Trail registration rates appear highly variable, but 

 low^r in more recent observations than earlier cases, 

 with' the notable exception of the Sawtooth Wilderness. 

 The studies show relatively poor registration by horsemen 

 everywhere and to a lesser extent, by day-users. Day- 

 users in the Sawtooth Wilderness, however, had an 85 

 percent compliance rate! 



The 1977 pilot test data from Spanish Creek are 

 difficult to compare directly to self-issued permits, because 

 the trail register, which was checked only in August, was 

 located about 500 yards up the trail, whereas the permit- 

 issuing facility was located near the parking area. How- 

 ever, in general, it appears that self-issued permit compli- 

 ance was substantially higher than voluntary registration 

 by horsemen, about the same for backpack campers, and a 

 iittle lower for day-hikers. From a management perspec- 

 tive, the data from the permits seem superior. 



Self-Issued Permits Compared to 

 Agency-Issued Permits 



Published compliance data for agency-issued permits 

 are available for just a few areas. In the Desolation 

 Wilderness, California, where about 99 percent of the use is 

 by hikers, in 1974 (the fourth year permits were required) 

 about 40 percent of the day-users had permits, (Schechter 

 and Lucas 1978) compared to 51 percent of the day-use 

 hikers in the Spanish Peaks. About 85 percent of backpack 

 campers in the Desolation Wilderness obtained permits 

 from the agency offices, compared to 72 percent in the 

 Spanish Peaks. Thus, the self-issued system in its first 

 year worked a little better for day-users and a little worse 

 for campers than a well-established agency-issued permit. 

 If, however, only the compliance rate for campers at up- 

 trail locations is considered, the Spanish Peaks compliance 

 rate rises to 80 percent, not appreciably different. 



The Boundary Waters Canoe Area, Minnesota, in 

 1971 (the sixth year of the permit system), had 88 percent 

 compliance overall (Lime and Lorence 1974). The rate for 

 day-users was 73 percent; for campers, 92 percent; both 

 better than achieved in the Spanish Peaks. High compli- 

 ance was attributed to enforcement, with citations and 

 fines for noncompliance, 10 offices issuing permits, and 

 about 100 local merchants (mostly resorts, sporting goods 

 stores, and boat and canoe rental businesses) authorized 

 to issue permits. 



In the Great Gulf Wilderness, New Hampshire, in the 

 summer of 1976 (the second year permits were required), 

 78 percent of all visitors were estimated to have obtained 

 permits (Leonard and others 1978). Compliance by day- 

 users was reported to be about 60 percent, and camper 

 compliance 80 to 90 percent. Visitors were all hikers, so 

 the figures compare to about 51 percent compliance for 

 day-users in the Spanish Peaks and 72 percent for campers 

 (or 80 percent for the superior up-trail locations). These 

 small differences might be the result of the newness of 

 the self-issued permit system in Montana. 



The compliance rate in the Dry River Wilderness, also 

 in New Hampshire, in 1975, the first year for permits, was 

 69 percent." Again, all use was hiking, but no breakdown 

 between day-users and campers was provided. These rates 

 seem little different than the Spanish Peaks figures for 

 hikers. 



Compliance with agency-issued permits in the Three 

 Sisters and Mount Jefferson Wildernesses, Oregon, were 

 estimated at only 50 to 70 percent compliance (personal 

 communication, S. Hanna), probably a little lower than 

 the Spanish Peaks self-issued permits. On the other 

 hand, the Glacier Peak and Pasayten Wildernesses in 

 Washington and the Eagle Cap in Oregon estimate about 

 90 percent visitor compliance with agency-issued permits 

 (personal communication, Bernard Smith). 



The Spanish Peaks System 

 Compared to Other Self-Issued 

 Permit Systems 



The Three Sisters and Mount Jefferson Wildernesses 

 reported better than 90 percent compliance when they 

 switched to self-issued permits. These compliance rates, 

 of course, exceed those in the Spanish Peaks. Perhaps 

 the earlier agency-issued permit set the stage for excellent 

 acceptance of the more convenient self-issued permits. 

 Most use was by hikers, probably contributing to high 

 compliance rates. Also, permits were required at most 

 wildernesses in the region, unlike the Spanish Peaks, which 

 was the only National Forest area in the northern Rockies 

 requiring permits. 



Overall Evaluation 



The self-issued, mandatory permit appears to have 

 promise as a use-measurement system, recognizing that 

 any system has other objectives, as well as costs. In its 

 first year, it provided more complete data on some 

 important types of users than trail registers, especially 

 horsemen and fall visitors. During the second year (1979), 

 compliance increased to about 90 percent at all locations 

 except Spanish Creek, according to compliance checks by 

 wilderness rangers (personal communication, John 

 Dolan). It appears to be almost as complete in coverage 

 as an agency-issued permit, and, if the Oregon reports 

 are valid and reflect the general potential of the self-issued 

 permit system, it can provide even more complete coverage. 



A mandatory registration system has never been 

 tested, so no comparison can be made. However, a special 

 registration station that explained a research study was 

 in progress and provided a justification or rationale 

 for registering obtained excellent response rates. About 

 94 percent of all hikers and 67 percent of all horsemen 

 registered (Lucas 1980). High compliance rates for 

 voluntary trail registers reported by the Sawtooth 

 Wilderness suggest that system may have the potential to 

 perform better than it has in most places. 



'Unpublished report by the Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, no 

 author, no date, Travel permit compliance in eastern wilderness; some 

 preliminary results. On file at the Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 

 Durham, N H. 



12 



