Roof top tents, why?

yeah I had a sandpiper, pain in the ass.

 

I used to have one of those too. The FSR automatic one is #4. I was trying to sell to upgrade to a Vagabond, but now decided not to

 

I almost bought a blem unit they had a few months ago, the auto feature is intriguing. The Falcon came out a few weeks after I bought the sandpiper... I was pretty pissed but thats my fault for being impulsive. The clamshell design is probably one of the most simplistic designs, looking at the new gfc minimalist now.

 

Yea, but they were intelligent and had an agenda. If you want to do bad night is your friend.

 

I love how bent out of shape people get with RTT. In a perfect world, we would have an offroad trailer or wedge.

 

Earthroamer for me, but world's not perfect.

 

Right you are about cheaper alternatives.

Not sure that is much of a point when you live/travel in areas where being on the ground means that you could have visitors inside your tent that you really might not want. Think about other parts of the world were venomous snakes and other ground based animals might decide that the contents of your tent might make a good snack/meal.

Here in the US there are some National/State Park campgrounds that do not allow "soft sided" camping structures; meaning tent trailers and tents and/or derivatives there of because the area has a high population of bears that just might like the easy opening containers that tents and tent trailers are.

So, it all depends on where you travel and want to spend the night. And, of course, as someone else pointed out, some folks just like the "look" and are into such things.

From my perspective, if you like it, can afford it and it makes you happy, go for it...

Regards,

Jim

 

Where is that? I've never hear of such a thing.

 

Montana/Wyoming or anywhere that has a dense grizzly population. Yellowstone has a couple camp grounds that don't allow softshell tents.

 

In my searching of this, I only found this to be the case at one RV park. Is that what we are referring to? It is kinda weird considering there are 2000 other campsites within the park that allow tents and another 300 backcountry sites, many of them adjacent to the RV park.

 

Yep, that's the one. Having spoken with a ranger, the area has an unusually high number of bear encounters, so they do what they can to limit exposure. Encounters can indeed happen anywhere in the park, but the thought is that dispersed campers/backcountry campers are more prepared than the average South Dakota Joe who "camps" in an RV park.

 

That one is a clamshell though, right?

 

I'm of the opinion that there is no wrong way to camp in the bush, it's all just a matter of what works for you and what you like. There are people that use swag so they can get alot of tools and gear in there truck bed so they can be as prepared as they can handle just about anything that comes there way. I say people that have swag use it more than someone that would pitch a tent on the ground and if your worried about breaking your neck getting down from 1 then I say dont get so hammered and for God's sake dont clean your gun after getting hammered

 

Yep. Clamshell/wedge.

 

Yup thats why I have a mini rv, sleep on the road and the woods

 

The Rocky Mountains or the Sierra Nevada Mountains; you know, places where they actually have animals that can consume humans, like bears.

And then, there is Alaska, and all of Western Canada, but that is another bear story...

Regards,

Jim

 

I know for a fact that people regular tent camp in all of those places.

EDIT: I felt the need to edit this post and add that you kinda came off as an ass.

 

Trying not to come off like I'm being an ass here either, but there are essentially 3 bear species on Northern America, 2 in the areas you listed. Grizzlys are present in the Rockies, but not the Sierra Nevada range. Black bears are present throughout both ranges. Polar bears excluded mainly because camping in tents in their range is well, not common.

Black bears essentially never predate humans. Scavenging is not predation. Grizzlys almost never directly prey upon humans, but there are conditions and situations where that can change, see Grizzly Man .

Fatal bear attacks are so uncommon that they basically average one per species in the US per year, so 3, annually. Even cougar attacks that end fatally are <1 annually on average. I only mention the fatal occurrences because you mentioned consuming humans. That would be a direct cause and effect, I'm sure some humans get munched on each year by bears that have already died for other reasons unrelated to the bear, but that argument is over semantics. Violent attacks are higher, but the reasons for the attacks is not to kill and consume, its largely due to startling, encroachment, or territorial or familial protection. But herbivores like large ungulates, moose, elk, bison are just as likely to commit the same violent attacks under similar circumstance.

Again, not trying to be an ass, just really love the outdoors and the natural kingdom, sometimes we're just not aware of the scope of things and common sense would have us believe the risk is what it would seem, when sometimes it's just not. The rules are likely in place to reduce the risk of harm in any form.

Snakes actually cause more deaths in the US than bears annually. I just saw this, this morning, no where is safe from snakes apparently.

San Antonia NM:

 

Was the snake alive. I've found several dead ones in trees. I figured some sort of raptor had dropped them in flight.

 

I thought same, according to the news it was alive. Its still like a one-in-a-million chance type of thing. Just thought it was fitting to this topic.