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

[Sly]

I'd never advertise on the net if I did. But...

I'm all in agreement there.

[wisenber]

None of us like to pay extras fees, so I apologize for my tone concerning the camping fees, but it had more to do one guy saying he'd stealth camp, avoiding the fees, if implemented, ripping off the NPS of much needed funds.

But the proposals stated that the revenue would be used to pay for the Canadian call center and to hire staff to enforce payment to the Canadian call center. In essence the funds would be used to make sure that the fees were paid. Hiring five people to make sure everyone has a hall pass isn't really bringing anything to the table.

As has been mentioned, the only sites currently requiring reservations are the shelters and a twenty-six of the more heavily used sites. The remaining 70 percent of the sites are often not occupied and very rarely full. Adding fees will require adding staff to enforce the fees.
The current staff does not have to worry about hundreds of hikers that did not pay. That in and of itself is a whole new world of enforcement and work that would be added.

If "small fees" are enacted, it is only a matter of time before "small fees" grow up to become bigger fees. After all, it is much easier to contest charging a fee at all and than to contest a two dollar increase to fees already being collected. Most likely, the higher the fees go, the higher the avoidance rate wil become. This is just a money raising solution looking for a problem with expansion on the near horizon.

[SGT Rock]

Well the game of thinking it through does help me think issues through, so I appreciate you being the devil's advocate. Thinking through this one I thought "If I want to camp for free I can always go to the Cherokee Forrest and can even do maintenance on my section while I am there."

Thinking like this did bring up another problem I see. What about AT maintainers? The AT through the park is still mostly maintained by volunteers. Many sections of the trail are remote, and if I were the adopted maintainer I would be doing overnight trips for maintenance in order to maximize maintenance time. Will maintainers get to stay out for free?

Many of the backcountry campsites are maintained by volunteers, my last couple of hikes I've run into a few. Some go to their sites and spend a few nights there. Will they need to pay and get reservations to stay at their own sites?

[Skidsteer]

So they want backpackers to fund all this?

Yeah. That's a good business plan.

[wisenber]

Well the game of thinking it through does help me think issues through, so I appreciate you being the devil's advocate. Thinking through this one I thought "If I want to camp for free I can always go to the Cherokee Forrest and can even do maintenance on my section while I am there."

Thinking like this did bring up another problem I see. What about AT maintainers? The AT through the park is still mostly maintained by volunteers. Many sections of the trail are remote, and if I were the adopted maintainer I would be doing overnight trips for maintenance in order to maximize maintenance time. Will maintainers get to stay out for free?

Many of the backcountry campsites are maintained by volunteers, my last couple of hikes I've run into a few. Some go to their sites and spend a few nights there. Will they need to pay and get reservations to stay at their own sites?

That line of thinking might do well to expand upon. Do people treat a hotel room differently than borrowing a coworker's cabin? Most will be conscientious and courteous of a vacation destination provided for free whereas many will trash a hotel room when the perception is " I paid someone to take care of this." Would such attitudes not potentially carry over into the park? This is not to say that everyone trashes or a hotel room or even that someone would not trash a free vacation cabin. However such a mindset is not uncommon. The result might be a development of some hikers expecting everything but a concierge during their stay.

It is difficult to debate the hospitality of "free" whereas the impressions of what one might expect for their fee is subject to debate.

[Sly]

If "small fees" are enacted, it is only a matter of time before "small fees" grow up to become bigger fees. .

Supposition. Between 2002 and 2007 I don't believe the backcountry fees at Glacier increased, they remained at $5, which it is today. One notable difference, rather than hiring an outside company or agency, park rangers handle the reservations and permits.

[Mr. Bumpy]

Not saying that I do stealth camp. I'd never advertise on the net if I did. But...

...but...it sure would be cool to hang at Mt. Cammerer all night long??

If there is a fee system I plan to live with that.

We all would. Some of the spontaneity would be gone as far as last minute trips, and sometimes I change a day or two due to weather or adjust the route at the last minute because of drop off/pick up. If the system weren't flexible for these last minute changes I will have to be diverting more to the forest. My 20-25 nights out per year are split about 50/50 between the Smokies and other lands. I suspect that will tilt in favor of other lands.

[Pokey2006]

it had more to do one guy saying he'd stealth camp, avoiding the fees, if implemented, ripping off the NPS of much needed funds.

Absolutely I would stealth camp! AND advertise it on the Internet. After all, you don't even know whether I'm a guy or a girl, let alone who I really am. Like the NPS would be able to find me to write me a ticket...or even bother.

By the way, is it actually stealth camping if I never set up a tent? Just lie down in the woods with a jacket over me? Hmmm. Like it would be the biggest crime ever to take a nap in the woods somewhere other than an overpriced designated campsite.

[Carl in FL]

when the perception is " I paid someone to take care of this....

Lots of newcomers will expect things at "pay to stay" sites, like toilets,
showers, tables, trashcans, etc. When they discover they are not
getting these things they might tend to be less careful in how far away
they go to take care of business, for example.

Not to mention things like wireless internet.

[Skidsteer]

We all would. Some of the spontaneity would be gone as far as last minute trips, and sometimes I change a day or two due to weather or adjust the route at the last minute because of drop off/pick up. If the system weren't flexible for these last minute changes I will have to be diverting more to the forest. My 20-25 nights out per year are split about 50/50 between the Smokies and other lands.I suspect that will tilt in favor of other lands.

Which is why I think this plan won't have the desired effect.

Backpackers will hike somewhere else, negating the new fee structure. Not necessarily because of the money but because of convenience.

[Pokey2006]

Hey, why not a system like the Whites, where you pay to stay at the designated campsites and shelters, but are still allowed to camp away from them, within certain restrictions? That way, you still collect money from the weekend warriors, while leaving some freedoms for the "hardcore" outdoorsmen (and women).

[Alligator]

I added the actual proposal (previously posted) to the first post in the thread for easier reference.

[wisenber]

Supposition. Between 2002 and 2007 I don't believe the backcountry fees at Glacier increased, they remained at $5, which it is today. One notable difference, rather than hiring an outside company or agency, park rangers handle the reservations and permits.

That could be because Glacier charges a $30 application fee prior to collecting any admission fees.

[wisenber]

Hmmm. Like it would be the biggest crime ever to take a nap in the woods somewhere other than an overpriced designated campsite.

Naps will only be permitted during designated nap times and authorized nap stations.

[wisenber]

Which is why I think this plan won't have the desired effect.

Backpackers will hike somewhere else, negating the new fee structure. Not necessarily because of the money but because of convenience.

Were fees to result in fewer backpackers (arguably the park's staunchest proponents), the next time a budget cut or policy rolls through Washington, there might be fewer interested parties to contest it. If you're "go to" destination changes from the GSMNP to Pisgah or the CNF, you might not want to bother making that call to your member of Congress or attending the public hearing. You might spend more time maintaining, volunteering and defending your new "go to" destination that has even less funding and collects no fees.

There are many unintended consequences to consider in relation the the proposal. The benefits are marginal at best, while the costs are much more difficult to fully assess. It's hard to put a value on good will. It's even harder to get it back once it's lost.

[Alligator]

It may reduce some spontaneity to get the permit, but it is not a particularly long process. I just created a user account and a nearly completed a reservation at recreation.gov. I'm guessing most people would take about 5-30 minutes to make the reservation. On the plus side, you may not be walking into a camp full of boy scouts.


I am curious too about how they plan to handle long distance hikers.

[Skidsteer]

It may reduce some spontaneity to get the permit, but it is not a particularly long process. I just created a user account and a nearly completed a reservation at recreation.gov. I'm guessing most people would take about 5-30 minutes to make the reservation. On the plus side, you may not be walking into a camp full of boy scouts.


I am curious too about how they plan to handle long distance hikers.

Yes, but are you able to make a reservation for tomorrow?

[Pokey2006]

Yes, but are you able to make a reservation for tomorrow?

Or for tonight?

[jbwood5]

If these fees get implemented, my 6 to 10 days of backpack hiking in the park could now cost $60 to $100 depending on what fee schedule gets approved. This is totally asinine. Backpackers cause the least impact of any visitors to the Park. How about shifting the fees to those whole really do cause an impact. Think of the thousands of people that go through Cades Cove, the Visitors Centers, Clingman's Dome and other high impact areas. They leave tons of trash, consume thousands of gallons of treated water, leave tons of sewage, smog up the place with their cars, tear up the access roads, etc. You don't have to charge a Park entrance fee but how about a fee for access to special areas? That is where the focus needs to be.... not on the little old backpacker who creates virtually no impact. And... most of these Park Rangers took that job to protect wildlife, plant life, and provide education to the general public. They do not want to be police officers handing out tickets for the hiker who didn't pay a registration fee.

THIS IS SO WRONG. They are counting on the hikers not making any waves on this issue because most of us prefer to avoid political confrontation. We like to hike the trail to get away from all this. Keep in mind that once a fee structure is started, it only goes up as time goes by. Just look at the public campgrounds within the Park. I remember paying $6 several years back and I believe when I went by Smokemont, I saw it is now $20. You can expect that $4 to $10 fee to double within a few years and I can say almost for certain that those fees will do very little for the backcountry campsites.

[Alligator]

Yes, but are you able to make a reservation for tomorrow?

Overnight motor at Boundary Waters tomorrow. There are not many places listed in the Permits tab though that appear to be backcountry. I tried Glacier but only found front country campgrounds. So I am not sure what parks are using this system.