Bushwalk Australia

clarence wrote: Anyone who thinks that fires are dirty, slow and inefficient has not seen someone like John light a (small) fire and have his meal cooked while everyone else is still getting their stoves ready.

Cobblers.
He and I start prepping the same meal at the same time from the same start point and my water will be boiling before he can put his billy on the flames.

Yes, campfires do not contribute to Global Warming in any proportional way. But campfires do when they get out of control, so that is one argument against lighting fires.

Yes, First Nations people firestick-farmed the bush but, with some exceptions, they no longer do and the bush is now very different on constitution to 250 years ago so its a naturalistic fallacy to say that campfires are anyway connected to Indigenous practices.

Thirdly, it isn't leave no trace and taking deadfall or, as I have seen, ripping of tree limbs, is changing the local environment around campsites. It is a type of exceptionalism to state that it is 'okay' for me to take just a little a bit of deadfall. Bringing in your own wood is a different matter of course.

But, I agree it is probably more a matter of aesthetics than major environmental harm but I am always mildly offended at a fire in the bush an don't even like it when a fire lit in alpine huts, as cheery as it is in the snow.

NNW, you need to add the time to get the wood and get water to put the fire out. Even with a good fire a stove is generally faster and easier. In the past I used fires a lot - this was the culture then. I have no idea how fast stoves are to, say, boil water. I've seen stoves do this in just a few minutes, very quick. I was at a hut on the Bogong High Plains a little off the beaten track and was dismayed to see lot of dead standing trees visibly cut for timber. It looked quite bad, as slparker describes above.

Lophophaps wrote:NNW, you need to add the time to get the wood and get water to put the fire out. ..

This is exactly what I'm saying. The stove is quicker. No-one can get organised with a fire and have that fire cook their meal in less time than a gas stove. It takes me less than a minute to go from grabbing the pot from the pack to lighting it, assuming I have water and the pack of whatever-is-being-cooked handy.

NNW, and you do not have to tip 2-4 litres of water over your gas stove. However, if we are at the same place at the same time I'm happy to do this for you.

Thank you, but the current one is still shiny and new. I'd rather not do anything that might damage it until it's had a bit more use.

Just on fires and stoves there are these double walled "gasifier stoves" that are insane efficient when burning wood. I'd say a 2 foot long twig about 7mm thick will boil a cup of water no worries. https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=370&v=VM0Q3RLykQ4&feature=youtu.be
I bring some Fatwood and a knife/flint along to start the fire and I like that experience. Could you boil a cup of water quicker than a gas stove, not a chance.

I still don't really get the logic/law of being able to light an open fire below 1850m (White's River Hut) but not above 1850m in the Alpine zone (The Rolling Grounds).

It's not like a Rolling Grounds open fire is going to get away from you...!?

Thanks

Lord Backcountry wrote:I still don't really get the logic/law of being able to light an open fire below 1850m (White's River Hut) but not above 1850m in the Alpine zone (The Rolling Grounds).

First, even where it exists fuel for a campfire is limited. Second, alpine ecosystems are extremely fire sensitive and slow to recover. Third, I agree; they should ban fires in the entire NP.

If you are talking about the grassy plains this is correct but amongst the snowgums there is usually plenty of finger wood and for cooking finger wood is all you need or really should be using.
This is why I still carry a tin can and a billy sometimes, a hobo stove burner is both fuel more efficient and much safer than an open fire and sometimes is enough for atmosphere too. Upside is they are free, downside is the need to a bag to carry them in.
Although a cooking fire is different to a campfire.

'I thought it was out...'
Sufficient sentence?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-21/ ... s/13077730

Re abc article. I just read an interesting article on sand vs water extinguishing. According to the experiment by QLD firefighters even a litre of water is much more effective than sand.

https://www.qfes.qld.gov.au/community-s ... t-Camp.pdf

Somewhere the myth than sand or dirt puts a fire out still exists. I often see small rocks and dirt on a fireplace.

Water is the only guarantee and enough water. A firelady once told me many of their callouts were from left campfires that the wind had caused to pick up then set fire to the surrounds.

Neo wrote:Somewhere the myth than sand or dirt puts a fire out still exists. I often see small rocks and dirt on a fireplace.

Water is the only guarantee and enough water. A firelady once told me many of their callouts were from left campfires that the wind had caused to pick up then set fire to the surrounds.

I learnt a bit more today after looking into the ABC article and doing some googling around water vs sand.

Sand works to put out flames etc but doesn't cool the area where the fire was down like water does.

So unnoticed and buried hot coals can escape in a strong wind that blows away the sand or people can get burnt when walking over the sand even 8 hours later.

In some places there's the potential for peat-like soil to catch fire, and this can burn or smoulder for a long time. Lots of water is needed to put out a camp fire. One test is to poke a finger in the coals. If the fire is out the coals will not burn you.

Gee, what's wrong with some people, arguing the time taken to light a fire and cook dinner diminishes their experience in the bush.
We need to get simpler in this life and not hanker after every convenience and time saver if we are to save the planet.

Have fires or don't have fires, fine with me, but that line of argument just irks me.

Neo wrote:Somewhere the myth than sand or dirt puts a fire out still exists.

The fire triangle: oxygen, heat, and fuel.

If fire is denied oxygen, it does go out. The thinking behind burring a fire is that this denies it oxygen.

In the desert water is in scarce supply, I usually leave it to burn out - denial of fuel.

If I am cold, tired and hungry then a stove will take precedence. But; if a fire is allowable and appropriate then the whole process of collecting wood, preparing the fire and waiting until the coals are ready for cooking while I drink my cups of billy tea are all part of the enjoyment of being outside

Warin wrote:

Neo wrote:Somewhere the myth than sand or dirt puts a fire out still exists.

In the desert water is in scarce supply, I usually leave it to burn out - denial of fuel.

There is always the personal supply of fire putting out water we all used when I was a kid/younger man than today, all us blokes stood around the almost dead cooking fire and simply peed on it. In large parties [ 8 to 12 was normal] it was always a communal camp and cooking fire and I didn't know about stoves until I was much older and was in a paid job and then a stove was out of reach for a long time because the big 3 took priority.
I think some of us are forgetting how much gear cost back then and how little most people earned at the start of their working lives. We cooked on fires because that was what we had to use. Old habits do die hard

Moondog55 wrote:...all us blokes stood around the almost dead cooking fire and simply peed on it.

All the blokes, plus the brave women.

north-north-west wrote:

clarence wrote: Anyone who thinks that fires are dirty, slow and inefficient has not seen someone like John light a (small) fire and have his meal cooked while everyone else is still getting their stoves ready.

Cobblers.
He and I start prepping the same meal at the same time from the same start point and my water will be boiling before he can put his billy on the flames.

Yes I accept this challenge too and am interested in a hefty wager.

Moondog55 wrote:When a stove was out of reach for a long time because the big 3 took priority.
I think some of us are forgetting how much gear cost back then and how little most people earned at the start of their working lives. We cooked on fires because that was what we had to use. Old habits do die hard

Spot on. One pack, one tent, one sleeping bag. And make them last for many years. When I bought my first stove, I regarded it as only a bad weather backstop. I have quite a few Australian made aluminium squat billies, a couple of which would be 50 years old. Looked after and still 100% functional, but of no interest to anyone now.

Nothing wrong with old habits, but the pressure put on more easily accessible places by an increasing population with increased per capita leisure time and discretionary income means those of us who value such old habits have needed to modify our ways (a little).

ILUVSWTAS wrote:

north-north-west wrote:

clarence wrote: Anyone who thinks that fires are dirty, slow and inefficient has not seen someone like John light a (small) fire and have his meal cooked while everyone else is still getting their stoves ready.

Cobblers.
He and I start prepping the same meal at the same time from the same start point and my water will be boiling before he can put his billy on the flames.

Yes I accept this challenge too and am interested in a hefty wager.

I never said same meal, and his is already prepped before he opens his pack. He doesn't need a billy or even water to boil.

It is about an approach to something, gained through decades of pushing the boundaries, that is far beyond the logic of less experienced people who think they know it all.

When you arrogantly dismiss something with incorrect assumptions, your logic will always keep you in a box.

I don't bet with fools.

Clarence

Really interesting topic. After years and years of not really bothering with a fire, it was camping and hiking with kids that started me back on the campfire path. Apparently to them it just isn't going bush if you aren't roasting marshmallows

Having rediscovered the simple joy of having a fire, i'll have one much more often now when I'm out bush over the last five or so years. The odd trout on the coals wrapped in foil also goes down a treat.

clarence wrote:

I never said same meal, and his is already prepped before he opens his pack

Clarence

Whats he eating, trail mix or a ham sammy?

ILUVSWTAS wrote:

clarence wrote:

I never said same meal, and his is already prepped before he opens his pack

Clarence

Whats he eating, trail mix or a ham sammy?

Damn I just sold some Silver shares to get in on the bet and find it cancelled.
I'll go with rice crackers and hummus with a cheeky Shiraz?

All else aside, CO2 is irrelevant to the discussion, since fallen timber will release that carbon to the atmosphere anyway as it decays unless buried in a peat bog.

Caconym wrote:All else aside, CO2 is irrelevant to the discussion, since fallen timber will release that carbon to the atmosphere anyway as it decays unless buried in a peat bog.

It's a little more complex than that.

I just found this thread, it is very entertaining.

clarence wrote:

north-north-west wrote:

clarence wrote: Anyone who thinks that fires are dirty, slow and inefficient has not seen someone like John light a (small) fire and have his meal cooked while everyone else is still getting their stoves ready.

Cobblers.
He and I start prepping the same meal at the same time from the same start point and my water will be boiling before he can put his billy on the flames.

I never said same meal, and his is already prepped before he opens his pack. He doesn't need a billy or even water to boil.

I was going to leave this, but the breathtaking arrogance and irrelevance and sheer *&%$#! disingenuousness of your comment has finally gotten too much to bear.
You aren't even comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing apples to a pile of house bricks. The speed of his meal has nothing to do with him prefering fires over stoves, it's all about what the meal is.
I'll take my boxy logic over your dishonesty any day.

Dear, oh dear, NNW.

Our thinking is in lockstep on this example of muddy thinking, but you cracked before I did.

I have nothing to add.