Talk to me about Stealth Camping

[TylerJ76]

I'm going to be NOBO

Are there specific sites?
Or is it just set up where you feel like?

I apologize, I am new to a lot of this.

[soumodeler]

Anywhere you see that will hold you and your tent. Unless it is off limits to camping.

[garlic08]

One definition of stealth camping implies trepassing or camping illegally. Hopefully we're talking about merely hiding from sight in allowable areas.

In the southern Appalachians, I usually found it exceedingly easy to find prime camp sites on public land just out of sight of the trail. In the hardwood forests with inches of leaf duff, you don't need a pad, and you often have to dig a pit down to mineral soil to get tent stakes to hold. It gets harder, sometimes very hard, in New England.

[Sarcasm the elf]

Just a quick head's up. The term "steath camping" has a disputed definition. Some people, including myself think it means camping in a way that has zero/near zero impact at an area that is not an established site. Others use the term to mean camping illegally. I assume you are referring to the first meaning.

[LoneStranger]

Stealth camping is a pass/fail endeavor. If no one on trail can tell you are there when you are there and no one standing where you camped can tell you camped there after you've left you have passed. Anything else is just camping.

[MuddyWaters]

I think of stealth as camping when you dont want to be noticed. Doesnt have to be illegal. Might be near road or non-hikers, etc.

Even on AT if you are near a shelter that weekend teenagers like to party at close to a road, you might want to "stealth".

You should remediate any campsite thats not heavily used.

[Old Hiker]

Stealthing to me was off the Trail where I couldn't see my own tent FROM the Trail except in the early months with no leaves anywhere.

However, that being said, several times my tent almost butted up against the tread-way for the night. There was no other place for me to go, IMO.

[bigcranky]

Are there specific sites?
Or is it just set up where you feel like?



Yes to both.

You will find a lot of well used, obvious campsites along the trail. These are at or near shelters (useful because there's usually water nearby, a privy, and a table), at creek crossings, trail junctions, etc. The best way to reduce your impact on the trail is to use one of these sites, as it's already impacted.

In most places, you can also just "set up where you feel like", though you'll quickly discover why there are specific well used campsites: much of the trail doesn't lend itself to just randomly throwing down a tent. It's mostly not flat, for one thing, and there's generally trees and undergrowth everywhere. If you find a spot that is level, not overgrown, and visible from the trail, there's a 99% chance it'll be an obviously used campsite.

(In a few places, one is required to camp in specific places, for example in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, or there are regulations on how to choose a site that limit your selection.)

"Stealth camping" usually refers to camping out of site of the trail so no one knows you are there. It can also mean camping semi-legally or illegally. From your original post, I think you just mean "camping".

Have a great hike. :)

[HooKooDooKu]

...Some people, including myself think it means camping in a way that has zero/near zero impact at an area that is not an established site...
Isn't that what we call LNT?


I think of stealth as camping when you dont want to be noticed.
And this is why the term has a bit of a double meaning.

When you are in an area that allows at-large camping (i.e. there's not designated sites), stealth camping usually means camping somewhere that other hikers are unlikely to find you. This usually means you're camping some distance away from the trail, and not doing things that are likely to get you noticed (such as burning a campfire).

But when you are in an area that requires you to camp at designated sites (such as GSMNP), then stealth camping means you are NOT camping at the designated sites and therefore camping illegally.
(And for a reminder to the new-comers, discussing how to commit illegal acts is against the TOS for WB)

[Starchild]

To me stealth camping implies camping at a non-designated camp site, I would also exclude obvious 'socially created campsites' that are not official, but obvious. It may or may not be legal, legality does not play into the definition.

[Hikingjim]

There are many good sites listed in the guide. And many fantastic sites not marked. near creeks, etc
There are clear signs in areas you can't camp, eg: "no camping for next 1 mile", a specific no camping sign, etc

[middle to middle]

Worst ever was one rainy night, I had walked on after dark because I was passing through a state park and good trail, rain comming down in buckets and I went in a restroom which was warm dry and lit and I was exhausted and sat down and went to sleep. Of course was rudely awakened next morning and scurried out.

[peakbagger]

Stealth camping does have several meanings. In the whites its usually illegal camping spots above treeline for thru hikers who don't want to drop down off the ridge to get to a legal site (usually an elevation loss of 1000 feet and about 1 mile of hiking. In other areas there are general prohibitions that require no camping expect at designated sites (all of CT) portions of Maine and elsewhere. Leaving those out of the discussion, generally a stealth camper is going to set up at or near dark and head soon out after sunrise. They get well off the trail out of sight. They do no improvements to the ground and find a natural flat spot (very rare in the whites). Rocks stay where they are. No campfires whatsoever. Hammock folks definitely have the advantage on stealth camping.

[imscotty]

To the OP: Hammocks really open up a world of potential campsites in the forested Appalachians. You should try it out before you hit the AT to see if it is right for you.

Hammocking can allow you to camp away from the crowd, unnoticed, Leaving No Trace. Hammocks are great for stealth camping, whatever that is :)

[RockDoc]

Arrive late, leave early, and use a drab moss green shelter. If you hike/travel enough, sooner or later you will need to do this, often in the strangest of places...

[rafe]

To the OP: Hammocks really open up a world of potential campsites in the forested Appalachians. You should try it out before you hit the AT to see if it is right for you.

Hammocking can allow you to camp away from the crowd, unnoticed, Leaving No Trace. Hammocks are great for stealth camping, whatever that is :)

Except on balds. You gotta have trees. So, the top of Max Patch is out.

On most of the AT you can camp pretty much where you like, if you're smart about it. Notable exceptions are GSMNP, much of the trail through the White Mountains, and at Baxter State Park. The state of CT requires you to camp at designated sites. There are a number of short stretches where camping is disallowed, eg. the 15 mile or so stretch between Darlington Shelter and Boiling Springs PA. A proper AT guide should spell out the restrictions. Just guessing at this number but probably 75% of the trail has no legal restrictions on camping.

Sometimes you're just limited by the terrain. Level spots are generally hard to find on steep climbs (not a problem for a hammock.) Camping on bare, high ridges sometimes isn't safe or smart. Camping near trailheads just is never smart. Etc.

[AtWokman]

we all referred to stealth camping as camping in spots where other hikers might not find you. There is almost always a small Trail, unless you're lucky enough to find the spot that noone's ever been 2. But we mainly only talked about it in the smokies and in the whites. there's very few spots where camping is limited because of legal reasons, they may phrase it where it sounds illegal but it is not. I don't know off-hand but I think it is 200 yards from a water source and 200 yards from a trail and your in the clear.
be clean.
I hate finding a nice secret stealth spot and then finding a whole stash of trash. the great spot is slightly ruined by the thought of the extra weight I have to hike out.

[Slo-go'en]

There are good places to camp and bad places to camp. The general rule of thumb is to always seek a spot which others have obviously used. If it's a good place to camp, many others have done so in the past. Clearing or otherwise making a new camping spot is discouraged. Anyway, that takes too much extra work.

Obvious, "non designated" sites are pretty common in the southern Appalachians up to Virginia. Once into VA, your on a more narrow and rocky ridge line and on a more narrow right of way corridor so good camping spots become much harder to come by. But there are some here and there - usually next to a big river. The farther north you go, the less frequent good camping spots become or it becomes out and out illegal.

[SkeeterPee]

http://www.appalachiantrail.org/home/explore-the-trail/thru-hiking/camping

See this page and the links on it. there is a pdf that shows state by state where you can and cannot camp. Dispersed camping is another name for the more positive meaning of stealth camping.

[rickb]

http://www.appalachiantrail.org/home/explore-the-trail/thru-hiking/camping

See this page and the links on it. there is a pdf that shows state by state where you can and cannot camp. Dispersed camping is another name for the more positive meaning of stealth camping.

That is an excellent summary, but it should be noted that it is not entirely accurate.

For example, in the Whites the summary states one must:

"Camp at designated sites, or 1/4 mi fromroads, facilities and water, 200 feet fromtrail, below alpine zone (where trees are 8'tall or less). Additionally, in Great GulfWilderness, no camping within 1/4 mile onGreat Gulf Trail between its junctions withSphinx and Gulfside Trails."





In point of fact, there is no blanket prohibition against camping 1/4 mile from water (or even 200' from water), nor is there a blanket rule that one must camp 200' from the Trail except where is passes through certain Wilderness Areas.

[Traveler]

To append the above post, some States like MA and CT have a "designated camping area" rule that requires you to use only those areas for camping. Its up to the hiker to determine where they are and what rules would apply. The ATC Trail Guide book will have current information for these and other rules in local or regional areas.

[tagg]

Except on balds. You gotta have trees. So, the top of Max Patch is out.

And even then, not necessarily. Here's my hammock on the way up Chestnut Knob when I was ready to stop for the night, but couldn't find any suitable trees...

37262

[Traillium]

And even then, not necessarily. Here's my hammock on the way up Chestnut Knob when I was ready to stop for the night, but couldn't find any suitable trees...

37262

Nice! I've not yet tried that!

[Starchild]

And even then, not necessarily. Here's my hammock on the way up Chestnut Knob when I was ready to stop for the night, but couldn't find any suitable trees...

37262


How many poles do you hike with?

[pilgrimskywheel]

Welcome to a world where even the most simple concept is complicated. STEALTH CAMPING: Another short story by Pilgrim. Lay down where no one can see you and sleep. The end. Talk beyond this is balderdash.

[SkeeterPee]

That is an excellent summary, but it should be noted that it is not entirely accurate.

For example, in the Whites the summary states one must:

"Camp at designated sites, or 1/4 mi fromroads, facilities and water, 200 feet fromtrail, below alpine zone (where trees are 8'tall or less). Additionally, in Great GulfWilderness, no camping within 1/4 mile onGreat Gulf Trail between its junctions withSphinx and Gulfside Trails."





In point of fact, there is no blanket prohibition against camping 1/4 mile from water (or even 200' from water), nor is there a blanket rule that one must camp 200' from the Trail except where is passes through certain Wilderness Areas.

Interesting. I found this 3 page document on the White Mountains National Forrest http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5363715.pdf

I wonder if they chose to publish the most restrictive parts so that if hikers follow them then they won't get in trouble? I can imagine many woul not seek out and fine the more detail rules, or know enough to make sure they aren't in violation. Maybe they are trying to avoid another Baxter situation where the Park does not like Thru hikers.

[Traveler]

Welcome to a world where even the most simple concept is complicated. STEALTH CAMPING: Another short story by Pilgrim. Lay down where no one can see you and sleep. The end. Talk beyond this is balderdash.

If you don't mind running the risk of trail closure on private lands, then that behavior is appropriate. Otherwise, localized and regional rules of the trail are not hard to find through any number of sources so one can make plans accordingly.

[pilgrimskywheel]

Sorry guys, but the hiker-trash definition of this word "stealth camping" is a reference to rule breaking plain and simple. Why else would you have to hide? You have to be stealthy because you are going to lay down and sleep where it is unsanctioned. However, all the hiker-trash I know generally stealth camps off trail in towns etc. and are observant of low impact camping and LNT. There are places along the way that seem like awesome spots to crash or seek shelter where sleeping is forbidden, and while still observing LNT, folks risk it. There is generally an awesome view involved.

[rafe]

Welcome to a world where even the most simple concept is complicated. STEALTH CAMPING: Another short story by Pilgrim. Lay down where no one can see you and sleep. The end. Talk beyond this is balderdash.

In other words, if I broke the rules but nobody noticed... did it really count? (Been there, done that. I suspect most of us have at one point or another.)

[imscotty]

Sorry guys, but the hiker-trash definition of this word "stealth camping" is a reference to rule breaking plain and simple. Why else would you have to hide? You have to be stealthy because you are going to lay down and sleep where it is unsanctioned. However, all the hiker-trash I know generally stealth camps off trail in towns etc. and are observant of low impact camping and LNT. There are places along the way that seem like awesome spots to crash or seek shelter where sleeping is forbidden, and while still observing LNT, folks risk it. There is generally an awesome view involved.

I hesitate to disagree with someone who can speak with such authority, but here goes... There several views on the meaning of 'Stealth Camping', it is not as 'plain and simple' as you state. One of the accepted meanings is to camp in a way that avoids detection. To avoid detection does not always imply it is illegal or against the rules.

Why would someone do such a thing? There may be lots of legitimate reasons, none of them illegal. Maybe they just want to be left alone, maybe they are trying to avoid a 'Mary Ellen' or a Pink blazer, maybe they believe that by camping discretely they will see more wildlife, maybe they believe that not disrupting other peoples visual landscape is an important part of LNT.

[Sandy of PA]

I "stealth camp" where legal in the interest of getting good sleep. I can still hear snoring with ear plugs, I do not want to smell campfires. I sleep best when it is just me and the critters, people are noisy!

[pilgrimskywheel]

[QUOTE=imscotty;2109038]I hesitate to disagree with someone who can speak with such authority, but

umbrage is the new American art form, and debating picayune and infinitesimal points of formal, lexical, and conceptual semantics is our pastime. You honor me sir!

Hiding is the point - it's in the title - because you are camping where camping isn't cool. Going off to be alone in the woods is called camping. Avoiding Mary Ellen is just that, and ducking that creep is just that also. Deliberately hiding in the woods so you don't get caught in the act of CAMPING is called stealth camping.

If there are twenty different meanings to a single term what does it mean? Yellow blazing, zero, nero, hitch-bait, yogi, couch surf, etc., etc., all terms designed to convey single ideas. That way we are communicating and not just babbling, or are we? Don't forget your trekking poles!

[Another Kevin]

Hiding is the point - it's in the title - because you are camping where camping isn't cool. Going off to be alone in the woods is called camping. Avoiding Mary Ellen is just that, and ducking that creep is just that also. Deliberately hiding in the woods so you don't get caught in the act of CAMPING is called stealth camping.

I'm with Scotty here. I hear the term 'stealth camping' applied to lawful at-large camping all the time around here. The 'stealth' refers to having minimal impact - good LNT behaviour - even when your site is occupied. Ray Jardine - who pretty much introduced the phrase - used it with precisely that meaning.

https://c5.staticflickr.com/8/7443/10282256764_4c6e4266e0.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/gEBfH3)
I called this little patch in a stand of young hemlocks a 'stealth site'. I was indeed hiding - from a pretty obnoxious party at a shelter a half-mile away that I wanted no part of. I looked for the site because I chose not to let the partygoers know I was even around. I didn't want to be disturbed, and I wanted an early start in the morning. I was perfectly lawful - "more than 200 feet from any trail or waterbody, more than a quarter-mile from any road, below 3500 feet elevation" is the rule where I was. The site was small and stony enough that I couldn't find a placement for the stakes that would give me a really taut pitch, but it was sheltered enough from the wind that I decided to chance it even with a loose pitch. I was hiding, sure - and not from the law!

It worked out. I didn't meet any people that I didn't choose to meet. Once I'd broken camp, I couldn't spot obvious signs that I'd been there. I didn't have to deal with an obnoxious party at the shelter, and I got up early enough to climb up the ridge for a nice morning panorama.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3823/10282280345_9cfd585d3e_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/gEBnHB)

There are multiple reasons for wanting to hide your campsite.

[TylerJ76]

For the record, I was referring to the LEGAL definition of stealth camping, like above ^^^^^^^

[CalebJ]

The idea of camping discretely in legal areas is well documented. From Ray Jardine to Mike Clelland and beyond, much has been written about the benefits and best practices of doing so. Not sure what Pilgrimskywheel is going on about.

[Another Kevin]

The idea of camping discretely in legal areas is well documented. From Ray Jardine to Mike Clelland and beyond, much has been written about the benefits and best practices of doing so. Not sure what Pilgrimskywheel is going on about.

And ... the techniques of site selection, discreet setup, covering your traces in the morning, not eating in camp, and so on are the same whether the site is lawful or not, so I see discussing the techniques as being perfectly fair game.

[pilgrimskywheel]

37300 Here's a picture of my favorite stealth campsite, and if you know where it is: gold star! Hint: it's on the way from the AT to the PCT and I think you can see my ruck and new hat in foreground. No one even got their feelings hurt because of advanced stealth technology, I left no trace for the same reason, saved $100+ in hotel fees, didn't get mugged, or busted for being a vagrant. On-trail I wouldn't smash me a new footprint because of low impact and LNT principles no matter how bad I wanted to be alone. I seem to recall something about using approved and established sites whenever possible. Me and old Ray Jardine will just have to agree to disagree on the definition of this one I guess. If someone can tell you were there - by the giant compression made in the pine needle carpet say for example (where rare lady slippers grow) - you weren't stealth camping. That's what I'm going on about. Happy hiking!

[pilgrimskywheel]

[
QUOTE=pilgrimskywheel;2109688]37300 Before I get dog-piled the answer is no, not ON the boat! Why? Because it's covered in - anyone? No trespassing signs. Close. If I told you it wouldn't be - anyone? Stealthy! Any correct guesses where get a gold star on their refrigerator chart! Here's a hint: sometimes when you're hike-ah-traaash it's hard to keep your head above water.

[tagg]

How many poles do you hike with?

Lol, only two, I was hiking with a friend that night and used his poles, too. I've done this by myself and just used sticks as poles to hold up the bug net.

[Cosmo]

If only people would really camp without leaving a trace, there would be no need for rules about where you can camp and where you cannot camp. There are very few A.T. hikers in my experience who have the skill, patience and time to leave a site unchanged (and most of those people use hammocks). It only takes about 10 visits to a single campsite to cause damage that takes decades of non-use for the area to recover. Most of the "good" campsites (near water, views, the Trail, etc) are places where impacts are undesirable. Let's face it, the AT is so heavily used that the percentage of sloppy campers (who build fires, cut trees, camp near water, and leave their **** laying around) does significant damage to the Trail environment. So, as others have said--where dispersed camping is legal use already impacted sites. Where dispersed camping is not legal (All of CT and Mass, within 200ft of the Trail and surface water and in alpine zones in ANY state), do the Trail a favor and stay at officially designated sites.

Cosmo

[dudeijuststarted]

There's countless sites. IMO finding your own stealth camping setup is one of the daily joys of thru hiking. When you hit the Whites, you'll want to know where the stealth sites are. Do a little digging here on WB and you'll find links.

[Uncle Joe]

Sorry guys, but the hiker-trash definition of this word "stealth camping" is a reference to rule breaking plain and simple. Why else would you have to hide? You have to be stealthy because you are going to lay down and sleep where it is unsanctioned. However, all the hiker-trash I know generally stealth camps off trail in towns etc. and are observant of low impact camping and LNT. There are places along the way that seem like awesome spots to crash or seek shelter where sleeping is forbidden, and while still observing LNT, folks risk it. There is generally an awesome view involved.

I would think the idea of "forbidden" camping has more to do with making camp than sleeping. Dislodging vegetation, building a fire, etc. is what most people think of with "camping." Rolling up somewhere with a tarp, tent, or sleeping bag and sleeping really shouldn't be particularly forbidden. When I read "sleep where it is unsanctioned" I think how ironic that out in the wilderness "you can't sleep here" could be the mantra and yet the homeless sleep in our city parks.

[NinjaFace]

stealth camping is just that ..
*stealth, as in "You can see me"... Period.

it doesn't matter if it's legal or illegal, trespassing or not trespassing ,in the city or the in the woods
there's nothing more to stealth camping than what I just said..

** last year when I was on the trail,I ran into several hikers at different times who said they were stealth camping... if I can see your tent/hammock/fire fifty yards off the trail you're not stealth camping because I see you....

stealth camping - not to be seen..

[Another Kevin]

If only people would really camp without leaving a trace, there would be no need for rules about where you can camp and where you cannot camp. There are very few A.T. hikers in my experience who have the skill, patience and time to leave a site unchanged (and most of those people use hammocks). It only takes about 10 visits to a single campsite to cause damage that takes decades of non-use for the area to recover. Most of the "good" campsites (near water, views, the Trail, etc) are places where impacts are undesirable. Let's face it, the AT is so heavily used that the percentage of sloppy campers (who build fires, cut trees, camp near water, and leave their **** laying around) does significant damage to the Trail environment. So, as others have said--where dispersed camping is legal use already impacted sites. Where dispersed camping is not legal (All of CT and Mass, within 200ft of the Trail and surface water and in alpine zones in ANY state), do the Trail a favor and stay at officially designated sites.

Yeah. I should have made it clear in my earlier post about a stealth site that I wasn't within even fifty miles of the AT. I would certainly have looked for an already-impacted site if I were on so busy a trail.

I was on the New York Long Path - section 19 to be exact - but that's only a fraction as busy, and most of the users are day-trippers.

I was in an area where 'at large' camping is more the rule than the exception. I pitched on loose duff in a stand of young hemlocks about 300 feet off trail - in October, with no sign of vegetation above ground in the site other than moss on the rocks and roots. The way I treated the site is more defined by what I didn't do than what I did. I didn't move any rocks or otherwise alter the site other than sticking in four tent stakes and lying down on it. I walked around only to make camp (I hung my bear bag on the way in to the site), strike camp, and answer calls of nature. I didn't cook in my campsite, cut no wood, had no fire. I did disturb a circle of that duff in the morning, scraping down to real soil to dig a hole. I piled the needles back when I was done. I was there to sleep. My meals, water filtering, washing, and so on were all elsewhere.

I'm not aware of that camp requiring any especial skill beyond what I'd expect any hiker to possess, except for recognizing that (a) the trail was slightly north of a col, so there was likely flat ground a little bit to the south, (b) hemlocks have soft needles under them, usually, and the cones are small enough not to be lumps under the sleeping pad. With the leaves nearly down, as they were, it required enough patience to walk a few hundred feet through mostly open woods. While I try to get it right, I'm probably overlooking something with the 'skill, patience and time' that you mention.

Unless you're saying that the great majority of AT hikers in your experience are grievously unskilled, impatient or hurried! It surely isn't my experience that the majority would cut living wood, camp near water, or fail to bury their excrement. It's a vanishingly small minority - with a grossly disproportionate impact on the rest of us.

I don't think the next camper would have recognized my site as 'impacted', and it was deep enough in needles that a dozen campers could probably have done the same thing and still be little noticed. The only impacted site that I saw that evening was a rock with scorch marks and dead moss on it where someone had apparently had a fire (long enough ago for the ashes to have washed away and the lye from the ashes to have poisoned the moss, alas). I might have used it, but it was only a few yards from the trail, and otherwise unsuitable. I think it was a day-tripper who'd had a fire to cook their lunch. With a shelter fire pit half a mile away. Grrr.

The only time that I've stealth-camped in the area that you're responsible for was up on the South Taconic ridge in the middle of winter, pitched on about a foot and a half of snow. I was aware of the regulation, and had asked and received permission from a ranger. ("You ain't gonna hurt the snow none!" was his assessment.) Snow, as I'm sure you are aware, is perhaps the most 'durable' of all surfaces from an LNT perspective. Copake Iron Works was closed for the winter, and the snowshoeing was slow enough going that I wasn't going to make it from Catamount to Alander in daylight, so if I was going to make the trip at all, there would be a night on the snow somewhere.

I've camped in the alpine or subalpine zones only in winter. In a place where winter camping up high is lawful. Again, "you ain't gonna hurt the snow none!"

[rickb]

Where dispersed camping is not legal (All of CT and Mass, within 200ft of the Trail and surface water and in alpine zones in ANY state), do the Trail a favor and stay at officially designated sites.

Cosmo

I don't know Cosmo, except by reputation and I have no doubt that he has done far more and knows far more than most-- and more than me by on order of magnitude. He has my respect, and it would probably be better to follow his advise about these things as a rule.

That said, there is no blanket legal prohibition against camping within 200 ft of the Trail in the White Mountains of NH, nor is there a legal blanket prohibition against camping within 200 ft of surface water in the WMNF. There are large portions of the AT in NH where that applies, and specific bodies of water, too. Just not everywhere.

[Cosmo]

For AT hikers, there may as well be a blanket prohibition in National Forests. Yes, there are specific locations where the 200ft rule does not apply, but not in locations AT hikers will be travelling. See the WMNF Dispersed Camping Regs here: http://www.fs.usda.gov/activity/whitemountain/recreation/camping-cabins/?recid=74405&actid=34.

It really comes down to a matter of personally deciding and acting on your level of respect for the resource, the Trail, and the volunteers who actually take care of it. Despite Kevin's experience in the South Taconics, the chances of encountering a ranger when you stealth is pretty small. No one is running around with a headlamp and ticket book--and that's one of the thing we treasure about the Trail experience, it's relatively unregulated. Respectful use will keep it that way. On the AT (particularly in the mid-Atlantic and Southern NE), the problem is magnified further in some locations where the Trail corridor is very narrow--you are practically walking through people's backyards. I suspect here in Mass and CT the number of neighbor complaints will be even higher this coming season--even than the unprecedented number we had this past summer--amplified by the fire issues down south.

Realistically, the actions of one person of moderate skill have little actual impact--but the "AT multiplying factor" of literally hundreds of such individuals every year--year after year--really do. Call it the "the death from a thousands cuts" or the "tragedy of the commons", it's a significant problem in some areas. And, unfortunately, the AT does attract hikers with few practical skills or experience (and not just in Georgia) because of it's accessibility and supposedly "anything goes" reputation among the uninformed (a group which now, as readers of this thread, you can no longer consider yourself part of...).

Cosmo

[Another Kevin]

Despite Kevin's experience in the South Taconics, the chances of encountering a ranger when you stealth is pretty small

Once again, my writing causes confusion. My only encounter with a ranger on that trip was before I started - at the desk at Mount Washington, Mass., to ask permission. My chance of encountering one Out There was approximately zero. I was asking permission primarily to reassure myself that there wasn't some sensitive condition I was unaware of. I find that most of the time, if I ask permission to camp in an otherwise unauthorized spot in winter, it's granted - possibly with an admonition to avoid particular spots. It's a lot harder to do serious accidental damage when the ground is frozen and snow-covered, and sensitive vegetation is below the frost line.

I think I also give a wrong impression simply because I do different hiking from what a lot of the people here do. To figure out what I do on a major trail, I went and checked my log of a two-week hike in the Adirondacks, and found that I spent five nights at marked campsites, one night at an established campsite on private land (the landowner tolerates this use), three nights at shelters, two nights tented adjacent to shelters, and two nights in motels. No stealth camping at all.

But about a third of my trips involve at least some off-trail travel (in places where that's lawful and even encouraged) - and of course that involves stealth camping. Some of the other trips are on less-popular trails, that don't offer much in the way of developed campsites, and they, too, involve stealth camping.

[rickb]

For AT hikers, there may as well be a blanket prohibition in National Forests. Yes, there are specific locations where the 200ft rule does not apply, but not in locations AT hikers will be travelling. See the WMNF Dispersed Camping Regs here: http://www.fs.usda.gov/activity/whitemountain/recreation/camping-cabins/?recid=74405&actid=34.
Cosmo

There is much practical wisdom in what you say, and your advice is sound.

That said, some of the information posted on the Forest Service website is factually incorrect. Camping prohibitions in the WMNF are formal regulations specified in singled "Supervirs Orders":

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/whitemountain/alerts-notices/?cid=stelprdb5228795&width=full

Since there are quite a few of these, over the years these regulations have been summarized on signs (and recently that web page) for brevity. At the cost of accuracy.

Why does this matter if one practices common sence me good LNT ethic?, one might ask.

For me it means that if I am doing a short hike along the AT for a one-night stay at Gordon Pond and see a thru hiker pitched along the Trail, I won't automatically think of him as a scofflaw.

And, if I elect to stay at an established site near the pond which is closer to it than 200', no one has the right to think that of me either. If they suggested I was not fully living up to the highest LNT standards, they would have a point, and I would be happy to discuss the merits of their position as it related to the specifics of the situation.

All this aside, probably best for hikers to always camp 200' away from Trails or ponds.

[Lear]

For AT hikers, there may as well be a blanket prohibition in National Forests. Yes, there are specific locations where the 200ft rule does not apply, but not in locations AT hikers will be travelling. See the WMNF Dispersed Camping Regs here: http://www.fs.usda.gov/activity/whitemountain/recreation/camping-cabins/?recid=74405&actid=34.

It really comes down to a matter of personally deciding and acting on your level of respect for the resource, the Trail, and the volunteers who actually take care of it. Despite Kevin's experience in the South Taconics, the chances of encountering a ranger when you stealth is pretty small. No one is running around with a headlamp and ticket book--and that's one of the thing we treasure about the Trail experience, it's relatively unregulated. Respectful use will keep it that way. On the AT (particularly in the mid-Atlantic and Southern NE), the problem is magnified further in some locations where the Trail corridor is very narrow--you are practically walking through people's backyards. I suspect here in Mass and CT the number of neighbor complaints will be even higher this coming season--even than the unprecedented number we had this past summer--amplified by the fire issues down south.

Realistically, the actions of one person of moderate skill have little actual impact--but the "AT multiplying factor" of literally hundreds of such individuals every year--year after year--really do. Call it the "the death from a thousands cuts" or the "tragedy of the commons", it's a significant problem in some areas. And, unfortunately, the AT does attract hikers with few practical skills or experience (and not just in Georgia) because of it's accessibility and supposedly "anything goes" reputation among the uninformed (a group which now, as readers of this thread, you can no longer consider yourself part of...).

Cosmo
Wow lots of assumptions here! most notably the at the very end where it is assumed reading this thread will leave one "informed." Not really sure here what the "AT multiplying factor," is but I suspect there may be a linear increases in people on the trail. Not sure what how these unknown factors would necessarily make a significant problem in some areas. All the stuff about teh AT attracting hikers with few practical skills or experience for stated reasons is also very much lost on me - I met a couple who went out and flip flopped successfully after retirement and did so with zero experience so I am certainly not sure why you label that unfortunate. My understanding is that the original intent of the trail was for day and section hiking. Maybe the thru hikers should be considered as the hikers who are supposedly impinging on the joy of the section and day hikers. Personally I think it's great that more people than ever are on the trail in the form that they so choose. I think it's a shame that some folks want to either somehow limit their freedom or make it more costly. The world is a beautiful place and it becomes much more enjoyable when it is shared by all.

[Starchild]

If only people would really camp without leaving a trace, there would be no need for rules about where you can camp and where you cannot camp. There are very few A.T. hikers in my experience who have the skill, patience and time to leave a site unchanged (and most of those people use hammocks). It only takes about 10 visits to a single campsite to cause damage that takes decades of non-use for the area to recover. ....


Funny that you mention 'decades' and appear to use hammocks as a better way, at least to me how you phrase it. Those who hammocks, especially UL style, have the greatest chance of causing decades of damage, if not centuries, through tree damage. The forest floor recovers in much shorter time (tenting).

Another case that it is impossible to leave no trace :confused:

[Sandy of PA]

The 200 foot thing is not applicable to PA State game lands, where overnight camping is only permitted for hikers passing thru, and they must stay WITHIN 200 feet of the trail!

[imscotty]

Funny that you mention 'decades' and appear to use hammocks as a better way, at least to me how you phrase it. Those who hammocks, especially UL style, have the greatest chance of causing decades of damage, if not centuries, through tree damage. The forest floor recovers in much shorter time (tenting).

Another case that it is impossible to leave no trace :confused:

Starchild, I think you have been misinformed about hammocking, or perhaps you have witnessed some reckless abuse? When done correctly hammock hanging is about as close to LNT as you can get.

I use straps when I hang and recommend them as being best for the trees. When I leave a site in the morning the trees are unmarked and the vegetation underfoot is barely disturbed.

I have a pair of trees that I use in my yard for hammocking, dozens of nights hanging, zero damage to the trees (the ground there is all pine needles, so no change there either.)

Impossible to leave NO trace? I can agree with that. But with dispersed hammock hanging the impact can be close to non detectable.