Visitor Center
Copyright 2005-2013
National Park Advocates LLC
Follow the Traveler
Friends of the Traveler
Sign Up For Traveler's Weekly Newsletter
Recent comments
- Sara on Fire Island National Seashore...
- justinh on Fire Island National Seashore...
- ecbuck on Fire Island National Seashore...
- SmokiesBackpacker on Fire Island National Seashore...
- ecbuck on Fire Island National Seashore...
- Kurt Repanshek on Fire Island National Seashore...
- ecbuck on Organizations Want Veto Power Over...
- ecbuck on Fire Island National Seashore...
- Lee Dalton on Fire Island National Seashore...
- Sara on Fire Island National Seashore...
You know, I am curious since there is obviously a preponderance of NPS employees here if you will indulge a question. The over riding rub in this situation appears to be that the NPS makes unilateral decisions without any troubling concerns of citizen input. I am very willing to hear a proposal from you NPS people as to how public input should be incorporated into decisions such as this? It is apparent that this whole fee thing was a predetermined notion for which the park went through all the perfunctory motions and proceeded with their agenda. Is it the purpose of the house natural resouces sub committee to provide oversight when this federal agency marches on? Is is the place of citizens such as the Southern Forest Watch to pursue the matter in court? Is it the place of the local unit, in this respect, the GRSM to actually give weight to citizen input? I am just curious if NPS people actually have any concern at all for the desires of citizens or if that is just something that is specific to the upper echelons like Jarvis and Ditmanson?
Rick B. , eh law, I guess we'll see. This thread has now stretched as far as the accusation of tyranny.
Rick B,LOL, this one may never end.Lot's of passion !!!!!! over ????
Just curious here. After four pages of comments, are there any points that haven't been peated and repeated?
I have to note that Big Cypress requested permission to begin public discussion of raising fees but they put it off for a year. It should be coming soon but they have been working on hunting management instead.
I still don't get where you (SmikesBackpacker) think the falsehoods exist or why you think they exist. It seems to me that, no matter what, you believe what you believe and nothing will change your mind. That is all well and good but, if you read what you posted and linked to, you might relax a little on your position. A lot of the data I got from Southern Forest Watch and the documents they uploaded. My statement above about the Secretary (the part in quotes) came from YOUR post. You obviously didn't read it either.
SmokiesBackpacker -- you stated "You have successfully derailed the conversation here from the article which is the Tn State House of Representatives Condeming the fee to the lawsuit over the fee."
The first person to bring the lawsuit into this discussion, back on the 1st page, is . . . SmokiesBackpacker who said: "It would be a very, very smart move, especially in light of the lawsuit pending over this fee which could have implications for the entirety of the NPS."
Tennessee Backpacker -- you asked: "How else to you fight tyranny?"
You and I apparently disagree as to whether or not this situation really involves tyranny. And I expect we also disagree on the value of war.
Mtnhiker,
You have successfully derailed the conversation here from the article which is the Tn State House of Representatives Condeming the fee to the lawsuit over the fee. Whenever someone posts that they object to the lies from the park superintendent as evidenced by the Tn Proclamation, and several county proclamations, you go back to the lawsuit. This article IS about public sentiment over the fee, which is TOTALLY REJECTED by the public. I am beginning to realize that the NPS is very, very concerned about this lawsuit by observing all the energy that is being put into it over here. That makes me quite happy. I'll bet there are a lot of moustaches out of joint.
dahkota -- "I just really enjoy finding out facts and being able to back them up."
For all the references you are providing, thank you dahkota. I have a great deal of respect for research, facts, and objective assessment. Too much of this lawsuit seems to be about emotional upset and accusation without a sufficient or clear basis in facts and objective research.
mountainhiker
"...descending into bitter warring?..."
How else to you fight tyranny?
dahkota
Did they Big Cypress publicly put out falsehoods and false statements also?
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.
I will look into that Dakhota but I don't think that going on record as saying there were no complaints from congressional representatives is going to fly very well in a trial. That is deliberate falsification of data. (just like the campsite overcrowding assertions) I can assure you he didn't follow other protocols. Another would be the shortened public comment period. I am going to look into the rules on that. Or you can just provide it since you seem to be in the NPS "know". Let me guess, you are going to tell me that the NPS can shorten the public comment period at their discretion, Im sure. You guys can do whatever you want over there.
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.
Don't see where Ditmanson consulted the recreation advisory board in there. Show me where that exists in that document.
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.
David, I doubt that there are many equivalent jobs in west Marin. Clearly, you don't really care about those poor folks anyway. Not your problem, right?
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.
I imagine if there are thousands or millions of signatures to recall anyone in the government, that might get the Feds' attention. If its a few dozen, I don't know if it would even be a blip on the radar. How has the government responded to this petition?
I have to say again, the more I see or read about this situation, the more it seems like one man is being targeted. I don't know that man personally, have never met him, but it seems to me that the backcountry reservation system fees are a system-wide issue. And even if this one man is recalled/removed or retires of his own accord, the next person in that position will follow the established system. So, I honestly think its the system that the founders of the lawsuit have an issue with -- the National Parks System -- and Congress, the entity which signed into law FLREA.
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.
SmokiesBackpacker -- you said: "And the court may decide that Ditmanson didn't follow the adminstrative procedures act."
I can't speak to that. The courts will have to decide whether he did or he didn't. Regardless, I don't believe that makes the reservation system, the fee, or the basis for the fee -- FLREA -- illegal. But the procedural rules appear to be pretty straight forward and I agree with you that he (Ditmanson) should have followed them.
SmokiesBackpacker -- you said: " If the NPS were responsive to citizen input, there would be no need for a lawsuit."
If not following public input is the basis of the lawsuit, I'd like to see where FLREA or any other applicable legislation states that the National Park Service must follow the specific public feedback given to them. I can understand if it were a nationwide vote -- all citizens must provide input into their national park service procedures and management. But it was voluntary. Some people (mostly locals?) provided input. Most citizens across the 50 states didn't. Is the federal government legally obliged to do what the majority public opinion indicates?
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.
SmokiesBackpacker, fwiw, I am a Southerner, born and bred. My parents and ancestors have lived here as far back as the 1700s. So I fully understand the Southern culture of personal responsiblity and integrity. We take the responsibility to live our own lives with honesty and integrity. It doesn't mean one can force others to do so. It is a "live and let live" culture.
If the lawsuit is primarily about suing one man because he allegedly lied, that still does not overturn FLREA. And it is FLREA which gives legal foundation for the reservation system and its fee. If, as you say, the lawsuit is really not about the online reservation system, or the $4 per night fee, then it seems more and more as if the lawsuit is about one group's anger towards one man in position power at GSMNP. And, honestly, I can't see that legally attacking that one man or even successfully getting rid of that one man (would the lawsuit do that?) will address the issue in a way that serves the public.
But we live in a litigious society these days and as has been said previously, anybody can sue for anything and it doesn't have to make sense, I suppose. One can sue just because they are angry and for no other reason.
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.
In the South, we value honesty, integrity and responsibility. All those qualites have been irrevocably broken by the GRSM leadership in their handling of the backcountry fee issue. That is why there is such an uproar over this fee. It is less about the money and more about the character of the NPS which manipulates data and promotes dishonesty. It may be all in a days work at other units but they are going to have to answer for it down here and I am thrilled at the prospect of it.