When did boondocking become weird?

[ohhell10339]

I always thought RVs were supposed to be self-sufficient; that they had water tanks and generators and waste tanks so that you could use them to go camping wherever you wanted and be independent. Now, apparently that's so oddball that it requires a label: "boondocking." Shouldn't that be the default setting for an RV? Why this feeling that one should end every day comfortingly hooked up to water/sewer/power/cable/piped-in oxygen, just like the home that you should probably never have left?

It seems to me that this feeling that you need to be plugged into the grid every moment that you're not actually moving is what enables all those shysters to sell a 100 square foot slab of concrete with a sewer outlet, electrical plug, and water spigot for the price of a hotel room (or more!!!). I honestly cannot fathom staying at one of those places any more than maybe once a week, when you can dump, flush, launder, and recharge everything. That might be worth the horrible expense. But otherwise, if you convince yourself you can't live without all those umbilical cords, even for a few days, then really, what's the point of even having an RV? Why not just drive a car and stay in hotels?

I guess my question is, when did this all happen? I know that in my college camping days, "boondocking" was the norm. At some point, which I obviously didn't catch, "camping" turned from parking your 23-footer out in the national forest for the weekend--no hookups--to paying $110 a night to park your 45-foot Behemoth Industries Luxury Cruiser at Slab Heaven RV Resort and essentially duplicating the experience of living at home.

What happened, exactly? When did boondocking start being weird?

[my440]

I no longer feel safe. There is a lot of danger these days with many people looking for opportunities to pounce.

[ppine]

The whole point of having a recreational vehicle or a tent to me is to get away from other people and spend some time out there.

Some people seem to think that what is important is a washer/dryer, color tv and a fireplace within walking distance to town and shopping.

I use Forest Service campgrounds sometimes but rarely in the summer.
Too many crazy and rude people.

[4x4van]

I guess that unless my rig is smaller than the OP's, then it's not really "camping" in his mind. Thankfully, I don't live in his mind. It is entirely possible for people of modest means to camp; I don't understand why he thinks otherwise. Buy a tent, a coleman stove and lantern, an air mattress, and...set up in any number of campgrounds other than an RV "resort". And a car vs an RV driving thru a campground...the OP is really going to scream about one but welcome the other? Wow, methinks a hobby is needed.

I've never had problems finding a campsite for a reasonable price. Sometimes I camp in FHU campgrounds; that requires a higher price. Sometimes I boondock; that requires a lower price (or even free). Sometimes the purpose of my trip is to sightsee in popular areas; that of course will cost more. Sometimes I just want to get away; that will cost less. In most cases, I have seen both behemoths and tents alongside each other in the same campground; not sure why he thinks one precludes the other.

I guess it's never occurred to him that values and amenities of campsites vary, just as property values and amenities for S&B houses vary. And a property owner has every right to do what he wants with his property, from leaving it barren, to a strip mall, to a high rise, to a low budget campground, to a high end RV Resort.

It also has obviously escaped him that some of the so called behemoths that he seems to hate are not "campers" at all, but are full timers. That rig IS THEIR HOUSE. They are not "camping", they are "living". They have every right to pay for FHU and then spend as much time inside THEIR HOUSE as they desire. At least they are not parked on the street in front of someone's house (oh wait, that was another of the OPs threads).

[ohhell10339]

toedtoes wrote:

As you indicate that it was the overwhelming volume of vehicles and people that lessened your experience, then the OP's suggestion that we replace one big rig campsite with multiple smaller campsites would only increase that. Instead of one couple driving around in one toad, you'd have 2-4 couples in 2-4 vehicles driving around.

Disingenuous comment. That poster indicated it was the presnce of big rigs, not cars. You must be well aware that a big rig driving into or out of a campground is noisy, disruptive, and annoying. Then when the generator starts up...

Give me 3 or 4 tenters instead of one big rig any time. As far as "driving around," I rarely see people just "driving around" in a campground. They enter; they leave. A car doing that is minimally disruptive. A 40-foot rig chugging along and then the subsequent ceremony while the wifey screams directions to the driver as he's trying to back in, on the other hand...

But the primary reason I want more tent and small RV spaces is that it allows people of modest means the ability to camp. You own a behemoth, you CAN camp anywhere. And yes, four tent sites allow 8-12 people to camp rather than a single old couple in a behemoth in the same space. So telling the behemoths to stay in a slab park outside the park boundaries allows more people to enjoy the park.

[ohhell10339]

toedtoes wrote:
Yes, you did state the exact words "big rigs should be BANNED from the national parks". So continue to lie and act the victim. You have spewed hatred on this thread since the first post.

And your posts have been nothing but sweetness and light, and you have been an absolute paragon of truth and reason.

*SNORT*

Really, though, some people have managed to fathom what I'm saying. Why can't you? I'm not a rich man, and I always thought camping was one of the few available poor man's recreations. But it's become elitist, and in popular areas in particular, what facilities do exist are being configured to accommodate the $250K rigs with their luxury equipment. And because of this, it costs $40+ a night to even pitch a tent, as use fees pay for all the hookups (and widened access roads, and other infrastructure) AND generate a hefty profit for the facilities.

[seagrace]

Lemme see if I can help. 🙂 I strongly encourage anyone with any sort of RV that wants to camp in an established campground, park, resort (whatever you want to call it) do so. PLEASE!

Yes, I am being selfish, because I like to camp or "boondock" or "freestyle" or whatever you want to call it with my RV. I have absolutely no problem with anybody doing the same. I do, however, have a problem when your style impinges on mine, causing me discomfort.

At the risk of being called "elitist", your style of RV'ing/camping impinges on mine when the sounds you make (generator/music/loud talking/farts) disrupts the peace and quiet I seek. Also, it's a big world, when in the boonies, it's not necessary for you to park 20 feet, 50 feet, a hundred or even several hundred from me. If you pick the next valley over I'd be happy. If you do need to park near me, and I do understand that my fabulous style often attracts wannabies and worshippers, please be considerate with your noise and I will be considerate of mine.

And finally, I implore you - if your style involves concrete pads and hookups, more power to you! Don't ever stop!

[ReneeG]

157 replies and the argument finally fizzles out. 😄

[2gypsies1]

ppine wrote:
A 40 foot motor home is around 40 feet. A 22 foot trailer and a full sized truck are around 48 feet or a little more. Many large motor homes can't snake their way through the trees in the older campgrounds.

My reply was to your previous post stating: ppine wrote: "The Nat Park Service has done a very poor job of updating their campgrounds to accomodate RVs. The Forest Service and BLM have done only a fair job. Most larger RVs say TT over 26 feet do not fit. Neither do larger MH."

You said "neither do larger MH". I just wanted to clarify that a 40' motorhome (which is definitely a "larger MH") towing a car WILL fit in many public campgrounds. No, it won't fit in all but we never had an issue finding one close to where we wanted to be.

[tunaguy]

I am not camping, I am traveling. As I tell my guys.

Jeff

[toedtoes]

JaxDad wrote:

toedtoes wrote:

JaxDad wrote:

ohhell10339 wrote:
I always thought RVs were supposed to be self-sufficient; that they had water tanks and generators and waste tanks so that you could use them to go camping wherever you wanted and be independent.

Sorry to hijack a perfectly good mud-slinging match by posting ON topic, but...........

All you have to do is mention overnight stops in a rest area, big box store lot or other place to illicit all sorts of ‘cheap skate’ type comments.

Apparently there’s a rule somewhere that you can ONLY sleep in FHU campgrounds.

The cheapskate comments aren't about whether you use hookups or not, they are about not paying for a place to park. It's an entirely different discussion than the OP's complaint.

Really?

ohhell10339 wrote:
At some point, which I obviously didn't catch, "camping" turned from parking your 23-footer out in the national forest for the weekend--no hookups--to paying $110 a night to park your 45-foot Behemoth Industries Luxury Cruiser at Slab Heaven RV Resort and essentially duplicating the experience of living at home.

It seemed to be EXACTLY what the OP was saying, that boondocking or dry camping is ‘weird’ now because you’re not paying $110 a night for a slab next to the Jones’.

Read what I said. The "cheapskate" comments people make have nothing to do with whether you use hookups or not. They are about choosing to stay in a parking lot for free because you're too cheap to pay for a campground (not MY opinion, just why others make negative comments).

The OP's tirade (one of them) is that people won't use their RVs without full hookups. That they choose to stay in expensive full hookup RV resorts instead of dry camping at less expensive options.

See the difference???

[ppine]

A 40 foot motor home is around 40 feet. A 22 foot trailer and a full sized truck are around 48 feet or a little more. Many large motor homes can't snake their way through the trees in the older campgrounds.

Desi and Luci? A lot of people seem to have little experience with camping in the middle of nowhere. Too bad for them. It is the best part of having an RV.

[2gypsies1]

ppine wrote:


The Nat Park Service has done a very poor job of updating their campgrounds to accomodate RVs. The Forest Service and BLM have done only a fair job. Most larger RVs say TT over 26 feet do not fit. Neither do larger MH.

Sorry... I don't agree. With our 40' motorhome we have fit in many, many, many public parks including national, national forest, BLM, Corp of Engineers, Nat'l Wildlife Refuges, county and city parks.

[JaxDad]

toedtoes wrote:

JaxDad wrote:

ohhell10339 wrote:
I always thought RVs were supposed to be self-sufficient; that they had water tanks and generators and waste tanks so that you could use them to go camping wherever you wanted and be independent.

Sorry to hijack a perfectly good mud-slinging match by posting ON topic, but...........

All you have to do is mention overnight stops in a rest area, big box store lot or other place to illicit all sorts of ‘cheap skate’ type comments.

Apparently there’s a rule somewhere that you can ONLY sleep in FHU campgrounds.

The cheapskate comments aren't about whether you use hookups or not, they are about not paying for a place to park. It's an entirely different discussion than the OP's complaint.

Really?

ohhell10339 wrote:
At some point, which I obviously didn't catch, "camping" turned from parking your 23-footer out in the national forest for the weekend--no hookups--to paying $110 a night to park your 45-foot Behemoth Industries Luxury Cruiser at Slab Heaven RV Resort and essentially duplicating the experience of living at home.

It seemed to be EXACTLY what the OP was saying, that boondocking or dry camping is ‘weird’ now because you’re not paying $110 a night for a slab next to the Jones’.

[2oldman]

ppine wrote:
People have boondocked from the beginning of RVs and the beginning of cars. It is a very American experience to go on a road trip and see where you end up.

Lucy and Desi tried that. Didn't work out so well!

[ReneeG]

ppine wrote:
People have boondocked from the beginning of RVs and the beginning of cars. It is a very American experience to go on a road trip and see where you end up.

The Nat Park Service has done a very poor job of updating their campgrounds to accomodate RVs. The Forest Service and BLM have done only a fair job. Most larger RVs say TT over 26 feet do not fit. Neither do larger MH.

This may differ depending on the state. In Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming we have found that we cam find FS CG's and BLM CG's that will fit larger RVs.