Tenting near Galehead Hut

[Will]

Hike with a Lawyer AND a Surveyor

I do not claim to be a lawyer

Never go on a multi-day trip in the Whites without a lawyer AND a surveyor in your party.

OR just camp 1/4 of a mile away from everything: you'll be safe from the marauding-ticketing Rangers, plus you'll feel virtuous.

OR (for the un-virtuous), know the exact letter of the regs, including all the AND's and OR's, and then when you near the end of your day do the best you can, with • common sense, • respect for the experience of others (e.g. out of sight), • care for the land and water, and • regulation compliance.

 

[skiguy]

Using the grammatical definition of the conjunction used in the cited regulation for and or. If and is used, both clauses of the regulation has to be true for a legit site. I.E. hardened site and 200 feet from trail. And was not used

Now the use of or changes the intent, only one clause must be true, the status of other clause is not important, it could be true or false as the or was satisfied once one clause was true. I.E. a hardened site (regardless of distance) or 200 feet from trail. In this case hardened site makes it a legal site.

I do agree the modified "but be sure its a legal site" confuses the issue but since the regulation is defining a "legal site" its circular logic.

I do not claim to be a lawyer but as a licensed engineer, I have to read and interpret codes and standards for my profession. Should, shall,and or are all used regularly and its very important to know the difference

Again I disagree. You seem to want to change the definition of the established rhetorical to fit your definition when that definition is really quite clear. “Be sure it’s a legal site” is most evident and just what it says and what it means. I find it rather futile to even infer that some dichotomy exists to support and/or as either being a precedent in the language already established. That is only a waste of everyone’s time here as being anything plausible for discussion.

 

[Will]

Please refer to the next to last bullet item in document 5363715.

• TRAVEL AND CAMP ON
DURABLE SURFACES
Stay on the trail while hiking. Camp
at sites that have already been heavily
impacted (but be sure it’s a legal site),
or 200 feet from trails and water
sources. Avoid moderately impacted
sites where your visit could create
more damage.

I'm sure you're not under the mistaken impression that this bullet item is a regulation. That can't be, so I'm a bit confused as to where you're heading with this.

The whole "Leave No Trace" section of which this bullet item is a part, is a simply a statement of some familiar and admirable "Leave No Trace" principles, and clearly indicates that "legal site" is defined elsewhere. The regulations themselves are specifically stated in those other appropriate sections of the document.

e.g. "Stay on the trail while hiking" from your above bullet item - You obviously don't believe bushwhacking is forbidden by a regulation. I'm sure you understand this "Leave No Trace" section is a broad general statement of ideals that drive and explain, holistically, the driving principles behind the actual regulations. So, again.I'm confused about your point.

 

[peakbagger]

"That is only a waste of everyone’s time here as being anything plausible for discussion". At least we agree to disagree

 

[David Metsky]

The whole "Leave No Trace" section of which this bullet item is a part, is a simply a statement of some familiar and admirable "Leave No Trace" principles, and clearly indicates that "legal site" is defined elsewhere. The regulations themselves are specifically stated in those other appropriate sections of the document.

The intro to the LNT section even says the following:

No amount of regulation will preserve the backcountry unless each of us makes a personal
effort to lessen our impact. Always plan your trip well enough in advance to be prepared
for whatever you might encounter and learn to be a “no-trace” hiker.

 

[maineguy]

On the way back from a hike on Monday, I stopped at the WMNF Saco District Station and inquired about this. The uniformed WMNF person explained to use the Camping Rules pamphlet and we went over a large laminated map showing the rules. Basically, the 200 foot rule only applies in certain areas. For instance, it applies in the Pemi Wilderness but does not apply in the Sandwich Range Wilderness area, etc. I asked what distance is required in areas not covered by the 200 foot (or 1/4 mile) rules and she pretty much just shrugged.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Tim

 

[dug]

I like it Tim.

So the solution is if you are confronted by a ranger, distract them and give 'em the ole Vulcan Death Grip.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I like it Tim.

So the solution is if you are confronted by a ranger, distract them and give 'em the ole Vulcan Death Grip.

Unless it's Tuesday and dark.

Tim

 

[Will]

I asked what distance is required in areas not covered by the 200 foot (or 1/4 mile) rules and she pretty much just shrugged.

The real protection is not the regulations but common sense, respect and courtesy. Also, the enemies of the land, water and other hikers are people who don't pay attention to rules anyway.

If one has a real light touch, stealth camping (in the original sense of no impact or visibility) is a fine choice. Hardened sites (also out of sight) are good choices for beginning backpackers while skills are being developed. One of the very last things I think about, when my body starts telling me the day is over, are the regulations: where around here will I be in compliance or at least defensible.

 

[B the Hiker]

The real protection is not the regulations but common sense, respect and courtesy. Also, the enemies of the land, water and other hikers are people who don't pay attention to rules anyway.

If one has a real light touch, stealth camping (in the original sense of no impact or visibility) is a fine choice. Hardened sites (also out of sight) are good choices for beginning backpackers while skills are being developed. One of the very last things I think about, when my body starts telling me the day is over, are the regulations: where around here will I be in compliance or at least defensible.

There isn't a person in the world who tells themselves what they are doing is wrong. Will, I have been watching with fascination your justifications for acting illegally and unethically.

Sadly, I don't agree with them.

Brian

 

[Will]

your justifications for acting illegally and unethically

I have always listed compliance with regs as included in my selection criteria: always last but always on the list.

The closest I think I have come in this thread to describing illegal camping is the 150 feet off-Trail at Garfield Pond. Every Ranger I've ever talked with about it regards those sites as legal. In fact it's debatable, as I think I admitted(?). But don't you think publicly accusing me of illegality is, well, unethical?

The Whites are full of amateur protectors telling folks the rule is 200 feet off trails and water sources and they think their lying is perfectly ethical because they're doing good. I don't fault their over-statement of restrictions because yes, the ravaging hordes are real and out there and yes, they do know they are doing wrong and don't care. I can understand why lying in a good cause is attractive, if quixotic.

But the rules are what the rules are and wishing can't change that.

 

[JustJoe]

Every Ranger I've ever talked with about it regards those sites as legal.

That's rare. Won't go into details about the where's, but I've talked with several rangers about "existing " unofficial/stealth sites. Specifically one's that have fire rings and locations. I've asked about one's that are in the 1/4 mile/200' areas but come well short, and one's that aren't in a restricted area. I've found, for the most part, no 2 rangers will tell you the same thing. I think the rules and regulations of camping in the backcountry of the WMNF, is huge a$$ gray area.

 

[JoshandBaron]

That's rare. Won't go into details about the where's, but I've talked with several rangers about "existing " unofficial/stealth sites. Specifically one's that have fire rings and locations. I've asked about one's that are in the 1/4 mile/200' areas but come well short, and one's that aren't in a restricted area. I've found, for the most part, no 2 rangers will tell you the same thing. I think the rules and regulations of camping in the backcountry of the WMNF, is huge a$$ gray area.

IME, they are more concerned with people complying with the spirit of LNT and Wheaton's Law than actual compliance with the regulations when using hardened sites.