It appears (Lucas 1975) that voluntary trail registration 

 rates may be highly variable from wilderness to wilderness 

 and perhaps over time. This makes it essential to carefully 

 check registration rates before using them as a basis for 

 use estimates. Using observers for field-checking registra- 

 tion is difficult and expensive, however, and is rarely done. 

 Electronic traffic counters, or better, automatic cameras, 

 are useful and less costly sources of information on true 

 total use to compare to registration data. Checking would 

 probably only need to be done at intervals of a number of 

 years, reducing costs. Currently, use estimates based 

 on trail registers have a large, but usually unknown, 

 margin of error. 



The most accurate wilderness use data come from 

 mandatory visitor-permit systems (Hendee and Lucas 

 1973; Washburne in press). Most National Park Wilder- 

 nesses and more than one-third of all National Forest 

 wildernesses^ require visitors to obtain permits, a practice 

 also common in Canadian wilderness-type areas. Often, 

 especially in National Parks, only campers must obtain 

 permits; day-users are exempted. In almost all cases, 

 permits must be obtained from the managing agency. In 

 a very few wildernesses, permits are issued by cooperators, 

 such as employees of nearby resorts. Permits provide all 

 of the information obtained from trail registers, in addition 

 to greater detail on planned routes of travel. Some visitors 

 fail to get permits even though they are mandatory (Lime 

 and Lorence 1974), just as some visitors do not register 

 at trail registers. Compliance varies, although it is 

 usually higher than for trail registers. 



The agency-issued permit has its disadvantages. The 

 costs of an agency-issued permit system are substantial, 

 primarily for additional employees to issue permits. 

 Obtaining a permit sometimes inconveniences visitors, 

 who usually must visit an agency office, which is often 

 out-of-the-way, during the hours it is open, which may 

 require changes in travel schedules. In some places, 

 permit applications can be made by mail or telephone and 

 permits received by mail, or, when time is short, picked up 

 outside offices after hours. 



Managers of several National Forest wildernesses in 

 Washington and Oregon have instituted a system in which 

 visitors issue themselves mandatory permits at trailheads. 

 This system, of course, is only used where use is not 

 rationed. The visitors keep one copy of the permit, which 

 may be checked for compliance by wilderness rangers in 

 the area, and deposit a copy at the trailhead. Informal 

 spot checks suggest that the system may result in higher 

 compliance rates and more accurate data requiring less 

 adjustment than either agency-issued permits or trail 

 registers. 



A fourth alternative would be mandatory self-registra- 

 tion. In addition to the copy of the registration form 

 deposited at the registration station, a copy could be 

 carried into the wilderness by the party, making com- 

 pliance checking possible. Where data collection is the 

 objective, and use control is not planned soon, this 

 might be a more appropriate approach than a permit 

 system which implies the potential for denial of a permit 

 (Sprague 1 979). However, to our knowledge such a system 

 has not been used. It is questionable whether Federal 

 agencies could use such an approach. By regulation, 

 the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must 

 approve collection of information from the public by 

 Federal agencies. There is legal authority for mandatory 

 permits, and OMB approval has been obtained for volun- 

 tary trail registration systems, but Forest Service officials 

 believe approval of mandatory registration might be diffi- 

 cult or impossible to obtain (personal communication 

 from Roy Feuchter). 



National Forest managers in Montana began using 

 self-issued, mandatory permits in the Spanish Peaks 

 Primitive Area, Gallatin National Forest, on July 1, 1978. 

 This provided an opportunity to evaluate self-issued 

 permits as a use measurement system in a rigorous way. 



STUDY OBJECTIVES 



The objective of the study was to determine how well 

 a self-issued permit system measured recreational use. 

 Strictly speaking, the study sought to determine the 

 completeness of the use information supplied by visitors. 

 This was intended use information because it was supplied 

 before the visit. This study did not seek to determine 

 how actual use deviated from intended use. It also did 

 not concern itself with accuracy of such information as 

 reported party size. 



The study was intended to develop the following 

 specific information: 



1 . What proportion of parties, classified on the basis of 

 the characteristics below, obtain permits: 



a. Summer/fall visitor groups 



b. Day user/overnight camper groups 



c. Hikers/horseback riders 



d. Party size (single individuals/small parties/ 

 large parties. 



2. How does permit station location affect compliance 

 behavior by different types of visitors? 



survey of managers (Washburne in press) indicated about 35 percent of 

 all National Forest Wildernesses based use estimates on permits in 1978. 



2 



