open fires, fireboxes, hobo stoves and environmental responsibility?

[myotis]

This is a long rambling post, sorry, but I would be interested to hear peoples views.

Over the years, I have nearly always built small open fires, greatly influenced by the "White man builds big fire and stay far away, indian build small fire and come close" idea. But equally, by building a fire no bigger than needed, it saved on firewood and the effort needed to collect it. None the less, this didn't exclude the buidling of the occasional min-bonfire as the centre for a social evening. However, I hated seeing the damage that even small fires could leave behind, and on seeing larger scale damage from other peoples fires.

Today, I would use a hobo/woodgas type stove, or a fire box 99% of the time, but still not totally exclude a carefully planned celebration bigger fire. From an environmental point of view, I feel happy with this. In general I suspect (but don't know) the overall environmental costs are lower than using stoves with industry produced fuels or gas, and by using a contained fire I am minimising direct damage from the fire and using a minimal amount of wood. I also like fires

Now, I run a MSc in Ecological Impact Assessment, and recently during a lunch break (and nothing to do with the course) I was demonstrating wood gas stoves to the students and tutors.

One of the tutors (an entemologist with an interest in saproxylic* insects) viewed the whole thing with horror and considered using fires to be akin to woodland vandalism. Even after some discussion and seeing how little wood the stoves used, she continued to be really unhappy with the whole concept of using wood that should be left for the insects. She uses a trangia (that I gave her about 14 years ago). She is also a very pragmatic and reasonable ecologist/environmentalist so I was rather surprised at her response. Which leads me to my questions.

1. Has anyone come across this sort of reaction before (ie fire using woodland vandals)
2. Have you considered the issues mentioned and habitually use Hobo/fireboxes as "best practice", but with the occasional open fires
3. Do you use open fires because its more "bushcrafty", but keep them small
4. Do you not really think about it and just build open fires of what ever size seems appropriate at the time.
5. Do you habitually use liquid based stoves
6. Do you think this can be dismissed as a non-issue and we can ignore it.
5. Do you think that dismissing this as a non-issue and ignoring it, that we will end up with public pressure to ban bushcrafting because of its damaging effect on the environment.

The last option is obviously ludicrous, but as I am feeling paricularly irritated and grumpy about things at the moment, and it doesn't seem as ludicrous to me as it would have done several years ago.

Feel free to ignore this post, but I feel better for getting it off my chest.

Graham

*Below is an abstract from a paper that gives a bit of background on saproxylic insects

*Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics
Vol. 33: 1-23 (Volume publication date November 2002)
(doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.33.010802.150507)
First published online as a Review in Advance on August 6, 2002
SAPROXYLIC INSECT ECOLOGY AND THE SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF FORESTS

Simon J. Grove
Division of Forest Research and Development, Forestry Tasmania, GPO Box 207, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia; email: simon.grove@forestrytas.com.au

Abstract
Saproxylic insects comprise a diverse, species-rich and dominant functional group that share a dependence on dead wood and the old trees that generate it (mature timber habitat). Recent research has highlighted their sensitivity to forest management, with managed or secondary forests generally supporting fewer individuals, fewer species, and different assemblages compared to old-growth or primary forests. This sensitivity is a product of their association with a habitat that tends to diminish in managed forests. Many species also have low powers of dispersal relative to human-induced fragmentation, making breaks in habitat continuity particularly harmful. In western Europe, many species are now regionally extinct. Information is largely lacking elsewhere, but similar ecological and management principles should apply. Measures taken to protect the habitat of hollow-dependent vertebrates may ensure the survival of some saproxylic insects, but unless their needs are expressly considered, there remains the risk that many others may be lost as forest areas shrink and management of remaining areas intensifies.

 

[HillBill]

This could turn into an interesting debate.

I use open fires whenever i can because thats what i like. I build a small circle of rocks and have it in there, and clear up after

Here is some text extracted from an article i read recently by the forest nutrition group.

Fire is now known to play several key roles in forest
ecosystems. Fire stimulates the release of seed from
the cones of some tree species and produces good
conditions for germinating seeds. Ash from fire fertilizes
the soil and reduces soil acidity. Warmer soil temperatures
and increased soil moisture following fire provide a good
rooting environment, and stimulate microbial activity and
decomposition that increase nutrient availability. Plants
and animals that live in forests where fire is a regular
occurrence are adapted to the conditions produced by fire.
When fire is eliminated from the forest, habitat quality for
these species may decline

Cold soil temperatures in the forest usually result in slow decomposition
and a build up of organic matter in the forest floor. Fire
can help decomposition by increasing soil temperatures
in several ways. First it can remove forest floor cover,
exposing lower layers of mineral soil to solar heat. Second,
it can result in a layer of black ash or charred ground
which is more able to absorb and retain solar heat. Each
of these stimulates biological decomposition and makes
essential nutrients such as nitrogen (N), sulfur (S), and
phosphorus (P) available for plant usage.Fire has also
been found to increase the availability of base-forming
cations such as calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), and potassium (K) through the conversion of plant material to ash. These nutrient additions can create a pulse of nutrients. An increase in cations raises the pH of the forest floor which can be considered a good thing because it increases the buffering capacity of soils. Buffering
capacity, in turn, prevents drastic changes in acidity, which can be detrimental to plant growth..

 

[Shambling Shaman]

I dont do the rocks around thing any more, If having an open fire I do keep it small and where possible dig a sod out so it can be replaced. Lets not forget we have been building ans using fires for thousands of years and insects are still hear. I occasionally use meths but have moved away from gas/pressurized burning mediums.

Thanks for this I think this is going to be interesting.

 

[Broch]

It's all a matter of scale. We are very small in numbers and the building of small fires is not going to affect the saproxylic insects which mainly rely on decaying wood; we on the other hand leave the decaying wood and choose dry wood (OK I accept that the dry wood would turn into decayed wood eventually but we leave plenty of decaying wood on the floor).

This whole topic is a major reason for choosing native species when planting woods - I can't remember the exact numbers but an oak supports something like 200 other living species, a sycamore only 2. I would think that is far more important than whether a few of us use meths or some twigs to boil a kettle of water. It's also a reason for proper wood management including coppicing to provide the variety of habitat. Small fires, especially stoves, will only use a very small fraction of the wood normally wasted during woodland management.

Being someone that is managing a small wood for the widest possible wildlife variety I am of the oppinion that your colleague's attitude is an example of extremism that does not help any cause - even her own.

 

[Ogri the trog]

the reaction certainly suprises me,
"She is also a very pragmatic and reasonable ecologist/environmentalist"
... the comment flies in the face of sensibility. Where does she think that meths comes from for her Trangia? It strikes me that there is a little "Not in my back yard" attitude there - she can buy her pretty purple goo from the pretty bright shop and make her tea in the woods without destroying a tiny handfull of insect housing - with no thought at all to the supporting petro-chemical industry that supplies the blinkered and brainwashed populace.

Even if she runs the stove on eco-gel fuels, an industry still has to process it!

..."reasonable ecologist/environmentalist" - my A***!

Ogri the trog

Seems like quite a rant there - I might be back to erase it later on.

 

[Husky]

I totaly agree with Broch here.
In my job (forest concervaton) I regularly work with different kinds of biologists and I have come across this type of reasoning with "to the core" entomologists.
It is however all about scale.
A "natural" forest (western taiga) may have up to 40% of its total volume as course dead wood. Modern forestry has greatly affected this and it is a conservation problem but Im not sure that the amount of fine dead wood (twigs and small branches) are effected on the same scale.

How many bushcraft fires does it take to reduce the amount of fine dead wood in an area 1%?
How many percent must it be reduced for it to become a variable?
They should be more concerned with the arborist practice of removing dead branches and the comercial gathering of firewood.

The same goes for Hillbills positive effects of fire.
These are the effects of forestfire. How many bushcraft fires does it take to make it become a Variable?

 

[w00dsmoke]

I think the pragmatic view is to be able to assess our own needs then impact they could have and if that means we are playing/practicing in a sensitive context, then I would try and minimise my impact on that context by either using a stove or by utilising a pre-existing firesite and bringing my own fuel in.

But the crucial thing is personal judgement here. I'm not a great fan of cutting lots of dead stuff down anayway and I generally know if I'm in a "sensitive" site, a lot of folk won't.

In a less sensitive context I would still bring my own fuel however I would not worry too much about sawing some rodi's or dead gorse or sycamore and the like up for firewood if I was desperate (if I had permission).

Generally speaking I rarely have a real fire these days, usually dependent on my petrol stove however the KK uses a fair bit of dead stuff up, but again this consumption is minimal compared to a real fire so I wouldn't worry about it.

WS

 

[HillBill]

The same goes for Hillbills positive effects of fire.
These are the effects of forestfire. How many bushcraft fires does it take to make it become a Variable?

I agree that the scales we are discussing are tiny compared to the overall scheme of things. My opinion is that, yes we do take some food/habitat away by collecting firewood bit the effect is incomparably small. But by having a fire you are not taking from the overall system but, changing a tiny part of it. The loss of the wood to immediate local area
( within inches) would affect the insect population there. The wood then is burnt and the benefits of that fire are a positive impact on the very small local area it was built.

So while on a tiny scale collecting wood CAN be detrimental, having a fire IS beneficial. They balance each other on what ever scale you look at it.

It's all very bushcraft mentality really. Always have a positive effect on the natural environment around you. Take, but give in return.

 

[myotis]

I can't reply to every point made, especially as I would be duplicating points better made by others, but I do feel the need to defend my colleague.

This was her gut reaction over a quick lunch break and I have only tried to give a flavour of her negative reaction (for example she didn't use the term woodland vandal, this was just the impression she gave) which was in contrast to the postive reaction I had expected. Given that the wood gas stoves can make dramatic savings on the amount of wood needed.

She is not extreme and she does not have a cause, and I plead this does not become a debate about her reaction.

The only reason I mentioned it at all was to highlight that if this is the reaction of a professional ecologist, what can we expect the reaction to be from the public should saproxylic insects suddenly take off as the latest conservation fad amongst the more vocal and extreme conservationist.

Unfortunately conservation decision are often made on the basis of those who have the loudest voices, have little to do with ecology and are often detrimental to the species they are trying to conserve.

Hence me wondering if this sort of negative reaction to fires was common and to what extent people had thought about in terms of their own fire making practice.

Graham

 

[British Red]

To an extent she is right. Any amount of fires is not going to help nature - the same as photographing nature scares wildlife, takin mushroom samples or cutting mushrooms to smell, see the effect of air etc. hurts the fruiting body of fungi.

To pretend that we do anything but harm to the ecosystem - to a greater or lesser extent - by being in the woods - is foolhardy.

I ahve always said if you want to be a hard core nature lover, the best thing you can do for nature is to stay out of it and leave it alone. Beyond that, its a personal choice as to how much damage we do - not whether we do it.

Red

 

[Wayland]

I do consider the impact made when deciding to have a fire, use my hobo or even spirit or hexy.

Part of the reason I made my stove multi purpose was to allow me to make a judgement call when out and about.

If I'm in an area with lots of dead wood I won't worry too much about it but I certainly will not burn every stick in the area. If I can find them my favourite hobo fuel is pine cones that have opened and already shed their seeds. I consider these fair game.

If the dead wood is scarce, I use the fuel I'm carrying.

If I'm on a camp site, I've probably brought wood with me because there won't be a stick to be found anywhere.

I've also started using recycled fire logs in many places when I'm camping from a vehicle.

As mentioned above though, fire is a natural part of the cycle and ash is a useful nutrient in some ecosystems.

 

[myotis]

OK, playing devils advocate here, as hopefully my real views are obvious from my first post, but picking up on some of the posts

1. We don't need to light fires, its something we choose to do ("boys with toys")
2. given that many insects are very small and have very specific habitat requirement, small losses of wood from specific tree species at specific stages of life and decay could have an effect on the survival of specific saproxlic species. Especially, if they were already under threat from general habitat loss/change due to woodland management practices.
3. The environmental issues from using industrially produced fuels may pose less immediate threats to wildlife, than the loss of small amounts of wood pose to saproxylic insects where it seems many species are under threat of immenent extinction. I am ignoring the wider environmental issues and only considering direct effects here.
4. The argument that we are using tiny amounts of wood also applies to us using tiny amounts of liquid fuels.
5. There may also be impacts from the burnt area of ground surrounding open fires which are not an issue with liquid fuel stoves or raised wood buring stoves.
6. The wood we burn is removing a resource from a different group of organisms to the group of organisms likely to benifit from the more rapid availability of nutrients into the system from the burnt wood. I am ignoring the wider woodland ecosystem issues.
7. I get the impression that bushcrafting is becoming more popular, and that as well as an increase in responsible fire use we will also see an increase in irresponsible fire use, so while the numbers may well stay very small, the public profile will increase, and the public perception of "burning material important to the conservation of endangered species" may well become an issue we need to deal with. The problem being that logic and truth be no role in the formation of public opinion.

Graham

 

[myotis]

To an extent she is right. Any amount of fires is not going to help nature - the same as photographing nature scares wildlife, takin mushroom samples or cutting mushrooms to smell, see the effect of air etc. hurts the fruiting body of fungi.

To pretend that we do anything but harm to the ecosystem - to a greater or lesser extent - by being in the woods - is foolhardy.

I ahve always said if you want to be a hard core nature lover, the best thing you can do for nature is to stay out of it and leave it alone. Beyond that, its a personal choice as to how much damage we do - not whether we do it.

Red

I agree, Its about common sense and balance, every living thing survives by destroying other living things.

The extent of that destruction is then dictated by our personal values, and to a lesser extent our needs. Even Vegans, I assume, have accepted the compromise that simply by walking across the grass or driving a car to work is going to result in the deaths of hundreds of insects and that vegetarians have accepted that milk production results in great distress to cows and the deaths of hundreds of calves.

Graham

 

[nomade]

You started a VERY interesting debate, Myotis!

Here is my first reaction, which doesn't mean I don't have a cascade of other reactions branching out because there are many angles to the question.

My first reaction is that your tutor is not unjustified in her reaction BUT...
...whatever other source of heat you or anyone would be using would imply some damage to a creature and to the environment: using other fuel than wood means they are manufactured, transported possibly by road, stored, sold then eventually carried possibly by road from the supplier to your home, etc etc etc. There is a carbon footprint in the process and some small creature somewhere is hurt or destroyed in the process and all aspects of the process.

It is really sad that in fact whatever we do and no matter how humble we try to be, we are going to be destructive.

Sometimes I think that sitting down in the grass crushes many creatures minding their own business in their own home environment. I often notice the damage done when sitting in the grass on some mat or blanket: everything underneath is crushed. I have a home. I don't need to be in the grass while the creatures there have no other option and it is their legitimate home. It is an intrusion and it is unnecessary in a way.

This is just to show how extreme we can be and justifyingly so in wanting to respect and care. Probably that just trying our best and acting in the best of our knowledge and acquiring that knowledge is good enough and...
...we have to balance what is necessary we do and what is sheer selfish unnecessary leisure time we may do without.

Which then raises the question of what is and isn't...necessary. There may be no answer to that, just some sort of balance and common sense.

Bushcrafting repeats ancient lifestyles dating from the times when nature was very very abundant and biodiversiy intact. And human beings stayed inside the boundaries of the ecological "niche" of their species.

Unfortunately nowadays when everything is on the brink where we brought it, we can quite rightly question every action we take anywhere on no matter how small a scale.

Fire is linked to the human soul. I think we should occasionally light an open one and be in its company. On the other hand I am always distressed to notice how quickly it devours wood and in what enormous quantities.

Myotis, your message reflects a wise, humble and intelligent, state of mind, you want to see things from all angles and you want to share your reflections and submit them to others:
I am not worried about you doing much harm with your hobos, occasional open fires, etc. especially if you put to good use what they give to you, notice it, are grateful for it, thank nature for these gifts and try to give as much back as you can.

 

[myotis]

Wayland,

Interesting comment on the recycled fire logs, in googling for them I found recylcled coffee grounds firelogs, which also sound interesting

Nomad

I think you highlight some of the complexities, which I think I have also touched on in later posts, on making decsions on these things.

I appreciate the "wise, humble and intelligent, state of mind" comment, lets hope my students share your view.

Graham

 

[ForgeCorvus]

White man builds big fire and stay far away, Indian build small fire and come close, Bushcrafter build fire in tin can and just make tea

I would of thought that burning Hexi, Petrochemicals or Meths(more for the Piradine) would of had a more locally harmful effect on bugs then feeding the hobo with a fistful of sticks (and turning them into wood-ash which is a fertiliser )

And I'd much rather smell wood smoke then the vapours given off by burning any of the fuels mentioned

But, I am just a lay-man and I have a biased view......as does every other person posted or mentioned so far

 

[VirusKiller]

One could argue that ever since humans broke free of conventional natural selection, we have impacted the ecosystem negatively. IMO, a couple of responsibly lit (and cleaned up) fires are insignificant compared with the collective and cumulative damage caused by the human race. For humans to cause no damage to nature, we'd have to return to the trees.

 

[Glen]

My first thought is another question, what is the smallest sized diameter wood that these insects use/need?

 

[JohnL]

here is a thought, if you camp in the woods it will create a small amount of damage to the very local enviroment. On a larger scale this will make no difference, a fire using wood from a susained source is carbon neutral. If you spent a night indoors, you would probably have your central heating on, your oven on, use the kettle for a brew, use your computer, use electric lights. None of that is carbon neutral. (Unless you have solar power etc)
So you could argue, its better for the enviroment overall to camp out.

Unless you drive to your camp spot in a tank that does 15MPG

 

[myotis]

My first thought is another question, what is the smallest sized diameter wood that these insects use/need?

Now there is a question.

Not being an entemologist, I have no idea and of course we are probably talking about thousands of diferent species adapted to woodlands of different sizes, types, species diversity and structure. This will mean insect species with different life cycles, behaviours, and food requirements.

The suitability of any individual patch of woodland in terms of long term conservation value will also depend on its closeness to other suitable woods and the connectivity between those woods.

There is a little about saproxylic beetles at http://www.ukbap.org.uk/UKPlans.aspx?ID=341, but it doesn't attempt answer you question.

My guess is that woodland size in itself may be a minor consideration for most species.

Graham