profdant139 wrote:
And finally, this is not a hijack of the thread -- it is an attempt to put the narrow issue of this particular BLM area into a larger context.
However, this particular area (Salida East) is much different than the typical boondocking or dispersed camping areas prevalent around much of the west. Namely, there is a pit toilet nearby and it is very easily accessed from a US highway (50). A fee for use of this area would not necessarily be a bad thing, but adding the required $7/day for that required Colorado State park pass would add substantially to the cost. The daily Colorado State park fee of $7 (needed even to stop to take a photo at a viewpoint as noted above) is egregious. One can park all day in many mid-sized U.S. cities for less than that!
An example of what the BLM has done elsewhere to limit the number of boondockers in a given area and ensure they don't overstay their limits is the
Eureka Campground above Silverton, CO. $10/night seems like a fair price for boondocking there and it has helped cut down on the overcrowding. Perhaps the town of Salida could help by taking over management similar to the Eureka CG near Silverton.
But for those who boondock in areas where there are no pit toilets picnic tables, etc., it's hard to see how one can justify a "user fee". I also look back at my early days of camping on my own (after leaving home). Although I had been working and saving since 10, I still had precious little money with college expenses, etc. But I still loved to go to the mountains and camp a few times a year. The young and impecunious shouldn't be shut out just because of their circumstances. And the young are among the best stewards of the land, often volunteers on trail and clean up crews. Sure, I've picked up after a group of young "hoodlums" have left a camping spot, but I've also had to do that after a group in their big RV's have left behind their trash. I foresee that the fees generated from selling a "Boondocking Permit" would cover the cost of a ranger or two driving around to make sure everyone had a boondocking permit.
There are other high-usage places where the BLM or NFS has limited boondocking to specific sites. In some places they charge a $5/day fee and perhaps there is a table or fire pit, but in other sites with no amenities there is no fee. Camping outside of the designated areas is prohibited with the threat of a fine. In many places, they've moved rocks or large trees to block the old access roads.
One thing that I think will keep many boondocking locations open is the hunting lobby. Many hunters are associated with the NRA, a powerful lobbying group that wouldn't take kindly to not being able to go camp at their favorite boondocking and then head out hunting.
Among the groups with a financial interest in shutting down boondocking are the concessionaires who run many of the NFS and BLM CG's. They have already flexed their muscle in places to eliminate or severely restrict boondocking near the CG's the manage. In many ways, this proposal on Salida East is similar in nature, as it would eliminate boondocking along the Arkansas River in most of Chaffee County. (The state is acting like a private company would to force people into their CG's.)
