in capacity, it is clear that some wildernesses are 

 overused, while others could accommodate more use, 

 especially with effective management. 



The most heavily visited wildernesses are those 

 located relatively close to large population centers. 

 Visitor surveys and analyses of visitor permits show 

 that, although some visitors come from the most dis- 

 tant corners of the country, most are within a few 

 hundred miles of their homes. For example, most 

 National Forest wildernesses in Montana draw about 

 three-fourths of their visitors from within Montana. 

 The Boundary Waters Canoe Area in Minnesota 

 receives about two-thirds of its use from Minneso- 

 tans. Similarly, only about 5 percent of the National 

 Forest wilderness visitors in California are from other 

 States. 



Recreational use is also very unevenly distributed 

 within most individual wildernesses. A small propor- 

 tion of access points and travel routes usually 

 accounts for most use. For instance, in several wil- 

 derness studies, it was found that about half of all 

 travel was concentrated on only one-tenth of the trail 

 system. This poses a management challenge — to try 

 to redistribute use more in keeping with area 

 capacity. 



The need for intensified management of visitor use 

 is greatest in the heavily used wildernesses. Some 

 National Park wildernesses and a half dozen National 

 Forest wildernesses have some form of limitation on 

 use. In other areas, managers will probably be forced 

 to consider limiting use, although alternative actions 

 to inform and educate visitors might shift use pat- 

 terns and improve wilderness skills enough to reduce 

 impacts and avoid or postpone these controls. 

 Research indicates that most visitors, even in heavily 

 used wildernesses, consider a reasonable degree of 

 solitude to be an important wilderness characteristic 

 and support controls on use when needed. ^o How- 

 ever, studies of wilderness visitors suggest that a sub- 

 stantial proportion, perhaps one-fourth to one-half of 

 those who now visit wilderness, would find the 

 recreation opportunities they are seeking as well or 

 better in a nonwilderness, roadless area. 



Recreational demand for wilderness — The accu- 

 racy of recreational use estimates is generally low and 

 any analysis of demand must be cautious. However, 

 based on reported use figures, recreational use in wil- 



derness has outpaced the overall rate of growth for 

 outdoor recreation in other areas since the first 

 National Forest recreation estimates were released 

 over 30 years ago. Total visits to National Forest 

 wilderness have increased about fifteenfold since 

 World War II, and National Park roadless areas have 

 had similarly large increases. However, the annual 

 rate of growth has been falling. Prior to 1960, the 

 annual average increase in use of National Forest 

 wildernesses and primitive areas was 15 percent — 

 about twice the 7 percent average annual increase 

 since 1960. 



The character of wilderness recreation use has also 

 been shifting. Backpacking, a popular family activity, 

 has surpassed horseback riding in growth. Similarly, 

 in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, visitors who 

 paddle canoes have increased faster than those who 

 use outboard motors on boats and canoes. The pro- 

 portion of visitors who go on do-it-yourself trips, in 

 contrast to outfitted and guided trips, has grown to a 

 majority — usually a very large majority — every- 

 where data are available. This is especially true in 

 wildernesses in the East, where few visitors go with 

 guides and outfitters. 



"Wilderness areas must have outstanding opportunities for soli- 

 tude" . . . — The Wilderness Act. 



5° Fazio, James R., and Douglas L. Gilbert. Mandatory wilder- 

 ness permits: Some indications of success. J. For. 72(12);753-756. 

 1974; Hay, Edwards. Wilderness experiment: It's working. Am. 

 For. 80(12): No. 2629. 1974; Stankey, George H. Visitor perception 

 of wilderness recreation carrying capacity. USDA For. Serv. Res. 

 Pap. INT-142, 619. Intermt. For. and Range Exp. Sta., Ogden, 

 Utah. 1973: Taylor, Ronald B. No vacancy in the wilderness. 

 Sierra Club Bull. 57(l):58. 1972. 



103 



