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
Roger -
I think you're pretty close in your comments, but I sure hope you don't let the little barky dogs nipping around your ankles chase you away.
dahkota You said "you asked about when the 60 day limit was put in place. As far as I can tell, before 2009."
Thanks! That's at least 4 years ago. Hmmmm.
Also, thanks for taking the time to analyze and post your assessment of the lawsuit (on the previous page of this thread). Very insightful. Much appreciated.
Its so surprising that a retired national park service employee would have no problem with regular citizens paying to sleep on unimproved ground. And complimenting another person who identifies themselves as a ranger. It really is like talking to the NPS here!
Surprised to find some retired NPS employees on a blog about national parks?? What a concept :-)
Looks like the basic idea of this whole discussion is just having a hard time sinking in for a couple of readers, though. You aren't paying to "sleep on unimproved ground," you're paying for a reservation to be sure the specific piece of ground you want to sleep on is available on the specific date you choose. I realize you'll still object to that, but at least complain about the correct thing.
That piece of ground is empty most all of the time. Therefore, no need to get "assurance" of a spot. I know. I've been to every backcountry site in the park, multiple times, and stayed at most every one. There has NEVER, EVER, EVER been a time when I was unable to find a spot to sleep in a campsite. Ever. Ever. Ever. Ever. You folks who worry about a "reservation" just don't spend any time down here and fret about the most unnecessary thing.
Shelters are sometimes crowded on weekends and AT thru hiking season. True backcountry folks wish they weren't there. The NPS, in their infinite wisdom, have removed the backcountry sites along the AT in place of a shelter system. More NPS stupidity. They created this clogged shelter system. The AT hikers would rather sleep in a tent anyway and so would I. The new "backcountry specialist" at GRSM has been given offers to open old, abandoned backcountry sites along the AT to reduce that congestion and declined to accept these suggestions from Smokies oldtimers. Again, the NPS knows more than us barefooted locals. I don't know how we ever existed without you. But we did give this land to you. Very different situation here in the Smokies than other parks in that regard, NPS folks.
Excuse me for having a problem with giving more authority to an agency that creates headaches not only for themselves but their "consumers" as well.
I am a regular citizen. I value the national parks. They are a wonder and a gift to all citizens of the United States. I have no problem paying a small fee to sleep on unimproved ground amid the wonders of nature and, in fact, typically prefer unimproved ground in nature to the alternative. If all camping in GSMNP was suddently free, fine by me. If all camping in GSMNP requires a small fee to reserve a site, it just isn't that big of a deal. Why dimimish the beauty and peace of experiencing our nation's preserved parklands by descending into bitter warring?
In the South, we value honesty, integrity and responsibility. All those qualites have been irrevocably broken by the GRSM leadership in their handling of the backcountry fee issue. That is why there is such an uproar over this fee. It is less about the money and more about the character of the NPS which manipulates data and promotes dishonesty. It may be all in a days work at other units but they are going to have to answer for it down here and I am thrilled at the prospect of it.
Folks are angry, that is for sure. And they have good reason to be. The courts will decide the law. The lawsuit will send a message to the NPS next time they try to pull these kinds of stunt. If the NPS were responsive to citizen input, there would be no need for a lawsuit. Unfortunately, this is the only mechanism of reproach. I'll bet the next Superintendent will think twice before manipulating data, don't you?
And the court may decide that Ditmanson didn't follow the adminstrative procedures act. There certainly is no proof of his consultation with the rec advisory board. That is a regulation that was usurped. If they are going to bend the rules to do something, they need to make sure they followed the ones that matter.