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
It just hit me that ec and several others here are actually exhibiting symptoms of that "entitlement mentality" that is so despised by conservatives among us. Interesting.
ec, yep, you're correct about 1983 not being very "recent." When we had this discussion before, I believe you disagreed when I said this subject went back several decades. I was just confirming it's a topic with some history.
And I'd also agree that the percentage of fees as part of the total NPS budget hasn't grown significantly in the past few years; most of the obvious sources of fee revenue in parks, such as higher entrance fees and new fees for programs, etc. have already been tapped.
There's not much room for growth in the area of user fees without stiring up the kind of fight we're seeing in the Smokies - but that doesn't mean some politicians are any less enamored with the idea that parks ought to pay more of their own way. The spirit of James Watt is still alive and well in some circles in Washington.
I'd guess many park managers at all levels don't see much hope of additional financial help from Congress, so the message - and their only other option - has been "figure out someplace else to get the money."
And so, we find ourselves in the current situation that arose from one of those attempts to raise some money at the park level.
You know Jim, I don't have a problem with fees per se. But I think Smokie has a very valid point that the whole approach at GSMNP has been wrong.
Mountainhiker,
Yes. thank you for addressing the issue. The last sentence says that there will be no increase in overall annual revenue as the result of this proposed increase as this will simply be a new fee to cover the rec.gov service fees.
Any other use of funds from the backcountry fee is exceeding their authorization by the DOI, All the NPS employees posting here can change the conversation to poor mouthing about the NPS but you have extracted the very language that contradicts all this feel good, help the park nonsense.
Thanks for looking at the document.
SmokiesBackpacker, I'm glad to help pinpoint the text under discussion. That paragraph is pretty straightforward IMHO.
I get it that the new fee covers only the cost of the reservation system and doesn't generate funding to support other areas of the park or any other park expenses. What I don't get is why this reservation fee would be considered illegal (and I assume it is indeed considered illegal by those who have brought a lawsuit against the national park system).
A recurring complaint from SmokiesBackpacer is that "there are NO amenities in the smokies backcountry, right? When I say no amenities I mean none."
As best I can tell, the Smokies have more miles of trail than any other national park except Yellowstone, which is four times the size of GSMNP, and has been a park for over 60 years longer. I'd call over 800 miles of trails and the associated bridges, signs, etc. some pretty important "amenities" for backpackers in this terrain. As this story notes, off-trail travel in much of the Smokies isn't much fun, or a great idea.
Maintenance of these facilities require time and money by both the park and a host of dedicated volunteers, as covered in another story on the Traveler today about the completion of the huge trail clean-up and repair job following the April 2011 tornado, along with other trail work in the past year or so.
I enjoy using the trails in the Smokies and other parks when I visit, but I don't expect them to get as large a share of the park budget as other facilities. As best I can tell from a quick search on-line, backcountry stays in GSMNP amount to less than one percent of the total visitation, and the reported "over 400,000 hikers" who use park trails amount to about 5% of the park visitation.
Like it or not, most of the money and staffing will go to serve the needs of the majority of park visitors, and that is true everywhere, not just in this park.
The exact same amenities that day hikers use for free. And that applies to rangers and SAR that someone mention earlier as well.
True to only some extent. Most day hikers don't get very deep into the backcountry, and I'd guess that some of the more expensive and complex SAR incidents involve overnight backcountry users, who are further off the road in many cases.
So, maybe your solution for "fairness" would be to ask day hikers to pay a fee as well? :-) Not a bad idea in concept, but certainly not a practical one.