Big changes for backcountry permits in SNP coming.

[johnnybgood]

2) Implement a backcountry camping permit system that allows the Park to track and understand backcountry use in a way that better protects the resource and provides an improved visitor experience. A fee-based online registration system through recreation.gov will allow users to plan their trip in advance with current information using a reliable system and will provide financial support for management of the park's backcountry. A fee ranging from $20-30 is likely to depend on the number of backcountry nights for each permit. It will modernize the backcountry permit system with online camping information and help protect the natural and cultural resources of the park. Details of this system are planned to be developed through 2022 for an implementation date of late 2022 or early 2023.

[somers515]

Recreation.gov . . sigh . . they are as annoying as ticketmaster or active or a swarm of mosquitoes.

[Mockernut]

This will make Shenandoah the same level of misery that the Smokies are for general backpacking use. I don't mind paying a fee...I just hate being restricted to campsites and a fixed itinerary. Not a huge deal for the thru hiker in the Smokies but a major pain to the weekend warrior and short section hikers which is most people. Hopefully, whatever Shenandoah puts in place won't mirror that.

[illabelle]

Because a fee somehow "protects the natural and cultural resources of the park." I am skeptical.

[gpburdelljr]

https://www.nationalparkstraveler.or...vation-systems

https://wina.com/files/2021/12/SHEN_Press-Release-FeeChanges-Dec21.pdf

[Venchka]

There are better systems currently in place.
Seek and Ye shall find.
That’s all Folks! Lest the good places turn into Yosemite.
Cheers!
Wayne

[RockDoc]

The only thing that the fee protects is job security for a few people.

[Coffee]

The old rag area is a mess and some type of permit there makes sense. Increasing the developed campground fee only hurts people of limited economic means by making one of the very few remaining places to have an inexpensive family vacation more expensive. And I’m baffled by the backcountry fee plan if it’s for anything other than raising more money. Where is the overuse in the backcountry? Most of the SNP backcountry is lightly used yet the permit system will muck up spontaneous trips for the whole park, the way this is written.

[Coffee]

The situation with old rag was worse than ever when I hiked it in October (I’ve been hiking old rag annually for most of the past two decades). The new parking lots actually made it worse. By having so much more capacity for parking, more people can get on the trail. So the park service, while well intentioned by wanting to make parking better, effectively created more of a problem on the trail that they now are trying to correct with day use permits.

[gpburdelljr]

If the federal government would provide parks with adequate funding this wouldn’t be necessary.

[BillyGr]

The situation with old rag was worse than ever when I hiked it in October (I’ve been hiking old rag annually for most of the past two decades). The new parking lots actually made it worse. By having so much more capacity for parking, more people can get on the trail. So the park service, while well intentioned by wanting to make parking better, effectively created more of a problem on the trail that they now are trying to correct with day use permits.

This refers to ovenights, not seeing where it says anything about day use permits?

[johnnybgood]

This refers to ovenights, not seeing where it says anything about day use permits?

The above poster was referring to day use permits to climb Old Rag to remedy the crowding problems which exist for the most popular hike in the park. The trailhead and lots to park are outside of the park and had been operated as come all, all is welcome mindset.
My referenced source(#2) was one of three new changes to be implemented and had to do with backcountry camping permits based on the number of nights one’s reservation was for which puts more emphasis on section hikers, weekend hikers and long distance hikers if I’m understanding the proposed change.

[NY HIKER 50]

At times it was ridiculous. The signs at the road crossings were badly off, and the guide at the time said I only had to do five miles the next day. Wrong! I ended up doing around 12 miles and got so tired I just plopped down in my tent with a can of spam. I never ate it. I was so tired I just fell asleep right where I was. The fee system will probably force me to have gone farther to make it to the shelter but the next day it still took hours.

[Coffee]

This refers to ovenights, not seeing where it says anything about day use permits?

The day use permit idea is only for Old Rag which can get extremely crowded. The popular rock scramble section can be choked with hikers navigating a rock maze and it’s often single file. When I arrived at daybreak on a Sunday in October, the main parking lot was almost full. I passed dozens of people in the first couple miles, which is a normal trail. Then you get to the rock scramble and if even one hiker is skittish (which is understandable in places, you get a traffic jam reminiscent of the capital beltway. So, overcrowding on old rag is a real issue at least at peak times. The huge parking lots, in my opinion, only facilitate more overcrowding. Before the lots were constructed, the small parking area about a mile from the trailhead got full quickly and people parked alongside the narrow road. So that problem is now solved but overcrowding on trail is even worse. As things stand now, I see why day use restrictions are needed. I am much more skeptical about the need for an overnight quota and fee system given that most of the SNP backcountry never seems that crowded. I did another October day hike (Knob Mountain and Jeremy’s Run and didn’t see anyone until the upper mile of the Run. That hike was on a weekday rather than a Sunday but it was still peak foliage season and skyline drive was full of cars. The real congestion in snp is skyline drive, especially in the fall.

[LittleRock]

Another part of the AT I'm glad to have finished before NPS started charging for backcountry permits.

[Coffee]

Parks will say that the NPS funding is down and so they are putting in these user fees. Maybe there's something to that but I don't think it should cost a lot of money to visit and walk on our public lands. If they are trying to address a critical strain on the resource, that's one thing, but this seems like a money grab to me. Politicians don't want to use tax revenue to fund parks so the NPS puts in "use fees" instead which is the same thing, albeit "voluntary".

[Slugg]

These fees, and no fees derived from Recreation.gov, fund our public lands.

https://www.outdoorproject.com/artic...d-public-lands

From the article:
"None of these fees end up with the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the BLM, or any other federal land agency. You are, instead, paying directly into the pocket of a corporation that designed a digitally attractive assistant to provide you with that highly valued, intuitive booking experience."

[Alligator]

The full proposal is located at https://parkplanning.nps.gov/project...ojectID=103975 and follows:

It was open for comment from 8/17/2021 to 9/16/2021.

There is a detailed report on visitor usage at Old Rag in the documents section.

Update Recreational Permit Fees for Campgrounds and Establish Backcountry Camping and Old Rag Mountain Day Use Fees and Reservation System

Shenandoah National Park » Update Recreational Permit Fees for Campgrounds and Establish Backcountry Camping and Old Rag Mountain Day Use Fees and Reservation System » Document List

Shenandoah National Park is seeking feedback on proposed fee increases to be implemented over the next two years. This proposal does not include an increase in entrance fees and only focuses on specific user fees.

The money collected at entrance stations, campgrounds, and through other user fees supports a great deal of work that would not otherwise be possible. A requirement of using these funds generated by park users is that the projects must improve the visitor experience. Recent fee-funded projects have included new campground fixtures in Big Meadows, bear-resistant food lockers in various campgrounds, and construction of the new Old Rag parking lot.

"Shenandoah National Park will use the increased revenue to fund projects and services that will benefit the visitor and contribute to the protection of Shenandoah's natural and cultural resources." Said Superintendent Pat Kenney. As a result, visitors can expect improvements in the campgrounds, in their backcountry camping experience, and at Old Rag.

There are three user fees under consideration in the proposal:

1) Increase the campground nightly fee to $30 at all four campgrounds from the current
$15 to $20 charge. Group campsites, which accommodate up to 25 people at some locations, are also proposed to increase to $75. The increased fees will provide needed revenue to maintain and improve campgrounds.

2) Implement a backcountry camping permit system that allows the Park to track and understand backcountry use in a way that better protects the resource and provides an improved visitor experience. A fee-based online registration system through recreation.gov will allow users to plan their trip in advance with current information using a reliable system and will provide financial support for management of the park's backcountry. A fee ranging from $20-30 is likely to depend on the number of backcountry nights for each permit. It will modernize the backcountry permit system with online camping information and help protect the natural and cultural resources of the park. Details of this system are planned to be developed through 2022 for an implementation date of late 2022 or early 2023.

3) Establish a pilot project for Old Rag mountain visitor access through a new ticketing system at recreation.gov. The new system will require Old Rag users to get daily reservations in advance to help manage visitor use for most of the year. There will be a minimal ($1 to $2) processing fee during the pilot. Visitor use and expectations research indicates significant crowding and congestion at Old Rag at busy times. These studies indicate that managing total daily use during most of the year will improve visitor experience, reduce congestion and safety risks, and protect the rare ecological communities on the mountain. The majority of Old Rag users surveyed in 2019 supported a system to limit users to protect the environment or increase safety. The pilot is intended to test, evaluate, and adapt to a more permanent system (with a different use fee) in the future. The pilot ticketing is proposed to begin in March 2022.

To learn more about this proposal, there will be two 1.5 hour virtual public presentations on August 24 starting at 7:00 p.m. and August 26 at 3:00 p.m. In person meetings will not be held because of the resurgence in COVID-19 cases in the region. For more details and links to the meetings, click on "Meeting Notices" in the menu to the left. The presentations will be followed by question-and-answer sessions on the proposal. No comments or input will be officially accepted at those meetings - we request your feedback in writing on this website or mailed to the Superintendent. Additional information, including FAQs on the proposal and links to park guidance on backcountry use and Old Rag, is also available by clicking on "Links" in the menu to the left. The Old Rag Mountain Visitor Use Study and the presentation shared during the first virtual public meeting are both available in the "Document List".

You are invited to provide feedback on Shenandoah National Park's proposed fee increases electronically by clicking on "Open for Comment" on the menu to the left and leaving comments on this website or sending comments by regular mail. The public comment period closes on September 16.

Thank you for your participation and interest in this proposal. We look forward to hearing from you!

Contact Information

Jim Schaberl
Chief of Natural and Cultural Resources
540-999-3500 x3491

[Alligator]

These fees, and no fees derived from Recreation.gov, fund our public lands.

https://www.outdoorproject.com/artic...d-public-lands

From the article:
"None of these fees end up with the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the BLM, or any other federal land agency. You are, instead, paying directly into the pocket of a corporation that designed a digitally attractive assistant to provide you with that highly valued, intuitive booking experience."

That's selectively quoted from your link. It's not well written either. When she says None of these fees she is only talking about the reservation or application fees. She then goes on to say that that the permit fee does go to public coffers. The reservation and application fees go to the company that runs recreation.gov. Now whether that's fair or not is poorly researched on the author's part as they don't provide information for the costs that might be involved were say the government to run the program or another business. The author seems to think that it is just some code that will run itself once the algorithm is written.

...
The reservation or application fees you pay to plan your adventure on Recreation.gov, separate from a permit fee which you may or may not pay as well, are anywhere from $6 to $15. None of these fees end up with the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the BLM, or any other federal land agency. You are, instead, paying directly into the pocket of a corporation that designed a digitally attractive assistant to provide you with that highly valued, intuitive booking experience.
If your chosen destination also requires a local permit fee, that amount will likely end up with local land managers. But unless you have already been paying attention to those damn details and peeking under the shiny veneer of a modern interface, the amount is much less than we all previously thought. In many cases, the local ranger district doesn’t see your dime at all unless you end up paying them separately for the cost of a permit.
...

[Slugg]

That's selectively quoted from your link. It's not well written either. When she says None of these fees she is only talking about the reservation or application fees. She then goes on to say that that the permit fee does go to public coffers. The reservation and application fees go to the company that runs recreation.gov. Now whether that's fair or not is poorly researched on the author's part as they don't provide information for the costs that might be involved were say the government to run the program or another business. The author seems to think that it is just some code that will run itself once the algorithm is written.

Fair, my post oversimplified it. But most folks on here and folks I see elsewhere seem to think these Recreation.gov fees for the most part just go right back into the public land, but that is often not the case at all or only partially the case.