Big changes for backcountry permits in SNP coming.

[johnnybgood]

Having spoken to people at the park office they haven’t formulated a plan just yet OR they’re not publicly saying if they have. I was told their first objective was culling the hordes of hikers that traverse Old Rag every weekend. There is proposal #3, setting up an online fee registration system. Once that is put in place and implemented will they turn their attention to the other proposals. Campground fee increases is proposal #1 . Proposal #2 is backcountry fee based reserve system .
I asked her point blank about designated camp sites, daily backcountry hiker fees and how it would be managed and she really didn’t have an answer. It probably won’t be affecting backcountry camping until 2023.
We will simply have to wait till later this year to get any answers.

[johnnybgood]

Beginning in early 2024 SNP will go to an online fee-based backcountry reservation system similar to other tier 2 National Parks.

The reservation system will be through the government site; recreation.gov.

+ The proposed fee structure: a $6 reservation fee, plus a $9 fee per person, total fee of $15. Two-person fee is $24. This permit will be valid for 14 days.

+ Online reservations can be made up to 90 days in advance, or the same day so as to accommodate long distance hikers entering the park.

+ Modifications to information can be made except the start date prior to entering the park. You will need to either print out the itinerary to carry or have the permit with information saved on your phone.

Public comment on new policy now opens through July 6th.at https://prkplanning.nps.gov/SHEN-Backcountry

[RockDoc]

The people put in charge of this sort of thing are always the last people you would want put in charge of this sort of thing...

[Kaptainkriz]

fixed link: https://parkplanning.nps.gov/project...ojectId=116666

Beginning in early 2024 SNP will go to an online fee-based backcountry reservation system similar to other tier 2 National Parks.

The reservation system will be through the government site; recreation.gov.

+ The proposed fee structure: a $6 reservation fee, plus a $9 fee per person, total fee of $15. Two-person fee is $24. This permit will be valid for 14 days.

+ Online reservations can be made up to 90 days in advance, or the same day so as to accommodate long distance hikers entering the park.

+ Modifications to information can be made except the start date prior to entering the park. You will need to either print out the itinerary to carry or have the permit with information saved on your phone.

Public comment on new policy now opens through July 6th.at https://prkplanning.nps.gov/SHEN-Backcountry

[Daybreak]

https://parkplanning.nps.gov/SHEN-Backcountry is the correct site


$15 is dirt cheap for staying in a crowded park for two weeks. It is even reasonable for a daily fee. But if sites are or become limited then double/triple overlapping reservations will be made to ensure to get places one wants if dates or hiking rates change. e.g. Let's go to a motel for a couple of days until the rain stops/my foot heals/the unhealthy smoke goes away...


The best info I could find for thru hikers is this "All other backcountry camping requirements will remain the same." This implies that we can make a same day "reservation" i.e. pay a user fee when entering but don't have to specify sites. Somehow I doubt this is the case. Can someone clarify?

If you have to reserve sites, are there limits for thru hikers at each site? for other backpackers?

Without carrying a smart phone what is the practical method for a thru hiker or others to make a reservation and get a paper copy. If you do make reservation on someone else's phone or your own but don't carry it why can't you just show an ID? Surely, the ranger can bring up the reservation or is this too much to ask??? Can you even make a reservation once you are in the park without a smart phone?

[Coffee]

Another stupid bureaucratic solution for a park that doesn't have an overuse problem except in certain key areas like Old Rag and around the AT shelters. I have been hiking and backpacking in SNP for years and it is uncrowded almost everywhere else. It's a money grab, nothing more, just like charging a ludicrous $30/night for developed campgrounds and a $30 entrance fee just to use public lands.

[Coffee]

I have filled out the comment form. I would encourage others who use SNP to comment, not that I anticipate that this will make much of a difference. My answers:

Topic Question 1:
It should not cost anything to walk on public lands except in cases where overuse requires monitoring and management. I have been hiking and backpacking in SNP for years and the park is uncrowded except in the area of shelters along the AT and in the Old Rag area. There isn't any justification for changes to the current paper non-quota system except in the areas of high impact. It should not cost $15 simply to go for an overnight trip in SNP.

Comments: Topic Question 2:
I am opposed to the inability to simply fill out a paper form and deposit it as we have done for years. This facilitated spontaneity and had no cost to backpackers. There is no need to go online for this. We shouldn't presuppose that everyone has internet connectivity all the time to get permits and print them out for inspection. Paper registration is easy and simple -- there is no reason to get rid of it.

Comments: Topic Question 3:
As noted above, I am opposed.

Comments: I have been hiking and backpacking in SNP for over two decades. I have not encountered overuse in the park except along the AT (mainly shelters) and in the Old Rag area. This begs the question of why changes are needed to manage the entire park. Why not require permits and fees just for the AT shelter areas and for Old Rag? The day use system at old rag, introduced last year, could be expanded for overnights.

It should not cost $15/person simply to make an overnight trip to the SNP backcountry. These are public lands and the birthright of Americans to use unless there are serious externalities that threaten the natural resources. That is simply not the case in almost all of SNP's acreage and it is unjustified to impose these burdens on the public, especially in inflationary times when there are fewer and fewer opportunities for people to get outside and active.

Thanks for your consideration.

[Mockernut]

Best of luck fighting it. The park system will do what it wants despite comments as evidenced in other parks.

[Deadeye]

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

That funding would be from taxpayer dollars - so why not fund with user dollars?

[HankIV]

That funding would be from taxpayer dollars - so why not fund with user dollars?

Ditto. The amounts involved are not exorbitant. While the parks do provide a public good, visitors benefit more than non-visitors.

[Mockernut]

I don't mind paying for Parks. I keep an America the Beautiful pass. What I mind is the extra cost and effort required of backpackers and hikers vs others. For example, in GSMNP, horse folks pay zero to use the trails unless they overnight which is rare. Backpackers just had the fees doubled on their use and it now costs my family more to stay backcountry than in a front country campground. AT hikers also took a doubled increase and the hassle of a permit that must be printed vs on the phone still exists. I love supporting parks but not every fee is well thought out.

[Coffee]

It is not just the fee but the principle of charing citizens to walk our public lands, plus imposing a hassle on those of us using the land. The initial justification for wilderness permits was to limit resource damage. That is a very good justification and I fully support permits in high use places like the Sierra Nevada. Without permits and the bureaucracy, the range would be trampled to death every summer. However, the same is not the case in most parks, and certainly not in SNP. Outside of a few spots that receive a lot of use, with Old Rag being the most obvious, the park simply isn't overcrowded. For this reason, permits have always been self-issued in paper form at the entrance stations as well as where the AT enters the park. Simple, easy, no bureaucracy, no planning needed, no fuss, no money needed, spontaneity possible. In other words, freedom to travel our public lands as our birthright. I resent it when government attempts obvious money grabs and tries to justify it based on something other than what it is. If they want to raise money by charging people to walk public lands, they should just say so instead of hiding behind false environmental reasons.