“Leave no trace” vs. “positive trace”
June 6th, 2008 | by Andy Published in Bushcraft, Environment, Outdoor Living, Survival Skills | 1 Comment
I just listened to an interview with Norm Kidder, VP of a non-profit that teaches primitive technologies (as in stone tools, adzes, bows and arrows. etc). He discusses why primitive tool-making still has a place in our modern world. The highlight, though, comes when he points out the problem with the ‘leave no trace’ ethic.
The concept of ‘leave no trace’ implies that humans aren’t a part of nature – that’s what I object to. And so the goal of people shouldn’t be, leave no trace; but leave positive trace… Participate in a positive way in the environment, don’t attempt not to be a part of it, because then your whole mental concept is: ‘I’m separate. Everything I do is damaging and I have to tiptoe around.’
How does one leave that ‘positive trace’ in the wild? Where can implicitly hands-on activities like bushcrafting and primitive tool-making, meet on common ground with the hands-off principles of wildlife preservation? Listen to the full podcast for further discussion.
June 19th, 2008 at 9:37 am (#)
I was having a conversation with a professional ‘napper’ (flint-napping) and he said something I had never thought of before. We asked him if he sold anything he made, and he said that he has kept every arrow head he has ever ‘napped. He said that ethically, he didn’t want to be responsible for someone finding one of his lost arrow heads and thinking it as a scientific artifact.
Being aware of what you are doing and the effects it will have while in the wilderness is the most important thing to do, in my opinion.