Unsustainable number of starts at Sprimger oww

[Tipi Walter]

but, they have just as much right to the parks as skinny backpackers............

They have as much right to enter the park as anyone---but ON FOOT. Maybe a guy wants to fly in on a helicopter? Sure, let's open it up to him. Maybe a group wants to come in on ATVs? Sure, why not? How about a guy in a jet pack? Why not? Why not 200 Harleys w/o mufflers? Sure, it's their god-given right. Snowmobiles sound excellent. Bring 'em in. Who cares about a little noise pollution? Open it up to gopro personal drones and people won't even have to leave their cars to see the next mountain range.

[Sly]

Yes, I agree 100%, Tipi Walter. Preservation of wilderness is essential and lack of roads is a major step.

I've read that the average Yosemite and/or Yellowstone visitor never gets more than 200 feet from their car. I believe autos should be banned from both places - and perhaps many others.

Why, the national parks aren't just for backpackers and backpackers need to be able to get to the trailheads? If most visitors never travel more than 200 feet from the road that leaves thousands of unspoiled acres.

[eDeezy]

Not to mention that it's not just "fat Americans" staying near the car. Plenty of elderly and disabled people enjoy the sights in parks.

[MuddyWaters]

The sad truth, is many americans are generally self centered, and lazy. They expect a national park to be a sideshow that entertains them. They have no interest in preserving anything.

Human access should have never been put ahead of preservation anywhere, but certainly was.

[lemon b]

Obviously the AT has been over crowded for years. Using the BMT as a starting trail is fine for those who have the experience. One needs to know how to read a map on the BMT not on the AT. Solutions are complex but whenever we can get more land without roads we are going to be better off long term. I do not see the ATC as really playing an effective role in some areas. This is due to the fact that their time gets taken up too much with lobbing matters, right of way matters, and other legal matters. What they do they do well. However, the answers really lie with each individual. By reading all these posts I come away with the thought. Gee, I really do not know the answer. Also, I come away with a feeling of gratefulness for the paper companies in Maine who own vast areas of land and allow access. Logging roads do have a tendency to grow over in a short period of time. Also, we are pretty much a like minded group. We need to stick together and not allow ourselves to be broken apart by small matters.

Also, as the old saying goes we will get more bees with honey.

[Coffee]

The sad truth, is many americans are generally self centered, and lazy. They expect a national park to be a sideshow that entertains them. They have no interest in preserving anything.

Human access should have never been put ahead of preservation anywhere, but certainly was.

Providing reasonable access to parks for the lazy as well as the elderly and disabled allows people to see the natural environment for the first time. Some may be inclined to become more active. Others might not but will have an appreciation for the outdoors and support wilderness. And sure, some will expect Disneyland. The point is that we live in a democracy. If we want wilderness lands preserved, then a majority of politicians must support that. In theory, but also in reality, politicians have no incentive to support wilderness if their constituents don't support it. How many of us were introduced to wilderness by being driven into front country park facilities as kids? I was, in Yosemite. I can't say that without that exposure I would have ever been interested in exploring further. And my parents would never have backpacked into Yosemite valley, or anywhere else for that matter. They are not self centered or lazy, just typical Americans. And backpackers need the support of non backpackers politically. This obvious fact seems lost on many here.

[TOW]

In another thread, Laurie P. from the ATC posted:



Having never seen the impact personally, I guess I never realized just how much the number of hikers has grown, nor the fact that this kind of concentrated use is unsustainable. By the time the bubble gets up my way, the herd has been thinned out and spread out.

Readimg Laurie's post made me realize the magnitude of this problem in a way I never have before.

Apart from any environmental impact, this problem is kind of scary when you consider how few options the land managers and NPS have to deal with this.

Sooner or later they will feel forced to.

The trail has already increased in participation and I do not think we have seen anything yet. If the ATC or some private entity could raise the funds to address high impact areas that would help a lot. I understand that between the approach trail and Virginia that it is pretty trashy. It would be good thing to either have volunteers or paid employees that are willing to go out there and clean it up and keep it that way for the most part.

[upstream]

I know of 2 places in Georgia (one is an NPS unit) where road access has been discontinued and replaced with a shuttle because of overuse. In one, the trail now is overused, in the other, it's been hardened with pavement. I would venture to guess that both places, the shuttle is used primarily by the handicapped.

So, cutting off road use to popular places is not without precedence.

[RainbowDash]

The Wave in Arizona (and many other land marks) while back had an over abundance of visitors many of who were from all over the world so in order to limit the impact of people on the area they started to have a maximum number of people who could visit a day. Naturally people complained about how it wasn't fair that those people who signed up first got in first. Thus, they instigated a lottery system and with the influx of tourists from other countries its now nearly impossible to get in unless you drive there and wait at the door to see if someone didn't show up. It may have been something someone who was sick wanted to see or do before they became too weak to function but nope you lost the lottery so now you can die without fufilling you dream.

On the other hand people are treating Mount Everest as the worlds highest trash dump and there are traffic jams on the mountain. People literally die for a chance to get to the top solely for bragging rights. Because this is a major source of income for Nepal they have left this distruction largely unregulated until very recently when various world ecological organizations really started to complain. I think making it socially acceptable to do things like this for "Glory and Honor" makes people more likely to do them. The best thing I think that can be done is to strike a balance between The Wave and Mount Everest. Just Bill has made a great model for sustainability and yes treating the trails like businesses takes a bit of the wild out of them but really if thats "wild" then the El Camino must be a walk in the woods with bears lions and unicorns around every corner trying to stab you in the face.

[Tipi Walter]

Not to mention that it's not just "fat Americans" staying near the car. Plenty of elderly and disabled people enjoy the sights in parks.

This is the "multi-use access" policy-excuse used by the forest officials---bring 'em all in by car or bike or ATV or whatever else. But the reality is different. A blind person won't be playing pro football. Or someone 70 years old. A legless person won't be climbing K2. A guy without hands won't be playing basketball. Sometimes there are places or things we cannot do due to our limitations. So it should be for the backcountry. Should we fly people up to the top of Mt Everest in a helicopter just because they can't walk or see?

There's a waterfall on the North Fork Citico wilderness trail which cannot be seen unless you're on foot. According to the multi-use access freaks would they want to open up this trail and cut a road in just so the feeble or fat or crippled can see the falls? Nope, so far it's protected from such lunacy. Backcountry needs to be earned i.e. gained on foot.

The sad truth, is many americans are generally self centered, and lazy. They expect a national park to be a sideshow that entertains them. They have no interest in preserving anything.

Human access should have never been put ahead of preservation anywhere, but certainly was.

Amen and thank ye fellow traveler.

[Coffee]

This is the "multi-use access" policy-excuse used by the forest officials---bring 'em all in by car or bike or ATV or whatever else. But the reality is different. A blind person won't be playing pro football. Or someone 70 years old. A legless person won't be climbing K2. A guy without hands won't be playing basketball. Sometimes there are places or things we cannot do due to our limitations. So it should be for the backcountry. Should we fly people up to the top of Mt Everest in a helicopter just because they can't walk or see?

There's a waterfall on the North Fork Citico wilderness trail which cannot be seen unless you're on foot. According to the multi-use access freaks would they want to open up this trail and cut a road in just so the feeble or fat or crippled can see the falls? Nope, so far it's protected from such lunacy. Backcountry needs to be earned i.e. gained on foot.

There is a huge difference between advocating that areas currently inaccessible except by foot remain that way and suggesting that areas accessible for generations to all be closed. In fact, as I've suggested several times, the very proposal of closing areas that have long been accessible (Cades Cove, Baxter car campgrounds, etc) and returning them to wilderness is likely to result in a backlash that would make it MORE likely for existing wilderness to be trampled by MORE roads. In other words, the general public might just say, "screw you" to backpackers - if you are intent on taking away lands that are accessible today, maybe we will just go the other way and pave over current wilderness.

But I've said that several times and will drop it now.

[Tipi Walter]

There is a huge difference between advocating that areas currently inaccessible except by foot remain that way and suggesting that areas accessible for generations to all be closed. In fact, as I've suggested several times, the very proposal of closing areas that have long been accessible (Cades Cove, Baxter car campgrounds, etc) and returning them to wilderness is likely to result in a backlash that would make it MORE likely for existing wilderness to be trampled by MORE roads. In other words, the general public might just say, "screw you" to backpackers - if you are intent on taking away lands that are accessible today, maybe we will just go the other way and pave over current wilderness.

But I've said that several times and will drop it now.

Closing roads CAN happen, it all depends on the governing forest supervisors. I do alot of backpacking in Monroe County of TN and in the 1970's most of the current foot-only trails were jeep and ATV roads. Old timers told me how they could drive pretty much anywhere they wanted to go. Then somebody with some wisdom shut down all these backcountry roads and opened them up to everyone but only everyone ON FOOT. It has made a tremendous difference in the quality of the outdoor experience.

There used to be a Tellico River OHV off-road site with 35 miles of jeep roads which caused tremendous soil damage and silt runoff into the headwaters of the Tellico and so the head honchos completely closed the area to all off-road vehicles. It has made a huge difference for the better.

[Coffee]

I'm not suggesting that all areas open to vehicles remain that way indefinitely, only that well established roads through parks attracting large numbers of people are probably here to stay whether we like it or not.

On my hike of the Colorado Trail this summer there were several places where the trail coexisted with miles of jeep roads open to ATV and motorcycle use. I remember one trail in particular - the Timberline Trail south of Lake Ann Pass along the CDT/CT Collegiate West - seemed really impacted by motorcycles (deep ruts, drainage issues, etc). I could see the results of their presence even without encountering a single bike on that trail. I think it would be better if closed to motorized use. But it is obvioiusly very difficult to close existing trails. It seems like the CT Foundation is opting to construct new trails bypassing routes currently open to motorized use rather than attract the political firestorm of closing areas that have long been open to motorized use. If it is so hard to close trails and roads only enjoyed by a small number of ATV/motorcycle enthusiasts, it would be a lot harder to close roads used by thousands of people.

[gpburdelljr]

[QUOTE=Coffee;1928533]Providing reasonable access to parks for the lazy as well as the elderly and disabled allows people to see the natural environment for the first time. Some may be inclined to become more active. Others might not but will have an appreciation for the outdoors and support wilderness. And sure, some will expect Disneyland. The point is that we live in a democracy. If we want wilderness lands preserved, then a majority of politicians must support that. In theory, but also in reality, politicians have no incentive to support wilderness if their constituents don't support it. How many of us were introduced to wilderness by being driven into front country park facilities as kids? I was, in Yosemite. I can't say that without that exposure I would have ever been interested in exploring further. And my parents would never have backpacked into Yosemite valley, or anywhere else for that matter. They are not self centered or lazy, just typical Americans. And backpackers need the support of non backpackers politically. This obvious fact seems lost on many here.[/QUOTE

+1

[Dwill1000]

Closing roads does not dictate loss of access to fat, lazy and disabled persons. Yosemite has implemented marginally successful shuttle and tram systems to move masses of people around without their cars. There has been talk for many years about further limiting the number of cars that flow daily into Yosemite, but this only works with effective alternative transportation. Americans in general feel entitled to use their cars in any way they please (originally as promoted BY the NPS!), and this behavior has deep cultural roots that will not change soon or easily, and not without consequences. Still, steps need to be taken to preserve what we can.

I've hiked many thousands of miles in the California Sierras and remember when the Wilderness Permit system was implemented. There was a lot of grumbling from people like me who previously enjoyed unfettered access to pristine wilderness. As the population pressure on areas like Mt. Whitney and Desolation Valley skyrocketed, though, it has been the permit system that has managed to maintain a semblance of balance. I have come to believe, through experience, that a permit system that controls the number of daily starts at popular trail heads can be an admittedly flawed but effective way to control overuse. I am well aware of the arguments against a permit system - but I do believe it is the best next step.

[MuddyWaters]

I'm not suggesting that all areas open to vehicles remain that way indefinitely, only that well established roads through parks attracting large numbers of people are probably here to stay whether we like it or not.

I think this depends solely on public opinion of the day.
There was a time when we didnt think the Berlin wall would come down. It came down awfully fast.

When our National Parks were built, there was a lot less people, and a lot more undeveloped private lands. We were attempting to preserve the best of the best for the american public. Some incredible special areas were deemed not worthy.

Today, with many more people, and much less private undeveloped lands, we are struggling to preserve anything at all.

What Im saying, is over time missions can and do change. And change can come quick on the winds of public desires.
This works both ways of course.

But, over time americans have gotten better educated about environmental pressures. They dont feed the bears in Yosemite, or do the Firefall anymore. Things that in the early days were reasons to visit the park, today are viewed as destructive and stupid. So too one day may be a road to the top of a peak, or along a ridge so that people in autos can visit.

The less you have, the more you need to protect whats left. IMO.

[Pappy03]

Spirit Walker - I am a weekend hiker with a thought to thru-hike sometime after retirement. I really like the thought of multiple routes in the AT corridor. This would really enhance the experience, divide the masses up into smaller groups and spread the use over a greater area minimizing the direct impact to any one spot. Both the PCT and the CDT us it very successfully and this allows for variation due to weather/natural impacts and also allows individuals to HYOH and experience different aspects of the trail life while still experiencing the "nature" of the area.

Something is going to have to be done or the long term outlook is bleak. We all know the HYOH doesn't mean leave my mess for someone else to clean up. The fact that shelter areas are becoming large refuse piles and that hikers are too lazy or uneducated to properly LNT is a sad statement of today's society. Government oversight does not always lead to better outcomes - look at our current public education system. We need groups like the ATC and others to help us govern ourselves.

Education is the key, followed by a LARGE does of self discipline.

[Pappy03]

As Laurie mentions; reaching this sector of the community is increasingly difficult. This generation relies on peer driven feedback and internet based knowledge. Taking Photo's at the AT headquarters is actually one of the best ways to reach them. How can they ever truly boast on social media without this "key" photo, or register their journey without a body to register it with? Maybe they will join up or at least see something when there that will make them come back when Big K is checked off the list. But you can't fight the whole reason that folks came to the trail, or expect them to suddenly adopt with religious fury LNT or even simple respect for the land you travel. You have to respect and cherish something before you value it. People assume that if not mommy, somebody (RR or ranger) is getting paid to clean up after them.

I own a campground in the foothills of the Adirondack's and to really punctuate what Laurie and Bill are saying, a guest of ours was overheard telling their child that was reaching to pick up trash on the ground "Don't pick that up, they pay people to pick up the trash." This is a sad statement to how our children are being raised to deal with litter in general. In 10 years I am still amazed at how much litter/trash is left on sites and in the public areas of our park. As I hike in the Adirondack Park I am amazed at how much trash we pack out that is left by those who think it is someone else's responsibility to clean up after them.

[Tipi Walter]

The AT is not the only game in town. A person could blue blaze his butt off and only use the AT to connect the dots. I rarely hike the AT anymore as I hate the shelters and I question the thruhiker cut-above aloofness and entitlement mentality and forced-march mindset of getting to the next town at all costs.

Knowing the problems the AT is having with numbers, it's a no-brainer to pull down all the trail shelters and encourage dispersed camping---anything to make the experience more wild and less man-made and "comforting". In the meantime backpackers can use the AT to link up with the BMT and the Bartram Trail and scores of others. Go to Mt Rogers and the Crest Zone and use the AT to connect to Pine Mt and Stone Mt and Wilburn Ridge and Lewis Fork wilderness and Wilson Creek wilderness. The AT is a minor route when compared to the thousands of miles of other trails nearby.

Backpackers who willingly start the AT in March or April are knowingly wanting to be inside the lemming rush north. They do this by choice. But it's only one puny choice out of thousands. Go a 100 feet off the AT and set up camp and you won't see anyone for 2 weeks. Backpackers of all people should know where to go to avoid the rat race to the rat box shelters.

[Rasputen]

Our great Wilderness areas represent our nation's highest form of land protection. What's left of the Wilderness and its abundant life should be untrammeled by man and maintain its primeval character, where man is a guest and should not remain. Man has a conflicted relationship with mother earth and harmony has been juxtaposed with "progress."

Our very health and welfare, mental,spiritual and physical health, are dependent on a deep marriage and understanding of wilderness balance.

"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them with something more than technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning."