1. Trailheads 



2. Summer/fall 



3. Day-users/campers 



4. Hikers/hikers with stock/horseback riders 



5. Party size: classified as 1 person, 2 through 6 

 persons, 7 or more persons. 



Tabulations for combinations of variables included 

 the following (only one of which is reported here): 



1. Summer/fall 



a. Day-use/camper 



(1) Hikers/hikers with stock/horseback riders 



(2) Party size 



b. Hikers/hikers with stock/horseback riders 



c. Party size 



2. Hikers/hikers with stock/horseback riders 

 a. Party size 



Statistical Significance 



The data constitute a complete census, not a sample. 

 Thus, "statistical significance" has no meaning. In a sense, 

 any difference is significant. The question is not how much 

 statistical confidence can be placed on estimated compli- 

 ance rates or on differences among them, but, rather, 

 whether or not differences are large enough to be 

 important, and if compliance rates are acceptable. 



Evaluation Criteria 



Acceptability of visitor compliance with the permit 

 system is a management decision, which needs to take 

 into account costs of the system over time, expected 

 future improvement or deteriorations of visitorcompliance, 

 contributions to other objectives, and so forth. 



One important consideration is the increase in compli- 

 ance for this system compared to voluntary self-registra- 

 tion. Reported self-registration rates vary from 28 to 74 

 percent (Lucas 1975). In the pilot test of equipment at 

 Spanish Creek in August 1977, exactly 50 percent of 130 

 parties observed registered. Rates varied from 78 percent 

 of overnight hikers (50 parties) to percent of day-use 

 horseback riders (16 parties). Day-hikers registered in 40 

 percent of the cases, campers using horses in 43 percent of 

 the cases. 



The permit system would be considered successful in 

 gathering basic use data, and superior to self-registration, 

 if compliance rates equaled or exceeded 75 percent overall 

 and at least 60 percent at each trailhead. 



The less that the major types of uses vary in compli- 

 ance, the more feasible it will be to base total use estimates 

 on an expansion of permit data. A simple ratio expansion 

 factor seems as accurate as more complex approaches 

 based on regression formulas (Lucas and others 1971), 

 but if compliance rates for common types of visitors vary 

 to an important extent, it would be necessary to classify 

 permits, and apply separate expansion factors to each to 

 accurately estimate the composition of use, as suggested 

 by Lime and Lorence (1974). This makes the procedure 

 more cumbersome for managers, and therefore, this 

 factor is of particular interest in the analysis. 



RESULTS 

 Equipment Performance 



The traffic counters and camera systems worked 

 almost perfectly. A few days' observations were lost when 

 one battery failed, but there were no other problems. 

 False triggering of traffic counters, which exposes film 

 with no visitors present, was a minor problem at only one 

 location. 



Vandalism was not a significant problem. One 

 camera was discovered with the wires disconnected, but 

 no damage was done. If such recreational use measuring 

 systems are used in the future, brief explanatory cards on 

 the cameras and traffic counters seem desirable to avoid 

 puzzling visitors as to the nature and purpose of the equip- 

 ment. This suggestion was also made by Leatherberry and 

 Lime (1980) who used the same equipment to monitor a 

 trail register in the upper peninsula of Michigan. 



There were no complaints or adverse reaction to the 

 camera system, despite a press release about the study 

 carried by local news papers. 



Compliance and Related Factors 



1. Overall.-ln 1978, 53 percent of the visitor groups 

 to the Spanish Peaks issued themselves a permit. This fell 

 short of the desired level (about 75 percent was hoped 

 for) but should be judged in perspective. This was the 

 first year of a new program. It went into effect on July 

 1 , during the use season. It was a new system for Montana, 

 one with which few visitors were familiar. One unusual 

 location, discussed below, pulled the overall compliance 

 rate down 2 percent. 



2. By trailheads.— Compliance rates varied widely 

 among trailheads (table 1). Cascade Creek was the highest 

 (72 percent) and Hammond Creek the lowest (only 21 

 percent). 



Table 1 .--Compliance by trailhead 





Number of 



Number of 







parties 



parties 



Percentage 



Trailhead 



entering^ 



complying 



complying 



Spanish Creek 



751 



325 



43 



Little Hellroaring Creek 



60 



37 



62 



Hellroaring Creek 



111 



44 



40 



Cascade Creek 



516 



370 



72 



Deer Creek 



142 



94 



66 



Hammond Creek 



94 



20 



21 



Total 



1,674 



890 



53 



'Number of parties observed visiting the area (counted once, although 

 they may have been observed entering and leaving). 



7 



