Leave No Trace - Fires?

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.

Well, I agree, but I also disagree.

I won't speak to CA, but I live in FL. The most common source of forest fires is lightning strikes. That is nature. Often, they start far out in the bush, where people don't go. point being fire restrictions or not, doesn't make a difference. People don't go out there, so the leaves, deadfall, and brush are all over the place, and "nature" burns them out.

Nevertheless, it would seem that you agree with me that having campers go out and gather up this tinder and burn it in their controlled campfires is preferable to nature burning down the whole place. At least with controlled fires, you keep those old growth trees, the strong young ones, etc, and just get rid of the real wild fire hazards.
 
Nevertheless, it would seem that you agree with me that having campers go out and gather up this tinder and burn it in their controlled campfires is preferable to nature burning down the whole place.

No, I don't. There are many places where that's a terrible idea.
 
KGD

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.

As KGD's post shows, this kind of "lock it up" sensibility is being challenged by lots of environmental groups. I just read an interesting article about Conservation International on precisely this issue -- they're moving more and more toward responsible stewardship, which means recognizing and encouraging the value (both cultural and economic) of the land. It's worth paying attention to what kinds of groups are moving in this direction, and you might possibly turn to them for a model to share with your local govt. officials.
 
"Leave No Trace" is a slightly odd goal. Unattainable. If you pay attention, you can see footprints everywhere, whether natural animals or unnatural people's. I used to know what it meant, but nowadays, I don't anymore. Too many human-hating bleeding heart revisionists monkeying with definitions of the terms of the debate, to suit themselves.

I hunt, fish, and backpack, all done on foot. I don't litter ever, try to erase any evidence of my campsite when I vacate, never pollute rivers or streams, make no sound or light pollution, respect the natural environment, and remove all trace that I was ever there when I leave.

This is not enough for self righteous "defenders" of the earth. They roar in in their conspicuous consumption machines, armed with screaming brats and brand new unused backpacking gear, and flop down the latest and greatest environmentally friendly naptha powered firebomb , er, stove. If I neglect my Swedish Socialist mfgd. Trangia stove and dare to have a very small twig fire to cook with, I am destroying the Earth, much to the shagrin of the afore mentioned caring yuppies. What's the use?

I wish a forestry major or botanist would write in here and inject some sanity.
In lieu of that, I subject you to a George Carlin rant:eek:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=948Nm34arfA
 
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.

Seems pretty reasonable.

Minimize Campfire Impacts

* Campfires can cause lasting impacts to the backcountry. Use a lightweight stove for cooking and enjoy a candle lantern for light.
* Where fires are permitted, use established fire rings, fire pans, or mound fires.
* Keep fires small. Only use sticks from the ground that can be broken by hand.
* Burn all wood and coals to ash, put out campfires completely, then scatter cool ashes.

http://www.lnt.org/programs/principles.php

And more detail:

Should you build a fire?

* The most important consideration to be made when deciding to use a fire is the potential damage to the backcountry.
* What is the fire danger for the time of year and the location you have selected? n Are there administrative restrictions from the agency that administers the area?
* Is there sufficient wood so its removal will not be noticeable?
* Does the harshness of alpine and desert growing conditions for trees and shrubs mean that the regeneration of wood sources cannot keep pace with the demand for firewood?
* Do group members possess the skill to build a campfire that will Leave No Trace?

Lessening Impacts When Campfires Are Used

Camp in areas where wood is abundant if building a fire. Choose not to have a fire in areas where there is little wood at higher elevations, in heavily used areas, or in desert settings. A true Leave No Trace fire shows no evidence of having been constructed.

Existing Fire Rings

The best place to build a fire is within an existing fire ring in a well-placed campsite. Keep the fire small and burning only for the time you are using it. Allow wood to burn completely to ash. Put out fires with water, not dirt. Dirt may not completely extinguish the fire. Avoid building fires next to rock out crops where the black scars will remain for many years.

Mound Fire

Construction of a mound fire can be accomplished by using simple tools: a garden trowel, large stuff sack and a ground cloth or plastic garbage bag.

To build this type of fire: Collect some mineral soil, sand, or gravel from an already disturbed source. The root hole of a toppled tree is one such source. Lay a ground cloth on the fire site and then spread the soil into a circular, flat-topped mound at least 3 to 5 inches thick. The thickness of the mound is critical to insulate the ground below from the heat of the fire. The ground cloth or garbage bag is important only in that it makes cleaning up the fire much easier. The circumference of the mound should be larger than the size of the fire to allow for the spreading of coals. The advantage of the mound fire is that it can be built on flat exposed rock or on an organic surface such as litter, duff or grass.

Firewood And Cleanup


Standing trees, dead or alive, are home to birds and insects, so leave them intact. Fallen trees also provide bird and animal shelter, increase water holding capacity of the soil, and recycle nutrients back into the environment through decomposition. Stripping branches from standing or fallen trees also detracts from an area's natural appearance.

* Avoid using hatchets, saws, or breaking branches off standing or downed trees. Dead and down wood burns easily, is easy to collect and leaves less impact.
* Use small pieces of wood no larger than the diameter of an adult wrist that can be broken with your hands.
* Gather wood over a wide area away from camp. Use dry drift wood on rivers and sea shores.
* Burn all wood to white ash, grind small coals to ash between your gloved hands, thoroughly soak with water, and scatter the remains over a large area away from camp. Ashes may have to be packed out in river corridors.
* Replace soil where you found it when cleaning up a mound or pan fire.
* Scatter unused wood to keep the area as natural looking as possible.
* Pack out any campfire litter. Plastic items and foil-lined wrappers should never be burned in a camp fire.

http://www.lnt.org/programs/principles_5.php
 
Gotta thank the OP for bringing this up, and most folks in the thread for a pretty thoughtful discussion. Theoretically, it seems pretty obvious that fires can be done in a low-impact way in some backcountry environments/conditions. However, my actual experience is that most fire sites tend to be accompanied by trash, tin foil, ash and sooty black dirt all over the campsite, toilet paper or worse lurking under nearby rocks, all nearby limbs of trees hacked off, deadfall hacked up, etc. Drives me nuts. There's no reason it has to be that way, but it seems to be how it is in lots of Western US wilderness.

One other thought, due to the ash, hacked limbs, etc, these kinds of fire zones are a lot harder to restore, and a lot more lasting damage than just run of the mill litter.

As a result of the trashing and crowding of most established campsites, I tend now to sleep elsewhere. Not wanting to trash that place too, I've basically gotten out of the habit of using fires when backpacking, only recently started practicing small ones in certain areas just to keep the skills up.

My 2 cents, worth about the same.
 
There's no reason it has to be that way, but it seems to be how it is in lots of Western US wilderness.
I'm from the east coast and while in the Moab, Ut I spoke with a Nat'l Park ranger. His observation was that people from the east coast tend to appreciate and care for the park lands than those from those people closest to the parks he has worked.

Maybe that is part of the divide being expressed in this thread. People who have come from areas of heavily trafficked/abused areas know the downside of "leave a trace" camping.
 
Back
Top