[pct-l] beneficial fires

[CMountainDave@aol.com (CMountainDave@aol.com)]

So what happens when Mr. thunderstorm comes along, starts a fire and pays no 
attention whatsoever to the "no fires above 10,000 foot level. Is that area 
then destroyed for all time or is that a normal occurrence of Mother Nature? 
(and one hell of a lot more wood will be burned by natural fires above 10,000 
feet in the Sierras than any amount  backpackers ever could in campfires)
 I'm in the mood for a bit of a rant so here goes: While hiking the 
Wonderland trail around Mt. Rainier last Summer, we came to a camp when it 
was raining and we were getting pretty soaked. We couldn't have a campfire 
because all campfires were banned in RNP several years ago. I asked a ranger 
why and he said, straight faced in the pouring rain, that the fire danger was 
too high and secondly, wood was too precious to burn. This explanation was 
given in one of the wettest places in the USA and one of the most dense 
woodlands in the world. Then he retired to his backcountry cabin where (and 
I'm not making this up) several cords of wood were stacked up for him to use 
to keep comfy warm and dry. Contrast this with a trip to Bowron Lakes in 
Canada where the backcountry rangers gathered and chopped up firewood for us 
to use.
   So I reiterate; anyone who is worried about the amount of vegetation 
burned in a toilet paper fire is obsessive. And the rain washes away that 
toothpaste spit in a jiffy. I try to make it unobtrusive but in reality even 
if it's visible it's no more noticeable than a spot of raven doo doo
    What it boils down to is: no rules just decisions OR no decisions just 
rules. I prefer the first because it allows for a live and let live, hike 
your own hike attitude while the latter is for conformist control freaks. If 
anyone prefers the latter that's fine with me. Just don't go hiking with me 
or we'll have an unpleasant time of it when I feel the need to rebel against 
your controlling ways.