View Full Version : GSMNP fee to be legally challenged
stillatit
02-11-2013, 20:30
A hiking colleague and attorney with whom I spent a night at Joshua and Leigh's hostel near Woody Gap 2+ years ago and with whom I stay in contact tells me that a lawsuit is being prepared to challenge this fee that the Park Service wants to impose on thru-hikers. He has not decided whether to join in the fun (he was invited), nor has he responded to queries re: the legal basis for the suit, but it does provide some hope (?) or at least info on the situation.
Perhaps others here have some knowledge of this proposed legal challenge and would be willing to share????
Happy trails.
:-?
Although I highly disagree with the fee, I can't see spending our tax dollars to fight this. The government has already wasted enough money on this nonsense. Also, when attorneys fight the government on behalf of the public (or plaintiff), the government pays the attorney's fees (IIRC) when the plaintiff wins the case. That's not really how I want to spend my tax dollars (your opinion may be different), but then again, this was not a choice by the people and was forced on us in spite of the overwhelming opposition. I have mixed feelings.
Lone Wolf
02-11-2013, 21:41
A hiking colleague and attorney with whom I spent a night at Joshua and Leigh's hostel near Woody Gap 2+ years ago and with whom I stay in contact tells me that a lawsuit is being prepared to challenge this fee that the Park Service wants to impose on thru-hikers. He has not decided whether to join in the fun (he was invited), nor has he responded to queries re: the legal basis for the suit, but it does provide some hope (?) or at least info on the situation.
Perhaps others here have some knowledge of this proposed legal challenge and would be willing to share????
Happy trails.
:-?so just thru-hikers shouldn't be charged? elitism
I strongly disagree with this new fee.
Its a shame that so many people these days are willing to open their wallets and eagerly pay fees without ever researching and questioning where the money is going. They just assume the money is being properly spent. They ignore the fact that millions of Fed money is wasted and squandered--hell, I seem to recall a report in which billions just up and vanished without a trace. Nobody knows where it went. Things like that really make me question where my money is going and how its being spent.
It'll interesting to see how far this lawsuit will go.
mountainman
02-11-2013, 22:29
When this land was deeded to the Federal Goverment, it was on condition that there would never be a charge for using it. The Gov has allready broken that agreement as it has many others.
When this land was deeded to the Federal Goverment, it was on condition that there would never be a charge for using it. The Gov has allready broken that agreement as it has many others.
Without looking it up again I'm going to say that's not exactly what the restriction is. I believe the restriction has to do with HWY 441. No toll or charge for crossing from NC to Tn can be levied. If they want to charge cars to circle Cades Cove I believe they could.
Without looking it up again I'm going to say that's not exactly what the restriction is. I believe the restriction has to do with HWY 441. No toll or charge for crossing from NC to Tn can be levied. If they want to charge cars to circle Cades Cove I believe they could.
And I would add that charging cars to loop Cades Cove would make a fortune compared to charging back country campers.
MuddyWaters
02-12-2013, 02:45
total waste of time
most national parks charge entrance and usage fees
upstream
02-12-2013, 08:31
http://www.southernforestwatch.org/ was started for and is being incorporated for this challenge.
It seems to me that the money spent on the private enterprise providing the registration service is probably more than what they will take in. At any rate, it's a drop in the bucket compared to GSMNP budget of 20.3 million per year.
Lone Wolf
02-12-2013, 08:59
A hiking colleague and attorney with whom I spent a night at Joshua and Leigh's hostel near Woody Gap 2+ years ago and with whom I stay in contact tells me that a lawsuit is being prepared to challenge this fee that the Park Service wants to impose on thru-hikers.
so screw everybody else, your lawyer buddy just wants thru-hikers to get a free ride cuz they're so special
upstream
02-12-2013, 09:05
Since this went into effect yesterday, has anyone actually been able to find the reservation system?
LW- the challenge is more about local backpackers than thru hikers. Even pointing out that it's unfair to charge thru-hikers less.
Waste of time I think.
I think the smart thing to do is start with this system, warts and all, and tweak it as necessary with the hopes that eventually it'll work.
As has been said - most NP's charge and that's a good thing IMO.
I don't mind paying fees at all - as long as the money I use to pay the fee goes towards the park. I think a lot of our parks are understaffed, underfunded, and under-cared for. I'm more than happy to pay to keep it up and running.
Upstream is right, this has little to do with thru hikers and a lot to do with those of us who backpack extensively in the GSMNP. Some people seem to get fixated on the thru hiking angle. But I also agree that any legal attempt to stop the fee is futile. This may be a step to start charging for other activities in the park.
stillatit
02-12-2013, 16:45
Wow, quite a response to just my second post! I used the term "thru-hikers," however one wants to define it (and the Park admin defines it differently from, say, those who strictly take it as s.o. going from Springer to Katahdin in one season), loosely. With the exception of upstream's reply no one had more info on the lawsuit to share---my reason for posting what little I know...
Thanx upstream!
Lone Wolf: my "lawyer buddy" hasn't really told me his personal feelings on the matter, just that he's not sure that he's going to get involved. He's busy with lots of other things, like most of us. I do not know his motives.
:o
rocketsocks
02-12-2013, 17:07
I don't mind paying fees at all - as long as the money I use to pay the fee goes towards the park. I think a lot of our parks are understaffed, underfunded, and under-cared for. I'm more than happy to pay to keep it up and running.This..............
Wow, quite a response to just my second post! I used the term "thru-hikers," however one wants to define it (and the Park admin defines it differently from, say, those who strictly take it as s.o. going from Springer to Katahdin in one season), loosely. With the exception of upstream's reply no one had more info on the lawsuit to share---my reason for posting what little I know...
Thanx upstream!
Lone Wolf: my "lawyer buddy" hasn't really told me his personal feelings on the matter, just that he's not sure that he's going to get involved. He's busy with lots of other things, like most of us. I do not know his motives.
:o:welcometo White blaze....you picked a hot topic, or maybe it picked you...either way! break out the popcorn.:)
wornoutboots
02-12-2013, 17:14
I hate to say it, because I'm supposed to not Break Rules, but I really do have a problem with paying to walk across public land that was bought for by You & I. Every time I think of the Smokies now, they seem tarnished, I love them, but I feel like avoiding them. If I do go back, I doubt I'll pay any fees?? I don't think they have authority to even get you name & additional information?? Not trying ot stir up trouble, but on principle, it's just not correct. My 2 cents
max patch
02-12-2013, 17:46
Piss the Government off and they're liable to say "screw you thru hikers" and make us follow the same rules as everyone else.
Do you really want to have to reserve shelter spots on a date certain before you even start hiking? And guess what - its thru hiker season - not everyones gonna get a spot. Then what?
Thru hikers oughta kiss the ground and thank the bureaucrats for using common sense and modifying the rules for us.
No thanks Mr Attorney - go find someone else to sue.
Majortrauma
02-12-2013, 18:14
Amen to that slimer. Not that anyone really cares but I agree with everything you said.
Majortrauma
02-12-2013, 18:15
Feds screwed the Native Americans so why not be consistent and screw the rest of us. It's only fair right?
Feds screwed the Native Americans so why not be consistent and screw the rest of us. It's only fair right?
Feds screw up everything they touch! That is the one consistent thing about them.
Rain Man
02-12-2013, 18:35
So many rants, screeds, and panties in wads.
What are they gonna sue over next? Toll roads, perhaps?! Having to make reservations to see a performance at a government-owned concert hall?
The anti-anything-"government" crowd seems sinking lower and lower all the time in self-indulgent, nonsensical blatherings. If you want to snivel about rip-offs, start and end with REAL rip-offs of American gotcha capitalism.
Just my two cents. Worth every dime. LOL
Rain Man
.
Feds screwed the Native Americans so why not be consistent and screw the rest of us. It's only fair right?
Amazing how people equate the "Feds" with some foreign entity. They are the people you and other citizens elect year after year. Always have been. If they aren't doing your bidding, elect someone else.
Feds screwed the Native Americans so why not be consistent and screw the rest of us. It's only fair right?
Amazing how people equate the "Feds" with some foreign entity. They are the people you and other citizens elect year after year. Always have been. If they aren't doing your bidding, elect someone else.
The Major probably has worked for the Feds for close to 20 years and may have a accurate perspective. Seeing that he is, or was in the military his vote may not have even been counted.
Amazing how people equate the "Feds" with some foreign entity. They are the people you and other citizens elect year after year. Always have been. If they aren't doing your bidding, elect someone else.
I absolutely agree Lyle. Unfortunately I think the number of people dependent on the gov't now exceeds the number of people paying revenue (taxes) into the gov't. and the dependents will always vote for more benefits.
upstream
02-12-2013, 19:03
Hey Rain-Man ... This is Capitalism.
Recreation.gov is privately owned. Think Active.com or Ticketmaster. Have fun trying to get reservations.
mtntopper
02-12-2013, 19:16
I strongly disagree with this new fee.
Its a shame that so many people these days are willing to open their wallets and eagerly pay fees without ever researching and questioning where the money is going. They just assume the money is being properly spent. They ignore the fact that millions of Fed money is wasted and squandered--hell, I seem to recall a report in which billions just up and vanished without a trace. Nobody knows where it went. Things like that really make me question where my money is going and how its being spent.
It'll interesting to see how far this lawsuit will go.
They told us how the money was going to be spent..........who defines properly spent.........we already know that the fed gov wastes money
mtntopper
02-12-2013, 19:20
I hate to say it, because I'm supposed to not Break Rules, but I really do have a problem with paying to walk across public land that was bought for by You & I. Every time I think of the Smokies now, they seem tarnished, I love them, but I feel like avoiding them. If I do go back, I doubt I'll pay any fees?? I don't think they have authority to even get you name & additional information?? Not trying ot stir up trouble, but on principle, it's just not correct. My 2 cents
you dont pay to walk you pay to camp, thanks for your 2 cents worth anyway
rocketsocks
02-12-2013, 19:24
I absolutely agree Lyle. Unfortunately I think the number of people dependent on the gov't now exceeds the number of people paying revenue (taxes) into the gov't. and the dependents will always vote for more benefits.Not always ;) :)
mtntopper
02-12-2013, 19:27
quit acting like a bunch of pansies........pay up or stay at home, a lawsuit over this is a waste of time.....pay the fee to camp or stay at home.......
Not always ;) :)
You are right socks there are exceptions to everything.
Pedaling Fool
02-13-2013, 10:41
Amazing how people equate the "Feds" with some foreign entity. They are the people you and other citizens elect year after year. Always have been. If they aren't doing your bidding, elect someone else.I agree with your first sentence. However, voting at the ballot box is not the only way that people can and should vote. And in this situation voting at the ballot box is not an option, since it's the action of a Govt bureaucracy and they are somewhat insulated from ballot box voting. Seems like voting with one's wallet is probably best in this case, along with letter writing.
Unfortunately most don't have the fortitude to vote with their wallet.
I do think the lawsuit is BS.
Creek Dancer
02-13-2013, 12:36
I absolutely agree Lyle. Unfortunately I think the number of people dependent on the gov't now exceeds the number of people paying revenue (taxes) into the gov't. and the dependents will always vote for more benefits.
Exactly. When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you will always have Paul's support.
19650
Anytime a topic gets a bit heated, I think of this...
Alligator
02-13-2013, 13:15
Keep the politics out of it please folks.
Thanks.
Feral Bill
02-13-2013, 13:18
Keep the politics out of it please folks.
Thanks. Good luck with that, Gator. I'm with you.
As much as I hate to do it, the thread is all complaints and politics and serves no useful purpose. It's also in one of the forums I moderate. Closed.