Pulling into an area, the odds of unwanted clinging proximity decrease with more turns made and the more gnarly the road choices appear.
Simple flow chart with unpopular choices. Three gnarly turns in a row is pretty solid.
If it’s ugly looking, of course walk it first. Even big puddles will deter weaklings and tweaklings.
Thus I’ve woken in the middle of the night because the moon has come up and I’m surrounded by lowing cows, or being bumped by a bear, or being practically deafened by profound silence (mostly).
I may have an explanation for you. There are two state parks near me that require people to park next to each other. You can actually get towed for parking off on your own. They say they’re trying to get as many cars in the parking lot as possible.
Maybe that person is used to these sorts of rules.
I think your shock and confusion is 100% valid. The whole point of trekking out to remote camping spot in a National Forest is usually to get the hell away from other people, is it not? That seems… rude at worst, and ignorant of them at best.
The behavior is likely due to the wide spectrum of human functional thought. Perhaps they went camping to share a niche social experience. TBC, I want to have my space too.
An empty parking spot with dozens of open spaces and I park far away, clearly trying to avoid other cars. I come back and the one other car in the vicinity of my own is parked right next to it. Fucking why!
Yeah, depending on where I’m going, there are specific areas you can bring your car around to if you’re deciding to camp in the car lol parking lots, in my experience, are for day trippers and people looking to drop their car off and hoof it to the stream for fishing or go deeper to camp/backpack.
Edit: West Coast/Rockies and foothills mainly for me.
I don’t see where they said they camped in their car. They could have easily parked the car at the site and then set up a tent, or like we do, towed a pop up camper there.
After rereading they do mention they’re at a campground. I focused on the ‘dispersed camping spot’ phrase.
The only conclusion I can come to is OP uses different camping terminology than I’m familiar with. For me ‘dispersed’ can have a broad range of meanings but always means ‘not at a campground’.
Dispersed camping is any designated campsite that allows you to show up and go as you please. In Montana, they’re everywhere and frequently have spots to put your RV or car. “Dispersed” is a designation by the NFS for these sites
Not to quibble but technically dispersed camping, according to the USFS, is camping anywhere outside designated sites. The distinction is important because people believe they can’t camp on USFS (or BLM) land for free, almost anywhere they want. In fact with relatively few exceptions and with a bunch of rules like time limits, proximity to water sources, fire restrictions etc etc, you can.
Yeah that’s totally fair, I felt weird writing that because that was how I was brought up thinking of it. I suppose where I live, the dispersed camping is very clean cut and does show up on NFS listings, so I’ve learned to think of it differently recently. I suppose at the very least me and many other people just call any first come first serve camping “dispersed” because of this 🤷♀️
Whatever the case, it certainly doesn’t need to be a backpacking spot.
If you asked them why, they likely couldn’t give you an answer, or they’d rationalize one on the spot without realizing it.
We have millions of years of evolution telling us it’s better to be grouped up to sleep, and just a couple generations at most for recreational camping etiquette.
There’s probably different levels of this instinct that correlate to experience camping out in the boonies, as well as the size of your own party. For instance, an inexperienced individual or small family probably would want the security of being near other people. But more experienced people want the solitude, and especially so for larger groups.
Chalk it up to someone not too familiar with camping.
I wouldn’t judge someone who shows up to a campground at 430 am too harshly…
They’re probably running on pure lizard brain at that point.
Like, depending on your definitional of rational, there was/is a reason for this behavior, but it’s not like someone intentionally decides to do it. It’s just autopilot.
A lot of what we do is just autopilot and rationalizing it later. Shits crazy interesting, but we can’t really study it because it’s not ethical to just cut people’s brains in half for no reason other than to gain knowledge. And there was only a brief period it was a valid medical treatment for things like epilepsy.
Sperry performed another similar experiment in humans to further study the ability of the right hemisphere to recognize words. During that experiment, Sperry asked volunteers to place their left hand into a box with different tools that they could not see. After that, the participants saw a word that described one of the objects in the box in their left field of view only. Sperry noted that most participants then picked up the needed object from the box without seeing it, but if Sperry asked them for the name of the object, they could not say it and they did not know why they were holding that object. That led Sperry to conclude that the right hemisphere had some language recognition ability, but no speech articulation, which meant that the right hemisphere could recognize or read a word, but it could not pronounce that word, so the person would not be able to say it or know what it was.
In his last series of experiments in humans, Sperry showed one object to the right eye of the participants and another object to their left eye. Sperry asked the volunteers to draw what they saw with their left hand only, with closed eyes. All the participants drew the object that they saw with their left eye, controlled by the right hemisphere, and described the object that they saw with their right eye, controlled by the left hemisphere. That supported Sperry´s hypothesis that the hemispheres of brain functioned separately as two different brains and did not acknowledge the existence of the other hemisphere, as the description of the object did not match the drawing. Sperry concluded that even though there were no apparent signs of disability in people with a severed corpus callosum, the hemispheres did not communicate, so it compromised the full function of the brain.
I just really liked the idea that OP thought they were exaggerating the timeline with that, when they were still waaaaaay off on how baked in that behavior really was.
Modern life makes a lot more sense when you realize we really weren’t built for this shit. On an evolutionary timescale we went from taking a shit while walking like a horse to Star Trek in an afternoon.
It makes it a lot easier to let shit go instead of assuming the other person is fucking with you intentionally. Which ironically is another thing baked into our instincts. It’s safer to think someone you don’t know is a threat and is acting maliciously. Now a days it’s maladapted into road rage shootings because someone forgot to signal for a merge.
Here’s something interesting, it’s cultural. There was a study done in the 80’s or 90’s and they found that Hispanics and Asians were more likely to sit next to each other in an otherwise empty room, whereas Caucasians were more likely to sit very far apart.