The 300 foot rule -- do they mean what they say?

Although it is up to the discretion of the officer,I doubt you would get a citation unless you were really egregious in your campsite selection and access, and were an obnoxious jerk to the officer. If you have a clean camp, do not do any resource damage and were humbly apologetic, at worst he would ask you to move.
A tire track itself is not real damage. Meadow ruts are. Trampled vegetation is. Cutting trees or brush to create a road access is definitely a no-no. So if you can back your rig in and around some large trees over pine litter 300 ft without creating ruts, then go for it.

Many off roaders do not appreciate how damaging tire ruts in a wet meadow really are. They take decades to heal, and can cause serious erosion damage. They alter the natural water flow, both surface and subsurface, and can turn into gullys. BTW poorly designed hiking trails can do the same thing.

Dave, I am not really worried about a ticket (although that would be a drag). I am worried about leaving big ruts -- that is my main concern. If the ground is hard and bare, that is one thing. Soft and grassy is another. We all hate to see a trampled and trashed landscape.

And WesternRVParkOwner, it seems to me that the "do whatever you want" mindset is less common on this forum than you might think. Nobody is advocating breaking the rules. My question is this -- even if I am not breaking the rules, does the forest service rule really mean that I am free to establish a new boondocking site within 300 feet of a designated road? And more crucially, even if I may, should I?

As I've said, I have probably made up my mind -- ain't gonna do it. But it does require some thought.

I used to back pack when I was younger in the NE. The rules in the NF were you had to be 250 ft from a road,river,lake or senic area. Depending on the park ranger that you talked to some wanted you to use existing sites some wanted you to make new sites to prevent over use. I found that useing existing sites were a lot easier and were established over the years and were in better locations than I could find by myself. When they were overused the rangers would put no camping signs up for a couple of years to let vegation grow back. There is only one NF around me and there are a couple of dozen existing sites that I know of that you can RV camp I would not attemp to clear new sites in these heavily wooded areas.

As Dewey wrote, each forest has leeway in application and interpretation of the MVUM regulations. Even more, each LEO has leeway. If you are 'borderline' and have a clean camp he may let you stay. Be a slob and leave ruts/trampled vegetation he will be more strict.
Contrary to a common belief most rank and file FS & BLM are in favor of dispersed camping and will leave you alone if you are a responsible camper.

dewey02 wrote:

GordonThree wrote:
Those rules were mostly written for TENT campers - hikers, back packers, etc, not folks towing 15,000 lb fifths with 9000 lb dualies

most of the designated roads you'll find will have no driveable access off the road. the feds lay logs along the roads, as well as a pretty sizable mud berm at the shoulder, at least here in Michigan. you camp where they want you to camp... you'll come along "sites" where the berm is knocked down and the logs cleared and the trees are spaces out a bit more. sometimes the site is big enough for a truck camper, van or small mh... sometimes the site is big enough for 4-5 big rv's.

i suppose you could take a literal interpretation of their rules, shovel the berm down yourself, winch the logs out of the way and forge a new trail, but that's a lot of work.

drive your back roads, two-tracks and fire trails. you'll find sites that are already established. some folks claim they can spot these from google earth. maybe it works out west without a tree canopy? the sites I like to frequent in Michigan, the only way you're finding them is local knowledge and driving the trails.

There is some correct and some incorrect information in the above post:

Correct: USFS generally prefers you to use dispersed sites that are already established as dispersed site or has had previous use. Less overall impact using a site that is already disturbed.

Correct: East of the Mississippi, the opportunities for dispersed motorized camping are less than in the west, but the opportunities still do exist.

Incorrect: It is incorrect that the approval for dispersed camping within 300 foot from designated roads was written for tent campers. It was written for motorized camping.
At almost all national forests, tent camping/backpacking/hiking campers can camp almost ANYWHERE on national forest lands except where it is specifically prohibited (such as develop campgrounds, recreation sites, trailheads, administrative sites, or places such as Research Natural Areas, or a specified distance away from roadways, lakes and streams, etc.)

There is no restriction on that you have to camp WITHIN 300 feet of a designated road for tent/backpacking type camping. The 300 foot restriction came about as a result of the requirement to do MVUM for motorized vehicles. There was a great concern among both RVers as well as NF recreation managers that MVUM would take away the long-established tradition of boondocking on NF lands. The MVUM requirement was done primarily to guide the use of ATV use on national forests (I don't want to get into a discussion about whether the result was good or bad for ATVs in this thread). But that was the main purpose of MVUM, although ultimately it did deal with all motor vehicle use, even passenger cars.

While there were very specific national standards for language and situations, local forests were provided some leeway in how they could deal with dispersed motorized camping. Some actually identified specific areas on the MVUM map where such use could occur. Others specified a limited distance from a designated road. Still others spoke to "terminal destinations" which meant that if a road was on the designated system and ended in a log landing area, then people could use the area around that landing to set up a dispersed campsite.

Incorrect: "I suppose you could take a literal interpretation of their rules, shovel the berm down yourself, winch the logs out of the way and forge a new trail, but that's a lot of work." You will likely get a citation and possible get your vehicle and trailer impounded if you tear down a berm or road closure device to establish your dispersed camping site. A berm or road closure means just that - road is closed. Also the MVUM will not show that road as open for public travel by any sort of motorized vehicle.

Potentially Incorrect: "drive your back roads, two-tracks and fire trails." Be sure to get an MVUM map before you take this advice. Many "back roads, two tracks and fire trails" are not designated as open for public travel, but serve only an administrative purpose of access to timber sales, fire breaks, etc. It may not be legal for you to drive there.

Again, the very best approach is to stop at the appropriate Ranger District office and talk to them. Tell them what you want to do, where you want to go, pull out a map or photo (they have both at the office) and discuss it with them. Then you will be certain of your opportunities. You can also call them on the phone or send them an email prior to your trip explaining your desire and get their response.

Excellent information and great advice. It should be removed from these forums immediately. Sane advice and correct information is frowned up here. Everyone knows the true correct advice is you can do whatever you want on public land, and it the authorities try and stop you they are just flaunting their tin stars when they should be out fighting real crime.

profdant139 wrote:
Not to worry, Dewey -- I would never bust the berms and winch the logs -- I'm too lazy for that! ;)

One more tip for discussions with rangers -- I find that the rangers are very helpful, and they are often even more helpful if you buy a few maps as part of the conversation. I think that is because when you buy maps, you signal that you are serious about gathering info and following the rules.

And the MVUM maps are free!
But the better national forest maps, which show all the interesting things like county roads, campgrounds, hiking trails, etc are about $10. Be sure to buy the plastic coated ones rather than the paper ones, as they are waterproof and hold up much better to repeated folding, etc.

Not to worry, Dewey -- I would never bust the berms and winch the logs -- I'm too lazy for that! ;)

One more tip for discussions with rangers -- I find that the rangers are very helpful, and they are often even more helpful if you buy a few maps as part of the conversation. I think that is because when you buy maps, you signal that you are serious about gathering info and following the rules.

GordonThree wrote:
Those rules were mostly written for TENT campers - hikers, back packers, etc, not folks towing 15,000 lb fifths with 9000 lb dualies

most of the designated roads you'll find will have no driveable access off the road. the feds lay logs along the roads, as well as a pretty sizable mud berm at the shoulder, at least here in Michigan. you camp where they want you to camp... you'll come along "sites" where the berm is knocked down and the logs cleared and the trees are spaces out a bit more. sometimes the site is big enough for a truck camper, van or small mh... sometimes the site is big enough for 4-5 big rv's.

i suppose you could take a literal interpretation of their rules, shovel the berm down yourself, winch the logs out of the way and forge a new trail, but that's a lot of work.

drive your back roads, two-tracks and fire trails. you'll find sites that are already established. some folks claim they can spot these from google earth. maybe it works out west without a tree canopy? the sites I like to frequent in Michigan, the only way you're finding them is local knowledge and driving the trails.

There is some correct and some incorrect information in the above post:

Correct: USFS generally prefers you to use dispersed sites that are already established as dispersed site or has had previous use. Less overall impact using a site that is already disturbed.

Correct: East of the Mississippi, the opportunities for dispersed motorized camping are less than in the west, but the opportunities still do exist.

Incorrect: It is incorrect that the approval for dispersed camping within 300 foot from designated roads was written for tent campers. It was written for motorized camping.
At almost all national forests, tent camping/backpacking/hiking campers can camp almost ANYWHERE on national forest lands except where it is specifically prohibited (such as develop campgrounds, recreation sites, trailheads, administrative sites, or places such as Research Natural Areas, or a specified distance away from roadways, lakes and streams, etc.)

There is no restriction on that you have to camp WITHIN 300 feet of a designated road for tent/backpacking type camping. The 300 foot restriction came about as a result of the requirement to do MVUM for motorized vehicles. There was a great concern among both RVers as well as NF recreation managers that MVUM would take away the long-established tradition of boondocking on NF lands. The MVUM requirement was done primarily to guide the use of ATV use on national forests (I don't want to get into a discussion about whether the result was good or bad for ATVs in this thread). But that was the main purpose of MVUM, although ultimately it did deal with all motor vehicle use, even passenger cars.

While there were very specific national standards for language and situations, local forests were provided some leeway in how they could deal with dispersed motorized camping. Some actually identified specific areas on the MVUM map where such use could occur. Others specified a limited distance from a designated road. Still others spoke to "terminal destinations" which meant that if a road was on the designated system and ended in a log landing area, then people could use the area around that landing to set up a dispersed campsite.

Incorrect: "I suppose you could take a literal interpretation of their rules, shovel the berm down yourself, winch the logs out of the way and forge a new trail, but that's a lot of work." You will likely get a citation and possible get your vehicle and trailer impounded if you tear down a berm or road closure device to establish your dispersed camping site. A berm or road closure means just that - road is closed. Also the MVUM will not show that road as open for public travel by any sort of motorized vehicle.

Potentially Incorrect: "drive your back roads, two-tracks and fire trails." Be sure to get an MVUM map before you take this advice. Many "back roads, two tracks and fire trails" are not designated as open for public travel, but serve only an administrative purpose of access to timber sales, fire breaks, etc. It may not be legal for you to drive there.

Again, the very best approach is to stop at the appropriate Ranger District office and talk to them. Tell them what you want to do, where you want to go, pull out a map or photo (they have both at the office) and discuss it with them. Then you will be certain of your opportunities. You can also call them on the phone or send them an email prior to your trip explaining your desire and get their response.

Appears there is a lot of OHV Area and riding in the Bridger-Teton National Forest. That usually involves a fair amount of area for dispersed camping too.

You've probably already seen this site. There will probably be many locations that look to have been used by previous campers within the 300 foot rule. As I'm sure you would, just use common sense with the thought that there will be many generations to come who would also like to use the area and not see it get destroyed.

Bridger-Teton National Forest - Dispersed Camping

Lot's of RV's just off the road on BLM land in AZ. No established sites. Haven't tried it yet because I'm between campers but looking forward to soon.