Wilderness Permits 2023

Are you a seasoned hiker, or just starting out? Let us know your questions or experience with the backcountry permit process.

Moderators: teapot57, Tara

ohioguy
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 3:57 pm
Gender?: Male
Please add the numbers(11): 11

Re: Wilderness Permits 2023

Post by ohioguy »

Lucky us.

1st hike FRA HOL BOU JAN

2nd hike 2 Nights POI

Was a little glitchey but worked out fine.
orin
Posts: 466
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 11:02 pm
Please add the numbers(11): 0
Location: Seattle
Has thanked: 36 times
Been thanked: 45 times

Re: Wilderness Permits 2023

Post by orin »

Scott,

Thanks. If and when I see an opening at GAB or COS I will use your instructions to add it. Doing an addition should be less dangerous than deleting something that already exists and then adding something different back. In the meantime I am going to enjoy just having managed to reserve a reasonable trip.

Orin
liketohike
2.1 Donator
2.1 Donator
Posts: 257
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 11:53 am
Gender?: Female
Please add the numbers(11): 11
Has thanked: 51 times
Been thanked: 23 times

Re: Wilderness Permits 2023

Post by liketohike »

With some luck, I got KOO-KOO-FIF-GRN-MAN (in September).
Has anyone been to Porcupine lookout? ...Thought perhaps it might be a nice challenging day hike if staying at KOO for 2 nights.

Oh and in the vehicle section, I typed "no vehicle" in the two mandatory entry sections and it seemed to work.
User avatar
paul
Donator
Donator
Posts: 1696
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:42 pm
Gender?: Male
Please add the numbers(11): 11
Location: MA
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 38 times

Re: Wilderness Permits 2023

Post by paul »

Orin,

If and when you do add another night to your permit, let us know how it goes. I would like to do the same thing but don't want to wreck what I already have :) I think you are right adding a day at the end is less risky because you won't have to mess with the sites already booked.

thanks,
Paul
We are in the mountains and the mountains are in us. - John Muir
zozeppelin
Special Contributor
Special Contributor
Posts: 426
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2019 5:53 pm
Gender?: Male
Please add the numbers(11): 11
Has thanked: 97 times
Been thanked: 56 times

Re: Wilderness Permits 2023

Post by zozeppelin »

Glad to hear it sounds like success this year all around! I am curious as well how the modifications work.

Also thanks Scott and Steve for the feedback on my proposed itinerary - I ended up going with that.
User avatar
Ear Mountain
Moderator & 2.1 Donator
Moderator & 2.1 Donator
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 9:53 pm
Gender?: Male
Please add the numbers(11): 11
Location: Choteau, Montana
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 34 times
Contact:

Re: Wilderness Permits 2023

Post by Ear Mountain »

liketohike wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:45 pm...Has anyone been to Porcupine lookout? ...Thought perhaps it might be a nice challenging day hike if staying at KOO for 2 nights. ...
I know several people who have hiked to the Porcupine lookout. I believe the trail is periodically maintained and the lookout was restored and is used occasionally. Besides the elevation gain the greatest obstacle is crossing the Waterton River. There is no footbridge.
Text and photos Copyright 2007-2023.
zozeppelin
Special Contributor
Special Contributor
Posts: 426
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2019 5:53 pm
Gender?: Male
Please add the numbers(11): 11
Has thanked: 97 times
Been thanked: 56 times

Re: Wilderness Permits 2023

Post by zozeppelin »

A little late, but I've done a more thorough look at the 'dependency' grid by comparing to estimated distance (this would catch things that should be valid but weren't explicitly listed as a dependency, and vice versa).

I ended up bucketing it into 3 levels:
  • Sections with dependency that were >= 17 miles (less restrictive, so a win)
  • Sections without dependency that were < 17 miles (more restrictive, so an error)
  • Sections without dependency that were < 18 miles (technically correct, but slight misses that would have been nice to have)
It is important to note, some distances aren't explicitly shown on the backcountry map - for instance GOA/WAT, HAW/FRA, OLD, HOL, where there clearly is a distance between but it's not called out on the map, as well as sites with long spurs not specifically called out (HOL, ELL, FRA, etc). So to that end, some slight differences should be expected, and I'll list the calculated mileage for point of reference (which may not be correct).

Wins
  • None! (besides ROU-OTO, which was an error)
Losses
  • LIN-ELL (the long way): 16.5
  • SNY-CAM (this was dicey as there is a road section assumed at 5 miles: 16.3
  • SNY-MCD (this was dicey as there is a road section assumed at 5 miles: 12.7
  • SPE-MCD (this was dicey as there is a road section assumed at 5 miles: 15
  • ELF-CRA: 16.6
  • MAN-HEL (an error): 14.8
  • FIF-GLF (technically correct?): 17.0
  • GOA-GLF: 16.9
  • WAT-GLF (could be over as it is slightly past GOA): 16.9
  • MOJ-JAN: 16.8
  • SLI-GAB (an error): 6
  • BOU-KOO: 16.5
  • KIN-BRO: 16.5
  • UPK-JAN: 16.3
  • REF-GUN: 16.8
  • UPP-COA: 16.2
Near Misses
  • FIF-HAW
  • FLA-GOA
  • FLA-WAT
  • GRN-ELL (via lunch creek)
  • GLH-JAN
  • MAN-FLA (via loop / packers roost)
  • JAN-MOL
  • KOO-BOW
  • LQU-BRO
  • LQU-LOF
  • UPK-BOW
  • REH-GUN
  • REH-OLD
  • BEA-NON
  • COB-OLC
  • COA-UPN
I realize some of those are a bit preposterous based on terrain, but others not so much. One can really put on the miles in Waterton Valley, Belly River, along the lakes (Kintla, St Mary that I know, I'm sure others as well), etc. At any rate, no blatant additional errors beyond what was already found, just perhaps truncating at 16 miles instead of checking explicitly for less than 17.0.
zozeppelin
Special Contributor
Special Contributor
Posts: 426
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2019 5:53 pm
Gender?: Male
Please add the numbers(11): 11
Has thanked: 97 times
Been thanked: 56 times

Re: Wilderness Permits 2023

Post by zozeppelin »

Ear Mountain wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 1:45 pm
liketohike wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:45 pm...Has anyone been to Porcupine lookout? ...Thought perhaps it might be a nice challenging day hike if staying at KOO for 2 nights. ...
I know several people who have hiked to the Porcupine lookout. I believe the trail is periodically maintained and the lookout was restored and is used occasionally. Besides the elevation gain the greatest obstacle is crossing the Waterton River. There is no footbridge.
I was also just reading about Jefferson Pass, it sounded like there once was a trail up Valentine Creek.
liketohike
2.1 Donator
2.1 Donator
Posts: 257
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 11:53 am
Gender?: Female
Please add the numbers(11): 11
Has thanked: 51 times
Been thanked: 23 times

Re: Wilderness Permits 2023

Post by liketohike »

zozeppelin wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 2:00 pm
Ear Mountain wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 1:45 pm
liketohike wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:45 pm...Has anyone been to Porcupine lookout? ...Thought perhaps it might be a nice challenging day hike if staying at KOO for 2 nights. ...
I know several people who have hiked to the Porcupine lookout. I believe the trail is periodically maintained and the lookout was restored and is used occasionally. Besides the elevation gain the greatest obstacle is crossing the Waterton River. There is no footbridge.
I was also just reading about Jefferson Pass, it sounded like there once was a trail up Valentine Creek.
Zozeppelin,
It is interesting to learn about the history and old trails.

Ear Mountain,
Thank you. I am aware of the creek crossing. Hopefully it will be fairly ok later in the season (September), weather permitting.
User avatar
Ear Mountain
Moderator & 2.1 Donator
Moderator & 2.1 Donator
Posts: 4969
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 9:53 pm
Gender?: Male
Please add the numbers(11): 11
Location: Choteau, Montana
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 34 times
Contact:

Re: Wilderness Permits 2023

Post by Ear Mountain »

zozeppelin wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 2:00 pm I was also just reading about Jefferson Pass, it sounded like there once was a trail up Valentine Creek.
I've been to Jefferson Pass and camped there but it was many years ago. There was a faint indication of that old trail along with evidence of an old camp right near the pass. Again that was 30 years ago or so. I know of one group that came up from Bowman Lake in the 1990s. They were trying to follow the old trail. Their comments were that it was really tough. My partner and I did not reach Jefferson Pass by trying to follow the old trail from the Waterton Valley or from the head of Bowman Lake.

For info on coming up from the Waterton Valley you might take a look at the book Grizzly Years by Doug Peacock.
Text and photos Copyright 2007-2023.
User avatar
sbosecker
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:23 am
Please add the numbers(11): 0
Location: Peachtree City GA
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: Wilderness Permits 2023

Post by sbosecker »

Is the only way to check advance Backcountry Campsite availability through Recreation.gov?

I've been looking at my old bookmarked sites and, although there is a map of the campsites, if I click on one to see what is there it throws craps.

https://www.nps.gov/applications/glac/b ... bcmap.html

Scott
zozeppelin
Special Contributor
Special Contributor
Posts: 426
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2019 5:53 pm
Gender?: Male
Please add the numbers(11): 11
Has thanked: 97 times
Been thanked: 56 times

Re: Wilderness Permits 2023

Post by zozeppelin »

Hi Scott, that is my suspicion, that anything relating to the old server won’t be supported moving forward.

That started last year with the new trail status application (interactive map).

The one I’m curious on is the RAD. That froze and was never updated since early last year.

Transitioning to Rex.gov for availability status I think is a good thing because it is real time* and better availability (no server issues). It remains to be seen how walkin is processed-presumably through the same system. The only question I would have is how do closures get communicated- such as winter, bear or fire - typically those would be designated with the walking calendar, as well as potential early openings.

That said, I’m sad to see the ‘old school’ trail status and closures text web pages go to the wayside. The interactive map is not user friendly (if wanting to look at an area, or get detailed information), nor smart phone friendly (hard to click on the trails). I wish they would just do a text dump up trail status to augment the app.
User avatar
paul
Donator
Donator
Posts: 1696
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:42 pm
Gender?: Male
Please add the numbers(11): 11
Location: MA
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 38 times

Re: Wilderness Permits 2023

Post by paul »

It will be interesting to see what happens this year as far as cancellations and no-shows go. So far I have not noticed any sites opening up due to cancelled permits. I would think once the initial flux was over, some groups would have overbooked permits and would then cancel the ones that they didn't need. I hope this doesn't mean that will we see the same problem with no-shows as we saw last year.
We are in the mountains and the mountains are in us. - John Muir
zozeppelin
Special Contributor
Special Contributor
Posts: 426
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2019 5:53 pm
Gender?: Male
Please add the numbers(11): 11
Has thanked: 97 times
Been thanked: 56 times

Re: Wilderness Permits 2023

Post by zozeppelin »

A nice article from the Flathead Beacon regarding the backcountry process. I really liked that they dug into the comments from the proposal (and came to the same conclusion most were opposed) as well as cited a study about demographic shifts with online reservations, and discussed ideas like increasing fees.

https://flatheadbeacon.com/2023/03/29/a ... nd-crunch/
User avatar
sbosecker
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:23 am
Please add the numbers(11): 0
Location: Peachtree City GA
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: Wilderness Permits 2023

Post by sbosecker »

In today's Wall Street Journal

As National Parks Visits Surge, Booz Allen Benefits

Visitors driving into Montana’s Glacier National Park this summer must buy a vehicle pass on Recreation.gov. The pass is free, but visitors pay a $2 fee to book the reservation.

Visitors might assume that, like entrance fees, the reservation charges help pay for improving trails around the park’s Running Eagle Falls or expanding the park’s volunteer program. But a chunk of the money ends up with consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton Inc.

Booz Allen runs Recreation.gov, the website and app where people book campsites, hikes and permits on U.S. public land. The company has a five-year contract that is up for renewal this year. In its bid for the work, Booz Allen used data provided by the government to estimate that over the first five years of the contract, it would receive $87 million, and a total of about $182 million over 10 years.

Booz Allen gets paid every time a user makes a reservation on Recreation.gov, per its government contract. That has earned the company money far beyond the projections in its bid.

Booz Allen invoiced the government for more than $140 million from October 2018 to November 2022, the most recent date available, according to documents obtained by The Wall Street Journal in a public-records request. Ten months remain to be counted for that initial five-year period.

Visits to public lands surged during the pandemic as Americans vacationed outdoors, prompting many parks to add reservation systems to manage crowds and protect natural resources.

That has meant travelers often cannot visit popular public lands like Rocky Mountain National Park without booking on Recreation.gov first and paying a fee. Charges from around the nation include $2 to book an entry time to a park, $9 to enter a hiking lottery, and many others.

Booz Allen leadership has described the benefits of per-transaction fee structures like the one Recreation.gov uses. “One thing I learned in B-school, for all that money, it’s a small number times a big number is a big number,” Booz Allen president and chief executive Horacio Rozanski said at the 2019 Citi Global Technology Conference.

He also pointed to upgrades the company made to the site and called the per-transaction model a “much more effective and productive” way of doing business than by-the-hour payment models.

The arrangement has its critics, including members of a lawsuit against Booz Allen seeking class-action status, and other die-hard national park visitors. They say the government has let a multibillion-dollar company profit by charging for access to public lands—access that used to cost less, or nothing. The lawyers said in the suit that the company is “forcing American consumers to pay Ticketmaster-style junk fees to access national parks and other federal recreational lands.”

Booz Allen says such claims mischaracterize its work and its compensation structure. Recreation.gov officials say the arrangement is an example of efficiency in government: Users get a technologically sound website at no cost to taxpayers. Park officials say the system has eliminated hours spent processing cash transactions. Government officials also say the government has earned significantly more fee revenue than it would have without the contract and that Booz Allen’s bid was “substantially lower” than its competitors’ bids.

The site
The pay-per-transaction model has existed for federal reservation services like Recreation.gov since the mid-1990s, federal officials say. They say the structure gives contractors incentive to continuously improve Recreation.gov.

Booz Allen isn’t the first company to run Recreation.gov. When the company bid for the contract in 2016, government officials gave it historical reservation data and figures for projected growth to inform how much operating the site might cost, the website’s government staffers say.

Since Booz Allen took over, the site’s scope has grown, along with the number of fees. Recreation.gov offers reservations at over 121,000 individual sites. Federal officials say the expanded services give park managers more tools to manage visitation, including venue reservations, timed-entry tickets, even permits to cut down Christmas trees on public land.

More than 23 million users had Recreation.gov accounts in the 2022 fiscal year. The site covers services from 13 different federal agencies, including the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management.

Booz Allen’s contract allows it to run Recreation.gov for five years, with five subsequent one-year options based on performance. In addition to running the reservation system, the company also manages a customer call center and an internal mobile app for agencies.

It is hard for park visitors to know where their money goes when they make a reservation. Dozens of Recreation.gov users said they assumed all fees go to benefit the lands they visit.

In the invoices obtained by the Journal, the per-transaction amounts paid to Booz Allen were redacted, due to what the government says are trade secrets. Booz Allen has made a similar claim about these amounts in response to the recent suit.

About 10 million reservations were made on Recreation.gov in the 2022 fiscal year, up from 3.76 million in the 2019 fiscal year, according to Recreation.gov officials. They say the amount paid to Booz Allen for each transaction hasn’t changed in the five years and the recent visitation boom brought unexpected revenue through Recreation.gov, and thus to Booz Allen.

The Forest Service oversees the Recreation.gov contract. Gordie Blum, the agency’s acting director of recreation, heritage and volunteer resources, says having the company run the reservations system is a great value, given the technical requirements needed. It has generated hundreds of millions in recreation fees that go back to parks, forests and public lands, distinct from the fees that fund Booz Allen’s operation, Forest Service officials say.

The visitors

Some visitors have welcomed the reservation programs as a tool that reduces crowds, which protects park wildlife and improves the experience for park goers. Others have criticized the restriction of entry to public lands and have lamented the difficulty in getting reservations.

“It really galls me that my tax dollars are going to maintaining that public asset, but then somebody is privately profiting off of it,” says Spencer Heinz, a 29-year-old mechanical engineer from Portland, Ore., who uses Recreation.gov for backpacking permits.

The lawsuit filed in January in Virginia by seven outdoor enthusiasts claims the fees deceive visitors into thinking that the money goes directly to aid public lands. The complaint says Booz Allen is charging fees similar to ambiguous entertainment and travel surcharges President Biden labeled “junk fees” in his February State of the Union address.

Booz Allen is seeking to dismiss the suit. A company spokeswoman said the 13 federal agencies determine whether to charge fees on Recreation.gov and how those fees are structured, collected and ultimately used.

The plaintiffs’ lawyers say the fees violate a federal rule that allows public lands to charge recreation fees.

The lawyers cite a March 2022 ruling in a separate case, which found that a $2 Recreation.gov processing fee to access Nevada’s Red Rock Canyon wasn’t adopted properly because it wasn’t subject to public notice. The 2023 suit argues that the current fees are similarly illegal, and should be refunded to Recreation.gov users.

In its response to the suit, Booz Allen said in a legal filing that it can’t be tried separately from the federal agencies that use Recreation.gov. The company also said it doesn’t have the authority to refund the fees because it doesn’t charge travelers. “Booz Allen does not charge any fees to—nor does it receive any fees from—the users of Recreation.gov, including the plaintiffs,” the Booz Allen spokeswoman said in an email.

The company earns a commission for each transaction processed on Recreation.gov, according to 2022 testimony from Rick DeLappe, interagency program manager for Recreation.gov. The processing fees are first held in a U.S. Treasury account before they are paid to Booz Allen each month, he added.

Christine Wong, a 36-year-old physician from Honolulu, says she has submitted at least 10 applications to visit the popular destination known as the Wave near the Utah-Arizona border in Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness. Applying to the lottery for a chance to visit the Wave, which can accommodate 64 people each day, costs $9, whether the application is successful or not.

Of the $9, $5 ultimately goes to Booz Allen and $4 goes to the Bureau of Land Management, which manages the site, a BLM spokesman said.

Recreation.gov users submitted about 130,000 applications for permits to hike the Wave last year, generating about $648,200 for Booz Allen and $518,600 for the BLM, a BLM spokesman says. The BLM also collected about $35,500 in permit fees from successful applicants, he says.

Ms. Wong says she considered her numerous unsuccessful applications a donation, not a payment to a third party.

“I always assumed the fee went to the park,” she says.
Post Reply

Return to “Backcountry Permits”