Discussion of Wild Camping not in the UK

[BlueTrain]

It could be said there is wild camping in the states, although I've never heard that term before. However, it's a big country and I can really only speak of my own experiences.

In a way, there are two kinds of camping here, maybe three, if you count a commercial campground, which is for those with trailers/caravans and motorhomes. More like a motel where you bring your own room. Very family oriented, not so great if all you have is a tent. There are even chains of those places, like Good Sam's.

There are places where you need a permit, which may or may not involve a fee. Those are typically in parks, either state or national. It can be either in a campground, just like a commercial campground, with camp store, showes, the works. Budget cuts for the National Park Service have resulted in some campgrounds being closed. There is also what is called "backcountry camping" in national parks, which requires a permit, usually free, but you can camp almost anywhere in the woods, although that doesn't mean there are a lot of good places (not where I go, anyway). Places that have a lot of dangerous animals have more rules.

Then there's everything else. I went camping a lot when I was little, never going more than twenty miles from home. But there were no permits, no rules and no neighbors. Such places were well known to local people and I imagine still are, and nearly always near the river. I think fishing and swimming were the main interest but it was still family oriented. Some places that I know of have since been turned into wildlife management areas, which means rules and sometimes permits. To a large extent, national forest (not to be confused with national parks) and I suppose state forests, too, are wide open for camping, with about the only rule being that camping might be limited to certain areas. But hunting is also generally allowed in those places, too.

I have no idea what sort of "off the grid" camping might be practised in other parts of the country. Here I speak only of the Mid-Atlantic mountains of the Applachians from the Blue Ridge and beyond.

 

[santaman2000]

Pretty close Blue train. But you did make one mistake and two omissions;

The first omission was State and National Forests which are separate for the parks. The National Parks are run by the Park Service which belongs to the Deptartment of the Interior whereas the National Forests are ran by the Forest Service which belongs to the department of Agriculture. State forests are similar but may or may not be organized separately.

The mistake concerns that omission; regarding allowing hunting, thats usually only in the State or National Forests and NOT allowed in the parks; definitely not allowed in ANY National Park and almost ALL National Forests. Many people confuse the parks and forests but they are two separate entities.

The second omission is the "open range" out west. Large parts of many western states are "owned" by the federal government. Not as parks, forests, military reservations, etc. But simply because nobody ever homesteaded them. The are managed by BLM (Bereau of Land Management) which in turn belongs to the Department of the Interior) Usually such things as cattle grazing rights, oil exploration rights, etc. are leased to private ranchers and private companies, BUT access to said open range is just that, OPEN. Open to the entire public at no charge and open for campimg, hunting/fishing (within the states game & fish laws) I often dearly miss Nevada and the open range.

 

[boatman]

Open ranges sound like Nirvana but don't you get leasers of various concessions trying to curtail some of this freedom? I thought something similar was going on in Montana.

(leasees if you prefer)

 

[BlueTrain]

Well, actually I did mention both national parks and national forests (and the state parks and forests, too). It is true that hunting is not allowed in national parks, as far as I know of, and of course, hunting in national and state forests, as well as wildlife management areas, is subject to license requirements and hunting regulations. But I didn't mention hunting at all. My object was to give an impression of the sorts of totally unregulated camping that does in fact go on in areas that I am familiar with. I suspect that none of the campers that I refer to are doing any bushcraft or woodcraft activities, although it isn't impossible. It's more water recreaction oriented.

The differences in the two agencies at the federal level, that is, the National Park Service and the National Forest Service, are many but the National Forest Service attempts to manage their lands for multiple uses and always have, including forestry, recreation and hunting, as well as protecting the forest and water resources. You are correct that much land out west is in fact "owned" by the federal government. That is because the federal government "bought" most of it from France and some from Mexico. They really do own it.

There's another sort of camping worth mentioning, too, which also has nothing to do with woodcraft or bushcraft and that is the sort practiced by long distance hikers. The Applachian Trail isn't so far from here and more and more people attempt long hikes on the north-south trail. There are other long distance trails in the country, too. The object is the hike, not the camping, though it cannot be done without camping every night, naturally. Like another contributor already mentiobned, some long distance hikers, also called thru-hikers, have the attitude that the trail is "theirs," and no one else is a "true" hiker or camper, though that's hardly true of everyone. But I suppose that's a characteristic of many sports. There are the chosen ones and everyone else is just part of the great unwashed masses. It's particularly true of recently popular sports like hang gliding. The first enthusiasts start making rules. No offence to hand gliders, the chosen few or those who are unwashed.

 

[santaman2000]

Open ranges sound like Nirvana but don't you get leasers of various concessions trying to curtail some of this freedom? I thought something similar was going on in Montana.

(leasees if you prefer)

I suppose some would like to curtail the others. But legally they only lease certain rights (grazing rights, etc.) and are legally unable to prohibit other users so long as said other users don't interfere with their opersations. To an extant, the oil companies might have slightly more ability in that they can prohibit tresspass near the actual derricks and rigs. But that's a negligible bit of land within thousands of square miles.

 

[santaman2000]

Well, actually I did mention both national parks and national forests (and the state parks and forests, too). It is true that hunting is not allowed in national parks, as far as I know of, and of course, hunting in national and state forests, as well as wildlife management areas, is subject to license requirements and hunting regulations. But I didn't mention hunting at all......

Actually you did mention hunting: lasr sentence of the fourth paragragh.

 

[santaman2000]

My object was to give an impression of the sorts of totally unregulated camping that does in fact go on in areas that I am familiar with. I suspect that none of the campers that I refer to are doing any bushcraft or woodcraft activities, although it isn't impossible.....

Yes, and well done as well. Sorry I missed the bit in the OP where you differentiated the Parks from the Forests.

And that's my impression of most outdoor users as well.

 

[santaman2000]

.....You are correct that much land out west is in fact "owned" by the federal government. That is because the federal government "bought" most of it from France and some from Mexico. They really do own it.......

Well, the government did buy roughly the middle third of the country from France in the Louisiana Purchase. But the states further west (Roughly the western third of the CONUS) was indeed aquired from Mexico (and some of the Pacific Northwest from England) but not by "buying it. Mexico ceded it's claims to their bit as a result of the Mexican-American War. England simply abandoned it's claim to that bit of the PNW due to being spread too thinly in the rest of the world to patrol and protect it.

 

[BlueTrain]

Ever heard of the Gadsen Purchase, if I remember correctly?

Some parts of the United States have gone through a lot of hands, so to speak.