Hiked the Smokies

[uatuba]

I just got back from my 5.5 day trip through the Smokies from the Fontana Marina to I-40. I really enjoyed the actual hike, and was surprised at (but prepared for) the remote nature of it, Clingmans and Newfound Gap notwithstanding.

I am confused about something...why does the park keep and maintain horse hitching rails and allow horses to graze and pee and crap all over the place, yet they can't put up a few poles for hammockers (or even allow them to use trees)? Perhaps they should allow hammocking at any time other than in the bubble, say June 1 to December 31.

Has there been any push to allow hammocking? I can't possibly see how a hammock could do more damage than a horse. The shelter experience which I detest and the inflexibility of the reservations (I could have pushed on for two days when the weather was nice) were a real bummer for an otherwise excellent trip.

[Starchild]

Two different issues.

Horses were historically used in this area as transportation and allowed long before the park existed and was part of the concession to allow the park to come about as I understand it, also they (horse clubs) are a great help to maintain the trail by pacing up supplies to keep the trail and shelter sites in order.

Hammocking, OTHO was something I put in my reports when I was ridgerunning here. Many backpackers and in particular thru hikers now hammock and there is simply no accommodation for them. I am sad to see it still exists like this.

[MuddyWaters]

I am confused about something...why does the park keep and maintain horse hitching rails and allow horses to graze and pee and crap all over the place, yet they can't put up a few poles for hammockers (or even allow them to use trees)? Perhaps they should allow hammocking at any time other than in the bubble, say June 1 to December 31.

Has there been any push to allow hammocking? I can't possibly see how a hammock could do more damage than a horse. The shelter experience which I detest and the inflexibility of the reservations (I could have pushed on for two days when the weather was nice) were a real bummer for an otherwise excellent trip.

Cant make everyone happy, the list will never end.

I cant believe there are handicapped accessible privys, and not handicapped accessible sleeping bunks in shelters.....yet. Just wait.

More people would like to see electric receptacles for charging ithingys than hammocks. Way more. Should we listent to them too?

[TNhiker]

I cant believe there are handicapped accessible privys



theres one at Leconte....

[Uncle Joe]

I don't think a request for hammocking is on par with electrical outlets and handicap access. Sorry, apples and oranges. Hammock access requires nothing but the permission to do it. No funding, not materials (unless you really want poles to hang from, which I don't). There are plenty of trees in the park that can accommodate a hang.

[MuddyWaters]

I don't think a request for hammocking is on par with electrical outlets and handicap access. Sorry, apples and oranges. Hammock access requires nothing but the permission to do it. No funding, not materials (unless you really want poles to hang from, which I don't). There are plenty of trees in the park that can accommodate a hang.

Hanging repeatedly on the same trees in area of a shelter would damage them. A trees life is in the cambium, just under the bark. Girdling the tree will kill it, even with 2" web with repeated use over time on same trees.

The forces generated by hammocks are huge, particularly when people plop onto them.
10,000-30,0000 lbs. A small pole wouldnt last, or be safe. This is also why not allowed to hang on shelters.

A small area has been designated sacrificial for shelters to protect area along AT. Thats it. People dont sleep in hammocks at home, they dont have to sleep in one in gsmnp. Please cite one good reason , why special expensive efforts or environmental concessions should be made for a small user group that wants to do things their favorite way.

Because there are hundreds of such small groups. You cant fixate on one.

[uatuba]

Cant make everyone happy, the list will never end.

I cant believe there are handicapped accessible privys, and not handicapped accessible sleeping bunks in shelters.....yet. Just wait.

More people would like to see electric receptacles for charging ithingys than hammocks. Way more. Should we listent to them too?

You're conflating convenience and allowance. The current system is unsafe and it encourages dishonesty. If I, as a section hiker, am forced to push on to my reserved shelter despite weather, injury, loss of supplies, etc., that could pose a number of dangers that would be eliminated by allowing individuals to hammock at their convenience in designated sites. And as has already been stated, simply fixing the rules would cost nothing, other than changing the signs that state that hammocking is not allowed.

[Starchild]

....The forces generated by hammocks are huge, particularly when people plop onto them.
10,000-30,0000 lbs. A small pole wouldnt last, or be safe. This is also why not allowed to hang on shelters.
...
While the force applied is usually much higher than the hanger assumes, I think you are off by a order of magnitude. 1000 - 3000 lbs 'plop' force sounds more correct.

[Rex Clifton]

Hanging repeatedly on the same trees in area of a shelter would damage them. A trees life is in the cambium, just under the bark. Girdling the tree will kill it, even with 2" web with repeated use over time on same trees.

The forces generated by hammocks are huge, particularly when people plop onto them.
10,000-30,0000 lbs. A small pole wouldnt last, or be safe. This is also why not allowed to hang on shelters.

A small area has been designated sacrificial for shelters to protect area along AT. Thats it. People dont sleep in hammocks at home, they dont have to sleep in one in gsmnp.

I don't believe what you say to be the case. I have come across old growth trees that have been used for pulleys during logging operations. These trees had steel cables wrapped around them that, over time, became imbedded into their bark They were were doing just fine. A properly strung hammock is no more damaging to a tree than you leaning against it. No, this is just another example of mindless regulations that make the National Parks an abomination, and the reason I avoid them like the plague.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Starchild]

You're conflating convenience and allowance. The current system is unsafe and it encourages dishonesty.
Well any rule encourages dishonesty.



If I, as a section hiker, am forced to push on to my reserved shelter despite weather, injury, loss of supplies, etc., that could pose a number of dangers that would be eliminated by allowing individuals to hammock at their convenience in designated sites. This is one of the arguments against the Smokies backcountry reservation system. But has nothing to do with hanging, everyone is in the same boat here.



And as has already been stated, simply fixing the rules would cost nothing, other than changing the signs that state that hammocking is not allowed.
Hammocks are allowed, you can carry them freely without a permit.
Hanging is allowed at campsites, and also allowed at full shelters on the AT if one has a AT thru hiking permit and there is no room for you in it.

[Rain Man]

A properly strung hammock is no more damaging to a tree than you leaning against it. No, this is just another example of mindless regulations...

Mindless lack of understanding of simple physics, if you believe that.

[uatuba]

I can cite a number of good reasons. Sleep apnea being one of them...unless we expect the park to install CPAP machines in the shelters.

It's also more sanitary. It also allows for better protection of equipment from rodent damage or theft. It also would allow for flexible hiking.

Your force calculations are off by an exponential factor, but that really doesn't matter...poles in public parks have been in place for a decade with near constant use, and they have lasted plenty long enough. I imagine a horse getting spoiled and jerking on a rail would generate more force than a 250 lb hammocker. It seems like those rails have been there for a while.

[MuddyWaters]

While the force applied is usually much higher than the hanger assumes, I think you are off by a order of magnitude. 1000 - 3000 lbs 'plop' force sounds more correct.

Yep
point was the pole must withstand the torque the hammock places on it. The leverage of attaching the hammock several feet above ground multiplies the load as you go down the shaft of the pole . At the base the pole must withstand bending torque about 6x the force applied, depending on height. Worst case, flat pitch and fooling around results in needing a very stout pole to be idiot proof and last. 3000 lb force , maybe 2000 horizontal ( not gonna do math), is abot 12000 ft lbs of torque on pole. It not a tiny pole if top not supported also. Hard to sink in rock too Id guess.

[HooKooDooKu]

Hammocks are allowed in GSMNP, but there are three important rules:
1. Hammocks should use "tree saver straps".
2. Hammocks may not be attached to buildings or other structures.
3. Hammock hangers must follow rules for tenting.

The implication of #3 is that the only time a hammock can legally be used at a shelter site is by a thru hiker when the shelter is full.

While a properly hung hammock with wide straps won't harm a mature tree, the ground under the hammock will get stamped down from repeated use like the ground under defacto tent pads. So to generally allow hammocks at shelters would negate the reason for the shelter.

[HooKooDooKu]

If I, as a section hiker, am forced to push on to my reserved shelter despite weather, injury, loss of supplies, etc., that could pose a number of dangers that would be eliminated by allowing individuals to hammock at their convenience in designated sites. And as has already been stated, simply fixing the rules would cost nothing, other than changing the signs that state that hammocking is not allowed.
First of all, the park service NEVER expects you to put "rules" above safety.
Second of all, you are assuming the rules are "broken". The park service has been saddled with the dual mandate of protecting the park AND making it available for our use. The way GSMNP has decided to fulfill that dual mandate is to attempt to concentrate those activities that cause damage (camping) by implementing a limited number of campsites and shelters so that the rest of the park can remain relatively pristine. Even if a hammock does no damage to the trees, the ground under a hammock still gets trampled on by hammock users. So in that regards, I fully understand the concept that the park service has decided that rules that apply to tent campers apply to hammock campers as well.

[evyck da fleet]

You're conflating convenience and allowance. The current system is unsafe and it encourages dishonesty. If I, as a section hiker, am forced to push on to my reserved shelter despite weather, injury, loss of supplies, etc., that could pose a number of dangers that would be eliminated by allowing individuals to hammock at their convenience in designated sites. And as has already been stated, simply fixing the rules would cost nothing, other than changing the signs that state that hammocking is not allowed.

I'm not sure how hammocking is any different than tenting. Wouldn't someone carrying a tent have the same issues? Either way repeated use will leave a trace hence the designated shelter areas. Everyone should carry a shelter, reservation or not, which can be used if the shelter is full.

As much as I dislike rules ( no you can't camp wherever you please) when it comes to hiking, at times they are necessary. If I hike the Smokies I accept the rules. I'd prefer that to an endless stream of tp flowers throughout the park or arriving at a shelter with 100 people who all thought it'd be a great place to camp that weekend.

[Gambit McCrae]

All reasons stated for wanting to hammock are or will be negated by the fact that the rules are the rules. There are very unique plant life's that grow at those elevations found no where else along the AT. People put straps on the trees and there goes the fungi, moss and other different species. I am not a plant person so excuse my ignorance in terminologies. It isn't going to kill anyone to play by the rules, thro down a pad, pop in some earplugs and enjoy the great experience of hiking thru the smokies. If you are a completion purest and haven't done the smokies then pull four 18's, get thru park and be done with it. Or don't do it.

"I love hiking with my dog, he's not allowed in GSMNP can we change the rules?" No, the answer is no because its a rule. They didn't make the rules because you want to do it and therefore they don't want you to be happy. They made the rule because at some point it wasn't a rule, and was causing a negative impact.

Not yes the hiking world is evolving, hammocks are becoming very popular and I would consider the hammock world to be a great deal larger then "a handful" - And I do not see a problem with a action plan to update the camping site with some poles organized to hold hammocks, this would require labor and funds, for it to be laid out, and go thru the government. Then as well the website would have to be updated for registration efforts to not hold open hammock only reservations.

[Deacon]

theres one at Leconte....

They are springing up all along the VT section of the AT, in the most inaccessible places!

[JumpMaster Blaster]

You're conflating convenience and allowance. The current system is unsafe and it encourages dishonesty. If I, as a section hiker, am forced to push on to my reserved shelter despite weather, injury, loss of supplies, etc., that could pose a number of dangers that would be eliminated by allowing individuals to hammock at their convenience in designated sites. And as has already been stated, simply fixing the rules would cost nothing, other than changing the signs that state that hammocking is not allowed.

Having been around a ridgerunner for a few days during my hike in the GSMNP last May, if you are injured or escaping inclement weather, you're not going to be drawn and quartered like you think. Of course, dishonest people will bend the rules.

[BuckeyeBill]

This horse (no pun intended) has been beaten to death many times before. The permit and registration system in the GSMNP has been in effect I believe since 2012. It came about because of the overcrowding at shelters and numerous people stealth camping inside the park. Even now the ATC is asking, not requiring, people to schedule their departure date on their website, in order to avoid overcrowding along the whole trail. Baxter State Park has instituted a permit system to go on the trail up to Mt. Katahdin. All three examples are caused by overcrowding. Some people, myself included, put a lot of the blame on a movie about two friends hiking the AT. It is felt that this brought about a huge amount of attention to the trail that resulted in certain people with no previous hiking experience and that don't have a clue how difficult a thru hike is to complete. They go out and buy equipment without researching it and usually end up bringing way too much stuff and or the wrong type of gear. You will find it on the stairs on the approach trail and along the trail north of Springer Mountain just lying on the ground. They have no concept of LNT principles.

Now getting back to the Smokies, I will tell you up front that I personally detest shelters. Between the mouse poop, food stains, stains left by people who got sick (read puked) and the stinking, dirty, farting, belching, snoring hikers (nothing personal), just let me camp away from the shelter. I also don't want mice running back and forth over me all night or bugs that can give me certain diseases. I am the one that will setup in a shelter, but will gladly give up my spot to a late arriving hiker.

Some have mention the damage to the trees and and the ground that hammock hangers cause. A veteran hanger carefully chooses their spot. Live trees, no dead ones, that are the correct diameter (12 inch minimum for me) as well as the correct distance apart (15 feet minimum though I prefer 18 feet when I can find it.). Are there any widow makers overhead (dead branches that can fall on me). The correct distance from water sources (200 feet recommended). Ground underneath, is it the point of not being able to be reclaimed? If it is use it, but if there a tent camper there and it is a level area, leave it for the them, as a hammock can hang over slanted ground. If the area is capable of being reclaimed, leave it alone and find somewhere to hang. As a last resort we use virgin areas. After such use, we will do our best to restore it to it previous condition. Chances are low that another hiker will use that exact same spot.

The physics of hammock hanging is complex and should be left to the Sheldon Coopers of the world. Derek Hansen has a neat calculator (https://theultimatehang.com/hammock-hang-calculator/) on his website that shows you how changes in one aspect of the hang can effect to rest of the dynamics. It also shows the shear force applied to the tree at the strap height.

[tdoczi]

This horse (no pun intended) has been beaten to death many times before. The permit and registration system in the GSMNP has been in effect I believe since 2012. It came about because of the overcrowding at shelters and numerous people stealth camping inside the park. Even now the ATC is asking, not requiring, people to schedule their departure date on their website, in order to avoid overcrowding along the whole trail. Baxter State Park has instituted a permit system to go on the trail up to Mt. Katahdin. All three examples are caused by overcrowding. Some people, myself included, put a lot of the blame on a movie about two friends hiking the AT. It is felt that this brought about a huge amount of attention to the trail that resulted in certain people with no previous hiking experience and that don't have a clue how difficult a thru hike is to complete. They go out and buy equipment without researching it and usually end up bringing way too much stuff and or the wrong type of gear. You will find it on the stairs on the approach trail and along the trail north of Springer Mountain just lying on the ground. They have no concept of LNT principles.

Now getting back to the Smokies, I will tell you up front that I personally detest shelters. Between the mouse poop, food stains, stains left by people who got sick (read puked) and the stinking, dirty, farting, belching, snoring hikers (nothing personal), just let me camp away from the shelter. I also don't want mice running back and forth over me all night or bugs that can give me certain diseases. I am the one that will setup in a shelter, but will gladly give up my spot to a late arriving hiker.

Some have mention the damage to the trees and and the ground that hammock hangers cause. A veteran hanger carefully chooses their spot. Live trees, no dead ones, that are the correct diameter (12 inch minimum for me) as well as the correct distance apart (15 feet minimum though I prefer 18 feet when I can find it.). Are there any widow makers overhead (dead branches that can fall on me). The correct distance from water sources (200 feet recommended). Ground underneath, is it the point of not being able to be reclaimed? If it is use it, but if there a tent camper there and it is a level area, leave it for the them, as a hammock can hang over slanted ground. If the area is capable of being reclaimed, leave it alone and find somewhere to hang. As a last resort we use virgin areas. After such use, we will do our best to restore it to it previous condition. Chances are low that another hiker will use that exact same spot.

The physics of hammock hanging is complex and should be left to the Sheldon Coopers of the world. Derek Hansen has a neat calculator (https://theultimatehang.com/hammock-hang-calculator/) on his website that shows you how changes in one aspect of the hang can effect to rest of the dynamics. It also shows the shear force applied to the tree at the strap height.

or for pete's NO ONE SAW THAT MOVIE.

it was huge flop. massive. the 8 people who did see it were elderly women and i think most of them have no interest in thru hiking.

[BuckeyeBill]

Which movie, I didn't say the name.

[tdoczi]

Which movie, I didn't say the name.
the only one about 2 friends hiking the AT thats been out into wide release and that some people like to scapegoat for the trails overcrowding issues.

[Time Zone]

Worst case, flat pitch and fooling around results in needing a very stout pole to be idiot proof and last. 3000 lb force , maybe 2000 horizontal ( not gonna do math), is abot 12000 ft lbs of torque on pole.

worst case = tree tents. I'll agree with you there, flat pitch is not good for trees.

But hammocks are not supposed to be hung at 0 degree angle - and from what I've seen, most hammock campers know this. Backyard hammock stands basically wouldn't exist (for long) if hammockers tried to hang at a flat pitch. At the recommended 30 degree angle, hammocks won't harm most trees/bark, and will only have cord tension equal to the weight of the hanger. Shear force even less, according to Derek Hansen's Hammock Hang Calculator:

https://theultimatehang.com/hammock-hang-calculator/

Many hammockers also know that positioning one's body on a 20 degree diagonal to the centerline can simulate a flat pitch lay without forgoing the suspension hang angle needed to protect the trees.

[Time Zone]

or for pete's NO ONE SAW THAT MOVIE.

it was huge flop. massive. the 8 people who did see it were elderly women and i think most of them have no interest in thru hiking.

Per IMDB:
Budget $8M, Gross $29.5M (domestic only - many movies make the bulk of their money overseas)

The book was better, but the movie was OK. And I'm not an old woman.

I'd be glad to be part of any massive flop in the future that will earn 3-4x my money in 18 months. Sign me up!

[BuckeyeBill]

the only one about 2 friends hiking the AT thats been out into wide release and that some people like to scapegoat for the trails overcrowding issues.

Straight from the ATC website:

With the release of two thru-hike related major motion pictures in 2015 ("Wild" and "A Walk in the Woods"), the number of new hikers is projected to increase dramatically.

Oh and your eight elderly ladies that saw the movie must be rich since the tickets cost them $4,500,000 each.

[Venchka]

Straight from the ATC website:

With the release of two thru-hike related major motion pictures in 2015 ("Wild" and "A Walk in the Woods"), the number of new hikers is projected to increase dramatically.

Oh and your eight elderly ladies that saw the movie must be rich since the tickets cost them $4,500,000 each.

Thanks for the chuckle Y'all.
Two Old Couples.
The movie was ludicrous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tdoczi]

Straight from the ATC website:

With the release of two thru-hike related major motion pictures in 2015 ("Wild" and "A Walk in the Woods"), the number of new hikers is projected to increase dramatically.

Oh and your eight elderly ladies that saw the movie must be rich since the tickets cost them $4,500,000 each.
projected. a projection that never came to pass, for better or worse.

4.5 million times 8 is 36 million dollars. that my dear friend, is a gigantic box office flop. no two ways about it.

i daresay there are more people, even after all of these years, who are hiking the trail because they read the book than because they saw the movie.

and beyond that, you say yourself, the GSMNP regs were implemented in 2012.... what, they were getting ready for the post movie influx?? lol the entertainment value of this board can be ever so very high sometimes.

[tdoczi]

Per IMDB:
Budget $8M, Gross $29.5M (domestic only - many movies make the bulk of their money overseas)

The book was better, but the movie was OK. And I'm not an old woman.

I'd be glad to be part of any massive flop in the future that will earn 3-4x my money in 18 months. Sign me up!
29.5 million places it where exactly on the domestic box office gross chart for the year of it's release?

if you take the number of hikers the year after the movie, subtract the number of hikers from the year before the movie, whatever number that is i can guarantee you you will not find that nuber of thru hikers who will say "oh yeah, i wasnt going to hike but then that movie came out..."

some of you like to act like this movie was some massive cultural phenomena that sent droves of new hikers into the woods. it wasnt remotely.

[Starchild]

...
some of you like to act like this movie was some massive cultural phenomena that sent droves of new hikers into the woods. it wasnt remotely.


There is a massive cultural phenomenon that is going on that is sending drives of new hikers into the woods, the movie was just a subset of that. Social media and around here (NY) Meetup.com has introduced many and the numbers of hikers have increased to the point that parking areas that were usually empty except for hiking club outings are becoming regularly overflowing. The AT, which has historically remained quite, as hikers flocked to the Catskills and other trails in the Hudson Highlands is now firmly on their radar and meeting thru hikers part of the highlight of the trip, along with trail magic opportunities.

The larger concern some have is will hiking hit 'critical mass', when it's awareness and popularity starts attracting exponentially more hikers thus increasing awareness and popularity even more and so on the trend continues. Some feared it was not the movie in itself, but the increased popularity and awareness of the trail would the scales to this ever growing trend. It is still too early to tell if the increase in number of hikers will level off or continue to grow, and if there is a way to have the trails sustain this growth.

And we have spillovers into different aspects of life where the AT is now relevant. I've already seen a fairly new use of the AT journey, school and college credit. While an educational journey was always part of the thru hiking experience - it was personal and not many took this path, few even knew about it, but I've met more people who are actually getting college credit for a long distance hike on the AT.

I do like to look towards El Camino to see where the AT may be heading, and it's not that far away in some terms. Services for slackpacking aboud on the AT and are growing, (El Camino can be slacked the entire length, 5 Euro's per pack per bounce). More options for overnight and shuttles are on the AT, though still far away from the Camino, but it is common to get questions for sections of the AT where people can hike hostel to hostel. It does appear to me that ATC took 2 pages from El Camino directly, the AT passport (Pilgrim's passport) and the AT yellow tag (scalloped shell) many hikers display. This serves to bond the hiking community but also advertize it. El Camino also has a aspect that many school children use the journey as summer camp and there is a term for them as they are so numerous, will that come to the AT? And if so can the AT handle that? - Perhaps so. The camino shows that hikers are willing to travel in vast numbers, far outstripping the numbers on the AT at present, and the hiking trail footbed (not including the numerous road walks) does not appear worse off then many sections of the heavily used AT, except in a very few sections when one travels in a trench due to centuries of use of a poorly designed trail which allows water to erode it - but these are small sections and a bit fascinating given how many have traveled this.

[tdoczi]

There is a massive cultural phenomenon that is going on that is sending drives of new hikers into the woods, the movie was just a subset of that.

everything you say is accurate except thinking the movie was any part of it at all. if the movie was never made maybe, MAYBE thered be 2 less people thru hiking this year.

MAYBE.

its not the movie's fault.

[Starchild]

everything you say is accurate except thinking the movie was any part of it at all. if the movie was never made maybe, MAYBE thered be 2 less people thru hiking this year.

MAYBE.

its not the movie's fault.
I would tend to agree if we take this a strictly linen as the movies (old media) was brought about more due to social media (new media) that has expanded popularity of the trail, so it was more of a effect and not a cause. However humans work as a complex system where the movies (AWitW, Wild) and books (AWOL, Wild) that happened to come out to cash in in the expanded awareness of the trail at the time where people's awareness of the trail was being expanded.

So I don't think it's so simple to say, as the direct effect of the movies may be small, but the indirect effect may be much larger than one things, and we can also get into tipping point theory, where a little difference can throw the numbers much higher, so the movie may also be looked at with this consideration.

[Starchild]

Going further into the indirect effect of the movies, for many people the movie will be the only exposure to the trail that they know, till they meet a hiker, or thru hiker. So it seems like this has not added any hikers to the trail, but...

Even though the person may never hike it, or even hike at all, their awareness of thru hiking now exists and is something to talk about to the thru hiker when they meet one, or a potential one. This serves in encouragement and expanded support of the AT journey to the hikers they do meet. In my own life I've been bought drinks when they find out I thru hiked and they have only seen the movie - but want to talk about it.

[Venchka]

Please! Social Media! Send the newbies to the greatest thing in dirt. The Wonderful Fabulous AT.
Thank you!
Wayne


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tdoczi]

I would tend to agree if we take this a strictly linen as the movies (old media) was brought about more due to social media (new media) that has expanded popularity of the trail, so it was more of a effect and not a cause. However humans work as a complex system where the movies (AWitW, Wild) and books (AWOL, Wild) that happened to come out to cash in in the expanded awareness of the trail at the time where people's awareness of the trail was being expanded.

So I don't think it's so simple to say, as the direct effect of the movies may be small, but the indirect effect may be much larger than one things, and we can also get into tipping point theory, where a little difference can throw the numbers much higher, so the movie may also be looked at with this consideration.
i get what youre saying, i dont necessarily agree, but i am going to point out that what you are saying and what the first post that brought the movie into this was saying are very different things. your position i am, we'll say, ambivalent towards. the flat out statement that was made that it is because of the movie, i am not.

[BuckeyeBill]

i get what youre saying, i dont necessarily agree, but i am going to point out that what you are saying and what the first post that brought the movie into this was saying are very different things. your position i am, we'll say, ambivalent towards. the flat out statement that was made that it is because of the movie, i am not.

I never said it was the "Star Wars" of hiking movies. Neither was "Wild." But they did bring attention to the two trails, to some that had no clue they even existed. I have met a lot of people that told me they never heard of the AT until they heard about and/or saw the movie. You say the quote from the ATC is "a projection that never came to pass, for better or worse." If your statement is true, explain why Baxter State Park started requiring limited numbers of permits and why the ATC request you register your start date? One word Overcrowding. So if the numbers from the past two years have led to overcrowding, where did the people come from? Maybe those 8 rich elderly ladies told their grandchildren, who told their cousins. I don't throw all of the blame on movies, but we all need to do something before you need a thru-hiker's or section hiker's permit to just be on trail. What if they said next year that in order to be a thru-hiker you had to have documented evidence of previous experience as a hiker with a minimum of 500 miles. What if you had to past a test on LNT, rules and regulations of all the parks you are going to pass through, have a wilderness First-Aid certification and a letter from you doctor that states your heath is OK enough to be on the trail. I hope this never happens, but we have already heard just this past week about a hiker in distress and in need of rescue. I happen to know, not personally, that the cost of a wilderness rescue can be quite large.

Many of us can remember when you had maybe 8-10 people at a shelter in the evening, kicking back and telling lies. You had no cell phone and had to call your family collect from a pay phone while in a town to resupply, to let them know you were OK. There was a day when you told your friends you were going to walk from northern Georgia to the middle of Maine and they were ready to have you committed. Now you tell you are going to do the same thing and they just look at you like your stupid. Same thing happens when you say you are walking from the Mexican border into Canada. Today you just have a lot more people that wish you luck and offer advice.

Since I joined this forum, I have seen a rise in the number of people trying a thru-hike. Then over the past couple of years, it has risen to all new record numbers. Of course we all know that the odds are not in their favor of completing. We now need to obtain three different permits to thru-hike the trail. Are more permits in our future? Who knows. Some clubs even charge a fee to use their shelters. I don't begrudge any of them. With the number of people hitting the trails today they have to do something to prevent overcrowding and offset the cost of maintaining a trail.

To Wayne, I don't do social media. I have a FB account only to keep track of my kids and grandchildren. Who gives a d*mn how many times I go take a c**p? Never did a selfie. Never made a video. Isn't a twitter the thing that butterflies do? There are some great apps for the hiker today, but an app won't walk for you. It won't increase your common sense. It won't cook your meals. It may tell you where you are and where you want to go, but if don't know how to read a map, will you know there is a 500 foot rise in altitude over the next half mile, between where you are and where you want to be? YMMV and HYOH my friends. :)

[Starchild]

.... Isn't a twitter the thing that butterflies do? ...


That would be flutter :D

[BuckeyeBill]

That would be flutter :D

Thank you. :p

[TNhiker]

To Wayne, I don't do social media.



actually you do...

this forum is a form of social media.....

[BuckeyeBill]

actually you do...

this forum is a form of social media.....

d*?*it you got me there.

[Venchka]

LOL!
It's all good.
I've seen the light. No more step for step plans advertised online.
Wayne


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[globetruck]

Hanging repeatedly on the same trees in area of a shelter would damage them. A trees life is in the cambium, just under the bark. Girdling the tree will kill it, even with 2" web with repeated use over time on same trees.

The forces generated by hammocks are huge, particularly when people plop onto them.
10,000-30,0000 lbs. A small pole wouldnt last, or be safe. This is also why not allowed to hang on shelters.

A small area has been designated sacrificial for shelters to protect area along AT. Thats it. People dont sleep in hammocks at home, they dont have to sleep in one in gsmnp. Please cite one good reason , why special expensive efforts or environmental concessions should be made for a small user group that wants to do things their favorite way.

Because there are hundreds of such small groups. You cant fixate on one.

Wow you really seem to be into LNT. Do you pack out your own CO2?

[Uncle Joe]

Hanging repeatedly on the same trees in area of a shelter would damage them. A trees life is in the cambium, just under the bark. Girdling the tree will kill it, even with 2" web with repeated use over time on same trees.
The forces generated by hammocks are huge, particularly when people plop onto them.
10,000-30,0000 lbs. A small pole wouldnt last, or be safe. This is also why not allowed to hang on shelters.
A small area has been designated sacrificial for shelters to protect area along AT. Thats it. People dont sleep in hammocks at home, they dont have to sleep in one in gsmnp. Please cite one good reason , why special expensive efforts or environmental concessions should be made for a small user group that wants to do things their favorite way.

Because there are hundreds of such small groups. You cant fixate on one.

Im not fixated on anything. I'm just saying that allowing hammocks isn't the same as running power. I hammocked in GA pretty much my entire section hike and it cost no one anything except me. No one stood a poll up for me. I won't cite anything because I don't believe any effort is necessary to accommodate hammocks. As for forces on a tree, show me some damage reports of trees dying along the AT due to hammocks and I might take your concerns more seriously. I will, however, give some credit to the notion given the volume of hikers in the GSMNP damage might be a concern from repeated use at the same location. But it is now with shelters.

Frankly, the park doesn't sound very inviting. You can't hammock and you virtually can't tent camp either.

[TNhiker]

You can't hammock and you virtually can't tent camp either.



there are 104 campsites in the Park.....

of those---only 15 don't allow tent or hammocks.....and all of those are shelters...

that leaves 89 other places to tent and hammock......

[BuckeyeBill]

there are 104 campsites in the Park.....

of those---only 15 don't allow tent or hammocks.....and all of those are shelters...

that leaves 89 other places to tent and hammock......

i don't want to argue, but can you tell me how many of those campsites are adjacent to the AT. I know I could look it up, but you have the info close at hand. Also are any of those close to the AT on the list that don't allow tents/hammocks.

[TNhiker]

https://www.nps.gov/grsm/planyourvisit/upload/GSMNP-Map_JUNE14-complete4-2.pdf

[TNhiker]

I should have included the whole paragraph I was quoting

which was


Frankly, the park doesn't sound very inviting. You can't hammock and you virtually can't tent camp either.




so i responded with plenty of other places within the Park that are inviting.....

[Starchild]

i don't want to argue, but can you tell me how many of those campsites are adjacent to the AT. I know I could look it up, but you have the info close at hand. Also are any of those close to the AT on the list that don't allow tents/hammocks.

One. Campsite 113. Frequently closed due to bear activity. You can drop off the ridge and hit more but really it's always quite a bit of Vertical

The only practical way to hang the AT would be to thru hike the required distance to get a thru hike percent and go during the bubble. Not assured that the shelter will be full but if crowded enough it will be. Ironically to intensify usage would be the only way to do that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BuckeyeBill]

One. Campsite 113. Frequently closed due to bear activity. You can drop off the ridge and hit more but really it's always quite a bit of Vertical

The only practical way to hang the AT would be to thru hike the required distance to get a thru hike percent and go during the bubble. Not assured that the shelter will be full but if crowded enough it will be. Ironically to intensify usage would be the only way to do that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks, It has been a while since I have been to GSMNP. Parents use to go there all the time and the older I got, the more burned out I got. I remember how beautiful it is. May have to drop down for a week or so and get my fix.https://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[Uncle Joe]

there are 104 campsites in the Park.....
of those---only 15 don't allow tent or hammocks.....and all of those are shelters...
that leaves 89 other places to tent and hammock......

Cool! That's good to know.

[HooKooDooKu]

i don't want to argue, but can you tell me how many of those campsites are adjacent to the AT. I know I could look it up, but you have the info close at hand. Also are any of those close to the AT on the list that don't allow tents/hammocks.
It's not practical to do a thru hike in the Smokies and expect to hang unless you go during the bubble.

With the exception of the previously mentioned Campsite #113 (~4 miles north of Fontana Dam), all the camping along the AT in GSMNP is at shelters. No other campsites are within two miles of the AT, and none that are less than a 1,500' elevation decent off the AT.

[BuckeyeBill]

It's not practical to do a thru hike in the Smokies and expect to hang unless you go during the bubble.

With the exception of the previously mentioned Campsite #113 (~4 miles north of Fontana Dam), all the camping along the AT in GSMNP is at shelters. No other campsites are within two miles of the AT, and none that are less than a 1,500' elevation decent off the AT.

Thanks, I kind of figured that the way it is. I was hoping to hold out on the shelter spot until the last minute and or give up my spot to a late arrival.

[Tundracamper]

No answer to your question. As I recall, the smokies were mostly logging land. But, we can't do so much as lean against a tree now.

http://www.tnmagazine.org/before-the-national-park-large-parts-of-the-smokies-were-clear-cut/