rethinking LNT?

[sleeping bear]

Leave No Trace. What do you think about it?

I took a LNT master educator course 5 or 6 years ago. Since then I've gone through different phases of LNT followership. For a long time I was super-LNT an annoyed all of my camping buddies. Don't touch that rock! No fires! Walk in the CENTER of the trail! Etc., etc.

More recently I've calmed down and taken an increasingly lax approach to the subject. Specifically, I have a newfound interest in campfires. I've also watched LNT talks go in one ear and out the other of some of my students. They don't care. I've seen the same thing with visitors to national parks. They don't care. LNT is just more rules to follow, and people are pretty darn good at breaking rules. Especially when there is no underlying understanding and appreciation to inform the rules.

I've also recently read some really critical analyses of LNT. There are two major criticisms of the practice. One is that impact is only minimized in that particular area. For example, using a campstove instead of having a fire only displaces the impact. The second major criticism is that LNT is teaching folks that we are not part of nature and that we have no business being there, heaven forbid someone else might recognize that we have been there. By using a campstove instead of a fire we no longer collect firewood. We no longer undertake the uniquely human ritual of lighting and sitting around and cooking over a fire. We are also told to leave the things we find. It is no longer acceptable to collect, inspect, and attribute meaning to the natural objects we find. What is this doing to the overall issues of people becoming less aware of their natural surroundings (think Last Child in the Woods and nature deficit disorder)?

Now, I certainly understand the underlying philosphies and need for Leave No Trace. The implimentation of LNT education has certainly saved many of our public lands from abuse of increased visitation. I'm wondering if perhaps it isn't time for a change of ideas around appropriate and responsible behavior in natural areas. Have things changed enough since the inception of LNT that the whole thing needs to be revisited?

What are your thoughts? What sort of experiences have you all had with LNT? Do you follow the principles? Do you hate LNT? Do the principles annoy the crap out of you? Are you a devout follower?
Let's have a discussion!

 

[RoySwkr]

Since then I've gone through different phases of LNT followership. For a long time I was super-LNT an annoyed all of my camping buddies.

I went to a very mellow presentation where they carefully explained how even some of what I had previously thought of as benign practices did affect the environment, but rather than trying to make you a zealot immediately they suggested that you adopt the practices you felt comfortable with and just think about the rest. I find that I am being increasingly careful which I think was their hope. However I certainly agree that some areas like the treadway LNT is not appropriate and better trail maintenance might help the rest of the area.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I'm not much of a fan of "more rules". I follow one pretty steadfastly (do unto others) which covers an awful lot of other rules.

Tim

 

[TomD]

I have problem with Sleeping Bear's logic and that is primarily because it ignores the problem of scaling. "It's only one little fire, so what's the problem?" seems to be the reasoning.

However, ask yourself, "what if each and every person who came through here did what I am doing?" and then look at the impact that scale would create. In that context, LNT does make sense.

I haven't been there, but Everest Base Camp is often described as a giant trash dump and the mountain itself is littered with tons of trash, including everything from broken climbing gear, miles of old fixed ropes, hundreds of used oxygen bottles, and tons of human waste.

In countries like Haiti, virtually all of the forests have been cut down for firewood or to make charcoal, leaving the countryside barren and devastated.

Ever been to Yosemite in Summer? It looks like Disneyland - thousands of people; thousands of cars; noise, smog, trash, trail damage, you name it. If you are in the Valley, the experience is like going to the mall at Christmas, but with rocks and trees. Most of the people there are clueless and ignorant (not stupid necessarily, but ignorant) and really don't understand the impact they have on the place.

No one wants to seriously limit access, but what is the alternative? At the very least, people need rules so that they can understand what is expected of them so that those who follow behind them can have the same or a better experience.

 

[Tom Rankin]

I haven't been there, but Everest Base Camp is often described as a giant trash dump and the mountain itself is littered with tons of trash, including everything from broken climbing gear, miles of old fixed ropes, hundreds of used oxygen bottles, and tons of human waste.

Not to mention human bodies!

I think the 'problem' with LNT is the perceived severity. I've heard LNT tells us what colors to wear on the trail! That sounds extreme to me, and most people treat extreme messages as something to be skeptical about. Some of what the OP says strikes a chord in me, but some does not.

If we are going to be extreme, to truly LNT, you'd have to never hike!

Or, maybe to go LNT one better, I think it would be better to hike, and support environmental groups, or do trail work, or clean up a messy lean-to, or something that actually helps reduce the problem a little bit.

 

[Mongoose]

I try to leave things better than I found them and make sure everyone is having a fun experience. Keeping people happy is the fundamental rule really. I find there are a lot of cynical people when it comes to environmental topics. It's a real put off to non-environmental people or people looking for simple advice. I used to be like that, let's lighten up everyone.

 

[forestgnome]

Excellent thread!

My thoughts on LNT have also changed over the years, from enviro-nazi to something more practical. I've had to learn to keep my blood pressure down at the sight of people's disgusting actions.

If I want $1000.00 for my used truck, I'll ask $1,250.00. By advocating LNT, we don't expect perfect compliance, but it definitely helps. Failure of perfect compliance does not render LNT a failure.

The public will always practice varying levels of civility. This autumn, I was picking up trash on the summit of Mt. Chocorua. There's lots of little items in all those cracks and crevices. Two different parties asked who I worked for, i.e. fed govt., f@g, amc, etc. I just got blank faces when I said I just do it for the forest. Who knows; maybe one of those people were influenced positively.

happy trails

 

[Waumbek]

If we are going to be extreme, to truly LNT, you'd have to never hike!

Or, maybe to go LNT one better, I think it would be better to hike, and support environmental groups, or do trail work, or clean up a messy lean-to, or something that actually helps reduce the problem a little bit.

Yes, the ultimate LNT gesture is to stay home. But I agree with forestg. that LNT may be a valuable way to raise consciousness and not to expect perfect compliance. It's a long time since people trashed the environment the way I recall from my early years; it was OK, or at least not considered horrible, to toss a cigarette butt or wrapper out the car window. Yes, believe it or not, that was common even among people who considered themselves enlightened on other social issues. LNT swings that pendulum to the opposite extreme, and I prefer that extreme. Tom R. has the best idea--not just to leave no trace, but to actively remove traces that others have left, e.g., pick up litter in the woods.

 

[Nessmuk]

Unfortunately for many LNT comes across as more "rules and regulations". It is not that at all. From the LNT web page:

"Leave No Trace is an national and international program designed to assist outdoor enthusiasts with their decisions about how to reduce their impacts when they hike, camp, picnic, snowshoe, run, bike, hunt, paddle, ride horses, fish, ski or climb. The program strives to educate all those who enjoy the outdoors about the nature of their recreational impacts as well as techniques to prevent and minimize such impacts. Leave No Trace is best understood as an educational and ethical program, not as a set of rules and regulations. - Leave No Trace information is rooted in scientific studies and common sense."

Think of LNT as an education program with guidelines to think about before you act, not a set of laws.

I think many of the early trainers were zealots, young folks with an idealistic attitude (as many of them are prone to have), but without a lot of real world experience. I grew up going to the woods and understood how to take care of it long before the formalism of LNT came along. Attitudes and practices have changed over the years (no more balsam bough beds), due mostly out of necessity of limited carrying capacity of the woods to ever increasing numbers of inexperienced or "one timer" human visitors to wild places.

My first experience with what I thought was the wacko side of LNT was on a wilderness training canoe and backpacking outing 17 years ago (before there was much of a formalized "LNT"). Even then I was the old guy in the group. We bushwhacked to a remote primitive site to set up camp. The younger guys prepared a spartan freeze-dried meal. We scraped out the pot and ate every bit, so far so good. But then the wierd stuff happened. They "washed" what little remained stuck to the sides of the pot with dry leaves, but wouldn't think to scatter those contaminated leaves in this primitive site. They stuffed the leaves in a garbage bag to take out with us. Returning home after 2 days we had a very large garbage bag full of leaves to put into the landfill. That seemed nuts to me.

Since then I have seen LNT taught both with this same "thall shalt not" attitude, and in a much more reasonable and realistic manner. I think (hope) the LNT organization is becoming more enlightened and that new master trainers are learning what works from an educational sense and what is a complete turn off.

My point to get across is to not dismiss LNT just because you view it's 7 principles as a set of rules and regulations to follow. Some of them do mirror actual regulations (the 150 foot rule in NY, for example), but please think of them instead as guiding principles for people who care about sustaining the wilderness, and who are not robots but thinking beings, to comprehend the effects of their actions in the woods - both to the natural environment and to others who want to enjoy it as well.

 

[TCD]

Good thread! This is an example of a very common phenomenon.

Here is a philosophy with good basic principles with which we can all agree. As many above have said, it's the folks implementing it and communicating it who put their flavor into it. LNT can be fun for all, and a chance to do a good job. Heck, it's not new; we were told over 40 years ago in Scouts to leave our campsite cleaner than when we found it. But if a philosphy like this is put in the hands of the humanity hating wackos, then it gets delivered as "stay home, filthy human, and don't contaminate the woods with your horrible presence." And, of course, there's the full spectrum in between.

(Personally, off trail, I like to tread lightly and leave as little trace as possible, and I don't walk on fragile summit vegetation, etc. On trail and in established camping areas, I use the established resources and don't worry so much about leaving no trace of my passage. I don't litter, of course, but I don't worry about my foot prints on the trail.)

 

[sardog1]

We are also told to leave the things we find. It is no longer acceptable to collect, inspect, and attribute meaning to the natural objects we find. What is this doing to the overall issues of people becoming less aware of their natural surroundings (think Last Child in the Woods and nature deficit disorder)?

Right on, sister!

If a kid acquires an appreciation for nature partly by bringing a leaf or a rock home, then I'll encourage that all the time. I do ask them to confirm to me that they're going to respect the object when they take it home and not simply toss it away. The only time I enforce the pure principle is when the property manager expressly forbids the practice. This is usually because of the sheer volume of users at that locale, and I'm happy to support the rule.

The last thing the natural world needs is a generation taught that the natural world must remain utterly inviolate because we're intruders. I'm not advocating drilling in ANWR or draping ourselves in snow leopard furs. But severing the connection between us and "it" can only lead to "its" demise.

 

[timmus]

Leave No Trace is like any other religion : you can be mellow about it or be a fanatic.

It's not LNT that is going too far, just some annoying believers.

 

[Puck]

This topic always had some great debates...Is it a LNT violation to.... pick up moose antlers and bring them home? ....feed grey jays?....urinate at the trail head?

Hard line rules would not work on this crowd. Face it we all are free thinkers. We engage in activities where we are self motivated and self sufficient. We seek freedom. Tell me what to do and I will fight you. Respectfully explain why I should do something I will listen.

To me LNT is just an extention of cleaning my room when I was five years old and not leaving dirty dishes in the sink for a room mate when I was 25. I work with a bunch of PhDs and others with advanced degrees. The coffee area is always a mess. Education may do little to create values and manners. These atributes are fostered within our families.

 

[Nessmuk]

This topic always had some great debates...Is it a LNT violation to.... pick up moose antlers and bring them home?

I have seen this taught as "absolutely not... the mice feed on the antlers and that's where they get calcium from." Taking this a step farther I once asked one of those "fanatic" LNT instructors... "if I found an Indian arrowhead that had just arisen from the duff and appeared on a well used trail, should I leave it alone?" He said yes, I should, so "others may enjoy". But we all know full well that the very next hiker to come along would not leave it alone. This is where a bit of common sense comes into play. I think the current LNT philosophy is coming to realize things like this.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Taking this a step farther I once asked one of those "fanatic" LNT instructors... "if I found an Indian arrowhead that had just arisen from the duff and appeared on a well used trail, should I leave it alone?" He said yes, I should, so "others may enjoy". But we all know full well that the very next hiker to come along would not leave it alone. This is where a bit of common sense comes into play. I think the current LNT philosophy is coming to realize things like this.

I respectfully disagree that if you find artifacts they are yours to keep. I now live and hike in areas where it's not uncommon to find artifacts (pottery shards, arrowheads, mortars, etc) when you're hiking. The ethic of the people I hike with is not only to leave it, but hide it slightly so that others will be unlikely to find it. One of the reasons for doing this is that there may be an archaeological review of that area at some point, and the location and type of artifacts will be very useful in that review.

As for LNT in general - I try to minimize the impact I have to a reasonable extent. I don't think it matters much where I walk in the trail, nor that I often use trekking poles. I do walk on rocks if possible when in sensitive alpine areas, and never - unless it was a life & death emergency - have a fire.

 

[Neil]

I am unaware of the history of LNT but I have always assumed that it came to be as a sensible remedy for the negative impact caused by overuse of certain areas. Overuse caused by the outdoor boom.

Like anything, taking an absolutist stance and applying the letter of the law throughout the entire spectrum of situations isn't very smart.

I see nothing wrong with applying the LNT remedy where no disease or threat of disease exists but I don't think it's necessary to do so.

 

[onestep]

I resent Leave No Trace.

To me it's just more rules and regulations embraced by those who worship at the alter of big-brother-knows-best. Hell, I was on a summit last summer and threw my banana peel over the edge of the cliff face. By the reaction of those around me you would have thought I committed a crime! Now the interesting part... on the drive home one of the LNT occupants in the car heaved their apple core out the window! Go figure...

Live and let live.
Hike free or die.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I have to say that of all the LNT principles, the concept of a campfire is the one I personally find disappointing. I don't camp, don't have a stove, and so it hasn't affected me yet, but I can say that if I went camping, especially with my family / kids, the idea of a campfire is very appealing and I would find it hard to explain to them why we shouldn't make one. "No guys, let's toast marshmallows over my JetBoil blue flame..."

I can appreciate the scalability problems and so I do tend to respect LNT principles. I also hate being told what to do and part of the reason I go hiking is to escape to a place of at least mental wilderness.

Tim

 

[KayakDan]

I like the LNT principles,and try to abide by them as much as seems practical. One thing to consider is the location you are in.
I tend to be more "hardcore" on the islands in Maine than I might be in the Whites in winter,as it's a different environment.I would never consider having a fire on an island in Maine,unless it was below the tide line,using only driftwood. Because of the thin island soil,it's very easy to have a fire burn down into the tree roots and burn undetected,and possibly burn the entire island cover. I saw the almost disasterous consequences of just such a fire on the spectacular McGlathery island this past summer.
Also,digging a hole for human waste is out off the question because the soil cover is so fragile on these islands.
On the other hand,in the Whites I might(rarely) have a fire on packed snowcover,and scatter the ashes. The likelyhood of starting an uncontrolled fire is a pretty slim in the winter.
Digging a "cathole" ,and carefully recovering it doesn't seem as invasive in the Whites in winter,either. I also consider that the number of winter visitors in these areas are more limited in winter ,than summer. I wouldn't dig a cathole in a more heavily travelled area in summer.
The thing to consider,when appying these principles is "what if everyone else who came here did what I did?" It's not the act of digging a small cathole on a fragile island,it's the hundreds or thousands who visit this place and do the same. We would end up with islands looking like the golf course in the end of Caddyshack!
LNT principles are a guideline,not the ten commandments.Take from it what you can live with,but always be mindful of the impact of your actions.

 

[Neil]

Speaking of fires. Some time ago 3 of us bushwhacked into an area 120 miles from Montreal after freeze-up and before snowfall. We spent a day cutting about 50 4-foot long logs which we left in a pile. 2 months later we went back to the same spot and over the course of our winter camping trip burned all of the logs. 4-foot long logs make for a pretty big fire and we were happy to have it because it was bitterly cold.

The following July I canoed in to the same spot and hunted for our campsite. I found it, but just barely. Even the fire pit was almost invisible, which surprised me.

If anyone wants to follow the same set of recommendations in deep and trailless woods as above tree-line in a park that sees thousands and thousands of visitors, be my guest.

Maybe the thread title could be: Thinking LNT (versus unthinking obedience).