There's a recurring theme in the press of trying to restrict access to anywhere that is potentially dangerous. It's interesting that the same press is often complaining about the "nanny state" on one issue and simultaneously saying that "something must be done" on another.
My natural inclination would be that in most cases there should be a general presumption that access should not be restricted. Where there are obvious environmental reasons and in particular where alternative routes are available then restrictions can be justified.
I find the whole idea of exclusion on safety grounds against the whole ethos of climbing, mountaineering and even hillwalking which have generally left groups and individuals to assess the risk for themselves. What comes next? Handrails, signposts everywhere, notices, reflective tape,...
In the Mont Blanc case it'd be very easy to reduce the number of climbers without needing any for of complicated permit system. Close the Gouter Refuge and fence in the Aiguille du Midi cable car station. Those who really want to climb the thing will do so from lower down and the hoards will go elsewhere.
I'd also doubt the argument that the region relies that heavily on the 20,000 sumitters a year. Chamonix alone is clocking up over 5,000,000 bed nights per year.
