You are here

Tennessee's House Of Representatives Opposes Backcountry Fee At Great Smoky Mountains National Park

Share

Published Date

April 18, 2013

In its biggest political coup to date, a group fighting the backcountry fees charged at Great Smoky Mountains National Park has gotten the backing of the Tennessee State House of Representatives.

In a proclamation adopted April 9, the House expressed its "opposition to the imposition of any backcountry camping fees in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park that are not directly associated with the use of amenities or a commercial purpose and strongly urge an immediate appeal of any such imposed fee."

Previously, the Knox County (Tennessee) Commission, as well the commissions in Bradley and Blount counties in Tennessee and Swain County in North Carolina, condemned the fee and called for its repeal.

The backcountry fee of $4 per night per person, with a $20 per person cap per trip, took effect February 13. It is intended by park officials to help streamline and improve the backcountry permitting process and heighten the presence of rangers in the backcountry.

Pinched by an inadequate budget and unable to charge an entrance fee for any of the roughly 9 million yearly visitors, park officials say they see no way of improving visitor services and protecting backcountry resources without charging users who spend the night in the woods.

The park can't charge an entrance fee because the state of Tennessee, when it agreed to transfer land to the federal government for the park, essentially forbade it.

"By condemning and calling for a repeal of this hugely unpopular and specious tax on backcountry users, the State of Tennessee has proven its intent to provide a voice for citizens that was ignored by the National Park Service as evidenced in the public comments that tallied 18-1 in opposition to the fee," said a statement from Southern Forest Watch, a non-profit group organized to lobby for the fee's repeal.

Comments

David Crowl -- an interesting proposal for sure. But I expect that the original legal agreement isn't written quite that way. Also, descendants of the original GSMNP land owners may no longer live in NC or TN. (And to be exact about it, the true original owners of that land were, for the most part, forcibly moved to Oklahoma.) That said, I don't see that anyone -- local person, out-of-state person, descendant of either the original white or indigenous land owners, etc. -- is being denied the right to enter the park.


and mountainhiker.

Get back to work!


Tennessee Backpacker, no, I don't work for and have never worked for the National Park Service or any branch of the federal government. Neither have any of my family members. In fact, I don't personally know anyone -- friend or aquaintance or neighbor -- who works for the Park service. I have gratitude for our national parks. And I just call it as I see it.


With the right to enter the park comes responsibillities...upkeep and personel. It seems unfair to subsidy the park with entrance fees obtained from other national parks. So it seems other fees could be a way around it. Mountainhiker...how do you propose we pay for the upkeep, etc...in a fair manner compared to other national parks.


David Crowl, you ask a very good question. My only experience with national parks has been visiting them, as a member of the public, for purely recreational purposes. I have no experience with managing or working in a national park or any government operation for that matter. Off the top of my head, I have no answers for you. If I were to answer you with honest intent, I would need to spend a significant amount of time doing research on the background, the range of options, the legal restrictions, and so forth. In all the years this park has been in existance, I would hope that the federal government would have already studied this issue and has come up with such a proposal.


Mountainhiker, my experience is also only visiting. It would be nice if the gov't would fund the parks completely since they are owned by all of us, but it does seem that if they are insistant on having user fees (like entrance fees and camping fees) to make those of us that use the parks pay a bigger share, than it would seem this park needs to find a more equal footing.


David - You make a good point about how Congress chooses to fund the parks, and this is a subject that has been discussed at length in other threads on the Traveler in months past. For better or worse, the trend in recent years has been for Congress to ask the NPS to raise more and more of its support via user fees, and that inevitably results in some unhappy users - as clearly confirmed by this discussion!


Jim Burnett...You are right it has been discussed on earlier threads but it does seem to apply here. I personally look at the parks as a great asset for our country and I do not care how we pay for it... as long as we do pay for it. Use Federal funding or charge fees or both. Just do not underfund the parks and try to make it equal across the parks.


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 easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.

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

You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

FREE for iPhones and Android phones.