View Full Version : Lawsuit against backcountry fee fails
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2015/03/effort-overturn-backcountry-user-fee-great-smoky-mountains-national-park-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."
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
03-31-2015, 09:32
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
03-31-2015, 09:40
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
03-31-2015, 09:43
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.
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
03-31-2015, 11:32
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.
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
03-31-2015, 11:38
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
03-31-2015, 11:45
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
03-31-2015, 11:51
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
03-31-2015, 11:53
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
03-31-2015, 12:16
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.
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.
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.
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
03-31-2015, 13:16
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!
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
03-31-2015, 13:30
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.
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.
More "If you don't like it, get the hell out" sentiment. That's not an argument, that's just a childish assertion. There are MANY ways to control access to parks and limit impacts to the environment that do not impede all freedom once in the backcountry. The Yosemite system, while infuriating at times, at least only prescribes quotas for trailheads and then leaves us alone in the backcountry, subject to common sense LNT rules.
But no. That's not a legitimate sentiment. "If you don't like it shut up and go elsewhere". I see this more and more in politics these days so it is no surprise that it pops up here as well.
Peace out.
spoonfan
03-31-2015, 13:52
Wow.
Reading through the ruling, what I get out of this is that the plaintiffs should have used a better lawyer and not one they found on the back of a Cracker Jack box.
jenningstcj
03-31-2015, 14:54
According to smokiespermits.nps.gov AT thru hikers have to have a permit, but not necessarily for a specific shelter. It says "Thru-Hikers must always give up bunk space in shelters to those with shelter reservations."
That being said, the fees from backpackers are negligible compared to if vehicles were charged even 5 bucks to enter the park.
mtntopper
03-31-2015, 14:55
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!
This statement is correct according to the regs. However, I have been in the park and gotten sick and had to stay at a backcountry campsite that I was not signed up to use. When a ranger stopped by he checked my permit, I explained to him the situation. He wished me well and traveled on. So the rangers do make some exceptions based on several factors. Safety and illness are some of them.
GSMNP is the most visited park in the US. There are so many trailheads in the park that I don't think a trailhead quota system would work. I am not sure what the answer is. The trailhead quota system would not limit the number of campers at any given camping area. Because of the grate diversity of plant life and wildlife I think encouraging camping just anyplace also is the wrong direction to take. It is much more complicated than it appears to be. I can't even imagine hiking into Icewater Spring shelter and seeing the shelter full and 50 tents and hammocks erected. Not much of a backcountry experience there.
Hopefully over time someone will come up with a better solution.
Traveler
03-31-2015, 14:55
More "If you don't like it, get the hell out" sentiment. That's not an argument, that's just a childish assertion. There are MANY ways to control access to parks and limit impacts to the environment that do not impede all freedom once in the backcountry. The Yosemite system, while infuriating at times, at least only prescribes quotas for trailheads and then leaves us alone in the backcountry, subject to common sense LNT rules.
But no. That's not a legitimate sentiment. "If you don't like it shut up and go elsewhere". I see this more and more in politics these days so it is no surprise that it pops up here as well.
Peace out.
The problems at GSMNP are tied to the heavy volume that camp in GSMNP (some 70,000 people per year). With that traffic also comes day hikers that add to the trail traffic with a high dose of vehicular traffic issues. A lovely place to be sure, but as Walter points out, Mt. Rogers is full of pristine places to camp that isn't too far away and will be a nice place for a while, until the lack of regulation and designed impact areas attract the attention of about a quarter of the people camping out in GSMNP (25,000 per year) and turn it into something less than what it was. Absent any controls, people will do what they want, when they want, where they want.
Your comment relative to LNT is solid, but unfortunately, not well observed from what I can see. It requires a lot more education of people, which is often a topic here that is inside the self policing discussion(s). Self policing would work to cure some of these issues, but the HYOH concept is often used to hide behind to avoid "confrontation". So, if one doesn't like crowds, permit rules, and other features of high volume use NPs, there ARE other places to go for enjoyment. And then.... there is the off season in the high volume parks. Its a problem to be sure, solutions are necessary and right now, this is the best solution that tends to work to control the damage people cause while protecting the park features, flora, and fauna. A better solution may happen one day, but I don't see one currently.
I would prefer if the GSMNP went to a system that I have seen at other national parks (Acadia, Olympic). Pay $20-$25 bucks for a 7-day parking permit. You are free to drive on all the major park through roads without paying for a permit (Newfound Gap Road, Little River Road, etc) but you must have a permit to park anywhere within the GSMNP. Further, put in permit stations at Cades Cove and Clingmans Dome Road. Then make free permits available to anybody who has family in the cemeteries.
One issue that needs to be addressed by the NPS as a whole is how differently backcountry permitting is done from park to park. Some have no permit system, some have logbooks at trailheads, some require you to show up in person at the ranger station on the day you want to start hiking and hope they haven't filled their quota for the day, some require you to stay in designated campsites, some have no designated campsites, some have designated camping zones... but all parks cannot be handled the same.
Grand Canyon has very high demand on relatively few spots. The GSMNP has to deal with a crazy high percentage of their backcountry use on just 72 miles of the AT through the park. I wish we didn't have to deal with GSMNP's restrictive backcountry regulations, but I'm happy to pay for the convenience of the website... especially compared to the phone in reservations. I went for several years where I never once had somebody answer the Backcountry Reservations telephone number, but never had any problems making my reservations through the Backcountry Information telephone number. In the end, there is no perfect system. But the best system is when the park is funded enough so that it can pay rangers to be seen in the backcountry, thereby limiting abuse of the permit system and keeping morons from trashing the campsites. I have been hiking in the GSMNP for 20 years and have never had a ranger show up at a campsite that I was staying at and ask to see my permit.
mtntopper
03-31-2015, 15:05
BTW, thank you mods for removing the post that contained statements about illegal camping in GSMNP. You all don't get thanked enough for what you do.
I have no problem with user fees. However, to single out those who overnight in the backcountry does seem punitive to a minority. Charge a user fee to all and I will happily pay may share.
I can't even imagine hiking into Icewater Spring shelter and seeing the shelter full and 50 tents and hammocks erected.
The first time I set foot on the Appalachian Trail was 20 years ago. We hiked up Russel Field Trail to Russel Field Shelter (GSMNP) in early March. My first view of the AT was looking across a field of white tufts of toilet paper sticking up through the soil. Thankfully that unpleasant site has been slowly eradicated along the AT in the GSMNP since they put in all the composting privies.
We are our worst enemy. We are the cause of the impact at those campsites and shelters. I can self righteously say that I bury my poop, pack out my trash, and am careful to be LNT. But the impact is still there, and the park has to try to limit that impact as best it can.
BTW, thank you mods for removing the post that contained statements about illegal camping in GSMNP. You all don't get thanked enough for what you do.F
Free speech at its finest! The camping is only "illegal" because GSMNP is no longer truly publicly owned land. But I agree with thanking the moderators of this fine forum.
spoonfan
03-31-2015, 15:49
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.
This is not entirely correct.
One does not necessarily have to stay in a designated site.
There are other permits available for camping outside of the designated sites, if one chooses to do so.
And that point is addressed in the Court's ruling.
mtntopper
03-31-2015, 16:06
Free speech at its finest! The camping is only "illegal" because GSMNP is no longer truly publicly owned land. But I agree with thanking the moderators of this fine forum.
Uriah,
This site has TOS. One does not have free speech on a privately owned domain. Free speech is to protect our rights from the government. I suggest you reread the TOS of this sight.
Not sure what you mean by publicly owned land as it pertains to GSMNP.....What I was referring too was you made a statement about not obtaining a permit while thru hiking GSMNP. That statement is against the TOS agreement. Whether I agree or disagree with the current permit system does not make me or anyone else exempt from obtaining the proper permits. As stated on another post.... we created the problem with out actions, attitudes and behaviors. We as stewards of the land can do a much better job of protecting our National Parks and Rec. areas than we have in the past.
Tipi Walter
03-31-2015, 16:40
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 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.
If NPS has a mandate to preserve the plants and animals and minimizing human impact on the land, why in heck does the GSMNP allow horseback riding thruout the Park? Horses do more damage than any hikers. And get this, horseback day-riders do not have to pay any kind of fee to my knowledge.
This is not entirely correct.
One does not necessarily have to stay in a designated site.
There are other permits available for camping outside of the designated sites, if one chooses to do so.
And that point is addressed in the Court's ruling.
I got on the GSMNP website and tried to find the permit you're talking about allowing backpackers to range thruout the Park and camp anywhere they want. Either they make it very difficult to find or it doesn't exist.
WingedMonkey
03-31-2015, 16:42
This site has TOS. One does not have free speech on a privately owned domain. Free speech is to protect our rights from the government. I suggest you reread the TOS of this sight.
3. Topics that have been closed, deleted, or moved by an Administrator or Moderator have been done for a reason. Users will not open new threads on the same subject or continue to make posts about subjects that have had these actions taken. Failing to comply with this policy can result in being placed into moderated status.
spoonfan
03-31-2015, 17:41
I got on the GSMNP website and tried to find the permit you're talking about allowing backpackers to range thruout the Park and camp anywhere they want. Either they make it very difficult to find or it doesn't exist.
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.
spoonfan
03-31-2015, 17:44
And on page 16 of that link, there is more information about cross country permits.
LoneStranger
03-31-2015, 18:33
And on page 16 of that link, there is more information about cross country permits.
Thanks for pointing that out. I have no interest in crowds and assumed that meant I'd never visit this area. Now I may have to rethink that :)
Starchild
03-31-2015, 18:49
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.
From what I understand it is actually illegal for these fees to go to funding the park, the only reason they are allowed is because it only goes to fund the reservation system cost which is 'needed' for the management of the park.
I stand to be corrected.
squeezebox
03-31-2015, 19:05
Yes everyone entering the park should pay the same fee. But policing the back country is much more expensive.
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.
That would leave quite a few thru-hikers, or section-hikers for that matter, at a dead-end as they approached the park. The GMSNP implemented a per night permit process similar to Glacier and Yellowstone (the latter still free). However, if the campsite is already full other arrangements need to be made.
August W.
03-31-2015, 21:22
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.
Let's start charging an entry fee to get into the Smithsonian Institution and our public libraries first.
spoonfan
03-31-2015, 22:34
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
03-31-2015, 23:30
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
03-31-2015, 23:40
** 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
04-01-2015, 00:20
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.
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
04-01-2015, 07:17
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
04-01-2015, 09:40
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
04-01-2015, 13:16
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
04-01-2015, 16:18
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
04-01-2015, 17:47
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
04-02-2015, 19:10
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.
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
04-03-2015, 12:06
You can day hike the Smokies and not pay the $20 fee.
Traveler
04-04-2015, 06:48
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
04-04-2015, 06:57
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.
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
04-04-2015, 22:27
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
04-05-2015, 08:10
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!
wornoutboots
04-05-2015, 08:26
There's something wrong with a system that buys massive amounts of land with other peoples money, charges a fee back to those same people for using the land, then polices it's back country by bureaucrats who never had mud on their Florsheims :-?
The latest: Parks free if you have a 4th grader (really)
Our political leadership often tends to divide us up into smaller constituencies-- each grateful for the slice of the pie we get back. Historically, some institutions have been seen as so fundamental to our collective Identity that they remain free (or as has been pointed out -- free from admision charges). Some that come to mind at the Smithsonian, the USS Constitution, The National Zoo, Central Park, and the Boston Public Library.
Others like the National Parks have admisions waive for select constituencies, when the should be free (as in free of admissions) for all.
Here is the latest, for those of you with 4th graders next year
http://time.com/money/3714933/national-parks-free-admission-families/
President Obama will be in Chicago on Thursday to designate the Pullman District as a National Monument (http://wgntv.com/2015/02/19/obama-coming-to-chicago-to-designate-national-monument/). While he’s there, Obama will also introduce a very special program called Every Kid in a Park (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/19/fact-sheet-launching-every-kid-park-initiative-and-designating-new-natio)that will provide free admission to fourth graders and their families at national parks, forests, monuments, and other federal lands for a year.
The Every Kid in a Park initiative will be available to families at the start of the 2015-2016 school year, in advance of the 100th anniversary of the National Parks Service (http://www.nationalparks.org/our-work/celebrating-100-years-service) being celebrated in 2016. How it works is that next fall, all interested families with fourth graders will essentially be provided with a free annual pass (http://www.nps.gov/findapark/passes.htm) (normal cost: $80) granting admission to more than 2,000 federal recreation...
Traveler
04-05-2015, 09:22
Only 127 of the 407 US National Park Properties charge an entry fee. The 127 that do charge have several weeks of free entry through the season on national holiday weekends.
Also, the 127 national parks that charge an entry fee have a variety of programs like the program of forth graders and parents having free access that sunset after a period of time, along with a number of different rates depending on frequency of visits, age, and activities in the park you'll be pursuing. If you don't want to pay to get into a national park, go on the free weekends or weeks that are on their schedule.
wornoutboots
04-05-2015, 14:05
Just curious: If someone's backpacking through the Smokies & forgets their permit & doesn't have any ID on them, what do the rangers do?
Walkintom
04-05-2015, 14:33
Just curious: If someone's backpacking through the Smokies & forgets their permit & doesn't have any ID on them, what do the rangers do?
I would imagine that they handle it on a case by case basis. A lot would depend on how that person interacts with the rangers.
HooKooDooKu
04-05-2015, 14:51
The latest: Parks free if you have a 4th grader
Based on the wording quoted from Obama, this won't make a difference in the GSMNP backcountry fees because it is not an 'Entrance' fee.
Starchild
04-05-2015, 18:19
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!
To me you just proved the AT is free.
The desire to give springs of the human heart. Freely giving is a function of existing. Those volunteers freely give their time, effort and energy, and the correct response is to freely receive that gift of what was so freely given.
Starchild
04-05-2015, 18:24
Just curious: If someone's backpacking through the Smokies & forgets their permit & doesn't have any ID on them, what do the rangers do?
As a ridgerunner I would contact the back country office via radio and get (verify) their permit info and write them a handwritten permit on forms I carried. If they did not have anything, I was limited to taking their claimed identity and contact info right them the permit and the park would try to bill them.
FlyPaper
04-06-2015, 11:08
For those who don't like the fee, what should GSMNP do to reduce the chances that people book a location and then don't show up?
In my opinion, they're doing us a favor by charging $4 per night as a deterrent for frivolous bookings.
Most of the AT has been established, cut in, maintained, and protected by volunteers, who are the real driving force keeping the AT together.
Yes! That is one thing I really do not like about the backcountry fee system in the GSMNP. The Trails Forever trust, money from the GSMA, volunteer work from the Rocky Top Trail Crew, etc.. etc... The GSMNP receives massive amounts of money and volunteer labor to keep the park open, to maintain the trails, to maintain and upgrade the shelters and campsites, to staff the visitors centers, and so much more. It seems odd to have so much freely given to the park by a goodhearted public, but then have the park turn around and charge a usage fee on the backcountry shelters and campsites.
I understand what the fee goes towards. I really like the website for getting my permits. I like that the $4 fee deters people from making reservations and then not using them. I like that supposedly this allows them to police the backcountry better. But I still cant help but feel that they are charging a fee to use trails, campsites, shelters, privies, bear bag cables, bridges, etc, that are predominantly built and maintained by volunteer donations and labor. Bad form!
30479
Rain Man
04-06-2015, 15:02
The GSMNP receives massive amounts of money and volunteer labor to keep the park open, to maintain the trails, to maintain and upgrade the shelters and campsites, to staff the visitors centers, and so much more. It seems odd to have so much freely given to the park by a goodhearted public, but then have the park turn around and charge a usage fee on the backcountry shelters and campsites. ...
But I still cant help but feel that they are charging a fee to use trails, campsites, shelters, privies, bear bag cables, bridges, etc, that are predominantly built and maintained by volunteer donations and labor. Bad form!
"Massive" amounts? I guess it depends on one's perspective. I'm a trail volunteer (though not in the Smokies) and would gladly have the freeloaders charged a fee exactly for using all that volunteers donate in time and money.
The only "bad form" I see is misconstruing how much the GSMNP gets compared to how much it needs, and then whining if one solution to multiple problems might be a small, small fee.
Rainman, its interesting that you see people who disagree with the backcountry fee as "whining" and that you selectively removed the portions of my post from your quoted section that spoke about the good things that the fee does. Please understand that I gladly pay the fee. But I still am bothered by the fact that the park is charging for use of trails and facilities that are maintained and funded by volunteers, while not charging any sort of fee for activities that have a much higher impact on the park and potentially a much greater source of revenue.
"massive amounts of money and volunteer labor" seems to sum it up pretty good to me.
http://smokiestrailsforever.org/
https://www.appalachiantrail.org/what-we-do/trail-management-support/trail-crews/rocky-top-trail-crew
http://www.smokiesinformation.org/info/about-gsma
http://www.friendsofthesmokies.org/aboutus.html
http://www.thedailytimes.com/news/park-seeks-alum-cave-trail-rehab-volunteers/article_4541cc12-3c23-53d7-ad50-aab6fe1ddd70.html
http://www.smokymountainnews.com/news/item/5955-smokies%E2%80%99-partners-renovate-their-final-trail-shelter-in-park
http://www.smhclub.org/aboutus.htm
http://www.nps.gov/grsm/getinvolved/supportyourpark/upload/2015-Volunteer-Opportunities-NEW.docx
For those who don't like the fee, what should GSMNP do to reduce the chances that people book a location and then don't show up?
In my opinion, they're doing us a favor by charging $4 per night as a deterrent for frivolous bookings.
Good point.
I expect the $25,000 - $35,000 they will collect from thru hikers this year is just about the money, though.
HooKooDooKu
04-07-2015, 13:37
For those who don't like the fee, what should GSMNP do to reduce the chances that people book a location and then don't show up?
From what I heard and experienced, the old reservation didn't have a significant problem with this. And plenty of no-shows still happen even with the $4/night fee. More than once the online reservation system would show a shelter or campsite that I've booked as being full... yet once in the woods, many would be a no-show.
Two worst examples would be the nights I booked a reservation for two at Ice Water Springs and at Silers Bald (both in mid summer). The night at Ice Water, there were only 5 of us in the shelter. At Silers, it was just me and my son.
Andrewsobo
04-09-2015, 18:40
Just curious: If someone's backpacking through the Smokies & forgets their permit & doesn't have any ID on them, what do the rangers do?
They can look it up by name pretty easily.
I didn't think the suit would be successful, either. I used to hike in GSMNP every summer/fall but stopped when the fee started. I believe the park service chose the, politically, least painful route in charging backpackers but exempting cars, dayhikers, etc. I now hike in nearby Joyce Kilmer and the Citico when I'm up that way. I do miss a few things about BPing in GSMNP (not running into hunting dogs is one!) but JK/Citico is every bit as beautiful and I don't need to log on or call someone before I go.
Starchild
04-14-2015, 13:35
I didn't think the suit would be successful, either. I used to hike in GSMNP every summer/fall but stopped when the fee started. I believe the park service chose the, politically, least painful route in charging backpackers but exempting cars, dayhikers, etc. I now hike in nearby Joyce Kilmer and the Citico when I'm up that way. I do miss a few things about BPing in GSMNP (not running into hunting dogs is one!) but JK/Citico is every bit as beautiful and I don't need to log on or call someone before I go.
They use(d)* hunting dogs in GSMNP to catch the hogs. Sometimes these dogs do get separated from the hunting party.
*Not sure if they still do
I remember running in to tone over by the Fontana-side one time. I figured it had wandered over from JK. I do know they use them for "problem" bears.