You are here

Traveler's View: Great Smoky Mountains National Park's Backcountry Fee Debate Points To Larger Problem

Share
Alternate Text
While a backcountry use fee might help meet a small portion of Great Smoky's bills, a better solution is a park entrance fee/Kurt Repanshek

In a 25-page motion attacking not just the propriety but also the legality of a backcountry user fee at Great Smoky Mountains National Park, a group of backpackers has not only asked that the fees be tossed out, but shined some light on the conundrum of how to afford our public lands.

The overwhelming dilemma here is not that backcountry users have to pay $4 a night, with a maximum fee of $20 for one trip, but rather that the National Park Service has its hands legislatively tied in its efforts to meet the needs of one of the most popular national parks. Politicians seem quick to oppose the fee but not as quick to solve the problem.

The lawsuit (attached below) makes accusations about how the staff of the park, under former Superintendent Dale Ditmanson, went about building its case for the user fees. Among the charges is that the staff concocted complaints about the existing backcountry reservation system, that minutes of public meetings were missing from the administrative record, and that some staff discussions of the matter were conducted on private, not government, email accounts. It also argues that federal regulations prohibit fees for backcountry campsites unless they come with "drinking water, access, road, refuse containers, toilet facilities ... (and) reasonable visitor protection," none of which exist, short of privies, in the park's backcountry.

More so, the lawsuit, contends that federal law prohibits the National Park Service at Great Smoky from charging "an entrance or standard amenity recreation fee ... unless fees are charged for entrance into that park on main highways and thoroughfares."

Southern Forest Watch, which brought the lawsuit, also contends that "(A) 25 percent drop in backcountry camping (from 84,236 in 2012 to 62,863 the following year) since full implementation of this fee is dramatic evidence that this fee has impaired this generation's use of the Smoky Mountains ... "

In February 2012, Superintendent Ditmanson told the Traveler that, faced with an inadequate budget and unable to charge an entrance fee for any of his roughly 9 million yearly visitors, he saw no way of improving visitor services and protecting backcountry resources without charging users who spend the night in the woods. 

The solution would seem to lie with those political entities that have sided with Southern Forest Watch in its anti-fee fight: the speaker of the Tennessee House of Representatives, the Knox County (Tennessee) Commission as well as county officials in Bradley and Blount counties in Tennessee and Swain County in North Carolina. Rather than simply opposing the backcountry fees, these politicians should work to overturn the prohibition on entrance fees to Great Smoky, or to pressure Washington to better fund the Park Service. Or both.

Similar support should be sought from U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, who in the past has been honored by the National Parks Conservation Association for his pro-Park Service stances. Moving to shore up financing for Great Smoky Mountains specifically, and the National Park Service in general, would burnish that William Penn Mott Jr. Park Leadership Award he received from the NPCA in 2007 for opposing drastic changes to the Park Service's Management Policies and the costly "Road to Nowhere."

This is not to wholeheartedly endorse fees in the parks across the board. But when entrance fees are charged at one-third of the 401 units of the National Park System, and put to good use in improving the parks for the visitors' benefit, the longstanding ban against such a fee at Great Smoky is an anachronism in this day of scarce federal funds. 

While recreation fees are generally unsavory, if there are to be fees, the Smokies would benefit much, much more from a $10-$20 per car fee from the millions who enter the park and exert considerable wear and tear on not only roads but also frontcountry facilities each year than from a $4 per night fee on 65,000 backcountry campers who sleep on the ground and walk down a path.

Comments

....translation,  "I can't provide a link to show an increase in backcountry camping but I can play with numbers to make it look like this fee is going to increase backcountry camping by the time the year is over. " You've successfully neutered your own argument, Gary.  June is always peak park usage time.   But you don't think there needs to be an entrance fee to the Smokies?  Just a backpacking fee.  How about a Blackberry Farms private trail usage fee?  Should there be a fee for horses on the trails in the park?  I haven't heard you chime in on that one yet. I'm confused, do you think there should be fees or not.  Do you even know? 


Gary,

For the rest of us that don't claim "so up-to-date" knowledge or "deep insight".  Might you share that link to the current park statistics?


I'm having some fun watching John try and spin spin spin in his angst ridden tirades.  Can't you let me play around for a little longer before tossing him a bone and making him look like a fool.   Actually, John, traditionally July is the busiest month, followed by October, then June.  June already broke records.  Boy, I thought you would know these things, with your very deep insight that you claim to have.  Like I said, this is quickly shaping up to be one of the busiest years in the park in over a decade.


I'm having some fun watching John try and spin spin spin in his angst ridden tirades.

Gee the rest of us are trying to get educated and/or intelligently discuss the issues. What was that definition again Kurt?


It's not my fault you guys never learned to do research on your own.  That's your own fault, not mine.  But it explains a lot about why people are constantly having frustrating experiences with some on this site in such "debates".


Since some can't use google, nor do their own research because it requires effort, here you go. I'm not going to hand hold people through this, but everything is on this site including the figures I gave you.  Here is the link to monthly visitation statisitcs.

GSMNP Monthly Visitation Statistics


That 54% increase in visitation is quite interesting given that camping (campground) nights were down as was vehicle traffic. How do you think those folks got there and where did they stay?  To what would you attribute the 54% leap when the prior months had been, at best, up modestly? 

I suspect a revision is in order. 


28%. This summer has been quite busy. Busiest year i've experienced by far.

https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/Park%20Specific%20Reports/Monthly%20Public%20Use?Park=GRSM


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.