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
Mtnliving, I can understand what you're saying. The amenities I most enjoy in the national parks are the natural ones -- the trails, views, trees, streams, wildlife, the scent of fresh mountain air, camping out under the stars with no light pollution -- all the things you can't find in metro areas or suburbs or city parks. I don't understand all the whining about the day hikers or horseback riders or the manmade amenities that others use in the parks.
If "free" is what you want most, then be a day hiker or bicycle rider for the day. If overnight is what you want, then pay the small fee to camp be happy with your choice. Seems to me, if one is so angry about paying the overnight fee, one would be tied up in their own rage and could not even enjoy the park. IMHO it's wiser to either pay the fee and feel gratitude for the opportunity to camp at GSMNP or find someplace or something that is free and feel good that you're getting it totally free.
Amenity:
1. The quality of being pleasant or attractive; agreeableness.
2. Something that contributes to physical or material comfort.
3. A feature that increases attractiveness or value, especially of a piece of real estate or a geographic location.
I see nowhere in those definitions a description of anything provided by the NPS to constitute an amenity in the Smokies. I see things provided by the God and given to the federal government by ETN and WNC residents plus a gifty by the Rockefellers, but no "amenity" provided by the NPS. The trails leading into the park are maintained by a "gift" from the Aslan foundation that pays for trail maintenance. When you look at the Smokies budget, hardly any of it goes to the backcountry. FLREA specifies that a minimum of amenities must be provided before the NPS can charge citizens to use public lands. A trail that is maintained by volunteers is not an amenity, neither is a cumbersome registration system that was wholly rejected by the public. Of course, none of this matters that the peoples wishes are irrelevant here. This is Ditmanson's park and he is king. Being King means there is no oversight and you make the rules as you go along. Soon they will be charging to park at trailheads. Now you have to pay to see fireflies. did the NPS provide that "amenity". They play God all the time but that is a stretch even for them.
The discussion has turned to what is/is not an 'amenity.' But its my understanding that the fee in question -- the one over which the lawsuit has been initated -- is a fee for a service. That service is a reservation system. Is it illegal for the national park system to charge a service fee for a service provided in the national parks?
Take a look at FLREA. It gives you specifics about the number of amenities for which they must provide before meeting the criteria to charge you for this "service". A "service" that no one wants to solve a problem that was created to justify the "service". You know its b.s. That "service" is going to generate 200k per year. That's some darn expensive reservation system "service". You going to tell me it costs that much? There is a guy down here who volunteered to provide that reservation system free of charge to the Superintendent and he laughed at the offer. Why would you ever take something for free when you can double tax citizens for a govt offered "solution" for a problem which didn't exist?
Haven't ever used this reservation system and I have no idea how much it costs to design, maintain and/or support such a system. I imagine that, as with most reservation systems today, there has to be secured and standardized software (for instance, standardized with all the rest of the national parks in the system? How could the system be "free" if it is part of the nps.gov standard system?), technical staff available to immediately correct day to day glitches and system problems when they arise, and also support staff available by phone for those campers who either don't have computers or email in order to use the electronic version of the system. How much would all that cost? Don't have a clue. I would say the best determination of this would be a comparison with the annual cost of the backcountry reservations systems used in all the other national parks which currently have them in place.
To be honest, I don't know anything about FLREA. From googling the term just now, I assume that's the federal lands recreation enhancement act that was put in place in the Bush administration about 10 years ago. Right? Does this act prohibit backcountry reservations systems? If so, how have all the other national parks with backcountry reservations fees put them in place and kept them in place legally? I could be wrong, but if this reservations fee is illegal, seems it would be illegal nationwide in all national parks. Also, I would think the federal government would have already been challenged on this and would have obtained legal input to verify the legality of backcountry reservation systems and associated fees under FLREA prior to going to the trouble to install the systems. Have there been other lawsuits brought against this backcountry reservation system used at any of the other national parks?
Ha! Just found one potentially-related lawsuit brought by Western Slope No-Fee Coalition. In this one (free access to forest service property, not a national park), the settlement "ensures free access to the trails and backcountry of the Mt. Lemmon Recreation Area, near Tuscon." Is this the same legal basis as the current lawsuit related to GSMNP?
http://www.adventure-journal.com/2013/01/another-forest-service-fee-bites-the-dust/
Here is the complete court document on this case (this is a pdf file):
http://www.westernslopenofee.org/pdfuploads/2012_02_09_Mt_Lemmon_Decision_Reversed_and_Remanded.pdf
The part that stands out for me is the next-to-last page which states:
[8]
Finally, the Forest Service claims that it may charge a
fee for any and all camping within the Mount Lemmon HIRA.
The REA, however, clearly prohibits fees “[f]or camping at
undeveloped sites that do not provide a
minimum number of
facilities and services as described in subsection (g)(2)(A).”
16 U.S.C. § 6802(d)(1)(E);
see 16 U.S.C. § 6802(g)(2)(A)
(requiring a “developed” campsite to provide “at least a
majority” of nine specified facilities and services). The Forest
Service violates that prohibition by charging visitors who
camp at sites lacking the required “minimum number” of nine
“facilities and services.” For example, a camper who pitches
a tent in a spot without garbage cans, picnic tables, campfire
pits, bathrooms, and someone collecting fees is required to
pay a standard amenity. That plainly violates § 6802(d)(1)(E).
Mtnhiker, you have now opened the door and light is shining in. I wish folks would do proper diligence like yourself to see what is being challenged in court with regard to the Smokies Fees. Granted, the Forest Service and NPS have different angles on FLREA. That is what the Smokies Backcountry Fee lawsuit is challenging. It will have implications for the entire NPS and authorization for fees under Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement ACt. Its a bad law and bad policy. I hope it gets changed soon.
SmokiesBackpacker I have numerous questions about this. I'll start with two of them.
1. The Mt. Lemmon case is public knowledge and legal precedent. But I had to spend time searching to find it myself -- and I'm not even opposed to the fee!!!. The supporters of this lawsuit need to do their own due diligence and present it clearly to the dubious public -- like me. Of all those who support the GSMNP lawsuit, both here on this thread and over at Southern Forest Watch, why has not one person even bothered to mention it? This is a no-brainer. This ruling should be clearly presented front and center on the home page at Southern Forest Watch and brought up on every thread where supporters of the lawsuit post. If they want to *educate* the public, then this legal precedent is a crucial foundation stone. When presented in a logical, rational, factual manner (not all the wild-eyed trauma drama, whining, and anger of a temper tantrum that is going on at Southern Forest Watch and some here as well), this is the way to form a foundation for educating other citizens about the merits of the GSMNP case. So my first question is: Why has the Mt. Lemmon ruling not been used by supporters (here on this thread on the home page at at Southern Forest Watch) to make a rational and common sense debate point about the merits of the GSMNP lawsuit?
2. The Mt. Lemmon Recreation Area case clearly finds the government cannot charge for the right to hike or camp where there are no (or virtually no) man-made amenities. However, that ruling doesn't address the federal government charging a fee for a reservation system. To me, that makes the GSMNP lawsuit somewhat different from Mt. Lemmon. The GSMNP fee is not a direct charge for a campsite or a hiking trail. It's the fee for the service of reserving the campsite (even though that site has virtually no amenities). In all honesty, I would think the federal government (they're not *that* dumb afterall) would have done their own due diligence to ensure a reservations service fee is not contrary to FLREA. So, why has no other national park backcountry reservations system been deemed illegal based on FLREA? They've obviously been in place a lot longer.