How Big is Your Footprint?

verbal213 said:
If you actually like to enjoy the wilderness for what is it then can't imagine why you would not support leaving no trace.
Click to expand...


What if you're in the woods to get away from human civilization as much as possible? What if you just like nature? Fire is a natural occurance - gas stoves are not!

I support peoples efforts to reduce the impact they have on the environment, but living in Canada I have ready access to places where I am not likely to see anyone the entire time I am out. So my big concern is not the immediate environment, it's THE WHOLE ENVIRONMENT, which will get wrecked even worse if every living being needs a kerosene-fuelled MSR stove to eat.

I think in a lot of ways we'd all be better off if a lot of the fancy high-tech camping gear wasn't available at all, as you'd really have to want to be out there to make sleeping in wool blankets with a fire to stay warm at five below. There'd probably be a lot less traffic in the bush.

Now I don't necessarily have an issue with the LNT people, but that rule is not applicable everywhere, in all situations. In some cases it is clearly doing more harm than good.
 
Well, when my size 12 extra wides hit the trail, Gaia groans. But archaeologists dig up what we call kitchen middens from ancient cities, the garbage dumps where we can find out what they ate and how well they lived. Remains of old Indian seafood barbecues have been found under our beaches, teaching us about their diets. In other words, people have been leaving a trace for a long time, it hasn't hurt the planet, and it's helped us understand what humans do from a different perspective.

When we share the outdoors with so many other people today, it's only common courtesy to leave a campsite looking as good for them as we like others to leave it for us. I hate walking through the local woods and seeing coffee cups and candy wrappers and cigaret butts in the weeds along the trail. A little pack in, pack out wouldn't hurt.

But somehow I don't think our W&SS people are the problem. :)
At least we think about what we're doing.
 
DOC-CANADA said:
Pretty much sounds like what I do, although I didn't see any mention of rye and coke, vodka and orange juice, peach schnapps and orange juice....................:(

I only offer the following because I had a horrible week and I'm muddying up the memory of it with a few beers, but one problem people have is what to do with their toilet paper. Here's what we do - we pack along some brown paper bags. In these we throw the used tp, interspersed with some Birch bark and other flammables. After the other people have gone to bed, we burn them up on the campfire (after we remove the baked potato, of course). It gets rid of the waste without burying something that will take considerable time to decompose, and we don't have to pack it out with us (when that happens, I stay out of the woods :()

Doc

I say 'we' but it really is done on an individual basis. :)
Click to expand...

er, you DO realize that TP is designed to decompose very quickly, right? it starts breaking down before you flush the toilet.
 
Rat Finkenstein said:
Anyone concerned about leaving a trace should not be in the woods.

When I go camping. . .
I chop down several dozen trees and build a log cabin, then burn it when I am done.

Screw Vibram soles, I wear old fashioned lead diver's shoes and stomp all plants dead. Killer workout too.

Afterward I scream "Take that, Mother Nature!" while flipping birds with both hands as hard as I can.
Click to expand...

Funniest post I've read in days. Thanks for the laugh Rat.


I don't personally hug trees, eat granola or wear Birkenstocks but I do take care not to 'damage' whatever area I may be inhabiting. I will make a fire(small one usually), I will maintain my garbage and haul it out with me(except the poop). If I need to take advantage of the goodies nature offers I will, but I only use what I need.
 
verbal213 said:
So you like to camp in camp grounds? If I'm in the middle of the woods somewhere and I see lots of evidence of a camp somewhere I can hardly feel I'm in a remote place. I guess if you spend your time in tourist traps you can feel this way.

If you actually like to enjoy the wilderness for what is it then can't imagine why you would not support leaving no trace.
Click to expand...

Actually, I am just put off by the attitude of the granola-eating greenies that subscribe to this sillyness. I mean, using tree-straps as to not 'hurt' the bark on a tree??? Come-on, man... that is just nuts! Some people just get WAY to carried away with this crap.

Now, don't get the wrong impression. I respect the land, and never leave trash. But to say that you cannot disturb the leaves on the ground because that leaves too big of a "footprint"... wow... you are nuts. Nature takes everything back.
 
I have big feet (well, one big foot, one regular sized foot now), so I leave one hell of a footprint.

But seriously, like I've posted before, this "leave no trace" is taking things too far. Just like I think "ultralight"-ing is taking things too far. It starts with a good idea and carries it to an extreme, which ends up being as bad as the other extreme they seem to be reacting to.

When I go into the woods, I live there. I live there as a human, not an animal. Humans (most of us anyway) do not have thick fur -- we need something to keep warm. We can't eat raw foods with abandon like canines and such. Fire takes care of both of these needs. It also takes stuff out of the forest that is just tinder for a forest fire -- "mother" nature's way of clearing it out. Yeah, "mother" nature can be a real mother. . .

I don't think that anyone here (except Mr. Finkelstein ;) ) goes into the woods with diesel-powered tracklaying ATVs and chainsaws to clearcut and burn 22 acres for campsites. Sure, there's some buffoons that go out and trash a place, and that sure is a danger to the environment when done on a large scale. However, humans should leave some trace of their passing. We're meant to be in the environment, we're meant to change things, to tame them.

Untamed nature is a hostile and brutal place. Sorry to grind people's gears, but nature is not friendly. Ever listen at night to a deer screaming as the living flesh is ripped from it's bones by coyotes because it got its antlers stuck in some branches and couldn't get out? Ever just sit and watch cute, fuzzy little squirrels run in and raid another squirrel's home and kill its young to remove the competition? Or maybe how many animals were killed by a runaway fire from a lightning strike? All natural occurrences, all happen on a common basis.

Humans going into the woods and using deadfall and such for fires removes them as forest fire hazards. Humans going in the woods and killing animals for food, reduces the competition and actually improves things for the local animal population. A well-hunted (not over-hunted) area of say, deer, will show larger and healthier specimens with a much lower winter mortality rate than one that is not hunted at all. In fact, the area not hunted is usually worse off in terms of naturally occurring die-offs and starving, diseased animals than over hunted areas.

Trees that are large and old and in the process of dying are sapping nutrients and possibly sunlight from younger trees and plants, and are better off being felled. Yes, we all love an old, majestic tree. But once it reaches a certain point, it has to go. Smaller trees or weeds may have to go because they are sucking up nutrients from larger, healthier plants, and have no real hope themselves of becoming much of anything because of nutrient and sunlight competition, and are better off being cut down. Yes, I'm talking cutting down live trees.

Humans do this. Humans have to do this, because we are the only animals that aren't preprogrammed to run on instinct. We learn, adapt, and dominate. Animals don't have the cognitive abilities to decide which tree needs to come down, or how many of its prey to kill before moving on. Humans decide that. When we play our part properly, the human impact has a lasting, positive effect on the entire environment.

I have equal disdain for both extremes -- both the "to hell with the world, I'm making my fortune, the next generation can clean up the mess" point of view as I do the "humans are bad,a nd we should never impact the environment, which is inherently good and perfect, and humans are evil and should die off because humans are evil." point of view.

Usually any situation you look at, the extreme ends of the spectrum are usually wrong.

OK, enough Punishment philosophy. . .for now. :D
 
stitchawl said:
How about showing a picture of your footprint when camping in the woods?
Click to expand...

night time pic of me and some friends camping out:

nanite.jpg


;):D:D
 
No way! That's why we have such great wilderness spots left - bigger than the US, fewer people than California!
 
Not very many lights where I live. Damn there are way to many people. If I could i would make it so it was as hard to have a kid as it is to get a firearm in Canada.
 
In November's Backpacker there is a poll on what you do with your used dishwater. A small percentage of no-trace backpackers drink it!!!! It gave a few suggestions of straining it and then making hot chocolate from it. Arggg!!!!! Now that is going too far.
 
here is a little comparison:

my friends who are Leave No Trace people:

- use gas stoves (canister). The canisters are made in china, (industrials emmisions and electricity released / used) , shipped halfway around the world via freighter (how much diesel was used to get them here) , are packaged in plastic (petroleum byproduct,more manufactiring processes), when used are releasing emmissions, and then the canister is thrwon into the garbage.

ME, i make use of what momma nature has to offer:

- i use a ferro rod to start my fire, made from downed , windblown or dead trees. All available right here, right now. A little bit of emissions released during burning, but NOTHING comapred to the LNT crowd who FREAK out about people that use campfires.
 
I believe that the forest is there to be used and enjoyed primarilly by people. It is not just there for the animals, nor the trees, nor anything else that walks, trots, crawls, swims, or flies over it. The day it stops being fun; the day we manage to make it virtually inaccessible; is the beginning of the end, and it will not be long before the whole place is turned into yet another subburb, shopping center, or ski resort.

It is a delicate balance between protecting the natural beauty and allowing a maximum freedom of use. Despite what environmentalist tell us; there is no hard core right or wrong here, and the trick is probably to cycle the rules of use so that more tired areas are given a change to recover even as other areas are opened to greater traffic.

n2s
 
We should remind ourselves, that back when the wilderness was actually a real wilderness, it was just a place for extreme hardship, deprevation, desease, and often death. Civilization has made the place user friendly, and anyone who has a problem with that should consider dropping their membership in the human race.

n2s
 
Originally Posted by kgd View Post
Makes you wonder how these things survive ice scour and herbivore browsing.
Click to expand...

lvbuckeye27 said:
lol, if they want to survive, they should evolve. :p
Click to expand...

Thankfully, they have!! :) Evolved at least enough to live through the harsh environment of Alpine tundra with its icy conditions. However, evolution takes time, and man and rough-treaded boots are, geologically, a pretty recent addition to the bio-system. Given another 10,000 years and the sedges might just evolve enough to deal with them... unless they are wiped out first. :(

I mean, it's not like we lose entire species of life on a daily basis, is it? :rolleyes: Oh... wait...


Stitchawl
Click to expand...
 
kdstrick said:
[snip] I mean, using tree-straps as to not 'hurt' the bark on a tree??? Come-on, man... that is just nuts!
Click to expand...

May I address your points here, with no disrespect intended?
It's not about 'hurting' the bark. The bark is already dead. But the bark does serve a very specific function in the life of a tree. Among other things, it prevents the tree from losing moisture when the air is dry and it wards off insect enemies. But even THAT is not so much of the problem when using rope or paracord to tie up a hammock. The real problem is that the pressure of the thin rope compresses the bark which then compresses the inner bark, or "phloem", which is the pipeline through which food is passed to the rest of the tree! If that gets crushed, the tree dies. Longer term pressure also destroys the cambium cell layer which produces new bark and new wood in response to hormones that pass down through the phloem with food from the leaves. A small hole drilled for tapping a Maple for sap might expose the tree to insect damage, but it's not nearly as damaging to the tree as crushing a large area around the entire trunk. Cutting a heart with "Tom loves Mary" is ugly to see, but does less damage to the tree than using paracord to hang a hammock. The use of wider straps instead of parcord or rope decreases the pressure against the bark. It's not about saving the bark. It's about saving the tree. Again, in heavily forested wilderness this is less of an issue than in a state park with lots of visitors.

Some people just get WAY to carried away with this crap.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone would argue THAT point! Some of it IS pretty nuts!

But to say that you cannot disturb the leaves on the ground because that leaves too big of a "footprint"... wow... you are nuts.
Click to expand...

'Leave no trace' camping isn't about 'disturbing leaves with your feet.' It's about compacting the ground under a tent after several days of use, or compaction of a trail so that no water and nutrients can get back into the soil so that it CAN heal itself. It takes years before some trails can regenerate. You've come across old trails in the woods. Why are they still visible? Why haven't viburnum bushes begun to grow, or berry bushes, Birch or Alder trees? It's the soil compaction causing the problem. After a logging crew have finished cutting timber in an area, using treaded dozers to pull out the logs, the rate of new growth is fantastic because the treads on the dozers scarify the ground allowing moisture nutrients and most importantly, seeds to get down into the soil and begin new growth. That doesn't happen where soil compaction remains.

"Leave no Trace" camping is about not leaving a blackened fire ring in pristine wilderness so that the next visitor has that same feeling of being where no one has been before. Finding a ring of rocks, empty cans, or old toilet paper do not lend to that feeling. It's about NOT chopping down trees just for the hell of it in areas that other people will be using. While personally I like to see a nice pile of dry firewood in a designated campsite left for me by the previous user, and I try to do the same, I don't want to see that same pile when in an area that is supposed to be wilderness.

As you say, some people do carry it to extremes. But I think that the average thoughtful hiker usually practices 'Leave no Trace' to various degrees. Then too... not everyone is thoughtful. :)

Stitchawl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top