Leave No Trace

1. Leave No Trace

2. How big a deal is group size limits? Table 1. Wilderness area group size limits by management agency1 (81% of areas in National Wilderness Preservation System responding) No Limits Limits – Same Limits – Different Closed Total Agency % N N % N % N % N 99 82.5 13 10.8 7 5.8 1 0.8 120 BLM 82 27.4 209 69.9 8 2.7 0 0.0 299 USFS 52 77.6 5 7.5 2 3.0 8 11.9 USF&WS 67 NPS 11 28.9 52.6 6 15.8 1 2.6 20 38 Total 244 46.6 4.4 10 1.9 524 247 47.1 23 1 It is possible for the area to have no group size limits (No Limits), to have the same limits for all users (Limits—Same), to have different limits for different user types (Limits—Different), or to be closed or inaccessible to the public (Closed). From: Wilderness party size regulations:…, Monz, Roggenbuck, Cole, Brame, and Yoder (See H.O. for full attribution)

3. Why impose group restrictions? Environmental impacts (81%) Consistency with neighboring wilderness areas (50%) Conflict between groups (47%) Overall high use of area (42%) Facility/site constraints (39%) Public complaints and pressure (24%) Conflict within groups (6%) From: Wilderness party size regulations:…, Monz, Roggenbuck, Cole, Brame, and Yoder (See H.O. for full attribution)

4. Group impact on the environment? ( 1 of 2 ) Firewood consumption (positive?) Wildlife disturbance (positive) Vegetation/soil damage - impacted areas (neutral) Vegetation/soil damage - pristine areas (negative) Vegetation/soil damage - impacted areas that are too small for group to fit into (negative) From: Wilderness party size regulations:…, Monz, Roggenbuck, Cole, Brame, and Yoder (See H.O. for full attribution)

5. Group impact on the environment? ( 2 of 2 ) Firewood consumption (positive?) Wildlife disturbance (positive) Vegetation/soil damage - impacted areas (neutral) Vegetation/soil damage - pristine areas (negative) Vegetation/soil damage - impacted areas that are too small for group to fit into (negative) Science Common - sense From: Wilderness party size regulations:…, Monz, Roggenbuck, Cole, Brame, and Yoder (See H.O. for full attribution)

6. Group impact on other’s wilderness experience? Hikers generally support group size limits (75+%) Much smaller numbers say that seeing a large group was even a slight problem (20-30%) Most rank “group size” among the lowest of ranked problems From: Wilderness party size regulations:…, Monz, Roggenbuck, Cole, Brame, and Yoder (See H.O. for full attribution)

7. General conclusions Group size limits are a common management approach toward limiting ecological and social impacts Beyond limiting very large groups, it is not clear how group size limits have helped reduce impacts More research needed on ecological and visitor experience implications of group size Careful cost/benefit evaluation is needed when setting group size limits From: Wilderness party size regulations:…, Monz, Roggenbuck, Cole, Brame, and Yoder (See H.O. for full attribution)

8. Just what is a “group”, anyway?(1 of 2) Family group (forever!) Organized group (long term) Organized group (short term) Ad hoc group (“long” term) Ad hoc group (short term) Random collection of individuals more “groupness” less “groupness”

9. Just what is a “group”, anyway? (2 of 2) “Intra” Comm Self Train Self Police Plan Ahead “Inter” Comm Tradition M S S S S Family group (forever!) Organized group (long term) Organized group (short term) Ad hoc group (“long” term) Ad hoc group (short term) S S S S S S S S M M M S M - F F L - L - F L L - - - - - - - - Random collection of individuals S = strong M = moderate F = Fair L = low

10. What do we mean when we say “group”? 100+ 50 - 100 20 - 50 10 - 30 3 - dozen 2 - 4 BIG groups Smallish groups

11. What are we comparing groups against? Groups of similar type All other groups Equivalent size collections of random individuals “Normal” load of random individuals for area No human impacts at all Apples & Apples Apples & Oranges

12. Where can a group go to use the outdoors? “Friendly” Private Lands Public Frontcountry Public Wilderness Own Organization’s Lands Public Backcountry Less restrictions on access More restrictions on access

13. Boy Scouts - a case study in group use ( 1 of 5 ) Educational (not recreational) organization Major elements of the BSA educational program are designed to work best in the outdoors In a well-run Scout unit, good outdoor fun is a byproduct of the educational program, not a goal in itself

14. Boy Scouts - a case study in group use ( 2 of 5 ) BSA Youth New campers Adolescents & teens Teams are key training method Youth leadership is a key training method Ideals/values = outdoor citizenship Structured training program

15. Boy Scouts - a case study in group use ( 3 of 5 ) BSA Adults New campers All ages (18 to …?) Wide range of physical fitness Structured training program Strong “tradition” base Youth protection Volunteers

16. Boy Scouts - a case study in group use ( 4 of 5 ) A sense of scale - annual outdoor use (est.) 50,000+ Troops 17,000+ Crews enjoy 300,000+ weekend trips (unit size) 10,000+ weekend multi-group encampments (20+ units) 5,000+ week-long trips (unit size) 1,000+ week-long multi-group encampments (20+ units)

17. Boy Scouts - a case study in group use ( 5 of 5 ) A sense of scale - LNT ”training” potential (est.) 4,000,000+ BSA youth and adults can potentially indirectly influence (at some level) the outdoor behaviors of an estimated 20,000,000 outdoor users (over and over and over…for a long time!)

18. It ain’t just the Scouts! 4-H Clubs Schools Church groups Adventure therapy groups Outward Bound Private camps JROTC Klan

19. A last thought on limiting group use! Should there be something about group membership that causes a citizen to start loosing their rights to enjoy their own public lands…? - Or - Could it be that groups are sometimes just the easiest target for regulation?