Babcock Bench (Quincy Lakes) camping closure

[Sir Homey]

This is a bummer to read. These lakes are always a fun early-season destination. Packing in (and carrying water) for a couple nights nestled in amongst the sagebrush is always an enjoyable experience. Sadly not everyone leaves it better than they found it. Concerns over sanitation, safety, fires, etc may end up limiting the good times so often found here.
Public comment period is open for whatever that’s worth.

Babcock Bench (Quincy Lakes) camping closure - PublicInput

WDFW is considering prohibiting camping on a portion of the Babcock Bench in the Ancient Lakes area of the Quincy Lakes Wildlife Area Unit . This area experiences some of the highest recreational use on the Columbia Basin Wildlife Area. Many people like to camp at the Ancient Lakes about 1.5...

engage.wdfw.wa.gov

 

[Matt B]

This is a bummer to read. These lakes are always a fun early-season destination. Packing in (and carrying water) for a couple nights nestled in amongst the sagebrush is always an enjoyable experience. Sadly not everyone leaves it better than they found it. Concerns over sanitation, safety, fires, etc may end up limiting the good times so often found here.
Public comment period is open for whatever that’s worth.

Babcock Bench (Quincy Lakes) camping closure - PublicInput

WDFW is considering prohibiting camping on a portion of the Babcock Bench in the Ancient Lakes area of the Quincy Lakes Wildlife Area Unit . This area experiences some of the highest recreational use on the Columbia Basin Wildlife Area. Many people like to camp at the Ancient Lakes about 1.5...

engage.wdfw.wa.gov

Thanks for letting us know. I am curious, as a user of the resource-- What's your opinion on formalizing the access and installing a bathroom as one option they mention? They present it as that, or close it to camping entirely. I wonder if there could be a middle ground, where it's done by a permit system?
In any case, the sanitation concerns with any level of use close to like it is getting now do seem like something that needs to be addressed, so there'd probably need to be a bathroom and designated camping areas all within a reasonable distance of the bathroom.

 

[Buzzy]

This is a bummer to read. These lakes are always a fun early-season destination. Packing in (and carrying water) for a couple nights nestled in amongst the sagebrush is always an enjoyable experience. Sadly not everyone leaves it better than they found it. Concerns over sanitation, safety, fires, etc may end up limiting the good times so often found here.
Public comment period is open for whatever that’s worth.

Babcock Bench (Quincy Lakes) camping closure - PublicInput

WDFW is considering prohibiting camping on a portion of the Babcock Bench in the Ancient Lakes area of the Quincy Lakes Wildlife Area Unit . This area experiences some of the highest recreational use on the Columbia Basin Wildlife Area. Many people like to camp at the Ancient Lakes about 1.5...

engage.wdfw.wa.gov

When I read WDFW's post asking for comments the first thing that came to my mind is no camping is a step towards "no access". I submitted a brief comment to WDFW asking for continued access.

 

[Sir Homey]

Thanks for letting us know. I am curious, as a user of the resource-- What's your opinion on formalizing the access and installing a bathroom as one option they mention? They present it as that, or close it to camping entirely. I wonder if there could be a middle ground, where it's done by a permit system?
In any case, the sanitation concerns with any level of use close to like it is getting now do seem like something that needs to be addressed, so there'd probably need to be a bathroom and designated camping areas all within a reasonable distance of the bathroom.

I’m most familiar with Dusty. I’ve seen some camps left behind all trashy. Sage brush burned up for campfires. No doubt people are pigs and there’s only so much the land can absorb. I can see how they may want to contain that.

Much of the appeal of the place is the wide open informal camping. Folks spread out and find their space.

Formalizing the access and facilities changes the mojo of the place for me. I’d hate to be restricted to a traditional campground situation. Permits perhaps? Even then your camp options will be dictated.

I sound borderline selfish, maybe I am. Can’t we have nice things? I get it though. The resource can bear what it will.

Wilderness settings have rules for camping in proximity to lakes, fire bans, rules for dealing with waste. If enforcement were possible maybe start there before we KOA it.

 

[Matt B]

I sound borderline selfish, maybe I am. Can’t we have nice things? I get it though. The resource can bear what it will.

I don't think that's selfishness. There's just too many people that like the same things we like, is what it comes down to. And the more of them there are, the more you up the odds that some doofus messes things up for the rest of us.

Wilderness settings have rules for camping in proximity to lakes, fire bans, rules for dealing with waste.

True. But honestly, lots of places with lower barriers to entry just get pounded, and it shows. See above, "too many people." The only solution to that seems to be to drive further or move away from people, if that's an option a person is willing and able to consider.

 

[Long_Rod_Silvers]

So, if I'm understanding correctly, WDFWs position is:

• We don't have enough resources to stop people from littering (which is illegal)
• We don't have enough resources to stop people from having fires (when illegal)
• We don't have enough resources to keep the place sanitary
• So we want to make another thing illegal, that we most certainly won't have the resources to monitor and enforce. That will fix the problem.

Makes sense. The people who are littering and ignoring burn ban signs will definitely shape up and stop their illegal behavior when they see the "no camping" sign.

 

[Long_Rod_Silvers]

When I read WDFW's post asking for comments the first thing that came to my mind is no camping is a step towards "no access". I submitted a brief comment to WDFW asking for continued access.

100% agree. I also commented. I was a bit more pointed and direct....

 

[Buzzy]

I’m most familiar with Dusty. I’ve seen some camps left behind all trashy. Sage brush burned up for campfires. No doubt people are pigs and there’s only so much the land can absorb. I can see how they may want to contain that.

Much of the appeal of the place is the wide open informal camping. Folks spread out and find their space.

Formalizing the access and facilities changes the mojo of the place for me. I’d hate to be restricted to a traditional campground situation. Permits perhaps? Even then your camp options will be dictated.

I sound borderline selfish, maybe I am. Can’t we have nice things? I get it though. The resource can bear what it will.

Wilderness settings have rules for camping in proximity to lakes, fire bans, rules for dealing with waste. If enforcement were possible maybe start there before we KOA it.

I don't see anything selfish in your behavior and treatment of the resource. I enjoy the trip reports you share and it's pretty obvious you aren't "the problem". Fingers crossed the state won't ban folks like you from enjoying nature - the Bench is a spectacular place.

 

[Northern]

So, if I'm understanding correctly, WDFWs position is:

• We don't have enough resources to stop people from littering (which is illegal)
• We don't have enough resources to stop people from having fires (when illegal)
• We don't have enough resources to keep the place sanitary
• So we want to make another thing illegal, that we most certainly won't have the resources to monitor and enforce. That will fix the problem.

Makes sense. The people who are littering and ignoring burn ban signs will definitely shape up and stop their illegal behavior when they see the "no camping" sign.

All they have to do to ban camping in an area that's already hike-in only is ban overnight parking at the trailheads.
It's a whole lot easier to ticket cars in a few lots than control behavior in a huge dispersed-camping area.
It won't stop everyone, but it would significantly reduce camping numbers and damage to the area.
A permit system seems like the most likely to serve the state's goal while allowing responsible campers to enjoy the resource, with the least outlay of cash. No permit, no ON parking.

 

[goinoregon]

permit system, put it on Recreation.gov. like we use on the deschutes and johnday. include that they have to have permit on any parked vehicles. easy to enforce by just checking vehicles. at parking lots, put signage in that encourages reporting of dipshits.

 

[Long_Rod_Silvers]

All they have to do to ban camping in an area that's already hike-in only is ban overnight parking at the trailheads.
It's a whole lot easier to ticket cars in a few lots than control behavior in a huge dispersed-camping area.
It won't stop everyone, but it would significantly reduce camping numbers and damage to the area.
A permit system seems like the most likely to serve the state's goal while allowing responsible campers to enjoy the resource, with the least outlay of cash. No permit, no ON parking.

In which case Id Just park at burke or Quincy and hike in and camp. Or are you saying no camping there now too?

 

[Long_Rod_Silvers]

We don't have a lack of rules problem.
We have a too many idiots problem.

Keep making more rules and access permits, etc. all you want. That isnt going to fix the idiot problem. They're remarkably resilient at their craft.

 

[goinoregon]

We don't have a lack of rules problem.
We have a too many idiots problem.

Keep making more rules and access permits, etc. all you want. That isnt going to fix the idiot problem. They're remarkably resilient at their craft.

rules are like laws, they are not for most of us. keep nudging the dipsticks to the sides, and away from the special places.

 

[Northern]

In which case Id Just park at burke or Quincy and hike in and camp. Or are you saying no camping there now too?

I'm saying that closing the Bench completely or turning it into a serviced campground aren't the only options.
Given just those two choices and funding limits, they will likely choose the former. A simple, free permit system would discourage those who intend to be destructive and therefore don't want the law knowing they are out there.

There will always be people determined to do whatever they believe is their personal right (burning shit, crapping on trails, chucking beer cans wherever) despite rules put in place to protect wild places, but those numbers drop with every little thing that makes it more legally risky.
"nudging the dipsticks to the sides" as @goinoregon puts it.

I'm curious, though. If you like it there because it's less populated, I'd think you would be happy to have permit-limited numbers and fewer yahoos out there messing things up.
No?

 

[Matt B]

I dislike Recreation.gov due to how it’s been ruined by bots and made camping really not super affordable for what they provide.
Maybe they could glom on to the State Parks reservation system instead.