Stealth camping

[garyhaupt]

This link was posted in TC and yes, I ripped it right off.....to share here.

http://www.truckcampermagazine.com/camper-lifestyle/stealth-camping-with-a-truck-camper

If you are into the stealth side of boondocking, you may find some helpful hints.



Gary Haupt

[pnichols]

B ..... with that setup of yours you need not stealth camp at all. You can camp - well exposed, if there were anyone around to see - way out in the middle of nowhere for days on end. If I remember correctly, you have gobs of solar and water onboard. :h and 😉

[BoonHauler]

B, I recognized your rig right away .... 🙂

I found the read interesting and thank you for taking the time to put it together.

Cee

[bka0721]

jfkmk wrote:
While I admit I didn't read every word, the first question that comes to mind is "why"?

Really good question. That was summed up by the final sentence in the article. But many people ask the same question; Why ride a motorcycle if it is that dangerous? Why backpack in an area where there are grizzly bears? Why go RVing when you have everything in your home?

Having additional knowledge to find a place for the night allows you more opportunities to travel quickly across the country. Not everywhere has a Wal-Mart to stay overnight at. As in when no convenient campground is close to where you want to visit Family and or relatives. Stealth camping for me, it is an opportunity to get some shopping done and go to the book store, or Home Depot. Not everyone lives in a big city with these amenities are want to spend time looking for a campground while they are traveling in their RVs on vacation. Again, the last sentence would have given you a reason and not a why. Thanks for trying though.

MrWizard wrote:
a couple things could be stated a little more clearly
prime example
"not less than 15ft" yada yada
"No Closer than 15ft..the more the better" is stating it more directly and clearly
i like the idea of using google maps before hand

Yada yada yeah, the laws and how they are enforced can be pretty unclear. The wording was taken right from the statute for parking. Sorry it was confusing. Technical writing can be pretty dry and counterintuitive for many not familiar in reading in technical and or legal fashion. Thus the reason they need so many lawyers and lawmakers to decipher all of it, then return later and reinterpret what was previously stated.

Actually it is correctly stated. Since more than 90% of my nights is boondocking, there is often a lack of internet so when I arrive in populated areas, internet is then available. Some of these sites can be found by your smartphone just by tapping on the blinking blue dot that signifies where you are at, at that moment. Then just look from that point for something available. Sorry, I just don’t plan that far ahead.

jfkmk wrote:
I was saying that tongue in cheek, Gary. But in reality if I find I need to sleep in industrial parking lots and on city streets with the windows blacked out to avoid detection, I'd rethink my choices. I would also consider a job somewhere to supplement my income to avoid needing to live like that. If the guy was retired law enforcement I'm sure he can find something

Again, did you read the article? This is not a lifestyle but an opportunity for those traveling or visiting someone on their vacation or a family visit. It was not the intent of the article to voice this as a lifestyle, but as a supplement to aiding one’s travels in an RV, for the aforementioned reasons. But for those that don’t take long trips, a need to run into a town that has a grocery store before returning to your beautiful boondock location, or prior to arriving at your next location, then these suggestions are not needed by you. As there are many of you, that leave home, fully stocked and within one day of your destination and not need a waypoint to stop for the night, then this article would not provide you any benefit.

Old-Biscuit wrote:
Stealth camping
What/who are folks hiding from and WHY?
The LAW, society or just being CHEAP

I would encourage one to read the article as it explains why this topic was explored. For me and the reason I shared a topic such as this, was to provide a tool for the traveler to be more expeditious. Many seek out campgrounds or Wal-Marts. Those are perfectly fine and then this article will probably not interest you. But there are many locations around the country that are without the opportunity for the normal drycamping opportunities. With the article, many types are shared. While there are many more that could be used and explored, they would be in the area of; Ask for forgiveness, not for permission. Any responsible writer should refrain from expanding into information that is subject to enforcement from appropriate authorities. This area of use comes from experience in what might be considered a grey area.

Yeah, Cheap too! :B

pnichols wrote:
I don't know about stealth camping ... but when we go on RV trips we sure could use commercial campgrounds with dirt/grass/scrub special drycamping sections where you could overnight in your RV - with no use of their bathrooms/showers/etc. facilities allowed - for around $10 per night. I rarely see a commercial campground without some unkept part of it that they couldn't make a few bucks off us (cheap) $10/per night self-contained RV overnighters. They could even enforce a one night, or two consecutive night, rule to keep squatters out. :C

While this is a boondocking and drycamping forum, so I would expect more of a leaning towards that, than campgrounds. One of the States I found bountiful with the location you are talking about, pnichols, is California. Traveling around California many of the counties have cities where their county fairs and manage campgrounds year round in these locations. Some of the Corps of Engineer sites have free sites, during their off seasons, or discount rates if you use a site without hookups. Just checking as you travel, there are many locations such as these. Or as the article shared, small town city parks have these locations and for me, I have even been invited to a few Bar-b-Ques while overnighting there!



Many of you sadden me, when reading many of your very narrow comments about your fellow man. It had been my hope to have written an article for others to find an opportunity available for them, as they travel, that they otherwise might have discounted or not aware was available to them. Sadly, some preferred to take this as an opportunity to shame a segment of our population and society as a societal issue. Far from the core of the article or the effort to post this for others to have an opportunity to read and gain from. As a frequent contributor to this Boondocking/drycamping forum it would seem this would be a topic that would be discussed and debated on topic. Or others to find an opportunity to add their own experiences and knowledge to what had previously been shared. Thanks. Thanks to those of you, the posters that contributed or brought up points not otherwise discussed in the article that the OP shared.

For those others that disseminated hate and misinformation, I am glad you are not drinking a beer with me or going on a hike. For you exhibit a character I would not wish to be associated with.

b

[Old-Biscuit]

So..the people that act as Hosts in the various parks..the ones that full-time...they gotta leave too? Coo..I want to see that.

FTrs HAVE residential addresses..........legitimate 'physical' addresses recognized by FED/State entities via legitimate 'mail forwarding services'.

:S

[garyhaupt]

" Recently I read a article about the NFS cracking down on people abusing the forest by living in them. The rule works out to if you don't have a residential address that you can't spend even a night in a NF because it is illegal to live in them. You must be living there since you have no other home and it applies to even the big rigs since they full time. So the next time a ranger ask where you live and you proudly say your shiny motor home, you may be ticketed and asked to leave."

So..the people that act as Hosts in the various parks..the ones that full-time...they gotta leave too? Coo..I want to see that.

"That is a pretty fine line. I have definitely seen people fulltiming in class C RVs on city streets that I would consider homeless. I guess for me the dividing line is whether you can afford other options".

Am I correct, that in the posters view, as long as person has 'other options' they are superior to anyone else and they can live on the street, but not if they don't have "other options".


There are so many people that have lost everything. Some due to the monetary/banking collapse. Some due to the closing of plants. Some due to other circumstances. How utterly arrogant to condemn those less fortunate. Do you look down your nose at them as you drive by? Do you speak poorly of them? Those of us that are 'ok'..we are SO fortunate. It is important to remember that.


Gary Haupt

[Naio]

JiminDenver wrote:
On cheaprvliving.com you can find many people doing this. Interesting but I'g go stir crazy in my trailer, a van is out of the question.

I go stir crazy in any type of indoor space :). I don't hang out in my van, even less than I do in my S&B house. I am always out doing stuff!

What's funny is how other perceive them while getting irate if someone tells them that they are homeless, not just full timers going from one boondocking area to another.

That is a pretty fine line. I have definitely seen people fulltiming in class C RVs on city streets that I would consider homeless. I guess for me the dividing line is whether you can afford other options... or expect to be able to in the reasonably near future -- I am thinking of a friend of mine who lived temporarily in his van while starting a business, and others who did so while prepping a boat for a round the world trip.

Recently I read a article about the NFS cracking down on people abusing the forest by living in them. The rule works out to if you don't have a residential address that you can't spend even a night in a NF because it is illegal to live in them. You must be living there since you have no other home and it applies to even the big rigs since they full time. So the next time a ranger ask where you live and you proudly say your shiny motor home, you may be ticketed and asked to leave.

This has always been a thing. I've encountered people who have built cabins.

[JiminDenver]

On cheaprvliving.com you can find many people doing this. Interesting but I'g go stir crazy in my trailer, a van is out of the question.

What's funny is how other perceive them while getting irate if someone tells them that they are homeless, not just full timers going from one boondocking area to another.

Recently I read a article about the NFS cracking down on people abusing the forest by living in them. The rule works out to if you don't have a residential address that you can't spend even a night in a NF because it is illegal to live in them. You must be living there since you have no other home and it applies to even the big rigs since they full time. So the next time a ranger ask where you live and you proudly say your shiny motor home, you may be ticketed and asked to leave.

[Naio]

Escargot wrote:


The mentally ill were dumped, and half-way houses were closed by the "ketchup is a vegetable" President, who, ironically became a vegetable himself.

Yep. It was Reagan.

With regard to "They are either frauds, druggies, alcoholics, or mentally ill."

...or physically disabled.

I used to work for a government housing board. Through that job, i encountered a housing program where clients had to be provably veterans, homeless, addicts AND mentally ill -- every client had to be all four things. And there was no problem filling the beds. A lot of homeless people have multiple, serious problems. And are veterans.

[Escargot]

mpierce wrote:

irishtom29 wrote:

LenSatic wrote:

I have no sympathy whatsoever for the so called "homeless". They are either frauds, druggies, alcoholics, or mentally ill. And the latter were released from institutions in the '70s by "compassionate" liberals because of movies like "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and "Bill".

Actually most were released in the 80s when conservatives closed up government run or subsidized mental hospitals so they could spend money on other things.
You're quite the chest thumper, eh?

Your rememberer is quite different than mine. I remember them being closed because the "advanced" thinking at the time was that it was better to be out in the population than to be shut up into a "home". My brother was in one, and has been out since then. He is in a group home. If he were to be released totally, he could not cope.

However, if he was any worse off, then a hospital setting would be better.

But, it was the liberalized education people who closed them off.

The mentally ill were dumped, and half-way houses were closed by the "ketchup is a vegetable" President, who, ironically became a vegetable himself.

With regard to "They are either frauds, druggies, alcoholics, or mentally ill."
I think your generalization is missing a few other categories, nonetheless, spend a couple of months living on the streets and I am willing to guarantee you will end up having psychological challenges.

Anyway, how about getting back to the OP, and forego broadcasting our prejudices against humans living in unfortunate circumstances.

[garyhaupt]

Phil..the devices don't belong to those reading the texts...they belong to those making the documentary.


Gary Haupt

[mpierce]

irishtom29 wrote:

LenSatic wrote:


I have no sympathy whatsoever for the so called "homeless". They are either frauds, druggies, alcoholics, or mentally ill. And the latter were released from institutions in the '70s by "compassionate" liberals because of movies like "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and "Bill".

Actually most were released in the 80s when conservatives closed up government run or subsidized mental hospitals so they could spend money on other things.

You're quite the chest thumper, eh?

Your rememberer is quite different than mine. I remember them being closed because the "advanced" thinking at the time was that it was better to be out in the population than to be shut up into a "home". My brother was in one, and has been out since then. He is in a group home. If he were to be released totally, he could not cope.

However, if he was any worse off, then a hospital setting would be better.

But, it was the liberalized education people who closed them off.

[pnichols]

Hmmmm .... regarding the link about the homeless that Gary posted: Don't most of them reading the posts about the homeless look like they themselves are "homeless" - or at least on the lower end of the resources scale - and don't most of them look like they're reading the messages on iPAD/iPHONE-like devices? The last time I checked, the devices many of them are using cost $100's of dollars to purchase and their monthly data plans were $30/month on up.

Something is amiss here in that link. :h

[irishtom29]

LenSatic wrote:


I have no sympathy whatsoever for the so called "homeless". They are either frauds, druggies, alcoholics, or mentally ill. And the latter were released from institutions in the '70s by "compassionate" liberals because of movies like "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and "Bill".

Actually most were released in the 80s when conservatives closed up government run or subsidized mental hospitals so they could spend money on other things.

You're quite the chest thumper, eh?

[CSG]

I rarely "stealth" camp but I overnight at a lot of places where I don't have to pay for 8-12 hours just to sleep. I live in the west and paying for an RV park is insane to me. I couldn't care less what the self-appointed rv.net nazis have to say about it. The only time I use a campground is in a national or state facility where dispersed camping is not allowed.

But the guy in the article is hardly stealth camping what with boards under his tires, etc.

[LenSatic]

garyhaupt wrote:
...you know that many are, right?

Gary Haupt

I do not know that because I refuse to take their word for it. That's why I "challenge" them. And, when I say that I challenge them I don't mean to imply "forcibly". I don't make demands but, through casual conversation and camaraderie, they show themselves to be fakes.

Homeless?

David Hannum said it best. (Not P.T. Barnum. ;))

LS