Removal of Stone Fire Circles

[perfectlydark]

Wow scotty thats truly a case of making assumptions based on nothing. I camp at campsites with firecircles that are in regular use and have never had a problem finding easy firewood within a few minutes walk. I think you are overestimating the amount of wood needed for a small fire which is what fire circles are great for..they limit the fires size. So whats your opinion on the damage done to the environment while fracking gas for your campstove. Or the oil and coal used to process and transport the gas? If you would like to take the high ground here please explain how that is a much better option for the morally superior camper which you obviously are

[tom_brennan]

Is there room in this discussion to suggest that perhaps camp fires shouldn't be lit at all, barring emergencies?

Probably best to keep to the current topic (fire rings) in this thread - but if you want to start a new topic, I'd say from the comments already here that you'll get a feisty discussion!

[Scottyk]

Wow scotty thats truly a case of making assumptions based on nothing. I camp at campsites with firecircles that are in regular use and have never had a problem finding easy firewood within a few minutes walk. I think you are overestimating the amount of wood needed for a small fire which is what fire circles are great for..they limit the fires size. So whats your opinion on the damage done to the environment while fracking gas for your campstove. Or the oil and coal used to process and transport the gas? If you would like to take the high ground here please explain how that is a much better option for the morally superior camper which you obviously are

My point was that you implied that it was better for the environment to light camp fires than it was to use gas canisters.
Whilst the big picture(whole planet) it may well be true. The area we walk in are very often small protected areas that we try and leave almost untouched by the human had (I know that's a pipe dream). So I would argue that if we would like to keep these areas we walk in as pristine as we can then a few gas canisters and are acceptable.
My point of view comes from walking in tas where most areas are fuel stove only. Despite this I regularly find evidence of camp fires. Areas like The Labrynth, Walls of Jerusalem and the Arthur Plains are examples of places I have seen evidence of people who think that if they light a fire it won't have an impact.
So I guess I am saying that the undeniable environmental cost of fossil fuel based stove fuels is worth it to keep these areas as pristine as possible. No moral superiority here just a point of view different from yours.

[perfectlydark]

In an area that is fuel stove only I am 100% in agreement with you. Thats the rules and no fires should be lit. In those areas I wouldnt think it to be rude to breakup a fire circle at all

[peregrinator]

I love to use wood fires as a social aspect of bushwalking

I suppose that if everyone around the fire stinks of wood smoke and has runny eyes, that's a certain kind of sociabilty. Great, we're all sharing the annoyance. But consider the health effects of smoke. E.g. [url]http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Wood_fires_and_breathing_problems
[/url]

[Moondog55]

As a reasonably experienced bushwalker I would hazard a guess that these smoky fires are lit by people who don't know how
That aside I cannot deny my own fondness for and attraction to wood as a fuel.
For just boiling the billy I often use my hobo twig stove but I do draw a distinction between the two uses and many times making a camp fire is simply inappropriate or just too much work.

[tom_brennan]

My point of view comes from walking in tas where most areas are fuel stove only. Despite this I regularly find evidence of camp fires. Areas like The Labrynth, Walls of Jerusalem and the Arthur Plains are examples of places I have seen evidence of people who think that if they light a fire it won't have an impact.

There are major differences in appropriateness of camp fires across the various regions of Australia.

I suspect that people who like having camp fires - like myself - are probably used to walking in areas like the eucalypt forests of the great eastern ranges, which are fire-prone rather than fire-sensitive, where firewood is in plentiful supply, and which burn every 10-30 years. The amount that is burnt by bushfire or fuel-reduction burning every year makes the amount of wood used in camp fires ridiculously miniscule. That said, there are some camping areas that are heavily used, where wood collection is inappropriate.

Somewhere like Tassie is a completely different story.

It depends a lot on where you are, and people's views are no doubt formed by the areas that they walk most.

[Moondog55]

Nice point Tom

[Clusterpod]

Nevermind stone circles, we just spent the weekend at a state park campsite where people arrive with chainsaws, and just push into the surrounding bush (on a peninsula surrounded by beautiful river) and cut themselves up a "deadwood" tree.

Fires are kept burning all day and most of the night, left burning while campers aren't attending and after they have left.

Nothing like waking up to the sound of a chainsaw not far from your tent, and watching the ranger just stroll by unattended fires.

Seems like hominids have become morons.

[perfectlydark]

Very well written tom.
State forests do tend to attract a different crowd!

[neilmny]

Nevermind stone circles, we just spent the weekend at a state park campsite where people arrive with chainsaws, and just push into the surrounding bush (on a peninsula surrounded by beautiful river) and cut themselves up a "deadwood" tree.

Fires are kept burning all day and most of the night, left burning while campers aren't attending and after they have left.

Nothing like waking up to the sound of a chainsaw not far from your tent, and watching the ranger just stroll by unattended fires.

Seems like hominids have become morons.

You saw a ranger somewhere in Victoria did you take a photo, I haven't seen one for years.

[north-north-west]

Is there room in this discussion to suggest that perhaps camp fires shouldn't be lit at all, barring emergencies?

I have been amazed about the number of fires I have seen people light across the country this summer. Sometimes in the craziest of conditions, and never, seemingly, actually necessary beyond "camping needs a fire". Which was fine when we didn't know better, or cared less. But surely with the myriad of camp cookery fuel available, fires, especially in the warmer months, only aren't just not necessary, but needlessly dangerous, destructive, polluting and wasteful?

*loud applause*

[peregrinator]

As a reasonably experienced bushwalker I would hazard a guess that these smoky fires are lit by people who don't know how
That aside I cannot deny my own fondness for and attraction to wood as a fuel.
For just boiling the billy I often use my hobo twig stove but I do draw a distinction between the two uses and many times making a camp fire is simply inappropriate or just too much work.

Moondog, I'm sure my camp fire technique is much inferior to yours. Not as much experience as you. I did light camp fires decades ago when this was the only practical way to cook. With developments in stove technology, fires became a waste of time and effort for me.

I've just got out my copy of the 1973 Bushwalking and Camping booklet written by Paddy Pallin (yes, a bloke of that name did once inhabit this earth) to look for any reference to stoves. Not mentioned whatsoever. But there is this charming reference to camp fires under the heading Camp Etiquette: "Never cook on another person's fire without being invited."

Tending further towards being off-topic, I agree with perfectlydark that the use of disposable gas canisters may have some negative environmental consequences. But the amount of gas that each walker uses in a lifetime is tiny compared with the amount used more generally. We burn grams for occasional use, industry uses tonnes daily. Distribution costs for that tiny fraction, especially considered in relation to distribution costs for all the other stuff we consumers can't do without, are also relatively insignificant. So fracking and all the rest of it won't cease just because bushwalkers light wood instead of butane.

To get back to the topic, surely I'm not the only one who is annoyed when fire stones are set up where tent site space is limited. Finally, it's encouraging to read the comments here by considerate walkers who remove traces of fires they have built.

[Onestepmore]

Interesting discussion, lots of different views

Me - I leave a fire ring if I find one, ditto for a cairn
If a fire ring is there then I'll use it in that spot. I certainly don't go and make another one.
I think that, while the morally superior would argue that no-one should know that anyone's even been there and camped, it's best to minimise area usuage and consolidate it into the one spot. If someone's going to build a fire, then let it be in the same spot someone else had one (and realistically, somone else is going to build ones after you as well)
I have a problem with people who remove track markers too. Not everyone has great navigational skills. Maybe you do - I don't, and I find them really helpful.

[perfectlydark]

Ive been saved by a cairn quite often. Amazing how much help a pile of 3 or 4 rocks can be sometimes

[puredingo]

I've never understood what people get out of the destruction of the humble cairn. I can see it's purpose when tapes, ribbons and some signage is over done in obvious places but how a small pile of rocks can diminish a walkers enjoyment eludes me. Perhaps is that elitism/ego mindset that sneaks into most sport and lifestyle persuits, like the sight of that horrible cairn means that the deconstuctee isn't the first to that particular spot therefore it's a all shocking realisation that this walker isn't the most 'core person in the woods.

Anyway, It's hot so I'm off down the beach. I hope the life savers haven't put the flags up...My family and myself are all strong swimmers, we can read rips, and tide charts so if other people can't then stay off the beach! In fact when I leave I might kick the flags down just to be sure.

[icefest]

I can understand the removal of fire circle in wilderness areas. Removal of cairns bugs me though. I can understand (removal) if they are on alpine moorland where it's easy walking.
I much prefer a trail marked profusely by cairns than by retroreflective arrows or star pickets, they just fit in the landscape.

[davidm]

I've never understood what people get out of the destruction of the humble cairn. I can see it's purpose when tapes, ribbons and some signage is over done in obvious places but how a small pile of rocks can diminish a walkers enjoyment eludes me. Perhaps is that elitism/ego mindset that sneaks into most sport and lifestyle persuits, like the sight of that horrible cairn means that the deconstuctee isn't the first to that particular spot therefore it's a all shocking realisation that this walker isn't the most 'core person in the woods.

Anyway, It's hot so I'm off down the beach. I hope the life savers haven't put the flags up...My family and myself are all strong swimmers, we can read rips, and tide charts so if other people can't then stay off the beach! In fact when I leave I might kick the flags down just to be sure.

This!!! This sums up exactly how I feel! Cairns are so unobtrusive. Certainly less so than a walking trail.
Dismantling one can also put peoples lives at risk. Many track notes mention them and getting rid of one could see someone that is relying on them land in serious trouble.

[perfectlydark]

Glad im not alone in that!

[neilmny]

Interesting discussion, lots of different views

Me - I leave a fire ring if I find one, ditto for a cairn
If a fire ring is there then I'll use it in that spot. I certainly don't go and make another one.
I think that, while the morally superior would argue that no-one should know that anyone's even been there and camped, it's best to minimise area usuage and consolidate it into the one spot. If someone's going to build a fire, then let it be in the same spot someone else had one (and realistically, somone else is going to build ones after you as well)
I have a problem with people who remove track markers too. Not everyone has great navigational skills. Maybe you do - I don't, and I find them really helpful.

This sums up my thoughts on the subject nicely.

[neilmny]

Interesting discussion, lots of different views

Me - I leave a fire ring if I find one, ditto for a cairn
If a fire ring is there then I'll use it in that spot. I certainly don't go and make another one.
I think that, while the morally superior would argue that no-one should know that anyone's even been there and camped, it's best to minimise area usuage and consolidate it into the one spot. If someone's going to build a fire, then let it be in the same spot someone else had one (and realistically, somone else is going to build ones after you as well)
I have a problem with people who remove track markers too. Not everyone has great navigational skills. Maybe you do - I don't, and I find them really helpful.

This sums up my thoughts on fire rings nicely. The cairns, I have not had the need so far but
certainly would appreciate the existance of one if the need arises.

[tom_brennan]

From the NSW Confed Bushwalking Code

"Become proficient at bush navigation. If you need to build cairns, blaze trees, place tags, break off twigs, or tie knots in clumps of grass to mark your route, you are lacking in bush navigation skills. Placing signposts and permanent markers of any kind is the responsibility of the relevant land manager (such as the NPWS)."

http://www.bushwalking.org.au/~document ... 004-02.pdf

I wouldn't say that I'm religious about the above statement, but I certainly think there are way more cairns in the bush than there need to be.

Firstly, if you don't have great navigational skills, then practise. Even when you're walking on marked tracks, you can practise your navigation skills. Carry a map and compass, watch the landscape, work out where you are, use a GPS to confirm your position.

Secondly, what does a cairn actually mean. Does it mean you are on the right track? I've stood in a rocky clearing with cairns all over it. Where do you go from here?! When cairns head off in multiple directions, which set do you follow? Cairns aren't a substitute for being able to navigate.

I might leave a cairn in place if it:
a) marks a key track junction
b) marks the bottom or top of a pass
c) is one of a number on a short section (eg a pass) that would otherwise be difficult to find, for example, if it involves traversing back and forth on ledges

Otherwise, at least in NSW, I'll probably dismantle it. And I'm more likely to do so in wilderness areas. I dismantled a bunch last weekend on the track to Starlight Canyon. For starters, there was a clear track, and for seconds, it was following the *&%$#! ridge at that point!

Other parts of Australia/the World may have their own thinking on cairns, so I'll leave that to the locals to deal with.

[Dons asbestos suit ]

[puredingo]

But why?...People SHOULD be able to drive a car once they have their license but spend a day driving in my suburb and it's clear they can't. People SHOULD be able to swim if they go surfing/ fishing, check the drownings on record. People practice these things and others all the time and still need help because not everybody is good at everything.

But what I really want to know is what you get out of dismantling the cairns? Like I said tape, tags ect I can see but a small pile of rocks...hardly an eyesore. Do you walk these tracks reulary enough that the thought of them being there bothers you to the exteme of going to the effort of scattering them, I would of thought that once the walk is over that any cairn placement would be quite an insignificant memory compared to the overall experience of the day out?

Not trying to be a smartarse, genuinely interseted in this mindset.

[DaveNoble]

I'd rather not see man made structures in wilderness - it sort of detracts from the concept. Be they cairns (ducks), fire rings, huts, tent platforms etc. But in some places certain of these may be accepted for management or other purposes. Like Tom, I often dismantle cairns and fire rings. Often, it seems, cairns have only been placed to hide a dump of rubbish - a chocolate wrapper or an empty tuna can. And yes - we do carry these out too. There are and always have been plenty of bushwalkers who don't like seeing rubbish in the bush and structures such as cairns.

Dave

[perfectlydark]

People go to the effort of piling rocks up to avoid carrying out an empty can?

[tom_brennan]

But what I really want to know is what you get out of dismantling the cairns?

To be honest, I don't see much difference between rubbish, tape or cairns. As I've mentioned before, in wilderness areas, we would generally remediate our fireplace and scatter the ashes so there's as little sign as possible that we've camped there.

Cairns are also a pretty obvious sign that people have been there, and so I will generally tidy them up in wilderness areas.

I get the same satisfaction as I do picking up litter and carrying it out, the satisfaction of leaving the bush a little tidier than before. Yes, it's just an illusion. We all have an impact, but ideally we should leave the bush better than we found it.

Rather than asking me why I dismantle cairns, perhaps turn the question around and ask "Why build cairns?" Because like fire circles, if no-one built them in the first place, there would be no need for others to subsequently remove them!

[neilmny]

.........
Secondly, what does a cairn actually mean. Does it mean you are on the right track? ...........When cairns head off in multiple directions, which set do you follow? Cairns aren't a substitute for being able to navigate..............
[Dons asbestos suit ]

This is something I am curious about Tom, but I wasn't game to ask

[michael_p]

Some years back I led a walk that had a 2-3km off-track section followed by a lengthy very rough track before getting to the well worn track.

During my pre-walk research I was able to find an old website that described a range of routes through the area I was planning to walk in. My walk intersected one of the routes described and the old website made mention of a cairn placed at the intersection of a side creek and the main creek.

After off-tracking through the bush for nearly 2 hours we walked down the side creek (same one as mentioned on the old website). As we got down near to the main creek I spotted, sitting on top of a nice big rock, the cairn mentioned. I have to say that finding the cairn was a great relief as it confirmed that I had managed to navigate to the right spot. I felt much better about my navigation skills.

Just thought I'd add my experience, of course YMMV.

Cheers,
Michael.

[zac150]

I have read this thread with interest and I must say i am a little bemused that people get so annoyed at cairns and fire rings to the point of removing them.

I guess I would only support the removal of cairns by people who are in emergency services I.e if you are prepared to go out and risk your life and give your time finding lost walkers, then by all means remove the cairns. If your not them leave them alone, simple. I guess I am saying, it is all well and good to say people should be able to find there way but sometimes conditions or skill get the better of people and a cairn may save them without the need for outside assistance. If your prepared to be that assistance then go ahead remove the cairns if not leave them.

I realise this is an extreme case but how would you feel if the week after you removed a cairn someone got lost in the area!

Now before I am slaughtered for this view I don't support cairns every 15m I am referring to leaving a few simple cairns that mark track junctions or perhaps critical points along the trail.

As for fire rings again I don't get this as you remove the stones, people put them back. The bottom line is that stones or no stones, people will light fires if they are that way inclined and most people will light the fires where they have been before. So unless you remove all trace of the fire I am not sure what you are trying to achieve. Personally I have seeing well used camping areas with four or five little fires, I would prefer to see 1 common fire pit.

[north-north-west]

As for fire rings again I don't get this as you remove the stones, people put them back. The bottom line is that stones or no stones, people will light fires if they are that way inclined and most people will light the fires where they have been before. So unless you remove all trace of the fire I am not sure what you are trying to achieve. Personally I have seeing well used camping areas with four or five little fires, I would prefer to see 1 common fire pit.

I would prefer it if we started educating people out of the 'camping = campfire' mentality so there aren't so many fires.