Lawsuit against backcountry fee fails

[August W.]

Yes everyone entering the park should pay the same fee. But policing the back country is much more expensive.

I really don't like paying for the same thing twice but if the income taxes aren't enough to cover our parks I will politely pay the extra fee. Perhaps there shouldn't be an equal entry fee for everyone. I think those who cost us the most should pay the most. (Hilarious idea right!?!) Those who spend the majority of their stay on asphalt should pay more than those who spend the majority of their stay on trails. The motor home driver should pay more than the sedan driver, who in turn should pay more than someone just pedaling through. The toilet flusher should pay more than the cat hole digger. Our taxes and those fees together should be more than enough to maintain the park. In short, frontcountry users cost more than backcountry users and should be charged accordingly... and be charged enough to police the backcountry as needed.

[rickb]

Let's start charging an entry fee to get into the Smithsonian Institution and our public libraries first.

[spoonfan]

So after reading the court's ruling, it's evident that the suit had no legs to stand on. The plaintiffs basically didn't prove their case. And the court pointed that out multiple times.

Sad, but me thinks a different organization and a different set of lawyers may have had a fighting chance.

[Tipi Walter]

I found it within 5 minutes of being on the site. Yes, it's not obvious but within 5 minutes, I could find it.

Here's what it says-
"Cross-countrypermits may be purchased by contacting the BackcountryOffice. "

From the page--
http://www.nps.gov/grsm/learn/management/upload/2014-Compendium-all.pdf


And yes, there is a reason that it's buried in the pages.

The Park Service would have a lot more search and rescue operations if the casual or inexperienced backpacker were to do a cross country trip and get lost.

Thanks for the link. I finally found it on the pdf file on Page 16 out of 27 pages of regulations. Here is the Cross Country Permit Regs---

Camping in the backcountry is permitted only at established backcountry sites, except as authorized by a cross-country permit. Cross-country permits are approved and issued through the Backcountry Office. Cross-country camping (at other than designated sites) is permitted under the following conditions:

A desired itinerary is submitted in writing to the Backcountry Office. The itinerary should include a map pinpointing, as closely as possible, route of travel and proposed campsites. The use of horses or other stock is prohibited.


A majority of the trip must be off trail.

The maximum party size is four persons.


A majority of the trip must not use established campsites or shelters.


Campsites must be at least one-half mile from any designated trail, designated campsite, shelter and developed area, one mile from any designated road, and 100 feet from the nearest surface water


Camping in spruce-fir, beech gaps or on grassy or heath balds is prohibited.


The duration of stay at each location cannot exceed one night and the same location cannot be used a second time on the same trip.


Wood fires are prohibited.


Campers are required to obliterate all traces of human presence upon leaving a cross-country camp.

Trips are expected to follow the designated itinerary as closely as possible.
Cross-country hiking is a special use and requires special equipment, training and/or experience. These regulations
are an attempt to permit this special use,while minimizing the potential impact on natural resources.
*********************************************
MY IMPRESSION?
Here's where you need a lawyer---
** You must submit a desired itinerary.
** Itinerary will include proposed campsites.
** Trip must not use established campsites.
** So how the heck can you designate your future unknown campsites as you travel cross country????

[spoonfan]

** So how the heck can you designate your future unknown campsites as you travel cross country????

It's called planning. One can plan based on their ability. Then just look at a map and figure it all out.

[Tipi Walter]

It's called planning. One can plan based on their ability. Then just look at a map and figure it all out.

A map, even a 1:24,000 map, cannot show available tent sites on level ground which are also not full of briars or blowdowns, or on rocks. If my Smokies topo says there's a flat place next to a creek, that does not mean it can be used as a campsite as it could be a rhododendron thicket or a bramble field or covered in rocks.

[rickb]

The NPS gets over $2 billion per year from our tax contributions.

I wonder how much extra they get from these kinds of fees -- above and beyond the cost to collect them.

I see a place for fees for specific specialized services to small groups of people-- but for things like green fees, hotel rooms, staffed campsites, etc. The kinds of things the NPS typically outsources.

[Traveler]

The NPS gets over $2 billion per year from our tax contributions.

I wonder how much extra they get from these kinds of fees -- above and beyond the cost to collect them.

I see a place for fees for specific specialized services to small groups of people-- but for things like green fees, hotel rooms, staffed campsites, etc. The kinds of things the NPS typically outsources.

You could look that up at the library.... presuming you don't have to pay to enter one..... :/

This by no means is a thorough and penetrating view of the NPS funding mechanisms, but should suffice as an 8,000 foot overview for conversation. The NPS budget is set up into two primary spending areas Mandatory and Discretionary. Fiscal year spending has been cut by approximately 6% per year since 2011 (slightly less per year prior to that), during a period of time that saw an increase in park use nationally. The Sequester was a serious cost that magnified funding attrition, along with fires, storms, and other disasters. The NPS Construction funding account, which creates a fair amount of jobs through local contractors has been reduced 70% over the past decade due to lack of funding. This directly impacts some of the issues we discuss on WB relative to sanitation and other park management issues. Entry and service fees collected at the parks are approximately $200 million annually, though not all the money goes back into the parks, some is siphoned off into the general fund.

Prior to this, the NPS was not funded at the levels it should have been to start with, so together the NPS has been scrambling to keep parks open and managed. Suffice to say, the NPS has never been the favored spending item of Congress. NPS conservatively estimates its maintenance backlog at approximately $12 billion.

The NPS has a serious number of congressional mandates for service and conservation provision, these are divided up into the Mandatory and Discretionary portions of the budget. The difference between the two is mandatory spending has to fund all of, or reach a specific percentage of dollar amount on specific items. Discretionary allows the NPS to adjust the level of funding to mandated programs as needed. These include; Educational programs, resource stewardship, visitor centers/first tier accommodation (places to park/view parkland), visitor services, land trust fund management, law enforcement/fire and emergency response, facilities maintenance, staffing, park promotion, and offsetting funding reductions.

There are approximately 400 National Park properties that see something on the order of 320 million visitors a year. The budget figure cited (approximately 2 billion) covers some of the mandatory spending Congress requires, the balance is covered using entry and service fees in the parks. Suffice to say, the entry fees are not nearly enough to keep pace with mandated and discretionary spending needs along with maintenance backlog buy down.

If the NPS was fully funded by taxpayers for its Mandatory and Discretionary spending and entry/service fees were used only to fund the maintenance backlog, it would take approximately 60 years to eradicate the backlog presuming nothing else was added.

As you can see, the problem isn't an easy one to solve.

[ATL Backpacker]

What's most frustrating to me is that via the Friends groups supporting the GSMNP, there was/is plenty of money to fund a reservation system. Millions are spent annually on the visitor centers and other amenities catering to the car crowd. But make the people who impact the park the least pay. Makes no sense. But little of what NPS said in support of the fee did either so I'm not surprised. Just disappointed.

I'd have been ok going to paid-reservations for the shelters and the most busy of campsites. But the other 80% of bc campsites are never at, or even near capacity, on my trips - mostly during weekends during the summer no less. to reserve and charge for those is ridiculous.

[Traveler]

What's most frustrating to me is that via the Friends groups supporting the GSMNP, there was/is plenty of money to fund a reservation system. Millions are spent annually on the visitor centers and other amenities catering to the car crowd. But make the people who impact the park the least pay. Makes no sense. But little of what NPS said in support of the fee did either so I'm not surprised. Just disappointed.

I'd have been ok going to paid-reservations for the shelters and the most busy of campsites. But the other 80% of bc campsites are never at, or even near capacity, on my trips - mostly during weekends during the summer no less. to reserve and charge for those is ridiculous.

The land deed restrictions may not allow a park fee for the traffic on Rt 441 to be charged. The Land Trust has a covenant in the deed about not allowing tolls on the connecting road between TN and NC that was created in the early 1900s so commerce would not suffer. I think this prevents any fees associated with the park along with tolls, etc. It would require TN to legislate the Deed change, but thats not a likely event.

If its difficult for a fee on all autos/trucks, I agree there should be a parking permit process there, much as other National Parks have. You can drive through for free, but if you park anywhere you should need a permit. Even a $5 parking fee for visitors who drive into the park and day hike would make it less targeted.

[bamboo bob]

It's not the GSMNP that restricts a hiker. It's the hiker's choice to go there instead of to other places.[/QUOTE]

Well, the AT does go through there so if you're are doing the AT thru-hike or section, you do have to go through Smokies. You know if you care about doing the white blazes. But I guess you could walk around it.

[HooKooDooKu]

Wow... take a short trip to the GSMNP and come home to find an entire topic exploded...

Since I post so much about the GSMNP, I might as well throw in my 2¢ worth...

I've voiced my opinion on the subject of the back country fees before, so I'm not going to bother to reiterate that again.

I'll simply say that in a selfish way I hoped those that brought on the lawsuit would win, but I never saw where they had much of a legal leg to stand on.

[Andrewsobo]

A map, even a 1:24,000 map, cannot show available tent sites on level ground which are also not full of briars or blowdowns, or on rocks. If my Smokies topo says there's a flat place next to a creek, that does not mean it can be used as a campsite as it could be a rhododendron thicket or a bramble field or covered in rocks.

I'm pretty sure the Backcountry Rangers know that. They are looking to facilitate access, this is being overblown. If you go in with a solid plan to do one of these cross country trips, they will work with you. No one in that office is looking to keep people out of the park. They just want to make sure the people going in are prepared and educated about leave no trace and committed to doing their best to preserve the resource. Have you actually attempted to get a cross country permit? Go in with a plan and try it, I'm pretty sure the fine people in the backcountry office will help you out, they aren't some faceless bureaucrats, they are hikers and park users themselves.

Or avoid the smokies altogether. It's horribly crowded in my opinion, and overused by spring breakers and people who don't follow LNT. There are tons of good areas with better backpacking options. Especially in the northern half of the park, the thin ridgelines makes it hard to find any flat spots at the higher elevations anyway.

[madgoat]

Several have indicated that they prefer other places than the Smokies because of too many people. That can certainly be the case if you want to thru the AT in the park, or hike anywhere along the AT in the park during March/April, or if you plan on staying at some of the high use sites like Sheep Pen Gap (CS#13), Cabin Flats (CS#49), Walnut Bottom (CS#37), or Mark's Cove (CS#28). But there are plenty of other trails and campsites in the park that don't get a lot of use. I have been on several trips in the GSMNP at peak times where I haven't seen another person for days on end.

So, moral of the story. If you want to hike the AT through the Smokies and you don't want to deal with crowds, get out your deep winter kit and hike it in February. Otherwise, you will have to deal with other people. But if you plan your trips to stay at backcountry campsites instead of at shelters, you will find quite a bit of solace.

[warren doyle]

You can day hike the Smokies and not pay the $20 fee.

[Traveler]

You can day hike the Smokies and not pay the $20 fee.

This is one of the points of contention. Why should day users not pay for using the trail and thru hikers pay for essentially using the trail for the same hours? Though day hikers don't use shelters overnight, they do use sanitary facilities and water.

In my view if rt 441 is free, there should be a fee based parking pass system set up as its done in a lot of NPs. A kiosk can automate that process at parking areas, taking credit cards or cash can be set up easily for those who intend on parking and using the park features.

[Starchild]

This is one of the points of contention. Why should day users not pay for using the trail and thru hikers pay for essentially using the trail for the same hours? Though day hikers don't use shelters overnight, they do use sanitary facilities and water.

In my view if rt 441 is free, there should be a fee based parking pass system set up as its done in a lot of NPs. A kiosk can automate that process at parking areas, taking credit cards or cash can be set up easily for those who intend on parking and using the park features.

From what I understand (and may be wrong) it is because the fee is part of the management system to prevent overuse of the backcountry campsites and shelters. The money from the fee goes into funding that system only and AFAIK is not legally permitted to fund the park at all.

[rickb]

The Parks in the greatest nation on earth should be free-- like the AT is for the most part.

Here is what some smart people said about not charging anyone to visit our national museum. This same sentiment should apply to our nation parks 10x over. Unfortunately we have forgotton who owns this country.

We want many more Americans to see the Smithsonian as belonging to them, as serving theirneeds. Some of the carbon atoms in the Hope diamond belong to each of us. The Spirit of St.Louis is ours. Admission charges would diminish this sense of real ownership and perhaps, inthe long run, of commitment.

Foreign visitors, who do not support the museums through taxes, would probably payadmission fees willingly. Indeed, many are now surprised at the free entry. They are alsoimpressed. Free access is a symbol to foreigners of many of the fundamental aspects ofAmerican society.

Commission on the Future of the Smithsonian Institution, 1995

[HooKooDooKu]

From what I understand (and may be wrong) it is because the fee is part of the management system to prevent overuse of the backcountry campsites and shelters. The money from the fee goes into funding that system only and AFAIK is not legally permitted to fund the park at all.

What I have been told by a long term park ranger is that $1 of the $4 per night fee goes to the company that runs the reservation website and the rest goes to the park. I've further heard that most of that money has gone towards hiring full time staff for things like the back country office that was frequently staffed by volunteers.

[Traveler]

The Parks in the greatest nation on earth should be free-- like the AT is for the most part.

I hate to be the one who disillusions people, but the AT is not "free". While there is no entry fee to use the trail itself, that does not translate to being free, only no cost to those who use it. As a community its important we always keep the following in mind;

Most of the AT has been established, cut in, maintained, and protected by volunteers, who are the real driving force keeping the AT together. Volunteering is not free to the volunteers who spend countless hours and their own or raised money to complete various projects, some so small we walk over them in less than 10 strides not knowing the work that went into the rock stairs or erosion mitigation we just walked through. Some projects so large its difficult to comprehend how volunteers could secure large swaths of land and protect them for AT use. Not to diminish the end to end hikers who struggle for months to reach that goal, for me, the truly remarkable element of the AT is in the volunteer community, which is far larger than the sum of its parts.

I have no objection to people walking the AT without cost, that is the overarching goal of all the volunteers who have contributed to the creation and continuance of the AT. My objection is considering the AT to be free. Its not.

To all the trail volunteers out there in the many facets you serve the AT, including those who spend time to convince land owners to allow the trail to cross their land, acquire lands through deeds and trusts, secure and manage funding, provide legal services for land acquisition and easements, who pioneer and establish trails or relocates, who maintain the trail, who build and maintain shelters and privies, who run local member associations and keep them alive, who compile data, who edit the publications to the member organizations, who engage in public relations with local communities, and the other hundred small details that go into sustaining trails for generations... Thank You!