An ethical quandary

[upnorth]

Ok. I have stripped birch bark off live trees for shelter making practice. Part of me wishes to be low impact and not kill big old trees here and there on a lark. The other part of me says so what, I am in the Boreal forest and any dead or dying tree provides shelter and nutrients back to the environment for decades. Were do you stand and why ?

 

[FAL'ER]

I do most of my woods work on private property 1200 acres ish, the instructions from the property owners are not to cut down any cash crop. No cedar , no fir. I'm free to cut down any vine maple or alder as I see fit. That would change at the property owners discretion though. I try to leave the property better than I found it and I'll pull up scotch broom or cut it down also.

 

[baldtaco-II]

I can't abide vandalism so as a rule quasi-random hacking is something I find abhorrent. There's no difference to me between a goon running round the woods testing his chopper and a kid testing his skills on those same trees with a can of spray paint.

That said, I don't give much thought to taking a bit of birch bark. Done judiciously and not rinsing an area just because it's a favourite spot to play it's fine by me. Similarly, taking a few green poles isn't an issue for me under the correct conditions. In fact, coppicing, as used to be well implemented here, positively promotes healthy growth.

Ultimately, I err on the side of conservation and I find nature sufficiently awesome as it is that I don't need to be destroying chunks of it to get my kicks. The bottom line for me is 'honesty' about what you know and what you don't know. If you know that you can take some of that reed mace without ill effect then go for it. If that's going to knacker a lump of ecosystem full of rare newts then you deserve the classic kick in the nuts and set on fire. If you don't know the difference FOFO and don't come back 'till you do. Of course 'honesty' is a rare beauty and I'm sure we've all seen people deceiving themselves and attempting to deceive us:“Fire is good because all species thrive better after one”, “You don't know about the Tardis in which I live, for every tree I cut down 100 more will have sprouted up by next year”, “My imaginary deity gave me the right to hack and chop anything I want so I do”. All that can go back in the bowl for a double flush.

 

[midnight flyer]

I never tear up anything just to make myself happy, and that certainly includes anything I have to work to justify.

I live in a drought area. That means things grow slowly, and it is possible to do damage to trees, plants and earth that won't heal on our lifetime. That means others have to live with our selfish acts. As a drought area, 45 years ago as a young Boy Scout we had a more local slant on nature, and as stated above, we always were taught to leave the area better than we found it. More importantly, we were taught to leave no sign we were there.

This is obviously not the case now, as most of the local "woodsman" feel that if they don't leave trash behind, they are the next John Muir. I am not sure where all this is coming from but these guys "want to be ready". So instead of practicing their fire making skills on their concrete patio, they delight in hitting the woods and making fires to practice their skills for the inevitable SHTF apocalypse. That movement seems to be gaining momentum among young men, much as it did in the late 60s.

While responsible fire making with nature's supplies probably does little or no harm during the winter when we get a bit of rain, or in any of the arboreal areas that you guys post from that has many inches of rain a month. (BTW, our year to day is 4.3 inches.... less in some areas of South Texas.) When folks roll out to the park and just "get busy" with their fire making around here, they can do lasting damage to an area in just a few hours.

It pisses me off to see where someone has done their "real world equipment testing" on small trees, tree branches etc., that take years in our slow moving environment to recover. To what end to they strive? Although it wouldn't be as much fun, wouldn't it be just as much of a test to chop a 2X4 in half with a new chopper? When I go on a hike and see 2 - 3" trees chopped off at waist height with many chop marks, and the top of the tree laying nearby, it doesn't take much to figure out who and what kind of guy was there. I am tired of seeing the damage. I don't like the stump, and I don't like seeing the dead branches that lead to more tinder being left behind for possible fires.

I have a perfect picture of a guy staging his area, chopping down a tree, then posing the knife, and taking plenty of pics. Don't most of us know the good choppers by now? Or stripping off cedar/juniper strips to make an ersatz shelter.

I couldn't care less if someone is testing out there equipment in a responsible way, on trashy brush, trees that are slated to be cut or thinned, or on junk. And it is easy to see here that many are not only conscientious, but some of their tests and showing off of their skills make little impact where they live.

But I can't agree with those who damage trees in any way, whether it be to strip off bark (cedar/juniper bark is stripped of plants here) to practive/play with, or cut down trees to see if their personal copy of the XXXX knife that has been shown to chop a couple of thousand times cuts as well as anyone else's. On public lands, it is worse for me; I don't want anything damaged or put at risk for any reason.

Due to our local environment ( I keep stressing that as I know there is a difference in perspective ) I no longer make a fire unless I am at a pre-approved pit. Over the years, kids have damaged trees tremendously by pulling out deadwood, chopping off low hanging greenwood (useless), stripping off cedar bark for tinder or camp projects, and on an on. In keeping with low impact, I take my MSR stove out and cook on that. If I go with friends or I am out hunting and we want a fire, I bring the wood with me. If I need to practice my survival skills, I make a lean-to out of a tarp, or a shelter out of my poncho. I practice fire making on my back patio, and when I tested my large knives for chopping, I bought a 2X4 at HD and tested three or four knives (RAT5 D2, RAT7 D2, a small Ontario machete, and an old WWII machete) all on the same board. I thought the harder, drier wood would provide a much better test medium that the soft green stuff of the outdoors. I cleared away some trash wood with the RAT7 after that, and I must say the 2x4 gave a much better test. After the 2X4 test, I really noticed how it whistled through some of the local hackberry and chinaberry trees with ease.

I digress. This is a touchy subject for me and my fellow hikers and hunters since we have seen so much damage to our favorite places over the years, no doubt done to the area and its environment for all manner of "good" personal reasons. I haven't seen any of the worst damage done to the woods, parks or hunting areas that was an attempt to do anything good. It's usually just a guy or two practicing an interesting project for their own enjoyment. Off the soap box.

BUT.... since you had the thoughtful awareness aspect of your personality let you know you needed to ask the question, I think you know the answer as well.

Robert

 

[Dieselashi]

Spoken like a true conscious members of the planet, baldtaco & midnight!

 

[gadgetgeek]

Like has been stated, it does come down to impact, one person moving through a hundred acres of woods can have as much impact as any other animal, unless that person is hell-bent on destruction. Location/ climate does matter as well, where I grew up there were "old growth" willows that could be mowed to the ground, and would be shooting within a few weeks, and poplars that would be at full maturity in ten years. however the old pines and birch took a lot longer to come back, and needed more care (ie, the removal of the tree-weed poplars) If the area where you are can be improved by your play, then by all means, I think one should (planting cuttings and the like). It all takes careful consideration of the conditions, and the impact of your uses in your space, as well as the potential uses of others in that space. (one fire might be fine, but if someone else finds your fire ring, they may not be so careful)

 

[kgd]

Not all environments are the same and I try not to pass too much judgement on other's posts when I do not know the circumstances in which they did their testing. Heck it might be private land and their full right to do so, it might be on species that really are so plentiful or really do grow back gangbusters. Point is I try not judge others when I don't have the information. When its in my own area and I see something that is done that is careless and has a lasting effect, then I'm apt to be more judgmental.

I never willingly try to harm older and larger living trees. I'm also selective about saplings I take out, but I recognize that for some species the saplings are there in the 100's and 1000's and removing a few doesn't make a difference one bit. I also try to use green wood that I do remove when I chose to remove it, but prefer substituting dead wood and downed wood in the majority of cases.

I would say knowingly killing a big birch tree by debarking for making a shelter that will be used for one or two nights is something that I wouldn't do especially since birch bark lasts so long that you can find a pretty good usable amount using dead trees. Doing a bit of light stripping in a restricted area of the tree is okay but even there I try to stay well away from getting down to the inner bark. I don't mind doing some clipping and removal of spruce or cedar bows to supplement bedding when I'm in an area that I can do some limited harvesting from many trees, where its not obvious on what I harvested and in a location that doesn't see hardly any traffic or use.

I often find myself in these quandaries between trying to practice bushcraft and ensuring a minimum impact. The overly judgmental types tend to piss me off more than the folks who step slightly outside of my comfort zone when it comes to using natures resources. But hey, I think over consumption of consumer goods has a bigger impact on the environment then whether I bury my scat or hike it out in a petroleum bag.

 

[upnorth]

Very, very interesting replies. This discourse has made me a little more introspective and reassess how I impact my local environment. I find it difficult to justify careless resource use. But these thoughts have crossed my mind at one time or other.: 1. The local resource is vast. 2. The fur traders\Indians used the resource at will, without a second thought. 3. Any of the local fires would destroy tens\hundreds of thousands more trees than I would ever kill in my lifetime. I feel comfortable still using the local resources but I will have to justify the use in my mind first.

 

[BRL]

Here's my take, kept short because I've had a few brews and could easily get to the point where I'm foaming at the mouth.

* When I'm out in the forest/desert, I don't want to see evidence of other people. Period. That's just me being honest. I therefore can't in good conscience leave evidence that I've been there myself. I'm studying up on and starting to practice LNT because ultimately it just bothers me when I've left a mark.

* People are everywhere, crawling all over every inch of this planet every moment of every day. No place is remote enough that people won't find your stuff, especially not the places most of us weekend warriors and mall ninjas get to. And if you get to some truly desolate, hidden part of the planet, for f****'s sake don't scar it up.

* Pack out your trash, pack out their trash, teach your kids to leave with more than they brought.

In LNT-related threads I've seen frequent comments about impacts from big industrial processes,and all I want to say is that the issue of consuming industrially manufactured products to me seems totally separate.

 

[kgd]

Here's my take, kept short because I've had a few brews and could easily get to the point where I'm foaming at the mouth.

* When I'm out in the forest/desert, I don't want to see evidence of other people. Period. That's just me being honest. I therefore can't in good conscience leave evidence that I've been there myself. I'm studying up on and starting to practice LNT because ultimately it just bothers me when I've left a mark.

* People are everywhere, crawling all over every inch of this planet every moment of every day. No place is remote enough that people won't find your stuff, especially not the places most of us weekend warriors and mall ninjas get to. And if you get to some truly desolate, hidden part of the planet, for f****'s sake don't scar it up.

* Pack out your trash, pack out their trash, teach your kids to leave with more than they brought.

In LNT-related threads I've seen frequent comments about impacts from big industrial processes,and all I want to say is that the issue of consuming industrially manufactured products to me seems totally separate.

I can't separate out the big industrial processes. They are all around me and they are encroaching in on my little paradises. When government decided they wanted to put an extra bridge across the river, the first thing they did was target three parks in the immediate vicinity. My wife and I joined a citizens group to launch a protest that actually snowballed into a pretty big group and lead to an enhanced environmental assessment the actually forced an alternative route be considered. Ironically, that alternate route is closer to my actual house than the original, but the little bits of forest were saved. It came to me that the bulldozers will come and take a park faster than you can shake a stick if your aren't dilligent. So I do a little stealth camping in this place that I shouldn't once in a while. There are remnants of different folks who use the place likewise. Very rare do I see blatant misuse like trash (ironically that pretty much only happens on the popular trails). When I come across the remnants of an old shelter or see a little bit of a past campsite I don't get offended. I think, good, another person who is using and loving this place as much as I do.

I don't like seeing trash, but I don't care if I see a foot print. The world isn't mine and mine alone. I don't try to pretend it is either.

 

[762 shooter]

Very, very interesting replies. This discourse has made me a little more introspective and reassess how I impact my local environment. I find it difficult to justify careless resource use. But these thoughts have crossed my mind at one time or other.: 1. The local resource is vast. 2. The fur traders\Indians used the resource at will, without a second thought. 3. Any of the local fires would destroy tens\hundreds of thousands more trees than I would ever kill in my lifetime. I feel comfortable still using the local resources but I will have to justify the use in my mind first.

By fur traders and Indians I assume you are referring to the period up to about 1850 or so when most Indians lost their way of life? Comparing that way of like to ours now is apples and oranges at best. FWIW, American Indians weren't the environmentalists that popular culture would have us perceive. Off the top of my head, there is a clam species that is now extinct along the Oregon/Washington coast. There are piles of their shells that have been unearthed recent;y that are 12 feet tall. By the way they were found, the Indians had collected every last one in a matter of a few years. Just saying.

Back to the topic- I think many things would have to be taken into account by the individual using the natural resource at hand. In the case of a tree: How many other people are likely to do the same in a given time? How quickly will another tree of the same species replace the one harvested? Could the area benefit from the thinning? Is anyone else likely to care?( this question opens up a whole can of worms) If only the bark is being used, very little is being taken from the area. The tree will compost and become soil eventually. Hunting of mammals has a far more insidious impact on an environment that taking some bark. Very little of the animal remains in the environment, hide, meat and bones are removed from he site. Just thoughts.

 

[Skimo]

Out in the sticks, and I mean sticks, where you are miles from anything, sitting on the edge of thousands of acres of land that is rarely seen by more than wild life, I have no reservations about using trees for whatever I feel like.

Many oft visited places, I wouldn't even think of messing with trees.

Time and a place for everything.

 

[LMT66]

Ok. I have stripped birch bark off live trees for shelter making practice. Part of me wishes to be low impact and not kill big old trees here and there on a lark. The other part of me says so what, I am in the Boreal forest and any dead or dying tree provides shelter and nutrients back to the environment for decades. Were do you stand and why ?

I'd look for a blowdown for birch-bark when out practicing. The bark outlasts the rest years after it falls. Plenty to be found in a Boreal forest.
If my life depended on it and live tree's were the quickest way for shelter, I'd strip away without guilt.

Every now and then a topic like this surfaces here. Also the unleashed dog threads, bear threads (shoot or not when being harassed by a bear).
They are very polarizing topics. Although some threads remain civil with calm debate, many have not and regardless, no ones opinion on the subject is changed.
Perhaps the discussion of this topic should locked? It really has no relevance to Wilderness & Survival Skills.

 

[neeman]

An ethical quandary

The Jewsih Talmud talks about theft
Theft is if the object has a value of more than a penny

The question is asked, if so you can take a splinter from your neighboors gate.
The answer is no, you may not, becuase other people will also take splinters and you will cause damage more than a pennies worth
So taking a splinter is considered theft

To translate this in to modern times
We are responsible for the cumlative effects of our actions
Our temporary camp site, if left to be seen can become a permanent site by others, with great damage to a once pristine enviorment

What effect will your actions casue?

 

[Skimo]

I'd look for a blowdown for birch-bark when out practicing. The bark outlasts the rest years after it falls. Plenty to be found in a Boreal forest.
If my life depended on it and live tree's were the quickest way for shelter, I'd strip away without guilt.

Every now and then a topic like this surfaces here. Also the unleashed dog threads, bear threads (shoot or not when being harassed by a bear).
They are very polarizing topics. Although some threads remain civil with calm debate, many have not and regardless, no ones opinion on the subject is changed.
Perhaps the discussion of this topic should locked? It really has no relevance to Wilderness & Survival Skills.

Yes, it gets hashed and re-hashed, the best answer is that you should be informed about possible consequences that your actions may/will have. Good judgement for practice, be it safety or surroundings. As always in a real survival situation anything goes, better to not cuss up a storm wishing you had practiced.

 

[unit]

Not all environments are the same and I try not to pass too much judgement on other's posts

+1

There are simply too many variables to contemplate.

Ethics are unique to the individual (like opinions)...I think it is commendable that some are seeking advice and education on the related topics to the matter to better form a moral sense of right and wrong...unfortunately, I cannot provide much insight in this regard (see above).

Generally, I try not to kill anything around here regardless of who owns it. If something is slated to be taken regardless of my actions, I might consider using it as a learning opportunity with the landowners permission.

Game and fish are a different topic...and I think conservation of these is fairly well documented.

 

[mtwarden]

Quite frankly I think it's important that this subject gets broached on a regular basis. We all share a love for the outdoors and it's important for us all us to do what we can to insure our children (and grandchildren) have the same opportunities that we have. By all means practice your skills, but do it in a responsible and respectful manner- if that means in certain cases using down and dead materials over live ones- then please do just that and if that means carefully selecting what and where to harvest- then please do just that.

 

[stormshadow]

For what it's worth, you're only creating new habitat for different species by killing a solitary tree. If you're only doing it on a small scale (as in a couple trees per year), I think it's a fairly ethically-neutral choice.

 

[stabman]

Cut em down...they'll grow back.
If you ain't driving a bulldozer through the woods for a lark, I don't see a big deal.
Of course I'm also one who sees the economic advantage of littering in that it creates jobs cleaning it up, so others may disagree.

 

[Angus McGunnigl]

Good posts. Location is everything.