United States Department of Agriculture / Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research Station

Research Paper RMRS-RP-91

March 2012

The Boundary Waters Canoe Area 

Wilderness: Examining Changes in Use, 

Users, and Management Challenges

Robert G. Dvorak

Alan E. Watson

Neal Christensen

William T. Borrie

Ann Schwaller
You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your 

mailing information in label form through one of the following media. 

Please specify the publication title and number.

Publishing Services

Telephone (970) 498-1392

FAX (970) 498-1122

E-mail rschneider@fs.fed.us

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/rmrs

Mailing Address Publications Distribution

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 West Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526

Authors

Robert G. Dvorak, Assistant Professor, Central Michigan 

University, Mount Pleasant, MI, e-mail: dvora1rg@cmich.edu.

Alan E. Watson, Research Social Scientist, Aldo Leopold 

Wilderness Research Institute, USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT, e-mail: awatson@

fs.fed.us.

Dvorak, Robert G.; Watson, Alan E.; Christensen, Neal; Borrie, William T.; Schwaller, Ann. 2012. 

The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness: Examining changes in use, users, and 

management challenges. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 46 p.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine trends in use and user characteristics at the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Based on data from 1969, 1991, and 2007, the average 

age of visitors has increased significantly, education levels have increased, and visitors remain 

predominantly male. Visitors in 2007 report seeing twice as many groups since 1961 and 1991, 

but the number of encounters are not exceeding expectations. Findings emerged related to gender ratios and evaluating resource conditions. These findings may need further investigation and 

future management action to provide opportunities for meaningful wilderness experiences while 

protecting wilderness character.

Keywords: wilderness users, user trends, experiences, encounters

Neal Christensen, Social Scientist, Christensen Research 

Company, Missoula, MT, e-mail: neal@ChristensenResearch.

com.

William T. Borrie, Professor, University of Montana, Missoula, 

MT, e-mail: bill.borrie@umontana.edu.

Ann Schwaller, Natural Resource Wilderness Specialist, Superior National Forest, Duluth, MN, email: annschwaller@fs.fed.us.

Cover photos: Top left: Lake 3 in July 2010 (photo by Robert Truax). Top right: Informational signage at entry point #30 Lake 

One during fire restrictions in the summer of 2007 (photo by Bob Dvorak). Middle: Lake Polly in 2007 (photo by Bob Dvorak). 

Bottom left: An approaching storm on Lake 4 in July 2010 (photo by Bob Dvorak). Bottom right: Superior National Forest staff 

at the Kawishiwi permit station (photo by Bob Dvorak).
Introduction................................................................................................................1

Study Location ....................................................................................................2

Previous BWCAW Research.....................................................................................2

1969 Visitor Use Study .......................................................................................2

1991 Trends Study..............................................................................................3

Methodology ..............................................................................................................3

Sample Population..............................................................................................3

Sampling.............................................................................................................3

On-Site Interview and Mailings ...........................................................................6

Response Rates and Non-response Bias..................................................6

Results........................................................................................................................7

1969-1991-2007 Trends Analysis .......................................................................7

Visitor Demographics.............................................................................................7

Age ........................................................................................................................7

Education...............................................................................................................7

Gender...................................................................................................................8

Membership in Outdoor Recreation or Conservation Organizations .....................8

Previous Wilderness Experience...........................................................................8

Frequency of Wilderness Trips ..............................................................................8

Trip Characteristics................................................................................................9

Group Size and Composition.................................................................................9

Length of Overnight Trips ......................................................................................9

Number of Groups Seen........................................................................................9

Crowding Perceptions..........................................................................................10

1991-2007 Trends Analysis ..............................................................................10

Trip Features .......................................................................................................10

Method of Travel.................................................................................................. 11

Participation in Fishing......................................................................................... 11

Use of Fuel for Cooking and Woodfires............................................................... 11

Inter-Group Encounters ....................................................................................... 11

Encounter Levels.................................................................................................12

Expectations for Encounters................................................................................12

Resource Impacts Issues ....................................................................................12

Evaluations of Wear and Tear..............................................................................14

New Issues Researched in 2007 ......................................................................14

Wilderness Permits..............................................................................................14

User Fees ............................................................................................................14

Recent Events .....................................................................................................17

Table of Contents
Day Visitor Respondents Profile in 2007 ..........................................................17

Visitor Characteristics ..........................................................................................18

Wilderness Experience........................................................................................18

Trip Characteristics..............................................................................................19

Encounter Levels.................................................................................................19

Evaluation of Resource Conditions......................................................................19

Additional Management Issues............................................................................19

Wilderness Permits..............................................................................................19

Recreation Fees ..................................................................................................20

Recent Events ................................................................................................... 20

Discussion ............................................................................................................. 22

Gender Ratio Stability..................................................................................... 22

Demographic Trends ...................................................................................... 22

Organization Membership............................................................................... 23

Shifts in Fishing .............................................................................................. 23

Resource Condition Evaluation ...................................................................... 24

Inter-Group Encounters and Expectations...................................................... 24

Sampling Day Visitor Respondents ................................................................ 26

Conclusions........................................................................................................... 26

References ............................................................................................................. 27

Appendix ................................................................................................................ 28
USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012 1

Introduction

The Wilderness Act of 1964 directs that wilderness be 

managed to preserve natural conditions and to provide 

outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation. The “established statement of policy” of this Act also indicates that the National 

Wilderness Preservation System is to be administered 

for the use and enjoyment of the American people in 

such a manner as will leave these areas unimpaired for 

future use and enjoyment as wilderness. To meet these 

management goals, managers must adapt their programs 

to changes in the amount and type of use and resulting 

conditions from that use.

Unfortunately, we know little about trends in the 

characteristics, activities, and preferences of visitors to 

wilderness and other wild lands. We conduct wilderness 

research often with the intent that one study at one point 

in time will guide management of a single wilderness or 

provide input for wilderness management in the same 

region for many years. In only a few instances have data 

collected been replicated to increase understanding of 

how changes in visitors, attitudes, or management might 

inform revisions to management planning. For example, 

Lucas (1985) and Borrie and McCool (2007) provided 

results from repeat studies at the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex in Montana. These studies, however, 

mostly represent only large western wilderness areas 

characterized by heavy stock, hunting, and fall use. 

Thus, it is difficult to draw conclusions about likely 

trends in other wilderness areas around the country 

based on repeat studies in Montana.

Cole and others (1995) combined findings from earlier 

repeat Bob Marshall Complex studies with coordinated 

repeat studies at the Desolation Wilderness in California, 

Shining Rock Wilderness in North Carolina, and the 

Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in Minnesota. 

While these studies did include sites from the West, the 

South, and the Upper Midwest of the United States, 

there was no Alaska site available for a repeat study. 

They concluded that only 5 out of 83 wilderness use and 

user characteristics investigated changed consistently 

in these four wildernesses over time. These changes in 

use and user characteristics reflected that visitors were 

older, had achieved more education, the proportion of 

females increased, and the proportion of visitors who 

had been to other wildernesses was higher. Condition 

of litter in wilderness also consistently improved, but 

perhaps the most dramatic change was the decrease 

in wilderness participation by individuals under 25 

years old. Some variables, such as previous experience 

in a specific wilderness and participation in hunting, 

increased substantially in some of these wildernesses 

but decreased substantially in others.

Cole and others (1995) suggest that, across time, the 

characteristics of people who visit wilderness have 

changed more than the types of trips they take, their 

evaluations of the conditions they encounter, or their preferences for conditions and management. Some evidence 

suggested that solo visitors were more common in the 

later studies and organized groups were less common. 

Groups seemed to be getting smaller and reported stays 

were shorter. All of these changes are subtle at best; in 

most cases, differences were not statistically significant.

Cole and others (1995) encouraged managers to be 

skeptical of broad generalizations about wilderness 

visitor trends that are occasionally advanced. Their 

findings suggest that little evidence exists to support 

the idea that the wilderness visitors of the 1990s or the 

trips they took were substantially different from those 

of a decade or two earlier. In the cases where there is a 

belief that important changes occur, change can only be 

accurately determined by conducting additional visitor 

studies specific to wildernesses of interest.

The Boundary Waters Canoe Area 

Wilderness: Examining Changes in Use, 

Users, and Management Challenges

Robert G. Dvorak

Alan E. Watson

Neal Christensen

William T. Borrie

Ann Schwaller
2 USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012

Baseline and trend studies of visitor use, impacts and 

preferences were conducted at the Boundary Waters 

Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) in Minnesota in 

the 1960s and the 1990s. The information collected 

during these studies established objectives for visitor 

and resource management and developed wilderness and 

backcountry management strategies. A need existed, and 

an opportunity arose, to conduct an update on trends 

and current use information at the BWCAW. Managers 

need to know how visitors and their visits have changed 

to adapt management strategies to changing societal 

interests and needs.

The purpose of this research report is to examine 

trends in use and user characteristics at the Boundary 

Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) and to update knowledge about current visitors. While this report 

primarily focuses on trends analysis across two or three 

study points, this research also examined several issues 

not included in previous trends studies: the effects of 

recent wildfires, recreation visitor fees, and tree blowdown events on visits and visitors as well as day use.

Study Location

The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness is a 

1,086,953-acre wilderness located on the Superior National Forest of northern Minnesota in the United States 

(USFS 2011). Comprising more than three million acres 

of land, water, and rock, the Superior National Forest 

spans 199 miles along the United States-Canadian Border 

and contains over 445,000 acres of surface water (USFS 

2004). The BWCAW is a northern forest community of 

pine, fir, aspen, birch, sugar maple, and spruce trees and 

is home to numerous wildlife including deer, moose, 

beaver, gray wolves, otter, and black bear. This area has 

been highly visited for canoeing, camping and fishing 

for many years preceding Wilderness designation in 

1964 (Figure 1).

The passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964 officially 

designated the BWCAW as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. The BWCAW is the largest 

designated wilderness area east of the Mississippi River 

and is managed to retain its enduring value as wilderness and provide activities compatible with wilderness 

character (USFS 2004). In 1978, the Boundary Waters 

Canoe Area Wilderness Act added additional acreage 

to the wilderness, prohibited logging, created a mining 

protection area, and eliminated much of the motorized 

watercraft use (USFS 2004). This 1978 legislation also 

directed the Forest Service to establish quotas for motorboat use and to eliminate snowmobiling.

Previous BWCAW Research

Numerous wilderness recreation and resource management studies have been conducted in the BWCAW. These 

studies date back to at least the 1960s and include visitor 

impacts on newly developed campsites (Merriam and 

Smith 1974), studies to understand how visitors evaluate 

social conditions they encounter at the Boundary Waters 

Canoe Area Wilderness (Stankey 1973), investigations of 

perceptions of wilderness conditions related to previous 

experience (Watson and Cronin 1994), influences on 

opportunities for solitude (Watson 1995), and human 

response to large-scale natural disturbances (Lime 2000). 

Data from two of these previous studies are of particular 

interest and provide a basis to understand some trends 

in use and users at the Boundary Waters Canoe Area 

Wilderness.

1969 Visitor Use Study

George Stankey conducted the baseline visitor study 

for Boundary Waters visitors in 1969 (Stankey 1971) as 

a Ph.D. dissertation, which was included in a later Forest 

Service Research Publication (Stankey 1973). As a Forest 

Service scientist, Stankey studied visitors to three other 

areas, combining results for these three areas with results 

from the Boundary Waters Canoe Area into one report 

in 1973. With slightly less than 500 visitors contacted 

across the four areas, the initial sample for the BWCAW 

was only about 150 (73% response rate), all overnight 

users. However, while the dissertation presented very 

detailed information on BWCAW visitors, Stankey 

Figure 1—The Boundary Waters Canoe Area was highly visited 

for canoeing, camping and fishing for many years preceding 

Wilderness designation in 1964.
USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012 3

(1973) focused mostly on perceptions of crowding and 

attitudes toward use level management across the four 

areas studied. While the 1969 study tended towards 

high use visitors and did not examine as many diverse 

issues as future studies, it still explored those issues 

most critical to management at that time.

1991 Trends Study

Cole and others (1995) examined trends in wilderness 

visitors and visits for the BWCAW in 1991, with a sample 

that attempted to replicate the methods of Stankey’s 

1969 study. The comparative 1991 sample included 

only those who entered through the same 14 moderate 

and heavy use portals sampled in 1969 (n = 215, 74% 

response rate). Data were collected from other portals, 

however, with a full data set of 295 (74% response rate) 

representing approximately 25% each from very high, 

high, moderate, and low use access points, extending 

beyond the data set used in the trends publication (Watson 1995; Watson and Cronn 1994). The intent of this 

full sample was to provide the best snapshot of all use, 

going beyond the purpose of the trend study to provide 

the most accurate picture of use as possible. Sampled 

permits were in proportion to actual use that occurred, 

trying to move away from over-representation of high 

use visitors as was apparent in the 1969 study. In both 

1969 and 1991, collected data were only for overnight 

visitors as use was heavy and emphasis was on controlling 

resource and social impacts of the dominant, overnight 

use.

The Cole and others (1995) comparative analysis 

showed that many sociodemographic variables of 

BWCAW visitors changed significantly between 1969 

and 1991. Specifically, the average age of respondents, 

higher achieved levels of education, and income had 

increased substantially. This is consistent with larger 

trends across other wilderness areas. However, gender 

proportions across samples remained the same, with 

the proportion of female visitors unchanged at just less 

than 30% (Cole and others 1995).The only significant 

change in visit characteristics between 1969 and 1991 

was an increase in the proportion of groups that contained family members (1969 = 43%, 1991 = 53%). No 

changes in group type, group size and length of stay 

were significant. Changes also existed in perceptions of 

crowding reported between the 1969 and 1991 studies. 

More 1991 visitors felt the BWCAW was crowded in at 

least a few places (1969 = 31%, 1991 = 56%) (Cole and 

others 1995). Visitors in 1991 were also more likely to 

find it unpleasant to meet more than two paddle groups 

per day and increasing encounters affected them more 

negatively than 1969 visitors.

Methodology

The design for the 2007 trends study was informed 

by previous peer reviewed BWCAW studies conducted 

in 1969 and 1991 (Cole and others. 1995; Stankey 1971, 

1973; Watson 1995) as well as by current knowledge 

about distribution of recreation use in the BWCAW, 

commitment to continually improve sampling methods, 

and input from Superior National Forest wilderness staff.

Sample Population

The population of interest for this study was current 

adult visitors (>15 years old) to the BWCAW during 

the peak season of May 1st to September 30th 2007. As 

of 2007, managers estimated total visitation per year 

at more than 250,000 visits (Figure 2). Permit data 

suggest that at least 130,000 day and multi-day visits 

occur during the peak period. For the 2007 study, an 

additional visitor population was sampled: day visitors. 

This supplemental sample developed primarily due to 

Figure 2—In 2007, managers estimated total Boundary 

Waters Canoe Area Wilderness visitation at more 

than 250,000 visits per year.
4 USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012

manager perceptions that day use has changed and that 

a better understanding of day use patterns and day visitors themselves was necessary.

Sampling

The 1969 visitor sample (n = 152,73% response rate) 

resulted from contacts on-site as they finished their 

BWCAW trips and were asked to either complete a 

questionnaire at that time or provide contact information 

for later mailing of a questionnaire (see Stankey 1971, 

1973). The 1991 study obtained over 200 usable surveys 

at the busiest entry points. Central permit distribution 

locations targeted lower use sites for a total sample of 

295 (74% response rate) (see Watson 1995). Visitors 

completed a short on-site interview to collect information on a front-end form for later mailing of a post trip 

questionnaire.

Sampling from 1991 informed the 2007 sampling 

design. However, allocated permit data1 and self-issue 

permit data were examined to represent the population 

more accurately. 2006 permit data suggested a difference 

1 Not all permits are redeemed, but it is assumed actual use is in 

proportion to allocated permits

in permit allocation based on both month and entry point 

(Pearson’s χ

2

=361.309, df= 64, p<.001). That is, permits 

were not uniformly issued by month or entry point, and 

thus a sampling design using only entry points could 

potentially lead to oversampling. Thus, sampling days 

were stratified simultaneously across both entry points 

and months during the peak season to account for this 

relationship. Seventy-six sample days were selected, 

which accounted for 50% of the days during the 142-day 

peak season.

The proportion of day and overnight use across all 

entry points was also determined using visitor population 

estimates. Day use was estimated using 2004 self-issue 

permit data for day visitor paddlers2

 and 2006 permit data 

for day visitor motorists. Overnight use was estimated 

only using 2006 allocated permit data (which included 

both motorized and non-motorized use). Based on these 

data, estimated overnight use accounted for 60% of total 

use, while day use accounted for 40%. These proportions 

were used to weight the primary sampling schedule.

Because random sampling at each of the 74 entry points 

(Figure 3) was logistically and practically impossible, 

2

 Self-issue permit data for 2005-2006 was not yet available.

Figure 3—Map of Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and entry points (retrieved June 17, 2008 from http://www.fs.fed.

us/r9/forests/superior/bwcaw/documents/EPMap.pdf).
USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012 5

Table 1—Visitor population estimates for Top 17 entry points.

 Over-night Day use Day use Day use Total % of 

Entry point 2006 motor 2006 paddle 2004 hike 2004 people total visits Cum %

- - - - - percent- - - - - -

25-Moose Lake 9,196 8,300 3,263 20,759 16 16

24-Fall Lake 3,938 5,895 1,027 10,860 9 25

55-Saganaga Lake 3,722 5,344 454 22 9,543 8 33

30-Lake One 8,200 1,085 9,285 7 40

38-Sawbill Lake 4,831 1,584 6,415 5 45

27-Snowbank Lake 3,151 401 376 3,928 3 48

01-Trout Lake 2,143 1,710 18 3,872 3 51

54-Seagull Lake 2,215 143 808 3,166 3 54

79-Eagle Mountain 32 0 2,972 3,004 2 56

16-Moose River 2,916 76 2,992 2 58

60-Duncan Lake 1,112 994 884 2,990 2 61

37-Kawishiwi Lake 2,576 275 2,851 2 63

23-Mudro Lake 2,530 267 2,797 2 65

41-Brule Lake 2,323 372 12 2,707 2 67

14-L. Indian Sioux 2,495 198 2,693 2 69

77-South Hegman 567 1,873 71 2,511 2 71

31-From Farm Lake 1,042 1,184 47 2,273 2 73

Table 2—Permit distribution locations.

Town Ranger District # of Sample days

Cook, MN La Croix 7

Ely, MN Kawishiwi 43

Tofte, MN Tofte 9

Grand Marais, MN Gunflint 16

the developed on-site sampling schedule included the 

busiest 17 entry/exit points. These points account for 

more than 70% of the total use during the peak season. 

Table 1 shows the 17 entry points sampled along with 

estimates of their types and levels of use during the 

peak season. Numbers preceding entry point names 

(e.g., 25-Moose Lake) represent their location on the 

map in Figure 3.

Sampling at entry points was for half days, alternating 

between entry hours (7:30-11:30 a.m.) and exit hours of 

the day (3-7 p.m.). The other half day was used to sample 

visitors prior to entry at overnight permit distribution 

centers, also known as permit issuing stations, alternating between opening (7-11 a.m.) and closing business 

hours (1-5 p.m.). This method was the most efficient 

for reaching overnight visitors who used low use entry 

points (as well as to contact visitors who launched from 

private sites not otherwise sampled). Four centralized 

communities, each having both Forest Service and private 

cooperator permit distribution, were used for centralized 

sampling (Table 2). The centralized location closest to 

the primary entry point for that day was used during 

the alternate half days.

On-Site Interview and Mailings

The primary purpose of the on-site interview was 

to collect contact information from all visitors in the 

group who were over 15 years of age so that they could 

be mailed a survey after they returned home from their 

trip (Figure 4). The secondary purpose was to provide an 

opportunity to make face-to-face contact with potential 

respondents and reinforce the importance of the research 

to them. Separate questionnaire formats were mailed to 

visitors, depending upon the type of trip they were on 

when contacted, overnight or day use.
6 USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012

Approximately 2 weeks after the onsite interview, 

a survey packet was mailed to individuals. Packets 

included a cover letter describing the study in detail, a 

questionnaire to be completed, and a pre-paid envelope 

to return the questionnaire. Packet mailings followed 

a modified Dillman (2007) approach, with a reminder/

thank you postcard sent 1 week after the first mailing 

and a replacement questionnaire and letter sent 2 weeks 

after the postcard. Any undeliverable or duplicate packets 

were noted and removed from future mailings.

Response Rates and Non-response Bias

A total of 811 questionnaires were returned, for a 

67.6% overall response rate (Table 3). After adjusting 

for unusable questionnaires, the sample consisted of 613 

overnight and 186 day use completed questionnaires. 

Non-response checks were performed on the overnight 

and day use samples to investigate any possible bias 

between respondents and non-respondents. The variables 

of comparison were Number of Previous Visits to the 

BWCAW and Year of 1st Visit. Across the samples, results 

from independent sample t-tests suggest no significant 

differences between respondents and non-respondents 

for Number of Previous Visits to the BWCAW at p = 

0.05. However, significant differences were present 

between non-respondents and respondents for Year of 

1

st Visit in the overnight respondents (Table 4). Closer 

examination of this difference represents a mean difference of 4-5 years, biasing the sample toward an earlier 

year of first visit for respondents. First-time BWCAW 

users also represented the largest category (16%) for the 

Year of 1st Visit variable in the overnight respondents. 

Additionally weighting the sample toward first-time 

visitors would be overemphasizing an already substantial 

segment and inappropriate. Thus, differences were not 

interpreted to be practically significant.

Figure 4—In 2007, a sample of BWCAW visitors were contacted to 

update knowledge about use and user characteristics.

Table 3—Distribution and response rates of questionnairesa.

Questionnaire Response

format Distributed Returned rate

Overnight 903 613 69.2%

Day use 296 186 67.1%

Total 1,199 811 67.6% 

a Response rates adjusted for undeliverable mailings.

Table 4—Significant differences for Year of 1st Visit.

Overnight Mean Std. dev

questionnaire year (in years) t-value

Respondents (n = 602) 1990 14.163 -4.689

Non-respondents (n = 285) 1994 13.029 P < 0.001
USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012 7

Results

The following section describes the trends analysis 

results from the data collected for the overnight questionnaires. Results are presented first for those items with 

data from 1969, 1991, and 2007. Then, items with only 

1991 and 2007 data are presented. Lastly, day visitor 

respondent data for these same variables are presented.

It is important that overnight and day use results should 

not be directly compared to one another. While the 

sample of overnight respondents is arguably representative of overnight visitors during the 2007 peak season, 

the sample of day visitor respondents is not. Examination of recent permit data suggests day use accounts for 

approximately 40% of all BWCAW use. While the 186 

day visitor questionnaires provide new insight into this 

type of BWCAW use not previously examined, it is not 

appropriate to generalize the day use results to all day 

visitors of the BWCAW.

It is also important that the reader should consider 

both statistically significant differences and practical 

significance when examining results. Statistical significance and the effect size of differences are sensitive to 

sample size. A limitation of this study is the proportionate 

differences in sample size across years. Thus, relatively 

small differences may be statistically significant, but 

represent less practical significance. These are important 

points for consideration when interpreting results.

Finally, 95% confidence intervals are provided in the 

results, where applicable3

. These intervals are interpreted 

such that with 95% confidence, the means and percentages reported are within the ranges given.

1969-1991-2007 Trends Analysis

Visitor Demographics—Respondents were asked 

several questions in the mail-back questionnaire that 

were included to provide trends in demographic characteristics of overnight visitors to the BWCAW across 

all three data sets: education, proportion of students, 

gender, membership in environmental/outdoor recreation 

organizations, and visitors’ past wilderness experience.

Age—Respondents reported their age on their last 

birthday. While the 1969 sample reported an average 

age of 26, and the average age in 1991 had increased 

to 36, in 2007 this average had increased further to 45 

(Table 5). About two-thirds of overnight visitors in 2007 

described themselves as being 40 years of age or older.

Education—Respondents reported their highest attained level of education (Table 6). Approximately 73% 

of overnight respondents in 2007 had attained at least 

3

 For questions with multiple response categories (e.g. family, 

friends, alone), confidence intervals cannot be easily calculated

Table 5—Sociodemographic characteristics of overnight visitors.

Year Mean age Med. education Students % Females % Conserv. Org %

1969 26 12 47 25 12

 (±1.5) (±6.0%) (±5.2%) (±3.9%)

1991 36 16 18 30 35

 (±1.3) (±3.7%) (±4.4%) (±4.6%)

2007 45 16 11 25 29

 (±1.1) (±2.4%) (±3.5%) (±3.6%)

Significance <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.22 <0.001

Table 6—Percentage of overnight visitors for education levels.

Not high High school Median

Year school grad grad Some college College grad Grad study (years)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1969 20 31 29 5 15 12

1991 0 16 24 16 44 16

2007 1 5 20 33 40 16
8 USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012

an undergraduate college degree. Further, a large portion of respondents reported having attended graduate 

school, with 33% of overnight visitors having completed 

a graduate degree. Only about 1% had completed less 

education than a high school diploma. Respondents 

reported if they currently were a student at the time of 

their visit (Table 5). Trends are toward fewer students 

in the BWCAW. While the sample in 1969 (age 16 or 

older) were almost half students (47%), this proportion 

dropped to less than one-fifth (18%) in 1991 and dropped 

further to only about one-tenth of the sample (11%) by 

2007.

While overall education attainment medians seem to 

have risen between 1969 (12 years) and 1991 (16 years) 

and then remained stable (Table 5), more specific 

examination shows a substantial increase in college 

graduates in 2007 (Table 6). This proportion increased 

from 5% in 1969 to 16% in 1991 and to 33% in 2007. 

This change accompanies a change from 20% to 1% of 

visitors reporting not graduating from high school.

Gender—Nearly three-quarters of surveyed overnight visitors in 2007 were male (Table 5). While this 

number is high, it has not increased significantly. The 

proportion of females appears to have remained stable 

at the BWCAW over time, with fluctuation over the past 

40 years remaining between 25 and 30 percent of the 

overnight visitors.

Membership in Outdoor Recreation or Conservation Organizations—From 1969 to 1991, there 

were dramatic increases in the proportion of visitors 

who reported being members of outdoor recreation or 

conservation organizations. This proportion increased 

from 12% of visitors who reported such memberships 

in 1969, to 35% in 1991. However, this trend did not 

continue to 2007. The 2007 sample reported a slight, but 

significant reduction to 29% of the visitors holding such 

memberships. In 2007, the most common organizations 

listed were the National Audubon Society, Sierra Club, 

Nature Conservancy, Boy Scouts of America, Ducks 

Unlimited, and the Friends of the Boundary Waters.

Previous Wilderness Experience—While nearly 

one-third of visitors in 1969 were on their first trip to 

the BWCAW, this number dropped to 12% in 1991 and 

dropped further to only 6% in 2007 (Table 7). In 2007, 

overnight visitors reported an average of roughly 12 

previous visits to the BWCAW. Just less than half of the 

visitors in 1969 had visited other wildernesses besides 

the BWCAW at that time, but this rose to 57% by 1991 

and 75% by 2007 (Table 7).

Frequency of Wilderness Trips—About 68% of overnight visitors reported taking a wilderness trip at least 

once a year in 2007. Visitors in 1991 reported similar 

numbers, with also about 67% taking wilderness trips 

at least once per year. In 1969, the reported number was 

67% (Table 8). However, the proportion taking more than 

one wilderness trip per year decreased significantly from 

44% in 1969 to 34% in 1991 and further decreased to 

31% in 2007 (Table 8).

Table 7—Percentage of overnight visitors with previous wilderness experience.

 Wilderness experience 1969 1991 2007 Significance Test

First time to BWCAW 30 12 6

(±5.5%) (±3.1%) (±1.8%) <0.001 X2

 

Experience in other wildernesses 47 57 75

(±7.1%) (±4.8%) (±3.5%) <0.001 X2

Table 8—Percentage of overnight visitors indicating typical wilderness visitation.

Wilderness trip frequency

Less than once About once About once More than once

Year every 2 years every 2 years per year per year

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - percent- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1969 25 8 23 44

1991 15 18 33 34

2007 22 10 37 31

X2

, p<0.001
USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012 9

Trip Characteristics—There were also variables in 

all three studies that described the visitor’s trip. These 

included group size and group composition, the length 

of overnight trips, number of people they saw while they 

traveled or camped, and reporting of crowded conditions.

Group Size and Composition—In 1969 the average 

group size was 5.2 people per party, by 1991 it had 

dropped to 4.5 and decreased only slightly to 4.4 by 

2007 (Table 9). Between the 1991 and 2007 studies, the 

party size limit reduced from 10 persons to 9. Though 

there are groups that meet the maximum size limit of 

nine people and four boats, they do not dominate use. 

While the average group size has decreased over the 

three studies, possibly due to changes in group size 

limits, the trend has also been for more solo trips, 

though numbers of solo visitors remains very low and 

no significant increase was found at the BWCAW since 

1991 (Table 9).

Groups in 2007 were more likely to describe themselves as composed of family members (68.7%) than 

in 1969 and 1991, when less than half described their 

groups that way (Table 9). Only 5.1% of overnight 

groups described themselves as an organization or 

club in 2007, a significant decrease from 1991 (9.9%) 

and 1969 (11.1%).

Length of Overnight Trips—The average length of 

stay for overnight visitors increased over the time of 

these studies (Table 9). While the change is not large, a 

consistent, significant trend from 4.0 nights in 1969 to 

4.2 nights in 1991 and to 4.4 nights in 2007 was evident 

(p = 0.035).

Number of Groups Seen—Respondents in all three 

studies estimated the number of other groups they saw 

during their trip (Table 10). The total number of groups 

they reported was divided by the number of days of 

their trip as an average estimate of social conditions 

they found on their trips. No difference was reported 

between 1969 (4.1 groups seen per day) and 1991 (4.2 

groups seen per day); however, the number more than 

doubled by 2007 to 8.6 groups per day.

Visitors also reported the number of large groups 

they saw during their trip. This number also increased 

dramatically from 1969, when the average per day was 

only about one-half of a group (or one group every other 

day). By 2007, this number increased to 4.2 groups on 

average per day. The definitions also changed over the 

years due to changes in group size limits. A large group 

in 1969 was defined as more than nine members, in 

1991, it was more than 10 people and in 2007, it was 

not defined.

Table 9—Summary statistics of overnight visitors on trip characteristics. 

Visit characteristics 1969 1991 2007 Significance Test

Solo visitors (%) 0.5 1.9 2.3 0.17 X2

Organized groups (%) 11.1 9.9 5.1 0.002 X2

Groups with family members (%) 43.3 47.6 68.7 <0.001 X2

Mean group size (people) 5.2 4.5 4.4

(±0.69) (±0.29) (±0.17) 0.003 ANOVA

Mean length of stay (nights) 4.0 4.2 4.4

(±0.39) (±0.22) (±0.15) 0.035 ANOVA

Table 10—Summary statistics of overnight visitors for social conditions. 

 Social condition 1969 1991 2007 Significance

Mean number of other groups/day 4.1 4.2 8.6 0.002

Mean number of large groups/daya 0.5 0.1 4.2

a Large groups defined as: 1969: >9; 1991: >10; 2007: not defined.
10 USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012

Crowding Perceptions—Respondents reported 

whether they felt the BWCAW was too crowded 

(Table 11). A significant change in response to this question was found, with fewer than 40% saying they did 

not experience crowded conditions in 2007, decreasing 

from 44% in 1991 and from 72% in 1969. Over half felt 

it was crowded in at least a few places in 2007, a big 

change from 1969 when only 24% reported crowding 

in at least a few places. Consistently, fewer than 10% 

in all three studies reporting crowding in most places 

they visited on their trips, though it went up from 2% 

in 1969 to 9% in 2007. Of the individuals who felt it 

was crowded at least in some places in 2007, 81% were 

either a little or moderately bothered by the amount of 

people (compared to 56% in 1991 and 84% in 1969). 

Only 12% were bothered a lot in 2007. Only 2% reported 

in 2007 that they changed the length of their trip due 

to crowding, while 17% changed the route of their trip. 

Finally, 28% of all overnight visitors in 2007 reported 

crowding would affect their plans to visit the BWCAW.

1991-2007 Trends Analysis

In 1991, it was apparent that there were additional issues 

that needed to be included in a survey of visitors that 

managers wanted to know about but were not included 

in the 1969 study. This was because the 1969 study was 

for a purpose other than solely establishing a baseline for 

comparison and tracking trends. Therefore, additional 

questions were added in 1991 to describe better the trip, 

what visitors encountered there, and how they evaluated 

what they found. The 2007 survey obtained responses 

to many of these questions first asked in 1991 to allow 

analysis of change across at least these two points in time. 

A small number of additional demographic questions 

were included in both studies, but some are difficult to 

compare due to changing categories of responses.

First, race or ethnicity was included in 1991 and 2007, 

but not in 1969. Very simply, in both years the responding 

visitors were about 97% white, with very low numbers 

indicating Hispanic origin. Similarly, there was very 

low representation of American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian and Pacific Islander. No African American 

respondents completed surveys in either 1991 or 2007. 

The second question difficult to compare across studies 

was actually in all three surveys: household income. Response categories at the time of each study corresponded 

closely to categories used in U.S. Census surveys; those 

changed, making comparisons difficult. However, in 

1990 dollars, a median income can be estimated to have 

changed from $31,500 in 1969 to $43,000 in 1991 and 

to $44,000 in 2007. Nearly half of current overnight 

visitors described their annual household income as 

ranging from $60,000 to $120,000 in 2007 dollars. 

Approximately 6% of overnight visitors described their 

income as less than $20,000 annually.

One more demographic question introduced in 1991 

and repeated in 2007 was about the type of residence of 

visitors (type of community they live in now) and where 

they grew up (to age 18). The trend from these data 

(Table 12) indicate that visitors today at the BWCAW 

are about half as likely to have grown up on a farm, 

much more likely to have grown up in a major city or 

metro area and are also more likely to live in a major 

city or metro area of over 1 million people.

Trip Features—Particular features of the trip were 

examined in 1991 and 2007. These included the method 

of travel on the trip, participation in fishing, and use of 

fuel for cooking and woodfires.

Table 11—Percentage of overnight visitors indicating 

crowding opinions.

Visitor opinion 1969 1991 2007

- - - - - - - percent - - - - - - - 

Not overcrowded 72 44 38

Crowded in a few places 24 47 51

Crowded in most places 2 8 9

Did not notice 2 2 2

X2

 p < 0.0001

Table 12—Percentage of overnight visitors current and childhood place of residence.

Childhood Current

Type of community 1991 2007 1991 2007

- - - - - - - - - - percent - - - - - - - - - -

Agricultural farm/ranch 24.1 12.2 5.8 3.9

Rural or small town 11.2 14.4 13.6 17.1

Town, large village 26.1 11.7 6.9 8.8

 (1,000-5,000)

Small city ( 13.2 27.2 19.6 25.8

 5,000-50,000)

Medium city 25.4 18.3 22.0 21.5

 (50,000- 1 million)

Major city or metro area 0 16.2 12.7 23.0

 (over 1 million)
USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012 11

Method of Travel—While our samples included different proportions of visitors who reported using private 

non-motorized boats for their trips, (72% in 1991 and 

68% in 2007), this did not represent a significant shift 

in method of travel. The increase from 18% renting 

non-motorized boats in 1991 to 26% in 2007, however, 

was a significant increase (Table 13). Less than 40% of 

overnight visitors in 2007 used the services or purchased 

supplies from an outfitter. Only 6% of overnight groups 

describe themselves as fully outfitted. Our sample also 

included a much lower proportion of private motorized 

users in 2007 (5%) than our sample in 1991 (11%).

Participation in Fishing—Fishing is a major activity 

in the BWCAW. While not an exclusive BWCAW wilderness value, it is a common activity of engagement and a 

big part of experiences there. We asked two questions 

about fishing in 1991 and 2007 in order to follow some 

trends in engagement and the role of fishing in trips 

there. From 1991 to 2007, the reported proportion of 

respondents who fished during their trip dropped from 

83% to 77%. This was a significant change (Table 14). 

We also asked them if they fished, whether it was a 

priority for the trip. Of those that fished, there was also 

a significant decrease in the importance they attached 

to it (47% described the fishing as a major reason for 

going on the trip in 1991, 35% in 2007).

Use of Fuel for Cooking and Woodfires—With 

substantial concern about woodfire resource impacts 

in BWCAW campsites, a set of questions in 1991 was 

introduced to document the type of reported fuels used 

for cooking and frequency of woodfires for other purposes than cooking. The proportion of visitors who use 

gas stoves for cooking drastically increased from 1991 

to 2007 (63% to 91%) (Figure 5, Table 14). The number 

of cooking fires correspondingly decreased and the 

number of evening fires that were not for cooking but 

instead for sitting around and enjoying, decreased from 

nearly 2 on average per trip to closer to 1 (Table 14).

Inter-group Encounters—Most items studied in 1991 

and 2007 concerned what the visitors encountered on 

their trips and their evaluations of what they encountered. These included encounter levels, how encounters 

matched their expectations for encounters, problems 

potentially needing management attention, and evaluations of “general” wear and tear on the resource.

Table 13—Percentage of overnight visitors indicating method of travel.

Method of travel 1991 2007 Significance Test

Private non-motorized 72 68

(±5.2%) (±3.7%) 0.264 t-test

Rented non-motorized 18 26

(±4.3%) (±3.5%) 0.0057 t-test

Private motorboat 11 5

(±3.6%) (±1.7%) 0.0024 t-test

Table 14—Percentage of overnight visitors indicating trip features. 

 Trip feature 1991 2007 Significance Test

Fished 83 77 0.024 t-test

(±4.7%) (±3.3%) 

Fishing a priority 47 35 <0.001 t-test

(±6.3%) (±3.8%) 

Used gas stove 63 91 <0.001 t-test

(±5.6%) (±2.2%) 

Number of cook fires 3.5 1.7 <0.001 t-test

(±.43) (±.26) 

Number of evening fires for enjoyment 1.8 1.4 0.004 t-test

(±.24) (±.16)
12 USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012

Encounter Levels—From 1991 to 2007, visitors 

reported seeing significantly more groups that camped 

within sight or sound of their own campsites and more 

groups traveling past within sight or sound of their 

campsites (Table 15). This last encounter element more 

than doubled from 4.8 for the trip in 1991 to 11.3 in 2007. 

The number of groups that were camped within sight 

or sound of their campsites increased less dramatically, 

but still significantly.

Visitors were also asked, in both years, to estimate 

the minimum number of groups they saw from their 

campsites and traveling past their campsite, within sight 

or sound. Mixed results were reported, with numbers 

doubling for encounters with people traveling past their 

campsites (from 0.9 in 1991 to 1.8 in 2007). The least 

number of groups that camped within sight or sound of 

their campsite in 1991 was not significantly different 

from that reported in 2007, on average (1991,0.6; 2007, 

0.5) (Table 15).

Expectations for Encounters—Interestingly, although all measures of encounters included in both 

1991 and 2007 indicated that encounters with other 

visitors increased in all aspects, visitor evaluations of 

these encounters did not vary substantially across years 

(Table 16) though the minority tended to report these 

encounter rates were less than they expected. Nearly 

half consistently reported they encountered about what 

they expected to encounter.

Resource Impacts Issues—Visitors in 1991 and 2007 

indicated whether 19 different resource impact issues 

were a problem on their visit. Nine of these conditions 

seemed to improve (with a significantly lower proportion 

of the sample reporting it as a problem), one was worse, 

and nine stayed the same (Table 17). Notable among 

these trends was that seeing large numbers of people 

was the only potential problem that increased (from 

13.3% in 1991 to 21.1% in 2007) in numbers of people 

indicating it was a problem for them during their trip. 

Evaluations of portage maintenance, litter, publicizing 

rules and regulations, advertising the permit requirement, 

obtaining permits, finding firewood, improper disposal 

of fish entrails, finding fire grates full of trash, and 

finding an unoccupied campsite were all substantially 

less problems in 2007 than 1991 (Table 17). Despite 

these trends, however, the largest problems reported 

in 2007 were too many people in the area (32.6%), 

getting information to help visitors avoid congested 

areas (27.4%), litter (27.3%) and finding an unoccupied 

campsite (25.6%).

Figure 5—The proportion of visitors who use gas stoves for 

cooking drastically increased from 1991 to 2007 (63% 

to 91%).

Table 15—Summary statistics of overnight visitors inter-group encounters at campsites. 

Encounter type 1991 2007 Significance Test

Least camped in sight/sound per day .6 .5 0.9035 t-test

(±.12) (±.07) 

Most camped in sight/sound per day 1.2 1.4 0.0959 t-test

(±.15) (±.11) 

Total trip camped in sight/sound 1.8 2.3 0.0195 t-test

(±.27) (±.25) 

Least boated in sight/sound per day .9 1.8 <0.001 t-test

(±.25) (±.19) 

Most boated in sight/sound per day 2.5 5.4 <0.001 t-test

(±.41) (±.45) 

Total trip boated in sight/sound 4.8 11.3 <0.001 t-test

(±.88) (±1.0)
USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012 13

Table 16—Percentage of overnight visitors indicating expectations for seeing groups.

 About what

Type of group encountered Far fewer Fewer expected More Far more No expectation

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Non-motorized groups 1991 3.0 15.3 45.1 24.1 10.5 2.0

2007 1.3 9.0 52.7 23.4 11.1 2.5

Groups camped in sight/sound 1991 8.5 13.3 50.9 19.1 4.1 4.1

2007 4.3 17.3 59.7 13.0 2.8 2.8

Groups floating in sight/sound 1991 5.8 17.4 46.4 18.8 6.5 5.1

2007 2.3 15.2 53.1 19.9 7.7 1.8

Table 17—Percentage of overnight visitors indicating evaluation of conditions.

Not a problem A problem

Problem 1991 2007 1991 2007 Significance

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Portages poorly maintained 86.2 94.9 13.8 5.5 <0.001

Litter 61.2 72.7 38.8 27.3 <0.001

Inadequate disposal of 93.5 92.4 6.6 7.6 0.5581

 human body waste

Large groups of people 86.7 78.9 13.3 21.1 0.0029

Too many people in area 68.2 67.5 31.8 32.6 0.8269

Area rule/regulations not 83.4 91.9 16.6 8.1 <0.001

 adequately publicized

Not enough information on 73.1 72.6 26.9 27.4 0.8831

 where other users like to be

Permit requirement not well advertised 88.2 96.5 11.8 3.5 <0.001

Process of obtaining permit too difficult 89.0 93.3 11.0 6.7 0.0456

Not enough parking spaces at 91.0 93.3 9.0 6.7 0.2301

 wilderness entry points

Not enough firewood 75.5 87.9 24.5 12.1 <0.001

Too many day users 86.4 90.1 13.6 9.9 0.1148

Improper disposal of fish entrails 78.8 89.1 21.3 10.9 <0.001

Low flying aircraft 88.6 86.0 11.4 14.0 0.2908

Too many rules/regulations 92.4 94.0 7.6 6.0 0.3875

People making noise 83.7 84.1 16.3 15.9 0.8861

Fire grates full of charcoal/ash 83.4 87.5 16.6 12.5 0.1093

Fire grate full of trash 68.4 83.3 31.6 16.7 <0.001

Finding an unoccupied campsite 67.4 74.4 32.6 25.6 0.0294
14 USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012

Evaluations of Wear and Tear—Generally, visitor 

evaluations of resource conditions through a broad evaluation of wear and tear (erosion and loss of vegetation) 

and littering inside the BWCAW had little change. The 

majority of visitors in both 1991 and 2007 indicated 

they thought wear and tear conditions were good or 

very good. Evaluations of litter did improve slightly 

from about 55% in 1991 to 69% feeling it was good or 

very good in 2007 (Table 18).

New Issues Researched in 2007

An additional purpose of this research was to understand several new issues that had arisen since the 

previous studies. This included new issues related to 

wilderness permits, the introduction of user fees, and 

several natural disturbances such as the 1999 blowdown 

storm and recent wildfires. The following sections describe the attitudes and evaluations of overnight visitors 

for these specific issues.

Wilderness Permits—Permits are required yearround for all overnight visitors to the BWCAW. From 

May 1 to September 30, these permits are regulated 

through a quota system that manages the number of 

groups at each entry point per day. Each year, quota 

permits are obtained first via lottery. Applications are 

taken from December of the previous year until February 

and then allocated. Following the lottery, a first-come, 

first-served reservation process begins via website or 

phone. Finally, remaining quota permits can be obtained 

during the peak season on a walk-up basis from Forest 

Service and cooperator permit stations.

Overnight visitors answered questions on various 

aspects of the permit system at the BWCAW. This included if permits were reserved, if respondents applied 

for the lottery, if reservations were made online, and if a 

confirmation of the reservation was received (Table 19). 

Permits were reserved by over 95% of overnight visitors. 

However, 30% of overnight visitors reported that someone else in their group was responsible for reserving the 

permit. Only 17% of overnight visitors used the lottery 

to reserve their permits. For those that did, visitors found 

it relatively easy to use. In contrast with the lottery, 62% 

of overnight visitors used the online reservation system 

to reserve their permit. Again overnight visitors found it 

relatively easy to use. Confirmations of permit reservations were received by 90% of overnight visitors.

Overnight visitors answered specific questions about 

picking up their permit. Over 78% of overnight respondents picked up their permits at Forest Service stations 

and approximately 22% at cooperator permit stations. 

These respondents were asked about the convenience 

of location and hours of operation for permit stations 

(Figure 6). Approximately 95% of respondents agreed 

or strongly agreed that the location was convenient. 

Nearly 87% agreed or strongly agreed that the hours of 

operation were convenient. Finally, overnight visitors 

answered if permit requirements were well advertised 

or if the process of obtaining a permit was too difficult. 

Over 96% of overnight visitors felt advertising was not 

a problem and 93% felt the process was not too difficult (Table 17). Approximately 4% of overnight visitors 

thought advertising was a problem and 7% felt the process 

was too difficult. However, these percentages decreased 

from 1991 and represent statistically significant changes.

User Fees—Overnight visitors answered questions 

regarding the fee program at the BWCAW (Table 20). 

Respondents were overwhelmingly supportive of different aspects of the fee program. This included the 

amount of the fee deposit (90% agreement), amount of 

reservations fees (87% agreement), overnight use fees 

(86% agreement), and the process of paying fees (94% 

agreement). The largest amount of disagreement related 

to the amount of the reservation fee (9%) and the amount 

of overnight use fees (10%). In addition, nearly 84% of 

overnight respondents agreed the BWCAW was better 

off due to fees (Figure 7).

Table 18—Percentage of overnight visitors indicating evaluation of wear and tear.

Conditions Very good Good Fair Poor Very poor

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Wear and tear of conditions 1991 25.0 43.2 19.9 7.5 4.5

2007 28.2 44.2 22.5 4.2 1.0

Condition of littering 1991 27.8 28.3 24.3 15.3 4.5

2007 37.0 32.4 20.0 7.7 2.9
USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012 15

Table 19—Summary statistics of all respondents indicating impressions of reserving wilderness permits.

Aspect of permit system Overnight Day use

1. How permit was reserved:

Phone 6.3% 35.3%

Internet 49.2% 54.1%

Mail/Fax 1.0% 10.6%

Someone else in group 30.2% NA

Did not reserve a permit 3.4% NA

2. Applied for lottery (before January 15): (±3.6%) (±6.2%)

Yes 16.5% 24.2%

No 83.5% 75.8%

If yes, how difficult was this: 

 (1 = Difficult, 10 = Easy) 8.12 5.90

 (±.61) (±1.00) 

3. Reserved online via online

 National Recreation Reservation 

 Service (after January 20): (±4.8%) (±9.6%)

Yes 61.8% 43.1%

No 38.2% 56.9%

If yes, how difficult was this: 

 (1 = Difficult, 10 = Easy) 8.17 6.29

 (±.28) (±.96)

4. Received confirmation of 

 reservation? (±3.0%) (±8.9%)

Yes 90.1% 80.1%

No 9.9% 18.9%

Figure 6—Percentage of agreement with convenience of permit station 

location and hours.
16 USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012

Figure 7—Over 80% of overnight respondents in 2007 agreed 

the BWCAW was better off due to fees.

Table 20—Percentage of overnight visitors indicating impression of fee program. 

Aspect of fee program Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Use fee deposit ($20) was an 1.8 3.4 62.2 27.9 4.7

appropriate amount

Reservation fee ($12) was an 2.0 7.0 63.9 23.0 4.1

appropriate amount

Overnight use fee ($10 adult, 2.2 7.5 61.2 25.2 3.9

$5 child/senior) was

an appropriate amount

Non-Forest Service vendor 1.2 3.8 58.4 14.9 21.7

issuing fee ($2) was

an appropriate amount

Information about fees 0.7 3.6 67.9 19.8 8.1

was adequate

Process of paying fees 0.3 0.9 65.9 28.0 4.9

was easy

Boundary Waters is better 1.0 3.8 45.5 38.3 11.5

off due to these fees
USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012 17

Recent Events—In 1999, a massive storm hit northern 

Minnesota and the BWCAW. Winds in excess of 90 mph 

caused extensive blowdown on nearly one-half million 

acres of the BWCAW, downing an estimated 25 million 

trees (Lime 2000). In 2006 (and subsequently 2007), 

both management-ignited and lightning-ignited fires 

burned portions of the BWCAW. Both overnight and 

day visitors reported if they were aware of these events, 

and if events affected their plans to visit (Table 21).

Nearly 92% of overnight visitors were aware of the 

1999 blowdown storm. However, only 22% of overnight 

visitors reported that the blowdown area had affected 

their plans to visit the BWCAW in past years. In terms 

of their 2007 trip, only 9% of overnight visitors reported 

the blowdown had affected their plans.

As with the blowdown, the vast majority of overnight 

visitors (82%) were aware of prescribed burning 

occurring in the BWCAW. However, only 4% reported 

it affected their plans in previous years and 2% reported 

it affected their plans in 2007. Overnight visitors 

(70%) were also aware of lightning-ignited fires in the 

BWCAW. Only 8% reported these fires affected their 

plans in previous years and 11% reported fires affected 

their plans in 2007.

Day Visitor Respondent Profile in 2007

Another important issue in the BWCAW is the emergence of day use. Previous studies have provided limited 

insight into this segment of the visitor population. The 

2007 study attempted to provide a clearer picture of 

the day use population. This included both day visitor 

paddlers (DP) and day visitor motorists (DM).

It is important to note that several challenges presented 

themselves in contacting and surveying day visitor 

respondents. When considering sampling locations, opportunities existed to intercept day visitor respondents at 

Forest Service permit offices, cooperator locations, and 

onsite at entry points. Regarding Forest Service permit 

stations, DP visitors very rarely frequented these stations, 

making DM visitors the primary individuals to sample. 

However, DM individuals were very few, and appeared 

mostly to be local residents and repeat visitors. After 

sampling them once, it made no sense to sample them 

again.

DM visitors created challenges in data collection 

for additional reasons as well. DM permits are not 

self-issue, have a weekly quota, and could be reserved. 

Table 21—Percentage of overnight visitors indicating awareness of recent 

events and effects on planning .

Recent events in the BWCAW “Yes” 

Aware of 1999 storm blowdown: 91.9%

 (±2.2%)

Blowdown affected plans to visit BWCAW in past years 21.8%

 (±3.5%)

Blowdown affected plans to visit BWCAW this year 9.2%

 (±2.3%)

Aware of prescribed burning(management-ignited fires) 82.2%

occurring in BWCAW (±3.4%)

Prescribed burning affected plans to visit BWCAW 4.1%

in past years (±1.8%)

Prescribed burning affected plans to visit BWCAW 2.4%

this year (±1.3%)

Aware of lightning-ignited fires that occurred in BWCAW 69.3%

 (±3.7%)

Lightning-ignited fires affected plans to visit BWCAW 8.0%

last year (2006) (±2.6%)

Lightning-ignited fires affected plans to visit 11.1%

BWCAW this year (2007) (±3.0%)
18 USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012

Thus, intercepting the individual when they picked 

up their permit was not always successful. Second, 

the role of cooperators in reserving and issuing DM 

permits created challenges. Some cooperators would 

reserve multiple day permits as a multi-day trip. Thus, 

one group could have five permits for 5 days. Visitors 

may have considered this part of the cooperator’s 

services and thus never considered themselves as part 

of the reservation/issuing process. In addition, many 

of these permits are issued at cooperator locations 

when the visitor arrived, making intercepting those 

individuals very difficult.

The inability to contact DP visitors was very surprising. Given the number of self-issue permits, the expectation was that these individuals would be frequently 

intercepted. However, many times there was a complete 

lack of opportunities to intercept DP visitors. We can 

only speculate on why DP visitors were so difficult to 

intercept during the 2007 study. It may have been that 

individuals were launching from cooperator and private 

residences and later dropping off the self-issue permits 

at entry points. It may be that they were launching and 

returning on very short trips in the 11-3 p.m. window 

when surveyors were not on site.

The sample of day visitor respondents in 2007 consists 

of 186 individuals. Given the previous limitations, it is 

most appropriate to consider the following summarized 

results as a day visitor respondent profile that warrants 

further testing and examination. It is also important to 

recognize that, while not necessarily representative of 

the entire population, this profile does provide a unique 

view of day visitor respondents characteristics, trip 

characteristics, and visitor attitudes.

Visitor Characteristics—Day visitor respondents 

answered comparable demographic questions to those 

asked of overnight visitors (Table 22). The sample provided an average age of 49 years, with approximately 

64% of them being male. Respondent’s reported median 

education level consisted of some college experience 

and only 7% of the sample was currently full-time or 

part-time students. The median annual income for the 

day visitor respondents in the sample was $90,000.

The average group size of day visitor respondents in 

2007 was 3.6 individuals (Table 23). The maximum 

party size limit of nine people and four boats that applies 

to overnight visitors also applies to this sample. Approximately 59% of day visitor respondent groups were 

composed of family members, with 5% of the sample 

reporting they were on a solo trip. Of the individuals 

sampled, none reported being part of an organized group.

Wilderness Experience—Only 8% of day visitor respondents in 2007 were on their first visit to 

the BWCAW (Table 24). Individuals in the sample 

reported having, on average, taken over 31 visits to 

the BWCAW. However, it is important to recognize 

Table 22—Sociodemographic characteristics of day visitor respondents.

Mean age Med. education Students % Females % Conserv. org %

2007 Day use visitors 49 14 7 36 28

Table 23—Summary statistics of day visitor 

respondents for visit characteristics.

Visit characteristic 2007 visitors

Solo visitors (%) 4.8

Organized groups (%) NA

Groups with family members (%) 59.1

Mean group size (people) 3.6

Table 24—Summary statistics of day visitor 

respondents indicating previous 

wilderness experience.

Wilderness experience 2007 visitors

First-time to BWCAW (%) 8

Experience in others (%) 78

Previous BWCAW visits 31.4
USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012 19

that each single day visit contributes to this total (e.g. 

considers a multi-day fishing trip as multiple visits) and 

the standard deviation for these day visitor respondents 

is nearly 79 visits. Along with previous experience in 

the BWCAW, many of these individuals have experience 

in other wilderness areas. Nearly 80% report having 

visited other wilderness areas in the past.

Trip Characteristics—Day visitor respondents in 

2007 used a variety of methods to travel in the BWCAW 

(Table 25). Approximately 34% paddled privately owned 

boats while 21% paddled rented boats. Comparably, 32% 

used private motorboats on their day trips, while 11% 

rented motorboats.

Like overnight visitors, fishing was a major activity 

for day visitor respondents in 2007. Approximately 63% 

of the sample reported fishing on their day trip, while 

53% described fishing as a priority on their day trip 

(Table 26). In addition, 24% of day visitor respondents 

reported using a gas stove on their day trip.

Encounter Levels—Day visitor respondents in 2007 

reported seeing, on average, 7.5 non-motorized groups 

and 3.3 motorized groups during the course of their 

day trip. However, despite these encounter levels, 68% 

of day visitor respondents in the sample reported that 

the BWCAW was not overcrowded (Table 27). About 

one-quarter of the sample felt that the BWCAW was 

crowded in a few places and only 4% felt it was crowded 

in most places.

When these encounter levels were compared to visitor 

expectations, consistently over half of day visitor respondents reported that encounter levels of non-motorized 

groups, motorized groups, and groups at portages were 

about what they expected (Table 28). Between 13-15% 

of those sampled reported that encounters were more 

or far more than they expected.

Evaluation of Resource Conditions—Similar to 

overnight visitors, day visitor respondents answered 17 

questions about various resource impact issues across 

the BWCAW (Table 29). For all of these potential issues, 

at least 80% of respondents in the sample described the 

issues as not a problem. The largest resource issues for 

respondents were litter (20.2%), the difficulty of obtaining a day use permit (20.1%), and amount of information 

on where other users would be (17.3%).

Day visitor respondents also reported about the wear 

and tear on conditions in the BWCAW and the condition 

of littering (Table 30). Over 85% of respondents reported 

they thought wear and tear of conditions were either 

very good or good. Likewise over 76% of respondents 

thought the evidence of littering was either very good 

or good.

Additional Management Issues—As previously described, an additional purpose of this research was to try 

to understand several things (e.g., wilderness permits, 

fees, natural disturbances) that had changed since the 

previous studies that might be facilitating change. Day 

visitor respondents also answered questions on these 

additional management issues. The following sections 

describe the attitudes and evaluations of day visitor 

respondents for these specific issues.

Wilderness Permits—While DP visitors are required 

to obtain a free, self-issue permit at entry points, DM 

permits require a fee and can be reserved in advance. 

These permits were reserved most frequently online for 

day visitor respondents (54%) (Table 19). Only 24% of 

day visitor respondents used the lottery to reserve their 

permits. For those that did, they found it slightly more 

easy than difficult. Confirmations of permit reservations were received by 80% of day visitor respondents. 

Finally, day visitor respondents reported if they had ever 

reserved an overnight permit for the BWCAW. Nearly 

half (48.9%) reported that they had previously reserved 

an overnight permit.

Table 25—Percentage of day visitor respondents 

indicating method of travel.

Method of travel % of 2007 visitors

Private non-motorized 34

Rented non-motorized 21

Private motorboat 32

Rented motorboat 11

Table 26—Percentage of day visitor respondents 

indicating trip features.

Trip characteristic % of 2007 visitors

Fished 63

Fishing a priority 53

Used gas stove 24

Table 27—Percentage of day visitor respondents 

indicating opinions about crowding. 

Visitor opinion % of 2007 visitors

Not overcrowded 68

Crowded in a few places 24

Crowded in most places 4

Did not notice 4
20 USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012

Table 28—Percentage of day visitor respondents indicating expectations for seeing groups.

Type of group About what I 

encountered Far fewer Fewer expected More Far more Had no expectation

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Non-motorized groups 3.3 14.1 62.0 10.3 3.3 7.1

Motorized groups 2.2 13.7 57.1 9.9 4.9 12.1

Groups at portages 6.1 10.5 50.3 12.2 2.8 18.2

Table 29—Percentage of day visitor respondents indicating evaluation of conditions.

Evaluation

Problem Not a problem A problem

- - - - - - - - - - percent- - - - - - - - - 

Portages poorly maintained 92.9 7.1

Litter 79.8 20.2

Inadequate disposal of human body waste 91.3 8.7

Large groups of people 84.7 15.3

Too many people in area 85.5 14.5

Area rule/regulations not adequately publicized 88.6 11.4

Not enough information on where other users like to be 82.7 17.3

Permit requirement not well advertised 83.5 16.5

Process of obtaining day use permit too difficult 79.9 20.1

Not enough parking spaces at wilderness entry points 86.1 13.9

Not enough firewood 88.4 11.6

Improper disposal of fish entrails 90.2 9.8

Low flying aircraft 92.5 7.5

Too many rules/regulations 86.5 13.5

People making noise 87.1 12.9

Fire grates full of charcoal/ash 92.3 7.7

Fire grate full of trash 85.2 14.8

Table 30—Percentage of day visitor respondents indicating evaluation of wear and tear.

Conditions Very good Good Fair Poor Very poor

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Wear and tear of conditions 39.8 45.9 9.9 3.3 0.6

Conditions of littering 41.5 35.1 15.2 3.5 3.5

Recreation Fees—Although only DM permits have 

applicable fees in terms of day visitor respondents, 

DP opinions on the fee program were also collected 

(Table 31). The majority of day visitor respondents supported the various aspects of the fee program. Aspects 

with the largest amount of disagreement were the 

amount of the reservation fee (16%) and the amount of 

overnight use fees (17%), the vendor issuing fee (11%), 

and the use fee deposit (10%). However, 87% of day visitor respondents agreed that they were better off due to 

these fees and 88% agreed that the BWCAW was better 

off due to these fees.

Recent Events—The vast majority of day visitor respondents (85%) in 2007 were aware of the 1999 blowdown 

storm (Table 32). However, only 18% of day visitor respondents reported that the blowdown area had affected 

their plans to visit the BWCAW in past years. In terms 

of their 2007 trip, only 5% of day visitor respondents 

reported the blowdown had affected their plans.
USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012 21

Table 31—Percentage of day visitor respondents indicating impression of fee program.

 Aspect of fee program Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Use fee deposit ($20) was 

 an appropriate amount 2.8 6.8 67.2 14.1 9.0

Reservation fee ($12) was 

 an appropriate amount 5.6 10.6 64.8 10.6 8.4

Overnight use fee ($10 adult, 

 $5 child/senior) was an 

 appropriate amount 6.2 11.3 66.1 9.0 7.3

Non-Forest Service vendor 

 issuing fee ($2) was an 

 appropriate amount 3.4 7.9 68.0 6.7 14.0

Information about fees was adequate 1.7 6.2 72.9 5.6 13.6

Process of paying fees was easy 0.6 2.3 74.0 9.6 13.6

You are better off due to these fees 5.1 7.9 55.6 11.8 19.7

Boundary Waters is better off due 

 to these fees 5.0 6.7 57.5 17.9 12.8

Table 32—Percentage of day visitor respondents indicating awareness of 

recent events and effects on planning. 

Recent events in the BWCAW “Yes” 

Aware of 1999 storm blowdown: 84.9%

 (±5.2%)

Blowdown affected plans to visit BWCAW in past years 17.9%

 (±5.9%)

Blowdown affected plans to visit BWCAW this year 4.9%

 (±3.3%)

Aware of prescribed burning (management-ignited fires) 76.1%

occurring in BWCAW (±6.2%)

Prescribed burning affected plans to visit BWCAW 1.4%

in past years (±2.0%)

Prescribed burning affected plans to visit BWCAW 2.1%

this year (±2.4%)

Aware of lightning-ignited fires that occurred in BWCAW 72.3%

 (±6.5%)

Lightning-ignited fires affected plans to visit BWCAW 6.7%

last year (2006) (±4.2%)

Lightning-ignited fires affected plans to visit 10.4%

BWCAW this year (2007) (±5.1%)
22 USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012

As with the blowdown, a clear majority of day visitor 

respondents (76%) were aware of prescribed burning 

occurring in the BWCAW (Table 32). However, less than 

4% reported it affected their plans in previous years and 

less than 2% reported it affected their plans in 2007. 

Respondents were also aware of lightning-ignited fires 

in the BWCAW (72%). Less than 8% reported these fires 

affected their plans in previous years and less than 11% 

reported fires affected their plans in 2007.

Discussion

The purpose of this research has been to determine 

trends in overnight use and user characteristics at the 

BWCAW and to inform managers about current visitors. 

Trends revealed several interesting outcomes, including 

constancy in gender proportions over time, some notable 

changes in demographics of visitors, changes in conservation organization membership, the importance of 

fishing as an activity, and response to encounter levels. 

The following sections further explore several of these 

concepts.

Gender Ratio Stability

As observed in Table 5, the male to female gender ratio 

has remained relatively stable over time. That is, 70-75% 

of BWCAW overnight visitors have been male over the 

past 40 years. While day use proportions of females were 

higher, it has previously been suggested that generally in 

the United States the proportion of females engaging in 

wilderness activities was increasing (Watson 2000). That 

trend comes into question with these BWCAW results 

and those by Bowker and others (2006). It would also 

be naïve to assume that this trend has emerged at the 

BWCAW because wilderness paddling and/or boating 

is a recreation opportunity inherently favored by men. 

Thus, the stability of the gender ratio in the BWCAW 

may be potentially understood if female constraints and 

barriers to participation and inclusion are considered.

Previous research has examined how gender creates 

barriers to leisure participation (see Jackson and Henderson 1995, Little 2002). Particularly, socio-cultural 

stereotypes have depicted adventure and wilderness 

experiences as simulating “voyageur” travels and opportunities for male bonding. These stereotypes depict 

some outdoor leisure pursuits as not appropriate for 

women or their gender role due to their lack of strength, 

skill, and experience. Unfortunately, such stereotypes 

have also created perceptions in some women that they 

are not competent or lack the technical skills for wilderness activities and experiences (McDermott 2004). 

Women further may lack confidence and self-esteem to 

attempt these pursuits, be influenced by peer pressure, 

or lack female role models in the activity (Culp 1998). 

Regrettably, the perpetuation and reinforcements of these 

inappropriate stereotypes and perceptions represent 

significant barriers for women to participate in outdoor 

and adventures experiences.

McDermott (2004) and Little (2002) have explored ways 

for women to negotiate and overcome these constraints, but 

they still exist and women still individually need to overcome them. Therefore, if these stereotypes and constraints 

exist or are being proliferated in the BWCAW context, that 

may be a possible explanation for the disproportionate use 

of the BWCAW by female participants. Potential female 

participants, (and male participants as well for that matter) 

may see the BWCAW as a place that is too challenging or 

that wilderness paddling and travel as a recreation activity 

requires technical skills they have yet to learn. Potential 

female participants may also feel peer pressure from both 

male and female companions to avoid these types of experiences and therefore chose to recreate elsewhere and 

in other ways.

A second potential explanation for the stability of 

gender ratios are individual experience levels. Trends 

in BWCAW experience levels demonstrated that many 

respondents are repeat visitors. If women are not repeatedly taking trips, encouraged to participate, or included 

in trips with others, it may become difficult for them 

to consider paddling in the BWCAW as a recreation 

opportunity in the future. A barrier for women to become repeat visitors could be created. Likewise, finding 

groups of female friends with similar motivations and 

expectations could be a challenge. While all-female 

groups are encountered during trips into the BWCAW, 

results suggest this is not the norm. Women may be able 

to find other women who enjoy hiking, camping, or 

other outdoor activities, but for various reasons it may 

be difficult to develop that cohort of friends wanting to 

engage in a paddling setting. Finally, other consideration 

and exploration is necessary if the phenomena of gender 

ratio differences are to be studied further. It is yet to 

be determined whether this is something unique to the 

BWCAW contextually, or follows predictions and trends 

in female wilderness participation elsewhere.

Demographic Trends

The demographic profile of BWCAW overnight visitors 

could best be described as getting older, having more 

education, less being full or part-time students (Table 5) 

and enduringly white. By examining these trends first in 
USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012 23

1969, it can be seen that mean age of overnight visitors 

was 26, most had a high school education, and nearly 

half were currently students. By 2007, that mean age 

had risen to 45, with most having a college degree, and 

only about 10% being students.

This trend may be explained if respondents are considered as a stable cohort of visitors. That is, while the 

individual studies were not panel studies that sampled 

the same respondents, the same defined population was 

sampled. With the high proportion of repeat visitors and 

high frequency of visits, it is possible that the trends 

studies have been following this same visitor cohort over 

the past 40 years, from the time nearly half were under 

26 to the present when over half are over 45. They were 

first intercepted when they were young adults and still 

in school. Then they were contacted in the early 90s, 

having completed college and continuing to visit the 

BWCAW. Lastly, they were contacted in 2007 as they 

approach or pass middle age. While it is important to 

recognize that younger individuals and first time overnight visitors continue to use the BWCAW, trend data 

suggest that a strong and substantial cohort of aging, 

repeat visitors to the BWCAW exists.

In the case of day use, these visitors appear to be older 

with a mean age of 49, even less are full or part-time 

students (7%), and with a larger proportion of females 

(Table 22). These visitors also average more trips than 

overnight users with over 30 previous visits to the 

BWCAW. However, this number varies greatly. These 

demographic differences, compared to overnight visitors could be at least partly due to safety concerns. As 

visitors age, issues of ability and physical limitations 

may arise. It could be safer to take a day trip versus an 

extended overnight trip in the BWCAW. Demographic 

differences may also be due to convenience. It may be 

more convenient for older visitors to take numerous day 

trips compared to younger visitors who may only be able 

to plan a single extended overnight trip to the BWCAW 

due to time constraints.

Organization Membership

Examination of membership in an outdoor recreation or conservation organization also showed a 

dramatic shift from 1969 to 2007. In 1969, only 12% 

of overnight visitors reported being a member in an 

outdoor recreation or conservation organization. This 

proportion increased significantly to 35% in 1991 and 

then decreased to 29% in 2007. These changes may be 

associated with an increase in the number and size of 

conservation and environmental organizations from 1970 

to 1990 (see Mitchell and others 1992). However, these 

results are also similar to trends in visitors of Oregon’s 

Eagle Cap Wilderness. Watson and others (1996) compared visitors from 1965 and 1993 to examine trends in 

wilderness attitudes. Similar to results in the BWCAW, 

Watson and others found that the number of visitors who 

belonged to outdoor recreation or conservation organizations increased from 25% in 1965 to 44% in 1993. 

They suggest this as a factor influencing the strength of 

wilderness values and reflect a more sophisticated visitor 

population (higher than normal education, friends that 

visit wilderness, membership in conservation organizations). A similar argument can be made in the BWCAW. 

Overall education of overnight visitors has increased 

and membership in outdoor recreation and conservation organizations has increased. This may indicate a 

visitor population in which the strength of wilderness 

attitudes and values has increased over time. Such an 

argument is important to managers because it suggests 

an invested constituency exists for the BWCAW. Thus, 

understanding any shifts and changes in this constituency’s attitudes and values should remain a priority to 

BWCAW managers.

Shifts in Fishing

An interesting shift from 1991 to 2007 was the percentage of overnight visitors reporting they fished during 

their trip and that fishing was a priority on their trip 

(Figure 8). This trend is also consistent with national 

trends in fishing and hunting. Data from the 2006 National 

Figure 8—Of respondents who fished, 47% described fishing 

as a major reason for their trip in 1991 compared to 

35% in 2007.
24 USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012

Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation suggest that the percentage of individuals nationally 

who participated in fishing has decreased from 21% in 

1991 to 13.1% in 2006 (USFWS 2006).

Several explanations are possible for this shift. One 

possible explanation is a shift in activity specialization 

and mode of travel for overnight BWCAW visitors. In 

1991, 72% of visitors traveled in private non-motorized 

boats and 18% in rented non-motorized boats. This 

significantly changed by 2007 to 68% in private boats 

and 26% in rented boats. Private motorboats saw a 

significant decrease by 2007 (Table 13). Thus, it may 

be that visitors less specialized in wilderness paddling 

or boating as an activity, may also be less interested in 

fishing. The nature of the activity of wilderness paddling and boating may be changing such that fishing 

has slowly become less of an essential component of 

the experience.

Another explanation of a shift in fishing could be 

associated to a regional shift in the definition of a BWCAW experience. In both 1991 and 2007, over 60% of 

overnight visitors were Minnesota residents. Over this 

period, the place of residence for respondents changed 

to represent less agricultural communities and more 

metropolitan centers and urbanization (Table 12). While 

no BWCAW overnight visitors grew up in a metropolitan 

area in 1991, over 16% did in 2007. Only 4% of visitors currently live on agricultural farms, whereas over 

44% now live in cities of 50,000 people or more. This 

shift towards urbanization reflects a population where 

children are exposed less and less to fishing, camping, 

and canoeing. Activities such as these may not be emphasized as much in current generations as in previous 

ones. Therefore, shifts toward urbanization may relate 

to a decrease in fishing as an activity essential to a 

wilderness experience in the BWCAW.

A link with experience levels in wilderness could be a 

potential factor in the decrease in fishing as well; 94% 

of overnight visitors are repeat visitors and 75% have 

experience in other wilderness areas. Additionally, many 

of these individuals began visiting wilderness areas by 

their early 20’s (Table 7). While a high level of wilderness experience is represented in the BWCAW, a link to 

younger cohort groups may exist. While this represents 

a strong cohort of individuals 45 and older across this 

trend study, a smaller cohort group of individuals under 

25 also exists. This cohort of emerging adults may represent those individuals who have not grown up fishing 

and thus participate less in fishing and do not place as 

great a priority on fishing as other cohort groups in the 

study.

Resource Condition Evaluation

When asked to evaluate 19 resource issues, nine 

appeared to improve significantly from 1991 to 2007 

(Table 17). Perceptions of wear and tear of conditions 

in the BWCAW also appear to have improved. However, 

some inconsistencies are present, such as litter evaluated as improving but still ranked as the top resource 

issue for the BWCAW. While many of these improvements can be attributed to direct management actions, 

policy changes, and better information and education, 

factors such as experience levels and urbanization, may 

be linked to the inconsistencies in visitor evaluations. 

Visitors with high levels of experience have a greater 

basis for comparison than first time or infrequent visitors. They have seen the changes across the BWCAW 

and may perceive that these problems are not as big as 

once believed. They may consider conditions adequate 

given the high level of use in the BWCAW or compared 

to the other wilderness areas they have visited.

A trend of increased urbanization in Minnesota as 

suggested by respondent’s place of residence may also 

be a factor in decreased perceptions of problems. Compared to metropolitan and urban areas, the natural areas 

of the BWCAW are pristine in terms of litter, wear and 

tear, and resource damage. They are a stark contrast to 

the noise, crowding, and maintenance of the city. Individuals who have grown up in these urban areas may 

have a different perception of wilderness conditions and 

therefore do not recognize or strongly criticize resource 

conditions as individuals who have grown up in more 

rural settings. Thus, despite giving credit to BWCAW 

managers for improvements in resource condition, it 

is important to consider that other factors correlate to 

visitor’s perceived improvements in resource conditions.

Inter-Group Encounters and Expectations

Encountering large groups of people was the one 

management issue that increased as a problem from 1991 

to 2007 (Figure 9). Visitors also reported significantly 

higher inter-group encounters over the duration of their 

trip, from about 4 encounters per day in 1991 to over 

8 in 2007 (Table 10). However, an increased number 

of visitors reporting that their expectation for seeing 

groups was exceeded did not occur. Instead, over half 

of overnight visitors in 2007 reported that inter-group 

encounters were about what they expected. These results 

are consistent with results from other wilderness areas 

(see Cole and Hall 2008). This may suggest that while an 

erosion of the quality of the wilderness experience may 
USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012 25

be occurring in terms of encounters, there is evidence 

of increased acceptance of inter-group encounters and 

social conditions by visitors. Thus, the reports of seeing 

more groups, a lack of privacy, and increased congestion may not be significantly challenging an individual’s 

expectations when it comes to inter-group encounters.

Understanding the nature of these expectations will 

be important for BWCAW managers in the future. Due 

to higher past experience levels, were visitors better 

informed? Are they simply prepared to see more people? 

Visitors also now have more access to information regarding travel patterns, congestion, and crowding at the 

BWCAW. Travel websites, outfitters, and the media can 

all provide them with information to help them make 

travel plans. Maps also provide information about which 

lakes have a greater number of campsites. Are managers preparing them more for congestion in certain areas 

(e.g. portages, entry points) and for the issues that arise 

related to the change in social conditions? Managers 

make efforts to inform visitors which areas are more 

heavily used due to having a higher quota of permits. 

Suggestions can be made about which times and days 

of the week will be less congested. All of these factors might be contributing to overnight visitors having 

expectations for having a higher number of inter-group 

encounters than in the past.

Repeat visitors have seen changes in visitation over 

time and may have incrementally adjusted their expectations for inter-group encounters. When selecting to travel 

through high use entry points and congested areas, they 

are prepared for frequent encounters and large groups. 

Their trips may focus more on enjoying scenic beauty 

and exploring than seeking out privacy opportunities. 

On the other hand, is it as simple as those visitors who 

increasingly live in urban areas having a higher expectation and acceptance of encounters? That is, the amount 

of congestion in the BWCAW is less compared to that 

of their increasingly congested everyday lives.

All of these factors will need consideration as managers continue to address crowding and congestion issues 

across the BWCAW. It suggests that things that are 

more important may matter to visitors than simply the 

number of people they encounter. One of these things 

that may be critical is a sense of freedom and perceived 

control. Despite a desire for privacy and solitude, they 

may value freedom to travel where they want, when they 

want, and to explore even more (see also Cole and Hall 

2008). Quite simply, they might be resolved to not let 

other visitors impede or impose upon their experience. 

Such behaviors and expectations could have important 

management implications. It suggests that managers may 

need a more precise understanding of how visitor travel 

Figure 9—Launch points are areas where a high number of inter-group encounters may occur.
26 USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012

patterns, motivations for camping, and the quota system 

influences the social conditions across the BWCAW.

Sampling Day Visitor Respondents

While the 2007 sampling strategy had some opportunities to contact day visitor respondents, it appears that 

different strategies are necessary to improve the number 

of contacts. Specifically, individual sampling strategies 

are probably necessary for DM and DP visitors. Such 

strategies would probably require additional assistance 

from local cooperators. In future research, efficiently 

and effectively contacting day visitor respondents will 

remain a challenge. In addition, it will be necessary 

to determine if they cross wilderness boundaries and 

effectively how far they travel into wilderness zones. 

In some instances, such as Hegman Lake and many of 

the motor routes, these travel patterns may be very consistent given geographical limitations. For others, they 

may vary considerably. Further thought and discussion 

with Superior National Forest staff is also necessary to 

better understand the issues and trends related to day 

visitor respondents.

Conclusions

Examining trends in wilderness areas can help us to 

determine the future direction and implications of our 

management policies and actions. This trends study in 

the BWCAW has shown how use and user characteristics 

have been changing over the last 40 years. It reveals that 

BWCAW overnight visitors are predominantly white, 

male, well educated, and no longer full or part time 

students. Visitors have a great deal of wilderness trip 

experience in the BWCAW and in other wilderness areas 

as well, with relatively few visitors being first time visitors to the area. Visitors also report seeing significantly 

more groups while on their trip compared to previous 

years and visits. However, these inter-group encounter 

rates are well within the expectations visitors have for 

the area. Whether through information, education, or 

better preparation, visitors seem to have a good idea 

of how many groups they will encounter while in the 

BWCAW.

Visitors have also evaluated how resource conditions 

have been changing in the BWCAW. Seeing large groups 

is an increasing problem, but many issues have improved: 

portage maintenance, fish entrails disposal, and litter. 

It is also important to recognize that researchers, managers, and visitors perceive issues such as congestion 

at portages and destruction of vegetation differently. 

Researchers and managers perceive portage congestion and destruction of vegetation as bigger problems 

than what is perceived and reported by visitors. While 

issues of importance may change, this trend study has 

provided a new baseline for resource impact evaluation 

by visitors. It has also provided new baselines for visitor attitudes toward fees, use permits, and the variety 

of natural disturbances and forces operating across the 

BWCAW landscape. These baselines will be useful for 

managers in determining how to prioritize management 

issues and for understanding how visitors will perceive 

management actions directed at these issues.

This trend study also provides a preliminary profile 

for day visitor respondents in the BWCAW, something 

previously not attempted in depth. It suggests that day 

visitor respondents are highly experienced and frequently 

visiting the BWCAW. Similar to overnight visitors, they 

are seeing many groups, but not exceeding expectations. They also are supportive of permits, fees, and 

are aware of the various natural disturbances that have 

occurred across the BWCAW recently and in the past. 

While this profile might not be generalizable to all day 

visitor respondents to the BWCAW, it is the first step in 

understanding a population that is a significant portion 

of wilderness users in the BWCAW. It also demonstrates 

the influence they potentially have on overnight and other 

visitors within the BWCAW. Thus, understanding their 

travel behaviors and attitudes relative to other visitors 

will be critical to gain an understanding of how different 

visitor types influence each other’s experiences.

In addition to profiling trends and changes in use 

and users, this study also starts to address questions 

about future wilderness users. Potts (2007) has recently 

challenged managers and researchers to consider the 

implications of changing human relationships with 

wilderness. He argues that the meaning of wilderness 

for today’s user is not necessarily that of the individuals 

championing wilderness in the 1960s and 1970s. All 

users are a product of their experiences and conditions 

that surround their interactions with wilderness.

For example, the BWCAW user cohort has many 

experiences from which to create their perception of 

wilderness areas. They have seen changes in social and 

resource conditions over the course of their visits. They 

can compare these changes to experiences that they 

have had in other areas. However, what of the emerging 

adults under 25 and those who are first time visitors to 

wilderness? What do they base their perceptions on and 

in turn, how will this affect their meanings and value 

for wilderness? Potts (2007) cautions that as relationships change, there is also a potential for the wilderness 
USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012 27

constituency to change or even disappear. He questions 

what will happen if apathy and irrelevance toward wilderness begins to prevail in the public’s eyes.

For these reasons, it is important to continue to examine 

and determine the changes in wilderness use and user 

characteristics. Researchers and managers can continue 

to benefit from understanding how perceptions of visitors change in relationship to changing resource and 

social conditions. With strong baselines and knowledge 

of changing trends, managers can create sound policy 

and plan for changing conditions. They can outline 

management actions that will provide opportunities 

for future individuals to having meaningful wilderness 

experiences while protecting wilderness character and 

relationships.

References

Borrie, W. T., and McCool, S. F. (2007). Describing change in visitors and visits to the “Bob.” International Journal of Wilderness, 

13(3), 28-33.

Bowker, J. M., Murphy, D., Cordell, H. K., English, D. B. K., 

Bergstrom, J. C., Starbuck, C. M., Betz, C. J., and Green, G. T. 

(2006). Wilderness and primate area recreation participation and 

consumption: an examination of demographic and spatial factors. 

Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economic, 38(2), 317-326.

Cole, D. N., and Hall, T. E. (2008). Wilderness visitors, experiences, 

and management preferences: How they vary with use level and 

length of stay (Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-71): USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Cole, D. N., Watson, A. E., and Roggenbuck, J. W. (1995). Trends 

in wilderness visitors and visits: Boundary Waters Canoe Area, 

Shining Rock, and Desolation Wildernesses (No. INT-RP-483). 

Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research 

Station.

Culp, R. H. (1998). Adolescent girls and outdoor recreation: a case 

study examining constraints and effective programming. Journal 

of Leisure Research, 30(3), 356-379.

Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: the Tailored 

Design Method (2nd ed.). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley.

Jackson, E. L., and Henderson, K.A. (1995). Gender-based analysis 

of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences, 17(1), 31-51.

Lime, D. W. (2000). Human response to large-scale natural disturbances: wilderness visitors’ perceptions of 1999 storm-damaged 

vegetation in Minnesota’s Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Department of 

Forest Resources.

Little, D. E. (2002). Women and adventure education: reconstructing 

leisure constraints and adventure experiences to negotiate continuing participation. Journal of Leisure Research, 34(2), 157-177.

Lucas, R. C. (1985). Visitor characteristics, attitudes, and use patterns in the Bob Marshall Wilderness complex, 1970-82. (Res. 

Pap. INT-345), USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station.

Merriam, L. C., and Smith, C. K. (1974). Visitor impact on newly 

developed campsites in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Journal 

of Forestry, 627-630.

McDermott, L. (2004). Exploring intersections of physicality 

and female-only canoeing experiences. Leisure Studies, 23(3), 

283-301.

Mitchell, R. C., Mertig, A. G., and Dunlap, R. E. (1992). Twenty 

years of environmental mobilization. In R. E. Dunlap and A. G. 

Mertig (Eds), American environmentalism: The U.S. environmental movement, 1970–1990 (pp. 11-26). Philadelphia: Taylor 

and Francis.

Potts, R. (2007). Changing human relationships with wilderness 

and wildlands: implications for managers. International Journal 

of Wilderness, 13(3), 4-8, 11.

Stankey, G. H. (1971). The perception of wilderness recreation 

carrying capacity: a geographic study in natural resources management. Unpublished dissertation, Michigan State University, 

East Lansing, MI.

Stankey, G. H. (1973). Visitor perceptions of wilderness recreation 

carrying capacity. (No. INT-142). Odgen, UT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2006). Trends in fishing and 

hunting 1991-2006: a focus on fishing and hunting by specie. 

Addendum to the 2006 national survey of fishing, hunting, and 

wildlife-associated recreation. Report 2006-8. U.S. Department 

of the Interior (USDI), Fish and Wildlife Service. 

U.S. Forest Service. (2004). Land and Resource Management Plan: 

Superior National Forest. Milwaukee, WI: Eastern Region, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service.

U.S. Forest Service. (2011). Land Areas of the National Forest 

System. (No. FS-383). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service.

Watson, A. E. (1995). Opportunities for solitude in the Boundary 

Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Northern Journal of Applied 

Forestry, 12(1), 12-18.

Watson, A. E. (2000). Wilderness use in the year 2000: societal 

changes that influence human relationships with wilderness. 

In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, William T.; 

O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. 2000. Wilderness science in 

a time of change conference-Volume 4: Wilderness visitors, 

experiences, and visitor management; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station: 53–60.

Watson, A. E., and Cronn, R. (1994). How previous experience 

relates to visitors’ perceptions of wilderness conditions. Trends, 

31(3), 43-46.

Watson, A. E., Hendee, J. C., and Zaglauer, H. P. (1996). Human 

values and codes of behavior: Changes in Oregon’s Eagle Cap 

Wilderness visitors and their attitudes. Natural Areas Journal, 

16(2), 89-93.
28 USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012

per 

ring and 

nd 

 including 

 Room 404-

ion Project 

Boundary Waters Canoe Area 

Wilderness

Visitor Study 

2007 Summer Season 

Overnight Visits 

Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute 

790 E. Beckwith Ave. 

Missoula, MT 59801 

Appendix
USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012 29

mping trips 

on’t 

now

DK

DK

____ 

____ 

____ 

18, and in 

each column 

Current 

Residence

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

ne number 

OMB#0596-0208

This survey is voluntary. While you are not required to respond, your cooperation is 

needed to make the survey results comprehensive, accurate, and timely. You may 

be assured that in the analysis and reporting of the results, your answers will not be 

connected with you. 

YOUR OVERNIGHT VISIT TO THE BOUNDARY WATERS CANOE AREA WILDERNESS 

THAT BEGAN ON: ______/______, 2007 

1. How did you travel in the wilderness on this visit? (Check all that apply, but if 

more than one, underline the way you traveled most.)

 PADDLED A PRIVATELY OWNED WATER CRAFT 

 PADDLED A WATER CRAFT RENTED FROM A COMMERCIAL OUTFITTER 

 MOTORED IN A PRIVATELY OWNED WATER CRAFT 

 MOTORED IN A WATER CRAFT RENTED FROM A COMMERCIAL OUTFITTER 

 OTHER (Describe) __________________________________________________________ 

2a. Did you fish on this trip? (Circle one response) 1. Yes 2. No 

2b. Was fishing a major reason for going on this trip? (Circle one response) 

 1. Yes 2. No 

3. During this overnight visit to the Boundary Waters: 

a. Did you use a gas stove for cooking? (Circle one response)

1. Yes 2. No

b. How many times on your trip did 

you have a wood fire? __________TIMES

How many of these wood fires 

were in the evening? __________FIRES

How many of these evening fires 

were to sit around and 

enjoy - - not for cooking? __________FIRES

c. Was the number of campfires you had influenced by fire 

restrictions? (Circle one response) 1. Yes 2. No
30 USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012

4. Please estimate the following for your wilderness visit: (Enter a number in all 

three columns for each item) 

Least in a Most in a Total 

 Single Day Single Day For Trip

a. the number of nonmotorized 

 groups you saw _____ _____ _____ 

b. the number of motorized 

 groups you saw _____ _____ _____ 

c. the number of groups that camped within 

 sight or sound of your campsite _____ _____ _____ 

d. the number of groups that paddled or 

 motored within sight or sound of 

 your campsite _____ _____ _____ 

5. How did the following compare with what you expected to see in the Boundary 

Waters? (Circle one scale response for each statement) 

 About Had no 

 Far What I Far Expec- 

 Fewer Fewer Expected More More tation

a. the number of nonmotorized 

 groups you saw FF F E M FM X

b. the number of motorized 

 groups you saw FF F E M FM X

c. the number of groups that 

 camped within sight or sound 

 of your campsite FF F E M FM X

d. the number of groups that 

 paddled/motored within sight 

 or sound of your campsite FF F E M FM X

e. the number of groups 

 you saw at portages FF F E M FM X

28. You

 a. How 

 the B

 b. Wha

 the B

 c. How 

 area

 Boun

 

 

 

 d. Wha

 fede

 Boun

 e. Inclu

 did y

 past 

 

 

 

f. How 

 wild

 12 m

 

 

 

 

29. Sinc

 wild
USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012 31

er in all 

Total 

For Trip

_____ 

_____ 

_____ 

_____ 

Boundary 

Had no 

Expec- 

 tation

X

X

X

X

X

SOME INFORMATION ABOUT YOU 

28. Your previous wilderness use: 

 a. How many times have you visited _______ PREVIOUS VISITS 

 the Boundary Waters before this trip? 

 b. What year did you first visit _______ YEAR

 the Boundary Waters? 

 c. How many other federal Wilderness ___ NONE

 areas have you visited, besides the ___ 1 – 2 OTHER AREAS 

 Boundary Waters? ___ 3 – 5 OTHER AREAS 

 ___ 6 – 10 OTHER AREAS 

 ___ 11 – 20 OTHER AREAS 

 ___ OVER 20 OTHER AREAS

 d. What year did you first visit another _______ YEAR

 federal wilderness area, besides the 

 Boundary Waters? 

 e. Including this visit, how many times _______ VISITS

 did you visit a wilderness in the 

 past 12 months? Is this number more or less than 

 for previous years? 1. MORE 2. LESS 

WHY?__________________________ 

 ________________________________ 

 ________________________________ 

f. How many total days did you spend in 

 wilderness on all visits in the past _______ DAYS

 12 months 

 Is this number more or less than 

 for previous years? 1. MORE 2. LESS 

WHY?__________________________ 

 ________________________________ 

 ________________________________ 

29. Since you first visited a wilderness area, about how often have you gone on 

 wilderness trips? (Circle one number) 

1. THIS WAS MY FIRST TRIP 

2. TYPICALLY GO INTO WILDERNESS LESS THAN ONCE EVERY 2 YEARS 

3. ABOUT 1 TRIP EVERY 2 YEARS 

4. ABOUT 1 TRIP PER YEAR 

5. 2 TO 10 TRIPS PER YEAR 

6. MORE THAN 10 TRIPS PER YEAR 

Very 

Desirable

VD

VD 

VD 

VD

VD

VD

VD

VD

VD

VD 

VD

VD

6. How did the following compare with what you preferred to see in the Boundary 

Waters? (Circle one scale response for each statement) 

 About 

 Far What I Far Had no 

 Fewer Fewer Preferred More More Preference

a. the number of nonmotorized 

 groups you saw FF F P M FM X

b. the number of motorized 

 groups you saw FF F P M FM X

c. the number of groups that 

 camped within sight or sound 

 of your campsite FF F P M FM X

d. the number of groups that 

 paddled/motored within sight 

 or sound of your campsite FF F P M FM X

e. the number of groups 

 you saw at portages FF F P M FM X
32 USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012

EVALUATION OF WILDERNESS CONDITIONS 

7. This set of items concerns problems you may have run into on your visits to the 

Boundary Waters. Please indicate two things for each item. First, tell us 

whether you felt the item was a problem during the visit. Second, whether you 

currently feel the item is a problem or not, indicate whether you feel the 

situation has become better or worse over the years you have been coming to 

the Boundary Waters. If this was your first trip, or if you really don’t know the 

trend, indicate by circling the X for ‘Don’t Know.’

 First, is it: � Second, is it:

 Not a A � Getting Getting Don’t 

 Problem Problem � Better Worse Know �

a. Portages poorly maintained N Y � + – X 

 ��

b. Opportunities to see wildlife N Y � + – X 

 

 ��

c. Destruction of vegetation � at or around campsites N Y � + – X 

 

 ��

d. Finding a campsite N Y � + – X 

 

 ��

e. Not enough privacy in campsites N Y � + – X 

 

 ��

f. Litter N Y � + – X 

 

 ��

g. Inadequate disposal of human � body waste N Y � + – X 

 ��

h. Large groups of people N Y � + – X 

 ��

i. Too many people in area � you visited N Y � + – X 

 ��

j. Congestion at portages N Y � + – X 

 ��

k. Area rules and regulations not � adequately publicized N Y � + – X 

 ��

l. Not enough information on where � other users are likely to be N Y � + – X 

 ��

m. The wilderness permit requirement � is not well advertised N Y � + – X 

 ��

n. The process of obtaining avail- � able permits is too difficult N Y � + – X 

 

 ��

o. Not enough parking spaces at �

 wilderness entry points N Y � + – X 

 ��

p. Not enough firewood N Y � + – X 

 ��

q. Campfire restrictions N Y � + – X 

 ��

r. Areas closed due to fire N Y � + – X 

 

 �

26. How importa

visit this year

Natural place, la

Remoteness, sol

Scenic beauty 

Easy access 

Quality fishing 

1999 Blowdown 

Occurrence of pr

Occurrence of li

Test outdoor ski

Familiarity, been 

A new area, vari

A friend or fami

Presence of good 

Presence of picto

Length of portag

Availability of p

27. As you think 

or undesirab

response for 

 

 

a. Absence of hu

 features, exce

and portages 

b. Lakes behind 

 man-made da

c. Leaving some 

 without easy 

d. Bridges over 

 where you wo

otherwise get 

 when portagin
USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012 33

d Cavity Lake 

 response) 

dary Waters last 

affect your 

__________ 

__________ 

__________ 

__________ 

ndary Waters 

affect your 

__________ 

__________ 

__________ 

__________ 

? 

ng? 

nited fires? 

7. Continued... 

 First, is it: � Second, is it:

 Not a A � Getting Getting Don’t 

 Problem Problem � Better Worse Know 

s. Fire hazard from downed trees N Y � + – X �

t. Too many day users N Y � + – X 

u. Improper disposal of fish entrails N Y � + – X �

v. Low flying aircraft N Y � + – X 

 ��

w. Too many rules and regulations N Y � + – X 

 ��

x. People making noise N Y � + – X 

 

 ��

y. Natural condition of fish habitat N Y � + – X 

 ��

z. Fire grates full of charcoal and � ashes N Y � + – X 

 

 ��

aa. Fire grates full of trash N Y � + – X 

 

 ��

ab. Nuisance bears N Y � + – X 

 

 ��

ac. Smoke from wildland fires N Y � + – X 

 ��

ad. Aircraft activity for � fire management N Y � + – X 

 

 ��

ae. Amount of burned area N Y � + – X 

 ��

af. Finding an unoccupied campsite N Y � + – X � If it was a problem, why: 

 _________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________ 

ag. Presence of inappropriate N Y � + – X

technology 

If presence of technology was a problem, please list examples: 

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________ 

8. Did you feel that the Boundary Waters was too crowded? (Circle one) 

1. NO, IT DIDN’T APPEAR OVERCROWDED TO ME 

2. YES, BUT ONLY IN A FEW AREAS 

3. YES, IT WAS OVERCROWDED IN MOST PLACES 

4. I DIDN’T NOTICE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER 

9. If you felt that the Boundary Waters was overcrowded, did it bother you? 

(Circle one) 

1. NO, NOT AT ALL 

2. ONLY A LITTLE 

3. A MODERATE AMOUNT 

4. IT BOTHERED ME A LOT 

5. NOT APPLICABLE 
34 USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012

10. If you felt that the Boundary Waters was crowded, did you in any way change 

the route of your trip or the length of your stay? (Circle one) 

1. NO

2. LENGTH OF TRIP 

3. ROUTE OF TRIP 

4. BOTH

5. NOT APPLICABLE

11. If you felt that the Boundary Waters was crowded, will it affect your future 

plans for visiting? (Circle one) 

1. YES

2. NO

3. NOT APPLICABLE 

12. How did you feel about the condition of the Boundary Waters in terms of wear 

and tear from use (erosion and loss of vegetation) and in terms of littering? 

(Circle one response in each column) 

 WEAR AND 

 TEAR LITTERING 

VERY GOOD VG VG 

GOOD G G If you felt there were poor

FAIR F F conditions, where did you 

POOR P P observe these? ___________

VERY POOR VP VP _______________________ 

DO NOT REMEMBER X X _______________________ 

 _______________________ 

17. Did the blowd

(1999-2006)? 

1. No 

2. Yes

 _____________

 _____________

 _____________

 _____________

18. Did the blowd

(2007)? (Circl

1. No 

2. Yes

 _____________

 _____________

 _____________

 _____________

19. Are you aware 

been occurring 

1. Yes

2. No � 

20. Did the prescr

the Boundary 

1. No 

2. Yes

plan

 _____________

 _____________

 _____________

 _____________

21. Did the prescr

the Boundary 

1. No 

2. Yes

plan

 _____________

 _____________

 _____________

 _____________

b. The reservation fee 

 (nonrefundable) ($12) was 

 an appropriate amount. SD D A SA NO 

 If you disagree, what do you suggest? ________________________________ 

c. The overnight use fee 

 (per person per trip) ($10 

 adult, $5 child/senior) was 

 an appropriate amount. SD D A SA NO 

 If you disagree, what do you suggest? ________________________________ 

d. The issuing fee (paid to 

 non-Forest Service vendors) 

 of $2 per overnight permit 

 was an appropriate amount. SD D A SA NO 

 If you disagree, what do you suggest? ________________________________ 

e. The information about 

 fees was adequate. SD D A SA NO 

 If you disagree, how could the information be improved? 

____________________________________________________

f. The process of paying 

 fees was easy. SD D A SA NO 

 If you disagree, how could the process be improved? 

____________________________________________________

g. The Boundary Waters is 

 better off due to these fees. SD D A SA NO 

RECENT EVENTS IN THE BOUNDARY WATERS

16. Are you aware of the extensive storm blowdown that occurred in the Boundary 

Waters in 1999? (Circle one response) 

1. Yes 

2. No � Go to question 19 

 PREFER

13. Different pe

know what t

For each cha

i. Is there a r

unaccepta

line above 

ii. Is there a r

with a line 

iii. Is there a p

placing an 

PLEASE REMEMBE

MEANS YOU ARE 

Example: The pe

�--

0 

___

ACC

This person 

acceptable; 

uncertain ab

a. The num

area.

�--

0 

b. The num

�--

0 

c. The num

night. �--

0 

d. The num

campsit

�--

0 
USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012 35

SA NO 

_____________ 

SA NO 

_____________ 

SA NO 

_____________ 

SA NO 

__________

SA NO 

__________

SA NO 

n the Boundary 

 PREFERENCES FOR SOCIAL CONDITIONS IN THE BOUNDARY WATERS 

13. Different people desire different things from wilderness and managers need to 

know what things you find acceptable and what things you find unacceptable. 

For each characteristic below, we ask that you make three types of judgments 

i. Is there a range of values along the scale provided that is completely

unacceptable? If so, please indicate the unacceptable range by drawing a 

line above it.

ii. Is there a range of values that would be acceptable? If so, please indicate 

with a line below the scale.

iii. Is there a point on this scale that is most preferred? If so, please indicate by 

placing an x on that point.

PLEASE REMEMBER: NOT DRAWING A LINE OR PLACING AN X IS OKAY, BUT THIS 

MEANS YOU ARE EITHER UNCERTAIN OR DON’T CARE ABOUT THAT ITEM. 

Example: The percent of time other canoeists or boaters are in sight during my visit. 

UNACCEPTABLE 

 _____________________ 

�----�----�---- X ----�----�----�----�----�----�----�

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 

__________________ 

ACCEPTABLE

This person prefers other visitors in sight about 30% of the time, but 0 – 40% is 

acceptable; more than 60% of the time is unacceptable; this person is 

uncertain about the acceptability of values between 40 and 60%. 

a. The number of nonmotorized groups I see each day while traveling in the 

area.

�----�----�----�----�----�----�----�----�----�----�

0 10 20 30 40 50 

b. The number of motorized groups I see each day while traveling in the area. 

�----�----�----�----�----�----�----�----�----�----�

0 10 20 30 40 50 

c. The number of groups camped within sight or sound of my campsite each 

night. 

�----�----�----�----�----�----�----�----�----�----�

0 10 20 30 40 50 

d. The number of groups who paddle or motor within sight or sound of my 

campsite each day. 

�----�----�----�----�----�----�----�----�----�----�

0 10 20 30 40 50 
36 USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012

e. The number of groups I see at a given portage. 

�----�----�----�----�----�----�----�----�----�----�

0 4 8 12 16 20 

 WILDERNESS PERMITS 

14. Please tell us how you feel about the following aspects of the permit system at 

the Boundary Waters. 

RESERVING A PERMIT: 

a. How did you reserve your permit: (Circle one response) 

1. Phone 

2. Internet 

3. Mail / FAX 

4. I didn’t reserve a permit, someone else in my group did [Skip 

to Q. 14e.] 

5. Our group didn’t reserve a permit [Skip to Q. 14e.] 

b. Did you apply to the lottery (before January 15) to reserve your permit? (Circle 

one response) 

1. No 

2. Yes 

If Yes, how difficult was this: (Mark an X on the scale) 

 Difficult �----�----�----�----�----�----�----�----�----� Easy 

 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

Suggestions for improving the lottery? 

__________________________________________ 

__________________________________________ 

c. Did you reserve your permit (after January 20) via the online National Recreation 

Reservation Service (e.g. Recreation.gov)? (Circle one response) 

1. No 

2. Yes 

If Yes, how difficult was this: (Mark an X on the scale) 

 Difficult �----�----�----�----�----�----�----�----�----� Easy 

 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

Suggestions for improving the online service? 

__________________________________________ 

__________________________________________ 

d. Did you receiv

 PICKING UP YO

e. Did you pick u

 

 

f. The location yo

 your permit wa

 (Circle one resp

 

 

g. The hours of op

 the permit stati

 convenient. (C

 response) 

15. Please tell us 

Boundary Wa

 

 

a. The use fee d

 (refundable u

 before the trip

 an appropriat

 If you disagre

e. The number of groups I see at a given portage. 

�----�----�----�----�----�----�----�----�----�----�

0 4 8 12 16 20 

 WILDERNESS PERMITS 

14. Please tell us how you feel about the following aspects of the permit system at 

the Boundary Waters. 

RESERVING A PERMIT: 

a. How did you reserve your permit: (Circle one response) 

1. Phone 

2. Internet 

3. Mail / FAX 

4. I didn’t reserve a permit, someone else in my group did [Skip 

to Q. 14e.] 

5. Our group didn’t reserve a permit [Skip to Q. 14e.] 

b. Did you apply to the lottery (before January 15) to reserve your permit? (Circle 

one response) 

1. No 

2. Yes 

If Yes, how difficult was this: (Mark an X on the scale) 

 Difficult �----�----�----�----�----�----�----�----�----� Easy 

 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

Suggestions for improving the lottery? 

__________________________________________ 

__________________________________________ 

c. Did you reserve your permit (after January 20) via the online National Recreation 

Reservation Service (e.g. Recreation.gov)? (Circle one response) 

1. No 

2. Yes 

If Yes, how difficult was this: (Mark an X on the scale) 

 Difficult �----�----�----�----�----�----�----�----�----� Easy 

 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

Suggestions for improving the online service? 

__________________________________________ 

__________________________________________ 

d. Did you receiv

 PICKING UP Y

e. Did you pick u

 

 

f. The location y

 your permit w

 (Circle one res

 

 

g. The hours of o

 the permit stat

 convenient. (C

 response) 

15. Please tell us 

Boundary W

 

 

a. The use fee d

 (refundable u

 before the tri

 an appropriat

 If you disagr
USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012 37

�

0 

e permit system at 

my group did [Skip 

Q. 14e.] 

ur permit? (Circle 

he scale) 

 Easy 

0 

_____ 

_____ 

National Recreation 

se) 

he scale) 

 Easy 

0 

_____ 

_____ 

d. Did you receive a confirmation of your reservation? (Circle one response) 

1. No 

2. Yes 

Suggestions for improving the confirmation? 

__________________________________________ 

__________________________________________ 

 PICKING UP YOUR PERMIT: 

e. Did you pick up your permit at: (Circle on response) 

1. Forest Service Station 

2. Cooperator Permit Station 

(eg. Lodge or outfitter) 

 Strongly Strongly 

 Disagree Disagree Agree Agree No Opinion

f. The location you picked up 

 your permit was convenient. SD D A SA NO

 (Circle one response) 

If you disagree, do you have suggestions for improving 

the location? 

__________________________________________ 

__________________________________________ 

 Strongly Strongly 

 Disagree Disagree Agree Agree No Opinion

g. The hours of operation at 

 the permit station were SD D A SA NO

 convenient. (Circle one 

 response) 

If you disagree, do you have suggestions for improving 

the hours of operation? 

__________________________________________ 

__________________________________________ 

15. Please tell us how you feel about these aspects of the fee program at the 

Boundary Waters: (Circle one scale response each for questions a through g) 

 Strongly Strongly 

 Disagree Disagree Agree Agree No Opinion

a. The use fee deposit 

 (refundable up to two days 

 before the trip) ($20) was 

 an appropriate amount. SD D A SA NO 

 If you disagree, what do you suggest? ________________________________ 

�

20 

e permit system at 

my group did [Skip 

 Q. 14e.] 

ur permit? (Circle 

he scale) 

� Easy 

0 

_____ 

_____ 

National Recreation 

nse) 

he scale) 

� Easy 

0 

_____ 

_____ 

d. Did you receive a confirmation of your reservation? (Circle one response) 

1. No 

2. Yes 

Suggestions for improving the confirmation? 

__________________________________________ 

__________________________________________ 

 PICKING UP YOUR PERMIT: 

e. Did you pick up your permit at: (Circle on response) 

1. Forest Service Station 

2. Cooperator Permit Station 

(eg. Lodge or outfitter) 

 Strongly Strongly 

 Disagree Disagree Agree Agree No Opinion

f. The location you picked up 

 your permit was convenient. SD D A SA NO

 (Circle one response) 

If you disagree, do you have suggestions for improving 

the location? 

__________________________________________ 

__________________________________________ 

 Strongly Strongly 

 Disagree Disagree Agree Agree No Opinion

g. The hours of operation at 

 the permit station were SD D A SA NO

 convenient. (Circle one 

 response) 

If you disagree, do you have suggestions for improving 

the hours of operation? 

__________________________________________ 

__________________________________________ 

15. Please tell us how you feel about these aspects of the fee program at the 

Boundary Waters: (Circle one scale response each for questions a through g) 

 Strongly Strongly 

 Disagree Disagree Agree Agree No Opinion

a. The use fee deposit 

 (refundable up to two days 

 before the trip) ($20) was 

 an appropriate amount. SD D A SA NO 

 If you disagree, what do you suggest? ________________________________ 
38 USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012

b. The reservation fee 

 (nonrefundable) ($12) was 

 an appropriate amount. SD D A SA NO 

 If you disagree, what do you suggest? ________________________________ 

c. The overnight use fee 

 (per person per trip) ($10 

 adult, $5 child/senior) was 

 an appropriate amount. SD D A SA NO 

 If you disagree, what do you suggest? ________________________________ 

d. The issuing fee (paid to 

 non-Forest Service vendors) 

 of $2 per overnight permit 

 was an appropriate amount. SD D A SA NO 

 If you disagree, what do you suggest? ________________________________ 

e. The information about 

 fees was adequate. SD D A SA NO 

 If you disagree, how could the information be improved? 

____________________________________________________

f. The process of paying 

 fees was easy. SD D A SA NO 

 If you disagree, how could the process be improved? 

____________________________________________________

g. The Boundary Waters is 

 better off due to these fees. SD D A SA NO 

RECENT EVENTS IN THE BOUNDARY WATERS

16. Are you aware of the extensive storm blowdown that occurred in the Boundary 

Waters in 1999? (Circle one response) 

1. Yes 

2. No � Go to question 19 

 PREFE

13. Different p

know what 

For each ch

i. Is there a 

unaccep

line abov

ii. Is there a 

with a lin

iii. Is there a 

placing a

PLEASE REMEMB

MEANS YOU ARE 

Example: The p

�

0 

__

AC

This person 

acceptable

uncertain a

a. The nu

area.

�

0 

b. The nu

�

0 

c. The nu

night. 

�

0 

d. The nu

camps

�

0 
USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012 39

any way change 

t your future 

in terms of wear 

 of littering? 

ere were poor

where did you 

e? ___________

_____________ 

_____________ 

_____________ 

17. Did the blowdown affect your plans to visit the Boundary Waters in past years

(1999-2006)? (Circle one response) 

1. No 

2. Yes � If Yes, then how did the blowdown affect your plans? 

 _______________________________________________________________ 

 _______________________________________________________________ 

 _______________________________________________________________ 

 _______________________________________________________________ 

18. Did the blowdown affect your plans to visit the Boundary Waters this year

(2007)? (Circle one response) 

1. No 

2. Yes � If Yes, then how did the blowdown affect your plans? 

 _______________________________________________________________ 

 _______________________________________________________________ 

 _______________________________________________________________ 

 _______________________________________________________________ 

19. Are you aware of the prescribed burning (management-ignited fires) that have 

been occurring in the Boundary Waters? (Circle one response) 

1. Yes

2. No � Go to question 22 

20. Did the prescribed burning (management-ignited fires) affect your plans to visit 

the Boundary Waters in past years (2000-2006)? (Circle one response) 

1. No 

2. Yes � If Yes, then how did the management-ignited fires affect your 

plans? 

 _______________________________________________________________ 

 _______________________________________________________________ 

 _______________________________________________________________ 

 _______________________________________________________________ 

21. Did the prescribed burning (management-ignited fires) affect your plans to visit 

the Boundary Waters this year (2007)? (Circle one response) 

1. No 

2. Yes � If Yes, then how did the management-ignited fires affect your 

plans? 

 _______________________________________________________________ 

 _______________________________________________________________ 

 _______________________________________________________________ 

 _______________________________________________________________ 
40 USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012

22. Are you aware of the lightning-ignited fires (Turtle Lake Fire and Cavity Lake 

Fire) that occurred in the Boundary Waters last year? (Circle one response) 

1. Yes

2. No � Go to question 25 

23. Did the lightning-ignited fires affect your plans to visit the Boundary Waters last 

year (2006)? (Circle one response) 

1. No 

2. Yes � If Yes, then how did the lightning-ignited fires affect your 

plans? 

 _______________________________________________________________ 

 _______________________________________________________________ 

 _______________________________________________________________ 

 _______________________________________________________________ 

24. Did the lightning-ignited fires affect your plans to visit the Boundary Waters 

this year (2007)? (Circle one response) 

1. No 

2. Yes � If Yes, then how did the lightning-ignited fires affect your 

plans? 

 _______________________________________________________________ 

 _______________________________________________________________ 

 _______________________________________________________________ 

 _______________________________________________________________ 

25. During this visit to the Boundary Waters 

a. Did you go into an area affected by the 1999 Blowdown? 

1. Yes 2. No 3. Unsure 

b. Did you go into an area affected by the prescribed burning? 

1. Yes 2. No 3. Unsure 

c. Did you go into an area affected by the 2006 lightning-ignited fires? 

1. Yes 2. No 3. Unsure 

7. Continued... 

 

 

 

s. Fire hazard 

t. Too many d

u. Improper di

v. Low flying 

 

w. Too many ru

 

x. People maki

 

y. Natural cond

 

z. Fire grates f

 ashes 

 

aa. Fire grates f

 

ab. Nuisance be

 

ac. Smoke from 

 

ad. Aircraft acti

 fire managem

 

ae. Amount of b

 

af. Finding an u

If it was a pr

 __________

__________

ag. Presence of 

technology 

If presence o

__________

__________

8. Did you fee

1. NO

2. YE

3. YE

4. I DI

9. If you felt t

(Circle one

1. NO

2. ON

3. A M

4. IT B

5. NO
USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012 41

ur visits to the 

 tell us 

whether you 

el the 

 coming to 

on’t know the 

nd, is it:

etting Don’t 

Worse Know 

– X 

– X 

– X 

– X 

– X 

– X 

– X 

– X 

– X 

– X 

– X 

– X 

– X 

– X 

– X 

– X 

– X 

– X 

26. How important were each of the following factors in choosing a specific area to

visit this year?

Not 

Important 

Somewhat

Important 

Very

Important 

Natural place, lack of human evidence 1 2 3 

Remoteness, solitude 1 2 3 

Scenic beauty 1 2 3 

Easy access 1 2 3 

Quality fishing 1 2 3 

1999 Blowdown 1 2 3 

Occurrence of prescribed burning 1 2 3 

Occurrence of lightning-ignited fires 1 2 3 

Test outdoor skills 1 2 3 

Familiarity, been there before 1 2 3 

A new area, variety 1 2 3 

A friend or family member suggested it 1 2 3 

Presence of good parking 1 2 3 

Presence of pictographs/petroglyphs 1 2 3 

Length of portages 1 2 3 

Availability of permits 1 2 3 

27. As you think about any wilderness, not just the Boundary Waters, how desirable 

or undesirable do you think each of the following things is? (Circle one scale 

response for each question) Neutral, neither 

 Very Desirable nor Very 

 Undesirable Undesirable Undesirable Desirable Desirable

a. Absence of human-made 

 features, except trails 

and portages VU U N D VD 

b. Lakes behind small 

 man-made dams VU U N D VD

c. Leaving some areas 

 without easy access VU U N D VD 

d. Bridges over creeks 

 where you would 

otherwise get wet feet 

 when portaging or hiking VU U N D VD 
42 USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012

27. Continued.... Neutral, neither

 Very Desirable nor Very 

 Undesirable Undesirable Undesirable Desirable Desirable

e. Designated campsites

with permanent fire grates 

 and pit toilets VU U N D VD

f. Suppress fires that are 

 started by lightning VU U N D VD 

g. Prohibiting wood fires 

 where dead wood is 

 scarce (requiring use 

of gas stoves) VU U N D VD 

h. Restricting the number 

 of visitors to an area 

 if it is being used 

beyond capacity VU U N D VD

i. Accurate information on 

 how you can travel and 

camp in the wilderness 

 to reduce your impacts VU U N D VD

j. Use of chain saws by 

 the administrators to

clear trails and 

 portages of trees VU U N D VD

k. Packing unburnable garbage 

 back out of the wilderness VU U N D VD

l. Evidence of natural 

 disturbance (e.g., fire, 

 blowdown, flooding, etc.) VU U N D VD

m. Visitors using electronic 

 GPS units for navigation VU U N D VD

n. Visitors carrying cell or 

 satellite phones VU U N D VD 

o. Use of prescribed burning 

 to reduce the risk of 

 escaped wildfires VU U N D VD

p. Use of prescribed burning 

 to restore the natural 

 role of fire VU U N D VD

6. How did the f

Waters? (Circle 

 

 

a. the number o

 groups you s

b. the number o

 groups you s

c. the number o

 camped with

 of your camp

d. the number o

 paddled/mot

 or sound of y

e. the number o

 you saw at p
USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012 43

a number in all 

n a Total 

Day For Trip

__ _____ 

__ _____ 

__ _____ 

__ _____ 

in the Boundary 

Had no 

Far Expec- 

More tation

FM X

FM X

FM X

FM X

FM X

SOME INFORMATION ABOUT YOU 

28. Your previous wilderness use: 

 a. How many times have you visited _______ PREVIOUS VISITS 

 the Boundary Waters before this trip? 

 b. What year did you first visit _______ YEAR

 the Boundary Waters? 

 c. How many other federal Wilderness ___ NONE

 areas have you visited, besides the ___ 1 – 2 OTHER AREAS 

 Boundary Waters? ___ 3 – 5 OTHER AREAS 

 ___ 6 – 10 OTHER AREAS 

 ___ 11 – 20 OTHER AREAS 

 ___ OVER 20 OTHER AREAS

 d. What year did you first visit another _______ YEAR

 federal wilderness area, besides the 

 Boundary Waters? 

 e. Including this visit, how many times _______ VISITS

 did you visit a wilderness in the 

 past 12 months? Is this number more or less than 

 for previous years? 1. MORE 2. LESS 

WHY?__________________________ 

 ________________________________ 

 ________________________________ 

f. How many total days did you spend in 

 wilderness on all visits in the past _______ DAYS

 12 months 

 Is this number more or less than 

 for previous years? 1. MORE 2. LESS 

WHY?__________________________ 

 ________________________________ 

 ________________________________ 

29. Since you first visited a wilderness area, about how often have you gone on 

 wilderness trips? (Circle one number) 

1. THIS WAS MY FIRST TRIP 

2. TYPICALLY GO INTO WILDERNESS LESS THAN ONCE EVERY 2 YEARS 

3. ABOUT 1 TRIP EVERY 2 YEARS 

4. ABOUT 1 TRIP PER YEAR 

5. 2 TO 10 TRIPS PER YEAR 

6. MORE THAN 10 TRIPS PER YEAR 
44 USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012

30. How often did your parents take you on the following kinds of camping trips 

(overnight trips)? (Circle one response for each kind of trip) 

 Occa- Don’t 

 Never sionally Often know

 a. On hiking or canoe trips 0 1 2 DK

 b. In auto campgrounds 0 1 2 DK

31. Do you belong to any environmental or outdoor recreation 

organizations? (Circle one response) 1. Yes 2. No 

 If yes, please list them:_______________________________________ 

 _________________________________________________________ 

 _________________________________________________________ 

32. In what type of community did you mostly grow up in before age 18, and in 

what type of community do you now live? (Circle one number in each column 

that best represents your past and current residences) 

Childhood Current 

Residence Residence

x On an agricultural farm or ranch 1 1

x Rural nonagricultural 2 2 

x Small town or village (under 1,000) 3 3

x Town, large village (1,000 to 5,000 population) 4 4

x Small city (5,000 to 50,000 people ) 5 5

x Medium city (50,000 to 1 million population) 6 6

x Major city or metropolitan area (over 1 million) 7 7

33. What is the highest level of education you have attained? (Circle one number 

that best represents your education) 

1. Less than a high school diploma 

2. High school graduate or GED 

3. Trade or professional school 

4. Some college 

5. Undergraduate college degree (BS, BA, etc.)

6. Some graduate school 

7. Graduate degree (MS, PhD, MD, JD, etc.) 

This survey is vol

needed to make th

be assured that in 

connected with yo

YOUR OVERNIG

1. How did you 

more than on

 PADDLED 

 PADDLED 

 MOTORED 

 MOTORED 

 OTHER (De

2a. Did you fish 

2b. Was fishing a 

 

3. During this o
USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012 45

34. If you are a student, are you: (Circle one response) 

 1. Full Time 

 2. Part Time

35. Are you: (Circle one) 

1. Female 2. Male 

36. What was your age on your last birthday? 

_____ YEARS

37. Are you of Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino ethnic origin? (Circle one response) 

1. Yes 2. No 

38. Select one or more of the following categories that best describe your race. 

(Check all that apply) 

 White 

 American Indian/Alaska Native 

 Asian 

 Black/ African American 

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 

Other 

39. What was your annual household income in the year 2006, before taxes? (Circle 

one number that best represents your income) 

1. Less than $20,000 7. $120,000 to $139,999 

2. $20,000 to $39,999 8. $140,000 to $159,999 

3. $40,000 to $59,999 9. $160,000 to $179,999 

4. $60,000 to $79,999 10. $180,000 to $199,999 

5. $80,000 to $99,999 11. $200,000 or more 

6. $100,000 to $119,999 

40. How many people were supported by this household income in the year 2006? 

_____ PEOPLE
46 USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. 2012

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 20 minutes per 

response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send 

comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including 

suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Agriculture, Clearance Officer, OIRM, Room 404-

W, Washington, DC 20250; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project 

(OMB#0596-0208), Washington, DC 20503. 

Thank You! 

PLEASE USE THE REMAINING SPACE TO MAKE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS

Bou

Aldo Leopold 

790 E. Beckw

Missoula, MT 

Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper

The Rocky Mountain Research Station develops scientific information 

and technology to improve management, protection, and use of the 

forests and rangelands. Research is designed to meet the needs of 

the National Forest managers, Federal and State agencies, public and 

private organizations, academic institutions, industry, and individuals. 

Studies accelerate solutions to problems involving ecosystems, range, 

forests, water, recreation, fire, resource inventory, land reclamation, 

community sustainability, forest engineering technology, multiple use 

economics, wildlife and fish habitat, and forest insects and diseases. 

Studies are conducted cooperatively, and applications may be found 

worldwide.

Station Headquarters

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 W Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526

(970) 498-1100

Research Locations

Reno, Nevada

Albuquerque, New Mexico

Rapid City, South Dakota

Logan, Utah

Ogden, Utah

Provo, Utah

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all of its 

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, 

and where applicable, sex (including gender identity and expression), marital 

status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, political 

beliefs, genetic information, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s 

income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases 

apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means 

for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) 

should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to: USDA, Assistant Secretary for Civil 

Rights, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Stop 9410, Washington, DC 20250-9410. Or call toll-free at 

(866) 632-9992 (English) or (800) 877-8339 (TDD) or (866) 377-8642 (English 

Federal-relay) or (800) 845-6136 (Spanish Federal-relay). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer.

www.fs.fed.us/rmrs

Flagstaff, Arizona

Fort Collins, Colorado

Boise, Idaho

Moscow, Idaho

Bozeman, Montana

Missoula, Montana