Saline Preservation Association

The voice of Saline Valley

Sign up Calendar Latest Topics

  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
Salt Peter

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 665
Ugh spammer ^^^

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 40
I've heard about issues with the 30 day limit.  I would think that it could be revised a little to be something like a limit per visit.  If you were to stay there for 30 days at a time, that's a bit extreme, but coming and going through the season should be fine.  As long as you are NOT being obnoxious, you should be able to come and go as desired.  


Posts: 2
Right now, it seems as though the 30 day rule IS enforced, albeit inconsistently. There are at least a few people I know who are positive presences at the Springs, but who may have run politically afoul of certain persons and been "run out of town" (AND given hefty fines and needed to go to court). This is really too bad. (PS -- they were not "living" there, just coming several times a year for a week or two at a time; this can easily add up to 30 days over a 12 month period...)
James Sel

Posts: 375
Here's the Parks regulations; notice the limit of days per year at Furnace Creek "14". One thing is for sure there are lot of regulations.   

See "Length of stay"

LOL! here is an interesting regulation unrelated to topic.

• Geocaching articles left at a geocache site unclaimed for over 24 hours will become impounded and considered litter. Geocaching that damages any natural resource is prohibited.
Hi Desert Warrior

Posts: 209

I don't see how the NPS can enforce the 30 day yearly rule, unless your at the hot springs in excess of 30 straight days.  To enforce the 30 day annual policy, the NPS would have to have daily patrols of the springs and record everyone there by vehicle or person.  I go there about five to seven times a year and stay a week each time or until my ice runs out.  I agree that a time limit should be in place, not on an annual bases, but on a monthly term limit with a 30 day break between stays to discourage squatters and self proclaimed watchmen of the grounds.  The like the types I have encountered at other open range hot springs.  I believe a happy medium can be obtained between the NPS and the public they serve.



Posts: 49
I understand that the Feds probably have a 30 day rule nationwide.  However, we are not talking about the Blue Ridge Mountains, or Lava Beds National Monument;  we are dealing with the unique desert hot springs in a remote area of the U.S. that no one gets to "by accident".  If the Feds are being honest, and that is a very big "IF", then we should give the Feds our truthful input.  To me that means that I am not going to put Fed Standard blinders on myself but instead I am going to tell the Feds exactly what I believe.  To me that means that if I am a person who positively contributes to the hot springs I should not be limited to visiting the springs only for an annual number of thirty days.  If the Feds are going to slap us down for having a different opinion than they have then they are not truly seeking user input but simply want us to be lemmings and to parrot back to them what they are, in the first instance, "floating past us as trial balloons".  If we sell out our beliefs that cheaply then we are going to get a very poor hot springs experience and will leave to those who follow us an equally pathetic hot springs experience.  The hot springs and their unique experience have meaning to us, elsewise none of us would be spending this amount of time, contemplation and discussion on what could simply be a "Fed rubber stamped response.... i.e.   "30 days MAX per year."

I suggest that we take great pains to try and give the  Feds a truthful and accurate feedback.  We and those who follow, long after we are relegated to Saline Hot Springs Lore, will be shackled by our actions and/or inactions.

I still like a limit of some type that keeps folks from setting up "housekeeping" while not lockout out good folks simply because they go to the springs every other weekend for four or five months.  If those folks contribute, like that Russian fellow from the Topanga Canyon area did during the Memorial Day weekend, they should not be kept away from the springs because they were there for a few days here and there that totaled the "magic figure" of (*drum roll*) thirty days.

Again;  I do not pretend to have answers;  simply ideas.


Biotech Dave

Posts: 25
I thought that might be the case, but hadn't taken the time to look it up.  Thanks Randy.

What does seem to be negotiable are the exceptions to the 30 day limit for the camp hosts.

Are there existing rules and policies that will pertain to hosts, or is this managed in the individual site plans?

Also, like everything else in law enforcement, the Rangers can use discretion in enforcement.  Do they issue a citation, a verbal warning, a written warning?  But that is not the kind of thing that will be described in a written management plan.  That is more of a verbal, cultural thing.....

It really is natural part of our persecution, I mean prosecution system.  Prosecute those who the system deems needs it (which usually means minorities....) and ignore those who don't seem so threatening and in need of it.

But a key part is that virtually EVERYONE is guilty of some crime at some time, they just have to figure it out, pin it on you and "convict you" ie. coerce you through pre-trial intimidation and negotiation.... if they feel the need.  Only 2% of the country is locked up so, the odds are in our favor........  Lucky us.  But we have created a country of people who feel like outlaws in the "land of the free".

OK, enough rant for now.....


Avatar / Picture

Posts: 18
The current 30 day rule follows other federal land regs for camping so I don't think this is going to be negotiable.

Posts: 78

Personally I agree with 30 days a year,


Posts: 24

For those of us who have to travel long distances(from Colorado) and maybe can only come once a year, I would prefer to see the 30 days/year(or 45) rather than limiting each stay to 14 days. Just my opinion.


Major Tom

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 351

I personally would like to see a scenario where one could camp for 14 days in a row, and if one stayed that limit would then be required to leave and remain gone for a period of 14 days before being able to return. Elimiate the 30 day/calendar year rule. The rationalization for the current limit is that the limit assures everyone has an equal opportunity to enjoy the springs (that others arent monopolizing camping spaces?) My observation during my stays is that there are generally very few visitors unless it is a peak weekend such as President's Day weekend or Thanksgiving. The Lower Springs often looks like a ghost town compared to years ago.


Posts: 49
Clearly a day limit on the use of the springs is needed so that housekeeping cannot be set up by anyone who pleases.  I thought about this for a while, and perhaps a 90 day limit per calendar year with the additional limitation that on any campground visit the person could not be there for more than 30 days and then had to exit the park for at least two weeks before re-visiting the springs.  Some "rule" like that is readily verifiable and is something the the Federal bureaucrats can understand and enforce (with the help of the resident help at the springs).  My 2 cents is only a vague suggestion.  I have limited experience at the springs, however having grown up in the Sonoran Desert of Imperial County, I have seen a lot of Desert abuse that a rule like that can help avoid.

Posts: 38
They probably want a limit like BLM has for their open places when the Snow Birds arrive.... but would a limit ever be enforced?
And there may be a problem mentioning that some folks would offer repair services - or whatever - that would require federal regulations, business licenses, etc. etc.  Best not to mention that sort of thing.... :-)

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 26
I would say keep it the same, as it's likely the best your going to get.
Is there really a reason to push it and ask for more? 1 month is plenty of time to enjoy the springs.

Posts: 34
I don't have a particular opinion, but I generally hate when restrictions are imposed without any evidence there is a problem.  I also hate how often rules are made under the guise of preventing some hypothetical "slippery slope" that will likely never materialize.  

For a camping limit, I wonder how often anyone has tried to stay an "unreasonable" amount of time, to the point where it bothered someone?  Mammoth Bob is clearly not such a case.  How often has this problem occurred elsewhere in a similar situation?

I would love for the policy to be "as long as SPA likes you".  But I guess bureaucracies need more objective rules.
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

Please consider supporting SPA with your tax deductible contribution