Take action or get ready to pay for boondocking

[boydrkb]

by Jim Koca, Advocacy Director

As some Escapees are aware, a bill has been introduced in the United States Congress, HB 5204, entitled The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Modernization Act of 2014, which will allow fees to be collected for most of the "public land" that is controlled by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. If the bill passes, it would allow the Federal Government to charge fees for any activity on land that we presently have access to for free. Fees could include a permit fee, day use fee, or a special use fee. There is the possibility that the bill could be attached to an appropriation bill, which would allow the bill to pass without public comment or debate.

It is time now to get involved and contact your congressman and senators where you have your domicile and let them know that HB 5204 should be defeated. In the past, public lands have been turned over to concessionaires that allowed them to charge fees or to refuse to give discounts for entering the federal lands. This bill may not pass, but don't take a chance and let the other members contact their congressman or senators. It only takes a few minutes to let the representatives that we elected know how we feel.

To find your congressman, you can go to http://www.house.gov, and for senators, you can go to http://www.senate.gov.

If you would like to review the bill yourself:
https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5204/text

[Calisdad]

dahkota wrote:
Just an FYI, prospecting in the San Gabriels is illegal. The designation of the monument doesn't change that.
.

Not exactly. Although the local USFS rangers would like you to believe that it's not true. Some lands were withdrawn in 1928 to conserve water but that law does not prohibit prospecting.

Here is a short story describing one mans fight with a misleading local USFS office:

linky

[boydrkb]

pnichols wrote:
FWIW, I read Edward Abbey's Desert Solitaire.

Interestingly, in Desert Solitaire he was not against throwing trash out your car window when driving along a wilderness road. His point was that the wilderness had already been ruined because there was a road in it.

I violently disagree with this implied view on wilderness roads as one of an uncaring elitest out of touch with humanity on many levels. Abbey's viewpoint on this seemed to be based on the wilderness not being there for any use requiring wheels. Some wonderful human beings are physically disabled (some being verterans who made possible Abbey's precious American wilderness that is free to roam in) and could not ever get close to natural areas without wheels being involved. Since wheels have been with us a long time and have proven their worth many times over, is it fair to marginalize the old, the infirm, or the disabled by saying they are to never use wheels to visit the wilderness? I think not.

As an example close to home: My DW of 4 1/2 decades has some physical problems resulting from a childhood accident and from "getting old". She loves nature and even has a degree in Natural Science. Only our fully equipped self-contained RV makes it possible for her to still get out there for any length of time. If Abbey had his way ... she would not be permitted to get out there at all.

I hear and agree with you, to a point. Limit access on wilderness roads to those not able to "walk" in and I'll fully agree.

[PatrickA51]

pnichols wrote:
FWIW, I read Edward Abbey's Desert Solitaire.

Interestingly, in Desert Solitaire he was not against throwing trash out your car window when driving along a wilderness road. His point was that the wilderness had already been ruined because there was a road in it.

I violently disagree with this implied view on wilderness roads as one of an uncaring elitest out of touch with humanity on many levels. Abbey's viewpoint on this seemed to be based on the wilderness not being there for any use requiring wheels. Some wonderful human beings are physically disabled (some being verterans who made possible Abbey's precious American wilderness that is free to roam in) and could not ever get close to natural areas without wheels being involved. Since wheels have been with us a long time and have proven their worth many times over, is it fair to marginalize the old, the infirm, or the disabled by saying they are to never use wheels to visit the wilderness? I think not.

As an example close to home: My DW of 4 1/2 decades has some physical problems resulting from a childhood accident and from "getting old". She loves nature and even has a degree in Natural Science. Only our fully equipped self-contained RV makes it possible for her to still get out there for any length of time. If Abbey had his way ... she would not be permitted to get out there at all.

Very well written Sir I agree!

[BoonHauler]

Bye Bye OHV

Bye Bye Dispersed Camping

Both major bummers 😞

[pnichols]

FWIW, I read Edward Abbey's Desert Solitaire.

Interestingly, in Desert Solitaire he was not against throwing trash out your car window when driving along a wilderness road. His point was that the wilderness had already been ruined because there was a road in it.

I violently disagree with this implied view on wilderness roads as one of an uncaring elitest out of touch with humanity on many levels. Abbey's viewpoint on this seemed to be based on the wilderness not being there for any use requiring wheels. Some wonderful human beings are physically disabled (some being verterans who made possible Abbey's precious American wilderness that is free to roam in) and could not ever get close to natural areas without wheels being involved. Since wheels have been with us a long time and have proven their worth many times over, is it fair to marginalize the old, the infirm, or the disabled by saying they are to never use wheels to visit the wilderness? I think not.

As an example close to home: My DW of 4 1/2 decades has some physical problems resulting from a childhood accident and from "getting old". She loves nature and even has a degree in Natural Science. Only our fully equipped self-contained RV makes it possible for her to still get out there for any length of time. If Abbey had his way ... she would not be permitted to get out there at all.

[dave54]

dahkota wrote:
They made it a national monument, not a national park or wilderness area.
According to releases, this will allow MORE money to be spent making improvements to roads, campgrounds, etc...

Partially correct.

A pile of money was thrown into the designation as a one-time expenditure to make it more palatable. There is no guarantee the funds will be continued into future years (history shows it will not), or even if it will be appropriated as promised this year (slim chance).

[dahkota]

Just an FYI, prospecting in the San Gabriels is illegal. The designation of the monument doesn't change that.

Hunting is currently allowed in many National Monuments. I really think you are confusing National Monuments with National Parks. Hunting is also allowed in wilderness areas unless they are in National Parks. Again, I think you are confusing National Monuments with National Parks.

As for sidewalks, are they there now? Getting National Monument status may actually improve the chances of there being accessible facilities in the future.

If you want to blame a president on the current use of Monument status, make it Teddy Roosevelt in 1906.

And Jimmy Carter designated 56 million acres (not 50,000).

[PatrickA51]

boydrkb wrote:

PatrickA51 wrote:

profdant139 wrote:
I can't get too worked up about the San Gabriels, one way or the other -- that area used to be fairly nice as recently as the 1960s (I was there!), but in the last 30-plus years it has been destroyed by overuse and abuse. There are now literally 20 million folks who live within easy driving distance -- trash and graffiti are everywhere.

A few years ago, after a rainy winter, we took a hike to a waterfall off the Angeles Crest HIghway -- when we got to the falls, there was a large group of large party people with an enormous boom-box blasting "music" throughout the canyon. We watched them throw a few celebratory beer bottles onto the rocks at the base of the falls. We turned around and went home, following a trail of discarded diapers back to the parking lot. This is no exaggeration, I am sorry to say.

You can call it a national forest or a monument, but it is what it is.

Well put.....is it now called a Federally Protected Landfill? :h

Edward Abbey began foretelling this tale of woe four decades past. Few listened then, about the same number as are listening now. Speaking for myself, "We old folks have seen the best, it's all downhill from here."

I remember going to Mt. Baldy as a child, with my parents, also going to the San Gabriel mountains. We went to Mt. Baldy more often, living less than 10 miles away. Edward Abbey you are right I guess I am of the age to fall in to that category "We old folks have seen the best, it's all downhill from here."

[boydrkb]

PatrickA51 wrote:

profdant139 wrote:
I can't get too worked up about the San Gabriels, one way or the other -- that area used to be fairly nice as recently as the 1960s (I was there!), but in the last 30-plus years it has been destroyed by overuse and abuse. There are now literally 20 million folks who live within easy driving distance -- trash and graffiti are everywhere.

A few years ago, after a rainy winter, we took a hike to a waterfall off the Angeles Crest HIghway -- when we got to the falls, there was a large group of large party people with an enormous boom-box blasting "music" throughout the canyon. We watched them throw a few celebratory beer bottles onto the rocks at the base of the falls. We turned around and went home, following a trail of discarded diapers back to the parking lot. This is no exaggeration, I am sorry to say.

You can call it a national forest or a monument, but it is what it is.

Well put.....is it now called a Federally Protected Landfill? :h

Edward Abbey began foretelling this tale of woe four decades past. Few listened then, about the same number as are listening now. Speaking for myself, "We old folks have seen the best, it's all downhill from here."

[profdant139]

Green, you are right that the high country is still pretty good, once you get a mile away from the pavement. But it sure leaves a bad taste in my mouth to drive to a trailhead and wade through all of the crud that folks leave in the parking lots. Grumble mumble harrumph.

[PatrickA51]

profdant139 wrote:
I can't get too worked up about the San Gabriels, one way or the other -- that area used to be fairly nice as recently as the 1960s (I was there!), but in the last 30-plus years it has been destroyed by overuse and abuse. There are now literally 20 million folks who live within easy driving distance -- trash and graffiti are everywhere.

A few years ago, after a rainy winter, we took a hike to a waterfall off the Angeles Crest HIghway -- when we got to the falls, there was a large group of large party people with an enormous boom-box blasting "music" throughout the canyon. We watched them throw a few celebratory beer bottles onto the rocks at the base of the falls. We turned around and went home, following a trail of discarded diapers back to the parking lot. This is no exaggeration, I am sorry to say.

You can call it a national forest or a monument, but it is what it is.

Well put.....is it now called a Federally Protected Landfill? :h

[greenrvgreen]

Dan, I understand what you're saying--certainly the Azusa/Redbox cyns are nothing better than dried-out cesspools. But do you have some complaint about the Baldy (Mt San Antonio) area? Heavily used and PRISTINE from Telegraph all the way to (but not including) Baden-Powell.

Two years ago, weren't you going to set out on a wilderness snowshoe through Icebox cyn, 30 minutes from your door, and only cancelled when you learned the avalanche danger was extreme? And well you did, considering those kids who were buried in Baldy's South Bowl for 6 weeks until mid-April and their bodies were finally found--30 minutes from Los Angeles.

My point is that the Gabes offer a real mountain experience and the best parts show no signs of wear. So lighten up on the Gabes!

[profdant139]

I can't get too worked up about the San Gabriels, one way or the other -- that area used to be fairly nice as recently as the 1960s (I was there!), but in the last 30-plus years it has been destroyed by overuse and abuse. There are now literally 20 million folks who live within easy driving distance -- trash and graffiti are everywhere.

A few years ago, after a rainy winter, we took a hike to a waterfall off the Angeles Crest HIghway -- when we got to the falls, there was a large group of large party people with an enormous boom-box blasting "music" throughout the canyon. We watched them throw a few celebratory beer bottles onto the rocks at the base of the falls. We turned around and went home, following a trail of discarded diapers back to the parking lot. This is no exaggeration, I am sorry to say.

You can call it a national forest or a monument, but it is what it is.

[Calisdad]

At issue is the circumvention of due process. The President bypassed Congress by using the Antiquities Act. "The Act states that areas of the monuments are to be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected." 350,000 acres is the smallest area compatible?

"The 1906 act stated that it was intended for: "... the protection of objects of historic and scientific interest." " I'm sure if one looked long and hard enough they might find some historic and scientific interest but worthy of a National Monument? Really?

When Jimmy Carter used the act in Alaska withdrawing a mere 50,000 acres, Congress stepped up and created "The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act requires Congressional ratification of the use of the Antiquities Act in Alaska for withdrawals of greater than 5,000 acres." Too bad they confined it to Alaska.

ANY excavation in a National Monument requires a permit. So for all intents and purposes prospecting is prohibited. Saying it is not because I could pan is incorrect because panning is not profitable. As I stated before hunters put more money in habitat restoration than ANY other group. You really think hunting will be readily allowed? Boondocking?

Saying I can still walk? Really? I don't think wheel chair ramps and sidewalks are necessary but doesn't it restrict those who are less mobile?

Obviously by now you've figured out what camp I'm in. I've already lost some fabulous camping sites to career politicians who never get dust on their wingtips. Enough already.

"A monument is a type of structure that was explicitly created to commemorate a person or important event, or which has become important to a social group as a part of their remembrance of historic times or cultural heritage, or as an example of historic architecture. The term 'monument' is often applied to buildings or structures that are considered examples of important architectural and/or cultural heritage." This isn't one.