[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [at-l] Permits to thru hike?
Steven Dopp wrote:
> At any rate, I'd vote no on permits also unless... (ah, here it comes) the
> popularity of the AT gets to the point where some method of limiting the
> number of hikers is necessary to prevent substantial degradation of the
> hiking experience. No, I don't know what the magic number is. I don't
> know if we're even close to it. No, I don't know what constitutes
> "substantial degradation of the hiking experience." We could
> discuss/speculate on it. What would it entail?
>
> Overcrowded shelters/campsites would be one indicator.
Keep in mind that even in the South there are less than 4000 thruhikers
on the AT in any year while there are 4,000,000 AT 'visitors' every
year. "Visitors' includes dayhikers, weekenders, section hikers, etc.
In other words, less than one tenth of one percent of those who use the
Trail are thruhikers. Doesn't make sense to require permits for that
small a percentage, does it?
On the other hand, thruhikers already need permits for the Smokies and
the Shenandoahs -- and they get to pay their way through the Whites.
Even the CDT isn't permit-free. Anyone ready for another Revolution
yet?
Walk softly,
Jim
* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List | For info http://www.hack.net/lists *
==============================================================================