Table 9, Round-trip Mileage and Transportation Expenditure per Person 

 per Day s Madison River, Montana s 1950, 195l s and 1952 



Nonresidents ordinarily travel greater distances to make use 

 of a fishery than do residents^ therefore^ since the percentage of 

 nonresidents fishing in the Lower Section (6 percent) was considerably 

 smaller than those fishing in the Middle Section (22 percent), it 

 might be expected that the average round -trip mileage for the Lower 

 Section would be the smaller ofatthe two. The fact that the reverse 

 situation occurred (Table 9) can be explained largely on the basis 

 of two factors s (1) limited human population in the immediate 

 vicinity of the Lower Section and (2) the indirect routes necessary to 

 reach various parts of the area (see map), The Lower Section was 

 readily accessible at only two major points^ at Ennis Lake and by the 

 Bozeman-Norris Road, necessitating rcund-about travel to reach the area 

 The population in the immediate vicinity of most of the area w$s gen= 

 erally quite low. For instance^ no one lived adjacent to 15 cf the 53 

 miles of river in the Lower Section, Considering these two conditions. 

 it becomes evident that s on the average,, even local users would have 

 to travel quite some distance to reach the river. On the other hand, 

 the population in the immediate vicinity of the river in the Middle 

 Section was higher; therefore^ the shorter distances traveled by the 

 relatively fewer local users would offset to a certain extent tim 

 longer distances traveled by the larger proportion of nonresidents. 

 The road system., which was generally much better in the Middle Sec 

 tion than the Lower Section, also alleviated the need for extensive 

 travel for local users to get to the river. The large round-trip 

 mileage for the Upper Section can be attributed to the high percen 

 age of nonresidents, low rural population , and distance from a center 

 of population. 



Trip Expenditures 



The average trip expenditure per person per day for each 

 section of river is shown in Table 1.0, 



Differences in the cost of services or supplies as related 

 tc trip expenditures during the three years of study were so small as 



28 



