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

"If it saves one life then it is worth it" – the battle cry of the not-so-bright. And that is how all the hysterical rules and laws get enacted.

Zero incidence requires zero risk. Not possible without zero human activity. And nobody in their right mind advocates for zero human activity. By the way, the "risk" I'm talking about is the unintended consequence of using fire in any form during high fire danger. Pouring over the available data makes backpackers look pretty safe.

There is always risk and we learn to manage it because the value of hiking/backpacking is greater than the short-term loss due to fire.

"There is always risk and we learn to manage it because the value of hiking/backpacking is greater than the short-term loss due to fire."

Very nice, you should run for city council. Except for in this case it is your benefit and usually someone else's risk. Do you seriously expect other people, except for a tiny fraction of ordinary folks, especially the people who live in the area, to agree with the above statement as written?

Gary, you had me at "Peewink". "Pee and wink" sound like one strategy for prevention of a spreading cook fire.

Never underestimate the entertainment value of blowin' stuff up.

My comment above was mostly from an encounter in the Caribou Wilderness, which is east of Lassen Volcanic NP here in N Kalifornia. Clearly posted at the TH, that campfires were only allowed in improved (may not be word used) campgrounds due to high fire danger. I approached some nice folks that set up at a small lake I was at, advised them no campfires were allowed. They went ahead, nice, churchy family, traditiion for them to have a campfire when they are out. So even though they were told, they were either clueless about how easy and fast a fire can take off, or knew it all. They can go home to the city, I'm at my property in the mountains, looking at charred trees and landscape. At the same lake, I've dismantled a fire ring which was too close to the lake, only to have some people come in later and build it back and proceed to leave tp along the trail by their tent. Plus, they had drug in a ice chest on wheels, leaving a trail the whole way in from the parking lot.
Duane

Of course, because when read in context it is exactly what we all do in everyday life. It is part "society". That is why we allow others to drive when we are on the road, others to possess firearms when we are exposed and unarmed, others to live on with nasty communicable disease when we are healthy and disease free.

"I agree, there is no reason to bring dangerous stoves into areas where the fire risk is high"

Labels like "dangerous" and "safe" are not helpful because they are not quantifiable. I don't think it is helpful to noobs to use such labels. Context is everything and I don't see how anyone can make blanket statements about safety, since it all depends on the person using the stove.

For example, Custer county Idaho might have activity restrictions because of high fire danger. But at 10,000', on bare granite, the restrictions don't make a lot of sense – which is why the trail rangers don't care about stoves and simply want to prevent morons from building fire rings next to alpine lakes. One county, diverse terrain, and it's up to the individual to use common sense.

"Randy, don't forget about "homemade exploding targets."

You're right Gary. That is what they were saying started the Springer Fire near Lake George a couple of years ago. I'm not sure if they ever confirmed it.

"Clearly posted at the TH, that campfires were only allowed in improved (may not be word used) campgrounds due to high fire danger. "

They don't do that around here much. I can't recall seeing one posted at a TH. To me the biggest problem with fire bans, in Colorado at least, is the lack of coordination between agencies. Sheriffs and local fire districts are usually a lot quicker to post a fire ban than the NFS. The sheriffs don't go out on the trail to enforce theirs. The NFS rangers won't cite somebody if the sheriff or fire district has a ban but they don't.

I wonder about long distance hikers. How do they know that a ban has been put in place since they left? I actually saw the opposite a few years ago when I met a couple thru hiking the CT. They had run out of fuel and asked where they could get a canister. I told them it was quite a ways but they could cook over a wood fire until they got another. They said they couldn't do that because of the fire ban. It had been lifted 3 or 4 days before but they had no way of knowing. So they were able to continue on.

Randy, I tend to be a regular pest at the Boulder FS district office. A couple of years ago when a fire ban was on, I asked the FS desk person what their stance was. The response was, "We go with whatever the sheriff says." (which meant canister stoves only). Since the Boulder district includes portions of both Boulder and Gilpin Counties, I wonder where they stand if Boulder Co. institutes a ban but Gilpin Co. doesn't. I suppose they side with each sheriff, huh? I also noticed that Rocky Mountain Nat'l Park did its own thing, and allowed any sort of stove you wanted to use. But then, RMNP doesn't generally allow campfires, which they must see as the biggest threat.

But as far as a ranger issuing a citation for an illegal campfire, it probably doesn't much happen. The Boulder district is so strapped for cash that they utilize a volunteer ranger force to patrol the trails, and these rangers aren't authorized to do any law enforcement. They just give out info on trail status, tell people about the laws/rules, and otherwise gleefully answer any questions.

"volunteer ranger force"

Gary, in Yosemite National Park, they use volunteers to go around and destroy illegal fire rings. That seemed practical to me.

–B.G.–

-thread drift-
"As someone who is very new to living in fire prone areas, this discussion is very helpful. "

What? Did you move from Chicago?

-Barry

My opinion is that we should all try to follow their rules!

My reasoning is that it seems in New Mexico at least, the Forest Service (and local land managers) are all the more likely to go to their 'nuclear option' and just close the forests outright (no entry at all) if they feel their fire restrictions (Stage II) are being skirted around. I'd much rather lug the 10-year old heavy Jetboil around, than have my playgrounds closed for half the summer due to a combination of high fire-danger and high perceived incidence of reckless-ness.

No real data in this observation, just anecdotal experience from a number of years.

Yes Barry – I moved to Austin, TX from Chicago. Still thinking about where to go and what to be when I grow up, but professionally I've found a great clinic and a cool university posting right now.

Of course, I really didn't think any place could be worse than Chicago in terms of being near backpacking sites…whoa was I wrong! Texas is awful…..

"Of course, I really didn't think any place could be worse than Chicago in terms of being near backpacking sites…whoa was I wrong! Texas is awful….."

California is the place you want to be… ;^)

"Of course, I really didn't think any place could be worse than Chicago in terms of being near backpacking sites…whoa was I wrong! Texas is awful….."

You just have to adjust to the local customs. In 5 years of living in Austin I seldom went backpacking – possibly because I didn't have a car, and mooching a ride was so time consuming. The thing is, every time I realized how much work it would be I just got stoned with friends, went to the park, and tossed a Frisbee all day. You will find this can distract you from the difficulty of backpacking in the area.

More apropos of this thread – Chicago isn't a fire prone area – NOW! Maybe they learned their lesson. The great Chicago fire of 1871, caused by … wait for it … a device containing burning liquid fuel that accidentally got spilled.

I wonder, each time I read one of these threads, why those people who consider the rules unreasonable don't petition whatever agency makes the rules to change them. I'm sure that would be a long and frustrating process, but it seems like it should be possible with proper organization and perhaps a lawyer or two. And it would be better than continuing to complain about it forever, right?

The rules on stoves as they generally exist appear to be arbitrary and not very well informed. Maybe they made more sense at one time, I don't know. But it does seem like a review based on modern data would be useful.

One of my pet peeves. So many Internet experts who are safe. I see so many articles and blog posts of so called experts demonstrating/reviewing stoves with pictures of stoves sitting on duft, grass, twigs, and all sorts of flammable materials. Even here in articles posted on BPL. You need a California Campfire Permit in California to operate a stove, in which you agree to clear an area in all directions 5 feet from the stove. This is generally recommended by any government agency guidelines I have read. Perhaps all theses experts fall into the lowest common denominator category?

Nick, those may be generally recommended, but those specific words do not show up on the Wilderness Permit that the National Park Service issues.

I do most of my backpacking in the parks and a little in the national forest wilderness areas outside of the parks. Nobody has ever issued me anything called a California Campfire Permit.

–B.G.–

Every Federal agency I know of that operates a unit in California (including the BLM) has this requirement posted on their website. I have gotten a permit every year sine 1971. In the old days I would get mine every year at the USFS Ranger station in Kernville on my annual January pilgrimage to the Southern Sierras. I have actually been asked in a few occasions over the years to produce it in the back country.

CA Campfire Permit

I've always carried one as well. It's easy enough to get.

BG, if you have a campfire or use a stove in any National Forest in California, you are required to have a California Campfire Permit for the current year. One of the terms for the permit is to have cleared the ground of all flammable debris for five feet in every direction from the campfire or stove.

Thus when you were counting sheep in the Angeles National Forest earlier this year, you should have had a 2014 California Campfire Permit with you if you used a stove or had a campfire. Any forest Service office could have issued you one, or you could have gotten one from here:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5443507.pdf

Don't know if the National Parks require it – probably not, since they are under different bureaucratic structures. I have my permit reduce to the size of a post card, and carry a copy in my map/document freezer bag.

Nick, your permit is for BLM or Forest Service. It says that National Parks require special campfire permits, basically, because campfires are more restricted in many national parks. The wilderness permit in Yosemite, for example, does not have any of that wording. In Yosemite, there are lots of places where no wood campfire is permitted, but I have never seen any sort of backpacker stove that wasn't permitted (WG, butane, alcohol, Esbit). I think that they consider a woodburning stove to be in the same category as a wood campfire.

–B.G.–

Stephen, that is not a requirement in the national forests that I've traveled in for the last several years now. I go to the permit station, they issue me the wilderness permit, and there is nothing said about campfires. They sometimes ask me what kind of stove I am carrying. I tell them Esbit, the permit is signed, and I'm off.

No, there was no requirement for me to have a campfire permit in the Angeles National Forest, either. I camped in an established campground, the one that the feds suggested to me.

I don't know where you guys get all of these ideas that are just not quite right.

–B.G.–

Bob, you maybe be right about National Parks in California — if so I have been carrying a lot of extra weight in JTNP. The CalFire website infers they are required. To my knowledge they are required in all national forests in Calif., and there might be exceptions. Generally they are not required in developed campgrounds.

Nick, I think that you guys are very familiar with the red tape in those Southern California jurisdictions where you operate. You know what kind of paperwork they require of you.

However, I operate mostly north of Highway 58, as we had once agreed. The only national parks that I've been in lately are SEKI, Yosemite, and Lassen. The only NF wilderness areas where I backpack are Hoover, Ansel Adams, and John Muir. So, I only know the kind of paperwork that they've required of me.

I think I saw a California Campfire Permit form once twenty years ago. Maybe.

–B.G.–

I know for sure that campfire permits (stoves and lanterns are included) are required in Sequoia and Inyo National Forests. Last month I was in Shasta-Trinity National Forest and they also require one. Mine is always in my pack so I never really check. It is my understanding that any part of the JMT that is in a National Forest requires a campfire permit. Now if all the units do not have a standard policy… well it's the government you know :)