Leave No Trace Ethics

.

to me it is not needless.
I don't want to instill a sense of self loathing and alienation into future generations.

In Britain it is starting to be said that upland peat bog is one of our most important resources because it is a habitat that has over centuries stored up more Carbon per hectare than rain forest. If we drain peat bog it starts oxidizing and produces even more greenhouse gases than we do already. This has happened because vegetation has been stopped from biodegrading by waterlogging.
If at home I compost my apple core it rots and produces CO2.
Perhaps the best thing I can do is go up to the peat bog when I want to eat an apple and bury the core in the peat!

Brian, I agree with your semantical observations. As you said, words mean things (otherwise how do we communicate?) and the big issue here, (besides TP) is that there seems to be multiple definitions of LNT. A lot of times in debates like this, people are actually talking about the same thing (they agree) but they're 'speaking different languages' so to speak.

I personally favor your 'minimal' impact, as 'No' does leave the door open to more zealous interpretations. As well as being unrealistic

Also, I made an analogy above between zealous LNT'ers and land-exploiters. If that's what you were referring to here

Though saying the alternative is raping the land and being inconsiderate kinda is..

What I was trying to do was make a point similar to the one you're making in the last paragraph. Humans are part of the natural world just like any other animal, and I think that zealous LNT'ers unfortunately see humans as something apart from nature, just like the people who see earth as something for humans to exploit. We have to be conscious of our actions because we have the capacity to wreak havoc in the way no other animal does, but we still have are part of it all. We forget that at our own peril.

I love threads like this, that can interweave concepts of holistic human existence, spirituality and nuero-linguistic programming, all in the context of toilet paper!

Zen and the art of Toilet Paper

What you said Lynn. Also, I have no problem with with the title LNT, because I tacitly understand that it is not an unequivical No and is probably thus a bad choice of a word and not as descriptive as it could be. I also understand that it arose to counter the woodscrafts practices that dominated the preceeding decades, practices that included chopping down trees at every campsite, leaving piles of garbage, ditching tents, etc…that's the trace that is referred to.

Also, I have no problem in general with the word No as I don't associate it with "The Man" and a consequent negative reaction. The concrete sequentials that muddy these shallow waters comprise a small percentage of the population and would get it all balled up anyway because they lack the ability to coalesce the title (LNT) with the practice. If Minimal were substituted for No, these people's thinking would go something like this: "Well, I was going to chop down three trees for my campsite, but I'll minimize my impact and chop down only one."

I like the current USFS practice in my area in which a small sign posted at the trailhead says: "Pack It In, Pack It Out". No mention of LNT. For most of the general population the rest more or less falls into place.

.

.

If all LNT amounted to was that people didn't litter and didn't tear up the woods where they make camp, that would be great. Unfortunately, this seemingly modest ideal is nowhere near reality in many places. What's the point of arguing about TP when Billy Bob, Mary Jo, Jimmy Dean, and their 10 chilluns are just going to drive their 4-wheelers in to your favorite camping site and turn it into a shooting range, leaving one of their 4-wheelers, the target at which they were shooting, there to rust, since after all, everybody knows that a shot-up 4-wheeler don't drive good 'nemore. The only places I have seen toilet paper, actually SEEN it, has been in desert environments, in various canyons in AZ, near the most heavily used camping sites in those canyons.

I think the only thing I'd actually preach to backpackers about (as I step up onto my soapbox) is leaving stone fire rings at your campsite. They do nothing but attract all types of campers to that exact same campsite year-after-year. Glass, metal, food, and upholstery litter accumulates (yes upholstery.. I have no idea how or why they get those couch cushions into 9,000' alpine meadows, but they can and do); the sticks and rotting logs on the forest floor providing habitat for insects and other animals decreases as people burn it up, thus altering the ecosystem; trees get damaged as campers carve their names in them, hang things from them, tear branches off of them for firewood, and even cut them down to burn. Also, if the campsite happens to be at a scenic site (of course they usually are), then all that will happen is the scenic site will gradually get more and more trashed.

Of course, all these things happen at all campsites anyway when certain people go camping, but by leaving a fire ring, you just invited them all to camp at the same spot for years and years to come. Just scatter your fire rings in the morning. It's literally no harder than that. Takes 20 seconds.

> Just scatter your fire rings in the morning
A very good point for fragile areas. Leave no trace of your having camped there.

A better idea might be to not light a fire at all. We use a canister stove partly for that reason. By and large, you won't be able to see where we camped.

Cheers

" better idea might be to not light a fire at all. We use a canister stove partly for that reason. By and large, you won't be able to see where we camped."

+ 1

> I think the only thing I'd actually preach to backpackers about (as I step up onto my soapbox) is leaving stone fire rings at your campsite.

Your description sounds as if you are talking about a site without evidence others have camped there. In that case, I would suggest avoiding the fire all together. While it is possible to have a fire and clean up after yourself so that others will not be able to see you had one, it is not as simple as just dismantling a fire ring. Most people will not (or cannot, or do not know how to) clean up the fire site properly. Best to just avoid it.

> Just scatter your fire rings in the morning. It's literally no harder than that. Takes 20 seconds.

Unfortunately, even though it is not what you said or meant, some people take that to mean scattering existing fire rings at sites that are already heavily used. Doing so is a bad idea, because it just strews blackened rock around and encourages proliferation of fire sites — better to have the repeated fires and black rocks at a single place.

Summary:

1) It is OK to build a fire, if you like, at existing heavily used sites that already have fire rings. Whether or not you do, don't try to dismantle the fire ring you found there when you arrived.

2) It is best to NOT build a fire at all at a site that does not already have an obvious fire site, whether or not there is evidence people have pitched camp there previously. Just say NO! If you want a fire that badly, go camp at a site that already has a fire ring.

3) Exception to (2) is when you are really remote enough, and far enough off trail, that no one will be likely to come along for a very long time (if ever). Very few people camp in such locations.

— MV

Roger, look at my post about fire building here:
http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=20006&skip_to_post=158651#158651

Not saying its the best way or thats its appropriate everywhere just thats its easily done, no fire rings are necessary.
and what about the trace left from drilling and mining to produce that canister? Just saying that no one comes out clean.
Monty, yes you are right most people are going to take the term LNT for what it is- figurative speech. Its just that in my experience many people take it quite literally and it enforces a certain point of view that man is separate from nature and can only be destructive.
You point out that terms like minimal are subjective and some people fear that one persons idea of minimal may not be the same as someone elses. This is really getting at my whole point, yes its a matter of judgment some people fear that others will make bad judgments therefore the commandment LNT. No room for judgment beyond what degree of guilt you have.
I'm taking the position that we have no choice but to educate people and trust that they will make good judgments.
Also Im not hung up on the term "minimal" maybe thats not the best one either, how about something like "positive" impact?

.

"did you have an LNT nun who hit you with an LNT ruler when you were a child? :)"

In manner of speaking, Yes
It is common for people to want to use Gov. bureaucracy to discourage the public from visiting public land because they view nature as something that needs to be separated from humanity. They want Nature to have a velvet rope around it.
Its obvious just from this site alone that many people view any activity that leaves a trace as negitive (i.e. catholes, toilet paper, cooking with fire ect.)
These views don't come from the LNT principles as outlined they come from the concept of leave no trace.
Thou -shalt-not-/ leave-no-trace, its a commandment not a invitation for discussion. You can disagree with me, but I can not possibly make it any clearer. Some people seem to understand exactly what Im saying others don't seem to have even read any of my post- Thats the internet.

.

You post to show how silly you think others discussions are and you willfully misinterpret ones you don't like to keep the thread going.. what gives?

http://www.countrysideaccess.gov.uk/things_to_know/countryside_code

That's gov with a small 'g' Dave. We wouldn't have it any other way. Lol.
=======================================================
There are five sections of The Countryside Code dedicated
to helping members of the public respect, protect and enjoy the countryside. Follow the links below for more information.

Be safe, plan ahead and follow any signs

Leave gates and property as you find them

Protect plants and animals and take your litter home

Keep dogs under close control

Consider other people
========================================================
Under the Protect plants and animals and take your litter home link it says:
========================================================
We have a responsibility to protect our countryside now and for future generations, so make sure you don't harm animals, birds, plants or trees.

* Litter and leftover food doesn't just spoil the beauty of the countryside, it can be dangerous to wildlife and farm animals and can spread disease – so take your litter home with you. Dropping litter and dumping rubbish are criminal offences.
* Discover the beauty of the natural environment and take special care not to damage, destroy or remove features such as rocks, plants and trees. They provide homes and food for wildlife, and add to everybody's enjoyment of the countryside.
* Wild animals and farm animals can behave unpredictably if you get too close, especially if they're with their young – so give them plenty of space.
* Fires can be as devastating to wildlife and habitats as they are to people and property – so be careful not to drop a match or smouldering cigarette at any time of the year. Sometimes, controlled fires are used to manage vegetation, particularly on heaths and moors between October and early April, so please check that a fire is not supervised before calling 999.
==========================================================
A couple of observations;

1) It's all pretty straightforward sensible stuff.
2) Each point is backed with a reason and explanation – no-one likes being dictated to, but most are amenable to education and information.
3) The word 'please' is used – politeness goes a long way with the English.
4) There is no scatalogical discussion. English toilet training at a young age is very thorough. :-)

I like this idea of a Code or Ethics.
It allows people to discuss if something is ethical or unethical. Instead in the States (capital S) we argue about whether what we do leaves a trace.
Its a small matter to some I know, I just don't like the term LNT.

Hi Brian

> Roger, look at my post about fire building here:
Very nicely done.
Unfortunately, you would appear to be in a very small minority when it comes to the necessary size of the fire. Pity.

The problem with lighting fires in parts of Australia is that things can go bang. You may have seen TV of our fires recently – rather similar to some of the big ones you have had on the West Coast I think? Makes us nervous.

Cheers

Brian, I am with you on your point about the semantics and implication and alienation.

A couple of points about the difference between the UK and USA:

1)The UK has more 'National Park' land than the U.S. in percentage terms, although much of it is farmed. The U.S. has more 'pristine wilderness' than the UK in percentage terms. Therefore it's understandable that there is a strong desire on the part of some to 'preserve' that U.S. public access wilderness to as great a degree possible, and that probably goes some way to explaining the different emphasis in the UK 'code' and the U.S. LNT doctrine.

2) It seems that a lot of the U.S. is 'off limits' to hikers because you don't have the network of public paths and the 'right to roam' we have over here. Also, from comments I've read on this site, landowners are more likely to be aggressive to people crossing their land in the U.S. This maybe concentrates more hikers into the 'pristine wilderness' parks whereas in the UK they spread out more into the general 'countryside'.

3) This compounds all the roads and traffic issues which get mixed into the debate.

> The problem with lighting fires in parts of Australia is that things can go bang.

Roger, considering the number of meals cooked on wood fires and butane and white gas stoves in australia compared to the number of out of control fires that get started by them, would you say that a small wood fire was more or less easy to control than the occasional malfunctioning butane or white gas stove?

It seems to me that a high calorie fuel problem with a pressurized stove is far more likely to get out of hand than a small wood fire.

I grant you that more bush fires probably get started by open wood fires, but maybe that's only because there are lots more of them used than pressure stoves?

"I like this idea of a Code or Ethics."

That's all LNT is.
I say forget the name and focus on the message.

I'm a high school teacher; I sponsor our school's environmental/outdoor club. I've been "unofficially" teaching the LNT curriculum for years now. I have never had a student complain about the "No" in LNT…they all pretty quickly understand that it's simply a name for a set of ideals/ethics/a code/best practices, whatever you want to call it.

It's a great curriculum for kids and saves me the time of developing my own. It can be discussed, picked apart, analyzed based upon a situation. That's what we do. LNT provides questionnaires, study guides, all sorts of resources that are excellent instructional tools for beginners.

Without these resources, this education, the students I have would be lost/tearing up the wild. Most come in thinking orange peels are biodegradable and therefor it's acceptable to leave them all over camp. Most think it's fine to pee and crap wherever you want, break off branches for firewood, etc.
LNT serves as a great base to start from.

I have yet to meet a teenager that has been hung up on the idea that one can technically never leave "no" trace…They get it. It's something to aspire to, a best case scenario.

We don't seem to have this issue in other areas.
Can I practice perfect compassion? Become perfectly kind and good?
Probably not. But that doesn't mean I don't bother doing my best. It's simply something to strive for, as best as one can given one's situation. Why set the bar low?

We will never be perfect, we will never leave no trace…
but we might as well do our best.

So far as I know, there is no LNT Hell. Do your best…if you leave a minimal trace, get over it. You always will.

Fair enough Craig,

I know my point is philosophical. people used many different terms to say the same thing long before LNT. LNT is just my least favorite. I have a grip with its idealism and absolutism. I see a certain current of thought today that erroneously separates and alienates man from nature and the term seems to enforce that. Not something normal people would probable think about. Im sure those kids are smart enough to know the difference. LNT is probably here to stay.