Special Report:

 

Survey of Cook County Residents’ Views

on

 ATV Use of Roads, Ditches and Public Lands

 

 

November 2007

 

 

Survey Research by

Ingrid Schneider, Ph. D.

University of Minnesota

 

 

Survey Production by

University of Minnesota Printing Services

 

 

 

Survey Random Sample by

Survey Sampling International

 

Report written by the

Sustainable Recreation Coalition

Box 181 t Grand Marais, MN  55604 

sustainable-recreation-coaltion@hughes.net

 

Introduction

Modern four-wheel all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) are used as transport and traction machines for work and as recreational vehicles.  The have 4-drive wheels, handle bar steering, motorcycle type seat and a high center of gravity.  ATV policies at all levels of government —federal, state, county and city—are in a catch-up mode as safety concerns and damages to lands and waters become more apparent and widespread.  The volunteers of the Sustainable Recreation Coalition initiated this county-wide survey to add some factual data to the debate on the regulation of where ATVs should be allowed to be ridden.  Accurate data on public preferences were unknown until this study, though assertions of the public’s views were made by groups and individuals.  Now this independent scientific survey has quantified public attitudes in Cook County toward specific public policy options.  This information is intended for use by the media, opinion leaders, public officials and the community.

 

Purpose of this public opinion survey

To identify residents’ perceptions of proposed changes to use of Class I ATVs on roads and public lands in order to inform public policymaking.

 

Funding

The Sustainable Recreation Coalition members funded the study and Compliance Assistance, a not-for-profit charitable organization, was the fiscal agent.  Sustainable Recreation Coalition promotes sensible solutions to ATV problems to keep the North Shore safe, quiet and wild.  The coalition was formed to protect the special places of the North Shore from damage by dirt bikes, mudder trucks and ATVs and to protecting jobs based on active (human-powered) outdoor activities and the quiet beauty of the area.

 

Principal Investigator

Ingrid E. Schneider, Ph.D. is the director of University of Minnesota Tourism Center and an Associate Professor.  Schneider’s Ph.D. is in Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management and her primary research interests are in the attitudes and behaviors of those involved in recreation and nature-based tourism activities. Specific interests include conflict and diversity in recreation.  She was the principal investigator for All-terrain Vehicles in Minnesota: Economic impact and consumer profile (March 2006) for the ATV Association of Minnesota and the MN Dept. of Natural Resources (DNR) and Snowmobiling in Minnesota: Economic impact and consumer profile (April 2005) in cooperation with Minnesota United Snowmobilers and DNR; and Wildlife Viewers in Northeast Minnesota (2002).

 

Research Methods

A sample of Cook County residents were invited to participate in a mail survey through a self-mailer.  People in the random sample have both a physical address and land-line phone number in Cook County.  The sample was selected and provided to the University of Minnesota Center Tourism Center by Survey Sample International, a third-party company that specializes in this function.

 

Questionnaire

A single-page mailer was designed, approved and implemented in August 2007.  The initial questionnaire was mailed and a reminder post card sent to encourage responses.  Mail returned as ‘no mail receptacle available’ was re-mailed based on local tax record data.  The University of Minnesota Institutional Review Board approved questionnaire included sections focused on: (1) years resided in Cook County; (2) vehicle ownership and (3) road and public land ATV preferences.  The questionnaire is Appendix B of this report.

 

Response Rate

Table 1		Response
Cook County Sample	n	Rate
Initial mailing	1,084
Undeliverable	8
Unusable	0
Deceased	8
Returned	598
Response rate		56%

Of the 1,084 names for the sample identified by SSI, 8 were deceased and 8 were undeliverable.  Of those mailed a survey, 598 usable surveys were returned for a 56% response rate (Table 1).  Given the 2006 projected sample in Cook County of 5,329 people, the sample affords us a 95% confidence level and 3.78% confidence interval.  Thus, we are 95% sure that the true percentage of the population who would have responded as reported is between +/-3.78% of those numbers. 

 

Date Analysis

Data were entered, cleaned, and descriptively analyzed in SPSS software.  Descriptive analysis provided means, standard deviations, and frequencies to describe the sample and provide information on variables of interest.  “Strongly agree” and “agree” responses were combined and reported separately, the same for “strongly disagree” and “disagree” responses. 

 

Potential Sample or Response Bias

People who do not have a land-line phone were excluded from the sample.  Those who are off the grid or who do not have a land line because they cannot afford it or choose to use cell phones were not surveyed.  Local news media report there are 1,000 registered ATVs in the county, yet the survey predicts 1,545 (29% report owning an ATV times the 5,329 county population).  This may be due to a higher response rate by ATV owners to the survey or there may be ATVs in the county that are not registered.

 

 

Profile of Survey Respondents

·        Survey respondents average living 27 years in Cook County, with one reporting 90 years.  26% report 10 years or less, 34% report 11-22 years, and over 50% more than 22 years.  The survey respondents have deep roots in the county.

 

·        Almost all (94%) Cook County inhabitants own an automobile or truck.  This result makes sense in a rural area with limited public transportation.

 

·        Two-thirds of Cook County inhabitants do not own a snowmobile and one-third do.

 

·        Over two-thirds of Cook County residents do not own an ATV.  Less than a third of Cook County residents have an ATV.  Specifically, 29% own an ATV and 71% do not. 

 

·        Only 14% of Cook County inhabitants own a motorcycle of any kind and 6% own an off-highway motorcycle.

 

·        Less than 4% of survey respondents report not owning a motor vehicle of some kind.

Results of Survey Policy Questions—Executive Summary

 

Road and ditch ATV policy: A large majority opposes opening all paved public roads to ATVs.  A majority wants shoulders of paved public roads closed to ATVs.  A large majority want roads and ditches in residential areas closed to ATVs.  A majority favor keeping inside ditch banks of public roads closed to ATVs.  There is significant support for closing outside ditch banks of public roads to ATVs (which are currently open).  County inhabitants are divided on opening shoulders of gravel public roads to ATVs.

 

Public land ATV policy: A majority of the population favors closing a majority of public lands in Cook County to ATVs.  There is significant support for closing a majority of public logging roads to ATVs.  There is significant support for focusing ATV use on land privately owned by the rider.  A large majority opposes promotion of Cook County as a ATV riding destination for tourists.

 

 

Results of Survey—Roads, Ditches and Shoulder Policy

 

Large majority is opposed to opening all paved roads to ATVs

 

An overwhelming (56-point) majority in Cook County is opposed to opening all paved public roads to ATV riding and a solid majority feels so strongly.  78% of the population wants paved roads closed to ATVs and 54% feel strongly so.  Only 22% of inhabitants support opening all paved roads to ATVs and only 13% strongly feels so.

 

Currently non-state aid roads in the City of Grand Marais are open to ATV riding.  Outside banks of ditches are currently open county-wide.  Inside banks of ditches are currently closed to ATVs.  Public roads include county, MN DOT, DNR and Forest Service roads.

 

The safety of ATV riders, automobile passengers and pedestrians may be the reason there is such a clear preference for separation of ATV and automobile traffic.  It may also indicate a desire to limit ATV routes so enforcement of traffic or conservation laws can be more effective.  Noise impacts on residences may be another reason.

 

 

Majority want shoulders of paved public roads closed to ATVs

 

A 14-point majority in Cook County wants to keep paved road shoulders closed to ATV riding; 57% for closure and 43% for opening.  More people strongly prefer that such shoulders should remain closed (38%) than those who strongly prefer such shoulders be opened to ATVs (22%). 

 

Like the case of paved roads, this widespread opposition to ATVs on paved shoulders may be due to safety concerns for ATV riders, pedestrians and automobiles.  It may also indicate a desire to limit ATV routes so enforcement of traffic or conservation laws can be more effective.  Noise impacts on residences may be another reason.  Public roads include county, MNDOT, DNR and Forest Service roads.

 

A very large majority favors closing public roads & ditches in residential areas to ATVs

A very large (30-point) majority in Cook County does not want ATVs on roads or ditches in denser residential areas and over a third have strong agreement with this policy.  65% of Cook County inhabitants want residential areas closed to ATV riding and 35% prefer them open.  The survey defined residential areas as “where the lots have less than 300 feet of road frontage.”  Non-state aid roads in the City of Grand Marais are currently open to ATV riding.  Outside banks of ditches are currently open county-wide.  Inside banks of ditches are currently closed to ATVs but the County Board is considering opening some or all. 

 

 

Majority favors keeping inside ditch banks of public roads closed to ATVs

 

A 10-point majority wants to keep inside ditch banks closed to ATV riding in Cook County, with 54% for continued closure and 46% for opening them.  There is 6-points or 25% more strong support for keeping them closed than for opening them; strong for closure is 30%, strong for open is 24%. 

 

Inside ditch banks are the area from the road shoulder down to the bottom of the ditch along the side of the road.  Public roads include county, MNDOT, DNR and Forest Service roads.  This new data clearly contradicts the claims of some ATV advocates that a majority of county inhabitants wanted ditches to become a county-wide ATV network.

 

 

Significant support for closing outside ditch banks of public roads to ATVs

 

Outside ditch banks are currently open to ATVs in Cook County, yet a full 50% of the population wants them closed to ATV riding.  28% are strongly for closed to 22% strongly for open.  Public roads include county, MNDOT, DNR and Forest Service roads.

 

This protective option has not been seriously considered by a majority of the Cook County Board, which has only looked at opening inside ditch banks and shoulders to Class I ATVs in response to an initiative by some ATV advocates.  A county board may close the ditch or outside ditch bank to ATVs under M.S. 84.928, Subd 1(b).

 

Road ditches are designed to convey stormwater off the roadway and into streams, lakes or wetlands without polluting the run-off with sediment from erosion of the ditches.  Repeated ATV passages eventually remove vegetative cover leading to erosion on ditch slopes.  Erosion leads to water pollution and higher road maintenance costs for taxpayers.

 

 

Residents are divided on opening shoulders of gravel public roads to ATVs

 

45% of Cook County wants to keep shoulders of gravel roads closed to ATVs.  Those with strong feelings are equally divided between the supporters and opponents of ATVs on gravel road shoulders at 30% each. 

 

Shoulders are defined by the state law as “means that part of a highway which is contiguous to the regularly traveled portion of the highway and is on the same level as the highway. The shoulder may be pavement, gravel, or earth.” M.S. 169.01: Subd 73.  Roadway “means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the sidewalk or shoulder.” M.S. 169.01: Subd. 31. The boundary between the treadway and shoulder on gravel roads can be difficult to see if it is freshly graded and vegetation on the shoulder removed. 

 

Proposed policies considered by the Cook County ATV Task Force would allow ATVs on the “far right-hand side” of the treadway of gravel roads in addition to the actual shoulder and inside bank slope.  The county does not have the authority to open any part of the treadway of roads it administers to ATV use according to state law which only lists right-of-way shoulder or inside bank slope.  M.S. Chapter 84.928: Subd. 6 (c)

 

The outside bank slopes of ditches are currently open to ATV riding in Cook County and state law clearly allows counties to close them and some, like Washington County, already have.

 

People without phone service were not included in the survey, so actual public opinion may favor ATV restrictions on gravel roads, as the remote parts of the county are mostly served by gravel roads.

 

 

Results of Survey—Public Land ATV Policy

 

Most favor closing a majority of public lands in Cook County to ATVs

 

A 6 point majority of Cook County inhabitants want a majority of public lands in their county closed to ATVs.  53% favor most public lands zoned ATV-free.  Those with strong opinions are equally divided between the supporters of open or closed at 33% each.  This survey question addresses the issue of proportionality in public land allocation between pedestrians and ATV riders based on their percentage of the population or of public land users.  ATV owners are about 5% of the state’s population and a smaller minority of public land users.  Public land ATV riders are about 3.5% of Minnesota’s population

 

USDA Forest Service research shows off-highway vehicle riding is the primary reason for visiting the Superior National Forest for only 3% of its visitors, even though there have long been 1,750 miles of trails and logging roads available for such use[1].  Two times as many people primarily visit for biking and five times as many for walking as for riding OHVs[2]. 

 

 

Significant support for closing a majority of public logging roads to ATVs

 

41% of Cook County inhabitants want a majority of public forest logging roads closed to ATV riding; 16% strongly agree and 42% strongly disagree with closing a majority of them.  The difference in results from the prior finding on closure of public lands may indicate some people favor focusing ATV riding on public lands on logging roads, which are already disturbed corridors.

 

Support for closing logging roads may be due to people liking to drive their auto to a logging road and then walk in and they may not like to hear the noise or see the rutting from ATV traffic.  Other studies have documented that hikers find their outdoor experience degraded by ATV noise and impacts to the land[3].  The Forest Service has started closing some logging roads to motorized use when they are no longer needed for agency vehicles to improve wildlife habitat and reduce wildlife disturbance.

 

 

Significant support for focusing ATV use on land privately owned by the rider

 

A surprising large 49% of Cook County residents support focusing ATV use on land owned by the rider.  Those with strong opinions are almost equally divided between those supporting and opposing this recreational policy at 30% each. 

 

The results may indicate a desire to protect public lands from damage and to retain the historic pedestrian focus of public lands while still maintaining public access.  Since public lands are owned by all, respondents may see their quiet enjoyment or conservation stewardship harmed by widespread ATV use.  A belief that ATV riders will treat their own land with more respect than public lands, or respect for private property rights are other possible interpretations for this policy preference of Cook County residents.

 

 

Large majority opposes promotion of Cook County as an ATV riding destination for tourists

 

A large (20-point) majority of Cook County residents do not want the county promoted as an ATV recreational destination for tourists.  60% of the residents do not want the county to be an ATV destination and 40% do.  42% strongly oppose, while only 25% strongly support, marketing the county as an ATV destination. 

 

Public opposition may be due to concerns about negative environmental impacts or increased user conflicts from higher out-of-county ATV traffic.  It may indicate a belief that out-of-town riders may not have as much respect for the land as local riders.  It also may indicate a judgment that specializing as a non-motorized destination offers better long-term economic potential.

 

Discussion

 

Depending upon one’s circle of friends and neighbors in Cook County, the results of this survey may or may not be surprising.  It has long been clear that the community has both advocates for few restrictions on ATVs and advocates for more restrictions.  It is clear now there is majority support for several types of limits on where ATVs may be ridden.

 

Due to budget and space constraints, the survey did not ask whether the respondent’s ATV was used for utility or recreational purposes. The DNR/Dept. of Revenue gas tax study asked ATV riders where they rode.  70% reported riding only on their own property (legislative testimony by Gene Larimore 2006 Legislature).  With 1,000 registered ATVs in Cook County, this puts inhabitant public land recreational riders at about 300.  Recreational riders are an even smaller minority of local inhabitants than ATV owners.  For many owners, ATVs are small tractors useful at their business or home place and are seldom ridden for recreation, so they don’t need public lands or road ditches.

 

The survey results reveal the “wisdom of large numbers” where common sense prevails.  Proposals to open up road shoulders and inside ditch banks to ATVs are unpopular, perhaps reflecting the safety, pollution and infrastructure damage of such expanded uses.  The noise of these machines and their potential conflicts with pedestrians are likely what makes them so very unpopular in residential areas.  Losing one’s peace and quiet at home is a reasonable concern. 

 

Advocates of expanding ATV use from outside ditch banks to the inside ditch banks should take note, as this study has uncovered significant public support for closing the currently open outside ditch banks.  The public is certainly seeing the bare dirt “two-track tattoos” spreading on the outside ditches in Cook and in other Minnesota counties and is concerned about it, perhaps due to the unsightly appearance, sedimentation of wetlands or streams, or due to the growing cost for repairs. 

 

Taxes on gas burned in ATVs are not available to repair ditches or shoulders unlike the gas taxes paid by automobiles and trucks.  The DNR ATV damage account has complex rules and requirements for documentation and so is underutilized.  As a result the costs of this recreation are being mostly paid by people who do not use their ATV off their own property or who don’t even have one.

 

Allocating public lands proportionally between pedestrians and ATV riders is a fair, common sense proposition that the survey results show county residents support.  Public land managers need to take note of these survey results before adopting ATV routes and land allocations, including permanent and temporary roads.  The significant support found for focusing ATV use on private lands also shows community support for keeping ATVs off of public lands.  Spreading the use out on private lands (the very large majority of land in the state) and the belief that people will take better care of their own land makes this result understandable.  Cook County has 53,937 acres (84 square miles) of undeveloped private land including almost a square mile of gravel pits.

 

Local, regional and state economic development and tourism agencies need to take note of the clear public opposition to marketing Cook County as an ATV tourist destination quantified by the survey.  Public opposition may be due to environmental concerns, user conflicts, or a preference for the county specializing as a non-motorized destination. 

 

Based on DNR data and studies also done by the principal investigator for this study, we calculate the there are 3.7 times more Wildlife Watcher overnight trips to NE MN than ATV rider trips[i][4].  Moreover, Wildlife Watchers spend 25% more per party per day and 19% more per person per day than ATV visitors, so clearly it would be a good business decision for Cook County to build on its national visibility as a wilderness destination[5].  A county that tried to brand itself as both motorized and non-motorized will eventually lose non-motorized visitors due to the one-directional nature of the user conflicts.

 

Cook County could become an ATV destination through proactive expenditure of advertising funds by large businesses, tourism associations or government.  It also occurs when grant-in-aid ATV trails are constructed by ATV clubs and the routes are published on the DNR and Tourism Minnesota web sites.  Guerilla marketing of the county as an ATV destination can be done by ATV advocates on private web sites for little cost.  Already the Two Harbors snowmobile club distributes free maps for tourists that show ATV trails in Cook County. 

 

To keep Cook County from becoming an ATV tourist destination, the government and hospitality industry must collaborate and set a common marketing strategy for the county that includes both promotion messaging and on the ground “product”—separation of ATV and pedestrian trails, protection of trout streams and sensitive areas, vegetated ditches, and investments in unique festivals and events.

 

Not linking ATV trails to tourist lodging facilities is another way of preventing the county from becoming an ATV tourist destination.  State grant-in-aid ATV trails must be limited and trails for local ATV riders funded without state funds so they stay local and do not become part of a state-promoted ATV tourist program influenced by the state’s ATV manufacturers.  The North Shore State Snowmobile Trail needs to be kept closed to ATVs in the summer or it would attract ATV tourists in significant numbers.  A possible strategy is for the county to fund leases of private land for local ATV rider use.

 

Wildness, beauty and quiet are competitive advantages for drawing high profit tourists.  Quiet sports and the environment should be key aspects of Cook County’s economic development strategy.

 

Policy Recommendations

 

• Create a “Safe, Quiet and Wild Cook County” tourism task force
• Solicit proposals for ATV trail leases on private land for resident use
• Prepare an environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) before deciding to open any public lands, roads or ditches to ATVs
• Endorse making the NSST a summer birding pedestrian trail
• Hire a Recreation Patrol Officer for the Sheriff’s Department
• Disband the ATV ordinance task force

 

 

 

Appendix A: Cook County ATV road riding ordinance public hearing testimony and supporting documentation of the Sustainable Recreation Coalition, March 20, 2007

 

Appendix B: Mail Survey Form

 

Appendix C: Survey Statistics

 

Appendix D: Survey Results separately for ATV Owners and Non-ATV Owners

 

 

 

See Related Study: Cook County Winter-based Visitor Study 2003, University of Minnesota Sea Grant, Glen Kreag and Donald McTavish

 

Appendix A    Cook County ATV road riding ordinance public hearing testimony and supporting documentation of the Sustainable Recreation Coalition, March 20, 2007

 

Making Cook County an ATV Destination:

Evidence Shows a Negative Economic Impact

 

What message does the proposed ordinance send?  It says:

1. “We are willing to take away quiet and safety of other road users to satisfy the ATV minority.”
2. “ATVs are so important we will take away quiet from our residential neighborhoods.”
3. “ATVs are so important that we’ll let riders risk injury, suffering or death by allowing them where their manufacturers conclude they are not safe to use.”
4. “Bring your ATVs here, you won’t have to check were riding is legal—you can just start driving around.”
5.  “ATV users have special privileges in this county, so you can expect weak enforcement.”
6. ATV road riding is a clear message that the county is wide-open to ATV use.

 

How would this message be spread?

1. News reports of the passage of the ordinance
2. Circulation of the news reports on ATV club email and web sites
3. State tourism guides and web sites (10,000 ATVenture Guides distributed by Explore Minnesota at rest areas, ATV shows, etc.)
4. Promotion by local business that support ATV use
5. There is nothing our government could do to prevent the spread of this message except not pass the ordinance.

 

How would public perception of the county as an ATV destination impact the economy?

1.      The Wildlife Watcher tourist spends 25% more per party per day and 19% more per person per day than ATV tourists according to Dr. Ingid Schneider, University of Minnesota Tourism Center.  The Wildlife Watcher study was done in 2002, the ATV User study in 2006 using similar methodologies. (ATV en-route and local average spending, less sporting goods purchases=$295/party/overnight trip. Wildlife Watchers spend $303/party/overnight trip on average).  Citation: http://fr.cfans.umn.edu/publications/staffpapers/Staffpaper165.pdf and http://www.tourism.umn.edu/research/ATVExecutiveSummary.pdf

2.      The MNDNR “Conservation Agenda” web site reports there are 1,000,000 wildlife watchers in the state that take overnight trips to view wildlife.  http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/conservationagenda/index.html The Wildlife Watcher report estimates 20% of those overnight visits are in NE Minnesota, or 200,000 trips per year.  Wildlife Watchers from the Twin Cities visit the NE an average of 3.4 times per year. Wildlife watching participation up 56% from 1996 to 2001 and spending grew 36% in the same time frame—page i.

3.      The DNR/Dept. of Revenue gas tax study asked ATV riders where they road.  70% reported riding only on their own property (legislative testimony by Gene Larimore 2006 session). 

4.      There were 270,000 ATVs registered in MN in 2005 representing 138,000 households; 36% do overnight trips at an average of 3.1 overnight trips per year per HH, 35% to NE Minnesota= 53,902 overnight trips/yr to NE.  So there are 3.7 times more Wildlife Watcher overnight trips to NE MN than ATV rider trips.

5.      The Wildlife Watchers are in their mid-50s and most are not working full time, incomes over $70,000, their parties are gender balanced, and they stay 24% longer that ATV users.  A typical ATV user is male, mid-40s and with a $50,000 income.

6.      USDA Forest Service studies show, nation-wide, that non-local parties of OHV riders spend 26% less per trip, in the areas around the national forest, than the average visitor and 88% less than bicyclers.  Not all visitors leave the same amount of dollars in the local economy, so a shift to attracting a lower-spending visitor harms the local economy.

7.      The ATV visitor market is much smaller (73% less) and each party spends significantly less per trip (25%-26% less) than wildlife watchers.  So as a marketing strategy, targeting ATV users is a poor economic development strategy.

 

Little Overlap between Wildlife Watchers and ATV Users

1. Different motivations for participation—quiet and stillness vs. motion and novelty.
2. Wildlife Watchers need quiet and to hear and see wildlife
3. Different demographics
4. Wildlife Watchers: 40% fish, 20% hunt while ATV users: 29% fish, 69% hunt
5. The overlap between these two visitor segments is small.

 

Displacement of Non-Motorized Visitors by Motorized Visitors

See the research paper cited below for a summary of how ATV use displaces non-motorized users.  When ATV recreation is promoted, some current visitors are lost for each new visitor gained, so the net effect is less than if a non-motorized promotion was done.

Off-Road Vehicle Policy on USDA National Forests: Evaluating User Conflicts and Travel Management Brenda M. Yankoviak, B.S., James Madison University, 2000

Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Recreation Management, The University of Montana.  December 2005  http://www.forestry.umt.edu/departments/socn/socontheses/yankoviak.pdf

 

ATV routes proposed in Cook County

Forest Service: 132.73  DNR: 124.6 miles  Total ATV miles: 257 miles (distance to Minneapolis)

 

Conclusions

• Road riding labels Cook County as an ATV destination
• ATV User market is significantly smaller and spends significantly less than Wildlife Watchers
• There is little overlap between Wildlife Watchers and ATV Users and the displacement of existing visitor base is a reasonable concern.
• The ATV destination label will shift the “brand” of the county and would be an ineffective or harmful economic development strategy for our tourism dominated local economy.

 

 

From page 15, Spending Profiles of National Forest Visitors

 

Per table 9 above, non-local bicyclists on overnight trips spend 88% more than OHV users.  OHV users spend 26% less than the average for all non-local parties staying overnight (no matter what their primary recreational activity is).  Cross-Country skiers and snowmobilers had the highest per party expenditure and primitive backpackers the lowest.  Spending by visitors to the Superior National Forest is ranked as “average” compared to other national forests by the report authors.

From page 16, Spending Profiles of National Forest Visitors 16

From page 17, Spending Profiles of National Forest Visitors

From page 24, Spending Profiles of National Forest Visitors

Note: Superior National Forest is 4^th from the bottom of the above table.

 

From page 36, Spending Profiles of National Forest Visitors

 

Note in the table A-6 above, that nature-related activities are over three times a popular a primary activity as OHV use and that Biking and cross-country skiing are as popular as OHV use.  Hiking is 4.7 time more popular than OHV use as a primary activity.  Downhill skiing is tied with hiking as the most popular primary activities engaged in by national forest visitors.

 

Relevant ATV Rider Profile

Factors contributing to enjoyment of ride (page 53 U of M ATV Report)

• Mud experience 33%
• Feeling in control of the vehicle 81%
• Access to intensive use areas 40%

 

Most desired improvements (page 55 U of M ATV Report)

• More access/less restrictions 13.6%
• More/better law enforcement  7.1%

 

Interference with Enjoyment (Page 56 U of M ATV Report)

• Conflicts with other ATV riders 7.3%
• Conflicts with non-ATV riders 2.7%

 

Cover of cited ATV report.

 

Appendix B    Mail Survey Form

 

Greetings,

 

You have been selected as part of a small number of Cook County Residents to share your preferences related to recreational all-terrain vehicle (ATV) use on public roads.  In an effort to better understand your preferences, and thus, improve management, we ask you to take 3 minutes to complete the questions below. The information from this questionnaire will be used to gain a better understanding of Cook County residents’ ATV policy preferences.

 

All the information you provide is completely voluntary and anonymous.  Just fill in the information below, fold the flaps so the return address is showing, and put it in the mail.  We appreciate your time and look forward to hearing from you!

 

Sincerely,

 

Ingrid E. Schneider, Project coordinator

 

1. How many years have you lived in Cook County?  _____ Years
2. Please circle each type of motorized vehicle(s) you own:
1. Automobile/Truck                     b.  Motorcycle              c.  Snowmobile

d.   All-terrain vehicle (ATV)          e.  Off highway motorcycle   

f.   I do not own a motorized vehicle

3. To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements regarding ATV use in Cook County?  (please circle one answer per line)

	Strongly  Disagree	Disagree	Agree	Strongly Agree
All paved public roads should be open to ATVs	1	2	4	5
The shoulders of paved public roads should be open to ATVs	1	2	4	5
The shoulders of gravel public roads should be open to ATVs	1	2	4	5
Inside ditch banks of public roads should be open to ATVs (this is the area from the road shoulder down to the bottom of the ditch along side the road)	1	2	4	5
Outside ditch banks of public roads should be open to ATVs	1	2	4	5
Public roads and ditches in denser residential areas, where the lots have less than 300 feet of road frontage, should be closed to ATVs	1	2	4	5
ATV use should be focused on land privately owned by the rider	1	2	4	5
ATVs should not be allowed on a majority of public forest logging roads	1	2	4	5
A majority of public lands in Cook County should not be open to ATVs	1	2	4	5
Cook County should not be promoted as a recreational ATV riding destination	1	2	4	5

 

Thank you for your participation!

If you want more information about this study, contact Ingrid E. Schneider, Ph.D.

115 Green Hall, 1530 Cleveland Avenue North, St. Paul, MN  55108-1027, 612-624-2250 or ingridss@umn.edu.

 

Appendix C Survey Statistics

Q1 – Years lived in Cook county

Statistics

 

Years lived in Cook county

 

Years lived in Cook county