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

[spiriteagle99@hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

Bob Cummings wrote:
>But lets put this in perspective. The paper companies and other big 
> >landowners in Maine harvest 6.1 million cords of wood a year.
>
>I've never carried a postal scale on the trail. But I'm guessing that >a 
>typical meal requires may be a half pound of wood, when using a Zip Stove. 
>A cord of wood weighs a couple of tons or so. So a cord of wood will cook 
>8,000 meals.
>
>Let's assume that long distance hikers increase to the point where they 
>cook 5 million meals a year on the trail using a Zip Stove. BTW >that 
>assumes that the number of thru hikers attempts double to 10,000 a year, 
>that all complete their hikes, that all cook two hot meals a day, and 
>everyone gives up alcohol, white gas and environmentally damaging canisters 
>and use nothing but wood to cook along the trail.
>
>All told, these hikers of the future would require just 1,250 cords of 
> >wood a year. Compared with the 6.1 million cords harvested in Maine 
> >alone (probably only god , Jim and Papa Bear know how many cords are 
> >harvested in other forested states like Georgia, North Carolina, 
> >Tenesssee, Pennsylvania, New York and New Hampshire...), I think Zip 
> >Stove user damage to the forest may be hard to calculate.

Bob -
Since you asked - yeah, I know where to find those numbers - but they're 
meaningless in this context.

Let's run the numbers again and actually "put it in perspective".  And we'll 
use some of your numbers.  If a Zip uses a half pound of wood per meal, 
that's 1 # per day (two meals).  For a six month hike that's 180# per person 
- stretched over a 2100 mile track.  Except that it's not.  The wood 
collection zone is along a narrow strip - and concentrated either in shelter 
areas or along the trail 2-3 miles prior to the shelter.  Has nothing to do 
with how many cords of wood are harvested in Maine ;-)

Now - using more realistic numbers - 4000 thruhikers per year assuming (as 
you did) that they ALL use Zip stoves = 4000# per day of wood usage - 
collected from the immediate environs of the shelters.  Yeah - it WOULD have 
an impact on the areas around the shelters.  NOT on the "environment" as a 
whole, but certainly on the immediate shelter areas.

So -- in Georgia, there would be roughly 4000 hikers impacting the shelter 
areas while you'd be sitting in Maine saying "I don't see that kind of 
impact on the Trail".  Why?

Because we're not done yet. Reality is that only 15% of those 4000 hikers 
would make it to Maine - and only 10% would finish. So taking a median 
number (12.5%) --- 500 hikers using 500# of wood per day would make a whole 
lot less impression on the shelter areas in Maine than the 4000 hikers would 
in Georgia and North Carolina.  The 500# per day "may" be sustainable.  The 
4000# per day spread over a relatively small area?  ----- I seriously doubt 
it.

But we're not finished yet - are we?  Reality is that not everyone is gonna 
use Zip stoves.  Reality is that for the AT, an alcohol stove is a lighter 
weight alternative cause a 12 oz bottle of fuel will likely provide 4 days 
of hot meals (2 per day) and AT hikers usually manage to get into town every 
3 days or so (average) to refuel.  The max stove weight for an alcohol stove 
would then generally be about 14 oz - and would decrease with every use 
while the Zip stove was - what? - 16 oz and constant.  The only place that 
doesn't work is in the Smokies or on your section of the Trail where 
resupply is minimal. And even there, I think the situation has changed to 
favor alcohol.  Anyway, the majority (90+%)of thruhikers will go with other 
types of stoves so there won't 4000 Zip stoves on the Trail.

All of which comes down to - you're right, even if for the wrong reasons.  
As an individual, your zip stove won't do a lot of environmental damage - 
but if thousands of people per year start using them on the AT - then you'd 
be wrong.  Proselytizing isn't always a good thing  :-)

One more comment - something else that a lot of people don't understand is 
that the AT is a launching pad for those who hike other places, other 
trails.  And the habits, good or bad that they pick up on the AT will be 
carried over to those other places and trails.  I said once before that I 
wouldn't use a Zip stove in some places - the southern PCT, the Colorado 
high country or the Wyoming desert - among others.  And the reason is simple 
- the biomass availability and growth rate are such that Zip usage "would" 
damage the environment.  Personally, I don't encourage Zip usage on the AT 
because many people will then "Assume" that such usage is acceptable in 
other places - including those places where it's not.  Been there - seen 
that.

Now, one more question - you said "environmentally damaging canisters".  
What's your justification for that?  The canisters are recyclable, the 
contents are cleaner burning than your Zip.  I don't use canister stoves on 
the Trail either, but that statement didn't make sense.  Try it again???

Anyway - having been offline for 4 or 5 days, I'm not sure I'll bother 
"catching up" on a lot of this stuff - some of these people need to get out 
and hike - or get a life - or something.

Walk softly,
Jim

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx