Getting ticketed for stealth camping

[Ken Thompson]

I would like to hear more of what the OP is asking for.

This thread was going along just fine until Scott had to give us his judgement.

[David Goodyear]

I do a lot of backwoods cold case search and rescue. This involves gridding the woods and walking search lanes to find clues. You wouldn't believe the things that we come across. The destruction of the wilderness, illegal hunting blinds, trash from stealth sites, strange people that make you want to put one hand on your bear spray and the other on your bush knife. We GPS the violations and turn them into the park rangers – and yes that means you – sorry, but if you are breaking the law, then you are also the problem.

When I hike for fun, I plan my hike to include the rules. I buy the permits, licenses and tags.

There is one way for me to live and I prefer not to have to look over my shoulder.

Add me to your list Dave.

Dave

[Ken Thompson]

Next time I camp at a day use only picnic area I will think of this thread while I am picking up other peoples trash.

Mr. Goodyear is including non backpackers now to this thread. Let's see how far we can stray from the OP's list of questions? Ever take a pen from work? Drive after a beer?

[Scott M]

Douglas –

Thank you for the thoughtful response. I was becoming concerned that any responses were going to consist of nothing more than me being placed on secret lists and comments concerning the number of posts I've made.

I considered that my use of Eldridge Cleaver would be risky and the irony involved with it. I think the words are good words regardless of his intent at the time or his ability to abide by them later in life.

I also get that there is a time for dissent, discourse and civil disobedience. I don't believe that comparing the actions or motivations of Ghandi, MLK or Jesus to illegal camping are exactly fair but I do get your point.

I also certainly don't expect anyone to put themselves in harms way to obey such rules when they find themselves in dangerous and unforeseen circumstances. I hope that I cause no displeasure to Mary D if I once again commend her on her good sense.

My original comments were really directed towards the idea that it was acceptable to do what you wish to suit your personal desires as an individual regardless of the rules. This seemed to be the attitude with some posters on the first page of this thread. For example the posts of Joseph Peterson, who I originally quoted and also the story related by Marc Eldridge.

Kat – I agree that "there are lots of rules that came into being because of a 'few" morons." I'll bump that by saying that I believe there are also lots of rules that came into being or were made more stringent because of the few that couldn't obey the first set of rules (the rules that were the fault of the morons). Things like total closures come to mind.

[Greg Mihalik]

"You wouldn't believe the things that we come across. The destruction of the wilderness, illegal hunting blinds, trash from stealth sites, strange people that make you want to put one hand on your bear spray and the other on your bush knife. We GPS the violations and turn them into the park rangers – and yes that means you – sorry, but if you are breaking the law, then you are also the problem."

If you find me doing these things by all means slap on the cuffs. After all, the laws are written to define and to give teeth to (selective) enforcement.

But just because I stealth camp doesn't mean my actions result in what you see in the woods, aside from the possibility that I might fall into your "strange people" category.

It is not the intent I object to, but the "lowest common denominator" approach of its application.

[W I S N E R !]

…completely loses its stealthiness when you talk about it on the internet. If you stealth camp and talk about it, an unknown unknown becomes a known unknown.

So, for the record, I do not stealth camp.

And if I ever do stealth camp, hypothetically speaking, none of you would EVER know. That's an unknown unknown. Smooth sailing.

Now if I get caught, I obviously WAS NOT stealth camping. Getting caught puts you into the realm of the known known. No bueno.

In conclusion, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don't know.

Personally, I like to roll with the unknown unknowns, the true scofflaws, or should I say "lowlaws", because they fly beneath the radar of the law.

[Ken Thompson]

Good one Craig. But some people don't even know enough to not know.

[BlackHatGuy]

I gotta tell ya, Mr. Wisner, there's a delicious irony in you, of all people, quoting Rummy. My evening is now complete, I can finally go to bed! ;-)

[W I S N E R !]

Hey, as long as they don't know enough to not know about anything I may or may not be doing, I'm off the hook and can do what I want.

From this day forward, my new stealth camping gang is called The Unknown Unknowns. Which may or may not be true.

[W I S N E R !]

Oh, and I officially appoint Dave T as head of Human Resources.

[Kattt]

@ Craig
Best post.

[BlackHatGuy]

"@ Craig
Best post."

Yeah, sure. You always did like Craig best. Hrumph.

[Jeffs Eleven]

LOL Craig-

Ya, if you get seen- your NOT stealth camping.

I like the known unknown- Yeah, I'm stealth camping… come find me.

[Anonymous]

"But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don't know."

Probably the only intelligent words that ever came out of Donald Rumsfeld's mouth. Who'd have thought they'd come up in a UL backpacking conversation? I wonder if Rummy backpacks?

"Personally, I like to roll with the unknown unknowns, the true scofflaws, or should I say "lowlaws", because they fly beneath the radar of the law."

A huge +1 to your whole post. Part of flying under the radar is keeping your mouth shut, especially on the internet. It is wise to bear in mind that the minions of the law have some unknown unknowns(to us) in their toolkit, so why bring yourself to their attention. The rest is a matter of technique and experience. Plus a healthy dose of reverence for the 11th Commandment. An even better approach, IMO, is simply to not visit places where stealth camping is an issue. The ultimate stealth is to be where there isn't a ranger withing 5 miles of you, or anybody else for that matter.

[Roger Caffin]

Forgive me, but … us Australians don't know what you are talking about with 'getting booked for camping somewhere'.
The only time the authorities close a Park here is during extreme fire conditions. At times like those, you just stay home!

Cheers

[Brian Austin]

I think the only subject on this site that gets more comments is packs.

Camping anywhere is fine in my book. Leavin' Trash anywhere is not fine no matter where in my book.

PS. Neither do we here in Washington state. It only happens when high density population areas try to make a wilderness out of something that isn't wilderness. Or overly pretentious jerks go around making rules because of their extremely long noses.

[Greg Mihalik]

An example is Yosemite National Park, 4 hours east of the San Francisco Bay Area and 6 hours north of Los Angeles.

Camping is allowed in campgrounds, if you can find a spot.
Camping is allowed in the backcountry, if you can get a permit.
If you are not camping in the campground or in the backcountry, you are illegal.

Some people, Unknown to me, might walk off into the woods to an out-of-the way spot, flop down a bivy and take a nap. The rangers all know where the most likely spots are, and if you are discovered, will issue a ticket.

It is a result of too many people in too small an area, many of whom don't have a clue about the outdoors, or how to take care of it.

[Kattt]

I am just waiting for Grandpa to come back and tell us under no uncertain terms what is right and what is wrong here…. ; )

[Bob Gross]

A friend of mine used to be a Yosemite park ranger. One morning at Tuolumne Meadows, the mounted patrol was up early to survey the meadow. What they found was remarkable. During the night, a motorcyclist had driven off the road and across the (fragile) meadow into the middle, then threw his bedroll down and slept. This was so illegal that it wasn't funny, and the mounted patrol rangers needed to teach a lesson. They crept up on the motorcycle and removed one part of the ignition. Then they woke the motorcyclist, who promptly jumped up, realized that he was about to get a citation, and got on the motorcycle to try to escape. Obviously it wouldn't start. Then the rangers informed him that he needed to remove it from the meadow, even if that meant pushing it. He was informed of where he needed to walk to reclaim his ignition part, and where the federal court hearing would be for him to answer the citation. In today's dollars, the fine was probably about $700.

–B.G.–

[Cayenne Redmonk]

I know some rule breakers that believe they were born with the right to travel on foot, and thus, will have to occasionally will have to sleep where they end up.

[Harald Hope]

In Norway, and I think in Sweden, the entire notion that someone can own property in a way that bans you from it is considered outrageous and unacceptable. I have no problems following their laws, which are very reasonable: you can camp anywhere you want as long as it's not a cultivated field or something like 150 meters from a residence. Very simple law, known as: every man's right. If I go there, I am fairly free. Unlike in the USA, where I can't camp anywhere within probably 10 miles of where I live, which to me is totally absurd and ridiculous. And most of the spots I could camp at are really nasty and unpleasant, and generally cost money to add insult to injury. And also keep in mind, by definition, almost ALL land in the USA was stolen by us in the first place, after we wiped out the original inhabitants. Ask them how they feel about our 'laws'. I think up to about 1910 or so California was still paying about $5 per Indian scalp, all legal and above board. And of course, Indians and blacks were not considered human, and so generally could not presss charges against whites here. I'll pass on a system that built itself on those kinds of laws if you don't mind, the level of hypocracy there is just too high to stomach.

Now, should the USA start to follow sane rational practices like every man's right, I'd be personally happy to obey all their laws. Barring that, some laws are fine to bend.

If we had a system where every law was created by good people for good reasons, that would be one thing, but we don't, so to blindly state someone should follow all laws because they exist is sort of silly. For example, on a bike, I slow for stop signs, look both ways, if no cars have the right of way, I go without stopping. This is not unlike LNT stealth camping in my opinion. The intent of the law was followed, not the letter. Other laws are so absurd they aren't even worth discussing in a serious adult conversation, many of those contained in the sadly misnamed 'patriot act', others in arcane laws still on the books barring a variety of vices and sexual practices long considered normal by reasoning humans, but still technically illegal. So no, I hope americans never lose their ability to think for themselves and to break laws that are unjust, criminal (as in most laws passed by and for corporate lobbiests), or just plain idiotic (as in laws designed to protect moral codes that don't even exist often any longer, ie, victimless crimes). Keep in mind, some decades ago, your attitude was a strong argument for keeping the n##gers out of your restaurants and in the back of the bus.

And if a power company gets a corrupt official or politician to endorse damming up a protected area solely to serve that power company's interests, how is that a law that should be respected?

Sometimes blind unquestioning adherence to things really is not a very good path to follow.

Re overimpacted places like Yosemite that require permits etc, I respect that, and if they have rangers that actually range, and who hand out tickets, that's fine, a good tip to just go somewhere else less impacted in the first place and skip overvisited areas. It's not like nature isn't going to be where I end up after all, and it's her I want to visit, not some name. But that has nothing to do with the law, that's just practical, nature isn't hard to find when you look for her, last thing I need is some big ticket to deal with, or having to deal with a bunch of annoying rules and regulations, that's why I'm leaving to backpack in the first place, to get away from all that garbage.

This was in reply to Scott McDermott's suggestion that all laws should be obeyed because they exist. And yes, that's a stealth, but not really illegal, spot I'm camping in in my avatar pic. But I would camp there whether it were 'legal' or not. This notion of 'pristine wilderness' really needs to be repaired and corrected, there was never such a thing in the past, we lived in nature with it. Pristine concept only came about once we had destroyed so much that we started romanticizing what we are ruining in our daily lives. You know, like driving a (legal) CO2 spewing vehicle over (legal) ribbons of congealed oil and concrete (legally) blasted through the mountains without a thought, to get to our local favorite hiking spot, in a vehicle (legally) built with between one and two tons of industrially treated raw materials, many totally non renewable, (legally) fueled by liquids increasingly extracted from the earth in horrifyingly toxic ways, and legal, because the extractors manipulated the legal system in their favor, and you won't ask what the real cost of that was because you know, cheap gas is our right, right?, all the while prattling on about how horrible it is to go for a night's sleep using lnt techniques? Now cars, there's something we should outlaw sooner than later, if we're lucky anyway as a species, if not… won't be so good long term.

I don't worry about people who bend the laws, I worry about the people who follow them without a thought, no matter where that might lead us.

[Justin Baker]

Harald, if you owned some property in California, how would you feel if anyone could camp on your land anytime? That would suck. In Sweden the people are probably just different.

[Inaki Diaz de Etura]

People are essentially the same (we all are), societies are different and swedish/norwegian is definitely different from north american. The everyman's right is a beautiful statement surely influenced by the physical environment (which in turn molds the social environment). A harsh climate and low population density are big factors which are not at play in most of California but probably are in other places in the USA.

If I had a big enough property, I'd have no problem with people hiking across it or spending the night as long as they respect my privacy and leave no trace.

I wholeheartedly agree with everything Harald said. It's very important to remember it's easy to abide by good, reasonable law and that many laws are neither. And it's key to keep a critical awareness and not just follow the law whatever it is.

Just a stone throw from Norway and Sweden there's Germany or England where camping is just banned from the whole country's territory. You can't just "go somewhere else" or you need to travel ridiculously far away. I can't believe our conservation problems come from camping neither can they be fixed by banning it. It's just a huge deal of hypocrisy at play.

[peter tooke]

indelible image from a film seen long ago:
young brother & sister from the city, after having been abandoned deep in the Australian outback, are found / saved by a young aboriginal on his Walkabout… and after many days during which their world is rocked, they finally arrive back at a remote housing settlement whereupon a man rushes out the door and tells them to keep off his lawn.

[Greg F]

I would argue that many of the rules people break are non sustainable.

In my opinion in order to break a rule it must be sustainable for everyone following your same level of care to break the rule. So going back to the yosimite example there rule of no front country camping outside of designated areas is a good rule. No matter how LNT a person camps there is an impact so even if everyone was perfectly LNT eventually boot beaten paths and flat tent areas would occur. Just to many people in the area. So i think most of the no camping in picnic areas or in the front country rules are good and should be followed.

In the back country it really depends on how close you are to a high use trail. The futher away you are from high use areas you are the less you have to follow the rules.

So generally ensure that if everyone had the same impact that you do the area that you kove wouldnt be negatively impacted.

[Author]

Posts