Campfires suck.

[Jimmy The Jet]

I love a campfire, but don't always build one. Depends on location, season of year, conditions and time. If on a long hike, there may not be time, but on a leisurely trip, especially in a canoe, a campfire is a big deal to me. When I lived in the north, it was mandatory. Haven't camped in Nova Scotia yet, but I anticipate a fire....

The notion that a campfire isn't green enough never enters into it for me.

[Bubba]

There are valid points being brought up but the fact remains that a large majority of campers/backpackers/canoe trippers/hunters etc grew up with campfires and we associate many positive things with it be it emotional, social or practical.

[sargevining]

Fire led to cooked food that led to farming that led a reason for civilization if you want a more complete path. Depending on how detail oriented you are we could add some more steps. ;-) Point is that fire is what got us out of the caves/trees into what we are now. Selling it short is abandoning our roots. We go back to the woods to get back in touch with our natural roots and reject what got us out of there in the first place? Maybe that makes some kind of sense to somebody.

Well, actually------

It was an opposable thumb and the ability to use inanimate objects as tools or to modify our environment that got us out of the trees. We were walking aroun on all twos for a while before we started char grillin our mastadon steaks.

But that's just pickin the fly poop out of the pepper.

Today, fire has its uses, and has been pointed out, one should never go out to live where the beasties live without the means, ability, and knowledge on hiw to build a fire---and several methods of doing so.

But for me, a fire is not necessary for comraderie, and my trip has never been spoiled without one. While campfires don't suck, having one isn't a do or die thing----unless you showed up unprepared.

[wisenber]

That is 320 hours of wearing the jacket. IF I had never bought it and instead relied on a fire to keep me warm there is NO WAY in hell that a campfire emitting smoke into the air for 320 hours created less CO2 emissions than it took to make my coat.

When the dead wood biodegrades, do you think the carbon inside of it magically disappears?

Also, I would WAY rather rely on insulation than a fire. What happens when there is no wood to burn? Look at the guys who scale 8000m peaks. There are no trees up at the top of those mountains and they stay warm by using insulation wether it be natural (snow) or man made (clothing/sleeping bags).

Are we talking about backpacking or mountaineering? Mountain climbing, scuba diving, spelunking or going to the movies, there is no use for fire. Backpacking is another matter.

I think insulation came before fire in our history. This is just a guess of course but is the reason why I think nature feels more harmonious without the thick cloud of smoke and the blinding light.

If you include gathering a pile of leaves or bows, yes insulation predated the use of fire as a tool. Pet hamsters are known to exhibit this skill. Fire on the other hand was used to tan the hides, craft the tools and later on to clear fields. As to whether a fire or piece of softshell fabric is more harmonious, I'll let you draw your own conclusions. I have seen many instances of wild fires, but have yet to see a wild softshell.

[Red Wing]

Fire led to cooked food that led to farming that led a reason for civilization if you want a more complete path. Depending on how detail oriented you are we could add some more steps. ;-) Point is that fire is what got us out of the caves/trees into what we are now. Selling it short is abandoning our roots. We go back to the woods to get back in touch with our natural roots and reject what got us out of there in the first place? Maybe that makes some kind of sense to somebody.

Better start growin' some serious body hair then buddy

[eflat7]

I am too lazy to maintain a good fire unless it's hella cold out. So, I vote "whatever my hiking partner wants.".

[Red Wing]

Agriculture = Beer = Civilization

...just sayin'

Thanks for the correction, I knew I was missing something

Beer IS "The Missing Link

[Refreshing]

Also, I would WAY rather rely on insulation than a fire. What happens when there is no wood to burn? Look at the guys who scale 8000m peaks. There are no trees up at the top of those mountains and they stay warm by using insulation wether it be natural (snow) or man made (clothing/sleeping bags).

Are we talking about backpacking or mountaineering? Mountain climbing, scuba diving, spelunking or going to the movies, there is no use for fire. Backpacking is another matter.

I thought we were talking about surviving the cold? In all of those examples you gave I think insulation trumps fire; even for backpacking. But I think if I started arguing that point EVERYONE would argue against me !

[thesilence]

I always have a fire (unless there is a burn ban), I prefer cooking over it rather than my penny stove or my diy Bushbuddy (both of which I love), and the heat it puts off is nice. By choosing your fire wood wisely, you can minimize sparks and smoke and by only using dead standing wood you aren't harming the eco-system, rather you help it by clearing the way for fresh, new growth.

[canoebie]

I heat my house with wood. To the extent that the trees were grown, then burned and in the growth process consumed CO2 and produced O2, there is some carbon neutrality. I think it is hard to make the argument that burning fossil fuel has less impact than burning wood. I have a catalytic converter to help clean emissions. I don't fell trees, I get wood from tree services that clean up damaged and fallen trees.

Don't want to start a big argument, but I do think the notion of using fossil fuel, with all the impact of "harvesting" and producing such fuel, as an environmentally responsible alternative to a wood fire, is just hogwash. Especially a small fire for cooking as compared to cannister fueled stoves.