Good to see the advice on carrying out toilet paper. I have always done this as it takes years to break down if buried and burning it is not an option due to fire risk. A few ziplock bags in your bog kit are all that's required.
Fire risk must be considered of course, but burning loo roll can be a perfectly sensible option depending on the ground and the prevailing weather conditions. It's what I do with it nearly all the time (and I've managed not to start any unwanted fires so far ).
If it can't be burnt then I see no harm in burial, with the proviso that it's done thoroughly. I also always take the bio-degradeable loo roll that's available, so it should break down a lot quicker than normal household stuff.
Guilty of stuff and forget toilet habits myself. In that I use, then stuff it in a nook or cranny in the rocks. Naughty I guess but I actually tend not to go much in the hills as in the Lakes you always end up dropping down to valley at some point and most hill foods kind of slow my passage and I don't mean through the landscape.
Worth noting that wild camping is legally permitted on Dartmoor through the Dartmoor Act: http://www.dartmoor-npa.gov.uk/index/visiting/vi-enjoyingdartmoor/vi-wildcamping.htm
Thanks for the reminder Bob, I meant to mention that but forgot.
Thanks for the comments everyone else, it was hard knowing just where to pitch it and I wanted people to now there's nothing to worry about or cost a fortune but be responsible so we can all keep enjoying it
Good to see the advice on carrying out toilet paper. I have always done this as it takes years to break down if buried and burning it is not an option due to fire risk. A few ziplock bags in your bog kit are all that's required.
How do you know that it takes years for toilet paper to break down? Have you ever carried out any experiments to test this assertion?
I have, and I can assure you that, if the correct techniques are followed, then toilet paper will break down and disappear in a matter of a few weeks, and faeces in a few days.
A great deal of nonsense has been repeated over the years about the disposal of human waste in the wild. The daftest one is that excrement should be carried out, rather than buried, for fear that animals will dig it up! Nobody, not even the Mammal Society, can provde me with any evidence for this assertion, although the Centre for Alternative Technology tell me that that they sometimes have problems with rats attempting to get into composting chambers. From the dawn of civilization until modern times, human waste was routinely spread over gardens as a fertilizer just as animal waste, in the form of slurry, is to this day. How long do you suppose it takes for a cow pat to break down?
The safest way to dispose of human excrement and toilet tissue in the wild is to bury it in a shallow depression, where the most active bacteria are to be found, which will assist in the active breakdown of the material.
This should be done some way from watercourses although, in the course of correspondence with water companies, there is a wide divergence on the recommended distance ranging from ten metres to fifty.
Unless conditions are tinder dry, it is perfectly safe to burn tissue. Tampons should probably be carried out bcause it is possible that rats, badgers and foxes may be attracted to them (I have no evidence to support this suspicion).
Hugh I know you have strong views on this but irrespective of the science, and irrespective of any tests the advice from the authorities is clear - carry waste out if at all possible. It was beyond the scope of the "How To" to argue for or against the authoratative advice, and given the unanimity of the advice from conservation,walking, climbing and mountaineering governing bodies i feel it would have been irresponsible to give advice contrary to this on the grounds of one person's opinions.
Having been a farmer (therefore interested in how long it takes sh1t to break down) and having specialised in grassland and upland grass management...then having 12 years with the NFU (nearly 10 in the NW of England)....I am perfectly well aware of the discussion and conflicting opinions on this subject. For instance, Hugh, on predominantly peat ground, which is highly acidic, there are precious few bacteria anywhere in the strata so all organic matter takes ages to break down...which is why peat is peat...I digress
I fall on the side of bag it and carry it...not because of the length of time it takes to degrade, the imbalancing of nitrate levels around the area, possible heavy metal contamination of the area, pollution of water courses, contamination of water and land with bacteria and aemebic activity etc etc etc........and all the scientific arguements and counter arguements surrounding this subject.
My reasoning is simply this. It is unlikely, except in some of the more remote areas, that a wildcamp site will be left undisturbed long enough to allow my cr-p to disappear...including the smell, before the next camper happens along. Multiply this problem a 100 times...and that nice little wild camp site (and the immediate area around it) becomes a cess pit, simply because of use and numbers of users. I leave a wild site as I found it (as far as possible - I can do little about flattened grass, but I dont need to leave a shallow grave behind me for the next guy to stumble over).
Simon's point, though, presupposes the notion of 'a wild camp site'. It is probably more pertinent to popular (overused) 'sites' like Sty Head Tarn for example (although I can't help wondering how many of the people who choose to wildcamp there are likely to be aware of burial, burning or bagging as a requirement!) But get a little further off the beaten track and I'd say that many wildcamp spots are unlikely to be used again within weeks or even months. Plus, if I've done the job properly (excuse the pun ), there'll be no discernible sign of my activity by the time I leave the spot, never mind the next person coming along. There's also the point that toilet spots and wildcamp spots need not even necessarily be the same place - how many people are that regular, especially with the change in diet that probably accompanies a backpacking trip?
One genuine question for the 'bag it out' practice - how many days would you be happy to carry it around for? (I believe some US Parks demand it, but that specialised containers exist. I'm thinking more of the simple ziplock bag idea here.)
They issue WAG bags in Kings Canyon in the US (on the way to Mt Whitney)....big fine for pooping without one; reckon on several uses so it say's on the 'tin'.
If you used it at night it would be a nice little hot water bottle for a while
Simon's point, though, presupposes the notion of 'a wild camp site'. It is probably more pertinent to popular (overused) 'sites' like Sty Head Tarn for example (although I can't help wondering how many of the people who choose to wildcamp there are likely to be aware of burial, burning or bagging as a requirement!) But get a little further off the beaten track and I'd say that many wildcamp spots are unlikely to be used again within weeks or even months.
Very true....and I did qualify my answer to indicate this....but, I have to ask the question of where can we be sure (even beyond the known honey traps) that use and overuse wont occur. For instance, the stocking density of an upland farm will be no more than 1 ewe per hectare, sometimes even less. This can be required by regulation to avoid overgrazing and environmental degradation.....point being that, over time, even though a considerable gap between a site being used, the effective stocking rate (humans per hectare) may well be surprisingly high at a camp site?
As for container....I use a suitabley marked clipped sandwich box - it is secure, watertight and smell tight...and I also use baby nappy sacks in preference to ziplocks, just tie it up tight!
The link takes you to the DEFRA webpage on spreading treated and untreated sewage sludge. I bring it to attention, given that it refers to industrial applications of human cr-p, as it is interesting as the two main problems are pathogens and heavy metals......
When I was a farmer in the 1980s...when these things were far less regulated and recognised....the water board paid farmers to allow sludge to be be spread - and few took up the offer as human sludge was known to "sour" land and cause long term palatablity issues for grass being floow on grazed (the animals didnt like the grass and would refuse to graze).
I do not pretend that a few wild campers will have the same effect as industrial spreading.....but you get the point?
"For instance, the stocking density of an upland farm will be no more than 1 ewe per hectare, sometimes even less. This can be required by regulation to avoid overgrazing and environmental degradation..."
Shouldn't, "regulation to avoid overgrazing and environmental degradation..." be more accurately expressed as, "regulation to avoid overgrazing leading to environmental degradation"?
By sneakily putting your argument as you do, in the context of this discussion, you appear to be attempting to lead us to infer that the imperative leading to the determination of optimum stocking density for a particular area of land is degradation of the environment through contamination by sheep (or other stock animals) faeces while you know full well that the premise of optimum stock density is maximising productivity while preventing degradation by overgrazing.
You then go on to compound the fallacy by introducing an absolutely specious comparison of actual stock density of grazing stock with some fanciful notion of a transient human stock density <"... the effective stocking rate (humans per hectare)"> again implying that environmental degradation is due to faecal contamination. What else could you be saying? After all "transient human stock" don't eat grass, unless they're mad or starving of course.
I have no quarrel with your views about us carrying out and disposing of our own waste but at least back them with a credible argument.
But isn't it true that any uncomposted faeces, human or animal, sours land if present in great enough quantities?
For instance, when I was a youngster, on a regular basis, we used to clear horse faeces from the paddocks in which they were kept and deposit it in the main midden, It wasn't practicable with the dairy herd but it was mainly grazed on large areas of rough pasture and common land.
Also, stock animals, to the best of my knowledge, don't bury theirs a few inches down!
I don't know what, if any, difference that makes to 'souring' the land, but it is another fundamental difference as far as the comparison is concerned.
The stock animal point is interesting. Conservation bodies like the idea of using rare breads to maintain some habitats (saves on mowing) and they look nicer than the mowers. But it was noticed early on that their sh+t seemed to hang around a long time. After a bit of prodding and poking it was found that the use of pharmaceuticals and in particular antibiotics, resulted in cr*p that microbes and larger organisms cstruggle to break down.
But isn't it true that any uncomposted faeces, human or animal, sours land if present in great enough quantities? To a point...(horses are just plain fussy and wont eat lots of things)...different sh1t has different characteristics regarding effecting grazing - for instance, sheep isnt bad, chicken is pungent and leaves a residue and human is one of the worst....It also depends on the stock using the grass (horses and sheep nip the grass so can avoid nasty bits, cows hoover it up with their tongue...therefore are a lot less discerning).
Also, stock animals, to the best of my knowledge, don't bury theirs a few inches down! True...but farmers have used a variety of technology to spread it...from the fling it high, wide and deep to deep (6 inch plus) and shallow (2 inch) injection. The injection (deep and shallow burial) causes a number of issues, so the latest idea is "trailing shoe" where the sh1t is deposited just on the soil surface but not on the plants themselves (dont ask, i dont know how it works either). This is currently showing optimal speed of decomposition, use by microbes, worms etc and uptake by the plants.
Bottom (no pun intended) line to me is this. Regardless of the speed of decomposition and effect on the area around the wild-camp site (and I am pretty sure none of us would argue that decomposition takes a period of time and that, and given enough deposits there will be some level of environmental degradation of the campsite) all I am trying to show is that, with a certain amount of licence, the environmental damage could be worse than we would imagine...so, without an absolute quantifiable reason...it makes sense to either have a dump at home (therefore avoiding going in the wild) or to carry a poo-box and take it home.
).
it must be lunch time.
