ContentProvider

Confl ict was assessed by a yes/no question as to whether it existed and, if yes, a rating question on the seriousness of the confl ict with the scale being 1 (confl ict of minimal seriousness) to 5 (confl ict of critical seriousness).

Following those ratings, management response(s) to confl ict was requested and the perceived effi cacy of the response was rated on a scale of 1 (unsuccessful) to 5 (highly successful).

Confl ict between trail uses was most common between non-motorized uses (Table 3). However, for those who have the confl ict, the confl ict between motorized and non-motorized trail uses was judged as more serious than confl icts among non-motorized trail users, although motorized/non-motorized confl ict was reported in fewer states. The greater level of seriousness was related to concerns about health and safety of trail users in a potential motorized/non-motorized collision. Approaches to reduce confl ict between trail users included signage clearly denoting appropriate activities, etiquette oriented

signage, seasonal restrictions on certain uses (e.g. restricting mountain bike and equestrian use during spring to reduce physical damage to the trail), physical barriers to illegal motorized use and separate trails to segregate confl icting activities (e.g. going from shared use trails for hiking, mountain biking and equestrian to separate trails for each). Success in reducing confl ict was assessed to be greatest in regards to confl icts between non-motorized uses and least in regards to confl icts between motorized and non-motorized uses and between motorized uses.

Confl ict between trail uses and other recreation activities or non-recreation activities (e.g. forestry) non-trail use is less common than confl ict between non-motorized trail activities (Table 4). However, confl ict among trail users with and without dogs occurs in a majority of states. Also, confl icts between trail use and hunting occur in almost half the state park systems. To reduce dog related confl icts leash laws and their enforcement, prohibition of dogs from trails, etiquette training and mandatory dog feces removal are used in various states. These approaches appear to be moderately successful. Approaches taken to reduce confl icts between trail uses and hunting include temporary trail closures during some hunts, law enforcement against illegal hunting, closing some trail areas to hunting and controlled hunts using techniques such as a limited number of permits, archery only deer hunts and more restrictive hunting seasons in park areas. These approaches appear moderately successful. They also often walk a fi ne line between the need to control wildlife populations (e.g. white-tailed deer) which hunting can

Table 2.—Proportion of states providing selected trail activity on one or more state park trails.

Trail Use Provided Number of States Responding Percentage that Provide Use

Walk/hike 32 100

Equestrian 32 100

Mountain bike 32 97

Road bike 32 75

Cross country ski 32 72

In-line skate 32 59

Snowmobile 32 50

All terrain vehicle 32 38

provide, provision of outdoor recreation (hunting and trail use) and the use of deadly weapons in proximity to a developed recreation site (trail).

The least success in resolving a confl ict was reported in reducing confl icts among people involved in the same trail use with differing skill levels. Relating confl icts within a specifi c activity to the concept of recreational specialization (Bryan 1979) may enhance the ability of managers to conceptualize the confl ict and provide for the range of users. For example, using a stacked loop trail design, trail diffi culty can be increased on the more distant loops (steeper grade, narrower width, tighter turns, etc.), yet the stacked loop design allows for a single

trailhead, rapid separation of more and less skilled trail users (e.g. cross country skiers) and still provides for an understandable system that allows low skill users to be confi dent they are not far from their vehicle and to readily determine their position on the trail system. Trail vandalism is found in more than half the state park systems (Table 5). Confl ict with adjacent landowners, often one of the major concerns of locating new trails, was most common in the case of trespass and least common in regard to noise and vandalism of private property. While none of the confl icts was mean rated as especially serious, confl icts with neighbors can quickly escalate into very negative publicity for a park system.

Table 3.—Prevalence, seriousness and effi cacy of response to confl icts between trail users on state park trails.

Confl ict Percent with Confl ict Mean Rated Seriousness of

Confl icta

Mean Rated Effi cacy of

Management Responseb

Hike/bicycle 69 2.0 3.6

Equestrian/bicycle 66 2.1 3.2

Hike/equestrian 58 1.3 3.6

Motorized/non-motorized 38 3.1 2.8

Cross country ski/ snowmobile

32 2.6 3.5

Off-road vehicle/ snowmobile

18 3.2 2.8

a _{Rating scale 1=Minimally serious to 5=Critically serious} b _{Rating scale 1=Unsuccessful to 5=Highly successful}

Table 4.—Prevalence, seriousness and effi cacy of response to confl icts within trail uses, with adjacent non-trail recreation and with adjacent land uses on state park trails.

Confl ict Percent with Confl ict Mean Rated Seriousness

of Confl icta

Mean Rated Effi cacy of

Management Responseb

Trail users with and without dogs 61 2.0 3.0

Hunting with trail use 47 2.1 3.3

Trail use with agriculture 34 1.9 3.0

Trail use with forestry 34 1.8 3.4

Trail use with nature observation 29 1.6 3.3

Skill level confl ict within a trail use 17 2.2 1.7

Traditional cross country skiing with ski skating

13 2.0 4.0

a _{Rating scale 1=Minimally serious to 5=Critically serious}

Likewise, vandalism to trail facilities can affect a park system in many ways including increasing maintenance costs, creating a park image of disrepair, instilling a visitor climate of concern about personal safety and disrupting staff work plans by taking away employees from other regularly scheduled activities. Management responses to vandalism include rapid repair of vandalized locations, installing vandal resistant facilities, providing easier means of patrol such as improved sight lines and increased enforcement and surveillance. Trespass onto private property is reduced by signage clearly marking boundaries of park ownership, education at trail heads and visitor centers about respecting adjacent property owner rights and fencing in severe cases.