I agree with you, George, that trying to manage numbers in the wilderness by any means other than trailhead quotas would be impossible.
I also like your recommendations to protect meadows by permanently closing some to any grazing. I'll be including that in my comments. In the workshop, I noted they seemed to consider one horse equal to one hiker when tallying numbers in the wilderness. It seems like they should consider that horses have a greater impact, especially when they are allowed to graze, rather than carry in their own feed.
> Any management system that limits that freedom is inherently antithetical to the very spirit of wilderness.
That is truth! I have always maintained that preventing people from the wilderness works completely against the Wilderness Act's phrase, "provide outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation". In most places, it is pretty easy to tell people, if they want solitude, just walk off the trail a hundred yards!
Unfortunately, I think most everyone agrees to some level of quotas. But there are many other ways to ensure solitude can be found. To prevent any damage from heavy use and better manage the wilderness, I wish the plans would rely more on things like hiker education and having more rangers in the backcountry.
I would like to see the quotas raised significantly, and use other tools:
* hiker education -- even require online courses with exams every few years!
* hiker education -- how to find solitude by hiking off trail.
* post no-camping or other rules in specific high-impact spots.
* raise fees to pay for the rangers
* more rangers in the backcountry to ensure less impact in high-impact spots.
These are ideas that could help allow more people to enjoy the wilderness, rather than slamming the door on all but a lucky few.
