Quote: At the risk of putting myself in the unflattering position of defending something our government does, I have to mention that the new restrictions are in response to a segment of the population which feels they can do as they please wherever they please whenever they please.
Hi Seldom:
I'm a working member of a Federally-incorporated non-profit organization in Quebec involved in acquiring large tracts of wilderness in highly-sensitive areas (primarily, mountaintop lands) with the mission of converting said to "protected status", and designating some sectors of these tracts to no-go zones (high-biodiversity extremely sensitive nuclei, where the rarest of flora and fauna still exist). My particular expertise is in the survey, terrain mapping and identification of various ecological niches, then capturing these areas into a spatial/geographic software, for planning and management purposes. I also am responsible for the scouting and establishment of mountainous trails (setting up sustainability management plans of trail systems I and my team of specialists have identified and created).
Our major problem is dealing with the 0.2% of the user population that believes that invasive ATV and off-trail off-hours invasion is a right and privilege. These are the cohort that I believe that you all south of the border are also at issue with, which triggered the perhaps over reaction, and implementation of a "fences and posts" top-down approach to Forest Service lands access. This measure is indeed the most draconian measure that can be implemented. I would have hoped that all stakeholders would have been consulted before these measures would have been leveled? Indeed, this strategy would be tantamount to "Marshall Law" in tactic, and indeed shocking to the 98.8% of respectful Forest Service users...
Quote: You folks in the west are just starting to feel the pinch . Most of the NF roads here were closed to vehicular traffic in the late 70's , not restricted, closed...
I think Ticki is correct. The changes to national Forest access seems to be somewhat correlated to the shockwave of population density ever expanding in the South West...bringing ever-increasing usage intensity to these places (illegal roads/trails & drug labs and plantations), making field assessments come back: negative sustainable, recommend: restrict access severely, and rehabilitate.
Cheers,
Silver-
* This post was
last
edited 07/14/12 06:11am by silversand *
View edit history
Seldomseensmith offers a voice of reason. As much as I dislike being regulated, I know there are unpleasant results from crowds in the public lands. Writer Wallace
Stegner wrote, "Whenever people come in any numbers, they spoil the land. Unsupervised campers, even such impeccable and responsible campers as we think we are, could spoil the whole desert...." from The Sound of Mountain Water, 1980.
What I object to is niggling rules that are unreasonable and unenforceable.
The "final solution" could become Orwellian, all urban areas fenced securely where people could exit only with special permits. Campers would have to pass a test on rules and be watched closely by the camping police and video cameras.
Clattertruck
2008 SD F450 Pickup PSD 6.4L CC 4X4 DRW, Lariat Auto trans 4.30 LS, 2008 Snowriver 108 truck camper. 2013 Lance TT 1885, Toyota 4Runner 2011.
Dry your tears. There is a solution. As in all matters human, logic, imagination, discovering a need and a solution to a problem can bring about changes. I'm speaking from experience. On our beloved Assateague Island there have been many challenges to OSV (Over Sand Vehicles) from several sources. Some from enviornmentalists and some from government employees. In some cases the the motives were honest concerns to stop damage and pollution and in others it was mearly to make someones job easier.
At preent there is an area of the beach closed to OSV traffic to allow the Piping Plovers (A little beach strolling bird) to nest without being disturbed. The Bullpen, the area in which we can over night, has been closed during nesting time, however the US Park Sevice has set aside another spot for our use until the Plovers are done nesting.
In the past there would have been total and permanent closure. The above mentioned groups have frequently sought to ban all OSV. So far their efforts have failed because of The Assateague Mobil Sportsfishermans Association. There is great strength in numbers and organisation. With the club dues and a thoughtful approach, the problems have been clarified and solutions arrived at, other than simply banning public use of publc land.
We, the club members, assist in setting and helping the Park Service impliment sensible rules. We do organised cleanups, call in when someone is acting stupid, keep the welfare of the Island formost when we're present. The club has a clear voice in Congress at all times.
Only one club seems to work. On the Outer Banks of NC several clubs got into power struggles and all have lost influence and some access.
A united front works, a little compromise, and bit of pressure, a strong logical arguement and some salesmanship will out. Do not give up, someone has changed the rules, they can be changed again!
skipbee
2004 F350 Diesel CC SRW 19.5" Rickson W/T 4WD
2005 Lance 1121 well found.
12' Porta-Bote alongside
All that glisters is not gold. All who wander are not lost. See us on YouTube" Living the Lance Life" 3 of 4.
silversand wrote: Our major problem is dealing with the 0.2% of the user population that believes that invasive ATV and off-trail off-hours invasion is a right and privilege. These are the cohort that I believe that you all south of the border are also at issue with, which triggered the perhaps over reaction, and implementation of a "fences and posts" top-down approach to Forest Service lands access. This measure is indeed the most draconian measure that can be implemented. I would have hoped that all stakeholders would have been consulted before these measures would have been leveled? Indeed, this strategy would be tantamount to "Marshall Law" in tactic, and indeed shocking to the 98.8% of respectful Forest Service users...
We had a lovely little lake called Buckeye Reservoir with associated "informal" camping areas that was 30 minutes from our house and was just over the Utah/Colorado border in the Manti-La Sal National Forest. This was a low to moderate use area, mostly visited by locals in a sparsely populated area. And while I don't have shots of the most egregious looking areas, here are some pics of what I believe Silversand referred to as the "fences and posts" approach recently taken by the local National Forest powers that be for Buckeye:
And you hit the nail right on the head Silver ... it is in fact "the 0.2% of the user population that believes that invasive ATV and off-trail off-hours invasion is a right and privilege" who are causing the majority of the irresponsible damage in such areas. And once this happens sufficiently, it means that the 98.8% of respectful Forest Service users are going to suffer in some way (or respectful BLM users for that matter).
Keep in mind that my wife and I have been off-roaders for 40 years now, mostly in Jeeps and other small 4x4 vehicles. And while we believe in preserving the environment in a reasonable and balanced manner (and practicing Tread Lightly tenets as best as we can), we are not rabid environmentalists and do not seek to overtly limit the recreational choices of others.
Bottom-line, we will likely not return to camp, fish, or BBQ at Buckeye, which is a shame since it was so close to us. The place has been totally ruined in our opinion and looks like some kind of a odd "ATV prison farm" that is totally out of place in the otherwise natural forest & mountain setting in our relatively remote area. While we are frankly appalled at what the National Forest Service did to Buckeye (not to mention the cost in a time of tight budgets), we also realize what caused this to occur, which was the rank irresponsibility of a very small group of yahoos (the latter of which we are seeing more and more of in even the most isolated, less traveled, and pristine of areas).
Beyond this, we have also been subject to the many BLM & Forest Service road, trail, and camping area closures in Utah (and elsewhere), which is very frustrating. It's of little consolation, however, what my wife & I increasingly say to each other is that we are thankful that we had the chance in the past to go to the many wonderful and remote areas that we did.
As a final comment, I agree with Cap'n Bob in that there are too many people on this rock (and that, along with the collateral issues & damage that comes from that condition are going to increasingly go in the wrong direction IMO).
Very nicely put! The gnashing of teeth, skaking of fists, and grumbling does little to bring about change. We live in a rural area, our house backs up to a dairy farm as do our neighbors homes. Several mornings each week I have to pick up empty beer bottles, fast food leavings, etc.,in our front yard. Most of the folks who are responsible for this are prolly not suseptable to logic. A police effort, fines and force are, I believe, the only remedy unfortunatley. Those who desccrate and litter are a subspecies requiring sharp responses.
Most of us screw up from time to time but are able to see and improve. At one point during negotiations about what to do during the Piping Plover nesting cycle. The Plovers will nest in the deep tire tracks. It was stated that there were a large number of birds and eggs run over by OSV. From the fairly substantial funds of our fishing clubs coffers, an investigative avian biological firm was hired to evaluate the claim, which I think was 40 something birds killed. During the next season the team discovered that a few 8 or 10 were runover by fisherman the balance by Rangers and Perk Service people who drove quicker than most of us are capable of and because they are often distracted by their tasks. They did not determine that any were deliberately run over, and that an awarness program along with a no-drive zone could moderate the damage. Both groups accepted responsibility and agreed to work together to get things straight. It ain't perfect, but it's alot better. We have been able to have the Rangers realize that we want to help improve conditions, so that we can all enjoy and preserve this beaautiful area.
We are still susceptable to being banished. Linda and I often stay on the beach after the weekend and pickup some trash. Usually it's not too much, mostly floatsom. We do find cans and bottles that were thrown into some camp fires. Fires are allowed. There is not a sensible answer to the question,"Why throw glass and cans in a campfire and then cover with sand?" The results of that are not good, in fact the rule is, let the fire burn out, don't cover it up, so that noone will walk barefoot over it. That's the stuff that makes it hard to justify our being allowed to stay on the beach.I think it its the responsibility of those who are awake to cover for the sleepers, or we'll all lose our privledges, unfortunately.
The phenomenon of crowding exists, nature has her own cures..............
One of my favorite writers Buckminster Fuller in his, " Operating Manual Spaceship Earth". Likened the earth to a vessel, crusing through space. He said every captain knows his ship has an optimum number of crew. And that when the number is exceeded, chaos reigns!
Love to all,
skip
ps: I, too, think we should all be grateful for what we have already seen in the wild places. Think of what will be left for those who follow us. I'm not sure of how to define," Permanent Damage".
* This post was
last
edited 07/14/12 10:34am by an administrator/moderator *
View edit history
The 30ft limit is only on roads that are not identified as dispersed camping. On dispersed camping roads you are allowed up to 300ft from the road. I can confirm this for Coconino National Forest. Here is a link to the maps that show the dispersed camping areas click here for TMR map The map does not show closed roads, it only shows open roads. If you drive on a closed numbered FS road (it will have a carsonite with number but the FS never pulled it) and it is not on the map you can get a ticket.
I have been to many of the meetings during this process and I can tell you it was troublesome. I certainly understand the reasons why on the restrictions, what got me upset was closing roads that are already numbered and in our system. Most of the roads that are being closed are dead end roads. My feeling the reason they did this is that the FS has a hard time patroling these roads vs doing a loop. This pretty much has killed boondocking and the quite way of camping.
* This post was
edited 07/14/12 11:46am by zman-az *
One thing I predict (knowing some of the rugged outdoor type of folks around here), is that some of those posts are going to be "modified" a bit with the help of their trusty chain saws.
zman-az wrote: Seems some of you are misinformed.The 30ft limit is only on roads that are not identified as dispersed camping. On dispersed camping roads you are allowed up to 300ft from the road. I can confirm this for Coconino National Forest. Here is a link to the maps that show the dispersed camping areas click here for TMR map The map does not show closed roads, it only shows open roads. If you drive on a closed numbered FS road (it will have a carsonite with number but the FS never pulled it) and it is not on the map you can get a ticket.
That is a great link to Coconino maps, thank you. I can tell you though that 2 of our favorite places are no longer allowed as per the map of designated camping since there are no "dots". These areas are in wonderful shape, having been to both 2 months ago, and are rarely used. Yes. dead end roads. As for being misinformed I would say it is a matter of degrees. The person I spoke to said as of Dec. all roads would be 30 foot designated in all natl. Forests not just Coconino. This might not be true or I misconstrued her meaning. But I can tell that there are many areas now not designated for camping that were before. The spur camp spot we like above West Clear on the north side appears to be Non-designated and well beyond the 30 foot margin. To have gone to those meetings like you did would have been an eye-opener, yet knowing full well that "public input" was just for show and tell.
As to Seldom's suggestion for ideas I would suggest a volunteer program where for a certain amount of work you were given access to closed areas for a certain amount of time. That way Forestry could know who was there recently and groups would be actively involved in keeping their favorite areas clean. There are already many "group sites" available at NF camp grounds for reservation and this could be done using the same system. I know, any idea would need to cover all details but I'm just spit balling here.
Offline
