BLM access about to be lost

greenrvgreen wrote:
To be as clear as I can, BLM land enjoys very little protection or management for recreational use--the land is up for grabs. When the state takes over management the level of protection rises markedly. Of course, this includes protection against boondockers trespassing there without paying, which is the point of the original post.

So boondocking on BLM land (OUR land) is trespassing??? :h This is a spot that the BLM has a sign on the highway labeled "Salida East Recreation Site". I'm guessing you haven't even been to the spot being discussed here.

greenrvgreen wrote:
FWIW, I've rafted the Upper Arkansas--not sure if that's the section being discussed here--but if they put a Walmart in there it would definitely be an eco-friendly improvement for that overrun area (IMO).

I don't know when you rafted the Upper Arkansas, but many of the CG's there were turned over to the state in 1999. So you visited after 1999 and think it was an overrun area, you have shown that there hasn't been an "eco-friendly improvement for that overrun area" under state control.

greenrvgreen wrote:
If we refuse to compromise with an entity as benign to camping as the state parks--and instead insist on squatter's rights--we are picking a fight with one of the few agencies that is on our side. This is self-defeating.

Again you seem to think this is some private boondocking spot. I've already pointed out that the BLM has identified this as a Recreation Site for dispersed camping. There's is no squatters rights issue going on here. I don't see how protecting a site that has been designated as a Recreation Area is self defeating. I also don't agree that this is a state agency that is "on our side". They are looking for ways to get more money in some other way than raising taxes. So they are taking over property owned and developed by the US population at large and making it into a money making venture for the state of Colorado. I guess I shouldn't complain, my state is benefiting at the expense of everyone who lives in other states and helped pay for these improvements.

Finally, one more thing to consider is that by closing an area currently designated for dispersed camping means those boondockers will go somewhere else. That means other areas will be subject to additional environmental degradation with the substantial increase in usage by boondockers who now use this already designated area (Salida East). I don't see how this is an "eco-friendly improvement" in the overall scheme of camping and boondocking in the Upper Arkansas River Valley.