Possible reservation system at Many Glacier campground ...

[wnysteve]

Wasn't there a period of time some years ago when the campground was encircled by a tall fence due to bear activity? I seem to recall something like that.

Yeah, that's right ... I'd forgotten about that. It wasn't the whole campground, but there was a chain-link fence area called the bear cage, where people sleeping in tents could lock themselves in for the night. I think it was a fairly small area, just intended for a few tents. That would have been back in the 80s or 90s.

My recollection is that the Bear Cage was limited to through backpackers with a MAN permit. All others coming in by vehicle were under the "hard sided camper" restriction. Also, in that period, someone walking in the campground took emergency shelter in the cage from an aggressive grizzly. At one time I heard it was a ranger, but maybe that was embellishment. Anybody remember?

[Stmarypete]

I think it is a great idea. Currently during peak season you have to be there by 7:00 AM to guarentee a site, which means you have to leave St Mary by about 6:00, which means you are probably packing up at 5:00. Kind of ridiculous. We are hiking Gunsight Pass this summer in August and I am sure glad I can reserve a site at St Mary for that night, otherwise it would be the KOA. Staying at a cabin the night before is a good option but not aways available at Swifcurrent.

[Jay w]

Someone with some Yosemite knowledge, chime in since it should be similar, but I bet that within a day of dates being opening, they'll be reserved. So you'll have to know your plans 6 month, 9 months, whatever the time frame is, in advance. The rest of the people will fight even more for the remaining sites. So I'd say the problem will get worse.

The trend that I've seen over the years is that more big RVs with the diesel engine duelie pickups are arriving. They struggle to fit into the sites and it sounds like a Panzer division when they drive through the campground. We've met some of these folks, nice folks, but I'd rather see the RV in the campgrounds by St. Mary.

Anyway, my point was reservations will go very quickly, and then people will fight even more seriously over the remaining 50% of the sites remaining. Maybe it's time I get my permit to carry.

Jay

[Selkie]

Maybe it's time I get my permit to carry.

Jay

Well, it hasn't happened yet! And would not go into effect until June 2014 (although presumably reservations would have to be made far in advance).
Comments are due March 6.
I do think the park is in a tough position, and may well welcome ideas for solutions (is there a real problem?).

[Selkie]

Bump...
Comments are due by March 6. It is fast upon us.
I might try to round up a number of comments (con and pro) and send them in.

[yosemitesam]

Someone with some Yosemite knowledge, chime in since it should be similar, but I bet that within a day of dates being opening, they'll be reserved. So you'll have to know your plans 6 month, 9 months, whatever the time frame is, in advance. The rest of the people will fight even more for the remaining sites. So I'd say the problem will get worse.
Jay

The camping reservation system for Yosemite is a flippin' nightmare presented by recreation.gov. The best way to get a summer time campsite reservation for the valley floor is to be flexible with your dates (released on a monthly basis); know exactly which campground you are interested in; and don’t hesitate to take WHICHEVER spot pops up on the computer screen during the process. You have to know the exact date as to when the sites go on sale (as it seems to change from year to year) and sign into the system Queue about 10 mins. before the start of the sale time. ALL SITES ARE GONE WITHIN MINUTES. Sometimes the system will crash due to the volume but you have to be persistent. If you secure a spot, consider yourself lucky! To my knowledge, during the summer, you cannot drive to a valley floor campground and expect to find a cancellation. However, I have seen cancellations on the recreation.gov website. There are several first come, first serve campgrounds throughout the park, notably Yosemite Creek and Tuolumne Meadows, although I wouldn't want to deal with that movie. I won’t even talk about BC Permits – hint, it’s much easier (and well worth it) to get permits for an adjoining wilderness and back pack into the park down to the valley floor.

The crowds aren’t as prevalent in Glacier as Yosemite; however, I would rather see the fighting take place over the internet instead of at the campgrounds. I wouldn’t know if there were a true need for a reservation system at Glacier but I, for one, prefer secure reservations.

[Selkie]

I, for one, prefer secure reservations.

The reservations made through recreation.gov are only as good as the site managers, who allowed a usurper to stay in my reserved site at St. Mary CG "because he had already put up two tents when we found out."
Your personal experience with a reservation system may be helpful to the decision makers in re Many Glacier.
Comments are due March 6.

(I will also mention here that I was kept out of a CG in NH on a Columbus Day weekend that came on the heels of two weeks of nonstop rain. Every campsite [of approx. 30] had been reserved, and *every one* was empty. I had to go elsewhere and return after 24 hours, when still no one had showed up.)

[Selkie]

I sent a response today, March 6 (last day to respond).
I mentioned both perceived pros and cons to making half the sites reservable.

My conclusion was mildly against such a plan, for the following reasons:

1. It does not address an identifiable need (other reservable sites, CG and cabins, are available at hand or within an hour's drive).
2. The recreation.gov system is not failsafe, witness my reserved site at St. Mary being given away.
3. Empty sites are pretty much guaranteed because campers are not incentivized to cancel when they change their minds (my experience on being locked out of a fully reserved, 100% empty USFS CG).
4. There would be increased pressure on the nonreservable sites, and their occupants.
5. For these and other reasons, campers would face a lower likelihood of getting a site, and fewer people would be served.

[toddnick]

Marjorie,

I posted to NPS yesterday and used almost all the same points that you did.

There are several reasons that I think it is a bad idea, but the biggest would be the increased competition for unreserved sites. Based on my experience only about 30 sites open up on any given day (out of the 110 sites) if you cut the number of available sites in half to around 50, you might have only 10 or 15 sites open up on a given day and the competition would be brutal...trolling would start earlier...

[orin]

Like others, I have mixed feelings about a reserved system. However, if a partial system is implemented then the park needs to take control of the unreserved sites too. The system should be set up like the scramble for unreserved backcountry sites. You show up as early as you need to and get in line. They pass out sites first come first served until they run out. When you get a site, you have to declare whether you plan to stay the next night also. That way rangers have a reasonably accurate count of available sites. This method transfers the hunt out of the campground and confines it to the office line. Of course it is also more labor intensive for the park and less spontaneous for campers but anything less will continue to be a big mess.

[DaveC]

Obvious solution: close the road to private vehicles. Four times daily shuttle from the park boundary, and unlimited bike access. It's not especially reponsible to have so many people in that kind of Griz habitat anyway.

I'm grateful I don't have to frontcountry camp in Glacier, such a cluster during the summer.

[distressbark]

Obvious solution: close the road to private vehicles. Four times daily shuttle from the park boundary, and unlimited bike access. It's not especially reponsible to have so many people in that kind of Griz habitat anyway.

I'm grateful I don't have to frontcountry camp in Glacier, such a cluster during the summer.

You raise a very interesting point there Dave. I've often thought this would be a great solution to traffic in the valley, and would undoubtedly help wildlife safely inhabit the areas surrounding the entrance road.

[Hockey Ref]

Obvious solution: close the road to private vehicles. Four times daily shuttle from the park boundary, and unlimited bike access. It's not especially reponsible to have so many people in that kind of Griz habitat anyway.

I'm grateful I don't have to frontcountry camp in Glacier, such a cluster during the summer.

If you close the Many Glacier Road to private vehicles, you're essentially closing the campground, unless people would be expected to tent camp only using backpacks. You're also restricting the movement of everyone who stays at Many Glacier Hotel and Swiftcurrent Motor Inn and essentially locking them in during the evenings (or locking them out if they miss the last shuttle). I doubt most people would be happy with any of that.

[DaveC]

If you close the Many Glacier Road to private vehicles, you're essentially closing the campground, unless people would be expected to tent camp only using backpacks. You're also restricting the movement of everyone who stays at Many Glacier Hotel and Swiftcurrent Motor Inn and essentially locking them in during the evenings (or locking them out if they miss the last shuttle). I doubt most people would be happy with any of that.

"Restricting the movement"?! I'm not taking their legs away. Folks could put duffels, coolers, etc on the buses and carry them ~100 yards to the campground or hotels. And while this would cramp peoples vehicular styles, Americans could do with some cramping.

GPI would loose money, no doubt. Quite frankly I don't care. National Parks are not the place for profit.

A comparable policy has been a spectacular success in Zion. That Yosemite and the south rim of the Grand Canyon haven't followed suit should have gotten people fired years ago. Within the next century this will happen on the Sun road and in Yellowstone, with an outcry that will dwarf little Many Glacier. I'd like to see Glacier lead rather than be led by the earlobe.

[pitamakan]

I think the mandatory shuttle systems in places like Zion, Yosemite, and Denali are clearly very successful ... but in the short term, at least, it's hard to see them working in Glacier. Doing that at Many would require a massive infrastructure investment, both for buses, and a new parking area at the boundary, for a relatively minimal reduction in vehicle miles. Additional staffing, too. I'd be worried about security at the parking area, and think that the overall environmental impact of the new infrastructure would cancel out any environmental benefit.

In retrospect, at least, it was a huge mistake to put 300 lodging units and 100 campsites in that tiny, ecologically important valley ... but of course park administrators of decades past couldn't see into the future, and realistically those developments aren't likely to go away. It puts the NPS in what is almost a no-win situation when it comes to figuring out what to do at Many ... the campground included. For now, at least, I'm not sure what they can do other than encourage people to visit other areas of the park -- pass the word that Iceberg and Grinnell aren't the only appealing destinations the park has.

As for the Sun Road shuttle, it would be very interesting to see into the future there! I know the carrying capacity of that road is limited, but at the same time I know the park is realizing that a shuttle system isn't a perfect solution, either.