WMNF Alerts & Notices – Read 'em or weep

[sardog1]

Poking around on the WMNF web site, I looked into the WMNF Forest Supervisor's Orders that have been issued, some of which remain in effect. Some were familiar to me but others were eye openers. Examining the list might have the same effect on others. You'll need in some cases to look at the orders themselves and the related exhibits to find out what's at stake, since the titles are sometimes no real clue.

 

[skiguy]

Thanks. Good info. I guess this means I'll have to stop my post hike skinny dipping.

 

[peakbagger]

I am still looking for an order that supports the camping ban along Franconia Rdige Trail north of Liberty Springs trail (outside of the 200 foot buffer for Liberty Springs trail) and to the west side of the trail to avoid wilderness boundary.

Nice list, I agree there are some interesting "nuggets".

 

[Brambor]

the fine is no more than $5000. Whew. I'm glad.

 

[sardog1]

Thanks. Good info. I guess this means I'll have to stop my post hike skinny dipping.

For which we are all grateful, given the contours displayed in your avatar.

 

[TDawg]

I guess this means I'll have to stop my post hike skinny dipping.

You could attempt to obtain a permit to do so.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I might be in the minority on this, but skinny dipping, nude hiking, or nude recreation in general does not offend me in the slightest. I guess one can always hike in VT, where it is not illegal to be nude (in some places anyway). In the past, nudity was not illegal on certain federal land, like Moonstone Beach in RI which is a national wildlife refuge. This regulation seems out of place in the Live-Free-Or-Die state.

Tim

 

[sardog1]

I might be in the minority on this, but skinny dipping, nude hiking, or nude recreation in general does not offend me in the slightest. I guess one can always hike in VT, where it is not illegal to be nude (in some places anyway). In the past, nudity was not illegal on certain federal land, like Moonstone Beach in RI which is a national wildlife refuge. This regulation seems out of place in the Live-Free-Or-Die state.

Tim

I think this is probably related to past "communications" directed at Cog passengers (and possibly users of some swimming holes). It appears that rather than trying to limit the geographic scope, the Supervisor made it forest-wide.

 

[Trail Bandit]

In this climate of rules and restrictions being applied AND enforced, it is always good to go prepared for whatever conditions you may encounter or be charged by F&G for your rescue.

 

[skiguy]

For which we are all grateful, given the contours displayed in your avatar.

LOL. I always wondered why I had the best Swim Spots to myself.

 

[MichaelJ]

Seems a lot of these are just the orders behind the Wilderness and FPA regulations. I do find it amusing that there had to be an order prohibiting "parking or leaving a vehicle in violation of posted instructions." Seems kinda redundant.

Also, "Being publicly nude" seems kinda of vague to me. Is 200' off-trail considered public? Is topless considered nude? What if I'm off-trail peeing?

Interestingly, dogs used to be prohibited on the East Side trail in winter. Now the only restriction is Livermore Road.

 

[sardog1]

Seems a lot of these are just the orders behind the Wilderness and FPA regulations. I do find it amusing that there had to be an order prohibiting "parking or leaving a vehicle in violation of posted instructions." Seems kinda redundant.

Also, "Being publicly nude" seems kinda of vague to me. Is 200' off-trail considered public? Is topless considered nude? What if I'm off-trail peeing?

I suspect (but haven't verified) that issuance of some of these orders is legally required for the exercise of the power to enforce the underlying policies, aka fining your (unlawfully naked) butt.

And with your attack on vagueness, you're starting to talk just like defense counsel: Void for vagueness. But one word of advice – take the ticket and argue unconstitutional vagueness later in court, not on the trail.

 

[JeffAm1]

Item # 2008-24 is priceless!

 

[Stash]

Thank goodness the requirements have exception. Alcohol use and nudity would definitely need these statements:

Pursuant to the provisions of 36 CFR 261.50(e), the following persons are exempt from
this order:
1. Persons with permit specifically authorizing the otherwise prohibited act or
omission (36 CFR 261.50(e)(1)); and,
2. Any Federal, State, or local officer, or member of any organized rescue or fire
fighting force in the performance of an official duty (36 CFR 261.50(e)(4));

 

[Tim Seaver]

Thanks. Good info. I guess this means I'll have to stop my post hike skinny dipping.

Some laws are meant to be ignored - this would be one of them. I'll take my chances, and would be more than happy to show up in court in the unlikely situation that I would be hassled while nekkid' in the backcountry. Screw 'em.

 

[Stan]

... This regulation seems out of place in the Live-Free-Or-Die state.

Maybe the intent is to be free of eyesores, in which case I suggest caution as it is hunting season.

Some laws are meant to be ignored - this would be one of them. I'll take my chances, and would be more than happy to show up in court in the unlikely situation that I would be hassled while nekkid' in the backcountry. Screw 'em.

Choose your pick wisely and with discretion. Though the country is ours to enjoy in the way we see fit, supposedly, in your face disregard for children and for those with a modicum of consideration for other deserves whatever it gets, in court or out.

 

[Tim Seaver]

Maybe the intent is to be free of eyesores, in which case I suggest caution as it is hunting season.

Not quite getting your post, Stan. Are you saying that unattractive people, if spotted taking a quick nude dip at some remote swimming hole ( In November ???), deserve to be shot? And does that mean if you are good looking , you won't get shot?

Can you flesh that out a bit?

 

[Ignomer]

Thank goodness the requirements have exception. Alcohol use and nudity would definitely need these statements:

" Pursuant to the provisions of 36 CFR 261.50(e), the following persons are exempt from
this order:
1. Persons with permit specifically authorizing the otherwise prohibited act or
omission (36 CFR 261.50(e)(1)); and,
2. Any Federal, State, or local officer, or member of any organized rescue or fire
fighting force in the performance of an official duty (36 CFR 261.50(e)(4)); "

So, a drunk and nekkid cop can write you a ticket for being drunk and nekkid? Where would they pin their badges?!

 

[Paradox]

So, a drunk and nekkid cop can write you a ticket for being drunk and nekkid? Where would they pin their badges?!

Sounds like you don't understand good undercover work.

 

[Little Rickie]

So, a drunk and nekkid cop can write you a ticket for being drunk and nekkid? Where would they pin their badges?!

Would the booze be a standard issue item?