The 300 foot rule -- do they mean what they say?

[profdant139]

I am making plans for the summer -- we are headed for a remote area in a national forest where the website says, essentially, you can camp just about anywhere but please do not drive more than 300 feet off a designated roadway.

Where we are going, I do not see any established boondocking sites, but I see many possibilities within 300 feet of roadways on Google Earth. Although I have done a lot of boondocking, I have never before just headed out across the landscape to establish my own new site. It seems wrong, somehow -- like a desecration of the land. No matter how carefully I drive, it will tear up the dirt somewhat.

So that is my question -- do they really mean I can just strike out on my own?? Has anyone else done that? What are your thoughts about breaking new ground? Can you help me overcome my feelings of guilt and remorse? 😉

Thanks in advance.

[PatrickA51]

Tiger4x4RV wrote:
My personal policy is to use established legal sites only. No guilt that way.

I have to agree with this statement!

[profdant139]

Not to worry, Rovin. In keeping with the spirit of this thread, I will only look at images that have been previously viewed. 😉

[Rovin__Bones]

LenSatic wrote:
There will be millions of photos and videos online that you can download later...Pat

Yeah, just be careful of whose photographic work you steal. Downloading, reposting, and/or altering photographic works without permission is theft. If a photograph has a visible watermark upon it, do not feel free to download it. Ask permission from the owner of the work first. Even if there is no watermark, it may have copyright information imbedded within the image.

If you get caught by the owner of a photograph that you've downloaded, altered, and/or reposted, you could quite easily find yourself in very unpleasant legal trouble. A DCMA "Take Down Notice" is a prelude to a lawsuit. If you ever receive one of these, you best comply immediately.

[RedRocket204]

irishtom29 wrote:
I don't think Chippewas, Comanches and other hunter-gatherer American Indians had guilt about where they made camp. The notion of wilderness is a modern conceit--much of what we now consider wilderness was once inhabited.

True, but it was never to the mass human population this earth supports now. I prefer to try to make an effort to not ruin things for generations to come. I'm not perfect but every little bit helps.

[irishtom29]

I don't think Chippewas, Comanches and other hunter-gatherer American Indians had guilt about where they made camp. The notion of wilderness is a modern conceit--much of what we now consider wilderness was once inhabited.

[profdant139]

2gypsies, you are absolutely right about the crypto-soil -- it has a very distinctive nubbly appearance! But there really are slabby bare rock surfaces, especially in the Western Sierra, that are not damaged by our tires. And some slick-rock in Utah that does not involve soil.

[2gypsies1]

profdant139 wrote:

The only exception would be camping on slabs of rock, which won't show much wear and tear. There are quite a few places like that in Utah and even in parts of the Sierra.

Careful driving to or even walking to those wonderful slabs of rock. In Utah especially you'd probably be disturbing the cryptobiotic soil which is prevalent in those regions around Moab/Canyonlands and many other parts. Stay on established trails! They can't be replaced.

https://www.nps.gov/cany/learn/nature/soils.htm

We love boondocking on BLM/national forest lands but feel it's definitely not o.k. to just take off and create our own trails - be it vehicle or foot. There are plenty of already disturbed places to play.

[profdant139]

No, I am sure the rangers are not out to get me. And anyway, there is no way I am going to break the rules -- believe it or not, in 49 years of driving, I have gotten exactly one ticket --- back in the mid 1970s, I went 60 in a 55 zone on a rural highway. I am one of those boring law abiding people you hear about. I've already downloaded the MVUM!

As it turns out, I spoke to the ranger yesterday, to discuss my dilemma. She explained that since there will be so many people showing up for the eclipse (this is in Wyoming), they fully expect that people will have to break new ground within 300 feet of the forest roads -- there will not be enough pre-existing boondocking sites to satisfy the demand. She says just avoid meadows and be as careful as possible, and that will be good enough.

So my mind is somewhat more at ease. We will see what things look like when we get there in August.

[BizmarksMom]

My best advice is to stop in at the ranger station with the maps you are using, point out where you were thinking of camping, and let them guide you to a good spot. They really aren't out to get you.

[profdant139]

Len, that is an interesting thought: "Perhaps there are agencies that trust the campers to be responsible." Certainly in the more densely populated areas of California, the prevailing wisdom in the national forests is: "Everything not expressly permitted is forbidden."

And, in fairness, they are sort of forced to adopt that stance -- there are so many people, and so many of them are abusive, that a more lenient attitude would result in wholesale trampling. Several of the forests on the west side of the Sierra are already threadbare due primarily to vehicular damage.

[time2roll]

I am pretty sure the 600' wide swath is not going to bother anything.
Still tread lightly is best.

[LenSatic]

profdant139 wrote:

So that is my question -- do they really mean I can just strike out on my own?? Has anyone else done that? What are your thoughts about breaking new ground? Can you help me overcome my feelings of guilt and remorse? 😉

Thanks in advance.

Like I said earlier, you can in certain places. The first time we ran into it was the Pawnee Grasslands in CO. We went to the controlling district office in Ft. Collins and the ranger told us the rules and showed us where to go on a huge map in the office. She didn't say, "Pick a site along here." She said, "Anywhere along here that you can get in to."

At the Grasslands there were no obvious previously used sites. The vegetation easily stood up to being driven on and our track in had disappeared the next day. The only obvious indication of where to camp was the road berm was cut to allow us to drive across it. I believe that the only restriction was no fire on the ground. We had a similar experience in WY, also. The Grasslands also had an established, primitive, shooting range. (BTW, there are 2 sections of the Grasslands. We stayed in the Western section. The Eastern section did have several sites established near the Pawnee Buttes area. The Western section also had a campground.)

Perhaps there are agencies that trust the campers to be responsible.

LS

[dewey02]

Lots of speculation here about what the rule really means and how it should be applied.
The simple solution is to visit or phone the national forest you want to camp on and ask them exactly what the rule means and where you can camp. And then you will have a truthful answer.

[profdant139]

time2roll, I think that my reading of the rule is we aren't going to trample anything, even the ordinary landscapes. I am still pondering the 300 foot rule -- they can't really mean that it is ok to go 300 feet off the road on new ground. It has to mean "only on pre-trampled ground." I have made up my mind that we are simply going to stay in already-established boondocking sites, even if the rules seem to be more permissive than that.

The only exception would be camping on slabs of rock, which won't show much wear and tear. There are quite a few places like that in Utah and even in parts of the Sierra.