|
|
Post by azalea on Dec 2, 2004 10:50:52 GMT -5
While you may very well be right that even the amount of soap under discussion could adversely effect the lake, using this study as support for that argument is IMHO inappropriate. But I believe the study you site could just as easily support the argument that the lakes are better off by dumping soap into the lake. The problem cited in the study is runoff caused by damage to the surrounding land. Having people expand the area around a campsite that is damaged by our presence has the potential to increase runoff.
Although I say the study "could be used to support" the argument, I do not see it as valid support for either position. I suspect the changes made were way back when orders of magnitude larger than the changes made wherever campers dump their soap.
Inciently, this problem has not gone away. Perhaps the greatest source of pollution to our waterways currently is altered runoff from city drainage systems and farm chemicals.
|
|
|
|
Post by buckeye59 on Dec 2, 2004 18:02:48 GMT -5
At the risk of offending anyone who has posted on this subject, let me say this. It seems to me that if some people spent as much time following the rules as they do trying to justify breaking them there wouldn't be the need for all this debate. I'm not as persuasive as TTC but I can see how long trees that have fallen into the water take to decompose compared to the short time the same tree decomposes on land. This plus common sense tells me that the land can handle this job better. I wash my dishes in a collapsable sink and throw the waste water well away from camp and shore. I wash myself basically the same way. Bottom line, if it's not a law it's at least a rule, and a sensible one. That's good enough for me.  |
|
|
|
Post by GeoFisher on Dec 2, 2004 20:21:34 GMT -5
A$$kicking duly accepted..........Maybe I need to change my ways. I actually thought the Bonners soap was much better. It makes you feel better, smells better, says it's all natural etc.......
Regarding bathing in the lakes........Maybe I will start simply swimming, instead of lathering completely up.....or take a solar shower, or something.
As I explained to QP a couple nights ago, I usually do my dishes without any soap, just water, so that is really not too much of an issue.
Later..........
Geo.
|
|
|
|
Post by intrepidcamper on Dec 2, 2004 22:19:56 GMT -5
IMHO it is easier to wash dishes in a bucket on land than to kneel at the water's edge on hard rocks and do it. Bathing is a bit more complicated but also not difficult. Dump a bucket of water on to get wet, fill it again and retreat away from the shore, lather up, wash your hair, dump the remainder of the bucket on yourself. You may need another bucket. Then I would feel free to go swimming. You'll have the majority of soap off of yourself and out of your hair. We always carry a couple 5 gallon ice cream buckets on our trip; they are light, throw aways that nest and come in handy for lots of things. You also have the excuse to eat the ice cream to help pack for your next trip. We also take larger, 3 or 5 gallon buckets when they will fit in our boats.  IC |
|
|
|
Post by azalea on Dec 2, 2004 22:50:16 GMT -5
Although not a major deal, to some extent, offense taken. My comments (and I think all the comments) were not an attempt to justify something that was "easier" but that is worse for the environment. Instead they were questioning what practice is really best for the environment.
Just because something is a "rule" does not mean folks tha care about the environment should stop looking at the rule to see if it is best way to achieve its goal. Not to long ago, the forest service had rules that called for surpressing all forest fires "before they could damage the environment". Because some people questioned that rule, there is now a new policy that is believed to be better for the environment. Similarly, the rule with respect to disposal of fish guts used to be put them on a rock. Many have questioned that rule as well. And because of that questioning, if the rule has not been changed, hopefully at least it is being reconsidered.
If there is a possibility, even small, that there is a better way to protect the environment, is it a good thing to debate and investigate if that alternative is as good or better? IMHO, that debate is a good thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by buckeye59 on Dec 3, 2004 9:38:45 GMT -5
As I have said, I'm truly sorry if anyone takes offense from my post. You are right Azalea, debate is a good thing but unless a rule is completely stupid or dangerous we should follow it as best we can while we try to change it. With around 250,000 campers per year I don't believe we can afford to follow only some of the rules. As far as forest fires go, even if they are started by man instead of natural causes they still are a part of the natural order and it's easy to see that they are needed. IMHO they were and still are fought to protect lumber or paper company trees, or houses, which has little to do with what's good for the environment. Jumping in a lake covered with soap isn't part of the natural order and just plain feels wrong to me. Once again I'm sure you love the BWCA & Q and I mean no personal offense. I guess this subject is just a sore spot for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by azalea on Dec 3, 2004 11:57:28 GMT -5
Maybe I did not take offense, maybe it was more trying to correct an apparent misunderstanding of the point I was trying to make. I agree with what you said above (mostly, when there are some experts that feel the "rules' are not necessarily best at achieving the stated goal as opposed to some campers non-expert inclination, then the argument for just following the rules becomes a bit weaker). In fact if you look at the end of my original post, I essentially said that.
|
|
IC