Case against camp fire/camp fire cooking?

[Neo]

Stirfry on a fire, just add soys. Who needs a house, stove top, gas or coal mined and piped in..?

With this wind, the gum trees give us sticks like manna from heaven

Attachments

[Neo]

I added a signature comment.
Can't see it on mobile view.
Does it show on desktop view?

[stepbystep]

I think common sense prevails - where the impact isn't material fires are ok...

Sure, and I agree 100% but sadly *&^%$#@! are seriously in evidence in WA, the NT, NSW and VIC with poor practices(in my experience)...I don't doubt SA and QLD have their fair share too.

A blanket ban for NP's is a good start. As seen in Tassie, a fuel stove only rule works pretty well, people mostly change habits when educated, and shamed into correct practice. *&^%$#@! will be what they are.

Taswegian, thanks for another excellent post.

[Moondog55]

Let's please get back to the original question.
All smoke can be considered dangerous but some risks we accept as being reasonable when balanced against certain visceral pleasures associated with the flames.
But please note that it isn't just woodsmoke that is harmful where cooking is concerned, the fumes from deep fryers and char grills are far worse and the most likely cause of my own COPD caused by 32 years in smoke and fume filled commercial kitchens. There is a huge difference between a small casual pleasure and a life of slavery to a smoky wood fire in an enclosed space with nil or minimal ventilation. Getting as any rocket stoves as possible into these places should be a priority; in more ways than one

[Neo]

Ok i understand.

[GPSGuided]

With the varying geographical practices, the logical thing to do would be to avoid those camp smokes as much as possible if not using a gas/alcohol stove.

[Nuts]

There's a hearth in every room at home. I met dad (90's) and some of the 11 kids (70's) that grew up there. Suspect keeping wood up to those little fires made them pretty a sturdy bunch.

In contrast to using the kitchen to recycle circuit boards for a few rupees.

I had a chance to use a Caldera in wood burning mode for multiple weeks last year. Nothing 'felt' better. Totally inappropriate in alpine areas.. unless it's just me.. think we've struck on part of the local problem, less-educated mainlanders oh, and the French ( ) (perhaps we need national standards)

[Neo]

I object.
By 'mainlanders' I suspect you refer to 'downtown folk'.

[Neo]

A saucepan of coleslaw and some cracked pepper snags

Attachments

[Nuts]

Yes thanks! ermm.. medium rare?

I object.
By 'mainlanders' I suspect you refer to 'downtown folk'.

No. Though Un-initiated may have been a better choice of words? Uninitiated mainlanders. (and, yes, sad to say, the french)

[davidf]

If I am on a remote spot on the colo packrafting, I go nuts on a sandbank. At popular spots, canoe, gambe, turnners I am very moderate. No need to ban, educate

[Nuts]

For some areas no-fires is the only real option. I don't like bans either, they scoop up the good and moderate not those that could care less. Even where local degradation isn't a problem/no bans the stick stove uses very little wood and throws out a decent amount of heat from a little source. Would cook neo's big wok meal with the right model & technique, and a big handful of twigs.

[puredingo]

Being a solo walker more often than not i can't be bothered starting a fire. When the timber collection, starting/extinguishing and removal of fire ring is all up to the one person it takes the fun right out of it. BUT, I must admit this winter I did have the odd fire purely for the warmth otherwise i couldn't pack-up in the mornings...my hands were literally frozen.
It was a matter of roll up sleeping mat,hands in the fire...pack sleeping bag,hands in the fire...pull out two tent pegs,hands in the fire...you get the picture.

BUT I defy anyone to find where my fires were anyway. All off track and in very seldom...if at all...visited places and all fires not bigger than a paint tin lid, so I can live with that?

[slparker]

I have burnt some driftwood on the beach in SW Tas but i wouldn't consider it anywhere else in a NP.

In regards to the OP's original point - i don't believe that the occasional open fire in the bush, so long as it is permissable on environmental grounds, is likely to be a significant health issue.

Well, not compared growing up in Tassy and the constant smoke haze in winter from wood heaters and the forestry burnoff in summer....

[walk2wineries]

Driving near the Bibbulman at Collie a few years back in WA - CALM were conducting hazard reduction fires. Lots of smoke - almost obscuring the signs saying it was illegal to take wood for firewood! Couldn't help thinking that if they'd opened it up for firewood collection before burning it would be a smaller cleaner burn; the wood was going to be burnt anyway so using it for campfires/cooking/bbq makes sense to me.....

[tom_brennan]

In Sydney, there's usually a few days each year when they are doing hazard reduction burns and the weather conditions are such that the smoke settles in the Sydney basin. Pretty sure you'd be breathing in as much nasty stuff on those few days as you would from your nights around the campfire.

It's hard to find statistical info on bushfires and hazard reduction burns, but I think at least 20,000 hectares of hazard reduction burns are done each year in NSW (that may be out by an order of magnitude). And in a bad fire season (eg 2013), over 1 million hectares of land is burnt.

[GPSGuided]

On those smoky days in Sydney, there's typically an advisory for people to stay indoors and avoid smoke filled air. At the same time, it's probably trivial to cities with bad air pollution. We all will leave this life due to something...

[ribuck]

On those smoky days in Sydney, there's typically an advisory for people to stay indoors and avoid smoke filled air.

And that's a ridiculous advisory. A house is designed to have a couple of changes of inside air per hour, so you're breathing the same air as outside, plus the addition of indoor pollutants. The only reason you don't notice it is because you are only looking through a few metres of air. The only exception is if you are in a house with filtered air.

[GPSGuided]

I know what you are saying but I understand that there can be a significant difference in the quality of air outdoors vs indoors, unless the windows and doors are left wide open. Scientifically demonstrated too. Previously I have wondered the same.

[north-north-west]

Driving near the Bibbulman at Collie a few years back in WA - CALM were conducting hazard reduction fires. Lots of smoke - almost obscuring the signs saying it was illegal to take wood for firewood! Couldn't help thinking that if they'd opened it up for firewood collection before burning it would be a smaller cleaner burn; the wood was going to be burnt anyway so using it for campfires/cooking/bbq makes sense to me.....

Hazard reduction burns are more about the flammable grasses and foliage and minor tree litter such as bark and twigs, than firewood-suitable timber.

[maddog]

There is no good case against campfires. As a species we have evolved with fire. It is healthy for the human psyche. It is part of our culture and our lives would be miserable without it. From the Smithsonian:

Focusing on a specific object—in this case, fire—is a way to achieve a meditative state. The brain regions that activate to trigger meditation overlap extensively with the regions governing working memory. And, since meditation also has benefits for health, Rossano proposes that evolution would have favored those who were good meditators, allowing them to pass their ability along to their progeny.

By regulating attention, our ancestors were able to make contingency plans—in which alternative responses to problems were planned in advance. These attributes gave us a marked advantage in the face of competition from archaic humans such as Neanderthals; they also underpin our ability to cope with the huge variety of tasks required by modern life. The most enduring tool that fire ever made might just be the human mind.

While exposure to a little smoke provides social benefits it is most unlikely to kill you. So lighten up a bit and don't be so miserable.

Cheers,

Maddog.

[north-north-west]

There is no good case against campfires. As a species we have evolved with fire. It is healthy for the human psyche. It is part of our culture and our lives would be miserable without it. From the

While exposure to a little smoke provides social benefits it is most unlikely to kill you. So lighten up a bit and don't be so miserable.

[LachlanB]

Hazard reduction burns are more about the flammable grasses and foliage and minor tree litter such as bark and twigs, than firewood-suitable timber.

Unless the aim is to build an absolute conflagration, I've always found that I tend to use smallish sticks in a campfire. These probably would be consumed by a hazard reduction burn, unlike fallen timber. Besides, from an ecological perspective that grass, foliage and minor litter is probably just as important, if not more so than fallen timber. The current obsession with Hazard Reduction Burns is un-neccesary and is ecological vandalism.

[north-north-west]

... from an ecological perspective that grass, foliage and minor litter is probably just as important, if not more so than fallen timber. The current obsession with Hazard Reduction Burns is un-neccesary and is ecological vandalism.

But the grasses and heath species regenerate relatively quickly. They are adapted to fire and not only cope with but in many cases need it.

I don't have a problem with burning. I do object to the way most of these programs are conducted. Wide-scale aerial firebombing is insane. Burns should be small scale and set from the ground so they can be more easily controlled.

[Lophophaps]

NNW, agree. A series of small-scale fires can act to block each other from spreading, and give wildlife a chance to move away.

[Neo]

Well it's hot! Im forecasting a lot of total fire bans from here on so its back to gas or no-cook meals until winter.

[Moondog55]

Widescale aerial bombing should actually be more eco-friendly as each pingpong ball should only burn a spot about 200m>2; the theory being that each flame front meets and burns out before the fire gets too hot
But 40 to 60 thousand years of firestick farming and now we have to burn lightly every year or we will all go up in flames every time the temperature hits 45C
It's a lose-lose situation at the moment.

[davidf]

No fire ban in the central west. can cook like a human tonight. It feels so unnatural to cook inside on a stove

[north-north-west]

Widescale aerial bombing should actually be more eco-friendly as each pingpong ball should only burn a spot about 200m>2; the theory being that each flame front meets and burns out before the fire gets too hot

Having been caught in the middle of one such event, I can assure you that it does not work like that on the ground, even in somewhat damp terrain.

[whitefang]

Widescale aerial bombing should actually be more eco-friendly as each pingpong ball should only burn a spot about 200m>2; the theory being that each flame front meets and burns out before the fire gets too hot

Having been caught in the middle of one such event, I can assure you that it does not work like that on the ground, even in somewhat damp terrain.

Aerial ignition is done in different ways depending on the site. You should have never been put in that situation where you were caught in it. As a crew member during prescribed burning you should not be out of a vehicle if ignition is being undertaken with a drip torch and only on clear tracks with incendiaries.

The drip torch will drop flame in big strips, but the incendiaries work like moondog has said.