PDA

View Full Version : Hiking AT in GSMNP



Gordie
02-11-2014, 14:47
Four of us are hoping to get permits for the AT shelters in the Smokey Mt NP in late June. We are thinking about starting at Davenport Gap and hiking south to Mt Le Conte, but we are wondering if starting at Mt Le Conte and hiking north would be a better option as far as difficulty... ect. Our plan now to fly down and stay in Gatlinburg leave our car there and get shuttled to Davenport. We are from New England and have never hiked in this region before so I would welcome any suggestions.

Thanks, Gordie

ht61
02-11-2014, 15:28
A north bound hike would provide for a more predominantly down hill hike. I would suggest looking into a stay at the Standing Bear Farm. It is three miles north of GSMNP off the AT and my understanding is they offer a shuttle service.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

TNhiker
02-11-2014, 15:41
agreed.......i would go north....

while you'll still have some ups and downs---the biggest uphill will be getting to leconte....

Rain Man
02-11-2014, 15:54
Go south. I'd rather hike up a long mountain, than down one. I hiked that section north.

Don't skip the side trail to Mount Cammermer lookout. 1.2 miles round-trip, but worth it in my opinion. Great views.

Rain:sunMan

.

TNhiker
02-11-2014, 16:04
also agreed......

it should be a crime to skip mount cammermer if doing this section....

ht61
02-11-2014, 16:08
I agree with Rain Man in regards to the side trip to Mt Cammerer lookout. Uphill or downhill is a personal preference, but either direction is a nice hike.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sliderule
02-11-2014, 20:29
Day 1 logistics would certainly be easier if you started on the LeConte end. You could park right at one of several trail heads (Alum Cave would be my recommendation) and get right on the trail. And the day 1 hike would be shorter as well. Plus, it's probably better to hobnob with the LeConte Lodge guests on Day 1 rather than Day 5. And, starting at Alum Cave reduces the net elevation gain by about 2000 ft.

HooKooDooKu
02-11-2014, 22:48
I personally do not like the idea of having to try to meet up with a shuttle at the end of a hike. So I always like to have my vehicle positioned ready for me at the end of my hike.

I've heard of some problems with cars left at Davenport. The area is relatively remote. By comparison, the trail heads around LeConte are high traffic areas. So leaving a vehicle at a LeConte trail head would seem the safer bet.

I would argue that if you get to "hobnob" with the LeConte Lodge guests, they will be more interested in hearing what you have to say about the hike you're nearly finished rather than the hike you are just starting. Beside, LeConte Lodge guests and LeConte Shelter hikers don't interact too much.

So my personal suggestion would be to park a vehicle at the Alum Cave Trail head and have a shuttle drive you from Alum Cave Trail to Davenport Gap. Your first day hike will be about 10 miles (if you include Mount Cammerer). But you should have plenty of time... Wake up at 6, get some breakfast at 7, get to Alum Cave Trail head by 8:30, and Davenport Gap by 10:00. With sunset not until 8:30, you have plenty of time to do the 1st day's hike, even if you have to delay the start by a few hours.

By ending at Alum Cave Trail head, your last day is a 5 mile hike back to your vehicle. That would make it possible for you to get out of the woods early enough to freshen up at the Sugarland's Visitor's Center and catch an evening flight back to New England... or if you are driving, you could still make it home by midnight if you get up and get packing from LeConte at the Crack of dawn. Alternately, if you are staying in a hotel that last night, the short hike at the end of the trip gives you the most about of time to clean up and relax before heading home the next day.

As for LeConte Lodge, it is a set of rustic cabins sitting near the top of Mt. LeConte. Hiking up the mountain is the only access to the Lodge. As such, rates are not cheap. The cost is about $130/person. LeConte Lodge guests are provided a cabin with a pair of bunk beds (with clean sheets and wool blankets), access to flush toilets, and provided an all-you-can eat dinner (with wine @ an additional cost) and breakfast the next morning. However, getting reservations at the Lodge is not easy. They take reservations at the start of October for nights the following year. Within a few days, the lodge is usually booked for the year. However, cancellations do occur. You would be unlikely to get a reservation on a weekend, but if you end on a weekday, your odds go up. For more information about the Lodge, see their website (http://www.lecontelodge.com/). It could be a great way to end (or start) a major hiking trip in the GSMNP.

sliderule
02-12-2014, 00:26
I would argue that if you get to "hobnob" with the LeConte Lodge guests, they will be more interested in hearing what you have to say about the hike you're nearly finished rather than the hike you are just starting. [/QUOTE]

Clearly you are burdened by the notion that stories must be somehow related to actual experience!!! Or perhaps you believe that life will only begin for our New England friends when they arrive in Tennessee.


Beside, LeConte Lodge guests and LeConte Shelter hikers don't interact too much.



I would argue that the opportunity exists for those who so chose. Unless, of course, things have changed since my last visit. Tell me, is sunset at Cliff Tops now segregated? Is sunrise at Myrtle Point now "off limits" to hiker trash?

HooKooDooKu
02-12-2014, 04:10
...perhaps you believe that life will only begin for our New England friends when they arrive in Tennessee.
Of course not... but based on experience, I would say that the 1st question that gets asked is "where are you from?". If geography doesn't lead itself to a line of conversation, the next question likely to be asked is "which trail did you come in on?". If anything interesting has happened (such as bear encounters), that question frequently leads to discussions of the current hike. For THAT particular conversation, you'll obviously have possibly more to talk about if you've been on the trail for several days. I know for me in particular, I've been to LeConte enough that I already know all the approach trails. I'm likely to find it more interesting to hear from someone what it was like hiking to LeConte from Davenport (a hike I have not done) than to hear about a trail I've already hiked.


I would argue that the opportunity exists for those who so chose. Unless, of course, things have changed since my last visit. Tell me, is sunset at Cliff Tops now segregated? Is sunrise at Myrtle Point now "off limits" to hiker trash?
You are absolutely correct... the opportunity exists. But based on my experience of being a LeConte Lodge guest about 15 times over the last 15 years, I just have not seen it happening that much. I'm not sure why, but I'm going to guess it might include reasons like the following:

Life at LeConte Lodge centers around dinner. That means LeConte Lodge guests are on more of a clock than hikers staying at the shelter... and that clock runs out at dinner time. Additionally, since ALL LeConte Lodge guests eat at the same time, dinner is absolutely a time period during which the two groups are segregated. And that period of segregation tends to be an extended one as many lodge guests tend to hand around for a while after dinner chit-chatting.

Cliff Tops tends to be somewhat segregated as well. While I'm not sure about all times of the year, when I'm at LeConte, it seems like you go strait from dinner to Cliff Tops for sunset. But those coming from the shelter take a different trail that those coming from the lodge. Then add the fact that people tend to head to Cliff Tops in groups. It doesn't mater if you are talking about the lodge or the shelter... you are more likely to head to Cliff Tops as a part of a group than go alone. As a natural process... those groups tend to stay together.

The next morning is pretty much the same thing all over again. For those that go to sunrise, you usually go in groups. For lodge guests that don't go to sunrise, their morning consists of waking up (because of the call to breakfast), eat breakfast, and then pack up to head down the mountain. So the morning after presents even less opportunity for those staying at the shelter and those staying at the lodge to interact.

So the only main time that those staying at the lodge and those staying at the shelter have to interact is during the afternoon before dinner. But that usually requires those staying at the shelter to come down to the common building and porch at the lodge, and requires that those staying at the lodge to hang out there as well. There usually are some. But many lodge guests go take a rest in their private cabin.

Now of course, there are exceptions. For one, there will be those that are rather extroverted and more likely to try to interact with what others are around them. I've even been to LeConte Lodge with someone who specifically hiked up to the shelter to check the place out and chit-chat with those staying at the shelter (like me, he's logged many more hours camping in GSMNP than staying at LeConte Lodge). But I just don't see much interaction.

Now I'm speaking from the point of view of someone staying at the lodge. I've never stayed at the shelter on LeConte. So if anyone is a frequent visitor to the LeConte shelter, I'd like to hear what the experience was like from their point of view.

elmotoots
02-12-2014, 07:58
I stayed at the shelter several times years ago and honestly I kind of felt like a monkey in a cage when the lodgers would come by and stare into the shelter. (not all, some were very friendly)

Back then I had heard talk they were going to close the shelter, did they or is it still there?

I have done that section 4 times now, went to Lodge shelter 2 of those times, and then walked back down to the AT.

We always started at Davenport Gap because.

After 30 plus miles I do not want to walk down hill that far.

But mostly because we did not want to end our hike, and then have to ride all the way around the MT's to get back to our car.

If we were coming home it would add to much extra driving to the day.

If we were staying in the MT's we ended right where we wanted to be.

You would also be right by the front country campgrounds if you did not want to pay for a hotel.

This is just my opinion, but the grand finale ending would be much nicer at New Found Gap, good view and flushing toilets, or even the Alum Cave Bluffs.

But hey you can't go wrong no matter which way you go, your in the MT's

HooKooDooKu
02-12-2014, 10:14
Back then I had heard talk they were going to close the shelter, did they or is it still there?
The shelter it still there... I think the privy has been been updated recently. I never hear talk of it being closed. But I did hear that people had started to try to cut down trees for building fires. The shelter now has the unique distinction of being the only shelter/campsite in the GSMNP where camp fires are now prohibited. The fireplace in the shelter was bricked up about 5 years ago.

aaronthebugbuffet
02-12-2014, 12:35
Difficulty isn't that much different in either direction in that section.
Choose the direction based on your ride logistics and where you want to shelter.

kennyxedge
02-12-2014, 18:05
No matter which way you end up hiking, GSMNP is beautiful. And like everyone mentioned, don't skip out on Mt. Cammerer.

Gordie
02-18-2014, 16:50
Thank you for all of the input. I'll be back with more questions.

HooKooDooKu
02-18-2014, 16:57
FWIW: If you have questions not specific to the shelters, there is a sub-forum devoted to the Great Smoky Mountains in general:
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?82-Great-Smoky-Mountain-National-Park

daddytwosticks
02-19-2014, 08:20
FWIW: If you have questions not specific to the shelters, there is a sub-forum devoted to the Great Smoky Mountains in general:
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?82-Great-Smoky-Mountain-National-Park+1. A great resource. I used it before my first hike in the Smokies last year. :)

Gordie
06-05-2014, 09:37
We got our permits for the last week of June and we'll be hiking from Mt LeConte to Davenport Gap on the AT. The ranger we talked to suggest that we should carry bear spray. I was wondering if it was really needed for this hike. The only time I ever carried it was at Yellowstone NP because it was required.

TNhiker
06-05-2014, 10:26
thats interesting that a ranger would suggest that......

in a way----on that route---i could see it being needed.....

especially at shelters were theres problematic bears..........for example, cosby knob shelter has issues with bears for years---even to the point of having bears "steal" packs away from the shelter area...

overall, off the AT in the smokies backcountry----i dont see it being needed...

ive hiked/backpacked in the park for the last 15 years and have never had a reason to use bear spray..........or bear bells for that matter...

but, just thinking for that route, thats why the ranger suggested it....

FarmerChef
06-05-2014, 10:54
I was just in the Smokies a couple weeks ago doing section from Fontana to Green Corner Rd. We encountered 2 bears (a momma and cub only feet away before we realized they were there). They ambled off and took their time walking away. Other than that, we saw lots of other wildlife but no bears, not even at the shelters. So I'm scratching my head around the bear spray recommendation as well. Can't hurt but it is extra weight.

HooKooDooKu
06-05-2014, 11:49
IMHO, bear spray isn't NEEDED for any hike in the GSMNP.

I've been blessed to encounter several bears in GSMNP:
Most ran away as soon at it detected my presence.
A few totally ignored me as we both continued to walk on our way.
Only one has ever approached me... and that was while I was in a shelter eating a meal. But even that bear ran off as soon as I started shouting at it.

Add to that the fact that in the entire history of the park, almost no injuries and only one fatality (under very unusual circumstances) has ever been reported. A few years ago, there was apparently even a debate as whether or not bear spray was legal in GSMNP (http://gosmokies.knoxnews.com/forum/topics/bear-spray-is-illegal-in-great) (BTW, multiple GSMNP websites (http://www.nps.gov/grsm/planyourvisit/hikingsafety.htm) specify that bear spray is legal strictly for personal protection from wildlife).

TNhiker
06-05-2014, 13:42
Add to that the fact that in the entire history of the park, almost no injuries and only one fatality




that is not correct...

while there has only been one fatality in the park (back in 2000), there have been numerous injuries due to bears...

i just read Kim Dolozier's book "bear in the backseat vol 2" where he mentions in one day, i believe in 2010, there were two people that got bit by a bear.....one was the infamous laurel falls incident and another was near tremont i believe...

and in the book it mentions the kid that was attacked by a bear along rainbow falls trail.....

also, injuries such as a sprained ankle running away from a bear is attribute as a bear incident in the park's eyes.........

No Directions
06-05-2014, 14:15
also, injuries such as a sprained ankle running away from a bear is attribute as a bear incident in the park's eyes.........

You can't exactly blame the bear for that. :)

I personally would not worry about bear encounters. You may see one but treat them with respect and you should be fine. GSMNP has it's own bear page.
http://www.nps.gov/grsm/naturescience/black-bears.htm#CP_JUMP_95932

TNhiker
06-05-2014, 14:26
You can't exactly blame the bear for that. :)



no.......but in the park's eyes----its noted as a bear incident and it has to be recorded and kept track of............

HooKooDooKu
06-05-2014, 14:39
that is not correct... ...there have been numerous injuries due to bears...
So I did a quick bit of googling to see if I could put a number on the injuries due to bears in GSMNP.

At first, about all I could find was a handful of new stories about attacks suggesting that about half-dozen people have been injured in recent years.
I then found this news story (http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/26886329.html) from 2008 about the 8yo boy that was attacked. That new story stated

black bears have injured people eight times in the past decade in the Great Smokies

That all seems to suggest an average of about 1 person per year is injured in GSMNP by a black bear.

Can you call that "almost none"??? Well keep in mind that millions of people visit GSMNP every year.

Another thing to keep in mind. Being in the back country does not seem to increase your risk of attack by a black bear.
I have spent most of my hours in GSMNP in the back country... with front country time pretty much limited to gaining access to the back country. Yet over half of the bears I've ever seen over the years in GSMNP were in front country locations. Of the ones I've seen in the back country, over half of those were within 1 mile of the trail head.

I also found the preview to a white paper published decades ago on the subject of black bear incidences in GSMNP between 1964 and 1976. During that time, there were 107 personal injuries, of which only 7 occurred in the back country. (BTW, many of the injuries at that time were related to people feeding and even petting bears. Since that time, NPS efforts have greatly reduced the rate of personal injuries)

TNhiker
06-05-2014, 15:04
Can you call that "almost none"??? Well keep in mind that millions of people visit GSMNP every year



i can't.....

especially after reading kim's book...........along with (im in the tv news business) covering multiple bear stories over the years ive been here.......such as the laurel falls one and the kid who got attacked....

and yes, being in the backcountry i think actually reduces bear incidents.....

reason why is that the bears in the backcountry arent used to humans and will typically run away.....

and yes, most of the bear incidents of current time have been in the front country........

in the backcountry (along lakeshore drive and hannah mountain), i have had two separate 7 bear days.....as in, seeing 7 bears along the trail......and all have run away after either smelling me, seeing me, or hearing me.........one of those 7 bear days, i also saw 5 hogs.......and those im more afraid of as they are, unlike bears, unpredictable......

but, going back to the original question-----for the most part---except for the at which is heavily traveled along with having resident shelter bears----to me, bear bells and bear spray are a waste of weight.......and money........

Pedaling Fool
06-05-2014, 15:07
That article says they get 9 million visitors per year. I do wonder how those 9 million spend their time in the park; probably don't do much more than stop at a visitors center(s) and gift shops as they drive thru.

WRT that boy, the experts seem puzzeled as to why a bear would attack an 8-y/o boy, to me it's simple -- predation.

Kids are small and non-threatening and if the parent(s) are not close enough then it's fair game in their eyes and in the eyes of nature.

Furthermore, as the bears get use to seeing us as non-threat, since hunting isn't allowed and they see tons of people, then the proximity of parents to kids needs to be even closer. The idea that bear only want our people-food is naive, unless you understand that kids are seen as food; bears look at them very differently than large adults.

TNhiker
06-05-2014, 15:53
The kid and his family also had eaten Kentucky fried chicken either on the way to the trailhead or at the trailhead......

FarmerChef
06-05-2014, 16:14
The kid and his family also had eaten Kentucky fried chicken either on the way to the trailhead or at the trailhead......

If that's true and the child was not tidy in eating there would be a strong odor. I know my 9 year old boy gets food all over him when we go hiking. If in doubt we only let him wear the clothes the food has touched during the day but keeping food odors off of a kid is well nigh impossible, imo and experience.

HooKooDooKu
06-05-2014, 16:31
...to me, bear bells and bear spray [in the GSMNP] are a waste of weight.......and money........
The majority of experienced GSMNP hikers would agree.

Pedaling Fool
06-05-2014, 16:37
Maybe the kid smell like chicken, maybe not, but that bear did not mistake that kid for a chicken.

If that were me in that creek after just eating a whole bucket of chicken I know that bear would NOT have attacked me. Now if you don't think a bear sees a kid as food, then go ahead and turn your head away from the kids in the woods...I'm sure they'll be ok:rolleyes:


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bear-kills-baby-in-upstate-ny/


Excerpt:

"A bear killed a 5-month-old girl Monday after knocking her out of a stroller and dragging the infant into the woods, police said.

The baby had been near the porch of a vacation bungalow with family members when the black bear approached, said Fallsburg Police Chief Brent Lawrence.

The mother shuttled her 4- and 2-year-old children inside, Lawrence said. When she returned outside, the infant was gone.

Witnesses told police the young bear had little Ester Schwimmer in its mouth as it ambled into dense woods 20 feet from the bungalow."

FarmerChef
06-05-2014, 16:43
Maybe the kid smell like chicken, maybe not, but that bear did not mistake that kid for a chicken.

If that were me in that creek after just eating a whole bucket of chicken I know that bear would NOT have attacked me. Now if you don't think a bear sees a kid as food, then go ahead and turn your head away from the kids in the woods...I'm sure they'll be ok:rolleyes:


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bear-kills-baby-in-upstate-ny/


Excerpt:

"A bear killed a 5-month-old girl Monday after knocking her out of a stroller and dragging the infant into the woods, police said.

The baby had been near the porch of a vacation bungalow with family members when the black bear approached, said Fallsburg Police Chief Brent Lawrence.

The mother shuttled her 4- and 2-year-old children inside, Lawrence said. When she returned outside, the infant was gone.

Witnesses told police the young bear had little Ester Schwimmer in its mouth as it ambled into dense woods 20 feet from the bungalow."

Attacked perhaps not but come to investigate possibly. I agree that a child to a predatory animal looks like an easy target. That's the nature of predation. A child covered in bits of KFC smells much more tantalizing than a child without food on them. And I'm stressing that many children get food on them while hiking. So it's not predictive of a bear attack.

TNhiker
06-05-2014, 17:15
from the article--

"The boys' father, John Pala, and Alex, 9, pulled the bear off of Evan, but Evan tripped and the bear attacked the boy again, John Pala said. He and Alex again pulled the bear off.John Pala said the family, who flew to town from Boca Raton, Fla., for vacation, had just finished a meal of KFC chicken but didn't take it on the trail. They didn't have any food with them, John Pala said."



along with--
""I looked around and he was on his four feet," then reared up, said Evan Pala, 8, who was playing near a creek with his brother, Alex. "He came at me too fast. I called "bear!" He jumped on me. I was screaming.""



here's the whole article...
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/aug/12/he-jumped-me-boy-details-bear-attack-smokies/



the sad part was (and i heard this on the tape after one of my coworkers interviewed him and the dad)----the kid had stated he didnt want to go hiking as he was afraid of bears......dad said dont worry.........they go hiking.....get attacked.....

kid afterwards when asked if he is going to go hiking again-----nope..........not anymore......

Pedaling Fool
06-05-2014, 17:16
I agree that it would be smart to keep kids clean of all food, both themselves and their clothing; however, the idea that food causes bears to attack (or investigate) I believe is a myth. Sure if you leave your tent or pack unattended then a bear is going to investigate that pack/tent. And if your kid is covered in food scent, then there is an increased chance of that attracting a bear, but once the bear gets there now you have a bear that notices that the food smell is nothing more than that, a smell, now the kid becomes the food, but he does NOT need a kid smelling like food to attack. That is the myth.

The problem is we don't really have enough information on attacks, even the ones that result in deaths. Couple that fact with all the bear advocates out there that are saying bears don't eat people and that gives us another myth.

Look at this story and this one lady was carrying a pack of food in GSMNP, but the bear went after her and left the pack of food alone http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=GSIqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=sS8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6831,4613259

In that story (link above) they mention other attacks in other areas, but not much information; however, everyone seems to assume people-food was somehow involved and I believe that's because it's something the bear experts (many of which are bear advocates to the point of marring reality) always say and people just keep repeating it.


Bears are predators, not great predators, but nonetheless they are predators. I'm not paranoid; I'll continue sleeping with my food, but I'm starting to question conventional wisdom of black bears attacking because we smell like people-food. When bears start stealing backpacks off people's backs then I'll reconsider.

TNhiker
06-05-2014, 17:20
however, the idea that food causes bears to attack (or investigate) I believe is a myth




maybe you should also ask the guy that was at CS 86 (hazel creek) that had food in his tent and in the middle of the night, a bear ripped open his tent to try to get at the food.....

TNhiker
06-05-2014, 17:22
as for the glenda bradley incident-----that happened on a sunday afternoon...

on the friday before----i happened to be at pretty much the same spot when i was warned by other people that there were two bears in the area and they were basically stalking hikers along the trail......

i came home........went to work sunday.......and heard about the death........and had to go cover the various press conferences on the monday morning.....

Pedaling Fool
06-05-2014, 17:36
as for the glenda bradley incident-----that happened on a sunday afternoon...

on the friday before----i happened to be at pretty much the same spot when i was warned by other people that there were two bears in the area and they were basically stalking hikers along the trail......

i came home........went to work sunday.......and heard about the death........and had to go cover the various press conferences on the monday morning.....


I"m not familar with exactly what case you're referring to, but I do know bears in various areas have learned new behaviors, but that is different, that's learned behavior.

I'm talking about using this explanation to describe bear behavior in the big picture (or the entire population).

However, there are areas where the bears have had very good sucess in getting at our food, such as parks and campgrounds and places where people hang their food and in those cases I would agree that the bear has learned a new behavior and if that area also prohibits bear hunting that only adds to the fearless factor and the aggressiveness of the bears to get at our food. And in those areas it may one day be possible that bears learn to steal backpacks off of people, but they haven't gotten that brave yet, but again that is learned behavior.

You can see this learned behaviour in the entire animal world, but what is faulty is to apply that behavior to all bears.

TNhiker
06-05-2014, 17:38
I"m not familar with exactly what case you're referring to



that's the case that you provided a link for.........

Pedaling Fool
06-05-2014, 17:42
that's the case that you provided a link for.........
I miss-quoted, I meant to quote the one about the bear ripping open the tent for food.

TNhiker
06-05-2014, 17:43
I meant to quote the one about the bear ripping open the tent for food.



it happened back in 2010.....i cant seem to find a link for it......