Forum Index > Trail Talk > Circle Lake - Fire pits ARE garbage
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Matt
Tea, Earl Grey, Hot



Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Posts: 4307 | TRs | Pics
Location: Shoreline
Matt
Tea, Earl Grey, Hot
PostWed Aug 15, 2018 12:39 am 
The original post seems like a legit complaint to me. The replies about emergency fires or wildfires are digressions that aren't relevant to the original post. The poster had visited a beautiful lake and found visible campfire debris marring the location. In this case, I know it's true. I was there two weeks ago and found three different sets of burned debris and blackened rocks. There's just no need or justification to be making this kind of mess there - it's unneeded, its illegal, and its just plain rude and disrespectful to future visitors.

“As beacons mountains burned at evening.” J.R.R. Tolkien
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostWed Aug 15, 2018 2:03 pm 
Doppelganger wrote:
That guy who built the gingerbread house probably shared your "if nobody sees me doing it, who cares if I'm affecting other people?" mentality.
Doppelganger wrote:
This guy needs to apply to become a mod first.
We all 'affect' other people continuously, endlessly, and unavoidably. In this particular case, my effect is likely to be less than that of showing up in that location at all and everything it impacts just to get there. I'll point out the fact that the idea there are needs, justification, or reason to go these places in the first place... is merely a value judgement....just like that being levied against small fires carefully placed. When you open the 'need' can of worms, it works both ways like it or not.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
joker
seeker



Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 7953 | TRs | Pics
Location: state of confusion
joker
seeker
PostWed Aug 15, 2018 2:24 pm 
Sucks to have fires being built these days up in locations like that, where they're clearly banned. Even worse when folks just leave scars in the upper soil rather than the rarely-used technique of digging down to mineral soil for the bed of the fire while carefully preserving the upper layers to replace so as to minimized the disruption. And worse yet when people are collecting sparse bits of wood in a relatively open environment regardless of whether they're snapping the dead branches of still-standing trees or only gathering bits of wood already broken and on the ground. SO uncool. One needn't have a strong stance on fires down in the well-forested zones to see this.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
timberghost
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Dec 2011
Posts: 1316 | TRs | Pics
timberghost
Member
PostThu Aug 16, 2018 5:32 am 
Thanks for the trip report. Could do without the pit rant. Dismantle them and move on.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Token Civilian
Member
Member


Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 590 | TRs | Pics
Token Civilian
Member
PostThu Aug 16, 2018 8:45 am 
Off the original thread: Who here has had an actual life or death "survival" fire? Who had one that would be considered potentially an actual life or death "survival" fire? For those that have, please compare with the number of fires you've had that are not in the above two categories. Actual (or potential) life or death "survival" fire: As in "I / fellow hiker was slipping into hypothermia, didn't have any other means of warming (out of stove fuel, no shelter, sleeping bag wet, clothing wet, injured or exhausted so can't exercise to warmth, etc)", or I had no other means of signaling so made 3 fires, etc. or similar. Compare and contrast with the number of fires created in situations other than above. I suspect Alpine Rose's number is closer to the factually correct answer (e.g. I suspect that at least 99% of camp fires are not actual survival situations). For Alpine's number to be further away from the factually correct number, the actual percentage of fires not used for survival would need to be somewhat less than 98%. Are the objectors to Alpine's hyperbola to make a point here really arguing that the number is further from the truth than 1-2%? Nit's, meet your pickers.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Damian
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Dec 2001
Posts: 3260 | TRs | Pics
Damian
Member
PostThu Aug 16, 2018 10:30 am 
timberghost wrote:
Thanks for the trip report. Could do without the pit rant. Dismantle them and move on.
Agree. 2340 views. Impact this thread rant could have on Circle lake may well exceed the impact of the (now removed) fire rings.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Chief Joseph
Member
Member


Joined: 10 Nov 2007
Posts: 7676 | TRs | Pics
Location: Verlot-Priest Lake
Chief Joseph
Member
PostThu Aug 16, 2018 10:58 am 
Token Civilian wrote:
Who here has had an actual life or death "survival" fire?
Nearly every time I go pack rafting in a cold mountain lake..

Go placidly amid the noise and waste, and remember what comfort there may be in owning a piece thereof.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostThu Aug 16, 2018 1:08 pm 
Token Civilian wrote:
re the objectors to Alpine's hyperbola to make a point here really arguing that the number is further from the truth than 1-2%?
Not from my perspective. I note that once you make 'survival' the standard for when it's ok to impact the 'virnmunt, *consistent* application of this very same principle... rules out your play trips into the mountains.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
BigBrunyon
Member
Member


Joined: 19 Mar 2015
Posts: 1450 | TRs | Pics
Location: the fitness gyms!!
BigBrunyon
Member
PostThu Aug 16, 2018 2:35 pm 
Damian wrote:
Agree. 2340 views. Impact this thread rant could have on Circle lake may well exceed the impact of the (now removed) fire rings.
Here's the deal: that's the deal!!

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Token Civilian
Member
Member


Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 590 | TRs | Pics
Token Civilian
Member
PostThu Aug 16, 2018 3:02 pm 
Goat, the topic is fires when on a voluntary excursion to the mountains. I like your subtle shift to a straw man - "when it's ok to impact the 'virmunt". No, sir. Please stick to the question - fires and their necessity (as in, basically, never). I ask again, when, does anyone actually need a fire for survival? CJ: Sounds like you need some dry bags, a dry suit, etc. Funny how I can go out on the sound in the kayak and not need a fire when I get to shore, even after a good dunking.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostThu Aug 16, 2018 3:43 pm 
The topic in the post referenced by numerous responses was the 'necessity'. It is inherent to that issue wether the impact is rendered 'OK' ....due to survival needs. You even make this fact very clear with your non categorical statement...'basically', never. Hence we know necessity is a defense for creating the impact, and you implicitly agree. Or you would have said never. There's no strawman here, merely an application of consistency...which makes the 'necessity' of all the other impacts, obvious. There is no life or death necessity for recreation in the 'sensitive' areas of the entire Cascade range... or anywhere else for that matter. I'm merely pointing out the self serving, pick and choose nature of refereeing impacts. I didn't expect doing so to be popular.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
pula58
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 587 | TRs | Pics
pula58
Member
PostThu Aug 16, 2018 3:59 pm 
Damian wrote:
2340 views. Impact this thread rant could have on Circle lake may well exceed the impact of the (now removed) fire rings
I am hoping that maybe it will make people think twice about leaving a 20 year scar for their one or two nights of campfire pleasure.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
joker
seeker



Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 7953 | TRs | Pics
Location: state of confusion
joker
seeker
PostSat Aug 18, 2018 11:55 am 
Damian wrote:
timberghost wrote:
Thanks for the trip report. Could do without the pit rant. Dismantle them and move on.
Agree. 2340 views. Impact this thread rant could have on Circle lake may well exceed the impact of the (now removed) fire rings.
It appears that cat is already well out of the bag. This seems to be well on the radar already. I think it's good for social media (e.g. this forum) to include discussions of impacts as well as how to avoid them. Over time, it's possible for some useful "norming" to occur...

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
entropybrewing
Member
Member


Joined: 20 Jun 2016
Posts: 4 | TRs | Pics
entropybrewing
Member
PostWed Aug 22, 2018 10:09 am 
Schenk wrote:
So what? That doesn't replace the organic matter you just burned into ash.
^ Feel like this hasn't been stated enough. This is the reason for the rule of no alpine lakes fires above 4k. It's a fragile environment that needs every bit of organic matter it can. If everyone "scraped together a few pieces of wood", there would be nothing left to feed new/current growth. It's OK for some to break the rules because you don't see the immediate impact?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Kascadia
Member
Member


Joined: 03 Feb 2014
Posts: 648 | TRs | Pics
Kascadia
Member
PostWed Aug 22, 2018 10:38 am 
entropybrewing wrote:
Schenk wrote:
So what? That doesn't replace the organic matter you just burned into ash.
^ Feel like this hasn't been stated enough. This is the reason for the rule of no alpine lakes fires above 4k. It's a fragile environment that needs every bit of organic matter it can. If everyone "scraped together a few pieces of wood", there would be nothing left to feed new/current growth. It's OK for some to break the rules because you don't see the immediate impact?
This is what I don't understand. . . you talk about X number of views vs. impact, etc. and the obvious question is, and what if they all build fire pits? I don't understand the sense of entitlement that some have about their right to impact vs. everyone else. Public lands belong to everyone, that is why impact needs to be regulated.

It is as though I had read a divine text, written into the world itself, not with letters but rather with essential objects, saying: Man, stretch thy reason hither, so thou mayest comprehend these things. Johannes Kepler
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Trail Talk > Circle Lake - Fire pits ARE garbage
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum