Do You Think The Govt. Will Eventually Try And Squeeze Out Boondocking Life?

[WayOutWest]

well the court did rule they couldn't charge for a pass,  but the Forest Service ignored the ruling and were still writing tickets.  the court ruled again no pass required and the forest service is still ignoring them and they are still writing tickets.  get your pass here,

https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/angeles/passes-permits/recreation

highdesertranger

What??!  The Forest Service is just ignoring the court ruling? Well how about we ignore their request that we buy a pass. Or better yet, when they come to your door and ask where your pass is, show them a copy of the court ruling.

 

[WayOutWest]

Not exactly.

If the vehicle is parked illegally, it can still be towed. In most of Seattle, you have to move your vehicle once in every 72 hours.

What the state court ruled is that the fee to recover a vehicle that a person is using as a residence cannot be so large that the owner can't afford to pay the fee.

This is due to a long-standing Washington state law that protects homeowners. https://www.seattlepi.com/homeless_...-homeless-in-cars-tickets-ruling-12729203.php 

I don't know whether other states have such laws.

The feds, in the form of the IRS, allow a person's primary residence to be an RV or a boat. But just as you can't build a home unless you comply with state/local laws, you can't park your home [font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]unless you comply with state/local laws[/font] either.

Thank you for the clarification! Much appreciated.  This makes sense.

 

[highdesertranger]

"Well how about we ignore their request that we buy a pass"

good luck with that, I don't have the money to fight the Forest Service.

highdesertranger

 

[desert_sailing]

Being a Washintonian AND living in the 9th District I am thankful that there are some protections for folks that are living in a vehicle by choice or circumstance.
I have read articles and legislation over the years and found this little snippet just today on one set of measures used to identify those living in a vehicle...aka homeless.

1. The view through windows from front to back is blocked.
2. The view through at least one side window is blocked.
3. There is unfrozen condensation on the inside of windows.
4. At least one window is partially open.
5. Items that indicate residence are attached to the outside of the vehicle, such as generators, bicycles, or storage containers.
6. A large volume of items are stored in plastic bags inside or next to the vehicle

In most places the squeeze is local pressure from the area residents to force city and county officials to act to preserve the status quo.


I do believe govt. will squeeze out boondockers .. at the BEHEST of the local citizens.

 

[jacqueg]

Except for the plastic bags, these things describe many $150,000+ RVs. I just don't see those RVs going away anytime soon.

 

[WayOutWest]

well the court did rule they couldn't charge for a pass,  but the Forest Service ignored the ruling and were still writing tickets.  the court ruled again no pass required and the forest service is still ignoring them and they are still writing tickets.  get your pass here,

https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/angeles/passes-permits/recreation

highdesertranger

I looked into the link you provided, and upon further research, it appears that the Forest Service did not actually ignore the ruling.  The ruling didn't say they could not charge for any services provided, rather it stated that FS could not charge people to simply park or walk on public lands if they did not use any of the amenities provided...such as picnic tables or developed areas. More info on that here w/ copies of the lawsuit:
https://westernslopenofee.org/fee-watch/is-that-legal/fragosa-vs-usfs-adventure-pass/

So the Adventure passes the Forest service is currently selling don't violate the ruling.  They are for areas where people are using amenities.  For other areas where people are just parking and walking, or for some campgrounds, there are no adventure passes required.  Forest service gives more info about where the passes are required, and where not, here on this page: https://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/r5/passes-permits/recreation/

 

[highdesertranger]

"For other areas where people are just parking and walking, or for some campgrounds, there are no adventure passes required."

could you please contact the Forest Service and tell them that.

I thinking of one are in particular where there is a parking lot it's the only place to park for miles as the roads are posted no parking. they give tickets in the parking lot if you don't have the pass posted. as the parking lot is one of their facilities.

one of the rangers told me that you can drive through the National Forest without a pass no problem, but as soon as you stop for anything anywhere inside the forest you need a pass and will get a ticket for not having one.

highdesertranger

 

[winterwanderer]

Despite rather extreme levels of overcrowding here in Colorado, the local BLM and USFS managers show no intention whatsoever of closing the numerous dispersed camping areas. Camping bans near cities seem inevitable; however, the homeless rarely venture dozens of miles from the charitable services they depend on. (The only city I know of with free camping very close by is Lake Havasu, but they also have very few services for the indigent.) The solution may be to simply move farther away into less touristy areas. Out of sight, out of mind.

 

[jacqueg]

Despite rather extreme levels of overcrowding here in Colorado, the local BLM and USFS managers show no intention whatsoever of closing the numerous dispersed camping areas. Camping bans near cities seem inevitable; however, the homeless rarely venture dozens of miles from the charitable services they depend on. (The only city I know of with free camping very close by is Lake Havasu, but they also have very few services for the indigent.) The solution may be to simply move farther away into less touristy areas. Out of sight, out of mind.

If the number of new members here is an indicator, a lot of obvious places are going to get more crowded. So yes, I agree that the solution will be the non-obvious places. Pretty sure there's plenty of those left.

I really don't see BLM/USFS and state natural resource agencies closing areas due to an animus towards travellers/campers. I DO see them closing areas because of animus towards slobs.

 

[ridgeway]

Despite rather extreme levels of overcrowding here in Colorado, the local BLM and USFS managers show no intention whatsoever of closing the numerous dispersed camping areas. Camping bans near cities seem inevitable; however, the homeless rarely venture dozens of miles from the charitable services they depend on. (The only city I know of with free camping very close by is Lake Havasu, but they also have very few services for the indigent.) The solution may be to simply move farther away into less touristy areas. Out of sight, out of mind.

"Record traffic in South Platte forest district spurs first-ever designated camping plan - Pike National Forest district is converting 340 dispersed campsites into reserved, fee sites in a pilot program that mirrors reservation systems installed at other popular locations on public lands"
https://coloradosun.com/2020/10/07/south-platte-rampart-range-traffic-spurs-designated-campsites/

Over the last couple of decades I have watch a lot of public NF "primitive" and dispersed camping sites get shut down. Many times they will just destroy access/parking with boulders, fences, tank traps and road closures other times they will make it a "day use area".

Many spots are trashed by the time they close them but I feel like much of the problem is lack of proper management. We as tax payer pay millions of dollars to budgets that will not even provide a out house or dumpster to high use areas. When areas get used they need maintenance but instead of maintenance we many times get closures.

 

[bullfrog]

Americans have this perception that there are areas of the country so remote that no human being has ever been there. Many think just because there is no cell phone/internet service no one in the history of man kind would go there. Every time I go out, almost every where I go, I see signs that someone has been there some time in the last 150 years and usually within the last 50 years. If you want to get an idea of what happens to the land when large numbers of people stay on it for a period of time just take a look at some of the old mining claims and towns before reclamation was required. The same thing is beginning to happen now with more people being pushed out of rentals becoming homeless and ones with homes camping in the “great outdoors” to avoid Covid 19 it makes you wonder just how much use the unmaintained lands can stand before they become trash heaps with waste openly on the ground. Sadly many areas will simply close as their is no other funding for other solutions and even closure requires funding for enforcement which most likely won’t happen. Basically people will have to live with the mess they have made until they clean it up in my opinion.