GSMNP charging for backcountry camping in 2013

[ChinMusic]

I don't support a logjam. I just don't care whether there is a logjam.

A distinction without a difference........

[Lone Wolf]

Interesting that you and LW support a logjam at Fontana.

not true. i support ALL hikers being treated equal

[SGT Rock]

They definitely should make thru-hikers pay and I hope they make them stick to a schedule as they go through the park and limit them to four spots in each shelter. That's the only fair way to do it. Otherwise, they will clog up the shelters as they always do and that's going to cause conflict with the rest of the paying customers. Of course, that will cause a real logjam down at Fontana, but that's tough. If the thru-hikers don't like it, they can go around the park.

Won't happen. They already said they won't limit thru-hikers. They will simply have to pay. I for one am glad they take my shelter spot when I hike in that season. I hate sleeping in the shelters.

[golden eagle]

And why, Mr. Chin, do you support letting vacationing thru-hikers rampage through the park willy nilly? Why shouldn't they have to follow the same rules as every other hiker?

[SGT Rock]

And why, Mr. Chin, do you support letting vacationing thru-hikers rampage through the park willy nilly? Why shouldn't they have to follow the same rules as every other hiker?

Because the whole reservation system is silly to begin with.

If they got rid of some of the rules you would have less impact spread over a larger area. I would venture to say the 70 something miles of the AT in Georgia sees about the same total traffic of hikers that the AT in the park does except for two small spots (and that would be mostly day hiker only) and the AT in Georgia isn't going to fall apart despite not forcing people to stay at designated shelters.

[golden eagle]

The whole thing is a disaster in the making. The park is only doing this because the new supt is upset because some backpackers break the rules. So he's imposing a fee to hire a couple rangers to enforce the rules. The result? To avoid paying the fee, more backpackers will break the rules (as soon as everyone figures out they aren't likely to get caught). As for thru-hikers, what's the plan? Will the park service set up laptops at Hot Springs and Fontana? Will thru-hikers stand in line to use the computers and pay their fees? Please. Nobody's going to do any of this.

[golden eagle]

Rock, do you want to see little fire rings and tenting spots all over the trail through the park?

[Slo-go'en]

.then appeared for sale in other places for 2-3 times the price. What will prevent a trip to Mt Lecont or Icewater Springs from being scalped?

Maybe make it so reservations can only be done no more than a week (or two) before hand and limit the number of reservations which can be made by one entity.

I belive the AT part of the trail in the Smokies and all the shelters are mantained by volunteers and all the improvements to the shelters have been done by private groups and donations. Therefore, the use of the AT and its shelters should remain free. Only campsites maintained exclusively by the park service should require a fee.

[SGT Rock]

Rock, do you want to see little fire rings and tenting spots all over the trail through the park?

It wouldn't bother me if there were a few more.

[SGT Rock]

Maybe make it so reservations can only be done no more than a week (or two) before hand and limit the number of reservations which can be made by one entity.

Seems simple. The park already limits to 30 days out on permits. But if you were to create a business of this, then you could have proxy accounts for buying these permits through. Since there is only a credit card needed to buy the permit or cash (I hope) then you could get someone to buy one for you. It happens in China every time a new iPhone comes out, most of the people in line are buying for someone that is going to resell it for a profit.

I belive the AT part of the trail in the Smokies and all the shelters are mantained by volunteers and all the improvements to the shelters have been done by private groups and donations. Therefore, the use of the AT and its shelters should remain free. Only campsites maintained exclusively by the park service should require a fee.

Here is the rub. The shelters on the AT are the place where the park points to for the problems that need the new system. The campsites in the park I use on the BMT are rarely ever used and get only a little maintenance once every few years. Volunteers do most of the real maintenance like clean up on the rest of the park as well.

See, they say the overcrowding in the shelters and campsites are causing the issue and they need this system to make a better way to manage that. But the only places that have this issue are AT shelters and about 2 or 3 campsites in the rest of the park. Think of all the shelters in the park and it is really easy to realize that except for 3, they are all on the AT in the park. And of those three, only one of them ever gets problems with crowding and that is on LeCont. So guys like me that generally avoid shelters and hot spots to camp at non-reservation sites where I will probably do more maintenance on my one night camping there than the park service will do at that site in a year, will now have to pay for every night I am in the park for problems that mainly exist on the AT in the park because of the current rules. We even suggested that this policy only applies to campsites that have crowding issues and currently require a reservation on it (the majority of campsites in the park do not) but that wouldn't bring in enough money to support the rangers to patrol the problem places - mainly the AT.

It is a self created problem, and the solution is to spread the pain.

[golden eagle]

If the shelters on the A.T. are the problem, then the solution is to limit thru-hikers. Except when they're coming through, problems are rare.

[SGT Rock]

If the shelters on the A.T. are the problem, then the solution is to limit thru-hikers. Except when they're coming through, problems are rare.

That is a solution. Not the solution.

[Trillium]

Sgt Rock, Thank you for the links and your comments. I have been planning to thru in 2013 for about 4 yrs now. So, this issue is relevant to my interests. I didn't even think about the possibility of having to scalp a reservation. It's bad enough that that practice happens with sporting events but while backpacking?? The idea is idiotic.

Also, the comments about use of the revenues is interesting. Accountants' mantra is Cost vs Benefit. Seems to me that the cost of charging and particularly enforcing may not justify the benefit of the additional revenue. Do they project to at least break even, are they projecting net revenue?

[SGT Rock]

Sgt Rock, Thank you for the links and your comments. I have been planning to thru in 2013 for about 4 yrs now. So, this issue is relevant to my interests. I didn't even think about the possibility of having to scalp a reservation. It's bad enough that that practice happens with sporting events but while backpacking?? The idea is idiotic.

Also, the comments about use of the revenues is interesting. Accountants' mantra is Cost vs Benefit. Seems to me that the cost of charging and particularly enforcing may not justify the benefit of the additional revenue. Do they project to at least break even, are they projecting net revenue?

From the people at the park I talked to (Head LEO, head back country manager I work with on BMT issues) they expect to break even. So all the money is basically going to pay for the system that makes you pay. They based that on numbers of permits and reservations they get now. I pointed out that park attendance has declined, especially anything that requires you to get out of your car and go more than 100 yards. That there are plenty of free places in the area for folks to go to like Cherokee, Nantahalla, etc. and that people like me are likely to just do our grab and go trips there instead of in the park like we do now. They did acknowledge that there is a good chance that the numbers will drop once this starts, but thinks that there are enough people that don't fill out registrations and just go into the park that these people will now start paying (I don't get that logic) and their fees will offset any drop in visitation from the people that would normally register and follow all the rules.

See right now I could decided that tomorrow I am going to hike for 6 days and just grab my pack, fill out a permit, and go. No money required, no reservations required, and there is a good chance that I wouldn't see another hiker or have to share a campsite at all. But in 2013 I will have to find a computer, log in, pay, haggle with some sytem or person (this is a whole other part of the system that isn't discussed here) and then finally get my butchered hike plan and start on the designated day and stay on the designated plan no matter what. In the old days, if my hike changed a little due to weather it wasn't a big deal because I could simply pick another non-reservation site in the area use it. But now I could get fined if caught changing my plan due to weather, lack of water, or whatever.

How many inexperienced hikers are going to plan unrealistic trips trying to skimp on nights camping to save money? What will they do for weather changes of plans? What happens if you have to drop a day off your plan because you couldn't get away from work? There are many things that this plan sort of avoids answering because they want a plan that will pay for a couple of part time rangers during 7 months of the year. But everyone (not just AT hikers) will pay for it the entire year. I have absolutely no problem paying for services, or donating money to the park. But now I will save my donations to pay for hikes which I may or may not do anymore. And it irks me that none of this money is going to improve stuff in the back country. It will simple pay to perpetuate a system that sucks - that really irks me.

[ChinMusic]

And why, Mr. Chin, do you support letting vacationing thru-hikers rampage through the park willy nilly? Why shouldn't they have to follow the same rules as every other hiker?

FTR, I am against all forms of "rampage".........

IMO, the current system is a good balance with regards to sections and thrus.

[ChinMusic]

Maybe make it so reservations can only be done no more than a week (or two) before hand and limit the number of reservations which can be made by one entity.

That is very inconvenient for the person that has a job that requires them to put in vacation time well in advance. I guess it would be GREAT for non-working locals who could just watch the weather.

[ChinMusic]

From the people at the park I talked to (Head LEO, head back country manager I work with on BMT issues) they expect to break even. So all the money is basically going to pay for the system that makes you pay.

Then this entire discussion of fees is just plain stupid.

[Spokes]

If boy scouts did this, we'd all be outraged....

Hmmm, two sides to that coin. I've been outraged with boy scouts acting badly (and some thru hikers too). I'm sure others have BS horror stories.

[SGT Rock]

FTR, I am against all forms of "rampage".........

Yes, this is sort of a unrealistic description of what is going on. There are no thru-hiker rampages that I have experienced or are aware of. There are just a lot of thru-hikers piped into a system that makes the pipe even more narrow. If it were not for rules forcing them to stay at shelters, there wouldn't be an issue in the first place. There are less thru-hiker aspirants at this point than there were in Georgia, and you can camp where ever you want in Georgia. Last time I hiked down there I didn't see the ecology in runaway decline.

If anything, the majority of thru-hikers are just trying to get out of the park as quickly as possible because of this policy. I routinely hear how much the Smokys sucked because of the crowds in the shelter when it is a self inflicted wound. If anyone was to be characterized as rampaging, it would be some day hikers around Charlie's Bunion and the occasional section hiker with axes and saws thinking they need bonfires and such. Any such thru-hike aspirant that had these notions washed out over a hundred miles before the Smokys. I routinely recommend real hikers avoid the AT in that season on go somewhere else. I also routinely recommend thru-hikers consider using the BMT through the Smokys because none of these issues exist there. Only a handful ever listen.

IMO, the current system is a good balance with regards to sections and thrus.

I agree given the framework of the problem that is created by the rules. Imagine this: there are only 12 shelters on the AT in the park. If you were to add about 12 more back country campsites the pressure could be greatly relieved on the shelters. If you were to add another 12, that would mean that you would actually have shelters that were not full even in thru-hiker season. If you had the choice to stay in the Shelter at Spence Field, or hike 1 mile and camp in the grass, what would you do? And at 71 miles, 12 shelters and 24 tent sites would mean they could still average 2 miles between them, though many tent sites and shelters would be probably closer than that due to suitable sites. And you could even close those tent sites out of season.

It seems to me the only people that are for the new system in 2012 are people against thu-hikers getting a free ride. I can't say I blame them. But it would actually be better for the park if you just got each thru-hiker to donate $20 to the park service than pay $20 (assuming a 5 night thru). It would actually be better for the park if a thru-hiker stopped in the bookstore and bought a couple of books and postcards than it would be to pay $20 to make sure the system that makes them pay $20 is paid for.

[SGT Rock]

Then this entire discussion of fees is just plain stupid.

Yep. The discussion of how to build a system that makes sense would be a better one if the input on it would actually be used.