So what forests are open to camp fires?

jeremy77777 · Post by **jeremy77777** » Jul 29 2002 6:09 am

Does anyone know the answer?

:

nealz · Post by **nealz** » Jul 29 2002 10:48 am

Last I heard there were still fire restrictions in place, even though a lot of areas are open again. I dunno for sure.

-Nealz

RU Kidding · Post by **RU Kidding** » Jul 29 2002 6:02 pm

As far as I know campfires are allowed in developed campgrounds only for now in all the Az. Nat. Forests. That should change soon (I Hope!!)

joebartels · Post by **joebartels** » Jul 29 2002 6:07 pm

Phoenix, Arizona—Tonto National Forest has lifted campfire and smoking restrictions today, Wednesday, July 24, 2002. The forest has received sufficient rain for forest officials to make the decision to lift all fire restrictions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FYI - At the bottom of every page is a Forest link

On each specific forest page is a link to the offical page

jeremy77777 · Post by **jeremy77777** » Jul 30 2002 5:56 am

Thanks Joe! That sure is nice to know :idea:

Kim · Post by **Kim** » Jul 30 2002 10:26 am

Do not wish to be the turd in the punchbowl, but...

It is my belief that campfires should only be made in the backcountry in an emergency. Our backcountry is already far to scarred by campfire rings ect. Campfires do not have to be synonymous with backpacking. There is alot to said for meeting the land on its own terms. Leave no trace also includes firerings and not depleting scarce fuel wood.

One time we did Reavis Ranch at the end of November and although the sky was clear and we had an excellent weather report, a freak storm came down on us. It pelted us with hail and snow for more than 16 hours. We were so cold that all we could think about was a warm fire. We broke down and began to look for wood. It didn't take but a few minutes to realize the entire area had been scalped.

They say that which doesn't kill you makes you stronger. We never did have that fire. Now we go prepared for anything. A year later we got stuck in a storm cell that beat down for more than two days. We were ready for it and weathered it just fine.

Like so many people, I have such good memories of the entire family around the campfire underneath the stars, that was as good as living got. But that was before the influx of people into the backcountry.

We all have to do our part. If that includes understanding that our natural resouces cannot support everyone having a campfire, so be it. Better safe than sorry. Would hate to find out twenty years from now just how much damage was actually incured.

The backcountry is a wonderful host, go prepared, ready to take nothing from it and it will show you a fabulous time.

A new way of thinking that protects our wilderness begins with us thinking differently.

MaryPhyl · Post by **MaryPhyl** » Jul 30 2002 10:44 am

Hiking mostly in GC I tend to forget that one can have a campfire. When you are in the woods and there is plenty of fuel I see no reason not to have a small fire.

My Mom told me a story the other day --this would be from about 1920 something. Her Dad had taken them camping in the woods around Flagstaff. About two weeks later they went back to the same place. The fire they had had on the first trip had slowly burned an area about 20 feet across and was still hot. They were amazed because they had thought they had put it out.

joebartels · Post by **joebartels** » Jul 30 2002 11:02 am

Kim your thoughts are certainly respected on my part. Personally I applaud your efforts for the scarce area of Reavis. I'm not so sure I agree in well resourced areas that don't get hammered by humans such as Reavis does. Nevertheless, it's mighty fine thinking in my book.(for scarce areas)

BTW, nobody will ever likely agree with my group size thoughts 8O

BoyNhisDog · Post by **BoyNhisDog** » Jul 30 2002 12:02 pm

I rarely make a fire on a day hike or an overnight backpack and I do like the treading light ethic, but to think that it is wrong or destructive to have a small fire is erroneous in my book. There is more than enough dead fuel and burning it might prevent the wholesale destruction that we have recently witnessed. I have witnessed horrendous damage caused by too much dead wood buildup. They cannot stop it once it starts. The Rincons and Chirichuauas both burned for a full month in the past because of huge surplusses of deadfall. Sometimes we take the evironmental thinking past the point of prudence.

Just use common sense. Sometimes it isn't a good idea and sometimes it is a very good idea. Kim survived the ordeal but if the weather would have been colder or someone became saturated, cold and hypothermic and nobody around was competent at making a safe, warm fire, the outcome could have been much different. It is a skill everyone should know just as treading light is a skill everyone should know. Making a fire in wet weather is not easy but it can be learned. Then you can progress on to a friction fire. That is the ultimate rush, the ancient method. I prefer to keep my fires small and I only do it when it is legal.

Besides, there is no better way to cook fresh trout than over a small bed of coals.

kurthzone · Post by **kurthzone** » Jul 30 2002 2:58 pm

Speaking of turds in the punch bowl; do you pack 'em out?

I like to hike the trails in the back country. I would much prefer hiking on a trail to hiking the rough. Fire rings are no more obtrusive to me than trails, unless they are in the middle of the trail or there is garbage in them. A campfire ring scars the land much less than a trail. They always seem to be in an area that is well suited for overnighting and usually there is an accompanying flat and clear spot just perfect for a tent. That makes it nice for the next person along when it comes to having a comfortable place to sleep. There are many little camp spots like this in the Reavis area and I think it's great. Simply put, a fire ring serves notice that humans inhabit the area from time to time. A trail says the same thing. The fact that there are well kept trails means there is a human factor happening in the back country and along with it come certain human habits that are unavoidable; like eating and staying warm, and seeing in the night, and peeing, and so on and so on. The degrees of necessity are subjective to say the least. The only way to leave no trace would be a total ban on humans in the back country! And what would be the purpose? To preserve something to such a degree that no one will ever see it? I'll fight that kind of philosophy till I die! This is America; not to abuse, but to use and enjoy.

BTW, I didn't have any trouble finding fuel at Reavis, but it took more than a few minutes to scan the entire area which means walking a bit past the confines of the apple orchard and foundation area.

I understand fully that there are extremists who advocate "no trace" to the letter of the law and not to the intent and I certainly say they may have that opinion, but I vehemently disagree with it.

CindyC · Post by **CindyC** » Jul 30 2002 3:10 pm

When I first read this post I had all my thoughts put into words and was ready to type my reply. Then I read Glen and Stan's replies and have to say you said it all for me.

Kim · Post by **Kim** » Jul 30 2002 7:36 pm

Man, what a rough crowd. I am not an extremest, just try to be aware. Most of my time is spent in the Four peaks and Superstion area. I am only speaking on what I have noticed. I tried to express my opinion gracefully. That is not to be confused with me having a closed mind or not being willing to look at anothers point of view. I think the comment as to do I pack out the turds in the punchbowl as well is not called for. If someone has a view point different than your own does not entitle anyone to be rude. I have always been open to different ways of thinking. That is how we learn and evolve. The quip about just using common sense stung as well. I did not say anything that condesending to anyone. I didn't not post with any hostility, nor would I expect any in return. I have a different view about fuel wood in less populated areas since the post, I did not need to informed like that. We are supposed to share our views in the kindest manner to our fellow man. You could of got the same message across kindly.

CindyC · Post by **CindyC** » Jul 30 2002 7:52 pm

I don't think anyone meant to offend you Kim. I think your reply definitely came off as sounding one sided and Glen and Stan were just trying to point out the other side. One great thing I have found about this site is that we are all allowed to give our opinion and in the end it's still okay.

evenstarx3 · Post by **evenstarx3** » Jul 30 2002 7:52 pm

Well Kim...after all you're the one that threw the first "Turd in a punchbowl" .....so you get the first cup, OK

:

And I don't think anyone was condesending; they were stating their opinions as did you...and seems to me most of them supported your right to you opinion; some of theirs just differed. If you have a problem with that...well, you have a problem.

So I'd suggest you get into the spirit of HAZ and not feel you've been attacked just because someone takes a shot at your post.......hell, if I did that....well........I'd use common sense and figure it was Teva Joe messing with my posts again

:

:roll:

MaryPhyl · Post by **MaryPhyl** » Jul 30 2002 8:13 pm

I am of two minds here.
My first thought was that Kim was a troll--he/she? comes in with a lay down the law attitude and then gets teary when people tease a bit and disagree.
My second thought was that he/she? needs to get a thicker skin to play on the internet where there are as many opinions as there are people.
Whichever or whatever the situation Kim, you need to take a deep breath and get over it. Mary

Kim · Post by **Kim** » Jul 30 2002 8:36 pm

Gosh Mary,

I am not a troll. How could you say that about someone you do not know? If I did anything wrong it was to express my concern. Oh yeah, I also asked that you be nice. The same kindess I am willing to give to you.

MaryPhyl · Post by **MaryPhyl** » Jul 30 2002 8:42 pm

I apologize--I just went back and read all of your posts--you are not a troll. Sorry, Mary

Lizard · Post by **Lizard** » Jul 30 2002 10:00 pm

For what its worth, I am in wholehearted agreement with you Kim. I almost always build campfires when car-camping, but almost never when backpacking. I can probably count the number of fires I've built in the backcountry on one hand.

Lizard

olesma · Post by **olesma** » Jul 31 2002 12:18 am

Interesting thread. I wasn't initially going to post to it - but after reading it all, I just had to throw my two cents in (probably only worth one cent - but it's the best I can do) - and I'm trying like hell to not sound condescending or pompus :roll: .

One interesting thing I have noted about the posts on a forum such as this brevity is usually the watchword of the day. By that I mean that with any given subject people tend to cut to the heart of the matter, or at least cut to the bare essentials of their opinion on the matter. (unless of course you are myself or Montazumawell - we just ramble on incessantly

).

This type of brevity has advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example, if this thread had been a normal conversation, we all would have aired our differences quickly and with the opportunity to respond immediately to concerns or issues - using whatever length of response we required. However, with this medium, we don’t have that luxury. As a result, some of the quick, short responses or posts are easily misinterpreted - and then we don't have the time or ability to respond in the manner we would like.

I don’t think it’s a matter of being thick or thin skinned – just realizing the weakness of the medium. I have fallen victim to this as well – got burned for a comment or two, and learned some valuable lessons.

Take it all in stride, and hopefully, next time, approach a subject a little differently.

You get to know how certain people think and react if you stick with the forum long enough – that’s how I can pick on Snick and Hoolie and know they don’t take offense. But I also know that there are some strong opinions out there (mine included) and I have to work very hard to present my opinions in a manner that hopefully doesn't offend (or annoy, alarm, whatever...) – not that I am very good at it, but I try.

Anyway – bottom line – the medium we are using here lends itself to short, fast reactions – and that will occasionally offend or surprise. Just try and keep an even keel – and realize that sometimes it takes several additional posts before things even out again.

And Kim - hopefully you stick with the forum. I enjoyed your thoughts (I don't totally agree with them, but in certain circumstances I absolutely agree with them) and I would like to hear more from you in the future.

jeremy77777 · Post by **jeremy77777** » Jul 31 2002 5:07 am

Can't we all just get along?

Fire rings-If you make a small one in the back country, you can cover it over easy to make it look like a pile of rocks. Sometimes it's just a necessity. Trying to keep the back country looking nice is very important, but some things are just a little too extreme. But then some fire rings are built a little too big, say...6 feet