Security while Boondocking

[rowiebowie]

We all do things to mitigate or minimize risk. But we can't avoid it. Instead we can ignore it, accept, or prepare for it (or some combination of the last two).

I've stated before, we all purchase fire insurance on our houses and I'll bet no one expects theirs to burn down. Considering the possible threat, even if it is unlikely, is part of what some of us do. Ignore it at your peril, but in the end, we all do what we're comfortable with.
.

[skagitstan]

Originally Posted by InterBlog

I'm including the full swath of conceivable areas because boondockers tend to be long-ranging and geographically promiscuous. That's why they pick vans instead of Class Cs or trailers - because they tend to go for that versatility.

To say the same thing another way, very few if any habitual boondockers go to the trouble of adding solar and lithium and/or AGM, UHG, or whatever, and then boondock exclusively in (for instance) Zion.

Even those people who do not habitually boondock in urban areas still have to get from Point A to Point B, and that's a process that involves routinely copping a dock in areas of convenience. Earlier in the thread I may have made the observation that someone once answered one of my IG posts by saying words to the effect of, "Yeah, there are more of [those crummy] boondocking nights than there are [pretty beach sites]."

I don't like to generalize from my particular experiences, but I must say that mine seem to run counter to yours.

When I camp, getting from Point A to Point B usually involves travel in very rural settings. In my route planning, I always try to find a nice Point B for my next stopover. In other words, I sacrifice distance traveled per day to find nicer places to stay.

Can make for a pretty wiggly route. But that isn't a trade-off for us. It's a perk.

The one exception I can think of was our recent freeway dash to Spokane to pick up our new rescue dog. Where we stayed at a Walmart.

Meet Tana:
First day lunch break on the way home:

Snoozing at home:


Requesting playtime with a squirrel:



But that was a rare exception, not what I'd call camping or boondocking...more like sleeping in a car, one we hope to never repeat, and nothing that felt threatening. Just loud, bright, and annoying. Nothing that warranted any special preparation or equipment.

We have never been in a confrontation over decades experience out camping. It's just never been an issue for us.

We prep for other things, like breakdowns, injuries, etc. Not for problems with other folks wandering the backcountry. But then, I've never had a wish to visit Texas. I'm sorry you haven't been able to experience the same.

[skagitstan]

Originally Posted by rowiebowie

We all do things to mitigate or minimize risk. But we can't avoid it. Instead we can ignore it, accept, or prepare for it (or some combination of the last two).

I've stated before, we all purchase fire insurance on our houses and I'll bet no one expects theirs to burn down. Considering the possible threat, even if it is unlikely, is part of what some of us do. Ignore it at your peril, but in the end, we all do what we're comfortable with.
.

I fully agree with this.


I also understand that not everyone concludes that storing firecrackers in your house is the best way to mitigate the risk of fire. YMMV.


So did you ever find somewhere I contradicted myself?
Or is that now water under the bridge?

[GeorgeRa]

Originally Posted by rowiebowie

We all do things to mitigate or minimize risk. But we can't avoid it. Instead we can ignore it, accept, or prepare for it (or some combination of the last two).

I've stated before, we all purchase fire insurance on our houses and I'll bet no one expects theirs to burn down. Considering the possible threat, even if it is unlikely, is part of what some of us do. Ignore it at your peril, but in the end, we all do what we're comfortable with.
.

Fire insurance is a good example, usually cheap at good value. That ratio of cost to value is a key element to make a decision to insure or not. I tend to fully insure new vehicles for about 5 years of age, but with older vehicles I just stay with liability insurance if it seems as this cost of a comprehensive insurance to value doesn’t make sense anymore.

Crime while camping, which I personally never experienced, to an insurance with a “gun” would make this cost to value way too high for us in my judgment, especially, if cost of unintended consequences would be high possibly wiping our budget clean. I am not foreign to guns, competed in target shooting, hunted, but protecting us or our goods with a weapon would make me very nervous, very nervous about these unintended consequences of liability or my own nightmares – I killed.

I am planning to carry a small BBQ on the ladder, would I kill to protect this BBQ from stealing - no, would I kill for any protection reason – no, I am not at war. I would self-insure this BBQ, getting a second one would be less than a gun insurance.

[avanti]

Originally Posted by GeorgeRa

Fire insurance is a good example, usually cheap at good value. That ratio of cost to value is a key element to make a decision to insure or not. I tend to fully insure new vehicles for about 5 years of age, but with older vehicles I just stay with liability insurance if it seems as this cost of a comprehensive insurance to value doesn’t make sense anymore.

Crime while camping, which I personally never experienced, to an insurance with a “gun” would make this cost to value way too high for us in my judgment, especially, if cost of unintended consequences would be high possibly wiping our budget clean. I am not foreign to guns, competed in target shooting, hunted, but protecting us or our goods with a weapon would make me very nervous, very nervous about these unintended consequences of liability or my own nightmares – I killed.

Hear, hear!

[booster]

IMO, comparing having a gun for safety "insurance" to home insurance is apples and oranges. How many of us would buy home insurance it there was just as much chance of it hurting someone in the household or stranger by accident or being stolen and used to hurt someone else, as there was of needing it to cover a catastrophic fire or tornado?

[gregmchugh]

My view is that this thread has reached the end of its useful life, not much reason to continue with it from my view...

And the personal negative comments are not within the rules so maybe the moderators will just shut it down...

[AZ ADVenturist]

OMG - it's time for this thread to Die a natural Death. They (threads) usually do when I post. So here goes.

[Davydd]

Originally Posted by skagitstan

As with your first anecdote, I do not understanding the relevance to boondocking security, which I thought was the subject of this thread.

Wiktionary definition:
boondock (plural boondocks)

(chiefly in the plural, US) A brushy rural area or location.
We got lost out in the boondocks, miles from anywhere

I would not want to hang out in a city either. And I can clearly see the difference between a good backcountry campsite and the effects of crowding and poverty in cities.

If that was the only alternative, I wouldn't have spend tens of thousands of dollars, and labor getting close to 3 years, building my van conversion.

If we're now talking about stealth camping in a city, I'd expect the security criteria to be very different.

That's a quaint definition of boondocking that has no relevance to RVing, IMO. Instead of splitting hairs, my definition of boondocking, without qualifiers, is just camping with no hookups or facilities. It can be in a brushy or no brushy rural area, a city street, a rest stop, a road pullout (ala Alaska) a parking lot, a beach, private property, or any other area usually free. It can possibly be a campground with no hookups and maybe minimal facilities at most like a pit toilet and a trash can (or not) similar to many BLM dispersed sites. In effect, boondocking is just self-contained camping which often means you can be alone in your venture which leads to security discussion.

A class B can just be more stealthy in all those scenarios than any RV including those self-deluding Class B+s, and that is the appeal to many.

[skagitstan]

Originally Posted by Davydd

That's a quaint definition of boondocking that has no relevance to RVing, IMO. Instead of splitting hairs, my definition of boondocking, without qualifiers, is just camping with no hookups or facilities. It can be in a brushy or no brushy rural area, a city street, a rest stop, a road pullout (ala Alaska) a parking lot, a beach, private property, or any other area usually free. It can possibly be a campground with no hookups and maybe minimal facilities at most like a pit toilet and a trash can (or not) similar to many BLM dispersed sites. In effect, boondocking is just self-contained camping which often means you can be alone in your venture which leads to security discussion.

A class B can just be more stealthy in all those scenarios than any RV including those self-deluding Class B+s, and that is the appeal to many.

I think its a lot more than "hair splitting". The security requirements are very different, for example, between city stealth camping and way out in the boonies camping, where stealth doesn't matter all that much.

And the "security" issue isn't limited to B's vs. other size campers. It's more about the type of camp than the style of vehicle. Could apply (to some extent) to cab-overs, step vans, sleeping bags in a minivan, and, outside of stealth, maybe some C's.

In the city, you can call for help on your cell. You can get towed if you can't get started. Folks will come out to change a flat. You can call the cops. Much the same in a developed campground.

You can't easily get help in the boonies. No cell. An injury or illness means you deal with it or call a medivac via sat.

On the other hand you are probably more subject to crime, albeit with a faster LEO response time, in the city.

All security issues with very different solutions.

By your definition, I can "boondock" at home, just by unplugging shore power. I could go to the nearby state park, and "boondock" or pick a full hookup site, right next to each other. Only real difference being how fast I run out of power.

So, if you don't separate the type of use, I think it becomes really confusing to make recommendations and keep the thread understandable.
Hell, even this stupid "carry" kerfuffle would yield different answers in different cities, much less far from any cities.

I could completely see the utility of a "Security while Stealth Camping" thread. Even a "Security in Developed Campgrounds" thread.

But I think it's a mistake to lump them all into one thread.

[Davydd]

Skagistan,

I want to sentence you to reading ambassador Wendland's ebook on Boondocking as I am sure it would be just desserts for you. I don't know what's in that ebook but as AZ AdVenturist said, this thread has gone all too long.

PS. I don't carry a firearm in my van and think this discussion is silly. I've never had to put down an animal or defend myself necessitating a firearm and I'm no young person.

[GeorgeRa]

Originally Posted by skagitstan

………
I could completely see the utility of a "Security while Stealth Camping" thread. Even a "Security in Developed Campgrounds" thread.
But I think it's a mistake to lump them all into one thread.

Until I started researching our return to a camper van from larger RVs, I didn’t know anything about the “stealth” attribute of a camper van. Perhaps I will go against the grain for some folks on this forum but I have an issue with a definition of stealthy camping, for me it is an oxymoron.

Being stealth implies hiding something, doing something in secrecy, something which is not quite correct or outright against some kinds of rules or regulations. For me camping in secrecy is not camping, it could be many things but not my style of secretless outdoor camping openly enjoying the world. Our design objective was 360 windows view not a view from a cage.

[skagitstan]

Originally Posted by Davydd

Skagistan,

I want to sentence you to reading ambassador Wendland's ebook on Boondocking as I am sure it would be just desserts for you. I don't know what's in that ebook but as AZ AdVenturist said, this thread has gone all too long.

PS. I don't carry a firearm in my van and think this discussion is silly. I've never had to put down an animal or defend myself necessitating a firearm and I'm no young person.

Fortunately, I'm not in your court's jurisdiction. I can't even make it through one of Wendland's Youtube videos without thinking "what an idiot".

I also think the firearm discussion is silly. As I said way back in the thread, my opinion on someone else's personal decision is "meh".

And yeah, I begin to think it's gone on too long. Your post on what is or isn't boondocking is the first really relevant one in a while, even if I disagree with it.

[skagitstan]

Originally Posted by GeorgeRa

Until I started researching our return to a camper van from larger RVs, I didn’t know anything about the “stealth” attribute of a camper van. Perhaps I will go against the grain for some folks on this forum but I have an issue with a definition of stealthy camping, for me it is an oxymoron.

Being stealth implies hiding something, doing something in secrecy, something which is not quite correct or outright against some kinds of rules or regulations. For me camping in secrecy is not camping, it could be many things but not my style of secretless outdoor camping openly enjoying the world. Our design objective was 360 windows view not a view from a cage.

In my younger days, I occasionally had to camp out on a friend's sofa. So if someone wants to save some bucks by sleeping in a van in the city and call it "stealth" camping, it's fine with me.
Just one less person out in the back-country.


Our Annie is a full window Transit because we also want to enjoy the views.

[GeorgeRa]

Originally Posted by skagitstan

…………………………
Yes, there are the terms "Wallydocking" and "stealth camping". Or even "homeless & living in a car" or "sleeping downtown in an alley, with a grocery cart as your trailer and out of wine...AKA dry camping". they all fit in your concept of boondocking. But the different terms are there because they are not the same thing.
……………….

Stealth camping seems as an oxymoron term especially in the boonies. I always imagine a "stealthy van" parked near a school and don’t like it.

[skagitstan]

Originally Posted by GeorgeRa

Stealth camping seems as an oxymoron term especially in the boonies. I always imagine a "stealthy van" parked near a school and don’t like it.

Well, stealth camping could be taken as not letting the local bear smell your dinner.

But yeah, I sure don't equate hiding with camping!

[Davydd]

We are heading home to Minnesota from the Southwest. It will take us 3 days of “necessity boondocking” in below freezing nights.

[skagitstan]

So, are there "Wallydocking" specific security concerns?

If someone wants to "boondock" in a white van by a school, what advice should we give them? Would carrying a gun be a good idea?

[skagitstan]

Originally Posted by Davydd

We are heading home to Minnesota from the Southwest. It will take us 3 days of “necessity boondocking” in below freezing nights.

I suspect that camping in an Advanced RV leaves little in the way of "necessity"

[gregmchugh]

Time for the moderators to do something about these personal attacks, there are rules here to keep the discussion civil and this is getting way out of hand...