You are here

Great Smoky Mountains National Park Planning To Implement Backcountry Fees In 2013

Share

A backcountry fee system will be implemented in Great Smoky Mountains National Park in 2013, unless a legal challenge derails it.

The fee, for overnight stays in the park's backcountry, has been talked about and debated for more than a year. Under the plan, backcountry travelers, whether on foot or horseback, will be charged $4 per night per person, up to a ceiling of $20 for seven days.

Park officials say the money raised through this program will be used to pay for a better reservations system, and more backcountry rangers.

However, a contingent of Great Smoky's backcountry users, organized as Southern Forest Watch, maintains park officials overlooked the vast opposition to the fee proposal that was voiced during the public comment period. In a recent letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Park Service Director Jon Jarvis, and Superintendent Ditmanson, attorney J. Myers Morton maintains the fee is "a tax on us without our consent...a tax on us in violation of the law...a tax on us based on deceit."

In the letter, which notified the federal officials that a lawsuit would be forthcoming, Mr. Myers maintains that the Park Service lacks the authority to impose the backcountry fee.

Great Smokies officials have been working with a software company to create a reservation system different than the recreation.gov system many other national parks use for reservations. This new system, based off one used at Zion National Park in Utah, is seen as being able to provide users with the ability to make backcountry reservations every day of the week at any time of day.

"Reservations may be made at any time up to 30 days in advance, allowing maximum flexibility for those making last minute plans," a park release said. "Backcountry users will no longer be required to call the Backcountry Office to obtain reservations. Reservation and permit requests will also be accepted in person at the Backcountry Office, which is located at the Sugarlands Visitor Center."

The reservation software still is being created and tested, though park officials hope to have it on-line for public use early in the new year.

“It is anticipated the on-line reservation and permit system will be available to the public within the first few months of 2013,” said Superintendent Dale Ditmanson. "We will provide notification of a specific implementation date later this year.”

In an effort to address questions about the change, the park has created an "FAQ" page that runs through a variety of quesions about the reservation system, ranging from whether an annual backcountry pass can be purchased (No) to whether there's a discount for children or North Carolina and Tennessee residents (No).

Comments

Tennessee Hiker -

I've not had the opportunity to use the park's backcountry, but according to the park's website, the area has: 800+ miles of hiking trails, and I suspect there are at least some trail bridges and a fair number of signs at key trail junctions; backcountry shelters for overnight users; backcountry campsites (at least some with fire rings) that require at least minimal occasional maintenance; five drive-in horse camps that likely serve as staging areas for some backcountry trips....and so on.

In the context used above by Revkeebler, it seems the above items could reasonably be described as "facilities."


Tom, aren't our tax dollars paying for the roads I drove on two weeks ago at Mt. Rainier and Crater Lake? Why did I have to pay an entrance fee to drive on those roads? And why shouldn't a backpacker have to pay for his/her use of the park? If I bring my own food and linens on a cruise can I go for free or get a discount? Of course not. If you are enjoying what you want to do in a park then you should support it just like anyone else does. And I hardly doubt that the NPS is going to price out backpackers in any park.

Bob, given your argument, only folks who drive in a park need to pay for it? Who is going to pay for the biologists and law enforcement rangers and trail maintenance crews and fire monitors and smoke jumpers etc., etc. who work for the park to make sure you can have that "backcountry" experience? I contend it is the backcountry users who are expecting the frontcountry uses to pay for their experience in the park.

Tennessee, have you seen some internal NPS document that states that, contrary to what they told the public, they have no intention of hiring additional backcountry rangers? And all park managers need some degree of control in their parks or chaos would reign.

Good points Rev and Jim.

My final comment on this issue is this. I have visited many of our national parks and I have come across way too many people who felt like the activity they wanted to participate in was not one that should have a charge. But here's a fact, no park makes nearly the amount of money it requires to operate from the fees it charges. If you are on this website you know that government monies are tight and so where is one of the first places cuts are made? In the parks because we aren't as important as schools, hospitals, and any number of other social services. (I would beg to differ.) So why is it such a burden for a park user, ie backpacker, to be asked to pay a little, $4 per night, $20 max., to make sure they have Great Smokey Mountain National Park in which to enjoy their leisure activity of choise? I think it is quite a bargin.


Howdy Rev. most back country campers I know of are on foot and leave no manure behind. In your example of staying in a frontcountry site, you are also being provided services and amenities that are not provided in the back country sites. You mention maintenance of fire rings, trails, and such, historically this is done by those who volunteer and make various other contributions in both time and money. Beyond these facts, there is a matter of how this
fee proposal and process has been obviouly rigged and is fraught with deception throughout by the NPS. Before you pass judgment too hasitly on these you refer to as "self-centered" perhaps you ought visit the "[color=#0066cc]www.gotsmokies.com[/color]" site and look at the list of mis-representations documented to have been made by the NPS folks. I would hazard a guess that most of the"crimes" or sins that you blame on back country campers have actually occurred at the hands of other such as the manure issue being a result of the equestrion folks and more often than not the litter issues are related more to the "day-hikers" than folks who love the park, give to it, and often take the time to pickup after others that fail to place the same value upon the park or fellow hikers.


Good discussion folks. I don't disagree with your comments Ranger Dave. But while the $4 doesn't seem like much, there are some real drawbacks to how it was proposed, and more importantly how it could be implemented. For example, this will be the only part of the entire Appalachian Trail where hikers have to pay to camp. As for thru-hikers, how in the world will they know which site they'll need on which nights? You can't plan for that much exactness in a 2000 mile hike!. And what about youth and scouts? They could be priced out of a backcountry experience by these fees. They'll add up very quickly for a scout troop.

I know that the fee proponents have dished out a lot of ridicule and bashing of their opponents, and that detracts from their case. But that aside, they do have some really good points. This one size fits all proposal bring hammered home by the NPS isn't really that well thought out.

My last point is that there are a lot of other GSMNP users that are much harder on the environment and represent a much bigger revenue stream that could be tapped. Like horse users, and people who stop their cars in the middle of the Cades Cove Loop road and block traffic. But I don't think those are politically attractive targets.


"If you are enjoying what you want to do in a park then you should support it just like anyone else does."

Ranger Dave - then tell me how the cars and horses are "supporting it". Again, why isn't NPS charging them? The car traffic in Cades Cove alone soaks up a lot of NPS resources. Trails are rutted 4' deep in some places due to horse use. How are those 2 groups supporting it? Why don't they have to pay a fee?

Also, I remind everyone that this fee will only cover the cost of the reservation line. NPS has said as much already. It WON'T be for trail maintenance, repairing bridges, shelters, campsite improvements, etc. Volunteers are doing much of that. The extra rangers they speak of are already paid for by Friends of the Great Smoky Mountains.

And finally I would add that the folks opposing this fee contribute PLENTY to the park in the way of adopting campsites and trails for maintenance, repairing bear cables, packing out other's trash left behind. Not to mention they are typically the most respectful users of the park.


It's ALL about control. They don't want us in their backcountry. The best way to raise some $ would surely be a charge to drive the Loop. $5 a car would bring a boatload of cash rolling in. Is anyone else who frequents the backcountry in the Park sick of hearing the phrase "we are loving the park to death"? Once you get away from the black top it is rarely crowded. Overnight use is down according to the info we received via FOIA request.


Ranger Dave, I'm not anti-fee. I'm happy to pay a backcountry fee for backcountry trail maintenance. If the revenue were dedicated that way - correct me if it is - no problem.

(And yes taxes should be paying for lots of the NPS too.)

But my understanding of this fee is that it's driven by the fact that the NPS *can't* charge the eight million annual auto tourists an entrance fee, so they charge the backcountry users more or less because they can. That's not fair. Put up parking meters.


Ranger Dave,

I would be interested, and presumably you are or have been affiliated with the park service as implied by your handle, in your perception of the deceit and manipulation that has characterized this particular fee initiative in the Smokies. The question here is, are those methods acceptable. Why does the public input have no bearing on the policy and why backpackers and backpackers only. We are the lowest of impact groups. We are low hanging fruit and easy pickins for the NPS. You can speak of the park needing funds, I don't particularly agree since they just got an extra 80 million dollars, but is it fair to target one specific group when horses and cars do immeasurable damage and they get a pass.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.