PCT Permits: A Conservationist’s Point of View 

There is no shortage of grumblings about PCT permits these days.  With the second round of permits approved and start dates quickly approaching, there seems to be increased demand for change in the permit process.  Myself being new to the thru-hiking scene found this process to be quite interesting as applying for a permit without any financial obligations was a new one for me.  While I am sure there is no “perfect” system I think there are a few things that could improve this process.  While there are pros and cons to any proposed changes (or the current system for that matter) I hope to explore some of those options.  This is just my, admittedly biased, opinion on the matter and you’re free to disagree; in doing so I doubt you’d be the first person to think I am an idiot but, I digress.  

 

(For this article I intend to speak only on the long-distance permit with the intention of a full thru-hike.  I know there are several other permit options but this is the most widely debated at this time)

Cost

The first, and most obvious topic to be addressed is the financial obligations of obtaining a long-distance permit.  Pros and cons are pretty cut and dry when requiring a fee for a long distance permit.  By far the biggest pro is money goes to the PCTA and the US Forest Service. This cash flow helps advocate for public lands and assist with all of the stuff that costs money like trail maintenance and recovery from fires.  The major con is pricing people out of a thru-hike.  While I don’t like the idea of gatekeeping people from a permit for financial reasons, we do have to accept the fact that thru-hiking isn’t cheap to start with.  The cost of getting a permit pales in comparison to the cost of things like gear, transportation, resupplies, and beer.  

 

I have seen quite a few models about how a fee structure would work.  I think my preferred method would be a deposit and fee system.  With this system, you would be obligated to put down a deposit to hold your permit with a smaller portion being kept by the US Forest Service.  I have no idea what the right number is for these fees but here is an example anyway.  Say the fee cost is $50 and a deposit of $200.  Once you get your permit date you give the PCTA $200 to hold your permit.  That permit is yours unless you cancel it, in which you would then get your $200 back.  If you do start the trail you get $150 back and continue on your way to Canada. That remaining 50 bucks would go to the US Forest Service with a percentage going to the PCTA for managing the permit system.  Is this system perfect, no absolutely not, but it would essentially eliminate the “I’ll get a permit just in case” people from getting permits without any real intention to hike.  

 

Permit Application Process

When thinking of ways to improve the overall experience I think the most important thing to consider is implementing the fee system that was previously mentioned.  With the deposit system, the demand for permits would go down as those without intentions to actually hike would not be willing to put up the cash for a permit they wouldn’t use.  I think this alone would improve the chances of getting a permit on the date you would like.  By adding a fee structure it is unlikely any other changes would be required.  However, if the fee changes are not sufficient there are other options to tackle this situation.

 

Permit Points

An alternative to the current system is creating a preference point system, not unlike how many of the lotteries for hunting tags work in the United States.  Say you apply and cannot get a permit, you would pay a small fee and receive one point.  When next year’s lottery comes around whoever has the most points takes a permit so long as they produce the fee.  There would have to be a cap to the number of “point eligible” permits, say the first 10-15 per day.  The remaining 40-35 would be the general lottery system that we already have.  This system would prevent someone from striking out for multiple years in a row. Furthermore, if someone has to start on a specific date this ensures they can secure that permit date.  I am oversimplifying a bit but you kind of get what I am going for here.  Most states have a system like this for big game hunting tags and it is a proven way to ensure a somewhat fair and even distribution of a permit/tag that has a greater demand than supply.  

 

International Hikers

Alright, so if you didn’t hate me yet for my opinions here it comes.  I think international hikers are obligated to higher fees than US Citizens.  Okay, I will give you a second to head down to the comment section and tell me how much of an idiot I am, however true that may be.  Again I turn to the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation as a reference here.  In the US, wildlife and natural areas are owned by the citizens and managed with taxpayer’s dollars.  So if someone who is not directly funding the protection and maintenance of public land through taxes wants to use the resource I feel like they should contribute more than those who are already funding it.  Quick reminder international folks I still love you and hope you’re still reading.  I don’t think the price increase should be astronomical but, if I may carry on with my rough estimate from above I would say the entire $200 deposit would be a fair number.

This price discrepancy is best illustrated with an example from my home state of Wisconsin.  In Wisconsin, a resident gun deer tag is $24 for citizens of the state.  If you are not a Wisconsin resident the same exact tag is $160.  That is over 6 times the price for the same tag.  The reason for the difference is the owners of the resource.  Every deer in the state belongs to every resident of the state.  If you are to come into the state and take the state’s resources they demand a premium.  

 

We Take More than We Give

I can already hear the counterargument to this, citing the difference between taking an animal and hiking on a trail.  For that, I would argue they are more similar than one might assume. There is a specific reason the US Forest Service only allows a certain number of hikers to leave per day.  Trails constantly need maintenance for the heavy use they already see.  In addition, there are side effects that come with a long-distance hike.  Every cathole dug impacts the ecosystem more than we would like to admit.  There are countless studies into migration corridor disruption and the energy expenditure changes in wildlife directly caused by outdoor recreation.  

 

In Summary

I don’t hate the current system but I don’t have to hate it to think it could be better.  This system could be improved by adopting a system more similar to how we manage wildlife in the United States. The two major changes that I think could improve the process is some sort of a financial obligation as well as a point system to plan your dream hike.  You may disagree and that’s okay, but that’s my opinion and it is worth every penny you paid for it. 

Happy Trails.