Update on Joshua Tree Campgrounds Switching To Reservations

Jason Kim wrote:

Can anyone confirm if campfires are fully legal on BLM land?  I know there are rings and people do it all the time, but curious if this is running afoul of the law.  Aside from the extra drive, that is the main reason I always look for a site at one of the campgrounds.

To my knowledge fire rings are not allowed.  However if you have a portable fire ring those are okay as they are not burning the fire directly on the ground thus preserving the area from the burned fire markings.

Mike0110 wrote:

Last time I was out there I saw a truck full of people shooting guns while driving around in the dark. I don't think laws apply out there, but a campfire might give them a target.

You need to dial back on the Crocodile Dundee

Carey De Luca wrote:

I'm curious what you all think about the $25 week pass going up to $70 and the annual pass to $75.  I'm not giving my opinion either way.  I'm torn.  Just wonder why that has been a discussion point.  

already many comments regarding that

i use the $80 Interagency Pass too.  even tho this proposed fee increase doesn't affect that, my concern is that later on, the passed increases for the affected fees could then be used to justify a similar steep fee increase for the Interagency Pass as well.  wouldn't be surprising if they later argue, based on the new higher priced 2-wk vehicle pass of $70, the Interagency Pass should be more appropriately priced in the $150-200 range, what with the latter being valid for a full year for all parks

doubt it escaped those who proposed the fee increases that, if all fees were increased at the same time, then there would be zero doubt of widespread protest and backlash.  but hey, if the Interagency Pass segment of the public isn't targeted right now, if the increases were limited to five peak months in the busiest parks, then less people would object and maybe a signif portion of the resistance would be eliminated, and the proposal could pass into effect

backcountry camping is the easiest thing to do. I always wonder why more climbers don't do this

Austin Orville wrote:

backcountry camping is the easiest thing to do. I always wonder why more climbers don't do this

Because it's not in any way the easiest thing to do.

The current demand for JTree access is a potential wilderness killer.

Sadly, the easier it is = the higher the potential.

(Thank you, Locker)

Greg Opland wrote:

I think ultimately the park is going to have to restrict or put and end to that option. With the current demands on the park, larger and larger number of campsite-rejected climbers are flocking to the "backcountry" option. In general, the people who hike out from the Boy Scout Trail only go to the nearest rocks where they're sort of out of view and set up shop. I've seen the impact out there first hand and it's not good. The rule is to be at least a MILE from the parking area, but I'm sure that's too much effort and not really all that convenient, so lots of people just ignore it. Out of sight, out of mind.

Trusting a group of users (climbers) to sort of self-regulate is generally a bad idea. The Park will get involved and then it will be the BLM playa for the lot.

Totally understand where you are coming from on the issue. It's sad that our community is faced with these burdens (lnt not being followed, or backcountry rules). It all comes down to will these people ruin this resource for all of the people using it correctly? If you were to look at the boy scout backcountry board you notice impacts almost immediately. Maybe this is because it has easy acces compared to others, and it's surrounded by popular climbing areas. I have never and will never hike out of the boy scout th to camp because there are others spots where people are less abundant and the issue of seeing trash or LNT being followed incorrectly is not an issue. I hope people like me who use these boards as an escape from the downsides to staying or trying to stay in a campground are able to continue use even if that means getting rid of the boy scout trailhead and implementing a more lnt friendly system. 

Austin Orville wrote:

Totally understand where you are coming from on the issue. It's sad that our community is faced with these burdens (lnt not being followed, or backcountry rules). It all comes down to will these people ruin this resource for all of the people using it correctly? If you were to look at the boy scout backcountry board you notice impacts almost immediately. Maybe this is because it has easy acces compared to others, and it's surrounded by popular climbing areas. I have never and will never hike out of the boy scout th to camp because there are others spots where people are less abundant and the issue of seeing trash or LNT being followed incorrectly is not an issue. I hope people like me who use these boards as an escape from the downsides to staying or trying to stay in a campground are able to continue use even if that means getting rid of the boy scout trailhead and implementing a more lnt friendly system. 

I was out latley...  hiked out from the BS trail head to go climbing two weeks ago. While hiking back in the dark... I was amazed at the number of folks "backcountry camping" maybe 40 or so. 

One group really knew how to "rough it in the backcountry" .... they had a huge icechest, the kind with wheels, lawn chars... not one backpack between the 4 of them, unless you count a trader joe's bag as a backpack... they were about 200 yards "out."  These people were NOT climbers... 

OUR NPS AT WORK  

Guy Keesee wrote:

I was out latley...  hiked out from the BS trail head to go climbing two weeks ago. While hiking back in the dark... I was amazed at the number of folks "backcountry camping" maybe 40 or so. 

One group really knew how to "rough it in the backcountry" .... they had a huge icechest, the kind with wheels, lawn chars... not one backpack between the 4 of them, unless you count a trader joe's bag as a backpack... they were about 200 yards "out."  These people were NOT climbers... 

OUR NPS AT WORK  

I saw them also, and took a picture of their campground:

Guy Keesee wrote:

I was out latley...  hiked out from the BS trail head to go climbing two weeks ago. While hiking back in the dark... I was amazed at the number of folks "backcountry camping" maybe 40 or so. 

One group really knew how to "rough it in the backcountry" .... they had a huge icechest, the kind with wheels, lawn chars... not one backpack between the 4 of them, unless you count a trader joe's bag as a backpack... they were about 200 yards "out."  These people were NOT climbers... 

OUR NPS AT WORK  

Yea that really is saddening as that's the closest and easiest backcountry board to monitor. NPS definitely needs to devote some time and money into keeping the boards in acceptable conditions for not only others but for the general well being of the environment. I do know that most of the situations like the one you mentioned are likely to be people that don't rock climb, and reaching them with education regarding the issue is probably harder since they are potentially less involved in the outdoors / outdoor community.

Austin Orville wrote:

If you were to look at the boy scout backcountry board you notice impacts almost immediately. Maybe this is because it has easy acces compared to others, and it's surrounded by popular climbing areas. I have never and will never hike out of the boy scout th to camp because there are others spots where people are less abundant and the issue of seeing trash or LNT being followed incorrectly is not an issue. I hope people like me who use these boards as an escape from the downsides to staying or trying to stay in a campground are able to continue use even if that means getting rid of the boy scout trailhead and implementing a more lnt friendly system. 

pushing for this in this way would result in unfavorable consequences affecting other climbers who have nothing to do with that mess.  won't affect me, but def others.  some might be out of the loop for too long to be aware, but it's for the same reason that the Boy Scout trailhead parking doesn't need to be converted to a dirtbag campground, the ironic comedy that that is.  some on and off have said it when such issues came up, but unless it's an option they could afford to lose, think saying it once is already one time too many.  that lot is highly relevant to the park anyway as it gets packed on busy wknds, partly filled by many others who don't care about climbing just as some climbers don't care about other user groups.  better actually to have that lot as is in addition to a dirtbag campground elsewhere, if anything

Austin Orville wrote:

NPS definitely needs to devote some time and money into keeping the boards in acceptable conditions for not only others but for the general well being of the environment. I do know that most of the situations like the one you mentioned are likely to be people that don't rock climb, and reaching them with education regarding the issue is probably harder since they are potentially less involved in the outdoors / outdoor community.

the affected area in question was never intended to be "board" by the NPS.  it's actually explicitly stated in the regulations how much further you need to hike out.  expecting park staff to maintain that area for the "better" campers to use is pretty ludicrous.  at some pt, if they have to step in, they'll do what's needed to protect the environment, sometimes along with additional restrictions that many might not like

climbers muck up that area just as non-climbers do.  beside those who don't know about LNT, plenty do know but simply don't care, or feel ok not to for one excuse or another.  plenty nowadays are out to climb to be rad and could care less about anything else, including what they know of LNT.  also, if you hike in at night there or elsewhere, unless you camp right on the trail, you're bound to do some trampling.  if someone is at your spot or backup spot, you'll trample some more to find another.  if worn out by a big day or arriving in the wee hrs, the exhaustion also makes it more ok to care less, etc etc

so don't try to pin the fault mostly on other user groups. besides, 99% of climbers leave a mess on every rock they touch.  they also install plenty of hardware in obtrusive sight.  climbers aren't the epitome of land stewardship that some have convinced themselves to be

Sean wrote:

the affected area in question was never intended to be "board" by the NPS.  it's actually explicitly stated in the regulations how much further you need to hike out.  expecting park staff to maintain that area for the "better" campers to use is pretty ludicrous.  at some pt, if they have to step in, they'll do what's needed to protect the environment, sometimes along with additional restrictions that many might not like

climbers muck up that area just as non-climbers do.  beside those who don't know about LNT, plenty do know but simply don't care, or feel ok not to for one excuse or another.  plenty nowadays are out to climb to be rad and could care less about anything else, including what they know of LNT.  also, if you hike in at night there or elsewhere, unless you camp right on the trail, you're bound to do some trampling.  if someone is at your spot or backup spot, you'll trample some more to find another.  if worn out by a big day or arriving in the wee hrs, the exhaustion also makes it more ok to care less, etc etc

so don't try to pin the fault mostly on other user groups. besides, 99% of climbers leave a mess on every rock they touch.  they also install plenty of hardware in obtrusive sight.  climbers aren't the epitome of land stewardship that some have convinced themselves to be

You skewed all my points and made me read your post countless times before I gave up trying to connect the dots. You say rangers checking up on a resource so others can use it adequately is ludicrous but that is exactly what goes on in all of the campgrounds that people seem to like going to because they are kept up. The point is that people don't like these backcountry boards because they arn't living up to the standards they are ment to be held by. It's also one thing to develop such a system and not maintain it. Would they do that with a campground, probably not, so why a backcountry board?  I never said anything about getting rid of the parking lot at the beggining of the boyscout trailhead i just implied getting rid of that backcountry camping option there might prove to be a good idea beacuase that area seems most impacted by it. I never ment to pin-point any groups of people I simply stated that non-climbers are likely the culprit (key word likely, versus the). I can also say with some pride that the climbers I see a majority of the time and the climbers I am with when I am outside seem to respect the environment  more becuase of the direct connection we have with it. Versus the crowds who don't care if they leave their trash or whatever because who knows when they will be back to see their own impact.

Austin Orville wrote:

You skewed all my points and made me read your post countless times before I gave up trying to connect the dots. You say rangers checking up on a resource so others can use it adequately is ludicrous but that is exactly what goes on in all of the campgrounds that people seem to like going to because they are kept up. The point is that people don't like these backcountry boards because they arn't living up to the standards they are ment to be held by. It's also one thing to develop such a system and not maintain it. Would they do that with a campground, probably not, so why a backcountry board?  I never said anything about getting rid of the parking lot at the beggining of the boyscout trailhead i just implied getting rid of that backcountry camping option there might prove to be a good idea beacuase that area seems most impacted by it. I never ment to pin-point any groups of people I simply stated that non-climbers are likely the culprit (key word likely, versus the). I can also say with some pride that the climbers I see a majority of the time and the climbers I am with when I am outside seem to respect the environment  more becuase of the direct connection we have with it. Versus the crowds who don't care if they leave their trash or whatever because who knows when they will be back to see their own impact.

what standard for backcountry "board" are you talking about for the affected area in question?  that's specifically NOT a "boarding" area for camping use.  it never was.  get it yet?

people camp behind those closest rocks on that trail and thereabouts bec they don't want to walk the full one mile out like they're supposed to.  you think NPS definitely needs to devote more time and money to maintain that area against the effects of illegal camping so that it could be brought back up to your "boarding" standard for camping use, where you're not supposed to camp by NPS regulations?  are you retarded?

climbers and non-climbers alike so far could get away with stealth camping there.  but if that area gets degraded worse and worse, at some pt, the park will intervene, to protect the environment, not to make things better again for illegal campers, and that would be the end of that.  there's no demanding the NPS to keep the "boards" in acceptable conditions so people could camp there again like you suggest, i mean, unless you're deranged.  "BLM playa for all" at that pt means the BLM lakebed outside of park and north of town

climbers are just people, who could do good things or lousy things.  if you haven't come across climbers (or people in general for that matter) who do shitty things that they know they're not supposed to, then you haven't seen much

Sean wrote:

what standard for backcountry "board" are you talking about for the affected area in question?  that's specifically NOT a "boarding" area for camping use.  it never was.  get it yet?

people camp behind those closest rocks on that trail and thereabouts bec they don't want to walk the full one mile out like they're supposed to.  you think NPS definitely needs to devote more time and money to maintain that area against the effects of illegal camping so that it could be brought back up to your "boarding" standard for camping use, where you're not supposed to camp by NPS regulations?  are you retarded?

climbers and non-climbers alike so far could get away with stealth camping there.  but if that area gets degraded worse and worse, at some pt, the park will intervene, to protect the environment, not to make things better again for illegal campers, and that would be the end of that.  there's no demanding the NPS to keep the "boards" in acceptable conditions so people could camp there again like you suggest, i mean, unless you're deranged.  "BLM playa for all" at that pt means the BLM lakebed outside of park and north of town

climbers are just people, who could do good things or lousy things.  if you haven't come across climbers (or people in general for that matter) who do shitty things that they know they're not supposed to, then you haven't seen much

When i say backcountry board, i am literally talking about the board in which you grab a yellow stub from and fill out. The standard for backcountry camping,written on a backcountry board, would be to hike 1 mile out and camp in areas that apply to lnt standards--mentioned on the board. I think you assume i am talking about cleaning the beginning of the trail up to allow for camping there? If that's the case that idea is horrible and yes most definitely sounds 'retarded'. I also agree that not all climbers are LNT masters and when I said that the culrpits were likely non-climbers i was referring to the group refrenced earlier with lawn chairs , trader joes bags, and a wheeled cooler. The NPS could do a short study on which backcountry boards are most impacted(probabaly wouldn't be too arduous) and assign a ranger maybe only friday and saturday nights to check the first quarter mile or however so of trail for evidence of people camping illegaly. The group mentioned ealrier sure wouldn't of been hard to track down and ticket or whatever they decide to do. My point is that I enjoy these backcountry boards and It's a shame to see people getting away with abusing them. Having a ranger check the beginning of popular backcountry boards for illegal and disruptive camping a day or two a week during the busy season could eliminate problems that all of us fear including more than 40 illegal campers killing your vibe. 

I always thought they were wider than normal X-country skis

Greg Opland wrote:

I'm not sure you guys are syncing up on what Austin means by "backcountry boards."

Have to admit, I'm not sure what is meant. 

Austin, can you give more detail on what you think the NPS should be doing and what a "backcountry board" is?

Thx!

thanks Greg, clarified that above! On the NPS website they call them backcountry registration boards but I don't know if it actually says 'board' on the actual sign. 

Greg Opland wrote:

Looks like Austin and I cross posted at the same time... thx Austin...

Those groups suck HUGE, I don't care at all what they're in the Park for (climbing, hiking, bird-watching, etc).
Honestly the biggest problem facing the entire US Park system...waves and waves of city people who have no idea how to treat the outdoors properly.

From what I can tell, the rangers really don't (so far) want to have to play backcountry baby-sitters and it since means they'd probably be out there hoofing around the desert in the middle of the night looking for scofflaws, can't say I blame them much, but I think eventually, they'll take note of the impact/abuse/overuse to the areas within an easy march from the Boy Scout TH and shut the whole thing down so they don't have to do anything but check the lot and issue tickets for illegal parking on their way home. Or declare no impromptu camping and start requiring that someone planning to camp out there (like scouts) get a camping permit at the visitor's center before they head up to the Park. That would give them some tracking on groups, group size, and general location so they can keep better tracking on back behavior.

Can't say I've ever been out that way (north on the Boy Scout Trail) too late in the day, but I bet it's quite the scene at night during prime season.

The no impromptu camping idea would be interesting. That sounds like a good idea, the cars would be obvious if they didn't have a noticable pass / permit of some sort which would make it quick and easy for the Rangers to do there job 

first off, LNT applies everywhere in wilderness backcountry (and even at popular roadside rocks).  the one mile and beyond rule pertains to where one should legally camp.  the heavy use and visible impact less than a mile in around the closest rocks on BST is the issue that we've been talking about.  that's where Greg saw "the impact out there first hand and it's not good" and could lead to "BLM playa for all"

you have a strange use of the word "board" and i was just playing along.  i mean, how exactly do you "enjoy" a display board with backcountry slips?

i give Guy benefit of the doubt on his judgement of what he saw.  if some big party just need to camp the night in btwn climbing the days elsewhere tho, they wouldn't take in packs and climbing gear, and maybe they're the sort of la la group that would haul a big cooler in.  then it would be harder to tell.  i've seen a few of those too, one returning to a truck with rope and bouldering pad.  as you're willing to conceed, Austin, there're climbers who lapse on LNT too to various degrees. two of you are just guessing tho when you say that it's mostly the non-climbers who are responsible for that problem, or willing to use that one data point to blame it all on them to help your case for whatev else

the park isn't going to shut down the backcountry camping, esp that trailhead and parking.  that's a whole user group that the park do care very much about.  talk to a ranger sometime.  hear it from one yourself about how the park has been trying to make it fairer for the other user groups for the past many many yrs, and still ongoing.  i even protested to one that their idea of fairer is that climbers would get no more than what infreq visitors would get.  as i've previously mentioned elsewhere, was told if climbers want to frequent the park, then they have to figure something else on their own to make that work