Hiked the Smokies

[uatuba]

I just got back from my 5.5 day trip through the Smokies from the Fontana Marina to I-40. I really enjoyed the actual hike, and was surprised at (but prepared for) the remote nature of it, Clingmans and Newfound Gap notwithstanding.

I am confused about something...why does the park keep and maintain horse hitching rails and allow horses to graze and pee and crap all over the place, yet they can't put up a few poles for hammockers (or even allow them to use trees)? Perhaps they should allow hammocking at any time other than in the bubble, say June 1 to December 31.

Has there been any push to allow hammocking? I can't possibly see how a hammock could do more damage than a horse. The shelter experience which I detest and the inflexibility of the reservations (I could have pushed on for two days when the weather was nice) were a real bummer for an otherwise excellent trip.

[Starchild]

Two different issues.

Horses were historically used in this area as transportation and allowed long before the park existed and was part of the concession to allow the park to come about as I understand it, also they (horse clubs) are a great help to maintain the trail by pacing up supplies to keep the trail and shelter sites in order.

Hammocking, OTHO was something I put in my reports when I was ridgerunning here. Many backpackers and in particular thru hikers now hammock and there is simply no accommodation for them. I am sad to see it still exists like this.

[MuddyWaters]

I am confused about something...why does the park keep and maintain horse hitching rails and allow horses to graze and pee and crap all over the place, yet they can't put up a few poles for hammockers (or even allow them to use trees)? Perhaps they should allow hammocking at any time other than in the bubble, say June 1 to December 31.

Has there been any push to allow hammocking? I can't possibly see how a hammock could do more damage than a horse. The shelter experience which I detest and the inflexibility of the reservations (I could have pushed on for two days when the weather was nice) were a real bummer for an otherwise excellent trip.

Cant make everyone happy, the list will never end.

I cant believe there are handicapped accessible privys, and not handicapped accessible sleeping bunks in shelters.....yet. Just wait.

More people would like to see electric receptacles for charging ithingys than hammocks. Way more. Should we listent to them too?

[uatuba]

Cant make everyone happy, the list will never end.

I cant believe there are handicapped accessible privys, and not handicapped accessible sleeping bunks in shelters.....yet. Just wait.

More people would like to see electric receptacles for charging ithingys than hammocks. Way more. Should we listent to them too?

You're conflating convenience and allowance. The current system is unsafe and it encourages dishonesty. If I, as a section hiker, am forced to push on to my reserved shelter despite weather, injury, loss of supplies, etc., that could pose a number of dangers that would be eliminated by allowing individuals to hammock at their convenience in designated sites. And as has already been stated, simply fixing the rules would cost nothing, other than changing the signs that state that hammocking is not allowed.

[Starchild]

You're conflating convenience and allowance. The current system is unsafe and it encourages dishonesty.

Well any rule encourages dishonesty.

If I, as a section hiker, am forced to push on to my reserved shelter despite weather, injury, loss of supplies, etc., that could pose a number of dangers that would be eliminated by allowing individuals to hammock at their convenience in designated sites.

This is one of the arguments against the Smokies backcountry reservation system. But has nothing to do with hanging, everyone is in the same boat here.

And as has already been stated, simply fixing the rules would cost nothing, other than changing the signs that state that hammocking is not allowed.

Hammocks are allowed, you can carry them freely without a permit.
Hanging is allowed at campsites, and also allowed at full shelters on the AT if one has a AT thru hiking permit and there is no room for you in it.

[HooKooDooKu]

If I, as a section hiker, am forced to push on to my reserved shelter despite weather, injury, loss of supplies, etc., that could pose a number of dangers that would be eliminated by allowing individuals to hammock at their convenience in designated sites. And as has already been stated, simply fixing the rules would cost nothing, other than changing the signs that state that hammocking is not allowed.

First of all, the park service NEVER expects you to put "rules" above safety.
Second of all, you are assuming the rules are "broken". The park service has been saddled with the dual mandate of protecting the park AND making it available for our use. The way GSMNP has decided to fulfill that dual mandate is to attempt to concentrate those activities that cause damage (camping) by implementing a limited number of campsites and shelters so that the rest of the park can remain relatively pristine. Even if a hammock does no damage to the trees, the ground under a hammock still gets trampled on by hammock users. So in that regards, I fully understand the concept that the park service has decided that rules that apply to tent campers apply to hammock campers as well.

[evyck da fleet]

You're conflating convenience and allowance. The current system is unsafe and it encourages dishonesty. If I, as a section hiker, am forced to push on to my reserved shelter despite weather, injury, loss of supplies, etc., that could pose a number of dangers that would be eliminated by allowing individuals to hammock at their convenience in designated sites. And as has already been stated, simply fixing the rules would cost nothing, other than changing the signs that state that hammocking is not allowed.

I'm not sure how hammocking is any different than tenting. Wouldn't someone carrying a tent have the same issues? Either way repeated use will leave a trace hence the designated shelter areas. Everyone should carry a shelter, reservation or not, which can be used if the shelter is full.

As much as I dislike rules ( no you can't camp wherever you please) when it comes to hiking, at times they are necessary. If I hike the Smokies I accept the rules. I'd prefer that to an endless stream of tp flowers throughout the park or arriving at a shelter with 100 people who all thought it'd be a great place to camp that weekend.

[JumpMaster Blaster]

You're conflating convenience and allowance. The current system is unsafe and it encourages dishonesty. If I, as a section hiker, am forced to push on to my reserved shelter despite weather, injury, loss of supplies, etc., that could pose a number of dangers that would be eliminated by allowing individuals to hammock at their convenience in designated sites. And as has already been stated, simply fixing the rules would cost nothing, other than changing the signs that state that hammocking is not allowed.

Having been around a ridgerunner for a few days during my hike in the GSMNP last May, if you are injured or escaping inclement weather, you're not going to be drawn and quartered like you think. Of course, dishonest people will bend the rules.

[TNhiker]

I cant believe there are handicapped accessible privys

theres one at Leconte....

[Deacon]

theres one at Leconte....

They are springing up all along the VT section of the AT, in the most inaccessible places!

[Uncle Joe]

I don't think a request for hammocking is on par with electrical outlets and handicap access. Sorry, apples and oranges. Hammock access requires nothing but the permission to do it. No funding, not materials (unless you really want poles to hang from, which I don't). There are plenty of trees in the park that can accommodate a hang.

[MuddyWaters]

I don't think a request for hammocking is on par with electrical outlets and handicap access. Sorry, apples and oranges. Hammock access requires nothing but the permission to do it. No funding, not materials (unless you really want poles to hang from, which I don't). There are plenty of trees in the park that can accommodate a hang.

Hanging repeatedly on the same trees in area of a shelter would damage them. A trees life is in the cambium, just under the bark. Girdling the tree will kill it, even with 2" web with repeated use over time on same trees.

The forces generated by hammocks are huge, particularly when people plop onto them.
10,000-30,0000 lbs. A small pole wouldnt last, or be safe. This is also why not allowed to hang on shelters.

A small area has been designated sacrificial for shelters to protect area along AT. Thats it. People dont sleep in hammocks at home, they dont have to sleep in one in gsmnp. Please cite one good reason , why special expensive efforts or environmental concessions should be made for a small user group that wants to do things their favorite way.

Because there are hundreds of such small groups. You cant fixate on one.

[Starchild]

....The forces generated by hammocks are huge, particularly when people plop onto them.
10,000-30,0000 lbs. A small pole wouldnt last, or be safe. This is also why not allowed to hang on shelters.
...

While the force applied is usually much higher than the hanger assumes, I think you are off by a order of magnitude. 1000 - 3000 lbs 'plop' force sounds more correct.

[MuddyWaters]

While the force applied is usually much higher than the hanger assumes, I think you are off by a order of magnitude. 1000 - 3000 lbs 'plop' force sounds more correct.

Yep
point was the pole must withstand the torque the hammock places on it. The leverage of attaching the hammock several feet above ground multiplies the load as you go down the shaft of the pole . At the base the pole must withstand bending torque about 6x the force applied, depending on height. Worst case, flat pitch and fooling around results in needing a very stout pole to be idiot proof and last. 3000 lb force , maybe 2000 horizontal ( not gonna do math), is abot 12000 ft lbs of torque on pole. It not a tiny pole if top not supported also. Hard to sink in rock too Id guess.

[Time Zone]

Worst case, flat pitch and fooling around results in needing a very stout pole to be idiot proof and last. 3000 lb force , maybe 2000 horizontal ( not gonna do math), is abot 12000 ft lbs of torque on pole.

worst case = tree tents. I'll agree with you there, flat pitch is not good for trees.

But hammocks are not supposed to be hung at 0 degree angle - and from what I've seen, most hammock campers know this. Backyard hammock stands basically wouldn't exist (for long) if hammockers tried to hang at a flat pitch. At the recommended 30 degree angle, hammocks won't harm most trees/bark, and will only have cord tension equal to the weight of the hanger. Shear force even less, according to Derek Hansen's Hammock Hang Calculator:

https://theultimatehang.com/hammock-hang-calculator/

Many hammockers also know that positioning one's body on a 20 degree diagonal to the centerline can simulate a flat pitch lay without forgoing the suspension hang angle needed to protect the trees.

[Rex Clifton]

Hanging repeatedly on the same trees in area of a shelter would damage them. A trees life is in the cambium, just under the bark. Girdling the tree will kill it, even with 2" web with repeated use over time on same trees.

The forces generated by hammocks are huge, particularly when people plop onto them.
10,000-30,0000 lbs. A small pole wouldnt last, or be safe. This is also why not allowed to hang on shelters.

A small area has been designated sacrificial for shelters to protect area along AT. Thats it. People dont sleep in hammocks at home, they dont have to sleep in one in gsmnp.

I don't believe what you say to be the case. I have come across old growth trees that have been used for pulleys during logging operations. These trees had steel cables wrapped around them that, over time, became imbedded into their bark They were were doing just fine. A properly strung hammock is no more damaging to a tree than you leaning against it. No, this is just another example of mindless regulations that make the National Parks an abomination, and the reason I avoid them like the plague.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rain Man]

A properly strung hammock is no more damaging to a tree than you leaning against it. No, this is just another example of mindless regulations...

Mindless lack of understanding of simple physics, if you believe that.

[globetruck]

Hanging repeatedly on the same trees in area of a shelter would damage them. A trees life is in the cambium, just under the bark. Girdling the tree will kill it, even with 2" web with repeated use over time on same trees.

The forces generated by hammocks are huge, particularly when people plop onto them.
10,000-30,0000 lbs. A small pole wouldnt last, or be safe. This is also why not allowed to hang on shelters.

A small area has been designated sacrificial for shelters to protect area along AT. Thats it. People dont sleep in hammocks at home, they dont have to sleep in one in gsmnp. Please cite one good reason , why special expensive efforts or environmental concessions should be made for a small user group that wants to do things their favorite way.

Because there are hundreds of such small groups. You cant fixate on one.

Wow you really seem to be into LNT. Do you pack out your own CO2?

[Uncle Joe]

Hanging repeatedly on the same trees in area of a shelter would damage them. A trees life is in the cambium, just under the bark. Girdling the tree will kill it, even with 2" web with repeated use over time on same trees.
The forces generated by hammocks are huge, particularly when people plop onto them.
10,000-30,0000 lbs. A small pole wouldnt last, or be safe. This is also why not allowed to hang on shelters.
A small area has been designated sacrificial for shelters to protect area along AT. Thats it. People dont sleep in hammocks at home, they dont have to sleep in one in gsmnp. Please cite one good reason , why special expensive efforts or environmental concessions should be made for a small user group that wants to do things their favorite way.

Because there are hundreds of such small groups. You cant fixate on one.

Im not fixated on anything. I'm just saying that allowing hammocks isn't the same as running power. I hammocked in GA pretty much my entire section hike and it cost no one anything except me. No one stood a poll up for me. I won't cite anything because I don't believe any effort is necessary to accommodate hammocks. As for forces on a tree, show me some damage reports of trees dying along the AT due to hammocks and I might take your concerns more seriously. I will, however, give some credit to the notion given the volume of hikers in the GSMNP damage might be a concern from repeated use at the same location. But it is now with shelters.

Frankly, the park doesn't sound very inviting. You can't hammock and you virtually can't tent camp either.

[uatuba]

I can cite a number of good reasons. Sleep apnea being one of them...unless we expect the park to install CPAP machines in the shelters.

It's also more sanitary. It also allows for better protection of equipment from rodent damage or theft. It also would allow for flexible hiking.

Your force calculations are off by an exponential factor, but that really doesn't matter...poles in public parks have been in place for a decade with near constant use, and they have lasted plenty long enough. I imagine a horse getting spoiled and jerking on a rail would generate more force than a 250 lb hammocker. It seems like those rails have been there for a while.