4 ms·
National Forest and BLM are very permissive for backcountry camping, while National Parks generally restrict you to permitted and designated campsites, if it's
by waterphone 10y ago
National Forest and BLM are very permissive for backcountry camping, while National Parks generally restrict you to permitted and designated campsites, if it's allowed at all.
- prawn 10y agoI think that's awesome. The idea that someone can "go bush" and camp out for a week or two without cost or human contact is something we should absolutely preserve. I love national parks, but the restrictions (while necessary for something that popular/unique) remove a bit of the joy from a natural experience. Even a more permissive national park (Joshua Tree, for example) feels like a relief after something stricter like Zion or Arches. That said, I can understand why they are very careful with those latter two because they are seriously special places.
- waterphone 10y agoThere is very much a place for both. National Parks have that designation for a reason, and they attract huge numbers of people. Management of areas with high visitation has to be much more strict to protect those areas. But we're fortunate to have vast amounts of public land we can disperse across, so those who want more freedom to explore and recreate without permits or requirements to camp in very specific places can do so.