4 ms·

There'd probably be people effectively living in the park in their RV if entrance was free. The entrance requirements also help enforce that rangers inform visi

There'd probably be people effectively living in the park in their RV if entrance was free. The entrance requirements also help enforce that rangers inform visitors about dangers, closures etc.. upon arrival.

carabiner 3y ago
Park entrance costs $80 per year. You think that's stopping RVers?
munk-a 3y ago
Why have we put RVers in such a terrible place that living in a national park with no hookups for your home is a preferable choice? Couldn't we solve that problem by just providing reasonable housing subsidies to people who need them? And if that decision would be so preferable then what does it say about the standards of living of those people today?
- shepherdjerred 3y ago
  I think that there's a pretty sizable chunk of the population who would genuinely prefer living in a national park.
  - munk-a 3y ago
    Do you mean they'd prefer to be in nature? Because we've got Idaho. There's an awful lot of Idaho... and if we run out there's more than enough Alaska.
    - bombcar 3y ago
      Some huge percentage of the USA is BLM land which is basically entirely free to do whatever you want as long as you don’t build permanent structures and move every 30? days or similar. If you’re quiet and out of the way, I dare say you could live on BLM land permanently and nobody would know, let alone care. And some BLM land is really impressive.
      - pests 3y ago
        Ive researched this for when I was staying in the Manistee National Park in Michigan. Must "leave the park" every two weeks for at least a day. So moving from site to site wasn't technically legal. Couldn't camp too close to trails or to rivers.
      - mcmoor 3y ago
        Is there modern nomadic community out there? Sounds interesting to hear how they live.
      - rurp 3y ago
        Yep, this is very doable and plenty of folks do live on public land for long stretches of time. Just be clean and don't mess things up and it's totally fine. Most national forest land also allows camping in disturbed areas. This mostly applies to the west coast though. The eastern US has very little public land that is freely accessible.
      - jandrewrogers 3y ago
        Technically you have to move your site every 14 days on BLM land, though to your point that is not going to be enforced in some regions of the Mountain West. In some remote areas of Alaska, including the islands of the Inside Passage, there are small, informal off-the-grid permanent settlements on government land. If they aren’t causing trouble such that someone complains then it isn’t worth the government’s time to care. In the wild parts of the US, even the government tends to adopt the “live and let live” ethos of that type of country.
- Aurornis 3y ago
  I think you’re reading too much into this. If someone is homeless, parking in a high-traffic national park that is patrolled by rangers and has limits on how long you can stay isn’t going to happen. An annual park pass isn’t that expensive. People who live in an RV would spend far, far more driving to and from the park for various things they need (gas, supplies) than they’d save on the park pass. Regardless, having a pass doesn’t eliminate the rules regarding duration of stay. You can’t live in a national park even if you have a pass. If you try to do it in an RV, you’d get noticed and cited.
- RajT88 3y ago
  This story has the inevitable tie-in to a big evil Tech corporation: https://www.wired.com/story/meet-camperforce-amazons-nomadic-retiree-army/ https://www.wired.com/story/meet-camperforce-amazons-nomadic...

carabiner 3y ago

Park entrance costs $80 per year. You think that's stopping RVers?

munk-a 3y ago

Why have we put RVers in such a terrible place that living in a national park with no hookups for your home is a preferable choice? Couldn't we solve that problem by just providing reasonable housing subsidies to people who need them? And if that decision would be so preferable then what does it say about the standards of living of those people today?

shepherdjerred 3y ago
I think that there's a pretty sizable chunk of the population who would genuinely prefer living in a national park.
- munk-a 3y ago
  Do you mean they'd prefer to be in nature? Because we've got Idaho. There's an awful lot of Idaho... and if we run out there's more than enough Alaska.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    Some huge percentage of the USA is BLM land which is basically entirely free to do whatever you want as long as you don’t build permanent structures and move every 30? days or similar. If you’re quiet and out of the way, I dare say you could live on BLM land permanently and nobody would know, let alone care. And some BLM land is really impressive.
    - pests 3y ago
      Ive researched this for when I was staying in the Manistee National Park in Michigan. Must "leave the park" every two weeks for at least a day. So moving from site to site wasn't technically legal. Couldn't camp too close to trails or to rivers.
    - mcmoor 3y ago
      Is there modern nomadic community out there? Sounds interesting to hear how they live.
    - rurp 3y ago
      Yep, this is very doable and plenty of folks do live on public land for long stretches of time. Just be clean and don't mess things up and it's totally fine. Most national forest land also allows camping in disturbed areas. This mostly applies to the west coast though. The eastern US has very little public land that is freely accessible.
    - jandrewrogers 3y ago
      Technically you have to move your site every 14 days on BLM land, though to your point that is not going to be enforced in some regions of the Mountain West. In some remote areas of Alaska, including the islands of the Inside Passage, there are small, informal off-the-grid permanent settlements on government land. If they aren’t causing trouble such that someone complains then it isn’t worth the government’s time to care. In the wild parts of the US, even the government tends to adopt the “live and let live” ethos of that type of country.
Aurornis 3y ago
I think you’re reading too much into this. If someone is homeless, parking in a high-traffic national park that is patrolled by rangers and has limits on how long you can stay isn’t going to happen. An annual park pass isn’t that expensive. People who live in an RV would spend far, far more driving to and from the park for various things they need (gas, supplies) than they’d save on the park pass. Regardless, having a pass doesn’t eliminate the rules regarding duration of stay. You can’t live in a national park even if you have a pass. If you try to do it in an RV, you’d get noticed and cited.
RajT88 3y ago
This story has the inevitable tie-in to a big evil Tech corporation: https://www.wired.com/story/meet-camperforce-amazons-nomadic-retiree-army/ https://www.wired.com/story/meet-camperforce-amazons-nomadic...