I've never come across a dug-up cathole either. I believe in LNT. I pack out every scrap of trash (mine and any others I find), but I'm not packing out my tp or scat. I dig down 8 - 10 inches well clear of water sources, and cover with a rock or branch after I fill it in.
Registered: 02/03/06
Posts: 6799
Loc: Gateway to Columbia Gorge
As mentioned, it does help if you take some water with you and soak the TP. Probably helps the #2 to disintegrate faster, too.
I pack my TP out, and am teaching my grandkids to do so, unless we're where we can have a fire.
There is, after all, food material in the #2, which makes it attractive to at least some animals. It isn't the TP they're after, but it comes up when the dig up the #2. The TP takes a lot longer to disintegrate.
Edited by OregonMouse (01/13/1201:14 PM)
_________________________
May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view--E. Abbey
While of course I've seen marmots on trail, they're actually pretty rare overall, mostly in pretty rocky areas. Barring unexpected need, I don't "go" (#2) in such places.
We sure hike in different places.. where I come from they are freaking *everywhere*. And lots of their warrens (when I can see them in the rocks) are chock full of turds.
I almost suspect it's an evolution to collect the nitrogen around their lair so they get better greenery in the very limited and very nitrogen constrained growing season in the alpine. however....
Quote:
I'm still trying to wrap my head around marmots digging up catholes. They're not particularly stupid animals; I really don't see the point from the marmots perspective! :-)
I've never seen 'em dig up a cathole.. I've seen 'em go crazy for salt and chew up packs, boots, paddles, and cars. I've seen them drag stuff out of a tent left open...
but never seen 'em dig up poop. I poop on exposed rocks in that country because digging a cathole is nigh impossible, and I *have* turned over rocks to find someone else's old business (yuck!)
Seriously folks though, that's the exception. normally, keep it in the active soil layer, and it's just fine.. When in doubt and if you are at all unsure - pack it out. Wanna know more, then just go buy a copy of "how to sh*t in the woods" (that *is* the title of the book.. seriously... http://www.amazon.ca/How-Shit-Woods-Second-Environmentally/dp/0898156270 )
Phat- your marmots look different than ours. We have the brownish red ones. The one you show is gray. Cute little rodent in photographs.
Marmots are after the salt. We females often do #1 and #2 in same cathole.
OM is correct- we humans may view our droppings as disgusiting, but there still are lots of nutrients in it that other animals can utilize. If you have ever owned a dog you know that they can and do eat feces.
There are also some climates (lower elevation US southeast, for example) where the degrading process of soils happens a lot faster. If you burry TP at 11,000 feet in the mountains it WILL be there 10 years later.
Most of the world population does not depend on TP. We can use a lot less too. Get the major stuff off with sticks, leaves, etc. Or take a little squirt bottle and wash off and then just use the TP for a final drying. This way, the TP is not loaded with offensive smells and packing it out in a plastic bag is really no big deal. Regardless of your view on carrying out TP or burring it, less is better.
Edited by aimless (01/14/1203:31 PM) Edit Reason: changed one word, in keeping with board rules
Registered: 02/03/06
Posts: 6799
Loc: Gateway to Columbia Gorge
Well, some of us have conditions where TP and moist towelettes are a must for cleanup after #2, and some of us females have to use TP after #1 to avoid infections, too. I'm fortunately not one of the latter group, but my just-turned-10 granddaughter gets horrible irritation of the nether regions if she doesn't use TP each time after #1. I spent our last two trips showing her how to bag it and pack it out with our other garbage.
I've tried the squirt bottle method. It works fine on a toilet, and was very successful when I visited Turkey. It does not work for me in the out-of-doors--I just end up with not-very-clean water running down my legs and into my pants!
Phat, I believe your marmot is a pika! It sure looks like our pikas!
_________________________
May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view--E. Abbey
Registered: 02/05/03
Posts: 3292
Loc: Portland, OR
I respectfully differ with OM on the pika vs. marmot question. Pikas do have similar rounded ears, but the body congiguration and coloration are wrong. I have seen pikas in Banff and they look just exactly like those in Oregon. However, I regularly (and mistakenly) call a bunch of different ground squirrels "marmots", though, so I can't claim much superirority in the mammal-ID department.
A pika is in the HARE family. IT ISN'T A RODENT. phat's photo shows an animal with large serious digging feet and claws that are marmot like. A Pika has dainty feet and a flatter face. At least thats how it looks to me googling photos. We have Pikas here in the lava behind my house at 4,000 feet in the Cascades. They are brown. One day I asked my wife why she had cut all of the "pinks" flowers and laid them neatly in a row to dry in the garden. Thats when we discovered that we had Pikas - its typical behavior for them.
Unfortunately human excrement may be richer in proteins than other available foods. Like a dog smelling house cat doodoo (yummy fishy smell and far more protein than dog kibble), animals don't care what they eat, only its nutrition value.
The only solution is for us to clean out our systems before going camping and then only eat food that you can forage locally so it won't be worthwhile for animals to dig up what you leave behind. Jim REASON FOR EDIT - ZOOLOGICAL CORRECTIONS
Edited by Jimshaw (01/23/1203:10 PM)
_________________________
These are my own opinions based on wisdom earned through many wrong decisions. Your mileage may vary.
Registered: 07/11/10
Posts: 597
Loc: Fairbanks, AK
I thought bunnies (Hares) were rodents? but I just looked it up on wikipedia (and the internet _can't_ be wrong ;)) and they aren't.
"Members of non-rodent orders such as Chiroptera (bats), Scandentia (treeshrews), Soricomorpha (shrews and moles), Lagomorpha (hares, rabbits and pikas) and mustelid carnivores such as weasels and mink are sometimes confused with rodents.[citation needed]"
"Rabbits have two sets of incisor teeth, one behind the other. This way they can be distinguished from rodents, with which they are often confused.[4] Carl Linnaeus originally grouped rabbits and rodents under the class Glires; later, they were separated as the predominant opinion was that many of their similarities were a result of convergent evolution. However, recent DNA analysis and the discovery of a common ancestor has supported the view that they share a common lineage, and thus rabbits and rodents are now often referred to together as members of the superclass Glires.[5]"
i'll add a bit to the drift and then attempt to take it back to the main trail:
raccoon tastes a lot like beef. texture is similar as well. never had bear but i'm told that is "beef like" as well. nutria tasted somewhat like squirrel. i've only had either of those in a stew like dish so your mileage may vary. never had pika nor marmot but if you'll send one, i'll give you an opinion as to edibility.
as to the poopie in the woods, i compost kitchen scraps including paper towels, food grade paper bags (sugar bags, flour bags, corn meal bags, etc) therefore i have a lot of experience with those substances in a decompositional sort of way. i find it difficult to believe that it would be necessary to pack out toilet paper. even afer only a few days, the heavy paper sugar bags are long gone. the nitrogen content of the fecal matter and what little carbon matter is contained in the paper should quickly become one and disappear. i'd suspect that adding a handful of leaves to the hole prior to the deposit would help decomposition by adding more carbon to the nitrogen load. of course, that may not be the case in a very dry environment but any place that gets moisture should not have any problems digesting a bit of paper. i suspect those moist toilettes thingees are a different story as when burned they seem to "melt" first so the biodegradable factor may not exist. we either burn them or pack them out.
i'm not wild about the "fling it in the ocean" and if there are any rocks here, someone brought them. although the "smear it and leave it" approach does have a certain appeal. as always, ymmv.
Our long-time Sponsor, BackcountryGear.com - The leading source for ultralite/lightweight outdoor gear:
Affiliate Disclaimer: This forum is an affiliate of BackcountryGear.com, Amazon.com, R.E.I. and others. The product links herein are linked to their sites. If you follow these links to make a purchase, we may get a small commission. This is our only source of support for these forums. Thanks.!