bike bushcraft

[tramponabike]

In the present I think using twigs and a Kelly Kettle is mush more sustainable to make a cup of tea.
The main principles off Bushcraft as in respect for nature and do not take to much food items is certainly one we should all adopt.
As regards a fire, it is possible to have a very small cooking fire and leave no trace at all plus not do lasting damage to the countryside. Only if it is done with respect an awful lot of thought and planning.

As has been said using a gas stove is not very sustainable, but at times needs must, so I have only my conscience to deal with.

While I think there are stoves like the KK which are comparably efficient to using a gas stove, I can't believe an open fire is anywhere near comparable. When on the road I use only a tiny fraction of the gas (and almost everything else) I would use at home. Even a small open fire has to be vastly less efficient than a small and controllable alcohol, gas, or petrol stove used properly. And again...who's wood is it?

I agree that some bushcrafters do have a deep understanding and respect for the environment. Although most of the ones I know have been doing it since before the term was popularised and wouldn't wish to be called it. I also know from my own travels that there are increasing amounts of people, inspired perhaps by Mears and co and the growing bushcraft industry who haven't.

It should also be remembered that so far, we have only considered one end of the er... "food chain".

(some good info on fuel efficiency and lots of other stuff about stoves here:-
http://zenstoves.net/StoveChoices.htm#Efficiency)

[Jonty]

would prefer to live in a modern developed society rather than a stone-age lifestyle. Obviously this view is based on partial information; I have never lived in a stone-age society. But from what I've read, on balance, I prefer to live today rather than during the stone age.

This is the problem - none of us have ever really experienced living a real HGFer lifestyle and so it may just be 'better the devil you know..'. But when you say that you prefer to live today, what I believe that you mean is that you prefer to live your modern life, rather than the average life today. Not so much stone age vs modern, but rich western styled life vs anything else. And that is fair enough, after all, you are fed, warm, have a roof over your head and probably want for little. However, quite a bit of suffering has had to happen to get you there. Question is, are your benefits worth the hardships that so many other have had to go through to get you there?

Regarding the choice between HGFer and modern western type of lives, well I recognise all of the advantages that I have, but would still like to give a proper HGFer lifeway a go. But at the end of the day, the ideal might be to take the positives from both to make a hybrid that is better than either.

Yes, why not? I'm sceptical but I'm willing to be convinced. I have an open mind on most things.
I don't accept the analysis that those people in the world who are relatively rich, such as those living in Europe, North America, Japan, Austrailasia and the many millions of relatively well off people in places like Russia, China, South American, the Middle East and India (I read somewhere that India has more millionaires than Australia has people, which, of course may be a load of bunkum), achieve this status because many people are relatively poor. In other words, we are relatively rich - me and you- because other people are relatively poor: we are in incubus having a free ride on the shoulders of the great distressed.
As far as I can see many people are poor because of civil war, ethnic and religious divides, exploitation by dictators, famine and a lack of good governance. I can't see how you or I can be held responsible for that.
I certainly will not hold myself responsible although I will continue to assist through charitable donations.
jonty

[Si]

No, not quite what I meant. I meant that to achieve the current lifestyles that we now enjoy, many people in the past had to suffer greatly. there was no sudden change from HGFer to affluent westoner, rather there were thousands of years where the majority of people lived in conditions much worse than those today and those of the HGFers. Were all of these lifetimes of suffering worth it so that you and could enjoy what we enjoy now? I guess that many would say that they are happy to suffer so that their children can have a better life...but how far down the family tree can we extent this? And we may be more comfortable (able to live a life of little physical effort) now, but are we, as a society, happier?

[Jonty]

No, not quite what I meant. I meant that to achieve the current lifestyles that we now enjoy, many people in the past had to suffer greatly. there was no sudden change from HGFer to affluent westoner, rather there were thousands of years where the majority of people lived in conditions much worse than those today and those of the HGFers. Were all of these lifetimes of suffering worth it so that you and could enjoy what we enjoy now? I guess that many would say that they are happy to suffer so that their children can have a better life...but how far down the family tree can we extent this? And we may be more comfortable (able to live a life of little physical effort) now, but are we, as a society, happier?

Surely a bit academic? I doubt if my grandfather was thinking of making life easier for me when he helped to build the Titanic.
Are we happier? Who knows?
From what I've read it seems that people compare themselves with other people and get depressed if their friends and neighbours are better-off or more comfortable than they are: in other words it's their relative postion rather than absolute levels of wealth and income which mainly determine their sense of worth and contentment.
Sad, isn't it?
Anyway what is happiness? I know it's written into the US constitution which doesn't fill me with happiness.
My view - and I admit it's subjective, partial and devoid of any "scientific" analysis - is that some people are naturally happy and some aren't. Some people see the bright side of things, some don't. Some see opportunities where others see problems. Some their glass is half-full, others it's half-empty.
So I suspect that one's propensity to happiness is partly determined by genetics and partly by environmental factors like so many things. I would imagine that it's more difficult to be "happy" if you have poor health, are long-term unemployed, and continuously make, for whatever reason, bad decisions. Having said that I'm sure we all know people of relatively modest means who seem to be "happy " whilst others who would be regarded as rich even by the standards of our society, seem to be miserable.
Making longtitudinal assessments of "happiness" overtime would seem to me to be an impossible task. Perhaps the concept of happiness is something which has just been recently invented like teenagers or celebrities.
All I know is that I would not be estatic if I had to go out and hunt for my next meal knowing that I could be stalked by a sabre tooth tiger, and while I'm away my tribe could have been decimated and eaten by a neighbouring tribe and if I got tooth ache or appendicitus I would be in agony or die. But an Iron Age person would not think like that as he or she would be focusing on the "here and now".
What you don't have nor have seen, you don't miss.
jonty

[Edwards]

And again...who's wood is it?

Mine as in from my garden.
While gas or any other man made fuel might be more efficient than wood it is certainly not as sustainable. I also wonder about the amount of carbon used in the production of a gas canister and the gas in it?

[tramponabike]

And again...who's wood is it?

Mine as in from my garden.

Can I book a pitch? Hope you have a stream as well.

I don't know the emmissions comparison between wood or gas (inc production etc) to boil a given amount of water. With an open wood fire though, you need far more fuel than needed just to boil the water. No on/off control and no effective way to concentrate the heat onto the pot.

But... as it's your wood... how many can you take?

[Edwards]

Tramponabike if you look up the Kelly kettle you will see the method used to make it efficient and how the combustible material is used.
So if a brew is wanted on a ride it can be self sufficient. Sorry no stream or wonderful vistas but an Ash tree and Privet hedges in the garden.
Being an ex Scout Leader I have some friends who own farms and if I feel in the need to see nature from a slightly different point of view I use their farms.
The best one for this is in the Welsh Borders as it has such a mix of terrain and habitats.

[Si]

All I know is that I would not be estatic if I had to go out and hunt for my next meal knowing that I could be stalked by a sabre tooth tiger, and while I'm away my tribe could have been decimated and eaten by a neighbouring tribe and if I got tooth ache or appendicitus I would be in agony or die. But an Iron Age person would not think like that as he or she would be focusing on the "here and now".

There you go again, assuming that people in the past / from other cultures are driven by environmental determinism and intellectually and culturally inferior to us. Do you really believe that they could not think about the future, could not think about anything beyond where the next meal came from, did not have rich histories and cultures? From the way that you talk it certainly sounds like that...see why I said that you'd make a good C19th missionary, out to civilise the backward savages!

Of course, in the C21st all you have to worry about is....next time I pop down the shops for my next meal will I be run down by a careless driver, and while I'm away will my family have been decimated by the neighbouring smack-heads/rioters/terrorists, and if I got one of the may illnesses that are prevalent in our densely populated island full of lazy lifestyles and unhealthy food I would be in agony or die.

[Jonty]

All I know is that I would not be estatic if I had to go out and hunt for my next meal knowing that I could be stalked by a sabre tooth tiger, and while I'm away my tribe could have been decimated and eaten by a neighbouring tribe and if I got tooth ache or appendicitus I would be in agony or die. But an Iron Age person would not think like that as he or she would be focusing on the "here and now".

There you go again, assuming that people in the past / from other cultures are driven by environmental determinism and intellectually and culturally inferior to us. Do you really believe that they could not think about the future, could not think about anything beyond where the next meal came from, did not have rich histories and cultures? From the way that you talk it certainly sounds like that...see why I said that you'd make a good C19th missionary, out to civilise the backward savages!

Of course, in the C21st all you have to worry about is....next time I pop down the shops for my next meal will I be run down by a careless driver, and while I'm away will my family have been decimated by the neighbouring smack-heads/rioters/terrorists, and if I got one of the may illnesses that are prevalent in our densely populated island full of lazy lifestyles and unhealthy food I would be in agony or die.

Fair point. I'm always surprised to find out just how sophisticated many ancient societies were. It seems there were towns in England before the arrival of the Romans and the inhabitants drank wine. I could have probably fitted in there.
Perhaps we'll discover that the Neandertals had the internet?
Also the guy they found it the Alps had arrows made from different woods for differing purposes and a copper axe - a really sophisticated survival kit.
I suppose being someone who's interested in ancient classical history I tend to associate civilization with cities, political systems, advanced economies, legal systems, military power, literature, engineering and architecture, and empire rather than a nomadic hunter/gatherer lifestyle.
jonty

[Lawrie9]

A lot of it is about survival and having to exist if due to some event you found yourself stranded in the middle of nowhere or you had to flee to the hills or forests.

[tramponabike]

A lot of it is about survival and having to exist if due to some event you found yourself stranded in the middle of nowhere or you had to flee to the hills or forests.

I think that's the Preppers or Survivalists. No particular concerns for the environment at all but a fondness for guns and bunkers.

[Si]

I suppose being someone who's interested in ancient classical history I tend to associate civilization with cities, political systems, advanced economies, legal systems, military power, literature, engineering and architecture, and empire rather than a nomadic hunter/gatherer lifestyle.

I'd say that there is nothing wrong with that association. The bit where I get problems is when we try to infer that any civilisation is always better than what came before it in social terms! Undoubtedly we are technologically advanced compared to those from 100s or 1000s of years ago, but that doesn't mean that we actually treat each other any better or have a more moralistic/fairer/more socially caring society. Ditto our culture: we may have more items of material culture and types of media with which to express ourselves, but in terms or mythologies, ontologies, etc we are not necessarily any better.

[tramponabike]

Tramponabike if you look up the Kelly kettle you will see the method used to make it efficient and how the combustible material is used.
So if a brew is wanted on a ride it can be self sufficient. Sorry no stream or wonderful vistas but an Ash tree and Privet hedges in the garden.
Being an ex Scout Leader I have some friends who own farms and if I feel in the need to see nature from a slightly different point of view I use their farms.
The best one for this is in the Welsh Borders as it has such a mix of terrain and habitats.

I have used a Kelly and agree they are excellent. Not for me on tour though, more for group or more static situations I think.

I have also used one of these http://www.nimblewillnomad.com/stove.htm for lowland tours. Folds flat and can cook a meal on a hat full of pine cones or twigs. Unfortunately I have burnt my old one out after much use. I made it too thin to keep the weight down. Can't compete with the all round, ever ready, use anywhere versatility of a small stove though. But it can, even with very small amounts of fuel, give out quite some heat considering it's only about 4" square. Enough to dry socks and shorts.

I will make another one a bit heavier and keep it for the local moors. I can carry enough softwood offcuts with me to cook a supper and breakfast. No wood up on the tops. Add a couple of eggs, some mushrooms, coffee and brandy, water, basha, and I'm off.

[hubgearfreak]

I don't know the emmissions comparison between wood or gas (inc production etc) to boil a given amount of water.

it's an irrelevance. the fuel for a KK is carbon nuetral - not so for gas, petrol, parrafin or meths.
perhaps if you had a source of meths that was meths/wood powered and you cycled there to collect it in returnable containers it could compete - but i've only ever seen it in disposable bottles and 200litre drums, both presumably delivered by lorry

[tramponabike]

I don't know the emissions comparison between wood or gas (inc production etc) to boil a given amount of water.

it's an irrelevance.

Thats what I thought. (I was comparing with open fire though not Kelly Kettle.)

Especially when considering the vast wastage of wood fuel to attain the energy to boil a cup of water on an open fire. The destruction that represents to the local environment far outweighing any consideration of emissions. There is more than one way to damage the environment.