Search Results for: national parks

Camping in Green Mountains National Forest

Green Mountain National Forest Camping 🏕

Here is a full-screen interactive map, that uses the official forest service maps as a backdrop. You will need to zoom in to see the individual roads.

In the Green Mountain National Forest there are a variety of back country roads, offering primitive roadside camping.

  • Campsites are free to use, and have no facilities except for a fire ring and a pull-off from the road, and sometimes a site reinforced with gravel.
  • As noted below, some campsites have additional facilities.
  • Don’t make a mess of campsites, pack out any garbage left over.
  • Burn only dead and down trees, don’t bring in wood from out of state.
  • You can camp up to 14 days per 30 day period in Green Mountain National Forest — no permits are required.

Here is a listing of the campsite coordinates in a spreadsheet (Green Mountain tab). Please note, these coordinates are not exact as they are drawn based on memory.

Please see also information on dispersed, roadside and back-country camping in New York State, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

The below descriptions of camping areas from the Green Mountain National Forest’s webpage, General Forest Camping.

 North Half of the Green Mountain National Forest

Note: You must zoom in to see individual roads on above interactive map. Campsite locations were added by hand-digitizing and are not exact.

Austin Brook Road: There are three easily accessible campsites by Austin Brook on Forest Road 25 in Warren. They are all within 0.25 mile of State Route 100.

Campsite 4

Bingo: Forest Road 42 in Rochester runs alongside a mountain stream; camping is allowed at designated sites only. These 10 campsites are available on a first-come, first-served basis. There is a limit of 10 people per site. Check the Bingo Brook bulletin board for designated site locations and other site limitations.

Downingville: There is one secluded site in a small clearing near a mountain stream on Forest Road 291 in Lincoln.

Fay’s Meadow: There are a few sites in an open meadow in Forest Dale. Please do not drive on the meadow because a farmer mows the hay from it. There is a stream for wading and fishing at the north end of the meadow.

Goshen Brook Road: There are a few campsites in and around an open area just beyond the turnaround at the very end of Forest Road 67 in Ripton.

Kettle Brook: A small meadow site at the end of Furnace Brook Road in Pittsford.

Michigan Brook Road: Forest Road 35 in Pittsfield provides many camping opportunities in the woods and along Michigan Brook. The road is not recommended for low clearance vehicles.

New Haven River: There are a few campsites next to the New Haven River at Emily Proctor and Cooley Glen trailhead, on Forest Road 201 in Lincoln.

Field Camping at Romance Header Campsite

Romance Header: A large meadow campsite at the end of Forest Road 224 in Forest Dale. A stream lies to the southeast of the meadow.

Sparks Landing: There is one site in a small meadow on Forest Road 233 in Lincoln. There is good fishing in Sparks Brook, which lies just south of the meadow.

Steam Mill Clearing: There is a large open field on both sides of Forest Road 59 at the Skylight Pond Trailhead in Ripton.

Texas Falls Campsite

Texas Gap: These old fields and side roads on Forest Road 39 in Hancock offer many camping opportunities.

White River & Gulf Brook Roads: Secluded camping, open fields, and beautiful views are offered from the abundance of primitive campsites found along Forest Roads 55 & 101 in Granville.

South Half of the Green Mountain National Forest

Note: You must zoom in to see individual roads on above interactive map. Campsite locations were added by hand-digitizing and are not exact.

Campfire

Branch Pond Road: Several sites on this road off of Kelley Stand offer good camping opportunities.

Making Breakfast at Camp

Forest Road 71: This forest road stretches from the old Somerset airfield to the Kelley Stand Road. Campsites can be found in various spots along the way, and along some of the forest roads leading off of Forest Road 71.

Forest Road 74: This forest road is a little less remote than other roadside camping opportunities. Off Vermont Route 9, it dead-ends a couple miles in. Campsites are found unevenly spaced along the way. This area fills up early as it’s one of most accessible.

Kelley Stand Road: Connects the towns of Arlington to West Wardsboro, traveling along an unpaved forest road. A handful of campsites are avaliable on this road, many of the sites along Roaring Brook are permanetly closed.

Morning

Old Job: Off Forest Road 30 there are a few camping opportunities; an open area along FR 30, and both an open field area and a site near Lake Brook at the end of FR 30.

Somerset Road Bridge

Somerset Airfield Campground is a small primitive campground along Forest Road 71. There is a pit-privy and fireplaces in this field camping area. Also popular is Castle Brook Road, near the Deerfield River. This area fills up early, and is known for rowdy crowds but is good if you have a big camper.

[Folio] The Last Frontier, by Ted Conover | Harper’s Magazine

[Folio] The Last Frontier, by Ted Conover | Harper’s Magazine

I’m originally from Colorado, but people like Matt and his neighbors were unfamiliar to me. I know about mountain towns, and the national parks and forests that support the tourist economy, and I know a bit about ranching. But the expansive San Luis Valley—about the size of Massachusetts, nearly 8,000 square miles—­is different. Much of it is privately owned and for sale as small, affordable lots. Poor people can become homesteaders of a sort. The poverty rate in the valley is between 20 and 25 percent. The election of Donald Trump had made me feel ignorant of the poor rural parts of my home state. And the kind of off-grid living practiced there went against my preconceived notions about off-grid living. In my mind, most off-­gridders were trying to live lightly off the earth by reducing their needs, unplugging from both utilities and society’s expectations of achievement. The upscale among them embraced things like the Taos-based Earthships, often expensive, fancifully designed houses that incorporate advanced technologies to recycle water and control indoor climate. I imagined the less affluent among them as neo-­hippies with environmental consciousness: into the virtue of not needing much and appreciating the creative reuse of discarded materials, communalism, tiny houses, and outsider art.

Some of the valley’s off-­gridders were like this. But more of them were just poor and wanted a different life—one with more self-reliance, fewer bills, and, in many cases, lots of distance from neighbors. They arrived pulling trailers or with old R.V.s and set up camp. Sometimes they would build something, but often the trailer became the building block, with shacks or Tuff Sheds added on. They drove Fords, not Toyotas. Their political views tended toward the Trumpian: anti­government, pro-gun, America-­first, build-the-wall. Among them were doomsday preppers, Christian homeschoolers, self-proclaimed sovereign citizens, weed lovers, and Hillary haters. Some might have previously lived near a coast but more probably came from the heartland, many from the South. And most were very poor. The San Luis Valley, with its cheap land, was a sort of magnet for these off-­gridders. There were a few hundred of them in total. Nationwide there are probably several thousand people living off the grid. No authoritative numbers exist, but off-grid life seems to be growing, often in states with cheap land (Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri), sunshine and cheap land (Nevada, Arizona, Texas), and/or frontier appeal (Alaska, Idaho).

The Senate just passed the decade’s biggest public lands package. Here’s what’s in it.

The Senate just passed the decade’s biggest public lands package. Here’s what’s in it.

"Perhaps the most significant change the legislation would make is permanently authorizing a federal program that funnels offshore drilling revenue to conserve a spread of sites that includes major national parks and wildlife preserves, as well as local baseball diamonds and basketball courts. Authorization for the popular program, the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), lapsed months ago due to the partial government shutdown and other disputes. Liberals like the fact that the money allows agencies to set aside land for wildlife habitat. Conservatives like the fact that taxpayers don’t have to foot the bill for it. Congress is now set to reauthorize the fund in perpetuity, though it will not make its spending mandatory. Congressional funding for the program has “fluctuated widely” since its inception in 1965, according to a 2018 Congressional Research Service report. Less than half of the $40 billion that has piled up in the fund during its five decades of existence has been spent by Congress on conservation efforts."

"The bill would also be a boon for another constituency — hunters and anglers. Bow hunters would be allowed to bring their weapons through national parks when trying to reach areas where it is legal to hunt. More important, it makes all federal lands open to hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting unless otherwise specified."

How Much Do States Rely on Federal Funding?

How Much Do States Rely on Federal Funding?

Red states, which are generally poorer, are more reliant on the federal government to pay for their state budgets. Where does this federal money come from? A lot of it is highway funding as rural states have more miles of federal interstate and aidable highways. But also state welfare and state education spending is less in red states, so the proportion of funding from the federal government is bigger in comparison.

This article doesn't fully answer the question though. I would like to see numbers on poverty and income in each state, as that effects medicaid and welfare eligibility. Then also you'd have to consider that blue states often administer programs like state forests and state parks, while red states often have national parks and national forest. Blue states often do their own environmental permitting while EPA does that in red states. And so forth. Blue states choose to be more self reliant so they don't have to listen to the dictates of Washington DC.

It’s time to undo the federal land grab of Bears Ears

It’s time to undo the federal land grab of Bears Ears

"When Obama declared the Bears Ears National Monument, he ignored the years of work that Utah’s congressional delegation spent fighting to pass legislation to protect the region through a fair and open process. He ignored the state legislature and the governor. He ignored the stakeholders and local residents who were striving together to find a workable solution. He ignored the best interests of Utah and cast aside the will of the people — all in favor of a unilateral approach meant to satisfy the demands of far-left interest groups."

"With the stroke of a pen, Obama locked away an astonishing 1.35 million acres, a geographic area larger than the total acreage of all five of Utah’s national parks combined. He did so citing his prerogative under the Antiquities Act — a century-old law intended to give presidents only limited authority to designate special landmarks. Instead of exercising restraint under the act, Obama — and indeed, many of his predecessors — wielded this law as a blunt instrument for executive overreach."

"Understanding the history of the Antiquities Act is key to understanding what happened at Bears Ears. The Antiquities Act was a well-intentioned response to a serious problem: the looting and destruction of cultural and archaeological sites. When applied as intended, the law has been indispensable in preserving our nation’s rich cultural heritage. But the law has been abused by past presidents to advance a radical political agenda — all at the expense of the separation of powers."

How important are public lands to me? 🏞

You know how much I despise public parks with their highly controlled recreational activities.

Yet, I do enjoy a good night at a little roadside campsite far spread out from anywhere else. I enjoy hiking and biking in places far enough off the beaten path that I will never see another soul for hours on end, places that allow a wide variety of informal recreation without a lot of development or people.

This is the kind of place you would find in the national and state forests outside of the designated recreational areas and wilderness. I’ve learned the best way to avoid crowds is to avoid places with signs, especially the ever so popular wilderness in its name.

But when I finally have a place to call home, will I need such a place to escape to? Won’t a good piece of land, an off-grid cabin and some livestock provide all the recreation and joy I need? Or do I need a place relatively close to home that I can drive to and escape from place of my dreams I’m building?