Case against camp fire/camp fire cooking?

[GPSGuided]

Just read this National Geographics article on the use of open fire cooking by 3 billion people around the world. It mentioned the toxic health effects of open fire cooking from inhaled smoke and how NGOs are assisting by offering solutions to gas and other options.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/photo ... ok-stoves/

So the question is, is this also a relevant point for minimising the use of camp fires/cooking and greater use of canister or alcohol stoves amongst other non-smokey solutions? Of course, one would lose the pleasures of an open camp fire.

Discuss...

[Lophophaps]

I'd like to see an overall comparison of wood and fossil fuels. It might be that taken holistically wood is better than fossil fuels. Or vice versa. Certainly ban any fires in areas where it has an adverse impact, but in many places there is minimal or no impact from wood fires, especially when compared to other impacts.

[crollsurf]

Humans are getting dumber that is for sure. For 10,000's of years humans have been smart enough to sit to the side of the fire, away from the smoke. Not anymore it would seem.
I'd say bushwalkers should be right and its not like it is everyday of your life, just on holidays or weekends.

[wildwanderer]

Interesting.

From my limited knowledge on the subject... smoke is a carcinogen, so its not optimal to be breathing it in or having it infused into your food. However for the pleasures of a warm fire and a nice bbq Im happy to take the elevated risk considering its a limited number of days per year. Breathing in toxic crap on a daily basis living in Sydney regardless.

Camp fire bans generally annoy me and I think are useless. (exceptions for fragile alpine areas and days of total fire ban).

Anecdotally it seems a large number of bush campers ignore the no campfire signs anyway. I think if its an established bush camping site, the signs would be much more useful if they stated people must use existing fire pits. (People might actually listen then as its not a blanket NO YOU CANT !! sign preventing them from having a fire)

Thats what I see as the biggest problem. There are a couple of fire scars.. no big deal. and then someone comes along and starts a brand new one in a nice spot of grass, rinse repeat... soon we have 10 scars blighting the landscape..

[GPSGuided]

Sorry, I missed posting the original article URL earlier. Fixed in the opening post now.

[GPSGuided]

For 10,000's of years humans have been smart enough to sit to the side of the fire, away from the smoke. Not anymore it would seem.

Ahhh... But one is not a true bushwalker/camper if one can't sit downwind and breath in all the smoke and ash. That holding power needs to be demonstrated to one's peers sitting around the open fire.

[RonK]

If you have ever been inside a poorer villager's hut in Nepal, you'll understand what the NG article is on about. These huts have an open hearth in the middle of the room, but no chimney. The smoke percolates through the thatched roof, and the underside and walls are black with soot. In higher altitudes where there is little wood, the fire is fueled by dried yak dung and the smoke is acrid. It not hard to see how lifelong exposure to this could be very harmful to the inhabitants health.

A bit of smoke from a bushwalkers outdoor camp fire is unlikely to pose a similar threat.

[rurik]

I don't think the two situations are analagious. One is a poorly made fire, indoors using what ever fuel is available and no ventilation. The other is outdoors, irregular and tends to use some of the best combustables to hand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[davidf]

I have a fire in the house (chimney) and in yard each night, pyro in the bush when safe. But in a hut like Balour Hut in the Bungles I have woken crook.

[ChrisJHC]

I must admit that I've been reducing my need to have a fire while camping.
My trip this last weekend (3 nights, down to 1 or 2 C) I had no fires.
Mostly because I a) can't be bothered and b) don't want to leave the fire scars as referenced above.
Because I'm usually by myself, I don't need a large fire for the social aspect.

What I am thinking of doing is getting one of those small titanium camping stoves. I can then use this for cooking (all I need to do is boil water) and for the comfort.
They should be fine to use with just small gum sticks.
When it's done all that's left should be a small pile of ashes which I can bury.

A couple of examples:
http://backpackinglight.com.au/store/to ... l/dp/13985
https://www.vargooutdoors.com/hexagon-b ... stove.html

[stepbystep]

I'm always amazed at this debate...more and more people are bushwalking(great stuff), but can you imagine if every walker had an open fire?

Think about how much fuel is needed for that...particularly in popular or sensitive spots. Every dead stick/branch you pick up and break up to burn will effect how the soils in the area develop, how the invertebrate life of the area will develop, the biodiversity knock-ons just keep adding up, bird life, fungal life, plant life, marsupial life is all effected by a loss of organic matter in the environment...all for someone's feel good time of an evening...it's nuts.

As bushwalkers who 'use' and presumably love these places for their natural values, how about you start taking responsibility for looking after it...fires are a part of that equation...very occasionally I see a place that could benefit from some appropriate fuel reduction, but most popular campgrounds aren't them, and often the fuel comes in the form of grasses, so no good for open fires.

I'd love to see an accessible system for refillable gas canisters for cooking to reduce that wastage...

End rant

[whynotwalk]

I totally agree Dan. While the "Leave No Trace" ethic says "minimise campfire impacts", in Tassie we tightened this by adding the words "Use a fuel stove". I know the OP was mainly concerning health issues, but in the end the main "No fires" arguments relate to environmental damage and habitat loss.

I've been walking long enough to occasionally get a bit nostalgic about sitting around campfires. It's deep in our hunter/gatherer DNA, (as are lots of other undesirable things!) My nostalgia evaporates when I recall what the "good old days" were often like. Look at this photo I took in Tassie's south-west circa 1980, and tell me this sort of behaviour is in any way still acceptable! I'm very glad we don't do this any more.

The Good Old Days??

cheers

Peter

[wildwanderer]

Throwing on the body armour.. and stepping up to the plate.

I think a campfire is healthy part of the bush experience and has been used by humans for thousands of years in Australia (and other parts of the world) with no earth shattering effects.

I support fire bans in sensitive areas that contain fragile ecosystems, very heavily used areas or on total fire ban days. I also support using existing fire scars and will happily tell someone off if I see them making a fire in a new spot when an existing firepit is available. I also agree that campfires should be small and not bonfires.

Disagree that the damage a campfire (and the wood clearing etc) is significant enough to warrant it being prohibited as a general policy. When compared to bushfire hazard reduction, regular human land clearing for building, mining and all the other things we do to our environment.... a campfire and a bit of wood gathering is really insignificant on the impact scale of things.

If the dead wood around a campsite is all used up.. then people go without a fire. There is a limit to how far people will scavenge to find wood fuel for recreational purposes, so i dont think we need to worry about entire hectares being cleared and animals not having any locations for habitat. (I'l also be first to tell people off if I see them chopping down living trees)

[michael_p]

Discuss...

750, 1000, 1200 or 1500 words and will this be in the exam. Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Campfire, hell yes (within reason of course).

[ribuck]

The original post refers to smoky un-flued indoor fires, which are indeed associated with health problems. Originally there were good reasons why this type of cooking came into use. In some regions, the smoke helped to repel mosquitoes, in other regions venting the smoke into the room was a way to eke out the last smidgeon of warmth from scarce fuel.

But for a campfire, the occasional brief breaths of smoke don't have the health impacts associated with chronic exposure due to indoor wood-smoke in the third world. Nevertheless it's a good idea to choose the driest available wood for a campfire, and to oxygenate the fire efficiently, to minimise the smoke.

Wood is not a fossil fuel. A wood fire is a carbon neutral energy source (the CO2 it releases is the same as the CO2 it takes in while the wood is growing). Compared to a liquid fuel stove or a gas stove, wood has none of the adverse environmental consequences associated with extracting, refining and transporting fossil fuels, or manufacturing, transporting and disposing of used fuel containers.

There are some sensitive places in the bush where wood is in short supply, but in most places it is being used sustainably (below its replacement rate), and in many places it is even abundant. I spent a few decades away from Australia until a few years ago, and on returning to my familiar haunts I was struck by how much more dense the vegetation is now, compared to 25 years previously.

The Australian bush developed in the context of wood-burning indigenous people, and clearly has the capacity to sustain a high rate of wood consumption.

A wood fire provides light, warmth, cooking heat, comfort and pleasure, and a focal point for a social group. That's a pretty good outcome for burning a few sticks.

[rcaffin]

Open fires inside a house - always a good question.

7550.jpg (60.61 KiB) Viewed 27009 times

Interesting though. This was high up in the Swiss Alps a few years ago. Open fire, smoke through chimney, but very modern battery operated digital thermometer and stirrer sitting on pot. He was making Swiss cheese - every day. Good cheese too! Inside was not smoky.

7551.jpg (173.18 KiB) Viewed 27009 times

This was his house and his fromagery (cheese house). We had a litre of ICE-cold milk on the verandah there. Cost us 1 euro if we drank the lot he said ... we did.
Refrigeration? Who needs refridgeration when the water supply from his spring was at about +1 C?

Cheers
Roger

[Neo]

We've survived hundreds of thousands of years to date...

[Neo]

Currently living 2 months on the road no fridge. But thats Blue Mountains & Southern Highlands in winter.

[Neo]

And then, a few sticks and smoke vs the industrialisation to produce convenient alternative fuels?

[GPSGuided]

We've survived hundreds of thousands of years to date...

Through many generations of considerably shorter life expectation.

[Neo]

Enjoy it while you can!

[Neo]

And any remaining trees

[tom_brennan]

Interesting to compare the responses of those from Tassie ("No fires!") with those from the eastern states ("Hell yes!").

In NSW and Victoria, every year there are already thousands of hectares of back burning, and thousands more hectares burnt in bushfires. In comparison to this, the impact of campfires is much smaller than it is in other parts of the country, and I expect helps form our view.

[Xplora]

I don't like my pots getting sooty on the outside and ash in my dinner. Fuel stove for cooking only unless it is snags or a fresh trout. Fire only when needed and allowed then only big enough to keep warm.

[north-north-west]

Interesting to compare the responses of those from Tassie ("No fires!") with those from the eastern states ("Hell yes!").

In NSW and Victoria, every year there are already thousands of hectares of back burning, and thousands more hectares burnt in bushfires. In comparison to this, the impact of campfires is much smaller than it is in other parts of the country, and I expect helps form our view.

Think less about the impact in relation to the country as a whole, and consider it in relation to the immediate area in which it occurs. I've seen cut wood carried or dragged more than a km to campsites in places like the Arthurs. Seen people carrying significant loads of wood for campfires onto the higher parts of the Main Range in NSW. Seen areas around campsites increasingly cleared of, first, fallen timber and then standing dead wood, and then even branches from living trees. The impact in terms of our national ecology is small, but when looked at in the context of the site around the fire, it can be massive.

The fact is that a fire is not necessary. All fires have an impact. By not having a fire, we reduce our overall impact on our wild places. It's not that big a sacrifice to make.

[stepbystep]

Interesting to compare the responses of those from Tassie ("No fires!") with those from the eastern states ("Hell yes!").

In NSW and Victoria, every year there are already thousands of hectares of back burning, and thousands more hectares burnt in bushfires. In comparison to this, the impact of campfires is much smaller than it is in other parts of the country, and I expect helps form our view.

Think less about the impact in relation to the country as a whole, and consider it in relation to the immediate area in which it occurs. I've seen cut wood carried or dragged more than a km to campsites in places like the Arthurs. Seen people carrying significant loads of wood for campfires onto the higher parts of the Main Range in NSW. Seen areas around campsites increasingly cleared of, first, fallen timber and then standing dead wood, and then even branches from living trees. The impact in terms of our national ecology is small, but when looked at in the context of the site around the fire, it can be massive.

The fact is that a fire is not necessary. All fires have an impact. By not having a fire, we reduce our overall impact on our wild places. It's not that big a sacrifice to make.

Indeed!! Thank you!

For me, I go walking to connect as closely as possible with the natural environment, why a walker would want to diminish the environment they walk through is beyond me...I love a good fire, but it's a numbers game...there's no way any environment that sees lots of traffic can handle having all that organic matter ripped out, without making the country sick(er).

The dozens of fire pits I saw on the Larapinta were pretty disheartening...we are very lucky to be able to experience these places, it's not our 'right' to strike a light.

[taswegian]

I'm one of those of old farts who have been responsible (irresponsible) for contributing to degradation.
Kerosene Bush. Burns green, in dead of winter!
King Billy pine! Tinder dry, nothing beats it for lighting a fire.
And that aroma wafting on the still night air.

It's one thing to argue we've been doing it for thousands of years.
But thousands of years ago the population was?? Sure everyone was dependent on fire.
Nowadays the population is fast outstripping supply and to argue 'we've always done it' doesn't hold.

If there was unfettered permission to light fires in The Walls, for egs, what vegetation would be left?
I remember the rather rapid decline in dead pines inside The Walls, then they started on the green ones, hacking off bits at will.

If you're younger than 40? then perhaps you don't realise what the Walls was like before it got bad enough to turf the campers out from pool areas and ban wood burning.

It's easy to look at these areas, and others, that have recovered, albeit with the absence of dead and decaying logs long burnt, and suggest it's sustainable or we should still be able to exercise our God given rite to burn a naturally occurring product in these fragile places.
Such a suggestion is in absence of prior first hand knowledge of what was and now isn't.

I was happy to heed the requests (orders) not to camp and not to use fires in these areas.

The beautiful, stunning, captivating majesty of those areas are what they are and it's surely not too hard a sacrifice to leave the old, but yes pleasant, ways behind.

[ofuros]

Inside National Parks...no.
Outside National Parks... Yes(where allowed, rarely, but kept small anyway).
Car camping with family...yes.(where allowed & we bring our own wood sourced locally)

We've had more smoky wood fired bbq's @ dedicated camp/picnic areas provided by NP's
than I have ever will have in the bush itself...

[tom_brennan]

Think less about the impact in relation to the country as a whole, and consider it in relation to the immediate area in which it occurs.

That was actually my point. A fire that's acceptable in the Blue Mountains is probably not acceptable in Tassie, or in Central Australia.

[Walk_fat boy_walk]

Tom's right, Tassie's an entirely different kettle of fish to the dry euc forests of the eastern (mainland) seaboard where deadfall is aplenty and only the very heavily used campsites are depleted of deadfall within a small radius.

I agree with "fuel stove only" restrictions in alpine, peaty or other sensitive areas and if I ever caught someone cutting living vegetation for firewood around any campsite I'm sure I'd find an alternative use for their cutting implements, but in general I think common sense prevails - where the impact isn't material fires are ok. There's always going to be the occasional d**khead but we shouldn't impose blanket restrictions to cater for the lowest common denominator (who'd probably ignore them anyway).