GSMNP reservations --- Why

[Pedaling Fool]

:confused:
Does anyone know what the exact reasoning is at GSMNP for the whole absurd "shelter reserve" system? Do they think they think it cuts down on trail traffic? When I did it in 2008 (section hiking) I didn't see that it was stopping anybody - people still put up tents or cowboy camped and I never slept in a full shelter. What makes a section hiker so different from a thru-hiker that the section hiker has to make reservations?? They're still going to go and they're going to sleep where they find room. I saw exactly one ridge runner (who appeared to be about 16) and the older hikers easily bs'ed him as to why/where they were tenting. And he never looked at anyone's permits/reservation forms. In SNP we had a ranger get pissy because we were only out for 3 days and would be staying in/near a certain shelter the first night. First he tried to tell us it was really only for thru-hikers (it was early April - don't know too many thru-hikers that are in SNP by the) and then he told us that it might be taken up by local partiers because it wasn't far from the parkway.......so he didn't want to approve our stay there but they did zip zero nada about parties going on there.
Saw this in another thread, but didn't want to respond since it was in the Straight Forward forum about how to make shelter reservations.

Personally I don't know the answer, but I've heard that GSMNP had a bad experience with Earth Day gatherings years ago and that is the genesis of the whole shelter reservation system.

Does anyone really know the answer and able to provide proof?

[Rain Man]

John, not to complain at you so much, but hope it's okay to use your action as a springboard to make a statement. And since this is no longer in the Straight Forward forum, I suppose anything does go.

I can't speak for the poster in the Straight Forward forum, but I've had this same thing happen to me, and I resent it.

When I post in Straight Forward, it's for a reason and with the expectation that the rules there will be honored, honorably.

Yanking posts out of Straight Forward in full quote, to bash, to discuss, to go off on tangents, or get away from the purpose of the rules there, offends me. If anyone wants to have a free for all discussion, that's cool. Just have the backbone to do it on your own nickel and not at anyone else expense.

Again, not trying to pick on John, but saying this happens on WB all too often and it's simply wrong and not at all nice to make an end run around the expectations posters have when they post in or start threads in Straight Forward.

Apologies in advance if my opinion offends (and I used the pronoun "you" meaning "one," which can be just plain awkward), but the Straight Forward forum is there for a reason, and it's to avoid the lax rules in these other forums, which such conduct yanks the rug out from under.

Rain Man

.

[Slo-go'en]

Actually, John did the right thing, as asking the reason why you need reservations in a straight forward thread about HOW to make reservations would side track it.

I would think the reservation system was put in place to try and control the number of people at shelters. Not that it really works very well.

I walked into the park last spring and made reservations that day for a couple of shelters. I was told I was lucky as there was just one spot left in each of the shelters I needed to stay at. Well, it turns out it started to rain and most of those who made reservations, weeks or months in advance, never showed up and there was pleanty of room.

So, if you make reservations for a shelter and have a change of plans, please cancel your spot so someone else can have it.

[bigcranky]

It's a National Park, and as such it exists to preserve the natural environment above all else. Given the number of backcountry visitors, the managers elect to have them concentrate their impact in specific places, rather than trash the whole park. The rules exist to limit the impact of humans in the park, that's all. With any luck your grandkids will be able to see the park in some sort of decent condition.

There are plenty of places nearby to hike that don't have the same rules.

[WingedMonkey]

Even 18 years ago Yosemite and Grand Canyon had a reservation system for trail use when I hiked there. Not as crazy as now but still strict. They do it to restrict trail impact and try and spread out the use, and to keep track of hikers for safety reasons.
Earth Day has never been a "in the woods" event.

[Hikerhead]

John, not to complain at you so much, but hope it's okay to use your action as a springboard to make a statement. And since this is no longer in the Straight Forward forum, I suppose anything does go.

I can't speak for the poster in the Straight Forward forum, but I've had this same thing happen to me, and I resent it.

When I post in Straight Forward, it's for a reason and with the expectation that the rules there will be honored, honorably.

Yanking posts out of Straight Forward in full quote, to bash, to discuss, to go off on tangents, or get away from the purpose of the rules there, offends me. If anyone wants to have a free for all discussion, that's cool. Just have the backbone to do it on your own nickel and not at anyone else expense.

Again, not trying to pick on John, but saying this happens on WB all too often and it's simply wrong and not at all nice to make an end run around the expectations posters have when they post in or start threads in Straight Forward.

Apologies in advance if my opinion offends (and I used the pronoun "you" meaning "one," which can be just plain awkward), but the Straight Forward forum is there for a reason, and it's to avoid the lax rules in these other forums, which such conduct yanks the rug out from under.

Rain Man

.

The way i see this, Mrs Baggin's was out of line. The OP in the straight forward section was only asking how to get thru their phone system to make a reservation. He didn't ask for a history leason.

BTW, congrats on your dinner down there in my favorite town, Nashville.

[Pedaling Fool]

Don’t worry Rain Man, can’t offend me; it’s probably a genetic defect of some sort, but attacks on my character/intelligence just roll off (not saying you were attacking me).

Maybe I did violate some ethical (official or otherwise) rule by posting Mrs Baggins’ post….sorry about that, but I’m really curious.

WRT to the original question; I know the “official” reason as already mentioned here, but I’ve come to learn that the “official” or probably more accurately, the “common-knowledge” answer is usually wrong and the correct answer is sometimes very surprising, but lost in history.

I don’t really believe Earth Day event(s) caused the start of the shelter reservation system, but I have heard that before.

What I really wonder is if it has something to do with the impact of horses in the park. Maybe the shelter reservation system is to reduce hiker numbers in order to accommodate/compensate for the impact from horses.

That’s another question, why allow the horses in such great numbers? And again I know the standard answer of them being grandfathered in. And I’ve also heard that horses were there way before hikers, but so what, that’s not surprising since horses were a primary form of transportation for eons before the car. Horses are also in SNP, but not as far ranging and SNP is older. So what’s the deal with horses and GSMNP and does that affect the number of hikers allowed on the trail? After all, the impact of the horses through GSMNP is very noticeable, that is why there are those ditches in many parts, not to mention the piles in or very near the water sources.

I was just hoping someone who had some real knowledge on the issue would chime in.

[bulldog49]

Some people are easily offended, geesh! :eek:

[WingedMonkey]

Don't know the reason for the allowed overuse and abuse of trails by horses now, but they were not there first. When my ancestors were run out of what is now park land, the last place they would take a horse was up on the ridges. And by then houses and mules were for farm work, not joy rides.

[EastCoastFeastCoast]

A lot of the trails in the GSMNP were formed by settlers and logging companies. There was a lot of damage to the whole area, and the park service has done a wonderful job of restoring the natural beauty and also preserving the old homes / school houses / cemeteries. I haven't checked in the past few years, but the GSMNP was also the most visited national park in America. The surrounding area (Gatlinburg, Seviereville, and Knoxville) is also one of the most polluted areas in the country. All of this leads up to restrictions in many ways around the whole park. From limiting people inside the park to requiring reservations at some, not all, of the backcountry camps and shelters. All of this is necessary (some might argue) to maintain the natural beauty of the park and making sure the limited number of park rangers, service people, and volunteers can keep it that way.

[Rain Man]

Don’t worry Rain Man, can’t offend me; it’s probably a genetic defect of some sort, but attacks on my character/intelligence just roll off (not saying you were attacking me).

You have those defects too, eh?! ~wink~ (meaning, like me!) Thanks for not taking offense nor taking it personally. That's not how I meant it. At least if I were to attack your intelligence, I'd be fighting an armed man. Can't say that for all on here. LOL


[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]That’s another question, why allow the horses in such great numbers? And again I know the standard answer of them being grandfathered in.

I can't quote any authority off the top of my head, but my recollection is this: The formation of the GSMNP took a ton of politicking, which included some permanent legal restrictions, such as no entrance fee can ever be charged, unlike all other national parks.

I recall that allowing the horses in the Park was part of that wrangling and politicking. Some politician or power broker said "You get my support and the funds I control on THESE terms (horses on certain trails)," and that was that. It was far beyond a simple matter of grandfathering them in by custom. It was a demand made and agreed to. At least, that's my understanding.

Rain:sunMan

.

[Lilred]

I recall that allowing the horses in the Park was part of that wrangling and politicking. Some politician or power broker said "You get my support and the funds I control on THESE terms (horses on certain trails)," and that was that. It was far beyond a simple matter of grandfathering them in by custom. It was a demand made and agreed to. At least, that's my understanding.

Rain:sunMan

.


I recall hearing the same thing as well. It was a demand due in part because the horse clubs of the day had invested monies into the trail system.

[EastCoastFeastCoast]

I don't know for sure Rain Man, but that sounds a lot like the good ole boy stuff we do down here quite often. Also a lot of horses in this area, including my neighbors! Nevertheless, sounds about right.

[Tipi Walter]

It's a National Park, and as such it exists to preserve the natural environment above all else. Given the number of backcountry visitors, the managers elect to have them concentrate their impact in specific places, rather than trash the whole park. The rules exist to limit the impact of humans in the park, that's all. With any luck your grandkids will be able to see the park in some sort of decent condition.


"Preserve above all else?" Negatory on that one, otherwise they would close Cades Cove car pollution and RV campgrounds. This is what "all else" means. Don't forget it's the most air polluted park in the country with air as bad as LA. Sure, distant coal plants are also to blame, but interior Park car traffic surely doesn't help.


A lot of the trails in the GSMNP were formed by settlers and logging companies. There was a lot of damage to the whole area, and the park service has done a wonderful job of restoring the natural beauty and also preserving the old homes / school houses / cemeteries. I haven't checked in the past few years, but the GSMNP was also the most visited national park in America. The surrounding area (Gatlinburg, Seviereville, and Knoxville) is also one of the most polluted areas in the country. All of this leads up to restrictions in many ways around the whole park. From limiting people inside the park to requiring reservations at some, not all, of the backcountry camps and shelters. All of this is necessary (some might argue) to maintain the natural beauty of the park and making sure the limited number of park rangers, service people, and volunteers can keep it that way.

You say they limit people inside the park. Is there an actual limit to how many can drive into the park? Is there a fee per carload? Like $20 per car??

[weary]

Y..... can't quote any authority off the top of my head, but my recollection is this: The formation of the GSMNP took a ton of politicking, which included some permanent legal restrictions, such as no entrance fee can ever be charged, unlike all other national parks.

I recall that allowing the horses in the Park was part of that wrangling and politicking. Some politician or power broker said "You get my support and the funds I control on THESE terms (horses on certain trails)," and that was that. It was far beyond a simple matter of grandfathering them in by custom. It was a demand made and agreed to. At least, that's my understanding.......
Part of the wisdom of the American system of government is that, despite the current rhetoric, nothing is simple. New laws, new restrictions, don't get imposed easily. Governor Baxter needed a lifetime to assemble Baxter State Park -- and all kinds of compromises to get the state to accept his gifts.

Maine passed the first in the nation water cleanup Law around 1961 after years of wrangling. Among the compromises was the stipulation it not take effect until 1975. In the meantime a nearly identical federal law was passed that took effect a year or two after the Maine law.

A new governor now wonders why Maine's law is more stringent than the federal, and wants to eliminate the differences. I sometimes think I may be the only person left that remembers the reason. The Maine press now credits the federal law for cleaning our rivers, forgetting that we were the pioneers.

Sorry for the history. But like all parks, all wilderness area designations, all environmental laws, GSMNP required lengthy debates and months of delays, and many compromises, before it became a federal park.. It's part of the wisdom of the system. We are a Democracy. Not a dictatorship.

[EastCoastFeastCoast]

[QUOTE] You say they limit people inside the park. Is there an actual limit to how many can drive into the park? Is there a fee per carload? Like $20 per car??
/QUOTE]

There is no "limit" to the amount of people that can visit the park, nor do they charge. They do, however, close certain roads due to weather / traffic patterns according to the time of year. Some of these areas get absolutely insane amounts of car/rv/motorcycle traffic.

[Tipi Walter]

[QUOTE] You say they limit people inside the park. Is there an actual limit to how many can drive into the park? Is there a fee per carload? Like $20 per car??
/QUOTE]

There is no "limit" to the amount of people that can visit the park, nor do they charge. They do, however, close certain roads due to weather / traffic patterns according to the time of year. Some of these areas get absolutely insane amounts of car/rv/motorcycle traffic.

And why are motorcyclists allowed to treat Park roads like their own personal racetracks??

[EastCoastFeastCoast]

And why are motorcyclists allowed to treat Park roads like their own personal racetracks??


I know exactly what you mean there. Some of those guys get pretty stupid in regards to how they drive. I honestly don't know exactly why. I do know the roads are very popular with motorcycles and a lot of people visit the Gatlinburg/Pigeon Forge area as well. There's also not a whole lot of police monitoring the roads except for in the towns and a few patrols.

[Pedaling Fool]

A lot of the trails in the GSMNP were formed by settlers and logging companies. There was a lot of damage to the whole area, and the park service has done a wonderful job of restoring the natural beauty and also preserving the old homes / school houses / cemeteries. I haven't checked in the past few years, but the GSMNP was also the most visited national park in America. The surrounding area (Gatlinburg, Seviereville, and Knoxville) is also one of the most polluted areas in the country. All of this leads up to restrictions in many ways around the whole park. From limiting people inside the park to requiring reservations at some, not all, of the backcountry camps and shelters. All of this is necessary (some might argue) to maintain the natural beauty of the park and making sure the limited number of park rangers, service people, and volunteers can keep it that way.
Yes that's true from what I've read -- about 8-10 million visitors per year. But it's just that -- visitors. How many of those visitors are backpackers? And how many are just driving thru, since there's no entrance fee as there is in other parks, like SNP.

I wonder how many hikers/campers GSMNP sees vice SNP on a kind of like a per capita basis, since there are more hiking trials in GSMNP than SNP. SNP is closer to larger populations than GSMNP, but of course the entrance fees probably keep the numbers down. However, I remember feeling pretty crowded in SNP compared to GSMNP, but I'm sure the time of year had something to do with it.

The only time I saw any crowds thru GSMNP was when I got to Newfound Gap, but I was always seeing crowds thru SNP. It just SEEMS that the crowds in SNP are concentrated in less area than GSMNP. I also understand that many of the other trails thru GSMNP give one a very good sense of solitude.

[EastCoastFeastCoast]

I personally know a lot of people that go to the park for the day, whether it's playing in the water, seeing the sights from the car, or doing day hikes. I also know a lot of people who love to do simple overnights compared to section or thru hiking. I personally don't know very much about the surrounding parks, but the GSMNP has a lot of backcountry trails and campsites that don't connect to the AT. One of the great attractions of the park is its accessibility from main roads to camp grounds and beautiful scenery. Then again, maybe its just the moonshine and BBQ????

[WingedMonkey]

GSMNP has a lot of backcountry trails and campsites that don't connect to the AT. One of the great attractions of the park is its accessibility from main roads to camp grounds and beautiful scenery. Then again, maybe its just the moonshine and BBQ????
Out of 48 back-country campsites 22 or open to horses. 550 miles of maintained trails allow horses.

[HooKooDooKu]

Keep in mind that GSMNP requires reservations at more than just shelters.

Basically, ALL "popular" camp sites require reservations... it's just that ALL shelters are included in the list of "popular" camp sites. As a minor example, there is no longer a shelter at camp site 113 (the 1st site climbing up from Fontana dam), but reservations are still required. Same goes for many camp sites like Sheep Pen's Gap (just down from Gregory Bald) that have nothing to do with the AT and shelters.

Of course the idea is to try to minimize the impact the public has on these places, and from what I've read, the park would like to prohibit cars from Cades Cove if they code. But as others alluded to, politics plays a part. There's likely just as many people arguing for limiting access to the cove as there are those arguing to keep things as they are.

On the issue of cost to enter GSMNP, the government is prohibited from charging an entrance fee for the park. GSMNP was the first national park established by the purchase of private land. Most of that money came from private individuals as well as a huge contribuition from John D Rockafeller. As I understand it, the Rockafeller contribution included a stipulation that the park could never charge an entrance fee, and I think the land deed (as purchased with these monies) stipulates something to that effect. So they can charge people for things like staying at the front-country camp sites, but they can't charge people who simply want to enter the park.

[WingedMonkey]

As I understand it, the Rockafeller contribution included a stipulation that the park could never charge an entrance fee, and I think the land deed (as purchased with these monies) stipulates something to that effect.

While Rockefeller did donate $5 million of the $10 million needed to buy the land, according to the Park Service, it is Tennessee that made the no fees rule. They built the road.
http://www.nps.gov/grsm/planyourvisit/whyfree.htm

[HooKooDooKu]

While Rockefeller did donate $5 million of the $10 million needed to buy the land, according to the Park Service, it is Tennessee that made the no fees rule. They built the road.
http://www.nps.gov/grsm/planyourvisit/whyfree.htm

Thanks for the clarification... tough to keep up with all the stories that surround the Smokies... things like "the road to nowhere", people that had life-time land leases to land in the Smokies (the last person living inside the park boundary died only within the last decade), use of grave yards (as some have continued to be used, those I don't know the details of who can be burried in the park's cemetaries any more), and the public being allowed to harvest ramps from the park.

GSMNP is such an interesting place.

[WingedMonkey]

Thanks for the clarification... tough to keep up with all the stories that surround the Smokies... things like "the road to nowhere", people that had life-time land leases to land in the Smokies (the last person living inside the park boundary died only within the last decade), use of grave yards (as some have continued to be used, those I don't know the details of who can be burried in the park's cemetaries any more), and the public being allowed to harvest ramps from the park.

GSMNP is such an interesting place.

Having ancestral "buring grounds" in GSMNP and also in Bent Creek in what is now Pisqah National Forest makes for interesting genealgy study while backpacking. I even have a family cemetery on the river at the back of the Biltmore House property. And it's the hardest one of all to get to.
As to the road and tunnel to nowhere (Bryson City to Fontana Dam). It should be settled, at least for now. Swain County has been promised $52 million for giving up the road, but without earmarks even that could fall apart. Land acquisition for our southern parks and forests or land flooded for TVA water projects seems to never be quite final when family histories are involved.
:sun

[TIDE-HSV]

Regardless of where or when it arose, the "why" question is legit (and has been posed before). By chance, I was present when permit plan was imposed. In May, 1972, my wife and I climbed Mt. LeConte and stayed at the lodge. We hiked down towards the old shelter and, at that time, the broad saddle between the lodge and the shelter, which is now grown in, was timber free. In that saddle, there were around 200 tents. I've never seen anything like it. Tent pegs were shared and the number of cookfire plumes were just about beyond counting. It didn't look like fun.

Back at the lodge, I asked the manager at the time and he said that all of that was going to end the next month, and that only the shelter (10 cpy at the time) would be allowed to be occupied at any time. There wasn't a shelter ration system - the ration system was put in for the whole back-country area at once.

That was the year I started backpacking the park intensively. The permit system has really helped for the most overused campsites in the park. Of course, the main concern of WB members is with the shelters along the AT, as it should be. Hearing complaints over the years, it seems that complaints always peak as the mass of NOBOs pass through the Park. For sectioners and Smoky lovers, the solution is normally to avoid that area at this time of the year. However, bad as the situation may be with the permit system, it would be worse without it...

[earlyriser26]

I have hiked the smokies 7X and have always found the permit system to be silly (or at least the actual functioning of it). For most these hikes we got permits only to find the shelters full of people without them (trust me, they were not going to move). We tented. Three things keep this system from working 1) Thru hikers 2) People without permits and 3) Most importantly, people with permits that don't/couldn't stay on schedule. As to the why? I guess the park system chooses a sysytem that doesn't vs. no system at all.

[Marta]

My experience with National Parks other than the GSMNP is limited to a few, but they all require some sort of registration and frequently reservations.

Are there any national parks which don't?

[Pedaling Fool]

Regardless of where or when it arose, the "why" question is legit (and has been posed before). By chance, I was present when permit plan was imposed. In May, 1972, my wife and I climbed Mt. LeConte and stayed at the lodge. We hiked down towards the old shelter and, at that time, the broad saddle between the lodge and the shelter, which is now grown in, was timber free. In that saddle, there were around 200 tents. I've never seen anything like it. Tent pegs were shared and the number of cookfire plumes were just about beyond counting. It didn't look like fun.

Back at the lodge, I asked the manager at the time and he said that all of that was going to end the next month, and that only the shelter (10 cpy at the time) would be allowed to be occupied at any time. There wasn't a shelter ration system - the ration system was put in for the whole back-country area at once.

That was the year I started backpacking the park intensively. The permit system has really helped for the most overused campsites in the park. Of course, the main concern of WB members is with the shelters along the AT, as it should be. Hearing complaints over the years, it seems that complaints always peak as the mass of NOBOs pass through the Park. For sectioners and Smoky lovers, the solution is normally to avoid that area at this time of the year. However, bad as the situation may be with the permit system, it would be worse without it...
Was this some sort of gathering or just simply a mass of people? Were other parts of GSMNP similarily congested?

BTW, I'm not necessarily against the reservation policy, just curious why. Although, if the crowds described by TIDE-HSV was a common problem back in the day, that would seem to answer the question. This is the second time I've heard about large crowds in GSMNP, but never have I seen it in the official information concerning reservations -- though, not saying that that's not the cause. But it is curious why that happened here. The only time I've seen such crowds were during "gatherings"; anyone know if this has happened in other places, such as SNP...

And the point about other camp sites requiring reservations, not just shelters along the AT was simply an oversight on my part; I'm equally curious of that issue and I would think the official reason is the same.

P.S. I'm not so curious as to why the park requires a backcountry permit, that seems self-explanatory, thus I'm just not curious about that policy.

[Mrs Baggins]

The way i see this, Mrs Baggin's was out of line. The OP in the straight forward section was only asking how to get thru their phone system to make a reservation. He didn't ask for a history leason.

BTW, congrats on your dinner down there in my favorite town, Nashville.


I take full and absolute blame for ranting in a forum that was not for that. It was one of those topics that just pulled the trigger on something I think is pointless.

[Pedaling Fool]

Everyone's quilty of it from time to time, except me of course:D

[TIDE-HSV]

Was this some sort of gathering or just simply a mass of people? Were other parts of GSMNP similarily congested?

BTW, I'm not necessarily against the reservation policy, just curious why. Although, if the crowds described by TIDE-HSV was a common problem back in the day, that would seem to answer the question. This is the second time I've heard about large crowds in GSMNP, but never have I seen it in the official information concerning reservations -- though, not saying that that's not the cause. But it is curious why that happened here. The only time I've seen such crowds were during "gatherings"; anyone know if this has happened in other places, such as SNP...

And the point about other camp sites requiring reservations, not just shelters along the AT was simply an oversight on my part; I'm equally curious of that issue and I would think the official reason is the same.

P.S. I'm not so curious as to why the park requires a backcountry permit, that seems self-explanatory, thus I'm just not curious about that policy.

John, the reason for the huge crowd was two-fold. Of all tenting spots in the park, LeConte was the most popular, so there was always a huge crowd there. On top of that, everyone knew that the permit system would start in less than a month.

I think there was overreaction in the case of LeConte. There's no reason on earth that a 10-12 spot campsite couldn't have been accommodated in the saddle between the shelter and the lodge. Of course, that saddle is now overgrown and there's little evidence that it was ever cleared.

In addition, one of my peeves is the "creep" towards shrinking backcountry sites. In June, 1972, Sheep Pen Gap (#13) had a cpy of 26. It's steadily shrunk over the years until I think it's about 12 now. There's a lot of level ground up there. It's obvious that some PTBs up the line (probably non-backpackers) made a decision that the "wilderness experience" would be enhanced by fewer tent sites. IMO, it wasn't crowded at 26. However, the saddle out towards Parson's bald (including the bald itself) is now grown in, with no decent tent sites left. I can't camp where I camped 25 years ago. Walnut Bottoms is another example, but /rant...

[Grampie]

I don't have the official reason but it's the new 2000s attitude. Everyone has to be treated equal and everyone has to have a chance. You know. In Little League everyone has to play, don't keep score and have no winners.
They just don't want AT thru-hikers to have all the fun.:rolleyes:

[LDog]

Then again, maybe its just the moonshine and BBQ????

(Thumbing FURIOUSLY thru ADLHA Companion) I can't seem to find any reference to locations providing such services ... Trail Magic?