Official Summer RTR Dates: June 16-26, 2016

[DannyB1954]

My question is if people are not having a negative impact on the land, why do they need a permit to use the land that they already own?
I understand large groups can make a mess. Were people littering, chopping down trees, tearing up the turf with vehicles? I understand that body functions from many in a small area is not good, but most campers have their own waste systems in place.
I was not there as well, so I have more questions than answers.
I think that the Forest service could have shown a little more leniency considering that the people there were not required to announce their intention to be there in advance. There was no way to really know if 76 people would show up. Had a permit been taken out and only 30 people showed up how would that work? One portable toilet for every 4 people? Would any permit fee be refunded?

Maybe a paypal donation feature can be set up on this web site to cover expenses like meeting permit requirements and for maintaining this web site that we all benefit from. I looked, and couldn't find it on this site.

 

[flying kurbmaster]

The FS has their hands full trying to keep the forest standing and not burning to the ground, protecting and providing access to public land and attempting to curb abuse and despoiling it.

You are right and perhaps they should be doing just that, not harassing a group that is otherwise peacefully following the rules. It seems to me Bob's logic on not knowing that the numbers would be that high was a fair and reasonable defense, laws and rules were never meant to be black and white, that is why we have courts, to make sure that all circumstances are taken into account. LEOs that use the law like that are unimaginative and should step aside and let reasonable people do their jobs. Whether there was 74 people or 76(not that anyone counted),  does not make a lot of difference, and I get it that a line has to be drawn but I am not so sure it has to be drawn in stone.

 

[29chico]

The ranger believed that over 75 were camped there if I infer correctly.  So noses were not counted.  Possibly vehicles were counted and an arbitrary number of occupants per vehicle was assumed.  Also quite possible is the probability that the actual average of occupants per vehicle was much lower than assumed.

 

[wayne49]

Two different LEOS knew me by first and last name, my face and my van.
Bob

A few years back you published your current location on the blog. Then a Ranger(?) showed up and booted you. You stopped posting your location, but posted that anyone could email for current location.

Yes, "THEY" have been monitoring Bob's blog and have been for sometime.

O/T but related paranoia.
I went through two Fruit and Vegetable Inspections in California in less than 24 hours. I was waved though both. The second stop I noticed the License Plate Readers and especially a camera that took a picture through the windshield. Red flash at eye level was a clue. When the inspection agent got done with the car in front (it got a drug (fruit?) sniffing dog search) he ducked into his booth (out of sight) for a minute, then popped back out and said "have a nice day." Hmmm. OK for me, but I suspect that they are doing more than protecting California agriculture.

 

[akrvbob]

The ranger believed that over 75 were camped there if I infer correctly.  So noses were not counted.  Possibly vehicles were counted and an arbitrary number of occupants per vehicle was assumed.  Also quite possible is the probability that the actual average of occupants per vehicle was much lower than assumed.

That is exactly what happened.
Bob

 

[rvpopeye]

Bob
Did you take a headcount?