Camping near Big Bear/Fawnskin?

[FishPOET]

I answered your questions.

The ranger is correct. There is not any dispersed camping area in the SBNF large enough for your group. Dispersed camping is for 2 vehicles max.

Do you plan on answering my question or just continue whining about your belief that your freedoms are being encroached upon?

Your option is to allow anyone to drive and camp anywhere they choose?

[WAM]

I answered your questions.

The ranger is correct. There is not any dispersed camping area in the SBNF large enough for your group. Dispersed camping is for 2 vehicles max.

No, Yellow Post sites are limited to 2 vehicles. By the SBNF definitions disbursed camping and yellow post camping are both "remote camping". They are not however the same and do not have identical rules. I found no limit cited for disbursed camping. That doesn't mean there isn't one. Since you made the statement, perhaps you could supply a link? As I posted before, here is the link citing that disbursed and yellow post camping are two seperate entities:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/sanbernardin...ng/index.shtml

Do you plan on answering my question or just continue whining about your belief that your freedoms are being encroached upon?

Your option is to allow anyone to drive and camp anywhere they choose?

You're right. I haven't directly answered this because it's not a simple yes/no question. So anything I say will be taken out of context and thrown back at me. But I'll try. Yes, I want to allow anyone to drive and camp anywhere they choose. It's called public use of public land. But no, it should not be an unlimited right. There are environmentally sensitive areas which must be protected. There are private property issues which must be respected. There are numerous reasonable limitations which must be handled. And they should be.

So I'm for unhindered access except as necessary on a case by case basis. You and the NFS take the position of no access except as we choose to grant. And your sarcasm about encroachment of our freedoms says it all.

Now I've said my piece and you've said yours. I suggest we both shut up and let some other opinions be heard. It's not like we're going to change each others minds.

[FishPOET]

I found no limit cited for disbursed camping. That doesn't mean there isn't one.

I posted the link to the 2 vehicle limit for dispersed camping in post #21. I guess you chose to ignore the link so you could claim ignorance while justifying your large group in the SBNF last weekend.

You're right. I haven't directly answered this because it's not a simple yes/no question. So anything I say will be taken out of context and thrown back at me. But I'll try. Yes, I want to allow anyone to drive and camp anywhere they choose. It's called public use of public land. But no, it should not be an unlimited right. There are environmentally sensitive areas which must be protected. There are private property issues which must be respected. There are numerous reasonable limitations which must be handled. And they should be.

So I'm for unhindered access except as necessary on a case by case basis. You and the NFS take the position of no access except as we choose to grant. And your sarcasm about encroachment of our freedoms says it all.

Now I've said my piece and you've said yours. I suggest we both shut up and let some other opinions be heard. It's not like we're going to change each others minds.

You admit there are environmentally sensitive areas that need protection. I suspect you want to choose which areas you deem environmentally sensitive and not the forest managers?

You admit their are numerous reasonable limitations. I suspect you want to choose which areas you deem need limitations and not the forest managers?

I enjoy freedom as much as the next American. I choose however to focus on my responsibility to those freedoms rather than my rights.

[GrimJeeper91]

I just talked to Paul Bennet (Forest Service recreation representative). He stated that all routes that do not have a designated route number will be blocked regardless of how long they have been in use and how well established they are. If you are lucky enough to find a wide spot along or at the end of an established route then you can camp there. Unfortunately, for a group of 6-8 RV's, that will leave very few options.

I do wish there was a better way to block these routes because the big white rocks look like hell. Between the line of rocks on both sides and the new road surface on 3N16 I think the area look pretty pathetic.

While I don't condone people breaking new roads and creating new camp sites, those well established camp sites that have been in use for a long time could have been left open and continue to be used responsibly.

Does anyone know if camping at staging areas (like Cactus Flats) is allowed? Not the best alternative but better than nothing.

[nwoods]

I do wish there was a better way to block these routes because the big white rocks look like FUN.

There, fixed it for you. One of my concerns is that the method of blockage is like dangling meat in front of a kennel of underfed dogs. It's going to cause people who wantvto obey reasonable law and order to become scofflaws. This indecent, reckless, abusive, and in my opinion, criminally wasteful expense of public funds is only going to aggitate and seperate out otherwise decent folk and get them hammered by Big Government. Making them into examples of why we need more spending and more government instead of training people so that we can be more self-policed per my idea posted earlier. My government hates me, hates what I believe in, and hates what I enjoy.

[WAM]

I posted the link to the 2 vehicle limit for dispersed camping in post #21. I guess you chose to ignore the link so you could claim ignorance while justifying your large group in the SBNF last weekend.

No, I read your post and followed the link. It said two vehicles per camp unit. My interpretation is a camp unit is a space in a campground. So far you've accused me of whining and ignorance. Might as well include abject stupidity. You're not good on facts, but your name-calling is well honed.

BTW, Mr Ranger had no issue with the number of vehicles. Just that the site would be white-rocked in the future as a matter of policy. He must have also been ignorant of Federal Regulations. Maybe I can have him get in touch with you so you can shape him up. We can't have rangers who don't know the rules running around freely.

[nwoods]

WAM, I am in your camp so to speak, on your feelings regarding the gross overmanagement and misuse of funds these agencies are perpatrating on us. However, your behavior and responses to Doug are WWAAAYYY out of line and are VERY inaccurate and extreemly counterproductive. Bitch about the public !!!!!s all you want, but keep it on target to the bastards that need THEIR rights restricted, not to the good guy volunteers that do everything possible to pleed on our behalf to keep the lands open.

[WAM]

WAM, I am in your camp so to speak, on your feelings regarding the gross overmanagement and misuse of funds these agencies are perpatrating on us. However, your behavior and responses to Doug are WWAAAYYY out of line and are VERY inaccurate and extreemly counterproductive. Bitch about the public !!!!!s all you want, but keep it on target to the bastards that need THEIR rights restricted, not to the good guy volunteers that do everything possible to pleed on our behalf to keep the lands open.

I'm innocent as a babe here. I don't know who the "good guys" are or the bastards. So I don't honor sacred cows. My only knowledge of "Doug" is what he wrote here and my response is directed at his writings. He may be a great advocate but his philosophy is in lock-step with the NFS. I have no doubt he is well-intended. I believe the NFS is well-intended. I don't think the bureaucrats in charge are evil, but their priorities and methods and results are disgusting to me. That's an opinion, not a fact. I do get irritated at name-calling and call him out on that. Now most of your post is opinion...your call. But please specify what you find to be "very inaccurate". And just for the record I have participated in AAT in the SBNF even though I live a ways away, and my club has three adopted trails plus a special archeologic project up here in the high desert. I may not be as embedded as "Doug", but I'm not one of the bastards either.

So I say again: name one inaccurate fact in my posts. I'm happy to learn something.

Edit: four adopted trails...we just took on the Inyo Crest Trail. If any of you aren't familiar, find it in Wells and do it. It's incredible.

[nwoods]

The inaccuracy is in lumping Doug into the group as the public troughers running SBNF. He is not. He is a passionate, knowledgable, and highly ACTIVE participant in SBNF activites as they pertain to land management and how it impacts our rights to recreate. This is the same reason I said that lamblasting him is counterproductive. We need dozens more like him.

As for him calling you names, nope, that's just you being overly sensitive. Do what I do. When I read something that gets my defenses riled up, I have my wife read it for a more objective point of view. Doug only asked what you knew and if you'd checked tour opinions against the facts. YOU took it as in insult and then accused him of calling you stupid, which he did not. I am done now on this issue of Doug and you. It's the bastards at the SBNF that should be the target of our frustration, not each other.

[WAM]

No,no. You misread. He didn't call me stupid...I volunteered that since he and I didn't read those Federal Regs the same way. So obviously I'm stupid. Whiner and ignorant were his terms however.

I'm amused the moderator has let this go on. On the other hand, I'm the OP and the thread is still prettymuch on topic.

Fearless prediction...a lot more of you are going to sign on to the outrage when you drive into Big Bear backcountry and find yourself surrounded by thousands of stay-out rocks. There are two fields where they have stockpiled them and I'm swagging it at 25-50 thousand rocks. Trucks are currently hauling them down 3N03 at a rate of maybe 200 rocks every 5-10 minutes.

And if that doesn't get you riled up how about this? The disbursed campsite next to ours was closed by white rocks at the road. Back behind them a backhoe had torn up huge pockets of trail to spoil it 100 ft back. BUT then they took chain saws and cut major living limbs from the adjacent trees and spred the green limbs over the damaged road. These are the people who would have your ass if you picked a flower. Before I get called a liar or worse, here's the lat-long. Go see for yourself.
34 18.680 N x 116 48.338 W

BTW, that's not an isolated case. It was repeated numerous times.

[blackZZR]

I have learned in the last 4 years just how hard it is to be proactive in Land Issues, I am extremely pro access, and also am more of an environmentalist than the average Green party member, Just to come into my house you will see it is set up for the smallest imprint on the environment I can get it to be.
I also know about trust and mistrust within the Pro access arena, I rub elbows with some of the top guys but am watched very close because of some of my writings and opinions. However I feel that opinions like mine are so sadly lacking we have 2 sides not even looking for a solution, juat to see their side.
Education is a huge tool, and a lot of good information has been put forward here, Both sides need to sit back and look at what has been said. Wam, you need to look at regulation and what it is going take to keep our trails open, the other side needs to look at the attitude presented here and the ideas he has. I think a staging area is the solution ofr a larger group like he runs with.
I know the SBNF and the ANF are the 2 most pressured forest out there and we need to find ways to limit the impact in them but still keep them open, I also know the SBNF is one of the most pro access forest we have and is extremely wheeling friendly. I think if we need to limit our numbers on outings to limit impact, then we gain by both preserving our trails, and preserving forest. Instead of fighting over fine lines in federal regulations, why not concentrate the discussion on that point.
After all we will all win if we keep trails open, and all will lose by shutting them down.

[WAM]

You state your position well. But if this is what we get for being good guys, how did that pay off? I'm surrounded by millions of acres of recent Wilderness take-aways. It's hard for me to see how things could have been worse if we weren't responsible.

I feel the pull of the Dark Side.

Or quoting from 'Mr. Majestik', "there just ain't much point in stayin on your good side"

[FishPOET]

No, I read your post and followed the link. It said two vehicles per camp unit. My interpretation is a camp unit is a space in a campground.

What exactly would you consider a camp unit if not you and 7 of your buddies sharing a campsite. There are places in the SBNF designed for this activity. For whatever reason you chose not to use these designated facilities but rather try to change the very clearly written regulation on dispersed camping to suit your needs.

You're not good on facts

I post up links to the actual regulations and you say I'm not good on facts? sheesh.

[WAM]

It's not a "campsite". It's disbursed camping...in this case a large, empty, often-used, bare dirt field that could hold a couple dozen friendly RV'ers. I really don't know where you're coming from. You're objecting to something even the Ranger thought was okay. His only concern was we all had rec passes. And told us not to play on the "grass" with our toys.

To be more precise, we were visited three times by different people. None of them even mentioned your "two vehicle rule". So with all due respect, I think you've got it wrong. I gather people must not tell you that much.

[blackZZR]

Can I ask what you did during public hearings about these wildernesses? I ask bcause I can count on 2 hands the number of concerned people who show up at these meetings. Your apathy is not an excuse.

You state your position well. But if this is what we get for being good guys, how did that pay off? I'm surrounded by millions of acres of recent Wilderness take-aways. It's hard for me to see how things could have been worse if we weren't responsible.

I feel the pull of the Dark Side.

Or quoting from 'Mr. Majestik', "there just ain't much point in stayin on your good side"