Unsustainable number of starts at Sprimger oww

[rickb]

In another thread, Laurie P. from the ATC posted:

Fifty or more people a day leaving Springer, day after day, for weeks on end, is simply not sustainable for the A.T.--particularly the overnight sites. With the movies Wild and A Walk in the Woods in theaters this year, there will be even more.

Having never seen the impact personally, I guess I never realized just how much the number of hikers has grown, nor the fact that this kind of concentrated use is unsustainable. By the time the bubble gets up my way, the herd has been thinned out and spread out.

Readimg Laurie's post made me realize the magnitude of this problem in a way I never have before.

Apart from any environmental impact, this problem is kind of scary when you consider how few options the land managers and NPS have to deal with this.

Sooner or later they will feel forced to.

[rocketsocks]

If you recall (maybe this past summer) a thread ran where discussion was on an Environmental Impact study that was commissioned. Normally the first step towards change.

[Jeff]

At the ALDHA Gathering there was the suggestion to encourage hikers to use the Benton MacKaye Trail which starts at Springer and intersects the AT 288 miles later at Davenport Gap at the north end of the Smokies.

The ATC would need to think about awarding their 2000 miler certificate regardless of which trail the hiker chose.

The Benton MacKaye Trail would certainly solve the issue for those hikers looking for a more "wilderness" experience.

[rocketsocks]

Than there was this article that ran in the Knoxville Daily Sun. I think thru-hikers in the near future will likely see a reservation system/permitting brought into play if self policing doesn't get it done.

http://www.knoxvilledailysun.com/new.../at-grant.html

[peakbagger]

I expect the PCT is going to be experiencing a major bulge in through hikers with the Wild movie coming out.

In the early years of the AT, there were two routes in Maine that both counted. Hikers could take the AT or alternative Arnold trail. Eventually the AT route was abandoned and is now under water due to construction of a hydro dam that formed Flagstaff Lake.

[rickb]

If you recall (maybe this past summer) a thread ran where discussion was on an Environmental Impact study that was commissioned. Normally the first step towards change.

I recall this one regarding:

In 2015, a U.S. Geological Survey researcher will lead a team from Virginia Tech and North Carolina State to create the most comprehensive data set about trail and campsite conditions in the Appalachian National Scenic Trail's more than 90-year history.

Read more: Virginia Tech professor to lead team studying hiker impact on Appalachian Trail | Kingsport Times-News http://www.timesnews.net/article/907...#ixzz3LOrR14Bd
Follow us: @timesnewsonline on Twitter | timesnews on Facebook]

I can easily foresee a future where:

Scientific Study by Acknowledge Expert and Lover of the Trail

+

ATC Acknnowlegement of Unsustainable Use

+

New Stress and National Focus from AWITW Movie

+

Years of Failure to Change Thru Hiker Use Patterns

+

Long-standing History of Restrictive Backcountry Permits in Western NPS Units

=

A Sad End to a Great Era(Pemitts and Restrictions)

[Coffee]

Let's see if these movies cause a large bump in thru hiker traffic. I'm starting to doubt it. If things really get out of control, a quota system allowing X people to start each day is the obvious solution. I hate government quotas and restrictions but sometimes they are the lesser of two evils.

Anyway, I'm already planning to hike the AT southbound at some point over the next three years. I don't think that the number of southbound starts is likely to balloon like the traditional northbound starts.

[rocketsocks]

I recall this one regarding:




I can easily foresee a future where:

Scientific Study by Acknowledge Expert and Lover of the Trail

+

ATC Acknnowlegement of Unsustainable Use

+

New Stress and National Focus from AWITW Movie

+

Years of Failure to Change Thru Hiker Use Patterns

+

Long-standing History of Restrictive Backcountry Permits in Western NPS Units

=

A Sad End to a Great Era(Pemitts and Restrictions)

yup, that were it.

http://www.timesnews.net/article/907...#ixzz3LOrR14Bd

[Lone Wolf]

this "study" is about 15 years too late. georgia was overcrowded then. maybe the ATC shouldn't give out certificates and take pictures at the headquarters glorifying a thru-hike. don't see how they're gonna regulate folks walkin' in the woods

[bamboo bob]

Like climbing Mt Whitney and many NPs. Desolation Wilderness comes to mind. Require a permit and charge a fee. And police the permits. They already do that in SMNP. limit the permits to some set number per season. LOL I doubt the towns would stand for it.

[Lauriep]

Interesting discussion and always diverse and helpful points of view here. I appreciate that all of you on WhiteBlaze are so passionate about the A.T.

There will be lots more discussions like these in the coming months. Let me say at the outset that ATC has worked hard for decades to keep the A.T. is unregimented and unregulated as possible. This principle to avoid or minimize regulation is even in the A.T. Comprehensive Plan from the 80s, which many people have forgotten about, but we hold sacred. We hold it up as our guiding principle when agency partners (National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Baxter State Park, and many, many others) want to go that route. We've been successful the vast majority of the time.

Instead of resorting to regulation, we provide information and education on responsible use. However, we are not connecting with thru-hikers the way we used to. Today's thru-hikers rarely buy our maps and guidebooks, which was how we used to get most of our thru-hiker members. Even today, if you spend $40 on membership, you save $112 off the $323 retail price for an end-of-the year member special. But that's no longer any kind of incentive for most hikers, who mostly rely solely on one under-$20 guidebook for the entire 6 months of their hike.

Our website, with its in-depth Leave No Trace section, is not terribly popular with thru-hikers. Sites by thru-hikers for thru-hikers are just a lot more exciting and interactive, written in hiker lingo, talking about the latest gear, where you can find trail magic, etc. So after perhaps a few initial passes, hikers don't come back to ours much. We have expanded into social media in the last few years, and will be starting a blog next year. But, we must serve everyone from the day-hiker to the thru-hiker, as well as provide information to volunteers, agency partners, those who might support the A.T., and more.

We have programs like ridgerunners and caretakers to educate hikers on Leave No Trace and, in some cases, manage human waste. The program includes caretakers specifically oriented to thru-hikers at Springer Mountain and Baxter State Park, so that we can provide education and information to thru-hikers, asking them to do the right thing rather than forcing them to. (In 2014, we funded the Springer Mountain caretaker, but Baxter funded theirs).

For the first time, this year ATC will be an official provider of Leave No Trace master educator courses (an an intensive, 5-day course), so we will be in a better position to train all sorts of folks up and down the trail on how to better teach LNT specifically to A.T. audiences.

We also need and welcome help from the hiking community for ideas in how to reach hikers with Leave No Trace messages. Essentially, we do want more people and more diverse audiences to be able to enjoy the trail. If everyone practices leave no trace (and it's about a whole lot more than just not leaving trash), the trail can accommodate a whole lot more people. But, part of enabling more people to enjoy the A.T. as it was meant to be enjoyed is not a whole masses of thru-hikers starting at Springer in a narrow window of time. That is the main reason we are encouraging thru-hikes with non-traditional itineraries.

Lone Wolf, you certainly have a point about the 2,000-miler photos, certificates, and listings. In fact, we've certainly had that discussion repeatedly within ATC over the years. Many times since the '70s, have come close to abandoning the 2,000-miler recognition program. But there are lots of reasons to continue, not least among them that ATC has the only more-or-less consistently collected numbers on any A.T. user group that shows trends over a long period of time. Numbers are gathered here, numbers there, but other programs and agency funding and priorities come and go.

[Lauriep]

Bamboo Bob, sure, towns would like to see more hiker business, but not large groups in a narrow window of time. It's hard for a businesses to deal with lots of hikers for a short period of time, and then just a trickle at others. Not only that, but the larger the groups are, the rowdier they are and the more alcohol abuse tends to be an issue (I confess I have no data on that, but that's the perception).

[rickb]

Like climbing Mt Whitney and many NPs. Desolation Wilderness comes to mind. Require a permit and charge a fee. And police the permits. They already do that in SMNP. limit the permits to some set number per season. LOL I doubt the towns would stand for it.

Alternatively, the ATC could promote the construction of significantly more shelters and hardened campsites in the Southern Appalachians to address what they see as an unsustainable situation right now.-

That may be problematic, but to me it seem like attempts to change thru hiker behavior (start dates and alternative itineraries) are not working and doing nothing as current trends continue will lead to something far worse.

[Lauriep]

Rick,

Thanks for your suggestions, but we are not doing nothing. We'll be sharing more about the variety of strategies we will be pursing soon.

Laurie

[shakey_snake]

I feel like a big discouragement for flip-flopping is the extra travel expense.

If permit fees (and fines!) are assessed for NoBos, they could go towards subsidized busing of flip-floppers from Springer to Harper's Ferry. Then you're solving the problem both ways.

[bamboo bob]

I've done the AT three times and the last time I finished in Harpers Ferry. But the first time I can't imagine not starting at Springer.

[Starchild]

I think we are missing a larger issue and just concentrating on fear of change. The AT and the AT experience is growing and evolving, this is not going to stop. If we cling on to the old ways with the AT yes we will hit unsustainability, but that would be due to our short sightedness.

Sustainability must evolve to allow the evolution of the AT, which is a traveling community that is growing in numbers. This community also has attracted many people (trail angels) who are also part of the AT community and could and have been always part of the solution.

The major point of the OP seems to focus on the starts per day at Springer and at numbers where the shelter sites and privi's would be overwhelmed. Would it be more manageable to move most of this early crowds to a nearby community, perhaps Suches GA if they would take them, or at least a road & trail angel accessible campsite, perhaps even work for stay could keep it clean? This would allow those who wish to camp out more of the natural experience and those who want more of the community aspect to be able to have that in a place where it is easier and perhaps cheaper to manage?

I feel the solution is working with the community.

Alternate AT routing could also be helpful, and I know some hikers who looked into IIRC the Eastern something Trail as a alternative route, but it will be a tough sell for those who desire the community aspect that the AT has become - and that's the crowd you wish to disperse.

[bamboo bob]

Starchild. I don't get it. What would they be doing in Suches? Hanging out until it's their turn to start?

[Another Kevin]

I think I'm more optimistic than most here that we could find a solution to the problem without an excess of regimentation, unless the authoritarians in our society impose the regimentation for its own sake[1]. The burden simply isn't that great. Even now, the A-T is no Half Dome in Yosemite. Thru-hikers start north over a period of a couple of months - let's say 60 days to make the arithmetic easy. Let's say that 3,000 of them start north over that time. That's fifty a day. If they make ten-mile days, that's five per mile on average. This isn't an utterly horrible crowd, particularly since everyone is moving in the same direction at more or less the same speed. You might overtake or be overtaken by another group once or twice an hour. This is not the experience of waiting in line at Disneyland!

Where the problem comes in is at the choke points, which in today's Trail are the shelters and hostels. These facilities are not scaled to the level of use that the Trail gets in a peak season. It's prohibitive, from a cost and impact perspective, to scale them that way, because they get very little use indeed away from the peak season. That's why the Lone Wolves among us say, "don't sleep at shelters and hostels: No problem!" and the more radical among them say, "tear down all the shelters and the problem will go away!" Not so: the problem of concentrated use, I believe, would merely drift to the more attractive campsites - until they become mudholes. Dispersed camping works in the very low usage areas where I generally hike (in the Catskills and Adirondacks - and frequently off trail). It begins to fail at usage levels considerably lower than what the A-T sees.

The alternative is to fortify the shelters and surrounding campgrounds to be able to handle the surges in the load. That's the sort of thing that Jeff Marion researches - trying to learn what works and what doesn't, because at this point nobody knows! Unfortunately, it appears - particularly from this thread - that such research is something that we as a society cannot afford. It is a matter of faith that any such study is a waste of the taxpayer's money and must be shut down at once. I won't argue the point too loudly; I've learnt that arguing about matters of faith never ends well. In my most pessimistic moments, I see this as the real reason we'll head down the road to regimentation. Having a paid-for permit system, and assessing fines for noncompliance, will become a revenue source, while actually studying what infrastructure might be needed to support a less regimented system will be a cost to the government and a burden on the taxpayers.

[1] The sort of people I'm talking about come out of the woodwork in droves in the comments section on every news story about a hiker or climber being rescued. "It shouldn't be allowed ! It burdens the taxpayers ! Take them for every penny they've got, and then throw them in jail !" The "idiot liberals" advance the claim that the net cost to the taxpayer is essentially zero (SAR simply does fewer hours of training if they get called out), but they must be wrong, because they're always shouted down, and in a democracy, the loudest voices are always right. The "libtards" say that the only way to save significant amounts on SAR would be to dismantle it entirely, and let toddlers or geezers who wander away from campgrounds or rural homesteads, or people who suffer falls or medical emergencies outside the city, simply fend for themselves or have their families foot the bill for a privatized search service. But that's all we can afford as a society: taking care of each other will cost money that we don't have.

[bamboo bob]

I guess that's some kind of pre-emptive rant.