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

"Now if all the units do not have a standard policy… well it's the government you know"

The National Park Service is under the Department of the Interior. They intend to protect the park land.

The National Forest Service is under the Department of Agriculture. They believe in multiple use of the land (logging, mining, grazing, etc., backpacking).

Two completely different organizations with completely different management. I'm surprised that they collaborate on the things that they do.

Also, the JMT runs from park to park to forest to park. You can get one wilderness permit at one end, go to the other end on the same permit, and never have a campfire permit at all.

–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."

Established campgrounds generally do not require the campfire permit – though at one point when we were in Sequoia NF last year, when fire danger was high, there was a 6 hour period when the campground host said we would need one – and I promptly whipped mine out! But that would explain the Angeles NF reaction.

However, in the three NF here in SoCal that I regularly hike in, plus three farther north (Stanislaus and Inyo), I've had to show my campfire permit to get a wilderness permit. No exceptions. So…how much are ya paying the office personnel where you hike to pass you on the campfire thing? ;)

Seriously, back to Nick's point, if folks followed the CA campfire permit requirement of clearing combustible out to 5' from the stove, I doubt even an alcohol stove knocked over could start much of a fire.

"So…how much are ya paying the office personnel where you hike to pass you on the campfire thing?"

Don't ask me why they operate the way they do. Inyo, specifically, is where one person in the office tells me one thing, then I ask for a second opinion, and the second person in the office says it is something completely opposite. I know for a fact that nobody has ever asked me any questions about having a water bucket or a shovel/trowel. Now, if they asked, I could show them my bear canister, and it would hold quite a bit of water if necessary. The so-called potty trowel is an aluminum snow stake. But, nobody has ever asked me, at least not in the last twenty or more years.

There was one time back during the Truman Administration…

–B.G.–

"Seriously, back to Nick's point, if folks followed the CA campfire permit requirement of clearing combustible out to 5' from the stove, I doubt even an alcohol stove knocked over could start much of a fire."

Ah, that was the point; and also the fact that almost every stove I see on a blog or in a stove article is not being used safely… no wonder we have to ban some stoves.

"I doubt even an alcohol stove knocked over could start much of a fire."

Tell that to the people in Ft. Collins, CO

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_20654312/hewlett-fire-near-fort-collins-at-7-673

:)

There are other examples from the PCT, but I am too lazy to google them.

"I doubt even an alcohol stove knocked over could start much of a fire."

I'm pretty careful, even more so since I came real close to starting fire with alky stove.

I swept the ground of combustibles, did my evening "cooking", and then packed up the stove. A few moments later I noticed the ground was smoking. Some quick trowel work showed that I was cooking on very well compacted duff, that looked and felt like dirt, and that my priming had reached it and got it going.

Had this been morning coffee and I not noticed the wisp of smoke before heading down the trail, bad things could have happened.

Up to that point I had never had even a "scorch ring".

Lesson Learned.

Now we have people making claims about how the stuff they see on blogs is "unsafe". Arg! And we have others dredging up a singular incident as evidence that alcohol stoves are unsafe. This thread took a serious IQ dive.

"Now we have people making claims about how the stuff they see on blogs is "unsafe". "

Zorg,
I can't find the blog reference in this thread. What post are you referring to?

Thanks.

"Now we have people making claims about how the stuff they see on blogs is "unsafe". Arg! And we have others dredging up a singular incident as evidence that alcohol stoves are unsafe. This thread took a serious IQ dive."

@zorg That isn't what was said at all. I believe Nick (if that is who you are referring to) said this was his "pet peeve", and tried to make a point along the lines that there is a lot of evidence of bad practices even amongst those purporting to be experienced in a public forum. Not remotely what Paul was doing either.

You seem to post a lot of comments on how stupid certain ideas, institutions and people are in general. Maybe if you post a bit more of your wisdom, and fewer comments on the stupidity of everything it would actually improve the quality of the discussion you seem to have a problem with. But start by being accurate about what people have said instead of constantly beating up on straw men/straw institutions/straw public servants/straw ideas.

I don't want to call anyone out or embarrass anyone. Do a search on BPL stoves and take a close look at most of the stoves in use in the field.

Then go search some of the blogs of the "experts" and do the same.

Take a close look at how and where the stove is being used.

If somewhat new hikers are emulating the experts it is a forest fire waiting to happen.

In the hands of an inattentive or inexperienced user, alcohol or wood stoves are a forest fire waiting to happen.

In my opinion Esbit is pretty safe. But those who are trying to protect our forests may not have much knowledge or experience with them, so they might be on the excluded list.

I would rather be inconvenienced with a stove that is not my first choice than not getting to hike a trail because it was destroyed by fire.

I am tired of people burning down some of my favorite places whether it caused by stoves, campfires, or other means. The idiot who's property had an electrical problem and burned down a good section of the San Jacintos last year should pay for all the costs and re-habilitation, and reimburse those you cannot use the area now. Instead we go after Vibram Five Fingers. Just another rant :)

"I am tired of people burning down some of my favorite places whether it caused by stoves, campfires, or other means. The idiot who's property had an electrical problem and burned down a good section of the San Jacintos last year should pay for all the costs and re-rehabilitation, and reimburse those who cannot use the area now. Instead we go after Vibram Five Fingers. Just another rant :)"

Absolutely agree! I'm still angry about that one – some of my favorite places are now nothing but ash.

""I doubt even an alcohol stove knocked over could start much of a fire."

Tell that to the people in Ft. Collins, CO"

I missed the part in that article where the guy cleared the area five feet around…the part of the quote you left out—->

"Seriously, back to Nick's point, if folks followed the CA campfire permit requirement of clearing combustible out to 5' from the stove, I doubt even an alcohol stove knocked over could start much of a fire."

Yes indeed, it's dry out west. The Sequoia National Forest officials just issued Campfire Restrictions that go into effect on May 21st. They only allow gas stoves that have a flame on/off switch. Here's the text

"The Sequoia National Forest, Tule River Reservation, and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) within the Central California District (CND) recently announced an Interagency Declaration to impose fire restrictions for all Federal and State protected lands within Fresno, Tulare, and Kern Counties effective Wednesday May 21, 2014.

In the Sequoia National Forest and Giant Sequoia National Monument campfires and barbecues are only allowed in developed campgrounds or areas designated as exempt from fire restrictions. A list of designated exempt areas can be obtained here

Visitors are allowed to have a portable gas stove or lantern (with a flame on/off switch) outside developed or designated areas with a valid California campfire permit. A campfire permit can be obtained, free of charge, at any Forest Service, CALFIRE, or Bureau of Land Management office."

link – http://www.fs.usda.gov/alerts/sequoia/alerts-notices/?aid=22758

"I missed the part in that article where the guy cleared the area five feet around…the part of the quote you left out—->"

Cripe dude..you are splitting hairs.

An alcohol stove started a fire. Most people who clear out the brush do a rather poor job of it. Did the person clear out a circle? I don't know. I doubt you do either.

End of story.

The debate team semantics are best left for high school. ;)

re: "And we have others dredging up a singular incident as evidence that alcohol stoves are unsafe. This thread took a serious IQ dive"

:) "Jumping to conclusions" is your secret super power. Ain't it?

Why do people care so much???

Granted, I really like my alky stove set up – the caldera cone, the starlyte…it's compact, light, easy….

But it's not THAT much lighter or smaller than my canister set up. So why are people so bent out of shape about having to carry a canister or go stoveless? Does it really matter that much??

I asked the question earlier in this thread about what really might be the safest stove – not the ones necessarily that are allowed in fire bans, but for real, which are the safest stoves.

If I have to bring my canister on the JMT – so what? If it reduces the chance that I might accidentally start a fire while I'm dead tired, well great.

Here is the problem.

Some backpackers may have started hiking the PCT a month ago, and they may have started out with an alcohol stove or an Esbit stove. Then if they get to some area with a new fire restriction, suddenly their stove may be illegal.

Sure, it would be more foolproof to start out the trip with a butane stove. The problem is when these various jurisdictions surprise the unsuspecting backpacker with a new rule.

It would be nice if the various forest jurisdictions could make their rules in advance so that distance backpackers could prepare.

–B.G.–

> But it's not THAT much lighter or smaller than my canister set up. So why are people so bent out of shape about having to carry a canister or go stoveless? Does it really matter that much??

I take your point, and it's a good point, but:

I recently purchased a small canister stove so I could camp in Cali this summer and conform to on/off switch regulations (MSR MicroRocket @ 2.6 oz) – and now my kitchen setup for weekend trips has doubled in weight. I went from an 8 oz alcohol cookset fuel included, to a 16.2 oz cookset.

So how much does it matter? About 8.2 ounces, to me. That could be framed as "exceedingly small" or "a major weight gain," depending on your perspective. Given the amount of bitching that bear canisters occasion, you'd expect some bitching on adding a half pound to your kitchen setup.

Naw, stoveless isn't for me, I'm an Epicurian. A great deal of the enjoyment I get in the backcountry is preparing and ingesting victuals. I'm willing to up my safety game if I can still get a hot meal.

> "The idiot who's property had an electrical problem and burned down a good section of the San Jacintos last year should pay for all the costs and re-habilitation, and reimburse those you cannot use the area now."

Misanthropic palaver.

While we're at it, let's sue the idiot who had a heart attack and caused a major accident on the 405 freeway, and force his orphaned children to reimburse all the people who were inconvenienced that day.

"Cripe dude..you are splitting hairs."

Not really. I am seriously interested in the evidence that clearing a spot still leads to fires. You purported to have such examples. I agree that most people do a crap job (if they even bother).

But back to the point…Of course I don't know. I actually clicked your link looking for an example, but there is nothing of note there. I actually go stoveless these days, but that doesn't make me less interested in the facts. I just was curious of incidents of fire even when properly clearing an area.

":) "Jumping to conclusions" is your secret super power. Ain't it?"

you are cross referencing posts here….

" I am seriously interested in the evidence that clearing a spot still leads to fires."

Where in this thread is that suggested?

Greg,

Stephen posted, "Seriously, back to Nick's point, if folks followed the CA campfire permit requirement of clearing combustible out to 5' from the stove, I doubt even an alcohol stove knocked over could start much of a fire."

It is obvious that Stephen is questioning the risk of fire from an alcohol stove if the site preparation is adequate.

Mags quoted a part of the above and linked a story of a fire and referenced other examples as if he was showing that the quote was not accurate. When one refutes something they quote, it is usually a refute of the entire point. Obviously this wasn't the case as is now obvious. I simply asked for elaboration since I wanted further info if it was available.

Does that help your understanding? I'd say it is clearing suggested by Mags reply.

"you are cross referencing posts here…."

No kidding.

Next thing you are going tell me I'm bald and short too. ;-)

"Mags quoted a part of the above and linked a story of a fire and referenced other examples as if he was showing that the quote was not accurate."
"

No I wasn't. I was trying to show how dangerous stoves can be in certain conditions.

"I am seriously interested in the evidence that clearing a spot still leads to fires."

Discussing whether or not clearing a 5' radius Prevents fires is a far cry from suggesting that clearing a 5' radius Leads to fire, which no one did.

The question is, if they regulate no alcohol stoves, will there be significantly fewer wildfires?

You have to take into account what careless users would do.

Identifying that clearing a 5 foot circle, or whatever, would prevent a fire isn't that important as far as deciding whether to have a regulation goes.

However, it would be good for educating stove users. Using it on a slab of granite would be good.

Mags,

Chill out. You replied to a quote about alcohol stoves and a radius. Your links had nothing to do with that topic other than alcohol. I simply wanted to know if you had anything relevant as related to the claims/danger about safety with a radius.

We all already know alcohol stoves can be dangerous. You had already brought the previous fires up from them. Sorry, but I thought you had something new to add and wanted to know.

"No I wasn't. I was trying to show how dangerous stoves can be in certain conditions."

This may have been the case, but when you reply to a post about the safety and a radius- with a link – I think you can see where the confusion comes in.