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

[Slo-go'en]

On the plus side, requiring a reservation fee might solve some of the "no show" problems. Shelter space is often reserved well in advance, then due to any number of reasons, (often because the weather is bad), those people don't show but don't cancel the reservation. So, as far as the park service knows, the site is full, but in reality hardly anyone is there. Meanwhile "walk-ins" are turned away. I experianced this first hand last year as a walk-in. Since there is currently no penelty for making reservations and then breaking them, one can cover all possible bets with no down side.

The problem is that any funds collected will likely not stay in the park, but go into some goverment general fund black hole and nothing will really change or get better. Just like what happened with the Forest Service parking lot fees. That money quickly got diverted away from the Forest Service.

[Carl in FL]

Considering todays near governmental closure, it's pretty apparent our taxes only pay part of the costs of doing business. You're lucky if $5 comes out of each persons pocket to fund the National Parks

President Obama's FY12 budget request, if approved by Congress,
would give the National Park Service a $2.9 billion budget, an increase
of nearly $138 million above current funding levels. That works out to
about $10 per person's pocket. I'd be surprised if 20% of that actually
went towards the parks.

But ... I've said too much.

[Pedaling Fool]

You'll also keep your eyes on Europe, they're having real problems. If Spain and Italy require a bailout it will hurt us here. It's called globalization. I'm going to just start eating bugs and weeds -- everything will be alright

[wisenber]

You'll also keep your eyes on Europe, they're having real problems. If Spain and Italy require a bailout it will hurt us here. It's called globalization. I'm going to just start eating bugs and weeds -- everything will be alright

Hikers are not allowed to consume bugs and weeds procured in the park. Hikers will be allowed to provide their own bugs and weeds after paying a fee to ensure that they are inert and cannot impact the park's ecosystem. The proposed "bug and weed inspection fee" is optional and may be collected at the same time as proposed pack inspection fees.

A nominal fee audit fee will be charged to ensure that all fees are in order.

[Mr. Bumpy]

The original stipulation by the state of Tennessee was that there would be no charge on the Newfound Gap road. It had nothing to do about camping.

There is another state involved, ya know

The times that I have heard the statute quoted or referred to was around the road to no where dealings in Bryson City and/or the park service provided boat service to the cemeteries. The stipulation was always referenced in ambiguous terms but it always referred to "travel in the park." I'm sure the respective hiker/outdoor use organizations (that we all belong to, right?) will be reviewing the original documents.

Why is it that you wish to charge for camping again? I'd think that if they just put a quarter operated meter on the bathrooms at the gap, or charged a buck for access to Clingman's dome, Cade's Cove, or any overlook in the park they would have more money in a short time than backcountry camping fees would ever provide.

[wisenber]

Why is it that you wish to charge for camping again?

These fees are needed to fund the currently underfunded Department of Redundancies Department.

[Sly]

There is another state involved, ya know

The times that I have heard the statute quoted or referred to was around the road to no where dealings in Bryson City and/or the park service provided boat service to the cemeteries. The stipulation was always referenced in ambiguous terms but it always referred to "travel in the park." I'm sure the respective hiker/outdoor use organizations (that we all belong to, right?) will be reviewing the original documents.

Why is it that you wish to charge for camping again? I'd think that if they just put a quarter operated meter on the bathrooms at the gap, or charged a buck for access to Clingman's dome, Cade's Cove, or any overlook in the park they would have more money in a short time than backcountry camping fees would ever provide.

I paraphrased the GSMNP website, that it was the TN state legislature that stipulated no fees on Newfound Gap Rd, and why the park is free. If you don't believe me take it up with the NPS.

No one is taking about the road to nowhere or family access to the old , cemeteries. That's a totally different issue.

And you'll have to quote where I said I wanted to charge for camping. Good luck in finding it.

[Sly]

That works out to
about $10 per person's pocket.

Yeah, ~ $.03 per park. Big spender!

[Mr. Bumpy]

No one is taking about the road to nowhere or family access to the old , cemeteries. That's a totally different issue.

It is not a totally different issue. The language that I have heard quoted speaks to travel throughout the park on roads and trails. It really is moot point and just speculation on our parts until the original documents are examined anyway.

And, no, you don't say that you want them to charge for camping, so accept the apology, but the tone of some of your comments seem to support the charge. There is that sufficiently gray.

[SGT Rock]

FWIW I plan to ask for time off on the 17th to go to the open house. I plan to bring up legitimate comments and suggestions from this thread. Keep the comments coming and if you are going to be there too 17 August 1730 hours look me up.

[WingedMonkey]

There is another state involved, ya know

The times that I have heard the statute quoted or referred to was around the road to no where dealings in Bryson City and/or the park service provided boat service to the cemeteries.

The dispute over access to family burying grounds in the area around the "tunnel to nowhere" area is a completely different land issue. That area was not part of the original national park. That was land cut off by the flooding for the Fontana Reservoir, which did not exist at the time the park was started. A new road was "promised" in a 1943 agreement. Swain County North Carolina has settled for $52 million in installments from the federal government. They are now fighting over how to spend the interest money, wanting to use it county wide like public bathrooms in downtown Bryson City and not just for the former Northshore residents, such as fixing a low water bridge to provide access to cemeteries.

[Carl in FL]

Hikers are not allowed to consume bugs and weeds procured in the park. Hikers will be allowed to provide their own bugs and weeds after paying a fee to ensure that they are inert and cannot impact the park's ecosystem. The proposed "bug and weed inspection fee" is optional and may be collected at the same time as proposed pack inspection fees.

A nominal fee audit fee will be charged to ensure that all fees are in order.

That's funny.

No wait, It isn't. It's scary.

[Sly]

It is not a totally different issue. The language that I have heard quoted speaks to travel throughout the park on roads and trails. It really is moot point and just speculation on our parts until the original documents are examined anyway.

And, no, you don't say that you want them to charge for camping, so accept the apology, but the tone of some of your comments seem to support the charge. There is that sufficiently gray.

Sorry, but it's the TVA that has to do with the road to nowhere, and access to the cemeteries, not the National Park Service.

None of us like to pay extras fees, so I apologize for my tone concerning the camping fees, but it had more to do one guy saying he'd stealth camp, avoiding the fees, if implemented, ripping off the NPS of much needed funds.

[SGT Rock]

So if I stealth now it is just because I want to camp somewhere I am not permitted. But if I stealth after this it has to do with ripping off the park?

[Bearpaw]

Sorry, but it's the TVA that has to do with the road to nowhere, and access to the cemeteries, not the National Park Service.

None of us like to pay extras fees, so I apologize for my tone concerning the camping fees, but it had more to do one guy saying he'd stealth camp, avoiding the fees, if implemented, ripping off the NPS of much needed funds.

Those funds aren't going to benefit the park or hikers in any way. They're going to be used to enforce the collection of fees. Pointless. Worthless.

I've done volunteer work in the park, made many donations, been a member of the Friends of the Smokies, paid extra for TN's GSMNP plate. ALL of that will cease if this goes through. I'll be making my donations when I have to pay the stinking reservation fee. If I choose to even go the park any more. Horrible, completely misguided, bureaucratic proposal.

[Mr. Bumpy]

I'd like to see how much income it will really provide. Where is a cost/benefit outline? I guess you are justifying the expense because of the services provided? It just seems that they are targeting the easiest users, and that it what rubs me about a charge. They are not going to start charging motorists for the services of the visitor centers, bathrooms, maintenance of scenic overlooks, or for law enforcement assistance. If it was pay to play for everyone then I might not feel strongly about it, it just seems as if hikers are going to get the shaft.

Stealth camping, that is another issue. Like other things, if you are going to do it then don't advertise--that's dumb. As to camping wherever in the park I do know that there are often back country rangers out there hunting the pigs in the middle of the night, so I never camp in a non-designated spot.

[wisenber]

So if I stealth now it is just because I want to camp somewhere I am not permitted. But if I stealth after this it has to do with ripping off the park?

Exactly! The other difference will be that far more people will be doing so once the fees kick in. After all, the most likely place to get caught without your occupation authorization papers would be in designated campsites.

[Sly]

So if I stealth now it is just because I want to camp somewhere I am not permitted. But if I stealth after this it has to do with ripping off the park?

LOL... no disrespect Rock. I know main function of stealth camping is low impact and to get away from crowds etc., but if the fees are implemented, and you continue to do it, yes you would, in effect, be ripping off the park. Unless of course you drop $10-20 in the donation box on your way out.

[SGT Rock]

Not saying that I do stealth camp. I'd never advertise on the net if I did. But...

If there is a fee system I plan to live with that.

[Sly]

No sense in arguing with me. I'm really only playing devil's advocate. Y'all need to write the GSMNP about your concerns.