"Long boondockers" leave trash; forests restricted

[profdant139]

This is upsetting -- trash from essentially homeless boondockers is causing the national forests to restrict camping:

Link to article

So I will once again float a very unpopular idea -- if we were to require all boondockers to buy annual passes, these freeloading lowlifes could be evicted by the rangers right away, for lack of a permit.

I know no one wants to pay another fee. I know this proposal has no chance of being enacted. But I do not have any other plausible solution to this problem.

And if we don't figure out a way to stop this, boondocking will be a thing of the past. Simple: ban all boondockers, no trash.

If you have a better idea, I'm all ears!

[profdant139]

Well, Phil, at least you are lucky enough to have a storage compartment -- our little trailer has no storage. Often, when we are way back in the woods, we have to hang hefty bags full of trash from tree limbs to keep them away from critters, until we make a "trash run" into town:


Click For Full-Size Image.

That photo was taken on the North Rim of the Grand Canyon, 20 miles (and 90 minutes) from the nearest dumpster.

Supposedly, there are bears who are savvy enough to find the rope and bite through it to make the trash fall. So far, we have not come into contact with such sophisticated animals.

[pnichols]

Maybe here in America we need to gradually learn to get by with less trash .... or would that bring an end to all human life here?

We're part of this Mode-of-Living problem in our stick house: About every two weeks our big recyclables trash container is full - it's pathetic that we have got sucked into residential living this way.

AND

We continue with this Mode-of-Living problem in our RV: When we boondock camp for any length of time, I have a large contractor's black plastic bag full of trash when we leave our campsite that I have to find room for in our largest exterior storage bay until we can find a legal and proper place to dispose of it later - it's pathetic that we have got sucked into RV living like this.

[DanNJanice]

ctilsie242 wrote:
Here in Texas, I see a fourth type. In Austin, it is expensive to get stuff hauled off because of the dump fees, etc. So, unscrupulous trash haulers will charge the premium fees... but then wait until nightfall, drive down a country road, drop the tailgate on their pickup, kick everything out, and zoom off.

This type of abuse (combined with funding issues) is why Texas pulled out every single rest stop in the entire state.

Yup, that is why I advocate just making it free/cheap to get rid of stuff. All a person should need to do is get it to the nearest drop off point. If nothing else, at least the trash will be a little more contained.

[ctilsie242]

Here in Texas, I see a fourth type. In Austin, it is expensive to get stuff hauled off because of the dump fees, etc. So, unscrupulous trash haulers will charge the premium fees... but then wait until nightfall, drive down a country road, drop the tailgate on their pickup, kick everything out, and zoom off.

This type of abuse (combined with funding issues) is why Texas pulled out every single rest stop in the entire state.

[Naio]

I've seen two kinds of large trash piles in the boonies. One kind is the unofficial neighborhood dump for people who live in the area. It's not legal, but it's been used for years, maybe decades. I guess people figure the legal site is too far away.

The other kind is an abandoned illegal home site. Those are so sad. I see kid's clothes, magazines, aspirin bottles... and I wonder about the people who were there and had to leave in a hurry.

And yeah, there are smaller (but still icky) amounts of trash by actual campers / partiers who just don't care.

It wasn't really clear what kinds people were talking about in the article.

[DiskDoctr]

profdant139 wrote:
...I have been very impressed with virtually every ranger I have met, and I have met a lot of them. They try their best to be helpful and to enforce the rules fairly.

Agreed. And guess whose livelihood is threatened every time there is a budget issue? Hint: It's not the top tier 😉

The Primary purpose of the BLM is to do the work of the BLM. Country club memberships and DC lifestyle are NOT part of the primary mission.

Time to get back to basics.

[profdant139]

I know nothing of the inner workings of the BLM and the Forest Service. All I can say is that I have been very impressed with virtually every ranger I have met, and I have met a lot of them. They try their best to be helpful and to enforce the rules fairly.

In heavily-used forests, they are overwhelmed by the growth in usage. We could blame Congress for not adequately staffing the forest service, but that would be a waste of time -- Congress has done almost nothing for many years. And yes, both major political parties are responsible for the endless gridlock. Sigh.

[DiskDoctr]

westernrvparkowner wrote:

DiskDoctr wrote:
BLM doesn't have enough money for boots on the ground because it is siphoned off for other uses.

There are some in BLM making in excess of $180k. That one person equals THREE boots on the ground. Avg pay in 2015 was under $65k, so that is almost TRIPLE the average.

Source: BLM Top 100 Salaries 2015

It's a simple algorithm that shows you cut off the high end to pay for more of the average boots on the ground. Start at the top, cut all salaries more than 40 over means by 50, then hold salary cap of 20 over avg pay until the dept has the manpower it needs within its funding level.

Stop to Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in all depts. Fewer "high paid watchers" and more boots on the ground "do-ers"

As long as the budget-increase-teat is available, we won't have an efficient and effective dept and management.

Simple math, really- once you step outside the "this is how it's always been done" box.

How about we cut your pay by 40 percent so we can hire more lower paid workers in whatever the heck industry you work in? If you think that BLM lands are mismanaged now, see what you would get if you restricted the top management's pay to much less than they could make elsehwere. You would get exactly what you paid for, people who were not competent enough to get a position in an area that pays the going rate of pay. I am always amazed that people who have no information what so ever as to what people do can immediately declare they are overpaid and their position is a waste of money.

Actually, it's your response that shows a lack of understanding how gov't contracts, funding, and positions work. How far down that top-down list do you think they'll have to go before the organization "finds a way" to solve budgeting issues?

Self-preservation is a strong instinct.

Besides BLM is PUBLIC SERVICE and subject to each and every budget session and whim...by law. Every contract for services is required to have budget-related wording allowing them to suspend or terminate a contract by law. It's called the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR).

It's amazing the assumptions some people make about the knowledge and experience of people they don't know and often underestimate- even when those people are formally trained in the subject area :roll:

The strategy is quite simply the balancing of the Peter Principle. Start at the top, get rid of the dead weight who are not effective enough, and work down until you find someone who is capable of MORE than their position and let them rise to the top via solutions and effectiveness.

Some reading: Peter Principle

[jfkmk]

westernrvparkowner wrote:
This sort of thing happens because as a society we have been trained to become tolerant of all sorts of behaviors. We tolerate people living on public lands because to not be tolerant is politically incorrect. At my winter home in California, I at constantly bombarded by the homeless and every other sort of panhandler whenever I enter or leave a grocery store or a Walmart. The stores even have signs saying they do not promote or endorse these people, yet the laws are now structured so they cannot have them stopped. Apparently, beggars have rights at places of public access.
Everyone can tell the difference between people camping in the woods and people living in the woods. A certain portion of the population just doesn't allow the collective us to "profile" the troublemakers. In my opinion, too much tolerance is just as bad as not enough. I get slammed every time I post that people living in their RVs, not as travelers and tourists, but using them as a permanent home in either RV parks, on public land, or "stealth camping" to live on the streets, is bad for the RV industry. Here is yet another example of what can eventually happen. RVers are but a very small segment of the population. They do not have a loud collective voice. Bad behavior by a small segment of people will eventually lead to laws that throw out the baby with the bath water. As people who enjoy and benefit from the RV industry, we should applaud any effort to end the misbehavior of the few, it will benefit the rest of us in the long run.

Well said!

[jfkmk]

LenSatic wrote:

Naio wrote:
A huge percentage of homeless people are veterans.

I think we've been down this road before. What is your proof? Most "vets" are not truly "vetted". I'm an Army vet and spent 35 years in L.A. and challenged dozens, perhaps scores, of homeless "vets" on their credentials and NONE passed the simplest tests. NONE! Are there homeless veterans? Of course, but they are not over represented. Since most folks are not military savvy they don't know the questions to ask or have the huevos to ask.

There are Special Forces posers that actually get into the VFW and even the Special Forces Association (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51037&highlight=Association) because no one asked for their DD-214. This pissing on vets is getting really old!

LS

Thank you, I was going to ask where that "statistic" came from.

[F-TROUP]

BoonHauler wrote:

DanNJanice wrote:
Snip
Another thing that would help is easy disposal of trash. It is not all that easy, or cheap, to get rid of trash, unless you have garbage service, or put it in someone else's dumpster. I would like to see many more easily accessible and free disposal areas.

Great point!! .....making it hard to get rid of is for sure the wrong way to handle matters. The forest service should have dumpsters out at these locations..... for FREE!

I guess you haven't seen what human rats can do to a dumpster, in town, urban or forest. Dumpsters are where they shop.

[westernrvparkow]

DiskDoctr wrote:
BLM doesn't have enough money for boots on the ground because it is siphoned off for other uses.

There are some in BLM making in excess of $180k. That one person equals THREE boots on the ground. Avg pay in 2015 was under $65k, so that is almost TRIPLE the average.

Source: BLM Top 100 Salaries 2015

It's a simple algorithm that shows you cut off the high end to pay for more of the average boots on the ground. Start at the top, cut all salaries more than 40 over means by 50, then hold salary cap of 20 over avg pay until the dept has the manpower it needs within its funding level.

Stop to Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in all depts. Fewer "high paid watchers" and more boots on the ground "do-ers"

As long as the budget-increase-teat is available, we won't have an efficient and effective dept and management.

Simple math, really- once you step outside the "this is how it's always been done" box.

How about we cut your pay by 40 percent so we can hire more lower paid workers in whatever the heck industry you work in? If you think that BLM lands are mismanaged now, see what you would get if you restricted the top management's pay to much less than they could make elsehwere. You would get exactly what you paid for, people who were not competent enough to get a position in an area that pays the going rate of pay. I am always amazed that people who have no information what so ever as to what people do can immediately declare they are overpaid and their position is a waste of money.

[DiskDoctr]

BLM doesn't have enough money for boots on the ground because it is siphoned off for other uses.

There are some in BLM making in excess of $180k. That one person equals THREE boots on the ground. Avg pay in 2015 was under $65k, so that is almost TRIPLE the average.

Source: BLM Top 100 Salaries 2015

It's a simple algorithm that shows you cut off the high end to pay for more of the average boots on the ground. Start at the top, cut all salaries more than 40% over means by 50%, then hold salary cap of 20% over avg pay until the dept has the manpower it needs within its funding level.

Stop to Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in all depts. Fewer "high paid watchers" and more boots on the ground "do-ers"

As long as the budget-increase-teat is available, we won't have an efficient and effective dept and management.

Simple math, really- once you step outside the "this is how it's always been done" box.

[profdant139]

I guess it is just the way some folks behave. There is a big campaign right now in LA, in which sports stars (most notably Adrian Gonzalez of the Dodgers) come on the radio and try to urge the populace to dispose of their large items properly, rather than abandoning them on street corners, as they now do. The slogan is "Keep LA classy, not trashy." Good luck with that.

Maybe Smokey the Bear will come out of retirement and do some public service announcements to keep the forests clean, too.

[pnichols]

Tvov wrote:
Now you get into actually attracting people to dump in the forests -

Yep .... a version of that happens right in our "local neighborhood".

We live in a heavily forested mountainous region just outside of a mega-suburban area. We see piles of trash left along our mountain roads every once in awhile. The DW and myself removed one once using our pickup truck.

I assume that these piles of trash are coming from folks who - live down in the valley flatlands and are just plain cheapskates who don't want to pay disposal site fees (but consume the gas to drive into our mountains), or are just plain too financially strapped to pay disposal site fees (but consume the gas to drive into our mountains), or are just plain too lazy to drive to a disposal site (but spend the time and drive the miles to drive into our mountains).

The folks that do the above kind of inconsiderate stuff are no different than those that trash up their free camping areas on public lands. Maybe deep down all of them think that they are actually considerate folks and they rationalize their actions by assuming that leaving trash around is no big deal because "someone else will eventually pick up the trash anyway". (How's the twisted logic in that last sentence grab you?)