Amazing how things have changed in 20+ years

[Different Socks]

In 1991 issue of American Hiker:

"One trend we couldn't help to notice over the last 2 decades was the decline in the number for overnight campers in the backcountry".
According to NPS, backcountry permits were 1/2 what they were in 1976. Then they go on to say,
"we're only experiencing a temporary lull in the backcountry".

Funny how "temporary lull" is 15 years long and we all know it's gotten so bad since then that now nearly everywhere you go there is some kind of fee to pay to be on the trail, in the backcountry, stay overnight, or simply just be there.

[Prime Time]

Perhaps there's some correlation between over usage and a need to recover the cost associated with same?

[bamboo bob]

I don't get what you are saying. There's a lull?

[Sierra2015]

I don't get what you are saying. There's a lull?

Apparently there was one in the early 90's.

[Starchild]

Perhaps it's associated with hiking clubs that charge fees.

I have been a long term member of some hiking clubs with their fees, and their quandary is why their membership was aging. They comforted themselves with the notion that the younger generations didn't have the time for such things. I opened their eyes (well one club) to meetup.com where the generations of hikers they sought after were flocking to in numbers they could not imagine possible.

From that I deduced 'stop charging the people for access to their own inheritance (the land), it was never yours to take in the first place.' It was never their right to charge people, but only their privilege to show people.

[bamboo bob]

I don't get it. How do clubs charge for access to the trail? What trail? The AT somehow?

[Prime Time]

I don't get it. How do clubs charge for access to the trail? What trail? The AT somehow?

The only access fee I ran into on the AT was to enter Great Smokey Mountains National Park which is administered by The National Parks and Recreation Dept, not a club. The AMC charges for staying at some of their designated camping and lodging facilities in heavily visited site, as does the Vermont AT club but there is nothing mandatory about staying in any of these. My experience is again as I stated earlier, fees appear when extreme over usage creates costs above and beyond available funding and or dues. I don't think anyones getting rich over them.

[Different Socks]

The only access fee I ran into on the AT was to enter Great Smokey Mountains National Park which is administered by The National Parks and Recreation Dept, not a club. The AMC charges for staying at some of their designated camping and lodging facilities in heavily visited site, as does the Vermont AT club but there is nothing mandatory about staying in any of these. My experience is again as I stated earlier, fees appear when extreme over usage creates costs above and beyond available funding and or dues. I don't think anyones getting rich over them.

Technically speaking, if one chooses to hike on the AT in WMNF, to park their car at the trailhead, even if they use a different trail to get to the AT, they have to pay a fee.

[Mags]

Overnight backcountry use, in general, has steadily gone down over the years. "Done in a day activities" are what is popular. Car camping spiked a little bit in the recession, but expect it to decline again as the economy improves.

"Likewise, the number of backcountry campers in our national parks has fallen by nearly 30 percent since 1979."
http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2012/0...ckpacking.html

(The original NPS link from where the quote is from is missing it appears)

Stats from said report in graph form:

[Coffee]

That's an interesting chart! Since thru hiking numbers seem to be going up, does it follow that back country use declines must be due to fewer weekend/short trips?

[Mags]

That's an interesting chart! Since thru hiking numbers seem to be going up, does it follow that back country use declines must be due to fewer weekend/short trips?

I'd say so. Americans work more, recreate less and have crammed calendars when they do recreate. Spending s a whole night without an iPhone, work e-mail and logging in to check on the project? Ain't gonna happen....

Americans, esp in the so-called professional classes, don't work in the office as much as are checking work email, responding to issues on weekends and definitely blur the work-life balance more so than in the past.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...rticle8412565/

So...less time to get out in the woods.

People who thru-hike or section hike are a definite minority in terms of backcountry use.

[Prime Time]

Technically speaking, if one chooses to hike on the AT in WMNF, to park their car at the trailhead, even if they use a different trail to get to the AT, they have to pay a fee.

Actually there are no fees required at any of the principal trail heads to the AT which are Glenncliff, Franconia Notch, Crawford Notch, Pinkham Notch, and Gorham. I'm not sure about Knisman Notch. There are parking fees at many other WMNF trailheads, but not these.

[capehiker]

When I lived in NH, I remember paying to park at Pinkham for the weekend. Circa 2001-2004.

[Prime Time]

When I lived in NH, I remember paying to park at Pinkham for the weekend. Circa 2001-2004.

Not at the AMC Joe Dodge Center, at least I've never paid to park there in the the 20 years or so that i've used it.

[Pedaling Fool]

That's an interesting chart! Since thru hiking numbers seem to be going up, does it follow that back country use declines must be due to fewer weekend/short trips?

I'm guessing here, but I think the use of backcountry sites and hiking can't be viewed in the same light. Many people that do a thru-hike (regardless of in one trip or via sections) are sort of on a mission. However, many of those same people would not really be attracted to backcountry camping trips.

I think the people that hike long-distance trails see themselves as on a journey, whereas camping or spending time in the backcountry is just not the same.

I don't know what the future of thru/section hikes are, but feel pretty confident that use of backcountry sites will continue to shrink.

[SunnyWalker]

In lots of parks there are no fees for camping out in the "back country". If one uses a campground that is established with running water, toliets, etc., one may have to pay fees. In Nat'l parks one may pay an entry fee but no fee for camping if you are in the "backcountry" doing your camping. I am basing this off of two Nat'l parks I have been in lately.

[mak1277]

I don't know what the future of thru/section hikes are, but feel pretty confident that use of backcountry sites will continue to shrink.

The real question is whether this is a good or bad trend. Personally, I'm in favor of seeing fewer people when I'm out backpacking. But of course, at some point, it becomes such a small number that it's just that much easier to say "ah, let's just pave it all, nobody will care."

[marti038]

Sounds to me like further evidence that a growing portion of the US population would rather sit in front of the moving picture box than get outdoors and do something...oh, I don't know...challenging?

To be fair, the baby boomers are aging and many, not all, were more apt to go for a hike in the 70s and 80s than they are today. I still think the trend is mostly due to a growing lack of interest in the outdoors by many Americans. We have so many more things to distract us now.

[aficion]

Many miles of trails on National Forest lands in NC and VA have vanished due to light use and no maintenance over the past several decades. Lack of funding for the upkeep of both fire roads and trails preceded the relatively newer fees I am seeing. When I was coming up maybe ten percent of the people I knew used the backcountry regularly. Among my teenagers cohort, today's percentage seems much smaller. Anecdotal at best, but it seems that while AT use may be increasing, overall real backcountry use would be down with or without fees. That said, the existence of new access fees are not going to help turn the trend around.

[Mags]

The real question is whether this is a good or bad trend. Personally, I'm in favor of seeing fewer people when I'm out backpacking. But of course, at some point, it becomes such a small number that it's just that much easier to say "ah, let's just pave it all, nobody will care."

I'd say it is a bad trend overall. Trails will go into disrepair. Access will be even less. Less protection in the long run.

If people aren't emotionally invested into a place, is there a reason for most people to protect it?

Sounds to me like further evidence that a growing portion of the US population would rather sit in front of the moving picture box than get outdoors and do something...oh, I don't know...challenging?

That and "done in a day" activities are the more popular outdoor options. Get in a good hike/climb/skin/mt bike ride, be back in time for the next social obligation. And still have time to check up on the work e-mail and respond to any "issues".

So it goes.