Recent comments

Some interesting information above, and for sake of worthwhile discussion it would be helpful to have some clarification on the following:

1. "Per the park's own data, there are less than 2 campers per campsite per night. This is in campsites rated for 12 and sometimes more backpackers."

This number needs some explanation to be useful. Is that "2 campers per campsite per night" an average for the year, or whatever is considered the camping season, or what? If it's an average for the year, that could easily mean there are some nights with few or no campers and some nights when sites are often full or nearly so.

A few more details on "less than 2 campers per night" are essential to understanding that statistic.

2. Is there any documented information about whether campsites are ever full or nearly so during the year? If so, how many nights? That would seem to be basic for justifying a reservation system.

3. Where is the 60-night limit on backcountry camping stated as a regulation? I agree with Mountain Hiker; it would seem to be hard to enforce if it isn't information that's made readily available to the public.

Mtnhiker,

One more thing. Ditmanson added a clause to the new backcountry fee which stipulated that no one may spend more than 60 nights per calendar year in the backcountry of the Smokies. I am interested to see his explanation for that as I believe there exists no similar restriction on front country campers in the Smokies. I am not certain but haven't been able to locate that restriction. He wants tourists to visit the Smokies from other places but locals are the ones who will be impacted by the enforcement of this new 60 day restriction on backcountry camping in his park. Per the park's own data, there are less than 2 campers per campsite per night. This is in campsites rated for 12 and sometimes more backpackers. Things that make you go hmmm. (Of course we locals know the drive for this. His buddy buddy guide service concessionaires are the driving force here. They were upset because Appalachian Trail thru hikers were clogging up the shelters during March and April and the guides couldn't get shelter space. Initially the proposal was to charge for shelters only but Ditmanson decided why charge just for shelters when we can charge for the entire, mostly empty, backcountry to boot!)

Is the the lacing of the future? Please say "yes".

This way, I can stop bugging my granddaughters to stop and tie their sneakers. I'm going to go and buy some for them and a pair for me too. Why not?

Danny

FLREA expires December 8, 2014.

The only news lately was to amend FLREA to include COE. (http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/400). It has been introduced and referred to committee.

H.R. 1068 has passed the house, but it only relates to NPS and it is really just to clarify current law, not make any changes. Here is a summary: "This bill makes technical and clarifying changes and consolidations to Title 54 of the U.S. Code, which deals with the National Park Service and enacts it as positive law. Over past 150 years or so, numerous laws have been enacted that relate to the National Park System. Many of these laws are spread throughout the title 16 of the U.S. Code, rather than being referenced in one location. This has made the Code relatively difficult to use as it relates to the National Park Service. This bill would help alleviate the issue by reclassifying all of these laws as a new title of the Code, allowing them to be more easily referenced."

Pretty nifty. I wish they would come up with one that didn't lock the laces at the bottom. In order to get on my snow boots I have to actually unlace them part way down. Of course those are the only ones I have that keep coming untied!

Given new facts, I could change my mind on this. But as of today, my opinion is that the only way to get rid of backcountry reservations fees is to get rid of FLREA. Because FLREA is the very legislation which enables GSMNP and all the other national parks to enact a fee for their respective reservation systems.

Quiet please - since you had already commented previously, I assume your remarks are aimed at me. 1) Did I or anyone else ever say anything about the farm "ruin(ing) the CA coast? 2) If I take my family to Pointe Reyes and the farm is not there, I will find it educational as well, and we will be contributing to the local economy. 3) You are telling me I lack common sense, simply because I stated my views fairly and honestly, and questioned Zebulon's comments regarding the Wilderness Act. That is offensive and extremely disrespectful. I would think that as you get older you would also recognize that common courtesy has been "hijacked". Perhaps that is why you no longer consider our country great and proud. 4) When you claim that I want it "my way", is that because it's not the way you want it? You do understand that a lot of people are interested in seeing the farm removed, correct? Would this even be an issue if there weren't a significant number of people who support the removal? Perhaps there's even more of us than you - would that make your opinion invalid?

Give me a brake,as if that oyster operation is going to ruin the California coast.If I were taking my family to Point Reyes park I would think it would serve as edcational and help the local area economy.

The older I get the less common sense I see from the human race.I want it my way and tha'ts it.

SmokiesBackpacker, you stated: "Horses don't pay a fee and one horse does the damage of 100 hikers. Perhaps more. Horse folks don't backpack. Why would you when you can do 30 miles in a day."

Horseback riders pay a fee to camp overnight, just like every other overnight camper. The horse camp fees are clearly stated on the GSMNP here: http://www.nps.gov/grsm/planyourvisit/horsecamps.htm#CP_JUMP_148875

Also, while its true that horseback riders technically don't "backpack" they are often involved in horse packing. Horses are used as pack animals along with burros, mules, and llamas. That's true in numerous national parks across the nation, not just GSMNP. Some of the folks involved in horse packing are the "Back Country Horsemen of America" group, including numerous state and local area chapters like "Back Country Horsemen of North Carolina" and "Back Country Horsemen of East Tennessee" and "Back Country Horsemen of Pisgah Chapter" and "Back Country Horsemen Great Smoky Mountain Chapter." They not only use the trails and ride or horse pack on overnight trips, they also assist in maintaining the horse trails.

ADDED: Well, well, just found this related article on backcountry packing in GSMNP with horses and other pack animals. It was posted last year by Jim Burnett (who is also posting on this thread):

Minimum Impact Stock Use Training at Great Smoky Mountains National Park
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2012/07/minimum-impact-stock-use-training-great-smoky-mountains-national-park10283

Bear spray works very well on a dog.

Scott,

Having backpacking in BSF, I can tell you that the attitude there is different. Of course GRSM is bigger. However, backcountry camping has been on the decline in the Smokies since the 90s. Also, I saw a study that showed that the impact from backcountry campers was negligible. However, this particular study shows that these fees decrease access to the backcountry. I maintain that the backcountry needs to be accessible to boy scout groups, church groups, 20 somethings etc and a $4 fee will be $25 in 10 years., just look at other parks that have allowed this. http://www.westernslopenofee.org/pdfuploads/Fee_Policy_White_Paper.pdf

Horses don't pay a fee and one horse does the damage of 100 hikers. Perhaps more. Horse folks don't backpack. Why would you when you can do 30 miles in a day. The NPS attitude is that humans are the problem in the backcountry. I maintain that humans are the problem on the roads through newfound gap etc. All that money on roads and visitor centers and they target backpackers? It is the epitome of injustice. And we all know why they are targeting backpackers. Because they can. The permit system provides the "vehicle" for revenue generation. Its shooting fish in a barrel. Plus, the NPS likes to treat backcountry campers like undeducated boobs. Shelter stayers are boobs sometimes but backcountry campers don't go out unless they have some modicum of understanding of what they are getting into. Just look at the virtually non existent rescues of tent campers in the Smokies. Every rescue involves some Leconte dayhiker or a shelter stayer. I can only think of one tent camping rescue in the last decade.

They are deed restricted from charging an entrance fee so Ditmanson said, "lookie here, I know how I can raise a quarter million a year!" That is, coincidentally, the amt he makes per year.

...one of the two campsites? Funny. They don't want people camping in the backcountry. That is evident. Daywalkers are okay. Backcountry camping? Not so much.