Updated WMNF backcountry camping regulations brochure

[JoshandBaron]

It looks like USFS finally updated their backcountry camping rules brochure. It now includes references to drones, marijuana, food storage regulations, and clarifies some other previously hazy rules while making the whole thing more difficult to digest.

 

[DayTrip]

Lot of typos in it too. I wonder if AI generated the brochure....

 

[jdhill08]

- states that one should camp at least 200 ft from trail
- also provides a specific list of trails/sites with 1/4 mile and 200 ft forest protection area regulations, implying that trails/sites not listed are not subject to the 200 ft rule
- hiking facebook wars about this topic rage on

 

[JoshandBaron]

- states that one should camp at least 200 ft from trail
- also provides a specific list of trails/sites with 1/4 mile and 200 ft forest protection area regulations, implying that trails/sites not listed are not subject to the 200 ft rule
- hiking facebook wars about this topic rage on

I think they purposely refrain from explicitly differentiating between LNT and regulation.

 

[DayTrip]

- states that one should camp at least 200 ft from trail
- also provides a specific list of trails/sites with 1/4 mile and 200 ft forest protection area regulations, implying that trails/sites not listed are not subject to the 200 ft rule
- hiking facebook wars about this topic rage on

I think the easiest thing to do is just bivy above tree line on slabs and avoid all this complicated nonsense.... (I'M KIDDING TEO!!!)

 

[Lone Stranger]

- states that one should camp at least 200 ft from trail
- also provides a specific list of trails/sites with 1/4 mile and 200 ft forest protection area regulations, implying that trails/sites not listed are not subject to the 200 ft rule
- hiking facebook wars about this topic rage on

The first one is "should", because everyone should get off the trail to camp no matter what the law says. The second one describes a "must" situation supported by legal penalties. The third thing surprises me because I thought FB was nothing but bots telling people to do stupid things.

 

[DayTrip]

I thought the drone regulation was odd too. It says "no landing of drones". So you can launch them? Walk around with it all you want as long as you don't actually land it within the forest? I wonder what the thought process was with that.

 

[maineguy]

I thought the drone regulation was odd too. It says "no landing of drones". So you can launch them? Walk around with it all you want as long as you don't actually land it within the forest? I wonder what the thought process was with that.

They are considered "motorized equipment" and "mechanical transport"

https://www.fs.usda.gov/visit/know-before-you-go/recreational-drone-tips

 

[Rhody Seth]

I thought the drone regulation was odd too. It says "no landing of drones". So you can launch them? Walk around with it all you want as long as you don't actually land it within the forest? I wonder what the thought process was with that.

Most signs that forbid drones generally include both launching/landing verbiage but regardless, no you can't take off from there. In addition to the general national forest regs that maineguy mentioned, there are many additional places in the Whites that are forbidden to drones. See this forest order from the WMNF. I also made a video a few years ago that goes over all the places you can't fly in the Whites.

 

[JoshandBaron]

Essentially, if you can't camp there, you can't fly there.

 

[Russ]

I thought the no landing was related to not wanting heli access up there. It does specifically mention only the "landing" part. You can launch aircraft. Paragliders fly up there. They don't land up there, they land far away in the valley.

 

[KRooney]

I thought the no landing was related to not wanting heli access up there. It does specifically mention only the "landing" part. You can launch aircraft. Paragliders fly up there. They don't land up there, they land far away in the valley.

Paragliders? Really? Where?

 

[Russ]

Mount Washington is an official site. There's sites all over New England. A few do backcounty flights too from hike access places that are rarely ever flown, but once you are in the air, the goal is to ride thermals and cloud hop to go distances. No different than a hawk.

Drones have WAY more restrictions than ultra-light aircraft. But there are WAY more people flying drones than paragliders!

I swear I remember a controversy years ago when someone was proposing a heli access operation in the Presidentials, but I can't find anything on-line about it. That oddly written "no landing or delivering of anything" order is from 2019 so not that old. I always assumed it was related to that. I don't think the NFS want's any mechanized access so that order pretty much shuts that down. The Cog told me that they weren't allowed to offer any access to NFS land so no ski trains servicing the ravines. Only access to their own property.

 

[JoshandBaron]

Paragliders? Really? Where?

I see them around Plymouth all the time and saw some flying around Cannon in September.

 

[Russ]

Plymouth would likely be powered paragliders or powered parachutes out of the airport. Cannon is a foot launch free flight site. Non-powered.

 

[ImYourHuckleberry]

One time many years ago I was rock climbing on Whitehorse Ledge and somebody (pretty sure it was John Bouchard) scared the hell out of me as he came running down the very top of the slab and launched himself off the cliff with a paraglider.