[pct-l] Re: [PCT-L] zip stoves

[Brick Robbins <brick@ix.netcom.com>]

Dear Listers

"Jan Sumner" <skywalker920@hotmail.com> rightly complained about the
punctuation of the definition, 
then gave a clearer meaning: which is exactly the way I interpreted it. 

To clarify things here I will include another definition from the CFR,
along with Jan Sumner clearer parsed definition of "stove fire."

== from 36 CFR 261.2==
"Campfire" means a fire, not within any building, mobile home, or living
accommodation mounted on a motor vehicle, which is used for cooking,
personal warmth, lighting ceremonial or esthetic purposes. "Fire" includes
campfire. 
====
"stove fire" means:
1.  A campfire built inside an enclosed stove or grill.
2.  A portable brazier.
3.  A pressurized liquid or gas stove, including a space heating  device.
=====

Therefore a "campfire" and a "stove fire" are different things, and by this
definition, a zip stove is a "stove fire" not a "campfire." Right or wrong,
that puts a zip stove in the same category as an MSR in the eyes of the
USDA Forest Service.

I still contend that when bjensen@juno.com said 
>>Zip "Stoves" fall into the category of CAMPFIRES, not Backpacker STOVES"<< 
she was wrong. 

One lister pointed out to me that the Forest Supervisor can make any rules
s/he wants to in her/his forest (right, Craig??) an can therefore ban zip
stoves. 

This is true , but is different than a ranger making a redefinition of
existing terms. If you look at the  copy of the forest order below, from
the Los Padres National Forest, you will see that the order bans all fires,
then makes an exemption for "stoves using gas, jellied petroleum or
pressurized liquid fuel."

Under bjensen@juno.com's definition, if the Forest Supervisor just wanted
to ban zip stoves,  s/he could have just banned campfires, then explained
what a campfire was according to the existing definition. The fact that the
order was written this way is strong evidence that the knowledgeable USFS
folks recognized that under the existing definitions, this was not possible.

BLISTERFREE@delphi.com made some good points explaining why a grill fire
would be a bad thing in high fire danger, and I don't argue that. I am only
saying that a zip stove is a "stove fire" not a "campfire" and that a
prohibition on "campfires" does not prohibit the use of zip stoves.
Obviously the Forest Supervisor of Los Padres National Forest saw this
problem with existing law and fixed it with the order below.

I know this is getting pretty picky, but it affects through hiker planning,
so I feel it is worth it. I wish this wasn't nes'c and I don't like taking
the time, but I want things clear an accurate for those planning trips next
year.

If anyone can give convincing evidence that I am wrong I will happily
change my stance, but this is a country under rule of law, not rule of man,
and it really offends me when government employees starts making their own
laws by creative interpretation.

FWIW I asked the PCTA office to clarify this point with their contact in
the USFS, in writing.

---------------------------------------
Order. No 98-02-5100-1
FIRE RESTRICTIONS
Los Padres National Forest

Pursuant to 36 CFR 261.50(a) and (b), and because of high fire danger, the
following acts are prohibited within the Los Padres National Forest. This
Order is effective August 14, 1998.

1. Building, maintaining, attending or using a fire, campfire or charcoal
fire outside of a developed recreation site. With a valid California
Campfire Permit, portable lanterns or stoves using gas, jellied
petroleum or pressurized liquid fuel are not prohibited. 36 CFR
261.52(a)
<snip>
Done at Goleta, California this 14th day of August 1998.

JEANINE A. DERBY
Forest Supervisor
Los Padres National Forest
---------------------------------------

Brick Robbins
San Diego, CA


* From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List |  http://www.backcountry.net   *

==============================================================================