Salty
Active member
Forest order stating 200 foot rule in certain Wilderness areas ONLY. If there were a 200 foot rule for everything, there's no point in pointing it out here. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5229052.pdf
Tenting near Galehead Hut
- Thread starter pegprimak
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
JoshandBaron
Well-known member
USFS map showing camping restrictions in the area in question https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3847526.pdf
peakbagger
In Rembrance , July 2024
Sure looks to me like a lot of support for my original contention that the 200 Foot "rule" is not a rule, rather a suggestion outside the special areas named in the brochure.
I am realist and the reality is the usage of the AT in the whites far exceeds the capacity of the designated campsites along the ridge. AMC has been the proverbial "dutchman with their finger in the dike" for years doing the caretaking of the campsites. Thru hikers tend to be independent and many have been rewarded by not being hassled using stealth sites for the vast majority of the trail south of the whites. Most thru hikers are just doing low key "stealthing" in the many existing bootleg campsites that have appeared and are actively in use well within the 200 foot limit. I was a bit shocked last year how big the Jewell Trail bootleg sites have grown when I visited them. Northbound (and to lesser extent southbound) thru hikers at this point are very low impact, they hike late until near dark and get going around sunrise. No fire rings, no trees cut down. They are also hate to drop of the ridgeline on a blue blaze to access potential legal sites, when they can just cowboy at a stealth site just off the AT. The typical weekend warrior is probably higher impact. There have been attempts to give thru hikers "special rights" in the Smokies and the Shenandoah's but both projects are backed up by fairly strong ridge runner programs. They are also National Parks where recreation is a primary driver while the WMNF is multiple use area with a constrained budget that tends to be spent in many areas with little if any on backcountry ridge runners.
I am realist and the reality is the usage of the AT in the whites far exceeds the capacity of the designated campsites along the ridge. AMC has been the proverbial "dutchman with their finger in the dike" for years doing the caretaking of the campsites. Thru hikers tend to be independent and many have been rewarded by not being hassled using stealth sites for the vast majority of the trail south of the whites. Most thru hikers are just doing low key "stealthing" in the many existing bootleg campsites that have appeared and are actively in use well within the 200 foot limit. I was a bit shocked last year how big the Jewell Trail bootleg sites have grown when I visited them. Northbound (and to lesser extent southbound) thru hikers at this point are very low impact, they hike late until near dark and get going around sunrise. No fire rings, no trees cut down. They are also hate to drop of the ridgeline on a blue blaze to access potential legal sites, when they can just cowboy at a stealth site just off the AT. The typical weekend warrior is probably higher impact. There have been attempts to give thru hikers "special rights" in the Smokies and the Shenandoah's but both projects are backed up by fairly strong ridge runner programs. They are also National Parks where recreation is a primary driver while the WMNF is multiple use area with a constrained budget that tends to be spent in many areas with little if any on backcountry ridge runners.
I would like to see a definitive answer to this question. That should probably come from the Forest Supervisor and not someone who answers questions on the phone. PB, you live right down the road from the Androscoggin District Ranger Station. I know that is not the headquarters, but someone there might be able to initiate an inquiry into this question.
peakbagger
In Rembrance , July 2024
I will let the folks who want to hold to the hard 200 foot rule fight that battle. The easy part is just say 200 foot no if ands or buts but unless there is lot of education and realistic planning to provide alternative options to deal with the real usage along the AT and then real ridgerunning to reinforce the education and enforce the rules I dont think it goes anywhere.
Salty
Active member
I think JoshandBarons map is quite definitive.
I totally agree. Anyone here that has hiked for a long time which is many, know there are rules about LNT whether in print or tacit that are not always followed. Certainly increased enforcement and education would help but hikers are going to do what they are going to do. The term "Stealth" has become common verbiage among backpackers with Social Media feeding the fire. It is unfortunate situation and almost seems analogous at this point to pissing in the wind. The lack of man power and money to change this situation is a huge price tag not to mention disconcerting.
Salty
Active member
Great points. FWIW, even though I'm adamant the rules state you can camp right next to (on?) some trails doesn't mean you should. I personally don't want to camp within 200 feet of a trail. I go out there for privacy and quiet. Seeing legal or illegal campsites within site of a trail distracts from the nature I'm trying to enjoy, as far as I'm concerned. But yeah, there's nothing to do about it regardless. LNT is a total joke now as too many times when I'm far off trail and there's fire rings, saved wood, caches, etc. which will probably never get used again. Once in a while I'll dismantle this crap but if I did every one I came across I'd never accomplish the original purpose of me being out there...
That's an issue for the lawyers. Is the language there about "within 200 feet" talking about trails within the Pemi? That would seem logical as the regulation is about the Pemi so a trail outside the Pemi would seem not covered at that point; why would a Pemi regulation be talking about trails outside the Pemi?
Or does it mean, as you and most people think, within 200 feet of a trail whether or not that trail is inside the Pemi? But if that were what was meant wouldn't the language have been more specific: "whether such trail is inside or outside the Pemi Wilderness"?
Last edited:
JoshandBaron
Well-known member
The map clarifies the language.
I have lost my source link to this text about the footage offsets of the Pemi Wilderness from its perimeter trails therefore, as is, it obviously has no authority:
* 66 feet from Osseo, Franconia Ridge, Garfield Ridge Trails
* 100 feet outside Galehead Hut permit area
* 66 feet from Twinway to Bondcliff Trail
* 33 feet from Bondcliff Trail to point 100 feet S of Guyot Shelter spur, then 100 feet from spur and shelter returning 33 feet from other side of Bondcliff Trail
* 66 feet from Twinway and Whitewall Brook
* 66 feet from Ethan Pond Trail to ridge S from Mt Willey
* follows ridgeline all the way to East Side Road with 100' deviation at summit of Mt Carrigain - no such deviation at Mt Hancock so apparently part of Hancock Loop Trail is in Wilderness although not signed as such
* 66 feet from East Side Road to 66 feet beyond gate
* across to Wilderness Trail and back to 33 feet from Franconia Brook
* up Franconia Brook to E of northern tip of Black Pond, then over to pond
* follow pond shore (which not specified but presumably W to connect below)
* 33 feet SW from Black Pond Trail
* 66 feet from Wilderness Trail back to Osseo Trail
Let's, for discussion, take the 66 feet as the offset between the Garfield Ridge Trail and the actual Pemi immediately South of Garfield Pond, as an example in the area, though that seems high according to the map you reference (more like 30-40 feet as I eyeball it). The common view is that camping is legal to the South of the Pond within 0-66 feet from the Trail but then illegal from 66 to 200 feet and then legal again beyond 200 feet.
The other, minority interpretation is that the regulation language about the Pemi, when it talks about trails, is obviously talking about trails within the Pemi (i.e. the subject at hand) and that if trails outside the Pemi were meant to be included the language would have specified that. Thus, since the Garfield Ridge Trail is not within the Pemi, it is NOT one of "any trail" meant in a section of regulations regarding the Pemi; it is not relevant. So camping is legal in that 66 foot to 200 foot buffer, where most of the hardened sites are that every Ranger I have ever talked to agrees are legal.
Personally, I sleep on those sites at times, usually around 150 feet in and with my small low tarp (if deployed and I'm not cowboyed) pretty much out of sight of the Trail. If you get in much past 150 feet the open sewer area begins. I think the regulation language allows an interpretation that makes me legal and Rangers seem to think the sites are legal.
Last edited:
Why are people splitting hairs about how far off the trail one must go? We’ve all seen the illegal sites—they’re usually fifteen feet off the trail, at best.
Last night, bears rolled the bear boxes upside down at 13 Falls. No one was harmed, no food was taken. All those humans sleeping near each other were perfectly safe.
If there is going to be an incident where things get ugly, I would bet it will be with individuals camped illegally.
Last night, bears rolled the bear boxes upside down at 13 Falls. No one was harmed, no food was taken. All those humans sleeping near each other were perfectly safe.
If there is going to be an incident where things get ugly, I would bet it will be with individuals camped illegally.
I don't think this is true. Bears are going to be attracted, and habituated to camping areas that are full of people and food on a steady and continual basis. That's where the pickings are easy. If you just walk off the trail a ways and camp, unless it is a place that is used a lot, if think the odds of encountering a bear are almost nil, especially at higher altitudes.
Last edited:
peakbagger
In Rembrance , July 2024
Bears will go where the food is but they do roam quite a large territory and would definitely hit an easy food source along the way. That used to happen with the bears working the Pemi. My guess is if the bears have a likely reliable food source they will head up to high elevations like Garfield campsite.
BTW the managing organization for the AT just came out with a recommendation that all thru hikers carry bear cans.
The WMNF does lend then out but their office hours on weekends make return of them problematical. Not sure if the log cabin at Lincoln Woods had them but its only staffed by a volunteer in the early day so returning a cannister could be an issue. IMHO, unless the FS makes it mandatory to use bear cans in the Pemi and enforce it I do not see the program being effective.
BTW, by any Wilderness regulation 13 falls is an illegal campsite. Unlike Guyot, there is no exclusion zone around it. Just one of those things the FS just conveniently ignores.
BTW the managing organization for the AT just came out with a recommendation that all thru hikers carry bear cans.
The WMNF does lend then out but their office hours on weekends make return of them problematical. Not sure if the log cabin at Lincoln Woods had them but its only staffed by a volunteer in the early day so returning a cannister could be an issue. IMHO, unless the FS makes it mandatory to use bear cans in the Pemi and enforce it I do not see the program being effective.
BTW, by any Wilderness regulation 13 falls is an illegal campsite. Unlike Guyot, there is no exclusion zone around it. Just one of those things the FS just conveniently ignores.
Last edited:
Please refer to the next to last bullet item in document 5363715.
• TRAVEL AND CAMP ON
DURABLE SURFACES
Stay on the trail while hiking. Camp
at sites that have already been heavily
impacted (but be sure it’s a legal site),
or 200 feet from trails and water
sources. Avoid moderately impacted
sites where your visit could create
more damage.
peakbagger
In Rembrance , July 2024
As I mentioned previously if the "or" was and "and" there would not be discussion.
I disagree. The language seems quite clear IMO.
peakbagger
In Rembrance , July 2024
Using the grammatical definition of the conjunction used in the cited regulation for and or. If and is used, both clauses of the regulation has to be true for a legit site. I.E. hardened site and 200 feet from trail. And was not used
Now the use of or changes the intent, only one clause must be true, the status of other clause is not important, it could be true or false as the or was satisfied once one clause was true. I.E. a hardened site (regardless of distance) or 200 feet from trail. In this case hardened site makes it a legal site.
I do agree the modified "but be sure its a legal site" confuses the issue but since the regulation is defining a "legal site" its circular logic.
I do not claim to be a lawyer but as a licensed engineer, I have to read and interpret codes and standards for my profession. Should, shall,and or are all used regularly and its very important to know the difference
Now the use of or changes the intent, only one clause must be true, the status of other clause is not important, it could be true or false as the or was satisfied once one clause was true. I.E. a hardened site (regardless of distance) or 200 feet from trail. In this case hardened site makes it a legal site.
I do agree the modified "but be sure its a legal site" confuses the issue but since the regulation is defining a "legal site" its circular logic.
I do not claim to be a lawyer but as a licensed engineer, I have to read and interpret codes and standards for my profession. Should, shall,and or are all used regularly and its very important to know the difference
Last edited:
