Michigan State University Extension
Ag Experiment Station Special Reports - 03299578
07/28/98
January 1995 Special Report 78
Status and Potentialof Michigan Natural Resources
Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station,Michigan State University
SPECIAL REPORT
Camping, Trails and Dispersed Recreation Lead Author: Charles M. Nelson Contributors: Daniel M. Spotts, Denis Auger and Hector Chiunti
Introduction
Michigan's public and private lands provide an array of opportunities for natural resource-based recreation. This publication describes the status of the resources supporting these activities and summarizes the state of knowledge about participants in many of these activities. It also explores management and policy issues and the role research can play in solving problems and guiding future decisions.
It is important to note that natural resource-based recreation is dependent upon and interrelated with the abundance, quality and availability of the natural resource base. For example, lakes are essential for recreational fishing, forests and fields for hunting, mushroom and berry picking, and natural corridors such as rivers for canoeing. People can favorably or unfavorably impact the ability of resources to provide recreational opportunity. Pollution of a lake which reduces its ability to support fish negatively impacts fishing. Forest management that harvests timber and promotes early successional stage forests may positively impact game wildlife such as white tailed deer and ruffed grouse. An abandoned railroad right-of-way may be converted to a public snowmobile or bicycle trail, providing new recreational opportunity.
Because of this interrelationship, many other Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station reports in the Status and Potential of Michigan Natural Resources series are helpful in understanding the status and potential of natural resource-based recreation. The overview reports concerning natural resource policy and interrelationships illustrate the role natural resource-based recreation interests have in policy formulation and ecological concerns. Focus reports on lands, waters, forests, fisheries and wildlife provide an overview of the resource base on which these recreation activities are dependent. Other reports on tourism, communities and boating touch on some aspects of natural resource-based recreation.
Activity Description
Camping takes two basic forms. It can be done with the benefit of a campground, which is characterized as developed camping. It can also be done with no designated campground, which is called dispersed camping.
Trail activities are typically divided into three types: motorized land, non-motorized land and water. Motorized trail activities include riding off-road vehicles (ORV) and snowmobiles. There are four basic types of ORVs: two-wheel motorcycles, three- and four-wheel all terrain vehicles, four-wheel drive trucks and sport utility vehicles, and specialty vehicles (e.g., dune buggy). Non-motorized trail activities include: day hiking (walking for one day or less), backpacking (walking for more than one day with overnight camping along the trail), downhill skiing, cross-country skiing (tracked in-line ski touring and ski skating using an 8-foot wide, level, groomed trail to allow the skier to skate in a manner similar to speed skating on ice), horseback riding and bicycling (road biking on paved surfaces and mountain biking on unpaved trails). Water-based trail activities include canoeing and tubing (floating down a river in a large inner tube). These activities, especially tubing, are dependent on water quality and, to a lesser extent, conducive water temperatures.
Dispersed activities include any natural resource-based recreation activity performed without the benefit of facilities designed for that activity. The list is substantial and includes the above mentioned camping and trail activities when done without the benefit of a designated facility such as a campground or trail. It also includes hunting, fishing, mushroom and berry picking, nature observation (including wildlife viewing), aesthetic appreciation, nature photography and trapping.
Supply of Opportunities
Michigan has exceptional natural resource-based recreation opportunities. With half of the state forested, 21% of its land area in public ownership, more than 3,000 miles of Great Lakes coastline, over 11,000 lakes and 36,000 miles of streams and rivers, Michigan is truly a haven for those interested in outdoor fun.
Camping
There were 91,509 developed campsites in 1,274 campgrounds in 1992 (Michigan Department of Public Health, unpublished data). The number of campsites is roughly equal to the number of guest rooms in Michigan hotels and motels. As Figure 1 illustrates, the majority of developed camping opportunities are provided by the private, commercial sector. Public developed camping is largely provided by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and local units of government, with relatively little provided by the federal government. When examining the 3 regions of Michigan shown in Figure 2, over half of the developed campsites in Michigan are in the southern third of the state.
Compared to other Great Lakes states, Michigan has more public and private campgrounds (Great Lakes Commission 1989). Figure 3 shows that, in 1986, Michigan had almost twice as many public campgrounds as any other Great Lakes state and slightly more private campgrounds.
Trails
Trails are also abundant in Michigan. Trails for motorized recreation include 5,115 miles of snowmobile trails. Of those, 3,970 miles are grant trails located on state or federal lands, but maintained by local units of government or non-profit entities through a grants program with the MDNR. In addition, the MDNR maintains 1,145 miles of snowmobile trails on state and national forest lands. There are currently 3,198 miles of ORV trails in Michigan with 82% located on state forest lands, 16% on national forest lands and 2% on local public lands. This amounts to 7,168 miles of motorized trails (MDNR 1993).
Non-motorized trails are also prevalent in Michigan. The Michigan Statewide Trail Initiative (MDNR 1992) reports that there are 3,179 miles of trails for non-motorized recreation on state and federal lands in Michigan. In addition, based on the most recent survey of local government providers (1980), an additional 896 trail miles are provided by local units of government. Hansen (1988) reports non-motorized trail mileage provided by private, commercial and non-profit organizations is 727 miles. Of that, 81% is commercial cross-country ski trails. This amounts to a total of 4,802 miles of non-motorized trails in Michigan.
Included in the non-motorized trail miles are many trails having more than one group of non-motorized users. There are 399 miles of state forest non-motorized trails with many groomed for cross-country skiing. All of the state forest pathways are also open to mountain bike usage. For equestrian use, there is the Shore to Shore Riding/Hiking Trail. This 343 mile trail stretches across northern lower Michigan from Empire to Tawas City with various spurs and includes a series of horse trail campgrounds.
Figures 4 and 5 contrast the number of trail miles in states within the Great Lakes region. Michigan has a moderate amount of trail mileage when compared to other states in the region. Pennsylvania reported the most hiking and bicycle trail mileage and Minnesota the most snowmobile and cross-country ski trail mileage in 1986 (Great Lakes Commission 1989).
Water trails are more difficult to enumerate. Out of a total of over 36,000 miles of Michigan rivers and streams, 3,093 are classified as water trails for canoeing (Rockford Publishing 1987). Of these, 592 river miles on 18 rivers are in the Upper Peninsula, 1,602 miles on 22 rivers in the northern Lower Peninsula and 896 miles on 18 rivers in the southern Lower Peninsula. Currently, there are no standards by which water trails are designated and the designation has no official or legal status. The majority of water trails are on rivers where rental canoes are available.
Two economically and socially important recreation activities that are difficult to classify also deserve mention. They are downhill skiing and golf. These facilities are most likely to be private sector, commercial operations in contrast to many trail-related facilities. Michigan is a national leader in providing facilities for both activities. In 1989, there were 44 downhill ski areas in Michigan with 572 runs (Enzel 1990), second in the nation only to New York.
The National Golf Foundation (1990) reported that Michigan had 660 golf facilities in 1989. Of these, 67% were daily fee facilities (privately owned but open to the public), 21% were private facilities (for members only), and 12% were municipal facilities (publicly owned). When translated into golf holes, Michigan had 10,440 holes, sixth in the nation.
Figure 6 compares the number of golf and downhill ski facilities in the Great Lakes states for the year 1986. Michigan is second in the region, with New York having the most golf and downhill ski facilities (Great Lakes Commission 1989).
Dispersed recreation
Opportunities for dispersed recreation abound on the public and private lands in Michigan. Approximately 21% of Michigan is in state or federal ownership (Figure 7). This public ownership is most evident in the Upper Peninsula and least evident in the southern Lower Peninsula (Figure 8). However, every county in Michigan has some public land (Wells and Eidelson, 1991).
The division of public owners is illustrated by Figure 9. MDNR manages the largest portion of the public lands, with the state forest system their largest holding. The U.S. Forest Service manages the largest amount of federal acreage. It is critical to note that acreage alone does not measure the land's value to natural resource-based recreation. Much of the state park and state game and wildlife area land is located in the southern Lower Peninsula, within a 2 to 3 hour drive of 90% of Michigan's population and millions of visitors from Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. Conversely, much of the state forest land is much farther from population centers and receives less use per acre than southern Lower Peninsula state parks and wildlife areas.
The majority of these lands are open to the dispersed recreation uses described previously. The most significant exception is that there are restrictions on the use of ORVs on many public lands, especially in the Lower Peninsula. There, ORVs are prohibited from all state parks except one, all state game and wildlife areas, all local park systems except one, and restricted in state forests to trails posted "open for ORVs". Unlike many other states, Michigan is unique in that most of its state park acreage is open to hunting. Sites are only closed where there are safety considerations due to small site size and proximity to buildings, campgrounds, etc. This provides convenient opportunities for hunting recreation that would otherwise not be available in populous southeastern, lower Michigan.
Figure 10 compares two important measures of dispersed recreation opportunity: state and national park acreage in the Great Lakes states. Michigan leads the region in national park acreage, while Indiana has the most state park acreage. Two of Michigan's four national park service areas, Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in the northwestern Lower Peninsula and Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore in the eastern Upper Peninsula, are unique for dispersed recreation because, in their establishment, Congress provided that they should be open to hunting where appropriate.
Special opportunities also exist for dispersed recreation that focuses on an individual's skills for coping with natural conditions, using few technological advantages. Michigan has a total of 249,064 acres of designated federal wilderness areas, places set aside on federal lands that are of a primeval character and do not allow motor vehicles and bicycles. An analogous designation by the state encompasses another 53,524 acres of state lands (Wells and Eidelson, 1991).
There are 624 miles on 16 rivers designated under the Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers program. This program is designed to preserve rivers in their free-flowing condition and to preserve streamside environments for aesthetic beauty, environmental quality and recreational enjoyment. The state of Michigan has a similar program in effect on 1,698 miles on 14 rivers (Doug Carter, MDNR).
Michigan is second in the nation to Florida in the number of seasonal (second) homes, with 223,549 reported in 1990 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1993). The distribution of these seasonal homes is shown in Figure 11. Seasonal homes often adjoin public lands, lakes and rivers. These provide a convenient gateway to participation in dispersed activities on public lands. Others may be part of extensive association ownerships focused on dispersed recreation that can exceed 25,000 acres. Still others have substantial individual acreages. Stewart (1994) in a study of Michigan seasonal home buyers, reported that proximity to a body of water, forests and recreational opportunities were the most desired characteristics in seasonal home properties.
Trends in Participation
This section will report on various measures used to track trends in natural resource-based recreation participation. These include license sales and registrations, equipment purchases, participation in selected activities as estimated by various studies, and the economic, social and political implications of these data.
License and Registration Trends in Camping
For a number of activities, it is possible to track participation through purchases of mandatory licenses, permits or registrations. For public camping at designated state park campgrounds, accurate registration information is available from 1970 to 1991 (Figure 12). The number of campers declined from 1970 to 1980. Since then, it has been relatively static. The number of day visitors and their proportion of total state park visitation has risen gradually since 1970. While this may lead one to believe demand for camping was declining to static, the supply of campsites increased during the period. In 1977, the MDNR estimated that there were 78,505 campsites in Michigan. In 1985, there were an estimated 92,803 campsites, with the growth in supply coming from the commercial and local, public sectors (Nelson 1991).
License and Registration Trends for Trail Recreation
For motorized trail activities, vehicle registrations provide an indicator of the vehicles in use. Snowmobile registrations (Figure 13) have an active trend line with a rapid increase in the late 1970s, a sharp decline in the 1980s and a moderate increase in the early 1990s. The registration trends do not take into account non-residents from other states and Canada who bring their machines to Michigan but register them in another state. This is a substantial number of people, especially in the western Upper Peninsula. Recently, legislation was enacted to require a Michigan snowmobile trail sticker to be purchased and affixed to all snowmobiles using Michigan trails, regardless of the state where a snowmobile is registered. This will provide a more accurate estimate of snowmobiles used in Michigan in future years.
ORV registrations from 1976 to 1990 (Figure 14) show a sharp increase that leveled off in 1990. During the 1970s, registered ORVs were primarily two-wheel cycles. More recently, the majority have been three- and four-wheel all terrain vehicles. In 1990, the ORV Act of 1975 was amended to eliminate the requirement for an ORV vehicle registration in 1991. Instead, the owner of the vehicle is required to obtain a certificate of title and be licensed to ride the ORV once their current ORV registration expires. The licensing requirement is also in effect for non-residents of Michigan, unlike the past registration requirement. During this transition period until 1995, it will be difficult to estimate the number of ORVs in operation in Michigan.
Licensed rental canoes are safety inspected by the MDNR Law Enforcement Division. In 1990, they reported that there were 9,195 canoes for rent in Michigan. The vast majority of these are on the 59 rivers or sections of rivers previously reported as water trails. These canoes are made available by the private, commercial sector.
License and Registration Trends in Dispersed Recreation
Some forms of dispersed recreation are highly regulated while others receive little, if any, regulation. Hunting, trapping and fishing are the most regulated forms of dispersed recreation. All hunters, trappers and anglers 17 or older are required to buy a license to pursue their sport in Michigan. Trends in hunting license sales for big game, small game, waterfowl and wild turkey indicate a mixed picture for hunting.
Sales of archery deer licenses have steadily risen (Figure 15). This reflects increased opportunities for this type of hunting due to increasing deer populations and increasingly liberal seasons and bag limits. In addition, technology has provided improvements including compound bows, that reduce the effort needed to draw the arrow and hold it, and quality sights, that allow highly accurate shooting by those with only modest archery experience. A continuing interest in archery hunting for deer is also expected as sales of junior archery licenses (for those 12 to 16 years of age) have increased 40% during the period from 1985 to 1992.
Sales of firearm deer licenses have declined slightly since 1986, when hunters were first allowed to purchase a second firearm license during a single hunting season. However, more people still participate in firearm deer hunting than any other type of hunting in Michigan.
Other types of big game hunting attract fewer people than deer hunting (Figure 16). Bear hunting in Michigan has stayed static at around 10,000 hunters annually. However, regulations that limit the number of bear hunters continue to undergo almost annual changes, making it difficult to establish a trend based on bear hunting participation. Applications are growing to hunt in the highly controlled elk hunt that regulates the largest free roaming elk herd east of the Mississippi River. Upwards of 50,000 hopeful hunters apply for one of a few hundred permits to hunt elk in and around the Pigeon River Country State Forest in the north central Lower Peninsula. Interest in the elk hunt has increased substantially since 1985.
Sales of the Michigan Waterfowl stamp, required of anyone over 15 to hunt waterfowl since 1976, have declined from 1976 through 1984, and have been relatively static since (Figure 17). During this time, waterfowl hunting opportunities have become more restrictive for ducks, in terms of abundance of game, seasons and bag limits, while for geese they have tended to become more liberal.
Small game hunting (resident hunter) license sales have declined steadily over the past 40 years. In 1956, over 750,000 small game licenses were sold. In 1992, total combined resident, senior and junior hunt license sales were less than 380,000. This decline has been largely attributed to the decline of pheasant populations between the 1960s and mid-1980s and restrictions in access due to the increased posting of private property.
Turkey hunting license sales have increased steadily since 1986 (Figure 18). On a percentage basis, turkey hunting has enjoyed the fastest increase in license sales of any type of hunting. The restoration of wild turkeys in Michigan from their extirpation in the 19th century is a biological success story with direct and positive ramifications for natural resource-based recreation. As turkeys are found in more locations throughout the state, the increase in turkey hunting license sales is likely to continue. Also, turkey hunting primarily occurs in the spring, when no other hunting opportunities are available for game animals and birds. Hence, hunters do not have to choose between turkey hunting and another type of hunting.
Sales of fur harvester licenses, required of those trapping or hunting fur-bearing animals, have declined (Figure 19). Demand for fur garments and prices for raw furs have also declined, eliminating some of the motivation for these activities. For in-depth discussion of Michigan's wildlife resources, see SAPMINR Special Report No. 75 by Winterstein et al.
Fishing license sales have slightly declined and sales of trout and salmon stamps (Figure 20) have moderately declined since 1986. In that year, the law was changed to require spouses to buy their own license rather than one license sufficing for husband and wife. Fish licenses are required for those over 16 in Michigan. Non-resident fishing license sales have remained static since 1987. Declines in trout and salmon stocks in the Great Lakes, coupled with concerns about possible fish contamination by toxic chemicals, appear to have contributed significantly to the decline. For in-depth discussion of Michigan's fisheries resources, see SAPMINR Special Report No. 74 by Garling et al.
One complication to these estimates of participation in hunting and fishing based on license sales is the sportsperson license. This license, which allows the purchaser to hunt small game, deer (both archery and firearm) and fish (including trout and salmon) makes it difficult to track participation in these individual activities. No studies have been done to determine which hunting and fishing activities are participated in by those who purchase a sportsperson license. Between 1985 and 1992, the number of sportsperson licenses sold increased 167% (Figure 21). This increase of 55,000 is similar to the decline of 40,000 in resident hunt licenses (small game hunting) but less than the decline in trout stamp sales of 125,000 and resident fishing licenses of 87,000. However, declines reported in various license sale categories are likely to be offset to some extent by increased sales of sportsperson licenses.
Studies of Participation
Estimates of overall population participation in outdoor recreation in the past was spearheaded by the National Park Service's National Outdoor Recreation Survey, done 5 times beginning in 1960. It used personal interviews with households conducted by U.S. Census Bureau personnel to determine trends in outdoor recreation in 1960, 1965 and 1982, and used telephone surveys in 1973 and 1979 (U.S. Department of Interior 1986). The MDNR's Michigan Travel and Recreation study used a telephone interview format with random digit dialing to estimate overall outdoor recreation activity. This was last conducted in 1980-81 (MDNR 1992). Continuation of these studies has been repeatedly postponed due to lack of funding in recent years.
Camping
Between 1960 and 1982, it is estimated that the percentage of Americans 12 and older who went camping once in the previous year rose from 8% to 19% (U.S. Department of Interior 1986). Cordell et al. (1990), based on their nationwide study of recreationists at public facilities, estimate that there were 61 million camping trips taken by one or more Americans in 1987. They project that nationwide by the year 2020, the number of camping trips will increase by 55%. Cordell et al. (1990) made no estimates for camping participation in Michigan. Nelson (1991) estimated that there were 4.5 million camper days in Michigan annually, with 80%, or 3.6 million, during the Memorial Day to Labor Day period. A camper day is defined as one person camping for one night.
Trails
The 1980-81 MDNR telephone survey estimated the percentage of Michiganians 12 and older who participated in trail activities. They estimated that 40% rode bicycles, 25% hiked or walked for pleasure, 15% canoed, 11% snowmobiled, 9% cross-country skied, 8% rode horses and 6% rode ORVs (MDNR 1992). Based on work done by the National Park Service in estimating recreation participation, these estimates are likely to be high as many who do not participate in trail activities refuse to respond to the interview, thereby upwardly biasing the results by reporting only on active participants (U.S. Department of Interior 1986).
Comparing the last national study of participation in outdoor recreation in 1982-83 (done by the National Park Service using Census Bureau methods of personal interviews) to the first in 1960 suggests that participation in many trail activities did increase nationwide over the 23 year period. Bicycling increased from 9% of the population 12 and older to 28%, canoeing from 2% to 8%, and skiing from 2% to 9%. Some trail activities were relatively static as horseback riding went from 6% to 7% over the period.
Cordell et al. (1990), based on their nationwide study of recreationists at public facilities, estimate that one or more Americans took 91 million trips for day hiking, 26 million for backpacking, 115 million for bicycle riding, 63 million for horseback riding, 10 million for cross country skiing, 64 million for downhill skiing and 40 million for canoeing/kayaking. They estimate that nationwide by the year 2020, trips for day hiking will increase 98%, backpacking 96%, bicycle riding 73%, horseback riding 60%, cross-country skiing 99%, downhill skiing 147% and canoeing/kayaking 40%.
Dispersed Recreation
There are few regular measures of participation for dispersed recreation. Only in wildlife-related dispersed recreation is there an on-going program of estimating activity and monitoring trends. The National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation has been conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service nationwide every 5 years since 1955. Trends reported in the 1985 study (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1988) suggest that nationwide the proportion of those 12 and older who hunt has declined from 10% in 1955 to 8% in 1985. The proportion of those who fish during that period has risen from 19% to 23%. The results should not be compared due to changes in methodology between the 1985 and 1991 surveys. For 1991, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Census Bureau (1993) estimate that 7% of the nation's population 16 and older hunted and 19% fished. For Michiganians in this age group, they estimate that 12% hunted and 21% fished. They also estimate that, during 1991, 1.7 million residents and non-residents 16 and older fished and 0.8 million hunted in Michigan.
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources has annually studied hunting effort with a mail survey to purchasers of small game and deer hunting licenses. In Michigan, small game hunting effort has markedly shifted over the period from 1956 to 1992. The number of hunter days for pheasants dropped from over 2 million in 1956 to 0.5 million in 1992. Hunter days for ducks declined from over 0.6 million to less than 0.3 million. For ruffed grouse, hunter days rose from over 0.5 million to over 1.0 million. Hunter days for cottontail rabbits declined from 2.6 million to 1.8 million (Reis 1991, Moritz 1992, unpublished data MDNR 1993). The proportion of potential hunters (those who had a license that would allow them to hunt the species) who actually hunted these four species is greatest for cottontail rabbit hunting and least for duck hunting (Figure 22). On a regional basis, the largest amount of the pheasant, duck and cottontail rabbit hunting occurs in southern lower Michigan and the majority of ruffed grouse hunting occurs in northern lower Michigan.
The number of hunter days for deer hunting are influenced by season dates, bag limits and participation in more than one type of deer hunting. Both season dates and bag limits have been liberalized since the early 1970s, when a hunter had a very limited season and was most likely allowed to shoot only one antlered buck per year. Recent years have brought multiple deer limits for both firearm and archery deer hunting and late firearm seasons for primitive weapons hunting. License sales for archery deer hunting have increased sharply over the past decade. From 1985 to 1992, the number of deer hunter days rose substantially from 8.9 million to 12.7 million (Reis 1990, Langenau 1993). Almost all of the increase was attributed to archery and muzzleloading hunting, with regular firearm deer hunting increasing very slightly.
For other dispersed activities, however, recent estimates of use have come from a variety of studies for specific land managers and administrative agencies. These agencies include the MDNR, the Michigan Travel Bureau, the U.S. Forest Service and others. These studies have not been on-going, but rather problem solving research projects that include one-time estimates of use as part of their objectives.
For example, a study was conducted of dispersed recreation occurring from April to December 1992 on the 1.7 million acres of the AuSable State Forest and the Huron-Manistee National Forest in northern lower Michigan. Dispersed recreation is recreation without the benefit of developed facilities such as trails, campgrounds, boat launches, etc. Nelson (1993) reported that when dispersed recreationists were asked their main reason for being in the woods, over half the respondents were hunting, with deer hunting accounting for almost 80% of the hunting. Other activities accounting for more than 5% of the dispersed users were illegal ORV riding on non-designated areas for ORVs, fishing and nature observation. The study also reported that a typical dispersed use involved a number of secondary, complementary activities, such as a deer hunting trip that also involved camping, hiking and nature observation.
On a per acre basis for these public forests, dispersed use between April and December 1992 was approximately 4 hours per acre by those driving to and parking on public lands or rights-of-way. Private property owners within the dedicated boundaries of the public forests who parked on their own land and entered the public lands on foot or rode a bicycle, snowmobile or ORV into the public lands accounted for another 5 hours of dispersed use per acre.
No statewide studies have been conducted of dispersed activities such as mushroom and berry picking, nature observation and nature photography.
Equipment Sales
Durable equipment sales is a useful tool for understanding future trends. Data is available for the camping and motorized trail sectors. For camping equipment, data is available for towable camping units (travel trailers, fifth wheel trailers, and tent trailers) and for motor homes from 1983 to 1992 (Figure 23). Shipments of towable units appear to fluctuate with economic conditions and demonstrated a substantial increase in 1992. In 1992, Michigan received almost 6% of the towable units and motor homes for the U.S., third in the nation behind California and Florida (Recreational Vehicle Industry Association 1993). Preliminary results for 1993 reported by the Michigan Association of Recreational Vehicles and Campgrounds suggest this upward trend is continuing.
Sales of ORVs, both two-wheel off-road motorcycles and four-wheel all terrain vehicles are reported in Figure 24. Sales of both types of ORVs have declined substantially since the early 1980s (Motorcycle Industry Council 1993). In 1992, however, the trend began to reverse. It is too soon to determine if this will continue and no preliminary data for 1993 is available. Three-wheel all terrain vehicles are no longer sold in the U.S. following a series of accidents and consumer lawsuits alleging an inherently unsafe design.
Characteristics of Selected Activity Participants
A number of studies have been conducted recently in Michigan that provide profiles of different groups of recreationists. These profiles provide valuable information for managers to understand the market they serve, the interrelationships between different recreational activities and providers, and the spending patterns of recreationists.
Camping
Camping has been better researched than most recreational activities. Fridgen et al. (1986) studied campers at Michigan state parks; Mahoney and Yu (1988) studied commercial campground campers; Nelson (1988c) studied state forest campground campers; and Nelson (1985) studied dispersed state forest campers. These studies found that each segment of the camper market is somewhat exclusive with moderate overlap. Those with the greatest overlap were commercial campgrounds and state parks. Those with the least overlap were dispersed state forest campgrounds and commercial campgrounds. Distinguishing characteristics between customers of these different types of camping are shown in Table 1.
The following are distinguishing characteristics of state park campers: they have the longest mean length of stay and are most likely to participate in hiking. Their mean spending for a day of camping is $36.53. This includes spending at home prior to the trip, spending enroute and spending while camping. Nelson (1991) estimates that state park campers comprise 24% of the summer Michigan camping market of 3.6 million campsite nights (one party camped on one site for one night).
Commercial campers were most likely to be non-residents of Michigan, to have the shortest mean length of stay, to camp in a trailer, motor home or other self-contained unit, to be new to the campground where sampled and to not participate in complementary recreation activities such as fishing and hiking. They spent an average of $60.33 per camp day for their camping trip. Nelson (1991) estimates that commercial campground campers comprise 54% of the Michigan summer camping market of 3.6 million campsite nights.
State forest campground campers were most likely to camp in a tent, to have a lower median income level, and to participate in swimming. They spent an average of $67.31 for a camper day. Nelson (1991) estimates that state forest campers are 3% of the Michigan summer camping market of 3.6 million campsite nights.
Dispersed state forest campers were most likely to participate in fishing, to be residents of Michigan, and to have previously camped in the location where they were interviewed. There are no estimates of spending by dispersed campers that are comparable to developed campsite campers and there is no information on the proportion of summer camping nights that are dispersed camping.
Trail Recreation
Snowmobilers have not been studied since 1978 (Szcodronski 1978). ORV riders were studied in 1988 by Nelson (1989) through a mail questionnaire sent to a sample of Michigan registered ORV owners. Table 2 provides a comparison of the owners and uses of four distinct types of ORVs.
ORV registrants are predominantly male and often younger than other segments of outdoor recreationists. They tend to have higher median incomes than the general public. This is not surprising because the mean retail price of a four-wheel all terrain vehicle in 1992 was over $3,600 (Motorcycle Industry Council 1993). ORVs are likely to be used by people other than the registrant and a sizable proportion of these other users could not be legally licensed to drive a car. The vehicles are unlikely to be used on the state's ORV trail network, with two-wheel cyclists most likely to use a designated trail. ORVs are often used throughout the year and are often support vehicles for other activities, such as ice fishing and hunting. When ORV riders go on a trip of 50 or more miles with its primary purpose being to ride ORVs at their destination, they spend sizable amounts of money in the area they visit. It is estimated that they spend more than $25 million annually on ORV-related trips. It is estimated that Michigan registered ORVs accounted for 4.1 million ORV user days (use of an ORV for any portion of a day by one person) during a 12 month period in 1987-88.
Hikers and cross-country skiers were most recently studied and reported on by Nelson (1988a, 1988b). Skiers were sampled in the winter of 1988 and hikers were sampled in the summer of 1987 on state forest pathways in northern lower Michigan and the Upper Peninsula. They responded to a postcard questionnaire at self-service sampling stations on designated trails. Those providing a name and telephone number as requested on the postcard survey received a follow-up telephone interview. Table 3 describes some key characteristics of both groups.
Skiers and hikers were most likely to be Michigan residents. They had median incomes for 1987 that were much higher than the general population of Michigan. Hikers and skiers were more likely than the national population to participate in hiking, cross-country skiing and hunting and somewhat more likely to participate in ORV riding. In response to an open-ended question about what needed to be improved for them to enjoy their activity, hikers were most likely to suggest more information about hiking opportunities, improved trail marking and the construction of more trails. Cross-country skiers desired the construction of more trails, better enforcement against illegal ORV and snowmobile use of trails during ski season and improved trail marking. When asked how they selected a trail for skiing, skiers stated that scenic beauty, proper grooming and signing were the most important factors. There is no estimate of hiking or cross-country skiing use on designated trails based on data.
For skiers, additional questions were asked about the characteristics of the trip on which they were sampled. Almost half were on trips for skiing where they spent one or more nights away from home. Of those who used a commercial lodging establishment one or more nights away from home, their daily per capita spending in the local area was substantially higher than that of campers and ORV riders. Almost 80% of their local spending was for lodging and bar and restaurant meals and drinks. Cross-country skiing was estimated by the U.S. Department of Interior (1986) to be one of the fastest growing outdoor recreational activities.
There is no recent data about participants in many trail activities in Michigan. For example, there have been no reported studies of canoeists, horse trail riders, and off road and paved trail bicyclists.
Dispersed Recreation
Many studies have been conducted on hunters and anglers in Michigan. A recent study of anglers by Mahoney et al. (1986) provides a sampling of the type of data available. From a sample size of 44,000 resident and non-resident anglers they found that resident anglers were most likely to fish for perch (65%), panfish (64%) and bass (64%), while non-residents were most likely to fish for bass (69%), panfish (50%) and salmon (48%). When asked what species they most desired to catch, the most preferred catch for resident anglers was bass (22%), followed by walleye (17%) and perch (12%). Non-resident anglers most preferred to catch salmon (25%), followed by bass (23%) and walleye (18%).
The species anglers preferred to eat differed from those they preferred to catch. The most desired fish to eat for residents was perch (25%) followed by walleye (24%) and panfish (14%). For non-residents, it was walleye (27%) followed by panfish (13%) and perch (12%). More anglers, resident and non-resident, prefer to fish on inland lakes in a private boat than any other method. Resident anglers are most likely to prefer bait fishing as a method of fishing, while non-resident anglers are most likely to prefer casting and spincasting. For both residents and non-residents, the presence or absence of contaminants in fish was the most important concern in selecting a fishing site.
Managers' Interests and Issues
Putting the managers' interests and issues into perspective is important in understanding natural resource-based recreation in Michigan. While some issues are universal, such as concerns over liability, others are unique to a particular activity or provider.
Camping
Commercial camping managers in Michigan are represented by the Michigan Association of Private Campground Owners (MAPCO) and the Michigan Association of Recreational Vehicles and Campgrounds (MARVAC). MARVAC also represents camping equipment dealers. Commercial campgrounds are small businesses with some franchising through Kampgrounds of America (KOA) and others. Non-profit, private campgrounds are operated by for profit businesses for their employees and by non-profit fraternal and religious organizations to benefit clients and members.
Public camping managers are the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, which operates state park and state forest campgrounds; the U.S. Forest Service, which operates national forest campgrounds; the National Park Service, which operates campgrounds at Michigan's three National Park Service areas; and local units of government, including cities, counties and townships.
Key issues for private sector campground providers include: increased concerns about liability; perceived and real competition with the public sector; implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; pricing and services provided by hobbyist versus for profit operators; standardized opening of the school year after Labor Day; and better defining the role of private sector camping in the lodging and tourism industry of Michigan.
Key issues for the public sector providers include: declining support from general tax dollars and increased reliance on user fees; regulation of dispersed camping; integrating camping as part of the agency's role in providing recreation and safeguarding natural resources; the ill-defined image and role of local public campgrounds; law enforcement and visitor, employee and facility security; conflicts between campers and among campers and other outdoor recreationists; and privatizing entire campgrounds or portions of their operations.
Issues that are important for all camping providers include: decreasing the capacity of campgrounds to be better in tune with demand; understanding the impact of camping on state and local economies; more effectively marketing the range of Michigan camping opportunities to residents and non-residents; improving environmental protection within campgrounds to protect the resources that attract campers; managing insect and wildlife pests; improving coordination between the public and private providers; and the need to gather more longitudinal, comparable data concerning campers, camping and campgrounds.
Users of campgrounds are not well organized. While organizations such as Michigan United Conservation Clubs peripherally represent campers, they tend to more strongly represent hunters, anglers and environmental concerns. Organizations that are primarily environmental in their thrust also have relatively little focus on camping. While a number of citizen organizations are seemingly more related to camping, those such as the National Campers and Hikers Association focus more on social activities among like-minded individuals than policy issues related to camping.
However, a number of initiatives stemming from governmental advisory panels of citizens including campers are having a sizable influence on government. The Citizens Committee for Michigan State Parks was appointed by the director of the MDNR in 1988. The committee has developed and the Natural Resource Commission has adopted Vision 2020, a strategic plan for Michigan State Parks to the year 2020. Under this plan, the state park system will provide a wider array of lodging options in the form of camping, such as full hookup campgrounds with pull-through sites, water, electricity and sewer to each site, to serve the needs of owners of larger, more costly trailers and motor homes. It will also consider other lodging options, such as lodges and cabins (Citizens Committee for Michigan State Parks 1992). More importantly, the plan has generated substantial support in the legislature and the governor's office, resulting in the introduction of a package of bills designed to improve the situation in Michigan state parks. The cornerstone is the enactment of the Gillette $800 million endowment fund restricted to state park use. The fund is slated to gain substantial monies from the sale of the Michigan Accident Fund and annually receive additional appropriations from oil and gas lease and royalty payments for the extraction of minerals from state owned lands. It appeared on the 1994 general election ballot for inclusion by voters in the Michigan Constitution.
The State Forest Recreation Advisory Committee, created by law in 1990, has already recommended a downsizing of the state forest campground system, increased funding for the remaining sites in the system, and a series of efficiency moves to better serve campers and day visitors at a lower cost. The legislature responded by increasing general fund appropriations to the program by 35%. The MDNR responded by closing 21 campgrounds and implementing the series of management changes suggested. The committee is also tackling the challenges of better management of dispersed camping through creation and implementation of a strategic plan for forest recreation entitled Forest Recreation 2000. The plan, now in draft stage, is patterned to some extent on the state parks' Vision 2020 plan. However, the uses of the state forest system are much more diverse than the state park system. They include timber production, fish and wildlife habitat, natural resource-based recreation, aesthetics, environmental protection and oil and gas production. In addition, the state forest system is 15 times the size of the state park system and has more miles of trails and more campgrounds (State Forest Recreation Advisory Committee 1994).
Trails
The managers of commercial, private sector trails, primarily cross-country ski trails, are likely to participate in Chambers of Commerce and other business organizations rather than in statewide organizations as do commercial camping providers. The one exception is canoe liveries, which rent canoes for recreationists to enjoy water trail activities. Their association is the Recreational Canoeing Association (RCA). It was initially formed in response to river use rules promulgated by the State of Michigan that would have severely restricted canoeing on a number of northern Michigan rivers. However, an RCA suit against the rules proved successful, with the state unable to prove that rules limiting canoes to certain numbers would result in specific reductions in environmental damage. Further, other factors were also found to cause environmental damage to rivers. However, portions of the rules have been adopted as policy by RCA liveries on many rivers, including time zoning, which limits canoeing traffic to hours when conflicts with anglers and others on the river is likely to be minimal. Some liveries have also adopted no alcohol or limited alcohol policies for use of their rental canoes.
Public trail managers include various divisions of the MDNR, including the Parks and Recreation Division, which operates Michigan's state parks, and the Forest Management Division, which operates Michigan's state forests and contains the Trails Unit, which coordinates planning and funding for MDNR trails programs. The Michigan Department of Transportation also operates bicycle trails adjacent to some sections of the interstate highway system. In the federal government, the National Park Service coordinates federal interstate trails (including the North Country Scenic Trail which traverses Michigan) and manages trails in three National Park Service areas in Michigan. The U.S. Forest Service manages motorized and non-motorized trails in all four of Michigan's national forests and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service operates non-motorized trails in two of Michigan's national wildlife refuges. Local units of government at the regional, county, municipal and township level operate many non-motorized trails and a few motorized trails. Some of these locally operated trails are the most heavily used in the state.
Non-profit, private, trail-related organizations have formed partnerships with public sector managers in a number of instances. Groups such as the Michigan Trail Riders (a horseback riding group), the Cycle Conservation Club of Michigan (an ORV riding group), the Michigan Snowmobile Association and the Michigan Mountain Bike Association work closely with public trail managers to assist in trail development and maintenance. In many cases, this cooperation was begun to stage a major event and has continued long after the event. In particular, many of the major cross-country skiing races in Michigan are staged by private groups in conjunction with the use of trail facilities on public lands.
Key trail-related issues concerning all trails include: understanding the economic impact of trail use on state and local economies; lack of public information about trail opportunities; compatibility of trail activities with adjacent land uses; lack of support facilities for trail users; agricultural spraying and its effect on trail users; visitor and property security along trail corridors; and a lack of trail use and user baseline data.
Important non-motorized trail issues include: compatibility among non-motorized users; compatibility between motorized and non-motorized users; lack of a stable funding source for trail operations; classification of Michigan trails by suitability and desirability for various non-motorized trail uses; increasing public resistance to rails-to-trails designations; and environmental protection along mountain bike trails.
Important motorized trail issues include: environmental protection and restoration along designated and non-designated ORV trails; lack of a stable funding source for ORV trail operations; lack of law enforcement personnel for motorized trail enforcement; and rider safety as related to operation of motorized trail vehicles while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Trail users are strongly represented by a range of groups focused on a single trail use. Some of the more notable include: the Michigan League of Bicyclists, representing road/paved bicycling; the Michigan Mountain Bike Association, representing off pavement/surfaced bicycling; the Michigan Trail Riders Association, representing horse trail riders; the Michigan Snowmobile Association, representing snowmobilers; the Cycle Conservation Club of Michigan, representing off-road vehicle riders; the American Motorcycle Association, representing off-road vehicle riders; and the Lansing Oar and Paddle Club, focusing on water trails. In addition, many local and regional organizations also represent trail enthusiasts.
Those desiring a new network of trails related to abandoned railroad rights-of-way have formed the Michigan Chapter of the Rails to Trails Conservancy. This organization works to develop public support for rail trails, particularly where railways are scheduled to be abandoned.
One major step forward in trail management has been the Michigan Trails Initiative. It was developed by the MDNR as a result of the 1987 passage of the Recreation Improvement Fund Act, which provided the first on-going source of funding for all trails from the Michigan fuel tax. In addition, increasing abandonment of railroads in Michigan (less than half of the railroad rights-of-way in Michigan have rail traffic in 1994) garnered more interest in trails. After extensive public review and input to provide a framework for improving trail opportunities in Michigan, the initiative was adopted as state policy by the Natural Resources Commission in 1992. Its focus is to improve trail opportunities near centers of population and to strengthen state and local economies through trail-related tourism (MDNR 1992). This focus has gained added strength with the passage the Michigan Trailways Act, Public Act 27 of 1993, which encourages the MDNR to work with local units of government to turn abandoned railroad rights-of-way into motorized and non-motorized trails.
Dispersed Recreation
Dispersed recreation managers are managers of public, commercial and non-industrial, private lands. In the public sector, the two largest managers are the MDNR and the Forest Service. In the commercial sector, the largest landowners providing access are the forest products industry. Mead and Champion International are the two largest commercial forest landowners in Michigan. Under the Commercial Forest Act of 1925 as amended, enrolled commercial forest lands are open for public hunting and fishing. In return, the owners are provided tax breaks that allow them to pay reduced taxes except when timber is actually harvested. Over 2 million acres, almost all in the Upper Peninsula, are enrolled in the program. In addition, non-industrial private lands offer many opportunities for dispersed recreation. These lands range from forested acreages in the Upper Peninsula to agricultural lands in the southern Lower Peninsula.
Key dispersed recreation issues include: estimating the demand for and participation in dispersed recreation opportunities; the compatibility of various recreation activities in a dispersed setting; the compatibility of dispersed recreation and other land management practices, such as oil and gas development, timber management, and wildlife management; obtaining stable funding to manage dispersed recreationists; understanding the effect of fragmentation of private landholdings on dispersed recreation opportunities; implementing ecosystem or landscape planning for dispersed recreation that crosses jurisdictional boundaries; and understanding the economic impact of dispersed recreation on state and local economies.
One of the major tools to provide additional lands for dispersed recreation is land acquisition. Today the majority of funding for land acquisition can be traced to the Kammer Recreational Land Trust Fund Act of 1976. This legislation was established to purchase recreational land using the lease payments and royalties from gas, oil and mineral extraction on state lands. In 1984, voters in Michigan chose by an almost 2:1 margin to protect this funding source for acquiring recreational lands by establishing the Michigan Natural Resource Trust Fund in the state's constitution. Of the five goals of the acquisition program, the goal with the highest priority is protection of Michigan's natural resources and provision for their public use and enjoyment (MDNR 1993b). As of 1993, the program had purchased over 100,000 acres, including many large parcels in excess of 1,000 acres (Robert Couvreur, MDNR).
Another important source of dispersed recreation opportunities is the Public Access Program of the MDNR Wildlife Division. This program annually procures more than 100,000 acres of public hunting easements on private lands in southern Michigan using hunting license dollars. In operation since 1976, the program provides a list of these lands and their owners to any interested hunter.
Role of Research
Research can provide an array of benefits to camping, trail and dispersed recreationists, and to the managers and suppliers of related goods and services. First and foremost, establishment of a sound participation tracking program should be implemented by MSU researchers to gather baseline data. This would provide the blueprint for managing agencies to continue measurement on a regular basis with some oversight by MSU scientists. This would be especially beneficial for trail and dispersed activities where no past studies on participation have been done. MSU scientists have experience measuring recreational use over a wide range of situations and activities.
On a marketing basis, research can be useful in determining the needs of customers (recreationists and potential recreationists). The basic tenant of marketing is that the organization acts to meet its needs and those of a defined customer group or market segment. Marketing research can help define those segments and explore issues related to competition, satisfaction and effective promotion. Prior to implementation of policy change, while the policy is being formulated, marketing research is also critical to accompany legally mandated public input. While public input is often dominated by special interest groups who may represent only an extreme faction of the total population of recreationists, sound marketing research will reach a representative sample of customers, giving a more accurate picture of the recreationist's needs and concerns. MSU scientists have extensive experience in marketing, policy formulation and evaluation and effective promotion.
One key market segment where research is critical is disabled persons. Their needs for natural resource-based recreation are poorly understood. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a civil rights act for those with disabilities, requires appropriate consideration be given to the needs of disabled citizens. While rules have been promulgated that set facility design and accessibility standards, funds are limited to accomplish the renovations on the array of outdoor recreation facilities. Further, environmental modifications may destroy the very nature recreationists see. Hence, better understanding the needs of disabled recreators and potential recreators is critical from a fiscal and a public service standpoint.
Economic research is critical to understand the contribution that recreation-related spending, investment and employment make to local economies and to the state. While the study of economic activity in the complex area of recreation is challenging, decisions about natural resource use are often made on the basis of comparing the relatively straight-forward, commonly gathered economic data of the forest products, agricultural or oil and gas industries as a result of the lack of economic data available about recreation. However, new techniques for estimating economic impacts of recreational activities are now in use by MSU scientists and have shown promising results for the U.S. Forest Service, the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in other parts of the country. Similar studies should be undertaken in Michigan to apply this methodology in longitudinal studies of the economic values of recreation.
A special case related to economics deserving research attention is the economic impact of seasonal residents, primarily drawn back to Michigan by their interest in natural resource-based recreation. These seasonal residents include seasonal home owners and those residing in motor homes or travel trailers for one or more seasons in Michigan. As the population ages and more older adults are healthier and better off economically, the number of people involved in this lifestyle is likely to increase. Their influence on local economies and the Michigan economy is likely to be substantial. Further, their impact on recreation activities provided by the commercial private and public sectors and their political influence on the management of public lands is likely to increase. Key issues with economic ramifications related to this group include fees such as senior discounts and ADA requirements to make facilities accessible.
Sociologically, research is a critical tool to understand social conflict among recreationists or between recreationists and others such as adjacent landowners and competing land users. Measuring and understanding the concerns of the parties involved by an independent, outside, trusted party, such as an MSU scientist, can provide opportunity for accurate, unbiased information and impetus for compromise and new paradigms that otherwise would not have been considered. Both the U.S. Forest Service and the MDNR have extensively used MSU scientists in this role. Also, monitoring key societal trends related to recreation, such as second home development, population shifts in Michigan, fragmentation of forest and agricultural land ownership and inholdings within the dedicated boundaries of public lands, needs to be done to better understand their effect on recreation participation and satisfaction.
Biologically, research opportunities to assist also abound. Developing biological control methods for biting flies and mosquitos, evaluating the impacts of various levels and types of recreation use on the ecosystem and exploring the use of different designs and materials for recreation facilities could provide both useful facilities and safeguard the productive capability of the environment. Another important area is restora-tion of the environment following unwise, long-term recreation use, such as illegal ORV activity on fragile soils. MSU scientists' knowledge of recreation behavior, turf, soils, engineering, hydrology, wildlife, fisheries and vegetation are critical to devise optimal methods to restore degraded environments.
Educationally, another critical area for research is related to the public's understanding of natural resources and biological processes. Special interest groups, industries, schools, nature centers, parks and others send numerous messages to society and segments of society about the health of the environment and the workings of nature. It is critical that these messages and the medium in which they are sent be analyzed for effectiveness and accuracy. MSU scientists can accomplish this with their expertise in environmental interpretation, environmental education, communication and environmental psychology.
A final area of needed study is visitor and facility safety and security. More than most situations in our society, personal and resource safety in the out-of-doors depends on a social covenant among recreationists, and between recreationists, neighbors and managers. With few enforcement personnel, privacy and seclusion as desirable goals of recreation, valuable and potentially dangerous equipment in use, and an often fragile natural resource base, law enforcement needs to be efficient and targeted. Programs that can reduce the need for active enforcement, such as safety education programs for motorized trail riders and hunters, need to be evaluated and improved. Policy research concerning the desired and actual effect of recreation-related statutes, rules and regulations needs to be conducted. The most efficient methods of policing large environments need to be formulated through research. Currently, MSU scientists have expertise in recreation behavior, recreation law enforcement, youth (who are often the perpetrators of vandalism in the out-of-doors), the law, educational programming and communication. A combination of these talents could provide the research capability to define and test likely approaches to recreation law enforcement and visitor, resource and facility security and safety.
References
Citizens Committee for Michigan State Parks. 1992. Vision 2020: A Strategic Plan for Michigan State Parks. Citizens Committee for Michigan State Parks, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Parks Division, Lansing, MI.
Cordell, K., Bergstrom, J., Hartmann, L. and D. English. 1990. An Analysis of the Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness Situation in the United States: 1989 _ 2040. U.S.D.A Forest Service General Technical Report RM-189. Washington, DC.
Great Lakes Commission. 1989. Travel, Tourism and Outdoor Recreation in the Great Lakes States: A Statistical Profile. Great Lakes Commission, Ann Arbor, MI.
Enzel, R. 1990. The White Book of Ski Areas. Inter-Ski Services, Inc., Washington, DC.
Fridgen, J., Mahoney, E., Nelson, C. and D. Holecek. 1986. Michigan State Park User Study. Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Hansen, D. and D. Holly. 1988. Michigan Trail Atlas. Hansen Publishing Co., Okemos, MI.
Langenau, E. 1993. 1993 Status of the Michigan Deer Herd. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division, Lansing, MI.
Mahoney, E. and Y. Yu. 1988. Michigan Commercial Campground Study. Travel, Tourism and Recreation Resource Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1983. Michigan's Forest Resources:Direction for the Future. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1992. Michigan Statewide Trails Initiative. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Recreation Division, Lansing, MI.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1993. State Forest Trails Inventory. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Forest Management Division, Lansing, MI.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1993. Recreation Grants Selection Process. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI.
Moritz, B. 1992. Hunting Results, Michigan Small Game Seasons, 1991. Wildlife Division Report No. 3202. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division, Lansing, MI.
Motorcycle Industry Council. 1993. Motorcycle Industry Council Retail Sales Report. Motorcycle Industry Council, Washington, DC.
National Golf Foundation. 1990. Golf Facilities in the United States: 1990 Edition. National Golf Foundation, North Palm Beach, FL.
Nelson, C., Holecek, D. and K. Beatty. 1985. Final Report: 1984 State Forest Camper Interviews. Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Nelson, C. 1988a. Michigan State Forest Pathway Hikers and Backpackers in 1987. Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Nelson, C. 1988b. Michigan State Forest Pathway Cross Country Skiers in 1988. Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Nelson, C. 1988c. Michigan State Forest Campground Campers in 1987. Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Nelson, C. 1989. Registered Michigan Off-Road Vehicles Use and Users. Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Nelson, C. 1991. "Camping in Michigan." In: Travel and Tourism in Michigan: A Statistical Profile (Second Edition) by D. Spotts(ed). Travel, Tourism and Recreation Resource Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, pp 240-257.
Nelson, C. 1993. Estimated Tourist Dispersed Recreational Use of the Huron-Manistee National Forests and the Au Sable State Forest During April-December 1992. Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Recreational Vehicle Industry Association. 1993. Marketing Report Annual Review. Recreational Vehicle Industry Association, Reston, VA.
Reis, T. 1989. Hunting Results, Michigan Small Game Seasons, 1988. Wildlife Division Report No. 3112. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division, Lansing, MI.
Reis, T. 1990. 1989 Michigan Deer Seasons. Wildlife Division Report No. 3128. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division, Lansing, MI.
Reis, T. 1991. Hunting Results, Michigan Small Game Seasons, 1990. Wildlife Division Report No. 3142. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division, Lansing, MI.
Rockford Publishing. 1987. Michigan Travel and Recreation Guide. Rockford, IL.
State Forest Recreation Advisory Committee. 1994. Forest Recreation 2000: A Strategic Plan for Michigan's State Forest Recreation System (Draft). Michigan State Forest Recreation Advisory Committee, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Forest Management Division, Lansing, MI.
Stewart, S. 1994. The Seasonal Home Location Decision Process: Toward a Dynamic Model. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Szcodronski, K. 1978. Trends in the Characteristics of Michigan Snowmobile Owners. M.S. Thesis. Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1993. Summary of Population and Housing Characteristics. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of Interior. 1986. 1982-83 Nationwide Recreation Survey. U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, DC.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. 1985 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1993. 1991 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Department of Interior and Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.
Wells, P. and M. Eidelson. 1991. "Federal and State Recreation Lands in Michigan." In: Travel and Tourism in Michigan: A Statistical Profile (Second Edition) D. Spotts(ed). Travel, Tourism and Recreation Resource Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, pp 49-71.
Figure 1. Percentage of Michigan campsites by provider in 1992.
Sources: Michigan Department of Public Health; Michigan Department of Natural Resources; U.S. Forest Service; National Park Service.
Figure 2. Number of Michigan campsites by county.
Sources: U.S. Forest Service; National Park Service; Michigan Department of Natural Resources; Michigan Department of Public Health.
Figure 3. Number of campgrounds in the Great Lakes region listed in Woodall's 1988 camping directory.
Source: Great Lakes Commission (1989).
Figure 4. Miles of hiking and bicycle trails in the Great Lakes states in 1986.
Source: Great Lakes Commission (1989).
Figure 5. Miles of cross-country skiing and snowmobile trails in the Great Lakes states in 1986.
Source: Great Lakes Commission (1989).
Figure 6. Number of golf and downhill ski facilities in the Great Lakes states in 1986.
Source: Great Lakes Commission (1989).
Figure 7. Federal and state lands in Michigan.
Source: Wells and Eidelson (1991).
Figure 8. Percentage of state and federal recreation lands in Michigan by management designation.
Source: Wells and Eidelson (1991).
Figure 9. Number of state or federal acres open to public recreation in Michigan by county.
Source: Wells and Eidelson (1991).
Figure 10. Amount of state and national park acreage in the Great Lakes states in 1986.
Source: Great Lakes Commission (1989).
Figure 11. Number of second homes in Michigan by county in 1990.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census (1993).
Figure 12. Camper attendance as a portion of total attendance in Michigan State Parks.
Source: Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
Figure 13. Michigan snowmobile registrations, 1978-1992.
Source: Michigan Secretary of State.
Figure 14. Michigan off-road vehicle registrations, 1978-1990.
Source: Michigan Secretary of State.
Figure 15. Sales of resident and non-resident Michigan deer hunting licenses, 1985-1992.
Source: Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
Figure 16. Sales of resident Michigan bear licenses and elk applications, 1985-1992.
Source: Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
Figure 17. Sales of Michigan resident and non-resident hunting (small game) licenses and waterfowl stamps, 1985-1992.
Source: Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
Figure 18. Michigan wild turkey hunting license sales, 1986-1992.
Source: Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
Figure 19. Sales of resident Michigan fur harvester licenses, 1986-1992.
Source: Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
Figure 20. Sales of Michigan resident and non-resident fishing licenses and trout stamps, 1985-1992.
Source: Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
Figure 21. Sales of Michigan sportsperson licenses, 1985-1992.
Source: Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
Figure 22. Trends in potential and actual small game hunters in Michigan, 1979-1991 (no data available for 1984).
Source: Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
Figure 23. Shipments to retailers nationwide of towable camping shelters and motor homes, 1983-1992.
Source: Recreational Vehicle Industry Association.
Figure 24. Estimated national vehicle sales of two- and four-wheel off-road vehicles.
Source: Motorcycle Industry Council.
Table 1. Selected characteristics of state park, commercial campground, state forest campground and dispersed state forest campers in Michigan during camping trip when interviewed*.
Commercial State State forest Dispersed
Characteristic campground park campground state forest
Mean age in years 46.1 41.2 41.2 40.2
Median income range
in thousands $30-40 $30-40 $20-30 $20-50
of dollars for year prior to sample year
Michigan residents 64% 83% 94% 95%
Mean number in party 3.4 3.5 3.4 4.5
Mean length stay
in days 2.7 4.7 3.5 3.9
Previously stayed
where sampled 35% 68% 62% 70%
Participated in fishing
when camped 32% 43% 69% 94%
Participated in hiking
when camped 21% 66% 52% 52%
Participated in swimming
when camped 66% 63% 73% 69%
Camped in tent 24% 28% 56% 30% Camped in motorhome/travel trailer/5th wheel/van conversion/pickup camper 63% 44% 30% 59% Mean spending per person per day in $3.80 $2.79 $8.43 $5.64 the local area while camped
* Commercial campground sample in 1987 State park sample in 1985 State forest campground sample in 1987 State forest sample in 1984
Table 2. Selected characteristics of Michigan ORV registrants in 1988 study by type of vehicle owned.
Four-wheel
Two- Three- Four- drive
Wheel Wheel Wheel truck/sport
Characteristic Cycle ATV ATV utility vehicle
Male 96% 88% 92% 94%
Mean age in years 32.3 38.8 36.3 34.4
Median household
income range 30-40 30-40 40-50 30-40
in thousands of dollars for 1987
Use of the vehicle
by others 56% 76% 79% 86%
during past year
Use of vehicle by others
under 16 27% 24% 21% 8%
during past year
User days during
past year 23 23 23 22
for vehicle
Mean gallons of fuel
consumed 37.3 41.6 48.0 87.8
in off-road use of vehicle duringpast year
Use of ORV in past year
for 14% 48% 51% 54%
hunting transportation
Use of ORV in past
year for 6% 33% 29% 23%
ice fishing transportation
Last use during past year
was on 34% 8% 22% 18%
a designated ORV trial or area
Spending per person per
day on $20.33 $13.34 $16.18 $18.34
most recent ORV-oriented trip 50 or more miles from home
within 25 miles of where ORV ridden
Table 3. Selected characteristics of hikers and cross-country skiers in Michigan State Forests in 1987-88.
Cross-Country
Characteristic Hikers Skiers
Mean age in years 39.3 42.6
Median household income range in thousands of dollars in
1987 30-40 40-50
Michigan residents 87% 94%
Participated in hiking
during past year 94% 65%
Participated in cross-country skiing
during past year 53% 99%
Participated in hunting
during past year 26% 32%
Participated in fishing
during past year 50% 59%
Status and Potential of Michigan Natural Resources List of Reports
Acknowledgements
Overview Reports SR 67 --SAPMINR Highlights SR 68 --Michigan Natural Resources Policy SR 69 --Demographic, Social and Economic Trends SR 70 --Integrated Natural Resource Systems
The author would like to thank personnel from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources' divisions of Parks and Recreation, Law Enforcement, Forest Manage-ment, and Fisheries and Wildlife for sharing data and insights. Ed Klim, of the Michigan Association of Recreational Vehicles and Campgrounds, was instrumental in obtaining statistics concerning recreation equipment sales. From Michigan State University, Drs. Scott Winterstein and Don Garling (Fisheries and Wildlife), Dr. Frank D'Itri (Institute of Water Research), and Dr. Del Mokma (Crop and Soil Sciences) willingly shared data and suggestions.
Focus Reports SR 71 --Timber and Timberland Resources SR 72 --Lumber, Furniture, Composition Panels and Other Solidwood Products SR 73 --Pulp, Paper, Allied Products and Wood Energy SR 74 --Fisheries SR 75 --Wildlife SR 76 --Tourism SR 77 --Boating and Underwater Recreation SR 78 --Camping, Trails and Dispersed Recreation SR 79 --Water Resources SR 80 --Land Resources SR 81 --Nonrenewable Resources SR 82 --Natural Resources and Communities
Reports on the Status and Potential of Michigan Natural Resources
This special report is one of a series (listed below) prepared for a project of the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station (MAES) called the "Status and Potential of Michigan Natural Resources" (SAPMINR).
The project was designed to take an inventory of the current status of Michigan natural resources, identify emerging trends, and appraise future opportunities. The purpose was to assist MAES in establishing priorities and planning programs.
Both overview and focused topic assessments have been made. The overview reports provide background information on the political, economic, and social environments influencing Michigan natural resources. The focus reports examine specific resources, including timberland resources, fisheries and wildlife resources, parks and recreational resources, and land and water resources.
The SAPMINR project began in early 1993. At that time, interdisciplinary teams of MSU faculty members, graduate students, federal and state government officials, and others collaborated to develop preliminary reports. In March 1994, a SAPMINR conference took place during MSU's Agriculture and Natural Resources Week. The objective of the conference was to provide a public forum for discussion of the preliminary reports. Based on interaction with conference participants, the authors prepared the final drafts of the special reports (SR).
This report should not be considered final. Efforts to analyze the past and forecast the future are ongoing. Even so, this report is a base for dialogue on both the status and potential of Michigan natural resources.
To receive any of the reports listed below, contact: MSU Bulletin Office, Room 10B Agriculture Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1039.
The Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station is an equal opportunity employer and complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
printed on recycled paper using soy based ink
New_1:95_.75M_TCM_CW