MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS 



As contradictory to the idea of wilderness as it might seem, rationing of wilder- 

 ness use will become increasingly common. In our judgment, this will be necessary if 

 the significant ecological and social values of such areas are to be fully protected. 



At the same time, we are concerned that rationing might be adopted because it 

 appears to be administratively more convenient than other measures. Similarly, ration- 

 ing decisions made in response to problems that are more imagined than real, or that 

 are based on highly localized or temporary problems, could lead to public opposition to 

 rationing as a legitimate management tool. 



Sound management principles are the most effective safeguard against such problems. 

 We particularly endorse two principles that, will help insure the appropriate and 

 legitimate use of rationing. First, we advocate the control of the environmental ex- 

 pense of use rather than use per se (Lucas 1973; Hendee 1974). That is, we should be 

 primarily concerned with reducing the physical and social impacts associated with use 

 rather than simply cutting back on use itself. This is an important distinction; not 

 all kinds of wilderness use create similar levels of impact. A good example, with all 

 else being equal, is the relative ecological impact created by one backpacker as 

 opposed to one visitor on horseback. Moreover, use by itself is a fairly poor predictor 

 of impact (Wagar 1964) . Variables such as method of travel (Lucas 1964) , season of use 

 (LaPage 1967), and habitat type (Helgath 1975) seem more critical elements in the 

 equation of predicting impact. 



From a management perspective, this principle suggests that we develop measures of 

 the relative impacts of different styles of wilderness use so that logical decisions 

 regarding use restrictions can be implemented. Those uses that are more destructive or 

 consumptive than others should be the first ones restricted. By focusing on eliminating 

 unwanted impacts rather than indiscriminately cutting use, the time when direct 

 rationing would be appropriate can probably be postponed. 



A second tenet we might label as the principle of minimum regimentation. We have 

 already discussed the fact that for many people, the wilderness experience is an 

 opportunity for freedom and spontaneity. Restrictions and regulations obviously in- 

 trude on this experience. Consequently, we endorse management programs that use only 

 that level of regulation necessary to achieve preservation objectives (Lucas 1973). 

 For example, if a program informing visitors about current use distributions is suf- 

 ficient to change use patterns in a desirable fashion, then it would be inappropriate 

 as well as unnecessary to impose more heavy-handed measures, such as directly 

 controlling where people can go. 



A rough continuum of use-control measures can be outlined, specific actions 

 ranging from subtle, light-handed techniques such as providing information to users, 

 to authoritarian actions accompanied by sanctions, such as mandatory permits, with 

 fines imposed for noncompliance. Gilbert and others (1972) distinguished between 

 what they label as "manipulative" measures that influence behavior by controlling the 



15 



