Hikin Jim’s “Dry Out West” Stove Article at GG

"So, Zelph should hire himself a lobbyist and get some kind of government safety acceptance for his Starlyte stove. Then, it might be the only alcohol stove that is allowed during risky fire season. Wouldn't that be great for his business?

–B.G.–"

Not that Zelph would do it….but that is how things are usually done :)

A long time ago I realized that naive people are gonna do dumb things regardless of how well something is designed. So I use Alchy stoves, even though it is easier to be really stupid with alcohol fuel. I don't discuss it with rangers. I don't camp/cook where/when anyone would care.

The use of a StarLyte Fuel Cell/aka burner/stove in conjunction with a Caldera Cone is probably a lot more safe than any other arrangement available. I use the high visibility "green" lid to snuff out the "fuel cell". We can consider the lid as an off and on switch ;)

At this years GGG gathering in California a burn ban was in affect but the park rangers allowed alcohol stoves to be used. I suppose it depends on the locals at any given time. Hikin Jim and Jon used their alcohols stoves in demos.

Some say "canister" and some will say "fuel cell" for future use :-)

"At this years GGG gathering in California a burn ban was in affect but the park rangers allowed alcohol stoves to be used."

Not entirely true. I did not ask about alcohol/Esbit stove use when I was informed about the fire ban. No rangers visited our site that weekend.

A combination of don't ask, don't tell plus a little luck.

We did have a fire extinguisher on hand at the demos.

Last year or so someone set the Lost Coast on fire with their overzealous priming of a Whisperlite.

At least alcohol is non explosive and water soluble. Also comes from a renewable source.

"At least alcohol is non explosive and water soluble. Also comes from a renewable source."

Ken,
To be fair, many people using alcohol stoves are actually using methanol, or a methanol/ethanol blend as their fuel source whether they know it or not (HEET, for example)… And methanol is primarily produced using natural gas as its feedstock.

So technically, most methanol produced in the world today is not from a "renewable source."

Nevertheless, methanol, like ethanol, can be produced from renewable resources. So you're point still stands.

Aren't you glad I cleared up this non-controversy? I'm sure everyone was losing sleep over this particular point of pedantry. :)

Derek, I agree that a little common sense and an area free of combustable fuel would be a non issue.

However, I would suggest that if cheat grass is blowing through your stove while you are cooking, then the area needs to be burned and followed up with a revegetation management plan to promote more favorable species for wildlife forage. Sorry Buck, IMHO fire suppression is overated and those choosing to live in the urban wilderness interphase need to consider their own defendable space and fire suppression system or just get good insurance. Fire is going visit most wildlands sooner or later, just like drought, floods and famine. Our controversial prescribed burn plans will never be able to duplicate the frequency of the people we displaced here in the 1700-1800s.

I can't imagine a ranger ever finding my camp for a check, but then I don't have to recreate in those intensely visited public lands. Poor Cali.

"I like my canister and recycle the empties."

I know it is OT, but how/where do you do that? I have a horde of them waiting for me to recycle them.

Thanks.

Most municipalities will recycle canisters. *CALL FIRST* to be sure, though.

Here's a quick, simple and effective way to recycle canisters that I wrote up:
http://www.pmags.com/recycling-backpacking-fuel-canisters

Tanks, that is what I was looking for.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread… ;)

I love the concept of alcohol stoves, but please follow the fire bans. As a person who has lived in AZ most of my life, fire bans are one of the few things the forest service gets right (stopping natural fires which contributes to forest fires is another matter). They're based on the moisture content of the wood in a region. When AZ had the Bear Wallow Fire a few years back, the moisture content was less that 10%. That is dryer than wood that has been industrially dried in kilns to be sold as firewood. It take one flame, 15 seconds, and a pile of dry pine needles to make a 10 foot fire.

I was scheduled for a 100 mile hike right through the bear wallow region but luckily had to postpone due to school projects. Had I gone I most likely would have lost my vehicle, if not my life, based on the speed and scope of that forest fire and my planned itinerary.

Don't screw around with your "I'm safe so I don't matter" freedom spouting BS. The regulations are in place to protect the general public, the forests you so dearly enjoy, and bank accounts of governments and residents alike. Don't be selfish.

In the grand scheme of things are all alcohol stoves bad? No. Do they pose increased risk due to the not being self contained fuel systems? Definitely. Are they integral requirements for the enjoyment of public lands…most assuredly not. Get off your high horses and eat a granola bar or pick up a cheap and relatively light canister stove. Or stay at home if you're going to get your underpants in such a wad over how you should be free to boil water however you dang well please.

Awesome Dustin. +1

+2

As an Australian, reading here about people's objections to being told what to do with regard to fire safety/fire bans is hilarious. 100% of fellow Aussies would tell you you're a *@#$^&@!

"As an Australian, reading here about people's objections to being told what to do with regard to fire safety/fire bans is hilarious"

Who are you referring to? I didn't see anybody objecting to fire bans. In this thread anyway. Maybe I missed something.

"Don't screw around with your "I'm safe so I don't matter" freedom spouting BS."

Again. Who are you referring to?

"Do they pose increased risk due to the not being self contained fuel systems? Definitely."

I totally disagree with this statement. White gas stoves are not safer than alky stoves and they are self contained fuel systems. .5 oz of fuel like typically used in an alky stove that gets kicked over is a lot better than a leaking 12 oz bottle of fuel attached to white gas stove. Not much good having an off switch in that scenario. And I've actually seen this happen. It's not theoretical. Along with the improper priming. I'm not advocating that alky stoves should be allowed during a fire ban but I don't think white gas stoves should be either. That leaves canister stoves. Are they really safer than esbit? Hard to say. It would be pretty difficult to kick an esbit tab/stove into the brush. Sooner or later some yahoo is going to place a canister stove next to some dry material and kick or tip it over and there will be a call to ban them.

I hope not because that's what I use when I bring a stove during a fire ban. But it's pretty much inevitable when you consider that most fires started by campers (not just backpackers) are due to human error.

I think it is worth noting that not all areas are equally vulnerable to fires, even in drought conditions. Above timberline in the Sierra is one area that comes to mind. I am sure there are others, beach camping for instance.

'You forgot "When alcohol is outlawed, only outlaws will have alcohol."'

Or maybe "If more people had alcohol stoves that would prevent the bad people with alcohol stoves from starting fires".

Um…yeah. Guess it make just as much sense in this context.

IF alcohol stoves were a significant source of forest fires – I would understand the bans.

BUT THEY ARE NOT.

So the regulations banning them are the "lowest common denominator" rules that California is famous for.

Yes, stupid people do stupid things and sometimes there are really bad unintended consequences. But we have data and we can weigh the relative risk. Data rules.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to call BS on Dustin's diatribe (sorry Dustin).

Randy and Zorg have the right of it, IMO.

This isn't about any "'I'm safe so I don't matter' freedom spouting BS", as Dustin puts it. This isn't a libertarian agenda.

This is about asking if the stove policies of the various federal and state agencies that impose such things make sense in the first place. Are they effective at what they aim to do (prevent accidental wildfires) while imposing the least amount of burden on the end user (you know, some of the people that actually pay for the public areas to exist in the first place)? Are the policies rational? Are they consistent?

Is it, for example, sensible to allow a pressurized white gas stove in fire ban areas while prohibiting a Zelph Starlyte wicking alcohol burner (or an esbit tab) contained within a fully enclosed Caldera Cone stove?

My answer would be no… This is utter silliness.

It wouldn't be issue, save for the fact that it prevents many people from employing an otherwise safer, easier, and more sustainable alcohol stove option (as opposed to, say, white gas) because they must follow the irrational, outdated rules set by bureaucrats with lawyers breathing down their necks.

I still hold that proper fire safety behavior trumps any of these particular stove considerations… But if you are going to make laws about stoves, they might as well be reasonable, rational, and data-driven. The current ones are not. Hence this discussion.

"But we have data and we can weigh the relative risk. Data rules."

I'd like to look at that data if you can cite the source.

Dustin,
+1
I live in the mountains, stay home if you wanna bring your city attitude and ignorance to my backyard. If you don't live here, you are unaware of conditions.
Duane

As someone who is very new to living in fire prone areas, this discussion is very helpful. Not necessarily the accusatory snarkiness that abounds, but the information is helpful.

I agree, there is no reason to bring dangerous stoves into areas where the fire risk is high – of course not. But as a new alcohol stove convert (that would be the starlyte burner and the caldera cone), and one who still brings my canister sometimes, I am truly interested in which one really is safer.

+1 on not just arbitrarily going with the flow on no alky/no esbit/yes white gas/yes canister when in fact those may not be the appropriate stoves to include or to ban.

I'll bring my canister on the JMT this year – that's cool, no argument here.

But I do wonder which truly is the SAFEST stove to bring in such conditions. Might esbit (as much as I don't like it) be the better choice?

So I agree, other than one poster who does not hike in CA and will bring whatever stove he wants because he'll never have an accident…I'll speak for myself when I say I am just really interested in learning about which stove combination is the SAFEST…not just which is banned and which is not.

I obey all traffic laws, even in Cali. I'll destroy my alcohol stove. Oh wait, this is America and I'm selfish. Such an American outlaw.

I my hiking is in the Rockies, and I've mainly followed all the fires in Oregon, Idaho and Montana. Stove type is certainly not an issue.

"This data also illustrates why it’s so important for us to get beyond national-level statistics when analyzing wildfires. Otherwise we end up lumping together lightning-caused blazes in the unpopulated Alaskan tundra and arson fires in the chaparral of suburban Los Angeles."

http://www.ecowest.org/2013/06/04/wildfire-ignition-trends-humans-versus-lightning/

"I live in the mountains, stay home if you wanna bring your city attitude and ignorance to my backyard. If you don't live here, you are unaware of conditions."

Yeah, stay out of Duane's mountains! :)

I'd guess that 90% of the folks here live in the city. I'd guess that 95+% of those want to protect the back country as much as those of us who do live in the mountains. Once again, I'm not sure who you're talking to. I'm honestly not too concerned about the people on this forum starting a wild fire from poor stove selection, site selection, etc. Based on my experiences where I live in Colorado, I'm more concerned about dispersed car campers (Buffalo Creek fire), arson (Hayman fire), lightning (Lime Creek and Black Canyon fires), smoking (Hi Meadow and Snaking fires.

We've had to evacuate once, been told to evacuate another time but that was rescinded before we left, and were on evacuation watch another time. So I'm as concerned with fire safety as much as anyone. And I definitely do follow fire ban regulations and encourage everyone else to do the same. But I do feel that the regulations that simply say you need an off switch are not logical.

'"But we have data and we can weigh the relative risk. Data rules."

I'd like to look at that data if you can cite the source.'

I doubt that there is, but in addition this beside the point. This is a misuse of the idea of statistical risk analysis since this particular system is shooting for zero incidents. A single incident in this case can be catastrophic. Using reasoning based on averages (near the center of the distributions) does not work when the events that are at issue – in this case catastrophic forest fires – are the rare ones on the tails of the probability distribution. So good example of a statement that sounds really smart but is in fact empty.

There is a lot more complexity in the balance here than is sometimes claimed by people who always argue only from the point of rationality and fairness of the rules/regulations (almost always from how the rules effect them personally). If you think of things on the systems level you need a few other feature of a fire-prevention regulatory system that WORKS that the irate individualist often leaves out.

For example, SIMPLE rules (not that this in practice is the case) will trump a lot of things because they will have to be clear to the least common denominator jackass. I'm not sure the system will be able to handle distinguishing between a jackass-safe alcohol stove and an a jackass-unsafe one (simple cat stove), nor should you expect the rangers to have to constantly make this distinction. In such a case the least common denominator wins, and should win provided the net result makes the system as a WHOLE a bit safer, without making your life much harder.

There is even another important issue left entirely off here, to increase the consciousness of the average Joe on the issue. There is a chance that some people knowingly using an "illegal" alcohol stove will be that much more careful simply because they know the stoves are problematical in some way. I wouldn't be surprised at all if this was a conscious part of the strategy. I may be pushing it here, but this might even explain why the guys at headquarters often say they alcohol stoves are not allowed, and the ranger don't press the issue. If I were a ranger the fact that someone was asking me about certain stove would let me know that people are conscious of the issue, would be extra careful, and so would be safer. Still they might want to have some leeway to deal with obvious jackasses out there.

Lastly, and this one seem to divide people even more into two camps – as evidence I cite the debate we had a while back about if it would be OK to game the service dog system to bring your dog into a NP. If anything this is more "abstract", meaning the system in question that is being optimized is widened even further. The camps are made up roughly of people who say "what is one dog going to do to the park", and people who say its the principle of the thing. Beyond the principle is the question of whether there would be an ACTUAL long term benefit by obeying rules you find silly as an attempt make the systems as a WHOLE work better. To make the rangers job easier. Possibly to influence OTHER people in such a way that the system as a whole works better in the long term. In the dog example, to discourage an increase in abuse rather than writing it off, and therefore long term harm and extra inconvenience to the people who actually need the service dogs. In the case of stoves, to grin and bear the silly regulation that don't apply to you because you are safe, because you understand that anything that gives that one jackass pause might prevent that one forest fire that gets out of hand and does catastrophic damage.

I don't pretend to know where to draw the line. It is a balance between the "trouble" it causes you to obey the "silly" regulations and how (or if) this would have a net beneficial effect. On an even more meta level is if by constantly belittling the people who are trying to do their best running the system, and the whole idea of regulation if you might weaken the system and make it that much more likely for a jackass to extend ignoring the rule to wider and wider areas.

Unfortunately in the case of rare and very catastrophic events there is seldom going to be useful data outside of a computer simulation. But at least everyone on both sides should admit it is a complicated issue if you actually embrace the whole problem and not just the part of the problem you personally care about, and quit QEDing very over-simplified arguments.

Randy, don't forget about "homemade exploding targets." This happened yesterday behind Boulder. You have to watch out for those gun guys.

http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_25697227/boulder-fire-peewink-nederland