Guideline 2: Use Direct Rationing Only When Less Restrictive Measures Fail 



In line with the general principle of limiting visits only as necessary to achieve 

 wilderness preservation objectives, we want to reemphasize that rationing should be a 

 "last resort" measure, taken only when other less restrictive and authoritarian 

 measures fail. Making this judgment demands quality information; hence, our first 

 guidel ine . 



At times, rationing might appear to be more convenient from an administrative 

 point of view than less authoritarian measures. For instance, attempting to alter use 

 distributions through the use of information supplied to visitors can be a complex and 

 costly task, with no clear evidence that it will be successful. However, we believe it 

 is extremely important to explore all reasonable alternatives to direct rationing 

 before implementing such a program. Protecting the quality of the wilderness experi- 

 ence should be a primary concern and holding direct controls on visitors to a minimum 

 seems particularly important in satisfying this concern. 



Guideline 3: Combination of Rationing Systems Will Help Minimize Costs 



There are no cost-free solutions in rationing. Each technique imposes certain 

 systematic costs that will be felt by users and managers alike. Usually, certain groups 

 will be affected by one system more than another. Thus, the issue before managers is 

 not one of preventing costs from occurring, but rather, one of minimizing the costs that 

 will be inevitable. 



Because of the differential costs of the five rationing systems, and the need to 

 minimize these costs, it will usually be necessary as well as desirable to develop 

 combinations of rationing systems. One good example of such a combination is found in 

 the San Jacinto Wilderness. Here, 75 percent of the daily capacity is allocated through 

 a request system, with requests being filled on a first-come, first-served basis by 

 mail, phone, or in person. As we noted earlier, the disadvantage of the request system 

 is that it can lead to underut i lization of a facility through "no-shows." Additionally, 

 it discriminates against those persons not able (or willing) to plan ahead. To offset 

 these problems, the remaining 25 percent of the daily capacity in the San Jacinto is 

 allocated through a queuing system, and is assigned only on that specific day. In this 

 way, drop- ins are afforded an opportunity to obtain a permit. 



On the Mt . Whitney trail, 100 percent of the daily capacity is allocated on a 

 request basis, but the high percentage of "no shows" (40 percent in 1974 and 50 percent 

 in 1975) allows administrators to accommodate almost all other persons arriving without 

 a permit on a first-come, first-served basis. 



In the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, overnight use is now regulated by a request 

 system. Twenty-five percent of the permits for any given period are allocated by a 

 long-term reservation system to accommodate those who can plan ahead and/or travel long 

 distances to reach the area. The remaining 75 percent of the permits are allocated on 

 a short-term reservation system (really a queuing system) to handle the more spontaneous 

 users. The relative proportion of permits assigned to these two systems was based on an 

 analysis of past use records, so that officials felt confident that the availability of 

 permits was in accord with demand. Such information confirms the importance of our 

 first guideline emphasizing the need for an accurate base of information. 



Officials in the BWCA also considered the imposition of a $5 deposit on advance 

 reservations, refunded on arrival to pick up the permit, in order to reduce the problem 

 of "no shows." Although this was dropped because of uncertainty of its legality, it 

 was an imaginative suggestion that might have been quite effective. 



1" 



