I was wondering that myself. I plan to visit Boreas Ponds first week in October and tow my canoe in with a mountain bike. Not sure what will happen between now and then with designation?
We camped for four days last fall. We camped 150' or more, took three - four hours of stumbling through the woods to find a spot for two single tents. Lots of thick, wet, rocky, and steep. Only looked on First, Second, and towards third ponds. Good luck.
We camped for four days last fall. We camped 150' or more, took three - four hours of stumbling through the woods to find a spot for two single tents. Lots of thick, wet, rocky, and steep.
That is precisely the reason I went to hammock camping several years ago. No more thrashing around looking for a fairly clear open spot to set up even a tiny solo tent. Now I can find a suitable spot with nicely spaced trees in only a minute or two almost anywhere I may go. Set up sleeping space and camp over brush, rocks, uneven hummocks, on steep hillside slopes, or even in a wet swamp, it doesn't matter.
"Now I see the secret of making the best person, it is to grow in the open air and to eat and sleep with the earth." -Walt Whitman
A large portion of the Boreas Ponds Tract is a lowland area between the North River Mountain Range to the west and the Boreas Mountain Range to the east.
Best spot, unless it's marked "No Camping" might be where the former lodge was.
The road to the lodge area was posted no access but nothing from the lake? Views are gorgeous from the old lodge site. The area looked like it had been graded, seeded, and straw.
I assume the old lodge area would be a possible future camping or day use area far enough from the water and has views.
I may have posted this somewhere else earlier, but...
Back in early May '16 a friend & I found an old, faint trail leading to the remains of an old campsite located near the tip of the large peninsula on the south shore of Second Pond. Here we found an old wood stove, a few old bottles, cans, bowls, an old leather shoe, and even an old well in the woods nearby. We camped just inland from these remains near an old fire pit about 50 steps (25 Justin paces as he tried to gage the distance) from shore. We found just enough room for a few more tents in between the trees further inland when we returned with canoes and a larger group in October '16.
The old faint trail leading to the site turns left from the main road at about .5 mile east of the outlet, and is very easy to miss if you're not looking for it. IIRC there's a blue paint marker on a tree to the left of the roadway just before the turn. The path basically follows the ridgeline the whole way, but is very hard to locate in spots along the way requiring some bushwhacking.
There's a very nice view north toward the Great Range from shore just a short bushwhack east of the campsite...
So what you're saying is that it's technically an illegal campsite since it's too close to the water.
Maybe not if "pace" is defined correctly. Technically a "pace" is a single count each time your right (or left) foot touches the ground while walking naturally, not a count for each step. For most people, covering 100 meters takes between 60-70 paces. So 50 paces (50/65 x100 meters) would be more than 200 feet.
"Now I see the secret of making the best person, it is to grow in the open air and to eat and sleep with the earth." -Walt Whitman
Dear Nit-Pickers,
Just for the record.
I'll admit. I counted exactly 48 steps, (roughly 3 feet for my stride when I'm trying to pace out an approximate distance) to about the edge of the area where we had gathered. 48 x 3 = 144.
Center would've been closer to 150, and all of our tents were well beyond 150. The old camp remains (obvious signs of past human camping activity), were a little closer to shore near the tip.
I 150' camp a lot, and for my peace of mind carry a 150' string to measure. A ranger once questioned my location and I got the string out to measure, he said never mind. I did once thrash 150 up into the jing weeds after a hard day and set up my hammock. Then I walked a little beyond camp to relive myself and saw that I had almost crossed a peninsula and was real close to the water. I stayed there.
Turtle
So what you're saying is that it's technically an illegal campsite since it's too close to the water.
Just to clarify...
Yes, the old campsite remains are indeed too close to the water edge to be a legal campsite. Very thick in there too. Perhaps many years ago it was a differnet story.
We were pretty happy & comfortable with what we found & decided as the next best option.
I'm fairly confident that this old trail & campsite area will eventually be officially recognized & marked once the classification & UMP are finalized.
After all, I do remember reading about a proposal to build a lean-to near this old camp site area, however, that I do not support.
Just to clarify...
Yes, the old campsite remains are indeed too close to the water edge to be a legal campsite. Very thick in there too. Perhaps many years ago it was a differnet story.
We were pretty happy & comfortable with what we found & decided as the next best option.
I'm fairly confident that this old trail & campsite area will eventually be officially recognized & marked once the classification & UMP are finalized.
After all, I do remember reading about a proposal to build a lean-to near this old camp site area, however, that I do not support.
Sorry, I didn't mean to cause a stir - I was just joking around. Justin, it was an off the cuff comment - I was trying to be amusing and failed. In retrospect, I shouldn't have made it. I apologize. You are one of the most conscientious campers on here, and I didn't mean to make it sound like you were breaking rules or anything.
Last edited by JohnnyVirgil; 04-06-2017, 06:28 AM.
Comment