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
Thanks - those details on backcountry site use are certainly more useful than an annual average. As one might expect, use is seasonal and varies a lot among sites, but you are correct in stating that based on this data, for quite a few sites it's hard to see any sign of high demand. The referenced chart unfortunately doesn't show how many (if any) nights that any sites are "full."
Given the number of sites and the large geographical area, it shouldn't be a big surprise that a lot of detailed information doesn't seem to be available on this subject. It would be a very labor-intensive process to try to gather actual use data on a nightly basis for even the most popular sites.
I haven't looked to see how long backcountry permits have been issued, but perhaps the easiest estimate of use would be for someone to go back over several years of permits and compile a chart of permits issued per site per night. Sounds like a good project for a professional paper for a student :-) Perhaps that's already been done.
re: the limits on backcountry camping to "not more than 30 consecutive days in the backcountry or 60 days total in a one year period." That doesn't seem unduly restrictive, and would allow, for example, someone to make a weekend backcountry camping trip every weekend for 30 weekends a year, or camp for a full week at various sites over 8 weeks a year, and still have a few days left over.
I'd think the idea is to keep someone from becoming a long-term seasonal "resident" of the backcountry, and that's not unreasonable in a national park. Anybody fortunate enough to have the opportunity to spend more time than that in the backcountry can do so in very similar terrain and scenery - and at no cost - in the nearby Pisgah National Forest.
As to limits on stays in front-country campgrounds in the park, "No person or their equipment shall occupy a campground for more than (14) fourteen consecutive days. Long periods of stay are inconsistent with the management of public campgrounds, which are intended to provide a short-term national park camping experience to all interested visitors."
You'll find that information, along with the 30 and 60 day limits for the backcountry, on page 8 of the park's "compendium of regulations." There's a link on this page on the park website: http://www.nps.gov/grsm/parkmgmt/lawsandpolicies.htm
Just a point of clarification. When a national park justifies a reservation system, is it required to prove "high demand" in order to put the reservation system in place?
The FAQs (thanks again [color=#0000ff]dahkota[/color] for finding those) list improvements to customer service, not high demand, as basically the raison d'être for the new system. (Again, see http://www.nps.gov/grsm/parkmgmt/bc-reservation-permit-faq.htm )
Seems to me that everything is going digital. Manual systems are, by comparison, archaic and time-consuming for staff to maintain. So, from a park management perspective, I would also think an online system is also preferable for ease of use, efficiency, and best use of park ranger/park staff time.
Mtnliving - thanks for reference to http://www.nps.gov/grsm/parkmgmt/lawsandpolicies.htm
And I agree with you, a 60-day limit does not seem unduly restrictive IMHO. I can well understand that the national parks don't want people moving in and living there for months at a time. Portions of Pisgah National Forest seem to have a homeless population (in the Brevard NC area, for instance, where the homeless have essentially made that National Forest their year round home).
I think the "less than 2 campers per night" comes from this:
"Backcountry Campsites
More than 100 sites, including shelters. More than 77,000 overnight visits per year."
http://www.nps.gov/grsm/parkmgmt/statistics.htm
(77,000/100)/365=2.1 (average 770 back country visitors per site per year divided by number of days per year).
Looking at the numbers posted by SmokiesBackpacker, it is readily evident that some months are a lot less crowded than others. Some sites, at the height of summer, have an average of 8-12 per day, some in winter have 0 per day.
Overall, the backcountry doesn't seem to be crowded and during certain times of the year, it is not. However, during peak travel time (April-October), it can get pretty busy back there.
I went into the reservation system just to see how it worked. There are sites and shelters that are very heavily booked for the next thirty days, particularly weekends. The benefit of this system is that, since I hate crowds, I can find a campsite that doesn't have 7-11 other people already booked there and plan my trip accordingly. I can also see which campsites are already fully booked rather than having to find out at the last minute that my plans need to change. For me it's a win and worth the $4 per night.
So, low campsite demand isn't a justification for a fee, and public input isn't a justification for a fee and adherence to the adminstrative procedures act isn't relevant and restricting usage of public lands to a proscribed number of nights is irrelevant and telling people when they sign off on their permit they can't burn paper or wood bigger than your wrist are all just normal requests. Oh, also, you have to have a printer, a credit card and internet access to go through all this bureaucratic red tape. Really? All to justify charging people for what was a perfectly simple, walk to the trailhead and fill out a permit system. Only the federal govt could employ multiple layers of bureaucracy and charge citizens for the privilege despite their wishes to the contrary. It may be okay for those of you who never come down here but it is stupid, unnecessary and unwanted. Those facts are undeniable. Seeing how many people are in a campsite is a safety issue for parking your car at a trailhead in my opinion. Not to mention the likelihood of compromising your credit card. No, I'm sorry. No arguments here have moved me in any position. Again, public input is irrelevant, multiple counties and the Tn state legislature call for repeal and folks here still disagree. The votes are in. Fee is improperly vetted, misrepresented by Ditmanson and challenged in court.
As dahkota notes above and previous comments have noted, there are advantages of this system for those who want to be assured of having a site during busier seasons of the year or at the more popular locations, or who would prefer to pick a spot that will be less crowded. None of those are possible with a "fill out a permit at the trailhead system."
That said, it seems pretty clear reservations are not needed for much of the year at quite a few sites. Is there a way to satisfy all of those conflicting needs and opinions? No easy answers.
SmokiesBackpacker -- I'm not trying to change your position. I'm trying to understand what makes this reservation system and its fee illegal -- that is, what the clear legal basis is for a lawsuit.
That's why I ask what justification is required (legally, such as per FLREA) to move to an online reservation system. From what I can tell so far, it seems to me (1) its not illegal; and (2) the justification and benefit is in improvements to customer service. For instance, the benefits dahkota already mentioned ("I can find a campsite that doesn't have 7-11 other people already booked there and plan my trip accordingly. I can also see which campsites are already fully booked rather than having to find out at the last minute that my plans need to change. For me it's a win and worth the $4 per night.") plus this system is available 24/7 (very convenient); you don't have to drive from wherever and wait until the day you arrive to find that the site(s) or shelther(s) you want are already booked. If you don't have a computer, laptop or smart phone, you can call the office and do it over the phone.
I don't see that limiting overnight camping to a certain number of consecutive nights or a certain number of nights per year is illegal either. It's already done in other national parks. GSMNP isn't the first. And I can see that its not in keeping with either the spirit of the national parks nor the mission to have people moving in and living there year round. The parks were intended as a place for citizens to experience temporary recreation and retreat, not a long-term living arrangement.
I can see that the locals don't care for this reservation system, but the park doesn't belong to just the locals and it doesn't serve just the locals. The park belongs to all citizens in America and so upgrades to its systems and services should serve everyone, to the extent possible. If this new system is found by the courts to be illegal, then I will be the first to admit I'm wrong. But to date, while I see that some don't like it, I can't see what is illegal about it.