Boondocking really exists?

I find the idea of taxing us for using our property disturbingly elitist and naïve. How's that 'Adventure Pass' working out? It was declared unconstitutional in court yet they still collect the fees. We've become subject of the realm.

The USFS is broken. Asking them to tax us to fix a societal problem only makes the problem worse. It gives us the false idea that it's not our problem. They are unable or unwilling to deal with the issues they have now. Money is being spent to block and decommission roads instead of improving roads and assets we currently have.

I started a thread about a bill that would keep our roads open. 166 views and only 2 responses. Who says the people reading this forum aren't the problem? They either don't care or don't think it's their problem. When all the roads are closed this will be a moot issue.

Unfortunately, we all know that the folks abusing the system are probably not on this forum.

We also need to understand that times have changed. Years ago there weren't as many campers, bikers, ATVers, snowmobilers, Jeepers as there are now. Each year these gorgeous areas have been eroded in some way. Yes, even with our 40' motorhome we loved boondocking but we hopefully did not contribute to degrading the area. We always stayed on the roads for driving and parked just off the roads at a well-used area. We never made our own spot. (With a 40' we were pretty limited, for sure) With the Jeep we don't create our own trails. We clean up areas on our own. It sickens us to view the harm some people do.

As far as hiring more to enforce the rules, it too, is probably out of the question. Once again, where is the money going to come from?

There's no easy answer.

profdant139 wrote:
I have no idea what to do about this. The abusive boondockers are well aware that they are wrongdoers, they do not care, and they would not take kindly to a stern lecture delivered by an elderly well-meaning person (i.e., me). So that is why I favor a sticker -- the bad guys will not get stickers and might just be ticketed. Maybe. And maybe a ticket would be a trivial deterrent, in which case we have accomplished nothing.

Very well stated and here is my opinion on what could be done to help. One, provide more persons set to enforce the rules already in place. There are laws in force, but few are in place to make the arrests and write the summons.

But that should not be ending there. The weakening of the court system and providing lenient enforcement and penalties have long lasting impact. An example. How many of us know of a small town that has strict traffic enforcement, stop signs, speeding and the courts don't give out deferred sentences. Then you know a town that the officers are just giving warnings and if they do, when you go in to court you get it plead down to a lesser charge and a small fine.

It comes down to an attitude. If you are prone to push the limits you are probably the one that draws the attention from authority. If you live in a society and work within the rules made for everyone, chances are you are not prone to draw attention to yourself.

I agree, speaking up and trying to tell someone that they should not be doing something will often result in retaliation, such as attacks towards you and your personal property. Just be a good witness and gather the evidence to provide at a later time to the proper authority. Many Govt agencies now have anonymous reporting programs for information, such as descriptions, plate numbers and digital photographs.

b

And the worst part is that all of this abusive camping (which other folks have defined better than I could) is the fault of a tiny percentage of the boondockers. This is just like the problem that the ATV people have -- a few bad apples make the rest of us look rotten -- guilt by association.

I have no idea what to do about this. The abusive boondockers are well aware that they are wrongdoers, they do not care, and they would not take kindly to a stern lecture delivered by an elderly well-meaning person (i.e., me). So that is why I favor a sticker -- the bad guys will not get stickers and might just be ticketed. Maybe. And maybe a ticket would be a trivial deterrent, in which case we have accomplished nothing.

By the way, I think this is right on topic with the OP's post -- yes, boondocking does exist for now, but it is threatened. Not by the government as much as by the behavior of the few bad apples. The folks reading this thread are not the problem!

dewey02 wrote:

4runnerguy wrote:

Less Stuff wrote:
Haven't seen any data but I would expect Privatized campgrounds to be more efficient than government run from Washington DC campgrounds.

Actually the problem is that the NFS is required to return a large percentage (85%) of the money it takes in (gross, not net) back to the general fund, not to the forest service. They were having to do the supervision, maintenance and cleaning on 15% of the funds they were taking in. So they started using private contractors who agree to take care of those things and sending a small amount to the FS (typically 5-15%), who then sends the required 85% of that amount to the general fund. But the FS doesn't have to take care of general maintenance that way. More efficient? No way to know, but CG rates have gone up far faster than inflation at the CG's I know about. In CO, concessionaire-run CG’s often cost 50% more than NFS run CG’s. I know of concessionaire-run NFS CG's with pit toilets where the rates are equivalent to nearby private CG's with FHU. Don't know about efficiencies there. With rates so high and people deciding to boondock instead, the concessionaires are pressuring the NFS to close down nearby boondocking locations to help keep the CG's full and money flowing into the coffers of the concessionaires.
And the government often pays for campground upgrades and then the concessionaire raises the campground fees. The concessionaire didn’t pay for the upgrades, but get to make a lot more money from us, the ones who paid for these improvements through tax dollars, not campground fees. I wish I could have gotten the government to pay for my company’s capital improvements so we could have charged more for our product!
Want to fix this? Convince Washington that 100% of the funds collected from camping fees go back into the campgrounds or the NFS office that they are collected from. This is one reason why one sees so many places that have a Fee Demonstration Project label on them -- the appropriate agency gets to keep 100% of the revenue generated at those sites instead of a big percentage going back to the general fund. But I’m not holding my breath.

While some of what you stated was once true, it is no longer true. Fee Demo has been replaced by the Recreation Enhancement Act. That means that the fees collected by NFS run campgrounds stay on the very same NF to manage those campgrounds. 15% does go to a regional account that can contribute to other NFs within that region.
Even with those $, some NFs find it economically better to have a concessionaire run the CGs and have the NF take a small percentage of the concessionaire's profit.

Some NFs got into the concessionaire game before Fee Demo or Rec. Enhancement Act came along and are now hamstrung because of the inability to cancel concessionaire permits (strange and political rules established on this). But I agree that having uniformed Rangers and NF operation of CGs is far better than the concessioner-operated ones, which tend to be more expensive and sometimes not well maintained.

No need to write your Congressional Rep. about money collected staying on site...that already happens. If you write, convince them to allow leeway to turn concession-run campgrounds back to NF operated ones, and provide the NF staff to run them.

There are some national concession companies that are very strong politically and have many, many contracts across the nation. Not Surprising that they have a strong lobby group.

Dewey's summation is accurate and more current. The biggest issue that the Feds have is the difficult hiring procedures, background investigations required for hires. This is the biggest savings, Human Resources. Sadly, the other side is the way the hosts are treated and lack of pay, resulting in heavy turn over and additional duties. This happens to many Fulltiming working while on the road. A whole different discussion, since this post has really drifted off the OP's topic.

While I am drifting too. My biggest issue is that these now concession managed areas and campgrounds were once unmanaged during the off seasons, meaning that they were open and unoccupied. So many COE, FS and other Fed Sites are now gated and closed as they can not be used unless managed. So the sites used by me in the 60s are not closed with gates for the rest of the seasons off peak. There are lots of reasons, some are the vandalism and abuse of users.

So I drift again, so the vandalism takes many shapes, like the side comments earlier about gates being destroyed to gain possible access. I see this often when I am hiking, skiing in the backcountry;

Death Valley National Park ~ While hiking 45 min in from the Scotty's Castle Road to gain a view point of the sunset and shadows on the sand dunes outside Stopepipe Wells. I came across a second set of truck tires, single wheels and dually, driving through the desert twisting many doughnuts into the desert.

Grand Teton National Park ~ I encountered a happy tourist at a primitive campsite excitedly walking across the trailhead parking area with an arm load of just cut firewood, from the campsite he now occupied. When I asked him where he got the wood, he exclaimed; "There are so many dead trees around us so I cut them down and made the trees into firewood! My wife gave me a chain saw for Christmas and it sure has come in handy. I walked over to his camp and he had cut down the tree I had watched for many years hawks and Eagles as they waited for fish to swim by in the Snake River. As were 9 other trees. He had three piles neatly stacked by his now burning campfire.

Strawberry Crater Wilderness ~ (In Sunset Crater National Monument outside Flagstaff, AZ) I was riding backcountry trails on my motorcycle and observed 40 feet of 3 line fencing pulled down and numerous ATV tracks heading out into the wilderness, driving over numerous small pine trees, many broken off. Plant growth in this volcanic cinders require many years to establish a foothold.


So maybe we need to share information and perform deeds to protect these areas, instead of spreading ways to make them our own personal playgrounds and destroy them in the process.

b

4runnerguy wrote:

Less Stuff wrote:
Haven't seen any data but I would expect Privatized campgrounds to be more efficient than government run from Washington DC campgrounds.

Actually the problem is that the NFS is required to return a large percentage (85%) of the money it takes in (gross, not net) back to the general fund, not to the forest service. They were having to do the supervision, maintenance and cleaning on 15% of the funds they were taking in. So they started using private contractors who agree to take care of those things and sending a small amount to the FS (typically 5-15%), who then sends the required 85% of that amount to the general fund. But the FS doesn't have to take care of general maintenance that way. More efficient? No way to know, but CG rates have gone up far faster than inflation at the CG's I know about. In CO, concessionaire-run CG’s often cost 50% more than NFS run CG’s. I know of concessionaire-run NFS CG's with pit toilets where the rates are equivalent to nearby private CG's with FHU. Don't know about efficiencies there. With rates so high and people deciding to boondock instead, the concessionaires are pressuring the NFS to close down nearby boondocking locations to help keep the CG's full and money flowing into the coffers of the concessionaires.
And the government often pays for campground upgrades and then the concessionaire raises the campground fees. The concessionaire didn’t pay for the upgrades, but get to make a lot more money from us, the ones who paid for these improvements through tax dollars, not campground fees. I wish I could have gotten the government to pay for my company’s capital improvements so we could have charged more for our product!
Want to fix this? Convince Washington that 100% of the funds collected from camping fees go back into the campgrounds or the NFS office that they are collected from. This is one reason why one sees so many places that have a Fee Demonstration Project label on them -- the appropriate agency gets to keep 100% of the revenue generated at those sites instead of a big percentage going back to the general fund. But I’m not holding my breath.

While some of what you stated was once true, it is no longer true. Fee Demo has been replaced by the Recreation Enhancement Act. That means that the fees collected by NFS run campgrounds stay on the very same NF to manage those campgrounds. 15% does go to a regional account that can contribute to other NFs within that region.
Even with those $, some NFs find it economically better to have a concessionaire run the CGs and have the NF take a small percentage of the concessionaire's profit.

Some NFs got into the concessionaire game before Fee Demo or Rec. Enhancement Act came along and are now hamstrung because of the inability to cancel concessionaire permits (strange and political rules established on this). But I agree that having uniformed Rangers and NF operation of CGs is often preferable to the concessioner-operated ones, which tend to be more expensive and sometimes not well maintained.

No need to write your Congressional Rep. about money collected staying on site...that already happens. If you write, convince them to allow leeway to turn concession-run campgrounds back to NF operated ones, and provide the NF staff to run them.

There are some national concession companies that are very strong politically and have many, many contracts across the nation. Not Surprising that they have a strong lobby group.

Tiger4x4RV wrote:

rehoppe wrote:

By the by; What constitutes 'abusive camping'?

A few examples that I have actually seen: Black and gray water dumped on the ground, trash everywhere or in fire rings, vegetation hacked to pieces for firewood or just because it was there.

There are the seemingly permanent camps in some states. Nice dispersed sites by a stream, unoccupied TT sitting there for weeks. What ever happened to sharing with others? Do local folks park it there for their weekend use and leave it there all week to save the spot? I am talking about what appears to be USFS land, not someone's private property.

Exactly. We've seen much of this and it's sad. We try to clean up some of it if we want to stay there but there are places we'd never want to pull into - much too much disgusting trash (toilet paper, etc). Driving over shrubs or chopping at trees is awful but many do not care.

We once did the 'Trash Tracker' gig on Lake Powell, AZ. You would not believe what the boaters left behind. You'd gag at the toilet remains we had to clean up!

rehoppe wrote:

By the by; What constitutes 'abusive camping'?

A few examples that I have actually seen: Black and gray water dumped on the ground, trash everywhere or in fire rings, vegetation hacked to pieces for firewood or just because it was there.

There are the seemingly permanent camps in some states. Nice dispersed sites by a stream, unoccupied TT sitting there for weeks. What ever happened to sharing with others? Do local folks park it there for their weekend use and leave it there all week to save the spot? I am talking about what appears to be USFS land, not someone's private property.

profdant139 wrote:
As I may have mentioned before, I want to make sure boondocking always exists -- I wish there were an annual sticker that boondockers had to purchase and display, in order to fund the rangers. It would cut down somewhat on abusive camping and would help persuade the NFS that boondocking can be a source of revenue, rather than a dead loss.

My sticker idea is never going to happen. I know that.

Actually it might well happen..... of course it won't be any good where You want to camp 'for some reason'. Much like the Colorado State Parks Pass..... except that the places I go, it often seems 'not enough' and you have to pay still more. Often the same $s as if you didn't have a pass at all.

Several places I like to go fishing (not camping) are that way, here in Colorado. Admittance isn't free, and I think most of the $s go back to the Colorado General Fund as well. Not sure of that however, I'm just reflecting on the amount of 'improvements that haven't happened.

Just say'n.

By the by; What constitutes 'abusive camping'?

As I may have mentioned before, I want to make sure boondocking always exists -- I wish there were an annual sticker that boondockers had to purchase and display, in order to fund the rangers. It would cut down somewhat on abusive camping and would help persuade the NFS that boondocking can be a source of revenue, rather than a dead loss.

My sticker idea is never going to happen. I know that.