They did that. It was called the 70s. It wasn't pretty, at least not in Yosemite. I spent 6 weeks in the Yosemite backcountry in 1974 working on a UC Berkeley sociological research project that was part of the effort to decide how to handle this flood of backpackers. We were observing how folks picked campsites and then asking them after dinner to fill out a one-page questionnaire mostly about their experience of solitude, pristineness, trail conditions, etc. The popular spots really suffered under laissez-faire. Of course, since we needed lots of data, we spent a lot of time at those popular sites like the High Sierra Camp loop and the JMT. When I have revisited those places in the past couple of decades, they look and feel so much better! Not as trampled. Less crowded. It's all a direct result of the quota system, plus NPS restoration work like removing fire rings and re-routing trails out of meadows.Wandering Daisy wrote:
I wonder what would happen if they simply did a test year or two with no quotas and no permits.
One interesting result from our research: people have a "natural spacing" that they like to maintain at campsites, even in crowded areas that attract newcomers. We would get up at the crack of dawn and hurry to the next spot on our sampling loop to be there by noon so we could watch folks come in and pick campsites (from high vantage points where we were not obvious). One good example is Fletcher Lake by the Vogelsang High Sierra Camp. Most backpackers came in from the west end. They would walk on the little trail along the north shore until they found a suitable spot and then stop. I was also surprised to see that very few would actually scout around the lake for the "best spot", as I always do. They stopped at the first one that met their minimum standards. Then the next group would come and space themselves at least 50 yards or so (more or less depending on natural screening) from the other groups. Eventually, by mid-afternoon, you had a string of campsites occupied along the north shore of the lake about 50 yards apart. Then more folks would come (this is pre-quota days, remember), and start filling in between the existing campers. When we interviewed campers, they felt more crowded and less solitude because their natural spacing had been violated. Now, with quotas, we rarely get those big crowds at any one spot anymore and both the physical and sociological impacts are greatly reduced.
The distribution of permits between reservable and walk-up and the reservation method are all questions that should be periodically re-evaluated, but one thing I really love about our Sierra trails is that you are only required to go in a specific direction the first day, and can then camp and travel wherever you please. Other crowded parks (like Grand Teton) have a strict system of designated campsites and rigid itineraries, which I find really annoying and the antithesis of the feeling of freedom I seek in the wilderness. At least in Yosemite in the mid-70s, a fairly sophisticated (for its time) optimization program was used to model how people would disperse in the backcountry given trail lengths, elevation gain, and conditions; historical patterns of use as a measure of site desireability; camping sites available; various combinations of trailhead quotas; and probably other data. Monte-carlo simulations were run to get some ideas of the "peak" possibilities. Then trailhead quotas were adjusted to prevent what the managers thought would be unacceptable crowding and physical impacts at specific sites. The goal was to preserve wilderness conditions but also keep this freedom of movement in the wilderness, at least according to Yosemite Park chief scientist Jan Van Wangendonk who was the architect of much of this quota system back in the 70s. We can quibble with their judgements, but I think they did a good job.
That said, I agree with Wandering Daisy that only about 50% of the quota should be reservable.
-Phil