Fire rings

[Bushgirl]

Does anyone else find the proliferation of fire rings, along with cairns, out of place in the bush? For me it's about keeping your fire small then hiding all trace after you've gone. They're all around Crafts Wall. Is it just me who finds them ugly and unnecessary?

[ninjapuppet]

I used to do a lot of walks with my club but every night would involve a massive group fire. A little suggestion about its excessiveness and the group would rip into you. I'm no longer with that club, but I still love my fires... In my bushbuddy

[madmacca]

I have mixed opinions on fire rings - they do keep the scorching and related impact in just one spot. In obvious or designated camping sites, they are probably a good thing, but in wilderness areas, yes, I do get a bit annoyed at people not following LNT principles. I gotta say though that these days, I am a fuel stove only kinda guy - it's less hassle, less impact, and smoke doesn't get in my clothes.

[ULWalkingPhil]

I used to do a lot of walks with my club but every night would involve a massive group fire. A little suggestion about its excessiveness and the group would rip into you. I'm no longer with that club, but I still love my fires... In my bushbuddy

our club are the total opposite of what you experienced. Very rare we have a fire, but when we do, its small and we hide all evidence of a fire before leaving. I would have done the same thing as you, walked away from that club.

[photohiker]

On our outback trips, I am constantly stunned by the size of the fires lit. It's not unusual to find fire rings a metre or more in diameter and you can often see huge bonfires at night. Last trip, I walked past a campsite near Innamincka where the campers had a very large fire but were cooking on their gas stove!

We do use a campfire when in the outback, but only big enough for cooking, and we bring the firewood with us.

[andrewbish]

I don't always make a fire when I camp, but I really enjoy them on the occasions I do. I will generally use an existing fire ring - it is convenient and it keeps the damage to the one spot. I agree with the comments about excessively large fires.

As for rock cairns, I have yet to find them annoying. Quite the opposite, actually. I was singing the praises of cairn makers recently when I was stumbling about in the dark in thick bush and the occasional cairn let me know I was on the right track.

[ULWalkingPhil]

There are very few places left up here in QLD national parks where you can light a fire, those places you can, you must take in your own firewood.

[DebFar]

we use existing fire rings where possible, its usually small for cooking, the added bonus is the ring contains the fire and the rocks radiates extra heat, if no rocks about we use a small hollow and totally extinguish with water when finished and hide all evidence...we only every do camp fires when away camping / kayaking...NEVER when hiking as we take gas cooking. Most of the spots we go kayaking we know where there are camp fires. The other thing we do is take our own fire wood with us, and yes its a pain and its extra weight on kayaks..BUT our wood burns better and longer than scrounged wood. One thing I must add with all these fire rings /mutli camps is that available bush wood MUST be at a premium and areas around said camps MUST be getting denuded of fallen timbers!! for the quality of the fire and the scrub we know take own timber.....We do know of one camp that has a camp fire at least 2mtrs wide and its a haven for bull ants, its the ugliest camp ring we have ever seen and avoid that spot at all cost.

Rock cairns not seen to many as yet on our hikes, think i can say 2.

I suppose a new topic along side all these camp fire rings is....Whats the quality of the surround bush Like? many fire makes for LOTS of timber scrounging and the ugliest of all is trees being hacked at!!!!! (pet hate)

[ollster]

I saw one in the Walls of Jerusalem the other day. They make me rage. If I ever find someone making or using one I will throw their gear in the damn fire. I usually destroy them.

Bear in mind Tassie has different conditions to some of the rest of Aus, fires can take hold in peat and spread underground, smoulder for months, and pop up again. Fires AFAIK are banned in all of Tassie's NPs.

[pazzar]

Bear in mind Tassie has different conditions to some of the rest of Aus, fires can take hold in peat and spread underground, smoulder for months, and pop up again. Fires AFAIK are banned in all of Tassie's NPs.

Except for Douglas Apsley in the winter months.

[Nuts]

. They make me rage. If I ever find someone making or using one I will throw their gear in the damn fire.

really? Remember it wasn't long ago that they were ok.. And i haven't heard one account over all those preceding years of a bush walker causing an uncontrolled fire?

Better without them? sure! No big deal..

Deadmans Bay?

[Tortoise]

Does anyone else find the proliferation of fire rings, along with cairns, out of place in the bush?

Re cairns: Quite like them myself. Rarely found them too intrusive.

Re fire-rings - thinking mainland - don't mind them when at 'major' campsites like near a hut, where they're used frequently and it's not wilderness. Bit annoyed by fire rings in random places, especially where it wouldn't have been sensible to light a fire in the first place. Worse when bits of foil and other unburned rubbish are left there too.

[ollster]

Except for Douglas Apsley in the winter months.

Fair enough, I thought it was a blanket band except for the bay along the SCT (which is out of the part bounds by some strange arrangement).

And yes Nuts, it is a big deal. It only takes one fire to burn down the entirety of the pencil pines in Dixons Kingdom, or some other remarkable area like the side of PB, another area I've seen fire rings.

[pazzar]

I think it should be banned across all NP's, that way there are no grey areas, no bending the rules.

[Nuts]

Meh, refer to previous post, people Will have there 'things' I've heard of a track ranger making threats over a fire lit for a injured, hypothermic party member.. They are around

Fires are banned so whoever is building fire pits is breaking the law (not one of the ten commandments).

'blanket bans' and excess regulation are just easier, rearly 'better'

[tom_brennan]

In NSW, camp fires are permitted, with certain restrictions, in many of the larger national parks.

If there's no existing fire place, it's pretty easy. If you have a fire, make sure there's no trace of it when you leave. Extinguish it completely, scatter the ashes, return any unused wood to the bushes.

If there's an existing fire place, the decision is possibly a little harder. Use the existing one where possible. Don't proliferate new ones. Don't build fire rings out of rocks. But whether to clean it up completely at the end would depend on how frequently the area is used. If I think it's used often enough, I'd leave the existing fire circle. It's better to keep the damage concentrated in the one place rather than have the next person build their fire in a new place. Otherwise I'd dispose of it as above.

With a bit of practice, you get pretty good at making campsites seem uncamped at.

[DaveNoble]

Many bushwalkers prefer using a fire rather than cooking on a stove so as to reduce their carbon footprint. And as Tom says - its not too hard to restore your fireplace back to a natural state before you leave. The aim should be to make it very hard for other walkers to tell there was a fire there. I've never been able to work out why people leave a ring of stones around a fireplace.

Cairns (ducks) - why are they needed? They can lead to track formation. Often the only reason they seem to be built is to hide rubbish (I have found this when I have dismantled them!)

Dave

[Nuts]

Stone fire rings should contain the damage from spread coals and I guess are mostly built as a windbreak to get a fire started. Both also good reasons for there use in formed (official) fire places in well chosen spots, used as a management tool in some cases.

There are areas and times where no fire is going to be worth the risk. Thinking of the situation around The Walls, I'd imagine the biggest threat comes from the west. Around Lk Ball/ Adelaide and further. The area and the huts have been fuel stove only/ prohibited in huts for some years yet fresh fires have been ongoing. The management response (given- it probably reflects the budget) is to repeat the rules via posters in the huts (iirc the one in Meston is gone... Probably burnt). Are people, fishing, walking, doing what they have done (probably without harm) for generations 'Criminals' or uninvolved victims of change (forced with a simple printed poster or set of regulations)?

I detest formal regulation, it is so easily the go-to rather than consultation and coming up with something to accommodate all park owners wherever possible. I'd much prefer to have less rules better enforced (once all consideration is given to those involved). Even the odd fire ring in remote (more popular) locations may be wize. I may never use them but would imagine they indicate places where people have thought them necessary.

Agree about cairns, they have been discussed on here. My bugbear is flagging tape, some tracks have multiple flagged leads and are a mess. If with a club, group blazing new tracks I would mention that biodegradable tape is available. If a tack isn't formed in those few years it probably won't be.

[FatCanyoner]

One of the things I most enjoyed about my recent walk in the Blue Breaks was that we didn't once come across a fireplace. I usually have two fires a day, for breakfast and dinner, but always on soil, and always burried (or at least the ashes spread out and leaf litter etc put on top) so that you'd never know there'd been a fire there. It's very simple to do.
As for cairns, I'm with Dave. They are totally unnecessary.
Like all things with minimal impact bushwalking, it comes back to the old line about keeping things as pristine (or more pristine) than you found them. I love the idea of my kids and grandkids being able to discover places in a natural condition, not completely modified by people who modify nature to overcome their own lack of ability / knowledge / experience.

[walkinTas]

I have mixed opinions on fire rings - they do keep the scorching and related impact in just one spot. In obvious or designated camping sites, they are probably a good thing, but in wilderness areas, yes, I do get a bit annoyed at people not following LNT principles. I gotta say though that these days, I am a fuel stove only kinda guy - it's less hassle, less impact, and smoke doesn't get in my clothes.

+1

I too get a bit annoyed at people not following LNT principles. I tend to rage a bit when people light fires in alpine areas, or on peaty soil, or in or near native pine stands, because it is so irresponsible.

Also, gathering firewood is disturbing the nature habitat. You're removing shelter and food sources. The "problem" here is the multiplier effect - if everyone does the same thing in the same area it quickly adds up to a lot of disturbance. Better to bring your own wood!

Many bushwalkers prefer using a fire rather than cooking on a stove so as to reduce their carbon footprint.

I haven't seen this argument before Dave, and I am wondering about the maths behind it. Surely a raging fire is far more detrimental than a few ounces of gas?

[sthughes]

"Fire rings" are fine sensibly located at established camp sites (where fires are safe & allowed). But not just randomly wherever.

I don't mind cairns as long as they are for a purpose and put in the correct place (not leading people astray). Once again, not just placed randomly wherever.

[Wolfix]

According to latest bushwalker fire safety documentation, some types of rocks explode when heated so putting them around a fire is not always a safe idea. They recommend no ring. Clearing the ground in a ring around the fire site should be sufficient.

[Gadgetgeek]

as for exploding rocks, AFAIK its limited to softer rocks, saturated in water. Its easy to see how that could happen, as I've been lots of places where the best, easy rocks to find are in or near a river. Personally I've only used rocks to put things on, or to protect/define the edge of the fire pit, but a thin ring of stones isn't going to contain a fire if you haven't done your job clearing the spot. Having a stone ring to designate the fireplace at a set campsite makes good sense to me, although I do think that steel fire rings, or grates are better for cooking (if its not going to LNT why go half way?)

Where I grew up LNT wasn't that important. anything you did would be grown over quickly, in fact keeping the fences and ATV trails clear took a lot of work, even with a short growing season. But having been to places where the trails are well defined by the number of visitors, the idea of LNT starts to make much more sense. I've seen places in the rockies where there are sections of granite with grooves worn in them from all the traffic!

Personally I feel that my enjoyment cannot be the deciding factor for these decisions. I prefer to collect deadfall for a fire, but, if there is going to be anyone else in the area, it isn't going to work. I was at a drive in campground once where the firewood was deadfall cut up by the management and left in place. if there was firewood to collect, then it was fair game, if not, then you could buy charcoal. With the host of diseases spreading across North America from people hauling firewood, even bringing your own can be a poor idea. as long as I am on public land, I'll be using a stove I guess. maybe someday I'll own land, and I'll be able to do whatever I want then!

[Allchin09]

Many bushwalkers prefer using a fire rather than cooking on a stove so as to reduce their carbon footprint.

I haven't seen this argument before Dave, and I am wondering about the maths behind it. Surely a raging fire is far more detrimental than a few ounces of gas?

I believe the thought behind using a wood fire over a gas stove is that by burning wood, you are only releasing the carbon absorbed by tree or wood throughout it's lifetime. As trees can regrow, absorbing the emitted carbon again, the burning of wood has a low carbon foot print as wood is a renewable resource.

By using a gas stove, you are burning fossil fuels which are produced from organic life that has been compressed over millions of years. This is not a renewable resource and so it creates a larger carbon foot print.

[Nuts]

It is an interesting topic and that is an interesting concept. The op and many of the comments are based on the visual impact of fire rings, not so much the larger potential for impact on a global or even park wide scale.

The bushbuddy (mentioned above)/ caldera style stoves, for the minority that use them, may represent a smaller footprint than any gas stove but that is not within the scope of LNT. Should it be? Ive seen someone asked to extinguish a stick stove at Windy Ridge (Given, the guy was sheltering it under the hut..) the track ranger agrees to enforce LNT as part of the job , the discretion caveat however always leaves options..

LNT has been made to fit, I'm sure even the instigators agree there are components they would have liked included or tightened, or lessened..

A quick glance at the LNT poster (on the toilet wall ) points straight to a flaw: fuel stoves are..." don't start bushfires". I attended a couple of fires as a tracky, one was a fire lit on the hearth at old Pelion hut. The other much more interesting was a smoldering peat fire near the shore of Lk Windermere. We dug out the surrounding soil and filled the hole with water. It was left (most likely unknowingly) by a party using a shellite stove.

To me, the further you consider LNT as a doctrine the more it seems to have resulted from an approach of 'what they will take' rather than what is best practice. The obvious insurance for controlling Phytophora would appear to be restricting access, to eliminate human waste, the same (or 'carry it'). These major sources of impact (outside what effect our wilderness experience) quickly lead to conclusions that nobody in parks/politics and perhaps very few walkers really want to consider.

[walkinTas]

The issue is maybe, not just carbon, but total contribution to greenhouse gases. It is not just a CO2 question, there is also CH4 to consider.

Here are just a couple of thoughts to ponder. Methane, ground-level ozone and black carbon cause about half of current global warming. For the cooking of any given meal, your wood fire is undoubtedly producing far more methane and far more black carbon than a small gas stove. If the wood rotted some of the carbon will be immediately captured in the soil and surrounding biomas. If it is burnt, nearly all the carbon is released.

[madmacca]

While butane/propane fuels come from petrochemicals, I understand that meths as a fuel is sourced from biomass.

[Nuts]

I would have thought that gases given of by vegetation rotting on the surface would not be stored in the soil?

Either way, there is the production and shipping of the gas and it's container? The potential of the cost saved to be invested in other ways.. Hey, even the extra energy expended in carrying said cylinder lol. I'm not sure what the result of the equation would look like, a bit skeptical with a comparison with the average cooking fire. I'm guessing the few sticks used in a modern wood stove would come close maybe? It's probably a pretty minor point in comparison to the footprint of staying home.

I do like metho as a fuel, outside of alpine areas and in summer its good enough.

Anyone who's seen the fire scars around OLT platforms and huts would surely agree that (as far as bush fire goes) fuel stove v wood fire (in a formed, well chosen spot) is probably not as one sided as expected. The other attributes, cleaner,less local degradation would still tip the balance for me but people do seem to be pretty complacent out there with stoves and fuel far more volatile than wood.

[walkinTas]

Nuts I think the big flaw in my argument might be the amount of methane escaping during mining and refining of butane and propane. I'm not really saying gas is better. I'm simply saying that open fires pollute and shouldn't necessarily be seen as a green alternative to gas. Wood burning produces smoke containing a number of pollutants. Large hot fires are far worse than small cooking fires because a lot of gases are "boiled off" and escape without burning. The secondary problem is the removal of habitat and the disruption to the food chain, and in frequently used areas where there is a noticeable denuding of fallen timber, this removal and disruption can be quite considerable. Lets say at the least, "undesirable" in conservation areas.

I must confess chemistry is not my strong point. As I understand things, in a 100% efficient burn, wood, butane and propane would all produce CO2 and H2O. However, 100% efficient burns rarely happen. Burning wood produces methane and nitrogen dioxide and other nasty stuff in the smoke. Where unburned methane escapes into the atmosphere it is 20 times more harmful than CO2 and it stays in the atmosphere for 9-15yrs. Nitrogen dioxide is up to 300 times more damaging.

I was just a bit surprised when I read the carbon neutral claim. The little bit of reading I've done in the last 24 hours explains some of this, but it is a much bigger issue that just carbon sequestration. I think the argument that fires are carbon neutral also doesn't stand close examination. It might be partially true if plantation timber is used for firewood and if the plantation is replaced, but even then it not an immediate rebalance. Otherwise, there is a net (positive) contribution to CO2 and a net depletion of stored carbon - even if it is only tiny from a very small cooking fire.

[tom_brennan]

I don't tend to try and justify why I usually have a fire. I just like them. Caveman TV, I often call it. It's definitely a factor in the social aspect of a walk. In areas where we can't have fires, everyone usually goes to bed just after dark. When we can have a fire, there's usually several hours of talk after dark.

In the Blue Mountains, where we mostly walk, large areas of bush burn every ten years or so. The fires of 93/94, 97/98, 01/02 and 02/03 each burned over 500,000 hectares of bush, including large areas in the Blue Mountains. The 02/03 season alone burned nearly 1.5 million hectares across NSW. Perhaps I'm misguided, but I figure I'm just carrying out a bit of fuel reduction!