Random Access Memories

May 15, 2013

Why “Leave no trace” is destroying the environment.

by @ 8:01 pm. Filed under Personal

So most anyone interested at all in the outdoors has read about the “Leave no trace” or LNT principles. Which in short state that nature is to be seen, not touched, not trampled on (IE. the outdoors is a museum to be looked at not interacted with).

I find fault with this, on many levels.

Let’s take the basic principles of LNT one by one. In the interest of simplicity in this post i’m going to break things down into “energy” meaning energy used and “impact” meaning physical environmental impact. Also “wilderness” refers to any wild area where mankind has had a minimal impact not designated Wilderness areas.

#1 Plan ahead and prepare.

This one is good. It’s hard to argue that preparing is an excellent idea. But, what kind of preparation are we talking about? Let’s compare a modern backpacker with a wood/bushcrafter.

Backpacker – Modern ultralight gear

Impact: High to Extreme. Consider everything in a modern backpackers gear. Titanium pot and cup, modern backpack, modern aluminum and steel stove, ultralight tent with nylon and aluminum, down sleeping bag, carbon fiber trekking poles, nylon or gore-Tex clothing. All the materials to make these things had to be mined or synthesized, almost nothing in a modern backpackers gear is natural. Think of the environmental impact of titanium and bauxite mining, fiberglass and epoxy resin for carbon fiber, not to mention all the chemicals required to process all these materials. Even if we say a modern backpackers gear will last a reasonable amount of time we all know that people upgrade their gear, and that gear breaks or wears out. Is that gear repaired? Usually not, it’s mostly just thrown away and replaced with something new which adds to landfill impact. Along with this add the packaging for many of these materials which is often not recyclable. (Think for example how some ultralight backpackers remove all the tags from their clothing, but do they bother to wonder of the impact of what they do with those removed tags?) Also consider those things that are intended to be disposable, such as fuel canisters, i’m sure many recycle them but many also just throw them into the garbage.
Energy: High to Extreme. From the mining of the raw materials, to the transportation, then the processing on to the processing to the construction then finally the transportation to the retail establishment and it’s purchase by the consumer there is significant energy expended here. There is also the energy of the petroleum fuel that is being used in the stove. It has to be brought up, refined and delivered.

Wood/Bushcrafter – Old traditional gear

Impact: Low to High. Consider what a bushcrafter might carry. Hatchet, knife, plastic tarp, wool blanket, backpack. Some of these things might be modern, and they might be old. For the sake of this post I’ll consider the bushcrafter with old gear. He uses a military pack he got at an army surplus store, and a hatchet he got there as well. His knife is a hand-me-down from his grandfather, the wool blanket he got from a local store made with homespun yarn, he carries a WW2 mess kit and canteen. He’s likely also wearing wool and cotton clothing. Yes, many of these things have impacts, but they are much lower than modern day gear, also they are more likely to be secondhand, which have no packaging or modern construction impacts. There is also the fact that his gear is likely going to last much longer than modern gear. A WW2 canteen is simply going to outlast a titanium cup due to it’s strength, the cup is built for minimum weight, the canteen was built tough. The wool blanket will outlast the modern sleeping bag, and replacing a tarp is much less impact than replacing an entire ultralight tent. Yes, he has impact of gathering wood and putting together a camp, but this can be undone. It does not leave things in a pristine state but the impact is usually minimal. If one leaves poles laying around for another to use in building a lean-to there is even less impact since the second has no need to gather so many resources.

Energy: Low to Medium. Since he is not making use of modern materials he has limited energy impact. Some things might be delivered between retail stores, and there is all the energy expended in the past to make his gear. He is having an energy impact by gathering wood to cook with, but this is considerably less than that of the petroleum fuel stove user.

#2 Travel and camp on durable surfaces.

Durable, exactly what is “durable”? Dirt? Granite? Asphalt?

If we try to say that hikers using a trail have less impact than those going off-trail is that true? The impact of this one is going to be the same for whoever is going into the wilderness, how much is that impact really? We see impact because, well, humans have an impact when they go someplace, step on something or touch something. Are we really trying to say “Stay on the trails” and expecting people will listen? And in telling people to use existing trails what have we done, in many areas we have paved the wilderness to allow more people into it, is that “low impact”?

This one is more wishful thinking than reality, people do not all color inside the lines, and if more people went further off-trail the impacts would be much less concentrated. However think about this really, to a deer or a rabbit does it matter if a slope is eroding? No. Does it matter to a fish is there is more particulate matter in a stream? Yes actually, because that means more nutrients.

The outdoors is not a fine glass figurine that must be treated with delicate care lest it shatter forever, it is a living thing, that can repair itself into new forms, the problem is that repair takes longer than humans are willing to wait, and the new forms are not what people want to see.

#3 Dispose of waste properly.

What is “properly”? For the sake of this post let’s assume that everything besides human bodily waste is being disposed of someplace besides the wilderness, or by fire.

Modern waste – Freeze-dried food containers, broken modern gear, aluminum foil packaging, plastic packaging.
Impact: High. Even if people pack out everything how many throw it into the garbage? This is still having an impact, it’s just not having an impact that we see in the wilderness areas. Rather we’re putting it into someone Else’s backyard. Plastics can be burned to ash in a fire, but that releases their toxins into the atmosphere.
Energy: Medium to High. Trash and recycling has to be transported and dealt with.

Natural waste – Paper, broken wood and steel gear, tin cans.
Impact: Low to Medium. Broken wood implements and paper packaging can be burned with minimal impact and no need of collection or modern disposal. Steel knives and hatchets can be reforged or re-hafted and reused. Tin (steel) cans can be recycled of course, but some people melt them down and directly reuse them, however even if steel is left in the environment it will eventually rust, and at a pace far greater than it would break down if thrown into a landfill. (I’m sure we have all seen 100+ year old tin cans rusting to bits)
Energy: Low to Medium. Self-made gear has little to no energy impact is made from natural materials. Someone forging their own hatchet or their own knife, or getting one that is handmade, will have much less impact than getting something mass-produced. Yes, there are still impacts but buying from a blacksmith 2 miles away where he makes knives from old car parts consumes much less energy than buying a brand new knife made in China.

#4 Leave what you find.

How much of what I find? Should I consider a rotting and rusting hulk of a covered wagon “historic?” What about an old Plymouth? How about a modern abandoned truck? Of course this is in the eye of the beholder, but any archaeologist will tell you that one man’s trash is another man’s treasure.

So let’s consider this to mean anything “Natural”. Dirt, rocks, native plants, deer antlers.

Does this mean that I leave non-native species? Should I tear out something I see growing that is invasive and then try to explain my actions to someone on the trail that thinks I’m not practicing LNT? What about a meteorite? (Yes, you can get extremely pedantic when considering these things, but most people don’t want to go there.) How about taking apples or nuts in season? Think about that in the “Respect Wildlife” section.

Yes, not following this rule could easily lead to taking massive amount of materials from the wilderness, but on the other hand collecting rocks, minerals and dead wood is often allowed in wilderness areas. If the contentious LNT follower wants to leave the wilderness pristine they might be better served by changing the law than acting morally superior to their non-LNT counterparts.

Consider the person who picks up a stick for walking, then discards it back into the forest against the one that buys a set of trekking poles whic will eventually be discarded into a landfill.

#5 Minimize Campfire impacts.

While this is “minimize” most modern backpackers seem to have taken this to mean “NO CAMPFIRES!”. Should we figure that burning the underbrush and dead wood in a forest is a bad thing? Well, forest fires are much less devastating when smaller fires come through from time to time and burn out the small growth. Many areas where humans are common have not had these preventative fires, mainly due to humans thinking that any fire in the forest is a bad thing.

While this rule is optional to modern backpackers it is a requirement for the bushcrafter who wants to stay warm. Is it more environmentally friendly to craft a modern sleeping bag and deliver it to it’s end user, or to burn some of the available wood for warmth? Which one will have an ongoing impact? (Consider at this time that sleeping bags cannot be recycled, and only the sleeping-bag maker Golite accepts it’s bags back for recycling, tho only to store them until they can someday be recycled)

#6 Respect Wildlife.

While the LNT folks say they have literature on making their principles work with hunting I cannot believe how they could. Killing the wildlife seems completely and directly opposed to the concept of respecting wildlife that modern environmentalists swear by.

Often this is taken to mean that humans should not “get in the way” of wildlife, but exactly how can we prevent this? Sure, we can not pitch camp in the middle of a trail, but simply having the scent of humans around is going to spook wildlife that might need to come near to drink from a lake or stream, etc. This is another one of those times when LNT = Stay at home.

And also if I go out and kill a rabbit for my dinner am I disrespecting it? Let’s think for a moment about the two sides of this issue.

Killing a rabbit or catching a fish in the wilderness
Impact: Minimal, animal is removed from the food chain. This opens up opportunities for another animal to fill. Sometimes this could even be considered helpful, such as removing an overpopulation of rabbits because the natural predators are gone (Once again, thanks to humans) or catching and eating invasive fish. (Crater lake for example allows no-limit fishing and all invasive fish are to be killed)
Energy: None save human energy to catch/prepare/consume animal.

Bringing your own food to the wilderness
Low to high. Depends on the packaging used and how harmful the creation of the food is. IE, home picked fruit is better than an orchard is better than a pig farm, etc.
Energy: Low to High. If I am bringing in freeze-dried food sealed in a foil bag how much energy was wasted by preparing that food, moving it, packaging it, and on making the packaging itself. On the other hand if you’re bringing in apples, grapes, nuts, pears, etc that you bought locally, or better yet picked from your yard the energy spent is low to minimal. In both cases there is still the energy spent hauling that food to the wilderness trailhead.

#7 Be considerate of other visitors.

On it’s face this is a good idea but like anything it can go overboard. If we go by the “Golden Rule” of do unto others as you would have them do unto you then we’re always going to have people with varying views of good behavior.

In the end there is a difference between being loud because you are just normally a loud person and dumping your trash into someone Else’s campsite. The slider here can be moved towards either end depending on your personal views of what is “considerate”.

In the end can we truly expect others to act the way we want them to act, especially in a space where the “rules” are so ambiguous? Do we have a right to impose our judgments when their views might simply differ from ours but their end goal is the same? And the culmination of this point is that perhaps LNT folks would not try and force their views onto others, right?

Sure, we’re having an impact, but my point is we will ALWAYS have an impact, sitting at home looking at pictures of the wilderness on the computer uses energy, but people have ignored those impacts and focused on the impacts they see firsthand in their own environment. We have been fed nice clean “rules” to follow, and just blissfully ignored the damage being done by the companies making the gear to fill the needs created by those rules. In the end I believe that is far worse than what the rules were made to prevent and that it has become too easy to ignore the harm we are doing because we feel we are doing good.

In the end the only way to truly leave NO trace, is to not go into the wilderness at all, and even then humans are having an incredible impact on the globe. When is it time to say the game is lost and throw in the towel?

I believe we are far past that point.

12 Responses to “Why “Leave no trace” is destroying the environment.”

  1. Craig Caudill Says:

    Thank you, thank you, thank you for saying out loud here what we have been saying for years as well. I thought I was alone in these thoughts…I am at ease again knowing someone else is out there like me on this issue…:)

  2. Keith H. Burgess Says:

    I am an 18th century living historian, so I guess my historical treks are about as low impact as you can get.
    Good post, well done.
    Regards, Keith.
    A Woodsrunner’s Diary.

  3. Andre Houser Says:

    I’m an LNT Master Educator, and I think you totally do not understand the principles of Leave No Trace….No TRUE LNT advocate would tell you that you can’t have a fire, or that you can’t catch game to eat, etc. All the principle ask is that whatever you do in the wilderness, you do it in such a way that has the least impact. Why? So there might just be some wilderness left for others to enjoy. We are not the green police, we are not conservationists that tell you to stay out of the wilderness, we just ask that you treat it with respect.

  4. Lasivian Says:

    Andre, when you teach LNT do you explain the environmental impact of the gear that people use to follow the LNT ethics?

    What I am saying is that LNT just moves the “impact” to someone Else’s wilderness to preserve our own. And that by doing so we are causing much more harm than good. People are not seeing, or discussing that harm.

    Where is the respect for the wilderness that is destroyed to gather and process the resources for the equipment/food/fuel that you tell people to carry to practice LNT?

  5. Jason Says:

    Lasivian, I’m curious as to what specific gear you’re referring? To my knowledge, Leave No Trace doesn’t require any special or new equipment to practice the seven principles.

  6. Lasivian Says:

    Jason, it does not need any “specific” gear, but it takes a different general type of gear. I will give a few examples.

    #1 No foraging, so all food has to be packed in. Hence weight matters and specialty freeze-dried food in non-recyclable containers is suggested.

    #2 No all-night fires for warmth. So in colder climates more than a wool blanket is required meaning a sleeping bad which is not recyclable.

    #3 No fire for boiling water. This means some form of purifier is required.

    In short go into REI and look at what they sell. This is all the “normal” kit for the outdoors under LNT. And almost all of it is specialty materials, non-recyclable and very environmentally unfriendly.

    If you would, tell me what gear kit you use to explain how to do LNT. I believe it would be impossible to go backpacking with LNT values and use environmentally friendly gear.

    And back to what Andre said, LNT actually *IS* the green police of the outdoors. The LNT site itself keeps mentioning events where people are encouraged to stick their nose into how others are using the outdoors to push the LNT way. They call it the “situation”, Here is an example: https://web.archive.org/web/20140214003505/http://www.lnt.org/blog/situation-responses-december-situation-0

  7. Jason Says:

    Hi Lasivian,

    I’m sorry, but I think you’ve been given “bad” Leave No Trace information. Can you tell me if you’ve ever attended a Leave No Trace Trainer Course, or a Master Educator Course. I think you’d benefit greatly from doing so and much light would be shed on the misinformation you’ve gathered. Leave No Trace is not an “absolute”. It’s better to think of Leave No Trace as a spectrum, and finding where you, personally, fit along that spectrum. All Leave No Trace asks is for people to consider the impacts they have when recreating outdoors, and to challenge themselves to minimize those impacts as much as possible. Foraging and fires are by no means banned by the principles of Leave No Trace. More-so, it’s recommended these practices are carried out RESPONSIBLY. For example, before deciding to have a campfire, one should consider certain variables such as access to water, wind, availability of dead/down wood, land management regulations, etc… if those are all in alignment, then there’s nothing stopping you from having a fire. Go for it! I don’t see why you can’t use a fire to boil water where fires are allowed. But yes, in situations where having a campfire is genuinely a bad idea, then you would need another method for purifying your water. But at that point it’s more of a land management issue and less of a Leave No Trace issue. And as for foraging, as long as you have the proper hunting/fishing permits, and local food sources are in abundance, then that’s perfectly acceptable.

    Unfortunately, I think you’ve been exposed to the few Leave No Trace “nazis” out there who care more about ensuring everyone is hovering over cat-holes than actually educating people about minimum impact recreation.

    Regarding your REI observation… Yes, you can buy lots of specialty items that are touted as Leave No Trace equipment, but that’s just a marketing thing. You don’t actually NEED any of that crap. For example, you don’t need a plastic/aluminum trowel to dig a cat-hole, you can use a stick. In fact, I can’t think of a single piece of gear that one absolutely needs to have to practice Leave No Trace. So what does my “LNT gear kit” include? Nothing. Leave No Trace is about planning and making good decisions versus having specialty equipment.

    And no, Leave No Trace is not the green police. “The situation” simply gives people the tools and education to properly teach others about Leave No Trace. Would you suggest not making people aware of the ramifications of camping too close to water sources, traveling with dogs off leash, being too close to wildlife, having a campfire during a burn-ban, etc? Don’t you think individuals engaging in behavior like this should at least be made aware of the impact those actions have?

  8. Lasivian Says:

    Yes, I agree that not everyone views things the same way. By all means show me a LNT training course that does not use modern gear. I don’t believe it’s possible. And no, I have not paid to attend a LNT course, you’re talking to the long-term unemployed here that can’t afford to go backpacking anymore.

    And yes, the “nazi” view is taking over. Partly due to retailers pushing their products as “required” for LNT. But if we go over the rules it is extremely easy to fall into the “gear trap” of needing more and more specialized lightweight gear for the trail which the retailers are happy to provide. If that is not the intended way that LNT should be moving forward, then the LNT community should address it more strongly.

    If you want a specific gear example I’ll take one directly from the LNT.org principles: “Use a lightweight stove for cooking”. Yes, I admit it is the only specific in the principles that says “You need this gear”. And yes, this could mean a simple homemade forced-air stove made from easily recyclable materials, but we both know that is not what 99.99% of people use, or bother to think about the impact of that piece of gear.

    Instead we have the LNT.org itself selling non-recyclable products with it’s logo on them: http://lnt.org/shop/product/leave-no-trace-nalgene-bottle and http://lnt.org/shop/product/vapur-anti-bottles are both “#7” plastics and cannot be recycled. Or let’s read this blog entry on LNT.org: http://lnt.org/blog/leave-no-trace-gear and note where it says “Make sure your gear is easily recyclable to protect the environment”, or, wait, it doesn’t say that. Instead it recommends gear to buy, not even suggesting the idea of re-using old gear. (Yes, I know it’s not cannon, but that is the tone I see coming from all sides.)

    And if hunting and foraging are allowed under the principles why are they not mentioned at all in them? This is akin to saying “We don’t tell you specifically not to hunt or fish. But we don’t come out and say that it’s acceptable in the principles either.” This leaves the hardcore view to dominate in the field because the principles support the hardcore view.

    And no, I do not see the principles as a “spectrum”, they are absolute rules because people view them and talk about that way. Yes, it’s unfortunate, but it’s the way things are being touted by those who want to push their views. However if we want to get pedantic just look at how the language is used on the LNT.org site. “To reprint the Leave No Trace Seven Principles, include copyright language and please do not alter them without review from the Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Ethics.”. IE. “DO NOT CHANGE THESE PRINCIPLES UNDER PENALTY OF LAW!” Yes, you are saying “spectrum”, but the organization seems to think differently.

    I would be happy if the LNT training simply included information on how most modern outdoor gear is bad for the environment. Until people demand more environmentally friendly gear it’s not going to get made. And until people realize how bad the gear they are using is they’re not going to demand anything different.

    Where is the principle of “Buy gear that leaves no trace in someone Else’s wilderness”?

  9. Jason Says:

    Hi Lasivian,

    Simply because a Leave No Trace course instructor chooses to use modern gear, doesn’t mean the course couldn’t be run without it. That’s simply a personal choice of the instructor and participants and isn’t a reflection of Leave No Trace practices.

    Yes, hunting and fishing are certainly allowed under the principles of Leave No Trace. In fact, the Center for Outdoor Ethics publishes curriculum specific to these activities. There is an ethics reference card specific to both hunting and fishing, and there is an entire Skills and Ethics booklet specific to fishing. See here: http://lnt.org/shop/product/individual-ethics-reference-cards and here: http://lnt.org/shop/product/individual-skills-ethics-booklets.

    Actually, I know the organization touts Leave No Trace as a spectrum, and not an absolute… It’s about educating folks about the impacts their recreation has on the natural resources around them, and giving them the tools to best minimize those impacts. I believe very few people view the Seven Principles as absolutes, and those that do, are misguided. And to your copyright point, just because an organization wants to protect it’s intellectual property, doesn’t mean they’re saying Leave No Trace information can’t be adapted and altered in accordance with various circumstances. In fact, the Center has approved many, many variances to it’s recommendations.

    Also, you’re missing the organizational focus of the Center for Outdoor Ethics. Remember, the Center’s mission is to teach people how to recreate responsibly. It’s focused on recreation related impacts, and not larger, global issues like climate change, pollution, etc. While the Center does support things like reducing carbon emissions, recycling, and being overall environmentally conscious, it’s best for organizations like Leave No Trace to keep their focus narrow and deep. In fact, there’s an entire page on the Leave No Trace site dedicated to Sustainability Ethos outside of Seven Principles. See here: http://lnt.org/about/sustainability-ethos.

  10. Jason Says:

    Know how I know the Center views Leave No Trace as a spectrum? This is from the Leave No Trace website:

    “It’s impossible to leave absolutely no trace of your visit to the outdoors. However, we at the Center have set the bar high in terms of our values and outdoor ethics. Leave No Trace is not intended to be taken literally. Rather, it is a philosophy that guides us while we enjoy any outdoor pursuit. If all who enjoy the outdoors were to do what they could to minimize the unavoidable impacts (trampling, erosion, etc.) and prevent the avoidable impacts (properly dealing with human waste, properly storing food and trash from animals, sticking to durable ground, keeping human and other waste out of water sources, etc.) it would go a long way towards protecting the places we enjoy from recreational impacts. The Center views Leave No Trace as a spectrum – on one end there are many impacts, on the other end there are few. We encourage people to figure out where they fit into the spectrum – where they’re comfortable – and to do what they can to minimize their individual impacts. The primary goal of Leave No Trace is to prevent the avoidable impacts and to minimize the unavoidable impacts. By doing so we can protect and preserve both natural resources and the quality of recreational experiences. This can also minimize the need for restrictive management activities by land managers. We truly believe that if everyone did something, even something small, to minimize his or her impact on the out-of-doors, the result would be profound and lasting.”

  11. Jason Says:

    Hi Lasivian,

    I noticed that my last two comments didn’t populate on your site. Perhaps I didn’t submit the content correctly? Did you remove them?

    Please advise.


  12. Lasivian Says:

    No, I’ve just been busy and did not get around to approving things.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Lasivian's small corner of the web.
(Please wipe your browser before entering so you don't track in mud)

Internal Pages:



Si hoc legere scis mimium eruditionis habes

Does your brain hurt yet?

retesostft vntphoim enuni toegtieittyft nece n tiog siheun sec eevd go doyvweelprnnstt ievtg h i tieosddfrntea ytiedtt uryrieyhmhsug rer hieoywle unie tnxeref nfls ettdsiedte fnsiei fdhfZ

(I can't remember how I encrypted this cipher , the first person to crack it gets 10$ via Paypal.)

My Email:

01001010011101010111001101110 10000100000011010000110100101 10010001101001011011100110011 10010000001101101011110010010 00000110010101101101011000010 11010010110110000100000011010 01011011100010000001110000011 01100011000010110100101101110 00100000011100110110100101100 11101101000011101000000110100 00101000001101000010100100110 00110000101110011011010010111 01100110100101100001011011100 10000000110011101101101011000 01011010010110110000101110011 000110110111101101101

How long the USA has been under corporate rule:

Search Posts:


May 2013

External Links:

Things i've read lately:

QR Codes

(Scan these on your cellphone)

My website URL

My E-mail


38 queries. 0.064 seconds