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

[TheTwanger]

The back country of PUBLIC lands should remain free for all citizens. Period.

[SGT Rock]

This is true, while it isn't always great, I've never had a time where I couldn't get a hold of the reservations office eventually.

[Tuckahoe]

The back country of PUBLIC lands should remain free for all citizens. Period.

That's sounds nice and all... but managing and maintaining public land is not free and does cost money. Government budgets do not provide as much funding that we all would like. Those that want to use such resources should be willing to step up and support it. (Effective public use and management of that funding is a whole other issue.)

[Lyle]

That's sounds nice and all... but managing and maintaining public land is not free and does cost money. Government budgets do not provide as much funding that we all would like. Those that want to use such resources should be willing to step up and support it. (Effective public use and management of that funding is a whole other issue.)

While it's true that users could legitimately be expected to support the facilities they use, what I have seen in the other parks that charge for back country use is that most of the fee does not stay local, the the portion that does is used for automobile campgrounds, roads, Kiosks, visitor centers, etc. I have seen very little or no improvement in back country facilities or services.

This isn't necessarily the fault of local administrators, since their funding is cut by Congress, almost dollar for dollar, by the amount the new fees bring in. So there is no net gain. It just shifts the burden to the less vocal group of users.

[Tuckahoe]

While it's true that users could legitimately be expected to support the facilities they use, what I have seen in the other parks that charge for back country use is that most of the fee does not stay local, the the portion that does is used for automobile campgrounds, roads, Kiosks, visitor centers, etc. I have seen very little or no improvement in back country facilities or services.

This isn't necessarily the fault of local administrators, since their funding is cut by Congress, almost dollar for dollar, by the amount the new fees bring in. So there is no net gain. It just shifts the burden to the less vocal group of users.

Lyle, I agree with everything that you state here. What I tend to find objectionable is the attitude of many that someone else should be footing the bill and that they shouldnt have to pay. That whole "I'm entitled and you should pay for it."

[Rain Man]

...What I tend to find objectionable is the attitude of many that someone else should be footing the bill and that they shouldnt have to pay. That whole "I'm entitled and you should pay for it."

I agree!

As far as paying a small fee to camp in the GSMNP or any park, it's a no brainer for me. The cost is so small in context, with respect to all the gas money, etc, etc, etc, that I have to incur to do the trip, that the fee would be of no consequence in my decision.

RainMan

.

[jbwood5]

Lyle, I agree with everything that you state here. What I tend to find objectionable is the attitude of many that someone else should be footing the bill and that they shouldnt have to pay. That whole "I'm entitled and you should pay for it."

That would be fine if they charged for all the facilities on an equal impact basis. The problem here is that the backpacker fees will go to support non-backpacking related activities that currently have no funding. Who pays for the beautiful visitors centers, resurfacing the roads (just totally re-done up to Clingman's Dome), the day use hiking trails to Chimney Tops, etc, maintenance of all other Park facilities (except the developed campgrounds). The GSMNP Service is looking for any type of funding that they can put in their general budget.

Most backpackers that I know generally operate on a pretty low budget... and most backpack to forget about the financial issues that society has forced on us. We would just prefer to get back to nature and enjoy a simple, almost self supporting lifestyle.

Now I might agree with you on the "entitlement generation" of people coming up through society. It is pretty sad that we have come to that point where we expect the government to take care of us and protect us. I believe that is why we have such insanely high taxes and fees now.

For the backcountry campsites, we should expect very little, clean up after ourselves and others, and not expect the governement to do much (we have a great network of volunteers out there).

[Joey B]

i couldn't have said it better myself. ^^^

they'll just drive the regular backcountry users off to other areas nearby. Joyce Kilmer forest for example.
as a long time backcountry backpacker, i've never seen issues with overcrowded sites in the backcountry. perhaps the ones closest to the parking areas, and the seasonal fishermen/squatters along hazel creek.(which is a huge problem unto itself for those familiar with the area)

no doubt they receive phoned in complaints. but i'd guess most are from front country campers who should never have left the sight of their cars to begin with, or others who get their little feelings hurt because things didn't go as they had scripted for their instant gratification wilderness experience.

i highly suggest than anyone within' easy driving distance attend either, or both of the open meetings scheduled for,
Tuesday, August 16: Old Oconoluftee Visitor Center 5:30 – 7:30 pm.
o Thursday, August 18: Headquarters Lobby 5:30 – 7:30 pm

[Wappomo]

If the Great Smoky Mountains National Park initiates a fee for Backcountry camping requiring reservations to be made on the recreation_dot_gov website, what happens to the PoFolk who have no computer? After all, some people who backpack into the backcountry do not have computer access, and don't want it !!! I am of the opinion they should set up a pay station at Cades Cove to charge $1 per person or so much per size of vehicle driving that crazy bear-jam loop (cars should be cheaper than a big tour bus full of tourists). There would be no "entrance fee" into the park, because you are already in the park by the time you reach Cades Cove. It would be no different to charging poor campers for sleeping on the ground (or in a hammock) at a backcountry campsite. Either of the two options do exactly the sam thing: charging a fee to access a particular part of the mountains. The difference between the two ideas is, to me, clear. On the one hand you are putting the burden of funding new backcountry rangers on a very small group of visitors: the backpackers (and possibly thru hikers on the AT), and not actually generate enough funds to make a difference. On the other hand, you could charge a petty little fee to "drive" the loop at Cades Cove and generate millions of dollars in revenue to hire several rangers dedicated to service in the backcountry, and front country for that matter. Hellfire, there are at least 500,000 per year that drive around the Cades Cove loop road, but only a few thousand who camp at backcountry camp sites. And I totally agree that Horse Camps and horseback trail riders do much more damage to trails than hikers, and they are not included in this absurd proposal. I'm out, come back ...

[Wappomo]

Typing too quickly ... meant to say 500,000 VEHICLES drive the Cades Cove loop each year, which amounts to over 2 million individuals, perhaps 3 million, as opposed to perhaps 10,000 campers in the backcountry. Collectively we have a very small voice in this, so by all means, send your personal recommendation to the Superintendent of the Great Smokies via email: [email protected]

[Sly]

Not sure if this article has been mentioned but it has a link to this thread in it...

http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com...ail-thru-h8571

Y'all still have until 8/26 to voice your concern.

[Sly]

Typing too quickly ... meant to say 500,000 VEHICLES drive the Cades Cove loop each year, which amounts to over 2 million individuals, perhaps 3 million, as opposed to perhaps 10,000 campers in the backcountry. Collectively we have a very small voice in this, so by all means, send your personal recommendation to the Superintendent of the Great Smokies via email: [email protected]

Since this isn't the Newfound Gap road it very well may be a loophole to the stipulation TN set regarding charging to get into the park.

[SGT Rock]

Hope to see some of you there tomorrow night.

[Marta]

Case in point: We just returned from the Pacific NW. We wanted to make an impromptu overnight backpacking trip in Olymoic NP. Though there were several manned ranger stations on the western side of the park, the only place to get permits was at Hoh Rainforest Visitor Center. We had to keep the pedal down to get there before five pm. Got there about five minutes of. While the ranger filled out our application, the clock hit the stroke of five and the computer system shut down, losing all the information that had just been entered. The ranger, who was a volunteer from Savannah, BTW, gamely stayed on while his coworkers turned off the lights and locked the door, and reentered our information when the system came back up after five. The total out of pocket costs were fifteen dollars to drive into the rainforest and thirteen dollars to camp in a site whose only amenity was a bear cable. We did not see any backcountry rangers or have our permits inspected while we were out. The main proble for us was that, in spite of the fact that darkness didn't fall until after eight pm, we had to nit that five o'clock deadline in order to be legal in the park.

[SmokiesHanger]

Been followin this thread with a lot of interest. I hammock camp in the smokies a lot and shelter camp on the AT. Since I go out a lot I don't like the idea of a fee and the logistics behind all that. Just got this link from a friend about an online petition that is starting against this here tis': http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/g...kcountry_fees/

Going to start a new thread on it in a few.

[Sly]

And perhaps most importantly,


* The GSMNP is prohibited from the charging of an entrance fee under deed restrictions imposed at the time of the Park's formation. We are concerned that enacting a fee for the use of the backcountry violates the spirit of the original Park agreement, which was to provide a resource 'for the permanent enjoyment of the people'.

The GSMNP has charged people to car camp for years.

[kolokolo]

The GSMNP has charged people to car camp for years.

That's true. Camping at Deep Creek, for example, is $17/night. I have no problem with paying.

[SGT Rock]

Second try here, I just wrote a good page of stuff and lost it....

I just got back about an hour ago from the meeting at park headquarters. The meeting was informal, not some deal with a guy at the podium answering questions one at a time from the crowd. There were less people there than I expected to see, I would guesstimate around 50 or so. There were about a dozen park reps there, so there where about 4 hikers talking to each rep at an given time, and many did like I did and talked to more than one. While there I specifically talked to the head LEO for GSMNP and Melissa Cober, the head back country ranger.

I'll start by saying that I got the feeling this is going to be a done deal no matter what. The head LEO (I forgot to write his name down) said that a few years ago the government wanted to go to a common system for reservations on federal lands. Before now, each park did its own thing and some were good and some were not. Add to that there is a big push for security of personal information and the federal rules are getting to the point that it is cost prohibitive for each place to try to program and run their own service. The current system they have for front-country reservations are going to be moving the recreation.gov site in the near future. According to Melissa there is only one federal land site (I don’t know which one) that has a semi-back-country presence on recreation.gov, and they have the same concerns that I did that the recreation.gov site is currently only tailored to front country reservations. They are working with the site contractor to make rules for back-country that are more in-line in how back country travel works. This means making the site more friendly to grab-n-go permits, paperless permit number systems, reservation modifications, and the like. They have an honest concern that they do this right the first time, and they will likely set the standard for how other federal back-country permits will be done through recreation.gov in the future.

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.

I specifically asked him about the nuts-and-bolts of this plan for the back-country rangers and this is it in a nutshell: they plan to hire two seasonal rangers to work the trails and campsites. These rangers would work during the peak months – about 6.5 months a year. They would generally not be in the field at the same time – so most of this time you will have one guy covering all the trails. I brought up that his means that there will be basically no change to things now since you have a slim chance of ever seeing the guy, especially if you go to places where the tourists don’t go – and this means you are likely to only find evidence of poor campsite practices after the fact. He believes it will be like traffic cops in town – people will follow the rules because they never know exactly where he is going to be or when he will show up. Maybe…

So if you are local like me, then avoid going out during peak tourist season and you are likely to never see one of these guys.

He did ask where the problem campsites are for overcrowding, dogs in the back country, and trashed campsites. I told him that overcrowding has never been an issue anywhere I’ve camped in the back country except the AT and other hikers there agreed. I told them the only dogs I’ve ever seen were with day hikers – most agreed with that but one guy said he has seen some AT thru-hikers with dogs. And I told him the trashed campsites were on the lake shore where boat access is possible, and in horse campsites. I then recommended to him that he put these officers on horseback for their patrol so that the can cover more ground per day and they will also be honed in on the campsites most likely to present issues.

We also talked specifically about thru-hikers. It looks like they are trying to accommodate the thru-hikers but are not exactly sure how. The ATC is working with them on this so they do have some hiker input. I think ALDHA is probably more on-it when it comes to this and the ALDHA board should get someone talking with them before they get some bad policies set. But basically what I got is thru-hikers will have to comply. They will need to pay for a permit and turn in an itinerary of where they plan to hike – and he said the ATC said by then a thru-hiker should know where he plans to stay, so obviously they don’t have a clue what they are talking about. In my experience thru-hikers often don’t know where they plan to walk tomorrow, and they have an idea of where they may go today. The park wants to have partners at the NOC and Fontana (they didn’t tell me where SOBO partners would be) with terminals or something like that so thru-hikers can schedule their trip before they get to the park. I think that is pretty far-fetched for most thru-hikers to know where they want to camp one to two weeks from now on each specific day.

That said, he told me officers would be lenient on thru-hikers not making their expected itinerary. He also said his officers would have discretion on the rules with situations of weather, injury, over-planning mileage, etc. He told me that, but another hiker was talking to another representative there and brought up this same issue and according to him she said “tough, they will have to stick to their plan”. So not everyone is on the same sheet of music with that. I have a concern that while some people get it when it comes to hiking, some of them don’t and don’t care that they don’t.

I will also say that one of the reps there was from the Great Smokey Mountains Association and she seemed to be pushing this as a good thing, and seemed very sour about hikers in general. Maybe she was having a bad day, but it seemed she was looking to get hikers in check. It really turned me off to that organization.

I did tell both Melissa and the head LEO that I fully expect within a couple of years they will find that their new rangers will find few real issues of overcrowding in the back country and dogs on the trail contrary to what the proposal states. That they will probably find the “problems” have been way overblown. I did tell them that when it came to the poor campsites that they should focus on horse sites, boat sites, and the AT. The rest of the back country is pretty solid.

About the fees: The exact fee system is not set. They agree that the fees should be as low as possible so there isn’t a heavy burden put on hikers. They share the same concern that if the fees are too high, it will lead to a drop off in back-country use. They do admit that there could be some reduced usage after the plan is implemented, but have forecasted their projections for income and fees based on current permits collected through the park. They also said that they have an assumption that there are many people that fill out the permits but don’t turn in the copy at one of the designated places since they are not conveniently located for all places hikers could enter the park – so with the new system they feel that there could actually be an increase in recorded hiking trips within the park. Based on my experiences with other hikers this could very well be true. I know many people who have done this: fill out a permit for the sites that don’t require a reservation and take the copy with them without putting the other copy in one of the deposit boxes. So in this case they could be right – there may be a few less hikers using the park, but the actual completed permits may go up. You might also not need a permit anymore, just have your reservation number so if challenged by a ranger, they can check your number via radio to park HQ.

We also discussed free admission to “locals” – but he pointed out what we have already discussed: admission to the park is still free, they are only charging for use of services. If a local wanted a campsite at Smokemont he would also have to pay. The park is viewed as an American asset, so all visitors have the same access and fees – nothing special for “locals”. We did talk about annual fees which they seemed interested in doing, but nothing is currently planned. We also talked about free nights for hours worked in volunteer service - and they like that idea but don’t have an ideas on that at all since they hadn’t thought about it. They do plan to make sure volunteers working on the trails doing clean-up, trail maintenance, volunteer trail trekking (new name for trail runners off the AT in the park) or other volunteer activities that may go overnight will be free for the volunteers.

I am sure I left out something. This is a long post and there is a lot to capture. If you have some question or issue you didn’t see in my post please ask and I’ll try to remember what was said. There were a couple of other people from here at the thing, so maybe they remember something I don’t or heard something I didn’t. I am hard of hearing since I have been blown up a few times.

Also know that channel 10 news was there with a camera so there may be something soon on their site. In addition to that, Melissa has been keeping up with this thread and has read all the comments. She also reads all the e-mails you sent do [email protected] and will continue to read them as they come in. If you see something in this post you want to comment on to her please do. She takes all comments and ideas seriously.

[Sly]

Hey Rock, serious post, thanks.

The park wants to have partners at the NOC and Fontana (they didn’t tell me where SOBO partners would be) with terminals or something like that so thru-hikers can schedule their trip before they get to the park. I think that is pretty far-fetched for most thru-hikers to know where they want to camp one to two weeks from now on each specific day.

By the time a thru-hiker gets to the Smokys as long as they have a guide and know the shelters and mileages, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out a schedule. It's a pain but it's what CDT hikers have to do to hike through Glacier and Yellowstone. However, for thru-hikers, since shelter space is limited and some have to camp outside, rather than a schedule, they'd probably be better of just charging a fee.

[SGT Rock]

Hey Rock, serious post, thanks.



By the time a thru-hiker gets to the Smokys as long as they have a guide and know the shelters and mileages, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out a schedule. It's a pain but it's what CDT hikers have to do to hike through Glacier and Yellowstone. However, for thru-hikers, since shelter space is limited and some have to camp outside, rather than a schedule, they'd probably be better of just charging a fee.

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.

Chanel 10 WBIR had it as their lead story tonight: http://www.wbir.com/news/article/180611/2/Backcountry-Campers-learn-more-about-new-proposed-fees