Campfires...

[Robbo]

Hello All

It seems the old method of sitting around a campfire discussing the state of the world, and solving its problems, is a thing of the past. Fuel Stove Only Areas are the expectation in Tasmanian National Parks.

While this is my practice, from my observations in walking around the Plateau and WoJ, it is still quite common for people to use existing campfires. My memories of sitting around a campfire long into the night, watching the glowing embers, are deeply etched into my thinking. It is sad that I am no longer able to do this in some of the best places...

What are people's thoughts re this? Is it acceptable to use a campfire if it is obvious that others have been using it on a semi-regular basis?

Robbo

[Son of a Beach]

Good questions!

I too miss having a campfire when out bushwalking (fuel-stove-only rules came in when I was quite young, but I got a couple of campfire walks in before that). There is nothing quite as nice as sitting around the fire with a bunch of mates, or even with complete strangers.

However, as much as I miss it, I don't think it's acceptable anymore in many areas and I think the fuel-stove-only rules are there for very good reasons.

Even if obvious old fire places exist, they should not be used for a number of reasons. Firstly, because of the damage to the vegetation that occurs around them (eg, last time I was at the old Lake Ball hut, which has a fire place, I noticed that every tree within about 50 metres of the hut had been stripped of vegetation up to about 2 metres off the ground). Secondly, because of the risk of the fire getting out of control. Even very responsible people can underestimate fire, or just make mistakes (ie, light a fire on peat ground which burns underground for months).

There are so many large areas of Tasmania that have had bushfires go through due to bushwalkers' fires getting out of control. Eg, all of the area to the west of Lake Myrtle, West of Lake St Clair, East of the Walls of Jerusalem, all around Frenchmans Cap.

There are still a very small number of bushwalks that have actual formed fire places, not in a fuel-stove-only area, where fires may be OK. However, even there, you need to make sure you keep the fire small, and avoid damaging any standing vegetation. For places like this, I'll look out for down dead wood for quite some distance before I get to there, and start collecting wood from well away from the area. Any area that is well used will soon have any combustible material nearby collected and burnt.

The more an area gets used, the more likely it is that irresponsible people will start taking wood from standing, and even living trees. The only way to police this is to have one set of rules for everybody, of course, and that means no fires at all in many areas.

[walkinTas]

Tasmanian rain forest trees and native conifers forests are not fire tolerant. These areas will not quickly regenerate in the same way as a Eucalyptus forest will regenerate after a fire. Alpine regions can also be extensively damaged by fire. In the more sensitive areas an escaped fire would be a disaster.

Rain forests have been shown to regenerate slowly if enough older trees survive the fire to provide a seed source. In some area though, where the rain forest was surrounded by Eucalypts (eg. Savage River fire of 1982), the rain forest was lost to a Eucalyptus regeneration.

There are examples of Tasmanian conifers aged between 1000 and 3000 years. Once destroyed these trees are irreplaceable. "One third of the area that supports pencil pines (Athrotaxis cupressoides) has been burned since 1960" (reference). This is unsustainable.

http://www.csiro.au/resources/AlpineGrazingAndFire.html
The immediate impact of fire is to remove the protective blanket of vegetation that covers the delicate alpine soils. The vegetation has a very strong capacity to regenerate, through re-sprouting and reseeding, but it takes time and protection of the soil post-fire is highly dependent upon regeneration.

Complete regeneration and restoration of biodiversity values after fire is likely to take 3–5 years in grasslands, about 10 years in heathlands, and may take many decades in sphagnum bogs.

As Nik said, there are very good reasons why bushwalkers shouldn't light a fire in any of these sensitive area.

[tas-man]

I too miss the camaraderie of evenings sitting around the campfire talking well into the night, harmonica playing in the background, discussing all and sundry incl. politics, religion and s*x, and solving the world's problems before a good nights sleep. I think that nostalgia for this experience indicates belonging to a particular generation , and that the younger generation going walking without this experience perhaps doesn't miss it. Its not quite the same, putting all the fuel stoves in a circle and sitting around chatting - tried that once years ago for a laugh, but can't find the photo now. There are a few places where campfires are still permitted on walking tracks - eg Deadmans Bay campsite on the South Coast Track, and areas not in National Parks like Blackwwod camp on the Leven River, along the Penguin/Cradle track. Here's a photo of the Blackwood Camp fireplace with some LWC members toasting marshmallows. We took an old 1960's club songbook on this "retro" trip in 2007, but very few of the tunes could be remembered by anyone, so the "sing-along" was a bit of a flop!

[Son of a Beach]

I forgot to add in my earlier post, that I think having a campfire is a very natural thing, and being out in nature, it is actually very fitting, from that point of view. To me, not having a campfire out in the bush on a cold night, is actually very unnatural.

However, I think that going without fires is a sacrifice (not a burnt sacrifice ) that we need to make to ensure that we can continue to enjoy the other elements of nature, at all.

[norts]

The smell of burning wool, doesnt it make you nostalgic.
The other problem with camp fires these days is we are nearly all walking in synthetics.
I have a couple of black spots on my macpac bush shirt from my last campfire.

I know I will be alot more careful next time I am allowed to have a fire.

Roger

[the_camera_poser]

Only fire I ever personally saw set in a reserve was from a fuel stove, but that was due to the idiocy of the owner. Having said that- I would never overcome the guilt of causing a bushfire.

[Whos_asking99]

Many a fishing trip has been spent around a campfire, having a laugh, waiting for the tinkle of the bell on the rods (technical name?)

As for a campfire while bush walking, not sure really.
I guess that if a few "honest" people decided to start a small campfire and were extremely careful that it didn't get to big...there's the problem where other people might see the remains of that fire and assume that its OK and light a fire on peat without thinking.

[Taurë-rana]

I used to like the campfires too, but considering the use a lot of our areas get, I guess we have to put up with it. I often go 4WD camping in the bush, and we can usually have a fire which is wonderful, although it wasn't so wonderful when my favourite polar fleece blew into the fire recently!

[Swifty]

Ah, yes, the old campfire. Imagine my shock when after many years away from Tasmania, I returned and took my children to Lake Dobson, promising them a hearty meal of damper and sweet hot tea in the hut there on a very cold winter's day! Except the fireplaces were all bricked over!
Times change ( and we change in them, is the whole quote I believe) and I was a bit apprehensive about going walking last year (first time for many years) to the Labyrinth and not being able to light a fire. I was pleasantly surprised to find that cooking on a Trangia is quick, clean and very convenient - previously my cooking on an open fire had been a real waiting game. So no complaints from me about the ban on fires in our parks
Having said that, having the ability to light a fire in a raging blizzard is a skill that has saved my bacon more than once before. Every bushwalker should be able to do the same in case of emergency - call it a survival skill. And a mere regulation won't stop firebugs I think.

[Pedro]

I'm a bit inclined to think that nostalgia isn't what it used to be.

This pic is from around 1970 at Lake Pedder.

Just before the flooding there were a lot of visitors. Campfires were common and, in the peat, they just kept burning.

I don't miss the smoke, the black billies, getting scorched trying to boil water and sparks on clothing, not to mention trying to get a fire going in pouring rain.

Mind you a good fuel stove explosion can spoil your whole day and a shellite spill in the pack isn't a whole lot of fun.

Still, I'm sure we wouldn't do it if it was easy.

[tasadam]

Having recently completed the South Coast Track from Cockle Creek to Melaleuca, and having seen the fireplaces at Surprise Bay and "Little" Deadmans Bay, I do wonder why fires are allowed in these locations.
They are right in the heart of the park.
I for one see no need for them. It would be purely for ambience.
I wonder whether Parks permit fires here because the fishermen and other boaters come in and light fires, have been doing it for many years, and Parks know they cannot stop them so they allow it in these locations.
Just my thought.

I have seen (and destroyed the evidence from) campfires at the Walls and at Lake Myrtle.

I have seen at the Walls near Dixons Kingdom possibly the largest single stand of pencil pines left in Tasmania.
A fire would destroy these forever. The evidence is in other areas. Forever? Strong claim... We won't live long enough to see ANY regrowth of a destroyed pencil pine forest.
Crossing from Lake Myrtle towards Lake Meston, on the left (north-ish), there's plenty of evidence there of the damage fires can cause to these trees.
I for one have never seen a baby pencil pine. Fagus too for that matter.
Climbing Mt Rogoona, and having a look at the damage done to what surely must have been a beautiful Fagus stand in the last gully before the climb, it's sad and sobering.

As a kid in Scouts we had fires. Camping on our acreage in Queensland we had campfires. The odd bonfire too. Never got away from us.

I remember the atmosphere created, but accept whole-heartedly that there is no place or need for a campfire in the Tasmanian wilderness. The modern fuel stove and the correct clothing takes care of your needs.

[Steven]

When I'm not walking, but car-based camping with friends and family on the Murray River, we have a fire and it is terrific. However my style of walking may be unlike others in-so-much-as I tend put in full days of walking. By the time I arrive at camp it is usually getting dark, and I am tired, hungry and generally cold (I mostly walk in the Vic alps and Tasmania). I don't miss a fire at all. In fact it can be a bit of a hassle when walking - embers can put holes in expensive tents and clothing, the wind can pick up (particularly in the mountains) potentially causing fires, and you need to use what can be valuable water supplies to put the fire out.

[north-north-west]

I don't miss campfires and, in fact, get rather gnarly at those morons for whom a night in the bush is incomplete without a roaring fire. Unfortunately you get a lot of them up in the Snowies.

And many of the old huts up there have been burnt down because of badly built or unsupervised fires in their fireplaces or stoves . . .

[NickD]

The campfire at Little Deadman's is allowed because a minister (name escapes me) was walking the South Coast Track, was cold, and decided to pardon this area of the said rule. Ridiculous. When taking clients through, they get very excited when they see a camp fire spot, however we try to heavily discourage the usage.
However most of my clients are between 35-65 and it seems that that generation is a crew of pyromaniacs!!!

[flyfisher]

between 35-65 and it seems that that generation is a crew of pyromaniacs!!!

Hey, watch it buster

ff

[corvus]

If I am in a hut with an operational fire place and I require a fire I will use it as is my rite, fact of life so take your sanctimony and keep it cool elsewhere
The Jacksons Creek area devastation was caused by a nutter pyromaniac (un caught) not camp fires.
c

[walkinTas]

If I am in a hut with an operational fire place and I require a fire I will use it as is my rite

Who wronged you Corvus? You're rite right! Who gave you this right? No, I think you're wrong. I know rite is wrong. I think right is also wrong. Who has a right to risk it all. Maybe I'm wrong! In a fireplace, in a hut, in an emergence should be alright, but in a National Park, in the open, is wrong. We just can't risk getting it wrong can we? One mistake is one too many.

In proving foresight may be vain; The best-laid schemes o' mice an 'men Gang aft agley, An'lea'e us nought but grief an' pain, For promis'd joy! (Robert Burns)

[Ent]

Content removed by poster

[corvus]

Would not light a fire in a national park(other than in the coal burning pot belly stoves on the Overland and elsewhere) but in a hut with a proper fire place I choose the right to ceremoniously practise the ancient rite of fire lighting as it is truly cathartic as well as warming
c

[Joel]

i think you are dead right about that corvus and I think there would be few people that don't use the fireplaces at Junction/Meston/Antimony huts and so on.