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
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.
"Tickets to see the fireflies" are a little off topic, but since they do involve a small fee, that's appropriate here.
A few years back, the popularity of the firefly viewing reportedly resulted in traffic snarls, people having to come hours ahead of time to try to find a parking space, and safety concerns with pedestrians and vehicles trying to negotiate the same roadway in the dark.
The current system allows visitors to reserve a guaranteed parking spot for a $1.50 reservation fee (covers a vehicle and up to 6 people). A shuttle bus from parking area to viewing area is provided by the City of Gatlinburg and costs $1 a person. The park doesn't receive any of these funds.
For those who object to this plan, I'd be curious to hear what they suggest as a reasonable alternative.
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.
Mtnliving -- you hit the nail on the head when you say: "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"
Just because one doesn't live in the greater Knoxville and backpack in GSMNP 60+ days a year doesn't mean one's opinion should be automatically discounted as that of "an NPS employee." Many of us represent the average 'Jane & John Q. Public' who value the parks and use the parks and camp in the parks, but don't live close enough to camp in GSMNP every weekend.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'm not *for* more fees, higher fees, this fee, that fee. Much like Mtnliving said, I'm simply not against the fee in question and I can see value and benefits in an online reservation system. Mainly, I want to understand why such a reservation system or the fee for it is illegal.
As far as I can tell at this point, both the reservation system and the associated fee to use it appear to be quite legal per FLREA. So, to my mind, the only way to get rid of the fee is to get rid of FLREA. I have to say, at this point, the lawsuit in question appears to me to be more like a personal vendetta against the head dude at GSMNP by folks who think of themselves as somehow victimized rather than a rational and sound approach to rooting out illegal activity in the national park system. Of course, I could be wrong, and we will all see what the judge says about it.
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, '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.
Quote from Ranger Dave.Submitted by Ranger Dave on May 6, 2013 - 11:19pm.
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 couldn't agree more with Ranger Dave. Regards The Tennessee House of Representatives and the backpacking fee at Smokies I initially found the subject interesting. But there are other interesting posts that get no comment. As far as I am concerned many of the regular posters are obviously anti-governmemt idealogues who also hate the idea of National Parks. They also hide behind fake names and I think should be ignored by those not afraid to say who they are and where they might be coming from. I left NPT for a year or more and may do so again. Most of us could care less what the Tennessee House says, and have no objection for paying a fee to camp.
Roger - you couldn't be more wrong. I don't think there is a single person here that hates the idea of National Parks and I challange you to provided a quote from anyone stating so.
Mountainhiker - you asked about when the 60 day limit was put in place. As far as I can tell, before 2009. Here are the exact words:
"Stay limits: Persons may not stay more than three (3) nights in a row at any backcountry campsite or more than one (1) night in a row at any backcountry designated shelter.Persons may not stay more than 30 consecutive days in the backcountry or 60 days total in a one year period. Stay limits at backcountry sites are imposed to minimize the impacts associated with longer-term use and/or to offer additional persons the opportunity to use high-demand sites."
This comes from the Federal code of regulations, title 36, chapter 1. It was updated July 1, 2011. Previously updated May 2009. Changes between 2009 and 2011 are noted at the beginning. The stay limit does not appear in the update list and therefore occured before May 2009.
http://www.nps.gov/grsm/parkmgmt/upload/2011-GRSMNP-Compendium-FINAL-7-0...
The lawsuit also mentions some strange "new" rules regarding fires. I could find nothing anywhere which stated that, in the backcountry, branches had to be smaller than someone's arm or that paper couldn't be burned with the exception that it is unlawful to burn trash. But that has always been the case and is the case in the front country also.
The lawsuit notes that backcountry camping can only be done in designated campsites and shelters, which has always been the case (at least since 2009) but then complains that the new rules take away the freedom that previously existed.
Anyway, my impression of the lawsuit is that it was lazily put together to get publicity with the thought that no one would actually read it and, if they did, not bother to look at it closely. I'm very interested in the parts related to a "political patron" and a private resort, but I haven't found anything related to those yet.