This study is a survey of recreational users (n= 85) of a scenic reservoir that was at the center of a controversy about whether the use of motorboats should be restricted or banned. We examined the hypothesis that the amount of goal interference that respondents experienced in the pursuit of recreational activities would be related to perceptions of consensus for their activities and for the regulations they preferred. We also hypothesized that perceived consensus would be related to greater preference for majority rule and less preference for compromise as the preferred strategy for resolving the conflict. Results show that goal interference was related to perceived consensus and that greater perceived consensus was related to unwillingness to compromise and preference for majority rule. Discussion centered on how perceptions about consensus arise from different experiences and on the role of perceived consensus in conflict resolution.