Colorado US Forest Service - Leadville and Salida Ranger Districts - Request for comment

[Happy Camper]

It's easier, and cheaper, to spend the money one time on restricting the areas available for use.

Then you can monitor when someone is where they shouldn't be. Chuck a drone high in the sky and look for vehicles where they shouldn't be. Or a few as they patrol along the main road. So much more efficient than having to patrol far flung spaces.

 

[tx2sturgis]

Reminder:

Negative personal remarks about other members have been and will be removed.

 

[jasper]

Over fifty years ago the military draft moved me from the east to the Rockies and desert southwest. Access to public lands was astounding and amazing. Tent camping introduced me to a majority of older, mainly retired people in campsites during the week. Weekends were a little different. I looked forward to my golden years.

There were a few trail bikes, and homemade dune buggies seen and heard occasionally. Large, mainly pristine grasslands and forest, even within an easy driving distance of metropolitan areas.

Looonngg record scratch: A working career and family limited camping opportunities, with extended time intervals revisiting places from years before. Now that I can, it's a little depressing.

The public lands, from my perspective, are to be shared by everyone, not for full-time living, moving from place to place. If you try to live full-time for free, on public lands, having spent money on what you need to do so, then my opinion is that you are depriving part-timers, that the lands were meant for, a place to camp. To me, saying you maintain the time stay limit, and then move elsewhere to do the same, is not a valid reason. That is not sharing.

I can easily provide various types of documentation to prove that I am a part-timer. I would not mind at all to do so if it would help preserve our supposedly SHARED public lands.

Bemoaning our taking of land from those our forefathers displaced, seems little different than the behavior of full-time free-campers on land never meant for full-time living.

Either prove you are a part-timer to use free dispersed camping, or be willing to pay a fee in a designated, controlled campground environment.

It really raises my hackles to hear a full-timer on public lands complain how close their neighbors are, when sometimes they are a quarter-mile away.

 

[tx2sturgis]

Jasper, I'm glad the US government doesn't agree and seems to approve (maybe sometimes with a wink and a nod) of hundreds of thousands of full timers traveling to southwestern LTVA lands which are set up FOR full timers. Why else would they invite you to stay 7 months in the same place, for a measly $180 and provide you with water, dump facilities, and vault toilets?

Or on BLM land, allow you to move a short distance (maybe 25 miles) and 'reset' your 14 day stay? And you can do this over and over and as far as I know, there is no rule or law saying you can't.

Not to mention all the influx of revenue it brings to local businesses, who also pay taxes, and the large numbers of Canadians allowed, correction, ENCOURAGED to come live on some good 'ol US soil for 3 to 6 months every year.

Public forests and otherwise open public land, desert, beaches, mountains, whatever.... remember, that is land that belongs to US, American citizens, and the government is tasked with helping to take care of it, using OUR tax money.

The entire philosophy behind full time RV (or van) living is to reduce your day-to-day expenses and lower your day-to-day 'imprint' on limited resources such as housing and roads and crowded inner cities and suburban sprawl, and actually enjoy living at the same time.

Of course, weekend and vacation camping and vandwelling is a valid use of public lands also.

On this forum we are here to help and support those who fall into either category, because sometimes the part-timer becomes a full-timer later on, and because sometimes the full-timer will need to become a part-timer in the future.

 

[bullfrog !]

It is good to see and hear the different view points on this forum. The government is basically a creation of the people and their view points have determined the rules which do change. Wildlife areas are restricted from use, Long Term Visitor Areas have open land for visitation and general BLM land still provides limited stays, mining, drilling and logging. Even the National Park Service has diversity by maintaining both Parks and Recreation Areas. Lots more people are leaving the highly populated areas for more remote ones which definitely changes things.

 

[deepcreek]

I am glad to see the mostly thoughtful & considered responses here; normally I don't post in web forums, but since the topic is so close to home I felt a reply was needed. Public land, generally speaking, is for everyone and our agencies are tasked with making that happen, within limits as always.

Education, as I mentioned above, is a growing component of managing camping areas; signage can be very useful if done right. Camp hosts and dispersed camp ambassadors, when trained to speak to campers in a positive way are also proving to be very helpful. Both FS and BLM try to manage with a combination of site design in addition to onsite personnel and signage. Some solutions take a long time to implement, others can be done fairly quickly.

Wherever you live, however you live (home, vehicle, etc.) if you have the time, ability, and inclination, please consider volunteering for a land agency in some fashion. It will be greatly appreciated by all users of our landscapes.

 

[LoupGarou]

....on BLM land, allow you to move a short distance (maybe 25 miles) and 'reset' your 14 day stay? And you can do this over and over and as far as I know, there is no rule or law saying you can't.

Residential camping and squatting on Public Land is illegal. If Rangers and Law Enforcement suspect you're living in a vehicle on Public Land you could be arrested, fined, no doubt asked to leave and end up in a database.

Be prepared to provide proof of having a legal physical address elsewhere. With a legal physical address you're not living in a vehicle on Public Land as you've established Domicile elsewhere. You're just a recreational user camping and enjoying the great outdoors.

 

[tx2sturgis]

Residential camping and squatting on Public Land is illegal. If Rangers and Law Enforcement suspect you're living in a vehicle on Public Land you could be arrested, fined, no doubt asked to leave and end up in a database.

So is going 76 MPH in a 75 MPH zone. Yep 100% illegal. Arrested? Fined? Maybe. But it is that likely? Nope.

Ending up in a database? What a hoot. We are ALL in hundreds of thousands of databases. You are on a database right now, reading this.

The fact is most full-timers that we support here have a domicile address...a relative, a friend, a campground, a commercial mail drop....and they return to it a few times a year, to comply with the letter of the law, possibly get medical services, register the vehicle, establish a voter and tax base, and occasionally a drivers license renewal. I never said otherwise.

And BTW, if you have not paid attention to the website you are on, let me help you with that:

Its vanlivingforum.com

Enjoy your stay.

 

[LoupGarou]

Enjoy your stay.

Will do!
I have much to contribute.

 

[bullfrog !]

In a perfect world everyone would be able to live without rules and regulations but if they did have rules and regulations they would make sense and help people to live better. Unfortunately it isn’t a perfect world for many and many of the early members of this forum lived in the fringes of what was acceptable. This site attempted to help them improve their skills and situations in order to live cheaply and simply in an RV. We live in a changing world and need to be open to change in order to survive and be happy. I think this site and people in the United States in general need to understand and embrace that concept. Funny coming from an old man that is the least likely one to change but here I am! Lol!!!

 

[rruff]

Residential camping and squatting on Public Land is illegal. If Rangers and Law Enforcement suspect you're living in a vehicle on Public Land you could be arrested, fined, no doubt asked to leave and end up in a database.

Where did you see that? I don't recall ever seeing a law to that effect. So long as you abide by the rules, I'm pretty sure it's completely legal.

 

[LoupGarou]

Where did you see that? I don't recall ever seeing a law to that effect. So long as you abide by the rules, I'm pretty sure it's completely legal.

From a moderator, on the SquatThePlant forum, who is or was a ranger in the Pacific Northwest. He also said he's a vandweller.: https://squattheplanet.com/threads/residential-camping-and-squatting-on-public-land.39694/

Current codified laws in Title 36 Part 261: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-36

In a nutshell; be prepared to provide proof of having a legal physical address elsewhere. With a legal physical address you're not living in a vehicle on Public Land as you've established Domicile elsewhere. You're just a recreational user camping and enjoying the great outdoors.

 

[rruff]

In a nutshell; be prepared to provide proof of having a legal physical address elsewhere. With a legal physical address you're not living in a vehicle on Public Land as you've established Domicile elsewhere. You're just a recreational user camping and enjoying the great outdoors.

I don't see that helping at all, since it's irrelevant if they are trying to enforce 14 days (or some other number) camping per year. Unless there is a specific law on the books making a lack of home illegal... which is hard to imagine.

I lived on public land for 13 years starting in 1990. Never saw a BLM ranger, and never had an issue with NFS. I did not abide 14 day limits, but I also never camped anywhere near other humans for longer than that, and didn't leave a trace besides tire tracks, and that includes not burning wood. The last two winters I've spent a chunk of time camping near Yuma, and it has changed quite a bit! A couple places I liked to camp are wilderness areas now (safe to change because no one went there anyway except me!) and the most beautiful spot is OHV trails now . But I was still able to find a really nice quiet spot.

There really is an issue in some areas... too many people clustering and making a mess. So I'm certainly not against the rangers trying to do something about that. The argument in the article you linked that "we are paying taxes for this" is weak since we aren't anywhere near paying the amount of the benefit.

The "alarm" that the rangers can also harass you by checking for warrants and searching your vehicle "just because you are there" is also quaint. I learned when I descended from upper middle class to "bum living in a vehicle" in 1990 that the cops have two categories in their minds. 1) The people whose rights and wishes they defend, and 2) The people who they defend against, who are harassed as a matter of policy. I went from #1 to number #2 in a heartbeat, and man, it's a different world! They'll pull you over, check for warrants, and search your vehicle at any time. I was even physically abuse a couple times; just because they wanted to and thought they'd get away with it (which they did). Of course none of that is legal, but they have a "probable cause" loophole which they make up and apply whenever they feel like it. Land of the free...

The issue as I see it is that "we" need to come up with a set of rules that are not too hard to enforce, take into account the actual $ benefit we derive vs the cost of enforcement and upkeep (that would mean paying for the privilege), and definitely consider the wants and needs of people who camp for short vacations on public land. We absolutely DON'T want the rangers to come up with the policies that are easiest for them on their very limited budgets... which would be something like "shut it all down".

I'd be happy to pay a modest fee for the privledge of nation-wide access to dispersed camping on public land as many days as I like, with some restrictions against camping in popular areas of course, and other sensible restrictions. I think anybody here should be willing to do the same... depending on how modest it is. What do you think is reasonable? $200? $500? $1000? Is that enough to fund enforcement?

 

[bullfrog !]

In my opinion probably the best solution is to deal with the root problems which are mental and physical health care, education and affordable housing or livable land for that matter. Recreational land and maintaining it is important but BLM land is open to raising livestock, mining and logging just to name a few and basically everyone that can access it. Even though the root causes are huge and difficult to deal with so would enforcement of existing rules and regulations on the huge areas of federal lands. In my opinion it would be best for the entire population of the US to fix the root causes and see if the land use problem gets small enough to be manageable. It is time to quit treating the symptoms of the problems and just solve the problems.

 

[rruff]

Whatever you think the root causes are, if we wait for that to get fixed then we are all screwed.

I dunno. I thought it was pretty insane how wonderful and free it was to live on public land back in the 90s... and nobody was doing it! Now the word is out, and covid made it that much more attractive. Another "root cause"?... internet and cell access in the boonies. If that didn't exist it would cut down on the numbers a lot!

I also think covid turned a lot of functional addicts into dysfunctional ones. Housing affordability and wages are generally worse now for the low end demographic too... but there are plenty of nice places where a person can afford to live on McD or Walmart wages if they want. If you are a hard core addict though, or feel the need to be in or near Portland, or a bunch of other cities where young people like to cluster with no job prospects, then you'll have issues. Or if you just don't want to work...

A lot of towns in the west are surrounded by public land and the issues seem to be mostly "near town" if I'm not mistaken. If fulltime campers are dispersed over large areas, I doubt it's an issue that anyone needs to care about.

 

[Morgana]

there are plenty of nice places where a person can afford to live on McD or Walmart wages if they want

Where?

 

[rruff]

Where?

I'd say where I live now (Ruidoso NM) is pretty great, and they are paying $14/hr starting pay. There are plenty of cheaper COL towns around that must be paying the same, as it's the Walmart minimum wage now.

 

[Morgana]

Even assuming someone at that wage worked full-time, supported only him/herself, and had access to adequate health insurance and transportation (public or private) -- all big if's -- then according to one common standard (30%), they'd have to be able to find someplace to live for <$675/month. Have a look at Craigslist or Zillow or the like, and you'll see a few but not many, even in places with supposedly low cost of living. You don't have to be an addict or lazy or insist on living in a hot destination city to struggle on $14/hour; and lots of people earn less.

People are hurting out there for many reasons that have nothing to do with poor life choices or unrealistic goals.

 

[bullfrog !]

^^^Unfortunately most of those state’s minimum wage is well below that last I looked. Dental, vision and for many hearing aids are not covered in most states. Visit Eastern Kentucky, Southern Ohio or West Virginia and your views may change. Granted it has been several years since I lived there but things were always changing in other states 20 years before they did there! Lol!!! States that have a high enlistment rate into the military services are a good indication of states with limited opportunities. Just saying! Yes a large number of people visiting on Federal lands are unable to afford permanent housing, but that is only part of the problem.

 

[rruff]

I'm sure it is bad in some areas, but people can move! It's easier to buy a bus ticket and plant yourself somewhere new than buy and mod a van to live in. How many times have you switched states for work and living (not counting nomad)? 6 times for me.

Anyway, we definitely should have better low-end pay and better public benefits like other developed countries. But that isn't the BLM and NFS concern. We should help them solve their problem before they just kick all the vagabonds out.