Dispersed Camping Warning August 31, 2016, 05:15:41 pm This is our first visit to the Sawtooth National Recreation Area near Ketchum, ID and other than the smoke it has been an enjoyable experience.There are signs stating that there is a 16 day limit. However, we haven't been able to find more information than that and didn't ask at the visitor center. We stayed less than 16 days at one location and then moved to another spot 10 miles away. We were camping with friends who have been coming here for the past 6 summers from their home in CA and they had told us those were the rules.We were camping in plain sight of the road at a fire ring less than a 1/2 mile from the visitor center. We had spoken with a FS employee the day we moved telling him where we were going to park and he had seen us on the day we arrived originally and spoke with us then.Imagine our surprise this morning when another employee knocked on our door and advised we were over the limit. I told her of our understanding and she informed me that isn't correct. What really pissed me off was when she told me that they had left several notices on our LD which is simply a bald faced lie. I didn't argue about being over the date but did inform her that no one had left any notice. To cap it off she then gave us a $130 citation informing me that she could give us one for every day over 16 and the total was 22 days. I realize that ignorance of the rules is no excuse and guess the lesson here is to ask about the rules in every local forest and BLM office.Our friends who were not parked near us also got a visit and a citation. However, she also questioned him as to whether or not they owned or rented a home. That is what disturbs me more than anything. I have now heard of this happening in Colorado, AZ and now ID. In the previous incidences I mentioned they are mis-interpreting a federal statute which prohibits you from establishing a "residence" on federal land. In AZ I spoke with a full time camper who was visited by a ranger on the day he arrived. He was questioned about a residence and when he told the ranger he lived in his RV he was told that he could fine him then.Jim
Re: Dispersed Camping Warning Reply #1 – August 31, 2016, 05:27:41 pm Quote from: Jim & Gayle - August 31, 2016, 05:15:41 pmThis is our first visit to the Sawtooth National Recreation Area near Ketchum, ID and other than the smoke it has been an enjoyable experience.There are signs stating that there is a 16 day limit. However, we haven't been able to find more information than that and didn't ask at the visitor center. We stayed less than 16 days at one location and then moved to another spot 10 miles away. We were camping with friends who have been coming here for the past 6 summers from their home in CA and they had told us those were the rules.We were camping in plain sight of the road at a fire ring less than a 1/2 mile from the visitor center. We had spoken with a FS employee the day we moved telling him where we were going to park and he had seen us on the day we arrived originally and spoke with us then.Imagine our surprise this morning when another employee knocked on our door and advised we were over the limit. I told her of our understanding and she informed me that isn't correct. What really pissed me off was when she told me that they had left several notices on our LD which is simply a bald faced lie. I didn't argue about being over the date but did inform her that no one had left any notice. To cap it off she then gave us a $130 citation informing me that she could give us one for every day over 16 and the total was 22 days. I realize that ignorance of the rules is no excuse and guess the lesson here is to ask about the rules in every local forest and BLM office.Our friends who were not parked near us also got a visit and a citation. However, she also questioned him as to whether or not they owned or rented a home. That is what disturbs me more than anything. I have now heard of this happening in Colorado, AZ and now ID. In the previous incidences I mentioned they are mis-interpreting a federal statute which prohibits you from establishing a "residence" on federal land. In AZ I spoke with a full time camper who was visited by a ranger on the day he arrived. He was questioned about a residence and when he told the ranger he lived in his RV he was told that he could fine him then.JimNot a good report, Jim. Sorry you all had to experience this. Perhaps printing out and having on hand the appropriate statue(s) to show to the rangers might help in the future.Chris
Re: Dispersed Camping Warning Reply #2 – August 31, 2016, 05:35:12 pm Chris, I'm pretty sure that the statute would not have mattered and, in any, case we weren't being questioned about residence.As far as the dispersed camping issue is concerned you can't rely on signage or their website to provide all the details that you apparently need to know when camping on public land. We also had a detailed map obtained earlier near Stanley, ID listing dispersed camping sites and it, too, is silent on these rules.Jim
Re: Dispersed Camping Warning Reply #3 – August 31, 2016, 06:30:34 pm Chris, sorry to hear about this. I would like to clarify the situation, as a newbie; was the second location within the same NF, and if so, is it normally okay to extent the stay limit if you move to another spot?
Re: Dispersed Camping Warning Reply #4 – August 31, 2016, 06:48:17 pm Ouch! Where was your southern charm? Sounds like you failed to properly suck up to a ranger out to make her name.I guess the way they do the rule is 16 days anywhere in the forest in any 30? period. Or did she even say what the rule was?Dispersed in the Lassen NF, where there are more parking spots than in Q. Just few reasons to be here. Other than Juniper Lake, which the road to it would destroy an RV.
Re: Dispersed Camping Warning Reply #5 – August 31, 2016, 07:37:44 pm Quote from: Don Malpas - August 31, 2016, 06:48:17 pmOuch! Where was your southern charm? Sounds like you failed to properly suck up to a ranger out to make her name.I guess the way they do the rule is 16 days anywhere in the forest in any 30? period. Or did she even say what the rule was?Dispersed in the Lassen NF, where there are more parking spots than in Q. Just few reasons to be here. Other than Juniper Lake, which the road to it would destroy an RV.Yeah, maybe I wasn't nice enough. However, we continued our search on their website and found mention of it today. You can find it here if you look under Occupancy and USE and then SNRA order number. Pretty easy to find, huh.Sawtooth National Forest - Alerts & NoticesIf you look at it even it isn't consistent. In the Sawtooth NF north of the Galena Pass you only have to move 10 miles from your present spot which is what we were told here by our friends. South of the pass you have to be out of the forest for 14 days and then you can come back.I can only guess that fines such as these are their means of supplementing their shortfall in funding. What else can you assume when they suggest that had you only paid heed to notices, which were never left, you wouldn't have been fined.I realize that I'm not the brightest person on the planet, however, we aren't the kind of people that would have simply ignored multiple notices that we have overstayed our limit.That said, I will pay the fine and move on. I am looking at it as a contribution to support the public lands that we enjoy.Jim
Re: Dispersed Camping Warning Reply #6 – August 31, 2016, 08:16:10 pm Jim,I've had my unfortunate run-ins with rangers. And they with me I suppose.Managing popular public lands is not an easy job. Nor is keeping a large workforce properly trained and on the same page, especially when seasonal workers are involved. Rules can and do change and it sounds like they have where you are, probably for good reason.Public lands managers are having increasing problems with people who have a hard time distinguishing between public lands and their private use of them. Look at the Bundys who'd simply take public land for themselves. And I mountain bike in an area plagued with renegade off-road vehicle use that rips up the land for no good reason that I can see, except that "it's ours."We have some dispersed camping sites up in the Hope Valley near where I live. Lovely spots. Where in the past people have moved in their 5th wheel trailers early in the summer and simply left them there until fall, coming and going as they please, treating them like private sites and precluding their use by others for weeks at a time. It seems to me that these attitudes are spreading. Most rules have their origins in some sort of abuse. And unfortunately apply to both good and bad actors.I agree that it is a good idea to check with the local authorities. We don't do much dispersed camping but once in Anza Borrego State Park, which does allow it in places, I checked with the rangers at the visitor center and they sent me to a dispersed camping spot that was terrific. So their involvement can cut both ways.I hope the rest of your vacation goes well.Terry2003 26.5'RBGardnerville, NV 4 Likes
Re: Dispersed Camping Warning Reply #7 – September 01, 2016, 12:11:44 am Jim, your heads up is appreciated. The questions about having a full time residence seem to me to be revealing. Makes it tough on full timers though. 2 Likes
Re: Dispersed Camping Warning Reply #8 – September 01, 2016, 12:51:17 am Bob Wells of Cheaprvliving.com has an article about this, Cheap RV Living.com -Keep it Simple Sunday: Staying Legal as a BoondockerAs well as this one which includes a conversation with the FS repRV Boondocking News: Fulltime RVer ticketed for "living" in his motorhome in...Seems like BLM decals, Escapees decals or Q bumper stickers are a trigger.Bob
Re: Dispersed Camping Warning Reply #9 – September 01, 2016, 11:47:01 am Quote from: Bob Lawhon - September 01, 2016, 12:51:17 amBob Wells of Cheaprvliving.com has an article about this, Cheap RV Living.com -Keep it Simple Sunday: Staying Legal as a BoondockerAs well as this one which includes a conversation with the FS repRV Boondocking News: Fulltime RVer ticketed for "living" in his motorhome in...Seems like BLM decals, Escapees decals or Q bumper stickers are a trigger.BobThanks Bob. Bob Wells is the person I had met and was referring to with the ranger incident near Flagstaff. That is when we first met him and we were parked about a 1/4 mile from him. While he was braced the day he arrived we parked there for 2 weeks with FS employees driving by us almost everyday and we weren't visited. Clearly, this is being used to harass those individuals who don't have a shiny enough and expensive enough RV.The second link is new to me and very helpful.Based on this any of us who full time can arbitrarily be fined for legally spending time in a FS. The FS answer to Bob Difley in the second link was intentionally vague and could, at the whim of the officer, include full timers and vacationers. I guess you either take your chances or stay in a FS fee campground. The reason we often choose dispersed camping is for the privacy, beauty and space.While I don't want to see public lands become squatters camps I also don't want to see this kind of behavior in relation to our public lands. When we camp we pick up others trash left behind, actually pay dump fees and in general leave the space better than we left it. I can't say that for many of the hunters and partiers who abuse these lands.While we could, if we chose, buy a home tomorrow it seems almost Orwellian to think we might have to do that to avoid this concern. We all ought to care about this but clearly not enough people do to speak to your congresscritters.Jim
Re: Dispersed Camping Warning Reply #10 – September 01, 2016, 02:52:18 pm I dispersed camped outside Flagstaff in Belmont out in the Kaibab NF for 6 years.Always in the same spot, and although not legal, I could spend all summer in the area without hasslesor really any neighbors.Then year 7, the ranger came out on the second day after my arrival. He was courteous, but informed me that I was in a closed area, one that had been closed for at least 4 years. I told him that I had been coming to that spot for years and hadn't seen any closure signage and it was never patrolled so I never saw a ranger. That's when I learned about the MVUM maps.What a fiasco those have turned out to be. What a waste of money, updates every year. They are closing more and more areas to camping every year.
Re: Dispersed Camping Warning Reply #11 – September 02, 2016, 09:50:11 am Does the federal government have (or could it establish) a host or patrol program that would allow dispersed camping for longer periods and/or in closed areas? Hosts could help them fulfill their mission of protecting lands. State campgrounds have hosts who pick up trash and report unacceprable behavior in exchange for free and extended camping. Turn the "enemy" into a friend.
Re: Dispersed Camping Warning Reply #12 – September 02, 2016, 11:36:48 am I've seen dispersed camp sites that have been trashed badly.Some that have been used only for a short period of time.So, some people just don't care to keep their place clean andletting those types extend their stay would be a disaster.Others like me could spend the rest of our lives in a dispersed spotand you'd hardly know someone was there when they left.Human nature is impossible to regulate. 2 Likes
Re: Dispersed Camping Warning Reply #13 – September 02, 2016, 12:56:20 pm Today I am mailing the following:USDA Forest Service1400 Independence Ave., SWWashington, D.C.20250-1111RE: Policy Concern, Recreational Use of National ForestsDear Sir or Madam:I have recently become aware that the US Forest Service is instituting a discriminatory policy against people with a lifestyle similar to mine, barring us from recreational use of National Forests simply because we fulltime in our RV’s. I ask that you reconsider this policy. Please allow me to explain my reasons.Eight years ago I was forced to retire due to progression of post-polio syndrome. Until then, I had a “stick” home in New Jersey, and I hiked and camped and loved the outdoors. Once I had to stop working, I had a choice. I could stay in my home in New Jersey, or I could spend every minute possible enjoying the outdoors to the limited extent possible for me. I was concerned about environmental issues and wanted to live as “green” as I could, and I wanted to explore this vast land, visiting the places I had not had time to visit while I was working. Doing my research, I learned that RV living can be quite “green” if done right. I sold my house and bought an RV. I began traveling, and became a resident of Oregon. I vote in Oregon and I file my taxes in Oregon. I also spend every day possible touring, exploring, and photographing this beautiful land of ours. I do some light hiking, and concentrate on nature and landscape photography. I am living “green”. I get my electricity from solar panels on my roof. I use about 6 gallons of water per day, about 1/10 what is used by one resident in a conventional home. I move my RV about once a week, usually fairly short trips of 20 to 100 miles, getting about 7.6 mpg, and I then explore the new area with the car that I tow, in which I get about 30 mpg. I stay in State and National Forest campgrounds, in National Park campgrounds, in BLM campgrounds, in Army Corps of Engineers campgrounds, and in State Park campgrounds, with occasional stays in commercial campgrounds. In every case, my purpose is to use the place where I am staying to provide recreational access to the land around me. I take photographs of the land and I share those photos on my blogs (my newer blog is at These Are The Voyages... | …well into the second 5 year mission! and my older blog is at These Are The Voyages...), by email and by Facebook. In this way I give others who do not have the time to seek out these beautiful places an opportunity to see some of this beauty.While I do “live” in my RV, which means I am occasionally “living” in a National Forest, this is no different than a person with a conventional home who spends a vacation in an RV in a National Forest. While they are there, they are “living” in that National Forest, just as I am. My residency is in Oregon. Oregon has the constitutional right to recognize residency, and they have done so. My stay in a National Forest is not using the Forest as a residence. It is using the Forest for recreation. You would not bar a college graduate from taking a few months to travel and camp before settling into a job, as long as that graduate obeyed the time limits, even if that graduate had not yet rented a place to live. How are we different? More importantly, why do you discriminate against us?I recognize the problem associated with people mis-using the Forest by squatting there. You have a tool to deal with that - the 14 day limit. I fully support the time limit. In my 8 years of living this lifestyle, I have exceeded a time limit only once, with prior permission, while waiting for a delivery that was delayed. That was on BLM lands near Riley, Oregon. As soon as I received the shipment, I moved on, eager to find a change of scenery. Squatters abuse or ignore the time limit, and issuing them citations is, in my opinion, fair and warranted. Such is not the case for those of us living the way I do, and there are a number of us. We visit, we watch a few sunrises and sunsets, we ohh and ahh, we may take a short hike, and we move on. That is recreational use, not residential use.Your policy, however, is that I can be cited for staying even one day in a National Forest, simply because I have chosen a lifestyle that does not include a fixed structure as my home. I believe this is discrimination against a small group of people simply because you do not understand our lifestyle choices. I consider myself to be both wise and fortunate in that I have found a lifestyle that minimizes my impact on the earth and that lets me enjoy wilderness areas, all over the west, 365 days a year, not for residential purposes, but for recreational purposes.I agree that the National Forests are to be used for recreation, not residential use. The 14 day limit allows you to manage that. I do not believe that barring those of us who desire to enjoy the outdoors for every day possible of the days remaining to us should be barred from enjoying our National Forests, providing that we visit, then move on within the 14 day limit. Thus, I ask that you reconsider your policy wherein you decide that a person with no fixed home is using the National Forest as a residence, regardless of how short their stay may be.Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Kenneth E. FearsCC: Senator Jeff Merkley, 405 East 8th Avenue, Ste. 2010, Eugene, OR 97401 Congressman Peter DeFazio, 405 East 8th Ave. #2030, Eugene, OR 97401 11 Likes
Re: Dispersed Camping Warning Reply #14 – September 02, 2016, 01:24:23 pm That's a great letter, Ken!I have really been learning a lot from this thread. Being new to RV'ing I don't know anything about dispersed camping, BLM land etc.... But planning on going full time, it is definitely something that I want/need to know about. Thanks,-Rebecca
Re: Dispersed Camping Warning Reply #15 – September 02, 2016, 01:36:34 pm When dispersed camping in a new area we always go to the Forest Service office for the area and first ask if dispersed camping is allowed and if yes then ask for suggestions. We have stayed in some very nice spots we wouldn't of found if we hadn't asked.I imagine that this is more a problem in overcrowded areas or areas near population centers. I do have a home base but what difference should that make? I'm wondering if they even have the right to ask? Isn't that an invasion of privacy? If one follows the rules that should be the only thing that matters. 3 Likes
Re: Dispersed Camping Warning Reply #16 – September 02, 2016, 02:35:16 pm Great job, Kenneth - excellent points made! Please let us know what type of response you receive. 1 Likes
Re: Dispersed Camping Warning Reply #17 – September 02, 2016, 02:39:51 pm Quote from: Elizabeth West-Ownbey - September 02, 2016, 01:36:34 pmWhen dispersed camping in a new area we always go to the Forest Service office for the area and first ask if dispersed camping is allowed and if yes then ask for suggestions. We have stayed in some very nice spots we wouldn't of found if we hadn't asked.I imagine that this is more a problem in overcrowded areas or areas near population centers. I do have a home base but what difference should that make? I'm wondering if they even have the right to ask? Isn't that an invasion of privacy? If one follows the rules that should be the only thing that matters.If you take a look at the links provided by Bob Lawhon it will be made more clear.At issue is this. The Forest Service in their rules have defined "Residence" as follows: "Residence. Any structure or shelter, whether temporary or permanent, including, but not limited to, buildings, buses, cabins, campers, houses, lean-tos, mills, mobile homes, motor homes, pole barns, recreational vehicles, sheds, shops, tents and trailers, which is being used, capable of being used, or designed to be used, in whole or in part, full or part-time, as living or sleeping quarters by any person, including a guard or watchman."That can be found here. eCFR — Code of Federal RegulationsBy that definition anything that you bring to camp in can be classified as a "Residence". You should note that it also includes the fact that it can be used full or part time.Next you look at the prohibitions and find this language: "(b) Construction, reconstructing, improving, maintaining, occupying or using a residence on National Forest System lands unless authorized by a special-use authorization or approved operating plan when such authorization is required."Which can be found here. eCFR — Code of Federal RegulationsYou note that using a "residence" is prohibited.Therefore they could cite you whether full time or part time based on their interpretation of the language. Apparently, how they have chosen to interpret it so far is on a limited basis that is both arbitrary and discriminatory. As to the why, we can only speculate.To me it is nothing more or less than a vagrancy law which was deemed unconstitutional decades ago.I should add that I have never heard of anyone being questioned about residency who was camping in a fee FS campground.Jim
Re: Dispersed Camping Warning Reply #18 – September 02, 2016, 03:21:23 pm Excellent letter, Kenneth! I am so sorry for the headaches & hassles some of you have experienced. This has certainly been a learning experience for me--I was raised with the attitude from my north MO farmer family: "If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about" (which is still prevalent in many corners, despite much evidence to the contrary); I will be expressing my concerns to Rep. Sam Graves, & Senators Claire McCaskill & Roy Blunt of Missouri, as we have the Mark Twain National Forest in the southern part of the state. Those who respect & protect our common national resources (as expressed in Kenneth's letter) should not be harassed & penalized because of abuse of those common national resources by freeloaders like the Bundy bunch or those trying to hide illegal drug operations, etc. Rules are important, but there needs to be professional & consistent application of the rules, rather than the arbitrary behavior shared here (after sixteen years in the Missouri Department of Corrections I developed an organic understanding of Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment--sometimes a uniform/badge/rulebook changes people in unfortunate ways).While this segment of the population is small--and intentionally independent in choosing individual lifestyle opportunities--and acknowledging that discussing politics is generally (& appropriately) verboten here, does anyone know of efforts by Escapees or other such entities to address this on a more unified scale? The more organized & numerous the voices, the more likely "attention must be paid" (re: Willy Loman, Death of a Salesman)). If there is such a forum or entity, that information would maintain the *politics free* environment we want to preserve on this site, but allow individuals to seek education & engagement if they choose.Moderators, if this comment is deemed to have strayed over the line, I understand & appreciate your deletion of it. Thx.Lynne 1 Likes
Re: Dispersed Camping Warning Reply #19 – September 02, 2016, 06:05:47 pm For what it is worth - before I mailed the letter, I realized I had not included dispersed camping. I modified the letter to include that.Ken F in WY
Re: Dispersed Camping Warning Reply #20 – September 02, 2016, 06:30:11 pm I was a bit confused on exactly what "Dispersed Camping" was so I found this link: Fishlake National Forest - RecreationI had no idea such a thing existed. Very interesting. Dispersed Camping would seem to be very similar to Boondocking or Dry Camping in as much as you are "self contained" with no outside amenities available. Who knew?Kent
Re: Dispersed Camping Warning Reply #21 – September 02, 2016, 07:24:41 pm Quote from: Kenneth Fears - September 02, 2016, 06:05:47 pmFor what it is worth - before I mailed the letter, I realized I had not included dispersed camping. I modified the letter to include that.Ken F in WYKudos to you, Ken, for your very important letter.Chris
Re: Dispersed Camping Warning Reply #22 – September 02, 2016, 07:35:24 pm Interesting discussion. Sounds like a problem mainly for full-timers with no residence to which they occasionally return and who engage in dispersed camping on Forest Service lands. It would seem they should decide in advance what their story is going to be and what evidence they want available to support it if challenged for "living" rather than "recreating" on those lands. And what evidence they may want to get rid of, like that Escapees decal, the South Dakota license plates and the six month supply of firewood stacked by the motorhome. ;-]That's not me, at least for now. Nonetheless I just went out and took a few photos of my LD parked in my home RV garage and of my house with the house number visible and stored them in my phone. I've also stored in my phone a screen shot of Google Maps' satellite view of my home with the address showing and a scan of my property tax bill. Together with my driver's license and vehicle registrations that show the same address I hope that will allow me to convince any skeptical ranger that I'm just recreating and not living on the forest in question.Terry Burnes2003 26.5'RBGardnerville, NV 1 Likes
Re: Dispersed Camping Warning Reply #23 – September 17, 2016, 06:17:18 pm Here is a photo which causes me some concern regarding the FS and their theory on Residential use.
Re: Dispersed Camping Warning Reply #24 – September 17, 2016, 07:24:10 pm Hmmm,In my neck of the woods, there are many folks camped out along the banks of the LA River (enclosed for flood protection) and the adjacent freeway.It seems that the city follows the FS guidelines and moves people along after a period of time. What's left behind is an unpleasant collection of refuse that is eventually bagged and tossed at taxpayers expense.As RVers, we generally take care of our surroundings. This, however, is undoubtedly, not the case with some who overstay the dispersed camping time limit. One can only imagine what our NF & Parks would look like if the FS didn't have time to clean up the inevitable mess left behind by a handful of unkempt campers.Just sayin'Kent 4 Likes
Topic: Dispersed Camping Warning (Read 1020 times)
previous topic - next topic
Topic: Dispersed Camping Warning (Read 1020 times)
previous topic - next topic