This map, said to have come from Blackberry Farm Resort, shows two trails -- the Boundary Trail and the Blair Gap Trail -- that are not listed on Great Smoky Mountains National Park's official trail map/Southern Forest Watch
Sometime in recent years two trails running more than a mile-and-a-half were cut into the backcountry of Great Smoky Mountains National Park, allegedly for the use of a private resort that borders the park, according to court documents.
When contacted by the Traveler, park officials declined to discuss the trails, or even acknowledge their existence, as their presence has been raised in litigation. However, the "Boundary Trail" and "Blair Gap Trail" depicted on a trail map purportedly handed out by the Blackberry Farm Resort do not match any trails on the park's official trail map. Together they run along the park's western boundary roughly from the Beard Cane Trail to the Cane Creek Trail. Officials at the resort, where rooms start at $745 a night, had no immediate comment when asked about the trails this week.
A trail of downed trees allegedly marked an illegal trail cut in Great Smoky Mountains National Park/Southern Forest Watch
The existence of the trails surfaced in connection with a lawsuit brought against the Park Service by Southern Forest Watch, a nonprofit group organized to overturn the park's $4 per night fee charged on backcountry travelers. Though not central to the fight over the backcountry reservation system, the group pointed to the "illegal trail system" as part of a pattern of "political patronage" that former park Superintendent Dale Ditmanson oversaw. Mr. Ditmanson, who instituted the backcountry fee system in 2013, retired from the Park Service earlier this year.
By allowing the Blackberry Farm Resort to maintain these trails for the use of their customers and residents, Great Smoky Mountains officials were limiting the general public's access to the park's backcountry and allowing it to be impaired, charges Southern Forest Watch's lawsuit.
The Park Service, in court documents responding to Southern Forest Watch's complaint, denied allowing a "private resort to maintain and utilize their own separate, exclusive network of trails into, on and within the boundaries" of the park. However the agency did admit that there was a signpost with a map box located outside the park boundary and that "any signs that were erected within Park boundaries by Blackberry Farm Resort were erected without permission from NPS and have since been removed."
These ATVers allegedly were entering Great Smoky Mountains National Park from the Cane Creek Trailhead/Southern Forest Watch
The trail map showing the Boundary and Blair Gap trails came from the map box on the signpost, according to Southern Forest Watch's lawyer.
The trail signs and maps were found by John Quillen, a member of Southern Forest Watch. A park volunteer who regularly hikes the Cane Creek Trail to help maintain it, Mr. Quillen discovered the Boundary Trail in 2009 when he came upon a trail of trees that had been chainsawed down. He and some friends also heard a chainsaw at work, and encountered riders on two all-terrain vehicles who allegedly claimed they had come from Blackberry Farm. Photos of a trail sign, the ATV, and downed trees are part of Southern Forest Watch's court filing.
No court date for the matter has been set.
Comments
Kurt, I already stated in this thread, that I take the accusations of ATV use, and trail cutting seriously, especially in park boundaries. I'm in the park a lot, and I never have yet to see evidence of ATV use. And yes, you are right, no one can just go into the park, and start cutting down trees. Where these photos were taken is not made clear in this article. As I stated, I plan on going to this specific area to fact check. Something that should have been done before an article like this was posted.
Yeah, and I take pride in my job, and what I do to help the park. I'm part of an organization that helps fund many programs that aid the park. We promote and help fund education, science and research to keep it protected. So, don't think for a second, I think of it as something negative.
Kurt,
Kudos to you for following up on this issue. While there may be no malfeasance, your article appropriately brought up the issue and never declared judgement. As Prince Hamlet would say, Gary doth protest too much.
Gary, in reporting on court cases, journalists are not judges and jury, nor law enforcement investigators. It's not my role to travel across the country and hike into the backcountry of the Smokies with GPS in hand to verify or debunk the allegations made in the lawsuit, as you suggest.
And, indeed, that's how the article presented them, as allegations, not fact.
At the same time, the fact that neither the National Park Service nor Blackberry Farm would comment raises an eyebrow or two, no? If the trails are historic and allowed, as you say, why wouldn't the Park Service say just that instead of refusing to discuss the issue when I called? Indeed, in their court filings they acknowledge that Blackberry Farm at one point did indeed erect trail sides inside park boundaries.
If the trails are outside the park's borders, why wouldn't Blackberry Farm say they do indeed have trail maps for their guests, but they're not accurate?
I look forward to learning what you discover on your GPS trek. Surely, the plaintiffs believe they found these trails, trail signs, and cut trees inside the park, as well as the ATVers, otherwise they wouldn't have raised these allegations and presented the photos and maps as evidence.
That would be from Gertrude, not Hamlet.
Gary, thank you, your looking into the issue would be of interest to me. I must agree with Kurt, what raised my eyebrows was the refusal to comment on the issue by both the NPS and the resort. I do think it is important to comment on issues, the governmental agencies work for all citizens, mistakes are made, if that is the case here, we are only human. Hiding behind the litigation issue just fuels the fire. One example, I was involved in a prescribed fire several years ago, fire is a touchy business, a mistake was made that impacted visitors, employees and the the business community. The top manager of the Park did just an outstanding job by immediately going to the community and the media and stating a "mistake was made" all responsibility for said rested on his desk. What a difference it made, no spin, no stonewalling. In my own view s/he was a top flight person.
Kurt's explanation of the role of the journalist in general and the nature of this issue in particular goes straight to the core of the matter. If Blackberry Farms and the GSMNP are blameless, then they should be more than willing to go on record to that effect. Of course, as Kurt notes, the GSMNP has, in a response to the lawsuit, already acknowledged the accuracy of some of the information. As for Blackberry Farms, silence is, to the average person, at the very least suggestive (and they have no lawsuit behind which to hide).
I personally do not have first-hand information on this particular situation, although both my judgment and past history suggest that there is every likelihood that Blackberry Farms did cut and clear on trails and that the NPS turned a blind eye. In the past in the GSMNP I have personally witnessed,and not once but repeatedly, special treatment of politicians and economically powerful people on Hazel Creek. They stayed in the Calhoun House AND had rangers to assist them (ferrying them across Fontana Lake, giving them rides up and down the creek, and even cooking) while the hoi polloi made do in campsites. Then there's the well-known, long running situation with summer getaway cottages on the TN side of the Park. Or, to expand beynd the parameters of the Smokies, look at the case of Ranger Danno.
My point is a simple one. There is plenty of history of the NPS, in the Smokies and elsewhere, giving special privileges to bigwigs. I think common sense tells us that such has been the case with Blackberry Farms.
If so, no matter how one spins it, that's wrong--wrong on the part of the NPS and Blackberry Farms.
Jim Casada
Hey Gary.
You keep admonishing "that group" and suggesting "that group" is not to be believed.
I believe King George III called us "rabble."