Alright, just one more time…

[The Weasel]

Data please!

Emerald:

Me.

I've been backpacking for pretty damn all 50 years. I've come upon latrine areas by trails and campsites for all of them, and dug up old latrine area on purpose (to lime them, at Scout camps, when they were filled improperly) and by accident, and seen toilet paper that was years old, in ground that was no different than that in the lower areas of the AT. As I've written elsewhere on WB, I've seen places with toilet paper that is years old - and I've seen it - including one of the most beautiful boulder beaches along the Bruce Trail. And I've given it a shot in my own yard in Michigan, which is wonderfully moist black earth, and biologically alive to maximize degradability. The shortest time in that area was several months. In some places, paper has lasted for at least a few years.

Dry areas? Degradation of paper can occur from several things, including fire and abrasion. But in a perfectly dry area, with little or no moisture for bacteria to work their wonders, such as the Sonoran Desert which covers most of Sonora (Mexico), Arizona, New Mexico and Southern Nevada and SE California, paper can (and does) last decades or even centuries.

I'll tell you folks something: I'll stop arguing for packing solid waste and toilet paper out if you can find one respectable public health professional who will say that burying is preferable to packing out. Not merely "acceptable" - since that tends to be what is said by those who realize how many people don't want to do something - but preferable.

As for data, well, this Detroit-born kid doesn't need an MIT data pack to know that gas guzzlers spew out a lot more air pollution than electric hybrids. All I have to do is drive behind one. So you go find that public health pro or that sanitarian who says "Yeah, it's much better to bury waste and TP than to pack it out and dispose of properly." Until then, I've got my data.

TW

[The Weasel]

I find it hard to believe that the crap and TP I buried ten years ago hasn't degraded, but, I'm not a poophead like some of you guys.

Well, dude, these guys found some that hasn't degraded in about 140 centuries. OK? And they're not "poopheads." You want data? Read on:
Human Traces Found to Be Oldest in N. America

Remnants Provide New Clues in Debate Over Where and When Continent's First Inhabitants Lived


By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 4, 2008; Page A02

Scientists have found and dated the oldest human remnants ever uncovered in the Americas -- a discovery that places people genetically similar to Native Americans in Oregon more than 14,000 years ago and 1,000 years earlier than previous estimates.
This Story

• Human Traces Found to Be Oldest in N. America
  
• Postglacial Flooding of the Bering Land Bridge
• By Land or by Sea?

[The Weasel]

This part left out of the above:

Using radiocarbon dating and DNA analysis, an international team concluded that fossilized feces found five feet below the surface of an arid cave are significantly older than any previous human remains unearthed in the Americas.

Here's the link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040302156.html

[snowhoe]

Weasel, TP comes from trees so what comes from the earth goes back to the earth. And no matter how much data you give people will, always have and are going to poop in the woods and use TP. If you feel that it is right to pack out your poo by all means pack it out but please dont think that everyone should. I think it would be worse if we all did the trash cans by the trail heads would be some kinda bio hazard and the e.p.a. would be shutting down the trash cans and then we would have to poop in the woods. So its kinda a vicious cycle. Its a no win.

[The Weasel]

A nice post, Snowhoe. But toilet paper isn't raw cellulose: It is highly treated, and it is no less (or more) litter than notebook paper, food wrapping or any other paper product. So that's not an excuse or even much of a justification. (Auto fenders come from the earth too, but they don't belong along the AT, either. Sorry.)

As for "no matter how much data" for people, I believe (sometimes uncertainly) that education works: If people start to realize that something has a deleterious effect on the environment, they will start to change. I grew up in Scouts in the 50s thinking, "bury food waste, burn and flatten cans before you bury them, and bury all your trash, and use DDT sparingly." Rachel Carson dropped her bombshell in the early 60s, and most of us (you, I'm sure) now realize that a lot of harmful practices from once upon a time have to change.

Actually, while trash cans by the side of the road are not where human waste (bagged) should be disposed of, that is probably a better location than in the woods, and less likely to spread disease as well as litter. EPA and similar agencies already have (largely good) regulations on how waste disposal services have to protect their employees. But it's not a big burden to carry human waste a few days until you come off the trail; my longest 'carry' so far is 9 days and the weight was negligible and it was easy to do. I then disposed of the waste at a sanitary disposal facility at a state park a few miles from where I came off the trail.

Once people try it and see how easy and, yes, harmless it is, it becomes more acceptable and more widespread. Interesting enough, I've found that dog and cat owners seem to be more accepting of the idea; people in cities are used to "bagging" their dog's waste, and cat owners realize how easy and harmless the process is.

TW

[beakerman]

I concede packing it out in arid places--arid conditions is exactly why you can post a link about 14000yo fossilized poo. When I lived in NM I packed it out most of the time because it was too dry but in the wetter parts like Sandias and Monzano Mountains I dug catholes and did "standard TP procedure" of burning it then bury it.

The AT is a different kind oc place though the volume of people is what makes it an issue. There is a certain "carrying" capacity and I'm sure that even for urine it is being exceeded in places.

[Homer&Marje]

I don't poop on ridges. Although, it is a nice view for a crap

[TD55]

Well, dude, these guys found some that hasn't degraded in about 140 centuries. OK? And they're not "poopheads." You want data? Read on:
Human Traces Found to Be Oldest in N. America

Remnants Provide New Clues in Debate Over Where and When Continent's First Inhabitants Lived


By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 4, 2008; Page A02

Scientists have found and dated the oldest human remnants ever uncovered in the Americas -- a discovery that places people genetically similar to Native Americans in Oregon more than 14,000 years ago and 1,000 years earlier than previous estimates.

This Story

• Human Traces Found to Be Oldest in N. America
  
• Postglacial Flooding of the Bering Land Bridge
• By Land or by Sea?

What kind of science poop are you trying to spread about poop degeneration? You are trying to compare poop left in a environment of a cave which is protected from the weather, to the poop left buried in the dirt a few inchs below the surface. Are you trying to bullpoop us?

[Belew]

When you pack out all this dookie and tp where does it end up?

[The Weasel]

Beaker --

Although carrying out urine does not now seem practical, urine has its own unique dangers to the environment. While almost always sterile (assuming that there is no UTI), it can carry a host of pharmaceutical residues which can leach into groundwater or flowing water. That's why it's just as essential that urination be at least 200 feet from water sources, too.

While most soils in the AT get more water than the SW, that's a relative thing. Feces may not decompose in the days/weeks/few months that many people think it does, even in moist areas, for a lot of reasons. But principally, toilet paper isn't going to necessarily decompose quickly; the Bruce Trail hugs the Georgian Bay shoreline, and gets as much or more precipitation as the AT, and I've seen "paper mache rocks" - the rocks in toilet zones near campsites, when that was allowed (no longer, in Bruce Natl Park, but it is, along the AT), with paper that had made it through several years of getting more and more affixed to boulders.

As for carrying capacity, do a thought experiment: If (random example of a shelter that I don't recall having a privy) Abingdon Gap Shelter, in Tennessee, gets, say, 1500 thrus a year, and maybe another 1500 visit it annually, and you assume one pound of human solid waste per camper/night, that's 3,000 pounds - a ton and a half - each year in that location. That's going to have major effects on the ecology of that immediate area, not all of which are beneficial and all of which are avoidable. (This is similar to the reason why I don't buy Mexican tomatoes and rinse my fruits and vegetables with some care. California spinach, anyone?)

These are easily and simply avoidable problems.

TW

[The Weasel]

When you pack out all this dookie and tp where does it end up?

When I come off the trail, if I'm in a State/National Park or similar that has a developed campground, there is ALWAYS a sanitary disposal station. Other times, if I'm not far from home, I take it home and flush it down the toilet if it's just from a day or two. If the volume is greater, I'll stop at a private campground or trailer facility (sometimes truck stops have them too) and use their sanitary disposal facility. Usually adds about 5 minutes to my trips. No one has ever turned me down yet.

Weight/amount is usually about half the original due to the drying that the cat litter provides. No smell, either, again thanks to the cat litter.

TW

[saimyoji]

John, I'm not trolling. I've written before, a number of times over the years, about the dangers to the environment, including the AT, of massive amounts of human waste being deposited in unsanitary ways. It's not esthetic; it's a matter of safety as well as protecting the environment. And no, LNT is not a 'religion' with me, any more than good foot care, or protecting my gear from damage is. It's prudence. And unlike most religions - including mine - which demand faith in a result, LND (both in its backpacking sense and also for our entire world ecologic systems) is science: If we continue to do things as we have, we are going to have a very different, and probably not for the better, world to live in.

So yes, I carry waste out. And yes, I've taught Scouts to do so. Rangers in National Parks - including Ranier, Shasta and Grand Canyon - agree with that. It's even got a name: "Blue bagging" for the color of bags they hand out for especially fragile areas.

Disagree, if you wish. But no, it's not trolling; no, it's not a religion, no, it's not being 'cute' or PC. It means I'm trying - along with many others - to take care of the world I want to leave for my grandchildren. So they can have a world to live in.

TW

Weasel....resident fudge packer. Alll Hail The Weasel.

[The Weasel]

Weasel....resident fudge packer. Alll Hail The Weasel.

You know, S-, that's a slam, and I'm not throwing any slams on you or others. Back off. This is a legitimate topic. Feel free to disagree with me; many do, some don't.

The Weasel

[Petr]

I really don't have much of a dog in this fight, but it's the internet so why not weigh in? By the way, I actually am a respectable public health expert, in a sense. I got my master's degree from the University of Michigan's School of Public Health in Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology, though I do have to admit that the program was somewhat lacking in terms of the finer points of defecative output. So I'm really not much more qualified to comment on this than the rest of you yahoos, but the coincidence was too juicy to not comment on.

Questions:

1. What does it mean to biodegrade exactly? 14,000 year old fossilized pooh exists but it certainly isn't dangerous. At what point does steaming bacteria-laden fecal-oral transmitting feces become the same as good old dirt in terms of health risk? I really don't know and don't care enough to do my own research.

2. Presumably, the native wildlife do not pack out their crap. And I have to assume that the total volume of poop produced by the native animals makes hikers' droppings look like mouse turds. Sure, different bacteria live in our gut versus theirs, but not that different.

3. The acceptable vs. preferable argument seems valid on the surface, and it may be correct, but not all "common sense" arguments stack up in the end. This Detroit-born-and-raised kid would like to point out, for example, that some respectable research indicates that the total burden on the environment of hybrid cars is roughly equal to or exceeds that of traditional motors if you factor in the environmental impact of producing these much more complex engines and batteries. Perhaps distributing one's brown matter over a vast natural landscape is preferable to whatever happens to it after you drop it off at your local sanitation facility? (probably not, but I'm feeling argumentative).

4. I have carried out natural experiments in my very own backyard!! Not spurred on by the lure of scientific exploration but out of share laziness! My 150 pound newfoundland can drop a mighty hill of sh%t (in fact, given Michigan's standards, it might qualify as a mountain...Boyne Mountain my @ss) and does so frequently in my backyard. Being the slob that I am, I haven't actually picked anything up in approximately 859 days. Yet, the baseline level of doo-doo piles never changes (presumably due to a constant level of "reclamation") and both me and my pup Moose are as hale as ever. Furthermore, a lot of TW's arguments (both the thought experiments and legal codes) are based on a population living in stasis, whereas most forest creatures are relatively nomadic and tent to stay away from "overuse" areas anyway.

Again, I don't have a lot invested in this argument and I'm posting mostly because I'm in the mood to be overly verbose and argumentative (read previous clause as "drunk," and/or "I'm kind of trolling"). Also, I'd like to mention that even though I tend to disagree with TW I do find his logic/style of writing compelling, which is probably why I want to engage him in a bit of a debate. So, just to give the slightest unfriendly edge to add a little color to the conversation, I'll end with this:

Your move, Weasy.

P.S. I'd like to congratulate myself on never referring to dung by the same word twice in this post.

[Petr]

...exploration but out of share laziness!

Share=sheer. Ugh...I almost wrote "share=shear" which would've been embarrassing. I really need to donate, for reasons both ethical and grammar-related.

[Petr]

Yet, the baseline level of doo-doo piles never changes

changes=change...I should really just logoff, and possibly F-off.

[The Weasel]

I really don't have much of a dog in this fight, but it's the internet so why not weigh in? By the way, I actually am a respectable public health expert, in a sense. I got my master's degree from the University of Michigan's School of Public Health in Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology, though I do have to admit that the program was somewhat lacking in terms of the finer points of defecative output. So, just to give the slightest unfriendly edge to add a little color to the conversation, I'll end with this:

Your move, Weasy.

Petr --

I'm not sure why you want to add an "unfriendly edge...to the conversation," since other than the fact that you went to 'the other school' (MSU green blood does run in my veins), I am unaware of any value to that in this thread. My trail name is The Weasel and I'm grateful when you use it. Beyond that, this isn't an "unfriendly" website, and as one of the original members, I'm glad of that. I'm sure you are, too.

I don't disagree with much of what you say, and you have a different (and in many ways better) perspective in some ways with your M.P.H. And I well know the turf in Michigan (A2 isn't much different from Rochester in that regard). But the main point here isn't just how well feces - canine or human - degrades, but toilet paper. I doubt your dog uses it (but then again, maybe he does!), and whether it's Ann Arbor, Rochester or Roan Highlands, toilet paper as with any other kind of paper is easy to pack out and not good to leave behind. On an effort/benefit basis, it's worth carrying out when backpacking. As for human waste, there are a lot of reasons to pack it out, and a lot of reasons people have for not doing so.

But answer me this: If fecal waste is not objectionable, why does your local park want you to bag it and take it with you, thence to be thrown away appropriately? And why is that park different from, say, Mt. Rogers National Recreation Area?

The Weasel

The Weasel

[snowhoe]

petr, You should donate to WB and you can correct you spelling after it has posted. Plus you get to learn the secert handshake of WB?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!!?

[The Weasel]

petr, You should donate to WB and you can correct you spelling after it has posted. Plus you get to learn the secert handshake of WB?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!!?

Snowhoe: "Secert"?

TW

[Pedaling Fool]

...
Again, I don't have a lot invested in this argument and I'm posting mostly because I'm in the mood to be overly verbose and argumentative (read previous clause as "drunk," and/or "I'm kind of trolling")...

We all do it, but TW has taken it to a new level. At least that's what I tell myself because I know he can't be that ignorant -- he can't, right, after all he's a lawyer