GSMNP: Unfriendly for hikers/campers?

[Currahee D]

This post may stir the pot a bit, but it seems like from what I've read about the rules and regs of the GSMNP, it seems to be fairly restrictive and unfriendly for hikers. Is it true that backcountry hiking/camping fees are coming? And why aren't dogs allowed in the park, I can't imagine being a thru-hiker with a dog and parting ways with my 4 legged partner for that stretch. Also, why are reservations required for shelters and/or tent camping. Maybe because I'm a relative newby to backpacking, but it seems like the GSMNP is a complete hassle to hike through or camp in?? It all just seems way too restrictive to actually enjoy, maybe it's the libertarian in me, but it seems beyond ridiculous for the government to heavily regulate something that should be absolutely free and enjoyable. Anyone else agree?, I'm sure many will disagree.

[fireneck]

Yes, I agree it can be a pain, but I'm all for it. Regulating the 9 MILLION visitors is very important. Though a majority of them don't wonder more than 1/4 of a mile off cement! Someone pointed out in another thread that 1% of it's visitors is roughly 90,000 people. Let's entertain the idea that 1% of the park's visitors are backpackers... that's a lot of people tracking out the woods. It's important to have harden sites (shelters, tent pads) to reduce the impact of these people on the land. One of the other ways of regulating the impact is requiring permits (which they already do, they're still free as far as I know) The 800 square miles only has some much carrying capacity for people, it's important to keep the land healthy.

Frontcountry camping reservations are NOT required. They only allow a certain number of sites to be reserved in advance, thus it allows for walk ups.

I have heard rumors that backcountry fees are coming, but that's what happens when people decide to cut the budget of the NPS! If every tax payer paid an extra a $15 NPS tax it would DOUBLE the NPS budget.

Personally I am happy they have banned dogs and other pets!

[aaronthebugbuffet]

A lot of national parks have fees, require reservations and have strict rules regarding pets.

[Chaco Taco]

Its not a hassle only if you make it that way. The GSMNP is absolutely beautiful and is fun to hike. There are other trails other than the AT in the park that are awesome and have campsites. Curtis at Standing bear takes in dogs, or he used to while you go through the park. It all just requires a little more planning. There are no fees yet, but they are coming. Unfortunately, the fee issue is going to spur a big debate with people on this site. There are fee's up here in The Whites for parking your car for daily use and fees for staying in the backcountry and such and I have no issue with paying it. Its just how it is and it wont keep me from going out, so I dont complain about it. Thats basically what I see happening. This issue just gives people something else to complain about. Many people will try and circumvent the new rules and stealth places and will get caught, like they always do. You really have to look at it like this, is it really going to do any good for you to get ticked off about it on an internet website and piss a bunch of people off when the fees are yet to be put in place? If you dont like it, start a petition to change it and send it to the people responsible for making the rule.

I personally have a special place in my heart for the Smokies. I have always had so much fun hiking there and miss them. Its some of the most beautiful woods on the trail and is so very unique. If you can put aside the other stuff for something that may be out of your control, there is so much in that park to enjoy.

[HeartFire]

Dogs are not allowed on trails in ALL National Parks. The GSMNP is unusual in the NP system for not having fees (to date) it is certainly very hiker friendly as you just self register for back country camping at many of the ranger stations. Some, not all camping sites require reservations because they are often over used. Thru hikers do not need reservations for the shelters on the AT, just drop off your form at Fontana dam. There are about 800 miles of trail in the GSMNP, most of them much nicer than the AT.

Dogs on a thru hike are a 'hole nuther' topic

[Blissful]

You ask a bunch of whys that no one has answers for. Maybe go to the head honchos there and inquire. Or come to Shenandoah where all you need is a permit and your dog on a leash - should be great color this year. But I also agree with Chaco, the Smokies like many NPs are loved to death and thus more regs to keep things in balance so everyone can enjoy.

[4eyedbuzzard]

GSMNP is way too much of a hassle and should be avoided at all costs. Avoiding the park also sends a strong message to the authorities in charge that people don't agree with all the regulations and policies. :rolleyes:

[IrishBASTARD]

We need regulations in place for GSMNP and far beyond...for all of our Parks. We need to protect what we have left remember These parks are American Treasures...to be enjoyed by everyone who is able to. Fees in place are needed because of budget cuts in all fields of Government. I would happily pay a fee so others can enjoy what I had in the past...being a beautiful park. I dont think its unfair to hikers simply because if you let too many on trail...then everyone wants to say hey I was back country hiking with so and so. We need regulations to help thrus and section hikers get past GSMNP...both inside the park and around it. They must regulate to keep nine million people off the lands we still have in our Country for such adventures. Be it it is public but those nine million people I dont think every single one knows about leave no trace let alone...not to just walk anywhere you like. If its not restrictive then we loose it to ignorance in people...either not caring or knowing whats good for GSMNP. With the dog issue I dont own one so I wont comment.

[lissersmith]

I have lived very near this park most of my life, have hiked all 900 miles of its trails and have never felt like any of it was a hassle. If you don't have a few regulations in place, it would be a disaster. And as far as dogs go, I am all for "none allowed". There is too much wildlife that does not need to be bothered by dogs. Also, dogs would probably bark all night at a backcountry site at bears etc. and keep everyone awake. If there were no reservation at the shelters, it would be a cluster----k. Most of the trails ar not heavily used except for the A.T. My complaint about the park is that they are too restrictive in regard to mountain biking, yet too obliging to horseback riders.

[Pedaling Fool]

GSMNP is way too much of a hassle and should be avoided at all costs. Avoiding the park also sends a strong message to the authorities in charge that people don't agree with all the regulations and policies. :rolleyes:

I agree, probably, pending how this new reservation policy pans out.

With these new reservation rules pending I don't think I'll go through GSMNP again, but will have to see. No problems though, many more trails around, just be glad the govt doesn't manage those areas like the park. Even with the old rules (which I didn't really like, but had no major issues with) it just didn't feel the same in the park.

[Chaco Taco]

We need regulations in place for GSMNP and far beyond...for all of our Parks. We need to protect what we have left remember These parks are American Treasures...to be enjoyed by everyone who is able to. Fees in place are needed because of budget cuts in all fields of Government. I would happily pay a fee so others can enjoy what I had in the past...being a beautiful park. I dont think its unfair to hikers simply because if you let too many on trail...then everyone wants to say hey I was back country hiking with so and so. We need regulations to help thrus and section hikers get past GSMNP...both inside the park and around it. They must regulate to keep nine million people off the lands we still have in our Country for such adventures. Be it it is public but those nine million people I dont think every single one knows about leave no trace let alone...not to just walk anywhere you like. If its not restrictive then we loose it to ignorance in people...either not caring or knowing whats good for GSMNP. With the dog issue I dont own one so I wont comment.

Well said IB

[Tipi Walter]

The GSMNP head honchos either are drinking too much stinging nettle tea, or have a hot iron on their butts put there by big business. All this talk of charging backpackers cash money to sleep while the honchos DO NOT charge $20 for every vehicle entering the park must be a policy caused by coal smog induced dementia. Everybody knows the park is the most air polluted park in the country, with air as bad as Los Angeles, and yet the boys won't close the roads thru the park, won't charge money for cars and trucks coming into the park, and still allow bumper to bumper tourist traffic thru Cades Cove. Are we nuts?

And then they designate around 90 backcountry overnight sites which let's say are an acre each, adding up to around 100 total acres to camp on. One hundred acres out of 500,000?? No wonder these backcountry sites are mud pits and overused. Why not open the park up to unlimited camping wherever you can find a spot to sleep? This system works great in the Mt Rogers backcountry, the Big Frog and Cohutta wilderness, the Slickrock wilderness, the Snowbird backcountry, the Dolly Sods wilderness, the Bald River and Upper Bald wilderness, and thruout the Pisgah, Jefferson, Nantahala, and Cherokee national forests. Even most of the 2,000 mile length of the AT allows camping anywhere without fees or permits.

And here's a good solution: Make backpackers and overnighters-on-foot get a yearly annual pass ($200? $300?), or a lifetime pass ($2,000?) and then open up the park and have at it. Backpackers don't need to be led by the hand to each and every spot---or to write down where they'll be on night 16 of a 20 day trip. Who could know?

Until the Rangers restrict the driving tourists as they do the backpackers, we will continue to have these long screeds and rants on their apparent wacky reasonings.

[mudhead]

Dogs are not allowed on trails in ALL National Parks.




All needs to be changed to several.

[Rain Man]

Troll.

Rain Man

.

[mudhead]

I truly hope that is not directed at me.

[Tipi Walter]

Troll.

Rain Man

.

That's all you've got to say?

[Chaco Taco]

here it comes

[MyName1sMud]

Troll.

Rain Man

.

I trolled the park I guess. Didn't have a permit and spent 3 days in the woods there.

whoops :)

[Odd Man Out]

The GSMNP head honchos either are drinking too much stinging nettle tea, or have a hot iron on their butts put there by big business. All this talk of charging backpackers cash money to sleep while the honchos DO NOT charge $20 for every vehicle entering the park must be a policy caused by coal smog induced dementia. Everybody knows the park is the most air polluted park in the country, with air as bad as Los Angeles, and yet the boys won't close the roads thru the park, won't charge money for cars and trucks coming into the park, and still allow bumper to bumper tourist traffic thru Cades Cove. Are we nuts?

Yes we are nuts. But it isn't just the head honchos at the park. Every time a park tries to restrict traffic by putting in public transportation/shuttles (such as Zion, GC, Yosemite, Denali), people whine about "limiting their access to the parks" (even if they are free shuttles). In this country, if you can't drive your private vehicle up to it, you are restricting access. Why do we have drive thru banks, fast food, library book returns, mail boxes, churches, etc? So you don't have to get out of your car. People even complained that democracy was threatened when they closed PA Ave in front of the White House to automobile traffic. First you can't drive by the White House. Pretty soon they will take away your vote, or so they claimed. We are all fighting a loosing battle against the American car cult.

[Spokes]

From the National Park Service Webpage (emphasis added):

Great Smoky Mountains National Park has prohibited dogs in the backcountry since the park was first established in the 1930s. The park prohibits dogs on hiking trails for several reasons:

• Dogs can carry disease into the park's wildlife populations.

• Dogs can chase and threaten wildlife, scaring birds and other animals away from nesting, feeding, and resting sites. The scent left behind by a dog can signal the presence of a predator, disrupting or altering the behavior of park wildlife. Small animals may hide in their burrow the entire day after smelling a dog and may not venture out to feed.

• Dogs bark and disturb the quiet of the wilderness. Unfamiliar sights, sounds, and smells can disturb even the calmest, friendliest, and best-trained dog, causing them to behave unpredictably or bark excessively.

• Pets may become prey for larger predators such as coyotes and bears. In addition, if your dog disturbs and enrages a bear, it may lead the angry bear directly to you. Dogs can also encounter insects that bite and transmit disease and plants that are poisonous or full of painful thorns and burrs.

• Many people, especially children, are frightened by dogs, even small ones. Uncontrolled dogs can present a danger to other visitors.


My 2 cents on dogs and hiking is the dog doesn't get a say so in the matter. It can't tell you if it doesn't want to go on a frickin' hike.

[JenHikes]

The park is free because it was the stipulation when it was established. The park has a road running through the middle, US-441, and due to this road being the only way over the mountain for a while they agreed not to charge.

Spokes said it best when it comes to why dogs aren't allowed. I live very close to the Smokies and the rules don't tend to bother the locals. It's the tourists that make it a problem. Our park is being loved to death and is severely overused. Doug McFalls, the ridge runner, has a blog he keeps and he mentions encounters with hikers. Just last week he had a group of 8 college students camping at a shelter illegally and tent camping instead of using the facilities (not allowed here). He inquired about their permits and they said they knew they needed one and they frankly didn't care. That's an example of what we deal with up here. You get a lot of people who "know, but don't care" and it causes quite a few problems.

[Tipi Walter]

The park is free because it was the stipulation when it was established. The park has a road running through the middle, US-441, and due to this road being the only way over the mountain for a while they agreed not to charge.

Spokes said it best when it comes to why dogs aren't allowed. I live very close to the Smokies and the rules don't tend to bother the locals. It's the tourists that make it a problem. Our park is being loved to death and is severely overused. Doug McFalls, the ridge runner, has a blog he keeps and he mentions encounters with hikers. Just last week he had a group of 8 college students camping at a shelter illegally and tent camping instead of using the facilities (not allowed here). He inquired about their permits and they said they knew they needed one and they frankly didn't care. That's an example of what we deal with up here. You get a lot of people who "know, but don't care" and it causes quite a few problems.

So dispense with the CAMP ONLY HERE provision, dispense with the permits, require an annual hiking/backpacking pass, and open up the 500,000 acres to camping---disperse the crowds and don't corral them into the fraction of land called Backcountry Sites. And the dog issue is nonsensical until they deal with the horse damage.

Beyond this, if the Park really is serious abut protecting their land, they would push for wilderness designation, an issue brought up once before until the Gatlinburg types howled in protest. Closing the roads would really help in thinning out the herd but so far the mindset is to provide a Disney World experience for the great majority of rolling couch potatoes, i.e. car tourists.

[Spokes]

....disperse the crowds and don't corral them into the fraction of land called Backcountry Sites. ..........

Better give 'em all Spot locator devices then and quadruple the Ranger rescue staff. Heck you have morons who manage to get lost even on blazed trails now. Imagine what will happen if they have free range of the entire park!

[DripDry]

"Its not a hassle only if you make it that way. The GSMNP is absolutely beautiful and is fun to hike." Well said Chaco Taco. A buddy and I hiked the AT through the Park last week. Registration was easy, the park was beautiful and at least the Southern end gave the appearance of being 1,000 miles away from civilization. The shelter renovations are a big improvement. Of the hikers we met on the trail and in the shelters about 50% had backcountry permits and "reservations"- the others were just winging it (some told us they even stayed in shelters closed due to bear activity). I guess for me following the "rules" isn't a huge burden. I would have preferred to have the flexibility to adjust our schedule on the fly, but other than that, really didn't see the regulations as a hassle. We did walk 24 out of the Park on the last day rather than stay at a down mountain campsite since Cosby was closed, but that was our choice.

[Tipi Walter]

Better give 'em all Spot locator devices then and quadruple the Ranger rescue staff. Heck you have morons who manage to get lost even on blazed trails now. Imagine what will happen if they have free range of the entire park!

You're right, but heck it's what "wilderness" is supposed to be about---individually managed risk. As Ed Abbey once said, and to paraphrase, we should have the right to die by grizzly bear---in other words, we should keep our land wild enough so that there's the risk of getting lost or mauled or lightning struck or crushed by a falling tree. Take away the risks and you end up at Dollywood. Which seems to be the direction the nanny state outdoor recreation honchos and rangers are headed.

[scissor]

So dispense with the CAMP ONLY HERE provision, dispense with the permits, require an annual hiking/backpacking pass, and open up the 500,000 acres to camping---disperse the crowds and don't corral them into the fraction of land called Backcountry Sites. And the dog issue is nonsensical until they deal with the horse damage.

If you did that every flat spot within walking distance of a road would be destroyed in 2 months. Beer cans would be everywhere. Irresponsible firewood hunting would destroy a ton of wildlife. The general public have no clue how to responsibly camp. Its BETTER they are in their cars. Lets keep it that way.

I don't have many issues with the current rules... I'd have less horse trails and I would allow leashed dogs in certain less traveled sections. Besides that its fine AND I'm a mountain biker. Mt biking, while always a dream of mine, just won't work in the park. Its too busy and too much red tape involving trail work. Mt biking is just not in the cards.

[SassyWindsor]

Troll, if not, I believe they allow dogs and do not have a fee when hiking along the Iranian border.

[BobTheBuilder]

Troll, if not, I believe they allow dogs and do not have a fee when hiking along the Iranian border.
Good point.

[scissor]

I don't think the OP is trolling at all. The subject is on topic. The poster has a good post history. He isn't trying to extract any kind of explicit comments. He hasn't even replied to the thread. Nothing wrong with a good pot stirring every now and then.

[Bob Coleman]

Contrast GSMNP with Glacier NP in Montana. Went out there for a week for my best friends bachelor party (6 days and 54 miles of backpacking) We had to sign up in March for a lottery and pay $35 where we got to request a primary and a secondary itinerary. If we were early enough in the lottery, and no one had picked what we wanted we got it. If neither of our two trips was available, then we were SOL (and out the $35) - or they would just pick us one.

National parks are different from all other wilderness areas, national forests, etc due to:
Popularity
Unique and publicized artibutes, such as Old Faithful, Half Dome, etc
Access

As someone above said, if camping was allowed anywhere in a national park, very quickly most of the flat spots would have several fire rings and a lot of new beer cans. Concentrating the impact on a few areas allows the remainder of the park to remain relatively undisturbed.

I for one am willing to trade fees, limited access, and reservations in return for the promise that view I get from my lunch spot is the same one my kids and my kids kids will get.

Happy Trails

[Digger'02]

So dispense with the CAMP ONLY HERE provision, dispense with the permits, require an annual hiking/backpacking pass, and open up the 500,000 acres to camping---disperse the crowds and don't corral them into the fraction of land called Backcountry Sites. And the dog issue is nonsensical until they deal with the horse damage.

Beyond this, if the Park really is serious abut protecting their land, they would push for wilderness designation, an issue brought up once before until the Gatlinburg types howled in protest. Closing the roads would really help in thinning out the herd but so far the mindset is to provide a Disney World experience for the great majority of rolling couch potatoes, i.e. car tourists.

I agree with much of what you have said, other points not so much. The point about camping regulations as compared to Shining Rock, Cohutta, Mt Rodgers I believe is pretty weak. Those three areas in particular are impacted well beyond anything on the A.T. in the Smokies, so much so that the USFS is working hard to increase awareness, expand outreach and increase volunteerism. Can you imagine what Spence or Mollies or Icewater would look like if it was open season? Gross.

I agree with you about the roads, Parks are for People no? but people don't get wise just by jumping out of a car, there are many many knotheads hiking all over the place. I for one am glad that they arent screwing up the Smokies like they are Rhodendron Gap in Mt Rodgers or Flower Gap in shining rock.

[q-tip]

Hey--It's all good.......

[Spokes]

This Land was Made for You and Me......


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxiMrvDbq3s&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxiMrvDbq3s&feature=related

[Tilly]

Well, if the Libertarians were in charge, we would have no National Parks.

[Spokes]

Well, if the Libertarians were in charge, we would have no National Parks.

......... at least there wouldn't be any signs since the whole country is a National Park silly.

[Sly]

maybe it's the libertarian in me, but it seems beyond ridiculous for the government to heavily regulate something that should be absolutely free and enjoyable. Anyone else agree?, I'm sure many will disagree.

Libertarians are for privatization of National Parks in which case the rules would be as strict, or stricter, and the fees would be off the charts if they expected to make a profit.

[Sly]

So dispense with the CAMP ONLY HERE provision, dispense with the permits, require an annual hiking/backpacking pass, and open up the 500,000 acres to camping---disperse the crowds and don't corral them into the fraction of land called Backcountry Sites. And the dog issue is nonsensical until they deal with the horse damage.


LOL... if people aren't bothering to get a free permit what makes you think they're going to pay $200-$2000 for a hiking backpacking pass?

[DavidNH]

If you don't want to hike in areas with lots of regulations and restrictions.. then DON"T hike in one of the most heavily visited parks in the entire country. that would be GSMNP. The GSMNP damn well better have lots of restrictions and regulations with the tons of visitors it gets.

[SassyWindsor]

GSMNP is probably the most hiker friendly, and cheapest to access, NP in the system.

[Tipi Walter]

LOL... if people aren't bothering to get a free permit what makes you think they're going to pay $200-$2000 for a hiking backpacking pass?

So you're saying no permit or fee or reservation system will work? In such a case, why even bother having this conversation?