Recent comments

The main advantage of reservation systems is the ability of backcountry users to plan a trip in advance, and that's especially valuable for hikers who want to make a multi-day trip that includes several backcountry stops. Many people need to arrange their vacation time far in advance. Without a reservation system, a visitor who travels a long distance to make a backcountry trip could be both disappointed and seriously inconvenienced to find upon arrival that there were no permits available for backcountry sites.

Some will of course question whether there should be any limits on backcountry camping at all. That's an entirely different subject that touches on the problems of both resource damage and a low-quality visitor experience that can occur from uncontrolled camping, especially in heavily-used locations or fragile environments.

Reservation systems are most valuable for visitors who don't live in the immediate vicinity of a park. In places where backcountry camping permits are available on a "walk-up" basis only a day or two in advance, the locals have a distinct advantage in getting a site.

Who would benefit the most if advance reservation systems were eliminated? Certainly not someone coming to the Smokies from Atlanta, or Nashville, or .... It's a question worth asking as part of the current debate.

SmokiesBackpacker I can see that, as you said, "If the Southern Forest Watch prevails, it will have implications for other backcountry fees in other parks." Good point! That would, in fact, be monumental. I don't completely discount that outcome. However, I remain dubious about the validity of the lawsuit.

From a novice's perspective (that is, one who is neither an attorney nor an employee of the federal government), the following scenarios seem to be the possibilities:

1. Southern Forest Watch wins the case. (This means I am either reading FLREA wrong or misunderstanding the basis of the lawsuit - for instance, there is a basis other than FLREA.)

2. GSMNP wins the case. This means the court finds that GSMNP is operating within the letter of the law as presented under FLREA (or whatever other basis the lawsuit is being brought, if FLREA is not it.)

3. GSMNP didn't follow a certain point of administrative process properly, thus the lawsuit wins on one count (administrative process not followed), but not all counts. (For instance, the fee is legal but the process followed to enact the fee left out one step.) However, it seems to me that, in this case, GSMNP could simply start the process (as required by FLREA) all over again and reinstate the fee. (For instance, I see nowhere in FLREA that the public has to agree with the fee, only that the public is given the opportunity to provide their opinion to a proposed fee.)

4. If a reservation systems fee (which is allowed by FLREA) is somehow in and of itself illegal -- as established by some other legal document or court ruling precedent -- this suggests that a lawsuit must be brought to reverse FLREA itself. Which is a much bigger can of worms.

So, that's my cut on it. I still don't see what is illegal about a reservation systems fee under FLREA. So there must be something else involved to bring a lawsuit.

Scott, it's called "entitlement." As in "I'm entitled to do anything I want to do anyplace at any time in any of our parks and if they try to make me pay anything for it I'll throw a tantrum. I'm a conservative and God bless the Tea Party."

And sincere thanks to Sara and Dahkota and Quiet Please and Rick and David and Jim for at least trying to stand up to one of our most prominent tantrum tossers. Join the crowd; you've just been ignored.

Far too many of our legislators of all kinds (and perhaps some news media and a few who post here ) are very expert at fibbing -- which by my definition includes telling just enough of the truth to avoid an outright lie, but shading or twisting it enough to fool people into believing something different enough that they will support whatever agenda is being pushed. That's why I wonder sometimes if our friend isn't really a politician in disguise.

Have a smiling day everyone!

I don't believe that anyone has challenged the NPS in court over backcountry fees in light of FLREA. It has been done in the National Forest Arena but that is why this Smokies lawsuit is so important. The basis will be, did they properly follow the administrative procedures act and does the number of amenities fall within the prescribed verbiage in FLREA. If the Southern Forest Watch prevails, it will have implications for other backcountry fees in other parks. I do think that the other units in the NPS have a set number of amenities like picninc tables etc. This is clearly lacking in the Smokies.

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?