Recent comments

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.

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?

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.

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.

Capitalism is still free to create its own version of the National Park Experience unburdened by icky treehugger ideologies. https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/resorts/wilderness-lodge-resort/#

Surprised to find some retired NPS employees on a blog about national parks?? What a concept :-)

Looks like the basic idea of this whole discussion is just having a hard time sinking in for a couple of readers, though. You aren't paying to "sleep on unimproved ground," you're paying for a reservation to be sure the specific piece of ground you want to sleep on is available on the specific date you choose. I realize you'll still object to that, but at least complain about the correct thing.

dahkota You said "you asked about when the 60 day limit was put in place. As far as I can tell, before 2009."

Thanks! That's at least 4 years ago. Hmmmm.

Also, thanks for taking the time to analyze and post your assessment of the lawsuit (on the previous page of this thread). Very insightful. Much appreciated.

Thanks Mr. Crandall. It's good to hear a voice of reason. The currently proposed plan looks more like a solution in search of a problem than anything else.

As for those that abhor profit, may I remind everybody that we do live in a capitalistic society whose profits fund the taxes that make the NP possible...

First, I am not nor have I ever been in the employee of the federal government nor one of its entities or contractors. My mother worked for NIH 35 years ago and that is the extent of my ties to NPS.

I mentioned some problems with the lawsuit. I found quite a few. A couple are here.

The plaintiffs confuse a "tax" with a "fee." In fact, they go back and forth with the title. But:"A fee is a charge for use of a service or amenity. A tax, on the other hand, while it may be applied to a particular good or service or more generally to the population at large, is collected to raise general purpose revenues.A fee is distinct from a tax in that, '[u]nlike a tax, a special fee is not designed to raise revenues to defray the general expenses of government, but rather is a charge imposed upon persons or property for the purpose of defraying the cost of a particular governmental service.' A tax takes a cut of some other transaction for the purposes of raising revenue that's not connected to the activity being taxed. A fee, on the other hand, is a charge connected to the actual direct governmental cost of the activity."

The lawsuit confuses the term “Fee Area” with the term “Fee.” The NPS must announce in the Federal Register and follow guidelines for Public Participation for FEE AREAS. However, the Secretary has pretty much free reign on imposing Fees with the exception of creating an Advisory Council. However, he is free to disregard the advisory council. Because of this, Count VIII is irrelevant. (we could argue best practices, such as found in DO-22 below, but best practices are just that.)

Count IV doesn't even make sense. I think the plaintiffs misunderstand the statement, "...Nothing in this chapter shall limit the use of recreation opportunities only to areas designated for collection of recreation fees."

Count III. The lawsuit argues that NPS is not allowed to charge an entrance fee in GSMNP. However, the backcountry permit fee is not an entrance fee, it is an overnight camping fee or a reservation fee. There is no fee charged for entering the park – there is a fee charged for getting a permit to stay in the park overnight.

Count II isn't related to the fee.

The only fee the NPS must get public input for is when they want to designate a new FEE AREA. I have looked through a few years of the Federal Register and found very little with regard to implementation of fees and the NPS. Unlike the Forest Service or BLM, the rules are a little different for the NPS.

These might help in relation to the position of NPS:

http://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/DO-22.pdf

note on page 16 (10.1) fee approval process. (10.3) states public notice and difference of Fee Area.

http://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/75A.htm

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/chapter-87

If the fee goes away, so be it. As mtnliving stated, I am not for the fee nor am I against it. I do however, personally, like the reservation system. It beats showing up and having to turn back or sleep with 11 loud, smelly boyscouts.

People can condemn and protest and petition the fee all they like. I just don't think they have a leg to stand on legally. If it gets rescinded, it will be due to public pressure, not the filed lawsuit.

I think what may result will be a hybrid. People will be free to reserve on the system and, up to 24 hours in advance, if any space is left, they can get one in person for free. Kind of like walk in camping.

Mtliving,

You are correct. I don't think a change in superintendents will have any effect on the fee at all. It sounds to me like the people who wrote it are sending a message to the NPS just like the TN state house of representatives. In reading the petition it objects to Dale Ditmanson's misrepresentations and dealings with the public. The very things we have been arguing about here that most folks don't wish to address. All I have heard here is that it doesn't matter that Ditmanson didn't tell the truth, repeatedly. And back to your point, there is nothing that can be done about it short of exposing the NPS through a lawsuit. I will bet that the NPS isn't happy with their Superintendent over his handling of this and wish they courld turn back the clock. That petition to recall Ditmanson is just another example of citizens doing whatever it takes to have their voices heard in a non responsive National Park System.

And Jim, to your point about the fireflies, I would suggest you quit taking what the Sugarlands issues in the form of press releases as gospel. Since I have been going to Elkmont to view the fireflies for decades, I can tell you that parking was tight but it didn't need a big govt solution. It darn sure didn't need a handy dandy fee from Canadian Based recreation.gov to fix things around here.

Sure, I'll take the latest bait from SmokiesBackpacker :-)

It's sad he assumes that disagreement with his position is coming mainly from "a lot of NPS employees." There are quite a few people out here (including me) who are not govt. employees but who have a different opinion that his.

Perhaps more important is the point that at least some of us who disagree with him also don't "support" the fee - we just don't object to it. That's a subtle but very important difference, and helps account for why there were relatively few comments on this topic other than from those who opposed the fee during the public comment period. The 18-1 ratio doesn't necessarily reflect overall public opinion on the subject - it's more an indication that the opposition did a great job rallying the troops, while most of the rest of us simply didn't care enough one way or the other to take time to comment.

For reasons already covered previously, there are valid reasons for a reservation system for at least the more popular sites during the busier season. If that could be done without a fee, great, but if it requires one, that's fine with me.

Finally, there's an assumption by some that if there is a change in superintendents, the fee will automatically go away. May not be the case, and the question of a fee and reservation system should be decided on the merits of the system, not personalities.