Fantastic thread under evolution, one to which I will add a few perspectives.
First the agreements:
- We have an impact no matter what activity or cooking method we choose to indulge
- Many people that have commented appear to have truly considered their opinions and choices
A friend of mine who runs a career studies program for high school students, one component of which is wilderness studies. Over the course of many years he and his students have monitored the development of, and user impact, on campsites along a stretch of river frequented by hunters, fisherman, canoeists, ATVers, etc.
They have recorded tree death/foliage loss, campfire site proliferation, fire-ring growth, groundcover, soil composition, lower limb loss, and numerous other pieces of data. Overall, the results were of steadily increasing site area, reduction in tree health, and most startling, that the reduction of lower limbs on the spruce that would radiate in all directions from the campsite. Until all limbs that could be easily removed, to a distance of 40-60 metres, had been utilized, presumably for starting fires.
There are certainly members on this forum that would abhor the idea of removing these dead limbs, at least to this extent. Perhaps some would even studiously avoid the use of high impact sites (out of ethics or wanting a 'more natural' site?), but the fact remains fires require fuel, the harvesting of which significantly alters the 'naturalness' of the site.
As bushcrafters/campers/people-who-sleep-outdoors we tend to use very similar sites the world over. Access to water, access to travel routes, access to sunshine, access to vistas, access......you get the idea. We will tend to use the same locations for generations, and these sites will be denuded of burnable fuel, particularly as our preferred hobby attracts more people desiring the quintessential camping/bushcraft experience of staring at dancing flames.
Do we then have an obligation to reduce our impact on these highly used sites. Particularly in light of the reality that we as modern humans have caused an incredible amount of destruction and the footprint of our activities appears to getting ever larger. Perhaps our remaining forests, woodlands, wildernesses should be retained intact, without our burning of wood and lofty arguments that our activities are at best benign, and at the very least doing what nature would do anyway.
As we look 100 years down the road, will people say we buried our heads in the woodpile and resisted the evidence to better satisfy our personal desires. Or will we be seen as the ones brough about a new era of respect for wild places, that left them more intact, healthier even. Or will we be reduced to visiting somewhat glorified city parks, carefully manicured, and thoroughly altered from a natural state.
Before someone throws a chunk of firewood at me, I will leap from the pedestal and admit that I am but a lowly woodburner, sometime meth user, and occasional user of liquid fuel based flame throwers, that believes that questioning my own values and actions is important.
Cheers!
...just for the sake of happiness!
