New Petition Against GSMNP Backountry Camping Fees

[Pedaling Fool]

Sure would be helpful if people posting to this thread could see this issue from a conservation perspective. Some seem to be focused exclusively upon recreation from the consumer's point-of-view as if recreation were the only issue involved and its supply unlimited.

If everyone hiking the A.T. were to read just one book, I would wish for it to be Wilderness and the American Mind. The final chapters deal with concepts that seem to have never been considered by some who post here such as what happens as popularity leads to increases in visitor days and reduces the quality of recreational experiences sought.

You keep approaching this issue from a conservation angle, but it has been shown that this issue is not about conservation, yet you seem hellbent on discussing it. That's fine, but not on this thread. Maybe you should open another thread and talk about these issues you seem to have a yearning to talk about. Maybe you can talk about the need to have a special fracking tax on camping fuels or whatever...

[emerald]

You keep approaching this issue from a conservation angle, but it has been shown that this issue is not about conservation.

There are two threads active on this topic and so much has been posted, I wonder if anyone knows what the issue is about anymore. Besides, I don't believe what you claim has been demonstrated and that everyone posting understands the purpose of the proposed fees.

As I recall, the purpose of the fees explained at the public informational meeting and reported upon by Sgt. Rock in the other thread is to create two ranger positions that would deal primarily with enforcement of park regulations in the backcountry.

If I'm correct with what I just posted and have succeeded in reducing this lengthy discussion to something more simple and understandable, I contend the proposal most definately has resource conservation as its primary objective and those who are expected to pay for it are consumers of public resources who should pay for the increased presence deemed necessary by those charged with protecting these resources.

[SGT Rock]

ATC is not empowered to establish or enforce park regulations, rather they have an obligation to educate those attracted to GSMNP by the footpath they created.

yes we know that.

[jbwood5]

This is probably what I hate the most, the doom and gloom, and general inaccuracies. GCNP backcountry camping fees below the rim are $10 per permit and $5 per person, per night, and haven't gone up in over 10 years.

They also have a $25 frequent user program which waives the $10 permit fee for 1 year.

They also charge $10 to view a 35 minute National Park film. When GSMNP starts charging fees for all other Park activities that are free but have substantial impact like horse riding, boat docking, parking, picnicing, NPS films, etc., then they might want to investigate fees for using the backcountry sites. For now, there is just no reason to target this small group of people who have very little impact (in comparison to what was just mentioned) to the Park.

The only thing GSMNP can't charge for is an entrance fee.

[gollwoods]

the backcountry is overused in alot of places, so this should help that. maybe some people will choose to go elsewhere. that is the idea ultimately. it might make the experience more enjoyable for the people who still go. that is the value you will be paying for.

[rickb]

I am sure a whole bunch of folks on this list have had conversations similar to the one I had with a NPS Ranger we met at Rocky Mountain National Park. It went something like this:

Me: This sure is a beautiful park you have here.
Ranger: Yes, your park most certainly is.

That made an impression. One which really colors my thinking on this subject.

[emerald]

When GSMNP starts charging fees for all other Park activities that are free but have substantial impact like horse riding, boat docking, parking, picnicing, NPS films, etc., then they might want to investigate fees for using the backcountry sites.

Those activities for the most part are not A.T.-related and do not bear upon A.T. issues to be addressed by the proposal being discussed. If you believe additional user fees might be helpful in resolving A.T.-related issues or issues elsewhere within GSMNP, feel free to voice your concerns and suggest remedies to park managers.

[jbwood5]

Those issues for the most part are not A.T.-related and do not bear upon A.T. issues to be addressed by the proposal being discussed. If you believe additional user fees might be helpful in resolving A.T.-related issues or issues elsewhere within GSMNP, feel free to voice your concerns to park managers.

Apparently you have not been reading the releases from the NPS and other posts discussing this. This is not an AT related issue. The proposed fee plan is for every backcountry site on every trail in the GSMNP. I believe there are close to 100, if not more.

I tried to explain that to you when you made the suggestion that AT thru hikers use the BMT. The BMT gets more horse damage than the AT and there are certain sections that boaters can pull up to from the lake, and have picnics, and pull away leaving their trash. Some of the trash is too large for hikers and volunteers on foot to carry out.

Before they begin charging to use the backcountry sites, they need to charge for those that create the most damage (or impact) to the park.

.... and yes my comments addressing all these other concerns were sent to the website set up for the proposed fee discussion, and indicated on the comments section of the petition.

One good thing about filling out the petition against the proposed backcountry fee plan is that it will become public record, whereas it is uncertain what will happen to all the letters written to the NPS.

[Sly]

They also charge $10 to view a 35 minute National Park film. When GSMNP starts charging fees for all other Park activities that are free but have substantial impact like horse riding, boat docking, parking, picnicing, NPS films, etc., then they might want to investigate fees for using the backcountry sites. For now, there is just no reason to target this small group of people who have very little impact (in comparison to what was just mentioned) to the Park.

The only thing GSMNP can't charge for is an entrance fee.

You know what? Don't watch the film. How easy is that? I'm not even aware of a boat dock in the GSMNP so stop with the strawmans.

[emerald]

This is not an AT related issue. The proposed fee plan is for every backcountry site on every trail in the GSMNP. I believe there are close to 100, if not more.

Some of these backcountry sites are located on the A.T. and you are reading an A.T. forum. I'm questioning the relevance of discussing non-A.T.-related issues here. You seem to be focusing upon unrelated issues as a means of derailing the discussion and/or defeating the proposal.

The BMT gets more horse damage than the AT and there are certain sections that boaters can pull up to from the lake, and have picnics, and pull away leaving their trash. Some of the trash is too large for hikers and volunteers on foot to carry out.

Seems to me a fee and an increased presence is just what's needed.

Before they begin charging to use the backcountry sites, they need to charge for those that create the most damage (or impact) to the park.

If you will refer to my earlier posts, you will see I suggested you contact GSMNP about charging them too. Your notion that GSMNP needs to charge them before they charge A.T. visitors for overnight stays is illogical.

[jbwood5]

Some of these backcountry sites are located on the A.T. and you are reading an A.T. forum. I'm questioning the relevance of discussing non-A.T.-related issues here. You seem to be focusing upon unrelated issues as a means of derailing the discussion and/or defeating the proposal.

I believe this thread is to discuss GSMNP issues. I'm right on topic.

Seems to me a fee and an increased presence is just what's needed.

Absolutely! Charge the boaters to picnic and party on Lakeshore. Charge the horse riders to pay for the damage they create to the trails. Charge all other users appropriately where allowed by law...... and if they are still short of funds, consider a charge to use backcountry sites.

If you will refer to my earlier posts, you will see I suggested you contact GSMNP about charging them too. Your notion that GSMNP needs to charge them before they charge A.T. visitors is illogical.

Perfectly logical. Those that create the biggest impact to the Park lands, pay first, and pay the most.

[Doctari]

Ive been camping overnight at Red River Gorge (RRG) for about 5 years now. Yea, it's a state park, but they have been charging a overnight permit fee for years, & no one hesitates to "Ante Up". I got a $25.00 (I think) "season pass" last year, & it was well worth it as after about night 14 the rest are free, in 2010 I spent about 30 nights in RRG, so was ahead so to speak at less than $1.00 a night. I think a one night permit at RRG is about $5.00, & that goes down per night to 3 nights @ around $4.00.
I would happily pay that or more to camp in GSMNP, and in fact have done so in the car camping areas (I think last time the fee was $29.00 or so a night about 15 years ago.).

So, thanks for the offer, but I am FOR the fee. Any place to sign a petition saying that?

[jbwood5]

Don't expect me to respond to any more of your posts as I have better things to do with my time.

Thank You, so do I.

[SmokiesHanger]

I want to thank you all and whiteblaze for letting me post the petition here. Already has gotten over 300 signatures and it seems to be picking up steam. I won't add a lot more but if you are local you may be seeing a story about this petition in 2 papers soon. Adding this to the other petition going around Maryville means there have been over 1000 signees so far. I couldn't have imagined such a strong response.

Thanks to Emerald too for keeping this topic alive for so long and for the great debate. Sometimes it is good for a cause to have such vocal opponents!

[Sly]

I came back to clean up the thread, but Troll beat me to it.