Big changes for backcountry permits in SNP coming.

[TexasBob]

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

I have used Recreation.gov a number of times over the last few years to reserve campground sites when I have gone car camping. I think the site works well and is easy to use. Maybe the annoying part is having to make a reservation in the first place as a lot of campgrounds now require you to make reservations and pay online rather than just do a first come first served pay when you get there approach.

[Coffee]

The ability to walk or otherwise visit public lands spontaneously and at low or no cost should be a cherished part of our heritage, with exceptions only to address overuse that threatens to damage the resource. That threshold is clearly met in many places that require permits and have quotas. I don’t think the vast majority of SNP is in that category. Unfortunately I missed the public comment period and did not know about these proposals until reading this thread. I am planning to write to the park anyway in case they’ll consider input after the comment period ended.

[Alligator]

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.

Very few permits administered by that website in the eastern US and fewer still for hiking. I see much more on the map in the western US. I've only ever used them for front country camping and never noticed the fee at all. Mostly because state and national park camping is much cheaper than most private campgrounds. I just look at the average daily amount usually.

I don't particularly like the idea of having to pay to be in the lottery and then not getting a permit. If it's just random that does take about a line of code on any platform but more importantly, if you don't get the permit you shouldn't have to pay the same. There's no further work for the company. Let the people that get the permit cover the administration cost. That doesn't apply here though. I haven't read the Old Rag report, just looked at some of the daily usage figures. I don't have an opinion on it.

As far as the backcountry permitting, I didn't see anything at first glance as to whether there were any studies done there, could be in the presentation I didn't watch that. Two out of my three trips were in the winter there and one winter trip they closed the roads so it wasn't crowded.

People talk about spontaneity but I have to plan trips around work and home and then where my vehicle is that by the time I get out to a spot, it's pretty well scripted already so I don't mind knowing I will have a place to camp, particularly in national parks where permits are often required anyway. Hopefully they will take into consideration thuhikers though as their timing to the park is really unknown. SNP while having certain rules on where to camp, does allow some freedom to camp at non-designated sites but where those are on the AT I am completely unfamiliar with as I just stayed at the shelters and one of the front country campgrounds. Will they harden and designate some of those spots with the permits or just continue to allow the same rules I don't know.

[Coffee]

“SNP while having certain rules on where to camp, does allow some freedom to camp at non-designated sites but where those are on the AT I am completely unfamiliar with as I just stayed at the shelters and one of the front country campgrounds.”

While the park has no designated backcountry campgrounds, other than the AT hut system, they do publish a nice collection of suggested trip plans that I’ve used to identify places to camp:

https://www.nps.gov/shen/planyourvis...ntry-trips.htm

For me, spontaneity is more a matter of having freedom once I’m on trail in terms of deciding where to stop for the night. A lot of times, I’ve deviated from my pre trip plans depending on how I’m feeling or weather conditions. I also typically plan the dates of my trips ahead of time.

I definitely need to study the proposals. I wasn’t aware of this until reading the thread.

[johnnybgood]

The ability to walk or otherwise visit public lands spontaneously and at low or no cost should be a cherished part of our heritage, with exceptions only to address overuse that threatens to damage the resource. That threshold is clearly met in many places that require permits and have quotas. I don’t think the vast majority of SNP is in that category. Unfortunately I missed the public comment period and did not know about these proposals until reading this thread. I am planning to write to the park anyway in case they’ll consider input after the comment period ended.

This is my take on the situation. It’s the user being gouged to make up for the shortcomings of federal funds not being delivered by Uncle Sam. I don’t see the park being overrun with backcountry camping whatsoever. This new change is absolutely a money grab wrapped up as a necessary evil to keep our public lands from overuse. I simply don’t see that, but I rarely camp at shelters. I camp typically for a single night, often times hiking in after dusk without seeing another sole.
I did participate in the on-line questionnaire and supported the camping user fee increase( it hasn’t been a change in 15 years)but expressed the decision on backcountry fees as not warranted.

[Alligator]

“SNP while having certain rules on where to camp, does allow some freedom to camp at non-designated sites but where those are on the AT I am completely unfamiliar with as I just stayed at the shelters and one of the front country campgrounds.”

While the park has no designated backcountry campgrounds, other than the AT hut system, they do publish a nice collection of suggested trip plans that I’ve used to identify places to camp:

https://www.nps.gov/shen/planyourvis...ntry-trips.htm

For me, spontaneity is more a matter of having freedom once I’m on trail in terms of deciding where to stop for the night. A lot of times, I’ve deviated from my pre trip plans depending on how I’m feeling or weather conditions. I also typically plan the dates of my trips ahead of time.

I definitely need to study the proposals. I wasn’t aware of this until reading the thread.

I tend to think about hiking on the AT as a section hiker. I do as well vary my itinerary along the way, but in the end I am still hiking towards my car, with X amount of days of food. When you have a decent set of trails you can make changes to your route but even then, unless it's an out and back, it may require major adjustments. Even in big parks the trails don't really form complete networks. Of course if you have a ride available, options open, or you can hitch or something. If I recall correctly, in the past a permit was needed in SNP, self-service kiosk or something it was. I don't know how they plan to structure the new permit system. Most of the permits for NPs I had to get in the past were for specific itineraries. Since they don't have specific campsites now, maybe they will let you roam around a bounded area.

Of course off trail is a complete different ballgame but most of the time people aren't bushwhacking.

[Alligator]

This is my take on the situation. It’s the user being gouged to make up for the shortcomings of federal funds not being delivered by Uncle Sam. I don’t see the park being overrun with backcountry camping whatsoever. This new change is absolutely a money grab wrapped up as a necessary evil to keep our public lands from overuse. I simply don’t see that, but I rarely camp at shelters. I camp typically for a single night, often times hiking in after dusk without seeing another sole.
I did participate in the on-line questionnaire and supported the camping user fee increase( it hasn’t been a change in 15 years)but expressed the decision on backcountry fees as not warranted.

Have you seen the park's budget? I haven't so I don't know for certain. Just generally it's been said that the park system has a large backlog of maintenance and they are underfunded, which is close but not exactly what you have stated. Do you think that SNP is underfunded? The park will have its own budget as well as parts of which may not be budgeted strictly for the park. If you think the park's budget is not enough, then things inside the park will not all get done. "Things not getting done" will include the three areas mentioned in the proposal. The park says "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." While the backcountry may or may not be overcrowded, there are still maintenance issues that are somewhat or even completely independent of overall usage. Signs need fixing, trailheads need attention, waterbars need building, trees falling on the trail need sawing it's called entropy. Maybe it's not a "money grab", maybe they genuinely need some trail crew members or have backlogged projects that need attention in the backcountry.

[Coffee]

SNP does currently require permits for overnight use but there are no quotas and permits are self issued at entrance stations, where the AT enters the park, and a couple of other locations (such as the Old Rag parking area). You can also get a permit at a visitors center. Permits are currently free.

I have less of an issue with payment of a fee than with quotas or ending dispersed camping in favor of specific campsites. Seems like the rules are still in progress.

[Furlough]

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.

I concur with Coffee. I would add to that - Like him I have been Hiking Old Rag annually for over a decade. It has become an over-loved trail and I think a permitting system that helps control the number of daily users is a good idea. I am not a fan of the broader use of the permit and fee system for the entire back country of SNP. To me the online fees/permitting should be applied only to the AT corridor with only an online no fee permit available for the rest of the back country. From the SNP superintendents slide presentation on this proposal - They annually track 60K back country nights - that is in the top 10 of NP system. 65% of that is on the AT corridor. As a trail maintainer in SNP since 2002 for PATC (resigned effective 1 DEC) I understand the issues the Park faces with the holistic supervision over all that goes into maintaining the AT corridor. My observations on the amount of folks you see on the non-AT back country trails on multi-overnight trips are similar to those Coffee reported on his day hike.

[Different Socks]

Totally agree. Seems like what used to be such easy access just to enter an NP, is now a complete hassle AND they are charging you for it even if you have an entrance card for all NP's.

[sketcher709]

This is how they get their adequate funding. Rather than a general budget that is easy to cut, lets fund it with actual users. What's the problem?

[Traffic Jam]

I see nothing wrong with charging $5 for a night of backcountry camping but it already costs $30 to enter SNP by vehicle and $15 on foot. Increase the campground fee to $30/night and a family will pay $100+ to go camping for 2 nights, ridiculous.

[BillyGr]

I see nothing wrong with charging $5 for a night of backcountry camping but it already costs $30 to enter SNP by vehicle and $15 on foot. Increase the campground fee to $30/night and a family will pay $100+ to go camping for 2 nights, ridiculous.

Wouldn't it be $90 ($30 for entry, $30 per night x 2)? The entry fee is valid for a week so no need to repay that one, even if they left during the day in between. Still a fair amount, but not sure it is more than many other similar spots.

[Traffic Jam]

Wouldn't it be $90 ($30 for entry, $30 per night x 2)? The entry fee is valid for a week so no need to repay that one, even if they left during the day in between. Still a fair amount, but not sure it is more than many other similar spots.

$90 + fees.

Yeah, that averages $45+/night to tent camp which is pretty expensive.

[Mockernut]

I just hate being on a forced itinerary...the money is one thing, the site specific reservations are the worst...if they do what GSMNP did.

[Coffee]

I just hate being on a forced itinerary...the money is one thing, the site specific reservations are the worst...if they do what GSMNP did.

This is pretty much how I feel about it too. The money issue is a matter of principle -- I don't think simply walking on public lands and camping should cost anything, with the exception of rules needed to protect heavily used areas from damage. General tax revenues of the government should be used to fund basic maintenance of public lands, not endless and ever-escalating user fees. Driving onto public lands? Sure, some fee might be appropriate but $30 to drive into a national park? Yes, there are annual passes but this is real money for a lot of people. Should it cost a family $30 to drive into Shenandoah National Park for a picnic? Or $90 to drive into the park and camp at a developed campground for two nights? A lot of people in the DC area would say, "that's nothing, still a cheap getaway" but that's not the case fora lot of people who want to use THEIR public lands.

I'd never question the need for permits and fees to support the permit system in places like Yosemite, Grand Canyon, and similar locations. Shenandoah National Park is something entirely different. If the AT corridor is a problem at certain times of year, such as during the thru hiker bubble, then maybe they need a way to manage that specifically. In past years, I've hiked in many areas of the park, including on the AT corridor, and while you do see more people I've just never experienced anything even close to places like Yosemite or Grand Canyon.

[jomo1983]

I did 2 nights on the trail in GSMNP in October. Mollie's Ridge had most permit holders not showing up, then a group arrived after dark that were oblivious to the permit requirement (as well as most other hiking courtesies) and squatted. Next night at Derrick Knob it was supposed to be a full house but only 3 people (including myself) were there. One of the problems with the online system is you can book, but you cannot cancel or change, those actions require a phone call and it seems like maybe people consider that experience not worth their five bucks.

[Skyline]

If this paid, internet-reservation backcountry permit plan cuts down on what some of us call the Bored Hordes who have discovered and abused SNP commencing with Covid, great!

BUT . . .

Currently, aside from the AT huts, SNP has no designated backcountry sites (a la the Smokies) and NONE to reserve. Are they going to create those sites and put them in an inventory? That will surely take implementation well beyond 2023. Or will they still let us designate a general area and find/create our own once we get there? I have no problem paying $20/night for that if the $$$ truly benefits backcountry camping in SNP. Or $30 for a multi-night itinerary. I waste more than that every month on Netflix and Hulu.

[Coffee]

"Are they going to create those sites and put them in an inventory?"

I sure hope not. Part of the fun of SNP is that there are no designated sites and one has to look for suitable locations (and there are many great locations that few know about).

Maybe they should just focus on the AT corridor and Old Rag since those are the areas with problems (there are other high use areas that already prohibit camping).

[One Half]

how will this affect thru hikers?
or will it?