Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge: A Survey

of Visitor Experiences: Report to Respondents

By Phadrea D. Ponds, Nina Burkardt, and Lynne Koontz, U.S. Geological Survey

Open-File Report 2004-1331

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Cover photo courtesy of Peter J. Carboni, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge: A 

Survey of Visitor Experiences: Report to 

Respondents 

By Phadrea D. Ponds, Nina Burkardt, and Lynne Koontz, U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2004-1331 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
U.S. Department of the Interior 

Gale A. Norton, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Charles G. Groat, Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2004 

For product and ordering information: 

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod 

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, 

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: 

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov 

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 

Suggested citation: 

Ponds, P.D., Burkardt, N., and Koontz, L., 2004, Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge: A survey of visitor 

experiences: Report to respondents: U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Discipline, Open File 

Report 2004-1331, 26 p. 

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual 

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. 
Contents 

Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................................................1 

Introduction and Overview..............................................................................................................................1

The Survey......................................................................................................................................................3 

Summary of Key Findings.................................................................................................................................4 

Demographic Profile .....................................................................................................................................4 

Travel Information .........................................................................................................................................4 

Personal Experiences and Expectations ..................................................................................................5 

Visitor Spending and Economic Impact ................................................................................................8 

Spending by Refuge Hunters...................................................................................................................8 

Conclusions and Implications.........................................................................................................................9 

Appendix A. Frequency Distribution of Survey Responses.....................................................................11 

Section 1. Visitor Activities ........................................................................................................................12 

Section 2. Visitor Experiences...................................................................................................................15 

Section 3. Trip Expenditures ......................................................................................................................16 

Section 4. Visitor Satisfaction....................................................................................................................17 

Section 5. Citizen Participation..................................................................................................................20 

Section 6. Visitor Demographics...............................................................................................................21 

Appendix B. Additional Comments...............................................................................................................24 

Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................................26 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Map of area........................................................................................................................................2 

Figure 2. Open ended comments by category. ..........................................................................................25 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Response rate for Cabeza Prieta NWR visitor survey.................................................................3 

Table 2. Demographic profile of respondents..............................................................................................4 

Table 3. Regional distribution of survey respondents. ...............................................................................5 

Table 4. Recreation patterns and travel distance .......................................................................................5 

Table 5. Recreation patterns and travel distance based on the regional distribution of 

respondents. .......................................................................................................................................6 

Table 6. Importance of recreation activity during most recent visit to CPNWR (n = 685) ...................7 

Table 7. Importance of management.............................................................................................................7 

Table 8. Frequency distribution of the conditions that would enhance visitation to the refuge 

(n = 531)................................................................................................................................................7 

Table 9. Frequency distribution of the experiences that would promote repeat visitation 

(n = 531)................................................................................................................................................8

Table 10. Average visitor spending ...............................................................................................................9 

Table 11. Hunter spending...............................................................................................................................9 

iii
Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge: A 

Survey of Visitor Experiences: Report to 

Respondents 

By Phadrea D. Ponds, Nina Burkardt, and Lynne Koontz, U.S. Geological Survey 

Executive Summary 

In the fall of 2000, researchers from the Policy Analysis and Science Assistance Program (PASA) of the 

Fort Collins Science Center (FORT) in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) met with the staff of the Cabeza Prieta 

National Wildlife Refuge (CPNWR) to discuss the issues related to social, economic, and human dimensions of 

natural resource management as it related to the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) planning process. As a 

result of the meeting a research study was designed to better understand how visitors are affected by environmental 

management decisions and provide information to assist the refuge managers in making decisions regarding public 

use and recreational management related to the goals of the proposed CCP. More specifically, information was 

collected to document the type and frequency of visitor use; assess the importance of recreational activities; and to 

determine visitor attitudes about recreation management decisions within the refuge. To this end, we designed a 

study to assess the effects of the no-action and alternative management plans for the Refuge visitors’ perceptions 

and likely visitation patterns. 

In fall of 2002 a questionnaire was developed in collaboration with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) and the CCP planning team and mailed to 1090 people who visited the refuge between June 2001 and June 

2002. We used standard research methods in designing and administering the questionnaire. Six hundred and eightyfive (685) completed questionnaires (74%) were considered usable. We developed the questionnaire (OMB Control 

Number 1040-00) to answer the following questions: 

• What are the important differences in visitors’ attitudes and perception regarding recreation and visitor 

use at CPNWR? 

• What are the factors that explain the differences in visitor attitudes and perception regarding recreation 

and visitor use at CPNWR? 

• What are the regional economic impacts of visitor spending? 

 

In general the respondents indicated support for current management practices of CPNWR. We found that 

people came to the Refuge to experience a connection with the resource and the environment. More than half of the 

respondents said that viewing the desert scenery, seeking wilderness solitude and viewing wildlife were the most 

important reasons for making the visit to the refuge. 

Introduction and Overview 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is required by law to develop a Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan (CCP) for each unit of the National refuge system. The CCP for each refuge must contain an analysis of social 

and economic conditions and evaluate social and economic results from likely management scenarios. The refuge 

manager and regional planning staff of the FWS are responsible for including social and economic assessments in 

the CCP in such a way that understanding these factors aids planning decisions and helps guide management 

actions. Information about the uses, experiences, and benefits obtained by recreational users of the refuge are to be 

collected to help construct this plan. The primary objective of this report is to provide information about refuge 
visitors. This information will provide the required social science research necessary to document information about 

visitor use knowledge, perception, and values of the Refuge. This report presents the findings from the 2002 Cabeza 

Prieta Visitor Use Survey. 

At 860,010 acres, Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge (CPNWR) is the third largest national wildlife 

refuge in the lower 48 states. The refuge was created on August 25, 1939 by Executive Order 8038. This executive 

order allowed for the conservation and development of natural wildlife resources, as well as the protection and 

improvement of public grazing lands and natural wildlife habitat. The 1990 Arizona Desert Wilderness Act (P.L 

101-628) designated 93% percent of the refuge as wilderness. In order to maintain the wilderness character of 

CPNWR, no vehicle traffic is allowed except on designated public use roads. Vehicles may be parked up to 50 feet 

from the center of the roads in areas previously used by other vehicles. All other off-road motorized travel is 

prohibited. 

Cabeza 

Prieta 

Figure 1. Map of area (source http://www.llbean.com/parksearch/parks/map_html/15301gd.htm. Date retrieved 3/30/04). 

The refuge is located in an extremely arid environment, 10 miles northwest of the town of Why and 42 

miles south of Gila Bend, Arizona sharing a 56-mile international boundary with Mexico. Despite being a part of the 

most arid region on the North American continent, the refuge is the home to over 450 species of plants, 212 species 

of birds, 48 species of reptiles and amphibians, and 42 species of mammals, including desert bighorn sheep (Ovis 

canadensis mexicana), the endangered Sonoran pronghorn (Antelocarpa american), and lesser long-nosed bat 

(Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae). Nearly all of the refuge's airspace lies within the Barry M. Goldwater Air 

Force Range. Though no military ground activities occur on the refuge, it is subject to frequent low-level aircraft 

over-flights. Management challenges include exotic species management, endangered species recovery, and 

conflicting land uses on and around the refuge. 

 Although visitation at the refuge is limited and follows seasonal patterns, visitors commonly travel through 

the refuge along El Camino del Diablo (the Devils’ Highway). This historic route traces the route of early Spanish 

exploration of the Southwest to California and was also traveled by early missionaries, explorers, and prospectors. 

The road was given its name as a reflection of the fate of many travelers who died en route to the California gold 

fields. Visitor traffic is complicated by motorized vehicles use in the refuge wilderness areas; Border Patrol 

activities to control the presence of undocumented aliens seeking entry into the United States through the refuge; the 

use of the refuge for traditional and religious purposes; hunting Bighorn Sheep, and cross-boundary management of 

endangered Pronghorns. 

2
The Survey 

There are generally five reasons people visit a destination: accessibility to area, physical and cultural 

amenities, social setting, prestige of the area, and personal attractions (Tiefenbacher and others, 2000). A mail out 

survey was designed to find out why people visit Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge. 

In the fall of 2002 we sent a questionnaire to 1090 people who visited the refuge between June 2001 and 

June 2002.1

 All visitors to the refuge are required to obtain a permit before driving on refuge roads. For the 

purposes of administering the survey we followed standard survey techniques recommended by Dillman (2000). A 

total of 685 visitors completed and returned the survey for a response rate of 74% (Table 1). According to Dillman 

(2000) a response rate of 50% or better is very good for a mail out survey. 

Table 1. Response rate for Cabeza Prieta NWR visitor survey. 

Total addresses 1,090 

Undeliverable addresses 162 

Refusals 8 

Respondents 685 

Respondent rate 74% 

A non-response bias test was conducted to determine if non-respondents differed from respondents. We 

anticipated an 18% undeliverable/bad address rate due to death, relocation, etc. One hundred and sixty-two 

postcards were returned as bad/or insufficient addresses (15%). Nine hundred and twenty-eight surveys were mailed 

to “usable” addresses. Of those addresses 8 (2%) residents returned their surveys and declined to take part of the 

study. Of the remaining 920 residents, 685 (74%) completed and returned surveys. We used telephone follow-up 

calls to contact 10% of the non-respondents who did not return the survey after three mailings. Over a course of 5 

days we made three attempts to establish contact with the non-respondents. We were unable to establish contact with 

14 of the non-respondents and the other 9 agreed to take part in the telephone survey. 

Respondents and non-respondents were compared on two items: geographic location of permanent 

residence and the importance of recreational activities participated in during their most recent visit to the refuge (e.g. 

watching wildlife, viewing the scenery and driving for pleasure, non-motorized travel (hiking, biking), hunting and 

overnight camping.) Chi square tests were used to compare the groups for each of the items. There were no 

significant differences found between the respondents and non-respondents on activities they participated in during 

the most recent visit. Respondents were slightly more likely to have participated in watching wildlife, viewing the 

scenery and than non-respondents. For activities where participation levels differed between respondents and nonrespondents the differences in percentages were all less than 20%. Respondents and non-respondents did not differ 

significantly in terms of geographic locations of residency. We did not find any significant differences between the 

respondents and non-respondents. No adjustments to the data were made. 

The questionnaire contained six sections. The first section asked about activities in which respondents 

participated while visiting the refuge, purposes of the trip, travel time, group size, and—for hunters--hunting 

behaviors and style. The survey also contained a question about the distance to the next best hunt area, if hunting at 

Cabeza Prieta was not an option. Section two asked visitors to rate the importance of various recreational activities 

in terms of their decision to take trips to Cabeza Prieta NWR. The third section focused on trip expenditures and 

included gas, lodging, food, airline/rental cars, hunting and related expenditures, and other travel expenses. Data 

from this section will help quantify the local and regional economic effects of refuge visitation. Section four queried 

respondents about the importance of and level of satisfaction with various natural resource related activities and 

conditions at Cabeza Prieta. Respondents were also asked to state what would enhance their experience at the 

refuge, and what experience would bring them back. Section five asked about the nature and intensity of 

respondents’ civic participation over the past year. And finally, section six solicited responses to several 

demographic and socioeconomic questions. A complete presentation of frequency distributions for every survey 

question is included in Appendix A. 

 

3

1

Approval to conduct the survey was obtained through the formal OMB approval process (OMB Control Number 

1040-00). 
Summary of Key Findings 

Demographic Profile 

Of the 685 respondents who answered the survey, 66% were male, 31% were female and 3% did not 

respond to the question. The average age of the respondents was 54.5. Almost 67% of the respondents were over the 

age of 45, and 47% were over the age of 55. 

Forty-six percent of the respondents had two or more years of college or formal education above high 

school. Another 38% indicated that they had attended graduate or professional school. The average, self reported 

income, before taxes was between $40–60,000 (Table 2). Forty percent of the respondents indicated that they were 

retired from their professions. Household size for respondents was reported as one person by 21% and two people by 

58%. Only about 14% indicated a household size of 3 or 4 people. 

Table 2. Demographic profile of respondents. 

Median Age 55 

% 

Age groups 

Below 35 

35–49 

50 and above 

13 

23 

64 

Income levels 

Below $35,000 

$35,000–$75,000 

$75,000 and above 

No answer 

22 

38 

29 

12 

Locals (Pima County residents) 

Non-locals (outside Pima County, AZ) 

24 

76 

Gender 

 Male 

 Female 

66 

31 

Employment status 

Not retired 

Retired 

3 

40 

Educational status 

Two or more years of college 

Post – graduate degree 

46 

38 

Number in household 

1 person 

2 people 

3 people or more 

21 

58 

14 

Travel Information 

This section of the questionnaire asked the respondents about where they lived and if the Cabeza/Ajo area 

was the only stop on this trip. Information about the number of days in the Cabeza/Ajo area as well as the number 

traveling in the immediate group was collected. The list of respondents’ zip codes was divided into three categories: 

local (people living in Pima County including Tucson, Why, Sells, and Ajo), in state (all other Arizona residents), 

and out of state (all other states from which most people would have driven more than two days or flown). A 

majority 324 (51%) of the respondents came from out of the state. Of the 632 respondents who indicated their zip 

codes almost half 308 (49%) were from the state of Arizona, and more than half of those respondents 172 (27%) 

were from Pima County (Table 3). 

4
Table 3. Regional distribution of survey respondents. 

Pima County, AZ In-state Out-of-state Total 

Tucson and surrounding 

communities in Pima County 

Ajo and surrounding 

communities 

(within 85321 zip code) 

Areas 

outside 

Pima County 

Areas outside 

Arizona 

91 

(14%) 

81 

(13%) 

136 

(22%) 

324 

(51%) 632 

The next section of the survey asked respondents how far they traveled to get to CPNWR and if this was 

the only stop on this trip or if it was one in a series of stops along the way to someplace else. Information on the 

number of days spent in the Cabeza Prieta area as well as the number traveling in the immediate group was also 

collected. The mean number of miles traveled to reach CPNWR was 523. Fourteen percent of the respondents 

reported that they traveled up to 30 miles (or less than 1 hour), and 37% traveled about 100+ miles (up to 2 hours) to 

reach the refuge (Table 4). Approximately 57% of all respondents stated that visiting CPNWR was the primary 

purpose of their trip; 33% replied that it was one of other equally important reasons for making the trip, and 9% 

indicated that it was an incidental or spur of the moment stop (Table 4). 

Table 4. Recreation patterns and travel distance. Responses from all respondents. 

Mean travel distance – in miles (n = 425) 523.015 

Mean number in group (n = 612) 5.63 

Mean number of days spent on most recent visit (n = 411) 3.591 

Mean number of visits in the past 15 months (n =) 2.48 

Primacy of visit (n = 629) 

 Sole purpose 57% 

 One of many and equally important reasons 34% 

 Spur of the moment 9% 

Personal Experiences and Expectations 

In section 2 of the survey, we asked the respondents to indicate the importance of a list of activities were in 

terms of their decision to take recreation trips to Cabeza Prieta NWR. They were asked; “Please tell us how 

important the following activities were in terms of your decision to take recreation trips to Cabeza Prieta NWR this 

year.” Respondents answered by selecting from a frequency scale. (See appendix for the complete set of survey 

responses.) 

 The activities addressed five of the six wildlife dependent activities designated by the USFWS (hunting, 

wildlife observation, photography, interpretation and environmental education). Fishing was omitted as an activity 

because it is not offered at CPNWR. A majority of the respondents said that viewing the scenery (90%), seeking 

wilderness solitude (74%), viewing desert wildlife (68%), viewing night skies (62%), and hiking in the backcountry 

(60%) were the most important activities when visiting the refuge. When rating the least important activity 

associated with their most recent visit to the refuge two thirds of the respondents reported that horseback riding 

(69%), hunting bighorn sheep (66%), and mountain bike riding (65%) (Table 6). 

5
Table 5. Recreation patterns and travel distance based on the regional distribution of respondents.

Pima County, AZ 

In-state 

(all other 

counties in 

AZ) 

Out-ofstate Total 

Tucson and 

surrounding 

towns in Pima 

County 

Ajo and 

surrounding 

towns 

(within 85321 

zip code) 

Areas 

outside 

Pima County 

Number in group (n = 612) 

1–2 43 29 57 145 274 

3–5 24 23 27 72 146 

6–8 4 18 24 38 84 

9–12 8 4 10 21 43 

13–20 5 2 13 31 51 

More than 20 4 1 2 7 14 

Travel distance in miles (n = 425) 

1–20 0 38 2 21 61 

25–50 0 10 0 7 17 

51–100 1 3 2 2 8 

101–250 50 6 79 22 157 

251–500 6 0 10 29 45 

501–1000 0 0 0 61 61 

More than 1000 0 0 0 76 76 

Amount of time spent at CPNWR 

during most recent trip (n = 411) 

1–2 days 28 15 34 78 155 

3–5 days 43 16 63 98 220 

6–14 days 6 3 2 18 29 

More than 14 days 0 0 2 5 7 

Primacy of visit (n = 629) 

Sole purpose 75 62 101 119 357 

One of equally important 13 13 28 159 213 

Spur of the moment stop 2 5 7 45 59 

Overnight accommodations (n = 610) 

Did not stay over night 13 15 26 12 66 

Public campground 15 5 27 83 130 

Private home 1 23 6 38 68 

Private RV/tent 25 5 34 86 150 

Hotel/motel 6 1 14 46 67 

Bed and breakfast 0 0 2 3 5 

Other 28 23 24 49 124 

6
Table 6. Importance of recreation activity during most recent visit to CPNWR (n = 685). 

Activity Not important (%) Important (%) 

Does not apply or 

No answer (%) 

Viewing the scenery 5 90 8 

Seeking wilderness solitude 16 74 10 

Viewing desert wildlife 25 68 8 

Viewing the night skies 24 62 14 

Hiking in the backcountry 26 60 14 

Horseback riding 69 3 28 

Hunting big horn sheep 66 5 29 

Mountain biking 65 9 26 

Wildlife refuges serve a number of biological, ecological, and social functions. Biological and ecological 

functions include maintaining habitat and wildlife protection. Social functions include providing trail information, 

access for people with disabilities, and environmental education materials and programs. The respondents were 

asked to review a list of 12 biological, ecological, and social functions offered by the refuge, and to rate how 

important they thought each function was (Table 7). The most important functions were ensuring the presence and 

protection of wildlife (86% and 83% respectively), followed by the availability of maps (75%). 

Table 7. Importance of management. 

Activity Important (%) Not important (%) 

Does not apply or 

No answer (%) 

Presence of wildlife 86 12 2 

Protection of wildlife 83 7 10 

Availability of maps 75 15 10 

Question 14 of the survey was one of two open ended questions that asked the respondents to state in their 

own words “What would enhance your experience at Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge?” We received 474 

responses to this question. We categorized the responses into seven categories. Table 8 shows the responses for each 

category. 

Table 8. Frequency distribution of the conditions that would enhance visitation to the refuge (n = 531). 

n % 

A reduction in observable border issues 84 18 

More road access (too many closed roads) 150 32 

A reduction in military activities 27 6 

Increased Refuge staff and management presence 50 11 

More opportunities to view wildlife 29 6 

Increased availability of educational material 52 11 

Issues with designated campgrounds 16 3 

The response “Border issues” includes statements about the perceived negative effects of border patrol 

activities, visitor concern about refuge safety, and the perceived resource damage as a result of both undocumented 

alien and border patrol presence. The category “roads and access” included comments both about poor road 

conditions and about limited refuge access because of seasonal road closures or lack of roads. Some visitors 

indicated that having only four-wheel drive access was a problem, while others praised the refuge for allowing only 

four-wheel drive vehicles and limiting access. With 150 responses in this category, it was the area most mentioned 

by respondents. Twenty-seven respondents indicated that some change in military activities would enhance their 

experience at the refuge. Almost all of these respondents mentioned a negative perception about military over-flights 

7
while visiting the refuge. One respondent indicated that they found the military activities unpleasant but recognized 

the need for them. Fifty respondents noted that some change in refuge management policy would enhance their 

experience. Some of the comments concerned hunting, with some stating the opinion that hunting should not be 

allowed on the refuge and others state that more hunting would be preferable. Other refuge management policy 

issues included allowing specific activities on the refuge, limiting development, and controlling cattle entering the 

refuge from Mexico. 

More than three hundred visitors responded that the wilderness qualities of the refuge, the solitude, or the 

scenic beauty are the main experiences that would draw them back to the refuge for additional visits. Eighty-one 

mentioned the pursuit of a specific activity, such as camping, biking, hunting, or research. Thirty-nine noted that 

wildlife viewing opportunities would motivate them to return to the refuge. Smaller numbers indicated that cultural 

or historical features or services provided by refuge staff would be a reason to return (Table 9). 

Table 9. Frequency distribution of the experiences that would promote repeat visitation (n = 531).

Reasons for returning n % 

Presence of wildlife 39 7 

Wilderness and solitude 310 58 

Natural or cultural features or services 20 4 

Pursuit of a specific recreational activity 81 15 

Services provided by the refuge staff 8 2 

Miscellaneous 20 4 

Visitor Spending and Economic Impact 

Table 10 illustrates the average amount spent locally in Ajo and Yuma by non-local visitors and total spent 

within the State of Arizona by non-resident visitors. Amounts of local spending in Ajo and Yuma are the average 

expenditures non-local visitors (living outside of Ajo and Yuma) reported spending in the local communities near 

the Refuge. Because the Refuge has entrances near Ajo and Yuma, the survey asked visitors to specify in which 

town local purchases were primarily made. Results show that 84% of local purchases were made in Ajo, and 16% 

were made in Yuma. The amounts of spending in the state of Arizona are the summed expenditures that nonresident visitors reported spending in the local area near the Refuge and the amount spent in rest of Arizona en route 

to the Refuge. 

Not every group had expenditures in every category, so the numbers reported in Table 10 represent an 

average across all visitors, including some who had no expenditures in that category. The average expenditures 

reported in each category were divided by the average number of persons in each group sharing the expenses (3.38 

persons) and then divided by the average number of days (2.64) spent in the local area to determine the average 

spending per person per day. Table 10 shows that on average, non local visitors spent the most in grocery stores, gas 

stations, and restaurants in the local area near the Refuge. Nonresident visitors spend the most on gasoline, grocery 

store purchases, camping, and restaurants while in the state of Arizona. 

Spending by Refuge Hunters 

The Refuge offers a very limited number of hunting permits for bighorn sheep. Nine respondents to the 

visitor survey indicated that their visit to the Refuge was for hunting bighorn sheep. Table 11 illustrates the average 

amount spent locally in Ajo and Yuma by Refuge hunters. The average expenditures reported in each category were 

divided by the average number of persons in each group sharing the expenses (2.33 persons) and then divided by the 

average number of days (11 days) spent in the local area to determine the average spending per hunter per day. As 

for the town in which purchases are primarily made, two of the nine hunters indicated Ajo was where they made 

purchases, two made purchases in Yuma, two made purchases in Tanca, and one primarily made purchases in Gila 

Bend. Because there are so few hunters (average 8 permits per year) and only two indicated spending money in Ajo, 

the total amount of spending by hunters in Ajo totals approximately $1,035 per year. 

8
Table 10. Average visitor spending. 

Visitor spending 

Non-local spending in Ajo and Yuma $ per group per trip $ per person per day 

Gasoline/related automobile costs 50.55 5.67 

Hotels 24.69 2.77 

Camping 29.12 3.27 

Restaurants 39.68 4.45 

Grocery stores 52.61 5.90 

Supplies and souvenirs 15.05 1.69 

Other expenses 21.16 2.37 

Total spending 232.86 26.11 

Nonresident spending in Arizona 

Gasoline/related automobile costs 120.71 13.54 

Hotels 55.64 6.24 

Camping 84.60 9.49 

Restaurants 78.72 8.83 

Grocery stores 116.95 13.11 

Supplies and souvenirs 43.01 4.82 

Rental car 41.30 4.63 

Other expenses 50.30 5.64 

Total spending 591.23 66.30 

Table 11. Hunter spending. 

Hunter spending 

Non-local spending in Ajo and Yuma

$ per group 

per trip 

$ per person 

per day 

Gasoline/related automobile costs 210.56 8.22 

Hotels 22.24 0.87 

Camping 1.21 0.04 

Restaurants 31.01 1.21 

Grocery stores 106.13 4.14 

Supplies 0.00 0.00 

Hunting license 30.56 1.19 

Taxidermy 111.11 4.34 

Game processing 22.02 0.87 

Other expenses 278.78 2.37 

Total spending 813.62 23.25 

Conclusions and Implications 

The remote and rugged terrain of Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge holds the key to its appeal. Some 

refuge visitors experience the refuge from their cars, while others take the opportunity to explore on foot and camp 

for extended periods. In most cases, the wildness and solitude of the experience is what most engages those who 

9
spend time in the refuge. The clear majority of visitors spend time in the refuge to experience wilderness solitude, 

and to view desert scenery and wildlife. Some visitors report concerns about safety because of the remoteness of the 

refuge, and their awareness of border activities. Of these, some accept the concerns as part of the experience of the 

refuge while others feel that refuge management or border policies should change to make the refuge feel safer. 

Many of the open-ended comments provided by survey respondents demonstrated a passionate concern for 

the refuge and its resources. Although we asked visitors to tell us about their most recent visit, some indicated in the 

comments section that they were repeat visitors to the area and that they found the refuge to be like no other place 

on Earth. The refuge has a loyal set of supporters that focuses on the intense nature of the experiences that can be 

found at Cabeza Prieta NWR. Another group of visitors makes use of the interpretative exhibits at the visitors’ 

center and takes a sightseeing drive on the road, but because high-clearance vehicles are required not all who visit 

are able to explore by car. 

As the refuge continues to plan for the future, choices will be made about whether to provide services that 

encourage the adventurer or whether to facilitate access to more of the refuge. Making changes could result in 

different levels of visitation and could alter the demographic profile and spending patterns of visitors. Because most 

of the refuge is designated as wilderness, further development of roads and facilities is limited to specific refuge 

areas. Refuge visitors are not of one mind about the future of the refuge, and this will continue to present challenges 

to refuge managers. 

10
Appendix A 

Frequency Distribution of Survey Responses 

11
When considering recreational and visitor experiences at the Cabeza Prieta National wildlife refuge it is 

useful for managers to understand what the visitors know and value about the area and the resources. The following 

is a summary of the statistics for each question that appeared in the survey. Please note that frequencies may range 

from 99%–101% due to rounding. 

Section 1. Visitor Activities 

Please tell us about your visit to Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge 

1. Please check the activities you participated in during you most recent trip to Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife 

Refuge. (Check all that apply.)

Various recreational activities Yes (%) No (%) No answer (%) 

Wildlife observation and photography 

Wildlife viewing 63.5 34.9 1.6 

Bird watching 33.4 65.0 1.6 

Photography 55.6 42.8 1.6 

Wildlife education and interpretation

Environmental education 22.5 75.9 1.6 

Data collection and research 1.9 

Education/Interpretation 2.6 

Hunting 

Bighorn sheep hunting 3.4 95.0 1.6 

Hunting 1.2 

Other activities 

Sightseeing 66.9 31.5 1.6 

Hiking near public roads 38.0 60.4 1.6 

Backcountry hiking 37.1 61.3 1.6 

Horseback riding 0.6 97.8 1.6 

Driving for pleasure 40.4 58.0 1.6 

Picnicking 27.0 71.4 1.6 

Vehicle camping 42.3 56.1 1.6 

Seeking wilderness solitude 53.0 45.4 1.6 

Backcountry camping 19 79.4 1.6 

Bicycling/Mountain biking 3.1 95.2 1.8 

12
1a. Of the activities that you checked above, which was the most important reason for your visit?

Most important activity on recent trip % 

Seeking wilderness solitude 22.5 

Sightseeing 15.2 

Backcountry hiking 8.6 

Wildlife viewing 5.8 

Photography 5.3 

Pleasure driving 5.0 

Environmental education 4.5 

Hiking near public roads 3.8 

Backcountry camping 3.5 

Vehicle camping 2.9 

Bighorn sheep hunting 1.5 

Bird watching .7 

Picnicking .4 

Bicycling/Mountain biking .4 

No answer 7.0 

Other 12.8 

2. When you visited Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge was it (check one): 

Primary purpose or sole destination 56.2% 

One of many equally important reasons 32.7% 

Incidental or spur of the moment stop 9.1% 

No answer 2.0% 

3. What was your one-way travel time and travel distance from home to Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge 

on this most recent trip? 

0–4 

hours 

5–8 

hours 

9–12 

hours More than 12 hours 

No 

answer 

33% 16% 7% 11% 33% 

0 to 99 

miles 

100 to 300 

miles 

301 to 500 

miles More than 500 miles 

No 

answer 

16% 27% 3% 20% 33% 

 4. What was the amount of time you spent at Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge on this most recent trip? 

1 day 

or less 

1–5 

days 

6–10 

days 

More than 

10 days 

No 

answer 

7% 51% 2% 2% 38% 

13
5. During this visit, were you (check one): 

With family or friends 70.9% 

Alone 9.5% 

With a tour group 6.9% 

Other (work or research, class trip, club or organization, etc.) 10.1% 

No answer 2.6% 

Group Size 

1–5 people 6–10 people 11–20 people More than 20 people No answer 

61%% 21.3% 10.5% 2.5% 5% 

6. How many times have you visited Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge in the past 15 months? 

1–5 trips 6–10 trips 11–20 trips More than 20 trips No answer 

88% 9% 2% 1% 5% 

• If hunting was the primary purpose of your trip, please answer the following questions. Otherwise skip to 

Section 2. 

7. How many trips for the primary purpose of scouting or hunting did you take to Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife 

Refuge during the hunting season? 

Number of scouting trips 

(n = 29) 

Number of hunting trips 

(n = 26) 

0 55.2% 0 61.5% 

1 20.7% 1 19.2% 

2 17.2% 2 7.7% 

4 3.4% 5 7.7% 

6 3.4% 3 3.8% 

7b. What is the distance from your home to the next best hunt area outside of Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife 

Refuge you would go to if you did not hunt at Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge? 

Distance from home to next best hunt area (n = 12) 

Less than 10 miles 50–100 miles More than 100 miles 

25% 25% 50% 

8. What was the primary type of weapon you used on this most recent trip? (Check one.) 

100% Fire arm* 

0% Archery 

0% Muzzle loader 

*(n = 19) 

14
Section 2. Visitor Experiences 

Importance of different experiences to your recreation trips to Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge. 

9. Please tell us how important the following activities are in terms of your decision to take recreation trips to 

Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge during the year. (Circle one number for each item.) 

Activity 

Not important 

(%) 

Somewhat 

important 

(%) 

Important 

(%) 

Very 

important 

(%) 

No 

opinion 

(%) 

No answer 

(%) 

Hunting bighorn sheep 63.9 1.6 1.3 3.9 15.0 14.2 

Bird watching 12.0 33.9 25.7 17.8 3.1 7.6 

Viewing rare desert wildlife 3.2 21.6 32.3 35.0 1.9 6.0 

Viewing other wildlife 2.3 22.6 41.0 27.3 1.2 5.5 

Viewing scenery 0.4 4.4 32.1 58.2 0.4 4.4 

Viewing night skies 9.5 14.7 25.5 35.9 5.5 8.8 

Seeking wilderness solitude 4.8 11.1 20.9 52.8 2.6 7.7 

Hiking within one-half mile of public 

roads 23.1 21.2 27.3 14.3 5.0 9.2 

Hiking in the backcountry 14.0 12.4 24.2 35.8 6.1 7.4 

Vehicle camping along public roads 22.6 13.3 21.8 25.5 7.2 9.6 

Camping in the backcountry 22.3 12.0 20.3 27.4 9.2 8.8 

Horseback riding 64.1 5.0 1.5 1.8 15.9 11.8 

Biking/mountain biking 54.7 10.5 4.8 4.1 14.0 11.8 

Viewing Historic and Heritage Sites 9.8 22.6 30.1 27.4 3.1 7.0 

Environmental education opportunities 21.5 23.1 21.9 17.8 6.9 8.9 

Interpretation Programs and 

Opportunities 25.8 25.0 20.1 9.8 9.6 9.6 

Wildlife photography opportunities 11.4 24.7 27.6 23.9 4.1 8.3 

Other activities* 0.3 0.7 2.0 14.9 1.0 81.0 

*Other Activities 

Pleasure and 4 wheel driving Work, research and data collection 

Botany Border impacts 

Archeology, history and geology Scenery, solitude and nature 

General photography and arts Miscellaneous 

Exploring and backpacking 

 

15
Section 3. Trip Expenditures 

10. If you made local purchases as part of your visit to Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, were these 

purchases primarily made in? 

Ajo 71.5% 

Yuma 10.4% 

Both Ajo and Yuma 3.5% 

No Answer 14.2% 

Other 0.4% 

Gila Bend 0.1% 

*The response to question 11 includes all survey respondents, including local residents. For the purpose of the 

economic impacts analysis, only non-local visitors were included. 

11. Please indicate the amount you and members of your group with whom you shared expenses (e.g., other family 

members, traveling companions) spent on your most recent visit to Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge. (Enter 

the amount for each category.)

Average visitor spending 

Non-local spending in Ajo and Yuma

$ per group 

per trip 

$ per person 

per day 

Gasoline/related automobile costs 50.55 5.67 

Hotels 24.69 2.77 

Camping 29.12 3.27 

Restaurants 39.68 4.45 

Grocery stores 52.61 5.90 

Supplies and souvenirs 15.05 1.69 

Other expenses 21.16 2.37 

Total spending 232.86 26.11 

Nonresident spending in Arizona 

Gasoline/related automobile costs 120.71 13.54 

Hotels 55.64 6.24 

Camping 84.60 9.49 

Restaurants 78.72 8.83 

Grocery stores 116.95 13.11 

Supplies and souvenirs 43.01 4.82 

Rental car 41.30 4.63 

Other expenses 50.30 5.64 

Total spending 591.23 66.30 

12. Including yourself, how many people in your group shared these expenses on this most recent trip? 

0 to 2 people 

3 to 5 

people 

6 to 10 

people 

More than 10 

people No answer 

58.7% 15.2% 6.9% 5.3% 14.0% 

16
13. What type of overnight accommodations did you use while in or near this area? (Check all that apply.)

Did not stay overnight 10.7% 

Public campgrounds 19.7% 

Private home 11.4% 

Private RV/tent 22.8% 

Hotel/motel 9.9% 

Bed and Breakfast .7% 

No answer 5.1% 

Other* 19.7% 

*Other overnight accommodations include: 

Own a house in area, apartment, backcountry camping, vehicle camping, 

BLM or Refuge camping, RV park or RV, tent. 

14. If you stayed overnight, how many nights did you stay? 

0 to 2 

nights 

3 to 5 nights 6 to 8 

nights 

9 to 11 

nights 

12 to 20 

nights 

21 to 45 

nights 

46 to 99 

nights 

More than 

100 nights 

No Answer 

39.7% 24.1% 7.4% 2.2% 3.2% 1.9% 2.3% 1.5% 17.7% 

Section 4. Visitor Satisfaction 

We would like to know the types of experiences you seek to have when visiting Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife 

Refuge. 

15a. This question has two parts. First rate how important the item is in contributing to your recreation satisfaction 

while at Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge. (Circle your answers in each row.)

Importance 

Not 

important 

(%) 

Somewhat 

important 

(%) 

Important 

(%) 

Very 

important 

(%) 

Does not 

apply 

(%) 

No answer 

(%) 

Access for people with disabilities 34.6 11.2 8.5 4.4 34.9 6.4 

Trail information 9.1 16.4 30.1 32.8 5.0 6.7 

Trailhead parking areas 13.6 20.3 28.8 19.0 9.1 9.3 

Environmental education materials and 

programs 

15.8 19.7 26.3 22.2 7.3 8.8 

Presence of wildlife 1.6 9.9 27.3 53.1 1.8 6.3 

Protection of wildlife 1.9 5.4 20.3 62.6 2.8 7.0 

Availability of maps 5.0 9.9 31.7 43.6 2.8 7.0 

Limits on total number of visitors 13.7 15.3 24.8 27.2 9.5 9.5 

Limits on types of visitor uses 8.2 13.3 24.7 36.9 7.3 9.6 

Road conditions 15.3 28.9 30.1 18.7 1.3 5.7 

Border impacts 11.1 13.6 19.9 32.3 10.9 12.3 

Permit system 9.6 18.5 33.3 25.8 4.2 8.5 

Other items* 0 0.1 0.4 9.3 0.3 

17
15b. How satisfied are you with the management of the refuge in providing each item? 

Satisfaction with conditions Poor (%) 

Adequate 

(%) 

Average 

(%) 

Good 

(%) 

Outstanding 

(%) 

Does not 

apply (%) 

No 

answer 

(%) 

Access for people with disabilities 2.9 6.9 6.3 8.6 2.8 52.8 19.7 

Trail information 8.3 11.5 17.7 32.8 6.6 9.2 13.9 

Trailhead parking areas 3.8 14.3 15.8 29.6 5.0 14.7 16.8 

Environmental education materials and 

programs 

3.6 10.1 16.9 29.5 11.1 13.4 15.3 

Presence of wildlife 10.1 9.9 20.4 30.7 10.7 4.5 13.7 

Protection of wildlife 4.5 7.0 14.2 34.0 17.2 5.8 17.2 

Availability of maps 8.2 11.4 17.4 32.6 11.7 5.7 13.1 

Limits on total number of visitors 2.9 7.7 14.3 30.4 9.5 16.9 18.2 

Limits on types of visitor uses 6.7 9.9 15.8 29.3 7.6 11.4 19.3 

Road conditions 12.1 20.4 18.2 26.7 8.2 4.4 9.9 

Border impacts 22.5 12.4 14.0 12.7 2.6 16.4 19.4 

Permit system 4.5 11.7 13.4 34.9 16.9 5.7 12.8 

Other items* 6.1 0.3 0.4 1.0 1.8 0.3 – 

4-wheel driving and access, camping, 

preservation/protection, Military and other 

agencies, information, permits, natural 

state/solitude, miscellaneous 

16. Please indicate the extent to which each statement below describes your general feelings about Cabeza Prieta 

National Wildlife Refuge. (Circle the number that best describes how you feel about each statement.)

Opinions about CPNWR 

Strongly 

agree 

(%) 

Agree 

(%) 

Not sure 

(%) 

Disagree 

(%) 

Strongly 

disagree (%) No answer (%) 

The value of the recreation opportunities and 

services I experienced here was what I expected it 

to be 

29 53 7 4 1 6 

The value of the wilderness opportunities and 

character I experienced here was what I expected it 

to be 

32 51 6 4 1 6 

Because of my experiences at this refuge I will 

definitely come back 51 28 13 2 1 6 

I would consider paying a fee to visit this refuge 19 28 20 15 14 5 

I get more satisfaction out of visiting this refuge 

than from visiting any other refuge 10 14 41 23 4 8 

I would make personal sacrifices to protect this 

place 23 34 25 6 3 8 

Border impacts and activities adversely affected my 

visit to the refuge 22 17 17 28 11 6 

I should not have to pay a fee to visit this or any 

wildlife refuge 23 16 20 24 13 5 

18
17. What would enhance your experience at Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge (n = 474). 

n % 

A reduction in observable border issues 

• Perceived negative effects of border patrol activities, 

• Concerned about refuge safety, and the 

• Perceived resource damage as a result of both undocumented alien and 

border patrol presence 

84 18 

More road access (too many closed roads) 

• Poor road conditions 

• Limited refuge access because of seasonal road closures 

• Road closures 

• Having only four-wheel drive access was a problem 

150 32 

A reduction in military activities 

• A negative perception about military over-flights 

• Unpleasant but recognized the need for them 

• Reduce overall presence 

27 6 

Increased Refuge staff and management presence 

• Issues with current permitting system 

• Issues with hunting 

• Issues with staff availability during visits 

• Controlling cattle entering the refuge from Mexico 

48 11 

More opportunities to view wildlife 

• Issues with information concerning wildlife viewing areas 29 6 

Increased availability of educational materials 

• Updated maps 

• Increased signage 

• Information about the refuge 

52 11 

Issues with designated campgrounds 16 3 

18. Responses to the questions “What experience did you have at this refuge that would bring you back?” by 

category (n = 531). 

n % 

Presence of wildlife 39 7 

Wilderness/solitude/desert beauty 310 58 

Natural or cultural history 20 4 

Specific recreational activities 81 15 

Specific services provided by the refuge staff 8 2 

Miscellaneous 20 4 

19
Section 5. Citizen Participation 

19a. We are interested in the kinds of activities that visitors to wildlife refuges participate in. Please indicate which 

of these activities, if any, you have participated in within the past 12 months and how often. (Circle the 

appropriate response.) 

Activities Yes (%) No (%) 

No 

answer 

(%) 

Attended a public hearing 35 56 9 

Wrote a State or Federal agency 39 51 10 

Wrote a Congressman 32 59 10 

Wrote a letter to the Editor 13 77 10 

Joined a citizen advisory group 14 76 10 

Helped in maintenance at the refuge 20 70 10 

Signed a petition concerning the environment 43 48 10 

Attended a workshop to improve own understanding 38 53 9 

Volunteered time to an organization 34 56 10 

Joined an environmental group 34 55 11 

19b. If your response is “Yes.” Please indicate approximately how many times in the past 12 months you have 

participated in that activity 

Number of times participated in 

the past 12 months 

0 to 2 

times 

 (%) 

3 to 5 

times 

(%) 

6 to 8 

times 

(%) 

9 to 11 

times 

(%) 

12 or 

more 

times 

(%) 

No 

answer 

(%) 

Attended a public hearing 74.5 8.3 1.6 0.9 1.3 13.4 

Wrote a State or Federal agency 69.3 8.8 2.6 2.0 1.6 15.6 

Wrote a Congressman 73.4 7.7 1.3 0.9 1.9 14.7 

Wrote a letter to the Editor 84.5 1.3 0.4 0.3 0.0 13.4 

Joined a citizen advisory group 85.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.4 13.9 

Helped in maintenance at the refuge 79.6 2.2 0.7 0.3 1.2 16.1 

Signed a petition concerning the environment 70.4 6.3 1.5 0.6 0.4 20.9 

Attended a workshop to improve own 

understanding 68.9 9.2 1.5 0.4 0.6 19.4 

Volunteered time to an organization 69.2 4.8 1.2 1.2 2.6 21.0 

Joined an environmental group 69.3 3.5 1.0 0.3 0.6 25.3 

List of environmental groups 

Archeological and Historic Societies, Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, Audubon Society, Outdoor/Recreation Groups or 

Clubs, Sport or Hunting Groups, Wildlife Societies, Plant Societies, Green Peace, National Rifle Association, Sky Island 

Alliance, Sonoran Desert Group, Wilderness Societies, Natural Resource Defense Council, Miscellaneous. 

20
20. Where have you learned the most about Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge? (Check all that apply.) 

Source of Information Yes (%) No (%) 

Information kiosks 11.4 88.6 

Previous visits 36.2 63.8 

Friends/neighbors/relatives 43.8 56.2 

Organizational meetings 6.6 93.4 

Road signs 6.7 93.3 

Newspapers 8.8 91.2 

WWW or Internet 15.5 84.5 

Government/Refuge brochure 46.6 53.4 

Other Government agency 4.5 95.5 

Books and articles 29.5 70.5 

Local Chamber of Commerce 5.1 94.9 

Radio 0.1 99.9 

Television 1.3 98.7 

Other 14.5 85.5

Other sources of information 

Live or work in the area, clubs or associations, personal experience, Visitor Center or Headquarters, employees or local 

residents, maps, programs or educational purposes, campgrounds or RV parks, tours or articles, miscellaneous. 

20b. If you answered yes to the newspaper source above, please list the single source you used the most: 

Local Regional State 

66.1 27.1 6.8 

20c. If you answered yes to the WWW or Internet source above, please list the single website source you used the 

most:

% 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 40.2 

Other Federal Government sites 9.2 

GORP 5.7 

Other Recreational and club sites 6.9 

Miscellaneous 11.5 

Could not recall 26.4 

 Due to rounding, total is not exactly 100. 

Section 6. Visitor Demographics 

Please tell us something about yourself. These last few questions will help us in evaluating how well our sample 

represents visitors to the area and will only be used for the analysis of this study. 

21. Gender

66.4% Male 30.5 % Female 3.1% No Answer 

22. Your age 

53 (mean) 

55 (median) 

21
23. Are you employed? 

Yes 55.5% 

 Full-time (42.2) 

 Part-time (11.5) 

No 35.8% 

No answer 8.8% 

Retired 

 Yes 40.1 

 No 3.4 

24. What is your zip code? 

• A listing of national zip codes were used to assign respondents to the local (Pima county only), or NonLocal (outside Pima County or state) category. 

Locals (Pima County residents) 

Non-Locals (outside Pima County, AZ) 

24% 

76% 

25. What is your highest level of formal education? 

No formal education 0.1% 

Elementary School 0.1% 

Junior or middle school 0.1% 

High School 13.3% 

College or technical school 45.7% 

Graduate or professional school 38.0% 

No Answer 2.6% 

26. Do you take time off from work to participate in outdoor recreation? 

57.2% Yes 

22.0% No 

20.7% No answer 

27. How many weeks of paid vacation do you receive each year? 

0 weeks* 16.1% 

1 to 2 weeks 9.6% 

3 to 4 weeks 16.5% 

5 to 6 weeks 6.7% 

7 to 10 weeks 2.2% 

11 to 25 weeks 1.0% 

26 or more weeks* 4.2% 

*Mainly retired individuals

28. How many members are in your household? 

1 person 21.2% 

2 people 58.8% 

3 people 6.6% 

4 people 5.5% 

5 people 1.9% 

6 people 0.1% 

No Answer 5.5% 

22
29. Including these people, what was your approximate household income from all sources (before taxes) last year? 

< 10,000 2.2% 

10,000 to 14,999 2.8% 

15,000 to 24,999 6.6% 

25,000 to 34,999 10.7% 

35,000 to 49,999 16.8% 

50,000 to 74,999 20.7% 

75,000 to 99,999 13.7% 

100,000 to 149,999 9.6% 

>150,000 5.1% 

No answer 11.8% 

23
Appendix B 

Additional Comments 

24
The final page of the survey included a space for optional additional comments. The comments received in 

this section were many, and varied. See Figure 2, below, for a depiction of types of comments received. 

18%

18%

16% 15%

4%

29%

Border Issues (18%)

Scenic Beauty (18%)

Protect Resources (16%) 

Access (15%)

Wildlife (4%)

Misc (29%)

Figure 2. Open ended comments by category. 

Comments regarding border issues were primarily negative. Of greatest concern were fears for personal 

safety and resource damage due to both illegal traffic and border patrol activities. Several respondents noted that 

they did not blame the refuge or the border patrol for these problems. A comment that encompasses concerns voiced 

by a number of respondents follows: 

 “Border impact issues as well as off road damage are important. I had the misfortune of 

almost making contact with a smuggling operator near Papago well about 2 years ago. I 

understand it is a very complicated issue and that the desert suffers impact primarily 

from illegal activity as well from law enforcement. I would be concerned for my safety, 

but there is the pervasive feeling that the desert is less pristine because of these activities. 

I know that over time these activities will be woven into the tapestry of human history of 

the region which the refuge is part.” 

The category “scenic beauty” included an equal number of comments as the category “border issues” (63). 

Most of these comments referred to the importance that visitors placed on the natural beauty and solitude of the 

refuge. A typical comment follows: 

“This place offers endless opportunities to explore and enjoy the scenic beauty 

of a landscape so different and unique in this country and world. I feel that 

the character of the Cabeza is, in many ways, what draws me back time after 

time. Its environment, history, and rugged remoteness all add to that 

character.” 

The category “protect” included 55 comments. These statements were geared toward encouraging refuge 

managers to protect and preserve Cabeza Prieta. One respondent stated: 

“This is a wonderful place. Please keep it primitive. The visitors who truly 

appreciate wildlife won't mind the primitive nature. There are few places left 

where people can go to get away from stresses of urban life. The solitude, 

quiet, and biological value make this place worth preserving and never 

developing more. Keep roads gravel to discourage more disruptive uses. Thank 

you for your stewardship. “ 

25
Another visitor commented that: 

“Keep it as remote, isolated, least-visited and un-diminished as possible. 

Limited use, limited number of people and vehicles; even that is too much. 

The harshness, the beauty, the whole region; of these qualities are already too 

much endangered. Perhaps one can only dream? “ 

When respondents mentioned access as an issue, the comments were usually negative and focused on 

impediments to traveling on the refuge due to road closures for various reasons. A typical comment is: 

“Keep the roads rough – it keeps the numbers down. But let us drive where we 

want (on the road). I had wanted to drive the loop to Organ Pipe but they said 

the road was too rough – bah!! You let me decide, and if I blow it I'll walk out. 

It was winter, after all, no one would have died of heat stroke out there.” 

Another comment was: 

“First and foremost the access to the Cabeza Prieta by automobile needs to be 

expanded, as it is not accessible for most people otherwise. Much of the refuge 

may be off limits to automobiles but from Ajo only the road to Charlie Bell 

Ranch is open. I am willing to hike and I leave no trace while camping but I 

want to get into more of the refuge.” 

Some more specifically mentioned road closures: 

“Parts of this survey are blank because I did not make a trip to the NWR. I 

was planning on going but the time period I wanted to travel on large areas of 

the NWR were shut down, by virtue of road closures. The map I was sent 

mentioned the closures were for antelope protection. I have indicated on this 

survey that wildlife presence/protection is important, but I'm disappointed that 

the route I wanted to take was shut down. Are antelope really that sensitive to 

traffic on a remote road?” 

The next category of comments, wildlife, included 13 statements. Some were general statements (“Please 

protect wildlife”) and others concerned hunting on the refuge. Some of the hunting comments were positive and 

others were negative. 

Miscellaneous comments were more numerous than any other type. These comments were quite varied. 

Some mentioned the survey itself; others gave some context for the refuge visit; and many said things like, “Thanks 

for the good work. We enjoyed the refuge.”

Literature Cited 

Dillman, D., 2000, Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (2d ed): New York, J. Wiley and Sons. 

Olson, D., and Lindall, S., 1996, IMPLAN Professional Software, Analysis, and Data Guide: Minnesota IMPLAN 

Group, Inc. 

Stynes, D., 1998, Guidelines for measuring visitor spending: Department of Park Recreation and Tourism 

Resources, Michigan State University. 

Tiefenbacher, J.P., Day, F.A., and Walton, J.A., 2000, Attributes of repeat visitors to small tourist-oriented 

communities: The Social Science Journal, v. 37, no. 2, p. 299–308.

26