Recent comments

mountainhiker

"...descending into bitter warring?..."

How else to you fight tyranny?

The public comment period was 30 days. The same required throughout the rest of the government. I have no idea why you call that shortened.

He didn't say that there were no complaints from congressional representatives. He stated Swain County Commissioners were against it.

I am a researcher by trade. My job is data aquisition. What I research here is just an extension of what I do every day, though my 'day job' research is not NPS related. I just really enjoy finding out facts and being able to back them up.

It is interesting that Big Cypress also created and raised fees and yet using the same process and yet, there is little bluster about it.

Well, Ditmanson is not required to - he is the Superintendent. It is the Secretary's responsibility to get input from the Recreation Advisory Board.

SEC. 3. RECREATION FEE AUTHORITY.
...
3(b)(5) The Secretary shall obtain input from the appropriate Recreation Resource
Advisory Committee, as provided in section 4(d).

Here: http://www.nps.gov/resources/advisoryboard.htm

is information on the Advisory Board, which meets four times per year to consider issues and actions related to the NPS. Ditmanson did everything requested by his Regional Manager.

Actually, SmokiesBackpacker, according to the documents on the website for the group pushing the lawsuit, GSMNP was pretty thorough in following the administrative procedures act. I think you need a new tree.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3rQxlRiSX1Rczd4OV9maENTdG1DenM0ejhkR1hEQQ/edit

check page 10 and 12.

The irony in the railing against free enterprise in the parks is that the same people who complain about money making enterprises (as if making money was evil...) would love it if the concessions were run by the government. Unfortunately, we all know from empirical studies or personal experience (anybody go to the DMV lately?) that government run enterprises are almost always less efficient than their private counterpart.

Mtnhiker,

I have seen copies of all the public comments and read each one. There were as many comments it seemed from outside the state of TN and NC. Quiet a few from Ohio and Georgia as well. That is why there is a petition to recall Ditmanson from Ohio and Kentucky, I presume.

After having had a chance to do some more reading, and thanks to Sara for her posts, and to Mr. Crandall for his observations, I've become much less concerned about this. It appears that the organizations that will be testifying are all companies that depend upon proper park management for their existence. It is not the kind of "impediment to public recreation" that we see pushed so frequently here in Utah and other western states by people who want free access for their ATVs or elimination of regulations against grave robbing in ancient sites.

So although there may be some significant differences of opinion in some of it, it's not the threat of destructive practices at work here.

Folks are angry, that is for sure. And they have good reason to be. The courts will decide the law. The lawsuit will send a message to the NPS next time they try to pull these kinds of stunt. If the NPS were responsive to citizen input, there would be no need for a lawsuit. Unfortunately, this is the only mechanism of reproach. I'll bet the next Superintendent will think twice before manipulating data, don't you?

And the court may decide that Ditmanson didn't follow the adminstrative procedures act. There certainly is no proof of his consultation with the rec advisory board. That is a regulation that was usurped. If they are going to bend the rules to do something, they need to make sure they followed the ones that matter.

I am a regular citizen. I value the national parks. They are a wonder and a gift to all citizens of the United States. I have no problem paying a small fee to sleep on unimproved ground amid the wonders of nature and, in fact, typically prefer unimproved ground in nature to the alternative. If all camping in GSMNP was suddently free, fine by me. If all camping in GSMNP requires a small fee to reserve a site, it just isn't that big of a deal. Why dimimish the beauty and peace of experiencing our nation's preserved parklands by descending into bitter warring?

That piece of ground is empty most all of the time. Therefore, no need to get "assurance" of a spot. I know. I've been to every backcountry site in the park, multiple times, and stayed at most every one. There has NEVER, EVER, EVER been a time when I was unable to find a spot to sleep in a campsite. Ever. Ever. Ever. Ever. You folks who worry about a "reservation" just don't spend any time down here and fret about the most unnecessary thing.

Shelters are sometimes crowded on weekends and AT thru hiking season. True backcountry folks wish they weren't there. The NPS, in their infinite wisdom, have removed the backcountry sites along the AT in place of a shelter system. More NPS stupidity. They created this clogged shelter system. The AT hikers would rather sleep in a tent anyway and so would I. The new "backcountry specialist" at GRSM has been given offers to open old, abandoned backcountry sites along the AT to reduce that congestion and declined to accept these suggestions from Smokies oldtimers. Again, the NPS knows more than us barefooted locals. I don't know how we ever existed without you. But we did give this land to you. Very different situation here in the Smokies than other parks in that regard, NPS folks.

Excuse me for having a problem with giving more authority to an agency that creates headaches not only for themselves but their "consumers" as well.

Its so surprising that a retired national park service employee would have no problem with regular citizens paying to sleep on unimproved ground. And complimenting another person who identifies themselves as a ranger. It really is like talking to the NPS here!

Roger -

I think you're pretty close in your comments, but I sure hope you don't let the little barky dogs nipping around your ankles chase you away.