Reader Participation Day: A Fee Too Far?

You should not have to pay an additional fee

No. I don't think a pass holder should have to purchase a parking ticket.  There's too many fees being assessed for visits to our great outdoors by rec.gov and the parks, now.  Even a fee to get a "chance" to pay another fee for a campsite or permit in many parks now.  The way things are going, soon, there will be a fee just to access rec.gov.  

I don't agree with the parking fee. Having a senior pass, and paying for a campsite, this seems like an unnecessary cost. Not to mention the diversion of Ranger resources to parking enforcement. 

The NPS doing an end around the intent of the enabling legislation to impose a non-entrance fee "parking" fee is a further example of the unelected bureacratic state (AKA The Swamp) making our government less democratic and unaccountable.  Don't forget that Mount Rushmore pulled a similar stunt with it's parking garage.  This will not be the last park to do this.

The Annual Pass should be all-encompassing. Raise it from $80 to $100 if you have to. But it should get me into every park for free. 

Fees are important for the park.  The base budget for GRSM is 20-24 million dollars, with a permanent staff of 120 employees and a total of 260 employees at seasonal peak.  This cadre of people serves over 12 million people.  They are overwhelmed at times, so they need all the help they can get.

Having bought a Senior pass which, at the time, was touted as being for entrance to all National parks, I feel being charged again falls into the 'bait and switch' category. I think it is fair to charge people who do not have a pass.

Also I feel this may be the thin end of the wedge. If one National Park can impose an entrance fee on top of what I have already paid for my Senior pass, what is to stop all the other parks doing the same? My pass may soon be worthless.

fees should never be a barrier to public lands access. Add the cashless requirements imposed by many parks and we should question what the definition of public means

As a senior citizen I already have limited income. The park pass is one of the few things that allows us to travel and enjoy life with out more headaches and fees. Why after working all my life should I have to spend more money to enjoy the great outdoors. 

It’s interesting that a year ago GSMNP administration claimed they were unable to do anything about excessive roadside parking without the funds that parking permits would generate. Yet soon after they announced they were moving forward with their parking fees (still months away from collecting) such simple remedies as posts and guardrails began appearing in the few places where such problems have been common. Obviously these inexpensive steps could have been taken years ago and funded with transportation dollars. The same ploy occurred a decade earlier at GSMNP with the administration purposefully cutting the hours, and refusing offers of help, for the backcountry office. Only a tax on backpackers could cure the problem – especially an easy-to-manufacture problem.

And then there’s the non-coincidental announcement on this the first day of required parking permits that visitation to GSMNP dropped by more than 1.2 million last year. Visitation was, of course, the primary justification the NPS pushed in pursuit of its parking fees, completely unverifiable and with incredible (in the word’s most fundamental, not-to-be-believed sense) data. These guesstimates are available for public scrutiny (https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/Park%20Specific%20Reports/Monthly...), though a majority seem willing to accept whatever numbers or assertions the NPS puts out.

Surely, if only they knew, Americans wouldn't openly support their government blatantly ignoring the law of the land. From the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA):

“(b) Basis for recreation fees

Recreation fees shall be established in a manner consistent with the following criteria:

(1) The amount of the recreation fee shall be commensurate with the benefits and services provided to the visitor.”

But NPS personnel are forced to admit there will be no limitation on visitors to GSMNP and that, as a result, parking availability cannot be guaranteed anywhere. The park owner/visitor gets nothing in return for his or her forfeited funds; it’s simply a money grab by the administration at GSMNP. 

Additionally, to charge a parking fee for every parking space in GSMNP violates FLREA (d)(4) by limiting the use of recreation opportunities only to areas designated for collection of recreation fees. For this reason, arguably among others, the tax on backpackers is also illegal as there is no way – not a cross-country permit, not a walk-up permit, not an off-season permit, etc. – to avoid the fees of their backcountry reservation system.

Of course, there's also the obvious point that a simple parking space doesn't rise to the level of an "Expanded Amenity" (logically, these expanded amenities include frontcountry campgrounds, elaborate boat launches, boat rentals, dump stations, special tours, and the like) but is instead specifically mentioned in FLREA as being appropriate as a "Standard Amenity" – a fee the NPS isn't authorized to charge. And even within the freewheeling NPS, with its self-proclaimed right to charge for parking, its own Reference Manual on such things (22A) includes the following:

“There are limited circumstances where it is appropriate for a park to charge a parking fee as an expanded amenity fee. An example might be a park in an urban area that has metered or dispersed parking spaces. In this situation, local commuters could purchase a recreation pass and occupy parking spaces needed by park visitors. Another example is a contract for a concession-operated parking area that does not require the concessioner to honor passes.” 

The examples given above in the NPS' own manual are, to put it bluntly, as far removed from the scenario in GSMNP as possible. 

At this point it seems very few people realize that their Federal Lands Pass won't be accepted in place of a parking permit at GSMNP, yet Reference Manual 22A states specifically that such passes must be accepted:

"Parks have been innovative in charging fees in some areas that had not previously collected fees for entrance or a particular service. For visitors with passes, parking fees have proved to be particularly confusing. For this reason, since the purpose of parking is to gain access to the park’s primary resource, the park must honor entrance passes in lieu of the parking fee.”

I suspect fewer still realize that GSMNP intends for its parking permits/passes to be assigned to individual vehicles, not individuals or families. Therefore, the park owner is supposed to purchase a 2nd permit/pass if he or she drives a different car into GSMNP. 

The obvious misapplication of simple parking as "Expanded Amenity" is evidenced as well by GSMNP inappropriately offering parking passes (weekly and annual). Few, if any, would expect to be able to purchase a frontcountry camping pass, a boat rental pass, or a special tour pass. But in case it's not self-evident where such expanded amenities are concerned, it's made perfectly clear in Reference Manual 22A:

“Parks may not create passes for expanded amenity fees. Parks with existing expanded amenity passes should consult with the regional office to eliminate them. Civic engagement is required because elimination of these passes may result in financial impacts to visitors."

Oops.

Meanwhile, GSMNP recently issued a Finding of No Significant Impact in its environmental assessment of a mountain biking area it intends to develop. Going with the most destructive of its proposed alternatives, the parking lot will cover 2.4 acres, the access road will extend nearly a mile, and over 25 total acres will be "disturbed" when there already exists an incredible number of mountain bike trails in the area. What’s to prevent zip lining from being next? After all, the case could be made that while both are, in essence, thrill-seeking activities unconducive to contemplation and appreciation of nature, zip lining might very well leave a lighter mark on the land than constructing a 12-mile network of mountain bike trails.

Here we have another staple of the NPS’s dysfunctional approach, expansion and construction while complaining endlessly of having insufficient funds to cover its already existing overdevelopment. Particularly in this case it strikes me that GSNMP is likely eager to further entrench the expectation in peoples’ minds that any activity on their public lands carries with it an accompanying fee.

At the same time GSMNP has installed license tag readers at its entrances, claiming these Orwellian measures could help locate overdue hikers. Thankfully, the ACLU has actually perked up.

If the law doesn't apply to them, it certainly shouldn't come as a surprise that other regulations, restrictions, guidelines, and personal liberties are sloughed off like so much snakeskin.

Unchecked, unchallenged authority equates to impudent power which invariably expands and corrupts. 

To charge a fee to fund the decimation or nature's wonders?  Thanks E.G. for your insight!

I appreciate the comments above.  I will answer the question by providing how this effects my family, our country and future generations.

I moved to TN in 1992. I was a freshman at The University of Tennessee. Having the GSMNP close was another deciding factor to "why" I made the decision to move.  Outdoor recreation is my passion and I took many courses at UT focusing on acts, laws and government legislation implemented to benefit "all."  (Especially, individuals with disabilities.)

It's now 2023 and I honestly don't believe what's happening in our NPS. The cost/s associated with visiting our NPS is  embarrassing AND laws are not being followed. 

Our government has the finances to not implement the above fee OR cause additional increases IF budgets were managed correctly. Yes, inflation will always be an issue.  However, the issue is having cost effective, strategic planning, legal minded professionals managing and controlling the budget for these types of fees to be avoided. These issues were not implemented in the past and I ask "why" they are being implemented in 2023? 

I am a single mom with a son heading to UT. I want him to have the same freedoms of no cost to visit the GSMNP I had in 1992. He'll pay (and our future generations will pay) the cost in plenty other government increases that were not managed appropriately. Let's not have the NPS do this! 

I want the GSMNP to be unique from other NPS. If the NPS is going to continue implementing and increasing unnecessary fees, that's injustice to "We the People."

I pray "In God WE Trust" that new eyes and ideas will reevalate the budget, follow the law and do what's right for our entire country to relieve any unnessary cost to truly enjoy public lands in liberty and justice for all. 

My suggestion is updating products such as apparel, souvenirs, food and beverage in NPS Visitor Center's to increase revenue For operational funds.  A parking pass makes zero sense to pay. I don't want that illegal paper trail or "souvenir" from the GSMNP. 

No more extra fees please! Now it's dated entry tickets on top of paying entrance fees. 

I'm not understanding why people think the most visited national park in the country should be free, essentially leeching off of every other park in the country that charges entry fees.  I'm perfectly okay with paying a $35 entrance fee for a WEEK.  Now, I understand the main road should be free, and that's fine.  But I don't understand why the NPS didn't put up entry booths for every offshoot entrance road.  You want to visit Cades Cove?  You should have your entry pass.  Clingman's Dome?  Entry pass.  You want to stop at Chimneys Picnic Area off the road or Sugarland or Oconaluftee Visitor Centers?  You better have an entry pass displayed or have purchased one at a self-service station.  To me that would be easier to enforce than a parking permit.  Plus it would be consistent with what is done in other parks.  When you buy an annual pass, I agree with those that say that one shouldn't have to pay additional fees on top of that.

From the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965:

"In the Smoky Mountains National Park, unless fees are charged for entrance into said park on main highways and thoroughfares, fees shall not be charged for entrance on other routes into said park or any part thereof."

It would be illegal. Admittedly, though, the same is true of the current end run semantics scheme. 

No argument that the park needs the additional revenue but it seems that an earier way to collect would be to charge for access to Clingsmans Dome, Roaring Fork Motor Nature Trail, Cades Cove Auto Loop and the Pioneer Farmstead. You could even require a time entry like they are doing at Cadliac Mountain in Arcadia. You would pay a one time fee, good for 7 days to these attractions with GMSNP.. Beter than a bevy of Rangers runnung around like meter maids.