0149-0400/95 $10.00 + .03
Copyright © 1995 Taylor & Francis
Backcountry Llama Packing: Visitor Perceptions
of Acceptability and Conflict
DALE J. BLAHNA
Department of Forest Resources
Utah State University
Logan, Utah, USA
KARI S. SMITH
Department of Recreation Education
Ricks College.
Rexburg, Idaho, USA
JANET A. ANDERSON
Department of Forest Resources
Utah State University
Logan, Utah, USA
Abstract There is little research on visitors’ reactions to encountering nontraditional backcountry recreational activities. This paper concerns potential conflicts
between llama packers and traditional backcountry visitors. Both on-site and mail
questionnaires were completed by 337 visitors at trailheads in the Bechler Meadow
region of Yellowstone National Park and the Jedediah Smith Wilderness on the
Targhee National Forest. Respondents were asked about past encounters with llamas,
perceptions of conflicts and problems resulting from llama use, and attitudes toward
five dimensions of social acceptability of llamas: social conflict, safety, physical impacts, managerial equity, and philosophical “appropriateness.” About 30% of the
respondents at both areas encountered llamas during the trip, and half had encountered llamas during backcountry trips during the past 5 years. Conflicts and problems
related to llama use were low in both study areas, though horseback riders were more
likely to have concerns than hikers. Llama management shouldfocus on informational
and educational approaches rather than simple reliance on designating areas specifically for horse or llama use. Acceptability judgments about nontraditional activities
must include estimates of safety and philosophical appropriateness as well as social,
environmental, and managerial conditions.
Keywords recreation conflict, asymmetrical conflict, social acceptability, llama
packing, nontraditional activities, wilderness recreation
Received 1 December 1994; accepted 9 June 1995.
Research was supported by a grant from the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute and
the Utah Agricultural Experiment Station. (Approved as AES paper no. 4715.) The authors would
like to thank Mark Brunson and Rick Krannich for their advice and cooperation. An earlier version
of this paper was presented at the 5th International Symposium on Society and Natural Resources,
Fort Collins, CO, June 7-10, 1994.
Address correspondence to Dale J. Blahna, Department of Forest Resources, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-52 15, USA.
185
186
D. J. Blahna et al.
There are many studies on recreational carrying capacity and use restrictions in backcountry areas. Most of the literature focuses on limiting use due to increasing numbers of
existing user groups, rather than the acceptability of new or nontraditional user groups
(White & Schreyer, I981). Although issues related to physical and social impacts of new
activities may be similar to recognized carrying capacity problems, there are also unique
concerns involved with the introduction of new activities. Issues such as the philosophical
appropriateness of the new activity and potential for new forms of conflict with traditional
user groups must be addressed. These issues are especially relevant for restricted-use
public lands such as designated wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, wild and scenic
river corridors, and national or state parks.
Public land managers have been confronted with many nontraditional user groups in
recent years (Ewert & Schreyer, 1990). These have included jet boaters on the Snake
River (Cole, 1989; Stuebner, 1993). helicopter skiers in national forests, rock climbers and
hang gliders in national parks (MacCracken & O’Laughlin, 1992; White & Schreyer,
1981), and mountain bikers practically everywhere (Baker, 1990; Jacoby, 1990; Martino,
1992; Watson, Williams, & Daigle, 1991). Although the total number of people involved
in these activities is relatively low and use is localized, the consequences of ignoring the
new activity groups may be quite severe. For example, conflicts between jet boaters and
rafters in Hell’s Canyon of the Snake River have involved name calling, threats, boat
ramming, and even gun shots (Cole, 1989).
Unfortunately, there is little research on the social acceptability of nontraditional
recreational activities in the backcountry, and there are virtually no guidelines for managing these activities (White & Schreyer, 1981). The activities are typically ignored until
problems emerge, at which time the new activity is restricted or prohibited in an effort to
reduce impacts or conflicts (Baker, 1990; Kelly, 1989; Kulla, 1991). Unfortunately, rather
than reducing conflict, this approach can easily exacerbate it.
One form of nontraditional recreation that is increasing in popularity is backcountry
llama packing. There are few statistics on the use of llamas as recreational packstock, but
an International Llama Association (ILA) study found that, during the 1980s there was a
fivefold increase in the number of llamas in North America (from 5,000 to 25,000) and
in ILA membership (from 282 to 1,469 members) (International Llama Association,
1992). A 1991 survey of ILA llama owners revealed that about 17% use their llamas as
pack animals. In 1992, 24% of the hikers and 34% of the packstock users in the John Muir
Wilderness, and 21% of the hikers and 29% of the packstock users in the Sequoia-Kings
Canyon Wilderness, encountered llamas during their visits (Watson, Niccolucci, &
Williams, 1993).
In the present study, visitors’ reactions to llama encounters are examined in two
western backcountry areas: the Bechler Meadow region of Yellowstone National Park and
the Jedediah Smith Wilderness on the Targhee National Forest, just south of Yellowstone.
This paper focuses on visitors’ perceptions of the acceptability of backcountry llama
packing and the potential for social conflict between llama packers and traditional backcountry visitors. There are three specific objectives: (a) document visitors’ actual experiences and contacts with llama packing, (b) investigate visitors’ perceptions of social
acceptability and conflict related to llama packing in the study areas, and (c) identify the
dimensions of acceptability that may influence perceptions of conflict. Management implications for designing backcountry llama packing policies and for dealing with nontraditional wilderness recreation activities in general will be discussed.
Backcountry Llama Packing
187
Social Conflict in Recreation
Most research on outdoor recreation conflict focuses on measuring the potential for
interpersonal conflict between participants in different activity groups. The theoretical
approach for most of these studies is derived from Jacob and Schreyer’s (1980) hypothesis
that recreational conflict occurs when the behavior of one group interferes with the goal
attainment of another group. Himes (1980) compares this perspective to relative deprivation theory, and agrees that goal deprivation and resulting frustration and discontent
form the “prime cause” of overt conflict (p. 43).
However, most recreation research does not investigate overt conflict; rather, it focuses on preexisting evaluations by groups, each of the other, based on past contacts and
future expectations (Jacob & Schreycr, 1980). There are a wide variety of social, psychological, and institutional conditions that determine the “structural preconditions” of
overt conflict (Himes, 1980, p. 39). For example, based on past research, Jacob and
Schreyer ( 1980) identified four factors that influence recreationists’ preexisting attitudes
toward different groups: (a) differences in activity style, (b) resource specificity and
significance of particular resources or areas, (c) different modes or ways of experiencing
the environment, and (d) lifestyle tolerance. Research has verified that these factors help
predict one group’s predisposition toward other activity groups, but they are less effective
at predicting actual goal interference (Watson et al., 1993; Watson, Niccolucci, &
Williams, 1994). This apparent contradiction follows from the conflict theory literature,
which indicates that in addition to interpersonal attitudes, there are many other structural
preconditions that influence conflict (cf. Himes, 1980) and that do not fit well into Jacob
and Schreyer’s (1980) framework. Some examples include normative differences of participants (Lee, 1972; Ruddell & Gramann, 1994). direct competition for resources
(Owens, 1985), institutional failures or inequities (Himes, 1980; Owens, 1985), and the
effects of nonactivity-related factors that make up the conflict “catalyzing situation”
(Himes, 1980, p. 45; Ruddell & Gramann, 1994; Watson & Niccolucci, 1994).
In this study, we will start with standard questions of conflict based on the Jacob and
Schreyer goal interference model. This will allow comparisons of llama packing with past
studies of intergroup perceptions of conflict and allow for testing specific hypotheses.
Recognizing the need to expand the study of conflict beyond intergroup characteristics
and perceptions, we also implemented two multi-item measures of problems and social
acceptability of using llamas in the backcountry. These measures are designed to investigate visitor attitudes toward other structural preconditions related to potential conflict
involving llama packing. These acceptability measures are exploratory, so there are no
acceptability-related hypotheses, but we hope the results help advance the study of recreation conflict and provide information on the social acceptability of nontraditional
recreation activities in general.
Conflict Measures and Hypotheses
Most studies of wilderness conflict employ questions intended to tap affective responses
of one group to another-.such as the extent to which they enjoy or dislike encounters or
find contacts to be desirable or undesirabie. More recent studies have employed a more
direct measure of goal interference: questions ask visitors the extent to which they felt
encounters interfered with their enjoyment (Ivy, Stewart, & Lue, 1992; Watson et al.,
188
D. J. Blahna et al.
1993; Watson et al., 1994). For this study, we used both an enjoy/dislike measure, to retain
comparability with past studies, and a measure of perceived interference.
A specific form of recreational conflict that is especially relevant to nontraditional
activities is asymmetrical conflict. One of the most consistent findings in the recreation
conflict literature is the tendency for asymmetrical antipathy between different activity
groups (Adelman, Heberlein, & Bonnicksen, 1982, p. 42; Watson et al., 1991; Watson &
Niccolucci, 1994). When two activity groups conflict, there is a tendency for one group
to be more sensitive to the conflict than the other group. Trout fishermen on the AuSable
River in Michigan disliked contacts with canoeists (Driver & Bassett, 1975), paddling
canoeists were more sensitive to motor canoeists in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area
(Adelman et al., 1982; Lucas, 1964; Stankey, 1973), cross-country skiers were more
sensitive to snowmobilers in Minnesota (Knopp & Tyger, 1973), and hikers were more
sensitive to mountain bikers in the Rattlesnake National Recreation Area (Watson et al.,
1991).
Studies of backcountry conflict have consistently documented asymmetrical antipathy
between hikers and horseback riders as well (Stankey, 1973; Stankey, 1980; Watson et al.,
1993; Watson et al., 1994). The presence of packstock is considered a major source of
conflict by many backcountry hikers, but the role of llamas in the so-called “hiker/
packstock debate” is unclear. If packstock per se is the key precondition, as past studies
suggest, hikers should be more sensitive than horseback riders to contacts with llama
packers. And since llama packers also hike while in the backcountry, they should have
greater antipathy toward horseback riders than vice versa.
However, the limited data available do not support this simple relationship for llamas.
Reports from managers and professional llama packers indicate that horseback riders are
more concerned than hikers about encounters with llamas, which may result from the
tendency of some horses to shy or bolt when meeting llamas (McClaran & Cole, 1993).
Survey data from the John Muir and Sequoia-Kings Canyon Wilderness studies also
question the simple hiker/packstock explanation for llamas. In both studies, results indicated that the classic asymmetrical antipathy exists between hikers and horseback riders,
and between hikers and people using horses and mules for packstock (Watson et al.,
1993), but the hiker/llama conflict results were mixed. Hikers in the John Muir were more
likely to say they disliked meeting horses (36%) than llamas (17%), but there was no
difference in responses from Sequoia-Kings Canyon visitors (44% for both). Stock users,
on the other hand, were less averse to llamas than hikers in either area (9% in the John
Muir and 27% in Sequoia-Kings Canyon). Thus, the potential for hiker/llama conflict is
high in one area, while relatively low in the other-and it is higher than horseback/llama
conflict in both areas. Unfortunately, the sample size was too small for the authors to
analyze the conflict ratings of llama packers to get a complete picture of conflict symmetry.
These results indicate that the hiker/packstock asymmetrical antipathy is more complex than simple explanations based upon travel mode and the presence of packstock. If
it were that simple, then controlling the conflict would simply require a zoning approach,
with packstock restricted to certain areas just as managers separate snowmobilers and
cross-country skiers or motorbikers and hikers. If packstock is not the primary source of
conflict, different and probably more complex management approaches will be needed.
The California study results also indicate the potential for site-specific differences in
conflict perceptions.
The null hypothesis to test for asymmetrical conflict in the present study would be to
expect no differences in perception of conflict by visitors with different travel modes
Backcountry Llama Packing
189
(H10). Three alternative hypotheses exist, however. A hypothesis based on the hiker
versus packstock notion would suggest that hikers are more likely than horseback riders
to evaluate llama encounters negatively (Hl1 ,). The potential problems between horses and
llamas would suggest an asymmetrical form of conflict where horseback riders would
evaluate contacts more negatively than hikers (H12). And finally, if asymmetrical conflict
is driven primarily by reaction against a new activity or user group, then one would expect
that both hikers and horseback riders would rate llama contacts more negatively than
llama packers would rate contacts with hikers or horseback riders (Hl3).
A second set of hypotheses relates to the conflict perceptions of llama packers. Here
the null hypothesis would be that there is no difference in llama packers’ perceptions of
conflict with the other two user groups (H20). Asymmetrical conflict would predict that
llama packers view hikers as less invasive than horseback riders (H2 1), and not significantly different from contacts with other llama packers (H22).
.
Social Acceptability Measures
Unlike recreation conflict, there has been little research specifically on the dimensions of
social acceptability. Social acceptability is a management-oriented concept that is gaining
prominence as a result of federal agencies’ emerging emphasis on ecosystem management
(Brunson, 1993; Stankey & Clark, 1991). Although a primary goal of ecosystem management is to increase ecological considerations in resource decision-making, it is also
intended to better incorporate social and political considerations in decision-making.
Research is needed to define more specifically the dimensions of social acceptability for
different issues, and to link the concept to existing social science knowledge and precepts
and to different geographic settings (Brunson, 1993; Stankey & Clark, 1991). Two areas
of recreation management that provide insight into some of the dimensions of acceptabilthat are important for wilderness packstock are the Limits of Acceptable Change
(LAC) and the National Park Service’s policies regarding the management of nontraditional activities.
The LAC process was designed specifically to incorporate social and physical carrying capacity issues into wilderness planning (Stankey et al., 1985). The LAC process
incorporates three general dimensions of acceptability: physical conditions, social conditions, and management practices. These three dimensions are becoming the basis for most
planning and management considerations in wilderness areas (e.g., Hammitt & Cole,
1987; Hendee, Stankey, & Lucas, 1990) and natural resource-based recreation areas in
general (e.g., Hof et al., 1994; Manning, 1986).
The LAC dimensions are also relevant for acceptability decisions regarding nontraditional backcountry activities. For llama packing, acceptability judgments may be influenced by visitors’ or managers’ perceptions of physical impacts of llamas, such as trampling or transmitting diseases to wildlife (McClaran & Cole, 1993). And the extent to
which crowding is exacerbated by the presence of llama packers would also influence
acceptability judgments.
In the Park Service policies, “nontraditional activities,” are defined as activities that
are not necessarily dependent upon park resources and do not constitute “traditional or
customary uses” of the parks (U.S. Department of Interior, 1978, p. III-7). Nontraditional
activities may be permitted if they do not: (1) interfere with normal park usage, (2)
constitute a consumptive form of use, (3) have an undesirable impact on park resources,
(4) compromise the historic or natural scene, or (5) present a danger to public welfare and
safety of both participants and other visitors.
190
D. J. Blahna et al.
The Park Service criteria correspond with the LAC dimensions in terms of social
(number 1 above) and physical (numbers 2 and 3) conditions, but there are two new
acceptability dimensions introduced. Safety, for example, may be relevant in two ways:
the safety of the participants in the new activity (e.g., risk recreation activities like hang
gliding), and the safety of other visitor groups. Because llamas are easy to handle, safety
is more of an issue for other visitors, namely horseback riders, inasmuch as some horses
may bolt when they see llamas (McClaran & Cole, 1993).
Another acceptability dimension suggested by the Park Service policy is the potential
for compromising the natural or historic scene. This is not just a visual aesthetic judgment,
which is an element of the physical condition, because it also implies a philosophical
judgment. Virtually any human use could be interpreted as compromising a natural scene
in the backcountry. and any technology-related uses (e.g., fiberglass canoes, backpacking
tents, or modem fishing reels) could be interpreted as compromising the historic character
of a scene. Thus, some judgment of philosophical appropriateness is needed. In responding to a particular activity or user group, this philosophical question is particularly relevant. Ethics scholars speak of two different types of information that people use to make
evaluative judgments: empirical claims and moral claims (VanDeVeer & Pierce, 1994, p.
2). There is little research regarding the influence of moral judgments in the recreation
literature. Because judgments of safety, physical impacts, social conflict, and the like are
empirically based judgments, compromising the character of the backcountry was treated
as a philosophical or moral claim for this study; that is, does it seem right or appropriate
to use llamas in the backcountry?
Two sets of questions were used to evaluate visitors’ perceptions of the acceptability
of llama packing. First, a set of 18 problem statements were used to tap the social and
physical impact dimensions of llama packing and to compare these perceptions with
impacts of other packstock and other backcountry activities, Second, a 15-item question
was developed to tap five specific social-acceptability dimensions (a) appropriateness, (b)
social conflict, (c) managerial equity, (d) physical impacts, and (e) safety. Because this
was an exploratory set of questions, no acceptability hypotheses were tested.
In general, there are four potential outcomes of the role of llamas in the hiker/
packstock debate. Llamas may be generally found to be unacceptable and lead to social
conflict for both hikers and horseback riders. This would indicate that a combination of
conflict-related factors influences visitors’ perceptions, and might call into question the
philosophical appropriateness of llamas in the backcountry. At the other extreme, if llamas
are considered acceptable by both horseback riders and hikers, it is likely that none of the
traditional conflict factors are a problem, and visitors have little concern for the appropriateness of llamas in the backcountry. If just hikers have negative reactions to llamas,
then the traditional hiker/packstock conflict exists and zoning would be a logical management approach. And finally, if just horseback riders view llamas negatively, safety and
resource competition may be the sources of conflict. In this case, a more complex management combination of zoning and education will be needed to minimize conflict. The
literature discussed above also indicates that there may be site-specific differences in
perceptions of both conflict and acceptability.
Research Methods
This study was conducted with visitors at three trailheads in two backcountry areas within
1 hour’s drive of each other: the Bechler Meadow region of Yellowstone National Park
and the Jedediah Smith Wilderness on the Targhee National Forest. Sample subjects were
Backcountry Llama Packing
191
asked to complete a short trailhead survey and to provide their name and address in order
to receive a longer mail survey to be completed and returned by mail. To provide results
comparable with past research, the survey’s focus on llama packing was not discussed
with respondents at the trailhead, and only a few of the questions toward the end of the
survey focused specifically on llamas. To investigate the generalizability of the results,
two areas that attract very different types of visitors were selected for the study.
Study Sites and Contact Survey
The Jedediah Smith Wilderness comprises 123,451 acres administrated by the Targhee
National Forest. It is located directly west of Teton National Park and south of Yellowstone, on the western slopes of the Teton Mountains. Trailheads lead to popular high
alpine lake basins, often over fairly steep and rugged terrain. The two trailheads selected
for the study were known to have horse, hiker, and llama use. In a Forest Service survey
of wilderness managers, the Jedediah Smith Wilderness was named as being one of 14
wildernesses that received more than 50 llama packing groups between 1985 and 1990
(McClaran & Cole, 1993). Although it is in close proximity to two heavily visited National Parks, the Jedediah Smith Wilderness is relatively lightly used. It is less well known
than the National Parks, access is more difficult, and more visitors are local residents.
The third trailhead, Bechler Ranger Station, sits in the remote southwest comer of
Yellowstone National Park. The Bechler trails cover fairly easy and moderate terrain
through large meadows and up canyons with popular waterfall and geothermal feature
destinations. This trailhead also gets a mix of horse and hiker use, and most of the
commercial llama packers who use the Jedediah Smith Wilderness also have permits for
the Bechler trailhead.
Brief trailhead contact surveys were conducted during randomly selected days between July 30 and September 27, 1993. Due to the deep snowpack from the winter of
1992-93, much of the backcountry was inaccessible until late summer. The Bechler region
was closed to all stock use until August due to wet trails. In order to maximize the number
of contacts during this shortened visitor season, interviews were conducted every Saturday
and Sunday in September. Afternoon and evening hours produced the most contacts.
Every visitor group during sampling periods was approached at the end of its trip by
an interviewer who asked them to fill out a one-page questionnaire. All members of each
party were asked to respond. The contact survey solicited basic trip information (size of
group, length of stay, and mode of travel) and general comments regarding trip satisfaction. At the end of the survey, visitors were asked to give their names and addresses if they
were willing to complete a longer questionnaire that would be mailed to them. Trailhead
contacts resulted in a final sample size of 454 backcountry visitors: 233 (51.3%) from the
Bechler trailhead in Yellowstone National Park, and 221 (48.7%) from the Jedediah Smith
trailheads.
Mail Survey and Study Measures
An 11-page mail survey was sent to all trailhead contacts. A three-wave mailing design
was used; first a cover letter and mail survey were sent within 3 weeks after the trailhead
contacts were made, and a reminder postcard and then a replacement survey were sent at
three week intervals to nonrespondents.
Experience with llama packing was measured three ways: (1) visitors’ current mode
of travel, (2) number of backcountry encounters with llamas in the past, and (3) personal
experience llama packing in the last 5 years. Packstock, hiker, and llama conflict measures
192
D. J. Blahna et al.
and encounters with llamas on the current trip were both measured with the same question,
which read: “Please evaluate your encounters with other user groups during this trip into
the backcountry.” The response format was: “enjoyed meeting them,” “did not mind
meeting them,” “ disliked meeting them,” or “did not meet any.” The goal-interference
question asked respondents if meeting the different user groups interfered “a little,”
“somewhat,” or “a lot” with their trip enjoyment.
As discussed above, acceptability was measured two ways. First visitors responded to
18 problem statements on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “no problem” to “big
problem.” There were two items dealing with social impacts of llamas (“meeting llamas
on the trail” and “too many llamas on the trails”) and two items dealing with physical
impacts of llamas (“trails impacted by llamas” and “llama manure on trails or in campsites”). There were also four items related to horse impacts that were comparable to the
four llama impact items. Other resource management problems included crowding, hiker
impacts, litter, cattle grazing, and aircraft noise. The data were treated as interval level
data, and multivariate ANOVA analyses were run while controlling for travel mode and
trailhead.
The dimensions of acceptability were investigated with 15 individual statements
designed to tap the five dimensions of llama acceptability discussed above: social conflict,
physical impacts, managerial equity, philosophical appropriateness, and safety. Eight of
the items were directly related to llamas (e.g., “llamas cause little impact to vegetation”),
two were related specifically to horses and mules (e.g., “campers don’t mind camping in
sites previously occupied by horses or mules”), and five items dealt with both llamas and
other packstock (e.g., “use regulations should be the same for llama.: as they are for horses
and mules”). Respondents ranked the items on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 =
strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree, and the results were treated as interval level data.
Since these questions were designed to be more long-term and philosophical than the
trip-specific conflict and problem measures, the independent variables for these analyses
differed slightly from those used above. In addition to controlling for the study areas, the
number of past llama encounters (coded “none,” “1 to 5,” and “over 5”), and travel
mode preference (coded “horseback, " “hike,” and “both equally”) were used in bivariate analyses.
Results
Survey Response and Sample Characteristics
A total of 337 useable surveys was returned for a 74% response rate. There were 182
responses from the Bechler subsample (78% response) and 155 (70%) from Jedediah
Smith. Bechler respondents were more likely to be urban, have significantly higher levels
of education and income, and to be hikers rather than horseback riders (Table 1). Jedediah
Smith respondents, on the other hand, were more likely to be local residents, horseback
riders, and on shorter trips than Bechler respondents. Bechler visitors also encountered
significantly more hiking groups (mean = 4.9) than did Jedediah Smith visitors (mean =
1.9, t-value = 6.6, signif. < .00l) but about the same number of groups on horseback (2.8
to 2.1, respectively; t- value = 1.45, signif. = .52). Thus, the subsamples reflect two very
different but typical western backcountry areas: the Jedediah Smith is used primarily by
local, rural residents traveling with packstock, and Bechler is a more heavily used, destination recreation backcountry experience.
Backcountry Llama Packing
193
Table 1
Visitor characteristics by study area
Mode of travel
Horseback riding
Hiking
Hiking with packstock
In what type of community do
you now live?
Rural/small town
(pop. l,000-5,000)
Small city
(5,000-50,000)
Medium/large city
(50,000-250,000 and larger)
Location of residence:
Within 2 hours
Other MT, WY, ID
Other U.S.
Annual household income:
<$20,000
20,000-49,999
50,000-74,999
75,000 and over
Highest education level:
High school or less
Some college/vocational
College graduate/graduate work
Total
sample
Bechler
Jed.
Smith
113 (33.5)
209 (62.0)
15 (4.5)
30 (16.5)
149 (81.9)
3 (1.6)
83 (53.5)
60 (38.7)
12 (7.7)
146 (43.8)
51 (28.4)
95 (61.7)
107 (32.0)
69 (38.3)
38 (24.7)
81 (24.3)
60 (33.3)
21 (13.6)
208 (61.9)
31 (9.2)
97 (28.9)
86 (47.3)
23 (12.6)
73 (40.1)
122 (79.2)
8 (5.2)
24 (15.6)
61 (19.6)
119 (38.3)
60 (19.3)
71 (22.8)
32
60
27
50
39 (11.6)
95 (28.4)
201 (60.0)
(18.9)
(35.5)
(16.0)
(29.6)
29 (20.4)
59 (41.5)
33 (23.2)
21 (14.8)
13 (7.2)
52 (28.9)
115 (63.9)
26 (16.8)
43 (27.7)
86 (55.5)
Chi-sq.
(prob.)
66.5 (<.001)
45.6 (<.001)
36.2 (<.001)
10.5 (.03)
7.8 (.05)
Experience and Encounters with Llamas
Only 9 (2.7%) respondents were actually traveling with llamas: 7 (4.5%) of the Jedediah
Smith visitors and 2 (1.1%) of the Bechler visitors. Likewise, more Jedediah Smith
visitors ( n = 11, 8.3%) than Bechler visitors (n = 4,4.2%) had been on llama trips in the
last 5 years. Nearly one third (29.5%) of the visitors encountered llamas on their trip,
however, including 28.5% of the Bechler subsample and 31.7% of the Jedediah Smith
2
subsample (X = 2.34, signif. = .50). These results are similar to the California studies that
used the same question format (Watson et al, 1993).
For past encounters with llamas, 47.2% of the respondents said they had encountered
llamas in the backcountry in the last 5 years, including 45.3% of the Bechler visitors and
2
50.3% of the Jedediah Smith visitors (X = .65, signif. = .42). About one third of the
respondents had met one to three groups (29. 1%), 47 (14.1%) had met 4 to 10 groups, and
14 (4.2%) had met more than 10 groups with llamas.
In general, the results indicate that while very few visitors had llama packing experience, about one third encountered llamas on this trip, and nearly half encountered llamas
during the last 5 years.
D. J. Blahna et al.
194
Conflict Perceptions
The results of the intergroup-conflict questions are shown in Table 2. In general, there
were more negative replies given in response to the goal-interference question than to the
more affective enjoyment/dislike question. As expected, the classic pattern of asymmetrical conflict emerged in the responses of hikers and horseback riders. Hikers rated
encounters with llamas more negatively than encounters with other hikers, but not as
negatively as their encounters with horses. Horseback riders, on the other hand, rated
llama encounters more negatively than encounters with either hikers or horseback riders,
but the differences were not statistically significant. These results are strong enough,
however, to reject the first null hypothesis and indicate support for H13 (i.e., both hikers
and horseback riders rated encounters with llamas more negatively than encounters with
their own activity groups). This indicates asymmetrical conflict is not driven simply by the
presence of packstock. There is also an indication that there may be support for H1 2
(horseback riders would rare llamas more negatively than hikers), but the differences are
not statistically significant.
Based on the small sample size of llama packers, no firm conclusions can be drawn
about the second set of hypotheses; the null hypothesis cannot be rejected (i.e., llama
packers do not evaluate contacts with any groups more negatively than encounters with
other llama groups).
Table 2
Perceptions of conflict by travel mode (for respondents who encountered the type of
visitors listed)
Travel mode
Total.
Hiker
Horseback
rider
Llama
2
packing x
Sig.
a
Hikers/backpackers
Horseback riders
Llamas
% Disliked encounters with
9 (3.3)
4 (2.3)
5 (5.6)
( n = 271)
n = 172
n = 90
37 (14.2)
36 (23.5)
l(l.0)
n = 100
n = 153
( n = 261)
22 (22.7)
9 (19.6)
13 (28.3)
n =46
n =46
( n = 95)
0 (0.0)
n=9
0 (0.0)
n= 8
0 (0.0)
n =3
2.4
.667
78.6
<.001
7.5
.ll
.29
.865
43.5
<.00l
.74
.692
b
Hikers/backpackers
Horseback riders
Llamas
a
6 1 (22.3)
( n= 274)
93 (27.6)
( n= 266)
39 (11.6)
( n = 100)
% Interfered with
20 (22.0)
39 (22.8)
( n= 171)
( n = 91)
11
(11.0)
78 (5 1.3)
(n = 100)
( n = 152)
20 (42.6)
17 (36.2)
( n = 47)
( n = 47)
1 (14.3)
( n = 7)
2 (25.0)
(n = 8)
1 (25.0)
( n =4)
For each type of user group they encountered, respondents were asked if they “enjoyed meeting, ” “did not mind meeting,” or “disliked meeting” that type of group.
b
Respondents we re asked if meeting each type of group interfered with their enjoyment, and if so,
if it interfered “a little,” “somewhat,” or “a lot.”
Backcountry Llama Packing
195
Acceptability: Perceptions of Backcountry Problems
All 18 items were rated as relatively small problems (means range from 1.17 to 2.36) in
both study areas (Table 3). Consistent with past research, the top eight problems were
related to horse impacts, human impacts, and crowding. The llama impact items were four
of the five lowest rated problems on the list, and there were no differences in the ranking
of llama-related problems in the two study areas. Although this is certainly not surprising,
inasmuch as llama use is relatively low, it does indicate that visitors feel that llama
impacts are not at an unacceptable level. It is also interesting to note that the horse-related
impact items were considered significantly more problematic at Bechler, and humancaused problems were rated higher by Jedediah Smith visitors.
Although these results indicate that visitors feel llama impacts are not currently
problematic, they say little about the potential for future problems if llama numbers
increase. To address these broader issues, Tables 4 and 5 present the mean problem ratings
for horse and llama impacts, respectively, while controlling for the effects of respondents’
mode of travel (hiking or horseback), the study trailhead, and encounters with horses or
llamas.’
Results in Table-4 illustrate that, for horse-related impacts, the classic pattern of
asymmetrical conflict exists in both study areas. Horse encounters and travel mode proTable 3
Perceptions of backcountry problems by study area
Trailhead
Problem
a
Horse manure
Horse/mule trail impacts
Too many people at certain
locations
Litter
Meeting horses on trail
Too many horses on trail
Human vegetation damage
Too many large groups
Cattle grazing damage
Sheep grazing damage
Too many hikers on trail
Firewood
Human waste
Meeting llamas
Too many llamas on trail
Aircraft
Llama trail impacts
Llama manure
a
N
Grand
mean
Bechler
N= 182
Jed Smith T b
value Signif.
N= 155
337
332
335
2.01
1.94
I .73
2.36
2.21
1.77
1.61
1.61
1.65
5.52
4.10
.97
**
**
335
337
337
332
335
328
332
336
325
329
332
335
333
330
328
1.65
1.64
1.61
1.52
1.48
1.42
1.44
1.44
1.41
1.39
1.32
1.28
I .25
1.19
1.17
1.51
1.84
1.81
1.53
1.51
1.19
1.08
1.49
1.43
1.29
1.24
1.26
1.28
1.19
1.15
1.82
1.41
1.37
1.50
1.44
1.76
1.87
1.38
1.38
1.51
1.41
1.31
1.20
1.19
1.18
-3.13
3.78
3.77
.24
.69
-4.94
-6.40
1.14
.46
-2.27
-1.78
-.52
.97
-.07
-.38
**
**
**
**
**
*
Perceptions of problems measured on 5-point scale where 1 = “no problem at all” to 5 = “big
problem.”
b
Significance levels = * < .05. ** < .0l.
196
D. J. Blahna et al.
vide most of the significant main effects for each impact measure. Hikers rated all four
impact measures, especially the physical impact items, as significantly larger problems
than horseback riders did. For the social impact items, there is also a significant interaction
between encounters and travel mode; in both study areas, hikers who encountered horseback riders were more likely to rate the social impacts of horses higher than horseback
riders rated them. Although this result seems intuitive, it indicates that hikers’ responses
to physical impacts of horses are the result of the combined effect of seeing horses and of
recognizing the physical impacts from horses, whether or not horses were present at the
time.
For problems related to llamas, however, a different conflict dynamic exists. The
problem ratings for llama impacts are lower than for horse impacts, and the physical
impacts were rated lower than social impacts by horseback riders, and about the same
(Bechler) or lower (Jed Smith) by hikers (Table 5). Encounters with llamas was by far the
most significant factor variable, and there were no significant differences by travel mode,
except in an interactive relationship with encounters for the physical impact items. (Horseback riders were more sensitive to llama impacts in the Jedediah Smith Wilderness than
at Bechler.) Furthermore, physical impacts were only noted by hikers who actually saw
llama groups, which indicates they may be responding to the mere presence of llamas as
much as to the actual signs of llama impacts. In general, horseback riders were less likely
to consider the physical effects of llamas a problem than the social impacts, even if they
encountered llama groups in the backcountry. And while hikers were more likely to rate
the physical llama impacts higher if they encountered llamas, they considered these
impacts less problematic than the physical or social impacts of horses.
There was also an indication of a geographical effect in the responses to the llama
problem questions (Table 5). For the social impact items, there was a significant interaction between llama encounters and the study area. Both hikers and horseback riders in
the Jedediah Smith subsample rated “meeting llamas on the trail” and “trails impacted
by llamas” more of a problem than the Bechler subsample. This is not simply a response
to crowding because use levels and group encounters are actually higher in the Bechler
region than in the Jedediah Smith Wilderness (data not shown), and there were no
differences in llama encounters at the two sites (discussed above). Another possible
explanation is a structural-effects hypothesis (cf. Bultena & Field, 1980). The social
setting of the Jedediah Smith Wilderness has always supported horseback riding, and the
norms of the riders seem to be reflected in the responses of hikers using the area, at least
compared to the responses of hikers in Bechler. This interpretation of the results is also
supported by the results of the horse impact questions (Table 4), where hikers from
Jedediah Smith rated the effect of horses lower than the Bechler subsample for all four
items, although the differences were only marginally significant (.06) for two items.
Dimensions of Social Acceptability
The results reported above indicate that llama packing is not viewed as a problem at
current use levels, but there is potential for social conflict, especially between horseback
riders and llama packers. These results, however, tell us little about the specific dimensions of acceptability and conflict, which can have important management implications.
Responses to the questions relating to different dimensions of acceptability indicate
there was little support for statements suggesting llamas are inappropriate in the backcountry (items H and M), and the support that did exist was primarily from horseback
riders (Table 6). Visitors in all analysis subgroups were most likely to support statements
Table 4
ANOVA results testing for significant effects on perceptions of horse-related problems by travel mode, study area, and horse encounters
Problems
a
Meeting horses on trail
Travel mode
b
ANOVA results
Jed Smith study area
Bechler study area
c
c
Horse encounters
No
Yes
Horse encounters
No
Yes
c
1.25 (40)
1 .00 (5)
2.30 ( 106)
1 .00 (25)
e
1.00 (I I)
I .OO (6)
2.04 (49)
1.07 (76)
Too many horses on trail
Hiker
Horseback rider
1.18 (40)
1 .00 (5)
2.21 (106)
1.24 (25)
e
1.00 (I 1)
1 .OO (6)
I .94 (49)
1.04 (76)
Trails impacted by horses
Hiker
Horseback rider
1.78 (40)
1 .00 (5)
Horse manure on trail or
in campsites
Hiker
Horseback rider
1.98 (40)
1 .00 (5)
Hiker
Horseback rider
a
d
F = 36.7 <.00l
Travel mode <.001
Encounters <.001I
Travel & encounters = .004
F = 27.7, .00l
Mode <.00l
Encounters <.001
Study area = .06
Travel & encounters = .02
e
2.41 (49)’
1.04 (76)
F = 35.6, .00l
Mode <.001
Encounters <.001
d
2.45 (49)’
1.05 (76)
F = 50.7, <.001
Mode <.001
Encounters <.00 1
Study area = .06
d
2.68 (106)
1.12 (25)
e
2.00(11)
1.17 (6)
d
2.85 (106)
1.12 (25)
e
1.82 (ll)
1 .00 (6)
Problems measured on 5-point scale where 1 = “no problem at all” and 5 = “big problem."
F-value given for entire subtable; the only other statistics listed are probabilities for statistically significant main effects and interactions.
c
Numbers in ( ) are cell n sizes.
d
Indicates cell means between 1.50 and 1.99.
e
Indicates cell means 2.00 and over.
b
Table 5
ANOVA results testing for significant effects on perceptions of problems with llamas by travel mode, study area, and llama encounters
Problems”
Meeting llamas on trail
Travel mode
Hiker
Horseback rider
b
ANOVA results
Jed Smith study area
Bechler study area
C
c
Llama encounters
Yes
No
Llama encounters
Yes
No
d
e
2.20 ( 10)
e
2.27 (33)
1.04 (110)
1.13 (16)
1.75 (36)
d
1.77 (13)
Too many llamas on trail
Hiker
Horseback rider
1.08 (107)
1.13 (16)
d
1.61 (36)
d
1.85 (13)
1.02 (47)
1.02 (48)
2.00 (10)
e
2.07 (30)
Trails impacted by llamas
Hiker
Horseback rider
I.01 (107)
1.13 (16)
I .78 (36)
1.08 (13)
d
1.11 (47)
1 .00 (48)
1.60 (l0)
d
1.60 (30)
Llama manure on trail or
in campsites
Hiker
Horseback rider
a
1.02 (107)
1.13 (16)
1.61 (36)
1.08 (13)
1.06 (47)
1.13 (48)
d
1.11 (47)
1.00 (48)
F = 31.6, <.001
Encounters <.001
Encounters and study area = .05
e
d
d
1.80 (10)
1.47 (30)
F = 18.7, <.00l
Encounters = .00l
F = 15.7, <.001
Encounters <.001
Encounters, mode, and study area = .02
F = 12.6, <.00l
Encounters <.001
Encounters and mode = .02
Problems measured on 5-point scale where 1 = “no problem at all” and 5 = “big problem.”
F-value given for entire subtable; the only other statistics listed are probabilities for statistically significant main effects and interactions.
c
Numbers in ( ) are cell n sizes.
d
lndicates cell means between 1.50 and 1.99.
e
Indicates cell means 2.00 and over.
b
Table 6
a
Measures of acceptability dimensions by trailhead. encounters with llamas, and travel mode
b
Llama Encounters
Travel Mode Preference (TMP)
Trailhead
Item
A) Use regulations same for llamas.
and horses
B) Limits for llamas same as for
horses
C) Safety problems when llamas meet
horses
D) Llamas cause little impact
E) Llamas should be led off trail
when meeting horses
F) Llama packers are experienced
G) Meeting llamas makes trip more
interesting
H) Seeing llamas seems out-of-place
I) Hikers don’t mind camping in
sites used by llamas
I) Llamas threat intro. disease
K) Llamas threat introduction of
exotic plants
L) Llama safety problems worse for
mules than horses
M) Horses more appropriate than
llamas in backcountry
N) Hikers don’t mind camping in
horse/mule sites
0) Llamas. may escape and compete
with wildlife
a
b
Grand
N Mean
Acceptability
Dimension
Bcchler Jed Smith None
N = 1 8 2 N= 155
l-5 Over 5 Horse
N= 178 N =98
Hike
Both Contrast
N =61
N =28 N =37 N = 5 6 for TMP
272 3.89
Managerial equity
3.87
3.91
3.96
4.06
3.41**
4.1 I
3.55
3.96
264 3.78
Managerial equity
3.83
3.73
3.80
3.83
3.60
4.58
3.00
3.91**
**
195 3.40 Safety
3.21
3.53
3.19
3.48
3.62
3.69
2.64
3.28*
**
164 3.38
230 3.36
Physical Impact
Safety
3.34
3.19
3.42
3.50
3.41
3.07
3.47
3.55
3.22
3.62**
3.17
4.12
3.67
3.13
3.38
3.54**
**
199 3.29 Conflict
291 3.29 Appropriateness
3.32
3.33
3.26
3.24
3.33
3.41
3.32
3.44
3.17
2.79**
2.88
2.80
3.52
3.49
3.68*
3.31
*
*
304 2.84
197 2.71
Appropriateness
Conflict
2.86
2.49
2.81
2.95
2.90
2.66
2.64
2.79
3.00
2.70
3.41
2.41
2.65
3.27
2.55%
3.29*
*
*
174 2.71
180 2.69
Physical Impact
Physical Impact
2.82
2.58
2.61
2.79
2.77
2.61
2.57
2.85
2.77
2.64
2.80
3.31
2.46
2.33
2.32
2.55*
*
132 2.69
Safety
2.67
2.71
2.76
2.67
2.59
2.94
2.44
2.54
260 2.44
Appropriateness
2.14
2.75**
2.38
2.38
2.64
3.63
1.71
2.52**
**
259 2.24 Conflict
1.96
2.57**
2.33
2.30
1.91
3.19
1.89
2.66**
**
212 2.12
2.10
2.15
2.43
1.78
1.95**
2.00
2.16
2.08
Physical Impact
Scale = 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree); Statistical probability: * <.05, ** <.l0
Horseback rider/hiker contrast only (T-test)
200
D. J. Blahna et al.
suggesting that management regulations should be the same for llamas as for horses in the
backcountry (items A and B). and horseback riders were especially likely to support these
statements. Horseback riders were also more likely than hikers to agree with statements
that llamas caused safety problems (items C and E) and statements implying that horses
are more appropriate than llamas in the backcountry (items H and M), and to disagree with
the statement that “meeting llamas makes the trip more interesting” (item G). Hikers and
horseback riders tended to agree that llamas cause little physical impact (items D, K, and
O), but social concerns (items F and I were more likely to be registered by horseback
riders than by hikers. Horseback riders also predicted that hikers would be more likely to
want to camp in sites used by horses rather than llamas, which was the opposite of hikers’
actual opinions (items I and N).
There were few statistical differences in the responses to acceptability dimensions
based on visitors’ past llama encounters or the study area (Table 6). In general, visitors
with past llama encounters were more likely than those without past encounters to rate
correctly the acceptability items that had a factual basis. For example, visitors with past
llama contacts were less likely to agree that llamas could escape and compete with wildlife
and more likely to agree that llamas should be led off the trail when they meet horses.
Visitors with more than five past encounters with llama groups were also least likely to
say that meeting llamas makes the trip more interesting. Apparently, with increasing
encounters, the novelty of seeing llamas wears off. The only differences between the
visitors to the two study areas were that Jedediah Smith visitors were more likely to agree
that horses are more appropriate in the backcountry and that hikers don’t mind camping
in sites used by horses or mules. This probably reflects the higher number of horseback
riders in the Jedediah Smith Wilderness and the structural-effects results discussed above.
Discussion and Implications
The results indicate there is relatively low use of llamas in the Bechler or Jedediah Smith
backcountry areas. About 3% of the sample subjects were packing with llamas, and fewer
than 5% had gone llama packing in the last 5 years. Many more visitors saw llamas in the
backcountry, however. Approximately 30% saw llamas sometime during their trip in the
study areas, and about half the sample have seen backcountry visitors with llamas in the
past.
Although ratings were very low for all backcountry problem items, llama-related
problems were especially low. Hikers who encountered horses and llamas felt that the
physical and social impacts of horses are more problematic than llama impacts. Compared
to hikers, horseback riders were more concerned with the social impacts of llamas and less
concerned with the physical impacts. The social concerns appear to be the result of
potential safety problems and, to a lesser extent, a question of the philosophical appropriateness of llamas in the backcountry. Hikers had neither of these concerns, and appear
to consider llamas as acceptable in the backcountry as horses.
Most of the variance in responses to llama problems was explained by encounters
with llamas, but for horse-related problems, there was also a strong effect of travel mode,
reflecting the classic hiker/horseback rider form of asymmetrical social conflict. Thus,
although there is evidence for asymmetrical conflict with llama packing (hypothesis H13),
it is a different form of conflict than between hikers and horseback riders. Hikers are less
sensitive to encounters with llamas than with horses, and horseback riders are more
sensitive to the presence of llamas than are hikers (hypothesis HI 2). These results are
similar to those found in the John Muir and Sequoia-Kings Canyon Wildernesses (Watson
Backcountry Llama Packing
201
et al. 1993), except that horseback riders seem to be more negative than hikers toward
llama encounters, while in California, horseback riders were slightly less negative than
hikers. For horseback riders, the basis of this asymmetry seems to be related to safety and
philosophical considerations, but it may also result from backlash of horseback riders who
are feeling increased competition for resources. This dimension of acceptability was not
included in the survey.
In general, the results indicate that social acceptability of new or nontraditional
activities is not just the result of judgments related to social, environmental, and managerial conditions. Although these factors form the analytic basis for the LAC process and
the literature on wilderness management, other factors such as safety and philosophical
appropriateness were also important elements in visitors’ assessments of acceptability of
llama packing. There has been little data and research on these factors, however, and
measures of direct competition for resources also need to be incorporated in future research.
The results also indicate that acceptability judgments regarding nontraditional recreational activities will vary among social groups and geographical settings. While social
group differences have long been recognized in the recreation conflict and preference
literature, there is little systematic research on site differences. Although the specific
causal factors leading to differences between the Bechler and Jedediah Smith subsamples
are unclear, the results are consistent with social structural effects being a critical influence. Horseback riders in the Bechler area (which is dominated by hikers) were more
likely to respond like hikers, while hikers in the Jedediah Smith Wilderness (which is
dominated by horseback riders) were more likely to respond to problems as horseback
riders respond. Because this outcome was not expected, it needs to be verified with further
research and analysis.
Management Implications
Managers cannot assume that a nontraditional activity is unacceptable and should be
restricted simply due to conflict with traditional visitor groups. In the case of llama
packing, using llamas was actually perceived by hikers to cause fewer problems than
horseback riding, especially in the area dominated by hikers. To simply prohibit llama
packing to control conflict based on either social or physical impact perceptions would be
unjustified. Most of the potential for social conflict is between horseback riders and
hikers, not between other traditional users and llama packers. If physical impacts are being
used to justify restricting llama use, one could argue that llama use should be favored over
horse use because the perceived impacts of horseback riding are greater than the perceived
impacts of llamas.
Due to the conflict dynamics described above, it would also be a mistake to zone the
backcountry to restrict all packstock to certain areas. This would actually exacerbate the
potential for conflict, as horseback riders and llama packers are forced into closer proximity. It may make more sense to zone one area for horse use and another for hiking and
llama packing, With or without zoning, however, some combination of information and
education is needed to help reduce the potential for conflict between llama and horse
users, especially while llama use is still relatively localized. Horseback riders need to be
informed if there is a potential for contacts with llamas, and llama packers need to be made
aware of potential safety problems in encounters with horses. Llama packers should also
be responsible for leading llamas off the trail and keeping them still when meeting horses
on the trail. The infrastructure for an informational approach already exists at the Bechler
202
D. J. Blahna et al.
Ranger Station, where rangers are required to meet with all overnight visitor groups to
give an interpretive talk about recreational impacts (both physical and social) and safety
issues before they begin a backcountry trip. In fact, this program may help explain why
visitors at Bechler rate llama acceptability more positively than Jedediah Smith-visitors.
Recreation researchers and policy makers need to be more concerned with special
problems and information needs confronting managers when dealing with new or nontraditional activity groups. Traditional conceptions of acceptability and social conflict do
not provide all of the analysis framework or management tools needed to address issues
related to nontraditional uses-and such uses are likely to increase in the future.
Notes
1. Cell-by-cell means are displayed because there is a high amount of interaction among the
control variables. Cell n sizes were too small for a separate category for “llama packers” as a travel
mode.
References
Adelman, B. J. E., Heberlein, T. A., & Bonnicksen, T. M. ( 1982). Social psychological explanations
for the persistence of a conflict between paddling canoeists and motorcraft users in the Boundary Walers Canoe Area. Leisure Sciences, 5, 45-61.
Baker, N. (1990). Mountain bike management: A tale of three cities. Western Wildlands, 16 (3),
36-39.
Brunson, M. W. (1993). “Socially acceptable” forestry: What does it imply for ecosystem management? Western Journal of Applied Forestry, 8 (4), 116-119.
Bultena, G. L., & Field, D. R. (1980). Structural effects in National Parkgoing. Leisure Sciences, 3,
22 l-240.
Cole, M. L. (1989). Troubled waters: User conflicts on the Snake River of Hells Canyon. Western
Wildlands, 15(3), 8-13.
Driver, B. L., & Bassett, J. (1975). Defining conflicts among river users: A case study of Michigan’s
AuSable River. Naturalist, 26 (1). 19-23.
Ewert, A., & Schreyer. R. (1990. March). Risk recreation: Social trends and implications for the
1990s. In O’Leary. J. T., Fesenmaier, D. R., Brown, T., Stynes, D., & Driver, B. (eds.)
Proceedings of the National Outdoor Recreation Trends Symposium III (pp. 480-489). University Place Executive Conference Center, Indianapolis, IN.
Hammitt, W. E.. & Cole, D. N. (1987). Wildland recreation: Ecology and management. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Hendee, J. C., Stankey, G. H.. & Lucas, R. C. (1990). Wilderness management (2nd ed.). Golden,
CO: North American Press.
Himes, J. S. (1980). Conflict and conflict management. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
Hof, M., Hammett, J., Rees, M., Belnap, J., Poe, N., Lime, D., & Manning, R. (1994). Getting a
handle on visitor carrying capacity: A pilot project at Arches National Park. Park Science,
14 (l), 11-13.
International Llama Association. (1992). Questionnaire summary: Use of llamas on public lands.
Unpublished manuscript.
Ivy, M. I., Stewart, W. P., & Lue, C. (1992). Exploring the role of tolerance in recreational conflict.
Journal of Leisure Research, 24, 348-360.
Jacob, G. R., & Schreyer, R. (1980). Conflict in outdoor recreation: A theoretical perspective.
Journal of Leisure Research, 12, 368-380.
Jacoby, J. (1990). Mountain bikes: A new dilemma for wildland recreation managers? Western
Wildlands, 16(1), 25-28.
Backcountty Llama Packing
203
Kelly, C. (1989). Evolution of an issue: From California fad to nationwide dilemma-tracing the
trail access problem. Bicycling (May), 104-I 10.
Knopp. T., & Tyger, J. (1973). A study of conflict in recreational land use: Snowmobiling vs.
ski-touring. Journal of Leisure Research, 5, 6-17.
Kulla, A. (1991). A new perspectives approach in national forest recreation and its application to
mountain bike management. Unpublished paper prepared for the Utah State University Outdoor
Recreation Shortcourse, Department of Forest Resources, Logan, UT.
Lee, R. G. (1972). The social definition of outdoor recreation places. In R. W. Burch, N. H. Cheek,
& L. Taylor (Eds.), Social behavior, natural resources, and the environment (pp. 68-84). New
York: Harper & Row.
Lucas, R. C. (1964). Wilderness perception and use: The example of the Boundary Waters Canoe
Area. Natural Resources Journal, 3, 394-411.
McClaran, M. P., & Cole, D. N. (1993). Packstock in wilderness: Use, impacts, monitoring, and
management. General Technical Report INT-301, USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.
MacCracken, J. G., & O’Laughlin, J. (1992). A National Park in Idaho? Proposals and Possibilities.
Report NO. 7, Idaho Forest. Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group. University of Idaho,
Moscow.
Manning, R. E. (1986). Studies in outdoor recreation: A review and synthesis of the social science
literature in outdoor recreation. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.
Martino. S. ( 1992). Mountain bikes make their mark. Milwaukee Journal (Waukesha ed.). July 27,
pp. W1, W4.
Owens, P. L. (1985). Conflict as a social interaction process in environment and behavior research:
The example of leisure and recreation research. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5,
243-259.
Ruddell, E. J., & Gramann. J. H. (1994). Goal orientation, norms, and noise-induced conflict among
recreation area users. Journal of Leisure Research, 26, 93-104.
Schreyer, R. (1990). Conflict in outdoor recreation. In Vining, J. (Ed.), Social science and natural
resource recreation management (Chapter 2). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Stankey, G. H. (1973). Visitor perception of wilderness recreation currying capacity. Research
Paper INT 142, USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest Experiment Station, Ogden, UT.
Stankey, G. H. (1980). A comparison of carrying capacity perceptions among visitors to two
wildernesses. Research Paper INT 242, USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest Experiment Station. Ogden, UT.
Stankey, G. H., & Clark, R. N. (1991). Social aspects of new perspectives in forestry: A problem
analysis. Pinchot Institute for Conservation Monograph Series. Milford, PA: Grey Towers
Press.
Stankey, G. H., Cole, D. N., Lucas, R. C., Peterson, M. E., & Frisell, S. S. (1985). The Limits of
Acceptable Change (LAC) system for wilderness planning. General Technical Report INT 176,
USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT.
Stuebner, S. (1993). A timely solution for the Hells Canyon river war. High Country News 25(21),
6.
U.S. Department of Interior. (1978). Management policies. USDI, National Park Service, Washington, DC.
VanDeVeer, D., & Pierce, C. (1994). The environmental ethics and policy book: Philosophy,
ecology, and economics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Watson, A. E., & Niccolucci, M. J. (1994, February). Conflicting goals of wilderness management:
Natural conditions vs. natural experiences. Paper presented at the 2nd Symposium on Social
Aspects and Recreation Research, San Diego, CA.
Watson, A. E., & Niccolucci, M. J., & Williams, D. R. (1993). Hikers and recreational packstock
users: Predicting and managing recreation conflicts in three wildernesses. Research Paper
INT-468, USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.
204
D. J. Blahna et al.
Watson, A. E., Niccolucci, M. J.. & Williams, D. R. (1994). The nature of conflict between hikers
and recreational stock users in the John Muir Wilderness. Journal of Leisure Research, 26,
372-385.
Watson, A. E., Williams, D. R., & Daigle, J. J. (1991). Sources of conflict between hikers and
mountain bike riders in the Rattlesnake NRA. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration,
9(3), 59-71.
White, R. G., & Schreyer, R. (I 98 1). Nontraditional uses of the National Parks. Leisure Sciences,
4, 325-341.