In many regions the problem of unrestrained recreational use of protected natural areas remains largely unresolved. This is despite considerable evidence that unrestrained levels of visitation can be unsustainable, both in terms of impact on the environment and on the recreational experience. This paper seeks to answer two questions: First, to what extent are visitors willing to forego access to publicly owned protected natural areas in order to ensure less crowding and/or better environmental outcomes? Second, if access is to be restricted, how should any remaining access rights be allocated? Using Lake McKenzie, Fraser Island, as a case study site and employing the choice modelling non-market valuation technique, it is found that visitors were, in general, willing to trade off some degree of access rights for better environmental outcomes and reduced crowding (particularly the former). In regards to the choice of rationing mechanism, it is clear that peak pricing is not supported, whereas visitor caps and four-wheel drive access restrictions have broad support -- although segments of the population are opposed to the latter.