Illegal camping on Max Patch

[Wendigo]

According to the National Forest Service French Broad Ranger District, camping on the summit of Max Patch is forbidden. Although I understand the appeal and temptation to camp on the summit (I would have loved to do so when I hiked over it), it is vital that all of us obey the rules and regulations which are designed to protect sensitive areas such as Max Patch from damage or overuse. Please pass this information along. I hope the day never comes when the AT is re-routed away from Max Patch because hikers and backpackers choose to create their own rules.

[Christoph]

They need a sign as you approach then, because the other 20 tents along with mine the other day probably wouldn't have tented up there then.

[Starchild]

They need a sign as you approach then, because the other 20 tents along with mine the other day probably wouldn't have tented up there then.

+1

I was unaware of this during my thru when I and 2 other thru hikers planned to spend the night up there. Also 3 ATC staff members who on their days off when to go camping on top of Max patch, I would guess were unaware of this rule too.

Also just how sensitive is that environment? It never appeared fragile to me. Yes the trail worn to dirt and some dirt near the top but abundant growth everywhere.

[Lyle]

Deleted.....

[Lyle]

Deleted.....

[Uriah]

Also just how sensitive is that environment? It never appeared fragile to me. Yes the trail worn to dirt and some dirt near the top but abundant growth everywhere.

Off-road vehicles had done quite a bit of damage atop Max Patch in early 2013, before most that year's crop of hikers had walked through or camped nearby. But by the time we had, just a few months hence, most that damage was difficult to detect. Maybe it was all the rain we'd incurred, but the area didn't look too fragile, and probably still doesn't, though I imagine it is in small, hard-to-see ways. Of course, we shouldn't forget that all the balds are bald for a reason, already altered by the hands of (an earlier) man.

[Tipi Walter]

What good is a no-camping rule by the forest service if off road vehicles can get to the top? Are the off-roaders camping too? Doubtful, just joyriding and unable to actually walk I guess. So why pick on backpackers and tell them to not camp when no effort is made to curtail off-road vehicle use??

[johnnybgood]

What good is a no-camping rule by the forest service if off road vehicles can get to the top? Are the off-roaders camping too? Doubtful, just joyriding and unable to actually walk I guess. So why pick on backpackers and tell them to not camp when no effort is made to curtail off-road vehicle use??

Totally agree....makes more sense to pitch a tent than driving runshod over it with a motorized vehicle.

[Uriah]

What good is a no-camping rule by the forest service if off road vehicles can get to the top? Are the off-roaders camping too? Doubtful, just joyriding and unable to actually walk I guess. So why pick on backpackers and tell them to not camp when no effort is made to curtail off-road vehicle use??

Efforts have been made, with barriers at the end of approaching jeep roads. Of course, the barriers themselves are a target for destruction, especially for those who bring their machinery. And once these "barriers" are destroyed, more open opportunities open up, for those possessing such a mindset. Easy access = ease of destruction.

[Christoph]

From what I could tell, I really didn't see any traces off road vehicles. But maybe a little away from the trail itself? There was one bit of evidence of a campfire and it does say in AWOLs guide there no campfires allowed, but nothing about camping itself.

[Seatbelt]

There is really no need to camp on top, there is plenty of close-by area to camp. I would imagine the reason for no camping would be the camp fire damage.

[Sarcasm the elf]

What good is a no-camping rule by the forest service if off road vehicles can get to the top? Are the off-roaders camping too? Doubtful, just joyriding and unable to actually walk I guess. So why pick on backpackers and tell them to not camp when no effort is made to curtail off-road vehicle use??

Tipi, I believe the incident in question was when a group of offroaders broke through the park barriers and did significant damage to the area. A number of these morons were eventually identified and arrested and a major repair effort was put into place.

http://appalachiantrail.com/20130215...andals-caught/

[Marta]

There is really no need to camp on top, there is plenty of close-by area to camp. I would imagine the reason for no camping would be the camp fire damage.

Actually, there are excellent reasons to camp there: It's a fabulous place to observer meteor showers and other astronomical events.

Camping does not have to equal campfires, either, especially when there is no wood nearby.

I'm sorry to hear camping on the summit has been forbidden. I remember fondly a cold night watching the Leonid meteor shower.

[rickb]

While I have no reason to believe the single line mentioning the restriction on the local FS website page does not reflect an actual order, it would be interesting to read exactly what the order -- assuming it exists -- actually says. I couldn't find one on line.

Forest Supervisors and Regional Foresters issue orders that will close or restrict the use of certain areas if the need arises, often for public health and safety or to protect resources. Some are temporary closures that are rescinded at a later date; others are more permanent and are reissued every five years. These orders are available at Forest Service offices and on the forest website. They are in pdf format and will include a map of the area affected by the order.

[Seatbelt]

Actually, there are excellent reasons to camp there: It's a fabulous place to observer meteor showers and other astronomical events.

Camping does not have to equal campfires, either, especially when there is no wood nearby.

I'm sorry to hear camping on the summit has been forbidden. I remember fondly a cold night watching the Leonid meteor shower.

I never said anything about "reasons", the reasons to camp there are fairly obvious. I was simply saying that it isn't necessary.

The fact that firewood isn't close by doesn't stop some folks from hauling it in, especially with a road so close.

[BirdBrain]

According to the National Forest Service French Broad Ranger District, camping on the summit of Max Patch is forbidden. Although I understand the appeal and temptation to camp on the summit (I would have loved to do so when I hiked over it), it is vital that all of us obey the rules and regulations which are designed to protect sensitive areas such as Max Patch from damage or overuse. Please pass this information along. I hope the day never comes when the AT is re-routed away from Max Patch because hikers and backpackers choose to create their own rules.

The more people act like idiots, the more rules are going to be created to protect people or things from idiots. Wouldn't it be easier to make life so miserable for the idiots acting like idiots that they would not dream of acting like idiots and by extension stave off the necessity of ever restrictive rules? The trouble is there are too many idiots. People think LNT is a joke. They laugh about it. They build fire rings and clear camp sites where they please and have tp blowing around like snow. Then they lament the rules caused by their own selfish behavior. This is going to intensify. The numbers are rising. If attitudes don't change, God only knows how many more areas will have to be protected from us. We have a choice between a culture of self regulating peer pleasure to protect the trail or a ever increasing set of regulations imposed on our hostilities toward things that do not belong to us.

Okay... make fun of the above and enjoy the new restrictions.

[Sarcasm the elf]

The more people act like idiots, the more rules are going to be created to protect people or things from idiots. Wouldn't it be easier to make life so miserable for the idiots acting like idiots that they would not dream of acting like idiots and by extension stave off the necessity of ever restrictive rules? The trouble is there are too many idiots. People think LNT is a joke. They laugh about it. They build fire rings and clear camp sites where they please and have tp blowing around like snow. Then they lament the rules caused by their own selfish behavior. This is going to intensify. The numbers are rising. If attitudes don't change, God only knows how many more areas will have to be protected from us. We have a choice between a culture of self regulating peer pleasure to protect the trail or a ever increasing set of regulations imposed on our hostilities toward things that do not belong to us.

Okay... make fun of the above and enjoy the new restrictions.

BB, it's really quite simple, well in my mind anyway. Any real conservation effort should start with the guideline "If an area is deemed worth saving, then get rid of any nearby roads."

[BirdBrain]

BB, it's really quite simple, well in my mind anyway. Any real conservation effort should start with the guideline "If an area is deemed worth saving, then get rid of any nearby roads."

I fully agree that people accessing areas by road are less in tune with the issue. It is the hikers I don't understand. We have a huge collective complacency attitude towards the problem. We are a big part of the problem. I have seen absurd damage in remote areas that no day hiker ever goes near. I agree that your suggestion would do wonders. However, we would still be there. And we are a problem. Too many of us don't see that. We can't change the yellow blazers. We ought to be able to change ourselves.

[Tipi Walter]

I fully agree that people accessing areas by road are less in tune with the issue. It is the hikers I don't understand. We have a huge collective complacency attitude towards the problem. We are a big part of the problem. I have seen absurd damage in remote areas that no day hiker ever goes near. I agree that your suggestion would do wonders. However, we would still be there. And we are a problem. Too many of us don't see that. We can't change the yellow blazers. We ought to be able to change ourselves.

I just don't see the "absurd damage" you're talking about with hikers, as compared to horseback riders or bicyclists or ATVs. A perfect example is in the Mt Rogers backcountry which is bisected with the Appalachian Trail and surrounded on both sides with wilderness areas open to horseback riders, i.e. "saddle potatoes."

Hundreds, thousands of hikers and backpackers use the AT thru the area and there is almost no camping damage and no trail damage because it's off limits to horsemen. Go into the Lewis Fork wilderness or the Wilson Creek wilderness nearby and a month worth of horseback riding ruins the trails with long deep mud ruts along with having their scattered poop everywhere. Is it okay for hikers and backpackers to poop right on the trail and leave it above ground? It must be okay since the horseback riders do it---horse poop that is. And in creeks too.

Your "absurd damage" must be in reference to hikers building giant bonfires or leaving 24 empty beer cans or skillets or blue tarps or cutting down living trees or a hundred other acts of idiocy. But for actual trail usage and damage, hikers do little. Some foot trails are much more rugged than others and on rainy days when these trails are used by 20 or 30 people a day such trails can get rutted and muddy and slick since they are so steep. But this can be solved by careful trail construction like wooden steeps and switchbacks.

Now throw a couple 1,000 lb horses on these steep trails and they destroy steps, mark up rocks, and turn a normal trail into a rutted churned up mess.

[BirdBrain]

I just don't see the "absurd damage" you're talking about with hikers, as compared to horseback riders or bicyclists or ATVs. A perfect example is in the Mt Rogers backcountry which is bisected with the Appalachian Trail and surrounded on both sides with wilderness areas open to horseback riders, i.e. "saddle potatoes."

Hundreds, thousands of hikers and backpackers use the AT thru the area and there is almost no camping damage and no trail damage because it's off limits to horsemen. Go into the Lewis Fork wilderness or the Wilson Creek wilderness nearby and a month worth of horseback riding totally ruins the trails and with their scattered poop everywhere. Is it okay for hikers and backpackers to poop right on the trail and leave it above ground? It must be okay since the horseback riders do it---horse poop that is. And in creeks too.

Your "absurd damage" must be in reference to hikers building giant bonfires or leaving 24 empty beer cans or skillets or blue tarps or cutting down living trees or a hundred other acts of idiocy. But for actual trail usage and damage, hikers do little. Some foot trails are much more rugged than others and on rainy days when these trails are used by 20 or 30 people a day such trails can get rutted and muddy and slick since they are so steep. But this can be solved by careful trail construction like wooden steeps and switchbacks.

Now throw a couple 1,000 lb horses on these steep trails and they destroy steps, mark up rocks, and turn a normal trail into a rutted churned up mess.

Absurd given who is doing it. I fully agree with your assessment that damages done by machines is far greater. However, that does not absolve the actions by those that know better. I am not going to list the damages that we do because someone will post a picture of land movers carving up acres. That damage much greater but completely irrelevant to a discussion of what hikers ought to do. It is much like saying Hitler was responsible for the deaths of millions, therefore it is okay for me to shoot the neighbors dog. No it is not okay. It would be absurd. I can't do anything about Hitler. I can keep myself from shooting the neighbors dog. We need to focus on the mote in our own eyes.