[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[at-l] LNT and the Law of Unintended Consequences
First, before I get too far into this let me first state that I agree in
principle with concepts of Leave No Trace camping. I'm in fact working with
Charlie to provide another home for his post on ALDHAW's website.
Second I'd like to preference my comments with a bit of background. That
way you'll have some idea where I'm coming from (even if I don't). I have a
BS in Forest Management so I have a reasonable understanding of forest
ecosystems. Prior to that I spent three years working at a major waste
water facility on the East Coast, so I have a reasonable knowledge of waste
treatment. I don't in any means claim to be an expert in either field,
simply a slightly more informed viewer.
LNT and the Law of Unintended Consequences
Most of the feedback thus far has been centered around the topics of fire
and waste disposal. Two topics that seem to be at opposite ends of the
spectrum of our outdoors experience. No doubt most of us could wax
poetically for hours about some memory around the campfire. While at the
same time we'd just as soon forget we ever had to do the other. Still from
the environmental point of view they are simply variations on a theme. With
the theme being the recycling of the environment.
Before I get too involved in the ecology of either practice. I'd like to
make a comment or to on the title of this foray. One of the problems of any
philosophy is that to be effective, it must be communicated. To be
communicated it must be simple enough to be understood. And when the
"Rubber Meets the Road" that generally means rules. But since rules can't
cover all the intricacies of a complex environment, rules often break down
and often lead to the Law of Unintended Consequences. Sometimes the
consequences are quite beneficial, we call that serendipity. Just as often
they can be quite negative. It's still too early to tell, but global
warming may wind up to be the greatest unintended consequence of all time.
The problem is that environments are far too complex for us mere mortals to
contemplate the all the effects of our actions. Frequently actions that
seem well thought out and reasoned in the beginning, turned out to have
many far reaching unexpected effects.
As an illustration, I'm going to stretch back a few years to examine what
was arguably the most successful marketing campaign of all time. One in
which all of us are familiar and for many of us, it is one of the
cornerstones that defines our involvement with the outdoors. If you haven't
guessed it, I'm talking about Smokey the Bear and "You to can prevent
forest fires." All in all it was a simple message to combat a growing
problem. The fires caused by masses of inexperienced outdoors people in the
50's were a problem. To combat the problem a star was born. As a child I
remember seeing Old Smokey at the zoo in Washington DC.
From that simple message a whole generation of kids was raised to believe
that all wild fires were bad. For over thirty years every fire that started
was fought vigorously regardless of where it was or how it was started.
Wild fires were a threat to us and had to be extinguished at all cost. What
was being ignored in our rush to put them out, was the potential long term
harm to both ourselves and to the environment. During that time the ecology
of the land was changing and forest fuels were building to explosive
levels.
A number of years ago, shortly after the "Let natural fires burn" movement
started amongst forest managers, Yellowstone National Park caught fire and
burned extensively. Many of the park resource managers wanted to let the
fires burn to clear out the extensive fuel supply and open up new areas for
wildlife to graze. The general public and numerous members of congress were
extremely upset about the decision. Smokey had conditioned us to believe it
was bad. Plus looking at miles of scared timber was not visually appealing.
We wanted it to remain for our children as we had seen it, unspoiled and
beautiful. Smokey had taught us to believe that a burn scar was ugly. To
this day, even though I know better, I still have to fight the feeling that
burns are bad and ugly.
The Western region of the United States is designed to burn. Eastern forest
has a different ecology. The entire life cycle from hills outside LA to the
Canadian boarder and inland to the Rocky Mountains is based on renewal by
fire. May plants including Lodgepole Pine require fire to reproduce. The
pinecones won't open unless exposed to fire. In the early years after a
fire, Lodgepole pines grow in the areas cleared by fire. Later they are
replace by Ponderosa pines. In the Cascades it's Alder followed by Douglas
Fir which is replaced in a few hundred years by Hemlocks. In the deserts of
Oregon and Washington fire suppression allows the growth of sage brush and
juniper trees which crowd out native grasses.
The cycle of fire varies greatly from area to area. In the wet areas of
Oregon and Washington it is over hundreds of years, in the Pine country it
is far shorter and in the high deserts it is even shorter.
Large animals deer, elk, moose, antelope, require areas cleared by fire for
forage. Not enough grass grows in dense timber to sustain them. The forest
provides protection but clearings provide food. When a clearing returns to
forest, valuable forage is lost and animal populations are reduced. In some
areas clear cutting is beneficial in offsetting the loss of fire, but it
has it's own side effects. There are may other benefits of fire, but I
won't go into them here.
In the years before man's heavy involvement in the forest. The forest was a
patch work quilt of small burn spots. Occasional large fires would burn
large area's but that was rare. The small fires were very effective in
controlling fuel loads and reducing the potential of catastrophic fires.
From today's point of view they would probably not look as pretty. Not the
long major expanse of green we like to see when standing on a summit. But
the forest was healthy.
One of the fears I have about LNT is that like Old Smokey, it can put us in
a mind set where view the forest as a static environment. And as such we
work to preserve our mental image of it a given moment in its life cycles.
We ignore what goes on a generation before or after us. The forest is
extremely dynamic. It just moves at a different pace than we do. We think
in years, the forest acts in generations. We view the damage of this
winters ice storms on the AT with respect to our image of the AT when we
passed it. When aside from the blockage of the trail, the only real damage
was in our own minds. The forest ecology will absorb the changes and move
on.
Where's the fire!
Since I've lost the rest of the group now, the two of you remaining are
probably wondering what, if anything, that monologue had to do with LNT and
daily hiking. Well in fact very little. It mainly served to point out that
we should attempt to try to view our actions in context to the wider
environment. I certainly don't want us all headed out and starting forest
fires in the name of diversity.
As for myself, I have a number of personal rules I try to follow with
respect to fire in the outdoors.
1) Never above timberline, the ecosystem is way too fragile and would take
may years to recover.
2) Generally, I don't build fires when I'm alone and only occasionally when
with my wife.
3) I do build fires in established campsites, shelters or campgrounds with
fire rings. Generally when there are a number of people around. There's a
lot to be said about sitting around a campfire with friends.
4) I don't build fires in the backcountry along established trails.
5) I don't build fires when the fire danger is high even in campgrounds
with fire pits or rings. If the danger is extreme I may not even cook with
my stove. If you are unable to clear an area large enough to contain the
fire should the stove leak, the using it is not recommended.
All these conditions above vary depending upon the location, ecology,
remoteness and fire hazard of the area we are in. Needless to say, non
flammable items (aluminum, cans, etc. foil wrappers) should not be place in
the fire, and if found should be packed out. Plastics should also be
excluded from the fire. Paper (printouts of this diatribe), cardboard, etc
can be burned with no ill effects. A well constructed and tended fire will
consume itself to a fine ash. When mixed with water and spread around the
camp, the ash returns vital mineral back to the soil.
Doesn't burning the local wood harm the environment? Again, there are no
easy answers. Each year the forest generates a significant amount of new
growth. The amount of growth is dependent upon the ecology of the area. In
most areas along the AT the new growth will more than offset the amount of
wood taken for campfires. That is assuming you are not in an area with high
concentration of people. If you have doubts then don't build a fire!
Oh what a waste!
Taking a dump in the woods is probably the least pleasant part of the
entire backcountry experience. Many a hiker yearns for a decent toilet when
getting to a road crossing. It's also an activity that consumes extreme
amounts of our mental energy for that period prior to release. During that
agonizing time, most people are far concerned with locating a place with a
modicum of privacy. The environment maybe an issue but for most it's way
way down on the priority list. At least until after the event. Then when
the mind clears and the world comes back into focus, we're left to deal
with the mess we've created.
Many planners seem to fail to take the psychology of the act into
consideration when planning for toilet facilities. After all, during
planning stages their minds are clear and certainly aren't consumed in the
fog of the moment. I'm pretty sure that's why many of our efforts fail.
Placing a toilet a couple hundred feet up a hill from shelter is fine until
the body moves. One toilet in Maine was a good quarter mile from the
shelter. I don't know about you, but I'm in no condition to walk a calm
quarter mile.
The posthole brigade of the Smokies is probably not too effective either.
Ramming a posthole digger up and down is frankly the last thing I want to
be doing when I'm standing there with my knees slammed together like a 5
year old.
What's missing in a lot of these scenarios is a little human engineering.
The major problem with adapting the human to the environment is the fact
that instinct is going to win over education 90 percent of the time. So we
have a choice. We can either spend our time blaming people and calling them
uneducated cads or work to develop sites where our instincts aren't at odds
with the environment.
Well the deeds done, now what? Year's ago it was recommend to burned the
toilet paper and cover it all up. Somewhere along the line burning TP was
no longer PC. Then someone had the bright idea of packing the TP out.
After all TP is a foreign object, right? Well last time I checked, 99.9
percent of the TP in this country was still made from cellulose from wood.
And there's probably considerably less cellulose in it than in the leaves
and twigs use to cover it.
Others complain about the chemicals contained in the paper leaching into
the soil and contaminating it. I doubt that the unscented plain old paper
contains any harmful chemicals. Remember, this is the same paper you're
flushing down your drain at home. I can guarantee your local waste water
facility is not removing any of those chemicals before returning the waste
water back into the rivers for the people in the next town down stream to
drink. So unless you're planning to stop using TP at home that's no reason
to stop in the woods.
The only problem with TP is that it is white and no one wants to see it. I
agree I don't like the little tuffs of white that seem to litter campsites.
Perhaps we could persuade someone to make camouflage TP. What we fail to
remember is that TP is designed to disintegrate easily. If it didn't, we'd
all be walking around with pretty sore butts. And every sewage treatment
plant would be backed up until next Wednesday.
So how do you get rid of it? Well I believe that when done responsibly,
burning is still valid. However, there is a better method. One that reduces
the volume of the TP, starts the disintegration process and aids in
breaking down the solid waste.
Before I bury the TP and stool, I urinate on it. Then using a small stick,
I mix it into a slurry. Then I cover it with dirt, leaves or whatever's
available. This practice has several benefits. First, by converting the
solid to a slurry, it allows the bacteria already present in the stool to
become much more effective in breaking it down. We've all seen the little
mounds of prettified dog poop that litter neighborhoods. They don't break
down because the sun bakes the moisture out killing the bacteria and
microbes that would otherwise quickly digest it and return it to soil.
Within all of us is an army of bacteria that starts the process of break
down prior to discharge. When the stool leaves, many of them follow to
continue the process. By adding water, we generate an environment that
allows them to flourish and quickly break down the waste. That's a process
that's found in any wastewater facility. There you'll find big covered tank
called a digester. Inside are billions of bacteria and microbes that
breakdown the solid matter and release methane. The methane is then either
burned off or, in larger facilities, used to drive massive engines that run
the pumps. (And you thought poop fuel was a joke.)
Second, you don't have the little tuffs of white paper littering the
landscapes. Third it's more difficult for little forest critters to dig it
up.
So where to do it and how deep. Environmentally, where is more important
than how deep. The 6 inch depth is more a function of LNT than ecology.
Simply putting it where it can't be seen doesn't mean that you're doing the
environment a favor. The best places are areas with lots of biological
activity going on. Places with lots of forest litter from trees or plant
life. On the AT finding a place, generally isn't a problem.
If there's lot's of biological activity, depth is generally not a problem.
However it you're in the deserts of the Southwest or above timberline,
depth could be. Digging too deep and you're likely to dig past the zone of
activity. Then it will take longer for the waste to break down.
Summary
I apologize for the length of this. As with most of life's questions there
aren't always easy answers. And a lot of the answers are pretty much crap
shots anyway. But the question remains. What are the unintended
consequences to LNT? Well it's far too early to know. What we don't want is
to let a few rules, however good intentioned, shield us from the
responsibility of the environment. At best they can provide a good road
map. But they should be constantly analyzed to insure there are no cliffs
in the road.
When traveling in the backcountry, my first aim is always to first "Do No
Harm". But since it's not always easy to know what is or isn't harmful,
then at least "Leave No Trace" becomes a reasonable guide.
Ron "Fallingwater" Moak
* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List | For info http://www.hack.net/lists *
==============================================================================