Getting ticketed for stealth camping

"There is a world of difference between a law or rule against harming someone and a rule that was made because there are a lot of morons."

Big +1.

Outdoor "rules" are made for the least common denominator. When it comes to no-impact stealth camping, I don't feel obliged to follow rules made for the most idiotic of the idiots.

I agree with Craig, but since he was smart enough to use a picture, I'm going to use some of the thousands words he wisely skipped.

There are, in my opinion, two main ways to get 'rules' changed – either get your congresscritters to change them through legislation, or get the courts to abolish them through the law.

I don't know about you, but I don't count on congresscritters to do much of anything (and they often meet my expectations fabulously), but you can't change the law in the courts without standing (I'm not a lawyer, so all you real lawyers out there, if I'm wrong about that feel free to rip me a new cavity and tell me how wrong I am). One possibly effective way to do that is to break the rule/law, get caught, and challenge the rule/law in court.

So, to answer another comment, it's not arrogance to decide to break rules if you're truly serious about changing them, as long as you're willing to pay whatever consequences come from your actions. In fact, I believe it's not only one of our rights as Americans, but in some cases, even our duty, as Craig's picture so eloquently shows.

This does, by the way, go beyond individuals. States love breaking federal laws (medical marijuana comes to mind) to assert their own sovereignty.

Good post Doug and decent point Craig.

But you both know the general premise and rules we are talking about are in no way close to Jim Crow laws or segregation ones. That is a red hearing in this discussion.

If tou break the rules because "you know better" then there is no reason others won't follow your bad example. Arrogance leads you down the path that you know best… All you do is encourage others to break the rules that are in place for a good reason.

Comparing a rule breaker, as far as stealth camping, to a criminal – is where things took a weird turn, as far as I am concerned.
Some people will follow any rule just because it's in place and they almost scare me. I like to consider the validity before committing to it.

Kat

I'm at least am not talking about criminal laws etc.

I'm sticking to the OP and rules as go into stealth camping. They are there for a reason and if we don't like them then get them changed. But to act like "you" (not specific to u) can break them with no impact and others just are too dumb to know how is arrogant. Plus you are never completely LNT and if everybody broke them there would be impact. So what makes you special that you should get to do what you want.

I stealth camp quite a lot. Never been cited or discovered.

I do not set up until right as darkness falls. I am gone by first light. I leave no trace. No fires.

I am against rules that are in place because people ruin everything as a reason. More accountability/responsibility needed from the masses.

To all parents. Raise them right.

Edit: Be forewarned that this thread goes to pieces and is non constructive. It also strays from the OP's question. So carry on if you wish.

Fair enough Michael. I don't have a problem with most LNT rules and I don'r remember breaking rules while camping myself.
I do have a problem with the post that extends LNT rule breakers to the thinking of a criminal. I also have a problem with busy bodies, both in the backcountry and in town. If someone wants to camp illegally, and does so following LNT rules, does not do it in your face, and is willing to deal with a ticket- then it would really bother me to see some better than thou hiker mouth off on them about the rule book. There are just too many people that make it their mission to act as "officers" of sorts.

ARROGANT –

– making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming;
– an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner
– exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own importance often by an overbearing manner
– having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance

I make no claims, I don't brag, I don't exaggerate, I don't tout, I don't insist everyone should do it.

I just wander off, keep it neat, sleep well, and carry on. I prefer "scofflaw".

scofflaw |ˈskôfˌlô; ˈskäf-|
noun informal
a person who flouts the law, esp. by failing to comply with a law that is difficult to enforce effectively.

+1

Haha.

I think that arrogance definitions are spot on

I'm not going around lecturing on trail. ;)

I am just enjoying the discussion. So please don't take it personal.

I do think if u break the law or rule u deserve the ticket.

We are probly all picturing different stuff. I keep picturing litter which is my pet peeve.

"You can break man's laws, but you can't break natures's laws".

Ref: My high school drivers training teacher. Your speed, the co-efficient of tire friction, the radius of the road's curve, all of that. Sure, one might go much faster around the curve than the sign says, but at some point things just don't quite work. That was his statement. Man's laws–nature's laws.

It seems to apply of all of life, really. Whether you camp stealth, or whether you drive a race car.

Just be sensible; don't burn down a forest, leave it as it was.

> the rules that are in place for a good reason.

that's THE problem. What's a good reason to forbid camping? Sometimes it seems the fact that some people might mis-behave is good enough reason to forbid camping for everyone. It's like we forbid car traffic because some people are not responsible enough to drive their cars properly. Instead, we try to educate people and go after the remaining offenders, but not against those who behave responsibly.

People who love nature and take care to respect it usually have no problem to avoid camping where it's forbidden for a good enough reason, when the camping itself, no matter how carefully done, is significantly harmful. We're actually happy to abide by that. But such a broad stroke as forbidding everybody, everywhere, just in case is not fair and it simply doesn't work.

(Kat) "Comparing a rule breaker, as far as stealth camping, to a criminal – is where things took a weird turn, as far as I am concerned. "

(Kat) "I do have a problem with the post that extends LNT rule breakers to the thinking of a criminal."

I believe that the thought process involved is the same regardless of the nature or severity (perceived or otherwise) of the infraction. It's a matter of justification and people who wish to do whatever they want will justify to themselves why the regulation in question applies to others but not to themselves.

A few examples of how a person may do this might include;

(Dave T) "I don't feel obliged to follow rules made for the most idiotic of the idiots."

(Ken Thompson) "I stealth camp quite a lot. Never been cited or discovered.

I do not set up until right as darkness falls. I am gone by first light. I leave no trace. No fires.

I am against rules that are in place because people ruin everything as a reason. More accountability/responsibility needed from the masses."

(Kat) "There is a world of difference between a law or rule against harming someone and a rule that was made because there are a lot of morons."

Dave apparently has determined that he is not one of the most idiotic of the idiots. Ken justifies his activity with his 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th sentences (although it could be meant to be instructional) and then appears to exclude himself from being one of the masses. Kat seems to be differentiating between rules that hurt others (the rules worthy of being followed, I would assume as determined by – Kat) and rules that are made because of the morons (not to include Kat).

The irony is that Kat infers that if you have a problem with this or speak up against it, you are a "better than thou hiker". Maybe I'm reading too much into their statements but it appears clear that they have proclaimed themselves to be members of some exclusive group. A group separate from "the most idiotic of idiots", removed from the "masses" and exclusive of "a lot of the morons".

Ken, it's funny that you mentioned raising children. One of the things that motivated me to take part in this thread is that I am a parent that strives to "raise them right". One way I attempt to accomplish that very thing is by setting boundaries for them and I use rules to set those boundaries. You can bet your merino beanie that I do not expect that they decide for themselves which of those rules are worthy of their compliance.

There are processes in place to have unfair, unwarranted or unpopular regulations changed. That is one responsible option. Another responsible option as Mary D points out, " I either obey the rules or (preferably) go backpacking somewhere else." Thank you Mary for your sensibilities.

The self important concept that the rules are for all those other people seems pervasive in our society and I believe is at the root of many problems. From Washington D.C. to Wall Street to Main Street to, unfortunately it seems, even the back country.

(Douglas) "I agree with Craig, but since he was smart enough to use a picture, I'm going to use some of the thousands words he wisely skipped.

There are, in my opinion, two main ways to get 'rules' changed – either get your congresscritters to change them through legislation, or get the courts to abolish them through the law"

I agree Douglas but I fear that changing laws was not the motivation of the OP James L. I do hope however that his motivation was more from a position of curiosity.

Since Craig chose to use black activists to illustrate a point, allow me to close my thoughts by presenting a concept made famous by Eldridge Cleaver, "You're either part of the solution or part of the problem".

"There are, in my opinion, two main ways to get 'rules' changed – either get your congresscritters to change them through legislation, or get the courts to abolish them through the law."

If I had a SuperPac and $20M at my disposal that is exactly what I would do. Especially since this is an election year. But I don't. So off I go, quietly, and without remorse.

As Ken correctly surmised a while back, BPL is a great way to determine who you don't want to go backpacking with. Another one goes on the list.

And since I'll be illegally stealth camping (while planning my SuperPAC), there's no chance I'll accidentally run into him, either.

Come on Dave, I was hoping you could teach me how to be one of the least idiotic of the idiots.

I have no children. I am self centered. I have no concern for anyone else. Usually. Happy?
Edit; I am an elitist snob as well.

How do we feel about being on our cellphone, smoking pot and speeding on the way to the trailhead, to do some stealth camping?

And this thread has strayed from the OP's 3 questions. I was only answering. I did not know I would be on trial.

Anyone turn anyone stealth camping in?

Only 7 posts to get on Dave's list. Might be a record.

1. Ken, the list is new (only The Petliski is on it otherwise) so his is no great feat. Anyway, it's not the quantity, it's the (lack of) quality.

2. Ken, when you are quietly ensconced after dark in your quiet stealth campsite, ruminate upon the fact that you are a rule-breaking scofflaw. I hope it keeps you up at night! (well, until you fall fast asleep in your mossy sylvan glade).

Before everyone starts thinking I'm a paragon of virtue or something, I do want to admit that I've camped illegally a few times. In all the cases it was in bark beetle country, where all standing trees were waiting to fall at the first puff of wind. There was no way I could stay safe and still camp the required distance from the trail or water sources. Each time, I resolved the issue in favor of staying away from the water sources and camping too close to the trail. As much as people disparage "silnylon gray," it does help make your tent inconspicuous! I've also had to camp in meadows once in a while for the same reason. I never got a ticket, mostly because these were Forest Service areas and in most of those, thanks to budget cuts, wilderness rangers are basically an extinct breed. But better ticketed than squashed by a falling tree!

I still don't define stealth camping as something necessarily illegal. I just want to get well away from popular camping areas and trails for the sake of privacy and a clean camp. That means I generally go a quarter mile or so off-trail. I try to stay well away from lakes, whose shores are often ravaged by overuse, and instead look for a place along the inlet or outlet.

I avoid backpacking in national parks because of their obsessive bureaucracy (gotta camp where they say, even if you can't hike 12 miles a day) and because I don't want to backpack without my beloved dog (he keeps my feet warm at night!). For the same reason, you'll see me on the side of the opposition to any efforts to expand national parks or make new ones.

I've seen enough overused popular areas that I very much approve restrictions on camping in those locations. If at all possible, though, I avoid them altogether.

Scott-

A fairly thoughtful and mostly reasonable post (strays a bit, methinks, into unnecessary near-haranguing, but nobody's perfect…;-).

It is, to me, however, a fascinating choice of Cleaver's comment in '68 with which to end your post. He was advocating breaking all kinds of rules at the time! You coaxed a smile out of me with that!

While I agree that there are processes in place to have unfair, unwarranted or unpopular regulations changed (I mentioned two), often they are realistically unattainable by most citizenry, for what that's worth.

"One of the things that motivated me to take part in this thread is that I am a parent that strives to "raise them right". One way I attempt to accomplish that very thing is by setting boundaries for them and I use rules to set those boundaries. You can bet your merino beanie that I do not expect that they decide for themselves which of those rules are worthy of their compliance."

Not sure it's a completely fair analogy, but I'll go along with it. I certainly, I think, understand the bigger point you're trying to make. I've never had kids (most people who know me thank me for this often…..), but I do have employees (nearly the same thing). I expect them to do what's right. That's not always what the rules say, though. In many such circles, and certainly in mine, a common phrase is "it's better to ask forgiveness than permission."

As I said in my previous post, sometimes you have to break a few rules to effect change, there seems no other way. But then again, I've never been a strict rule follower (a character flaw since birth, I'm afraid). My world is very, very grey – never breaking rules is simply too black and white for me.

Lastly, breaking the law makes you a criminal. Yes, technically, I agree. But there's a pretty impressive list of such scofflaws – Ghandi, MLK, Jesus ….. I have no issue with being on that list….. ;-)

Scott:
"(Kat) "Comparing a rule breaker, as far as stealth camping, to a criminal – is where things took a weird turn, as far as I am concerned. "

(Kat) "I do have a problem with the post that extends LNT rule breakers to the thinking of a criminal."

I believe that the thought process involved is the same regardless of the nature or severity (perceived or otherwise) of the infraction. It's a matter of justification and people who wish to do whatever they want will justify to themselves why the regulation in question applies to others but not to themselves.

A few examples of how a person may do this might include;

(Dave T) "I don't feel obliged to follow rules made for the most idiotic of the idiots."

(Ken Thompson) "I stealth camp quite a lot. Never been cited or discovered.

I do not set up until right as darkness falls. I am gone by first light. I leave no trace. No fires.

I am against rules that are in place because people ruin everything as a reason. More accountability/responsibility needed from the masses."

(Kat) "There is a world of difference between a law or rule against harming someone and a rule that was made because there are a lot of morons."

Dave apparently has determined that he is not one of the most idiotic of the idiots. Ken justifies his activity with his 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th sentences (although it could be meant to be instructional) and then appears to exclude himself from being one of the masses. Kat seems to be differentiating between rules that hurt others (the rules worthy of being followed, I would assume as determined by – Kat) and rules that are made because of the morons (not to include Kat).

The irony is that Kat infers that if you have a problem with this or speak up against it, you are a "better than thou hiker". Maybe I'm reading too much into their statements but it appears clear that they have proclaimed themselves to be members of some exclusive group. A group separate from "the most idiotic of idiots", removed from the "masses" and exclusive of "a lot of the morons".

Ken, it's funny that you mentioned raising children. One of the things that motivated me to take part in this thread is that I am a parent that strives to "raise them right". One way I attempt to accomplish that very thing is by setting boundaries for them and I use rules to set those boundaries. You can bet your merino beanie that I do not expect that they decide for themselves which of those rules are worthy of their compliance.

There are processes in place to have unfair, unwarranted or unpopular regulations changed. That is one responsible option. Another responsible option as Mary D points out, " I either obey the rules or (preferably) go backpacking somewhere else." Thank you Mary for your sensibilities.

The self important concept that the rules are for all those other people seems pervasive in our society and I believe is at the root of many problems. From Washington D.C. to Wall Street to Main Street to, unfortunately it seems, even the back country.

(Douglas) "I agree with Craig, but since he was smart enough to use a picture, I'm going to use some of the thousands words he wisely skipped.

There are, in my opinion, two main ways to get 'rules' changed – either get your congresscritters to change them through legislation, or get the courts to abolish them through the law"

I agree Douglas but I fear that changing laws was not the motivation of the OP James L. I do hope however that his motivation was more from a position of curiosity.

Since Craig chose to use black activists to illustrate a point, allow me to close my thoughts by presenting a concept made famous by Eldridge Cleaver, "You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"."

Well…..
The "nature" or "severity" of the infraction does make a difference to me, if the "crime" is not hurting anyone. You are correct.
It is not really a matter of degrees to me; rules against hurting others or their property are different in nature than the rest.
As far as those that speak up against one breaking say, a no camping rule, it depends on the circumstances. They could be a busy body but maybe not.
I did not say that only rules against hurting others are worth following either.
I actually don't even break many rules, but I do reserve the right to consider them. Remember the Milgram experiment? I don't think I would have continued to "zap". There have been plenty of horrendous acts committed by rule followers that did not apply their own judgement. Yes, it is a matter of principle to me and yes, there are lots of rules that came into being because of a 'few" morons.

"If you break the rules because "you know better" then there is no reason others won't follow your bad example."

Which brings to mind a synonym for "bad example": civil disobedience. ;)

"
"One of the things that motivated me to take part in this thread is that I am a parent that strives to "raise them right". One way I attempt to accomplish that very thing is by setting boundaries for them and I use rules to set those boundaries. You can bet your merino beanie that I do not expect that they decide for themselves which of those rules are worthy of their compliance."

Children need guidance and boundaries. When these children grow up, one would expect them to see for themselves which of the rules they were raised with are right and logical.

"I do think if u break the law or rule u deserve the ticket."

If u get caught.

I sleep like a rock. Out before my head hits the pillow.