Low-Impact Recreational Practices for Wilderness and Backcountry
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Rocky Mountain Research Station Publications www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications www.treesearch.fs.fed.us This is a legacy archive publication from the former Intermountain Research Station (INT) or Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station (RM). The content may not reflect current scientific knowledge, policies, or practices. This PDF may have been generated by scanning the original printed publication. Errors identified by the OCR software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain. Questions or problems? Please email us: [email protected] United States Department of Agriculture Low-Impact Recreational Forest Service Practices for Wilderness lntermountain Research Station and Backcou ntry General Technical Report INT-265 August 1989 David N. Cole l I THE AUTHOR There are three primary ways of accessing information on specific practices. Someone interested in all of the practices DAVID N. COLE is research biologist and Project Leader for useful in avoiding specific problems can use the lists follow the lntermountain Station's Wilderness Management Re ing the discussions of each management problem. Major search Work Unit at the Forestry Sciences Laboratory, categories of practices, such as all those that pertain to the Missoula. Dr. Cole received his B.A. degree in geography use of campfires, can be located in the table of contents. from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1972. He Specific practices are listed in appendix A. received his Ph.D., also in geography, from the University of Oregon in 1977. He has written many papers on wilderness management, particularly the ecological effects of recrea CONTENTS tional use. Introduction .......................................................................... 1 Education-A Personal Perspective .................................... 2 PREFACE Management Problems ........................................................ 3 Trail Problems ................................ ,................................ 3 This report summarizes information on low-impact recrea Campsite Problems ............................................ ~ ............ 5 tional practices in backcountry and wilderness areas. The Litter Problems ................................................................ 8 first section describes common problems caused by recrea Crowding and Visitor Conflict .......................................... 8 tional use of backcountry and factors that influence the mag Deterioration of Grazing Areas ..................................... 1 O nitude of these problems. Low-impact practices capable of Human Waste ............................................................... 11 substantially attenuating these problems are listed. Wildlife and Fishery Impacts ......................................... 11 The second section-the bulk of the report--describ~s Water Pollution .............................................................. 12 each low-impact practice, using a standard format. First, the Other Problems ............................................................. 13 practice is described along with sample messages for re Recommended Low-Impact Practices ............................... 13 creationists. Then the rationale for each practice is dis Trip Preparation ............................................................ 15 cussed, as is the importance and likely effectiveness of the General Conduct ........................................................... 23 practice. Controversial aspects of recommended practices Backcountry Travel ....................................................... 30 and knowledge needed to increase specificity or reduce Campsite Selection and Behavior ................................. 41 controversy are discussed. The frequency with which each Campfires ...................................................................... 57 practice is recommended is noted, and costs to visitors are Waste Disposal and Sanitation ..................................... 71 described. Additional Practices for Parties With Stock ................... 78 A third section discusses practices that have been recom Practices That Can Be Counterproductive ........................ 90 mended but that might result in problems. This section is Practices That Are Appropriate Only in Certain followed by a discussion and examples of messages that Situations ....................................................................... 1oo emphasize visitors' understanding the rationale behind rec Developing Low-Impact Messages .................................. 100 ommended low-impact practices and messages tailored to Tailoring the Message to Different Environments ....... 100 different environments and user groups. A final section Tailoring the Message to Different User Groups ......... 1O1 discusses major research gaps in knowledge about behav Tailoring the Message to Different Audiences iors capable of minimizing problems. and Media ................................................................. 102 This report is intended to serve as a source book of infor Research Gaps ................................................................ 102 mation on low-impact practices. Managers can use the References ...................................................................... 104 discussion of problems to identify practices they might want Appendix A: List of Recommended Practices .................. 108 to recommend to visitors. The descriptions of individual Appendix B: Source Materials on Low-Impact Practices. 111 practices can be used to decide more specifically what prac Appendix C: NOLS Conservation Practices .................... 115 tices to recommend. The sections on developing effective Appendix D: NOLS Regional Guidelines ......................... 123 messages can provide ideas and examples on how to put together a coherent set of recommended practices. The section on research gaps might prove useful to researchers seeking important topics for study. The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service. lntermountain Research Station 324 25th Street Ogden, UT 84401 Low-Impact Recreational Practices for Wilderness and Backcountry David N. Cole INTRODUCTION Wilderness and backcountry areas have been designated for a variety of purposes and per mit a variety of uses. ~ese various purposes and uses often conflict with each other, causing management problems. Recreational use is a good example. Recreational use can alter vege tation, animal behavior, soil, and water, compromising the integrity of ecological, geological, scientific, scenic, and historical values. By diminishing opportunities for solitude, recrea tional values can also be compromised. Management problems resulting from recreational use of wilderness ar..d backcountry (terms that will be used interchangeably hereafter) can and have been dealt with in many ways. Cole and others (1987) discuss the pros and cons of alternative strategies for dealing with these common problems. As wilderness use and its impacts have grown in magnitude, so have restrictions on that use. Regulations have proliferated, resulting in a new problem-restriction of the free and spontaneous nature of wilderness recreation. Ever-increasing regulation has precipitated concern that management has become unnecessarily authoritarian (Lucas 1982). An alterna tive approach has been advanced, stressing information and education. If informed users will voluntarily behave in ways that minimize problems, then regulation can be less pervasive. The notion that management through voluntary compliance is preferable to authoritarian control has considerable appeal to managers and visitors alike. Most managers are uncom fortable with the "police" role that regulation requires of them, and visitors usually prefer to retain freedom of choice. Consequently, both managing agencies and advocates of recrea tional use have been quick to express their support for information and education programs (Frome 1985). Considerable progress in the development of written materials about low impact practices has been made. Techniques are taught in "how-to" books (for example, Hart 1977; Petzoldt 1974; Simer and Sullivan 1983), books specifically on low-impact techniques (Hampton and Cole 1988; Waterman and Waterman 1979), popular articles (for example, Curtis 1982; Hart 1980; Manning 1980; Wallace and DeBell 1982), and in brochures and pamphlets developed by land-managing agencies and user groups. Low-impact practices are also presented through such media as video, slide tapes, and face-to-face contact between rangers and visitors (Martin and Taylor 1981). Although much thought has gone into development of these materials, there has been vir tually no formal evaluation of the accuracy or effectiveness of the practices that have been recommended. Most recommendations are commonsense judgments derived from personal experience and are generally accepted. Some of these recommendations are contradictory and controversial, however. Moreover, research results relevant to predicting likely conse quences of recommended actions have often been overlooked, and rationales for recommended actions have seldom been developed. Considering the time and effort being expended on developing low-impact educational pro grams, it seemed worthwhile to systematically re.view current knowledge and experience. The development of effective wilderness