New Petition Against GSMNP Backountry Camping Fees

[emerald]

I wonder what price would need to be put on a GSMNP A.T. through hike before hikers would begin to refuse to pay for the opportunity? No doubt many Americans would find that practice objectionable, but the principles of supply and demand apply to recreational opportunities too.

Consider for a moment the impact of a price tag of $200.00 US. What would you think about that and would you be willing to pay that much for the priviledge of hiking the A.T. through GSMNP?

[WingedMonkey]

Negative feelings and disapproval from purists? Bring it on. Many are so anal it's a pleasure to get them going.

LOL there you go again with that invisible enemy. And do we still admire Ms. Pharr for being a "purist"? I gusee asome would consider her anal.

[4eyedbuzzard]

LOL there you go again with that invisible enemy. And do we still admire Ms. Pharr for being a "purist"? I gusee asome would consider her anal.

Just FWIW, such speed hikes are pretty far removed from what most people think of as hiking or thru-hiking.

[jbwood5]

What is a purist? I know of no such thing. What are you referring to and what does that have to do with a petition against charging fees to put up a tent in the back country.

You know it is a well known fact that when you begin charging, more people will come. Something of value is perceived when you pay, whereas a no charge facility is thought to be plain with little or no attraction. Go to the free Linville Gorge someday and you will see what I mean. I would just assume they keep it low key and not create all the publicity.... or is it already too late?

This is nothing but a money making gig for the Park Service and an unnecessary burden to the taxpayers. There will be no value to the average back country user, but there will be a big inconvience, plus more crowds and more trash to pick up from those that have paid and soon discover that there are no amenities and feel gyped.

[emerald]

Just FWIW, such speed hikes are pretty far removed from what most people think of as hiking or thru-hiking.

Jen Pharr's hike was just another through hike as far as I'm concerned and its duration is irrelevant.

If one accepts that the greater portion of impacts associated with through hikes result from camping, shorter hikes are better from a resource management standpoint.

[SGT Rock]

FWIW I think if folks were really concerned about the impact of thru-hikers on the AT in the Smokies then they would do what Morgan Summerfield of the Asheville ATC suggested: make the BMT an authorized alternative to the AT in the Smokies.

[emerald]

I'm not sure swapping names would have any greater effect and given the hurdles that would need to be cleared, it sounds like a good idea to me.

What would be required and why isn't this being pursued? Would it just require ATC recognizing such hikes or something more?

I suspect many would still prefer to hike the A.T., but it may be more attractive to hikers than expected especially if it's promoted well.

[SGT Rock]

Morgan is the head of the ATC office in Asheville, so I am not sure how official his suggestion was - and this was made in 2005. I figure it wouldn't take anything special as the system is an honor system anyway, just tell the people that send out the completion certificate and patches that if someone says they did the BMT in the Smokies that it is cool. And add to that, if someone feels they are official by taking the BMT instead of the AT now, the AT won't necessarily withhold recognition to anyone sending in the form anyway. I think it would help make it an option in some people's mind if the ATC actually said something about doing this in literature somewhere, but that is for them to decide.

FWIW: according to the manager at the Fontana store, in 2010 when the snow was bad in the high country, the ATC did say it was an authorized alternative due to the trail being nigh impassable. I have never seen this in writing anywhere nor have I tried to verify it.

[4eyedbuzzard]

Morgan is the head of the ATC office in Asheville, so I am not sure how official his suggestion was - and this was made in 2005. I figure it wouldn't take anything special as the system is an honor system anyway, just tell the people that send out the completion certificate and patches that if someone says they did the BMT in the Smokies that it is cool. And add to that, if someone feels they are official by taking the BMT instead of the AT now, the AT won't necessarily withhold recognition to anyone sending in the form anyway. I think it would help make it an option in some people's mind if the ATC actually said something about doing this in literature somewhere, but that is for them to decide.

FWIW: according to the manager at the Fontana store, in 2010 when the snow was bad in the high country, the ATC did say it was an authorized alternative due to the trail being nigh impassable. I have never seen this in writing anywhere nor have I tried to verify it.

ATC does state under 2000 miler recognition: "We recognize blue-blazed trails or officially required road-walks as viable substitutes for the official, white-blazed route in the event of an emergency, such as a flood, a forest fire, or an impending storm on an exposed, high-elevation stretch." I'm guessing that might be interpreted cover such things as trails impassable due to deep snow, ice, etc.

[Sly]

LOL there you go again with that invisible enemy. And do we still admire Ms. Pharr for being a "purist"? I gusee asome would consider her anal.

Invisible enemies? Yes, there are anal purist that think if you don't pass every whiteblaze you're a cheater. Pay attention and you'll see for yourself.

Jen doesn't judge other hikers hikes, which are the purist I speak of.

[SGT Rock]

ATC does state under 2000 miler recognition: "We recognize blue-blazed trails or officially required road-walks as viable substitutes for the official, white-blazed route in the event of an emergency, such as a flood, a forest fire, or an impending storm on an exposed, high-elevation stretch." I'm guessing that might be interpreted cover such things as trails impassable due to deep snow, ice, etc.

I agree. Maybe soon the wording will include: "or to reduce impact of overcrowding at shelters"

Invisible enemies? Yes, there are anal purist that think if you don't pass every whiteblaze you're a cheater. Pay attention and you'll see for yourself.

Jen doesn't judge other hikers hikes, which are the purist I speak of.

Sly is right. There are MANY posts on threads here where this has been beaten to death. We don't fault someone for wanting to hike by every blaze - like Jen or others have. What I find fault in (and I assume Sly still does) is the haters that decide OTHER peoples hikes aren't worthy because they didn't hike past every blaze.

[Sly]

I agree. Maybe soon the wording will include: "or to reduce impact of overcrowding at shelters"



Sly is right. There are MANY posts on threads here where this has been beaten to death. We don't fault someone for wanting to hike by every blaze - like Jen or others have. What I find fault in (and I assume Sly still does) is the haters that decide OTHER peoples hikes aren't worthy because they didn't hike past every blaze.

Perfectly said.

[TheTwanger]

We are talking about public land here though... What services do we need on the trail that aren't taken care of by the kind volunteer groups who maintain trails and shelters? I understand it wouldn't be expensive or anything, but as a broke college student I do good to be able to afford gas to drive over there... This almost certainly will keep me from hiking at times. I don't mean to get political but its very frustrating how federal government just pisses billions in taxes out into the wind and we have to pay more yet to enjoy our own natural heritage... The parks should be better funded, but it shouldn't be a payed privilege to rough it! Once they put a price on it, it will only go up and up... next thing you know it will be as expensive as GCNP

[SGT Rock]

We are talking about public land here though... What services do we need on the trail that aren't taken care of by the kind volunteer groups who maintain trails and shelters? I understand it wouldn't be expensive or anything, but as a broke college student I do good to be able to afford gas to drive over there... This almost certainly will keep me from hiking at times. I don't mean to get political but its very frustrating how federal government just pisses billions in taxes out into the wind and we have to pay more yet to enjoy our own natural heritage... The parks should be better funded, but it shouldn't be a payed privilege to rough it! Once they put a price on it, it will only go up and up... next thing you know it will be as expensive as GCNP

FWIW, Twanger hit on something I have also been thinking about since the meeting. At one point I was in one of these groups talking about volunteers and one of the guys in my group works quite a bit as a volunteer for the park. Apparently they have already implemented a Ridge Runner style program of volunteers on patrol through the back country looking for this stuff - it started this year. And also the GSMNP is second in the whole US for volunteer hours in things like campsite clean up, information folks, people working the current reservation system, etc. A lot of volunteer effort (which is free) is being aimed to the issues this plan is supposed to address. People talk about folks not willing to pay for services rendered, well in this case the services are being rendered for free and are building, and on top of that it seems that lots of the "freeloader" hikers are willing to buck-up and do the work for free themselves.

Something for you guys to ponder on anyway.

[DavidNH]

Regarding park fees..

If and when the day ever comes that Americans get off their high horse opposition to funding services through taxes (more taxes more services, fewer taxes fewer services) than we damn well better be willing to pay user fees to use our parks. They need to be funded somehow. No tax money, no user fees, then our parks would suffer.. even more than they already are.

DavidNH

[emerald]

Sure would be helpful if people posting to this thread could see this issue from a conservation perspective. Some seem to be focused exclusively upon recreation from the consumer's point-of-view as if recreation were the only issue involved and its supply unlimited.

If everyone hiking the A.T. were to read just one book, I would wish for it to be Wilderness and the American Mind. The final chapters deal with concepts that seem to have never been considered by some who post here such as what happens as popularity leads to increases in visitor days and reduces the quality of recreational experiences sought.

[jbwood5]

FWIW, Twanger hit on something I have also been thinking about since the meeting. At one point I was in one of these groups talking about volunteers and one of the guys in my group works quite a bit as a volunteer for the park. Apparently they have already implemented a Ridge Runner style program of volunteers on patrol through the back country looking for this stuff - it started this year. And also the GSMNP is second in the whole US for volunteer hours in things like campsite clean up, information folks, people working the current reservation system, etc. A lot of volunteer effort (which is free) is being aimed to the issues this plan is supposed to address. People talk about folks not willing to pay for services rendered, well in this case the services are being rendered for free and are building, and on top of that it seems that lots of the "freeloader" hikers are willing to buck-up and do the work for free themselves.

Something for you guys to ponder on anyway.

Hmmm. I remember Ridge runners in the late 80's in the Park. I talked with one in detail (I think it was May or June 1989) and he shared a story about a stealth hiker who did not hang his food and how a bear got hold of it and drug it for for a couple of miles leaving behind trash and chewed up packaging material. This Ridge runner plus 2 other volunteers had spent many days retrieving the trash. They had to use rope and tackle to get down some of the cliffs and ledges. Apparently a lot of trash had to be pulled out of deep thickets.

I have always picked up trash, within reason, when hiking, but due to size and weight, there is a limit to what a backpacker can take out. This Spring when I was on the BMT, I stayed at 98 and it was not very clean. There were pieces of a styrofoam cooler and a lot of liter that were obviously brought in by boaters pulling up to the campsite from the Lake and leaving a mess. Also, the very few flat tentspots were covered in horse manure. I couldn't do much at that site, but paper liter and food wrappers don't weigh much and are easy to pack out.

Perhaps we can register as voluteers and get a discount on our permit . Of course ReserveAmerica.com will still have to get their $10 for answering the phone and pushing a few keys on the computer.

[Sly]

Once they put a price on it, it will only go up and up... next thing you know it will be as expensive as GCNP

This is probably what I hate the most, the doom and gloom, and general inaccuracies. GCNP backcountry camping fees below the rim are $10 per permit and $5 per person, per night, and haven't gone up in over 10 years.

They also have a $25 frequent user program which waives the $10 permit fee for 1 year.

[SGT Rock]

The ridgerunner program I'm talking about is something for the rest of the trails in the park. The ATC has the AT covered.

[emerald]

ATC is not empowered to establish or enforce park regulations, rather they have an obligation to educate those attracted to GSMNP by the footpath they created.