I don't think that I can get behind a complaint that people are hiking in the wilderness _too much_. This is a good problem to have.
More importantly, treating this like it's an issue of "people hiking... too much" ignores an awful lot. The hiking isn't the problem, it's discourtesy, entitlement, and destructiveness that are worrisome.
Personally I think the answer is better policing and giving out large tickets for litterers and destroyers. I don't see people smoking some weed why they hike being a real problem.
My experience in Italy is that they manage a high number of users pretty well without getting so uptight about things.
Just one bizarre example: you can bring a rifle into a wilderness area and kill an animal with it, but riding a mountain bike or even using a baby stroller is forbidden.
People in the US seem to get into all these NIMBY sorts of huffs, despite the vast amounts of space available.
Look at this, for instance:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MTB/comments/3jfrf5/someone_asked_a...
I'm on a flight right now, and am not readily finding concrete figures to support this, but I am a member of the Association of National Park Rangers (though not a ranger myself) and have a little bit of familiarity with related issues.
Is this seriously what we want? This is a good thing to think long and hard about.
That surprised me though. The few times I've been to the US it was absolutely litter free. I've only been to a very small number of places, and those places probably don't have people dropping litter, but after seeing those places it feels weird to me that Americans would leave trash in the wild.
Over here (UK) there is trash everywhere. David Sedaris picks litter as a hobby. Or perhaps crusade. He picked so much (and wrote about the experience) that his local council (when he lived in England) named a bin lorry (garbage truck) after him.
I sort of agree with you though - if sheer numbers of people is the problem does it matter if they carry booze or not? If the alcohol is causing problems that probably needs some extra detail.
I pondered this for a while the first time I saw a "stay on the trails" sign at a national park. The immediate reaction is to think that we're just animals like any other, so wherever we want to walk is "natural" and should be perfectly fine.
But then I realized the differentiating factor is that the only reason I was at this specific place is because somebody put a dot on the map and built a road most of the way there. So even when we leave behind most of the artifacts, we're still part of a populous advanced civilization that can easily destroy these places. No matter how alone you seem, the trail is more like walking through a "nature museum" than actually being part of nature.
Irresponsible drug use could cause an increased load on emergency rescues, but it's probably just a red herring focused on by overproscriptive government agencies. Most park rangers are awesome people, but they've still drank that LEO kool aid.
That's true, but it's largely to help people avoid getting lost and dying in authentic nature. Backpacking trails are much further toward the "what trail?" end of the spectrum, but they're still marked trails. Going off the trail is dangerous.
(That said, another purpose of "stay on the trails" signs is to help prevent shortcut-based erosion, an entirely different goal coming from an entirely different motivation for leaving the trail.)
Erosion and other destruction is what I was focusing on, either concentrated because of a "shortcut" or not. We're not worried about the erosion/destruction caused by animals running all over, so what makes human animals different? That's what I was trying to tease out.
Head to the Rockies or out to Oregon if you want solitude hiking. When I hiked Mt. Bierdstadt in CO I was completely alone for 7 hours and never saw another person the entire day.
That being said, of course there are people like in this article, but they're only at the shelters that are close to town. Walk a bit away from the town, and you're golden.
Walking 15 miles into the woods to "party" is a huge ask. Shitty people are lazy.
The real story behind all of this is how young / homeless / disenfranchised people are turning to the trail as an outlet / support group. That is more interesting to me, and worthy of a story, rather than judgement as doom of the trail.
Its also just a really awesome trail (Montana/Wyoming/Colorado/New Mexico) with on a good year maybe 300 hikers starting(far fewer finishing or making significant progress)
Though it does take map and compass navigation as the trail is not complete and even when it is, there often isn't a trail just a line on a map.
The AT just seems anti-why I like to hike, and sounds more like a backpacking trip across Europe with your HS senior class.
This sounds a lot like "kids are partying in the woods, sometimes near the AT!", which has been true since trails were invented. There is a definite "get off my lawn!" vibe in the article.
When my brother thru-hiked it he said locals would often leave coolers full of iced beer out with a sign that said "help yourself", so it's not hard to get booze if you want it.