[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [pct-l] zip stoves, overuse ahd thru-hiking
- Subject: Re: [pct-l] zip stoves, overuse ahd thru-hiking
- From: "Andy Somers" <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 01:47:28 -0300
> From: Brick Robbins <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: [pct-l] zip stoves, overuse ahd thru-hiking
> Date: Sexta-feira, 27 Março, 1998 2:58 PM
> Get serious folks. The recent tirade about zip stoves and fire
> has shown the lack of experience with the PCT (and with zip stoves) by
> of the posters. The majority of the posts concerned the alpine ban on
> in some regions. The biggest area of this ban is along the high use JMT.
> (big surprise!)
> The Sequoia/KingsNP, YosemiteNP and InyoNF clearly state that reason for
> the alpine fire ban is the scarcity of deadfall in the higher elevations,
> combined with the high use (lots of folks who want to burn scarse wood).
> They state that what little deadfall is there, needs to be left to decay
> and provide sustenance to the remaining plant life.
> The fire restrictions along the JMT section of the PCT are above 9600ft
> YNP, 10,000ft Muir/Ansel Adams Wilderness (INF) , KNP and 11,200 in the
> SNP, in addition there are a few "High Use" areas, such as Tyndall Creek
> that have also had fire restrictions imposed.
> The alpine fire restrictions are not from fear of a wild fire. Only
> who had never been there could even think that there was a chance of a
> wildfire above 11,200 in Sequoia NP.
> A through hiker would not probably not camp in areas where the fire
> restriction was in effect because it is colder and harder to sleep at the
> higher elevations. There is no point in sleeping below a snow covered
> to get an early start climbing the next day since you need to wait till
> snow softens to get a foothold, and there is little point in stopping at
> higher elevation on the way down, since warmer, friendlier campsites are
> waiting just below.
> If a through hiker with a zip stove decided to cook up high, I don't
> anyone in authority would mind if he carried the fuel up with him; he
> certainly would be in compliance with the reason for the regulation. If
> placed the stove on bare earth or on a rock in a campsite, there would be
> no chance of damage to the plant life. Hell, he could probably find a
> ring to set it in.
> As far as rangers go, there is very little chance of a through hiker
> running into one up high that late. The ranger won't be camping there,
> if a through hiker camps there, he will stop late and start early. At the
> time when most through hikers are travelling through this section, the
> rangers won't even be at their stations yet. The first place you are
> to see a ranger is in Yosemite.(You might possibly meet one at the Mt
> Whitney Trailhead if you go out that way to resupply). The technicality
> the strict interpretation of the rules just won't be a factor unless you
> something really stooopid like fire up your zip stove on the doorstep of
> rangers hut in an fire-restricted "high use" area.
> The amount of fuel used to cook a meal in a zip stove is about what a
> weekender burns in a campfire in 2 minutes. There is just not enough wood
> burned to have a signficant impact. Some folks have a quasi religous
> of "campfires" that causes them to hate zip stove just on principal. They
> aren't even in the same catagory as a campfire. Even Jardine in the
> edition of the Handbook mentions SMALL cooking fires as an alternative to
> At the lower elevations there is plentifull firewood, as long as you look
> more than 0.5 miles from the popular campsites.
> Many of the regulations are in place to attempt to mitigate the over use
> from the actions of typical "weekenders" that hike into a campsite close
> a trailhead, sit there in a group of 4 for 3 days clomping around in
> boots, crapping in the same place, having bon fires each night. Overuse
> a bad thing and should be prevented.
> The impact of the through hiker is minimal: his craps are even 20 miles
> apart, and he never stays camped for more than 8-10 hours anyway. He is
> never in one place long enough to have much impact,
> There are fire restrictions due to wildfire danger in other places,
> the first 200 miles of the trail. I know that fires in BBQs are allowed
> most places in that region. I don't really see where a zip stove is any
> different. Anyone who has used one knows that burning status of the ashes
> in the stove are quite obvious by the time you put the stove away: flame
> no flame hot embers are still HOT. A conscientious hiker will have no
> danger of starting a wildfire.
> Flames sent to me privatley will be ignored. Flames sent on the list are
> prohibited by the list charter. Polite dissenting opinions are always
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | For info
* From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | For info http://www.hack.net/lists *