Actual fire hazard of wood burning stoves

Flying embers.

–B.G.–

Tipping and spilling is the same issue that worried me the few times I carried an alcohol stove. I know from past experience that I can be clumsy, which can spread burning fuel on the forest floor. To save the woods for you coordinated people I carry an isobutane stove.

You're welcome ;)

It's not us. It's that other guy. He isn't safe.
Fire can spread underground as well.

>"Fire can spread underground as well."

+1

I learned that some years ago. With a campfire on the ground and pretty moist ground at that. After having the fire go for an evening, smoke was coming up from the ground 3 feet away. Highly organic soils. Thankfully, we were next to a lake, so we drenched the ground with many, many gallons of water.

A fair number of forest fires in Alaska get started that way – a fire that someone reasonably thought they had put out, only to have to have the organic soils flare up when the wind comes up.

The Forest Service says "Build your fire on mineral soil" for good reason.

First of all sorry if I offended anyone with my rather colloquial use of language in the initial version of my post!

And thanks for the replies! It seems as if there is a residual risk to wood burning stoves that cannot be eliminated. Especially fyling embers seem to be an issue. To the heavy hobo-users: Do you think there's a way to get rid of that problem?

As to underground fires, that sure is important to know, but I guess this issue could be solved by using a heat-shield or a stove with closed ground.

So what's the overall consensus? Is there a responsible way of using wood-stoves? How good can a regular hiker learn to assess fire hazards (in case there are no official restrictions anyway)?

1) It really dors not.mstyer what the concensous here is. Nobody who posts here is going to be the official issuing you a citation / fine or suing you should you start a fire with your woodburning stove.

If you are really intetested in the straight scoop, contact the park/ forestry officials directly.

That being said, I have NEVER seen a jurisdiction in which an open fire ban was in effect and yet wood burning stoves were allowed.The wood burning camp stove salesmen NEVER mention that hard little fact to backpackers.

It's common sense. The fire is not fully contanined- embers can still float around. There is also the fact that burning wood found at campsite pretty much violates leave no trace principles,too.

There are so many other cleaner, faster and more legally viable options,I dont know why anyone would bring a woodburning stove,especially this year.

Question: I just want to know if there is an additional fire hazard, unique to wood burning stoves.

Answer: For instance, couldn't some flake of hot/burning wood fly out of the stove and cause a fire somewhere?

Having hiked this past weekend through an area (Pine Meadow Lake, Harriman State Park, NY) with several acres of scorched underbrush (no trees this time, thankfully) I was reminded of this very point. There are some campsites on the north shore of this small lake and there is little doubt that an illegal campfire caused it. And the closest campsite was perhaps 30-40 yards from the nearest burned area, so it seems embers can travel quite a distance and still start a fire. Add high wind to the mix and a wildfire is almost certain.

It's common sense. The fire is not fully contanined- embers can still float around. There is also the fact that burning wood found at campsite pretty much violates leave no trace principles,too.

Jimmer, LNT is not violated by having a camp fire. Indeed, at least one tree relies on a forest fires to open seeds for growth. Forest fires are generally contained, not fought to put them out. Removing downed wood around an existing camp site is generally a good idea. Removing dead and down trees by burning adds minerals back to the ecosystem, and, left-over charcoal takes many, many years to degrade, removing it from the carbon cycle. Knowledge is the key to understanding. It depends on using common sense. Wood fires are not against LNT principles. Rather they advocate small fires easily put out (and often incompletely burned.)

Wood stove use is highly dependent on the area you are in. In a crunchy dry forest with pine pitch concentrated to keep moisture in the needles, a few embers is very bad. Having a few embers escape is not a big problem in areas where starting a fire and keeping it going is difficult. By the same token, underground fires are not a good idea in areas that the majority of the dirt is flammable but work well in other areas where dirt is mostly mineral. It depends on using common sense.

LNT is not a set of rules to be followed blindly. Rather, it depends on the common sense of the follower. Using leave no trace principles, which is LNT and which isn't?

1) Use existing campsites to minimize your impact on the forest.
2) Use distributed low impact or "stealth" camping to minimize your impact on the forest.

Actually, they are both LNT. It depends on the area.

"That being said, I have NEVER seen a jurisdiction in which an open fire ban was in effect and yet wood burning stoves were allowed.The wood burning camp stove salesmen NEVER mention that hard little fact to backpackers."

I don't think they need to. It's pretty obvious that fire ban=no fires. At least where I hike, if there's a fire ban in place, it also means no alky or esbit stoves. They may not state that explicitly but they mean only stoves with an off switch. When I've asked specifically about alky stoves when the wording appeared to possibly allow them, I found that the people I was asking didn;t know what an alky stove even was. But when I explained it to them, they said they were not allowed.

I use all depending on where I'm going and what the fire danger is at the time. And when there's a fire ban I take a canister stove or no stove.

Any stove can be dangerous if used incorrectly. Use common sense and if what seemed like good conditions for a wood stove change, don't use it. Nothing wrong with eating cold food once in a while.

The LNT sidetrack is beside the point. It is possible to use the wood-burning stove while adhering to LNT. That seems settled by comments above.

Also beside the point is whether the wood-burning stove ban is in place for this or that area. Settled if you check, as per Jimmer's comment.

Not beside the point, which was the OP's question: Are the bans on wood-burning stoves effective in preventing fires? Seems we have that answer too: Yes, considering the possibility of floating embers. There's a question hanging about whether that is preventable. Screen like on a fireplace at home? Unlikely…

I'D LIKE TO REDIRECT THE QUESTION: Assuming responsible means and methods (assume a hypothetical certification, if you like), does the use of alcohol and/or esbit increase the chance of fire versus going no-cook, MORE SO THAN the use of a canister stove increases the chance of fire versus going no-cook?

Is there any data out there that addresses this question?

The larger point is, I would like to have my suspicion disproved. My suspicion is that the stove bans are an additional means of restricting usage of the trails themselves, à la 50 persons per day for PCT thru-hiking. There is a weight, volume, and cost penalty associated with canister stoves.

(I'm not really interested in the argument about usage, which is had at multiple places on this site. I'm more interested in whether this alcohol/esbit inclusion in the fire ban is an additional means to the end of restricted usage.)

Or, worse, are such stove bans an attempt on the part of the bureaucrats in charge to demonstrate that they are "doing something".

(I admit what you suspect. I am biased against canisters. I have dehydrated my dinners for my thru-hike, and the alcohol stove with simmer ring was the ideal cooking method. Now I have a windboiler on order, and I know I'm stuck with it for at least a few months. Additional disclaimer, to the BPL crowd: you don't need to solve what you may perceive to be my problems with stove selection, or cooking methods, or the fact that I smoke cigarettes… I'm baiting you now… Just whether the bans on alcohol/esbit are more effective than a canister ban would be, assuming responsible usage. Thanks in advance…)

No.

You can have a safely build a small, open twig fire to cook your food in california chapparal in the height of summer during a drought year provided you are mindful of wind, put it out with water, and generally competent. I'm not saying you should do that, but you can do it safely.

I consider a small twig fire no more dangerous than an alcohol stove.

Cover the doused ashes with dirt… LNT.

I don't think a ban on esbit and/or alcohol stoves has anything to do with efforts to (further) limit or restrict the number of people hiking in an area. In my experience, esbit/alcohol stove users are generally in the minority among hikers anyway.

I think current stove regulations are similar in design to the former blanket requirement to use a bear canister across the Sierra. It's designed to be a simple solution that requires less knowledge/care on the part of the hiker to safely implement and for the rangers to enforce. I consider these rules to be based on the "lowest common denominator." A responsible hiker can safely use any of the various types of stoves in most conditions. Likewise, a true knucklehead could probably start a wildfire with any type of stove. That being said, a stove with a true on/off switch seems less likely to accidentally get out of control for the "average" hiker. Wood, esbit and alcohol stoves all require a bit more care to manage and/or put out quickly and safely in the event an accident happens (e.g., stove gets knocked over, etc.).

I use wood fires, esbit or alcohol whenever allowed. I resort to my canister stove only when necessary (either as a result of rules or environmental conditions). I don't see/interpret stove regulations as an effort to keep me out of the forest; it's just a simple threshold for public lands regulators to rely upon to reduce risks of wildfires while still providing some means for hikers to have a warm meal or hot drink at the end of the day.

Other areas sometimes do prohibit ALL fires/stoves due to extreme fire hazards. These all-inclusive prohibitions DO discourage public access as most folks aren't willing to rely solely on cold and/or non-cooked foods. Off course, it's arguable that extreme hazards call for extreme measures.

Thanks guys for the good discussion coming up!

Just to clarify: I'm not seeking moral justification to illegally use a wood-stove in the Sierra, nor do I plan to use one in any other potentially fire-hazardous situations. For me personally, by reading what more experienced people have to say, I want to find out if a wood-stove comes into question for me at all or not (and longterm, I'm rather thinking or Europe as a destination than drought-struck California).

One thing I don't understand is why alcohol or esbit stoves are supposed to be more dangerous than gas-stoves or why the importance of an on/off valve is stressed so much. I kind of get alcohol in case you spill some, okay. That doesn't affect esbit, though.
Many people bring the argument of knocking over the stove. Well in that case, the gas stove will ignite any combustible material, too, right? Also I find that typical gas stoves (the ones that directly mount to the canister) are especially susceptible to being knocked over b/c they're so tall – even more than alcohol or esbit stoves, that are usually low-level.
And with any stove, if you knock it over and something starts to burn, you will end up extinguishing it – no difference there.

"One thing I don't understand is why alcohol or esbit stoves are supposed to be more dangerous than gas-stoves or why the importance of an on/off valve is stressed so much."

I'll bet that you are not familiar with dealing with the federal government agencies.

–B.G.–

I also think that the safety of each stove depends on how it's designed…

for example, I cannot, for the life of me, understand how white gas stoves are allowed ANYWHERE. those things scare the crap out of me. I've singed my eyebrows more than I care to admit (yes, that means I don't know how to do it right…).

I've knocked over my canister set up a few times, too. It's tall and narrow, and not much support.

My caldera cone with the short/wide pot, surrounding a no-spill starlyte stove, TO ME seems to be the safest of the bunch.

Well, canisters and WG stoves generally do not have any fuels available to be burned except for what is in the stove and any latent fuel in hoses/valves, expansion chambers, etc.

An alcohol stove has a reservoir that can easily be kicked or inadvertently knocked to spill already burning fuel. Esbit, by nature, IS an open reservoir of fuel. If separated from the fuel, a canister stove will go out. A WG stove will go out. You cannot say this about an alky stove (except a few in rare cases, I think Tinny's stove might just qualify with the addition of an on/off valve.) Esbit cannot be separated from the fuel. You drop a burning cube, it continues to burn (made up gadgets to enhance efficiency do not change this, though Dan makes one that *might* work.)

Anyway, I believe this is their reasoning. However, as others have said. In trained hands nothing is all that dangerous, to the hamfisted, it is.

I have cooked in just about everything over the decades. Just 2 stove problems that I can recall. One Whisperlight white gas stove, over primed. Scary, but harmless. One alcohol stove accidentally knocked over. Darn dangerous to be sure. Bits of fire spread here and there in dried forest duff spread around 10 – 12 feet. Lots of stomping and beating required to get that under control. A minute or two and it could have been disasterous.

Wood stoves, never had a problem. Wood fires, well, that depends. Hard to contain on windy days no matter how small the fire. Embers travel fast.

I prefer Esbit and alcohol over canister, with wood of any kind a distant last place. To each their own though.

Similar experience as John above. Definitively user mistake on my part, but the only accident I ever had was with alcohol . A single blade of dry grass led a tiny flame right to the bottle of alcohol, made a pin hole in it and the alcohol spewed out, in flames, as if it had been pressurized: it burnt my daughter's arm, me, some gear and a bit of surrounding duff. Never saw anything like that before. A real wake up call.
I am back to using alcohol now, but with a lot more caution.

Okay, your examples demonstrate that the spilling-problem of alcohol is bigger than I first thought.

To James' "residual fuel"-argument: It is true that esbit/alcohol stoves have more "residual fuel" than a canister stove
But still: If you knock any stove over and the flame comes in contact with combustible material, it will burn. If there's none, it won't. Downside of alcohol here is the spilling, that spreads the inflamed liquid, hence enlargening the area to be extinguished – I get that. Although, if the stove is carefully filled, I think it's pretty hard to actually have a 12-10 stove spill alcohol. But the process of filling is fiddly and those soft, squirty alcohol bottles are susceptible for spilling errors.

With esbit, however, there's no spreading of fuel and a single esbit tablet is easily extinguished.
Also, since in most esbit stoves, the tablet sits on the very bottom (i.e. Caldera Cone w/ gram cracker or the titanium folding stove), knocking over the stove will likely not cause the tablet to move very much. In fact, I think that if one uses some sort of ground protection/heat shield, the tablet will likely remain on the heat shield while knocking over the stove.
On the contrary with canister stoves, where the flame sits on the very top of the contruction, so that the "endangered radius" around the stove is way larger.

I must admit, I'm really falling in love with esbit all over again these days ;)

@Jennifer: In what way is the starlyte stove a "no-spill"-stove? I don't know the stove, that's why I'm asking.

While I am an Esbit enthusiast, I've had the situation where my ground contact stove (sitting on Ti disk and Ali foil disk) scorched my Evernew (reflective) stove pad, and this with merely a 4 g tablet (450 ml snow peak cup), 300 ml coffee, and with cylindrical (not conic) heat shield. Had it been sitting instead on a tent floor or groundsheet, it would have scorched that, and possibly set it on fire. So don't underestimate the considerable heat output from below! This damage was from conductive heat, and would be mitigated by elevating the Esbit burner, and maybe having a heat insulating rubber channel e.g. on the feet of a BGET. It is also waste heat, so reduces the efficiency of the system. I've considered a hanging Esbit stove, and at times used the Esbit tripod sitting in a Ti bowl hung from my tarp, but the heat output upwards is also a little too intense.

"One thing I don't understand is why alcohol or esbit stoves are supposed to be more dangerous than gas-stoves or why the importance of an on/off valve is stressed so much. I kind of get alcohol in case you spill some, okay. That doesn't affect esbit, though.
Many people bring the argument of knocking over the stove. Well in that case, the gas stove will ignite any combustible material, too, right? Also I find that typical gas stoves (the ones that directly mount to the canister) are especially susceptible to being knocked over b/c they're so tall – even more than alcohol or esbit stoves, that are usually low-level.
And with any stove, if you knock it over and something starts to burn, you will end up extinguishing it – no difference there."

I totally agree with that Theo, and my only response us that the forestry snd park managers only know about stoves what they are spoon fed by the big stove makers..

I'd oubt most of them even know that solid fuel tablets or absorptive wick alcohol stoves even exist.

The officials are only trying to overcome the lowest common denominator of stove users.

I have seen many articles and pictures in threads here on BPL, where the "experts" are demonstrating or reviewing stoves in an unsafe or improper method. How can that be? If they can't get it right, who can?

Yes, I prefer my Esbit Caldera Cone, but it is not the end of the world, nor will it ruin my trips if I have to bring a canister stove. It is better than closing these areas to all hikers, isn't it?

Yeah, alky stoves and esbit are light and easy to carry for short trips. I use them a lot for short weekend trips, peak bagging, etc. (Not so much esbit for the past 4-5 years, it makes a big mess of the pot.)

A knocked over stove can be bad, whether it is wood, alky, esbit, WG, or canister. So, it is more a matter of how bad.

Embers from a kicked wood fire or stove can be bad. We talked about that.

Spilled alky can spray quite a distance, lit, clearly bad. Several years ago a boy scout was actually killed by an alky stove spraying on him after being kicked. Nuf said.

Esbit is one of those grey areas that they really did not consider much, I think. But, it is still an open fuel and if allowed to get wet, crumbles easily. I like to think they worry about an inadvertent kick spreading burning fragments around, but like I say, I don't believe they considered it. I don't use it anyway. As was mentioned, it is a fuel that can burn into the forest floor, or tent, if placed/lit without a tab holder or with an inadequate one. There were several threads about being able to use esbit 20 years back. Several were just about lighting them while just setting on the ground. People didn't even know *how* to use an esbit tablet nor were the tabs much available. A scary thought to the folks managing a dry forest.

WG was tried and true. Since the late 1800's people were using WG stoves. It was a skill that was expected from any camper in the 60's and 70's. And they all were more stable than the old Bluett stoves. If kicked over they were simply picked up and the localized fire put out. After WWII, they were available all over the US and remain so. Usually these were pumped canister style, had good distance from the forest floor, were self priming, self contained and had a valve for regulation/on/off. Later on, (1980's or so,) they were using external bottles with a myriad of different connectors and pumps.

The Canisters came on the scene and were quite safe after design details for the cans were worked out. The old Bluett bayonet pierce was dropped. Later they were standardized. But, I remember when a specific stove had to have a specific type of canister. At the time, I would get about a 20% failure rate: leaks, half filled cans, fussy stoves, cans not working, etc. My JetBoil still leaks a bit when attaching/removing a can, but it disipates. They required NO skill to operate. Like your home stove, light as you turn the valve. Safe enough, much like a WG stove without knowing anything.

Using ANYTHING with an open flame in vary dry conditions is always iffy. But you cannot tell people to not use stoves and cook. NO FLAMES would be their ideal. But I cannot see myself on a 6 week hike and not cooking anything. They allow WG and Canister stoves. I am happy with that. With all the no-cook camping threads, they will soon decide to outlaw ALL stoves if I push.

I can imagine a kick-safe esbit (or alcohol) stove: suspend the burner on a wire framework down inside of a pot filled to just below the burner with water. Somewhat similar to some of the meltdown-safe nuclear reactor designs. If you used a plastic pot it wouldn't even add that much weight. Kick it over, the water drowns the flame.

What I can't imagine is selling the idea to the "must have an on-off switch" bureaucrats.