Packstock in Wilderness: Forest Service lntermountain Use, Impacts, Monitoring, Research Station General Technical and Management Report INT-301 September 1993 Mitchel P. McClaran David N. Cole THE AUTHORS In 1990 about half of all wildernesses had some packstock use. Packstock was prohibited in 14 percent MITCHEL P. MCCLARAN is associate professor of of wildernesses. About 11 percent of wilderness range management for the School of Renewable visitation was by parties with stock. Packstock use Natural Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. is minimal in wilderness areas managed by agencies Dr. McClaran received his B.S. degree in conservation other than the Forest Service and outside of the of natural resources, MS. degree in range manage- Pacific and Rocky Mountain regions. Llamas have ment, and Ph.D. degree in wildland resource science been used in more than half of the wildernesses with from the University of California, Berkeley. He has packstock use. written several papers on livestock management in Packstock may harm vegetation, soils, water quality, wilderness. wildlife, and visitor experiences in wilderness. Moni- DAVID N. COLE is research biologist and Project toring and management of packstock should focus Leader for the lntermountain Research Station’s on soil erosion and defoliation near streambanks and Wilderness Management Research Work Unit at the popular camping areas. Some methods for monitoring Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. Dr. Cole packstock impacts are described. received his A.B. degree in geography from the Wilderness managers are using a wide variety of University of California, Berkeley, in 1972. He re- strategies for managing packstock. However, nearly ceived his Ph.D. degree, also in geography, from the half of the wildernesses with stock use have no University of Oregon in 1977. He has written many restrictions on their use. The only restrictions com- papers on wilderness management, particularly on the monly applied are limits on party size and the length of ecological effects of recreational use. stay. Limits on the amount of use and the time of use are particularly rare. RESEARCH SUMMARY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report summarizes information relevant to managing packstock in wilderness. It presents the Steve Moore assisted with the design of the ques- results of a survey of managers of all areas in the tionnaire and helped conduct the survey, Kurt Van National Wilderness Preservation System, as well Deren assisted with data base management, and Judy as summaries of information from literature reviews. Smith did word processing for the construction of the Sections describe: the amount and composition of questionnaire. Members of the Southern Sierra packstock use in wilderness, impacts associated Nevada Wilderness Managers Association helped with packstock use, methods for monitoring impacts pretest the questionnaire. We especially thank all caused by pa&stock, techniques for managing wilderness managers who completed and returned the packstock in wilderness, examples of packstock questionnaire. Jim Bartolome, Neil McDougald, and management programs, and research needs. George Ruyle provided advice.

lntermountain Research Station 324 25th Street Ogden, UT 84401 CONTENTS Page Page ...... I Introduction Techniques for Controlling When Packstock Information Needs ...... 1 Use Occurs ...... 18 .2 Survey of Wilderness Managers ...... Techniques for Controlling the Type of Extent, Intensity, and Composition of Packstock Use ...... 19 Packstock Use ...... 3 Techniques for Controlling Where Packstock Horses and Mules as Packstock...... 3 Use Occurs ...... 21 . Llamas and Goats as Packstock...... 5 Summary...... 23 .6 Packstock Impacts ...... Management Program Formulation ...... 23 Trampling ...... 6 Methods Used to Formulate Regulations ...... 23 Defoliation ...... 7 Satisfaction With Existing Regulations...... 23 .8 Animal Wastes ...... Summary ...... 25 .8 Interaction With Wildlife ...... Examples of Existing Packstock .9 Interaction With Visitors ...... Management Plans...... 25 10 Summary...... Bob Marshall, Great Bear, and Scapegoat Monitoring Packstock Impacts ...... 10 Wildernesses ...... 25 Current Status of Monitoring ...... 10 Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks ...... 26 Fundamentals of a Monitoring Program...... 10 Summary ...... 27 Example of a Monitoring System ...... 14 Research to Improve Packstock Management ...... 2 8 Judging the Results of Monitoring...... 15 Relationships Between Use and impacts ...... 28 Summary ...... 16 Relationships Between Management Packstock Management Techniques ...... 16 Techniques and Impacts...... 29 Presence of Packstock Use Regulations ...... 17 Relationships Between Management Techniques for Controlling the Level Programs and Impacts ...... 29 of Packstock Use ...... 17 Research Approaches and Opportunities ...... 29 References ...... 29 Packstock in Wilderness: Use, Impacts, Monitoring, and Management

Mitchel P. McClaran David N. Cole

INTRODUCTION Forest Service wilderness areas reported packstock impact problems “in many places” (Washburne and Packstock are a common mode of travel in wilder- Cole 1983); in 1989,X percent of the managers sur- ness and an important source of impact; however, veyed reported severe impacts and 24 percent re- packstock management has garnered relatively little ported moderate impacts (United States General Ac- attention compared to backpacker management. At counting Office 1989). one time, packstock were the primary mode of trans- These accounts of packstock impacts suggest a portation in most backcountry settings. Their pres- need for additional information to guide packstock ence was instrumental in the development of the management in wilderness. This report compiles in- wilderness concept and wilderness recreation man- formation that can contribute to improved packstock agement. For example, in his seminal work on the management. wilderness concept, Aldo Leopold (1921) defined the minimum size of wilderness as the area that could Information Needs be covered in a 2-week packstock trip. When Lowell Sumner (1942) introduced the recreation saturation Wilderness managers have struggled to satisfy point (carrying capacity) concept to describe the Congress’ seemingly contradictory intents in creat- level of use where impacts become excessive, he was ing-the National Wilderness Preservation System: referring to large Sierra Club trips using packstock to provide areas untrammeled by humans where in California’s Sierra Nevada. natural processes are unhindered, and to provide Despite this tradition, the numbers of backpackers for wilderness-type recreational opportunities eclipsed pack strings in wilderness during the 1960’s (Hammitt and Cole 1987; Hendee and others 1990). and 1970’s. This shift followed the development of Progress has been made on two fronts. Research lighter equipment and freeze-dried foods that became has helped us learn how the amount and character available to a generation hungry for wilderness of recreational use influences levels of impact, and camping experiences, but with little background managers have developed experience with practices in the use of packstock. to control these impacts without infringing on visi- Although the proportion of packstock use has de- tors’ wilderness experiences. clined relative to backpacking, packstock use is still Interestingly, concern over packstock spurred the popular in wilderness. Lucas (1985) found that initial advances on both these research fronts. Con- backpackers replaced packstock users as the pri- cern over the impacts caused by packstock use in the mary users in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Com- Sierra Nevada of California during the 1930’s and plex sometime between 1970 and 1982. However, 1940’s led to a series of studies of packstock impacts packstock use increased by 20 percent during that on meadows-the first studies of recreational impact period. Similarly, in Sequoia and Kings Canyon Na- in wilderness-type areas. Several of these studies tional Parks, backpackers replaced stock users as were conducted by National Park Service biologist the primary users sometime between 1960 and 1980. Lowell Sumner (19421, who suggested using the car- The absolute amount of packstock use there remained rying capacity concept to describe the maximum fairly constant (McClaran 1989). Moreover, use of number of packstock that can graze in a mountain packstock in wilderness still causes serious problems. meadow without impairing “the essential qualities Even low levels of packstock use can cause substan- of the area.” tial impacts. Compared to impacts caused by back- Sumner’s recognition that recreation was not packers, packstock impacts to trails and campsites wholly benevolent and his suggestion to control its are more severe, and packstock impacts to grazing impacts by limiting use to an area’s carrying capac- areas have no corollary for backpackers’ impacts ity were important breakthroughs in wilderness rec- (Cole 1990a). In 1980, managers of 15 percent of the reation management (McClaran 1989). However,

1 the Bureau of Land Management to manage wilder- ness areas. By 1987 the Bureau was responsible for over 350,000 acres in 23 wildernesses (McClaran 19901. The use and physical characteristics of these new wilderness units, particularly the smaller units, units located in Alaska, and units managed by the Bureau of Land Management, may be quite different from those units designated before 1980.

EXTENT, INTENSITY, AND COMPOSITION OF PACKSTOCK USE The likelihood of encountering packstock or travel- ing with packstock in wilderness has declined since the 1960’s, but packstock use appears to have stabi- Figure.l -Regions of the United States lized in the past decade in some areas (McClaran used when reporting results of the survey 1989). This section describes the extent of packstock of wilderness managers. use throughout the National Wilderness Preserva- tion System, changes in use during the past decade, and the extent that nontraditional pack animals, such as llamas and goats are being used in wilderness. Trends in packstock management programs in wil- derness can be assessed by comparing the results of this survey with previous surveys. In 1978 (Bury Horses and Mules as Packstock and Fish 1980; Fish and Bury 1981) and 1980 Packstock use occurred in 49 percent of all wilder- (Washburne and Cole 1983), managers in all Na- ness areas. Packstock use was explicitly prohibited tional Wilderness Preservation System units and in 14 percent of wilderness areas (table 1). Wilder- some potential wilderness units were surveyed. ness areas managed by the Forest Service and Bu- The sample size in 1978 was 272 units, with a re- reau of Land Management were most likely to have turn rate of 92 percent. All 308 units and potential packstock use: just over half of the wilderness areas units surveyed in 1980 returned the mailed ques- managed by these agencies have some packstock tionnaires. The surveys were basically similar in use. About one-third of the areas managed by the their objectives; however, they differed in the ques- National Park Service had packstock use, while only tions they posed to managers and in the conclusions 7 percent of Fish and Wildlife Service areas (two they drew. In general, the 1980 survey reported a units) had packstock use. Packstock were prohib- greater breadth of management practices and wil- ited in more than half the Fish and Wildlife Service derness conditions than did the 1978 survey. The areas and in more than one-third of the National 1978 survey placed more emphasis on the rationales Park Service areas. Relatively few Forest Service for management decisions and on the differences be- and Bureau of Land Management units prohibited tween the managing agencies. The United States use. Wilderness areas in the Pocky Mountain and General Accounting Office (1989) surveyed all Forest Pacific regions were more likely to have packstock Service Ranger District offices with wilderness man- use, but even in the Rocky Mountains more than agement responsibilities. Questionnaires were re- one-quarter of the wilderness areas had no pack- turned by about 92 percent of the 587 offices surveyed. stock use. None of the wilderness areas in the Comparing these earlier surveys to the current Northeast had packstock use; nearly two-thirds of survey provides a perspective on changes in the use the wilderness areas there prohibited packstock use. of specific management techniques and on shifts in The prevalence of wilderness areas prohibiting agency philosophies over the past decade. However, stock use has increased since 1980. Washburne and two developments during the 1970’s and 1980’s in- Cole (1983) reported that stock use was prohibited fluenced the survey results. First, the wilderness in only six of 308 wilderness and potential wilder- system increased greatly. The size of the National ness areas (2 percent) in 1980; in 1990, stock use Wilderness Preservation System grew from 20 mil- was prohibited in 58 of the 423 areas (14 percent). lion acres in 1978 to over 90 million acres in 1990. The number of areas experiencing packstock use de- The number of individual units increased from 188 creased from the 231 reported in 1980 to 202 in 1990, in 1978 to nearly 500 in 1990. Therefore, quite a even though the number of wilderness areas in- few areas included in the later surveys were not in- creased during the decade. Of the 58 areas prohibit- cluded earlier. Second, in 1976 Congress authorized ing packstock in 1990, 32 were established after

1980; three of those areas already prohibited pack- for nearly one-third (table 1). The proportion of pri- stock use in 1980. The remaining 23 areas allowed vate use was greatest in Bureau of Land Manage- stock use in 1980 but prohibited it in 1990; less than ment areas; commercial use was greatest in the Fish 2 percent of the total wilderness visitation in these and Wildlife Service areas; administrative use was areas had been by packstock users. Twelve of the greatest in the National Park Service areas. The areas that began prohibiting packstock between Alaska-Hawaii and Rocky Mountain regions had the 1980 and 1990 were National Park Service areas, greatest proportion of commercial use. six were Fish and Wildlife Service areas, four were Forest Service areas, and one was a Bureau of Land Llamas and Goats as Packstock Management area. National Park Service policy generally prohibits packstock use, allowing it only in Llamas and goats have entered the packstock specially designated areas (36 Code of Federal Regu- scene in the past 10 to 15 years as alternatives to lations 2.16, Office of Federal Register 1990). Inter- horses, mules, and burros. Although these alterna- estingly, packstock were permitted in 1990 in three tive packstock animals generally represent less than areas where they were prohibited in 1980. 5 percent of all packstock use, they account for more Wilderness managers used different units of meas- than 20 percent of packstock use in four areas. Be- ure when reporting wilderness visitation for our sur- tween 1985 and 90, 57 percent of all wilderness ar- vey; their responses included total visitor days, total eas with packstock use had some llama use, 27 per- visits, and total overnight stays. These measures cent had more than 10 visits by parties with llamas, were converted to visitor days using equations pre- and 7 percent had more than 50 visits (table 2). sented by Washburne and Cole (1983). A constant Only 5 percent of the areas were ‘used by parties of three nights for the length of overnight stay was with goats. Llamas and goats were rarely used in used in this calculation; the survey responses did re- Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife port actual average length of stay for each of the wil- Service areas. Llama use occurred on a greater pro- dernesses. Over 90 percent of the responses were portion of Forest Service areas than National Park for use levels in 1989. We asked managers how they Service areas, but llamas were used more frequently estimated visitor use: whether they used systematic in the National Park Service areas than in the For- counts, field observations, or “best guesses.” Over- est Service areas. Coat use was most common in all, systematic counts were used in 16 percent of the National Park areas. areas, field observations were used in 21 percent, Horses, mules, and burros remain the most corn- . and “best guesses” were used for 63 percent. Nearly mon pack animals, but llamas were conspicuous half of the National Park Service areas used system- visitors to many wilderness areas in the 1980’s. atic counts; another 24 percent used field observa- Claims that llamas are easier to handle and cause tions. Other agencies were more likely to rely on less damage by trampling and grazing have bol- “best guesses.” stered their use as private and commercial pack- Eleven percent of total wilderness visitation was stock (Markham 1990). The establishment of re- by parties with packstock (table 1). This has not gional and national llama breeding and trade changed since 1980 (Washburne and Cole 1983). associations (Markham 1990) indicates that The proportion of packstock use was as high as 95 llamas may become more common as recreational percent of all use in one area; packstock use ex- pa&stock. One constraint on this growth may be ceeded 50 percent of all use in 28 areas. Packstock the cost of buying llamas: a breeding animal’s price use did not exceed 3 percent of all use except in the can exceed $10,000. wilderness areas managed by the Forest Service and Coats have not become as popular as llamas. in the Rocky Mountain and Pacific regions (table 1). However, some claim they too are easier to handle When only overnight use is considered, 21 percent and cause less impact than traditional stock. Coats of all use was by parties with packstock (table 1). could become more popular as packstock because Parties with packstock are more likely to be staying they are inexpensive to buy, feed, and handle. In overnight, since their proportion of total overnight addition, they can provide fresh milk in the back- use (21 percent) is higher than their proportion of to- country. At least one commercial operator uses tal wilderness visitation (11 percent). When only ar- goats for packstock (Strom 1988). eas with packstock use are considered, 20 percent of Some wilderness managers have expressed con- the total visitation was with packstock, and 24 per- cern that llamas and goats might transmit diseases cent of overnight use was with packstock. In 50 wil- to wildlife. In addition, some managers are con- derness areas more than 50 percent of the overnight cerned that the animals could escape, establishing use was with pa&stock. feral populations. These concerns have led some Private users accounted for nearly 60 percent of managers to prohibit llamas and goats from some overnight packstock use; commercial use accounted wilderness areas.

5 Table 2- Overnight visits by groups with llamas and goats, 1985-89’ Groups with llamas Groups with goats Agency and region 0 1-10 11-50 >50 0 1-10 ------percent------Agency Forest Service 40 32 21 7 95 5 (N = 172) Park Service 55 9 27 9 82 18 (N= 11) Bureau of Land 88 12 0 0 100 0 Management (N=8) Fish and Wildlife 50 50 0 0 100 0 Service (N=2) Region Southeast 83 0 17 0 100 0 (N=6) Midwest 94 6 0 0 100 0 (N= 16) Rocky Mountains 44 27 21 8 98 2 (N=l0l) . Pacific 21 44 26 9 89 11 (N = 66) Alaska and 75 25 0 0 100 0 Hawaii (N=4) All units 43 30 20 7 95 5 (N= 193) 1Visits are the sum for the years 1985 to 1989. Wildernesses with no packstock use are excluded.

PACKSTOCK IMPACTS sedges) (Vallentine 1990). However, horses tend to spend more time grazing than cattle, and they graze Packstock impact wilderness vegetation, soils, wa- more at night (Arnold 1984). Horses also can crop ter, wildlife, and esthetics by defoliating vegetation, forage closer to the ground than cattle because they trampling, depositing wastes, and interacting with have teeth on both their upper and lower jaws while wildlife and with visitors. These impacts occur cattle just have teeth on their lower jaw (Vallentine mainly when animals graze vegetation and when 1990). In addition, because horses’ hooves are not they are confined around camps. This section re- cloven like those of cattle and sheep, and because views how these impacts affect wilderness resources, horses are typically shod, horses may cause greater evaluates the severity and extent of these impacts, impacts by trampling soil, shearing it, or dislodging and describes factors that influence the severity of it when they skid. these impacts. Pa&stock impacts on trails and camp sites are not described because they do not differ fim- Trampling damentally from impacts caused by backpackers; in addition, they are covered elsewhere (Cole 1990a). Trampling occurs primarily when packstock The nature of some impacts must be inferred from hooves contact the ground or vegetation when the knowledge describing cattle and sheep, because animals walk or stand, and when they roll while there is a paucity of information on packstock im- taking a dust bath. These actions directly influence pacts (Cole 1989a). Cattle are better than sheep in the soil and plants, and may indirectly influence serving as a surrogate for the impacts of horses and water quality and vegetation composition. mules because cattle are similar to horses and mules Trampling causes soil compaction and shearing, in body and hoof size, prefer to graze in meadows and dislodges soil particles. This reduces the space (Gillen and others 1985; Platts and Nelson 1985), between soil particles and decreases water infiltra- and prefer to eat graminoids (grasses, rushes, and tion and oxygen diffusion (Thurow 1991). Soil

6 shearing occurs when hooves cut through the soil very slowly. Erosion in mountain meadows and surface; shearing can also sever plant roots other riparian settings is particularly detrimental (Vallentine 1990). Soil particles become dislodged because it can lead to stream incision and the lower- when horses slide or scuff their hooves across the ing of the water table (Ellison 1949). Vegetation soil surface and when horses roll on their backs to composition and productivity are strongly related to take dust baths. Erosion can increase after tram- the depths of water tables in meadows (Allen-D& pling because soil compaction decreases infiltration, 1991; Manning and others 1989; Ratliff and others and because shearing, scuffing, and skidding dis- 1987). Therefore, camp sites should be located on lodge soil particles. level ground with thin or no soil and away from Trampling can also reduce plant growth directly streams and lakes. In areas where packstock graze, by killing plant material and indirectly by lowering managers should pay special attention to avoid soil oxygen diffusion and water infiltration into the soil. compaction, to prevent erosion, and to avoid shear- Compaction can also make it more difficult for roots ing of streambanks. Avoiding these problems helps to elongate and seeds to germinate. Water quality prevent streambank sloughing and streambed widening. can be harmed if trampling results in increased ero- Two aspects of grazing animal behavior influence sion and sediment is deposited in streams and lakes. the selection of commencement dates in mountain Vegetation composition can change if some plant meadow and other riparian situations. Production species are more tolerant of trampling, compacted livestock (Platts and Nelson 1985) and pa&stock soil, and severed roots. avoid wetter areas in meadows if possible, and pro- Trampling by packstock is most severe where duction livestock and big game congregate along stock are restrained in small areas for long periods streambanks as a function of the length of stream and where they take dust baths. Cole (1983) found available rather than the land area available (Bohn greater soil compaction and tree mortality in pack- and Buckhouse 1986). Therefore, commencement stock camps than backpacker camps. Fortunately, dates should be selected considering the amount of these areas are small. Trampling impact is usually dry area available and the length of stream available. less severe when animals are grazing because they are less confined, but they graze over larger areas. Defoliation The impact can be greater when animals are pick- eted, because picketing concentrates grazing in Packstock defoliate plants by removing their leaves small areas. and stems. Defoliation directly influences the plant The severity of soil compaction from trampling is a and indirectly influences vegetation composition and function of an animal’s weight, its hoof size, and the soil erosion. amount of trampling (Thurow 1991). Weaver and The removal of leaf tissue reduces the amount of Dale (1978) found that horses compacted meadow photosynthetic area available to the plant. This can soils more than hikers or motorcycles because reduce biomass production, plant size, and seed out- horses’ hooves exerted a greater downward force (a put (Briske 1991). These responses to defoliation function of hoof size and animal weight). Although can be magnified when grazed plants grow in asso- soil compaction increases with the amount of tram- ciation with ungrazed plants. Certain individual pling, the relationship is asymptotic (Cole 1987); as plants and species will be defoliated more frequently trampling increases, the incremental increase and intensively than others because livestock prefer caused by additional trampling decreases. This type them. This can give plants that are not defoliated a of relationship also suggests that the initial passes competitive advantage for soil water and nutrients, are the most critical and should be prevented if pos- as well as for light (Briske 1991). Soil erosion is in- sible. Soil compaction will not increase much after directly influenced by defoliation because plant a large number of passes, so the additional passes cover and plant litter (dead plant biomass on the will not be as influential as the initial ones. ground surface) increase the rate of water infiltra- Soil shearing and severing of roots is more likely tion into soil (Wood 1988). Foliar plant cover (meas- when soils are wet (Vallentine 1990). Jardine and ured by the ground area with plants above it) weak- Anderson (1919) suggested production livestock ens the impact of falling raindrops and reduces the should not begin grazing in mountain meadows until dislodging of soil; plant litter also weakens the im- the soils are dry enough to support the animals’ pact of raindrops and slows the rate of water flowing hooves without shearing. Sequoia and Kings Can- over the soil surface. Basal plant cover (measured yon National Parks set grazing commencement by the ground area covered by the bases of plants) dates based on the soil’s ability to support the weight increases the rate of water infiltration into the soil. of packstock (McClaran 1989). Defoliation is most severe when animals are con- Soil erosion is a critical problem because soil forms fined to small areas for extended periods such as in the basis for plant growth, and because soil develops corrals, small pastures, and around picket pins. In

7 general, these areas are not large and are typically by production livestock in eastern Oregon had a associated with camps. Defoliation is more dispersed higher diversity of plant species. Grazing created when animals are not confined; it tends to be great- opportunities for plants typically found on drier est near camps and between barriers to movement, sites, while these species declined after grazing such as drift fences. ceased (Kauffman and Krueger 1984). Similarly, The severity of defoliation depends on the amount grazed patches generally have more species repre- of leaf area remaining, the frequency of defoliation, sentative of drier sites than the surrounding and the timing of defoliation. Leaf area is important ungrazed vegetation (Wilms and others 1988). because leaves produce carbohydrates for regrowth after defoliation (Briske 1991; Davidson and Animal Wastes Milthorpe 1966). The frequency of defoliation deter- mines how much time the plant has to regrow before Animal wastes influence soil nutrient status, wa- being grazed again during a growing season. The ter quality, plant vigor, and defoliation patterns. timing of defoliation is important because plants are Since urine contains the majority of the nitrogen generally more susceptible to defoliation during ac- in animal wastes, urine patches are associated with tively growing periods, particularly during flowering elevated levels of nitrogen in the soil (Archer and (Heady 1975). Smeins 1991). Defoliation intensity can increase in The severity of defoliation also depends on the urine patches. This increase may be related to the amount of use. Defoliation increases as stocking concentration of nitrogen in the foliage (Jarmarillo rate (animals/area/time) increases. At low stocking and Detling 1992). rates, the rate of increasing defoliation can vary Packstock wastes can be a serious problem in from linear, (where each additional animal increases camp settings and near bodies of water. Odor and defoliation a constant amount) to curvilinear (where flies increase when packstock are confined to small each additional animal increases defoliation by an areas for prolonged periods. Water can be contami- amount that varies depending on how many animals nated with bacteria if packstock are confined for pro- are already present). At very high stocking rates, longed periods near lakes and streams. the rate of defoliation per animal decreases (a curvi- Feces deposited away from streams and later car- linear increase) because the small amounts of avail- ried there by runoff are the primary source of bacte- able forage reduces consumption by each animal rial contamination of surface waters from production (Heitschmidt 1988). livestock grazing (Doran and Linn 1979). Gary and The relationship between stocking rate and defo- others (1983) estimated that only about 5 percent of liation applies over a broad area, and not for any feces are deposited directly in streams. Bacterial particular plant or localized site (Heitschmidt 1988). contamination generally increases with increasing For example, animals will often return to preferred animal density (Gary and others 19831, but the dis- locations or plants in an area that has already been tribution of animals is also important. Tiedemann grazed rather than graze uniformly. This selection and others (1987) suggested that fecal bacterial con- of preferred areas is called patch grazing (Vallentine tamination was more strongly influenced by the con- 1990). Patch grazing is most common when forage gregation of animals in meadows near streams than availability greatly exceeds forage demand (Ring by absolute animal density. and others 1985) or during seasons when forage quality is poor (Ruyle and others 1988). Therefore, Interaction With Wildlife patch grazing could lead to intense defoliation in lo- calized areas even when stocking rates are low. The Livestock can influence the presence and abun- size of areas with high levels of defoliation will in- dance of wildlife directly by interfering with animal crease as stocking rates increase. movements, and indirectly by altering habitat char- Patch grazing was described for horses on bermuda- acteristics or reducing the available forage (Barnes grass pasture in Texas (Hansen and others 1987). and others 1991; Kie and Thomas 1988). Because no Packstock will be more likely to patch graze in areas studies document the influence of packstock on wild- that are lightly visited, where regrowth has occurred life, it is necessary to infer these influences from re- after previous defoliations, where nutritious feed is search on production livestock and feral horses. It concentrated, or that are some distance from bother- is not known how well this information represents some insects. In addition, horses avoid grazing packstock influences on wildlife. around areas where they defecate. Wildlife movements are disrupted when more The relationship between defoliation levels and in- dominant animals displace them from preferred direct changes in vegetation composition is not clear, habitats and watering sites. Cattle are known to because most studies have compared only grazed alter elk movements more than deer, primarily and ungrazed areas. For example, meadows grazed because cattle and elk prefer meadow habitats more

8 than deer (Wallace and Krausman 1987). However, than large numbers of packstock that are present for Loft and others (1991) suggested that cattle also al- only a short time. Even for habitat alteration, abso- ter the movements of female deer in Sierra Nevada lute numbers may not adequately describe meadows. Feral horses displace pronghom antelope packstock impacts. The location of concentrated and prevent them from approaching water develop- grazing will be more important than the level of ments Miller 1983). overall use because these concentrated use areas Grazing can indirectly influence the habitats of (grazed patches) will be the most different from terrestrial and aquatic wildlife by altering the amount ungrazed areas. Habitat alterations may be more and kind of vegetation and increasing soil erosion serious if they reduce the availability of critical and sediment deposition in streams and lakes. In- habitats (breeding sites, nests, and shelter) during creased sediment concentrations in the water col- the seasons when they are most needed by wildlif’e. umn and streambed gravels can reduce the repro- Similarly, the relationship between packstock and ductive success of cold-water fish (Platts 1981; the reduction of forage should also be greatest in the Platts and Nelson 1989). Grazing can decrease most heavily defoliated areas, but the seasonality of habitat quality for cold-water fish by contributing to use will also be important, particularly if critical the collapse of overhanging streambanks and reduc- early-season or late-season forage is reduced. ing streambank vegetation that shades the water; the outcome is increased water temperature (Platts Interaction With Visitors 1981). Grazing that reduces streamside vegetation also reduces the abundance of insects that depend Packstock can influence a visitor’s wilderness ex- on the vegetation; fish may have less to eat. Leaves perience by introducing smells, sounds, and sights and other plant materials (detritus) add nutrients to that conflict or accord with their wilderness values. the stream; grazing that reduces streamside vegeta- In addition, packstock can leave their wastes at tion also reduces this source of nutrients (Platts camps and in water supplies and increase the num- 1981). Grazing may also affect birds. Since shore- ber of insects along trails and in camps. birds are attracted to grazed areas where the grass To some wilderness visitors, the sights and smells is shorter, bird biomass, species richness, and diver- of packstock may enhance the pioneering experience sity increase in meadows grazed by production live- of a wilderness visit, while others may find the smell stock (Medin and Clary 1990). Small mammal popu- of domestic animals and the sounds of their bells lations increased on the g-razed area, but species and neighing to be the antithesis of an experience richness and diversity were higher on the ungrazed predicated on escaping the sights and sounds of man area (Medin and Clary 1990). (Moore and McClaran 1991). The sight of grazed Because cattle and horse diets are dominated by vegetation, trampled soil, feces, hitchracks, and drift graminoids (Vallentine 19901, g-razing will most af- fences also influence the visitor’s experience. fect forage availability for wildlife species with simi- The impact of packstock on other visitors is great- lar diets. For example, the diets of feral horses and est in camp and trail settings where visitors and cattle are significantly different from the diet of animals are in close proximity. The sight and smell pronghom (McInnis and Vavra 19871; the potential of animals and feces, the number of insects, and the impacts of grazing on forage availability for elk will sights of hit&racks and drift fences are greatest in be much greater because the diets of elk are similar these settings. Visitors may have to hike away from to those of feral horses and cattle. such camps to find clean drinking water. Grazed Packstock are more likely to inhibit wildlife move- vegetation will not be as apparent where packstock ments when they are grazing than when they are are allowed to graze freely, but the effect will be kept in camps because packstock are less confined spread over a larger area. Grazed vegetation can when grazing. However, habitat alteration will be conflict with visitor perceptions of wilderness; some most severe in areas where packstock are confined, visitors may be disappointed if they cannot find such as camps, corrals, and small pastures. The in- ungrazed specimens to identify. tensity of defoliation and soil disturbance in con- In general, hikers’ satisfaction is reduced when fined areas will generally be greater than in larger they encounter packstock during wilderness visits areas where packstock are allowed to graze freely. (Lucas 1980). Moreover, one study suggests that Available forage will be reduced the most where negative experiences caused by packstock encoun- grazing is most concentrated. ters were greater in a wilderness with little stock The amount of time that packstock are present use than in a wilderness with heavier stock use may have more to do with disruption of wildlife (Stankey 1979). If this is a general pattern, pack- movements than the absolute numbers of pa&stock. stock use would have a greater negative influence Small numbers of packstock that are continually on visitors if it were dispersed away from traditional present are more likely to disrupt wildlife movements

9 travel areas than if it were concentrated in tradi- This discussion will focus on monitoring the im- tional travel areas. pacts of trampling and defoliation in packstock graz- The relationship between packstock use levels and ing areas because techniques for monitoring those the indirect impacts of trampling and feces in camp impacts have not been described before. Techniques settings are likely to be asymptotic. The direct im- for monitoring wilderness campsites and trails have pacts of trampling are asymptotic (Cole 1987). Al- been described elsewhere (Cole 1983, 1989b). This though visitors’ tolerance of feces in camp settings discussion will briefly review those techniques and may decrease as fecal matter increases, their reac- provide examples of their use. More thorough treat- tion to the initial fecal dropping will be greater than ments of monitoring are available (Bonham 1989; their reaction to the addition of one more dropping Cook and Stubbendieck 1986; Ruyle 1991). In addi- when many are already present. Although the nega- tion, procedures for monitoring defoliation, vegeta- tive influence of grazed vegetation and fences on the tion composition, and soil erosion have been distilled visitor’s experience increases with increased use into cookbook procedures in the Range Analysis by production livestock and the number of fences Handbook for each Region of the Forest Service, and (Sanderson and others 1986)) it is unclear if this similar documents in the State Offices of the Bureau relationship is asymptotic, of Land Management. Because range management professionals are familiar with these methods, they can assist in selecting and implementing procedures that can best be applied in wilderness situations. The most obvious packstock impacts in wilderness are likely to be (1) trampling along streambanks and Current Status of Monitoring in camps, and trampling before soils are dry enough to support animals without shearing and skidding; Packstock impacts to camps and trails were moni- (2) severe defoliation in heavily grazed areas; and tored in over half of the wilderness areas experienc- (3) animal wastes in and around camps, streams, ing packstock use, but impacts to grazing areas and and lakes. This suggests that monitoring and man- to other wilderness visitors were monitored in only agement should focus on soil erosion, shearing, skid- about 30 percent of the areas (table 3). The Bureau ding, streambank deterioration, defoliation levels of Land Management was the agency most likely to (particularly near streambanks and popular camp- monitor grazing areas; the Forest Service was the ing areas), and bacteria in streams. Because the im- agency most likely to monitor camps, trails, and visi- pacts of trampling and packstock encounters typi- tors. The National Park Service and Fish and Wild- cally are asymptotically related to packstock use life Service rarely monitored impacts to other visi- levels, effective management should concentrate tors. The Pacific region was the most likely to packstock use in areas that are most resistant to monitor grazing areas; the Southeast and Midwest these impacts and that already receive significant regions were least likely to monitor grazing areas. use. Visitors should be informed of what to expect The low frequency of monitoring runs counter to in specific areas, and where they might travel to suggestions that monitoring is essential to evaluate avoid unsatisfactory experiences, such as packstock and direct effective wilderness management (Cole encounters. Because the most intense defoliation 1987, 1990b; Hammitt and Cole 1987; Hendee and appears to be concentrated in patches around camps others 1990; Stankey and others 1985). This result and small pastures, managers should establish was consistent with the General Accounting Office’s camps and pastures in areas that are least suscep- finding that monitoring in Forest Service wilderness tible to defoliation impacts, such as areas away from areas was insufficient for managers to judge resource streams where forage is abundant and plant species conditions (United States General Accounting Office can withstand repeated grazing. Finally, research 1989). Information on monitoring campsites and on packstock impacts to wildlife is needed. trails is readily available (Cole 1989b); however, no information on monitoring packstock grazing areas MONITORING PACKSTOCK IMPACTS in wilderness is available (Cole 1989a). This may explain why campsites and trails were more likely Monitoring packstock impacts is essential to un- to be monitored than grazing areas. derstanding (1) the current magnitude of impacts, (2) changes in these impacts over time, (3) the rela- Fundamentals of a Monitoring tionship between current conditions and manage- ment objectives (as in the LAC process), and (4) the Program strengths and weaknesses of a management program Monitoring methods should be objective and simple, (Cole 1990b; Hendee and others 1990; Stankey and repeated frequently enough to detect trends, and de- others 1985). signed to reveal the role of packstock grazing in the

10 Table 3- Proportion of wilderness areas that monitor packstock impacts to grazing areas, campsites, trails, and visitors

Grazing Agency and region areas Campsites Trails Visitors ------percent------Agency Forest Service 28 71 57 29 (N = 178) Park Service 29 57 50 7 (N= 14) Bureau of Land 38 38 25 25 Management (N=8) Fish and Wildlife 0 0 50 0 Service (N-2) Region Southeast 0 67 67 33 (N=6) Midwest 5 58 74 26 (N= 19) Rocky Mountains, 27 66 56 29 (N = 102) Pacific 38 77 56 25 (N=71) Alaska and 25 0 50 0 Hawaii (N=4) All units 28 68 55 27 (N = 202)

measured change. Methods should yield consistent The three basic approaches to measuring defolia- results when data are collected by different people. tion levels are: utilization, residual biomass, and the This is important because personnel frequently proportion of plants that have been grazed. As the change positions. proportion of grazed plants increases, defoliation The design of a monitoring system should identify levels are assumed to increase. However, livestock’s (1) what, (2) where, (3) when, (4) how many, and propensity to regraze in patches can cause defolia- (5) how often monitoring measurements will be made. tion levels to be underestimated with this method. In addition, the system should be designed to fit Both the utilization and residual biomass technique within time and budgetary constraints. measure the amount of biomass present; the utiliza- What Should Be Monitored?- The monitored tion approach attempts to estimate how much was parameters should be direct measures of the impacts eaten, while the residual biomass approach attempts from packstock, or indirect measures closely associ- to estimate how much was not eaten. Utilization is ated with direct measures of impacts. For example, the percentage of the current year’s biomass produc- a manager might be concerned about packstock- tion that has been removed by grazing animals related soil erosion. Packstock trampling can in- (Bonham 1989). One shortcoming of the utilization crease soil erosion by decreasing water infiltration method is that after biomass has been removed by and plant cover. One option is to take direct mea- grazing, it is no longer available to be measured. The most accurate estimates of utilization require sures of soil erosion, such as soil loss or the amount exclosures where ungrazed plants can be measured of sediment in streams. Another option is to take in- for comparison. Even with exclosures, estimates of direct measures such as soil compaction, plant cover, utilization can be inaccurate because grazed plants or plant litter. In many cases, indirect measures are may regrow before being measured. easier to quantify; they may be preferable if they Residual biomass is easier to measure because it is have predictive value. simply the amount of biomass present. Proponents

11 of this approach suggest that measures of how much ground surface area covered by the base of plants. vegetation is left are better predictors of plant and Foliar cover is the amount of ground surface with soil response to defoliation than measures of how foliage above it. Biomass is typically the amount of much vegetation has been removed Plant regrowth aboveground live biomass. Frequency is the propor- and soil erosion are influenced more by how much tion of sample plots that contain at least one indi- plant material is present than by how much has vidual of a species. been removed (Bement 1969; Hyder 1954). Density is the most time consuming and difficult Plant biomass is typically expressed as plant parameter to measure because every individual in weight per unit area, such as pounds per acre or ki- the sample plot must be counted. In addition, indi- lograms per hectare. The most accurate method of viduals can be difficult to distinguish from clumps measuring biomass involves clipping and weighing of individuals when rhizomatous or stoloniferous plant biomass in plots no larger than a square meter. plants are present. Density is rarely used to moni- For herbaceous vegetation, the biomass is clipped at tor species composition because of these problems. ground level, dried, and weighed. Woody biomass Cover measurements can be used to describe spe- is more difficult to measure because it is difficult to cies composition or to estimate the ground cover of distinguish the current year’s growth from the growth plants and plant litter as measures of soil erosion of previous years. Cook and Stubbendieck (1986) potential. The more common techniques to measure discuss various methods of woody biomass measure- cover are line intercept, point intercept, and visual ment. Less accurate methods of measuring herba- estimates of cover in plots (Bonham 1989). The line ceous biomass involve visual estimates calibrated intercept technique involves determining the propor- with a ranking procedure, double sampling, or tion of a length of tape (usually at least 100 feet) height-weight relationships (Cook and Stubbendieck that has foliar or basal cover intercepting it. The 1986). Comparative yield uses three to five classes point intercept technique uses either point frames, (ranks) of standing biomass as standards to judge where metal pins are pushed through a frame and the amount of biomass on the monitored site. The into the vegetation, or single pins that are pushed ranks are established in areas adjacent to the moni- through the vegetation. The proportion of pins that tored site. After biomass on the monitored site has strike foliar or basal cover is the basis for the cover been ranked, 15 or more plots adjacent to the moni- estimate. Visual estimates are strictly subjective es- tored site are ranked and clipped to establish the re- timates of the amount of the plot covered by any or lationship between the ranks and the amount of bio- all species. Visual estimates are the least accurate mass (Haydock and Shaw 1975). Double sampling and the least repeatable, but the most rapid. Point involves clipping and weighing samples taken at ap intercept using a point frame is the most time proximately 10 percent of the sample plots to cali- consuming and precise method, it is most accurate brate the visual estimates made for the remaining in dense herbaceous vegetation, but not necessarily plots. Unlike the comparative yield method, double in other types of vegetation. Isolated points are not sampling requires clipping in the monitored area. as repeatable as point frames, but they are quicker Height-weight equations can be developed to esti- and can be more easily used in conjunction with mate the amount of biomass present when indi- plots. Line intercept is the most accurate technique vidual plants or vegetation is a certain height. for measuring composition and ground cover in Photo guides that depict the relationship between sparse vegetation. However, line intercept is less plant height and biomass have also been developed. precise than point intercepts using a point frame. Because this height-weight approach focuses on in- In situations where cover is used to compare spe- dividual plants, it is most applicable in bunchgrass cies composition in grazed and ungrazed sites, basal vegetation where individual plants are easily distin- cover should be measured; foliar cover only reflects guished. It is less applicable in the sod-forming veg- short-term changes in biomass following defoliation. etation found in many mountain meadows. Basal cover reflects long-lasting changes in plant Although ranking, double-sampling, and height- size and the area of ground covered by plants. weight relationships are less accurate measures Techniques to measure biomass are described in than clipping and weighing vegetation on every plot, the previous discussion on measures of defoliation. these techniques can be performed more quickly. The biomass of each species must be measured to Species composition (or vegetation composition) describe species composition. Because it takes so describes the proportion of vegetation contributed much time to assign biomass values for each species, by each species. That proportion may represent biomass is not commonly used to monitor species density, cover, biomass, or frequency (Bonham composition. 1989). Density is the number of individuals of a Frequency is a rapid and repeatable method of de- species per surface area. Cover can be expressed as scribing species composition changes by assigning basal or foliar cover. Basal cover is the amount of an occurrence value for a species. Frequency is measured by listing all the species present in each “key areas” are located away from sites of livestock plot. The frequency of a species is the proportion of concentration such as corrals and livestock drinking all plots where it was present. The frequency value water developments, but not so distant that they should be repeatable because field personnel only -underrepresent the general impact level for the area. have to identify plants; they do not have to estimate Packstock impacts to soil erosion, defoliation, and the amount of each species in the plot. However, species composition also tend to be concentrated at because the abundance of each species is not meas- corrals, small pastures, streambanks, and near ured, frequency is not an absolute measure of spe- camps. However, it may not be appropriate to ex- cies abundance. Because it does not measure the clude these areas in the monitoring scheme. For ex- absolute abundance of species, frequency has little ample, a goal of packstock management may be to utility as a diagnostic parameter in research situa- prevent serious impacts from spreading beyond the tions. Therefore, frequency should not be used to areas where they already exist. If so, the monitoring compare the abundance of species between sites, but plots might be located along a transect crossing the can be used to compare changes in the frequency of area of concentrated impacts, with its beginning and a species between sampling dates within a site. end in adjacent, less-impacted areas. This scheme In summary, basal cover and frequency are the would provide monitoring information documenting most common and appropriate parameters used to changes in the extent of impact, as well as changes monitor species composition because they are rela- in the severity of impacts. tively rapid and repeatable. Frequency is a popular When Should Monitoring Occur? -Consistency monitoring parameter for composition because it is and seasonal changes are important considerations very rapid and repeatable; however, it has very little in determining when to monitor. Consistency is the utility beyond monitoring changes for individual most important consideration. Monitoring should species over time. Basal cover is rapidly measured occur at the same time(s) each year so comparisons with line intercept, and it can be used as a measure between years are not confounded by seasonal differ- of total plant ground cover or litter cover when ences. For example, basal cover will change during monitoring soil erosion. However, in areas of dense the growing season; therefore, differences in basal vegetation, point intercept using a point frame or cover would be expected between years if the meas- isolated points would be more applicable. Isolated urements were taken at different seasons. points have the advantage of rapidity and can be Some parameters are difficult to measure during combined more easily with plots that are used to certain seasons. For example, species composition measure biomass for defoliation monitoring. should be monitored when plants are mature enough Photographs can be used to monitor soil erosion, to be identified. Grasses and sedges are particularly plant biomass remaining after defoliation, and some difficult to identify without flowering parts. The aspects of species composition, such as the changes timing of species composition monitoring can be in the abundance of woody or large herbaceous spe- flexible if the management concerns are focused cies when documenting gullying and other dramatic at a more general level, such as gross categories of types of soil erosion (McClaran 19891. Photographs grasses, sedges, forbs, and woody species. If soil taken from the same location at different times (re- compaction or the basal cover of plants are being peat photography) do not describe conditions quanti- monitored to evaluate the potential for soil erosion, tatively, but they can provide dramatic visual de- the best time for monitoring would be when over- scriptions (Rogers and others 19841. land flow of water was most likely. In mountain Where Should Monitoring Occur?- Ideally, meadows overland flow is most likely during spring monitoring should take place in areas representing snowmelt. However, soil compaction and basal a spectrum of different levels of impact severity and cover of plants can be monitored later in the season packstock use. This spectrum would include areas after grazing has begun. that are not used by packstock, as well as lightly, How Much Monitoring Is Needed?- The inten- moderately, and heavily used areas. Unfortunately, sity of monitoring needed for a single location depends there are rarely enough time and personnel to moni- on the level of precision desired. Precision reflects tor the number of areas needed to represent a spec- variability around the average that was measured trum of impact levels. Therefore, monitoring is typi- (Bonham 1989). It is usually expressed as the stan- cally done in areas where impacts are greater than dard error or standard deviation. Increasing the average, or where changes in packstock manage- precision of measurements increases the confidence ment have occurred recently. in conclusions that differences between measure- Traditionally, production livestock impacts are ments taken at different times on the same site rep monitored on “key areas” that represent the impact resent real change or just sampling error. Precision levels for an entire area (Holechek 1988). These is a function of the number of measurements, or

13 sample size, the variability of the parameter being sophisticated monitoring procedures than personnel measured, and the measurement techniques employed. with less training, such as backcountry rangers and Precision increases asymptotically as sample size trail crews, who may be performing other duties in increases. For example, the standard error for a the monitored areas. given average value will decrease rapidly as the sample size increases by 10 plots when the sample Example of a Monitoring System size is between one and 30 plots, but the precision increases much less when the sample size increases The following monitoring system is designed for by 10 plots when the sample size is between 200 and wilderness areas that have little opportunity to ex- 300 plots. If the measured parameter is randomly pand their budget to pay for monitoring. The de- distributed throughout the monitoring site, then the scription is not overly detailed because it will need variability between plots is low and the potential for to be tailored for specific situations. But this basic increasing precision with increased samples is great. skeleton should provide some guidance to packstock But if the distribution of the measured parameter is managers. This system will monitor packstock im- patchy, then the variability between plots is high pacts that could lead to soil erosion, plant biomass and the potential for increasing precision with in- remaining after defoliation, and species composition. creased samples is low. In most cases, sample sizes The potential for soil erosion will be monitored indi- between 100 and 200 per site should be the goal for rectly by measuring total basal cover of vegetation monitoring. For example, between 100 and 200 plots and plant litter. Basal cover will be measured with per site should be used to measure plant cover, un- isolated points. Plant biomass remaining after defo- eaten plant biomass, soil compaction, or species liation will be monitored directly by measuring re- composition. sidual biomass with the comparative yield technique. Species composition will be monitored directly by How Frequently Should Monitoring Occurl- measuring the basal cover of species using isolated The frequency of monitoring should reflect the dy- points. The isolated points and plots will be com- namics of the parameter being measured and the bined to save time by using plot frames that have a frequency of management decisions. If the param- pin-point on one side. In addition, repeat photogra- eter can exhibit dramatic and important responses phy (pictures taken from the ends of the transect) to packstock management within a month, the ideal will be used to document conditions in the sampling frequency of monitoring would be monthly. But if area and to document isolated impacts, such as erod- the parameter is slow to respond to changes in ing streambanks and dust-bathing areas. packstock management, there is little reason for fre- Areas that are most heavily impacted by pack- quent monitoring. For example, the amount of un- stock, such as small pastures and areas near camps, eaten plant biomass will change witbin a season and will be monitored. Sampling will be done along per- between years. It should be monitored at least every manently marked transects that pass through the year. Although species composition will change most heavily impacted areas, but begin and end well within a season, lasting changes require several beyond the heavily impacted areas. Information for years. Therefore, species composition monitoring individual plots must be recorded separately to should occur every 3 to 5 years. document changes in the extent of impact as well The frequency of management decisions will also as changes in the severity of impact. determine the frequency of monitoring. For ex- Monitoring will occur about 1 month before the ample, if the decision to allow grazing in an area is end of the growing season or as close to then as per- determined by the amount of plant biomass present sonnel are available. At this time of year, signifi- at the start of every month, monthly monitoring is cant impacts to basal cover and remaining plant necessary. biomass will have occurred, but they will not be as What Type of Monitoring Will the Budget great as at the end of the growing season. Monitor- Allow? -Budget constraints can prevent the best- ing before the end of the growing season provides designed monitoring system from meeting its objec- the opportunity to change packstock management tive. Therefore, monitoring must be addressed in while plant regrowth is still possible. Some plants the context of budget constraints. Time constraints may be difficult to identify at this time because some demand the consideration of tradeoffs: monitoring plant parts may not have completely developed or speed or accuracy, few sites or extensive informa- may have been eaten. As a result, species may need tion; appropriate seasons or seasons when measure- to be lumped into generic or familial groups, such as ments can be made easily; frequent or opportunistic grasses, sedges, and composites. measurements; and precision or error. In addition, Annual monitoring will measure plant and litter not all employees are equally skilled at monitoring. basal area and the amount of residual plant bio- It will cost more to use personnel trained in more mass; monitoring every 3 to 5 years will measure species basal cover. This approach will address the Criteria used to evaluate production livestock im- yearly dynamics of basal area and plant biomass, as pacts are presented as examples because packstock well as the longer term dynamics of species composition. criteria have not been widely developed. Both wil- Monitoring intensity will be from 100 to 200 points derness and production livestock managers are con- per site for plant, litter, and species basal area, and cerned about resource degradation. However, pro- from 100 to 200 plots per site for residual plant bio- duction livestock managers are more concerned about mass. The number of points and plots for plant and declines in production (Holechek and others 1989), litter cover and plant biomass should take two people while wilderness managers are more concerned no more than half a day to complete. The number about declines in naturalness (Cole 1989a). The per- of points for species cover should take two people ception of degradation will differ between typical no more than 1 day to complete. production livestock management and wilderness Existing backcountry personnel should be able management, even though livestock production is to implement the majority of this monitoring with an accepted nonconforming use in wilderness minimal training or with the assistance of a spe- (McClaran 1990). Therefore, criteria used for judg- cially trained person. The existing backcountry ing production livestock impacts should not be ap personnel would need annual preseason training plied blindly to packstock impacts in wilderness. in plant and litter basal area measurement and the One possible management goal would be to pre- comparative yield technique for plant biomass. Per- vent deterioration of existing conditions. In this sonnel trained in plant identification will be needed case, a monitoring system should be designed to de- for species basal area measurement. Species basal tect changes in the severity and extent of impacts area is monitored every 3 to 5 years, but personnel over time. Any substantial increase in impact would trained in plant identification could work for short signal the need for more intensive management. periods each year if the sampling efforts were stag- Another possible goal is to prevent deviation from gered among sites. natural conditions; this raises the difficult issue of To foster communication among user groups and defining natural conditions. One possible definition the managing agency, all monitoring efforts should of natural could be: conditions existing in areas that include user-group members. This shared monitor- are not impacted by packstock. The amount of ing experience can build positive relations among change would be assessed as the deviation from groups that otherwise might have little in common ungrazed conditions. Monitored sites would have to and can strengthen their respect for the agency. be established in grazed areas and in ungrazed ar- In addition, when agency officials work with user eas nearby that have similar soils, slopes, and other groups on monitoring programs, they can discuss physical features. Both grazed and ungrazed areas needed management changes. would be monitored because grazing by wildlife and unusual weather patterns can influence species com- Judging the Results of Monitoring position, residual biomass, and plant cover in un- grazed areas: These background dynamics should Monitoring results can be used to evaluate be considered when evaluating the naturalness of whether packstock impacts are within acceptable grazed areas (McClaran 1989). limits. The criteria used to judge acceptability The amount of change needed to identify degrada- should identify the type and amount of change that tion or loss of naturalness is subjective. A monitor- is acceptable. The type of change refers to specific ing program with large sample sixes will easily impacts, such as soil erosion or species composition. detect changes in conditions, but the degree of deg- The amount of change refers to the amount that will radation or loss of naturalness is not always clear. require changes in management to limit further Criteria have been developed for production live- change. These criteria will be difficult to define be- stock based on residual biomass that should result cause there is little agreement about the baseline in long-term maintenance of plant production. against which change should be measured or the These estimates are based on a plant’s ability to re- amount of impact that would be unacceptable. Un- grow, biomass decomposition rates, and soil erosion. acceptable impacts are not perceived equally among In Sierra Nevada meadows, estimates of the mini- wilderness managers (Moore and McClaran 19911, mum amount of residual plant biomass were based between wilderness managers and users (Martin on decomposition rates (Ratliff and others 1987). and others 1989; Peterson 1974)) or among wilder- Because decomposition rates and total plant ness users (Stankey and McCool 1984). Therefore, production varied with elevation and meadow type, the criteria in this discussion should only be used minimum residual plant biomass was described for as starting points when interdisciplinary planning wet, mesic, and dry meadows at 2,000-foot intervals team members and the public develop limits of ac- of elevation. For riparian areas in the Intermoun- ceptable change (Stankey and others 1985). tain West, Clary and Webster (1989) presented

15 minimum residual plant height values that would Finally, a monitoring program has value, even in maintain streambank stability for three types of ri- the absence of criteria for evaluating impact levels. parian areas. In the riparian type with the greatest As monitoring records the status and dynamics of streambank instability, they recommended a mini- packstock impacts, the criteria that eventually are mum plant height of 4 to 6 inches. Most production established will be less subjective. However, the livestock criteria for amount of defoliation are ex- goals of wilderness management must be considered pressed as percent utilization rather than residual during the design of the monitoring program. For biomass. These values vary from 20 to 30 percent example, if departure from naturalness is the crite- use of key forage species in Alpine Tundra to 50 to rion of acceptability, ungrazed areas should be in- 60 percent use in the Southern Pine Forest and cluded among the sites being monitored. Eastern Deciduous Forest (Holechek 1988). In gen- eral, the percent of allowable use increases with av- erage annual precipitation, except for Alpine Tundra which has a very short growing season. Wilderness management goals, significant indica- The criteria for acceptable levels of change in spe- tors of impact, and time and budgetary constraints cies composition resulting from livestock grazing all dictate the type of monitoring system that will be have been developed based on deviation from climax used. If preventing a change in naturalness is a vegetation composition or desired vegetation compo- goal, then both grazed and ungrazed areas need to sition. This approach is often referred to as evaluat- be monitored. Because subjectivity is unavoidable ing range condition. Traditionally, range condition in establishing acceptability criteria, interdiscipli- is expressed in four categories representing increas- nary teams and the public should work together to ing departure from climax composition: excellent, establish them. Criteria do not have to be estab- good, fair, and poor (Dyksterhuis 1949). Critics of lished before instituting a monitoring program. this approach have proposed using departure from a desired composition as a criterion because the climax PACKSTOCK MANAGEMENT composition is not always the desired composition TECHNIQUES (Range Inventory and Standardization Committee 1983). They also note that vegetation composition A wide variety of strategies are available for keeping does not always respond to changes in livestock the impacts of recreational packstock impacts within management (We&by and others 1989). The cli- acceptable limits (Cole and others 1987). We have or- max vegetation may not always be known or obtain- ganized management techniques based on whether able because of poor records and introduced plant they control: (1) how much, (2) when, (3) what type, species (Smith 1989). Currently, the Forest Service or (4) where packstock use occurs (table 4). The and Bureau of Land Management use departure prevalence of each of these techniques was assessed from potential natural vegetation composition to in the mailback questionnaire. In addition, we evaluate range condition (Moir 1989; Wagoner 1989). Although this approach recognizes the introduction of new species to an area, it assumes that changes in Table 4 -Sources of packstock impact and management composition due to high livestock grazing pressure techniques to control packstock impact can be reversed if livestock pressure is decreased. In light of the ongoing debate concerning range Source Management technique condition, packstock managers should be cautious Amount of use Number of animals about using departure from climax or potential Length of stay natural vegetation composition to assess packstock Number of parties impacts. In addition, these debates should warn the Timing of use Season of use packstock manager not to use existing vegetation (opening dates) composition as a barometer of current packstock im- pacts. Existing composition may be the result of Behavioral aspects of use Party size past livestock and packstock grazing pressure, Pack in feed Stay on trails rather than a result of grazing at current levels of No loose-herding use. In addition, reducing or eliminating packstock No tying to trees may not change vegetation composition. Therefore, Use hitchlines in the best cases, packstock management may be able Hobble stock to prevent an undesired change in composition, but Do not picket stock may not be able to bring about a desired change in Location of use Use designated campsites composition. Camp away from water Provide facilities

16 comment on advantages and disadvantages of each Table 5- Wilderness areas that regulate overnight packstock technique and provide tips for implementation. use and those that require permits for entry Once a particular strategy has been selected, it can be implemented in a variety of ways, from strict Have Require Agency and region regulations permits enforcement of regulations to attempts to obtain vol- untary compliance through education. Some have ------Percent ------suggested that regulations should be used as a last Agency resort (Lucas 1982, 1983) and applied at the mini- Forest Service 57 9 (N = 174) mum levels (Hendee and others 1990) necessary to Park Service 91 73 achieve wilderness management objectives because (N= 11) regulations infringe on the visitor’s wilderness expe- Bureau of Land 13 14 rience. Therefore, visitor education programs are of- Management ten recommended as the initial management re- (N-8) sponse to prevent or control unacceptable impacts. Fish and Wildlife 50 0 Others suggest that it is more equitable to institute Service regulations before problems become severe (Dustin (N=2) and McAvoy 1984). Region Agencies vary in their propensity to apply regula- Southeast 67 17 tions (Bury and Fish 1980; Fish and Bury 1981; (N=6) Washburne and Cole 1983). In particular, managers Midwest 31 0 of National Park Service wilderness areas have been (N= 16) more inclined to apply regulations than managers of Rocky Mountains 55 7 Forest Service wilderness areas. Forest Service (N= 101) Pacific 65 22 managers generally prefer to promote educational (N = 68) programs initially. The result is that National Park Alaska and 50 25 Service managers often apply regulations to prevent Hawaii serious wilderness impacts, while Forest Service (N=4) managers often resort to regulations only after im- All units 57 13 pacts exceed acceptable levels. The managers we (N= 195) surveyed were asked whether strategies were imple- mented through regulations or through less restric- tive guidelines. locate visitors, or to distribute educational materi- Presence of Packstock Use Regulations als. The National Park Service was the agency most likely to require permits. The Fish and Wildlife Ser- Packstock use was regulated in 57 percent of the vice did not require permits anywhere. Permits wilderness areas with packstock use (table 5). were seldom required in the Rocky Mountain region Virtually all National Park Service areas had some and never in the Midwest. regulations; about half of the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service areas had regulations; and only one of eight Bureau of Land Management areas Techniques for Controlling the Level had regulations. Between 50 and 67 percent of the of Packstock Use areas in all regions had regulations, except for the Midwest, where only about one-third of the areas The three primary means of controlling the had regulations. amount of packstock use are limiting the number of The finding that regulations were most common in packstock that can visit during the year, limiting the National Park Service areas corroborates findings number of groups with packstock, or limiting the from earlier surveys (Fish and Bury 1981; Washburne length of time any packstock group can stay in the and Cole 1983). Overall, the proportion of wilder- wilderness. Regulations limiting the length of stay ness areas with packstock use that had regulations were most common (table 6). Over half of all areas was less than the 69 percent reported in 1980 had regulations or guidelines limiting the length of stay. Where managers attempted to limit the length (Washburne and Cole 1983). Only 13 percent of all wilderness areas with of stay, the limit was more likely to be a regulation packstock use required permits for entry (table 5). than a guideline. Limits on the number of packstock Permit requirements are not necessarily part of a or packstock parties were only common in National use-rationing program. Many wilderness areas re- Park Service areas. This strategy was most common quired permits for other reasons, such as to count or in the Southeast region, where one in six areas Table 6- Use of regulations (Regs) or guidelines (Guides) to manage the amount and season of packstock use

Number of Number of animals parties Length of stay Season of use Agency and region (Regs) (Regs) Regs Guides Regs Guides ------percent------Agency Forest Service 4 2 35 16 3 12 (N = 172) Park Service 27 30 82 0 27 0 (N= 11) Bureau of Land 0 0 0 25 0 0 Management (N=7) Fish and Wildlife 0 0 50 0 50 0 Service (N=2) Region Southeast 17 0 50 0 0 0 (N=6) Midwest 0 0 13 13 0 0 (N = 16) Rocky Mountains 5 2 41 15 1 10 (N = 99) Pacific 6 6 34 18 12 16 (N = 67) Alaska and 0 0 0 0 25 0 Hawaii (N=4) All units 5 3 37 15 5 11 (N = 192)

limited the number of animals and half of the areas wilderness areas, unacceptable grazing impacts oc- limited the length of stay. Areas in the Midwest re- cur in a relatively small number of places. Limits gion, and in the Alaska and Hawaii regions were the are needed only in those places. Moreover, even with least likely to employ these strategies. a wilderness-wide limit on number of packstock, these Length-of-stay limits are often implemented to popular places can still be overgrazed. As will be prevent people from “homesteading” a campsite, discussed later, regulations limiting numbers of pack- rather than to limit the amount of use. Most wilder- stock are usually applied only in specific locations ness visits are for only a few days, and most regula- within the wilderness. tions limit stays to no more than a couple of weeks. So stay limits often have little influence on the Techniques for Controlling When amount of use in most areas. Since few areas set Packstock Use Occurs any other limits on use, the strategy of limiting the amount of use is rarely used, except in National In general, managers rarely limited the season of Park Service areas. use to control packstock impacts (table 6). In the The rarity of limits on the amount of packstock few cases where Forest Service managers addressed use may reflect the advice to use regulations as a season of use, they tended to employ guidelines last resort (Hendee and others 1990; Lucas 1982, rather than regulations. The National Park Service 1983). More likely, however, either use limits are and Fish and Wildlife Service areas were more likely unnecessary, managers do not have the expertise to prohibit use during certain seasons; when they to develop the limits, or the political resistance to did so, they relied exclusively on regulations. None limits is high. Cole (1990a) has suggested that of the Bureau of Land Management areas regulated wlderness-wide limits on number4 of packstock Season of use. Such regulations were most common are likely to be unnecessary or ineffective. In most in the Pacific region and in the Alaska and Hawaii regions. A few Rocky Mountain areas had regula- were required more frequently than they were tions, but most used guidelines. The likelihood that recommended. wilderness areas with packstock use regulate season Forest Service and National Park Service manag- of use has not changed significantly since 1980 ers tended to be equally likely to implement each of (Washburne and Cole 1983). these techniques, except “hobble stock” and “do not Limiting the season of packstock use addresses picket stock.” Forest Service managers were more the concern that early spring and summer grazing likely to recommend that stock be hobbled than can cause excessive soil compaction and erosion, and Park Service managers; Park Service managers reduced plant vigor (Cole 1990a; Heady 1975). Re- were more likely to prohibit stock from being pick- stricting early season use can be extremely benefi- eted than Forest Service managers. cial in mountain meadows. Soils are saturated dur- The Park Service was much more likely to rely on ing snowmelt there and plants are growing rapidly. regulations when implementing these policies. None Mangers have limited the season of use of produc- of these behaviors was regulated in a majority of tion livestock since the early part of this century Forest Service wilderness areas. Only party-size (Jardine and Anderson 1919). This survey shows limits were regulated more frequently than they that managers generally have not limited the season were recommended. In contrast, all of these behav- of use for packstock in wilderness. This is unfortu- iors except “hobble stock” and “do not picket stock” nate, given the high potential season-of-use restric- were regulated in a majority of Park Service wilder- tions offer for reducing impact. Controlling season ness areas. Even in the case of picketing, Park Ser- of use in arid areas is less of a concern because arid vice areas were more likely to rely on regulations soils are less prone to become water logged. There- than recommendations. fore, it is logical that the Bureau of Land Manage- Since 1980, the frequency of regulations limiting ment has no restrictions on season of use in the gen- party size and governing the use of various methods erally arid wilderness areas that it administers. of restraining packstock have changed little (Washburne and Cole 1983); however, the proportion Techniques for Controlling the Type of of areas that require parties to carry feed for their Packstock Use packstock has declined from 29 percent in 1980 to 17 percent in 1990. Visitor behavior influences the type and amount of All of these behaviors have been suggested as po- impact caused by packstock groups. For example, if tential means of reducing packstock impacts (Cole visitors regularly tie packstock to trees in campsites, 1989c). If visitors would comply with these regula- more roots will be exposed and many trees will be- tions or guidelines, impacts associated with pack- come diseased and die. Fewer trees would be dam- stock use could be reduced substantially without re- aged if visitors tied horses to hit&lines fastened ducing the amount of use. Of these behaviors, limits between trees instead of to the trees themselves. on party size may have the least effect on physical Managers were asked about the following regula- impacts. Party-size limits are likely to be most ef- tions or guidelines that either encourage low-impact fective where physical impacts are likely to occur behavior or discourage high-impact behavior: limit- quickly (Cole and others 1987). Because most im- ing party size, requiring feed to be packed in for pacts occur with the initial use in such areas, subse- stock, encouraging riders to stay on trails, restrict- quent use isn’t as important. Party-size limits may ing loose-herding of stock on trails (encouraging be more important to avoid conflict with backpack- packstock users to tie animals together when they ing groups. Such groups particularly dislike encoun- are on the trail), restricting the practice of tying tering large parties with stock (Stankey 1979). stock to trees, encouraging the use of hitchlines (as Carrying feed (typically grains, occasionally hay) an alternative to tying horses to trees), restricting will maintain animal weight and vigor, reducing the the practice of picketing stock (picketing involves demand for wild forage (Elser and Brown 1980). tethering animals to portable stakes), and encourag- Stock will still trample areas, but feed can reduce ing the hobbling of stock (binding two of their legs the impacts associated with grazing. A point of di- together as an alternative to picketing). minishing returns can be reached on extended trips All of these behaviors, except “do not picket stock, when additional animals are required to carry more were either required or recommended in a majority feed. In addition, concerns about feed being con- of wilderness areas with stock use. The most com- taminated by seed of weedy and invasive plants has mon desired behaviors were ‘no tying to trees,” “use led to suggestions that only certified weed-free feed hitchlines,” and “pack in feed” (table 7). All of these be allowed in wilderness (Cole 1983,1989c). behaviors were recommended much more often than Restricting packstock to existing trails and prohib- they were required. However, party-size regulations iting loose-herding is important in preventing the destruction of existing trails, the development of

19 new trails, and in preventing visitor conflicts caused Techniques for Controlling Where by runaway animals (Cole 1989c). Appropriate meth- Packstock Use Occurs ods for restraining packstock can prevent damage to trees and soils, and minimize grazing impacts. Par- Our survey explored three techniques for control- ticularly in camp settings, tree damage can be pre- ling where pa&stock use occurs. These include at- vented by tying animals to a hitchline rather than di- tempts to prohibit camping within a certain distance rectly to trees. Soil disturbance can be minimized by of water, to confine stock to specially designated placing the hitchline on level sites with thin soil or no packstock campsites, and to provide facilities to con- soil (Cole 1989c). Picketing and hobbling limit the fine stock and their impacts (table 8). Of these ac- movement of animals while they are grazing. The use tions, restrictions against camping close to water of these techniques is often a matter of preference and were most common; 40 percent of areas with pack- may depend on whether animals are experienced with stock had regulations prohibiting camping close to one method or the other (Elser and Brown 1980). water and another 53 percent discouraged camping Picketing eliminates problems of wandering animals, close to water. The most commonly recommended but the stakes must be moved regularly to prevent lo- setback distance was 100 feet, although 200 feet was calized impacts. Hobbling disperses grazing impacts, nearly as common. This regulation was found only but can cause problems for parties with inexperienced in National Forest and National Park Service wil- animals that can become injured and with experi- dernesses. It was most common in National Park enced animals that head home despite the hobbles. Service wildernesses.

Table 8 -Management techniques for controlling where packstock use occurs Camp Designated Provide away from packstock Provide Provide Provide stock water Agency and region water sites only hitchracks pastures/corrals drift fences developments ------Percent------Agency Forest Service 40 8 18 19 12 12 (N = 170) Park Service 71 45 64 27 27 18 (N= 11) Bureau of Land 0 0 0 13 0 13 Management (N=8) Fish and Wildlife 0 0 0 0 0 0 Service (N=2) Region Southeast 33 0 0 0 0 0 (N=6) Midwest 26 0 19 0 0 6 (N = 16) Rocky Mountains 36 7 19 22 10 17 (N = 98) Pacific 51 12 21 18 19 6 (N = 67) Alaska and 0 25 50 25 0 25 Hawaii (N=4) All units 40 9 20 18 12 12 (N = 191) Restricting packstock parties to designated sites to reduce packstock impacts unpopular, except in was much less common. This regulation was found National Parks. in 45 percent of National Park Service wildernesses, The impacts of packstock on visitors are usually but in relatively few National Forest areas (8 per- concentrated at popular places in wilderness, often cent) and in no areas managed by other agencies near campsites and along trails in particularly sce- (table 8). Facilities are another means of attracting nic or accessible areas. For example, in the Eagle visitors to a relatively small number of sites that can Cap Wilderness in Oregon, Cole (1981) estimated be located at places resistant to the impacts of pack- that grazing impacts were confined to less than stock. About 20 percent of wilderness areas with 2 percent of the entire wilderness area-and the im- packstock use provided some type of facility for con- pacts were severe only on a fraction of that 2 per- taining or watering packstock (table 8). The Park cent. Therefore, wilderness-wide application of Service provided facilities much more frequently regulations may not be required, and may unneces- than other agencies. Hitchracks were the most com- sarily infringe on the visitor’s wilderness experience mon facility in Park Service wildernesses; they were (Cole and others 1987). The site-specific application provided in 64 percent of Park Service areas with of regulations is indicative of management targeting packstock use. Hitchracks and pastures or corrals specific problem situations. were equally common in National Forest and Park However, most regulations were applied across an Service areas; drift fences and water developments entire wilderness, rather than in the specific places were less common in National Forest areas. The where problems were severe or likely to become so popularity of stock containment facilities varied (table 9). Of the 14 types of regulations studied, between regions; hitchracks were the primary facil- only four generally applied to specific areas rather ity in the Midwest region, and in the Alaska and than the entire wilderness: limits on numbers of Hawaii regions; drift fences were most common in packstock, limits on numbers of packstock parties, the Pacific region. limits on season of use, and requirements to camp in Concentrating use on durable sites is one of the designated stock sites. These include the two most most time honored approaches to impact manage- direct means of limiting the amount of use, the only ment. In wilderness, however, both provision of fa- means of controlling season of use, and one of the cilities and attempts to “confine” use are generally means of influencing where use occurs. considered inconsistent with management goals. The Forest Service was more likely than the Park This appears to have made the provision of facilities Service to apply tactics for limiting the amount and

Table 9- The proportion of regulations that only apply in part of the wilderness

Number Length Number Of of of Season Party Pack in Stay on Agency and region animals stay parties of use Size feed trails ------Percent------Agency Forest Service 71 8 33 83 8 19 38 Park Service 100 50 100 100 25 50 30 Region Rocky Mountains 80 7 100 100 11 20 50 Pacific 75 23 50 87 10 38 38 All units 80 13 87 90 10 25 33

No No Camp Designated loose- tying Use Hobble Do not away packstock herding to trees hitchlines stock picket from water sites only ------Percent ------Agency Forest Service 3 9 7 38 50 11 75 Park Service 0 0 0 0 25 0 40

Region Rocky Mountains 0 12 18 43 14 100 Pacific 7 5 0 50 6 44

All units 3 7 8 38 44 10 65

22 season of use to the entire wilderness; the Forest professional judgment, and public participation. The Service was less likely than the Park Service to products and utility of research, professional judg- apply regulations of user behaviors and limits on ment, and public participation are more obvious where use occurs to the entire wilderness. Regional and familiar than tradition and production livestock differences exhibited no obvious pattern. standards. Tradition refers to the use of historical It seems logical that regulations most limiting or ongoing packstock practices in developing new visitor freedom and access should be applied only regulations. Production livestock standards refer to where necessary (in a site-specific manner). Limits the use of existing information on appropriate stock- on numbers of animals and parties and on season of ing rate, season of use, and forage utilization to use are the packstock management actions most manage production livestock grazing. likely to interfere with freedom. These actions were Professional judgment was consistently the most the ones most frequently applied in a site-specific common basis for regulations; research was the least manner. This suggests that wilderness managers common (table 10). The most frequent use of re- have adjusted their application of management tech- search was to set party-size limits; public participa- niques to minimize unnecessary visitor restrictions. tion was most commonly used to limit the number For all three types of actions, the Park Service was of packstock parties per season. The most frequent more likely than the Forest Service to apply regula- uses of tradition were for limiting the length of stay tions only to a portion of the wilderness. and party size. Production livestock standards were used most frequently to limit the season of use. The National Park Service tended to use all sources of information, except production livestock standards, Wilderness managers used a wide variety of strat- more frequently than the Forest Service. Rocky egies and tactics for managing packstock. However, Mountain areas tended to use all sources of informa- nearly half the wilderness areas with packstock had tion except production livestock standards more fre- no regulations on their use. Even in those areas quently than Pacific areas. that regulated packstock, the only common regula- The general lack of information about packstock tions were limits on party size and length of stay; impacts and management (Cole 1990a) is indicated very few parties were affected by these regulations by managers’ use of professional judgment and tra- because the limits are often many times greater dition rather than other sources of information when than the typical party size or trip length. formulating regulations. The United States General Managers of production livestock on public lands Accounting Office (1989) suggested that a lack of in- typically limit both the number of animals and sea- formation was hindering Forest Service manage- son of use to avoid overgrazing and to avoid use ment of wilderness. The infrequent use of public when soils are particularly fragile. Despite the participation is unfortunate because public involve- proven value of these approaches, they have seldom ment is required for most public land-use decisions been used when managing pa&stock. Only in (Culhane 1981) and is fundamental to sound wilder- National Park Service areas have even a substantial ness management (Hendee and others 19901. The minority of managers addressed this goal; infrequent use of research can be explained by the general absence of applicable research on the im- MANAGEMENT PROGRAM pacts of recreational packstock (Cole 1987). Tradi- FORMULATION tion may have been used for establishing party size and length-of-stay regulations because of long- When considering the adequacy of current standing packstock practices of using a large num- packstock management programs, it is worthwhile ber of animals per party and establishing base considering the sources of information used to for- camps (Elser and Brown 1980). The infrequent use mulate these programs and managers’ satisfaction of production livestock standards is unfortunate be- with them. This suggests how programs are likely cause those standards could help managers develop to change in the future and how new information packstock impact standards. might lead to improvement. Satisfaction With Existing Regulations Methods Used To Formulate To what extent were managers satisfied that exist- ing packstock regulations were controlling ecological Regulations impacts? Responses to this question will vary with We asked managers which of the following sources the severity of packstock impacts, the success of cur- they used to formulate regulations: research, tradi- rent management programs, and the managers’ phi- tion, production livestock (cattle and sheep) standards, losophy. Management philosophies can range from

23 Table 10 -Methods used to formulate packstock regulations

Production livestock Professional Public Regulation Research Tradition standards judgment participation ------Percent------All wilderness units Party size 30 41 31 71 41 (N = 83) Season of use 11 33 33 33. 11 (N=9) Length of stay 17 42 25 55 31 (N =71) Total use 20 10 10 50 30 (N= 10) Number of parties 0 17 17 67 50 (N= 6) Five combined 22 39 27 61 35 (N=l79) Forest Service Party size 31 40 31 68 40 (N = 75) Season of use 0 17 33 0 17 (N= 6) Length of stay 16 38 29 51 31 (N= 61) Total use 0 0 0 43 14 (N=7) Number of parties 0 0 0 67 33 (N= 3) Five combined 22 36 28 57 34 (N = 152) Park Service Party size 25 50 38 100 50 (N=8) Season of use 33 67 33 67 0 (N=3) Length of stay 22 78 11 89 33 (N=9) Total use 67 33 33 67 67 (N=3) Number of parties 67 0 33 33 67 (N=3) Five combined 35 54 27 81 42 (N = 26)

beliefs that regulations should only be used as a last and in about three-fourths of the Bureau of Land resort to minimize infringing on wilderness experi- Management areas felt that current levels of regula- ences (Hendee and others 1990; Lucas 1982,1983) tion were appropriate. A majority of managers in to beliefs that regulations should be instituted early, National Park Service areas felt there were too few preventing inequitable use and access to wilderness regulations; one manager felt there were too many. (Dustin and McAvoy 1984; McAvoy and Dustin 1983). Only in the Pacific region did a majority of wilder- ness managers feel there were too few regulations; Table 11- Proportion of wilderness units where managers knowledge and expertise are adapted for packstock feel the current level of regulations is appropriate, management (Heady and Vaux 1969). Range man- not enough, or too much to manage the current agement professionals can be found in nearly all level of ecological impacts from packstock Forest Service Ranger District and Bureau of Land Agency Current level of regulation Management Area offices; they should be included and region Appropriate Not enough Too much as members of interdisciplinary wilderness planning ------Percent------and management teams. University cooperative ex- Agency tension specialists in range management are also Forest Service 55 45 0 available in all Western States to assist wilderness (N= 173) managers. The use of production livestock stan- Park Service 36 55 9 dards will also increase if inservice range manage- (N= 11) ment training is developed for wilderness managers, Bureau of Land 75 25 0 Management and if academic training combining range and wil- (N=8) derness management through cooperative education Fish and Wildlife 50 50 0 programs is promoted. Service Professional judgment will always be important in (N=2) formulating regulations, but managers should use Region other information more often than they do now. Southeast 67 33 0 Furthermore, the use of additional information from (N=6) public participation, production livestock standards, ‘Midwest 61 19 0 (N= 16) and research will enhance the quality of professional Rocky Mountains 57 43. 0 judgment. (N=100) Pacific 46 53 1 (N= 68) EXAMPLES OF EXISTING Alaska and 50 50 0 PACKSTOCK MANAGEMENT PLANS Hawaii (N=4) Existing packstock management plans provide All units 55 44 1 ideas for managers who are attempting to develop (N= 194) or revise such plans. We critiqued two plans to iden- tify potential problems as well as areas for improve- ment. The examples are the Bob Marshall-Great Bear-Scapegoat Wildernesses Recreation Manage- they found that National Park Service managers of- ment Plan (USDA Forest Service 1987) and the ten used regulations to prevent impacts. In this Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Stock study, nearly two-thirds of National Park Service Use and Meadow Management Plan (USDI National managers were dissatisfied with the current level of Park Service 1986). These plans are among the regulations, but so were about half of all wilderness more comprehensive attempts to manage packstock managers. These results suggest that impacts com- impacts in wilderness settings. monly exceed managers’ standards of acceptability. Bob Marshall, Great Bear, and Summary Scapegoat Wildernesses Current levels of packstock regulations are likely The Bob Marshall, Great Bear, and Scapegoat Wil- to change. Nearly half of all wilderness managers dernesses form the 1.5-million-acre Bob Marshall are dissatisfied with existing regulations; the infor- Wilderness Complex in northwestern Montana. As mation they are using to formulate regulations is in many Northern Rocky Mountain wildernesses, meager at best. Professional judgment was the packstock use in the Bob Marshall complex accounts source of information used most often to formulate for a significant amount of the total visitation. Lucas regulations. Research results, production livestock (1985) estimated that nearly 40 percent of the total standards, and public participation were either use in the complex was from packstock parties, and underutilized or unavailable. Public participation 17 percent of the packstock use was from commer- should be used more often, both to meet legal re- cial parties. quirements and to conform to wilderness manage- The complex used the LAC (Limits of Acceptable ment principles. Research results will be used more Change) planning process (Stankey and others 1985) often only if more research is conducted to meet to set impact standards; designate the spatial distri- managers’ needs. Production livestock standards bution of acceptable impacts; and describe the ap can be used more often if range management propriate management tools, implementation

25 schemes, and monitoring procedures. All uses Forage utilization estimates were based on the were addressed in this plan, including backpacking, grazed plant method measuring the percent of all packstock use, and aircraft use of a wilderness land- plants that were grazed. Range condition and trend ing strip. The primary packstock management ob- estimates were based on deviations from the poten- jective was to limit forage utilization to levels that tial natural vegetation composition and biomass pro- would protect wilderness values and provide suffi- duction, and the monitored changes in these param- cient winter forage for wildlife. The plan was a joint eters. Range condition was to be estimated every effort of an interdisciplinary team of managers, re- 5 years on each allotment. Forage utilization was searchers, and interested citizens. to be estimated annually. The plan identified four opportunity classes that The designation of impact standards for each op- varied in their social, environmental, and manage- portunity class and the establishment of grazing al- ment characteristics. The plan set limits for the lotments provide definite direction and methods for number of encounters on trails per day, the number managing packstock use in the Bob Marshall Wil- of camps within sight and sound per day, and the derness Complex. The different management tools degree of risk and challenge available. It set guide- and implementation schemes used in the various op- lines for the number of contacts with administrative portunity classes will help address packstock man- personnel, amount of rules and regulations, inten- agement on a site-specific basis. However, the use of sity of trail construction and maintenance, and the traditional range condition and utilization standards number of signs, administrative structures, and is not ideal since the relationship between packstock management facilities. It also set limits for camp- management and range condition improvement is site size, condition, and density; forage utilization, unclear, as is the relationship between utilization range condition and trend, and visual appearance and the potential for plant regrowth. Residual bio- of grazed areas; and forest vegetation changes. The mass standards may prove to be more representa- four opportunity classes were organized along a gra- tive of use levels and impacts, and produce more dient of impact severity based on their deviation consistent values when different persons do the from primitive conditions. monitoring. Description of the desired vegetation Production livestock impact standards were ap- composition rather than the potential natural veg- plied to the least primitive opportunity class; more etation would be more helpful in judging impacts stringent standards were applied to the more primi- and understanding how packstock management can tive opportunity classes. Forage utilization stan- affect vegetation composition. Finally, the lack of dards varied from 40 percent in the least primitive attention to soil characteristics (beyond range condi- class to 20 percent in the most primitive class; range tion ratings) and the failure to restrict early season condition standards varied from generally good to use are potential shortcomings. These omissions are excellent; range trend standards varied from im- significant because meadows are especially suscep- proving to static orimproving; and visual appear- tible to erosion and trampling damage early in the ance standards varied from moderately grazed to growing season. lightly grazed. The plan will be implemented through the devel- Sequoia and Kings Canyon National opment of allotment management plans for all areas Parks with packstock use. These plans will describe the packstock management practices permitted, based Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks cover on the impact standards established for the appli- over 850,000 acres in the southern Sierra Nevada in cable opportunity class. Educational information California. About 85 percent of the parks are feder- with suggested guidelines will be the implementa- ally designated wilderness. In 1989 packstock use tion method of first choice in all opportunity classes, accounted for only about 5 percent of overnight visi- leaving regulations to be applied when needed. tation. Commercial use represented 55 percent of However, a 35-animal maximum party size regula- the packstock use, administrative use represented tion was set for the entire wilderness. Management 32 percent, and private use represented 13 percent. strategies will vary by opportunity class. Limits on The 1986 packstock management plan was an party size and closures of areas so they can recover elaboration of a less specific treatment of packstock from impacts (often rotating yearly or seasonally) in the 1986 Backcountry Management Plan (USDI should be more common in the more primitive op- National Park Service 1986). In addition, the portunity classes; management facilities will be packstock management plan was used to organize more common in the least primitive settings. a growing number of site-specific regulations and Monitoring procedures for packstock grazing im- management practices into a single planning docu- pacts were taken directly from the Range Analysis ment (McClaran 19891. The plan was written by Handbook for the Forest Service’s Northern Region. Park staff. Public input was sought throughout the

26 process. One of the team members had training and complete reporting cards. Herbaceous species com- professional experience in range management. position and bare ground were to be monitored every The primary packstock management objective was 3 years in sites receiving heavy use. The plan also to protect the Parks’ natural resources, ecological provided for additional monitoring sites to be estab- processes, and visitors’ experiences by preventing or lished if stock density exceeded 15 nights of use per reversing erosion and adverse changes in vegetation acre over the summer grazing season. Permanent composition. The plan emphasized maintaining the photograph stations were established in most mead- existing levels of packstock use and management ex- ows to monitor changes in woody species abundance cept where impacts were unacceptable. Therefore, and obvious changes in the amount of herbaceous the plan did not use a formal zoning process similar vegetation or bare ground. to Opportunity Classes under LAC. Vegetation composition and bare ground were Wilderness-wide impact standards were estab- compared in nearby grazed and ungrazed meadows lished for changes in vegetation composition and to separate the impacts of grazing from the effects of bare ground. For the dominant herbaceous species other environmental changes in the area. A number and bare ground, the impact standard was that of meadows were closed to packstock grazing to fa- changes be comparable in grazed and ungrazed cilitate the comparisons and to provide ungrazed meadows. If the frequency of the dominant species meadows for visitors. In most cases, closed mead- decreased more than 15 percent or basal plant ows were not on maintained trails and had received cover decreased more than 15 percent in the grazed little or no packstock use in previous decades. meadow, and a similar change did not occur in the The establishment of site-specific opening dates, ungrazed meadow, packstock management would and length-of-stay and party-size limits at Sequoia change. The impact standard for woody plants was and Kings Canyon National Parks are good illustra- an increase of more than 15 percent on any meadow. tions of matching management tools with manage- Although the impact standards applied across the ment problems and goals. However, impact stan- wildernesses, application of management tools was dards for vegetation composition and bare ground site specific. Specific opening dates for packstock were the same in all areas, suggesting managers grazing were established for all areas. These dates paid little attention to the spectrum of experiences were based on more than 5 years of investigation of that visitors may be seeking. However, the estab- the date when stock hoofprints did not penetrate lishment of ungrazed meadows can provide some more than 1 inch of soil,% and the influence of yearly variety of experience. In addition, the impact stan- variations in snow levels on these dates. Each dards do vary slightly from meadow to meadow be- meadow had an opening date for normal, heavy, and cause the composition of ungrazed meadows used for light levels of winter snowfall. In many popular or comparison varies. The absence of defoliation stan- sensitive areas, length-of-stay and party-size limits dards and the uniform overnight pa&stock-use ca- were more stringent than those applied elsewhere. pacity of 15 nights per acre are shortcomings. Defo- Off-trail travel was limited to specific areas. Most liation is a major impact to individual plants and existing drift fences and pasture fences were to be can lead to changes in vegetation composition. Also, maintained, but new fences would only be approved most meadows would have been visited annually if after review. The only management tools with defoliation had been monitored. A uniform capacity wilderness-wide application were campsite behav- ignores the variety of biomass production and sus- iors: tying to trees and camping less than 100 feet ceptibility to trampling damage among meadows: from water were prohibited; hitchlines were required. some meadows may require attention at low use Regulations were used to implement all manage- and others only at high use. Finally, the reliance on ment tools and practices. Permits were required for regulations rather than education or guidelines can access, and information packets describing the regu- present enforcement and public relations problems. lations were included with the permit. Tentative However, the public involvement established in the opening dates were set after snow surveys in April. planning process and continued in the educational Final dates were set in May of each year. Most program has the potential to overcome these prob- backcountry rangers were authorized to cite viola- lems, especially if the public becomes involved in tors of any regulation. In addition, an educational monitoring. program describing minimum-impact packstock practices was planned. Packstock use was monitored with reporting cards users completed identifying the date, location, The goals of wilderness management are under- length of stay, and party size for every camp their standing conditions, setting acceptable impact lim- party used. All packstock parties, whether private, its, selecting appropriate management tools and commercial, or administrative, were required to implementation schemes, and monitoring the

27 changes in conditions that represent management has been described in some detail (Cole 1987). Simi- sucess (Cole 1990b; Hammitt and Cole 1987). Be- lar information is absent for packstock grazing and cause packstock studies are so rare, managers must is only roughly described for production livestock rely on production livestock information to begin to (Heitschmidt 1988). Do packstock impacts increase understand the nature of grazing impacts, impact linearly or curvilinearly as use levels increase? standards, implementation schemes, and monitoring Studies of patch grazing suggest that impacts will be programs. Range management principles should be significant, but localized, even at very low use levels incorporated into the wilderness management pro- (Ring and others 1985; Ruyle and others 1988; Wilms cess through interdisciplinary teams and inservice and others 1988). Research is needed to predict the and cooperative education training. Existing pro- impacts associated with various intensities of pack- duction livestock standards for defoliation, changes stock use in different environments. in vegetation composition, and opening dates to re- The relationship between season of use and im- strict early season use provide models that could be pacts to soils and vegetation has not been described adapted to packstock management. Monitoring pro- in much detail for campsites, trails, or grazing areas cedures can be transferred from production livestock (Cole 1987). Opening dates for production livestock to packstock situations. Specific procedures should grazing are generally set on the basis of plant phe- be developed to monitor the relationship between ex- nology and response to defoliation. Opening dates isting conditions and objectives established in the could also be set on the basis of soil vulnerability to planning process. Finally, implementation schemes compaction and shearing. A clearer understanding for packstock management should not follow the ex- of the seasonal variability of the soil impacts would clusively regulatory approach traditionally used for greatly enhance packstock management. production livestock. Instead, the decision to rely on To date, there has been no objective comparison guidelines or regulations for implementation should of vegetation and soil impacts among horses, mules, be made on a site-specific basis. llamas, and goats. How much biomass is consumed by these animals, what are their diet preferences, RESEARCH TO IMPROVE and how do they impact soils? How does previous PACKSTOCK MANAGEMENT experience in a grazing location influence packstock behavior and resulting impacts? In unfamiliar envi- The management of packstock is limited by a dep- ronments, production livestock consume less forage auperate research base (Cole 1987, 1989a). This and spend more time walking than in familiar envi- may help explain why managers surveyed in this ronments (Provenza and Balph 1988). What influ- study used research results less often than other ence does mixing packstock from different visitor sources of information when formulating regula- parties have on impacts to vegetation and soils? Al- tions. For management to benefit, future research though Vallentine (1990) suggested that there will must address the basic mechanisms of impact as be no effect from mixing animals, no empirical evi- well the ways in which packstock management tech- dence has described the influence of herd mixing on niques and implementation programs can be evalu- patch grazing patterns or soil impacts. Similarly, ated (Cole 1987). Research is needed on three what influence do sequential changes in the pack- fronts: (1) relationships between use and impacts, stock animals grazing in a meadow have on the pat- (2) relationships between packstock handling tech- terns of forage consumption and trail development? niques and impacts, and (3) relationships between What makes one site more susceptible to packstock management programs and impacts. impacts than another? Clary and Webster (1989) and Ratliff and others (1987) recognized susceptibility Relationships Between Use and depended on soil characteristics, elevation, species composition, and other parameters. Clearly, in Impacts mountain meadow and riparian settings, erodibility Characteristics of packstock use that influence the should be of paramount concern (Ellison 1949). Re- amount of impact include the intensity and season of search that differentiates and classifies erodibility use, and the kind of pack animal. The important re- potential and the potential for species composition to search questions are: How do impacts vary among change in the face of packstock use should be pursued. use levels, seasons of use, and kinds of animals used? Finally; studies of packstock impacts to wildlife, In addition, how do all these relationships vary water quality, and other visitors are severely lack- among sites with different characteristics? ing. Studies similar to those for impacts to vegeta- The relationship between use levels and impacts tion and soils should be pursued for impacts to wild- to vegetation and soils in campsite and trail settings life, water quality, and other visitors.

28 Relationships Between Management backcountry informing packstock users of minimum Techniques and Impacts impact practices, suggested practices, and the rea- sons for these suggested behaviors. To date, the lack of empirical information on the In this study, less than a third of the wilderness effect of packstock handling techniques on packstock areas with packstock use had developed and imple- impacts has meant that regulations and guidelines mented packstock grazing impact monitoring pro- are primarily based on professional judgment (Cole grams. Because monitoring is a prerequisite of ef- 1989c; Cole and others 1987). More rigorous evalua- fective management, this situation must change. tion of various alternatives is needed. For example, Initially, a compilation of monitoring procedures what is the relationship between the length of stay should be developed similar to those available for and impacts? Does forage consumption or soil com- campsites (Cole 198913). Simultaneously, procedures paction decrease linearly or curvilinearly as the used to monitor production livestock impacts should length of stay is reduced? Does patch grazing in- be analyzed to reveal their strengths and the modifi- crease or decrease as party size is decreased, and cations needed to monitor packstock impacts. what is the shape of the response curve? What is the relationship between the number of hit&racks Research Approaches and and the extent of soil compaction? Similar questions regarding techniques of packstock restraints in Opportunities camp or for grazing, season of use limitations, or Cole (1987) described and evaluated four types of other management techniques further illustrate the approaches to research describing impacts to vegeta- need for quantitative evaluations of management tion and soils in wilderness: (1) descriptive studies techniques. that quantity existing conditions, (2) comparison of used and unused sites, (3) before-and-after natural Relationships Between Management experiments, and (4) before-and-after controlled ex- Programs and Impacts periments. He called for long-term studies in a vari- ety of settings to improve the understanding of the Implementation programs include the selection of longevity of impacts and the variation in the suscep- acceptable impact levels, application of management tibility among sites. techniques, and institution of a monitoring program. Controlled experiments provide the greatest op- Because acceptable impact levels define the major portunity to understand the ways impacts occur, but management objectives for all subsequent manage- they also are generally more costly and have limited ment actions, their selection must include public application. Descriptive studies and comparisons of participation. This study revealed that public par- used and unused sites are less costly because they ticipation in the selection of packstock regulations can often be part of monitoring programs for ongoing was surprisingly low; however, wilderness planning management. However, they typically do not reveal efforts (USDA Forest Service 1991) will require more the causes of impacts or the relationships between public input. The varying acceptance of packstock impacts and the amount and kind of use. Natural impacts among visitors, between visitors and man- experiments provide a compromise between these agers, and among managers suggests that packstock approaches. Furthermore, opportunities for secur- management will benefit from research and develop- ing long-term studies carried out in a variety of set- ment of educational systems and public participa- tings should become more readily available if vigor- tion processes that improve the understanding of ous monitoring programs are implemented. If issues and working relations among seemingly dis- monitoring programs are designed to compare parate viewpoints. changes in soil, vegetation, and other parameters Debate over implementation programs for wilder- among sites with various types and amounts of use, ness management has focused on regulations versus and various physical settings, then a great deal of voluntary conformity (Bury and Fish 1980; Dustin long-term information from a variety of settings will and McAvoy 1984; Hendee and others 1990; Lucas become available. 1982, 1983; McAvoy and Dustin 1983). Analysis of the effectiveness and cost of these divergent ap- REFERENCES proaches is needed. It would be more beneficial, however, to enlarge the debate to include approaches Allen-Diaz, Barbara H. 1991. Water table and plant between the poles of regulation and voluntary con- relationships in Sierra Nevada meadows. Ameri- formity. For example, how much would voluntary can Midland Naturalist. 126: 30-43. compliance improve if packstock organizations spon- Archer, S. R.; Smeins, F. E. 1991. Ecosystem-level sored an educational program? This program might processes. In: Heitschmidt, Rodney K.; Stuth, include a packstock enthusiast that travels the

29 Jerry W., eds. Grazing management: an ecological Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, For- perspective. Portland, OR: Timber Press: 109-139. est Service, Intermountain Research Station. 57 p. Arnold, G. W. 1984. Comparison of the time budgets Cole, David N. 1989c. Low-impact recreational prac- and circadian patterns of maintenance activities tices for wilderness and backcountry. Gen. Tech. in sheep, cattle and horses grouped together. Rep. INT-265. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Ag- Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 13: 19-30. riculture, Forest Service, Inter-mountain Research Barnes, T. G.; Heitschmidt, R. K.; Varner, L. W. Station. 131 p. 1991. Wildlife. In: Heitschmidt, Rodney K; Stuth, Cole, David N. 1990a. Ecological impacts of wilder- Jerry W., eds. Grazing management: an ecological ness recreation and their management. In: perspective. Portland, OR: Timber Press: 179-189. Hendee, John C.; Stankey, George H.; Lucas, Bement, Robert E. 1969. A stocking rate guide for Robert C. Wilderness management. 2d ed. beef production on blue grama range. Journal of Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing: 425-466. Range Management. 22: 83-86. Cole, David N. 1990b. Wilderness management: Bohn, Carolyn C.; Buckhouse, John C. 1986. Effects has it come of age? Journal of Soil and Water of grazing on streambanks. In: Transactions of the Conservation. 45: 360-364. 51st North American Wildlife and Natural Re- Cole, David N.; Petersen, Margaret E.; Lucas, sources Conference: 265-271. Robert C. 1987. Managing wilderness recreation Bonham, Charles D. 1989. Measurements for terres- use: common problems and potential solutions. trial vegetation. New York John Wiley. 338 p. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-230. Ogden, UT: U.S. Depart- Briske, D. D. 1991. Developmental morphology and ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermoun- physiology of grasses. In: Heitschmidt, Rodney K; tain Research Station. 60 p. St&h, Jerry W., eds. Grazing management: an Cook, C. Wayne; Stubbendieck, James. 1986. Range ecological perspective. Portland, OR: Timber research: basic problems and techniques. Denver, Press: 85-108. CO: Society for Range Management. 317 p. Bury, Richard L.; Fish, C. Ben. 1980. Controlling Culhane, Paul J. 1981. Public land politics: interest wilderness recreation: what managers think and group influence on the Forest Service and the Bu- do. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 35: reau of Land Management. Baltimore, MD: Johns 90-93. Hopkins University Press. 398 p. Clary, Warren P.; Webster, Bert F. 1989. Managing Davidson, J. L.; Milthorpe, F. L. 1966. Leaf growth grazing of riparian areas in the Inter-mountain Re- in Dactylis glomerata following defoliation. Annals gion. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-263. Ogden, UT: U.S. of Botany. 30: 173-84. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Inter- Dillman, Don A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: mountain Research Station. 11 p. the total design method. New York: John Wiley. Cole, David N. 1981. Vegetational changes associ- 325 p. ated with recreational use and fire suppression in Doran, J. W.; Linn, D. M. 1979. Bacteriological qual- the Eagle Cap Wilderness, Oregon: some manage- ity of runoff water from pastureland Applied and ment implications. Biological Conservation. 20: Environmental Microbiology. 37: 985-991. 247-270. Dustin, Daniel L.; McAvoy, Leo H. 1984. The limita- Cole, David N. 1983. Campsite conditions in the Bob tion of the traffic light. Journal of Park and Recre- Marshall Wilderness, Montana. Res. Pap. INT- ation Administration. 2: 28-32. 312. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Dyksterhuis, E. J. 1949. Condition and management Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range of rangeland based on quantitative ecology. Jour- Experiment Station. 18 p. nal of Range Management. 2: 104-115. Cole, David N. 1987. Research on soil and vegetation Ellison, Lincoln. 1949. The ecological basis for judg- in wilderness: a state-of-knowledge review. In: ing condition and trend on mountain range land. Lucas, Robert C., camp. Proceedings-national Journal of Forestry. 47: 786-795. wilderness research conference: ideas, state-of- Elser, Smoke; Brown, Bill. 1980. Packin’ in on mules knowledge, future directions; 1985 July 23-26; and horses. Missoula, MT: Mountain Press. 158 p. Fort Collins, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-220. Ogden, Fish, C. Ben; Bury, Richard L. 1981. Wilderness UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Ser- visitor management: diversity and agency policies. vice, Intermountain Research Station: 135-177. Journal of Forestry. 79: 608-612. Cole, David N. 1989a. Viewpoint: needed research Gary, Howard L.; Johnson, Steven R.; Ponce, on domestic and recreational livestock in wilder- Stanley L. 1983. Cattle grazing impact on surface ness. Journal of Range Management. 42: 84-86. water quality in a Colorado Front Range stream. Cole, David N. 1989b. Wilderness campsite monitor- Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 38: ing methods: a sourcebook Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-259. 124-128.

30 Gillen R. L.; Krueger, W. C.; Miller, R. F. 1985. Leopold, Aldo. 1921. The wilderness and its place in Cattle use of riparian meadows in the Blue Moun- recreational policy. Journal of Forestry. 19: 718721. tains of northeastern Oregon. Journal of Range LoR, Eric R.; Menke, John W.; Kie, John G. 1991. Management. 38: 205-209. Habitat shifts by mule deer: the influence of cattle Hammitt, William E.; Cole, David N. 1987. Wildland grazing. Journal of Wildlife Management. 55: 16-26. recreation: ecology and management. New York Lucas, Robert C. 1980. Use patterns and visitor John Wiley. 341 p. characteristics, attitudes and preferences in nine Hansen, D. K; Rouquette, F. M., Jr.; Florence, M. J. wilderness and other roadless areas. Res. Pap. 1987. Grazing behaviorof yearling horses. II. Se- INT-253. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agricul- lective or spot grazing of bermudagrass. Forage ture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Research in Texas, 1987. CPR-4537. College Sta- Range Experiment Station. 89 p. tion, TX: Texas A&M University Agricultural Ex- Lucas, Robert C. 1982. Recreation regulations- periment Station: 19-21. when are they needed? Journal of Forestry. 80: Haydock, K P.; Shaw, N. H. 1975. The comparative 148-151. yield method of estimating dry matter yield of pas- Lucas, Robert C. 1983. The role of regulations in rec- ture. Australian Journal of Experimental Agricul- reation management. Western Wildlands. 9(2): 6-10. ture .and Animal Husbandry. 15: 663-670. Lucas, Robert C. 1985. Visitor characteristics, atti- Heady, Harold F. 1975. Rangeland management. tudes, and use patterns in the Bob Marshall Wil- New York: McGraw-Hill. 460 p. derness Complex, 1970-82. Res. Pap. INT-345. Heady, Harold F.; Vaux, Henry J. 1969. Must his- Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, For- tory repeat? Journal of Range Management. 22: est Service, Intermountain Research Station. 32 p. 209-210. Manning, Mary E.; Swanson, Sherman R.; Svejcar, Heitschmidt, Rod. 1988. Grazing systems and live- Tony; Trent, James. 1989. Rooting characteristics stock management. In: White, R. S.; Short, R. E., of four intermountain meadow community types. eds. Achieving efficient use of rangeland re- Journal of Range Management. 42: 309-312. sources. Fort Keogh Research Symposium; 1987 Markham, Doyle. 1990. Llamas are the ultimate. September; Fort Miles, MT. Bozeman, MT: Montana Idaho Falls, ID: Snake River Llamas. 286 p. Agricultural Experiment Station: 101-106. Martin, Steven R.; McCool, Stephen F.; Lucas, Hendee, John C.; Stankey, George H.; Lucas, Robert C. Robert C. 1989. Wilderness campsite impacts: do 1990. Wilderness management. 2d ed. Golden, CO: managers and visitors see the same? Environmen- Fulcrum Publishing. 546 p. tal Management. 13: 623-629. Holechek, Jerry L. 1988. An approach to setting the McAvoy, Leo H.; Dustin, Daniel L. 1983. Indirect stocking rate. Rangelands. 10: 10-14. versus direct regulation of recreation behavior. Holechek, Jerry L.; Pieper, Rex D.; He&l, Carlton H. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 1989. Range management: practices and prin- 1: 12-17. ciples. Englewood Hills, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 501 p. McClaran, Mitchel P. 1989. Recreational packstock Hyder, Donald N. 1954. Forage utilization. Journal management in Sequoia and Kings Canyon Na- of Forestry. 52: 603-604. tional Parks. Rangelands. 11: 3-8: Jardine, James T.; Anderson, Mark 1919. Range McClaran, Mitchel P. 1990. -Livestock in wilderness: management on the National Forests. Bull. 790. a review and forecast. Environmental Law. 20: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 857-889. 98 p. McInnis, Michael L.; Vavra, Martin. 1987. Dietary Jarmarillo, Victor J.; Detling, James K 1992. Small- relationship among feral horses, cattle and prong- scale heterogeneity in a semi-arid North American horn in southeastern Oregon. Journal of Range grassland. II. Cattle grazing of simulated urine Management. 40: 60-66. patches. Journal of Applied Ecology. 29: 9-13. Medin, Dean E.; Clary, Warren P. 1990. Bird Kauffman, J. Boone; Krueger, W. C. 1984. Livestock and small mammal populations in a grazed and impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside ungrazed riparian habitat in Idaho. Res. Pap. management implications.. .a review. Journal of INT-425. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agricul- Range Management. 37: 430-438. ture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Kie, J. G.; Thomas, J. W. 1988. Rangeland vegeta- Station. 8 p. tion as wildlife habitat. In: Tueller, P. T., ed. Veg- Miller, Richard. 1983. Habitat use of feral horses etation science applications for rangeland analysis and cattle in Wyoming’s Red Desert. Journal of and management. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Range Management. 36: 195-199. Publishers: 585-605.

31 Moir, W. H. 1989. History of development of site and Ruyle, G. B.; Ogden, P. R.; Rice, R. W. 1988. Defolia- condition criteria for range condition within the tion patterns of cattle grazing Lehmann lovegrass. U.S. Forest Service. In: Lauenroth, W. Kc; Applied Agricultural Research. 3: 177-181. Laycock, W. A., eds. Secondary succession and the Sanderson, H. Reed; Meganck, Richard A.; Gibbs, evaluation of rangeland condition. Denver, CO: Kenneth C. 1986. Range management and scenic Westview Press: 49-76. beauty as perceived by dispersed recreationists. Moore, Steven D.; McClaran, Mitchel P. 1991. Sym- Journal of Range Management. 39: 464-469. bolic dimensions of the packstock debate. Leisure Smith, E. Lamar. 1989. Range condition and second- Sciences. 13: 221-237. ary succession: a critique. In: Lauenroth, W. K; Office of the Federal Register. 1990.36 Code of Fed- Laycock, W. A., eds. Secondary succession and the eral Regulations. Washington, DC: U.S. Govern- evaluation of rangeland condition. Denver, CO: ment Printing Office. Westview Press: 103-141. Peterson, George L. 1974. A comparison of the senti- Stankey, George H. 1979. A comparison of carrying ments and perceptions of wilderness managers capacity perceptions among visitors in two wilder- and canoeists in the Boundary Waters Canoe ness areas. Res. Pap. INT-242. Ogden, UT: U.S. Area. Journal of Leisure Research. 6: 194-206. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Inter- Platts, William S. 1981. Influence of forest and mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. rangeland management on anadromous fish habi- 34 p. tat in we&em North America: No. 7. Effects of Stankey, George H.; McCool, Stephen F. 1984. livestock grazing. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-124. Carrying capacity in recreational settings: evolu- Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, tion, appraisal, and application. Leisure Sciences. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and 6: 453-473. Range Experiment Station. 25 p. . Stankey, George H.; Cole, David N.; Lucas, Robert C.; Platts, William S.; Nelson, Rodger L. 1985. Stream- Petersen, Margaret E.; Frissell, Sidney S. 1985. side and upland vegetation use by cattle. Range- The limits of acceptable change (LAC) system for lands. 7: 5-7. wilderness planning. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-176. Platts, William S.; Nelson, Rodger L. 1989. Stream Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, For- canopy and its relationship to salmonid biomass in est Service, Inter-mountain Forest and Range Ex- the intermountain west. North American Journal periment Station. 37 p. of Fisheries Management. 9: 446-457. Strom, Judith E. 1988. Goats join mules, llamas on Provenza, Frederick D.; Balph, David F. 1988. De- the trail. High Country News. July 18. velopment of dietary choice in livestock on range- Sumner, E. Lowell. 1942. The biology of wilderness lands and its implications for management. Jour- protection. Sierra Club Bulletin. 27(4): 14-22. nal of Animal Science. 66: 2356-2368. Thurow, Thomas L. 1991. Hydrology and erosion. Range Inventory and Standardization Committee. In: Heitschmidt, Rodney EC; Stuth, Jerry W., eds. 1983. Guidelines and terminology for range inven- Grazing management: an ecological perspective. tories and monitoring. Denver, CO: Society for Portland, OR: Timber Press: 141-159. Range Management. 13 p. Tiedemann, A R.; Higgins, D. A.; Quigley, T. M.; Ratliff, Raymond D.; George, Melvin R.; McDougald, Marx, D. B. 1987. Responses of fecal coliform in Neil K 1987. Managing livestock grazing on streamwater to four grazing strategies. Journal meadows of California’s Sierra Nevada. Leafl. of Range Management. 40: 322-329. 21421. Berkeley, CA: University of California U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Cooperative Extension. 9 p. 1987. Bob Marshall, Great Bear, Scapegoat Wil- Ring, Charles B., II; Nicholson, Robert A; Launchbaugh, dernesses: recreation management direction. John L. 1985. Vegetational traits of patch-grazed Kalispell, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, rangeland in west-central Kansas. Journal of Forest Service, Flathead, Lolo, Helena, and Lewis Range Management. 38: 51-55. and Clark National Forests. 67 p. Rogers, Garry F.; Malde, Harold E.; Turner, R. M. US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1984. Bibliography of repeat photography for 1991. Internal memorandum to Regional Foresters evaluating landscape change. Salt Lake City, UT: requiring completion of implementation schedules University of Utah Press. 179 p. for all wilderness areas by 1993. Washington, DC. Ruyle, G. B., ed. 1991. Some methods for monitoring 2p. rangelands and other natural area vegetation. United States General Accounting Office. 1989. Wil- Rep. 9043. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Col- derness preservation. GAO/RCED 89-202.91 p. lege of Agriculture Cooperative Extension. 90 p.

32 U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Ser- UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Ser- vice. 1986. Stock use and meadow management vice, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment plan. Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, Station. 56 p. CA. 42 p. Weaver, T.; Dale, D. 1978. Trampling effects of hik- Vallentine, John F. 1990. Grazing management. ers, motorcycles and horses in meadows and for- San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 533 p. ests. Journal of Applied Ecology. 15: 451-457. Wagoner, R. E. 1989. History and development of Westoby, Mark; Walker, Brian; Noy-Meir, Imanuel. site and condition criteria in the Bureau of Land 1989. Opportunistic management for rangelands Management. In: Lauenroth, W. K; Laycock, W. A, not at equilibrium. Journal of Range Management. eds. Secondary succession and the evaluation of 42: 266-274. rangeland condition. Denver, CO: Westview Press: Wilms, Walter D.; Dormaar, John F.; Schaalje, 35-48. G. Bruce. 1988. Stability of grazed patches on Wallace, Mark C.; Krausman, Paul R. 1987. Elk, rough fescue grasslands. Journal of Range Man- mule deer, and cattle habitats in central Arizona. agement. 41: 503-508. Journal of Range Management. 40: 80-83. Wood, M. K 1988. Rangeland vegetation - hydro- Washburne, Randel F.; Cole, David N. 1983. Prob- logic interactions. In: Tueller, P. T., ed. Vegetation lems and practices in wilderness management: a science applications for rangeland analysis and survey of managers. Res. Pap. INT-304. Ogden, management. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 469-491. McClaran, Mitchel P.; Cole, David N. 1993. Packstock in wilderness: use, impacts, monitoring, and management. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-301. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 33 p.

Information about packstock use in wilderness is summarized. The results of a survey of managers of all wilderness areas are presented. Sections describe: the amount and composition of packstock use in wilderness, impacts associated with packsteck use, methods for monitoring impacts caused by packstock, techniques for managing packstock in wilderness, examples of packstock management programs, and research needs.

KEYWORDS: ecological impact, wilderness management, monitoring, grazing, working animals

@ Printed on recycled paper