Summit camping

[jjmcgo]

Is it illegal to sleep at the summit of a mountain in the White Mountains. Is it legal to sleep atop some mountains and not others?
Is this prohibition in place just in alpine locations, which would make sense, but not on summits below treeline?
What are the rules in the Whites about this?

 

[MrOysterhead]

White Mountain National Forest Rules

check it out.

peace
Oysterhead

 

[jjmcgo]

Thanks. I read it and perhaps I'm lawyering this too much but it doesn't say anything about summit camping prohibitions except in the area of the Cutler River Drainage. This paragraph is within the Cutler River Drainage box that explains the rules for that specific area:
Camping in the Alpine Zone (where trees are 8 feet tall or less)

No camping except on 2 or more feet of snow
No camping on frozen bodies of water
No wood or charcoal fires.

What would the rules be outside the zone, say, East Peak of Osceola, where the trees are more than eight feet tall. OK to sleep there?

 

[chomp]

You have stumbled across a somewhat sensitive subject which is why you are not getting too many responses. There are very few mountains where it is both legal and comfortable to camp overnight. And those spots, predictably, get a lot of use. So advertising them on the #1 board for the northeast would do nothing but hurt the problem.

I'll also add that there are several alpine zones where camping is prohibited. The entire presidential range and a good portion of the franconia range is considered an apline zone. As far as I am aware, the summit of East Osceola is not an alpine zone... but there are also no views their either.

 

[Bob]

I may be wrong, but

I believe it is illegal because it violates the being 200' off the trail rule.

 

[jjmcgo]

Thanks, everybody. Great picture, Chomp. Hope you didn't get hurt.

 

[Quietman]

Bob, the Osceola trail is not on the list so according to the "rules", it sounds legal. Personally, I never camp within 200' of any trail, I like my privacy!

 

[brianW]

The original question was about if it was legal to "sleep" on a summit. Would stopping and taking a nap on a summit or trail be legel/illegal? Are you camping when you lay down to take a nap? If you are laying out at a summit stargazing and fall asleep are you breaking the rules?

 

[jfb]

I don't know of any rules that specifically prohibit sleeping in a location just because that location happens to be the summit of a mountain. As long as you follow all the rest of the rules, you should be OK. On the other hand, I think there are lots of better places to camp legally that are not on summits.

 

[RoySwkr]

National Forest rules apply only to National Forest land. Camping would be forbidden on Mt Washington (state) and Moosilauke (Dartmouth College) even if trees grew up 10 feet tall. You should get a copy of the official WMNF map (which ME disparages on his web site) for land ownership purposes.

You are also forbidden to cut live trees so you need to stick to existing sites where someone else has done the dirty work or use a hammock. Probably at least half of 4000 footers have existing sites so you aren't the first to think of this.

 

[chomp]

Re: I may be wrong, but

I believe it is illegal because it violates the being 200' off the trail rule.

200 foot rule applies only to wilderness areas. Otherwise, you can camp right next to a trail.

 

[Periwinkle]

Re: Re: I may be wrong, but

200 foot rule applies only to wilderness areas. Otherwise, you can camp right next to a trail.

Just to play the anal-retentive devil's advocate for a moment...

Unfortunately, the list on the USFS site is long and distinguished, including 200 ft. within lots of popular routes and even further limits on camping within 1/4 mi. of many of roads, trails, and bodies of water.

In the specific example given, on the AMC map, the "forbidden" Greeley Ponds Scenic Area extends up to the summit East Osceola from the E. Where is that line drawn?

...okay, I'm feeling normal again....

In some places these rules seem nearly impossible to adhere to or less sensible -- I think the kicker in this is that for some areas, the least possible impact would be at the summit, where so much traffic has already been. As long as you're the last one there, first one out, and LNT????????

As for East Osceola itself, YIKES! No water, no view, and loaded with flies. Big 'uns. It's making me itchy just thinking about it!

 

[chomp]

Re: Re: Re: I may be wrong, but

Unfortunately, the list on the USFS site is long and distinguished, including 200 ft. within lots of popular routes and even further limits on camping within 1/4 mi. of many of roads, trails, and bodies of water.

Yup, you are right of course. And I didn't realize that the Greely Ponds protection area went all the way to the summit of E Osceola. That is interesting. Where did you find the boundry info for the Greeley Ponds Senic Area? I only have my old maps at work (the orange ones). It is on the newer ones?

 

[Periwinkle]

Re: Re: Re: Re: I may be wrong, but

Where did you find the boundry info for the Greeley Ponds Senic Area? I only have my old maps at work (the orange ones). It is on the newer ones?

Yup. I was looking at the '98, which shows the area as a darker green. Just checked -- it's on the '03 with a pale green boundry line. And checked my spelling too.

 

[TomEske]

I confess I have little interest in this thread, but also a great deal of empathy for those who are most interested with it.
I can't help but hear this mantra in my head:
B]"I'm from the gonvernment, and I'm here to help."[/B]
My sympathies to all who are trying to figure out the regs. I have been there before, and surely will be there again.
Happy Hiking,
Tom