In its biggest political coup to date, a group fighting the backcountry fees charged at Great Smoky Mountains National Park has gotten the backing of the Tennessee State House of Representatives.
In a proclamation adopted April 9, the House expressed its "opposition to the imposition of any backcountry camping fees in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park that are not directly associated with the use of amenities or a commercial purpose and strongly urge an immediate appeal of any such imposed fee."
Previously, the Knox County (Tennessee) Commission, as well the commissions in Bradley and Blount counties in Tennessee and Swain County in North Carolina, condemned the fee and called for its repeal.
The backcountry fee of $4 per night per person, with a $20 per person cap per trip, took effect February 13. It is intended by park officials to help streamline and improve the backcountry permitting process and heighten the presence of rangers in the backcountry.
Pinched by an inadequate budget and unable to charge an entrance fee for any of the roughly 9 million yearly visitors, park officials say they see no way of improving visitor services and protecting backcountry resources without charging users who spend the night in the woods.
The park can't charge an entrance fee because the state of Tennessee, when it agreed to transfer land to the federal government for the park, essentially forbade it.
"By condemning and calling for a repeal of this hugely unpopular and specious tax on backcountry users, the State of Tennessee has proven its intent to provide a voice for citizens that was ignored by the National Park Service as evidenced in the public comments that tallied 18-1 in opposition to the fee," said a statement from Southern Forest Watch, a non-profit group organized to lobby for the fee's repeal.
Comments
SmokiesBackpacker -
If that's true, I have to wonder why you complained so bitterly about the recent decision not to reopen just one backcountry campsite damaged in the April 2011 tornado.
You also complain that the park doesn't devote enough funding to supporting the backcountry.Information posted elsewhere recently says fewer than 1% of visitors to the park spend a night in the backcountry. If your information is correct, that's not due to a lack of campsites, but rather a lack of demand for that activity vs. front-country activity.
I wish there was more money and staffing for the backcountry in every park that has such areas. Some of the best experience in my life have been in the backcountry in places like Glacier and Grand Canyon. No matter what their personal preferences might be, park managers generally have to put most of their resources in places that serve the greatest number of visitors.
SmokiesBackpacker -- I just said FLREA does not address it. My comments are based on FLREA, what it requires and what it never adddresses. Nowhere does FLREA say that a reservations system must be based on overcrowding. As well, the fee does not have to be justified based on overcrowding (or social data or anything of that nature). If I am wrong, please quote the section where FLREA requires such justification. Thanks.
You just discovered FLREA. I am no lawyer and introduced you to it. It is for the court to decide if FLREA applies in the fee issue. My interpretation is that it does apply and they don't meet the minimum number of amenites prescribed.
Jim Burnett,
your comment makes no sense. I am complaining that they permanently closed another backcountry site. Why wouldn't a backcountry camper complain about that? They want people out of their backcountry and the fee imposition and closing of that site make the point for me. Again, the public desires have no bearing upon you NPS people. It is your kingdom and you do as you wish. The public desires be damned.
SmokiesBackpacker -- neither you nor I are attorneys, but we are both intelligent enough to read FLREA and to arrive at, as you say, our own interpretation of it, including its requirements and restrictions. Which statements/requirements in FLREA are you using to arrive at your interpretation that the backcountry reservations system with fees is illegal? Are you referring strictly to the categories of amenities which I posted above?
Thanks.
mtnhiker
SEC. 3. RECREATION FEE AUTHORITY.
3(a) Authority of Secretary.--Beginning in fiscal year 2005 and thereafter, the
Secretary may establish, modify, charge, and collect recreation fees at Federal
recreational lands and waters as provided for in this section.
3(b) Basis for Recreation Fees.--Recreation fees shall be established in a manner
consistent with the following criteria:
3(b)(1) The amount of the recreation fee shall be commensurate with the benefits
and services provided to the visitor.
3(b)(2) The Secretary shall consider the aggregate effect of recreation fees on
recreation users and recreation service providers.
3(b)(3) The Secretary shall consider comparable fees charged elsewhere and by
other public agencies and by nearby private sector operators.
3(b)(4) The Secretary shall consider the public policy or management objectives
served by the recreation fee.
3(b)(5) The Secretary shall obtain input from the appropriate Recreation Resource
Advisory Committee, as provided in section 4(d).
There is no evidence that Ditmanson obtained input from the RRAC. See sec 3(b)(5). That is a starter. This is from the NPS FLREA code found here. http://www.nps.gov/training/tel/Guides/FLRA_Interagency_REA_Handbook_11.17.05.pdf
and also, this: 3(d)(1)(E) For camping at undeveloped sites that do not provide a minimum
number of facilities and services as described in subsection (g)(2)(A).
3(d)(3)(E) Entrance on other routes into the Great Smoky Mountains National Park
or any part thereof unless fees are charged for entrance into that park on main
highways and thoroughfares.
That is a curious piece of language, huh?
SmokiesBackpacker -
If the staff is so determined to get the public out of the backcountry, as you keep insisting, why was so much time and effort spent reopening the trails and one of the two campsites damaged by the tornado? The extent of that damage would have provided a good excuse to write those areas off. Sorry, your claim just isn't supported by all this work.