PDA

View Full Version : what is a stealth campsite?



cabalot
12-13-2003, 17:24
i was reading an older post that mentioned locations of stealth campsites. stealth sounds like it is a hard to find campsite thus, less used (less garbage, more solitude). is this correct?

Saluki Dave
12-13-2003, 19:32
Stealth camping actually means camping somewhere you shouldn't. i.e. away from shelters in the Smokies, near the trail but away from the huts in the Whites or behind a gas station in Franklin. Hard to do in a yellow tent. :p

celt
12-13-2003, 19:42
The earliest reference to stealth camping I've found is in the 1979 book: Backwoods Ethics, Environmental Issues for Hikers and Campers by Laura and Guy Waterman. Stealth camping to The Watermans is camping away from shelters, away from the trail, away from water and away from where people have camped before. The object is to leave no trace of your nights stay, to disperse the impact of all the peoples using the backwoods to preserve the wild nature of the wild places in the world. The first edition of the book was written after the backpacking boom of the late sixties and early seventies had Plateaued and it suggested the impact of the boom could be lessened if the old high impact camping and hiking habits were discarded in favor of low impact methods. The Watermans hoped that if the users of the backwoods adopted this new philosophy we could avoid being regulated into lessening our impact. The effect was mixed. The phrase "Leave No Trace" is well known among hikers but mostly because it has become the trademark phrase of a well financed education campaign of the AMC and other outdoor organization.

Anyways I digress...

Stealth camping is also commonly used to mean any campsite away from shelters and offical campsites but not necessarily a site that has never been used. Thru hikers often use the term when talking about traversing The White Mountains in New Hampshire where there are many Shelter and Campsites that charge a fee to stay and limit the areas where one can camp legally.

I like The Waterman's definition best.

cabalot
12-13-2003, 20:18
small campfire ok at a stealth site as long as fire warnings are low? i always dig a pit and bury ashes when a fire ring is not available.

bunbun
12-14-2003, 01:32
small campfire ok at a stealth site as long as fire warnings are low? i always dig a pit and bury ashes when a fire ring is not available.

Digging a pit and burying the ashes doesn't help because you've already damaged (sterilized) the subsurface soil with your fire and it'll simply be a fire ring without the ring. Why do you think 200 year-old charcoal pits are still visible along the AT and other trails?

If you want a fire, then camp where fire rings already exist. Stealth campsites are those campsites that will neither attract animals nor invite further use by others. If you build a fire then it's not a stealth campsite. You've just made another obvious campsite that others will use - and overuse - and abuse.

Fires - no matter how well controlled or managed - are NOT low impact.

Rain Man
12-14-2003, 01:45
If you build a fire then it's not a stealth campsite.

Right you are. The two are mutually exclusive. IMHO.

Unless by "stealth" one merely means sneaky and illegal? Perhaps then the definition could include a fire? :(

cabalot
12-14-2003, 02:11
i have never "dug a pit and buried the ashes " in a campsite that had not already had a previous campfire. i was asking because i was concerned about the impact and i sincerly thank you for your feedback. please do not assume that i am a garbage leaving ground scortcher. when i camp i carry out my garbage and trash left over from previous campers because i can not conciously leave knowing there is a bottle cap or ciggarett but left on the ground whether is was from me or another(i dont smoke ciggaretts). except for my military years back in the 80's, i have always car-camped at a state campground with a fire-ring or at a national forest camp area where there were designated camping spots where you could build a "fire-pit".
i have never backpacked except on military post. i plan to start this spring on the AT and other trails and come to whiteblaze to learn the right way.

Moon Monster
12-14-2003, 13:52
Celt's cite to The Watermans is exactly like what I've always heard "stealthing" is.

It does not mean illegal. It means a site that, because of its location (e.g., out of eyesight from a trail) and the camper's efforts the next morning to camoflouge it and restore the natural condition, will not attract others in the future to camp there as well. So, the site would hopefully be used only once and would not develop any long term impact from humans. It is 'leave no trace' because it doesn't scar the land AND because it goes un-noticed to those who come by later so that they won't say "hey, since someone else already slept here, this site must be good." (hence the "stealth" aspect)

Along the AT, it seems "stealthing" has come to mean something sort of illicit. I've heard the term in reference to camping in a town or along a road someplace out of sight to avoid having to pay to stay in a hostel or motel. These sites would be illegal as trespass on private property, which is a whole different issue from leave no trace but is equally reprehensible. It is also used in reference to sites in the White Mtns. where a hiker could avoid paying AMC for lodging. But, not all of the "stealth" sites in the Whites on the various lists that I have seen are illegal. Backcountry camping in the Whites is legal when the rules are followed, and many of the "stealth" sites there are ok by the rules. Some of them are not because they are too close to roads, the huts, shelters, etc.

Generally, I think the spirit of leave no trace would direct AT hikers to use sites that were already high impact areas rather than to try to find good stealth sites. An interesting twist on leave no trace ethics is that it favors use of high ipact zones (like shelters or the numerous informal campsites along the trail) rather than creating a new site. No matter how "stealthy" you are, you are still impacting an area that has never had a camper when you try to stealth. Why do that when there are so many obvious sites along the AT?

On a less popular trail or in the true backcountry with few existing high impact zones, stealthing is important.

Youngblood
12-14-2003, 14:35
i was reading an older post that mentioned locations of stealth campsites. stealth sounds like it is a hard to find campsite thus, less used (less garbage, more solitude). is this correct?

Stealth campsites means pretty much what you thought. A stealth campsite is simply one that will be unnoticed. Whether you practice LNT, use fire rings or it is at an illegal place are just other descriptions of certain campsites.

Youngblood

bunbun
12-14-2003, 16:56
i have never "dug a pit and buried the ashes " in a campsite that had not already had a previous campfire. i was asking because i was concerned about the impact and i sincerly thank you for your feedback. please do not assume that i am a garbage leaving ground scortcher.

cabalot -
If, as it appears, I mischaracterized you, I apologise.

I've spent hundreds of nights in stealth campsites over the years. There were few if any of them that would have been either suitable or safe for a campfire without a lot of work - and without destroying any chance of restoring the site to it's "natural" condition the next morning.

Have a good day anyway. :)

brian
12-14-2003, 23:39
I have also always had the illusion that a stealth campsite also means no eating their also. Cook before you get into camp at night so that no yummy leftover food will attract animals. So basicly you are just using the site to sleep, then off the next morning, and eating after a mile or 2 (or 5 :O).

Brian
Future Thru Hiler 2013

Crash
12-15-2003, 00:00
I have also always had the illusion that a stealth campsite also means no eating their also. Cook before you get into camp at night so that no yummy leftover food will attract animals. So basicly you are just using the site to sleep, then off the next morning, and eating after a mile or 2 (or 5 :O).

Brian
Future Thru Hiler 2013

Stealth your own stealth. lol

Peaks
12-15-2003, 09:03
I'd say that most campsites away from shelter are in fact "bootleg campsites" rather than stealth campsites. Most of these bootleg sites are perfectly legal. It's just that they don't have a privy or shelter nearby.

Regarding the Whites, there are a number of bootleg campsites along the trail. Because they are the required distance from the road, hut, or shelter, they are legal and used. You just need to look for them. I have also stealth camped in the Whites. This would be done at a place where there was no evidence of tenting before hand, and after I left.

Rain Man
12-15-2003, 11:13
... Most of these bootleg sites are perfectly legal. ...

??? I always thought the very definition of the word "bootleg" was "illegal," as in "bootleg whiskey" or "bootleg CDs/DVDs."

Right? Wrong? (won't be the first or last time!)

Rain Man

Lone Wolf
12-15-2003, 12:14
Right. Bootleg means illegal. Like when I stealth within 100yards of the front doors of the AMC at Pinkham notch, under the bushes outside of Madison Hut, within 200 yards of Lakes Hut, the post office loading dock in Cornwall Bridge, etc., etc. Lotsa fun to do.

Peaks
12-15-2003, 17:35
??? I always thought the very definition of the word "bootleg" was "illegal," as in "bootleg whiskey" or "bootleg CDs/DVDs."

Right? Wrong? (won't be the first or last time!)

Rain Man

Well, then call them something else. My point is that there are numerous places along the AT, even in the White Mountains, where it is obvious that people tent there and tent there frequently. And these sites are perfectly legal and no one should give you a hard time about camping there.

celt
12-15-2003, 18:35
It seems that our (the A.T. community's) use of words doesn't always meet their published definitions exactly. When a thru hiker throws down for the night in an illegal spot they are making a bootleg campsite, but it is also a stealthy site. We call it a stealth site because its easier to say than "bootleg-stealth" or "stealthleg" or whatever. Stealth sounds good and its the more important part of what we are doing: we don't want to get caught.
Campsites in the Whites not sanctioned by the AMC have long been called "Bootleg Campsites" even though they are legal as long as they are more than a quarter mile from an AMC site and below treeline. We call them bootleg because in the leave not trace circles they are frowned upon: camping should be stealthy if its not at a shelter.
The words don't fit exactly, we aren't the first to do it, I'd guess that is one of the reasons languages change over time.

Former Easy
12-25-2003, 04:24
My opinion on this is, if your a taxpayer in this country, camp anywhere you damn want on public and national land. Thats the way it was 100 years ago and the way it should be now.

Tenacious Tanasi
12-26-2003, 06:00
My opinion on this is, if your a taxpayer in this country, camp anywhere you damn want on public and national land. Thats the way it was 100 years ago and the way it should be now.

Easy,

I have to agree with you to a point. Although I'm sure that as you seem to be an experienced hiker, you take care of the wilderness that you so enjoy. But, at the same time, how many others do not? Think about all of the newbies out there that have no clue as to the merits of "Leave no Trace" or (depending on your definition) stealth camping? Do you think that they take the same care that you do? I hardly think so, and I think that governing officials see the same thing. They are simply doing what they can to help minimalize the ignorant treatment of our natural resources.

But, (just thinking out loud here...) how could we take your thinking and combine that with governing officials to try for a win-win situation?

Should there be a national hiking club (let's say the American Hiking Society for example) that could dole out "Hiker Experience" Cards? These cards could signify one's amount of miles covered or number of trails covered or some other measurable statistic (god forbid that we would have to take a test or something for this) to help differentiate levels of hiking experience along with ability and knowledge of caring for the wilderness. Then, at each level of hiking experience or whatever, one would be given certain privileges such as camping a certain distance away from shelters or designated camping areas or etc. But, then who would fund & police this type of action? Hmmm...I don't know that that would be feasible. What do you think?

Does anyone else have any ideas here? Maybe we can come up with something and make a change for the better.