Arguments for and against open fires in the northern European Arctic forests...

[Imagedude]

I've used open fires in the winter Arctic environment on a number of occasions and for the most part I find them to be a complete waste of time and effort. Bare in mind that my background is more biased towards mountaineering than bushcrafting and I tend to rely on expensive kit to provide my warmth.
The only real day-to-day benefit of an open fire is for melting snow however this requires that we carry a saw and an axe and I believe that for shortish trips you'd be better off ditching these and carrying extra fuel for your stove instead. For longer trips with no chance to refuel I can see the benefit of carrying an axe and saw.
I know people like to sit around a fire but I find they give out little useful heat, you get a warm face while your kidneys freeze. It's much easier to regulate your heat loss using appropriate clothing rather than relying on radiated heat from a fire. Collecting and processing firewood is also a high energy activity and you will work up a sweat, you will then need the fire to dry your sweaty undergarments once you've finished your chores. Much better not to get sweaty in the first place. Don't collect wood, don't get sweaty, don't need a fire - job's a good'un. In Finland the firewood is provided for you. I suspect this is done in order to stop campers from hacking up trees haphazardly. As the wood is provided I found it easy to make a large fire. however the fire only raised the temperature from minus 24 to minus 22, hardly a worthwhile improvement.
For group use I believe a hot tent heated by a small stove may be much more efficient than an open fire, I hope to put this to the test next year. Hopefully the hot tent and stove will give a much more even heat than that given by an open fire.
I'm not totally against open fires, they are great television and essential in some emergency situations but for short jaunts into the wilderness I'm not convinced that they are essential.

 

[Toddy]

.........and yet in Winter here in central Scotland we have 16 hours of darkness......that's a long time benighted. I can't sleep sixteen hours, firelight at least gives illumination to enjoy the company or get some work done.
Further north you go, the shorter the days.

cheers,
M

 

[carabao]

Spent two seasons in Norway as a Rifleman on AMF deployment, lit 1 fire the whole time and that was a survival excercise. Even on down time never built fires.

 

[Uilleachan]

With a little effort, in a wood and provided it's dry or has been dry recently, once can normally gather enough fallen wood without much effort for a fire without tools. A cooking fire can be made with a minimum of dry wood, from dead dwarf juniper or heather twigs if out in the open etc.

The advantage of the casual fire, in my experience, is that it can supplement fuel therefore make the fuel go that little bit further. There's a morale lifting benefit from a fire plus a few practical benefits too.

In maritime arctic environments it's possible that things are so wet or have been so, soaked then frozen, that a fire is impossible or very difficult and therefore too time consuming to be viable. So, often better to carry extra fuel and a spare sweater rather than wood processing gear. The stove in a tent trick can cause issues with condensation, a candle can raise the temp inside a tent by an appreciable degree without issue provided it's managed and only burnt for short periods.

 

[Wayland]

When on my own I rarely need to light fires. I usually use my hobo stove or a larger meth stove in the Arctic. Even when I was on my own in Norway last year, I only lit a fire when I started worrying about the damp as it began to warm up.

Where a fire is very useful is with a larger group. More than one person can use a fire at the same time. It's not just a social focus but can be used for drying gear, larger scale cooking and water provision.

All this depends on available resources of course, you are unlikely to find much wood above the tree line for example but in the Boreal forest there is usually plenty of dry wood to be found even in winter.

A fire can also be used for limited garbage disposal too but preferably not when somebody is cooking of course.

As for the axe and saw, a judgement needs to be made regarding other uses. If you intend to build natural or semi natural shelters, they may earn their keep in other ways but for a short trip, working on your own, a full sized axe is indeed a heavy item in relation to the fuel it provides.

 

[rik_uk3]

The original post sums up my feelings too but I'd say that extends not just to the Arctic but to the UK where far too many fires are lit, just no need for so many IMHO.

 

[mountainm]

If I want a fire. And I have the fuel and permission to have it. What business is it of anyone else?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Eragon21]

The initial thought for me on this is "yes of course you need a fire"

On reflection though I must agree with the OP and Wayland there is no need to have a large open fire in the normal course of the day but it has its uses, it is just a case that you would have one if these benefits of use outweigh the time and effort needed to maintain the fire.

This is just a decision you would make individually on the best use of your time. I guess if you were at a large camp that didn't move then an open fire is just a comfort, can be used for communal cooking etc and the labours can be shared by all.

 

[bushwacker bob]

I don't own any stoves and if I go out of a couple of days 'bushcrafting' I camp where I have permission to and therefor a fire is required to cook on and sterilise water. If I carried a tent and stove I would consider it 'camping' and not bushcrafting. The hobby,IMO, is based around being comfortable with minimal equipment.
Next you will be advocating taking yards of paracord instead of making string on site

 

[petrochemicals]

yup.

For:

They're nice.
They a heatsource that doesn't require carrying
They're not lots of messing about with pine cones
They're very powerful
You can really cook for hours a day ie spuds
Nice taisting barbecued meat (m m mmm)


Against:

The smoke always blows towards you
They are a bit smelly
They are hard work even if there is more than one of you to gather wood, lots of hands make light work and vice versa
They are inefficient
The ground takes 12 hours to become conditioned
They are time consuming 3 hours from start to finish, no good for travelling
You have to clear them up


a hobo wins hands down for a traveller

 

[rik_uk3]

I don't own any stoves and if I go out of a couple of days 'bushcrafting' I camp where I have permission to and therefor a fire is required to cook on and sterilise water. If I carried a tent and stove I would consider it 'camping' and not bushcrafting. The hobby,IMO, is based around being comfortable with minimal equipment.
Next you will be advocating taking yards of paracord instead of making string on site

You sleep outdoor for the night you've gone camping.

 

[Uilleachan]

The original post sums up my feelings too but I'd say that extends not just to the Arctic but to the UK where far too many fires are lit, just no need for so many IMHO.

Surely that would depend where you are in the UK, where I wander there aren't any people therefore very very few fires lit, outside of bothies.

When out climbing in winter it would depend where I was headed as to whether I'd bother with cutting tools. You've a rope a rack of gear stove doss bag bivi bag and mat, helmet ice axe hammer and crampons, so there isn't much scope for anything else other than the absolute essentials. such as food map and compass and head torch. Often the climbing areas are accessed and egressed the same day, occasionally there's the snow hole or bothy planned for accommodation if you're off for a wee multi day trip.

I have been caught out with lack of snow and full bothies, and have resorted to walking off to bivi in lower woods on a few occasions. The smallest bushman would have come in handy is such situation. The smallest version of which will fasten to the outside of a sack easily plus the weight is negligible.

Often when I'm up the hills fishing for a few days I take a small bushman. One or two favorite spots are very lean in trees or the more reliable bog wood close to the bothies, or lochs, apart from those stumps and partial stumps/root systems still partially stuck in the bog. In those situations a bushman is a bit of a secret weapon as it gives access to wood that other's have found impossible to lift and therefore the only tangible fuel source close by, so a simple saw can save on much walking and the required carrying.

 

[xylaria]

For a short 24hr or 48hr trip the simplest is hard rations. That is food you eat without heating and carry clean water. You do have to really sure how much water to carry depending on where and how you can refill.

But each to their own, some people like their stoves, some like fires, and some like as light as possible. Cold sweet pudding isnt everyones ideal breakfast.

 

[mountainm]

This is like saying you don't need an axe, or you don't need a knife - It's down to the individual, why is it an issue. You'll be complaining about people fastening gear on the outside of their packs next. None of anyone's business - do what you want to do within the parameters of what is allowed.

 

[Phaestos]

I have limited experience with this, so I don't put too much faith in my two pennys. But for me, fire forms an essential part of my experience when I'm out. True, this can be in a hobo stove, or on the ground, but I feel that something isn't right unless I can see flames. It provides me with water, food by cooking, warmth, and entertainment. More to the point, can't they can help with lighter weight packs by removing the need for fuel to be carried? If you plan your route and location, you can make sure there will be some fuel available. I do have a thing, though, against huge fires where they are not needed, where it's there as a bonfire rather than for a use. That said, I always make sure I have a moneky boy stove and a store of meths available for when I need some hot water quickly.

It's a matter of preference, and in the Arctic, which I hope to discover soon, I feel that with the right sort of shelter, and/or, sufficient numbers, a fire can be invaluable. I certainly feel I would like the experience much more with one there. But, like I said, not a huge deal of experience, so I could be wrong in my opinions

 

[petrochemicals]

You sleep outdoor for the night you've gone camping.

one foot in front of the other I agree. Inmipinyon If your transient and your not running out of your house naked with no equipment, your relying on the manufacturing world to sleep outdoors at some level. An iron axe is an iron axe from any manufacturer, but it took us along time to come up with(milleniums) yet its so simple, but Iron completly revolutionised the planet, from ploughs to construction. Really I think it depends on whether you are self sufficient or a danger for a short period, and how ingenius you are with what you have at hand! What activities you do is entirely up to you.

 

[Dangerous Dan]

A fire is by no means essential but I wouldn't describe them as a 'waste of time and effort'. On it's own, an open fire can be very inefficient but get a reflector at your back (be it a tarp, log, rock, whatever) and things get a whole lot better.

I suspect for many it's not strictly a need but more of morale thing; it's an activity to occupy the mind, it's a light source, it's a communal focal point. All of these things have a value.

When all's said and done I'd much rather try to dry accidentally dampened gear near an open fire than a tiny stove.

 

[Wayland]

The "not carrying fuel" argument breaks down if you have to carry a heavy axe and a chunky knife or saw to process it with though.

My hobo runs on twigs and pine cones so I can get away with a pocket knife for everything else.

Compare the weight and on a short trip carrying fuel usually wins.

As with all of this lark, you have to make decisions based upon your reason to be out there.

If I'm in a fixed camp with friends I like to be comfortable so I often roll up with half a ton of luxury equipment, however, If I'm off into the wilds on my own with a load of camera gear in my pack I will carry the bare minimum I can get away with.

 

[John Fenna]

A fire is by no means essential but I wouldn't describe them as a 'waste of time and effort'. On it's own, an open fire can be very inefficient but get a reflector at your back (be it a tarp, log, rock, whatever) and things get a whole lot better.

I suspect for many it's not strictly a need but more of morale thing; it's an activity to occupy the mind, it's a light source, it's a communal focal point. All of these things have a value.

When all's said and done I'd much rather try to dry accidentally dampened gear near an open fire than a tiny stove.

I will agree with that!
I have been comfortable at -10 with a fire and no stove and could have been fine at much lower temps ... but I did not have a long carry in so weight of an axe was not an issue
To me a fire is a lot more than just a cooking place.

 

[ex-member BareThrills]

If I want a fire. And I have the fuel and permission to have it. What business is it of anyone else?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 2

I dont think anyone is arguing with that viewpoint Mike its a discussion of the efficiency of fire compared with cold camping or hot tenting in the boreal forest but parallels exist in this country too. For me a hot tent is far more efficient. Most meets i go to in this country i find a big fire with lots of people crowded round getting no useful heat. When i was in Estonia the fire was great for cooking and water processing but beyond that i went back to my tent to stay warm or moved around until i was warm again.

I think fire is a wonderful thing to have, it makes us feel warm inside and gives a big morale boost but i dont think its a very efficient at heating you outdoors. The majority of third world countries that rely on fire for warmth and cooking use them indoors. That has to tell a story.