Traditionally, "I want to be able to show up late and have a space waiting for me" is not how things work. If there's limited numbers of something and it's in demand, you show up earlier than everyone else to make sure you get it. Or else you get something else.
Key word,
traditionally. I don’t care for so called tradition, if something can be improved, then throw out tradition. Appealing to tradition is not a good argument either, because “being traditional” doesn’t hold any real value, and “Oh that’s how we’ve always done it!” is silly if something can be done better later on.
Besides that, the old system largely favors fit hikers who can hike fast. The new system is more equitable because it gives slower hikers a better chance.
So what this gets at is whether we, as a society, want to move into a pay to play system where those with means get to reserve their access to the wilderness.
The fee is small, barely anything at all. $1 or even $5 isn’t gonna hurt anybody really. What does need to change is being able to push back against fee hikes. It’s ridiculous that parks need to keep raising fees just because they’re not being funded properly like they should. But that doesn’t mean the proper implementation of limited entry fees isn’t a good idea, if done well.
How much do we want to accommodate people (no offense, but like you) who want to be able to pay extra so they can go to popular areas without having to contend with crowds, or without having to make an effort to get there early to get a space?
I don’t think most experienced hikers want to deal with crowded trails, and I consider myself an experienced hiker having hiked at least 2k miles in the last 10 years or so.
Limiting entry benefits everyone pretty equally as it ensures that everyone who got a permit can have better solitude, as well as have a better chance at getting campsites, which can be limited at popular destinations. Everyone gets a shot at it. Whereas you’re proposing only fit hikers who can hike some 5mph and 15-25 miles a day get the best spots. I‘m not a super slow hiker, I’m average to a little fast probably, somewhere between 2.5-3.5 mph, but it doesn’t matter. I said I prefer this system for overcrowded destinations and hikes, and my preference isn’t going to change just because some super fast and early bird hikers don’t like that the new system doesn’t benefit themselves anymore. Selfish? Maybe, but certainly no more than someone making your argument.
Saying that belief in unfettered (as possible) access to the outdoors is some old timer "boomer" concept, implying that older people (can "boomer" be struck from the lexicon now? asking for a friend) are out of touch with reality or something, comes across as the same kind of superficial snideness that permeates the internet - a put down that allows you to dismiss the other argument without engaging with it.
I merely said it comes off as such, because “boomers” (in general, the older generation) tends to be overall stuck to tradition and afraid of change. It’s not true of everyone who’s old, but it’s a very true stereotype. It’s so obvious it doesn’t need explaining all the reasons why.
However I never brushed off any arguments. I gave my viewpoint and my counter arguments (even though I was not directing my counter argument at anyone in particular here). In other words, I engaged in it, just like I am now.
I also don't think anyone would have objected if the FS had proposed that only Green Lakes (and maybe a handful of other spots) became limited entry zones like Obsidian. The issue was that they took a one-size-fits-all approach and threw permits at the whole area - even when their own data showed that the number of "overused" days in the vast, vast majority of the THs was only a few days out of the entire year, if at all. (And many were not at all.)
I don’t disagree here and that’s what I said as well, that I don’t think it should have been implemented in as many places as it was, but that certain places definitely needed it.
What I was getting at rather, was the concept at large, that it’s simply the best solution. It’s not like it was 50 years ago when crowds were so much less at these places. There’s just way more hikers now. What happens in 100 years when the population triples? It has to happen eventually. We’re not gonna be able to create more places like Three Sisters and Mt Jefferson out of thin air (or land rather).
My opinion on the matter is as follows, if it wasn’t clear:
- Limited entry permits are good for overcrowded and/or very sensitive and crowded locations. (A place can be moderately crowded but if it’s extremely sensitive and small, then I believe it still should have some system like that. But conversely if a place is crowded but can handle those crowds and isn’t in a sensitive area, then I wouldn’t think it’s necessary.) I also don’t mind crowds depending on where it is, but I can’t deny having less crowds is nice, even if it’s (the personal experience) not reason alone to justify it.
- Overnight permits are a fantastic idea for popular or overcrowded backpacking destinations. I’d say it’s on a case by case system, and really depends. But like I said, I love how I no longer have to worry about getting a campsite (or worry less, at least), and thus can hike at the pace I want.
Do I think the CC plan was applied to too many trailheads and locations? Yeah I think so. I’d change it to cover specific areas and locations like Green Lake and Moraine Lake as far as overnight permits, and I’d even be ok with a non-reservation system like how they do it. (For example, reserve a permit for Green Lakes but can choose to camp in any one of the designated sites.) I don’t think it makes any sense to apply overnight permits to the entire wilderness area, as many campsites are just spread out in almost random locations and then there’s people who also camp off trail when off trail hiking. I believe those should be first come first serve and no permit needed.