Thread for discussions of the "The Case Against Nails" and "Alternatives To Nails" ...
As per http://www.abrweb.ca/newversion/views/view001.htm and http://www.abrweb.ca/newversion/views/view002.htm

I can understand why nails are an eyesore, tree-sore, etc.
I've personally had a sleeve on a shirt torn, as I walked by a tree. The nail very nearly tore into my bicep.
This would've made for an unpleasant injury.
I usually use the nails that are present around a campsite, but have never dreamed of bringing any in.
I can do without them, but have used the ones that have been present. On a few rare occasions, I've come across a nail that was removable(ready to fall off), and have removed it and packed it out. Is that really a good idea? Or should one leave the nail in, to prevent infection? Do some trees 'push' nails out? Is there a simple remedy to bathe a tree wound from nails, after extraction of a nail?

The alternate solution [to nails] shown is interesting. I would prefer the bungie setup though, as I have invested in quite an extensive collection over the years!

Markus
Etobicoke, Onterry-airy-airy-Ohhh!

I too am not fond of nails. Aside from the obvious use as a hanger I see no redeeming quality to driving nails into trees anywhere let alone Algonquin park.

Most trees around camp have several stubby branches that work just as well for hanging coats, and if that's not enough hang a clothes line.

I've been fortunate enough to have never snagged any of my clothes or worse cut my self but there has been more than one close call, sometimes involving an eye.

IMO nailing the trees is just plain wrong and selfish. When I'm camping with a hammock I bring a fair amount of gear just to ensure I don't damage the bark of the trees I'm hanging my shelter from. I don't see why it's OK to pierce a tree just to hang a coat.

What if anything do the park employees do when they find nails in trees.
Do they remove them if so what do they do with the holes left in the trees?
Maybe it would be better to just cut them off so they do not stick out and
injure anyone. I agree putting nails in the trees in the first place is
stupid when there are other ways to hang things. Might be interesting to
find out how the park handles it.
Peter

Hi Peter

The question of "campsite furniture" came up once at coffee break during a meeting I attended with park management. One staffer said that campsite maintenance staff remove it when they have the time. Another staffer seemed surprised at that comment. My guess is that there's not a definite policy. I believe this kind of ambiguity has developed due to some areas of the park being maintained by Ontario Parks staff and others by contract operators' employees. This ambiguity is also apparent in the inconsistency of rules and regulations being "read-and-signed-for" when one gets permits at an access office. The Ontario Parks staff consistently follow that procedure, while contract operators' employees typically don't even mention that there even are rules.

Over this coming winter, I hope that the ABR will be requesting park managers to have every staff person, regardless of their employment status, perform this educational function. Its ironic that the park superintendent told the ABR that we couldn't leave our educational materials at access point offices for campers to pickup, because of their potential of producing "litter". Unless this educational function is performed by all staff, the ABR may have to consider conducting "random information pickets" at select access points and/or portages during 2009.

Returning to the matter of "nails", the option of taking a "hacksaw" along on canoe trips and cutting off nails at bark-level hadn't occurred to me. While this would preclude having to impact force upon the adjacent bark with the removal tool and then having to drive in a wooden "plug", it would leave the point ends of the nails in the trees where they could eventually impact on maintenance staff removing and cutting-up the trees with chainsaws.

It seems about time that the ABR got park management to provide a detailed position on the issue of nails in trees.

Let's allow a couple of more weeks for forum discussions on this issue. I'll draw the Executive Committee's attention to it and hopefully by January we'll be in a position to make an official request of park management.

Barry Bridgeford
Executive Committee
Algonquin Backcountry Recreationalists
http://www.ABRweb.ca

I agree that the nails should not be hacked off. It could be considered as 'spiking' a tree, which is very dangerous and can result in injury or death should any staff have to cut down a tree(for safety/campsite maintenance) that had the heads of nails removed. No this approach is no good.

I also think removing nails will not guarantee ALL nails having been removed. Some nails get pushed so far into the tree bark, that they(the nails) get grown over..thus obscuring the presence of the nail and possibly leading to the 'spike' issue above.

I think another 'ban' on another object in APP, will frustrate Park users. To the common park visitor, it would seem that the Park is becoming more un-friendly to the park user. If we start banning compressed fuel canisters(you know..the non-recyclable ones), nails, this, that, it might either incense people to leave APP(lost revenue), or it could even incite certain people to rebel.

In certain cases many visitors to Algonquin complain of broken regulations, resulting in pollution & vandalism of Park facilities. i.e. campsites, portages, boardwalks, etc.
I think rather than banning nails altogether, we make it policy to make it known that nails are not welcomed in APP. After all it would be kinda hard to chase down campers looking for nails, hammers, beer cans, glass bottles, etc. Especially when there could be a funding shortage for enforcement.

I remember John Winters(Park Superintendent), remarking that he likened APP as a city. As the Park's top administrator, his remark fit well. Although none of us like to look upon APP as a 'city', John's view as a management scheme, seems appropriate. There is garbage collection, maintenance, sanitation, staff meetings, permit sales, information programs, and even enforcement. However, I personally feel that APP is lacking in enforcement.

After all, banning nails, gas canisters, etc, will not do any good, if there is no one around to enforce such regulations.

I think a more educated approach might suffice in the short term;
A policy where nails are not banned from APP, but are mentioned as being 'not welcome'... and explain why, i.e. safety and ecological concerns.

any further ideas?





Mark Rubino
Mark's Algonquin Park Sampler - Blog
Mark's Algonquin Park Sampler

http://www.ABRweb.ca .. Algonquin Backcountry Recreationalists - Caring for Algonquin's Backcountry

Marcus I was in no way saying that cutting the nails was the way to go.
My first line in my last thread was "What if anything do the park employees do when they find nails in trees."
My last line was "Might be interesting to find out how the park handles it."
Might be that the park doesn't want anybody to do anything with the nails.
If there all removed people will probably just put more in. Might be the lesser of two evils just leaving them.
I was suggesting asking the park as they have all the experts on staff. If they remove them then they could
suggest how it should be done properly. I agree cutting the nails would and could be hazardous to anyone
cutting the tree down. However I would much rather cut into a tree that has one and a half inch spikes than
a whole three inch nail. Would cut down on the chances of hitting the nail. We could continue to quess what should be done and how, but it might be easier to just ask the park how they handle it and then adopt a strategy
to help them out. Whether it's removing them and plugging the hole with a unvarnished golf tee, or just leaving them there.

In your first thread you had a good question do some trees push the nails out or do they grow around them?
I have no idea myself I can only go with an old willow in our backyard that I made a tree fort in years ago.
I used nails and 35 years later had to cut that old willow down. The nails I used were grown over and I found several with the chainsaw. Do all trees grow over the nails, no idea that could be a question for the experts
on the parks staff.

I can't agree with you more on not banning nails as people will just do what they want anyways and there is not enough enforcement to the existing rules. So why bring in more.

I think if people were shown alternatives to nails it might be a better way of cutting down on the nails that are put in. The only way to do this is to have the park on side with ABR and to be allowed to pass out information
on the affects of nails and the alternates that are available.

But as Barry mentioned " The question of "campsite furniture" came up once at coffee break during a meeting I attended with park management. One staffer said that campsite maintenance staff remove it when they have the time. Another staffer seemed surprised at that comment. My guess is that there's not a definite policy. I believe this kind of ambiguity has developed due to some areas of the park being maintained by Ontario Parks staff and others by contract operators' employees. This ambiguity is also apparent in the inconsistency of rules and regulations being "read-and-signed-for" when one gets permits at an access office. The Ontario Parks staff consistently follow that procedure, while contract operators' employees typically don't even mention that there even are rules."

I think ABR needs to know what the parks defined policy is and then proceed from there.
I personnally never have used nails, but have been injured by them. I use either a clothes line or bungees
to hang anything I want to hang.

Regards Peter

Hi Peter

This past Sunday, the ABR Executive Committee held its monthly meeting and identified a number of concerns we intend to draft over the next few weeks and then formally address to park management. These have been mentioned to various staff over the past year in general conversation, but haven't resulted in any "official response". These concerns include ...

1 - Propane tanks being abandoned in the backcountry, probably due to park management's decision to no longer accept them for disposal at the access points and campgrounds (due to the excessive hazardous material disposal costs). Before contacting the park on the tank and "green key" issues, we're awaiting responses from our inquiries to the Coleman company on their "Green Key" program and from the Town of Markham, which is involved in a test market of the device in conjunction with their own waste management program.

2 - Nails driven into trees at backcountry campsites being a danger to both campers and maintenance staff. Here at the ABR, we've had detailed discussions about this already. We'll be composing a comprehensive request of park management to establish a specific policy regarding the use of nails, the removal of nails and the promotion of alternatives.

3 - An inconsistency in the process of access point staff holding permit applicants accountable for having read the basic backcountry rules prior to receiving their camping permits. The range of accountability practices is varied. Some staff require the permit applicant to read a laminated page of the basic rules and to sign to that effect on the back of the permit. The actual page of rules remains with the staff person. Other staff apply a sticker (listing some of the most important rules) on the back of the permit which the applicant is then required to sign. Other staff make no mention to there even being any rules. Proper promotion of the rules by staff can only help reduce the incidence of campers using glass-bottled beer and canned food, setting-off fireworks, cutting down live trees, and other such infractions.

So, if those reading this aren't yet members of the ABR, please join-up. With a larger membership base, we can achieve greater influence on the positions and practices of park management .. and on the general camping public.

Barry Bridgeford
Executive Committee
Algonquin Backcountry Recreationalists
http://www.ABRweb.ca

As I traveled through the park this summer I was reminded of this thread. All portage markers, camp site markers and latrine markers are fixed to trees with nails - usually far more than is necessary to attach the sign. All of these nails are pounded in by people paid (directly or indirectly) by the Ontario park system.
It would seem that there are many "official" nails. If the public is to be discouraged from adding nails to trees a system will be needed to walk the talk when putting up official signs.
I can see the argument for not putting nails in trees because they are ugly. The argument regarding health of the tree doesn't carry much weight since I have cut up a lot of firewood to find imbedded nails, wire etc. The tree lived for many years after completely engulfing the foreign matter

Hi Ian .. I realized the same irony that you've spoken of, just this week while camping on Galeairy Lake. My eyes rested on a campsite sign's nails .. what I believe are similar to 'roofing nails' .. short-shafted and large headed. Obviously they don't project out from the trees and as a result don't have the potential to "snag" campers passing by.

As for being a potential danger to maintenance staff having to cut-up a dead tree or storm-damaged tree bearing such sign-nails .. I dare say their 1 or 2 inch lengths don't offer the same degree of danger to chainsaw operating staff, as do the 3 to 6 inch spiral nails often used by some campers.

Of course to many people, "nails-are-nails" and the staff's use of small "roofing nails" for signs could be taken as an inferred "OK" to use larger nails on all a campsite's trees. The same inferred "OK" for nails could also be taken by some from the use by some staff of very large spiral spikes for the stable construction of the firepit benches and portage boardwalks.

From these observations, it seems to me that the detailed specifics may have to become explained clearly .. that official signs, benches and boardwalks are sanctioned features, while nails casually driven into trees to serve as "hooks" and camper-constructed flimsy "furniture" are not safe uses of nails at campsites.

I realize the above explanation could be interpreted as inconsistent or contradictory. However, I trust that after deep reflection it's recognized as the only workable distiction to be drawn. Ideally, an alternative "non-nail" means of fixing signs and of building stable benches and constructing safe boardwalks would eliminate some peoples' inferred "OK" for nails. But what such an alternative could be .. I personally have no idea at this time.

I noticed a question in an earlier post which asks if all trees could grow to cover nails. Trees grow up and out. Every year there is a thin layer under the bark in which cells divide and in essence push the bark out. If something like a nail is embedded in the tree it can eventually become completely enclosed by the tree. A similar situation occurs with blazes and other scars such as those caused by fire. Given long enough, in theory, these can be completely enclosed. Usually, with scars, rot sets in and the tree can't enclose it. Trees also grow up, but only at the top. That is why an old logger could hang a saw over a tree limb and come back twenty or thirty years later and still be able to reach it. The branches grow out, but the whole trunk doesn't grow up. Similarly, nails won't move up the tree as time passes; they will always be there to catch you.

Rory
not an expert, but trained as a biologist

those non-refillable propane/butane containers have always bothered me.

this year i started looking for a replacement to my old white gas stove and was honestly shocked when i learned that the common msr/jetboil propane/butane tanks were simply "use once and dispose". i thought at the very least you'd have to return them to the store for recycling or something, but no, you just chuck them when you're done! that seems absurd and extremely counter-intuitive, especially when you consider how many canoeists/backpackers are defacto "environmentalists".

reluctantly, i settled on an msr pocket rocket and, ban or no ban, i intend to use it to get my money's worth out of it. it would irritate me to no end to have spent all this time researching new technology and not be allowed to use it. of course, i'd pack out whatever i packed in and would probably leave with other people's junk too. so i don't have any sort of moral conflict about using something that's "banned", at least not in this case where the intent of the ban is to prevent litter or damage to the environment. my use of banned items would certainly not cause any damage. fire bans and chemical bans (deet) are a different story, since they can cause damage regardless of how responsible you are or what you "pack out".

as for nails though, i'm on the fence. i'd never use them personally. i'd never even consider it an option. however, i don't know how effective a ban would really be. it's not like it's hard to hide nails, and it's almost impossible to prove who nailed what.

i'd still like to know whether it's more damaging to pull the nails or leave them in the trees though.

The bottle and can prohibition doesn't include metal containers used for fuel, insect repellant, medicine or other items which are not food or beverage.

This means that fuel cannisters, bug spray cans, asthma inhalers, old tackle containers, and protective camera cases are all allowed. However, all such metal containers must be packed out!

The regulation is intended to keep glass beverage bottles, glass food jars and metal food cans out of the park's backcountry.

Barry Bridgeford
Executive Committee
Algonquin Backcountry Recreationalists
http://www.ABRweb.ca