View Full Version : Bushwhacking in the smokey mountains?
EarlyStarter
02-10-2009, 18:10
The thing I'm looking forward to the most in my through hike is seeing the smokey mountains. I am also considering going off the trail for a couple of days to bushwhack in the smokey mountains. Is there a law that says I cant do this or just a really good reason etc.?
I have a friend who was a ranger at the park and liked to fly fish and he would take off into the woods (not on a trail) for a couple of days at a time. He was following streams though. I dont know if that is bushwacking or not.
Jack Tarlin
02-10-2009, 18:15
Park officials don't recommend it.
And if you get lost or hurt in the backcountry there on a side trail (or worse, OFF a side trail), you're gonna be out there for awhile, like maybe forever.
GSMNP gets a ton of visitors, but there are still areas that get little traffic.
If you decide to bushwhack, especially early or late in the season, bring map and compass, be careful, and most of all, let someone know where you'll be, and when you're expected back.
EarlyStarter
02-10-2009, 18:17
Cool, thanks. That's exactly the answer I wanted, especially because a park ranger did that.
Ramble~On
02-10-2009, 18:27
It might be one thing for a ranger to do and another for a park visitor to do. I'd contact them and base your decision off of what they have to tell you. Yes, people do it - and enjoy it:) but there are some things that you should be aware of first and the source of that info is the GSMNP 865-436-1297 or 865-436-1200
hootyhoo
02-10-2009, 18:44
In order to bushwhack you had to ( a few years ago) get permission from the park superintendent. The main reason is if you intend to camp in a non-desginated site. He has to see your gear and ask you some questions. I think they stopped the strip search, but have a BM before you go just in case.
Or... you could call and ask what the current protocal is. They will try to disuade you, but by law you can hike off trail and camp off trail -- with special permission - or at least you used to be able to.
flemdawg1
02-10-2009, 18:49
You'll need a Cross-country permit, according to pg 13 of this:
http://www.nps.gov/grsm/parkmgmt/upload/07%20Compendium.pdf
humunuku
02-10-2009, 18:50
the older smokies trail book by Wise, has several "manways" in it, you could do those, and not see many people and still kinda have a trail...the book is selling for a fortune right now, so check you library for it.
Ramble~On
02-10-2009, 19:14
Photographers, fishermen and others venture off the beaten path quite often in the GSMNP...not to mention biologists and other scientists.
New species of things are being found and their discovery usually involves cross country travel. The first number I listed is for backcountry info, the second is for the superintendent's office.
SGT Rock
02-10-2009, 19:50
I called the baccountry permit ranger - I didn't need a permit as long as I was not going to camp in the back country.
Cannibal
02-10-2009, 19:52
Just tell them your looking for airplane wreckage, then be a total ass in the shelters towards thru-hikers; they'll believe you.
Just tell them your looking for airplane wreckage, then be a total ass in the shelters towards thru-hikers; they'll believe you.
No we won't!
I called the baccountry permit ranger - I didn't need a permit as long as I was not going to camp in the back country.
Again, SGT Rock gives sound advice.
krummholz
02-16-2009, 16:19
If you are bushwhacking as a side trip from the AT in the Smokies, that means you're going to be doing a down-then-up bushwhack. Instead of doing it from one of the highest parts of the AT, maybe do something like take the Groundhog Ridge manway down from Cammerer and then go back up the Toms Creek drainage. The thing is, though, I'm sure you've probably figured out that you REALLY need to have good navigational skills to do something like this. Have the USGS maps and assume it's going to be very, very slow working through the rhodo and other obstacles. And you probably don't want to do it with your full thru-hiker backpack. You'll need a smaller pack for the side trip. It would be best if you had someone to go with you.
Like other people said, there's no rule against hiking off-trail, you just need permission to camp off-trail.
curtisvowen
02-16-2009, 18:22
Day hikin bushwhackin' would be alright, an over nighter would involve getting legal.
Here's something you can do at Newfound Gap area.....
There's an old copper mine below it, (not a shaft, just a dug out) I've often wanted to do this myself, its not far off the trail...maybe 1 miles most, a good half day to do....need to get my vintage 1934 maps out...but that would be Bushwhacking....pick up the old man-ways/wagon trails....hike down...and check it out...
There's the old Indian rock out-cropin/shelter at Tremont, use the rusty Modet T for a guide to find it, but that be to far off for ya.
There's a few more, can't give away all my secrets in detail but I think you'd get the picture.
If anything, hit the tower at White Rock, aka, Mt Camerrer, alot of history, easy side trail. Only 3 of em built East of the Mississippi. Knowing the history and build design makes it enjoyable plus the sunrise/sunset is the bomb!
Curtisvowen, I am not trying to be mean but I dont understand what you are saying?
curtisvowen
02-17-2009, 10:01
Preface: I got my degree from Mattie's Correspondence School.
What part?
I quit school when I was 16, so maybe I'm a little weak in the affairs of pen to paper, but then on the other hand consider my reply as a coded message giving the whereabouts of 2 places within the Park that only a hand-full of people know about that can only be seen/visited by "bushwhackin". A term used to describe a person that whacks bushes etc., etc., etc.,
The 2 part of my attempt at written correspondence was to give a little more detail of the White Rock tower for a better appreciation of it other then the fantastic sunrises/sunsets. A short history lesson.
I hope this helps.
I think it was ol' shake-spear that said correspondence should not be limited by the ties of structured sentext/grammer/correctness.....as long as the other guy knows what the hell your talkin' about
Tipi Walter
02-17-2009, 10:13
You'll need a Cross-country permit, according to pg 13 of this:
http://www.nps.gov/grsm/parkmgmt/upload/07%20Compendium.pdf
Nothing like over-regulation for the foot traveler and none for the car drivers.
I called the baccountry permit ranger - I didn't need a permit as long as I was not going to camp in the back country.
What's the point if I'm not gonna spend the night? Why even go outdoors?
Day hikin bushwhackin' would be alright, an over nighter would involve getting legal.
Day Use Only is about what it's coming to . . . I can't even enter the park for a long backpacking trip due to my dog. But it's open to RVs and horses, go figure.
I get it now its a coded message. O.k. got you. thanks
curtisvowen
02-17-2009, 11:09
How about this.
Below Newfound Gap there is a place that miners used to quarry for copper.
Above Tremont there's an old Model T, us the model t as a reference point to get to the small rock out cropping that was used by the Cherokee for shelter.
Both places require bushwhacking to get to.
D#$N im bushwhacked yackin' 'bout it.
Ashepabst
02-17-2009, 11:13
Nothing like over-regulation for the foot traveler and none for the car drivers.
amen! methinks the solution is to start blowin up some roads.
i never quite understood this... it's OK to carve your own trails through protected land, but not set up camp?
assuming we're all responsible campers here... which has more impact?
that being said, I realize that giving any idiot free reign to camp wherever would probably have poisonous affects.
Tipi Walter
02-17-2009, 11:39
i never quite understood this... it's OK to carve your own trails through protected land, but not set up camp?
assuming we're all responsible campers here... which has more impact?
that being said, I realize that giving any idiot free reign to camp wherever would probably have poisonous affects.
There seems to be a undercurrent in American culture and law enforcement against tent camping. Almost a bias against individuals who find a place under a bush to sleep while most others have to pay high mortages and rent. It's not called stealth camping for nothing. Maybe it's frowned upon since such folks are harder to keep tabs on. I say, give the homeless a tent and a city park and have at it, set up a tent village. But nope, they gotta sleep behind churches or on sidewalks.
As far as the Park goes, the Nanny State surveys their kingdom of 500,000 acres and allows tent camping on about 100 of those acres, not counting the acres used by the hated RV-car campgrounds. There they bust a 'nad to make it easily open to anyone with a car and some cash. The Tent Police feel a need to have every footloose idiot regulated and monitored, and god help the miscreant backpacker without the proper paperwork. Some old Park hands laugh at me and say it ain't all that bad, we camp wherever we want and do so in "outlaw" fashion, but they're a dying breed and the newbie replacements come in happy to fill out the paperwork and camp where they're told. Some places even charge for overnight backpacking.
Pedaling Fool
02-17-2009, 11:42
Tipi, you were just born in the wrong generation. Sorry about that:sun
Tipi Walter
02-17-2009, 11:54
Tipi, you were just born in the wrong generation. Sorry about that:sun
I hope if I live long enough we'll get back to woolly mammoths and the next Ice Age.
timhines
02-17-2009, 13:34
The government has to protect us from ourselves. :-P
This is a good time of year to "bushwhack." Less snakes, ticks, etc etc!
krummholz
02-17-2009, 15:19
Hmmmm--what's this about it being okay to carve your own trails through protected land? I don't exactly think the Park Service is saying you can go in and cut through brush to make a trail, put in blazes or surveyor's tape, or anything like that. The whole art of off-trail hiking is going in there, navigating through, and not leaving a trace!
Sometimes in New England I see surveyor's tape that hikers have put on peaks like the NH 100 Highest that don't have maintained trails. I always take it down and stuff it in my pocket.
SGT Rock
02-17-2009, 20:01
What's the point if I'm not gonna spend the night? Why even go outdoors?
I think if you are going to hop trail ends for some of those dead ends - then you don't have anything to worry about. Or like the time I went and found the old AT up to Parsons Bald and the old Parsons Turnpike (or whatever it was they called it). If you camp at designated trail sites and cross country at will you don't need a permit.
Now for the life of me I cannot figure why that would matter. Think about it. If I walk in the back country but stay at designated sites do I need any less skills in navigation than if I walk in the back country and sleep in the back country? The only thing I can figure the real answer is: Poachers. When I was doing my back country hikes the ranger warned me the area was one of the areas most frequented by poachers. So say they find me and my buddies out in the back country hunting poachers - they have at least once sort of check to know I was OK when I left the ranger station as someone not going 'sangin'
Ashepabst
02-18-2009, 12:03
Hmmmm--what's this about it being okay to carve your own trails through protected land? I don't exactly think the Park Service is saying you can go in and cut through brush to make a trail, put in blazes or surveyor's tape, or anything like that. The whole art of off-trail hiking is going in there, navigating through, and not leaving a trace!
if you can hoof-it off trail through vegetation as thick as the smokies without leaving a trace, good for you. i'm impressed and a little skeptical.
not that i think you shouldn't be able to. it's public land and they shouldn't be able to disallow it. i just think the policy is funny: if the point of established trails and sites is to confine impacts why is it OK to hike off trail, but not camp off site? wouldn't the former have more impact?
OldStormcrow
02-18-2009, 13:06
if you can hoof-it off trail through vegetation as thick as the smokies without leaving a trace, good for you. i'm impressed and a little skeptical.
not that i think you shouldn't be able to. it's public land and they shouldn't be able to disallow it. i just think the policy is funny: if the point of established trails and sites is to confine impacts why is it OK to hike off trail, but not camp off site? wouldn't the former have more impact?
....because #1-it's a lot easier for the "cannonball park" rangers here in the eastern USA to keep the Farkles and tourists herded up and under control if they can keep them on a hard packed trail near the roads. #2- because they don't want unauthorised campfires in the backcountry.....too hard to get to if they get out of hand. #3- perhaps the most insideous reason of all.....after Oklahoma City the guvmint is really wary (with good reason) of "survivalists" hanging out unsupervised for too long in the back country "playing army" with their guns and camos and who knows what other toys.....
The Weasel
02-18-2009, 13:19
Three (Good) Reasons To Limit/Prohibit Bushwhack Camping:
1) It does cause greater impact than just hiking. Sleeping points (tented or not) cause 8-12 hours of ground compression, which can kill some lichens and other mosses (recover time can take several years or more) and remain visible leading to repetitive camping. Don't say they're invisible or hard to find; "stealth" bushwhacking trails are far more obvious than you may think.
2) Wood fires are frequently used, and have led to forest fires when not fully extinguished. That happens out in the West more than the East, but it's not unheard of there, either.
3) "Public land" doesn't mean every member of the public gets to use the land any way they want to. Some areas are open to transit but not camping for good reasons.
TW
krummholz
02-18-2009, 13:32
if you can hoof-it off trail through vegetation as thick as the smokies without leaving a trace, good for you. i'm impressed and a little skeptical.
not that i think you shouldn't be able to. it's public land and they shouldn't be able to disallow it. i just think the policy is funny: if the point of established trails and sites is to confine impacts why is it OK to hike off trail, but not camp off site? wouldn't the former have more impact?
Off-trail hiking does have an impact where a lot of people take the same route. That happens a lot in the New England trailless mountains where a whole bunch of peakbaggers are trying to get to the summit canister. The Smokies are different for several reasons. 1. Off-trail hiking there is usually done for reasons other than peakbagging. 2. Much of the off-trail hiking consists of rockhopping up streams, so there's no erosion issue there. 3. Soil is much deeper, and vegetation much thicker and more resilient (apart from the pest problems like adelgid) than in the NE, where you often have a thin layer of soil over bedrock and the plants are approaching treeline, the limit of their viability.
But in most situations I don't have anything really against off-trail hiking or off-trail camping, personally. The only thing I was ranting about was people who actually cut or mark their own trails through the woods.
Ashepabst
02-18-2009, 14:09
....because #1-it's a lot easier for the "cannonball park" rangers here in the eastern USA to keep the Farkles and tourists herded up and under control if they can keep them on a hard packed trail near the roads. #2- because they don't want unauthorised campfires in the backcountry.....too hard to get to if they get out of hand. #3- perhaps the most insideous reason of all.....after Oklahoma City the guvmint is really wary (with good reason) of "survivalists" hanging out unsupervised for too long in the back country "playing army" with their guns and camos and who knows what other toys.....
someone just recently posted on another forum about a friend (who had a full beard at the time) who got roughed-up and hauled in by some local po-po while he was in the backcountry at Citico a while back. apparently they thought he was Eric Rudolph -- the guy who bombed an abortion clinic and the Atlanta Olympics.
anyone remember where Rudolph was hiding out when they finally nabbed him? wasn't near the smokies somewhere?
Ashepabst
02-18-2009, 14:25
Three (Good) Reasons To Limit/Prohibit Bushwhack Camping:
1) It does cause greater impact than just hiking. Sleeping points (tented or not) cause 8-12 hours of ground compression, which can kill some lichens and other mosses (recover time can take several years or more) and remain visible leading to repetitive camping. Don't say they're invisible or hard to find; "stealth" bushwhacking trails are far more obvious than you may think.
2) Wood fires are frequently used, and have led to forest fires when not fully extinguished. That happens out in the West more than the East, but it's not unheard of there, either.
sure, there's always gonna some impact. but what about those 8-12 miles of bushwhacking you did to get there? seems to me that this would likely cause much more damage than "8-12 hours of ground compression". i think these impacts your citing are easier to avoid than those imposed by off trail hiking.
but i do weep for the lichens every night... only kidding :D
Tipi Walter
02-18-2009, 14:50
....because #1-it's a lot easier for the "cannonball park" rangers here in the eastern USA to keep the Farkles and tourists herded up and under control if they can keep them on a hard packed trail near the roads. #2- because they don't want unauthorised campfires in the backcountry.....too hard to get to if they get out of hand. #3- perhaps the most insideous reason of all.....after Oklahoma City the guvmint is really wary (with good reason) of "survivalists" hanging out unsupervised for too long in the back country "playing army" with their guns and camos and who knows what other toys.....
I agree with Number 1, and most of the visiting millions are rolling couch potato tourists who probably should be forced to reserve their spot on the open road, any spot on any open road in the Smokies, and of course bring no dogs into the Park even if inside a car. How about a $100 fee to drive into the Park? Might cut down on the air pollution and the frivolous dayhikers. Keeping tabs on the car drivers? Unheard of. Keeping tabs on the backpackers? Always.
Three (Good) Reasons To Limit/Prohibit Bushwhack Camping:
1) It does cause greater impact than just hiking. Sleeping points (tented or not) cause 8-12 hours of ground compression, which can kill some lichens and other mosses (recover time can take several years or more) and remain visible leading to repetitive camping. Don't say they're invisible or hard to find; "stealth" bushwhacking trails are far more obvious than you may think.
2) Wood fires are frequently used, and have led to forest fires when not fully extinguished. That happens out in the West more than the East, but it's not unheard of there, either.
3) "Public land" doesn't mean every member of the public gets to use the land any way they want to. Some areas are open to transit but not camping for good reasons.
TW
I'm all for getting rid of all human activity in Parks and wilderness areas, as you seem to be heading, but before this happens I need to see a corresponding removal of all humans from outside the Parks and wilderness areas. In other words, you protest normal foot-propelled human impact in nature in a sort of litigious manner which makes me wonder if you're overly concerned and agree with regulations on the one hand while tacitly condoning increasing retrictions on the other? If so, you'll be tickled pink when the anglo-saxon hordes in their coats and ties storm over the next hill into your camping spot with all the proper paperwork to make you legal. Sign and submit.
someone just recently posted on another forum about a friend (who had a full beard at the time) who got roughed-up and hauled in by some local po-po while he was in the backcountry at Citico a while back. apparently they thought he was Eric Rudolph -- the guy who bombed an abortion clinic and the Atlanta Olympics.
anyone remember where Rudolph was hiding out when they finally nabbed him? wasn't near the smokies somewhere?
When you say a while back, how long ago? The Rudolph thing is ancient history and he was no where near the Citico. If this happened, it must of been at least 8 years ago or more.
Rudolph hung out in the Tusquittee Ranger District of the Nantahala NF between Murphy and Hayesville. That area is connected to the AT by the Chunky Gal Trail.
Tipi Walter
02-18-2009, 15:07
Rudolph hung out in the Tusquittee Ranger District of the Nantahala NF between Murphy and Hayesville. That area is connected to the AT by the Chunky Gal Trail.
And there's a Citico side story told to me by a local Ranger. A son of a federal agent looking for Rudolph was visiting and left the area in a small plane and crashed in the Slickrock mountains near Maple Springs. A massive search occurred. It was SIX YEARS before anyone found the plane, and then it was a group of hunters. Some rugged country back in there.
maxpatch67
02-18-2009, 15:50
My friends and I went bushwacking in the smokies. It was VERY slow going. Our progress was 1/4 mile per hour!!!! Beware. One of the guys was ready to give up and said "just eat me"! haha, but he was ready to give up-it got dark before we reached our destination, but through perserverance we made it out. We were supposed to be taking the Porters Creek Manway, but got way off track and turned a 3 hour hike into 12. It was VERY rugged and many places were impassible from dense vegatation and steepness. Since, then we did the manway again and had no problem.
The Weasel
02-18-2009, 15:54
sure, there's always gonna some impact. but what about those 8-12 miles of bushwhacking you did to get there? seems to me that this would likely cause much more damage than "8-12 hours of ground compression". i think these impacts your citing are easier to avoid than those imposed by off trail hiking.
but i do weep for the lichens every night... only kidding :D
I'm all for getting rid of all human activity in Parks and wilderness areas, as you seem to be heading, but before this happens I need to see a corresponding removal of all humans from outside the Parks and wilderness areas. In other words, you protest normal foot-propelled human impact in nature in a sort of litigious manner which makes me wonder if you're overly concerned and agree with regulations on the one hand while tacitly condoning increasing retrictions on the other? If so, you'll be tickled pink when the anglo-saxon hordes in their coats and ties storm over the next hill into your camping spot with all the proper paperwork to make you legal. Sign and submit.
Ash, first -
Bushwhacking on new turf (I do it, but I take pains to leave established trails in places where my diversion can't be noted, and followed thereby creating a new - and illegal - trail) done prudently is going to leave very minor impact, if done carefully so that it is impossible to seel that a bushwhack has started from the trail: I leave the trail at a point where my tracks (including leg/hip-brushing of plants) can't be seen. I don't walk on lichens or moss, avoid mud pots, and I don't "blaze" with tape, tree marks or otherwise, although I might leave a small cairn if I'm going to return the same way, to be removed on return. I try to be careful where I step - it's not hard - to avoid flowers and fungi. I don't use my poles, to avoid pole tracks. So the impact's pretty minor, while a tent/tarp/bedroll impact isn't in a lot of cases.
As for Tipi -
If you're trying to start a flame war, I'm not interested, so leave the attitude elsehwere. Much of the outback should be (and even more is) accessible to all, but restrictions legitimately abound. Some of it is special breeding territory for endangered animals; other parts are biologically special. A few may need to be off limits entirely, while other parts can withstand transit hiking, and some can handle overnighting. I don't have the time, or the qualifications, to make all of those judgments about every place I go to, but I know of no agencies - state or federal - that have a higher degree of competence, usually matched by a goal of prudent balancing of interests, than the NPS, USFS, FWS, BLM and and similar state agencies. So if they say, "Don't bushwhack tent in the GSMNP" (or anywhere else), I'm gonna defer to them.
Those who disagree with this should look at what unrestricted "I'll camp anywhere I damn well please" use by people has caused in that park along the AT (and the rest of it): Even trail-side camping is prohibited, with even tenting usually forbidden along the AT. Why? Because "one time only" tent areas become, after a surprisingly short period of time, clapped-out heavy use areas; take a look at the Smokies at either end outside the Park, and you'll see what I mean. And a lot of bushwhacked "one time only" trails become established, too, thanks to people (possibly including me - see above - which is why I am very reluctant to do it unless there's a damn good reason) who think, "No one will ever know I walked this stretch."
TW
anyone remember where Rudolph was hiding out when they finally nabbed him? wasn't near the smokies somewhere?
Rudolph was nabbed dumpster-diving behind an Ingles grocery store in ... Brevard, NC ... I think. He had been subsisting this way for quite a while.
Correction..It was a Sav-A-Lot store in Murphy, NC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Robert_Rudolph
And he was a piece-of-dung terrorist.
SGT Rock
02-18-2009, 20:28
FWIW, if you are going to go bushwhacking in the Smokies - I recommend it between the end of fall and the beginning of spring. There is a lot less ground vegetation to mess with and if you are looking for something (like a cave or old road) you are more likely to find it - while if you wait until there are leaves on everything, you could literally walk right past it.
SunnyWalker
02-19-2009, 22:16
If you know how to use a map and compass go for it. But it can be tough. No cleared pathway like a trail. Some awesome off the trail sights?? Yes, I am sure of it.