Recent comments

With no disrespect meant towards the Lunnys, I will be infinitely more interested in visiting Pointe Reyes NS with the farm removed.

Additionally, don't confuse "wilderness" (good luck trying to define that concept) with the Wilderness Act which never refers to "environmental purity". In fact it uses concepts such as "untrammeled" and "where man is a visitor and does not remain".

Mtnliving -- Absolutely true. When you're dealing with the public's money, you must have a secured and standardized software system. There is no doubt in my mind the federal government would be foolish to get somebody's third cousin twice removed to develop a "free" reservations software system and then expect that person to maintain it and manage the phone calls, credit card issues, and so forth when -- hello -- there is already a proven, secure and standardized reservations system in use by the national park system.

I can't speak to whether the amount charged for the current reservation system exceeds the cost of the operation. However, if it did, would that make the reservation system illegal? Or would it simply result in an adjustment of the amount of the fee? Would it reveal that the feds didn't base their numbers on existing reservation systems at other parks? Somehow, I expect they did their homework on this since comparable numbers would be easy to glean from other parks. But I guess we'll see.

dahkota -- I agree with you. It appears to me that FLREA clearly applies to all federal recreational lands, from national forests and national parks to Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, and Bureau of Land Management. And,clearly, several national parks have been charging a fee for their backcountry reservation systems for a time now.

So, to whomever can answer this question: Have *any* of these backcountry reservation systems and their fees in *any* of the other national parks proven to violate FLREA?

We'll instead buy oysters from a foreign country, which may or may not have sustainable practices, but we'll be so happy to have a pristine estrero that we'll be filled with joy, instead of oysters. We'll be basking in the glow of having done such a great deed for humanity. Next, we'll turn all open spaces into wilderness sanctuaries. To fulfill our goal of environmental purity, we'll close all wilderness sanctuaries to humans, except for scientists and members of the Sierra Club. That way, we shall return the land to a state of wilderness that .... errrr.... never really existed. None the less, we'll be very excited and all will be right with the world. Amen!

[/SARCASM]

You are absolutely correct that the volunteers and the private donations that help fund trail maintenance and many other park activities deserve tremendous credit.

I have no way of knowing, but I'd be surprised if private money covered all the cost of the NPS trail crews that came from distant parks, including Canyonlands, Joshua Tree and Kings Canyon to help with the huge job described in this story. This work would undoubtedly have taken a lot longer without their help.

Good question about "how much govt. time is spent anonymously responding to opinions" on the Traveler. In my case, none at all, since I don't work for the NPS or any branch of government.

However, since you've made some pretty serious allegations about some government employees on this site, one does have to wonder if they have the right or even responsibility to monitor that discussion, or even comment on it, while on duty.

Mountain hiker -

Thanks for some excellent input, including your analysis for why even though a volunteer-run reservation system seems like a fine bargain, it isn't practical. Another big issue is the accountability for people's credit card numbers and other forms of payment for reservations if the system were run by volunteers.

The question about whether the amount being charged for a backcountry reservation exceeds the cost of operation is a good one, and will likely be addressed as part of the litigation.

Tennessee Backpacker, I think you are incorrect. According to: Director's Order #22 (http://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/DO-22.pdf), particularly "1.3" and "5.," most of the justification for fees in the NPS is FLREA.

Well it looks like another industry that we can kiss good bye in this country.

Everyday as I read these articles I ask myself what has happened to this once great and proud nation that's been hijacked by special interest groups.

dahkota -- thank you! I now see that "G. Use of reservation services" is stated clearly in the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) as a legal option for fees. See http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/16C87.txt

This is what sets the Mt. Lemmon forest service case apart from the GSMNP situation. And its why I remain dubious about the legal grounds for the GSMNP lawsuit. The GSMNP reservation system and its fees appear to me to be completely legal under FLREA.

So, I go back to my previous line of inquiry: Is the reservation service fee at GSMNP illegal? If so, what makes it illegal? Moreover, if this type of reservation system fee is illegal, why has it not already been deemed illegal in all the national parks which have had such a fee in place for quite a while now?

The Newshour did a segment on the issue last night. Online at:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/north_america/jan-june13/oyster_05-01.html

Mr. Kiernan leaves a park advocacy group for a group promoting industrialization of wildlands. My hope is he can influence transmission and project planning to identify parks and other sensitive areas for exclusion or avoidance.

My previous observation Re: Coburn and his lack of understanding regarding budgets still stands. In his letter to Jewell, he states that savings from one agency could be used to fund something in another agency (money from drones could be used to pay for flood warning systems). As these are two different agencies, Coburn obviously doesn't understand A. They are different agencies and therefore have different funding and B. That the sequester doesn't allow a Department nor an Agency to pick or chose where cuts are made.

EXPANDED AMENITY RECREATION SITES AND SERVICES FEES (Category 3)

This category includes facilities and services that provide direct benefits primarily to individuals or groups.It is thus appropriate for the individual or group that is provided a direct service or uses a specialized facility to bear a greater share of these costs.Fees may be assessed for the following facilities or services:

A.Use of developed campgrounds that provide at least a majority of the following amenities in a configuration that can be used in an integrated manner by the visitor:

i.tent or trailer space;

ii.picnic tables;

iii.drinking water;

iv.access roads;

v.collection of the fee by an employee or agent of the Forest Service*;

vi.reasonable visitor protection*;

vii.refuse containers;

viii.toilet facilities; and

ix.simple devices for containing a campfire.

OR

G. Use of reservation services.

GSMNP already required back country permits of staying overnight.They were free but still required. Now, they have added a reservation system so back country hikers and equestrians can get a permit 24/7. The fee pays for the reservation system. So, GSMNP could easily argue that the fee falls under G. Use of reservation services rather than A. developed campgrounds.