factors that influence decisions about where to go or how long to stay, and "regula- 

 tory" measures that directly control when, where, or how people may use an area. Both 

 types of control are legitimate, but their appropriateness must be determined in 

 light of specific conditions. 



These principles help bring the issue of rationing into perspective. We would 

 like to repeat ourselves: rationing is a management option, that, when used in the 

 appropriate conditions, is both legitimate and useful. Under such conditions, it 

 should be used without apology and in full confidence that where a rational explanation 

 for its need exists, public support and understanding can be expected. Lucas (footnote 

 2) reports that about three out of four visitors to seven Montana areas supported the 

 idea of restricting use if an area was being used beyond capacity. Stankey (footnote 

 1) found that 80 percent of sampled visitors in the San Gorgonio and San Jacinto 

 Wildernesses, where rationing is now in effect, agreed that such a measure was 

 necessary. Fazio and Gilbert (1974) also found strong support for the rationing pro- 

 gram instituted in Rocky Mountain National Park, with 80 percent of those who did not 

 get a permit indicating that such a program was necessary. 



SOME GUIDELINES FOR 

 RATIONING WILDERNESS USE 



The five rationing systems we have reviewed represent different techniques for 

 accomplishing a similar objective; holding use at a level consistent with the preserva- 

 tion of natural ecological processes and the opportunity for a primitive, low-use 

 intensity recreational experience. Each system offers certain advantages to accomplish- 

 ing that objective; each has its drawbacks. In choosing when to ration and how to do 

 it, certain guidelines can be used that we believe will aid managers in making good 

 decisions . 



Guideline 1: An Accurate Base of Knowledge Is Necessary 



As with all other forms of resource management, the availability of good informa- 

 tion about wilderness and its use is a prerequisite to using rationing effectively as a 

 tool. First, as we suggested earlier, it is important that rationing be instituted in 

 response to real problems; not to imaginary problems or to temporary problems. Solid 

 data, not impressions, are required. Certainly one of the major advantages of the man- 

 datory wilderness permit system now in effect in over 40 National Forest wildernesses 

 and in many national park backcountry areas is that it provides an accurate record of 

 use and of developing trends, permitting a much improved assessment of conditions 

 (Lime and Buckman 1974). Systematic monitoring of physical-biological conditions, or 

 the careful analysis of records kept by wilderness managers would provide additional 

 information for managers. Such information is absolutely necessary to identify problem 

 areas, their precise nature, and alternative solutions. 



Second, it is important that managers know something about who the users are and 

 what kind of use they make of the wilderness. Because alternative rationing measures 

 impose different kinds of costs on different kinds of users, a knowledge of the clien- 

 tele could head off implementation of a measure that might severely affect some users. 

 For instance, a fee system might greatly restrict the ability of students, a major use 

 group, to gain access. Similarly, a lottery allocating a place in time might make use 

 excessively difficult for persons whose schedule is highly uncertain more than a week 

 or so ahead. 



16 



