The long term plan for trail overcrowding

[moldy]

The total numbers for trail usage go higher and higher every year. Hikers start earlier to avoid the crowds and key sections of the trail like the Smokies, SNP and the Whites and becoming a circus. Interest and information about the trail is at an all time high with books and movies. We have thousands of youtube videos about the Appalachian Trail, Overcrowded conditions in some areas and in during some periods are already near the breaking point where some action needs to be taken. Whether it's 5 years from now or 10 years from now it's gonna happen. This ship called the Appalachian Trail is very hard to steer and there are many hands on the tiller. With all the many Federal, State, Local, and private entities involved it is sure be to quite a struggle to get it all going the right way. I think it a matter of irony that at it's conception the Appalachian Trail article was named something like, "an Appalachian Trail a matter of Regional Planning. I wonder if there is a plan at all? The plan for the future, will it be 40 little plans for 40 small sections written by various groups or will their be only one. Perhaps we need the steady hand of one driving force. Will there be a " Myron Avery" in the future?

[Rain Man]

From: "Walters, Angela" <[email protected]>
To: Angela Walters <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2013 2:37 PM
Subject: Public Input Sought for Development of Appalachian National Scenic Trail Foundation Document


Public Input Sought for Development of Appalachian National Scenic Trail Foundation Document

The National Park Service is starting the process of preparing a Foundation Document for planning and management of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, a unit of the National Park Service. The trail would like to invite the public to join in this effort.

A Foundation Document involves revisiting a national park unit's core purpose and significance, most important resources and values, and the interpretive themes that tell the park's important stories. Although the Foundation Document is not a decision-making document and does not include actions or management strategies, it describes a shared understanding of what is most important about the park. In this capacity, the Foundation Document will reestablish the underlying guidance for future management and planning decisions at Appalachian National Scenic Trail. Because many of the trail's original planning documents are out of date, preparing the Foundation Document is the first step for considering the park's future planning and study needs.

The National Park Service invites you to play a role in charting the trail's future by sharing your thoughts on what is most important about the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, and to help identify its most pressing threats and its greatest opportunities. Your feedback will allow the park to take your thoughts into consideration as they prepare the Foundation Document.

You may submit your feedback at www.parkplanning.nps.gov/appafoundation from Dec 9 – Jan 9 by responding to five questions about the park's significance, threats, and opportunities.

About the Appalachian National Scenic Trail: The Appalachian Trail is a 2,184 mile long public footpath that traverses the scenic, wooded, pastoral, wild, and culturally resonant lands of the Appalachian Mountains. Conceived in 1921, built by private citizens, and completed in 1937, today the trail is managed by the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Appalachian Trail Conservancy, numerous state agencies and thousands of volunteers. www.nps.gov/appa

About the National Park Service: More than 20,000 National Park Service employees care for America’s 401 national parks and work with communities across the nation to help preserve local history and create close-to- home recreational opportunities. www.nps.gov.

[Starchild]

One of the strengths of the AT may be it is not under much centralized control, having regional plans allows for multiple methods to be tried and evaluated and adapted for the local area.

[jj2044]

Moldy, while I don't doubt you. I really didn't see THAT much over crowding during my 2012 hike, left march 10th, the first week was bad, but soon it thinned out to the point it wasnt too bad. while I see what you mean about the numbers, and I think in the next 2 to 3 there will be a HUGE surge of people with Bill Bryson's' book being made into a movie, I kind of hope with the increase of hiking and thru hiking will be spread out over the AT, CDT and Pct. And you have to remember people were saying the same thing in the 70's and 80's... and even more so in the 90's when thru hiking became more popular. Is the AT going to be the same 30 years from now as it is today ? No, it will change and adapt. will it be better or worse ?? that will depend on whom you are talking to.

[Tipi Walter]

Hey boys, I just got back from a November/Thanksgiving backpacking trip into the Snowbird backcountry and the Citico/Slickrock wilderness and here's the thing---I DID NOT SEE A SINGLE BACKPACKER IN 19 DAYS. I call my trip 19 Days In Solitude. So, in effect, there's alot more backpacking to be had in places other than the Appalachian Trail.

[ki0eh]

Anyone who wants to escape the crowds and still thru-hike can become the 3rd ever to complete Great Eastern Trail.

[stir crazy]

I agree with Tipi. I just finished the section from Winding Stair Gap to NOC yesterday. I never saw one hiker in 2 1/2 days. Hike off-season to avoid the crowds.

[johnnybgood]

Here's a radical idea ; tear down all the shelters and force hikers to disperse. I bet we see the numbers go down then.

[Tipi Walter]

Here's a radical idea ; tear down all the shelters and force hikers to disperse. I bet we see the numbers go down then.

Totally agree with this.

[Coffee]

Here's a radical idea ; tear down all the shelters and force hikers to disperse. I bet we see the numbers go down then.

That would be a negative for those who dislike shelters and already camp in dispersed areas. We would have lots of people who previously were drawn to shelters dispersing all over the place - and many of the people used to having prebuilt fire rings, privies, etc, and are not familiar with leave no trace ethics might screw up previously undisturbed areas. The overall numbers might go down but it might not seem that way to those who already avoid shelters.

[Ender]

I simply don't see more hikers as a problem. The more the merrier. People who want more solitude have countless other trails to use besides the AT. But as far as I see it, the more people who take the time to go out into the woods, the better off we'll all be. So bring 'em on.

[FarmerChef]

That would be a negative for those who dislike shelters and already camp in dispersed areas. We would have lots of people who previously were drawn to shelters dispersing all over the place - and many of the people used to having prebuilt fire rings, privies, etc, and are not familiar with leave no trace ethics might screw up previously undisturbed areas. The overall numbers might go down but it might not seem that way to those who already avoid shelters.

I agree with this. It's like pushing down on one part of a waterbed - the other part pop's up. What we need is a comprehensive strategy to manage human pressures on the trail for the time (if) the popularity of hiking and natural population growth (eco-tourism too) increase the human presence to the point the trail is being damaged at a rate exceeding the ability of maintenance to keep up with.

I also agree with Tipi that there are plenty of other places to go hike to get away from the crowds. That's what folks who are truly looking for may find they are almost forced to do after A Walk In the Woods becomes a movie. Just my two cents.

[Slo-go'en]

I belive the problem is self correcting. The trial isn't crowded, but shelters can be. But only at certain times of the year and mostly in the 120 miles between Springer and Fontana. Where there is pleanty of overflow camping available.

[FarmerChef]

Hmmm. I don't agree or disagree with that statement, Slo. I can say that our hike through the whites was cram packed with people. Many times, we had to wait for a minute for a slow moving group to hike past or we got to a campsite (just once) and after us and another hiker it was full. And I remember times in all parts of the trail where it was packed with day hikers on weekends or we were in the middle of the thru bubble and shelters and tenting areas were packed with people. McAfee Knob, Boiling Springs, The Whites, others come to mind. Thru's are far and away the minority of hikers. It's day and section hikers that make up the vast majority. But even as a sectioner I loathe the weekends when I know we'll be hiking through a popular spot with area locals. For instance, when we hit McAfee Knob we couldn't take the iconic hanging over the edge photo because there were kids making out on it. I could have waited but....;)

Movies like a Walk In the Woods and the relatively recent availability of online journals and blogs will only continue to drive more interest in hiking the trail. Information can be had more rapidly and this is causing faster growth in adoption than ever before, even in areas like outdoor activities. No, the AT won't be the recipient of an influx of millions of new hikers right away but I do believe that there will come a time in the next 100 years where "over" crowding becomes a significant issue, at least on weekends and holidays.

[Slo-go'en]

Yes, the Whites do get crazy with the "locals" (Massacuttes). A lot of it has to do with timing. Mid summer, 3 day holiday weekends and weekends in the early fall are times to avoid. The rest of the time, no problem.

Do we need some kind of rationing system to deal with those occasional peak usage times? Do bigger campsites cure the problem or make it worse? Do we limit the number of day hikers so a few can enjoy more solitude at a popular vista?

I'd say more people using the AT is a good thing. There would be less incentive to protect it if few were using it. The corrilary is how do you protect it from too much use - or is there such a thing? I say the problem is self correcting because if you go to crowded area, you might start thinking about finding less used areas to visit or coming back at a slower time of year.

[Leanthree]

The best way to reduce crowds would be to limit the number of roads which crisscross our protected land.

That assumes you want to reduce crowds. It is important to create enough advocates for public land so that we keep what we have and hopefully can grow how much is protected. It is a balancing act. I'd prefer more crowded trails in the short run if that gets us additional protected land/trails/etc. in the long run to even out the crowds.

[jeffmeh]

Numbers may be trending up, but it is often incorrect to assume a linear trend. I suspect in this case it will be cyclical and self-correcting, as Slo has already stated.

[Son Driven]

It is a problem, as these bubbles grow in size, camp sites get expanded, and vegetation is lost. Privy's become unusable, and shelters take on the stench of urine that gets sprayed all about. Perhaps one day registration will become necessary. Your name, or group will be drawn, and the starting point and direction of your hike will be assigned to you. much like a shot gun golf tournament. Flip flop hikes will become the norm rather then the exception.

[Son Driven]

Here's a radical idea ; tear down all the shelters and force hikers to disperse. I bet we see the numbers go down then. Probably slow down the number of virus infections as well.

[Leanthree]

It is a problem, as these bubbles grow in size, camp sites get expanded, and vegetation is lost. Privy's become unusable, and shelters take on the stench of urine that gets sprayed all about. Perhaps one day registration will become necessary. Your name, or group will be drawn, and the starting point and direction of your hike will be assigned to you. much like a shot gun golf tournament. Flip flop hikes will become the norm rather then the exception.

Vegetation loss must be put in the context of creating advocates for the trail who can ultimately push for more vegetation to be preserved and created rather than paved over and turned into a Home Depot parking lot. It is a balancing act.

Someone who gets confused by a permitting system and chooses not to hike could be the person who would have bought a 50 acre AT adjacent farm later in life to save it from commercial development.

[Papa D]

Just spent three days including Thanksgiving on the AT - - might do some Christmas hiking in Joyce Kilmer - - I did run into a few folks on the AT but it was surely not crowded - - saw more turkeys than persons for sure - - if you are willing to hike in the snow you can have some solitude - - not sure that's the answer to the OP's question to which there may not be a good answer but it's worth consideration regardless

[Papa D]

That would be a negative for those who dislike shelters and already camp in dispersed areas. We would have lots of people who previously were drawn to shelters dispersing all over the place - and many of the people used to having prebuilt fire rings, privies, etc, and are not familiar with leave no trace ethics might screw up previously undisturbed areas. The overall numbers might go down but it might not seem that way to those who already avoid shelters.

yep - I agree with this - although I don't like the fire rings and the camped out nature of most shelter sites, they do keep the balance of the trail relatively natural and unspoiled - - being one that likes to disperse myself, I'd favor keeping the shelters. I think that larger shelters in some areas and better privies and bear boxes / cables, etc. would actually serve to lessen the impact of hikers on the balance of the trail - - each shelter site is really constitutes a pretty small area in relation to the trail forest corridor and the better the shelters, the more the masses will concentrate there leaving the more secluded areas for those that seek it.

[Nyte]

yep - I agree with this - although I don't like the fire rings and the camped out nature of most shelter sites, they do keep the balance of the trail relatively natural and unspoiled - - being one that likes to disperse myself, I'd favor keeping the shelters. I think that larger shelters in some areas and better privies and bear boxes / cables, etc. would actually serve to lessen the impact of hikers on the balance of the trail - - each shelter site is really constitutes a pretty small area in relation to the trail forest corridor and the better the shelters, the more the masses will concentrate there leaving the more secluded areas for those that seek it.

+1 this ^^

[oldwetherman]

I tend to agree with Ender. More hikers is not necessarily a bad thing. More hikers should lead to an increase in folks that join the clubs that do maintenance and more members for the ATC. As our population increases
the number of people that get involved in the sort of hiking should increase proportionally.

[adamkrz]

I've seen less overnight hikers in the Ct. and Mass. sections the last few years,

Why all the shelter bashing all the time - if you don't like them-just pass them over.

[Sarcasm the elf]

Vegetation loss must be put in the context of creating advocates for the trail who can ultimately push for more vegetation to be preserved and created rather than paved over and turned into a Home Depot parking lot. It is a balancing act.

Someone who gets confused by a permitting system and chooses not to hike could be the person who would have bought a 50 acre AT adjacent farm later in life to save it from commercial development.

This.

The A.T. Introduces hundreds of thousands of people to the wilderness each year. Many of them, children in particular, come off the trail with a deeper respect for nature and life and the good that the A.T. does for the worldstretches far beyond the borders of it's narrow corridor. I can only imagine the countless number of people who support and contribute to conservation and to open space in their adult lives because of lessons they learned while on the A.T. It's not my trail, it's everyone's trail I say bring the family, bring the scouts, bring your friends.

Forcing beaurocracy and implementing bean counters to regulate hiking numbers would do more damage to the character of the trail in my mind than a few additional hikers ever could. The fact that so many strangers from all walks of life can show up unplanned at the same shelter and all spend time together and get along is one of the things about the trail that helps restore my faith in humanity.

[Sarcasm the elf]

I've seen less overnight hikers in the Ct. and Mass. sections the last few years,

Why all the shelter bashing all the time - if you don't like them-just pass them over.

Shelter bashing is a hobby for some folks, just roll with it.


Agreed about CT and MA, even on holiday weekends and the with college groups out in late summer i've never had a problem finding space to camp. Most of the year i feel like the place is mostly empty.

[Son Driven]

Vegetation loss must be put in the context of creating advocates for the trail who can ultimately push for more vegetation to be preserved and created rather than paved over and turned into a Home Depot parking lot. It is a balancing act.

Someone who gets confused by a permitting system and chooses not to hike could be the person who would have bought a 50 acre AT adjacent farm later in life to save it from commercial development.

What would be confusing? Your application for your 2020 thru hike has been accepted. You need to begin your north bound hike at Rockfish Gap near Waynsboro, VA. some time between 4/20/20 and 4/30/20. Of course as you said; "the BEST way is to limit roads". I do not know what roads can be terminated, and how the termination of these roads might effect resupply, and hostel stays.

[Siarl]

Here's a radical idea ; tear down all the shelters and force hikers to disperse. I bet we see the numbers go down then.

There's already an old (or new) thread that ties into the subject of questioning the positive or negative effects of shelters from a Leave No Trace perspective. My view on the shelters is that it is a more positive force than a negative one. Sure, the shelters are an artificial additive to the natural state. However, what would happen if the shelters and fire rings were not in place? People making their own , will nilly all through and along the trail. You would have a trail nightmare. Broad swaths of the trail would be littered with remnants and tell tale signs of encampments, fire rings, scat holes etc.,. If there is overcrowding at one point there will needs be a reservation system perhaps for certain sections of the trail. Those thru hiking versus section hikers. There will probably not be a perfect answer but eventually one will need to be implemented. But I certainly don't agree with doing away with the shelters. I would rather not see a trail where primitive camping is no longer the case either. If hikers are forced to spend the night in organized hostels etc along the way, it would seriously take away from the experience.

[mak1277]

I don't see the issue here. If you don't like the crowds somewhere, then go to a different trail or spot. There are millions of square miles of wilderness area and trails available that are much less well-known and less crowded.

It's up to each of us to decide if hiking the AT in crowds (real or imagined) is worth it. If you only want to hike the AT, then do it. But if you only want to hike in solitude, you still have that option.

Disclaimer - I greatly prefer hiking solo and seeing nobody during my trips to the backcountry. I won't ever do a through-hike for this reason (and others). So take my POV with a grain of salt please :)

[Cookerhiker]

Some parts of the Trail are crowed at some times of the year. In those few places, the crowds can be avoided by hiking off-season. The only problematic popular section is the White Mountains because their season is so short and they're located near a metropolis.

I don't agree that the shelters should be torn down and I think the only reduction in trail use from doing such would be less weekend partiers, i.e. local, non-hikers.

Perhaps the problem with the "crowding" is the mindset that thruhikes must be S-N, Springer to Katahdin, therefore necessitating the hordes that descend on Georgia in a compressed time period in late winter/early spring. Aside from a SOBO hike, there are other avenues to take in hiking the entire AT in one season. Of course, these routes greatly lessen the Trail's social aspects which seem the primary motivator for many thruhikers. Presumably those who embrace the "social trail" are not among those who complain about crowds.:rolleyes:

I agree with Tipi's observation that there are plenty of other (non-AT) options in the East for a non-crowded, "wilderness" experience - I've made this point myself on many other threads.

[Bronk]

The long range plan calls for adding a second lane. Corporate sponsorship from Starbucks, Coca Cola, Verizon and Apple will cover most of the cost. Each trailhead will have a kiosk where iphones can be purchased and charged, and Verizon reps will be on hand selling accessories and rate plans. Where practical, vending machines selling Coke products will be installed in the shelters. Starbucks will be setting up franchises in all of the AMC huts with a further buildout possible in the southern areas.

[handlebar]

When I hiked a section of the AT this past October to make a loop of my hike of the Tuscarora Trail, I only had company at shelters on the weekends. Then I chose to camp nearby. Otherwise, I only saw other hikers on weekends (leaf-peeper season, you know). If you want total isolation blue blaze from near Matthews Arm CG in Shenandoah NP north on the Tuscarora Trail as far as Darlington shelter near Duncannon. There are a number of very nice, smaller versions of the shelters built by the PATC there; and I guarantee you'll be surprised to see anyone at all on that section.