View Full Version : New Petition Against GSMNP Backountry Camping Fees
SmokiesHanger
08-18-2011, 11:51
There is an online petition up now here if anyone wants to sign it
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/gsmnp_backcountry_fees/ (http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/gsmnp_backcountry_fees/)
Don't be surprised if there is less than overwhelming support for this effort. Some of us are aware that our parks are chronically underfunded and think it quite appropriate that those who stand to benefit most from them do more to support them financially. Given current economic circumstances, it is not reasonable to expect increases in funding for our parks from traditional funding mechanisms.
bigcranky
08-18-2011, 12:28
I'm with emerald on this one. The park charges for front country camp sites (imagine the total disaster if they didn't!) If we can get better service for a small fee, I'm all for that.
Ladytrekker
08-18-2011, 12:44
I'm with you I am all about supporting the National Parks I mean 10 to 20 bucks is certainly reasonable for a night in the park. Especially the GSMNP because it is the only park in the US that has free entry so paying to camp not a problem for me.
Mrs Baggins
08-18-2011, 12:58
Absolutely - pay for what you use. Don't want to pay for it - don't use it. Pretty simple.
-SEEKER-
08-18-2011, 13:29
I agree that GSMNP is one of those GREAT places that needs to be preserved and maintained. Doesn't bother me to pay.
so backpackers have to pay while day hikers don't. I would guess there are more dayhikers than backpackers who use the trails. Backpacking in the Smokies is declining and now they want to charge..brillant move
The greatest recreational impacts by hikers result from overnight stays and one of the more sensitive areas of GSMNP may be the remote areas along the ridgeline accessed by the popular Appalachian Trail.
Ladytrekker
08-18-2011, 14:43
Dayhikers are more likely to be staying in a campground stopping at the visitor centers purchasing things that all go to the park. Thru hikers are just passing thru in most cases and are not applying monies for use. They are only wanting to charge for campsites how that affect a dayhiker anyway.
Dayhikers still have to use the same trails to hike on as backpackers. What extras do you get at a backcountry site. You get cables and that is it.
There is no way rangers can hit every campsite every night to see who is there.
If the park needs/money charge the horse people who tear up the trails and campsites worse than anyone.
Start charging for the cars that go through Cades Cove..tons of money to be made there.
It seems to me the park is picking on the group of people who use the park the least.
SmokiesHanger
08-18-2011, 15:01
I hang in a hammock already so I don't mess up the ground. I don't build fires and I could just as easily hang my food bag with a rope so I am not sure why I would need to pay something. Also I always have wanted to thru hike the AT and this will apply to thru hikers too which sucks.
Don't be surprised if there is less than overwhelming support for this effort. Some of us are aware that our parks are chronically underfunded and think it quite appropriate that those who stand to benefit most from them do more to support them financially. Given current economic circumstances, it is not reasonable to expect increases in funding for our parks from traditional funding mechanisms.
The petition is a great thing. The parks are grossly underfunded, but not because they don't generate enough revenue. They do. The money brought in by the parks goes into a "General fund" which is divded up and spread around the gov't as determined by congress who feel that the parks deserve just enough to sustain themselves. If you think the money generated by the backcountry fees will go toward supporting the park....you are mistaken. It's just another tax. A wolf in sheeps clothing if you will.
I hang in a hammock already so I don't mess up the ground. I don't build fires and I could just as easily hang my food bag with a rope so I am not sure why I would need to pay something. Also I always have wanted to thru hike the AT and this will apply to thru hikers too which sucks.
Absolutely - pay for what you use. Don't want to pay for it - don't use it. Pretty simple.
Please pardon those of us who fail to see that through hikers who choose to use hammocks are all the more entitled to special privileges.
All A.T. through hikers in GSMNP are required to stay at and in fact in the shelters specified on their permits, provided space is available.
Father Dragon
08-18-2011, 15:28
I have no real problem with paying the park service money, although I feel there are better ways to generate income. Why not an axle fee for bringing your vehicle into the park? A mere couple of bucks per car would surely generate more money than charging the proportionately small number of back country users for campsites ... and people still won't be charged to enter the park, they will be charged to bring their car with them. So I signed not because I think hikers or anyone else should be entitled to free access to public lands (I'm not even going to touch on that on this site), I signed because the logic of charging a small sample of the population that makes use of the great smoky mountains national park doesn't make any sense if the goal is economic viability for the park service and better environmental resource management.
Pedaling Fool
08-18-2011, 15:32
It's not so much the fee to me, although I can get a little spun up about it when I think of how money is wasted. But that reservation system will keep my out of the park if it goes in effect as some are speculating; just no good for my type of hiking. Will wait and see...
Lone Wolf
08-18-2011, 15:33
There is an online petition up now here if anyone wants to sign it
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/gsmnp_backcountry_fees/ (http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/gsmnp_backcountry_fees/)
online petitions are worthless
Father Dragon
08-18-2011, 15:33
If you think the money generated by the backcountry fees will go toward supporting the park....you are mistaken. It's just another tax. A wolf in sheeps clothing if you will.
Not really sure about that. Other parks at least claim the money is used for the park itself.
http://www.nps.gov/bibe/planyourvisit/bcpermitfee.htm
(http://www.nps.gov/bibe/planyourvisit/bcpermitfee.htm)
XCskiNYC
08-18-2011, 16:40
Their web site says the park has to be free to drive-up visitors because the highway through the pass (441 -- Newfound Gap Rd) was given to the feds by the states with the stipulation that no toll be charged.
It's not clear to me how this prevents the park from charging for the parking lots just like the National Seashore does at all its popular beaches (but parking for less popular points like the Beach Forrest trail in Eastham are free).
don't be surprised if there is less than overwhelming support for this effort. Some of us are aware that our parks are chronically underfunded and think it quite appropriate that those who stand to benefit most from them do more to support them financially. Given current economic circumstances, it is not reasonable to expect increases in funding for our parks from traditional funding mechanisms.
qft
.......
Sir-Packs-Alot
08-18-2011, 18:32
Hmmm...well guys - here's my two cents on the issue. GSMNP is the most used (overused) National Park in an overused and underfunded system. In essence the park is the "all star in the spotlight" for irreparable damage to it's resources no matter how many smart replies try to manipulate and spin that statement. The park system is falling apart from cuts to funding and management and the pressures are highest at THIS park. Federal politics make grass roots funding (will the $ from these fees go to GSMNP - or "into the great wide open"?). The exception to this is if support organizations like "Friends of GSMNP" (who rebuilt the Mt. Cammerer firetower themselves) - get involved and help those monies go back directly to GSMNP. I would be for paying (in general) because the parks need every cent. - but I would REALLY be for it - if I had a good reason to think it would go directly back to THIS park - that NEEDS IT MOST. Any petition would need to relect that. I have tried to do this with some of the beleagured GA state parks and it was a quagmire - so expect a bigger one with the Dept. of the Interior and the NPS involved. Good Luck!
If our great nation can see fit to welcome visitors into the halls of the Smithsonian Institution free of charge (which is the way it must be, IMHO) it should also extend the same kind of welcome to back country campers in GSMNP.
Anyone who has more time to throw after it than I do right now care to throw up a few images of the shelters A.T. though hikers in GSMNP have use of at the expense of U.S. income tax payers? I wonder how many of them are willing to pay more so that hiker trash can get a free ride while on a 6-month vacation?
Ladytrekker
08-18-2011, 19:58
The reasons for free entry to the national park date back at least to the 1930s. The land that is today Great Smoky Mountains National Park was once privately owned. The states of Tennessee and North Carolina, as well as local communities, paid to construct Newfound Gap Road (US-441). When the state of Tennessee transferred ownership of Newfound Gap Road to the federal government in 1936, it stipulated that “no toll or license fee shall ever be imposed…” to travel the road.
At that time, Newfound Gap Road was one of the major routes crossing the southern Appalachian Mountains. It’s likely the state was concerned with maintaining free, easy interstate transportation for its citizens. North Carolina transferred its roads through abandonment, so no restrictions were imposed.
Action by the Tennessee legislature would be required to lift this deed restriction if Great Smoky Mountains National Park ever wished to charge an entrance fee.
just dad
08-18-2011, 20:15
Horse use damages the treadways far more then hikers. In addition, the horses leave huge amounts of waste on the trail. When I hiked through the GSMNP large sections of trail were a combination of mud and horse manure due to the horse usage. I'm all for charging the horses. Leave the hikers alone.
The reasons for free entry to the national park date back at least to the 1930s. The land that is today Great Smoky Mountains National Park was once privately owned. The states of Tennessee and North Carolina, as well as local communities, paid to construct Newfound Gap Road (US-441). When the state of Tennessee transferred ownership of Newfound Gap Road to the federal government in 1936, it stipulated that “no toll or license fee shall ever be imposed…” to travel the road.
At that time, Newfound Gap Road was one of the major routes crossing the southern Appalachian Mountains. It’s likely the state was concerned with maintaining free, easy interstate transportation for its citizens. North Carolina transferred its roads through abandonment, so no restrictions were imposed.
Action by the Tennessee legislature would be required to lift this deed restriction if Great Smoky Mountains National Park ever wished to charge an entrance fee.
nothing in what you posted says they can't charge the people who want to drive through Cades Cove. It isn't part of US 441. That would make the park lots of money
kolokolo
08-18-2011, 21:12
Paying a small fee per night does not seem unreasonable to me. I'll gladly do it.
Leanthree
08-18-2011, 22:13
If our great nation can see fit to welcome visitors into the halls of the Smithsonian Institution free of charge (which is the way it must be, IMHO) it should also extend the same kind of welcome to back country campers in GSMNP.
Amen. Our national treasures should be paid for by our national treasury and we should be taxed accordingly. It is not like the bureau of labor statistics charges for people to use their unemployment rate. They publish it for the common good just like the parks are for the common good so their endeavor should be supported by taxes, not fees.
Also, that being said, I have no problem with the OP posting the petition whether I agree with him or not. If someone comes on here with a petition to push for higher park fees or lower park fees or whatever, this is a good place for a reasonable discussion. If the AT community comes to agreement on particular issues then we can protect the trail as a unified voice when it comes to things like land acquisition, preventing logging, etc.
Ox97GaMe
08-18-2011, 22:14
Anyone who has more time to throw after it than I do right now care to throw up a few images of the shelters A.T. though hikers in GSMNP have use of at the expense of U.S. income tax payers? I wonder how many of them are willing to pay more so that hiker trash can get a free ride while on a 6-month vacation?
Emerald... not to dispute what you are saying, but all of the funds for the latet round of shelter upgrades came from private donations, collections from the Friends of the Smokies donation boxes, and the ATC. The original stone structures were built by CCC. There was a round of renovations in the 70s, but I dont know who paid for those.
For all the other folks getting wound up about this topic.... What I think is ironic about this proposal is that most of the locals around the park are in favor of it, but a lot of remote folks are against it. People that spend a lot of nights in the backcountry (ergo.... closer to the real issues, better informed, more directly impacted) dont seem to mind paying a small fee to preserve this treasure. People who seldom use the park (if ever) act like this is the government taking away some of their rights.
The park is considering several options. One of which is a 'per permit' fee of $10 +$5 each additional person. Spend a night... $10. Spend a week...$10. Sounds pretty fair to me.
For those referencing the 'Always Free Park' and referencing the TN and NC legislation..... One reason was as an agreement so the folks that had settled here could visit their old homesteads and cemetaries. Part of the quarrel over the Northshore road was because of access to the cemetaries in that area. Families are allowed to have their decendents burried there, but there is no easy access. But.. this isnt the only reason. There is a lot written in the legislation and folks shouldnt just pull out the small sections they want to use as reference. They should understand ALL of it and then make arguments about it.
That is my 2 cents worth. Im sure I will get all sorts of hate mail about it. :-P
wcgornto
08-18-2011, 22:49
... Especially the GSMNP because it is the only park in the US that has free entry so paying to camp not a problem for me.
No, not the only one in the US with free entry. Perhaps in the lower 48, but not all of the US. Several, if not all, in Alaska have no entry fee.
Ladytrekker
08-18-2011, 23:02
Cades Cove would be a cash cow I think. I went thru there this summer packed. So I did the Saturday morning bike thru it cause for 4 hours no cars that was fabulous and yea I would have paid a small fee. I do think they make some bucks in the store.
I agree with the comments on the horse damage saw that too. I stayed at Elkmont for a week and did a bunch of day hikes it was great.
WingedMonkey
08-18-2011, 23:03
In my view, as I have posted on other threads, the Newfound Gap/441 access agreement with Tennessee and the Road to Nowhere/ Northshore in North Carolina are two separate issues. Swain County North Carolina has settled for $52 million in installments from the federal government for the road not being built after Fontana Damn flooded the area.
SGT Rock
08-18-2011, 23:23
FWIW the park reps said this program is to pay for backcountry services. It isn't supposed to go to the general fund for park stuff etc. VERY SPECIFICALLY it was to pay for increased Ranger presence in the back country and for a new, more efficient reservation system. Anything left over might be used for trail maintenance and campsite upkeep, but that is not the primary reason for the fees. Go here for a better write up of the results of the meeting: http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?74909-GSMNP-Thinking-of-Charging-for-Back-Country-Camping.-5-per-day-Per-Person-Per-Hike&p=1190948&viewfull=1#post1190948
T (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?74909-GSMNP-Thinking-of-Charging-for-Back-Country-Camping.-5-per-day-Per-Person-Per-Hike&p=1190948&viewfull=1#post1190948)he fees will not necessarily pay for upkeep or upgrade of anything. They will mainly go to fund rangers to keep hikers in-line with the rules of the back country. I suggest if you guys want to debate the merits of the plan, you should debate if this presence is necessary.
Northern Lights
08-19-2011, 00:04
I would gladly pay. We pay here in Canada for any park use. I'm actually surprised there is not a fee for entry to the park, be it back country, day use or what have you.
CaptainNemo
08-19-2011, 00:42
This type of stuff makes me wonder how much longer into the future we are going to have these places that we love.
bigcranky
08-19-2011, 08:01
Quick question for those of you opposed to paying for backcountry camping in the Smokies: Do you think that all the car-camping campground sites should be free?
Quick question for those of you opposed to paying for backcountry camping in the Smokies: Do you think that all the car-camping campground sites should be free?
do the backcountry sites have the luxuries that the car camping sites do? All the backcountry sites have are the bear cables and sometimes a privy. The car camping sites have bathrooms, running water, stores and paved roads to get to them.. All of that requires maintenance which cost a lot more money that it does to replace a bear cable (if it gets repaired)
do the backcountry sites have the luxuries that the car camping sites do? All the backcountry sites have are the bear cables and sometimes a privy. The car camping sites have bathrooms, running water, stores and paved roads to get to them.. All of that requires maintenance which cost a lot more money that it does to replace a bear cable (if it gets repaired)
let part of it off. Yes backpackers have to use the roads also but not to the point that car campers use them. I have car camped at Cades Cove a few times but you end up driving back and forth to Gatlinburg or Townsend quite a few times. Where a backpacker drives in does his trip then drives out or has a shuttle that takes and picks him up.
They could charge to drive through Cades Cove and make a ton of money. It isn't part of US 441 which has to remain free of charge
Rain Man
08-19-2011, 09:21
Don't be surprised if there is less than overwhelming support for this effort.
I agree. This petition strikes me as cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Until the political pendulum swings back toward the middle (and it will), many parks and things for the common good are and have been dying a slow death (on purpose?) due to underfunding. As much as it costs me anyway to plan and execute a backpacking outing, tossing a very few bucks into the coffer for the very place I would be hiking would be cheap and the LEAST I could do.
Rain:sunMan
.
Pedaling Fool
08-19-2011, 09:35
FWIW the park reps said this program is to pay for backcountry services. It isn't supposed to go to the general fund for park stuff etc. VERY SPECIFICALLY it was to pay for increased Ranger presence in the back country and for a new, more efficient reservation system. Anything left over might be used for trail maintenance and campsite upkeep, but that is not the primary reason for the fees. Go here for a better write up of the results of the meeting: http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?74909-GSMNP-Thinking-of-Charging-for-Back-Country-Camping.-5-per-day-Per-Person-Per-Hike&p=1190948&viewfull=1#post1190948
T (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?74909-GSMNP-Thinking-of-Charging-for-Back-Country-Camping.-5-per-day-Per-Person-Per-Hike&p=1190948&viewfull=1#post1190948)he fees will not necessarily pay for upkeep or upgrade of anything. They will mainly go to fund rangers to keep hikers in-line with the rules of the back country. I suggest if you guys want to debate the merits of the plan, you should debate if this presence is necessary.
I'm curious; did anyone read this? As well as this over on the other thread http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?74909-GSMNP-Thinking-of-Charging-for-Back-Country-Camping.-5-per-day-Per-Person-Per-Hike&p=1190948&viewfull=1#post1190948
This has nothing to do with upkeep/preservation, nature itself does a pretty good job of that. This is all about a reservation system, one in which I really had no problem with as a long-distance hiker, but you can tell by the administrators and many here that that type of hiking seems to be dying out. Sad, but such is life...change...There's a world of difference between the LD hiker (that's just passing thru) and someone that plans a trip to a general area in a park. But since the LD seems to be dying out the ones remaining will just have to find a new way to do what they love.
rjhouser
08-19-2011, 09:43
I know one of their problems as of late has been campers who set up camp in a spot and stay there all week. Also, overpopulation of campers. They are probably just trying to deter this. As many people have pointed out, if their main goal was to make money they would be doing it some other way.
Originally posted by Emerald:
"Anyone who has more time to throw after it than I do right now care to throw up a few images of the shelters A.T. though hikers in GSMNP have use of at the expense of U.S. income tax payers? I wonder how many of them are willing to pay more so that hiker trash can get a free ride while on a 6-month vacation?"
Emerald, are you always this much of a troll, or are you just having a bad day? I'm failing to find anything constructive in your comment. The problem I have with this potential change in policy is that there is likely to be more cost associated with collecting and policing the fee than the actual revenue generated.
[
QUOTE]
I agree. This petition strikes me as cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Until the political pendulum swings back toward the middle (and it will), many parks and things for the common good are and have been dying a slow death (on purpose?) due to underfunding. As much as it costs me anyway to plan and execute a backpacking outing, tossing a very few bucks into the coffer for the very place I would be hiking would be cheap and the LEAST I could do.
Doesn't seem to be an underfunding issue here. 15 mil learning center. 25 mil transportation hub. Now the state DOT, and the Feds kicked in some moola, but lordy. Don't be pleading poverty with a shiny new truck and a fancy new house.
I smell a hope to reduce use, not funding for enforcement. Yes I am cynical...
.[/QUOTE]
I am not surprised by the lack of shelter images posted, but was pleased to see my post prompted someone to provide information about how the more recent renovations to them were funded.
If I'm the only person left in the world who thinks resource managers shouldn't make extraordinary efforts to accomodate through hikers, then so be it. I once through hiked the A.T. too, but I didn't think it entitled me to special treatment.
If GSMNP thinks there's an issue with A.T. hikers complying with park regulations, putting more personnel in the field would be a good way to deal with the issue and to determine whether what they have come to believe is so.
If their intent is to reduce use of the A.T. and impacts to the park, I question whether the fee is enough and whether there is sufficient incentive to use the BMT instead.
Why don't they simply reduce the number of permits and/or institute a lottery system if they wish to reduce use? Maybe they are not yet ready to take that step and wish to try other things before reducing the number of permits.
I once through hiked the A.T. too, but I didn't think it entitled me to special treatment.
Why don't they simply reduce the number of permits and/or institute a lottery system if they wish to reduce use? Maybe they are not yet ready to take that step and wish to try other things before reducing the number of permits.
Somehow this discussion has been twisted to change the meaning from: The proposed reservation system and fee system puts a hardship on thru-hikers... to .. 'why should thru-hikers receive special treatment?'
There is a big difference there. When you hiked the AT, it was simply a matter of filling out a permit and walking through at either Fontana or Davenport. From what I hear, according to the proposal, the AT thru-hiker somehow has to make contact with the reservation service contractor (ReserveAmerica.com) or get to a phone and call. Apparently there will be no assurance that they can get a reservation if all are taken up by the weekenders or Park-only patrons. When you hiked through the Park, did you know exactly where you were going to stay every night? (and reserve accordingly) . Of course not... most through hikers do not maintain a regimented schedule. It is driven by weather, conditioning, potential injury, and how you feel on a particular day. So..... the fact is... when you thru-hiked in the Park, Emerald, YOU DID RECEIVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT over the occasional Park patron who tried to get a reservation but could not because they were full.
When you hiked through the Park, did you know exactly where you were going to stay every night? (and reserve accordingly) . Of course not... most through hikers do not maintain a regimented schedule. It is driven by weather, conditioning, potential injury, and how you feel on a particular day..
By the time you reach the NOC or Fontana, it's pretty easy to figure out the mileage your comfortable at, and not hard to figure out a schedule. God forbid an AT thru-hiker have to actually use their brain. If weather changes your schedule through the park, so be it, but to claim it can't be done is ludicrous.
max patch
08-20-2011, 12:47
When you hiked through the Park, did you know exactly where you were going to stay every night? (and reserve accordingly) . Of course not... most through hikers do not maintain a regimented schedule. It is driven by weather, conditioning, potential injury, and how you feel on a particular day.
Lot of angst about the worst 80 hiking miles of the A.T.
Because of the requirement that you must spend the nite at a shelter I absolutely knew when I got up in the morning where I was going to spend the nite. If I had been required to plot out my entire time in the GSMNP I could have done that too. This isn't exactly rocket science.
The government takes over half my income in taxes. I think I oughta be able to spend the nite at an unimproved campground fee free.
4eyedbuzzard
08-20-2011, 12:55
The government takes over half my income in taxes.
Just a suggestion, but if this is truly the case you might want to take a weekend off hiking and find a better financial planner and a better accountant.
I have no reservations paying a fee for the upkeep of any area of GSMNP. The place is a GEM.
max patch
08-20-2011, 13:01
I have no reservations paying a fee for the upkeep of any area of GSMNP. The place is a GEM.
Especially the toilet paper fields behind the shelters.
By the time A.T. through hikers reach NOC or Fontana, it's pretty easy to figure out what's comfortable and not hard to figure out a schedule. God forbid AT thru-hikers have to actually use their brain. If weather changes their schedule through the park, so be it, but to claim it can't be done is ludicrous.
Thanks, Sly. This notion that through hikers are incapable of planning and keeping to a conservative schedlule and GSMNP must accomodate their special needs is exactly the kind of thinking and favored treatment to which I object. It is wrong for through hikers to demand they be excused from policies that apply to other park visitors. The world and the park doesn't revolve around them. They must adjust to park policies, not the other way around.
By the time you reach the NOC or Fontana, it's pretty easy to figure out the mileage your comfortable at, and not hard to figure out a schedule. God forbid an AT thru-hiker have to actually use their brain. If weather changes your schedule through the park, so be it, but to claim it can't be done is ludicrous.
Well, perhaps the 2nd or 3rd time through, but I had no idea what my schedule would be. I had no access to maps or planning materials (do you guys really lug those big guidebooks around in your pack?). I simply had the mileage table and I actually fell behind after coming from the NOC and going over Tellico. I found that my mileage actually dropped. When I got to Fontana, I simply filled out the permit "thru hiker" and attempted to stuff it in the box (which was jam full with some permits pushing out the top of the opening). I made it to Birch Spring but decided to go on to the next shelter because of the huge mud slick around the shelter (glad they tore that one down).
The point is, a lot of thru-hikers hike with the intention of not being on a schedule. A schedule takes away from the experience of thru-hiking. Why would you want to put these additional pressures on yourself to be at a certain place at a certain time? I can see someone planning to be in a certain location within 2 or 3 days, but otherwise it is just a guess to say you are going to be at a certain shelter in the GSMNP 12 days out. It would be even worst to arrive early and have to hang around a day or so while your shelter date comes up. Even within the Park, it can be a little tricky knowing if you can make the 2nd or 3rd shelter out if you have not hiked through there before. I see this proposed system not only being a hardship for thru-hikers, but a challenging hardship to the Park personnel who will have to deal with more complaints about a poorly thought out system that unfairly targets a relatively small group of low impact visitors. Although economic conditions may have changed the number of people who had originally planned a thru, the number of starters still goes up each year and GSMNP is not at a point where there are a large numbers of potential thru's have already abandoned the trail.
GSMNP and the resources it protects are far more important than A.T. through hikers being able to experience complete freedom with respect to how and where they travel.
Pedaling Fool
08-20-2011, 17:37
It's gonna suck if this new reservation system in the park is established, but what's worse is if it spreads to other areas of the AT. Will completely change the feel of LD hiking and being out in the woods. Actually, not just LD hiking, but for those that have jobs that make it hard to plan, but more importantly why would you want to plan you time out in the woods as if it were some type of military operation, goes against every thing I thought back country hiking was all about. I'm surprised so many in this community are so submissive.
Pedaling Fool
08-20-2011, 17:46
The mountains are calling and I must go.
John Muir (http://www.whiteblaze.net/quotes/quotes/j/johnmuir380220.html)
Not so fast John. Did you make a reservation and provide a minute-by-minute itinerary.:rolleyes:
It's gonna suck if this new reservation system in the park is established, but what's worse is if it spreads to other areas of the AT. Will completely change the feel of LD hiking and being out in the woods.
Policies related to dispersed camping have become more liberal in some locations since I hiked the A.T. and the trail in places is beginning to resemble a linear campsite. There seems to be no dimunition to the hordes of people who descend upon Springer Mountain like locusts every spring for their adventure of a lifetime.
There are natural limits to what's sustainable over time. The concept of a carrying capacity applies to through hiking every bit as much as it does to wildlife populations.
It's gonna suck if this new reservation system in the park is established, but what's worse is if it spreads to other areas of the AT. Will completely change the feel of LD hiking and being out in the woods. Actually, not just LD hiking, but for those that have jobs that make it hard to plan, but more importantly why would you want to plan you time out in the woods as if it were some type of military operation, goes against every thing I thought back country hiking was all about. I'm surprised so many in this community are so submissive.
There are few national parks worth hiking where you don't need at least a permit which necessitates arranging for it on the spot or beforehand. Some charge a fee, others may require a itinerary, many are strict with food preparation and storage.
You may not get the rare, or spectacular view, but if you want a truer wilderness experience, which is mostly free, try a national forest or wilderness area.
Pedaling Fool
08-21-2011, 07:06
There are few national parks worth hiking where you don't need at least a permit which necessitates arranging for it on the spot or beforehand. Some charge a fee, others may require a itinerary, many are strict with food preparation and storage.
You may not get the rare, or spectacular view, but if you want a truer wilderness experience, which is mostly free, try a national forest or wilderness area.
Thanks Sly, for sharing your free intelligence:D
4eyedbuzzard
08-21-2011, 10:11
Policies related to dispersed camping have become more liberal in some locations since I hiked the A.T. and the trail in places is beginning to resemble a linear campsite. There seems to be no dimunition to the hordes of people who descend upon Springer Mountain like locusts every spring for their adventure of a lifetime.
There are natural limits to what's sustainable over time. The concept of a carrying capacity applies to through hiking every bit as much as it does to wildlife populations.
What would you suggest as a viable solution regarding this? (somewhat rhetorical) ATC already has many alternate itineraries (some that make a lot of sense as well) listed that would lessen the Springer rush, but if you ask here or at other hiking sites, most hikers are hell bent on a traditional NOBO thru, with 90% of them starting in March to early April. If you read enough posts here, you note this "disapproval" in a sense amongst quite a few past and present thru-hikers that only a contiguous NOBO or SOBO is a "true thru-hike." There's definitely some negative feelings toward flip-flops and others. Throttling, a lottery system, permits, etc all have lots of problems surrounding them - starting with, "What do you mean I can't walk on that PUBLIC trail?!"
If you read enough posts here, you note this "disapproval" in a sense amongst quite a few past and present thru-hikers that only a contiguous NOBO or SOBO is a "true thru-hike." There's definitely some negative feelings toward flip-flops and others. "
Negative feelings and disapproval from purists? Bring it on. Many are so anal it's a pleasure to get them going.
I'm from the part of Pennsylvania where the majority of the Appalachian Trail traverses State Game Lands and Pennsylvania Code defines who's a through hiker. Everyone on a linear overnight hike is a through hiker and GAMEs and MEGAs are entitled to no special treatment whatsoever.
GSMNP has its own ideas about who's a through hiker too. Seems they don't think there's anything special about GAMEs and MEGAs either so far a they're concerned so hike whatever kind of alternative itinerary you want. It isn't any hiker's business but your own.
I wonder what price would need to be put on a GSMNP A.T. through hike before hikers would begin to refuse to pay for the opportunity? No doubt many Americans would find that practice objectionable, but the principles of supply and demand apply to recreational opportunities too.
Consider for a moment the impact of a price tag of $200.00 US. What would you think about that and would you be willing to pay that much for the priviledge of hiking the A.T. through GSMNP?
WingedMonkey
08-21-2011, 14:19
Negative feelings and disapproval from purists? Bring it on. Many are so anal it's a pleasure to get them going.
LOL there you go again with that invisible enemy. And do we still admire Ms. Pharr for being a "purist"? I gusee asome would consider her anal.
4eyedbuzzard
08-21-2011, 14:26
LOL there you go again with that invisible enemy. And do we still admire Ms. Pharr for being a "purist"? I gusee asome would consider her anal.
Just FWIW, such speed hikes are pretty far removed from what most people think of as hiking or thru-hiking.
What is a purist? I know of no such thing. What are you referring to and what does that have to do with a petition against charging fees to put up a tent in the back country.
You know it is a well known fact that when you begin charging, more people will come. Something of value is perceived when you pay, whereas a no charge facility is thought to be plain with little or no attraction. Go to the free Linville Gorge someday and you will see what I mean. I would just assume they keep it low key and not create all the publicity.... or is it already too late?
This is nothing but a money making gig for the Park Service and an unnecessary burden to the taxpayers. There will be no value to the average back country user, but there will be a big inconvience, plus more crowds and more trash to pick up from those that have paid and soon discover that there are no amenities and feel gyped.
Just FWIW, such speed hikes are pretty far removed from what most people think of as hiking or thru-hiking.
Jen Pharr's hike was just another through hike as far as I'm concerned and its duration is irrelevant.
If one accepts that the greater portion of impacts associated with through hikes result from camping, shorter hikes are better from a resource management standpoint.
SGT Rock
08-21-2011, 15:16
FWIW I think if folks were really concerned about the impact of thru-hikers on the AT in the Smokies then they would do what Morgan Summerfield of the Asheville ATC suggested: make the BMT an authorized alternative to the AT in the Smokies.
I'm not sure swapping names would have any greater effect and given the hurdles that would need to be cleared, it sounds like a good idea to me.
What would be required and why isn't this being pursued? Would it just require ATC recognizing such hikes or something more?
I suspect many would still prefer to hike the A.T., but it may be more attractive to hikers than expected especially if it's promoted well.
SGT Rock
08-21-2011, 15:31
Morgan is the head of the ATC office in Asheville, so I am not sure how official his suggestion was - and this was made in 2005. I figure it wouldn't take anything special as the system is an honor system anyway, just tell the people that send out the completion certificate and patches that if someone says they did the BMT in the Smokies that it is cool. And add to that, if someone feels they are official by taking the BMT instead of the AT now, the AT won't necessarily withhold recognition to anyone sending in the form anyway. I think it would help make it an option in some people's mind if the ATC actually said something about doing this in literature somewhere, but that is for them to decide.
FWIW: according to the manager at the Fontana store, in 2010 when the snow was bad in the high country, the ATC did say it was an authorized alternative due to the trail being nigh impassable. I have never seen this in writing anywhere nor have I tried to verify it.
4eyedbuzzard
08-21-2011, 17:00
Morgan is the head of the ATC office in Asheville, so I am not sure how official his suggestion was - and this was made in 2005. I figure it wouldn't take anything special as the system is an honor system anyway, just tell the people that send out the completion certificate and patches that if someone says they did the BMT in the Smokies that it is cool. And add to that, if someone feels they are official by taking the BMT instead of the AT now, the AT won't necessarily withhold recognition to anyone sending in the form anyway. I think it would help make it an option in some people's mind if the ATC actually said something about doing this in literature somewhere, but that is for them to decide.
FWIW: according to the manager at the Fontana store, in 2010 when the snow was bad in the high country, the ATC did say it was an authorized alternative due to the trail being nigh impassable. I have never seen this in writing anywhere nor have I tried to verify it.
ATC does state under 2000 miler recognition: "We recognize blue-blazed trails or officially required road-walks as viable substitutes for the official, white-blazed route in the event of an emergency, such as a flood, a forest fire, or an impending storm on an exposed, high-elevation stretch." I'm guessing that might be interpreted cover such things as trails impassable due to deep snow, ice, etc.
LOL there you go again with that invisible enemy. And do we still admire Ms. Pharr for being a "purist"? I gusee asome would consider her anal.
Invisible enemies? Yes, there are anal purist that think if you don't pass every whiteblaze you're a cheater. Pay attention and you'll see for yourself.
Jen doesn't judge other hikers hikes, which are the purist I speak of.
SGT Rock
08-21-2011, 19:16
ATC does state under 2000 miler recognition: "We recognize blue-blazed trails or officially required road-walks as viable substitutes for the official, white-blazed route in the event of an emergency, such as a flood, a forest fire, or an impending storm on an exposed, high-elevation stretch." I'm guessing that might be interpreted cover such things as trails impassable due to deep snow, ice, etc.
I agree. Maybe soon the wording will include: "or to reduce impact of overcrowding at shelters"
Invisible enemies? Yes, there are anal purist that think if you don't pass every whiteblaze you're a cheater. Pay attention and you'll see for yourself.
Jen doesn't judge other hikers hikes, which are the purist I speak of.
Sly is right. There are MANY posts on threads here where this has been beaten to death. We don't fault someone for wanting to hike by every blaze - like Jen or others have. What I find fault in (and I assume Sly still does) is the haters that decide OTHER peoples hikes aren't worthy because they didn't hike past every blaze.
I agree. Maybe soon the wording will include: "or to reduce impact of overcrowding at shelters"
Sly is right. There are MANY posts on threads here where this has been beaten to death. We don't fault someone for wanting to hike by every blaze - like Jen or others have. What I find fault in (and I assume Sly still does) is the haters that decide OTHER peoples hikes aren't worthy because they didn't hike past every blaze.
Perfectly said.
TheTwanger
08-21-2011, 19:29
We are talking about public land here though... What services do we need on the trail that aren't taken care of by the kind volunteer groups who maintain trails and shelters? I understand it wouldn't be expensive or anything, but as a broke college student I do good to be able to afford gas to drive over there... This almost certainly will keep me from hiking at times. I don't mean to get political but its very frustrating how federal government just pisses billions in taxes out into the wind and we have to pay more yet to enjoy our own natural heritage... The parks should be better funded, but it shouldn't be a payed privilege to rough it! Once they put a price on it, it will only go up and up... next thing you know it will be as expensive as GCNP
SGT Rock
08-21-2011, 19:36
We are talking about public land here though... What services do we need on the trail that aren't taken care of by the kind volunteer groups who maintain trails and shelters? I understand it wouldn't be expensive or anything, but as a broke college student I do good to be able to afford gas to drive over there... This almost certainly will keep me from hiking at times. I don't mean to get political but its very frustrating how federal government just pisses billions in taxes out into the wind and we have to pay more yet to enjoy our own natural heritage... The parks should be better funded, but it shouldn't be a payed privilege to rough it! Once they put a price on it, it will only go up and up... next thing you know it will be as expensive as GCNP
FWIW, Twanger hit on something I have also been thinking about since the meeting. At one point I was in one of these groups talking about volunteers and one of the guys in my group works quite a bit as a volunteer for the park. Apparently they have already implemented a Ridge Runner style program of volunteers on patrol through the back country looking for this stuff - it started this year. And also the GSMNP is second in the whole US for volunteer hours in things like campsite clean up, information folks, people working the current reservation system, etc. A lot of volunteer effort (which is free) is being aimed to the issues this plan is supposed to address. People talk about folks not willing to pay for services rendered, well in this case the services are being rendered for free and are building, and on top of that it seems that lots of the "freeloader" hikers are willing to buck-up and do the work for free themselves.
Something for you guys to ponder on anyway.
Regarding park fees..
If and when the day ever comes that Americans get off their high horse opposition to funding services through taxes (more taxes more services, fewer taxes fewer services) than we damn well better be willing to pay user fees to use our parks. They need to be funded somehow. No tax money, no user fees, then our parks would suffer.. even more than they already are.
DavidNH
Sure would be helpful if people posting to this thread could see this issue from a conservation perspective. Some seem to be focused exclusively upon recreation from the consumer's point-of-view as if recreation were the only issue involved and its supply unlimited.
If everyone hiking the A.T. were to read just one book, I would wish for it to be Wilderness and the American Mind. The final chapters deal with concepts that seem to have never been considered by some who post here such as what happens as popularity leads to increases in visitor days and reduces the quality of recreational experiences sought.
FWIW, Twanger hit on something I have also been thinking about since the meeting. At one point I was in one of these groups talking about volunteers and one of the guys in my group works quite a bit as a volunteer for the park. Apparently they have already implemented a Ridge Runner style program of volunteers on patrol through the back country looking for this stuff - it started this year. And also the GSMNP is second in the whole US for volunteer hours in things like campsite clean up, information folks, people working the current reservation system, etc. A lot of volunteer effort (which is free) is being aimed to the issues this plan is supposed to address. People talk about folks not willing to pay for services rendered, well in this case the services are being rendered for free and are building, and on top of that it seems that lots of the "freeloader" hikers are willing to buck-up and do the work for free themselves.
Something for you guys to ponder on anyway.
Hmmm. I remember Ridge runners in the late 80's in the Park. I talked with one in detail (I think it was May or June 1989) and he shared a story about a stealth hiker who did not hang his food and how a bear got hold of it and drug it for for a couple of miles leaving behind trash and chewed up packaging material. This Ridge runner plus 2 other volunteers had spent many days retrieving the trash. They had to use rope and tackle to get down some of the cliffs and ledges. Apparently a lot of trash had to be pulled out of deep thickets.
I have always picked up trash, within reason, when hiking, but due to size and weight, there is a limit to what a backpacker can take out. This Spring when I was on the BMT, I stayed at 98 and it was not very clean. There were pieces of a styrofoam cooler and a lot of liter that were obviously brought in by boaters pulling up to the campsite from the Lake and leaving a mess. Also, the very few flat tentspots were covered in horse manure. I couldn't do much at that site, but paper liter and food wrappers don't weigh much and are easy to pack out.
Perhaps we can register as voluteers and get a discount on our permit :). Of course ReserveAmerica.com will still have to get their $10 for answering the phone and pushing a few keys on the computer.
Once they put a price on it, it will only go up and up... next thing you know it will be as expensive as GCNP
This is probably what I hate the most, the doom and gloom, and general inaccuracies. GCNP backcountry camping fees below the rim are $10 per permit and $5 per person, per night, and haven't gone up in over 10 years.
They also have a $25 frequent user program which waives the $10 permit fee for 1 year.
SGT Rock
08-21-2011, 21:18
The ridgerunner program I'm talking about is something for the rest of the trails in the park. The ATC has the AT covered.
ATC is not empowered to establish or enforce park regulations, rather they have an obligation to educate those attracted to GSMNP by the footpath they created.
Pedaling Fool
08-22-2011, 07:59
Sure would be helpful if people posting to this thread could see this issue from a conservation perspective. Some seem to be focused exclusively upon recreation from the consumer's point-of-view as if recreation were the only issue involved and its supply unlimited.
If everyone hiking the A.T. were to read just one book, I would wish for it to be Wilderness and the American Mind. The final chapters deal with concepts that seem to have never been considered by some who post here such as what happens as popularity leads to increases in visitor days and reduces the quality of recreational experiences sought.
You keep approaching this issue from a conservation angle, but it has been shown that this issue is not about conservation, yet you seem hellbent on discussing it. That's fine, but not on this thread. Maybe you should open another thread and talk about these issues you seem to have a yearning to talk about. Maybe you can talk about the need to have a special fracking tax on camping fuels or whatever...
You keep approaching this issue from a conservation angle, but it has been shown that this issue is not about conservation.
There are two threads active on this topic and so much has been posted, I wonder if anyone knows what the issue is about anymore. Besides, I don't believe what you claim has been demonstrated and that everyone posting understands the purpose of the proposed fees.
As I recall, the purpose of the fees explained at the public informational meeting and reported upon by Sgt. Rock in the other thread is to create two ranger positions that would deal primarily with enforcement of park regulations in the backcountry.
If I'm correct with what I just posted and have succeeded in reducing this lengthy discussion to something more simple and understandable, I contend the proposal most definately has resource conservation as its primary objective and those who are expected to pay for it are consumers of public resources who should pay for the increased presence deemed necessary by those charged with protecting these resources.
SGT Rock
08-22-2011, 10:12
ATC is not empowered to establish or enforce park regulations, rather they have an obligation to educate those attracted to GSMNP by the footpath they created.yes we know that.
This is probably what I hate the most, the doom and gloom, and general inaccuracies. GCNP backcountry camping fees below the rim are $10 per permit and $5 per person, per night, and haven't gone up in over 10 years.
They also have a $25 frequent user program which waives the $10 permit fee for 1 year.
They also charge $10 to view a 35 minute National Park film. When GSMNP starts charging fees for all other Park activities that are free but have substantial impact like horse riding, boat docking, parking, picnicing, NPS films, etc., then they might want to investigate fees for using the backcountry sites. For now, there is just no reason to target this small group of people who have very little impact (in comparison to what was just mentioned) to the Park.
The only thing GSMNP can't charge for is an entrance fee.
gollwoods
08-23-2011, 18:17
the backcountry is overused in alot of places, so this should help that. maybe some people will choose to go elsewhere. that is the idea ultimately. it might make the experience more enjoyable for the people who still go. that is the value you will be paying for.
I am sure a whole bunch of folks on this list have had conversations similar to the one I had with a NPS Ranger we met at Rocky Mountain National Park. It went something like this:
Me: This sure is a beautiful park you have here.
Ranger: Yes, your park most certainly is.
That made an impression. One which really colors my thinking on this subject.
When GSMNP starts charging fees for all other Park activities that are free but have substantial impact like horse riding, boat docking, parking, picnicing, NPS films, etc., then they might want to investigate fees for using the backcountry sites.
Those activities for the most part are not A.T.-related and do not bear upon A.T. issues to be addressed by the proposal being discussed. If you believe additional user fees might be helpful in resolving A.T.-related issues or issues elsewhere within GSMNP, feel free to voice your concerns and suggest remedies to park managers.
Those issues for the most part are not A.T.-related and do not bear upon A.T. issues to be addressed by the proposal being discussed. If you believe additional user fees might be helpful in resolving A.T.-related issues or issues elsewhere within GSMNP, feel free to voice your concerns to park managers.
Apparently you have not been reading the releases from the NPS and other posts discussing this. This is not an AT related issue. The proposed fee plan is for every backcountry site on every trail in the GSMNP. I believe there are close to 100, if not more.
I tried to explain that to you when you made the suggestion that AT thru hikers use the BMT. The BMT gets more horse damage than the AT and there are certain sections that boaters can pull up to from the lake, and have picnics, and pull away leaving their trash. Some of the trash is too large for hikers and volunteers on foot to carry out.
Before they begin charging to use the backcountry sites, they need to charge for those that create the most damage (or impact) to the park.
.... and yes my comments addressing all these other concerns were sent to the website set up for the proposed fee discussion, and indicated on the comments section of the petition.
One good thing about filling out the petition against the proposed backcountry fee plan is that it will become public record, whereas it is uncertain what will happen to all the letters written to the NPS.
They also charge $10 to view a 35 minute National Park film. When GSMNP starts charging fees for all other Park activities that are free but have substantial impact like horse riding, boat docking, parking, picnicing, NPS films, etc., then they might want to investigate fees for using the backcountry sites. For now, there is just no reason to target this small group of people who have very little impact (in comparison to what was just mentioned) to the Park.
The only thing GSMNP can't charge for is an entrance fee.
You know what? Don't watch the film. How easy is that? I'm not even aware of a boat dock in the GSMNP so stop with the strawmans.
This is not an AT related issue. The proposed fee plan is for every backcountry site on every trail in the GSMNP. I believe there are close to 100, if not more.
Some of these backcountry sites are located on the A.T. and you are reading an A.T. forum. I'm questioning the relevance of discussing non-A.T.-related issues here. You seem to be focusing upon unrelated issues as a means of derailing the discussion and/or defeating the proposal.
The BMT gets more horse damage than the AT and there are certain sections that boaters can pull up to from the lake, and have picnics, and pull away leaving their trash. Some of the trash is too large for hikers and volunteers on foot to carry out.
Seems to me a fee and an increased presence is just what's needed.
Before they begin charging to use the backcountry sites, they need to charge for those that create the most damage (or impact) to the park.
If you will refer to my earlier posts, you will see I suggested you contact GSMNP about charging them too. Your notion that GSMNP needs to charge them before they charge A.T. visitors for overnight stays is illogical.
Some of these backcountry sites are located on the A.T. and you are reading an A.T. forum. I'm questioning the relevance of discussing non-A.T.-related issues here. You seem to be focusing upon unrelated issues as a means of derailing the discussion and/or defeating the proposal.
I believe this thread is to discuss GSMNP issues. I'm right on topic.
Seems to me a fee and an increased presence is just what's needed.
Absolutely! Charge the boaters to picnic and party on Lakeshore. Charge the horse riders to pay for the damage they create to the trails. Charge all other users appropriately where allowed by law...... and if they are still short of funds, consider a charge to use backcountry sites.
If you will refer to my earlier posts, you will see I suggested you contact GSMNP about charging them too. Your notion that GSMNP needs to charge them before they charge A.T. visitors is illogical.
Perfectly logical. Those that create the biggest impact to the Park lands, pay first, and pay the most.
Ive been camping overnight at Red River Gorge (RRG) for about 5 years now. Yea, it's a state park, but they have been charging a overnight permit fee for years, & no one hesitates to "Ante Up". I got a $25.00 (I think) "season pass" last year, & it was well worth it as after about night 14 the rest are free, in 2010 I spent about 30 nights in RRG, so was ahead so to speak at less than $1.00 a night. I think a one night permit at RRG is about $5.00, & that goes down per night to 3 nights @ around $4.00.
I would happily pay that or more to camp in GSMNP, and in fact have done so in the car camping areas (I think last time the fee was $29.00 or so a night about 15 years ago.).
So, thanks for the offer, but I am FOR the fee. Any place to sign a petition saying that?
Don't expect me to respond to any more of your posts as I have better things to do with my time.
Thank You, so do I.
SmokiesHanger
08-25-2011, 11:15
I want to thank you all and whiteblaze for letting me post the petition here. Already has gotten over 300 signatures and it seems to be picking up steam. I won't add a lot more but if you are local you may be seeing a story about this petition in 2 papers soon. Adding this to the other petition going around Maryville means there have been over 1000 signees so far. I couldn't have imagined such a strong response.
Thanks to Emerald too for keeping this topic alive for so long and for the great debate. Sometimes it is good for a cause to have such vocal opponents!
I came back to clean up the thread, but Troll beat me to it.