[at-l] Wood stoves: a threat to the trail?

[papa_bear_nyc@yahoo.com (Papa Bear)]

This thread is an outgrowth of the thread on cost of freeze dried food =
vs. cheaper alternatives.

Let me say up front that this in no way is an attack on Weary or any =
other user of wood stoves.  My own use of wood for cooking goes back at =
least 40 years and predates by many years the introduction of small, =
compact gas stoves.  In those days a gas stove was a big clunky Coleman =
stove which stayed in the trunk of your car.  In the back country you =
used wood.  I was proud of being able to find dry kindling in the rain, =
light a camp fire with one match and no paper etc.  I even could light a =
fire with flint and steel or with the friction bow method (whatever we =
called that I forget).  Those were the days.  And the new style of wood =
stoves are quite efficient and ingenious.  They work (I'm told) on a =
variety of fuels, even wet, and produce a good heat for cooking.  =
Progress.

But stop and think where the fuel is coming from:  dried leaves, bark, =
down wood, etc.  This material is no longer part of the living biomass =
but is absolutely part of the cycle that renews the topsoil and all that =
depends on that.  Today's dead twigs are tomorrow's topsoil.

I fear an increased use of this dead organic material will, over time, =
cause a denuding of the ground cover near the trail.  Heaven know the =
standing dead wood is long gone in most places.  And the ground cover =
and topsoil is pretty sorry around most shelters. =20

But "We've done this for years (probably since the dawn of humankind) =
and the forest looks just fine.  Gimme a break".  True true.  But these =
things tend to have a non linear affect as usage increases.  Below a =
threshold, the forest can replenish the dead material taken and will =
support a modest amount of use with not much degradation.  But go over =
that threshold and you get catastrophic changes.  Where is the =
threshold?  Don't know.  But I know there is a level at which the forest =
cannot replace the material taken and then you will see noticeable loss =
of ground cover, degradation of topsoil, loss to erosion, etc.

Someone used a humorous remark recently: "An environmentalist is someone =
who already has a house on the beach".  Very true.  Many of us who love =
nature have done things for years that have had little noticeable affect =
on the environment.  But increase the number of users by 5 or 10 or 20 =
and suddenly what was fine in the good old days is no longer workable.  =
It's just a matter of scale and what the environment can sustain.

35 years ago we used to go camping on the beach in what is now the Cape =
Cod National Seashore.  At one time around 1965, a ranger came by and =
very politely told us camping wasn't allowed on the beach.  I was =
resentful and though "what does this guys know - we've been doing this =
for years".  But we reluctantly stopped camping there.  Today almost 40 =
years later I see that the CCNS is still a beautiful area, free of the =
dense development that is nearby, and although not a perfect wilderness, =
is still there, thank the lord.  I know that without those no camping =
rules and other "inconveniences" to us cognoscenti, it would not be what =
it is today.  Please no flames about governmental regulations - this is =
not about that.  It's simply about the fact that every natural =
environment (or unnatural one for that matter - like central Park) there =
is a limit to certain uses.

We like to preach "Pack it in - pack it out".  There is a corollary =
mantra that I like: "Leave nothing but footprints, take nothing but =
pictures".  (Today I might even question the footprints but let's not go =
there.)  In this vein, consider leaving the detritus that is the fuel =
for you wood stove to become tomorrows topsoil.

Pb


--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---