View Full Version : Fire on the Trail.
troubletrev
06-17-2016, 12:00
Hello. First time section hiker here. I'll be starting at Springer and will finish in Erwin TN. I was curious as to what the pros and cons of starting a fire at camp each evening are. I've been on several multi-day hikes before and traditionally always had a camp fire. I'm expecting my hike to take between 21-24 day's. Is the comfort of a fire worth the cost of energy every evening? Would appreciate any thoughts or insight. Thanks!
Pros: Morale boost, warmth, good place to gather around to talk
Cons: Gotta get fire wood, and make sure you have a proper pit
Berserker
06-17-2016, 12:13
Depends on when you are going to be out there. If you are gonna be out there in the summer, then you probably aren't going to want to do many fires due to the heat and humidity...fires are usually only enjoyable on cooler evenings in my opinion. It also depends on how much effort you want to put into it. It takes time to get wood, start it and then maintain it. Me personally, I'll typically do maybe 1 or 2 fires on a long trip and only if there is a cooler evening. I more often do fires on short trips where I'm focused more on just lazing around camp. Oh yeah, and don't forget that it usually rains a lot on the AT...starting a fire with wet wood is often times not worth the effort.
Slo-go'en
06-17-2016, 12:17
That section will be pretty much picked clean of fire wood by now. That means having to go quite a ways from camp to find enough wood to make a decent fire. Unless there is some pressing need for a fire (like to dry off or warm up) making a fire after a long day of hiking is typically way too much work.
Long distance hikers often forego fires, for all sorts of reasons. Mostly because they're spent by the time they roll into camp. Their main goal at that point is to fetch water, get cleaned up a bit, eat, relax, and sleep.
Many shelters and campsites don't have fire rings. Those that do, you often find the surrounding area picked clean of firewood, so finding wood can be a chore. Building a fire where there's no fire ring is a serious no-no.
Quite often it's a day hiker that collects the wood and starts the fire. I enjoy a fire on occasion but I rarely go out of my way to start one. It might happen, for example, if I get to camp really early, or if I'm chilled.
Sarcasm the elf
06-17-2016, 13:23
I have fires on relaxing trips in winter, but I don't bother with them in the summer or when I am out to hiker higher mileage days. This time of year I am also more concerned about wildfire danger and would be hesitant to have a campfire in the backcountry unless there had been a very recent rain.
peakbagger
06-17-2016, 13:48
There is quite "browse line" around most campsites and shelters so finding good dry dead wood takes planning. I walk down the trail about 5 or 10 minutes with piece of rope and I bundle up a lot of dry stuff and drag it back to the camp. I strictly take wood that I can snap with bare hands, nothing that requires tools. That said unless its cool at night of buggy I don't build a fire very often.
On a long hike you won't feel like doing it very often. Mostly I built a fire when I needed it to cook something fresh I bought earlier in the day in town. For weekend trips I almost always have a fire, but when you're out there for weeks or months it just doesn't have the novelty night after night.
MuddyWaters
06-17-2016, 14:16
Fires make you, clothes, gear, all smell like smoke.
In addition to doing scarring to ground and rocks that takes hundreds of years or more to go away.
Not needed imo for distance hiking.
Consider what trail might look like if every person on it built a new fire in new spot every night. Year after year.
What can you do to prevent that from occurring?
Capt. America
06-17-2016, 14:35
I would gather some wood if a fire was going around the shelter and socialize, but mostly I could dress for cool weather. The biggest advantage to me of having a fire was keeping the dam nats/bugs away. I would often gather a few rocks make a small fire ring and make a small fire just big enough to boil 2-3 cups of water for a meal and coffee if I wasn't to tired and resources were readily available. This time of year on the AT if you are going to build a small fire to cook I would start looking for dry wood a few hundred yards before the shelter area. In the shelter area wood is often hard to find so look up for dead branches if there is nothing on the ground.
wannahike
06-17-2016, 15:55
Pros: Morale boost, warmth, good place to gather around to talk
Cons: Gotta get fire wood, and make sure you have a proper pit
And you need enough water to make sure the fire is Out when you leave
troubletrev
06-17-2016, 16:23
That's good perspective.
Fires make you, clothes, gear, all smell like smoke.
In addition to doing scarring to ground and rocks that takes hundreds of years or more to go away.
Not needed imo for distance hiking.
Consider what trail might look like if every person on it built a new fire in new spot every night. Year after year.
What can you do to prevent that from occurring?
+1
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
CamelMan
06-18-2016, 11:10
+2.
I do think a "smoke bath" does help to hold down the body odor, or at least your clothing smells better, but I would guess increases your risk of cancers. A fire is nice entertainment when you're spending significant time in a camp, but otherwise it's just pointless work that I don't want to do. You might have to carry some of the 10 essentials, then, too, like a knife that's actually usable for making shavings, and a lighter or waterproof matches.
I will not consider having a fire on the ground, unless bare mineral soil.
Even then, I prefer my little backpacking wood stove.
The only time I have a fire backpacking is if I have a backpacking wood stove, so I don't leave a scorched earth behind. I also have a Big Zip, or more, of water to get every coal "dead out" and cold.
It is really a lot of bother for hiking, and better suited to camping.
If I find "an ideal campsite" I will camp a "zero day". I may or may not use the self-contained backpacking wood stove. I have a zelph folding wood stove. If I had a Caldera wood stove version, I would use it. Either way, I attend the fire, enjoying it. I do not do other things, while I have a fire.
I don't want soot or odor on my gear, so I pack the backpacking eood stove in washed Tyvek and inside a Ziploc bag, or Aloksac or Opsac.
When I can, I clean it by wrapping it with a paper towel and letting the paper towel soak up chafing fuel. The chafing fuel makes the backpacking wood stove look new, removing all baked on food drippings and soot.
That is all a lot of extra fuss, if the goal is mileage.
In addition to doing scarring to ground and rocks that takes hundreds of years or more to go away.
I've seen this claim many times before and I know from personal experience that it just isn't true. Perhaps it might be in more arid regions of the country where there isn't much rain and not much grows. I bought a few acres of thick woods some years ago and cut down some trees to create some open space to build a cabin and put in a garden. I ended up burning a lot of waste material...for every cord of good stove wood you get by cutting down a tree you get a pile of tops and stuff too small to be much good for anything. I probably burned 10 such piles 15ft in diameter and just as tall. Yes, it scarred the land, but not for hundreds of years. Within 2 to 3 years grass was growing there and you couldn't tell anything had ever been burned there.
saltysack
06-19-2016, 13:06
I've seen this claim many times before and I know from personal experience that it just isn't true. Perhaps it might be in more arid regions of the country where there isn't much rain and not much grows. I bought a few acres of thick woods some years ago and cut down some trees to create some open space to build a cabin and put in a garden. I ended up burning a lot of waste material...for every cord of good stove wood you get by cutting down a tree you get a pile of tops and stuff too small to be much good for anything. I probably burned 10 such piles 15ft in diameter and just as tall. Yes, it scarred the land, but not for hundreds of years. Within 2 to 3 years grass was growing there and you couldn't tell anything had ever been burned there.
If everyone did this along the trail it would look like crap for eternity...one thing at your home but...thousands of people over time it would look like a war zone...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
StubbleJumper
06-19-2016, 15:56
I've seen this claim many times before and I know from personal experience that it just isn't true. Perhaps it might be in more arid regions of the country where there isn't much rain and not much grows. I bought a few acres of thick woods some years ago and cut down some trees to create some open space to build a cabin and put in a garden. I ended up burning a lot of waste material...for every cord of good stove wood you get by cutting down a tree you get a pile of tops and stuff too small to be much good for anything. I probably burned 10 such piles 15ft in diameter and just as tall. Yes, it scarred the land, but not for hundreds of years. Within 2 to 3 years grass was growing there and you couldn't tell anything had ever been burned there.
+1
It never ceases to amaze me how quickly the forest reclaims land in the eastern part of North America (even in the west the land gets reclaimed by nature, just more slowly). Walking on old trails, you sometimes encounter old farmsteads from 100 years ago, and you would never know there was a farm there except for the foundation of the house and perhaps a stone wall that some poor homesteader painstakingly built as he tried to clear the fields of stone (impossible in some places!). Outbuildings, fire rings, wells, gardens, corrals are all reclaimed very quickly. An old trail, forest road or tote road is reclaimed remarkably quickly too.
The claims of "permanent scarring" are way exaggerated.
Will be hot and a fair amount of trouble to have an open fire, but very easy to make a small twig fire in a wood burning backpack stove if you just have to have flame for the psyche. Can also cook this way and save on fuel weight too.
MuddyWaters
06-20-2016, 12:14
I've seen this claim many times before and I know from personal experience that it just isn't true. Perhaps it might be in more arid regions of the country where there isn't much rain and not much grows. I bought a few acres of thick woods some years ago and cut down some trees to create some open space to build a cabin and put in a garden. I ended up burning a lot of waste material...for every cord of good stove wood you get by cutting down a tree you get a pile of tops and stuff too small to be much good for anything. I probably burned 10 such piles 15ft in diameter and just as tall. Yes, it scarred the land, but not for hundreds of years. Within 2 to 3 years grass was growing there and you couldn't tell anything had ever been burned there.
Look under the vegetation
Black on rocks last long time
They retrace lewis and clarks expedition, by finding their campsites.
You can see ancient fire sites underwater in wakulla springs in florida, thousands years old. People lived in springs when sea level was lower.
The carbon and ash is there, unless its removed.
You can cover it with vegetation, that doesnt make it go away.
Fires make you, clothes, gear, all smell like smoke.
Sounds good to me. It sure beats hiker funk.
@OP: Build small fires. It's faster, safer, and easier to LNT after you're finished. It's true they take extra time you may not be willing to spend every night, but when you get to the right spot at the right time there's nothing like a good campfire.
@OP: Build small fires. It's faster, safer, and easier to LNT after you're finished. It's true they take extra time you may not be willing to spend every night, but when you get to the right spot at the right time there's nothing like a good campfire.
Better yet, don't build them at all...
It still amazes me that people build camp fires in locations that are signed no open fires, but then build them on the best tentsite.