Leave No Trace - Fires?

[kgd]

Unfortunatly, I think a lot of people look at it this way and taken in isolation, they are correct. One person walking off-trail does not really do much damage and what is done will probably quickly disappear. Likewise one person gathering wood for a fire does not impact the forest much at all and one fire ring will quickly be reclaimed by the forest. However, we have to remember that we are not alone in the wilderness. Where such actions by one person might have no effect, the same actions by hundreds or maybe thousands of hikers leads to forests stripped of deadwood, areas criss-crossed by redundant trails, slopes erroded by heavy foot traffic. etc. etc.

Well, I don't usually get called a nature hater As an environmental scientist, I certainly get your message. In fact, I personally subscribe to human overpopulation as the root cause of most global issues we face. Don't really want to go there per say, but as a conservationist I do believe in holdings for user access and managed resource use as opposed to preserves. The more users and advocates you have of a forest the more likely it is going to stick around for the future. It takes education, but it also take people going out and using the facilities to appreciate them.

I've sat there and watched my little town slowly desconstruct all of its 'green' areas. It always starts with a couple of big houses some how jumping the loop holes to build on an area that used to have a conservation lean. The townships love this. That 4Million dollar home brings in a crap load of taxes, afterall. Pretty soon they start cookie-cuttering up that little forest spot. The ironic thing is the very resource that brought the big houses out there in the first place is viewed as the wasted space as soon as the local council converts their line of thinking from park to subdivision.

My wife and I were part of a local group that formed an opposition against a Highway plan that would burrow its way through two forested parks and a long standing Provincial forest reserve. We were successful because we managed to contact a good portion of the dog walkers, runners, local kids running bike races (we contacted their parents; ironically bike use in one of the parks is banned now) and a wide manner of users. They came out to at least two community staged meetings and when the town councilors saw that their voting base was being threatened, they started to back our opposition of the hwy rather than oppose it. These little parks were saved because the people who use them, and who cherish them the most, were willing to advocate on the behalf of their resource base. Did my neighbors, who seem to do nothing but manage their perfect manicured lawns, come out? No. The lazy ass was too busy he says.

I have learned to not trust the apathy of the urban and suburban public to our wild spaces. When you cut them off from natures riches, when they are not afforded the opportunity to visit and experience them first hand, when they aren't taught how to exploit them, they will not endeavor to become their advocates.

At some point, the decision of raise taxes or keep your natural landscapes, will come to head. Folks that advocate, let nature be and just have preserves, almost never actually put their money where their mouth is. The users of the landscape will though. So, sure, I see absolute leave no trace concepts as a good concept in theory. However, there comes a point where you turn off the user base because of restrictions in activity. All places need to be managed as a compromise between allowable use that minimizes environmental degradation while preserving the essence of the beauty that led to the formation of the park in the first place. If that compromise can't be struck, then the parks biggest threat won't be a 6" burn scar. It will be bulldozers.

 

[dawsonbob]

Well, I don't usually get called a nature hater As an environmental scientist, I certainly get your message. In fact, I personally subscribe to human overpopulation as the root cause of most global issues we face. Don't really want to go there per say, but as a conservationist I do believe in holdings for user access and managed resource use as opposed to preserves. The more users and advocates you have of a forest the more likely it is going to stick around for the future. It takes education, but it also take people going out and using the facilities to appreciate them.

I've sat there and watched my little town slowly desconstruct all of its 'green' areas. It always starts with a couple of big houses some how jumping the loop holes to build on an area that used to have a conservation lean. The townships love this. That 4Million dollar home brings in a crap load of taxes, afterall. Pretty soon they start cookie-cuttering up that little forest spot. The ironic thing is the very resource that brought the big houses out there in the first place is viewed as the wasted space as soon as the local council converts their line of thinking from park to subdivision.

My wife and I were part of a local group that formed an opposition against a Highway plan that would burrow its way through two forested parks and a long standing Provincial forest reserve. We were successful because we managed to contact a good portion of the dog walkers, runners, local kids running bike races (we contacted their parents; ironically bike use in one of the parks is banned now) and a wide manner of users. They came out to at least two community staged meetings and when the town councilors saw that their voting base was being threatened, they started to back our opposition of the hwy rather than oppose it. These little parks were saved because the people who use them, and who cherish them the most, were willing to advocate on the behalf of their resource base. Did my neighbors, who seem to do nothing but manage their perfect manicured lawns, come out? No. The lazy ass was too busy he says.

I have learned to not trust the apathy of the urban and suburban public to our wild spaces. When you cut them off from natures riches, when they are not afforded the opportunity to visit and experience them first hand, when they aren't taught how to exploit them, they will not endeavor to become their advocates.

At some point, the decision of raise taxes or keep your natural landscapes, will come to head. Folks that advocate, let nature be and just have preserves, almost never actually put their money where their mouth is. The users of the landscape will though. So, sure, I see absolute leave no trace concepts as a good concept in theory. However, there comes a point where you turn off the user base because of restrictions in activity. All places need to be managed as a compromise between allowable use that minimizes environmental degradation while preserving the essence of the beauty that led to the formation of the park in the first place. If that compromise can't be struck, then the parks biggest threat won't be a 6" burn scar. It will be bulldozers.

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

 

[DOC-CANADA]

Well said, kgd, and absolutely true. We had the same kind of fight here to try and save 1600 acres of greenspace from becoming a highway. You know the place Ken, that's where we were last Earth Day. The fight continued for approx. 50 years, but ultimately, we lost.

Generally,the people with the vested interest in preservation, are the people who use it, not the people who drive by and think, "Isn't that lovely?".

The key is intelligent use of natural resources, not 'non-use'.

Doc

 

[99f250]

I usually go open fire at river shores, where I can find good washed logs
and adequate size of rocks. Water is always within my reach and the remnant
will be washed away sooner or later.

I'm enjoying charcoal pot these days. It has no flame, just a charcoal fire
but having portable open fire indoor is quite nice.

That's cool! Where did you get it? I must have one!

 

[99f250]

Cheers -- you too. :thumbup:

Perhaps Bushman 5 has never been to LA. Or Houston. Or the Mall of America.

It's not about "saving Mother Nature." The earth will indeed be fine -- and as the late great George Carlin liked to say, when it gets tired of us, it will burn us off like the virus that we are.

It's about keeping enough of it clean and wild enough to enjoy.

Bushman's attitude is a luxury that you can maybe get away with in the BC woods. Not so much in the US.

Or China.

Or India.

Or Brazil.

Ya'll need to come to my neck of the woods!

 

[smersh]

Well, I don't usually get called a nature hater As an environmental scientist, I certainly get your message. In fact, I personally subscribe to human overpopulation as the root cause of most global issues we face. Don't really want to go there per say, but as a conservationist I do believe in holdings for user access and managed resource use as opposed to preserves. The more users and advocates you have of a forest the more likely it is going to stick around for the future. It takes education, but it also take people going out and using the facilities to appreciate them.

I've sat there and watched my little town slowly desconstruct all of its 'green' areas. It always starts with a couple of big houses some how jumping the loop holes to build on an area that used to have a conservation lean. The townships love this. That 4Million dollar home brings in a crap load of taxes, afterall. Pretty soon they start cookie-cuttering up that little forest spot. The ironic thing is the very resource that brought the big houses out there in the first place is viewed as the wasted space as soon as the local council converts their line of thinking from park to subdivision.

My wife and I were part of a local group that formed an opposition against a Highway plan that would burrow its way through two forested parks and a long standing Provincial forest reserve. We were successful because we managed to contact a good portion of the dog walkers, runners, local kids running bike races (we contacted their parents; ironically bike use in one of the parks is banned now) and a wide manner of users. They came out to at least two community staged meetings and when the town councilors saw that their voting base was being threatened, they started to back our opposition of the hwy rather than oppose it. These little parks were saved because the people who use them, and who cherish them the most, were willing to advocate on the behalf of their resource base. Did my neighbors, who seem to do nothing but manage their perfect manicured lawns, come out? No. The lazy ass was too busy he says.

I have learned to not trust the apathy of the urban and suburban public to our wild spaces. When you cut them off from natures riches, when they are not afforded the opportunity to visit and experience them first hand, when they aren't taught how to exploit them, they will not endeavor to become their advocates.

At some point, the decision of raise taxes or keep your natural landscapes, will come to head. Folks that advocate, let nature be and just have preserves, almost never actually put their money where their mouth is. The users of the landscape will though. So, sure, I see absolute leave no trace concepts as a good concept in theory. However, there comes a point where you turn off the user base because of restrictions in activity. All places need to be managed as a compromise between allowable use that minimizes environmental degradation while preserving the essence of the beauty that led to the formation of the park in the first place. If that compromise can't be struck, then the parks biggest threat won't be a 6" burn scar. It will be bulldozers.

Great post.

Some of the most interesting conservation work is going in this direction -- not locking nature up in a museum, but developing long-term strategies to manage the resource (though not just the Forest Service's definition of "use").

 

[Erasmus]

Fire is more a natural part of the landscape than any cannister stove. Just sayin.

Wood is a renewable resource. Butane cannisters are definately not.

Just for the sake of argument.

 

[dougo83]

Fire is more a natural part of the landscape than any cannister stove. Just sayin.

Wood is a renewable resource. Butane cannisters are definately not.

Just for the sake of argument.

I'm not sure where this was headed. Butane canisters are steel and, as such, they are recyclable. Also, fire is a natural part of the landscape. Nobody argues that point. However, it is better left in the hands of nature than people. As far as wood being a renewable resource, have you not seen what clear-cutting did to the PNW? It isn't just the trees, but the erosion that leads to depleted topsoil which leads to less vegetation which leads to less food for animals which leads on and on and on...

 

[Cpl Punishment]

Also, fire is a natural part of the landscape. Nobody argues that point. However, it is better left in the hands of nature than people.

That, my friend is where you are dead wrong.

Notice how California and Florida burn down every couple of years or so? That's fire in nature's hands. Controlled burning of deadfall, leaf litter, etc is not a danger like that (and I daresay that is what most fire users use for fuel).

 

[smersh]

That, my friend is where you are dead wrong.

Notice how California and Florida burn down every couple of years or so? That's fire in nature's hands. Controlled burning of deadfall, leaf litter, etc is not a danger like that (and I daresay that is what most fire users use for fuel).

That's not fire in nature's hands. That's edge-city areas, overloaded with fuel because of fire suppression, that eventually catch and flare out of control. The typical natural condition is lots of small fires, none of which is too big -- which clears underbrush but leaves larger trees intact and healthier than before. The massive wildfire is, most often, a product of human intervention.

 

[dextersp1]

Wood is a renewable resource.

Yea, but I don't want to wait 2000 years to waiting for a stand of Redwoods to mature.

 

[Skimo]

That's not fire in nature's hands. That's edge-city areas, overloaded with fuel because of fire suppression, that eventually catch and flare out of control. The typical natural condition is lots of small fires, none of which is too big -- which clears underbrush but leaves larger trees intact and healthier than before. The massive wildfire is, most often, a product of human intervention.

This is where you are wrong, talk to any wild land fire fighter, large sweeping and massively destructive fires lead to renewal of the land.

I have sources if you care to PM me for them, I won't clutter the board.

 

[Skimo]

Yea, but I don't want to wait 2000 years to waiting for a stand of Redwoods to mature.

How is that in any way on topic, that's an emotional response to a logical statement.

Wood is renewable, he didn't advocate taking old growth for fuel, it is a renewable resource. Everyone agrees that responsible use is key to sustainment.

 

[smersh]

I don't think we're disagreeing. My point was that natural fire cycles, while destructive, are healthy. I was specifically responding to a post that suggested that the kinds of fires we see on the news in CA and FL are a matter of nature going too far. More often, the problems are from nature not being allowed to go far enough, coupled with suburbanization. The worst problems with fire tend to be in semi-populated areas where there's so much fire suppression that there's an overload of fuel, which makes the eventual fires bigger, and more difficult to control.

Natural fire is usually a good thing.

 

[Bushman5]

That's not fire in nature's hands. That's edge-city areas, overloaded with fuel because of fire suppression, that eventually catch and flare out of control. The typical natural condition is lots of small fires, none of which is too big -- which clears underbrush but leaves larger trees intact and healthier than before. The massive wildfire is, most often, a product of human intervention.

BINGO!!!! up here we have insane fire supression policies, that result in MASSIVE fires when they do go up.

 

[dextersp1]

Time to close down this thread - we have gone full circle i.e. camping fires are fires; fires occur naturally in the woods, so camping fires are OK. Not good reasoning but it we all know it happens in all threads eventually.

There were some good posts and we can all learn from those we agree with and those we don't.

 

[Garrett Schmidt]

I try not to comment in many of the more opinion based threads because half of the time I think it just adds fuel to one side of the fire or the other. What I will say is that there are always extremes on these types of subjects one way or the other but what I think the real problem that is starting to unfold is the lack of common ground educational groups that used to tell young men/women what is common curtesy whether it be for camping, hunting, or any other type of outdoor related activity.

Around here, the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Isaac Walton League, Ducks Unlimited, NRA, local Moose/Elks lodges, VFW, etc all used to have a sort of common ground when it came to these activities. They tought what was generally accepted by most people as a curtious way of doing things in the woods. Did we have huge bon-fires in boy scouts? Hell yes...that was apart of some of the ceremonies. Did our boy scout troop do more than enough to give back to our local wildlife community? Another hell yes. And so did the League and the lodges and everyone else. There is always going to be those extremists on both sides of the isle but when I was a kid they were just that...extremists and their impacts were usually close to immeasurable. It seems as I get older that those groups that used to have a common ground are either dwindling away in membership or becoming almost totally uninvolved with wildlife conservation efforts entirely. (hello boyscout and girlscout troops of central WI....are you listening?)

To this day, I could take one of my more "city-fied" friends out in the woods and he would know it is just bad form to cut down a tree for no reason at all. Most of them could probably still tell which trees can be cut down for lean-to type shelters without hurting the local wildlife's natural flow. (buckthorn for example.....invasive species turning WI into a dense jungle in a lot of areas)

Change is part of the game when it comes to the woods. It is NEVER the same day to day. As far as the OP's idea of leaving no trace, while that sounds like a great idea in theory, it is never gonna happen. You'll never convince everyone to leave no trace. That type of rule set is too extreme for everyone to agree upon. I don't think going on a Paul Bunyon axe rampage for no good reason is an ideal goal either. I can only hope that some of that common curtesy wisdom begins to grow again and the commonly agreed upon conservationalist ideas start to come back more and more. At least I can say I am doing my part....Scout's Honor!

 

[Codger_64]

It occurs to me that many of the people posting in this thread regarding LNT are probably not very familiar with the ethic beyond what the slogan implies. I suggest that you might want to visit the LNT website and see for yourselves the outdoor ethic being espoused. It isn't as bad as some might think. I can post their suggested ethic guidelines if it will help. It might surprise you with how many of the LNT tenants you agree with.

Oh, and Modern Woodsmen of America isn't an outdoorsey group. It is a 501(C) (8) financial corporation.

 

[Garrett Schmidt]

It occurs to me that many of the people posting in this thread regarding LNT are probably not very familiar with the ethic beyond what the slogan implies. I suggest that you might want to visit the LNT website and see for yourselves the outdoor ethic being espoused. It isn't as bad as some might think. I can post their suggested ethic guidelines if it will help. It might surprise you with how many of the LNT tenants you agree with.

Oh, and Modern Woodsmen of America isn't an outdoorsey group. It is a 501(C) (8) financial corporation.

After browsing the guidlines, I agree. It seemed as though the arguement was for more of a literal "no trace". Like no black rocks from a fire, etc. Their ethics are actually pretty on par for what I was trying to imply as a common curtesy approach for the most part anyway.

 

[Mannlicher]

KGD

At some point, the decision of raise taxes or keep your natural landscapes, will come to head. Folks that advocate, let nature be and just have preserves, almost never actually put their money where their mouth is. The users of the landscape will though. So, sure, I see absolute leave no trace concepts as a good concept in theory. However, there comes a point where you turn off the user base because of restrictions in activity. All places need to be managed as a compromise between allowable use that minimizes environmental degradation while preserving the essence of the beauty that led to the formation of the park in the first place.

In my County and City, this very thing is taking place. Those governmental entities buy land, and turn it into 'conservation' areas. The Citizens who pay for the land are then forbidden to ever visit the land. It is 'environmentally sensitive', ya know? Can't have the rubes running around, recreating there.
Not only does this remove land from recreation use, but it also removes the land from the tax rolls.
To make up for that loss, the County and City just raise property taxes on home owners. It is a never ending cycle.