GSMNP Thinking of Charging for Back Country Camping. $5 per day Per Person Per Hike?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGT Rock

Yea, I know they should be able to. But my experience with thru-hikers in the park is they seem to plan as it comes rather than think it through. Add to that the folks that think they know what they are going to be doing when they are at the NOC then decided to take a day off for drinking (or whatever) when they get to Fontana. This year I hiked with some of the pack, and though it isn't my thing and I didn't do it - they were making unplanned stops in both NOC and Fontana. If they set their plan when they first get to NOC it will probably be wrong by the time they get to the park.

---

I agree. I think if you have to plan, doing it at Fontana right before you go in would be the best bet.

Keep in mind that not all delays are by the will of the hiker. For those of us who when through early, there's the worry of hitting snow in the Smokies. In the cases where it doesn't drive you off the trail, it could still but a damper on your mileage and ruin your schedule. I'd hate to have to push on from a half-empty shelter on a cold, snowy night just because I thought half a week ago that I'd be able to do the miles. Obviously, if the ranger is understanding its a problem, but one anal person could ruin the whole show.

I have no problem with paying the fees, just with the scheduling and reservations. Right now there is no money attached, so its far easier to let scheduling errors slide.

Just my 2 cents.

Thank you for the summary of the discussions, Sgt. A couple of comments: one huge difference between CDT thru-hikers and AT thru-hikers is sheer numbers. If AT thru-hikers are funneled through the park at numbers who can sleep in shelters, after previously-scheduled section hikers have been accounted for, it's going to be a huge problem. Another good reason to go SOBO, I guess.

Another comment: It's not just thru-hikers who don't stick to schedules. Every time I have stayed in a shelter which has other hikers in it, at least half of those hikers are off their schedule. Most section hikers plan ambitious hikes of 20 miles per day, then discover that hauling their massive packs from one shelter to another is a heroic effort.

A third point: I have never personally seen any backcountry maintenance being done by anyone except volunteers. I talked to the architect measuring and planning the renovation of Laurel Gap Shelter and he said the GSM hiking club was going to pay for the materials as well as do the work.

I hate the idea that it would suddenly not be "free" to thru-hike. There is currently nowhere on the trail where you are forced to pay money just for the privilege of passing through and sleeping in your tent. I imagine once the GSMNP starts the ball rolling, then every state park, state forest, national forest, wildlife management area etc. will have the green light to come up with a fee.

Why is this so much harder than what they do in SNP? Shenandoah seems to work fine with the first come, first served shelters and the rules about camping away from the trail and water.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemni Skate

I hate the idea that it would suddenly not be "free" to thru-hike. There is currently nowhere on the trail where you are forced to pay money just for the privilege of passing through and sleeping in your tent.

---

How about Baxter State Park for just one example? There are many others and people should expect more rather than less fees going forward.

If A.T. through hikers think keeping to a schedule is onerous and fees are oppressive, then they ought to take the BMT instead. Isn't one of the reasons it was created to provide an alternative route and thus reduce impacts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emerald

If A.T. through hikers think keeping to a schedule is onerous and fees are oppressive, then they ought to take the BMT instead.

---

If you take the BMT, you will still be subject to the backcountry fees and reservation requirements that are proposed. The BMT is not near as exciting and adventurous as the ridge, plus a few of the backcountry sites along the lake are abused (sometimes trashed by boaters and horse riders). Perhaps they should consider only allowing through hikers across the AT during April and May, and do it on a no fee, no reservation basis. The rest of the year can be for section hikers. Day hikers could be out anytime since they aren't affecting the backcountry campsites.

How do you think that will go over? :)

Through hikers should stop thinking they are in some way special and expecting to be treated as though they are entitled to special treatment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGT Rock

I asked specifically what the plan’s intention is. And was told this: it is to get more enforcement of the rules in the back country – so in essence the concerns voiced here that the plan was just going to be used to fund itself are basically on. The head LEO said that if there are funds left over after paying for the increased presence, that it could be used for trail maintenance and campsite improvement. It is too early to know if there will be any funds left over though. Also, if the funds do not support the system they plan to implement – the plan will have to be re-examined. I assume this means higher fees. But it could also mean doing away with the system – I don’t know.

---

Good report Sgt Rock.

And I guess that is the answer to why there seems to be no additional fee for the horse-caused damage to various trails. Has nothing to do with maintenance. Oh, and btw I hoped you didn't laugh too hard when the said: "if there are funds left over after paying for the increased presence, that it could be used for trail maintenance and campsite improvement.":D

I'm kind of curious how this one ranger is going to show a presence on the trail. Will he ride around or hike?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marta

A third point: I have never personally seen any backcountry maintenance being done by anyone except volunteers. I talked to the architect measuring and planning the renovation of Laurel Gap Shelter and he said the GSM hiking club was going to pay for the materials as well as do the work.

---

In my experience through the park, the AT is mostly maintained by volunteers and as you mentioned - the shelters are being renovated and maintained by volunteers. The AT is also "patrolled" by the ATC ridgerunners. I don't see that there is anything that is going to be improved on the AT for thru-hikers by adding this fee.

In the rest of the park I have seen the paid maintenance crews doing work on the trails. I've seen more of the paid guys than the volunteers, but I have also seen some volunteers working on one of the other trails in the park.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbwood5

If you take the BMT, you will still be subject to the backcountry fees and reservation requirements that are proposed. The BMT is not near as exciting and adventurous as the ridge, plus a few of the backcountry sites along the lake are abused (sometimes trashed by boaters and horse riders). Perhaps they should consider only allowing through hikers across the AT during April and May, and do it on a no fee, no reservation basis. The rest of the year can be for section hikers. Day hikers could be out anytime since they aren't affecting the backcountry campsites.

How do you think that will go over? :)

---

I disagree. I think that there are some great places on the BMT compared to the AT. Think of the long walk on the Sterling Ridge trail with its views - I can't think of any ridge walk on the AT in the Smokies that compare, and then the campsite on Sterling Mountain is wonderful - what AT shelter has a 30' tower on top for you to climb up?

If you like camping beside flowing waters instead of some being stuck at over used shelters then you will find even the semi-dirty campsites on the Lakeshore section preferable to being stuck at a dirty shelter with 30 other people - Camping at Enloe Creek with its swimming holes and waterfalls is a special treat.

And the BMT doesn't have the crowds, Ridgeruners, and it looks like may not get the extra patrol coverage the AT will. Hmm......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Des

I agree. I think if you have to plan, doing it at Fontana right before you go in would be the best bet.

Keep in mind that not all delays are by the will of the hiker. For those of us who when through early, there's the worry of hitting snow in the Smokies. In the cases where it doesn't drive you off the trail, it could still but a damper on your mileage and ruin your schedule. I'd hate to have to push on from a half-empty shelter on a cold, snowy night just because I thought half a week ago that I'd be able to do the miles. Obviously, if the ranger is understanding its a problem, but one anal person could ruin the whole show.

I have no problem with paying the fees, just with the scheduling and reservations. Right now there is no money attached, so its far easier to let scheduling errors slide.

Just my 2 cents.

---

Well I got the feeling that the NOC is already on-board with this, but Fontana may not be yet. I imagine that Fontana will because it would mean that the folks that get to the road and go into the Hike Inn instead of there will find that they now need to go there anyway, so why not stay there instead. I would hope though, that a thru-hiker could do their trip registration from any computer or phone just like any other hiker will be able to do for their trip.

it was good to meet you last night after the meeting, Sarge.
Alexander, Corker, and Duncan's offices were all contacted by me this morning.
Jenn also contacted her reps. office in Roane co. who knew nothing about this.
but once she explained what was happening, his secretaries response was, "Oh, that's double taxation". (exactly !!!)

next up the line is Jarvis's office and Alberto Salazar's as well.

it was amazing to see how uncomfortable the park superintendent became when she began questioning him one on one about the procedures that would follow and who would be making the final decision on this.
you could tell he did not want anyone to be contacting those over his head in regards to this.

i also recently did a kayak/hike trip out of the fontana marina. the two guys i talked to that run the shuttle boats across the lake weren't too happy about this proposal either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbwood5

If you take the BMT, you will still be subject to the backcountry fees and reservation requirements that are proposed. The BMT is not near as exciting and adventurous as the ridge, plus a few of the backcountry sites along the lake are abused (sometimes trashed by boaters and horse riders). Perhaps they should consider only allowing through hikers across the AT during April and May, and do it on a no fee, no reservation basis. The rest of the year can be for section hikers. Day hikers could be out anytime since they aren't affecting the backcountry campsites.

---

IMO, this is just wrong. The Lakeshore Trail isn't a jewel of a trail but overall I liked the BMT though the park much better than the AT. No crowds, no shelter sharing, plenty of great views, lots of water - better in almost every way than the AT.

Not sure why a fee on backcountry camping in the GSMNP would be so controversial. I have no problem with the park service stepping up enforcement in the backcountry - especially during April and May. Every year the AT thru the GSMNP is overrun by thru-hikers in April and May making it hard for other backpackers to use and enjoy the park. I have had shelter reservations many times but had to camp illegally because my spot had been staked out by an arrogant thru-hiker who proudly announced he or she was a thru hiker and was not carrying a tent so had to have the spot in the shelter.

I would prefer to see the fees used to fund the development of more April & May only backcountry campsites for thru-hikers on the AT and more campsites on heavily-used trails off the AT. Non-thru-hikers have just as much right to enjoy backcountry camping in the GSMNP during the spring as thru-hikers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 10-K

IMO, this is just wrong. The Lakeshore Trail isn't a jewel of a trail but overall I liked the BMT though the park much better than the AT. No crowds, no shelter sharing, plenty of great views, lots of water - better in almost every way than the AT.

---

Yes and no. I liked the BMT section for those reasons too, but the AT has some great character with Thunderhead, Rocky top, the over 6000 feet section past Clingman's (beautiful fir forests, beautiful smells), Charlies Bunion, etc. I didn't like the shelter crowds, but that was only for a few hours of sleeping. I never saw more than a handful of people on any day while actually hiking. In fact, I saw as many people hiking on the BMT as the AT, although more were day/section hikers.

I agree that Mt Sterling was fairly impressive..... and Sarge, the Albert Mtn firetower is a nice climb (and near a shelter). I know of a few people who have slept in the Shuckstack tower just off the AT (probably illegal :) ).

Anyhow, most of the point of my post was a response to poster Emerald, that taking the BMT would not make a difference when it comes to the proposed reservation requirements and proposed backcountry fees. The fees and requirements to call in (or go online) will probably apply equally to all sites in the GSMNP.

Thanks for attending the workshop, Sarge. Keep us posted on the details.

Strange that you would have that kind of experience. Most through hikers know that if you have a reservation, you should be guaranteed a spot, plus most through hikers I know would rather tent out. Many actually hope there will be no spots so they can legally camp out.

If you get a few that aren't following the rules now, not much will change when the fees start. An arrogant through hiker is always going to remain arrogant. It is very unlikely that there will be a ranger around to change that.

How many new enforcement rangers are they planning to hire after they start collecting the fees? .... and that is after they pay the contractor. This is really such nonsense. It will do almost nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JollyMaiden

I would prefer to see the fees used to fund the development of more April & May only backcountry campsites for thru-hikers on the AT and more campsites on heavily-used trails off the AT. Non-thru-hikers have just as much right to enjoy backcountry camping in the GSMNP during the spring as thru-hikers.

---

Remember, the shelter system along the entire AT was originally set up for AT hikers, not specifically for the GSMNP. As it ends up, more week-enders and Park only vistors use these shelters. That was not the original intent. The AT was built long before the dozzens of backcountry sites. It is not fair to create additional hardships on the thru-hikers. They were the folks that pretty much started this attraction to long distance hiking.

I wouldn't be opposed to have sites specifically dedicated to thru-hikers (whether it is shelters or backcountry sites), but frankly, the GSMNP is beginning to lose its wilderness attraction from over development. If more weekenders or short term hikers would realize that there are so many more trails and backcountry sites to use in GSMNP, the AT sites would be less crowded. Many of the less used trails have unique characteristic that could be equally as attractive as the AT (as was just pointed out by a couple of posters :) )

most backpackers I know who visit the park try to avoid the shelters esp during thru-hiker season. There is a lot of places to camp in the park.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbwood5

Remember, the shelter system along the entire AT was originally set up for AT hikers, not specifically for the GSMNP. As it ends up, more week-enders and Park only vistors use these shelters. That was not the original intent. The AT was built long before the dozzens of backcountry sites. It is not fair to create additional hardships on the thru-hikers. They were the folks that pretty much started this attraction to long distance hiking.

I wouldn't be opposed to have sites specifically dedicated to thru-hikers (whether it is shelters or backcountry sites), but frankly, the GSMNP is beginning to lose its wilderness attraction from over development. If more weekenders or short term hikers would realize that there are so many more trails and backcountry sites to use in GSMNP, the AT sites would be less crowded. Many of the less used trails have unique characteristic that could be equally as attractive as the AT (as was just pointed out by a couple of posters :) )

---

The AT was originally conceived to provide a trail that was within a day's drive of major industrial centers in the eastern US so that working people could use it to recreate. Thru-hiking was not considered a typical use and was considered by many a stunt even 20 years later or so when Earl first did it. Thru-hikers have no more right to trailside shelters than do any other hiker. And all thru-hikers should be carrying suitable tent or tarp should a shelter be full when they arrive. As to creating "additional hardships on thru-hikers" - I think that falls on many deaf ears. Not many folks are going to pity a person who can take a 6 month vacation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbwood5

frankly, the GSMNP is beginning to lose its wilderness attraction from over development.

---

There's no over development in the backcountry or wilderness parts of the park. Once you're out of your car and up the trail a bit, with the exception of shelters and campsites (which lessen impact), it's all real.