Backcountry overnights down 25% in 2013

[ATL Backpacker]

I guess I could have put this under the reservation thread but b/c it encompasses more than just the reservation system I thought it deserved its own.

I like this fella's blog, he does a nice job looking at the numbers from a few different ways.
http://hikinginthesmokys.blogspot.co...g-smokies.html

This is the biggest decline in 13 years, probably longer. What else besides the new fee could have driven such a sharp decline?

Would the landslide really have cancelled people's plan to backpack? Plenty of options without having to use that stretch of 441.

did the shut-down hurt? I feel certain the October BC users would have made their reservations close to 30 days in advance which would have still counted in the permit #s, even though they may not have actually gone due to the park being closed?

I suspected that backcountry overnight use would be down now that a fee is in place. Personally the old reservation suited me just fine so yes I'm opposed to the fee. Yep $4 is not a big cost to most folks, I know that. But I know many are avoiding the park now b/c of principle, others (e.g., 2 boy scout troops I know) are avoiding for cost reasons, then there are people like me who've used the fee as a reason to explore other nearby trails (AT, BMT, Bartram, Joyce Kilmer).

Would be an interesting survey to conduct among 2012 users, i.e., why did you visit less in 2013?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-0-nVpKCx-s...+-+smokies.jpg

[WorldPeaceAndStuff]

I suspect rain. The High Country had the wettest year ever in 2013 with most coming from May to Sept.

[George]

obviously the answer will be in the 2014 numbers

[aficion]

Clearly a combination of the factors mentioned along with the still slow economy/ jobs market. But hey, we hope to change that this year, again.

[sliderule]

This is the biggest decline in 13 years, probably longer. What else besides the new fee could have driven such a sharp decline?

Be mindful that the fee is not the only thing that is new and different. For someone "on the road," a backcountry permit is now a lot more cumbersome to obtain than it was previously. Also, the fact that all sites are now rationed has reduced the theoretical backcountry capacity from what it was under the prior system. Large sites like 34 and 92 are now limited to 10 persons per night; under the old system, they sometimes acccomodated several times that number. Furthermore, the rationing of all sites just makes it that much more difficult put together a trip and get it approved. Under the old system, there was always an alternative. Such is no longer the case.

[HooKooDooKu]

Be mindful that the fee is not the only thing that is new and different. For someone "on the road," a backcountry permit is now a lot more cumbersome to obtain than it was previously.

I will most whole hardily agree as it applies to AT thru hikers.

Otherwise, I believe your complaint that the new system is "a lot more cumbersome" is frivolous, without merit, and just plain wrong.

For starters, it is now the exact opposite for campers staying at previously rationed campsites. The new online system is far superior and LESS CUMBERSOME that the old system (save for that $4 pesky fee).

But even for campers staying at previously unrationed campsites, there is an argument to be made that the new system is still less cumbersome. After all, which is easier...
1. Days before your hike, sit down at a computer, key a few mouse clicks, and print a permit.
2. On your way to the trail head, stop by a Ranger Station (usually on your way to the trail head, but sometimes out of your way), locate the permit slips, make out a permit.

That pretty much only leave people without internet access and printers at home that the new system is 'more' cumbersome.

As for the arguments about previously unrationed sites... those sites see little use and therefore the new limits affect almost no one.

[Praha4]

not intending to sound cavalier or arrogant on this, but this is fine with me, a less crowded back country in GSMNP means less crowded campsites and shelters, less trash and garbage left in the park ... the fee is well worth it if one really wants to hike and camp in the park, I have no problem paying it for upkeep of the park.

[moldy]

The boycott is working. That is why the numbers are down. The cost and hassle of getting permits added to all the increased ranger patrol's in the backcountry. People vote with their feet.

[Dogwood]

I enjoy GSMNP. I enjoy the backcountry which is where I camp 99% of the time. I don't find working with the current fee or backcountry reservation system cumbersome as an AT thru-hiker(as defined by GSMNP in 2006-2008, 2010, 2012-2013) or as a non AT backcountry hiker. I remember in the past several backcountry sites, including the AT lean tos, getting trashed/impacted on by an excessive number of users worse than they recently have been. I believe it has to do with GSMNP better being able to manage those backcountry sites due in large part to rationed sites and the new reservation system. If others have issues with those things that's respectfully up to them. I don't pretend to know all the inner workings of the NPS, GSMNP, or anyone's particular issues with GSMNP. I have tried to make a good attempt at understanding things from different perspectives regarding the backcountry fees and reservation system though.

[sliderule]

I will most whole hardily agree as it applies to AT thru hikers.

Otherwise, I believe your complaint that the new system is "a lot more cumbersome" is frivolous, without merit, and just plain wrong.

For starters, it is now the exact opposite for campers staying at previously rationed campsites. The new online system is far superior and LESS CUMBERSOME that the old system (save for that $4 pesky fee).

But even for campers staying at previously unrationed campsites, there is an argument to be made that the new system is still less cumbersome. After all, which is easier...
1. Days before your hike, sit down at a computer, key a few mouse clicks, and print a permit.
2. On your way to the trail head, stop by a Ranger Station (usually on your way to the trail head, but sometimes out of your way), locate the permit slips, make out a permit.

That pretty much only leave people without internet access and printers at home that the new system is 'more' cumbersome.

Evidently, you missed the part where I clearly stated for someone on the road. Clearly, someone "on the road" is not at home.

In my experience, a lot of folks have historically made their hiking plans after they arrive in the park. (The very existance of the backcountry office would tend to support that notion.) For sure, for someone sitting at a frontcountry campsite and comtemplating a hike, obtaining a permit is more cumbersome than it used to be. Unless their tent is equipped with internet access and a printer.

I have no objection to the internet option. I just wish that alternate provisions had been made for those who might not have immediate and convenient access to both internet access and a printer.

As for the arguments about previously unrationed sites... those sites see little use and therefore the new limits affect almost no one.

Cites facts not in evidence. (Unless you have data that show that said sites never reach rated capacity.) For sure, under the old system, no one was ever denied the use of a nonrationed site because of occupancy restrictions.

[Mr. Bumpy]

I suspect rain. The High Country had the wettest year ever in 2013 with most coming from May to Sept.

It wasn't the rain for me. Nor the cost. I did my customary 20 nights out (+/- a couple) in 2013 and yes, it was wet. I usually spend about 5-7 nights in the smokes each year but this year I only went one, and that was just because I wanted to take my son to Mt. Sterling. I don't like that all of the spots are reserved now which fixes you into an itenerary instead of having the freedom to change plans from day to day. I suspect there are more than a few that feel this way.

[TNhiker]

Evidently, you missed the part where I clearly stated for someone on the road. Clearly, someone "on the road" is not at home.

In my experience, a lot of folks have historically made their hiking plans after they arrive in the park. (The very existance of the backcountry office would tend to support that notion.)

I have no objection to the internet option. I just wish that alternate provisions had been made for those who might not have immediate and convenient access to both internet access and a printer.

.

One can still call in and make a reservation along with stopping by the backcountry office.

So, it still can be done "from the road".

My guess (and it's just a guess as i havent tried it) is that one could also stop by a ranger station (such as smokemont or deep creek )and as long as there is a ranger there, make a reservation as well.........i would think that from there, the rangers would be able to call it in.........

[sliderule]

One can still call in and make a reservation...

Then that needs to be made official and so publicized by the NPS. Solutions need to be programmatic, not workarounds known to a select few.
As far as I can tell, calling in still requires a printer to obtain the actual permit.

[HooKooDooKu]

Evidently, you missed the part where I clearly stated for someone on the road.
In my experience, a lot of folks have historically made their hiking plans after they arrive in the park.

I didn't miss that part at all.
I'm dismissing the notion that most people would arrive at the GSMNP without having already made plans. Given the number of previously rationed camp sites, it would be foolish to risk travelling all the way to the park only to find out you couldn't do any of your desired hikes because you couldn't get a reservation.
About the only people I could see that could show up at the GSMNP without a plan with the old system would be people spending one night in the back country at one of the unrationed camp sites, and just couldn't decide which one ahead of time. Other wise, as best as I can recall from planning many two night hikes, there are few two night loops that the average back packer could do that didn't require staying at a rationed camp site.

Cites facts not in evidence. (Unless you have data that show that said sites never reach rated capacity.)

I hold this truth as self evident... if unrationed back country camp sites were getting used beyond capacity, they turned it into a rationed site (and I've got some historical back country maps to show they did just that over time... the camp site along Abram's Creek between Cades Cove and Abrams Creek Camp Ground immediately jumps to mind).

[HooKooDooKu]

Then that needs to be made official and so publicized by the NPS. Solutions need to be programmatic, not workarounds known to a select few.
As far as I can tell, calling in still requires a printer to obtain the actual permit.

The National Park is pretty good about NOT making things plainly evident when it potentially could cause them additional work.

As an example, I once asked about the legality of bicycling Cades Cove after dark (i.e. are there any park rules prohibiting this activity). The only answer I could ever get was for them to say "the gates are locked at sunset"... implying that Cades Cove is closed after dark without specifically telling me that I'm not allowed to ride in CC after dark.

As for the printer... again, not standard operating procedure, but it is possible for Rangers to email you a PDF of your permit. I've encountered campers that have received such a PDF and stored it in there smart phone. They were asked by a Ranger in the back country to show their permit, and they displayed the PDF on the smart phone. The LEO accepted it.

But again, the purpose for the automated system is so that people are not required to get involved in issuing a standard permit.

[TNhiker]

Then that needs to be made official and so publicized by the NPS. Solutions need to be programmatic, not workarounds known to a select few.
As far as I can tell, calling in still requires a printer to obtain the actual permit.

It has been publicized.....

just because you missed it doesn't mean the rest of us haven't...

as for a printer---that's easy to find.....a library....a kinkos.....or a visit to the backcountry office will get ya a copy of the permit..

trust me----it ain't that difficult......

ive never had Internet access at my house (other than typing on phone which I'm doing now), let alone a printer, yet I've found it real easy to get my printing needs done....

[sliderule]

It has been publicized.....

just because you missed it doesn't mean the rest of us haven't...

Saying it doesn't make it so. Fact is, telephone reservations per se are not specifically advertised as an option in any official source that I can find.
Another fact: "the rest of us" is a completely nonquantifiable concept. What is important is that the typical user has the appropriate information, not some clique of insiders.

[Mr. Bumpy]

I didn't miss that part at all.

About the only people I could see that could show up at the GSMNP without a plan with the old system would be people spending one night in the back country at one of the unrationed camp sites, and just couldn't decide which one ahead of time. Other wise, as best as I can recall from planning many two night hikes, there are few two night loops that the average back packer could do that didn't require staying at a rationed camp site.

But that is just not true.

[sliderule]

I didn't miss that part at all.
I'm dismissing the notion that most people would arrive at the GSMNP without having already made plans.

What "most people" do is of no relevance whatsoever.

Fact is, plenty of people do arrive in the park without specific plans. (Anyone who has spent time in the backcountry office (or a visitor center) can most certainly attest to that.)

[TNhiker]

Saying it doesn't make it so. Fact is, telephone reservations per se are not specifically advertised as an option in any official source that I can find.
Another fact: "the rest of us" is a completely nonquantifiable concept. What is important is that the typical user has the appropriate information, not some clique of insiders.

Ummmmmmm.......it's on the website so it's not exactly insider info...