Boondocking Article

But Gary ... what you have is far from a Class B!

If I had your rig, I'd be boondocking in the real boonies - as far from any blacktop as possible. Of course it's best to camp in the real boonies with other great like-minded folks as often as possible.

I checked out the Roadtrek models at their website. They're nice fancy units and come at high bucks. However, they do have one model I would consider if I wanted to over-spend per cubic foot. I'd have to order it with much larger diameter tires to get more ground clearance, though. ;)

"I think one also needs to recognize that Roadtrek has a large constituency in the "Stealth Camping Community" which really are not boondockers as they aren't camping in the boondocks; but on public streets, parking lots and vacant lots sometimes where it is not really legal to do so. They object to just about any attempt by communities to control inhabitating an RV (which is not parking) on the streets or private property. In my discussions with campground owners, their biggest complaint about blacktop boondockers is that the companies that encourage it do not have to go through all the regulatory requirements that they do to open their property to overnight guests."

I guess you drink only bottled water? I mean...you have to support those people too, right? They have to pay all that money out, to bottle the water and so on.

Shop only at stores with US made goods and make sure that they pay the proper wages? I mean..you wouldn't ever shop at a discount store or nothing like that, right?

Once you begin defending one business group you have to defend all..and you have to be able to stand up and declare that you are 100%, paying thru the nose.


I love stealth camping. I get to meet lots of people I wouldn't otherwise. I get to save $1,000 a month. I usually get to sleep in a quiet place, not jammed up next to another RV. Where mom and dad or the kids might be scrapping. And, oddly enough, I never have to listen to a generator banging away.



Gary Haupt

I think one also needs to recognize that Roadtrek has a large constituency in the "Stealth Camping Community" which really are not boondockers as they aren't camping in the boondocks; but on public streets, parking lots and vacant lots sometimes where it is not really legal to do so. They object to just about any attempt by communities to control inhabitating an RV (which is not parking) on the streets or private property. In my discussions with campground owners, their biggest complaint about blacktop boondockers is that the companies that encourage it do not have to go through all the regulatory requirements that they do to open their property to overnight guests.

The RV industry as a whole was hurt badly by the collapse of the US economy thanks to the banksters and our corrupt Congress. Most RV manufacturers closed their doors and thousands lost their jobs. Not surprising that the RV parks are having financial problems as they have fixed costs regardless of the number of guests.

We stay at a RV park or public campground to take advantage of hot showers as our holding tanks have limited capacity. We boondock at what are categorized as primitive campgrounds where the requirement is that the camper be self-contained which means RV only and no tent camping is allowed.

The idea of spending a night in the parking lot of some store like a poor unfortunate homeless person is not the least appealing and it is never the only option regardless of where we travel. I cannot begin to fathom the attraction.

I have stayed at roadside rest areas, on forest service side roads, out in the desert, and even once in a cemetery (quietest night I ever spent anywhere). Lots of options that are more enjoyable and safer in every sense.

The owner of Roadtrek is making a great deal of fuss about very little and seems overly full of himself.

Now that I have read the article, it 's as though only Roadtrek owners boondock. That aside, reading the thread, the retired budget analyst got it sort of right, when laying out the income but my calculations are more inward looking. Into MY pocket. At 30 a night, that is a $1,000 a month OUT of my pockets.

Funny too, that there is as much yatter about which RV classes are used for boondocking. Some claim TC's, some say other classes. Well, let me assure you, there is no class NOT being used to drycamp.

Yes, some only boondock in parking lots of various establishments..Wal-Mart and Casinos are popular, right? Then we have the out of sight, out of mind crowd. I do both. I do not pay for camping, ever....except in Brookings, Oregon..there, I want to pay.

This business of campground owners using city and state authorities to force travelers into their rental spots doesn't pay off. How could it? People that are going the boondocking route are not all of a sudden going to pull into a private ground and cough up the ransom.
Having said that, I do know that if the pull-offs along the coasts were not signed, there would some that would become a home-away-from-home, leaving others unable to pull off and see the sights.
And lets be real here..many people are pigs. They drive away leaving their pile of trash..no, I know you don't, but someone sure as heck does.

We have a terrible problem up north. The piles of garbage in some of the boondocking areas is not only unsightly, it's dangerous. Bears are attracted and they have no manners..they just come in.



Gary Haupt

Reddog1 wrote:
This thread on boondocking crosses over to different threads. The initial post was linked to a Class B RV. There is in fact a Forum on Boondocking. It is my personal opinion, TCs and Class Bs are the most probable RVs to boondock. I think each of these Forums would be interested in this Thread. It has ran for a while in the TC Forum, and I will move it to the Public Lands, Boondocking and Dry Camping Forum.

As a TC owner, I am primarily interested in the TC Forum. I have to keep in mind there are other Forums that also have information of interest. As a TC owner, Public Lands, Boondocking and Dry Camping is one of these Forums. Many of the TC trip reports are also of interest in the Public Lands, Boondocking and Dry Camping Forum, and I encourage you to post accordingly.

Good comments!

Boondocking of course is not confined to TCs by any means. We boondock a lot whenever we're out and about in our 24 foot Class C. In fact boondocking is what real camping means to us ... use of commercial RV campgrounds is something else other than "camping".

I do wish that more commercial RV campgrounds offered less expensive drycamping areas, though.

rfryer wrote:
...I rarely ever stay in a commercial park and it’s not because I don’t like campground owners or want to put them out of business. What they have to offer me is nothing more than I could get “camping” in the city. Blacktop, pavement, neighbors within spittin’ distance, pools, rec centers, playgrounds, etc.
I might as well sell my TT because that’s exactly what I’m trying to get away from.

If they were willing to bulldoze all that out, remove the utilities and give me 100 yd to the next campsite they might get more of my business. But that’s not going to happen. They serve a niche market and they should be satisfied with that. Trying to coerce people into using their facilities is counterproductive; they will just make a lot of enemies and not gain any more business.

This is a very good point. Some campground owners, focusing on adding more facilities to compete with other campgrounds, may not understand that many people absolutely don't want the facilities they are offering at all, and beyond that don't actually want to be at a campground that is stuffed full of such facilities. Unfortunately where I live there are very few boondocking opportunities. One of the major websites I use for finding campgrounds has exactly this bias - you can check lots of boxes to ask it to find campgrounds that include pools, recreation areas, restaurants, hard standing, etc. but I would prefer the opposite - to be able to EXCLUDE campgrounds that had certain facilities but to the people running the web site (and probably the campgrounds too) more facilities = better.

Steve.

This thread on boondocking crosses over to different threads. The initial post was linked to a Class B RV. There is in fact a Forum on Boondocking. It is my personal opinion, TCs and Class Bs are the most probable RVs to boondock. I think each of these Forums would be interested in this Thread. It has ran for a while in the TC Forum, and I will move it to the Public Lands, Boondocking and Dry Camping Forum.

As a TC owner, I am primarily interested in the TC Forum. I have to keep in mind there are other Forums that also have information of interest. As a TC owner, Public Lands, Boondocking and Dry Camping is one of these Forums. Many of the TC trip reports are also of interest in the Public Lands, Boondocking and Dry Camping Forum, and I encourage you to post accordingly.

Wayne
Moderator

mlts22 wrote:
The local areas think that if they go after the boondockers, that all the people out there will magically go to the RV parks and patronize the local towns, making a tidy profit for the local businesses. What really happens is that people go elsewhere, and the town makes less money from tourists long-term, especially when the local RV parks are full.

I have to agree with that. I rarely ever stay in a commercial park and it’s not because I don’t like campground owners or want to put them out of business. What they have to offer me is nothing more than I could get “camping” in the city. Blacktop, pavement, neighbors within spittin’ distance, pools, rec centers, playgrounds, etc.
I might as well sell my TT because that’s exactly what I’m trying to get away from.

If they were willing to bulldoze all that out, remove the utilities and give me 100 yd to the next campsite they might get more of my business. But that’s not going to happen. They serve a niche market and they should be satisfied with that. Trying to coerce people into using their facilities is counterproductive; they will just make a lot of enemies and not gain any more business.

amandasgramma wrote:

rkortes wrote:

amandasgramma wrote:

ed6713 wrote:

amandasgramma wrote:

Sparky87k5 wrote:

amandasgramma wrote:
So let's do some calculating. I'll guess the average park space is $30. a night......100 spaces in the RV park. That's $3000 a night if full. Times 30 days in the month -- that's $90,000. a month. Times 12 months ---$1,080,000 a year. Let's say you're only full half the time or half that year....that's still $5.4 million a year.

NOT $5.4 million but $540,000, still a good income.

You're right......type-o!!!!!! giggle giggle.........and that's why I retired from being a budget analyst!!!!!!! thank you

The $540k is the GROSS income. Well above what the owners will NET after all expenses are paid. I would be surprised if they netted 10% after income tax.

Well, sweetie, you're right --- however that's still more than I make. So what makes them (and apparently you) think that I should take all MY income and pay them to sleep in MY rig that I paid for?????? There's plenty of campers out there to keep RV parks and campgrounds in business. What causes most that I've known of to not have enough campers is 1) attitude and 2) too costly.

ed6713's point was that these campground owners are small business owners just trying to make a buck to live on. I don't really see them as "1 percenters" as your math attempted to illustrate.

and I think both of you are missing my point....no, I don't think they're the 1 percenters. But I DO think they have a lot of gall trying to prevent me from boondocking .....doing what we can afford, to help line their pocket. Now -- I've said enough on this -- i don't want to get kicked off here......

Hmm agree to disagree.... most of the campground owners I run across are hard working middle class folks. If your choice is NOT to go there then so be it. You really did paint them as being greedy and rich. Even without your messed up math (giggle giggle) they don't fit your description IMHO.