wood and fire

[orion]

a recent post about kibbe lake has me thinking about this subject of campfires.

the first time i went to kibbie lake, the friend who brought me admonished me for bringing a dozen paper towels, then proceeded to burn a fire all day long to cook up some dried beans. a few years later they instituted a camping ban around the lake that has now become a fire restriction around the lake. he was the least of the offenders at that lake. folks would chop down snags and live trees for fuel or to make rafts, the cherry lake crowd inching upwards. camp along cherry lake sometime, then find somewhere no one goes, eventually you get a keen eye for the difference. same can be said for the horse crowd. you don't see anything but a vista from atop a horse.

every piece of wood you burn is one less for the next camper, or the next time you are there. last year near crown lake i passed campers with a raging bonfire at five in the afternoon. why? aesthetics of the unfamiliar i suppose. it is a poor aesthetic for the wilderness, devoid of practicality, and blind to the surroundings.

these junipers for example::
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/37687593

if this were near a campsite, near young lakes for example, i guarantee you someone would have looked and seen some firewood there. a twig or two now and then and all you are left with is a bush. consider before you snap and burn - how old is this wood? where did it come from? do the birds use it? do the insects who feed the birds? is it beautiful?

those trees are just a hair over the legal elevation for collecting firewood and building a fire, but they could just as easily be below it. the contours of the treeline don't follow strict elevation standards. (read Stephen F. Arno, TIMBERLINE, if you want to fully appreciate the subject)

plenty of places as low as 6000' are inappropriate for wood collection. one good rule of thumb: if there will be no firewood left after you leave, you should have left the wood alone.

i could go on, but i'll leave it to the rest of you to chime in.

[balzaccom]

We generally just don't make a fire, anywhere. Part of that is that we are often in areas that may be restricted, but it's also just good LNT technique. Leave No Trace doesn't just mean leave no trash---it also means leave the area as if you hadn't been there. If you leave an area depleted of downed wood, then you are leaving a strong message that you've camped there...

But it's also just that we don't want the hassle of a fire. Getting it started is a piece of cake, but seriously putting it out at night isn't much fun. I don't believe it's good policy to let the coals slowly die out---I've been in too many Sierra windstorms to know what can happed if you blow on coals for a few hours. So then it means carrying water up to the fire over and over again.

I'd be interested in knowing how many of us on these boards, particularly those that spend a lot of time in the mountains, make fires every night?

[KC]

Used to make fires all the time. Now, not so much. Partly it's due to simple laziness, partly because I get tired of waking up smelling like smoke, and partly because I've been camping lately in areas where fires aren't permitted. It's sort of a mixed bag, but I've learned I can certainly live without a fire.

[Wickett]

I almost always have a fire. It just doesn't feel like camping to me without it.

I do roam to collect wood and only take a little from each place.

[oakroscoe]

I generally have a fire, and a lot of times I prefer to cook on that then bringing a stove.

I do agree with the stupidity of the afternoon fire (with the exception of the winter time when its cold). There's no sense wasting the wood.

[jdhobbs]

I like fires in the evening where permitted. Particularly if there is a lot of deadwood in the area. Small fire rings, dispersed before leaving, is my general policy.

Wish there were fewer established rings in campsites within 100' of lakes. Too tempting for those who don't understand/follow the regulations.