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
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.
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'.
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.
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!
To clarify, I have absolutely no ties to the National Park Service other than as a visitor to the national parks including GSMNP and a citizen who enjoys the notion that We The People have preserved land not only for ourselves to enjoy as a retreat or vacation, but also for wildlife and the natural ecosystem.
It seems to me that feeling gratitude for the gift is a much higher value than battling and warring over the very place one cherishes and appreciates.
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.
Great idea, but we know who would be against that.
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..
I think it's a damn shame that "poor old underfunded NPS" has been allowed to become 'routine'.