Factors Affecting Compliance 



Permit compliance is associated most strongly with 

 visitors' length of stay. This was also true in Michigan 

 (Leatherberry and Lime 1980). This had more effect on 

 compliance than method of travel, which was only in- 

 fluential for day-users. 



Summer and fall rates were essentially the same, unlike 

 the case for trail registers, which have shown lower rates 

 in the fall. 



Lone visitors complied relatively poorly, as they also 

 have done at voluntary trail registers (Wenger and 

 Gregersen 1964; Lucas, and others 1971). This may be 

 partly because of the brief stay of many lone visitors. One 

 would think a person camping alone might have more 

 motivation to register or obtain a permit to leave a record 

 of his or her presence for security. 



Locations away from the parking area, up the trail 

 some distance, produced higher compliance rates by 

 hikers, and at least as high compliance by horsemen. 

 (This was also reported for the Sawtooth Wilderness). 

 Day-use horsemen appeared to comply slightly better at 

 up-trail locations, which seems somewhat surprising. One 

 might expect better compliance at the parking area, where 

 someone is usually ready before the others in the party 

 and could easily register or write a permit while waiting, 

 and it was not necessary to dismount to fill out a permit. 

 However, actual visitor behavior did not bear this out. 

 Several possible reasons can be suggested. 



1. Signboards at the edge of parking lot may be lost 

 in the clutter and confusion of cars and other signs. In 

 contrast a sign up the trail stands out. (This reason also 

 was cited for the Sawtooth Wilderness.) 



2. Many groups have a leader recognized as the one 

 to deal with registration or permit issuance. This person 

 is unlikely to have free time at the parking area. He or she 

 is overseeing preparations, checking equipment, and often 

 distracted. After the party is on the trail, it may be much 

 easier for the leader to focus attention on a sign and permit- 

 issuing facility. 



3. At the parking area people are anxious to start. 

 After a little travel, and especially after climbing a hill, 

 an excuse for a rest at a sign and permit station could be 

 welcome, especially for hikers. Horsemen often find 

 that saddles need adjusting after a short ride, making 

 a stop necessary. 



4. The up-trail location screens out some people 

 making very brief visits, who rarely comply with the permit 

 requirement. In a sense, this is more an apparent ad- 

 vantage than real, arfecting the compliance rate rather 

 than data on actual use. 



5. An up-trail location can symbolize wilderness entry, 

 and suggest an appropriate signing-in ceremony. By 

 analogy, probably very few people fail to sign a mountain 

 climbing register. For example, the most successful 

 permit station in the Spanish Peaks, on the Deer Creek 

 trail, was located furthest up the trail and right at the 

 Primitive Area boundary. 



MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS 

 Adoption of a Self-Issued Permit 

 System 



A self-issued permit system can be a useful wilderness 

 management tool if managers are committed to the effort 

 required to make it function effectively. Commitment 

 by managers is probably the most critical factor in the 

 success of either a permit or trail register system. 



Adoption of a self-issued permit system must be 

 based on objectives for each area and the estimated cost 

 of a self-issued permit or alternative system. Use 

 measurement is an important goal, but although it is the 

 sole objective emphasized in this study, it is not the only 

 one. Visitor contact and communications also are 

 important, and these may involve receptionists in offices 

 or visitor information centers, signs, brochures, and 

 wilderness rangers. The role of each of these may vary 

 depending on the type of permit or trail register system 

 that is used. 



As a use measurement system alone, self-issued 

 permits have good potential. Rates of compliance compare 

 well with alternatives, and provide more complete data on 

 some types of visitors than trail registers provide. The 

 system is probably less costly than agency-issued permits, 

 and more convenient for visitors. Self-issued permits 

 should cost about the same as trail registers, assuming 

 both are well-maintained and serviced regularly at intervals 

 appropriate for use levels. 



The alternative of mandatory registration deserves 

 consideration, unless the survey approval policy of the 

 Office of Management and Budget is an insurmountable 

 barrier. Where data collection, not use regulation, is the 

 objective, the term "permit" might be considered by 

 some to be a misnomer. It is possible (no data are 

 available) that some visitors are irritated by the tone of 

 Government control they perceive in permit systems and 

 that they do not comply as a form of protest. If a mandatory 

 registration system had a copy of the registration form to 

 be carried by the visitor for compliance checking by 

 wilderness rangers—and this would seem necessary— 

 the distinction becomes purely one of name, and visitor 

 reaction is difficult to predict. 



Station Location 



Locations up the trail are clearly superior to end of 

 road, trailhead parking areas in obtaining visitor 

 compliance; however, the added time and cost required 

 to build such stations and to service and maintain them is 

 a disadvantage. For example, a station 1 mile up the trail 

 might require an extra 40 minutes to an hour each time it 

 was checked. We experienced little vandalism in the 

 Spanish Peaks, but what little occurred was unrelated to 

 up-trail or trailhead location. Although not tested formally 

 in the study, location very close to the edge of the trail 

 (as at Cascade Creek, Deer Creek, and Little Hellroaring 

 Creek) and in the line of sight of the trail, which curves 

 around the station (as at Deer Creek), seems desirable. 



13 



