[lifeonlars]

> the demand for tourism to natural parks is way too large to allow unfettered access by the public

I'm not sure this is true. The United States has a huge amount of wilderness and federal land. The problem is that most people want to go to a small number of very popular places.

Allowing as many people as possible to have a nice time in nature, whether by providing facilities, informing potential visitors of their options, managing access to popular or vulnerable sites, etc, is exactly what the Bureau of Land Management are supposed to do. The fact that there is a single agency in control means that it's not really an example of the tragedy of the commons, either.

[wcarron]

> The problem is that most people want to go to a small number of very popular places.

That is because they are the prettiest and most desirable destinations. This is unsurprising. People want to see Yosemite, not some barren nothingness out near Ridgecrest, CA or Kingman, AZ.

Just because land is owned by the USFS or BLM and has public access doesn't mean it has any real recreational or attractive value that would draw visitors.

[lifeonlars]

Nothing has intrinsic recreational or attractive value, including the Grand Canyon, the Niagara Falls and Yosemite. Desire is often mimetic.

The counterparts to this are that a) many people would rather go somewhere slightly less attractive that isn't overcrowded and b) lots of people are attracted, at least in part, by going somewhere novel.

The fact that there is a certain challenge involved in getting as many people as possible (but no more) to the prettiest sites while finding less pretty but still enjoyable alternatives to those who can't make it is exactly why land management and tourism agencies exist.