Lawsuit against backcountry fee fails

[madgoat]

http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com...ark-fails26450

Unless Southern Forest Watch appeals this ruling, the backcountry fee has been upheld in court.

"The plaintiffs and those opposed to the (backcountry fee) are understandably disappointed in (the park's decision to implement the fee) and could easily assume that defendants did not truly consider the public comments. After all, if so much of the public response was negative, how could the defendants have considered that input and still decided to proceed with the BCF?"

"Indeed, the passionate opposition to the BCF leads a reasonable mind to question whether another conclusion should have been reached, or why the Park management placed such emphasis on benefits for the 'less represented stakeholder group' rather than benefits for the frequent, local Park visitors.


"The legal question for this Court, however, is whether that decision was arbitrary or capricious."

[burger]

Good. The Park Service is woefully underfunded by the government (especially one party that would rather sell off public lands than take care of them). The only alternative nowadays is for users to chip in.

[FlyPaper]

Good. The Park Service is woefully underfunded by the government (especially one party that would rather sell off public lands than take care of them). The only alternative nowadays is for users to chip in.

Not only that, but by charging a small fee it requires users to have "skin in the game" when the book a shelter.

As it was before, it cost users nothing to book 7 nights in the shelters. That means no one else can use that slot. Then the user may not show up.

For $4 per night, max of $20, I suspect this is the more important reason to charge a small fee. The actual money raised can't be much.

[Tipi Walter]

Good. The Park Service is woefully underfunded by the government (especially one party that would rather sell off public lands than take care of them). The only alternative nowadays is for users to chip in.

The Park has the worst air pollution of any park in the United States and YET the head honchos pick on the overnight backpackers to generate fees. Users chip in?? So let's get the TN legislature to change the stupid No Entrance Fee and get every car and truck to pay $20 to enter the park. Car drivers and motorcyclists don't pay a dime. Dayhikers don't pay a dime. Backpackers are the only ones who have to reserve a spot to sleep and pay a fee.

Millions come in as rolling couch potatoes to pollute the air on the so-called Cades Cove Motor Loop free of charge. Screaming roaring motorcyclists race thru the mountains on 441 free of charge. Backpackers need a lawyer and cash to come up with an intricate 15 day trip schedule with the necessary vouchers, fees, permits and regulations.

[mtntopper]

Good. The Park Service is woefully underfunded by the government (especially one party that would rather sell off public lands than take care of them). The only alternative nowadays is for users to chip in.

I do chip in. I pay income taxes.

[Coffee]

The problem with GSMNP isn't the fee but the extremely restrictive policy that dictates where one must stay on every night of a trip, even a long trip, to the point where there is no flexibility, no possibility of spontaneity, and limited freedom for wilderness users.

[Traveler]

I do chip in. I pay income taxes.

Unfortunately, income taxes don't get to the Parks. Over the years both State and Federal parklands have lost budget funding via general fund and are increasingly turning to user fees to support operations. Its about the only answer, especially given the political climate of today.

[Lyle]

I'm glad I'm done with the Smokies. Don't imagine I'll ever be back. Too bad for those who haven't hiked it yet, but it's not really worth the hassle if you ask me.

[BirdBrain]

The Park has the worst air pollution of any park in the United States and YET the head honchos pick on the overnight backpackers to generate fees. Users chip in?? So let's get the TN legislature to change the stupid No Entrance Fee and get every car and truck to pay $20 to enter the park. Car drivers and motorcyclists don't pay a dime. Dayhikers don't pay a dime. Backpackers are the only ones who have to reserve a spot to sleep and pay a fee.

Millions come in as rolling couch potatoes to pollute the air on the so-called Cades Cove Motor Loop free of charge. Screaming roaring motorcyclists race thru the mountains on 441 free of charge. Backpackers need a lawyer and cash to come up with an intricate 15 day trip schedule with the necessary vouchers, fees, permits and regulations.

And yet this is a solution for the entire AT in some minds.

[Walkintom]

While I don't mind paying fees to ensure that areas are there for my use, I feel that far far too much of our GDP is wasted on things that most of us don't want, like ongoing military engagements across the world.

We need to take care of our problems at home FIRST, and this is just one of many things being handled poorly because of how we spend too much on the wrong things.

[Rain Man]

The problem with GSMNP isn't the fee but the extremely restrictive policy that dictates where one must stay on every night of a trip, even a long trip, to the point where there is no flexibility, no possibility of spontaneity, and limited freedom for wilderness users.

Almost laughed at this post. There are areas in the southern Appalachians that exceed the size of the GSMNP with just the flexibility and spontaneity you decry by making the GSMNP your choice.

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

[Traveler]

Almost laughed at this post. There are areas in the southern Appalachians that exceed the size of the GSMNP with just the flexibility and spontaneity you decry by making the GSMNP your choice.

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

Exactly right!

[spoonfan]

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

And what I find interesting is that the group who was crying and whining about the fees and who ended up suing (and losing) the Park------they vowed to boycott and never go into the Park.

Yet, pretty much every trip that they go on is in the Park.

That's not a boycott to me.

Just sounds like they can't figure out that there is more land to hike on.

[Uriah]

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

I suspect Coffee meant that "there is no flexibility, no possibility of spontaneity, and limited freedom for Appalachian Trail users, and not necessarily wilderness users. Sure, someone seeking more of a wilderness experience could go elsewhere (Alaska or Patagonia come to mind), but an AT hiker is unquestionably pretty limited in his or her choices through the park (given the limitations of the narrow trail). And, until recently, it wasn't always this way. Arguing that one doesn't have to hike the AT (as implied) misses the point. What's now mandated when one DOES hike it (through the park) is the issue at stake.

[Coffee]

Almost laughed at this post. There are areas in the southern Appalachians that exceed the size of the GSMNP with just the flexibility and spontaneity you decry by making the GSMNP your choice.

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

I'm well aware of that, Rain Man. Your comment to "go somewhere else if you don't like it" isn't an argument at all, just an assertion.

[Coffee]

My point is broader than just the AT within the park. I dislike permit systems that require identification of specific campsites on a night by night basis because of the flexibility and freedom that is curtailed. Much preferable are the systems in the Sierra Nevada when a trailhead has an entry quota and, sometimes, a first night camping requirement but then leaves the traveler free to roam as he or she pleases. If this type of system can work in a park as crowded as Yosemite, I don't see why it cannot work in GSMNP.

And no, as a tax paying US citizens I WILL NOT simply "go elsewhere" and shut up because someone who disagrees tells me to do so.

[SouthMark]

Almost laughed at this post. There are areas in the southern Appalachians that exceed the size of the GSMNP with just the flexibility and spontaneity you decry by making the GSMNP your choice.

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

The nail on the head!

[Coffee]

The nail on the head!

So let me get this straight: If we don't like a public policy, as US citizens, we should shut up and go elsewhere instead of asking questions and trying to be agents of change. Real inspiring.

[Tipi Walter]

The problem with GSMNP isn't the fee but the extremely restrictive policy that dictates where one must stay on every night of a trip, even a long trip, to the point where there is no flexibility, no possibility of spontaneity, and limited freedom for wilderness users.

Totally agree with this and it should be repeated---A restrictive policy that dictates where one must stay every night. This restrictive policy isn't used in the Mt Rogers backcountry, you can camp wherever you find a place. Same goes for the Cohuttas and the Big Frog and the BMT and the Pinhoti and the Appalachian Trail for most of its length.

The Smokies have around 100 designated campsites where backpackers can "legally" stay overnight. Let's be generous and give each campsite 2 acres, so Park backpackers have 200 acres they can camp at out of 500,000 acres. It's absurd.

I say open up the Park to dispersed camping and let's use all 500,000 acres. Let's say I pull a 20 day trip in the Smokies and pay the $60 dollar fee (max fee is 20 bucks for 7 days, multiplied by 3 for a 20 day trip). Now let's say I need to tell the Tent Police exactly where I'll be camping on Day 8 and Day 12 and Day 18 and at which designated sites etc. THERE'S NO WAY TO KNOW.

High water? Too bad. Deep snow and postholing? Too bad. I get sick and need a couple in-tent zero days? No!! I'm supposed to be at Site X mein fuhrer!

Coffee is therefore incredibly right---it's a broken system with no flexibility, no spontaneity and no freedom. But weirdly the motorcyclists and cars and trucks have total flexibility, spontaneity and freedom. Who's in charge? Apparently intoxicated bonobo monkeys high on huffing raw gasoline.

[burger]

Walter, parks are not just playgrounds for people. NPS has a legal mandate to preserve the plants and animals, and that means controlling and minimizing human impacts on the land. If people were allowed to camp wherever they want, there would be hundreds if not thousands of additional campsites trampled by people (and probably full of trash based on what I've seen in GSMNP and elsewhere). Better to restrict that impact to a small area.

If you don't like it, don't visit the national parks. There are tens of millions of acres of non-NPS public lands in the US. Have a party.