Beating up the environment

[Pict]

At least in theory a skilled bushcrafter should be able to go off into the wilderness with little more than a knife and provide for all his needs. Taking advantage of natures resources to provide shelter, fire, water, and food is a great skill to have. It also beats up nature like little else. There is no way around the fact that this is a high impact way to camp.

Even now it is difficult to imagine anywhere that you can go to build a natural shelter, light a fire, catch fish, hunt or trap animals, etc without breaking a law. We all say something like “The more you know the less you have to carry.” That also implies, “The more you will impact the environment to solve your problems.”

I have worked out a small pack-load of kit that allows me to stealth camp just about anywhere with little or no impact on the environment. An added benefit is that I’m virtually invisible doing it and it gives me a great deal of freedom. My pack only weighs between 10 and 20 lbs without food and water depending on where I’m going and in what season.

The two worst offenders are shelters and fires. When I stealth camp I use a bivy sack and poncho, or a hammock and tarp. My only fire is the stove sleeve on my US Army canteen cup in which I burn debris or Trioxene fuel bars.

I would love to talk about this aspect of what we do. What techniques do you use to practice bushcraft without beating up on the environment. Where do you draw the line concerning your personal impact on nature while practicing bushcraft? Mac

 

[TheViking]

Good post. It's my birthday soon and I'll buy a Bahco saw instead of chopping the boughs off. This minimizes the chance of the tree getting infection and in most occassions you need more space to chop than to saw. Not saying that people can't chop off, I do it myself, but everything has pros & cons.

Also, try to aim for burning dead, dry wood and don't burn 2 feet diameter logs, they take ages to burn with a small fire and if they are still hot the next morning, you'll have to wait until it has cooled down, before you can move on.

I guess it's all about leaving no trace and looking after the land.

 

[R-Bowskill]

This is a realy complicated one,

Alot depends on how far you follow the connections between what you do and the enviropnment. Cutting down a deciduous tree at the right time of year will encourage new growth and prolong it's life so is that damaging? A month later it could kill it!

Likewise while having an open fire with local wood might leave ash, (phosphate fertilizer) useing a stove involves the environmental damage of mining the metal to make it and extracting the fuel then transporting it to wherever it is sold.

I make these kind of connections alot (much to the annoyance of 'environmentalists' who like their sound systems) so tend towards the use of locally sourced materials. I'd rather risk the minor damage from burniong a bit of dead wood than be responsible for the damage that occurs in the oil & gas producing areas of the world.

This is my personal choice, sometimes I have to use a gas stove because of landowners restrictions on what I do. As for shelter I find that in woodland the Hammock & basha is better than trying to find the materials to build something for one or two nights.

I guess that puts me somewhere in the middle

 

[Rhapsody]

The two worst offenders are shelters and fires. When I stealth camp I use a bivy sack and poncho, or a hammock and tarp. My only fire is the stove sleeve on my US Army canteen cup in which I burn debris or Trioxene fuel bars.

I'd say that that the manufacture of a nylon bivi or poncho impacts the environment an awful lot more than building a natural shelter does.

 

[arctic hobo]

That's a good point Rhapsody.
If I were to go and live in a permanent shelter, I'd only need one (or two if I had summer/winter lands), which would have very little impact indeed. I agree that making a shelter and a fire every time I go out would add up to create some serious problems. It depends on how big your catchment area is - if you have an entire forest to yourself it will produce sustenance (whether squirrels or trees) far exceeding what you could ever use. In a tiny local wood, a few weeks and you'd start to notice the difference. Of course, thousands of years ago, when there were millions of trees and a similar quantity of wildlife - and a lot fewer people - it was no problem.

 

[Moine]

I politely disagree...

I've visited camp spots for many years, and made debris huts (and then destroyed them, and spread debris back to it's original place) without cutting any living tree (not even a branch). Once the wet side of the debris has dries, there is very little sign of my presence there, even for the trained eye.

Same for fires... I burn only standing dead trees. That has minimal impact. They also burn better, with less smoke and more heat. I do keep the fire small, and don't burn wood just because I'm afraid of the dark... The impact is minimal (those dead trees would fall down and make humus, but when I burn them they make carbon dioxide, heat and water...).

Other impacts include smell, sound, and in general human presence in the woods. I try to blend in as much as possible. I try and "leave no trace". No trash left there of course, but also no crap in or near the water, and no trashing around scaring the birds and animals. Just calm, respectful, watchful and silent interrogation...

As for fishing, snaring, hunting... well I don't. I do that in Quebec, where there is plenty of room and a healthy ecosystem. Here in France it's not possible without really having a negative impact on the species... Therefore I gather plants and make do with that. Of course, in a survival scenario, I'd have to eat meat some time, so I would set snares and so long. But my daily walkabouts in the bush are not calling for any poaching. I do practice hand fishing sometimes, for fun... I just catch and release.

Now I agree that carrying some minimal gear does reduce the impact you have... But keep in mind that the stuff you carry was made somewhere, using stuff that came from somewhere, and polluting, and so long... You just don't directly see the damage...

I think it's possible to practice bushcraft in the old ways and still have very little impact on the land.

Cheers,

David

 

[ChrisKavanaugh]

The first order of business is to drop the blame game and overwhelming personal guilt. As a species we have modified the planet since the beginning. Australia was once a rainforest. The Abo people used extensive fire strategies to hunt. It took a loooooong time, but Australia is very different today from what it once was. Debating with environmentalists, animal rights activists over fallacious positions is really self defeating. Anyone who cherishes the outdoors and it's creatures has more common ground than differences. We need to be patient, tolerant and respectfull of each other. Someday a hunter, birdwatcher, bushcrafter and PETA activist may very well stand arm in arm across an access road blocking a bulldozer.Everything we do has some impact. I could go luny trying to balance a onetime nylon tarp purchase against impacting local materials. Sometimes a nylon shelter is appropriate, sometimes not. Tactically we may be correct recycling used sweaters and forging knives from solar powered forges. Strategically we need good people with good ethics in NUMBERS to make wilderness resources once again a valued resource worthy of notice by politicians who listen to 1000 PETA, Bushcrafter and Audoban Society members instead of one industrial lobbyist with 1000 pounds. If I can get 999 people out there in nylon tarps it's worth it.

 

[Carcajou Garou]

We mark and modify our enviroment, as many other animals and natural phenomena do. It is in the "spirit of living" that we make these changes that really affects our "footprint" on this world. I am, we are, children of this planet and we will makes some sort of "footprint", no one complains that a bear claws a tree as a sign post or a moose ruts (spars) against a bush, a deer makes a scrap on the forest floor for all to see; as humans we have also leave marks but we have made larger impact on this planets surface than any other animal and we can modify our un-informed ways and retry to correct past damages. But we must also live on this our planet, we can't just stand on one foot all of our lives so as to not to make a mark, it would be foolish to do so but we are responsible to the Creator... mother nature....for it's proper use and stewardship... we are handed a gift from our father's fathers to our children's childrens to use as wisely as possible, we all make some mistakes, nature does heal slowly... we can pass down our shared knowledge and minimise our mis-use. When I make a natural shelter and choose to use a dead tree instead of a live one then I am on my way, but I will use a live one when the proper place and time dictates. My immediate surroundings and circumstance dictate the level of use. I carry what I need, I am not a minimalist but I make use what I need, re-use what I carry, carry my own load, share with others to lighten our burden...trash out what was forgotten and laugh when I see 10 miles away a pair of pink neon shorts on a branch :rolmao: . Ask Roving Archer he will probably say better and shorter :wave:
just a thought

 

[Tekeeler]

Taking advantage of natures resources to provide shelter, fire, water, and food is a great skill to have. It also beats up nature like little else. There is no way around the fact that this is a high impact way to camp.

The majority of people who are members of this site and who have even havea passing interest in the countryside will love their environment enough to care for it. You only have to look at a random sample of posts in pretty much any forum to see that there is a deep felt love of the outdoos, and the 'spirit' of what we do. No one will go around waging wanton destruction on the environments if they actually care for it.

I have been in and around woods since I could walk. Unfortunately living in Kent where everyone wants a piece of the countryside whilst living close to the amenities that make their lives comfortable means that my woods are crowded. Mountain bikers, ramblers, mushroom and flower pickers are common. Local burberry wearing idiots who choose to go around nicking all and any vehicles they can get their grubby little mits on and then procede to tear around the wood at twice the speed of sound then burn whatever they have stolen make trying to conserve our resource not only frustrating, but at times kinda dangerous. I share my woods with a gamekeeper who used to poison and shoot his way to a plump pheasant stock for his employer. Thankfully he is better now and we even have a pair of Goshawks nesting close by. But still we have these shooters who come along and blast away. Do you think they would turn down a shot at a woodcock if it presented itself, and then just leave it to rot. :?:

What I am trying to say is that although I appreceiate where you are coming from and agree to some extent, I feel that myself and a few chosen friends practising bushcraft and enjoying and respecting our environment is one of the least of our woods' troubles. The woods run in my blood. I want to protect it not hurt it.

CK

 

[Ranger Bob]

All good points! I think bushcrafters do have enough sense to treat their environment in such a way that permanent damage isn't done! After all isn't a love for the outdoors why we do it!?! Personally though, if i'm building a shelter, I only use already fallen materials (because such materials are in abundance in my local forest) and when making a fire, I always use a collapsible firebox, so the ground is not scorced! And when I leave a camp, I always leave it exactly as I found it!

The woods run in my blood. I want to protect it not hurt it.

CK

Well put!

 

[Kim]

I find an interesting opposition in the bushcraft outlook. On one side I see a desire to return to 'nature' in some form, to understand how to work with it and leave as little trace as possible when passing through it,

but, on the other hand there is a tendency to alienate ourselves from it at the same time...don't do that because you might disturb that tree, or this because you will disturb that animal...we are part of nature by defalt...how can we possibly 'leave no trace' and disturb nothing, because simply by existing we have an impact on where we are. You can go round and round in circles arguing about the hidden impact of the kit we use, how it's produced, down to what wood you use for the fire and how you cut it off a tree...

but I believe the point is to respect whatever environment you find yourself in, use it as wisely as you can, and leave as little trace as possible, but in doing so acknowledge that you will have left a mark behind, even if only in the memory of a forest.

 

[Ranger Bob]

but I believe the point is to respect whatever environment you find yourself in, use it as wisely as you can, and leave as little trace as possible, but in doing so acknowledge that you will have left a mark behind, even if only in the memory of a forest.

Perhaps what I meant to say in my original post!

 

[Moine]

The first order of business is to drop the blame game and overwhelming personal guilt. As a species we have modified the planet since the beginning. Australia was once a rainforest. The Abo people used extensive fire strategies to hunt. It took a loooooong time, but Australia is very different today from what it once was. Debating with environmentalists, animal rights activists over fallacious positions is really self defeating. Anyone who cherishes the outdoors and it's creatures has more common ground than differences. We need to be patient, tolerant and respectfull of each other. Someday a hunter, birdwatcher, bushcrafter and PETA activist may very well stand arm in arm across an access road blocking a bulldozer.Everything we do has some impact. I could go luny trying to balance a onetime nylon tarp purchase against impacting local materials. Sometimes a nylon shelter is appropriate, sometimes not. Tactically we may be correct recycling used sweaters and forging knives from solar powered forges. Strategically we need good people with good ethics in NUMBERS to make wilderness resources once again a valued resource worthy of notice by politicians who listen to 1000 PETA, Bushcrafter and Audoban Society members instead of one industrial lobbyist with 1000 pounds. If I can get 999 people out there in nylon tarps it's worth it.

Chris,

Agreed that we need to shed some bad feelings. They're useless anyways. Also agreed that we need to find and nourish common grounds with all other nature lovers. The thing is that where we hurt the planet is when we drive our millions of cars, and flood rivers with benzene, spread zillions of tons of pesticides and chemicals over our crops... and consistently produce 2kg or trash per person per day.

So, to put things simply, if you really want to make peace with the old ma nature, you better concentrate on top priorities : less car, less trash, and you buy organic food in minimalist packaging. Whether you make a debris hut or not when you go out and play in the bush has little significance, really.

Now to answer Chris's post with more detail, I try and love the wannabe hunters from the city that come trash in MY mountains around here in their costly camo gore-tex trade mark gear, scaring the hell out of little kids and all the animals with their dogs, guns, fat laughs and booze smell. I also try and love those stupid raiders who wear lycra and camelbacks and run all over the place while frightening the mountain goats I try to watch. I also try and love those stupid photographers who hate trees and want to cut them down because they get int he way of the scenic views. And I also try and love the shepherds who want the wolves terminated because they attack sheep (well... they concentrate an easy to catch, not biting back food source in an easily accessible zone, what do you expect ?). And I also try and love those morons (like myself) who like to wear 'subdued' clothing and carry minimal gear just to pretend to be Daniel Boone or Chief Seattle while courageously stalking little more than 200 yards away from the trails... then sit there because they're too lazy to run, too non-violent to hunt, too bored to look for good pictures, and too busy dreaming about biodiversity to turn grass into sheep into money.

What are all of these people's only common ground? They ALL hate each other.

I hate them, they hate me, and given there were no laws, the hunters would shoot the raiders down for scaring the deer away, then the photographer would take a picture of that and get shot because he was a witness. The shepherd would come across the scene and would follow his sheep and fall down a cliff because hunting dogs scared him off. Thank God as I wear subdues clothing I'd go unnoticed, and I'd stalk the hunter and timidly scalp him (but without killing them first, you know, just to practice in case the ****) with my brand new, never used in the field scandi blade. The winner, in the end, would be the bald hunter, probably. The main reason being he's the one with the gun and costly gore tex trade mark camo rainsuit (don't mess with thermoregulation).

Would I walk next to those guys in a manifestation ?

Yes. But that'd hurt.

Cheers,

David

Edited : in case you got misdirected by all the noise in my post, my point is : there's just too many people in the bush those days.

 

[Carcajou Garou]

Moine!! ): :rolmao: :rolmao: :roll: :wave: :?:

 

[bambodoggy]

Edited : in case you got misdirected by all the noise in my post, my point is : there's just too many people in the bush those days.

David, I'd go a step further....There's too many people on this planet these days!!!!

 

[Pict]

I live in the city of Belo Horizonte, Brazil. The population of the greater Belo area is about 4 million. Within an hour of the city in most directions you can find extensive wilderness areas. Some of this area is preserved as national park, much of it is not protected.

We have a lowland forest ecosystem that recovers very well from human contact. Rainy season tends to erase and overgrow anything that an active bushcrafter would care to do. If you return to a campsite a year later you will have a hard time locating it.

Down in the forest I don’t mind cutting things where necessary, digging for roots etc You could build yourself a natural shelter there even cutting live saplings and it wouldn’t significantly impact anything.

If you climb up out of that forest you enter into a dry scrub forest of small trees, bushes, and tall grasses. I’ve taken several groups of teens and college students into this scrub for three days at a time to teach wilderness survival skills. Every time I went back I could see a growing net effect on the area. This bothered me for while until a fire raged through (not caused by us) and the slate was wiped clean again. I realized that as long as you don’t cut live trees there you really aren’t having a lasting impact.

In the higher mountains here there is an extremely delicate ecosystem. I can still find my old trail a year after walking though. I know from the locals that I’m the only person who goes up there. Cutting or foraging at those elevations or tramping around to collect burnable debris for a fire would leave a lasting mark. You feel like you’re walking in Someone’s well tended garden and I have a feeling He is there and I don’t want to step on His plants. I have a real hard time touching a place that seems so untouched.

Not everyone feels that way here. Large portions of this mountain ecosystem are currently being strip mined for various types of ore. I like to hike up into these pristine areas leased to the mining companies and take photographs. I don’t have permission to do so. I asked for it and was told that if hiking were allowed up there it would damage the ecosystem. Pretty twisted.

There are plenty of techniques that allow you to practice bushcraft and learn how to use nature’s resources without consuming them in the process. What I really want are methods to teach bushcraft to small groups without degrading the locations I do it in. My goal is to get more people into the wilderness but in such a way that gain respect for what’s out there. Mac

 

[Great Pebble]

You could pack items in with you from areas where the ecosystem isn't as delicate I suppose. And use them to demostrate techniques.

 

[jakunen]

Some good points made here.

I think that while you can't have absolutely no impact, you can have minimal impact and burning dead wood to my mind does have a positive impact.
Aside from the aforementioned potash fertiliser you are helping to clean the woodlands and potentially destroy harmful stuff. If you burn a log that has dutch elm disease for example, you are protecting the wood from further infestation.

By foraging you have both a positive and negative impact:

Negative - you do damage the plants and remove food from other creatures.
Positive - you encourage new growth by cutting plants or scattering seed.
​

By not taking a ghetto blaster, you minimise noise pollution.
By wearing subdued/camo clothing and using subdued kit, you minimise 'colour pollution'.
By allowing your eyes to adjust to ambient light and only using a torch or cyalume when absolutley necessary, you minimise light pollution.
By burning safe packaging and taking the rest home you minimise actual pollution.

So while you do still leave some trace, you don't 'scar' the landscape, and reduce the impact you have.

As for the comment about 'buy organic produce in minimal packaging', well yes, but until the shops sell it at reasonable prices many people wont! If you really want to help, do what I do (if you have the ability), mulch your garden and kitchen waste and grow your won fruit and fruit. Even in pots.

 

[jamesraykenney]

<snip>
Now to answer Chris's post with more detail, I try and love the wannabe hunters from the city that come trash in MY mountains around here in their costly camo gore-tex trade mark gear, scaring the hell out of little kids and all the animals with their dogs, guns, fat laughs and booze smell. I also try and love those stupid raiders who wear lycra and camelbacks and run all over the place while frightening the mountain goats I try to watch. I also try and love those stupid photographers who hate trees and want to cut them down because they get int he way of the scenic views. And I also try and love the shepherds who want the wolves terminated because they attack sheep (well... they concentrate an easy to catch, not biting back food source in an easily accessible zone, what do you expect ?). And I also try and love those morons (like myself) who like to wear 'subdued' clothing and carry minimal gear just to pretend to be Daniel Boone or Chief Seattle while courageously stalking little more than 200 yards away from the trails... then sit there because they're too lazy to run, too non-violent to hunt, too bored to look for good pictures, and too busy dreaming about biodiversity to turn grass into sheep into money.

What are all of these people's only common ground? They ALL hate each other.

I hate them, they hate me, and given there were no laws, the hunters would shoot the raiders down for scaring the deer away, then the photographer would take a picture of that and get shot because he was a witness. The shepherd would come across the scene and would follow his sheep and fall down a cliff because hunting dogs scared him off. Thank God as I wear subdues clothing I'd go unnoticed, and I'd stalk the hunter and timidly scalp him (but without killing them first, you know, just to practice in case the ****) with my brand new, never used in the field scandi blade. The winner, in the end, would be the bald hunter, probably. The main reason being he's the one with the gun and costly gore tex trade mark camo rainsuit (don't mess with thermoregulation).

Would I walk next to those guys in a manifestation ?

Yes. But that'd hurt.

Cheers,

David

Edited : in case you got misdirected by all the noise in my post, my point is : there's just too many people in the bush those days.

):ROTFLMAO):

 

[Abbe Osram]

I politely disagree...

Same for fires... I burn only standing dead trees. That has minimal impact. They also burn better, with less smoke and more heat. I do keep the fire small, and don't burn wood just because I'm afraid of the dark... The impact is minimal (those dead trees would fall down and make humus, but when I burn them they make carbon dioxide, heat and water...).

Hi guys,
I don't want to stick my nose in the discussion but I would like to share some knowledge I gained in my resent finished hunting license test.

Standing dead tress are needed for several kinds of bird to build their nests, I didn't know that before.

cheers
Abbe