Zeacliff Camping Legal, or Not?

[Laurie Maynard]

There has been some recent discussion on another forum that I frequent as to whether Zeacliff is considered legal camping, or not. There are several spots on the cliff. One sits almost directly on the cliff and another is up the spur trail a bit and tucked into the woods, but still sits directly next to the trail. The spots are definately overly used and are easy to spot because of it. My question is if it's legal camping since the trail to the cliff is actually a spur?

Thanks in advance for your input.

 

[MichaelJ]

It's neither a Wilderness Area nor is it a Forest Protection area nor is it called out on the Backcountry Camping Rules & Regulations, therefore there are only LNT and ethical guidelines, which say to either be 200' off trail or at a heavily impacted site, not interfere with the experience for anyone else (setup after dusk, pack up before dawn, IMO), and pack out your waste (there's no good place to "go" up there, IMO).

IMO = in my opinion

Personally, I'd sleep up there out on a pad, but wouldn't set up a tent. That said, I don't believe anything published would make it illegal to camp there.

 

[dug]

Well, I've never camped there. But one time, I was hiking through the night so I just laid down on on a matt for a few hours and rested. When the sun rose, I made a quick cup of tea and some pancakes and continued my hike.

I was most definately not camping there, just resting.

 

[TDawg]

I was under the impression it was legal b/c it is 200 feet from Twinway and the side path isn't considered an "official trail." There are definitely hardened sites in the trees near the ledge, so its been done.

 

[David Metsky]

I was under the impression it was legal b/c it is 200 feet from Twinway and the side path isn't considered an "official trail." There are definitely hardened sites in the trees near the ledge, so its been done.

In most of the White Mountains there is no requirement to be 200' from a trail. It's part of the LNT guidelines, but it does not have force of law.

Camping 200' from any trail is a requirement in the Wilderness Areas.

 

[BobC]

The worst part of this is that the site Laurie mentions, which is basically right on the cliff, has suffered from some very obvious tree cutting in order to clear a space for a campsite. I believe the punishment for that is to get a swift boot in the arse while standing on the outlook cliff.

 

[TDawg]

In most of the White Mountains there is no requirement to be 200' from a trail. It's part of the LNT guidelines, but it does not have force of law.

Camping 200' from any trail is a requirement in the Wilderness Areas.

Thanks for the clarification Dave, I guess I hold myself and others I'm with to the LNT practice.

 

[David Metsky]

Thanks for the clarification Dave, I guess I hold myself and others I'm with to the LNT practice.

I do, in general. But, for example, I think there's less impact of sleeping on a rock ledge near the trail than there is camping in the woods far from a trail. IMO, that's why they work best as guidelines, and not as rules.

 

[Laurie Maynard]

A phone call to the Pemi Ranger

Joe from Hike-NH was good enough to place a call to the Pemi Ranger and here is what he (Joe) had to say about it:

I hate to disappoint you but Zeacliff camping, not legal. I just got off the phone with the Pemi. ranger dist. First of all Zeacliff is in the pemi. wilderness and is thus covered by all the rules there. Now, the question about spur trails. If it is a signed trail, it is a maintained trail, and all the rules apply to it. Zeacliff outlook, Zealand Mtn. such and such falls, etc. If it's signed it is covered by all the rules.

 

[Laurie Maynard]

I believe the punishment for that is to get a swift boot in the arse while standing on the outlook cliff.

Ouch! Remind me to make sure you are not standing ANYWHERE near me the next time we hike together! Ha! ha!

 

[TDawg]

I don't know which map JustJoe is reading, but Zeacliff is not in the Pemi Wilderness. Close to, but not quite.

And I can't help but think, "of course they would say that," in regards to directly asking the feds if its OK to camp pretty much anywhere that isn't a designated site.

And if it's a "signed trail," then what about the spur to Isolation and camping near it's summit?

 

[NewHampshire]

I don't know which map JustJoe is reading, but Zeacliff is not in the Pemi Wilderness. Close to, but not quite.

And I can't help but think, "of course they would say that," in regards to directly asking the feds if its OK to camp pretty much anywhere that isn't a designated site.

And if it's a signed trail, then what about the spur to Isolation and camping near it's summit?

As noted by TDawg, Zeacliff the outlook is not in the Wilderness. Zeacliff the TRAIL, yes, but the outlook no.

Brian

 

[Laurie Maynard]

Zeacliff the TRAIL, yes, but the outlook no.

But see...this just brings me back to the question of the spur trail!!! The spur is NOT the Zeacliff Trail. But as Joe was stating.."If it is a signed trail, it is a maintained trail, and all the rules apply to it."...it seems so confusing!

 

[DougPaul]

The WMNF document giving the backcountry camping rules is here: http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_mountain/recreation/camping/backcountry_rules_2008-09.pdf If you follow them, your camping sites are presumably defensible.

Doug

 

[NewHampshire]

But see...this just brings me back to the question of the spur trail!!! The spur is NOT the Zeacliff Trail. But as Joe was stating.."If it is a signed trail, it is a maintained trail, and all the rules apply to it."...it seems so confusing!

I probably should have clarified that perhaps the Ranger Joe talked to misunderstood him and thought he was asking about the Zeacliff Trail "proper" and not the actual Zeacliff spur.

Brian

 

[RoySwkr]

And if it's a "signed trail," then what about the spur to Isolation and camping near it's summit?

There is another topic on this, but since the FS removes the signs for the spur when found it's not legally a signed trail

Note that patrol rangers may not be fully informed on the law, and even if they give you a citation you may be able to beat it in court if you want to go to the trouble

 

[Stash]

Maybe using the 200 foot rule as a general principle rather than because "that's the rule in this particular spot" would simplify things? Can you get that far away? If not is it worth moving on? This probably won't work in all instances but I prefer to do somethig because it's the right way rather than because someone in an office wrote somethig.

Just a thought...

 

[David Metsky]

But see...this just brings me back to the question of the spur trail!!! The spur is NOT the Zeacliff Trail. But as Joe was stating.."If it is a signed trail, it is a maintained trail, and all the rules apply to it."...it seems so confusing!

No. The area in question appears to be outside of the Wilderness Area so it doesn't matter if it is signed or not. The maps show the very top part of the Zealcliff trail is outside the boundary, and the ledge is outside the boundary as well. I could be wrong about this because my online maps aren't precise.

But it appears that as long as you're on the ledges or right close by you don't have to worry about a ticket from the rangers because you are perfectly legal. I agree with what another poster said, the ranger may have been confused because nearly all of the Zeacliff trail is inside the Wilderness boundary and the camping rules do apply there.

 

[MichaelJ]

No. The area in question appears to be outside of the Wilderness Area so it doesn't matter if it is signed or not. The maps show the very top part of the Zealcliff trail is outside the boundary, and the ledge is outside the boundary as well. I could be wrong about this because my online maps aren't precise.

You are correct. From either end of the Zeacliff trail there are Wilderness boundary markers a short way into the trail. It's been a while since I was there, but at the lower end I believe they're green metal stakes with yellow tops?

 

[Will]

Maybe using the 200 foot rule as a general principle rather than because "that's the rule in this particular spot" would simplify things?

Using 500 feet as a moral imperative would be even easier. Why not 1000?

Fact is, I and my hiking partners could camp 10 feet off the trail, assuming we're out of sight behind brush, and our impact would be zero. That's from good sense, a lifetime of experience and learning from our betters. Why would we want to bind ourself to any restrictions other than legal requirements?

OTOH there are countless people who damage the land and water, and seemingly seek out opportunities to offend the sensibilities of others in the outdoors. These people camp like slobs and would do so at 2 feet or 2,000 feet. I'm not going to restrict my backcountry access by a single inch more than absolutely legally required, just because these people can't manage themselves. Nor should any responsible, competent campers.

When I'm Backcountry Czar, I will establish an educational/licensing program. Pass the training and you can camp anywhere you want, out of sight of the trail. Fail or choose not to qualify for a license and, well, move along; no room for you, at any distance. In the interests of multiple use, I would legalize the hunting of non-licensed backcountry campers. I admit there are some details to be worked out, but that's the overall plan.