Stealth Camping?

I used to be homeless and practiced stealth camping regularly. Illegal or not, I had little choice. Also, I have practiced stealth camping legally on the trail, for reasons close to some previous posters. i don't go out into the woods to listen to somebody else's blaring music or smell there stinking food. I don't mind paying a camping fee, but I do mind paying for unsolicited entertainment. Personally, given the choice I don't trespass. I have slept under bridges and in some very unusual hidey holes though. When i was younger and more flexible, i was able to sleep in a squatting position. If I tried that now, my knees would pop so loud they would give away my hide!
 
moonwilson said:
"Stealth Camping" on public lands, I have no problem with that.

"Stealth Camping" on private land, particularly in the hills of Appalachia, is a bad, bad idea.
Click to expand...

I don't really disagree with what you have just said.

My Mother is from Letcher County, Kentucky, you're preaching to the choir in many ways.

However...

I can assure you I'm not the only landowner with this sentiment...
Click to expand...

Cool movie. In movies, you get to do really cool stuff like take a thirty-aught-six and stick it in someone's face because they were on your front lawn being a balloonknot. In the real world, in most of the rest of the country, that's going to be a problem for Clint...errah...Mr. Kowalski. :)

In fact, in most parts of the country now, that type of behavior with a little bit of avoidance when the policia come knocking to investigate (not answering your door) is a SWAT Call Out for a "barricade" situation.

Sentiments are one thing.

Losing your property because you admire a character from a movie is quite another. It's best to leave the threat of lethal force to those situations that warrant it.
 
Last edited:
Bumppo said:
I used to be homeless and practiced stealth camping regularly. Illegal or not, I had little choice. Also, I have practiced stealth camping legally on the trail, for reasons close to some previous posters.

Personally, given the choice I don't trespass. I have slept under bridges and in some very unusual hidey holes though.
Click to expand...

Well, that opens up another can of worms as far as public use is concerned. I mean, in a lot of areas, even if it doesn't say so in the books, it's basically illegal to be homeless. I mean, when you are getting rousted every day or just once a week and the police know who you are and that you're homeless, the message is clear, if you stay in this area, we are going to keep hounding you.

It seems that no one wants to promote a society where only the true mental patients are "homeless" but then when people are homeless, they want to make that illegal as well. What a vise!
 
I, like Ken, do a little guerrilla camping now and then here locally. The W.M.A. I like to go to has designated "car-camping" areas for those he like to drive everything in. Those areas have parking lots right next to the camp. Also there is a parking lot for the Cumberland Trail and you can park there, sign in, hike in, and set up a primitive camp along the trail over night. I prefer the peace of the trail to the noise of the camp ground, and parking lots are always good targets for thieves...sooo, I do a mix of both. I drive to a secluded area of the place, and park my truck out of the way and hike far enough not to be in plain site of my truck anymore (but still close enough to hear and see lights at night). I'll set up a small camp, enjoy the 2 days/1 night of peace and quiet then remove all trace of camp and go home.

As one who owns undeveloped land on a mountain side I don't mind if someone wants to set up a small camp for a day or two without asking as it would be impossible for them to find me if they do not know me. As long as they don't leave any mess. I did detain a couple of my cousins until they cleaned up their mess once. There have been no more messes so far.
 
Md 25v said:
I work for the DNR here in Md. I'm not with Nat Rec Police (NRP) or anything like that but as a conservation biologist I run into this kind of thing with fair regularity. I can remove people from the parks but I have no citation or arrest powers. I am however in radio contact with Nat Rec Pol and can detain (unofficially) any persons who need to be arrested until they arrive.
I find that there are two main types of people that camp unlawfully on park property and each type elicits a different response. The first type would probably include some of the guys posting on this thread. They are the guys I find far off trails, usually while doing radio telemetry work, that are trying to avoid other people on the trails crowding their outdoor experience and practicing leave-no-trace and often have picked up other people's trash as their own way to give back to the park. I usually talk to these guys a bit to make sure they aren't actually up to anything and then go on my way. I have asked a few of the NRP guys what they do and have found out that most of the time the officers will choose to look the other way as long as no harm is being done and proper land stewardship is being practiced. I like that approach and try to act accordingly.
The second group are the troublemakers. That's anyone from teenagers making uncontrolled fires and getting drunk a few yards from trails to well armed and concealed poachers setting camps deep in the backwoods. I'll kick the kids and drunks out when I find them, which is more often than I would like, but when I find poacher's camps I get a GPS location and get NRP on the way because dealing with those kinds of "stealth campers" is well beyond my responsibilities.
All in all I think there is a nice compromise here, even if it's unofficial, between the NRP and those "camping" illegally based on the effect they are having on the park. I have even had a couple "stealth" campers ask for my email and alert me of GPS positions that they have found active poaching and poacher's supply dumps.
Click to expand...

Sounds good to me :thumbup:.
 
I grew up in farm country and as a kid roamed the coutryside doing everything from frog hunting and fishing farm ponds to to trapping coon and muscrats to making "camps"(from deadfalls etc.No chainsaws )and never got as much as a cross look from any of the farmers or land owners.Of course they all knew your parents or family if they didn't know you.All of us kids did these things.On occasion someone would do something ignorant and stupid and they'd usually pay the price when they found their dad waiting at the back door with a belt and rightly so.Then you'd be unloading hay wagons or cleaning the barn depending on how old you were too for no pay.
Sorry but this "don't even look at my land" mentallity rubs me the wrong way.I know that peoples manners are long gone and most land owners have been disrespected,stolen from and tromped on more than once.
I appologize if I've offended anyone,However involving gunfire or looking for a firefight over trespassing is always going to be as dumb as shooting over someones head in my book.If you don't want to talk to them call law enforcement and have them arrested.Then they get removed and you get the satisfaction of "stealth" campers being arrested and jailed or fined if you can't stand them being there.If they've left they're junk behind or ruined timber take the info to the D.A. and ask for then you can stick it to them even more.
 
hayseed1 said:
I grew up in farm country and as a kid roamed the coutryside doing everything from frog hunting and fishing farm ponds to to trapping coon and muscrats to making "camps"(from deadfalls etc.No chainsaws )and never got as much as a cross look from any of the farmers or land owners.Of course they all knew your parents or family if they didn't know you.All of us kids did these things.On occasion someone would do something ignorant and stupid and they'd usually pay the price when they found their dad waiting at the back door with a belt and rightly so.Then you'd be unloading hay wagons or cleaning the barn depending on how old you were too for no pay.
Sorry but this "don't even look at my land" mentallity rubs me the wrong way.I know that peoples manners are long gone and most land owners have been disrespected,stolen from and tromped on more than once.
I appologize if I've offended anyone,However involving gunfire or looking for a firefight over trespassing is always going to be as dumb as shooting over someones head in my book.If you don't want to talk to them call law enforcement and have them arrested.Then they get removed and you get the satisfaction of "stealth" campers being arrested and jailed or fined if you can't stand them being there.If they've left they're junk behind or ruined timber take the info to the D.A. and ask for then you can stick it to them even more.
Click to expand...

Amen to all of it.

Sometimes I think that some of us wish for yesteryear without truly understanding what it was.
 
I can't speak for others who have posted in this thread, but I don't think a warning shot should be used when someone is trespassing on your land. A friendly "Who are you, what are you doing out here?" should suffice. However,
if you can't stand them being there
Click to expand...
is a poor choice of words. If the landowner doesn't want them there, that is tough for the "stealth camper", huh?

A simple request to camp on someone's property is sufficient. If the owner says no, he doesn't want you there, all you can do is thank them for their time, and move on.

I think a false sense of entitlement is at work here on one side of the argument. I think there is an "internet machismo" involved in pride of one's property, on the other side of the argument.

Don't trespass on private land, don't break the rules on public land, and don't shoot anybody you see in the act of trespassing... m'kay?

As Don intimated, I do wish we were in simpler times.
 
SHS,

Dude, I think you're right regarding your latest comments. It's just hunter's rules we learned when we were kids. You ask permission.

Most of my comments were about public lands, which I agree with you in spirit but in practicality, none of this is going to change back for the little people.

The rest was commentary on what other people were seizing and running with about shooting at people, etc. And, if you are shooting over someone's head, you ARE shooting at people and it IS ADW. No amount of movie posters is going to change that fact.
 
More than a few landowners have gone to jail and lost their rights to own firearms for terroristic threatening, assault with a deadly weapon, brandishing etc. Not a good idea, IMHO, to commit a felony to accost a person comitting a misdomenor. You might see them at the courthouse paying their $200 fine while you are led in in handcuffs awaiting trial.

The very few times in my life that I have had problems with overly posessive landowners, I have been traveling along rivers or streams that were covered by riparian rights laws. Basically, navagable streams and rivers are the property of the State/public from the bed to the high water mark. Not all states have these laws, and not all that do use the same definition of "navagable", however there is Federal law to comply with:

Review of the relationship of federal and state law regarding rivers:

The section on National River Law discusses river ownership, use, and conservation law throughout the United States. Following is a review of what individual states can and cannot lawfully do with the rivers within their borders.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that rivers that are navigable, for title purposes, are owned by the states, "held in trust" for the public. This applies in all fifty states, under the "Equal Footing Doctrine."

Rivers that do meet the federal test are automatically navigable, and therefore owned by the state. No court or government agency has to designate them as such.

The federal test of navigability is not a technical test. There are no measurements of river width, depth, flow, or steepness involved. The test is simply whether the river is usable as a route by the public, even in small craft such as canoes, kayaks, and rafts. Such a river is legally navigable even if it contains big rapids, waterfalls, and other obstructions at which boaters get out, walk around, then re-enter the water.

The states own these rivers up to the "ordinary high water mark." This is the mark that people can actually see on the ground, where the high water has left debris, sand, and gravel during its ordinary annual cycle. (Not during unusual flooding.) It is not a theoretical line requiring engineering calculations. Where the river banks are fairly flat, this mark can be quite a distance from the edge of the water during medium water flows. There is often plenty of room for standing, fishing, camping, and other visits.
States cannot sell or give away these rivers and lands up to the ordinary high water mark. Under the "Public Trust Doctrine," they must hold them in perpetuity for public use.

The three public uses that the courts have traditionally mentioned are navigation, fishing, and commerce. But the courts have ruled that any and all non-destructive activities on these land are legally protected, including picnics, camping, walking, and other activities. The public can fish, from the river or from the shore below the "ordinary high water mark." (Note that the fish and wildlife are owned by the state in any case.) The public can walk, roll a baby carriage, and other activities, according to court decisions.

States do have authority and latitude in the way they manage rivers, but their management must protect the public uses mentioned above. They can (and must) prohibit or restrict activities that conflict with the Public Trust Doctrine. "Responsible recreation" must be allowed, but activities that could be harmful, such as building fires, leaving trash, and making noise, can legally be limited, or prohibited, in various areas. Motorized trips and commercial trips can legally be limited or prohibited by state governments.

State and local restrictions on use of navigable rivers have to be legitimately related to enhancing public trust value, not reducing it. Rivers cannot be closed or partially closed to appease adjacent landowners, or to appease people who want to dedicate the river to fishing only, or to make life easier for local law enforcement agencies.

State governments (through state courts and legislatures) cannot reduce public rights to navigate and visit navigable rivers within their borders, but they can expand those rights, and some states have done so. They can create a floatage easement, a public right to navigate even on rivers that might not qualify for state ownership for some reason, even if it is assumed that the bed and banks of the river are private land.

Note that this floatage easement is a matter of state law that varies from state to state, but the question of whether a river is navigable, for title purposes, and therefore owned by the state, is a matter of federal law, and does not vary from state to state.

Note that a state floatage easement is something that comes and goes with the water: When the water is there, people have a right to be there on it, and when it dries up, people have no right to be there. But rivers that are navigable for title purposes are public land up to the ordinary high water mark, so that even when the river runs dry, people still have the right to walk along the bed of the river.

Only federal courts can modify the test of standards that make a river navigable for title purposes. States cannot create their own standards, either narrower or wider in scope. They can’t make definitive rulings about which rivers are navigable for title purposes, only a federal court can.

The situation gets confusing when a state agency or commission holds hearings about navigability and public use of rivers. Landowners, sheriffs, and other people tend to think that such an agency or commission can create state standards that determine which rivers are public and which are private. But these are matters of federal law which state agencies cannot change.

State agencies should make provisional determinations that various rivers meet the federal test of navigability for title purposes. These provisional determinations should be based simply on the rivers' usability by canoes, kayaks, and rafts. They should then proceed to the question of how to manage navigation and other public uses of the river.

In these days of government cut-backs, the agency should look for solutions that use existing enforcement agencies rather than setting up new ones. Littering, illegal fires, offensive behavior, trespassing on private land, and numerous other offenses are all covered by existing laws, and offenders can be cited by the local police, sheriff's office or state police.
Click to expand...

http://www.nationalrivers.org/states/ar-menu.htm
 
Don Rearic said:
Most of my comments were about public lands, which I agree with you in spirit but in practicality, none of this is going to change back for the little people.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think I am wishing and hoping in regards to my comments about public land, I do reluctantly admit that any "campaigning" would probably be futile. I hope that my comments didn't appear to be off the wall, and after re reading them, saw that I was just re typing what I had previously stated.

Codger64, in MD at least, I believe it is legal for, say the game warden, to follow the local stream from its beginning to its end. Looking for manmade, or animal created, obstructions in the stream for instance. He also has jurisdiction on the riverbank, but thats as far as it goes. In regards to John Q Public, I am not sure.
 
There was more respect back years ago. Probably because disrespecting an other's land could easily have you hobbling down the road with a load of rock salt in your rear :)
 
silenthunterstudios said:
Yeah, I think I am wishing and hoping in regards to my comments about public land, I do reluctantly admit that any "campaigning" would probably be futile. I hope that my comments didn't appear to be off the wall, and after re reading them, saw that I was just re typing what I had previously stated.
Click to expand...

Well, what you are talking about is the way the system was designed to work. The Founding Fathers were not crazy. Hell, they disagreed with each other, A LOT. The system is supposed to work the way you described, people should be able to change what they don't like. But it is an incredibly rare thing nowadays and that is because of one simple thing - corruption.

That's why when you see some public official, from the cop who took titty shots with a camera of some chick he pulled over (it actually happened), to the judge drinking and driving (happens a lot) to the politicians like Rangel and Water who are currently being burned alive in the hopes they can get it over with by Nov., applaud it and support it! It's the only way that things will change.
 
My question is this- how exactly would somebody be charged with shooting at somebody else on their property? Some guy you shoot near- not at- hitting maybe 20, 30 feet away from them- they're going to go to the cops and tell them that you shot at them? Hardly. Try to prove it. They say I shot at them, I say I have no idea what they're talking about. Where is the evidence? Where is the crime? To even accuse me of doing anything, they'd have to confess to trespassing. How would they know it was me, unless they saw me? Can you recognize somebody behind a bush from 300 yards away? Please bear in mind that this is not in the suburbs, or right off an interstate. This is jerkwater, backwoods, hillbilly heaven, dirt-road country we're talking here. Just my $.02.

I apologize for drifting this thread, and I'll stay out of it from now on.
 
silenthunterstudios said:
In MD at least, I believe it is legal for, say the game warden, to follow the local stream from its beginning to its end. Looking for manmade, or animal created, obstructions in the stream for instance. He also has jurisdiction on the riverbank, but thats as far as it goes. In regards to John Q Public, I am not sure.
Click to expand...

There are no specific game wardens in Md anymore. The state ranger service was merged with the state police parks service and created the Natural Resources Police. I don't understand. Are you saying that you believe that NRP has no jurisdiction on private property?
 
moonwilson said:
My question is this- how exactly would somebody be charged with shooting at somebody else on their property? Some guy you shoot near- not at- hitting maybe 20, 30 feet away from them- they're going to go to the cops and tell them that you shot at them? Hardly. Try to prove it. They say I shot at them, I say I have no idea what they're talking about. Where is the evidence? Where is the crime? To even accuse me of doing anything, they'd have to confess to trespassing. How would they know it was me, unless they saw me? Can you recognize somebody behind a bush from 300 yards away? Please bear in mind that this is not in the suburbs, or right off an interstate. This is jerkwater, backwoods, hillbilly heaven, dirt-road country we're talking here. Just my $.02.

I apologize for drifting this thread, and I'll stay out of it from now on.
Click to expand...

No apology needed. But ask this question in Prac-Tac. I would be interested in hearing (reading) how some of the LEO's respond. You might find the answers educational if not eye-opening. :thumbup:
 
moonwilson said:
My question is this- how exactly would somebody be charged with shooting at somebody else on their property? Some guy you shoot near- not at- hitting maybe 20, 30 feet away from them- they're going to go to the cops and tell them that you shot at them? Hardly. Try to prove it. They say I shot at them, I say I have no idea what they're talking about. Where is the evidence? Where is the crime? To even accuse me of doing anything, they'd have to confess to trespassing. How would they know it was me, unless they saw me? Can you recognize somebody behind a bush from 300 yards away? Please bear in mind that this is not in the suburbs, or right off an interstate. This is jerkwater, backwoods, hillbilly heaven, dirt-road country we're talking here. Just my $.02.

I apologize for drifting this thread, and I'll stay out of it from now on.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they would have to confess to trespassing which is NOTHING compared to shooting at someone. DUH, damn, I can't believe you are a Life Member of The National Rifle Association and don't understand that you are not supposed to crack rounds at people.

It's not necessarily that this is or is not going to legally unfold in your area, what you are advocating is stupid. People are in this thread bellyaching because someone would dare cross over on to someone's property, screaming about it being illegal and here you are defending this nonsense.

You should thank your lucky stars you are out in the sticks because it's pretty clear that you would not have what you have for very long if you were out among everyone else.

I have mixed feelings about it, I really do. I want to live out in the sticks because I basically cannot stand people. I admit it. I just watched two extremely proud and extremely fat bitches get handcuffed at Wal-Mart for shoplifting. Head down? Nosiree! Head up and back and damned proud to be arrested in public for shoplifting chinee crap. What a couple of douchebags.

On the other hand, and this could easily happen, if I were on some public land and wandered into/onto property that wasn't posted and some knucklehead cracked a round off at me, there would be a reckoning for that one way or another. That's just the way it is. What you are advocating, and you are not the only one to do so, I've heard it many times, is not just about someone camping on your property because in the final analysis, someone on your property is someone on your property, period. Camping or not.
 
No one here should be so irresponsible to say that they would shoot at what potentially could be someone's teenage kid (because you don't know who that stranger is at 300 yards) for trespassing. Yes, this is the internet, and yes, emotions get blown out of control when people have an inflated sense of ego and think that the real world's laws and consequences don't apply because of where they live. The reality is that this conversation has drifted so far that is not even remotely what the OP intended and I think this line of thought belongs somewhere else like prac/tac. So lets try to get this thread back to where it belongs and share our opinions on camping (not causing trouble) on public lands that do not "allow"camping or on moving off trail to avoid other people while out in the woods.
 
Soooo... anywho...

There are times when I camp conversely, aka where Mr. Ranger Sir tells me to. Well, almost anyway. The last time, I was neighbor to a troop of young scouts. None approached my camp nor hurled anything my way. But they were city boys enjoying being somewhat "off the leash", and hooted, hollared, shinnyed up trees and swung from limbs, threw balls and frisbees. As I may have mentioned, I am mostly deaf, so their decible level didn't bother me much and it went away almost entirely with the sun.

The next morning I broke camp and policed my area before they did, so I didn't see them until most of the way thru the eight mile return hike. Being an old Codger, I hike much slower than the scouts. So when they caught up with me in sticks of three or four, I relinquished the trail and let them pass. Polite young lads, they all greeted me with a word, wave or nod and answered my questions in the friendly manner in which they were asked.

When the Scoutmaster walking drag came up, he was apologizing for their behavior the afternoon before and hoping they had not ruined my hike. Maybe I made his hike. Because I told him how pleased I was to see them out there, and did not find them inconsiderate in the least, which was true. I hope that in at least a few of those boys, seeds were planted for a life of outdoor enjoyment. If so, it was certainly worth whatever small intrusion they made in my own camping experience.
 
We gotta make everybody stop breathing air because other people might see that and get the idea it's okay to breathe toxic gases. :grumpy:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top