Come on Dave, I was hoping you could teach me how to be one of the least idiotic of the idiots.

I have no children. I am self centered. I have no concern for anyone else. Usually. Happy?
Edit; I am an elitist snob as well.

How do we feel about being on our cellphone, smoking pot and speeding on the way to the trailhead, to do some stealth camping?

And this thread has strayed from the OP's 3 questions. I was only answering. I did not know I would be on trial.

Anyone turn anyone stealth camping in?

Only 7 posts to get on Dave's list. Might be a record.

Edited by kthompson on 05/10/2012 19:14:19 MDT.

1. Ken, the list is new (only The Petliski is on it otherwise) so his is no great feat. Anyway, it's not the quantity, it's the (lack of) quality.

2. Ken, when you are quietly ensconced after dark in your quiet stealth campsite, ruminate upon the fact that you are a rule-breaking scofflaw. I hope it keeps you up at night! (well, until you fall fast asleep in your mossy sylvan glade).

Before everyone starts thinking I'm a paragon of virtue or something, I do want to admit that I've camped illegally a few times. In all the cases it was in bark beetle country, where all standing trees were waiting to fall at the first puff of wind. There was no way I could stay safe and still camp the required distance from the trail or water sources. Each time, I resolved the issue in favor of staying away from the water sources and camping too close to the trail. As much as people disparage "silnylon gray," it does help make your tent inconspicuous! I've also had to camp in meadows once in a while for the same reason. I never got a ticket, mostly because these were Forest Service areas and in most of those, thanks to budget cuts, wilderness rangers are basically an extinct breed. But better ticketed than squashed by a falling tree!

I still don't define stealth camping as something necessarily illegal. I just want to get well away from popular camping areas and trails for the sake of privacy and a clean camp. That means I generally go a quarter mile or so off-trail. I try to stay well away from lakes, whose shores are often ravaged by overuse, and instead look for a place along the inlet or outlet.

I avoid backpacking in national parks because of their obsessive bureaucracy (gotta camp where they say, even if you can't hike 12 miles a day) and because I don't want to backpack without my beloved dog (he keeps my feet warm at night!). For the same reason, you'll see me on the side of the opposition to any efforts to expand national parks or make new ones.

I've seen enough overused popular areas that I very much approve restrictions on camping in those locations. If at all possible, though, I avoid them altogether.

Scott-

A fairly thoughtful and mostly reasonable post (strays a bit, methinks, into unnecessary near-haranguing, but nobody's perfect...;-).

It is, to me, however, a fascinating choice of Cleaver's comment in '68 with which to end your post. He was advocating breaking all kinds of rules at the time! You coaxed a smile out of me with that!

While I agree that there are processes in place to have unfair, unwarranted or unpopular regulations changed (I mentioned two), often they are realistically unattainable by most citizenry, for what that's worth.

"One of the things that motivated me to take part in this thread is that I am a parent that strives to "raise them right". One way I attempt to accomplish that very thing is by setting boundaries for them and I use rules to set those boundaries. You can bet your merino beanie that I do not expect that they decide for themselves which of those rules are worthy of their compliance."

Not sure it's a completely fair analogy, but I'll go along with it. I certainly, I think, understand the bigger point you're trying to make. I've never had kids (most people who know me thank me for this often.....), but I do have employees (nearly the same thing). I expect them to do what's right. That's not always what the rules say, though. In many such circles, and certainly in mine, a common phrase is "it's better to ask forgiveness than permission."

As I said in my previous post, sometimes you have to break a few rules to effect change, there seems no other way. But then again, I've never been a strict rule follower (a character flaw since birth, I'm afraid). My world is very, very grey - never breaking rules is simply too black and white for me.

Lastly, breaking the law makes you a criminal. Yes, technically, I agree. But there's a pretty impressive list of such scofflaws - Ghandi, MLK, Jesus ..... I have no issue with being on that list..... ;-)

Scott:
"(Kat) "Comparing a rule breaker, as far as stealth camping, to a criminal - is where things took a weird turn, as far as I am concerned. "

(Kat) "I do have a problem with the post that extends LNT rule breakers to the thinking of a criminal."

I believe that the thought process involved is the same regardless of the nature or severity (perceived or otherwise) of the infraction. It's a matter of justification and people who wish to do whatever they want will justify to themselves why the regulation in question applies to others but not to themselves.

A few examples of how a person may do this might include;

(Dave T) "I don't feel obliged to follow rules made for the most idiotic of the idiots."

(Ken Thompson) "I stealth camp quite a lot. Never been cited or discovered.

I do not set up until right as darkness falls. I am gone by first light. I leave no trace. No fires.

I am against rules that are in place because people ruin everything as a reason. More accountability/responsibility needed from the masses."

(Kat) "There is a world of difference between a law or rule against harming someone and a rule that was made because there are a lot of morons."

Dave apparently has determined that he is not one of the most idiotic of the idiots. Ken justifies his activity with his 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th sentences (although it could be meant to be instructional) and then appears to exclude himself from being one of the masses. Kat seems to be differentiating between rules that hurt others (the rules worthy of being followed, I would assume as determined by - Kat) and rules that are made because of the morons (not to include Kat).

The irony is that Kat infers that if you have a problem with this or speak up against it, you are a "better than thou hiker". Maybe I'm reading too much into their statements but it appears clear that they have proclaimed themselves to be members of some exclusive group. A group separate from "the most idiotic of idiots", removed from the "masses" and exclusive of "a lot of the morons".

Ken, it's funny that you mentioned raising children. One of the things that motivated me to take part in this thread is that I am a parent that strives to "raise them right". One way I attempt to accomplish that very thing is by setting boundaries for them and I use rules to set those boundaries. You can bet your merino beanie that I do not expect that they decide for themselves which of those rules are worthy of their compliance.

There are processes in place to have unfair, unwarranted or unpopular regulations changed. That is one responsible option. Another responsible option as Mary D points out, " I either obey the rules or (preferably) go backpacking somewhere else." Thank you Mary for your sensibilities.

The self important concept that the rules are for all those other people seems pervasive in our society and I believe is at the root of many problems. From Washington D.C. to Wall Street to Main Street to, unfortunately it seems, even the back country.

(Douglas) "I agree with Craig, but since he was smart enough to use a picture, I'm going to use some of the thousands words he wisely skipped.

There are, in my opinion, two main ways to get 'rules' changed - either get your congresscritters to change them through legislation, or get the courts to abolish them through the law"

I agree Douglas but I fear that changing laws was not the motivation of the OP James L. I do hope however that his motivation was more from a position of curiosity.

Since Craig chose to use black activists to illustrate a point, allow me to close my thoughts by presenting a concept made famous by Eldridge Cleaver, "You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"."





Well.....
The "nature" or "severity" of the infraction does make a difference to me, if the "crime" is not hurting anyone. You are correct.
It is not really a matter of degrees to me; rules against hurting others or their property are different in nature than the rest.
As far as those that speak up against one breaking say, a no camping rule, it depends on the circumstances. They could be a busy body but maybe not.
I did not say that only rules against hurting others are worth following either.
I actually don't even break many rules, but I do reserve the right to consider them. Remember the Milgram experiment? I don't think I would have continued to "zap". There have been plenty of horrendous acts committed by rule followers that did not apply their own judgement. Yes, it is a matter of principle to me and yes, there are lots of rules that came into being because of a 'few" morons.

"If you break the rules because "you know better" then there is no reason others won't follow your bad example."

Which brings to mind a synonym for "bad example": civil disobedience. ;)

"
"One of the things that motivated me to take part in this thread is that I am a parent that strives to "raise them right". One way I attempt to accomplish that very thing is by setting boundaries for them and I use rules to set those boundaries. You can bet your merino beanie that I do not expect that they decide for themselves which of those rules are worthy of their compliance."



Children need guidance and boundaries. When these children grow up, one would expect them to see for themselves which of the rules they were raised with are right and logical.

"I do think if u break the law or rule u deserve the ticket."

If u get caught.

I sleep like a rock. Out before my head hits the pillow.

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.

Edited by kthompson on 05/10/2012 20:23:44 MDT.

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

Edited by dmgoody on 05/10/2012 19:26:34 MDT.

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?

Edited by kthompson on 05/10/2012 19:27:56 MDT.

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.

"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.

...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.

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

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! ;-)

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.

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