home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Media Share 9
/
MEDIASHARE_09.ISO
/
mag&info
/
scouts_.zip
/
NOFIRE.TXT
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-02-01
|
13KB
|
224 lines
(The following is a column which appeared in The Canadian Leader
Magazine and two responses to it)
"The Case Against Campfires"
Patrol Corner, The Canadian Leader, June/July 1990
by Robb Baker
The thoughts that follow have been adapted from an article
published in Australian Scouting's _Interchange_ magazine. They are
meant to stimulate discussion and help each troop examine its
outdoor practices.
At the outset, let us take the position that the use of wood
fires for cooking, heating and light is a bad practice except in the
case of emergency. It is somewhat akin to cutting spruce boughs for
a bed or trenching around a tent to keep out the water. All of
these practices need to be actively discouraged!
In many parts of the country, such a statement will elicit howls
of outrage. Once calm returns, Scouters will offer two responses.
The first and most easily dismissed is that fires are necessary for
cooking and keeping warm on cool nights.
As Scouters, we should never encourage others to venture into
the bush with food and the notion that they can use a wood fire to
cook it. Lightweight stoves are easy to use, safe in trained hands,
and reasonably cheap, too.
As for keeping warm, anyone knows that most of the heat from a
fire goes straight up. Those who huddle around it will invariably
need to wear all of their warm clothes and, possibly, a wind jacket
as well. If, for some reason, you need to sit around in the open on
a cold night, wrap yourself in a suitably protected sleeping bag and
wear a wool toque.
Although not quite so easy to dismiss, the other response to our
suggestion to ban fires can also be refuted. It comes in a variety
of diguises. Some people call the fire a "romantic touch". Others
see in it almost mystical properties linked to communion with
nature. For still others, it is a fitting way to end a day in the
wilderness, a great feature to sit around to swap tall stories and
generally unwind.
For some people, the campfire is so much a high point that they
consider a day without one like cooking dessert without eating it --
unfulfilling and just plain work. It's an attitude hard to swallow,
particularly if you are concerned about the environment. Those who
link their enjoyment of the outdoors so closely to being able to
have a campfire either cut themselves off from wilderness areas or
reconcile themselves to having a miserable time.
I have known Scouters who simply would not go into an area,
despite its beauty and program opportunities, because of fire
restrictions. My exposure to such folks left me feeling that to be
so deeply attached to the mystique of fires is sad, ultimately
limiting, and totally unnecessary.
Most Scouters are willing to forego fires when forced to by
circumstance. If, indeed, this is so, they should also be able to
resist the temptation in areas where fires are allowed and possible.
This does not include established ceremonial campfire circles
properly built in established youth camps and complete with fire
suppression equipment and dead firewood.
"But, if there is plenty of dead and downed timber or driftwood,
why shouldn't I have a fire?" you might ask. "It's not doing any
harm."
You are wrong. First, there is always the danger of a runaway
forest fire caused by a carelessly lit or improperly extinguished
fire. Do you want that on your conscience?
Second, having a fire is destructive consumption. The wood you
burn is part of the ecosystem and spoken for. It is not excess and
it certainly is not yours to destroy. There are other inhabitants
of these areas, other forms of life at your temporary campsite that
will need that wood long after you leave. To complain about litter
along the trails and yet happily set fire to the same system smacks
of hypocrisy, certainly something we try to avoid in our work with
Scouts.
Then there is the matter of visual pollution. To some, blackened
rings of stone at camp spots are welcoming signs that push back the
unfamiliarity of the bush. There are others for whom the same rings
are as repulsive as wilderness littering. In my opinion, they are
an affront to the sanctity of wild places and to other people who
come after us. We all have the right to expect the bush to be kept
in a pristine state.
Sometimes at the campsite, we quickly forget such niceties. It
is as if, by taking off the pack and putting up the tent, we unlease
all the possessive, consumptive, untidy instincts that we display in
our every day livs. The first act is to ransack the surrounding
bush for downed firewood. If this is not readily available, there
are those (not you of course) who will actively pull down dead
limbs. If they can't find those, they will proceed to pull off
living branches.
Now I can hear you say, "But I would never do that and I don't
condone it either." Perhaps not, but what about those who come
along with you? Are you willing to answer for them? Perhaps they
will go into the wilds at some later date without the same degree of
constraint.
And let's not forget how much wood you'll need to keep a fire
burning through the evening. Then, in the rush to get going in the
morning, you forget to put everything back as you found it.
Naturally, you pour water on the fire to put it out, but there never
seems to be enough time to pull out the burned wood, or to scatter
the stones clean side up, or to fill the hole, or to spread the
ashes. Your neglect openly invites others who come behind you to
use the site in the same way.
It's time we started using current technology and knowledge to
preserve the wilderness. In my mind, it is our obligation to the
generations of the future.
"This Barbarian Enjoys a Fire"
Letters, The Canadian Leader, November 1990
Thank you, Rob Baker for a wonderful position paper. I wish I'd
written _The Case Against Campfires_ (J/J'90). Instead, I am left
to howl in outrage. I have camped with and without a campfire
winter and summer, above and below the treeline, on desert and shore
in many countries. I am, I fear, one who enjoys a fire.
We live in the Aspen Parkland in an area where fireblight,
beavers, and tent caterpillars have decimated the mature aspen. The
destruction is almost total on my home quarter. My house is partly
wood heated, but I could not possibly use even a thousandth of the
dead and diseased timber within a few hundred metres of the house.
I suppose the "other inhabitants" of the area will eventually do
their job, but I don't feel at all guilty for depriving them of a
few cords.
Your arguments against the "romance" of the fire are forcible and
convincing. I confess that a singsong around the old Peak 1 just
isn't the same. But we are beginning to substitute the romance of
conservation and preservation, and most of the local troops take
pride in their no-trace camping. Our troop uses a favourite
campsite each year, so we have a chance to monitor our fire sites.
Most are indistinct within a week and all are indistinguishable
within a year. We make it a point of honour to leave nothing but
tracks. Still, I will pass your article to the troop and, perhaps,
the Court of Honour will recommend some changes.
Your arguments against using fires to keep warm have less merit.
A fire can be a lifesaver, and knowledge of how to start, maintain,
and extinguish a fire is vital scoutcraft. The only way to master a
skill is to practise it. It follows that Scouts must make fires.
It follows, too, that they must be taught caution, courtesy, and
conservation. I think this will satisfy our obligation to the
generations of the future.
-- Greybeard, 1st Thorsby Troop, Alta.
THE CASE AGAINST "THE CASE AGAINST CAMPFIRES"
by Peter Wiinholt, sysop, The Den BBS, Toronto (used by permission)
In the June/July 1990 issue of Leader Magazine, Robb Baker
wrote an article in the Patrol Corner which outlined his opinion of
campfires, and, more importantly, his stand on environmental
ethics. It is a noble stand, echoing the statements of high-tech
backpackers (and equipment manufacturers) from the past ten years
or more. "Our environment can no longer stand the strain of
overuse," they say. "Take nothing but pictures and leave nothing
but footprints," they say.
In his article, Mr. Baker said that we can no longer afford
the luxury of campfires. The functions of warmth and cooking can
be accomplished through backpacking stoves and warm clothing. As
for the romance or warmth that a campfire offers to the soul, that,
Mr. Baker says, will be a hard pill to swallow, but for the sake of
our environment we must learn to go without those tall stories that
unwind around the evening campfire. His reasons were given as the
depletion of firewood, the danger of forest fire, the "visual
pollution" of fire pits, and the tendency for a camper to generally
abuse Nature when they get carried away or careless.
This is seemingly a very environmentally responsible attitude,
and is very much in step with current trends in enviro-friendly
camping. But in my opinion, it has missed the point entirely!
The greatest caretakers of this once vast wilderness were the
Native People. Bill Mason says in "Waterwalker" that when the
Europeans first came to North America, they found an enormous,
unspoiled wilderness. In saying that they were giving a great
compliment to the peoples who had inhabited the continent for over
a thousand years. They did not do it with stoves, backpacks and
bio-degradable soap. They were equipped with the only tool which
can truly lead to harmony with our environment. An attitude.
Tom Brown Jr., who is in my opinion one of the greatest
outdoorsmen, environmentalists and supporters of the Indian way of
life, describes the Native attitude as being the caretakers of the
Earth. They hunted and built fires and cut trees for tools, -but
they did it all with a deep reverence for what they were doing.
They were very conscious of what the implications of their actions
might be on their tribe, and particularly on their children and
grandchildren. They were close to the Earth, and very involved in
the interaction. And that closeness is what fostered their
understanding and gave further strength and validity to their
attitude. It was a circle of doing and understanding and love of
the Earth.
Today's approaches to our environmental problems seem to be
the exact opposite. When we venture into the woods, we take
civilization with us. With our backpacks, heavy boots, and bug
nets, we look like we are voyaging to the moon. We are aliens in
our own world.
In order for our children to put forth the energy and
dedication necessary to change the tide of environmental
destruction, they must learn to love it the way the Native People
did. They spend enough of their lives in insulated, sterile
environments. Do we really want to say that we are going to remove
the smell of campfires and the act of cooking your food on gathered
wood from Scouting, now, when love of the outdoors is so essential?
Rather than running away from the problem, why are we not
addressing it? Teach people what kinds of wood to collect. Teach
them how to build small fires which don't let all of their heat
escape straight up. Teach fire safety. Teach and insist on the
obliteration of fire pits, to whatever degree is possible.
And foremost, understand that the act of teaching must allow
for mistakes. Only people who never do anything, never make
mistakes. And people in the process of learning make the most
mistakes. That is why learning and teaching are done on a
graduated scale. You don't take a Patrol or a Company into an
environmentally fragile area until they have learned the skills
necessary to avoid unnecessary human impact.
Are we afraid of that challenge. My God, if we are, then
where is the hope for our children?
Yes, it is true that we have an Environmental problem. It is
the most critical issue of these times, and if we don't address and
solve it, we will surly pay. But is the solution to withdraw and
distance ourselves from Nature, or to get closer to it? Is the
solution to learn how to use technology, or to understand how to
live within Nature, so that she touches our very soul.
The only way we will ever gain the momentum to save our
Environment is to love it deeply. I do not believe that promoting
an approach and attitude of sterility towards camping will foster
such a love. We still have not learned that we are part of Nature.
No matter how fast a stove can boil a litre of water, the campfire
still warms my heart.