Shelter ethics.

[The Weasel]

What is this? An academic debating society? If you want to insist on standards like that, what are you doing on a hiking bulletin board? Do some spade work yourself and form your (informed) opinion. Or wait for the book...

As noted, the book has been out for a decade. it's now in 2nd edition.

Those who think it's harmless are free to defecate in their front yards, and to install pre-treatment systems to their water sources at home so that they can put feces in their water.

Me, I don't. And when possible, I pack out what I pack in.

TW

TW

[GGS2]

As noted, the book has been out for a decade. ...

Yup, I read it when it came out, oh, a long time ago. Anything new in the second edition?

[Tin Man]

Yup, I read it when it came out, oh, a long time ago. Anything new in the second edition?

Just more poo.

[Bob S]

What is this? An academic debating society? If you want to insist on standards like that, what are you doing on a hiking bulletin board? Do some spade work yourself and form your (informed) opinion. Or wait for the book...

When a person makes a claim as to any topic, be it in a court or not, it is on them to back up what they say. This is just plane common sense.

It’s one thing to state opinions (like I think my Svea 123 is the best stove made) that don’t need to be backed up because it’s s personal like. But to make a statement about something and then tell the other person that asks a question about what you said to look it up diminishes your argument and makes it look like an opinion instead of facts.

I don’t have a dog in this debate, but it seems like a cop-out to say something, not back it up with a link to any research on it. And then to tell the persons talking about it with you to go look it up themselves.

[The Old Fhart]

The Weasel-“First, TP, even if buried 12-18" deep - which usually it isn't, even when the soil permits it, which usually it won't due to rocks and roots - catholes are dug up by varmints (skunks, 'coons, 'possums, mice and others) to eat the feces, which contains a very high amount of food value.”

Point of order, your honor. Actually your own reference (http://www.dnr.cornell.edu/courses/n...les/great2.pdf) says: "…dig a hole 6-8 inches deep using a small trowel…”

In order for TP to decompose properly it should be buried 6-8" deep. More than that and it will be more or less 'sealed' and not decompose properly.

[Gray Blazer]

I've already mentioned that there is an excellent book, by Kathleen Meyer, "How to $hit In the Woods." It's now in its 2nd Edition, and has sold over 1,000,000 copies.

TW

That's a lot of trees. I hope it was paperback. In this case LNT means Leave No Trees. My point being we are making more of a carbon footprint by making 12 pages on this mierda than by burning paper in a firepit (why worry about that when the poop from the outhouse will attract far more critters, by your admission) or having stealth fires or whatever. I learned when I was a boyscout....leave an area better than you found it. I believe in my heart that everyone who posts at whiteblaze endeavors to leave the AT or any other trail in pristine condition so that the next person will enjoy it just as much as they did. Thanks everybody for the education and I appreciate your efforts, especially people like Weasel (I'm really glad to know that I will never dig up your cathole inadvertantly since you pack it out) who make the trail a better place.

[The Weasel]

Yup, I read it when it came out, oh, a long time ago. Anything new in the second edition?

I think so, yes. It is now a bit long in the tooth, even in the second edition. Most people, from NOLS through BSA and a lot of the rest of the serious outdoor establishment increasingly agree with the entire concept: Pack it out unless you have to. So about all that's changed is that it's become very influential book over time.

TW

[The Weasel]

Point of order, your honor. Actually your own reference (http://www.dnr.cornell.edu/courses/n...les/great2.pdf) says: "…dig a hole 6-8 inches deep using a small trowel…”

In order for TP to decompose properly it should be buried 6-8" deep. More than that and it will be more or less 'sealed' and not decompose properly.

Everyone has an opinion! Yes, I noticed that. I've always understood that the top of the waste should be about 6", and if a hole is only 8" deep, once waste is in it, particularly if paper is added, there will be very little covering and it is more likely to be dug up. Meyer ("How to...") also says 6-8". What's important is to keep it in the decomposition area yet covered. But thanks for the correction.

TW

[The Weasel]

When a person makes a claim as to any topic, be it in a court or not, it is on them to back up what they say. This is just plane common sense.

It’s one thing to state opinions (like I think my Svea 123 is the best stove made) that don’t need to be backed up because it’s s personal like. But to make a statement about something and then tell the other person that asks a question about what you said to look it up diminishes your argument and makes it look like an opinion instead of facts.

I don’t have a dog in this debate, but it seems like a cop-out to say something, not back it up with a link to any research on it. And then to tell the persons talking about it with you to go look it up themselves.

Bob, I've posted at least two good authorities, one a book and the other a Cornell University web page, that support what I say, and provided the Google search term to find thousands more. No one has posted anything that contradicts either of my references nor indicated that the search term is anything but accurate. So it's not my opinion. I'm just not going to play "fetch" until people that don't want to be shown that they're wrong, no matter whatg I find, get tired. Sorry if you think that's a cop out, but frankly, all it says is that you're part of the same game playing, or else you didn't bother to read what came before.

TW

[ki0eh]

Bob, I've posted at least two good authorities, one a book and the other a Cornell University web page * * *

I don't disagree with TW's message, and I did read the "Cornell University web page" and found it to be a very well written, and well referenced - example of a research paper for a sophomore-level undergraduate survey course in the University's Natural Resources academic department. The root link is http://www.dnr.cornell.edu/courses/nr201/start.html

So, again not to disagree, but this paper, good as it may be for what it is, is not the same as a peer reviewed journal article or even an Extension paper based on peer reviewed original research. As the folks in academia say in the interests of self preservation, "more research is needed."

Actually, I'm a little disappointed I didn't think of the TP question for my own master's research, it would have worked better for my program than what I did do. Plus, it would have required field time to investigate, collect data, etc.

Sounds like some grad student might be able to assemble a proposal in time to thru-hike in 2009 on this question - it's getting too late for '08.

[Alligator]

Bob, I've posted at least two good authorities, one a book and the other a Cornell University web page, that support what I say, and provided the Google search term to find thousands more. No one has posted anything that contradicts either of my references nor indicated that the search term is anything but accurate. So it's not my opinion. I'm just not going to play "fetch" until people that don't want to be shown that they're wrong, no matter whatg I find, get tired. Sorry if you think that's a cop out, but frankly, all it says is that you're part of the same game playing, or else you didn't bother to read what came before.

TW

Actually The Weasel, I told you that further inspection of the references contained in the Cornell "paper" showed that their discussion of the giardia/human correlation was based on only two study sites. This does not support your contention of an explosion of giardia across North America. That's a wild, completely unsupported position. Show us some real data, primary research to support your claims otherwise you are being irresponsible. Everytime somebody makes a wild claim I am not going to run off and Google it. If you can't back up what you say it's just your crazy opinion.

The Appalachians are part of North America. Show us the explosion of giardia occurring there from human waste.

[Alligator]

As noted, the book has been out for a decade. it's now in 2nd edition.

Those who think it's harmless are free to defecate in their front yards, and to install pre-treatment systems to their water sources at home so that they can put feces in their water.

Me, I don't. And when possible, I pack out what I pack in.

TW

TW

More irresponsibility. Lawns are not forests, the acreages are different and usage patterns are not the same. Also, in many places, people have both wells and septic systems on their property without problems.

[The Weasel]

Gator, it's not a debate or a thing to get hostile about. Go learn about it, and you'll see. But as for wells, aquifers are below the 'sanitary' zone and groundwater is well filtered. Septic tanks are similarly deep, often solid. If you don't realize the problem they can cause if not sited properly, look up the meaning of the word "septic."

TW

[hobojoe]

You mean to say that you don't pack out your urine??? There is more of it and its pretty toxic stuff, right?

[MOWGLI]

Allowing people to stick their dirty grubby fingers into YOUR food bag is probably the #1 cause of Giardia. But that's a guess on my part.

Some might find this link interesting;
http://www.pcta.org/help/join/magazines/SierraWater.asp

[The Weasel]

You mean to say that you don't pack out your urine??? There is more of it and its pretty toxic stuff, right?

I know you're being playful, but that's a good, serious question, too: Nope, but it's not as likely to be a disease vector as solid waste. Assuming that people don't use the same 'target' but urinate in dispersed areas, animals are not going to lick the spot (for salt) and pick up any bacteria/viruses from it. That's the biggest difference. In addition, the solid part of urine is probably no more than 1% of volume, so that even a major bladder evacuation - 500 cc - is going to have no more than 5 grams of urinary salts. That's not as likely a point source for significant toxic runoff. Lastly, urine is devoid of food value for bacteria (there may be bacteria present, but they won't be able to feed from the rest of the urine) and soil is not immediately nutritive for those bacteria, while bacteria present in feces will grow and prosper due to the density and food value present in it.

So no, I don't.

TW

[Alligator]

Gator, it's not a debate or a thing to get hostile about. Go learn about it, and you'll see. But as for wells, aquifers are below the 'sanitary' zone and groundwater is well filtered. Septic tanks are similarly deep, often solid. If you don't realize the problem they can cause if not sited properly, look up the meaning of the word "septic."

TW

I'm not running off on every Don Quixote crusade you present. Obviously you can't back up your claim.

As for septic systems, seems to me though they work when properly installed, sited, and maintained. The only real important point to mention it was your apples and oranges analogy.

[rafe]

Mowgli points out what is (IMO) the main problem with Weasel's "pack it out" suggestion for poop. Packaging and carrying could be a challenge and a health hazard all by itself. But then, I've always kinda wondered, if one could "catch" giardia from one's own poop? Not the most pleasant topic, I admit...

[hobojoe]

I know you're being playful, but that's a good, serious question, too: Nope, but it's not as likely to be a disease vector as solid waste. Assuming that people don't use the same 'target' but urinate in dispersed areas, animals are not going to lick the spot (for salt) and pick up any bacteria/viruses from it. That's the biggest difference. In addition, the solid part of urine is probably no more than 1% of volume, so that even a major bladder evacuation - 500 cc - is going to have no more than 5 grams of urinary salts. That's not as likely a point source for significant toxic runoff. Lastly, urine is devoid of food value for bacteria (there may be bacteria present, but they won't be able to feed from the rest of the urine) and soil is not immediately nutritive for those bacteria, while bacteria present in feces will grow and prosper due to the density and food value present in it.

So no, I don't.

TW

Posted around page 5. I had a dear in shenendoah that would not stop lapping up my urine. And I was using the broadcast method, weeeeeee!

[hobojoe]

I opened up a new thread with poll under health and hygene. This thread was getting kind of s**ty.