ATC Thru hike registration

imported
#21

The best regulation is self-regulation, and it looks like that is what the ATC is trying to do. From my experiences on the trail, overcrowding is not a problem except at the shelters. It is a shame what some people do at the shelters; and what they do is eventually reflected on all of us. Increasing available hostels available might help; some of us would opt to pay for a dry place to stay for the night and would reduce crowding at the shelters. Even more extreme would be to remove all the “free” shelters and turn them into a pay to stay shelter. That would disperse the crowd.

I don’t understand the issue about using the BMT as an alternative, it is backpacking isn’t it, and it is voluntary? Seems like an easy solution to implement and would reduce some of the problem.

Personally, my thru-hike next year is going to be a flip-flop starting at Daleville VA going northbound first. I have many reasons for this (getting a late start to avoid snow/cold is the primary), but will miss the “large” crowds going NOBO at the start. What can be done to encourage flip-flopping?

In my opinion, as one who pays my “fair share” of taxes, implementing a fee to hike is not a bad idea. More money going to the federal government does not excite me (who knows where that money would go), but it would reduce the numbers on the trail. Is it so bad to help pay for the opportunity to hike?

Making a movie “Sasquatch: AT hiker mauler” might reduce the crowds :slight_smile:

We have to accept that some type of regulation is coming to the AT in the future. Hopefully we can regulate ourselves before Big Brother comes to help.

TenderFoot

#22

Laurie, you keep repeating that the AT is 99% on public land. Umm, yes, that is the POINT for National Trails. Something being public doesn’t mean we need to regulate it to death. It doesn’t mean we need to grow existing or create new committees, clubs, bureaus. At least you admitted ‘targeting’. Heh. Park systems get funding in part by showing usage. So parks are always trying to up usage by citizens who ALREADY pay ‘dues’ via taxes.

I am all for people volunteering or donating as they can, but what I see from your efforts here is a push for more regulation that will surely follow with fees. This regulation grows the ATC. This is the diminishment of freedom as already seen on the PCT, the Pacific Committee Trail.

Before you continue on a path of bureaucracy, first prove the problem. Just because usage increases it does not follow that the trail suffers. If someone buys a Sawyer Filter and uses it on a three day trip in 2014 doesn’t mean the filter needs a committee because it will be used 120 days while on a 2015 thru hike.

And reconsider your view on the AT Kick Off. You state it isnt the same as the PCT Kick Off ‘today’. Why do you think they changed the name? Instead of ‘targeting’ thru hikers, look closer to home.

Yes, the first part of the AT is seeing greater usage. That is a good thing. Looks like all the marketing paid off. But your efforts to control lead us to a diminished experience and surely to double dip taxation.

Maybe it’s time to privatize these trails. We could ask Wal-Mart to sponsor it for starters.

Jason

#23

http://m.townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2015/02/10/spontaneous-order-n1955526

Came across that article right after posting above.

Perfect for this thread.

Jason

#24

Jason, you had me at Stossel. lmao Stop being a troll and go back to hiking New Zealand or whatever exotic locale you’re reporting from.

ff

#25

“you keep repeating that the AT is 99% on public land. Umm, yes, that is the POINT for National Trails”

“Maybe it’s time to privatize these trails. We could ask Wal-Mart to sponsor it for starters.”

You’re a confused lad, ain’t ya, Jason? Anyway, did you ever think that self-regulation might just be in the interest of thru-hikers themselves? One hiker’s poorly-covered cathole may be another man’s treasure for all I know, but unless or until it’s deemed to be in the best interest of the AT to increase the amount of infrastructure, the smart solution really is to self-regulate, to spread ourselves out, to encourage LNT, and to get away from the growing mentality that thru-hiking is about big groups acting stupid and doing whatever they please. Because the more thru-hikers get away with bad behavior, the more it becomes the norm, and the more we become a drag on the trail’s image, its perceived intent, and ultimately on our own ability to discover something better of ourselves on this legendary footpath through nature. Leave Walmart out of it, thank you very much.

ff

#26

I camped near Hawk Mountain Shelter last Spring near the peak thru hiker NOBO trek. There were 25 or so tents dotting the landscape. Half dozen campfires. At the time, it seemed to me that all this camping on the same area would somehow damage the trees, plants etc. I could see that, night after night this same scene was replayed on this exact spot for a month or more. Yet, there I was again in September camping again in that exact same spot. I could see no damage. Perhaps if the bubble had camped here in grass growing season or when new shoots were coming up it could have caused some damage. If there was any damage then Mother Nature fixed it over the Summer. I wonder if there is any science out there to back up the notion that large numbers of campers this early in the year actually does damage anything. I know it looks like the circus is in town but that is just a look. The 2 main things they want to fix is, damage to environment and crowded conditions that take away from a wilderness experience. If the bubble of hikers is made up of mostly thru hikers those same hikers should be the ones experiencing the crowded conditions and the degraded wilderness experience. About 10% of those NOBO’s are using one of the Trail Journals to post about each days adventure. If you read those posts for those early days inside the bubble each year you will not get the feeling that the trail has gone to hell in a handcart. Other than crowded shelters they are a happy lot. I know that most TJ bloggers don’t like to complain about the trail. The vast majority of all thru hikers appreciate all the efforts of the organizations and volunteers who make it all happen and that 10% is a small sample. It is a good idea to poll and survey the thru hikers when it comes to fixing this problem and I’m not sure we have a problem. They are a hard group to survey. I make a real point of cornering them in shelters with…OK I need a show of hands…who thinks that the water source for this shelter should be improved? Who had a run-in with a ridge runner in the Park? What was that like? And any number of odd questions. The point is that the only way to get to them is to go out and get to them. Ask a trail club person what they think about Trail Magic. Then ask a thru hiker. You will get the opposite answer. You can bet that this year I will be asking about crowds and registrations. Not very scientific…

Francis

#27

Ff, or should I say, PCT bureaucrat (heh), I “ain’t” confused. It’s just that you’re too easy of a target.

Jason

#28

Eliminate the shelters in the Georgia section of the trail. Force the hikers to spread out and tent it. Might reinforce more LNT mentality amongst the group.

TedHiker

#29

I don’t think that would work to reduce or spread out the hikers, Ted, as everyone must come prepared to tent due to the crowded shelter conditions at it is. I’m also highly dubious of Francis’ claim that a shelter site featuring half a dozen nightly bonfires at-large in the woods somehow magically healed itself by the following autumn. More likely that section of trail just has a really dedicated set of volunteers who come by after the hordes are all through and clean it up, LNT style, on behalf of their lazy, clueless arses.

I’ll tell y’all one thing: There is no way to solve a problem voluntarily if the “volunteers” are in a red vs blue state-style war of disparagement over the existence and/or source of the problem. In that case, the problem WILL ultimately be described and solved for the thru-hikers, using whatever methods deemed most effective. It’s time to stop the denial over the perception that there’s a problem, because that perception is now very real in the minds of the ATC, the NPS, and other land management agencies.

ff

#30

This Fox News type fear mongering over the massive environmental damage caused by thru hikers camping in small areas around shelters is completely unfounded. The vision of those tireless dedicated volunteers repairing all this damage is laughable. What did they do, rake it and plant seeds? When it comes to environmental damage, do you think that these camping areas around the bubble have any more damage than anywhere else along the trail? Trail club myth. They want to limit thru hikers, they view them as intruders who mess up the part of the trail that they own.

Francis

#31

I am a thru-hiker (3 times so far, going for a 4th this year (Inshallah), and a former trail maintainer (AT in the Shenandoah’s), a member of ALDHA, PATC, ATC, and an observer of the Washington bureacracy for 45 years. I have to say that everything Lauri Pottenger said rings absolute true with me. The fact is, there are no simple or easy answers to the crowding issue. Ignoring the issue, however, is simply not good policy. Without the existing regulations, not only would the trail not exist, but the intrusions from developers would probably have ruined the entire experience by now – save for the efforts of the all of the groups noted above. If folks are concerned about the answers the folks who manage the trail come up with, then they can do one of two things: stand on the sidelines and complain, or get involved and try to help come up with better solutions. My 2 cents…
Longhaul

Longhaul

#32

Because you deny that a problem exists does not make it so. I hiked the entire AT in the 70’s and thru hiked again in 2010. Believe me, the trail was crowded in 2010 and full of hikers with attitude. Thru hikers are not rock stars and deserve no special treatment. Studies have been conducted on trail use, in fact there is an entire field of recreational ecology. It can’t be denied, use causes damage.

Ohibro

#33

How misguided. You do not think that the only reason the start on the trail looks as good asit does is because of volunteers? Forget about the grass. How much garbage do you think is hauled out of there? A lot! By volunteers!you probably never even volunteered yourself. Why should you someone else will pick up you mess and you can pretend it happens magically between spring and fall

lazy

#34

Forget the grass? Misguided? Perhaps. Does garbage and mess, like that created by hikers, specifically thru-hikers constitute “environmental damage”? Leaving odd litter or a clump of burned coke bottle in a fire pit does not do much damage to the environment if some volunteer comes along and carries it to the trash. You are advocating for limiting the numbers of thru hikers(not day hikers) so the volunteers won’t have to remove as much garbage. You have moved the argument from environmental damage to garbage pick up.

Francis

#35

you guys are forgetting that the BSP has issues with thru-hikers as well.

RED-DOG

#36

Thru hikers have issues with BSP also. For the most part the hiking/camping rules are enforced in 3 places along the AT. GSMNP, SNP and BSP. In these 3 places uniformed, armed officers are on patrol to provide actual law enforcement. On the other 1900 miles of trail there is no actual enforcement even though some of the clubs attempt it. The ridge runners are like junior high hall monitors. By the time NOBO thru hikers get to BSP they have been on their own as far as actual rules go for quite a long time. Then they run into BSP rangers who all take a strict view of the rules. The abrupt change from “no rules” to “hard and fast rules” sometimes results in a level of frustration on both sides.

Francis

#37

My applause to the ATC for the registration system. At least for me it provided enough information that an Atkins NOBO made way more sense in providing the experience that I would seek. I have witnessed deplorable behavior on the OHT by people that I must assume would also throw a bottle out of a car window. Not an anti-social nor an enviromental nut. I will say that when in the woods or in town I consider myself their guest and would certainly want a repeat invitation. If we can’t educate people into proper behavior this process will not maintain its voluntary status.

Russell Hutchens

#38

The ATC has been goaded into creating a control system for thru hikers by the trail clubs who are day hikers and car campers. Anyone who thinks that the troubles of the trail will be fixed by a thru hiker registration system is in dreamland.

Francis

#39

Unlike day hikers and car campers, thru-hikers can and should police themselves in order to reduce bottlenecks that destroy the trail’s opportunities for solitude and genuine camaraderie (as opposed to a mob mentality) that have long been its hallmarks. We should strive to be role models for LNT and should respect ourselves enough to respect the trail in turn, even while others may not. ATC’s voluntary thru-hiker registration is a gentle nod in the right direction, no more and no less. An INvoluntary registration system would never be workable, however I - as a former 2.5 time AT thru-hiker - would encourage ATC to tie the registration system in future years to certain incentives, such as reduced membership fees or free swag from the online store. It could even be a prerequisite to getting various permits, either for current arrangements like GSMNP, SNP, and BSP, or as a discount on a future fee-based thru-hiker permit that conveniently covers entry to all permit-controlled areas along the trail, present and future.

hoch

#40

Francis, what evidence do you have that trail clubs want to limit trail use? How do you know they are car campers and day hikers? That is a pretty gross exaggeration. Without hikers there would be no need for trail clubs, a trail, or the ATC so it seems counterintuitive that they would want to limit users of the trail.

Ohibro