Your questions regarding LNT

[Lostsheep]

Based on the principles of LNT, what would you saw is your biggest issue? Which one do you think is the hardest one for YOU? Why? What do you think it would take to help you out on it?

Share it all? Lets hear it.

[SmokeDiver]

I'd say it's leaving the remnants of a camp fire, though I have learned to change this. When I don't have an established fire ring, I use a Dakota fire hole. It's an extremely safe form of camp fire, is easy to cook over, and you can replug your hole with the sod you took up. Do it right and no one will ever know you had a fire there. If you have to put your fire out fast, just refill the whole with the dirt. The whole gives you a very efficient burn, directing most of the heat towards your pot.

I know this guy seems like a dork, but he actually gives good tutorials. Check it out!
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/amUXydTgwck&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/amUXydTgwck&rel=0</a>

[WolfVanZandt]

Actually, I don't like the whole, isolationist philosophy. There are two extremes that we can take from there. We can set ourselves up as conquerers of nature or we can decide that we can't have anything at all to do with nature. I don't like either alternative.

The fact is that we're a part of the system - we are a part of nature and any plan we have that doesn't figure that in to the equation is going to cause problems.

Another fact is that we cannot not influence nature and fooling ourselves into thinking that we're doing so causes us to ignore the consequences of our presence. It's somewhat like the participant observer debate in sociology. You can't be there and not have an influence.

By being noncommunicative, we're in effect "sneaking around". Frankly, I think animals need to know that we're around if we're going to be there. That allows them to figure us into their equations.

I honestly don't think there's anything good about divorcing ourselves from nature.

[SmokeDiver]

Nature will balance itself to our presence, we just have to decide to what degree do we want to impact it.

[jaybird]

I honestly don't think there's anything good about divorcing ourselves from nature.

Wolf,

I think you're missing something with LNT.  From the LNT website -- "Leave No Trace is an national and international program designed to assist outdoor enthusiasts with their decisions about how to reduce their impacts when they hike, camp, picnic, snowshoe, run, bike, hunt, paddle, ride horses, fish, ski or climb. The program strives to educate all those who enjoy the outdoors about the nature of their recreational impacts as well as techniques to prevent and minimize such impacts. Leave No Trace is best understood as an educational and ethical program, not as a set of rules and regulations."

Nowhere in LNT does it say we should divorce ourselves from nature.  On the contrary.  They're trying to prevent the destruction of nature by educating people.   Before, we didn't know better.  But when your taught and know better -- you do better.

Obviously, I have the biggest problem with the packing out the TP.  How in the world???

[Lostsheep]

Jay, have you ever heard of the Poop Tube?

Actually, the "dispose of waste properly" is one of my favorite topics....should we make a seperate post for that?

[MobileBackpacker]

Wolf-


I think by trying to be "non-communicative" we are actually communicating a positive message. People who see an environment that has minimal human influence and presence will adapt that behavior and continue a minimal presence on the land. This is the goal of LNT. It doesnt apply to the bigger environmental picture, like jaybird said LNT is program designed to assist outdoor enthusiasts with their decisions about how to reduce their impacts. Reducing your impact doesnt equate to removing yourself from nature.

Absolute non-communication is impossible, this i agree so there is no way to disguise our presence from animals or the environment. All we can do is lessen the degree of disruption. And yes we can disrupt or "influence" nature, to think any other way is foolish and it is part of the reason we have been so destructive to nature. Sure we are part of this whole system of "nature" but that doesnt mean we cant influence it, to what degree is the question.

i dont quite see how these two sentences help explain abandoning LNT

 "we are a part of nature and any plan we have that doesn't figure that in to the equation is going to cause problems" and "Another fact is that we cannot not influence nature and fooling ourselves into thinking that we're doing so causes us to ignore the consequences of our presence"

[AlabamaDan]

I've been thinking alot about now not to leave a negative impact with campfires.  I like the concept of using a little tarp to cover the ground, then putting some dirt on top of the top to build the fire on.  What I can't visualize is how to get the dirt to go on top of the tarp without digging.  I mean if I'm near a stream bed or something I can pull it from there and replace it when finished, but what about just being on the trail?

[MobileBackpacker]

i noticed your post in the other thread befor i wrote the above

how to work with nature, you can't plan programs to deal with chaotic systems; you have to become part of the system, part of the flow and influence (not control) it from within. We're great pattern processors. Our intuitions, if developed, would serve us better than our sciences when dealing with chaos.

i think i see what you are getting at but i still disagree. LNT in my opinion is not a form coping with a choatic system but a form of control over ourselves.

[Lostsheep]

I've been thinking alot about now not to leave a negative impact with campfires.  I like the concept of using a little tarp to cover the ground, then putting some dirt on top of the top to build the fire on.  What I can't visualize is how to get the dirt to go on top of the tarp without digging.  I mean if I'm near a stream bed or something I can pull it from there and replace it when finished, but what about just being on the trail?

Excellent Question Dan!
For a MOUND FIRE:
It's preferred to take soft soil from near a stream bed, easy to remove and easy to replace. Pack it up on a mound on a sheet off the ground, have your fire, burn it down, mix it in and replace into the ground.

If you have to dig off the trail, so be it. It's fine. Just replace it as normal. Use your trowel, rake away the duff, take the soil. Then replace and cover. Nobody will ever know.

But, if there is an established fire ring, it's still acceptable to hold a fire there. If you do come across many fire rings in a short span, with very little sign of on established site, feel free to break it up. Scatter the rocks, ashes, and signs of previous use. It's fine.

Also, check TJMAXX for a "collapsable metal strainer" in the homegoods section. Several times they have them with feet. These feet provide a few inches off the ground. This on top of some rocks provides the perfect recipe for a "pan fire" too.

[MobileBackpacker]

I've been thinking alot about now not to leave a negative impact with campfires.  I like the concept of using a little tarp to cover the ground, then putting some dirt on top of the top to build the fire on.  What I can't visualize is how to get the dirt to go on top of the tarp without digging.  I mean if I'm near a stream bed or something I can pull it from there and replace it when finished, but what about just being on the trail?

i would just stick to using the existing fire rings. I think if your camping in an area off trail or without an existing fire ring it would be best to find an area that is already disturbed to get your dirt from, like a downed tree.

[Lostsheep]

... best to find an area that is already disturbed to get your dirt from, like a downed tree.

Excellent point MobileBackpacker!

[montysano]

A possible solution for the fire ring problem: don't build a fire.  One of my best friends is a truly serious backpacker.  He goes solo all the time, because his friends (me included) are too busy/old/tired to go.

He never builds a fire unless it's bitter cold.  I did my first fire-free trip with him a couple of years ago, and it was a revelation.  Without the light and noise and smells of a fire, it's a completely different experience, esp. on a full moon night.  It's amazing how much light comes from a couple of candle lanterns.

FWIW.

[SmokeDiver]

A possible solution for the fire ring problem: don't build a fire.  One of my best friends is a truly serious backpacker.  He goes solo all the time, because his friends (me included) are too busy/old/tired to go.

He never builds a fire unless it's bitter cold.  I did my first fire-free trip with him a couple of years ago, and it was a revelation.  Without the light and noise and smells of a fire, it's a completely different experience, esp. on a full moon night.  It's amazing how much light comes from a couple of candle lanterns.

FWIW.

Blasphemy! It ain't camp without a fire!

Actually sometimes it's pretty convenient to just spend the time you would take building a fire and press on a little further. That's what portable stoves are for. Still, those cold frigid mornings are a lot better with a fire.

[Lostsheep]

Try a candle. Several people I've hiked with take a series of dripless candles and use them. Same ambiance.

[AlabamaDan]

Maybe that's what the candle lantern is for?

[Uncle Wayne]

One of the worst things about fire rings is sooner or later some guy thinks it's a garbage can.  All of us have seen his burned cans, half melted plastic and etc inside the ring. I've never understood that type of backpacker.

[wildkat]

And they carried the full can or full bottle in...but now that its empty and  lighter they won't pack it out...idiots.