PDA

View Full Version : Shelter rules in GSMNP



gearfreak
02-20-2009, 12:23
I have a full understanding of all the rules encompasing both thru and section hikers of GSMNP. Can anyone comment on the enforcement? I recently spoke with a ranger who indicated that if a shelter is full and a thru comes in, he or she needs to tent. As I prefer to tent I asked him if I could trade places with the thru. The answer was no. Perhaps I just got the new sheriff on the day of my call, but I can't imagine this is strictly monitored or enforced. For that matter, I find it hard to beleive that tenting when the shelter is not at capacity is strictly monitored or enforced. However, having not traveled this section and not to keen on paying a fine I thought I'd solicit some input from the experiences of others. Thanks! :cool:

Lone Wolf
02-20-2009, 12:27
enforcement of rules is pretty much non-existant. personally i tent regardless. that's just me

SGT Rock
02-20-2009, 12:31
According to the rules:

http://www.nps.gov/grsm/parkmgmt/upload/07%20Compendium.pdf - page 13 of the file...




The use of tents at shelters is prohibited except by persons
qualifying as thru-hikers on the Appalachian Trail (by
definition an Appalachian thru-hiker is a backpacker who is
using the Appalachian Trail exclusively while in the park
and whose trip begins and ends a minimum of fifty miles
outside the park). Thru-hikers may pitch tents outside
shelters only when all bunks are otherwise occupied.

The ability to camp outside the shelter when it is full only applies to AT thru-hikers.

Rcarver
02-20-2009, 13:44
The only shelters that you have a high possibility or meeting a ranger will be one that is five miles or less from a road access. There are a couple of ridge runners in the park. You might encounter one of them. They don't have any real authority, although they do carry radios. The chance of them actually using them to get a ranger to come to the back country is pretty slim. I have been checked a few times at Spence Field, Silers, Ice Water and Cosby Knob by rangers before. There also are rangers that are traveling the trail at night hunting hogs. They do authority as they are law enforcement. I prefer to just be legal. Takes all the worry away about getting written a fine. Plus I know too many workers in the park to get away by stating that I am a thru hiker.

sliderule
02-20-2009, 18:04
Perhaps I just got the new sheriff on the day of my call, but I can't imagine this is strictly monitored or enforced.

The "sheriff" was informing you of a rule that has been in effect for decades. Whether he was new or not is not relevant. Don't expect the NPS to admit to you that backcountry enforcement is almost nil.

The Weasel
02-20-2009, 18:16
"Enforcement" of park rules is only necessary for those who break them. If people don't want to observe particuar rules, perhaps they should go elsewhere.

TW

peakbagger
02-20-2009, 18:22
In late in 2003 we were camping at a shelter on the AT just north of Clingmans and were visited by a ranger and someone we encountered the day previously had also been visited at the same shelter the night before. They were mostly concerned if we had a reservations, then again the shelter wasnt full. I cant remember the shlelters name offhand but it is quite close to the road so it probably gets visited often.

Pedaling Fool
02-20-2009, 19:30
"Enforcement" of park rules is only necessary for those who break them. If people don't want to observe particuar rules, perhaps they should go elsewhere.

TW
You always drive the speed limit, which is the LAW.

Rcarver
02-20-2009, 19:31
North of Clingmans on the AT, that would be Mt Collins shelter. There is a parking lot a mile from the shelter. I had my jeep parked there last June while I was on a three day trip. When I came back, I discovered a bear had attacked three of the bumpers and flattened a tire.

Panzer1
02-20-2009, 20:13
I guess the big question is: why do they even have this rule. Is it because of all the bears that live inside the park? The companion says ther are estimated 400-600 bears.

Panzer

sliderule
02-20-2009, 20:38
I guess the big question is: why do they even have this rule. Is it because of all the bears that live inside the park?

No. The prohibition on tents at shelters is intended to reduce the human impact on the backcountry. Prior to the restriction, it was not uncommon to have 200 people camped at some of the more easily accessed shelters.

Chicken Feathers
02-20-2009, 20:43
They have that rule for the same reason they will not let the GATC build a roof on the privy at low gap shelter. Goverment :-?

Pedaling Fool
02-20-2009, 20:44
No. The prohibition on tents at shelters is intended to reduce the human impact on the backcountry. Prior to the restriction, it was not uncommon to have 200 people camped at some of the more easily accessed shelters.
When was this? Kind of hard to believe -- 200 people in one night at one location:-?

Lone Wolf
02-20-2009, 20:49
You always drive the speed limit, which is the LAW.

hypocrite

Ekul
02-20-2009, 22:21
LW you make me lol =P

The Weasel
02-21-2009, 07:03
You always drive the speed limit, which is the LAW.

Actually, I drive the speed limit because it seems like a pretty reasonable safety decision as to what a safe speed on a particular road is, along with some other factors that go into traffic issues, that do into the design of a highway. Since I don't have the time to research all of those factors, I defer to professionals who do, although I know they might make a decision that wasn't unanimous even in their field. Same thing for decisions by park and wildlife professionals: Their credibility is pretty high, so I defer to them, even if sometimes I disagree. Not because "it's the law," but because I live in a democracy where those who ultimately are in charge of making the law - a majority - choose those who implement it and, if I really don't like that law, rather than disobey it, I'll support those who will change it.


When was this? Kind of hard to believe -- 200 people in one night at one location:-?

Large groups happen even now, during thru season. Permitting in the backcountry to prevent groups that size in other national parks is common. I've seen 200 in "back country" sites more than once in other parks in the last few years.

TW

Pedaling Fool
02-21-2009, 08:43
Actually, I drive the speed limit because it seems like a pretty reasonable safety decision blah, blah, blah....
I don't believe you, I will now read all your posts with great skepticism and speculation as to your honesty.

...
Large groups happen even now, during thru season. Permitting in the backcountry to prevent groups that size in other national parks is common. I've seen 200 in "back country" sites more than once in other parks in the last few years...
I can't believe you.

Big Dawg
02-21-2009, 08:55
Actually, I drive the speed limit because it seems like a pretty reasonable safety decision as to what a safe speed on a particular road is, along with some other factors that go into traffic issues, that do into the design of a highway. Since I don't have the time to research all of those factors, I defer to professionals...........
TW

I about fell outta my chair Gomer...... good one! :rolleyes:

gollwoods
02-21-2009, 09:29
the 70's probably saw 200 campers at ice water spring shelter on some weekends, the back to nature environment interest really heated up, earth day and freedom from establishment etc..

SGT Rock
02-21-2009, 09:35
That is what I have heard from the locals - Shelter rules were put into place to stop the people loving the earth from loving it to death in some places. As I understand it, these folks were also the reason we can only camp at designated sites in the Smokies anymore without a permit to go back country.

And The Wesel is old enough that he may seen this (or maybe he was one) ;)

You know I'm just teasing you Weasel.

Pedaling Fool
02-21-2009, 09:40
the 70's probably saw 200 campers at ice water spring shelter on some weekends, the back to nature environment interest really heated up, earth day and freedom from establishment etc..
That's a lot of people, not[/*] denying it, just curious of the specifics. How long did this trend last? If there are 200 campers at one shelter then how many were throughout the park celebrating Earth Day? It sounds more like a party of people, not 200 random people coming to a shelter.

200 people is a lot of people to camp at one shelter location, I'm trying to imagine it, hard to get a mental picture.

SGT Rock
02-21-2009, 09:43
It sounds more like a party of people, not 200 random people coming to a shelter. .

:-?As I understand it from third party observers - this is what Earth day normally is anyway. From what I am told earth day bashes usually end up leaving bare earth, mud, and piles of trash.:sun

Rcarver
02-21-2009, 09:48
Even when the rules prevent me from going to a particular campsite because all the reservations are full, I still like the permit system. It helps to an extent to keep overcrowding in check. Of course you will always have people that feel that they are above the rules or that the rules don't apply to them. All I can say, if you don't like to deal with "the man" or just want to bitch about the rules of the park. Why not simply go to Kilmer/Citico, Shinning Rock or any number of other backpacking areas around here. Look at Walter, he hikes with a dog and instead of bitching about the rules of the park or simply breaking them. He hikes where dogs are allowed.

SGT Rock
02-21-2009, 09:50
I tell you what though - I've yet to be denied a spot at a campground in the Smokies because of full reservations.

And another vote for the Tipi Walter's style. You can camp in that area for days without seeing another soul and you can camp anywhere you want.

Pedaling Fool
02-21-2009, 09:55
I'm not really bitching, I actually like seeing a full shelter, then I can set my tent up "legally":sun

gearfreak
02-21-2009, 11:28
I should have known that as soon as I posted this question I'd be bombarded by some self righteous do-gooders who failed to even get the gist of the original question. Why is it that when someone has absolutely nothing to add of any value to someone's post they feel a need to comment anyway? Thanks to those who replied with useful information. As for my original question, if a shelter is full and a thru-hiker comes in and would prefer my spot to tenting, he or she can have it and I'll take my chances. Case closed. :mad:

SGT Rock
02-21-2009, 11:39
Welcome to the internet.

sliderule
02-21-2009, 11:52
When was this? Kind of hard to believe -- 200 people in one night at one location:-?

In season, Mt. LeConte has around 100 people each night. And most of them are paying a hefty price for the opportunity. For every person that can get a reservation, there are dozens who wish they could. If access were free and unrestricted, do you have difficulty imagining hurdreds of people there on a Saturday night?

Shelter reservations for Icewater Springs are frequently "gone" within a couple of days into the 30-day window. Considering that the shelter is 3 miles down a famous trail from a very large parking lot located in the center of the most visited national park in the country,, do you really have a difficult time imagining that the shelter might get a bit overcrowded if access was unrestricted?

Pedaling Fool
02-21-2009, 12:05
In season, Mt. LeConte has around 100 people each night. And most of them are paying a hefty price for the opportunity. For every person that can get a reservation, there are dozens who wish they could. If access were free and unrestricted, do you have difficulty imagining hurdreds of people there on a Saturday night?

Shelter reservations for Icewater Springs are frequently "gone" within a couple of days into the 30-day window. Considering that the shelter is 3 miles down a famous trail from a very large parking lot located in the center of the most visited national park in the country,, do you really have a difficult time imagining that the shelter might get a bit overcrowded if access was unrestricted?
I fully understand the park having to adopt a reservation system if people in those numbers (100-200 at one shelter) are visiting the park. I really don't mind the rules of GSMNP, to me it's really no different than hiking through SNP. However, I got a problem with the no camping rule at the shelters and off the AT. It really does not address the problem of that many people converging on one spot, however the reservation system does address that problem. Like I said, all-in-all, GSMNP rules don't really bother me as a thru-hiker, which is the only way I've been thru that park.

Nightwalker
02-21-2009, 15:09
Welcome to the internet.

It was much better back in '96 when there were only 10 of us. :)

sliderule
02-21-2009, 17:58
It was much better back in '96 when there were only 10 of us. :)

Maybe it's time to institute a reservation system!!!

ChinMusic
02-21-2009, 20:10
Maybe it's time to institute a reservation system!!!
well played......

Tilly
02-21-2009, 20:22
Instead of dealing w/9,000 people and the potential of having to shelter, why not stay off the AT? There are hundreds of more trails in the park, some gorgeous campsites, and you probably won't see much of anybody. Just a thought. (Still have to submit an itinerary, though.)

Lone Wolf
02-21-2009, 20:23
Instead of dealing w/9,000 people and the potential of having to shelter, why not stay off the AT? There are hundreds of more trails in the park, some gorgeous campsites, and you probably won't see much of anybody. Just a thought. (Still have to submit an itinerary, though.)
won't get a patch and certificate

Rcarver
02-21-2009, 20:28
won't get a patch and certificate

Do a lot of people really care about the patch and certificate that much? I did finish all the trails in the park a few years ago. I didn't do it for a patch or certificate. Just because it was something I wanted to do.

Lone Wolf
02-21-2009, 20:31
Do a lot of people really care about the patch and certificate that much?

oh hell yeah!

ChinMusic
02-21-2009, 20:36
There's a patch for doing the Smokies?

ed bell
02-21-2009, 20:39
Instead of dealing w/9,000 people and the potential of having to shelter, why not stay off the AT? There are hundreds of more trails in the park, some gorgeous campsites, and you probably won't see much of anybody. Just a thought. (Still have to submit an itinerary, though.)
Seems like far to many are enamored with the AT in general. I love the pathway and views on the AT in the Smokys, but the backpacking experience sucks IMO. Far too restrictive. I had a much better time incorporating parts of the AT in my route while utilizing designated campsites on connecting trails. I'll have to say that while the Smokys is a really cool destination to explore with a backpack, there are many other alternatives that I will consider first.

Tilly
02-21-2009, 20:57
won't get a patch and certificate

I just assumed he was going to the Smokies, not going "thru." If I was going to the Smokies to hike I would stay the hell away from the AT. You hardly see a soul on 700+ miles of side trails, and for the most part you don't camp with too many people (in my experience.) But then, bam, the AT, you see like 30+ streaming past you in a single morning.

sliderule
02-21-2009, 22:16
There's a patch for doing the Smokies?

For doing all[/*] the Smokies trails.

ChinMusic
02-21-2009, 22:27
For doing
all[/*] the Smokies trails.
I got the map in front of me for planning my trip in late April. Man, there are a LOT of trails.

sliderule
02-21-2009, 22:40
Here is some info:
http://www.900miler.com/

Rcarver
02-22-2009, 08:11
I didn't do it for the patch. Just a goal I wanted to complete. Unlike most that complete all the trails in the park as day hikes. I feel proud that I completed most of them with a back pack doing over night trips. Figured it up to be 83% as an over night trip.

sliderule
02-22-2009, 11:57
Unlike most that complete all the trails in the park as day hikes. I feel proud that I completed most of them with a back pack doing over night trips.

There is an opportunity for fame and glory. Someone could do all the trails on one trip and become the first true Smokies thru hiker!!!

SGT Rock
02-22-2009, 13:52
Some people worry if they thru but skip any section it really doesn't count. The BMT in the Smokies is a very nice walk and there is only one shelter on the whole section which you can avoid staying at (and I would). I know the ATC was considering authorizing this as an alternative to the AT because of AT crowding and trail impact. Maybe LaurieP can chime in - but if you are getting ready to hike and the whole system of the Smokies bothers you - then I recommend you do the BMT through there.

The Weasel
02-23-2009, 02:55
That is what I have heard from the locals - Shelter rules were put into place to stop the people loving the earth from loving it to death in some places. As I understand it, these folks were also the reason we can only camp at designated sites in the Smokies anymore without a permit to go back country.

And The Wesel is old enough that he may seen this (or maybe he was one) ;)

You know I'm just teasing you Weasel.

Thanks for the welcome back, Rock. :sun

Yeah, I've seen it. It's a good rule, and you nailed the reason why.

TW

The Weasel
02-23-2009, 02:58
won't get a patch and certificate


oh hell yeah!

Some do. Some don't. Don't matter either way.

TW

Chappy
03-04-2009, 08:57
I guess the big question is: why do they even have this rule. Is it because of all the bears that live inside the park? The companion says ther are estimated 400-600 bears.

Panzer

Park estimate is 2 bear/square mile. 800 square miles. Your estimate is low.

Pedaling Fool
03-04-2009, 09:17
Park estimate is 2 bear/square mile. 800 square miles. Your estimate is low.
I don't know of bear populations, but I think it's pretty clear that the bear population, in general, is increasing up and down the east coast. So the "bear rule" is kind of silly in GSMNP. I guess they know that since they're taking down those fences on the shelters. From what I understand some people would feed the bears through the fences -- if that's true (which I find very possible) it's just another reason no to enact safeguards, education is all that is needed.

Almost everyone that goes thru SNP sees a bear (nowadays), and there's no reason to adopt GSMNPs silly rules.

As for the reservation system and these "earth day" get togethers -- that's a whole nother issue.

Tipi Walter
03-04-2009, 10:51
"Enforcement" of park rules is only necessary for those who break them. If people don't want to observe particuar rules, perhaps they should go elsewhere.

TW

Good point and we do . . . go elsewhere, that is. Problem is, I fear eventually every place will have similar restrictions and rules. At one time, the Park was "elsewhere."


No. The prohibition on tents at shelters is intended to reduce the human impact on the backcountry. Prior to the restriction, it was not uncommon to have 200 people camped at some of the more easily accessed shelters.

I'd say the best way to limit human impact in the backcountry would be to to close most of the roads close to the trailheads, especially the Cades Cove motor loop and Hiway 441. Have two large parking lots, one up by Gatlinburg and one down by the Qualla boundary, and all foot access must come in thru those. Then disband the established campsites and permit system and open the park up to unregulated backpacking, much like in the Cohuttas.


Actually, I drive the speed limit because it seems like a pretty reasonable safety decision as to what a safe speed on a particular road is, along with some other factors that go into traffic issues, that do into the design of a highway. Since I don't have the time to research all of those factors, I defer to professionals who do, although I know they might make a decision that wasn't unanimous even in their field. Same thing for decisions by park and wildlife professionals: Their credibility is pretty high, so I defer to them, even if sometimes I disagree. Not because "it's the law," but because I live in a democracy where those who ultimately are in charge of making the law - a majority - choose those who implement it and, if I really don't like that law, rather than disobey it, I'll support those who will change it.



Large groups happen even now, during thru season. Permitting in the backcountry to prevent groups that size in other national parks is common. I've seen 200 in "back country" sites more than once in other parks in the last few years.

TW

There might be the motivation to follow certain laws(like the speed limit)not out of a moral imperative(it's the right thing to do), but out of economic fear: Ticket costs and increased insurance rates. This also could be the motivation to avoid breaking some of the Park rules(like bringing in a dog or camping wherever you want): Not because camping wherever you want is wrong but because if you're caught you have to pay a fine.


Even when the rules prevent me from going to a particular campsite because all the reservations are full, I still like the permit system. It helps to an extent to keep overcrowding in check. Of course you will always have people that feel that they are above the rules or that the rules don't apply to them. All I can say, if you don't like to deal with "the man" or just want to bitch about the rules of the park. Why not simply go to Kilmer/Citico, Shinning Rock or any number of other backpacking areas around here. Look at Walter, he hikes with a dog and instead of bitching about the rules of the park or simply breaking them. He hikes where dogs are allowed.

The only reason I avoid the Park and their nanny Tent Police is because to me backpacking is all about Freedom, and how can I feel free in a place when my barking dog might draw in the Gotcha crowd, or I can't sleep someplace unless it's approved and designated with the proper paperwork? I thought the woods was a place we could go w/o having to always look over our shoulders?