An ethical quandary

A lot of lands that I use are forth generation lumber company lands and before I know it that lot will be sold and logs. Places like that I don't worry about damaging that much at all. If anything I improve them by remove trash with me.

I think the key to it all is to leave the environment in better condition when you leave then when you showed up. Pack out some trash, if its a trail trim any branches in the way rather then walking around them, and if you are going to build fires and shelters when you leave spread those things out some so it doesn't look like a 'camp'. As to the thing about stripped birch bark, if you do just do it responsible.
 
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.

You know, that's a wonderful sentiment that I can get behind completely.

I think...it's my opinion...that the Leave No Trace movement will eventually morph into something incredibly ugly and restrictive.
 
"* People are everywhere, crawling all over every inch of this planet every moment of every day"

No, they are not. There are VAST areas of this planet that have not yet seen a human footprint. Most of these are not in North America, I will admit, but I have been to a number of places in my career that have seen very little human habitation or use. I am not saying that we should wantonly destroy our environment...quite the contrary!

I am for the educated, thoughtful use of plant and animal products from our wilderness environment. But we must consider that all of our nylon/kevlar/whatever synthetic petroleum-based fiber or plastic we are using in our backpacks/knife sheaths creates the inevitable "smoking hole/smokestack" in someone's backyard.

Some will disagree, and that's quite alright! That is what makes our forum dynamic and informative.

Regards,
Ron
 
This is a traditional Japanese shelter known as Magagi-goya(マタギ小屋),
that had been built up annually or each five year for hunting season.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matagi

http://www.ecotourism.gr.jp/get/051001.htm
matagi04.jpg


http://www.ne.jp/asahi/yama-s/ouma/tabi-nikki/sirakami/kudou.htm
matagigoya.jpg


http://www12.plala.or.jp/itaga/sirakami-sato/ookawa/ookawa.html
matagi.jpg


http://homepage2.nifty.com/matagisha/MatagiGoya.html
Matagigoya.jpg



Now I'm on inquiry whether its barks are gathered from live trees or not.


****EDIT****

I got a reply from here.
牧田@白神マタギ舎です  ご質問にお答えいたします。

 マタギ小屋の壁と屋根に使用しているのは、サワグルミの樹皮です。広い面積の樹皮
が自然に剥落することはありませんので、立木を伐採し、樹皮を剥がして使用します。
 ですから、山中にマタギ小屋を建設する場合は、サワグルミの生えている場所の近く
を選びます。
 HPのマタギ小屋の場合は、小屋の持ち主の持山のサワグルミを利用し、車で運搬し
て用いました。

Let's try to translate... hope not too bad....
"Barks of Japanese Wingnut(サワグルミ) are used for its wall and roof. It dosn't peel off widely in natural, so we cut off a live tree and get barks when to build a shelter (added by translator: probably rest woods will be also used for pillers ond others), and so we choose a sight of shelter where Japanese Wingnut grows nearby. At the case of HP, we got a Japanese Wingnut from other mountain whose owner also posesses the shelter(not the area of?), and transported it to the area of shelter by car."
 
Last edited:
I have long felt that our community in general is far too concerned with "testing" equipment.

Was there ever any doubt that the latest 30oz, full tang, 5160 bowie knife could baton a piece of ash?

Was there ever any doubt that a $75 hand forged hatchet could make short work of a maple sapling?

How much do we really learn from hammering a sharpened pry bar though a car hood?

Are you surprised when the latest razor sharp 'X' brand PSK can cut fuzz sticks?

The answer to all of those things is "not much". In my opinion, if you want to 'test' you new equipment, then the procedure should be: A) Use your brain, and think for 2 seconds. B) Go use it for real. Neither one of those things involves hacking up a mulberry tree in your back yard, or stripping the bark off of a birch in the park.
 
Hi ikuyadas , can you tell us what animals you hunt over there .Do you have deer?

Thanks
Hawkeye
 
Last edited:
Here where I live is a temperate rain forest. We have a lot of severe storms that bring down a lot of trees and tree tops so it is seldom I ever need to cut anything green. I prefer not to harm anything living if there is no real need, even though by the following season it would hardly be noticeable. If I do need to take green sapplings I can always go into an area with heavy canopy where there are many sapplings that will never make it anyway. In many areas there will be many dogwoods standing dead because they couldn't get enough sunlight, these are usually still very strong so once again seldom a need for cutting green trees. Pretty much the only time you will see me cutting on green wood it will be trees that have been cut on my own land in the process of clearing areas for various reasons. There are so many river birch here and cedar trees that I have never had to remove enough bark from one tree to ham it. I found a cedar downed by recent storms that was nearly 3 feet in diameter at the base. It was sad, but then I harvested enough bark off of it for many tests, demonstrations, and experiments.
 
Wow, a lot of good input here. As for me, I see the need and enjoyment in "testing" your gear and skill. I don't see the need to destroy a living thing to do it. I have never had much trouble finding dead wood to cut or chop.I don't even mind if the trail is a little overgrown. It tells me it doesn't see much use and thats how I like it. Even cutting Burch or other bark off a tree ( What started this thread) can be done on a down or dead tree.
I absolutely Hate to see trash everywhere.That is a big pet peeve of mine. I never let my kids drop any litter and we try to pick it up when we find it. Every boyscout camp ends with a police line. If I was a cop I would sooner let a speeder go then some pig tossing a cigarette or other trash out the car window.
I like to shoot and hunt but can't come to terms with killing a animal I don't want to eat. I do believe in "leave no trace" for the most part but see little harm a left over fire ring or taking a crap in the woods with out a proper cat hole. Then again if everybody did it everytime I can see how it would get out of hand.
Now if I ever find myself in a true survival situation all bets are off and anything goes.
 
The important question is, who owns the trees and what is their view of bark removal?
 
More food for thought in the form of older threads on this topic: here and here.

It's amazing how much avoidable impact you notice once you start thinking about this stuff. And if it's important to you, how much impact you can avoid making if you think a bit. I found the discussions on this topic on BF very instructive.
 
I have struggled with this in the past. I’ve loved the outdoors since I could walk and grew up in the PNW where logging and fishing were very important industries. In some areas, your impacts as an individual are pretty minimal; where we did a lot of outdoors activities in Texas and more arid environments, your impacts can be visually seen for years. There is a balance and we should be good stewards of our immediate environment and we owe it to ourselves and future generations to be knowledgeable of our impacts with regards to our activities. I grew up where logging was a heavily disputed industry. Clear cutting was a big eyesore and created a lot of protests. I believe there is a balance; selective clear cutting is healthy for some environments as long as it doesn’t lead to erosion. It opens up large areas for vegetation needed by many different species of fauna. Just as a wildfire is an eyesore, it’s often a healthy cycle in many forested areas. Arborists are true stewards and they often trim, cut and manage smaller areas and individual trees; their knowledge and experience are vital to healthy environments. Even our wildlife management and hunting has come a long way to both manage the health of the game and provide opportunities to enjoy hunting and fishing. Without replacing the predatory animals that have greatly diminished, we need to ensure game populations don’t explode which leads to increased environmental devastation from over grazing/feeding or having diseases breakout due to over population. Even though we can mess up the natural balance, we do pretty well at simulating and managing that balance through hunting and fishing…just my opinion based on research and living in those areas.

I’ll credit my Infantry background where I learned “leave no trace”. Doing small unit patrolling where you simulate being behind enemy lines forces you to always minimize your presence and covering your tracks…this is specifically true regarding trash, garbage, damaged or marked vegetation and even a small patrol base, aka camp ground. I strictly enforce this with my children and always teach them to use dead or downed trees/wood before harming anything green as well as keeping any fires small enough to use and easy enough to disperse and cover up. I especially make sure they don’t needlessly harm live/green vegetation.

Some environments are extremely sensitive, such as deserts or very arid areas. We were not even allowed to use downed or dead scrub for fires; in fact open fires were banned completely most of the year. Erosion, damage from fire, sensitive water sources can easily destroy some environments and that’s where education and knowledge is important when visiting areas you’re not accustomed to.

There is some debate on whether you should use an established camp ground site. I personally don’t believe most amateur recreationalists have the discipline to police up their camp site and it’s much easier to consolidate their presence in one spot. Trash is always an eyesore and distasteful anywhere you see it; however, I to see the destructive aspects of “wilderness” graffiti where people chop at live trees or carve their initials in the bark. Many people just don’t have the respect of the outdoors nor take the responsibility serious enough to camp anywhere with a LNT discipline. Campsites are needed for people that fall into that category otherwise you would have trashed, ad hoc camp sites all over which would have some negative impacts on the immediate environment.

Where I currently live in the SE, vegetation is often my enemy!!! I can’t cut it back fast enough:D I do wage constant war on beavers in my pond that will cut down trees or worse, partially chew through them. There are some invasive species that need constant trimming and removal…bamboo, scotch broom, kudzu, etc…not to mention the blackberry bushes/vines that I struggle with weekly. Being a good steward must include balance and discipline. I also agree with Mt. Warden that this topic is always good to revisit in this community and your local community…our species is inherently lazy, selfish, greedy and with short memories…that can quickly become destructive to our favorite outdoors havens be it a local park, private or public area.

ROCK6
 
Thank you all for your input and civil discourse. I now have a clearer view of were I stand in regard to personal responsibility for the local environment. I'll view this thread through the prism of uncommon sense, locational factors and my personal conscience. Your posts have raised my level of ethics. Thanks again.
 
I just had a though on the original post.
Ethics aside, if there's huge enough trees around that can provide enough bark for building a shelter, then there almost certainly must be some dead ones around to use for that purpose.
AND the bark will be easier to peel off as well, making it better practice for a survival situation where you may be low on energy.:)
 
Answer: I don’t find the use of natural resources like trees to be an ethical quandary. I do not set off intent on killing living healthy trees unless it serves a useful and needed purpose. When faced with a decision to harvest a healthy living tree or a dead tree, I do the sensible thing, harvest the dead tree. This isn’t complicated, controversial or difficult, its just right.

Rant: I am lost for words when people are so arrogant to think they can ruin the world. I don’t necessarily blame you for this is as its a popular belief. However, despite the best of theories (Think Darwin), you descend from generations of humans who flourished by taking from old mother earth. It’s only the last 75 years where Humans who hunt at grocery stores and evolved into drive-through fast food that we forget what we are! Those before us didn’t destroy it, don’t worry neither will you despite what some granola eating Subaru driving hemp wearing self loathing liberal hippie environmentalist will tell you. If the later is you, well guess there isn’t much left to say other then, if it bothers you that bad maybe you should rethink spending time in the outdoors at all.

Prediction: This is the part where all the environmentalist list all the horrible immeasurable “Environmental Crimes” that have plagued mankind. And yes, there have been some clearly irresponsible despicable acts. But despite all the injustice you don’t see these folks giving up their loft to live in a cave somewhere on a zero carbon diet. The line at Starbucks is still around the corner. When it comes to THEIR standard of living nooo no…… the hypocrisy is sickening!
 
Last edited:
"* People are everywhere, crawling all over every inch of this planet every moment of every day"

No, they are not. There are VAST areas of this planet that have not yet seen a human footprint. Most of these are not in North America, I will admit, but I have been to a number of places in my career that have seen very little human habitation or use. I am not saying that we should wantonly destroy our environment...quite the contrary!

I am for the educated, thoughtful use of plant and animal products from our wilderness environment. But we must consider that all of our nylon/kevlar/whatever synthetic petroleum-based fiber or plastic we are using in our backpacks/knife sheaths creates the inevitable "smoking hole/smokestack" in someone's backyard.
Some will disagree, and that's quite alright! That is what makes our forum dynamic and informative.

Regards,
Ron

Ok and therfore what ?

Due to this percived problem have you stopped useing anything that causes polution. Most electricity in the US is from the use of Coal powerplants. You are typing on a computer somewhere useing electricity. <<<<<see a connection ?>>>>>>>
 
I have struggled with this in the past. I&#8217;ve loved the outdoors since I could walk and grew up in the PNW where logging and fishing were very important industries. In some areas, your impacts as an individual are pretty minimal; where we did a lot of outdoors activities in Texas and more arid environments, your impacts can be visually seen for years. There is a balance and we should be good stewards of our immediate environment and we owe it to ourselves and future generations to be knowledgeable of our impacts with regards to our activities. I grew up where logging was a heavily disputed industry. Clear cutting was a big eyesore and created a lot of protests. I believe there is a balance; selective clear cutting is healthy for some environments as long as it doesn&#8217;t lead to erosion. It opens up large areas for vegetation needed by many different species of fauna. Just as a wildfire is an eyesore, it&#8217;s often a healthy cycle in many forested areas. Arborists are true stewards and they often trim, cut and manage smaller areas and individual trees; their knowledge and experience are vital to healthy environments. Even our wildlife management and hunting has come a long way to both manage the health of the game and provide opportunities to enjoy hunting and fishing. Without replacing the predatory animals that have greatly diminished, we need to ensure game populations don&#8217;t explode which leads to increased environmental devastation from over grazing/feeding or having diseases breakout due to over population. Even though we can mess up the natural balance, we do pretty well at simulating and managing that balance through hunting and fishing&#8230;just my opinion based on research and living in those areas.

I&#8217;ll credit my Infantry background where I learned &#8220;leave no trace&#8221;. Doing small unit patrolling where you simulate being behind enemy lines forces you to always minimize your presence and covering your tracks&#8230;this is specifically true regarding trash, garbage, damaged or marked vegetation and even a small patrol base, aka camp ground. I strictly enforce this with my children and always teach them to use dead or downed trees/wood before harming anything green as well as keeping any fires small enough to use and easy enough to disperse and cover up. I especially make sure they don&#8217;t needlessly harm live/green vegetation.

Some environments are extremely sensitive, such as deserts or very arid areas. We were not even allowed to use downed or dead scrub for fires; in fact open fires were banned completely most of the year. Erosion, damage from fire, sensitive water sources can easily destroy some environments and that&#8217;s where education and knowledge is important when visiting areas you&#8217;re not accustomed to.

There is some debate on whether you should use an established camp ground site. I personally don&#8217;t believe most amateur recreationalists have the discipline to police up their camp site and it&#8217;s much easier to consolidate their presence in one spot. Trash is always an eyesore and distasteful anywhere you see it; however, I to see the destructive aspects of &#8220;wilderness&#8221; graffiti where people chop at live trees or carve their initials in the bark. Many people just don&#8217;t have the respect of the outdoors nor take the responsibility serious enough to camp anywhere with a LNT discipline. Campsites are needed for people that fall into that category otherwise you would have trashed, ad hoc camp sites all over which would have some negative impacts on the immediate environment.

Where I currently live in the SE, vegetation is often my enemy!!! I can&#8217;t cut it back fast enough:D I do wage constant war on beavers in my pond that will cut down trees or worse, partially chew through them. There are some invasive species that need constant trimming and removal&#8230;bamboo, scotch broom, kudzu, etc&#8230;not to mention the blackberry bushes/vines that I struggle with weekly. Being a good steward must include balance and discipline. I also agree with Mt. Warden that this topic is always good to revisit in this community and your local community&#8230;our species is inherently lazy, selfish, greedy and with short memories&#8230;that can quickly become destructive to our favorite outdoors havens be it a local park, private or public area.

ROCK6

That was sensable and well put
 
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.

So if a kid goes into a forest and spray paints just a few letters on a tree, that's okay. If he is painting whole words: you should kick him in the nuts and set him on fire, but if it's just a few letters then you just wave and tell him good morning!
 
So if a kid goes into a forest and spray paints just a few letters on a tree, that's okay. If he is painting whole words: you should kick him in the nuts and set him on fire, but if it's just a few letters then you just wave and tell him good morning!

Would it have helped you if I had used “prudently” rather than “judiciously”? Perhaps I was being too subtle when I used “under the correct conditions” and then went on to use the example of coppicing as an example of cutting that promotes healthy growth. Shame 'cos my first thought was “pollarding” but I thought that might be a tad too esoteric. I'll try another route:

I expect to find vandalism in squalid areas. It's not something I enjoy but it is a within species event. People do mean stuff to other people either wilfully or as a direct consequence of the ignorance of their actions. I don't care so much about that. NIMBY. I don't live in an area where that behaviour is conspicuous and if other people want to tart up the ghettos in which they live in a way they find glamorous then cool.

zzzz205408.jpg


What I object to is the kind of vandalism that drags other species into the mix. The ”quasi-random hacking is something I find abhorrent” shares a common feature with the headbutt that would vandalize trees with its can of spray paint in that it is not only the product of a condemned species deliberately damning itself it is damning other species too. There's great merit but also great tragedy in the understanding that the greatest gift America has ever given the planet is the concept of National Parks and protected wild places. It is a tragedy that any place needed such marshalling against destruction by those that were too darn subtard to understand what the judicious use of resources means.
 
Back
Top