Principle 8: Limiting Use is Only One of Many Management Options
One of the problems with the carrying capacity approach is its emphasis on controlling or limiting the number of visitors as a key to limiting impacts (Stankey and McCool1991 ). Because carrying capacity carries with it the question "how many is too many?", it tends to view imposition of use limits as an end in itself. A use limit policy is only one of a number of potential management actions that are available to address visitor impacts, yet is one of the most intrusive actions that managers could deploy. Use limit policies have historically carried with them a host of additional problems, such as choosing appropriate allocation and rationing techniques. These techniques have been among the most controversial actions protected area managers in the United States have ever taken (McCool and Ashor 1984).
Seems to be that every time somebody tries to make suggestions for "potential management actions that are available", others are quick to shoot them down, because they don't get it.
Well, when those suggestions ignore the potential for:
Damage to Archeologic sites,
Damage to riparian areas,
Damage to nesting areas,
Damage to stream integrity,
Damage to opportunities for solitude,
Damage to vegetation,
Damage to historic sites,
Damage to native animals,
etc, etc....
And the only argument boils down to "I want to do, what I want to do, and to hell with anything or anyone else", and you've heard that particular argument about a thousand times before, by gosh, it is pretty easy to view such "suggestions" somewhat dismissively.
At this point, you've seen some of the background of how these decisions are made. You've not met many of the people involved, which includes a lot of professionals: Archeologists, Geologists, Botanists, Hydrologists, Engineers, etc. All of these things get addressed in a major decision, and I've found these people to be diligent, hard working people.
When we non-agency people walk in with an unsophisticated view of the complexity, and do not address any of the various issues that have to (legally) be addressed, and appear only to be pursuing our own agenda, we are not taken very seriously.....because our suggestions are unserious.
So, in the example of HD, one might ask, if one were suggesting a system that would have a lot more people hiking at night:
Q: There are many species that are active only at night. Are there any species that would be significantly impacted by a large number of people hiking along the HD trail at nite?
Apparent Answer: I don't care.
Q: Inasmuch as a shift of people to night hiking will result in a shift of SAR operations to those hours, is YOSAR prepared to deal with such issues?
Apparent Answer: I don't care.
Q: A lot of people camp at LYV, on the route. Will a large number of nite hikers result in significant traffic and noise through LYV campsites, making sleep difficult for those campers and making their experience deteriorate?
Apparent Answer: I don't care.
........And on and on.
Except, the Agency managers DO care about such things, and have to give consideration to them. (I don't know the Yosemite managers, but I'd think they are similar to the FS managers I know)
