EDITORIAL
In mid-July, I published an editorial regarding the prospect of a new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rule that has emerged as a topic of concern within the RV camping and boondocking community. This proposed rule, ominously titled “Conservation and Landscape Health,” has the potential to dramatically curtail access to public lands and, if implemented, would significantly impact the future of boondocking and dispersed camping. The rule would enable the BLM to severely restrict camping on the 245 million acres under its management.
H.R. 3397 would require the BLM to withdraw the “Conservation and Landscape Health” rule
One of the prominent voices in opposition to this rule is Utah Representative John Curtis. Curtis firmly believes that the proposed BLM rule could lead to restrictions on the use of common areas, particularly in the Western states. In a press release, he expressed concerns that it would “undermine the livelihoods” of many in Utah. Curtis, and the 18 House co-sponsors of H.R. 3397, contend that this rule encourages officials to prioritize conservation and preservation over other forms of land use.
The problem at present is that H.R. 3397 lies dormant in Congress. While it was reported out of the House Committee on Natural Resources, it has not been scheduled for a floor vote. GovTrack predicts the chance of passage is now only 21 percent. An identical bill, S. 1435, was introduced in the U.S. Senate by Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming on May 3, 2023. That bill, too, is languishing and GovTrack puts its chance of passage at only 5 percent. The failure of congressional oversight and legislative action to stop this leaves the BLM free to forge ahead and implement its overreaching rule.
Prioritizing conservation and ecological health
Director Tracy Stone-Manning, representing the BLM, is, of course, an advocate for the proposed rule. She argues that it would empower the BLM to prioritize ecological health and leave public lands “better off than we found them.” This is clearly a move to prioritize conservation over other uses and to lock up public lands. This goal was certainly not the intent of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The act was the Bureau of Land Management’s organic act, and the law thereby established the BLM’s multiple-use and sustained yield mandate. It puts conservation on an equal level with other public land uses, as it should be. The new rule is not needed to practice conservation in the management of the lands.
The certain effects of the BLM proposed rule are important to RVers. According to the BLM’s website, the rule aims to promote thoughtful development while safeguarding public lands from overuse, climate change effects, invasive species, and wildfires. However, there is no getting around the fact that if the rule is implemented, BLM will limit camping access to off-grid public lands. Why? Because the bureau has clearly stated that it believes that dispersed camping is harmful to the land.
They consider it “overuse”
As RVers, we all know that the popularity of BLM-managed land has surged in recent years. The allure of free or low-cost camping spots has drawn a multitude of outdoor enthusiasts, leading to claims of overuse. Now, before someone jumps in to comment about how some campers have overstayed camping limits, left behind trash, human waste, etc., I will stipulate that those violations and abuses do occur. However, there are already rules and regulations established and in place to address those issues.
The current proposed BLM rule goes way beyond that. The BLM has implemented increasingly stringent rules and regulations over the years, resulting in the loss of free camping opportunities in some areas. It will only get worse if the administrative bureau is given free reign. In the vacuum created by congressional inaction, the BLM has indicated its intention to put this rule into effect as early as December 2023!
As an indication of the mess that is Washington, D.C., I called the BLM main office using the contact numbers published on the BLM website. I made three calls to the officials listed there. All of the telephone numbers were out of service. I called three of the co-sponsors of H.R. 3397, was given the runaround, and shunted to different congressional staff members. Not one of them answered my voice- or email messages.
If you are a boondocker, or if you value your right to camp on public lands, it would be advisable to contact your U.S. Representative and Senators and make clear your opposition to the BLM’s imminent action. Don’t bother attempting to contact BLM—the comment period for “Conservation and Landscape Health” closed on June 20, 2023.
##RVT1128b
 rule has emerged as a topic of concern within the RV camping and boondocking community.){kind=link}
Given the growing homeless problem, along with millions of illegal immigrants coming into this country, it could be that the BLM is implementing these new restrictions to ward off having to deal with any of that, as well as deal with those who have been abusing the existing restrictions. The internet, particularly with Starlink, makes it possible to live in a vehicle in a remote area and avoid paying rent.
It could also be they are implementing it to get rid of even more wild horses than they already have. Or cattle. Or wildlife.
Thank you for following this, Randall!
But they are putting solar farms on BLM land that is home to desert tortoises which they relocate! If I touch a tortoise I’d face a huge fine!
I live surrounded by BLM land and some of the worst are the locals that instead of hauling their trash a few miles to the FREE dump they choose to drive out to the desert and leave it.
It would be nice if folks actually read the proposed rule changes here:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/03/2023-06310/conservation-and-landscape-health
My reading of this so far is reassuring that BLM desires to truly fulfill their mandate to manage land for multiple uses. As others have indicated, a lot of abuses have taken place, both by recreation seekers and industry. This rule seeks to rebalance that using a data and science driven approach.
If it makes all parties unhappy in some way, it likely will be good policy.
If the aim of the BLM is to “…truly fulfill their mandate to manage land for multiple uses” they are fully empowered to do so under the current law of the land, the FLPMA, enacted by congress in 1976.
Randall, I admit I have not read the 1976 statute, but surely a lot more is known about land management practices in the last 47 years. I presume the purpose of rule making is to keep up with those changes. Just opposing all BLM rule making without a full understanding of the reasoning may not be in our best interests. And opposition to any and all rule makers may also be short sighted. So I suggest reading the new rules and specifying where in the document problems are evident as a follow up piece. I want to do this before I contact my representatives.
Thank you. Mr Brink is not a reporter but and editorialist that has rather obvious bias’s.
We’re avid boondockers and that’s our preferred way to live and camp. I hate to see these lands closed off to responsible citizens enjoying our land and its beauty .
BUT, having witnessed first-hand the infestation by pigs who leave trash in their wake and those who tear up trails and non trails with vehicles, I can only say, use it responsibly or lose it is the only option. We have to protect these precious resources, even if it means the majority who are responsible suffer at the hands of the few.
I see two things that can be done. We need to self-police as a community. If you see someone destroying or polluting call them on it. Secondly, put dumpsters at entrances of popular spots.
We hike on these lands. And we do pick up after others.
“ We have to protect these precious resources, even if it means the majority who are responsible suffer at the hands of the few.”
The wide brush I mentioned. Nuts.
Some break speed limits. So no one should be allowed to drive??
So agree!
We live in a vacation spot and during the summer the amount of garbage along roads is overwhelming. I try to leave our camping spots untouched and pickup garbage. I don’t know the answer. I still remember the old commercial of the Native American pulling up his canoe surrounded by garbage and his tear coming down. I feel our generation took that to heart?
You can’t put dumpsters at all the public spots, and here’s why. We have a systemic problem in this country where it’s expensive and difficult to dispose of trash and debris correctly. If you put a dumpster in a spot, it will fill up super fast on day 1. Locals will use them to dump their construction debris and furniture overnight. I know this because I workamp in Tahoe National Forest and every summer as soon as we open up and unlock our dumpsters, my job becomes 50% camp hosting and 50% trying to stand guard at the dumpster as pickup trucks from locals and campers (who did not camp at my campground) line up to dump their trash.
Continued…. This is partly because the local trash service in this area is very expensive to the locals. And the campers all over the forest simply don’t want to pack it out. Now the COUNTERPOINT to what I just said is, when I drive thru Canada, very roadside pull off has dumpsters. People use them, and the the roads and camping areas are clean and beautiful. Give people a place to put their trash and most will use it! But here where I am, it’s just too expensive to put dumpsters where they’re needed, and it’s too expensive to have them emptied often enough to accommodate the demand. 🙁
continued again…. Now if our local communities would make it cheap for people to have trash service, and provide transfer stations that are cheap and open more hours, then locals could more easily dispose of their trash and debris, minimizing dumping on public lands. But when transfer stations/landfills are only open to the public a few hours a day, a few days a week, and charge too much money to receive trash, of course the public won’t use it. Pro tip to local dump stations: sometimes the public has jobs and can only dump their debris on evenings/weekends!
I know its costly, but the question is, is it worth the investment? Honestly,
I wouldn’t mind a couple bucks a night if that’s what it takes.
There’s a boondocking site outside Tucson we stayed in. The fire station across the road had a dumpster and most of the boondockers dumped their trash there. I daresay to your point, that’s not what it was there for, but it was used and the area pretty clean. The next year, it was removed, likely because boondockers were using it. The result was piles of trash all around. This year, they’ve closed the entire area. Now this seems shortsighted to me. A dumpster seems a simple not too costly solution. Not perfect, but not drastic.
My town has a FREE dump or for about $25/month trash pickup (as a senior mine is $56 a quarter). They also provide a recycling station for paper, plastic and cardboard at the local Walmart. At night people would fill them with trash and furniture and mattresses were strewn in the parking lot. They had to start manning the Walmart site and they bring them in at 0730 and take them out at 1530 6 days a week. AND trash still gets dumped in the desert.
Typical democrate solution to what they perceive as a big problem. Paint with a wide brush.
The vagrants using old rvs for homes is not the same as the environment conscious boomers hiding and relaxing in the desert.
No this is an attack by purists on our choices and the fact that we use fuel and public (sorry, government) land to enjoy life.
Something they can’t comprehend …so low hanging fruit.
We have boondocked plenty and have always been impressed with the respectful way of the majority.
Shucks, Mother Nature reeks much more havoc on the earth than man.
Sorry for the rant but it’s these same decision making urban purists that pour cement and pavement over everything.
Wow, trying to process this: Shucks, Mother Nature reeks much more havoc on the earth than man.
Depending on your time scale, I guess you could make this argument. But that begs the question of what constitutes “havoc”. Lets get back together on this in 50 years or so and see if we still disagree.
50 years, from now? I thought it was all over in 2034. Or was it 2014 that we were too cross the Rubicon? Now that I think about it, we were at a point of no return in 2008. Now that Gretta’s new pet project is in the full throated defense of terrorism, do we get a few years back to save the planet while Gretta focuses primarily on killing Jews.
Great screen name.
Randall,
Your statement “Now, before someone jumps in to comment about how some campers have overstayed camping limits, left behind trash, human waste, etc., I will stipulate that those violations and abuses do occur. However, there are already rules and regulations established and in place to address those issues.” Is the core of the problem. They just need to enforce existing rules rather than close areas to dispersed camping. Because those that are already breaking the rules will continue to do so even if an area is posted as closed. Only law abiding RVers that follow the rules and love the land will be penalized.
Dave H
I couldn’t agree more. Thanks Dave.
Typical democrate solution to what they perceive as a big problem. Paint with a wide brush.
The vagrants using old rvs for homes is not the same as the environment conscious boomers hiding and relaxing in the desert.
No this is an attack by purists on our choices and the fact that we use fuel and public (sorry, government) land to enjoy life.
Something they can’t comprehend …so low hanging fruit.
We have boondocked plenty and have always been impressed with the respectful way of the majority.
Shucks, Mother Nature reeks much more havoc on the earth than man.
Sorry for the rant but it’s these same decision making urban purists that pour cement and pavement over everything.
I seem to be in the minority, but have any of you been on BLM land lately. It is being trashed by overuse and people who don’t clean up after themselves. I’ve said for years that if people continue to trash the land we will lose the right to enjoy the land. Something has to be done to clean up the land and save it for future use.
Yes, you’re right…something has to be done. How about enforcing the laws already on the books! But, the powers to be would rather punish everyone because of the actions of a few. It is easier to just restrict all use rather than enforce the current laws.
I agree, but then you have the problem of who’s going to pay for the enforcement. I personally would pay a small fee. But I can guarantee people will b*tch about the fee.
So everyone who believes in smaller government seems to also think that enforcement of existing rules and regs comes for free when we need it. As a former worker for DoD, I can tell you that the popular conceptions of the government worker is not true in most instances. It is hard to develop policy and implement it fairly for anyone. But it is easier to demean than to engage in today’s world. Maybe we should lobby to put Randall Brink in charge of BLM and see how he would change things for the better for everyone.
Randall Brink has WAY over reacted with his BLM article
No, quite to the contrary. The proposed rule, which is calculated to upend 45 years of public policy and regulations duly enacted by the U.S. Congress, is, without question, a flagrant administrative land- and power grab. Every American (and, by the way, every member of the U.S. Congress) has the right and duty to question and comment on it. This rule is promulgated without the slightest effort to involve congress or seek legislative action or approval.
If such a measure were necessary, it should have been introduced in congress, debated and voted upon.
Let’s be real, congress can’t get anything done and if Republicans have their way their would be no BLM lands. Just oil fields and Mines.
Pretty sure it’s the hunters and the NRA members along with fishermen, ranchers and farmers that are the true protectors of our natural environment and we all know that if Democrats had it their way, it would be the 14 year old Grettas and entitled DEI majors that want plumbers to pay off their student loans that will save the planet from Chinese slave labor in the litium mines.
What!!?? By the way Nra members only care about keeping assault rifles legal. So they can keep the killing of innocent people possible.
Go away Bob
Yes. Go away, Bob. And turn off the TV; it’s corrupted your mind.
Would you kindly enlighten us as to exactly what an ‘assault rifle’ actually is? And how many NRA members (and I’m not a member) are going out killing innocent people? If possible, try to be specific and provide accurate data. Thanks.
Thanks for the update Randall, I appreciate you keeping us up to date on the BLM over reach in the name of conservation.
Thanks Randal, I will do my best to contact my representatives.
I have seen other articles similar to this type that have links at the end to find out who your representatives are and how to contact them. That would be very helpful for us RVers who are a bit dull and lazy.
Also seems like this should be a major headline and call to action every day/week in this publication!
“Love My Country, Fear My Government”
Your country is ur govt.
I think the BLM considers ANY use to be “overuse”.
Unless you’re logging, or running an open pit mine, and then you can take down mountains, do whatever you want, and leave behind whatever debris you want.
Definitely agree on this one. The mining and logging lobby have more influence that RV folks for sure
I didn’t realize that retired boondockers and snowbirds were setting up open pit mining operations and logging camps on BLM land to subsidize the increasing costs of retirement. Perhaps the BLM should set a limit on how many acres of forests each retiree can fall and process. At the very least, each boondocker that engages in logging should be required to tow a portable papermill behind the Winnebago and power it with solar. Would that help?
That is total BS
Bigger and bigger government will always come with more and more controls and rules.
While this quote has been misrepresented as originating from Thomas Jefferson, it is still very true:
“A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have.”
I have written to my representatives in D.C. but they are too busy dreaming up new expensive government boondoggles to respond to the people they supposedly serve.
I think “overreach” is getting a bit worn, maybe like our public lands. This article is pretty one sided with no real analysis of the data or rationale behind the updated regs. The fact mentioned that conservation is already on par with other uses does not ensure that other uses are not damaging the lands under BLM stewardship. I suspect that there has been a pattern of abuse and no real ability to mitigate it with limited staff that led to this “overreach “. Maybe if we just let the land recover my grandkids could find it better condition when they want to use it.
Thank you, for an update on this issue. I have contacted my representative and senators in Michigan. I hope others will do the same.
Randall, thank you for your reporting. How will the new rules affect ranchers who use the public land for their herds?
The proposed rule would give the BLM virtual carte blanche to eliminate range- and grazing leases, because it devised to elevate conservation (as in “don’t touch it”) above the mixed-use mandate as set forth in the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act. The FLPMA was enacted by Congress in 1976 to define boundaries and limits for administrative management of public lands, and to ensure that the lands were open to the broad spectrum of uses. i.e., grazing, conservation, mining, recreations, etc. Implementation of the current BLM proposed rule would subordinate all productive public uses. BLM’s “Conservation and Landscape Health” rule would likely spell the end for farmers and ranchers.
I hate to say it but either u haven’t read the rule, or ur brains r just mush. Stop with the BS right-wing propaganda. After working for BLM for 30 years I know that BLM has the most visitor friendly use regulations of all agencies, Fed, State, County, City. With a hugh increase in use over the last 10 years, u should be concerned about those areas that r being abused or loved to death. BLM lands with continue to be opened to public use in the same way if the land rule is adopted, stop spread ur lies and misinformation, and support an agency that has been user friendly and accommodating to the American outdoor users.
The low cost City Parks publication was a total waste of $$. OK, mainly locations in ND,SD and OK but the rest of the states in some cases had 2 or 3 locations. Listing KOA’s really? As a seasoned Boondocker I sooner go to a landfill than a KOA.
Whooo boy. Me too!
We are on the East coast and were about to buy the guide. Thanks for the heads up.