Going off trail in a national park?

>>838087
I did this in arches, I hiked up courthouse wash, which is the largest part of the park that permits primitive camping (but you need a permit which I didn't have), then once I reached the end of the wash I was near the middle of the park. I hiked through the petrified dunes, which was probably the coolest place I've ever seen, and idk what the rules are regarding that. But it was really hard because I didn't wanna step on the cryptosoil like an asshole so I had to jump around alot. I camped another night there and then walked toward the windows area of the park. The next day I checked out the windows and by then I had run out of food and water so I started hiking back out via the road. It was getting dark so I started thumbing and lucky for me I got a ride out, otherwise I might have gotten busted. All in all I highly recommend doing this as long as you are willing to suffer by not stepping on the cryptosoil. I mean I recommend it as a hike but its risky as far as the law. Petrified dunes were like an alien moonscape. I found shallow caves hollowed out from big dunes that had flakes of flint left over from the Indians.

You must stay on the trails unless you want the keystone kops on your tail

getting in trouble might be the least of your worries

if there are signs specifically telling you not to, there is probably a good reason for it....like not wanting people to get boiled alive or walk off a cliff

>>838087
Unless it's your job or there's some special circumstance, I'm pretty sure the National Parks generally want you to stay on the trail. But I think that depends on where you go in the park. If you want to go off trail for some dispersed camping, a national forest or similar is probably a better bet to do so without possible repercussions.

>>838087
>can you
yes
>will you get in trouble
also yes

>>838087
It depends on the park
There is not one rule for all National Parks

>>838087
They usually try and discourage it to prevent foot traffic from harming sensitive environments. Just the other day I was off the main trail on an offshoot deep in North Cascades National Park and met a ranger who saw my group and asked us kindly to keep on the main trail. I doubt you would get in too much trouble though

What park?

>>838912
Not just that, it also depends on where you are in a given park.

I dont even care to know if I would get in trouble for it. I will put my feet wherever I damn well please until I die. What do I look like? A species that didnt go to the moon?

File: 2142162142354.jpg (24KB, 341x322px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 341x322px

>>838097

>not stepping on the cryptosoil

This. Cryptobiotic soil is a big problem if you're off trail in the desert.

Probably would be best to stay on trails most of the time as to not disturb sensitive environments or organisms like that.

>>839156
>I'm a dumbass who understands nothing about nature so I will act like one

Can someone from /out/ answer me this:
I drove to Yellowstone a couple of days ago and when I drove through idaho and bought myself a waterbottle they all had blue cored plastic
What's with the bottles being blue?

As the other guy said it depends on the park, but no park that allows bushwhacking will advertise it. I live near Acadia and bushwhacking is technically allowed, but not even the park employees are sure one way or the other. I literally had to ask the superintendent of the park when I met him to get an answer I could trust.
Obviously it's the kind of thing where it's only allowed as long as 99% of people don't do it.
Same with picking blueberries, which I've been doing all week aww yeh

Trail crew here. Fuck you if you do this. It only takes one pair of feet to start an erosion disaster.
I mean, thanks for the job security, but fuck you all the same.

>go /out/
>stay on trails
That isn't even /out/

Also
>thinking walking on dirt will kill it

>>839291
Its to help stop the water from becoming stale I think but to be honest I am unsure.

>>838087
>walk off trail
not IN the National park proper. There are marked areas where it is allowed but if there is paving or marked trails you are not allowed to roam freely.

>>839421
>thinking walking on dirt will kill it
>not understanding nature, and being proud of it
This concept was created for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

>>839252
>I have 35 years forestry experience actually


My opinion is firm.

>>839490
>forestry
>understanding nature
choose one
forestry is about extracting wood and paper products from managed woods and tree farms

>>839790
>>839490
>actually
uses actually. Anyone who uses literally or actually is lying/exagerating/telling stories.

>>839793
Actually, that is not true.

>>840404
Literally this.

>>839490
And my Dad worked at Nintendo when I was a kid

>>838087
most places you should stay on trail. people do get lost, not syaing you are going to, but people do get lost.
saying that, I go off trail every time.
zion national park i crawled past the point up something canyon idr right now.
I saw cairns quite a ways past the end and kept climbing. eventually debris blocked the rest of the climb up and i almost ran outta water onthe way back. fun though
i enjoy climbing around over rocks

>>839790
its not entirely that.
i'm working on a bach in forestry with a specialization in protected areas management. i will stop that shit. I prefer less human disturbance in nature. for my own enjoyment purely, fuck the humans

>>840517
go on?

File: fat-video-gamer1.jpg (80KB, 406x492px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 406x492px

>>840522
>that's right son, I used to "work at nintendo"

>>840517
Don't you mean to say
Actually my Dad literally worked at Nintendo.

File: 1448061610404.gif (987KB, 229x176px) Image search: [Google]

987KB, 229x176px

>>840523

>>838087
It depends on the park. Just peruse their website or call them and ask.

File: y.gif (30KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 1000x1000px

>>839404
>Trail crew here. Fuck you if you do this.
thank you for reconfirming the fact the park service is full of elitist asswipes

>>838087
IMO off trail is only reasonable in areas where off trail is genuinely the only option. This necessarily means there is no trail, and therefore it is unpopulated to the point where you are highly unlikely to create a new trail.

If you're just going 50m off trail for the fuck of it, or are cutting switchbacks, then you are a shitter.

>>844036
Thanks for reconfirming that the public doesn't know ho to fucking act outside

>>839149
Did you come in through thunder creek?

>>838087
In Norway, Sweden and Finland, not sure about Denmark. You can basically camp and go where ever you want. There are some exceptions tho, but those are small and you would never trample on for instant a flowerbed anyway.

>>844135
>the public
the public is who you work for.
maybe time for a change it would seem?

>>839404
>also trail crew
Do you deal with horses? Fuck horse people and every single thing they do holy shit.

>>844217
>Working for the public means letting them get away with ruining the park

I think you misunderstand this relationship

>>844286
i'm sure that you are the one that is mistaken.
>letting them get away with ruining the park
you sound crazy or at the very least suffer with paranoia.
the level of snobbery from some of the post on this thread is rather high. don't know if this is the same person or not, but not permitting folks from exploring our national parks is extreme elitism pure and simple.

>>844228
>Fuck horse people and every single thing they do
i once(and still do a little) had somewhat of a bad opinion of horsey people until the time i misjudged having enough water to drink. was counting on obtaining some from a spring that was dry, and as i sat with an empty water flask and a parched tongue some horse riders came trotting by. the last one in the group tossed me a COLD bottle of water.
so now i try to not cuss whenever i encounter a mired area from horse use or tons of trail apples and all the flies that come with it.

>>839252
>>839404
>>839482
>>840520
>>844135
>>844228
>>844286
A snob is a...person who judges, stigmatizes others and believes that some people are inherently inferior to others result from the perception of beliefs, values, intellect, etc,etc.

sounds about right to me.

the national park service is having its hundredth birthday friday and when it was conceived it was to be an apolitical organization, but somehow that has been lost over the years so i for i will not be celebrating this milestone.

off trail adventure is extremely fun but can also be very dangerous for you and anyone that might have to rescue your ass. so please do take lots of care, and PLAN ahead if possible

>>844335
So you are saying people are snobs for wanting to protect the few natural resources left on this planet

Sounds like you didn't understand their arguments to me

>>844345
protecting? protecting what from whom? for whom? you're not doing it for me or my children, for poor fragile mother nature? if your doing it for her she laughs at the puny, pitiful attempt you make. wake the fuck up.
...and how are you going to protect, no tresspassing sign?, fence? call in s.w.a.t?, more laws for people to ignore, prisons to fill, pardons to grant?

>>844402
So why even have national parks then?

Why the fuck are you even on /out/?

>>844339
thanks for sharing

>>844402
hill billy detected

>>844402
>from whom
From short-sighted individuals who would squander nature for their personal gain or ignorant/unaware individuals who do not understand the impact of their actions
>for whom?
For biodiversity. Nature is full of molecules we have not even characterized. Materials science, engineering, medicine, etc. can all benefit. Nature has been performing bio and organic chemistry experiments for 4 billion years. There are solutions to many of our current and future problems in there, and it would be foolish to throw them all away before we even took a look.
>she laughs at the puny, pitiful attempt you make
Huh?
>how are you going to protect
By making rules and enforcing them. It's not perfect, but it has helped.

>>839790
its like google doesnt exist

>national park
What about national forest? I'm pretty sure u can go off trail whenever you want right?

>>844422
>>she laughs at the puny, pitiful attempt you make
>Huh?
you are aware that one day your ride will be over?

>>844441
Who said anything about me?
I don't matter, and neither do you
In 200 years, both of us, and most celebrities, will be completely forgotten

>>844439
Depends on the area. Cutting switchbacks on trails is frowned upon, but most everything else is fair game as long as you aren't an asshole.

File: 19Jp-Fort1-jumbo.jpg (176KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1024x682px

>>844528
Can i go bushcraft and build a small fort

>>844335
I'm sorry I can't let you feed those prairie dogs because they'll get fat and sick and possibly transfer plague or tularemia to you.

I'm sorry I can't allow you take selfies with moose, bear, wolves, and elk because I don't want you to get hurt or the animal to be put down.

I'm sorry I don't allow you to cut switchbacks and go off trail in sensitive areas causing erosion and destroying the plant communities therein.

I'm sorry I can't let you touch the scalding hot geysers or walk off onto the unstable crust that surrounds them because you'll fall in and dissolve.

I'm sorry you think you're special and above the rules that keep these majestic places, majestic. I know it comes from a very childish and immature place.

I'm sorry.

>>844562
As long as you leave no trace afterwards and clean up after yourself. Also, not right next to the trail.

>>844569
>allow

>>844402
We're in the Anthropocene. We've modified many aspects of the environment beyond fixing, and are facing a period of great global change ahead of us. If we want to protect biodiversity and slow down or stop extinctions and extinction debts then active management of nature and natural resources is a must. The best way to do this is to study natural history and interactions between organisms and the abiotic environment. There is already a wealth of scientific knowledge that informs current management practices in nearly all ecosystems globally.

Tracks bring erosion and weed invasion, so limiting the number of tracks and keeping people on tracks so they limit environmental damage is a pretty sensible thing.

File: atlas.png (813KB, 1944x934px) Image search: [Google]

813KB, 1944x934px

I don't know about other countries, but in Canada you're basically free to use undesignated Crown Land (ie: public land) if you want.

That's to say, any non-privately owned land which hasn't been assigned some kind of restriction, like native reserve, nature preserve, etc.

For Ontario, we have the "Crown Land Use Policy Atlas" - google it, it's like an online map app thing. Basically, any area that's coloured yellow or light orange as indicated, you're free to go into as you please. Just watch out for patches of private land throughout.

You can see on the map that a lot of the areas even abut actual parks - provincial in this case - so you'll have the same experience with no people to bother you.

>>844615
>management
you do realize wilderness management is a contradiction in terms?

>>844940
You do realize there is not place on the surface of the earth that hasn't been altered by humans

Management involves stopping further alteration

I don't see the word "wilderness" in their post

>>844615
All we need to do is sequence all the genomes of still extant species, store it in some Antediluvian Ark holographic data set, and then we can destroy everything because we've made a backup, badaboom badabing.

>>844945
It doesn't work that way
If you stick a genome inside a plasma membrane, nothing happens

File: SAVE0l2.jpg (276KB, 929x1761px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 929x1761px

>>844335
the working class do not deserve our national treasures.
if you are not college educated and you make less than 35k, then fuck off.
go play bingo or something.

>>845008
Most parks aren't that expensive. Yellowstone charges that much due to the size of the park and how many fucking people visit every year.

Also
>Not buying the season pass instead
Pleb, do you even /out/?

>>845008
That's absurd. I paid $3 on Tuesday for White Mtn Nat Forest.
Honor system

>>845052
you are the one that is mistaken, it is based on how much they feel they can extort without being called out on it by everyone.
receipt with todays date and you ask if /out/...really?

>>845069
Right, I mean, they don't need that money for cleaning up after and mitigating the damage caused by the MILLIONS of faggots like you who visit every year.

>>845069
You went to Disneyland: NPS edition and are posting on your phone during the day when you should be hiking and taking in the sites.

>>845100
This
There are loads of cheaper/free places to go if money is a problem

The only reason they charge is because they don't want minorities at the parks. POC make only 52 cents on the $ and would have to give up food and medicine and college to pay the fees. Plus nature is very racist. I saw some shit about a river refusing to go in circles for some African Americans.

File: gh.png (117KB, 660x440px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 660x440px

>>845054
Live Free or Die

>>845113
what if THIS is near where i live and where i want to explore(maybe an historic connection)...so how would it be cheaper having to go farther afield and having to settle for something less?
doesn't sound like the america i desire, but okay for you i guess.

>>845873
So what your are saying is that you live right next to Yosemite?
There are free national forests right outside of the park. Most western national parks are surrounded by free national forests
>doesn't sound like the america i desire
One that accommodates your every want? Stop being so entitled

>>839404
education will be the only real way to prevent or diminish cutting switchbacks/other thoughtless traffic. although it does make for a trail maintenance nightmare, by taking an arrogant attitude only shows you are part of the problem.
maybe if by trying to seek out help, and make allies you might find a the going easier and have a little more job satisfaction. more regulation will only be more burdensome and the ones who it would most really apply to would be the ones least likely to listen anyway.

>>845893
>where i want to explore(maybe an historic connection)
i thought i spelled it out...you must have missed that part...maybe i should be entitled...you don't know.
it shouldn't be up to you anyway.

>>845893
>you live right next to Yosemite?
never said that....try attention to detail.

>>844402
>protecting? protecting what from whom? for whom?

from army of retards such as yourself

Come to Alaska, you can walk anywhere you want, and access to waterways is a human right Welcome to a free state. Bring a gun, you'll need it.

Depends on the park. Some parks, no problem. Other parks, (especially dense eastern forests) you get lost and die. Other parks, bears and mountain lions.

>>845952
really?

>>846277
really really. while people look on natural environments with eyes that "nature finds a way, it will be fine" people rarely see or understand the impacts of human presence in many environments.

National Parks are there primarily to preserve biodiversity. In many environments/ ecosystems, especially very popular areas, if you let people do what they want, the park wouldnt be worth preserving within 50 years.

>>846313
>if you let people do what they want, the park wouldnt be worth preserving within 50 years.
then nature would reclaim in time...problem solved.
thinks exclusivity is the only way.

>>838087
I didnt know american soil is this easy to break. Thank god i live in Scandinavia where you are free to walk and camp where the fuck you want

I do it all the time if I see a hill or mountain that looks like it will give me a good view that is off-trail. It's usually a waste of time to just head into dense forest for no reason or whatever. Just don't be retarded really

File: 1464120983527.jpg (41KB, 400x323px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 400x323px

>>838087

If all there is to national parks is walking on a trail and camping in prepared sites what the point of the park. There is so much that is only accessible by off trail or unmarked trails, I'm not saying start fucking shit up but you are going to have to off trail eventually unless you plan on camping on top of the trail.

>>847361
>>847406
>>847533
this.
thanks m8's
was beginning to think everyone had turned faggot.

>>847361
Scandinavian anecdotes are the most useless anecdotes.

The entire population of Scandinavia is around 27 million. 10 million American visit Great Smoky Mountains National Park every year. If 1/3 of the Scandi population visited Sarek, for example, you might quickly find that additional rules and regulations are necessary.

>>847575
>10 million American visit Great Smoky Mountains National Park every year.

93% of who never get out of their vehicles during the time they are in the park, while many park trails are unused.

>>847533
>If all there is to national parks is walking on a trail and camping in prepared sites what the point of the park
to preserve biodiveristy. Look up the definition of a national park, its not there for public use, but a public asset which is managed for conservation.

When walking off trails will harm the integrity of a park, or risk the lives of visitors, generally management decisions are made to keep people on tracks.

People making their own tracks through parks can lead to:
- soil erosion
- weed invasion
- alteration of vegetation structure
- creation of a new light trail which may then used by game and degrade into a high traffic area exacerbating the above points
- reduce the parks aesthetics when tracks many tracks take hold
- create litter problems (litter spread over a far larger area, making it harder for management to control and keep on top of)
- result in people interferring with/ degrading very sensitive areas of national parks where often very restricted and endangered endemic species occur

You can get mad on the internet all you want and act like a big man out in your local park, but the science is well documented and provided to land managers who make the right decision most of the time in restricting people to tracks.

In saying that though, it is mostly a density related problem (although disrespectful people who trash their way through the environment also cause problems). So most rangers wont really have a problem with you going off track so long as its in an appropriate area and you're not being a dick, because only a small percent of visitors really do go off track.

File: y56.jpg (12KB, 320x337px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 320x337px

>>847603
>...is managed for...
>...management decisions are made...
>...harder for management to control...
>...to land managers who...
triggered

>>847616
>Triggered

Because you're a sperg?

>12 days arguing about hurting dirt
Impressive

>>847603

Think about this, if a 1000 year old church has a scaffold around it for 90 percent of the time in attempts to preserve it, is anyone actually enjoying it or is the preservation essentially pointless.

If all I'm morally right to do is walk down a trail and look from a foot wide path to my left and right, the roping off of a huge area of a park is of no benefit to me, I understand the parks protect endangered animals and plants, but there are occasionally zones in parks where no back country permits will be issued because there is some sort of endemic species to be protected, as long as you aren't fucking around in a important area I doubt you will suddenly collapse the entire ecosystem, these are places where forest fires will take out 20 acres in half a day.

The fact of the matter is you might see a few hundred people people go to one trailhead a day at a popular location, split between a large area with a few trails, if 5 percent decide to go off trail that's 15 people a day walking through the woods in say a 250 acre area conservatively estimating, I don't think the world will come to an end.

/out/ spergs out over the most petty shit, when in reality there is some asshole kicking down trees and poaching animals in a national park right now and no amount of lengthy arguments of treading on dirt are going to stop actual large issues to conservation.

>>847641
>no amount of lengthy arguments of treading on dirt are going to stop actual large issues to conservation
Read the first sentence and last sentence of your post, with both sentences stupid enough to disregard.

The argument at hand is one of accumulation, its a problem that at small scales and with small disturbances, is pretty benign. However it is actually a large issue, especially in many fragile national parks where there may be a soil crust, or soil accumulation is very minimal due to severe weather and little plant growth (and so erosion is a major threatening process). Conservation of soil is as important as conservation of flora and fauna, arguably more so. If people kick down trees or poach animals, in many cases reduces these pressures will result in the ecosystem 'bouncing back'. Reversing soil erosion and the spread of weeds into parks are two problems which often can cause far greater problems across the wider environment and/or effectively be irreversible (cant just throw soil back in after it has eroded).

I'm not reading or really caring about this thread btw. Just dropping by here and there and responding to posts that completely miss the mark about the function and importance of national parks and their management.

>>847616
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>>847575
Sucks to live in america desu

>>847625
>>847692
you don't get /out/ much do you?

>>847984
I dont know why you'd think that, I spend at least one weekend a month /out/, as well as 5 months of the year in summer driving and hiking around in semi remote natural areas conducting research.

>>838087
I read an article yesterday (too lazy to find the link) about the 100 yr celebration and the fact that rangers spend 90% of their time enforcing boundries and keeping people away from wildlife. Also alcohol violations. 1000's of tickets daily across the park system.

>>848288
Mofos at red river gorge always get caught with alcohol

Why the fuck do you need alcohol while /out/

>>848283
He's just projecting his own insecurities on you.

>>848283
>>12 days arguing about hurting dirt
busy bee

>>848294
Some people are so unaware of how broken they are that they feel they need to take their artificial happiness with them everywhere

so what job and people do i need to know to gain access to the entire park? im sure if i was a researcher or something for the state id be allowed in to study whatever my specialty/whatever they pay me for

>>848800
>Researchers
>getting paid
Hah, they wish.

>>844228
seriously why the fuck are horses allowed in so many national parks? I went to Teton a few weeks ago and half the trails were wrecked by horses

>>848844
Horses are expensive to keep, which means people who have horses tend to be well off, which means they have political clout, which means they get to do whatever they want.

>>848844
I was hiking around mammoth cave national park a couple of years ago. At some point a person riding a horse passed us and we didn't really think much of it. A little later we ended up walking through a yellow jacket nest that had been stirred up by the horse.

I got stung so many times in such a short span of time that I thought I'd actually been bitten by a snake

>>838087
>can you walk off the trail
lol Merica, will you ever be free?

>>848613
I've been discussing the topic for years, 12 days aint shit m8

>>848800
there are still regulations and protocols to follow as a state/ university researcher. Reference zones are off limits (generally) still. And when you're paid to do work, you don't often get time to explore parts of the parks that you want to.

>>848844
Mostly its due to the history/ tradition. Its hard to get rid of because some of the horse people have friends in high places.

>Work at a State Park, hiking up the mountain
>Find two young adults (mid twenties), the girl is carving her name into a tree
>Tell them to stop
>But everyone else has already done it
>Queue 3rd grade ethics lesson
>...
>Later run into them again further up the mountain
>They're walking off trail
>Ask them to stay on the trail
>Guy gets all butthurt and says no
>Tell him its a conservation issue and that he needs to stay on the trail to prevent erosion at a park that already has MAJOR FUCKING ISSUES with bootlegs and erosion
>He says the route he's taking is safer and that I am telling him to be unsafe
>Tell him I will call a Fish and Game CO and we can talk about a fine
>He says he's going to call Fish and Game
>He pretends to call them on his phone but gets nowhere
>Get interrupted by the radio because some lady broke her foot or something I don't remember
>Tell them I don't have time for them anymore
>Wish I told them to grow the fuck up

>>849007
>being this butthurt that someone i walking in a fucking forest

>>849013
The problem with American National Parks is the amount of tourism you see. A popular backcountry campsite with 6-7 established spots could see as much as 300 campers in a weekend. It's one thing to go off trail in the woods of your local park but having a bunch of tards literally hiking off cliffs every year is something park rangers at busier Parks deal with all the time.

>>848966
shadDUP you TRAITOR COMMILIST!

RIGHT NOW i can buy any flavor of iceCREAM I WANT, hows that foR FREE? NO good peice of shiT

>>849007
Hah, typical. Failing to realize we are equally part of nature as all else is
>ITS A STATE PARK DAMMIT NO VANDALISM
Maybe the true owners should be the 'taxpayers', paying you to maintain the land?
I get this is lost on those believing 'the state is god', and that it's fine to be a prick 'for a greater good', but delusion can be dangerous to one's health

>>838087
fuck yeah

museum under glass ideaology is bullshit
i go off trail and mushroom hunt, pick plants and berries too

humans are meant to interact with nature. we are animals and did that for centuries. were part of the landscape.

if youre going to police the woods do it to arrowhead ya fucks!

>>849007
faggot

>>849021
natural selection bro

>>849027
I'm a taxpayer and I don't want you fucking up my park, faggot.

>>844439
Yup. Practice LNT, move camp x miles every y days. Google "dispersed camping."

>>848982
So how do i get to be a researcher? Im getting a bio degree but i dont particularly care about microbiology. I think id like to be one of those guys you see on nat geo studying animals. Or get on an arctic expedition, that would be dope.

>>849013
I have no problem with bushwhacking, I do it all the time. If you're looking at a map and picking out your own routes and have to cut across forests for miles at a time then that is fine because you are dispersing your use.

But if you're a fattie or out of shape city dweller who wants to walk on dirt on the side of the trail because you're tired of walking on rocks and "want an easier path" you can fuck off. If our mountain was just another forgettable hill the trails would easily just be 2-4 feet wide at most but because of how incredibly popular we are they are as wide as 10-20+ feet. If we don't reign in the masses these trails will only get wider as the years go on.

>>849027
Our park is 100% self-funded so you can take your tears back to /pol/ along with your delusions

>>849039
fite me irl

>>849194
>Disntinguish yourself with research, associations, and internships during undergrad
>Work for state/federal/private entities that do research
>Get a masters/PhD
>Apply to jobs you're qualified for
>???
>PROFIT

>>849211

>Our park is 100% self-funded

Kek, we got a soveirgn citizen here

I guess none of the dumbass kids ITT grasp something as basic as tragedy of the commons.

kys if you go into protected areas or remove anything from the parks.

>>849302
Should i give all the oxygen i breathed at national parks back

>>849302
>Let's close off the land so only the elite get to enjoy it

No thanks shillary. If I can't use it then I will destroy it

>>849362
>the elite

You mean people who are trained to properly conserve it?

>>849211
faggot

>>849304

i lold

i don't remember everyone in the woods being this autistic.
thanks obama.

>>849290
>https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/new-hampshires-self-funding-state-parks

ops

So should I call the rangers office and ask if it's okay to camp 2-300ft off trail in a national park/forest?

All you fags talking about soil erosion have me concerned now

>>849461
Most parks want people 100 feet off trails to camp

>>849461
I'd call to see where you can disperse camp, that's just common sense.

>>849194
I studied a Bachelor of Science, went onto do my honours with a professor who focuses on field based research. I also applied for lots of internships and took one over summer before my honours, the pay barely paid my weekly rent. However I made lots of connections and gained lots of skills and thats the research group I work for now.

- Find out who at your institution does field based research that you enjoy, go have a chat to them about where you'd like to end up/ what interests you/ what they recommend
- Apply for internships even if they're unpaid. You need skills, you need connections, you need to put yourself above of all the other graduates
- do some kind of research project at the end of your undergrad. Masters/ Honours

From there you can either go down academia path into a PhD or potentially find work as a research assistant/ state researcher.

If research is what you want to do too, then don't chase money. Chase your passion and the money will come

It really is all about skills, connections and a whole lot of luck.

>>849461
Yeah. Go have a chat to the rangers. When they see you're a nice, regular person they will no doubt let you, and just discuss areas to avoid and to just be respectful and any rules they may want you to follow. Again, the problems caused by camping off trail (whether amenities, aesthetics, saftey, or ecological in nature like soil erosion, weed invasion, and effects on community structure) vary a lot not only from park to park, but also within parks themselves.

If theres a park you visit a lot anyway, its kind of good to get to know the rangers

>>849194
I studied a Bachelor of Science, went onto do my honours with a professor who focuses on field based research. I also applied for lots of internships and took one over summer before my honours, the pay barely paid my weekly rent. However I made lots of connections and gained lots of skills and thats the research group I work for now.

- Find out who at your institution does field based research that you enjoy, go have a chat to them about where you'd like to end up/ what interests you/ what they recommend
- Apply for internships even if they're unpaid. You need skills, you need connections, you need to put yourself above of all the other graduates
- do some kind of research project at the end of your undergrad. Masters/ Honours

From there you can either go down academia path into a PhD or potentially find work as a research assistant/ state researcher.

If research is what you want to do too, then don't chase money. Chase your passion and the money will come

It really is all about skills, connections and a whole lot of luck.

>>849461
Yeah. Go have a chat to the rangers. When they see you're a nice, regular person they will no doubt let you, and just discuss areas to avoid and to just be respectful and any rules they may want you to follow. Again, the problems caused by camping off trail (whether amenities, aesthetics, saftey, or ecological in nature like soil erosion, weed invasion, and effects on community structure) vary a lot not only from park to park, but also within parks themselves.

If theres a park you visit a lot anyway, its kind of good to get to know the rangers

>>849461
>national park
You can't

>forest
minimum of 300 from closest trail and 500 from closest water. Shit hole has to be 200 more out and still min of 500 from water.

NO fires. NO alcohol

>>849491
>>849544
>>849552
Well technically It's a national forest I guess, its San Isabel in Colorado and the official website says they encourage dispersed camping

>NO alcohol

lmao I'm not following that law

booze is love

booze is life

>>840520
Ayy college starts tommorow and im majoring in Ecosystem Restoration and Management tell me what you do

>>849605
i know state parks will sometimes have alcohol bans, but I've never seen National Parks or Forrests enact one. They might say "no glass" though.

>>849605
>I'm not following that law
Enjoy your ticket and lifetime ban, although that is hard to enforce for them.
NPS isn't fucking around. If they catch you they toss you.

>>849684
I have an alcohol burner so I can abide by the "NO fires" rule, you jewish liberal reddit cuck. It's my own goddamn business if I choose to burn everclear in it, you smarmy nu-male

>>849552
Fires are only banned during high drought because people can't be trusted to put out their fires properly

Inb4 someone thinking they're a special snowflake

>>849856
>special snowflake
like this guy?
>>849851
>It's my own goddamn business

>>849861
Yep

>>849851
So many buzzwords in one sentence.

>>>/pol/

You have to go back.

>>849861
I literally said in that post I'm not lighting fires, you scurrilous nu-male cuck.

>>849889
>>849890
Nu-males "raised" by single mothers who probably cant even make a 12 mile walk without changing their buttplug

File: image.jpg (110KB, 1300x957px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1300x957px

>>849905
>I sure showed them. I'm such an alpha.

File: 1347067696264.jpg (141KB, 629x755px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 629x755px

>>849905
>I literally said
literally underage

>>849851
>you jewish liberal reddit cuck. It's my own goddamn business if I choose to burn everclear in it, you smarmy nu-male
there should be an automatic burn for being this insufferable

>>850001
>burn
ban*

File: backtopol.jpg (136KB, 546x700px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 546x700px

>>849851
>>849905

>>848892
Fucking horsegeoisie