Whats the big deal about the Smokies permit?

[Max L]

Maybe some one can clear this up for me because every time I browse WB I see a thread about the permit system in Smokies and a lot people aren't big fans. I'm familiar with two park reservation systems. Isle Royale ; which never really seemed too strict but does charge for park usage. and the BWCA; which charges fees and is aimed at preventing people from overcrowding really popular entry sites; which is great.
All I know/think I know about the Smokies is that hikers are required to sleep in shelters when there's room, there is fee up to $20(not too sure about that is right?), and you have pick up paper permit before you enter.
I don't really see what the big deal is. As long as the money goes to the park system I've never minded putting money towards permits (Lord knows I've spent more money on things less worthwhile). And it doesn't seem too big of inconvenience to register.
Am I missing a deal breaker here?

[SouthMark]

Zactly... :-)

[SGT Rock]

I won't debate on if you should pay, I don't mind paying for services. But the system they are creating is not exactly user friendly. Their justification for why they are doing it has been a moving target, and it seems that it is more a solution looking for a problem to solve. The numbers for what they currently get in back country usage will likely not pay for what they have proposed it to pay for, and none of what it is going to go to improves anything about the back country.

[moytoy]

I won't debate on if you should pay, I don't mind paying for services. But the system they are creating is not exactly user friendly. Their justification for why they are doing it has been a moving target, and it seems that it is more a solution looking for a problem to solve. The numbers for what they currently get in back country usage will likely not pay for what they have proposed it to pay for, and none of what it is going to go to improves anything about the back country.
Zactly :) For me the money is not the problem. The problem is when I take a two week vacation to hike in and around the Smokies I've never had to be specific about where and when I am staying. I always stay in area's that don't require reservations and now all campsites require reservations. So many people take a really myopic view of this system and only see it through the eyes of somebody hiking through on the AT. The new system is far more encompassing that just what happens on the AT through the GSMNP.

[mtntopper]

I support the new fees. I hope by adding some more rangers they can cut down on those that dont get the proper permits, I have met many people in the past that didnt the permits under the old system. Do we know how friendly this new system will be, I dont think we can tell just jet, wait until it goes online and then we can get a better feel for it... I dont under stand your comment on the numbers........have you seen anything from the park service that we can make comparsion to

[Wise Old Owl]

Some of the previous posts suggested a buck or two to get into the park in a car would make more money.

http://www.nps.gov/grsm/planyourvisit/whyfree.htm

[Tar Heel]

I had heard that they were gonna start charging for this but it must have just started recently. Me and a buddy hiked through the Smokies this past Fall and all we had to do was register for one of the shelters to sleep in, there was no charge. We were advised to pack our tents just in case there was no room in the shelter that we registered for (people staying there that didn't register for it) but we had no problems with room in the shelters. We had to fill out the form, the Ranger signed and dated it, gave me a copy of it, and told me to carry my copy with me on our hike, no problems.

[Rain Man]

Lot of sniveling and panties in a wad over small things that shouldn't be sweated. There's already an imperfect reservation system. Backpackers already spend tons of money on backpacking. No, it may not all be perfect immediately, but reserve demands for perfection for God. Some folks (not all) also simply like to whine about "the government" doing ANYTHING at all. That is the deal breaker for some.

Like you, I don't see what the big deal is.

Rain Man

.

[moldy]

Not so much the payment as the system of payment. It created a bit of a problem for Appalachian Trail thru-hikers. The place where the trail enters the park is not manned. You can't walk up to the counter and pay your 20 bucks and get your ticket. The only reasonable way to pay is, as you near the park, you to go to a town, or someplace, find a computer and a printer, then you can call the park and pay with a credit card then print out your permit. This is no problem at all for non thru-hikers. In reality for most thru hikers this sounds worse than it is. As news of this requirement gets out the easier it will get to find a place to print out your permit. One thing that will happen for sure is that there will be hikers this year entering the park on the AT looking for a place to buy a permit and not finding such a place, will march on in hopes of finding a place inside to park somewhere to buy one. If the park service would have made up there minds about this before those guide books went to print it would run a bit smoother. woulda, coulda, shoulda.

[ParkRat09]

I'm just glad I got in a solid 8 years of backpacking the GSMNP before these fees kicked in! Woulda spent hundreds of dollars camping if I had had to spend $5 every night to sleep in the woods. I would MUCH prefer they charge $2-5 per car to drive the damn Cade's Cove Loop plus they'd make WAY more money than charging backpackers!

[max patch]

The only reasonable way to pay is, as you near the park, you to go to a town, or someplace, find a computer and a printer, then you can call the park and pay with a credit card then print out your permit.

NO, the reasonable way for thru hikers is to print out their permit AT HOME before they leave as recommended by the ATC.

[colorado_rob]

I don't really see what the big deal is. ..
Am I missing a deal breaker here? There IS no deal whatsoever. People rant. Sometimes I do as well. So what.

[SGT Rock]

I've got to head off to work, but for all the folks that think this is a good idea for them to raise funds: one of the main problems I've had (and other) is the paradox where the plan to charge hikers is actually likely to take more money out of their other budgets to meet the services they plan to provide. In the end this plan will cost them more money than it raises. I'll not go into details, just general numbers.

They plan to provide a new back country computer service with this, more man hours of paid people at a reservation center, and two paid and trained Law Enforcement officers to check the back country. If you take the current number of nights that the record people using the back country and then multiply that times $4, you don't generate enough funds to provide annual training, pay, and benefits to two part time LEO rangers. And that doesn't even begin to touch on the new computer system development and maintenance, or increased hours or new hire of anyone to work the back country office. To provide the services this fee is supposed to provide, those shortcomings will have to come from somewhere else in the GSMNP budget. So there is going to be a net loss in their overall budget for other services in the park. And this doesn't even take into account if the overall usage nights in the park drops due to this plan, which I think it will - and I'm not the only one.

Ya'll that think this is a good idea for raising fees, just think about those numbers and then honestly answer if you think this is going to be a good idea. If your answer is yes, then you gotta decide if it yes because you just want people to have to pay, or is it yes because you think that the budget getting tightened everywhere else is a good thing.

[JAK]

Exactly. It's money being raised by a reservation system to pay for a reservation system, in the name of a National Park.
Sucks.

[JAK]

The problem perpetuates itself because when systems like this work to raise revenue it encourages the Park administration to focus more on contracts for computer systems, electronic registration systems, computer kiosks, and all the other crap we are supposed to be leaving behind instead of real trail maintenance to protect natural habitat and species, like us, and boots on the ground rangers that if nothing else, are walking in nature, like us.

[moytoy]

Exactly. It's money being raised by a reservation system to pay for a reservation system, in the name of a National Park.
Sucks.
I'm not suggesting that our Park service would sink this low. But this is an awful lot like the small town in Florida that has to cops. Their paycheck depends on them writing speeding tickets.

[Tipi Walter]

Lot of sniveling and panties in a wad over small things that shouldn't be sweated. There's already an imperfect reservation system. Backpackers already spend tons of money on backpacking. No, it may not all be perfect immediately, but reserve demands for perfection for God. Some folks (not all) also simply like to whine about "the government" doing ANYTHING at all. That is the deal breaker for some.

Like you, I don't see what the big deal is.

Rain Man

.

Obviously you've never pulled a 10+ day backpacking trip and realize there's no way you know where you'll be on Day 7. The new rules (making all sites reservation only and then telling the nannies where you'll be every night) kills long trip spontaneity.

[Sly]

If the park service would have made up there minds about this before those guide books went to print it would run a bit smoother. woulda, coulda, shoulda.

Say what? From the 2013 Companion.


Backcountry Permits—Backcountry permits must be obtained before entering the
park—the thru-hiker fee is $20 for a seven-night permit. Please check current information
on new 2013 policies at <www.nps.gov/grsm/planyourvisit/backcountrycamping>.
At publication, this was the deal: Purchase it on-line up to 30 days before
your planned entry of the park at <www.smokiespermits.nps.gov> or by telephone
at (865) 436-1297. You will need a paper copy; don’t count on fi nding a computer and
printer on the way. Opportunities to secure permits at the traditional “self-registration”
spots were very much up in the air.

[Sly]

Obviously you've never pulled a 10+ day backpacking trip and realize there's no way you know where you'll be on Day 7. The new rules (making all sites reservation only and then telling the nannies where you'll be every night) kills long trip spontaneity.

Maybe you've never thought about planning a trip and keeping a schedule before. It's not that hard. You get a map, measure the distance between campsites, notice the topography and elevations, think, "that's cool, I can do that", put in on paper in form of a permit.

[Tipi Walter]

Maybe you've never thought about planning a trip and keeping a schedule before. It's not that hard. You get a map, measure the distance between campsites, notice the topography and elevations, think, "that's cool, I can do that", put in on paper in form of a permit.

Ever get caught in a rainstorm causing the creeks to get too high? Every get caught in a blizzard on a ridge so you have sit put for 5 days? Ever have the squirts and want to pull a zero in your tent? It's called the Freedom to alter your route. The new rules eat options and choices.

[colorado_rob]

Ever get caught in a rainstorm causing the creeks to get too high? Every get caught in a blizzard on a ridge so you have sit put for 5 days? Ever have the squirts and want to pull a zero in your tent? It's called the Freedom to alter your route. The new rules eat options and choices. All of the above! And much more so (like stuck at 17,000' in a whiteout for 10 days?).

See what I mean about the "rant" thing? Pointless. In all my travels in regulated NP's and such, with very specific permits, I've never once been hassled by a ranger because of having to change my itinerary because of conditions. the rangers, in fact, have always been very helpful and understanding.

[Northern Lights]

When I did my section hike of the Smokies, I didn't have any problems with the Rangers and I was not on schedule. I interacted with two of them, the first one understood that I camped out on the trail between shelters. And the second one changed the dates on my permit and sent me on my way. There isn't anywhere I have been in Canada that didn't require payment for hiking or camping whether it was a National or Provincial Park. Maybe because of that I am accustomed to paying and don't have an issue with it. I don't know how the new system will work for thru hikers, I assume they will be able to just book their trip thru, much like they do now in just showing up, I'm sure there will be a computer and printer along the way at a hostel or motel that will allow them to do this prior to entering the Smokies. The permit is good for 30 days so they only have to plan to be there in that 30 day period. It really doesn't concern me what they do with the money collected. I would hope it went to trail maintenance but I'm not going to lose sleep about how it is spent. I do agree, after visiting Cades Cove years ago that their should also be fees to those visiting the park as well.

[Sly]

Ever get caught in a rainstorm causing the creeks to get too high? Every get caught in a blizzard on a ridge so you have sit put for 5 days? Ever have the squirts and want to pull a zero in your tent? It's called the Freedom to alter your route. The new rules eat options and choices.

So alter your god damn route and stop acting like a cry baby. Just explain it to the ranger, it's not like he's going to throw you in jail..

[jeffmeh]

I think we are having four different arguments here folks:
1) Should people have to pay to enter the park?
2) Are the logistics around payments and permits sufficiently user-friendly?
3) Are the rules around reservations overly constraining?
4) Is the payment scheme well-designed (positive cash flow, funds reinvested in the park, better than alternatives)?

Proceed. :)

[Lone Wolf]

buncha snivelin' whiners. skip the smoky's if you don't wanna spend the lousy $20`

[Sly]

If you argue, they will come.

[Sly]

buncha snivelin' whiners. skip the smoky's if you don't wanna spend the lousy $20`

....but a shuttle around the Smokys will cost $100!

[swjohnsey]

Most folks are sheep and will go along with anything.

[Lone Wolf]

....but a shuttle around the Smokys will cost $100!

real hikers hitch hike

[StylinLP38]

Well, Im just going to follow the white blazes. If a ranger stops me I will give him $20 and the form I printed up if it isn't rain damaged. *shrug* I have no clue what so ever when I will be going thru these "Smokies"

[prain4u]

The only problem that I see is that the system isn't necessarily user friendly--yet! However, it is not a super difficult process as it is.

I have hiked/canoed in several places where you had to be very strict with your itinerary and be very specific regarding where you would camp each night etc. (And you had to pay a daily fee). No big problem.

As most of us know, there are also National Parks or Provincial Parks where you have to enter a lottery to get a back country permit (or reservations for permits are made on a first come first served basis--and when they are full they are full. Thus, you must set your itinerary many months in advance). This GSNP permit process is simple by comparison.

[WingedMonkey]

buncha snivelin' whiners. skip the smoky's if you don't wanna spend the lousy $20`

Next thing ya know they will be crying over the AMC crew not letting them in a hut in the Whites, and blaming them for falling down on the wet rocks.

:rolleyes:

[mtntopper]

Ever get caught in a rainstorm causing the creeks to get too high? Every get caught in a blizzard on a ridge so you have sit put for 5 days? Ever have the squirts and want to pull a zero in your tent? It's called the Freedom to alter your route. The new rules eat options and choices.

There are exceptions for the things that you mention, creeks too high to cross, being sick, snow storms and the like. These new rules will help the backcountry if the rangers do their jobs.

[max patch]

The only problem that I see is that the system isn't necessarily user friendly--yet!

My comments only apply to the AT.

For section hikers I would argue that its a whole lot MORE user friendly. Log on, make your reservation, done. Beats the heck out of making that phone call - which never gets answered on the first (or tenth - or twentieth -or more) attempt.

For thru hikers really no change at all except for the $20 thing.

[Mags]

I can see why people may be upset over the fees, but the idea of a NP *FINALLY* allowing reservations online is awesome.

In this day and age, I should be able to go to the Canyonlands NP site (for example) and book my backcountry permit.

[Darwin13]

Perhaps some people, like myself, believe that a 'government' should not and can not own the land because it is no single entity or person's to own. So for those few nomads who enjoy being outside, on the earth or in the sea, and who take care to leave it as they found, believe that the earth is the earth and we are all part of it, and instead of giving money to some abstract idea of authority for an even more obfuscated idea of 'preservation', wish to use the earth as every other animal species on this planet and do their own part to keep it clean.



Then again, that white bearded man in the sky gave us the universe and government, and capitalism and communism and money and all that other dumb meaningless crap that most people find more important than love and taking care of the earth.

[Sly]

Perhaps some people, like myself, believe that a 'government' should not and can not own the land because it is no single entity or person's to own. So for those few nomads who enjoy being outside, on the earth or in the sea, and who take care to leave it as they found, believe that the earth is the earth and we are all part of it, and instead of giving money to some abstract idea of authority for an even more obfuscated idea of 'preservation', wish to use the earth as every other animal species on this planet and do their own part to keep it clean.



Do you understand the concept of conservation and how the NPS, and GSMNP specifically, were/was created? The entire area would be bald as Kojac's head without any trails running through it if left up to private enterprise and the general public.

[Sly]

real hikers hitch hike

Indeed, but have you seen how difficult it is? It would be a fun experiment to see who got to Davenport Gap first hitching east and west from where the trail hits rt 28.

[Another Kevin]

Ya'll that think this is a good idea for raising fees, just think about those numbers and then honestly answer if you think this is going to be a good idea. If your answer is yes, then you gotta decide if it yes because you just want people to have to pay, or is it yes because you think that the budget getting tightened everywhere else is a good thing.

The real money isn't in the fees. The real money is in the fines extracted from backcountry users whose paperwork isn't in order. I bet that if the permit is $20, the fine for not having one is at least $200. And I bet that the part-time enforcers get quotas, at least informally, just like traffic cops. I hope they hire new people to do the job, because the rangers won't put up with it. It's not the job they signed up to do.

[Feral Bill]

I'll boldly predict that the system will have it's bugs worked out shortly and in couple of years no one will remember or care about the controversy.

[soilman]

Perhaps some people, like myself, believe that a 'government' should not and can not own the land because it is no single entity or person's to own. So for those few nomads who enjoy being outside, on the earth or in the sea, and who take care to leave it as they found, believe that the earth is the earth and we are all part of it, and instead of giving money to some abstract idea of authority for an even more obfuscated idea of 'preservation', wish to use the earth as every other animal species on this planet and do their own part to keep it clean.



Then again, that white bearded man in the sky gave us the universe and government, and capitalism and communism and money and all that other dumb meaningless crap that most people find more important than love and taking care of the earth.

So are you opposed to private property rights? If there was no government land there would be no AT or probably no parks. How many privately owned parks exist that the public has access?

[Chuckie V]

Perhaps some people, like myself, believe that a 'government' should not and can not own the land because it is no single entity or person's to own. So for those few nomads who enjoy being outside, on the earth or in the sea, and who take care to leave it as they found, believe that the earth is the earth and we are all part of it, and instead of giving money to some abstract idea of authority for an even more obfuscated idea of 'preservation', wish to use the earth as every other animal species on this planet and do their own part to keep it clean.

Then again, that white bearded man in the sky gave us the universe and government, and capitalism and communism and money and all that other dumb meaningless crap that most people find more important than love and taking care of the earth.

I'm with you on this one. Indeed, if it came to it, I would love to spend a night in jail for the adventure of it all (free meal, maybe even a shower). But the chances are, if caught without permit, I'll just be cited. That's 'fine' by me, I'll tell the ranger, in hopes he might laugh. Of course, all he'll be getting from me is a trail-name, as it's not yet law to carry ID on a hike.

Chris McCandless didn't need a permit to float down the Grand Canyon!

[max patch]

And in typical WB fashion this thread about the permit is moving toward a discussion on the function of goverment. Oy vey.

[MyName1sMud]

I've never been fond of paying to use outdoor areas or having to get some "permit" just to be there.

ITS THE OUTDOORS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT?

It's almost like people are trying to act like it is some 5 star dine in eatery.

[Rasty]

And in typical WB fashion this thread about the permit is moving toward a discussion on the function of goverment. Oy vey.

Maybe the typical Whiteblaze user understands that the governments becoming more disfunctional each year. Charging for a reservation which will only fund the staff/IT to collect the fee is in my opinion a complete waste.

[flemdawg1]

Perhaps some people, like myself, believe that a 'government' should not and can not own the land because it is no single entity or person's to own. So for those few nomads who enjoy being outside, on the earth or in the sea, and who take care to leave it as they found, believe that the earth is the earth and we are all part of it, and instead of giving money to some abstract idea of authority for an even more obfuscated idea of 'preservation', wish to use the earth as every other animal species on this planet and do their own part to keep it clean.



Then again, that white bearded man in the sky gave us the universe and government, and capitalism and communism and money and all that other dumb meaningless crap that most people find more important than love and taking care of the earth.

I suppose you won't mind me helping myself to a Snickers out of your food bag then. A Snickers is just reorganized matter from the Earth after all.

[sgt easy]

well, sgt rock outranks me by 2 pay grades, so i'll have to roll with him .. wait a minute, he's army, not marines! anyway, i agree that it's bull****, some administrator's wet dream; and i also relate to tipi walter's comments in the last post - but then again, how many rangers are going to be out there, and if so, willing to ticket you, in such extreme circumstances? I did a lot of camping in canada several years back, and those people have extracting money down to a science, from the national park fees to the "privatized" provincial parks. i'm just intending to cruise thru and enjoy the experience, paying whatever to whomever i need to (and not doing so when i can get away with it) on the way. happy trails!

[moytoy]

....but a shuttle around the Smokys will cost $100!
No need for the shuttle. It's a 100 miles road walk.

[mtntopper]

Maybe the typical Whiteblaze user understands that the governments becoming more disfunctional each year. Charging for a reservation which will only fund the staff/IT to collect the fee is in my opinion a complete waste.

Perhaps by paying more it wouldn't be a waste. You could donate more to the NPS.

[swjohnsey]

I remember when the Federal Income Tax was implemented back in 1913, it was only 1%, only on the rich and only until the WWI debt was paid . . .

[bobp]

I remember when the Federal Income Tax was implemented back in 1913, it was only 1%, only on the rich and only until the WWI debt was paid . . .

You remember that? Congratulations on becoming a centenarian! :^)

[bobp]

The real money isn't in the fees. The real money is in the fines extracted from backcountry users whose paperwork isn't in order. I bet that if the permit is $20, the fine for not having one is at least $200. And I bet that the part-time enforcers get quotas, at least informally, just like traffic cops. I hope they hire new people to do the job, because the rangers won't put up with it. It's not the job they signed up to do.

You might want to let the system actually screw up first, before getting too upset. It is usually best to save your outrage and indignation for real problems, rather than hypothetical ones.

[Wise Old Owl]

So are you opposed to private property rights? If there was no government land there would be no AT or probably no parks. How many privately owned parks exist that the public has access?

TOO MANY TO COUNT.... When you pay off your mortgage.... some day...you will realize when you default on your taxes - you still do not own the land you park your butt on.

[SGT Rock]

I think we are having four different arguments here folks:
1) Should people have to pay to enter the park?
2) Are the logistics around payments and permits sufficiently user-friendly?
3) Are the rules around reservations overly constraining?
4) Is the payment scheme well-designed (positive cash flow, funds reinvested in the park, better than alternatives)?

Proceed. :)Great way to sum it up. I'll try and stay out of the weeds and answer these 4 questions:

1. You do not have to pay to enter GSMNP, that will still be free. I'm personally not opposed to paying for staying in the back country. I already donate money to the park and do volunteer maintenance so I feel like I'm already living up to that.
2. My personal opinion is no. I think they have made them more user friendly, sort of, for a guy like me that wants to plan a trip for next week and wants to use reservation sites because I now get to avoid making that phone call that I always dread. But for trips where I would avoid all reservation sites it is now harder. For AT hikers they have also made it harder, but I wouldn't say burdensome. I would say, in the thru-hiker case, they have gamed then system to get the maximum reservations they can because it will be easier to get a reservation before you start, and if you bail before you get to the Smokies they get to keep your money. For MST and BMT hikers, it is burdensome if you start somewhere besides the park. Our numbers are so small I think the park service just doesn't care.
3. Overly? No. More restraining than they use to be, yes. Do they need to be that way? No.
4. No. But they have bought off on the plan. I was thinking about it today and decided if the Park Service is willing to cut funding for front country campers so we get the wonderful new system for reservations and a couple of rangers that will probably never bother me, who am I to complain. Less maintenance on roads, visitor centers, etc is something they will end up regretting.



And in typical WB fashion this thread about the permit is moving toward a discussion on the function of goverment. Oy vey.

Well said Max.

[Another Kevin]

You might want to let the system actually screw up first, before getting too upset. It is usually best to save your outrage and indignation for real problems, rather than hypothetical ones.

I'm not upset, just cynical. I'm predicting a screwup that appears to be inherent in the system.

[Biggie Master]

Like it or not, it's what we have now. Learn the process, follow the rules as close as you possibly can, and enjoy your hike! There are far too many other (and more socially important) issues to get upset about in today's world.

[BradMT]

National Parks are a huge annoyance, and magnet for the plaid short/RV set.

Only reason I'd set foot in the Smokies is to get to the other end as quickly as possible.

[jbwood5]

Not wanting to drag this on forever.... :)
But, whatever happened to the thought about making a reservation and not showing up. I seem to remember some discussion about a penalty for not being at the site you reserved. This was to help avoid the scenario where 1 person books for several and pays for fictious occupants at a site in hopes of keeping people away.

I actually know of a well-to-do person who would book National Park or National Forest cabins (on the first day you could reserve one), pay for them on the chance that she might stay in one just to guarantee a spot, and then might or might not go. She would either eat the cost of the reservation or pay the cancellation fee if plans changed. The problem I saw was that she would rarely go unless she had a group of folks willing to accompany her. When I questioned her about all these sunk costs, she replied that it was a minor cost compared to the travel to get there. I was a little taken back by this, but then realized that it is probably done all the time. Some people are just selfish and are always trying to make it tough on those that like to follow the rules.

I guess the same thing could have happened under the old free system (in the GSMNP) and probably did. So.. what if you don't show?

[Alligator]

Looks like this needs to be said. Permits are going to be required and paid for. Please do not post to WB about intentionally not paying for the permit nor about illegal camping. That would be in violation of the user agreement (http://whiteblaze.net/cmps.php?page=agreement).

4. Discussions involving how to commit illegal acts, or involving the use, production and/or distribution of illegal drugs are forbidden.
Thanks.

Everybody is subject to the new regulations, thruhikers are getting special consideration in terms of cost, access to shelters, and flexible dates. Thrus may not like it, but you are going to give hikers, and specifically thruhikers, a bad impression by skipping out on the fee.

[Tipi Walter]

So alter your god damn route and stop acting like a cry baby. Just explain it to the ranger, it's not like he's going to throw you in jail..

Read Kevin's quote below. It's not about going to jail, it's about having to look over your shoulder and not get caught so you won't have to pay the fine.


The real money isn't in the fees. The real money is in the fines extracted from backcountry users whose paperwork isn't in order. I bet that if the permit is $20, the fine for not having one is at least $200. And I bet that the part-time enforcers get quotas, at least informally, just like traffic cops. I hope they hire new people to do the job, because the rangers won't put up with it. It's not the job they signed up to do.

It's an impossible system. Suppose I want to pull a 21 day backpacking trip thru the Park. First, I have to make 3 separate 7 day reservations---that's $30. Then I have to pay $20 for each 7 day segment---that's $60. So, even before leaving I'm out $90. THEN I have to somehow come up with a coherent 21 day trail route with all the appropriate campsites picked beforehand. This is impossible. Suppose I just want to sit put for a couple days but don't know where beforehand at home when planning the trip? Not to mention blizzards or high water or trail illness like the squirts, etc. Where will I be on Day 15? No one knows.

[Slo-go'en]

The "no show" is a serious problem. A few years ago I started a trip at New Found gap. When I got to Gatlinburg, I stopped at the backcountry office for my permits and they were barely able to squeezed me into a couple of shelters. Sorry, Icewater springs is full, there is one spot left at Pecks and two at Cosby knob. But when I get to these places they were almost empty. The weather had turned rainy.

Even with the new fees, I doubt it will help with the no show problem. That's the thing which most concerns me. It's not apparent that a thru-hiker can get a permit if the system thinks the shelters are full.

Anyway, I can understand why they want a system like this. For one, it makes it self serve for the most part so they don't have to deal with the permit thing. Second, they are trying to manage a limited resource (space in shelter) which has high demand. You really don't want to show up at a shelter site and have 80 other people there do you? That could happen if it was a free for all.

All in all, it is a pain and just one more issue to deal with which we'd rather not. This is more then just passing interest to me, I plan on hiking through there again this spring and will have to deal with it one way or another. Last time I just put a blank permit on my pack. I was hoping someone would ask to see it, but no one did.

[max patch]

It's not apparent that a thru-hiker can get a permit if the system thinks the shelters are full.



Thats not an issue.

[Christine_Runs]

I think it is possible to book a 21 day trip. I also would say that if one is way back in the backcountry that usually one will find space if one gets behind. That being said, I also agree with the sentiment that the idea of having to pre-organize the itinerary sucks. In Canadian parks one has to do this and I would much prefer to not have to pre-select sites but since I have to I do it. Sometimes this makes is more intersting to go to an unmaintained park where reservations are not required!

[flemdawg1]

As far as rangers/rige runners issueing tickets to those who are off schedule, I'd say don't worry about it. Last June my wife and I attempted the AT traverse DG-FD. She started having knee problems on day 3, and we had to slow down significantly. We met a a pair of ridge runners on Day 6 near Rocky Top. They were completely unconcerned about it. So don't stress, like so many things that pop up here, its a non-issue.

[Mr. Bumpy]

It's an impossible system. Suppose I want to pull a 21 day backpacking trip thru the Park. First, I have to make 3 separate 7 day reservations---that's $30. Then I have to pay $20 for each 7 day segment---that's $60. So, even before leaving I'm out $90. THEN I have to somehow come up with a coherent 21 day trail route with all the appropriate campsites picked beforehand. This is impossible. Suppose I just want to sit put for a couple days but don't know where beforehand at home when planning the trip? Not to mention blizzards or high water or trail illness like the squirts, etc. Where will I be on Day 15? No one knows.

Check plus. Sometimes I don't even know where I will be on night three.

I get anywhere from 15-30 bag nights a year with about half of them being in the park. On a typical 3-7 day trip only one or two of my nights would be at a reserved spot or shelter, typically the first or last night depending where I parked my car. I don't want the hassle of planning out even a short trip--I just want the freedom to go--or not to go. Sure, there is a seasonal problem with overcrowding on the AT and a handful of other sites off the AT, for the most of the backcountry sites there wasn't, so why fix something that wasn't really broken.

So for me, my patronage of the GSMNP will decline which sucks, I enjoy the park, but I'll spend more time learning the trails of Joyce Kilmer/ Slickrock or some other national forest destination which is cool.

[Tipi Walter]

Check plus. Sometimes I don't even know where I will be on night three.

I get anywhere from 15-30 bag nights a year with about half of them being in the park. On a typical 3-7 day trip only one or two of my nights would be at a reserved spot or shelter, typically the first or last night depending where I parked my car. I don't want the hassle of planning out even a short trip--I just want the freedom to go--or not to go. Sure, there is a seasonal problem with overcrowding on the AT and a handful of other sites off the AT, for the most of the backcountry sites there wasn't, so why fix something that wasn't really broken.

So for me, my patronage of the GSMNP will decline which sucks, I enjoy the park, but I'll spend more time learning the trails of Joyce Kilmer/ Slickrock or some other national forest destination which is cool.

And don't forget Bald River and Upper Bald or Mt Rogers or Dolly Sods or the Big Frog/Cohuttas---and most of the AT and the BMT and the Pinhoti where permits are not needed and campsites are wherever you find them.

[Darwin13]

I suppose you won't mind me helping myself to a Snickers out of your food bag then. A Snickers is just reorganized matter from the Earth after all.


yea you got a snickers on me.

[Chicken Feathers]

fees start in February Thru hikers pay $20.00 no refunds