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].
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
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".
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.
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.
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.
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 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).
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.
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.
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.
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
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].
[1] https://www.amazon.com/How-Shit-Woods-4th-Environmentally/dp...
Fecal contamination is how we verified the route of Lewis and Clark.
https://offbeatoregon.com/2501d1006d_biliousPills-686.077.ht...
Only due to their mercury chloride heavy diet.
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
Why is human fecal matter worse for the environment than animal fecal matter?
Something in our diets?
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".
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.
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.
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.
I have heard that it's unusually nutrient rich - maybe not toxins, but human shit definitely causes algal blooms.
It is far from a certain that we are apex predators since we can survive on a largely herbivore diet.
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 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).
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.
This needs to be printed onto leaflets and dropped over SoMa.
Well, at least “smearing” isn’t a default choice anymore
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.
> 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
Weird how they don't say "Norge - known as Norway to English Speakers".
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.
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.
https://lnt.org/why/7-principles/dispose-of-waste-properly/
With the high level of foot traffic in certain parks, packing it out is the only responsible way to deal with it.
https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/idkt_lnt_3.htm
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