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, fwiw, I am a Southerner, born and bred. My parents and ancestors have lived here as far back as the 1700s. So I fully understand the Southern culture of personal responsiblity and integrity. We take the responsibility to live our own lives with honesty and integrity. It doesn't mean one can force others to do so. It is a "live and let live" culture.
If the lawsuit is primarily about suing one man because he allegedly lied, that still does not overturn FLREA. And it is FLREA which gives legal foundation for the reservation system and its fee. If, as you say, the lawsuit is really not about the online reservation system, or the $4 per night fee, then it seems more and more as if the lawsuit is about one group's anger towards one man in position power at GSMNP. And, honestly, I can't see that legally attacking that one man or even successfully getting rid of that one man (would the lawsuit do that?) will address the issue in a way that serves the public.
But we live in a litigious society these days and as has been said previously, anybody can sue for anything and it doesn't have to make sense, I suppose. One can sue just because they are angry and for no other reason.
SmokiesBackpacker -- you said: "And the court may decide that Ditmanson didn't follow the adminstrative procedures act."
I can't speak to that. The courts will have to decide whether he did or he didn't. Regardless, I don't believe that makes the reservation system, the fee, or the basis for the fee -- FLREA -- illegal. But the procedural rules appear to be pretty straight forward and I agree with you that he (Ditmanson) should have followed them.
SmokiesBackpacker -- you said: " If the NPS were responsive to citizen input, there would be no need for a lawsuit."
If not following public input is the basis of the lawsuit, I'd like to see where FLREA or any other applicable legislation states that the National Park Service must follow the specific public feedback given to them. I can understand if it were a nationwide vote -- all citizens must provide input into their national park service procedures and management. But it was voluntary. Some people (mostly locals?) provided input. Most citizens across the 50 states didn't. Is the federal government legally obliged to do what the majority public opinion indicates?
Mtnhiker,
I have seen copies of all the public comments and read each one. There were as many comments it seemed from outside the state of TN and NC. Quiet a few from Ohio and Georgia as well. That is why there is a petition to recall Ditmanson from Ohio and Kentucky, I presume.
I imagine if there are thousands or millions of signatures to recall anyone in the government, that might get the Feds' attention. If its a few dozen, I don't know if it would even be a blip on the radar. How has the government responded to this petition?
I have to say again, the more I see or read about this situation, the more it seems like one man is being targeted. I don't know that man personally, have never met him, but it seems to me that the backcountry reservation system fees are a system-wide issue. And even if this one man is recalled/removed or retires of his own accord, the next person in that position will follow the established system. So, I honestly think its the system that the founders of the lawsuit have an issue with -- the National Parks System -- and Congress, the entity which signed into law FLREA.
Actually, SmokiesBackpacker, according to the documents on the website for the group pushing the lawsuit, GSMNP was pretty thorough in following the administrative procedures act. I think you need a new tree.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3rQxlRiSX1Rczd4OV9maENTdG1DenM0ejhkR1hE...
check page 10 and 12.
Don't see where Ditmanson consulted the recreation advisory board in there. Show me where that exists in that document.
Well, Ditmanson is not required to - he is the Superintendent. It is the Secretary's responsibility to get input from the Recreation Advisory Board.
SEC. 3. RECREATION FEE AUTHORITY.
...
3(b)(5) The Secretary shall obtain input from the appropriate Recreation Resource
Advisory Committee, as provided in section 4(d).
Here: http://www.nps.gov/resources/advisoryboard.htm
is information on the Advisory Board, which meets four times per year to consider issues and actions related to the NPS. Ditmanson did everything requested by his Regional Manager.
I will look into that Dakhota but I don't think that going on record as saying there were no complaints from congressional representatives is going to fly very well in a trial. That is deliberate falsification of data. (just like the campsite overcrowding assertions) I can assure you he didn't follow other protocols. Another would be the shortened public comment period. I am going to look into the rules on that. Or you can just provide it since you seem to be in the NPS "know". Let me guess, you are going to tell me that the NPS can shorten the public comment period at their discretion, Im sure. You guys can do whatever you want over there.