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.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
And as long as some folks feel that their "facts" are undeniable, but that other people's "facts" are, there isn't going to be much wiggle on this. Add it to the list of unsolvable internet arguments like abortion and circumcision and spend your emotional calories elsewhere.
Rick,I had a good laugh over your post.But it really is so true!
Rick,
What is really on trial here is whether or not the desires of the citizenry have any place in NPS decision making. If you will remember, the genesis of the argument is a proclamation by the TN House of Representatives condeming and calling for a repeal of this "tax". Similarly, three other counties have done the same in addition to the public comments which are 18-1 rejecting this fee. I see a lot of folks here arguing for the fee but their voices were strangely absent when it counted, during the public comment period. Either that means that they weren't aware of the shortened public comment period or didn't care at the time. The NPS can and will do as it pleases despite objections of the public. That is the issue, not all the flimsy justifications presented by the NPS to charge citizens to sleep on unimproved ground through a system that is unnecessary and cumbersome. It will be interesting to see the NPS on trial, answering for their misrepresentations. I sincerely look forward to the wriggling of those who may be deposed.
I have to admit, I always thought that a trial (in this nation, anyway) is based on what is legal. (Which is why I keep asking what is illegal about the reservation system and its fee.)
fwiw, I'm not arguing for the fee. I'm trying to understand what makes it illegal. Lawsuits are based on laws and legality, not personal opinion.
If the legal basis of the current lawsuit is "desires of the citizenry," then I have to ask does FLREA legally mandate that a certain percentage of the United States citizens be contacted for their opinions? Does FLREA require the national park system to tally the "vote," identify what the majority of U.S. citizens request, and then act only as the majority of citizens have voted? And if not FLREA, is there another legal document which requires this?
I realize local counties have "skin in the game" for their share of tourism dollars. And GSMNP represents a huge tourism industry for all counties that surround it, in particular the counties where the roads leading to main entrances are located. I also realize descendants of people who once owned that land in NC and TN (now in GSMNP) have a unique position regarding this park and their free entry to the park, because their land was taken against their will by the U.S. government (be they settlers who lived there a couple hundred years or the indigenous people who lived there for thousands of years).
In terms of this lawsuit, regardless of who has what like or dislike or preference or opinion, doesn't it come down to whether or not some law/legislation/legal agreement has been broken, thus rendering this reservation system and its fee illegal?
MtnHiker,
With regard to legality I am betting that Ditmanson did not properly follow the administrative procedures act in vetting the fee and his lack of consulting the RR advisory board will play into this. Does his misrepresentation of congressional support matter? I don't know from a legal standpoint if it does or doesnt. Regarding the interpretation of FLREA and their ability to charge this fee under the expanded FLREA, you seem to have as good a grasp as the rest of us now. That will be one of the questions in this lawsuit. If you read the lawsuit, there are several charges outside of the FLREA stuff. Part of it refers to the park service organic act as well.
In reading over the lawsuit, I noted that there were many places where the "plaintiffs" had either bad information or were mis-informed. They also make many allegations which they will have to prove.
It will be interesting to see if it goes anywhere and I won't be surprised if lawyers for "the defense" move to have the case dismissed.
Dahkota, what sections are you referring to where there is "bad information".
Sticking in my head at this moment, some of the back country permit history, the 60 day limit. They also make completely unrelated allegations which will be not allowed if it goes to trial as it has no relation to their lawsuit. They kind of threw the baby in (and out) with the bath water so to speak; it seems as if they threw a lot of crap at the wall, hoping some would stick. Unfortunately, that doesn't often work. They have a bunch of points. I will go through it tomorrow and point out the troubling sections if you like.
Honestly, I have no dog in this fight. I love the NPS and GSMNP. I voluntarily donate money to them. I have no problem paying the fee. If it gets rescinded, they will still get my money. And while I am not immediately local, I am close enough to visit a couple of times a year for extended periods (my local parks are Shendandoah and Assateague). I understand, in a limited sense, why some would be against it; I just don't think the reasoning here is sound. But, that is just my opinion. ymmv...