The best option in busier places is a privy/outhouse that gets emptied, sometimes by pack mule or helicopter. Sometimes these have amazing views, like the one near here: 52°16'13.7"N 125°57'22.4"W
don-bright 1 hours ago [-]
I feel like eventually the Leave no Trace convo will shift to the microplastics hikers have dumped into the environment, especially shoes but also clothes, packs, gear, maybe even waste products
tzs 2 hours ago [-]
If you want a more in depth look at this, in a format you can take with you consult while in the woods, you might enjoy the book "How to Shit in The Woods" [1].
Why is human fecal matter worse for the environment than animal fecal matter?
Something in our diets?
vbezhenar 7 hours ago [-]
I think that the main reason is that human population is unusually huge, humans live in the huge dense groups. So there's just too many fecals and environment struggles to process them.
Just to compare: there's an estimation that there are around 300 000 gorillas in the entire world. There are over 20 000 humans for every gorilla.
Though I think that "environment" is too vague. Planet doesn't care. Some bacteria probably would think that it's pretty nice environment. It's more about human waste making environment bad for humans themselves.
There are just too many of us, so we need artificial ways to produce food, artificial ways to protect from cold and heat. And also artificial ways to safely dispose of our waste.
andy99 8 hours ago [-]
I'd guess it worse for us because it's a vector for disease. (And grosser to see for related evolutionary reasons). There's probably a greater volume in heavily trafficked places vs similar predators. Otherwise doubtful that pound for pound it's actually worse for "nature".
stefantalpalaru 8 hours ago [-]
[dead]
jofer 27 minutes ago [-]
In addition to disease, a key issue in many climates is toilet paper. Your average deer isn't leaving around white paper that takes a decade (in dry climates) to go away. That's a non issue in wet areas, but a large one in deserts and more arid regions.
SR2Z 8 hours ago [-]
We are apex predators, and our shit contains the condensed toxins from all of the lower rungs on the food chain. The other extreme would be an animal like a cow, which shits basically smellier grass.
That's basically it. A human being that's only eaten plants has much less devastating poops.
dmurray 7 hours ago [-]
I don't think this last conclusion is true. It's really about harmful bacteria, not "toxins". Even vegetarians have a complex digestive system that can harbour pathogens. Perhaps their faeces are safer to use as manure than those from a meat-eating human, but much closer to that than to a cow.
SR2Z 3 hours ago [-]
I have heard that it's unusually nutrient rich - maybe not toxins, but human shit definitely causes algal blooms.
FollowingTheDao 7 hours ago [-]
It is far from a certain that we are apex predators since we can survive on a largely herbivore diet.
And "our shit contains the condensed toxins from all of the lower rungs on the food chain." lacks any credibility unless you can provide a link I have never seen.
aspenmayer 22 minutes ago [-]
> And "our shit contains the condensed toxins from all of the lower rungs on the food chain." lacks any credibility unless you can provide a link I have never seen.
I’m not who you’re asking, but I can only assume that they refer to the observed phenomenon of bioaccumulation, which was factor in the unexpected harms of pesticides such as DDT on bird populations.
That said, I don’t know of any risks to wildlife or the environment from bioaccumulated toxins solely due to human waste. If I am reaching and wildly guessing, I suppose folks who eat a lot of fish might pass more mercury in their waste? From what I understood, most toxins like that are processed by the liver and don’t get flushed out.
I summited Mt Whitney last fall, a trail that 1) is notoriously hard to get a permit for and 2) requires all waste to be packed out via Wag Bags.
I was surprised to see a dozen or so wag bags tossed to the side of the trail over the course of my trip. You’d think that visitors would either poop on the ground with no regard for others or pack out their waste, not take all the effort to bring the bag but leave the remnants. It really left a sour taste in my mouth (and smell in my nostrils).
e40 50 minutes ago [-]
I feel the same about dog owners who bag their dog’s crap and then leave the bag in the middle of the sidewalk.
moribvndvs 14 minutes ago [-]
I have enough of dog walkers leaving bags of shit everywhere, and with our national parks overwhelmed and understaffed, I just carry a stuff sack hooked on my belt to throw it and other garbage into.
The laziness and disregard demonstrated by this society is sickening, and the senselessness is astounding. Why bag it and then just throw it right on the ground? That’s almost worse. This is rhetorical, of course, they think there is an army of park janitors waiting eagerly, despite the clearly obvious fact that these bags are just sitting there for days or weeks as well as the, I dunno, numerous large signs saying to pick it up and carry it to the trash cans. It really makes it harder to relax and enjoy myself.
kyralis 1 hours ago [-]
The portal side of Whitney is a sad sight. I ended a week-long trip there years ago, and the difference between the backcountry side by Guitar Lake and the portal side in terms of human impact and trash was somewhat horrifying. And it's not like Guitar Lake is unpopular - the line of headlamps climbing the path up before the sun comes up attests to that.
pixxel 2 hours ago [-]
[dead]
sugarpimpdorsey 7 hours ago [-]
This needs to be printed onto leaflets and dropped over SoMa.
FollowingTheDao 7 hours ago [-]
It is not the pooping that is the problem, it is the density of human pooping that is the problem. All they are talking about in the article are the national parks, and yes, this is a problem in the parks. Human feces is no more or less dangerous than animal feces.
aoki 8 hours ago [-]
Well, at least “smearing” isn’t a default choice anymore
8 hours ago [-]
andy99 8 hours ago [-]
> Mount Everest – known as Sagarmatha in Nepali – to national parks in Norway and Aotearoa – known as New Zealand to English speakers
Very hard to read around this stuff
ecshafer 7 hours ago [-]
Weird how they don't say "Norge - known as Norway to English Speakers".
simondotau 8 hours ago [-]
This is bad copy editing. Detail like this belongs in parentheses at minimum, preferably footnotes. They should at least be consistent about using common or traditional names first.
slowmovintarget 8 hours ago [-]
tl;dr: Prepare ahead of time and take it back with you, or bury it at least 6-8 inches deep and 200 ft. from a water source.
my mom handed me a shovel before heading out on a cross continent road trip,lived in vans and busses for years, back roads mostly, best camp spots are not on any map what so ever....hay roads, or just some ruts leading off
then lived way back away from the road in a few different spots
I have noticed that many "popular" sites are truely disgusting and rarely go to them, and stick to the path, or bushwack cross country well away from the main route
Rendered at 04:27:36 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
https://offbeatoregon.com/2501d1006d_biliousPills-686.077.ht...
[1] https://www.amazon.com/How-Shit-Woods-4th-Environmentally/dp...
Something in our diets?
Just to compare: there's an estimation that there are around 300 000 gorillas in the entire world. There are over 20 000 humans for every gorilla.
Though I think that "environment" is too vague. Planet doesn't care. Some bacteria probably would think that it's pretty nice environment. It's more about human waste making environment bad for humans themselves.
There are just too many of us, so we need artificial ways to produce food, artificial ways to protect from cold and heat. And also artificial ways to safely dispose of our waste.
That's basically it. A human being that's only eaten plants has much less devastating poops.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apex_predator#Human_trophic_le...
And "our shit contains the condensed toxins from all of the lower rungs on the food chain." lacks any credibility unless you can provide a link I have never seen.
I’m not who you’re asking, but I can only assume that they refer to the observed phenomenon of bioaccumulation, which was factor in the unexpected harms of pesticides such as DDT on bird populations.
That said, I don’t know of any risks to wildlife or the environment from bioaccumulated toxins solely due to human waste. If I am reaching and wildly guessing, I suppose folks who eat a lot of fish might pass more mercury in their waste? From what I understood, most toxins like that are processed by the liver and don’t get flushed out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioaccumulation
I was surprised to see a dozen or so wag bags tossed to the side of the trail over the course of my trip. You’d think that visitors would either poop on the ground with no regard for others or pack out their waste, not take all the effort to bring the bag but leave the remnants. It really left a sour taste in my mouth (and smell in my nostrils).
The laziness and disregard demonstrated by this society is sickening, and the senselessness is astounding. Why bag it and then just throw it right on the ground? That’s almost worse. This is rhetorical, of course, they think there is an army of park janitors waiting eagerly, despite the clearly obvious fact that these bags are just sitting there for days or weeks as well as the, I dunno, numerous large signs saying to pick it up and carry it to the trash cans. It really makes it harder to relax and enjoy myself.
Very hard to read around this stuff
https://lnt.org/why/7-principles/dispose-of-waste-properly/
https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/idkt_lnt_3.htm
I have noticed that many "popular" sites are truely disgusting and rarely go to them, and stick to the path, or bushwack cross country well away from the main route