Stealth Camping?

[Gautier]

Well, I figured this thread would elicit some differing opinions, but didn't realize how emotionally charged some responses would be. Like I said before, I was speaking mostly of public land use and where private land use is concerned, I've always asked permission and never had a problem. As for the "this is the south, we don't take kindly to strangers", I grew up in the south, Tennessee and Mississippi mostly, and never had such issues. If anything, "southern hospitality" was par for the course, just had to ask. That's the last I'll say about the private land aspect, and my stance on it.

I'd be more curious to hear about the public use land aspect and "stealth camping" techniques. With such a seemingly ecclectic and pragmatic style of camping, surely there's some neat things to learn from it. Camouflaging, site selection, LNT, how to avoid or deal with certain situations/types of people. Things that we could all just as easily apply to "normal camping", but may not have considered.


Gautier

 

[Cpl Punishment]

I've already stated my view on public land use.

Now as for private land use. I do have my property fenced in, and signage posted at the legally required intervals. It's not just for keeping the rabble out, either. I DO shoot on my property, and if you trespass, you MAY get shot without me even knowing you're there. I also let my big psycho mutt run free when the gates are closed. He'll have no reservations about tearing up a trespasser.

Which brings up another reason NOT to knowingly stealth camp on someone else's property without permission -- you never know when they may do something entirely legal that puts you in mortal danger

 

[Pritch]

[rant]
Have you ever considered that the reason people want to stealth camp in an area is because it is closed to camping? No crowds, just room to stretch out and enjoy, right? So what they're advocating isn't that everybody be allowed to camp there - just them. After all, they're special. Mommy told them so.

Private property owners are branded the "landed gentry" and painted as the illegitimate "haves" who have been wronging the poor "have nots" for their whole lives. Them bastids is all crooks anyway, right? And then there is public land. Well, it is "public," right? Well that's me! I may be one of five million of the public, but my interest alone rules. Now if somebody else was to "stealth camp" in my favorite secret spot, and his idea of proper illegal use didn't line up with mine, then "What are we payin' those dang cops for anyway?"

Maybe Bushie will even drop in to assert "sovereignty."
[/rant]

 

[Don Rearic]

No, learn to read and comprehend what you read. I was referring to a single private property owner who wanted to complain about criminal trespassers committing misdemeanors while wanting to reserve the right for himself to commit the crime of assault with a deadly weapon, a felony. That's The Landed Gentry, pal. Don't like it? Too bad.

 

[silenthunterstudios]

Are you saying that you believe that NRP has no jurisdiction on private property?

No, the NRP has jurisdiction. They need a warrant, or just cause, to enter private property. However, as local waterways are not privately owned, they can cross property lines as they see fit, while in the waterway, or on its banks. At least, that is as I understand it. I may be wrong.

 

[Md 25v]

No, the NRP has jurisdiction. They need a warrant, or just cause, to enter private property. However, as local waterways are not privately owned, they can cross property lines as they see fit, while in the waterway, or on its banks. At least, that is as I understand it. I may be wrong.

No,thats it. I just didn't read your post right. My mistake.

 

[Pritch]

No, learn to read and comprehend what you read. I was referring to a single private property owner who wanted to complain about criminal trespassers committing misdemeanors while wanting to reserve the right for himself to commit the crime of assault with a deadly weapon, a felony. That's The Landed Gentry, pal. Don't like it? Too bad.

Don, while I used the term, Landed Gentry as you had, I was not (or at least I didn't mean to) address your comments, most of which I agree with. While I disagree with you regarding public tresspass, I genereally see it as a petty offense.

I was mostly provoked by some of the brazen attitude a few demonstrated toward taking things that don't belong to them. (As I read this thread, we don't disagree.) I used the term, landed gentry, as it is commonly used today; as a perjorative to describe private land owners as a privledged class to whom it is okay to steal from. I get that you weren't advocating that position, but were challenging a land owner from thinking he could do anything he wanted in the preservation of his property.

For those that would dismiss the concept of private property as a "mere western construct," I would remind them that so is freedom. As the right to own property is a critical element of freedom, the right to exclude is a necessary component of property ownership.

In respect to the rationalization that public property is public is free to use it irrespective of rules to the contrary, try breaking the idea down a little more. Instead of a city of several thousand or a country of millions who are stakeholders in the property in question, what if it was, say three.

You and two friends went in together and bought a parcel of land. You divided it into four parts, one for each partner, and the fourth to be shared by all, and the three of you agree on limitations of how the common section will be used. Let's say the three of you agreed to keep the shared plot undeveloped, to be used for hunting. If you arrived at your property to discover that one of the other partners had decided to log the timber and build a motel, you would have a legitimate beef. His assertions that he was a partner in the land (a member of the "public" as it were) hardly justify his misuse.

Clearly my example is over the top, but the point is that a group that co-owns something can agree on the terms of use and expect all of the co-owners to comply. The solution would be to persuade the other partners to change the regulation of pull up stakes and find another spot to pitch your teepee. Some might be inclined to justify their stealth camping as harmless. The relative harmlessness is due to the very limited use the prohibition brings about. If it wasn't against the rules, lots of people would camp there, the place would be trashed, and you wouldn't want to camp there.

ETA: All of the above refers to stealth camping as staying overnight in an area where it isn't allowed, not just camping stealthily.

 

[Don Rearic]

That's great! Thank you.

If I had property, I wouldn't want people on it for the simple reason that I am liable for their stupidity. Unless some state's laws are different, your homeowner's insurance is going to take a (s)hit if someone gets injured on your property, for example. I don't know how properly placed "NO TESPASSING" signs can protect you from that legal angle or if they can at all.

If someone wanted to camp on my property and they wanted to follow some rules and wanted to sign a release, great! Hell, I might even tell them, "It's been pretty rainy, you can have an open fire just don't get outrageous with it and you can go cut down a few of those trees over there because I have to cut them down, anyway."

Things like that.

Then, if they ended up being good folks and they live nearby, hell, you have property watchers and your kindness costs you nothing! Good deal all around.

What cranked me off was shooting at people and I don't want to get into the blender of, "is it really shooting at people if you shoot over their heads" or whatever, it's shooting at people.

I have been on these forums for years and the people that have known me for years know that when it comes to people stealing, as far as I'm concerned, you should be able to shoot a car thief on the spot. An automobile is the same type of "livelihood" that a horse was. It is how many of us get to work, etc. A car thief is nothing more than a horse thief to me. Someone who breaks into your home or some structure on your property is quite a bit different from someone camping or walking across your property.

Cutting trees down and piling them into/onto a vehicle, there again, theft, different thing.

Just a clarification. There is a time for guns and a time to not brandish them, let alone fire them.

 

[Don Rearic]

I get that you weren't advocating that position, but were challenging a land owner from thinking he could do anything he wanted in the preservation of his property.

That was, specifically, my point. Thanks!

For those that would dismiss the concept of private property as a "mere western construct," I would remind them that so is freedom. As the right to own property is a critical element of freedom, the right to exclude is a necessary component of property ownership.

The right to exclude people from your domicile and that property is one of the keystones of freedom. I don't even think Fish and Game, Natural Resources Police and any other type of police should be able to enter your private property without a proper warrant. The Fourth Amendment has no exclusion about checking on bunnies, bambis and catfish.

We would be getting a little off the beaten path, but if you have a store that is public access, then some restrictions could be placed as to exclusion of some people. But that's just me and like I said, a bit far afield.

In respect to the rationalization that public property is public is free to use it irrespective of rules to the contrary, try breaking the idea down a little more. Instead of a city of several thousand or a country of millions who are stakeholders in the property in question, what if it was, say three.

You and two friends went in together and bought a parcel of land. You divided it into four parts, one for each partner, and the fourth to be shared by all, and the three of you agree on limitations of how the common section will be used. Let's say the three of you agreed to keep the shared plot undeveloped, to be used for hunting. If you arrived at your property to discover that one of the other partners had decided to log the timber and build a motel, you would have a legitimate beef. His assertions that he was a partner in the land (a member of the "public" as it were) hardly justify his misuse.

That would be true and that would be a real "misuse" of that property and the complaint would be legitimate. However, what is often called "misuse" or laws, rules and regulations to prevent same are not always so clearcut.

I honestly don't think enough people are even interested in "camping" anymore to justify a lot of the really strict guidelines put forth in most areas. Perhaps different where you are though.

 

[hung-solo]

If I owned property, I would not be too keen on people camping on it without my permission. .

x200000.... if the term is for folks who camp off a beaten path (lets say the A.T.) or something like that i am cool with it and understand they do that mainly to be safe... . i am not cool with folks just planting down and trespassing on other's land.. thats also a good way to get yourself killed. do that mess around here and i know for a fact someone will send lead your way without questions asked. just sayin'.. too many old folk around here with happy trigger fingers.. legal or not.

 

[Rick Marchand]

I was once politely told by a judge that "by-laws are not really laws" of course, that ruling would have been in my favour and passed on a $2000 road drainage cost to the municipality... so I guess it is all relative. BTW, I'm sure the judge regreted saying that because the rest of the courthouse went crazy with chattering... so much so, that they called for a recess. Since that day, I have had a whole new outlook on the validity of by-laws and rules.

I will camp on public lands and am fully prepared to explain myself to a judge if need be.

I will not camp on private land without permission of the owner but am not not against crossing over it to get to a destination. If I get attacked by a dog or a mad cow, that's my problem, I guess. If the owner comes down on me, I will apologize and move on. If I get shot at, even just a warning... I will leave... but be rest assured, I will find out where that bullet came from.............. and I prefer not to deal with police. I was once shot at (or near) on public land. I made it to the back porch of the shooters house by the time the police showed up after a nieghbour called in shots fired. Turns out it was 2 young teens with a scoped .22.... cute kids, eh?

Moonwilson.... you should seriously consider removing that NRA banner from your signature..... you are a disgrace to the organization. I have been a member on BFC since 2005 and have never had to put anyone on ignore. There is a first time for everything. Now I gotta figure out how to do that.



ig·no·rant   /ˈɪgnərənt/ Show Spelled[ig-ner-uhnt] Show IPA
–adjective
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of ethical firearms use.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement by Moonwilson.

ig·nore   /ɪgˈnɔr, -ˈnoʊr/ Show Spelled[ig-nawr, -nohr] Show IPA
–verb (used with object), -nored, -nor·ing.
1. to refrain from noticing or recognizing: to ignore unintelligent remarks of Moonwilson.


Thanks to all the folks who gave constructive, reasonable replies.
Rick

 

[Don Rearic]

I think that just about wraps everything up. :thumbup:

It is about being "reasonable" but a lot of people don't really have a working knowledge of it and just go with their own ideas of what "reasonable" is. Which is sad.

When my Dad was still alive and we were hunting deer, we always asked permission and would get it in writing if at all possible. Just to protect ourselves legally. I asked him once, "What if you know a really good spot and you can't get permission?"

God love him, he said two words and it's worth a ding to repeat them if I get one: "Tough shit."

Then again, he taught me a lot about camping, hunting, fishing, trapping and guns...and he was a Member of The North American Hunting Club and The NRA when it meant more.

 

[silenthunterstudios]

Your father spoke the truth Don.

 

[moonwilson]

If I get shot at, even just a warning... I will leave... but be rest assured, I will find out where that bullet came from.............. and I prefer not to deal with police. I was once shot at (or near) on public land. I made it to the back porch of the shooters house by the time the police showed up after a nieghbour called in shots fired.

Let me see if I have this right. Somebody shoots near you, and you intentionally seek further confrontation? Stalk them down and show up at their back porch? To do what, pray tell? Sink cold steel into their chest while you watch the light go from their eyes? Administer a stern verbal reprimand? For the grave sin of threatening your physical person?

Way to take the moral high ground, Rick. You don't think anyone else in the NRA would consider firing a warning shot at a trespasser? I am a disgrace to the organization because I might?

Ignore away, friend. I am the ignorant one.

 

[KuRUpTD]

So it's ok in some places to shoot at or near someone because they happen to be on your property illegally ... even if they are not a threat in anyway ????

 

[Rick Marchand]

Well, until I get around to the ignore thing, I suppose I will to respond to you... however futile it is.

You are adding your own words, therefore, adding your own morality to my post. You think I would stab them, do you? Well that's for YOU to think. I am not you, by a long shot (no punn intended). Would I confront somebody who shoots at me? Most certainly. The circumstances would determine whether it would be immediate or after the situation is diffused. They would also determine the intensity of the confrontation, or whether I would consider approaching the authorities. My response is open for interpretaion, your's is quite clear. You are talking about firing a warning shot at someone who is squating on your land... not attempting to gain entry to your house, showing aggression or stealing your car. (I don't remember you saying "might", but I'll check it out.) So I am taking it too far by reacting to someone intentionally shooting at me?

*******edit to add*********

If I catch anybody camping on my land without permission, they won't be greeted with open arms, I can assure you. Most likely I'd fire a couple rounds into the trees above their heads from a couple hundred yards away until they got the message and left.

Okay found it.... you said "most likely" so I suppose that is close enough to "might" .... makes no difference, really. You know, you could probably yell from a couple hundred yards away. If they advanced toward you, then I could possibly see brandishing a weapon or even firing warning shots. Too much confrontation for you, Hawkeye?

 

[moonwilson]

Magnussen, I respect you, and appreciate your opinion. I am aware that my statements were inflammatory. I don't like the idea of people on my land without permission, period. This is something I feel very strongly about. It is not my intention to get into an internet fight with anyone here over a hypothetical reaction to a hypothetical situation. We are all, or should be, friends here.

If you would like to continue this debate, I suggest we take it to a different forum, or perhaps to PMs. I have caused this thread to drift far enough, for which I apologize.

 

[hung-solo]

So it's ok in some places to shoot at or near someone because they happen to be on your property illegally ... even if they are not a threat in anyway ????

trespassing is trespassing. legal or not, you will be shot at. most folks just do not care. hence the signs they put up. "trespassers will be shot" maybe its a southern thing..

 

[Rick Marchand]

trespassing is trespassing. legal or not, you will be shot at. most folks just do not care. hence the signs they put up. "trespassers will be shot"

In most places, it is illegal and criminal to shoot or point a gun at anybody for any situation. It is up to the judge whether or not to prosecute in light of the whole story. I could post signs too..... doesn't mean anything. The reality is, that if you post a "beware of dog" sign on your fence and someone jumps it and gets mauled.... you may be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and your dog, put down.

I think there is some pertinence to these posts, though I too, apologize to Moonwilson for getting personal. It's only the interwebz.:thumbup:

 

[hung-solo]

In most places, it is illegal and criminal to shoot or point a gun at anybody for any situation. It is up to the judge whether or not to prosecute in light of the whole story. I could post signs too..... doesn't mean anything.

I think there is some pertinence to these posts, though I too, apologize to Moonwilson for getting personal. It's only the interwebz.:thumbup:

like mentioned before it maybe a southern thing. it maybe illegal but they do shoot at you or around you.. i was young once and did somethings i wouldnt do now for a big deer.. yes i have been shot at, chased, yelled at, had the cops called on, game warden.. you name it... was not worth the effort.

if this were me.. i would have called the sherrif's and or walked down there armed but i am not too sure i would have shot at the person.. the south is pretty different than canada .. these old folks down here love to shoot.