Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

The Case For Killing The Camp Fire

2

Replies

  • neugebauer52neugebauer52 Posts: 979Member Member Posts: 979Member Member
    Has been essential for thousands of years...
  • SuzySunshine99SuzySunshine99 Posts: 1,160Member Member Posts: 1,160Member Member
    Has been essential for thousands of years...

    It was...until we developed other means of cooking our food and warming our homes that don't require a wood-burning fire. Electricity, natural gas, etc. In most first-world environments, fires are for entertainment purposes only, and therefore not essential anymore.
  • TheRoadDogTheRoadDog Posts: 11,863Member Member Posts: 11,863Member Member
    There's probably an App on your cell phone that you can stare at instead.
  • NorthCascadesNorthCascades Posts: 9,369Member Member Posts: 9,369Member Member
    You think somebody who doesn't like forest fires shouldn't use a computer? And that makes sense to you?
  • SuzySunshine99SuzySunshine99 Posts: 1,160Member Member Posts: 1,160Member Member
    You think somebody who doesn't like forest fires shouldn't use a computer? And that makes sense to you?

    I think where it’s getting confusing is that there are two main arguments against the campfires being debated here. One is forest fire prevention and another is air quality.

    I think the above poster was equating the air quality argument with using electronic devices...not the forest fire argument.
  • CSARdiverCSARdiver Posts: 6,169Member Member Posts: 6,169Member Member
    You think somebody who doesn't like forest fires shouldn't use a computer? And that makes sense to you?

    Makes sense to me.

    Pareto in a practical application.

    Concern over campfire and not cigarettes or the power plant shows a concern of optics over reality.
  • cwolfman13cwolfman13 Posts: 36,940Member Member Posts: 36,940Member Member
    You think somebody who doesn't like forest fires shouldn't use a computer? And that makes sense to you?

    Wow, that's jumping to a conclusion. No what I don't like are people who claim to be so concerned with the environment that they pen posts on the devastating effects of a really fun past time, calling out those who do it and suggesting we should end the practice, meanwhile they themselves are really hypocritical in that their environment destructing footprint is often as bad or worse, but they don't advocate for stopping all of the things they love, they instead focus on things other people do. Willie Nelson for example claims to be a climate change and environment guru, yet at a show in Alberta, he left multiple diesel buses running for an entire day just so that he could keep them climate controlled for his comfort. David Suzuki who advocates for the environment, yet jet sets around the world in private jets seems a bit hypocritical to me. Etc........

    I'm totally against forest fires, but most up here in Canada any ways aren't caused by some irresponsible camper having a fire in the evening. They are caused by someone being negligent with other products, such as cigarettes. Thus my second point was that if you're going to ban something, let's start by banning the thing that actually causes these, and not just the first thing that pops into the authors mind.

    The biggest cause of forest fires in my neck of the woods is lightening. We usually have crazy thunderstorm monsoons starting in July and going through August, but in the mountains at 9,000+ ft it's not uncommon to have thunderstorms roll through regardless of the season. In all of my years of camping I can probably count on one hand the number of times I've camped and we didn't have a thunderstorm roll through or at least skirt us.
  • mbaker566mbaker566 Posts: 10,059Member Member Posts: 10,059Member Member
    summer just doesn't feel like summer with fires in firepits in friends' backyards. camping feels unfulfilling if the soundtrack to the night sky isn't a fire.

    i do respect the fire bans and wood guidelines but don't tread on me and my fire
  • NorthCascadesNorthCascades Posts: 9,369Member Member Posts: 9,369Member Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    You think somebody who doesn't like forest fires shouldn't use a computer? And that makes sense to you?

    Makes sense to me.

    Pareto in a practical application.

    Concern over campfire and not cigarettes or the power plant shows a concern of optics over reality.

    No one smokes in my home, and it'll illegal indoors in public places, even within 25 get off a door. Cigarettes don't affect the air quality here. Smoke from wild fires prevents is from seeing things a mile away during August every year.

    Trying to equate cigarettes with 100,000+ acre wild fires is nonsense.
  • NorthCascadesNorthCascades Posts: 9,369Member Member Posts: 9,369Member Member
    Also, why do you think a person can only be concerned about one thing??
  • NorthCascadesNorthCascades Posts: 9,369Member Member Posts: 9,369Member Member
    I agree with those who want to keep their camp fires: Put stiffer penalties in place for those who are careless with their campfires (and equip the forest service so that they can better enforce those penalties), put limits or bans during extremely dry periods as common sense would indicate, provide better education for safe and responsible camp fires, but don't be outlawing them out right.

    We never find out who started many of the human-caused fires. Satellite images show the Diamond Creek fire was started in a wilderness camp. Nobody keeps records of who hiked what trail what day or where they slept. That fire burned 150,000 acres and stretched into Canada.
Sign In or Register to comment.