Guerrilla Camping



coolworx

New Member
Jun 18, 2003
278
0
0
55
Anyone else think it's ridiculous to pay $25 for a campsite that you might use for 11hrs?

I've yet to have a problem finding an out-of-the-way 10X10 piece of off-the-road forest to set up my bivy, and fire up the stove for a carbo-laden dinner.
 

meanderthal

New Member
Mar 17, 2005
8
0
0
coolworx said:
Anyone else think it's ridiculous to pay $25 for a campsite that you might use for 11hrs?
I agree, $25 is a stiff price for a biker or backpacker, especially as we are low-cost guests (just one shower; no heavy, road-beating vehicle; little or no trash). You might try a lower-cost alternative: the MA state park system, which, for MA residents, charges from $8 to $15 for campsites, first-come, first-served (i.e., not using the reservation system). If the campground's full, then you can always revert to Plan B.
 

basso97

New Member
Sep 21, 2004
182
0
0
59
coolworx said:
Anyone else think it's ridiculous to pay $25 for a campsite that you might use for 11hrs?

I've yet to have a problem finding an out-of-the-way 10X10 piece of off-the-road forest to set up my bivy, and fire up the stove for a carbo-laden dinner.
I was walking my dog on my local Rail-Trail and when passed by a Cycling Camper I was thinking what my town would do if they just set up camp for the night along the trail. My guess is you end in Jail.
 

basso97

New Member
Sep 21, 2004
182
0
0
59
coolworx said:
Anyone else think it's ridiculous to pay $25 for a campsite that you might use for 11hrs?

I've yet to have a problem finding an out-of-the-way 10X10 piece of off-the-road forest to set up my bivy, and fire up the stove for a carbo-laden dinner.

Good Sams Club, (Camping Club) have what they call Stand by Sams. Thease are people that will allow you to camp, in your trailer on their property for the night in case of emerengcy. Maby we could contact them and see of the dame applies for Tents, I think it may. If it does you may want to join.

http://www.goodsamclub.com
 

coolworx

New Member
Jun 18, 2003
278
0
0
55
meanderthal said:
I agree, $25 is a stiff price for a biker or backpacker, especially as we are low-cost guests (just one shower; no heavy, road-beating vehicle; little or no trash). You might try a lower-cost alternative: the MA state park system, which, for MA residents, charges from $8 to $15 for campsites, first-come, first-served (i.e., not using the reservation system). If the campground's full, then you can always revert to Plan B.

Even $8 to $15 kinda pisses me off....
As a fellow Masshole, you should appreciate the Thoreau-ian idea that a man should be able to freely lay his head on his homeplanet - I mean... do squirrels have more rights than bikepackers???! ;-)

Nahhh... call it the thrill of danger or just a residual adolescent addiction to buck authority, but I'll continue to "squat" free of charge, and free of Mc-Tourons.
 

tukanuk

New Member
Sep 5, 2003
14
0
0
41
Nice Thoreau tie-in. I'm reading Walden right now. Interesting stuff. For my cross Canada tour I plan on doing a lot of "Guerilla" camping. When I want a shower or take advantage of some other kind of service I don't mind paying for it but it does seem kind of silly that you can be told where you can and where you can't sleep.

-ben
 

meanderthal

New Member
Mar 17, 2005
8
0
0
coolworx said:
Even $8 to $15 kinda pisses me off....
As a fellow Masshole, you should appreciate the Thoreau-ian idea that a man should be able to freely lay his head on his homeplanet - I mean... do squirrels have more rights than bikepackers???! ;-)
Yes, actually they do. Squirrels don't sue the property owner if they're injured on premises, so they aren't bound by trespass laws. We should respect the property owner and not put him at risk of losing property, savings, kids' college educations, and in general ruining his life because we want to save a few bucks. Thoreauvian or not, there's nothing silly about being considerate.

Public property is safer from our litigiousness. It's harder to sue a government, and even if we do and win, the cost is spread over the taxpayer base, not just one. So try to camp there instead (where legal), and keep the adventure untainted.

p.s. Even if you're not the litigious type, if you make an injury claim your own insurance company may go after the property owner to recover their payout. Your own good intentions are not always enough.
 

coolworx

New Member
Jun 18, 2003
278
0
0
55
meanderthal said:
Yes, actually they do. Squirrels don't sue the property owner if they're injured on premises, so they aren't bound by trespass laws. We should respect the property owner and not put him at risk of losing property, savings, kids' college educations, and in general ruining his life because we want to save a few bucks. Thoreauvian or not, there's nothing silly about being considerate.

Public property is safer from our litigiousness. It's harder to sue a government, and even if we do and win, the cost is spread over the taxpayer base, not just one. So try to camp there instead (where legal), and keep the adventure untainted.

p.s. Even if you're not the litigious type, if you make an injury claim your own insurance company may go after the property owner to recover their payout. Your own good intentions are not always enough.


BAHHHH! All you've proved is that there's too many sign-makers and too many f'n lawyers. Shakespeare was SOOOOO right.

Besides, I'm not camping in somebody's backyard. This is on desolate county roads - where most of the land is public way. And hell, I pay enough in Taxachusetts to make use of a patch of forest.
 

meanderthal

New Member
Mar 17, 2005
8
0
0
coolworx said:
BAHHHH! All you've proved is that there's too many sign-makers and too many f'n lawyers. Shakespeare was SOOOOO right.

Besides, I'm not camping in somebody's backyard. This is on desolate county roads - where most of the land is public way. And hell, I pay enough in Taxachusetts to make use of a patch of forest.
I haven't proven anything; I was restating established truth. Honest, I did not change reality, I just expressed reality, which was that way when I found it. You don't camp on private property? Good. You don't want squirrels' unbounded rights? Sensible. Ride on!

Lew
 

neverclimbed32

New Member
Jun 27, 2005
20
0
0
Freecamping............sounds kind of dangerous. History shows people who have done this have been shot, poisoned, had their tents burned down and their transport destroyed. Oh and did I mention the women getting raped. I think these people where called Indians. I say go for it. Who owns the land anyway. Better than paying $25 to camp next to drunken red-necks who want to keep you awake all night. You're probably safer too.
 

kevink159

New Member
Feb 27, 2005
3
0
0
I just got back from a 2 week tour and stealth camped about half the time.It was definatly better stealth camping than silly campgrounds.
 

2wheelwill

New Member
Jun 8, 2005
12
0
0
In rural areas I've had no problem camping in the bushes out of sight. However, when in a small town I usually ride over to the police station and ask for permission to camp at the park, high school, etc. Only once has a cop said no and then made sure I left his town. I've also had good luck setting up camp behind the local bar after having a beer with the bartender....I admit this could backfire.

The most important rule to follow for guerrilla camping is to be completely out of sight....otherwise you're asking for trouble.
 

Mariusroxana

New Member
Apr 21, 2005
30
0
0
What does the law say about camping on public land?
Not private property, but Public land (e.g. parks, etc)?
Can they arrest you?
Can you get a criminal record out of this?