Re: Santa's list of naughty and nice

Yep--it's that time of year again. And we have to believe that Santa takes this stuff pretty seriously. After all, he lives at the North Pole, so he knows how important preserving our wilderness really is. But just in case he needs little help, we have our own list for him to consult:



NAUGHTY

The idiot who set off the fire that burned 250,000 acres of Stanislaus National Forest and Yosemite National Park—and built an illegal campfire because he was sure the rules didn’t apply to him.

The other idiots who believe that the rules don’t really apply to them because….well, you get it. This year we met people who were camping in restricted areas, building fires where they were prohibited, hiking with dogs in Yosemite’s backcountry, and endless evidence of people who did not pack out their TP, tampons, etc. Leave No Trace. It isn’t that hard.

Boy Scout leaders who destroy natural wonders (and national treasures)—all the while supposedly serving as an example to the young men in their charge.

The knuckleheads who deface Native America heritage sites…or anyone who vandalizes public property. If you want to make something ugly, stick with your own property.

Those who choose to step into roaring spring creeks or wade above waterfalls, despite all the warnings…then again, these people get their rewards pretty quickly.

Editors who think that the single biggest issue with backpacking is dealing with bears. See above. Enough with the bear stories.

The bozos in Washington who continue to collect a paycheck while doing less and less for the people of this country. If you want to reduce the size of government, we can think of an easy place to start.

NICE

Anybody who takes friends, kids, or anyone else out into the forest to show them how wonderful it is. Just make sure they follow the rules. Please.

Those who share their expertise, knowledge, and experience on backpacking message boards where everyone from fellow experts to rank amateurs can learn…and enjoy.

A particular note to those who blog about their wilderness adventures. You not only help the rest of us who are looking for other places to visit, and newbies to find their first adventure.

The National Park Rangers and USFS employees and the volunteers who support them. We have found them almost uniformly really helpful and really pleasant—despite the fact that they have to deal with all these NAUGHTY people…which must get pretty darn tiring.

And SAR teams who regularly go out into the wilderness and bring the lost back to the trailhead.

The fire crews that fought to limit damage from fires across the Sierra.

The wonderful community of backpackers who continue to visit and treasure our wilderness areas. And our website!

---

Check our our website: http://www.backpackthesierra.com/
Or just read a good mystery novel set in the Sierra; https://www.amazon.com/Danger-Falling-Rocks-Paul-Wagner/dp/0984884963



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/19/2013 11:47AM by balzaccom.

Quote
balzaccom
The knuckleheads who deface Native America heritage sites…

At least the one I unexpectedly saw last Tuesday wasn't defaced:

That's really nice, eek.

---

Check our our website: http://www.backpackthesierra.com/
Or just read a good mystery novel set in the Sierra; https://www.amazon.com/Danger-Falling-Rocks-Paul-Wagner/dp/0984884963

Those folks who pick up the garbage are pretty nice as well, whether wearing a uniform or just regular backpackers who hate to see wrappers, foil, clothing, hair clips, string, etc. near their campsite or on the trail.

Quote
KC
Those folks who pick up the garbage are pretty nice as well, whether wearing a uniform or just regular backpackers who hate to see wrappers, foil, clothing, hair clips, string, etc. near their campsite or on the trail.

And those unmentionable things that I find when I am walking behind boulders in the Valley.

Don't mind wrappers, but won't touch those.

Biggest thing I ever found was one of those portable showers. We packed it out but I still don't get the point of those things when you're in the back country.

Add to the nice list (for us Valley campers): Those fellow campers who when they realize you are doing a solo camping night come over and invite you to their campsite for dinner.

Add to the naughty ones: Those who play their loud obnoxious music in their campsite next to you ( or 5 campsites over); and add to the good guys: The rangers who tell these same people that if someone in the next campsite can hear their music it's too loud.

Add to naughty:
All those folks who create illegal fire rings in the wilderness. It's unbelievable how many can be found, especially off-trail.

Add to nice:
All those folks who dismantle illegal fire rings in the wilderness.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/26/2013 10:48AM by tomdisco.

Quote
tomdisco
Add to naughty:
All those folks who create illegal fire rings in the wilderness. It's unbelievable how many can be found, especially off-trail.

Add to nice:
All those folks who dismantle illegal fire rings in the wilderness.

Conflicted here...both naughty and nice "folk".
Too many over-zealous folk seem to think all "legal" wilderness fire rings should be dismantled too. At obvious camping sites, ones at destination lakes, (EG, - Sunrise Lakes) sites that have been used for decades, many times, well-meaning fire ring dis-mantlers come up with the agenda to destroy all/(every) rings, even well-established rings - spreading fire-colored rocks everywhere and leaving ash pits where the original rings existed for decades. New hikers then come up, and rebuild rings again (again legally)...leaving new scars/ new rings to be soon again taken down.
Perhaps some modicum of rational thought would suggest that since people are going to camp there again "legally'...better to leave some rings alone?
Better to have one ring than the scars of twenty others dismantled.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/2013 08:49AM by markskor.

Quote
markskor

Quote
tomdisco
Add to naughty:
All those folks who create illegal fire rings in the wilderness. It's unbelievable how many can be found, especially off-trail.

Add to nice:
All those folks who dismantle illegal fire rings in the wilderness.

Conflicted here...both naughty and nice "folk".
Too many over-zealous folk seem to think all "legal" wilderness fire rings should be dismantled too. At obvious camping sites, ones at destination lakes, (EG, - Sunrise Lakes) sites that have been used for decades, many times, well-meaning fire ring dis-mantlers come up with the agenda to destroy all/(every) rings, even well-established rings - spreading fire-colored rocks everywhere and leaving ash pits where the original rings existed for decades. New hikers then come up, and rebuild rings again (again legally)...leaving new scars/ new rings to be soon again taken down.
Perhaps some modicum of rational thought would suggest that since people are going to camp there again "legally'...better to leave some rings alone?
Better to have one ring than the scars of twenty others dismantled.

I'm not quite sure it's legal to recreate fire rings just because the originals might have been legal. The permits say, "Construction of new fire rings is not permitted". I realize I'm creating a Catch-22 situation but give us a little credit for knowing where the really legal ones are, especially in previously impacted camping areas. Let's face it; fire rings don't carry signs declaring their legality. Most of us over-zealous folk who destroy fire rings confine our activity to rings that are most definitely illegal. When we find rings 1,000' or more off-trail in deep wilderness areas not frequented by most hikers it's a pretty sure bet they are not legal fire rings. Also, anything above 9,600' altitude is fair game in Yosemite. The recent Rim Fire was caused by a hunter who had built an illegal fire. This year five of us ate his smoke for six days and nights and were forced to severely modify our hiking plan. Other folks lost their homes. A quarter million acres of wilderness were lost to fire damage. I realize the debate between "no fire" purists and those who enjoy legal fireside companionship will rage on indefinitely but is the fire really worth it? Really?
Jim

Naughty: building rock towers.
Nice: knocking them down.

Quote
tomdisco

Quote
markskor
...better to leave some rings alone?
Better to have one ring than the scars of twenty others dismantled.

I'm not quite sure it's legal to recreate fire rings just because the originals might have been legal. The permits say, "Construction of new fire rings is not permitted". I realize I'm creating a Catch-22 situation but give us a little credit for knowing where the really legal ones are, especially in previously impacted camping areas... Most of us over-zealous folk who destroy fire rings confine our activity to rings that are most definitely illegal. When we find rings 1,000' or more off-trail in deep wilderness areas not frequented by most hikers it's a pretty sure bet they are not legal fire rings.
Jim

I will preface this by stating that I seldom make fires unless hiking with folk who need them, or perhaps for burning trash. Even at that, we always go back and retrieve all scrap aluminum bits and un-burned items found in the ashes, (a pet peeve)...but, unless there are multiple rings in the area, leaving the ring intact.

I am not sure either that your destruction of well-established rings is legal either. To add, you say "most of us over-zealous folk who destroy fire rings confine our activity to rings that are most definitely illegal". Who decides? Too many times, especially at well established camp destinations, the entire areas are become fouled by the scars of repeatedly deconstructed/ rebuilt rings. Just because you "believe" a ring is illegal, does not make anything a "sure bet" that they were illegal initially. Where once there was one ring, well-used for years and undoubtedly would be be used many time again, now because you think you are some self-professed authority on legal-ness, you feel that you are doing something good where in effect, you are trashing a well-established camp site.

I would rather have one ring standing and no ashes strewn about than no rings and the remains of twenty others repeatedly being taken apart.

.

Quote
markskor
.....I would rather have one ring standing and no ashes strewn about than no rings and the remains of twenty others repeatedly being taken apart. .

Good point. Confine the damage to one specific area instead of spreading it around and ruining the whole area.

It's estimated there are over 5000 fire rings in the park. I have only seen a few rings that I would certainly say were built by the park service and are the "legal" rings. These have been in designated camping areas; Pate Valley, Rancheria, Lake Eleanor, etc.

Probably 4950 of the estimated rings should not be in existance. Also if one is to remove a ring it's important to rehab the area and insure the burnt rocks are hidden in brush and that the ashes are removed to brush also. It doesn't take a degree in forestry to figure out that a fire ring needs rehab.

Most rings I've encountered in the back country have been unused for years and are easy to rehab. It's amazing that virtually every flat spot in the backcountry suitable to pitch a camp has an old fire ring nearby.

---

Old Dude

Quote
mrcondron
... it's important to rehab the area and insure the burnt rocks are hidden in brush and that the ashes are removed to brush also. It doesn't take a degree in forestry to figure out that a fire ring needs rehab.

Most rings I've encountered in the back country have been unused for years and are easy to rehab. It's amazing that virtually every flat spot in the backcountry suitable to pitch a camp has an old fire ring nearby.

Must agree to disagree here...
First, how do you remove ashes into the brush?
Secondly...How do you know that rings are "unused" for years? And if they are unused recently, so what?
Finally...Most back-country lakes (destinations) have a finite number of prime camp sites available - flat, not too close to water, far enough away from the trail, some trees for shade, and room for one or two tents, etc.

Usually there is one, well-used fire ring there (as to how long since last used is debatable, but)...anyway, Under your philosophy, (BTW, Do you really think you are doing good by tossing rings?). you can remove the rocks from the ring, throw them into brush or wherever but the fact remains, the left-over ashes will stay there for years and years. Someone new then comes along and, not wanting to sit in your leftover ashes, builds another ring in another area close-by. Ring destroyers come in again and now you have two ash deposits, soon to be three, four...you get the idea. Where before, the area, used for years, was used but reasonably clean - perfect for two tents, now the campers must either set up their tents over the old ashes, or move to a new spot and start over. Where before the one "developed" site worked well, developed but clean, had one ring, and was isolated, now, after the "over-zealous" ring destroyers get through, you have two sites, and they are now both dirty.

Now, I do not like fires either, but as long as they are still allowed (where legal - 9600 ft rule) in Yosemite, I would rather leave the ring where it is even though it might be months between uses, than to expand the site's trash footprint by trying to hide the ashes - doesn't work! I contend that one should just leave the one ring site alone. Are you naive enough to think you are the first person to camp there? Do you think you will be the last? Why trash it for the next guy? You think you are doing good but IMHO not so.

99.999% of Yosemite is pristine, and I hope to keep it that way. However, your "destroy all fire ring" mantra sucks...Developed, used sites are better off being left alone rather than expanding the trash areas by your tossing the rings..

Quote
markskor
Who decides?

The regulations are very clear about elevation limits, proximity to water and trails, etc. So there are plenty of fire rings that are clearly and unambiguously illegal and should be destroyed.

Quote
Royalist

The regulations are very clear about elevation limits, proximity to water and trails, etc. So there are plenty of fire rings that are clearly and unambiguously illegal and should be destroyed.

Agreed, there are plenty of sites with multiple rings that should be destroyed...however, there are plenty of sites with one ring - better off left alone.

Quote
markskor
Agreed, there are plenty of sites with multiple rings that should be destroyed...however, there are plenty of sites with one ring - better off left alone.

I guess we have different ideas about what constituted back country and heavy use areas. I would say that if an area has a bear locker there should be a set of official fire rings. Everywhere else if you have a fire then rehab the area before you leave. 99.999% of the back country is not pristine due to so many fire rings. Sometimes you think you're off trail and in a prestine spot then oops, a fire ring.

Add on:

By the way the NPS has summer crews that go through the back country clearing fire rings and rehabing the areas. One can volunteer for this service.

---

Old Dude



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/30/2013 06:48PM by mrcondron.

Quote
mrcondron
... if an area has a bear locker there should be a set of official fire rings. Everywhere else if you have a fire then rehab the area before you leave. 99.999% of the back country is not pristine due to so many fire rings. Sometimes you think you're off trail and in a prestine spot then oops, a fire ring.

Maybe I hike in a different Yosemite but WHAT?

Let's take an example - Reymond Lake, above Nelson...seldom visited. There is but one suitable area to camp - North East corner.
The camping area is small, one fire ring exists, and there is room for maybe two tents. Under your reasoning, everyone who camps there , if they had a fire, should break down (re-hab?) their built ring, unfortunately leaving the ash scar prominent, and the next party would do the same. Eventually there would be countless ash scars, lots of fire-charred rocks in the bushes, and nowhere to camp without wallowing in the past ashes of another.
or
You could leave the ring and site as it is, (and has been for decades) and countless others could also enjoy this site in the future...sans ashes. BTW, how long does it take for the ashes to disappear? 20 - 30 years?

You say there are 5000 camp rings in Yosemite (maybe 4 feet square each) and how many square miles of wilderness...Do the math.
You may be talking about the major areas of congestion..Bear locker sites?....LYV, Merced Lake, Glen Aulin, Hetch Hetchy backpacker camp? Do what you want here - rehab or not...I do not go there anyway.
Just leave my off-trail wilderness sites as is and well enough alone - please. I do not mind seeing a fire ring...I know I am not the first to visit; I won't be the last. I just do not want the do-gooder volunteers leaving ash scars marring what has always been acceptable places to camp. After your ash strewing scheme...not so much...argh! .

I thought this was a forum for all things Yosemite, not just the Valley or major congested areas, Somebody once told me that 95% of those who visit Yosemite never get out of the Valley or off the paved roads. Of that remaining 5%, 98% never get more than 200 feet off any trail. I am starting to believe I may be in a wrong forum.

Markskor
admin HighSierraTopix.

Quote
markskor

Quote
mrcondron
... if an area has a bear locker there should be a set of official fire rings. Everywhere else if you have a fire then rehab the area before you leave. 99.999% of the back country is not pristine due to so many fire rings. Sometimes you think you're off trail and in a prestine spot then oops, a fire ring.

Maybe I hike in a different Yosemite but WHAT?

Let's take an example - Reymond Lake, above Nelson...seldom visited. There is but one suitable area to camp - North East corner.
The camping area is small, one fire ring exists, and there is room for maybe two tents. Under your reasoning, everyone who camps there , if they had a fire, should break down (re-hab?) their built ring, unfortunately leaving the ash scar prominent, and the next party would do the same. Eventually there would be countless ash scars, lots of fire-charred rocks in the bushes, and nowhere to camp without wallowing in the past ashes of another.
or
You could leave the ring and site as it is, (and has been for decades) and countless others could also enjoy this site in the future...sans ashes. BTW, how long does it take for the ashes to disappear? 20 - 30 years?

You say there are 5000 camp rings in Yosemite (maybe 4 feet square each) and how many square miles of wilderness...Do the math.
You may be talking about the major areas of congestion..Bear locker sites?....LYV, Merced Lake, Glen Aulin, Hetch Hetchy backpacker camp? Do what you want here - rehab or not...I do not go there anyway.
Just leave my off-trail wilderness sites as is and well enough alone - please. I do not mind seeing a fire ring...I know I am not the first to visit; I won't be the last. I just do not want the do-gooder volunteers leaving ash scars marring what has always been acceptable places to camp. After your ash strewing scheme...not so much...argh! .

I thought this was a forum for all things Yosemite, not just the Valley or major congested areas, Somebody once told me that 95% of those who visit Yosemite never get out of the Valley or off the paved roads. Of that remaining 5%, 98% never get more than 200 feet off any trail. I am starting to believe I may be in a wrong forum.

Markskor
admin HighSierraTopix.

I guess I'm a leave no trace bigot.

---

Old Dude

Quote
mrcondron
I guess I'm a leave no trace bigot.

That's not a bad club to be in. I never light a campfire in the backcountry. I use a stove.

Speaking of "leave no trace".... I talked to, or tried to talk to, someone that was representing the main "leave no trace" group. He became extremely upset over the fact that I, and others, were knocking down rock piles. He actually believed they were exempt from the "leave no trace" ethic.

That person is a friggin idiot. Period. Clueless. (I'm talking about the rock piles) (LNT)
I'm so sick of them. Monkey see. Monkey friggin do.

On the other topic of rings. Cmon. Seriously. Nelson Lake. No fires. It states so on the permit you get to get there.
So why the HELL are there any fire rings at Reymann? Ridiculous.

The backcountry rangers are really up in arms over this bullcrap. Believe me. I've talked to many of them.
Despondent would be a proper term.

That's all I'm saying on this topic.

Flame away.

---

Sigh.

This is what I commonly come across:

Never even been used.

So many times gone back to same places many times... year after year... and low and behold... there is a
fire ring where there wasn't one before.

Here's the link to the map from 1972 of fire rings in the backcountry:
http://tinyurl.com/mdnjxof

Sad thing imho is that a bunch of the places that have a 0 on them... I've been to recently... and
they wouldn't have a zero anymore.

I would ask you to talk to the backcountry rangers when you are out there and get there take on things.
They are probably filthy from doing rehab work.

Have a nice 2014. Ok. Now that's all I'm gonna say about firerings for 2013 and 2014

---

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/30/2013 09:54PM by chick-on.

Quote
chick-on
....Flame away.

How can you flame a guy that's right?

Quote
markskor
, Somebody once told me that 95% of those who visit Yosemite never get out of the Valley or off the paved roads. Of that remaining 5%, 98% never get more than 200 feet off any trail. I am starting to believe I may be in a wrong forum.

Markskor
admin HighSierraTopix.

Your implying THEE Old Dude a 95%er??????

You better talk to (only other person on this board who has more backcountry miles than Old Dude)

---

The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

Quote
markskor

Quote
mrcondron
... if an area has a bear locker there should be a set of official fire rings. Everywhere else if you have a fire then rehab the area before you leave. 99.999% of the back country is not pristine due to so many fire rings. Sometimes you think you're off trail and in a prestine spot then oops, a fire ring.

Maybe I hike in a different Yosemite but WHAT?

Let's take an example - Reymond Lake, above Nelson...seldom visited. There is but one suitable area to camp - North East corner.
The camping area is small, one fire ring exists, and there is room for maybe two tents. Under your reasoning, everyone who camps there , if they had a fire, should break down (re-hab?) their built ring, unfortunately leaving the ash scar prominent, and the next party would do the same. Eventually there would be countless ash scars, lots of fire-charred rocks in the bushes, and nowhere to camp without wallowing in the past ashes of another.
or
You could leave the ring and site as it is, (and has been for decades) and countless others could also enjoy this site in the future...sans ashes. BTW, how long does it take for the ashes to disappear? 20 - 30 years?

Chick-on addressed Reymann, but there's also a more general point. For as long as I've backpacked in Yosemite (since 1990 or so) campfires have been illegal above 9600'. For at least the last 23 years there's not been any legal reason for a fire ring at these places.

It looks like Reymann Lake is slightly above 10,000 feet (well past the 9,600 feet legal limit), so I'm thinking that was a bad example.

Personally, I don't see how LNT ethics can include converting wood to ashes. It just seems like a definite trace to me.

Rick M.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/31/2013 11:11AM by RickM.

I personally don't know anyone who has gone out of their way to destroy existing legal fire rings. I'm sure there are some anti-campfire zealots out there that might do that, but I've never come across a legal fire ring in Yosemite that was destroyed and removed that next time I visited the area.

All the fire rings I've seen removed in Yosemite have been ones that were clearly illegal. Ones located too high in elevation, but more common, ones too close to an existing trail, or too close to a water source, be it a creek but far more commonly, too close to a lake or tarn.

A far bigger problem in Yosemite is that there are more fire rings every year in Yosemite's wilderness even though Yosemite backcountry regulations and wilderness permits expressly prohibits the creation of new fire rings.

I don't have any problem with any backpacker using an existing fire ring to build a campfire that complies with all of Yosemite's regulations. That's their right. But it saddens me greatly that many people simply ignore these rules put forth by the National Park Service, rules that they only put forth to protect Yosemite's wilderness from further degradation.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/31/2013 06:04PM by plawrence.

Quote
RickM
It looks like Reymann Lake is slightly above 10,000 feet (well past the 9,600 feet legal limit), so I'm thinking that was a bad example.

If you take a real hard look at all the named lakes around TM... I think you'll be surprised at the very very very few number
of lakes you can have a fire at.
Mildred, Sunrise, Babcock, Emeric, Mattie. That's about it really just thinking about it off the top of my head.
And I'd contend that those lakes are frequented like Cathedral that ... well... you know where I'm going.
I've seen the mess at Sunrise #2. Just shook my head and left. Didn't even take a picture.

---

I wonder if the NPS has ever considered lowering the 9,600 ft limit. Does anyone know any of the history about how they came up with 9,600 rather than something lower?

Rick M.

Quote
RickM
Does anyone know any of the history about how they came up with 9,600 rather than something lower?

It probably comes from the tree line.

I believe eeek is correct. The tree line probably averages somewhere around 9,600'. The specific issue is that feeding a fire requires lots of downed deadwood. That simply does not exist at the higher altitudes. Even where there is sufficient downed deadwood the deadwood itself is part of the local ecosphere. Any disturbance such as gathering up all the local deadwood just to feed a fire creates a situation where the local ecosphere is incapable of bouncing back from such activity. There just isn't sufficient growth to support it. Personally, I think 9,600' is rather generous when one considers the impact of virtually stripping a given area for firewood.

Tree line in The Sierra is something like 11K.

Not sure how they came up with 9600 in Yosemite. My guess is The Sierra Club had some influence on it.
And by that I mean they more than likely wanted it lower and pressed for it to be as such.
In other areas it's typically 10K.

It's a great question though. Wonder if the definitive answer could be found?

---

Quote
chick-on
Tree line in The Sierra is something like 11K.

That varies. In Yosemite the sub-alpine zone starts around 8500 feet. The soils and vegetation around that elevation start to thin out and any disturbance is usually very long lasting.

As you go south in the Sierra the level rises, 10K from south of Yosemite down to the Kings drainage, then 10.4K in the Kern.

Further north it's lower yet: 9K in the Emigrant, 8K in the Mokelumne. So I'd say Yosemite's 9.6K fits the same trend of other areas in the Sierra.

Good point.

I heard the 11K from a ranger. It's pretty amazing how high the tree line really is.
Loads of Lodgepoles above 9.6K and lots of Whitebarks above that.

Anywho. I'm pretty certain peeps who read what I write... know what I think the elevation cutoff should be.
(hmm... what exactly is the elevation of Badwater? )

---

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/02/2014 03:32PM by chick-on.

Quote
chick-on

Anywho. I'm pretty certain peeps who read what I write... know what I think the elevation cutoff should be.
(hmm... what exactly is the elevation of Badwater? )

It's 282' Below Sea Level.

Note: in Death Valley National Park it's illegal to have a campfire ANYWHERE in the backcountry. Only camp stoves are allowed.

(Maybe you should backpack more in Death Valley. )

.

Not to correct the far more travelled Chick-on than I am, but to the North of Yosemite, in the Emigrant Wilderness the elevation is actually lower, its 9000' instead of Yosemite's 9600'. Also, off the top of my head, Kings Canyon is below 10,000 and Sequoia it varies between 9,000 and 10,000.

On a sidenote, last year on the JMT it was a bit of a hassle as it seemed that you were in a different jurisdiction every other day and the rules were different, oh well...