of and  and camping  Hikers  trail  would  erosion  recognize.  other  such  parks,  presented  in a  managers  Fazio  more e f f e c t i v e  from  television  Gilbert, if  and v i s i t o r s  it  a  user slide  ether  media  broadcasts,  and  camping  1974,  an  Gilbert  that  articles)  low-impact  as  fewer  from  and  than  some  positive  and h i k e r s  questionnaire,  feature  and  of  benefit,  inexpensive,  needed  hiking  pictorial  Bocky M o u n t a i n ' N a t i o n a l P a r k  significantly  brochures,  illustrated  in  over  illustrations  experience. of  expensive,  releases.  s u c h as  would be  can  naturalist.  might n o t o t h e r w i s e  adopted  these  a  and d e n t ' s . "  include  enhanced  exhibit  for  real-life  and • • e n v i r o n m e n t a l p r o b l e m s ,  a  were c r o w d e d ,  be l e s s  out  overuse,  also  management  way,  of  which  show could  in  see  depreciative  or  trees,  to  only  printed information  behaviour,  chopped  interested  trails  without waiting  Such a  in  increasing  concepts  page 7 5 5 ) .  and  A slide  were d e s i g n e d  could activate  so it  (  that with  131  (3)  T h a t  s p e c i a l i s t a d v o c a t e  i n  -  o f  a d m i n i s t r a t T h e  "hiJsiS.9  a  n a t u r a l i s t "  b a c k e c u n t r y h i k e r  be  h i r e d ^  § £ J L i S S S I S S i l i  n e e d s  J l i a i s o n  b e t w e e n  a s  a  p r o b l e m s  a n d  h i k e r s  t h e  and  i o n i  " h i k i n g  n a t u r a l i s t "  w o u l d  h a v e  t h r e e  p r i m a r y  f u n c t i o n s : •  To  o b s e r v e  c o n d i t i o n s  ( e . g . ,  d e c r e a s e d  wood  d o g s  o n  a n d  d o c u m e n t  e r o s i o n ,  s u p p l y ,  d e t e r i o r a t i o n  i n c r e a s e d  t h e  e n v i r o n m e n t )  To  e s t a b l i s h  c h a n g e s o f  l i t t e r ,  m o n i t o r i n g  i n t h e  a n d  t h e s e  b a c k e c u n t r y  t h e on  m e a d o w s , e f f e c t s  an  o f  o n g o i n g  b a s i s , •  d e t e r m i n i n g  a  t h e i r  m a n a g e m e n t ,  a n d  r a p p o r t  n e e d s  r e l a y i n g  w i t h  a n d  t h e s e  b a c k e c u n t r y  p r e f e r e n c e s  t c  t h e  h i k e r s , r e g a r d i n g  a p p r o p r i a t e  d e c i s i o n -  m a k e r s , •  To  a t t e m p t  b e h a v i o u r ,  by  I t  t h a t  i s  f e l t  o u t s i d e n o t  w i l l i n g l y  i d e a  l o w e r  e x p l a i n i n g m o s t  d e s i g n a t e d  k n o w i n g l y  H i k e r s  t c  o f  a  n a t u r a l i s t  T h e  on  " p a t r o l , " w o u l d  h i k i n g  t w o  w a y s ,  i s  r e l a t i v e l y  b a c k e c u n t r y  a r e a s  o r  be  t h e  made  H e a t h e r  a n d  i t  i s  w e l c o m e d  n a t u r a l i s t  c o n s i d e r i n g h e a v y ,  t h a t  s u c h  and  t h u s i n  c o u l d  w o u l d t h e  H o n d a y  t o  h i k e r s .  t h o s e  c a m p i n g  b u r n i n g ,  p r o b a b l y h i k i n g  g e n e r a l l y  a r e  r e s p o n d  n a t u r a l i s t .  s u p p o r t e d  t h a t  a  t h e  h i k i n g  b a c k e c u n t r y .  o p e r a t e  w e e k e n d  w h i l e  a s  b e l i e v e d  t h e  d e p r e c i a t i v e  c a m p f i r e s  by  T r a i l  o f  r e g u l a t i o n s  l e a v i n g  u n w i s e l y ,  s u g g e s t i o n s  s u r v e y e d  i n c i d e n c e  v i o l a t o r s ;  b e h a v i n g  t o  t h e  u s e  o f  i n  o n e  t h e  t h r o u g h  o f  a t  H e a t h e r  T h u r s d a y  l e a s t T r a i l n u m b e r s  132  are low.  He  or  she  periods  interacting  cculd  spend  with  hikers  Friday cn  through  the  Sunday  trail  and  in  campgrounds, while using Mondays through Thursdays  to gather  biophysical  regardimg  data  environmental  and  change,  rehabilitation  needs.  be  on  performed  weekdays working  make and  observations backccuntry  A l t e r n a t i v e l y , a l l these tasks  weekends,  and the n a t u r a l i s t  on d i s p l a y s , the s l i d e show,  r e g i s t r a t i o n data at the Nature other  House.  hired.  could  would spend  library,  and  N a t u r a l l y , there are  not  one  but two h i k i n g n a t u r a l i s t s should be  Not only c o u l d they d i v i d e the f i e l d alsc  work, but  work more e f f i c i e n t l y and enjoy t h e i r  difficult  to p r e d i c t a person's emotional response  alone i n the backccuntry, e s p e c i a l l y experience  periods  of  complete  n a t u r a l i s t s would provide each ether security  and  reinforcement,  not always working deciding  factor  together.  i f he or  she  isolation. with  It  is  to being were  to  hiking  degree  of  i t i s f e l t , even i f they were Cost would  undoubtedly  i n the choice of one or two,  hiking naturalists.  It  Two  some  they  jobs t o a  g r e a t e r degree, as a r e s u l t of each e t h e r ' s company.  of  and  possibilities. Perhaps  might  maintenance  is  suggested  or any  that  be  a  number  university  students be h i r e d , e i t h e r one student t r a i n e d i n ecology, or two  students,  with  at  least  one  having  a  behavioural  s c i e n c e s background as well as some environmental The  student (s)  live.  expertise.  c o u l d be housed i n the area where park  I t i s estimated that a h i k i n g n a t u r a l i s t  staff  paid at $800  133  a  month  would  preparation For  two  students  the  park  but  all  the  impact  is  the  seasonal  cost  one  month o f  House  duties.  would be $ 6 4 0 0 ,  when one r e a l i z e s  hikers  that  not  not  an  only  would b e n e f i t  from  of  worsening  is  especially  particularly impact.  the  as  needed  vulnerable  Nicomen It  is  i n the t r a i l ' o v e r  or  gravel,  outside,  and  measure.  would  Care  as  snowmelt  inundated small  that likely  minimizing  be  should  "haphazard"  sensitivity  and a v e r s i o n  a be  perform  and w i d e n i n g o f  the  present  and  receiving the  trail  trail,  the  human  "a r e l a t i v e l y  meadows  three  attention  finishing are  time,  crew  simple as  far  i n c l u d i n g the  return  s t e p p i n g - s t o n e s be p l a c e d  along  problem a r e a s .  fairly taken  fashion, to  to  s u c h as  length of  be  Management  areas  team,  given  the  is  would n o t have t o  asymmetrical  backecuntry.  meadows  i n two d a y s ,  and  attention  increases.  could  suggested  rocks  greater  alpine  entire  Eidge,  towards  biophysical environmentx  use  naturalists  and c c v e r t h e  on t h e  be a p r o b l e m at  An i n d i v i d u a l o r  hiking  be g e a r e d  meadows.:  which a p p e a r s t o  may be  trip.  of  recommended t h a t  and  effort  maintenance  alpine  deterioration  trail,  the  for  B r i t i s h Columbia h i k e r s  2k*% t r a i l  adverse  It  as  the  $3200,  f i e l d w o r k and N a t u r e  high f i g u r e ,  £articularly  or  of  park  expenditure. 1H±  the  the  and t h r e e  unreasonably the  cost  signs  unlike corduroy  be b r o u g h t unobtrusive  to  place  considering of  the  i n from  the  protection rocks  many  i n an  hikers*  planned development  in  134  (5) That a new  loop  trail  be  constructed^,  providing  access to the tcps of the Three -Brothers mountains: The  fecommended Three Erothers mountaintops loop  i s e n v i s i o n e d f o r day staying  use; that i s ,  side  i n a designated camping area and  fifteen  to  this t r a i l  sixteen  mile  trip.  The  trips day  by  trail hikers  users wanting a  p r e v i s i o n cf DWC's on  i s not recommended, s i n c e there does  not  appear  to be a need f o r more o v e r n i g h t camping space on the Heather Trail, impact  and  a  campsite  would g r e a t l y i n c r e a s e the  of h i k e r s on the Three E r o t h e r s .  Although  the number  of Heather T r a i l h i k e r s c l i m b i n g the Three Brothers particularly own  route.  years  (about  The impact  consequently relatively  high  spread  exerted over  l i g h t i n any  ago  20%),  one  damage to  large spot.  Considering  of  that  the n a t u r a l v e g e t a t i o n cn dry r i d g e s and  activity  (Underbill,  1966,  i n c r e a s e d human use over t h i s time that  vegetation  area, though i t may  areas, such as the Three B r o t h e r s , was human  steps should be taken now  the meadows.  being  a  impact  page  5), and  period,  it  is  preservation  two  where the Heather T r a i l rejoin one-half  the  given  be ten  by the  believed  with  an  opportunity  This bypasses  proposed t r a i l the  First  Heather T r a i l near K i c k i n g Horse,  mile beyond the T h i r d Brother.  to  limiting  c r three f o o t s t r i p , i s suggested  measure.  is  t c preserve a maximum amount  Providing hikers  to one  not  exposed  destroyed  reach the tops of the Three Brothers "peaks," while their  is  each h i k i n g group b l a z e s i t s and  a  adverse  as  c o u l d begin  Brother,  and  approximately  135  (6) T h a t p a r k  '  seminars  dealing  capacity  problems  These  with  workshops Managers  problems,  as  well  with  them.  for  managers  and  to  are  seen  as  as  the  personnel  improve t h e i r  was p l a c e d  aspects  of  was  in  an  Fewer  placed  would c r e a t e ability  era  the  for  u p d a t e t h e i r knowledge  understanding surfaced  i n the  managers  could  solutions  they  ideas  of  until  problems unwise. the  share have  seem t o  management  ten y e a r s . the  In  who have been f a c e d  By t h i s  point  where It  immediate, time the is  recommendations  the  situation  logical felt, can  then, that provide  setting  a  the  and  the the  situations.  look  ahead,  To  capacity  management  remedial  have  from  carrying  may have  better  which  similar must  today  a  benefitting with  that  environment.  t h e y have f a c e d  intensive  other  meant  workshop  b i o p h y s i c a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l demand'  to  and a c q u i r e  planning, then,  less  opportunities  the  while  demands training  relative  be  cope  considerably  priorities  problems  developed,  backecuntry  ineffective. six  park  last  others  Sound wait  of  with  their  backcountry  there  to  opportunity  i n past years  Unfortunately, managers t o  do n o t  backcountry  an  t o cope  when  hikers  on  several  and t i m e r e g u i r e d  on t h e b a c k c o u n t r y ,  parks.  and  carrying  for  of  Many managers r e c e i v e d  experience  emphasis  jsorkshcps  necessary  l a c k i n g an u n d e r s t a n d i n g  backecuntry.  pressure  in  backecuntry:  The workshop s e t t i n g  early  less  participate  b i o p h y s i c a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l  i n the  reasons.  on t h e  managers  input,  is  deteriorated  to  action  will  adoption  valuable  of  be these  foundation  136  required these  for  sensible  recommendations  knowledge  for  backcountry well, that  management e f f o r t s .  that  both  would l e a d  the  public  problems, the  backcountry maintained  the  Heather  experience at  the  level  and  indicated  seme s e v e r e e n v i r o n m e n t a l  Consequently,  greater  and m a n a g e r s ,  needs,  measures  to  Implementation  obtained desired  goals.  sensitivity  Trail  will  regard  to  It  likely,  as  by a i l  is the  likelihood  surface  environment  by h i k e r s  and  with  would l o w e r  problems  of  using  it  concerned.  socn.  and would  the be  137  BIBIICGJJPHY A l k e r , K e v i n G . 1973. P l a n n i n g and D e c i s i o n m a k i n g i n t h e F i s h and w i l d l i f e B r a n c h : A S t u d y o f S t e e l h e a d Fishermen's C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , P r e f e r e n c e s , O p i n i o n s , and A t t i t u d e s . U n p u b l i s h e d masters t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. A l l d r e d g e , B e n d e l B. 1972. P u b l i c Use P o l i c y and B a t i o n i n g f o r F e d e r a l P a r k s , B e c r e a t i c n A r e a s , and F a c i l i t i e s . N a t i o n a l P a r k s S e r v i c e p a p e r , 22 p a g e s . B e h a n , B . W. 1972. " w i l d e r n e s s American F o r e s t s 78(12),  Purism: 8-11.  Here He Go A g a i n . "  B e h a n , B . W. 1974. " P o l i c e S t a t e w i l d e r n e s s — A Mandatory W i l d e r n e s s P e r m i t s . " J o u r n a l o f 72 ( 2 ) , 9 8 - 9 9 .  Commentary on Forestry  B l a c k h a l l , B o b e r t J . 1971. A S o c i o - E c o n o m i c S u r v e y o f Campers i n F o u r E r i t i s h C o l u m b i a P r o v i n c i a l P a r k s 1967." Unpublished masters t h e s i s . U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. B r o w n , P e r r y , and John D. H u n t . 1969. I n f l u e n c e o f I n f o r m a t i o n S i g n s on V i s i t o r D i s t r i b u t i o n and Journal of l e i s u r e Eesearch 1(1), 79-93.  Use."  B r y a n , J . H . , e d . 1971. P r e s e r v i n g W i l d e r n e s s i n Cur N a t i o n a l P a r k s . N a t i o n a l P a r k s and C e n s e r v a t i c n A s s o c i a t i o n . 122 p a g e s . B u l t e n a , G. I . and L o w e l l K l e s s i g . 1S69. " S a t i s f a c t i o n i n C a m p i n g : A C o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n and G u i d e t o S o c i a l R e s e a r c h . " J o u r n a l of L e i s u r e B e s e a r c h 1 ( 4 ) , 348-354. C a t t o n , W i l l i a m B. and J . C . B e n d e e . 1968. " W i l d e r n e s s U s e r s : What Do They T h i n k ? " A m e r i c a n F o r e s t s 74(9) 31, 60-61.  29-  C a t t o n , W i l l i a m . 1969. " M o t i v a t i o n s o f W i l d e r n e s s U s e r s . " P u l p and P a p e r Magazine c f C a n a d a . December 19, 1969, 121-126. C h u b b , M i c h a e l , and P e t e r G . A s h t o n . 1969. P a r k and B e c r e a t i o n S t a n d a r d s B e s e a r c h : The C r e a t i o n c f Environmental Quality Controls for Eesearch. Department o f P a r k s and B e c r e a t i c n B e s o u r c e s , T e c h n i c a l B e p o r t 5 , Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y . C l a w s o n , M a r i o n , and J a c k K n e t s c h . 1966. E c o n o m i c s o f Outdoor B e c r e a t i o n . P u b l i s h e d f o r Besources For the F u t u r e by J o h n s H o p k i n s P r e s s , B a l t i m o r e , 238 p a g e s . Cyca,  Bobert,  and  Andrew Harccmbe.  1970.  Jxplorincj  Manning  138  Park. Eby,  G u n d y ' s and E e r n i e * s  Guidebooks,  Vancouver.  P h i l i p , 1975. The V a l u e o f O u t d o o r R e c r e a t i o n . Unpublished masters t h e s i s . U n i v e r s i t y of E r i t i s h Columbia.  F a z i o , James B . , and Douglas I . G i l b e r t . 1974. " M a n d a t o r y W i l d e r n e s s P e r m i t s : Some I n d i c a t i o n s of S u c c e s s . " J o u r n a l of F o r e s t r y 7 2 ( 1 2 ) , 753-756. F e d e r a t i o n o f M o u n t a i n C l u b s c f E r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . 1974. P r o c e e d i n g o f t h e O u t d o o r R e c r e a t i o n Management Conference, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. Gain,  S c o t t , and Tom Swanky. 1975. Mount a s s i n i b o i n e V i s i t o r Use S t u d y . E r i t i s h C o l u m b i a P a r k s B r a n c h P l a n n i n g Report #41.  Gain,  S c o t t , Tom Swanky, and L e s l i e T a y l o r . 1975. Mount Robson V i s i t o r Use S t u d y . E r i t i s h C o l u m b i a P a r k s B r a n c h P l a n n i n g Report #36.  H e n d e e , John C , e t a l . 1968. W i l d e r n e s s U s e r s i n t h e P a c i f i c N o r t h w e s t — T h e i r C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , V a l u e s , and Management P r e f e r e n c e s . U . S. D. A . Forest Service R e s e a r c h P a p e r PNW-61, S2 p a g e s . H e n d e e , John C . and R o b e r t L u c a s . 1973. M a n d a t o r y W i l d e r n e s s P e r m i t s — a N e c e s s a r y Management T o o l . " J o u r n a l o f F o r e s t r y 71 ( 4 ) , 2 0 6 - 2 0 9 . H e n d e e , John C . and R o b e r t Permits—-Social Costs manuscript.  L u c a s . Mandatory W i l d e r n e s s and B e n e f i t s . U n p u b l i s h e d  H o r t o n , E a r b a r a . 1975 G a r i b a l d i P a r k V i s i t o r Use S t u d y . B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a P a r k s B r a n c h P l a n n i n g R e p o r t #39. H o r t o n , B a r b a r a . 1975. G o l d e n E a r s P a r k V i s i t o r Use S t u d y . B r i t i s h Columbia Parks Eranch P l a n n i n g Report #24. J o h n s o n , Warren a. 1967 " O v e r - U s e o f t h e N a t i o n a l N a t i o n a l Parks Magazine 4 1 ( 2 4 1 ) , 4 - 7 .  Parks."  J u u r a n d , P . 1971. The R e l a t i o n of T r a i l Use t o t h e W i l d e r n e s s T r a i l E x p e r i e n c e . Unpublished masters t h e s i s . U n i v e r s i t y of Western O n t a r i o . LaPage, Wilbur. Journal of Lime,  1969. " T h e Camper V i e w s t h e I n t e r v i e w . " L e i s u r e Research 1 ( 2 ) , 181-186.  D a v i d . 1970. " R e s e a r c h f o r D e t e r m i n i n g t h e C a p a c i t y o f t h e Boundary Waters Canoe a r e a . " The N a t u r a l i s t 2 1 ( 4 ) , 9-13.  Lucas,  Robert  C.  1963a.  "The Status  of  Recreation  Research  139  E c l a t e d to Foresters,  Users." Proceedings: 127-130.  Society  of American  L u c a s , E o b e r t C . 1963b. V i s i t o r R e a c t i o n t o T i m b e r H a r v e s t i n g i n the Eoundary Waters Canoe A r e a . U . S. A . F o r e s t S e r v i c e . Lake S t a t e s F o r e s t E x p . S t a . R e s e a r c h Note L S - 2 , 3 p a g e s .  D.  L u c a s , R o b e r t C . 1 9 6 4 a . " U s e r C o n c e p t s o f W i l d e r n e s s and T h e i r I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r R e s o u r c e Management." i n New H o r i z o n s f o r R e s o u r c e s R e s e a r c h i Western -Resources P a p e r s . B o u l d e r , U n i v e r s i t y of C o l o r a d o P r e s s , 2 9 - 3 9 . L u c a s ' , R o b e r t C . 19641. " W i l d e r n e s s P e r c e p t i o n and U s e : t h e Example o f t h e Boundary Waters Canoe A r e a . " N a t u r a l Resources J o u r n a l 3(3), 394-411. L u c a s , R o b e r t C. 1 9 6 4 c . " W i l d e r n e s s - U s e r C o n c e p t s . " N a t u r a l i s t 15 ( 4 ) , 2 2 - 2 9 . L u c a s , E o b e r t C . 1969. " R e s e a r c h Needed f o r N a t i o n a l pages 284-303 i n C a n a d i a n P a r k s i n P e r s p e c t i v e , J . G. N e l s o n . Harvest House, M o n t r e a l . L y o n s , C. P. British  1952. T r e e s x ShrufiiU and F l o w e r s Columbia. T o r o n t o , Dent.  to  M a c N e i l l , J . W. 1971. E n v i r o n m e n t a l Management. Information Canada.  The Parks," e d . by  Know i n Ottawa,  Merriam, L. C, J r . 1964. " E o b M a r s h a l l : Some S o c i o e c o n o m i c C o n s i d e r a t i o n s . " J o u r n a l of F o r e s t r y , 6 2 , 7 8 9 - 7 9 5 . Merriam, I. Users.  C. J r . 1967. G l a c i e r — A T r a i l P a r k and N a t i o n a l P a r k s Magazine 4 1 ( 2 3 4 ) , 5 - 8 .  Its  M e r r i a m , L . C . and R. E . Amnions. 1968 " W i l d e r n e s s U s e r s and Management i n T h r e e Montana A r e a s . " J o u r n a l o f F o r e s t r y 66(5) , 3 9 0 - 3 9 5 . Nash,  R o d e r i c k . 1967. W i l d e r n e s s and the A m e r i c a n M i n d . New Haven and L o n d o n , Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 300 p a g e s .  O u t d o o r R e c r e a t i o n R e s o u r c e s Review C o m m i s s i o n . 1962. W i l d e r n e s s and R e c r e a t i o n — A R e p o r t on R e s o u r c e s , V a l u e s , a n d P r o b l e m s . R e p o r t 3. W i l d l a n d R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a . P e t e r s o n , George L . and D a v i d L i m e . 1973. "Two S o u r c e s o f B i a s i n t h e Measurement o f Human Response t o t h e Wilderness E n v i r o n m e n t . " J o u r n a l of l e i s u r e Research 3 (1), 66-73. P r i d d l e , G e o r g e . 1964. l i l d e r n e s s P e r c e p t i o n i n t h e A l g o n q u i n Park i n t e r i o r . U n p u b l i s h e d m a s t e r s t h e s i s , Clark University.  140  field,  L e s l i e . 1966. " U t i l i z i n g U s e r P r e f e r e n c e s i n P r e d i c t i n g Outdoor B e c r e a t i o n Demand." i n R e c r e a t i o n R e s e a r c h : P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e N a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e on B e c r e a t i o n R e s e a r c h . U n i v e r s i t y P a r k , P e n n s y l v a n i a , 8692.  Somfflarstrcm, A l l a n . 1966. The Impact c f Human Use on R e c r e a t i o n a l Q u a l i t y : t h e Example o f t h e O l y m p i c N a t i o n a l Park B a c k c c u n t r y . U n p u b l i s h e d m a s t e r s t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of W a s h i n g t o n . S t a n k e y , G e o r g e H . 1971. The P e r c e p t i o n o f W i l d e r n e s s C a r r y i n g C a p a c i t y : A G e o g r a p h i c Study i n N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s Management. U n p u b l i s h e d P h . D . t h e s i s , Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y . S t a n k e y , George H . 1973. V i s i t o r P e r c e p t i o n s of W i l d e r n e s s R e c r e a t i o n C a r r y i n g C a p a c i t y . U . S. D. A . F o r e s t S e r v i c e B e s e a r c h Paper I N T - 1 4 2 , 61 p a g e s . T h o r s e l l , James W. 1971 W i l d e r n e s s R e c r e a t i o n U s e r s - — T h e i r Characteristics, M o t i v a t i o n s , and O p i n i o n s : A S t u d y o f Three B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l P a r k s . Unpublished P h . D . d i s s e r t a t i o n . U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . U n d e r b i l l , J . E . 1966. Wear F a c t o r s on t h e S u b a l p i n e Meadows o f Manning P a r k (With Recommendations f o r . C o n t r o l Measures). B r i t i s h Columbia Parks Branch. Vaux,  H . J . 1975. " T h e D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Income Among Wilderness U s e r s . " J o u r n a l of L e i s u r e Besearch 29-37.  Veal,  A . J . 1973. P e r c e p t u a l C a p a c i t y : A D i s c u s s i o n and Seme B e s e a r c h P r o p o s a l s . Working P a p e r #1. C e n t r e f o r Urban and B e g i o n a l S t u d i e s , U n i v e r s i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m .  7(1),  Wagar, J . 1964. The C a r r y i n g C a p a c i t y o f W i l d l a n d s f o r R e c r e a t i o n . S o c i e t y o f A m e r i c a n F o r e s t e r s monograph 24 p a g e s .  7.  Wagar, J . 1966. "Some F u n d a m e n t a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f O u t d o o r B e c r e a t i o n . " J o u r n a l of F o r e s t r y 6 4 ( 1 0 ) , 667-673. W i l l a r d , D a n i e l E . 1971. "How Many i s Too Many? D e t e c t i n g the Evidence of Over-Use i n S t a t e P a r k s , " Landscape A r c h i t e c t u r e 6 1 ( 2 ) , 118-123.  ifiilis  14 2  Till! I  "HOH  old  are  you?"  Years  J  %  15-19  7  12.3  20-24  19  33.3  25-29  27  29.8  30-34  6  10.5  35-39  2  3.5  40-44  4  7.0  45-49  1  1.8  50+  1  1.8  J A S i l II £XPERI£N££  "For how  Years  many years have you taken backpacking t r i p s of at l e a s t two n i g h t s ? "  J  %  0  10  17.5  1  6  10.5  2  10  17.5  3  7  12.2  4  5  8.8  5  5  8.8  6-9  4  7.1  10+  10  17.5  144  T£J&i I I I  "How many y e a r s  cf  formal  education  Jsather I r a i l Users Amount C o m p l e t e d Seme H . S .  you  had?"  Canadian Povulation** %  8.8  35.0  17.5  18.9  Some U n i v .  28.1  6.9  Univ.  Degree  14.0  5.9  Grad.  Studies  31.6  Finish  **  %  have  H.S.  Source: S t a t i s t i c s Canada m o n t h l y s u r v e y o f t h e C a n a d i a n l a b o u r f o r c e , ages 14 and e v e r , A p r i l , 1972.  145  f U C E OF GBIGIN  location  J  J  Mainland  36  63.2  Fraser  Valley  11  19.3  Vanc'r  Island  3  5.3  Thompson-Gkanagan  3  5,3  Other  1  1,8  3  5.3  Lower  United  Canada States  146  JilJiClION "Shy  did  your  group c h o o s e Manning  Eeason Near V a n c ' r Fraser Alpine  OF MANNING JPAEK Park?  J  j§  14  24.6  or  Valley  Meadows  11  19.3  Suggestion  9  15.8  New E x p e r i e n c e  7  12.3  Variety  6  10.5  Good weather  3  5.3  Snow M e l t e d  2  3.5  Fishing  2  3.5  3  5.3  F r i e n d *s  Didn't  of  Know  Trails  3ABIJ VI  OF HEAIHEB TBAIL "why d i d y o u r group c h o o s e  Beason  the  Heather  Trail?"  J  %  Flowers  26  45.6  Perfect  Length  12  21.1  Ease o f  Trail  10  17.5  10  17.5  6  10.5  6  10.5  5  8.8  Alpine  Friend's Easy Three  Boad  Advice Access  Brothers  Naturalist's  Advice  148  TJEIi  VII  I1I2IJ3J2IGJ SOURCES "flhere  d i d ycu get i n f o r m a t i o n Heather T r a i l ? "  Source friend  J or  M££l2JLi£9 JOJ  Family JiflfiiSS  Hikes  the  J§  28  57.0  25  49.1  19  3 3.0  11  22.4  Nature  House  Nature  House  9  18.0  Nature  Hut  3  7.0  0  0.0  Parks  Branch  map  £.31*  about  149  l i l l i 2111  GBOUP SIZE  Members  J  J  1  1  2.0  2  22  43.1  3  11  21.6  4  5  9.8  5  6  11.8  6-7  3  5.9  10+  3  6.0  150  2ABIE  TBIP  IX  LENGTH  1  17  29.8  2  21  36.8  3  12  21.1  ii  2  3.5  5  2  3.5  6  3  5.3  151  TABLE  X  DESIRABLE TREATMENT CE MUD PATCHES "Should c r o s s i n g through muddy areas of the t r a i l be made easier?"  Response  J  %  No-Leave As Is  34  59.6  Stepping Stones  1.2  21.1  Eridges  4  7.0  logs c r Corduroy  7  12.3  J i l l ! II  SIGNS REQUESTED " I s there any i n f o r m a t i o n you would l i k e to have presented along the t r a i l ? "  Response  J  %  No Signs  24  42.1  Mileage Markers  12  21.1  Interpretive Information  10  17.5  Distance t c Camps  9  15.7  Rules  2  3.5  153  TAEIE XII  MANAGEKENT GF LITTEB "Mould "Hould  you l i k e t o disposal you l i k e  to  see a p l a c e p r o v i d e d f o r i n the backecuntry?" see  litterbags  Garbage Response  J  14  Yes Qualified  Disposal %  24.6  given  to  garbage hikers?"  litter #  Bags %  24 4 2 . 1  Yes  5  8.8  5  8.8  Neutral-Mixed  6  10.5  4  7.0  Qualified  2  3.5  5  8.8  No  Nc  30  52.6  19 3 3 . 3  154  Till I  I1GVISI0N "would  you l i k e  to  see  cut  Mil  OF FIEEJOCD firewood  provided  here?  C a m p s i t e s  New  KH ~ ~ O l d " KH  Nicomen  Total  Response  J  Yes  2  1 2 . 5 6 42.9  5 26.3  16 28.1  2  12.5  2  14.3  4  21.1  15  Neutral-Mixed  3  18.8  1  7.1  3  15.8  Qualified  2  12.5  1  7.1  0  0.0  7  4 3 . 8 4 28.6  Qualified  No  Yes  No  %  #  3  1  J  7 36.8  #  %  5.8  7 12.3 3  5.8  22 38.6  TABLE XIV  MM  OVERALL BEACI'ICN TO HIKER  (Where 8=Very E l e a s a n t  In  Unpleasant)  Mean Jgspcnse  Zero  5.426 5.981  Four  5.722  Eight  4.556  Twelve  3.444  Sixteen text  and 0=Very  H i k e r Groups Question  Two  **See  NUMBERS**  pages  2.519  61-63for a detailed  explanation.  TABLE IV  What would be t h e i d e a l , most c o m f o r t a b l e number of groups i n t h i s c a m p s i t e , b e s i d e s y o u r s ? "  Ideal  Number o f  Camped G r o u p s  #  %  Zero  8  15.4  Gne  1  1.9  Two  9  17.3  Three  7  13.5  Four  8  15.4  Five  3  5.8  11  21.2  Seven  1  1.9  Eight  2  3.8  Ten  1  1.9  1  1.9  Six  Over  Ten  157  2'iSiI  Ml  MAXIMUM T O I E B A E I E NOKBEB QF CJMFED GJSiJES "What would could take  be the maximua number c f g r o u p s you h e r e b e f o r e you would move away?"  Maximum Camped  Number Groups  #  %  Three  2  4.1  Four  5  10.2  Five  4  Six  6  12.2  Seven  3  6.1  Eight  2  4.1  Nine  2  4.1  fen  14  Over Ten  11  8.2.  28.6 22.4  11BLE  XVII  BEPBECIATIVE EEHfiVIGUB O E S E i v l E BY I N T J E V I J J E H S  Behaviour  J  Observed  Littered  21.9  Left  U n t i d y Camp  19.4  Made New F i r e p i t  18.0  Left  14.8  Fire  Going  Hacked T r e e s  11.1  159  UBII  XVIII  l-lUJSiUPJ £ 1 C J M P f I R E S "If  firewood have t o  s u p p l i e s become a p r o b l e m , s h o u l d h i k e r s c a r r y s t o v e s and l i m i t c a m p f i r e s ? "  Response  J  %  43  75.4  Yes  6  10.5  Neutral-Mixed  1  1.8  Qualified  2  3.5  5  8.8  Yes Qualified  No  No  2/jBLl X I X  FEES " S h o u l d b a c k c o u n t r y h i k e r s pay a f e e t o h e l p c o v e r t h e c o s t s c f t r a i l and c a m p s i t e m a i n t e n a n c e ? "  lesponse Yes Neutral-Mixed No  .  J  %  22  38.6  8  14.0  27  47.3  161  DCGS "Should  Besconse Free  Always  Free  i n Camp,  Leashed Free  on  cn f r a i l  Not  be...?"  #  %  12  25.2  1  2.1  9  12.?  4  8.2  22  45.8  Trail,  L e a s h e d i n Camp Leashed  dogs  Always  Permitted  162  TABLE  11J2I "Do  you t h i n k  Eesponse  hiking  XXI  SIZE  LIMITS  p a r t i e s should  be...?"  J  J  Not l i m i t e d  22  45.8  Limited  to 6  20  41.6  limited  t o 12  6  12.5  limited  t o 20  0  0.0  l i l l i  Mil  SIGIiUJlION  SYSTEM  "Would you favour a compulsory r e g i s t r a t i o n system f o r t h i s t r a i l ? "  Response Yes No Opinion No  #  2  29  61.5  6  10.3  14  29.2  TABLE  XXIII  " S h o u l d t h e H e a t h e r T r a i l and c a m p s i t e s be p a t r o l l e d i n summer ( v i s i t e d by a park s t a f f member)?"  Eesjgonse  J  %  Hot A t A l l  6  12.5  14  29.2  21  43.7  5  10.5  2  4.2  Twice  A Reek  Weekly Twice  A Month  Monthly  165  TABLE XXIV  EESPjQJSIEILITJ  FOR DAMAGES CAUSED  " S h o u l d b a c k c c u n t r y campers be r e s p o n s i b l e f c r damages c a u s e d , s u c h as h a c k e d b r a n c h e s and new f i r e p i t s ? "  Response Yes  #  J  35  73  No O p i n i o n  5  10.7  No  8  16.3  166  T I E I I XXV  RATIONING  SYSTEMS  "How would you f e e l a b o u t the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n system f o r t h i s a r e a ? "  Response  Had Used J %  Had Not J  of  a  rationing  Used J  Positive  8  14.0  2  3.5  Tolerate  4  7.0  11  19.3  Negative  3  5.3  27  47.4  Undecided  0  0.0  2  3.5  167  l i i & l Mil FRETERJED TYPE OF HJTICNING  SYSTEM  "which of the f o l l o w i n g r a t i o n i n g methods would you most p r e f e r ? " * *  Response  #  %  1st-Ccme 1st-Served  7  30.4  Mail Reservation  5  21.7  9  39.1  Lottery  0  0.0  1st-Come 1st-Served plus L o t t e r y Hot Sure  1 1  4.3 4.3  1st-Ccme  Ist-Served  plus M a i l Reservation  **0nly those  respondents f a v o u r i n g r a t i o n i n g were asked t h i s guestion.  TABLE  iJUJCJ "Should  rationing  Response  XXVII  SIGNOf F O B CAMPSITES include  signup f o r  campsites?"  #  %  Yes  14  29.5  Neutral  27  55.2  8  15.3  No  TABLE XXVIII  ADVANCE SIGNUP FOE INDIVIDUAL SPOTS "Should r a t i o n i n g i n c l u d e signup f o r i n d i v i d u a l s p o t s , such as #6 at Buckhorn?"  R e s p o n s e  J  Jj  Yes  7  1 4 . 6  32  6 6 . 7  9  18.7  N e u t r a l  No  TABXE XXIX  ELIHIKMIGN OF BG AD ACCESS " S h o u l d t h e r o a d t o t h e meadows be c l o s e d p a c k e r s , who would i n s t e a d h i k e up from t h e  Response  to backhighway?"  J  %  Yes  13  27.1  Neutral  25  52.0  No  10  20.8  171  TABLE  XXX  CERTIFICATION  "Should h i k e r s have to pass a t e s t c o v e r i n g backcountry behaviour and ecology p r i n c i p l e s before they use the t r a i l ? "  Response  J  %  Yes  14  29.2  Neutral  24  50.C  No  10  20.8  APPENDIX 2 COISTICNNIIBES  173  S e c t i o n _ Aj. How  Preyious_ Experience many  backecuntry hikes of  you  made i n t h e  For  how many y e a r s  Hew many v i s i t s  last  to  two or more n i g h t s  have  two y e a r s ?  have  you been making t h e s e  Wanning Park have  trips?  you made?  On t h i s t r i p s c f a r , how many n i g h t s have you s p e n t in the backecuntry? ( I F THIS IS NOT Fl.fiST TIME) What a r e a s i n t h e p a r k have you v i s i t e d on e a r l i e r t r i p s ? Hew l o n g do you e x p e c t Section_EA  to  be i n t h e  backecuntry?  Tri£_Characteristics  Why d i d you c h o o s e  Manning P a r k f o r  How d i d you g e t  to the  How many p e o p l e  are  Why d i d you s e l e c t  trip?  park?  i n your this  this  group?  route?  Did you receive a d v i c e o r s u g g e s t i o n s as t c t r i p route planning? From whem? D i d you f o l l o w them?  and  ( I F RESPONDENT STAYED ANYWHERE FOR MORE THAN ONE NIGHT) Why d i d y o u r group s t a y a t . fcr nights? Where do you p l a n t o trip? Have set  you out?  Secti,on_Cj.  go from  here,  made any a l t e r a t i o n s  tc  i n your  complete route  since  your you  Why?  Backccujjtry_Facilit ies  Would y c u say t r a i l conditions are excellent, good, f a i r , or poor? (IF FAIR OR PCCR) What a r e t h e p r o b l e m s y o u ' v e n o t i c e d ? Would you like tc see anything done t o t h e t r a i l s you've taken?  174  Have you dene (IF  YES)  any b u s h w h a c k i n g cn t h i s  where d i d you  would you l i k e Are Do  wider c r you t h i n k  be made  to  trip?  bushwhack?  see  a trail  cut  sturdier  bridges  needed a c r o s s  that  crossing  there?  t h r o u g h muddy  streams?  areas  should  easier?  What do you s u g g e s t ? Are  trails  generally  well-marked?  Where a r e b e t t e r m a r k i n g s needed? I s t h e r e i n f o r m a t i o n b e s i d e s the t r a i l you l i k e t c see cn t r a i l s ? Do you like backccuntry?  name i t s e l f  tc see cut firewood Why o r why n o t ?  Do  you t h i n k  that  be  provided i n the  Would you l i k e t c  a place  to  leave  provided  one's  that  in  garbage  should  backccuntry? see  litterbags  g i v e n to  hikers?  D i d you e x p e c t t h i s c a m p s i t e t o be more p r i m i t i v e , p r i m i t i v e , o r about l i k e i t is? Do you c o c k w i t h a f i r e o r s t o v e ? (IF STOVE) Why dc you use f i r e anyway, f o r p u r p o s e s  a stcve? Do you e v e r other than cooking?  (IF FIEE OB ECTH) On t h i s trip, t r o u b l e f i n d i n g enough f i r e w o o d ? How many f i r e opinion? Is there facilities, S§ction_DjL  pits  the  are  needed  at  this  have  less  use  a  you had any  campsite,  i n your  anything else regarding backccuntry which y o u ' d l i k e t o mention now?  Bgckcountry_ Inter a c t i o n s  About how many g r o u p s About hew many o f  have  these  you s e e n  cn t h e  d i d you s t o p t o  trail  converse  today? with?  175  I would l i k e to get an idea c f hew ycu would f e e l abcut encountering d i f f e r e n t numbers of people while you h i k e . Please "rate" your feelings cn a continuum from "Very P l e a s a n t " t o "Very Unpleasant," by p l a c i n g a s l a s h mark a t the point cn the l i n e which best matches your f e e l i n g s . Very Pleasant,  .  Very Pleasant Very Pleasant  •  _•  Very P l e a s a n t  Very  Unpleasant  Very  Unpleasant  Very  Unpleasant  Very  Unpleasant  Very P l e a s a n t ,  .  Very  Unpleasant  Very Pleasant  ;  Very  Unpleasant  Before you came to Banning, d i d you expect to see mere people, fewer people, or about the same number you're seeing on t r a i l s ? For t h i s campsite, what do you f e e l would be the i d e a l or mest comfortable number of groups, i n a d d i t i o n to yours? For this campsite, what dc maximum number of groups ycu you'd move away?  you f e e l would be the could tolerate before  Before arriving at t h i s campsite, had you expected to f i n d more people, fewer people, c r the same number o f people you're encountering? (IF BESPCNDENT STAYED IN AN ABEA NOT DESIGNATED AS A CAMPSITE) why d i d you camp i n an area not designated as a wilderness campsite? S§ctign_Ej.  M£ia§IiSi« Alternatives  Have you ever v i s i t e d a w i l d e r n e s s area where a was r e q u i r e d ? (IF YES) 8 h a t were system used there?  your  feelings  permit  about the permit  (IF NO) How would you f e e l about writing away f o r a permit t o hike f o r a s p e c i f i c number of days i n the backccuntry here? Suppose t h a t , under the permit system, you could not get a permit t o use Manning Park f o r the time a v a i l a b l e  176  t c you.  where would you go i n s t e a d ?  Do you t h i n k that backccuntry h i k e r s should pay a fee to help cover the c o s t s of t r a i l and campsite maintenance? _ I f ,firewood supply becomes a problem, do you think backpackers should be r e g u i r e d to use s t o v e s , and that ca ni pf i r e s be l i m i t e d ? Should more backccuntry t r a i l s be cut? c r e a t e d on the new t r a i l ( s ) ? Are more wilderness campsites  more  needed on t h i s  campsites trail?  Thank you very much f o r a l l o w i n g me to speak with ycu. Your answers w i l l be very h e l p f u l to me. I would l i k e to ask you a couple of personal guestions f c r the purpose of background data comparisons. Section_F2  Eacko,round_Data  .What i s your age? Hew  many years c f formal education have you had?  What i s your  occupation?  Would you be w i l l i n g to answer seme f u r t h e r g u e s t i e n s by mail i n a couple of months? Address_  Sect ion.. G; Date  In t g r viewer _Gbsgry a t i e n s Time  Group composed of Family  Weather_ Friends  Bcth_  Other groups i n campsite Eire pits i n  campsite  . Much Seme little i n t e r a c t i o n between respondent's Respondent l o c a t e d h i s camp Near other groups.  No group and o t h e r s . Far from Intermediate ._Was not observed.  177  Did respondent camp n e a r b y ?  locate  Was r e s p o n d e n t  observed  Was he o b s e r v e d Did Bury  respondent  on t e r r a i n  sc that  ethers could  easily  littering?  hacking  branches?  make an e f f o r t  t c clean  up camp?  fires?  D i d r e s p o n d e n t ' s g r o u p make a new f i r e p i t ? (IF YES) Here t h e r e o t h e r s r e m a i n i n g which used? Condition of respondent's campsite: _^ Clean . Some l i t t e r Much  could  have been  litter  E v i d e n c e o f hacked b r a n c h e s i n a r e a : Hone Seme Much Natural  firewood supply:  Any p r o b l e m s etc.  mentioned  Abundant  spontaneously; e.g.,  Some litter,  Little noise,  178  How did you g e t icfcrajaticn about Manning P a r k and Heather T r a i l f o r your t r i p ? (Check a l l t h a t a p p l y . ) friend Spoke  or  family  with  Pamphlet  naturalist  at  alpine  hook  J 0 3_Hikes_i n_Southwe^tern_ E^C. Information  from  Own p r e v i o u s  the Parks  Boo k  Eranch i n  Victoria  experience  B e f o r e you a r r i v e d at M a n n i n g , would t a k e ? Yes No If  meadows hut  o r map from N a t u r e House  II£loiing_Manning_Park  •  n o , how d i d you f i n a l l y  d i d you know which t r a i l  at  you  decide?  When y c u h i k e d t h e H e a t h e r T r a i l d i d you have any i n f i n d i n g a spot t o p i t c h ycur t e n t at Not  the  difficulty  all  Buckhorn Kicking  (first Horse  campsite) (second  campsite)  Nicomen L a k e Do you feel t h a t t h e H e a t h e r T r a i l s h o u l d be p a t r o l l e d i n summer ( v i s i t e d by a park s t a f f member)? Not  at  all  Weekly ,  T w i c e a week Did  you b r i n g  Do you f e e l  Twice  ^Monthly a month  a dog c n t h e t r a i l ?  that  permitted  Yes  No  d o g s s h o u l d be  and n o t r e s t r i c t e d  i n any way?  permitted:  leashed  on t r a i l s  but f r e e  permitted:  leashed  i n campsites  but  i n campsites?  free  cn  trails?  179  permitted: not  leashed  or t i e d  at_all_times?  permitted?  Would you l i k e t o see a c o m p u l s o r y the b e g i n n i n g c f the t r a i l ? Yes Do you people?"  registration  system  at  ___No think  Yes  the  Heather T r a i l  No O p i n i o n  c o u l d ever  have  "too  many  No  Do you t h i n k t h a t use o f t h e H e a t h e r T r a i l s h o u l d be l i m i t e d o r r a t i o n e d d u r i n g t h e " b u s y " months o f J u l y and A u g u s t ? a)  Yes,  all  the  time  b)  Yes,  but o n l y  c)  No  d)  No O p i n i o n  F r i d a y - S u n d a y and  holidays  Why?  I f you answered favour. 1)  or  b),  A l i m i t e d number o f  first-come 2)  a)  first-served  please  check  the  permits  issued  at  system the  park  you on a  basis.  A l i m i t e d number o f  permits  given out  in a  lottery.  3) A l i m i t e d number o f p e r m i t s given out in a mail r e s e r v a t i o n system. 4) A limited number of permits given out in a g e o g r a p h i c g u o t a s y s t e m ( f o r e x a m p l e , a c e r t a i n number g i v e n t o V a n c o u v e r r e s i d e n t s , t o the I s l a n d , O k a n a g a n , e t c . ) . .  5)  1)  and  2)  6)  1)  and 3)  Assume f o r a moment t h a t system of some type. following:  t h e p a r k has How would  adopted a rationing you feel about the  180  S i g n i n g up f o r one c f the designated t r a i l i n advance of your t r i p ? Favour  Neutral  ,  campsites  Being e.g., etc.?  Neutral  .  within  a  larger  tc that new f i r e  area; scars,  Oppose  h e l d r e s p o n s i b l e f o r any damage odne branches hacked off trees, l i t t e r , Favour  the  Oppose  Being matched w i t h a s p e c i f i c camping p l a c e c a m p s i t e ; e . g . , #6 a t fiuckhorn? Favour  along  Neutral  Oppose  T h e r e a r e ways c f l i m i t i n g use cn a particular trail, by making i t h a r d e r t o u s e , w i t h o u t a c t u a l l y e x c l u d i n g a n y b o d y . P l e a s e i n d i c a t e your f e e l i n g about the f o l l o w i n g ; People who want t o h i k e t h e H e a t h e r T r a i l w o u l d b e g i n t h e i r h i k e down t h e m o u n t a i n , and would have t o h i k e s e v e r a l m i l e s u p h i l l t o r e a c h t h e meadows ( a l l c f t h e r o a d to t h e meadcws would be open o n l y t c p e o p l e u s i n g t h e s h o r t n a t u r e p a t h s ) . ;Favcur  _Neutral  Oppose  P e o p l e w a n t i n g t o use t h e H e a t h e r T r a i l would have t o p a s s a t e s t , d e m o n s r a t i n g an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e f o r e s t and a l p i n e meadows environments and ways o f l e s s e n i n g man's i m p a c t on them. Favour  Neutral  .Oppose  B u i l d i n g mere t r a i l s i n t h e a l p i n e meadows o f M a n n i n g , which would n e t go n e a r t h e H e a t h e r T r a i l , s c human use would be more e v e n l y s p r e a d a r o u n d t h e a r e a . Favour  .Neutral  Do you t h i n k h i k i n g not be  Shy?  be  parties  Oppose should  limited  l i m i t e d to  6  people  be l i m i t e d t o  12 p e o p l e  be  2 0 people?  l i m i t e d to  181  Please feel free tc make a d d i t i o n a l comments a b o u t t h e s e q u e s t i o n s , c r t o add any o t h e r o p i n i o n s cn related topics. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOE YOUS CGGPESATION AND INTEBEST.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 10 0
Canada 6 0
China 5 2
Malaysia 3 0
Russia 3 0
France 1 0
City Views Downloads
Ashburn 9 0
Shenzhen 4 2
Unknown 4 11
Edmonton 3 0
Saint Petersburg 3 0
Vancouver 3 0
Guangzhou 1 0
Albuquerque 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093764/manifest

Comment

Related Items