They say that campfires aren't safe or beneficial for a forest health, yet they burn the exact same material in a control burn that I would otherwise be using in my campfire.
Is this just some plot to keep people indoors and buying propane stoves, or can I legitimately start camp fires and contribute to forest management?
Ive learned forest management and been outdoors a lot, fire safety is essy, but of course normalfags are retarded. That said, I want to do a campfire every night that I hike the PCT (ya idgaf about the law Ill just hide it well), so does anyone have perspective on ways to do this that would contribute to forest health, or is there something Im overlooking and maybe I shouldn't do it? (Yes, obviously not burning every available thing in sight)

>>2823589 (OP)
In the case of the pct in the sierra, they dont want people having campfires because so much of the trail is at such a high elevation that there just isnt the wood. It would only take a few weeks of steady backpackers to take out all the downed wood at a small alpine lake. In sequoia national park you cannot have fires above a certain elevation any time of the year, regardless of burn bans.

you arent going to do this anyway because no one who does a through hike has a fire every day, or at all really. Takes way to much time and effort if you are trying to make serious miles

>>2823589 (OP)
>They say that campfires aren't safe or beneficial for a forest health
Who says that? Not Smokey Bear- he just wants you to put it out when you're done. They only time they dont want you to have one is when the conditions are so dry that its retarded to have one anyways

>>2823596
AT thru hiker here, I had a campfire almost everyday.

>>2823589 (OP)
So much good habitat in my area is getting overgrown with shit weeds and shrubs because normies are too scared of fire or cutting down a few trees.

>>2823599
This is my thinking, that if campers started using their own fires to do control burns then we can do what the government ought to do, but wont because theyre jews.

>>2823596
Maybe not in the dry area of the PCT, yes, but past a certain level I intend to and have before, it isnt that time consuming, because I pack light and my setup takes like 3 minutes tops. Most througg hikers are gear oriented, im trying to practice long term bushcraft skills so I dont carry 80% of the shit that yuppies do.
Though fire lookouts might be a pain, qnd expending more time to build a fire in a dug hole might also be a pain.
I have a cowboy camp setup for through hiking, so the fire to heat rocks helps to keep me warm, so aside from wildfire maitenance it also helps me stay light weight.

>>2823606
>if campers started using their own fires to do control burns
you cant be this fucking stupid...can you?

>>2823608
The two problems I see are either that peope are too retarded to manage a fire, or that an isolated fire wouldnt work the same as a control burn as youd have all the ashes in one place, but you could circumvent the latter by distributing the ashed around to the places that you took material to start your fire from.
Either way, the overabundance of dead wood and debris in remote areas is more economically manageable if hikers just start doing this themselves. With the right training/knowledge this would be a great way to incentivise people to take care of the woods themselves.
My only question is if there is a difference to consider in a concentrated camp fire vs a typical spread out control burn, and if my spreading the ashes around would actually work the same.
In terms of legality, hikers like myself who are passing througg thw area can d9 these necesarry small burns, and be gone before the FEDys find us. Im talking about Guerilla warfare controp burns, a new kind of radical enviromentalism where we do the work the government was supposed to do, and we do it for free at no consequence to ourselves, nor consequence to the enviroment if we know what were doing, as to why Im asking about how feasible something like this is and if there is anything Im overlooking.

>>2823612
It doesn't sound like you understand the purpose of controlled burns.

>>2823738
Truly, if he's stupid enough to think that the average hiker can be trusted with building fires at will in any national park, he's too stupid to be trusted with fire.

>>2823738
Removing excessive flammable material from the woods and having the ash serve to fertilize the gtound with what was burned. Hence why after major fires mushrooms tend to pop up all over.
Maybe enlighten me on what Im missing instead of just making a lame post telling me that Im ignorant.
For fuck sake, how do you expect the world to learn if those who know better make no effort at education?

>>2823612
>Guerilla warfare controp burns
jesus christ
what happens if you fuck up? do you have a dozen of your firefighter buddies behind you? do you have years of experience with this thing? are you perfectly equipped for a forest fire?
if not you shouldnt be burning random shit

if you or any other hiker actually believes this you should just get a wood stove or similar and use that to (controlled) burn weeds when you need to

>>2823589 (OP)
>they burn the exact same material in a control burn that I would otherwise be using in my campfire.
Yes, you're really helping burning everything in a ten meter radius around your pit.
>is there something Im overlooking
The other six million hectares around you?

>>2823770
Perhaps there is a regional element to this, but we burn any woods *that will burn* about once every 2-5 years. This is done primary because it is beneficial for the woods. Upland plant species.. Wiregrass, Longleaf Pine, and many others actually NEED fire to be healthy. Thats why I burn for the most part.

In the case of planted pine stands though which are not natural anyways so it doesnt help the woods per se, it just keeps pines clean and convenient to deal with, like you said it keeps down any debris. The most important thing is that it keeps brush and other trees/seedlings, from volunteering up in the middle of the pines. It also makes them grow faster and stronger with less competition.

The key to burning is basically just a maintained firebreak around whatever section youre burning. Where I live is a patchwork of upland and bottomland, the bottomlands and oak heavy woods wont burn even if you wanted them too. So there is generally almost zero risk of a bad fire here. No one fears fire here. The worst case scenario is that the winds get up and the tops of trees start burning and you lose mature trees. Certain times of year youre going to see/smell the woods on fire here basically 24/7 here and there. Its just a normal part of things no one thinks twice about it and it is seen as good for the woods. You technically dont even need permission to burn, but if you have permission it just means if the forestry people have to come clean it up you arent on the hook for the cost.

>>2824228
So just as an example here is the same property
>Pre-burn

>>2824229
>Immediately after the burn

>>2824230
>about six weeks after

>>2824231
>About four months after

>>2824232
>Almost a year after
Notice how much healthier the wiregrass looks.