Recent comments

I am interested in your opinion. I find several of the allegations in the lawsuit very troubling in that it indicates a high degree of political patronage and cronyism. You can bet it has riled a lot of feathers in the political world. I'm no lawyer so it should be fun to watch play out.

I wasn't useing the term due diligence for them. If you apply for any job...you should find out about who you may be going to work for. My point is; If it is a low paying job where due diligence is less needed, then they will find another job (probably some already have). If it is a higher paying job...then due diligence should always be important. I have no idea about their pay...I just know I would check out any company in which I was applying. I wasn't trying to offend anyone.

In reading over the lawsuit, I noted that there were many places where the "plaintiffs" had either bad information or were mis-informed. They also make many allegations which they will have to prove.

It will be interesting to see if it goes anywhere and I won't be surprised if lawyers for "the defense" move to have the case dismissed.

David,

The folks that had those jobs are unlikely to know what "due diligence" means.

"ARC officials, ..., said the Yosemite Valley proposal runs counter to Park Service efforts nationally to boost visitation to the parks."

Of course, a goal of boosting overall visitation doesn't mean that every national park needs a boost. Yosemite Valley is often too crowded as it is.

I have to admit, I always thought that a trial (in this nation, anyway) is based on what is legal. (Which is why I keep asking what is illegal about the reservation system and its fee.)

fwiw, I'm not arguing for the fee. I'm trying to understand what makes it illegal. Lawsuits are based on laws and legality, not personal opinion.

If the legal basis of the current lawsuit is "desires of the citizenry," then I have to ask does FLREA legally mandate that a certain percentage of the United States citizens be contacted for their opinions? Does FLREA require the national park system to tally the "vote," identify what the majority of U.S. citizens request, and then act only as the majority of citizens have voted? And if not FLREA, is there another legal document which requires this?

I realize local counties have "skin in the game" for their share of tourism dollars. And GSMNP represents a huge tourism industry for all counties that surround it, in particular the counties where the roads leading to main entrances are located. I also realize descendants of people who once owned that land in NC and TN (now in GSMNP) have a unique position regarding this park and their free entry to the park, because their land was taken against their will by the U.S. government (be they settlers who lived there a couple hundred years or the indigenous people who lived there for thousands of years).

In terms of this lawsuit, regardless of who has what like or dislike or preference or opinion, doesn't it come down to whether or not some law/legislation/legal agreement has been broken, thus rendering this reservation system and its fee illegal?

Rick,

What is really on trial here is whether or not the desires of the citizenry have any place in NPS decision making. If you will remember, the genesis of the argument is a proclamation by the TN House of Representatives condeming and calling for a repeal of this "tax". Similarly, three other counties have done the same in addition to the public comments which are 18-1 rejecting this fee. I see a lot of folks here arguing for the fee but their voices were strangely absent when it counted, during the public comment period. Either that means that they weren't aware of the shortened public comment period or didn't care at the time. The NPS can and will do as it pleases despite objections of the public. That is the issue, not all the flimsy justifications presented by the NPS to charge citizens to sleep on unimproved ground through a system that is unnecessary and cumbersome. It will be interesting to see the NPS on trial, answering for their misrepresentations. I sincerely look forward to the wriggling of those who may be deposed.

Chris your probably right but it still is nice to read about these tid-bits of info.

Some of the big named 57 or 58 parks should not be a national park either other than some big wig was throwing his weight around.I'm not saying they were not nice but they should really blow you away to become a National Park.Been to some state parks that can compare.

More park-barrel parks. Congress should just create a new type of site. They could redesignate this as a national sculpture site. Then there'd be precedent to create more sculpture sites!

By the way, I believe the NPS still shows Thaddeus Kosciuszko NMem as the smallest unit of the NPS.

And as long as some folks feel that their "facts" are undeniable, but that other people's "facts" are, there isn't going to be much wiggle on this. Add it to the list of unsolvable internet arguments like abortion and circumcision and spend your emotional calories elsewhere.

SmokiesBackpacker -- I'm not trying to change your position. I'm trying to understand what makes this reservation system and its fee illegal -- that is, what the clear legal basis is for a lawsuit.

That's why I ask what justification is required (legally, such as per FLREA) to move to an online reservation system. From what I can tell so far, it seems to me (1) its not illegal; and (2) the justification and benefit is in improvements to customer service. For instance, the benefits dahkota already mentioned ("I can find a campsite that doesn't have 7-11 other people already booked there and plan my trip accordingly. I can also see which campsites are already fully booked rather than having to find out at the last minute that my plans need to change. For me it's a win and worth the $4 per night.") plus this system is available 24/7 (very convenient); you don't have to drive from wherever and wait until the day you arrive to find that the site(s) or shelther(s) you want are already booked. If you don't have a computer, laptop or smart phone, you can call the office and do it over the phone.

I don't see that limiting overnight camping to a certain number of consecutive nights or a certain number of nights per year is illegal either. It's already done in other national parks. GSMNP isn't the first. And I can see that its not in keeping with either the spirit of the national parks nor the mission to have people moving in and living there year round. The parks were intended as a place for citizens to experience temporary recreation and retreat, not a long-term living arrangement.

I can see that the locals don't care for this reservation system, but the park doesn't belong to just the locals and it doesn't serve just the locals. The park belongs to all citizens in America and so upgrades to its systems and services should serve everyone, to the extent possible. If this new system is found by the courts to be illegal, then I will be the first to admit I'm wrong. But to date, while I see that some don't like it, I can't see what is illegal about it.