GSMNP Thinking of Charging for Back Country Camping. $5 per day Per Person Per Hike?

[wisenber]

There is a fundamental issue at the root of this propoal that some foldks seem to be missing. The park service currently does not have the resources to man the backcountry reservation phone. They want to utilize a call center for this, which costs money. They believe that they can offset the cost of the call center with a $5 charge for backcountry permits. This would be consistent with what the other National Parks currently do.

The Smoky Mountain Nation Park is currently collecting up comments and suggestions. They want to try to implement something that works for the majority for people. Ther eare a lot of open questions that need to be answered. If you have a concern and want to be heard, submit it to the park service. The curent system doesnt work and needs to be changed. The park isnt trying to screw the hikers. It is trying to fined an acceptable solution.

With all of those willing to volunteer in the park in the shops and offices as well the trails, surely they could expand the number of hours that the reservation phone lines are manned. Were they to find enough people to volunteer 20 half days per month, the lines could be active for the entire business day five days per week. That would effectively double the amount of time that reservations are taken each month. The calls are inbound, so essentially the service could be doubled at no extra cost.

I normally volunteer my time to do trail maintenance in some of the surrounding areas, but I'd be willing to take on a half day per month to save thousands of hikers the expense and hassle of reserving all of the back country sites.

The primary problem is the shelters and the sites requiring reservations, the vast majority of the sites don't even need to be included in this were it not for the added revenue that they might generate.

[chelko]

I think the hikers are the wrong group to go after to generate additional revenue. Every time I have been at a back country site that has had coolers hanging from the bear cables and trash strewn about it has always been at a site that permits horses. I know the horse lobby is very strong in NC and TN but lets be real. Horses and horse campers do a ton more damage to the back country than hikers do and I'll bet a large percent of the problems back country ranges have to deal with as well as trail maintenance are resulting from horses.

[humunuku]

I've uploaded the Employee Briefing Paper to "my Images" Take a look. NOTE the potential fees!!! Possible up to $15 to camp. This was the internal info that went to park personnel. Please submit your comments and opinions to:
Written comments regarding this proposal may be addressed to the Park Superintendent
by August 26th. Comments may be submitted via email to [email protected] or by mail to Great Smoky Mountains National Park, 107 Park Headquarters Road, Gatlinburg, Tennessee 37738.

[The Snowman]

I'm all for the fee. eveyone else who camps overnight in the park pays for there campsite why should back country users not pay as well

[wisenber]

I'm all for the fee. eveyone else who camps overnight in the park pays for there campsite why should back country users not pay as well

The other sites have trash pickup, lights, water, showers and restrooms I've not seen a backcountry site with any amenities beyond bear cables..

[wisenber]

I've uploaded the Employee Briefing Paper to "my Images" Take a look. NOTE the potential fees!!! Possible up to $15 to camp. This was the internal info that went to park personnel. Please submit your comments and opinions to:
Written comments regarding this proposal may be addressed to the Park Superintendent
by August 26th. Comments may be submitted via email to [email protected] or by mail to Great Smoky Mountains National Park, 107 Park Headquarters Road, Gatlinburg, Tennessee 37738.

Thanks for the info humunuku.

That's more than some of the front country sites. Were they going to provide trash service and water for that fee like they do at the front country sites? If not why would they be charging as much or more?

[rsmout]

If paying the fee gave hikers the right to camp anywhere off the trail and first-come-first serve rights at shelters, it might be worth it.

[wisenber]

If paying the fee gave hikers the right to camp anywhere off the trail and first-come-first serve rights at shelters, it might be worth it.

Camping outside of designated camp sites will only be for the hikers who do not pay the fees. Those paying fees will be restricted to the sites that they reserved for their money. A newly hired conductor will come by each evening to check your tickets...er I mean a newly hired ranger will come by each campsite to verify your reservation.

I wonder how 3 full time employees and 2 seasonal employees will manage to cover around 100 sites each day? I suppose eliminating the need to check on the 17 walk up registration kiosks will help them cover the extra miles. Then again, that would be 17 fewer locations that hikers could use to register.

[restless]

The other sites have trash pickup, lights, water, showers and restrooms I've not seen a backcountry site with any amenities beyond bear cables..

What if you were not able to access the backcountry because the trails were closed due to unsafe conditions? I work in a National Park where fees go to support trail construction and maintenance projects. As hikers, we should be more than willing to pay the fees if need be. As others have mentioned, there are other free-to-play locations throughout TN and the Southeast, which in IMHO are much more enjoyable than the Smokies. But if they charge a fee, we should pay it rather than trying to find a way around it. It is that type of attitude that makes it more expensive for the Park Service in the long run.

[wisenber]

What if you were not able to access the backcountry because the trails were closed due to unsafe conditions? I work in a National Park where fees go to support trail construction and maintenance projects. As hikers, we should be more than willing to pay the fees if need be. As others have mentioned, there are other free-to-play locations throughout TN and the Southeast, which in IMHO are much more enjoyable than the Smokies. But if they charge a fee, we should pay it rather than trying to find a way around it. It is that type of attitude that makes it more expensive for the Park Service in the long run.

The "other places" you mentioned do offer quite a bit. Those other places also use volunteers to do the trail maintenance (For those of us dumb enough to do it in wilderness areas it is all done with hand tools.) The GSMNP also has a MUCH larger pool of volunteers to help with that maintenance then the outlying wilderness and national forest grounds. The difference is that the wilderness areas and national forests empower volunteers to maintain trails without paid employees in attendance. The GSMNP actually makes it pretty difficult to take care of a blow down and such. There are cost free answers to getting trails maintained, and the park could learn from some if it lesser funded counterparts on how to accomplish that.

To top it off, the proposal I read showed that the fees would be captured to pay for the reservation system and park employees to enforce the fees. It would appear that further maintaining trails is a distant afterthought.

[Joey B]

Will that apply to thrus?

i talked to a backcountry ranger this weekend.

the shelters they force thru hikers to stay in, are not backcountry campsites.

[SassyWindsor]

Close this dividing hwy, make the GSMNP a more wilderness experience. Just doing this would eliminate quite a lot of bad visitors to trails. You might even find a spot to sleep at the Ice Water Spring Shelter.

[Pokey2006]

Good thing I know how to stealth camp.

I, too, am a local who likes to go on last-minute overnights in the park. But no way will I ever pay to backpack in the Smokies, considering the abundance of free backcountry sites in neighboring areas. I paid to camp on islands in the Everglades, and was not happy about it, but sucked it up because I was on vacation. I'm not going to pay to camp in my own backyard!

Basically it looks like you're just going to drive away the local hiking/backpacking enthusiasts who are also the park's biggest supporters. While the idiot rednecks from out-of-state are the ones who trash the place. Brilliant strategy!

[Sly]

I've uploaded the Employee Briefing Paper to "my Images" Take a look. NOTE the potential fees!!! Possible up to $15 to camp.

The parks charge extra for advanced reservations. Usually within 24-48 hours you only need to pay the per night fee. of course, you may not get the route or campsite you want, but you can usually work something out.

[Sly]

Good thing I know how to stealth camp.

I, too, am a local who likes to go on last-minute overnights in the park. But no way will I ever pay to backpack in the Smokies, considering the abundance of free backcountry sites in neighboring areas. I paid to camp on islands in the Everglades, and was not happy about it, but sucked it up because I was on vacation. I'm not going to pay to camp in my own backyard!

Basically it looks like you're just going to drive away the local hiking/backpacking enthusiasts who are also the park's biggest supporters. While the idiot rednecks from out-of-state are the ones who trash the place. Brilliant strategy!

And it's a good thing ranger know how to write tickets.

It's not your "backyard" it's every citizens backyard. How much of a local "supporter" are you if you're not willing pay? If the people that live near the Everglades don't get to camp for free, or Glacier, why should you. Like you said there's plenty of places in the area to camp for free.

[Pokey2006]

Ya ya, you're right. Still, the Smokies are beautiful, but I'm sorry, they are no Grand Canyon. $15 to camp in the backcountry here? Absolutely not.

You have to understand, locals here already have to deal with so much. Traffic, higher costs, tourists... To take away the one thing that makes it worthwhile -- free access to a beautiful national park -- is an outrage.

[Christus Cowboy]

I think the hikers are the wrong group to go after to generate additional revenue. Every time I have been at a back country site that has had coolers hanging from the bear cables and trash strewn about it has always been at a site that permits horses. I know the horse lobby is very strong in NC and TN but lets be real. Horses and horse campers do a ton more damage to the back country than hikers do and I'll bet a large percent of the problems back country ranges have to deal with as well as trail maintenance are resulting from horses.

Interesting point here... I've seen many trail crews that maintain the trail who are affiliated with the hiking clubs but what about the horse campers?... Would they field trail maintenance crews to fix the wear and tear their use subjects the trail to or would they just let the hiker clubs carry the maintenance load?...

[generoll]

dunno, complicated issue. it did seem that the primary justification was to use the national online reservation service and pay for it with reservations fees. kinda sounds like creating a buracracy to collect fees to maintain itself.

as far as the "locals" having to deal with crowds. tough. reminds me of when I lived in Florida and people would buy a condo on the beach and then complain about the sunbathers on "their" beach. Unless someone's a Cherokee their claim to being a local is suspect.

[wisenber]

And it's a good thing ranger know how to write tickets.

It's not your "backyard" it's every citizens backyard. How much of a local "supporter" are you if you're not willing pay? If the people that live near the Everglades don't get to camp for free, or Glacier, why should you. Like you said there's plenty of places in the area to camp for free.

Since 1923 everyone has camped free. So the real question should be "Why change now?" Once a fee structure is enacted, it will never go away.
Would fees make the Smokies a better place, or would they just add 5 more people to the payroll to monitor the new levels of red tape?
Would charging fees to 0.03% of the park's visitors cover the impact of the remaining 9-11 million?

[Mr. Bumpy]

But if they charge a fee, we should pay it rather than trying to find a way around it. It is that type of attitude that makes it more expensive for the Park Service in the long run.

The park service made an agreement that there would be no charge for travel in the park. The attitude "if they charge a fee, we should pay it rather than trying to find a way around it." is the type of attitude that make it more expensive for the users in the long run. It would probably make it more expensive for the park service in the long run anyway as I would hope/suppose that the respective states would challenge the legality of a fee system.