!!!Attention thru- hikers and anyone else going into GSMNP after Feb 13!!!

[sliderule]

I think there may be a little over thinking this. Get the permit and do the best you can with the dates. If weather goes south and you have to hole up in Gaitlinburg for a couple days forcing you to take 9 days then I suspect it won't be a major problem. While I'm not a big supporter of this system, think intent not letter of the law. They had to put in guidelines, no way they can cover every possible scenario.

The NPS has no obligation to "cover every possible scenario." The obligation to comply with the provisions of a special permit falls on the permit holder. Failure to comply has potential consequences. Any other analysis would likely require "over thinking."

[HooKooDooKu]

And as a practical matter, you're not required to check in when you enter the Smokies. So if you enter the park, then travel to Gatlinburg for a few days, the Park Service has no way to track that.

Seems like I'm wrong again. According to the following news story, you're supposed to mark the day you enter the park and leave half your permit at a permit receptacle at the trail head.
http://www.nantahalahikingclub.org/i...k-permit-fees/

[HooKooDooKu]

if I hike for four days, then spend two nights in Gatlinburg, do I have four or two days remaining to get through the Smokies? I find the wording of this regulation confusing.

I thought about calling up the backcountry office and ask this question directly. But I was afraid that if I did that twice, I would likely get two different answers.

I've tried searching and can't find any more details published rules other than the GSMNP web site stating

A Thru-Hiker Permit is valid for up to 38 days from the date you obtain it. Thru-Hikers have 8 days to get through the Smokies. A break to rest or resupply in a nearby town does not negate one's standing as a thru-hiker

So here's my final thoughts on the subject:

Since the rules are ambigous, I would keep dated sales reciepts from days you spend in town. Then if you are confronted after 8 calandar days still inside the park, polietly point out the rules specifically allow for "breaks" and does not specify 8 "calendar" days. Explain that you can understand if someone else interpretes the rules differently. Show your dated sales reciepts as evidence that you have not spent more than 8 days in the National Park, and that you believe you have sincerly attepted to comply with park rules.

Under thoses circumstances, I would find it hard to believe that a park ranger would hand out a fine.

[sliderule]

The intent was that the thru hiker permit be valid for eight consecutive days. That (seven consecutive nights) is the maximum duration of any backcountry permit.

Part of the logic was that thru hikers should pay the same fee as anyone else: $20 for seven nights.

Nights not spent on the trail do not extend the expiration date of the permit.

[max patch]

Since the rules are ambigous, I would keep dated sales reciepts from days you spend in town. Then if you are confronted after 8 calandar days still inside the park, polietly point out the rules specifically allow for "breaks" and does not specify 8 "calendar" days.

The rules are quite clear and are not ambiguous at all.

The reason that the new rules specify breaks is that under the old rules leaving the park to go to Gatlinburg was not allowed and technically made your permit invalid. This, of course, was never enforced. The park is clarifying that this is now allowable.

[madgoat]

Has anyone yet ran into a ranger in the backcountry since this new permit system went into effect in February? Are they actually checking for compliance with their new permit system, or is it pretty much the same as usual?

Just wondering out loud what the possibility is of running into a ranger in the backcountry at Cosby Knob or Davenport Gap.

[SGT Rock]

I've been up there but I haven't seen or heard of any on the AT.

[ehrenlynne]

Thanks HooKoo, I like your advice. Politeness and sincerity do go a long way to smoothing difficult situations. It is truely not my intention to break the rules, and hopefully the park rangers will understand that. Furthermore, I cannot think that towns like Gatlinburg would be very pleased to lose out on hiker business and revenue, so surely there should be some allowance for time to go to town.

[madgoat]

I've been up there but I haven't seen or heard of any on the AT.

That is kinda what I thought I would hear. I can see how this permit system will be abused.... If there is no real backcountry enforcement of these permits, people are just going to forgo the permit and save themselves the money. Then all of us folks who have properly registered for permits will start to get upset that we paid money for our campsites, while others are "stealth" camping at the backcountry campsites and shelters.... then we will get upset and stop registering for permits as well.

I am properly registered for a 4 day trip into the Deep Creek area around next weekend. I will be thoroughly shocked if I run into any rangers in the backcountry. If there are rangers checking for permit compliance, they would be up on the AT monitoring the Thru Hiker highway.

[sliderule]

Furthermore, I cannot think that towns like Gatlinburg would be very pleased to lose out on hiker business and revenue, so surely there should be some allowance for time to go to town.

When the NPS is reorganized to fall under the jurisdiction of the Gatlinburg Chamber of Commerce, thru hikers will be required to spend a full week in Gatlinburg!!!
Until then, what Gatlinburg thinks or wants matters not. Fact is, local governments were severely against the current fee for backcountry use permits. Notice how much the NPS took thier desires into account.

[turtle fast]

I can see the intent of the rules, but what a waste of time and taxpayer money...its not like the government is not already broke and this permit will barely cover any real costs of its implementation. What was to be a "Green paperless" and "easy" system is a cluster f. It would of been easier to go old school here and fill out an envelope, put cash in and drop in secure box.....sometimes its the old ways that work better. KISS rules should apply here Keep It Simple Stupid...nuff said.

[max patch]

I can see the intent of the rules, but what a waste of time and taxpayer money...its not like the government is not already broke and this permit will barely cover any real costs of its implementation. What was to be a "Green paperless" and "easy" system is a cluster f. It would of been easier to go old school here and fill out an envelope, put cash in and drop in secure box.....sometimes its the old ways that work better. KISS rules should apply here Keep It Simple Stupid...nuff said.

The new system wasn't designed for thru hikers - it was designed with section hikers in mind and in that respect is a wonderful addition.

The only thing that has changed for thru hikers is you have to take a couple minutes the day before you leave and print out a piece of paper and pay $20.

The only significant thing that needs to happen is to give BMT thru hikers the same registration privileges as AT thru hikers.

[HooKooDooKu]

[QUOTE=turtle fast;1454093It would of been easier to go old school here and fill out an envelope, put cash in and drop in secure box[/QUOTE]
With the exception of the cash, was the system that used to be in place.

However, for regular backpackers and section hikers, you had to first call the rangers and get a reservation for any high-use camp sites. The whole reason for the new fees is to pay for a web site to allow backbackers to make those reservations themselves.

The net result is that thru hikers are effectively subsudising a system built to replace making a phone call.

[max patch]

The net result is that thru hikers are effectively subsudising a system built to replace making a phone call.

What is so special about thru hikers that they should hike thru the park for free while section hikers must pay?

[madgoat]

I will be in the park next weekend enjoying the solitude of backcountry campsites around deep creek and newton bald.... while the thru hiker madness of 30 deep in a shelter ensues just north of me up on the stateline ridge. The new website for making my reservations was easy to use and took less than 10 minutes to set up my route, make my payment and print out my permit. It is a bit cumbersome dealing with the payment, then getting an email telling you where to go to print out your permit and giving you details on how to retrieve your permit from their website for printing, but not terrible.

I for one am very happy with the new reservation website. Yeah, I would rather not have to pay for reservations, but it sure beats trying to get a call through to the backcountry reservation or information office. $4 per night or $20 for a thru permit is a very minimal expense when compared with all the other costs associated with a thru hike or just a simple drive down to the park from Ohio for a few days in the mountains.

The net result is that thru hikers who comprise a fraction of all backcountry reservations continue to get special dispensation from the park to not have to file a complete trip plan like everybody else. The net result is that the smokies has one of the easiest backcountry permit application processes of all the major parks (especially when compared with those out west). The net result is that all of us who spend time in the smokies are paying to subsidize this new permit website.

[HooKooDooKu]

What is so special about thru hikers that they should hike thru the park for free while section hikers must pay?

Nothing.

I'm not suggesting thru hikers should (or should not) be exempt from the new fees. I just though it was an interesting point:

As I understand it, the primary purpose for the new fees is to pay for an automated system that replaces making reservations at rationed camp with rangers over the phone.

For people like me that utilized that reservation system (I'm NOT a thru-hiker), I'm getting the benefit of an improved reservation system in exchange for my fees.

But for thru-hikers and hikers that only camped at (previously unrationed) camp sites, they are getting virtually nothing in the way of benefits in exchange for the fees they are now forced to pay.

[max patch]

I'm not suggesting thru hikers should (or should not) be exempt from the new fees.

OK. I misunderstood your point.

[sliderule]

The only thing that has changed for thru hikers is you have to take a couple minutes the day before you leave and print out a piece of paper and pay $20.

Except that's not the only thing that changed.

The previous thru hiker permit had no expiration date, but became invalid if the hiker left the AT. The current permit is valid for only 8 days, but allows the hiker to leave the Trail for whatever portion of the 8 days that he chooses.

Some thru hikers, evidently, will now need to be accompanied by an attorney and an accountant in order to properly discern the meaning of "eight days."

[sliderule]

For people like me that utilized that reservation system (I'm NOT a thru-hiker), I'm getting the benefit of an improved reservation system in exchange for my fees.

The system might have improved for those sitting at home with a computer and printer. It might not seem so wonderful for someone sitting in front of their tent at Big Creek or Balsam Mtn and wanting to take an overnite hike. The old system would have worked for them; the current one will not.

[SGT Rock]

The system might have improved for those sitting at home with a computer and printer. It might not seem so wonderful for someone sitting in front of their tent at Big Creek or Balsam Mtn and wanting to take an overnite hike. The old system would have worked for them; the current one will not.

That is one of my complaints with the new system too. And with that, you can call them and get a reservation and even pay over the phone if you have one with service available, BUT, you will still need a print out of the PDF they can even mail to that phone for it to be valid.