BLM access about to be lost

[allegro34]

There is a fantastic BLM dispersed camping site in Colorado on the Arkansas River that is in danger of being converted from free BLM camping to an expensive, reservation only campground run by the state. We need your help to save it.

The Salida East camping area is he ONLY free open camping on this entire river and it is used by hundreds or RVers yearly. There are dozens of Parks and Wildlife and Commercial parks for those who want more amenities but Salida East is unique as a BLM site.

If you value beautiful boon docking sites please send an email to the BLM urging them NOT to lease Salida East to the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Division.

You can contact the BLM at: rgfo_comments@blm.gov with Salida East in the subject line or phone Melissa Garcia at 719-269-8724.

Thanks.
Rob Dubin
Tiffen Allegro 34

[BoonHauler]

Ken:

I myself feel that you have brought some really good issues to this discussion and I agree with your opinions.

Thanks for being checked in, it's greatly appreciated!

Cee

[4runnerguy]

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.)

[highplainsdrift]

profdant139 wrote:
OK, folks. I guess that if we can't get this group, composed of the country's most avid and law-abiding boondockers, to agree on a method of funding the rangers' enforcement efforts, there is no sense in trying to persuade the forest service to do anything more than they are already doing. Given the decidedly mixed reaction on this forum, I myself would not be willing to spend much time and energy on such a project. Oh, well. We'll just muddle through, the same as we've always done.

But don't be surprised if the following events occur: the forest service asks for more funding from Congress for additional enforcement. The answer is no -- the general tax revenue is not sufficient. As the urban population in the West grows, the areas open to boondocking will be over-used and trashed by the bad guys, who will operate with impunity (as they now do). At some point, the forest service will simply declare more and more areas to be off-limits to boondocking. The available sites will shrink in number and acreage. More boondockers will be crammed into fewer sites. The cycle of over-use will accelerate.

I would guess that in 25 years, there will be very little, if any, boondocking available on federal lands, and especially not in the national forests. I sure hope I am wrong.

I too hope you are wrong. But thank you for your concern and your efforts. I probably have a little different perspective because I am from the least populated state in the nation.

[profdant139]

OK, folks. I guess that if we can't get this group, composed of the country's most avid and law-abiding boondockers, to agree on a method of funding the rangers' enforcement efforts, there is no sense in trying to persuade the forest service to do anything more than they are already doing. Given the decidedly mixed reaction on this forum, I myself would not be willing to spend much time and energy on such a project. Oh, well. We'll just muddle through, the same as we've always done.

But don't be surprised if the following events occur: the forest service asks for more funding from Congress for additional enforcement. The answer is no -- the general tax revenue is not sufficient. As the urban population in the West grows, the areas open to boondocking will be over-used and trashed by the bad guys, who will operate with impunity (as they now do). At some point, the forest service will simply declare more and more areas to be off-limits to boondocking. The available sites will shrink in number and acreage. More boondockers will be crammed into fewer sites. The cycle of over-use will accelerate.

I would guess that in 25 years, there will be very little, if any, boondocking available on federal lands, and especially not in the national forests. I sure hope I am wrong.

[BoonHauler]

LenSatic wrote:

profdant139 wrote:
Second, and most significantly, many, if not most, of the bad guys will not buy passes and will fail to display the required sticker. That will result in a hefty ticket. Second and third offenses could result in harsher penalties.

Snip

In the end, the fee would just be a fine on the law abiding boondockers. I vote nay.

LS

X2 ..... well said Len

[Searching_Ut]

profdant139 wrote:
Searching UT, I did not know that there are areas that currently require a fee for use -- is there any literature, pro or con, on those programs?
......

You can do a search for "Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA)" Every area collecting the fees seems to have different interpretations of how to implement and what exactly requires the fee.

[monkey44]

Not exactly the same as 'boon-docking' areas, but anyone watch the state park fees in California nearly double from a few years ago. We grew up camping all over the state, in Mojave and the Sierras - really great parks.

Started to deteriorate due to 'no budget', so raised the fees. We camped in a few of what once were our favorite parks a couple years ago on a cross-country trip What a mess - no TP in bathrooms, trash all over the place, damaged roads and parking areas. Was pretty disturbing to see our forests and wilderness areas so bleak.

We wondered what actually happens to the funding, when repairs and maintenance that raising fees was suppose to accomplish, and didn't... 😞 😞 ... and that's why fees need to collect and remain local. Once it gets away, it never gets back home again.

[highplainsdrift]

allegro34 wrote:
Some good points in the last few posts.

Just to clarify- at the specific Salida East site which launched this thread- the impetus for change was the State Parks- thorough a local entity called Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area- AHRA. AHRA saw a heavily used area which is adjacent to a boat ramp they manage- this area is about the only valuable plot along the river they do not control and being well located and no fee gets more heavily used than their other campgrounds- they saw $$. Plain and simple. (They get to be a landlord and rent out campsites with a zero acquisition cost).

Rob

allegro34, are you sure that State Parks is pushing this. I remember reading somewhere that State Parks denies pushing the idea.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that BLM is pushing it given budget cuts. In Wyoming, the Forest Service has pushed local government to take over campground management:

http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/recreation-board-not-wild-about-campground-takeover/article_...

[highplainsdrift]

As I alluded to earlier, I am reluctant to pay a boondocking fee until Congress gets its priorities straight. After they have restored funding for federal land management if more funds are still needed, ask me again if I am willing to pay a special boondocking fee. I will consider it then.

[monkey44]

profdant139 wrote:
Monkey44, I think you have hit upon a great idea -- the stickers would be administered locally, by each forest -- the revenue would be kept locally and earmarked for boondocking. That would provide a good incentive for local folks to participate.

The only problem that I see (and it is a big one) is tourism -- for example, I often go to other states to boondock, not just in California. I probably would not want to pay a full year's worth just for two weeks of boondocking in Colorado. So that would tilt in favor of a national sticker, sort of like the national park pass.

Let's keep hitting the ball around -- there has to be a better way to run the show than what's happening right now. They say if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The corollary is that if it is broke, you gotta think about a fix.

Well, could easily become a annual pass for locals, and a one-week / two-week, one month pass at less cost than annual pass for the travelers. The main thing is keep it LOCAL, keep the funds in the BLM management for that area. It might require a trip to the local ranger station for pass (or mail in before trip) or, a day pass at an iron ranger -- AND a steep enforceable fine for "resident" boon-dockers with no pass.

If the pass is $50 and the fine is $20, no one buys the pass - if the pass is $50 and the fine is $250 PER TIME CAUGHT, then it makes the pass work.

AND - NO private contracts for collection or maintenance. No matter if the private contractor is good or bad, it always cost more to run because profit factor kicks in every time.

One of the main false premises that surround budget reduction ON PAPER is that it 'seems' to reduce the budget because the cost is subtracted from the main budget - BUT, the payout from the pass gets larger to support the maintenance - So, the budget gets smaller but we pay higher cost at the facilities, so it 'feels like' a tax increase by any another name ... and the increased costs become profit NOT maintenance.

If budget reduction reduces our personal taxes by $10 but increases the pass cost by $20 - What does that mean to our wallets??

[fla-gypsy]

The land is being transferred from one Govt agency to another Govt agency that wants their pound of flesh. What's new? In my world state controlled is better than Fed controlled. Good luck and prepare to pay.

[profdant139]

Monkey44, I think you have hit upon a great idea -- the stickers would be administered locally, by each forest -- the revenue would be kept locally and earmarked for boondocking. That would provide a good incentive for local folks to participate.

The only problem that I see (and it is a big one) is tourism -- for example, I often go to other states to boondock, not just in California. I probably would not want to pay a full year's worth just for two weeks of boondocking in Colorado. So that would tilt in favor of a national sticker, sort of like the national park pass.

Let's keep hitting the ball around -- there has to be a better way to run the show than what's happening right now. They say if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The corollary is that if it is broke, you gotta think about a fix.

[monkey44]

Been reading this thread with interest - and maybe would clarify at least our position, and might be the same for most of the boon-dock campers.

We (and I expect other posters on this issue) have NO objection to pay camp/boon-dock fee - as long as the fee stays and manages that particular area, or boon-docking areas in general. What we do object to is paying a fee that disappears into the huge hole of federal or state budgets and leave the fee areas to disintegrate ... if we pay, we should get local results and local management in return.

The problem remains, as often is true, we campers and boon-dockers have limited numbers and a small voice. We get run over due to an inability to make our numbers count.

[profdant139]

Searching UT, I did not know that there are areas that currently require a fee for use -- is there any literature, pro or con, on those programs?

Oldtymflyr, you are right that the government wastes tax money. That is not going to stop. But earmarking funds for a useful purpose (rangers) would be better than dropping money into the general fund, never to be seen again.

And it is true that some really bad guys will not appear on a federal warrant, but you have to be a true criminal to do that. Most of the bad guys are just slobs, not intentional evil-doers. A sticker program would cut down on the bad guys, but it can't stop every one.