INTRODUCTION 



One major fact confronting our society today is that the stocks of natural re- 

 sources from which we derive our material and social wellbeing are not infinite. 

 Although it is true that economic and technological advances continually redefine the 

 nature and extent of the natural resource base, it is also true that the days of 

 relatively free and unlimited access to these resources are past. Daily, we are con- 

 fronted with headlines that warn of impending shortages and the need to ration our 

 consumption of such things as gasoline, fuel oil, and natural gas. 



The need to control consumption has spread beyond traditional products such as 

 food and fuels. In 1972, Rogers C. B. Morton, then Secretary of the Interior, 

 announced the National Park Service would take actions to limit the number of visitors 

 to backcountry areas in the parks because "our parks are threatened now as never 

 before. . .we must set new standards of usage." Recently, the Forest Service began 

 limiting the number of visitors in several wildernesses, including the Boundary Waters 

 Canoe Area in Minnesota, the San Jacinto and San Gorgonio in California, and on the 

 Mt . Whitney Trail in the John Muir Wilderness, actions taken in response to rapidly 

 increasing use, and the resulting crowding and resource damage. 



The rationing of wilderness use has been a controversial issue (Behan 1974; Hendee 

 and Lucas 1974) . One of the important traditional values recognized in the preservation 

 of National Parks and wilderness has been the opportunity for respite from the cares 

 and worries of the everyday world. Numerous studies of wilderness users indicate that 

 one of the principal values derived from wilderness is escape--an opportunity for 

 temporary release from the rules and pressures of everyday life (ORRRC 1962; Hendee and 

 others 1968; Stankey 1973). Freedom of choice and spontaneity of action appear to be 

 key characteristics of what is commonly called "the wilderness experience." 



Rationing the use of areas producing such values might seem akin to charging 

 people to go to church. Or, it might simply appear to be an unwarranted bureaucratic 

 intrusion into yet another area of our lives. What justification is there, after all, 

 for restricting access to areas that many people visit to escape the controls and 

 stresses that increasingly characterize modern life? 



There is also great concern that rationing decisions avoid or minimize discrimina- 

 tory or unequitable consequences. The National Park Service, for example, in restric- 

 ting use on the Colorado River of Grand Canyon National Park, allocated the available 

 openings between commercial concessionaires and noncommercial users. Most of the 

 openings were alloted to the commercial operators. As a result, many private, noncom- 

 mercial parties have been denied access to the river. In the belief that the 

 commercial -noncommercial allocation was discriminatory, Senator Gary Hart (D-Colo.) 

 submitted a concurrent resolution to the Senate in July 1975 "calling for a fair and 

 equitable allocation of restricted-use outdoor-recreational resources" and requested 

 that the Secretary of the Interior review regulations governing the allocation of use 

 to insure fair and equitable treatment. (Senate Concurrent Resolution 56, 

 July 25, 1975.) 



