Security while Boondocking

[skagitstan]

I was a LOT more concerned about safety the one time I stayed one Saturday overnight at a Walmart in Spokane than I ever have been out in the boonies.
Seems to me that the security issues are a lot different with folks partying through the night and restocking beer at Wally, than when I'm out for 2 weeks where there's no traffic at all for days.
Hardly seems like one word covers both environments,

[Davydd]

Boondocking and security are mutually two different subjects. I've never been uncomfortable at a Walmart but did get very uncomfortable at the Sabine National Forest when we realized we were the only campers there and the park emptied out of family picnickers leaving only a bunch of rowdy, arguing, drinking revelers that went to 3 AM in the morning and we decided to leave right then.

[skagitstan]

Mutually different subjects in a thread entitled "Security while Boondocking"?
OK.
To me, a place filled with family campers &/or rowdy drunken revelers...be it Wallyworld or a NF recreation site, just doesn't fit what I think of as boondocking.
Environments with very different security concerns, IMO.

[InterBlog]

It's a long thread, and IIRC, the semantic issue was covered somewhere earlier on.

Some people consider "boondocking" to apply to remote wilderness camping only. Others consider it to include any location where hook-ups are not present.

I'm in the latter group - as are most people who do it habitually, hence the derivative terms like Wallydocking and Crackerdocking. Through natural usage evolution, the term has become far less about the "boon" factor, and far more about the act of "docking".

Technically I supposed "off-gridding" would be more accurate as a catch-all term for overnighting without hook-ups. But off-gridding typically implies remoteness.

We drive on parkways and park on driveways. That's an analogous inversion that came about via usage patterns.

Edit: Perhaps the name could be parsed productively by asking the inverse question - what WOULD you call "off-gridding" or "boondocking" in areas that are not remote?

For instance, I spent a big chunk of time in the first several months of this year "boondocking" in paid overnight parking areas in a large urban core in Texas. In other words, 24-hour surface parking was explicitly offered as a service, and I paid round-the-clock fees (which were variably priced between $15 - $30 per each 24-hour period) - I was careful not to trespass; I paid to be there. The area in which I stayed has an enormous homeless population, with the issues that come with it (including health and safety issues).

Does anyone wish to vote on what that scenario should be called, name-wise?

[Davydd]

I guess you can't say "free parking" if you paid.

The question may be settled. The Wendland's are promoting boondocking simply meaning without hookups. Semantics aside we came mightly close to us all just being Roadtrekkers than Class B RVers until they quickly divorced themselves of the term.

I do like "without hookups or facilities" to encompass the trend be it off-grid, Wallydocking, Crackerdocking, moochdocking, street parking, rest stopping, etc. Boondocking is just a simple term. Already there is an organization called "Boondockers Welcome" implying camping at a persons home similar to Harvest Host and usually without hookups but even those sometimes can offer a hookup of at least electrical.

Any other suggestions for without hookups are facilities? Off-grid is the only other one I have thought about as of this writing. It is just not as catchy.

[skagitstan]

My preference would be to use something like "unplugged camping" or "unhooked camping" to describe the entire set of camping without hookups or facilities.
Reserve "boondocking for the subset of "out in the boonies". Like "stealth" is used for hiding in plain sight.


I think, especially when threads like this one arise, it's important to be clear what the environment being discussed entails... what the very different security issues, supply issues, stealth issues, vehicle capability issues, etc. are for they very different environments.

[Knit]

Dictionary.com defines boondocks as “an uninhabited area with thick natural vegetation, as a backwoods or marsh” or “a remote rural area”

Doesn’t sound like a parking lot or camping without hookups at a campground or staying in somebody’s driveway to me. I sometimes sleep in my RV. I sometimes camp in my RV. I sometimes camp with hookups. But Boondocking for me is always going to include being someplace remote. But to each their own.

[D&J Phillips]

Originally Posted by Knit

Dictionary.com defines boondocks as “an uninhabited area with thick natural vegetation, as a backwoods or marsh” or “a remote rural area”

Doesn’t sound like a parking lot or camping without hookups at a campground or staying in somebody’s driveway to me. I sometimes sleep in my RV. I sometimes camp in my RV. I sometimes camp with hookups. But Boondocking for me is always going to include being someplace remote. But to each their own.

Nailed it for me!

[GeorgeRa]

Originally Posted by Knit

................................. I sometimes sleep in my RV. I sometimes camp in my RV. .......................

Well stated, and there is big difference. We primarily camping with or without utilities. One of differentiators could be "stealthy look", could be good for sleeping but absolutely not necessary for any camping.

[InterBlog]

(cross-posting from Airforums)

Story this morning of an off-gridding camper van couple whose van was invaded by a gunman in the middle of the night. The man was shot dead and his body taken on a joy ride. The woman escaped before he had a chance to shoot her.

I was annoyed by the police referring to this couple as a "random" target in some television news broadcasts. That is totally misleading because it was a statement made without context or perspective. If there were 100 vans parked overnight along that same beach and a criminal chose one of them pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey-style without regard to any perceived weaknesses in any of the vans, then it would have been his random choice in that limited sense. But in fact, he chose the target because it was a relatively isolated, standalone van. From what I can tell, it's more accurately described as a crime of opportunity. He went looking for a weak target, and found one.

I'm trying to get more information on the way he committed the crime, so that I and others can learn from it. Given the condition of the van shown on TV news footage, he may have invaded through the slider rather than through the anecdotally more common route of entry, that being the driver's side door. However, the forensic people placed a tent over the van for privacy reasons while conducting their evaluation, so it's difficult to tell.

[RossWilliams]

Here is a link that works. And it sounds like it was pretty much random. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time, just like the couple in Canada who were attacked after breaking down on the road.

Since this one happened in New Zealand and the other in Canada, I guess the United States must be pretty safe.

[paddy]

Originally Posted by InterBlog

(cross-posting from Airforums)

Story this morning of an off-gridding camper van couple whose van was invaded by a gunman in the middle of the night. The man was shot dead and his body taken on a joy ride. The woman escaped before he had a chance to shoot her.

I was annoyed by the police referring to this couple as a "random" target in some television news broadcasts. That is totally misleading because it was a statement made without context or perspective. If there were 100 vans parked overnight along that same beach and a criminal chose one of them pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey-style without regard to any perceived weaknesses in any of the vans, then it would have been his random choice in that limited sense. But in fact, he chose the target because it was a relatively isolated, standalone van. From what I can tell, it's more accurately described as a crime of opportunity. He went looking for a weak target, and found one.

I'm trying to get more information on the way he committed the crime, so that I and others can learn from it. Given the condition of the van shown on TV news footage, he may have invaded through the slider rather than through the anecdotally more common route of entry, that being the driver's side door. However, the forensic people placed a tent over the van for privacy reasons while conducting their evaluation, so it's difficult to tell.

I call BS.
From what I hear almost all campers have never had as much as a fallen leaf disturbed at their campsite.
That is why, at most, they will only consider wasp spray for protection.

I still haven't heard an answer about safety while traveling to and from supposed ultra safe camping area.

When going out west one year we drove through Chicago on the freeway.
We all know how safe it is in Chicago because of their strict gun laws.

[hbn7hj]

I don't see a reason to call it BS. Facts are facts.

The two issues are isolated solo camping and response to such an attack. I certainly have no answers to either.

Years ago in Arizona a couple was in an isolated area sleeping in the back of an open pickup. They were found each with a bullet in the head. No motive or suspects were ever found.

Similar would be oncoming traffic coming into your lane. Wrong place wrong time.

[paddy]

Originally Posted by hbn7hj

I don't see a reason to call it BS. Facts are facts.

The two issues are isolated solo camping and response to such an attack. I certainly have no answers to either.

Years ago in Arizona a couple was in an isolated area sleeping in the back of an open pickup. They were found each with a bullet in the head. No motive or suspects were ever found.

Similar would be oncoming traffic coming into your lane. Wrong place wrong time.

Should have used a smiley face as the "BS" comment was being sarcastic.
There always are two groups, one that wants to always be prepared for anything and the other that have never had a problem and doesn't see the need to be prepared for any possibility.
Granted that the possibility of bad things happening while camping are extremely rare, they do on occasion happen.

[skagitstan]

Originally Posted by paddy

Should have used a smiley face as the "BS" comment was being sarcastic.
There always are two groups, one that wants to always be prepared for anything and the other that have never had a problem and doesn't see the need to be prepared for any possibility.
Granted that the possibility of bad things happening while camping are extremely rare, they do on occasion happen.

Rather binary with your grouping, eh?
Seems to me that generally one prepares well for stuff that's likely to happen, less well for stuff less likely.


I don't carry a spare engine because there's a remote possibility my engine throws a rod.

[RossWilliams]

"I don't carry a spare engine because there's a remote possibility my engine throws a rod."

I don't think I have ever seen that happen on TV.

[paddy]

Originally Posted by skagitstan

Rather binary with your grouping, eh?
Seems to me that generally one prepares well for stuff that's likely to happen, less well for stuff less likely.


I don't carry a spare engine because there's a remote possibility my engine throws a rod.

I have never had a fire but I still have fire extinguishers in the RV.
Never had a propane leak but still have a propane monitor.
Never had an issue with carbon monoxide.
Using your logic I guess I can lighten up by getting rid of safety items because there is only a remote possibility of a fire, propane leak or CO poisoning.
More room for whiskey. Wonder if a bottle of Jameson will fit in the fire extinguisher holder?

[InterBlog]

I'm continuing to look for actual facts surrounding this issue, to see what the take-aways are.

I must admit that, of the security possibilities that had occurred to me, I put very little weight on a scenario in which someone desired to steal the WHOLE VAN (a car-jacking, in other words). The only other recent crime of which I'm aware that involved a van being moved is the San Antonio Riverwalk case in which the van was driven away because the perps desired to remove it to an area in which they could strip out valuables undisturbed. They ditched the van as soon as they gathered up what they wanted. And that scenario could be avoided by compelling the non-driving spouse to take his/her keys along every time the van is exited, rather than leaving them in the vehicle for a criminal to use.

There are more questions than answers on the New Zealand case. A few points:

(1) The news reported that the surviving woman ran 2 km to a farmhouse to summon help. It strongly implies that nobody else was boondocking in proximity to them.

(2) The perp materialized between 2 and 3 a.m. in this location that apparently had no other people within 2 km of it - wait, what?!

(a) How did he get there, and at that time of night? Presumably not by separate vehicle - none was mentioned in the news. The police put out a call for anyone seeing hitchhikers to report themselves so that they can process their witness list - maybe he hitchhiked. If he did so, he may have done it hours earlier - who would pick up a hitchhiker after dark in a remote area? What other citizen would even BE in the area to pick up a hitchhiker after dark, even if they wanted to?

(b) If he did hitchhike into an area with no people, it raises the possibility that he didn't just target this camper van couple - he might have stalked them in advance. How else would he have known they were down there?
Would YOU take the chance of traveling several km down a remote road, presumably without a car or other supplies, without knowing for sure that there was a target down there waiting for you?

Many questions, and the news media doing its usual superficial reporting of exactly what transpired, so the answers are difficult to discern.

[RossWilliams]

Originally Posted by paddy

I have never had a fire but I still have fire extinguishers in the RV.
Never had a propane leak but still have a propane monitor.
Never had an issue with carbon monoxide.
Using your logic I guess I can lighten up by getting rid of safety items because there is only a remote possibility of a fire, propane leak or CO poisoning.

But those aren't remote possibilities. They happen every day and are so common that they are commented upon only as personal stories unless there is a tragic result. Even at that, the story of a couple being found in their van poisoned by CO would not reach beyond the local news stations, much less around the world from New Zealand.

[booster]

Originally Posted by paddy

I have never had a fire but I still have fire extinguishers in the RV.
Never had a propane leak but still have a propane monitor.
Never had an issue with carbon monoxide.
Using your logic I guess I can lighten up by getting rid of safety items because there is only a remote possibility of a fire, propane leak or CO poisoning.
More room for whiskey. Wonder if a bottle of Jameson will fit in the fire extinguisher holder?

I think I would worry the most about any "self defense apparatus of whatever type" that was stored with all the extra whiskey. Could be a bad combination.