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
SmokiesBackpacker I can see that, as you said, "If the Southern Forest Watch prevails, it will have implications for other backcountry fees in other parks." Good point! That would, in fact, be monumental. I don't completely discount that outcome. However, I remain dubious about the validity of the lawsuit.
From a novice's perspective (that is, one who is neither an attorney nor an employee of the federal government), the following scenarios seem to be the possibilities:
1. Southern Forest Watch wins the case. (This means I am either reading FLREA wrong or misunderstanding the basis of the lawsuit - for instance, there is a basis other than FLREA.)
2. GSMNP wins the case. This means the court finds that GSMNP is operating within the letter of the law as presented under FLREA (or whatever other basis the lawsuit is being brought, if FLREA is not it.)
3. GSMNP didn't follow a certain point of administrative process properly, thus the lawsuit wins on one count (administrative process not followed), but not all counts. (For instance, the fee is legal but the process followed to enact the fee left out one step.) However, it seems to me that, in this case, GSMNP could simply start the process (as required by FLREA) all over again and reinstate the fee. (For instance, I see nowhere in FLREA that the public has to agree with the fee, only that the public is given the opportunity to provide their opinion to a proposed fee.)
4. If a reservation systems fee (which is allowed by FLREA) is somehow in and of itself illegal -- as established by some other legal document or court ruling precedent -- this suggests that a lawsuit must be brought to reverse FLREA itself. Which is a much bigger can of worms.
So, that's my cut on it. I still don't see what is illegal about a reservation systems fee under FLREA. So there must be something else involved to bring a lawsuit.
If it is discovered that Ditmanson got the cart before the horse and purchased or agreed to purchase a reservation system and shortened the comments period and exceeds his authorization from the DOI, then this could cause a restart of the procedure. He received authorization to pay for recreation.gov but then did their own system. He also said that congressional reps had no problems with the fee when evidence clearly states that is false. The list goes on and on with regard to his usurping of the administrative procedures act. He mischaracterized the public social data and the campsite overcrowding assertions. Regarding FLREA, the res system is one "amenity". I see no others.
One implication could be eliminating backcountry fees entirely. If that would also mean the end of backcountry reservation systems, opinions will vary on whether that's a desirable outcome. As pointed out in previous comments, such systems require some source of funding if they are to be run on a reliable basis, and a fee paid by those who use the system seems to be the most equitable solution.
The main advantage of reservation systems is the ability of backcountry users to plan a trip in advance, and that's especially valuable for hikers who want to make a multi-day trip that includes several backcountry stops. Many people need to arrange their vacation time far in advance. Without a reservation system, a visitor who travels a long distance to make a backcountry trip could be both disappointed and seriously inconvenienced to find upon arrival that there were no permits available for backcountry sites.
Some will of course question whether there should be any limits on backcountry camping at all. That's an entirely different subject that touches on the problems of both resource damage and a low-quality visitor experience that can occur from uncontrolled camping, especially in heavily-used locations or fragile environments.
Reservation systems are most valuable for visitors who don't live in the immediate vicinity of a park. In places where backcountry camping permits are available on a "walk-up" basis only a day or two in advance, the locals have a distinct advantage in getting a site.
Who would benefit the most if advance reservation systems were eliminated? Certainly not someone coming to the Smokies from Atlanta, or Nashville, or .... It's a question worth asking as part of the current debate.
SmokiesBackpacker -- in reply to your last post:
- "Ditmanson got the cart before the horse and purchased or agreed to purchase a reservation system" -- Have no idea about this but I see where FLREA states:
(b) Advance notice
The Secretary shall publish a notice in the Federal Register of
the establishment of a new recreation fee area for each agency 6
months before establishment. The Secretary shall publish notice of
a new recreation fee or a change to an existing recreation fee
established under this chapter in local newspapers and publications
located near the site at which the recreation fee would be
established or changed.
- "shortened the comments period" -- I don't see anything in FLREA that presents a required timeframe. Can you quote that point from FLREA?
- "exceeds his authorization from the DOI" -- not clear on that either. What did he do to exceed his authorization? Used a different reservation system? I *thought* the reservation system was part of nps.gov -- here https://smokiespermits.nps.gov/ -- but I can't see "below the surface" as to who developed the software, who maintains it, etc. If this software is illegal per FLREA (or any other basis), I have to wonder why the feds would even put it up on the official national nps.gov website .
- "said that congressional reps had no problems with the fee when evidence clearly states that is false." If that is the case, does that make the fee illegal?
- "He mischaracterized the public social data and the campsite overcrowding assertions." Well, I know this won't be popular but -- to be blunt -- if he lied about this, so what? It may well be a character flaw in the man, but mischaracterizing social data and campsite overcrowding is not addressed by FLREA. That is, FLREA doesn't require that overcrowding of campsites be present to justify the reservation system or the fee for it. A reservation system can be put in place for the ease of management and a fee can be charged for it, per FLREA. There is no justification required at all in FLREA that I can find. If I'm wrong, can you find the quote in FLREA which supports your point?
- "Regarding FLREA, the res system is one "amenity". I see no others." Clearly, from FLREA, no other amenities are required at all in order to charge a fee for a reservation system. Below is a direct quote from FLREA under 16 USC Sec. 6802. I've highlighted (G) Use of reservation services. It stands alone. The park doesn't have to provide anything under (A) such as picnic tables or trailer spaces or access roads in OR (B) boat launches OR (C) rental cabins or rented equipment OR (D) OR (E) OR (F) in order to charge a fee for (G) reservation services. Each of them stands alone as a legal basis for a fee.
========================
(g) Expanded amenity recreation fee
(1) NPS and USFWS authority
Except as limited by subsection (d), the Secretary of the
Interior may charge an expanded amenity recreation fee, either in
addition to an entrance fee or by itself, at Federal recreational
lands and waters under the jurisdiction of the National Park
Service or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service when the
Secretary of the Interior determines that the visitor uses a
specific or specialized facility, equipment, or service.
(2) Other Federal land management agencies
Except as limited by subsection (d), the Secretary may charge
an expanded amenity recreation fee, either in addition to a
standard amenity fee or by itself, at Federal recreational lands
and waters under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service, the
Bureau of Land Management, or the Bureau of Reclamation, but only
for the following facilities or services:
(A) Use of developed campgrounds that provide at least a
majority of the following:
(i) Tent or trailer spaces.
(ii) Picnic tables.
(iii) Drinking water.
(iv) Access roads.
(v) The collection of the fee by an employee or agent of
the Federal land management agency.
(vi) Reasonable visitor protection.
(vii) Refuse containers.
(viii) Toilet facilities.
(ix) Simple devices for containing a campfire.
(B) Use of highly developed boat launches with specialized
facilities or services such as mechanical or hydraulic boat
lifts or facilities, multi-lane paved ramps, paved parking,
restrooms and other improvements such as boarding floats,
loading ramps, or fish cleaning stations.
(C) Rental of cabins, boats, stock animals, lookouts,
historic structures, group day-use or overnight sites, audio
tour devices, portable sanitation devices, binoculars or other
equipment.
(D) Use of hookups for electricity, cable, or sewer.
(E) Use of sanitary dump stations.
(F) Participation in an enhanced interpretive program or
special tour.
(G) Use of reservation services.
(H) Use of transportation services.
(I) Use of areas where emergency medical or first-aid
services are administered from facilities staffed by public
employees or employees under a contract or reciprocal agreement
with the Federal Government.
(J) Use of developed swimming sites that provide at least a
majority of the following:
(i) Bathhouse with showers and flush toilets.
(ii) Refuse containers.
(iii) Picnic areas.
(iv) Paved parking.
(v) Attendants, including lifeguards.
(vi) Floats encompassing the swimming area.
(vii) Swimming deck.
=========================
Jim Burnett -- you make a very good points. Thanks for asking the question:
"Who would benefit the most if advance reservation systems were eliminated? Certainly not someone coming to the Smokies from Atlanta, or Nashville, or .... It's a question worth asking as part of the current debate."
The national parks belong to every citizen, not just the locals in the immediate vicinity of a given park, and so need to be managed in such a way as to best serve all citizens who want to visit them.
You guys obviously don't backpack in the Smokies. You are forgetting that the campsites are empty. Per the parks own data there are less than 2 campers per night per site. That is in sites rated for up to 12 and 14 people. There is nothing that needs to be reserved. Therefore, it is no inconveineice to out of towners. The cumbersome registration system that requires a credit card is a hindrance to access to the backcountry. Which is empty, most of the time. They created a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. Period.
Mountainhiker and Jim Burnett, nice points. You seem to have a great grasp on this. I enjoy your evaluations.
Mtn hiker,
You just said that a lying superintendent who manipulated data is irrelevant to the fee issue? Then we will have no basis for agreement here. In the Smokies, we do feel as if deceit and disregard of public perception are relevant. It is a Southern thing. And to us, it is more important that a bad law created to give a bunch of tyrants the authority to double tax citizens for land they donated to the govt. Morals and integrity are what drive this Smokies fee issue. THAT is what is going on trial. I hope it exposes Jarvis and the entire NPS culture that is clouded with deceit, dishonest and targeting of opposing viewpoints.