Recent comments

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.

As to the fees RD and several others here continue to miss (ignore, dodge?) the point. It is not that the park charges fees it is that the fee burden is unjustly placed on those that incure the lowest cost to the park.

Finally as to your $8 per person, that number is quite misleading as it is based on the entire population. There are about 138 tax filers and only half of those actually pay taxes which puts the number at more like $32 per tax payer. That number needs to be further adjusted to reflect the percent of those payers that actually visit a park - something around 15% which puts your taxes per payer that actually visited around $200. Of course the 50 percent that don't pay taxes are getting quite the bargain - if they visit a park..

Another interesting piece of evidence is this newly created petition calling for the recall of Smokies superintendent Ditmanson in light of his handling of the fee issue. It comes from Ohio and Kentucky. http://www.change.org/petitions/repeal-the-great-smoky-mountains-np-backcountry-camping-fee?utm_campaign=signature_receipt&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition

That is in addition to this original petition condemning the Smokies backcountry fee at the beginning of the proposal: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/gsmnp_backcountry_fees/signatures

Add to that the public comments which are 18-1 in opposition to the backcountry fee and it would definitely give credence to the notion that I am dealing with a lot of NPS employees here. The small, vocal minority arguing here in a pro fee manner do not reflect the public data. That should raise more than a view eyebrows amongst NPT readers.

Ok, it is more than apparent that everyone here who has ties to the park service supports the fee and all stakeholders (eg taxpayers who pay your salaries) do not.

What a surprise! And you attempt to deflect with the "poor old, underfunded park service" routine.

That line of logic would dictate that every time you call the police, fire or garbage service, you should pay a fee in addition to the tax you pay to have that service provided and in spite of the spirit of creation of the Smokies which, in the words of President Roosevelt at the dedication of the Smokies goes,

" But there is a second danger, a danger from without I hope, for example, that one hundred years from now the Great Smoky National Park will still belong in practice, as well as in theory, to the people of a free nation. I hope it will not belong to them in theory alone and that in practice the ownership of this park will not be in the hands of some strange kind of government puppet.... I hope the use of it will not be confined to people coming hither on government specified days and on government directed tours." It's almost as if he saw this coming.

Better get your tickets to see the fireflies!

Ranger Dave - thank you, thank you, thank you. Gratitude is the key. I realize you are right -- anyone can bring a lawsuit for any reason and it can be based on nothing more than a personal vendetta or perceived victimhood or ordinary pettiness.

Whatever it may be based on, I have been trying to make logical, rational sense of this particular lawsuit and could not. Your higher perspective on the matter is much appreciated.

dahkota -- you said "it seems as if they threw a lot of crap at the wall, hoping some would stick. Unfortunately, that doesn't often work." That was the impression I got as well in my attempts to make heads or tails of it.

I've been absent from comments for a while now because I grew weary of the same old arguements from the same folks on it seems like every issue brought up on this site. I have been reading and have followed much of the banter without commenting. I think I will wade in a little on this one.

mountainhiker, unfortunately lawsuits in this country do not have to be based on whether something is legal or not. Anyone can sue anyone else (or any entity) for any reason they feel like whether it has legal merit or not. Thus our country, and particularly our government agencies, spend a tremendous amount of time and money fighting lawsuits that obviously have no chance in hades of being won just because someone feels that their right to do what they want, when they want, where they want and without any fees or restrictions is being infringed. Perhaps we should take some of the European models where those who bring lawsuits are on the hook for the expenses of the court and the winning party if they lose. That might stop some of this type of legal action.

I do visit national parks frequently over the course of a year and think that the fees I pay for entrance, camping and yes, backcountry camping, give me a great bargin. Heck, I pay $12 to go suffer through a 2 hour uninspired movie at the theater. I think $4 per night to be able to camp in the backcountry of my 600,000 acre national park (one of more that 400 I can visit)is quite a bargin. I spend a lot more than that in gas just to get there. My parents lived in Gatlinburg for over 10 years and I have hiked most of the trails in GSMNP in my 50 plus years of vacationing and living there. This fee is a small price for a service that has been rightly argued here to benefit everyone who wants to camp in the backcountry in this park. To quibble over such a small fee is petty. The locals who see it as an imposition have lost sight of the fact that they are fortunate indeed to live near this park. The closest park to where I live charges me $10 per visit (although I buy an annual pass so the cost per visit is lower as long as I go more than 8 times per year) and then a fee if I want to camp. And the assertion that there are no amenities given to backcountry campers depends on why you enjoy backcountry camping. The amenities I see when I go are the trees, trails, rocks, majestic vistas, the layer upon layer of "smokey mountains" I see, the quiet, the wildlife, the fresh air, the cold,clear water and the opportunity to enjoy this creation without the crowds and their accompanying disturbances. I'll always gladly pay for these amenities forever.

Just for grins, did you know that the NPS budget is less than seven tenths of one percent of the federal budget? Did you also know that the NPS budget represents less than $8 per citizen of this country? This makes the arguement that "my tax dollars pay for this park" seem like a joke and a bad one at that. My wife and I paid $12,000 in federal taxes last year (on a total combined salary of less than $100,000) and I think I get quite a lot for my $8 the NPS gets.

Just sayin'.

Thank you very much for posting that information, Sara. It takes a lot of digging to find anything that may be pertinent to things like this. I, for one, really appreciate your work. The last two items you've listed make some very interesting reading and helped me understand some of the concerns of the organization that will be testifying.

There were also some indications that some of this controversy may stem from requirements in past Congressional actions that had some unintended (or maybe intended) consequences. It will take some more study and thought to try to understand those things and much more of this.

I am interested in your opinion. I find several of the allegations in the lawsuit very troubling in that it indicates a high degree of political patronage and cronyism. You can bet it has riled a lot of feathers in the political world. I'm no lawyer so it should be fun to watch play out.