open fires, fireboxes, hobo stoves and environmental responsibility?

[myotis]

Half the world's population - 3 billion people - cook over open fires. It's not "traditional societies" (whatever they are!!), it's every second person on the planet.

So a few bushcrafters cooking oatcakes on a hobo stove is really, really not going to make much difference to the overall picture.

Can't disagree with that, but Its not the overall picture that's under discussion.

Its very localised impacts on rare saproxylic insects that have specialised dead wood requirements, and the principle of carrying out a non-essential activity (hobby fires) that is removing some of that resource.

Once a population comes under pressure, for what ever reason, then previously insignificant activties can be come significant. Hence, the concern about burning even small quantities of wood. For the overall picture we also need to consider the broader environmental impacts of using alterntaive liquid fuels.

Having said that, although that seems to have become the main thrust of the discussion, this wasn't really part of my original question.

Graham

 

[Doc]

There are many places where the pressure from campfires is rather obvious. I am thinking of accessible areas like some of Loch Lomond and Loch Earn, where you will find no dead wood, damaged living trees, and fire scars with rubbish and unburnt debris. Recently a 'no fires' rule was added to fishing permits for Loch Earn, and rightly so in my view.

Of course the people who think long and hard about whether to have a fire at all, and minimising the impact if they do, are not the problem. It is the folks who have huge fires in pressured areas and make no attempt to clear up.

I think it is good practice to have a Swedish Army Trangia, or a billy/meths burner set up as it means you can make the fire/no fire decision when you've seen the area. I like to have an alternative when fires are less desirable from the ecology point of view.

When I do have a fire I often gather wood en route from a large area (easier with a canoe obviously), have a fire on gravel (preferably foreshore) or use a firebox. I always keep it small and try and make sure there is no unburnt fuel, just a fine ash, which can be scattered.

 

[Toddy]

I think the bias is still on the favourably improved side.
Those insects have so much more material available now than at any time int he last 150 years. Try excavating any Victorian midden right through until the 1960's and everything is full of woodash. It's as noticeable as the oystershell deposits of the medieval
That doesn't happen now.

I'm not ignoring your friends issue, but I do feel that the arguement is too preciously tight. Fire is a normal part of the life cycle of these islands, and certainly so in the 10,000 years of human habitation on them.
Our previous burning habits led to fuel poverty so severe that in areas folks dug up the topsoil and burned it, such was the desperation and lack of wood for fuel. What happened to all the insects then ? They're still here so somehow or other they survived.

The adage that we ought all live a little more simply that others might simply live, has a great appeal. However, most of us won't give up our electricity, easy transport methods, imported trade goods and the like. They too are fueled from natural resources, and even the firewood we take in to meets, or burn in out home fires has to come from somewhere.

Perhaps you might ask your friend for specific examples of insect life and habitats that she is aware of that are under threat............some kind of scale beetle on one type of tree growing in a certain environment, for instance.
We are always interested, little bits of info like that catch our awareness and we are better able to perhaps avoid destroying those truly vulnerable popluations with that knowledge.

cheers,
Toddy

 

[myotis]

Of course the people who think long and hard about whether to have a fire at all, and minimising the impact if they do, are not the problem. It is the folks who have huge fires in pressured areas and make no attempt to clear up.

Your post reinforces what others have said, and you raise one of the issues that I alluded toin the original post, in that the "public face" of people burning fires isn't the small bushcraft type fire, but those you describe, tie that up with conservation pressure, and the media deciding its a good story and we may end up with a lot more restrictions on fires than are around now.

It has to be said that part of the enjoyment when fishing was lighting a fire and cooking what I had just caught

Graham

 

[myotis]

I think the bias is still on the favourably improved side.
Perhaps you might ask your friend for specific examples of insect life and habitats that she is aware of that are under threat............some kind of scale beetle on one type of tree growing in a certain environment, for instance.
We are always interested, little bits of info like that catch our awareness and we are better able to perhaps avoid destroying those truly vulnerable popluations with that knowledge.

You raise some good points, and indeed this whole discussion has prompted me to look a bit more closely at the whole woodland insect thing. I shall see if I can gather together some specific examples that may be directly relevant. The obvious rare beetles that have BAPs all seem to live in largish chunks of standing wood, so don't seem to be a problem.

But we know so little about insects that its the species we don't know anything about may be the ones under the greatest threat.

Graham

 

[y0dsa]

"the "public face" of people burning fires" - isn't that key to the issue you raise? That is, its the public perception that will effect the long-term prospects of bushcrafting rather more than the actual ecological impact?

So, how do others view our bushcrafty activities? A straw poll of my non-bushy friends: it's a bit cranky but benign or its something admirable. Perhaps it needs something a bit more rigorous and systematic though. How about circulating a questionnaire here for us to download and pass on to our non-bushy friends for their views about such activities? Because they know actual people who do bushcrafting they will have informed opinions on the matter.

 

[myotis]

"the "public face" of people burning fires" - isn't that key to the issue you raise? That is, its the public perception that will effect the long-term prospects of bushcrafting rather more than the actual ecological impact?

So, how do others view our bushcrafty activities? A straw poll of my non-bushy friends: it's a bit cranky but benign or its something admirable. Perhaps it needs something a bit more rigorous and systematic though. How about circulating a questionnaire here for us to download and pass on to our non-bushy friends for their views about such activities? Because they know actual people who do bushcrafting they will have informed opinions on the matter.

This was certainly one of the key issues, as I wondered long term where things might end up. I have always assumed it was seen as a benign activity.

A questionnaire might be fun, but they are notoriuosly difficult yo get any meaningful results. You actually, raise two of the problems in your post.

Non-bushy friends; generally we gather friends who have some similarity in values, one of the reasons they become friends. So any results gathered this way could well be biased in favour of bushcrafting

Informed opinion: This isn't the problem, the problem is the uninformed opinion, which seems to often drive public views and political decsions.

And there is a massive leap to having an informal discussion here and working out the purpose that a questionnaire would serve and by implication the exact wording of the questions.

But, its an attractive idea

Graham

 

[HillBill]

"the "public face" of people burning fires" - isn't that key to the issue you raise? That is, its the public perception that will effect the long-term prospects of bushcrafting rather more than the actual ecological impact?

So, how do others view our bushcrafty activities? .

Most probably don't to be honest.

With all this talk about being aware of our impact to the environment and good ethics in bushcrafting, Do you think it would be feasable to form an organisation along the lines of The British Bushcraft Foundation/Association, whatever. An organisation anyone can become a member of, an organisation that can offer some form of insurance for people to use to be able to gain access to land, but more importantly an organisation that stands up for the ethics of bushcrafting and instructs on minimal impact and sustainable environments. An organisaton that could maybe call upon its members do help with conservation and habitat management to some degree. The public like this sort of thing. Get a lottery grant if possible, the world is going green, lets jump on that bandwagon and pass our respect for the land on to others who would like to know about it.

Something along the lines of what the BASC and DEFRA are to shooting.

Gone off track a bit again i know.

 

[myotis]

Most probably don't to be honest.

With all this talk about being aware of our impact to the environment and good ethics in bushcrafting, Do you think it would be feasable to form an organisation along the lines of The British Bushcraft Foundation/Association, whatever.

Gone off track a bit again i know.

Now there's a can of worms

I can see some merits in such organisations and I think that groups like the Backpackers club seem to work pretty well.

But part of me is also very wary of such organisations.

So not sure how to respond.

Graham

 

[VtBlackdog]

sounds like she's a nut......burn it!

 

[myotis]

sounds like she's a nut......burn it!

No she isn't, that's the whole point of raising her views. If she was a nut I wouldn't have bothered mentioning it.

I have already explained a few times in the thread the precautionary principle rationale behind not burning wood for hobby fires. Personally, I am unconvinced of their being any impacts but I understand the principle.

Graham

 

[nomade]

Myotis wrote:
" I didn't realise that that traditional life styles that rely on open fires were being considered as significant polluters."

I was surrpised too hearing (or reading) that on several occasions. I think it is because of population increase.

There are NGOs who deal with encouraging people to do things differently (how? I don't remember what alternatives were suggested...).

 

[myotis]

Myotis wrote:
" I didn't realise that that traditional life styles that rely on open fires were being considered as significant polluters."

I was surrpised too hearing (or reading) that on several occasions. I think it is because of population increase.

There are NGOs who deal with encouraging people to do things differently (how? I don't remember what alternatives were suggested...).

You can look at how efficiently the fires are using the fuel.

http://www.woodgas.com/index.htm has some interesting information and links. I am very impressed with my woodgasXL stove.

The other interesting site is http://www.aprovecho.org/ including the link to some stoves developed from their research http://www.stovetec.net/mambo/index.php

With relatively low tech and low cost solutions it seems impressive reductions in fuel use and pollution is possible.

Graham