Level and Type of Use on Bald Eagle State Forest: Report ... · Level and Type of Use on Bald Eagle...

Level and Type of Use on Bald Eagle State Forest:

Report on a 1999-2000 Visitor Survey

Submitted to:

The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation & Natural Resources

Bureau of Forestry

Submitted by:

Harry Zinn

Deborah Kerstetter

Alan Graefe

Chieh-Lu Li

Brijesh Thapa

& Laurlyn Harmon

The Pennsylvania State University

Recreation & Park Management Program

January 29, 2002

ii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. iv

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1

Study Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 1

Methods..................................................................................................................................... 2

Study Population and Sample ............................................................................................... 2

Study Instrument ................................................................................................................... 3

Results ....................................................................................................................................... 4

Estimated Use Levels ............................................................................................................ 4

Visitor Profile........................................................................................................................ 6

Visitation Patterns ................................................................................................................. 6

Activity Participation and Location ...................................................................................... 8

Attachment to Specific Locations in BESF ........................................................................ 10

Importance of and Satisfaction with Forest Recreation Characteristics ............................. 13

General Forest Management Issues .................................................................................... 14

Trends in Visitor Characteristics, Behavior, and Preferences ............................................ 15

Discussion of Results .............................................................................................................. 21

Annual and Seasonal Visitation Levels .............................................................................. 21

Visitor Characteristics, Behavior, and Preferences............................................................. 22

Trends in Visitor Characteristics, Behavior, and Preferences ............................................ 23

Recommendations for Future Survey Methods ...................................................................... 26

Literature Cited ....................................................................................................................... 29

Appendix A: On-site and Follow-up Questionnaires............................................................. 30

Appendix B: Sampling Strategy ............................................................................................ 41

Appendix C: Results Tables................................................................................................... 43

Table 1. Sampling dates and locations by season and method .............................. 44

Table 2. Number of interviews completed by sampling zone and season ............. 48

Table 3. Profile of respondents .............................................................................. 49

Table 4. Visitation patterns by season ................................................................... 50

Table 5. Primary activity on day of interview, by season ...................................... 51

Table 6. Activity participation rates on day of interview, by season ..................... 52

iii

Table 7. Anticipated location of activity participation by season .......................... 53

Table 8. Location of favorite place in Bald Eagle State Forest ............................. 54

Table 9. What makes this place more special to you than other places that might be

similar to it? ............................................................................................................ 65

Table 10. If you could ask managers to keep one thing the same about this favorite

place, what would that be? ..................................................................................... 77

Table 11. If you could ask managers to change one thing about the way they

manage this favorite place, what would that be? .................................................... 85

Table 12. Characteristics of Forest: Mean importance and satisfaction by season 94

Table 13. Characteristics of Forest: Importance and satisfaction categories ......... 95

Table 14. Mean scores of responses to management issues on Forest by season .. 96

Table 15. Year of first visit to Bald Eagle State Forest and newcomer/veteran

categories ................................................................................................................ 96

Table 16. Background characteristics of newcomer, intermediate, and veteran

visitors ..................................................................................................................... 97

Table 17. Day trips, overnight trips and overnight quarters of newcomer,

intermediate, and veteran visitors ........................................................................... 97

Table 18. Season of most visits to Forest, newcomer, intermediate, and veteran

visitors ..................................................................................................................... 98

Table 19. Activity participation at BESF during 12 months prior to being

surveyed, newcomer, intermediate, and veteran visitors ........................................ 98

Table 20. Satisfaction with Forest characteristics, newcomer, intermediate, and

veteran visitors ........................................................................................................ 99

Table 21. Responses to Forest management issues, newcomer, intermediate, and

veteran visitors ........................................................................................................ 99

iv

Executive Summary

Level and Type of Use on Bald Eagle State Forest:

Report on a 1999-2000 Visitor Survey

Submitted by

The Pennsylvania State University

Recreation & Park Management Program

To estimate overall recreational use of Bald Eagle State Forest (BESF), profile visitor

characteristics, and identify recreational use patterns, a year-long survey of visitors was

conducted from June 1999 through May 2000. For the survey, the Forest was divided into

eight zones, and random sampling was conducted in each zone. A multiple sampling

approach was used, including traffic counts, on-site interviews, and mail-back questionnaires.

Use estimates. During summer, early fall, and spring, 593 on-site interviews were

conducted. During late fall and winter, an additional 502 questionnaires were distributed by

placing survey packets on the windshields of parked vehicles. Data from the four seasons

were treated as a stratified random sample to calculate an overall annual use estimate of

143,428 recreation visits 35,916 (margin of error = 5%, confidence level = 95%). Another

overall annual use estimate, 122,321 visitors, was calculated from rangers‟ patrol logs. The

estimate based on rangers‟ records should be considered less reliable than the survey-based

estimate. However, the similarity of the results tends to validate both estimates. Forest

visitation was heaviest in the spring and fall.

Visitor characteristics and behavior. Nearly nine out of ten participants were white

males 31 years old or older who lived in rural areas or small towns. More than one-third

began visiting the Forest before 1971, and fewer than one in ten were first-time visitors.

Approximately two-thirds indicated that they traveled 50 miles or less to visit the Forest.

Most were on day trips of three or more hours. Nearly half visited the Forest with members

of their family; one in five visited the Forest alone.

The largest number of participants identified fishing as their primary activity, followed

by hunting, viewing scenery, camping, snowmobiling, walking/day hiking, wildlife

watching, and picnicking. As expected, primary activities varied by season, with fishing

being most common during spring and summer and hunting most common during fall and

winter. Visitors often participated in multiple activities, so overall participation rates differed

from participation in primary activities. The highest overall participation rate was for

viewing scenery, which was followed by fishing, walking/day hiking, wildlife watching,

hunting, camping, picnicking, snowmobiling, driving through the Forest en route to another

destination, and swimming/tubing.

When asked where they expected to participate in their primary activity, nearly one third

of all participants named Penn‟s Creek or nearby areas (e.g., Poe Paddy, Cherry Run) and

one quarter named the White Deer Creek/McCall Dam area. Other areas named often

included Green‟s Valley, Hickernell North, Hairy John‟s, and R.B. Winter.

v

A total of 447 participants identified “favorite” places on the Forest. The largest single

category was places mentioned by one individual. For example, many identified a leased

cabin site. Others identified the Forest as a whole without specifying one place. Specific

places mentioned most often included Penn‟s Creek, Poe Valley, R.B. Winter, White Deer

Creek/McCall Dam, Hairy John‟s, and Tall Timbers. Favorite places tended to be located in

valleys along roads, not in remote areas. Participants reported that favorite places were

special to them because of conduciveness to a particular recreation activity, privacy, past

connections and memories associated with the place, attractive natural qualities, and

convenient location. Characteristics of favorite places that participants wanted protected

included wild or natural qualities, current maintenance practices, and current use levels.

Participants rated the importance of and their satisfaction with six characteristics of the

Forest, including (a) appearance and maintenance of areas visited; (b) opportunities to visit

without feeling crowded; (c) access to places the participant likes to visit; (d) adequacy of

signs; (e) availability of parking; and (f) the ability to obtain information about the Forest.

Ratings indicated that participants considered all six characteristics moderately to very

important and that they were moderately to very satisfied with the way these characteristics

are managed. Although differences in importance and satisfaction ratings were small,

satisfaction ratings were slightly lower than importance ratings for appearance and

maintenance, as well as opportunities to visit without feeling crowded. In contrast,

satisfaction ratings were slightly higher than importance ratings for access, availability of

parking, and ability to obtain information. Importance and satisfaction ratings for signage

did not differ, indicating participants‟ expectations matched the conditions they found.

Participants were also asked if they agreed or disagreed with four general resource

management statements including: (a) “It is more important to protect habitat for plants and

animals than provide opportunities for recreation,” (b) “The Forest should encourage more

timber harvesting,” (c) “More fish should be stocked in streams and lakes to provide

increased sport-fishing opportunities,” and (d) “More public lands such as Bald Eagle State

Forest should be set aside as wild or natural areas.” Participants agreed most strongly that

protecting habitat is more important than providing for recreation and more public lands

should be set aside as wild or natural areas. They also agreed that more fish should be

stocked in streams but disagreed with increased timber harvesting on State Forest land.

Trends. Veterans (first visited Forest 1927-1990), Intermediates (first visited Forest

1971-1990), and Newcomers (first visited Forest 1991-2000) had similar socio-demographic

characteristics, but differed in other ways. Newcomers were most likely to live more than 30

miles from the Forest, indicating that the market area and stakeholder group for the Forest

may be expanding. Newcomers were also most likely to make day-trips to the Forest and

most likely to visit in summer and winter, suggesting that traffic patterns, demand for day-

use areas, and seasonal need for ranger patrols may change over time. Newcomers were least

likely to participate in hunting or fishing, suggesting that these activities may become less

common. In contrast, Newcomers were most likely to participate in snowmobiling and

horseback riding, suggesting future growth in these activities. All three groups reported high

levels of satisfaction with Forest characteristics, suggesting that visitors will continue to look

favorably on current management practices.

vi

Management implications. Overall visitation exceeds 143,000 annually. Because the

Forest has multiple access points and an extensive road system and the survey had limited

logistic and financial resources, this is likely to be a conservative estimate.

The Forest has a strong core of loyal visitors. They have been visiting for many years

and tend to visit often, typically with family and/or friends. First-time visitors are currently a

small group, but they may influence the way the Forest is managed in the future.

Fishing and hunting were the most commonly reported primary activities, and visitation

was heaviest during spring and late fall, the prime fishing and hunting seasons. Relatively

heavy visitation during early fall may have corresponded with the prime period for fall color.

winter visitation nearly equally the summer level, perhaps because the Forest held adequate

snow cover for snowmobiling for the first time in several years.

Two-thirds of Forest visitors limited their stays to a single day. If managers want to

increase or extend visitation to the Forest, educating current and potential visitors about

dispersed camping opportunities on the Forest as well as lodging and camping opportunities

near the Forest could be effective.

Although satisfaction with Forest characteristics was generally high, satisfaction with

levels of crowding was an issue. Providing visitor information about alternative locations for

recreation, high-use versus low-use areas of the Forest, and high-use versus low-use time

periods may be helpful.

Few children visit the Forest, perhaps because opportunities that typically attract families

with young children, (e.g., beaches, playgrounds, etc.) are not provided in State Forests. It

may be desirable to promote more use of the Forest by families and young people. Those

who learn early in life to enjoy the opportunities available on the Forest, may also learn to

support State Forests and their mission throughout their lives. If promoting family use of the

Forest is important, managers should publicize the Forest‟s opportunities for “family

friendly” recreation in undeveloped settings.

Survey participants enjoyed favorite places within the Forest because of natural settings,

privacy, and memories about past experiences, suggesting many visitors place high value on

the Forest and/or sites within it. Sharing this information could help elected representatives,

appointed officials, and the general public of the Commonwealth appreciate the powerful

positive impact State Forests have on people who visit them.

Recommendations for future survey methods. This survey was designed, in part, to test

data collection methods for use in future visitor surveys of other State Forests. Stratifying

the Forest into data collection zones was effective. The two data collection methods used

each had advantages and disadvantages. On-site interviews and mail-back questionnaires

yielded a high response rate (60%) but the logistical demands of this approach were costly.

Placing survey packets on windshields was simpler and less expensive. However, because of

low response rates (20%), this approach raises questions about the representativeness of the

vii

sample. In winter, neither approach could be used on unplowed roads, but it was possible to

place survey packets on the windshields of vehicles parked at Forest access points along

plowed roads.

Before conducting other State Forest visitor surveys, managers should evaluate the

advantages and disadvantages of each survey approach, as well as other alternatives.

Advantages of simple methods include low logistical and monetary costs. Disadvantages of

simple methods include the high probability of obtaining biased estimates and the inability to

calculate meaningful margins of error. In contrast, complex methods (like that used in the

current survey) are costly, but they are likely to produce unbiased estimates and meaningful

margins of error.

During this study, vehicle and trail counters were tested unsuccessfully. Making secure

installations and maintaining counters proved to be prohibitive, particularly during cold

weather. Furthermore, trail counters were unreliable during high winds. In another study, it

is unlikely that counters can be used successfully unless they can be maintained and read by

personnel who do not need to travel long distances.

Ultimately, any decision about survey methods in other Pennsylvania State Forests

should be based on each Forest‟s physical characteristics, seasonal differences in

accessibility, traveling distances for data collection, and long-term availability of data

collection personnel. All of Pennsylvania‟s State Forests share some important

characteristics and management issues, but other important characteristics and issues may

vary between Forests. For example, a sampling method might be highly successful in one

Forest but less successful in another because of differences in road and trail networks or use

patterns.

1

Introduction

The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) manages

over two million acres of State Forest land across the Commonwealth, all of which abuts or

surrounds other public (e.g., State Parks, State Game Lands) or private lands. State Forests

can be entered via state, county, municipal, and forest roads; informal and formal trails; and

waterways. Hence, it is difficult to obtain accurate estimates of current recreational use

levels and patterns.

Estimates of current use on State Forest lands are imperative to the DCNR and the

agencies with whom it works because:

1) activities and areas with high potential for conflict can be identified and managed;

2) plans for access, resource protection, visitor services, enforcement and maintenance

can be created;

3) marketing efforts can be focused to develop awareness of opportunities for

consumers;

4) communication can be improved with specific constituent groups; and,

5) visitation patterns can be linked to management plans and operating and capital

budgets.

Given the importance of documenting and understanding current users, a visitor use study

was conducted at Bald Eagle State Forest (BESF) from June, 1999, through June, 2000. The

study was implemented to document levels and type of use occurring on BESF and the

characteristics of forest visitors, including their activity choices, demographics, attitudes and

travel behavior. The study was designed to test methods that could be used to measure use at

other District Forests across the Commonwealth.

Study Objectives

In order to address the overall purpose of this study, the following objectives were

developed:

Estimate overall recreational use of BESF; and,

Develop a profile of visitors, including their demographic characteristics, activity

participation patterns (on the Forest and elsewhere), length-of-stay, party size and

composition, and place of residence.

2

Methods

Study Population and Sample

The study population targeted in this study was visitors to BESF. Because they can

access the Forest through multiple points on roads, trails and waterways and engage in

diverse activities (e.g., hunting, fishing, hiking) across the year, a multiple sampling

approach was utilized. This multiple sampling approach included traffic counts and

monitoring as well as on-site interviews at key access points. In addition, to verify use

estimates, they were compared to visitor data collected by Forest rangers.

To achieve the study‟s first objective of estimating overall recreational use levels on the

BESF, the Forest was divided into eight separate zones:

1. Rainsares

2. South Eastville (including Mile Run, White Deer Creek & McCall Dam)

3. Hickernell North (including Jones Mountain, Stoney Run & Winklebleck Road)

4. Hickernell South (including Woodward, Bear Run & Cherry Run)

5. New Lancaster Valley (including Poe Paddy, Sand Mountain, & Bear Gap)

6. Troxelville (including Tall Timbers, Snyder-Middleswarth, & Wiekert Run )

7. Shade Mountain

8. Green‟s Valley

Each zone contains distinct natural and man-made features and offers somewhat different

recreational opportunities. Visitors were sampled at multiple access points in each of the

eight zones. Sampling locations within each zone were chosen based on criteria including

traffic patterns and primary use areas within the zone, as well as the safety of field personnel.

BESF staff was consulted on all issues tied to sampling. In addition, every effort was made

to sample throughout the Forest each week, when appropriate.

The second study objective, profiling visitors, was addressed with on-site and follow-up

questionnaires. Interviewers approached visitors, and each visitor who agreed to participate

was asked a minimum of seven questions. At the end of the interview visitors were asked if

they would participate in a longer, more in-depth survey. Those who agreed were given a

packet, which included a cover letter, questionnaire and postage-paid return envelope.

The sampling procedure was changed during the late fall and winter seasons (late

October to early April) when on-site interviewing was nearly impossible due to inclement

weather, patterns of use, and/or the safety of interviewers. During this time, the on-site and

3

follow-up questionnaires were combined into a single document. Interviewers drove

throughout the Forest looking for users and their vehicles. When a vehicle was spotted, the

interviewer placed a packet (cover letter, questionnaire and postage-paid return envelope),

covered by a plastic bag, on the windshield of the visitor‟s vehicle.

A total of 698 on-site interviews were conducted. An additional 397 questionnaires were

distributed via the windshield method (Table 1). (For a complete record of sampling

methods, dates, and locations, see Appendix C, Table 1.)

Table 1. Number of survey responses by season

Season

Method Summer Fall Winter Spring Total

On-site interview 466 127 0 105 698

Windshield 0 92 305 0 397

Total 466 219 305 105 1,095

Study Instrument

The on-site questionnaire included seven primary questions (Appendix A). The first was

used to gauge whether visitors were visiting the Forest for the day or overnight. If visiting

for the day, they were asked how many hours they intended to spend in the Forest. If staying

overnight, they were asked how many nights they planned to be in the Forest and where they

planned to stay (e.g., designated campsite vs. leased cabin site). In addition, visitors were

asked what activities they planned to participate in while visiting the Forest, where they were

going to participate in the activity, whether or not they had been to the Forest previously and,

if applicable, questions about the composition of their visitor group. To determine the

distance traveled by visitors, they were also asked how far they live from the Forest.

The questions on the follow-up questionnaire were much more detailed and fell into five

separate sections (see Appendix A). The first section, which focused on visitors‟ experience

at BESF, included four questions. The first question dealt with visitors‟ satisfaction with

their most recent visit to the Forest. It was followed by a question that addressed their

perception of the overall quality of their experience. The last two questions were open-ended

and requested that individuals indicate what they liked most and least about their most recent

visit to the Forest.

4

The second section allowed visitors to describe their favorite place or area in BESF.

They did so through answering eight open-ended questions. The ninth question gave

respondents an opportunity to indicate their feelings about a favorite place within Bald Eagle

Forest. The final two questions offered respondents an opportunity to describe what should

or should not be changed about their special place by the staff of the Forest.

To profile visitors‟ recreational behavior, they were asked to indicate how many days in

the last 12 months they had participated in a series of recreational activities in BESF and

other locations. They were also asked to describe which activities are most important to

them, the number of years they‟ve been involved in them, and their level of skill and

involvement with the activities. The last question in the third section focused on the

importance individuals attach to six separate characteristics of the Forest.

Generally, it is expected that individuals who participate in outdoor activities will have

respect for the environment and exhibit behaviors that reflect their respect. Thus, the fourth

section of the questionnaire included a question that addressed respondents‟ opinions on a

wide range of environmental issues and a question that focused on the degree to which

individuals engaged in environmentally responsible behavior. A third question requested

information about conservation or environmental groups with which individuals are

involved.

The final section included questions designed to profile respondents. They focused on

respondents‟ gender, age, ethnic origin or background, childhood and current residence, level

of education, household composition, level of income and political outlook.

Results

Estimated Use Levels

As noted earlier, data collection began in the summer with on-site interviews. Hence,

summer and spring use estimates are based entirely on this method. However, beginning part

way through the fall season and lasting through the winter season, a modified data

“windshield survey” method was used to collect data. Because of this change, two fall use

estimates were computed, one for early fall using on-site interview data, and one for late fall

using windshield survey data. A single winter estimate is based entirely on windshield data.

5

Data from each season were treated as a simple random sample. Using formulae proposed by

Scheaffer, Mendenhall and Ott (1990), seasonal data were treated as a stratified random

sample to calculate an overall annual use estimate of 143,428 visits 35,916 (margin of error

= 5%, confidence level = 95%, see Table 2). Note that a margin of error and confidence

interval were calculated only for the overall annual estimate. These values are useful

because they are based on the aggregate sample size of the year-long survey. In contrast,

margin of error and confidence interval values were not calculated for the seasonal estimates.

The small sample size for any one season and the normal variation in recreation use between

sample periods make it impossible to calculate meaningful margins of error for the seasonal

estimates. In some cases, the margin of error would be nearly as large as the estimated

seasonal use level. (For a more detailed description of sampling strategy, see Appendix B.)

Table 2. Overall annual use estimate and underlying seasonal estimates

Period

Use

estimate

Margin

of error a

Confidence

interval a

Overall annual use 143,428 35,916 107,512 – 179,343

Summer season (6/1/99-9/6/99, 98 days) 28,230 NA NA

Early fall season (9/7/99-10/1/99, 25 days) 22,720 NA NA

Late fall season (10/2/99-12/17/99, 77 days) 34,454 NA NA

Winter season (12/18/00-3/31/00, 105 days) 27,245 NA NA

Spring season (4/1/00-5/31/00, 61 days) 30,781 NA NA

a For the overall annual use estimate, the confidence interval was computed using a 5%

margin of error and a 95% confidence level.

In an effort to “triangulate” data sources, a second overall annual use estimate was

calculated from visitor estimates recorded by Forest rangers on their daily patrols. To

account for different daily routes used by rangers, this estimate used only data from 59 patrol

logs recorded on days during which rangers spent all or nearly all of their time inside one of

the Forest‟s eight sampling zones. Data from these sheets were treated as a random sample

stratified by zone. The overall annual use estimate calculated from the patrol sheets was

122,321 visitors. Two important limitations apply to this estimate. First, no sampling was

done during the winter when rangers did not patrol. Second, useable patrol sheets were

available from only five of the eight Forest zones because rangers were never able to spend

all or nearly all of a single patrol inside the isolated Rainsares, Green Valley, or Shade

Mountain areas. Because of these limitations, this estimate should be considered less reliable

6

than the survey-based estimate. However, the similarity of the results obtained by the two

methods tends to validate the use estimates.

Visitor Profile

Overall, nearly all survey participants were white (99%) males (86%) living in rural areas

or small towns (81%). (For a detailed summary of socio-demographic characteristics of

participants by season, see Appendix C, Table 3.) The majority was between the ages of 31

and 50 (51%) or older (37%), and fewer than one percent were 18 or younger. More than

one-half (58%) reported having no children living in their household. Half of all participants

had completed senior high school or less, and just over half (55%) reported an annual

household income of less than $50,000.

Visitation Patterns

Survey participants tended to be regular, long-time visitors who lived near BESF. Fewer

than one in ten (7%) were first-time visitors. (For a detailed summary of visitation patterns

by season, see Appendix C, Table 4.) Among repeat visitors, 41% had visited the Forest 5

times or less during the preceding 12-month period. In contrast, 26% had visited the Forest

more than 20 times (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Number of visits in past 12 months

5 or fewer 6 - 10

11 - 20 21 or more

7

Nearly three-fourths (72%) of the respondents visit the Forest in the summer or fall The

largest proportion of participants (44%) visited the Forest with members of their family. Of

interest, however, is that 19% of the respondents indicated that they visited the Forest alone

When asked how far they had traveled to visit the Forest, two-thirds indicated 50 miles or

less (Figure 2). Only 19% had traveled over 100 miles to visit the Forest. Given that the

majority of respondents indicated they had traveled a short distance to the Forest, it is not

surprising that they were most likely to be on a day trip (67%) and to spend three or more

hours at the Forest (59%). (For a detailed summary, see Appendix C, Table 4).

A majority of visitors (67%) were day-users. Among those who visited the Forest for

more than one day (33%), two thirds indicated that they would be in the area for two to five

nights. Just over one-half (53%) reported that they would spend their nights inside the

Forest, most often at a leased cabin site or a designated Forest campsite (Figure 3). Those

who were staying outside the Forest (47%) were most likely to spend the night in a state

park, a private campground, or in a private cabin. (For a detailed summary, see Appendix C,

Table 4).

Figure 2. Miles traveled to Forest

Under 25 25-50 51-100 Over 100

8

Activity Participation and Location

Survey participants were asked to list all activities they would participate in during their

visit to the Forest. They were then asked to indicate which of these activities they considered

to be their primary activity. The largest percentage of participants (Figure 4) identified

fishing as the primary activity. Other primary activities identified by at least five percent of

participants (in descending order of frequency) were hunting, viewing scenery, camping,

snowmobiling, walking/day hiking, wildlife watching, and picnicking. As expected, these

primary activities varied substantially by season. Fishing, for example, was most common

during spring and summer, while hunting was most common during fall and winter. (For a

detailed summary of primary activities by season, see Appendix C, Table 5).

Figure 3. Location of overnight stays

0 10 20 30 40

Leased cab in

Designated campsite

Backcountry site

State park

Private campground

Private cab in

Bed and Breakfast

Percent

Forest site Outside forest

Figure 4. Primary activities of visitors

0 5 10 15 20 25

Picn icking

W ild life watch ing

W alking/dayhiking

Snowmobiling

Camping

Viewing scenery

Hunting

Fish ing

Percent

9

Table 6 in Appendix C highlights all types of activities respondents indicated they would

engage in on the day they were interviewed at BESF. Viewing scenery was mentioned by

39% of participants, making it the activity with the highest overall participation rate (Figure

5). Other activities with overall participation rates above five percent included (in

descending order of frequency) fishing, walking/day hiking, wildlife watching, hunting,

camping, picnicking, snowmobiling, driving through the Forest en route to another

destination, and swimming/tubing. Like the primary activities, overall participation rates

varied substantially by season, particularly for activities like fishing, hunting, and

snowmobiling.

In addition to reporting primary and secondary recreation activities, survey participants

were also asked to indicate where on the Forest they expected to participate in their primary

activity. For the study year as a whole, one quarter of all participants named the White Deer

Creek/McCall Dam area, and one fifth named the Poe Paddy area. No other area was named

as often (Figure 6). It should be recognized, however, that participants named many areas

without distinct boundaries or “official” names, and they may have used different names for

the same area or used different parts of an extended area. For example, all those who named

Poe Paddy (21%), Penn‟s Creek (4%), and Cherry Run (4%) could be considered to have

Figure 5. Overall rates of activity participation

0 10 20 30 40 50

Sw imm ing/tubing

Driving through

Snowmobiling

Picnicking

Camping

Hunting

W ild life watching

Walking/dayhiking

Fishing

View ing scenery

Percent

10

been visiting the extended Penn‟s Creek area. (For a detailed summary of anticipated

location of activities by season, see Appendix C, Table 7.)

Attachment to Specific Locations in BESF

To develop a better understanding of attachment to specific places in the Forest, the mail-

back survey included a series of open-ended questions about “favorite” places. A total of

441 participants identified specific places, 96 (22%) of which were unique, i.e., identified by

only one participant (Figure 7). Nearly ten percent of the participants identified a leased

cabin site, and nearly nine percent identified the Forest as a whole without specifying one

place. Among specific areas identified, Penn‟s Creek (including Poe Paddy, the tunnel, and

Cherry Run) was mentioned most often. Poe Valley, R.B. Winter, White Deer Creek/McCall

Dam, Hairy John‟s, and Tall Timbers were also mentioned by at least two percent of the

participants. In general, the favorite places mentioned by participants tended to be located in

readily accessible parts of the Forest, in valleys and along higher standard roads, rather than

hike-in sites in remote areas. (For a complete, categorized list of verbatim responses about

favorite places, see Appendix C, Table 8.)

Figure 6. Anticipated location of activities

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Mid-State Tra il

Treaster Valley

Sand Mounta in

Bear Gap

Jones Mt Road

Cherry Run

Penns Creek

R B W inter

Hairy John Picnic

Hickernell N.

Greens Valley

Poe Paddy

W hite Deer

Percent

11

Participants reported a variety of reasons why favorite places were special to them

(Figure 8). A location‟s conduciveness to a particular recreation activity, such as hunting,

fishing, or wildlife watching, was mentioned by more participants (21%) than any other

characteristic. Other characteristics of favorite places that were mentioned by at least five

percent of participants included privacy and quiet (19%), past connections, memories, or

traditions associated with the place (14%), natural qualities (13%), proximity or convenient

location for the individual participant (11%), and views or scenery (5%). (For a complete,

categorized list of verbatim responses about why favorite places were special, see Appendix

C, Table 9.)

Figure 8. What makes favorite place special?

0 5 10 15 20 25

Views, scenery

Proximity, convenience

Natural qualities

Past connection

Privacy, quiet

Conducive to recreation

Percent

Figure 7. Location of favorite place in the Forest

0 5 10 15 20 25

Ta ll Timbers

Ha iry John's

W hite Deer/McCa ll

R .B. W inte r

Poe Va lley

Penns Creek

Fores t in genera l

Leased cabin s ite

Unique responses

Percent

12

Participants were also asked what characteristics of favorite places were most important

to keep the same and to change. Characteristics of favorite places that were most important

to keep the same (Figure 9) included natural qualities, mentioned by 22% of the participants,

as well as “everything” and current use level, each of which was mentioned by 18% of

participants. Current maintenance practices were mentioned by 17% of participants, and five

percent or fewer mentioned access or current rules and regulations. (For a complete,

categorized list of verbatim responses about what characteristics of favorite places were most

important to protect, see Appendix C, Table 10.)

Changes that participants wanted at their favorite places (Figure 10) included improvements

to facilities (mentioned by 25% of the participants), nothing (21%), modifications to visitor

use patterns (16%), modifications to resource management (12%), enforcement of rules and

regulations (9%), and road improvements (8%). (For a complete, categorized list of verbatim

responses about what characteristics of favorite places were most important to change, see

Appendix C, Table 11.)

Figure 9. Characteristics of favorite place

to keep the same

0 5 10 15 20 25

Rules & regs.

Access

Maint. practices

Use level

Everything

Natural qualities

Percent

13

Importance of and Satisfaction with Forest Recreation Characteristics

To help managers assess visitor responses to Forest recreation characteristics, survey

participants were asked to rate the importance of and then report their satisfaction level with

six characteristics of the Forest. The recreation characteristics included: (a) appearance and

maintenance of areas visited, (b) opportunities to visit without feeling crowded, (c) access to

places the participant likes to visit, (d) adequacy of signs, (e) availability of parking, and (f)

the ability to obtain information about the Forest. Participants rated both importance and

satisfaction on five-point scales (1 = Not at all important / Not at all satisfied; 5 = Extremely

important / Extremely satisfied). Mean importance ratings indicated that participants

considered all six characteristics moderately to very important (Figure 11). (For a detailed

summary of importance and satisfaction ratings by mean scores and by category, see

Appendix C, Tables 12 & 13.)

Mean satisfaction ratings indicated that participants were also moderately to very

satisfied with the manner in which these Forest characteristics are managed. Differences in

mean importance and satisfaction ratings were small, indicating that there was little

discrepancy between what participants wanted and what they found on the Forest. Although

small, five of the differences were statistically significant. For two characteristics (i.e.,

appearance and maintenance, opportunities to visit without feeling crowded), satisfaction

ratings were slightly lower than importance ratings, indicating that participants preferred

Figure 10. Characteristics of favorite

place to change

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Improve roads

Enforce regs.

Modify res. mgmt.

Modify use patterns

Nothing

Improve facilities

Percent

14

somewhat better conditions than they found in each area. For three characteristics (i.e.,

access, availability of parking, ability to obtain information), satisfaction ratings were

slightly higher than importance ratings, indicating that, in these areas, participants‟

preferences were somewhat exceeded by the conditions they found on the Forest.

Importance and satisfaction ratings for signage were not significantly different, indicating a

close match between participants‟ expectations and the actual conditions they found.

General Forest Management Issues

In addition to rating recreation characteristics of the Forest, survey participants were also

asked to respond to four general management issues. Participants were asked if they agreed

or disagreed that: (a) “It is more important to protect habitat for plants and animals than

provide opportunities for recreation,” (b) “The Forest should encourage more timber

harvesting,” (c) “More fish should be stocked in streams and lakes to provide increased

sport-fishing opportunities,” and (d) “More public lands such as Bald Eagle State Forest

should be set aside as wild or natural areas.” Responses to each statement were based on a

five-point scale (-2 = Strongly disagree; +2 = Strongly agree). On average, participants

agreed most strongly that protecting habitat is more important than providing for recreation

and more public lands should be set aside as wild or natural areas (Figure 12). Participants

Figure 11. Importance of & satisfaction with

Forest recreation characteristics

1 2 3 4 5

Adequacy o f signs

Appearance & maintenance*

Ability to obtain info rmation*

Absence o f crowding*

Availability o f parking*

Access to places I like*

Importance Satisfaction

*Importance & satisfaction differed significantly.

Scale: 1 = Not at all; 2 = Extremely

15

also agreed that more fish should be stocked in streams for sport-fishing, but disagreed with

more timber harvesting on State Forest land. (For a detailed summary of responses to

questions about management issues, see Appendix C, Table 14.)

Trends in Visitor Characteristics, Behavior, and Preferences

To better understand visitation trends in BESF, survey participants were grouped by year

of first visit to the Forest, so characteristics and use patterns of these subgroups could be

compared. Over 74% of the participants reported that they had first visited the Forest in

1990 or before. These long-time visitors were divided almost equally between those who

first visited the Forest in 1970 or before and those who first visited the Forest between 1971

and 1990 (Figure 13). Only 25% of the participants reported that they first visited the Forest

between 1991 and 2000. For convenience in describing the characteristics and use patterns

of these three subgroups, they have been named Veterans, Intermediates, and Newcomers,

respectively. (For a detailed summary of year of first visit to the Forest and subgroup

categories, see Appendix C, Table 15.)

Figure 12. Responses to general management issues

-2 -1 0 1 2

Should set aside

more wild areas

Should stock

more fish

Should harvest

more timber

Habitat more

important

*Issue ratings did not differ significantly.

*

*

Strongly

disagree

Strongly

agreeNeutral

16

Background characteristics of Newcomers, Intermediates, and Veterans. Analysis of

variance and chi-square tests of independence were used to compare 10 background

characteristics of Newcomers, Intermediates, and Veterans. (For detailed results of these

statistical tests of background characteristics, see Appendix C, Table 16.) The three

subgroups did not differ significantly with respect to:

Gender (86% male),

Ethnic background (99% Caucasian);

Annual income (57% reported household incomes ranging from $30,000 to $79,999);

Current residence (77% reported living in a rural area or a town with a population

smaller than 10,000);

Political orientation (57% considered themselves moderately or very conservative); or

Environmental orientation (average score = 3.5 on a 15-item scale ranging from 1

[strong beliefs that environmental problems are not serious and can be managed

easily by humans] to 5 [strong beliefs that environmental problems are serious and

cannot be managed easily by humans]).

Four characteristics of Newcomers, Intermediates, and Veterans did differ significantly.

First, Veterans were significantly older (52.8 years) than both Intermediates (42.9 years) and

Figure 13. Year of first visit to Forest

37%

25%

38%

Veterans 1927-1970 Intermediates 1971-1990

Newcomers 1991-2000

17

Newcomers (43.5 years). Second, although the difference was small, Veterans (13.3 years)

had significantly fewer years of formal education than Newcomers (13.9 years). Third,

Veterans (56%) and Intermediates (55%) were more likely than Newcomers (37%) to live

within 30 miles of BESF. Fourth, Veterans (83%) were more likely than Intermediates

(79%) or Newcomers (69%) to have grown up in a rural area or small town. However, a

large majority of each subgroup grew up in rural areas or small towns.

Forest use patterns of Newcomers, Intermediates, and Veterans. The results of the

statistical test for differences among the subgroups in day trips, overnight trips, and overnight

lodging approached significance (p = .061). Although these results should be interpreted

cautiously, they suggest that Newcomers were somewhat more likely than Intermediates or

Veterans to make day trips to the Forest (Figure 14). Furthermore, the results suggest that,

when making overnight trips, Newcomers were less likely to spend the night at a leased or

private cabin site. (For detailed results of this statistical test, see Appendix C, Table 17.)

Newcomers, Intermediates, and Veterans reported significant differences in the season

during which they visited the Forest most often (Figure 15). Newcomers were more likely

than Intermediates or Veterans to report that they visited most often in summer or winter. In

contrast, Newcomers were less likely to report that they visited most often in fall. The three

Figure 14. Day trips versus overnight trips & lodging,

Newcomers, Intermediates, & Veterans

0

20

40

60

80

Day trip Cam ping at

BESF

Leased or

private cabin

State Park Com m ercial

T rip typ e

Pe

rce

nt

N ew co m ers

In term ed .

Veteran s

18

subgroups were most similar in regard to spring. (For detailed results of this statistical test,

see Appendix C, Table 18.)

Participation rates for 16 different outdoor recreation activities were calculated for

Newcomers, Intermediates, and Veterans. These rates were based on responses about

activities participation at BESF during the 12-month period prior to being surveyed.

Participation differences were tested with logistic regression, which made it possible to

control for the effect of age differences across subgroups as the tests were conducted.

Controlling for the effect of age was important because age is often associated with

decreasing participation rates for outdoor activities, and Veterans in this study were, on

average, significantly older than Intermediates or Newcomers. Tests of subgroup

participation rates showed significant differences for eight activities and approached

significance for two more activities ― camping and horseback riding (Figure 16). For eight

activities, including viewing scenery, fishing, day hiking, wildlife watching, hunting,

camping, picnicking, and swimming, participation rates were higher among Veterans and

Intermediates than among Newcomers. For two activities, snowmobiling and horseback

riding, participation rates were highest among Newcomers. (For detailed results of the

statistical tests of subgroup activity participation rates and the related effect of age, see

Appendix C, Table 19.)

Figure 15. Season of most visits to forest,


0

20

40

60

80

Spring Sum m er Fall W inter

Seaso n o f m o st v is its

Pe

rce

nt

N ew co m ers

In term ed .

Veteran s

19

The average satisfaction levels of Newcomers, Intermediates, and Veterans with six

Forest characteristics were compared (Figure 17). All three subgroups reported relatively

high levels of satisfaction with all Forest characteristics, but significant differences were

found on two of the characteristics. Compared to Veterans and Intermediates, Newcomers

reported higher levels of satisfaction with opportunities to visit Forest sites without feeling

crowded. In contrast, Veterans reported the highest level of satisfaction with the ability to

obtain information about the area. (For detailed results of the statistical tests of subgroup

satisfaction with Forest characteristics, see Appendix C, Table 20.)

Figure 16. Activity participation at BESF,


0 20 40 60 80

Horseback*

Swim m ing

Snowm obiling

Picnicking

Cam ping*

Hunting

Wildlife

Day hiking

Fishing

SceneryA

cti

vit

y

Percent

Newcom ers

Interm ed.

Veterans

*Differences approached significance (p < .07%).

20

The responses of Newcomers, Intermediates, and Veterans to four general forest

management issues were also compared (Figure 18). Significant differences were found only

among responses regarding timber harvesting. On average, all three subgroups disagreed

with the statement that the Forest should encourage more timber harvesting, but

disagreement was significantly stronger among the Intermediates than the Veterans. Average

scores of the Newcomers were close to those of the Intermediates but did not differ

significantly from those of either subgroup. Average scores of three subgroups did not differ

significantly for any of the other three forest management issues. (For detailed results of the

statistical tests of subgroup responses to forest management issues, see Appendix C, Table

20.)

Figure 17. Satisfaction with Forest characteristics,


1 2 3 4 5

Adequacy of

signs

Appearance &

m aintenance

Ability to obtain

inform ation*

Absence of

crowding*

Availability of

parking

Access to

places I like

Mean scores

N ewcom ers

In term ed.

Veterans

*Subgroups differed significantly.

Scale: 1 = Not at all satisfied; 5 = Extremely satisfied

21

Discussion of Results

Annual and Seasonal Visitation Levels

As measured by this survey, overall use of BESF exceeds 143,000 visits annually.

Because of the nature of the Forest and the limitations of the survey, this is likely to be a

conservative estimate. Multiple access points and the extensive Forest road system, as well

as the logistic and financial constraints of the survey, made it impossible to be assured of

capturing all visitation during any one sampling period.

Seasonal variation in visitation was consistent with patterns of recreation behavior on the

Forest. Fishing and hunting were the most commonly reported primary activities, and

visitation was heaviest during spring and late fall, the prime fishing and hunting seasons.

The relatively high level of visitation during the short (25 day) early fall season may have

corresponded with interest in viewing scenery during the prime period for fall color. It was,

perhaps, surprising that winter visitation nearly equaled the summer level. This may have

Figure 18. Responses to general management issues,


-2 -1 0 1 2

Should set aside more wild areas

Should stock more fish

Should harvest more timber*

Habitat more important than rec.

Veterans In term ediates N ewcom ers

*Subgroup responses differed significantly.

Strongly

disagree

Strongly

agreeNeutral

22

been because the Forest held adequate snow cover for snowmobiling for the first time in

several years.

Visitor Characteristics, Behavior, and Preferences

BESF has a strong core of loyal visitors. They have been visiting the Forest over an

extended period of time and tend to visit it often. Further, they tend to be older and, when

they visit the Forest, do so with their family and/or friends. It is important, however, to

recognize that there is a small group of first-time visitors who may, in time, have an

influence on the way in which BESF is managed. Given the estimated number of individuals

visiting the Forest, this group may range in number from 7,525 to 12,554.

Regardless of type of user (i.e., first-time vs. repeat), most individuals visit the Forest in

spring or fall. Hence, it is not surprising that when asked about their level of satisfaction

with specific characteristics of the Forest, respondents were likely to indicate that crowding

was an issue. One way to respond to concern about crowding is to provide information to

visitors, including information about alternative locations for recreation, high-use versus low-

use areas of the Forest, and high-use versus low-use time periods (e.g., weekends versus

weekdays).

Two-thirds of Forest visitors limited their stays to a single day. In part, this is likely to be

a function of at least three factors. First, Pennsylvania State Forests provide some

undeveloped campsites and opportunities for backcountry camping but do not provide

overnight cabins or developed campgrounds. Providing more highly-developed facilities of

this type has not been considered consistent with the State Forests‟ mission, which

emphasizes providing opportunities for dispersed recreation. Second, many Forest visitors

spend nights in numerous private cabins located on leased cabin sites or private land near or

inside Forest boundaries. Third, a majority of Forest visitors (66%) reported traveling less

than 50 miles from home. If management wants to increase or extend visitation to the Forest,

a promotional campaign designed to educate current and potential visitors about camping

opportunities on the Forest as well as other types of lodging or camping opportunities near

the Forest should be implemented.

Few children visit BESF. Most visitors (88%) were 31 or older, and nearly 60% reported

having no children living in their household. Fewer than one percent of all visitors were 18

23

or younger. This pattern may be related to the Forest‟s dispersed recreation mission;

opportunities that typically attract families with young children, (e.g., beaches, playgrounds,

etc.) are not provided by Pennsylvania State Forests. The pattern also may be related to

choices made by adult recreationists accompanied by children. For example, a Central

Pennsylvania adult who wishes to take children fishing might choose to visit a State Park

rather than a State Forest. In many cases, the State Park would offer easier road access, more

frequent patrols, and amenities like play equipment, picnic tables, benches, and toilets that

are typically not available in the State Forest.

It may be desirable to promote more use of the Forest by families and young people.

Those who learn early in life to enjoy the opportunities available on the Forest, may also

learn early in life about the State Forest mission and support that mission throughout their

lives. If promoting family use of the Forest is important, management should publicize the

Forest‟s opportunities for “family friendly” recreation like picnicking, walking, hiking,

biking, and wildlife viewing in undeveloped settings.

When asked about their favorite places within the Forest, most indicated that the natural

setting, the privacy of the location and their memories about past experiences contributed to

their feeling that a place within the Forest was special. This information suggests many

visitors place high value on the Forest and/or sites within it. It may be important for

management to share this type of information with several constituencies. Understanding the

high value that visitors place on the Forest could help elected representatives, appointed

officials, and the general public of the Commonwealth appreciate the powerful positive

impact Pennsylvania State Forests have on the people who use them.

Trends in Visitor Characteristics, Behavior, and Preferences

A comparison of Veteran visitors, Intermediates, and Newcomers to BESF revealed that

the backgrounds of Forest visitors were largely similar. Subgroup members were similar in

gender, ethnic background, income, and current residence, as well as political and

environmental orientation. The average age of Newcomers (42 years old) was significantly

less than that of Veterans (53 years old) but not significantly different than the age of

Intermediates (43 years old). Although Newcomers and Intermediates were younger than

Veterans, all three subgroups averaged more than 40 years old. The overall similarity among

24

the three subgroups suggests that the socio-demographic characteristics of Forest visitors will

not change rapidly in the near future.

Newcomers were likely than Intermediates or Veterans to live more than 30 miles from

the Forest, which suggests that the core market area for recreational use of the Forest may be

expanding. This trend is likely to continue as long as the availability of discretionary time

and money do not decrease. To the extent that the Forest‟s recreational market area

continues to expand, the portion of visitors without long-time connections to the Forest is

likely to grow larger. This change may eventually result in a population of stakeholders who

hold more diverse opinions about how the Forest should be managed.

Not only did Newcomers travel farther to visit the Forest; their visitation patterns also

differed from those of the Intermediates and Veterans. Newcomers were more likely than

Intermediates or Veterans to report that their primary season of visitation was summer or

winter, suggesting that growth in recreational use of the Forest is likely to be greatest during

these two seasons. Over time, this change in seasonal visitation patterns may make winter

ranger patrols increasingly important. Although the evidence was not conclusive, survey

data also suggest than Newcomers were more likely than Intermediates or Veterans to make

daytrips to the Forest. This finding is consistent with the results of studies in other areas

across the country that provide opportunities for resource-based recreation. Like the

expanding market area for the Forest, this trend may be linked to the availability of

discretionary time and money. Increasing day-use of the Forest may influence traffic

patterns and volume on Forest roads and may lead to increased demand for day-use areas and

parking.

Differences in activity participation among Newcomers, Intermediates, and Veterans

were complex. Some differences suggest that the mix of recreation activities on the Forest

may be changing. For example, Newcomers were less likely than Intermediates or Veterans

to participate in hunting or fishing. Because Newcomers averaged over 40 years old, it is

unlikely that many of them will become hunters or anglers. Extensive research demonstrates

that few individuals begin hunting or fishing after adolescence. Thus, survey results suggest

that, over time, hunting and fishing may become less common on the Forest. This trend

would be consistent with state and national data that show gradual declines in the numbers of

hunting and fishing licenses sold. In contrast to participation patterns for hunting and

25

fishing, Newcomers were more likely that Intermediates or Veterans to participate in

snowmobiling and horseback riding, suggesting that demand for these activities on the Forest

may continue to grow in the future.

The implications of other participation differences are less clear. Newcomers were less

likely than Intermediates or Veterans to visit the Forest for viewing scenery,

dayhiking/walking, wildlife watching, camping, picnicking, or swimming. These results

appear to be inconsistent with national trends that show growing participation in all these

activities. This apparent inconsistency cannot be resolved with the survey data, but several

explanations are possible. For example, it may be that participation trends in central

Pennsylvania do not match national trends. It is also possible that Newcomers participate in

these activities at other sites or have not yet learned of opportunities to participate in these

activities at BESF.

Differences in satisfaction and responses to general forest management issues among

Newcomers, Intermediates, and Veterans were small. All three subgroups reported high

levels of satisfaction with six Forest characteristics, but significant differences were found

for two characteristics. On one hand, Newcomers expressed the highest level of satisfaction

with opportunities to recreate without feeling crowded. On the other hand, Veterans

expressed the highest level of satisfaction with the ability to obtain information about the

area. These findings are consistent with other research. Newcomers are often most satisfied

with use levels because their frames of reference for the area do not include an earlier period

when visitation was lower. In contrast, Veterans are often most satisfied with the availability

of information because their experience level makes their need for information about the area

low. Given the overall high levels of satisfaction, these differences should not cause undue

concern, but monitoring satisfaction trends would be valuable. Over time, satisfaction with

use levels could remain high among new visitors but decrease among experienced visitors. A

trend of this type could indicate that experienced visitors would gradually be displaced or

“crowded out” of the area and replaced by new visitors with higher tolerance for user density,

leading to continually higher use levels.

Significant differences were found for only one general Forest management issue.

Although all three subgroups disagreed with the statement that the Forest should encourage

more timber harvesting, disagreement was significantly stronger among the Intermediates

26

than the Veterans. Because the difference was small and the scores of Newcomers did not

differ significantly from those of Intermediates or Veterans, no clear trend in user opinions is

indicated.

Recommendations for Future Survey Methods

This visitor survey was designed, in part, to test data collection methods for use in visitor

surveys of other Pennsylvania State Forests. For the survey, the Forest was divided into

eight zones, and data was collected from each zone in a stratified sampling procedure.

During the summer, early fall, and spring of the study year (June 1999 – June 2000), data

was collected with brief, on-site interviews conducted at stops along Forest roads and more

extensive mail-back questionnaires were distributed to individuals who completed on-site

interviews. During the early fall and winter, data was collected by placing survey packets

(cover letter, questionnaire and postage-paid return envelope, covered by a plastic bag) on

the windshields of visitors‟ vehicles.

Using a combination of on-site interviews and mail-back questionnaires, a higher

response rate (60% versus 20%) was achieved, allowing for more confidence about the

representativeness of the sample. However, this approach incurred high labor and

supervision costs associated with fielding interviewers at multiple sampling locations and

presented security concerns for interviewers left in the field without transportation. In

addition, the organizational demands of sustaining this approach for an extended period

placed a considerable burden on management staff, making consistent sampling and survey

administration difficult.

The second approach, placing survey packets on windshields, was less expensive and less

complex because a single driver could cover an extensive area. However, because of low

response rates, this approach raises questions about the representativeness of the sample. In

winter, both approaches were impossible to use on unplowed roads, but it was possible to

place survey packets on the windshields of vehicles parked at Forest access points along

plowed roads.

The advantages and disadvantages of these two approaches are typical when surveying

users of dispersed recreation areas like Pennsylvania‟s State Forests, which are characterized

by extensive, fragmented ownership patterns, multiple access points, and extreme variation in

27

the behavior of recreationists. For that reason, future visitor survey methods should be

evaluated in light of:

Physical characteristics (size, topography, road network, etc.) of the State Forest

being studied;

Seasonal differences in accessibility to the interior of the Forest;

Commuting distance for data collection personnel; and

Consistent, long-term availability of data collection personnel.

Each factor will influence the logistical and monetary cost of any visitor survey. In

considering methods for future surveys, it may be useful to evaluate the advantages and

disadvantages of one simple and one complex survey alternative.

Simple alternative. A simple survey method might use a brief, “self-mailer”

questionnaire (e.g., 5 8 inch card stock or 8½ 11 folding stock imprinted with return

postage) distributed by Forest staff during other, regular duties. These questionnaires could

be placed on vehicle windshields or handed to visitors at comparatively low cost. At the

same time, the number of parties in the area could be estimated by tallying the number of

vehicles and/or parties seen. Party-size information from questionnaires and vehicle/party

tallies could be extrapolated into estimates of overall visitor numbers.

Advantages of this approach include simplicity and low cost. Disadvantages include the

high probability of obtaining biased estimates and the inability to calculate meaningful

margins of error. The brief questionnaires might enhance response rates, but rates likely

would remain low because no personal contact would exist with questionnaires left on

vehicles and significant delays would often occur between the time questionnaires were

distributed and the time they were dropped into the return mail. Those who returned

questionnaires would constitute a self-selected sample unlikely to represent Forest users

accurately. More importantly, any survey method relying on Forest staff to distribute

questionnaire during other, regular duties is likely to return biased estimates. Ranger patrols,

for example, focus by necessity on high-use and problem areas. If rangers were to distribute

questionnaires during patrols, high-use and problem areas would be over-sampled and other

areas would be under-sampled. Furthermore, distributing questionnaires in this manner

would fail to constitute a probability sample, providing no basis for estimating meaningful

margins of error.

28

Complex alternative. A complex survey method would use a stratified random sample of

data collection zones and periods, similar to the approach used on BESF. During each data

collection period, survey staff would, to the extent possible, contact visitors and complete

questionnaires using interviews. Questionnaires could be simple or complex, depending on

the quantity of information desired. (If very complex information was desired, names and

addresses of survey participants could be recorded for follow-up mail contact.) As

interviews were conducted, the number of parties in the area could be estimated by tallying

the number of vehicles and/or parties seen. Party-size information from interviews and

vehicle/party tallies could be extrapolated into estimates of overall visitor numbers.

Disadvantages of this approach include high logistical and monetary costs. Advantages

include the high probability of obtaining unbiased estimates and an ability to calculate

meaningful margins of error. Compared to a simpler method, this approach improves the

probability of obtaining unbiased estimates in two ways. First, the use of field interviews

improves response rates (reducing self-selection bias) and improves the accuracy of

participant responses by eliminating recall bias as a source of error. Second, stratified

random sampling schemes avoid sampling biases associated with distributing questionnaires

in the course of regular staff duties and enable surveyors to subdivide a study area into

relatively homogenous sub-units or strata, reducing the margin of error in overall use

estimates. Finally, stratified random sampling produces a probability sample and provides a

basis for estimating meaningful margins of error.

Employing a complex survey design of the type described here would be costly, just as it

was on BESF. The advantage is in the trustworthiness of the results. In future surveys, some

savings could be realized by eliminating the follow-up, mail-back portion of the survey.

However, this should not be done by collecting more information during on-site interviews

because longer interviews would reduce response rates. Any decision about using a follow-

up, mail-back questionnaire should be based on evaluating the importance of collecting

complex information requiring thoughtful responses. For example, if it were important to

collection information about participant attitudes toward contentious and/or complex Forest

management issues, using a follow-up, mail-back questionnaire would be particularly

valuable.

29

Vehicle and trail counters. As part of this study, the practicality of using vehicle and trail

counters was also tested.1 Neither device was used successfully. Making secure installations

was difficult for counters of both types. Each needed to be protected from passersby but, at

the same time, be positioned to record their passing. In addition counters needed to be

accessible to survey staff. Furthermore, because they were battery-powered, both types of

counters required frequent maintenance, particularly during cold weather. Trail counters not

only needed frequent maintenance, but also failed to make reliable counts during periods of

high winds. The need for frequent maintenance combined with the 40-70 mile commute

from State College to various counter sites quickly exhausted the resources allocated to the

use of counters. With easier access to the counter sites and additional time spent on

installation, calibration, and maintenance, it might have been possible to use both types of

counters successfully. In order to use counters of any type successfully in another study, it is

likely counters would need to be installed permanently or semi-permanently and read and

maintained by personnel who do not need to travel long distances.

Ultimately, decisions about visitor use survey methods in other Pennsylvania State

Forests should be tailored to individual forests. For example, a sampling method might be

highly successful in one Forest but less successful in another because of differences in road

and trail networks or use patterns. Similarly, all of Pennsylvania‟s State Forests share some

important management issues, but other important issues may vary between Forests.

Literature Cited

Scheaffer, R.L., Mendenhall, W., & Ott, L. (1990). Elementary Survey Sampling (4th

Ed.). Boston, MA: PWS-Kent.

1 The vehicle counter tested was the Nu-Metrics brand Hi-Star NC-47. The trail counter tested was the

TrailMaster brand TW1500 active infrared counter.

30

Appendix A: On-site and Follow-up Questionnaires

41

Appendix B: Sampling Strategy

42

Sampling Strategy for the Study

The sampling frame was all five-hour time periods of the study year crossed with the eight

geographic zones created for the study. Thus, the sample units were a series of five-hour

daylight time periods within individual zones. Measurements taken on each sample unit

included date, site(s), number of parties, and party-size(s). To obtain a representative sample,

the five-hour time periods included in the sample were varied between weekdays and weekend

days, as well as among mornings, afternoons, and evenings.

The study year was also stratified seasonally in order to capture seasonal variation in

activities and use levels and facilitate computing seasonal use estimates in addition to an

overall annual estimate. Four unequal-length seasonal strata were designed in consultation

with the Forest‟s District Manager and staff. Beginning and ending dates for each seasonal

stratum were selected to correspond with important annual changes in Forest use patterns. The

summer stratum (mid-June through Labor Day) corresponded to school vacation time and to

moderately active fishing. The fall season (September through mid-December) began with the

return of the school year and extended through fall color and all the major hunting seasons.

The winter season (mid-December through March) was selected to approximate the traditional

snow season. Finally, the spring season (April through mid-June) corresponded with peak

fishing activity.

43

Appendix C: Results Tables

44

Table 1. Sampling dates and locations by season and method

Season

Sampling method a

Date

Day of

week Zone and Location b

Questionnaires

distributed

Summer 6/12/99 Sat. 5 Poe Paddy Picnic Area 8

Onsite/mail-back 6/18/99 Fri. 2 McCall Dam & White Deer Creek Rds. 13

3 Hairy John & Winklebleck Rd. 5

6/19/99 Sat. 4 Cherry Run & Weikert Rds. 17

6 Snyder-Middleswarth Picnic Area 5

7 Shade Mt. Rd. 1

6/24/99 Thurs. 4 Ingleby 4

6/25/99 Fri. 5 Poe Paddy Picnic Area 9

4 Cherry Run & Weikert Rds. 2

6/26/99 Sat. 3 Jones Mt. Rd. 9


7/2/99 Fri. 3 Hairy John & Winklebleck Rd. 11


7/3/99 Sat. 3 Hairy John & Winklebleck Rd. 17

5 Poe Paddy Picnic Area 12

8 Greens Valley Rd. 1

7/4/99 Sun. 5 Bear Gap Picnic Area 13

7/5/99 Mon. 2 McCall Dam & White Deer Creek Rds. 46

7/9/99 Fri. 4 Cherry Run & Weikert Rds. 14

7/10/99 Sat. 3 Jones Mt. Rd. 5

7/16/99 Fri. 2 Mile Run Rd. 4

1 Rainsares Rd. 1

7/17/99 Sat. 7 Shade Mt. Rd. 2

5 Bear Gap Picnic Area 5


7/18/99 Sun. 5 Poe Paddy Picnic Area 17


8 Greens Valley Rd. 9



7/25/99 Sun. 2 McCall Dam & White Deer Creek Rds. 12

3 Jones Mt. Rd. 7

7/29/99 Thurs. 5 Bear Gap Picnic Area 2



7/30/99 Fri. 5 Sand Mt. Rd. & S-M Pike 45

8 Green Valley Rd. 1



8/13/99 Fri. 5 Sand Mt. Rd. & S-M Pike 23

8/14/99 Sat. 2 McCall Dam & White Deer Creek Rds. 11

8/21/99 Sat. 2 Mile Run Rd. 9

8/22/99 Sun. 2 Mile Run Rd. 10

8/27/99 Fri. 5 Poe Paddy Picnic Area 2

8/29/99 Sun. 5 Sand Mt. Rd. & S-M Pike 40

Table continued next page.

a During summer, early fall, and spring, surveyors stationed at key intersections or roads counted passing

vehicles and asked drivers to stop and complete a brief questionnaire, as well as a longer, mail-back

questionnaire. During late fall and winter, surveyors drove major roads and distributed questionnaire packets

on the windshields of parked vehicles.

b Zones: 1 Rainsares; 2 South Eastville; 3 Hickernell North; 4 Hickernell South; 5 New Lancaster Valley; 6

Troxelville; 7 Shade Mountain; 8 Green‟s Valley.

45

Table 1 continued. Sampling dates and locations by season and method

Season

Sampling method a

Date

Day of


Questionnaires

distributed

Fall 9/12/99 Sun. 3 Hairy John & Winklebleck Rd. 25

Onsite/mail-back 9/19/99 Sun. 2 Mile Run Rd. 25

9/26/99 Sun. 2 Mile Run Rd. 25

10/3/99 c

Sun. 8 Green Valley Rd. 16

10/17/99 c

Sun. 8 Green Valley Rd. 21

10/24/99 c

Sun. 2 Mile Run Rd. 18

Windshield 10/2/99 Sat. 1 3

2 10

3 8

4 0

5 1

6 26

10/3/99 Sun. 3 2

5 17

10/8/99 Fri. 7 7

10/16/99 Sat. 4 11

5 13

6 19

10/30/99 Sat. 2 8

3 7

4 4

5 0

6 29

7 23

11/13/99 Sat. 1 4

2 7

3 11

11/22/99 Mon. 1 13

2 9

3 13

4 14

5 34

6 78

7 12

8 17

11/29/99 Mon. 2 14

3 33

4 22

5 35

6 129

12/11/99 Sat. 2 9

3 26

4 3




questionnaire. During late fall and winter, surveyors drove along major roads and distributed questionnaire

packets on the windshields of parked vehicles.



c Onsite/mail-back survey results collected during October were not used to compute use estimates because

these results overlapped with windshield method results collected during the same month.

46


Season

Sampling method a

Date

Day of


Questionnaires

distributed

Winter 12/18/99 Sat. 2 5

Windshield 3 1

4 2

12/27/99 Mon. 2 3

3 3

1/9/00 Sun. 3 1

6 4

1/16/00 Sun. 3 1

5 3

8 1

1/22/00 Sat. 2 28

5 6

1/29/00 Sat. 2 48

3 23

4 4

5 8

2/5/00 Sat. 2 91

3 5

4 10

2/13/00 Sun. 2 1

3 3

2/19/00 Sat. 2 27

3 11

2/26/00 Sat. 4 3

5 1

3/16/00 Thurs. 4 2

3/19/00 Sun. 2 1

4/1/00 Sun. 3 2

4/1/00 6 7






On winter sampling days when Forest roads were inaccessible because of snow, questionnaire packets were

placed on vehicles at the following locations: Zone 2 – Mile Run Snowmobile Parking Lot, R.B. Winter

Snowmobile Parking Lot, Route 192 Parking Lot; Zone 3 – Hairy Johns Picnic Area Parking Lot; Zone 4 –

Weikert Parking Lot, District Office Parking Lot; Zone 5 – Jack's Mt. Snowmobile Parking Lot.



47


Season

Sampling method a

Date

Day of


Questionnaires

distributed

Spring 4/1/00 Sun. 5 Poe Paddy Picnic Area 5

Onsite/mail-back 4/15/00 Sun. 2 Mile Run Rd. 28

4/17/99 Tue. 5 Poe Paddy Picnic Area 8

4/30/00 Mon. 2 Mile Run Rd. 6

2 McCall Dam & White Deer Creek Rds. 1


5/6/00 Sun. 5 Poe Paddy Picnic Area 6

5/14/00 Mon. 6 Snyder-Middleswarth Picnic Area 6


5/15/00 Tue. 5 Poe Paddy Picnic Area 9

5/27/00 Sun. 4 Cherry Run & Weikert Rds. 2

4 Ingleby 2

5/28/00 Mon. 2 Mile Run Rd. 9

5/29/00 Tue. 2 Mile Run Rd. 8

2 McCall Dam & White Deer Creek Rds. 2








48

Table 2. Number of interviews completed by sampling zone and season

Number of On-site Interviews

Zones/Sites Summer Fall Spring Overall

Zone 1

Rainsares 1 -- -- 1

Zone 2

Mile Run Rd 23 65 50 138

McCall Dam Rd 82 -- 3 85

Zone 3

Hairy John & Winklebleck Rd 84 25 -- 109

Jones & Brandon Rd 21 -- -- 21

Zone 4

Cherry Run & Weikert Rds 56 -- 3 59

Ingleby 2 -- 4 6

Zone 5

Sand Mt. Rd 109 -- -- 109

Poe Paddy Picnic Area 45 -- 39 84

Bear Gap Picnic Area & Treaster

Valley Rd

20

--

-- 20

Zone 6

Snyder-Middleswarth Picnic Area 9 -- 6 15

Zone 7

Shade Mt. Rd 3 -- -- 3

Zone 8

Greens Valley Rd 11 37 -- 48

Total 466 127 105 698

Note. A total of 92 windshield-survey responses were received in fall, compared to 135 in winter.

49

Table 3. Profile of respondents

Percentage (n)

Summer Fall Winter Spring Overall

Gender

Males 81% (195) 93% (136) 91% (124) 83% (33) 86% (548)

Females 19% (47) 8% (11) 9% (12) 18% (7) 14% (77)

Age

Under 19 0% (0) 1% (1) 1% (1) 0% (0) 1% (2)

19-30 12% (29) 11% (15) 17% (23) 7% (3) 12% (70)

31-40 21% (51) 21% (31) 27% (37) 34% (14) 24% (133)

41-50 24% (59) 33% (49) 25% (34) 20% (8) 27% (150)

51-60 17% (40) 15% (22) 14% (19) 24% (10) 16% (91)

61and older 26% (63) 20% (29) 167% (23) 15% (6) 21% (121)

Education

High school or less 45% (109) 55% (81) 56% (77) 44% (18) 50% (285)

Technical school or college 35% (85) 35% (52) 34% (46) 34% (14) 35% (197)

Graduate School 20% (48) 10% (14) 10% (14) 22% (9) 15% (85)

Income

Under $ 19,999 10% (22) 7% (9) 7% (9) 17% (6) 9% (46)

$20,000-$29,999 19% (41) 19% (25) 16% (20) 3% (1) 17% (87)

$30,000-$49,999 33% (72) 30% (39) 25% (31) 17% (6) 29% (148)

$50,000-$79,999 21% (46) 29% (38) 40% (49) 37% (13) 29% (146)

$80,000+ 17% (36) 15% (19) 12% (15) 26% (9) 16% (79)

Current residence

Farm, ranch, rural area 35% (45) 43% (61) 41% (56) 45% (18) 40% (180)

Small town (under 10,000) 40% (51) 41% (58) 45% (61) 30% (12) 41% (182)

Large town (10,000-49,999) 14% (18) 11% (15) 7% (9) 15% (6) 11% (48)

Small/Large/Metropolitan area 12% (15) 6% (8) 7% (10) 10% (4) 8% (37)

Children living in household

0 child 60% (146) 54% (79) 61% (84) 49% (20) 58% (329)

1 child 12% (28) 21% (27) 15% (21) 10% (4) 14% (80)

2 children 18% (43) 14% (20) 15%(21) 22% (9) 16% (93)

3 or more 10% (25) 14% (21) 8% (11) 20% (8) 12% (65)

Ethnicity

Caucasian or White 98% (238) 100%(147) 100% (136) 100% (40) 99% (561)

Others 2% (4) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (4)

Note. Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

50

Table 4. Visitation patterns by season

Percentage (n)

Visitor Behavior Summer Fall Winter Spring Overall

First time visitor

Yes 10% (48) 1% (3) 5% (7) 7% (8) 7% (66)

No 90% (416) 99% (214) 95% (129) 93% (104) 93% (863)

If no, no. of visits last 12 mos.

0-5 visits 39% (161) 40% (81) 40% (51) 55% (57) 41% (350)

6-10 visits 18% (73) 17% (37) 26% (33) 14% (15) 18% (158)

11-15 visits 9% (38) 9% (20) 141% (14) 10% (10) 10% (82)

16-20 visits 4% (15) 7% (15) 5% (7) 8% (8) 5% (45)

Over 20 visits 31% (129) 29% (61) 19% (24) 14% (14) 26% (228)

If no, primary season of use

Spring 9% (35) 9% (18) 4% (5) 66% (63) 15% (121)

Summer 57% (218) 18% (38) 13% (16) 19% (18) 36% (290)

Fall 31% (118) 63% (131) 24% (29) 10% (10) 36% (288)

Winter 2% (9) 11% (22) 59% (72) 5% (5) 13% (108)

Composition of visitor group

Alone 22% (102) 23% (49) 10% (13) 13% (15) 19% (179)

Family 50% (231) 44% (96) 26% (34) 38% (43) 44% (404 )

Friends 15% (70) 23% (50) 29% (38) 28% (31) 21% (189)

Family & friends 13% (61) 10% (22) 35% (46) 21% (23) 17% (152)

Miles traveled to Forest

Under 26 41% (190) 53% (115) 37% (51) 43% (48) 43% (404)

26-50 22% (104) 21% (45) 29% (40) 20% (22) 23% (211)

51-100 16% (76) 12% (27) 17% (23) 15% (17) 15% (143)

Over 100 21% (96) 14% (31) 17% (23) 22% (25) 19% (175)

Type of Trip

Day trip 62% (287) 78% (169) 77% (106) 56% (63) 67% (625)

Under 1 hour 36% (103) 23% (39) 0% (0) 14% (9) 24% (151)

1-2 hours 24% (68) 15% (25) 2% (2) 11% (7) 16% (102)

3-5 hours 32% (91) 27% (46) 20% (21) 21% (13) 27% (171)

Over 6 hours 9% (25) 35% (59) 78% (83) 54% (34) 32% (201)

Overnight 38% (179) 23% (50) 23% (30) 44% (49) 33% (308)

1 nights 19% (34) 18% (9) 13% (4) 2% (1) 16% (48)

2 nights 35% (62) 41% (20) 20% (6) 35% (17) 34% (105)

3-5 nights 31% (55) 29% (14) 52% (16) 27% (13) 32% (98)

Over 5 nights 16% (28) 12% (6) 16% (5) 37% (18) 19% (57)

Locations of overnight stays

Forest sites 47% (83) 92% (11) -- 67% (32) 53% (126)

Designated campsite 41% (35) 9% (1) -- 64% (21) 45% (57)

Leased cabin site 58% (48) 91% (10) -- 33% (11) 54% (69)

Backcountry site 1% (1) -- -- 3% (1) 2% (2)

Outside Forest 53% (94) 8% (1) -- 33% (16) 47% (111)

Private campground 28% (26) 0% (0) -- 29% (4) 28% (30)

Bed & Breakfast 7% (7) 0% (0) -- 0% (0) 6% (7)

State park 38% (35) 100% (1) -- 36% (5) 38% (41)

Private cabin 27% (25) 0% (0) -- 36% (5) 28% (30)

Note. Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

51

Table 5. Primary activity on day of interview, by season

Fishing 18% (57) 6% (11) 2% (3) 79% (84) 21% (155)

Hunting 0% (0) 41% (79) 31% (42) 0% (0) 16% (121)

Viewing scenery 18% (56) 16% (30) 2% (2) 1% (1) 12% (89)

Camping 18% (56) 6% (11) 0% (0) 8% (8) 10% (75)

Snowmobiling 0% (0) 0% (0) 55% (74) 0% (0) 10% (74)

Walking/day hiking 13% (43) 5% (10) 7% (9) 8% (8) 9% (70)

Wildlife watching/feeding 13% (42) 12% (23) 1% (1) 0% (0) 9% (66)

Picnicking 12% (37) 4% (8) 0% (0) 4% (4) 7% (49)

Mountain biking 3% (15) 2% (3) 1% (1) 1% (1) 3% (20)

Backpacking 2% (7) 1% (1) 1% (1) 0% (0) 1% (9)

Horseback riding 0% (0) 5% (9) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (9)

Driving ORV 2% (6) 1% (4) 0% (0) 1% (1) 1% (8)

Collecting stone 0% (0) 2% (3) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (3)

Cutting firewood 0% (0) 1% (2) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (2)

Photography 1% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (1)

Cross-country skiing 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (1) 0% (0) 1% (1)

Jogging/trail running 0% (0) 1% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (1)

Sledding 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (1) 0% (0) 1% (1)

Note. Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Individuals were asked what they anticipated doing

during their visit to BESF. What they actually did during their visit may vary.

Percentage (n)


52

Table 6. Activity participation rates on day of interview, by season

Viewing scenery 34% (159) 51% (111) 53% (72) 19% (21) 39% (363)

Fishing 18% (84) 8% (18) 12% (16) 82% (92) 23% (210)

Walking/day hiking 23% (109) 18% (39) 21% (29) 24% (27) 22% (204)

Wildlife watching/feeding 17% (81) 27% (59) 17% (23) 12% (13) 19% (176)

Hunting 0% (0) 39% (85) 35% (48) 0% (0) 14% (133)

Camping 18% (82) 6% (14) 7% (10) 17% (19) 13% (125)

Picnicking 11% (51) 7% (16) 8% (11) 15% (17) 10% (95)

Snowmobiling 0% (0) 1% (1) 58% (79) 0% (0) 8% (80)

Driving through 13% (61) 2% (4) 0% (0) 0% (0) 7% (65)

Swimming/tubing 9% (43) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (1) 5% (44)

Cabin maintenance 5% (24) 8% (17) 0% (0) 0% (0) 4% (41)

Mountain biking 5% (23) 4% (8) 4% (5) 4% (4) 4% (40)

Photography 2% (7) 4% (8) 10% (14) 6% (7) 4% (36)

Rest & Relax 5% (23) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 3% (25)

Backpacking 2% (9) 2% (5) 4% (5) 2% (2) 2% (21)

Cutting firewood 0% (0) 4% (8) 1% (2) 3% (3) 1% (13)

Visiting Friend/Relatives 3% (12) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (12)

Horseback riding 0% (0) 5% (10) 1% (2) 0% (0) 1% (12)

Driving ORV 1% (6) 1% (2) 1% (2) 1% (1) 1% (11)

Collecting stone 1% (5) 1% (2) 1% (2) 0% (0) 1% (9)

Target shooting 1% (1) 1% (2) 0% (0) 1% (1) 1% (4)

Scout activity 0% (0) 1% (3) 0% (0) 1% (1) 1% (4)

Berry picking 1% (4) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (4)

Jogging/trail running 0% (0) 1% (1) 1% (2) 0% (0) 1% (3)

Family reunion 1% (3) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (3)

Using restroom 1% (2) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (2)

Cross-country skiing 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (1) 0% (0) 1% (1)

Sledding 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (1) 0% (0) 1% (1)

Get water 1% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (1)

Collecting insects 1% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (1)

Caving 1% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (1)

Activity

Percentage (n)


53

Table 7. Anticipated location of activity participation by season

Percentage (n)

Area used Summer Fall Winter Spring Overall

White Deer Creek/McCall Dam 25% (98) 34% (53) 13% (10) 63% (5) 25% (166)

Poe Paddy 33% (134) 2% (3) 3% (2) 13% (1) 21% (140)

Greens Valley 3% (11) 25% (39) 1% (1) 0% (0) 8% (51)

Hickernell North 7% (27) 13% (21) 0% (0) 0% (0) 7% (48)

Hairy John Picnic Area 4% (15) 10% (16) 16% (12) 0% (0) 7% (43)

R.B. Winter 1% (2) 1% (1) 38% (29) 0% (0) 5% (32)

Penn‟s Creek 5% (21) 1% (1) 3% (2) 13% (1) 4% (25)

Cherry Run 6% (23) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 4% (23)

Jones Mt Rd. 5% (19) 0% (0) 1% (1) 0% (0) 3% (20)

Bear Gap 4% (15) 1% (1) 3% (2) 0% (0) 3% (18)

Sand Mt. 4% (15) 1% (2) 0% (0) 0% (0) 3% (17)

Treaster Valley 1% (1) 6% (9) 4% (3) 0% (0) 2% (13)

Mid-State Trail 2% (7) 0% (0) 4% (3) 0% (0) 2% (10)

Poe Valley 0% (0) 2% (3) 6% (5) 13% (1) 1% (9)

Tall Timbers 2% (7) 1% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (8)

Shade Mt. 1% (3) 3% (4) 0% (0) 0% (0) !% (7)

Pine Creek Rd. 1% (4) 1% (1) 1% (1) 0% (0) 1% (6)

Strong Improvement 0% (0) 1% (1) 6% (5) 0% (0) 1% (6)

Stony Run 1% (2) 2% (3) 1% (1) 0% (0) 1% (6)

Penn‟s View 1% (5) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (5)

Note. Only locations mentioned 5 or more times overall are listed.

54

Table 8. Location of favorite place in Bald Eagle State Forest

Category Count

(n = 441) Percent Wording of response

No specific place 39 8.8%

I ride the roads. So I ride “thru” – No specific location.

No favorite place.

Bald Eagle State Park.

New in area. Only visited one site.

Parks.

Sightseeing.

Bald Eagle State Park – has clean showers and bathrooms. Larger camping area,

nice lake.

All state parks.

No favorite in particular, we just drive to see wildlife and relax.

I have no favorite place.

I like all of Bald Eagle State Forest. I like being in the outdoors without

convenience of home.

Don‟t have one.

I just like riding the roads.

No particular spot like all equal.

I don‟t have a favorite place. I like it all.

Anywhere.

I do not have an available place.

The great outdoors in general.

No favorite.

I visit a few different areas of the state forest. All are equally good.

No favorite spot.

Did not visit enough to see it all.

Any part away from the highway.

Anywhere alone.

I don‟t really have a favorite place.

Have no favorite place.

It‟s all good.

Don‟t really have a favorite. We enjoy area.

All snow scenery.

All areas.

I don't have a favorite place.

All over.

I like the whole park, it's a great place to snowmobile.

All the same.

Parks.

I like them all.

I don't have a favorite - I enjoy the whole trail.

I don't have just one favorite place, but they are all former logging roads in

western Union County.

Prefer not to identify anything.

The forest/woods (in general) 7 1.6%

The woods.

Anywhere in the woods.

The entire forest is wonderful.

The whole forest.

Woodland all around, no noise, very little traffic.

I like to ride through the woods and see snow.

The woods.


*Response counted in more than one category; underlined words counted in this category.

55

Table 8 continued. Location of favorite place in the Bald Eagle State Forest

Category Count


The trails (in general) 7 1.6%

The trails and the dam and the waterfalls.

Natural trails.

I trail horse ride and like the trails (not road) through the forest.

Trails for horse back riding.

Anywhere along Mid-state trail.

Hiking.

All snowmobile trails.

Mountains (in general) 7 1.6%

I really love the mountains, so it is hard for me to just select one area, but, I like

the Bear Run Rd. to Bear Gap areas the best.

Mountains.

Around mountains.

Anywhere in the mountains.

A large rock that I set on being able to observe some hollows that come up to the

top of the mountain.

The look out spots when snowmobiling.

Some of the vistas (the views are awesome).

Picnic areas (in general) 5 1.1%

Swimming and picnic area.

Picnic area close to swimming.

We liked picnic area.

Picnic area.

Picnic area.

Creeks (in general) 4 .9%

The stream.

Along the creek.

Along the streams.

Creeks.

A lake (unspecified) 2 .5%

The lake area – it‟s very pretty and offers things to do as a family.

The lake.

Camping areas (in general) 1 .2%

Camping area – in season fishing in stream.

Penns Creek, Poe Paddy, Cherry Run, Railroad Tunnel Area 58 13.2%

Penns Creek.

Area above PFBC, Penns Creek at Cherry Run.

You can look down and see Penns Creek along the trail.

Rock slide/face on south side of Penns Creek on White Mountain, near

intersection of Cherry Run and Penns Creek.

Harleton/Penns Creek area.

Penns Creek fly stretch.

I fish Penns Creek from 19 bridge to 1.5 miles into the no kill area.

Penns Creek from cabin to Cherry Run.

Penns Creek.

Any where along Penns Creek and from towns and cabin.

Penns Creek.

Penn‟s creek below Poe Paddy bridge.

Penns Creek.

Penns Creek and Poe Valley.

Next to Penns Creek 1 ½ mile west on Cherry Row Rd.



56


Category Count


Penns Creek, Poe Paddy, Cherry Run, Railroad Tunnel Area, continued

Penns Creek between Weikert and Cherry Run.

Penns Creek from Swift Run to Eagles Bay.

Cherry Run Road – fishing Penns Creek.*

Penns Creek cold water fishery.

The area from Poe Paddy and Harry Johns, especially along Penns Creek.

Poe Paddy camping area. There is approximately 7-10 miles of great fly fishing

and miles of bicycle riding without traffic.

Poe Paddy.

Poe Paddy Park and lake.

Poe Paddy state park – camping, fishing meeting nice people – lovely place.

Poe Paddy area – trestle and tunnel.

Poe Paddy.

Poe Paddy Park.

Poe Paddy.

Trail end camp – Poe Paddy Area.

Trail end cabin.

Poe Paddy area.

Little Poe park.

Poe Paddy area.

Cherry Run Road – fishing Penns Creek.*

Cherry Run.

PA fish commission project. North of Cherry Run.

The catch and release area near Cherry Run a few miles west of Weikert.

In the Cherry Run area, along old Mingle Road.

Cherry Run.

Cherry Run area.

On Cherry Run Road.

Love the Cherry Run area – always seeing wildlife and not many people.

Cherry Run to the tunnel.

Cherry Row Road to Paddy mountain.

Cherry Run, Poe Paddy area.

Cherry Run hollow. Bear Run hollow.

Cherry Run area.

The old railroad tunnel/cave.

I enjoyed the tunnel and the surrounding area.

On the trestle bridge just before the railroad tunnel I love water.

I love walking through the tunnel at Poe Paddy and walking along that trail. It is

so tranquil, beautiful, natural.

The old rail road tunnel.

I guess the railroad tunnel.

Paddy Mt tunnel area.

Train tunnel at Poe Paddy.

All around Poe Paddy Park and the tunnel.

Railroad tunnel at Poe Paddy.

Tunnel (railroad tracks) west of Cherry Run.



57


Category Count


Poe Valley Area 34 7.7%

Poe and New Lancaster Valley. Great access and maintained trail.*

In general, the Poe Valley/High Valley area.

Poe Valley Park.

Poe Valley.

Poe Valley lake.

Poe Valley.

The Creek – Treaster Run. Poe Valley State Park.

Poe Valley state park picnic area.

Poe Valley.

The stream below the dam in Poe Valley.

Poe Valley State Park – quiet surrounding.

Overlook looking into Poe Valley.

Poe Valley.

Poe Valley camping area.

Poe Valley.

Poe Valley State Park.

Woods along Poe Creek.

Poe Valley dam.


Lake at Poe Valley.

Poe Valley camp area.

I really like Poe Valley – plenty of parking, trails, nice lake.

Poe Valley.

Poe Valley.


Area between Poe Valley and Poe Paddy. Poe Valley state park in the fall.

Poe Valley.

Poe Valley park.

Valley area.

Poe Valley area.

Poe Valley.


Poe Valley is remote and sparsely inhabited.

Raymond B. Winter, Halfway Dam Area 27 6.1%

I liked Raymond B. Winter Lake

Raymond B. Winter State Park.

R B. Winter in Autumn, Summer…. The body of water makes it.

The R.B. Winter area.

R.B. Winter/half way dam area.

R.B. Winter State Park.

R.B. Winter beach.

The swimming area at R.B. Winter.

R.B. Winter.

R.B. Winters park.

R.B. Winter Park.

Raymond State Park.

Raymond B. Winters Park

Overlook close to R.B. Winters

R.B. Winter Park.



58


Category Count


Raymond B. Winter, Halfway Dam Area continued

Lake & campground - R.B. Winters Park.

R.B. Winters.

Lake at R.B. Winter.

R.B. Winter Park.

Halfway dam area.

Halfway dam.

Halfway dam.

Halfway dam.

Halfway Dam and everything.

Halfway Dam. Black Gap.*

Halfway Dam.

Overlook at Halfway Dam.

White Deer Creek/McCall Dam 26 5.9%

White Deer Creek camping site, they are close to water and fishing. White Deer Creek Rd. area and 5 Points area near Mile Run.

Along White Deer Creek.

White Deer Creek, fishing.

White Deer Creek and surrounding areas.

White Deer Creek.

White Deer Creek area.

White Deer Creek. Some of the more secluded areas.

White Deer Creek fly fishing areas.

White Deer Creek area.

White Deer Creek fishing hunting.

White Deer Creek.

White Deer Creek.

White Deer Creek Road

Upper area of White Deer Creek watershed.

White Deer Creek.

All along the White Deer Creek.

Eastville to Hairy Johns & Whitedeer Creeks areas.*

McCall Dam picnic area.

McCalls Dam – secluded and pleasant for picnic, etc.

My favorite area is on top of a mountain very close to McCall Dam Picnic Area.

McCall Dam area.

McCall Dam area. White deer Creek road.

McCall Dam.

McCall area

McCall Dam picnic area.

Hairy Johns 13 2.9%

Eastville to Hairy Johns & Whitedeer Creeks areas.*

The area from Poe Paddy and Harry Johns, especially along Penns Creek.

Harry Johns.

Harry Johns.

Harry Johns picnic area – quiet, peaceful, not crowded like state park.

Harry John‟s Park – Winkelbleck Mtn – vista.

The Harry Johns area.

Harry John State Park.

Harry Johns area trail.

Harry Johns stone pavilion.



59


Category Count


Hairy Johns continued

Harry John‟s

Harry John State Park.

Hairy John's.

Tall Timbers 10 2.3%

Tall Timbers/Snyder – Middleswarth state park.*

Tall Timbers –Snyder Middleswarth pristine.*

Tall timbers.

Tall Timbers Trail.

Tall Timbers.

Tall Timbers.

Tall Timbers.

Tall Timbers.

Tall Timbers and Snyder Middleswarth.*

Snyder-Middleswarth and Tall Timbers*

Pine Creek 8 1.8%

Pine Creek road.

Headwaters of Pine Creek.

Pine Creek area.

Pine Creek.

Pine Creek valley.

Pine Creek.

I go all over the Pine Creek area.

Pine Creek road.

Hook Natural Area 8 1.8%

In The Hook – near stream, large moss covered rocks, large trees.

Hooks natural area.

Hook natural area – Union County.

Hook natural area.

The Hook natural area.

Natural Hook Area.

Hook Natural Area.

Hook Natural Area.

Treaster Run 7 1.6%

View‟s into Triester and New Lancaster Valley.

Treaster run, fly fishing for stream raised native trout. Good water, not over

fished, should be made 100% catch and release.

Treaster Valley area.

Mostly visit for hunting or work in Treaster valley.

Treaster valley.

Treaster Valley.

Treaster Valley along the creek and the Bear Gap area.

Snyder/Middleswarth 7 1.6%

Tall Timbers and Snyder Middleswarth.*

Snyder-Middleswarth and Tall Timbers*

Tall Timbers/Snyder – Middleswarth state park.*

Tall Timbers –Snyder Middleswarth pristine.*

I have 3 favorite places depending on what I‟m doing Snyder-Middleswarth for

hiking, Spruce Run for fishing, Bald Eagle Park for picnicking.

A beautiful lookout near Snyder – Middleswarth park.

Middleswarth Park – I like the camp site with the water fall.



60


Category Count


Green Valley Area 7 1.6%

It is a certain area in Greens Valley where I always see and harvest deer every

year. I visit the entire Greens Valley area but most often visit the western end

of the valley.

Greens Valley.

Only ever been to Greens Valley area to get firewood. Don‟t have any favorite

place.

Upper green valley about 3 miles into dirt road at top of Centre Hall Mountain.

At the end of Greens Valley Road by stream where bridge is out.

Green Valley area.

Greens Valley.

Winklebleck 5 1.1%

Winklebleck cabin is located in the center of the forest. It is just fun to get away

from the busy life.

Winklebleck over look.

Winklebleck.

Winkelblecks view.

The view of Winklebleck.

Bear Gap 5 1.1%

Bear Gap area.

Bear Gap camp – Hartley Township, Union County.

Bear Gap camp.

Bear Gap.

Bear Mountain.

Black Gap 5 1.1%

Black Gap vista.

Black Gap road.

Burkholder cabin in Black Gap area.

Black Gap lookout.

Halfway Dam. Black Gap.*

Shade Mountain 4 .9%

Shade Mountain on south side of Bear Spring.

Shade Mountain. Between fire tower and Targap trail.

Top of Shade Mountain. Along the dirt road that runs between Rts. 235 and 104.

Shade Mountain.

Buffalo Mountain 4 .9%

The end of Buffalo Mountain where Cooper Mill Rd. and Spruce Run Rd. meet.

There is a gate near Cooper Mill Rd. The road goes over the top of Buffalo Mt.

On top of Buffalo.

Buffalo Mountain.

Weikert Run 4 .9%

Weikert run road, Devil‟s Elbow area, White Mt. (which was a favorite camping

area for me but you can't camp there).

Weikert run area, with the stream, mountain.

Weikert.

Weikert.

Penn‟s View 4 .9%

Penns view.

Penns View.

Penns view, it is so pretty.

Penns View overlook.



61


Category Count


Paddy Mountain 3 .7%

Paddy mountain.

Camp site 25 on Paddy Mountain.

On top of Paddy Mountain where I camp, also, down from camp at the creek.

New Lancaster Valley 3 .7%

New Lancaster Valley.

Camp in New Lancaster Valley.

Poe and New Lancaster Valley. Great access and maintained trail.*

Other 97 22.0%

Strong‟s Mountain area.

Molasses Gap.

Jack‟s Mountain - Kettle Gap.

Fishing Rapid Run.

Sand Mountain road.

Knob Ridge in Mifflin County.

Deep Waters.

Rattle Hole.

Buffalo flats, very serene

Stony Run road.

Henster Valley, because of its unique mountain stream and solitude setting.

Always cool even in August.

The area in the Cinder Pile Spring.

Wolf swamp.

Group Oak Trail area.

Scenic over looks.

Fish area.

Front Round Top (Kleckner Spring Cabin).

The fishing area.

RT 144 – clear water and clean air.

Peaceful, not crowded, quiet.

I like the different quiet places were a person can meditate with god and with the

forest.

All ATV trails.

Nittany Mountain around „Mile Run‟ exit of Rt 80. It‟s a familiar area.

Little Pine State Park.

The south part – it‟s high with a look out.

Between Loganton and 192, small but nice to have family gathering.

Climbing Rock, hunting spots close to Climbing Rock.

The Wildcat Trail – it has diverse terrain and a lot of moss.

Fly – special regulation stretch.

There is a spot directly above – about 60 feet – overlook the blue rock pool that

affords an excellent view of White Mountain. At this point, I switch my

favorite place to my summer home, as the questions are more appropriate to

it.

Upstream from cabin: No road.

Mid State Trail from Shower Road at switch back to R.B. Winter Park.

North side of mountain sloping terrain – tree covered.

Sharpback Mountain.

Rt. 192 up through R.B. Winter State Park to Rt. 880.



62


Category Count


Other continued

Scenic over look area where observers can see many miles and lake and many

mountains.

Dirt roads.

Enjoy the Hemlock and Pine forest.

Look out tower.

Along the creek, where the beavers have built dams, one can just marvel at nature's

handiwork and beauty.

Back the East Kettle Road, Snyder County.

The overlooks were a beautiful view.

Broken Anvil camp at cross roads of Stoney Road and Shale Pit.

It is a trail that leads to a bridge after walking approximately 45 minutes, also the

powerline hike.

Cooper Mill overlook.

The powerline lookout on the east end of Jones Mountain.

Fire tower.

The amphitheater – is where my family pitched our tent every summer, all summer

– 1950 thru 1964. Beautiful place.

The falls in the campground area a few years ago before the damage of the

flooding and hard winter.

Pavilion – far end.

A valley off of Buffalo Flats Mtn., along the creek.

A rock out cropping on the south face of a mountain.

My favorite place is along a stream in a valley between two mountains.

Delayed harvest fishing area.

White Mountain. I have enjoyed hunting on White Mountain since the time I was

in college at Penn State. It reminds me of the forest on the west coast where

they set aside land in wilderness preserves.

Milroy Vista.

1st pavilion off highway.

The mountains around Woodward.

Sugar Valley east of Carroh.

Green Township.

Cow Bell Trail.

I have not been through the other paths. I have been ride on the south road of I-80

immediately after exiting.

Little Pine.

Lick Run Road.

Area between Greens‟ Valley Road and Hecla Park.

The bottom by the creek with the missing bridge.

South side of Jones mountain near Mifflinburg reservoir. (Hook Natural Area)

Hunting areas.

Hunting spot.

Area I can hike into easily, but be away from most crowds.

Behind the Laurlton center at the reserve.

Sunny side of the Hutt trail area.

It's a place that seems to follow you around...sometimes even after you get back

home

I really like the clear cut that is on Red Gobble Rd.

About 5 miles from Rt. 322. Good bear hunting area.

(where) Hook, Middle Ridge and Jones Mountain come together.



63


Category Count


Other continued

The swamp area off summit trail, it‟s beautiful there.

Student trail.

Jack‟s Mountain east of Troxelville. I like to hunt and hike in mountains with farm

fields below.

I like to hike in Hunter Road area.

Little zoo and hunting camp.

A ravine.

Strong‟s improvement.

Almost to the top at Indian trail.

Potter Township.

South of Jones Mountain.

Roaring Creek Valley road.

Buckhorn hunting camp.

Mountain road.

Main parking lot near Forest Hills.

North side of Little Round Top Mountain.

The less traveled trail. The camping area. The trail around the park & dam.

Perhaps the roads open to snowmobiling.

Overlook views with picnic area.

It's along the White Deer Pike and it is very pleasant and quiet with a lot of nature.

Cooper Mill Road trails in firetower vicinity.

I like the fishing between the two bridges on Weikert Run.

Personal cabin/camp 41 9.3%

My camp on Pine Creek Road.

My cabin.

Hunting camp.

Cabin in Bald Eagle State Forest.

Private cabin Winklebleck Road).

Cabin.

Our cabin in the Livonia area.

I personally enjoy the fly fishing area near our winter cabin.

Buck Ridge hunting cabin.

Cabin.

Cabin on leased state forest land on Round Top above Harry Johns park.

Cabin on Pine Creek Rd. in Center Co. on state land.

Our cabin on Cherry Run Rd.

My cabin site.

Private camp within 11 miles of Poe Valley State Park, isolated and usually quiet.

Camp.

Camp – Treaster valley.

Hunting camp in New Lancaster valley, Poe Valley, Walker Lake.

I have a cabin within 2 miles of the dam – it is beautiful scenery and lots of

animals.

Our camp.

The hunting camp.

Buckhorn hunting camp.

Lease C-7-3 at cabin running gap road.

Hunting camp.

My camp.

My camp.



64


Category Count


Personal cabin/camp continued

My cabin area. Green Valley Road.

My cabin about ¼ along Lime Run exit.

Our hunting camp.

Little zoo hunting camp.

Camp site.

Our deer camp borders the forest.

The gap that the cabin sits in.

Spending time at our cabin.

Our hunting camp-Haines Twp.- now without water due to new regulations.

My camp.

Our cabin.

Reading Gun Club along Treaster Valley Road.

Our camp.

Hunting cabin.

My cabin in Negro Hollow.


65

Table 9. What makes this place more special to you than other places that might be similar to it?

Category Count


Recreation experiences - conduciveness (including accessibility) 100 21.2%

Good hunting, good trail access, nice pines.*

Fishing is not bad and not too many people.*

The deer hunting is good and it's not shoulder to shoulder with hunters.*

Good mt. biking, privacy.*

I have been very successful in hunting deer and turkey in this area. Also there is a

beautiful view of Treaster Valley from this location.*

Various terrain, easy access. Numbers of trails.*

Access, pets allowed.*

It seems to be less populated with camps and there are a lot of 4 wheel (or

mountain bike) roads, which allow me to enjoy nature at its best.*

Access in all areas of park and natural beauty.*

The quality of the trout fishing, and the natural beauty of the area.*

The kids (my daughters 7 to 12) love the sand and cool water. I love the scenery

and geology of the area.*

Probably Penns Creek.*

Wild trout stream.*

I love fishing and this creek in this beautiful forest.*

Its great fishing, the scenery, and the creek itself.*

The stream & related scenery is beautiful. The stream is accessible here but not

too accessible.*

Limited access, few people, wildlife, fishing.*

Its natural beauty, quiet, peaceful, serenity and road. Trout fishing.*

Rustic – out of the way camping area.*

Fishing and quiet.*

Good fishing, good hunting, and no crowds.*

It is a quiet place and trails are good.*

It is not overly crowded - it is clean and taken care of - the trails are open.*

Not crowded - adequate length - not too hard nor too easy and it is a good trail.*

It‟s secluded and really scenic and the fishing is good.*

My favorite place to camp has many good qualities – flat, shady, private. No

other place like it in the forest.*

I‟ve walked it a lot and collected insects there.*

I have been visiting this area since 1968 and always enjoyed trout fishing in Penns

Creek.*

We used this place for over 40 years for picnic.*

The recreation and it‟s remained the same for many, many years. It is not

commercialized.*

I hunt there often with my sons and son in law. I‟ve taken several deer there.*

Lot of family memory and fun hunting. I took 7 bucks over the year.*

It was the first place I started hunting deer, the most productive AT.*

Fishing is good. Close to home.*

Stream and good hunting.

Great camping in the camp areas.

Prolific hiking, trout population.

We hunt there.

The beach and lots of picnic tables.

Camping availability.

Swimming, picnic, fishing, and hunting.

Availability of fishing and water.



66

Table 9 continued. What makes this place more special to you than other places that might be similar to

it?

Category Count


Recreation experiences - conduciveness (including accessibility) continued

Availability of parking, availability and wood for camping and cooking, always

has visitors.

Like to hunt there.

My children ride tubes ground the loop of Penn‟s Creek – I could catch big brown

trout and bicycle for miles.

Fishing, well kept, felt welcome.

Very good fishing.

Can ride bikes or roller blade for kids – paved roads for walking.

Excellent fishing.

Good trout fishing.

Fishing.

It provided an excellent food supply for deer and turkeys.

Excellent turkey hunting.

It was a nice place to go to relax and still be in the water nice deep hole for

swimming.

Swimming.

Fishing.

Has everything my family needs to have a fun vacation.

Fishing is always good.

Fly fishing.

Good fishing and camping.

Good fishing.

Quality of wild trout fishing.

The beach is a larger one than Whipples Dam and Greenwood Furnace.

The Sound or White Deer Creek. Running through the mountain.

The fishing in creeks.

Nice for horseback riding.

Camping and hiking.

The fishing.

You can go tubing on the Penn‟s Creek, start and finish in the same spot.

Mountain biking on roads and trails closed to cars

It used to be good hunting but decreased app. 60% from 1987.

Just a nice place, good fishing and hunting.

Game trails, successful past trips.

The beach area – all the recent improvements.

Good hunting.

The game found there.

Being able to have a place to camp.

My hunting area for big game.

Handicap toilet facility.

Easy trail, nice to walk and hunt.

I do 90 % of my hunting there.

To be able to hunt.

I have hunted white-tail deer for the past 53 years.

Shot another buck in same area.

I like hunting in this area.

Access.

Availability of activities.



67


it?

Category Count


Recreation experiences - conduciveness (including accessibility) continued

The almost perfect place to culminate a deer drive.

Walking.

Usually can find deer here.

Access to hiking.

Parking for snowmobilers & bathrooms.

The groomed trails when proper snowfall.

Nice wide road. Good visibility for riding.

My main purpose there is for snowmobiling.

Nice picnic area.

Great hunting.

It is where I hunt and I enjoy it.

Because it contributes to my favorite winter sport.

Great trails by creeks.

Privacy/quiet/relaxing/uncrowded 91 19.3%

It‟s peaceful and beautiful.*

Limited access, and wildlife.*

Fairly remote and can usually see wildlife.*

My year of being in quiet area – it is home.*

Close to home, easy to get to, not crowded.*

Close, uncrowded.*

Not too much traffic and past our camp.*

It doesn‟t take long to get away from civilization.*

It seems to be less populated with camps and there are a lot of 4 wheel (or

mountain bike) roads, which allow me to enjoy nature at its best.*

Rustic – out of the way camping area.*

Fishing and quiet.*

Good fishing, good hunting, and no crowds.*

It is a quiet place and trails are good.*

It is not overly crowded - it is clean and taken care of - the trails are open.*

Not crowded - adequate length - not too hard nor too easy and it is a good trail.*

Peaceful and great scenery.*


My favorite place to camp has many good qualities – flat, shady, private. No

other place like it in the forest.*

Walking areas make it more private.

It‟s back off from the road and is more private.

Quiet.

Privacy, quietness.

The piece of mind you get coming here.

It is very quiet and me and the family go there a lot.

Relax.

Relaxing.

Not a whole lot of noise and loudness.

Peace and relax able to think.

Remoteness.

Solitude.

Isolation – location.

It‟s by itself, not close to roads.



68


it?

Category Count


Privacy/quiet/relaxing/uncrowded continued

Peaceful, beautiful, restful.

Solitude.

Not crowded.

It is very peaceful.

Less crowded.

No phone, no TV, and little traffic.

It is just a relaxing place to be.

It is very peaceful.

Quiet – peaceful.

Not a lot of traffic, no paved roads, few houses.

Serenity.

Seclusion.

Not too many other people.

Privacy and peaceful.

Away from busy area.

Secluded.

Because it is far enough off the trails to provide solitude.

Quiet and not crowded.

Quiet peaceful atmosphere.

Quiet and tranquility – a place to walk and sit in peace.

Solitude.

It is back in the forest and you can walk on trail and not find a crowd of people.

Out of the way place to get to.

Peaceful and quiet.

Remoteness and uncluttered.

It is secluded – not very much traffic.

Solitude.

The out of the way and restful place it has.

Quiet and peaceful.

Solitude.

Extreme solitude.

Peaceful, clean, relaxing.

It‟s just always been a good relaxing area for me.

Walking to get back into it.

Not many people.

Remoteness.

Seclusion.

No camps.

Vast open space and few hunters or hikers.

Just getting away from so called civilization.

Not as developed, but it‟s getting there.

The remoteness and the structure of the landscape.

It‟s out of society, free from all people.

Not so crowded.

I can easily get off the road and walk away from the world for a while.

Quiet mother nature.*

The obscurity of the trail and its changes by nature such as wind and snow

storms.*



69


it?

Category Count


Privacy/quiet/relaxing/uncrowded continued

Quiet and large trees.*

The stream, seclusion, accessibility, mixed woods, the trail overlooks.*

Long stretch of relatively isolated trail, relatively flat, very green and

overgrowth.*



Beautiful scenery – Peacefulness.*

The view is great but not crowded like other vistas.*

Fishing is not bad and not too many people.*

The deer hunting is good and it's not shoulder to shoulder with hunters.*

Good mt. biking, privacy.*

Since I live along Thomas Dam Road, they are all near home; usually I see no

other person; I do see wildlife and great scenery.*

A dying man showed me this spot. I hardly ever see a soul even if there are 10

cars‟ parked there.*

Past connection/memories/tradition/familiarity 68 14.4%

I know the area very well. Wildlife.*

A dying man showed me this spot. I hardly ever see a soul even if there are 10

cars‟ parked there.*

It‟s special because I have a lot of fond memories at the cabin and I enjoy being

there with my wife and friends.*

Spending time with friends fishing. A lot of good memories.*

It‟s close to home. I don‟t have to travel far to show my children where we had

fun when we were kids. We did not need TV.*

Most familiar and close to home.*

I‟ve walked it a lot and collected insects there.*

I have been visiting this area since 1968 and always enjoyed trout fishing in Penns

Creek.*

We used this place for over 40 years for picnic.*

The recreation and it‟s remained the same for many, many years. It is not

commercialized.*

I hunt there often with my sons and son in law. I‟ve taken several deer there.*

Lot of family memory and fun hunting. I took 7 bucks over the year.*

It was the first place I started hunting deer, the most productive AT.*

My dad had it since I was small and now I own it.

The good times.

It was the first place my father took me to the mountains.

Started with dad since 1947.

The first camping area my husband and I were ever camping at years ago.

My kids grew up there in the summers while I had the concession.

30 years.

My family grew up in the area. It‟s where I learned to hunt and fish. My relatives

logged and were firemen on the logging trails.

Grew up visiting these woods.

I‟ve been going to there since 1969 and the area in general since about 1950.

In an area I grew up in.

Personally it‟s all new memories for me.

Traveled it when I was a kid, now it is blocked off except for hunting season.



70


it?

Category Count


Past connection/memories/tradition/familiarity continued

Childhood family gatherings.

As a young boy, my uncle used to belong to a cabin in this area and he always

took time to take me hunting here, also fishing in Penns Creek.

Come here as a kid.

Memories with my grandma.

This place is my favorite spot all year, especially in the fall and hunting season.

Have been going to this spot since 1959.

55 years of being with friends and relatives.

I belong to it.

Because my parents and grandparents camp there.

I would come there as a child.

Familiarity.

Camped here for years.

Camped there with family as a small child.

Familiarity. Parents used to bring us there while growing up.

Past memories – dating/fishing.

Because it is a place I grew up with.

I‟ve been going there for 14 years to hunt.

I grew up in the area.

Have been going all my life.

That has been in my family for so many years.

I am familiar with it.

I have been there for years, I feel at home there.

Always hunted with pap – so it‟s extra special.

Place where my pappy hunted.

I‟ve been coming here for about 44-45 years. Started coming up here with my

grandfather

I know and hunted the area for over 20 years.

Our camp has a history going back to the early 1900‟s (1903). The history is

primary.

27 years of hunting/hiking memories.

Was built by my grandfather, father and friends.

This place is special to me because of the relationship forged over the years with

the area.

Our kids loved Poe Valley Park in the 70s.

Been going there for years.

My friends and neighbors started to come here in 1994 and camped in tents for 2

weeks during deer season.

It‟s something that we belong to.

I know the movement of the deer through this area.

Childhood memories.

I've been coming since I was a small child.

Years of being there.

A lot of memories.

Snyder – Middleswarth – I grew up around there also I like to see the big

hemlocks and the stream (swift run).*

I have lived in the area my whole life and can count on it not being developed and

its natural beauty destroyed.*



71


it?

Category Count


Past connection/memories/tradition/familiarity continued

My year of being in quiet area – it is home.*

Its access is easy and we know the area pretty well.*

Natural quality 59 12.5%

Quiet mother nature.*

The obscurity of the trail and its changes by nature such as wind and snow

storms.*

Quiet and large trees.*

The stream, seclusion, accessibility, mixed woods, the trail overlooks.*

Long stretch of relatively isolated trail, relatively flat, very green and

overgrowth.*



Snyder – Middleswarth – I grew up around there also I like to see the big

hemlocks and the stream (Swift Run).*

I have lived in the area my whole life and can count on it not being developed and

its natural beauty destroyed.*

Close to the camp I belong to, lots of different covers and trees.*

Access in all areas of park and natural beauty.*

The quality of the trout fishing, and the natural beauty of the area.*

The kids (my daughters 7 to 12) love the sand and cool water. I love the scenery

and geology of the area.*

Probably Penns Creek.*

Wild trout stream.*

I love fishing and this creek in this beautiful forest.*

Its great fishing, the scenery, and the creek itself.*

The stream & related scenery is beautiful. The stream is accessible here but not

too accessible.*

The stream, history, and etc.*

Scenery is great and many trails to explore.*

It‟s scenic.

It is very close to nature, no houses, good fishing.

My son and I observed two eagles while fishing and the next day returned with

rest of family and saw huge black snake (6-7 feet).

The waters flowing and birds singing.

Very mountainous, cheers.

Not commercial.

Undeveloped.

It has an early prehistoric area.

Scenery and water volume in Penns Creek make for outstanding trout fishing.

Beauty.

Its natural beauty.

Beautiful secluded trout stream.

Fall foliage.

Penns is a classic example of a trout stream in the Appalachians. It has an

abundance of wild trout.

It‟s so natural.

It is a wilderness area. I like there that they haven‟t scarred the mountain with

man made things (excessive trails, camp sites, litter, etc).



72


it?

Category Count


Natural quality continued

Somewhat wild, not developed.

Turkeys, deer and squirrels.

I‟ve been successful at seeing plenty of deer, grouse, and turkeys in this area.

I have seen deer, bear, and even seen about 10 porcupines in one area.

Woodland all around.

The timber.

A small meadow with a mountain stream, where mountains reach for the sky.

Deer crossings.

Have saw deer, turkey, and bear.

The forest area.

The trees.

Beauty, natural, healthy stream, and trout.

The woods and snow.

Stream, snow covered trees.

Mixed field & forested areas through which the stream flows.

Wildlife is more prevalent here.

We walk this road in fall and winter and have seen bear, turkey and many kinds of

wildlife.

I know the area very well. Wildlife.*

Good hunting, good trail access, nice pines.*



It‟s peaceful and beautiful.*

Limited, access, and wildlife.*

Fairly remote and can usually see wildlife.*

Proximity/convenience 52 11.0%



Its access is easy and we know the area pretty well.*

Close to home, very clean and nice people.

Fishing is good. Close to home.*

Distance from State College and its unfamiliarity (from my perspective).*

Close to home

Location.

Nice place and close to home.

It‟s closer to my friend‟s camp.

Close to home.

Convenience –easy access from highway.

Close to where we live.

Direct route to where I have to go.

Close to where we stay when in the area.

Close to our hunting cabin.

Way to my cabin so I go through it a lot.

Travel distance to it.

Close to home.

First place I stopped at.

Easy to get to end of the road, close to my home.

Within reasonable distance from home.



73


it?

Category Count


Proximity/convenience continued

Where it is close to home.

Most convenient.

Nearness to our home.

Easy to access.

Accessibility. Own a cabin in Poe Valley.

It‟s a lot closer home.

I‟m from the area.

Nearby.

Close to home.

Our hunting camp is in this area.

Location-close to home.

Close to home.

Closer to home.

Closer than most places.

Location

Close to home.

Close to camp.

Mileage to get there.

Close to home.

It's close to home.

Close to home & it's within driving of home. I can tell how snow is there.

Close to home.

Close to home.

Close to the camp I belong to, lots of different covers and trees.*

Close to home, easy to get to, not crowded.*

Close, uncrowded.*


It doesn‟t take long to get away from civilization.*

It‟s close to home. I don‟t have to travel far to show my children where we had

fun when we were kids. We did not need TV.*

Most familiar and close to home.*

View and can be walked to.*

Views/scenery 23 4.9%

Scenery.

Peaceful and great scenery.*


Beautiful scenery – Peacefulness.*

The view is great but not crowded like other vistas.*

View and can be walked to.*

The view.

Awesome view of steep valley.

The view.

View.

The view.

The view of the moon and stars in night. The view of South toward Harrisburg in

day.

Great viewing of forest.

A beautiful view.



74


it?

Category Count


Views/scenery continued

The view.

It affords an opportunity to see a large area of forest surrounding valley and farms.

Ever changing views.

Scenery.

Our camp - beautiful scenery.

It has a great view.

View.

The view.

I have been very successful in hunting deer and turkey in this area. Also there is a

beautiful view of Treaster Valley from this location.*

Own a camp/cabin 21 4.4%


My family has a hunting cabin there.*

I own/lease it and the only people that ever come. There is good friends, family,

or invited guests.*

Belong to hunting camp.*

I belong to the Cinder Pile Spring Camp.*

Hunting camp – great members.*

Member of hunting camp since 1947.*

Hunting camp is located in this area.

Own a cabin.

Our cabin located there.

We own.

My cabin is there.

Own a cabin.

Have a cabin there.

Our cabin.

Our hunting cabin.

Our cabin.

Our cabin.

Our hunting cabin.

Our camp.

Own property.

Preference & expectation for encounters with prim. & sec. reference groups 13 2.7%

My family has a hunting cabin there.*

I own/lease it and the only people that ever come. There is good friends, family,

or invited guests.*

Belong to hunting camp.*

I belong to the Cinder Pile Spring Camp.*

Hunting camp – great members.*

Member of hunting camp since 1947.*

The other members.

All my friends come here.

I am a member of an organized camp with good friends.

I made a second family up here with the fellows I hunt with.

Spending time with family.

It‟s special because I have a lot of fond memories at the cabin and I enjoy being

there with my wife and friends.*

Spending time with friends fishing. A lot of good memories.*



75


it?

Category Count


Variety 10 2.1%

It‟s my home away from home. Bald Eagle S.F. is special because there is so

much variety: Hemlock Hollows, Oak Ridge Tops, Rocky areas, Mt. Laurel,

steep Mt. Sides, streams….

Variety for hiking – pretty stream, tall trees, steep climb, ridge trail, airplane

history.

The ability to see so many mountains.

Variety of activities.

We can go to mountain and creek.

Lots of summer and winter activities.

Various terrain, easy access. Numbers of trails.*

Distance from State College and its unfamiliarity (from my perspective).*

The stream, history, and etc.*

Scenery is great and many trails to explore.*

Other 35 7.4%

I own it.

It is wonderful to have a place were you can go because the public owns the land.

The fact that it‟s in original condition.

Location.

Poe Paddy is a wonderful place to experience.

I like the mountain.

Can see landmarks, etc. that are seen by us daily.

It‟s the only one we‟ve been to.

It is unique.

N/A.

Location.

It‟s unique.

Now used for Sunday church.

Can‟t answer, undecided.

Luxuries and comforts are limited.

The history behind the tunnel.

The cabin.

None.

Nice tree.

Nothing.

Rattlesnakes.

Terrain.

Feels like home.

Only visited one small area.

Permission to be there anytime.

Location of leased cabin site.

Cabin.

Penns Creek.

No roads for motorized vehicles.

Penns Creek.

Neat and clean.

Penn's Creek.

Nice place.

Area in general.



76


it?

Category Count


Other continued

Access, pets allowed.*

The location and unique setting in the mountain.


77

Table 10. If you could ask managers to keep one thing the same about this favorite place, what would that

be?

Category Count


Natural/wilderness qualities 73 21.8%

I think this is a continuing answer, maybe a few more out houses for public use,

keep it looking natural and we thank them for their hard work.*

Limited access –by nature of few roads, keep it as wild and natural as possible.*

Accessibility to the view.*

The remoteness, accessibility to the Hook.*

Undictated landscape –wilderness –high quality.

Keep the trees and stuff just add more eating area and not so close together.

The unspoiled beauty of the area.

Keep natural beauty.

The scenery, keep the area natural.

Closeness of nature.

Natural appearance.

Keep it as natural as possible.

Visibility of deer.

Remoteness and natural areas.

The natural areas should never be changed to make things “comfortable”, but

existing places should never be an "eye sore".

Quiet and clean.

I liked the beauty and the solitude of where I visited.

Maintain pollution free Cherry Run.

It is not overly developed, i.e., it‟s not mulched and landscaped, so it‟s a very

natural setting.

Undeveloped nature –very little picnic or playground areas.

Protect the water quality.

Maintain its natural environment.

Trees.

Don‟t hurt the tree.

Keep the trees and creeks.

Limit the build up – keep it a wilderness and open to everyone.

Forest.

The setting.

Preserve the forest.

Maintain rustic environment.

Seclusion.

Let nature manage it.

The seclusion.

The beach and peaceful atmosphere.

Natural and environment.

The stream.

Leave White Mountain in this wildness area program.

Keep it as natural as possible.

Serenity, beautiful Hemlocks, permitting pets and the horses that visited.

Quiet.

Leave it to mountain. No roads –signs- improvement a trail is a trail.

The beauty.

Peacefulness.

Preserve the natural beauty and stocking program.

Its beauty and tranquility.



78

Table 10 continued. If you could ask managers to keep one thing the same about this favorite place, what

would that be?

Category Count


Natural/wilderness qualities continued

The trees.

Remote.

Water quality.

Keep it wild.

Keep it a beautiful place.

Do not cut areas that have huge trees located in them.

The beautiful way the cover and area is still very wild looking.

Do not change the view.

Keep the trees in the mountain area. Trimmed to avoid loss of the view.

No buildings – leave it wild just like it is.

No urban sprawl.

Protect the environment.

Keep it remote.

Keep it primitive.

Keep its natural beauty.

Keep it wild.

Natural.

Mountain the view.

Keep it as natural as it is.

Scenery.

The overall quality of the stream for fishing purpose.

Wild nature and clean water.

Keep access limited to preserve wildlife.

Keep natural, don't need "paved" parking or flush toilets or fancy buildings.

Stream.

Towering pines over the lake.

Not making the stream any more accessible than it is now. Having to walk

through the dense brush/laurel is part of the fishing experience

Availability of wildlife.

Change nothing/keep everything 61 18.3%

Not sure.

I don‟t know.

Keep area the way it is.

Leave it like it is.

No comment.

Leave it the same.

Leave it alone (except path maintenance).

Change nothing.

Nothing.

Keep it state land.

It‟s fine the way it is.

Nothing.

Everything.

Everything, not just one.

Keep up the good work.

Don‟t know.

Keep it the same.

N/A.


*Response counted in more than one category; underlined words counted in this category

79


would that be?

Category Count


Change nothing/keep everything continued

Keep this pretty much the way they are.

N/A.

Everything is fine.

Everything, don‟t change it.

Don‟t change anything.

Nothing.

Not sure.

Not sure.

Seems to be run well as it is.

Can‟t think of anything.

Everything the same.

Leave it alone.

Everything.

Keep up the good work that they are doing and have been doing only improve on

it and expand it. I'm sure other good people will help them.

Everything.

Keep doing what you are doing.

The way it is now.

Not sure.

No change.

Nothing.

N/A.

Leave it the way it is.

Keeping as it is.

Keep it the way it is.

The way it is now except for none of cable at top.

Everything.

No more cabins

Never allow electricity to enter this area.

Leave it alone.

No more roads.

Don‟t change a thing.

Leave alone.

As is.

Nothing.

Stay out.

Let it be.

I think the people responsible for managing these areas are doing a great job.

Don‟t change anything.

N/A

Just the way it is.

Leave it alone.

Keep it as it is.

Don't change a thing.

Existing use allowances 60 18.0%

Creek‟s great fishing, just difficult - enough accessibility.*

Keep trails open and maintained.*

We love the new fire ring/grills.



80


would that be?

Category Count


Existing use allowances continued

No ATV‟s.

No more houses or shelter built – keep it as it is.

No added buildings, limited timber harvest.

Keep it simple, don‟t add a lot of recreation items.

Keep it open to the public.

Keep it open for use.

Restricted by fishing area.

The area for picnic.

The fishing – the restrictions of ATV‟s – the uncrowded atmosphere.

Camp area.

Keep snowmobiles out.

Keep the new camp sites spaced far apart.

Don‟t allow snowmobiles and ATV‟s. Too noisy, damaging, and irresponsible

people.

Bridge for foot traffic only.

No showers, keep it rustic.

Don‟t commercialize the tubing area. I‟m sure those who have camps there

wouldn't appreciate super highways and long lines becoming a part of their

away time. It's nice to go down to Penns Creek without worrying about if

your hour is up or to bring your wallet because of the price of admission, etc.

To always keep lifeguarded waters

Keep a lot of roads 4x4 only – keep it promotion.

The tables.

Beach and picnic.

Keep trails designated.

The swimming beach.

The way the camps are set up.

Keep it open to public.

Open to the general public.

Continue the fine job of forest management.

Delayed harvest fishing.

Good fishing.

Leave it open to everyone to enjoy.

Keep it open to fishing.

Allowing everyone to use it.

Keep it open to horses.

To keep the amount of camps to a minimum.

Keep it open so everyone can enjoy it.

Don‟t allow any new camps to be built.

Never close it to hunting.

Hiking only. Don‟t join forces with the State Game Lands.

Continues to let us come to our camp on the leased ground.

The hiking trails.

Keep the fire place.

The number of camp sites.

No more camps in area.

Keep the trail open.

Keep 4 wheelers out. No motor vehicles.



81


would that be?

Category Count


Existing use allowances continued

No more additional leased land cabins.

Keep the same amount of camps.

Keep it open.

Keep it open for snowmobiling.

Keep open for sleds.

Let snowmobiling continue.

Keep it open to snowmobiling.

Keep it available to the public.

Keep opening the gate for archery hunters.

Keep gate closed during spring and summer.

Leave gate closed during summer so 4-wheelers stay out so they don't ruin the

road.

Public & protected.

Maintain the current profile so it doesn't ever get over-used.

Existing maintenance practices 55 16.5%

Keep trails open and maintained.*

I think this is a continuing answer, maybe a few more out houses for public use,

keep it looking natural and we thank them for their hard work.*

The accessibility to get into it and the good maintenance.*

Keep up the good maintenance.

The way they maintain roads.

Keep the cabin in the good shape.

Keeping things clean

Keep on keeping it clean.

Clean like now, parking is good.

Keep maintenance the some.

Clean - not to litter.

Maintain trails.

Keep up the good work on road maintenance and parks (Poe valley is excellent)

but don't tell too many people.

Cleanliness.

Litter free.

Keep the dirt roads dirt – not black top.

Marking of trails –excellent roads.

To keep up the good roads which uses do repair, and to keep up the replacement

of the new trees for the new forest areas.

Clean bathrooms.

Litter – free area.

Cleanliness.

Don‟t pave the roads.

Keep it clean and roads maintained.

Keep the parks maintained.

The clean pavilions – clear paths.

Cleanliness, general upkeep.

Keep it free of garbage.

Keep it clean.

How clear the park is (its very clean).

Clean.



82


would that be?

Category Count


Existing maintenance practices continued

Cleanness.

Keeping the road (good shape).

Roads repaired.

Cleanliness of it.

The condition of the roads.

Not cut too much timbers.

Clean outside of toilets.

Do not pave the roads into the park.

Keep it clean.

Roads.

Keep road in repair.

Do not clear cut timber.

Keep the road open end to the other.

Maintain great roads.

Keep roads and trails.

How clean this place is.

Keep as clean as possible.

Clearing parking lots, grooming of trails.

Easy access and maintained trails.

Keep the parking lot open & semi plowed.

Keep up the good job grooming the snow (when it arrives)

Keep trails & roads groomed.

Dirt roads only, no paved roads.

I think they do a great job maintaining the roads, it is a never-ending job.

Keep using the trail groomer like this year. The trails were kept in excellent

shape.

Accessibility/access 17 5.1%

Creek‟s great fishing, just difficult - enough accessibility.*

Accessibility to the view.*

The accessibility to get into it and the good maintenance.*

The remoteness, accessibility to the Hook.*

Keep roads open in winter months.

Maintain the easy access to the area.

The surrounding grounds, road leading to the cabin.

Keep it open to public.

The access to all the different areas.

Limit the amount of access, this eliminates excessive traffic.

Public access.

Access roads. Great job maintaining dirt road.

Access.

Access to and from it.

Do not add more roads.

Keep the area free and accessible to all.

Accessibility.

Open to public also keep trails open wide so it‟s easy walking.

Existing rules & regulations 8 2.4%

Catch and release rules.

Fishing restriction.



83


would that be?

Category Count


Existing rules & regulations continued

Clean conditions including quiet times to rest, no alcohol.

Keep gates lock for hunting season.

A set of rules.

No motorized vehicles and no open fires.

Watch speeding snowmobiling at rest room area and give them a warning or fine.

The alcohol policy stricter.

Existing maintenance practices because it keeps other people out 6 1.8%

Limited access –by nature of few roads, keep it as wild and natural as possible.*

Limited access via motorized vehicle.

Do not increase access or allow more vehicles.

Limited access to stream and wild areas.

Don‟t improve access.

Patrol roads and check cabins for break-ins.

Quiet & peacefulness 1 .3%

The solitude.

Other 53 15.9%

I have no other complaints other than idiots who travel through at 50 miles plus.

Keep managers from having workers continually operate the graders and stone

rake when the forest roads are in good condition. When someone decides

the grader operator needs something to do to keep busy again. Next it rains -

mud and muddy water wash into the streams. Managers don't know what

happens in their district!

Be friendly to those who are not destroying the land. Remember that we all use

and pay for this land.

Frequent checks on visitors.

Allow rock built fire pits or larger metal fire pits with grills.

The old railings.

Restrict vehicles that leave roads –travel in the woods off the roads.

Layout of the area.

Restricting unauthorized camping.

Open roads and trails for all uses.

Freedom to bring my dog (he is small) off leash when no one is around (I strongly

disagree with PA leash law in county).

Let it be available for multiple use.

Trimming does enhance the view.

Everything.

No crowds.

No new bridges.

Do not open areas to vehicle travel. Restrict more areas for vehicle travel.

All areas around the cabin site.

The related (away from it all) feeling.

Isolating lack of development. The bad road and signs do contribute to this.

Preserve tunnel and bridge.

How it used to be a few years ago.

The lean-to‟s at Poe Paddy.

The friendly managers.

Railroad tunnel.

Limit access, development and promote hunting and fishing.



84


would that be?

Category Count


Other continued

Their down home friendliness. Ranger stopped while we were introducing my

daughter to fishing and was most helpful and friendly, made her day (and

ours).

To be able to shoot at target range at cabin.

Increased trout stockings of Poe Lake and Poe Creek.

Everything but restrooms.

Private.

Leased land for recreational camps.

Keep big government and city-slickers out.

I would ask them not to make it more attractive to the public – example hiking,

trails, off road, or better road conditions.

I dislike trash that has been left behind by other people. This may be why

camping is no long permitted.

Rebuild bridge.

Quit clear cutting.

Improve stream for better fishing.

Its location.

Keep out.

Openness.

Allow lease cabins on State Game Land.

Quit timbering this area for a few years. I know periodically this has to be done.

Don‟t reduce its size.

Think about discontinuing snowmobiling.

Chase more bucks into the area.

Up-grade roads and road map.

No timbering.

Keep members.

Don‟t allow any form of degradation or pollution.

Snow year round.

Simplicity with buildings.

Don't take anything more away!


85

Table 11. If you could ask managers to change one thing about the way they manage this favorite place,

what would that be?

Category Count


Improve facilities 87 24.5%

Better roads and trails maintaining.*

Make information more easily available such as trails and road maps of the park.

Control speed of motor vehicles on the roads.*

Put a handicap car area in and more eating area and do something about the

outhouse.

This is a very unspoiled area so I am not sure this would be a practical or

advisable idea. Walking paths could be cleaned and widened a little more

for walking safety.

Make rest room easier for elderly to use and keep it clean.

Bear gap picnic area (I am not sure is this area is still in the B.E.S.F) needs a lot of

work.

More parking

Cut and mark more old trails shown on maps.

Keep more restrooms open in winter for people who walk in the park.

Modern restrooms.

Mark the trails more clearly (they may have improved this. In 1997 we lost our

way on a trail).

Improve road signs.

Marking all culverts with poles.

Add more and maintain trails.

Have information of the historical facts available.

Put shower houses in at camp grounds, keep the trophy trout and the no kill trout

fishing areas.

More maintenance on picnic area.

Trim trees along trails a bit more since hiking with an infant on your back can be

dangerous.

Keep it clean.

Trail guides – posts, etc.

Put water at every site.

Trash cans/ bench.

Keep the trails open and well marked.

Control anyone littering on the area.

Make every other site reservable, put in horseshoe pits.

Put in flush toilet and showers at the camp ground

If cabins are for sale, buy them and make retail units available to everyone.

Get better restroom facilities (no water to wash hands).

Litter.

Water bathrooms.

Do the snack shop employees have running water for proper cleanliness and

hygiene.

More signs.

Put running water in the bathrooms.

Maintain the restrooms, make water available.

Should offer a more up to date trail map.

More sign on highway to park.

Better parking and picnic facilities.

Do more to control odor in restrooms.



86

Table 11 continued. If you could ask managers to change one thing about the way they manage this

favorite place, what would that be?

Category Count


Improve facilities continued

Not sure. Park seems to be run well. Maybe sell firewood there instead of having

to travel to get to it.

Better beach/more sand; improve restrooms.

Electric outlets on camp sites.

Cleaner restrooms.

Open more trails and add volunteers. We would need your responses.

More garbage cans.

Add a small picnic area on top of mountain.

Better mark directions to fly fishing only areas.

Provide more parking, try to keep trails.

Keep the area clean from people.

There‟s a broken automobile bridge that spanned the creek 5 miles down on

Green‟s Valley Road. Fix it please. It‟s the only other way out by vehicle.

Keep the area clean and fix the bridge.

Put back the bridge and stop blocking all the trails.

Need help to find road.

Put cable at top to stop vehicle from rolling down to timbered area.

Put boxes in to play horseshoes.

Put up map of the area so you can see the valley and forest terrain.

Have maps at the entrances so people who never were there would know where

they are.

Keep up Bear Gap (table, fire places).

Ask them to put in a trail to walk around the gap.

Provide firewood.

New trail signs.

Take better care of trails.

Fix the bridge.

Have more snow cleared away for parking of all the snowmobiles.

Trails need to be opened up or blazed.

Get rid of the rocks on the trail.

Have electric.

Put the bridge back in and leave everything.

More snowmobiling trails.

More clearing and grooming of trails.

Keep the snowmobile trails groomed & open up to ATV's when there is no snow.

Put more parking for snowmobile vehicles.

Post signs for very sharp turns.

Always give snow conditions thoroughly & honestly.

To put a street light up at landing and unload snowmobile area.

Provide additional winter parking for truck & trailer parking with trail access.

Enlarge the area.

Use the groomer more than they do.

Prep the snowmobile trails better before snow falls so the trails (roads) are

smoother and don't have rocks laying on them.

Put gates at the ends of Hairy John's parking lots so they could be opened for

snowmobile trailers to park easier.

Food.

Install restroom facilities.



87



Category Count


Improve facilities continued

Put a snowmobile bridge across Penns Creek.

Provide lighting at night, provide better winter maintenance to ride to Hairy

John's.

Allow my father who can't walk (only one leg) to use another form of

transportation to get back to it or he'll never see it.

Clear blow down a little better.

We need a bridge above Weikert to get across Penns Creek so we can have more

trails to ride and so we can ride to Troxelville.

If they want people to use old logging roads as hiking trails, perhaps a very basic

map and distance of trail could be posted at the trail where it leaves the road.

Nothing 74 20.8%

Nothing. (26 responded with this specific answer)

Difficult task.

Maintain the current ambiance.

Everything is fine.

Don‟t mess with it.

I am in agreement in the way it is being managed.

Leave it alone, unchanged.

Nothing.

Can‟t think of anything.

No comment.

Nothing, its O.K. the way it is.

Cannot think of anything.

It‟s O.K.

Can‟t think of any changes.

I have no questions.

Not a thing.


Don‟t know.

Leave it alone.

Not sure.

I don‟t think it‟s damaged by anyone.

No changes.

Same as now.

N/A.

This is a well run organization – high quality people.

Could not think of anything.

Nothing, it‟s great.

N/A.

Leave it as private as it is now.

Not sure.

N/A

Not sure.

None.

Nothing they do a fine job.

No change.

N/A.

Leave it the way it is.



88



Category Count


Nothing continued

It‟s okay the way it is.


They do a good job.

Nothing different.

Keep it the same.

Leave it alone.

They do a very good job as it is.

Leave it alone.

This is a place in the mountains. I would not change it.

Not a thing, they‟re obviously doing a great job.

Leave alone.

Don‟t change a thing.

Keep it the way it is.


Keep it the way it is, no vehicle.

Let it be.

Don‟t over develop.

Nothing new.

N/A

Keep it as it is – A natural area.

Modify use patterns 57 16.1%

Stop doe hunting in state forest and stop people from dumping.*

Less access to remote areas by motorized vehicles, greater presence of the game

commission during hunting and fishing seasons. You have to get out of the

vehicle to catch offenders.*

Let us shoot target with the use of a proper back stop.

Discontinue snowmobiling on forest roads – it packs the snow and I‟m unable to

get into the area until late spring. Discontinue ATV's on trail - their use

causes trails to erode and causes damage to stream.

Do not add other campsites too close together, add more sites closer to a water

source.

If a lot people swimming, open of all swimming area.

Destroy logging roads after they are done logging an area – having too many

logging roads gives the forest too much access.

Eliminate doe season.

Let people camp here.

Limit motor vehicle access, and less timbering of forests.

Allow camping on the site, and make it easier to get a permit.

Limit road access to card holders.

Try to get some more area to hunt so people do not crowd game lands.

Open gates during hunting seasons.

Open fishing in the no kill area to fishing 24 hours.

Get rid of Hosterman pit mine and the politicians that allowed it to be opened.

No doe hunting for a couple of years.

Keep the people out that go tubing.

Keep the ATV‟s off of the roads.

Don‟t let any camping along Cherry Run.

Not have day camping only.



89



Category Count


Modify use patterns continued

Special reg. area, min. size trout 9”, check upstream areas for acid.

Provide off road access in BESF. Increase animal population.

Allow dogs in overnight camping.

Restricted vehicle and other mechanical things.

Less cabins.

Limit people/day.

No motor vehicles.

Less cabins and permanent camping.

Not much except curb development and lower catch limits and enforce them.

Allow pets if you clean up after them.

Allow camping.

Limit vehicle access.

No camping or building fires.

People that have ATV license should have a place set aside to ride.

Come up with some sort of permit to allow ATVs to ride the roads.

Keep motorized vehicles out of there.

Close some roads and make areas accessible by foot only.

No ATV‟s.

Restrict vehicle access to student trail area.

ATV trails.

Allow ATV‟s on State Game Land.

Allow alcoholic beverages at picnic area as in N.Y. State, in moderation of course.

Open the locked gates for all hunting seasons, not just doe season.

Close roads to vehicle traffic.

Limit access.

Allow the use of ATV‟s in the forest like snowmobiles are allowed.

Limited motored access from private land to the west.

Open the gate before archery season so I can spend some time scouting for deer.

Figure out a way to keep cars and trucks off the trails unless they have a good

reason to be there like going to their camp. It costs money to groom trails,

why destroy them?

Open the gate a few weeks before archery season so I may have some time to

scout the area.

Leave gate open before hunting season so we can scout the area.

Discontinue "no snowmobiling" up the road to the lookout. Showers (coin

operated). Snowmobile ramp for people without trailers.

Do not be so quick to post "closed to snowmobiling" when a lumbering operation

is scheduled a few months in advance.

Restrict any kind of development or alteration of the environment.

Not allow 4-wheel drive vehicles on it during snowmobiling season.

Restrict vehicular access.

Modify practices with respect to natural amenities (streams, woods) 43 12.1%

Fix up the roads. Stock more fish.*

Wider road, marked, cleaned parking areas. More wildlife cuts but not as big an

area as at West Boyer Rd. And don't cut area.*

Maintain the roads better and provide more survival areas for the wildlife.*

Only stock Pine Creek preseason it once was a wild trout stream – too many

fisherman killed the wild trout.



90



Category Count


Modify practices with respect to natural amenities (streams, woods) continued

Water flow.

Use select cutting of timber land. Replanting of cherry and oak trees.

Renew forest trees.

Could use stream improvement.

I have written to them about trashing stream parallel to gravel roads by allowing

or pushing cuttings into these streams. Results have been less than

satisfactory.

Release big racked bucks on opening day of deer season at my favorite place.

More deer.

Stock more trout.

Control the logging, no more clear cutting.

Keep it like nature.

Keep bushes cut away so as not to block view.

Forbid logging.

Increase “No Kill” fishing zone on Penn‟s Creek upstream to Coburn.

Clean up fallen trees. Get a place where you can rent horses to ride along the

roads reaching the Poe Valley.

Classify Pine Creek as a wild trout stream again or at least reduce stocking.

Stock more trout and patrol more often.

Clear cut small sections of the forest in a patchwork design. This would improve

bird & deer hunting.

Open all areas to allow cutting of dead wood.

Quit destroying the forest by clear cutting.

Put fish in the lake beside it.

No wood cutting.

Some of the timber should be harvested.

Utilize alternative wood products and stop cutting trees.

Do more to promote wildlife.

More deer (less timber).

Maximize the deer area.

Manage deer herd better.

More trout in creek (year round).

Clearcut some timber.

Trim some of brush along the shoreline of the lake but not enough to cause

erosion.

More clear cutting and planting to attract birds and other wildlife.

Keep it managed for game.

Replant trees that produce food for wildlife.

Improve deer habitat (greater food sources).

Improve deer population.

Try to improve the regeneration of mass producing trees upon harvesting timber.

Stop cutting timber for profit.

More fish.

Remove amenities. Encourage use by people willing to rough it more.

Enforce rules & regulations 30 8.5%

Make information more easily available such as trails and road maps of the park.

Control speed of motor vehicles on the roads.*

Stop doe hunting in state forest and stop people from dumping.*



91



Category Count


Enforce rules & regulations continued

Less access to remote areas by motorized vehicles, greater presence of the game

commission

Slow the idiots (and red-necks) who come flying through in their vehicles.

We went along with the changes that were made but can‟t understand why can‟t

pull RV at bear run station area. People should obey rules and take care of

area.

Make everyone comply with park rules.

Inspect campsite prior to, during, and following visits by campers to ensure

cleanliness.

Better patrolling – more visible DCWR.

Keep out riff raff.

Prevent break-ins.

Patrol more for beer parties at tower somewhat close to cabin. They leave it a

mess with cans and litter.

Probably greater supervision.

Somehow magically keep people from littering.

Keep it better.

Enforcement of littering and vehicles travel in restricted area.

Control language – (foul) at times.

Tighten up on illegal action at night.

Patrol it more – take licenses and numbers to keep the riff raff in tow. Also catch

these people breaking into cabins. More observation.

Stronger/tighter security.

Allow camping while strictly enforcing litter bug laws and all state park rules.

Slow down the vehicle.

Patrol it more often. There are a lot of ATV‟s and speeders and some parties that

go on.

Keep noise down at night.

Enlist more rangers to police and prosecute people who abuse the environment.

Get a set of rules and stick to them instead of every new person that takes over

changing something and some get a personality.

Keep people from dumping garbage.

Up the fines for littering.

Arrest and fine the people who abuse it.

Keep vehicles out of roads when the snow gets too deep they only cut the roads

and get stuck all the time.

My primary activity is hunting and I wish there was more done to increase the

deer population including, but not limited to, action against illegal hunters.

Improve roads 27 7.6%

Better roads and trails maintaining.*

Fix up the roads. Stock more fish.*

Wider road, marked, cleaned parking areas. More wildlife cuts but not as big an

area as at West Boyer Rd. And don't cut area.*

Maintain the roads better and provide more survival areas for the wildlife.*

Fix roads to them.

The road.

Have better roads.



92



Category Count


Improve roads continued

Keep roads maintained better and plowed in the winter so that it can be easily

traveled all year round.

Mark the interior roads more clearly.

Maintain roads.

Fix the road.

Improve some roads.

Repave the road in the park. Dust comes down over the picnic tables.

Fix access road.

Pave the road.

Grade the unimproved/unmaintained roads once every few years.

Oil dirt roads.

Road maintenance.

Fix the roadway and clean up the trash in the woods.

Fix roads.

Keep the White Deer Pike maintained better.

The roads are greatly in need of repair.

Take down the stakes on Nittany Mountain road.

Mountain the mountain roads better.

Reopen the road so I don‟t need to travel 40 miles.

Some roads need to be improved, but don‟t make it too good.

Repair the road going up the mountain from Treaster Valley to the Wolf Swamp.

Memories.

Other 37 10.4%

Open designated company site.

Secure funding so that the resources can be intensely managed and promote

mountain bike racing

To lease it to me.

Raise the cost of out of state trout license to $500.00.

Tell employees of State Dept of Environmental Resources to work rather than

goof off. While in the forest areas, managers had no concept of what some

employees are doing.

Less rules and regulations.

Don‟t be so picky on cabin owners.

Have it off the road more.

Let more people know where it is located.

Stay as anonymous as possible.

By not adding more regulations to the area.

Keep it quiet.

Why we had to get rid of our deer feeder, and to quit changing rules (wood, etc).

Remember that it‟s not their place, it‟s the people‟s place.

Rebuild it like it use to be a few years ago, try to clean up the area a little better.

I don‟t like the reservation of 11 months ahead.

Remove some of stone on parkway spots by White Deer Creek so it was like it

was 10 years ago.

Control the outside source of pollution.

Add more land to the wilderness set aside already. Close Longwell Draft Road

and return the valley floor to its original contour.

Nothing except remove Rt. 80.



93



Category Count


Other continued

Keep the Game Commission from placing bears in this area – it‟s too close to

communities and homes in that area – maximum distance they can go is five

miles from the nearest house with the bridge out.

Change the name of Negro Hollow Rd. to something less offensive.

Have a volunteer day to pick up trash and help clean paths and improve roads.

Make it easier to cut wood.

To successfully manage this place, one must work to put himself out of a job.

Stay out.

Eliminate DCNR.

Reduce the amount of government. It is not their area, it everyone‟s area.

No doe permits.

Outlaw bright eyes or reflectors taped to trees by hunters.

Make this area and most others garbage.

Limit areas.

Pay more attention to the long term quality.

Keep from plowing the roads that I snowmobile.

Not to plow off the parking lots and trails.

Stop making it bad for snowmobiling.

Maybe designate this water as an all tackle catch & release area. Good native

trout fishing is hard to find and this waterway definitely needs to be

protected.


94

Table 12. Characteristics of Forest: Mean importance and satisfaction by season

Characteristics

Mean (Std. Deviation)


Access to the places I like to

visit

Importance 3.81 (1.06) 3.90 (1.04) 4.14 (0.86) 3.56 (1.35) 3.89 (1.05)*

Satisfaction 3.96 (0.82) 4.19 (0.72) 3.91 (0.94) 3.98 (0.83) 4.01 (0.83)

Availability of parking in areas

I like to visit

Importance 3.52 (1.14) 3.37 (1.15) 3.95 (1.06) 2.97 (1.33) 3.54 (1.16)***

Satisfaction 4.04 (0.70) 3.97 (0.90) 3.98 (0.93) 3.83 (0.81) 3.99 (0.83)

Opportunity to visit without

feeling crowded

Importance 4.36 (0.79) 4.05 (1.08) 4.26 (0.70) 4.26 (0.88) 4.24 (0.88)***

Satisfaction 4.13 (0.82) 4.05 (0.82) 4.05 (0.80) 3.98 (0.83) 4.07 (0.82)

Ability to obtain information

about areas I like to visit

Importance 3.49 (1.15) 3.21 (1.29) 3.71 (1.04) 3.03 (1.16) 3.43 (1.19) **

Satisfaction 3.74 (0.82) 3.64 (0.93) 3.54 (0.99) 3.40 (0.87) 3.64 (0.90)

Appearance & maintenance of

areas I visit

Importance 4.27 (0.80) 4.33 (0.83) 4.28 (0.75) 4.21 (0.87) 4.29 (0.81)***

Satisfaction 4.07 (0.81) 3.99 (0.99) 4.01 (0.81) 4.20 (0.76) 4.03 (0.87)

Adequacy of signs

Importance 3.59 (1.12) 3.64 (1.19) 4.03 (0.97) 3.28 (1.34) 3.68 (1.14)

Satisfaction 3.76 (0.98) 3.74 (0.92) 3.74 (0.96) 3.68 (1.19) 3.75 (0.97)

Note. Participants rated the importance of each Forest characteristic and their satisfaction with each characteristic

using 5-point scales ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Extremely). For each Forest characteristic, differences between

mean importance ratings and mean satisfaction ratings were tested with t-tests.

* Mean importance and satisfaction scores differed at the .05% level.

** Mean importance and satisfaction scores differed at the .01% level.

*** Mean importance and satisfaction scores differed at the .001% level.

95

Table 13. Characteristics of Forest: Importance and satisfaction categories

Percentage (n)

Characteristics Not at all Somewhat Moderately Very Extremely

Access to the places I like to visit

Importance 3% (15) 8% (44) 20% (109) 36% (195) 34% (185)

Satisfaction 1% (8) 5% (26) 11% (64) 56% (315) 26% (146)

Availability of parking in areas I

like to visit

Importance 7% (38) 12% (63) 24% (133) 34% (186) 23% (125)

Satisfaction 1% (6) 4% (19) 17% (95) 51% (282) 27% (147)

Opportunity to visit without

feeling crowded

Importance 1% (7) 3% (17) 12% (63) 38% (207) 46% (251)

Satisfaction 1% (5) 2% (13) 17% (95) 48% (264) 32% (178)

Ability to obtain information

about areas I like to visit

Importance 8% (43) 14% (73) 26% (140) 33% (178) 20% (108)

Satisfaction 2% (11) 8% (40) 30% (162) 45% (242) 15% (81)

Appearance & maintenance of

areas I visit

Importance 1% (3) 3% (15) 10% (56) 41% (220) 46% (249)

Satisfaction 1% (6) 5% (25) 14% (80) 49% (271) 31% (172)

Adequacy of signs

Importance

6% (33)

9% (47)

23% (127)

35% (192)

27% (148)

Satisfaction 4% (20) 6% (31) 25% (135) 45% (247) 21% (116)

Note. Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Participants rated the importance of each Forest

characteristic and their satisfaction with each characteristic using 5-point scales ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 5

(Extremely).

96

Table 14. Mean scores of responses to management issues on Forest by season

Issue

Mean (Std. Deviation)


It is more important to protect

habitat for plants and

animals than provide

opportunities for recreation. 0.74 (1.04) 0.98 (0.99) 0.62 (1.12) 0.78 (1.05) 0.77 a (1.06)

The Forest should encourage

more timber harvesting. -0.64 (1.11) -0.52 (1.25) -0.21 (1.14) -0.65 (1.31) -0.52 b (1.18)

More fish should be stocked in the

streams and lakes to provide

increased sport-fishing

opportunities. 0.33 (1.18) 0.39 (1.06) 0.41 (1.01) 0.40 (1.32) 0.37 c (1.12)

More public lands such as Bald

Eagle State Forest should be

set aside as wild or natural

areas. 1.08 (1.01) 0.88 (1.23) 0.40 (1.21) 1.08 (1.10) 0.86 a (1.16)

Note. Participants responded to each issue on a 5-point scale ranging from -2 (Strongly disagree) to +2 (Strongly

agree). In the “Overall” column, means sharing the same subscript did not differ at the .05% level.

Table 15. Year of first visit to Bald Eagle State Forest and newcomer/veteran categories

Period

Number reporting

first visit

Percent reporting

first visit

Newcomer/veteran category

Number (Percent)

1927 - 1935 11 1.3

Veterans

317 (36.6%)

1936 - 1940 18 2.0

1941 - 1945 12 1.3

1946 - 1950 32 3.7

1951 - 1955 22 2.6

1956 - 1960 62 7.4

1961 - 1965 57 6.5

1966 - 1970 103 11.9

1971 - 1975 95 11.0

Intermediates

331 (38.3%)

1976 - 1980 112 13.0

1981 - 1985 62 7.1

1986 - 1990 62 7.2

1991 - 1995 69 8.0 Newcomers

217 (25.1%) 1996 - 2000 148 17.1

97

Table 16. Background characteristics of newcomer, intermediate, and veteran visitors

Background characteristic

Newcomers

1991-2000 a

(n = 217)

Intermediates

1971-1990 a

(n = 331)

Veterans

1970 or before a

(n = 317)

Test for difference

among groups

Gender (% male) b

83.3 88.1 86.0 2 = 1.53, p = .466

Age (mean years) c

43.5 a

42.9 a

52.8 b

F = 33.30, p < .001

Ethnic background (% Caucasian) b 99.0 99.5 99.2

2 = 1.74, p = .783

Formal education (mean years) c 13.9 a 13.5 ab 13.3 b F = 3.42, p = .034

Annual income (% $30,000 -

$79,999) b

56.8 59.2 56.0 2 = 15.46, p = .217

Residence in youth (% rural or

town < 10,000 people) b

68.5 78.8 83.4 2 = 22.43, p = .013

Current residence (% rural or town

< 10,000 people) b

76.3 82.1 80.3 2 = 8.62, p = .568

Political orientation (%

moderately-very conservative)

bd

61.6 55.6 57.3 2 = 9.44, p = .307

Environmental orientation (mean

score) ce

3.49 a

3.61 a

3.56 a

F = 1.23, p = .294

Distance from residence to BESF

(% 30 miles) b

36.7 54.8 55.6 2 = 22.02, p < .001

a Year of first visit to BESF.

b Differences among subgroups tested with

2 test of independence.

c Differences among subgroups tested with oneway analysis of variance. In each row, subgroup means sharing

the same subscript did not differ significantly in a post-hoc Scheffe test.

d Participants identified themselves as Very Conservative, Moderately Conservative, Slightly Liberal or

Conservative, Moderately Liberal, or Very Liberal.

e Scores represent the mean of responses to 15 items. The minimum score (1) indicates strong beliefs that

environmental problems are not serious and can be managed easily by humans. The maximum score (5) indicates

strong beliefs that environmental problems are serious and cannot be managed easily by humans.

Table 17. Day trips, overnight trips and overnight quarters of newcomer, intermediate, and veteran

visitors

Day trips/overnight quarters

Newcomers

1991-2000 a

(n = 217)

Intermediates

1971-1990 a

(n = 331)

Veterans

1970 or before a

(n = 317) Overall b

Percents

Day trip 75.7 70.2 68.8 71.3

Camping on BESF 9.0 6.0 6.3 6.5

Leased or private cabin site 6.7 12.0 16.7 13.0

State Park 4.3 6.4 4.2 4.5

Commercial lodging or camping 4.3 5.4 4.2 4.7


b Differences among subgroups tested with


2 = 14.93, p = .061.

98

Table 18. Season of most visits to Forest, newcomer, intermediate, and veteran visitors

Season

Newcomers

1991-2000 a

(n = 217)

Intermediates

1971-1990 a

(n = 331)

Veterans

1970 or before a

(n = 317) Overall b

Percents

Spring 15.8 16.7 12.9 15.1

Summer 45.4 35.0 33.7 36.6

Fall 20.4 35.4 42.9 35.3

Winter 18.4 12.9 10.5 13.1


b Difference among subgroups tested with


2 = 24.73, p < .001.

Table 19. Activity participation at BESF during 12 months prior to being surveyed, newcomer,

intermediate, and veteran visitors

Activity

Newcomers

1991-2000 a

(n = 217)

Intermediates

1971-1990 a

(n = 331)

Veterans

1970 or before a

(n = 317) Wald statistic &

probability b

Percent participating

Viewing scenery 63.8 76.2 79.3 11.68, p = .003

Fishing 33.6 44.3 59.0 19.39, p < .001

Walking/day hiking c 47.3 60.3 66.5 17.72, p < .001

Wildlife watching 36.6 52.1 54.0 12.57, p = .002

Hunting 22.9 51.5 68.0 55.29, p < .001

Camping c 18.2 20.6 27.0 5.37, p = .068

Picnicking 30.5 38.5 48.0 11.63, p = .003

Snowmobiling 21.2 19.0 10.0 6.11, p = .047

Swimming c 12.9 21.5 23.0 8.05, p = .018

Mountain biking 9.1 12.8 11.0 1.08, p = .5.83

Photography 21.2 24.1 31.0 3.67, p = .160

Backpacking c 7.6 7.7 7.0 0.94, p = .624

Horseback riding 6.1 2.6 1.5 5.43, p = .066

Driving ORV c 11.4 7.2 9.5 2.82, p = .244

Jogging/trail running 2.3 6.2 4.0 2.70, p = .259

Cross-country skiing 1.5 3.1 4.5 2.01, p = .366


b Differences in participation rates among subgroups tested with logistic regression.

c Activities for which age was also a significant predictor at the .05% level. For each of these activities,

participation rates decreased significantly as age increased.

99

Table 20. Satisfaction with Forest characteristics, newcomer, intermediate, and veteran visitors

Forest characteristic

Newcomers

1991-2000 a

(n = 217)

Intermediates

1971-1990 a

(n = 331)

Veterans

1970 or before a

(n = 317) Overall

Mean scores b

Access to place(s) I wanted to visit 4.15 a 3.99 a 3.95 a 4.01

Availability of parking in areas I visited 4.02 a 3.97 a 3.98 a 3.99

Opportunity to visit without feeling

crowded

4.31 a 4.08 b 4.02 b 4.10

Ability to obtain information about the area 3.53 a 3.54 a 3.81 b 3.65

Appearance & maintenance of areas I

visited

4.20 a 4.01 a 4.04 a 4.06

Adequacy of signs 3.71 a 3.72 a 3.83 a 3.77 a Year of first visit to BESF.

b Responses ranged from Not at all Satisfied (1) to Extremely Satisfied (5). Differences among subgroups tested

with analysis of variance and found significant at the .05% level. In each row, subgroup means sharing the same

subscript did not differ significantly in a post-hoc Scheffe test.

Table 21. Responses to Forest management issues, newcomer, intermediate, and veteran visitors

Forest management issue

Newcomers

1991-2000 a

(n = 217)

Intermediates

1971-1990 a

(n = 331)

Veterans

1970 or before a

(n = 317) Overall

Mean scores b

It is more important to protect habitat for

plants and animals than provide

opportunities for recreation.

0.63 a 0.88 a 0.73 a 0.77

The Forest should encourage more timber

harvesting.

-0.59 ab -0.62 a -0.33 b -0.50

More fish should be stocked in the streams

and lakes to provide increased sport-

fishing opportunities.

0.28 a 0.45 a 0.32 a 0.36

More public lands such as Bald Eagle State

Forest should be set aside as wild or

natural areas.

0.77 a 0.98 a 0.73 a 0.84


b Responses ranged from Strongly Disagree (-2) to Strongly Agree (+2). Differences among subgroups tested

with analysis of variance and found significant at the .05% level. In each row, subgroup means sharing the same

subscript did not differ significantly in a post-hoc Scheffe test.

Level and Type of Use on Bald Eagle State Forest: Report ... · Level and Type of Use on Bald Eagle...

Documents

Transcript of Level and Type of Use on Bald Eagle State Forest: Report ... · Level and Type of Use on Bald Eagle...