Steve, I'm not sure why you continue to deliberately misinterpret things, then trot them out as examples of your position? For example:
In the LAC paper (Limits of Acceptable Change) cited by Ken, Stephen McCool makes the point that wilderness managers jumped at using "carrying capacity as a paradigm or model of visitor management". Continuing, McCool wrote: "Such managers had a strong, biologically based educational background, and generally went into these professions to avoid working with people, rather than being attracted to the idea of managing recreational opportunities for the benefits to people they produce. Therefore, it was a relatively easy conceptual leap to visualizing the management problems induced by the hordes of visitors coming to such areas as a function of the landscape's carrying capacity being exceeded."
You tout this as an example of why things are wrong. But you fail to mention that what you are citing is the ABANDONED system, that is NO LONGER USED, and hasn't for some time.
I think most of this idea is rooted in the phrase of the Wilderness Act of 1964, "has outstanding opportunities for solitude". I would like to point out that "outstanding opportunities" by no means requires wilderness managers to ensure most people will experience solitude most of the time while hiking on a man-made trail.
Here is the crux, eh?
You are asserting that the folks who enjoy crowds of people should predominate over those who don't....when walking the trails in wilderness. You would require those who would like to experience solitude, to have to go off-trail, on cross-country jaunts. You have staked out the trails for one group of users, those like you.
By your definition, areas that are not in wilderness would be the same experience, because you can find areas in which you can be by yourself. Yosemite Valley would be so defined. Lost Lake Park in Fresno would be so defined.
Inasmuch as 95% of Sierra wilderness travellers go by way of trails (my guess), you would deprive the vast, vast majority of users of one of the defining traits of a wilderness.
No different than those who want to cut the trees, dam the waters, mine the minerals, build airstrips, build buildings.....all centered around what THEY want, not what is required by law. You are on the same side as those who claim that bicycles should be allowed in wilderness. Now THAT would be fun on HD!
The reality is, a whole lot of people want to hike the same exact few trails, loving it to death. You appear to want to increase the pressure on those trails. 10,000 is not enough on Whitney? 20,000? 30,000? While few climb Williamson, White, Langley, in comparison. Olancha, Muah, even Trail Peak.
People complain about permits and quotas? How about going over Trail Pass. There is NO QUOTA. How about hiking in the South Sierra Wilderness. There are NO QUOTA. How about the Domeland Wilderness. PERMITS NOT REQUIRED. Golden Trout Wilderness, except for two trailheads, NO QUOTAS.
