Flame "Orange" Wars

[Peter8]

The established ring in the picture was full of trash when we arrived and almost overflowing with ash and charcoal. In our case it was the site’s view, not the fire ring, that attracted us to the camp site. Everyone cooked on a fossil fuel stove, of one type or another, but the camp fire was still lit for ambiance. It was a bigger fire than needed, because the fire ring was big. Sad to say we left the campfire much the way we found it, plus a bit more ash and charcoal. The excuse was that there was no way we could have made any real impact on the fire rings contents and we did not think we were responsible for cleaning it all up.

Based on that experience I believe, outside of a fire ban, backpackers will make a camp fire. Therefore I think I am in the camp (sorry) of small distributed camp fires. If I make the fire then I am responsible for making sure it is safe and can be easily cleaned up afterward to align with LNT principles.

I now take a twig stove with me for cooking, that I can convert into a fire ring big enough for a small group. I do not need to find and use stones for a fire ring, which make restoring the site easier.

 

[Aaron]

Yeah… if everyone on earth spread out over all the land on earth, there would be one person every (480 feet) squared. We only have wilderness at all because people concentrate in cities.

If all 55,000 annual Yosemite backpackers stayed in the same spot, it would be a pretty average sized hotel. That wouldn’t cause much impact over the whole thousand + square miles.

Although it would suck to have those 55,000 visitors in one backcountry camp. So I guess there’s probably some balance.

[Aaron]

“Sad to say we left the campfire much the way we found it, plus a bit more ash and charcoal. The excuse was that there was no way we could have made any real impact on the fire rings contents and we did not think we were responsible for cleaning it all up.”

At least ash and charcoal are easily biodegradable. I came across a camp area with a dozen empty cans. And yeah, I wasn’t responsible for them but still wished I had room to pack them out. Unfortunately I was a couple miles in with a full pack. Looking back I probably could have made room if I wanted to use my trash bag.

I don’t understand how that happens. I live in SF and often wonder how the streets get so full of trash. Like if there were 900,000 of “me” here, there would be, oh, zero trash on the street because I don’t put trash in the street. Perhaps a raccoon would get some. And maybe the drugged up homeless version of me might leave trash out. But in the wilderness? Ok, sure that raccoon might still get some, but that’s about the only excuse I can think of for finding trash out there.

[Aaron]

I think for me the fire ring and the trash are opposites:

– The fire ring signifies a thoughtful hard working individual making improvements.

– The trash signifies a thoughtless, lazy slob doing their part to degrade the place.

Then again, I’m a structural engineer and probably always going to be a bit turned on by built improvements.

[Roger Caffin]

Based on that experience I believe, outside of a fire ban, backpackers will make a camp fire.
Here in Oz we don’t. The risk of a bushfire is too great. We use stoves, and fire rings are fading.

Cheers

[Paul Wagner]

We’ve backpacked about 1500 miles in California, and built exactly two fires in the last twenty years.  And with the current conditions, I don’t imagine we’ll build another one.  They are now prohibited above 9400-10,400 feet in various parts of the Sierra.  And prohibited completely during extreme fire seasons.  So I ma not sure that campfires are as necessary as many people think….

[Bruce Tolley]

Why does the wilderness need improvements?

[Pedestrian]

Why does the wilderness need improvements?

This is like asking: “why must the troll be fed?”

 

[jscott]

I used to build a small fire in my annual trip into the Yosemite backcountry in early spring when there was snow around and night fell early. For the rest of the year? I don’t like smoke from a fire at all. And a fire impedes star gazing.

when hiking alone, there’s something hypnotic and restful about a fire: it occupies the mind and tending it gives you something to do. It’s meditative. But in a group? Well, there’s some of that. I’ve found that a simple candle gives enough light to allow conversation in groups without anyone having to get up and constantly change position because of smoke.

I built small fires when the temps were in the forties and sinking after sunset and I wasn’t ready for bed. This was in areas where fire suppression policies had been in effect for previous decades. I always wondered if my small fire wasn’t consuming the sort of dead wood that burns during natural fire cycles.

[Kattt]

They wonder why wilderness needs “improving” but balk at Nick’s idea of no longer  maintaining trails and letting nature do its thing.

[W I S N E R !]

Adan and Salvador and I were busy un-laboring by the fire this Labor Day weekend.

I love a good campfire, alone or with good company.  This one happened to be in a USFS established ring in an established trail camp.

I’ll take an existing rock ring in an existing camp.  In my parts, most actually have considerable history, some going back ~100 years in obscure trail camps.  I would never build a ring where none existed and leave it though.  I certainly don’t think we need to be adding to the supply; seems to me there are enough “improved” trail camps for those looking for that sort of thing.

…

If we stopped maintaining the trails, wouldn’t we sort of maintain the trails by simply continuing to walk them?  I’m always reminded of how people have been traveling the same canyons, saddles, and valleys for millennia, especially here in the Southwest.  And animal trails often morph into human trails, and vice versa.  There’s a certain flow that the landscape dictates; even without trail builders, enough travel creates a trail.  Nick and I have walked some trails in the desert together that have likely been traveled by both animals and people well before European contact.  I like that thought; generations of creatures taking the path of least resistance.  I can cite deer trails in my mountains that are so clear and well cut that you’d think they were made by humans.

 

[Jeff McWilliams]

If we stopped maintaining the trails, wouldn’t we sort of maintain the trails by simply continuing to walk them?

Not necessarily.  In some places, like Lyell Canyon in Yosemite, people will avoid a muddy trail, like in Spring, by walking up on the grass.  This leads to braided trail.  Last month I saw as many as four parallel trails in Lyell due to this.  The parks and USFS will put rocks and other debris in the other trails to discourage their use and allow plants to re-grow in the old tracks.

In wetter areas like the midwest and northeast, you don’t get braided trails but widened trails.  An 18″ tread can turn into a six foot wide mud hole until someone comes along and addresses the drainage issues on that part of the trail and then provided elevated stepping stones, logs, or boards to get people out of the mud.

My friend was on Isle Royale this past August hiking the Minong Ridge trail.  He and I were there together in 2009.  He said the trail has changed due to beaver dam activity, and some low lying sections are now quite wet, forcing part staff to put in more elevated boardwalks.

Finally, SOMEONE has to go through and clear fallen trees on trails.  On the Hoh River Trail in Olympic National Park, I’ve seen trees as large as 6 feet in diameter that fell over the trail and then had to be cut so the trail could continue to pass through.  Without the tree cutting, trails would turn into a winding maze as they circled around one large fallen tree, and then another one, and so on.

Not everyplace is unchanging like your desert southwest.

 

[Monte Masterson]

“not every place is unchanging like your desert Southwest”

That’s for sure,  and even in the Sonoran desert you’re going to have to keep the “cat’s claw” at bay. In most climates trail upkeep is a constant endeavor. You have to address washouts, downed trees/limbs, overgrown bushes, etc. A trail that’s not maintained becomes miserable in a hurry.

I don’t mind seeing a few fire rings. To me they’re places where people who are more campers than hikers gather. I’d rather the trash they may leave behind be left in  small rings where it can easily be gathered up and hauled out, rather than spread out across the wilderness. I never camp in those spots. Often there are shallow cat-holes and TP nearby, not to mention the fact that those are places where bears love to  frequent.

 

 

[Jerry Adams]

Some trails need maintenance.  Like, the Paradise Park trail below Paradise Park.  Choked with trees – impossible to climb over and under them.  You can walk around them but then you’re tramping on a lot of marshy area.

I have noticed a lot of animal poop on trails.  I think animals make good use of trails.  Easier for them to go from one feeding area to another.  It makes up a little for all their habitat we’ve taken.

Trails is drier areas with more sparse growth need very little maintenance.  If a tree falls on a trail, just walk around it.

I often carry a small folding saw and cut off branches across trail.  90% of trail maintenance can be done by hikers.

[Dena Kelley]

@Pedestrian, who wrote, “This is like asking: “why must the troll be fed?”

Just because someone’s viewpoint doesn’t match your own doesn’t make them a troll.

[Bruce Tolley]

@ Katt

“They wonder why wilderness needs “improving” but balk at Nick’s idea of no longer  maintaining trails and letting nature do its thing.”

It was me who asked the question why improve the wilderness by building campfire rings.  I said nothing about stopping trail maintenance.

Again, the wildernesses in the USA were created by US law in response to lobbying by environmentalists.  The wilderness areas in the USA are currently protected by US law and regulations but currently under threat by the regime currently in the White House.

Others might disagree, but I think we have an obligation to protect and conserve so that there is wilderness for others to visit not to mention the ecological benefit of the wilderness itself.  I also think we have an obligation to protect and conserve so that our children and grandchildren can visit the wilderness.

So why build trails in the wilderness?  Well the principles of Leave No Trace include travel and camp on durable surfaces. As stated above in this thread, sometimes the overall human impact is reduced when it is limited to specific places such as a properly built and maintained trail.

Also trails allow access. The wilderness areas in the USA belong to all the people. If we stop maintaining trails, then we limit access to a VERY small group.

[Tom K]

Ah, CHAFF has metastasized.  A comforting thought somehow, because it indicates that CHAFF will live on, even if RJ decides to discontinue the sub forum.  ;0)))

[Cameron M]

“But I also think that pitching a bright orange tent smack dab in the middle of a large granite slab that overlooks a lake is just a wee bit self-centered”

+1.

 

[Aaron]

“Why does the wilderness need improvements?”

Did someone say it does? I think you added the word “need”. I may consider something an improvement that you may not. These are personal opinions and we can and probably will behave in different ways.

[Kattt]

@Bruce you are right;  you did not say anything about stopping trail maintenance. I did. Making trails in the wilderness so more people  can easily access them is only good for people, not for the wilderness. Want to leave less of a trace? Quit making everything so easily accessible even for the laziest among us. Oh no an orange tent!! Here let’s bring a troupe to make trails so that thousand of people can come trough.

[Kattt]

If you go where there are lots of people and then want to make believe that you are all alone that is your prerogative but taking issue with others for not hiding well enough from your sight is pretty removed from how nature really operates; animals want to know when other animals are around, it’s what makes sense.

[Roger Caffin]

Kattt gets my vote. In both postings.

Cheers

[W I S N E R !]

I’m going to get out for a quick solo this weekend. Despite the serious possibility of encountering bright colors, trash, a fire ring, trails, or people that may want to say odd things (or nothing at all), I’m already certain I’ll have a great trip.

Funny how that works.

[jscott]

The wilderness isn’t the wilderness. In the book “Eager:the surprising hidden life of beavers”,the author notes how beavers used to exist by the gazzillions all through the U.S. and had engineered a far different wilderness landscape than what exists today. And of course logging and mining and cattle have effected that landscape too–we’re all familiar with Muir’s “four legged locusts” quip about sheep. And then the California grizzly is extinct; hunting and trapping have altered wildlife everywhere. On and on. So the notion that we will restore wilderness by eliminating trails and keeping hikers out just won’t work out. It’s the fact that people visit wild places and fall in love with them that leads to laws protecting them from utter devastation by corporate interests.

And in fact the very narrow corridor that the vast majority of hikers walk and camp in is a tiny fraction of the land that parks and wilderness areas encompass. I don’t think people spoil the wilds just by walking through them and gazing at them. Looking does no harm; a place isn’t spoiled because others have seen it before you, or even share the view with you in person.

I think some (not Katt) have a notion of wilderness that includes “having it for yourself”; it’s a secret place unvisited by others than you and those you invite. The presence of others spoil it. That’s a fantasy, not real wilderness.

[Jerry Adams]

This is a funny thread, hopefully no one feels disrespected : )

Well said Jeffrey.

One thing is trails are a benefit to animals.  I’ve seen animals walking on them and seen their signs.  I’ve read about this.  It enables them to go to different areas where they can find food and shelter.  I’ve encounter deer going the other direction and they get off the trail for me to pass, then continue.

Not that this is a reason for making trails.  More like a small mitigation to all the damage we’ve done.

And maybe things are different now, but that doesn’t mean living things can’t exist sustainably.  We should be studying them.  Determine if they’re on a sustainable path and change human developments to  make them more sustainable where possible.  For example, build over or under passes on highways so animals can safely cross to link different wildlife areas.  There’s a Canadian highway near Banff where they’ve done that.

 

[Author]

Posts