|
Hatchets
Aug 27, 2016 0:34:22 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by High Sierra Fan on Aug 27, 2016 0:34:22 GMT -8
I like fires. A natural part of camping. I used to feel the same in the old days but grew out of it, especially in the west. Here it is important to let the wood turn into fertilizer as there is not much else to keep the forest healthy (hence the fire restrictions at altitude). Not to mention the risk of causing wild fires. An often unrecognized risk of the campfire habit is the risk of transporting forest pests in the wood into places they haven't gotten to. "Forest Pests Forest pests result when non-native insects and diseases are introduced into an ecosystem and lead to environmental or economic damage. So, what does this mean to Yosemite's visitors? People bringing firewood with them can introduce pests accidentally to the park. Park officials, therefore, ask visitors not to transport outside firewood inside the park because pests often survive inside wood where they can’t be seen. (Scroll down to see where visitors are permitted to gather wood in the park.) Currently, 16 pests concern park foresters." www.nps.gov/yose/learn/nature/forest-pests.htm
|
|
|
Post by UpperPeninsula on Aug 27, 2016 2:46:56 GMT -8
I understand that hiking the West and hiking in Northeastern boreal forests is fundamentally different. I'm very familiar with the pests, as I nurture a forest that I personally planted in a former farm pasture with 5,000 seedlings. So when I'm talking about a campfire, I'm talking about gathering wood within 100 feet. Having backpacked Glacier National, I'm aware that if campfires were allowed, it would be a matter of years before trees around designated campsites were eliminated. Transporting firewood for car camping is irresponsible. My "campfires" are small affairs, not bonfires that scar the landscape for the next five decades. I realize it's hard to talk about a subject that applies to the many landscapes across this vast nation. For me, it's about bushwhacking in dense forests. Sorry for any confusion. I certainly agree with what the previous posters said about campfires in areas that are stampeded by a constant flow of hikers. The places I enjoy frequently are trail-less and the last human to walk through an area was a 19th Century logger or a 20th Century hunter.
|
|
|
Post by johntpenca on Aug 27, 2016 3:59:32 GMT -8
An often unrecognized risk of the campfire habit is the risk of transporting forest pests in the wood into places they haven't gotten to. Good point HSF. Whenever I buy wood for a fire in a campground, I buy it locally.
|
|
|
Post by UpperPeninsula on Aug 28, 2016 10:08:45 GMT -8
I know people don't get it. Camping does not require "campfire". So true. But back to hatchets. The right kind of hatchet or bpacking saw weighs about the same as a stove and 16 oz of fuel. Oddly enough at the end of the trip, the hatchet lives another day for another venture. Sadly, spent fossil fuel does not. Hatchets assist the bpacker in cooking a meal without adding a pound of carbon to our home. (As we all know wood will eventually break down into carbon whether it's five minutes from now or 15 years from now, thus no net gain.) If you really want to have fun, gather wood without a hatchet or saw. Save the weight of both the stove/fuel and the cutting appliance. And for JC's sake, don't call it a "campfire." The proper term is "fire" or "cooking fire."
|
|
almostthere
Trail Wise!
putting on my hiking shoes....
Posts: 696
|
Post by almostthere on Aug 28, 2016 10:38:37 GMT -8
I know people don't get it. Camping does not require "campfire". So true. But back to hatchets. The right kind of hatchet or bpacking saw weighs about the same as a stove and 16 oz of fuel. Oddly enough at the end of the trip, the hatchet lives another day for another venture. Sadly, spent fossil fuel does not. Hatchets assist the bpacker in cooking a meal without adding a pound of carbon to our home. (As we all know wood will eventually break down into carbon whether it's five minutes from now or 15 years from now, thus no net gain.) If you really want to have fun, gather wood without a hatchet or saw. Save the weight of both the stove/fuel and the cutting appliance. And for JC's sake, don't call it a "campfire." The proper term is "fire" or "cooking fire." NO, you are wrong. In some places maybe people still cook with fires... I haven't seen anyone COOK in a fire for YEARS. Here in California, you DO NOT build fires at all during the summer months in the Ventana Wilderness. That has been true for years, and people who break that rule cause the massive conflagrations such as the one currently burning homes over there. I have been going out each weekend camping and hiking most of the year in the Sierra. People build fires and then cook nearby on their stoves. You don't need fossil fuels if you use an alcohol stove, either. You do not need a fire to do a darn thing, and in too many hundreds of cases, you cause forest fires and millions of dollars of taxpayer debt to fight those fires -- in California. Not to mention in fighting those fires, the expenditure of about a zillion times more fossil fuel product, as those fire planes buzz over and over and over and the fire trucks roll, than any thousand backpackers with their canister stoves. Fires in the alpine have been forbidden here, for good reason, for decades. It's not as simple as you're pretending it is.
|
|
reuben
Trail Wise!
Gonna need more Camels at the next refugio...
Posts: 11,164
|
Post by reuben on Aug 28, 2016 11:09:26 GMT -8
NO, you are wrong. In some places maybe people still cook with fires... I haven't seen anyone COOK in a fire for YEARS. Here in California, you DO NOT build fires at all during the summer months in the Ventana Wilderness. Well, that just demonstrates that you don't cook all over the world. I've seen many cook over fires here on the east coast - legally. Not to mention other countries. While I generally respect your knowledge and opinion, it's a big world. None of us have been everywhere.
|
|
almostthere
Trail Wise!
putting on my hiking shoes....
Posts: 696
|
Post by almostthere on Aug 28, 2016 11:16:01 GMT -8
NO, you are wrong. In some places maybe people still cook with fires... I haven't seen anyone COOK in a fire for YEARS. Here in California, you DO NOT build fires at all during the summer months in the Ventana Wilderness. Well, that just demonstrates that you don't cook all over the world. I've seen many cook over fires here on the east coast - legally. Not to mention other countries. While I generally respect your knowledge and opinion, it's a big world. None of us have been everywhere. You'll notice that I am in fact correcting HIS global assumption. I am being quite specific in that I do not claim to be EVERYWHERE. He said campfires are all cook fires. I say NO, YOU ARE WRONG. Some campfires are hazards to people, wilderness areas, homes and taxpayer dollars.
|
|
reuben
Trail Wise!
Gonna need more Camels at the next refugio...
Posts: 11,164
|
Post by reuben on Aug 28, 2016 11:49:38 GMT -8
You'll notice that I am in fact correcting HIS global assumption. Which is what, exactly? I don't see a "global assumption" he made in the post you quoted. So true. But back to hatchets. The right kind of hatchet or bpacking saw weighs about the same as a stove and 16 oz of fuel. Oddly enough at the end of the trip, the hatchet lives another day for another venture. Sadly, spent fossil fuel does not. Hatchets assist the bpacker in cooking a meal without adding a pound of carbon to our home. (As we all know wood will eventually break down into carbon whether it's five minutes from now or 15 years from now, thus no net gain.) If you really want to have fun, gather wood without a hatchet or saw. Save the weight of both the stove/fuel and the cutting appliance. And for JC's sake, don't call it a "campfire." The proper term is "fire" or "cooking fire."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2016 4:33:19 GMT -8
But back to hatchets. The right kind of hatchet or bpacking saw weighs about the same as a stove and 16 oz of fuel. A hatchet has a straight cutting edge where a hand axe has a curved cutting edge. Using a hatchet to cut wood will lead to frustration and is very inefficent. The straight edges of the cutting surface leads to right angles at the top and (sometimes) bottom of the cutting edge. The right angles cause the hatchet to stick into the wood making it difficult for the user to remove the hatchet from the wood. An axe, single handed or double handed, has a rounded face. When the rounded face is embeded into the wood the user is less apt to get the axe stuck into the wood. The above is a hatchet. The above is an axe. A hatchet is used for demolation work. Typically the temper of a hatchet is different from an axe. The hatchet is meant to be impacted by other tools when it gets stuck in the wood.
|
|
|
Post by Coolkat on Aug 29, 2016 5:33:11 GMT -8
A hatchet has a straight cutting edge where a hand axe has a curved cutting edge. I find this very interesting since all my life I always thought the difference between a hatchet and an axe was the long vs. short handle.
|
|
|
Post by UpperPeninsula on Aug 29, 2016 5:34:02 GMT -8
But back to hatchets. The right kind of hatchet or bpacking saw weighs about the same as a stove and 16 oz of fuel. A hatchet has a straight cutting edge where a hand axe has a curved cutting edge. Using a hatchet to cut wood will lead to frustration and is very inefficent. The straight edges of the cutting surface leads to right angles at the top and (sometimes) bottom of the cutting edge. The right angles cause the hatchet to stick into the wood making it difficult for the user to remove the hatchet from the wood. An axe, single handed or double handed, has a rounded face. When the rounded face is embeded into the wood the user is less apt to get the axe stuck into the wood. The above is a hatchet. The above is an axe. A hatchet is used for demolation work. Typically the temper of a hatchet is different from an axe. The hatchet is meant to be impacted by other tools when it gets stuck in the wood. Some good information here. So good I had to go to the interwebs and check it. Here's another definition of hatchets and hand axes that sounds pretty good: link and another linktoo. I do own the Gransfors wildlife hatchet and it is indeed razor sharp. I would NEVER carry it on a bpacking venture. Too sharp. And not really needed. I do use it for hunting instead of a knife. Actually I think of it as a knife more than anything else.
|
|
tigger
Trail Wise!
Posts: 2,547
|
Post by tigger on Aug 29, 2016 19:22:27 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by WinterWorth_Miller on Sept 1, 2016 23:32:27 GMT -8
Not very portable for backpacking.
|
|
|
Post by johntpenca on Sept 2, 2016 8:34:31 GMT -8
Sadly, spent fossil fuel does not. Hatchets assist the bpacker in cooking a meal without adding a pound of carbon to our home. (As we all know wood will eventually break down into carbon whether it's five minutes from now or 15 years from now, thus no net gain.) A fire adds more CO2 to the environment than a gas stove. The fuel used for a gas stove is minuscule compared to what is used driving to and from the trail.
|
|
BlueBear
Trail Wise!
@GoBlueHiker
Posts: 3,224
|
Hatchets
Sept 4, 2016 6:00:33 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by BlueBear on Sept 4, 2016 6:00:33 GMT -8
It's very true, the discussion about fossil fuel use is silly in this context. If that were a major concern here we'd have a discussion about how we all drive to the trailhead and how/why we still heat our homes and run the fridge while we're gone. All that burns 1000's of times more fuel than a camp stove. It's barely even a rounding error. One can make the case either way about the environmental impact of a stove vs a campfire, they both have their downsides. In the West, the burden of campfire-started wildfires can't easily be ignored. But it's also true that's far less an issue in the NE and much of the South.
|
|