View Full Version : Forrest Service Southern Region, AT LIMITS OF STAY PROPOSAL!!!! Passing LAWS for
File code 1950/2350 date Aug 12. 2013 Dear interested public The US Forest Service is seeking public comments for a proposed change in the limits of stay at Appalachian National Scenic Trail shelters and camping areas.......................from a current limit of 14-21 days to a NEW LIMIT of 3 DAYS INCLUDING WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE SHELTER. To include all AT shelters from Springer to Maupin Field Shelter just before Waynesboro.
The Forest Service relayed that the trail maintaining club had 3 areas of concern: homeless, vagrancy and unintended use. This was brought up at a regional trail club meeting and they asked the Forest service to do something about this.
So here it is out for public comment.
I am against this new LIMIT New laws, next thing ya know they will have trail policemen checking your permits at every click. Very few people thru hike, most of use do sections or stay at a shelter and day hike from there. I learned to love the trail in college by staying at Maupin Field shelter during fall weekends.
I say no more laws, leave it alone, it is working.
Please voice your opinion!!!!!!!! The time to speak is NOW be heard. You may view the proposal at this link and form your own thoughts and send them yourself. They are due by 9/16/2013.
This is the main site. The proposal is down below the picture of trees
http://www.fs.usda.gov/r8/
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5431710.pdf
Every law passed is taking away your freedom.
Call Michelle Mitchell at (404) 347-1749 for additional information
For objection eligibility each individual must submit timely and specific written comments regarding the proposed project and must sign the comments or verify identity.
LOOK out campers they will be taking reservations and charging in no time. In the end nobody will have enough money to hike the whole trail, then they can dismantle it and build condos! act now preserve your rights
Every law passed is taking away your freedom.
I disagree, people homesteading at shelters is taking away my freedom. This rule change will most likely not effect 99.9% of hikers. Shelters are not personal vacation cabins, and they are not long stay hotels.
If people did not abuse their privileges or step on the rights of others, there would be no need for any laws, but they do, so laws were invented to address the small percentage of the population that can't play well with others.
The AT is a shared space, all this rule change does is keep it that way.
" ... ... next thing ya know they will have trail policemen checking your permits at every click." The only places I am aware that permits are required are SMNP and SNP, and they already can and do check your permits using trail runners/rangers. Sorry but you seem a bit alarmist. In Isle Royale NP many campsites have a ONE night limit, so this change is not without precedence. Since there seems to be some abuse of the system by some all must adapt. Through hikers and section hikers do not spend multiple days at shelters as a rule except for injury, illness or weather.
Another Kevin
08-20-2013, 18:38
Wow, your 'slippery slope' argument is pretty far-fetched. Nobody's proposing a fee, a reservation, or a permit system, just a limit of three consecutive nights in the same spot!
I'm in favor of the proposal. The state forest lands in NY all have a 3-night limit on camping at any single site. It's easy to comply, just move a short distance down the trail. It does help to give the rangers a way to evict squatters and keep hunters and fishermen from setting up long-term base camps at the lean-tos. It's not enforced in a Draconian manner, with a whole lot of bureaucracy - it's typically enforced only if a ranger notices someone staying at the same shelter night after night or gets a complaint about squatters.
You can get permission to stay longer if you apply to the ranger district in charge of the area and give them a plausible reason. So it's possible to base camp at a backcountry site if, for instance, you're doing scientific research that requires a longer stay. I suspect that in the off season, they might even be willing to talk to someone who wants to set up an extended base camp for peakbagging, but for that activity it's usually easier to move on every couple of days anyway.
The proposed rule would hardly affect using a shelter as a base camp for day trips. Who does that in the same spot for more than three nights at a crack, anyway? If you're going to go in with supplies for a week, surely you can move to another site midway through your trip - and most likely will want to, to extend the range of places that you can visit.
JustaTouron
08-20-2013, 18:56
So much for my plan to take 10 consecutive zeros at every shelter when I hike the AT.
New law makes sense. Honestly I don't see why the rules isn't one night only.
If a person is homeless and living in the shelters ( i have witnessed plenty of people doing just that, every time i am on the trail, ) and campsites, all a person has to do is move up or down the trail a hundred yards every few days so this isn't going to change anything, and the three consecutive night stay at a shelter that's been a rule ever since i can remember so i am going to repeat this isn't going to change NOTHING.
No need for any new law. how many hikers stay at a shelter more than a night or 2, I have personally never ran into anyone "homesteading" anywhere on the trail. I am sure some of you have. New laws equal new fees. Oh, you say that wont happen (rotfl) Just this year GSMNP did add a fee. But that wont happen any where else. LOL some of you guys better get ready for the new world. Fees for hiking the trail will probably happen. Nothing is free.
New law makes sense. Honestly I don't see why the rules isn't one night only.
I think one night would be excessively restrictive for several reasons. for example some folks need to take zeros now and then and you should not have to go into town to zero or pack up and move. Sometimes the weather makes it wise to stay put for another day or two. I think 3 days will meet most hikers needs without creating a significant burden on others.
Drybones
08-20-2013, 19:52
[QUOTE=bfayer;1519375]If people did not abuse their privileges or step on the rights of others, there would be no need for any laws, but they do, so laws were invented to address the small percentage of the population that can't play well with others.
QUOTE]
Laws are passed to obtain power for politicians, if you think they're passed to help people you've had your head in the sand too long. It's all about money and power for the ruling political class and how they can use your tax dollars to keep them in power.
[QUOTE=bfayer;1519375]If people did not abuse their privileges or step on the rights of others, there would be no need for any laws, but they do, so laws were invented to address the small percentage of the population that can't play well with others.
QUOTE]
Laws are passed to obtain power for politicians, if you think they're passed to help people you've had your head in the sand too long. It's all about money and power for the ruling political class and how they can use your tax dollars to keep them in power.
Ah, yeh right.....
By the way this is not a new law its is a proposed rule change.
MuddyWaters
08-20-2013, 20:44
It does change something.
It allows authorities to tell people to move along if they are obviously squatting.
The AT is a hiking trail, and a national park. It is not just woods where you can do whatever you want. If you want that, go buy your own woods .
The Solemates
08-20-2013, 21:09
as a matter of principle, i am against any type of government intrusion (masked as regulation) on my freedoms. (notice i did not say our country's morals).
this however, is ridiculous. how could they possibly enforce it except in some more heavily regulated areas such as the smokies, shenandoah, etc? If I want to stay more than 3 nights I will....and so will others. this changes nothing. another example of gummit sticking their nose where it dont belong.
as a matter of principle, i am against any type of government intrusion (masked as regulation) on my freedoms. (notice i did not say our country's morals).
this however, is ridiculous. how could they possibly enforce it except in some more heavily regulated areas such as the smokies, shenandoah, etc? If I want to stay more than 3 nights I will....and so will others. this changes nothing. another example of gummit sticking their nose where it dont belong.
I agree. but for the most part the trail is on gummit land
Slo-go'en
08-20-2013, 23:02
I have no problem with the rule change. It simply reduces the acceptable stay from the current 2-3 week limit depending on location to a uniform 3 day limit. This simply speeds up the process of getting squatters to move on. If and when someone calls it to their attention. Its not like they have the resources to go out and check compliance at all sites.
Just look what happend to the Manitory FS trail head parking fees. They've pretty much given up enforcing that and just hope some people drop a few bucks into the self pay pipe at popular trail heads.
as a matter of principle, i am against any type of government intrusion (masked as regulation) on my freedoms. (notice i did not say our country's morals).
this however, is ridiculous. how could they possibly enforce it except in some more heavily regulated areas such as the smokies, shenandoah, etc? If I want to stay more than 3 nights I will....and so will others. this changes nothing. another example of gummit sticking their nose where it dont belong.
I understand what you are saying, but these days the authorities need some legal grounding to roust bums.
If you were to take that task on yourself, you'd be the one in court.
Gee the trail clubs sure can make the US Forest Service jump into action. Amazing.
Double Wide
08-21-2013, 00:35
As I was doing a section hike earlier this summer, there was a weirdo 'living' in the Hawk Mountain Shelter. He was harmless, just weird. Anyhow, a few days later when I got to Mountain Crossings, there were about 11 or 12 hikers staying at the hostel that weekend. Somebody mentioned the oddball at the Hawk Mountain shelter, and it set off animated conversation and everyone had a story to tell. We put it together and between all of us, it was clear that he'd been there at least a week, if not longer. In fact, several of the hikers took to calling him the 'Mayor of Hawk Mountain' because he'd been there so long.
It would've been nice had a ranger been able to come send him on his way.
Normally, I'm down with the slippery slope arguments, but in my experience, forest rangers are all pretty good people and don't have the traffic-cop "ITS THE LAW!" mentality. It'd be much to hard to have active enforcement, but rangers can certainly tell the difference between hikers and squatters.
Tennessee Viking
08-21-2013, 09:04
I agree with this. There have been tons of incidents where hunters, scout groups, partying locals, and homesteaders have based camped at shelters for extended periods of time. It leads to hikers being pushed further down on trail, vandalism/damage, litter, attracting animals and pests. I have seen my fellow maintainers haul 50 lbs of trash out and from around of shelters and trail where party people, fishermen and hunters base camp for the weekend, and leave tons of trash.
If you have to shack up in a shelter due to weather, injury, or illness, that is ok. But if you are able and willing, shelters are one night stays. Get out and move on.
Majortrauma
08-21-2013, 10:04
Enforcement of this and verification of how long one actually stayed is going to be a significant challenge at best. A rule of thumb and USMC Leadership principle is don't make a rule you can't enforce and this is one of them. I can't see how this is going to be of any real use to anyone unless someone in the Park Service or some other agency is scheming a way to validate a requirement for more personnel. The government can call it their land but in reality it's our land, bought and paid with taxes and blood. I'm not advocating a sleep-in at the shelters to protest this nor am I fliping the bird to the trail clubs who do such a great job maintaining the trail and who have erected some very nice shelters but more rules and regulations is not going to accomplish anything.
This is just a tool for the rangers. The national Forrest is not the Marine Corps they don't have to be in a position to enforce it everywhere all the time.
The rangers and ridge runners make their rounds and if they see someone that looks like they are homesteading they just comeback in a couple of days and tell them time to move on. That's it.
Without this rule they can't tell them to move. Think if it more like a zoning ordinance that says you can't keep an elephant in your back yard. Until someone notices it and has a problem with it, its not an issue. Once someone complains, the ordinance can be enforced. Its just a tool that's all.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Enforcement of this and verification of how long one actually stayed is going to be a significant challenge at best.
Not really. It's not like rangers or ridge runners will be patrolling the trail to enforce this particular law. It's obvious when some one is reported, or seen to be squatting at a shelter, the authorities will have a rules change to back up an eviction.
Another Kevin
08-21-2013, 12:46
So much for my plan to take 10 consecutive zeros at every shelter when I hike the AT.
New law makes sense. Honestly I don't see why the rules isn't one night only.
Because of the places where people like me will set up a base camp for a couple or three nights and go peak-bagging, blue-blazing or bushwhacking? Not every user of the trail thinks like a thru-hiker.
JustaTouron
08-21-2013, 13:54
this however, is ridiculous. how could they possibly enforce it except in some more heavily regulated areas such as the smokies, shenandoah, etc? If I want to stay more than 3 nights I will....and so will others. this changes nothing. another example of gummit sticking their nose where it dont belong.
I don't see the next step being someone proactively, going out and booting people on the fourth night.
This rule will be used when there is a complaint by hikers that someone has been living in a shelter. It simply gives law enforcement a tool to deal with squatters. If you stay four nights nobody is going to notice.
BuckeyeBill
08-21-2013, 21:31
Our local city council at times would pass dumb laws. As law enforcement officers we couldn't just ignore the laws because we didn't like them. We found that the best way to get rid of these dumb laws was to enforce them with a vengeance. When the voters then began to complain to their council members, they would then pass legislation to remove the dumb law. It wouldn't surprise me if this happens in this situation.
Hill Ape
08-21-2013, 21:42
Our local city council at times would pass dumb laws. As law enforcement officers we couldn't just ignore the laws because we didn't like them. We found that the best way to get rid of these dumb laws was to enforce them with a vengeance. When the voters then began to complain to their council members, they would then pass legislation to remove the dumb law. It wouldn't surprise me if this happens in this situation.
Seriously?! No offense to you personally, but that line of logic fails with me. Enforce a bad law with a vengeance, that's why I don't like cops. Thanks for the perspective though.
Somewhere between 1-20 is a reasonable limit
Seriously?! No offense to you personally, but that line of logic fails with me. Enforce a bad law with a vengeance, that's why I don't like cops.
Really? If your town fathers decided to make it illegal to put your trash out the night before, what's a a police officer to do? Ignore the law? Enforce it selectively when or just when the 'coons get to it? Grumble at the very idea and only enforce the law when the Chief gets a phone call?
Or follow BB's wise path? Makes sense to me.
Hill Ape
08-21-2013, 22:25
Police exercise discretion all the time
Sir-Packs-Alot
08-21-2013, 22:27
As 'fer my "two cents" ... I have been hearing about and personally experiencing more issues of vagrancy type problems at Southern region shelters as of late - and I don't think that a 3 day limit is unreasonable. For anyone BUT vagrants - it wouldn't make a difference - as most folks only overnight. The Forest Service is VERY challenged for lack of staff - so I don't think you'd see it enforced all that much - BUT in case a vagrant problem occurs and is reported - it would HELP give the Forest Service much needed leverage in these cases. Some of these vagrant type problems that they cannot deal with immediately occasionally become more serious problems - as some of us know.
Hill Ape
08-21-2013, 22:36
Putting a charge on a citizen that stays on their record, even after the bad law everyone knew was bad is rolled back, is not a good thing. It simply creates more criminals. In states with 3 strikes laws, I would hate to hear of someone doing mandatory life if one of those strikes was a law everyone opposed, and the police zealously enforced only to get it revoked.
Hill Ape
08-21-2013, 22:43
And only partially quoting me is bad form, it removes the context. There should be a reasonable limit. But enforcing a law with a vengeance, in order to get that law revoked, no I don't like the sound of that at all
BuckeyeBill
08-21-2013, 22:54
Hill Ape just so you know,all of the "dumb Laws" were MINOR MISDEMEANORS and would not result in a three strike penalty. Most of the laws were no point traffic laws. As an example they citizens of the street that the city park/pool was on complained of all the traffic coming out of the city park/pool area. Council voted to turn the street into a one way street with traffic only able to enter the park/pool on their street. One of the first people cited was the councilman that lives on the street. His reasoning "But I live on the street". The law was rescinded the next council meeting. Dumb law gone due to vengeful enforcement.
Hill Ape
08-21-2013, 23:23
Or, dumb law gone due to selective enforcement. In your example, would results have been so quick if joe citizen had been cited, instead of a councilman. It's about discretion. I don't want a blind police force, that only follows orders. Police are professionals, with high standards. They should be allowed to exercise reasonable discretion.
But this tangent is drifting off topic, and I apologize for my part in that. There should be a reasonable limit set on shelter use, and it should be reasonably enforced. Not vengefully. Not sure when or why police started taking such an aggressive posture but I don't think it's a good thing.
The Solemates
08-22-2013, 09:41
This is just a tool for the rangers. The national Forrest is not the Marine Corps they don't have to be in a position to enforce it everywhere all the time.
The rangers and ridge runners make their rounds and if they see someone that looks like they are homesteading they just comeback in a couple of days and tell them time to move on. That's it.
Without this rule they can't tell them to move. Think if it more like a zoning ordinance that says you can't keep an elephant in your back yard. Until someone notices it and has a problem with it, its not an issue. Once someone complains, the ordinance can be enforced. Its just a tool that's all.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
agreed. good points.
I guess I'm from the old school and if a ranger asks someone to leave, he should. we dont need gummit stickin their noses in. i guess the world aint like I see it though.
either way...too much imposed regulation for the only reason of power control.
FarmerChef
08-22-2013, 09:53
I'm for it. As others have said, I don't expect it to be regularly patrolled and enforced. I expect it to be a tool to be used when legitimate users complain of someone squatting in a shelter or turning it into their personal home. More than that is unlikely.
Given the number of shelters, I'll bet I could stay 3 nights in each shelter and still not make it from Springer to Katahdin. I could see an exception for base camping but would you set up at a shelter for that anyway? Even if one did, I'll bet they could contact the local ranger and get a permit.
Nutbrown
08-22-2013, 09:57
I don't have a problem with a 3 night limit. We should remember though, there are a lot of 'new' homeless people that find themselves in a bind and have to live in a tent. This economy isn't doing anyone a favor.
I don't have a problem with a 3 night limit. We should remember though, there are a lot of 'new' homeless people that find themselves in a bind and have to live in a tent. This economy isn't doing anyone a favor.
All someone has to do is go 100 yards away from the shelter or campsite and the 3 day limit no longer applies. So tenting homeless folks are not affected by this unless they don't want to walk 300 feet.
The current rules are either 14 or 21 days depending on location and that applies to any location in the NF.
All this new rule does is keep campsites and shelters along the AT from becoming homesteads, which is not their intended purpose.
mrcoffeect
08-22-2013, 11:57
This is just a tool for the rangers. The national Forrest is not the Marine Corps they don't have to be in a position to enforce it everywhere all the time.
The rangers and ridge runners make their rounds and if they see someone that looks like they are homesteading they just comeback in a couple of days and tell them time to move on. That's it.
Without this rule they can't tell them to move. Think if it more like a zoning ordinance that says you can't keep an elephant in your back yard. Until someone notices it and has a problem with it, its not an issue. Once someone complains, the ordinance can be enforced. Its just a tool that's all.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Im of the firm opinion that the government has enough tools in it already. ;)
Another Kevin
08-22-2013, 12:54
agreed. good points.
I guess I'm from the old school and if a ranger asks someone to leave, he should. we dont need gummit stickin their noses in. i guess the world aint like I see it though.
either way...too much imposed regulation for the only reason of power control.
Uhm. That's "old school" as in "pre-Roman Empire." 'Nulla poena sine lege' was a maxim of Roman law - and all European law since: "[There can be] no penalty without a law [against the penalized action]." This law gives the ranger - an agent of the government whose nose you despise - a legal reason to order someone to move on.
And to whoever worried about "three strikes" and the like: We're not talking a felony here. We're talking, generally, of a ranger writing a ticket. You show up at the courthouse, pay the fine, and it's over with. Even less than a traffic ticket, because it won't show up on your license and kill your insurance rates.
Feral Bill
08-22-2013, 13:26
Perhaps those who find government intrusion loathsum would prefer to hike where such intrusions do not exist. Perhaps Somalia, or some other scenic failed state.
Hill Ape
08-22-2013, 14:09
Various forms of totalitarianism have been successful in history. Doesn't mean we should follow that example. When does the boiling frog jump out of the water. I'm not anti government, or against rule of law. But the powers the government holds belong to and extend from the People. And I served in the Army. I would never tell another citizen to leave. That's pretty unamerican.
Various forms of totalitarianism have been successful in history...
How is making a public announcement of a proposed rule change and asking for the general public to comment, then considering that input before the rule change is made, totalitarian?
It sounds very democratic to me. Even after the rule is changed it can be overruled by the elected branches of government or the courts. If we still don't like the outcome we can elect different people that can overrule it.
That is a system that has nothing in common with totalitarianism at all.
Hill Ape
08-22-2013, 16:23
ok, thats not what i meant at all. i was resonding to one poster calling for vengeful enforcement, and another poster calling for me to leave the country and go to somalia. you partially quoted me, took a snippit completely out of context, then put words in my mouth.
tell you what. i'll leave this thread on that note
i don't have a problem with a limit. i thought there already was one.
Drybones
08-22-2013, 16:40
It's a cryin shame when taking a walk gets this complicated, it's a sad thing this country is molting into.
JustaTouron
08-22-2013, 19:11
It's a cryin shame when taking a walk gets this complicated, it's a sad thing this country is molting into.
Its not real complicated. The shelters are for backpacking, not moving into and setting up as a permanent address.
How many people who are worried about this law, have actually stayed in the same shelter more than 3 nights in a row?
WILLIAM HAYES
08-22-2013, 19:31
agree with the proposal doesnt affect hikers unenforceable though
Drybones
08-22-2013, 19:41
Its not real complicated. The shelters are for backpacking, not moving into and setting up as a permanent address.
How many people who are worried about this law, have actually stayed in the same shelter more than 3 nights in a row?
And...how many people live in these shelter?...How many have you seen...I've never seen anything that was an issue to me. With murder, rape, theft, etc, etc etc....don't you think we can find a better way to spend our tax dollars...and a better way for the bureaucrats to spend thier time? If there is a homeless person living in a shelter for a while...leave the poor sucker alone if he's not creating a crime.
Don't see any problem with three days. If the issue is government creating a law that dictates a time limit then those people who think that should be against two weeks or any other amount of time. Shelters are there for a specific purpose, that is a short term shelter while in the area often for hikers but not exclusively. However I don't think it would be enforced at three days anymore than it is now. Has anyone ever heard of someone getting a ticket and told to move on because they had reached a time limit at the shelter?
Da man has already decreed that thru hikers cannot camp more than one night at shelters located in PA state game lands.
Seems to work.