Leave no Trace: Are campfires unethical?

Campfires are not flat-out unethical in all circumstances, but too often they way they are built and used are. For example, if you passed a fire ring not long ago, or know there is a fire ring not far away, do not build another one just because you want to camp here. If you have to build a fire ring, don't make it larger than necessary to cook your food and give you a pleasant hour or so of gazing into the flames. (Unless you are hypothermic.) Don't leave unburned or unburnable things in the fire ring -- bandaids, aluminum foil, smashed cans, glass. Unburned bandaids are my pet peeve. I don't like seeing rocks and fallen trees elaborately arranged to make the area look like a living/dining room. And carry out or bury ashes and charcoal to the best of your ability. If you can't do that, clean up someone else's mess on your way out.

posted over 9 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

ab2 MonicaNotForgotten‭

946 reputation 93 145 122 0

Let me turn the question around: Is it ethical to use a portable stove to burn irreplaceable fossil fuels? Is it ethical to carry that fossil fuel in a pressurised can (for gas fuel stoves) or metal bottle (for liquid fuel stoves) that can't be easily recycled and so ends up in landfill? However, note Shem's comment below - Aluminium bottles are almost infinitely recyclable.

I think the answer lies in the scale. Using a few twigs in a twig burner is fine. Using all the dead trees in a half-kilometer radius to build a bonfire the size of your tent is not.

Most of the outdoor places where I go in New Zealand are under fire bans and most of the huts have had their open fires replaced with potbelly stoves which aren't that good for cooking, so I have no choice but to carry a portable cooker.

posted over 9 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

Greenstone Walker‭

81 reputation 0 24 8 0

Avoiding the word 'ethical', I'll ask: Is it good for the forest to stop all fires, and let fuel accumulate?

In North America this has led to many very destructive fires that kill every tree in the forest. Lot's of money and time is being spent to clear out the excess fuel with controlled burns before it is too late. So in these areas, I'd say go ahead, clear out some dead wood. But leave the hatchet at home, burn only wood that is down.

On the other hand, it is destructive to have a fire in a place where trees grow slowly and fires are rare, for example high altitude area of the Sierra Nevada. The trees there usually well spaced, thunderstorms are not so common, and dead wood lays around for decades before breaking down. In this case you're taking carbon from an environment that has very little to spare. Half Dome used to have trees on top, but granite doesn't make soil very well, and now they are gone.

BTW, the US Forest Service and National Parks say pretty much what I've written here, and I think they are doing the right things these days.

posted over 9 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

Pepi‭

161 reputation 0 34 16 0

Most comments here suggest that campfires are a back country tradition when in fact they are mostly in densely populated camping areas in parks. They are rarely used for cooking. Most of the noxious smoke blows right into the next campsite and the owners of the campfire sit comfortably upwind of the fire. It appears that NPS has no policy on this except to provide fire rings and sell firewood yet this smoke is injurious to anyone with respiratory issues and obnoxious to anyone else. Ironic that they ban cigarette smoking which I support, but profit from wood smoke.

posted over 9 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

Paul‭

1 reputation 0 1 0 0

Like most activities, campfires aren't simply ethical or unethical. There are only a few things in this world that are always ethical or always unethical. Rather, there are ethical and unethical ways to behave. I don't expect a campsite to look exactly like the land around it - I understand there will be artificial clearings in the trees, perhaps a sign indicating it's a campsite, a fire ring, and perhaps a latrine a little way back in the woods. I accept that and in fact prefer that the humans-sleep-here changes to a place are restricted to campsites rather than diffused randomly through the entire natural area. With that in mind, I find it unethical to:

• build a large campfire every day, or several times a day, for no reason other than to cook, when you could use a stove instead
• leave the campsite and surrounding forest a mess
• cut down green trees (which don't burn well) leaving a mess and less live trees than you found
• build complex structures to surround or contain your fire
• make any kind of hole in or damage to a live tree for convenient hanging up of things (I don't even put nails in trees, ever, anywhere.)

I find it not necessarily unethical to:

• gather up some fallen wood (from the campsite and the land nearby) and use it for a small campfire
• sweep the ground around your campfire of tinder and other things that might cause your fire to spread, even though doing so leaves the campsite less "natural" than it was
• use 10 or 20 rocks to build a fire ring
• "furnish" the area around the fire ring with logs, stumps, or rocks for people to sit on

To sit around a small fire in the evening, chasing away the dark with light and heat of our own making, is one of the joys of camping and one of the ways we feel competent and capable. Yes, someone else coming later to my campsite will see soot on the stones of the ring. So? Perhaps yesterday I saw someone's tent, bright blue among the trees, and realized I wasn't actually the only human for a thousand miles. That doesn't make using a tent unethical.

As for overharvesting and devastation, that is best prevented by limiting the numbers of people who use a place, rather than letting everyone in and telling them they can't have campfires. Of the list of troubles campfires supposedly cause:

trampled terrain, delimbed trees, blackened stones, unnecessary trails that weave through the woods but go nowhere, and hatchet/ax scars in trees from 'hanging up' your campfire tools

only "blackened stones" can be laid at my feet, and to be honest a neat fire ring with signs of use and a few logs stacked next to it warms my heart and gives me a sense of connection to those who camped here before me. The rest of it are by no means inevitable consequences of a campfire.

posted over 9 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

Kate Gregory‭

321 reputation 5 88 35 0

I think this largely depends on the specific area you are traveling in. My approach is to always minimize campfires in the backcountry as a general rule. That being said, if I am in an abundant backcountry environment, where there is an already well made fire ring, I have no qualms making an occasional fire from dead, down, dry, and less than wrist size wood.

I think Leave No Trace ethics are a great jumping off point for folks who are newer to the outdoor recreation space, but I find taking a more global approach to land-use ethics is a better direction to be going. I would encourage you to read this article on "Conscious Impact Living" to learn more.

One of the principles is summarized as "Use Appropriate Technology," here is the brief description.

Seek to use situation-appropriate fuel sources for cooking, heating, light, and transportation. Seek technologies which support rather then destroy the integrity of wild places and natural systems.

posted over 9 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

Brian Eagen‭

31 reputation 0 13 3 0