You are here

Traveler's View: Great Smoky Mountains National Park's Backcountry Fee Debate Points To Larger Problem

Share
Alternate Text
While a backcountry use fee might help meet a small portion of Great Smoky's bills, a better solution is a park entrance fee/Kurt Repanshek

In a 25-page motion attacking not just the propriety but also the legality of a backcountry user fee at Great Smoky Mountains National Park, a group of backpackers has not only asked that the fees be tossed out, but shined some light on the conundrum of how to afford our public lands.

The overwhelming dilemma here is not that backcountry users have to pay $4 a night, with a maximum fee of $20 for one trip, but rather that the National Park Service has its hands legislatively tied in its efforts to meet the needs of one of the most popular national parks. Politicians seem quick to oppose the fee but not as quick to solve the problem.

The lawsuit (attached below) makes accusations about how the staff of the park, under former Superintendent Dale Ditmanson, went about building its case for the user fees. Among the charges is that the staff concocted complaints about the existing backcountry reservation system, that minutes of public meetings were missing from the administrative record, and that some staff discussions of the matter were conducted on private, not government, email accounts. It also argues that federal regulations prohibit fees for backcountry campsites unless they come with "drinking water, access, road, refuse containers, toilet facilities ... (and) reasonable visitor protection," none of which exist, short of privies, in the park's backcountry.

More so, the lawsuit, contends that federal law prohibits the National Park Service at Great Smoky from charging "an entrance or standard amenity recreation fee ... unless fees are charged for entrance into that park on main highways and thoroughfares."

Southern Forest Watch, which brought the lawsuit, also contends that "(A) 25 percent drop in backcountry camping (from 84,236 in 2012 to 62,863 the following year) since full implementation of this fee is dramatic evidence that this fee has impaired this generation's use of the Smoky Mountains ... "

In February 2012, Superintendent Ditmanson told the Traveler that, faced with an inadequate budget and unable to charge an entrance fee for any of his roughly 9 million yearly visitors, he saw no way of improving visitor services and protecting backcountry resources without charging users who spend the night in the woods. 

The solution would seem to lie with those political entities that have sided with Southern Forest Watch in its anti-fee fight: the speaker of the Tennessee House of Representatives, the Knox County (Tennessee) Commission as well as county officials in Bradley and Blount counties in Tennessee and Swain County in North Carolina. Rather than simply opposing the backcountry fees, these politicians should work to overturn the prohibition on entrance fees to Great Smoky, or to pressure Washington to better fund the Park Service. Or both.

Similar support should be sought from U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, who in the past has been honored by the National Parks Conservation Association for his pro-Park Service stances. Moving to shore up financing for Great Smoky Mountains specifically, and the National Park Service in general, would burnish that William Penn Mott Jr. Park Leadership Award he received from the NPCA in 2007 for opposing drastic changes to the Park Service's Management Policies and the costly "Road to Nowhere."

This is not to wholeheartedly endorse fees in the parks across the board. But when entrance fees are charged at one-third of the 401 units of the National Park System, and put to good use in improving the parks for the visitors' benefit, the longstanding ban against such a fee at Great Smoky is an anachronism in this day of scarce federal funds. 

While recreation fees are generally unsavory, if there are to be fees, the Smokies would benefit much, much more from a $10-$20 per car fee from the millions who enter the park and exert considerable wear and tear on not only roads but also frontcountry facilities each year than from a $4 per night fee on 65,000 backcountry campers who sleep on the ground and walk down a path.

Comments

John, no reason to keep trying to reason with the unreasonable. They simply ignore the fact that the past superintendent  changed the reason for the fee three times before one stuck. If I'm not mistaken Gary still hasn't answered whether there should be a fee for horses. 

This comment was edited to remove a gratuitous remark.--Ed.


Franky, does any other National Park have fees for horses? Hmm... I think they just have to pay to use backcountry sites like everyone else. Not all trails in the Smokies allow horses, and while maybe a few should be decommissioned, there are many trails that are in good shape.  Why should the Smokies be "different" as a National park by banning horses?  Since elk are in the park, hows that any different than a horse in terms of size? Elk are using the backcountry all around North Carolina side of the park.   I spent too much of my life out west, so I don't have a big issue with horses on trails, except when it rains or if they are in fragile sensitive areas.  I've ridden horses when I lived in Idaho, and it was fun times.  There should also be sane limits on how many use a trail at a given time, and during certain times when the trails aren't saturated..  Gosh... you guys need to really travel more beyond the Smokies.  It would help you better understand what a National Park is.


We don't need to travel, we just read your accounts Gary.  You're the expert.

The one thing I see that's very interesting in all this is that how few people actually venture in the backcountry. Roughly 100K people out of 10M visitors, or 1%.  Trails must be pretty empty.


What no one seems to be saying is how unfair it is that one of the most popular units of the national park system does not charge entrance fees while the others do.  Laws can be changed, and should be in this case.  Period.


Franky?? it's obvious your able to post whatever you want without the edit button. I simply said " $@$! was too angry to see the other side's point of view" and Ed edited it. So Gary you win. backpackers and only backpackers should flip the bill.


Laws can be changed, and should be in this case. Period.

Which way?


Zebby only about 25000 to 300000 a year go more than a 1/4 of a mile.  Yes getting out of the vehicle and working off the krispy kremes should be promoted more.


Gary, you have finally slipped to a new low.  Posting under my name on NPT.  Classy.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.