So the feds have ruined one of my favorite hiking haunts. Since I was 15 I have been hiking in the Rincon mountains. It's a days hard hike to get up the mountain (9000' vertical ascent at 45 degrees most of the way). This is back country. You lose it there, they won't find you for years.
But with the feds taking care of it we now have:
1) fees!! Fucking $6 a night
2) Reservations-you have to reserve a campsite, no offsite camping allowed
3) camp sites now include a cement table, grill, and bear-proof boxes. What's next? A circle K?
4) No firearms permitted. So they got cat, bears, but no guns.
Something tells me they are gathering fees to help put a road on the mountain so the candy asses who are ruining the other mountains can get their lazy fat asses up there too. I don;t know why the forest service feels they need to do all this stuff. The rugged climb was enough to keep out the tenderfeet.
But with the feds taking care of it we now have:
1) fees!! Fucking $6 a night
2) Reservations-you have to reserve a campsite, no offsite camping allowed
3) camp sites now include a cement table, grill, and bear-proof boxes. What's next? A circle K?
4) No firearms permitted. So they got cat, bears, but no guns.
Something tells me they are gathering fees to help put a road on the mountain so the candy asses who are ruining the other mountains can get their lazy fat asses up there too. I don;t know why the forest service feels they need to do all this stuff. The rugged climb was enough to keep out the tenderfeet.
posted by:
|
-
At risk of inciting the wrath of the tribe, I'm actually happy to pay user fees in National Forests.
Let me explain....
As you know, the Forest Service is part of the USDA and its mission isn't preservation, but managed use. To that end, many Forest Service areas are funded by logging. An area of note is one of my favorite regions, northern Minnesota, where the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness is. This is arguably one of the most pristine areas in the country, but to get there you take Forest Service logging roads to access the wilderness itself, and sometimes you're dodging the loaded trucks as they come down the mountain with the newly cut logs.
I know a lot of people have issues with our regional forests charging user fees, but honestly, I'd really rather pay the user fee than see those freshly cut logs come down the mountain, paying for my outdoor experience in a whole different way.
I definitely agree though that the offsite camping thing is pretty ridiculous. I thought the point of backcountry camping was EXACTLY to get people off trail and into the wild.
Have you noticed the traffic is quite a bit heavier than when in previous years? The only reasonable explanation I can think of for all this is to focus use to specific areas, rather than spreading the damage out all over the mountainside. -
-
this land is your land
this land is my land
from california
to the new york island
from the redwood forest
to the gulf stream mountains
this land was made for a six dollar fee
didnt it used to be made for you and me???
farking taxes not good enough any more???
this is why i refuse to ever get a forest adventure pass! this is MY land!!!
-
I would be more supportive of user fees if they were based on a sliding scale, or some other equitable means but cutting people off from access to nature for lack of funds is immoral. And the shift from access as a right (or even a need) to a luxury is the disneyland mentality, nature as a spectator sport (life as a spectator sport).
-
-
Have you looked into WHY these changes were implemented. Has it become a more popular destination? My guess would be that these things are to help protect the very land you enjoy, as Cathy mentioned. When more and more people start using an area it can really start to have a negative impact -- too many people trampling, too many people leaving trash, too much wear and tear on areas that can't grow fast enough to recover. You're a very responsible camper, but not everyone else is. Some people are new to it and make mistakes, others are just totally green families who have no idea how to camp.
It sounds like these new policies were put in place to deter teen and college age party groups with the fee, and prevent people from starting fires that burn half the area, leaving food out to attract bears (which affects others who are nearby), and from shooting each other in the dark after drinking too much. I think I'd be more upset at the visitors who have made it necessary than the regulations which are likely trying to preserve the area. -
-
-
I don't think they are implementing fees in the Rincons due to trash pickup. Because it is deep back country (the only way into it is on foot-at least a days hike) which seperates the litterbugs from the true outdoorsmen (and women) The latter are a very consciencous group, the kind of people who take care of the mountain.
The Rincons have required a back country permit for years, but it was mainly so they could find your body when you failed to return. It was also so they could book reservations on the limited number of campsites.
Mountains without roads are better. No cars, no ATVs, no keg parties.
-
-
I used to backpack the rincons. It sucks that they might be trying to develop it.
It was nice to have something relatively untouched that close to Tucson, as you say, due to it's ruggedness keeping out the less motivated types.
A road would be an idiotic disaster. Sounds like a good cause for starting a local protest group.
With all the problems with illegals and the screen door handling of the border, there is no way I would hike there without carrying weaponry.
Just more of the great flushing sound of America going down the toilet under recent "leadership" -
-
<With all the problems with illegals and the screen door handling of the border, there is no way I would hike there without carrying weaponry. >
I do a lot of packing with my goats and I never leave home without my hand gun. Its small so relatively useless unless your a good shot and you know where to aim. I hate having it, gets in the way, always fussing over it, keeping it dry and clean. Fact is I don't feel safe, I feel like an open target, a large part of that is having the goats and stray dogs. I've had them attacked before and didn't have it, fought them off with just yelling, rocks and boots in there sides. I think I just plain out startled them with my reaction so they left after minor injuries to the goats.
Also maybe its just me being a woman in the backwoods, I don't know for sure but its now habit. -
-
I agree with you completely Lisa, with all the coyotes and strays if you hike with any animals you really do need a weapon.
Some friends who are dog camping enthusiasts, as in taking your dogs along with their own little backpacks and gear, they tell me that in their circles it is considered mandatory to carry a gun due to the coyote problems.
A domestic animal in the wild is the equivalent of self delivering pizza to coyotes.
When I lived out in the foothills outside Tucson it was a common occurance for a coyote bitch in heat to lure domestic animals out away from structures and then the pack would ambush them and eat them.
These days the odds of stumbling across someone smuggling something or other illegals is just so high that it just doesn't make sense to be away from urban areas in the southwest unless you are well armed and skilled with it, heck it is getting bad even in the northern midwest. -
-
I did some research on the wilderness designation of the Rincons and it appears that they cannot put a road on it. So that's good.
I can deal with the user fees, someone has to maintain the trails, but they do things like the tables, and requiring you to use specified campsites (or the ranger'll arrest you!) They also annoy me by clustering the campsites relatively close together. Why would I want to climb up a mountain that the Sierra club designates as a Class A hike, just to camp in sight of other people.
Like many of you, I prefer to carry a gun. I do not believe in shooting it in the wilderness. if you want to target practice, then go to the range. I carry a gun more for the 2-legged snakes than the wildlife. The only animal incident I ever had was running into a rabid coyote, I have had the rabies shots once already (a whole series of shots actually) and do not want to go through that again. -
-
I'm curious to know your opinion about alternatives to firearms.
Would you have been able to deter a rabid coyote with something less than a firearm? Would a hunting slingshot have done the job?
Bow and hunting arrows would probably be sufficient, but I don't think I want to pack those along if I'm doing distance. -
-
Ofcourse, other weapons can work, but will they?
With a firearm you have a loud report after the shot, which can serve to scare off predators and signal for help from other people, and the extra power of a firearm allows you to greater chances of stopping the threat as soon as possible when you engage a target, and it gives you greater range so you can engage the target in a way that creates more safety for you.
Anyone who has bow hunted can tell you your chances are much greater with a rifle than with a bow. Ofcourse you can kill a predator with a bow or a sling shot, but who would want to have to rely on that for their personal safety?
-
-
-
-
It really sucks when the government (who are supposed to be protecting ALL of our rights, even our 2nd amendment ones) moves in and takes away our ability to carry firearms.
-
-
I don't mind it so much when I'm driving through Watts.
-
-
Please don't confuse LEGAL firearms with ILLEGAL firearms.
-
-
My concern is that whether I stumble on your campsite while you're sleeping or venture into the wrong 'hood at the wrong time, I'm probably equally likely to get my head blown off. I really couldn't care less if your firearm is legal. I wouldn't feel any better if I was killed with a legal firearm than an illegal one.
There are problems out there, and I'm not trying to minimize your concerns. I just don't think adding more firepower to a situation will necessarily ensure a better result. -
-
Cathy, your concern is a good example of why people should be required to have some basic education into camping and common sense issues when in the outdoors before being allowed to just wander around.
Inexperienced or inconsiderate campers (often the same thing) are the single biggest cause of problems in the outdoors and just walking up to someones camp without announcing yourself from a suitable distance.
Just waltzing into a camp makes you a prime suspect for everything from theft and vandalism to assault, and that has been the case through human history even well prior to the invention of firearms.
-
Dear Cathy, no one would be shot simply for wandering into my camp site.
I would only fire at a person that was a real threat to me, and only after verifying the target (not shooting at something moving in the dark that you can't see) AND after being reasonably sure of the backstop for the bullet on the other side of the target.
If someone were to draw fire from me, you can be assured it would not be a mistake, an accident, unwarranted, or unnecessarily dangerous to bystanders.
Granted, I am only one person... And there are alot of idiots out there.... But within the framwork of our laws, you cannot have many accidental or unwarranted shootings before the government takes your weapons away and any weapons you own in the future are "illegal."
>>>I just don't think adding more firepower to a situation will necessarily ensure a better result.
--->It's really not about adding firepower Cathy, it's about adding deterrent. Most predators are cowards, and look for "soft targets". In our country, the chances of a crime leading to an armed encounter are very low. Very few citizens carry firearms, and the chances the person you are committing a crime against is an off duty police officer is very slim, so it's like shooting fish in a barrel. The odds are in favor of the criminal.
If we made it legal to safely and legally carry firearms in this country (or even in my state), and if only 20% of the people decided to carry on a regular basis, you'd have a huge deterrent to crime.
In addition to being an excellent deterrant to crime, carrying a firearm allows me to protect myself. The police cannot protect you during the commission of a violent crime. All they can do is try to punish someone after the crime has been committed, but that does very little to fix the damage caused by the crime. We all have a responsiblity to, minimize our danger, and prepare ourselves to be attacked, and to defend ourselves during an attack.
9 times out of 10 when a person puts up a fight, the criminal breaks off his attack and flees. Simply brandashing a firearm is usually enough to convince a criminal to not continue with his attack. On the rare occasion that isn't enough, being able to stop the threat will not only protect you and your family, but will render that attacker incapable of victimizing others in the future.
I can understand why you would not want to carry a firearm. But please try to understand the benefits (even benefits to you) of me carrying mine. -
-
I agree there are benefits to having firearms and I grew up in a house full of them. I shot a .22 for the first time when I was 4 and actually like to shoot, although I don't own a gun. I've just read too much about guns making situations more dangerous than they otherwise would have been. I would have to say though that my impression of those situations probably lend themselves better to violence in the home or on the street rather than in the wild.
I didn't mean to imply that anyone on this tribe would necessarily be a person who would just shoot willy-nilly without fully assessing the situation first, but for every 1 of you I believe there are 3 to 4 idiots out there who wouldn't necessarily be so responsible. I'm not feeling too generous toward our society at the moment, and I do feel outnumbered by stupid people. Anyway...
I guess what my feeling boils down to is that I don't want my camping experience to be marred by having to think too much about these issues. I'm going to get away from the city for crap's sake, not to bring the city experience with me. So am I camping near border areas? Nope. Should I be able to? Of course. But I'm not going to risk my safety to prove a point. I camped in NPS sites in Sequoia over the summer. We left our tent with sleeping bags set up at the site, with food and supplies in the bear locker while we were out hiking around. That's the kind of experience I want to continue to have, where I and everyone around can feel pretty safe leaving our stuff in the site and still be there when we get back. Maybe I'm naive and just a big girl about the whole thing and my head is in the clouds. Maybe when/if I camp with male-types again they'll want to bring weaponry along and I'll have the opportunity to discuss this issue again in real terms and not hypothetical. Regardless, happy and safe camping! -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.Thanks for your kind thoughts Cathy. I would just like to leave you with this thought....
The idea that no one carries weapons in the National Parks isn't very realistiic. It would be accurate to say no one carries there legally though.
Whenever you have unreasonable/unrealistic gun laws, you end up with a situation where people like me are not carrying, and people who are inclined to break the law are. What kind of safety does that create?
There are indeed alot of idiots out there. Probably more so than sane, responsible people. But anytime guns are outlawed, then only outlaws end up having guns. Laws never get rid of all firearms, just the legal ones. And an idiot can't legally carry for long before his privelages to carry legally are taken away because of something stupid he did.
I wish you well.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Let me respond to this as someone who has worked for the feds doing trail maintenance, trail blazing and forest fire fighting. FFS as a whole is underfunded. The majority of revenues allotted comes from forestry management. Which is a fancy way of saying they cut down old trees to make space for new trees.
We are in a underlared war by our feerless [sic] but military service dodging president. The ONLY priority is funding the war, not social programs, not things that benefit America. Park fees are generally charged to help reccuperate the cost of keeping the park operating. Ie Menial wages for park rangers, vehicle maintenance, tool purchases and maintenance, wages for trail maintenance or overtime pay for supervision of volunteers, etc...etc...
New restrictions on off-site camping are obviously the result of irresponsible campers.
Also firearms restrictions are the result of dumb people.
If it bothers you terribly, then you need to talk to your park ranger. Their are avenues to lodge your complaint and perhaps apply for a special use permit to camp outside of designated areas. As far as firearms are concerned, waste brass/shells and poaching are becoming more and more a problem. You may be allowed to apply for a special use permit to carry a self defense weapon such as a shotgun with no choke or other large bore weapon with effective self defense capabilities but limited to short range efficacy.
I will not hike or camp in dangerous or isolated areas without a firearm. Doesn't make me a gun nut, just concious of the fact that i'm a meal to a hungry predator of either the two legged or four legged variety.
I'll break the law in that regard. I dont open carry my firearm without a permit even if it is more comfortble. All the rangers i know are resonable people and unless your being an idiot or openly/obviously carrying you'll never have an issue.
You cannot account for other dummies, work within the system to restore access to responsible campers.
