A merit system could perform three important functions in holding use consistent 

 with capacity. First, as we discussed above, it could reduce per capita impact, there- 

 by possibly postponing the need for other more direct restrictive actions. Second, the 

 numbers of visitors wanting to visit wilderness could be restricted by means of raising 

 the minimum "score" required to obtain entry. Third, the presence of a system demanding 

 time and effort on the part of the individual desiring entry imposes an important "cost" 

 that is paid through the willingness of that individual to gain the necessary qualifi- 

 cations. Thus, merit meets an important criterion as a wilderness rationing device; 

 namely, it places a positive relationship on the value of the opportunity and the be- 

 havior required to achieve that opportunity. 



A merit system might also increase the enjoyment and appreciation that participants 

 derive from wilderness. Understanding the complexity of the natural surroundings and 

 being able to live in concert with the environment might add substantially to the val- 

 ues enjoyed by users. 



There might be opportunities for cooperative training programs developed by the 

 wilderness management agencies in conjunction with some of the major outdoor recreation, 

 educational, and conservation clubs. Approved courses for instructors could perhaps be 

 developed in order to make the program available to as many people as possible. Initial- 

 ly, it might be possible to contact people about the new requirements through such 

 sources as outdoor recreation and conservation groups or through lists of names from 

 wilderness permits now required in some areas. 



Substantial practical problems exist with the merit system. It would be necessary 

 to determine desired behavior. For instance, it is not yet clear what method of dispos- 

 ing of human waste is best; the best method probably varies as one moves from the 

 Oregon Cascades to the Grand Canyon of Arizona. Ways of accurately testing knowledge 

 could be difficult to develop. Settling upon who should establish the standards for 

 entry would be controversial. Determining the appropriate level of knowledge or ability 

 would also have to be reconciled. Finally, developing procedures, personnel, and 

 facilities to carry out such tests would be an awesome task. 



Demonstration of merit could be interpreted as being discriminatory against those 

 people who are physically handicapped or of such age they cannot meet the minimum 

 standards (Hardin 1969). However, some modest level of skill and knowledge is necessary 

 for any wilderness visit, regardless of whether one has to demonstrate their ability to 

 gain access or not. The system could also lead to charges of being "elitist," that 

 wilderness was available to only the young and the strong. To the extent that alter- 

 native opportunities catering to the handicapped or the elderly are not provided, these 

 latter charges would be difficult to refute. 



Generally, merit systems have been founded on a safety criterion. To use merit as 

 a means of limiting use in wilderness, it would be necessary to demonstrate that its 

 implementation is more than another bureaucratic hassle; that it will provide benefits 

 to users. If such a system could in fact lower per capita impact, the time at which 

 more authoritarian rationing might become necessary could be postponed, a situation 

 most users would probably favor. 



1: 



