Boondocking really exists?
I cant believe that there are places that you can pull off the road and just stay there. Not only for free but without fear of being arrested. That's just crazy talk to a guy from Mass. Technically...
Forum Discussion
Well, Calisdad, you called my bluff. I was going to remain silent on the bill -- but you have persuaded me that we have a moral obligation to take a stand. You might not like my stand, though -- check out my post on your thread!
And you are sort of right about the Adventure Pass, but there is another side to the story -- in the LA area, the Adventure Pass was a success, to the extent that it did cut down somewhat on the folks who would stream into the mountains every weekend and leave trash and graffiti behind. It gave the rangers a tool to combat the freeloaders who have no respect for public property. It was far from perfect -- better than nothing.
The constitutional and legal issues with the Adventure Pass could be easily solved -- the real question is whether it is sound public policy. I think that with proper tweaking and oversight, some form of user-fee program is a great idea. Certainly, the lumber industry thinks so -- they are happy to pay for the privilege of cutting timber. And under the right conditions, the cutting can lead to healthier forests -- thinning instead of clear-cutting, for example. I wonder whether proper thinning would have reduced the severity of the Rim Fire -- we were just in that area a month ago, and the devastation is stomach-churning.
You state that the USFS is broken. Let's assume that is true -- I have found that you know a lot more than I do about the inner workings of the USFS, and I trust your judgment. But if something is broken, do you make it brokener? Or do you fix it?
Finally, you state that USFS and its flawed efforts "gives us the false idea that it's not our problem". I am not sure I understand -- yes, abuse of public land is our problem, but we as private citizens don't have the tools to do much about it, do we?? (If I am wrong, let me know what more we can do to stop the bad guys.) That is a task for the rangers to tackle as best they can, and I think they need funding to make that effort. I am happy to pay them to deal with the bad guys, so that the rangers can preserve my right to boondock in non-polluted, non-thrashed places.
Is it naive to think that the government can completely solve abusive boondocking? Yes. (By the way, how did you get those cool two dots over the i in naive??) But what alternative to government enforcement do we have? So under the theory that the best is the enemy of the adequate, I would like to give the rangers more help than they now have, in the form of funding.
And is this an elitist viewpoint? I plead guilty with an explanation. If by "elitist" you mean "tilted in favor of folks who boondock responsibly," that's me. I don't think that my position is class-based elitism -- I have seen wealthy people with lots of expensive toys who are abusive boondockers, and I have seen folks of moderate incomes who are tent campers and who are responsible boondockers.
Sorry for the long post -- but the issues raised by this thread and by your posting of the bill are central to the long-term viability of boondocking, which is treasured by everyone reading this thread. As far as I know, this is the premier discussion forum directed at the USA boondocking community, so this is an appropriate time and place to air our concerns in a thoughtful and respectful way.
And you are sort of right about the Adventure Pass, but there is another side to the story -- in the LA area, the Adventure Pass was a success, to the extent that it did cut down somewhat on the folks who would stream into the mountains every weekend and leave trash and graffiti behind. It gave the rangers a tool to combat the freeloaders who have no respect for public property. It was far from perfect -- better than nothing.
The constitutional and legal issues with the Adventure Pass could be easily solved -- the real question is whether it is sound public policy. I think that with proper tweaking and oversight, some form of user-fee program is a great idea. Certainly, the lumber industry thinks so -- they are happy to pay for the privilege of cutting timber. And under the right conditions, the cutting can lead to healthier forests -- thinning instead of clear-cutting, for example. I wonder whether proper thinning would have reduced the severity of the Rim Fire -- we were just in that area a month ago, and the devastation is stomach-churning.
You state that the USFS is broken. Let's assume that is true -- I have found that you know a lot more than I do about the inner workings of the USFS, and I trust your judgment. But if something is broken, do you make it brokener? Or do you fix it?
Finally, you state that USFS and its flawed efforts "gives us the false idea that it's not our problem". I am not sure I understand -- yes, abuse of public land is our problem, but we as private citizens don't have the tools to do much about it, do we?? (If I am wrong, let me know what more we can do to stop the bad guys.) That is a task for the rangers to tackle as best they can, and I think they need funding to make that effort. I am happy to pay them to deal with the bad guys, so that the rangers can preserve my right to boondock in non-polluted, non-thrashed places.
Is it naive to think that the government can completely solve abusive boondocking? Yes. (By the way, how did you get those cool two dots over the i in naive??) But what alternative to government enforcement do we have? So under the theory that the best is the enemy of the adequate, I would like to give the rangers more help than they now have, in the form of funding.
And is this an elitist viewpoint? I plead guilty with an explanation. If by "elitist" you mean "tilted in favor of folks who boondock responsibly," that's me. I don't think that my position is class-based elitism -- I have seen wealthy people with lots of expensive toys who are abusive boondockers, and I have seen folks of moderate incomes who are tent campers and who are responsible boondockers.
Sorry for the long post -- but the issues raised by this thread and by your posting of the bill are central to the long-term viability of boondocking, which is treasured by everyone reading this thread. As far as I know, this is the premier discussion forum directed at the USA boondocking community, so this is an appropriate time and place to air our concerns in a thoughtful and respectful way.
